Pie 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 = 
 LT at 
 
 ia 
 
 a 
 -— 
 
 => 
 
 
 
 oa! =. 
 . 
 
 ne 
 
 . 
 a T 
 
 J 
 
 = an 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 of 
 
 ica” Sree 
 
 
 
 oa 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 eh Le \ 
 Wey chet 
 on 5 
 
 
 

 
A 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible 
 
A 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible 
 
 DEALING WITH ITS 
 
 LANGUAGE, LITERATURE, AND CONTENTS 
 
 INCLUDING THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 JAMES HASTINGS, M.A., D.D. 
 
 WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF 
 
 JOHN A. SELBIK, M.A. 
 
 AND, CHIEFLY IN THE REVISION OF THE PROOFS, OF 
 
 A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Lrrt.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, OXFORD 
 
 156, Us}, SAAD AMDT © DRADER 1pm yet De 
 
 BEGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE 
 
 VOLUME I 
 A—FEASTS 
 
 NEW YORK 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
 EpinzeureH: T. & T. CLARK 
 1923 
 
Printed in the United States of Am 
 
 
 
 
 
PREFACE 
 
 “GivE heed to... teaching.’ Perhaps the Church of Christ has never given 
 sufficient heed to teaching since the earliest and happiest days. In our own day 
 the importance of teaching, or, as we sometimes call it, expository preaching, has 
 been pressed home through causes that are various yet never accidental; and it is 
 probable that in the near future more heed will be given by the Church to teaching 
 than has ever been given before. 
 
 As a contribution towards the furnishing of the Church for that great work, 
 this DicTIONARY OF THE BIBLE is published. It is a Dictionary of the Old and New 
 Testaments, together with the Old Testament Apocrypha, according to the Authorized 
 and Revised English Versions, and with constant reference to the original tongues. 
 Every effort has been used to make the information it contains reasonably full, 
 trustworthy, and accessible. 
 
 As to fulness. In a Dictionary of the Bible one expects that the words 
 occurring in the Bible, which do not explain themselves, will receive some ex- 
 planation. The present Dictionary more nearly meets that expectation than any 
 Dictionary that has hitherto been published. Articles have been written on the 
 names of all Persons and Places, on the Antiquities and Archeology of the Bible, 
 on its Ethnology, Geology, and Natural History, on Biblical Theology and Ethic, and 
 even on the obsolete or archaic words occurring in the English Versions. The 
 greater number of the articles are of small compass, for care has been exercised to 
 exclude vague generalities as well as unaccepted idiosyncrasies; but there are many 
 articles which deal with important and difficult subjects, and extend to considerable 
 length. Such, for example, and to mention only one, is the article in the first 
 volume on the Chronology of the New Testament. 
 
 As to trustworthiness. The names of the authors are appended to their articles, 
 except where the article is very brief and of minor importance; and these names are 
 the best guarantee that the work may be relied on. So far as could be ascertained, 
 those authors were chosen for the various subjects who had made a special study of 
 that subject, and might be able to speak with authority upon it. Then, in addition 
 to the work of the Editor and his Assistant, every sheet has passed through the 
 hands of the three distinguished scholars whose names are found on the title-page. 
 
 These scholars are not responsible for errors of any kind, if such should be dis- 
 vii 
 
viil PREFACE 
 
 
 
 covered in the Dictionary, but the time and care they have spent upon it may be 
 taken as a good assurance that the work as a whole is reliable and authoritative. 
 
 As to accessibility. While all the articles have been written expressly for 
 this work, so they have been arranged under the headings one would most naturally 
 turn to. In a very few cases it has been found necessary to group allied subjects 
 together. But even then, the careful system of black-lettering and cross-reference 
 adopted, should enable the reader to find the subject wanted without delay. And so 
 important has it seemed to the Editor that each subject should be found under its 
 own natural title, that he has allowed a little repetition here and there (though not 
 in identical terms) rather than distress the reader by sending him from one article 
 to another in search of the information he desires. The Proper Names will be found 
 under the spelling adopted in the Revised Version, and in a few very familiar 
 instances the spelling of the Authorized Version is also given, with a cross-reference 
 to the other. On the Proper Names generally, and particularly on the very difficult 
 and unsettled questions of their derivation, reference may be made to the article 
 Names (PROPER), which will be found in the third volume. The Hebrew, and (where 
 it seemed to be of consequence for the identification of the name) the Greek of the 
 Septuagint, have been given for all proper and many common names. It was found 
 impracticable to record all the variety of spelling discovered in different manuscripts 
 of the Septuagint; and it was consideréd unnecessary, in view of the great Edition 
 now in preparation in Cambridge, and the Concordance of Proper Names about to be 
 published at the Clarendon Press. ‘The Abbreviations, considering the size and scope 
 of the work, will be seen to be few and easily mastered. A list of them, together 
 with a simple and uniform scheme of transliterating Hebrew and Arabic words, will 
 be found on the following pages. The Maps have been specially prepared for this 
 work by Mr. J. G. Bartholomew, F.R.G.S. The Illustrations (the drawings for which 
 have been chiefly made in Syria by the Rev. G. M. Mackie, M.A.) are confined to 
 subjects which cannot be easily understood without their aid. 
 
 The Editor has pleasure in recording his thanks to many friends and willing 
 fellow-workers, including the authors of the various articles. In especial, after those 
 whose names are given on the title-page, he desires to thank the Rev. W. Sanpay, 
 D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, who has 
 read many of the articles and given valuable assistance in other ways, and whose 
 name might have appeared on the title-page, had not illness prevented him for some 
 time from carrying out his intention of reading the proof-sheets as they were ready; 
 next, his own early teacher, Dr. DoNaALD SHEARER, who voluntarily undertook, and 
 has most conscientiously carried out, the verification of the passages of Scripture; 
 also Professor Manarry of Dublin, who kindly read some articles in proof; Professor 
 Rye of Cambridge; Professor SatmMonp of Aberdeen; Principal Stewart of St. 
 Andrews; and Principal Farrparrn and Mr. J. Vernon Bartiet, M.A. of Mansfield 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 *.* Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, have the sole right of publication of this 
 DicTioNaRY OF THE BrsBLE in the United States and Canada. 
 
SCHEME OF TRANSLITERATION 
 
 
 
 
 ARABIC 
 
 
 
 HEBREW. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 sal 
 
 A 
 
 “" 
 
 iS * 
 
 h c u, W 5 
 
 kh (e 5 ; 
 d ra) rs =“ 
 $ (a 
 
 yi 5 
 
 k 
 
 ei SUA a al a ee OO pe 
 
 
 
 itn Clune | onal Clee (. po. re esse RDA OTe ey ee 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 Sane ea 
 
 L GeneraL 
 
 Alex. = Alexandrian. 
 Apoc. = Apocalypse. 
 Apocr. = Apocrypha, 
 
 Aq. = Aquila. 
 
 Arab. = Arabic. 
 
 Aram. = Aramaic. 
 
 Assyr. = Assyrian. 
 
 Bab. = Babylonian. 
 c.=circa, about. 
 
 Can. = Canaanite. 
 
 cf. =Compare. 
 
 et. =Contrast. 
 
 D= Deuteronomist. 
 E=Elohist. 
 
 edd. = Editions or Editors, 
 Egyp. = Egyptian. 
 
 Eng. = English. 
 
 Eth. = Ethiopic. 
 
 f.=and following verse or page; as Ac 10% 
 ff. =and following verses or pages; as Mt 1178 
 Gr. =teek. 
 
 H=Law of Holiness, 
 
 Heb. = Hebrew. 
 
 Hel. = Hellenistic. 
 
 Hex. = Hexateuch. 
 
 Isr. = Israelite. 
 
 J =Jahwist. 
 
 J” =Jehovah. 
 
 Jerus. =Jerusalem, 
 
 Jos. =Josephus. 
 
 LXX=Septuagint. 
 MSS= Manuscripts, 
 MT= Massoretic Text. 
 nh. =note. 
 NT= New Testament. 
 Onk. = Onkelos. 
 OT=Old Testament. 
 P=Priestly Narrative. 
 Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian. 
 Pent. = Pentateuch. 
 Pers. = Persian. 
 Phil. = Philistine. 
 Pheen. = Pheenician. 
 Pr. Bk. = Prayer Book, 
 R= Redactor. 
 Rom. = Roman. 
 Sam. =Samaritan. 
 Sem. =Semitic. 
 Sept. =Septuagint. 
 Sin. =Sinaitic. 
 Sar =Symmachus, 
 = Syriac 
 ie = Talmud. 
 Targ. =Targum. 
 Theod. = Theodotion. 
 TR=Textus Receptus. 
 tr. =translate or translation. 
 VSS = Versions. 
 Vulg. = Vulgate. 
 WH= Westcott and Hort’s text. 
 
 II. Booxs or THE BIBLE 
 
 Old Testament. 
 Gn = Genesis. Ca=Canticles. 
 Ex = Exodus. Is=Isaiah. 
 Lv=Leviticus. Jer=Jeremiah. 
 Nu=Numbers. La=Lamentations. 
 Dt= Deuteronomy. Ezk = Ezekiel. 
 Jos=Joshua, Dn = Daniel. 
 Jg=Judges. Hos = Hosea. 
 Ru= Ruth. Jl=ZJoel. 
 
 1S8,2S=1 and 2 Samuel. Am=Amos. 
 1 K, 2 K=1 and 2 Kings. Ob=Obadiah.. 
 1 Ch, 2 Ch=1 and 2 Jon=Jonah. 
 
 Chronicles, Mic = Micah. 
 Ezr= Ezra. Nah=Nahum. 
 Neh= Nehemiah, Hab= Habakkuk. 
 Est= Esther. Zeph = Zephaniah. 
 Job. Hag = Haggai. 
 Ps= Psalms. Zec = Zechariah. 
 Pr= Proverbs. Mal= Malachi. 
 
 Ec = Ecclesiastes. 
 Apocrypha. 
 
 1 Es, 2 Es=1 and 2 To=Tobit. 
 Esdras. Jth=Judith. 
 
 Ad. Est = Additions to Bal = Bel 
 
 Esther. 1 = Bel and = the 
 Wis= Wisdom. gon. 
 Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- Pre Maw = Prayer of 
 asticus. Manasses. 
 Bar= Baruch. 1 Mac, 2 Mac=1 and 2 
 Three = Song of the Macca 
 Three Children. 
 
 New Testament. 
 
 Mt= Matthew. 1 Th, 2 Th=1 and 2 
 
 Mk= Mark. Thessalonians. 
 Lk=Luke. 1 Ti, 2 Ti=1 and 2 
 Jn=ZJohn. Timothy. 
 
 Ac= Acts. Tit=Titus. 
 
 Ro= Romans. Philem = Philemon. 
 
 1 Co, 2 Co=1 and 2 He=Hebrews. 
 Corinthians. Ja=James. 
 
 Gal =Galatians, 1 P, 2 P=1 and 2 Peter. 
 
 epee hesians. 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn=1, 2 
 
 ippians. and 3 John 
 Col = Colossians. Jude. 
 Rev = Revelation. 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x 
 
 
 
 IIL Enauisn Versions 
 
 Wyc.=Wyclif’s Bible (NT c. 1880, OT c. 1382, 
 ey's Revision c. 1388). 
 
 Tind. = Tindale’s NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530. 
 
 Cov. =Coverdale’s Bible 1535. 
 
 Matt. or Rog.=Matthew’s (t.e. prob. Rogers’) 
 
 Bible 1537. 
 
 Sran. or Great=Cranmer’s ‘Great’ Bible 1539. 
 
 Tav.=Taverner’s Bible 1539. 
 
 Gen. =Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560. 
 
 Bish. = Bishops’ Bible 1568. 
 
 Tom. =Tomson’s NT 1576. 
 
 Rhem. = Rhemish NT 1582. 
 
 Dou. = Douay OT 1609. 
 
 AV=<Authorized Version 1611. 
 
 AVm= Authorized Version margin. 
 RV=Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1888, 
 RVm= Revised Version margin. 
 
 EV= Auth. and Rev. Versions, 
 
 IV. Fors rae Lirerature 
 
 AHT = Ancient Hebrew Tradition. 
 AT=Altes Testament. 
 
 BL=Bam pton Lecture. 
 
 BM=British Museum. 
 
 BRP=Biblical Researches in Palescine. 
 CIG =Corpus Inscriptionum Grecarum., 
 CIL=Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 
 CJS=Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. 
 COT =Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT. 
 DB= Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 GGA =Gdttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. 
 GV1=Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 
 
 HCM = Higher Criticism and the Monuments. 
 HE=Historia Ecclesiastica. 
 
 HJP=History of the Jewish People. 
 HGHL= Historical Geog. of Holy Land. 
 
 HI= History of Israel. 
 
 HPM=History, Prophecy, and the Monuments. 
 JDTh=Jahrbiicher ‘ir deutsche Theologie. 
 JRAS=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 
 JQR=Jewish Quarterly Review. 
 
 KAT=Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Test. 
 LOT=Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test. 
 ON=Otium Norvicense. 
 
 OTJC=The Old Test. in the Jewish Church. 
 
 PHF= Palestine Exploration Fund. 
 
 PEFSt=Quarterly Statement of the same. 
 
 PSBA=Proceedings of the Society of Biblical 
 Archeology. 
 
 PRE = Real-Encyclopiidie fiir protest. Theologie 
 und Kirche. 
 
 QPB=Queen’s Printers’ Bible. 
 
 LEJ=Revue des Etudes Juives. 
 
 RP=Records of the Past. 
 
 LS= Religion of the Semites. 
 
 SBOT=Sacred Books of Old Test. 
 
 SK=Studien und Kritiken. 
 
 SWP=Memoirs of the Survey of Western 
 Palestine. 
 
 TAL or TALZ=Theol. Literaturzeitung. 
 
 ThT=Theol. Tijdschrift. 
 
 TSBA =Transactions of Soe. of Bibl. Archeology. 
 
 WAI= Western Asiatic Inscriptions. 
 
 ZAW or ZATW=Zeitschrift fiir die Alttest. 
 Wissenschaft. 
 
 ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen. 
 lindischen Gesellschaft. 
 
 ZDPV=Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paliistina 
 Vereins. 
 
 ZEW = Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft. 
 
 A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to, as KAT?, LOT*. 
 
 
 
 
 
 MAPS IN VOLUME I 
 
 PALESTINE . : 2 . 
 BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, ETC. 
 
 : . facing page 1 
 ; ‘ , RAE a EL 
 
 SINAl PENINSULA AND CANAAN iiineralaene THE ax onruel C Sra ENS 
 
AUTHORS 
 
 OF ARTICLES 
 
 IN VOL. I 
 
 
 
 Rev. WaLter F. Apeney, M.A., Professor of 
 New Testament Exegesis in the New College, 
 London. 
 
 Ven. A. S. Acien, M.a., D.D., Archdeacon of St. 
 Andrews. 
 
 Rev. WitLoueHBy C. ALLEN, M.4., Chaplain, Fel- 
 low, and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, 
 Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 Rey. Joun S. Banks, Professor of Systematic The- 
 ology in the Headingley College, Leeds. 
 
 Rev. W. E. Barnes, M.A.,D.D., Fellow of Peter- 
 house, Cambridge. 
 
 JAMES VERNON BARTLET, M.A., Tutor in Mans- 
 field College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. L. W. Barren, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 Rev. Wiuuis JuDson BEEcuER, D.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew Language and Literature in Auburn 
 Theological Seminary, N. Y. 
 
 Rey. JosepH AGAR Beret, D.D., Professor of Sys- 
 tematic Theology in the Richmond Theological 
 College. 
 
 P. V. M. Benecxe, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of 
 Magdalen College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev W. H. Bennett, M.A., Professor of Old Testa- 
 ment Exegesis in Hackney and New Colleges, 
 London; sometime Fellow of St. John’s Col- 
 lege, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. Epwarp RussELL BERNARD, M.A., Chan- 
 cellor and Canon of Salisbury ; formerly Fellow 
 of Magdalen College, Oxford. 
 
 Rey. Joun Henry Bernard, D.D., Fellow of 
 Trinity College, and Archbishop King’s Lect- 
 urer in Divinity in the University of Dublin. 
 
 Rev. Rospert Masson Boyp, M.A., Glenbervie, 
 Kincardine. 
 
 Rev. Francis Brown, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew and Cognate Languages in Union Theo- 
 logical Seminary, New York. 
 
 Rev. W. Apams Brown, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
 Systematic Theology in Union Theological 
 Seminary, New York. 
 
 F. Crawrorp Burkitt, M.A., Trinity College, 
 Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. CHartes Fox Burney, M.A., Lecturer in 
 Hebrew, and Fellow of St. John Baptist’s Col- 
 lege, Oxford. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rey. Winrrip O. Burrows, M.A., Principal of 
 Leeds Clergy School. 
 
 The late Rev. James §. CanpuisH, M.A., D.D., 
 Professor of Systematic Theology in the Free 
 Church College, Glasgow. 
 
 Rev. Witi1aAM Carstaw, M.A., M.D., of the Leb- 
 anon Schools, Beyrout, Syria. 
 
 Rev. ARTHUR THomAs CHAPMAN, M.A., Fellow, 
 Tutor, and Hebrew Lecturer, Emmanuel Col- 
 lege, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. Ropert Henry Cuarues, M.A., of Trinity 
 College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev, FREDERIC HENRY CHAss, M.A., D.D., Prin- 
 cipal of the Clergy Training School, Cambridge, 
 ae Examining Chaplain to the Archbishop of 
 
 York. 
 
 Lieut.-Col. CLAUDE REGNIER CoNDER, R.E., LL.D., 
 M.R.A.S. 
 
 Freep. C. ConYBEARE, M.A., late Fellow of Univer- 
 sity College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. G. A. Cooxsr, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen Col- 
 lege, Oxford, and Rector of Beaconsfield, Bucks. 
 
 Rev. Henry Cowan, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
 Church History in the University of Aberdeen. 
 
 W. E. Crum, M.A., of the Egypt Exploration 
 Fund. 
 
 Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew in Yale University, New Haven. 
 
 Rev. ANDREW Bruce Davipson, D.D., LL.D., 
 Professor of Hebrew in the New College, 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 Rev. T. Wirron Davies, B.A., Ph.D., M.R.A.S., 
 Professor of Biblical Literature in the Midland 
 Baptist College, Nottingham. 
 
 Rev. W. T. Davison, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
 Systematic Theology in the Handsworth Theo- 
 logical College, Birmingham. 
 
 Rev. JAMEs DrENNEY, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
 Systematic Theology in the Free Church Col- 
 lege, Glasgow. 
 
 Rev. Wititam P. Dickson, D.D., Lu.D., Emeri- 
 tus Professor of Divinity in the University of 
 Glasgow. 
 
 Rev. SAMUEL RoLLES Driver, D.D., Canon of 
 Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Hebrew 
 in the University of Oxford. 
 
 Rev. Witi1am Ewine, M.A., Birmingham. fose 
 merly of Tiberias, Palestine. 
 
 xiii 
 
xiv 
 
 
 
 AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. I 
 
 
 
 Rev. ALFRED Ernest GaRvil£, M.A., B.D., Mon- 
 trose; Examiner in Biblical Languages in the 
 Congregational Hall, Edinburgh. 
 
 Rev. Sypnny C. Gayrorp, M.A., Exeter College, 
 Oxford. 
 
 Rev. Joun Giss, M.A., D.D., Professor of New 
 Testament Exegesis in the Presbyterian Col- 
 lege, London. 
 
 G. Bucuanan Gray, M.A., Lecturer in Mansfield 
 College, Oxford 
 
 Rev. ALEXANDER GRIEVE, M.A., Ph.D., Forfar. 
 
 Francis LLEWELLYN GRIFFITH, M.A., F.S8.A., of 
 the British Museum; Superintendent of the 
 Archeological Survey ‘of Eg gypt. 
 
 Re. Henry MELVILL Gwarkin, M.A., D.D., Fel- 
 low of Emmanuel College, and Dixie Professor 
 of Ecclesiastical History in the University of 
 Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. S. T. Gwrii1aM, F.R.G.S., Hampton Poyle 
 Rectory, Reading. 
 
 Rev. G. Harrorp-Batrerssy, M.A., Balliol Col- 
 lege, Oxford; Vicar of Mossley Hill, Liverpool. 
 
 Rev. Epwin Eimer Harprine, M.A., Principal of 
 Saint Aidan’s Theological College, Birkenhead. 
 
 J. RENDEL Harris, M.A., D.Litt., Fellow and Li- 
 brarian of Clare College, and Lecturer in Pale- 
 ography in the University of Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. ArrHurR CaytEy HeEAapuaM, M.A., B.D., 
 Rector of Welwyn, Herts ; formerly Fellow of 
 All Souls College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. ARCHIBALD HENDERSON, M.A., D.D., Crieff. 
 E. M. Houtmes, F.L.S., Curator of the Museum of 
 the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. 
 Fritz HomMe., Ph.D., LL.D., Ord. Professor of 
 
 Semitic Languages in the University of Munich. 
 
 Epwarp Huu, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., F.R.G.S., 
 late Director of the Geological Survey of Ire- 
 land, and Professor of Geology in the Royal 
 College of Science, Dublin. 
 
 Montague Ruoves Jamss, M.A., Litt.D., Fellow 
 and Dean of King’s College, and Director of the 
 Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. 
 
 Frank Byron Jneyons, M.A., Litt.D., Principal of 
 Bishop Hatfield’s Hall, Durham. 
 
 Rev. ARrcHIBALD R. S. Kennepy, M.A., D.D., 
 ‘Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages in 
 the University of Edinburgh. 
 
 Rev. James Houcuron Kernnepy, M.A., D.D., 
 Assistant Lecturer in the Divinity School of 
 Dublin University. 
 
 Rey. Tuomas B. Kitparrick, M.A., B.D., Aber- 
 deen. 
 
 Rev. Jonn LarpnaAw, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
 Systematic Theology in the New College, Edin- 
 burgh. 
 
 Rev. Water Lock, M.A., D.D., Fellow of Magda- 
 len and Warden of Keble Colleges, and Dean 
 Treland’s Professor of New Testament Exegesis 
 in the University of Oxford. 
 
 ALEXANDER Macatister, LL.D., M.D., F.R.S., 
 F.8.A., Fellow of St. John’s College, and Pro- 
 fessor of Anatomy in the University of Cam- 
 bridge. 
 
 Rev. J. A. M‘Ciymont, M.A., D.D., Aberdeen. 
 
 Rev. Groree M. Mackin, M.A., Chaplain to the 
 Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria. 
 
 Rev. Jon Macruerson, M.A., Findhorn, Moray- 
 shire. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 D. 8. Manrcouroutn, M.A., Fellow of New Col. 
 lege, and Laudian Professor of Arabic in the 
 University of Oxford. 
 
 Rev. JoHN TURNER MarsHatu, M.A., Professor of 
 Classics in the Baptist College, Manchester. 
 Joun Massie, M.A., Yates Professor of New Testa- 
 ment Exegesis in Mansfield College, Oxford; 
 formerly Scholar of St. John’s College, Cam- 
 
 bridge. 
 
 Rev. JosepH BickeRsteTH Mayor, M.A., Litt.D., 
 Emeritus Professor of King’s College, London, 
 and Hon. Fellow of St. John’s College, Cam- 
 bridge. 
 
 Rev. SeLAH MERRILL, D.D., LL.D., U. 8. Consul 
 at Jerusalem. 
 
 Rev. James Mruuar, M.A., B.D., New Cumnock. 
 
 Rev. Grorce Mruriean, M.A., B.D., Caputh, 
 Perthshire. 
 
 Rev. WruL1AM Moraan, M.A., Tarbolton. 
 
 Rev. R. Wappy Moss, Professor of Classics in the 
 Didsbury College, Manchester. 
 
 Rev. Wiiuiam Morr, M.A., B.D., B.L., Blair- 
 gowrie. 
 
 Rev. J. O. F. Murray, M.A., Fellow of Emmanuel 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
 Joun L. Myres, M.A., Student of Christ Church, 
 Oxford, 
 
 Rev. Tuomas Nicon, M.A., D.D., Tidinbunees 
 
 Rev. JAMES ORR, M.A., D.D., Professor of Church 
 History in the United Presbyterian Hall, Edin- 
 burgh. 
 
 JoHN WAvuGH PatTERsoN, B.Sc., Ph.D., Lecturer 
 on Agricultural Chemistry in the Glasgow and 
 West of Scotland Technical College. 
 
 Rev. Wriur1aAM P. Paterson, M.A., D.D., Pro- 
 fessor of Systematic Theology in the University 
 of Aberdeen. 
 
 Rev. JAmMEs Parrick, M.A., B.D., B.Sc., Examiner 
 for Degrees in Divinity i jn the University of St 
 Andrews. 
 
 Rey. Joun Parrick, M.A., D.D., Edinburgh. 
 
 ARTHUR S. PEAKE, M.A., Professor iu the Primi- 
 tive Methodist College, Manchester, and Lect- 
 urer in Lancashire Independent College ; some- 
 time Fellow of Merton and Lecturer in Mansfield 
 Colleges, Oxford. 
 
 W. Fumnpers Perris, M.A., D.C.L., Professor of 
 Egyptology in University College, London. 
 
 Rev. Gzeores M. Parties, M.A., B.D., Forfar. 
 
 I. A. Prncuss, Sippar House, London. 
 
 THEOPHILUS GOLDRIDGE PrincHeEs, M.R.A.S8., of 
 the Egyptian and Assyrian Department in the 
 British Museum. 
 
 Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D., Master of 
 University College, Durham. 
 
 Rev. Frank C. Porter, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
 Biblical Theology in Yale University, New 
 Haven. 
 
 Rev. HarvEy Porter, B.A., Ph.D., Professor in 
 the American College, Beyrout, Syria. 
 
 Rev. George Post, MD., F.L.S., Professor in 
 the American College, Beyrout. 
 
 Rey. Jonn Poucuer, M.A., D.D., Professor in 
 De Pauw University, Ind. 
 
 Ira M. Price, M.A., Ph.D., B.D., Associate Pro- 
 fessor of Semitic Languages and Literatures in 
 the University of Chicago. 
 
AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. I 
 
 xV 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rev. Cyrin Henry PrIcHARD, M.A., late Classical 
 Scholar of Magdalen College, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. Groregr T. Purves, D.D., LL.D., Professor 
 of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in 
 Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jer- 
 sey. 
 
 Wii1amM M. Ramsay, M.A., LL.D., D.C.L., Pro- 
 fessor of Humanity in the University of Aber- 
 deen, and formerly Fellow of Exeter and Lin- 
 coln Colleges, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. Henry A. Repparu, M.A., Vicar of Spars- 
 holt with Kingstone Lisle, Berks. 
 
 Rev. ARcHIBALD Ropprtson, M.A., D.D., Prin- 
 cipal of King’s College, London. 
 
 Rev. Forses Rosinson, M.A., Fellow, Chaplain, 
 and Theological Lecturer in Christ’s College, 
 Cambridge. 
 
 Rey. J. AnmiITAGE Rosryson, M.A., Ph.D., D.D., 
 Fellow of Christ’s College and Norrisian Pro- 
 fessor of Divinity in the University of Cam- 
 bridge. 
 
 Rey. Herspert Epwarp Ry.z, M.A., D.D., 
 President of Queen’s College, and Hulsean 
 Professor of Divinity in the University of 
 Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. Stewart DinawaLtut Forpycre SALMonp, 
 M.A., D.D., F.E.1.8., Professor of Systematic 
 Theology in the Free Church College, Aber- 
 
 deen. 
 
 Rev. ARCHIBALD Henry Saycn, M.A., LL.D., 
 Fellow of Queen’s College, and Professor of 
 Assyriology in the University of Oxford. 
 
 Rev. CHarLEs ANDERSON Scott, M.A., College 
 Park, London. 
 
 Rey. Joun A. SeEvBIn, M.A., Maryculter, Kin- 
 cardineshire. 
 
 Rev. Joun Skinner, M.A., D.D., Professor of 
 
 _ Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis in the 
 Presbyterian College, London. 
 
 Rev. Gzorge ApAmM Situ, M.A., D.D., LL.D., 
 Professor of Hebrew in the Free Church 
 College, Glasgow. 
 
 Rev. Vincent Henry Sranton, M.A., D.D., 
 Fellow of Trinity College, and Ely Professor of 
 Divinity in the University of Cambridge. 
 
 Joun F. Stennine, M.A., Lecturer in Hebrew and 
 Theology, Wadham College, Oxford. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rev. ALEXANDER Stewart, M.A., D.D., Prin- 
 cipal and Primarius Professor of Divinity, St. 
 Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews. 
 
 Rev. JAMES STRACHAN, M.A., St. Fergus. 
 
 Rev. Tuomas B. Strone, M.A., Student of Christ 
 Church, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. Isaac Taytor, M.A., Litt.D., LL.D., Rector 
 of Settrington and Canon of York. 
 
 Rev. Joun Taytor, M.A., Litt.D., Vicar of 
 Winchcombe. 
 
 Henry St. Joun THackeray, M.A., Examiner in 
 the Education Department, formerly Divinity 
 Lecturer in Selwyn College, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. G. W. Tuatcuer, M.A., B.D., Hebrew 
 Tutor and Lecturer on Old Testament History 
 and Literature in Mansfield College, Oxford, 
 
 Rev. JosppH Henry THAYER, M.A., D.D., Litt.D., 
 Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism 
 and Interpretation in the Divinity School of 
 Harvard University. 
 
 CUTHBERT HAMILTON TuRNER, M.A., Fellow of 
 Magdalen College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. GEORGE WALKER, M.A., B.D., Callander. 
 
 Rey. BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD, D.D., 
 LL.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in 
 Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey. 
 
 Lieut.-General Sir CHARLES WARREN, G.C.M.G., 
 K.C.B., F.R.S., Royal Engineers. 
 
 Rev. ADAM C. WELCH, M.A., B.D., Helensburgh. 
 
 Rev. Henry ALcock WHITE, MA Tutor in the 
 University of Durham; late Fellow of New 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. Newport J. D. Wurtz, M.A., B.D., Assist- 
 ant Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew in the 
 University of Dublin. 
 
 Rev. Owen: C. Wurtrenovse, M.A., Principal and 
 Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 
 Cheshunt College, Herts. 
 
 ee Sir CHARLES WILLIAM WILSON, 
 Ro Bike. Be KOM: Gre DEC, lu ev Dos 
 F.R.S. 
 
 Rev. Francis Henry Woops, M.A., B.D., Vicar 
 
 of Chalfont St. Peter, Bucks, and late Fellow 
 and Theological Lecturer ot St. John’s College, 
 Oxford. 
 
 Rev. Joon Wortaset, M.A., M.D., Beyrout, 
 Syri, 
 

 
hema) aor * 
 
 
 
 
 
 vusng pee) ea 
 Ke yee LL Ae 
 5 ofpaprrmzy 
 
 (unsung) 
 
 (pq) : 
 Wile) : 
 moute yy 
 
 epqay 
 
 (soxy.o 7g), ~~) 
 ( setpoyrdes? 
 
 
 
 2 
 4 
 -(u229m F 72) 
 — UWLTHOY 2 g 
 ’ 7 qv] 
 4 NC 
 
 A Bseuaqyng 
 \ qosn soy 7? 
 
 ApoKbwqoys 
 PIE, 
 os 
 
 \O 
 
 N 
 
 HR | 
 
 
 
 fail 
 E me? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yo 1077 Fae 
 
 ——~ 
 
 7 
 
 Be argo, 
 
 7 
 ve 
 
 
 
 
 
 (myn 
 ‘2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 myo ye soy) 
 
 
 
 _ ‘s1 AT, FO THPPeL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ]2na7 Eg Mojaq UOJssa4deg fiajjvA Uopsop 
 | sny3 paanojoo zaaf 00g 4apun spun] mo7 
 sdpapoy 
 
 hrmuay eH) YUPIK PUY SOL 'SoreT UL eeuIngT UtIpOy- 
 
 
 
 oz ST 
 
 4 
 
 OL fe) 
 sony ysy bug 
 
 e 
 "AQAUNS NOILVYOTdXA JNILSIIVd OL INIGYOIIV 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘goaidsquoig ‘7 ‘JOA 
 
 
 
 
 
pup ios -y Momoporp.teg uyor 
 
 YSINqurp | HTN LVL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 armysuy eorpesSoan ySanqaipa eal 
 
 . > Me ey 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eee, 
 
 4 F ‘ 7 aN : upqaus np 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 set aa 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 | o \ 
 IK |g) -pqy sry 
 
 ~_f/ 
 
 devin g |e wey uapros 
 
 / ie a 
 S _ je al ypor 
 JO SS au ula P22M | 
 (yyomay-72) ° } 
 2 ure) WP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Qiyeg-z uy e e2ay- 10 
 
 ~ \ iE po 
 \ a \¢ ep aii 
 \ \ ee 
 
 ——~ 
 
 
 
 —~ 
 
 
 
 aie 
 
 | Qainaie rat 
 PULLER 
 
 Nt ad, 
 Ne, : 
 ok | 
 
 
 
 
 
 ) 
 » | \aumurueny ure 
 \ ° 
 
 \e a 
 Uonwoy Ty 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE 
 
 —_—+-—— 
 
 A 
 
 A.—This letter is used in critica] notes on 
 the text of OT and NT to denote the Codex 
 Alexandrinus, a MS of the Greek Bible written 
 peroreutly in Egypt c. A.D. 450, placed in the 
 library of the Patriarch of Alexandria in 1098, 
 presented by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople (formerly of Alexandria), to Charles I. 
 in 1628, and now in the British Museum. It con- 
 tains the whole Bible except Gn 1414-17 151-5. 16-19 
 16°, 1 K (1 S] 12'8-14%, Ps 49 (5u)?°-79(80)4, Mt 
 17-258, Jn 650-852, 2 Co 418-127. The Psalter is intro- 
 duced by a letter of Athanasius to Marcellinus, 
 the Hypotheses of Eusebius, and various tables; 
 and is concluded by a collection of Canticles from 
 ’ OT and NT, and a Christian Morning Hymn. 
 Rev is followed by two Epistles of Clement (want- 
 ing 158-68 213-20), both apparently still in ecclesiastical 
 use at the time when this MS. was written. Last 
 of all, marked as extra-canonical, came eighteen 
 Psalms of Solomon ; but this part has disappeared. 
 Its readings in OT can be most readily ascer- 
 tained from Professor Swete’s edition of the LXX. 
 Its NT text was published by Woide in 1786, by 
 B. H. Cowper in 1860, and by E. H. Hansell in a 
 parallel text, 1864. The whole MS was published 
 in a photographic facsimile by the Curators of the 
 British Museum in 1879. J. O. F. MURRAY. 
 
 & (Aleph), the first letter in the Heb. alphabet. 
 This symbol in crit. app. denotes the Codex 
 Sinaiticus, a MS of the Greek Bible discovered in 
 the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai by 
 C. Tischendorf, 1844 and 1859. It was written 
 towards the middle or end of the 4th cent. 
 Four scribes at least were employed on it. The 
 scribe who copied Tobit and Judith wrote also six 
 cancel leaves in the NT containing Mt 169-18” 
 2456268, Mk 145%-Lk 1%, 1 Th 245%, He 4161, 
 besides various headlines, titles, subscriptions, 
 aul section numbers. This scribe Tischendorf 
 fuither identified with the scribe who wrote the 
 NT in Codex B, Vaticanus (which see). The MS 
 shows marks of revision due to various hands from 
 the 4th cent. to the 12th cent. One of these, x%, 
 7th cent., declares in a note at the end of 2 Es [Ezr- 
 Neh] and at the end of Est, that he had compared 
 the MS in these books with a very ancient cop 
 transcribed by Antoninus the Confessor, and col- 
 lated with Origen’s Hexapla by the holy martyr 
 Pamphilus when in prison at Cesarea. The cor- 
 rections introduced by him in these books, though 
 
 VOL, J.—1 
 
 of an Origenic character, certainly do not embody 
 the complete Hexaplaric text. 
 
 There seems to be no clear evidence, to show 
 either where the MS was written, or how it passed 
 into the possession of the monks of St. Catherine. 
 While in their possession it fell into decay, and 
 long ago the outside sheets were cut up for book- 
 binding purposes; and Tischendorf was convinced 
 that the sheets he rescued in 1844 were only wait- 
 ing their turn for use in the oven. It is not sur- 
 prising, therefore, that the MS is now far from 
 complete. It contains portions of Gn 23. 24 and of 
 Nu 5. 6. 7; 1 Ch 977-1917, 2 Es 99-en4 [Ezr 9°-Neh], 
 Est, To, Jth, 1 Mac, 4 Mac (3 Mac perhaps lost), 
 Is, Jer, La 1-2”, Jl, Ob, Jon, Nah, Hab, Zeph. 
 Hag, Zec, Mal, Ps, Pr, Ec, Ca, Wis, Sir, Tob 
 The NT is complete, and is followed by the Epistle 
 of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas. 
 
 The text has been published in facsimile type—- 
 (1) in 1846, ‘Cod. Frid.-Aug.,’ containing the sheets 
 of OT secured in 1844; (2) in 1862, ‘Cod. Sin.,’ 
 containing, besides NT, the rest of OT, with the 
 exception of a few verses (published in an appendix 
 in 1867). Tischendorf also published the NT text 
 in a handy volume in 1863. The OT readings are 
 most easily accessible in Swete’s edition of the 
 LXX (Cambridge, 1887-95, ed. 2, 1895-8). 
 
 J. O. F. MuRRAY. 
 
 A.—A symbol used in OT criticism by Dillmann 
 to signify the Priestly elements of the Hex., more 
 usually mown as P. See HEXATEUCH. 
 
 F. H. Woops. 
 
 A is frequently used in AV, and sometimes 
 retained in RV, in constructions that are now 
 obsolete. It is found both as an adj. (or indef. 
 art.) and as a prep. 1. A, as an adj., is a worn- 
 down form of the Old English adj. an, ‘one.’ 
 (1) In modern Eng. a is used before a con- 
 sonantal sound, av before a vowel sound.' In 
 the Eng. VSS of the Bible this usage is not 
 invariable. See AN. (2) A is found qualifying 
 abstract nouns without affecting their meaning: 
 Wis 12” ‘thou art of a full power’ (RV ‘ perfect in 
 
 ower’); 129 ‘to be of a good hope’ (RV ‘of good 
 
 ope’); 2 Co 10° ‘having in a readiness’ (RV 
 ‘being in readiness’); 2 Mac 13" ‘commanded 
 they should be in a readiness.’ Cf. Guylforde, 
 Pylgrymage 7: § always in a redynesse to set forth 
 when they woll.’ On the other hand it is sometimes 
 omitted where it is required for individualising : 
 Sir 3917 ‘at time convenient.’ (3) In Lk 9% ‘about 
 

 
 
 
 2 AARON 
 
 an eight days (RV about eight days) after these 
 sayings > the art. is used as in ‘a good many’; so 
 1 Mac 4" ‘there were slain of them upon a three 
 thousand men’ (RV ‘about three thousand ’). 
 
 2. In other expressions A is a prep., being 
 & worn-down form of an or on, aad stands for 
 the modern ‘at,’ ‘in,’ or ‘on.’ 2 Ch 2'8 ‘three 
 thousand and six hundred overseers to set the 
 people a work’ (RV ‘awork’); 1 Co 9” ‘who 
 goeth a warfare (RV ‘serveth’) any time at his 
 own charges?’ Jth 7? ‘horsemen... and other 
 men that were afoot.’ Most frequently with a 
 verbal noun in ‘ing’ : 2 Ch 16° ‘ wherewith Baasha 
 was & building’ (AV of 1611, later edd. ‘was 
 Aira RV ‘had builded’); 1 Es 6” ‘Being 
 still a building, it is not yet fully ended’; Lk 8 
 ‘She lay a dying.’ The full form an or on re- 
 mained side ty side with this worn-down form: 
 Ac 13% ‘David... fell on sleep’; Mt 4? ‘He 
 was afterward an hungered ’(RV ‘ He afterward 
 hungered.’ ‘An hungered’ occurs also Mt 12)* 
 25%: 37. 42.4, Mx 275, Lk 6%, and in all these places 
 RV leaves it unchanged). 
 
 LrreraTurs.—Besides the necessary edd. of the Eng. Bible, 
 Skeat, Etymol. Dict. of the Eng. Lang.2; Murray and Bradley, 
 Eng. Dict. on Hist. Principles (called the Ozford Eng. Dict.) ; 
 Whitney, Century Dict.; Wright, Bible Word Book?; Michie, 
 Bible Words and Phrases; Mayhew, Select Glossary of Bible 
 Words; Trench, Select Glossary ; together with the Concord- 
 ances to Shakespeare, Milton, etc.; and the Clarendon Press 
 and Pitt Press edd. of the Eng. works of the period. 
 
 . HASTINGS. 
 
 AARON (jax, LXX ’Aapwv).—In the narratives 
 of the Exodus, Aaron is, after Moses, the most 
 prominent figure. Often appearing as the colleague 
 or representative of the great leader and lawgiver, 
 he is in particular the priest, and the head of the 
 Israelitish priesthood. We must, however, distin- 
 
 ish between our different authorities in the 
 
 ent., for in the priestly narrative Aaron not 
 unnaturally occupies a far more important place 
 than in the earlier account of JE. 
 
 In JE, Aaron is first introduced as Moses’ 
 brother, and with the title of the Levite, in Ex 
 44 J, where J”, sending Moses on his mission to 
 the Israelites, appoints him, on account of his 
 fluency in speech, to be the spokesman of Moses to 
 the people (vv.14-16), Aaron meets his brother in 
 the mount of God ; together they return to Egypt 
 and assemble the elders of the Israelites, before 
 whom Aaron, instructed by Moses, delivers God’s 
 message and performs the sponte signs. The 
 people believe; but when Moses and Aaron re- 
 fees Pharaoh to grant the people temporary 
 eave of.absence, the king refuses to listen to them 
 (Ex 4-6). In the account of the plagues Aaron 
 occupies quite a subordinate place, being the 
 silent companion of his brother. It is Moses who 
 is sent to Pharaoh and announces the coming 
 foe: (Ex 714% gid. 20f. gif. 18% [J mainly]—with 
 0 contrast 10° ‘he turned’). Aaron is merely 
 called in four times along with Moses to entreat 
 for their removal (8% 977 1016). Indeed it seems 
 probable that the mention of Aaron in these 
 
 assages is due, not to the original narrative of J, 
 
 t to the editor who combined J and E; for in 
 each case Moses alone answers, and in his own 
 name; in 8” 9% 10!8 his departure alone is men- 
 tioned, while in 8 it is Moses alone who prays for 
 the removal of the frogs. In the history of the 
 wanderings the passages relating to Aaron are for 
 the most part derived from E, where indeed Miriam 
 is described as the sister of Aaron (15”), With 
 Hur he assists Moses in holding up the rod of God 
 to ensure the defeat of Amalek (1712 E), and 
 together with the elders he is called to Jethro’s 
 sacrifice (18"E), At Sinai,while priests and people 
 remain below, Aaron accompanies Moses up the 
 mountain (19% J), together with Nadab, Abihu, 
 
 
 
 
 AARON 
 
 
 
 and seventy elders of Israel (241 9"); and when 
 Moses with Joshua alone is about to approach 
 still nearer to God, Aaron and Hur are temporarily 
 7 kane ace supreme judges of the people (241: * 
 
 ). Moses’ absence being prolonged, Aaron, at 
 the people’s request, makes a golden calf as a 
 visible symbol of J”, for which he afterwards 
 weakly excuses himself to Moses, throwing the 
 blame upon the people (32). 2!-%), At a later 
 period Aaron with Miriam opposes Moses, on the 
 ground that they also are recipients of divine 
 revelations, Miriam being apparently regarded as 
 the leader on this occasion, since the punishment 
 falls upon her (Nu 12 E). Some further par- 
 ticulars relating to Aaron are to be learnt from — 
 Dt, in passages ata tere f based on the narra- 
 tive of JE; namely the intercession offered by 
 Moses on his account after the making of the 
 golden calf (Dt 9); the choice of Levi as the 
 priestly tribe, probably in consequence of the zeal 
 shown by them against the idolaters (10%); the 
 death of Aaron at Moserah (site unknown), and 
 the succession of his son Eleazar to the priestly 
 office (107, the itinerary probably from E, cf. Nu 
 211. 16. 18f.), The last passage is important as 
 showing that the tradition of a hereditary priest- 
 hood in the family of Aaron was found even 
 outside the priestly history. Comp. Jos 24% E, 
 where mention is made of Phinehas, the son of 
 Eleazar the son of Aaron. 
 
 It is, however, in the priestly tradition, where 
 the institution of the ordinances of divine worship 
 is described at length, that Aaron figures most 
 prominently as the founder of the Israelitish 
 
 riesthood, and becomes, indeed, with Moses the 
 joint leader of the people. _P records several 
 details respecting Aaron’s family : he is the son of 
 Amram and Jochebed (Ex 6”), and three years 
 older than Moses (2). 77, Nu 33°). His wife was 
 Elisheba, his sons Nadab, Abihu (ef. Ex 24'-° E 2), 
 Eleazar (cf. Jos 24% E), and Ithamar. See Ex 
 6% ete. A slightly different representation of — 
 Aaron’s first commission is given in Ex 67-7 P, 
 from that in the parallel narrative Ex 4-6! JE. 
 Here Aaron is appointed the spokesman of Moses, 
 not to the people, but to Pharaoh (see 71), and it is 
 before the king that Aaron works a wonder, 
 turning his rod into a serpent. From this point 
 onwards the importance assigned to Aaron in 
 P becomes very marked. e regularly co- 
 operates with Moses at the time of the 
 
 gyp. plagues, usually bringing these to pass by 
 means of his rod in accordance with Moses’ 
 instructions (Ex 7! 85t- 16). Many commands of 
 God are addressed to both leaders alike (Ex 9%? 
 12}, Ly 11! 13! 14% 150 Nu 2inci ites 
 they are consulted be the people (Nu 9° 15%, cf. 
 13), and against both of them the murmurings of 
 the Poors are directed (Ex 16%, Nu 14?, cf.% 
 16%! cf.18 207), All this, however, does not 
 prevent distinct and characteristic ee: being 
 assigned to each of them. Thus the first place is 
 Nh to Moses throughout. He receives the 
 ivine revelation on Mount Sinai respecting the 
 appointment of Aaron and his sons to the priest- 
 hood (Ex 281-4 2944), and upon the completion of 
 the tabernacle solemnly consecrates them, and 
 offers the appointed sacrifices (Ex 29, Lv 8. 9). 
 Aaron, on the other hand, is specially ‘the priest’ 
 (Ex 317° 35! 3821, Lv 13?, Nu 18%), who stays a plague 
 by an offering of incense (Nu 16); to his charge 
 the tabernacle is committed (2b. 45-1 27-88), and 
 to him the Levites are given in exchange for the 
 firstborn (ib. 3°). Aaron is distinguished from 
 his sons, the inferior priests, by the anointin 
 which he receives (Ex 29’, Lv 8, cf. Ex 29”, 
 Ly 43: 5.16 620.22 1682 9110.12) Nu 3575); — passages 
 which speak of his sons as being also anointed 
 
es a 
 
 ee ee ee ae 
 
 ea Ee es 
 
 sie Suit Rte hh ol i til 
 
 AARONITES 
 
 robably belong to the later additions to the 
 Priestly Code (Ex 284 30° 405, Lv 736, Nu 3%). 
 Between the family of Aaron and the rest of the 
 Levites a sharp distinction is drawn (see esp. 
 Nu 3. 4). In this connection it is to be noticed 
 that in the main portion of Nu 16 Korah’s com- 
 panions in his rebellion are called ‘ princes of the 
 congregation’ (167), é.¢. not all Levites (cf. Nu 
 27°); their complaints are directed against the 
 exclusive claims of the tribe of Levi, and all mur- 
 murings are finally silenced by the miraculous 
 budding of the rod of Aaron, the representative of 
 the house of Levi (Nu 17?"). But certain addi- 
 tions seem to have been made to the chapter to 
 emphasize a different point, and in these passages 
 Korah’s companions are regarded as wholly Levites, 
 who protest against the superior claims of the house 
 of Aaron (Nu 16%-11-16-19.86-40)| See further, PRIESTS ; 
 also AARONITES, AARON’S Rop, KORAH. 
 
 For failing to show due honour to J” at 
 Meribah Kadesh, in the fortieth year of the 
 wanderings, Aaron was forbidden to enter the 
 promised land (Nu 20%}%). Shortly afterwards, 
 accompanied by Moses and his own son Eleazar, 
 Aaron ascended Mount Hor, on the border of the 
 land of Edom, and after being solemnly stripped of 
 his priestly garments, which were put on Eleazar, 
 died there at the age of 123 (Nu 207? 3338 P), 
 The site of Mount Hor is uncertain, the traditional 
 identification with Jebel Nebi Harun, S.W. of 
 Petra, being very doubtful (see Dillm. on Nu 20%) ; 
 the itinerary of P (Nu 33%-%) names six stages be- 
 tween Moseroth (Dt 10° Moserah) and Mt. Hor. 
 
 In the older literature outside the Pent., the 
 mission of Moses and Aaron in Egypt is alluded to 
 in Jos 245 FE, and 1 S 12% (a passage which has 
 affinities with E), Micah (64) names as the leaders 
 of the people at the time of the Exodus, Moses, 
 Aaron, and Miriam, but Aaron is not mentioned 
 elsewhere in the prophets. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 AARONITES (19x ‘32 ‘sons of Aaron’),.—This 
 phrase might, according to Sem. idiom, denote 
 either the members of a class or guild (comp. sons 
 of Korah, sons of Asaph, sons of the propa) or 
 members of a family connected by b kinship. 
 As used in OT it was understood in the latter 
 sense, all the priests, at anyrate from the time of 
 the second temple, tracing their descent from 
 Aaron, as the head and founder of the Israelitish 
 priesthood. The term does not occur earlier than 
 the priestly portions of the Pent., where in certain 
 groups of laws the epithet Aaronites is often given 
 to the priests (see esp. Lv 1-3, and comp. 6° 
 ‘ Aaron and his sons’), and a sharp distinction is 
 drawn between the Aaronite priests and the 
 Levites who wait upon them (see esp. Nu 3” 
 16® 1817), It is doubtful whether any mention 
 of the Aaronites or seed of Aaron was to be 
 found in the original H (Law of Holiness), 
 the present text of Lv 17? 2]1-17-7.% 992.4. 18 
 being probably due to the R. The Chronicler 
 divides the priests into the houses of Eleazar and 
 Ithamar, assigning sixteen courses to the former 
 and eight to the latter; and, probably without 
 
 ood authority, he connects the former with the 
 
 adokite priests of Jerus., and the latter with 
 the family of Eli (1 Ch 24), though the name of 
 one of Eli’s sons (cf. also 1 S 27’'-) would suggest a 
 connexion between this family and Phinehas the 
 son of Eleazar (Jos 24%). Throughout his work 
 the priests are frequently termed the Aaronites 
 (sons of Aaron)—viz. 1 Ch 654-57 154 23%. 82 241. 81, 
 2 Ch 13% 2618 9921 3119 354, Neh 10% 1247. In 
 1 Ch 12” 27" the house or family of Aaron is 
 placed on a level with the other tribes; and 
 similarly in some late Psalms, bythe side of the 
 House of Israel and the House of Levi, the priestly 
 
 ABADIAS 3 
 
 — 
 
 class is described as the House of Aaron (Ps 115'13 
 118° 135). H. A. WHITE. 
 
 AARON’S ROD.—Aaron’s rod is the centre of 
 interest in an important incident of the desert 
 wanderings—time and place are both uncertain— 
 as recorded by the pay, narrator (P), Nu 17} 
 (Heb. text 17!*-6). The passage should be studied 
 in connexion with the more complex narrative in 
 ch. 16, to the events of which the incident in 
 GN ee forms the sequel (see Driver, LOT 59 f.). 
 n obedience to a divine command, 12 rods, repre- 
 senting the 12 princes of the tribes, each with the 
 name of a prince engraved upon it, together with a 
 13th rod (cf. Vulg. fueruntque virge duodecim 
 absque virga Aaron) to represent the tribe of Levi, 
 but bearing the name of acon: were deposited by 
 Moses before ‘the testimony,’ t.e. before the ark. 
 The following morning it was found that ‘the rod 
 of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and 
 put forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and bare 
 ripe almonds’ (178 RV), by which it was miracu- 
 lously proved that J” had Himself selected the 
 tribe of Levi to be the exclusive possessors of the 
 priestly prerogatives. The standpoint of the 
 narrator is thus different from that of a later 
 stratum in the foregoing section, which represents 
 a party of Levites in revolt against the exclusive 
 riesthood of the sons of Aaron. ‘ Aaron’s rod that 
 udded’ was ordered to be put back to its former 
 place ‘before the [ark of the] testimony’ (177) as a 
 token to future generations of the divine choice. 
 A later Jewish tradition, at variance with this 
 command, and with the express statement of 1 K 8°, 
 is found in He 9, and in later Jewish writers, that 
 the rod, like the pot of manna, had a place with 
 the tables of stone within the ark. 
 
 A. R. 8. KENNEDY. 
 AB.—See NAMES (PROPER), and TIME. 
 
 ABACUC.—The form in which the name of the 
 prophet Habakkuk appears in 2 Es 1”, 
 
 ABADDON.—This word is found in the OT 
 only in the Wisdom Literature. When it first 
 appears, the old view of Sheol as a place where 
 the family, national, and social distinctions of the 
 world above are reproduced, had been partially 
 displaced:; and in some measure the higher concep- 
 tion had gained acceptance, which held that in Sheol 
 at all events moral distinctions were paramount, 
 and that men were treated there according to their 
 deserts. In Job 31 Abaddon (jimax) bears the 
 panera! meaning of ‘ ruin,’ ‘destruction.’ (But see 
 
 illm. and Day. in loc.) In the other instances of its 
 occurrence, however, it is specialised, and designates 
 the place of the lost in Sheol. Thus in Job 265, Pr 
 15" 27” (max, in Keré ji738) it occurs in conjunction 
 with ‘Sheol’ (x2), and in Ps 88" with ‘grave’ 
 (nap). Again, in Job 28 a further development is 
 to be observed. In this passage it is linked with 
 death (mp), and personified in the same way as we 
 find wo” in Dn 4” and Hades in Rev 6%, and 
 o’ow and opp in the Talmud. The word is found 
 once more in the Bible in Rev 9". In this passage 
 it is used as the proper name of a prince of the 
 infernal regions, and explained by the word ’Amo\- 
 Avwy=* Destroyer.’ In the L prax is always 
 rendered by dwé\eva, except in Job 31! where LXXx 
 implies a different text. The first two meanings 
 above given are found in the Aram. and later Heb. 
 Finally, in the latter in the’ Emek Hammelech, f. 15. 
 3, Abaddon becomes the lowest place of Gehenna. 
 
 . H. CHARLES. 
 
 ABADIAS (’Afadlas), 1 Es 8*.—Son of Jezelus, of 
 the sons of Joab, returned with Ezra from captivity 
 Called Obadiah, son of Jehiel, Ezr 8°. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 
 
a ABAGTHA 
 
 ABAGTHA (sxnpi2ax, Est 11), one of the seven 
 chamberlains or eunuchs sent by Ahasuerus 
 (Xerxes) to fetch the queen, Vashti, to his 
 banquet. The name, which is apparently Persian, 
 is probably akin to the names Bigtha (1?) and 
 Bigthan (2). For the derivation, bagddna=‘ God’s 
 gift,’ has been suggested, but cannot be regarded 
 ascertain. In the LXX the names of the chamber- 
 lains are quite different from the Hebrew. 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ABANAH (733x, Keré myx, AV Abana; AVm 
 Amana, RVm Amanah; 2 K 512). This ‘ river of 
 Damascus,’ the Chrysorrhoas of the Greeks, is identi- 
 fied with the Barada, to whose waters Damascus 
 owes her life. Rising in the uplands near Baalbec, 
 it drains the hollow in the bosom of Anti-Lebanon. 
 ‘Ain el Barada, in the plain of Zebeddny, swells 
 the stream, which then plunges down the deep 
 picturesque gorge of Wady Barada. About 
 14 miles N.W. of Damascus, in a beautiful 
 romantic spot in the heart of the hills, rises the 
 aighity. fountain el Fijeh (Gr. yy, a spring); a 
 river born in a moment, which, after a brief, 
 foaming course, joins the Barada, more than 
 doubling its volume. It then flows along the 
 bottom of a deep winding valley, shaded by 
 beautiful and fruitful trees; bare, yellow rocks 
 towering high on either hand above the green. 
 About half the water is led captive along the 
 eastern bank towards the city, the Beyrout road 
 passing between the streams. Just where the 
 precipitous cliffs advance as if to close the gorge, 
 it escapes from the mountains, and, throwing itself 
 out fanlike in many branches, waters the plain, 
 supplies the city, and drains off into the northern 
 two of the marshy lakes eastward. One branch is 
 called Nahr Banas, a reminiscence of the ancient 
 name. W. EwInae. 
 
 ABARIM (o%3y7).—A plural form of the word 
 signifying ‘part beyond’; and with respect to the 
 Jordan, on the E. side of it. It is used as a proper 
 name preceded by 73 ‘mount’ (Nu 27”, Dt 32%), 
 and by ‘27 ‘mountains’ (Nu 33%). It is also found 
 with “y [see IYE-ABARIM] (Nu 21" 33). In all 
 these places the def. art. is used with Abarim, but 
 in Jer 22” (RV Abarim, AV ‘the passages’) the 
 def. art. is not used. For the geogr. position see 
 NeEso. The LXX translate A. by ré répav, except in 
 Nu 33%, Dt 32 where they have ra (rd) ’ABapelv(u). 
 For Ezk 39", and a very doubtful use of this word, 
 see Smend, in loc. A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 ABASE, ABASEMENT. — Abase is three times 
 used in AV, and retained in RV to translate 
 boy shaphél, otherwise rendered ‘bring low’ or 
 ‘make low,’ ‘bring down’ or ‘bow down,’ 
 ‘humble’; and once to tr. 73y, Is 314 ‘he will not 
 be afraid of their voice, nor abase himself (=be 
 cast down) for the noise of them.’ In NT it is five 
 times used to render rarevéw, changed in RV into 
 ‘humble,’ except in Ph 4 ‘IT know how to be 
 abased,’ and 2 Co 117 ‘Commit a sin in abasing 
 myself.” Abasement, meaning humiliation, occurs 
 in Sir 20" ‘There is an a. because of glory ; and 
 there is that lifteth up his head from a low estate.’ 
 Cf. Sir 2573 RV ‘A wicked woman is a. of heart’ 
 (AV ‘abateth the courage’). Notice that ‘abase- 
 ment’ and ‘ basement’ (a mod. word) are distinct, 
 both in derivation and meaning. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABATE.—This verb occurs only six times in 
 AV (all in OT), and yet it translates five 
 different Heb. words. The meaning of the Eng. 
 word is, however, the same throughout, to lessen. 
 ‘His eye was not dim, nor his natural force 
 abated’ [Driver: ‘neither had his freshness fled ’] 
 (Dt 347), ‘It shall be abated (RV an abatement 
 
 
 
 ABDA 
 
 
 
 shall be made) from thy estimation’ (Lv 27%) 
 (See EsTIMATION.) ‘The waters were abated 
 (RV ‘decreased’) (Gn 8%). RV tr. still another 
 Heb. word ‘abated’ in Nu 11?(AV ‘was quenched’), 
 The word is also found with the same sense in 
 Wis 16%, Sir 258, 1 Mac 5° 11%. Cf. Shakespeare— 
 
 * Abate thy rage, abate thy manly rage.’ 
 —EHenry V. Il. ii. 24. 
 
 And Walton, ‘Lord, abate my great affliction, m™ 
 increase my patience,’ Lives, iv. 288. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABBA.—The transliteration (4884) of the Aram. 
 word for ‘father’; see, for example, the Targ. of 
 Onk. (perhaps of the lst cent.) at Gn 19% (cf. G. 
 Dalman, Gram. d. jiid.-palist. Aramédisch, § 40, ¢. 
 3). It occurs three times in the NT, and always 
 in direct address, viz. in our Lord’s prayer in 
 Gethsemane as given by St. Mark (14°), and in 
 the ‘cry’ of the Spirit as referred to by St. Paul 
 (Ro 8%, Gal 45). 
 
 The phenomena connected with the form and 
 use of the word have occasioned divers opinions, 
 the merits of which our present knowledge does 
 not always enable us to pronounce upon with 
 
 ositiveness. It has been held, for instance (see 
 
 ohn Lightfoot, Hore Hebr. ad Me. l.c.), that 
 when spelt with the double 0 and final a, the word 
 refers to physical fatherhood; accordingly, our 
 Lord’s choice of that form is thought to indicate 
 special closeness of relation But the frequent 
 use of Abba simply as a title of honour in the 
 Mishna and Tosefta seems to disprove this opinion 
 (Schiirer, HJP § 25, n. 30; cf. Jg 17, 2 K 2", Mt 
 23°), On the other hand, it has been asserted that in 
 Syr. the word with the double 6 denotes a spiritual 
 father, with a single 6 the natural. But this dis- 
 tinction also seems not to be sustained by usage (see 
 Payne Smith’s Lexicon, s.v.). Again, it is noteworthy 
 that the Gr. equivalent, 6 rar%p, is appended to the 
 term in all three instances of its occurrence. The 
 second Evangelist, indeed, in other cases sometimes 
 introduces the Aram. terms used by our Lord (see 
 541 711-84); but in those cases the added Gr. trans- 
 lation is preceded by an explanatory phrase dis- 
 tinctly marking it as such. Moreover, the Apostle 
 Paul makes the same addition of 6 rarjp in both 
 instances. Had the term ‘ Abba,’ then, basihe a 
 
 uasi proper name? Indications are not wanting 
 that it had already taken on a degree of con- 
 ventional sacredness; servants were forbidden 
 to use it in addressing the head of the house 
 (Berachoth 168, cited by Delitzsch on Rom. J.c.). 
 It seems to have been the favourite appellation of 
 God employed by Jesus in prayer (cf. Mt 11%-%8 
 263% 42, Lk 102! 2942 2334 Jn 1141 192-28 17}. 1. 24. 25), 
 This would greatly promote its use in Christian 
 circles; and though the second word was probably 
 added primarily by Gr.-speaking Jews in explana- 
 tion of the first, usage doubtless soon gave the 
 phrase the force of an intensified repetition and 
 the currency of a devotional formula. Merely 
 impassioned repetition, indeed, ordinarily adheres 
 to the same term (as xUpie, xipte, Mt 77; Al, 
 #at, 2745); such expressions, therefore, as val, 
 duty, Rev 17 (cf. 2 Co 1%); ‘Amen, So be it’; 
 ‘Hallelujah, Praise the Lord,’ are closer ana- 
 logues. Rabbinical examples are not wanting 
 of similar combinations; see Schoettgen, Hore 
 Hebr. on Mark, l.c. J. H. THAYER. 
 
 ABDA (x72y), ‘servant, sc. of the Lord’; cf. names 
 Obadiah, Abdeel, Ebed.—1. ’Edpd B, ’ABaw A, 
 *Hopdu Luc Father of Adoniram, master of 
 Solomon’s forced levy (1 K 4°). 2. 7ABdds &, 
 "Aids Luc. A Levite descended from Jeduthun 
 (Neh 117). Called Obadiah (1 Ch 9"). 
 
 Cc. F, BURNEY. 
 

 
 ABDEEL 
 
 ABDEEL (5x72y), father of Shelemiah (Jer 367°), 
 one of those ordered by King Jehoiakim to arrest 
 Jeremiah and Baruch. Sept. omits. 
 
 ABDI (24, perhaps for 77729 ‘servant of Yah,’ cf. 
 Palmyr. ‘ay).—1. Grandfather of the musician 
 Ethan, 1 Ch 6“. 2. Father of Kish, 2 Ch 292, 
 8. A Jew who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 107 
 = Aedias, 1 Es 92, H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ABDIAS (2 Es 1*).—Obadiah the prophet. 
 
 ABDIEL (Sx-ray ‘servant of God *).—Sen of Guni 
 (1 Ch 5). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ABDON (jir2y ‘servile’).—1. Son of Hillel, of 
 Pirathon in Ephraim, the last of the minor judges, 
 Jg 12%. 2. A family of the tribe of Benjamin 
 dwelling in Jerus., 1 Ch 8% 3. A Gibeonite 
 family dwelling in Jerus., 1 Ch 8” 9% 4. A 
 courtier of Josiah, 2 Ch 34”; in 2 K 22! his name 
 is Achbor. G. A. COOKE. 
 
 ABDON (ji72y).—A Levitical city of Asher (Jos 
 21°, 1 Ch 6%), now (v. d. Velde) ‘Abdeh E. of Achzib 
 on the hills (SWP, vol. i. sheet iii.). 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ABEDNEGO (i323 tay ; 133=perh. 123 ‘servant of 
 
 Nebo’; so Hitzig, Gritz, Schrader).—See SHADRACH. 
 
 ABEL (537, “AfeA).—The second son (twin ?) of 
 Adam and Eve, by occupation a herdsman (Gn 4?), 
 offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain 
 (He 114), and out of jealousy was slain by his elder 
 brother (Gn 48. See Carin). The current etymology 
 (537 breath, vanity) has been disputed by the 
 Assyriologists, who connect the name with ablu, 
 ebal, ‘son’ (cf. Asurbanipal) ; but while this may 
 well be the root, it does not follow that it gives the 
 etymology in the mind of the writer. There would 
 have been no point in naming the younger brother 
 ‘son’ (Franz Delitzsch), and it is better to suppose 
 that the proper name was here designed to suggest 
 the idea of the short-lived or possibly the shepherd 
 (ef. 53:). The representation of A. as a shepherd 
 coincides with the OT tradition of the superiority 
 of the pastoral life. The ground of the acceptance 
 of A.’s offering (Gn 4*) is not its conformity to a 
 revealed command, nor its character of blood, but 
 the spirit of true piety which was expressed in his 
 
 iving to God his best, viz. the firstl'ngs of the 
 
 ock, and of these the fattest portions. Cain’s 
 knowledge of God’s acceptance of A.’s offering 
 implies a visible sign, probably the kindling of the 
 sacrifice by fire from heaven (cf. 1 K 18°). In NT 
 Abel appears as the first martyr (Mt 23°), and as 
 a hero of faith (He 114), while his death is 
 contrasted with that of Christ as calling, not for 
 forgiveness, but for vengeance (cf. Westcott on He 
 12%, The character and the fate of A. reflect 
 the Jewish consciousness of the enduring division of 
 mankind into the two classes of the people and 
 the enemies of God, and of the persecutions 
 endured by His chosen people at the hands of their 
 enemies (cf. 1 Jn 3}%). 
 
 Lirrrator“.—Schrader, COT’; Dillmann, Genesis; Delitzsch, 
 Genesis ; and Literature of SacriFicg. 
 
 W. P. PATERSON. 
 
 ABEL (¢:x), ‘meadow.’—The name of various 
 
 laces in Pal. and Syria, situated by cultivable 
 
 ands. In one passage (1 S 618) Abel stands 
 apparently for Eben (j3x), ‘stone’ (see RV, AVm, 
 , and Tar.), applying to a ‘great stone’ at 
 Bethshemesh of Judah. 
 4. Abel-beth-maacah (AV maachah) (m2 Sax 
 at » ‘Abel of the House of Maachah’ in Upper 
 ilee (2 S 201415. 18), now ’Abil Kamh, ‘ Abel of 
 wheat,’ on the plateau of the mountains a little W. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ABIASAPH 5 
 
 
 
 of Tell el-Kadi (Dan). It was taken by the Syrians 
 in the 10th cent. B.c. (1 K 15%, 2 Ch 16+), and b 
 the Assyrians about B.C. 732 (2 K 15%) (SW, vol. L 
 sheet ii.). 
 
 2. Abel-cheramim (0°72 52x), ‘meadow of vine- 
 yards’ (Jg 11°*), on the Moab plateau near Minnith. 
 
 3. Abel-maim (07 day), ‘meadow of waters’ (2 Ch 
 16*), the same as No. 1. The mountains in this 
 region are well watered, and the site noted for corn, 
 as its modern name shows. 
 
 4, Abel-meholah (n}in> bax), ‘meadow of the 
 dance,’ or of the ‘circle’ (Jg 7°, 1 K 4% 191), in 
 the Jordan Valley near Srotinah oni In the 
 Onomasticon (s.v. Abel Maula) it is placed 10 Rom. 
 miles from Scythopolis (Bethshean), which points to 
 the present “Ain Helweh, or ‘sweet spring,’ near 
 which is a ruined mound. See SWP, vol. ii. sh. ix. 
 
 5. Abel-mizraim (0252 52), ‘meadow of Egyptians’ 
 (Gn 50"), or (with different points 52x for ax) 
 ‘mourning of Egyptians.’ There is a play on the 
 word in this passage. It was between Egypt and 
 Hebron, yet is described as ‘ beyond Jordan.’ It is 
 difficult to suppose that such a route would be taken 
 to Hebron, nor was the region beyond Jordan in 
 Canaan. The site is unknown (see ATAD). [See 
 Delitzsch and Dillm. in doc.; Driver, Deut. p. xlif., 
 and Taylor in Expos. Times (1896), vii. 407.] 
 
 6. Abel-shittim (on Sax), ‘meadow of acacias’ 
 (Nu 33%), in other passages Shittim only (which 
 see). The place is described as in the plains of 
 Moab. The Jordan plain E. of the river, opposite 
 Jericho, is the site now called Ghér el Seisebdn, or 
 ‘valley of acacias.’ The plain is well watered, and 
 still dotted with acacias. (See SEP, vol. i.) 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ABHORRING.—In Is 66% ‘abhorring’ means a 
 thing that is abhorred, an abhorrence: ‘They 
 shall be an a. unto all flesh.2 The same Heb, 
 word (jixq2) is tr. ‘contempt’ in Dn 12? ‘Some to 
 shame and everlasting contempt’ (Ik}Vm * abhor. 
 rence’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABI (’2x, probably = ‘(my) father’* ; LX X ’Afov) is 
 the name of a queen-mother of the 8th cent. 
 (2 K 18?) who is called Abijah in the parallel 
 passage 2 Ch 29'. The reading in Kings is the 
 most probable. Abi was daughter of Zechariah 
 (? cf. Is 87), wife of Ahaz, and mother of Hezekiah. 
 
 G. B. Gray, 
 ABIA, ABIAH.—See ABIJAH. 
 
 ABI-ALBON (jiaby2x, A ’AcveASwv).—A member 
 of ‘the Thirty,’ or third division of David’s heroes 
 (2 S 23%). In the parallel passage (1 Ch 11*?) we 
 find ‘Abiel’ (523); this is undoubtedly right, 
 and is supported by B ([Tad]afiy\) and Lue. 
 ((L'aAc]aBins). Klostermann has further conjectured 
 that the final syllable ‘bon’ (3) of Abi-albon is a 
 corruption of ‘Beth’ (m1), and belongs to the 
 following word (‘naqyn). Wellhausen and Budde 
 restore Abi-baal (bya-'3x). See ARBATHITE. 
 
 J. . STENNING. 
 
 ABIASAPH (fpwax ’Abhi-asaph = ‘father has 
 gathered’), Ex 64=EBIASAPH (90:2 ’“Ebh-yasaph 
 = ‘father has increased’), 1 Ch 6-97 9; cf. further 
 1 Ch 26!, where Asaph occurs by error for one of 
 the two preceding forms ; see Bertheau, 4.2. 
 
 The cericenes for the alternative forms may be thus sum 
 
 marised :— 
 
 For Abiasaph—Heb. text and Targ. at Ex 624; and possibly 
 Vulg. (Abiasaph) in all places, and LXX (’Afsecep or 
 *AG@iacep) in all places except cod. B in 1 Ch 62; but 
 Vulg. and LXX are really ambiguous. 
 
 For Ebyasaph—Sam. at Ex 624; Heb. text in all passages in 
 Chronicles. Against the middle x of Abiasaph, and there- 
 
 fore in favour of Ebyasaph, are the Syr. (amr5}, Ex 
 
 * On the meanings of this name and the following names he 
 ginning with Abi, see further art. NAMES, PROPER 
 
 
 
6 ABIATHAR 
 
 
 
 6%, 1 Oh 6%; Aa], 1 Ch oF 919) and LXX, B 
 (‘Afia6ép=773x) in 1 Ch 623, 
 
 The evidence thus preponderates in favour of 
 Ebiasaph. 
 
 Ebiasaph is the name of a division of the 
 Korahite Levites, and is mentioned only in the 
 genealogies of P and the Chronicler. According 
 to 1 Ch 9” 26! (in the latter passage read 
 Ebiasaph for Asaph; see above), a section of the 
 division acted as doorkeepers. On the difficulties 
 which arise when Ebiasaph in the genealogies is 
 (e1roneously) regarded as an individual, see the 
 article in Smith’s DB. G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ABIATHAR (7:34 ‘father of plenty,’ for 2x, 
 or ‘The Great one is father’ [Bihr]).—A land- 
 holder (1 K 2%) of Anathoth in Benjamin, a 
 priestly city (Jos 21'8), whence also sprung the 
 priest-prophet Jeremiah. He was son of the high 
 priest Ahijah or Ahimelech, and is first mentioned 
 in 1 § 22”, where it is implied that he alone 
 escaped from the massacre of the priests at Nob. 
 According to the Heb. text of 1 S 23°, he joined 
 David at Keilah, in which case 22° would be pro- 
 leptic, and 23?-¢ might be explained by supposing 
 that David could inquire of ie Lord by a prophet 
 (1 S 28°), e.g. Gad (225); but according to the 
 LXX ‘he went down with David into Keilah,’ 
 apparently from the forest of Hareth; and this 
 seems to harmonise better with the story. David 
 felt a special appeal to his affections in the young 
 priest’s position: ‘I have occasioned the death of 
 all the persons of thy father’s house. Abide thou 
 with me, fear not; for he that seeketh my life 
 seeketh thy life.’ The friendship thus cemented 
 by a common danger was remembered long after- 
 wards by Solomon when commuting A.’s death 
 sentence into degradation : ‘thou hast been afflicted 
 in all wherein my father was afflicted.’ 
 
 The adhesion of A. was of signal service to 
 David, inasmuch as he brought with him an 
 ephod, which, whether it were the high priestly 
 ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (so 
 Jerome, Qu. Heb. in loc., and Jos. Ant. VI. xiv. 6) 
 or a sacred image, was at all events a recognised 
 method of ‘inquiring of the Lord’ (1S 1418, LXX, 
 Vm). In this way A. was able to continue to 
 David (1 S 23° 307) the services rendered before 
 by his father (1 S 22%), Dean Stanley mentions 
 (Jewish Ch. Lect. 36) a Jewish tradition that the 
 power of thus inquiring of the Lord expired with 
 A.; and possibly in virtue of this power he is men- 
 tioned as one of David’s counsellors (1 Ch 27%4). 
 
 In David’s flight from Absalom we find A. 
 loyal, and only prevented by David’s request from 
 sharing his master’s exile; and his son Jonathan, 
 with Ahimaaz, used to convey from the priests to 
 the king secret intelligence of Absalom’s plans. 
 It is very doubtful if the words of Solomon, 
 ‘Thou barest the ark of the Lord God before 
 David my father’ (1 K 276), refer to the attempt 
 made by Zadok and A. to carry the ark with 
 David on his flight (Stanley), or to the commis- 
 sion given by David to Zadok and A. (1 Ch 15}!-5) 
 ‘o superintend the carrying of the ark by the 
 l.evites from the house of Obededom to Mt. Zion 
 ‘Lord A. Hervey). On both these occasions A. is 
 not so prominent as Zadok (see esp. 2 S 15% °5, 
 where Gratz reads, ‘A. went up’ for ‘stood 
 still,’ ef. Jos 3!”). The reference is much more 
 veneral, and alludes to the custom of the ark 
 
 as the symbol of J”s presence accompanying the 
 host to battle (see, e.g., Nu 31°, Jos 64, 1S 4°, 
 2S 114). The attempt made by Zadok and A. 
 
 was an instance of this custom, and not a new 
 leparture; and David refuses to permit it, not 
 vecause it was a violation of the sanctity of the 
 
 ABIATHAR 
 
 
 
 ark, but as being himself unworthy to claim 
 the special protection of J”. It may here be 
 noted that a conjecture has been made, that as 
 Zadok ministered at the tabernacle at Gibeon 
 (1 Ch 16%), so A. may have been the custodian of 
 the ark on Mt. Zion. On the defeat of Absalom, 
 Zadok and A. smoothed the way for the king’s 
 restoration (2 $ 19"). <A.’s lo sity did not, how- 
 ever, remain proof to the end; he united with Joab 
 in lending his influence to the abortive insurrection 
 of Adonijah. Both priest and chief captain were 
 possibly actuated by jealousy, the one of Zadok, 
 and the other of Benaiah. But while Joab was 
 executed in accordance with David’s dying ir- 
 structions, A.’s life was spared in consideration of 
 his old loyalty : ‘So Solomon thrust out A. from 
 being priest unto the Lord ; that he might fulfil the 
 word of the Lord which He spake concerning the 
 house of Eli in Shiloh’ (1 K 2”), 
 
 With the deposition of A. the direct high priestly 
 line of Eleazar came to an end. It is important 
 to emphasize this, since it has been commonly 
 held, on the authority of Chron. and Josephus, that 
 the high priests, from Eli to A. inclusive, were 
 of the line of Ithamar, and that the line of 
 Eleazar was restored in the person of Zadok. 
 Let us examine the evidence on which this state- 
 ment rests. 
 
 The Chronicler mentions as priests in David’s 
 time, ‘Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahime- 
 lech of the sons of Ithamar’ (1 Ch 24**1), this 
 Ahimelech being son of A., according to v... Now 
 ‘Ahimelech, son of A.,’ is quite unhistorical. In 
 2S 157, 1 K 1, Jonathan is son and representa- 
 tive of A.; and, moreover, A. did not lose the 
 office of high priest until the reign of Solomon. 
 The mistake originated in 2S 8", where, by a 
 very ancient error, ‘ Ahimelech, son of A.,’ is joint 
 priest with Zadok. The emendation, ‘A., son of 
 Ahimelech,’ found in the Syr. version, is adopted 
 by Gesenius, Wellhausen, and Driver, and may be 
 regarded as certain. The Chronicler not only 
 copies the mistake (1 Ch 18!%), with the obvious 
 blunder ‘ Abimelech,’ but treats this Ahimelech as 
 areal personage. It is noteworthy that Josephus in 
 his paraphrase of 1 Ch 24 (Ant. vii. 14. 7) mentions 
 A., not Ahimelech, and yet he accepts (viii. 1. 3, 
 y. 10. 4) the descent of A. from Ithamar, and further 
 distinctly asserts that during the high priesthood 
 of Eli and his successors the descendants of Eleazar 
 were merely private individuals. The Chronicler, 
 on the other hand, ignores Eli and his descendants, 
 and in 1 Ch 6315-50-53 vives what seems intended 
 to be a list of high priests from Aaron to the 
 Captivity in the line of Eleazar. Those who are 
 familiar with the peculiar tendencies of the Chron- 
 icler will not think the suggestion unreasonable, 
 that here we have an attempt both to vindicate 
 the unbroken succession of the high priests of 
 his own time, and to evade what he would have 
 considered a stumbling-block in the earlier his- 
 tory. Thus, if A. were the lineal successor of 
 Eleazar, would not his deposition be a breaking on 
 God’s part of the promise to Phinehas of an ever- 
 lasting priesthood? (Nu 25%). Yet the unbiassed 
 reader of 1 S 2% can scarcely fail to see a plain 
 allusion to the promise to Phinehas, and a no less 
 plain assertion that the promise was conditional : 
 ‘T said, indeed, that thy house, and the house of 
 thy father, should walk before Me for ever; but 
 now the Lord saith, Be it far from Me,’ ete. 
 These words cannot refer to the general promise 
 to Aaron’s family in Ex 29°, for God’s eel in 
 that respect was not altered; the Aaronic descent 
 of Zadok being undisputed. It is interesting to 
 observe that the Chronicler does not say that Eli’s 
 family had usurped the high priesthood, as Josephus 
 insinuates; and, indeed, such a usurpation coulil not 
 

 
 ABIB 
 
 — 
 
 have been passed over in silence in the earlier his- 
 
 tory had it ever occurred. ‘The Chronicler, on the 
 other hand, provides an explanation of another 
 stumbling - block — the dual high priesthood of 
 Zadok and A. in David’s reign—by the statement 
 with which 1 Ch 24 opens, that ‘Eleazar and 
 ithamar executed the priests’ oltice.’ This seems 
 an excellent precedent for a dual priesthood, but 
 laLours under two difficulties: first, that it is 
 quite unsupported by the Pent. and Josh., in 
 which Eleazar alone is high priest after Aaron’s 
 death; and, secondly, that although Zadok’s name 
 always comes first when the two are mentioned 
 together, yet A. was the chief until the reign 
 of Solomon, when Zadok was promoted to his 
 place (1 K 2%). It is remarkable, too, that the 
 priests who serve in Ezekiel’s ideal temple are 
 always styled ‘the sons of Zadok’ (40% 43! 4415 
 48"), as if they could claim no higher antiquity. 
 A. is mentioned in 1 K 4% as still joint priest 
 with Zadok; but this is probably a mistake, or 
 may refer to the beginning of Solomon’s reign, just 
 as, in 2 S 23, Asahel and Uriah are enumerated 
 among David’s mighty men. ‘There is a diflicult 
 connected with the mention of A. in Mk 2% RV, 
 where Christ is made to say that David ate the 
 shewbread ‘when A. was high priest,’ él ABiddap 
 dpxuepews, B, x, Vulg. (‘sub A. principe sacer- 
 dotum’). The words are omitted by D and some 
 Old Latin MSS, while A, C, 1, 33 insert rod before 
 apxiépews, ‘in the days of A. the high priest,’ 7.e. 
 in his lifetime, but not necessarily during his high 
 priesthood. N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 ABIB (22x7, always with art., why Tov véwr, 
 mensis novorum or novarum frugum, Ex 134 23% 
 3418, Dt 161). See TIME. 
 
 ABIDA (ytax ‘my father had knowledge’).—A 
 son of Midian (Gn 254 AV Abidah, 1 Ch 1*). 
 
 ABIDAN (j7'24 ‘father is judge’) is a name that 
 occurs only in According to this document, 
 Abidan, son of Gideoni, of the tribe of Benjamin, 
 was one of the twelve ‘princes’ who represented 
 their respective tribes at the census and on certain 
 other occasions, Nu 1? 2? 75 6 1024, 
 
 G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ABIDE.— In AV and RV ‘abide’ is used 
 both transitively and intransitively. 1. As a 
 trans. verb in two senses: (a) to await, be in 
 store for, as Ac 20% ‘Bonds and afflictions abide 
 me’; ef. Ps 379 (Pr. Bk.) ‘They that patiently 
 abide the Lord.’ (6) To withstand, endure, as 
 Jer 10° ‘The nations shall not be able to abide 
 His indignation’; Mal 3? ‘But who may abide 
 the day of His coming?’ Cf. ‘They cannot abide 
 to hear of altering,’ Pref. to AV 1611; ‘ Nature 
 cannot abide that any place should be empty,’ 
 H. Smith (1593), Serm. 97. 2. As an intrans. 
 verb in three senses: (a) to continue in the place 
 or in the state in which one now is, as Ac 27%} 
 ‘Except these abide in the ship’; Jn 12% ‘ Ex- 
 cept a corn of wheat fall into the ground, and die, 
 it abideth alone’; 1 Co 7® ‘She is happier if she 
 so abide’; 2 Mac 7!” ‘abide a while, a behold his 
 great power.’ (6) To dwell, reside, as Lk 87" ‘ And 
 wore no clothes, neither abode in any house, 
 but in the tombs’; Ps 614 ‘I will abide (RV 
 ‘dwell’) in Thy tabernacle for ever’; Jn 8* 
 *And the bond-servant abideth not in the house 
 for ever: the son abideth for ever’; Jn 15° ‘He 
 that abideth in Me, and I in him.’ (c) To last, 
 endure (esp. in the face of trial, cf. 1 (5), above), as 
 1 Co 3% ‘If any man’s work abide’; Ps 119% 
 ‘Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.’ 
 Abiding, as an adj., is used by RV, He 10* ‘a 
 better possession and an a. one,’ and 13% ‘an a. 
 
 
 
 
 ABIHAIL 7 
 
 
 
 city’; as a noun it is found 1 Es 8" ‘they have 
 given us a sure a. in Jewry.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABIEL (oxax ‘father is God’).—1. Sun of 
 Zeror, of the tribe of Benj., was father of Kish and 
 Ner, and consequently grandfather of Saul and 
 Abner, 18 9! 1451. According to 1 Ch 8%=9% Ner 
 was father of Kish; in this case Abiel would kave 
 been great-grandfather of Saul. But the statement. 
 in Ch is an error, very possibly due to transcrip. 
 tional causes; vid. Bertheau on 1 Ch 8%, 2. The 
 name of one of David’s ‘thirty men’ (2 § 23%)= 
 1 Ch 11°. The form (Abi-albon) under which this 
 man’s name now appears in the Heb. text of Samuel 
 is due to textual corruption; Wellhausen (on 2S 
 23%!) supposes the original form to have been 
 Abibaal; but there seems no sufficient reason to 
 doubt the form (Abiel) preserved in Chron. ; cf. 
 Driver on 2 § 231, G. B. GRay. 
 
 ABIEZER (11y°3x ‘father is help’). —41, The 
 name of a clan (a75¥p Jos 17? (P or R); Je Jg 
 65) belonging to the tribe of Manasseh (Jg 61). 
 Consequently, in genealogical descriptions of the 
 tribal relations, Abiezer appears as @ son OF 
 descendant of Manasseh, Jos 172, 1 Ch 7%, Nu 
 26° (P; in this last passage the name is written 
 Iezer, Wy'x, LXX’Axuéfep). The most distinguished 
 member of the clan was Gideon, who describes it 
 (cf., however, Moore [Intern. Critical Comment- 
 ary] on Jg 6) as ‘the poorest in Manasseh,’ 
 Jg 6%, cf. 8%. In the time of Gideon the clan 
 was settled at Ophrah of the Abiezrites (Jg 6%, 
 ef. v.”), which perhaps lay near Shechem. In any 
 case it would be unsafe, from P’s statement that 
 Abiezer was a son of Gilead (Nu 26”; cf. 1 Ch 738, 
 but cf. Jos 17), to infer that the clan was ever 
 settled on the E. of Jordan; cf. Dillmann on Nu 
 26%, 2, Abiezer the Anathothite, te man of 
 Anathoth in Benjamin (1 Ch 27; cf. Jer 1), 
 was one of David’s heroes, 2 S 237%=1 Ch 11%. 
 According to 1 Ch 27" he was the acting military 
 officer of David’s army in the 9th month. Abiezrite 
 is the gentilic form. G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ABIGAIL and (2S 17” RV) Abigal (Heb. gener- 
 ally S:3ax, 3 times S22x, once each Srna, d:238 
 ‘father is joy,’ or, perhaps, if the * be not original, 
 ‘has rejoiced.?—1. The discreet and beautiful 
 wife of Nabal the Carmelite. Hearing of her 
 husband’s dismissal of David’s messengers, and 
 refusal of their request, unknown to her husband 
 she went to meet David with provisions for him 
 and his men, and in this way so gained David’s 
 favour that he abandoned his intended raid on 
 Nabal. Some ten days after, Nabal died, and 
 subsequently Abigail becuite David’s wife: this 
 was after David’s former wife, Michal, had been 
 given to Palti, but apparently at about the same 
 time that he also married Ahinoam the Jezreelitess. 
 Together with Ahinoam, Abigail shared David’s 
 life at Gath, suffered captivity (from Ziklag) by the 
 Amalekites, and was speedily rescued; later she 
 lived with David at Hebron, and there bore a son, 
 —Chileab (2S 3?) or Daniel (1 Ch 3!) by name,—- 
 1S 25; also 273 30° 18 2 S 2? 38, 1 Ch 31. 
 
 2. A sister of Zeruiah—and according to 1 Ch 2!6 
 also of David—who through her union with Ithra 
 the Ishmaelite (see art. ITHRA) became mother of 
 Amasa. The words in 2 § 17% (wm na), which 
 assert that she was a daughter of Nahash, are 
 
 robably an intrusion from v.” (wn3 nae son of 
 Kahaah) ; cf. Wellhausen, 4./. . B. GRAY. 
 
 ABIHAIL (Heb. 3% ‘father is might’).— 
 According to the Massora the name is read Sva" 
 (with 7, not n) in 1 Ch 2% 2 Ch 118; but this is 
 probably the result of a pre-Massoretic tran- 
 
8 ABIHU 
 
 
 
 ABILENE 
 
 
 
 scriptional error. 41. Mentioned only in Nu 3 (P)in 
 
 the phrase ‘Zuriel, son of Abihail’ (see ZURIEL). 
 
 2. ‘Wife’ of Abishur, 1 Ch 2% 3. Daughter of 
 
 Eliab, son of Jesse, and consequently a niece of 
 
 David’s. The only pace (2 Ch 11!8) where she is 
 t 
 
 mentioned is slightly corrupt; but, according to 
 the most probable emendation, Abihail was the 
 mother of Rehoboam’s wife Mahalath. According 
 to another interpretation, Abihail was wife of 
 Rehoboam; but this is not the natural sense of the 
 Heb. text, and is out of harmony with the context ; 
 vy.) imply that only one wife has been mentioned. 
 4, In this case the name occurs only in 1 Ch 5%4 
 in a Gadite genealogy ; this Abihail was apparently 
 a clan resident in Gilead. 5. Father of Esther, and 
 uncle of Mordecai (Est 2% 9%), For the curious 
 variant of LXX, which gives the regular LXX 
 equivalent of Abinadab, it is difficult to account. 
 G. B. Gray. 
 ABIHU (sax ‘he is father’), second son of 
 Aaron by Elisheba (Ex 6”, Nu 3? 26%, 1 Ch 63 
 241): accompanied Moses to the top of Sinai (Ex 
 24!-%): admitted to the priest’s office (Ex 28}): 
 slain for offering strange fire (Lv 10! 2, Nu 34 26°, 
 1 Ch 24?), W. C. ALLEN. 
 
 ABIHUD (max ‘my father is majesty ’).—A 
 Benjamite, son of Bela (1 Ch 8%). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ABIJATi (72:28 ‘Jah is my father’).—1. King of 
 Judah (i72x, 2 Ch 137-7), He is called Abijam 
 (Vulg. Abiam), 1 K 14% 151-78 Nestle explains 
 this as equivalent to oyrax ‘father of the people’; 
 but since Abijah is read by thirteen of Kennicott’s 
 and de Rossi’s MSS, supported by the LXX 
 "AB.ot, Abijam is probably a mistake. As being 
 the eldest son of Maacah, the favourite wife of 
 Rehoboam, his father appointed him ‘to be chief, 
 even the prince among his brethren; for he was 
 tninded to make him king’ (2 Ch 11”). His mother’s 
 name is variously given as Maacah the daughter 
 of Abishalom (1 K 15?)(Absalom, 2 Ch 11% 2), or 
 Micaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Ch 13). 
 See MAAcAH. He reigned about two years, from 
 the eighteenth to the twentieth year of Jeroboam. 
 There is probably no reign the accounts of which 
 in Kings and Chronicles are so discrepant as that 
 of Abijah. In Kings there is nothing related of 
 him except that ‘he walked in all the sins of his 
 father,’ and that ‘there was war between Abijam 
 and Jeroboam’; and, in the history of Asa, an 
 incidental allusion to ‘things that Abijah had 
 dedicated’ for the temple. In fact, as in the case 
 of Jehoram (2 K 81%), he was spared by God 
 merely on account of the divine promise to David. 
 But in Chronicles not only is there much additional 
 historical matter, but Abijah seems to be a great 
 and good man, and he is made the utterer of a sort 
 of manifesto of the theocratic principles of Judah. 
 The desultory warfare implied in Kings becomes 
 in Chronicles one decisive pitched battle fought in 
 the territory of Ephraim, in which Abijah’s army 
 of 400,000 slay 500,000 out of the 800,000 mar- 
 shalled by Jeroboam. The battle is preceded by 
 an oration spoken on Mt. Zemaraim by Abijah. 
 After strongly affirming the divine right of the 
 Davidic line, he dwells on the previous impiety of 
 Jeroboam’s rebellion against Rehoboam when the 
 latter ‘was young and tender-hearted, and could 
 not withstand them ; and now ye think to withstand 
 the kingdom of the Lord in the hands of the sons of 
 David.’ The gods and priests of Judah and Israel are 
 sharply contrasted: ‘ Whosoever cometh to conse- 
 erate himself with a young bullock and seven rams, 
 the same may be a priest of them that are no gods.’ 
 The ceremonial of the daily worship at Jerusalem is 
 minutely described, and the loyalty of Judah to 
 
 reads like an echo of the heroic age of Israel 
 ‘Jeroboam caused an ambushment to come about 
 behind them. .. . the priests sounded with the 
 trumpets (cf. Nu 10° 31°, Jos 61°), then the men 
 of Judah gave a shout (ef. Jos 6”); and as the men 
 of Judah shouted, it came to pass that God smote 
 Jeroboam and all Israel.’ Three cities of Israel 
 were taken: Bethel, Jeshanah, and Ephron. The 
 last two are otherwise unknown, unless Ephron 
 or Ephrain (RVm) be the same as Ephraim (2 8 
 13%, Jn 1154). Bethel must soon have been re- 
 covered by Baasha (2 Ch 161). After this we are 
 told that Abijah ‘waxed mighty, and took unto 
 himself fourteen wives.’ Presumably most of his 
 thirty-eight childien were born before he came to 
 the throne. The Chronicler mentions as his au- 
 thority for this reign the commentary (Midrash) 
 of the prophet Iddo, who was also one of the 
 biographers of Rehoboam. 
 
 2. Samuel’s second son, who with his brother 
 Joel judged at Beersheba (1 S 87). Their corrupt 
 administration of justice was one of the reasons 
 alleged by the elders of Israel in justification of 
 their demand for a king. The RV retains the 
 spelling Abiah in 1 Ch 6%, 
 
 8. A son of Jeroboam I. who died in childhood. 
 His mother having gone disguised to the prophet 
 Ahijah to inquire if he should recover, received the 
 heavy tidings of the future annihilation of the 
 house of Jeroboam, and of the immediate death of 
 her child, ‘taken away from the evil to come’: 
 ‘ And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him ; 
 for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, 
 because in him there is found some good thin 
 toward the Lorp the God of Israel in the house of 
 Jeroboam’ (1 K 14'8), 
 
 4. 1 Ch 24! One of the ‘heads of fathers’ 
 houses’ of the sons of Eleazar, who gave his name 
 to the 8th of the 24 courses of priests, the arrange- 
 ment of whom is ascribed to David (1 Ch 24%, 
 2 Ch 84). To this course Zacharias, the father 
 of John the Baptist, belonged (Lk 1°). It is 
 
 robable that this clan, and not an individual, is 
 indicated in the lists of priests who ‘ went up with 
 Zerubbabel’ (Neh 124). LX X omits this and other 
 names in Neh 12 (they are supplied by x**-), and in 
 the list of priests who ‘ sealed unto the covenant’ in 
 the time of Nehemiah (107) (ABed, B, x). Of the 
 21 names in Neh 10, 13 occur in nearly the same 
 order in a list of 22in ch. 12, while three others are 
 very similar; and of the names in these two lists 
 9 are found in the names of David’s courses. On 
 the other hand, ‘the book of the genealogy of 
 them that came up at the first’ (Neh 7, Ezr 2) 
 mentions only four fainilies of priests, nor do there 
 seem to have been more in the time of Ezr (1018-4), 
 
 5. A son of Becher, son of Benjamin, 1 Ch 78. 
 
 6. RV retains ‘Abiah,’ 1 Ch 2% Wife of 
 Hezron, eldest son of Perez, son of Judah. She 
 was probably dauvhter of Machir (2?}). 
 
 7. Wife of Alhaz, and mother of Hezekiah 
 (2 Ch 291), named Abi, 2 K 18% Her father 
 Zechariah is possibly mentioned in Is 8?, 
 
 N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 ABIJAM.—See ABIJAH. 
 
 ABILENE (ABA7nr}), Lk 3}.—A tetrarchy about 
 A.D. 26 in Syria (Jos. Ant. XVII. vi. 10, XIX. v. 1, 
 XxX. vii. 1; Wars, 0. xi. 5), the cap. being at Abila 
 on the N. slope of Hermon. The ruins of Abila 
 surround a small village on the right bank of the 
 river at Sik Wdady Barada, ‘the market of the 
 valley of the Abana River.’ The name has given 
 rise to a local tradition (based on the Koran) that 
 Cain here buried Abel, whose tomb is shown at a 
 large tank cut in the rock on the top of a cliff to 
 the south. It is also preserved in the Latin text 
 
 J’ is twice aftirmed. The battle which follows | of Lucias Verus, on the N. side of the rock-cut 
 
 
 
co 
 
 ABILITY 
 
 eee Se KS=Si ee ee 
 
 ABIMELECH 9 
 
 
 
 passage of the Rom. road W. of the town. The 
 region of Abilene is also noticed in a Gr. text 
 found in 1873 at Burkush on Hermon, showin: 
 that the district included the Antilebanon an 
 Hermon, N.W. of Damascus. There is a ceme- 
 tery at Abila of Rom. rock-cut tombs on the left 
 of the stream, which here forms a cascade. They 
 are adorned with bas-relief busts, and there are 
 several tombstones with Gr. texts, giving the names 
 of Lucius, Archelaus, Phedistus, Antonia, and 
 Philander. N. of the river and E. of the town are 
 oundations of a small Rom. temple. 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 ABILITY.—Both in OT and NT ability occurs 
 in two senses, which must be distinguished. 1. It 
 signifies material capacity, resources, wealth, as 
 Ezr 2 ‘They gave after their a. (Heb. ‘acc. as 
 his hand may reach’) into the treasury’; Lv 278 
 ‘ According to the a. of him that vowed shall the 
 priest value him.’ Cf. LXX of Lv 25%” with Ac 
 11” below ; and 
 
 ‘Out of my lean and low ability 
 
 I'll lend you something.’ 
 
 —Shakespeare, 7. N. iii. 4. 
 This is the meaning also of Aw 11” ‘Then the 
 disciples, every man according to his a., deter- 
 mined to send relief unto the brethren,’ though 
 the original is a verb, xa0ws evropetré 71s, meaning 
 ‘ace. as each prospered.’ 2. It signifies personal 
 capacity, strength of body or of mind. Thus 
 Dn 1 ‘Such as had a. (05) in them to stand in 
 the king’s palace’; Mt 25% ‘He gave talents... 
 to every man according to his several a. (dvvapts).’ 
 So Wis 13, Sir 3! AVm. In modern Eng. a. is 
 almost confined to mental capacity, though one 
 hears it locally used of physical strength. In 
 the sense of wealth the latest example found is 
 in Goldsmith’s Vicar of Wakefield. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABIMAEL (>xp'3x, perhaps = ‘father is God,’ 
 but the force of the D is uncertain) was one of the 
 Joktanids or (S.) Arabians (see art. JOKTAN), 
 Gn 10% (J), 1 Ch 1%. Nothing further is known 
 of this tribe, but it is markworthy that another 
 name of the same pues formation, viz. hyo», 
 has been found on the S. Arabian inscriptions ; see 
 D. H. Miiller in ZDMG 1883, p. 18. c 
 
 RAY. 
 
 G. B. 
 ABIMELECH (3)>3x ‘Melech [Malki or Molech] 
 is father’).—1. A king of Gerar mentioned in con- 
 nexion with the history of Abraham, Gn 20!-!7 
 2172-82 (both E), and of Isaac, Gn 267-4) 4-83 (both J). 
 With all their points of difference, it appears im- 
 possible to resist the conclusion that we have in J 
 and E two variants of the same story. In both the 
 patriarch resorts to the same method of defence to 
 ae himself from the same danger (20? 267); in 
 th A. is righteously indignant at the deceit 
 practised upon him (20°: 26") ; in both a treaty is 
 entered into with A. (21%! 2678-); in both Phicol 
 (214 265) and Beersheba (215? 26*) are mentioned. 
 In all probability J has preserved the earlier form 
 of the tradition, acc. to which Isaac, and not 
 Abraham, was the patriarch concerned. The 
 arallel story in Gn 121-2 (where Pharaoh of 
 gypt takes the place of A. of Gerar) is also from 
 a Jahwistic source, but scarcely from the same 
 en as 267" If the title J! be adopted for the 
 atter, we may designate the other J?, whether we 
 accept or not of Kuenen’s theory that he edited a 
 Judean recension of J. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Comm, of Dillm. and Del. on Gen. 
 Cornill, Hinleit.2 64f.; Wildeboer, Lit. d. A.T. 
 
 UU. ctt.3 
 78, 138; 
 
 Kautzsch u. Socin, Genesis; W. R. Smith, OTC? 416. Kuenen, 
 Hexateuch, 234, 252. 
 
 2. A king of Gath ace. to title of Ps 341. Here 
 A. is possibly a mistake for Achish (cf. 1 S 214), 
 a better known Phil. name being substituted for a 
 less familiar one, or it may be that Abimelech is 
 less a personal name than a title of Phil. kings like 
 Egyp. Pharaoh (see Oxf. Heb. Lew. s.v.). 
 
 3. This A. is generally reckoned one of the 
 judges (so in Jg 10!, but probably not by editor of 
 9norin1§ 12"). Acc. to Jg 8! (R) he was a son 
 of Gideon by a Shechemite concubine. Upon his 
 father’s death he gained over ‘his mother’s 
 brethren’ in Shechem, and with the aid of a hired 
 troop of ‘vain and light fellows’ murdered all bis 
 70 brothers except the youngest, Jotham, wl.o con- 
 trived to escape. A. then ascended the throne 
 and assumed the kingly title (9!-*). Jotham, leav- 
 ing his place of concealment, spoke at Mt. Gerizim 
 his well-known parable (vv.7-"), which was calcu- 
 lated to sow dissension amongst the Shechemites, 
 who were partly of Can. and partly of Isr. blood. 
 After three years both sections were weary of 
 the rule of A., who seems to have taken up his 
 residence elsewhere (vv.?2-%), Gaal, the leader 
 of the Israelite faction (see, however, Moore on 
 Jg 9%), made such headway in Shechem that 
 Zebul, the governor, an adherent of A., was 
 obliged to feign compliance with his designs. All 
 the while, however, he was keeping A. secretly 
 informed of the revolutionary movement, and sug- 
 gesting methods of checking it (vv.2**), At length 
 A. advanced to attack the city, and Gaal was 
 ceo. routed, and after his defeat expelled 
 by Zebul (vv.* #1). In a second day’s fight A. 
 captured Shechem and put to the sword all the 
 inhabitants that fell into his hands. A number 
 having taken refuge in the temple of El-berith, 
 he burned the building over their heads (vv.““*). 
 Sometime afterwards A. met his death while 
 besieging Thebez. Being struck down by a 
 millstone which a woman flung from the wall, he 
 ordered his armour-bearer to kill him in order to 
 escape the disgrace of perishing by the hand of a 
 woman (vv.%-57), 
 
 The above is a reasonable and in general self- 
 consistent narrative, but there are not a few points 
 of detail where the course of events is involved in 
 considerable obscurity. Zebul upon any theory 
 plays a double part, but it is not quite certain 
 whether there was to the last a complete under- 
 standing between him and A. Kittel thinks there 
 was, and supposes that Z. was put to death by the 
 Shechemites after they discovered his treachery. 
 Wellhausen, on the contrary, believes that he per- 
 ished along with the Shechemites, A. having come 
 to regard him as the real instigator of the revolt, 
 and refusing to be propitiated by the offering of 
 Gaal as a scape-goat. It is further doubtful 
 whether A. himself acted in the interests of the 
 Can. or of the Isr., but at all events Wellhausen 
 rightly remarks that ‘the one permanent fruit of 
 his activity was that Shechem was destroyed as a 
 Can. city and rebuilt for Israel’ (cf. 1 K 12%). 
 
 The story of A. in Jg 9 is the natural sequel of 
 the version of Gideon’s hist. contained in 8*-*" (note 
 also how the sentiments of Jotham’s parable agree 
 with 8-2, unless, indeed, these latter two verses 
 are an 8th cent. interpolation). The narrative is 
 one of the oldest in or belonging to the same tyre 
 as the narratives concerning the minor judges. It 
 is free from Deuter. touches and turns of expression, 
 and may in its present form date from the earliest 
 
 ears of the monarchy. Its purpose is to show 
 how the murder of Gideon’s sons was avenged on 
 A. and the Shechemites, who were practically his 
 accomplices (9°, cf. vv.% 1*%4), Budde attributes 
 the preservation of the story to E, who, however, 
 
10 ABINADAB 
 
 himself composed the Jotham parable. Moore 
 considers that it is possible to disentangle two 
 narratives, (A) vv.22-2 42-45. 56f., coonate with which 
 are vv.}-2, (B) vv.%-41, The first of these he would 
 assign to E, the second to J. ‘lis scheme has the 
 advantage of removing a good many difficulties 
 presented by the chapter in its present form. 
 
 LitsRATURE.—Cornill, Hinleit.2 56; Wildeboer, Lit. d. A.T. 
 83, 82, 232; Driver, LO7'157 ; Wellhausen, Comp. d. Hew. 227 ff., 
 353 ff.; Budde, Richt. u. Sam. 117ff.; Kittel, Hist. of Heb. ii. 
 13 n., 18 n., 82 n., 85 ff.; Moore, Judges, 237 ff. 
 
 4. A priest, the son of Abiathar, acc. to 1 Ch 
 1816, where, however, the reading of MT. ‘ Abime- 
 lech the son of Abiathar,’ is obviously a mistake 
 for ‘Abiathar the son of Ahimelech’ (cf. 28 8!7 and 
 notes on it by Budde in Haupt’s Sacred Bhs. of OT, 
 and by Kittel in Kautzsch’s A.7.). See ABIATHAR. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ABINADAB (:7y2x ‘father is generous’; LXX 
 always ’Apewaddp (A 'Awvaddf), except at 1 S 31, 
 where B (but not A) reads ’Iwvaddg).—1. Owner of 
 the house whither the ark was brought by the 
 men of Kirjath-jearim after the catastrophe at 
 Beth-Shemesh (1 8 71), whence it was subsequently 
 removed by David, 2S 6%, 1 Ch 137. During 
 its stay here it was kept by Eleazar, son of 
 Abinadab. 2. The second son of Jesse, specially 
 mentioned in the narrative of 1 S 16 as not being 
 the elect of J” for the kingdom. He accom- 
 panied his brothers Eliab and Shammah to join 
 Saul’s army against the Philistines—1 S 16° 17%, 
 1 Ch 23, 3, A son of Saul slain in the battle of 
 Mt. Gilboa, 1 S 31?=1 Ch 10%, Otherwise men- 
 tioned only in the genealogies of Chronicles, 1 Ch 
 8 93, But cf. art. IsHvi. 4. On Abinadab in 
 1 K 44 (AV, not RV), see BEN-ABINADAB. 
 
 G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ABINOAM (oy!ax ‘father is pleasantness’), the 
 father of Barak, is mentioned both in the song 
 
 (Jg 5!) and the prose narrative (Jg 4°") of the 
 campaign of Barak and Deborah against the 
 
 G. B. GRay. 
 
 ABIRAM (o7'38 ‘ my father is the Exalted One’). 
 —1. The son of Eliab, a Reubenite, who with 
 Dathan (which see) conspired against Moses 
 (Nu 16!¢%, Dt 115, Ps 106”). 2. The firstborn 
 son of Hiel the Bethelite, on whom the curse 
 fell for rebuilding Jericho (1 K 16*). 
 
 G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY. 
 
 ABISHAG (3y'38, meaning uncertain; possibly 
 ‘father has wandered ’).—A very beautif oun 
 Shunammitess who was brought to comfort Davi 
 in his extreme old age, according to the advice of 
 his servants, 1 K 127% After David’s death, 
 Abishag, as his father’s widow, was asked in 
 marriage by Adonijah; the request was refused 
 by Solomon, who appears to have seen in it a 
 renewal of Adonijah’s claim to the throne, 1 
 K 212-4; cf. W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, 
 p. 898. G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ABISHAYI (wx, but wax 2 8 10%, 1 Ch 2'6 11” 
 1812 1911-15 « My father is Jesse’).—A. appears from 
 1 Ch 2! to have been the eldest son of Zeruiah, 
 David’s sister. More impetuous than the craft 
 Joab, but equally implacable, ‘hard’ (2S 3% 19”), 
 the first mention of Abishai (1 S 26°) presents him 
 to us as already one of the most daring and devoted 
 of David’s followers. He ’volunteers to go down 
 with David to Saul’s camp by night, and is onl 
 prevented by David’s veneration for the king’s 
 sacred office from smiting Saul ‘to the earth at one 
 stroke,’ We next find him (2 § 2! *) with his 
 two brothers at that battle of Gibeon which had 
 such fatal results, first to Asahel, and ultimately 
 to Abner, in whose treacherous murder by Joab, 
 Abishai shared as joint avenger of blood (2 S 
 
 Canaanites. 
 
 ABNER 
 
 35-89), The victory in the ‘Valley of Salt over 
 Edom (ef. 2 K 147), which is ascribed to David in 
 2 S 8 (Syrians), and to Joab in Ps 60 title 
 (1 K 115-16), is attributed to Abishai in 1 Ch 18”. 
 In the war that was caused by Hanun’s insult te 
 David’s envoys, Joab gave Abishai command of 
 the second division against the Ammonites, while 
 he himself opposed the Syrians (2 S 1014), 
 Abishai’s character is well brought out in the story 
 of David’s flight, when he retorts the abuse of 
 Shimei in true Oriental style, and is impatient 
 to slay the offender at once (2S 16%). Nor could 
 Shimei’s subsequent abject submission induce 
 Abishai to forgive the man that had ‘cursed the 
 Lord’s anointed’ (197). In the battle with 
 
 Absalom, Abishai shared the command of David’s. 
 
 army with Joab and Ittai (18%5 4), In 28 208 
 the name Joab should probably be substituted 
 for that of Abishai (so Jos. Ané. VII. xi. 6, the 
 Syr. vers., Wellhausen, Thenius, and Driver), and 
 v.’ read as in the LXX: ‘And there went out 
 after him Abishai and Joab’s men,’ ete. It is 
 natural to suppose that Abishai connived at the 
 murder of Amasa by Joab, 2S 20” (so Josephus). 
 His special exploits were, rescuing David from 
 Ishbi-benob, 2 S 21", and slaying three hundred 
 men, 23% These feats earned for him the first 
 lace ‘of the three in the second rank’ (1 Ch 117, 
 RVm), the other two being probably Joab and 
 Benaiah ; the first three being Jashobeam, Eleazar, 
 and Shammah. 
 
 Abishai probably died before the rebellion of 
 Adonijah. If he had been alive, he must have been 
 mentioned among the leaders of either side. 
 
 N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 ABISHALOM.—See art. ABSALOM. 
 
 ABISHUA (}x2'28, meaning uncertain; perhaps 
 ‘father is wealth.’—1. According to the genealo- 
 gies of Chron., where alone the name occurs, 
 son of Phinehas and father of Bukki, 1 Ch 6*-5, 
 Ezr 75; cf. 1 Es 8? and art. ABISUE. 2. A Ben- 
 jamite ; presumably the name was that of a clan, 
 since other names in the context are certainly clan 
 names, 1 Ch 84; cf. Nu 26%, G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ABISHUR (72x ‘father is a wall’).—A Jerah- 
 meelite described as ‘son’ of Shammai; Abihail 
 was his wife, and Ahban and Molid his children 
 (1 Ch 22-), 
 
 ABISSEI (AV Abisei).—One of the ancestors of 
 Ezra (2 Es 17), called in 1 Ch 6* ABISHUA, and in 
 1 Es 8? ABISUE. 
 
 ABISUE (LXX, B ’ABewal, A ’ABicoval) 1 Es 8?, 
 AY Abisum, is identical with Abishua. 
 
 ABITAL (Sy2x ‘father is dew’), wife of David, 
 to whom, during his residence in Hebron, she 
 bore Shephatiah, 2S 34=1 Ch 3°, 
 
 ABITUB (2:2), 1 Ch 84, and ABIUD (’Afiovs), 
 Mt 1%, See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ABJECT, now only an adj., was formerly also 
 a subst. and a verb. As a subst., meaning the 
 dregs of the people, abject is found in Ps 35” 
 ‘The abjects (c'>3, RVm ‘smiters’) gathered them- 
 selves together against me.’ Cf. T. Bentley (1582), 
 ‘O Almightie God: which raisest up the abjects, 
 and exaltest the miserable from the dunghill,’ 
 Monu. Matr. iii. 328; G. Herbert, ‘Servants and 
 abjects flout me,’ Temple : Sacrifice, 36. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABNER, ¥28 (y2x 1S 14%), ‘my father ia 
 Ner,’ or ‘is a lamp.’ Saul’s first cousin, accord- 
 ing to 1 S 14-51 (the more probable account), 
 
 
 
 1 
 ] 
 4 
 
 
 
ABNER 
 
 ABOMINATION 1] 
 
 
 
 but uncle according to 1. Ch 8-5 935-39, Jos, 
 follows Chronicles in Ant. VI. iv. 3, but Samuel in 
 vi. vi. 6. The language used of him by David, 
 * Art not thou a valiant man, and who is like to 
 thee in Israel?’ (1 S 26%); ‘Know ye not that 
 there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in 
 Israel?’ (2S 3%), is not inconsistent with the re- 
 corded facts of Abner’s life, although the one 
 speech was uttered in a tone of banter, and the 
 other possibly dictated by motives of policy. As 
 captain of the host (1 S 14° 175), Abner sat next 
 Saul at the banquet (1 S 20”), and lay near him in 
 the camp (26-7), A Jewish tradition (Jerome, Qu. 
 Heb. in loc.) states that the witch of Endor was 
 Abner’s mother. On Saul’s death Abner secured 
 for Ishbosheth the allegiance of all the tribes 
 except Judah (2 S 2°), He placed the feeble 
 king at Mahanaim, while he himself conducted the 
 war with David west of Jordan. One of the 
 battles—that of the pool of Gibeon—is detailed on 
 account of its fatal results. Here we have evidence 
 of Abner’s comparative mildness of character. It 
 is possible that the preliminary encounter of the 
 champions of the two armies was suggested by him 
 in order to decide the claims of the rival houses 
 without unnecessary bloodshed. Then we have 
 his reiterated reluctance to slay Asahel, and, finally, 
 his protest against-the unnaturalness of the war: 
 ‘Shall the sword devour for ever? . . . How long 
 shall it be ere thou bid the people return from 
 following their brethren ?’ 
 
 As the war proceeded in David’s favour ‘ Abner 
 made himself strong in the house of Saul’ (2S 3°). 
 This rendering lends some plausibility to Ishbosh- 
 eth’s insinuation that he was aiming at the 
 crown by a liaison with the late king’s concubine 
 (cf. 2 5 128 167, 1 K 238%), The indignation, 
 however, with which Abner repelled the charge, 
 and the absence of self-seeking in his eet ea 
 conduct, support the paraphrase of AV and RVm, 
 ‘showed himself strong for (2) the house of Saul.’ 
 
 Be that as it may, the accusation alienated 
 Abner, who forthwith declared that he would 
 accomplish Js will by making David king over 
 all Israel. He entered at once into negotia- 
 tions both with David and the elders of Israel and 
 ‘Benjamin. David, on his part, astutely demanded 
 as a preliminary the restitution of Michal, who 
 would be at once a link with the house of Saul 
 and a living memorial of David’s early prowess. 
 Ishbosheth’s shadowy authority was made use of 
 to carry out this condition. Abner was now 
 hospitably entertained by David at Hebron, and 
 hed scarcely departed to fulfil his engagements to 
 David when Joab returned from a foray. Asahel’s 
 death was still unavenged; here was a plausible 
 pretext for ridding himself of a dangerous rival; 
 so Joab secretly recalled Abner, and with the 
 connivance of Abishai treacherously murdered him 
 in the gate of Hebron, a city of refuge. The 
 enormity of this crime called forth from David a 
 bitter curse (2 S 3”) on the Bet ghar and was 
 never forgotten by him (1 82), Abner was 
 buried in Hebron, amidst the lamentations of the 
 nation. The king himself acted as chief mourner, 
 and honoured the dead warrior with an elegy which 
 pithily expresses the strange irony of fate by which 
 the princely Abner died a death suitable to a pro- 
 fane and worthless man. (Heb. ‘ was A. to die [t.e. 
 ought he to have died] as Nabal dieth?’) The dismay 
 caused by Abner’s death (2 S 4!) seems to prove 
 that neither Ishbosheth nor his subjects in general 
 had realised Abner’s defection. he inevitable 
 crisis was hastened, and by a curious shance the 
 head of the murdered Ishbosheth was buried in 
 Abner’s grave (2 S 41). We learn from the 
 Chronicler that Abner dedicated certain spoil for 
 the repairs of the tabernacle (1 Ch 2678), and that 
 
 his son Jaasiel was captain of Benjamin in David’s 
 reign (1 Ch 2774), N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 ABODE.—1. The past tense of ABIDE (which 
 see). 2. In Jn 14% (‘ We will come unto him, and 
 make our abode with him’) a. is tr. of the same 
 word (0v}) which in Jn 14? is rendered MANSION 
 (which see). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABOMINATION.—Four separate Heb. words 
 are thus rendered in OT (sometimes with the 
 variation abominable thing), the application of 
 which is in many respects very different. (1) The 
 commonest of these words is 73y\n, which expresses 
 most generally the idea of something loathed (cf. 
 the verb, Mic 3°), esp. on religious grounds: thus 
 Gn 43° ‘to eat food with the Hebrews is an 
 abomination to the Egyptians,’—a strong ex- 
 
 ression of the exclusiveness with which the 
 
 gyptians viewed foreigners, esp. such as had no 
 regard for their religious scruples; thus, on 
 account of their veneration for the cow (which was 
 sacred to Isis), they would not use the knife or 
 cooking utensil of a Greek, which might have been 
 ee abe in preparing the flesh of a cow as food 
 (Hdt. ii. 41); Gn 46% ‘every shepherd is an 
 abomination to the Egyptians,’—shepherds, viz., 
 were ranked, it seems, with the Bovxdr0x, whose 
 occupation was deemed a degrading one, who from 
 living with their herds in reed cottages on the 
 marshes were called marshmen, and who are 
 depicted on the monuments as dirty, unshaven, 
 py. clad, and even as dwarfs and deformed (cf. 
 
 el. ad loc.; Birch-Wilkinson, Anc, Eg. 1878, i. 
 288 f., ii. 444; Wiedemann, Herodots zweites Buch, 
 1890, p. 371 f.; Erman, Life in Anc. Eg. p. 439); 
 Ex 8” (6) the Israelites are represented as unwilling 
 to sacrifice ‘the abomination of the Egyptians’ in 
 Egypt itself, with allusion, probably, to animals 
 which the Egyptians abstained religiously from 
 sacrificing, though they were sacrificed freely by 
 the Hebrews, as the cow, which was sacred to Isis, 
 the bull, unless it was pronounced by the priests to 
 be xa@apés, or free from the sacred marks of Apis 
 (Herodotus’ statements on this point are not 
 entirely borne out by the monuments, but there 
 seems to be some foundation for them), sheep at 
 Thebes, and goats [according to Wiedemann, ap 
 error for rams] in Mendes (Hat. ii. 38, 41, 42, 46, 
 ef. Birch-Wilk. ii. 460, iii. 108 f., 304 f.; Wiede- 
 mann, /.c. pp. 180-182, 183, 187 f., 196 f., 218 f.). 
 
 Two special usages may be noted : (a) the phrase 
 Jehovah's abomination, of idolatry or practices 
 connected with it, or of characters or acts morall 
 displeasing to God, Dt 7% 12%! 17! 1812 295 9319 (18) 
 25 2715 (cf. 244, Lk 1615), Pr 3°? 111-2 1273 158 9. 28 
 16° 1735 201 33 (comp. in a Pheen. inscription, ap. 
 Driver, Samuel, p. xxvi, the expression ‘‘Ash- 
 toreth’s abomination,’ of the violation of a tomb) ; 
 (6) esp. in the plur., of heathen or immoral 
 practices, principally in H and Ezk, as Lv 1822 %- 27. 
 
 - 80 9013, Dt 13% 04) 174 18% 12.9018, Jer 71° 39%, 1 K 
 14%, 2 K 163 2121, Ezk §% 11 78 4.8.9 gs. 18.18 ete, (43 
 times in Ezk), rarely of an actual idol, 2 K 2338 (of 
 Milcom), Is 44°, and perhaps Dt 321*, 
 
 (2) dp, the technical term for stale sacrificial 
 flesh, which has not been eaten within the pre- 
 scribed time, only Lv 78 19’, Ezk 44 (where the 
 prophet protests that he has never partaken of it), 
 and (plur.) Is 654. For distinction this might be 
 rendered refuse meat; the force of the allusion in 
 Ezk 4", Is 654, in particular, is entirely lost by the 
 rendering ‘ abominable thing’ of AV, RY. 
 
 (3) yay, the technical term for the flesh of pro- 
 hibited animals (see article UNCLEAN), Lv 72 
 1] 10-18. 20. 28. 41. 42 (cf, the corresponding verb, v.14 1% 4 
 20%): this sense of the word gives the point to 
 Ezk 8, Is 66". yey would be best represented by 
 
12 ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION 
 
 ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION 
 
 
 
 detestation, or detestable thing (cf. detest for the 
 verb, Dt 775). Note that in Dt 14° abomination is 
 agyin, not the technical ypy used in Lv 11. 
 
 (4) pv, allied in etymology to (3), but in usage 
 confined almost exclusively to objects connected with 
 idolatry, and chiefly a contemptuous designation 
 of heathen deities themselves: first in Hos 9!° ‘and 
 became detestations like that which they loved’ (Baal 
 of Peor, named just before); more frequently in 
 writers of the age of Jer and Ezk, viz. Dt 2916 (9, 
 Jer 4) 7% (=32*4) 1377 1618, Ezk 512 7% 1118-21 207. 8 30 
 3733, 1 K 115‘ Milcom the detestation of the Ammon- 
 ites,’ v.77, 2 K 23-18 (not of Milcom), v.%; also 
 Is 663, Zec 9%. In AV, RV, where this word 
 occurs beside nzyin (No. 1), as Ezk 54 7” (and Ezk 
 373, even where it stands alone), it is rendered for 
 distinction detestable thing; and either this or 
 detestation would be the most suitable Eng. 
 equivalent for it. 8. R. DRIVER. 
 
 ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION, THE (7d 
 
 éduvyya rhs épyudcews), Mt 245 Mk 134, 
 ‘spoken of by Daniel the prophet,’ the appearance 
 of which, ‘standing év rérw ayly (Mt), or d:ov ob 
 det (Mk),’ is mentioned by Christ as the signal for 
 the flight of Christians from Judza, at the time of 
 the approaching destruction of Jerus. The Gr. 
 phrase is borrowed from Dn 9” LXX BééAvypye tov 
 épnuwocewe (so Theod.), 11! LXX Bdédrvyya 
 épnudoews (Theod. Bd. jparccpuévov), 124 LXX 7d 
 
 dédvypa ris éonudcews (Theod. 6. ép.) ; cf. 83 (LXX, 
 
 heod.) 4 dyapria épnuwoews. The Heb. in the first 
 of these passages 13 DP’ o'yipy, in the second pipyn 
 ppwp, in the third on’ ppy, in the last ope yon. 
 yey is the word explained under ABOMINATION (4), 
 as being often the contemptuous designation of a 
 heathen god or idol. opm and op are, however, 
 difficult. opm elsewhere (only Ezr 9-4) means 
 horrified ; op¥ means usually desolate (as La 1* 16), 
 though it might also (as ec of oy, Ezk 2616 27% 
 al.) mean horrified as well; in Dn, however 
 (supposing the text to be sound), the exigencies of 
 the sense have obliged many commentators to sup- 
 
 ose that the Poel conjug. has a trans. force ; hence 
 
 V 9% ‘one that maketh desolate’; 1134 ‘and they 
 shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and 
 shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and 
 they shall set up the abomination that maketh 
 desolate’; 12" ‘from the time that the continual 
 burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the 
 abomination that maketh desolate set up’; so 8% 
 op’ ywen‘the transgression that maketh desolate’ (the 
 form op¥ might just be a ptcp. Poel with the p 
 dropped ; Ges.-K. §§ 55 R. 1, 52. 2 R. 6). In spite, 
 however, of the uncertainty as regards cow (or 
 nown), the general sense of 11°! and 12” is clear. 
 Dn 112 deals with the history of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, and v.*! refers to the desecration of the 
 temple by the troops of Antiochus, the subsequent 
 suspension of the daily burnt-offering and other 
 religious scrvices (which lasted for three years), 
 and ‘to the erection on 15 Chisley, B.c. 168, of a 
 small idol-altar (Swuts) upon the Altar of burnt- 
 offering (1 Mac 1-5), 124 (like 8%) is another 
 reference to the same events. It is remarkable, 
 now, that in 1 Mac 1 the idol-altar is called by 
 exactly the same name that is used in the Bk. 
 of Dn—gxodduncav Bddd\uyya épnuwoews emt rd 
 Ovo.acrhpiov (cf. 67). Dn 9% is very difficult: but, 
 as the reference in NT is rather to 11%! and 12", 
 it need not here be further considered; LXX, 
 Theod., however, it may be noted, have xal émt 7d 
 lepdv BdéAvypa T&v épnudcewv. Of the perplexing 
 expression ooy pip, now, a clever and plausible 
 explanation has been suggested by Nestle (ZATW 
 1884, p. 248; cf. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 
 105; Bevan, Dan. p. 193), viz. that it is a con- 
 temptuous allusion to o'pw bya Baal of heaven, a 
 
 title found often in Phen. and (with }’oe for o'op) 
 Aram. inscriptions, and the Sem. equivalent of 
 the Gr. Zevs: according to 2 Mac 6? Antiochus 
 desired to make the temple a sanctuary of Zeds 
 ’Odvprrvos,—as his coins show (Nestle, Marginalien, 
 p. 42, who cites Babelon, Les Rois de Syrie, pp. xiv, 
 xlviii), his patron deity,—who in the Syr. vers. of 
 the same ea is actually called pow ya Baal of 
 heaven. Upon this view, we are released from the 
 necessity of searching for a meaning of ope in 
 exact accordance with the context; the Bwybs 
 (with, possibly, an image connected with it) erected 
 by the Syrians upon the Altar of burnt-offering 
 was termed derisively by the Jews the ‘desolate 
 abomination,’ the ‘abomination’ being the altar 
 (and image?) of Zeus (Baal), and ‘desolate’ 
 (shémém) being just a punning variation of 
 ‘heaven’ (shamaim). The Gr. trs. of Dn and 1 Mac, 
 in so far as they supposed the expression to mean 
 Bodvypa épnuwoews, ne doubt understood the 
 idolatrous emblem to involve, by its erection, the 
 desertion of the temple by its usual worshippers, 
 and ultimately its actual ‘desolation’ (see 1 Mac 
 4°), 11%! and 8 (the subst. with the art., the 
 ptep. without it), and still more (if, as is probable, 
 the reference be to the same idolatrous emblem) 
 97" (the subst. plur., the ptep. sing. ), are grammatic- 
 ally difficult ; but the text in these passages is 
 perhaps not in its original form (cf. Bevan). 
 
 As to the meaning of the expression in the 
 prophecy of Christ, it is very difficult to speak with 
 confidence. It would be most naturally under- 
 stood (cf. Spitta, Ofenb. des Joh. 493-496) of some 
 desecrating emblem, similar in general character to 
 the altar or image erected by Antiochus, and of 
 which that might be regarded as the prototype: 
 but nothing exactly corresponding to this is 
 recorded by history; the order which Caligula 
 issued for the erection in the temple of a statue of 
 himself, to which divine honours were to be paid, 
 being not enforced (Jos. Ant. XVII. viii. 8). The 
 three most usual explanations are—(1) the Rom. 
 standards, to which sacrifices were offered by tha 
 Rom. soldiers in the temple, after it had been 
 entered by Titus (Jos. BJ VI. vi. 1) ; (2) the desecra- 
 tion of the temple by the Zealots, who seized it and 
 made it their stronghold, shortly before the city 
 was invested by Titus (id. Iv. iii. 6-8, cf. vi. 3 end); 
 (3) the desolation of the temple-site by the heathen, 
 at the time of its capture by Titus (so Meyer). 
 The term standing (which points to some concrete 
 object) is a serious objection to the second 
 and third of these explanted it is some 
 objection, though not perhaps a fatal one, to the 
 first, that it places the signal for flight at the very 
 last stage of the enemy’s successes, when even the 
 dwellers in Juda (in view of whom the words are 
 spoken) would seem no longer to need the warning. 
 
 he erection of the imperial statue in the Temple 
 was, however, only averted in the first instance 
 by the earnest Ayia of the procurator 
 Petronius and of King Agrip a I., and afterwards 
 by Caligula’s own untime cath (Schiirer, HJP 
 I. ii. 99f.): the emperor's order caused great 
 alarm among the Jews, who even after his death 
 (A.D. 41) continued to fear lest one of his successors 
 should revive and enforce it (Pfleiderer, Das 
 Urchrist. pp. 403-407; Mommsen, Provinces, ii. 
 196 ff., 203 ff.) ; hence (as even the first explanation 
 mentioned above leaves something to be desired) 
 it may not be an unreasonable conjecture * that 
 the language of the original prophecy was more 
 general, and that, during the years of agitation and 
 tension which preceded the final struggle of A.D. 
 70, it was modified so as to give more definite 
 expression to such apprehensions; the masc. 
 
 * The writer is indebted for this suggestion to his friend, Prof 
 Sanday. 
 
ABOUT 
 
 ABRAHAM 13 
 
 
 
 éornxéra, Which in Mk 13! is the best reading (x 
 BL; so RV, ‘standing where he ought not’), would 
 also lend itself more readily to this explanation 
 than to any of those previously mentioned.* The 
 supposition (Weiss) that the army of the heathen 
 Romans is referred to, involves an unnatural 
 application, both of the expression ‘ abomination of 
 desolation,’ and of the verb ‘standing.’ In the 
 parallel passage of Lk (212°) the phraseology of the 
 earlier synoptists seems to have been not only (as 
 in so many other cases) re-cast, but also coloured 
 by the event (‘when ye see Jerus. encircled by 
 armies, then know that her desolation hath drawn 
 nigh’) ; a paraphrase such as this, however, cannot 
 fairly be deemed an authoritative interpretation of 
 the expression used in Mt and Mk.+ 
 S. R. DRIVER. 
 
 ABOUT.—As an adv. about is used in AV in 
 the following obsolete expressions: —1. To lead 
 about or go about = roam about, circuitously. 
 The verb is mostly 232, which simply means to 
 ‘turn’: Ex 1318 ‘God led the people about, 
 through the way of the wilderness’ ; Jos 16° ‘ The 
 border went about (RV ‘ turned about’) eastward ; 
 1S 154 ‘He set him up a place, and is gone about 
 and passed on’; Ec 2”) ‘J went about (RV 
 ‘turned about,’ 7.e. considered my past life) to 
 cause my heart to despair.’ 2. To go about = here 
 and there, up and down: Jer. 31” ‘ How long wilt 
 thou go about (RV ‘hither and thither’), O thou 
 backsliding daughter?’ 3. To go about = to seek, 
 attempt: Jn 719 ‘Why go ye about to kill Me?’ 
 RV gives ‘seek’ in Jn 71% 2, Ac 2131, Ro 108, 
 ‘assay’ in Ac 24° 2621, and keeps ‘go about’ in 
 Ac 92, 4, To cast about=to turn round: Jer 4114, 
 ‘So all the people . . . cast about and returned.’ 
 5, Thereabout = about that: Lk 244 ‘They were 
 much perplexed thereabout.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ** KBRAHAM.—The narrative of the patriarch 
 Abraham is contained in Gn 115-2518, and, as it 
 stands before us, consists of a series of con- 
 secutive stories or scenes from the patriarch’s 
 life. It make no pretence of being a complete 
 biography. It may be doubted whether the 
 compiler of the Hex. had any intention of pre- 
 serving all the extant traditions respecting A. 
 His purpose seems rather to have been to select 
 from the traditions current among the Hebrews 
 such narratives as would best illustrate the origin 
 of the Isr. nation, and would best set forth how 
 the divine Providence had shielded the infancy of 
 the chosen race, and had predestined it both to 
 inherit the land of Can. and to be a blessing 
 among the nations of the earth. As would be 
 natural under the circumstances, the traditions 
 relating to A. have special reference to sacred 
 localities in Pal. ; but unfortunately they do not 
 afford any very precise data for determining the 
 age in which he lived. The compiler gives us a 
 picture of A. which he derived apparently from 
 three groups of tradition. We will first briefly 
 summarise the narrative, and then indicate the 
 
 * Those critics who (as Keim, Jesus of Naz. v. 237-239 ; ef. 
 Holtzmann, Handkomm.i. 259f., Hinl, zum NT®, p.388f., with 
 the references) regard Mt 2415-28, Mk 131427, as an independent 
 Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) apocalypse originating shortly be- 
 fore A.D. 70, which has been incorporated with our Lord’s dis- 
 course, can, of course, adopt still more readily the same 
 explanation ; but it is difficult to think that even these verses, 
 though particular phrases may have been modified in the course 
 of oral transmission, are without a substantial basis in the 
 words of Christ. 
 
 + Bousset (Der Antichrist, 1895, pp. 14, 93, 106 f., 141 f.), 
 treating Mt 2415 (=Mk 1314) as purely eschatological, sup- 
 
 oses the reference to be to the future Antichrist, who is 
 
 requently described (on the basis of 2 Th 2) as sitting in the 
 Temple, and receiving divine honours (e.g. by Irenwus, v. 25.1, 
 30. 4; see further passages in Bousset, P: 104 f.); but it may be 
 doubted whether the view of Mt 2415#, upon which this ex- 
 planation depends, is correct. 
 
 portions which belong to the separate sources of 
 tradition, according to the generally accepted 
 results of critical analysis. 
 
 Abram, Nahor, and Haran are sons of Terah. 
 Their home is in Ur of the Chaldees (Gn 11268), 
 where Haran dies. A. marries Sarai, who was his 
 half-sister (Gn 2012), A. and his wife, with their 
 nephew Lot, Haran’s son, accompany Terah, who 
 migrates from Ur of the Chaldees, and journeys to 
 Haran, where Terah dies (Gn 11%! 8, Jos 242), 
 Terah is said to have had Canaan in view when he 
 set out upon his journey (Gn il®). A.in Haran 
 receives the divine command to quit his country 
 and kindred, and accompanied by Lot enters the 
 land of Can. He traverses the whole country ; 
 and we are told in particular of Shechem and 
 Bethel being places at which he halted, and, as his 
 custom was, built an altar to J’ (Gn 12!*). Driven 
 by a famine, A. journeys to Egypt, where, in 
 cowardly fear for his own life, he says that Sarai 
 is his sister, and does not acknowledge her as his 
 wife. The princes of Egypt bring the report of 
 Sarai’s beauty to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who 
 sends to fetch her, has her placed in his own 
 harem, and loads A. with presents on her account. 
 The intervention of J’’ alone delivers the mother of 
 the promised race from her peril. Pharaoh learns 
 of the wrong he is doing, through the plagues 
 which befall his house. In great dudgeon he 
 summons A., justly reproaches him for the decep- 
 tion, and dismisses him and his belongings from 
 Egypt Grea 
 
 A. and Lot return from Egypt to the district of 
 Bethel ; but their possessions in flocks and herds 
 have greatly increased. It proves impossible for 
 two such large droves to keep close together. 
 Constant disputes break out between the retainers 
 of the two chiefs. It is evident that they must 
 separate. A., though the elder, proposes the 
 separation, and offers Lot the choice as to the 
 region to which he shall go. Lot chooses the rich 
 pasture-land of the Jordan valley, and departs. 
 A. remains on the soil which has been promised 
 him, and receives as a reward for his unselfishness 
 a renewal of the divine prediction that his de- 
 scendants shall inhabit it as their own (18). A. 
 removes to Hebron (13!8), and while he is encamped 
 there war breaks out in the immediate neighbour- 
 hood. The kings of the towns in the Jordan 
 valley rebel against Chedor-Laomer (Kudur- 
 Lagamar), the great Elamite king. The king of 
 Elam with his vassals, the kings of Shinar, Ellasar, 
 and Goyyim (?), march against the rebels, defeat 
 them in a great battle, and retire, carrying off 
 many prisoners and rich booty from Sodom and 
 Gomorrah. Lot is.one of the captives. A. is no 
 sooner apprised of this than he arms his 318 
 retainers, and summons to his aid Mamre, Eshcol, 
 and Aner, the three chieftains of the Hebron 
 district, with whom he is confederate. The com- 
 bined force overtakes the victorious army at Dan, 
 in the N. of Canaan, surprises them by a night 
 attack, routs them, and recovers Lot and the 
 other prisoners, and all the booty. On the way 
 back A. is met in the plain of Shaveh by the king 
 of Sodom, and Melchizedek king of Salem. Mel- 
 chizedek solemnly blesses A. for his heroic deed ; 
 and the Heb. patriarch, in recognition of Mel- 
 chizedek’s priestly office, gives him a tenth of the 
 spoil. On the other hand, he proudly declines 
 the offer which the king of Sodom makes, that A. 
 should receive the spoil for himself ; he asks only 
 for the share that would compensate his con- 
 federates, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, and their 
 men (14). 
 
 A., who by reason of his childlessness cannot 
 entertain hopes of the fulfilment of the divine 
 promise, receives in a special vision assurance of 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner's Sons 
 
 eee 
 
a 
 
 14 ABRAHAM 
 
 the great future of the race that shall spring from 
 him. By the gracious condescension of the 
 Almighty, a covenant is made by sacrifice between 
 the patriarch and God; and during the night, 
 when a deep sleep has fallen upon A., he learns 
 the future destiny of his descendants, and the 
 vision is ratified by an outward symbol (165 esp. 1217), 
 Sarai, who has no hope of having children, per- 
 suades A. to take Hagar, her Egyp. maidservant, 
 as a concubine. Hagar, finding herself with 
 child, is insolent towards Sarai, who thereupon 
 treats her so harshly that Hagar flees into the 
 desert. She is there stopped by an angel, and 
 sent back, comforted by the promise respecting the 
 child that is to be born. This is Ishmael (16). 
 But Ishmael is not the promised son. ‘Thirteen 
 more years elapse before God appears again to A., 
 and again promises that his descendants will be a 
 mighty nation. In pledge of the fulfilment of his 
 word, he changes Abram’s name to Abraham, 
 Sarai’s to Sarah, and ordains that the rite of 
 circumcision shall be the sign of the covenant 
 between God and the house of Abraham. ‘The 
 promise that Sarah shall have a son, and the com- 
 mand to call his name Isaac, prepare us for the long- 
 expected consummation (17). But it is not to be 
 yet. Another great scene intervenes, to try, as it 
 were, the patriarch’s faith, and make proof of the 
 character of the father of the Heb. race. J!’, accom- 
 panied by two angels, appears in human form to 
 A. as he sits before his tent by the oaks of Mamre. 
 A.’s offer of hospitality is accepted; and as the 
 three strangers partake of the meal, the one who 
 is J/’ promises to A. ason by Sarah, who overhears, 
 and laughs incredulously (18! 5). The two angels 
 proceed to Sodom and Gomorrah; J’/ remains with 
 A., and discloses to him the approaching destruc- 
 tion of ‘the cities of the plain.’ A. pathetically 
 intercedes, and obtains the assurance that if but ten 
 righteous be found in the city it should be spared 
 for their sake (1815-38). J!’ leaves A.; and then 
 ensues the description of the destruction of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah, the vividness of which is enhanced 
 by the brief reference to A., who in the morning 
 looks forth from the hill country of Hebron, 
 where he had stood during his colloquy with J’’, 
 and sees thence the reek of the smoke rising as 
 from a furnace (19). Strangely out of place 
 though it seems, we find interposed at this point 
 the story how A. journeyed to the South-land or 
 Negeb, and dwelt in the territory of Gerar, where 
 Abimelech was king, and how A. once more fears 
 for his life on account of Sarah’s beauty, repre- 
 sents her to be his sister, and temporarily loses her, 
 when she is taken to Abimelech’s harem. As in 
 the Egyp. story, Sarah is kept from harm by a 
 special visitation; Abimelech is warned by God, 
 releases Sarah, and rebukes A. (20). 
 
 At length the long-promised son is born to A. of 
 Sarah ; he is circumcised the 8th day, and receives 
 the name of Isaac (21'-). Sarah takes offence at 
 the sight of Ishmael playing with Isaac; and A. is 
 instructed by God to yield to Sarah’s demand, and 
 dismiss both Hagar and Ishmael from his tent (218). 
 A.’s prosperity and success induce Abimelech to 
 seek alliance with the patriarch. A covenant 
 between them is struck; the well, which Abi- 
 melech’s servants had taken by force from A., i 
 restored to him, and receives the name of Beer- 
 Sheba. A. dwells for some time in Phil. territory, 
 encamped in the vicinity of the well (2122-3). 
 
 Some years later, when Isaac has grown to be a 
 lad, comes the last trial of A.’s faith. God orders 
 him to sacrifice his only son upon a lofty hill, 
 distant three days’ journey from his place of 
 encampment. He does not hesitate. All is done 
 in perfect obedience; the knife is raised to slay 
 Isaac, when a voice from heaven is heard. God 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ABRAHAM 
 
 wishes not a hair of the lad’s head to suffer; He is 
 satisfied with this proof of the patriarch’s absolute 
 trust in God, his readiness to sacrifice that which 
 was most precious in his eyes. A ram is sacrificed 
 in the stead of Isaac; and the holy covenant 
 between J’! and A, is ratified anew (22118), 
 
 Then Sarah dies; and A., whose seed is to 
 possess the whole land, has to purchase a burial- 
 place. ‘lhe field and cave of Machpelah at Hebron 
 is the portion of ground which he buys with all 
 due formality from Ephron the Hittite; and there 
 he buries Sarah (235). 
 
 Feeling his days drawing to a close, A. causes 
 his steward to swear not to let Isaac take to wife 
 one of the daughters of the land, and sends him to 
 Haran, where he finds Rebekah, and brings her 
 back to be Isaac’s wife (24). 
 
 It is strange next to read that A. takes Keturah 
 to be his wife, and becomes the father of six sons, 
 the patriarchs of Arabian tribes (25'4). But at 
 the age of 175 he dies, and is buried in the cave of 
 Machpelah (2571), 
 
 The foregoing outline shows the truth of what 
 has been remarked above, that the life of A. in the 
 Bk of Gn is not so much a consecutive biography 
 as a series of scenes derived from groups of Heb. 
 tradition, and loosely strung together. How far 
 the three main groups of patriarchal narrative— 
 the J, E, and P—overlapped one another we 
 cannot say, but the fact that the existing account 
 is derived from different sources sufficiently 
 explains some of the chief difficulties and dis- 
 crepancies that strike the ordinary reader. 
 
 J.—The narrative of J opens with A. ie in Haran, and 
 migrating with Lot to Can. at the command of J 
 
 It mentions A.’s nomadic movements in Can., and the altars 
 at Bethel and Shechem. It records the separation of A. and 
 Lot, and A.’s sojourn at Hebron. 
 
 he describes A.’s journey to Egypt, and his return to the S. 
 of Can, 
 
 It contains the promises made to A., and the covenant in ch. 
 15. It records the marriage with Hagar, Hagar’s flight, and the 
 birth of Ishmael. 
 
 It gives the long epic narrative of the visit of the three men 
 to A.; A.’s intercession ; and the overthrow of the cities of the 
 plain, 
 
 : It narrates the birth of Isaac, and the mission of A.’s servant 
 to Haran. 
 
 J =1214- 6-135. 7-11a. 12b-18 15, 164-14 18. 19 (exc. v.29) 21. (partially) 
 24, 
 
 E.—The narrative of E opens with A.’s wandering to and fro, 
 with Lot, in Can. It reproduces, perhaps from some separ ate 
 source, an account of the war between Chedor-Laomer and the 
 rebel ‘ cities of the plain,’ A.’s rescue of his nephew, and Mel- 
 chizedek’s blessing. 
 
 It describes the blessing pronounced upon the patriarch in 
 ch. 15. It records A.’s sojourn at Gerar, and the peril to which 
 Sarah was exposed at the court of Abimelech (20). It contains 
 an account of the birth of Isaac; and the mention of the 
 banishment of Hagar and Ishmael implies that it also included 
 an account of Ishmael’s birth. It records the alliance of A. with 
 Abimelech at Beersheba, And, so far as A. is concerned, con- 
 cludes with the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, 
 
 E = 14. (possibly) 15. (partially ) 20, 21682 22, 
 
 P.—The narrative of P isa mere skeleton outline of facts. A. 
 is Terah’s son, Terah, with A. his son and Lot his nephew, 
 leave Ur-Casdim, and set out for Can.; they stay at Haran, 
 where Terah dies, 205 years old. A., 75 years old, accompanied 
 by Lot, journeys to Can. A. settles near Mamre; Lot goes E. 
 to the J ordan valley. A. marries Hagar ten years after enter- 
 ing Can.; Ishmael is born in A,’s 86th year. In his 99th year 
 God makes a covenant with him, and ordains the rite of cireum- 
 cision, changing his name to Abraham, and Sarai’s to Sarah. 
 A. laughs at the idea of Sarah having a son; and the son to be 
 born to him is to be called Isaac. In his 100th year A. hasa 
 son Isaac, who is circumcised. Sarah dies at Hebron 127 years 
 old, and A. purchases the cave of Machpelah for a burying-place, 
 He himself dies at the age of 175, and is buried by Isaac and 
 Ishmael in the cave 
 
 P=138- 11b. 12 161-3. 15. 16 171-27 1929 21 1b. 2b-5 23, 27-17, 
 
 The combination of the three strata of tradition has only ina 
 few instances led to apparent inconsistencies, The J narrative, 
 which makes Haran A.’s native country (Gn 12. 24), contains no 
 allusion to Ur-Casdim. J’s narrative contains the story of A.’s 
 cowardice in Egypt; it is ’s narrative which contains the story 
 of his cowardice at the court of Abimelech. The narratives of 
 J and E, which speak of Sarah’s beauty attracting the notice of 
 Egyptians and Philistines, do not mention the ages of A. and 
 Sarah. According to J, A. very prob. had died before the return 
 
 of the servant with Rebekah, since Y2N should prob. be read 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 (oe ee " 
 
 a 
 
 ABRAHAM 
 
 
 
 for WO in 2497; for we can hardly suppose that Isaac’s mourning 
 for his mother would have lasted for three years. The mention 
 of A.’s marriage with Keturah in the foll? ch. is derived from a 
 different source. . 
 
 The foll. are the chief difficulties arising from 
 the Abraham narrative : — 
 
 1. The Home of A.’s People.—From the fact that 
 Terah is said to have lived at Ur-Casdim, and 
 that Ur has been identified by Assyriologists with 
 Uru, the modern Mugheir, in S. Bab., the con- 
 clusion has very commonly been drawn that A. 
 migrated first from Chaldea. This, however, 
 depends upon the correctness of the identification 
 of Ur-Casdim with Uru, which has been much dis- 
 puted on the grounds, (1) that the genealogy of Gn 
 11” brings the Sem. race as far as Mesopotamia, 
 from which the next movement in the direction of 
 Can. would be to Haran; (2) that the name 
 Casdim was applied to an Armenian tribe ; and (3) 
 that it does not appear in connexion with S. Bab. 
 until much later (upon the whole controversy see 
 Kittel, Hist. of Hebrews, Eng. tr.i. 180 f.; Dillmann, 
 Genesis, p. 214f. As tothe position of Ur-Casdim, 
 see art. Ur or THe CuaLpEers). The common 
 early Heb. tradition seems to be expressed in Gn 
 24, according to which A.’s kindred were the 
 dwellers in N. Mesopotamia ; and it is this belief 
 which also is reiterated in the story of Jacob. Cf. 
 ‘A Syrian (i.e. Aramzan) ready to perish was my 
 father’ (Dt 265). Whether Ur-Casdim is to be 
 placed in N. Mesopotamia or in Chaldea, the 
 impression remains that ‘J’ believed A.’s home and 
 kindred to have been in Haran. 
 
 2. The Character of the Narrative related in Gn 
 14.—There appears to be no reason to question the 
 hist. probability of an Elamite campaign such as is 
 here described. There is nothing inherently im- 
 probable in the event as has sometimes, in some 
 quarters, been asserted. A. did not defeat the 
 EKlamite army in a pitched battle ; he made a night 
 attack, fell upon an unsuspecting foe, and recovered 
 prisoners and baggage,—a very different exploit 
 from the conquest of Damascus, which late legend 
 assigned tohim, ‘The primitive invasion of Chedor- 
 Laomer has been claimed by some Assyriologists 
 for an approximate date of 2150 (so Hommel, Bab.- 
 Ass. Gesch. p. 3); and the invasion of W. Asia by 
 an Elamite will naturally be associated with the 
 Elamite empire of that remote time. But upon 
 what principle the events of A.’s life can be carried 
 back to the 22nd cent. p.c. has not yet been 
 satisfactorily explained. Biblical chronology does 
 not suggest the interval of nearly a thousand years 
 between A. and the Exodus. 
 
 3. The Promises made to A. are found eight 
 times repeated, (i.) Gn 12?°3 (ii.) 12° (iii.) 13! (iv.) 15 
 (v.) 17 (vi.) 18 (vii.) 211? (viii.) 221%. The promises 
 fall under three main heads, (a) the land of Can. 
 shall be possessed by the seed of A.; (b) the seed of 
 A.shall become a mighty nation ; (c) A. shall have 
 a son born of Sarah, and the son is to be called 
 Isaac. The number of times that the promise 
 appears is due to the compilers having selected this 
 as the most conspicuous feature in the narrative 
 of A. in each of the sources of tradition. The 
 seemingly strange fact, that the narrative in ch. 
 17 should take no notice of the mention of the 
 same promise in ch. 15, is at once accounted for 
 when it is seen to be an instance of the manner in 
 which the different narratives overlap one another. 
 The promises, contained in the different traditions, 
 seemed to the compiler so important in view of the 
 general purpose of his book, that, at the risk of 
 considerable repetition, he has incorporated them 
 all. These promises ever ranked among the 
 religious privileges of Israel (Ro 94). They pro- 
 claimed God’s covenant with His people, according 
 to which He required of them simple obedience and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ABRAHAM 15 
 
 justice (Gn 181°); they also announced that through 
 Israel all nations should be blessed. 
 
 4. The Sacrifice of Isaac marks the crowning 
 event in the life of A. Obviously, it must rank as 
 the surpassing act of the patriarch’s faith in God. 
 But a difficulty arises in some minds from the 
 wickedness of the act which God at first commands 
 A. todo. Even though He never intended A. 
 eventually to execute the terrible command, still is 
 it consistent with divine goodness and justice to 
 issue an order, to obey which seemed to have the 
 result of placing blind trust in a positive command 
 above the reasonable recognition of the natural 
 demands of love, mercy, and justice? But there 
 are two considerations which cut the ground from 
 beneath this objection. (1) We are tempted to 
 assume that in the patriarchal narrative the voice 
 of God is an audible external communication. But 
 then, as now, God speaks in different ways, and by 
 conscience most directly. The question put by A.’s 
 conscience was whether his complete trust in God 
 extended even to the readiness to surrender his 
 only son; it was in the truest sense a word of God 
 to A. (2) That the answer to this questioning was 
 given in the shape of human sacrifice on a mountain 
 top, illustrates the importance of bearing in mind 
 the imperfect development of the moral conscious- 
 ness in that remote period. Human sacrifice was 
 frequently practised in Sem. races. If the wor- 
 shippers of other Sem. deities were ready to 
 sacrifice their firstborn to their gods, was A. to be 
 behind Assyria, Ammon, and Moab in devotion ? 
 The moral standard of the age would not be 
 shocked at a deed too fatally common. The ideas 
 of mercy and justice were, in that period, low, and 
 needed to be raised. ‘To propitiate the Deity by 
 child murder was regarded as the height of religious 
 devotion. The narrative, therefore, fulfils the 
 twofold object of giving the crowning proof of A.’s 
 absolute faith in J’’; and further, of demonstrating 
 the moral superiority of faith in J’ over the 
 religious customs of other Sem. races. J!’ forbade 
 the sacrifice of the firstborn : J!’ upheld the instinct 
 implanted in human nature which shrunk in 
 horror from the act. He taught that J/’ had no 
 pleasure in the infliction of suffering upon the 
 innocent; that the character of J!’ was raised above 
 that of the heathen gods by higher love and truer 
 justice. 
 
 ii, A. IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL. — The 
 attempt has been made to deprive the story of A. 
 of all hist. value, and to represent the patriarch 
 either as a mythical personage or as the typical 
 impersonation of the virtues of the religious Isr. ; 
 but as yet no evidence has been found to connect 
 the name of A. with that of a tribal deity, while 
 the endeavour to find in his story a philosophical 
 description of abstract qualities seems to pre- 
 suppose a stage of literary development to which 
 the materials of the Hex. can make no claim, and 
 to desiderate a literary unity which those materials 
 emphatically contradict. 
 
 On the other hand, it cannot be denied that 
 recollections of the nomadic age, committed to 
 writing (in the form that has come down to us) in 
 a post-Mosaic era, and evidently strongly coloured 
 by the teaching of the prophets of J’’, are likely 
 to have preserved the hist. facts of the remote 
 past in a form in which personal details are inex- 
 tricably intertwined with racial movements, and, 
 for simplicity’s sake, the destinies of a future 
 nation are anticipated in the features of family 
 experience. 
 
 According to this view, A. was the leader of a 
 great nomadic movement of the Hebrews (Gn 1071 
 1418), who migrated from Mesopotamia into Canaan. 
 These Hebrews penetrated as far as Egypt (Gn 12), 
 but for the most part established themselves in the 
 
 
 
16 ABRAHAM 
 
 S. of Canaan, and in Hebron and Beersheba formed 
 friendly relationships with the dwellers of the 
 land (Gn 14. 2122), The story of Lot seems to 
 indicate that the peoples of Ammon and Moab had 
 originally belonged to the Heb. migration which 
 was led by A., and, having separated themselves 
 from their comrades, occupied the territory of 
 the Rephaim, the Emim, and the Zamzummim 
 (Dt oll. 1a 
 
 Again, it is impossible to resist the conclusion 
 that some of the references to Ishmael and the 
 allusion to Keturah contain an Isr. picture of the 
 relationship of the Arabian tribes and clans to the 
 Heb. stock rather than the record of personal 
 history. The Egyp. origin of Hagar (Gn 16!) and of 
 Ishmael’s wife (Gn 21?!) will then indicate that the 
 new settlers received into their community a con- 
 siderable admixture of an Egyp. element at the 
 time when they dispersed throughout N. Arabia. 
 The fact that ‘the sons of Nahor’ (Gn 2220-24), ‘the 
 sons of Ishmael’ (Gn 2517-18), ‘the sons of Edom’ 
 (Gn 3615-19), form groups of twelve, and that ‘the 
 sons of Keturah’ thus form a half-group of six, is 
 an additional sign of the probability that the 
 record is not only that of the domestic life of a 
 family, but also that of the political distribution of 
 a race. 
 
 While this consideration must modify the accept- 
 ance of a uniform literal historicity for the narra- 
 tive of A., it is not incompatible with the view 
 that in A. we have the great leader of a racial 
 movement, and one who left his mark upon his 
 fellow-tribesmen, not only by the eminence of his 
 superior gifts, but by the distinctive features of his 
 religious life, the traditional features of which were 
 the devotion to one God, the abandonment of the 
 polytheism of his ancestors, and the adoption of 
 circumcision as the symbol of a purer cult. 
 
 iii. A. INTHE THEOLOGY OF OT.—The scattered 
 reminiscences of the patriarchs were collected and 
 compiled, even more for the purpose of illustrating 
 the fundamental principles of the Isr. revelation 
 than with the object of retailing any exhaustive 
 biography. 
 
 The religion of Israel dates, according to OT, 
 from A., not from Moses. A.’s servant addresses 
 J’ as the God of his master A. (Gn 24!) ; J’’ is to 
 Isaac the God of A. (Gn 26%); to Jacob He is ‘ the 
 God of A. and the fear of Isaac’ (Gn 31#), A. 
 never speaks of J’’ as the God of his fathers. A. is 
 the founder of the religion ; he is the head of the 
 family which had J’ for its God. There is no 
 designation of the God of Israel which can go 
 farther back to the origin of the Heb. faith 
 than the often-repeated title ‘the God of A.’ (cf. 
 Ps 47°). 
 
 The story of A. reflects the belief in the free 
 grace of God which chose the patriarch and brought 
 him from a distant land, and in spite of his failures 
 loved him and made His covenant with him. 
 The call of A. and the promises made him thus 
 represent the Election (éxAoy%) of Israel. A. as the 
 chosen servant is the prophet, the instrument of 
 J's purpose (Gn 20"). He is the friend of God (Is 
 418,2Ch 207. Cf. Arab. Hl-Khalil). God’s mercies 
 towards him are appealed to by the prophets of the 
 Captivity (Is 512, Ezk 3324) as the ground of con- 
 fidence that J’’ would not forsake the heirs of the 
 promises made to A. 
 
 The unique relation in which A., in Isr. theology, 
 stood to the God of revelation is indicated by the 
 ref. of the prophets to A. as ‘the one’ (see Is 511-2, 
 Ezk 3374, Mal 21°), In the Bk of Sir, A. is spoken 
 of as ‘great father of a multitude of nations; and 
 there was none found like him in glory ; who kept 
 the law of the Most High, and was taken into 
 covenant with Him: in his flesh he established the 
 covenant ; and when he was proved he was found 
 
 ABRAHAM 
 
 faithful’ (441% 20), In these words are summarised 
 the chief points upon which the later Jewish 
 literature esp. insisted in any reference to the life 
 and character of A. He was the founder of the 
 race ; he was credited with a perfect knowledge of 
 the Torah ; he was the institutor of circumcision ; 
 he was tried, and in virtue of his faith was declared 
 righteous. 
 
 iv. A. IN THE THEOLOGY OF NT.—In NT, A. is 
 referred to in a variety of ways. The words of 
 John the Baptist in Mt 3°, Lk 38, and of St. Paul, Ro 
 9’, rebuke the popular Jewish supposition that 
 descent from A. carried with it any special claim 
 upon divine favour. Our Lord speaks of A. as one 
 with whom all the partakers of divine redemption 
 shall be privileged to dwell (Mt 81) ; and as of one 
 who is both cognisant of things on earth, and is 
 also entrusted with the special charge over the 
 souls of the blest (Lk 1622). Our Lord employs the 
 imagery of current religious belief ; A. is the typical 
 representative of ‘the righteous’ who have been 
 redeemed ; he is ‘ the father of the faithful.’ Hence 
 He says (Jn 85), ‘Your father A. rejoiced to see 
 My day; and he sawit, and was glad.’ He obtained 
 a vision of the meaning of the promises, and 
 rejoiced in the hope of their future fulfilment. 
 Christ was the consummation of all the aspirations 
 of A., the father of the race. According to the 
 Jewish tradition (Bereshith Rabba 44,Winsche), A. 
 saw the whole history of his descendants in the 
 mysterious vision recorded in Gn 15°, Thus he 
 is said to have ‘rejoiced with the joy of the law’ 
 (Westcott on Jn 8°), 
 
 The subject of the faith of A. seems to have 
 formed a stock subject of discussion in the Jewish 
 synagogue. It is alluded toin 1 Mac 252 *‘ Was not A. 
 found faithful in temptation, and it was reckoned 
 unto him for righteousness ?’? The ‘locus classicus’ 
 for the subject was Gn 15%; and the question 
 propounded by the Jewish teachers turned upon 
 the nature of the faith which was counted to 
 A. for righteousness. To Philo the whole history 
 of A. was merely an allegory descriptive of the 
 truly wise man whose inner nature is made one 
 with the divine by teaching (éd:dacKkadla), as 
 Isaac’s by nature (gvo.s), and Jacob’s by discipline 
 (4cxno.s). In Philo’s treatment of the subject, 
 ‘faith,’ which frees the soul from the dominion of 
 the senses, was ‘the queen of virtues’ (de Abrah. 
 ii. p. 89) ; and Philo refers to Gn 15° at least 10 times 
 (see Lightfoot, Gal. p. 158, and Ryle, Philo and 
 Holy Scripture, p. 55) for the purpose of indicating 
 the supreme excellence of A.’s faith. 
 
 Rabbinical Judaism did not adopt the symbolical 
 and abstract explanation which satisfied the Alex. 
 philosopher. It regarded A. as inseparable from 
 A.’s seed, and the faith of A. as consisting in the 
 fulfilment of the law. 
 
 Against this Rabbinic interpretation St. Paul 
 directs his argument in Ro 41-8 and Gal 3. Faith 
 with the apostle is the motive power of the whole 
 spiritual life, and he lays stress on the fact that the 
 mention of A.’s faith precedes the institution 
 of circumcision. The faith of the patriarch was 
 not due to the rite; it was only ratified and con- 
 firmed by it (cf. Ro 49-12 and the notes of Sanday 
 and Headlam). The same subject comes under 
 discussion in the Ep. of St. James; and there the 
 apostle of the circumcision safeguards, as it were, 
 the Christian position from a perversion of the 
 Pauline teaching. With St. James ‘the faith’ of 
 A. is not so much the motive power of spiritual 
 life as the settled belief, the genuineness of which 
 can only be tested by action (Ja 219, see Mayor, in 
 loc.). 
 
 Pst another reference to A.’s faith is found in 
 He 118-4, where the patriarch is described as having 
 been ‘enabled to work towards the fulfilment of 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 ———_— 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 ae eee See ee 
 
 
 
 ABRAHAM 
 
 
 
 God’s counsel by his trust in the unseen’ (Westcott, 
 in loc.). The three features of the patriarch’s life 
 which the writer of the Ep. selects for the illus- 
 tration of this ‘faith,’ are (1) self-surrender, in the 
 departure from his home (v.°) ; (2) patience, in the 
 pilgrim’s expectation of a future abiding place 
 (vv. 10); (8) influence, since his faith, affecting 
 Sarah’s faith, led to the fulfilment of the promise 
 (vy.11 12), 
 
 Later Jewish teaching, dwelling on the same 
 theme, says, ‘In like manner thou findest that A. 
 our father inherited this world and the world to 
 come solely by the merit of faith whereby he 
 believed on the Lord’ (Mechilta on Ex 1481). 
 
 y. JEWISH TRADITION.—It was natural that 
 Jewish tradition should be busy with regard to the 
 great founder of the people of Israel. From the 
 fact that A. received the divine call in Ur of 
 the Chaldees, and wr in Heb. meant ‘flame,’ the 
 strange story was invented of his having been cast 
 into a fiery furnace by Nimrod. This legend 
 appears in various forms. One of the best known 
 is that which is recorded in the Targ. of Jonathan 
 on Gn 1178 ‘ And it was when Nimrod had cast A. 
 into the furnace of fire because he would not 
 worship his idol, and the fire had no power to burn 
 him, that Haran’s heart became doubtful, saying, 
 If Nimrod overcome, I will be on his side; but if 
 A. overcome, I will be on his side. And when all 
 the people who were there saw that the fire had no 
 power over A., they said ia their hearts, Is not 
 Haran the brother of A. full of divinations and 
 charms, and has he not uttered spells over the fire 
 that it should not burn his brother? Immediately 
 there fell fire from the high heavens and consumed 
 him ; and Haran died in sight of Terah his father, 
 where he was burned in the land of his nativity, in 
 the furnace of fire which the Chaldzans had made 
 for A. his brother’ (Etheridge’s tr.). 
 
 Another version of the story appears in Bereshith 
 Rabba, where A. refuses to obey Nimrod’s command 
 that he should worship fire; and suggests that it 
 would be more reasonable to worship water that 
 quenches fire, or the clouds that give the rain, or 
 the wind that drives the clouds; finally, he exhorts 
 Nimrod to worship the one God. Nimrod causes A. 
 to be thrown into a fiery furnace ; but God delivers 
 him from its flames. For other instances of the 
 Rabbinic treatment of A.’s life, see Weber, System 
 der Altsynagog. Paldstin. Theologie, Leipzig, 1880. 
 In Pirke Abhoth (v.4) it is said, ‘ With ten tempta- 
 tions was A. our father tempted, and he withstood 
 them all; to show how great was the love of A. 
 our father.’ For the ways in which the Rabbins 
 reckoned up these ten temptations, see Taylor, 
 Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 94. 
 
 The facts that A. came from Haran, that he won 
 his victory at Hobah, near Damascus (Gn 141), 
 and that his servant was a native of Damascus (Gn 
 152), seem to have given rise to the legend that A. 
 conquered Damascus. So Josephus relates that 
 
 ‘Nicolaus of Damascus,’ in the 4th book of his 
 
 history, says thus: ‘A. reigned at Damascus, being 
 a foreigner, who came with an army out of the land 
 of Babylon.... Now the name of A. is even still 
 famous in the country of Damascus; and they show 
 a village named after him, The habitation of A.’ 
 Ant. 1. vii. 2). A.’s native country having been 
 haldea, he was credited by the Jews with a know- 
 ledge of secret arts and magic (cf. Philo, de prem. 
 et pen.; Jos. Ant. 1. vii.) ; and Josephus records 
 the tradition that A. first introduced into Egypt the 
 knowledge of arithmetic and astrology which he had 
 brought with him from Chaldza (Ant. 1. viii.). 
 
 For the preservation of these and other legends, see Cod. 
 DS Sppag igr. Vet, Test., J. A. Fabric., tom. 1 (1722), and Beer, 
 en Ab. (1859). The Testament of A. (first ed. by James, ‘Texts 
 
 and Studies,’ Camb. 1892) deserves especial mention as an apoer. 
 
 VOL. I.—2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ABRAHAM’S BOSOM 17 
 
 
 
 (apparently of Egyp. origin) of apocalyptic character, first men- 
 tioned by Origen, Legimus ... justitiw et iniquitatis angelos 
 super Abrahami salute et interitu disceptantes, ete. (In Le. 
 Hom. 35), and recently brought before the notice of students in 
 a most interesting form by the learned editor. 
 
 vi. THE NAME ‘ABRAHAM.’—The attempts to 
 discover the etymology of this name can hardly as 
 yet be said to have been successful, According to 
 one very prob. explanation, Abram represents a 
 contracted form of Abiram or Aburam, just as 
 ‘Abner’ probably stands for ‘ Abiner’ or ‘ Abuner’ ; 
 while Abraham may have been a local, or an 
 Aramaic, dialectical variety of pronunciation. 
 Abiram was a fairly common name (cf. Nu 161-12 
 26°, 1 K 1634) in Heb.; anditis said to be a recognised 
 proper name in the Assyr. Inscriptions, under the 
 form of Abu-ramu (so Schrader and Sayce). The 
 analogy of other proper names, like Abi-melek, 
 Abiel, Abi-jah, makes it exceedingly doubtful 
 whether the name Abram can rightly bear the 
 meanings traditionally assigned to it, ‘ Lofty 
 father,’ or ‘the father of the lofty one.’ For (1) 
 it stands to reason that no child, however lofty its 
 descent, would have been called ‘father,’ or ‘the 
 father of’ a god, whether Melech, or Jah, or Ram; 
 (2) the feminine names Abi-gail, Abi-tal, show the 
 impossibility of this explanation. Probably, there- 
 fore, the right meaning of the name is ‘Ram (the 
 lofty one) is father,’ as Hiram would mean ‘Ram 
 is brother,’ of the owner of the name. Even so, 
 the origin of the longer name Abraham remains 
 still unexplained. The derivation of the name in 
 Gn 17° is only a popular word-play, connecting the 
 termination -raham with the Heb, yynn ‘multitude.’ 
 Halévy (Rev. Et. Juiv. 1887, p. 177) ventured to 
 propose that Abraham represents 07 W328 ‘the 
 chief of a multitude,’ the first part of the name 
 being derived, not from ab, ‘father,’ but from abir, 
 ‘chief,’ and the second part from ham (root hamah), 
 ‘multitude.’ For this theory there does not appear 
 to be much probability. The deriv. of the longer 
 name must be left uncertain, although the most 
 likely explanation of it is to be found in the variant 
 pron. of proper names in different localities or in 
 different clans of the same people. Thus 07 may 
 be a dialectical form of 511; and Abraham the same 
 in meaning as Abram, just as Abiram is the same 
 in meaning as Abram (cf. Oxf. Heb. Lew. p. 4, and 
 Baethgen, Beitrdge zur Sem. Rel. Gesch.). 
 
 LitpraturRE.—Besides the works mentioned above, the reader 
 is referred to the Comm. on Genesis by Delitzsch, and Dillmann ; 
 to the Histories of Israel by Ewald, Reuss, and Kittel; to the 
 works on OT Theology by Oehler, Schultz, and Dillmann, For 
 illustration from Assyr. sources, see Sayce, Patriarchal Pal. 
 (1895) ; Tomkins, Zimes of Abraham (1878); Schrader, COT? 
 (1885). H. E. RYLE. 
 
 ABRAHAM, BOOK OF.—A work, consisting of 300 
 orixor, bearing this name, is found in a list of 
 Jewish apocryphal writings, preserved from a much 
 earlier period, in an appendix to the Chronographia 
 Compendiaria of Nicephorus (¢. 800 a.p.). This 
 list is printed in Credner’s Gesch. des Kanons, 1847, 
 as well as in Schiirer’s HJP II. iii. 126. The so- 
 called Synopsis Athanasii presents the same list, 
 omitting, however, the number of orlyo, which 
 is attached to each book in the Stichometry of 
 Nicephorus. It is likely that this is the book from 
 which Origen quotes as to a contest between the 
 angels of righteousness and iniquity with regard 
 to the salvation of Abraham (Jn Luc. Hom. 35); 
 and James is prob. correct in identifying this Book 
 with the Testament of A. (Texts and Studies, ii. 2, 
 p. 27ff.). An Apoc. of A. is mentioned by Epi- 
 phanius as used by the Ophites. 
 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 ABRAHAM’S BOSOM.—A term used of the abode 
 of the righteous dead, defining it as a position of 
 blessedness in intimate association with the father 
 of the faithful, ‘the friend of God.’ In Scripture 
 
18 ABRECH 
 
 ABSALOM 
 
 
 
 it occurs only in the parable of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus (Lk 167%), where it appears both in the 
 singular (KéAros ABpadu) and in the plural («éddzoe 
 *ABpadu). Taken from the practice of reclining at 
 table, so that the head of the guest leant back upon 
 the bosom of his neighbour, the place of distinction 
 belonging to him who was seated in this way next 
 the host, the figure expresses the ideas of nearest 
 fellowship and highest honour. In the Rabbin. 
 literature the phrase (17°38 o7728 bw 1pn) was applied 
 to the place reserved for the pious departed, into 
 which they passed immediately after death, and in 
 which they dwelt free from the woes of hell (cf. 
 4 Mac 13!"), It was a Jewish belief that the 
 intermediate state contained two distinct compart- 
 iments—a place of relative preparatory reward for 
 the good, and a place of relative preparatory 
 penalty for the evil (cf. Bk of Enoch 22, 2 Es 
 776 ete.). Some of the Jewish books speak of 
 certain receptacles (promptuaria) into which the 
 souls of the faithful dead were taken (Apoc. of Bar 
 302, 2 Es 4%. 41 782 etc.). And in the theolony of the 
 3rd cent. and onwards it was taught that the 
 circumcised should not be subject to hell. It was 
 a saying of Rabbi Levi (of the 3rd cent.), that in 
 the world to come Abraham would sit at the 
 entrance to hell, and suffer no circumcised Isr. to 
 ass into it. It has been usually supposed, there- 
 ae that in NT the phrase ‘Abraham’s bosom’ 
 refers to the intermed. state, and designates a 
 division of the underworld, where the good enjoy 
 a preliminary measure of blessedness. In this case 
 it is identified with Paradise, the Jower Paradise as 
 dist. from the heavenly, or is taken to describe a 
 condition of peculiar honour in the Hades-Paradise. 
 It is uncertain, however, when this idea of two 
 separate localities within the underworld came to 
 prevail. It was the idea of the later and medizval 
 Judaism. But whether it was in circulation so 
 early as our Lord’s time is doubtful. There seems 
 reason to believe that the older Judaism spoke only 
 of a Garden of Eden for the righteous dead, and a 
 Gehinnom (Gehenna, Hell) for the wicked dead, 
 identifying the latter with Sheol. Ifso, ‘Abraham’s 
 lhosom’ in the parable would not be the name for 
 a special compartment of Hades, or for an intermed. 
 condition of blessedness distinct from and pre- 
 liminary to the final state of perfect felicity. And 
 in the parable itself it is only the rich man that is 
 expressly described as ‘in Hades.’ 
 
 LITERATURE.—Wetstein on Lk 1622.23; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. 
 p. 851, etc. ; Fritzsche u. Grimm, Haeg. Handb. zu den Apocry- 
 phen, on 4 Mac 1316; Schiirer, HJP II. ii. 180; Hamburger, 
 RE; Weber, System der altsyn. paldst. Theol. p. 828; Meyer- 
 Weiss, Kom.8 p. 643, ete. ; Salmond, Christ. Doct. of Immor- 
 tality, p. 345. 
 
 S. D. F. SALMOND. 
 
 ABRECH (773s).—A word called out before Joseph 
 ax he passed through the land of Egypt in his 
 official capacity of prime minister to the Pharaoh 
 (Gu 41”). Its exact signification is not a matter 
 of agreement amongst scholars. The LXX (éxijpvuéev 
 éumpoobev avrod xnhpvt) and the Vulg. (clamante 
 i rook ut omnes coram eo genu flecterent) are not 
 iteral or direct translations. The Targ. of Onk. 
 interprets it as ‘father of the king,’ on the ground 
 sera of Gn 45% Jewish scholars who have 
 derived it from Heb. refer it to the root 313 bend 
 the knee, in the Hiph. Imv., where, for the usual 2», 
 an ® has been substituted (cf. Jer 25%). Luther 
 regarded the case as hopeless, in saying, ‘Was 
 abrech heisse, lassen wir die Zaincker suchen bisz 
 an den jiingsten Tag’ (Ges. Thes. p. 19). Of the 
 many proposed Egyp. (and Coptic) Aesivatienst we 
 need note only the following :—(1) Abrek (ampex) 
 cuput inclinare (Rossi, Etymol. egypt. p. 1, in Ges. 
 Thes. p. 19); (2) ap-rex-v, head of the wise (Harkavy, 
 
 Berl. Afgypt. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 132); (3) ab-rek, 
 rejoice thou (Cook, Speaker’s Com. in loco, p. 482) ; 
 
 
 
 (4) ab(u)-rek, thy commandment is the object of our 
 desire, t.e. ‘we are at ne service’ (Renouf, Pro- 
 ceedings Soc. Bib. Arch. Nov. 1888, pp. 5-10). On 
 the other hand, several derivations are suggested 
 from the Asiatic-Sem. side: (1) Sayce compares it 
 with an ‘ Accadian’ abrik, a seer, appearing 
 in the Sem. form, on an unpublished tablet, of 
 abrikku (Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 183, n. 3); (2) 
 Delitzsch compares the Assyr. abarakku (fem. 
 ab(a)rakkatu), a titled personage, possibly grand 
 vizier (Paradies, p. 225; Heb. Lang. p. 26; Proleg. 
 . 145; and Assyr. Worterbuch, Be 68f.); (3) 
 Braue dissents from Delitzsch (COT? i. ,139); 
 (4) Halévy derives it from paraku (Rev. d. Etudes 
 Juives, 1885, p. 304). But of all the suggested 
 sources of this much-abused word, the Heb. and 
 
 the Assyr. above mentioned seem to with 
 them the least number of difficulties. (The text 
 
 of Gn 41“ does not indicate that there was any- 
 thing more than a salute.) Itis, in either event, an 
 Egyptianised Sem. word, probably carried down 
 into Egypt during the centuries of Hyksos rule. 
 This opinion receives support, too, from the evidence 
 of the Tel el-Amarna tablets that there had been 
 for many centuries before Joseph’s day free inter- 
 national communication between Egypt and Asia. 
 
 TRA M. PRICE. 
 ABROAD. —In its modern meaning of ‘in (o1 
 ‘to’) another country,’ a. is not used in AV 
 or RV. The nearest approach is Jn 11% ‘The 
 children of God that are scattered a.’ On the 
 other hand a. is used in senses now wholly or 
 nearly obsolete. 1. It signifies specially outside 
 one’s own dwelling, the opp. of ‘at home.’ Ly 
 18° ‘ Whether she be born at home or born a.’; 
 La 1% ‘A. the sword bereaveth, at home there 
 is as death’; Jg 12° ‘Thirty daughters he sent 
 a., and thirty daughters he brought in from a. for 
 his sons’; Dt 23! ‘ Then shall he go a. out of the 
 camp’; Lk 8” ‘Neither anything hid that shall 
 not be known and come a.’ (RV ‘to light’) ; Sir 268 
 
 ‘A drunken woman and a gaddera.’ Cf.— 
 ‘Where as he lay 
 So sick alway 
 He might not come abroad.’ 
 
 —Sir T. More, A Merry Jest. 
 2. On the outside of anything: Lv 134 ‘If a 
 leprosy break out a. in the skin.’ 8. In the 
 general sense of openly, freely, widely: Mk 1% 
 “But he went out, and began to publish it much, 
 and to blaze a. the matter’; Ro 16% ‘For your 
 obedience is come a. unto all men’; 55 ‘ The love of 
 
 God is shed a. in your hearts.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABRONAH (7352y).—A station in the journeyings, 
 occurs only Nu 33% *, AV Ebronah. 
 
 ABSALOM (otbyax, in 1 K 152° n\by34 Abishalom, 
 ‘father is peace’), the third son of David (2 S 33, 
 1 Ch 3%). We first comes into prominence in ton- 
 nexion with the story of his sister Tamar (2 S§ 13). 
 After the foul outrage done to the latter by Amnon, 
 David’s eldest son, A. determined upon revenge, 
 but concealed his purpose for two years. At the 
 end of this period he gave a feast at the time of 
 sheep-shearing, and invited the king and his sons. 
 David declined for himself, but permitted Amnon 
 and his brothers to go. While the feast was at its 
 height, the servants of A., upon a signal given by 
 their master, fell upon Amnon and slew him. 
 Having thus avenged the affront put upon his sister, 
 A. fled to the court of his maternal grandfather, 
 Talmai, the king of Geshur, where he remained for 
 three years. Then Joab, perceiving that David 
 longed for a reconciliation with his son, contriv: 
 through the medium of ‘a wise woman of Tekoah,’ to 
 
 rocure a reversal of the virtual sentence of banish- 
 ment, and A. returned to Jerus., but was not per- 
 
 ee 
 
ABSALOM 
 
 
 
 ABSALOM 19 
 
 
 
 mitted to #pproach the presence of the king. This 
 unnatural condition of things continued for two 
 
 ears, when A. applied to Joab to use his interest 
 at court to procure a full reconciliation. David’s 
 
 eneral had, however, for some reason become less 
 
 earty in the matter, and declined even to meet 
 A., until the latter resorted to the expedient of 
 ordering his servants to set fire to Joab’s barley 
 field. hen the owner of the field came in person 
 to demand an explanation of this injury, he was at 
 length persuaded to intercede with the king on 
 behalf of his son, and his mediation proved success- 
 ful. It is easy to conceive that David, by his 
 injudicious mingling of leniency and severity, had 
 completely forfeited the confidence of his son, and 
 it was doubtless from this occasion onwards that 
 A. began to hatch the plot that proved fatal 
 to him, and which has gained for his name an 
 unenviable immortality. He took advantage of a 
 misunderstanding that seems to have existed be- 
 tween David and the men of Judah, and set him- 
 self sedulously to gain the confidence and affection 
 of all visitors to the court. In particular, those 
 who came to have matters of law decided were 
 flattered by the attentions of the heir-apparent, 
 who also was careful to drop hints that the king 
 might do far more to expedite the administration 
 of justice, and that if he (Absalom) were only judge, 
 a very different state of things would be inaugur- 
 ated. Thus he ‘stole the hearts of the men of 
 Israel.’ He was greatly helped in the accomplish- 
 ment of his scheme by the extraordinary personal 
 charms he possessed (2 S 14%-?7), 
 
 How long this preparatory stage lasted is un- 
 certain. The forty years of 2 S 15’ manifestly 
 cannot be correct, ana should perhaps be read four 
 years. When at length he pueed that the time 
 was ripe for the execution of his rebellious enter- 
 
 rise, A. obtained leave of absence from his 
 ather, on pretence of having to go to Hebron to 
 
 y a vow he had made during his sojourn in 
 Ceebur. His emissaries were at work throughout 
 the whole land, preparing for a general rising, and 
 his adherents became daily more numerous. At 
 the very outset he gained over David’s famous 
 counsellor Ahithophel the Gilonite, who may have 
 had reasons of his own for deserting the king 
 (see BATHSHEBA). So alarming were the reports 
 which reached David, that he resolved to abandon 
 the capital and save himself and his household by 
 flight to the eastern Jordanic territory. He was 
 accompanied by the faithful Cherethites and Pele- 
 thites, to whom were added on this occasion a body 
 of Gittites who had probably formed part of David’s 
 followers in the old days at Ziklag. The offer of 
 Zadok and Abiathar to accompany him with the 
 ark was declined, and Hushai the Archite was also 
 directed to remain at Jerusalem and do his utmost 
 to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel. Upon 
 Absalom’s arrival in Jerusalem, Hushai played the 
 part of rebel so skilfully that he gained the com- 
 plete confidence of the aspirant to the throne. 
 Ahithophel first of all counselled A. to take a step 
 which would make the breach between him and his 
 father irreparable (2 S 167-*), and then advised 
 that prompt measures should be taken to pursue 
 and destroy David before he could rally around 
 him of considerable number of troops. Hushai 
 counselled delay and cautious measures, and his 
 advice was followed, to the chagrin of Ahithophel, 
 who, seeing that all was lost, went and set his 
 house in order and hanged himself. The two sons 
 
 of Zadok and Abiathar were despatched by Hushai 
 with intelligence to David of what had transpired 
 at Jerusalem. The young men were hotly pursued, 
 and narrowly escaped capture, but evading their 
 pursuers by stratagem reached David, who the 
 same night with his whole company passed over 
 
 Jordan. At Mahanaim, Barzillai the Gileadite and 
 others supplied him liberally with provisions. Ere 
 long a sutlicient number of troops was assembled 
 to justify the king in joining battle with the 
 forces of A., which by this time had also passed 
 the Jordan. The decisive battle was fought in 
 ‘the wood of Ephraim.’ David, yielding to the 
 wish of his supporters that he should not expose 
 his life by taking the field in person, arranged his 
 army in three divisions, commanded respectivel 
 by Joab, Abishai, and Ittai the Gittite. To each 
 of these three generals he gave the charge, ‘ Deal 
 gently, for my sake, with the young man, even 
 with Absalom.’ From the very first the tide of 
 battle set strongly against the rebel army, which 
 lost heavily in the engagement, and still more 
 heavily in its retreat through the forest. Absalom 
 himself was hurried by his mule under an oak, and 
 becoming entangled by the head in the fork of a 
 branch, hung defenceless. In this situation he was 
 discovered by a soldier, who at once informed Joab. 
 The royal general, who appreciated the situation 
 more justly than his master, unhesitatingly pierced 
 the hapless youth to the heart. Having thus dis- 
 osed of the rebel leader, Joab recalled his troops 
 rom the pursuit of the vanquished army. When 
 news of the issue of the battle was brought to 
 David, he forgot everything else in grief at his 
 son’s death, and exclaimed again and again, ‘O 
 my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom ! would 
 God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my 
 son!’ This conduct, natural enough from one 
 oint of view, might have had serious results but 
 or the sturdy common-sense of Jeab, who pointed 
 out that the king had to think of his soldiers as 
 well as his son. The remonstrance was sufficiently 
 rough in its expression, yet David recognised its 
 wisdom, and, stifling his emution for the time, 
 came out and thanked his troops for their gallant 
 service in the field. A. was buried near the scene 
 of his death, and the spot was marked by a great 
 heap of stones. According to 2S 14%’ he had three 
 sons, and a daughter named Tamar. The latter is 
 with much probability identified with Maacah of 
 1 K 15, the wife of Rehoboam (cf. 2 S 3°, 2 Ch 11”), 
 The sons must have predeceased their father, or else 
 a different tradition is followed in 2S 181%, where 
 we are told that A. had no son. 
 
 The story of Absalom forms part of the section 
 2S 9-20 and 1 K 1-2, which, with the exception 
 of a few passages, comes from a single pen. its 
 dominating aim is to trace the progress of Solomun 
 to the throne. Hence it has to explain how the 
 three sons of David who seemed to have superior 
 claims, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah, failed to 
 secure the succession. The style is bright and 
 flowing, the descriptions are graphic, and, with 
 all the writer’s evident partiality for David and 
 Solomon, the historical character of these chapters, 
 down even to the minutest details, is established by 
 proofs that are amongst the strongest in the O.T. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Driver, Introduction, p. 172f.; Budde, Richter 
 u. Samuel, pp. 247-255 ; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 
 etc., pp. 258-268, also Hist, of Isr. and Jud. 50f. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ABSALOM In Apocr. (’ABeocoddAwpos, “AWddwyos 
 A).—1. A. was the father of Mattathias, one of the 
 captains who stood by Jonathan the Maccabee 
 when the main part of his army fled at the be- 
 ginning of a battle against the Syrians at Hazor in 
 Northern Galilee (1 Mac 11%=Jos. Ant. XII. v. 7). 
 It is perhaps the same Absalom whose son Jonathan 
 was sent by Simon the Maccabee to secure Joppa 
 after his brother Jonathan had been imprisoned 
 by Tryphon (1 Mac 134=Jos, Ant. XI. vi. 4). 
 2. According to 2 Mac 11”, one of two envoys 
 sent by the eve to Lysias when he began to treat 
 with them for peace after his defeat at Bethsuron 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 20 
 
 ABSALOM’S TOMB 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Beth-zur) in 165 B.c. In 1 Mac 4%+=Jos. Ant. 
 XIL. vii. 5, no mention is made of overtures for peace, 
 but Lysias is stated to have withdrawn to Antioch 
 for reinforcements. It is probable that the author 
 of 2 Mac has made some confusion between the 
 first expedition of Lysias and a second invasion 
 two or three years later, when, after gaining a 
 victory at Beth-zur, he made terms with the Jews 
 in consequence of troubles in Syria. 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 ABSALOM’S TOMB.—See JERUSALEM. 
 
 ABUBUS (“Afov8os, 1 Mac 16%) was the 
 father of Ptolemy, the son-in-law of Simon the 
 Maccabee, by whom Simon was murdered at 
 Jericho. 
 
 ABUNDANCE.—This word is used with great 
 freedom in AV, translating ahout twenty Heb. and 
 nearly as many Gr. words. Each occurrence should 
 be considered in relation to the orig. word. Here it 
 is necessary only to draw attention to the obs. use 
 of a. to signify superfluity: Mk 124 * All they did 
 cast in of their a.’ (RV ‘superfluity,’ Gr. 7d repic- 
 
 cetov, as opp: to bcrépnors, ‘deficiency,’ said of the. 
 k 
 
 widow ; so 214); Ps 105” ‘Their land brought 
 forth frogs in a.’ (RV ‘swarmed with frogs,’ Heb. 
 yw; so Ex 8%, and cf. Gn 1-2! 97); 2 Co 127 
 ‘through the a. of the revelations’ (Gr. drepBon%, 
 RV ‘exceeding greatness’). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABUSE, ABUSER. —1. In NT abuse is used 
 twice (as tr. of xaraxpdouwar) when the meaning is 
 not a. but ‘use to the full’ regardless of con- 
 sequences (see Thayer, N.T. Lex.): 1 Co 7% 
 ‘Those that use the world as not abusing it’ (RV 
 m. ‘using it to the full’); 9% ‘that I a. not my 
 power in the gospel’ (RV ‘so as not to use to 
 the full my right in the gospel’). 2. In OT a. is 
 found thrice (as tr. of 5$y) with a person as object. 
 In 1 § 314 and 1 Ch 104 the meaning is insult or 
 
 dishonour, as in Milton, Sam. Ag. i. 36— 
 
 ‘I, dark in light, exposed 
 To daily fraud, contempt, abuse, and wrong.’ 
 
 But in Jg 19” it is the old sense of defile or 
 ravish ; ‘They knew her, and abused her all the 
 night.’ Cf. Fordyce, Serm. to Young Women 
 (1767): ‘ He that abuses you, dishonours his mother.’ 
 Hence in 1 Co 6° dpcevoxoirns, ‘one that lies with 
 a male,’ is tr’ ‘abusers of themselves with man- 
 kind’ (RV ‘men’); and RV gives the same tr. 
 at 1 Ti 1, 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ABYSS.—The translation (in RV, not in AV) 
 of d&Bvccos, a word compounded from a intensive 
 and Bvoobs, Ionic form of Bvdds, depth (2 Co 11%), 
 and connected (see Curtius) with Badv’s, deep, and 
 the Eng. bath; primarily and classically an adj. = 
 very deep, or even bottomless; applied to the 
 yawning gulfs of Tartarus (Eur. Phen. 1605) 
 and, metaph., to a sea of calamity (Aisch. Suppl. 
 470): in profane Greek used as a subst. by Diog. 
 Laert. only (iv. 5. 27), on an epita h, ‘the black 
 abyss of Pluto.’ (Comp. Job 41% LXX rév rdprapov 
 Tis aBiaoov.) Once (perhaps twice) in LXX it is 
 an adj. (Wis 10” the bottomless deep of the Red 
 Sea: possibly also Job 366 metaph. =boundless) : 
 elsewhere, LXX, NT, and eccl. Gr., a subst. ; in 
 LXX the trans., with few exceptions, of ¢éhdém, 
 the tumultuous water-deep (some thirty times), 
 and, once each, of mézilah, sea-deep (Job 41°), 
 of zilah (Is 4477), the deep flood (of Euphrates) 
 and of rahabh, spacious place (Job 361° if subst.). 
 Primarily in LXX it signifies (with tehdm) the 
 waters beneath, by which the earth was at first 
 covered (Gn 1%, Ps 1045), but on which it was 
 afterwards made to rest (Jon 2; see Ps 24°), and 
 
 ACCAD, ACCADIANS 
 
 from which its springs and rivers welled up (Gn 
 71 49%, Dt 87: cf. Rev 9! ¢pdap). Not unnatur- 
 ally it denoted also the upper seas and rivers 
 connected with the subterraneous waters (Ps 107% 
 106°), the original notion of tumultuousness in 
 téhém (Ps 42") being overlaid by that of depth in 
 &Buooos (Sir 24%, Jon 2°, Ps 367). Secondarily, from 
 the notion of subterraneousness and depth, it is 
 the place after death, but is never in LXX the 
 actual translation of Sheol (though this etymologi- 
 cally =depth, Ps 71”; cf. Ps 86%); in this sense, 
 SoRaent , itis not justifiable to eliminate alto- 
 gether.the connotation of raging waters. [Comp. 
 the contrast with heaven in Gn 74 (rqyal d48tacou) 
 with that in Ps 1398 (Sheol) and in Ro 10? 
 (4Bvocos); also Job 41% LXX, and Job 264 
 (vdaros).| The relation to Sheol, with its dull, 
 shadowy monotony and even eral | coupled 
 with the OT idea of Sheol as a pit dungeon (Is 
 24"), and with pre-NT apocalyptic usage (Enoch 
 10% chasm of fire; 21° prison of the angels; 184 
 abyss), prepared for the NT use of the word. It 
 occurs only twice outside Rev: in Ro 10? it is 
 simply the abode of the dead; in Lk 8* it is the 
 prison destined for evil spirits. In seven passages of 
 Rev (chs, 9. 11. 17. 20) it is a prison in which 
 evil powers are confined (20-8), and out of which 
 they can at times be let loose (117178), but is not 
 the lake of fire (20%); nor is Satan regarded as 
 himself cast into this prison, but only to be so 
 cast (20?) for 1000 years. J. MASSIE, 
 
 ACACIA.—See SHITTIM. 
 
 ACCABA (B ‘AkcxaBd, A TaBd, AV mee! 1 Es 
 5°°,—His descendants returned among the ‘temple 
 servants’ under Zerubbabel. Called Hagab (139), 
 Ezr 2%; Hagaba, Neh 7*. 
 
 ACCAD, ACCADIANS.—Accad (or Akkad), with 
 Babel, Erech, and Calneh, was one of the chief 
 cities in the land of Shinar. These four con- 
 stituted the beginning of the kingdom of Nimrod 
 (Gn 10”), The LXX reads’Apxydé. The Bab.-Assyr. 
 inscriptions are the source of all our information on 
 this name. It was at first supposed that Akkadd, 
 occurring so frequently in the inscriptions in 
 connexion with Sumer, referred only to a district 
 or province. But it is now known that there was 
 a city of that name (Hilprecht, Freibrief Neb. i. 
 
 col. ii L 60). Its form is a = 
 
 and is read af Akkad (or ‘non-Sem.’ Agade), city of 
 Accad, the name under which the city was for long 
 centuries known. It was the residence of the first 
 historical ruler of all Babylonia, Sargon I., whose 
 activity dates from 3800 B.c., according to the 
 statement of Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.), an inserip- 
 tion discovered in 1881 on the site of Sippar. 
 Frequent references to two Sippars, ‘Sippar of the 
 Sun-god’ and ‘Sippar of Anunit,’ indicate some 
 strange fortunes in connexion with this site. The 
 worship of Ishtar of Accad was Ser: by that of 
 Anunit of Sippar. In very early times Sippar 
 was the chief seat of sun-worship, and Accad of 
 Ishtar worship. Gradually there was a political 
 absorption, and all references seem to justify the 
 assumption that of those two cities lying close 
 together, Sippar with its Sun-god became the 
 more power and practically absorbed Accad. 
 The worship of Ishtar, however, did not lose its 
 identity, but was continued under the name of 
 Sippar of Anunit (McCurdy, Hist. Prophecy and 
 the Monuments, § 94). It is possible, but still 
 unproved, that the city of Accad lay opposite te 
 Sippar on the left bank of the Euphrates. Its 
 exact site is a matter of doubt, but it is thought to 
 have been located near Abu-habba, about fifteen 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ACCAD, ACCADIANS 
 
 
 
 miles west of Baghdad. Delitzsch eset that 
 it may have been one of the two cities which bore the 
 
 ‘name of Sepharvaim, but McCurdy locates this 
 
 double city in N. Syria (§ 349). The Wolfe expedi- 
 tion to Babylonia in 1884-85 (cf. Report, pp. 24, 25) 
 located it at Anbar, on the Euphrates, N.W. of the 
 ruins of Babylon. It was probably the capital city 
 of mdt Akkadi. (Consult for greater fulness the 
 literature named below.) 
 
 From ancient times the kings of Babylonia, and 
 the kings of Assyria who ruled over this territory, 
 appended to their names sar Suméri u Akkadi, 
 king of Sumer and Akkad. Now, what was the 
 origin of this double title? It was probably not 
 indicative of the two regions of Babylonia, 8. and 
 N., as kings who ruled only over 8S. Babylonia 
 claimed it. It was also claimed by conquerors 
 who had not advanced farther S. than Nippur (cf. 
 Winckler, Unterswch. z. altorient. Ges. 65 ff.). It 
 seems, then, that ‘Sumer and Accad,’ in the titles of 
 kings, may have been no more than a claim to the 
 ancient territory and city of Accad, with additional 
 territory (cf. McCurdy, § 110). (For other views 
 of the question, cf. Schrader, Kedlinschriften u. 
 Geschichtsf. p. 533f.; Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 198; 
 Tiele, Gesch. Babyl.-Assyriens, part i. p. i6E ) 
 
 Upon the identification of these names with 
 eae localities has been built up the theory of 
 the so-called Sumerians and Accadians. To the 
 consideration of this theory we will now turn our 
 attention. 
 
 It is maintained by a certain school of Oriental 
 historians and linguists, that the lower Mesopo- 
 tamian valley was at an early day populated by 
 the Aceadians, who were originally related to the 
 Sumerians. They spoke, it is said, an agglutina- 
 tive language. In the midst of these peoples 
 Sem. tribes settled down, and adopted the languave 
 and customs of their foresettlers. Step by step the 
 Sem. language gained ascendency, and about 1200 
 B.C. the native tongue died out, except as a sacred 
 and literary vehicle, in which capacity it served 
 until a late date. It is claimed that those early 
 non-Sem. peoples reached a high degree of civilisa- 
 tion, that they left many traces of their culture in 
 their monuments of art and language, and that we 
 can readily interpret them. This supposed pre- 
 historic people and their language are termed 
 amon ng. Assyriologists, ‘ Accadians,’ among 
 French and German ‘Sumerians,’ derived from the 
 supposedly most important localities where the 
 most ancient inscriptions are found. 
 
 On the other hand, there is a growing school 
 which maintains that the Semites, whom we know 
 as possessing the cuneiform characters, were the 
 inventors of these last and the developers of Sem. 
 culture, and that the so-called ‘Sumerians’ and 
 ‘Accadians’ are but figments of an over-zealous 
 scientific spirit. A few only of the points can be 
 noticed. We find in the inscriptions of Assyria 
 and Babylonia word-lists which give a twofold, and 
 sometimes a threefold, explanation of cuneiform 
 ideograms. These ideograms are found in all 
 stages of the Bab.-Assyr. language. In these lists 
 one column of explanations gives us regular Sem. 
 words, and another, words somewhat unfamiliar 
 fn sound, which are supposed to be of non-Sem. 
 origin. But careful scrutiny shows that these 
 strange words yield to Sem. roots, and that even 
 the most unfamiliar are simply made up of possible 
 word-forms of the same idiom, disguised according 
 to regular ascertainable methods. Again, what 
 can be said of so-called bilingual or unilingual 
 texts? In both cases we meet with an abundance 
 of these disguised Sem. words, and of Sem. gram- 
 matical constructions and modes of thought. The 
 evidence of the slight remains of prehistoric art in 
 Babylon is not decisive. Again, the Sem. Baby- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ACCEPT, ACCEPTABLE 21 
 
 
 
 lonians never in any way speak of or allude to any 
 such people as the supposed Sumerians or Accadians. 
 Still, the same language was used in Babylon dowr 
 to the latest period of its history, with no name, 
 nor even a tradition, of that supposed great 
 and influential nation whose heritage fell to the 
 Semites. Other peoples who came into contact 
 with the Babylonians, and who exercised consider- 
 able influence on them, ¢.g. the Elamites, receive 
 frequent mention, but there is not the slightest 
 allusion to an Accadian race. It is not impossible 
 that new discoveries may remedy this defect, but 
 it is certainly amazing that what is assumed to 
 have been the most influential factor in early Bab. 
 civilisation is entirely unmentioned. When we 
 find that Sem. documents date from as early a 
 period as the earliest so-called ‘Accadian,’ and 
 that this hypothetical language was used along- 
 side of the regular Sem. for nearly 3000 years, we 
 are inclined to ask, ‘What does this mean?’ 
 In an examination of the language, we find many 
 Sem. words and values which at first sight do not 
 admit of such an explanation. But it is a fact 
 that the number which do admit of it is con- 
 tinually increasing. Out of 395 phonetic values, 
 Prof. Delitzsch names 106 which he regards as 
 demonstrably Sem. (Assyrische Grammatik, § 25). 
 Prof. McCurdy adds more than 40 others, running 
 a the list to about 150 values. It is not impos- 
 sible that further investigation may greatly in- 
 crease the number. 
 
 But do not the inscriptions from Telloh, which are 
 plainly ideographic, furnish conclusive proof of the 
 soundness of the Accadian theory? So one might 
 expect; but we are already finding in them actual 
 Sem. words, disguised ane the forms which are 
 found in later bilingual texts. Besides, it is found 
 that the oldest kings of ‘Ur of the Chaldees,’ the 
 founders of the first Bab. kingdom, knew how to 
 write Sem. as well as ‘ Accadian’ inscriptions, 
 
 [Note By Ep1Tror.—Professor Price has been 
 permitted to state his view of this question unre- 
 servedly. For he is himself an accomplished student 
 of Assyriology, and he has the support of some 
 eminent scholars (see especially McCurdy, History, 
 Prophecy, and the Monuments, i. 87 ff.). But the 
 Editor thinks it necessary to say that the weight 
 of authority is undoubtedly on the other side, lead- 
 ing Assyriologists everywhere having come to the 
 conclusion that the view which Professor Price com- 
 bats is substantially true. The reader should, how- 
 ever, consult the literature which Professor Price 
 has given below, representing both sides of the ques- 
 tion, and the articles ASSYRIA and BABYLONIA.] 
 
 LITERATURE.—Schrader, Zur Frage nach d. Urapr. d. altbab. 
 Kultur, 1883; Haupt, Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrift- 
 texte, 1881 f.; Die Sumerisch-Akkadische Sprache, Verh. 
 Sten Or. Cong. ii. pp. 249-287; Die Sumerischen 
 Familiengesetze, 1879 ; Hommel, Zeitsch. f. Keilschriftforschung, 
 vol. i. p. 214f.; Zimmern, Babylonische Busspsalmen, 1885, 
 p. 71f.; Hommel, Ges. Bab.-As. 1885, 2401f.; Tiele, Bab.-As, 
 Ges. 1886f., 68; Halévy, Apergu grammatical de U Allographie 
 aa.-bab. 1883 ; Mélanges de critique et dhistoire relatifs 
 aux peuples sémitiques, 1883; Delitzsch, As, Grammatik, 1889, 
 § 25; McCurdy, Presb. and Ref, Review, Jan. 1891, Pp. 58-81; 
 
 Hist. Proph. and Mon. 1894, i. §§ 79-85; Hommel, 
 Sumerische Lesestiicke, 1894; several articles in Zeitschrift fur 
 Assyriologte, by Halévy, Guyard, and others. 
 
 TRA M. PRICE. 
 
 ACCEPT, ACCEPTABLE, ACCEPTATION. — 1. 
 Besides other meanings, accept is used in the sense 
 of ‘receive with favour’: Gn 47 ‘If thou doest 
 well, shalt thou not be accepted?’ Dt 33" ‘ Bless, 
 Lord, his substance, and a. the work of his hands.’ 
 It is then sometimes followed by ‘of’: Gn 32™ 
 ‘I will appease him with the present. . . per- 
 adventure a will a. of me’ (RV ‘accept me’); 
 2 Mac 13%‘ And the king accepted well of Mac- 
 cabeeus.’ ‘Accept’ or ‘accept the person’ is often 
 the translation of Heb. 0 xy} ‘to lift up the 
 face,’ i.e. to look favourably on: Job 42° ‘The 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ee 
 
22 ACCEPTANCE 
 
 ACCOMPLISH 
 
 
 
 Lord also accepted Job’; Pr 18° ‘It is not good 
 to a. the person of the wicked.’ This Heb. idiom 
 has been tr. into Gr., and is found in the NT as 
 mpocwrov hauBdvw, always in a bad sense, ‘ par- 
 tiality,’ ‘respect of persons.’ Lk 207 ‘ Neither 
 acceptest thou the person of any’; Gal 2° ‘God 
 accepteth no man’s person.’ Then this phrase is 
 turned into xpogwrodjurrns (Ac 10% ‘respecter 
 of persons’), tpoowmrod\numréw (Ja 2° ‘have respect 
 to persons,’ RV ‘of persons’), and mpocwmroAnuyla 
 (‘respect of persons’ Ro 2", Eph 6%, Col 3%, 
 Ja 2'), three words found nowhere but in the NT 
 and (thence) in eccles. writers. The English 
 ‘accept the person’ is derived from the eccles. Lat. 
 acceptare personam. 2. Acceptable is used in the 
 sense of ‘favourable’: Is 49° ‘In an a. time have 
 I heard thee’; 61? ‘To proclaim the a. year of the 
 Lord’ (t.¢e. the year of cohovaks favour). 3. Ac- 
 ceptation= favourable reception, is found in 1 Ti 
 1” 4° ‘ worthy of all a.’ 
 
 fags pee aed sees on Gal 26; Sanday and Headlam on 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ACCEPTANCE.—Accept and cognate words are 
 used in Scripture to denote the relation of favour 
 and approval in which one man may stand to other 
 men, and especially to God. f the various 
 pees employed to convey the idea, those of most 
 Trequent occurrence are in OT, xv} ‘to raise,’ and 
 my] ‘to associate with, have pleasure in,’ and in 
 NT, evapéoros, ‘well pleasing.’ The conditions of A. 
 with God appear in OT partly as ceremonial, partly 
 as moral and religious. Purifications and sacrifices 
 (which see) are necessary in view of human 
 ignorance and sin. But the sacrifices must be 
 offered in a spirit free from greed or deceit. To 
 enforce the moral disposition which must accom- 
 pany every eee is one of the great functions of 
 the prophets. hen the covenant has been 
 established between God and Israel, entrance into 
 it becomes a condition of receiving, and especially 
 of having a joyful assurance of, the divine grace 
 and favour. Similarly in NT, A. is set forth as only 
 in Jesus Christ and for His sake (Eph 1, 1 P 2°); 
 and, as the history of the patriarchs presents us 
 with living pictures of what is acceptable to God 
 under the old covenant, so Jesus is Himself the 
 Beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased 
 (Mt 317 175), and the type of all that God receives 
 and approves. A. STEWART. © 
 
 ACCESS.—This word (not found in OT) occurs 
 in NT in Ro 5?, Eph 2" 3 as the rendering of 
 mpocaryury}. The Gr. word may express either an 
 actual ‘ bringing near,’ or ‘introduction,’ o7 merely 
 a ‘means of access,’ or ‘a right to approach.’ In 
 class. Gr. the idea suggested might be that of 
 ‘introduction to the presence-chamber of a 
 monarch.’ The OT associations of the kindred 
 verb mpogdyew seem to connect the word rather 
 with the peculiar relation in which Isr. stood to J”, 
 and to give the term a special appropriateness in 
 describing the admission of Gentiles into a new 
 covenant relation with God (rhv yxdpw ravrny, 
 Ro 53, cf. Eph 21”), ef. Ex 19° and 1 P 38; and the 
 approach ot Christian worshippers to the Father 
 (Eph 218 314), cf. Lv 1? ete., Lv 44, Mal 14, Ezk 4438 
 etc. This last idea is worked out in detail in He 
 1019-22, Our ‘right to approach’ or ‘our introduc- 
 tion’ is uniformly described by St. Paul (cf. 
 Jn 14°) as given us by Christ. 
 
 J. O. F. MURRAY. 
 
 ACCO, AV Accho (\2y).—This city, included in 
 the lot of Asher (Jg 1%), was never taken by 
 Israel. Known at different times as Ptolemais 
 (1 Mac and NT), St. Jean d’Acre, Accaron, Acon, 
 etc., the old Heb. ‘>y ‘Acco survives in the Arab 
 ‘Akka. Josephus calls it ‘a maritime city of 
 
 Galilee’ (BJ 11. x. 2). It was important as com. 
 manding the coast road, and affording easy access 
 to the great routes crossing the plain of Esdraelon. 
 
 From the promontory of Carmel the shore sweeps 
 northward with a beautiful inward curve, formin 
 the Bay of Acre, on the northern extremity o 
 which the city stands. From Ras en-Nakirah, in 
 the north, the mountains recede some miles from the 
 coast, leaving a fertile plain, which is bounded on 
 the south by the Carmel range. It is waterea py 
 the Kishon (el Makatta') and Nahr Na‘amdn, the 
 ancient Belus. The plain furnishes Haifa, Nazareth, 
 Tiberias, and Safed with half their supply of fruit 
 and vegetables, sending also much to Beyrout. 
 
 Of the 10,000 or 12,000 inhabitants, two-thirds are 
 Moslems, the remainder being Greek and Catholic 
 Christians, with a few Jews and Persians. It is 
 the seat of a provincial governor, under whom are 
 the districts of Haifa, Nazareth, Tiberias, and 
 Safed. The chief trade is the export of grain 
 brought by camels from Haurdn. About 1000 tons 
 of ofl from the olive groves of Galilee are alsa 
 annually exported. Entered from the south by a 
 single gate, it is defended to landward by a double 
 rampart, to seaward by a strong wall. The ancient 
 inner harbour has disappeared, and the outer is 
 used only by smaller vessels, the neighbouring 
 anchorage of Haifa being more safe and convenient 
 for larger ships. 
 
 Few cities have had a stormier history. Allied 
 with Sidon and Tyre in the days of Eluleus against 
 Shalmaneser Iv. (Ant. IX. xiv. 2), it was taken by 
 Sennacherib, and given by Esarhaddon to the kin 
 of Tyre. Held in succession by Babylon an 
 Persia (Strabo, xvi. 2. 25), on the division of 
 Alexander’s kingdom it fell to Ptolemy Soter. Its 
 strategic value was proved in the Syro-Egyp. wars. 
 Betrayed to Antiochus the Great (B.C. 218), it was 
 immediately recovered by Egypt. Simon Maccabzeus 
 defeated and drove the forces of Tyre, Sidon, and 
 Ptolemais into the city (1 Mac 5%; Ant. XII. viii. 2) 
 Alex. Balas took it by treachery, and there married 
 Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy Philometor (Ant. 
 XIII. ii. 1, iv. 1, 2). Demetrius Nikator gave it to 
 Jonathan ‘for the necessary expenses of the temple’ 
 (1 Mac 10), Here Jonathan was perfidiously taken 
 by Tryphon(Ant. xi11. vi.2). Besieged by Alexander 
 Janneus, relieved by Ptolemy Lathyrus (Ané. XII. 
 xii. 4), it was captured by Cleopatra, who gave 
 it to the Syrian monarchy (Ant. XIII. xiii. 2). 
 Tigranes the Armenian having taken the city, 
 at once retired (Ant. xl. xvi. 4; BJ I. v. 3). 
 Falling to the Parthians (Ant. XIV. xiii. 3; BJ I. 
 xiii. 1), it finally passed under the power of Rome, 
 and was raised to the rank of a colony, with the 
 title, ‘ Colonia Claudii Czsaris Ptolemais.’ Herod 
 built here a gymnasium (BJ I. xxi. 11). It is 
 last mentioned in Scripture in connexion with St. 
 Paul’s visit (Ac 21’). W. EwIna. 
 
 ACCOMPLISH.—The primary meaning of a. is to 
 bring to a successful issue. But the only examples 
 of this in the AV are Ps 648, Pr 13¥9, 1 Es 127, Ac 215. 
 Sometimes a. simply means to ‘do,’ ‘ perform’: 
 1 K 5%, Jth 28, Is 55" ‘it (God’s word) shall a. that 
 which I please.’ It is occasionally used in the 
 obsolete sense of ‘to complete a period of time’: 
 Jer. 2512 ‘when seventy years are accomplished’; Is. 
 40? ‘her warfare is accomplished’; Job 14° ‘ till 
 he shall a., as an hireling, his day.’ From this 
 arises its most frequent meaning, to bring to 
 an ideal or divine completeness, to fulfil: (a) 
 
 rophecy (once only), 2 Ch 36”; (6) God’s wrath. 
 ie 4 Ezk 6!2 78 13! 208 21; (c) Christ’s work, 
 Lk 9%! 1250 198! 9957, Jn 19% The RV has 
 sought to reserve this meaning for the word 
 ‘fulfil,’ but unsuccessfully. 
 J. HAstTInes 
 

 
 ACCORD, ACCORDINGLY 
 
 ACCORD, ACCORDINGLY, ACCORDING TO.— 
 1. ‘Of its own accord’ is used in the special sense 
 of without human agency in Ly 255 ‘That which 
 groweth of its (see ITs) own a.,’ and in Ac 12” 
 ‘which opened to them of his own a.’ From the 
 Gr. in both ner es (airéuaros) we get our word 
 ‘automatically.’ In 2 Co 8” ‘of his own a. he 
 went unto you,’ the Gr. (av@alperos) is lit. ‘self- 
 chosen,’ of his own free choice. 2. In I[s 59% 
 ‘Acc. to their deeds, accordingly he will repay’: 
 “ace. to’ and ‘accordingly’ are translations of the 
 same Heb. word, and have the same meaning. 3. 
 In Ezk 42-12 ‘acc. to’ means ‘ corresponding to.’ 
 4. As verbal adj. ‘according’ is found only in Wis 
 18! ‘an ill a. cry’ (dcvpgwvos, RV ‘in discord’): ef. 
 In Memoriam— 
 
 *That mind and so rding 
 May make one soe hatin ay = 
 J. HASTINGS, 
 
 ACCOS (‘Axydés, 1 Mac 81”).—Eupolemus, the 
 son of John, the son of Accos, was one of the 
 envoys sent to Rome by Judas Maccabiens in 
 161 B.c. Accos represents the Heb. Hakkoz 
 (y'p2), which was the name of a priestly family 
 (1 Ch 24 Ezr 2%); Eupolemus, therefore, may 
 well have been of priestly descent. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ACCOUNT. — As a subst. a. is either literally 
 the number counted, as Ec 7” ‘Counting one by 
 one, to find out the a.’; or premphorcaly ‘reckon- 
 ing’ (Gr. Aédyos, ‘ word’), as Ro 14” ‘ Every one 
 of us shall give a. of himself to God.’ As a verb 
 a. is used in rare or obs. meanings. 1. To estimate, 
 as Dt 2” ‘That also was a“ a land of giants’; 
 Ro 8% ‘We are a“ as sheep for the slaughter’ ; 
 He 11° ‘a that God was able’; He 117 RV ‘ais 
 (AV, ‘esteeming’) the reproach of Christ greater 
 riches.’ Cf. 1 Mac 6° ‘He made a. (édoyloaro) that 
 he should die.” Then it is sometimes followed by 
 ‘of,’ as 1 K 10 ‘It (silver) was nothing accounted 
 of in the days of Solomon’; 1 Co 4!‘ Let a man 
 so a. of usas of the ministers of Christ.’ 2. To 
 ‘reckon’ or ‘impute,’ as Gal 3° ‘It was a (RV 
 ‘reckoned’) to him for righteousness.’ 3. To 
 ‘seem,’ or ‘be reputed,’ as Mk 10% ‘they which 
 area (Gr. of doxodvres) to rule over the Gentiles’ ; 
 so Lk 22%, Cf. Gal 2% ‘those of repute’ (Gr. 
 ol Soxodyres). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ACCURSED.—In AV op hérem is tr. ‘accursed’ 
 in Jos 6!” 712%, and ‘a. thing’ in Jos 618% 71 dé. 
 UL. 18.15 992%, 1 Ch 27. In all these places RV gives 
 ‘devoted’ or ‘d. thing.’ For the hérem is not 
 accursed from God so that we may make what 
 secular use of it we please, but devoted ¢o God, and 
 not to be used by us at all. A. is also the tr. of 
 dvdbeua, anathema, in Ro 9° 1 Co 12? Gal 18% In 
 these passages RV simply transliterates the Greek. 
 See CURSE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ACHAIA (’Axata), when Greece was free, was the 
 strip of land bordering the Corinthian Gulf on the 
 S.; but, by the Romans, the name Achaia was 
 are to the whole country of Greece, because 
 the Achzean League had headed Greek resistance to 
 Rome. Conquered and united with the province 
 of Macedonia in B.C. 146,* Achaia was in B.C. 27 
 made a separate province; and Thessaly, A‘tolia, 
 Acarnania, and some part of Epirus, together with 
 Eubeea and the western, central, and southern 
 Cyclades, were included in it. It was governed by 
 an Official with the title Proconsul (Ac 18"), who 
 was appointed by the Senate from among the 
 
 * This fact, hotly disputed for a time since 1847, is now gener- 
 ally admi ; but A. was treated more easily than some pro- 
 vinces; Athens (and Delos, which see), Sicyon (which received 
 tel of the territory of Corinth), Sparta (which was free from 
 
 xation and head of the Elsutherolakones) receiving specially 
 favours dle terms; see 1 Mac 1523, 
 
 ACHAN 23 
 
 
 
 ex-pretors ; and not less than five years must have 
 elapsed between his preetorship and his vroconsul- 
 ship. Corinth was the capital of the pra vince, and 
 the proconsul’s ordinary residence (Ac 181"). As 
 the severity of taxation was a subject of complaint, 
 Tiberius, in A.D. 15, reunited Achaia with Mace- 
 donia and Mesia under the administration of an 
 imperial Jegatus ; but in 44, Claudius made it again 
 a senatorial and proconsular province. Either at 
 this or some later time, Thessaly was divided 
 from Achaia and united with Macedonia, and 
 Epirus with Acarnania was made a separate pro- 
 curatorial province (as Ptolemy III., § 13. 44-46, and 
 § 14, describes them). On 28th November, A.D. 67, 
 Nero at the Isthmian games declared Greece free; 
 but within a few years Vespasian again made 
 it a senatorial province; and, so long as the 
 empire lasted, it was governed by a proconsul, 
 under whom were a legatus and a questor. The 
 proconsul and his legatus were regularly annual 
 officials, and so was the questor always, but an 
 imperial /egatus governed for a much longer term 
 (two ruled from A.D. 15 to 44). In ordinary Gr. 
 usage, the term ‘Hellas’ corresponded approxi- 
 mately to the Rom. sense of Achaia; and in that 
 way Ads is mentioned in Ac 20%. But there was 
 a wider sense of the epithet ‘Greek,’ according to 
 which Macedonia could be thereby designated ; 
 and thus Achaia and Macedonia together constitute 
 the Gr. lands in Europe, and are sometimes coupled 
 as a closely connected pair (Ac 197; cf. Ro 157, 
 2 Co 97, 1 Th 18). 
 
 The existence of Jewish settlements and syn- 
 agogues in Corinth and Athens, the two greatest 
 cities of Achaia, is attested in Ac 17!7 18*7; and 
 is suggested elsewhere by the rapid foundation of 
 new churches in Achaia (1 Co 2!, Ac 1877). The 
 presence of Jews is proved in Sparta and Sicyon as 
 early as B.C. 139-138 through the letters addressed 
 to dose States by the Rom. Senate, 1 Mac 15”; 
 and in Beotia, Atolia, Attica, Argos, and Corinth 
 by a letter of Agrippa to Caligula, Philo, leg. ad 
 Gaium, § 36 (Mang. ii. 587). Jewish inscriptions 
 have been found at Athens, Patra, and A’gina. 
 
 LiTgRATURE.—There is a good article on Achaia in Pauly- 
 Wissowa, RE: see also Marquardt, Rém. Staatsverw. i. p. 321f.; 
 Mommsen, Provinces of Rom. Emp. (Rém. Gesch. v.) ch. vii. 
 
 M. RAMSAY. 
 
 ACHAICUS (’Axaitxés).—The name is Roman (see 
 CoRINTH), and appears to have been perpetuated 
 in the family of i Mummius, who earned it by his 
 conquest of Corinth and Achaia, B.c. 146. The A. 
 of 1 Co 16%” may have been a freedman or client of 
 the Mummii. In company with Stephanas and 
 Fortunatus he had appeared at Ephesus, and had 
 ‘refreshed the spirit’ of St. Paul, and, he adds, 
 of the Corinthians also; they thus ‘supplied’ 
 something which ‘was lacking’ on the part of 
 the Corinthians. This suggests that they were 
 distinct from (1) the bearers of the Cor. letter 
 (1 Co 7!) to St. Paul ; and from (2) of XAdqs (1 Co 1"), 
 who had more recently brought back to Ephesus 
 the disquieting news, under the fresh impression 
 of which 1 Co was written. (See STEPHANAS, 
 FoRTUNATUS, CHLOE ; CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPIS- 
 TLE TO). A. ROBERTSON. 
 
 ACHAN (j>y, in 1 Ch 2? 1py, Sept. ’Axdp, prob. 
 the correct form of the name, cf. ‘Valley of 
 Achor’).—A man of the tribe of Judah, son of 
 Carmi, also called (Jos 22”) son of Zerah, who 
 was his great-grandfather. After the fall of 
 Jericho, he coveted and took a portion of the spoil, 
 which had been devoted to utter destruction. This 
 sin in the devoted thing, involving the breach of a 
 vow made by the nation as one body, brought 
 wrath upon all Israel, and their first attack upox 
 Ai was repulsed with the loss of thirty-six men 
 
24 ACHAR 
 
 
 
 ACHOR 
 
 
 
 Investigation was made by lot to discover who had 
 sinned, and Achan was singled out. He made full 
 confession of his guilt, and the stolen treasure was 
 found hid under his tent. Instant execution fol- 
 lowed. Not only Achan himself, but his tent, his 
 goods, his spoil, his cattle, and his children, were 
 taken to the valley, afterwards called the valley 
 of Achor. There they stoned him, and all that 
 belonged to him, afterwards consuming the whole 
 with fire, and raising over the ashes a great hea 
 
 of stones. This act of vengeance is represente 
 
 as being in some measure an expiation of the 
 crime, ‘The Lord turned from the fierceness 
 of His anger.’ The supposition that his family 
 were accessories to his crime finds no su port in 
 the narrative. The language of Jos a (‘all 
 Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned 
 them with fire’) has been regarded as implying 
 that Achan alone suffered the death penalty, the 
 plural number referring to the oxen, asses, and 
 sheep, and that his sons and daughters were 
 brought to the valley merely as spectators, that 
 they might have a terrible warning. It is doubt- 
 ful if the text will bear this construction, and the 
 sweeping nature of the act of judgment recorded is 
 rather to be explained by reference to the stage of 
 moval development which Israel had reached at 
 the time (Jos 71-*). R. M. Boyp. 
 
 ACHAR.—The form in 1 Ch 2’, 2 Es 7% of the 
 name ACHAN (wh. see). 
 
 ACHBOR (ni22y ‘mouse’ or ‘jerboa’).—1. An 
 Edomite (Gn 36%). 2. A courtier under Josiah, 
 mentioned as one of the deputation sent by the 
 king to Huldah the prophetess; son of Micaiah 
 (2 KK 2232-14), and father of Elnathan (Jer 26” om. 
 [.XX, 363%), Called Abdon (2 Ch 34”), 
 
 C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 ACHIACHARUS (’Ax:dxapos B, ’Axelxapos 8, 7p'psx 
 Aram. and Heb,, wns Syr.), the nephew of Tobit, 
 was governor under Sarchedonus = Esarhaddon 
 (To 1* ete.), or, according to the Aramaic 
 text, ‘Rab over all that was his (the king’s), 
 and Shalit over all the land of Assyria’; cf. 
 Dn 2%, The nearest Hebrew name is Ahihud 
 (any), 1 Ch 87. J. ‘I. MARSHALL, 
 
 ACHIAS.—An ancestor of Ezra (2 Es 12), omitted 
 in Ezr and | Es. 
 
 ACHIM (’Axelu).—Perhaps a shortened form of 
 Jehoiachim, an ancestor of our Lord (Mt 1"). See 
 GENEALOGY. 
 
 ACHIOR (’Axidp, rene ‘brother of light’).—4. In 
 LXX Nu 34” for Ahihud. 2. In Jth (5° etc.), 
 a general of the Ammonites, spokesman for the 
 Jewish cause, and afterwards convert (ch. 14). 3. 
 In Vulg. To 11 by mistake. F. C. PoRTER. 
 
 ACHIPHA (B ‘AyeBd, A ’Axi¢d, AV Acipha), 
 1 Es 5*.—His children were among the ‘temple 
 servants’ or Nethinim who returned with Zerub- 
 babel. Called Hakupha, Ezr 2°1, Neh 7%. 
 
 ACHISH (wax, ’Ayxous).—The king of Gath to 
 whom David fled for refuge after the massacre of 
 the priests at Nob. Finding himself recognised 
 as the slayer of Goliath, David feigned madness, 
 and so escaped from the Phil. court (1 S 212). 
 (This incident belongs to one of the later documents 
 of Samuel.) In 1 S 27? (belonging to the Judaic 
 or earliest document) A. is called ‘the son of 
 Maoch’ (possibly =‘ son of Maacah,’1 K 2°), receives 
 David with his band of 600 men, and assigns him 
 the city of Ziklag in the S. of Judah. Despite the 
 wishes of A., the other Phil. princes refuse to let 
 
 David take part in the final campaign against 
 Saul. J 
 
 . F. STENNING. 
 
 ACHMETHA (xnony, ’ExBdrava), the cap. of Media, 
 mentioned Ezr 6? as the place where State docu- 
 ments of the time of Cyrus were preserved. The 
 Aram. form of the name em noyee in Ezr (LXX 
 *Auadd) closely resembles the Pehlevi be (Bunde- 
 hesh, p. 23, i. 4), derived from the Old Pers. hang- 
 matana (Behistan Inscr. II. xiii. 8), derived by 
 Rawlinson from ham and gam, with the meaning 
 ‘meeting-place.? This Old Pers. form, accommo- 
 dated to the Greek pronunciation, gave rise to the 
 name Agbatana or Dabatand (To 65, Jth 12), and 
 survives in the modern Hamadan (34° 8’ N, 48° 3’ 
 E), the cap. of the province of Persia bearing the 
 same name, with hich the ancient cap. ef Media 
 is ordinarily identified. Hamadan lies at the foot 
 of Mt. Elwend, ‘ whence it derives a copious water 
 supply, and in a plain thickly besprinkled with 
 vineyards, panels and gardens, but whose 
 elevation is 6000 ft. above the sea ; it enjoys one of 
 the finest situations in Persia’ (Curzon, Persia, 
 i. 566). This is Nepstl the Ecbatana of To 6°, 
 where it is represented as lying midway between 
 Nineveh and Phaged? and also of Strabo, xi. 523, 
 who knows of it as the summer residence of the 
 Parthian kings; for which its elevation and con- 
 sequently cool climate suited it. But the ancient 
 cap. of the Median empire, built, according to 
 Herodotus (i. 98, 99), by the first king Deioces 
 (c. 700 B.c.), ‘with walls of great size and strength, 
 rising in circles one within the other,’ each wall 
 being coloured to correspond with one of the seven 
 planets, is to be sought, acc. to Sir H. Rawlinson 
 (JRGS x., art. 2, and ad d.c. Herod.), not at 
 Hamadan, but at Takht-i-Sulayman (36° 25’ N, 
 47° 10’ E) in Adherbijan, the ancient Atropatene, 
 distinguished from Media Magna. The Armenian 
 historian, Moses of Chorene (ii. 84, ed. Whiston), 
 speaks of the ‘second Ecbatana, the seven-walled 
 city’; and in the very learned paper quoted, 
 Rawlinson (1) identifies that ri with the Gazaka 
 of the Greeks and Ganzak of the Armenians; 
 (2) identifies Ganzak with the Shiz of Mohammedan 
 writers; and (3) localises Shiz at Takht-i-Sulayman, 
 where a conical hill, surrounded by ruins, which 
 enclose a lake that has attracted the observation of 
 ancient and modern travellers, corresponds with 
 the description of Ecbatana given by Herodotus, as 
 well as with what that historian tells us of the char- 
 acter of the surrounding country (i. 110). Hama- 
 dan, which lies at the foot of a mountain, would 
 not admit of being fortified in the way described ; 
 and, though search has been made by numerous 
 explorers (see Polak in Mittheilungen der Wiener 
 Geograph. Gesellschaft, 1883, art. 1), no traces have 
 been discovered of buildings such as Herodotus 
 mentions. The description in Jth (1), to which 
 no historical value attaches, would seem to refer to 
 the same city as that of Herodotus; and another 
 record of the impression created by the strength of 
 its fortifications is, according to Rawlinson, to be 
 found in the account of Var in the 2nd Fargard 
 of the Vendidad. D. 8. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 
 ACHOR VALLEY (73x poy ‘valley of trouble,’ 
 Jos 7%: 26 157, Is 65, Hos 2!5),—In the last 
 
 probably Wdady Kelt, a deep ravine close to the 
 site of the Jericho of the Christian era. The 
 
 stream becomes a foaming torrent after rains, 
 and, issuing into the plains, runs between steep 
 banks south of modern Jericho to the Jordan 
 (SWP vol. iii. sh. xviii.). Cc 
 
 CONDER. 
 
 
 

 
 ACHSAH 
 
 
 
 
 
 ACHSAH (7922 ‘anklet,’ 1 Ch 249A V Achsa).—The 
 daughter of Caleb. She was promised in marriage 
 by her father to the man who should capture 
 Debir or Kiriath-sepher. Othniel, the brother 
 (nephew ?) of Caleb, accomplished the feat, and 
 obtained the promised reward. As the bride was 
 being conducted to her home, she lighted off her 
 ass, and besought her father to add ‘springs of 
 water’ to the dowry of a south land (Negeb), 
 which he had already given her. In response he 
 granted her ‘the upper springs and the nether 
 springs’ (Jos 1516-19, Jg 19-15), R. M. Boyp. 
 
 ACHSHAPH (‘¥28).—There were perhaps two 
 towns in Galilee of this name. 1. Noticed with 
 places in Upper Galilee, may be the present Hi-Kesaf 
 $. of the Leontes, on the mountains of Naphtali 
 (Jos 11112»), 2. A city of Asher (Jos 19°), noticed 
 with other towns near the coast, is more probably 
 the modern #l-Yasif near Acre. ‘This is also 
 noticed by the Mohar, an Egyp. traveller (14th 
 cent. A.D.) on his way down the coast. The loss 
 of the letter caph in this name may be compared 
 with the well-known case of Achzib (2). See 
 SWP vol. i. sheets ii. iii., and Chabas, Voyage 
 dun Egyptien. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ACHZIB (3%!2%).—4. One of the 22 towns of Asher 
 (Jos 19 B *Eyo(6B, A’Ax (elo, in Jg 131 B’Acyael, 
 A *Acxeviel). It is identified as Ez-Zib on the 
 coast between Acre and Tyre, near where the level 
 line of sand is broken by the promontory of Ras- 
 en-Nakurah. The present village — a mere huddle 
 of glaring huts on one of the highest eminences of 
 the sandy sea-wall—has nothing to indicate that it 
 was once a place of some note. It is mentioned in 
 Jg 181 among the towns and districts that Israel 
 failed to conquer. A. was called Aksibi by the 
 Assyr., and Ecdippa by the Greeks and Romans. 
 Josephus and Jerome refer to it. The Rabbin. 
 writers, hedging the Land as they did the Book, 
 marked out three districts, indicated by A., 
 Antioch, and Mesopotamia. They inclined to the 
 view that A. was on the outside of the first 
 boundary line, All within was Holy Land, where 
 bread, wine, and oil could be found ceremonially 
 clean, and where the dates of the months and 
 their fasts could be accurately known in time 
 for observance. 
 
 2. Another Achzib (B Ke¢ei8, A omits), situated 
 in the Shephelah or ‘low-land’ of Judah, is men- 
 tioned along with Keilah and Mareshah in Jg 15**, 
 and with Mareshah and Adullam in Mic 114. This 
 neighbourhood suggests a possible identification 
 with ‘Ain-Kezbeh near Adullam. The name 
 appears as Kezib (1"!2, XacBi) in Gn 38°, and as 
 Kozéba (82), B Zwxnda, A Xw(mBd) in 1 Ch 422, 
 Some literary interest attaches to Mic 114, where it 
 is said that ‘the houses of Achzib shall be a lie 
 (Achzab) to the kings of Israel.’ The resemblance 
 seems to imply a play on the word. Occurring 
 in a passage of vehement reproach, such derision 
 corresponds to the spitting on the ground, which 
 Orientals resort to when greatly excited and 
 provoked —as an expression of uttermost nausea 
 and contempt. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 ACQUAINT, ACQUAINTANCE.—Acquaint as a 
 reflexive verb, meaning to make the acquaintance 
 of, is found in Job 2271, Ec 23. Cf. Shak.’s 
 Temp. II. ii. 39: ‘Misery acquaints a man with 
 strange bedfellows.’ Acquaintance is both sing. 
 and plur., Ps 554 ‘But it was thou, a’man mine 
 equal, my guide, and mine a.’ (RV ‘my familiar 
 friend’) ; Lk 23! ‘And all his a. and the women 
 that followed him from Galilee. Acquainted, 
 meaning ‘to be familiar with,’ occurs Ps 159°, 
 Ts 538 ‘a, with grief.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 25 
 
 
 
 ACROSTIC.—A poem so composed that the initial 
 letters of certain recurring periods (lines, distichs, 
 etc.) follow some definite arrangement. In the 
 OT all the recognised acrostics are alphabetical, 
 i.e. the initials make up the Heb. alphabet. They 
 are Pss 9-10. 25. 34. 37. 111. 112. 119. 145, Pr 3110-81, 
 La 1. 2. 3. 4, Sir 511%30, See also Hab 12-2), 
 The periods assigned to each letter may consist 
 of one line (Pss 111. 112), two (Pss 34. 145, etc.), 
 three (La 3, etc.), or even sixteen lines (Ps 119); 
 or the lines may vary in number, as esp. in 
 La 1 and 2, and to some extent in the Psalms, 
 Where the period consists of several lines, the initial 
 letter is sometimes repeated with each line (La 3) 
 or distich (Ps 119). In other respects the acrostics 
 vary very much in style and subject, and, though 
 usually late, undoubtedly belong to very different 
 dates. Thus Pss 37 and 119 from their didactic 
 style are evidently late, while the Jahwistic Ps 25 
 is comparatively early. The acrostic character 
 of these poems often throws indirectly an inter- 
 esting light on their history, showing us unmistak- 
 ably the hand of the reviser, who sometimes did 
 not scruple to disturb their alphabetical character. 
 The most striking example of this is in Ps 9-10, 
 originally one alphabetical psalm of usually four 
 lines to each letter. This the reviser cut into two, 
 in Ps 9 adding vy.2?“!* as an appendix (comp. 
 Ps 2572 348), and omitting two or three verses 
 after v.56. In Ps 10 the verses represented by n—¥ 
 were omitted to make room for the insertion of a 
 very curious and ancient fragment in vy.?1, 
 Somewhat similar, but less violent, alterations 
 occur in Pss 25. 34 and 37. Thus in Ps 265 the 
 insertion of »bx by the Elohistic reviser (see 
 HEXATEUCH) in y.? gives x instead of 3 as the 
 initial letter. It would seem also that v.18 has 
 been substituted for a p verse, or else that the 
 latter has been omitted. The omission of the 3 
 verse in Ps 145 appears to be accidental. It is 
 interesting to notice that when the psalms are, 
 from their style and position in the Psalter, likely 
 to be of late date, there is little or no interference 
 with their alphabetical arrangement. The trans- 
 position of the letters y and » in La 2 and 3 cannot 
 easily be accounted for. 
 
 Bickell, Zeitsch. fiir Kathol. Theol. (Innsbruck) 
 1882, p. 326 ff., has shown that the conclusion of Sir, 
 of which the original Heb. is now lost, was alpha- 
 betical, the letters n—n, vv.21-29, being evident at once 
 from the Syr. version. It has also been maintained 
 that Nah 12-218 was originally alphabetical ; but if 
 so, the text has been so altered by revision or 
 corruption that very few traces of this remain. 
 
 Some critics claim to have discovered a name 
 acrostic in Ps 110, the initials of 1-4, after omitting 
 the introductory words, spelling jypw; but this 
 coincidence can hardly be considered conclusive. 
 
 F, H. Woops. 
 **ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.— 
 1 
 
 . Introduction. 
 ii. Text and Transmission, 
 iii. Literary History. 
 iv. Modern Criticism. 
 vy. Purpose and Contents. 
 vi, Analysis. 
 vii. Authorship and Date, 
 viii. The Acts and Josephus. 
 ix, The Historical Value of the Acts. 
 (1) A Priori Objections. 
 (2) The Acts and St. Paul’s Epistles, 
 (3) The Archeological Evidence, 
 (4) The Period of Transition. 
 (5) The Early Community in Jerusalem. 
 (6) The Speeches. 
 x. Sources of the Acts. 
 xi. Conclusion. 
 xii. Literature. 
 
 i. The ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, the fifth book in 
 the English Canon, is unique in its character. 
 
 * The verses are numbered in this article according to the 
 Heb. Bible. 
 
 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner's Sons 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 26 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 While we have four separate narratives of the life 
 of our Lord, and a very considerable number 
 of letters by different apostles, it is the only 
 history of the early Church that can make any 
 
 claim to be authentic. Some writers indeed, such 
 as Holtzmann (Handkommentar, p. 807), suggest 
 that it is to be put on the level of other works 
 written in the second century recording the deeds 
 of the apostles; but such a position is quite 
 untenable. Even if some of them, such as the 
 Acts of Pauli and Thecla, may rest on an historical 
 basis, that is the most which can be admitted. 
 The greater number of them, most notably the 
 Clementine Romances, for which there was once 
 claimed almost an equality with the Acts, are 
 now decisively thrown to a later date. The Acts is 
 the sole remaining historical work which deals with 
 the beginnings of Church history; and _ this 
 amongst other causes has made it a favourite mark 
 of modern criticism. 
 
 ii. TEXT AND TRANSMISSION.—Although our 
 authorities for the transmission of the Acts are in 
 the main similar to those tor the Gospels, they are 
 fewer in number. Like the Gospels, it is contained 
 in the five leading Uncials (x A B C D), in the Vulg., 
 in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac, in the two 
 chief Coptic VSS, and there are quotations from it 
 in the leading Fathers. Two sources are, however, 
 defective. We have nothing corresponding to the 
 Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac, nor do we even know 
 whether such a text existed ; and the Old Latin is 
 very inadequately represented. On the other hand, 
 we possess one other Uncial of considerable im- 
 portance, namely, the Codex Laudianus (E) of the 
 Bodleian Library, Oxford, a bilingual MS. of the 
 Acts only. In later Minuscules it is generally 
 found forming one volume with the Catholic 
 Epistles. 
 
 The inadequate representation of the Old Latin 
 and the absence of an old Syriac text are to be 
 reeretted, owing to the fact that the particular 
 textual phenomena which they exhibit meet us in 
 some authorities of the Acts in a very conspicuous 
 form, namely, what is called the Western text (by 
 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 1xxi, the 5 text ; 
 by Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 24, the B text). 
 This is represented more or less definitely by the 
 two bilingual MSS. D EK, by the marginal readings 
 of the Harclean Syriac, by the Old Latin so far as 
 we can recover it (Codex Gigas, Floriacensis, and 
 similar fragments, with the Paris MS. Latin 321, 
 edited by M. Berger), and by Western Fathers, 
 esp. Irenzeus, ‘Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer, 
 Augustine, Vigilius, Bede (some having a mixed 
 text). The characteristics of this text are well 
 known ; it adds passages of considerable length, it 
 paraphrases, it sometimes seems to correct the 
 shorter text; and all these characteristics appear, 
 but in a very much more marked form, in the Acts ; 
 it sometimes gives a different aspect to a passage 
 by the variations from the shorter text, sometimes 
 its variations give additional and apparently 
 authentic information. The problem of the origin 
 of this text has caused in recent years a consider- 
 able amount of discussion. Some few critics, such 
 as Bornemann (1848), have been bold enough to 
 consider it the original text; but that opinion has 
 found few followers. Rendel Harris, in 1891, 
 started a series of modern discussions by suggesting 
 that the variations of Codex Bezz were due to 
 Latinisation, and implied the existence of a 
 bilingual MS. at least as early as 150 1.p. He also 
 found signs of Montanist influence. His main 
 theory was adequately refuted by Sanday in the 
 Guardian (18th and 25th May 1892), who ascribed 
 the recension suggested by the Western text to 
 Antioch. Ramsay, in 1892 (Church in Rom. Emp. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p. 151, ed. 2), found evidence of a Catholic reviser | (ib. iv. 23). 
 
 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 who lived in Asia before the year 150, a locality 
 which had already been suggested by Lightfoot 
 (Smith’s DB? i. p. 42), while WH suggest N.W. 
 Syria or Asia Minor (Gr. Test. ii. p. 108). 
 Dr. Chase, in 1893, attacked the problem from 
 another side, accepting Antioch as the locality, 
 and finding the principal cause of the variations in 
 retranslation from the Syriac, a position he failed to 
 make good. Lastly, Dr. Blass has suggested that 
 the author issued two editions, and that both forms 
 of the text are due to himself personally, the one 
 representing a rough draft, the other a revision: 
 again, a theory which is hardly satisfactory (see 
 Chase, Crit. Rev. 1894, p. 300ff.; Blass’ reply 
 begins in Hermathena, No. xxi. p. 122). » 
 
 A definite solution of the problem has not been 
 attained, nor has it yet been attacked in a really 
 scientific manner. <A careful study of the MSS. D 
 and E, and their relations, is necessary in order to 
 eliminate their individual peculiarities. But in all 
 probability the solution lies in the direction 
 suggested by WH (p. 122f.). If we compara 
 the phenomena presented by the text of apocr. 
 writings we find just the same tendency to varia- 
 tion, but in an even more exaggerated form, 
 Popular literature was treated with great freedom 
 by copyists and editors. Immediate edification or 
 convenience was the one thing considered, During 
 the first seventy years of their existence, 7.e. up ta 
 the year A.D. 150, the books of NT were hardly 
 treated as canonical. The text was not fixed, and 
 the ordinary licence of paraphrases, of interpre. 
 tation, of additions, of glosses, was allowed. ‘These 
 could be exhibited most easily in early and 
 popular translations into other languages. It was a 
 process which would have a tendency to continue 
 until the book was treated as canonical, and its 
 text looked on as something sacred. Although 
 some whole classes of readings may be due to one 
 definite place or time, yet for the most part they 
 represent rather a continuous process, and it is 
 not probable that any theory which attempts to tie 
 all variations down to a special locality or a definite 
 revision will now be made good. 
 
 In one point, however, WH’s conclusions will 
 require modification. It must not be forgotten 
 that Western authorities represent ultimately an 
 independent tradition from the Archetype. It is 
 quite conceivable, therefore, that in any single 
 reading, which is clearly not Western in its 
 character, they may preserve a better tradition than 
 the MSS whose text we should usually follow. We 
 must, in other words, distinguish Western readings 
 from readings in Western authorities. For 
 example, “EAA.jvas read by AD in 11”? may be 
 correct. 
 
 iii. The LITERARY HISTORY of the Acts is 
 similar to that of the great number of books of 
 NT. In the last quarter of the second century, 
 when we begin to have any great extent of 
 Christian literature, we find it definitely cited, 
 treated as Scripture, and assigned to St. Luke. 
 This is the case esp. with Irenzus, who cites 
 passages so continuous as to make it certain that 
 he had the book before him substantially as we 
 have it, but with many of the readings we call 
 Western. He lays stress on the fact that there is 
 internal evidence for the apostolic authorship, and 
 is followed in this by the Muratorian Fragment 
 (Iren, Adv. Her. i. 23.1; iii, 12. 12, 18.38, 14,1, 15.1; 
 iv. 15. 1). The book is also ascribed to St. Luke 
 by Tertullian (De Teiunio, 10) and Clement of Alex, 
 (Strom. v. 12. § 83, p. 696, cf. Sanday, BL, p. 66f.) ; 
 while undoubted quotations appear in Polycrates 
 of Ephesus (Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 24), in the letter 
 concerning the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (ib, 
 y. 1), and a possible one in Dionysius of Corinth 
 By this date the work is an 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 EE IO Be ee ep meen aes 
 
 ae a Ee 
 
 Se as Vere ae = (en 
 
 
 
 integral portion of the Canon in all Churches, and 
 there are no signs of any difference of opinion. Nor 
 is there any reason for arguing that because our 
 knowledge of it begins suddenly, therefore the 
 book suddenly appeared in the Canon. We have 
 no decisive evidence earlier, because we have no 
 books to contain that evidence. Moreover, the wide 
 area over which our evidence extends seems to 
 imply that the ascription to St. Luke is a genuine 
 tradition, and not a mere critical deduction. 
 
 For an earlier period the industry of critics has 
 collected a number of parallels, on which indeed, 
 for the most part, no great stress can be laid; but 
 two lines of argument enable us to take the book 
 farther back. ‘The unity of authorship of the Acts 
 and St. Luke’s Gospel must be admitted as axio- 
 matic, and it is quite clear that Tatian, Justin, 
 and Marcion were acquainted with St. Luke’s 
 Gospel. Now, the existence of St. Luke’s Gospel 
 implies the existence of the Acts, and this con- 
 clusion is supported by a number of parallels 
 between the Acts and Justin, which would not 
 perhaps be by themselves of great weight (Ac 18 
 EA O02) — Dial. 68, 75 = Diat.16, 1723 = Ap. 
 Hw 1052679 = Dial. 36, 76). The use of St. Luke 
 by Marcion clearly carries the Acts back to the early 
 part of the second century; but we can go still earlier. 
 Among the apostolic Fathers there are suggestions 
 of contact with Barnabas, Hermas, and Clement on 
 which little stress can be laid, while Papias shows 
 himself acquainted with the persons mentioned by 
 St. Luke; but in Ignatius and Polycarp (Ac 24 = 
 Pol. 1, 10" = Pol, 2, 208° = Pol. 2, 72 = Pol. 6, 8?! 
 =seOwel2 i= len, Mag. 5, 655=Ien. Phil. 11, 
 104 = Ten. Smyn. 3) there are resemblances which, 
 although slight, are so exact as to make the hy- 
 pothesis of literary obligation almost necessary, 
 as Holtzmann even seems to think (Hinleitung,? 
 1892, p. 406, ‘there are still more noteworthy resem- 
 blances with Justin, Polycarp, and Ignatius’), ‘This 
 last evidence is of increasing importance, as not 
 only the genuineness but also the early date of the 
 letters of Polycarp and Ignatius is becoming daily 
 better established, and these quotations almost 
 compel us to throw back the writing of the Acts 
 into the Ist cent. —this is, of course, provided 
 we accept the literary unity. If we accept the 
 elaborate distinction of sources (see § x.) which 
 has become fashionable lately, no evidence at an 
 early date is valuable except for the words quoted, 
 
 The history subsequent to the second century 
 need not detain us. Some few heretics appear to 
 have left the work out of the Canon, and 
 Chrysostom complains that it was not much read 
 in his time; but it is always with him as with all 
 other Church writers, one of the accepted books. 
 Its place in the Canon varies. The ordinary 
 position is immediately after the Gospels (Hvv. Act. 
 Cath. Paul. or Evv. Act. Paul. Cath.), and this is 
 the place it occupies in almost all Gr. MSS. from 
 the Vatican onwards, in the Muratorian Fragment 
 and later lists, in Syr. and Lat. MSS. ‘The order, 
 Evv. Paul. Act. Cath., is that of the Sin., some 
 Minuscules, MSS. of the Peshitta of the 5th and 
 6th cent., the Codex Fuldensis and Vulg. MSS. 
 from the 13th cent. A third order is Lvv. 
 Paul. Cath. Act., which is found in the Apostolic 
 Canons, 85, the Bohairic and perhaps the Sahidic 
 MSS., in Jerome’s Bible and Spanish Vulg, MSS. 
 The only point of importance in the order would 
 be whether there was an early tradition grouping 
 the writings of St. Luke together. There is very 
 little evidence of this. In some cases St. Luke’s 
 was placed fourth among the Gospels, but this 
 happened, as a rule, in authorities which do not put 
 the Acts next; for example, the Codex Claromon- 
 tanus and some Coptic authorities. There seems, 
 however, some evidence for thinking ‘that in 
 
 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 27 
 
 
 
 Origen’s time the order of the Gospels was Jn 
 Mt Mk Lk, and that these were followed by the 
 Acts. In the case of Ireneus, however, our oldest 
 evidence for Asia and the West, we find the Gospel 
 already separated from the Acts and definitely 
 grouped with the other Gospels (Zahn, Geschichte 
 des Neutest. Kanons, ii. 3843-883). 
 
 iv. MODERN CRiTICISM.—1. By far the most 
 prevalent opinion concerning the Acts has always 
 been, and still is, that which ascribes it to St. Luke 
 the companion of St. Paul. This is the opinion, 
 not only of those critics who are classed as ortho- 
 dox, but of Renan, whilst it has recently been 
 maintained with great vigour by Ramsay and 
 Blass. It is, of course, compatible with very vary- 
 ing estimates of its historical authority. While 
 Renan considers it valuable mainly as a witness to 
 the opinions and ideas of the author’s own time, 
 Ramsay, on the other hand, claims for St. Luke 
 a place in the very first rank of historians —7.e. 
 amongst those who have good material, who use it 
 well, and who write their history with a very clear 
 insight into the true course of events. Even he, 
 however, admits that for the earlier portion its 
 value is dependent on the value of the sources used. 
 
 2. As soon as Baur began to develop his theory 
 of Church history, it became apparent that it was 
 inconsistent with the Acts; and partly arising from 
 a comparison with the history recorded in the 
 Galatians and for other critical reasons, but partly 
 owing to a different @ priori conception of what 
 was the nature of the development of the early 
 Church, an opinion has widely prevailed that the 
 Acts presents us with a fancy picture written in the 
 second century in the interests of the growing 
 Catholicism of the day. ‘This has been the view of 
 Baur, Schwegler, Zeller (to whom we owe by far 
 the fullest investigation on this side), Hilgenfeld, 
 Volkmar, Hausrath, Holsten, Lipsius, Davidson, 
 van Manen, and others. But in the extreme form 
 in which it was held it is gradually being given up. 
 Neither the late date nor the exaggerated view of 
 the differences of parties in the early Church is 
 really tenable. The unhistorical character comes, 
 it is now said, rather from defective knowledge 
 and insight, not from deliberate purpose, and the 
 writer wrote as he could rather than as he would. 
 He represents, in fact, the opinions of his day, those 
 of ‘Heathen Christianity developing into Catho- 
 licity’ (Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, Eng. tr. i. 56). 
 Moreover, few would care for a much later date 
 than 100 A.D. ‘The authorship by St. Luke would 
 be just conceivable if some time about the year 80 
 were taken as the terminus ad quem’ (Holtzmann, 
 Handkomm. p. 312). 
 
 8. The school of Baur had the great merit of 
 establishing the fact that the Acts is an artistic 
 whole, that the writer had a clear conception 
 of the manner in which the Church developed, 
 and wrote with that idea always before him. 
 In the last ten years a series of writers have 
 attacked the question of the sources of the book 
 (see § x.) in a manner quite inconsistent with this. 
 They have imagined a number of writers who have 
 gradually compiled the book by collecting and 
 piecing together scraps of other books, and by 
 altering or cutting out such passages in the same 
 as seemed inconsistent with their particular opin- 
 ions. This view, in anything like an extreme form, 
 is absolutely inconsistent with the whole character 
 of the work. 
 
 A sufficient amount has been said about the 
 various opinions which have been held, and it will 
 be most convenient to pursue our subsequent 
 investigations from the point of view which we 
 consider most probable. 
 
 vy. PURPOSE AND CONTENTS.—The purpose which 
 the writer of the Acts had before him may be 
 
28 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 gathered from his own preface, corresponding as it | because they are all events which help in taking 
 
 does with the plan and arrangement of the work. 
 There is indeed a slight obscurity. He begins by 
 referring to his previous book in the words rbv pév 
 mpa@rov Adyor, and very clearly sums up the contents 
 of the work as being wep) mavtwy dy iiptaro 6 “Inaois 
 moveiy Te Kal Sidaoney; but he never gives the second 
 part of the sentence. Its purport, however, may 
 be gathered from the following verses. The apos- 
 tles were to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and 
 of power, and were to be witnesses of the Lord in 
 Jerusalem and in all Judza and Samaria, and to 
 the uttermost parts of the earth. In other words, 
 the subject of the book is (1) the divine credentials 
 of the apostles as exhibited in their power, and (2) 
 the extension of the gospel in the stages marked 
 by the words Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, the 
 uttermost parts of the earth. 
 
 When we examine the structure of the book, we 
 find that it almost exactly corresponds with these 
 words. ‘There is clear evidence of method. The 
 writer begins with the enumeration of the names 
 of the apostles and the members of the community. 
 Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the 
 immediate outburst of power. ‘Then the preaching 
 in Jerusalem. In this we notice that all signs of 
 the apostolic power and all points which lead to the 
 spread of the gospel are specially noted. An in- 
 stance of the first is the story of Ananias and 
 Sapphira; of the last, the way in which the different 
 stages in the growth of the Church are continually 
 emphasised (24.47 44), In ch. 6 there is clearly a 
 new start. The appointment of the seven is dwelt 
 on, both because of the immediate exhibition of 
 power (6"), and because of the immense results 
 which followed from the preaching of Stephen and 
 the persecution which followed his death. 
 
 In 8 the second stage of progress is entered 
 upon. The 
 
 The word spreads to Samaria (84-2), 
 extension of the gospel is suggested by the story 
 
 of the Ethiopian eunuch (87640), In 91-30 comes 
 Saul’s conversion, an event of extreme importance 
 for the writer’s purpose. In 9%! is given another 
 summary of the progress of the Church—by this 
 time throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sam- 
 aria. A series of incidents relating to the mis- 
 sionary work of St. Peter now follows (932-11'8), 
 selected as containing the first definite signs of the 
 extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, “Apa ka) 
 rots tOveow 6 Oeds Thy metdvoray ets (why ESwkev. In 
 1119 we reach a further stage. The word is 
 preached in Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, 
 
 and the Church of Antioch is founded —the word, 
 
 being preached there to those who are not Jews. 
 In 1224 again the spread of the word is dwelt on. 
 Another stage in the narrative is ended. 
 
 We get in 13! or 12% what is clearly intended to 
 be a new departure. The amount of preparation 
 shows us the importance that the author attaches 
 to the first setting out of Paul and Barnabas to- 
 gether, and from this time onwards the narrative 
 proceeds very definitely forward until the time 
 when St. Paul reaches Rome. We may again 
 mark stages in the narrative — 134-1426 commonly 
 called the first missionary journey of St. Paul; 
 in which we notice the emphasis laid on the 
 exhibition of ddvauis on the part of the apostle. 
 In 15! comes the apostolic council; then 15%6- 
 2116 the further missionary enterprise of St. Paul. 
 Here we notice how it is always the points of 
 departure which are dwelt on, as, for example, the 
 first preaching in Europe and in great and im- 
 portant towns. Then 2117-2816 the series of events 
 which ultimately lead St. Paul to Rome. Here 
 the great fulness of detail arises partly from the 
 better knowledge of the author, partly from the 
 important character of the events, —St. Paul 
 preaches before rulers and kings, Lk 21!?, — partly 
 
 
 
 the gospel to Rome. There the author leaves St. 
 Paul preaching, because he has then accomplished 
 the purpose of his narrative. Rome is typical of 
 the ends of the earth. A definite point is reached, 
 and the narrative is definitely concluded. (For 
 arguments in favour of the definite conclusion of 
 the work, see Lightfoot in Smith’s DB? i, 27, as 
 against Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 23.) 
 
 The above sketch of the plan of the work has, at 
 any rate, the merit of being an attempt to discover 
 the author’s purpose by an examination of his own 
 language. The fault of other views is that they 
 exaggerate points of minor importance. A series of 
 writers from Schneckenburger (1841) onwards have 
 seen in the work a book of conciliating tendency, 
 based on the parallelism between St. Peter and St. 
 Paul; and this view in a more or less modified form 
 has been the prevailing one. It has, as will be 
 suggested, this much truth, that’ the writer would 
 pass over for the most part incidents of a less 
 creditable character; he did not, however, do so, 
 as this theory implies, because he wished to con- 
 ceal anything (he gives us quite sufficient hints 
 of the existence of difference of opinion, 157: 57f 
 212f), but because they did not help in the aim 
 of his work. He looks upon Christianity as 
 a polity or society, and it is the growth of this 
 society he depicts. The iternal history is looked 
 at in so far as it leads to external growth. The 
 view of Pfleiderer and some others is that the 
 book was written from an apologetic point of 
 view to defend Christianity against Judaism and 
 paganism. With this object, like the-later Chris- 
 tian apologists, the writer depicts the Roman 
 authorities as, on the whole, favourable to Chris- 
 tianity, while he represents the attacks as coming 
 from the Jews. ‘There is no doubt that he does so; 
 but the obvious reason for doing so was the fact that 
 the author was narrating things as they happened, 
 while he gives no hint that his work is intended to 
 be apologetic. It is addressed to a believing Chris- 
 tian, not to any outsider. 
 
 vi. ANALYSIS. — A certain amount of discussion 
 has taken place as to whether the Acts should be 
 divided into two or three main parts. All such 
 discussions are thoroughly fruitless. There are 
 quite clearly definite stages in the narrative, and 
 the writer is systematic. We must observe the 
 structure, but we are at liberty to make such divi- 
 sions as seem convenient — remembering that the 
 divisions are not the writer’s, but our own. The 
 following is suggested as a convenient analysis on 
 the lines of the previous summary. The speeches 
 are italicised : — 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 11-1), The Apostolic Commission. 
 
 Tue CHUROH IN JERUSALEM, 
 
 112-26, The names of the apostles and the completion of 
 their number. 
 
 Speech of Peter, 
 
 The gift of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Speech of Peter. 
 
 Increase of the disciples. 
 
 Healing of the impotent man, Speech of Peter. 
 
 Imprisonment of Peterand John. Speech of Peter 
 before the Sanhedrin. 
 
 Prayer of the Church on their release, ~ 
 
 Communism of the early Church — Barnabas, 
 Ananias and Sapphira, 
 
 Second imprisonment of Peter and John, 
 of Gamaliel. 
 
 The appointment of the Seven, 
 
 The preaching of Stephen. 
 
 The speech of Stephen. 
 
 Death of Stephen and persecution of the Church, 
 
 15-22 
 91-13, 
 14-42, 
 4247, 
 ‘ieee 
 qi-a3) 
 
 23-31, 
 82_516, 
 11-42, Speech 
 61-1, 
 8-15, 
 71°88, 
 5493. 
 
 Tue CHURCH IN JUD@#A AND SAMARIA, 
 . Philip in Samaria, Simon Magus, 
 . Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. 
 . Conversion of Saul, 
 . Extension of the Church. 
 . Peter at Lydda and Joppa. 
 
 
 
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 10™8, Conversion of Cornelius. Speech of Peter. 
 11+48, Discussion on the subject at Jerusalem, Speech 
 of Peter. 
 Tue Cuurcn In ANTIOCH. 
 111*26, Foundation of the Church in Antioch. 
 m-30, Collection for the poor in Jerusalem. Mission 
 of Paul and Barnabas. 
 121-19. Persecution of Herod, Peter thrown into prison. 
 20-23, Death of Herod. ) 
 24, Progress of the Church. 
 1225-138, Barnabas and Saul sent forth from Antioch. 
 First Misstonary JOURNEY OF PAUL AND BARNABAS. 
 132, Cyprus. Elymas and Sergius Paulus. 
 18-52, Antiochin Pisidia. Speech of Paul to the Jews. 
 14-7, Iconium. 
 8-20. Lystra. Speech of Paul to the Gentiles. 
 21-28, Visit to Derbe and return journey to Antioch on 
 the Orontes, 
 151-5, The apostolic councilin Jerusalem. Speeches of 
 Peter and James. Letter to the Churches. 
 Szconp Missionary JouRNEY oF St. Pau. 
 . The Churches revisited 
 . Journey into Europe. Philippi. 
 . Thessalonica and Berea. 
 . Athens. Speech of Paul in the Areopagus. 
 . Corinth, 
 . Return to Antioch in Syria. 
 . Visit to Jerusalem. 
 THIRD MIssiONARY JOURNEY. 
 1823, Visit to Galatia. 
 24-28, Apollos at Ephesus. 
 191-41, Paulat Ephesus. Disturbance in the theatre, 
 201-6, Journey in Macedonia and Greece. 
 7-12, 'Troas. 
 138-2116, Journey to Jerusalem. Speech to elders of 
 Ephesus at Miletus. 
 PAvL IN JERUSALEM. 
 2117-40, Disturbances arise. 
 221-21, Paul’s speech to the people. 
 22_9311, Paul before the Sanhedrin. 
 12-35, Paul sent to Cesarea. 
 241-27, Pauland Felix. Speeches of Tertullusand Paul. 
 25-26. Pauland Festus. Speech before Agrippa. 
 27-2816, Journey to Rome. 
 Paut 1 Rome. 
 2817-31, Interview with the Jews. Paul begins to preach. 
 
 vii. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE. — The following 
 arguments enable us to fix with a considerable 
 approach to certainty the authorship of the Acts. 
 (1) It is quite certain that it is written by the 
 author of the third Gospel. This is shown by the 
 preface, which, like that of the Gospel, is addressed 
 to ‘theophilus, and shows that the author claims 
 to have written such a Gospel, and by the identity 
 of style between the two books (the best and most 
 recent demonstration is that of Friedrich). This 
 fact may be taken as admitted on all sides. 
 (2) The presence of certain portions written in 
 the first person, seems to imply that the writer 
 was an eye-witness of some of the events he 
 describes, and a companion of St. Paul. In the 
 Acts there are certain passages which are tech- 
 nically known as the ‘we’ sections, viz. 1610-17 
 205-15 211-18 271_28)8.] Here the writer speaks in the 
 first person. Moreover, these sections and also 
 the accompanying incidents, in which the writer 
 does not take part, but at which he was probably 
 present, are presented with great fulness and 
 exactness of detail, and seem to imply that the 
 writer was an eye-witness. So far there is general 
 agreement. But two explanations then become 
 possible. Hither the author of these sections was 
 the author of the Acts, who changes the person 
 when he becomes himself one of the companions of 
 St. Paul, or these passages are one of the sources 
 which the compiler of the work makes use of. All 
 probability is in favour of the first view. The 
 style of the ‘we’ sections is that of the author. 
 It is perfectly true, indeed, that the author works 
 up his sources in his own phraseology, as may be 
 seen by a study of the third Gospel; but it is hardly 
 possible to believe that a writer so artistic as the 
 author of the Acts certainly is should have left 
 these exceedingly incongruous first persons. So 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 29 
 
 keenly has this been felt, that it has been suggested 
 that the author introduced these sections in the 
 first person to give an appearance of genuineness 
 to his narrative —a suggestion which refutes both 
 itself and some other theories. An examination 
 of the scope of these sections lends itself to the 
 same view. The first section begins at Troas 
 (161°) and continues to Philippi (16!); the second 
 begins at Philippi (20°) and continues over the 
 whole period to the end of the book, the third 
 person being occasionally adopted, as in 1617, when 
 the event recorded concerns only St. Paui and 
 some of his companions, and not the whole party, 
 nor the author personally. The most reasonable 
 explanation of that fact is that the writer of these 
 sections joined the party at Troas and went to 
 Philippi; that after an interval of some years he 
 again joined St. Paul at Philippi, perhaps his 
 native place, and accompanied him first to Jeru- 
 salem and then to Rome. If any other hypothesis 
 be adopted, it is difficult to account for the 
 exceedingly fragmentary character of the sections. 
 On the other side, it is argued that the ‘we’ 
 sections are so much more historical in their 
 character than some of the other sections, and so 
 much fuller in detail, that they clearly betray a 
 different hand. But the difference is never greater 
 than would be found in passing from the work of 
 an eye-witness to the work of one who, although a 
 contemporary, is not an eye-witness. It is urged, 
 again, that the work cannot be from the hand of 
 a contemporary because of the inexactness and 
 incorrectness of the knowledge of apostolic times 
 which it exhibits. But this is really begging the 
 whole question. We have no right to argue that a 
 book is late because it is unhistorical, unless we 
 have objective reasons for stating that it is so, which 
 overpower the positive evidence for the early date. 
 The balance of probability is in favour of the 
 author of the Acts being identical with the 
 author of the ‘ we’ sections, and therefore of being 
 a companion of St. Paul, but a companion who 
 joined the apostle somewhat late in his career, 
 and who therefore could only have a second-hand 
 acquaintance with earlier events. 
 
 (8) The tradition of the Church from the end of 
 the second century is that the author was Luke, a 
 companion of St. Paul; and this exactly corre- 
 sponds with the circumstances already described. 
 St. Luke is the only companion of St. Paul, so far 
 as our knowledge goes, who fulfils the conditions. 
 The Acts could not have been written by Timothy, 
 for Timothy was a companion during an interval 
 when the ‘we’ sections cease (Ac 17}#); nor by 
 Titus, for we know from Gal 2% that he was with 
 St. Paul earlier; nor by Silas, who was at the 
 council (Ac 1522). St. Luke is never mentioned in 
 any of the earlier Epistles, but he is in the later. 
 Corroborative evidence of the Lucan authorship 
 has been found in the medical terms used (Col 4%, 
 Lk 848, Ac 288 etc.). 
 
 (4) The argument ir favour of the Lucan author- 
 ship of both the Gospel and Acts, based on a chain 
 of coincidences, has been put very strongly by 
 Bp. Lightfoot. (a) Tradition gives to the Gospel 
 the name of St. Luke, a companion of St. Paul. 
 (6) Internal but unobtrusive evidence shows its 
 Pauline character. It dwells particularly on the 
 universality and freedom of the gospel ; and it refers 
 to less obvious incidents in our Lord’s life mentioned 
 by St. Paul (1 Co 11223=Lk 221%, 1 Co 165= Lk 
 2484), (c) The Acts of the Apostles was certainly 
 written by the same person as the Gospel. (d) 
 An independent line of argument shows that it 
 was written by a companion of St. Paul. (e) It, too, 
 is Pauline in its character (so far as we are at 
 liberty to use that word). It represents the same 
 universality and freedom of the gospel, and the 
 
 
 
30 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 same idea of the Christian Church, but more in the 
 concrete (see Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 124-128). 
 
 (5) The balance of argument is clearly, then, in 
 favour of St. Luke as author of the Acts. There 
 is, however, still room for doubt as to the time 
 when it was written. (q@) One theory places it 
 almost immediately after the close of the narrative, 
 and just before the outbreak of the Neronian perse- 
 cution. The book, it is urged, comes to an abrupt 
 conclusion, and the only explanation is that it is 
 unfinished. As has been pointed out above, there 
 is no real reason for saying the book is unfinished. 
 The arrival of St. Paul in Rome formed a suitable 
 conclusion, and the ending is similar in character 
 to the ending of the Gospel. In the extreme form 
 this argument is untenable, but it is still quite 
 possible to hold that the narrative concluded here, 
 because not many more events had occurred. More- 
 over, it might be held that the tone in relation 
 to the empire represented the period before rather 
 than after the Neronian persecution. The early date 
 is still held by Blass, and the arguments against it 
 are not very strong. 
 
 (b) The argument for a later date is generally 
 based on Lk 2129 as compared with Mt 24165, Mk 
 134, It is stated that the form of the prophecy 
 there recorded has been modified by the knowledge 
 of what happened at the siege of Jerusalem. The 
 Gospel therefore was written after that event, and 
 the Acts somewhat later, under the Flavians. The 
 criticism of Blass, however, has very considerable 
 weight, that there is little in the prophecies re- 
 corded by St. Luke which goes much beyond the 
 language of Dn 9%; and the reason given for a 
 late date can hardly be considered demonstrative. 
 Neither can that of Ramsay, who thinks that the 
 Gospel must have been written just after Titus 
 was associated in the empire with his father, so as 
 to explain the incorrect date of Tiberius (Lk 3!). 
 No arguments are certain, and the language of Lk 
 212) would in any case be quite compatible with a 
 date some time before A.D. 70; but perhaps on the 
 whole the amount of perspective contained in the 
 book is hardly compatible with the earlier date, 
 just as the relation of the third Gospel to the other 
 two suggests the later date, and a period shortly 
 after 70 is the most probable. Whether we can, 
 as Ramsay suggests, press the mparov of 1}, and 
 argue that a third treatise was in contemplation, 
 is very doubtful. 
 
 The following are dates suggested by various writers, and are 
 for the most part taken from Holtzmann ;: —64~70 (Hug, A. Maier, 
 Schneckenburger, Hitzig, Grau, Nésgen, Blass), c. 80 (Ewald, 
 Lechler, Bleek, Renan, Meyer, Weiss, Ramsay), 75-100 (Wendt, 
 Spitta), 90 (Késtlin, Mangold), 95 (Hilgenfeld), c. 100 (Volkmar), 
 110-120 (Pfleiderer), Trajan and Hadrian (Schwegler, Zeller, 
 Overbeck, Davidson, Keim, Hausrath), 1265-150 (Straatman, 
 Meijboom, van Manen). 
 
 The arguments for a later date are given most fully among 
 recent writers by Holtzmann (ZHinleitung,3 1892, p. 405) as 
 follows: —(1) Acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles (Rom, 
 Gal, Cor, Eph, Thess, and Heb), also with Josephus. (2) Deliber- 
 ate correction of the narrative of Gal 117-24 in Ac 926-30, of Gal 
 21-10 in 151-33, of Gal 21% in Ac 1585-39, (8) Unhistorical 
 account of speaking with tongues (Ac 211), of St. Paul’s 
 relations with the law, and legendary narratives such as that 
 of the death of Agrippa, 128. (4) The writer is contemporary in 
 time with the literary activity of Plutarch as shown by the 
 parallel lives; and of Arrian and Pausanias (narratives of 
 Journey), also of the wepiodoc of different apostles. (5) Atmo- 
 sphere of the Catholic Church; parallelism of St. Peter and St. 
 Paul; traces of the hierarchical view of the Church and esp. 
 the sacramental theory of laying on of hands. (6) Resem- 
 blances with the Pastoral Epistles. (7) Importance assigned to 
 the political side of Christianity; the Roman Empire always 
 represented as favourable to Christianity. 
 
 It is very difficult to deal with some of these 
 objections quite seriously. Even if the use of the 
 Pauline Epistles were proved, it is difficult to 
 see what that has to do with the late date of 
 the Acts. The contradictions with the Pauline 
 Epistles are largely dependent on @ priori views of 
 Church history. Some points, as the resemblance 
 
 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 to Plutarch, are purely fanciful. The political 
 point of view is exactly that of St. Paul’s Epistles. 
 One point requires perhaps slightly fuller investi- 
 gation; and the remaining points, so far as 
 they are serious, will be best dealt with in an 
 independent survey of the historical character of 
 the work, 
 
 viii. THE RELATION OF THE ACTS TO JOSEPHUS 
 presents to us, under the auspices of modern 
 criticism, a curious double problem. While older 
 critics, like Zeller, contented themselves with 
 pointing out historical discrepancies, later critics 
 since Keim (Gesch. Jesu, iii. 1872, 184, and Aus dem 
 Urchristenthum, 1878, 18) have attempted to show 
 that St. Luke made use of Josephus. The crucial 
 passage is that concerning Theudas (Ac 586). In his 
 speech Gamaliel is made to refer to a rebellion under 
 a leader of that name; but according to Jos. this 
 took place at least ten years later, under Cuspius 
 Fadus, and long after that of Judas the Galilean. 
 So far the problem was simple, but it is now main- 
 tained that the mistake arose from the misappre- 
 hension of a passage of Josephus. In one paragraph 
 he speaks about Theudas, in the next of the Sons of 
 Judas of Galilee, and this, it is maintained, is the 
 origin of the mistake. The two passages are 
 quoted thus — 
 
 Jos. Ant. xx. v. 1 f. 
 
 @evids . . . welOer Toy 
 
 a PA 
 mwAetoTOV OXAoV . . . 
 
 Z \ w 5. 
 
 Tpopnrns yap ereyey elvat, 
 K.T.A. 
 
 bados . . . etémreuev 
 UAnv inwéwy... ér avtovs, 
 TIS . . . WOAAOUS . . . 
 aveiAev. 
 
 Acts 5%6f 
 avéotn @evdas Aéyww 
 elval Twa équrov... ds 
 > / f 
 avnpén Kal mavtes Booe 
 érelOovto avt@ SvedvOn- 
 Tav, K.T.A. 
 
 meta TovTov dyvéorn 
 *Iovdas 6 TadiAatos év tais 
 nuépais «= THS amorypapis 
 kal améotnoe Aady driow 
 aurov. 
 
 mpos tovTos Sé kal of 
 matdes lovda Tov TadtAatov 
 anhxonoay Tov Toy Aady 
 amd “Payalwy damoothoav- 
 tos Kupwlov THs “lovdalas 
 TINT EVOYTOS. 
 
 Now, whatever plausibility this comparison may 
 have at first sight is very much diminished when 
 we remember that the two passages in Jos. do not 
 immediately follow one another, but are separated 
 by an interval of 20 lines or more. Nor when we 
 come to examine them do we find any close 
 resemblance in the language. There are words 
 common to both accounts, but they are none of them 
 characteristic ; it is not easy to describe a revolt 
 without using the word dmroorjoa in some form, 
 while the details are different in the two accounts ; 
 the Acts give 4000 men, Jos. gives no number. 
 This is recognised by Clemen (SK, 1895, p. 339), 
 who is of opinion that the author of the Acts had 
 read Jos. but forgotten him. Is this resemblance, 
 or fancied resemblance, supported by any other 
 passages? Keim and the author of Supernatural 
 Religion have collected a large number of parallel 
 passages, but they are not of a character to bring 
 conviction. On the other hand, the argument of 
 Zeller (Eng. tr. i. p. 232) on the discrepancy 
 between the Acts and Jos. in the case of the death 
 of Herod Agrippa is quite sufficient to prove inde- 
 pendence ; and this argument has been very well 
 brought out by Schiirer. Whatever the differences 
 between the Acts and Jos. prove, they are only 
 conceivable on the supposition of independence. 
 Most of these do not affect our estimate of the 
 historical character of the work; the difficulty 
 about Theudas, even if it admits of no solution, 
 may cast doubts on the historical character of 
 Gamaliel’s speech; it does not really affect 
 the question of the Lucan authorship of the 
 Acts. 
 
 
 
Pas 
 
 =e 
 
 i al a aT i ils le 
 
 
 
 
 
 f. 
 : 
 : 
 : 
 : 
 . 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 
 
 ix. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE ACTS.—1. A 
 priori Objections.—In investigating the historical 
 value of the Acts, we must first of all clear the 
 ground by putting on one side a number of @ priori 
 
 objections. To say that the document is un- 
 historical because it narrates miraculous events, or 
 because it contains accounts of angels, is simply to 
 beg the question. Even if we were quite certain 
 that such events were impossible and never 
 occurred, we have abundant evidence for knowing 
 that the early Christians believed in them. St. 
 Paul claims himself to have worked what were 
 believed both by him and his readers to be miracles 
 (Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 8f.). Again, all such 
 difficulties as arise from an @ priori theory of 
 Church history must be banished. To deny docu- 
 ments because they conflict with one’s theories, is 
 to argue in a vicious circle. Although there are 
 few serious critics who now accept the Ttibingen 
 theories, yet many of their assumptions have 
 acquired a traditional hold on the minds of writers, 
 and consciously or unconsciously affect their argu- 
 ments. Similarly, objections based on the hier- 
 archical or sacramental tendencies of a book assume 
 that we can find the beginning of such tendencies 
 in the Church ; which we clearly cannot do. 
 
 Much the same may be said of the supposed 
 parallelisms between St. Peter and St. Paul. 
 According to Holtzmann, the strongest argument 
 for the critical position is the correspondence 
 between the acts of St. Peter and the other 
 apostles on the one side, and those of St. Paul on 
 the other. Both begin their ministry with the 
 healing of a lame man; both work miracles, the 
 one with his shadow, the other with napkins. 
 Demons flee in the name of St. Peter and in the 
 name of St. Paul. St. Peter meets Simon Magus ; 
 St. Paul Elymas and the Ephesian magicians. 
 Both raise the dead. Both receive divine honours. 
 Both are supported by Pharisees in the council. 
 St. Paul is stoned at Lystra, Stephen at Jerusalem. 
 St. Paul is made to adopt the language of St. 
 Peter, St. Peter of St. Paul, and so on. The 
 value of such an argument is one which can only 
 depend upon individual feeling. It is, of course, 
 perfectly true that they both occupy prominent 
 places, that they are, in fact, the writer’s heroes ; 
 but that does not prove the unhistorical character. 
 We may well refer to Plutarch’s lives. Because the 
 writer finds parallels between the lives of two men, 
 it does not prove that his narrative is fictitious. 
 But, further, although there are resemblances, there 
 are very considerable differences as well, and the 
 resemblances arise largely from the positions in 
 which the apostles were placed. ‘There is nothing 
 unnatural in the points of similarity, and they are 
 balanced by many points of difference. 
 
 Lastly, all arguments against the Lucan author- 
 ship, or the historical character of the work, drawn 
 from the fact that the writer clearly has a definite 
 plan and purpose, are quite beside the mark. The 
 distinction between a history and a chronicle is 
 just this, that a history has a plan. The writer, 
 from personal knowledge or other sources, forms a 
 conception of the course of events, and writes his 
 history from that point of view. In the present 
 case the writer wishes to illustrate and describe 
 the steps by which the Christian Church has 
 developed. From that point of view he selects his 
 materials ; from that point of view he describes the 
 events and the periods which are to him important ; 
 from that point of view he emphasizes the careers 
 of St. Stephen, of St. Peter, of St. Paul. His view 
 may be right or may be wrong, but because a 
 writer has a view he is not necessarily unhistorical. 
 We hope to show that the merit of St. Luke lies 
 in having brought out just the point of view which 
 was important, and that, although there are points 
 
 
 
 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 31 
 
 
 
 in which he is perhaps incorrect, substantially his 
 history is true and trustworthy. 
 
 2. The Acts and St. Paul’s Epistles.—A consider- 
 able portion of the narrative of the Acts is con- 
 temporary with certain of St. Paul’s Epistles. 
 Here, then, we have some opportunity of controlling 
 the narrative, and here we have to meet a very 
 curious combination of arguments. It is now 
 maintained that the Acts is late, and its narrative 
 unauthentic because of differences from St. Paul’s 
 Epistles, and then that these Epistles are its sources. 
 To prevent these arguments conflicting, we have to 
 suppose a deliberate falsification of the narrative 
 of Galatians by the author of the Acts, and an 
 extraordinary capacity on his part to conceal his 
 obligations. The parallels quoted are very slight, 
 but most numerous in the case of the’ Epistles of 
 the captivity. Even here they have little value as 
 implying literary obligations ; but if, as we believe, 
 St. Luke, the author of the Acts, was St. Paul’s 
 companion in captivity, and possibly acted as his 
 amanuensis, it is natural that his phraseology 
 should be influenced by that personal contact. 
 
 There are three passages which demand a more exact com- 
 
 parison. 
 (a) Gal 127-24=Ae 926-80, 
 (6) Gal 21-10 =Ac 151-88, 
 (c) Gal 2U1f. =Ac 1535-89, 
 
 (a) If we examine the first passages we notice quite definitely 
 certain discrepancies. The Acts contain no reference to the visit 
 to Arabia; we should not gather from the narrative that three 
 years had elapsed before the visit to Jerusalem ; while the state- 
 ment that he was unknown by face to the Churches that were in 
 Judea, is supposed to be inconsistent with the fact that he 
 preached in the synagogues of Jerusalem. But how far do 
 these discrepancies take us? It is quite clear that St. Luke 
 selects what he requires for his purpose, and it is possible that 
 he knew of the journey to Arabia and did not think it necessary 
 to record it; nor, again, does he give exact indications of the 
 time elapsed. There is no necessary inconsistency ; but still the 
 obvious impression created by the narrative is that the writer 
 did not know of the Arabian journey, nor of the length of time 
 which had elapsed before the Jerusalem visit, and the two 
 narratives give a somewhat different impression. St. Paul 
 wishes to emphasize his independence of the apostles ; St. Luke 
 wishes to show that St. Paul was received by them. But each 
 hints at the other side. St. Paul clearly implies that he was 
 received by them; St. Luke as clearly, that there was some 
 hesitation about doing so, and St. Luke’s language makes it 
 plain that even if he had preached in synagogues in Jerusalem 
 he had not preached in Judea. The accounts are different and 
 to all appearance independent, they represent different points 
 of view, they supplement one another; they are not incon- 
 sistent. 
 
 (b) The same may be said in the main concerning the next 
 narrative (Gal 2!-10=Ae 151-83). The very careful examination 
 of Lightfoot (Galatians, p. 109) represents, on the whole, a very 
 fair historical conclusion. No sensible person will find any dis- 
 crepancy if St. Paul, giving his internal motive, states that he 
 went by revelation, and St. Luke gives the external motive. 
 It is quite natural that St. Luke should give the public history, 
 St. Paul the private. What is more important to notice is the 
 incidental testimony that each account gives to the other. We 
 gather from St. Paul his great desire to be on good terms 
 with the leading apostles—if he is not, he fears he will run in 
 vain and labour in vain; we gather that they receive him in a 
 friendly manner—they give him the right hand of fellowship ; 
 although they are looked upon by some of their followers as 
 being antagonistic to St. Paul, St. Paul does not think so. 
 Again, from the Acts we gather that the conclusion was not 
 carried out without much dispute, and presumably was not 
 acceptable to all; and we equally gather, as we would from St. 
 Paul, that those who had caused the disturbance had claimed 
 that they represented the opinions of the chief apostles. 
 
 It has been assumed that Ac 15 refers to the same event as 
 Gal 21-10; but this, although commonly, is not universally 
 accepted. Why, it is asked, does St. Paul omit all reference to 
 the visit recorded in Ac 1189? This is a genuine difficulty. It 
 has been suggested that there has been a disarrangement in the 
 Acts, and, owing to a confusion of sources, one of the later visits 
 has been duplicated. The argument against this is that 
 Barnabas is represented as the companion of St. Paul, and that 
 he had left him at a later date. A mistake in chronology is 
 probable, but not a mistake as to the companionship. On the 
 other side, Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 48) identifies the visit of Gal 
 21-10 with that of Ac 113°, He lays great stress on the difficulty 
 involved in supposing that St. Paul omitted all reference to this 
 
 journey. But the reasons given by Lightfoot—that the apostles 
 
 were not in Jerusalem, and that therefore there was no need for 
 the visit to be mentioned—are accepted by Hort (Jwdaistic 
 Christianity, p. 61) as sufticient. We must refer the reader to 
 Ramsay’s own book for the discussion of the subject, but can only 
 say that he has not succeeded in convincing us, A reasonable 
 
32 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 
 
 criticism must say that the two narratives we are considering 
 refer to the same events; that the accounts they contain are 
 independent and supplementary, but not contradictory (see the 
 discussion between Sanday and Ramsay in Hepositor, Feb. 1896, 
 and foll, numbers). 
 
 (c) The third point need not detain us long. 
 that St. Luke does not record a narrative concerning St. Peter 
 
 It is merely 
 
 mentioned by St. Paul. He may have been ignorant of it; he 
 may have thought that it did not answer his purpose; he may 
 even have thought it better to omit an incident which he felt 
 was discreditable. What is important to notice is that the 
 narrative in Galatians proves conclusively that the standpoint 
 of the Acts is correct. It was quite impossible that St. Paul 
 could accuse St. Peter of hypocrisy unless he had already 
 adopted his view. ‘It is clear from Gal 211%. that Peter then 
 and for long before occupied in principle the standpoint of 
 Paul’ (Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 90). 
 
 An examination of these narratives proves the 
 independence of the two accounts, and each 
 corroborates the other in various points. When 
 we turn to the general narrative in the Acts and 
 compare it with that which can be gathered from 
 the Epistles, we find three characteristics—inde- 
 pendence, broad resemblances, and subtle points of 
 contact. All the Epistles which correspond to the 
 same period will fit into the narrative, while the 
 minute coincidences which have been brought out 
 by Paley, whose argument is not out of date,— 
 more particularly that concerning the collection 
 for the saints,—have very substantial evidential 
 value. 
 
 8. The Archeological Evidence.—A great test of 
 the accuracy of the writer in the last twelve 
 chapters is given by the evidence from archeology. 
 Its strength and value are so great that we need 
 only refer to it. The investigations of the last 
 twenty or thirty years have tended more and more 
 to confirm the accuracy of the writer. In almost 
 every point where we can follow him, even in 
 minute details, he is right. He knows that at 
 the time when St. Paul visited Cyprus it was 
 governed by a proconsul; this was the case only 
 between the years B.C. 22 and some time early 
 in the 2nd cent.; then a change was made, 
 probably in Hadrian’s reign. He knows that the 
 magistrates of Philippi were called orparnyol, 
 and were attended by lictors, but that those of 
 Thessalonica were roAfrapxa:. He knows that Derbe 
 and Lystra, but not Iconium, are cities of Lycaonia. 
 The subject has been worked out in considerable 
 detail by Lightfoot and Ramsay, and it is sufficient 
 to refer to them. It is enough, too, to refer here 
 to the very complete investigations of the account 
 of St. Paul’s voyage and shipwreck made by James 
 Smith (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul). We 
 need not enter into details, as they are admitted. 
 What we must emphasize is the bearing of this 
 evidence. It proves, in the first place, that in the 
 latter portion of the Acts the writer had good and 
 accurate sources of information. It is quite im- 
 possible that he should be correct in all these 
 points unless he had good material, or was himself 
 conversant with the events. But it also proves, 
 however we think he acquired the information, 
 that he was accurate in the use of his sources. It 
 is quite inconceivable that’ a writer who is so 
 accurate in a large number of small and difficult 
 points could have, as is maintained, used Josephus, 
 and used him with incredible inaccuracy. This 
 evidence, on the other hand, does not prove that 
 the writer is necessarily as trustworthy in the 
 earlier portions of the history, where his sources of 
 information were less good. It does suggest that 
 he would get as accurate information as possible, 
 and reproduce it correctly. 
 
 4. We pass backward to the transition period, 
 which begins with the preaching of Stephen and 
 extends to the end of the apostolic council. This 
 is clearly the most important period in the history, 
 and we have few means of controlling it. We 
 have little independent evidence. What we can 
 
 point to, in the first place, is the naturalness of the 
 whole history. There were the germs of universal- 
 ism in Christianity, but these needed opportunity 
 to develop ; and the whole history shows that the 
 expansion arose from the natural reaction of events 
 on the Christians, not from any deliberate purpose 
 or from any one definite event. Take first the per- 
 secution. Zeller (Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 229) lays great 
 stress on the fact that in the early chapters the 
 Sadducees are the persecutors, in the later the 
 Pharisees. But this inconsistency is thoroughly 
 natural. At first the Sadducees oppose the 
 Christians, because, being the official hierarchy 
 responsible to the Romans for the order of the 
 country, they fear disturbances; the Christians 
 are merely a sect of devout and zealous Jews in 
 favour with the Pharisees. But when once the 
 universalist element inherent in Christianity is 
 made apparent by the teaching of Stephen, the 
 devout and zealous Jews are offended, the Pharisees 
 take up the persecution, and it becomes a reality. 
 We may notice again incidentally how it is the 
 entrance of the freer Hellenic spirit in the person of 
 Stephen which first brings out this universalistic 
 element. The persecution leads quite naturally 
 to a dispersion of the Christians, more particularly 
 of those associated with Stephen, and consequently 
 to the spread of Christianity. In all that follows 
 St. Peter takes the lead, a position which is quite 
 in accordance with what we know from Galatians 
 (see above, § ix. 2). The stages work out gradually . 
 and naturally, the pressure of faith and enthusiasm . 
 leads the preachers of Christianity onwards. First 
 come the Samaritans, then ‘devout men’ who are 
 yet not circumcised ; then the preaching to 
 Gentiles ; then the growth of a definite Christian 
 community in Antioch, i.e. a community which 
 the outer world clearly recognised as something 
 distinct from Judaism, and which would naturally 
 appear first in a place removed from older associa- 
 tions ; then the first recorded journey of St. Paul, 
 with its unexpected and far-reaching developments, 
 and its subtle corroborations in the Romans (10). 
 Naturally enough, there gradually arises a Juda- 
 ising party in Jerusalem, and the older apostles 
 find themselves acting as mediators between the 
 two parties. The position which is ascribed to 
 them by the Acts is always recognised by St. Paul, 
 and he claims equally to be recognised by them ; 
 while both the Acts and St. Paul recognise the 
 extreme party as claiming their authority although 
 without entire justification (Ac 164, Gal 21%). 
 The whole story as told in the Acts is natural and 
 consistent, and gives a much more credible account 
 of the development of Christianity than any modern 
 one constructed on &@ priori ideas. 
 
 5. The Early Community in Jerusalem.—The 
 first section of the Ac (112-542) has been often 
 treated as the least historical portion of the book. 
 It is less true to say that it has been attacked. 
 It is rather the case that it has been set on one 
 side (‘the idealised picture of the Jerusalem com- 
 munity,’ Holtzmann). And the examination of 
 it is difficult, for we have little that is definite 
 with which to compare it. The theory, however, 
 put forward is that this was written from the 
 point of view of the author’s own time, and from 
 that aspect we can examine it. We know how the 
 writer of the Clementine Homilies reproduces in 
 the earliest days of the Church the doctrine and 
 the organisation of his own time—he represents 
 St. Peter as appointing bishops in every church. 
 Now, at any rate, the writer of the Acts lived forty 
 years later, and at a time when both the doctrine 
 and the organisation of the Church were much 
 more developed ; yet we find absolutely no traces 
 of this either in the speeches or in the narrative of 
 the first five chapters. 
 

 
 es Ce 
 
 — a a ee 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 33 
 
 
 
 To work this out in detail would be beyond the 
 scope of the present article, but it may be illus- 
 trated insome points. The Christology is through- 
 out primitive. Our Lord is called ’Inoots Xpiords 6 
 Na(wpaios (222 36 419), a name which occurs in the 
 Gospels, but elsewhere only twice, when St. Paul, 
 in the later chapters of the Acts, is referring to his 
 earlier life. So again the next phrase that meets 
 us is mats Qeod (318: 25 427-80), which occurs nowhere 
 else in NT of our Lord, and elsewhere is used of 
 Him in the Didaché, which clearly represents 
 very early tradition. Again, we notice how 
 very markedly Xpicrds is not a personal name, roy 
 mpokexXeiptauevoy wuiv Xp. Ino. (87), Kdprov avrdy Kab 
 Xpicrov 6 Geds erolnoev (2%). One more phrase we may 
 notice, apynydv (3!5 581), which occurs elsewhere in 
 Hebrews twice (2! 127), and nowhere else in NT. 
 We find nowhere the expression vids cov. Whereas 
 St. Paul ‘placarded’ Christ crucified (Gal 31), 
 we find here, as we might expect, that St. Peter 
 has to take towards the death of Christ a purely 
 defensive attitude (318). We have no reference to 
 Christ’s pre-existence. We have, in fact, a re- 
 presentation of what must have been, and what 
 we have independent evidence to show was the 
 eal_iest Christian teaching about Christ: — the 
 proof that He was the Messiah, afforded by His 
 resurrection, of which the apostles were witnesses, 
 and by the Scriptures. Similar is the relation to 
 the universal character of the Gospel. We are 
 told that the Acts was written from a universalist 
 point of view, and the statement is quite true in a 
 sense; but we find that St. Peter’s speeches are not 
 affected by it. God raised up Jesus to give re- 
 pentance to Israel (58!) ; Ye are the sons of the 
 prophets and of the covenant (8%). There are 
 elements of universalism, but they are incidental. 
 The promise is to Israel first (32) ; so (23") ‘to you 
 is the promise and to your children, and to all those 
 that are afar off’; 32° ‘in Israel all the families of 
 the earth shall be blessed.’ The standpoint of 
 these chapters is, in fact, that of the Jewish 
 prophets. There is the germ from which future 
 development can come, but the development is not 
 there. One last point we may mention in this 
 connexion is the eschatology. It is thoroughly 
 Jewish and primitive, ‘that He may send the 
 Christ, who hath been appointed for you, even 
 Jesus: whom the heavens must receive until the 
 times of the restoration of all things,’ 319 21; 
 the Messianic kingdom is called the kapo) ava- 
 Yitews. There is nothing about the personal 
 resurrection, which, of course, is a point which 
 would not trouble the primitive community in the 
 first years of its existence; and it is difficult to 
 understand how a Greek writer who had seen the 
 Neronian persecutions, and knew the needs of a 
 later generation, could have invented this primi- 
 tive idea of things. 
 
 If we pass to the organisation of the com- 
 munity, again, it is quite unlike the conception 
 which we should expect from a Gentile Christian 
 of forty or fifty years later. It is perfectly true 
 that stress is laid on the unity of the primitive 
 community, and it may be that this is exaggerated 
 with a purpose; but no object could be gained by 
 the representation which is given of its form 
 and character. There is no trace of any later 
 organisation, nor mention of presbyters. The 
 Christians have, in fact, not yet been cast out of 
 the synagogues. ‘They are regular in their worship 
 in the temple (Ac 24, Lk 2453), They take part 
 in the morning and evening sacrifices. They 
 observe the Jewish hours of prayer. They join in 
 the synagogue worship (69 97), They are not only 
 conforming Jews, they are devout (Ac 2129 2212), 
 They do not yet realise that they are separate 
 from Judaism. They are but a sect, the sect of 
 
 VOL. I.—2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 the Na(wpato. (Ac 245). One more point may be 
 noticed, the community of goods; the exact char- 
 acter of this it is unnecessary to discuss here. It 
 is sufficient to point out that no reason has been 
 suggested to explain why it should have so much 
 emphasis laid on it, or why it should have been 
 invented if it were not historical. 
 
 It has been said that we have little evidence 
 for correcting this. The archzological evidence 
 which we found in ch. 13 f. here fails us. But we 
 have a few indirect hints. The position of the 
 Twelve we may gather from 1 Co 9° 155; of St. 
 Peter from 1 Co 15°, Gal 29; of St. John from 
 Gal 2°; of the brethren of the Lord fram 1 Co 95, 
 A certain amount of incidental evidence is given 
 by the Ebionite traditions concerning the position 
 of St. James; and they correspond with what is 
 suggested by the later parts of the Acts, where 
 we have an account of the state of affairs by one 
 who is presumably an eye-witness. 
 
 It is clear that these early chapters give a picture 
 of the primitive community which is quite different 
 from what existed within the experience of the 
 writer, and which is in itself probable. Is it then 
 likely that this should be the result of the historical 
 imagination of the writer, or is it not more pro- 
 bable that it is historical in character and based on 
 written evidence? We have no reason to doubt 
 that we possess an historical account of the words 
 of the Lord ; and the same witnesses who recorded 
 these, either by tradition or in writing, would be 
 equally likely to record the speeches and acts of 
 the leading apostle of the infant Church. 
 
 6. The Speeches.—One more point under this 
 heading demands investigation, namely, the 
 speeches. Are these genuine records of speeches 
 actually delivered, or were they written by the 
 historian in accordance with the fashion of ths 
 day ? We may notice two points, to begin with. 
 They are all very short, too short to have been 
 delivered as they stand, and for the most part 
 the style in which they are written is that of the 
 historian. They are clearly, therefore, in a sense 
 his own compositions. But the same can also be 
 said of a considerable number of the speeches in 
 the Gospel. We can compare St. Luke’s account 
 in this case with that of other authorities, and we 
 find, indeed, a slight modification side by side with 
 general accuracy ; we find the style of the author, 
 but the matter of the authority. On the other 
 hand, there is no reason for thinking @ priori that 
 the speeches cannot be historical. As has jusi 
 been pointed out, the speeches of the leading 
 apostles would impress themselves on the growing 
 community, and would be remembered as the 
 words of the Lord were remembered. 
 
 Putting aside @ priori considerations, we must 
 as far as possible examine the character of the 
 speeches themselves; and we must first see what 
 light St. Paul’s Epistles throw on the subject. 
 According to 1 Co 15! the main subjects of St. 
 Paul’s preaching were the death and resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, as proved by the Scriptures and as 
 witnessed to by the apostles, and other incidental 
 allusions in the Epistles support this (1 Th 1! 
 414). Now, if we turn to St. Paul’s speech at 
 Pisidian Antioch addressed to the Jews (15!6-41), we 
 find that the writer has exactly realised what was 
 necessary for the situation. The basis is scriptural, 
 and the central fact clearly is, the proof of the 
 resurrection. Just at the end we have a definitely 
 Pauline touch introduced (y.8°). This shows that 
 the writer clearly grasps the situation as it is 
 hinted at by the apostle in his own letters, and 
 as was exactly in accordance with the demands 
 of the situation ; and this is compatible either with 
 his being a writer using a good source, and re- 
 producing accurately a speech which he finds in 
 

 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 
 
 that source, or with his being a companion of the 
 apostle, who knows the apostle’s preaching well, 
 and gives a typical speech showing the general 
 character of his argument. It is very difficult to 
 conceive of it as a tour de force of historical imagi- 
 nation. And this argument becomes stronger when 
 it is found that it is applicable to all the speeches 
 in the book. We have already touched on those 
 of St. Peter, and have seen how clearly they re- 
 produce an early stage of doctrinal development. 
 Whatever difficulties there may be in the speech 
 of Stephen, it certainly does not bear the marks of 
 being a rhetorical composition. The speeches of 
 St. Paul from first to last are singularly harmoni- 
 ous with the situation. The transition in tone 
 from that we have already examined to that 
 addressed to the heathen at Iconium or to that at 
 Athens, is most marked. When we come to the 
 later speeches addressed to the Jews, to Felix, and 
 to Agrippa, what we notice at once as very extra- 
 ordinary is the repetition of the narrative of the 
 conversion. Now that is comprehensible on the 
 supposition that the narrative was repeated on two 
 occasions, but is not so if we are dealing with 
 rhetorical exercises. But St. Luke was, on our 
 supposition, with St. Paul during all these events, 
 and would therefore have accurate knowledge. 
 These speeches then, although written in the 
 author’s style, are clearly authentic ; and we may 
 argue in the same way about the other speeches, 
 all of which are, in different ways, suitable to the 
 occasion on which they claim to have been delivered. 
 
 The presence of the author’s hand in the speeches 
 cannot be denied. Their literary form is due to 
 him. He may possibly have summed up in a 
 typical speech the characteristics of St. Paul’s 
 preaching before certain classes of hearers. Some 
 details or illustrations may be due to him, such as 
 the mention of Theudas in Gamaliel’s speech, or 
 that of Judas in Peter’s first speech. But no 
 theory which does not admit the possession of good 
 evidence, and the acquaintance of the author with 
 the events and persons that he is describing, is 
 consistent with the phenomena of the speeches. 
 They are too lifelike, real, varied, and adapted to 
 their circumstances to be mere unsubstantial rhe- 
 torical exercises. 
 
 x. SOURCES OF THE ACTS.—Until recently, critics 
 seem to have contented themselves with either 
 vague indications of the sources of the Acts, or a 
 complete denial of the possibility of discovering 
 them, at any rate in the earlier portions (Weiz- 
 sicker, Holtzmann, Beyschlag, Pfleiderer, Baur, 
 Schwegler). Recently, however, the problem has 
 been attacked by a number of scholars, mostly of 
 inferior rank, who do not seem to have attained any 
 success, and whose method is not likely to lead to 
 any substantial results. Of these, Sorof considers 
 that Timothy, the writer of the ‘ we’ sections, has 
 combined a genuine writing by St. Luke and a St. 
 Peter source. According to Feine there was an 
 original Jerusalem Christian source, which was used 
 in the Gospels and extended to ch. 12'0f the Acts, 
 but which knew nothing of the missionary jour- 
 neys of St. Paul. The latter portion is partly due 
 to the Redactor (R), partly to other sources. Spitta 
 distinguishes an A source, the work of Luke, which 
 contains about two-thirds of the Acts, and is 
 also used in the Gospel, and a B source of Jewish- 
 Christian origin, which runs parallel with the 
 first through the whole of the Acts. Wan Manen 
 distinguishes a third document, which contained, 
 however, only the ‘we’ sections, and these very 
 much edited, a Paul biography, and a Peter bio- 
 
 graphy. The most elaborate theory is that of 
 C. Clemen. He distinguishes an ‘ Urchristliche 
 Predigt,’ an ‘Erste Gemeindegeschichte,’ and 
 
 ‘Zweite Gemeindegeschichte,’ and Historia Helleni- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 
 
 starum, which has been worked into an Historia 
 Petri; this was combined with an Historia Pauli 
 which included the ‘we’ sections (Itinerarium 
 Pauli) by a R who was free from party bias, 
 then came a Judaising R, and then an anti- 
 Judaising R. Jtingst distinguishes an A source, 
 apparently the work of St. Luke; a B source, the 
 
 work of an anti-Judaiser and a R. It may be 
 added, that both Clemen and Jtingst consider 
 that the original sources have been very much 
 rearranged by the different redactors, and the true 
 sequence of events destroyed. 
 
 A very few words are necessary concerning these 
 theories. The statement of them is really a suffi- 
 cient condemnation. There is no harmony in the 
 results obtained; and the method is so @ priori 
 and unscientific that no result could be obtained. 
 The unity of style of the book and its artistic 
 completeness make any theory impossible which 
 considers that it arose from piecing together bits 
 of earlier writings. Somewhat more on right lines 
 are the attempts of B. Weiss and Hilgenfeld, in the 
 fact that they do not consider that more than one 
 source is used in any separate passage. Weiss 
 thinks there was one early history which contained 
 an account of the early community, of Stephen, of 
 Philip, of the journeys of Peter, of the council. 
 Hilgenfeld has three sources, A Ac 115-542 93148 
 121-8, B Ac 6-840, C 91-80 1117-29; and both profess 
 to be able to distinguish what is due to the source 
 and what to the author, the method being for the 
 most part absolutely arbitrary. 
 
 A study of St. Luke’s Gospel shows us that 
 the work is quite certainly a literary whole pro- 
 ceeding from one author, that this author made 
 use of materials partly written, partly probably 
 oral, and that he reproduced them probably largely 
 in his own style. If we compare a section from 
 this Gospel with the parallel one from St. Mark, 
 which clearly represents very nearly the original 
 source, we shall find that the difference, although 
 one not affecting the main sense, is of a character 
 which would make it quite impossible to arrive 
 at one document from the other. We may notice, 
 again, that although there is a certain uniform- 
 ity of style running through the whole Gospel, 
 yet the character of the source used seems to a 
 eee although undefined, extent to have modi- 
 
 ed it. 
 
 Now, in the Acts there is admittedly a certain 
 difference in style between the earlier chapters and 
 the later. The later, like the prologue to the 
 Gospel and Acts and the ‘we’ sections, being 
 written in a purer Greek style, the earlier being 
 more Aramaic in character. Stated vaguely and 
 generally, this is true, although no investigations 
 have yet made it definite. The utmost it is at 
 present safe to assert, is that there appears to be 
 a difference in style in the earlier chapters, which 
 suggests a written source. 
 
 Starting from the conclusion that the author was 
 St. Luke, we must ascribe to him the conception 
 of the history as a whole, and presumably, there- 
 fore, all the framework which is part of that 
 conception, the object of the author being to mark 
 the stages in the progress of Christianity. For the 
 whole of the last section, from 20° onwards, the 
 author was either an eye-witness or in close con- 
 tact with those who were such; as also in the sec- 
 tion 1610-49, and here we have the fullest and most 
 detailed account. For all the remaining portions 
 of St. Paul’s journeys he could clearly have access 
 to the very best information ; and it is to be noticed 
 here that generally, although not invariably, the 
 information is perfectly accurate, so far as it can 
 be tested, but not so full as in the later sections. 
 For the stories concerning Philip in the first part 
 of the book it is not necessary to go beyond 
 
 
 
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 personal information; there is no sign of great 
 exactness of knowledge, and the incident recorded 
 218 will explain how that information was ac- 
 quired. For the earlier history of St. Paul a 
 source is not required; St. Luke had heard the 
 story told at least twice, probably much oftener, 
 and there is just that vagueness concerning chrono- 
 logy which is almost invariably the characteristic 
 of information dependent upon oral tradition. Of 
 some other sections it is difficult to speak definitely. 
 For the council the author would be able to 
 supplement information gained from St. Paul 
 by information gained in Jerus. It has been 
 hinted that there is probably a written source 
 behind portions of the first five chapters; we 
 cannot define its limits in these chapters, nor say 
 whether or no, as is possible, it included some later 
 narratives, such as those of St. Peter (932-1118 and 
 12!8) ; it probably did not include chs. 6-7. No 
 investigations have been made which authorise us 
 to speak more certainly than this; but it has 
 been suggested (see Blass on 1212-17) that these 
 chapters had some connexion with St. Mark. It 
 is doubtful whether any certain conclusions are 
 possible, although a more scientific and more 
 comprehensive study of the style of the Gospel and 
 Acts may perhaps lead to some result. 
 
 xi. CONCLUSION.—It now only remains to sum 
 up the conclusion of what, owing to the variations 
 of opinion, has necessarily been a somewhat con- 
 troversial article. : 
 
 1. The Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles 
 are the work of the same person ; and all tradition 
 and argument suggest that the author was St. 
 Luke, the companion of St. Paul. 
 
 2. He wrote the Gospel to describe as accurately 
 as he could the life and preaching of Jesus; he 
 wrote the Acts to describe the growth and spread 
 of the Christian Church. 
 
 3. He had formed a clear idea in his mind of the 
 steps and course of this growth, and arranged his 
 work so as to bring out these points. The object 
 he had in view would influence him in the selection 
 of his materials and the proportional importance he 
 would ascribe to events ; but it would be taking far 
 too artificial a view of his work not to allow some 
 influence to various less prominent ideas, and even 
 to the accidental cause of the existence or non- 
 existence of information on different points. The 
 extent to which he carried out his purpose would 
 be in some measure dependent on his oppor- 
 tunities. 
 
 4. Although he had a definite aim, and con- 
 structed a history with an artistic unity, there is 
 no reason for thinking that the history is therefore 
 untrustworthy. He narrated events as he believed 
 they happened, and he gives a thoroughly consistent 
 history of the period over which it extends. 
 
 5. The exact degree of credibility and accuracy 
 we can ascribe to him is dependent on his sources 
 of information. From ch. 12 onwards his source 
 was excellent; from ch. 20 onwards he was an eye- 
 witness. For the previous period he could not 
 in all cases attain the same degree of accuracy, yet 
 he was personally acquainted with eye-witnesses 
 throughout, and may very probably have had one 
 or more written documents. In any case, his 
 history from the very beginning shows a clear idea 
 of historical perspective, and of the stages in the 
 growth of the community, even if certain charac- 
 teristics of the primitive Church in Jerusalem have 
 been exaggerated. 
 
 Literature. —(1) The Text. — Besides the general works of 
 Tischendorf, Scrivener, and Westcott and Hort, the following, 
 among other, special works may be mentioned :—J. D. Michae- 
 lis, Curae in ver. Syr. Actorwm Apost. 1755; F. A. Borne- 
 mann, Acta Apost. ad Cod. Cantabrigiensis fidem recensuit, 
 1848; Belsheim, Die Apostelgeschichte und die Offenbarung 
 Johannis in einer alten lateinischen Uebersetzung, 1879; 8. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ADAH 35 
 
 Berger, La Palimpseste de Flewry, 1889 ; extr. dela Revue de 
 théol. et philos.; J. Rendel Harris, Study of Cod. Bezae Texts 
 and Studies, I1.i.1891; P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der 
 Acta Apost. program of the Gymnasium of Schoenberg at 
 Berlin, 1892; W. Sanday, Guardian, 18th and 25th May 1892; 
 F. H. Chase, Old Syr. Element in the Text of Cod. Bezae, 1898 ; 
 F. Blass, SK, 1894, p. 86, Hermathena, xxi. p. 121, 1895; 8. 
 Berger, Un Ancien texte Latin des Actes des apotres retrowvé 
 dansun Manuscrit provenant de Perpignan; Tiré des notices 
 et extraits, 1895. 
 
 (2) Commentaries. — Chrysostom (0b. 407), Beda (0b. 735), 
 Calvin (0b. 1564), Grotius (1644), Bengel (1742), Olshausen (1882, 
 ed. iv. by Ebrard, 1862), Meyer (1885, ed. vii. by Wendt, 1888, Eng. 
 tr. by Gloag and Dickson), de Wette (1838, ed. iv. by Overbeck, 
 1870), Alford (1849, ed. vi. 1868), Wordsworth (1857, ed. iv. 1887), 
 Ewald, Die 3 ersten Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte 
 (1871), Cookin the Speaker’s Oom. (1881), Nésgen (1882), Luthardt 
 and Zockler in Strack and Zéckler’s Kom. (1886, ed. ii. 1894), 
 T. E. Page (1886), Holtzmann in Hand-kommentar eum Newen 
 Testament (1892); Blass, Acta Apost. sive Lweaead Theophilum 
 Liber alter (1895); Rendall, Acts of Apostles (1897). 
 
 (8) General Introductions.—S. Davidson (1848-51, and again, 
 from a different point of view, 1868, ed. iii. 1894), Reuss (1860), 
 F. Bleek (1864, Eng. tr. 1869), Ad. Hilgenfeld (1875), H. J. 
 Holtzmann (1885, ed. iii. 1892), G. Salmon (1885, ed. vii. 1894), 
 B. Weiss (1886, Eng. tr. 1888). 
 
 (4) Special Treatises on the Acts.—John Lightfoot, Hebrew 
 and Talmudical Exercitations on the Acts of the Apostles 
 (1678); Paley, Horae Paulinae (1770, ed. by Birks 1850); Zeller, 
 Die Apostelgeschichte (1854, Eng. tr. 1875); J. B. Lightfoot, 
 Galatians, 1865, pp. 81 f., 88 f., 109 f., 276f.; Supernatural 
 Religion, vol. iii. (1877); J. B. Lightfoot in Smith’s DB? i. 25. 
 
 (5) Works on Early Church History.—Neander, Pfilanzung 
 und Leitwng (1832, ed. v. 1862, Eng. tr. 1842, 1846); Baur, 
 Paulus (1845) ; Conybeare and Howson, St. Paw, ed. ii. (1856) ; 
 Ritschl, Die Hntstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche (ed. ii. 
 1857); Lechler, Das Apostolische und Nachapostolische Zeit- 
 alter (1857, ed. ii. 1885, Eng. tr. 1886) ; Ewald, Gesch. des Apost. 
 Zeitalters (Eng. tr. History of Israel, vol. vi.); Renan, Les 
 Apotres, p. x. (1866), Les Hvangiles, p. 485 (1877); Farrar, 
 Life and Work of St. Paul (1872), Early Days of Christianity 
 (1882); Lewin, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (1872); Weizsiicker, 
 Das Apostolische Zeitalter (1886, 2nd ed. 1892, Eng. tr. 1894) ; 
 Pfleiderer, Urchristenthwm (1887); Ramsay, The Charch in 
 the Rom. Empire (1893); Hort, Judaistic Christianity (1894); 
 Ramsay, St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895). 
 
 (6) Monographs on Special Points.—James Smith, Voyage 
 and Shipwreck of St. Paul (1848, ed. iv. 1880) ; J. B. Lightfoot, 
 Essays on ‘Supernatural Religion,’ pp. 291-302, Discoveries 
 illustrating the Acts of the Apostles (1889); J. Friedrich, Das 
 Iukas-Evangeliumund die ApostelgeschichteWerke desselben 
 Verfassers (1890); Th. Mommsen und Ad. Harnack, Zwr Apos- 
 telgeschichte, xxviii. 16; Sitzwngsberichte der kéniglich Preus- 
 sischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zw Berlin, p. 491 (1895). 
 
 (1) The Acts and Jos. (see Carl Clemen, Die Chronologie der 
 Paulinischen Briefe, p. 66, n. 53); Keim, Geschichte Jesu von 
 Nazara, iii. pp. 184, 480 (1872), and ‘Jos. im Neuen Testa- 
 ment’ in Aus dem Urchristenthum, i. p. 1 (1878); Holtzmann, 
 Z. fiir W. Th. 1878, p. 85, 1877, p. 585; Krenkel, 7b. 1873, p. 441; 
 Schiirer, 7b. 1876, p. 574; The author of ‘Supernatural Religion,’ 
 Fortnightly Review, xxii. p. 496, 1877; Krenkel, Josephus w. 
 Lucas, Leipzig, 1894; Boussetin Theol. Litzg. 1895, col. 391. 
 
 (8) Sowrces.—Sorof, Die Entstehung der Apostelgesch. 1890 ; 
 Feine, Kine vorkanon. Uberlieferung des Lukasin Kvang.und 
 Apostelgesch. 1891; Spitta, Die Apostelgesch. ihre Quellen 
 und deren geschichtlicher Wert (1891); van Manen, Paulus I., 
 Die Handelinger der Aposteln (1890) ; C. Clemen, Die Chrono- 
 logie der Paulinischen Briefe (1893), and SK (1895, p. 297); 
 Johann Jiingst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte (1895) ; Ad. 
 Hilgenfeld, Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihren Quellenschriften 
 untersucht, Z. fiir W. Th. 1895, pp. 66, 186, 384, 481. 
 
 A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 ACUB (B ’Axovp, A ’Axovu), 1 Es 531.—His sons 
 were among the ‘temple servants’ who returned 
 with Zerub. Called Bakbuk, Ezr 251, Neh 753, 
 
 ACUD (Axové, AV Acua), 1 Es 5%°.—His sons 
 were among the ‘temple servants’ who returned 
 
 from captivity with Zerubbabel. Called Akkub 
 (2?2= ‘cunning’), Ezr 24; omitted in Neh 7. 
 
 ADADAH (73%), Jos 15%2.—A city of Judah in 
 the Negeb. ‘The site may be at the ruin ‘Ad'adah 
 in the desert south-east of Beersheba. 
 
 ADAH (77),—41. One of the two wives of Lamech, 
 and mother of Jabal and Jubal (Gn 419-20), The 
 name possibly denoted ‘brightness’ (cf. Arab. 
 ghadat), Cain’s other wife being named ‘ Zillah,’ 
 or ‘Shadow,’ ‘ Darkness.’ These names have been 
 cited to support the view of the mythological basis 
 of the Genesis narrative. But the name may simply 
 denote ‘adornment’ (Lenormant, Les Origines, p. 
 183 f.). According to Jos. (Ant. 1. ii. 2) Lamech 
 
 
 
36 ADAIAH | 
 
 ADAM 
 
 
 
 had 77 sons born to him of Adah and Zillah. | J gives an account of the Creation, Fall, etc., of 
 
 2. Daughter of Elon, a Hittite, and one of the wives 
 of Esau (Gn 367); mother of Eliphaz, and ances- 
 tress of Edomite tribes, Teman, Zepho, Gatam, 
 Kenaz, Amalek. In Gn 26* (P) the daughter of 
 Elon the Hittite, whom Esau takes to wife, is 
 named Basemath. The names in Gn 36 have suffered 
 in the process of redaction, and this may account 
 for the confusion. Jos. (Ant. I. i. 2), though 
 mentioning Esau’s age, and therefore referring to 
 Gn 26*4, gives Adah and Oholibamah (’AX:Bdum) as 
 the names of Esau’s wives. For a discussion on 
 the name, see Baethgen’s Beitrage, 
 . E. RY LE. 
 
 ADAIAH (qv, ‘Jehovah has adorned’).—1. A 
 man of Boscath, the maternal grandfather of king 
 Josiah, 2 K 22). 2. A Levite descended from 
 Gershom, 1 Ch 6", called Iddo in v.%, 3. A 
 son of Shimei (in v.!% Shema) the Benjamite, 
 1 Ch 87, 4. The son of Jeroham, a priest, and 
 head of a family in Jerusalem, 1 Ch 9% 5. 
 The father of Maaseiah, a captain who helped 
 Jehoiada to overthrow the usurpation of Athaliah, 
 and set Joash on the throne, 2 Ch 23'. 6, One 
 of the family of Bani, who took a strange wife 
 during the Exile, Ezr 10”, 7. Another of a different 
 family of Bani, who had committed the same 
 offence, Ezr 10%. 8. A descendant of Judah by 
 Pharez, Neh 11°, 9. A Levite of the family of 
 Aaron; probably the same as (4), Neh 117%. 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 ADALIA (xvi, Est 9°), the fifth of the sons of 
 Haman, put to death by the Jews. In the LXX 
 the name is different, and the MSS vary between 
 Bapod B, BapéX x A, Baped. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ADAM.—i. Name.—The word 07x is originally 
 & common noun, denoting either a human being, 
 Gn 25; or (rarely) a man as opposed to a woman, 
 Gn 2”; or mankind collectively, Gn 1% The 
 root 57% is variously explained as (a) make, 
 produce, by analogy with the Assyr. addmu 
 (Delitzsch, Assyr. Worterbuch ; Oxf. Heb. Lezx.). 
 Man, therefore, as adam, is one made or produced, 
 a creature, or possibly a maker or producer; (0) 
 to be red, a sense in which the root frequently 
 occurs in Heb., e.g. the account of Edom in 
 Gn 25", and is also found in Arab. and Eth. 
 and (?) in Assyr. This etymology would point 
 to the term having originated among men of a red 
 or ruddy race. Gesenius notes in support of this 
 view that the men on Egyp. monuments are con- 
 stantly represented as red. Dillmann on Gn 1. 2 
 also suggests a connexion with (c) an Eth. root= 
 pleasant, well-formed, or (2) an Arab. root=to 
 attach oneself, and so gregarious, sociable. It has 
 also been suggested that adam is a derivative from 
 adamah, ground, and describes man as earth-born, 
 yryevi}s. he statement of Gn 2’, that man was 
 formed from the dust of the adamah, indicates that 
 this connexion was in the mind of the writer, but 
 it can hardly be the original etymology. It is 
 significant that A., as a term for man or man- 
 kind, is by no means universal in Sem. languages. 
 It oceurs in Phoenician and Saban, possibly in 
 Assyr. (so Sayce, Gram. p. 2, and according to 
 CM, p. 104, is the common Bab. word for man; 
 ef, Del. Assyr. Wérterbuch). Of course the name 
 A, has been adopted by all Sem. translations. It 
 is possible that Edom is a dialectic variety of A. 
 
 1i..Adam as Common and Proper Noun.—The first 
 man is necessarily the man, and in his case the 
 generic term is equivalent to a proper name. In 
 use, adam naturally fluctuates between a common 
 and proper noun. ‘Thus in P’s account of the 
 Creation, Gn 1)-2*, he describes the creation of 
 ox. mankind, in both sexes; but in his first 
 genealogy, Gn 5!“, nx is used as a proper name, 
 
 p77 ‘the man’ (in 3” o1xd ‘to the man,’ should be 
 read instead of 01x? ‘to Adam’), and in 4% uses o7w 
 without the article as a proper name. 
 
 iii. The Norratives concerning Adam, —P, in 
 Gn 1!-2 by itself, simply describes the creation 
 of the human species, as of the other species of 
 living creatures, and says nothing of any particular 
 individuals. But it is only in the case of man that 
 the two sexes are specified, and Dillmann main. 
 tains that mp2 72 is not to be taken collectively, 
 ‘male and female,’ but as ‘a male and a female, 
 i.e. the first pair.’ Gn 5'3, which is possibly 
 from a different stratum of P, shows that the 
 individual Adam, the ancestor of the nations 
 mentioned in OT, and especially of Israel, is in 
 some way identified with the human species, whose 
 creation is described in Gn 1. This identification 
 seems to imply that the human species pia ec 
 consisted of a single pair; but P does not definitely 
 commit himself to this position. Man is created 
 last of all things on the same (sixth) day as the 
 beasts, but by a separate act of creation and in the 
 image of God ; he receives a special blessing, accord- 
 ing to which he is given dominion over the earth 
 and its inhabitants, and the vegetable creation is 
 assigned to him, to provide him with food. While 
 it is expressly said of the light, the heavens, earth, 
 and seas, the vegetable world, the heavenly bodies, 
 the birds, fish, and other animals, that saw 
 that they were good, this is not separately stated 
 concerning man, but is left to be inferred from the 
 
 eneral statement that God saw that everything 
 He had made was very good. 
 
 In J, Gn 244%, ai e the earth is still a life- 
 less waste, the man is created out of the dust, and 
 Jehovah animates him by breathing into his 
 nostrils. He is set to take care of the garden of 
 Eden, and is allowed to eat freely of its fruit, 
 except the fruit of ‘the tree of the knowledge of 
 good and evil.’ The animals are created as his com- 
 panions and assistants; but these proving inade- 
 quate, the woman Eve is fashioned from his rib as 
 he lies in a deep sleep. They live in childlike 
 innocence till Eve is tempted by the Serpent, 
 and Adam by Eve, to eat of the fruit of the tree 
 of knowledge. Whereupon they become conscious 
 of sin. Yet they have become like the Elohim, 
 and might eat of the tree of life and become 
 immortal. Hence they are cursed, and driven out 
 of Eden. Man, henceforth, is to win his susten- 
 ance with grievous toil from soil which, for his 
 sake, has been cursed with barrenness. The only 
 later OT reference to Adam is at the head of the 
 genealogies in 1 Ch; in Dt 328 and Job 31 
 adam is @ common noun. 
 
 iv. Significance of the Narratives.—In both 
 narratives man is sharply marked off as a created 
 being from God the Creator; and is not connected 
 with Him by a chain of inferior gods, demi-gods, 
 and heroes, as in the Egyp., Assyr., and Chald. 
 dynasties, and in other mythologies. Yet man 
 has a certain community of nature with God; he is 
 made in His image (P), and receives his life from the 
 breath of Jehovah (J). Similarly, man’s connexion 
 with the animals is implied by his creation en the 
 same day, his separate status by a distinct act of 
 creation. He is lord of all things, animate and 
 inanimate, the crown of creation (P). So, in J, 
 the animals are made for his benefit; and the 
 
 arden, with certain limitations, is at his disposal. 
 
 VYoman is also secondary and subordinate to man, 
 and the cause of his ruin, but of identical nature. 
 The formation of a single woman for the man 
 implies monogamy. Man is capable of immediate 
 fellowship with God. Sin is not inherent in man 
 but suggested from without; it is at once follow 
 by stern punishment, which extends not only to 
 
it. Wd 
 
 ADAM 
 
 —_— 
 
 the auman race, but to animate and inanimate 
 nature. Compare EVE; and, specially for the Baby- 
 lonian and other parallels to the Biblical narrative, 
 CosmoGony, EDEN. W. H. BENNETT. 
 
 ADAM IN THE NT.—Adam is twice mentioned 
 in the NT in a merely historical fashion ; in Jude 
 y.'4, where we read of ‘Enoch the seventh from 
 A.,’ and in Lk 3**, where the genealogy of Jesus is 
 traced up to him, and A. himself is ‘ the son of God.’ 
 The extension of the genealogy beyond David or 
 Abraham (as in Mt) is no doubt due to the univer- 
 salist oy of the Pauline evangelist. There 
 are two other passages in which reference is made 
 to the OT story of the first man, with a view to 
 regulating certain questions about the relations of 
 men and women, esp. in public worship. The first 
 fee oo li the other 1 Ti 2%, The use 
 made of A. in these passages may strike a modern 
 reader as not very conclusive; it has the form 
 rather than the power of what may have suggested 
 it—the similar use of part of the OT story by 
 Jesus to establish the true law of marriage (Mt 
 19*-, comp. Gn 2%). 
 
 Much more significant than these almost inci- 
 dental references is the place occupied by A. in the 
 theology of St. Paul (Ro Boel Om lps): 
 The apostle institutes a formal comparison and 
 contrast between A. and Christ. ‘As in A. all die, 
 even so in Christ shall all be made alive.’ ‘As by 
 one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
 sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all 
 sinned ’: so, though the sentence is not formally 
 completed (Ro 5”), righteousness entered into 
 the world by one man, and life by righteousness. 
 ‘The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the second 
 man is of heaven. . .. And as we have borne the 
 image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image 
 of the heavenly.’ In some sense A. and Christ 
 answer to each other; each is the head of humanity, 
 the one to its condemnation and death, the other 
 to its justification and life. Yet it would be a 
 mistake to put what St. Paul says about A. on a 
 footing with what he says about Christ. He has 
 experience to go upon-in the case of Christ; his 
 gospel concerning Him has a certainty and scope 
 of its own quite independent of the harmony he 
 finds in some points between the mode of man’s re- 
 demption and that of hisruin. Of the two passages 
 referred to above, it may be said that the one in 
 Ro deals directly with the work of A. and of 
 Christ, and its effects upon men; the one in 1 Co, 
 with the nature of A. and of Christ, as related re- 
 spectively to the actual and the ideal condition of 
 man. All we are told of A. is that he sinned 
 (rapdrrwua, Ro 51°, implies the fall), and that his 
 sin involved the world in death. In such a state- 
 ment there is obviously a link wanting to an ethical 
 interpretation : is it supplied in the difficult words 
 é¢ @ mavres Hpuaprov—in that all (have) sinned? That 
 this aorist may (grammatically considered) be a 
 collective historical aorist, summing up the aggre- 
 gate evil deeds of men, is Reon beet (Burton, V.7. 
 
 foods and Tenses, § 55); but to take it so, and 
 make jjaprov refer merely to the personal sins of 
 men, is to dissolve the connexion with A. on which 
 the apostle’s argument depends. To say, again, 
 that all men die because involved in the guilt 
 of A.’s sin (Omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, 
 Bengel), is still to leave the moral link amissing. 
 To say that all die because of inherited depravity, 
 which seems the only other possible suggestion, is 
 to offer a physical rather than a moral connexion, 
 though one which may be assented to and appro- 
 priated by the individual, and in that way become 
 moral. It seems probable that St. Paul, although 
 he is not explicit on the point, would have 
 ‘accepted this view ; what he is concerned with is 
 
 ADAM, BOOKS OF 37 
 
 the solidarity or moral unity of the human race, 
 and for this there is undoubtedly a physical 
 basis. Heredity is the modern name for the 
 organic connexion of the generations; and as the 
 fact was familiar to the apostle, it is natural to 
 suppose that he found in it the connecting link 
 between the personal sin and doom of A. and that 
 of his whole posterity. A., in other words, was to 
 him not only the type, but the ancestor, of men ag 
 sinners ; it is in A.—or because of A. in us—that 
 we are lost men. But A. is a ‘ type of him that is 
 to come.’ ‘This idea (see Weiss, Romans, p. 243 n.) 
 is found also in the Rabbins (Quemadmodum homo 
 primus fuit primus in peccato, sic Messias erit 
 ultimus ad auferendum peccatum penitus: and 
 again, Adamus postremus est Messias). He is a 
 type only in the sense that alike from A. and 
 Christ a pervasive influence should proceed, ex- 
 tending to the whole human race. We are what 
 A. was and became, in virtue of our vital relation 
 to him; we are to become what Christ was and 
 became, in virtue of a vital relation to Him. This 
 is the side of the subject treated in 1 Co 15. It 
 can hardly be said to throw light on man’s original 
 state, or on the apostle’s conception of it. The 
 first A., in virtue of our connexion with whom we 
 are what we are before we become Christians, was 
 a living soul, psychical rather than spiritual, made 
 of the dust of the ground—in other words, he was 
 man as nature presents him to our experience; the 
 last A., 6 émrovpdvios, whose image we shall fully 
 bear when this corruptible has put on incorruption, 
 and this mortal has put on immortality, was and 
 is life-giving spirit. It is too much to say, in face 
 of Ro 5” and the whole sense of the NT, that 
 man’s mortality is here traced, not to Adam’s act, 
 but to his nature. His act is not specially in view 
 here any more than Christ’s redeeming acts, and hia 
 nature is indeed conceived as weak, and liable to 
 temptation; butit is not less capable of immortality 
 than of death ; and it is the sin of our first father 
 to which death as a doom is invariably referred by 
 St. Paul. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Copious discussions of all the questions involved 
 may be found (not to mention commentaries) in Beyschlag, N.T. 
 Theology, ii. p. 48 ff.; Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Chris- 
 tianity, ¢. vii. ; Weiss, Lehrbuch der, Bibl. Theol. des N.T. § 67. 
 For Jewish points of connexion with St. Paul’s teaching, see 
 Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, cc. xv.-xvii. 
 
 J. DENNEY. 
 
 ADAM City (07x ‘red’).—In the Jordan Valley, 
 ‘far off’ from Jericho, and beside Zarethan. The 
 latter (see ZARETHAN) appears to have been near the 
 centre of the valley (see Jos 315), and the usual site 
 for Adam is at the present ruined bridge (built in 
 the 13th cent. A.D.) at the DAmieh ford, called 
 Jisr ed-Damieh, about half-way up the Jordan 
 Valley. The Jordan being narrow, with high 
 banks, might have been dammed Bp in this vicinity 
 by an extensive fall of the cliff. SW P vol. ii. sh. xv. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ADAM, BOOKS OF.— Romance, with ethical 
 intent, accumulated around all the prominent 
 worthies of OT narrative, among both Jews and 
 Christians; and, naturally, no one received more 
 attention than Adam. This process of embellish- 
 ing and ‘improving’ OT story began before NT 
 times. The Talm. speaks of a Bk of Adam, and 
 such legendary lore furnished suitable pabulum for 
 Mohammedanism. The Apostolic Constitutions 
 (vi. 16) mention an Spee "Addu. Epiphanius 
 (Her. xxvi. 8) tells of a Gnostic work, Revelations 
 a Adam, and the Decretum Gelasii_ prohibits 
 
 hristians from reading the two works, Penitentia 
 
 Ade and De filiabus Ade. The Cypriote Syncellus 
 (Sth cent.) makes quotations from a Bids ’Addu 
 which closely resemble the Bk of Jubilees. The 
 Jewish Bk of Adam is lost; but it probably 
 furnished matter for still further elaboration in the 
 
 
 
38 ADAMAH 
 
 ADITHAIM 
 
 
 
 following Christian works which still survive. 1. 
 The Ethiopic Bk. of Adam, pub. by Dillmann, 
 Gottingen, 1853; tr. also by Malan, London, 1882. 
 2. A Syr. work, resembling the foregoing, entitled 
 The Treasure-Cave, ed. by Bezold, Leipzig, 1883. 
 8. The dupynots cal modirela Adam cat Hias, ed. by 
 Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocrypha, 1866; and 
 condensed by Roénsch, Buch der JSubilden, pp. 468- 
 476. 4. ‘Vita Ade et Eve,’ a Lat. rendering of the 
 same material, ed. by W. Meyer in Transactions of 
 Munich Academy, vol. xiv. 1878. 5. The ‘Testa- 
 mentum Adami,’ which has been published by 
 Renan, Syriac text with French tr. in Journ. 
 Asiatique, 1853. 6. The sacred boek of the Man- 
 daites is called the Bk of Adam, but has little in 
 common with the foregoing. Edd., Norberg’s, 
 1815; Petermann’s, Berlin, 1867. 
 LiTERATURE.—Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1-94, 
 ii. 1-43; Hort, art. ‘Adam’ in Smith and Wace, Dict. of Chr. 
 
 etd ; Schtirer, HJP Il. iii. 81, 147f.; Zoéckler, Apocr. des 
 AT. 422. 8; Zunz, Die gottesd. Vortrdge der Juden, 1892, p. 136. 
 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 ADAMAH (ap1x), Jos 19%, ‘red lands.’—A city 
 of Naphtali mentioned next to Chinnereth. Prob- 
 ably the ruin “Admah on the plateau north of 
 
 Bethshean. See SWPP vol. i. sh. vi. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 ADAMANT is twice (Ezk 3°, Zec 7!2) used in 
 AV and RV as tr. of ny shdmir, which is else- 
 where rendered either ‘brier’ (Is 5° 7% 24-25 918 1917 
 274 32)5) or ‘diamond’ (Jer 17!). Diamond, which 
 arose from adamant by a variety of spelling 
 (adamant or adimant, then diamant or diamond), 
 has displaced a. as the name of the precious stone, 
 a. being now used rhetorically to express extreme 
 hardness. See under art. STONES (PRECIOUS). 
 *Adduas occurs in LXX at Am 778% as tr. of 338 
 ‘plummet’; this is the origin and meaning of a. 
 in its only occurrence in Apocr., Sir 161% AV. See 
 
 PLUMMET. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADAMI-NEKEB (27:9 ‘o7s}, Jos 393, ‘red lands 
 the pass.’—A city of Naputali. It is dvubtful if 
 the names show not be divided (see NEKEB). The 
 site is probably at the present village Hd-Damieh 
 on the plateau north-east of Tabor, where the 
 basaltic svil is reddish. The site of Nekeb 
 (Seiy4deh) is not far off. See SWP vol. i. sh. vi. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ADAR (77x Ezr 6%, Est 37-18 812 91-15%] Mac 74% 4, 
 2 Mac 15*, Est 10! 13° 162°).—The 12th month in the 
 later Jewish Calendar. See TIME. 
 
 ADASA (’Adacd).—A town near Bethhoron (1 Mac 
 7%, Jos. Ant. XII. x. 5), now the ruin ’Adaseh 
 near Gibeon SPW vol. iii. sh. xvii. 
 
 ADBEEL (5xa7x), the third son of Ishmael, Gn 
 258, 1 Ch 1”, eponym of the N. Arab. tribe, which 
 ads in cuneiform inscrip. as Idiba’i or Idibi'al, 
 and which had its settlements S.W. of the Dead 
 Sea (Sayce, HCM 202; Schrader, KAT? 148; Oxf. 
 Het, Lex. 8.v.). J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ADDAN (jx, ’A@adap A, [Xapa]afadray B, 1 Es 
 5°6).—Certain of the inhabitants of this place 
 joined the body of the returning exiles in the 
 time of Zerubbabel, but they were unable to 
 prove their true Isr. descent by showing to what 
 great clan or family they belonged (Ezr 2°), Prob- 
 ably they were not admitted to the privileges of 
 full citizenship. The naine does not appear in the 
 later lists in Ezr 10, Neh 10. Some regard Cherub 
 Addan as one name; v.™ suggests that Cherub, 
 Addan, and Immer were three villages in one dis- 
 trict in Babylon, from which the family of Nekoda 
 came. In Neh 7® the name appears as ADDON. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ADDAR, 1 Ch 8*.—See ARD. 
 
 ADDAR, AV Adar (7x), Jos 15°:—A town on 
 the border of Judah south of Beersheba. There 
 is a ruin east of Gaza which bears the name ’Adar, 
 but this seems perhaps too far west. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 ADDER.—See SERPENT. 
 
 ADDI (’Addet).—An ancestor of Jesus Christ, Lk 
 33, See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ADDICT.—‘ To a. oneself to,’ now used only in 
 a bad sense, was formerly neutral, and is found in 
 a good sense in 1 Co 16% ‘they have a. them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints’ (RV ‘they have 
 set themselves to minister unto the saints’). Cf. 
 Hist. Card. (1670) : ‘ The greatest part of the day he 
 addicts either to study, devotion, or other spiritual 
 exercises.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADDO (A’Ad6, B’Eddelv).—T he grandfather of the 
 prophet Zechariah (1 Es 61), 'The name is similarly 
 spelt in LXX of Ezr 5! (A’Ad64, B’A64). See IDDO. 
 
 ADDON (j'7x), Neh 7%, 
 
 ADDUS.—1. (’Addovs) 1 Es 5*4.—His sons were 
 among the children of Solomon’s servants who 
 returned with Zerub. ; the name does not occur in 
 the parallel lists in Ezr 2, Neh 7, 2. See JADDUS. 
 
 ADIDA.(’Ad.d4).—A town in the Shephelah (Jos. 
 Ant, XII. vi. 5) fortified by Simon the Hasmonwan 
 (1 Mac 12% 135), The same as Hadid. 
 
 ADIEL (yxy ‘ornament of God’).—1. A 
 Simeonite prince who attacked the shepherds of 
 Gedor, 1 ch 49m. 2. A priest, 1 Ch 9%. 3, The 
 father of Azmaveth, David’s treasurer, 1 Ch 27%. 
 
 See ADDAN. - 
 
 ADIN (j*y ‘luxurious’ ?), Ezr 2 88, Neh 7” 10!8, 
 1 Es 5 §%2, The head of a Jewish family, of 
 which some members returned with Zerub., and 
 with Ezra. 
 
 ADINA (xy y), a Keubenite chief, one of David’s 
 mighty men, 1 Ch 11. 
 
 ADINO ({KethibA ssp] ‘ssya wny ‘Adino the 
 Eznite,’ B ’Adewwy 6’Agwvaios, A Ade 6 ’Acwvaos),— 
 The Keré is clearly an peri to introduce some 
 sense into the meaningless Kethibh. The present 
 Heb. text of 2S 238 must be corrupt, the true reading 
 being preserved in the parallel passage 1 Ch 11 
 ‘Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, he lifted up 
 his spear.’ The last. clause (myn nx any xn) was 
 corrupted into .syn wy wn, and then taken erro- 
 neously as a proper name, being treated as an alter- 
 native to the preceding ‘Josheb-basshebeth, a 
 Tahchemonite’ (see JASHOBEAM). B has the addi- 
 tion ofros éordcaro Thy poupalay avrod; but this is not 
 found in A, and is, as Wellhausen has pointed out, 
 derived from the LXX tr. of Ch (ef. 2 § 2318, where 
 B renders the same words by é&tyetpe Td Sépu atrod), 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ADINU (A ’Adtvos, B’Adef\tos, AV Adin), 1 Es 54, 
 called Adin (A ’Adiv, B ’Adelv), 1 Es 8°2.—His de- 
 scendants returned with Zerubbabel to the number 
 of 454 (1 Es 54, Ezr 2") or 655 (Neh 7”). A second 
 parey of 51 (Ezr 8°) or 251 (1 Es 8) accompanied 
 
 2ra. They are mentioned among ‘the chiefs of 
 the people’ who joined Neh. in a covenant to 
 separate themselves from the heathen (Neh 10%), 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ADITHAIM (ony), Jos 15%.—A town of Judah 
 in the Shephelah. ‘The site is unknown. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
ADJURE 
 
 ADJURE.—The primitive meaning of a. (from 
 
 late Lat. adjurare) is to put under oath. This is 
 its meaning in Jos 67 ‘ had Joshua adjured them 
 at that time, saying, Cursed be the man’ (RV 
 ‘charged them with an oath’), and 1 S 14% ‘Saul 
 had a‘ the people, saying, Cursed be the man.’ Cf. 
 v.¥ ‘thy father straitly charged the people with 
 an oath.’ But the word is also used in early 
 writers in the sense of to charge solemnly, without 
 the actual administration of an oath. Thus 
 Caxton (1483): ‘ Raguel desired and adjured Thobie 
 that he shold abyde with hym.’ This is the mean- 
 ing of a. in the other places of the Bible where it 
 is found (1 K 22'*, 2 Ch 185, Mt 26%, Mk 57, Ac 
 19%). RV gives ‘a.’ (for AV ‘charge,’ Heb. yay) 
 at Ca 27 3° 58 * 84 and at 1 Th 57 (Gr. évopxléw). 
 Adjuration (not in AV) is found in RV at Lv 5! 
 (nby, AV ‘swearing’) and Pr 29% (aby, AV 
 ‘cursing’). See OATH. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADLAI dry, *Aéal), the father of Shaphat, one 
 of David’s herdsmen, 1 Ch 27”. 
 
 ADMAH (anqx), ‘red lands,’ Gn 10% 1428, 
 Dt 29%, Hos 11%—One of the cities of the 
 Ciccar or ‘Round.’ It is not noticed as over- 
 thrown in the account of the destruction of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah (Gn 19), but is included in their 
 catastrophe in the two later passages. The site 
 is unknown. It might be the same as the city 
 ADAM, which see. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ADMATHA (xnoqx, Est 1"), one of the wise men 
 or counsellors of Ahasuerus. These seven royal 
 advisers (cf. Ezr 7}4), who were granted admission 
 to the king’s presence, and saw his face (cf. 2 K 
 251°), are perhaps to be compared rather with the 
 supreme Persian judges (Herod. iii. 31) than with 
 the representatives of the six families which took 
 part with Darius against the pseudo-Smerdis 
 (Herod. iii. 84). The name is possibly Persian, 
 admdta=‘unrestrained.’ In the LXX only three 
 names are given. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ADMINISTRATION in the general sense of ser- 
 vice is now obsolete. But it is found 1 Co 12° ‘ there 
 are differences of administrations’ (i.e. different 
 kinds of Christian service, RV ‘ ministrations,’ 
 the Jéheims NT word). In 2 Co 9”, though the Gr. 
 is the same (diaxovia, sing.), the meaning is not 
 service generally, but the performance of service 
 (RV again ‘ministration’ from Geneva Bible). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADMIRE, ADMIRATION.—These words occur 
 in AV as the expression of simple wonder, 
 without including approbation. 2 Th 1° ‘When 
 he shall come to ie glorified in his saints, and to 
 be admired (RV ‘marvelled at’) in all them 
 that believe’; Jude v.!° ‘having men’s persons in 
 admiration’ (Gr. @avudtorvres mpocwra, RV ‘show- 
 ing respect of persons’); Rev 17° ‘When I saw 
 her, I wondered with great a.’ (RV ‘with a great 
 wonder’). Compare the version in metre of Ps 
 105° ‘Remember his marvellous works that he 
 hath done,’ is rendered— 
 
 ‘Think on the works that he hath done, 
 Which admiration breed.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADNA (x3qy ‘pleasure’).—1. A contemporary of 
 Ezra, who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10”). 2. 
 The head of the priestly house of Harim in the 
 time of the high priest Joiakim, the son of Jeshua 
 (Neh 121), H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ADNAH.—1. (nny) A Manassite officer of Saul 
 who deserted to David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12”). 2. 
 (737) An officer in Jehoshaphat’s army (2 Ch 17%). 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ADONIJAH 39 
 
 ADO.—Mk 5° ‘Why make ye this ado?’ (RV 
 ‘Why make ye a tumult ?’). The older form is at 
 do, where ‘at’ is the prep. before the infin., found 
 chiefly in northern Eng. and supposed to come 
 from the Scandinavian. ‘We have other things 
 at do,’ Townelcy Mysteries, p. 181. ‘At do’ was 
 contracted into ‘ado,’ and then looked upon as a 
 subst. Cf. Shaks. Tam. of Shr. V. 1— 
 
 * Let’s follow, to see the end of this ado.’ 
 
 While throwing it out of Mk 5%, the RV introduces 
 ‘ado’ into Ac 20! ‘ Make ye no ado (AV ‘ Trouble 
 not yourselves’), for his life is in him,’ though 
 the Gr. (@opvBetcde) is the same in both places. 
 J. Hastinas. 
 
 ADONIBEZEK (773 *4y).—The name as it stands 
 in Jg 1°" must mean, Bezek (an otherwise un- 
 known deity) is my lord. The town of Bezek (which 
 see) will then also have taken its name from that 
 of the god. The chief of a Can. kingdom inS. Pal., 
 he was defeated by the tribe of Judah, taken 
 prisoner, and mutilated by having his thumbs and 
 great toes cut off. His boast was that he had 
 similarly treated seventy kings. The mutilation 
 was intended, while preserving the captive as a 
 trophy, to render him incapable of mischief. 
 According to Plutarch (Life of Da. ), the Athenians 
 decreed that every prisoner of war should lose his 
 thumbs, so that while fit to row he should be unfit 
 to handle spear. Hannibal is accused (Valer. Max. 
 ix. 2, ext. 2) of mutilating prisoners, ‘prima pedum 
 parte succisa,.’ These may be slanders, but they 
 prove how conceivable such mutilation was even 
 then, and what was its object at all times. 
 
 A. C. WELCH. 
 
 ADONIJAH (77s4y).—1. The name of the fourth 
 son of David (2 S 34, 1 Ch 37). After the death 
 of Absalom, Adonijah, who was next in order of 
 birth, naturally regarded himself as the heir to 
 the throne. His expectation was doubtless shared 
 by the nation, and seems to have been for a time 
 encouraged by his father. The situation had been 
 altered, however, by the introduction of Bath- 
 sheba into the royal harem, and by the birth of 
 Solomon. The influence and the ambition of this 
 latest of David’s queens rendered it certain that 
 Adonijah would encounter a dangerous rival in his 
 younger brother. It was probably his knowledge 
 that intrigues against his interests were being 
 carried on in the harem that led to the premature 
 and ill-starred attempt of Adonijah to seize the 
 crown before his father’s death. The narrative 
 (1 K 1 and 2) is from the same pen as the section 
 in 2.8 which contains the story of Absalom’s 
 rebellion, and is evidently the work of one who 
 had access to trustworthy sources of information. 
 There are several features of resemblance be- 
 tween the two narratives; and the two chief 
 actors therein, Absalom and Adonijah, seem 
 to have resembled one another in disposition 
 and even in bodily characteristics (cf. 1 K 156 
 with 2S 14% 15'). At first Adonijah’s enterprise 
 seemed likely to be crowned with success. He 
 attached to his cause such important and in- 
 fluential supporters as Joab the commander-in- 
 chief, and a pathar the priest. In company with 
 these and many members of the royal farnity and 
 the king’s house, ee oeek held a great feast at 
 En-Rogel, where the final arrangements were to be 
 made for his coronation. But he had reckoned 
 without his host. One whom he had not invitea 
 to the banquet was destined to checkmate the 
 conspirators ere their plans were matured. Nathan 
 the prophet seems to have occupied much the same 
 position at the court of David as Isaiah afterwards 
 held at that of Hezekiah. Seeing that not a 
 moment was to be lost, Nathan hastened to Bath. 
 
 
 
40 ADONIKAM 
 
 ADOPTION 
 
 
 
 sheba, whose fears he easily awakened by pointing 
 out the danger to which her own life and that of 
 Solomon would be exposed if the attempt of 
 Adonijah should succeed. Bathsheba, who seems 
 to have already obtained from David a promise 
 that Solomon should succeed him on the throne, 
 immediately sought an interview with the aged 
 king, and informed him of what was transpiring 
 at En-Rogel; while Nathan, in accordance with a 
 
 rearranged plan, came in opportunely to confirm 
 
 er story. The prophet-counsellor played his 3 part 
 with consummate skill, notably when (1 K 1%’) he 
 expressed surprise that the king, if he had sanc- 
 tioned the action of Adonijah, had not taken his 
 old friends and counsellors into his confidence. 
 Yielding to the representations of the queen and 
 the prophet, David renewed his oath to Bathsheba 
 in favour of her son, and took prompt measures to 
 secure the accession of the latter. At such a 
 juncture the support of the royal bodyguard was 
 all-important, and fortunately their loyalty was 
 beyond suspicion. Their commander was ordered 
 by David to escort the youthful Solomon, mounted 
 upon his father’s mule, to Gihon, and to have him 
 anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan 
 the prophet. his commission was executed 
 amidst the enthusiasm of the people, who rent the 
 air with shouts of ‘God save King Solomon !’ The 
 unwonted noise reached the ears of Adonijah’s 
 guests at En-Rogel, causing astonishment, which 
 passed into consternation when Jonathan the son 
 of Abiathar hurried in with the news that David 
 had chosen Solomon to succeed him. The com- 
 pany broke up in confusion, and Adonijah himself 
 was so much alarmed that he fled for protection to 
 the altar. Solomon, however, agreed to spare his 
 life on condition of future loyalty. If Adonijah 
 displayed no conspicuous wisdom in his attempt to 
 seize the crown, his next act, which cost him his 
 life, is hard to explain, except on the principle, 
 Quem Deus vult peers prius dementat. After the 
 death of his father he actually requested Solomon 
 to bestow upon him in marriage Abishag the 
 Shunammite, the maiden who had attended upon 
 David during his declining years. And as advo- 
 cate for him in this delicate matter he chose 
 - Bathsheba! Noone who is acquainted with the 
 notions of Eastern courts can wonder at the 
 resentment of Solomon, or that he construed this 
 request as an act of treason. Considering the re- 
 lation in which Abishag had stood to David, the 
 people would certainly infer that Adonijah in 
 taking her for his wife still asserted his right to 
 the crown. (Compare the story of Abner and 
 Ishbosheth in 2 § 3’, and of Absalom in 2 § 1621.) 
 Speedily was sentence pronounced, ‘ Adonijah hath 
 Lege this word against his own life; surely he 
 shall be put to death this day’; and the sentence 
 was aeediovely. executed by the captain of the 
 guard. 
 
 2. One of the Levites who, according to the 
 Chronicler, was sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in 
 the cities of Judah (2 Ch 178). 3. One of the 
 ‘chiefs of the people’ who sealed the covenant 
 (Neh 10'*), Same as Adonikam (Ezr 23 8, Neh 718). 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ADONIKAM (op's5x “my Lord has arisen’), Ezr 
 235 813, Neh 7!8, 1 Es 5% 8°. The head of a Jewish 
 family after the Exile; in Neh 10'° Adonijah. 
 
 H. A. Wire. 
 
 ADONIRAM, ADORAM (07358, 075).—The latter 
 name occurs 2 § 20%, 1 K 12!8, and is probably a 
 corruption of Adoniram. The LXX supports this 
 view, reading ’Adwrepay, 2S 20%, 1 K 4°54 (Heb. 
 prix), 1 K 128 (B’Apapu, A ’Adwyipay), and in the 
 parallel 2 Ch 10"8 Adwvreipaux (Heb. 0777, Hadoram). 
 A. was ‘over the levy,’ that is, he superintended 
 the levies employed in the public works during the 
 
 reigns of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam. He waa 
 stoned to death by the rebellious Isr. when sent te 
 them by Rehoboam (1 K 12%), 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ADONIS.—Strictly not a name buta title, jinx 
 "Adén, ‘Lord,’ of ae god Tammuz (which see). 
 Is 17° RVm ‘plantings of Adonis’ (03223 ‘yy 
 nit'’é na‘amanim, text ‘pleasant plants’) and the 
 setting of ‘vine slips of a stranger’ (strange god), 
 is mentioned as the result of having ‘forgotten 
 the God of thy salvation.’ So Ewald, Lagarde, 
 Cheyne. With ‘ plantings of Adonis,’ cf. the Gr. 
 *Adwvidos Kho, quick-growing plants reared in Pe 
 or baskets (Plato, Phedr. 276 B), and offered to 
 Aphrodite as emblems of her lover’s beauty and 
 early death (Theocr. 15. 113). 
 
 The meaning of na‘amdanim is, however, doubtful. 
 Na‘aman is probably the name of a god ; cf. the name 
 of the Syrian general (2 K 51), and Ar. Nu'm4n, 
 a king’s name (Tebrizi’s scholia to Hamdsa). The 
 river Belus is now called Nahr Na‘aman. Lagarde 
 (Sem. i. 32) quotes Arab. name of the red anemone, 
 Shaka iku-n-Nu'man, explaining as ‘the wound 
 of Adonis’; but see Wellhausen, Skizzen, iii. p. 7. 
 
 C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 ADONI-ZEDEK (p33 ‘378 ‘ Lord of righteousness,’ 
 AV Adoni-zedec), king of Jerusalem at the time 
 of the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites under 
 Joshua. After the Gibeonites had succeeded in 
 making a league with Israel, he induced four 
 other kings, those of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, 
 and Eglon, to unite with him against the invaders. 
 First they attacked, as traitors to the common 
 cause, the Gibeonites, who A 2 to Joshua for 
 help. By arapid night march from Gilgal, Joshua 
 came unexpectedly upon the allied kings, and 
 utterly routed them [JosHUA, BETH-HORON]. 
 Adoni-zedek and his associates sought refuge in & 
 cave at Makkedah, but were taken and brought 
 before Joshua. The Heb. chiefs set their feet 
 upon their necks in token of triumph. ae 
 were then slain, and their bodies hung up unt 
 the evening, when they were taken down and flung 
 into the cave where they had hid themselves, the 
 mouth of which was filled up with great stones 
 (Jos 10!-27). In Jos 10% LXX reads ’AdwBéfex, 
 and some have identified the latter with Adonibezek 
 of Jg 15, (See Kittel, Hist. of Heb. i. 307; Budde, 
 Richt. u. Sam. 63f.; Wellh. Hinleit.4 [Bleek] 182.) 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 ADOPTION (vlodecia) is a word’ used by St. 
 Paul to designate the privilege of sonship bestowed 
 by God on His people. While Jesus Himself and 
 the New Testament writers all speak frequently 
 and emphatically of our blessings and duties as sons 
 or children of God, no other of them employs this 
 special term, which occurs in five places in the 
 
 pistles of St. Paul (Gal 45, Ro 8%: 94, Eph 1°). 
 It seems to express a distinct and definite idea 
 in that apostle’s mind; and since adoption was, 
 in Roman law, a technical term for an act that 
 had specific legal and social effects, there is much 
 probability that he had some reference to that 
 in his use of the word. The Romans maintained 
 in a very extreme way the rights of fathers 
 over their children as practically despotic; and 
 these did not cease when the sons came of age, or 
 had families of their own, but while the father 
 lived could only be terminated by certain legal 
 proceedings, analogous to those by which slaves 
 were sold or redeemed. The same term (manci- 
 patio) was applied to a process of this kind, whether 
 a man parted with his son, or his slave, or his 
 
 oods. Hence a man could not be transferred 
 om one family to another, or put into the position 
 of ason to any Roman citizen, without a formal 
 legal act, which was a quasi sale by his natural 
 father, and buying out by the person who adopted 
 
 
 

 
 ADOPTION 
 
 
 
 him. If he was not in the power of a natural 
 father, but independent (sui juris), as, e.g., if his 
 father were dead, then he could only be put in the 
 place of son to another by a solemn act of the 
 sovereign people assembled in their religious 
 capacity (comitia curiata). For each family had 
 its own religious rites, and he must be freed by 
 public authority from the obligation to fulfil those 
 of one, and taken bound to observe those of 
 another. That transaction was, however, properly 
 called arrogatio, while adoptio strictly denoted the 
 taking, by one man, of a son of another to be his 
 son. This, though not requiring an act of 
 legislation, had to be regularly attested by wit- 
 nesses ; and in old form one struck a pair of scales 
 with a piece of copper as an emblem of the 
 rimitive process of sale. Adoption, when thus 
 egally performed, put a man in every respect in 
 the position of a son by birth of him who had 
 adopted him, so that he possessed the same rights 
 and owed the same obligations. 
 
 No such legal and complete transference of filial 
 rights and duties seems to have existed in the law 
 of Israel ; though there may have been many cases 
 of the informal adoption known among us, as when 
 Mordecai took the orphan Esther, his uncle’s 
 daughter, to be his (Est 2’). The failure of heirs 
 was provided for by the levirate law. 
 
 Now, since St. Paul represents the Christian’s 
 adoption as carrying with it certain definite privi- 
 leges which would not be involved in such an act 
 as Mordecai’s, and since he may well have been 
 acquainted with the Roman practice in this matter, 
 it seems probable that he may have had it in view. 
 (See Dr. W. E. Ball in Contemp. Rev., Aug. 1891). 
 
 The earliest instance of his use of the word is in 
 his Epistle to the Galatians, in a passage in which 
 several names of human relations are used to illus- 
 trate those between God and man, and where the 
 pote expressly says, ‘I speak after the manner 
 of men’ (315), ¢.e. I use a human analogy to make 
 my argument plain. The term that he first 
 employs after this remark is that rendered 
 covenant, or testament (é:a04«n), here probably 
 in the general sense of disposition, without 
 emphasis on the peculiarities either of a covenant 
 or of a testament. In virtue of this disposition, 
 which was one of promise, given to Abraham and 
 his seed, the blessing comes to all who are united 
 to Christ by faith; for the promise, St. Paul 
 argues, was rot to the pelaevad descendants of the 
 
 atriarch as a multitude, but to a unity, the one 
 essiah, who was to gather all nations to Himself. 
 According to this disposition of God, believers are 
 sons and heirs (37%), But before their faith 
 in Christ they were kept in ward under the law, 
 which was not intended to add a condition to the 
 covenant of promise, but to bring their latent sin toa 
 head in transgressions (31), so that they might not 
 seek to be justified by works, but might accept the 
 blessing as of God’s free grace through Christ, who 
 became a curse for us that He might redeem us from 
 the curse of the law (3'* *3-*4), This seems to be 
 clearly the general line of the argument. But the 
 position of men under the law appears to be repre- 
 sented by St. Paul in two different ways, sometimes 
 as bond-servants under the curse (31 18 47-8), and 
 sometimes as children under age (4!%). The ex- 
 planation of this may be found in the consideration 
 that St. Paul never meant to deny that Abraham, 
 David, and other believers in OT times were 
 really justified (see Ro 4'§); while as many as 
 were of the works of the law were under the curse. 
 The former were like children under age, not yet 
 enjoying the full privileges of sonship; the latter 
 were like bond-servants. To both alike the 
 blessing brought by Christ in the fulness of the 
 time is called adoption ‘Gal 45), and this seems to 
 
 
 
 ADOPTION 4] 
 
 
 
 indicate that St. Paul holds the sonship, of which 
 he is speaking, to be founded on the covenant 
 promise of God, and not on the natural relation te 
 God of all men assuch. We must not therefore lower 
 the meaning of adoption, in his mind, to the confer- 
 ring of the full privileges of sons on those who are 
 children bybirth. Itis,as the whole context shows, 
 a position bestowed by a disposition or covenant of 
 God, and through a redemption by Christ. This 
 probably led St. Paul to the use of the word ; for 
 the Roman adoption was effected by a legal act, 
 which involved a quasi buying-out. He also plainly 
 regards it as like the adoption of Roman law in 
 this, that it gives not merely paternal care, but the 
 complete rights of sonship, the gift of the Spirit of 
 God’s Son, and the inheritance. No doubt this 
 legal analogy may be pressed too far; and St. Paul 
 plain! indicates that what he means is really 
 something far deeper; for it is founded upon a 
 spiritual union to God’s Son, which is described 
 as ‘putting on Christ’ (37); so that our adoption 
 is not a mere formal or legal act, though it may he 
 compared to such in respect of its authoritative and 
 abiding nature. 
 
 Some theologians of different schools (e.g. 
 Turretin, Schleiermacher) have inferred from the 
 connexion between redemption and adoption, in 
 Gal 45, that adoption is the positive part of the 
 complete blessing of justification, of Which re- 
 demption or forgiveness is the negative part. But 
 this is a ver precarious inference; and the two 
 terms are so different in their meaning, that it is 
 far more probable that St. Paul meant by adoption 
 a blessing distinct from our having peace with God 
 and access into His favour, which he describes in 
 Ro 5! as the positive fruits of our justification. 
 These blessings, indeed, cannot be separated in 
 reality; they are only different aspects of the one 
 great gift of life in Christ; but in order to 
 understand clearly the evangelical doctrine of the 
 NT, it is necessary to look at them separately. 
 
 The next place where St. Paul speaks about 
 adoption is in Ro 8°35, Here he is speaking of 
 the believer’s new walk of holiness, and he has 
 said, ‘If by the spirit ye mortify the deeds of the 
 body, ye shall live’ (83). In proof of this he 
 asserts that ‘as many as are led by the Spirit of 
 God are the sons of God’ (8); and then he proves 
 this in turn by saying, ‘ Ye received not the (or, a) 
 spirit of bondage again unto fear, but ye received 
 the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, 
 Father.’ The line of reasoning is the same as in 
 Galatians, but put in the inverse order. Thi pro- 
 mise of life is proved by the fact of our being 
 sons of God; and that, again, because the spirit that 
 He has given us is that of adoption, enabling us to 
 address God as our Father, and so (8!*) witnessing 
 with our spirit that we are children of God. In 
 this pose there may be some allusion to the 
 witnesses which were necessary to the solemn act 
 of adoption according to Roman law and custom. 
 Then, as in the earlier Epistle, it is stated that this 
 adoption carries with it all the rights of true son- 
 ship, ‘ If children, then heirs,’ ete. (8!”). St. Paul 
 next proceeds to contrast this glorious prospect 
 with the present sufferings of the people of God. 
 These sufferings are shared by all creation; and 
 the deliverance is to be at the revealing of the sons 
 of God (8), when creation itself shall share the 
 liberty of the glory of the sons of God (8). So in 
 8% he says, ‘we wait for our adoption, the 
 redemption of our body.’ It is the resurrection 
 
 of life at the coming of the Lord that is un- 
 doubtedly meant; and that is called here the 
 adoption, because it will be the full revelation of 
 our sonship. Now are we sons of (rod, as St. John 
 puts it; but the world knoweth us not, and it doth 
 not yet appear what we shall be; but when it shall 
 
 
 
ADORA 
 
 42 
 
 appear, we shall be like Him (1 Jn 3'%). Another 
 striking parallel is to be found in our Lord’s words, 
 as recorded by St. Luke (20%: **), of those that are 
 accounted worthy to attain to the resurrection 
 from the dead, ‘ Neither can they die any more, for 
 they are equal unto the angels, and are sons of 
 God, being sons of the resurrection.’ As salvation 
 is sometimes spoken of as a thing perfect here and 
 now, and sometimes as only to be completed at the 
 last, so St. Paul speaks of adoption. It belongs to 
 the believer really and certainly now, but perfectly 
 only at the resurrection. 
 
 In Ro 94 St. Paul mentions ‘the adoption’ 
 first among the privileges of Israel, which he there 
 enumerates. This isin accordance with the fact 
 that the nation as a whole is called in the OT 
 God’s son, and individual members of it His 
 children, sons and daughters. The term implies 
 further, what is also taught in OT, that they had 
 this relation, not through physical descent or 
 creation, but by an act of gracious love on God’s 
 part. And in 97-8, St. Paul teaches that not all 
 the children of Abraham and Jacob are children 
 of God, but they who are of the promise, 7.e., 
 as he put it before, they who accept the promise 
 by faith. It is not necessary to suppose that St. 
 Paul speaks here of another adoption, quite distinct 
 from the Christian one; it is, indeed, an earlier 
 and less perfect phase of it, but he regards it as 
 essentially the same; since the gospel was preached 
 before to Abraham, and justification, though 
 founded on the actual redemption of Christ, was by 
 anticipation applied to him and many others 
 before Christ came. 
 
 The last place where St. Paul uses the term 
 adoption is Eph 15, where he says that God 
 eternally foreordained believers unto adoption as 
 sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself. This 
 refers to the eternal purpose, in accordance with 
 which God does all His works in time, and corre- 
 sponds to what he had said in Ro 8”, that ‘whom 
 
 e foreknew He also foreordained to be conformed 
 to the image of His Son, that He might be the first- 
 born among many brethren.’ The conformity 
 here mentioned probably includes moral likeness ; 
 but the ultimate end is stated to be that there 
 might be many brethren of Christ, among whom 
 He is the firstborn. Our Lord, according to St. 
 Paul, is, in a peculiar sense, God’s Son, His own 
 proper Son, begotten before all creation (Col 1%), 
 and the grace of adoption makes believers truly His 
 brethren and joint-heirs with Him, though He has 
 ever and in all things the pre-eminence as Son of 
 God from eternity, by nature and not merely by 
 grace. 
 ~ For a fuller account of the Biblical doctrine of 
 Divine Sonship, see GOD, SONS OF; CHILDREN OF. 
 
 LrrrraTurE.—Comm. on the Pauline Epp. by Calvin, Meyer, 
 Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Sanday-Headlam; works on NT 
 Theology by Schmid, Weiss, Beyschlag, Bovon; studies in 
 Pauline Theology by Pfleiderer, Sabatier, Bruce. (See Lit. 
 under Gop, Sons or ; CHILDREN OF.) 
 
 J.S. CANDLISH. 
 ADORA (*Adwpd) in Idumea (Ant. XII. ix. 1), 
 noticed in 1 Mac 13”. The same as Adoraim. 
 
 ADORAIM (ory), 2 Ch 11%.—A city of Judah 
 fortified by Rehoboam on the S. W. of his mountain 
 kingdom, now Dira, at the edge of the moun- 
 tains W. of Hebron—a small village. SWP vol. 
 iii. sheet xxi. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 ADORAM.—See ADONIRAM. 
 
 ADORATION.—Under this term may be con- 
 veniently considered certain phases of worship. 
 The word itself does not occur either in AV or RV, 
 but both the disposition of mind and heart, and 
 
 ADORATION 
 
 the outward expressions of that disposition, which 
 are alike denoted by it, receive abundant illus- 
 tration. I'rom one of the actions expressive of A., 
 —namely, lifting the hand to the mouth, either in 
 order to indicate that the worshipper was dumb in 
 the sacred presence, or, more commonly, to kiss it 
 and then wave it towards the statue of the god,— 
 the term itself is often supposed to be derived 
 (admoventes oribus suis dexteram, Apul. Met. iv. 
 28; cf. Pliny, NH xxviii. 5; Min. Felix, Oct. ii.). 
 This practice of kissing the hand, accompanied by 
 certain other gestures, was, among the Romans, the 
 special meaning of adoratio as distinguished from 
 oratio or prayer. It was, in antiquity, expressive 
 of the deepest respect, and is alluded to in Job 
 317’, possibly also in 1 K 19%, Ps 2", Hos 13%. 
 Adorare is however a compound verb, meaning, 
 first, ‘to address,’ then, ‘to entreat, to supplicate,’ 
 and, finally, ‘to worship.’ That A. should embrace 
 at once a range of feelings and a series of acts is 
 explained by a very simple consideration. The 
 most profound and most intense feelings are just 
 those which act or gesture expresses better than 
 words. It is only, therefore, toa limited extent 
 that A. finds expression in language, and then 
 only in language of the most general and least 
 objective kind. A. is, in the first place, the 
 attitude of the soul which is called forth by the 
 loftiest thoughts and realisations of God. Before 
 His perfections the soul abases itself; it seeks to 
 get beyond earth and earthly things and to enter 
 into His nearer presence. A. belongs thus to the 
 mystical side of religion; it includes the awe and 
 reverence with which the soul feels itself on holy 
 ground. Its appropriate expressions are therefore 
 those which convey the feeling most adequately, 
 even though when tried by any objective standara 
 they might be prononeees meaningless, We dis- 
 tinguish generally between A. and those parts of 
 Prayer and Worship which are directed towards a 
 special end,—from confession, supplication, thanks- 
 giving. Hymns and Prayers of A. set forth the 
 majesty, purity, and holiness of God, His ineffable 
 perfections, and the soul’s loving contemplation of 
 them. The adoring heart is ‘lost in wonder, love, 
 and praise.” In the Psalms, nature in all its 
 departments is repeatedly called upon to praise 
 and glorify God. St. Paul, caught up even to the 
 third heaven, knowing not whether he was in the 
 body or apart from the body, and hearing un- 
 speakable words, is an example of that self- 
 abandonment of devotion which is implied in the 
 highest form of A. Possibly a similar meaning 
 attaches to the statement of St. John, that he was 
 ‘in the spirit’ on the Lord’s day. Not only are 
 angels walléd upon to bless the Lord, but A. is 
 represented as the essence of the heavenly life. In 
 Is 6 a scene of heavenly A. is depicted; and 
 similar scenes are set forth in the Bk of Rev 
 (4811 68-14 711-12), A. is here distinguished from 
 service, as something even more truly funda- 
 mental, even that from which the only acceptable 
 service springs. 
 
 God is the only legitimate object of A., since in 
 Him only perfection dwells, and He only must be 
 the supreme object of love and reverence. His 
 worship must be spiritual (Jn 4%), and such wor- 
 ane accorded to any other is uniformly branded as 
 idolatry. Christ is adored because ‘God was in 
 Him’ (2 Co 5”), and because God ‘hath highly 
 exalted Him, and is Himself glorified when the 
 confession is made that ‘Christ is Lord’ (Ph 
 Yad), 
 
 As regards the attitudes and acts expressive 
 of A., these, as already stated, symbolised the 
 feeling experienced, and varied therefore with the 
 kinds and degrees of emotion indicated. Humilit 
 was naturally expressed by prostration, kneel- 
 
 
 
ADORNING 
 
 ADRIA 43 
 
 
 
 ing, or simply bending head or body; _ sub- 
 mission and reverence, by the folded hands and 
 downcast eyes; wonder and awe, by the uplifted 
 hands with palms turned outwards; invocation 
 and supplication, by hands and arms outstretched ; 
 dependence and entreaty, by clasped hands or 
 meeting palms. Among the Hebrews, standing 
 was the more usual attitude in public prayer, as it 
 is among the Jews to this day; it indicates, per- 
 haps, more a consciousness of the presence of other 
 men and less self-abandonment than kneeling (cf. 
 the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican), 
 which therefore was more appropriate to private 
 devotion. Solomon, it is true, knelt at the dedi- 
 cation of the temple (1 K 8°4, 2 Ch 65). Ezra (Ezr 
 9°) and Daniel (Dn 61°) likewise fell upon their 
 knees; and St. Paul knelt in prayer with the 
 elders of Ephesus. In all these instances, however, 
 the idea conveyed is rather that the spectators were 
 overlooking or assisting at an act of private 
 devotion, than that they were taking part in public 
 or common prayer. In one instance (2S 7%=1 Ch 
 17") we read of sitting as an attitude of prayer; 
 but this probably is a form of kneeling, the 
 body being thrown back so as to rest upon 
 the heels, as in other cases (1 K 18%) it was 
 thrown forward until the head was placed between 
 the knees. To fall at the feet of a person 
 (mpocktvnois) was an act of extreme reverence, 
 generally accompanying supplication (1 8 2544, 2 K 
 457, Est 83, Mt 289, Mk 5”, Lk 84), Jn 11%). Pros- 
 tration before a human patron or benefactor was 
 an Oriental, not a Roman, custom, and hence St. 
 Peter declined to receive it from Cornelius, in whom 
 it indicated a misapprehension as to the quality of 
 the apostle. Of hands lifted to heaven we read in 
 Is 1%, 1 Ti 28. The consecration of love was 
 denoted, as we have seen, by the kiss. Moses and 
 Joshua were commanded to remove their sandals 
 (Ex 3°, Jos 515), because the presence of God made 
 holy the ground on which they stood. In all these 
 instances it is easy to discern how the outward act 
 expressed, and, in expressing, tended to intensify in 
 the heart of the worshipper the feeling with which 
 it was associated. A. STEWART. 
 
 ADORNING (mod. adornment) occurs in 1 P 38 
 ‘Whose a. let it not be that outward a. of plaiting 
 the hair.’ The latest use of a. as a subst. is in 
 H. More’s Seven Ch. (1669): ‘ Her prankings and 
 adornings’ (Oxf. Dict.). A J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADRAMMELECH (3)917x).—4. A. and Anamme- 
 lech, the gods of Sepharvaim to whom the colonists, 
 brought to Samaria from Sepharvaim, burnt their 
 children in the fire (2 K 17). Adrammelech has 
 been identified with a deity frequently mentioned in 
 Assyrian records whose name is written ideographi- 
 cally AN. BAR. and AN. NIN. IB. This name has 
 been conjecturally read ‘ Adar’; and if this con- 
 jecture be right, ‘Adar’ may be identified with 
 ‘Adrammelech’ (i.e. ‘Adar-prince’ or ‘ Adar- 
 Molech’). ‘Adar’ is a name of Accadian origin, 
 signifying ‘Father of decision’ (07 judgment). 
 ‘ Adar’ was active in sending the waters of the 
 Deluge. (Cf. Schrader, K.AT?, on 2 K 17*'), 
 
 2. (2K 19°", Is 378) mentioned with Sharezer as one 
 of the murderers of Sennacherib. In Is (/.c.) and 
 in all the versions of Kings (/.c.) the two murderers 
 are described as the sons of Sennacherib, but the 
 Kethibh of Kings omits ‘his sons.’ A Babylonian 
 chronicle, referring to the murder, says simply, 
 ‘On the twentieth of the month Tebet, Sen- 
 nacherib, king of Assyria, was killed by his son 
 (sing.) in an insurrection.’ (See E. Schrader, Keilin- 
 schriftliche Bibliothek, vol. ii. p. 281, and C. H. W. 
 Johns in Expository Times, vol. vii. ee 238 f., and 
 p. 360. W. E. BARNES. 
 
 ADRAMYTTIUM (Adpautrriov) was an ancient 
 city of the country Mysia, in the Rom. province 
 Asia, with a harbour, at the top of the gulf Sinus 
 Adramyttenus. The population and the name 
 were moved some distance inland during the 
 Middle Ages to a site which is now called Edremid. 
 It must have been a city of great importance when 
 Pergamos was the capital of the kings of Asia; 
 and hence, when Asia became a Rom. province, 
 Adramyttium was selected as the metropolis of 
 the N.W. district of Asia, where the assizes 
 (conventus) of that whole district were held. 
 Its ships made trading voyages along the coasts 
 of Asia and as far as Syria (Ac 272); and a 
 kind of ointment exported from the city was 
 highly esteemed (Pliny, NA xiii. 2. 5). Its 
 importance as a trading centre is shown by its 
 being one of the cities where cistophori, the great 
 commercial coinage of the east, were struck be- 
 tween 133 and 67B.c. It suffered greatly during 
 the Mithridatic wars, and rather declined in im- 
 portance; but, even as late as the 8rd cent., 
 under Caracalla, it still ranked sufficiently high to 
 strike alliance coins with Ephesus (implying cer- 
 tain reciprocal rights in respect of religious festi- 
 vals and games). W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 ADRIA (Ac 27”, RV Sea of Adria).—The sea 
 ‘amidst’ which the ship carrying St. Paul was 
 driven during fourteen days, before it stranded on 
 Melita. After passing Crete, the voyagers en- 
 countered a violent ‘north-easter’ (Ry Eura- 
 quilo), before which they drifted, and running 
 under the island of Clauda (RV Cauda, now Gozo), 
 they were afraid of being carried towards the 
 quicksands (RV Syrtis) dreaded by the mariner 
 on the African coast; but eventually, on the four- 
 teenth day, descried land, where they ran the shi 
 aground on an island called Melita. The sea whic 
 they traversed is termed 6 ’Adplas. Three questions 
 arise—(1) as to the form, (2) as to the origin, and 
 (3) as to the range or connotation, of the word. 
 
 1. WH prefer the aspirated form ‘Adplas; but 
 while both forms occur in ancient writers (see the 
 variations in Pauly-Wiss. RE s.v.), our choice 
 must depend on the probable derivation of the 
 name. 
 
 2. There were two towns of similar name—Atria 
 or Hadria, in Picenum (now Afri), an inland town 
 having no relation to the Adriatic (except indirectly 
 through its port of Matrinum), and Atria, a town 
 of early commercial importance near the mouth of 
 the Po, with which the name is associated by such 
 authorities as Livy (v. 33), Strabo (v. 1), and Pliny 
 (HN iii. 120). his town, still called Adria, is 
 described by Livy and others as a Tuscan settle- 
 ment, but by Justin (xx. 1. 9) as of Gr. origin; and its 
 early relations with Greece are (as Mommsen, in CL 
 v. 1. p. 220, points out) yet more certainly attested by 
 eae vases of Gr. style found in no small num- 
 
 er there, but not elsewhere in that district of 
 Italy. The Picentine town was in imperial times 
 called Hadria, and earlier coins belonging to it 
 are inscribed HAT., while in inscriptions from the 
 town on the Po the first letter is represented by A, 
 not by H, and Mommsen, for that reason, has 
 latterly preferred the form Atria. 
 
 8. As Adrias was early used in the sense, to 
 which Adriatic has again been confined, of the 
 branch of the sea between Italy and Illyria, it was 
 not unnatural so to understand it in Ac 27, esp. 
 as an island off its Illyrian shore, Melita (now 
 Meleda), might have been the scene of the ship- 
 wreck. Bryant (Diss. on the wind Euroclydon), 
 Macknight, and others adopted this view, which 
 some, on their authority, have accepted, although 
 Scaliger had pronounced it ridiculous and hardly 
 worth refuting. Its chief champion is W. Falconer, 
 
14 ADRIEL 
 
 ADVENTURE 
 
 
 
 whose Dissertition on St. Paul’s Voyage, published 
 in 1817, was reissued in 1870 by the writer’s nephew, 
 Judge Falconer, with copious additional notes 
 controverting (though with little real success) the 
 arguments of Mr. Smith of Jordanhill, in support 
 of the tradition which regards Malta as the scene 
 of shipwreck, and takes Adrias in the wider sense 
 of the waters between Crete and Sicily (Voyage 
 and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1848). The history of 
 the strangely varying usage is well indicated by 
 Partsch in Pauly-Wiss. s.v., and by Miiller in 
 his ed. of Strabo, pp. 328, 335, 338. At first the 
 name strictly belonged to the inner portion 
 adjoining the mouths of the Po and the coast of 
 the Veneti, while the lower or south portion was 
 known as the Ionian Sea. But these names soon 
 became interchangeable, or, if a distinction was 
 drawn, it was that of two basins—the inner as far 
 as Mount Garganus being more strictly ‘the 
 Adrias,’ the outer the Ionian Sea. Strabo expressly 
 recognises this distinction, but indicates that 
 Adrias had now become the name for the whole (ii. 
 123, vii. 187). But while Adrias comes thus to 
 include the Ionian Sea, the latter term in its turn 
 obtained an extension to the sea lying between the 
 west coasts of Greece and Sicily, which is called by 
 Strabo the Sicilian, and was also termed the 
 Ausonian Sea (ii. 123), and the name Adrias now 
 received a corresponding, but even greater, exten- 
 sion. A very clear light is thrown on the range or 
 connotation of ‘the Adrias,’ as used in Acts, by 
 the statements of Ptolemy, who flourished (not 
 ‘immediately,’ as Smith Vas sald (p. 127), but) 
 sixty or seventy years after St. Luke (he was alive 
 160 A.D.), and who presents an usage which must 
 be presumed to have been not only existent, but 
 current and generally accepted for some consider- 
 able time, in order to find a place in such a work. 
 Ptolewy places the Adriatic to the east of Sicily 
 ‘iii. 4), to the south of Achaia (iii. 14), to the west 
 and south of the Peloponnesus (iii. 16), and to the 
 west of Crete (ili. 15), thus giving to it precisely 
 the extent which Strabo assigns to the Sicilian 
 Sea. We meet the same wider range in earlier as 
 well as later writers. The only argument of 
 weight adduced by Judge Falconer in opposition to 
 the case thus established, is that elsewhere (iv. 3) 
 Ptolemy places Melita (Malta) in the African Sea, 
 which bounds Sicily on the south. But it is too 
 much to construe this as though Ptolemy ‘dis- 
 tinctly and unequivocally excluded the island from 
 all seas but that of Africa.’ The alleged ‘exclusion’ 
 is a mere inference by Falconer from the ‘inclusion’; 
 not at all necessary where Melita, lying between 
 the two seas called African and Sicilian, might 
 easily be associated with either. At any rate, the 
 main question concerns not the mere geographical 
 assignation of Melita as such, but the meaning to 
 be attached to ‘the -Adrias’ as the sea which the 
 vessel traversed on its voyage. And here most 
 commentators agree in holding that, in accordance 
 with the current usage of the time when St. Luke 
 wrote, the word is applied to the whole expanse of 
 waters between Crete and Sicily. 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 ADRIEL (5x*ry).—Son of Barzillai, a native of 
 Abel-meholah in the Jordan Valley, about 10 miles 
 S. of Bethshean. He married Merab, the eldest 
 daughter of Saul, who should have been given to 
 David as the slayer of Goliath (18 18%). Michal 
 (2S 218) is a mistake for Merab. 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 ADUEL (’Aéov7y;A, Heb. bxx, Syr. Sxmsx), one of 
 the ancestors of Tobit, To 14. variant form of 
 bevy, 1 Ch 4%. J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 ADULLAM (ob), now ‘fd.’el-ma’ ‘Feast of 
 
 water,’ or ‘/d-’el-miyeh ‘Feast of the hundred” | 
 
 (see Clermont-Ganneau and Conder in PEF Mem, 
 lii. 361-67; Conder, Tent Work, p. 276f.; Smith, 
 Geogr. p. 229), in the valley of Elah, is frequently 
 referred to in the OT. It was a city of the 
 Canaanites (Gn 38'), in the district allotted to 
 the tribe of Judah after the conquest (Jos 121%). 
 It was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11’), and is 
 mentioned later on by Micah (1). After the 
 Captivity it was re-peopled by the Jews (Neh 
 11*°), and continued to be a place of importance 
 under the Maccabees (2 Mac 12%). 
 
 The Cave of Adullam, famous through its associa. 
 tion with the early history of David, has usually 
 been supposed to have had no connexion with the 
 city of that name, and has been located by tradi- 
 tion, as well as by many travellers, in the Wady 
 Khareitun, about six miles south-east of Bethlehem. 
 The most recent authorities, however, are strong] 
 of opinion that an entirely suitable site for it 
 can be found in the vicinity of the city, and that 
 there is no reason for separating the two. Half- 
 way between Shochoh and Keilah, and 10 miles 
 north-west of Hebron, some caves have been found, 
 the position of which suits all we are told about 
 David’s stronghold, and which are at once central 
 and defensible. It may be regarded as practically 
 settled that the Cave of Adullam was not far from 
 where David had his encounter with Goliath. _, 
 
 Adullamite (*>)7y, ‘native of Adullam’) is applied 
 to Hirah, the friend of Judah (Gn 38?). t the 
 time of the conquest Adullam was a royal city, 
 and if it was so in Hirah’s time, he was probab 
 king. W. MUoIR. 
 
 ADULTERY.—See CriImMEs, and MARRIAGE. 
 
 ADUMMIM, Tue ASCENT OF (0°74 nbyD), Jos 
 15’ 18”, forming part of the eastern boundary 
 between Judah and Benjamin, is the steep pass in 
 which the road ascends from Jericho to Jerusalem. 
 Its name, Tal‘at ed-Dumm, is still the same—‘ the 
 ascent of blood’ or ‘red,’ and is most probably due 
 to the red marl which is so distinctive a feature of 
 the pass. In this pass, notorious for robberies and 
 murders, is the traditional ‘inn’ of Lk 10%, and 
 near by the Chastel Rouge or Citerne Rouge, built 
 by the crusaders for protection of pilgrims from 
 Jerusalem to the Jordan. A. HENDERSON. 
 
 ADVANTAGE.—This is one of our numerous mis- 
 ae) Eng. words. It comes fromavant, ‘before,’ with 
 the suffix age. Hence it has no connexion with 
 Lat. prep. ad (though the misspelling is found as 
 early as 1523), and the meaning is not simple profit, 
 but superiority. In this sense it is found in 
 Ro 3! ‘What a. then hath the Jew?’ and 2 Co 
 2, to which RV adds 2 Co 7? 12)7-%8 In Job 
 35%, Jude v. ‘a.’ should be ‘ profit.’ And so the 
 verb ‘to advantage,’ now obsolete, which is found 
 in Lk 9%, 1 Co 15° ‘what advantageth it me?’ 
 is rightly turned into ‘ profit’ in RV. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 ADYENT.—See PARovusIA. 
 
 ADVENTURE, now obs. asa verb, is found Dt 28" 
 ‘ The tender and delicate woman among you which 
 would not a. (intrans.=venture) to set the sole of 
 her foot upon the ground for delicateness and 
 tenderness’; Jg 9!” ‘For my father fought for 
 you, and a4 (transit. =risked) his life’; Ac 19%! 
 ‘desiring him that he would not a. himself (doiva 
 éaurév, ‘give himself’) into the theatre.’ Cf. 
 Shaks. Two G. of Ver. III. i. 120— 
 
 ‘Leander would adventure it’; 
 
 and for the intrans. use Rom. and Jul. VY. iii. 1l-— 
 
 ‘IT am almost afraid to stand alone 
 Here in the churchyard ; yet I will adventur..’ 
 
ADVERSARY 
 
 AFFLICTION 4 
 
 
 
 * At all adventure’ occurs Wis 27 ‘we are vorn 
 at all a.’ (avrocxedlws, RV ‘by mere chance’) and 
 ‘at all adventures,’ Lv 2672 m (‘, in the usual 
 phrase oy "p 37). Cf. T. Wilson (1553) : ‘ which 
 showte (shoot) . . . at all aventures hittie missie.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADVERSARY. — Besides the general sense of 
 opponent, a. occurs with the special meaning of an 
 opponent at law (dvridixos), Lk 12°° ‘When thou 
 
 oest with thine adversary to the magistrate’; 
 Nt 5% Lk 18%, In the foll. passages it is used as 
 the tr. of Heb. jpy Sdtan, Nu 22”, 1S 294, 2S 19%, 
 1K 54 11% 3-3, Cf. 1 P 5° ‘your a. (Gr. dvrldcxos) 
 ‘the devil.” See SATAN. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADVERTISE, ‘to give notice,’ ‘inform,’ Nu 24" 
 *T will a. thee what this people shall do to thy 
 pve in the latter days’; and Ru 4‘ ‘I thought 
 
 a. thee’ (RV ‘disclose it unto thee’). In the 
 last passage the Heb. is ‘ uncover the ear’ (jy 75a). 
 See EAR. Advertisement, in the sense of precept, 
 admonition, occurs in the heading of Sir 20. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ADYICE, ADVISE, ADYISEMENT.—‘To take 
 advice’ in mod. Eng. is to consult with another 
 and receive his opinion. But in Jg 19” and 
 2 Ch 25” ‘to take a.’ means to consult with 
 oneself and give an opinion; Jg 19” ‘consider of 
 it, take a. (RV ‘take counsel’) and speak.’ So 
 Shaks. 2 Henry VI. I. ii. 67— 
 
 * And that’s not suddenly to be perform’d ; 
 But witii advice, and silent secrecy.’ 
 
 Advise in the sense, not of giving advice to 
 another, but of deliberating with oneself, is found 
 twice, 2 S 243 ‘now a. (RV ‘advise thee’) and 
 see what answer I shall return to him that sent 
 me,’ and 1 Ch 212 (RV ‘consider’). ‘Well 
 advised’ in Pr 13", ‘but with the well advised is 
 wisdom,’ means not those who have accepted good 
 advice, but those who are cautious or deliberate. 
 Cf. Bacon, Essays, ‘Let him be . . . advisedin 
 his answers.’ Advisement, now obs., occurs 
 1 Ch 12” ‘the lords of the Philistines, upon a. 
 (s.¢. after deliberation) sent him away’; 2 Mac 14” 
 ‘When they had taken long a. thereupon’ (RV 
 ‘when these proposals had been Lay considered ’), 
 . HASTINGS. 
 ADVOCATE (wapdxdyros), only 1 Jn 2). See 
 SPIRIT, HOLY. . 
 
 AEDIAS (B ’Anéclas, A -dl-), 1 Es 9%. —One of 
 those who agreed to hau away their ‘strange’ 
 wives. The corresponding name in Ezr 10% is 
 Elijah (x, ’HAla). The form in 1 Es is a corrup- 
 tion of the Gr. (HAI4 read as AHAIA), and has no 
 Heb. equivalent. H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 JENEAS (Alvéas) is the name of a paralytic at 
 Lydda who was cured by Peter (Ac 9*-*). We 
 find the name used of a Jew in Jos. Ant. XIV. 
 x, 22. A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 ZENON (Alvdyv, ‘springs’) is mentioned only in 
 Jn 33 as near to Salem (which see). As the 
 name ‘springs’ is common, its locality must be 
 fixed by that of Salem. Eusebius and Jerome 
 
 lace Ainon 8 miles south of Scythopolis, now 
 
 eisan ; and the name SAlim is said to attach toa 
 mound some 6 or 7 miles south of Beisan, while 
 three-quarters of a mile south of it are seven springs. 
 ‘Rivulets also wind about in all directions... . 
 I have found few places in Palestine of which one 
 could so truly say, ‘‘ Here is much water”’ (Van de 
 Velde, ii. p. 345, ete.). The chief difficulty in the 
 acceptance of this identification is the naming of 
 Salem (Jn 3%) as a well-known town, suggesting 
 the well-known Salim, east of Shechem. Conder 
 
 
 
 has one. out ‘Ainfin, bearing the name, situated 
 in the WAdy Far’ah. ‘Here was once a large 
 village, now completely overthrown. A great 
 number of rock-cut cisterns are observed on the 
 site’ (Survey Memoirs, ii. p. 234), A little to the 
 south of ‘Ainfn is a succession of springs with flat 
 meadows on either side, where great crowds might 
 gather by the bank of the copious perennial stream 
 shaded bY oleanders. Here were ‘many waters’ 
 (Jn 3% RVm). It is accessible by roads from 
 all quarters, and is situated by one of the main 
 roads from Jerus. to Galilee, the road passing 
 Jacob’s Well (Jn 4°) which our Lord may have 
 taken to meet the Baptist in view of threatened 
 misunderstandings and jealousies of his disciples. 
 For a full description, see Conder’s Tent Work, ii. 
 BP. 57, 58. The distance is about 7 miles from 
 
 alim, which has been made an objection to thir 
 identification; but there is no nearer town of 
 importance by which to describe its situation. 
 
 A. HENDERSON. 
 
 FESORA (Alowpd), Jth 44 (AV Esora). — A 
 Samaritan town noticed with Bethhoron, Jericho, 
 and Salem (Salim). Possibly ’Asireh, N.E. of 
 Shechem (SWP vol. ii. sh. xi.). C. R. CONDER. 
 
 AFFECT, AFFECTION.—In its literal sense of 
 ‘to act upon,’ affect occurs once, La 3°! ‘mine eye 
 affecteth mine heart.’ In Sir 13" the meaning is 
 to aspire, ‘Affect not to be made equal unto 
 him in talk.’ Besides these, observe Gal 417 18, 
 where the meaning is to have affection for, be 
 fond of. Gal 4 ‘They zealously a. you, but 
 not well (Gr. {mAodow bpyas ob Karas, RV ‘They 
 zealously seek you in no good way’); yea, the 
 would exclude you, that ye might a. them’ (R 
 ‘seek them’). Cf. Bingham, Xenoph. ‘ Alwaies 
 soure and cruell, so that Souldiers affected him as 
 children doe their Schoolemaster.’ Besides these, 
 a. occurs only Ac 14? ‘made them evil a°’ (xaxdw) ; 
 2 Mac 4% ‘not well a%’ (ddAérpios), RV ‘ill ac.’) ; 
 135 ‘well a’ (evuev7s). Affection in old Eng. 
 is any bent or disposition of the mind, good 
 or bad, as Col 3? ‘set your a. (Gr. dpovetre, RV 
 ‘set your mind’) on things above.’ Hence, to tr. 
 ma0os and the like, some adj. is added, as Col 35 
 ‘inordinate a.’ (Gr. mdé0os, RV ‘passion’); Ro 
 18 ‘without natural a.’ (Gr. dcropyos). But in the 
 plu. affections means passions, as Gal 5% ‘ the flesh 
 with the a. (Gr. ré0nua, RV ‘ passions’) and lusts’ ; 
 Ro 1% ‘God gave them up unto vile a.’ (Gr. 1d6n 
 driyulas, RV ‘vile passions’). Cf. the difference 
 between ‘passion’ and ‘passions.’ RV gives ‘affec- 
 tions’ in a good (7.e. the mod.) sense at 2 Co 6 
 (AV ‘bowels,’ which see). Affectioned is found in 
 the neutral sense of ‘disposed’ in Ro 12” ‘kindly 
 a. (Gr. gurdcropya, RV ‘tenderly a.’) one to another.’ 
 Cf. Fuller, Abel Red. ‘He (Luther) was very lovingly 
 affectioned towards his children.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AFFINITY.—In 1 K 3! ‘Solomon made a. with 
 Pharaoh’; 2 Ch 18! ‘Jehoshaphat . . . joined a. 
 with Ahab’; and Ezr 9 ‘Should we. . . join in 
 a. with the people of these abominations?’ a. has 
 the special sense of relationship by marriage, being 
 distinguished from consanguinity or relationship 
 by blood. Cf. Selden, Laws of ng. (1649), ‘ Many 
 that by a. and consanguinity were become English- 
 men.’ See MARRIAGE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AFFLICTION is now used only passively ; the 
 state of being afflicted, misery. So Ex 3’ ‘I have 
 surely seen the a. of my people,’ and elsewhere. 
 But it is also in the Bible used actively, as 1 K 
 227 ‘feed him with bread of a. and with water of 
 a., until I come in peace’ (t.e. bread and water that 
 will afflict him). Cf. More, ‘Let him... purge 
 the spirit by the a. of the flesh.” J HASTINGs. 
 

 
 46 
 
 ees 
 
 AFFRAY.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 AFFRAY 
 
 
 
 AFORE and its compounds.—Afore=before, is 
 used as prep. Is 185 ‘afore the harvest’; as adj. 
 2 Es 5* ‘the night a.’; and as adv. Ro 1? ‘ which 
 he had promised afore.’ Aforehand as adv.= 
 beforehand, in anticipation, occurs Mk 148 ‘She is 
 come a. to anoint my body’; and Jth 74. Afore- 
 
 romised is now found 2 Co 9° RV ‘your a. 
 borne (rpoernyyeduévos). Aforesaid occurs only 
 2 Mac 4% 148, Aforetime=formerly, as Dn 6” 
 ‘(Daniel) prayed . . . as he did a.’ Aforetime is 
 happily introduced by RV at Dt 2)% 12-2, Jos 418, 
 1 Ch 4, Jn 98 Ro 3% Eph 22}, Col 37, Tit 3%, 
 Philem v.", 1 P 35, for various AV expressions, 
 generally as tr. of 0°33) or rére. The a in these 
 words is a worn-down form of the old Eng. prep. 
 anoron. See A. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AFTER, AFTERWARD (‘After, orginally a 
 compar. of af, Lat. ab, Gr. dré, Skr. dpa, with 
 compar. suffix -ter, like -ther in “either,” ete.= 
 farther off..—MurRRAy) is found in AV and 
 RV in all the modern usages as ady., prep., and 
 conj., both of place and of time. he only 
 examples demanding attention are: 1. some pas- 
 sages where after means ‘according to,’ as in Gn 
 126 ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, 
 after our likeness’; esp. the following (where Gr. 
 is card), Ro 2° ‘after thy hardness and impeni- 
 tent heart’; 1 Co 7® ‘after my judgment’; 2 Co 
 1117 ‘That which I speak, I speak it not after the 
 Lord’; Eph 4% ‘The newman, which after God is 
 created in righteousness’; 2 P 3° ‘Scoffers, 
 walking after their own lusts’; Gal 4% ‘he who 
 was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh’; 
 Tit 1! ‘the acknowledging of the truth which 
 is after (RV ‘according to’) godliness’; and 
 He 4" (where Gr. is év) ‘lest any man fall after 
 (RVm ‘into’) the same example of unbelief.’ 
 2. Where after means ‘in proportion to’: Ps 284 
 ‘give them after the work of their hands’; Ps 
 90 (Pr. Bk.) ‘Comfort us again now after the 
 time that Thou hast plagued us.’ So Ps 51) (Pr. 
 Bk.). Cf. Litany, ‘ Deal not with us after our sins,’ 
 and Wyclif’s tr. of Mt 167” ‘He schal yelde to 
 every man after his works.’ 3. Where after is 
 used for afterwards, as 1 K 173 ‘Make me thereof 
 a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after 
 (RV ‘afterward’) make for thee and for thy son.’ 
 So He 118, 2 P 2°. 
 
 Afterward is the older form; when the AV was 
 made, ‘afterwards’ was coming into use. Skeat 
 says he has not been able to find it much earlier 
 than Shakespeare’s time (but Oxf. Dict. gives one 
 1300, and one 1375). AV (Camb. ed.) has afterward 
 66 times, afterwards 13 times. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AGABUS ("Ayafos, of uncertain derivation; 
 ey from either 135 ‘a locust,’ Ezr 2%, or 
 aay ‘to love’), a Christian prophet living at Jeru- 
 salem, Ac 1177-8 2]! Though the prophets 
 were not essentially predicters of the future, the 
 ease of Agabus shows that their functions some- 
 times included the actual prediction of coming 
 events. At Antioch, A.D. 44, A. foretold a famine 
 ‘over all the world’ in the days of Claudius. Only 
 local famines are known in this reign, though some 
 were so severe as necessarily to affect indirectly 
 the entire empire (Suet. Claud. xviii.; Tac. Ann. 
 xii. 43; Euseb. Chron. Arm., ed. Schéne, ii. 252 
 et al.). Both Suetonius and Eusebius date a 
 
 famine in the fourth year of Claudius, A.D. 45; 
 and since Jud#a as well as Greece suffered, it is 
 probably this to which Agabus referred. Josephus 
 speaks of its severity, and of means taken for its 
 relief (Ant. III. xv. 3, XX. ii. 6 and v. 2). The other 
 prophecy of Agabus (A.D. 59) followed the OT 
 
 
 
 AGAIN 
 
 
 
 method of symbolism, and has a close parallel in 
 Jn 21% He foretold to St. Paul his imprisonment 
 in Jerusalem, but did not thereby divert him from 
 the journey. Nothing more is known concerning 
 Agabus, though there are traditions that he was 
 one of the seventy disciples of Christ, and that he 
 suffered martyrdom at Antioch. 
 R. W. Moss. 
 
 AGAG (33x, Nu 247 ax ‘violent (?)’ Assyr. agdgu, 
 ‘displeasure’).—A king of the Amalekites, con- 
 quered by Saul and, contrary to the divine command, 
 saved alive, but put to death by Samuel (1 § 15). 
 From the way in which the name is used by Balaam 
 (Nu 247), it seems not to have been the name of any 
 one individual prince, but, like Pharaoh among 
 the Egyptians, and (possibly) Abimelech among the 
 Philistines, a designation or title borne by all the 
 kings,—perhaps by the king of that nation which 
 stood at the head of the confederacy. Kneucker 
 and others, without any reasonable ground, insist 
 upon taking it as a personal name, and make its 
 use by the writer of Nu 247 a reminiscence of the 
 story from Saul’s time. J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 AGAGITE ('3:s).—A term of reproach used to 
 designate Haman, the enemy of the Jews at the 
 Persian court of Ahasuerus (Est 312° 8%5 9%), In 
 Josephus’ version of the story (An¢é. XI. vi. 5), Haman 
 is described as ‘by birth an Amalekite.’ In Est 3} 
 instead of Agagite the LXX reads Bovyaiov, and 
 in 9% 6 Maxeddy, while in the other passages 
 simply the name Haman occurs. Thus in the 
 LXX the word Agagite does not occur. Some 
 have argued (¢.g. Bertheau in Comm.) that the 
 designation was used to indicate to a Hebrew what 
 ‘Macedonian’ would to a Greek, and that it meant 
 Amalekite in the sense of a contemptible, hateful 
 person, but not as implying that Haman had any 
 genealogical connexion with Amalek. The pro- 
 motion of a foreigner to such a position in the 
 empire as Haman occupied, even under the regime 
 of the most despotic monarchs, must have been 
 quite an exceptional occurrence. Apart from any 
 other indication of Haman’s foreign extraction, it 
 is scarcely safe to base an assumption of such a 
 kind on the possible meaning of a mere appellative. 
 Others (e.g. v. Orelli in Herzog) think that the 
 connexion of this adjective with the proper name 
 Agag is extremely doubtful. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 AGAIN.—The proper meaning of again, ‘a 
 second time,’ is well seen in Rev 19? ‘And a. (Gr. 
 devrepov, RV ‘a second time’) they said, Alleluia’ ; 
 Jn 9% ‘Then a. called they (RV ‘so they called a 
 second time, Gr. éx deuvrépov) the man that was blind’; 
 Ac 11 ‘But the voice answered me a. (Gr. ék 
 devrépov, RV ‘a second time’) from heaven’; Ph 416 
 ‘ye sent once and again’ (Gr. dfs, twice, as in Lk 18" 
 f fast twice in the week’). But the oldest 
 meaning of a. is ‘in the eee direction’ (now 
 generally expressed by ‘ back’), and of this there 
 are some interesting examples in the Bible: Jg 3% 
 ‘He himself turned a. (RV ‘ back’) from the 
 quarries’; Lk 10% ‘when I come a. (RV ‘back 
 again’) I will repay thee’; Pr2! ‘None that go 
 unto her return a.’; 2 S 22°38 ‘(I) turned not a. 
 until I had consumed them’; Lk 6® ‘lend, 
 hoping for nothing a.’ (RV ‘never despairing’) ; 
 Gn 24° ‘Must I needs bring thy son a. unto the 
 land from whence thou camest?’; Mt 11‘ ‘go and 
 show John a. (=go back and show John) those 
 things which ye do hear’; Ro 9% AVm ‘who art 
 thou that answerest again?’ Cf. Ps 19° (Pr. Bk.) 
 ‘It (the sun) goeth forth from the uttermost part 
 of the heaven, and runneth almost unto the end of 
 it a.’; and 
 
 ®Turn again, Whittington, thrice Lord Mayor of London !° 
 
 = HASTINGS, 
 
 
 

 
 AGAINST 
 
 AGE, AGED, OLD AGE 41 
 
 
 
 AGAINST.—1. In its primitive meaning of 
 ‘opposite to’ against is rarely found alone, usually 
 ‘over a.,’ as Dt 1! ‘in the plain over a. the Red 
 Sea’; but we find Gn 15” ‘and laid each piece 
 one a. another’ (RV ‘each half over a. the other’); 
 ] Ch 25° ‘They cast lots, ward a. ward’; Ezk 3° 
 ‘I have made thy face strong a. their faces’; esp. 
 Nu 254 ‘Take all the heads (RV ‘chiefs’) of the 
 people, and hang them up before the Lord a. the 
 sun’ (RV ‘unto the Lord before the sun’); 
 and 1 S 25” ‘David and his men came down 
 a. her’ (i.e. opposite her, so as to meet her). 
 2. From the meaning ‘ opposite to’ of place, easily 
 arises ‘opposite to’ of time, of which we have an 
 example in Ro 2° ‘treasurest up unto thyself 
 wrath a. (Gr. év, RV ‘in’) the day of wrath’; 
 1 Mac 5”. Cf. Spenser, Prothalamion— 
 
 ‘ Against the Brydale day, which is not long.’ 
 
 8. In this sense a. is found as a conjunction 
 
 in three places, Gn 43% ‘they made ready the 
 
 present a. Joseph came at noon’; Ex 7!5, 2 K 161, 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AGAR.—The sons of Agar are mentioned (Bar 3”) 
 
 along with the merchants of Midian and Teman, 
 
 as ignorant of the way that leads to the secret 
 
 haunt of Wisdom. They are called Hagarenes 
 
 (which see), Ps 83°; and Hagrites, 1 Ch 5% 2° 2731, 
 
 Their country lay east of Gilead. 
 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 AGATE. See MINERALS AND PRECIOUS STONES. 
 
 AGE, AGED, OLD AGE.—Respect towards the 
 aged as such, apart from any special claims of kin- 
 ship, wealth, or public office, has always been a 
 characteristic feature in Oriental life. _In modern 
 Syria and Egypt it has a foremost place among 
 social duties, taking rank with the regard paid to 
 the neighbour and the guest. Any failure to show 
 this respect on the part of the young is severely 
 frowned down as unseemly aad unnatural. In 
 Israel the general custom was strengthened b 
 the command in the law of Moses, ‘Thou shalt 
 rise up before the hoary head’ (Lv 19%). This 
 beautiful bond between youth and age may be 
 described as a threefold cord of wisdom, authority, 
 and affection. 
 
 1. Wisdom.—Where there is a scarcity of written 
 record, personal experience becomes the one book 
 of wisdom. As it is put by the Arab. proverb, ‘ He 
 that is older than you by a day is wiser than you 
 by a year.’ There is a similar emphasis on the 
 value of experience when they say, ‘Consult the 
 patient, not the physician.” Hence the diffidence 
 and respectful waiting of the youth Elihu, ‘ Days 
 should speak, and multitude At years should teach 
 wisdom’ (Job 32"). Similarly the taunt of Eliphaz, 
 ‘ Art thou the first man that was born?’ (Job 15’), 
 and his claim, ‘With us are the grey-headed and 
 very aged men’ (Job 15). Thus also Moses, 
 though possessed of the learning of the Egyptians, 
 receives helpful advice from Jethro; and later on, 
 the tragedy of the divided kingdom in the days of 
 Rehoboam turns upon the difference of opinien 
 between the old and young advisers of the 
 
 ing. 
 
 2. Authority. —It was natural that the voice 
 of experience and wisdom should also be the voice 
 of authority. It was the tide-mark of Job’s pros- 
 perity that the aged rose up before him. From 
 the dignity conferred on the father as lord of the 
 house and head of the family, the title soon 
 ose into one of public office. The old men 
 
 ecame the ‘elders’ of Israel and of the Christian 
 Church. Similarly among the Arabs, the family 
 of the ruling sheikh (old man) bore the title of 
 sheikhs from their youth—an extension of the 
 brig. meaning that is seen also in the corresp. 
 
 ecclesiastical term. When the Lord sought to set 
 forth the high meaning of discipleship with regard 
 to enmity, slander, immorality, and murder, He at 
 once reached a point that seemed beyond the ideal 
 when He alluded to the law revered by age and 
 authority, and declared that even it must be 
 vitalised and transfigured (Mt 5?!-), 
 
 3. Mutual Ajffection.—The teaching of the Bible 
 on age appeals as much to the heart as to the 
 head, and many affectionate interests are made to 
 cluster around the relationship of old and young. 
 In the language of endearment, ‘the beauty of old 
 men is the grey head’ (Pr 20”), and ‘The hoary 
 head is a crown of glory’ (Pr 16%). ‘The presence 
 of the aged in a community is regarded as a sign of 
 peace and goodwill, just as the rarity of old age 
 and of natural death indicates a state of blood-feud 
 and party strife (Job 221%), John, who in youth 
 came to Christ with a petition of selfishness, lives 
 to say in his old age, ‘ Greater joy have I none than 
 this, to hear of my children wail in the truth’ 
 (3 Jn y.4), The women of Bethlehem in their 
 rejoicing over the child of Boaz and Ruth, bring 
 the expression of their joy to her who would feel it 
 most, and say, ‘There is a son born to Naomi’ (Ru 
 417), In the same spirit the aged apostle, in his 
 appeal to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus, gives a 
 
 redominance to love over law, saying, ‘I rather 
 
 eseech, being such an one as Paul the aged’ (Philem 
 v.°). The last and softest fold of this affectionate 
 relationship is the feebleness of age, and its claim 
 ee the protection of the strong. It was the 
 absence of this that made Moses stand apart and 
 unique. Barzillai is too old for new friendships 
 and fresh surroundings. The limit is set at three- 
 score and ten, and excess of that is increase of 
 sorrow. Jacob’s retrospect is over days ‘few and 
 evil.’ There are days in which there is no pleasure. 
 Along with the recognition of long life as a mark 
 of divine favour, the apostle can say, ‘To die is 
 gain.’ Lastly, when heart and flesh fail, the 
 prayer is made to the Almighty, ‘When I am old, 
 forsake me not’ (Ps 71'8). 
 
 Along with this devotion to the old and reverence 
 for the past, the Bible keeps a large space for the 
 fact of reaction against routine, and the superseding 
 of the provincial and preparatory. Elihu occupies it 
 when fe says with the intensity of epigram, ‘There 
 is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty 
 giveth them understanding. It is not the great 
 that are wise, nor the aged that understand 
 eee ? (Job 327°). Cf. ‘A new commandment 
 
 give unto you’ (Jn 13%). The old existed for 
 the young, not the young for the old. As the 
 wisdom of the man of years grew into the teach- 
 ing of the historical past, it was discovered that 
 the new was really the old, and that the latest 
 born might be the most mature. The very rever- 
 ence for the wisdom of the past set the limitation 
 to its authority. The well-worn garment had to 
 be protected against the loud predominance of the 
 new patch. The old bottles were once new. Hence 
 along with the exhortation to seek the ‘ old paths’ 
 we have the announcement that ‘old things are 
 passed away.’ Further, in the Via Dolorosa of the 
 centuries along which the Word of God walked 
 with the questionings and sorrows of men, as the 
 light forced the darkness into self-consciousness, 
 and the kingdom of God came nearer, it could not 
 but happen that the august form would sometimes 
 appear to block the way, and dispute the passage 
 of the truth for which it existed. The appeal to 
 the Burning Bush is always for some newer name 
 than the God of the fathers. | Hence in the course 
 of revelation, as the purpose of divine grace grows 
 luminous, the infinite spirit chafes against the 
 limited form, and a distaste is provoked towards 
 regimental wisdom and macadamized morality. 
 
 
 
 
 
48 AGEE 
 
 The refreshment of the brook makes men think of 
 the fountainhead. Hence in Israel the akedia of 
 Ecclesiastes on account of the omnipresent past ; 
 and in heathenism the inscription of religious 
 despair, ‘To the unknown god,’ and the unrest 
 that urged philosophy to ‘some new thing’ (Ac 
 1 
 
 The Bible witnesses throughout to this vital 
 relationship between the new and the old ; for its 
 last scene is a repetition of the first—the new 
 creature stepping into the new heavens and new 
 earth, and in the eternal service behind the veil 
 new notes are heard in the song of Moses and the 
 Lamb. As long as the power of vision remains 
 limited, it is essential to the sublime that some- 
 thing of blue haze and boundlessness should lie 
 on the horizon both of life and landscape. 
 
 G. M. MAcKIE. 
 
 AGEE (x3x).—The father of Shammah, one of 
 ‘the Three’ (2 S 234). We should prob. read ‘the 
 Hararite’ here in conformity with v.* and 1 Ch 
 114, the Jonathan of v.® (as emended) being the 
 grandson of Agee. Wellhausen, however, prefers 
 the reading ‘Shage’ (1 Ch 11*) to ‘Shammah’ of 
 2 S 23%, and would restore ‘Shage’ here for 
 ‘Agee’; on this view, Jonathan (v.**) would be the 
 brother of Shammah. J. F. STENNING. 
 
 AGGABA (A B*>™s- ’Ayya8d, B om., AV Graba), 
 
 1 Es 5”.—In Ezr 2“ Hagabah, Neh 7* Hagaba. 
 
 The source of the AV form is doubtful. 
 
 AGGAEUS (AV Aggeus), 1 Es 6! 7%, 2 Es 1, for 
 Haggai (which see). 
 
 AGIA (‘Ayd, AV Hagia), 1 Es 5.—In Ezr 2”, 
 Neh 7° Hattil. 
 
 AGONE.—1 S 30" ‘Three days agone I fell sick.’ 
 This is the earlier form of the past part. of the 
 verb agan or agon, ‘to pass by,’ or ‘go on.’ Only 
 the part. is found after 1300, and after Caxton’s 
 day this longer form gradually gave place to ago. 
 Chaucer (Zrotlus, ii. 410) says— 
 
 ‘Of this world the feyth is all agon.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 AGONY.—In the sense of great trouble or 
 distress, agony is used in 2 Mac 34 ‘There was 
 no small a. throughout the whole city’ (cf. 31 21), 
 In Canonical Scripture the word is found only in 
 Lk 22" of our Lord’s Agony in the Garden. And 
 there it seems to have been introduced by Wyclif 
 directly from the Vulg. agonia, just as the Lat. of 
 the Vulg. was a transliteration of the Gr. dywvla 
 (on which see Field, Otiwm Norv. iii., ad loc.). 
 Tindale (1534), Cranmer (1539), the Geneva (1557), 
 the Rheims (1582), the AV (1611), and the RV 
 (1881) all have ‘an agony’ here; pepe himself 
 
 has simply ‘agony.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AGREE TO.—In the sense of ‘assent to,’ with a 
 person as object, a. is found in Ac 5” ‘To him 
 they a.’ éreloOnoay atrg. In Mk 14” it is used in 
 the obsolete sense of ‘agree with’ or ‘correspond 
 with,’ ‘Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech 
 agreeth thereto’ (duodfea, TR; RV following edd. 
 omits the clause). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AGRICULTURE. — Agriculture, which in ite 
 wider sense embraces horticulture, forestry, and the 
 pastoral industry, is here restricted to the art of 
 arable farming — including not only ploughing, 
 hoeing, etc., but reaping and threshing. s the 
 savage phase has been followed by the pastoral, so 
 the pastoral has been followed by the A®, in the 
 history of the progressive peoples. The first 
 important advance upon the primitive stage took 
 
 AGRICULTURE 
 
 the form of the domestication of wild animals, and 
 this, by bringing man into closer and more 
 deliberate contact with the soil, contained the 
 promise of further progress. The domestication of 
 wild plants naturally succeeded, and the neolithic 
 man is known, not only to have reared cattle, 
 goats, and swine, but to have cultivated wheat, 
 barley, and millet, which he ground with mill- 
 stones and converted into bread or pap. 
 
 While the Aryans were still virtually in the 
 
 astoral stage, the A®™ art was being actively 
 
 Havleand in Egypt and Assyria. In the Nile 
 Valley nature bountifully paved the way. The 
 inundations of the Nile create an admirable bed 
 for the seed by reducing the irrigated soil to 
 a ‘smooth black paste,’ and the monuments 
 exhibit the people as improving from the earliest 
 times their great natural advantages. The 
 early traditions of the Hebrews, on the other 
 hand, were essentially nomadic. The association 
 of Cain with A. (Gn 4) implies a disparagement 
 of the calling. Abraham is represented as a pure 
 nomad. And although, as is indicated in the 
 histories of Isaac (Gn 26!2) and Jacob, the be- 
 ginnings of A. would naturally have a place in the 
 primitive period, it is only after the conquest of 
 Can. that the Jews take rank as an A™ people ; 
 and even then the tribes of the trans-Jordanic 
 plateau, whose territory was unsuitable for tillage, 
 continued to depend on cattle-rearing. 
 
 The agrarian legislation of the Pent. in reference 
 to the settlement of Can. doubtless embodies some 
 ancient laws and customs regulating the tenure 
 of the soil, although other enactments must be 
 regarded as of later origin, or even as the 
 unfulfilled aspirations of the exilic age. To the 
 last class probably belong the institution of the 
 sabbatical year (Bex 234, Lv 25%), the produce of 
 which, or its ‘ volunteer’ crop, was reserved for the 
 poor, the stranger, and cattle ; and that of the year 
 of jubilee (Lv 25°), in which the dispossessed lieir 
 resumed possession of his ancestral acres. Among 
 the enactments of a greater antiquity and validity 
 may be mentioned the law against the removal of 
 landmarks (Dt 194), which was made urgent by 
 the fact that the arable lands, unlike the vine- 
 yards, were not divided by hedges (Is 5°). 
 
 The climate of Pal., owing to the removal of 
 forests, must now be much less humid than in early 
 times. The summer is rainless and warm, the 
 winter and early spring are rainy and colder. 
 During the dry season the heat, esp. in the low 
 country, is excessive, and rapidly burns up all 
 minor vegetation; while any surface-water, as 
 from springs, is evident in the spots of unwonted 
 verdure which it induces on the foe landscape. 
 In autumn the cisterns are near. Epes and the 
 ground has become very hard. The husbandman 
 must consequently wait for the rains before he can 
 start ploughing. The rainy season begins about 
 the end of Oct., and is divided into three periods— 
 early rains (770), which prepare the land for the 
 reception of the seed, heavy winter rains (o%3), 
 saturating the ground and filling the cisterns, and 
 late rains (vip>o), falling in spring and giving the 
 crops the necessary moisture. Snow is often seen 
 on the higher lands in winter, and hail is not 
 infrequent. The coldest month is February, the 
 warmest August. 
 
 The soil of Pal. varies widely in texture and 
 appearance. In the higher regions it is termed 
 mostly from cretaceous limestone or decomposing 
 basalt rocks; in the maritime plain and the Jordan 
 Valley there are more recent formations. Like 
 the sedentary soils, where of sufficient depth, the 
 alluvial deposits are naturally fertile; and under 
 the intensive and careful cultivation of ancient 
 times the fertility was proverbial (cf. Ex 3%’, 
 
 
 
AGRICULTURE 
 
 Jer 115, Tacitus, Hist. lib. v. c. 6). The lessened 
 productiveness of modern times is due in part to 
 the diminished rainfall, but mainly to political and 
 social changes. The aie farming of antiquity 
 took several forms, w walls, built alone 
 hill-slopes to prevent ‘ soil-washing,’ gave rise to 
 flat terraces. Various methods of irrigation were 
 practised (Gn 2, Pr 211, Is 30% 322%), Canals 
 conveyed the water from the natural sources to the 
 fields, or water-wheels might be used. 
 
 Other A* improvements were the removal of 
 stones from the fields, and the utilisation of the 
 ash residue of stubble and weeds. Ordina dung, 
 made in dunghills by treading in straw He 251°), 
 was also in common use (2 K 937), A bare fallow 
 would be occasionally allowed to raise the tempo- 
 ary fertility of the soil. 
 
 he number of Crops under cultivation was 
 large. The most important was wheat (npn). 
 The supply exceeded the requirements of the 
 country, and it was possible to export it in con- 
 siderable quantities (Ezk 2717). econd in im- 
 portance was barley (7vy), which was extensively 
 used as food (Ru 315), esp. by the poorer classes. 
 Spelt (npo>) was frequently vox on the borders of 
 fields. Millet (725), beans (75), and lentils (o'wy) 
 were cultivated and used as food (Ezk 4°, 2 S 17%), 
 Flax (nny) was grown (Ex 9*1), and probably also 
 cotton (0573). 
 
 Among the statutory regulations relating to the 
 crops, the most noteworthy are :—the TIGER Aaton 
 against sowing a field with mixed seed (Lv 19”), a 
 Seger implying considerable botanical know- 
 ledge; the provision for damages in case of 
 pasturing a beast in a neighbour’s field (Ex 22°); 
 permission to the wayfarer to pluck from the 
 standing corn enough to satisfy hunger (Dt 23%) ; 
 reservation for the stranger and the poor of the 
 corners of the field (Lv 19°), and other provisions 
 dictated by humanity (Dt 241%). 
 
 The A. of Pal. has not advanced or changed in 
 any important particular since OT times. In 
 consequence we can, apart from Biblical notices, 
 largely reconstruct the A® picture of the past from 
 the Syrian conditions of to-day. An additional 
 source of information has of recent years been 
 opened up in the Egyp. hieroglyphics, and esp. in 
 the representations of A“ operations found in the 
 Egyp. tombs; and in order the better to bind 
 together this material, we shall now follow the 
 process of cultivation of one of the common cereal 
 crops from seed-time to harvest, giving some account 
 of the implements employed and of the dangers 
 incident to the growing crops. The year of the 
 agriculturist was well filled up—from the middle 
 of Oct. to the middle of Apr. with ploughing, 
 sowing, harrowing, weeding ; from the middle of 
 Apr. onward with reaping, carrying, threshing, and 
 storing the grain. The interval between threshing 
 and sowing was occupied with the vineyard pro- 
 duce. It appears that the seed was sometimes 
 sown without any previous cultivation, and after- 
 wards ploughed in or otherwise covered, while at 
 other times the seed was scattered on ploughed 
 land, and covered by a rude harrow or iy cross- 
 eb aga . The former method was common in 
 
 it, where the grain, deposited on moist ground, 
 might be covered by drag ing bushes over it, and 
 afterwards trodden down Ry omestic animals (cf. 
 Is 32”), Where cultivation preceded sowing, 
 various implements were used. From the Egyp. 
 monuments it is possible to trace the evolution of 
 the Plough—the starting-point being a forked 
 branch used as a hoe, which was afterwards 
 improved into a kind of mattock, and finally was 
 enlarged and modif‘ed so as to be drawn by oxen. 
 The pogh was acawn by two oxen, and the 
 draught was sometimes from the shoulders, some- 
 
 vol. 1.—4 
 
 AGRICULTURE 49 
 
 times from the forehead, or even from the horns 
 In some cases men with hoes may have pulverised 
 
 (1) El-Kabisah, er ea in working by the left hand ; (2) el-akar, 
 the handle or stilt ; (3) el-buruk, the m ; (4) el-naiteh, a 
 support, secured by a wedge ; (5) el-sawajir, the coup ; 
 (6) el-wuslah, the pole ; (7) el-sikkah, the ploug! 
 
 the surface after the plough, as in Egypt. (See 
 
 Wilkinson’s Ancient oyptians, 2nd series, vol. i. 
 
 woodcut 422.) The old Heb. plough was of ve 
 
 simple construction, consisting of a wooden ground- 
 work (1 K 194) with iron wearing parts (Is 24, cf. 
 
 18 13”). Ithad one stilt to enue it (Lk 9®), leaving 
 
 the other hand free to use the ox-goad (197). 
 
 [oEfier eee 
 
 OX-GOAD, 
 
 The plough was drawn by oxen, é.e. the ox-kind, 
 for the Jews did not mutilate their animals (Am 
 6), or by asses (Is 30%), but not by an ox and ass 
 together (Dt 22”). On thin soil a mattock was 
 sometimes necessary (1 § 13”). The unit of square 
 measure was the area ploughed in a day by a yoke 
 of oxen (753). é 
 
 The season of Sowing was not one of joy (Ps 
 126°), owing to the uncertainty of the weather (Mic 
 6, Pr 204), and the toilsomeness of the work in 
 a hard and rocky soil. A start was made with the 
 pulse crops, barley followed a grulent later, and 
 wheat after another month. Usually the sower 
 scattered the seed broadcast out of a basket, but 
 by careful farmers the wheat was placed in the 
 furrows in rows (Is 28%). The summer or spring 
 grain was sown between the end of Jan. and the 
 end of Feb. Ina season of excessive drought the 
 late-sown seed rotted under the clods (Jl 1”); in 
 a wet season the early-sown grain grew rank and 
 lodged, and the husbandman was accordingly 
 counselled to make sure of a crop by attending to 
 both (Ee 11°). 
 
 Between poe 
 exposed to severa 
 
 the crops were 
 these the chief 
 
 and reaping, 
 dangers. Of 
 were the easterly winds prevalent in Mar. and 
 Apr. (Gn 41°), hailstorms (Hag 2%), the irrup- 
 
 tion of weeds—esp. mustard, thistles, tares, 
 and thorns (Jer 12%), the depredations of crows 
 and sparrows (Mt 134), of fungoid diseases, esp. 
 mildew (Dt 28”), and of injurious insects, esp. the 
 palmer-worm, the canker-worm, the caterpillar, 
 and the locust. These names do not, as has been 
 suggested, refer to the different stages in the life 
 history of the locust (Pachytylus migratorius), but 
 the first three are probably specific names for 
 groups of pests. The crops were also in danger 
 from the inroads of cattle (Ex 225), and as harvest 
 approached, from fire (Jg 154). , 
 he commencement of Harvest naturally varied, 
 not only with the season, but according to 
 elevation, exposure, ete. On the average it began 
 with barley (2 S 21°)—in the neighbourhood of 
 Jericho about the middle of Apr., in the coast 
 lains ten days later, and in the_high-lying 
 Jistriets as much as a month later. Wheat was 
 a fortnight later in ripening, and the barley and 
 
 
 
50 AGRICULTURE 
 
 AGRICULTURE 
 
 
 
 wheat harvest lasted about seven weeks (Dt 16°). 
 The harvest was the occasion of festivities which 
 in the later legislation were brought into close 
 connexion with the religious history of the people. 
 The crops were cut, as in Egypt, with the sickle. 
 (See Wilkinson, op. cit. woodcuts 426 and 436.) 
 Little value was put upon the Straw, which was 
 cut about a foot below the ears (Job 244). The 
 reaper left the grain in handfuls behind him (Jer 
 92), and the binder tied it into sheaves (Gn 37’), 
 which, however, were not set up as shocks. The 
 Egyptians usually cut the straw quite close under 
 the ears, while some crops, such as dhurah, were 
 simply plucked up by the roots. The method of 
 
 
 
 MODERN SICKLE, 
 
 palling the corn was probably also practised in 
 al. when the crops were light (Is 17°). In OT 
 there are apparently two kinds of Sickle referred 
 to—v2q7 and Six. The wooden sickle, toothed with 
 
 floor, and, according to one system, cattle—four or 
 five harnessed together—were driven round and 
 round, until a more or less complete detachment 
 of the grain was effected (Hos 10"). To facilitate 
 the process, the straw was repeatedly turned over 
 by a fork with two or more prongs. A well-known 
 picture gives a representation of this system as 
 anciently practised in Egypt, noteworthy being 
 the fact that the oxen are unmuzzled (ef. Be 25%). 
 
 The group further shows how the oxen were 
 yoked together that they might walk round more 
 regularly. (See Wilkinson, op. cit.) Of the thresh- 
 ing-machine two kinds were, and still are, employed 
 in Palestine. 
 
 
 
 THRESHING-MACIIINE, 
 
 One (2% or p19) consisted of an oblong board, 
 whose under side was rough with notches, nails, and 
 sharp stone chips, and which, being weighted down 
 
 TIRESHING-FLOOR. 
 
 flints, supposed by Prof. I'linders Petrie to be an 
 imitation of the jawbone of an ox, was used in 
 Syria as well as in Egypt. 
 
 The reapers were the owners and their families, 
 along with hired labourers (Mt 9°), the latter of 
 whom probably followed the harvest from the 
 plains to the mountains. The workers quenched 
 their thirst from vessels taken to the harvest-field 
 (Ru 2°), and ate bread steeped in vinegar (2), and 
 
 arched corn (Ly 234), the latter prepared by 
 bane roasted and then rubbed in the hand. 
 
 The Threshing usually took place in the fields, 
 a custom made possible by the rainless weather of 
 harvest. The Threshing-floor (}73) consisted of a 
 round open space, probably of a permanent 
 character, and peaterably on an eminence where it 
 was exposed to the free sweep of air currents. For 
 bringing in the sheaves, carts were employed in 
 old times (Am 2"), Threshing was performed in 
 various ways. Small quantities of produce, also 
 
 ulse-crops and cummin, were beaten out with a |, 
 
 stick (Ru 2!7). In dealing with large quantities 
 of grain, the sheaves were spread out over the 
 
 by stones and py the driver, not only shelled out 
 the corn, but lacerated the straw (Is 41", Job 41°). 
 
 THRESHING-WAGGON. 
 
 The other kind of machine was the threshing- 
 waggon, 773), (Is 28?7- 38), now seldom seen in Pal., but 
 
 
 
 
 
a 
 
 AGRIPPA 
 
 AHAB 51 
 
 ee 
 
 still common in Egypt. It consisted of a low-built, 
 four-cornered waggon frame, inside which were 
 attached two or three parallel revolving cylinders 
 or rollers. Each of the rollers was armed with 
 three or four sharpened iron discs. There was a 
 seat for the driver, and it was drawn by oxen 
 yoked to a pole. 
 
 After the threshing came the work of Winnowing 
 (Job 21%, Ps 35°). The mixture left by the 
 
 revious operation, consisting of corn, chaff, and 
 
 roken straw, was turned about and shaken with 
 a@ wooden fork (Is 30%), and advantage was taken 
 of the winds to separate the grain from the lighter 
 material. This often necessitated night work, as 
 the winds usually blew from late in the afternoon 
 till before sunrise. 
 
 
 
 FORK, FAN, AND YOKE, 
 
 At the later stage of the winnowing process the 
 fork was less needed than the fan (7719), a kind of 
 shovel; or the Sie might be scooped up, as 
 shown in some Egyp. representations, by two 
 pieces of wood. The chaff, after being separated, 
 was burned (Mt 3"), or left to be scattered by the 
 winds (Ps 1‘). From the heavier impurities the 
 corn was cleansed by sieves (7732)—an operation 
 oy necessary in view of the mode of 
 threshing, after which it was collected into large 
 heaps. To prevent thieving, the owner might 
 sleep by the threshing-floor (Ru 37) until the 
 removal of the grain, on waggons or otherwise, to 
 the barns or granaries (Lk 121). It was often 
 stored in pits (Jer 41°), the openings of which 
 were carefully covered up to protect them from 
 robbers and vermin. The straw remaining 
 from the threshing was used for cattle fodder 
 (Is 65°). 
 
 Lrrgraturg.—On the general subject : Benzinger, Hebrdische 
 Archeologie; Stade, Gesch. d. Volks Isr. Bd. i. Buch vii.; 
 Landwirthsch. Jahrbicher; Nowack, Lehrbuch der Archceologie ; 
 Thomson, Land and Book; Fellows, Asia Minor; Zeitschrift 
 des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins, Bd. ix., ‘Ackerbau und 
 Thierzucht’; Indexed Quart. Statements and other pubb. of the 
 Pal. Explor. Soc. On Egyp. Agriculture: Wilkinson, Manners 
 and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians (2nd Series). On the 
 Plough: Schumacher, ‘Der arabische Pflug,’ in Bd. xii. of 
 above-named Zeitschrift. On the Threshing-machine: Wetzstein, 
 ‘Die syr. Dreschtafel,’ in Bastian’s Zeitsch. f. Hihnologie (1873), 
 
 272 ff. 
 J. W. PATERSON. 
 AGRIPPA.—See HErop. 
 
 AGUE.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 AGUR (wm; LXX_ paraphrases arbitrarily ; 
 Vulg. congregans). — Mentioned only in Pr 30}. 
 The name of an otherwise unknown Heb. sage, son 
 of Jakeh. The word has been understood from 
 very early times as a pseudonym, used symboli- 
 cally. So Jerome, following the Rabbis of his 
 time. In this case it might be interpreted as akin 
 to the Syriac dguéré=‘hireling’ (of wisdom), or 
 derived from Heb. 71x, and understood as ‘col- 
 
 lector’ (of proverbs). Cf. form wip: in Ps 91%, Pr 
 65, The description of Agur in Pr 30! is not 
 easy to understand. With the Massoretic point- 
 ing, the verse may be literally rendered, ‘The 
 words of Agur, son of Jakeh, the prophecy: the 
 oracle of the man to I[thiel, to Ithiel and Ucal.’ 
 This sounds impossible. The conjunction of the 
 words massa (=prophecy) and né’%im (=oracle) is 
 unprecedented ; the use of the article with massa 
 is inexplicable ; and the words which follow have 
 no prophetic character, Consequently Massa has 
 been understood as the name of a country (so 
 Del.; and see RVm Jakeh of Massa); cf. Gn 
 254, Similarly, Lemuel would be understood to 
 be king of Massa, Pr 314. Cheyne (Job and 
 Solomon) and Strack (Kurzgef. Komm.) render 
 Massa as LES ea Both the country and the 
 age of this unknown philosopher are purely con- 
 jectural. He may have been one of the ‘men of 
 Hereluah) Pr 251. His name is probably to be 
 associated, as compiler rather than author, with 
 the gnomic utterances in Pr _ 307-319; 311031 
 forming a separate section. The chief mono- 
 graph on the subject is Miihlau, De Prov. Aguri 
 et Lem. origine (1869), and a full discussion of the 
 subject is to be found in JDelitzsch’s Comm. 
 in loco. W. T. DAVISON. 
 
 AH, AHA.—1. ‘ Ah’ is used to express grief (esp. 
 in face of coming doom), except in Ps 35% ‘ 
 (RV ‘Aha’), so would we have it,’ where it 
 expresses the exultation of an enemy, and Mk 
 15% ‘Ah (RV ‘Ha!’), thou that destroyest the 
 temple,’ where it expresses mocking. The RV 
 has introduced ‘Ah!’ into Lk 4% for ‘Let us 
 alone’ of AV (Gr. “Ea, which may be either the 
 imperat. of the verb é¢dw to let alone or an inde- 
 pendent interjection, formed from the sound), *Aha 
 (a combination of a, the oldest form of ‘ah,’ and 
 Aa) expresses malicious satisfaction, except in Is 
 4418, where it denotes intense satisfaction, but 
 without malice, ‘Aba, 1 am warm; I feel the 
 fire.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AHAB (axny, "Axad8, Assyr. A-ha-ab-bu) signifies 
 ‘father’s brother.’ (Cf. analogous uses of the same 
 element nx ‘brother’ in Syr. proper names.) The 
 meaning of the compound is probably ‘one who 
 closely resembles his father.’ The father in this 
 case was Omri, the founder of the dynasty, and 
 from him the son inherited the military traditions 
 and prowess which characterised his reign. <A. 
 married Jezebel ($31’x), daughter of Ethbaal, king 
 of Tyre (the Ithobalos, priest of Astarte mentioned 
 by Menander, quoted by Jos. ¢. Apion, i. 18). 
 This was part of the policy of close alliance with 
 Pheenicia, begun by Solomon, and cemented by 
 Omri. This bond of union was designated by 
 Amos (1°) a ‘covenant of brethren.’ lt was un- 
 doubtedly founded on reciprocal commercial in- 
 terest which subsisted for centuries, the corn, oil, 
 and other agricultural products of Canaan being 
 exchanged for other commercial products of the 
 great mercantile ports of Pheenicia (cf. Ac 12”). 
 
 Whatever commercial advantages might accrue, 
 Israel’s national religion was destined to suffer. 
 A temple and altar to Baal were erected in Samaria 
 as walt as an Asherah-pole. To supersede Israel’s 
 national deity, J”, by the Tyrian Baal, seemed an 
 easy task. To a superficial observer the difference 
 between the worship of Ephraim and that of 
 Samaria might appear trifling. Both Baal and J’ 
 
 were worshipped with similar sacrificial accompani- 
 ments. Moreover, northern Israel had for centuries 
 been exposed to all the influences which their more 
 highly civilised Can. neighbours had introduced 
 (Jg 2!% 18), and even the very name Baal, ‘Lord,’ 
 was current in their speech as an appellation of J” 
 
 
 
52 AHAB 
 
 ———— 
 
 (Hos 2%6-17*), Yet there was one deep distinction 
 which marked off the J” of Mosaism from the Baal 
 of the Canaanites. The religion of Mosaism was 
 pure of sensual taint. The conjunction of Asherah 
 with J” in the days of Josiah (2 kK 237) was a corrupt 
 practice due to foreign innovation. So also were 
 the debasing accompaniments of worship referred 
 to in Am 27. And the licentious cult of Baal and 
 Ashtoreth, established by the influence of A.’s 
 Phen. wife, would certainly have its temple 
 attendants, probably Tyrian Kedéshim and Kedé- 
 shéth. These features of worship, however, had 
 become perilously familiar to N. Israel, owing to 
 their close contact with Can. neighbours. Accord- 
 ingly, as we can readily infer from the language 
 of Elijah in 1 K 19, national feeling was not deeply 
 or permanently roused even by the influence of his 
 stirring personality and by the occurrence of a 
 Eacleneel drought of more than two years’ dura- 
 tion (1 K 17! 181), which, according to Menander of 
 Ephesus, extended to Phenicia.t In all pro- 
 bability, the military despotism wielded by the 
 house of Omri, in alliance with a powerful northern 
 State, was able to subdue any smouldering embers 
 of discontent. But an act of cruel injustice 
 awakened the dormant spirit of the people. Like 
 many Oriental monarchs, A. displayed a taste 
 for architecture, which Tyrian influence stimulated 
 and fostered. He built a palace for himself, 
 adorned with woodwork (probably cedar) and 
 inlaid ivory, in Jezreel (1 K 21) 22%). To this he 
 desired to attach a suitable domain, and for the 
 ol aoe endeavoured to acquire, by purchase or 
 exchange, the vineyard of one of the wealthier 
 inhabitants, Naboth. But Naboth was unwilling 
 te part with an ancestral inheritance. What A. 
 could not accomplish by legal means, he was in- 
 duced by the promptings of Jezebel to compass by 
 fraud and judicial murder. This act aroused 
 popular hatred, and the sense of outraged social 
 order found expression in the denunciation of doom 
 pronounced by Elijah (1 K 21-4) against the king 
 and his unscrupulous queen (see NABOTH and 
 ELIJAH). The incident is instructive to the 
 student of Heb. religion, as it illustrates the con- 
 trast in the attitude of Phoen. as compared with 
 Heb. religion towards social morality. In the 
 words of W. R. Smith, ‘the religion of J” put 
 morality on a far sounder basis than any other 
 religion did, because the righteousness of J” as 
 a God who enforced the known laws of morality 
 was conceived as absolute’ (Prophets of Isr. 73). 
 
 It is more than doubtful whether A. really com- 
 rehended the religious issues. He regarded 
 ‘lijah as a mischievous fanatic, ‘a troubler of 
 
 Israel’ bent on wrecking the imperial schemes of 
 
 
 
 - aggrandisement based on alliance with Phenicia at 
 
 the expense of Syria. Elijah, like many another 
 since his day, earned the title of unpatriotic, 
 because he placed righteousness and religion before 
 the exigencies of political statecraft. 
 
 The military career of A. exhibits him as a 
 warrior of considerable prowess. Respecting his 
 wars with Syria we have only the brief record in 
 1 K 20-22. In 1 K 20 we are plunged in medias 
 res. Samaria has been for some time closely in- 
 vested by the Syrian army under Benhadad, or 
 more probably Hadadezer (Dadidri), if we follow 
 the Assyr. annals (Stade). Of the defeats sustained 
 by Israel prior to this siege we have no informa- 
 tion. Benhadad (Hadadezer) made an insolent 
 demand of the Isr. king, in the desperate extremity 
 of the latter, that Syrian envoys should search the 
 royal palace and the houses of A.’s servants. This 
 
 * Wellhausen’s rejection of Hos 216 (18 Heb.) is characteristic 
 of his high a priort method. 
 
 + This took place during the reign of Ethbaal (Ithobalos), and 
 lasted, according to Menander, one year. Of Phoenicia this may 
 have been true. 
 
 AHAB 
 
 
 
 was refused by A. with the unanimous approval 
 of his people and their elders. To the arrogant 
 menace of the Syrian, the king of Isr. replied in the 
 proverbial phrase, ‘Let not him who girds on the 
 armour boast as he who puts it off.’ Benhadad at 
 once ordered the engines of war (LXX ‘lines of 
 circumvallation’) to be placed against the city. 
 But beyond this he took no further precaution, and 
 resigned himself with careless ease to voluptuous 
 carousal with his nobility and feudatory kings. 
 Meanwhile A. mustered his army of 7000 men, 
 officered by 232 territorial commanders, and 
 attacked the Syrians with crushing effect (1 K 
 2015-21), inflicting a totaloverthrow. In the followin 
 spring the Syrian monarch again took the field wit. 
 a well-appointed army of overwhelming superiority. 
 The Syrians attributed their previous defeat to the 
 fact that the God of Isr. was a God of the hills 
 (where cavalry and chariots could not so well 
 operate*). If they could draw the forces of A. 
 into the valley near Aphek, all would be well. 
 But the battle that followed utterly falsified their 
 expectations. The Syrians were put to utter rout, 
 and saved themselves by precipitate flight to Aphek. 
 Benhadad and his followers went as sappy to 
 A., who judged it politic to receive them with 
 friendliness. A treaty was concluded, in which the 
 Syrian king conceded to Isr. special quarters(streets) 
 in Damascus, a privilege which core with 
 a similar right which Omri was compelled to con- 
 cede to Syria in his own capital, Samaria. 
 
 With the defective Biblical records before us, it 
 is not easy to explain the complaisant attitude of 
 A. in the hour of his victory. But the key to the 
 solution of the mystery is given to us in the Assyr. 
 annals. From these we learn that about this time 
 a new disturbing factor was beginning to eed 
 in W. Asian politics. Ever since the time of Saul 
 the arena of Pal. foreign polities had been cireum- 
 scribed within the region of the Hittite, Syrian, and 
 Can. borders, and the interference of Egypt had 
 only been occasional. Since the days of Tiglath- 
 
 ileser I. (c. B.C. 1100) the military power of Assyri 
 Rad been dormant. But during the time of Omri 
 there were vivid signs that Assyria was at length 
 awakening from its century long slumber, under 
 the energetic rule of A&Sur-nazir-pal. During the 
 reign of his successor Shalmaneser (Sulm4nu- 
 aSaridu) II., who reigned from 860-825, it began to 
 
 ress more heavily on the lands near the Mediter. 
 Foner and to extend its boundaries towards the 
 Hittite States. About the year 857 the power 
 of this monarch threatened seriously the Pal. 
 region. The king of Syria would be among the 
 first to feel aporecenene! The immediate effect of 
 Shalmaneser’s advance was to put an end, at least 
 for a time, to the wars between Syria and Ahab. 
 And in the negotiations described in 1 K 20% * it is 
 pretty certain that the advance of the Assyr. 
 power from the N.E. formed a subject of conversa- 
 tion between the two kings, and that Benhadad 
 was glad, even upon disadvantageous terms, to get 
 rid of a burdensome and exhausting war, in order 
 that all his forces might be reserved to confront 
 the formidable Assyr. foe. The attack was de- 
 livered in the year B.C. 854, when the battle of 
 Karkar was fought. A considerable number of 
 States, including Israel, but not including Judah, 
 Edom, or Moab,t had united with Hadadezer 
 
 * We know that the Israelites also possessed chariots in con- 
 siderable number, from the express statement of the monolith 
 inscription of Shalmaneser m1. lines 91, 92. Of. 1 K 22. 
 
 t Ewald (Gea. d. V. Isr. iii. 488 n.) translates the Heb. by 
 ‘places of abode’ (comparing the Arab. mahattah), t.e. perma- 
 nent ambassadorial residence. But this i guar is very fare 
 fetched. LXX renders t&édous, ‘streets.’ For other interpreta- 
 tions see Thenius, ad loc. 
 
 t In the case of Moab, the reason adduced by Prof. Sayce is 
 
 probally the right one. Moab sent no contingent, because that 
 tate was then in revolt against Israel (HCH p. 393). 
 
 
 
 Be eal 
 

 
 AHAB 
 
 AHAZ 53 
 
 
 
 (=Dadidri=Benhadad) to resist the Assyrians. 
 The account of the whole campaign may be read 
 in the monolith inscription quoted in Schrader’s 
 COT". 183 ff. In lines 91, 92 we read that A., king 
 of Israel, sent a contingent of 2000 chariots and 
 10,000 men. The total defeat of the allied kings, 
 though probably obtained with heavy loss to the 
 Assyrians, sufficed to break up the alliance. A. 
 now followed the short-sighted policy of isolation 
 in presence of the formidable. Assyr. power—a 
 licy which in the following century Ephraim and 
 udah in turn pursued with baleful results. The 
 consequence was a renewal of the wars between 
 Syria and Israel, which had been for some years 
 suspended. We may infer from the scriptural 
 account that A. took the initiative by endeavour- 
 ing to recover pe heiload from Syria. Pro- 
 bably the allied kings of Isr. and Jud. endeavoured 
 to profit by the weakness of Syria after the over- 
 whelming defeat sustained by the latter in the 
 battle of Karkar. In 1 K 22 we have a vivid por- 
 trayal of the dramatic scene between Micaiah, son 
 of Imlah, and the prophets who prophesied in 
 favour of immediate war with Syria (see MICAIAR). 
 For Micaiah the result was imprisonment as the 
 malty for his outspoken deliverance of the 
 ivine message. Undeterred by the gravity of his 
 ery, A. and Jehoshaphat went forth at the 
 ead of their respective forces to battle. But A. 
 resolved to secure his person against the Syrian 
 archers by appearing in his chariot divested of the 
 ordinary insignia of royalty. This precaution, 
 however, did not avail him against the chance 
 arrow of a bowman, which penetrated between the 
 joints of his breastplate. The king of Isr. slowly 
 led to death, and died about sunset. His body 
 was conveyed to Samaria, where he was buried. 
 
 In the foregoing account of the Syrian wars of A. we have 
 adopted the sequence of events recommended by Schrader 
 (COT? i. 189 ff., who gives the Assyr. text and tr.), Ed. Meyer 
 (Gesch. des Alterthums, i. 393), and recently by Sayce (HCM 320, 
 392), which places the battle of Karkar near the close of A.’s 
 life. On the other hand, Wellhausen (art. ‘Israel’ in Ancycl. 
 Brit.) places the battle of Karkar and the alliance with (or, as 
 he deems it, vassalage * to) Syria in the times that precede the 
 Syrian wars of A.’s reign. But this view imposes great diffi- 
 culties on the chronology of the period. From the Assyr. 
 Canon of Rulers, compiled with great care and precision, and 
 a from the Assyr. Annals, we obtain the following fixed 
 
 tes :— 
 
 Battle of Karkar (in which A.’s contingent takes 
 
 ° . . . . . 854 B.o. 
 
 Tribute of Jehu, ‘son of Omri’ . A A Sent, Tay 
 Now, if we place the battle of Karkar before the Syrian wars of 
 A.’s reign, his death cannot be placed earlier than B.o. 847. 
 Accordingly, in place of the 14 years assigned by Scripture 
 to the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram we can only allow a 
 maximum of five years! On the other hand, by adopting the 
 uence which we have advocated, the difficulties are con- 
 erably reduced. A.’s death may then be placed in the year 
 B.o. 853. Kamphausen, in his valuable treatise on the Chrono- 
 logy of the Heb. Kings (p. 80), suggests that A.’s name has been 
 confused with that of his successor Jehoram in the Assyr. 
 Annals ; and Kittel, in his Hist. of the Hebrews (Germ. ed. ii. 
 233), seems disposed to accept this view. But against this pro- 
 ceeding we must emphatically protest. Biblical science will 
 never make sure progress if we reject or modify archzological 
 evidence in the interests of a chronological theory. The theory 
 must be conformed to the evidence, not vice versd. (On the 
 subject of Heb. chronology see the writer’s remarks in Schrader’s 
 COT? ii. 320-824, and also in O. H. H. Wright’s Bible Readers’ 
 Manual.) 
 
 That A.’s rule was firm though despotic, and 
 maintained the military traditions inaugurated b 
 Omri, is indicated by the Moabite Stone, whic 
 informs us (lines 7, 8) that Omri and his son ruled 
 over the land of Mehdeba (conquered by the 
 former) for 40 years. It was not till the con- 
 cluding part of A.’s reign, when he was occupied 
 with his Syrian wars, that Moab rose in insurrection. 
 The historian must not fail to take due note of the 
 
 * The large contingent (2000 chariots and 10,000 men) furnished 
 by A., according to the Assyr. records, renders the theory of 
 
 vassalage’ extremely improbable. 
 
 Judaic tendency of the narrative in 1 K 18-22, 
 which paints the life of A. in sombre hues. When 
 more than a century had passed after the destruc- 
 tion of his posterity, it is worthy of remark that 
 the Ephraimite prophet Hosea (14) expresses a 
 strong condemnation of Jehu’s deeds of blood. In 
 Mic 6%, on the other hand, we see clearly reflected 
 the Judaic estimate of Omri’s dynasty, which 
 dominates the account in 1 K 18-22. 
 OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. 
 
 AHAB (axny, 37y).—Son of Kolaiah, a false pro- 
 phet contemp. with Jer. He is said to have been 
 ‘roasted in the fire’ by the king of Bab. (Jer 2971), 
 
 AHARAH (mnx).—A son of Benj. (1 Ch 81); per- 
 haps a corruption of oyny (Nu 26%). See AHIRAM. 
 
 AHARHEL (oo). A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 
 48), LXX déeApod PyxdB implies a reading 397 ‘DX 
 = brother of Rechab. 
 
 AHASBAI (‘200x).—Father of Eliphelet (2 S 23%), 
 and a member of the family of Maacah, settled at 
 Beth-Maacah (204), or a native of the Syrian 
 kingdom of Maacah (10°). In the parallel 
 ae (1 Ch 11°-%) we find two names, 75n x, 
 r, Hepher; both passages probably represent 
 corruptions of the real name. 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 AHASUERUS (vinyny).—A name which appears 
 on Pers. inscriptions as Khsajdrsd, and in Aram. 
 without x prosthetic, as wwwwn (Schrader, COT? 
 ii. 63). The monarch who bears this name in 
 Ezr 4° was formerly reckoned by Ewald and others 
 to be the Cambyses of profane history who suc- 
 ceeded Cyrus. Itis generally recognised, however, 
 by modern critics that he must be identified with 
 
 erxes (485-465), who is beyond all question the 
 Ahasuerus of the Bk of Est. See XERXES. The 
 A. of Dn 9}, the father of Darius the Mede, isa 
 personage whose identity is as difficult to establish 
 as the existence of ‘Darius the Mede’ is proble- 
 matical. (Cf. Driver LOT 515 n. ; Sayce HCM 543.) 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AHAYA (s1ax).—The name of a town or district 
 in Babylonia (Ezr 8™- *-!), and of a stream in the 
 neighbourhood (v.21: *f%), On the banks of this 
 stream Ezra encamped for three days at the begin- 
 ning of his journey to Jerusalem. He was thus able 
 to review his large company, and to make good the 
 absence of Levites by sending a deputation to the 
 chief of the settlement at Casiphia. Before com- 
 mencing the march, Ezra instituted a solemn fast, 
 and then took measures for the safe custody of the 
 treasures and rich gifts which were in his posses- 
 sion. Ewald conjectured that the river Ahava or 
 Peleg-Ahava was the same as the Pallacopas, a 
 stream to the S. of Babylon. Rawlinson identifies 
 it with the Is (see Herod. i. 179), a river flowing by 
 a town of the same name, now called Hit, which is 
 about eight days’ journey from Babylon. It seems, 
 however, more prob. that Ezra made his rendezvous 
 near to Babylon itself ; in that case we may suppose 
 that the Ahava was one of the numerous canals of 
 the Euphrates in the neighbourhood of the city (cf. 
 Ryle, and Berth.-Rys. ad loc.). In 1 Es 8% the 
 river is called Theras (Gepds). 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 AHAZ (nx ‘he hath grasped,’ LXX ’Aydf, Jos. 
 "Axdtns, NT” Axat [WH Axas]).—Son and successor 
 of Jotham king of Judah. His name is probably 
 an abbreviated form of Jeho-ahaz (19x57), since it 
 appears on the Assyr. inscriptions as [a-u-ba-zi. 
 The date of his accession has been fixed at 735 B.C. 
 His age at this time is given as twenty (2 K 167); 
 but this is barely reconcilable with the other chrono- 
 logical data, which allow sixteen years to his 
 reign, and state the age of his son Hezekiah at 
 
 
 
54 AHAZ 
 
 AHAZIAH 
 
 
 
 his accession as twenty-five, since it would make 
 Ahaz a father at the age of eleven. The difficulty 
 is increased if we suppose that the son passed 
 th:ough the fire by Ahaz was his firstborn; and 
 if, with several authorities, we allow only eight 
 years to his reign, it is quite insuperable. There 
 can be little doubt that the figures need correc- 
 tion. For twenty there is a slightly supported 
 various reading, twenty-five, and this may be 
 right. It is possible that the age of Hezekiah 
 should be reduced, since Ahaz seems from Is 3” 
 to have been still youthful at the beginning of 
 his reign. The date of his death is probably 
 715 B.C., though many place it 728-727 B.c (see 
 CHRONOLOGY OF OT). 
 
 Quite early in his reign, Rezin king of Syria, 
 and Pekah king of Israel, formed a coalition with 
 the object of forcing Judah into an alliance against 
 Assyria. According tc our oldest authorities they 
 met with little success, though the Syrians wrested 
 the port of Elath from Judah, and Isaiah bade the 
 king have no fear of ‘these two tails of smoking 
 firebrands.’ To confirm the wisdom of his counsel, 
 he invited him to ask any sign from God. Ahaz 
 was too panic-stricken to listen to cool reason, 
 and, under the pretext that he would not tempt 
 God, refused the proffered sign, whereupon the 
 prophet gave him the sign of Immanuel. The king 
 called in the aid of the king of Assyria, Tiglath- 
 pileser, who gladly accepted such an opportunity, 
 and relieved Ahaz of his foes. But the relief was 
 purchased dearly. Judah could form no alliance 
 with a great empire like Assyria; it could only 
 become tributary to it, even if the tribute was 
 disguised under the name of a present. And 
 tribute meant oppression of the poorer classes, 
 which was already one of the most glaring of 
 Jauah’s sins. Further, it was of vital importance 
 that the nation should keep free from entangle- 
 ment in the politics of large empires, since other- 
 wise it lost its independence, and made even internal 
 reform—which was the most pressing necessity 
 —more difficult. The policy of A. illustrates the 
 besetting weakness of the politicians of Judah, 
 and was shortsighted and disastrous. If Isaiah’s 
 advice had been followed, A. would have secured 
 the same result without its disadvantages, since in 
 her own interests Assyria would have been com- 
 pelled to vanquish the coalition, while Judah 
 would have retained her independence. 
 
 We next find A. at Damascus, where he rendered 
 homage to Tiglath-pileser. While there he saw 
 an altar which pleased him, and sent the pattern 
 of it to the priest Urijah, with instructions to 
 build one like it. On his return he offered on his 
 new altar, and ordered it to be used for the sacri- 
 fices, while the old brazen altar was used for the 
 king to ‘inquire by.’ W. R. Smith has carefully 
 discussed this innovation, and reached the result 
 that it ‘lay in the erection of a permanent altar- 
 hearth, and in the introduction of the rule that 
 in ordinary cases this new altar should serve for 
 the blood ritual as well as for the fire ritual’ 
 { RS? 485-9). The importance of this consists in the 
 fact that the alteration seems to have been a 
 
 ermanent one. For the other changes introduced 
 y A., see 2 K 1617-18, 
 
 In character A. was weak yet obstinate, frivolous 
 and something of a dilettante, as we gather from 
 his interest in his new altar, and from the associa- 
 tion of his name with a dial or step-clock (see 
 DIAL). He was also superstitious, and probably 
 a polytheist. While no blame need attach—in the 
 pre- Deuteronomic period —to his worship at 
 numerous local sanctuaries, and while he was 
 evidently a very zealous worshipper of J”, yet 
 the fact that he passed his son through the fire 
 reveals the. dark superstition to which he was 
 
 a slave. And the terrible picture of the conditior 
 of Judah, painted in Is 2-5 and other prophecie 
 of this time, is clear as to the idolatry, drunkenness, 
 luxury, oppression, perversion of justice, grasping 
 avarice, and shamelessness that poisoned the 
 national life. 
 
 So far the account has been drawn entirely 
 from 2 Kings and Isaiah, since they are our only 
 trustworthy sources. In 2 Chron. the narrative has 
 been thoroughly worked over. The history of the 
 Syro-Ephraimitish invasion is told quite differently. 
 There 1s indeed no hint of a coalition, the two 
 armies act independently. The Syrians carry 
 away a large number of captives, and Pekah slays 
 120,000 in one day and carries away 200,000 
 captives, who, however, are sent back at the 
 advice of a prophet. The invasions have no 
 
 olitical motive assigned, they are a punishment 
 or the king’s sin, while the figures are altogether 
 incredible. Tiglath-pileser is called in, not to 
 crush the coalition, but to help him against the 
 Philistines and Edomites. He did not help him, 
 however, but apparently came against him, and 
 was bought off with tribute. The religious apos- 
 tasy of A. comes out in much darker colours, 
 and the account is really in conflict with the older. 
 He burns his children, and not his son merely, in 
 the fire ; closes the temple and destroys its vessels, 
 though we know that he took great interest in its 
 services; and worships the gods of Damascus 
 because of the success of the Syrians in war, 
 though when A. visited Damascus their power 
 had been utterly broken. Of all this the older 
 history says nothing, and it is impossible to re- 
 concile these later additions with the earlier 
 narrative, and they are so characteristic of the 
 chronicler’s method of re-writing history, that any 
 attempt to do so would be superfluous. 
 
 A. S. PEAKE, 
 
 AHAZIAH (anny or auny ‘J” hath grasped ’).—4. 
 King of Israel, son of Ahab. He is said to have 
 reigned two years; but as he came to the throne 
 in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat (1 K 2251), and his 
 brother Jehoram succeeded him in Jehoshaphat’s 
 18th year (2 K 31), the duration of his reign 
 would not much exceed a year. The chronological 
 statement in 2 K 12’, which would imply a reign 
 of nearly ten years, is probably an interpolation 
 (Gritz, ete.) ; it is not found in B, and is misplaced 
 in A. The Moabite Stone dates the revolt of 
 Mesha as taking place after ‘half the days of 
 Omri’s son’; but the Bible account (2 K 1) 35) is 
 more probable, which makes it a consequence of 
 the death of Ahab, who was a comparatively 
 powerful monarch. In any case we do not read of 
 any effort to suppress this rising until the reign of 
 Jehoram. It is possible that Ahaziah was engaged 
 in preparations for war when the accident occurred 
 which resulted in his death. He seems to have 
 inherited from his mother her devotion to Baal, for 
 in his extremity he sent to inquire at the oracle of 
 Baalzebub, the special Baal worshipped at Ekron. 
 The story of his fatal mission belongs rather to the 
 history of Elijah. It is sufficient here to note that 
 his thrice repeated summons of the Lge eed is 
 characteristic of the son of Ahab and Jezebel; 
 suggestive as it is of the callousness of his father, 
 and the obstinacy of his mother. See JEHOSHA- 
 PHAT for the maritime alliance between Ahaziah 
 and that monarch. 
 
 2. Ahaziah, king of Judah, youngest son of 
 Jehoram. He was made king by ‘the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem’ (cf. 2 K 23%), because all his elder 
 brothers had been carried off in an incursion of 
 Philistines and Arabians (2 Ch 21 221). His 
 name is variously given as Jehoahaz (2 Ch 21” 
 25) and Azariah (22%). The latter is ea 4 a 
 blunder, Ahaziah being read by some Heb. MSS, 
 
AHBAN 
 
 AHIJAH BS 
 
 
 
 LXX, Pesh., Vulg.; and Jehoahaz is merely a trans- 
 
 osition of Ahaziah (cf. Jechoniah=Jehoiachin), 
 EXx has Ahaziah in 21", and omits the name in 
 25%. ‘The other versions, except Vulg., also ignore 
 the change. He began to reign in the 11th (2 K 
 9”) or 12th (2 K 8”) year of Joram of Israel, 
 being then 22 years old, and reigned one year 
 (2 K 8%). The reading ‘forty and two’ in 2 Ch 
 22? is absurd, since his father was 40 years old at 
 his death. Pesh. here has ‘22’ and LXX ‘20.’ 
 The evil influence which Athaliah, the queen 
 mother, had exercised over her husband continued 
 unchecked in the reign of her son (2 K 8”, 2 Ch 
 223-4) ; yet in 2 K 12)8 we read of ‘ hallowed things’ 
 which he had dedicated apparently to J”. 
 
 There is an Eeesneilethe discrepancy between 
 Kings and Chron. as to the death of A. Joram of 
 Israel having renewed the attack on Ramoth- 
 gilead in which Ahab had failed, was joined by his 
 nephew A. The town was captured (2 K 9), but 
 Joram received wounds which compelled him to 
 return to Jezreel. It is implied that A. also 
 returned to Jerusalem, for he ‘ went down’ to see 
 Joram at Jezreel (cf. 1 K 22?) (Ewald evades the 
 difficulty by reading in 2 K 8% ‘now Joram went,’ 
 etc., omitting ‘with,’ which is adopted in 2 Ch 22°), 
 According to Kings, on seeing Joram’s fate, A., 
 en by Jehu, ‘fled by the way of the garden 
 
 ouse’ (or ‘Beth-haggan,’ Stade, etc.), was mortally 
 wounded ‘at the ascent of Gur,’ and died on reach- 
 ing Megiddo. His body was carried to Jerusalem, 
 and ‘buried with his fathers in the city of David.’ 
 Meanwhile the ‘ brethren of Ahaziah,’ ignorant of 
 the revolution in Jezreel, had followed him from 
 Jerusalem to visit Joram’s children; they were 
 met by Jehu on the road between Jezreel and 
 Samaria, and were slain. This seems a consistent 
 story ; but when the Chronicler came to deal with 
 it he found two stumbling-blocks. First, he has 
 
 reviously informed us that A. had no brethren 
 iving; therefore ‘the brethren of Ahaziah’ become 
 in his record ‘the princes of Judah, and the sons 
 of the brethren of Ahaziah’ attending their master 
 in Sumaria or Jezreel; secondly, Kings implies 
 that A., an idolater, was buried in the royal 
 sepul:chres. Now the Chronicler always carefully 
 excluiles idolaters (e.g. Jehoram, Joash, Amaziah, 
 Ahaz) from ‘the sepulchres-of the kings,’ and 
 therefure he makes A., who was hiding in Samaria, 
 be killud and buried there ; that he is buried at all 
 being for the sake of his good father Jehoshaphat. 
 Enough has been said to show that here, as else- 
 where, the Chronicler, if more edifying, is not so 
 reliable as the earlier writer. 
 
 N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 AHBAN (j35x ‘ brother of an intelligent one’).— 
 
 A Judahite, son of Abishur (1 Ch 2”), 
 
 AHER (778 ‘ another ’).—A Benjamite (1 Ch 71%), 
 perhaps identical with Ahiram of Nu 26%. 
 
 AHI (‘ny ‘ brother’ ;* by many considered to have 
 the same meaning as AHIJAH, wh. see) occurs 
 in MT, and consequently in AV and RV, twice: (1) 
 a Gadite (1 Ch 5%); (2) an Asherite (1 Ch 7*). 
 But the reading is in neither case free from doubt ; 
 in 1 Ch 5” the Syr. omits the name, thus making 
 vy.4-5 an uninterrupted genealogy of Abihail; 
 but the LXX, which gives ZaPovydy (’AxiBovt, A) 
 viod ’ABde4 for bxnax j2 ‘nx 3, must have had 
 something very like ‘nx before them. The other 
 VSS treat ‘ns as an appellative. In 1 Ch 7* for 
 mimy vnx, LXX, B has ’Axscoud, A ’Axtovpa ’O-rd. 
 Probably in the original continuous Heb. text 
 some compound name in “nx was read (?7'nx), 
 
 *For a fuller discussion of the meaning of this name 
 ed the following names beginning with Ahi, see Nanzs, 
 PER. 
 
 followed by another name of which the letters mn 
 (in 73) are & mutilated survival. 
 G. B. Gray, 
 
 AHIAH.—See AHIJAH. 
 
 AHIAM (ox’nx, meaning doubtful, according to 
 some, ‘mother’s brother ’).—One of David’s heroes. 
 He was son of Sharar (2 S 23%), or Sacar (1 Ch 11), 
 the Hararite. G, B. GRay, 
 
 AHIAN (nx ‘fraternal,’ B ’Iaaclu, A ’Aely; 
 these forms, together with the divergent text of 
 the Syr., render the exact form of the original 
 name uncertain).—Ahian was a Manassite, and is 
 described as ‘son of Shemida’ (1 Ch 7); but the 
 name is scarcely that of an individual ; note in the 
 context Abiezer and Shechem, and cf. Nu 261%, 
 
 G. B. GRAY. 
 
 AHIEZER (7y'nx, ‘brother is help’).—4. Son of 
 Ammishaddai, one of the tribal princes who 
 represented Dan at the census and on certain other 
 occasions (Nu 1!2 22 766-71 1025(P)), 2. The chief of 
 the Benjamite archers who joined David while he 
 was in hiding at Ziklag (1 Ch 12}-*), 
 
 G. B. Gray. 
 
 AHIHUD (7:7°nx ‘ brother is majesty.’ In the form 
 amnx (1 Ch 8°) the second n is probably an error 
 for »).—1. Ace. to P, Ahihud the son of Shelomi 
 was the prince (x'w3) of the tribe of Asher, who, 
 with similar representatives of the other tribes (on 
 W. of Jordan), was auroiied by Moses, at the 
 divine command, to divide Canaan into hereditary 
 portions (Nu 3477(P)). 2. A Benjamite. Probably 
 the passage 1 Ch 8%’, the text of which is somewhat 
 corrupt, means that Ehud begat Ahihud, and that 
 Ahihud and his ‘brother’ Uzza were ancestors of 
 the inhabitants of Geba. G. B. Gray. 
 
 AHIJAH (ng or 35x ‘brother of J”’).—4, 
 High priest in the reign of Saul, and usually 
 identified with Ahimelech (Josephus ‘ Abime- 
 lech’) of 1 S 21, 22 (so Ewald Hist. of Isr. ii. 
 p. 415, n. 3, ‘since Melech, King, may be applied 
 also to God’). He accompanied Saul’s army as 
 possessor of the spose oracle (1 S 14%); but when 
 an occasion arose for its use, Saul, with his usual 
 precipitate self-reliance, interrupted the priest 
 while in the very act of consultation (vv.'®), This 
 temerity seems to be afterwards tacitly reproved 
 by Ahijah (v.%*): ‘Let us draw near hither unto 
 
 od.’ The LXX reading in v.® ‘ Bring hither the 
 ephod,’ ete., is followed by Jos. (Ant. VI. vi.3: ‘ He 
 bade the high priest A\aBévra ri dpyteparixhy crodhy 
 mpopnrevew’), and accepted by most moderns. The 
 
 rase, “bring hither,’ seems appropriated to the 
 ephod (1 S 23° 307); and when the oracle is again 
 consulted (14), the LXX dds dAdous . . . dos dordb- 
 tyra,’ Vulg. ‘da ostensionem. . . da sanctitatem,’ 
 appears to point to the Urim and Thummim which 
 were attached to the ephod. On the other hand, 
 the ark seems to be used as an oracle in Jg 20”, 
 1 Ch 138, and it often accompanied the host to 
 battle. Agq., Sym., and Vulg. follow the Received 
 text. 
 
 We next read of this high priest, when David, 
 fleeing from Saul, comes to inquire of the Lard 
 by his means (1 S 227°), as he had often done betore 
 (225), The tabernacle appears to have been 
 transferred to Nob from Shiloh when the latter 
 was desolated (Ps 78°, Jer 7! 14 26°), probably 
 just after the death of Eli (to whom ‘ the priest— 
 Shiloh,’ 1 S 14%, refers). Ahimelech’s alarm at 
 the appearance of so great a man (22") unattended, 
 was ae ed by David’s plausible explanation; and 
 he actually gave the fugitive the sbewbread of the 
 priests, and the sword of Goliath, which had been 
 suspended as a votive offering. Unfortunately, 
 there was a witness of the priest’s well-meant zeal, 
 
56 AHIJAH 
 
 Doeg the Edomite, who was performing some vow. 
 Not long after, David’s worst anticipations (22”) 
 were realised. Ahimelech, with the eighty-five 
 (LXX, 305; Josephus, 385) priests of ‘his father’s 
 house,’ was charged with conspiracy by Saul, 
 and, notwithstanding his amazed protestations 
 of innocence, condemned to instant death. Doeg, 
 who did not share the traditional reverence 
 
 felt by the ag te gue for the priests of J”, 
 carried out the bloody order with the unnatural 
 cruelty of his race. Abiathar alone escaped. 
 
 The suc erent on Eli’s house was being con- 
 summated. 
 
 2. The Shilonite, of Shiloh (1 K 14%), is the pro- 
 phet of the rise and fall of JeroboamiI. In 1 K 11” 
 we find the young ruler thinking out his plans of 
 rebellion in a lonely walk, when he is met b 
 Ahijah, who comes to consecrate and control his 
 ambitious designs. The prophet (LXX, RV) had, 
 doubtless by divine command (cf. Is 207, Jer 13%), 
 clad himself with a new garment. This he rends 
 in twelve pieces, and giving ten of them to 
 Jeroboam promises him the reversion, on Solomon’s 
 death, of the kingdom over ten tribes, and, con- 
 ditionally, ‘a sure house’ like that of David, 
 repeating at the same time the divine judgment 
 which had been already (vv.*!% D?) revealed to 
 Solomon, probably through Ahijah himself. Years 
 pass by ; 5 eroboam kas realised his ambition, but 
 not the ideal set before him by the prophet. His 
 eldest son falls sick. The king bethinks him of 
 the true seer now [60 years] old and blind; but, 
 fearing lest his defection might elicit an adverse 
 answer, he sends his wife [Ano] disguised as a poor 
 woman, with a poor woman’s offering [‘ loaves, two 
 cakes for his children, grapes, and a jar of honey’). 
 A divine revelation, however, has already un- 
 masked the deception, Ahijah [sends his A to 
 meet her and bring her in, treats her gifts with 
 scorn] anticipates her with the ‘heavy tidings’ of 
 the extirpation of Jeroboam’s house, the dispersion 
 of Israel, and, bitterest of all, the death of her 
 child [‘ Thy maidens will come forth to meet thee, 
 and will say to thee, The child is dead . . . and 
 they will lament for the child, saying, ‘‘Ah Lord !” 
 . .. and the wailing came to meet her’). The 
 second Greek account, from which the details in 
 brackets are derived, is found in B after 12%, and 
 
 laces this event before Jeroboam’s accession—an 
 
 impossible place, —introduces Ahijah as a new 
 character (2 K 14”), and also ascribes to Shemaiah 
 a symbolical prophecy similar to that of Ahijah, 
 but spoken at Shechem before the rejection of 
 Rehoboam. 14!” is omitted in B, but found in A, 
 etc., supplied, according to Field, from Aquila. 
 These facts and the want of connexion in 11*- 
 lead W. R. Smith to conclude that ‘both parts of 
 the story of Ahijah ere a fluctuating uncertain 
 element in the text’ (OTJC?119). Ewald also says 
 that 14% 15-16 are later additions (Hist. of Isr. iv. 
 p. 29, n 3). Jos. (Ant. VIII. xi. 1) gives the verses 
 in a different order. . 
 
 Ahijah was one of the historians of Solomon’s 
 reign according to 2 Ch 9%, 
 
 8. 1 K 43, one of two brothers, Solomon’s scribes 
 or secretaries. Their father Shisha (Seraiah, 
 ¥3 817; Sheva, 2S 20%; Shavsha, 1 Ch 181) held 
 tbs same post under David. 4. Father of king 
 Buasha, 1 K 1577-8 212, 2K 9%, 5. 1 Ch 2% (LXX 
 aderxds atrod), youngest son of Jerahmeel, or his 
 firs. wife, if we read with Bertheau, ‘of or from 
 Ahijah,’ D having dropped out. See next verse. 
 6. 1 Ch 8’, one of the ‘heads of fathers’ houses’ 
 of Geba, a son of Ehud, for which read ‘ Abihud,’ 
 v.® (Pesh., Gratz), or ‘ Ahoah’ (v.4). In the begin- 
 ning of the verse read ‘namely’ for ‘and.’ The 
 text is very obscure. See Q.P.B. 7. 1 Ch 11°, 
 the Pelonite, one of David’s mighty men; but 
 
 
 
 AHIMAN 
 
 Kennicott, etc., read instead ‘ Eliam—Gilonite,’ 
 from 28 23%, 8. 1 Ch 26”. (In David’s time) ‘ of 
 the Levites, Ahijah was over the treasuries.’ 
 LXX, followed by Bertheau, ete., reads, ‘the 
 Levites, their brethren (t.e. the sons of Ladan, 
 v.4), were over,’ etc. 9. Neh 10% (RV Ahiah), 
 one of ‘the chiefs of the people’ who sealed to 
 the covenant under Nehemiah. 
 N. J. D. WHITE. 
 AHIKAM (o7'nx ‘my brother has arisen’).—Son 
 of Shaphan, a courtier under Josiah, mentioned as 
 one of the deputation sent by the king to Huldah 
 the prophetess (2 K 22), 2 Ch 34”), and later 
 as using his influence to protect Jeremiah from the 
 violence of the populace during the reign of 
 Jehoiakim (Jer 26%). He was father of Gedaliah, 
 the governor of the land of Judah appointed by 
 Nebuchadnezzar (2 K 25”? al.). 
 C. F. BURNEY. 
 AHILUD (75nx, perhaps a contraction of ‘ny 
 ab: ‘child’s brother’).—4. (2 S 86 20%, 1 K 43, 
 1 Ch 18'5),—Father of Jehoshaphat, the chronicler 
 under David and Solomon. 2. (1 K 4!) Father 
 of Baana, one of Solomon’s twelve commissariat 
 officers. C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 AHIMAAZ (pyony ‘my brother is wrath’).—4. 
 Son of Zadok. He wasa remarkably swift runner, 
 whose style was well known (2S 18%), and as such 
 he played an important part on the occasion of 
 Absalom’s rebellion. As had been arranged by 
 David (2 § 1577-28. 35.86), he and Jonathan, son of 
 Abiathar, ‘stayed by En-rogel, and a maidservant 
 used to go and tell them,’ from the priests, the 
 
 lans of Absalom which had been divulged by 
 
 ushai, ‘and they went and told King David.’ 
 This must have occurred more than once (2 § 172”). 
 Details of their last and most critical adventure 
 are given (1718-21), when, aided by a woman’s craft, 
 they succeeded in conveying the news that saved 
 David’s life. After the battle, Ahimaaz offered 
 his services as messenger of victory; but Joab, 
 fearing that the odium of being the first to tell of 
 Absalom’s death might injure the young man’s 
 prospects, refused, out of kindness, to allow him 
 to run, and entrusted the duty to the Cushite 
 courier. Ahimaaz, however, saw a way out of the 
 difficulty ; Joab yielded reluctantly to his impor- 
 tunity, and Ahimaaz ‘ran by the way of the Plain’ 
 (the floor of the Jordan valley, Gn 13? ete.); and 
 by superior swiftness, and also, as is ee ero! 
 taking an easier route, ‘overran the Cushite.’ He 
 did not belie David’s description: ‘He is a good 
 man, and cometh with good tidings,’ for by an 
 adroit suppressio veri he achieved his purpose, and 
 left to the Cushite the ungrateful office of breaking 
 the king’s heart. We read nothing more of Ahimaaz 
 after this. It does not appear that he was ever 
 high priest, since Azariah Bs son (1 Ch 6% ®) seems 
 to have succeeded Zadok (1 K 4?). 2. (1 S 14%) 
 Father of Ahinoam, Saul’s wife. 3. (1 K 4!) One 
 of Solomon’s twelve commissariat officers. He had 
 the district of Naphtali as the field of his operations. 
 Since. he alone of the twelve has no father men- 
 tioned, it has been conjectured that he may pos- 
 sibly be the son of Zadok; but he surely would 
 have succeeded his father in the high priesthood. 
 Ahimaaz married Basemath, one of Solomon’s 
 daughters. Another of these officers made a similar 
 alliance, which indicates that they held a high 
 rank, N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 AHIMAN (p73: on the form, see Moore as cited 
 below).—41. The sons of Anak or Anakites (see 
 ANAK) are frequently mentioned, chiefly in D; but 
 the special names Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai 
 occur only in JE (Nu 13”, Jos 154) and Jg 1, ef. 
 v.%, According to these passages, iman, 
 
 
 
 4 
 q 
 ’ 
 4 
 : 
 : 
 { 
 

 
 AHIMELECH 
 
 AHITOB 57 
 
 
 
 Sheshai, and Talmai were ‘sons’ or ‘children of 
 Anak’ (piyn +92 or ‘yn 5: for the latter, cf. 
 nowt 2 S 2136-18), whose father was Arba (Jos 1535, 
 
 perhaps P). But, as a matter of fact, neither 
 Anak (=long-necked) nor Arba (=four: with 
 Kiriath-arba cf. Beer-sheba) are personal names 
 (see Moore, Judges 1”). There is therefore no 
 reason to doubt what the context of the above- 
 cited 2 pa Sa suggests, viz. that Ahiman, Sheshai, 
 and Talmai are the names, not of individuals, but 
 of clans. 
 
 A., then, was a clan resident in Hebron (the 
 more familiar name of Kiriath-arba) at the time of 
 the Heb. conquest, and driven thence by Caleb. The 
 clan may have been of Aramaic origin, since the 
 names of Sheshai and Talmai are of an Aram. type, 
 and the name Ahiman has analogy in Aram. as 
 well as Heb. See further, Driver, Deut. p. 23f.; 
 Moore, Judges, p. 24 f. 
 
 2. The name of a family or division of door- 
 keepers, 1 Ch 97. This name is absent, not only 
 from the briefer list in Neh 11, but also from the 
 longer list in Ezr 10% (=1 Es 5%). It is possible, 
 therefore, that the name (jo’nx) in Chron. is simply 
 due to poemphy from the following word o7'nx 
 (=their brethren) ; if this be so, it may have been 
 facilitated by association with the Anakites (see 
 No. 1), the preceding name in Chron.—Talmon— 
 closely resembling in sownd the Anakite Talmai. 
 But the genuineness of the name is defended by 
 Bertheau ; cf. the fig names in v."7 and the four 
 divisions suggested by vv.**%, G. B. Gray. 
 
 AHIMELECH (vers ‘brotherof Melek (Molech)’). 
 —1. The son of Ahitub, and grandson of Phinehas. 
 He either succeeded his brother ape in the 
 priesthood, or was the same person er another 
 name (1 S 14*38), On the supposition that they 
 are identical, the main facts regarding him (1S 21! 
 229-18) are given under AHIJAH; seealso DoEG. In 
 2S 87 and 1 Ch 24° it is generally supposed 
 that the names of Abiathar and Ahimelech have 
 . been transposed by a copyist, so that we need not 
 reckon another Ahimelech, grandson of the first. 
 2. A Hittite, who joined David when a fugitive, 
 and became one of his captains (1 S 26°). 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 AHIMOTH (nip-nx, apparently ‘ brother is death’). 
 —Mentioned only in the genealogy of 1 Ch 6” 
 (Heb. v'), where he appears as son of Elkanah and 
 brother of Amasai. For a discussion of the text 
 and purpose of the genealogy, see Bertheau; cf. 
 also MAHATH (v.*), G. B. GRAY. 
 
 AHINADAB (33;n8 ‘brother is generous’).—Son 
 of Iddo, one of the 12 officers appointed by Solomon 
 for the victualling of the hes household. He 
 was stationed at Mahanaim (1 K 41). 
 
 G. B. GRAY. 
 
 AHINOAM (oyi'nx ‘brother is pleasantness’).—1. 
 Daughter of Ahimaaz and the wife of Saul (1S 14), 
 2. inoam the Jezreelitess was one of the two 
 women—Abigail being the other—whom David 
 married after Michal had been taken from him. 
 A. and Abigail were both with David while he 
 sojourned with Achish at Gath, and were sub- 
 sequently at Ziklag ; from the latter city they were 
 carried off by the Amalekites, but rescued by David 
 and his men (1 S 3018). After Saul’s death A. and 
 Abigail went up to Hebron with David, and there 
 A. gave birth to David’s firstborn, Amnon (1 S 25% 
 27* 30°, 2 S 2? 32, 1 Ch 33). G. B. GRAY. 
 
 AHIO (‘nx)—41. Appears to be the name of a son 
 of Abinadab (No. 1), and brother of Uzzah who 
 drove the cart on which the ark was placed when 
 removed from Abinadab’s house (28 6-4, 1 Ch 137). 
 In all three cases the LXX renders the word ol 
 
 ddehpol airod, which merely involves a different 
 pronunciation of the same consonants—rpx; this 
 may be right, but on the whole a proper name seems 
 more probable in the context. 2. (LXX ddeddds 
 (A ddeAgol) adrod, 1 Ch 8%; ddedpds (A ddeddol, 1 Ch 
 9%7)) A son of Jeiel, and brother of Kish, the 
 father of Saul. 3. Another Ahio is mentioned in 
 the genealogy of Benjamin (1 Ch 8“). Here also 
 the LXX has dded¢ds (A ddeXgol) a’rod, and in this 
 case is probably right. Cf. Bertheau, in loco. 
 G. B. Gray. 
 
 AHIRA (yynx).—Son of Enan, one of the 12 tribal 
 princes who represented Naphtali at the census 
 and on certain other occasions (Nu 1! 229 1778. 83 
 107 (P)). 
 
 AHIRAM, AHIRAMITES (o7nx, ‘pyox7 ‘ brother 
 is exalted’).—The eponym of a Benj. family—the 
 Ahiramites, Nu 263 (P). The name A. occurs in 
 the corrupt forms ‘nx (see EHnI) in Gn 467 (P), and 
 mnox (see AHARAH) in 1 Ch 8!; in defence of the 
 Oe neuey of the form Ahiram, see Gray, Stud. in 
 Heb. Proper Names, p. 35. 
 
 AHISAMACH (30°78 ‘ brother has supported ’).— 
 A Danite, father of Oholiab (AV Aholiab), Ex 316 
 35* 38% (P). G. B. GRAY. 
 
 AHISHAHAR: (7ny'ns euee form) ‘brother is 
 dawn’) is described in the Benjamite genealogies as 
 ee of the ‘sons of Bilhan,’? 1 Ch 7 See under 
 
 ILHAN. 
 
 AHISHAR (1y'nxy ‘my brother has sung’’).—Super- 
 intendent of Solomon’s household (1 K 48), 
 
 AHITHOPHEL (b>ivmy ‘my brother is folly ’— 
 Oxf. Heb. Lex.), was a native of Giloh, a town in 
 the south-western part of the highlands of Judea, 
 identified uncertainly with a village three miles 
 north-west of Halhul. He was a very influential 
 counsellor of David, his reputation Dor political 
 pecney being unrivalled ; but he was destitute of 
 principle, a man of craft rather than of character 
 (2 S 15-17%, 1 Ch 27%), He joined the rebellion 
 of Absalom, possibly through ambition, possibly 
 out of sympathy with the resentment of his tribe 
 of Judah at the decline of its tribal pre-eminence. 
 It is hae by some that he was also the 
 
 andfather of Bathsheba (cf. 2 S 23% with 11%); 
 
 ut the identification of her father with the son 
 of A. is open to question, though certainly possible. 
 The policy he advised was that Absalom should 
 take possession of his father’s harem, thus showing 
 that no pardon could be expected from David, an 
 that he should proceed at once in pursuit of his 
 father. When Hushai’s counsel of delay prevailed, 
 A. recognised the necessary failure of the enter- 
 prise, withdrew to Giloh, and hanged himself 
 (2 S 17%). There is no other case of deliberate 
 suicide, except in war, mentioned in the OT, 
 and the parallel in the NT is the case of Judas. 
 Allusions to A. have been found in Ps 41° 5512-4 
 591 and elsewhere; but these must not be treated 
 as designed, and no inference can be drawn from 
 them as to the authorship of the psalms. The 
 Talmud and Midrashim occasionally refer to him. 
 In the latter he is classed with Balaam as an 
 instance of the ruin which overtakes wisdom that 
 is not the gift of Heaven; and in the former (Baba 
 bathra 1. '7) the great lesson of his life is said to be, 
 ‘Be not in strife with the house of David, and 
 break off from none of its rule.’ R. W. M 
 
 . Moss. 
 AHITOB (B ’Axerwp, A ’Axir-, AV Achitob), 
 1 Es 82.—An ancestor of Ezra, son of arias and 
 father of Sadduk [Ahitub]. 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
58 AHITUB 
 
 — 
 
 AHITUB (any ‘brother is goodness’).—4. Son 
 of Phinehas and grandson of Eli, the father of 
 Ahimelech or Ahijah the priest who was put to 
 death by Saul (1S 14° 229), 2. Ace. to2S$ 87 (= 
 1 Ch 185) the father, ace. to 1 Ch 9% Neh 11" the 
 grandfather, of Zadok the priest who was con- 
 temporary with David and Solomon. It is very 
 doubtful, however, whether this A. does not owe 
 his existence to a copyist’s error. The text of 
 2 S 8" should probably Tun W7O'nN ya way pr 
 aeneyja: ‘And Zadok and Abiathar the son of 
 Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub’ (so Wellhausen, 
 Budde, Kittel, Driver). 3. Still more exposed to 
 suspicion is the existence of another A., father of 
 another Zadok (1 Ch 6-12, 1 Es 82,2 Es 11). 4. 
 An ancestor of Judith, Jth 8!, AV Acitho. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AHLAB (2)nx), Jg 13.—A city of Asher. The 
 site is supposed to be that of the later Gush 
 Halab or Gischala (Jos. Life, 10; Wars, x1. 
 xxi. 1), now El-Jish in Upper Galilee ; but this is, 
 of course, uncertain. See Neubauer, Géog. Tal. 
 s.v, Gushhalab; and Reland, Pal. Il/ustr. p. 817. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 AHLAI (‘ony ‘O that!’ ef. Ps 1195).—1. The 
 daughter (?) of Sheshan (1 Ch 2*, cf. v.4). 2. The 
 father of Zabad, one of David’s mighty men 
 (1 Ch 11%). 
 
 AHOAH (ning).—Son of Bela, a aot eee (1 Ch 8! 
 = TTR of v.7). See AHIJAH (6). The patronymic 
 Ahohite occurs in 2S 23°. 
 
 AHUMAI (‘>:nx).—A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 4?). 
 
 AHUZZAM (o%nx ‘possessor,’ AV Ahuzam).—A 
 man of Judah (1 Ch 4°). 
 
 AHUZZATH (nang ¢ possession ’).—‘ The friend’ of 
 Abimelech, the Philistine of Gerar, mentioned on 
 the occasion when the latter made a league with 
 Isaac at Beersheba (Gn 267%), The position of 
 ‘king’s friend’ may possibly have been an official 
 one, and the title a technical one (cf. 1 K 45, 
 1 Ch 278). The rendering of the LXX gives a 
 different conception, that of ‘ pronubus’ or friend 
 of the bridegroom (’Ox0f40 6 vupdaryaryds airod). For 
 the fem. termination -ath, cf. the Phil. name 
 ‘Goliath’ (see Driver’s note on 1 § 17*) and the 
 Arabian name ‘ Genubath’ (1 K 11”). 
 
 H. E. RY.gE. 
 
 AHZAI (nx for munx ‘J” hath grasped,’ AV 
 Ahasai).—A priest, Neh 11°=Jahzerah, 1 Ch 9”. 
 
 AI (‘y7), Jos 73% 8-29 101-3 129, Ezr 278, Neh 73 
 (Jer 49%, a clerical error for AR), called Hai in 
 Gn 128 133 AV; and Aija (xy ‘Ayyd) in Neh 11°. 
 In Is (10%) Aiath (n:y).—The name means ‘ heap,’ 
 and it is not enumerated as an inhabited place 
 after the conquest until about B.C. 700, but seems 
 to have been inhabited after the Captivity. The 
 situation is defined as east of Bethel, beside Beth 
 Aven, with valleys to the north and west (Jos 
 84. 12), The site which agrees with these con- 
 ditions is found at Haiydn, immediately south of 
 a conspicuous stone mound called £t-Tell, ‘the 
 mound,’ There is a deep ravine to the north, an 
 open valley to the west, and a flat plain to S. and 
 E. This site is 24 miles 8.E. of Bethel, and on 
 the road thence to the Jordan Valley. It is 
 evidently the site of an ancient town, with rock- 
 zut tombs. See SWP vol. ii. sh. xiv. Some MSS 
 read Aija for Gaza (i.e. my for my) in 1 Ch 7%, 
 which appears to be the correct rendering. 
 
 C. R, CONDER. 
 
 AIAH (7x).—1. Son of Zibeon (Gn 36% (AV 
 Ajah), 1 Ch 1%). 2. Father of Rizpah, Saul’s con- 
 eubine (2 S 37 218 1% 1), 
 
 ATR 
 
 AIATH, Is 108; AIJA, Neh 11 —See At 
 
 AIJALON (j\%x), AV Ajalon, Jos 102 19% 
 2 Ch 28; Aijalon, Jos 21%, Jg 1% 1212, 1 § 148, 
 1 Ch 6® 84, 2 Ch 11° (in Jg 12" a place of 
 the name is noticed in Zebulun, otherwise un- 
 known).—This town in Dan was in the Shephelah, 
 beneath the ascent of Bethhoron. It is the modern 
 village of Ydlo. The name appears to mean ‘ place 
 of the deer.’ The town is clearly noticed in a 
 lettér from the king of Jerusalem, in the Tel el- 
 Amarna correspondence, as dialuna. It was known 
 to the Jews in the 4th cent. A.D. (Onomasticon, 
 s.v. Aialon) as less than 2 Roman miles from 
 Emmaus-Nicopolis, on the road to Jerusalem. This 
 agrees with the situation of Yalo and ’AmwAs. 
 See SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 AIJELETH HASH-SHAHAR, Ps 22 (title).—See 
 PSALMS, 
 
 AIM.—To ‘aim at,’ in the sense of ‘conjecture,’ 
 ‘make penes at,’ occurs Wis 13° ‘For if they 
 were able to know so much that they could aim at 
 (croxdfouat, RV ‘explore’) the world.’ Cf. H. 
 Smith (1593), ‘No marvel if he did aim that his 
 death was near at hand.’ J. HASTINGS, 
 
 AIN (y, usually spelled ‘Ayin, and represented 
 in transliteration by ‘) is the sixteenth letter of 
 the Heb. ALPHABET (wh. see), and so is used to 
 introduce the sixteenth part of Ps 119. See 
 PSALMS, 
 
 AIN (j:y ‘an eye, or spring ’).—41. On the northern 
 boundary of Israel, as given Nu 344%. It la 
 west (S.W. ?) of Riblah. It is almost impossible 
 now to describe the boundary there given. 
 Riblah has been identified with the village still 
 bearing that name, 20 miles south-west of Hums 
 (Emesa) and Zedad, with Sad4d some 30 miles 
 east of Riblah ; other points are unknown. Robin- 
 son, following Thomson, places Ain at ‘Ain el-Asy, 
 the main fountain of the Orontes, about 15 miles 
 south-west of Riblah (Researches (1852), p. 538). 
 Conder identifies this with Hazor-Enan (Heth and 
 Moab, p. 7 ff.). A description of this fountain 
 of the Orontes will be found in the passages 
 referred to. On the whole question, see under 
 PALESTINE, and other places named with Ain 
 in Nu 347; also A. B. Davidson’s Hzekiel, pp. 
 351, 352. 
 
 2. Jos 15 197 and 1 Ch 4%. Here Ain and 
 Rimmon should apparently be read as one name, 
 Ain-Rimmon= En-Rimmon, which see. 
 
 A. HENDERSON, 
 
 AIR (c:py, ajp, ovpayds) is the first of the three 
 divisions—‘ the heaven above,’ ‘the earth beneath,’ 
 and ‘the water under the earth.’ Its usual sense 
 is the atmosphere resting upon the earth, with 
 special terms for the highest heavens and for air 
 in motion, as wind, breath, ete. As the locality ot 
 air is above the earth, so its language is that of 
 the supernatural. As the emblem of the insub- 
 stantial, and the antithesis of ‘flesh and blood’ 
 (Eph 6), it is regarded as the dwelling - place 
 of powers which, though under God, are over 
 man. 
 
 Satan is described as ‘the prince of the power of 
 the air’ (Eph 2?), and the war of the Lord is there 
 lifted out of all tribal provincialism, and declared 
 to be a world-wide can thet between elemental good 
 and evil. For safety and success in this battle ‘the 
 whole armour of God’ is needed. In Dt 32!” the 
 heathen gods are called Shedhim, the term by which 
 modern Jews denote the malignant spirits that are 
 considered to infest the air. The fear of offending 
 them makes the uneducated Jewish woman say, 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
AKAN 
 
 ALCIMUS 59 
 
 
 
 * By your leave’! when throwing out water from 
 her door-step ; and the dread of their congregated 
 power makes the Jews walk quickly in the funeral 
 rocession. The same superstition passed into the 
 hristian Church with regard to the efficacy of the 
 passing bell. The Jews in the synagogue-worship, 
 when ppoains the solemn watchword of Israel, 
 ‘Hear, Israel, the Lord ed God is one Lord,’ 
 prolong the pronunciation of the word 75x ‘one,’ as 
 a protection against the hostility of the air-powers. 
 See DEMON. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 AKAN (jpy).—A descendant of Esau (Gn 36”). 
 The name appears in 1 Ch 1” as Jakan. 
 
 AKATAN (‘Axardv, AV Acatan), 1 Es 8°8.—Father 
 of Joannes, who returned with Ezra, called Hak- 
 tan, Ezr 82, 
 
 AKELDAMA (Ac 1” WH ‘Axeddaydx, TR ’Axed- 
 baud, AV Aceldama).—The popular name of ‘the 
 field of blood,’ bought with the money paid to and 
 returned by the traitor, Mt 27°. The language 
 of Ac 118 seems also to imply that it was so named 
 as the scene of his suicide. It is not impossible 
 that a spot so defiled would be eagerly sold and 
 bought in the circumstances described. Such a 
 place must have always been needed (Jer 26%), 
 and at the time this ‘field’ was purchased, owin 
 to the multitude of ‘strangers’ dwelling in an 
 visiting Jerusalem, there may have been urgent 
 need for a larger place of burial, and a difficulty 
 of * Selatan land for such a purpose. The place 
 had been previously known as ‘the potter’s field,’ 
 and seems to be identified with ‘the potter’s house’ 
 of Jer 18? 19?, which was in the valley of the son 
 of Hinnom, the scene in earlier times of Molech- 
 worship, and subse uently defiled as a place of 
 burial (Jer 75%, 2 K 23). The traditional site 
 is still known as Hakk-ed-Dumm ‘(in the 12th 
 cent. called Chaudemar, a manifest corruption 
 of the original). It is situated half-way up the 
 hill, to the south of the Pool of Siloam, on a level 
 spot. ‘It is now a partly ruined building, 78 ft. 
 long outside and 57 ft. wide, erected over rock- 
 cut caves and a deep trench.’ Originally there 
 had been tombs cut in a natural cave, which forms 
 the inner or southern part; and though these 
 have been broken up to enlarge the space, six 
 “loculi’ remain on the western side and two on 
 the eastern. A deep trench has been cut in front 
 of the original rock-tombs, 30 ft. deep, 21 ft. 
 wide, and 63 ft. long. The wall built on the 
 cuter edge of the crench is about 30 ft. high. A 
 stone roof thrown over the trench joins the hill 
 face (PEFSt, 1892, p. 283 ff.). Apparently there 
 was a cliff here with a natural cave in the 
 face of ic. This may have been used, as caves 
 frequentty are, as a potter’s workshop. But the 
 name of the gate, ‘Harsith,’ Jer 19? ‘the gate of 
 potsherds,’ would rather indicate that the site of 
 the potter’s workshop was close by the gate, and 
 not across a valley from it; his work would also 
 require a supply ot water to be at hand; nor can 
 the Valley a Efnnean be said to be conclusively 
 identified. According to Eusebius, Akeldama was 
 on the north of the city ; Jerome (by a slip or of 
 design) places it on the south. From the seventh 
 century (Arculph) it has been pointed out on the 
 presently accepted site. Krafft (Top. Jer. p. 193) 
 Re he saw clay dug at Hakk-ed-Dumm; but 
 Schick denies that potter’s clay is found there, and 
 says that only a kind of chalk used to mix with 
 clay is got higher up the hill; but even if it were, 
 clay is not used where it is found, but where 
 facilities for its use are greatest. The ownership 
 
 of the spot has been more valued in later times than 
 when purchased by the chief priests. 
 
 In the 12th 
 
 cent. the Latins got it from the Syrians, in the 
 16th cent. it was in the possession of the Armenians, 
 in the 17th cent. of the Greeks, and it passed again 
 to the Armenians, who at the close of that century 
 paid a rent for it to the Turks. More strange is 
 the virtue attached to its soil of quickly consuming 
 dead bodies, because of which, notwithstanding its 
 history, 270 shiploads are said to have been taken 
 to form the Campo Santo at Rome, and seven 
 shiploads to Pisa for a like purpose. Schick cal- 
 culates the accumulation in it of bones and small 
 stones at 10 to 15 ft. deep. A. HENDERSON. 
 
 AKKOS (Acxds, A; ‘Ax8ds, B; AV Accoz), 1 Es 
 5° = HAKKOZ (wh. see). ; 
 
 AKKUB (1:py).—1. A son of Elioenai (1 Ch 3%). 
 2. A Levite, one of the porters at the E. gate of 
 the temple, the eponym of a family that returned 
 from the Exile (1 Ch 9", Ezr 2%, Neh 7% 1119 12%), 
 called in 1 Es 5% Dacubi. 3. The name of a family 
 of Nethinim (Ezr 2”), called in 1 Es 5°° Acud. 4, 
 A Levite who helped to expound the law (Neh 8’). 
 LXX omits. Called in 1 Es 9* Jacubus. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AKRABBIM (o'2ypy nbyn), Nu 344, Jg 1°%, Less 
 correctly Acrabbim Jos 15° AV, ‘The Scorpion 
 Pass.’—The name given to an ascent on the south 
 side of the Dead Sea, a very barren region. See 
 DEAD SEA. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 AKRABATTINE (’AxcpaSarrlyn) in Idumea (1 Mac 
 5°, AV Arabattine).—The region near Akrabbim. 
 
 ALABASTER. 
 ALAMOTH, Ps 46 (title), 1 Ch 15%.—See PSALMS. 
 
 ALBEIT.—Albeit is a contraction for ‘all be it,’ 
 and means ‘al(1) though it be.’ Properly it should 
 be, and sometimes is, followed by ‘that’ ; but when 
 regarded as a single word (=although), ‘that’ is 
 omitted. It occurs only in Ezk 13’ ‘a. I have 
 
 See Box, MINERALS. 
 
 /not spoken,’ and Philem?® ‘a. I do not say to 
 
 thee’ (RV ‘that I say not unto thee’); but is more 
 freq. in Apoer., Wis 119 Sus! 55 1 Mac 129 15% 
 2 Mac 47, J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ALCIMUS (o'75x ‘God sets up,’ grecised into 
 *A\xipuos, ‘valiant,’ and abbreviated into o°p?, whence 
 "Tdxecuos, Jos. Ant. XII. ix. 5, and "Idktwos, 1b. XX. 
 x. 3) was the son (Baba bathra i. 33), or more pro- 
 bably the sister’s son (Midrash rabba 65 et al.), of 
 Jose ben-Joeser, the famous pupil of Antigonus of 
 Socho. He was a native of Zeruboth, of Aaronic 
 descent, but a leader of the Syrian and Hellenizin 
 party. By Antiochus Eupator he was nominate 
 to the high priesthood (B.C. 162), but was unable 
 to exercise its functions on account of the in- 
 fluence in Jerus. of Judas Maccabeeus. Retiring to 
 Antioch, he gathered around him ‘the lawless and 
 wegouly men of Israel’ (1 Mac 7°), De which is 
 probably meant such members of the Hellenizing 
 party as had been driven from Jerus. by the 
 successes of Judas. As soon as Demetrius Soter 
 had established himself at Antioch, the Perey of A. 
 charged Judas with treason, and secured the king’s 
 favour for themselves. Demetrius was persuaded 
 to renominate A. to the high priesthood, and to 
 send an army under Bacchides, governor of 
 Mesopotamia, with orders to install A. and to 
 
 unish the Maccabees. The march of Bacchides 
 
 oes not appear to have been opposed; and at 
 Jerus. it was found that many of the Hasidim 
 were ready to support A., ostensibly because of his 
 priestly descent, but really perhaps because of their 
 suspicion of the dynastic designs of Judas. Sixty 
 of their leaders, amongst whom is said (Midrash 
 
 
 
60 ALEMA 
 
 ALEXANDER ITIL 
 
 
 
 rabba) to have been Jose ben-Joeser himself, were, 
 however, soon after put to death together, by the 
 order of the joint representatives of the Syrian 
 king ; and on the part of Bacchides further cruelties 
 followed. The efiect was to reduce the people toa 
 condition of sullen submission; and Bacchides 
 returned to Antioch, leaving a sufficient force to 
 maintain A. in his priestly and vice-regal dignity. 
 For a very short time the support of the Syrian 
 troops enabled him to carry out his Hellenizing 
 policy. Buta reaction soon took place in favour 
 of the party of Judas, who forsook the retirement 
 in which he had remained during the presence of 
 Bacchides in the country, and made himself master 
 of all the outlying districts. A. went in person to 
 the king, and by means of large presents secured 
 the despatch of a second force under Nicanor, who 
 was appointed to the governorship of Judea. 
 Nicanor at first formed an alliance, and apparently 
 an intimate friendship, with Judas. But A., dis- 
 pleased at the neglect to install him in his office, 
 returned again to Demetrius, who sent strict orders 
 to Nicanor to seize Judas and bring him, at once 
 to Antioch. Judas managed to escape from an 
 attempt to overcome him by treachery; and the 
 two armies met at Adasa, near Bethhoron, on the 
 13th of Adar (March, B.c. 161). Nicanor fell in 
 the battle, and the Syrian army was almost 
 annihilated. Another army was collected by 
 Demetrius, and sent into Judea under the com- 
 mand of Bacchides. Judas was defeated and slain 
 at the battle of Eleasa, and Bacchides proceeded to 
 occupy Jerus. This time Bacchides remained in 
 the country, and effectually protected A., who was 
 at last able to discharge without hindrance his high 
 priestly duties. His chief object appears to have 
 been to abolish the separation of Jew from Greek. 
 With that view he commanded the destruction of 
 ‘the wall of the inner court of the sanctuary,’ and 
 also of ‘the works of the prophets.’ The former 
 has been identified with the Soreg, or low wooden 
 breastwork before the steps leading between the 
 courts’ but the allusion seems to be rather to the 
 wall itself, marking the limits beyond which 
 Gentiles and the unclean were not allowed to pass. 
 This was one of the separatist characteristics of the 
 temple, ascribed in tradition sometimes to Haggai 
 and Zechariah, sometimes to the members of the 
 Great Synagogue. But before the destruction was 
 completed, A. died (B.C. 160) of paralysis. Pss 74. 
 79. 80 have been interpreted as reflecting the senti- 
 ments of pious Jews during his priesthood. But 
 the best authority for the period is 1 Mac 75-5 91-57, 
 though cautious use may be made also of 2 Mac 
 14-27, and Jos, Ané. XII. ix. 5, XII. x. 
 R. W. Moss. 
 
 ALEMA (ey ’Addpos A, ’Adéuors 8), 1 Mac 577,—A 
 
 city in Gilead. The site is unknown. 
 
 ALEMETH (n>by).—4. A son of Becher the 
 Benjamite (1 Ch 78, AV Alameth). 2. A descendant 
 of Saul (1 Ch 8°*8 94), 
 
 ALEPH (x).—First letter of Heb. Alphabet. 
 See ALPHABET, PSALMS, and A. 
 
 ALEXANDER (’Adé£avdpos),—The name occurs 
 five times in NT, and apparently belongs to as 
 many distinct persons. 
 
 4. Mk 152. <A son of Stmon of Cyrene, and 
 brother of RuFus (see these names). <A. and 
 Rufus are evidently expected to be familiar names 
 4 the readers. Very possibly they were Christian 
 
 ews. 
 
 2. Ac 48, ‘Annas the high priest was there, and 
 Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many 
 as were of the kindred of the high priest’ (RV). 
 Of this A. nothing further is known. The sug- 
 
 gestion of Baronius, Pearson, and Lightfoot, that 
 he was the well-known Alabarch (on this title see 
 Schiirer, HJ/P 11. ii. 280) of Alexandria and brother 
 of Philo (Jos. Ant. Xvi. viii. 1, cf. xIxX. v. 1), 
 ‘scarcely needs serious discussion’ (Edersheim), 
 Philo was of high and wealthy birth (Jos. XxX. v. 2), 
 but Jerome’s statement (de Viris Illustr. xi.) that 
 he was ‘de genere sacerdotum’ is unsupported by 
 ae evidence. 
 
 - Ac 19%, ‘And some of the multitude in- 
 structed A., the Jews putting him forward. And 
 A. beckoned with the hand, and would have made 
 a defence unto the people. But when they per- 
 ceived that he was a Jew’... ete. etc. (iV). 
 The Jews were a natural and usual object of 
 the religious animosity (cf. lepdovdo v.*7, and Ro Paes 
 which on this occasion they had done nothing to 
 provoke. A. is put forward by his co-religionists to 
 clear them of complicity with St. Paul, but the en- 
 raged mob will give no Jew ahearing. The absence 
 of any 71s suggests (cf. v.®) that A. was well known at 
 Ephesus ; he may even have been one of the épyarat 
 or rexvira of v.%, and thus identifiable with No. 5; 
 but this, although it is stated (by Ewald, apud 
 Nésgen, in loc.) that Jews were sometimes engaged 
 in forbidden trades, lacks evidence. 
 
 4, 1 Ti 1-2, Mentioned with HyYMENAEUS (cf. 
 2 Ti 2”) as one of the unconscientious teachers who 
 had ‘made shipwreck concerning the faith.’ St. 
 Paul ‘delivered them unto Satan’ (cf. 1 Co 5°, and 
 see SATAN). There is no strong reason to identify 
 this A. with No. 5. 
 
 §. 2Ti4™, This A. (1) was a smith (xadxeds). 
 The word originally meant a worker in copper ;_ but 
 as other metals came to be more commonly worked, 
 it became applicable (Lid. and S. s.v.) to workers 
 in any metal, esp. iron (Gn 4% LXX, see also 
 TRADES). This makes possible, but by no means 
 proves, the identity of A. with No. 3, 7f the latter 
 could be shown to be one of the craftsmen of Demet- 
 Trius. (2) A. had ‘done’ (évedelZaro) St. Paul many 
 evils; in particular he had greatly withstood (Alar 
 dvréorn, cf. Ac 13°) his words. (3) Timothy is 
 cautioned against a like experience. This last point 
 locates A. with Timothy at Ephesus, and makes it 
 probable that (2) also refers to something that had 
 taken place when St. Paul was last there (1 Ti 1%). 
 If (2) refers to heretical teaching, our present A. 
 might be identified with No. 4. But (2) is equally 
 compatible with Jewish hostility ; and if so, we 
 might combine (1) and (2) with the object of identi- 
 fying him with No. 3. In any case No. 5 is the 
 only possible link between 3 and 4%. For specimens 
 of the many possible conjectures on the whole sub- 
 ject, see the comm. in doc. and Holtzmann, Pastor- 
 albriefe, p. 255 sq. If, with many critics, we regard 
 the Epistles to Timothy as non-Pauline, we might 
 follow the last-named writer in regarding Ac 19 
 as the basis of the notice in 2 Ti; but in reality 
 the two passages have nothing in common except 
 the name; the malicious personal antagonism 
 which is so prominent here is unhinted at there. 
 
 A. ROBERTSON. 
 
 ALEXANDER III. (’Adé¢Eavdpos, ‘defender of 
 men’), known as the Great, was the son of Philip u1., 
 king of Macedonia, and of Olympias, a Molossian 
 princess, and was born at Pella, B.c. 356. He 
 succeeded his father in B.C. 336, and two years later 
 set out on his eastern expedition. The battles of 
 the Granicus (B.C. 334) and of Issus (B.C. 333) made 
 him master of S.W. Asia. Egypt was next subdued, 
 and Alexandria founded in B.C. 331. The discon- 
 tent of his army thwarted his designs upon India, 
 and in B.C. 323 he died at Babylon. 
 
 For Alexander’s connexion with the Jews, the 
 principal authority is Jos. Anf. IX. viii. 3-6. The 
 story runs that, whilst he was besieging Tyre, A. 
 sent orders to the Jews to transfer their allegiance 
 

 
 ALEXANDER 
 
 ALEXANDRIA 61 
 
 
 
 to him, and to supply him with provisions and 
 auxiliaries. The high priest refused on the ground 
 of his oath of fidelity to Darius. A. destroyed 
 Tyre, took Gaza (B.c. 332) after a two months’ 
 siege (Diodor. xvii. 8; Arrian, ii. 26, 27), and 
 marched against Jerus. The high priest Jaddua 
 (Neh 12"), or Simon the Just (Yoma 69), was 
 taught in a dream what to do, and led out the 
 priests and the ‘ae to meet him. At Sapha 
 (723 ‘he watched’; known also as Scopus, Jos. 
 Waurs, V. ii. 3, an eminence near Jerus. whence city 
 and temple were all visible) the priest and the 
 king met. A. bowed before the divine name on 
 the priest’s tiara, and to the protestations of 
 Parmenio replied that in a dream at Dium he 
 had seen such a figure as Jaddua’s, and had 
 been promised success and guidance on the way. 
 Escorted by the priests, he entered Jerus., sacri- 
 ficed in the temple under the direction of the high 
 priest, and, when shown the Book of Dan., inter- 
 preted of himself such passages as 8”! and 11%. 
 efore leaving the city he guaranteed to the Jews 
 in all his dominions protection in the usages of 
 their fathers, and immunity from taxation in their 
 sabbatical years. How much of this story is legend- 
 ary, it is impossible to decide. It is found in the 
 Talmud as well as in Josephus. The silence of the 
 classical historians (Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, and 
 
 the Epitomists) is inconclusive, as they are gener- | 
 
 ally silent concerning matters relating to the Jews. 
 The position and the suspected attitude of Jerus. 
 make a visit on the part of A. probable in view of 
 his contemplated expedition against Egypt. And 
 though imagination has clearly been at work with 
 the details of the narrative, the balance of proba- 
 bility is in favour of its substantial historicity. 
 
 By A. Palestine was included in the province of 
 Cele - Syria, which extended from Lebanon to 
 Esypt. The governor was Andromachus, who chose 
 as his residence the town of Samaria, because of its 
 central position, and possibly also of ‘the amenities 
 of theneighbourhood. Against him the Samaritans 
 rose in revolt, prompted by jealousy of the privi- 
 leged Jews, by resentment at the establishment 
 amongst them of the seat of government, or by the 
 opportunity afforded by the absence in Egypt of 
 such of their Beal eg as were most favourably 
 disposed towards A. (Jos. Ant. XI. viii. 6). Setting 
 fire to the house of Andromachus, they burnt him 
 alive. The news reached A. just after he had 
 received the submission of Egypt; and, hastening 
 back, he put to death the leaders of the revolt 
 (Curt. iv. 8. 10), and removed the rest of the people 
 from their city, planting a colony of Macedonians 
 in their stead. From that time Shechem, at the 
 foot of Mt. Gerizim, became the religious centre 
 of the Samaritans. Coins of A. have been found 
 coined at Ashkelon and Acco (Ptolemais), and also, 
 if Miiller’s identifications are correct, at Cesarea, 
 Scythopolis, and Rabbah (Miiller, Numismatique 
 @ Alexandre, 303-309); but it cannot be inferred 
 with confidence that these towns were made by him 
 sub-capitals of districts, as such coins were issued 
 by the Diadochoi long after the death of A. Not 
 only were large numbers of the Samaritans settled 
 by ae in the Thebais (Jos. Anf. XI. viil. 6), and of 
 Jews in Alexandria (ib. XIX. v. 2; Apion. ii. 4) and 
 in the Egyp. villages (see the evidence of papyri in 
 Mahaffy, Ptolemies, 86, n.), but many of the latter 
 appear to have willingly enrolled themselves in his 
 army. When he was rebuilding the temple of Bel 
 in Rbyion, his soldiers were ordered to assist in 
 removing the rubbish. The Jews are said to have 
 refused on the grounds that any dealing with 
 idolatry was forbidden them, and that their Scrip- 
 tures predicted the permanency of the destruction 
 of the temple of Bal. They were threatened and 
 punished in vain. Appealing to A., they were 
 
 exempted from the task, in virtue of the original 
 stipulation that they ‘should continue under the 
 laws of their fathers.’ The incident again is of 
 doubtful authenticity ; but it is in agreement with 
 all the traditions of the kindly attitude of A. 
 towards the Jews. 
 
 In the Biblical books A. is expressly mentioned 
 only in 1 Mac 11-7 62, though several passages in 
 Dan. are frequently interpreted as alluding to him. 
 
 LITERATURE.—The sources of A.’s history are examined in 
 Freeman, Hist. Essays, 2nd ser. Ess. 5, to which add Pauly, 
 RE, art. ‘ Alexander,’ and Mahaffy, Ptolemies, where in § 56 
 evidence is adduced in favour of the novel suggestion, that A.’s 
 friendship to the Jews was due to his desire to use them asa 
 kind of intelligence department to his army. For the rabbinical 
 traditions see Derenbourg, Hist. de la Pal. i. 41 ff.; Hamburger, 
 RE ii. 44-47, Droysen, Gesch, Alex. des Grossen (Hamburg, 1837), 
 and Gesch. des Hellenismus (Gotha, 1877) are of special value, 
 
 R. W. Moss. 
 
 ALEXANDER BALAS was either a natural son 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes (Jos. Ant. XII. ii. 1; Liv. 
 Epit. 50; Strabo, xiii.), or a lad of Smyrna who 
 claimed such descent (Justin, xxxv. 1; Appian, 
 Syr. 67). In the latter (more likely) case, Balas was 
 his proper name, and its etymology is unknown; 
 in ‘te former case the name may be connected 
 with the Aram. x73 ‘lord.’ He also assumed his 
 reputed father’s title of Epiphanes (1 Mac 101). 
 He was set up as a pretender to the throne of 
 Demetrius Soter, whose despotism had alienated 
 his subjects and offended his neighbours, by the 
 three allied kings, Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt, 
 Attalus 0. of Pergamum, and Ariarathes Vv. of 
 Cappadocia. The Romans also supported his 
 claims (Polybius, xxxiii. 14. 16), in accordance 
 with their policy of promoting civil strife within 
 kingdoms that might become formidable. He 
 secured the help of Jonathan (B.C. 153) by aomi- 
 nating him high priest, and after some reverses 
 defeated Demetrius, who fell in the battle. Balas 
 thereupon married Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy 
 Philometor (for a fuller account of whose relations 
 with Balas see Mahaffy, Emp. of Ptolemies, §§ 208- 
 212), and appointed (B.c. 150) Jonathan with 
 special honours (Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 2) crparyyés and 
 peptddpxns, military and civil governor of the pro- 
 vince, although Syrian commandants were retained 
 in several of the principal fortresses. His kingdom 
 now established, Balas proved himself an incapable 
 ruler, negligent of State affairs, and given up to 
 self-indulgence (Miller, Fragm. Hist. Grec. ii, 
 
 ref, xvi, n. 19; Liv. Hpit. 50; Justin. xxxv. 2). 
 ene eee Nicator, son of Dem. Soter, invaded 
 the country in B.C. 147, and was supported by 
 Apollonius, governor of Ceele-Syria. But Jonathan 
 defeated and slew Apollonius, and.was rewarded 
 on the part of Balas by the gift of Ekron. Balas, 
 however, was deserted by his own soldiers and by 
 the people of Antioch. Ptolemy, his father-in-law, 
 entered Syria on the plea that Balas was plotting 
 against him, and took up the cause of Demetrius, 
 to whom he transferred hie daughter Cleopatra in 
 marriage. Balas hastened from Cilicia, where he 
 had been trying to quell a revolt, but was defeated 
 by Ptolemy. He was either slain (B.C. 146) in the 
 battle (Euseb. Chron. Arm. i. 349), or he Hed to 
 Abz, in Arabia, where he was assassinated (Miiller, 
 l.c.; 1 Mac 117). The relation of the Jews to 
 Balas, and the consistency of their alliance, appear 
 in 1 Mac 10%, RV ‘They were well pleased with 
 Alexander, because he was the first that spake 
 words of peace unto them, and they were con- 
 federate with him always.’ His necessities and 
 his unconcern made Judea almost autonomous. 
 
 Alexander Epiphanes, 1 Mac 10'=A. Balas. 
 
 R. W. Moss. 
 ALEXANDRIA (4 ’Adcedvdpea), the Hellenic 
 capital of Egypt, was founded by Alexander the 
 Great, B.C. 332. 
 
 Under the early Ptolemies it 
 
——— 
 
 62 ALEXANDRIA 
 
 ALEXANDRIA 
 
 
 
 rose to importance, and became the emporium of 
 the commerce of the East and of the West. 
 Oblong in shape and rounded at the extremities,— 
 Strabo compared it to the chlamys or cloak of the 
 Macedonian cavalry,—it occupied the narrow strip 
 of land which lay between the sea and the Lake 
 Mareotis. An artificial mole connected it with 
 the island of Pharos, and on either side of the 
 mole were commodious harbours which received 
 the ships of Europe and Asia. The Lake Mareotis, 
 which was joined by a canal to the Canopic mouth 
 of the Nile, brought to it the commerce of the East. 
 The beauty of the city was proverbial. One-third 
 of its extent was occupied with royal palaces and 
 open public grounds; and it had a system of wide 
 regular streets with noble colonnades. Its popula- 
 tion, which amounted to about 800,000 souls in its 
 flourishing period, consisted chiefly of Egyptians, 
 Greeks, and Jews, who occupied separate quarters. 
 The Regio Judorum, which lay in the north-eastern 
 portion of the city, was surrounded by walls. A 
 special governor, called the Alabarch, presided over 
 it, and the Jews were permitted to live according 
 to their own laws. The Jews—the mercenary race 
 as they were called—were not popular with their 
 fellow-citizens, but they were protected by the 
 rulers, Greek and Roman, who recognised the value 
 of their services to the commercial prosperity of 
 the city. When A. became part at the Roman 
 Empire, B.c. 30, and a granary of Rome, the im- 
 
 ortant corn trade with Italy fell into the hands of 
 
 ewish merchants. 
 
 The Lagide were munificent patrons of learning, 
 and it was their ambition to make their capital 
 a place of intellectual renown. They collected 
 within its walls the largest library of antiquity, 
 
 art of which was housed in the temple of Serapis 
 in the Egyptian quarter, and another part in the 
 museum which was situated in the Bruchium or 
 Greek quarter. To the museum was attached a 
 staff of professors, who were salaried by the State. 
 It had a banqueting-hall in which the professors 
 dined, corridors for peripatetic lectures, and a 
 theatre for public disputations. The chief subjects 
 of study were grammar, rhetoric, mathematics, 
 astronomy, medicine, and geography. The school 
 of philosophical thought which ultimately arose 
 was eclectic, a patchwork of earlier systems, and 
 it closed its career by dethroning philosophy in 
 favour of religious tradition. 
 
 For the student of Christian theology, A. 
 occupies an important place in the history of 
 religious development as the cradle of a school of 
 thought in which the earliest attempt was made 
 to bring the teaching of the OT into relation 
 with Hellenic ideas. It was in A. that the Heb. 
 Scriptures were first translated into Greek. 
 This translation, although it afterwards became 
 ‘the first apostle to the nations,’ was not made 
 with a missionary purpose, being intended to afford 
 a knowledge of the law to the numerous Jews who 
 had grown up in ignorance of the Heb. language. 
 But having opened up their treasures to the curious 
 Greeks, it became necessary for the Jews to explain 
 andto defend them. It was the claim of the Jew 
 thatthe Scriptures are the sole source of a true 
 knowledge of God and of human duty; but when 
 he became familiar with Greek literature, it was 
 impossible to deny that there also were found noble 
 doctrines and excellent. counsels. The Alex- 
 andrian Jew offered an Apologia for his exclusive 
 claim, which was repeated by the Christian Fathers, 
 lived through the entire Middle Ages, and almost 
 to our own time. Plato and Pythagoras, he said, 
 and even Homer, borrowed all their wisdom from 
 the OT Scriptures. Aristobulus, a Jewish courtier, 
 who lived about the middle of the second century 
 B.C., writes: ‘Plato took our legislation as his 
 
 model, and it is certain that he knew the 
 whole of it; the same is true of Pythagoras.’ 
 In order to gain venerated authority for this 
 assertion, the Jews composed verses in the name of 
 the mystic poets of antiquity, in praise of Moses 
 and of Judaism. In his commentary on the 
 Pentateuch, Aristobulus introduces Orpheus, 
 and makes him say that he cannot reveal the 
 God whom clouds conceal; that the water-born 
 Moses alone of mortals received knowledge from 
 on high on two tables. Another writer of Egypt 
 who was a contemporary of Aristobulus, the author 
 of the third of the Sibylline Books, introduces the 
 Sibyl of Cumze, who speaks of the Jews as a nation 
 appointed by God to be the guide of all mortals ; 
 and she offers the coming Messianic salvation tc 
 all nations if they will turn from their idols to 
 serve the living God. 
 
 Having thus established to their own satisfaction 
 that Gentile wisdom comes from the Scriptures, the 
 Jews next proceeded to place it there by the help of 
 the magic wand of allegorical interpretation. us 
 interpreted, the narratives of Scripture easily 
 yielded up Platonic and Stoic dogmas. The 
 Jewish Alexandrian philosophy, which began with 
 Aristobulus and culminated in Philo, was an 
 elaborate attempt to clothe Greek philosophical 
 ideas in Scripture language, and thus to confer 
 upon them the authority of divine revelation. It 
 was to Platonism and Stoicism that the Jewish 
 scholars most naturally turned; for in the lofty 
 monotheism of the former, and in the moral 
 earnestness of the latter, they seemed to hear 
 echoes of Isaiah and Solomon. It was through the 
 influence of Platonic and Stoic conceptions that the 
 Sophia and the Logos assumed such importance in 
 the Jewish Alexandrian philosophy. In the Heb. 
 Scriptures they had been personified, but they were 
 now hypostatized, and became intermediaries be- 
 tween the creature and the Most High God. 
 
 The Jewish philosophy of A., which was not 
 confined to A., but spread through the whole of 
 the Greek-speaking Diaspora, exercised a certain 
 influence upon the Greeks, who were drawn 
 towards Judaism by its accent of certainty about 
 God, which was always wanting even in the loftiest 
 theology of their own philosophers. Its main 
 influence, however, lay in its Hellenizing of the 
 Jews, who were enabled to appropriate Hellenic 
 views of life without conscious apostasy from 
 Judaism. The extent of the influence of Jewish 
 Alexandrian philosophy on the writers of the NT 
 has been variously estimated. There are striking 
 similarities between the terminology and some- 
 times between the thoughts of St. Paul and of 
 the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and those 
 of Philo. But the similarities are probably due to 
 their common knowledge of the current teaching 
 of the Greek-speaking synagogue. On the other 
 hand, the direct practical spirit of the NT writers 
 offers a strong contrast to the dreamy intel- 
 lectualism of Philo’s allegories. 
 
 The name of the city of Alexandria does not 
 occur inthe NT. Mention is made of a synagogue 
 of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem (Ac 6°). Apollos 
 is described as an ‘ Alexandrian by race’ (Ac 18%). 
 St. Paul sailed on two occasions in Alexandrian 
 ships, which probably belonged to the corn trade 
 (Ac 278 2814), 
 
 It is remarkable that neither St. Paul nor his 
 companions visited A., in some respects the most 
 promising missionary field in the world. As regards 
 St. Paul, to hazard a conjecture, he may have 
 been deterred by what occurred in Corinth (1 Co 
 112), where Apollos followed him, and by his preach- 
 ing produced an unhappy division without imtend- 
 ing it. St. Paul may have felt that his simple pre- 
 sentation of Christ crucified would be unwelcome 
 
 
 
 -_— 
 
_——_— =) = 
 
 _——— =e? Foe 
 
 ALGUM TREES 
 
 
 
 ALL 63 
 
 
 
 among hearers accustomed to the word of wisdom 
 in trope and allegory. If we were to accept the 
 view of those critics who hold that Apollos wrote 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews to the Jewish Chris- 
 tians of A., it would be easy to explain St. Paul’s 
 conduct, as it would have been contrary to his 
 custom to visit a Church which a fellow-labourer 
 had already made his own (2 Co 10"). 
 
 According to Eusebius (#.Z. ii. 16), St. Mark was 
 the first who was sent to Egypt, where he preached 
 the gospel which he had written, and established 
 churches in A. ‘The multitude of believers,’ 
 he adds, ‘both men and women, lived lives of the 
 most extreme and philosophical asceticism.’ The 
 statement of Eusebius about St. Mark, which he 
 introduces with the formula ‘they say,’ and con- 
 nects with fanciful legends, has clearly no 
 authority. His description, however, of the char- 
 acter of the early Alexandrian Church is probably 
 correct. During the second and third centuries of 
 our era Alexandria was the intellectual capital of 
 Christendom. In the Alexandrian heretics Basi- 
 lides and Valentinus, and in the Church Fathers 
 Clement and Origen, we observe how the spirit of 
 Jewish Alexandrian philosophy passed into Chris- 
 tianity. See PuimosorpHy, RELIGION. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Strabo, Geog. xvii. ; Eusebius, Prepar, Evang. 
 13; Patr. Gr. xxi.; Or. Syb. iii. ; Dahne, Ges. Darstell. d. Jud.- 
 Alex. Rel.-Philos. ; Pauly-Wissowa, RH; Drummond, Philo- 
 Judeus ; Hausrath, Times of Apostles. 
 
 J. GIBB. 
 
 ALGUM TREES, ALMUG TREES (obs ’algum- 
 mim, 2 Ch 28 911; panox ‘almuggim, 1 K 10": ¥, 
 LXX. f0d\a revewa; Vulg. ligna thyina, ligna 
 pinea).—Celsius (Hierobot. i. 173) states that some 
 doubted the identity of the algum and the almug. 
 This doubt, however, is not justified by the trans- 
 position of the letters in the two names. Such 
 transposition is extremely common in Heb. proper 
 names (e.g. Rehum, om, Neh 12, is called in v.¥ 
 of the same chapter Harim, oy). We are told that 
 ome trees were brought from Ophir (2 Ch 9), 
 
 ug trees were also brought from Ophir (1 K 
 10"). These passages are perfectly parallel, and 
 plainly refer to the same tree. 
 
 But, in 2 Ch 2°, Solomon instructs Hiram to 
 send ‘cedar trees, fir trees, and aleum trees (AVm 
 eee) out of Lebanon.’ Did the term algum 
 in Lebanon signify one tree and in Ophir another? 
 This is possible. Cedar, in Eng., is applied to 
 various species of Cupressus, Abies, Juniperus, 
 and Lariz, as well as to Cedrus Libani. Fir, in 
 Eng., is applied to several species of Abies, and 
 the Scotch fir is Pinus sylvestris, L. Spruce is 
 used in Europe for Abies excelsa, L., and in the 
 United States for three species of Abies: A. Cana- 
 densis, Mich., A. alba, Mich., and A. nigra, Poir. 
 Instances of this might easily be multiplied. If 
 we accept this supposition, the passage is amply 
 explained. But it affords no clue to the name of 
 the tree growing in Lebanon. If, on the other 
 hand, the tree which Solomon requested Hiram to 
 send was the same as that* brought from Ophir, 
 was Lebanon a station for it? This is also possible. 
 We do not know where Ophir was, nor what the 
 tree was. It would be quite rash to say that it 
 could not grow in both localities. The cedar, 
 mentioned in the same clause, grows in Lebanon, 
 Amanus, Taurus, the Himalayas, and the Atlas. 
 It is also uncertain what fir is alluded to in the 
 passage. There are firs in Lebanon, and also in 
 some, at least, of the localities proposed for Ophir. 
 It is possible that the unknown tree had a range 
 which included Lebanon and Ophir. 
 
 The conditions for any candidate for the aleum 
 or almug tree, imported from Ophir, are—(1) that 
 
 it should be a wood of sufficient value to make its 
 importation from so distant a country as Ovhir, be 
 
 it Arabia, India, or the East Coast of Africa, pro- 
 fitable; (2) that it should be suitable for ni>pp 
 terraces (m. highways or stairs, more properly a 
 staircase, 2 Ch 9"), and rayon pillars (m. a prop or 
 rails, more properly balustrade, 1 K 10%), and for 
 harps and psalteries. Fifteen different candidates 
 have been proposed, among them thyine wood, 
 deodar, fir, bukm (Cesalpina Sappan). The 
 majority of scholars, following the opinion of 
 certain Rabbis, incline to the red sandal wood 
 (Pterocarpus Santalina, L.), a native of Coroman- 
 del and Ceylon. There is not, however, a particle 
 of direct evidence in its favour. Against it is the 
 fact that it occurs now in commerce only in small 
 billets, unsuitable for staircases, balustrades, or 
 even the construction of harps and psalteries. It 
 is, however, possible that larger sticks might have 
 been cut in ancient times. 
 
 In the uncertainty which must ever remain as to 
 the identity of the tree intended, and with the 
 probability that a considerable number of trees 
 which grew in Lebanon are now extinct there 
 owing to denudation of forests, and the possibility 
 that the Lebanon algum may have been a different 
 tree with the same name, it is needless to suggest 
 an interpolation of the passage ‘out of Lebanon” 
 (2 Ch 28), G. E. Post. 
 
 ALIAH (nby).—A ‘duke’ of Edom, 1 Ch 1)= 
 Alvah, Gn 36”, 
 
 ALIAN (roy). A descendant of Esau, 1 Ch 1“= 
 Alvan, Gn 36”, 
 
 ALIEN.—See FOREIGNER, 
 
 ALL.—There are few words in the Eng. Bible 
 the precise meaning of which is so often missed as 
 the word ‘all.’ The foll. examples need special 
 attention. 1. When joined to a pers. pron. all 
 usually follows the pron. in mod. usage, in early 
 Eng. it often precedes it. Is 53°‘ All we like sheep 
 have gone astray’; but Is 64° ‘ We all do fade as a 
 leaf.’ 2. Al’ stands for ‘all people’ in 1 Ti 4% 
 ‘that thy profiting may appear to all.’ 3. Follow- 
 ing the Ce (as), all is eed with a freedom which 
 is denied to it in mod. Eng. In He 7’, ‘without 
 all contradiction,’ all=any whatever. Cf. Shaks. 
 Macbeth, ILI. ii. 11— 
 
 ‘Things without all remedy 
 Should be without regard.’ 
 In Col 1 ‘unto al! pleasing’ is a literal tr. of 
 the Gr., and means ‘in order to please (God) in 
 every way.’ Similarly ad/ is used for ‘every’ in 
 Dt 228 ‘In like manner shalt thou do. . . with all 
 (RV ‘every ’) lost thing of thy brother’s’; Rev 18” 
 ‘all manner of vessels of ivory,’ and even without 
 the word ‘manner’ in the same verse, ‘all thyine 
 wood.’ 4, Ali means ‘altogether’ in 1 K 14” ‘till 
 it be all gone’; Nah 3! ‘ Woe to the bloody city ! 
 it is all full of lies.’ Cf. Caxton (1483) ‘The lady 
 wente oute of her wytte and was al demonyak.’ 
 This is the meaning of ‘all’ in ‘ All hail,’ Mt 28°, 
 literally, ‘ be altogether whole, or in health.’ 5, Ad/ 
 appears in some interesting phrases. All along: 
 1S 28 ‘Then Saul fell straightway all along on 
 the earth’ (RV ‘his full length upon the earth’) ; 
 Jer 41° ‘weeping all along as he went,’ 1.e. 
 throughout the whole way he went; cf. ‘I knew 
 that all along,’ i.e. throughout the whole time. 
 All in all: 1 Co 15% ‘that God may be all in 
 all’ (Gr. rdvra év rao, all things in all [persons 
 and] things). Cf. Sir 4377 ‘He (God) is all’ (7d wav 
 éorw aitds). Different is Shaks. (Ham. I. ii. 198) 
 ‘Take him for all in all, 
 I shall not look upon his like again,’ 
 where all in all is ‘altogether.’ All one: 1 Co 11° 
 ‘that is even all one (RV ‘one and the same 
 
 
 
ALLAMMELECH 
 
 thing’) as if she were shaven’; Job 9” RVj‘It is 
 all one’ (Heb. x'a-nny), t.e. it is a matter of indiffer- 
 ence. All the whole occurs in Ps 96! Pr. Bk. 
 ‘Sing unto the Lorp, all the whole earth’ (AV 
 and RV ‘all the earth’). This redundancy is 
 found in various forms in old Eng., as ‘the whole 
 all,’ ‘the all whole,’ ‘all and whole.’ For all: 
 Jn 21" ‘for all (=notwithstanding) there were so 
 many.’ Cf. Tindale’s tr. of Ac 16% ‘for all that 
 we are Romans.’ Once for all: He 10” (Gr. 
 é¢dmat); this is the only occurrence in AV, and it 
 
 ives for all in ital.; but RV, which omits the 
 italics here, gives the same tr. of this adv. in He 
 777 912, Jude °, and in marg. of Ro 6. In 1 Co 15° 
 it is tr. ‘at once’ in both VSS. All to brake: Jg 
 953 «And a certain woman cast a piece of a mill- 
 stone upon Abimelech’s head, and all to brake 
 (RV ‘and brake’) his skull.’ This is the most 
 interesting of those phrases in which the word ‘all’ 
 is found. The meaning is not, ‘and all in order to 
 break his skull’; the verb is in the past tense. 
 The ‘to’ is not the sign of the infin., it goes with 
 the verb, like the Ger. zer, to signify asunder, or 
 in pieces. So we find to-burst, to-cut, to-rend, to- 
 rive, etc. ‘ All’ was prefixed to this emphatic verb 
 to give it greater emphasis. Hence ‘all to-brake’ 
 means ‘altogether broke in pieces.’ Cf. Tindale’s 
 tr. of Mt 7° ‘lest they tread them under their feet, 
 and the other turn again, and all to rent you.’ Sir 
 T. More says (Works, 1557, p. 1224) ‘She fel in 
 hand with hym . . . and all to rated him.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ALLAMMELECH (35»$x).—Perhaps ‘ King’s oak,’ 
 a town of Asher probably near Acco (Jos 198). The 
 site is not known. 
 
 ALLAR (B’A)\dp, A ’AX\dp, AV Aalar), 1 Es 5%, 
 —One of the leaders of those Jews who could not 
 show their pedigree as Isr. at the return from 
 captivity under Zerubbabel. The name seems to 
 correspond to Immer in Ezr 2°, Neh 7%, one of the 
 places from which these Jews returned. In 1 Es 
 Cherub, Addan, and Immer appear as ‘ Charaatha- 
 lan leading them and Allar.’ 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ALLAY, not found in AV, is introduced by RV 
 into Ee 104 ‘yielding allayeth (AV ‘pacifieth’) 
 great offences.” The meaning seems to be that a 
 spirit of conciliation puts an end to offences more 
 completely than a strong arm. Cf. Shaks. 2 Henry 
 VI. IV. i. 60, ‘allay this thy abortive pride.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ALLEGE occurs but twice, Wis 18% ‘aire 
 (vropvicas, RV ‘bringing to remembrance’) the oaths 
 and covenants made with the fathers’; and Ac 178 
 ‘Opening and ain that Christ must needs have 
 suffered,’ where it has the old meaning of adducing 
 proofs (rapar.Oéuevos), like Lat. allegare, not the 
 mod. sense of asserting. Allegiance, not in AV, is 
 given in RV at1 Ch 12” as tr. of ny>n ‘ Kept their 
 a. to (AV ‘Kept the ward of’) the house of Saul.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ALLEGORY.—i. History or THE WorD.— 
 The substantive d\\nyopla, with its verb dAdryopetw, 
 is derived from 4)Xo, something else, and dyopetw, 
 I speak; and 1s defined by Heraclitus (Heraclides ?) 
 —probably of the first century A.D.—as follows: 
 GdAa pev ayopetwv rpdwos Erepa de Gr déyer onualvwy 
 éxwvipws &ddAnyopla Kadetrac: ‘The mode of speech 
 which says other things (than the mere letter) and 
 hints at different things from what it expresses, 
 is called appropriately allegory’ (c. 5). Neither 
 substantive nor verb is found in the LXX; and 
 the verb alone, and that only once (Gal 4%), occurs 
 in the NT. The word, whether substantive or 
 verb, appears to be altogether late Greek. Plutarch 
 (flourished 80-120 A.D.) tells us (De Aud. Poet. 19 
 
 ALLEGURLY 
 
 E) that it was the equivalent in his day for the 
 more old-fashioned vrévoa, the deeper sense (or the 
 figure expressing it), which was a special feature 
 in the Stoic philosophy, with its @epamela (treatment, 
 manipulation); and Cicero had not long before 
 introduced a\\nyopla, in its Greek form, in two or 
 three passages in his works (e.g. Orator 27; Ad 
 Attic. ii. 20); .while Philo had freely used sub- 
 stantive and verb early in the first century; and 
 the verb is used in Josephus (Ant. Procem. 4) of 
 some of the writings of Moses. 
 
 li. DISTINCTIVE MEANING.—The provinces of 
 allegory, type, symbol, parable, fable, metaphor, 
 analogy, mystery, may all trench upon one 
 another; but each has its speciality, and the same 
 thing can only receive the different names as it is 
 viewed from the different points. Allegory differs 
 essentially from type in that it is not a premonition 
 of future development, and that there is no neces- 
 sary historical and real correspondence in the main 
 idea of the original to the new application of it; 
 from symbol, in that it is not a lower grade natur- 
 ally shadowing forth a higher; from parable, in 
 that it is not a picture of a single compact truth, 
 but a transparency tkrough which the different 
 details are seen as different truths, and in that it 
 is not necessarily ethical in its aim; from fable, 
 in that its lessons are not confined to the sphere of 
 practical worldly prudence; from metaphor, in 
 that its interpretation is not immediate and 
 obvious, but has to be sought out through the 
 medium of verbal or phenomenal parallels; from 
 analogy, because it is not addressed to the reason 
 so much as to the imagination; and from mystery, 
 in that it does not await a new order of things to 
 be specially manifested and truly discerned. All 
 these tropes may indeed be classed under the 
 allegorical or the figurative, so far as they all 
 point to a sense different from that contained in 
 the mere letter. But, conventionally and in 
 practice, allegory has a sphere of its own. In the 
 non-specific sense, it has to do with the general 
 relations of life in its external resemblances, one 
 thing being mirrored in another according to out- 
 ward appearance, so that the appearance of the 
 one can serve as the figure of the other. In other 
 words, the thing put before the eye or ear repre- 
 sents, not itself, but something else in some way 
 like it. Thus the fish was early used as an allego 
 of Christ ; it was not, strictly speaking, a symbol, 
 or a type, or a parable, or any of the figures above 
 compared, The resemblance was both far-fetched 
 and outward, being evolved from the several letters 
 of the word /x@vs as the initials of "Iycods, Xpiorés, 
 Qcob, Tids, Zwryjp. Of allegory proper, more or less 
 elaborated, we have within the bounds of the 
 sacred books very little. 
 
 In the OT may be 
 instanced the pret: the Vine in the 80th 
 
 Psalm, and in the those of the Door, the 
 Shepherd (Jn 10), and the Vine (Jn 15). In the 
 more confined, the technical and historical sense, it 
 denoted, especially for Alexandrian Greeks and 
 Jews, the system of interpretation by which the 
 most ancient Greek literature, in the one case, and 
 the OT writings (and subsequently the NT), in 
 the other, were assigned their value in proportion 
 as they meant, not what they said, but something 
 else, and could be made the clothing of cosmo- 
 logical, philosophical, moral, or religious ideas. 
 This leads us to the third and final division. 
 
 iii, ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.—The ten- 
 dency to allegorize has its foundations in human 
 nature. Constantly and unconsciously we read 
 into the creations of other men, as, for example, 
 into a painting or a poem, our own thoughts, con- 
 ceptions, and emotions, and are scarcely to be 
 persuaded that they were not the original thoughts, 
 conceptions, and emotions of the creator. Or, 
 
 
 
ALLEGORY 
 
 ALLEGORY 65. 
 
 
 
 again, when any literature has so seeps inwrought 
 itself into the hearts and lives of a people as to have 
 become a sacred and inseparable constituent of 
 their nature, and when time has nevertheless so 
 far changed the current of thought as to make 
 that literature apparently inconsistent with the 
 new idea, or inadequate to express it,—then the 
 choice for the people lies between a ruinous breach 
 with what is, by this time, part and parcel of 
 themselves, and, on the other hand, forcing the 
 old language to be a vehicle for the new thought. 
 Hence the tendency to allegory, which is indigenous 
 to human nature, becomes, in the absence of. his- 
 torical criticism, also inzvitable, except to the 
 indifferent iconoclast, if such there be. Allegory 
 proved the safety-valve for Greek, Jew, and 
 Christian. During and, perhaps, owing to the in- 
 tellectual movement of the fifth century B.c.,—in 
 spite of the severe critical deprecation of Plato, 
 whose mind was set on higher things,—Homer, 
 the ‘Bible of the Greeks,’ was saved for the 
 educated by allegory; with the stories he told of 
 the gods, if he was not allegorical, he was impious, 
 or they were immoral. Hence, from Anaxagoras 
 onwards, the actions of the Homeric gods and 
 heroes are allegories of the forces of nature; and, 
 in Heraclitus (first century A.D.), the ‘story of Ares 
 and Aphrodite and Hepheestus is a picture of iron 
 subdued by fire, and restored to its original hard- 
 ness by Poseidon, that is, by water.’ Or else they 
 are the movements of mental powers and moral 
 virtues ; and so, in Cornutus (also first cent. A.D.), 
 when Odysseus filled his ears that he might be 
 deaf to the song of the Sirens, it is an allegory of 
 the righteous filling their senses and powers of 
 mind with divine words and actions that the 
 passions and pleasures which tempt all men on the 
 sea of life might knock at their doors in vain 
 (Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, /1888, pp. 62, 64). 
 
 But allegorizing was Jewish as well as Greek, and 
 Palestinian as well as Hellenistic. Both sections 
 of Jews used allegory for apologetic purposes, 
 but not with identical aims. The Pal. Jews 
 allegorized the OT, finding a hidden sense in 
 sentences, words, letters, and (in the centuries 
 after Christ) even vowel-points, in order to 
 satisfy their consciences for the non-observance 
 of laws that had become impracticable, or to 
 justify traditional and often trivial increment, or 
 to defend God against apparent inconsistency, or 
 the writers or historieal Cinkadters against impiety 
 or immorality ; or, adap for homiletical pur- 
 poses. Thus Akiba (first and second centuries A.D.) 
 claimed to have saved by allegory the Song of 
 Songs from rejection. Allegory was a consider- 
 able element in the Pal. Haggada (or inter- 
 hala and there were definite canons regu- 
 ating its use. The Hellenistic Jews, whose 
 metropolis of culture was Alexandria, and who, 
 in the neighbourhood of NT times, constituted 
 the majority of Jews, directed their apologetic 
 towards educated Greeks, for philosophical pur- 
 poses, and allegorized the OT to prove that their 
 sacred books were neither barbarous nor immoral 
 nor impious, that their religion had the same 
 rationale as Greek philosophy, and that Moses had 
 been the teacher, or, at all events, the anticipator, 
 of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. 
 The Hellenistic thinkers desired to be Greek philo- 
 sophers without ceasing to be Jewish religionists. 
 Thus the Alexandrian Aristobulus (second cent. 
 B.C.), reputed to be the earliest known Hellenistic 
 allegorizer, in his commentary on the Pent. ad- 
 dressed to Ptolemy Philometor, sought (as Clement 
 of Alexandria says) to ‘bring Peripatetic philo- 
 sophy out of Moses and the Prophets.’ But the 
 representative Alexandrian allegorizer was Philo 
 ‘early in first century A.D.): he reduced allegory to 
 
 VOL. I.—§ 
 
 a system of his own, with canons similar to those 
 of the Pal. Haggadists, but freely used, and 
 adapted to philosophical ends by means of the 
 Platonic doctrine of ideas. Professing to retain 
 the literal sense as carrying in itself moral teach. 
 ing, he nevertheless made the allegorical so tran- 
 scendently significant (as the soul in the body) that 
 both literal and moral were continually over- 
 whelmed: before the writer’s determination to 
 extract the allegorical at all costs and in any sense 
 that at the time suited his mood, the facts often 
 disappeared, the narrative was turned upside down, 
 and, in the handling of the characters of OT 
 story, the unities were entirely ignored. So, when 
 it is said that Jacob took a stone for his pillow, 
 what he did, as the archetype of a self-disciplining 
 soul, was to put one of the incorporeal intelligences 
 of that holy ground close to his mind; and, under 
 the pretext of going to sleep, he, in reality, found 
 repose in the intelligence which he had chosen that 
 on it he might lay the burden of his life. Again, 
 Joseph is made, in one aspect, the type of the 
 sensual mind, and, in another, of a conqueror 
 victorious over pleasure. 
 
 We find the Alexandrian method employed upon 
 the OT as early as the Book of Wisdom and its 
 allegorical interpretation of the manna in the 
 Pent. (16%), and of the high priest’s robe as the 
 image of the whole world (18%). 
 
 The early Christians therefore found this current 
 and acknowledged method of interpretation to their 
 hand in the arguments they drew from the OT 
 against the unbelieving Jews; and, in particular, 
 St. Paul and the Paulinists, in their efforts to 
 turn the law itself against the law-worshipping 
 Judaisers. But not till post-apostolic times, cul- 
 minating in the times of Clement of Alexandria 
 and Origen, does the allegorical method show itself 
 in any luxuriance. The method of Jesus and the 
 speakers and writers in NT is typical rather 
 than allegorical, and Palestinian rather than Alex- 
 andrian; and, in any case, is self-restrained and 
 free from the characteristic extravagance of rabbi 
 and philosopher. St. Paul, in his application of 
 the method to the command as to oxen threshing 
 (1 Co 9%), to the rock (1 Co 104), and to the veil of 
 Moses (2 Co 3!8f-), is both Palestinian and Alex- 
 andrian in disregarding the original drift of the 
 passages and incidents, treating 1t as notnin 
 (1 Co 9°) in comparison with the typico-allegoriva 
 interpretation ; but he is Pal. in being homiletical 
 in his aim and not philosophical, and in having 
 persons and events in his perspective rather than 
 abstract truth. In Gal 42" he openly affirms that 
 Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, éorly 4)A7- 
 yopotvpeva, t.e. are (1) spoken or written of in the 
 Scriptures allegorically, or (2) interpreted allegori- 
 cally (with his approval) in his own day; and, in 
 treating them (somewhat after Philo’s manner 
 upon the same subject) as representing two different 
 covenants, one of the present and the other of the 
 future Jerusalem, he approximates to the Alex- 
 andrian philosophical practice of allegorizing con- 
 crete things, persons, and events into abstract 
 ideas: but only approximates; for not only is he 
 clearly historical and typical in his basis, and 
 homiletical in his aim, but, if cvora:xe? refers (as 
 some think) to the numerical value of the letters 
 according to the Rabbinic Gematria, he is, even 
 here, Palestinian rather than Alexandrian in his 
 method of interpretation. In the Ep. to the Hebrews 
 the influence of Philo and Alexandria comes out 
 more definitely. The writer is an ‘idealist whose 
 heaven is the hone of all transcendental realities, 
 whose earth is full of their symbols, and these are 
 most abundant where earth is most sacred—in the 
 temple (or tabernacle) and worship of his people.’ 
 He is Alexandrian in his frequent contrasts between 
 

 
 66 ALLEMETH 
 
 
 
 the invisible (117), imperishable (8° 9% 12%), arche- 
 t; world (8), and the visible (115), perishable 
 (1277) world of appearance (11°), the imperfect copy 
 (srddevypya) of the former (9 85); or, again, between 
 Judaism as the shadow (cxla) and Christianity as 
 the nearest earthly approximation (elkwv) to the 
 heavenly substance (ra éroupdvia) (85 10!); and the 
 allegory of Melchizedek, based not on the historical 
 personage so much as on the nature of the two 
 passing allusions to him, combined with the signifi- 
 cance of the great silence elsewhere in the OT 
 as to his birth and descent, as well as of the two 
 names Melchizedek and Salem,—all these together 
 being made the foundation of a logical construction 
 of the person and work of Christ as an em\iwdiment 
 of the preconceived idea,—can hardly be considered 
 without regard to Philo’s treatment of Melchizedek 
 as an allegory of his apparently impersonal Logos. 
 And yet, with the expression in the 110th Psalm be- 
 fore us, ‘ Thou art a priest for ever after the order 
 of Melchizedek,’ we must allow Dr. Westcott a 
 certain margin of justification when he maintains 
 that the treatment of Melchizedek is typical rather 
 than allegorical; though he appears to be too 
 sweeping when he affirms, ‘ There is no allegory in 
 this epistle.’ J. MASSIE. 
 
 ALLEMETH (npby), AV Alemeth, 1 Ch 6”; 
 Almon (ji0by), Jos 21%,—A Levitical city of Ben- 
 jamin. It is noticed with Anathoth, and is the 
 present ‘Almit on the hills N. of Anathoth. SWP 
 vol. iii. sheet xvii. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 ALLIANCE.—The attitude of the Israelites to 
 forcign nations varied greatly at different periods 
 in their history. In early times alliances were 
 entered into and treaties concluded without the 
 slightest scruple. Even intermixture with alien 
 races Was 80 Er from being tabooed, that it was 
 one of the principal means by which the land west 
 of the Jordan was secured. Thus we are told that 
 Judah married and had children by the daughter of 
 a Canaanite (Gn 38°), the tradition embodying the 
 history of the clan in a personal narrative. Again, 
 the condemnation of Simeon and Levi (Gn 34”) is 
 evidently due to the violation of a treaty previously 
 entered into with Shechem (cf. the story of the 
 Gibeonites, Jos 98, 2S 21%). 
 
 For the earliest period, then, it may be held that 
 treaties with Canaanitish clans were frequent 
 and general. On the other hand, they played 
 an important part in the internal history of the 
 Hebrews. Israel was by no means at first so 
 homogeneous as is often peppoked the tribes, 
 practically independent of each other, were gradu- 
 ally knit together by circumstances. Common 
 dangers led to common action on the part of two or 
 more of them: the leaders conferred together, or 
 the chief of the strongest clan, or of the one most 
 immediately threatened, assumed the headship, 
 and the way was prepared for a close confederation. 
 The times of the Judges furnish ample evidence of 
 this, and the monarchy had no other foundation. 
 A very curious alliance, and one that proves both 
 the looseness of the Heb. confederacy and the 
 readiness with which relations were entered into 
 with foreigners, is that between David and Achish, 
 king of Gath (1 S 277). Under it, David was pre- 
 pared to fight, on behalf of the traditional enemies 
 of his race, against the Benjamite kingdom of Saul. 
 That he did not, was apparently due solely to the 
 suspicions of his fidelity entertained by the lords 
 of the Philistines. 
 
 When the monarchy became settled and com- 
 perettrely powerful under Solomon, treaties with 
 oreigners, in the stricter sense, became frequent. 
 Solomon himself formed an alliance with Hiram, 
 king of Tyre (1 K 5), and-it is most probable that 
 
 
 
 
 
 ALMIGHTY 
 
 
 
 ee eeeeeEP$N_— 
 
 some of his marriages, and especially that with the 
 daughter of Pharaoh, cemented a political union. 
 The frequency with which rebels and outlaws 
 sought a refuge in Egypt made such a union 
 desirable. On the other hand, the memorials of 
 the capture of Jerus. by Shishak of Egypt disprove 
 the conjecture that his attack on Rehoboam was 
 made in support of Jeroboam. After the secession 
 of the ten tribes, Israel and Judah both sought 
 foreign assistance against each other. Asa, on being 
 attacked by Baasha, bribed Benhadad of Syria ta 
 dissolve the alliance he had previously formed with 
 Israel, and to join him in his war with that country. 
 It was not until the reigns of Jehoshaphat and 
 Ahab that the two countries found themselves in 
 accord, and fought side by side against the heathen. 
 Their union was, of course, purely political: it had 
 nothing to do with religious or sentimental con. 
 siderations. Ahab could also form, or maintain, 
 an alliance with the king of Pheenivia, and build 
 an altar to Baal as the guardian and avenger of 
 the treaty (1 K 16%). ith the entrance of the 
 Assyrians on the scene, a new series of alliances is 
 begun. Jehu’s tribute to Shalmaneser was that of 
 a vassal rather than an ally, and Menahem seems 
 to have bribed Tiglath-pileser to aid him against 
 his own subjects (2 K 15%). At this point, how- 
 ever, the prophets he a to inyelye against these 
 alliances (cf. especially Hos 8°, Is 30!5), and the 
 national exclusiveness is finally perfected by Ezra 
 and his school. J. MILLAR. 
 
 ALLIED (Neh 13* only) has the special meaning 
 of connected by marriage. So Rob. cf Glouc.— 
 ‘ And saide, that it was to hym great prow and honour 
 To be in such mariage alied to the emperour.’ 
 j J. HASTINGS. 
 ALLON. —1. (B ’A\\dy, A ’Ad\dv, AV Allom), 
 1 Es 5*.—His descendants are the last named 
 among the children of Solomon’s servants who 
 returned with Zerubbabel. He may be the saine 
 as Ami (‘px ’Hyel), the last named in the parallel 
 list in Ezr 2°, or Amon (ox "Hyelu), Neh 7°; 
 but the eight preceding names in 1 Es have no 
 arallels in ihe canonical books, so that the 
 identification is doubtful. Fritzsche conjectures 
 vlol d\Awy, meaning ‘etc.’ 2. A Simeonite prince, 
 1 Ch 4, H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ALLON BACUTH (ni33 j\bx, AV A. Bachuth, 
 ‘oak of weeping’), where Deborah, Rebekah’s 
 nurse, was buried, was at Bethel (Gn 35%). See 
 BETHEL, OAK. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ALLOW.—Two distinct Lat. words, allaudare, 
 to praise, approve, and allocare, to place (the 
 latter through the French alower), assumed in 
 Eng. the same form ‘allow.’ Consequently in the 
 five occurrences of this word in AV there are two 
 distinct meanings. 1. To approve: Ro 7" ‘For 
 that which I do, I a. not’ (Gr. ywadoxw, hence RV 
 ‘know not’); Ro 14” ‘Happy is he that con- 
 demneth not himself in that thing which he 
 ath’? (RV ‘approveth’); 1 Th 24; and Lk 11% 
 ‘Ye a. the deeds (RV ‘consent unto the works’) 
 of your fathers.’ Cf. Fs 115 Pr. Bk. ‘The Lord 
 acth (AV and RV ‘trieth’) the righteous.’ 2 
 To place before one so as to see and admit it, to 
 acknowledge, accept: Ac 2415 ‘Which they them- 
 selves also a.’ (Gr. mpocdéxouat, RV ‘look or,’ m. 
 ‘accept’). Allowable (not in AV or RV) is found 
 in Pref. of AV=‘ worthy of approval.’ Allowance 
 is also in Pref. AV=approval, and has been intro- 
 duced by RV at Jer 52* in the mod. sense of 
 ‘portion’ (AV ‘diet’). Cf. 1 Es 1%. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ALMIGHTY is used in OT as tr. of ‘Ww 48 times 
 (all the occurrences of that word) of wh. 31 are 
 
 
 
 oe eee 
 
AL MODAD 
 
 in Job. In NT it is used as tr. of ravroxpdrwp 10 
 times (all the occurrences of that word), of wh. 9 
 
 are in Rev. It is also freq. in Apocr. See Gop. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 AL MODAD (TEP) the first-named son of 
 Joktan, Gn 10,1 Ch 1”. The context seems to 
 imply that some tribe or district of S. Arabia is 
 meant, but the name has not hitherto been identi- 
 fied with certainty. The first element has been 
 yariously explained as the Arab. article (this is 
 perhaps intended by the Massoretic punctuation ; 
 so Dillmann on Gn 10”), as the Sem. Bi (‘God’ ; so 
 Halévy), and as the Arab. @/ (‘family’; so Glaser, 
 Skizze, ii. 425). The second element seems clearly 
 to be a derivative of the verb wadd (to love), of the 
 same stem as the name Wadd, a god of the 
 Minzans and other Arabian races. As a word 
 that can be read Maudad is applied in inscriptions 
 to the Gebanites in their relation to the kings of 
 Main, Glaser suggests that the name should be 
 rendered ‘the family to whom the office of Maudad,’ 
 $.¢. some priesthood of Wadd, ‘was assigned,’ and 
 that the tribe should be identified with the 
 Gebanites, whom he places in the S.W. corner of 
 Arabia. Others have eet the word to be 
 corrupt, and have corrected it Al-Murad, the well- 
 
 known name of a tribe of Yemen. 
 D. 8S. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 ALMON.—See ALLEMETH. 
 
 ALMON-DIBLATHAIM (noybarjbby, Nu 33: 4), 
 —A station in the journeyings, prob. identical with 
 Beth-diblathaim, Jer 48%. The meaning of the 
 word Diblathaim is a double cake of figs; its 
 application to a town may indicate the appear- 
 ance of the place or neighbourhood. onder 
 suggests ‘ two discs’ with reference to some altar- 
 stone or dolmen (cf. Heth and Moab, p. 262). 
 
 A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 Shakéd is, like many 
 
 ALMOND (1p9 shdkéd). ] 
 names of plants, used for both the plant and its 
 fruit. Thus in Ec 125 and Jer 14, the reference is 
 to the tree, while in Gn 43", Ex 25%: 3719.2, 
 
 Nu 175, the reference is to the fruit. The Arab. 
 name for the almond is /awz. The same word 
 occurs once in OT (Gn 30%), where it is wrongly 
 translated in AV Hazel. The Heb. equivalent, 
 nb, is undoubtedly another name for the almond, 
 ieee y te more ancient one. 
 
 The ond, Amygdalus communis, L., belongs 
 to the order Rosacex, tribe Amygdalex, and is 
 a tree with an oblong or spherical comus, from 
 fifteen to thirty feet high. The branches are 
 somewhat straggling, especially in the wild state. 
 The leaves are lanceolate, serrate, acute, three to 
 four inches long, and most of them fall during the 
 winter. About midwinter the bare tree is suddenly 
 covered with blossoms, an inch to an inch and a 
 half broad. Although the petals are pale pink 
 toward their base, they are usually whitish toward 
 their tips, and the general effect of an almond tree 
 in blossom is white. As there are no leaves on the 
 tree when the blossoms come out, the whole tree 
 appears a mass of white, and the effect of a large 
 number of them, interspersed among the dark- 
 green foliage and golden fruit of the lemon and 
 orange, and the feathery tops of the palms, is to give 
 an indescribable charm to the January and Febru- 
 ary landscapes in the orchards of the large cities 
 of Pal. and Syria. Soon after blossoming, the 
 delicate petals begin to fall in soft, snowy showers 
 on the ground under and around the trees, and 
 their place is taken by the young fruit; and, at the 
 same time, the young leaves begin to open, and 
 the tree is covered with foliage in March. The 
 young fruit consists of an oblong, flattened, downy 
 aay, which often attains a length of two and a 
 alf to three inches, and a thickness of two-thirds 
 
 ALMSGIVING 67 
 
 of an inch. This pod is called in Arab. kur'aun 
 el-lauz, and just before ripening it has a crisp, 
 cucumber-like consistence, and a pleasant acid 
 taste, which are greatly liked by the people. 
 It is hawked about the streets during the months 
 of April and ee and eaten with great relish, 
 especially by children. At this stage the shell 
 of the nut is yet soft, and the kernel juicy 
 with a slight smack of peach-stone flavour. 
 Very soon, however, the succulent flesh of the 
 outer eee ae loses its juice, and dries around the 
 hardening shell, to which it forms a shrunken, 
 leathery envelope. The kernel acquires firmness, 
 and in early summer the nut is ripe. It is then 
 from an inch to an inch and a half long. Almonds 
 are, and always have been, a favourite luxury of 
 the Orientals (Gn 43"), They make a delicious 
 confection of the hulled kernels, by beating them 
 into a paste with sugar in a mortar. This paste, 
 moulded into various shapes, is called hariset-el- 
 lauz. The half kernels are spread over several 
 sorts of blancmange, called mahallibiyeh, and 
 nashawiyeh, and mughis. Almonds are also 
 sugared as with us. 
 
 There are several species of wild almond in Pal. 
 and Syria. (1) The wild state of Amygdalus com- 
 munis, L., a stunted tree, with smaller blossoms 
 and pods, and small bitter nuts. Some of the 
 varieties of this have leaves less than an inch long. 
 (2) A. Orientalis, Ait., a shrub with spinescent 
 branches, small silvery leaves, and bitter nuts, 
 three-quarters of an inch long. (3) A. lycioides, 
 Spach, a shrub with intricate, stiff, spiny branches, 
 linear-lanceolate, green leaves, and a bitter nut 
 half an inch long. (4) A. spartioides, Spach, a 
 shrub with few linear-lanceolate leaves, and bitter 
 nuts, a little over half aninch long. All of these 
 share more or less the peculiarities of flowering 
 and as which belong to the cultivated al- 
 mond. 
 
 The Heb. word for almond signifies the ‘ waker,’ 
 in allusion to its being the first tree to wake to life 
 in the winter. The word also contains the signifi- 
 cation of ‘watching’ and ‘hastening.’ In Jer 1% 
 the word for ‘almond tree’ is shdkéd, and the word 
 for ‘I will hasten’ (v."), shékéd, from the same 
 root. The almond was the emblem of the divine 
 forwardness in bringing God’s promises to pass. 
 A similar instance in the name of another rosa- 
 ceous plant is the apricot, which was named from 
 precocia (early) on account of its blossoms appear- 
 ing early in the spring, and its fruit ripening 
 earlier than its congener the yoney (Pliny, xv. 11). 
 
 The usual interpretation of Ec 125 ‘the almond 
 tree shall flourish,’ is that the old man’s hair shall 
 turn white like the almond tree. To this Gesenius 
 objects, that the blossom of the almond is pink, not 
 white. He prefers to translate the word for 
 flourish by spurn or reject, making the old man 
 reject the almond because he has no teeth to eat it. 
 But this objection has no force. The pink colour 
 of the almond blossom is very light, usually mainly 
 at the base of the petals, and fades as they open, 
 and the general efiect of the tree as seen at a dis- 
 tance is snowy-white. The state of the teeth has 
 already been alluded to (v.°), ‘and the grinders 
 cease because they are few,’ and ‘the sonnd of 
 the grinding is low.’ We may therefore retain 
 the beautiful imagery which brings to mind the 
 silver hair of the aged, and draw from the snowy 
 blossom the promise of the coming fruit. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 ALMSGIVING.—i. The History of the Word.— 
 This is interesting and instructive. The Gr. word 
 éXenuootvn, from which alms is derived, is one of 
 those words which owe their origin to the use of 
 the Gr. language by Jews imbued with the religious 
 and ethical ideas of OT. The LXX (including the 
 
 
 
68 ALMSGIVING 
 
 ALMSGIVING 
 
 
 
 Apocr.) supplies the greatest variety of examples 
 of, the senses given to it. In some passages it 
 appears impossible to distinguish its meaning from 
 that of eos ; but éXenpoo’vy, as derived from the 
 adj. é\efuwv, which describes a merciful man, who 
 is himself as it were a concrete example of mercy, 
 properly denotes the exhibition of the quality, 
 rather than the inward feeling. It is used of God 
 both in the sing. (Is 17 281’, Sir 17”, Bar 4%) and 
 in plur. [Ps 103 (Sept 102) °, To 37]. A deep sense 
 that God’s goodness had been and would be proved 
 in deeds, is 2 peas characteristic of revealed 
 religion ; and the need for expressing this may, in 
 part at least, have been the motive for coining the 
 unclassical term which we are considering. It is 
 used of men, also, to genty (1) the showing of 
 kindness, the practice of works of mercy (Gn 47”, 
 Pr 19% 20% 217}, Sir 7!° ete.); and (2) particular 
 works of mercy (Pr 3°, Dn 4% [Eng. 427], Sir 35? 
 [Sept. 324], To 1*%etc.). By the time at least that 
 the books of Sir and To were written, it had come to 
 be a quite specific description of deeds of compassion 
 to the poor. The importance which this class of 
 actions had acquired for religious minds is thus 
 marked by the adoption of a special word to denote 
 them. The LXX, however, ie not supply any 
 clear instance of the transference of the word to 
 the actual gifts bestowed. 
 
 The LXX employs it as an equivalent not only for 
 109 (mercy), but sometimes for words denoting right- 
 eousness, pq¥, 727s, 7P71¥ (Dn 44). The thought may 
 suggest itself that we have here signs of a tendency 
 to regard A., after the manner of the Talm., as the 
 chief and most typical of the works whereby that 
 righteousness may be acquired which makes man 
 acceptable with God. But this is more than 
 doubtful. It occurs several times where righteous- 
 ness is ed orice of God (Is 127 28!" 5916), In one or 
 more of the following passages, where words for 
 righteousness are tr. In LXX by édenuoctvy, a 
 human quality may be in view (Ps 33 [Sept. 32]5, 
 Dt 6% 2413, Ps 24 [Sept. 23]5). But in each case 
 a different interpretation, at least of the LXX, is 
 possible. The conception of righteousness in OT 
 1s a, large one, and not wholly definite. Under one 
 aspect it wears almost the character of mercy. 
 And it may have been from a more or less clear 
 consciousness of this that the renderings just re- 
 ferred to were adopted. Neither in the Apocr. 
 nor in the LXX of the canon. books do there 
 appear to be examples of the use of dixaoctvn 
 for ‘almsgiving,’ though it is true that éden- 
 pootvn and dixkaoctvn are coupled at To 2! 128-9 
 in a manner which shows a strong association 
 of ideas between them. We have, however, an 
 indication of this Rabbinic usage in the best 
 supported reading of Mt 61. 
 
 n NT the word is used in Mt and Lk and in Ae, 
 but always in the sense either of A. or of alms— 
 the actual gift (for the latter see Ac 3* 8). 
 
 The Lat. Fathers, from Tertullian and Cyprian 
 onwards, and the Old Lat. and Vulg. VSS employ 
 the word eleemosyna, transliterated from the Gr ; 
 only, however, in those cases where they had no 
 exact or convenient Lat. equivalent. From Lat. 
 eccles. usage come the various derivatives in the 
 languages of modern Europe (Eng. alms, Fr. 
 auméne, Germ. Almosen, Ital. limosina). 
 
 ii. Jewish Teaching.—Some consideration of this 
 is necessary, if we would rightly appreciate the 
 teaching of NT on the subject. Evidence of the 
 importance which A. had acquired for religious 
 minds among the Jews of the 2nd or 3rd cent. B.C. 
 has already come before us in the fact that a 
 special name was assigned to this class of actions. 
 
 hey had become one of the common and acknow- 
 ledged observances of the religious life, a matter to 
 be attended to by the religious man in the same 
 
 regular and careful manner as prayer and fasting, 
 with which we find A. joined (see To 128, Sir 7, 
 and cf. the conduct of the earnest proselyte Cor- 
 nelius, Ac 10% 4). It is regarded as a specially 
 efficacious means of making atonement for sin 
 (Sir 3% 16), and obtaining divine protection 
 from calamity (Sir 29%? 40%, To 141); the merit 
 thereof is an unfailing possession (Sir 40!”); the 
 religious reputation to be won thereby is held out 
 as an inducement to the practice of it (Sir 31 [LXX 
 34]"). 
 
 Such features in the estimate of A. are, if possible, 
 
 still moremarked in the Talm.,wherenpis, righteous- 
 ness, is a recognised name for A. The perform- 
 ance of works of mercy is set forth as a means 
 whereby man may be accounted righteous in the 
 sight of God, like the fulfilment of the command- 
 meits of the Law. It is even more meritorious 
 tha: -he latter, because it is not exactly prescribed, 
 but left, as to its extent and amount at least, to 
 the individual. It must not, however, be supposed 
 that all the Rabbinic teaching on A. tends to self- 
 righteousness. It has a better side. Thesuperiority 
 of those deeds of kindness in which personal sym- 
 pethy is shown, and which involve the taking of 
 trouble, over the mere bestowal of gifts, is clearly 
 insisted on, and there are sayings which strikingly 
 enjoin consideration for the self-respect of the 
 recipients of poen iy (See F. Weber, System d. 
 altsynagogalen Paldstinischen Theologie, p. 273f., 
 and A. Winsche, Neue Beitr. z. Erléut. d. Evang. 
 ie Talmud u. Midrasch, on Mt 6'4, Lk 114 
 123.) 
 iii. The Teaching of the NT.—In the Sermon on 
 the Mount (as recorded in Mt), our Lord, after 
 setting forth His New Law asa true fulfilment of 
 the Ancient Law (5!7-*), proceeds to treat of certain 
 chief religious observances from a similar point of 
 view (61"}8) ; and, in full accordance with the Jewish 
 thought of the time, that one which He takes first is 
 A. It may seem strange that He does not more 
 directly correct the erroneous notions of merit and 
 justification which had already become associated, 
 in more or less definite form, with such works; and 
 that He speaks of a divine reward for them without 
 adding any warning against misunderstanding. He 
 contents Himself with requiring purity of motive, 
 indifference to and even avoidance of human praise, 
 and self-forgetfulness. But, in truth, if we learn 
 to test the quality of the motive for, and the 
 manner of performing, each deed, with reference 
 only to the judgment which God will pronounce 
 upon it, that temper of mind, that faith and 
 humility and sense of personal failure and sin, 
 which alone are consistent with the principles of 
 the gospel, will be secured. Another very signifi- 
 cant saying of our Lord on A. is given Lk 11“. He 
 there enjoins it as the true means of purifying 
 material objects for our use; it is a counterpart to 
 the ceremonial washings of the Pharisees. Lk 12* 
 is the only other passage in the Gospels where the 
 word édenuoctvy isused. But liberality in giving is 
 frequently inculeated or commended (Mt 5% 19”, 
 Mk 102, Lk 6-88 1415 169 1892), In the Acts the 
 Jewish use of the term is illustrated ; it does not 
 occur there in any Christian precept. But that 
 feature of the life of the Christian community at 
 Jerus. in the first days, as there pictured, which 
 has been called communism, is more properly an 
 example of abounding charity. 
 
 In Christendom during many centuries the duty of 
 A. (primarily, no doubt, from a desire of obeying the 
 commands of Christ) received great, and sometimes 
 exaggerated, attention. The danger now is rather 
 that, through fear of the ill-effects of indiscriminate 
 A., the disposition to give and the habit of doing 
 so should be discouraged. A practice, however, 
 enjoined as this one is, must permanently hold a 
 
ALMUG 
 
 high place in the Christian rule of life. It is the 
 function of modern economic and social knowledge 
 only to make its exercise more wise and bene- 
 ficial. V. H. STANTON. 
 
 ALMUG.—See ALGuM. 
 
 ALOES, LIGN-ALOES (mbnx ’ahdlim, nidox 
 *ahdloth).—The word Aloes is used four times in 
 the OT and once in the NT. In Nu 24° the 
 Heb. word is o'bpx, the LXX cxnval, and the AV 
 Lign-Aloes=Lignum Aloes. In Ps 45° the Heb. 
 is nibox, the LXX oraxrj, and the AV Aloes. In 
 Pr 7" the Heb. is ovbx, the LXX rdv 8¢ olkov, 
 and the AV Aloes. In Ca 4% the Heb. is ni>px, 
 the LXX 4\é6, and the AV Aloes (RV agrees 
 with AV in all). 
 
 It is clear that in the passages in Nu and Pr 
 the LXX has followed a different reading from 
 the MT, and has arbitrarily translated the same 
 word stacte in the Ps and aloth (aloe) in Cu. In 
 face of the practical identity of the words ’ahdlim 
 and *ahdléth, it is fair to reject the various capri- 
 cious renderings of the LXX, and assume that the 
 word has the same meaning in all the four OT 
 passages. In the last three of these passages, 
 and in the NT (Jn 19%), the reference is plainly 
 to the aromatic. 
 
 Celsius (Hierobot. i. 135) argues that this sub- 
 stance is the Aguilaria Agallocha, the Lignum 
 Aloes or Aloes Wood of commerce. This wood 
 was well known to the ancients, and is described 
 under its Arab. name ‘dd in considerable detail 
 by Avicenna (ii. 231), in brief as follows: ‘Wood 
 and woody roots are brought from China and India 
 and Arabia ; and some of it is dotted and blackish ; 
 and it is aromatic, styptic, and peg atly bitter ; 
 and it is covered with a leathery bark. The best 
 variety is from Mandalay, and comes from the 
 interior of India. The next best is that which is 
 called Indian, which comes from the mountains; 
 and it has this advantage over the Mandalay 
 variety, that it does not breed maggots. Some 
 persons do not distinguish between the Mandalay 
 and the better kinds of Indian. Among the good 
 kinds of ‘dd are the Samandury, which comes from 
 China on the borders of India, and the komary 
 from India, and the kakilly, and the kadmury, 
 and of inferior species the Hillay and the Mabitay, 
 and the Law4fy and the Rabta To sum up, the 
 best ‘dd is that which sinks in water, and that which 
 floats is bad. It is said that the trunks and roots 
 of the ‘éd are buried until the woody fibre decays, 
 leaving only the aromatic substance.’ Avicenna 
 follows this description with a detailed account of 
 the medicinal and other properties of the aloes 
 wood. He alludes to the wood also under the 
 heading Agh4liji, which is undoubtedly the 
 dyd\doxov of the Greeks, and the Agallochum of 
 the Romans. The substance is now known to the 
 Arabs by the names ‘éd-es-salib, ‘tid-en-nadd, 
 ‘d-el-bakhir, and el-‘tid-el-komari. 
 
 The order Aquilariacee supplies several trees, 
 which produce commercial aloes wood. The most 
 noted of these is Aquilaria Agallocha, Roxb., a 
 native of Northern India, which grows to a height 
 of 120 ft. Aquilaria secundaria, of China, pro- 
 duces some of the varieties alluded to by Avicenna. 
 It is a well-known fact that the fragrance of the 
 wood of the species of Aguwilaria is developed by 
 ite i a process which is hastened by burying the 
 wood, as above alluded to by Avicenna. While 
 we have no positive proof that the aloes wood is 
 the aromatic intended by the Heb. original, there 
 is no good reason why it should not be. The 
 similarity of ’ahdléth to dyd\doxov is sufficient to 
 _ establish a strong probability in its favour, and 
 in the absence of any other probable candidate 
 
 ALOES, LIGN-ALOES 
 
 69 
 
 it may be received with a fair measure of 
 confidence. 
 
 It must be understood that the above-mentioned 
 plant has no connexion philologically or botani- 
 cally with Hacecaria SITS D.C., of the order 
 of Euphorbiacez, an acrid, poisonous, non-aromatic 
 plant. Nor has it anything to do with the officinal 
 Aloes, of the order Liliacez, a plant not alluded 
 to in the Bible. 
 
 There remains the difficulty of the passage in 
 Nu 24° ‘as gardens by the river’s side, as the 
 trees of lign-aloes (0473) which the Lord hath 
 planted, and as cedar trees (0198) beside the 
 waters.’ The LXX has rendered the word cxnval 
 as if written o>7k, which means tents; but besides 
 the irregularity and inconsistency of the LXX in 
 the translation of the word in the other passages 
 in the OT, it would be strange that, in a triple 
 parallelism of the intensive and climacteric 
 order, beginning with gardens and _ ending 
 with the prince of trees, the royal cedar, the 
 word tents, instead of a kind of trees, should be 
 interjected. We may dismiss this as wholly 
 improbable. 
 
 e have also to remember that the same names 
 may be used for more than one object in nature. 
 This is pointed out in detail in our article on the 
 Algum. In the Eng. name Aloe, for the plant now 
 under consideration, and for the officinal Aloes, we 
 have an instance of two very different plants, of 
 widely diverse properties, bearing the same name. 
 It is then quite possible that the tree of Numbers 
 might be totally different from the aromatic sub- 
 stance of the other passages. In Eng. the labiate 
 ike Melissa is called balm. Impatiens is called 
 
 alsam. Populus balsamifera, L., var. candicans, 
 is called balm of Gilead, a very different plant 
 from the balm of Gilead of Scripture, and the 
 word balm is applied to many diverse substances. 
 There is nothing, however, to prevent the supposi- 
 tion that the tree of Numbers is that which pro- 
 duced the substance of the other passages. Itis true 
 that the tree is one of Jd es Arabia, India, or 
 China. But Balaam’s prophecy was uttered in full 
 view of the tropical valley of the Jordan, where 
 the climate would have made it quite possible to 
 cultivate these trees. There is nothing to forbid 
 the idea that this and other trees not now known 
 in Pal. were cultivated in the then wealthy and 
 Porsions Jordan Valley. At least twenty - five 
 istinctly tropical wild plants are indigenous in this 
 valley. In describing his bride, Solomon compares 
 her with a garden in which were pomegranates, 
 camphire (henna), spikenard, saffron, calamus, 
 cinnamon, with all kinds of frankincense, myrrh, 
 and all the chief spices (Ca 4% 4), Balaam might 
 have looked over such a plantation when he made 
 his tristich. 
 
 On the other hand, it is not necessary to assume 
 that he saw the trees to which he alludes, or that 
 either he or the Israelites were familiar with them. 
 In the climax he mentions the cedar, doubtless the 
 cedar of Lebanon. It is unlikely that he had ever 
 seen one. It is certain that the Israelites had not. 
 But it was a well-known tree, and suitable for the 
 comparison. The allusion to the ‘cedar trees be- 
 side the waters’ shows that the picture is ideal and 
 poetical, as cedars grow in dry places on the lofty 
 mountain sides, and never by water-courses. The 
 aloe tree might have been equally well known by 
 reputation, although unfamiliar both to Balaam and 
 the Israelites personally. It is quite certain that 
 the spice trade was very active through the Syrian 
 and Arabian deserts in ancient times, and the 
 spices and aromatics therefore far more familiar 
 to the people of the border land» of Pal. and Syria 
 than now. So that whether the plants of Nu 
 248 and Ca 4!*14 were cultivated or not, they 
 
 
 
70 ALOFT 
 
 ALPHABET 
 
 
 
 were well known, and comparisons based on them 
 well undersvood. G. E. Post. 
 
 ALOFT is found only inl Es 8" ‘and now is 
 all Israel a.’; RVm ‘ exalted,’ with a ref. to Dt 28% 
 ‘thou shalt be above (same Gr. word in LXX 
 érdyw) only, and thou shalt not be beneath.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ALONG.—In Jg 7? we read ‘all the children of 
 the east, lay a. in the valley like grasshoppers 
 (RV “locusts ”) for multitude,’ and in v.# ‘ the tent 
 lay a.’ The same verb (=to fall) is used in Heb., 
 and the Eng. phrase was prob. intended to have 
 the same meaning in both phrases, andlang (Ger. 
 entlang), at length, all the length. Ci. Jth 13%. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ALPHA AND OMEGA.—This phrase is found in 
 Rev 18 216 2215, In the first passage it is used of 
 God the Father, in the other two of the Son. In 
 the TR it wrongly appears in Rev 1". This 
 
 hrase calls for treatment in two respects ; (1) as to 
 its form, (2) as to its meaning. 
 
 1. That the form of the phrase was familiar, or, 
 at all events, easily intelligible from the outset, is 
 clear from later Heb. analogies. But before we 
 touch on these it is worth observing that a kindred 
 idiom is found in contemporary Latin literature. 
 Thus in Martial v. 26 we find : 
 
 Quod alpha. dixi, Codre, penulatorum - 
 
 Te nuper, aliqua cum jocarer in charta ; 
 
 Si forte bilem movit hic tibi versus, 
 
 Dicas licebit beta me togatorum. 
 Cf. also ii. 57, and Theodoret, AE iv. 8, quets pev 
 éxpnodueba re ddAda péxpt ro0 w. Amongst the later 
 Jews the whole extent of a thing was often ex- 
 hase by the first and last letters of the alphabet. 
 
 hus (Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. in loc.) n& was a name 
 
 of the Shechinah, because it embraced all the 
 letters. Acc. to the Jalkut Rub. fol. 17. 4 Adam 
 transgressed the whole law n 131 'xp from aleph to 
 tuu: ace. to fol. 48. 4 Abraham observed the 
 whole law from aleph to tau; and, fol. 128. 8, 
 when God blesses Israel He does it from aleph to 
 tau (i.e. the initial and closing letters of Lv 26", in 
 which the blessings on Israel are pronounced), but 
 when He curses Israel He does so from vav to 
 mem (see Lv 261443). We may therefore reason- 
 ably infer that the title ‘Alpha and Omega’ is a 
 Gr. rendering of a corresponding Heb. expression. 
 
 2. The thought conveyed in this title is essenti- 
 ally chat of Is 448, pinx vas) pera ax ‘I am the first 
 and I am the last’ (cf. 41+ 43°). The phrase thus 
 signifies ‘the Eternal One.’ It is thus expounded 
 by Aretas (see Cramer’s Catene Grace in NT on 
 Rev 18: “AAga dia 7d dpxty elvar, bre kal rd ddga 
 apxh tev ev ypdupatt oroaxelwv: w did 7d TédXos THY 
 avrav. dpxyhv 6é cal rédos rls ovx Av évvojoo Td pwTos 
 onualvecOar Kal rd Exxaros; dia Tod mpdros dé, 7d 
 Gvapxos évvoetrar, ws Kal did rod éoxdrov 7d dredev- 
 tytos. In Tertullian, Monog. 5, there is the follow- 
 ing interesting exposition: Sic et duas Grecie 
 litteras, summam et ultimam, sibi induit dominus, 
 initii et finis concurrentium in se figuras, uti, 
 quemadmodum A ad ® usque volvitur et rursus 
 Q ad A replicatur, ita ostenderet in se esse et initii 
 decursum ad finem et finis recursum ad initium, 
 ut omnis dispositio in eum desinens per quem 
 coepta est. per sermonem scilicet dei qui caro 
 factus est, proinde desinat quemadmodum et 
 coepit. 
 
 f. also Cyprian, Testim. ii. 1, 6, 22; iii. 100; 
 Paulinus of Nola, Carm. 19. 645; 30. 89; Pruden- 
 tius, Cathem. ix. 10-12. 
 
 Corde natus ex Parentis, ante mundi exordium 
 
 Alpha et 2 cognominatus, Ipse fons et clausula 
 
 Omnium quz sunt fuerunt queque post futura 
 
 sunt. 
 
 Although in Rev 1 this title is used of God the 
 
 Father, it seems to be confined to the Son in 
 Patristic and subsequent literature. 
 R. H. CHARLEs. 
 
 ALPHABET is a word derived from alpha and 
 beta, the names of the first two letters in Greek, in 
 which they are meaningless, being adaptations of 
 the corresponding Sem. letter-names aleph, an ox, 
 and beth, a house. This etymology discloses much 
 of the history of the A., which originated among a 
 Sem. people, by whom it was transmitted to the 
 Greeks and by them to the Romans, wnose A., 
 with a few trifling modifications, we still use. 
 
 It is now known that all the alphabets in the 
 world, some 200 in number, are descended from a 
 primitive Sem. A., usually styled the Pheen. A., or 
 the A. of Israel. 
 
 The universal belief, or possibly the tradition of 
 the ancient world, as reported by Plato, Tacitus, 
 Plutarch, and other writers, was shat the Phceni- 
 cians had obtained the A. from Egypt. This 
 seemed so probable that after the hieroglyphic 
 writing had been recovered and psig ek repeated 
 attempts were made to show how the transmission 
 might have been effected. This, however, proved 
 to be no easy task. At the time of the Heb, 
 Exodus,. the hieroglyphic picture - writing was 
 already a venerable system of vast antiquity. 
 Existing inscriptions make it possible to trace it 
 back to the time of the 2nd dynasty, some 6000 
 years ago, when it already appears in great 
 perfection, arguing a prolonged period of ante- 
 cedent development. Setting aside a multitude of 
 ideographic picture-signs, there are about 400 
 pictorial phonograms, of which 45 had emerged out 
 of the syllabic stage, and had attained a sort of 
 alphabetic character ; that is, they either denoted 
 vowels, or were capable of being associated with 
 more than one vowel sound. Of these, 25 were in 
 more universal use than the rest, and it was mainly 
 out of these, as we shall see, that the letters of the 
 A. were developed. 
 
 To a French Egyptologist, Emanuel de Rougé, 
 belongs the honour of having discovered the prob- 
 able method by which the Sem. A. was evolved out 
 of the Egyp. writing. De Rougé pointed out that 
 the immediate prototypes of the Phen. letters 
 were not to be found, as had been supposed, in the 
 pictorial Hieroglyphs of the monuments, or in the 
 well-known cursive Hieratic of the Middle Empire, 
 but in an older and more deformed Hieratic script 
 which prevailed in the time of the Early Empire, 
 —a form of writing so ancient that it had alread 
 fallen into disuse before the Heb. Exodus. This 
 obscure and difficult script is chiefly known to us 
 from a single MS., now in the National Library at 
 Paris. It goes by the name of the Pepe Prisse, 
 having been presented to the Library by M. Prisse 
 d’Avennes, who obtained it at Thebes, where it 
 was found in a tomb as old as the llth dynasty, 
 It is therefore older by many centuries than the 
 time of Moses, older than the invasion of the Shep- 
 herd kings, and older probably than the date 
 usually assigned to Abraham. 
 
 Forty-five of the Egyp. Hieroglyphics had 
 acquired, as we have seen, a semi-alphabetie char 
 acter, and De Rougé contended that the Hieratic 
 representatives of 21 of the most suitable of thu-e 
 Hieroglyphs were selected, and ee eis ly 
 some Sem. people as the prototypes of the A. they 
 constructed, only one of the 22 letters being due to 
 a non-Egyptian source. These Hieratic characters, 
 traced from the Papyrus Prisse, are given in col. 2 
 of the table, and the corresponding Hieroglyphs, 
 which face the other way, will be found in oL Li 
 
 The oldest Sem. forms with which we are 
 acquainted are shown in col. 3. In comparing 
 them with their assumed Hieratic prototypes it 
 must be remembered that they are not contem- 
 

 
 hd 
 
 EVOLUTION OF THE HEBREW ALPHABETS. 
 
 EGYPTIAN, = ARAMAAN. | HEBREW, Names. | Values, 
 
 
 
 
 
 De) 2 | A | XX | ne *Aleph| a 
 2}a |= Sen Bei, aa Beth | & 
 i a | 7 | »d Gimel ] g 
 4h | ol A [at Daleth] 
 s| ma | mi a tn teh 
 ; ep xa | nf ) Van |v 
 | eS Gj is Y Zayin | z 
 3} eo | =| | ++ Heth | h 
 1 — | =| @ | Teth | ¢ 
 ao’ | Sf Yod | y 
 : i} << 4 yy. Kaph | & 
 ee | || ft Lamed| £ 
 { wl | F 'y Mem | m 
 ; ie | ay 71 Nun | 2 
 15] —— | # ee) D pemeeyyas 
 16 ons Y Be ATO 
 17 4y 9) a | AY Poe ay 
 is} ja Ir i if Zade | x 
 mao | | - P v Koph | & 
 20| <— 914 bg =) Resh | + 
 a} wt | % | w v v siabs ie 
 z| \ | 5 s hn tu |e 
 I Tra IV V VIL. 
 
 EXPLANATION OF THE TABLE, 
 
 Gol. I. Eayrrran Himroanyrutos, facing to the left. Col, II, Hrmratic Cuaracters, facing to the right. Col. III. Opest 
 ISRAELITE OR PH@NICIAN Lerrers, from the ‘Baal Lebanon and Moabite inscriptions (sec. XI. to IX. B.c.). Col. IV. ARAMAN, right 
 to left, from the coins of the Satr: apies and Egyp. inscriptions and papyri (sec. V. to I. B.c.). Col. V. OupEstT eee HEBREW, 
 from inscriptic os near Jerusalem (Herodian period), Col. VI. SquaRE Husrew, from Babylonian bowls (sec. IV. to VII. a. D.). 
 Ool. VII. Square Huprew, from Codex Babylonicus at St, Petersburg (916 4.D.). Col. VII. Moprrn Square HEBREW. 
 
12 ALPHABET 
 
 porary forms, but are separated by at least ten, or 
 more probably by twelve centuries, a period during 
 which eonerdnraule differences of form must almost 
 necessarily have arisen, in addition to which the 
 Hieratic forms are cursive, freely traced on papyrus 
 with a brush, while the Sem. letters are lapidary 
 types, engraved with a chisel upon stone or bronze, 
 which would entail differences of form similar to 
 those which exist between our printed capitals 
 A, B, E and the script forms a, 6, e of our modern 
 handwriting. This alone would account for the 
 ulterations in the shapes of such letters as daleth, 
 heth, resh, or mem, the change from a cursive to a 
 lapidary type causing the characters to become 
 more regular in size and inclination, bold curves 
 being simplified, closed ovals becoming triangles 
 or squares, and the curved sweeping tails becom- 
 ing straight and rigid lines. 
 
 lor 21 of the 22 letters of the Sem. alphabet De 
 Rougé has found a prob. Hieratic prototype, in 18 
 cases taking the normal Egyp. equivalent of the 
 Sem. sound, and in 3 instances only, aleph, beth, 
 and zayin, having recourse to a less usual homo- 
 phone. In one case he fails. The peculiar guttural 
 breathing denoted by the Sem. letter ‘ayin did not 
 exist in Egyp. speech. For this letter no Egyp. 
 prototype has been discovered, and it is supposed 
 that it was an invention of the Semites, the symbol 
 © being regarded, as the name suggests, as the 
 picture of an ‘eye.’ (See No. 16, col. 3.) 
 
 How, when, or by whom the Sem. A. was 
 thus evolved from the Egyp. Hieratic it is im- 
 possible to say with precision. The possible limits 
 of date are believed to lie between the 23rd and 
 the 17th centuries B.c. It seems probable that the 
 development was effected by some Sem. ie 
 who were in commercial intercourse with the 
 Egyptians,—possibly, it has been conjectured, the 
 Semites of $8. Arabia, possibly the Hyksos, if 
 vhese Shepherd kings were Semites, and not, as 
 is now supposed, of Mongolian race, hardly the 
 Hebrews, who seem to be excluded by the limits 
 of date, but most probably a Phen. trading 
 colony settled on the shores of Lake Menzaleh in 
 the Delta. On the Egyp. monuments they are 
 called Fenekh (Phoenicians), and also Char or Chal, 
 a name used to designate the coast tribes of Syria. 
 The native land of the Char was called Kaft, 
 whence part of the Delta was called Caphtor, or 
 the ‘greater Kaft.’ If the A. arose in Caphtor 
 it would easily spread to Phenicia, and then to 
 the kindred and neighbouring races. 
 
 The art of writing must, however, have been 
 known to the Hebrews at an early period of their 
 history. Hiram, we are told, wrote a letter to 
 Solomon, and David wrotea letter to Joab. From 
 the lists of the kings and dukes of Edom, preserved 
 in Gn 36 and 1 Ch 1, we gather that the Edomites, 
 at the time when their capital was taken by Joab 
 in the reign of David, possessed state annals, going 
 back to a remote period. The list of the encamp- 
 nents of the Israelites in the Desert, given in 
 Nu 33, cannot have been handed down by oral 
 tradition ; while it is the only incorporated docu- 
 ment in the Pent. which we are expressly told was 
 written down by Moses, and its geogr. correctness 
 has been curiously confirmed by recent researches. 
 ‘Lhe census of the congregation preserved in Nu 1-4 
 and 26 is also manifestly a very ancient written 
 record which has been Incorporated in the text. 
 All these documents were presumably written in 
 the primitive Sem. A. But the discoveries of the 
 last few years have led scholars to believe that 
 non-alphabetic writing of another kind was used 
 in Pal. long before the Exodus, as early as the 
 reign of Khu-n-Aten, the recent excavations at 
 Lachish and the discoveries at Tel el-Amarna 
 proving that the governors of the Svrian cities 
 
 ALPHABETr 
 
 
 
 corresponded with the Eyyp kings in a cursive 
 form of the Babylonian cuneitorm. 
 
 The oldest known forms of the Sem. letters are 
 shown in col. 3 of the table, where their names and 
 their approximate phonetic valuesmay also be found. 
 
 Thirteen may be represented by letters in our 
 own Alphabet. These are beth, gimel, daleth, he, 
 zayin, kaph, lamed, mem, nun, samekh, pe, resh, and 
 tau, which correspond to our letters 6, g, d, h, 2, k, 
 l, m, n, 8, Fe r,and ¢. The other nine letters repre- 
 sent sounds which we do not exactly possess. Of 
 these, two are called ‘linguals,’ or ‘emphatics,’ 
 namely, feth, a gutturalised ¢, which is called the 
 emphatic dental, and zade, a gutturalised s, called 
 the emphatic sibilant. The letter koph was not 
 our % but a & formed farther back in the throat, 
 and here represented by & There are also four 
 ‘faucal breaths,’ ‘aleph, he, heth, and ‘ayin, of 
 which ‘aleph, the lightest, was a slightly explosive 
 consonant, heard in English after the word No! 
 when uttered abruptly, and nearly equivalent to 
 the spiritus lenis of the Greeks; ‘ayin was a sound 
 of the same kind, but harder than’aleph, approach- 
 ing a g rolled in the throat; heth, called th 
 ‘fricative faucal,’ was a continuous guttural, 
 resembling the cA in the Scotch loch ; and he was a 
 fainter sound of the same kind, approaching our 
 h, The primitive sound of shin was probably that 
 of our sh, but was subject to dialectic variation. 
 Yod and vau were semi-consonants, or rather 
 consonantal vo, els, usually equivalent to y and v, 
 but passing readily into 7 and wu. 
 
 None of the Sem. A.s have possessed symbols 
 for the true vowels, which are now denoted, not 
 by letters, but by diacritical points, a notation 
 essentially non-alphabetic, and not of any great 
 Pepe The vowels in non-Semitic A.s, such 
 as Greek, Zend, Armenian, Georgian, Sanskrit, 
 and Mongolian, have been developed out of char- 
 acters representing the Sem. breaths and semi- 
 consonants. Thus the Gr. alpha, whence our A, 
 was obtained from ‘aleph, the spiritus lenis ; 
 epsilon, whence our E, is from fe, an aspirate ; e/a 
 and our H from feth, the fricative faucal ; iota 
 and our I and J from yud, a semi-consonant; 
 omicron and omega, and our O, from ‘ayin, the 
 spiritus asper ; while wpsiion and our U, V, W, Y, 
 and F, came from vau, a semi-consonant. 
 
 Besides the absence of symbols for the vowels, 
 most of the Sem. scripts, Heb., Syr., and Arab., 
 agree in being written from right to left, the 
 direction following the example of the prototype, 
 the Hieratic of the Papyrus Prisse, whereas in 
 the non-Sem. scripts the direction has mostly 
 been changed. The Sem. A.s have also adhered 
 to the primitive 22 letters, none of which have 
 fallen into disuse, any additional notation required 
 being effected by diacritical points, whereas in other 
 scripts new forms have been evolved by differentia- 
 tion, as in the case of our own letters V, U, W, Y, 
 and F, which are all differentiated forms of the 
 same symbol. 
 
 The pictorial character of the Hieroglyphs had 
 disappeared in the Hieratic of the Papyrus Prisse, 
 and hence it is no matter for surprise to find that 
 the Egyp. symbols were renamed by the Semites, 
 on the acrologic principle, by words significant in 
 Sem. speech, the new names being due to a resem- 
 blance, real or fanciful, between the form assumed 
 by the letter and some object whose name began 
 with the letter in question, as in our nursery 
 picture-books, in which O is an orange, S a swan, 
 and B a butterfly. Thus the first symbol was no 
 longer ahom, the ‘eagle,’ as in Egyp., but became 
 ‘aleph, the ‘ox,’ from the resemblance to the front 
 view of the head and horns of that animal; and the 
 13th, instead of being mu/wk, the ‘owl,’ became mem, 
 the ‘ waters,’ what had been the ears and beak of 
 
 “ee 
 
ALPHABET 
 
 the owl coming to resemble the undulations of 
 waves (see col. 2 and 3). The Sem. names are 
 yometimes more peally, explained by the Egyp. 
 forms of the Papyrus Prisse than by those in the 
 oldest Sem. inscriptions. The Sem. names are 
 usually interpreted as follows: ’aleph means an ‘ox’ ; 
 beth signifies a ‘house’; and gime/, a ‘camel,’ the 
 Hieratic form resembling a recumbent camel, with 
 the head, neck, body, tail, ana saddle, of which 
 only the head and neck are preserved in the oldest 
 Sem. letter; daleth means a ‘door,’ not a house 
 door, but the curtain forming the entrance to an 
 Eastern tent; Ae signifies a ‘ window’; vawis anail, 
 eg, or hook for hanging things on ; zayin probably 
 enotes ‘weapons’; feth, a fence or ‘palisade’ ; 
 teth, from a root meaning curvature, is supposed 
 to have been a picture of a coiled snake; yod is 
 the ‘hand’; kaph the ‘ palm’ of the hand, or the 
 bent hand; Jamed is an ‘ox-goad’; mem, the 
 ‘waters’; nun, a ‘fish’; samekh is probably a 
 prop or support; ‘ayin is the ‘eye’; pe, the 
 ‘mouth’; zgade is probably a ‘ javelin,’ or perhaps 
 a hook ; koph is usually supposed to mean a ‘knot’; 
 reshis the ‘head’; shin, the ‘teeth’; tau, a ‘ cross,’ 
 or sign for marking beasts. It will be noticed that 
 six of these names, gimel, he, yod, nun, pe, and 
 samekh, must be very ancient, being most easily 
 explained by reference to the Hieratic forms. 
 he early history of the A. has to be recon- 
 structed from inscriptions, many of which have 
 only been discovered in recent years. Among the 
 monuments of the older stage of the Phen. A. the 
 great inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, ranks 
 first in importance. In 1868 Mr. Klein, of the 
 C. M. S., visited the site of Dibon, the ancient 
 capital of the kingdom of Moab. Here he was 
 shown a block of basalt, with an inscription in 34 
 lines of wr cing. The interest excited by this 
 discovery, and the rival efforts of the European 
 consuls to secure the treasure, unfortunately aroused 
 the jealousy of the Arabs, by whom the stone was 
 broken into fragments, some forty of which have 
 been recovered, enough to lay the foundation of 
 early Sem. palo. BEny. In this inscription, which 
 must be fatorred | to the middle of the 9th cent. 
 B.c., Mesha, in language closely akin to Bibl. 
 Hebrew, gives an account of the wars between Israel 
 and Moab, narrating more esp. those events in his 
 own reign which took place after the death of Ahab 
 in 853 B.c. The year 850 B.c. has been generally 
 accepted by scholars as an oo date for the 
 record. Somewhat earlier, though of less historical 
 importance, are some inscribed fragments of bronze 
 vessels, obtained from of oie in 1876, which 
 proved to be portions of two bowls containing dedi- 
 cations to Baal Lebanon. They must have been 
 carried off to Cyprus as a part of the spoils from a 
 temple on Lebanon. The writing on one of the 
 bowls proves on paleographical grounds to be 
 nearly of the same date as the Moabite inscrip- 
 tion, while that on the other bowl exhibits more 
 archaic forms of several letters, and may probably 
 be older by a century, belonging to the close of the 
 10th or the beginning of the llth cent. B.c. It is 
 from these bowls, supplemented by the evidence of 
 the Moabite Stone, that the A. in col. 3 has been 
 constructed. 
 
 It is called the Israelitic A. in oider to avoid 
 confusion with a much later A., which, having been 
 first known to scholars, usurped the name of the 
 Heb. A. It cannot be too carefully remembered 
 that at successive periods in their history the 
 Hebrews employed two A.s, identical in all 
 essential particulars, but wholly unlike in the 
 external appearance of the letters. From the 
 earliest period of which we possess any knowledge, 
 down to the captivity in Babylon, this Plien. A., 
 of which the oldest monuments are the Moabite 
 
 ALPHABET 738 
 
 
 
 Stone and the Baal Lebanon bowls, must also have 
 been the contemporary A. of the Hebrews. This 
 was ingeniously proved by Gesenius, long before 
 these monuments were discovered. He contended 
 that the earlier books of the OT could not have been 
 written, as was formerly supposed, in what is 
 now known as the Heb. A., since many obvious 
 corruptions in the text could only have arisen from 
 the errors of copyists, who confounded letters which 
 are much alike in the old Pheen., but are quite dis- 
 similar in the square Hebrew. For example, in the 
 list of David’s mighty men, recorded in 2 S 23”, 
 we have the name Heleb, which in the parallel 
 passage in 1 Ch 11 appears as Heled. One of 
 these readings is obviously corrupt, and the corrup- 
 tion can only be due to the original record having 
 been written in the older or Phen. A., in which 
 the letters beth and daleth differ so slightly as 
 often to be hardly distinguishable, whereas in the 
 later or square Heb. A. the letters 1 and_> are 
 unmistakably distinct. Hence, he argued, the 
 record must be prior to the Captivity, when, 
 according to the habbinic tradition, the new A. 
 was introduced. When Gesenius wrote, the evi- 
 dence as to the nature of the older Heb. A. was 
 scanty in the extreme, being limited to a few 
 engraved gems in the Phen. A., supposed to be 
 Heb. because of their bearing names apparently 
 Jewish. Now, however, all doubts have been set 
 at rest by the accidental discovery in 1880 of the 
 famous Siloam inscription, engraved in a recess of 
 the tunnel which pierces the ridge of Ophel, and 
 brings water from the Pool of the Virgin to the 
 Pool of Siloam. The inscription which records the 
 construction of the tunnel is in six lines of writing, 
 manifestly later in date than the Moabite inscrip- 
 tion, though of .he sametype. On paleographical 
 grounds it has been assigned to the reign of 
 Manasseh, B.C. 685-641, though it is possible that 
 it may be as early as the reign of Hezekiah, and 
 may refer to the conduit constructed by him at the 
 end of the 8th cent., as recorded in 2 K 20” and 
 2 Ch 32°. This A. is of special interest, as in it 
 most of the writings of the Jewish prophets must 
 have been composed. This older A. lingered long, 
 being employed on the coins of the Maccabees and 
 on those of the Hasmonzean princes. It survives as 
 the sacred script of the few Samaritan families at 
 Nablfis, who still worship in their temple on Mt. 
 Gerizim, and keep the Passover with the ancient 
 rites. With this exception, the old Phan. A., the 
 parent of all existing A.s, has become extinct. 
 This earliest type of the Sem. A. graduall 
 
 passes into another, somewhat more cursive, whic 
 goes by the name of the Sidonian, its chief repre- 
 sentative being the great inscription on the magni- 
 ficent basalt sarcophagus of Eshmunazar, king of 
 Sidon, now in the Louvre, which is assigned to the 
 end ef the 5th cent. B.c. Out of this Sidonian 
 type was evolved the Aramean A., which was 
 destined to replace the Pheen. after the decadence 
 of the Phen. power. The great trade route from 
 the Red Sea and Egypt to Babylon passed through 
 Damascus, Hamath, and Carchemish, and the 
 trade fell into the hands of the Aramezans, the 
 people of N. Syria. Hence, on the political decline 
 of the Phen. cities, the Aramzean language and A. 
 became the medium of carenionerA intercourse 
 throughout W. Asia. At Nineveh in the 7th cent. 
 B.C., and at Babylon in the 6th, the Sidonian type 
 begins to be replaced by the Aramzan, whose 
 continuous development may be traced from the 
 5th to the Ist cent. B.C., first on the coins struck 
 by Persian satraps of Asia Minor, and then by the 
 aid of mortuary inscriptions and papyri from 
 Egypt, which carry on the record after the con- 
 quests of Alexander had put an end to the Persian 
 satrapies. An inspection of col. 4 in the table will 
 
74 ALPHABET 
 
 show that the chief characteristics of the Aramean 
 A.—due evidently to the free use of the reed pen 
 and papyrus—are a progressive opening of the 
 Blades loops of the letters beth, daleth, teth, ‘ayin, 
 koph, and resh; while he, vau, zayin, heth, and 
 tau tend to lose their distinctive bars. At the 
 same time the script continually becomes more 
 cursive in character, the tails of the letters curving 
 more and more to the left, while the introduction 
 of ligatures led to a distinction between the final 
 and the medial or initial forms of certain letters. 
 These changes, while they made writing easier and 
 more rapid, at the same time made it less legible. 
 
 On the return of the Jews from the Bab. exile, 
 the ancient A. of Israel, though retained on the 
 Maccabeean coins, and possibly in copies of the law, 
 was gradually abandoned for the more cursive but 
 far inferior Aramzwan, which had become the 
 mercantile script of the W. provinces of Persia. A 
 Jewish tradition, preserved in the Talm., attributed 
 this change to Ezra; but there can be no doubt that 
 both scripts were for a time employed concurrently 
 —the Aramean by the mercantile classes and the 
 returning exiles, and the older A. by those who, 
 He the Samaritans, had been left behind in the 
 and. 
 
 The older Phen. style had fortunately been 
 transmitted to the Geese before the Aramzean de- 
 formation had taken place. Consequently the Rom. 
 A. which we have inherited, being a Western form 
 of the Greek A., has retained in such letters as 
 B, D, 0, Q, R, E, F, H those loops and bars whose 
 disappearance in the Heb., Syr., Arab., and other 
 A.s descended from the Aramzan, has contributed 
 to make them so illegible. Our own capitals are, 
 in fact, much nearer to the primitive Phen. or Isr. 
 A. than any of the existing Sem. A.s, and it is 
 to this retention of the archaic forms that they 
 owe their excellence and general superiority. The 
 closed loop of D and R and the upper loop of B repro- 
 duce the closed triangles of the earlier Sem. script, 
 which were lost by the Aramzean deformation, and 
 are consequently much superior to the formless 
 shapes 17.1 which we have in modern Hebrew. 
 
 hen the Seleucidan empire had come to a 
 close, the Aramzan broke up into national scripts, 
 the A. of Eastern Syria developing at Bozra, Petra, 
 and the Hauran into the Nabatzan, which was 
 the parent of Arabic, while the Aramezan of N. 
 Syria developed at Edessa into Syriac, and that of S. 
 Syria, at Jerus. and Bab., into what is called Hebrew. 
 
 e early form of square Heb. used at Jerus. in 
 the time of our Lord, with which He must Himself 
 have been familiar, and in which probably the roll 
 was written which He read in the synagogue 
 (Lk 4?"), is given in col. 5 of the table. This A. has 
 been obtained from monuments of the Herodian 
 period found in Galilee or at Jerus., all of which 
 must be anterior to the siege by Titus. These 
 inscriptions are chiefly from tombs; but one of 
 them, of special interest, is a fragment of one of 
 the notices, enjoining silence and reverent be- 
 haviour, set up, as we learn from Josephus, when 
 the temple was rebuilt by Herod. 
 
 The materials for the history of the Heb. A. 
 during the period of the dispersion, from the Ist 
 cent. to the 10th, when it practically assumed its 
 present form, have been gathered from regions 
 curiously remote. Some are from the Jewish 
 Catacombs at Rome, many from the Crimea, others 
 from the Jewish cemeteries at Vienne, Arles, and 
 Narbonne in Gaul, at Tortosa in Spain, Venosa in 
 sae from Prag, Aden, Tiflis, and Derbend, and, 
 not least in importance, the writing on some cabal- 
 istic bowls found at Babylon, dating from the 4th to 
 the 7th cent. A.D. (see col. 6). The earliest exist- 
 ing codex, the A. of which is given in col. 7, dates 
 from the beginning of the 10th cent., when the 
 
 ALPHZUS 
 
 
 
 letters had practically assumed their modern 
 forms though not their modern aspect, the useless 
 ornamental apices in our printed books (col. 8) 
 being due to the schools of Heb. caligraphy which 
 arose in the 12th cent. The square Heb. of our 
 printed Bibles is thus one of the most modern of 
 existing A.s, and was not, as was formerly be. 
 lieved, the most ancient of all. The forms of these 
 setters are thus neither legible nor venerable. 
 Their adoption was almost a matter of accident. 
 There were two styles, the Spanish and the 
 German, and the latter was used in the Minster 
 
 rinted Bible, the types being imitated from those 
 in MSS. then in fashion. The result is that our 
 eyes are fatigued with the fantastic and vicious 
 erty of the 14th cent., a period when the 
 odious black letter was developed out of the 
 beautiful Caroline minuscule, to which in our 
 ee books we have now fortunately reverted. 
 
 o in Heb. it would have been much better to have 
 reverted to the far superior forms of earlier times, 
 such, for instance, as those in use in the 8th cent. 
 The earlier forms are better, because the letters are 
 free from useless ornamental flourishes which are 
 so trying to the Sikes of students and compositors, 
 and are more legible and more distinct. in the 
 case of our own vicious black letter, some characters 
 are assimilated so as to be difficult to distinguish—in 
 particular 3 beth, 3 kaph; 3 nun, 1 gimel ; 1 daleth, 
 sresh; 7 kaph final, | nun final; 1 vau, 1 zayin; or 
 of 0 samekh, and o mem final; while na and a 
 stand for h, h, and ¢. 
 
 Six of the Heb. letters gradually acquired an 
 alternative softer aspirated sound, and the harder 
 primitive sounds are now denoted by an interna] 
 point (Dagesh lene) 3113 5 A, representing the 
 sounds 5, g, d, k, p, ¢, the same forms without the 
 Dagesh, or with a superscript line called Raphe, 
 standing for bh, gh, dh, kh, ph, th. The letter 
 shin also split up into two sounds, distinguished by 
 diacritical points, » approaching the sound of our 
 s, and w that of our sh. 
 
 The vowel points are late and of little authority. 
 The Greek transliterations of Heb. names in the 
 Sept. and in Josephus suffice to prove that there 
 were no vowel points in the copies of the Heb. Scrip- 
 tures then in use, and as late as the time of St. 
 Jerome the Heb. vocalisation was only known by 
 oral teaching. The Heb. points were suggested by 
 those which fad been introduced into Syriac in the 
 5th and 6th cent. A.D. They merely represent 
 the traditional pronunciation used in the syna- 
 gogues of Tiberias in the 7th cent. A.D. (See art. 
 LANGUAGE OF OT.) IsaAAc TAYLOR. 
 
 ALPHAUS, ’Ad\¢aios (Westcott and Hort, Introd. 
 § 408, assuming that the name is.a transliteration 
 of the Aramaic ‘570, write it with the rough breath- 
 ing, ‘A\¢aios), occurs four times in the Gospels and 
 once in Acts. As thus used it is the name of twa 
 different men. 
 
 1. The father of the Apostle Matthew or Levi 
 (Mk 2"), not elsewhere named or otherwise known. 
 
 2. All the other references are evidently tc 
 another man (Mt 108, Mk 338, Lk 6%, Ac 138), whe 
 is represented as father of James the apostle, second 
 of that name in the list. 
 
 A considerable controversy has long been carried 
 on as to whether this A. may be identified with the 
 Clopas of Jn 19% and the Cleopas of Lk 24%. This 
 question has been of special interest as involved 
 in the discussion regarding James and the Brethren 
 of the Lord (wh. see). Ewald boldly assumes that 
 the Clopas of John and the Cleopas of Luke are one, 
 but maintains that the identification with Alpheus 
 is an unreasonable confounding of a purely Greek 
 with a purely Hebrew name (Hist. of Israel, vi. 
 
 305, note 4). Meyer affirms the identity of the 
 
 eee eee ee ee 
 
 
 
 ae 
 
 
 
Pets 
 
 rr ath 
 
 Fe SAO TaN OY Se ae eee cae tS 
 
 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 
 
 of John with the Aramaic *57n, the Alpheus 
 of the Synoptics. And Alford (on Mt 10%) regards 
 the two Greek names as simply two different 
 ways of expressing the Hebrew name ‘57. It 
 seems better to distinguish the Cleopas of Luke 
 from the Clopas of John. It is quite evident that 
 Cleopas is simply a shortened form of Cleopater 
 (KAcorarpos), like Antipas for Antipater. Lightfoot, 
 indeed, while admitting this, still favours the 
 identification of the two names. On the other 
 hand, Clopas may with the highest probability be 
 regarded as a simple transliteration of the Aramaic 
 Halphai. Clopas (as in the Greek text and RV, 
 not Cleopas as in the AY) is represented in Jn 
 19” as the husband of one of the Marys who stood 
 beside the cross. If we assume that four women 
 are there referred to, there is no indication of any 
 relationship between the wife of Clopas and the 
 mother of Jesus. The synoptic passages, however, 
 all mention among the women at the cross this 
 same Mary as the mother of James., There is no 
 reason for supposing that this James, son of Mary, 
 is any other than James the son of Alpheus. But 
 the assumption that Clopas was husband of Mary 
 and brother of Joseph, and the usual assumption 
 that Mary was the sister of our Lord’s mother, are 
 equally groundless, and have no support whatever 
 from any statement in our Gospels. There seems 
 no reason for supposing that James the little and 
 James the brother of the Lord are one and the same 
 person. Eusebius, indeed, mentions, on the autho- 
 rity of esta pus, that Symeon, who succeeded 
 James in the bishopric of Jerusalem, was son of 
 ee the brother of Joseph; but Symeon is 
 evidently ian not as a brother, but only as a 
 relative, probably a cousin, of his predecessor James. 
 
 LitERaTURE.—Besides the works referred to in the text, see 
 Lightfoot, Galatians, 10th ed. London, 1890, p. 267; Mayor, The 
 Byistle of St. James, 1892, p. xvif. See also an interesting and 
 clever but perverse note in Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iii. 276. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 ALTAR.—i. ALTAR is the invariable rendering in 
 the OT of n3}>* (Aram. n37> Ezr 71”), and in the 
 NT of dvsiacrhpiov. In AV it also occurs as the 
 rendering of by7n (Ezk 43%), RV ‘upper a.’, and 
 of Symyx (Ezk 4315-16 — Kethib Swnx), RV ‘a. 
 hearth.’ In the NT Bwyés is found once (Ac 17%) 
 in the sense of a heathen a. This distinction 
 is very clearly brought out in 1 Mac 1° ‘ they did 
 sacrifice upon the idol altar (éml rdév Bwyutv) which 
 was upon the altar of God (r. @vctagrnplov).’ Simi- 
 larly the Vulg. and early Lat. Fathers avoid the 
 use of ara, preferring altaria and altare. Another 
 designation is met with, viz. jnbv, prop. ‘table,’ 
 Ezk 417 4416, Mal 17-12, It would also seem that 
 the appellation 193, prop. ‘high place,’ may in some 
 cases be used to express ‘a.,’ as Jer 79! (LXX rdv 
 Bwpor rod Taped), 2 23° (but here text is doubt- 
 ful), ete. 0435 Is 65 is wrongly rendered in AV 
 ‘a* of brick’; RV ‘upon the bricks.’ In one or 
 two places in the OT n3)p of the present MT 
 seems an alteration from an original 7232. So 
 clearly Gn 33”, and most probably 2 K 12% On 
 the other hand, nap ghould: perhaps be restored in 
 2 K 10% (Stade in ZATW. v. pp. 278, 289 f.). 
 
 ii. ALTARS IN PREHISTORIC TimES.—According 
 to the primitive conceptions of the nomad Semites, 
 the presence of a deity was implied in every spot 
 that attracted them by its water or shade, and in 
 every imposing landmark that guided them in 
 their wanderings. Every well and grove, every 
 mountain and rock, had its presiding deity. The 
 humble offering of the worshipper could be cast 
 into the well, exposed upon the rock, or hung upon 
 the sacred tree. It was thus brought into imme- 
 diate contact with the nwmen therein residing. A 
 great step in advance was taken when it was con- 
 
 * Lit. ‘place of slaughter.’ 
 
 ALTAR 75 
 
 
 
 ceived that the deity could not only reside in such 
 objects of nature’s own creation as those above 
 specified, but could be persuaded ‘to come and 
 take for his embodiment a structure set up for him 
 by the worshipper’ (W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. p 
 189). The consideration of this all-important 
 advance belongs elsewhere ; it is sufficient to note 
 here that recent researches, esp. those of Well- 
 hausen and W. R. Smith, have abundantly proved 
 that the heathen Semite regarded the stone or 
 cairn which he had himself erected, as a dwelling- 
 place of a deity, a Beth-el (ox-ma, cf. Gn 2818; for 
 the significance of this passage, see PILLAR), a 
 name which passed, through the Pheenicians as 
 intermediaries, to the Greeks (fair’idov) and 
 Romans (detulus). Such a stone was termed b 
 the Arabs, in the days before Islam, nusb (pl. 
 ansab), a word identical in origin and signification 
 with the Heb. a3yp (AV ‘pillar’). Beside it the 
 victim was slaughtered; the blood was either 
 poured over the stone, or with part of it the stone 
 was smeared, while the rest was poured out at its 
 base, the essential idea in this primitive rite being 
 that in this way the blood was brought into im- 
 mediate contact with the deity who, for the time 
 being, had taken up his abode in the stone. 
 
 Now there can be no doubt that the same primi- 
 tive ideas were shared by the ancestors of the Heb- 
 rews. Among them, too, the nusb or mazzcba must 
 have been the prototype of the sacrificial a. ‘The 
 rude Arabian usage is the primitive type out of 
 which all the elaborate a. ceremonies of the more 
 cultivated Semites grew ’ (fel. of Sem. Ist ed. p. 184. 
 See also SACRIFICE). Even in hist. times we find 
 among the Hebrews a survival of the primitive ritual 
 above described. In the narrative of the battle of 
 Michmash, Saul is shocked at the unseemly haste 
 of his warriors in eating flesh ‘with the blood,’ 
 and orders a great stone to be brought at which 
 the beasts might be duly slain and their blood 
 poured out at the extemporised altar. 
 
 The next important step, the advance from the 
 a. as a sacred stone to receive the blood of the 
 victim to the a. as a hearth on which the flesh of 
 the victim was burned in whole or in part, belongs 
 to the history of SACRIFICE (which see, and cf. 
 Smith, Rel. Sem. p. 358 ff.). 
 
 If the above is a correct account of the evolution 
 of the a. among the western Semites, the differ- 
 entiation of pillar and a. must, as regards the 
 inhabitants ai Pal., have taken pike in the pre- 
 historic period. This seems the obvious conclusion 
 from the existence, even at the present day, of 
 immense numbers of megalithic monuments, the 
 so-called menhirs and dolmens. These charac- 
 teristic remains of antiquity, so numerous in Moab 
 and in the W. Hauran, must undoubtedly have 
 played an important part in the religious rites of 
 those who reared them, and whom, for the present, 
 we may assume to have been of a Sem. stock. The 
 ‘cup-hollows” on the table-stone of the dolmens, 
 connected in many cases by a network of channels, 
 must have been destined to receive the blood of 
 the victim.* 
 
 iii, PRE-DEUTERONOMIC ALTARS. — A very 
 marked distinction, as is well known, exists he- 
 tween the attitude to sacrifice of the prophetic and 
 
 riestly narratives respectively in our present Pent. 
 The latter (P) limits sacrifice to the great central 
 a.,t while the former (JE) relates numerous in- 
 
 * See Conder’s report on the dolmen-fields of Moab in P.E.F. 
 Qu. St. 1882, p. 75 ff. ; also in Heth and Moab, chs. vii. and viii.; 
 Syr. Stone Lore, pp. 42, 43, 70, Another rich field has been 
 described by Schumacher, The Jauilan, 
 Jordan, p. 62ff. Of. Perrot and Chipiez, 
 LAntiquité, iv. p. 376 ff. 
 
 + The difficult section (Jos 2210-34) seems best explained as an 
 endeavour to reduce a narrative originally written from the 
 standpoint of JE to an apparent harmony with the fundamental 
 postulate of P 
 
 . 123 ff.; Across 
 ist. de TArt dans 
 
76 ALTAR 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 
 
 stances of sacrifice being offered and a* erected 
 from the earliest times, and in many different 
 places. Noah is represented as building an a. on 
 quitting the ark (Gn 8”); Abraham erected 
 several, viz. at Shechem (127), Bethel (12°), Hebron 
 (13!8), and on a special occasion in ‘the land of 
 Moriah’ (22°). Isaac (26%) and Jacob (357) do 
 likewise. Even Moses, according to this source, 
 erects an altar at Rephidim (Ex 17), and another, 
 accompanied by twelve pillars (niayp), at Horeb 
 (244). JE therefore clearly knows nothing in its 
 narrative parts of the exclusive legitimacy of a 
 central a. With this position the law-code which 
 it contains, the so-called Book of the Covenant 
 (see Driver, LOT 28ff.), is in complete accord. 
 In the locus classicus (Ex 20) a plurality of a* 
 is clearly sanctioned : ‘im every place (RV) where 
 I record My name, I will come unto thee, and I 
 will bless thee.’ And the same holds good through- 
 out the history of the Hebrews until the time of 
 Josiah. Again and again do we find a* built, ie 
 and down the country, either by the recognise 
 
 religious leaders themselves, or with their express 
 sanction. Thus, to mention but a few, Joshua 
 builds an a. on Mt. Ebal (Jos 8*°) in accordance 
 with the injunction of Moses himself (Dt 27°), 
 Gideon at Ophrah (Jg 6%), and Samuel at Ramah 
 (18 7/7). Saul, we have already seen, extemporised 
 an a. at Michmash, which the historian informs 
 us was the first that Saul built, implying that this 
 monarch had the merit of erecting several. David 
 erected an a., by express divine command, ‘in 
 the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite’ 
 (2S 2418-25), Elijah, too, complains of the destruc- 
 tion of the altars of J” as an act of sacrilege 
 (1 K 19° 14), and had, but a little before, repaired, 
 with his own hand, the a. of the Lord upon Mt. 
 Carmel. These examples are sufficient to show that 
 in pre-Deut. Israel a plurality of a* was regarded 
 as a matter of course, there being not the slightest 
 hint of disapproval on the part of the narrators, or 
 of any idea in the minds of the actors in the 
 history that they were guilty of the violation of 
 any divine command. 
 
 Prom the oldest hist. records of the Hebrews, 
 therefore, it is evident that local sanctuaries 
 abounded throughout the country (see HIGH PLACE, 
 and esp. 1 Sam. passim), the most essential feature 
 of which was undoubtedly the a. on which sacri- 
 fice was offered to the national God, J”. Of the 
 form of these pre-Deut. altars we have no precise 
 information. Ko doubt, as wealth and culture in- 
 creased, the a*, esp. at Bethel and the other great 
 sanctuaries, would become more and more elabo- 
 rate ; but in more primitive times they were simple 
 in the extreme. A heap of earth, either by itself 
 (2 K 5!) or with a casing of turf (see Dillmann on 
 Ex 20%), a few stones piled upon each other, are all 
 that was required. Simplicity is the dominant 
 note of the law in the fundamental passage, Ex 
 204#-, It is there enjoined, moreover, that no tool 
 shall be lifted to hew or dress the stone (cf. Dt 275, 
 Jos 831, 1 Mac 447), In this many modern investi- 
 gators have seen a survival of the primitive idea, 
 already explained, of a numen inhabiting the altar- 
 stone, who would be driven out or perhaps injured 
 by the process of dressing (Nowack, Archdol. ii. 
 17; Benzinger, Archdol. 379). Another injunction, 
 that the worshipper (for the command is not ad- 
 dressed to the priests) should not ascend by steps 
 (loc. cit.), is also a plea for simplicity. The a. must 
 not be of such a height as to prevent the wor- 
 shipper standing on the ground from manipulating 
 his offering. The evasion of the injunction by a 
 sloping ascent was an afterthought. 
 
 * Of. the early narrative 1 K 228. where Joab is represented as 
 
 grasping the horns of the a. (see below, v.), and at the same time 
 etanding by the side of thea. Also 2 K 517 ‘two mules’ burden.’ 
 
 To what extent the still existing dolmens (see 
 above) may have been used as a‘ in this yeriod it 
 is impossible to say. In the older narratives, how- 
 ever, there are not a few instances of the earlier 
 usage of a single stone (1 8 64—v.” is a later 
 insertion—14*) or of the native rock as ana, (Jg 
 6” and esp. 13! 2° where “xa v.” is identified with 
 03:07 v.2). The site of David’s a., we can scarely 
 doubt, was the Sakhrah rock, now enclosed in the 
 so-called mosque of Omar. The ‘stone Zoheleth 
 which is by En-Rogel’ was also an ancient altar- 
 stone (1 K 1°). Solomon, finally, at the dedication 
 of the temple, is said to have converted the ‘middle 
 of the court’ into a huge a. (1 K 8). For Solo- 
 mon’s brazen a., see TEMPLE.* This a. was re- 
 moved by Ahaz (2 K 16-18) to make way for the 
 stone a. (note 733 v.") which he caused to be built 
 after the model of the great a. of Damascus (03)5n, 
 ef. v.¢in RY). Ahaz’a., rather than the brazen 
 a. of Solomon, was in its turn the model for the 
 a. of Ezekiel (cf. 43°17), 
 
 Of the other a* made by Ahaz we know nothing, 
 nor of those set up by later kings (2 K 23” loc. 
 cit.). As tothe a. to Baal which Ahab erected in 
 Samaria (1 K 16%), we may assume that it re- 
 sembled the a* erected by his Phen. neighbours 
 to the same deity (cf. Perrot et Chipiez, Hist. de 
 ?Art dans l Antvq. iii. fig. 192 and passim). 
 
 iv. Post-DEUTERONOMIC ALTARS.—The sanctu- 
 aries and a‘, sanctioned, as we have seen, by the 
 oldest law-code, ceased to be legitimate on the 
 adoption of the code of Deut. (Dt 12ff.). The 
 centralisation of the caitus, which was the chief 
 aim of the Deut. legislation, seems to have been 
 attempted under Hezekiah (2 K 18”), but it must 
 be admitted that the complete abandonment of the 
 local baéméth was never wn fait accompli until after 
 the discipline of the Exile (1 K 22%, 2 K 15%). In 
 theory, however, the a*, whether ‘upon the hills 
 and under every green tree,’ or at places which had 
 been seats of worship since the conquest, were no 
 longer legitimate ; for sacrifice, as now for the first 
 time officially distinguished from slaughter (Dt 
 12), could only be offered with acceptance on the 
 a. of the central sanctuary at Jerusalem. It is not 
 impossible that, as Conder has suggested (see ref. 
 above), it is to the reforming zeal of Josiah that we 
 owe the fact that not a single dolmen has been 
 met with in S. Pal. (cf. Cheyne, Jeremiah, p. 60). 
 The history of the a., therefore, from this time 
 forward is merged in the history of the temple. It 
 must suffice here to note that, as soon as practi- 
 cable, the returned exiles built the a. on its former 
 site (Ezr 37), which a. continued in use until its 
 desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Mac 1%), 
 Having by this act of sacrilege been rendered unfit 
 for further use, it was taken down and another 
 built in its stead (1 Mac 4), Thea. of Herod’s 
 temple was the last built on Jewish soil. Accord- 
 ing to Jos. (Wars, v. v. 6) it was built, in harmony 
 with the ancient prescription, of unhewn stones. 
 One other a. meets us in the history of the Jews; 
 this is the a. erected by Onias Iv. in his temple at 
 Leontopolis in Egypt (Jos. Wars, vil. x. 3; Ant. 
 XIII. iii. 31), founding on a mistaken interpretaticn 
 of Is 19, 
 
 The a. of burnt-offering and the a. of incense 
 which play so important a part in the ritual legis- 
 lation of the Priests’ Code (P), will be discussed 
 in detail in the article TABERNACLE. See also 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 v. THE ALTAR AS ASYLUM. — An important 
 function of the a. among the Hebrews remains to be 
 
 * W. R. Smith’s view, that ‘it is very doubtful whether thera 
 was in the first temple any other brazen a. than the two brazen 
 pillars, Jacbin and Boaz,’ is not supported by sufficient evidence. 
 It is, besides, difficult to see why only one of the two pillara 
 
 } should have on this theory, the functions of an a. assigned 
 to it (Rel. Sem. i. pp. 358-359, and Note L, 466 ff.). 
 
AL-TASHHETH 
 
 AMALEK, AMALEKITES 
 
 noticed. The earliest legislation presupposes and | vet dwelling north of the Gulf of Akabah. See 
 
 confirms the sanctity of the a. as an asylum. The 
 right of asyluin, however, is there limited to cases 
 of accidental homicide (Ex 21-14), This use of 
 the a., which is not confined to the Sem. peoples, 
 is also a survival of the primitive idea of the a. as 
 the temporary abode of a deity. In clasping the 
 a.. the fugitive was placing himself under the im- 
 mediate protection of the deity in question. In 
 this connexion, as well as in regard to an im- 
 portant part of the fully - developed a. ritual 
 (cf. Lv 47"), the horns of the a. are esteemed 
 the most sacred part of the whole. It is difficult, 
 however, to see how these could have formed part 
 of the more ancient a. as prescribed in the Book of 
 the Covenant (see above); yet their presence is 
 amply attested in later times (cf. Am 3", Jer 17}, 
 and the incidents recorded in 1 K 1 2%), The 
 origin and primary significance of the horns are 
 still obscure. Most recent writers seek to trace a 
 connexion between them and the worship of 
 J” in the form of a young bull (Kuenen, Rel. of 
 Isr. i. 326; Stade, Benzinger, Nowack). In an 
 
 case they are not to be regarded as mere append- 
 ages, but as an integral part of the a. (see Dill- 
 mann on Ex 27%). The view that they were 
 originally projections to which the victims were 
 bound, has no better al ort than the corrupt 
 passage, Ps 118” (for which see Comm.). The 
 comparison of the ‘horns’ of the Heb. with those 
 of the Greek a, (evxépaos Bwyts) seems misleading, 
 since the latter rather resembled the volutes of the 
 Ionic capital (cf. art. ara in Daremberg et Saglio, 
 Dictionnaire etc., figs. 410, 418, 422). The famous 
 
 stele of Teima, on the other hand, shows the 
 ‘horns’ rising from the corners of the a., and 
 curved like those of an ox (see Perrot et Chipiez, 
 op. cit. tome iv. p. 392, Eng. tr. [see below] vol. i. 
 
 p. 304) 
 
 LrreraTurE.—Of the earlier literature the standard work is 
 John Spencer’s De legibus Heb. ritualibus, etc. 1685. Of the 
 modern works the most important are the works on Hebrew 
 antiquities by De Wette, Ewald (Eng. tr. 1876), Nowack (Heb- 
 rdisci Arohdo ve, 1894, Band ii. Sacralalterthtimer, § 73 ff.), 
 and Benzinger (Heb. Archdologie, 1894, § 52, Die altisrael. Heilig- 
 hi etc.), and the more general treatises of Wellhausen 
 
 Vorarbeiten, iii., Reste arab. Heidenthums, 1887), 
 
 and, in particular, W. R. Smith’s Religion of the Semites, 1889 
 (2nd ed. 1895). The student should also consult the standard 
 work of Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de [Art dans [ Antiquité, 
 tome iii. Phénicie, iv. Judée, etc. (Eng. tr. Hist. of Art in 
 Phenicia, 2 vols. 1885, Hist. of A. in Judea etc., 2 vols. 1890). 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 AL-TASHHETH (novrbx, AV Al-taschith), Pss 
 57. 58. 59. 65 (titles). See PSALMS. 
 
 ALTOGETHER is now only an adv., but was at 
 first an adj., being simply a stronger ‘all.’ Asan 
 adj. it is found in Ps 39° ‘ Verily every man at his 
 best state is a. vanity’; Is 10° ‘Are not my 
 He a. (RV ‘all of them’) kings,’ and perhaps 
 
 u 16, Of its useas an adv. noticeable examples 
 are Jer 30", where ‘I will not leave thee a. un- 
 punished’ is given in RV ‘I will in no wise leave 
 thee unpunished’; Ac 26”, where ‘ both almost and 
 a.’isin RV ‘ whether with little or with much’ after 
 the Gr. ; and 1 Co 5”, where ‘not a.’ (Gr. od mdvrws) 
 is taken by commentators in two directly opp. 
 senses, either ‘not wholly,’ or ‘not at all’; RY 
 gives the first in text, the second in marg. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ALUSH (v:5x).—A station in the journeyings, 
 occurs only Nu 33!*-4. (See SINAI.) 
 
 ALYAN (p>y).—Son of Shobal, a Horite (Gn 36%), 
 @ name appears in 1 Ch 1 as Alian (by). It is 
 clearly the same as Alvah (mby) in Gn 36”, which 
 ake in 1 Ch 1° as Aliah (my), one of the 
 ‘dukes’ of Edom. Knobel compares the name with 
 that of a Bedawin clan Alawin, said by Burckhardt 
 
 illm. in loc. H. 3. RYLE. 
 ALWAY, ALWAYS.—Alway (i.e. ‘all the way’) 
 is originally the accus. of duration, ‘all the 
 time’; while always is the genit. of occurrence, 
 ‘at all times.’ And although by 1611 this dis- 
 tinction was vanishing, there are some undoubted 
 instances in AV. Cf. Mt 28% ‘Lo, Iam with you 
 alway,’ with Ro 1° ‘I make mention of you always 
 in my pra ers.’ RV gives alway for always at 
 Ac 2416, 2 Th 18; and always for alway at Col 4° 
 apparently capriciously, for these changes oblite- 
 rate the distinction noticed above. When the dis- 
 tinction was lost, always drove alway out of use. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 AMAD (1ypy), Jos 19% only.—A city of Asher. 
 The site is doubtful ; there are several ruins called 
 ‘Amid in this region. 
 
 AMADATHOUS, Est 12° 16)°1, 
 DATHA. 
 
 AMAIN only in 2 Mac 12" ‘the enemies... 
 fled a.’ (so RV, Gr. els puyhv Spynoay). The mean- 
 ing is ‘at once, precipitately.’ 
 
 AMAL (Spy).—A descendant of Asher, 1 Ch 7% 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 AMALEK, AMALEKITES (pny, ‘pbpy).— A 
 nomadic Arabian tribe, occupying the wide desert 
 region between Sinai on the south and the southern 
 borders of Palestine on the north. This district 
 corresponds to what is now called the wilderness of 
 Et-Tih. The Amalekites are represented as per- 
 petually at feud with the Israelites, though such 
 closely connected tribes as the Kenites and Keniz- 
 zites appear from the first as friendly, and ulti- 
 mately as peaceful settlers in the midst of the 
 possessions of Israel. 
 
 References to the Amalekites appear very early 
 in the OT history. In the account of the cam- 
 paigns of Chedorlaomer of Elam and his confeder- 
 ates in Gn 14, ‘the country of the Amalekites’ 
 near Kadesh is described as the scene of one of 
 those desolating wars. Hengstenberg, followed by 
 Kurtz, maintains that this does not imply that 
 the Amalekites were in existence in the days of 
 Abraham, but only that this country, lying be- 
 tween Kadesh and the land of the Amorites, after- 
 wards known as ‘the fields of the Amalekites,’ was 
 at that early period overrun and destroyed by 
 Chedorlaomer. Had there been no other hints of 
 the extreme antiquity of the Amalekites, this ex- 
 planation might perhaps be accepted. But we find 
 again in the chant of Balaam (Nu 24”) that 
 Amalek is described as ‘the first of the nations,’ 
 which seems almost certainly to mean a primitive 
 people to be reckoned among the very oldest of 
 the nations. Most recent scholars are agreed in 
 assigning to the Amalekites a high antiquity. 
 This is the conclusion to which such passages as 
 those referred to would naturally lead. The only 
 reason why an attempt should be made to put any 
 other interpretation upon these words is the idea 
 that, in Gn 36%, the descent of the Amalekites is 
 traced from Amalek, the grandson of Esau, and 
 their origin thus brought down to a later period 
 than that of Abraham. It is exceedingly hazardous 
 to build any argument of this sort on an occasional 
 statement in a genealogical table reproduced from 
 some unknown source, seeing that it is impossible 
 to determine what the point of view of the original 
 compiler may have been. In many cases such 
 genealogical lists seem intended to set forth simply 
 certain interrelations of tribes, so that, though terms 
 indicating personal and family relationships are 
 
 See HAMME- 
 
 
 

 
 78 AMALEK, AMALEKITES 
 
 
 
 AMALEK, AMALEKITES 
 
 
 
 used, the names do not always belong to persons his- 
 torically real. All that we need understand by this 
 introduction of an Amalek, son of Eliphaz by a 
 concubine, is that Timna the Horite, the concubine 
 referred to, represents the importation or incor- 
 poration of a foreign and inferior, probably a servile, 
 element into the pure Edomite stock, the Horites 
 being one of the tribes forming that federation, 
 embracing the Amalekites, conquered by Chedor- 
 laomer. 
 
 The region in which the Amalekites first appear 
 in history, near Kadesh, lies just about a day’s 
 journey south of Hebron, on the undulating slopes 
 and plain at the foot of the mountains held 
 by the Amorites. It may be supposed that a 
 branch of the tribe had settled there, or had begun 
 to engage in agricultural pursuits. When driven 
 forth from their possessions by the conqueror, they 
 no doubt returned to their ane wandering modes of 
 life, and rejoined their brethren who moved about 
 through the wide extent of the great desert. 
 
 The first meeting of the Israelites and the 
 Amalekites took place in the southern part of the 
 Sinaitic peninsula. At Rephidim, a broad plain to 
 the north-west of Mount Sinai, the Amalekites 
 came out against the Israelites, and a battle ensued 
 which lasted throughout the whole day. Joshua 
 commanded in the fight, and Moses on the hill top 
 held up his rod in the sight of the people as the sign 
 from God that they would conquer te His rie 
 (Ex 17°'%), The Amalekites had at this time 
 acted in a peculiarly bitter and exasperating 
 manner towards the Israelites, harassing them on 
 their rear, and cutting off the weak and the weary 
 (Dt 25!7"*). In consequence, the Amalekites, to a 
 greater extent than any of the other Can. and 
 neighbouring tribes, were placed under the ban, so 
 that J” Himself, as well as His people, is repre- 
 soe as solemnly swearing eternal feud against 
 them. 
 
 The defeat of the Amalekites evidently put the 
 fear of the Israelites upon the robber nomad tribes 
 of the desert for a time, so that they were un- 
 molested during their advance to Sinai, and during 
 their year’s encampment there, as well as during 
 their subsequent march northward to the southern 
 border of Palestine at Kadesh. It was the intention 
 of the Israelites to enter Palestine from the south, 
 and so from this point, just outside of the southern 
 boundary of Palestine, spies were sent to examine 
 the land, and to bring back a report as to whether 
 an entrance from that point was possible, and if so, 
 how best the invading forces might conduct the 
 campaign. These spies on their return reported 
 that the Amalekites dwelt in the land of the south 
 in the valley, z.e. in the southern portions of the 
 region afterwards occupied by Judah and Simeon 
 (Nu 13” 14%), in the neighbourhood of the lowland 
 Canaanites and the highland Hittites, Jebusites, 
 and Amorites. The Amalekites are represented 
 as the leaders of the confederate Canaanites who 
 resisted the entrance of the Israelites into the south 
 of Palestine (Nu 14%), They were evidently 
 at that time of considerable importance, and must 
 have been for a long period in possession of those 
 territories only a little way north of the district in 
 which we find their ancestors, or, at least, a branch 
 of the same great nation, settled in the days of 
 Abraham. 
 
 The bitter opposition shown by the Amalekites 
 to the Israelites at Sinai and in Southern Pales- 
 tine was distinguished from that of the other tribes 
 by this, that they were really at the head of the 
 confederated clans already in possession of the land, 
 and the struggle between them and the invaders 
 was to determine the whole future of the rivals, 
 the success of the one necessarily meaning the utter 
 destruction of the other. ‘It was the hatred,’ 
 
 says Ewald (History of Israel, i. 250), ‘ of two rivals 
 disputing a splendid prize which the one had 
 previously geen and still partially possessed, 
 and the other was trying to get for himself by 
 ousting him.’ The bitterness must have been in- 
 tensified by the secession to the ranks of Israel of 
 such branches or families of the Amalekite stem as 
 the Kenites and Kenizzites. These two families, 
 with Jethro and Caleb respectively at their head, 
 were the ancient allies of Israel, and ultimately 
 settlers in the land. The defeat of the Israelites 
 may have secured for the Amalekites and theiz 
 immediate neighbours peace and prosperity throuyh- 
 out a whole generation. When they were ayain 
 attacked it was by a people already in possession 
 of the northern regions, now pressing southward, 
 How far they were interfered with by Judal: and 
 Simeon is not recorded, but it would appeny that 
 even after the Israelitish occupation of the country 
 the Amalekites in considerable numbers maintained 
 possession of the plateau and hilly regions in the 
 extreme south, 
 
 In the time of the Judges, however, we meet 
 with the Amalekites in the company of the 
 Midianites, as nomad tribes roaming about amon 
 their old desert haunts, and pursuing their ol 
 tacties of harassing peaceful agriculturists. When 
 the crops sown by the Israelites were ripening, 
 the Amalekite marauders descended and reaped 
 the harvest, so that the unfortunate inhabitants 
 were impoverished and discouraged (Jg 6°). They, 
 along with the Ammonites, were allies of the 
 Moabites in their conflict with Israel, and no doubt 
 suffered in the defeat of the Moabites at the hand 
 of Ehud (Jg 3). 
 
 During this same period, it would seem that a 
 branch of the Amalekite tribe had secured a 
 settlement in Mount Ephraim. Pirathon, the 
 residence of the judge Abdon, some 15 miies 
 south-west of Shechem, bore the name of ‘the 
 Mount of the Amalekites,’ or had in it a hill 
 so called (Jg 1215). The settlers who had thus 
 riven their name to the hill belonged in all prola- 
 bility to a branch of the Amalekites, who, about 
 the time that some of their bretliren settled in the 
 south of Palestine, in what was afterward assigned 
 to Judah, pressed farther to the north, and secured 
 possessions among other Canaanite tribes in the 
 very centre of the land. This is more likely than 
 the suggestion of Bertheau, that these Amalekites 
 of Ephraim were remnants of those expelled by the 
 men of Judah from their southern settlements in 
 the days of Joshua. They had evidently been some 
 considerable time in possession before localities 
 came to be popularly known by their name. This 
 view is farther confirmed by the words of Deborah 
 in her song (Jg 54), ‘out of Ephraim came pen 
 down whose root is im (not against, as in AV) 
 Amalek.’ The land of Ephraim was the territory 
 once possessed by the Amalekites. 
 
 In the early years of his reign, Saul was commis- 
 sioned to carry on a war of extermination against 
 the Amalekites and their king Agag (1S 15). This 
 was intended to be the execution of the sentence 
 
 assed upon them in the days of Moses (Ex 17%, 
 
 Yu 24%, Dt 2517-19), No living thing belonyiny to 
 the Amalekites was to be spared. This great 
 battle was evidently fought in the south of Judah, 
 as the pursuit is described as extending from 
 Havilah in Arabia, far to the east, to Shur in the 
 west of the desert on the border of Egypt. Whien 
 worsted in battle they evidently passed over the 
 southern boundary of Palestine, and betook them- 
 
 selves to their ancestral haunts in the wild desert. 
 During the period of their residence as a settled 
 people in Southern Judah, they had a capital 
 city, Ir-Amalek, ‘the city of Amalek’ (1 S 155). 
 Robber bands of the yet unsubdued nomad Amalek 
 
 
 
AMAM 
 
 ites of the desert, during the time of David’s stay 
 among the Philistines, sacked Ziklag, in the tern- 
 tory of Simeon, outside of the southern boundary 
 of Judah (1 S 30). These were overtaken by 
 David, and only 400 young men on swift camels 
 succeeded in making their escape. The reference 
 to the Amalekites in 2 S 87%, in the list of spoils 
 dedicated to God by David, is probably to this 
 sameincident. From this time onward the Amalek- 
 ites seem to have been regarded as no longer 
 formidable; and even as raiders from the desert we 
 find no further trace of them. The last mention of 
 them in the OT occurs in 1 Ch 4%, in the days of 
 Hezekiah. There it is said that ‘the remnant of 
 the Amalekites that escaped,’ and who had con- 
 tinued till that day in Mount Seir, were smitten 
 by 500 of the Simeonites, who took possession of 
 their land. That the Amalekites are not men- 
 tioned in Gn 10 is regarded by Dillmann as proof 
 that before the time of the writer they had sunk 
 into insignificance. 
 
 Outside of the OT we have no reliable accounts 
 of the Amalekites. In the works of the Arabian 
 historians very extensive and detailed reports are 
 
 iven of the progress and achievements of the 
 iaalekites ; but these, as Néldeke has convincingly 
 shown, are credible only in so far as they are based 
 on the statements of the historical books of our 
 own canonical Scriptures, 
 
 LiTERATURE.—A very admirable and comprehensive sketch is 
 given by Bertheau in Schenkel, Bibellexicon, Leipz. 1869, vol. i. 
 111-114. See also Dillmann, Com. on Genesis, on chs. x. and 
 xxxvi.; Ewald, Hist. of Israel, Eng. tr. 1876, vol. i. 109f., 
 250f.; Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, Eng. tr. 1859, tii. 48- 
 
 50; Néldeke, Ueber die Amalekiter wnd einige andere Nachbar- 
 vilker der Israzliter, 1864. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 AMAM (omy), Jos 15% only.—An unknown city 
 of Judah, in the desert south of Beersheba. 
 
 AMAN.—1. (’Audv A) Is mentioned in Tobit’s 
 dying words as the persecutor of Achiacharus, 
 To 140, Cod. B, however, has ’Adadu; x NadaB; 
 Itala, Nabad; Syr. Ahab. rey the allusion 
 is to Haman and Mordecai. 2. Est 12° 16!%17, 
 See HAMAN. . T. MARSHALL. 
 
 AMANA (7y>x), Ca 4°. Probably the mountains 
 near the river Abana or Amana, being connected 
 with Hermon and Lebanon; or else Mount 
 Amanus in the north of Syria. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 AMARIAH (arpx, sAmox SJ” hath promised ’).— 
 4, 2 Ch 19%, high ead in the reign of Jehosha- 
 
 phat, harp im chief justice ‘in all matters 
 of the Lord,’ as Zebadiah, ‘the ruler of the house 
 of Judah,’ was ‘in all the king’s matters.’ (Is this 
 a precedent for the joint rule in later times of 
 Zerubbabel and Joshua?) 2,3. In a genealogy in 
 1 Ch 6%15.00-63, Ezy 71-5, beginning with Aaron and 
 ending with Jehozadak at the Captivity, which 
 seems 28 much intended to be a list of the high 
 priests as 1 Ch 3" is of the kings of Judah, and 
 which ppepars to be the basis of Josephus’ very 
 corrupt lists (Ant. vil. i. 3, X. viii. 6), the name 
 
 occurs twice—(a) 1 Ch 67 grandfather of 
 Zadok, and therefore a younger contemporary 
 of Eli. Of this man we have no other record ; see 
 ABIATHAR. (8) 1 Ch 64, Ezr 7,1 Es 8?,2 Es 1? 
 (Amarias in Apocr.), son to the Azariah who is 
 said to have ministered in Solomon’s temple. If, 
 as is probable, this remark applies to the previous 
 Azariah, then this Amariah may be the same as 
 No. 1. But great uncertainty hangs over these 
 lists. In Ezr 7'* six names are omitted, perhaps 
 by homoioteleuton; in the full list important 
 names (e.g. Jehoiada, Zechariah, the Azariahs con- 
 temporary with Uzziah and Hezekiah arena rely 
 Urijah) are omitted; the succession ‘ Amariah, 
 
 AMAZED 79 
 
 Ahitub, Zadok’ occurs twice; only three hixh 
 priests are given between Amariah under Jehosha- 
 hat, and Hilkiah under Josiah. 4, A priest clan, 
 ourth in the list of 22 in Neh 12 (v.?), who ‘ went 
 up with Zerabbabel’ ‘in the days of Jeshua,’ and 
 in the list of 21 (v."5), ‘in the days of Joiakim,’ 
 and fifth in the list of those who sealed to the 
 covenant under Nehemiah (Neh 10%), This clan 
 is probably identical with that of ‘Immer,’ the 
 sixteenth course in David’s time (1 Ch 24), and 
 one of the four families of priests mentioned in 
 ‘the book of the genealogy of them which came up 
 at the first’ (Ezr 27 Neh 7%, Meruth 1 Es 5%, 
 A ’Eppnpové), and in the time of Ezra (Ezr 10*'); 
 see ABIJAH, No. 4. 5. 1 Ch 2319 24%, a Kohathite 
 Levite in David’s time. 6. 2 Ch 31, a> Levite in 
 Hezekiah’s time, one of the six assistants to Kore, 
 ‘the porter at the east gate, who was over the 
 freewill offerings of God.’ 7. Ezr 10%, a man of 
 Judah of the sons of Bani (1 Ch 9%), one of thuse 
 who ‘had taken strange wives.’ 8. Neh 114, a man 
 of Judah, ancestor to Athaiah, who was one of those 
 ‘that willingly otfered themselves to dwell in 
 Jerus.’ 9. Zeph 11, great-grandfather of the pro- 
 phet, son to Hezekiah, perhaps the king. 
 N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 AMARIAS (A ’Ayaplas, B’ApapOelas), 1 Es 82.X—An 
 ancestor of Ezra in the line of high priests, father 
 of Ahitub. Called Amariah, Ezr 73. 
 
 AMASA (xy. ‘burden’ or ‘burden bearer’).—41. 
 The son of Ithra an Ishmaelite, and of Abigail the 
 sister of king David. The first mention of him is 
 in connexion with the rebellion of Absalom (2 S 
 17), who made him leader of his army. Joab, at 
 the head of the king’s troops, completely route«| 
 him in the forest of Ephraim (2 § 188). David 
 not only pardoned him, but gave him the command 
 of the army in place of Joab (2S 19). When 
 he came to lead the royal forces against Sheba and 
 his rebel host, he was treacherously slain by Joab 
 at ‘the great stone of Gibeon’ (25 20°!%), 2. An 
 Ephraimite who opposed the bringing into Samaria 
 of the Jewish prisoners, whom Pekah, king of 
 Israel, had taken in his campaign against Ahaz 
 (2 Ch 28}%), R. M. Boyp. 
 
 AMASAI (wpy).—1. A Kohathite, 1 Ch 6%: *, the 
 eponym of a family, 2 Ch 29% 2. One of the 
 
 riests who blew trumpets on the occasion of 
 
 avid’s bringing the ark to Jerus., 1 Ch 15%. 3, 
 One of David’s officers at Ziklag, 1 Ch 12}, pos- 
 sibly to be identified with Amasa, No. 1. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AMASHSAI (‘oyny, perhaps a combination of the 
 reading ‘woy, ‘opy).—AV Amashai, Neh 11% A 
 priest of the family of Immer. 
 
 AMASIAH (mopy).—One of Jehoshaphat's coin- 
 manders, 2 Ch 173°. 
 
 AMAZED.—Amaze has a much wider range of 
 meaning in old Eng. thanin modern. In conformity 
 with its derivation (a-maze) it expresses confusion 
 or perplexity, the result of the unexpected ; but 
 this may give rise to a variety of emotions. 1. 
 FEAR: Jg 20" ‘When the men of Israel turned 
 again, the men of Benjamin were a.’ 2. AWE: Mk 
 10°? ‘And they were in the way going up to Jerus. ; 
 and Jesus went before them, and they were a. ; 
 and as they followed they were afraid.’ 3. EXCITED 
 WonveER: Lk 5% ‘they were all a.’ (Gr. ékoracis 
 éaBev Amavras; RV ‘amazement took hold on 
 all’). 4. DrPRESSION : Mk 14% ‘(Jesus) began to 
 be sore a., and to _be very heavy.’ Amazement 
 occurs twice in AV, the expression in Ac 3° of 
 great joy ; in 1 P 3° of great fear. 
 
 J. HasTinas. 
 
 
 
80 AMAZIAH 
 
 
 
 AMAZIAH (mypx, smypx).—1. The name of a 
 king of Judah who succeeded his father Jehoash 
 Hy the assassination of the latter (c. 800. B.C.). 
 The chief interest of his reign centres in his wars 
 with Edom and with Israel (2 K 14, 2 Ch 25). In 
 the first of these campaigns, Edom, which had 
 revolted from Judah during the reign of Jehoram, 
 the son of Jehoshaphat, suffered a severe defeat 
 in the Valley of Salt, and the capital Sela or Petra 
 fell into the hands of the enemy (2 K 14”). Elated 
 by this success, Amaziah challenged to a conflict his 
 neighbour Jehoash, the grandson of Jehu. This 
 powerful monarch showed no anxiety to try con- 
 clusions with his presumptuous rival, to whom he 
 addressed the ell Enoy parable of the thistle and 
 the cedar (vv.*), Amaziah, however, stung by the 
 moral of this parable, refused to listen to the well- 
 meant advice, and rushed blindly upon his fate. 
 At the battle of Beth-shemesh the forces of Judah 
 were me routed, and the king himself taken 
 prisoner. ehoash followed up his victory by 
 capturing Jerusalem, partially destroying its walls, 
 pileging the temple and the palace, and carrying 
 
 k hostages to Samaria (vv."-4). How long 
 Amaziah survived this humiliating defeat, it is not 
 easy to decide. The statement (2 K 14”) that 
 he outlived Jehoash fifteen years can hardly be 
 correct, and there seem to be sufficient reasons for 
 considerably reducing the number of years (twenty- 
 nine) assigned to his reign by the chronological 
 system adopted in the Books of Kings. His reign 
 appears to have synchronised almost exactly with 
 that of Jehoash, as that of his successor did with 
 the reign of Jeroboam Ul. There is not a little 
 plausibility in the conjecture of Wellhausen, that 
 the conspiracy which issued in the murder of 
 Amaziah at Lachish had its origin in the popular 
 dissatisfaction with his wanton attack upon creel 
 which cost Judah so dear. The death of Amaziah 
 should probably be dated c. 780 B.c., the year when 
 there is reason to believe his son Azariah or Uzziah 
 ascended the throne. 
 
 Besides the strictly historical details which he 
 borrows from 2 Kings, the Chronicler adds certain 
 particulars, the purpose of whose insertion is 
 evident (2 Ch 25-14-16), (On these additions see 
 Graf Die geschichtlichen Bucher des A.T. p. 157 ff., 
 and Driver, LOT, p. 494.) 
 
 2. The priest of Jeroboam 1. who opposed and 
 attempted to silence the prophet Amos when the 
 latter delivered his message at the sanctuary of 
 Bethel (Am 71°17, See Amos). 3. A man of the 
 tribe of Simeon (1 Ch 4°4), 4, A descendant of 
 Merari (1 Ch 6*). 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AMBASSADOR.—Three Heb. words are some- 
 times tr. ‘ambassador’ in RV of OT: 4. axbn, a 
 general term for messenger, used for (a) messengers 
 of private men (2 K 5"); (4) messengers of God= 
 angels (see ANGEL); (c) messengers of kings or 
 rulers=ambassadors (2 K 19°, 2 Ch 35”), though 
 sometimes tr. ‘messengers’ in RV (Dt 2%, Nu 2014). 
 2. vy, apparently a synonym of 1 (Pr 131"; cf. 251%), 
 hence=herald or messenger from court (Is 18? 
 57°), and meta aarp an ‘ambassador’ of J” 
 (Jer 49%; cf. Ob y.1). In Jos 94 the reading of 
 RVm is to be preferred. 3%. 7°72, properly an 
 interpreter, and so used in Gn 42%; cf. Job 3373 (?); 
 hence tr? in Is 43” (in theocratic sense) ‘inter- 
 preters’ RV text, ‘ambassadors’ marg.; in 2 Ch 
 3231 ‘ambassadors’ text, ‘interpreters’ marg. 
 
 Ambassadors were not permanent officials, but 
 were chosen from attendants at court for special 
 occasions (see 2 K 19°). Their evil treatment was 
 regarded then as now as 4 grave insult to king and 
 people (2S 10'*). In the Apocr. the general term 
 dyyedos, ‘messenger,’ is often used even in dealings 
 with courts (Jth 1" 3!, 1 Mac 1“ 7°), but during the 
 
 AMEN 
 
 ee ee 
 
 Maccabzean period, when embassies were frequently 
 sent, the ordinary Gr. words for ‘ambassadors’ are 
 eee : tpecBeurjs (1 Mac 137 1471-2), rpeaBevs 
 (1 Mac 9” 11° 1314), and mpecBira (2 Mac 11%). The 
 word mpeoBela, ‘ambassage’ (RV Apocr.), occurs in 
 2 Mac 44%, In NT (Lk 14*, 2 Co 5%, Eph 6”) the 
 use is metaphorical. G. W. THATCHER. 
 
 AMBASSAGE, mod. embassy; in AV only Lk 
 14", but RV adds Lk 1914 (AV ‘message’) where 
 the same Gr. word (mpecBela) is used. The meaning 
 is not a message sent by ambassadors, but the 
 ambassadors themselves. In 1 Mac 14% the mean- 
 ing is ‘message’ (Gr. Adyor, RV ‘ words’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS, 
 AMBER.—See MINERALS. 
 
 AMBUSH, from in (which becomes im before 6, 
 whence am) and boscus, a bush, wood, thicket, is 
 used in various shades of meaning. 1. The abstract 
 state of lying in wait in order to attack an enemy 
 secretly. Jos 8 ‘(Joshua) set them to lie in a. 
 between Bethel and Ai.’ 2. The place where the 
 a. is set, or the position thus assumed. Jos 8’ ‘Ye 
 shall rise up from the a.’; 1 Mac 9” RV ‘ And they 
 rose up against them from their a.’ 3. The men 
 that form the a. Jos 8 ‘the a. arose co out 
 of their place’ ; Jer 51)? ‘ prepare the ambushes’ (m. 
 ‘liers in wait’). The mod. va ne, is am- 
 buscade. Ambushment, meaning a body of troops 
 disposed in ambush, is used in 2 Ch 138%; also 
 ambushments in 2 Ch 20” (RV ‘liers in wait’; 
 but RV gives ambushment in Jos 8° for ‘lie in 
 ambush,’ and in Jg 9* for ‘lying in wait’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AMEN.—This word found its way bodily from 
 the Heb. (jpx) into the Hellenistic idiom through 
 the LXX, and strengthened its hold later on by 
 its more copious use in the version of Symmachus. 
 It is derived from j2x he propped, in Niphal (re- 
 flexive) he was firm. So the adverb jpx, firmly, 
 came to be used, like our surely, for confirmation, 
 in various ways. 
 
 (1) It is used for the purpose of adopting as one’s 
 own what has just been said (this answering sense 
 
 ‘being apparently the orig. one, Nu 5%)=‘so is it,’ 
 
 or ‘so shall it be,’ rather than the less compre- 
 hensive ‘so be it,’ though ‘so be it’ is occasional] 
 the prominent meaning (Jer 28°), The word is 
 limited to the religious atmosphere, being, on 
 human lips, an expression of faith that God 
 holds the thing true, or will or can make it 
 true. Thus after the ‘oath of cursing,’ recited 
 in Nu 5”, there is added, both in the orig. 
 Hebrew and in the Greek of Sym., ‘The woman 
 shall say, Amen, Amen,’ the word being doubled 
 for emphasis; where the LXX, however, has the 
 inadequate yévaro, yévorro, so be tt, as is the case 
 in nineteen out of the twenty-three passages where 
 the Heb. word occurs in this connexion: of the 
 rest, three have dufv, and the fourth dA7Ods. It is 
 put also into the mouth of the people at the end of 
 each curse uttered on Mount Ebal (Dt 27). At 
 the close, likewise, of public prayers, thanksgivings, 
 benedictions, or doxologies the people used to say 
 Amen (Neh 8°, Amen, Amen); not, apparently, 
 however in the services of the beet oe where the 
 response was different (Edersheim, Lemple Service, 
 p. 127), but certainly in the services of the syna- 
 Beane (Ps 41%, e.g., and Schiirer, HJP I. ii. 78, 82). 
 
 hat this custom passed over from the synagogue to 
 the Christian assemblies we gather from 1 Co 14'%, 
 where St. Paul speaks of 7d dpi, the (customary) 
 amen uttered by the listeners at the close of the 
 extempore thanksgiving. 
 
 (2) It is used in confirmation of one’s own prayers 
 thanksgivings, benedictions, doxologies. Eater 
 
 
 
 ee en ee ae ee se 
 
 
 
 ——— 
 
 ——s. 
 

 
 
 
 7) 
 ax 
 
 AMEN 
 
 AMMIYUD 81 
 
 
 
 NT the word occurs only at the end of a private 
 prayer in To 8%, and at the end of a personal 
 ascription in the last verses of 3 and 4 Mac. _The 
 
 AMERCE. — Dt 22! ‘They shall a. him in 
 (Driver, ‘they shall fine him’) an hundred 
 shekels of silver’; and 2 Ch 36° RV ‘and a4 (AV 
 
 personal doxological or ascriptional usage is much; ‘condemned’) the land in an hundred talents of 
 
 ge 
 
 “more frequent in 
 Paul and the Apoe., it is the only NT usage. in 
 St. Paul’s Bpistles the word sometimes concludes a 
 prayer for, or a benediction upon, his readers; but, 
 except in Ro 15° and Gal 61, it is a later addition. 
 onary 7 os ee it is Spperently jnire- 
 
 ALC to.a doxology, but is, in reality, confirma- 
 ea doxology.-So also ee Rev. 22” it 
 a believing acceptance of the previous divine 
 affirmation. 
 (3a) It is used once aé the clos 
 
 T (e.g. Ro 1* 9°), and, outside St 
 
 eof an affirmation of 
 one’s own, to confirm it solemnly in faith: Rev 1’, 
 where it is the trustful climax of the more limited 
 yal, yea (the bare personal confirmation): ‘ Yea, 
 
 verily [He shall so come).’ (30) The use of Amen 
 
 to introduce one’s own words and Clothe them with 
 solemn 6 called an idiom of 
 vhrist : @ use entirely to” Him in 
 sacred literature. But the practice of the evan- 
 gelists in this matter is not uniform. The Synopt- 
 ists give invariably duh» Aéyw, the Fourth Gospel 
 as invariably duny duh» Aéyw. Again, Matthew is 
 richest in the phrase, using it thirty times; Mark 
 less rich, using it thirteen times; Luke least so, 
 using it only six times; elsewhere he gives narrower 
 substitutes (dA70as thrice, éx’ ddnOelas once, val 
 once), or more usually the simple Aédyw. The 
 signal difference in Luke may be due partly to the 
 non-Hebraic stamp of hisreaders. The double amen 
 of introduction in John has its parallel elsewhere 
 in the double amen of conclusion, instances of which 
 have already been cited. But the invariableness 
 of the doubling, as opposed to the invariableness 
 of the single amen in the Synoptists, can be put 
 down only to an idiosyncrasy of the writer, though 
 he need not be unhistorical in all or even in man 
 of his instances; for it is worthy of notice that all 
 the sayings in question are peculiar to John except 
 13 (|| Mt Lk) and *8 (|| all Synopp., but Lk \éyw 
 py See Hogg in JOR Oct. 1896. 
 ut Christ’s uniqueness in using it as a word of 
 introduction runs parallel with the uniqueness of 
 its connotation when He does useit. (a) It is never 
 the expression of His own Sorat a or expectant) 
 faith ; it is rather an expression calling for faith: 
 this view is supported by the invariable accompani- 
 ment Aéyw vuiy, ‘He makes good the word, not 
 the word Him’ (Cremer, Worterbuch, 8th ed. pp. 
 145, 146). (8) Consequently, in His mouth, it has 
 ohare to do with His own person, either (a) as 
 essiah, or (b) as demanding faith in His Messiah- 
 ship in spite of outward appearances and mistaken 
 views: it points not recent to intellectual or 
 eventual verity, but to the fact that either the 
 thing is true in Him or He will make it or keep it 
 true. So it is the amen of fulfilment in Him or b 
 Him, or the amen of paradox, or both (cf. Mt 5 
 16% 21*! 268, and other meee cited in Cremer). 
 It is intelligible, therefore, how the evangelists 
 preferred to leave duty untranslated; for Luke’s 
 occasional dhn0as, like LXX yévoro, is but a 
 partial equivalent for what Christ meant by the 
 word. See Nestle in Expos. Times, viii. (1897) 190. 
 (4) In close relation to Christ’s usage, so under- 
 , is the use of amen as a name or description 
 of Christ and of : of Christ, Rev 34, ‘the 
 Amen, the-faithfuland true witness’ (cf. 2 Co 1”, 
 where the yea, the promise, is in Christ, and the 
 Amen, the ratification, is through Him): of God, 
 Is 6516 (twice), ‘the God of the amen,’ t.e. of faith- 
 fulness and truth (if the Heb. adverbial plas be 
 correct: see Che on the passage); LXX (in- 
 adequately): rd» Gedy roy ddnOurdy (cf. dAndwés and 
 duty, Rev 3744), J. MASSIE. 
 VOL, 1.—6 
 
 silver.’ .In Ex 21”, Am 2° RV translates the same 
 verb (wy) ‘ fine.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 AMETHYST.—See STONES, (PRECIOUS). 
 
 AMI (*px=}'ox Neh 7°).—The head of a family 
 of ‘Solomon’s servants,’ Ezr-2°7, 
 
 AMIABLE (=/ovely, and now used only of per- 
 sons) is applied to God's dwelling-place in Ps 84! 
 ‘How a. are Thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts’(RVm 
 ‘lovely’ ; as at Ph 48 Rheims Bible has ‘ whatsoever 
 amiable,’ AV ‘whatsoever things are lovely’). Cf. 
 Howell (1644) ‘They keep their churches so cleanly 
 and amiable.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AMITTAI (‘sox ‘true’).—Father of the prophet 
 Jonah, 2 K 14%, Jon 1, 
 
 AMITY, friendly relations between two nations, 
 1 Mac 12'* (RV ‘ friendship’). See ALLIANCE. 
 
 AMMAH (7px), 2 S 2% only.—A hill near Giah, 
 in the wilderness of Gibeon. It was probably to 
 the east of Gibeon above the Jordan Valley, but 
 the name has not been recovered. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 AMMI (‘ey=‘ my people,’* LXX dads pov).—The 
 name which is to be applicable to Israel in the 
 time of restoration ; Lo-ammi(=not my people), the 
 name given in the first instance by Hosea to 
 Gomer’s third child, but in the prophetic fragment, 
 Hos 1% [in Heb. 2!-*], referred to the people of 
 Israel, is, according to the author of the fragment, 
 to be replaced by the name Ammi of exactly 
 opposite import, in sign of the changed relation of 
 the people to J”. See Lo-AmmMi. 
 
 G. B. GRay. 
 
 AMMIDIOI (B‘Appldio, A, ‘Aupuldacoc; in Swete’s 
 text with the hard, but in Fritzsche’s with the 
 soft breathing; AV Ammidoi).—Of the three 
 
 arallel lists (Ezr 2=Neh 7=1 Es 5) which give the 
 amilies which returned with Zerubbabel from 
 captivity, that in 1 Es (5%) alone mentions the 
 Ammidioi. It has been suggested that they are 
 the men of Humtah (Jos 154 nyon, A Kauuara). It 
 may be questioned whether either the Chadiasai or 
 Ammidioi were mentioned in the original Heb. 
 lists, for it is to be noticed that in the case of these 
 alone is the gentilic form used ; otherwise through- 
 out the list we have equivalent expressions of the 
 Heb. ... "33, + « 'w3R, €.g. vlol Pépos (v.*), ol ex 
 Beroduw. G. B. GRAY. 
 
 AMMIEL (5x2y ‘kinsman is God’).—4. Son of 
 Gemalli, and spy of the tribe of Dan (Nu 13” P). 
 2. Father of Niachir (see art.), 2S 9% 1777. 3, 
 According to the Chronicler, the sixth son of Obed. 
 edom, who with his family constituted one of the 
 courses of doorkeepers in the time of David; to 
 them was alletted charge of the S. gate (of the 
 temple) and tlre storehouse (1 Ch 26, esp. vv. 1). 
 Presumably, therefore, Ammiel was the name of 
 a division of the doorkeepers in the time of the 
 Chronicler—c. B.c. 300. Cf. Driver, ZOT 500f. ; 
 Graf, Die Geschicht. Biich. d. A.T. 213-247, esp 
 242 f., 246f.; Gray, Stud. in Heb. Proper Names, 
 ch, iii. p. 49ff. 4. 1 Ch 3%. See ELIAM. 
 
 G. B. Gray. 
 
 AMMIHUD (nay ‘kinsman is majesty ’).—1, 
 An Ephraimite, father of Elishama (see art.), Nu 
 2° 918 748.53 1922 (P), Presumably identical with A. 
 
 * For fuller discussion of the meaning of this name, and the 
 following names beginning with Ammi, see NAMES, PROPER. 
 
82 AMMIHUR 
 
 
 
 son of Ladan, 1 Ch 7%, 2. A Simeonite, father of 
 Shemuel (see art.), Nu 34% (P). 3. A Naphtalite, 
 father of Pedahel (see art.), Nu 34% (P). 4. Accord- 
 ing to the Keré of 2S 13° and the AV, A. was the 
 name of the father of David’s contemporary, the 
 Geshurite king Talmai. The Kethibh, followed by 
 RV, reads »n'ny—the closely similar letters n and 1 
 replacing and 7. Between the two readings it is 
 difficult to decide; for while the Keré is better 
 supported, the Aethibh, as a maine occurring 
 nowhere else in OT, is the harder reading. 5. Son 
 of Omri, father of Uthai (1 Ch 94). 
 G. B. GRAY. 
 AMMIHUR (1n'py).—See AMMIHUD, No. 4. 
 
 AMMINADAB (27;'2y ‘kinsman is generous,’ or 
 perhaps ‘my people is generous,’ *ApewaddBp, 
 A’Amvadas; in NT Mt 14 (and Lk 3%?) ’ApwaddB, 
 whence the name in AV of NT is spelt Aminadab). 
 —1. According to the genealogy in Ruth, which 
 
 ives David’s ancestry, Amminadab was son of 
 
 am and father of Nahshon (Ru 4%=1 Ch 2”, Mt 
 1); as father of Nahshon he is also mentioned in 
 Nu 17 23 732 104 (P). Through his daughter 
 Elisheba he became father-in-law of Aaron, Ex 67 
 (P). 2. According to 1 Ch 6” A. was son of 
 Kohath and father of Korah ; but in other state- 
 ments about Kohath’s children (e.g. Ex 618, Nu 3%, 
 1 Ch 62) A. is not mentioned ; moreover, elsewhere 
 Izhar appears as son of Kohath and father of 
 Korah (Ex 6182, 1 Ch 618). There can be little 
 doubt, therefore, that A. has accidentaily replaced 
 Izharin 1 Ch6”; this may have arisen in compiling 
 the list from a fuller list of the Kohathites which 
 mentioneu the connexion of A. (No. 1) with them. 
 8. According to the Chronicler (1 Ch 151°) 
 another A. was chief of a Levitical house in the 
 days of David; he is described as a son of Uzziel, 
 who was one of the sons of Kohath (1 Ch 6%). 
 
 G. B. GRAY. 
 
 AMMINADIB (3%; py) occurs in AV and RVm of 
 avery obscure passage, Ca 6 ‘my soul made me 
 like the chariots of Amminadib.’ RV and AVm 
 do not regard the term as a pr. name, but render 
 ‘my soul set me on (RV among) the chariots of my 
 willing (RV princely) people.’ In Kautzsch’s tr. 
 of OT the passage is omitted from the text, and is 
 rendered in a footnote, ‘Mein Verlangen [ver-] 
 setzste mich auf die Wagen meines Volkes, eines 
 Edlen,’ with the remark that it is quite unin- 
 telligible in its present context. The great variety 
 of interpretation and exegesis of the words will be 
 found exhibited in Reuss’ A 7, v. 391 ff. ; ef. Hitzig, 
 d. Hohe Lied, 82 f., and comm. of Delitzsch, Ewald, 
 bottcher, Zickler, Oettli, etc. See SONG oF SONGS. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AMMISHADDAI (wy ‘kinsman is Shaddai,’ 
 see GoD).—A Danite, father of Ahiezer (see art.), 
 Nias 2575.78 1022): 
 
 AMMIZABAD (121r~2y ‘kinsman for, my people) 
 has made a present’).—Son of Benaiah, for whom 
 he appears at times to have officiated ; but the 
 statement in the only passage (1 Ch 27°) where he 
 is mentioned is obscure. G. B. Gray. 
 
 AMMON, AMMONITES (‘oy73, eva; in the 
 inscriptions, Bit-Amm4n). — A people occupying 
 territory east of the Jordan, between the Arnon 
 on the south and the Jabbok on the north. The 
 land lying farther to the south, separated from 
 them byahe Arnon, was the possession of the 
 Moabites. Before the arrival of the Israelites at 
 the plains of Moab, the Ammonites had been driven 
 back from the Jordan banks by an Amorite tribe 
 from the west under Sihon. These Amorites estab- 
 lished a kingdom, carved out of the Ammonite terri- 
 tories, with Heshbon as their capital. In this way 
 
 
 
 
 
 AMMON, AMMONITES 
 
 a strip of land along the eastern bank of the river, 
 varying in breadth from 20 to 30 miles, ceased to 
 be regarded as belonging to the Ammonites, and 
 was assigned to the transjordanic tribes of Reuben 
 and Gad. The original territories of the Ammon- 
 ites, extending from the Arnun to the Jabbok, 
 and reaching to the eastern bank of the Jordan, 
 had in earlier years been held by a giant race 
 called Zamzummim (Dt 21), to whom it seems 
 that Og, king of Bashan, also belonged (Dt 3%). 
 
 As to the origin of the children of Ammon, an 
 account is given in Gn 19%8, which has been inter- 
 preted by some as genuinely historical, and by 
 others as a reminiscence of a certain family rela- 
 tionship, coloured by bitter hostility and national 
 hatred. The latter position is maintained by such 
 distinguished and moderate exegetes as Dillmann 
 and Bertheau; but by them the myth is regarded 
 as historically justified, and indeed suggested, by 
 the lustful character and irregular habits of the 
 Ammonites. On the other hand, Delitzsch perti- 
 nently asks how such an origin can be assigned to 
 the narrative, seeing that their supposed descent 
 from Lot is made the one ground for exceptional 
 treatment of the Ammonites and Moabites (Dt 
 2°19), The story of their origin certainly does 
 not afford occasion for contemptuous or hostile 
 treatment. This can be accounted for only by their 
 unbrotherly conduct towards Israel, which caused 
 such delay and hardship on the eve of the entrance 
 into the promised laud (Dt 234). It appears to 
 Delitzsch that the lewdness and moral corruption 
 which characterized their later history resulted 
 from their tainted origin, rather than suggested 
 the story of that origin as given in our Scriptures. 
 In any case, we must regard this notice as indicatin: 
 a close relationship between the Ammonites an 
 the Israelites. That such a family connexion 
 really did subsist between the two nations is con- 
 firmed by the fact that almost all the names of 
 Moabite and Ammonite persons and places that 
 have come down to us are easily understeod by 
 the use of a Hebrew lexicon. From this cireum- 
 stance Kautzsch quite fairly concludes that these 
 nations caunot be reckoned among the Arab tribes, 
 but must have a place given them among the races 
 allied to the Hebrews. 
 
 The name by which they were first known was 
 ‘children of Ammon.’ Only in the literature of 
 very late ages do we find the name Ammon used 
 as the designation of the people (Ps 837). In 
 this very late, probably Maccabzan, psalm * (the 
 only place in OT outside the Pent. in which 
 Lot’s name is found), a list is given of ten tribes 
 confederated in open and violent opposition to 
 Israel at the re-dedication of the temple, in which 
 the names of Ammon and Moab occur. Itis then 
 said of all these confederates that ‘ they have holpen 
 the children of Lot.’ This latter designation is no 
 doubt intended to apply to the Ammonites and 
 Moabites. The meaning of the name Bené-Ammi, 
 literally ‘sons of my people,’ points to derivation 
 from parents both of whom were of one race. 
 
 The statement in Nu 21%, that ‘the border of 
 the children of Ammon was strong,’ + coming after 
 a description of the destruction of the Amorites by 
 the Israelites as reaching to that border, is under- 
 stood by Kautzsch and others as indicating the 
 reason why the Israelites did not carry their con- 
 quests farther east, and as therefore opposed 
 to Dt 2, which makes Israel avoid conflict 
 with the Ammonites in consequence of a divine 
 command. The earlier passage, however, ma; 
 be read as giving the reason why Sihon and his 
 
 * See Ewald, History of Israel, i. 312, and Cheyne, Origin of 
 the Psalter, 1891, p. 97. 
 
 t Dillmann and many oth ss 
 ty ‘strong.’ 
 
 read here sy ‘Jazer for 
 
 
 
 
 
ot 
 eh 
 ¥ 
 va 
 
 —- 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 AMMON, AMMONITES 
 
 
 
 AMON 83 
 
 
 
 Amorites had not pushed their conquests beyond 
 this strip of land, with the possession of which they 
 had rested satisfied. The Ammonites had retreated 
 before the Amorites within the natural fortresses 
 of their inland mountain region. But though they 
 had thus under compulsion abandoned the fruitful 
 Jordan Valley, the Ammonites never ceased to look 
 upon the whole sweer of country down to the river 
 banks as rightfully theirs. Some 300 years after 
 the conquest of the land by the Isr., the king 
 of the monites made the unreasonable claim 
 that they should restore to him the country that 
 had been taken so long before, not from his fore- 
 fathers, but from their Amorite conquerors (Jg 
 11%). This the Israelites, under the brave Gilead- 
 ite chief Jephthah, refused to do, inflicting upon the 
 Ammonites and their allies a most humiliating and 
 crushing defeat.* Previousto this, foreighteen years, 
 the Ammonites had harassed those who occupied 
 the coveted district; and so successful had they 
 been in this that they were encouraged to venture 
 across the Jordan, and there held in terror the war- 
 like tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim. 
 While this is reported primarily and mainly to 
 show the depth to which the Israelites had sunk, 
 it also affords proof of the prowess and military 
 importance of the Ammonites. 
 
 When we next hear of them, in the early years 
 of king Saul, the children of Ammon fete a 
 
 owerful nation under a capable ruler, king 
 Nahash. One of the first distinctions in battle 
 ined by Saul was his defeat of Nahash and the 
 monites, and the deliverance of the inhabit- 
 ants of Jabesh-gilead, to whose city they had 
 laid siege (1 S 11). The LXX text here reads 
 that this eonflict took place about a month after 
 Saul had ascended the throne. During the earlier 
 art of the reign of David, hostilities between 
 esa and Ammon ceased, because in the time 
 of his trouble, Nahash, either this same mon- 
 arch or perhaps his successor, ‘showed kindness to 
 David’ (2S 102). On the death of David’s friend, 
 messengers were sent to condole with his son 
 Hanun, who, suspecting that they were spies, 
 treated them infamously, so that David was obliged 
 to enter upon a war to wipe out the insult that 
 had been put upon his ambassadors. The sense- 
 less conduct of the Ammonite monarch evidently 
 awakened among the Israelites all the old bitter- 
 ness, so that in the hour of victory David and his 
 men lost all control of themselves, and inflicted 
 upon the vanquished children of Ammon the most 
 cruel and revolting barbarities (2S 12731), Their 
 capital, Rabbath-Ammon, was taken by Joab, 
 David’s commander-in-chief, though he gave the 
 honour to the king. This city (in Maccabsean 
 times known by the name of Philadelphia), one of 
 the cities of the Decapolis, lay about 20 miles east 
 of the Jordan, just outside the eastern border of 
 the territory of Gad, at the southern spring of 
 the Jabbok. 
 
 After the division of the kingdom, the country 
 that had been taken from the Ammonites natur- 
 ally fell with the rest of the transjordanic terri- 
 tory to the nation of the ten tribes. The 
 Ammonites, however, soon took advantage of 
 the weakness of the divided kingdom to assert 
 again theirindependence. They also joined eagerl 
 with the Assyrians in their attack on Gilea A 
 obtaining increase of territory as the reward of 
 their service; and subsequently, when Tiglath- 
 pileser defeated the Reubenites and Gadites, the 
 Ammonites seem to have been allowed to reoccupy 
 ae at least, of their old territory on the 
 
 mks of the Jordan (2 K 15”, 1 Ch 5%). The 
 cruelty which they practised in the war against 
 
 * Acc. to some modern critics, however, Jg 111228 is a late in- 
 
 terpolation (Moore, Judges, p. 283). 
 
 Gilead as allies of the Syrians is deseribed as having 
 been committed with the object of getting thei 
 borders enlarged; and for this, and for their 
 malignant exultation over Israel’s fall, they are 
 denounced by the prophets (Am 1, Zeph 2*9, 
 Jer 491-7, Ezk 21°82), We have a detailed 
 account (2 Ch 20) of hostilities between the Am- 
 monites, at the head of a powerful confederacy, 
 and the southern kingdom of Judah under Jehosha- 
 phat. Great preparations had been made for this 
 campaign, which was intended to be decisive; but 
 suspicions of treachery among the allies turned the 
 arms of the panic-stricken hosts against one another 
 in a great slaughter, so that the children of Judah 
 did not require to draw a sword. 
 
 After nearly 150 years we again find the Am 
 monites at war with Judah (2 Ch 27°), when they 
 were thoroughly beaten by Jotham, and laid unde1 
 a heavy tribute. During the years in which 
 Judah was tottering on the verge of overthrow, 
 the Ammonites appear among the vassal tribes 
 used by Babylon to harass and plunder those that 
 had revolted from her sway (2 K 24?). After the 
 overthrow of Judah, Baalis, the king of the Am- 
 monites, entertaining still the old unconquerable 
 enmity towards the Jews, sent Ishmael, a man 
 remotely connected with the royal family of 
 Judah, who had been resident in the country of 
 Ammon, to murder the popular and successful 
 governor Gedaliah, under whom the Jewish colony, 
 consisting of those who remained in the land of 
 Judah, had begun to prosper (2 K 25-6, Jer 4014). 
 In the days of Nehemiah, the Ammonites were 
 active in their opposition to the Jews, maliciously 
 endeavouring to ninder the building of the walls of 
 the city and the restoration of the temple (Neh 4). 
 Three hundred years later, in the time of Judas 
 Maccabzeus, the Ammonites joined the Syrians 
 against the Jews. The Jewish deader went through 
 Gilead and inflicted a crushing defeat upon the 
 Ammonites and their confederates under their com- 
 mander Timotheus (1 Mac 5°). The Ammonites 
 are referred to by Justin Martyr, about the middle 
 of the second Christian cent., as even then a 
 numerous people; but not more than a century 
 later Origen speaks ponnely of them, as of Moabites 
 and Edomites, classing them all with the Arab 
 tribes; and with this doubtful allusion they pass 
 altogether out of history. 
 
 The Ammonites seem to have been notorious 
 among the nations for their cruelty. Their religion 
 was a genuine reflection of this infamous national 
 characteristic. Their chief deity was Molech or 
 Milcom (1 K 117 *). 
 
 Ammonitess (n’32y), woman of Ammon, | K 14-*, 
 2 Ch 1218 246, 
 
 LiteraTuRE. — Kautzsch in Riehm, Handwérterbuch, 1884, 
 pp. 55, 56—an_ admirable and comprehensive sketch. See 
 Dillmann and Delitzsch on Gn 1988 in thcir Commentaries ; 
 Ewald, History of Israel, ii. London, 1876, pp. 295, 336, 398 ff. ; 
 iii. 1878, p. 24, ete.; Ebrard, Apologetics, Edin. 1887, ii. 349-351. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 AMNON (jxpx).—1. Eldest son of David b 
 Ahinoam the Jezreelitess. Hedishonoured his half- 
 sister Tamar, and was, on that account, slain by ler 
 brother Absalom (2S 3213). In 2S 13? he is called 
 Aminon (}\3"2s), supposed by many (on the analogy of 
 Arabic) to be a diminutive form, purposely camel Hey 
 Absalom to express contempt ; pay it is only 
 a clerical error. 2. Son of Shimon (1 Ch 4”). 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 AMOK (pipy ‘deep’).—A priestly family in the 
 time of Zerubbabel and af Joiakim, Neh 127 *, 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 AMON (j\px, joe ‘a skilled, or master workman, 
 Pr 8° RV).—1. One of the kings of Judah, son and 
 successor of Manasseh. Two parallel accounts of 
 his reign are given in 2 K 21'**6 and 2 Ch 38”, 
 
 
 

 
 84 AMON 
 
 AMORITES 
 
 
 
 His name occurs in the genealogical list of the 
 house of David, 1 Ch 3!4, and in that of the 
 ancestry of our Lord, Mt 1. It is also men- 
 tioned in connexion with his son Josiah in Jer 1? 
 253, Zeph 11. 
 
 A. came to the throne at the age of twenty-two, 
 and his reign lasted two years (641-639 B.c.). It 
 has been supposed that his name may have had 
 some connexion with the Egyp. divinity Amon 
 (see THEBES), and may thus be an illustration of the 
 extent of his father’s heathen sympathies. There 
 is, however, no other evidence that in his culti- 
 vation of foreign forms of worship Manasseh was 
 definitely influenced by Egypt, and the name A. 
 may quite well be Hebrew. 
 
 All that we know of A. is that during his short 
 reign he repeated all the idolatrous practices of his 
 father’s earlier years. He had been unaffected by 
 Manasseh’s tardy repentance and futile attempts 
 at reform, and when he came into power he gave 
 full scope to the heathen proclivities with which 
 his youthful training had imbued him. The 
 state of matters under A. may be inferred partly 
 from the fact that ‘he walked in all the way that 
 his father walked in, and served the idols that 
 his father served, and worshipped them’ (2 K 
 2121), partly from the evils that were found 
 rampant at the time of Josiah’s reformation (2 K 
 23*14, 2 Ch 348%), and partly from the description 
 which the prophets Zephaniah and Jeremiah give 
 of the religious condition of Judah in the begin- 
 ning of Josiah’s reign (Zeph 14% 8% 31, Jer 2-6). 
 An Asherah stood in the house of the Lord; 
 incense was burned to Baal; the sun, moon, and 
 stars were worshipped; idolatrous priests were 
 maintained ; and the name of Malcam was held as 
 sacred as that of J’. Perhaps even human sacri- 
 fice was not discontinued. Idolatry in religion 
 was accompanied by lawless luxury, and by the 
 corruption of morals in every part of society. The 
 rulers were violent, the judges rapacious, the 
 prophets treacherous, and the priests profane. 
 
 A. was slain by conspirators, and was buried in 
 the new burial-place in the garden of Uzza, where 
 his father also lay. He was not the victim of a 
 popular revolt, but of a palace intrigue; for the 
 people slew his murderers, and set his son Josiah 
 on the throne. It is possible that the plot against 
 A. may have been connected with some attempt at 
 religious reform, like the revolt of Jehu against 
 Jehoram of Israel. If this was so, the attempt 
 was a failure, and the popular reaction in favour 
 of idolatry was strong enough to delay the revival 
 of J's worship for nearly twenty years. But the 
 record is so meagre that this must remain mere 
 matter of conjecture. 
 
 Literature.—For the last point, see Kittel, Hist. of Heb. ii. 
 878f. There is a reading by one of the hands in the Alex. MS of 
 the LXX which gives twelve years instead of two as the length 
 of A.’s reign. This has been defended as authentic by George, 
 Duke of Manchester (The Times of Daniel, London, 1845), on 
 grounds of prophetical chronology, in which he is partly 
 supported by Ebrard (SA, 1847, iii. 652 ff.), For the other side, 
 see Thenius, Die Biicher der Konige, in loc., and the note in 
 Ewald (Geschichte, B. 3. 8. 715; Eng. tr. iv. 206). 
 
 2. A governor of Samaria in the days of Ahab, 
 mentioned in 1 K 225 (728) and 2 Ch 1825 (})D8), 
 The prophet Micaiah was given into his custody 
 when Ahab set out with Jehoshaphat on his fatal 
 attempt against Ramoth-gilead. The LXX has 
 some singular variations on this name. In 1 K he 
 appears as Seuhp Toy BaciAda THs méAews (Or acc. to 
 another reading ’Auudy roy &pxovra). In 2 Ch he 
 is "Eup (also Zeuuyp) upxovra. Josephus calls him 
 "Axduwv. (See ZATW, 1885, S. 173 ff.) 3. ‘The 
 children of Amon’ (1.8) are mentioned in Neh 759 
 among ‘the children of Solomon’s servants,’ in the 
 list of those who returned from the Bab. Exile 
 
 with Zerubbabel and Jeshua. 
 
 In the parallel list 
 in Ezr (257) the name appears as Ami (‘P8), 4. 
 
 Amon (god). See THEBES, 
 JAMES PATRICK. 
 
 ** KMORITES (‘1°89 ‘the Amorite’).—The name 
 has been supposed to signify ‘mountaineer’; but 
 the two Heb. words ’émer and ’@mir, by which the 
 signification is supported, mean ‘summit’ and 
 ‘tower,’ not ‘mountain.’ In the Bab. and Assyr. 
 texts, as well as in the Tel el-Amarna tablets, the 
 name is written Amurra, ‘the Amorite,’ the country 
 being Amurri; the Egyp. form is Amur, ‘ Amorite.’ 
 Syria and Pal. were known to the Semites of 
 Babylonia as ‘the land of the Amorite’ as far back 
 as the time of Sargon of Akkad (B.C. 3800), and the 
 Sumerian name Martu (which has been connected 
 with that of the Phen. city Marathus and moun- 
 tain Brathy) is probably a modification of Amurr4. 
 According to an early Bab. geographical list 
 (WAT ii. 50. 50), Sanir (the Senir of Dt 3°) was 
 a synonym of Subartum or northern Syria. In 
 Sumerian times ‘the land of the Amorites’ was 
 also known as Tidnim or Tidanu. 
 
 In the age of the Tel el-Amarna tablets (B.C. 1400) 
 and of the Nineteenth Egyp. Dynasty (B.C. 1300) 
 ‘the land of the Amorites’ denoted the inland 
 region immediately to the north of the Pal. of later 
 days. In many passages of the OT, however, the 
 Amorites appear as the predominant population of 
 Canaan, and accordingly (as in the cuneiform 
 inscriptions) give their name to the inhabitants of 
 the whole country (see 2 S 212, Am 2% 19), The 
 Hivites of Gn 342, Jos 971119 are Amorites in Gn 
 4822, 2S 212; the Jebusites of Jos 1563 1828, Jg 121 
 1911, 2 S 56 2418 are Amorites in Jos 105-6 (cf. Ezk 
 16°); and the Hittites of Hebron in Gn 238 take 
 the place of the Amorites of Mamre in Gn 1418 
 Strictly speaking, howeyer, according to Nu 13”, 
 while the Amalekites, or Bedawin, dwell in the 
 desert to the south, and the Canaanites in the coast- 
 lands of Phoenicia and the valley of the Jordan, 
 ‘the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites 
 dwell in the mountains.’ 
 
 Amorite kingdoms also existed to the south and 
 east of Palestine. In early days we hear of 
 Amorites to the south-west of the Dead Sea (Gn 
 14’, cf. Dt 1744), but at the time of the Exodus 
 their two chief kingdoms were those of Sihon and 
 Og, on the eastern side of the Jordan (Dt 314, 
 Jos 21), Og ruled in Bashan, Sihon more to the 
 south, where he had driven the Moabites from the 
 fertile lands between the Jabbok and the Arnon 
 (Nu 2138.26), The overthrow of Sihon and Og, 
 and the occupation of their territories, were among 
 the first achievements of the Israelitish invaders of 
 Canaan (Nu 212!%), <A fragment of an Amorite 
 song of triumph over the conquered Moabites is 
 given in Nu 2127-30, where it is turned against the 
 conquerors themselves. 
 
 Whether the Amorite kingdoms were the result of 
 conquest, or whether the Amorites represented the 
 original population of the country east of the Jordan, 
 we do not know. A still more difficult problem is 
 the relation between the Amorites and Hittites in 
 southern Palestine. That the two peoples were 
 interlocked there, we know from the statement 
 of Ezk (16%) in regard to the double parentage 
 (Amorite and Hittite) of Jerusalem. In the north, 
 in ‘the land of the Amorites’ of the cuneiform and 
 Egyp. inscriptions, the interlocking was due to 
 Hittite conquest. Before the reign of Tahutmes III. 
 of the Eighteenth Egyp. Dynasty (B.C. 1504-1449), 
 the Amorite stronghold of Kadesh on the Orontes 
 had been captured by the Hittites, and had become 
 their southern capital. The Hittites, however, 
 were intruders from the north. 
 
 On the Egyp. monuments the Amorites are de- 
 picted as a tall race, with fair skins, light (also 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 AMOS 
 
 AMOS 85 
 
 
 
 black) hair, and blue eyes (Tomkins, Jrl. of the 
 
 Anthropological Institute, xviii. 3, p. 224). They 
 thus resembled the Libyans (the Berbers of to- 
 day), and belonged to the white race. The 
 same type, with profiles resembling those of the 
 Amorites on the Egyp. monuments, is still met with 
 in Pal., especially in the extreme south. The 
 tall stature of the Amorites impressed the Israel- 
 ites (Nu 1378: 88, Dt 210-11 92, if the Anakim are 
 to be regarded as Amorites). Amorites from time 
 to time settled in Egypt, and became naturalised 
 subjects of the Pharaoh. ‘Thus, in the reign of 
 Tahutmes u11., the sword-bearer of the king and his 
 brother, a priest, were sons of an ‘ Amorite’ and 
 his wife Karuna. 
 
 In the age of the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, 
 the Egyp. governor of the ‘land of the Amorites’ 
 was Abd-Asherah (written Abd-Asirti and Abd- 
 Asratu), who, with his son Ezer (Aziru), made 
 successful war against Rib-hadad, the governor of 
 Phenicia, eventually driving him from his cities 
 of Zemar and Gebal. Aziru seems to have been 
 assisted by the forces of Babylon and Aram-naha- 
 raim (Mitanni). In some of his despatches to the 
 Pharaoh he describes the Hittites as advancing 
 southward, and as having captured Tunip and other 
 Egyp. towns in northern Syria. The kingdoms 
 of Og and (probably) Sihon did not as yet exist, 
 ‘the field of Bashan’ (Ziri-Basana) being under 
 the Egyp. governor Artama-Samas. One of the 
 letters is from the king to the governor of ‘the city 
 of the Amorites,’ and orders certain Amorite rebels 
 to be sent in chains to the Pharaoh, whose names 
 are Sarru, Tuya, Léya, Yisyari (or Pisyari), the son- 
 in-law of Manya, Dasarti, Paltima, and Nimmakhé. 
 About a century and a half later, Merenptah, the 
 son and successor of Ramses II., built a town in the 
 land of the Amorites (Anast. iii. Rev. 5), and one of 
 the chief officials at his court was Ben-Mazana, the 
 son of Yupa’a or Yau ‘the great,’ from Ziri-Basana. 
 But we do not know whether Bashan was at the 
 time under Amorite rule. 
 
 Literature. —Sayce, ‘The White Race of Ancient Palestine,’ 
 in the Hxpos. July 1888; Races of the O.T. (1891). 
 
 A. H. SAYCE. 
 AMOS (odiny).— 
 
 I. The Prophet. 
 II. The Prophecy. 
 1. Authenticity. 
 2. Contents. 
 8. Theology. 
 4, Style. 
 Ill. Literature. 
 
 1. THE PROPHET.—This is the name of the 
 prophet whose book in our Bibles* occupies the 
 third place amongst the Minor Prophets.t The 
 Gr. and Lat. Fathers, being for the most part 
 unacquainted with Heb., frequently confounded 
 his name with the quite different one of Isaiah’s 
 father, Amoz. Our prophet has no namesake in 
 
 * The same order is observed in our editions of the Heb. 
 Bible, but in the LXX Amos follows Hosea. The same is the 
 case in the Syriac Lives of the Prophets. Greg. Naz. says— 
 
 Miav pév eiciv és ypadpyy ot 6ddexa 
 ‘Ooje, K ands, Kal wixalas Oo TpiTOS, 
 
 + The name has been very variously explained. Jerome, in 
 his preface to Joel, understands it as meaning one who bears a 
 load, but in the preface to Amos he makes it equivalent to the 
 people that is torn asunder, Eusebius gives the alternatives 
 strong, faithful, tearing the people asunder. A Rabbinical 
 tradition asserts that ‘the prophet was called Amos because he 
 was heayy (=Heb. ‘amus) of tongue,’ and represents the Lord 
 as saying, ‘I sent Amos, and they called him stammerer.’ The 
 Rabbis ascribed the same physical infirmity to Moses, Isaiah, 
 and Jeremiah. Gesenius (7 /es. 1044) was disposed to seek an 
 Egyp. etymology, comparing such familiar Egyp. forms as 
 Aimosis, Amasis. But the most probable view is that which 
 traces it to the verb ‘amas (=to bear), and looks on it as mean- 
 ing burden-bearer or burdened. Theattempt at explanation is 
 carried too far when it is suggested that the name was imposed 
 by the child’s parents because of the heavy load of poverty 
 which he was doomed to carry. 
 
 the OT.* It is almost certain that he was a 
 Judean by birth: Am 1! is not absolutely de- 
 cisive, but taken in conjunction with 72 seems 
 to prove that he was a citizen of the southern 
 kingdom. The attempts which have been made 
 to prove his northern origin from the spelling of 
 certain words (419 511 68- 10 83) must be pronounced 
 failures. He owned a small flock of a peculiar 
 breed of sheep, ugly and short-footed, but valuable 
 for their excellent wool [ef. 2 K 34, the only other 
 passage where the word noked (Am 1!) occurs]. 
 These he pastured in the neighbourhood of Tekoa, 
 in the wilderness of Judah. (See TEKOA.) Part 
 of his livelihood was derived from the lightly- 
 esteemed fruit of a few sycomore trees (7#). His 
 own account of himself (74: 15) gives us the impres- 
 sion that, though poor, he was independent, and 
 able, when occasion demanded, to leave his flock 
 for a while. This is more probable than the sup- 
 position that he brought his sheep with him from 
 Tekoa to Bethel. It is extremely likely that his 
 father had followed the same occupation, for in 
 the East avocations are hereditary. The omission 
 of the father’s name in the superscription of the 
 prophecy would seem to indicate that he did not 
 belong to a distinguished family (contrast Is 11, 
 Jer 11, Ezk 18, Hos 11, Joel 11 etc.). A worth- 
 less Jewish tradition makes the wise woman of 
 Tekoa (2 S 14) to have been his grandmother. 
 
 In his day it was still common for those who 
 appeared as prophets to come forth from circles 
 where the practices and influences cherished were 
 of such a nature as to prepare men for this high 
 office. But he was doing his ordinary work when 
 the impulse came which brought him to Bethel, 
 the ecclesiastical capital of the N. kingdom, there 
 to denounce the sins of Israel. God called him, with- 
 out any intermediary (7°; cf Gal 1‘), and the call 
 came with a constraining force which left no choice 
 but to follow (88). External events, no doubt, had 
 their influence. It is impossible to read the book 
 without feeling how deeply A. had been im- 
 pressed by the westward movement of the Assyr. 
 colossus, and we may reasonably believe that the 
 campaigns prosecuted in this direction by Salma- 
 nassar III. (783-773 B.c.), or by Assurdanil (773- 
 755 B.C.), had excited hisalarm. The note of time 
 11, ‘two years before the earthquake,’ does not afford 
 much help in dating his mission. Zec 14° assigns 
 this earthquake to the reign of Uzziah of Judah ; 
 and Jerome, on Am 11, makes bold to identify it 
 with the one which Josephus (And. IX. X. 4) asserts 
 to have occurred as a punishment of Uzziah’s 
 sacrilege : ‘quando iram Domini non solum peena 
 ejus, qui sacrilegus fuit, sed et terrze motus ostendit, 
 quem Hebrei tune accidisse commemorant.’ Am 1! 
 fixes the prophet’s activity in the period when 
 Jeroboam II. of Israel was contemporaneous with 
 Uzziah. This period extended from 775 to 750 
 B.C. The tone of the prophecy leaves little doubt 
 that, when it was delivered, the bulk of Jeroboam’s 
 
 * Our English Bibles, agreeing in this with the majority of 
 modern VSS, mention a second Amos. This is in St, Luke’s 
 account of the genealogy of Joseph, the putative father of our 
 Lord, Lk 375, There is, however, some uncertainty as to 
 whether the correct form is not Amoz, The Gr. "Aus is not 
 decisive, since it is used in the LXX indifferently for PION 
 (Is 14) and pypy (Am 14), precisely as Jerome has Amos in 
 both cases. The Peshitta also fails to help us. Whereas it 
 transliterates the prophet’s name wwaseasS and that of 
 
 Isaiah’s father gost, at Lk 825 it combines the two forms 
 ase. Delitzsch and Salkinson, in their Heb. New Testa- 
 
 ments, decide in favour of Amoz, both giving pox. The 
 question is not important. In any case we know nothing con- 
 cerning the person named, and it is not possible to do more 
 than state the negative conclusion that he cannot have been 
 either the prophet of Tekoa or the father of Isaiah, seeing he is 
 removed from Joseph by an interval of only seven generations. 
 
86 AMOS 
 
 AMOS 
 
 
 
 splendid achievements had already been wrought. 
 
 he ministry of Amos should therefore be dated 
 about 760 B.c. An attempt has recently been made, 
 on the ground of internal evidence, to bring it 
 down a quarter of a century, and date it about 734. 
 This, however, would require us to set aside Am7!"17, 
 a section which bears every mark of verisimilitude. 
 
 Bethel was the principal scene of his preaching, 
 perhaps the only one. When he had delivered 
 several addresses there, Amaziah, the chief priest 
 of the royal sanctuary, sent a message to the 
 king, who does not seem to have been present, 
 accusing the preacher of treason, and at the 
 same time ordered the latter to quit the realm. 
 Evidently there was some reason to fear that the 
 oppressed poor might be stirred up to revolt against 
 their lords and masters. The threats of coming 
 judgment would disturb many hearers. The 
 denunciation of cruelty and injustice would awake 
 many echoes. Yet the priest’s language evinces 
 all the contempt which a highly-placed official 
 feels towards an interfering nobody, a fellow who, 
 as he thinks, gains a precarious livelihood by 
 prophesying. Jeroboam does not seem to have 
 paid much heed. In the Bab. Talm. Pesachim, fol. 
 870, itis said: ‘ How is it proved that Jeroboam 
 did not receive the accusation brought against 
 Amos? ... The king answered [in reply to 
 Amaziah], God forbid that that righteous man 
 should have said this; and if he hath said it, what 
 can Idoto him? The Shechinah hath said it to 
 him.’ The conversation is fictitious; but Amos 
 doubtless withdrew unmolested, after disclaiming 
 any official and permanent standing as a prophet, 
 predicting Amaziah’s utter destruction because of 
 his impious hindrance of the divine word (7!*-"’), 
 and completing the delivery of his own message to 
 Israel (8. 9). On reaching home he doubtless put 
 into writing the substance of his speeches, and the 
 roll thus written is the earliest book of prophecy 
 that has come down to us. 
 
 Concerning his subsequent fortunes we are 
 entirely in the dark. A late Christian tradition, 
 originating probably in the 6th century of our 
 era, affirms that Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, 
 struck him frequently, and treacherously abused 
 him, and finally Amaziah’s son killed him, 
 striking him on the forehead with a club, because 
 he had rebuked him for the apostasy of worship- 
 
 ing the two golden calves. The prophet survived 
 ong enough to reach his own land [another version 
 adds, ‘at the end of two days’], and was buried 
 with his fathers. It is much more likely that 
 he reached Tekoa in peace, resumed his shep- 
 herd life, and eventually was gathered to his 
 fathers. Jerome and Eusevius affirm that his 
 sepulchre was still shown at Tekoa in their days. 
 
 hen Maundrell was in the neighbourhood in 1737 
 he was told that the tomb was in the village on 
 the mountain. The Roman Church places Amos 
 amongst the martyrs, and commemorates him on 
 the 3lst March, the Gr. Church on the 15th June. 
 Amongst the Jews his freedom of speech gave 
 offence even after his death, for the Koh. Rab. 
 blames Amos, Jeremiah, and Ecclesiastes for their 
 fault-finding, and states that this is the reason why 
 the superscriptions to their books run, ‘The words 
 of Amos,’ etc., and not, ‘The words of God.’ 
 
 1. THE PROPHECY. 
 
 1. The Authenticity of the writing which bears 
 his name has never been seriously questioned. As 
 to its integrity there is good ground for thinking 
 that the following passages are later additions: 
 11.2 94.6 418 58.9 62 95.815. Kmendations of the Mas- 
 soretic text have been suggested for the under- 
 mentioned passages, and most of them merit careful 
 
 consideration : il. 13 918 35. 9.11. 12.14 41.23 56. 9 11. 12, 
 16, 26 6? 8 10. 12 7 2. 4. 14. 17 88 98. 10. , 
 
 2. The Contents may be summarised thus :— chs, 
 land2: THE INTRODUCTION, which touches on the 
 sins, first of the neighbouring nations and then of 
 Israel, and announces their imminent punishment, 
 Chs. 3-6: THE First MAIN DIVISION OF THE 
 Boox; 3-4° A Minatory Discourse, addressed chiefly 
 to the ruling classes; 4*!85 A Continuation of the 
 same Speech, now directed to the people in general, 
 detailing the judgments by which God had sought 
 to bring them back to Himself, and sharply 
 
 ointing out that a more decisive stroke was at 
 fend’ 5: A Second Address, in which are contained 
 lamentations, reproofs, exhortations to true religion 
 as opposed to false, threats of ruin and captivity ; 
 6: A Woe upon the Luxurious, the Self-Confident, and 
 the Proud. Chs. 7-9: THE SECOND MAIN DIVISION 
 OF THE Book; 72° Three Visions; 1°" The Narra- 
 tive of the Expulsion of Amos; 8'-? A Fourth Vision, 
 the rest of the chapter being occupied with de- 
 nunciations of the extortionate traders, the self- 
 indulgent rich, the superstitious pilgrims; 9: The 
 Concluding Vision: The Inevitable Punishment of 
 Wrong-doers: The Messianic Future. 
 
 8. The distinguishing characteristics of this 
 prophet’s Theology are quite unmistakable :— 
 
 (1) His Idea of God.—Amos was an uncom- 
 promising monotheist. There is not a verse in his 
 writings that admits the existence of other deities. 
 But his conviction of the divine unity was not 
 the result of philosophic thought and argument. 
 It was an immediate certainty springing out of 
 his deep sense of J”s righteousness, nearness, 
 greatness. So near and so mighty did He seem 
 that there was no room for other gods, and hence 
 there is no discussion of their claims. J” is all- 
 powerful in Heaven and Sheol, on Carmel and in 
 the depths of the sea, in Caphtor and Kir, and 
 Edom and Tyre. His might is shown in the 
 control of human history (chs. 1 and 2, passim; 571 
 64 97), and esp. in His guidance of the fortunes of 
 Israel. Every movement of the national life, 
 spiritual and external, has been under His hand 
 (29-1), In all the affairs of men there is no such 
 thing as chance ; it is His purposes that are con- 
 stantly being wrought out: calamity, as well as 
 poate comes from Him (3%). This implies 
 
 is dominion over Nature, the completeness of 
 which comes out in such sections as 4°", where 
 every natural calamity and scourge, dearth, 
 drought, mildew, locust, pestilence, is traced to 
 the direct exercise of His will. It searcely need 
 be added that the personality of God was clear to 
 the prophet’s mind. Hence it is that he does not 
 shrink from anthropomorphism: J” steps forth 
 against the house of Jeroboam like an armed 
 warrior (7°); in pity for His people He changes 
 His purposes (7° etc.). 
 
 (2) The relation between J” and Israel. — In 
 common with all his countrymen, Amos believed 
 that J” was in a peculiar sense their God, and 
 they His people. But they regarded the bond as 
 a natural and indissoluble one, like that which 
 was conceived to exist between other nations anc 
 their deities, so that, provided they paid His dues 
 in the form of sacrifices, He was bound in honour, 
 and for His own sake, to protect and bless them. 
 The prophet, on the contrary, insisted that the 
 relation was a moral one, not merely dissoluble, 
 but certain to be dissolved if they fell below His 
 standard of moral requirements. It is in the 
 insistence on this, and in the statement of these 
 moral requirements, that the splendid originality 
 of Amos is most clearly evinced. Ceremonial wor- 
 ship has no intrinsic value (57): the only genuine 
 service of God consists in justice and righteousness 
 (5%); when immorality and oppression are practised 
 by His worshippers, God shrinks from contact with 
 them as from a defilement: inhumanity and 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 A bei! ae ite 
 
 Pipe Me 
 
 Ad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ip Ae ew x << — > e ie te) = Se eee te ee aT ity 
 
 AMOS 
 
 AMOS 81 
 
 
 
 unbrotherliness, nay even the failure to respect the 
 sentiments of others (1°-24), are hateful to Him 
 when heathens are guilty of them, and much more 
 so when Israel is (37). As to the illegitimate 
 methods of worshippin the Lord, he has but 
 little to say; 34 4* 8% show the scorn with 
 which he regarded them. But it is the spirit, not 
 the method, which finds in him so stern an anta- 
 gonist. His main contention is that ritual, as a 
 substitute for the social virtues, is an abomination. 
 True religion consists in doing good and abstaining 
 from harm. As in the Epistle of St. James, ethical 
 considerations are paramount. Righteousness is 
 the keynote of the prophecy. The word Love 
 does not occur. This bent was due primarily to his 
 apprehension of the divine character. God, to him, 
 was the God of Righteousness rather than of Love. 
 Not, of course, that the sense of the Divine Love 
 is absent ; ch. 7'*is a picture of the placableness 
 which yields to the prophet’s intercession, even at 
 the moment when the stroke of punishment is 
 falling. But in this particular Amos stands far 
 below Hosea. The circumstances of the time 
 helped to fix his view. Jeroboam’s victories had 
 brought wealth and power to the upper classes, but 
 had left the poor worse off than of old. The 
 basest advantage was taken of this; the wicked 
 meanness of the powerful provoked Amos to con- 
 tempt (25). Without being what is now called a 
 socialist—for, indeed, he was in no respect a 
 theorist—he felt deeply the rottenness of the social 
 atate ; the dignity of man was being trampled on ; 
 the prevalent luxury was founded on oppression, 
 and was sapping the life of those who practised it. 
 He attacks this luxury unsparingly (64°); even 
 the custom of reclining at meals, recently introduced 
 from the farther East, is twice rebuked (3! 64). 
 The peasant, as well as the prophet, may be felt 
 here. 
 
 (3) The Coming Judgment.—The Book of Amos 
 is the earliest writing in which the term ‘The 
 Day of J”’ is used. Most probably it was current 
 on the ie lips. They imagined that when 
 the Lord arose in judgment it would be, not only 
 for the establishment of His rule over the whole 
 world, but also to their great benefit; all their 
 sufferings would come to a perpetual end ; dominion 
 as large as David’s would be restored to Israel. 
 Amos saw that this ‘ Day’ threatened to be one of 
 judgment on Israel itself (5!%-), and its coming 
 appeared so inevitable that he speaks of it as 
 
 ready present. Unlike his predecessors, he looks 
 on the result as totally destructive of the common- 
 wealth (214-16 312-15 42°3.12 57 6 assim, 78 91-47), 
 Repentance would have averted this (4), but the 
 opportunity has passed. The great world-power 
 which will serve as God’s instrument is doubtless 
 Assyria, but the prophet stops short of the mention 
 of its name (57 64), Perhaps he was aware of the 
 weakness under which the Eastern colossus then 
 laboured, but believed that it would stand firmly 
 on its feet again. 
 
 (4) The Messianic picture in 98-,—One of the 
 weightiest reasons for regarding this as a later 
 addition is its incongruousness with the Visions of 
 Judginent which have preceded. It shows us the 
 land entirely purged of the sinners, the rich 
 officials who had Ae their power. The Davidic 
 kingdom is restored, no stress, however, being 
 laid on the person or character of the prince at its 
 head. The ancient bounds of the empire are 
 re-established, foreigners, especially the hated 
 Edomites, being reduced anew to subjection. The 
 Israelite exiles aes been brought home, and have 
 rebuilt the waste cities. Agriculture and vine-grow- 
 ing flourish to a miraculous degree on a soil of 
 immensely increased fertility. Israel has reached 
 an earthly paradise, and will never be dispossessed. 
 
 This is a picture which would have commended 
 itself to the men who heard Amos, as his genuine 
 predictions did not. One point there is in common; 
 everything is human and earthly, there is no tracs 
 of expectation of a future life. 
 
 In so early a writer as Amos it is surprising to 
 meet with so few signs of sympathy with the 
 modes of thought and expression which were 
 afterwards abandoned by the higher religion of the 
 OT. At 7!” he appears to share in the common 
 idea that other lands are unclean to an Israelite. 
 At 9° he adopts the widespread myth of a dan- 
 gerous serpent inhabiting the sea, the creature, 
 eae which the dwellers on the Mediterranean 
 coast-lands conceived of as swallowing, each 
 evening, the setting sun. At 5° (a disputed 
 passage) there is probably a mythical idea involved 
 m the mention of the constellation of ‘The Fool.’ 
 (See art. ORION.) At 6! (another disputed passage) 
 the superstitious dread of pronouncing the divine 
 name amidst inauspicious surroundings is referred 
 to without reproof. 
 
 4. There was a time when Jerome’s verdict on 
 the Style of Amos, imperitus sermone, sed non 
 scientid, was generally acquiesced in. Now, 
 however, it is seen that the Christian Father was 
 prejudiced by his Jewish teacher, and that the 
 
 rophet was as little deficient in style as in know- 
 edge. In point of fact, he is very little inferior to 
 the best OT writers. His language is clear and 
 vigorous; his sentences are well rounded. His 
 imagery, mainly drawn, as was to be expected, 
 from rural life (threshing-sledges, waggon, harvests, 
 grasshoppers, cattle, birds, lions, fishing), is vivid 
 and telling. He knows how to use the refrain (4), 
 and the ee lament (5?) ; he is skilful in working 
 up toa climax. Two or three solecisms in spelling 
 may well be set down to transcribers. An Eastern 
 shepherd is not necessarily uncultivated, though his 
 culture be not derived from books. This shepherd’s 
 outlook was a wide one (1. 2. 97); his apprehension 
 of the meaning of events uncommonly clear ; his 
 knowledge born of reflection and the touch of the 
 Divine Spirit. 
 
 The boldness of his style was an expression of 
 the boldness of the man and his thoughts. It 
 required no small courage for a Judean to enter 
 Israelite territory for the express purpose of inter- 
 fering in the religious and social life of the nation, 
 denouncing everything as corrupt, threatening 
 swift and utter ruin. Nor is that all. No speaker 
 ever ran counter to the most cherished convictions 
 of his auditors more daringly than the prophet who 
 told them that the destinies of other nations are as 
 really guided by God as those of His chosen people; 
 9’ is almost a contradiction of 3°. His courage was 
 derived from his conviction of the reality and 
 dignity of his mission. When the Lord God hath 
 spoken, the man who hears Him cannot but prophesy. 
 And whoever else may fail to hear, the prophet 
 does not; he is of the Privy Council (378, ef. 
 Gn 18!”), That is the starting-point of Hebrew 
 prophecy. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Calvin, Prelect. tn Duod. Proph. Min. 1610; 
 J. Gerhardi, Adn. Posth. in Proph. Amos et Jon. 1676; J. O. 
 Harenberg, Amos Proph. Exposit. 1763; L. J. Uhland, Annot. 
 ad loc. qued. Am. 1779; J. S. Vater, Amos tibers. u. erkldrt, 
 1810; Juynboll, Disputatio de Amoso, 1828; Ewald, Die Proph. 
 des Alten Bundes, 1840; Henderson, Minor Prophets, ~845, 
 1858; Baur, Der Proph. Amos, 1847; Gandell in The Speaker's 
 Commentary, 1876; Hitzig-Steiner, Die Zwélf Kl. Proph. 1881 ; 
 W. RB. Smith, The Prophets of Israel, 1896 ; Hoffmann, ‘ Versuche 
 zu Amos,’ in ZAT'W, 1883; Gunning, De Godspraken van Amos, 
 1885; Davidson, Expositor, Mar. and Sept. 1887; Keil, Die Ki. 
 Proph, 1888; Orelli, Die Zwélf Kl. Proph. 1888 (tr. by Banks) ; 
 Bachmann, Preparationen zu den Kl. Pr. Heft 38, 1890; 
 Farrar, The Minor Prophets; Wellhausen, Die Kl. Proph. 
 1892; Reuss, Die Propheten, Bd. ii. of A.7’. 1892; Michelet, 
 Amos oversat. 1893; Billeb, Die wichtigsten Sdtze der n. a t 
 Kritik von Standp. der £ Am. u. H. aus betrachtet, 1893 ; 
 Guthe in Kautzsch’s A.7'. 1894; Cornill, Der Isr. Prophet 
 1895; G. A. Smith, The Bk. of the Twelve Prophets, 1896 ; Driver, 
 
&8 AMOZ 
 
 
 
 Joel and Amos, 1897; last but not least, well deserving to be 
 translated into Eng., Valeton, Amos en Hosea, 1894. 
 
 J. TAYLOR. 
 
 AMOZ (yiox), father of the prophet Isaiah (2 K 
 197, Is 1}, etc.), to be carefully distinguished from 
 Amos (oipy) the prophet. See AMOs (p. 85” n.) 
 
 AMPHIPOLIS (’Audlrods). —Amphipolis, men- 
 tioned in Ac 17 as a stage in St. Paul’s mission- 
 journey from Philippi to Thessalonica, was a city of 
 
 facedonia. It was situated on the eastern bank 
 of the river Strymon, about 3 miles from the 
 sea, closer to which lay its seaport Eion. The 
 river, on leaving Lake Cercinitis, winds in a semi- 
 circle round the base of a terraced hill, on which 
 the town was built, protected by the river on three 
 sides, and by a wall along the landward chord of 
 the arc. It was, as Thucydides (iv. 102) says, 
 conspicuous (mepidarijs) toward sea and land ; and 
 this is probably the import of its name, ‘the all- 
 around (visible) city’ (Classen, in Joc., who suggests 
 the parallel of Umbstadt in Upper Hesse). Its 
 importance, already marked by its earlier name 
 ‘Nine Ways’ (’Evvéa 660l), made its possession keenly 
 contested, alike on military and mercantile grounds. 
 The Athenians founded a colony under Hagnon in 
 B.C. 437, which presented a history of chequered 
 fortunes and varied interest, in its surrender to 
 Brasidas, the fight under its walls between Brasidas 
 and Cleon in which both fell, its refusal to submit 
 again to the mother-city, its repeated attempts to 
 assert its independence, till it passed into the pos- 
 session of the Macedonians under Perdiccas and 
 Philip, and eventually into that of the Romans. 
 By these A. was constituted a free city, and made 
 the capital of the jfirst of the four districts into 
 which, in B.C. 167, they divided the province (Liv. 
 xlv. 18. 29). The Via Egnatia passed through it. 
 It was called in the Middle Ages Popolia (Tafel, 
 Thessal. p. 498f.), and is now represented by a 
 village called Neochori, in Turkish Jenikoei (see 
 plan in Leake, N.G. ii. 191). Zoilus, the carping 
 critic of Homer, was a native, and wrote a history 
 of it in three books (Suidas, s.v.). 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 
 AMPLIATUS (’Aurdcaros, RV correctly with 
 x A BF G, Vulg. Boh. Orig., for TR ’Aumcas, 
 DELP, AV Amplias, the abbrev. form).—A Chris- 
 tian greeted by St. Paul (Ro 16°) as the ‘ beloved 
 in the Lord.’ It is a very common Roman slave 
 name. (Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 172; CIL vi. 
 4899, 5154, etc.) 
 
 Some further interest attaches to the name. It 
 occurs in one of the earliest chambers of the Cata- 
 comb of St. Domitilla, inscribed in large, bold 
 letters over a cell belonging to the end of the Ist 
 or beginning of the 2nd cent. A later inscription 
 in the same chamber also contains the same name. 
 The simplicity of the earliest inscription suggests 
 aslave, and the prominence Seigiod to the name 
 suggests that it belonged to some prominent 
 member of the early Roman Church, perhaps a 
 member of the household of Domitilla. 
 
 LITERATURE.—De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Chrit. Ser. III. vol. vi. 
 1881) pp. 57-74; Atheneum, March 4, 1884, p. 289; Sanday and 
 eadlam, Romans, p. 424. A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 AMRAM. —(o7py ‘the people is exalted’). 
 4. A Levite, son of Kohath and grandson of Levi 
 (Nu 3!719, 1 Ch 673-18), He married Jochebed his 
 father’s sister, by whom he begat Aaron and 
 Moses (Ex 618”) and Miriam (Nu 26°, 1 Ch 68). 
 2. A son of Bani who had contracted a marriage 
 with a ‘strange woman’ in the time of Ezra 
 (Ezr 10*). 
 
 Amramites, The (‘p7py7).— A branch of the 
 Kohathite family of the tribe of Levi. The name 
 occurs in the account of the census taken by Moses 
 
 AMULETS 
 
 
 
 (Nu 32’), and again in the Chronicler’s account 
 of the organisation of the Levites in the time of 
 David (1 Ch 267), W. C. ALLEN. 
 
 AMRAPHEL (s22>x), mentioned as ‘king of 
 Shinar’ (Gn 14!). Schrader, who suggested that 
 the name was a corruption for ‘ Amraphi’ (*272s), 
 was the first to identify this king with Khammurabi, 
 the 6th king in the lst Dynasty of Babylon. The 
 cuneiform inscriptions inform us that Khammurati 
 was king of Babylon and N. Babylonia ; that he re- 
 belled against the supremacy of Elam; that he over: 
 threw his rival Eri-aku, king of Larsa; and, after con- 
 quering Sumer and Accad, was the first to make a 
 united kingdom of Babylonia. He reigned 55 years. 
 Winckler gives the date of his reign as 2264-2210: 
 Sayce (Pair. Pal. p. 12) gives 2320 as the date of 
 his uniting Babylonia. But the chron. is uncer- 
 tain. The name is given by Hommel as Chammu- 
 rapaltu (Gesch. d. Morgane p. 58), and it has 
 sometimes been transcribed as Chammu-ragas. 
 Mr. Pinches considers Amraphel to be a Sem. 
 name=Amar-apla=Amar-pal (‘I see a son’), or 
 Amra-apla= Amrapal (‘see a son’). 
 
 It is clear that the identification is not free from 
 difficulty, so far as the Biblical account is con- 
 cerned. (1) The date of Khammurabi, according 
 to the reckoning of Winckler and Sayce, etc., is 
 400 years earlier than the cent. to which Gn 14 is 
 generally ascribed. (2) A. is described as ‘ king of 
 Shinar’; and Shinar has generally been identified 
 with Shumer, the S. part of Babylonia. Kham- 
 murabi, while subject to tne suzerainty of Elam, 
 was king of Babylon and N. Babylonia, but not of 
 Shumer orS. Babylonia. Thisdifficulty has been met 
 by the assumption that Shinar is to be understood 
 to denote in Gn all Chaldza, of which Babylon was 
 the capital. No great exactitude in geog. terms 
 can be expected. Shinar (Sangar), in the nectie 
 tions, seems to be situated in Mesopotamia. Possibly 
 Heb. tradition confused the Shinar of Mesopotamia 
 with the Shumer of §. Babylonia. 
 
 It seems best at present to suspend ea see 
 mae this much disputed identification. The results 
 of Assyriological research in illustration of Gn 14 
 are still much disputed. 
 
 Jos. (Ané. I. ix.) transcribes the name as ’Apapa- 
 yléns, although the LXX has ’Apap¢dA. 
 
 H. E. RYLE. 
 
 AMULETS (ovwn> Is 3%, AV ear-rings). —1. 
 Origin. The connexion with Jahash, to mutter as 
 a snake-charmer (Ps 585), points to something that 
 has had whispered or chanted over it words of 
 power and protection. Cf. Heb. hartom, magician, 
 and its connexion with heret, the graving-pen of the 
 learned writer, and the Arab. ‘talisman’ similarly 
 associated with the failasan or long robe of the 
 sacred dervish. The same idea of power through 
 secret lore and sanctity is exemplified at the 
 present day in Jerus., where crucifixes, pictures of 
 the Virgin, and rosaries are laid on the pavement 
 at the door of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre so 
 as to give them this hely value in the market. 
 
 2. Meaning. The central meaning of the a. is 
 something that faith may clasp as a prophylactic 
 against known and unknown dangers. It assumes 
 a connexion between holiness and healing, between 
 piety and prosperity, the first being appreciated 
 
 or the sake of the second. It is a testimony to 
 the sense of sin, for it is only that which is want- 
 ing in holiness that requires to be covered or pro- 
 tected. Hence the Arab. proverb says, ‘The eye 
 of the sun needs no veil.’ Its he is pure, and 
 therefore no protection is required. 
 
 The a. unites the protector and the protected ; 
 what lays a duty on divine power lays on human 
 weakness a corresponding devotion. Fulness of 
 consecration makes fulness of claim. Hence to 
 
 q 
 
 
 
: 
 3 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 AMULETS 
 
 AMULETS 89 
 
 
 
 the Oriental mind familiar with this amulet 
 faith, the words seem very natural, ‘Be strong 
 in the Lord, and in the power of His might.’ 
 “Perfect love casteth out fear.’ ‘I can do all 
 things in Him that strengtheneth me.’ Thus 
 the a. has a true word of power, for it teaches, 
 ‘When I am devoted, Iam endued.’ Byasimilar 
 vehicle the apostle reaches the experience which 
 says, ‘When I am weak, then am I strong.’ 
 
 3. Classification. This corresponds with the 
 dangers and the points of contact. There is an a. 
 
 for the heart (illust. 1) worn almost universally in 
 the East. It isa locket suspended over the breast, 
 and consists sometimes of a small metal case of 
 
 
 
 With this may be classed the neck-amulet. See 
 CRESCENT. Similarly, there were a’ for the nose 
 and mouth for the dangers by inhalation ; for the 
 ear and the temptations of hearing; for the eye 
 and what meets its vision (illust. 3, 7, 8). And 
 so the veil for the head and face, and the sheet 
 enveloping the whole figure of the Oriental woman, 
 now the formalities of modesty, were doubtless 
 once full of superstitious meaning. See VEIL. 
 Amulet articles among the Jews are chiefly the 
 fringes of large and small tallith : the mezuza; the 
 paper with Ps 121 and certain Abracadabra for- 
 mule, which the Rabbi puts in the room where 
 there is an infant less than eight days old ; and the 
 
 AMULETS. 
 
 1. The ‘Shield of David,’ or ‘Solomon’s Seal,’ a favourite a. among the Jews. 
 
 2. Extract from Jewish Birth-A., which 
 
 gives, under Ps 121, the names of the Patriarchs and their wives, with a formula at each side forbidding the approach of 
 
 ilith or any witch. 3. Breast-a. (tawbeh). 
 woman. 5, 6. Cactus, and black or red hand-as. 
 bracelets, and armlet. 
 
 gold or silver, but more freq. of a heart-shaped 
 sheath of cloth ornamented with a design in gold 
 thread. This may contain for the Moslem a few 
 words from the Koran, called a hejab, covering, 
 ae ; and if for a Christian, a picture of the 
 
 irgm and Child, called a tawbeh, ‘penitence.’ 
 
 
 
 4, Eye-a., seen in the brass thimble-like ornament on the nose of the Egyptian 
 7, 8. As for nose and ears, worn by Bedawin women, along with necklace, 
 
 phylacteries of the brow and arm. See PHyL- 
 ACTERY. Amulets are also used for the protection, 
 not only of animals such as camels and horses, but 
 even for newly-built houses, such protection usually 
 taking the form of a roughly-drawn human hand 
 in black or red, or of a cactus plant or aloe hung 
 
90 AMZI 
 
 by the roots from the arch of the doorway and 
 kept alive by the moisture of the air (illust. 5 and 
 6). G. M. MAcKIE. 
 
 AMZI (*ypx).—1. A Merarite, 1 Ch 6% 2. A 
 piiest in the second temple, Neh 114%. See GENE- 
 ALOGY. 
 
 AN.—1. An, called the indef. article, is the old 
 Eng. form of the num. adj. one. As early as 1150 
 the n is found dropped before a consonant, and at 
 the date of the AV the usage had become general 
 to employ a before a consonantal sound (including 
 u“ and ew pronounced yu), and an before a vowe 
 sound (including silent 4). Some hesitation is 
 found when the art. precedes a word beginning 
 with wh. Thus we find ‘an whole’ in Nu 10? 
 (ed. of 1611), but ‘a whole’ in Nu 11”; ‘an 
 whore’ in Pr 2377 (ed. 1611), 2 Es 16% (ed. 1611), 
 but ‘a whore’ elsewhere. Again, the ed. of 1611 
 gives ‘such an one’ in Job 14%, Sir 6'4 10° 20%, 
 2 Mac 67; but ‘such a one’ in Gn 41%, Ru 4}, 
 Ps 507 687, Sir 26%, 1 Co 54, 2 Co 104 1275, 
 Gal 6!, Philem%. Later edd. give ‘such an one’ 
 in all these passages. 
 
 More varied is the usage when the art. precedes 
 h. In the ed. of 1611 (the later edd. have made 
 many changes) we find ‘a habitation,’ Jer 331°, 
 but ‘an hab.’ in Ex 15’, Is 22'* 3413 and other five 
 places; ‘a hair’ in 1 K 1°, Lk 2138, but ‘an hair’ 
 in Dn 3”, Mk 2138, Ac 27*; ‘a hairy,’ Gn 2711, but 
 ‘an hairy,’ Gn 25%, 2 K 18; ‘a hammer,’ Jer 23”, 
 but ‘an hammer,’ Jg 477; and so with many other 
 words. The explanation of this inconsistency prob- 
 ably is, not that the usage for @ or an was not 
 fixed, but that there was no fixed pronunciation 
 of h. On the whole, av is found more frequently 
 than a before words beginning with h. 
 
 2. In ‘an hungered’ (‘a hungered’ is not found 
 in AV 1611), which occurs Mt 4? 12}: 8 2535. 37. 42, 44, 
 Mk 2%, Lk 6%, the an is not the indef. art., but the 
 prep. an or on. See A%, J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ANAB (21y ‘grapes’).—A city of Judah in the 
 Negeb hills (Jos 11 15°), inhabited first by the 
 Anakim. Now the ruin ‘Anaé near Debir. It is 
 noticed as still a village in the 4th cent. A.D. 
 (Onomasticon, s.v. Anab). SWPP vol. iii. sh. xxiv. 
 
 C. R. CoNnDER. 
 
 ANAEL (’Avaj\, but Sxun Syr. and Heb., and 
 bxon Aram.) was brother of Tobit and father of 
 Achiacharus, To 124, 
 
 ANAH (my).—1. A daughter of Zibeon, and 
 mother of Oholibamah, one of Esau’s wives, Gn 
 
 367. 14. 18.25 (R). The mention of a daughter in 
 this genealogical list has been used to prove that 
 kinship amongst the Horites was traced through 
 women (W. R. Smith in Journal of Philology, ix. 
 p. 50). As is pointed out, however, in RVm, some 
 ancient authorities (including LXX. Sam. Pesh.) 
 read son instead of daughter, which would identif 
 
 this A. with 2. a son of Zibeon, Gn 36% (R), 1 Ch 
 ]#.4, 3. A Horite ‘duke,’ brother of Zibeon, 
 Gn 36-2 (R), 1 Ch 1%, If we take A. as an 
 eponym rather than a personal name, and think of 
 relationships between clans rather than individuals, 
 it is quite possible to reduce the above three refer- 
 ences to one. This can be done all the more 
 readily by adopting with Kautzsch in Gn 36? the 
 reading "ha ‘the Horite’ as in v.” instead of MT 
 “ng ‘the Hivite.’ In regard to No. 2 the note is 
 Hy etieee ‘This is A. who found the hot springs 
 ( the mules) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses 
 of Zibeon his father’ (Gn 36%). For the Heb. on7 
 which is a dr. dey., LXX offers the unintelligible 
 rdv lapelv, Sam. has op’x7 ‘the Emim’ (an aboriginal 
 race of giants mentioned in Gn 145, Dt 2’), and 
 
 ANAMIM 
 
 is followed by Onk. and Pseud.-Jon. It was 
 simply the context that gave rise to the conjecture 
 accepted by Luther and AV that the word meana 
 mules. The Vulg. trn. (aguas calidas) prob. is correct 
 (so Kautzsch, ‘die heissen Quellen’), and ‘the hot 
 springs’ may possibly be identified with Callirrhoé 
 to the E. of the Dead Sea. The chief difficulty in 
 accepting this interpretation is that no root for 
 the word can be discovered which would suit such 
 a meaning (Oaf. Heb. Lew. s.v.; ef. Dillmann and 
 Delitzsch on Genesis, /.c.). J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ANAHARATH (minx), Jos 19, mentioned with 
 Shion (‘Aydin Si’ain) and Rabbith (&dba) on the 
 east side of the Plain of Esdraelon in Issachar. It 
 is the modern en-Na‘urah of Jezreel in the Valley 
 of Jezreel. SWP vol. ii. sheet ix. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ANAIAH (a3y ‘J” hath answered’),—1. A 
 Levite Neh 84, called Ananias 1 Es 9%, 2, One 
 of those who sealed the covenant Neh 10”. 
 
 ANAK, ANAKIM (piy, o'psy, Evd«-tu).—It is often 
 said that Anak is the name of the person from 
 whom the Anakim were regarded as having their 
 descent. But the name Anak occurs without the 
 article only in the descriptive phrase ‘sons of Anak’ 
 Dt 9°, Nu 13% ‘And there we saw the Nephilim, 
 the sons of Anak of the Nephilim.’ If we have 
 any account of a person called A., this is the 
 account; and he is said to be one of the ancient 
 Nephilim or demigods. (See NEPHILIM). But 
 probably here, as in all the other places (Jos 15'-* 
 214, Jg 1%, Nu 13728), we have a descriptive 
 phrase for a race of men, rather than the name of an 
 ancestor. In these other places the article is used. 
 We have ‘the Anak,’ or ‘ the Anok,’ the word being 
 used collectively, and denoting the race, just as 
 does the plural Anakim. If a progenitor for this 
 race is mentioned, be is Arba (which see), and not 
 Anak. 
 
 The Anakim were of the giant race (Nu 135%, 
 Dt 1% 210. 11, 12.20.21 91.2), They had their seat notably 
 at Hebron, but also farther N. , and near the Mediter. 
 coast (Jos 1412-15 112-22), They seem to have been, 
 however, rather a race of men than an independent 
 people or group of peoples. Politically, they were 
 Amorite or Perizzite or Philistine, as the case 
 might be. The wars in which Joshua and Caleb 
 conquered them were not separate from their wars 
 against the Can. peoples. Presumably the Anakim 
 were relatively unintellectual, were subordinate to 
 the Amorite, and were for that very reason the 
 more formidable as fighters against a common 
 enemy. For additional particulars see GIANT and 
 REPHAIM. W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 ANAMIM.—The Anamim (oy, "Eveperielu, Alve- 
 perveiu) are stated in the ethnographical list Gn 
 103, 1 Ch 14, to have been descendants, or a tribe, 
 of Mizraim, te. Egypt. They have not yet been 
 identified. The attempts to discover this people 
 in one or other of the races represented on the 
 Egyp. monuments have been based on some more 
 or less striking similarity in the name. Ebers 
 identifies them with the Aamn or Naamu (Ana- 
 maima), ?.e. cowherds, who are included among the 
 tribes ruled by the Pharaohs 15th or 14th cent. B.C. 
 They occupy the second place in the procession 
 (after the Rutu or Lutu), and are represented as 
 reddish men of Sem. type, as is shown by the head 
 of the man who represents them in the grave of 
 Seti 1. They immigrated into Egypt before the 
 Hyksos from Asia. Their capital was on the 
 Bucolic arm of the Nile, and, in addition to being 
 cattle rearers, they were importers of Asiatic pro- 
 ducts to Egypt (see Riehm, WB), 
 
 J. MILLAR. 
 
 
 

 
 a 
 
 eT ae ee ae PL em 
 
 
 
 VR Te a ee Ce PO ae 
 ER em ee " vil me 
 
 ANAMMELECH 
 
 ANANIAS 91 
 
 
 
 ANAMMELECH (3)»3y).—A god worshipped along 
 with Adrammelech with rites like those of Molech 
 by the foreign settlers brought by the Assyrians to 
 Samaria (2 K 17%, cf. v.%). The worshippers are 
 said to have come from Sepharvaim=Sabara’in, 
 a Syrian city destroyed by Shalmaneser (Bab. 
 Chronicle, col. i. line 28, in Winckler, Keilinschr. 
 Textbuch. Cf. Halévy, ZA, ii. 401, 402). Winckler 
 (AT Untersuchungen, r 97 ff.), doubting that 
 Syrians would be settled in Samaria, a district so 
 near their own land, takes Sepharvaim as a false 
 reading, or false editorial correction, introduced 
 from 2 K 18*4, for Sipar (Sippar), the well-known 
 city of Northern Babylonia. 
 
 ‘he first part of the word Anammelech contains 
 perhaps the name of the Bab. god of the sky, or of 
 a third of the sky, Anu. The whole name is 
 taken by Schrader (KAT?, 1883, p. 284) to mean 
 “Anu is prince,’ but the meaning is doubtful. 
 Possibly the writer of Kings meant i the name to 
 identify the Bab. Anu with the Ammonite Molech 
 —Anu-Molech. W. E. BARNES. 
 
 ANAN (j3y, cf. Sabean }33y).—1. One of those who 
 sealed the covenant, Neh 10%, 2, 1 Es 5°°=Hanan, 
 Ezr 25, Neh 7%, 
 
 ANANI (yy =":2y).—A son of Elioenai, 1 Ch 3%. 
 
 ANANIAH (-733y ‘J” hath covered’), Neh 3%,— 
 The father of Maaseiah, and grandfather of 
 Azariah, who took part in rebuilding the walls of 
 Jerus. He was probably a priest. Cf. v.”%. 
 
 ANANIAH (73337 Neh 115).—A town inhabited 
 by Benjamites after the Captivity. According to 
 Robinson, the present Beit Hanina, a village 2 miles 
 N. of Jerusalem. The position near Nob and Ana- 
 thoth, and east of Gibeon, renders this identification 
 probable. See ELON; and SW vol. iii. sh. xiv. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ANANIAS.—A ‘disciple’ who lived in Damascus, 
 and to whom the Lord appeared in a vision, bidding 
 him go and baptize Saul of Tarsus. Saul had been 
 ory ag for his coming by a vision. A. hesitated 
 at first, knowing Saul’s reputation as a persecutor ; 
 but, being encouraged by the Lord, went and laid 
 his hands upon Saul, who received his sight, arose, 
 and was baptized. Such is the account in Ac 91-18, 
 In St. Paul’s speech to the multitude at Jerus. 
 (Ac 2212-16) we are told that A. was a man ‘devout 
 according to the law’ and one ‘to whom witness 
 was borne by all the Jews that dwelt’ at Damas- 
 cus; and some further words of his to St. Paul are 
 
 iven in which he speaks of Christ as ‘the Just 
 ne.’ He is not mentioned in St. Paul’s speech to 
 
 Agrippa. 
 
 The traditions about him are not of a primitive kind. In 
 Pseudo-Dorotheus'’ list of the 72 disciples (and also in the Hippo- 
 lytean list) he occurs fifth in order, after Thaddwus and before 
 Stephen, and is represented as Bishop of Damascus. In the 
 Bk of the Bee by Solomon of Basra (1222), (c. xlix. ed. Wallis 
 Budge), A. is numbered among the seventy. He was the disciple 
 of the Baptist, and taught in Damascus and Arbél. He was 
 slain by Pél, the general of the army of Aretas, and was laid in 
 the church which he built at Arbél. The Gr. Menwa (Oct. 1) 
 say that he did many cures in Damascus and Eleutheropolis 
 (being bishop of the former place), and was tormented with 
 scourging and burning by Lucian the Prefect (Rom. Mart, 
 Licinius), and was finally cast out of the city and stoned. The 
 Basilian Menology adds that he was ordained by Peter and 
 Andrew, and gives a picture of him being stoned by two men. 
 The Abyssinian Calendar commemorates him on the 6th of 
 Tekemt. In the Rom. Martyrology he occurs on Jan. 25 ; in the 
 Armenian on Oct. 15. 
 
 The full Gr. acts of his martyrdom have never been printed, 
 but the Bollandists, under Jan. 25, give a Lat. VS of them, in 
 which the scene of his preaching is said to have been Betha- 
 gaure or Betagabra, near Eleutheropolis. He is likely to have been 
 among the personal disciples of the Lord, and hasa better claim to 
 stand in the list of the seventy disciples than most of those who 
 appear in the work of Pseudo-Dorothens. 
 
 M. R. JAMES. 
 
 ANANIAS (’Avavias=Heb. rn ‘J” hath been 
 gracious’).—1, A son of Emmer (1 Es 97!)= Hanani 
 of Ezr 10”. 2. A son of Bebai (1 Es 9¥)=Hananiah 
 of Ezr 10%. 3. One of those who stood at Ezra’s 
 right hand at the reading of the law (1 Es 9%)= 
 Anaiah of Neh 84. 4 A Levite (1 Es 98)=Hanan 
 of Neh 87. 5, The name which the angel Raphael 
 gave as that of his father, when he introduced 
 himself to Tobit under the assumed name of 
 Azarias (To 5!18), 6, An ancestor of Judith 
 (Jth 8'). 7 The husband of Sapphira. He fell 
 down dead at the rebuke of St. Peter, and the 
 same fate, three hours afterwards, befell his wife 
 (Ac 51#-), The intention of this narrative is some- 
 times misunderstood as regards both the offence of 
 these persons and the cause of their death. It is 
 quite a mistake to suppose that a rigid system of 
 communism was enforced in the Jerusalem Church, 
 and that A. and Sapphira by ‘keeping back part 
 of the price’ violated a rule they had pledged 
 themselves to obey. St. Peter’s words suffice to 
 refute this notion; ‘ Whiles it remained, did it not 
 remain thine own ? and after it was sold, was ié not 
 in thy power?’ But it was inexcusable hypocrisy 
 to retain part of the price and pretend to surrender 
 the whole. ‘They wished to serve two masters, 
 but to appear to serve only one’ (Meyer). As to 
 the fact of their sudden death, even Baur and 
 Weizsiicker admit that a genuine tradition under- 
 lies the narrative. As to its cause, whatever this 
 may have been from a secondary point of view, 
 there can be no doubt that in Acts it is traced 
 to the deliberate will and intention of St. Peter. 
 (Note esp. v.° and cf. the parallel case of St. Paul 
 and Elymas in Ac 13".) 
 
 LIvERATURE.—Baur, Paulus, i. 28ff.; Neander, Planting o; 
 Christianity, Bohn’s tr. i. 27 {f.; Weizsicker, Apost. Age, i. 24, 
 55f.; Comm. of Alford, Meyer, etc. 
 
 8. See preceding article. 9. The high priest 
 before whom St. Paul was brought by Claudius 
 Lysias (Ac 23!™), and whose outrageous conduct 
 upon this occasion provoked the apostle to apply 
 to him the contemptuous epithet of ‘ whited wall.’ 
 The same A. shortly afterwards appeared at 
 Cesarea amongst St. Paul’s accusers before Felix 
 (Ac 241#-), He was the son of Nedebeeus, and held 
 the high priesthood from c. 47-59 A.D. He owed 
 his appointment to the office to Herod of Chalcis. 
 During his administration there were bitter 
 quarrels between the Jews and the Samaritans, 
 and these seemed on ene occasion likely to lead to 
 his deposition. On account of a massacre of some 
 Galilzans by the Samaritans, the latter had been 
 attacked and many of their villages plundered by 
 the Jews. A. was accused of complicity in these 
 acts of violence, and was sent by Quadratus, the 
 governor of Syria, to stand his trial at Rome. 
 Powerful influence was at work at the imperial 
 court on the side both of the Samaritans and the 
 Jews; but, thanks to the efforts of the younger 
 Agrippa, Claudius gave his decision in favour of 
 the high priest, and A. returned to discharge the 
 functions of an office which he disgraced by his 
 rapacity and violence. It was no uncommon thing 
 for him to send his servants to the threshing-floors 
 to take the tithes by force, while he defrauded the 
 inferior priests of their dues, and left some of them 
 to die of starvation. His own end was a miserable 
 one. His sympathies had always been with the 
 Romans, and he had thus incurred the hatred of the 
 nationalist party. When the great rebellion broke 
 out which ended in the siege and destruction of 
 Jerus., A. concealed himself, but was discovered, 
 and murdered by the fanatical populace. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Jos. Ant. xx. v. 2, vi. ii. 8, 1x. ii. 3; Wars u 
 xvii. 9; Schiirer, HJP 1 ii. 173, 188 f., 211, 1. i. 182, 200 ff. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 
 
92 ANANIEL 
 
 ANANIEL (‘Avav4\), one of the ancestors of 
 Tobit, Tol. A Gr. form of 5y32. 
 
 ANATH (ny), the father of Shamgar, Jg 3°! 58, 
 ‘An&t is the name of a goddess worshipped in Pal., 
 cf. Jg 1, Jos 15, Is 10”; it is found on Egyptian 
 monuments from the 18th dynasty. 
 
 G. A. COOKE. 
 ANATHEMA. See ACCURSED. 
 
 ANATHOTH (riny).—1. A town in Benjamin 
 assigned to the Levites (Jos 21'8, 1 Ch 6%), named 
 from (possibly plural of) ‘Anath or ‘Anat, a 
 Chaldzan deity worshipped among the Canaanites 
 (Sayce, Hibbert Lect. pp. 187-189; Vogiié, Mel. 41 ff. ), 
 now called'‘Andta. Itissituated 24 miles north-east 
 of Jerusalem over the shoulder of Scopas. There 
 are still twelve or fifteen houses on the spot, and the 
 remains of what was apparently a handsome church. 
 From its commanding position it has a fine view 
 northward and also eastward over the broken hills 
 of the wilderness, stretching down towards the 
 north end of the Salt Sea. It was the home of 
 Abiathar, 1 K 2%; of Abiezer, one of David’s thirty 
 captains, 2 § 2377; of Jehu, one of his mighty men, 
 1 Ch 12%, and of Jeremiah the prophet, Jer 1. 
 It was reoccupied after the Exile (Ezr 28, Neh 
 77, 1 Es 5). A quarry at ‘Anta still supplies 
 building stone to Jerusalem. The vision of the 
 dreary wilderness to the east, and the scorching 
 of its dry winds which Jeremiah was familiar with 
 in his native town, have imprinted themselves on 
 his prophecies. To one standing upon Scopas, 
 Anathoth is lying at his feet, Is 10°. 
 
 2. A personal name—(a) the son of Becher a 
 Benjamite, 1 Ch 78 Possibly this and Alemeth 
 following are names of towns in which sons of 
 Becher dwelt. (6) Neh 10%, possibly stands for 
 ‘men of Anathoth’ (7%). 
 
 Anathothite (‘nn3ya) is the uniform designation 
 in RV of an inhabitant of Anathoth. AV offers 
 such variants as Anetothite, Anethothite, Anto- 
 thite. A. HENDERSON, 
 
 ANCHOR.—See SuHIp. 
 In 
 
 ANCIENT has now a narrow range of usage. 
 AV it is freely applied to men, as Ezk 9° ‘then 
 they began at the a. men’; Ezr 3 ‘many of the 
 
 riests and Levites. . . a.(RV ‘old’) men.’ Ci, 
 
 uttrell (1704), ‘Sir Samuel Astry (being very 
 antient) has resigned his place of clerk’; and 
 Penn, Life (1718), ‘This A.M.C. aforeseid, is an 
 Ancient Maid.’ Following the Heb. (and LXX) 
 a. is used as a subst., as Is 3? ‘the judge and the 
 prophet and the prudent and the a.’; but esp. 
 in the plur., as Ps 119! ‘T understand more than 
 the a®’ (RV ‘aged’). In these places ‘the ancients’ 
 are mostly a definite class, the Elders of Israel, or 
 of some tribe or city. See ELDER IN OT. 
 
 Wright (Word Book? p. 36) points out that 
 ‘the ancient’ is used for the plur. in the Pref. of 
 1611; itis probable that in Job 12" we have an 
 instance of the same: ‘With the ancient (RV 
 ‘with aged men’) is wisdom’; while Sir 39! is 
 unmistakable, ‘seek out the wisdom of all the 
 ancient’ (rdyrwy dpxalwy, RV ‘ ancients’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ANCIENT OF DAYS (ov pry).—A common 
 Syriac expression, used three times of the Divine 
 Being in Daniel (7% 4%), at first without the article 
 (wrongly inserted by AV in v.°), and meaning 
 simply ‘old,’ ‘aged,’ (see RV). The expression 
 has no reference to the eternity of God, and does 
 not bear upon the question of the date of the book, 
 as if it carried a contrast to the New Divinities 
 introduced by Antiochus Epiphanes. It isa repre- 
 sentation natural to the fearless anthropomorphism 
 
 ANDREW 
 
 of the Bible, which never hesitates to attribute tc 
 the Deity the form and features of man. The 
 object is to convey the impression of a venerable 
 and majestic aspect. 
 PAY, ancient, is properly an Aram. word: in 
 eb. it occurs once only, in the late passage 1 
 Ch 47, A. 8. AGLEN. 
 
 ANCLE (Ezk 47%) and ancle-bones (Ac 37).— 
 This is the spelling of AV after Coverdale and 
 Tindale. Camb. Bible and RV spell ankle. In 
 old Eng. the spelling is indifferent. Shaks. has 
 even anckle. Besides the above, RV gives ‘ankle 
 chains’ in Nu 31° (AV ‘chains’), and in Is 32°(AV 
 ‘ornaments of the legs’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AND is used in AV both as a copulative and as a 
 conditional conjunction. 4. Asa copul. conj., the 
 Oxf. Dict. points out the use of and to express the 
 consequence, as Gn 18 ‘God said, Let there i light ; 
 and there was light’; Lk 78 ‘I say unto one, Go, 
 and he goeth’; Mt 88 ‘Speak the word only, and 
 my servant shall be healed’ ; Lk 1078 ‘ This do, and 
 thou shalt live.’ Cf. Scottish Paraphrases 35°— 
 
 * My broken body thus I give 
 For you, for all ; take, eat, and live.’ 
 Thus and is often more than a mere copula. It 
 even has an adversative force in ‘he answered and 
 said, I go, sir: and went not’ (Mt 21%). 2. In 
 middle Eng. and was used conditionally (=7/), a 
 usage which Skeat and others believe to have been 
 borrowed from Iceland. Cf. Bacon, Essays, ‘It is 
 the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set 
 an house on fire, and it were but to roast their 
 egges.’ Of this use of and Wright points to Gn 
 44°, Nu 5% as examples. When and meant if, it 
 was often spelt an, and was often strengthened by 
 adding if. Hence we find and, an, an vf, and if, 
 all=¥ In AV we have Mt 24% (Lk 12) ‘ But and 
 if (RV ‘ But if’) that evil servant shall say in his 
 heart’; Lk 20° ‘ But and if (RV ‘ But if’) we say’ ; 
 1 Co 7% ‘But and if (RV ‘But ii ) thou marry’ ; 
 1 P 3% ‘But and if (so RV) ye suffer.’ Except 
 1 P 3% (dA el cal), the Gr. is always dav 64. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ANDREW.—tThe first-called apostle, brother of 
 Simon Peter: their father’s name was Jonas or 
 John, anc their native city was Bethsaida of 
 Galilee. ‘Their mother’s name is traditionally 
 Joanna. 
 
 NAME.—The name Andreas (’Avdpéas) isGreek. It 
 is usually believed to occur first in Herodotus 
 (vi. 126), where it is the name of the great-grand- 
 father of Cleisthenes of Sicyon. It occurs also in 
 Dio Cassius (Ixviii. 32), in the form ’Avdpelas, as the 
 name of a rebel Jew in Crete in Trajan’s reign. 
 There are other instances of the name, but it is 
 not very common. 
 
 REFERINCES TO HIM IN NT.—In the Synoptists 
 the call of Peter and A. while they were fishing is 
 narrated by Mt 418-33 and Mk 118, It tonk place 
 at the Sea of Galilee. The narrative in no way 
 implies that this was their first meeting with the 
 Lord. The name of A. next occurs in Mk 1%, 
 where Jesus enters the house of Simon and A. and 
 heals the mother-in-law of Peter. Next in the list 
 of the Twelve, where Mt and Lk place him after 
 Peter and before James and John, while Mk’s 
 order is Peter, James and John, Andrew. In 
 Mk 13° he is coupled with Peter, James, and John 
 in the question put to our Lord about the time of 
 the End. His name does not elsewhere occur in the 
 Synoptists. In St. John’s Gospel he is much more 
 
 rominent. In ch.1 A. is a disciple of John the 
 Baptist. He hears the words, ‘Behold the Lamb 
 ot God,’ follows Christ, and spends a day with 
 Him. He then brings his brother Peter to Christ, 
 and may probably have had to do also with the 
 
 
 
ANDREW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eall of Philip, who was of the same city. In ch. 6 
 it is A. who volunteers information about the lad 
 with the loaves and fishes, on the occasion of the 
 feeding of the five thousand. In ch. 12 the Greeks 
 who desire to see Jesus apply to Philip; Philip 
 tells A. ; and the two tell Jesus. In Ac 1 A. occurs 
 for the last time, in the list of the apostles, follow- 
 ing James and John, and preceding Philip (as 
 in St. Mark). 
 
 SUBSEQUENT TRADITIONS.—In the 2nd cent. A. 
 was the hero of one of the romances attributed to 
 Leucius, a Docetic writer. We have a fairly 
 comprehensive abridgment of this book in the 
 Miracula Andreae of Gregory of Tours, besides 
 some episodes and fragments of the original Gr., 
 in part yet unedited. ‘The fullest discussion of the 
 literature is in Lipsius, Sroep ies Apostel- 
 geschichten (i. 543-622): see also Bonnet’s ed. of 
 some late Gr. Encomia, based on the Leucian Acts, 
 in Analecta Bollandiana (xiii., and separately). 
 
 Briefly summarised, the literature consists of :-— 
 
 (1) Acta Andreae et Matthaei (or Matthiae), ed. by Tischendorf, 
 Act. Apost. Apocr. Matthew or Matthias is a captive in the land 
 of the Anthropophagi. Christ sends A. to rescue him: and then 
 assumes the sed of a seaman and takes A. and his disciples (who 
 seem to be Alexander and Rufus) to the country in question. 
 Matthew is rescued, and A. is tormented by the savage natives 
 for several days. He then causes a flood to overwhelm the city ; 
 the result is a general conversion. The most interesting part 
 of the story is perhaps the account of a miracle done by our 
 Lord, which A. narrates during the voyage. We have this 
 legend in Ethiopic, Syriac, and Anglo-Saxon : the last-named is a 
 
 tical version by Cynewulf, the Northumbrian poet, preserved 
 In the famous Vercelli Codex. 
 
 (2) Acta Petri et Andreae, ed. Tischendorf in Apocalypses 
 Apocryphae. Imperfect in Gr.; extant (as Acts of St. Jude) in 
 Ethiopic, and complete in Old Slavonic. It contains a realisa- 
 tion of our Lord’s saying about the camel passing through a 
 needle’s eye. It is excee ingly doubtful whether this belonged 
 to the original Leucian novel. 
 
 (8) Miracula Andreae, by Gregory of Tours, ed. Bonnet, in the 
 2nd vol. of Gregery’s works in the Monumenta Germaniae 
 Historica. This must be coupled with the Gr. Encomia, which 
 cover much the same ground. 
 
 The scene of A.’s preaching is laid in the land of the Anthro- 
 pophagi (Myrmidonia), then in Amasea, Sinope, Nicwa, Nico- 
 media, Byzantium, Thrace, Macedonia, and Patra in Achaia, 
 where the martyrdom takes place. 
 
 The traditions of the martyrdom at Patre are fairly con- 
 stant, A. is crucified by the pro-consul Aegeas or Aegeates, 
 because by his preaching he has induced the pro-consul’s wife 
 Maximilla to leave her husband. Until recently the best 
 authority for the martyrdom was taken to be a certain Epistle 
 of the priests and deacons of Achaia, first published by Woog 
 in 1749, and then by Tischendorf. However, M. Max Bonnet 
 has proved in an article in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1894) 
 that this is a tr. from Lat. into Gr. The nearest approach 
 which we as yet possess to the Gr. original is in the Miracula 
 and EHncomia, coupled with some quotations made by Augus- 
 tine and others. 
 
 So much for our knowledge of the Leucian Acts. 
 
 We possess Acts of A. in Coptic eepentty) and Ethiopic, 
 some of which couple this apostle with Bartholomew and with 
 Paul. The Acts of A. and Bartholomew seem to be modelled 
 on those of A. and Matthew. Those of A. and Paul, which 
 are incomplete, and exist only in Coptic, give an account of 
 Paul’s descent into Hades by way of the sea, of his return, 
 and of how a Scarabwjus (dizxaspov) was employed by the two 
 apostles to obtain entrance for them into a city which the 
 Jews had shut against them. The Egyp. Acts of A. assign 
 crucifixion and stoning as the manner of his death. 
 
 Other traditions aay be mentioned. Origen (ap. Eus. HE 
 iii. 1) makes A. preach among the Scythians, that is, on the 
 Black Sea; cf. the Leucian Acts. At Sinope an image of A., 
 said to have been made in his lifetime, was long preserved ; 
 and also the seat where he taught, which was of white marble. 
 He was regarded as the apostle of Byzantium, where he or- 
 dained Stachys as first bishop. 
 
 Lipsius believes that the legend of the preaching in Achaia 
 arose from a confusion between the Tauric branch of the 
 Achmans on the E. shore of the Black Sea, and the Achzans 
 in the N. of the Peloponnese. 
 
 A. appears as the author of a gospel condemned in the so- 
 called Gelasian Decree. No trace of it is to be found elsewhere. 
 There are references to him in the Clementine Recognitions 
 (i. 56, where he answers the Sadducees; ii. 62 sqqg.). He appears 
 as legislator in the "Ope: xai xayvovss, and in the Apostolic Con- 
 stitutions. He also figures in the Acts of Polyxena and 
 Xanthippe. His relics were rediscovered in Justinian’s time 
 at Constantinovle ; and remained there until 1210, when Cardinal 
 Peter of Ca) brought them to Amalfi. They are said to 
 have been brought from Patrae to Constantinople in 357 or 
 858 by Artemius. His cross, or part of it, is in St. Peter’s at 
 Rome, enclosed in one of the four great piers of the dome. 
 
 
 
 
 
 The appropriation of the decussate or saltire cross to St. 
 Andrew is of very late date. In the 13th cent. (eg. in a 
 statue at Amiens) he commonly holds the upright cross. 
 
 Documents relating to the translation of the arm of St. 
 Andrew into Scotland by St. Regulus (who is variously placed, 
 in the 4th, 5th, and 9th cent.) may be seen in the Bollandists 
 under Oct. 17. 
 
 His festival in the Lat. and Gr. Churches is on Nov. 30; 
 
 it occurs in the Lat. Martyrium, and in the Kalendar of 
 Carthage. 
 
 LiTERATURE. — Lipsius, Bonnet, Tischendorf, JW.cc.; Malan, 
 Conflicts of the Holy Apostles; von Lemm, Kopt. Apokr. 
 
 Apostelacten. 
 M. R. JAMES. 
 ANDRONICUS (’Avdpévcxos).—A Christian greeted 
 Py St. Paul in Ro 16’ together with Junias. 
 ey are described as being (1) ‘kinsmen of St. 
 Paul,’ probably implying ‘fellow-countrymen.’ 
 The word is used in this sense in Ro 9°. It 
 would be unlikely that so many as are mentioned 
 in this chapter (vv.” +21) should be kinsmen in a 
 more literal sense. (2) They are called by St. 
 Paul his ‘ fellow-prisoners.? They may have shared 
 with the apostle some unrecorded imprisonment 
 (cf. 2 Co 11%, Clem. Rom. ad Cor. v.), or, like him, 
 been imprisoned for Christ’s sake. It is unlikely 
 that the term is used in a metaphorical sense. 
 (3) They were ‘distinguished among the apostles,’ 
 a phrase which probably means that they were 
 distinguished members of the apostolic body, the 
 word APOSTLE (which see) being used in its wider 
 sense. (4) a ey, were Christians before St. Paul, 
 so that they belonged to the earliest days of the 
 Christian community. The name is Greek, and 
 like most others in this chapter was borne b 
 members of the imperial household (CJL vi. 
 5325, 5326, 11,626). It would have been common 
 in the East. (See the Commentaries, ad loc. 
 For later traditions, which add nothing historical, 
 see Acta Sanctorum, May, iv. 4.) 
 A. C. HeADLAM. 
 ANEM (oy), 1 Ch 6” only.—A town of Issachar, 
 noticed with Ramoth. It appears to answer tn 
 Engannim (which see) in the parallel list (Jos 21”) 
 but might perhaps represent the village of ‘Anin 
 on the hills west of the plain of Esdraelon. This 
 place, which is well watered—whence perhaps its 
 name, ‘two springs’—is the Anea of the fourth 
 iat ie (Onomasticon, s.v. Aniel and Bethana), 
 which had good baths, lying 15 Roman miles from 
 
 Ceesarea. 
 with Aner. SWF vol. ii. sheet viii. 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 ANER (137, LXX Ad’vdv, Sam. o73y).—One of the 
 three Amorite chieftains, the other two being 
 Mamre and Eshcol, who were bound, in virtue of 
 their ‘covenant’ with Abraham, to render him 
 assistance, when he was sojourning at Hebron (Gn 
 14}8- 24), As Mamre is an old name for Hebron (Gn 
 23?) and Eshcol is the name of a valley not far from 
 Hebron (Nu 13%), it is natural to suppose that 
 Aner also was the name of a locality aha gave its 
 name toaclan. Dillmann (in Joc.) compares Neir, 
 which is the name of a range of hills in the 
 vicinity. H. E. Ryig. 
 
 ANER (1y), 1 Ch 6” only.—A town of Manasseh, 
 west of Jordan (not noticed in the parallel passage 
 Jos 21*), The site is doubtful. Possibly ‘Hildr, 
 north-west of Shechem. SW P vol. ii. sh. xi. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ANGEL (3x52 mal’ak, Sept. &yyedos and other- 
 wise).—i. The word is frequently used of men in 
 the sense of ‘messenger,’ especially in the plur. 
 Gn 323, Nu 2171, Dt 27°, Jos 6”, In the sense of 
 ‘angel’ the term is chiefly used in the sing. in 
 earlier writings, but Bae Gn 19! (J), and ‘angels 
 of God,’ Gn 28! 32!(E). In later books, particu- 
 
 usebius, however, identifies this site 
 
 
 
 larly the poetical, the plur. occurs oftener, Job 418, 
 1 103° 1044 1487, and in such books as 
 
 Ps 78” 91 
 
ANGEL 
 
 
 
 Zee and Dn plurality is implied. So in Job 16 
 2); in Gn 32? they are a ‘camp’ or host, and in 
 Dt 33? ‘myriads’; ef. Ps 68". In the writing P 
 (Priests’ Code) no mention is made of angels. 
 Like the existence of God, the existence of angels 
 is presupposed in OT, not asserted. They are not 
 said to have been created, rather they are alluded 
 to as existing prior to the creation of the earth, 
 Job 387 (Gn 1*°?, cf. 32 117). When they appear, it 
 is in human form: they are called ‘men,’ Gn 
 18% 16-22 394 Jog 618, Ezk 923-1, Dn 3% 101618, 
 the ‘man Gabriel,’ Dn 9 (cf. Lk 244, Ac 12°), and 
 apart from the seraphim (Is 6”) are nowhere in OT 
 represented as winged (Rev 8'* 146), though Philo 
 so describes them (rrepopvodcr). In NT they are 
 called ‘spirits’ (He 1%), but not soin OT, where 
 even God is not yet called spirit (Jn 4*). To 
 Mohammed the angel Gabriel was the ‘ holy spirit.’ 
 When they appear they speak, walk, touch men 
 (1 K 195), take hold of them by the hand (Gn 191°), 
 and also eat with them (Gn 18%, though, on the 
 other hand, cf. Jg 67° 1315). The statement Ps 78% 
 that ‘men did eat the food of angels’ (lit. the 
 mighty, Ps 103%, J1 34), a statement repeated in 
 Wis 16”, 2 Es 1), can hardly be more than poetical 
 colouring of the fact that the manna came down 
 from heaven, as the parallelism both in Ps 78% and 
 Wis. shows; cf. Jg 91%, Ps 10415, 
 
 ii, In a number of passages, e.g. Gn 167-14 
 221. 14.15, Hix 32, Jo 2). 4 53 611-24 133, mention is made 
 of ‘the angel of Jehovah,’ AV the ‘LoRD’ (J); 
 and in others, e.g. Gn 21!" 311-5, of ‘the angel of 
 God’ (E). Similar passages are Gn 18. 32%-°° com- 
 pared with Hos 12, Gn 48-18, According to the 
 general grammatical rule the rendering ‘an angel 
 of the Lord’ is inaccurate, though some instances 
 may be doubtful ; so ‘ the angel of God’ necessarily 
 Gn 31", and even 21", cf. v.% The angel of the 
 Lord appears in human form, Gn 18, or in a flame 
 of fire, Ex 3?, or speaks to men out of heaven in a 
 dream, Gn 31-18, It has been disputed whether 
 ‘the angel of the Lord’ be one of the angels, or 
 J” Himself in self-manifestation. The manner in 
 which he speaks leaves little room to doubt that 
 the latter view is the right one: the angel of the 
 Lord is a theophany, a self-manifestation of God. 
 In Gn 314.38 the angel of God says, ‘I am the God 
 of Bethel’; in Ex 3*° the angel of the Lord says, 
 ‘I am the God of thy father’... ‘and Moses 
 was afraid to look upon God’; cf. Jg 13. In 
 Gn 16 the angel of the Lord says to Hagar, ‘I 
 will greatly multiply thy seed,’ and 218 ‘ the angel 
 of God called to Hagar out of heaven. . . lift up 
 the lad ; for I will make him a great nation.’ The 
 angel identifies himself with God, and claims to 
 exercise all the prerogatives of God. Those also 
 to whom the angel appears identify him with God: 
 Gn 168 Hagar ealled the name of J” that had 
 spoken to her, thou art a God that seest’ (all- 
 seeing); Gn 18 the angel is called ‘the Lord’; 
 Jg 6" it is said ‘the angel of the Lord came,’ but 
 in vv. 16 he is called directly ‘the Lord’; Jg 13” 
 Manoah says, ‘ We shall surely die, for we have 
 seen God.’ And to name but one other passage, 
 Gn 48-16, Jacob says, ‘The God before whom my 
 fathers did walk, the God who hath fed me all my 
 life long, the angel which hath redeemed me from 
 all evil, bless the lads.’ On the other hand, the 
 angel of the Lord distinguishes between himself 
 and the Lord, just as the Lord distinguishes be- 
 tween Himself and the angel. The latter says to 
 Hagar, Gn 16" ‘J” hath heard thy affliction’; cf. 
 Gn 22. Nu 22%! ‘The Lord opened the eyes of 
 Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord’ ; and in 
 Mal 3! the ‘angel of the covenant’ is different 
 from J”, and yet he is J” who cometh to His temple. 
 So, on the other hand, the Lord says, Ex 237% 2 «J 
 send an angel before thee,’ and ‘Mine angel shall 
 
 ANGEL 
 
 go before thee’ (Ex 324 332), But how these last 
 eager as are to be interpreted appears from 
 
 x 3314 15 (141%) « My face (I myself) shall go with 
 thee’... ‘if thy Lave (thou thyself) go not with 
 us, carry us not up hence.’ The ‘angel of His face’ 
 (presence) is not an angel who sees His face or 
 stands before it, but one in whom His face (pre- 
 sence) is reflected and seen; cf. Ex 237 ‘My name 
 (fulness of revealed Being, Is 30°’) is in him.’ The 
 Sept. rendering of Is 63° ‘not an ambassador’ 
 (reading 7y), ‘nor an angel, but Himself (Heb. 
 His face) saved them,’ is scarcely the meaning of 
 the original. The mere manifestation of J” creates 
 a distinction between it and J”, though the identity 
 remains. The form of manifestation is, so to 
 speak, something unreal (Dt 4!*15), a condescen- 
 sion for the purpose of assuring those to whom it 
 is granted that J” in His fulness is present with 
 them. As the manifestation called the angel of 
 the Lord occurred chiefly in redemptive history, 
 older theologians regarded it as an adumbration or 
 premonition of the incarnation of the second Per- 
 son. This idea was just in so far as the angel of 
 the Lord was a manifestation of J” on the earth in 
 human form, and in so far as such temporary 
 manifestations might seem the prelude to a per- 
 manent redemptive self-revelation in this form _ 
 (Mal 3-2); but it was to go beyond the OT, or at 
 any rate beyond the understanding of OT writers, 
 to found on the manifestation distinctions in the 
 Godhead. The only distinction implied is that 
 between J”, and J” in manifestation. The angel of 
 the Lord so fully represented or expressed J” that 
 men had the assurance that when he spoke or 
 acted among them J” was speaking or acting. 
 
 iii. As ‘messengers’ (mal’akim) sent to men, 
 angels usually appear singly, but in Gn 19 two 
 visit Lot ; Gn 28!% ‘the angels of God’ ascend and 
 descend upon the ladder, and Gn 32! ‘the angels 
 of God’ meet Jacob, who says, ‘ this is God’s host’ 
 (lit. camp); ‘and he called the name of the place 
 Mahanaim’ (two camps, or as RVm plur., com- 
 panies). In Job 1° 2} the ‘sons of God’ who present 
 themselves to report upon their ministrations are 
 numerous, Sometimes the plur. is used inde- 
 finitely, as Ps 78* ‘evil angels,’ 91" ‘ He shall give 
 His angels charge over thee,’ Job 33% ‘the de- 
 stroyers’; ef. 2S 241617, Angels do not usually, 
 at least in early writings, mediate the phenomena 
 of the physical world, they operate in the moral 
 and redemptive sphere; but the angel of the Lord 
 smites with pestilence, 2 S 24; and with death, 
 2 K 19°; and Satan, on special permission of God, 
 sets the lightning and whirlwind in motion against 
 Job, and smites him with sore boils, 11619 27. It 
 is perhaps rather a poetical and realistic conception 
 of the special providence of God, though with 
 reminiscences of early history, when it is said that 
 the angel of the Lord encamps round about those 
 that fear him, Ps 34’, and thrusts down their 
 enemies, Ps 35° 6, and that the angels bear up in 
 their hands the righteous, Ps 91", cf. Nu 201° 
 More literal is the statement that they interpret to 
 the individual the meaning of God’s afflictive pro- 
 vidences in his life, Job 33%; and so Job 5! the 
 idea is hazarded that they might interest them- 
 selves in the afflictions of men and hear an appeal 
 from them, or perhaps intercede or mediate in 
 their behalf. In Ezk and Zec the angels interpret 
 divine visions given to men; but see under § vy. 
 Passages referring to the intervention of angels 
 are such as these: 28 24!6 1 K 1957, 2 K 135 1995, 
 Ezk 92. In some of these cases it may be difficult 
 to decide whether the angelic manifestation be not 
 the angel of the Lord. The passages 1 S 29%, 
 2S 1417-% 1927 are also somewhat obscure. The 
 first passage, where Achish says that David is 
 good in his sight, might be rendered ‘as an angel 
 
 
 
Se ee eS ee We ne ore 
 
 ras 
 
 eh ob hs han 
 
 ANGEL 
 
 of God,’ that is, probably in valour (Zec 128), 
 wisdom (2S 14-®), and moral rectitude; in the 
 others the natural rendering is ‘as the angel of 
 God.’ The art., however, m comparisons often 
 designates the class, while our idiom uses the 
 indef. art. ‘an angel,’ or the plur. ‘the angels’ of 
 God. The point in the comparison is the pene- 
 tration and wisdom of the angel, and reference 
 might be to some such ideal being as is spoken of 
 J ob 157, If allusion were to the historical ‘ angel 
 of the Lord,’ the original features of the phenome- 
 non would have somewhat faded and the conception 
 been generalised. 
 
 iv. It belongs less to the sphere of redemptive 
 history than to the conception of the majesty of 
 J” the King (Is 6°), when God is represented as 
 surrounded by a court in heaven, by multitudes of 
 ministers that do His pleasure, and armies that 
 execute His commands. He has a ‘council’ (7'0 
 Ps 89’, ef. the four and twenty elders, Rev 4‘); a 
 ‘congregation’ (n1y Ps 82}, ba7 Ps 89°) surrounds 
 Him, ‘hosts’ who are His ministers (Is 67, 1 K 221, 
 Ps 103%: 1482). These superhuman beings are 
 called ‘sons of Elohim’ (Job 1° 2!, cf. Dn 3%), or 
 ‘sons of Elim,’ Ps 29!-® 89°, but possibly simply 
 ‘Elohim,’ Ps 8° 979, and ‘Elim,’ Ex 15", The 
 rendering ‘sons of God’ is possible, and Ps 82° 
 ‘sons of the Most High,’ if said of angels, would be 
 in favour of it; but, on the other hand, the word 
 Elim (05x) seems nowhere an honorary plur. 
 applicable to a single being, but always denotes 
 strict plurality. The probability, therefore, is that 
 the right rendering is not ‘sons of God,’ but ‘sons 
 of the Elohim,’ ‘sons of the Elim,’ that is, mem- 
 bers of the class of beings called Elohim and Elim, 
 just as ‘sons of the prophets’ means members of 
 the prophetic order or guilds (cf. sing. Dn 3”). 
 The names Elohim and El are prehistoric, and 
 their etymology is quite unknown; they are also 
 the names for ‘God,’ and these beings around 
 God’s throne are no doubt conceived of in con- 
 trast with men as sharing in an inferior way some- 
 ae of divine majesty. They are also called 
 *Holy Ones’ (ow7p), though the term ‘holy,’ 
 originally at least, did not describe moral char- 
 acter, but merely expressed close relation to God. 
 Cf. Dt 337, Zec 145, Ps 897, Job 5}, and often. The 
 OT assumes the existence of these beings, and the 
 belief goes back beyond the historic period. In- 
 teresting attempts have been made to explain the 
 origin of the idea. It has been suggested that 
 these beings, subordiaate to J” and His servants, 
 are the gods of the nations now degraded and 
 reduced to a secondary place by the increasing 
 oe of the monotheistic conception in 
 srael (Kosters, TAT, 1876). There is little or 
 nothing in OT to support this theory. Israel 
 probably speculated little on the gods of the 
 nations, except of those, such as Egypt and Baby- 
 lon, with whom they came into contact ; and though 
 J” be greater than all gods (Ex 18"), He nowhere 
 regards them as His ministers, but manifests the 
 strongest hostility to them, e.g. those of Egypt 
 Ex 12!?, Is 191, Ezk 30, of Haliyion Is 219 46}: 2, 
 and generally Zeph 2". The monotheism of Israel 
 did not subordinate the gods to J” as His ministers, 
 but rather denied their existence, and described 
 them as vanities (nonentities), Ps 9645, Jer 10° 1. 
 The fact that J” is compared or contrasted with 
 the sons of Elohim in heaven, Ps 89*%8, and also 
 with the Elohim or gods of the nations, Ps 868 
 9645 979, is certainly remarkable, but scarcely 
 sufficient to establish the identity of the two; and 
 if in later times the idea finds expression that God 
 had subjected the nations to the rule of angels, 
 while the rule of Israel was reserved for Himself 
 Dt 32°-° in Sept., Sir 17!”, Dn 10%” 121, ef. 
 
 t 419 29%, Ts 2421), this is hardly an old idea 
 
 ANGEL 95 
 
 that the angels were the gods of the nations re. 
 appearing in an inverted form, but a new idea 
 suggested to Israel by its own religious superiority 
 to the nations, and perhaps its way of explaining 
 heathenism. Another view goes back to what was 
 ey the oldest phase of Shemitic religion 
 or an explanation. Men, conscious of being under 
 the influence of a multitude of external forces, 
 peopled the world with spirits, whose place of 
 abode they thought to be great stones, umbrage- 
 ous trees, fountains, and the like. Gradually 
 these varied spirits came to be regarded as possess- 
 ing a certain unity of will and action, and by a 
 further concentration they became the servants of 
 one supreme will, and formed the host of heaven. 
 Such speculations regarding possible processes of 
 thought among the family out of which Israel 
 sprang, in periods which precede the dawn of 
 history, are not without interest ; they lie, how- 
 ever, outside OT, which, as has been said, assumes 
 the existence of J’’s heavenly retinue. The God 
 of Israel is above all things a living God, who 
 influences the affairs of the world and men, and 
 rules them. If He uses agents, they are supplied 
 by the ‘ministers’ that surround Him. This is 
 true (though denied by Kosters) even in the oldest 
 eriod of the literature, Gn 28 and 32, Jos 5% and 
 s 6, where one of the seraphim ministers purifica- 
 tion and forgiveness to the prophet; and the same 
 ether in the scene depicted in 1 K 22% The 
 idea is even more common in the later literature : 
 Ps 103” 21, J’’s hosts are also ministers who do His 
 leasure, Ps 148%, In Job 1® 2! it is the sons of the 
 lohim who present themselves to report upon the 
 condition of the earth and men; in 33” the inter- 
 proving angel is one among a thousand (5), and 418 
 is ‘servants’ are also his ‘angels’ (messengers). 
 Naturally, however, as the idea of ministering 
 hosts belongs to the conception of J” as sovereign, 
 some of the breadth with which the idea is ex- 
 pressed may be due to the poetical religious ima- 
 gination, as when God’s warriors are represented 
 as mighty in strength, Ps 103; as ‘heroes’ with 
 whom He descends to do battle with the nations, 
 J1 34, Zee 14°; as myriads of chariots, Ps 68"; 
 and as chariots and horsemen of fire, 2 K 61° 17 
 Is 66%, Dt 33?, Dn 7°. (On the other hand, Hab 38 
 God’s chariots and horses are the storm clouds.) 
 In particular, these hosts accompany J” in His self- 
 revelation for judgment and salvation, Dt 33?, 
 Zee 14°, J1 34, and in NT this trait is transferred 
 to the parousia of Christ (Mt 25*). It is less cer- 
 tain whether the divine name J” (God) of hosts be 
 connected with these angelic hosts; it is, at any 
 rate, a title correlative, expressing the majesty 
 and omnipotence of J” (Sept. often wavroxpdrwp). 
 Finally, to men’s eyes the myriads of stars, clothed 
 in light and moving across the heavens, seemed 
 animated, and there was a tendency to identify 
 them with the angelic host—an identification made 
 
 , 
 , 
 
 easier by the belief that man’s life was great 
 ie 
 
 under the influence of the stars (Job 38 ie 
 Job 387 the morning stars are identical with the 
 sons of the Elohim. Cf. Jg 5%, Is 14)? 2471 4026, 
 and on ‘host of heaven’ 2 K 176 218, Jer 19%, 
 Zeph 15. The idea that the stars are angels re- 
 ceives large development in the Book of Enoch, 
 e.g. 18!5-15, and even Rev 9" a star and the angel 
 of the abyss are identified. 
 
 v. About the time of the Exile and after the 
 Return a manner of thinking appears which, 
 though from the phraseology used it might seem 
 a development in ange‘ology, is really rather a 
 movement in the direction of hypostatising the 
 Spirit of God. In the older period, as that of the 
 Judges, J” rules His people through His Spirit, 
 which inspires the leaders who judge and save 
 Israel. And in the older prophets the Spirit 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 96 ANGEL 
 
 ANGEL 
 
 
 
 operates within the prophet, who is enabled to 
 conceive J”s purposes and operations in thought 
 and express them in language. But in Ezk 40 seq. 
 ‘a man’ accompanies the prophet and explains to 
 him his vision. This ‘man’ is the prophetic spirit 
 objectivised. Even before this time, in Micah’s 
 vision, 1 K 227, ‘the spirit’ who comes forth is 
 the spirit of prophecy personified. The process is 
 carried a step further in Zec: not only is the 
 prophetic spirit hypostatised as ‘the angel that 
 spake with me’ (1! 19 2%), but the operations of J” 
 among the nations are personified as horsemen and 
 chariots. That which in the older prophets was 
 an inward spirit and thoughts, has become an 
 ‘angel,’ and symbolical agencies which the ‘angel’ 
 interprets. ut that much of this at least is 
 more religious symbolism than strict angelology 
 appears from the visions in 1'* 545, It is, how- 
 ever, the Spirit of God—not only as spirit of 
 prophecy, but in general, as God in operation, 
 controlling the destinies of the nations and of His 
 people—that is chiefly symbolised in Zee. This is 
 most broadly seen in ch. 4, which is strangely 
 misread when the seven lamps are supposed to 
 represent the light shed by God’s peer e, their 
 spiritual life. The seven lamps are the seven eyes 
 of the Lord (4°), and the seven eyes are the seven 
 spirits (the manifold spirit) of God. To be com- 
 
 ared is Rev 1‘, where the salutation comes from 
 Gel and Christ and the seven spirits ; Rev 4° ‘there 
 were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, 
 which are the seven spirits of God’; and Rev 5° ‘a 
 lamb having seven eyes, which are the seven 
 spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.’ Zec 4 
 is an expansion of 3°, and its purpose is to sym- 
 bolise that Spirit of God which goes out over all 
 the earth, controls the history of the nations in 
 the interest of His people, and secures the com- 
 pletion of the temple, which the Lord shall enter 
 and abide in, when He removes the iniquity of the 
 land in one day (3°)—not by might nor by power, 
 but by My Spirit (45). The two olive trees, ‘sons 
 of oil’ (cf. Is 5! a hill, the son of oil=an ‘ oily’ hill), 
 stand beside the Lord of the whole earth, ¢.¢. in 
 heaven, cf. 6°, and cannot be Joshua and Zerub- 
 babel. Whether the duality of the trees expresses 
 some idea in the prophet’s mind obscure to us, or 
 whether it be merely part of the symmetry of the 
 symbol, may remain undecided. Other writings 
 of this period give prominence to the Spirit of God, 
 Jl 28, and show a tendency to hypostatise it, 
 Is 6311 4816 Gn 13, Ezk 8° Be 1397. The 
 ‘angel of the Lord’ in Zec. has the same double 
 aspect as elsewhere, and as the angel of the cove- 
 nant in Mal, cf. 1" with 3!“ 
 
 vi. Two further developments complete what is 
 said in OT of angels—(1) a moral distinction appears 
 among the angels; and (2) a distinction of rank. 
 The frst distinction is not carried far, and the 
 second naturally follows from the idea of an army 
 or host. In the earliest period angels seem morally 
 neutral, they are so much the messengers of God 
 and the medium of His relation to the world that 
 their own character does not come into question. 
 They have always something of the meaning of an 
 impersonal phenomenon, Jehovah’s operations or 
 providence made visible and sensible. Of course 
 the angel of the Lord being Jehovah’s ‘face,’ and 
 embodying His ‘name,’ exhibits also His moral 
 nature, Ex 23%, But ‘evil’ ayn are angels 
 who execute judgment, Ps 78%, Job 33%. The 
 spirit from God who troubled Saul is called ‘evil’ 
 merely from the effects which he produces, 1 S 16%, 
 In 1 K 22 even the personified ve of prophecy 
 becomes ‘a lying spirit,’ just as elsewhere J” Him- 
 self deceives the prophets, Ezk 14°. In writings 
 of the age of the Captivity, and later, however, a 
 
 being appears called the Satan (opposer, accuser), 
 
 one of the sons of the Elohim, who displays hos- 
 tility to the saints and people of God, Job 1° 2}, 
 Zec 3. Even in these books he has as yet little 
 personal reality. He is a voice ‘bringing sin to 
 remembrance’ before God The scene Zec 3 is 
 greatly symbolical. The evil conscience of the 
 people and their fear, suggested by their miserable 
 condition, that their sins still lay on them, and that 
 God’s favour had not yet returned to them, are 
 symbolised by the accusing Satan ; while the angel 
 of the Lord is God’s own voice assuring them of 
 His gracious favour. There is perhaps an advance 
 on the idea of Satan in Job, though even there he 
 finds no place in the dénouement of the drama. In 
 two ways, perhaps, the conception of evil angels 
 became clearer: first, it was natural that the 
 accusing angel should take on something of the 
 nature of his office, and appear as the enemy of 
 the saints and of Israel. This step seems already 
 taken in Job. And, secondly, there was always a 
 greater disinclination to ascribe moral evil in men 
 to God. In no part of OT is God represented as 
 the primary author of evil thoughts or actions in 
 men; if Heinstigate them to evil, it isin punishment 
 or aggravation of evil they have already committed. 
 But at a later time the instigation to evil freely 
 ascribed in earlier times to God (1S 26%, 1 K 22%) 
 is attributed to Satan, cf. 2 S 24! with 1 Ch 21}. 
 Further development hardly appears in OT. The 
 ‘serpent’ of Gn 3 is identified with Satan in Wis 
 2% and in NT. In Dt 32", Ps 106% mention is 
 made of ‘demons’ (0%), which, however, appear 
 to be the false gods to which children were sacri- 
 ficed, 1 Co 10”. In Assyr. shidu is the name given 
 to the inferior deities represented by the bull- 
 colossus. Popular imagination peopled, the desert 
 with demons, Is 137 344, among which was a night- 
 spectre, Lilith; and to the same category possibly 
 belongs Azazel (AV scapegoat), to whom the live 
 pone was consigned on the Day of Atonement (cf. 
 ec 54), Lv 16 1 26 (Enoch 104), although this is by 
 no means certain. These demons, however, do not 
 belong to the angelic host, and lie outside the moral 
 world. Relatively to God, the angels, though the 
 purest beings, are imperfect, Job 41° 15!5 255, ‘ 
 In Dn 1012-21 the various countries have 
 their guardian or patron angels, Michael being 
 the prince of Israel (Jude ®, Rev 127); later 
 theology reckoned seventy of these angels (Dt 
 328, Gn 4677), And in Is 24 the universal wicked- 
 ness of the world appears laid at the door of its 
 rulers, whether angelic or human, and the judg- 
 ment of God falls on ‘the host of the high ones on 
 high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth’ 
 (vv.71- 32); and many interpret Ps 58. 82 of the same 
 angelic rulers. Apart from the idea suggested in 
 § iv., several things led to this conception of patron 
 and ruling angels. First, there was a tendency 
 towards removing God far from any immediate 
 contact with the earth and men, and to introduce 
 intermediaries between them who mediated His 
 rule. In Dn He no longer speaks to men directly, 
 but only by the intervention of angels, who even 
 interpret His written word to men (9794), And, 
 secondly, there was a tendency to pee abstract 
 conceptions such as the ‘spirit’ of a nation, and a 
 further tendency to locate these personified forces 
 in the supersensible world, from whence they ruled 
 the destinies of men. The issues of the conflicts 
 of the kingdoms of Persia, Greece, and Judah 
 with one another on earth are all determined 
 by the relations of their ‘princes’ in heaven ; and 
 this idea is a ruling one in the Apoc. It belongs 
 to a different class of conceptions when conflicts 
 are referred to between God and other powerful 
 beings. Such beings are ‘the Sea,’ ‘ Rahab,’ 
 ‘Tannin’ or the Dragon, the ‘Serpent,’ ‘Leviathan,’ 
 ete., comp. Is 51%, Pg 89-5, Job 9% 2612-18 (Pa 
 
 Oe ee ee eee a 
 
 
 
 
 
 ee an el dient lan | 
 

 
 eco 
 
 Cu 
 
 — oe 
 
 i” ae 7 
 ye 
 
 T me 
 
 Westin Pras Se 
 
 ANGEL 
 
 ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD 97 
 
 
 
 874, Is 30"), Ps 7412", Is 27! (Job 40%-™, Ps 68%), Job 
 713, Am 9%8 (Ezk 29%-§ 327%); also Job 257 ‘He 
 maketh peace in His oy places.’ These passages 
 contain reminiscences of Cosmic or Creation myths, 
 victories of God, the principle of light and order, 
 over the primeval darkness and raging watery 
 chaos. They are referred to in order to magnify 
 the power of God, and to invoke it against some 
 foe of His people, which in its rebellion and 
 menacing attitude recalls God’s ancient enemies, 
 ani may be described under their names (Is 27}), 
 In Gn 6! ‘the sons of the Elohim’ can hardly be 
 anything but a part of the heavenly host, who fell 
 through love of the daughters of men, as was 
 already understood by Josephus (cf. To 3°64). The 
 passage has no other points of contact in OT, but is 
 greatly amplified in Enoch 6-15, etc.; and there, as 
 well as in NT, the idea of the fallen angels appears 
 combined with what is said of the imprisonment of 
 angelic rulers, Is 247 (2 P 24, Jude °). 
 nks among the angels appear in Dn, and 
 there for the first time some of them receive names. 
 In OT and NT only two are named—Michael, 
 rince of Israel (101% #! 12!, Jude ®, Rev 12’), and 
 briel (Dn 81° 971, Lk 19-25), Michael is named 
 ‘the archangel,’ Jude °, and 1 Th 46 ‘the arch.’ is 
 spoken of, though not named. Seven such angelic 
 princes are spoken of, To 12% ‘I am Raphael, one 
 of the seven oly angels’; in Enoch and 2 Es 5” 
 Uriel is named as fourth. The number seven 
 already appears in Ezk 9°, and there is no necessity 
 to refer it to Pers. influence. In Bab. writings, 
 grades among the celestial beings are referred to 
 (Schrader, Hollenfahrt der Istar, pp. 102, 103), one 
 class of whom Lenormant calls archanges célestes. 
 According to Jewish tradition the names of the 
 angels came from Babylon. 
 
 vii. There is little advance over Daniel in the 
 angelology of the Apocrypha. Raphael accom- 
 panies Tobias as a paile: s one of the seven holy 
 angels he ‘presents the prayers of the saints’ (To 
 12", cf. Rev 84), and says, ‘1 did bring the memorial 
 of your prayer before the Holy One’ (12%). A 
 ‘good’ angel is spoken of, To 57, 2 Mac 11°. 
 Raphael binds the demon Asmodzus, To 8%, and 
 the sentence of judgment on those who brin 
 false accusations against the innocent is receive 
 and executed by the angel of God (Sus 5); the 
 angels are ‘blessed,’ and are called on to praise 
 God, ‘Let all Thy angels and Thine elect bless 
 Thee’ (To $5); and the sins of men cannot be 
 hidden before God and His angels (2 Es 16%), 
 Neither is there in principle any great development 
 in NT. (1) The angels form an innumerable host, 
 Lk 23, Mt 26°, He 12%, Rev 51; they are the 
 armies of heaven, Rev 127 19-4, (2) They are 
 beings ade in appearance, Lk 2°, Mt 28%, Ac 
 127, and in rank eve ‘glories,’ Jude *. (3) ign} 
 minister to the saints, He 1, Mt 2 44, Lk ss 
 Ac 5 8% 127; they are the medium of revelation, 
 Rev 1) 22%, and carry the saints into paradise, Lk 
 16%, cf. 2 K 24, (4) As in OT theophany God 
 was surrounded by angels, so they accompany the 
 Son of Man at His parousta, Mt 167 25%!, 1 Th 46, 
 2 Th 17 (Mt 134-49 24%), In two or three points 
 there seems an advance over OT. (a) The angels 
 are spirits, He 1, (4) Satan is no longer isolated, 
 but has a retinue of angels, Mt 25“, Rev 127. (0) 
 Ranks in the angelic host are more distinctly 
 suggested, Col 2”, Eph 3! (1 Co 15%, Eph 1%), 
 (a) In the Apoc, angels are associated with cosmic 
 or elemental forces, as fire and water, which the 
 direct or into which they are sateen Rev 14!8 16°, 
 vt. Ps 104". Christians are made along with Christ 
 better than the angels, whom they shall judge, 
 He 2°, 1 Co 6%. Angel worship is condemned, Col 
 218 Rev 191° 228-9 cf. Dt 6, Mt 4% The second 
 Nicene Council decreed that Aarpela ought not to 
 
 VOL, I.—7 
 
 (AV ‘rage’) against them.’ 
 
 be offered to angels, but allowed dovdAela. The 
 sense in which the Sadducees denied angels and 
 spirits (Ac 238) is not quite clear. The Sadducees 
 received the written Scriptures, but disallowed 
 the oral developments gaeld by the Pharisees 
 and scribes; and it is possible that they re- 
 pudiated only that more modern luxuriant angel- 
 ology current in their day, without questioning 
 the ancient angelophanies. The great historical 
 and ritual writing P contains no reference to 
 angels: the Torah contained the revelation oj 
 God’s whole will, and expressed all His relations 
 to the world and men: special intervention of God . 
 was not now needed. And this may have been the 
 osition of the Sadducees. On the other hand, 
 om the Sadducean inclination to freethinking, 
 inherited from the pre-Maccabzan Gr. period, it is 
 possible that they interpreted the angelophanies of 
 the written Scriptures received by them in a 
 tationalistic way as personified natural forces, 
 
 LITERATURE.—Kosters, ‘Het ontstaan der Angelologie onder 
 Israel,’ Th7', 1876, etc. ; Kohut, Die Jiidische Ang we U. 
 Dédmonologie, Leipz. 1866 ; Weber, System der Altsynagogalen 
 Paldst. Theologie, Leipz. 1880 See also Fuller, Excursus on 
 Angelology and Demonology, Speaker’s Apocr. vol. i. p. 171 ff. 
 
 A. B. DAVIDSON. 
 
 ANGELS OF THE SEYEN CHURCHES.—If these 
 angels are men, they cannot be less than bishops 
 ruling their several churches. In favour of this 
 we have—(1) Mal 2’ 3!, where the words may be 
 used of men; (2) the nay 1°>y¥, who, however, was 
 not an officer of the synagogue, but one of the 
 congregation called up fer the occasion to pronounve 
 the prayer ; (3) the settled character of episcopacy 
 in Asia in the time of Ignatius. Against it are— 
 (1) &yyedos, never used of men in NT, except Lk 9°?, 
 Ja 2” of ordinary messengers; (2) the ative 
 character of the Apoc. generally, and of this part 
 in particular. There are seven angels for seven 
 churches; and from the Saviour walking in a 
 figurative tabernacle each of them receives a letter in 
 figurative form, and full of figurative promises and 
 threats. Whatever be said of the ‘ Nicolaitans,’ 
 ‘that woman Jezebel’ (2) can hardly be other than 
 figurative. Even if the allusion is to a living 
 prophetess, its form is figurative; esp. if we read 
 Thy yuvaixd cov—thy wife Jezebel; (3) the relation 
 of the angels to the churches is one of close identi- 
 fication in praise and blame, to an extent for which 
 no human ruler can be responsible; (4) settled 
 monarchical government of churches in Asia can 
 hardly date back to the Neronian persecution, or 
 even to Domitian’s. 
 
 The imagery is suggested by the later Jewish 
 belief in angels as guardians of nations (e.g. Dn 
 121) and of men (Ac 12"), like the geniit of paganism. 
 As, however, this belief is nowhere definitely con- 
 firmed by Scripture, the angels are best regarded 
 as personifications of their churches. 
 
 H. M. GwATKIN. 
 
 ANGER, as a verb, occurs Ps 1068? ‘They a 
 him also (35°¥p) at the waters of strife,’ and Re 
 10” ‘by a foolish nation I will a. (rapopy) you.’ 
 And twice in Apocr.: Sir 31° ‘And he that a 
 (RV ‘provoketh’) his mother is cursed of God’; 
 197 ‘he a** him that nourisheth him’; to which 
 RV adds Wis 5” ‘The water of the sea shall be a 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD. — Anthropopathi- 
 cally described in OT by terms derived from the 
 physical manifestations of human anger, 4x, 5p, 
 7, 772y, A¥R, ete.; in NT by the terms dpyi, 
 Ovués, anger or wrath may be defined gener 
 as an energy of the divine nature called forth by 
 the presence of daring or presumptuous trans- 
 gression, and expressing the reaction of the divine 
 holiness against it in the punishment or destruction 
 
98 
 
 ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD 
 
 of the transgressor. 
 
 latest parts of the Pent. (Lv 105 Nu 15 185; 
 
 It is the ‘zeal’ (=x3p) of God 
 for the maintenance of His holiness and honour, 
 and of the ends of His righteousness and love, 
 when these are threatened by the ingratitude, 
 rebellion, and wilful disobedience or temerity of 
 the creature. In this light it appears both in 
 the OT (passim) and in the NT (Mt 3’, Jn 3°, Ro 
 18, Eph 5%, Rev 19" etc.), and is uniformly repre- 
 sented as something very terrible in its effects. It 
 is spoken of as ‘kindled’ by the sins and provoca- 
 tious of men (Ex 4!4, Nu 11*?°, Dt 2977, 2S 67, Is 5% 
 ete.), as ‘poured out’ on men (Ps 79%, Is 42%, Jer 44° 
 etc.); its ‘fierceness is dwelt upon by psalmists 
 and prophets (Ps 78” 886 Is 13°, Jer 25%7- 88 
 ete.); it burns down to the lowest Sheol (Dt 32). 
 Similarly, in NT, God is represented as ‘a con- 
 suming fire’ (He 12%; cf. Mt 3!2 13%, 2 Th 18 
 2°), At the same time, this a. is not pictured, as 
 in heathen religions, as the mere outburst of 
 capricious passion, but Sere appears in union 
 with the idea of the divine holiness (that principle, 
 as Martensen says, ‘which guards the eternal 
 distinction between Creator and creature, between 
 God aud man, in the union effected between them, 
 and yreserves the divine dignity and majesty 
 from bene infringed on,’ and which on its positive 
 side is in the inflexible determination to 
 uphold at all costs the interests of righteousness 
 and truth); and as directed to the maintenance of 
 the moral order in the world, and specially to the 
 upholding of the covenant relation with Israel, an 
 aspect of it which manifests its close alliance with 
 righteousness and Jove. Asin the human sphere, 
 so in the divine, the keenest provocation to a. is 
 that which lies in wounded or frustrated love, or 
 in injury done to the objects of love (Nu 323+ 15, 
 2 K 173318 Ezk 23, Am 3?, Ps 7 ete.). A. 
 in God has thus always an ethical connotation, 
 and manifests itself in subserviency to ends of 
 tighteousness and mercy, by which also its measure 
 or limit is prescribed (Jer 10%). In its action in 
 providence, it uses as its instruments the agencies 
 of nature, as well as the passions and ambitious 
 designs of men (cf. Is 105 ‘O Assyrian, the rod of 
 mine a.’), and afflicts the disobedient and rebellious 
 with the calamities of war, famine, pestilence, and 
 with evils generally (Dt 28%, Am 4%" etc. 
 See analysis in Ritschl, Recht. und Ver. ii. p. 125). 
 
 So far, accordingly, as the Biblical representa- 
 tions are concerned, the divine a. or wrath is not to 
 be weakened down, or explained away, as is the 
 fashion among theologians (e.g. Origen, Augustine, 
 Turretin), into a mere ‘anthropomorphism,’ or 
 hiebey expression for God’s aversion to sin, and His 
 
 etermination to punish it; but is rather to be re- 
 
 arded as a very real and awful affection of the 
 
 ivine nature, fitted to awaken fear in the minds of 
 men (Ps 211-12, He 1081), When we look to the 
 historical development of this doctrine in Scripture, 
 we find nothing to modify materially the repre- 
 sentations just given. No real distinction can be 
 predicated between the earlier and later descrip- 
 tions of the divine wrath in OT, except that, as 
 Ritschl points out (Recht. und Ver. ii. p. 127), they 
 tend in the prophets to become more eschatological 
 (see JAY OF THE LORD; cf. Ro 25, Rev 61”). 
 This, however, is not to be understood as if the 
 divine wrath were not also manifested continuously 
 through history in the punishment of those whose 
 _ evil-doing calls it forth (Ps 74). The later repre- 
 sentations in the Scripture are every whit as 
 strongly conceived as those of an earlier date. When 
 H. Schultz speaks of ‘the impression of the terrible 
 God of the Semites’ in the earlier ages, and 
 says, ‘the ancient Hebrews, too, tremble before a 
 mysterious wrath of God’ (0.7. Theology, ii. p. 175, 
 Eng. tr.), he strangely forgets that the passages 
 he cites are, on his own hypothesis, from the very 
 
 ANGER (WRATH) OF GOD 
 
 ef. Ex 12) 30!2, Nu 8®—all from P). [he Book 
 of Genesis, remarkably enough, has no men- 
 tion of the wrath of God, though its equivalent is 
 there in repeated manifestations vf God’s judgment 
 on sin (expulsion from Eden, cursing of the ground, 
 flaming sword, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, 
 etc.). Ritschl’s view of the Biblical development 
 has features of its own. He rightly conceives of 
 wrath as connected with the divine holiness, but 
 would interpret the latter attribute as expressing 
 originally only the notion of God as the exalted, 
 powerful, unapproachable One, to draw near te 
 whom would mean instant destruction for the 
 creature; and sees the peculiar manifestation of 
 wrath, accordingly, under OT conditions, in a 
 sudden, unexpected, and violent destruction of the 
 life of those who had violated the obligations of 
 the covenant (Recht. und Ver. ii. pp. 93, 125, 135, 
 136). We can only urge in reply that there is no 
 stage in the OT revelation in which the ideas of 
 transcendence over the world, and of moral per- 
 fection, are not already united in the conception of 
 holiness. The instances which most readily suggest 
 an outburst of destructive energy apart from moral 
 considerations, are those in which individuals or 
 companies are smitten for what may seem ve 
 slight faults, or acts of inadvertence (e.g. 1 S 41%, 
 258 But even in these instances a careful 
 examination will show that it is the moral sanctity 
 of the divine character which is the ground of the 
 special awfulness with which it is invested. 
 
 When, finally, we pass from the OT to the 
 NT, we find that the notion of God’s wrath is 
 not essentially altered, though the revelation of 
 love and grace which now fills the vision places it 
 comparatively in the background. The Marcionite 
 view, which would represent the contrast between 
 the God of the OT and the God of the NT as 
 that between a wrathful avenging Deity and a 
 loving Father who is incapable of anger, is, on 
 the face of it, incorrect. The pitying, fatherly 
 character of God is not absent from OT (Ex 347, 
 Ps 103%), but, even there, is rather the primary 
 basis of God’s self-revelation, to which the mani- 
 festation of wrath and judgment issubordinate. He 
 is ‘slow to a.’ (Ps 103° e¢ al.), and ‘fury (w.) is not 
 in’ Him (Is 274), On the other hand, the fatherly 
 love of God in NT does not exclude the aspect of 
 Him as ‘Judge’ (1 P 1”), and ‘a consuming fire’ 
 (He 12”), whose wrath is a terrible reality, from 
 which Christ alone can save us (Jn 3%, Ro 116-18 
 5°, 1 Th 1” etc.). Im this connexion Ritschl 
 labours hard to show that ‘wrath’ in NT has 
 (as in OT prophets) uniformly an eschatological 
 reference, and does not apply to the present con- 
 dition. He goes even further, and challenges its 
 right to a place in the Christian system at all. 
 ‘The notion of the affection of wrath in God,’ he 
 says, ‘has no religious worth for Christians, but is 
 an unfixed and formless theologoumenon’ (Recht. 
 und Ver. ii. p. 154). It is no doubt true that the 
 eschatological aspect of wrath is prominent in NT, 
 and that for the reason already given the wrath of 
 God throughout recedes into the background, and 
 becomes, as it were, an attribute in reserve (Ro 
 25, 3%); but many indications warn us that it is 
 only in reserve, and is still there in its unchanged 
 character, and rests with its heavy weight upon 
 the disobedient (Jn 3°, Eph 23); nay, that in a 
 most real sense its effects are manifest in the terrible 
 retributions for sin exacted from men even here 
 (Mt 23%: 36, Ro 171-32, Ac 51-1 ete,). And if the objec- 
 tion is urged, as it will be by many, that the attri- 
 bution of wrath or anger to God (otherwise than 
 as the reflection of the sinner’s distrustful thoughts 
 regarding Him) is an pears mode of con- 
 ception, and derogates from the divine perfection, 
 
 
 
ANGLE 
 
 {t may at least with equal justice be replied that 
 a Ruler of the universe who was incapaole of 
 being moved with an intense moral indignation at 
 sin, and of putting forth, when occasion required, 
 a destroying energy against it, would be lacking 
 in an essential element of moral perfection; nor 
 would either the righteousness or the mercy of 
 such a Being have any longer a substantive value. 
 LITERATURE.—Weber Vom Zorne Gottes, 1862; Ritschl De 
 Ira Dei, 1859, Recht. und Ver. ii. pp. 89-148; Oehler Theology 
 af O.T. i. pp. 154-168 (Eng. tr.); Schultz 0.7. Theology, ii. 
 PRs, 67-179; D. W. Simon The Redemption of Man—ch. v. 
 e Anger of God’; Dale The Atonement, Lect. VIII.; Lux 
 Mundt, pp. 285-288. 
 
 J. ORR. 
 ANGLE occurs only as a subst., Is 19% ‘all they 
 that cast a. into the brooks’; Hab 1 ‘They take 
 up all of them with the a.’ In Job 41}, the only 
 other occurrence of the Heb. word (72n), the tr. is 
 ‘hook’ (RV ‘fish-hook’). See FISHING. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 ANGLO-SAXON YERSION.—See VERSIONS. 
 
 ANIAM (oy34 ‘lament of people’).—A man of 
 Manasseh (1 Ch 79). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ANIM (0%3y), Jos 15° only.—A town of Judah, 
 in the mountains near Eshtemoh. It seems prob- 
 able that it is the present double ruin of Ghuwein, 
 west of Eshtemoh. The Heb. and Arab. guttural 
 letters are equivalent. In the 4th cent. A.D. 
 (Onomasticon, s.v. Anab and Astemc) Anea or 
 Anem is noticed as a large town near Eshtemoh ; 
 and there were two places so called. It is identi- 
 fied (s.v. Anim) with the town now in question. 
 All the inhabitants were then Christians. See 
 SWP vol. iii. sheet xxiv. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 ANIMAL KINGDOM.—See NATURAL HIstTory. 
 
 ANISE (4vn6ov, anethum).—There can be no 
 reasonable doubt that dv7@ov is the classical name 
 of Anethum graveolens, L., which is translated in 
 EV (Mt 23%) anise. There is the direct evidence 
 of Rabbi Eliezer (Tract. Maaseroth, c. iv. 5) that 
 the seeds, leaves, and the stem of dill are ‘subject 
 to tithe.’ Dill is in the Talm. shabath. It is 
 known in Arab. by the cognate name shibith, 
 and is much cultivated in Pal. and Syria. The 
 seeds of it are used in cookery as a condiment, 
 esp. with beans and other seeds of the pulse 
 kind, and their flavour is greatly liked by 
 the natives of Egypt, Pal., Syria, and the East 
 generally. It is also used by the natives as a 
 carminative. Avicenna speaks thus of its virtues 
 (ii. 258): ‘calmant for griping, carminative 
 diminishes swelling, and its infusion is beneficial 
 as a wash to indolent ulcers. Its oil is useful in 
 joint affections and neuralgias, and also as a. 
 
 ypnotic. Its juice calms pain in the ear. Eaten 
 for a long time it injures the sight. The plant 
 and its seed are galactogogues, but are esp. useful 
 in over-distension of the stomach and flatulency. 
 Its oil is also beneficial in hemorrhoids.’ 
 
 Dill is an annual or biennial herb, of the order 
 Umbelliferse, with a stem one to three feet high, 
 much dissected leaves, small yellow flowers, and 
 flattened oval fruits about one-fifth of an inch long, 
 of a brownish colour, with a lighter-coloured wing- 
 like border, and a pungent, aromatic odour and 
 taste. It is found wild in cornfields in central and 
 southern Europe and Egypt, perhaps escaped from 
 cultivation. It has been sd teen from remote 
 antiquity. 
 
 The opinion of the translators of AV, in favour 
 of anise (Pimpinella anisum, L.), is hardly to be 
 weighed against the direct evidence above adduced 
 for the identity of dill with dyyjéov. RV gives dill 
 in the margin. G. E. Post. 
 
 ANNAS 99 
 
 ANKLE-CHAINS (ninys, Arab. saldsil, AV ‘orna- 
 ments of the legs,’ Is 3%).—The prophet refers to 
 the practice of joining the anklets by a short chain, 
 to produce a stilted, affected gait in walking. 
 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 ANKLETS (o'p>y, Arab. khalakhil, Is 3%, AV 
 ‘tinkling ornaments.’)—The ref. is to the metal 
 twists and bangles of bracelet-like design worn on 
 the ankles of Oriental women, esp. of the Bedawin 
 and fellahin class. The musical clink of the 
 anklets and their ornaments, which to the wearied 
 
 peasant on the rough mountain path has th; 
 refreshment of the bells to the baggage animals, 
 is here alluded to as a social vulgarism when 
 affected by the ladies of the upper classes, and as 
 one of the marks of an artificial and unhealthy 
 tone of life. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 ANNA ("Avva, the same name as the Heb. 3 
 Hannah, from a root meaning ‘ grace’).—1. The 
 wife of Tobit: ‘I took to wife A. of the seed o 
 our own family’ (To 1°). See TosiT. 2. 
 prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the trib 
 of Asher (Lk 2°), This genealogical notic 
 makes it clear that, though Asher was no 
 one of the ten tribes which returned to Pale: 
 tine after the Babylonian Captivity, individu. 
 members of the trike had done so; and further 
 that Anna belonged to a family of sufficient di 
 tinction to have preserved its genealogy. In thu 
 same connexion it is interesting to notice that 
 the tribe of Asher alone is celebrated in tradition 
 for the beauty of its women, and their fitness to be 
 wedded to the high priest or king (for authorities, 
 see Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 200). 
 Of Anna’s personal history all that we know is 
 contained in the brief statement of St. Luke. Sha 
 had been married for seven years, and at the tim 
 spoken of was not merely, as the AV suggests, 
 eighty-four years old, but, according to the mor. 
 correct rendering of the RV, ‘had been a widow 
 even for fourscore and four years’; so that, 
 supposing her to have been married at fourteen, 
 she would now be about a hundred and five. 
 Throughout her long widowhood she had ‘departed 
 not from the temple,’ not in the sense of actually 
 living there—for that would have been impossible, 
 most of all for a woman—but as taking part in all 
 the temple services, ‘worshipping, with fastings 
 and supplications night and day.’ It was thus 
 that she sought to give expression to the longing 
 which was filling her heart for the coming of the 
 promised Messiah, and at length her faith and 
 patience were rewarded. In the child Jesus she 
 was allowed to see the fulfilment of God’s promise 
 to His ancient poonle, and henceforth was able to 
 announce to all like-minded with herself the 
 ‘redemption,’ as distinguished from the political 
 deliverance of Jerusalem. G. MILLIGAN. 
 
 ANNAS (“Avvas, 39 ‘merciful.’ Josephus” Avavos), 
 
 
 
100 ANNAS 
 
 ANOINTING 
 
 
 
 —1, Son of Seth, appointed high priest A.D. 6 
 or 7 by the legate Quirinius, and deposed A.D 15 
 by the procurator Valerius Gratus (Jos. Ant. XVIII. 
 
 ii. 1,2). He thus lost office, but not power. ‘They 
 say that this elder Ananus was most fortunate ; for 
 he had five sons, and it happened that they all held 
 the office of high priest to God, and he had himself 
 enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which 
 had never happened to any other of our high 
 riests’ (Jos. Ant. XX. ix. 1). We learn also from 
 t. John (18'*) that Joseph Caiaphas, high priest 
 A.D. 18-36, was his son-in-law. The immense 
 wealth of these Sadducean aristocrats was, in part 
 at least, derived from ‘the booths of the sons of 
 Annas,’ which monopolised the sale of all kinds of 
 materials for sacrifice. These booths, according to 
 Edersheim (Life and Times of the Messiah, iii. 5), 
 occupied part of the temple court; Dérenbourg 
 (Essai sur histoire, etc., de la Palestine, p. 465 sqq.) 
 with more probability identifies them with four 
 booths on the Mount of Olives, a branch establish- 
 ment of which might have been beneath the temple 
 orches. It was the sons of Annas who made God’s 
 ouse ‘a den of robbers’; and the Talmudic curse, 
 ‘Woe to the house of Annas! woe to their serpent- 
 like hissings !’ (or whisperings) (Pes. 57a), almost 
 re-echoes the Saviour’s denunciations. sjonep ins, 
 too (Ant, XX. ix. 2-4), gives a vivid picture of the 
 insolent rapacity and violence of the younger 
 Ananus. oreover, ‘forty years before the de- 
 struction of the temple the Sanhedrin banished 
 itself from the chamber of hewn stone (n130 n3¥7), 
 and established itself in the booths’ (n\y3q) (Déren- 
 bourg, p. 465), subsequently moving ‘from the 
 booths to Jerusalem’ (Rosh ha-Sh. 3la), perhaps 
 when the booths were destroyed, three years before 
 the destruction of the temple, in the same year 
 in which the younger anus was murdered. 
 Such and so powerful was the faction of which 
 Annas was the head. The NT consistent] 
 reflects this state of things. Jesus, when arrested, 
 is brought to Annas first (Jn 18'%). He takes the 
 leading part in the trial of the apostles (Ac 4°). 
 That Annas is styled ‘the high priest’ (Ac 4°, and 
 probably Jn 18" 22) is not remarkable, since it is 
 quite in accordance with the usage of Josephus, 
 who applies the title, not only to the actual holder 
 of the office, but also to all his living predecessors 
 (Vit. 38; BJ. xii. 6; Iv. iii. 7, 9, 10; Iv. iv. 3). 
 And in both Josephus and NT the more in- 
 fluential members of those families from which 
 high priests were chosen are all called dpycepets. 
 But the phrase ‘él dpxvepéws “Avva xal Kaidga, in 
 the high priesthood of A. and C.’ (Lk 3°), seems 
 unparalleled. Ewald (H.Z. vol. vi. p. 430, n. 3) 
 conjectures that it is due to the fact that when 
 the author wrote, ‘ they had become memorable in 
 this association through the history of Christ’s 
 death.’ The chief interest in Annas centres in the 
 notice of him in Jn 18, which is complementary 
 to the narrative of St. Luke, and corrects an 
 apparent mistake made by St. Matthew and St. 
 ark. The first two evangelists obscurely indicate 
 two stages in the trial of Jesus (Mt 26° 271, Mk 1458 
 151), but they transfer the events of the morning 
 meeting of the Sanhedrin to the previous night. 
 St. Luke avoids this apparent mistake, and leaves 
 room (2254) for such an informal inquiry as that of 
 Annas really was. ; 
 
 When we bear in mind the predominant influence 
 of the man, and the unscrupulousness of the whole 
 proceeding, it seems unnecessary to oe that 
 Annas was either deputy (sagan) of the high priest 
 (Lightfoot, Temple Sern. v. 1) or president (xw3) 
 of the Sanhedrin (Baronius, Annals, followed by 
 Selden, de Success. Pontif. i. 12) or chief examining 
 judge, } m3 38 (Ewald, H.J. vol. vi. p. 430) 
 
 e interview of Jesus with Annas is described 
 
 Jn 181-3, It could have only one issue. Jesus 
 was sent as a condemned prisoner for a more 
 formal trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, as 
 described by the Synoptists, but merely implied by 
 St. John. (This is obscured in the Received text 
 of v.%, and still more in the AV, which renders 
 the aorist as a pluperfect ; ody is read by BC* LX 
 1. 33.) We have seen that the Sanhedrin at this 
 time met in the headquarters of the Annas faction, 
 so that it may have been when passing through 
 the court from the apartments of Annas to the 
 council chamber that ‘the Lord turned, and looked 
 upon Peter,’ Lk 22% (Westcott on Jn 18%). 2. 
 1 Es 9%, see HARIM. N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 ANNIS (’Avvels B, ’Avuids A, AV Ananias, RVm 
 Annias).—The eponym of a family that returned 
 with Zerubbabel (1 Es 51%). Omitted in parallel 
 passages of Ezr and Neh. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ANNUS (A “Avvous, B ’Avviov#, AV Anus).—A 
 Levite, 1 Es 9%=Neh 87 [Bani]. 
 
 ANNUUS (A “Avvouvos, B omits), 1 Es 8% (47, 
 LXX).—The name does not occur in Ezr 8"; it 
 may be due to reading tmx) (AV ‘and with him)’ 
 there as 138). H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ANOINTING.—1. The application of unguents to 
 the skin and hair as an act of the toilet is an 
 ancient custom; the oldest prescription extant is 
 for this purpose, and professes to date from about 
 B.C. 4200. Among the Jews a. was a daily practice 
 (Mt 617), the oil being applied to exposed parts (Ps 
 104'5), soothing the skin burnt by the sun. The 
 effects of oil are more enduring than those of 
 water, hence a. was practised after bathing (Ru 
 3%, Ezk 16°). It was a mark of luxury to nse 
 specially scented oils (Am 65), such as_ those 
 
 ezekiah kept in his treasure-house (2 K 203%). Aas 
 a. was a sign of joy (Pr 27°), it was discontinued 
 during the time of mourning (Dn 10*); so Joab 
 instructed the woman of Tekoa to appear un- 
 anointed before David (2S 147). On the death of 
 Bathsheba’s child, David anointed himself to show 
 that his mourning had ended (2 § 12”°), The cessa- 
 tion of a. was to be a mark of God’s displeasure if 
 Israel proved rebellious (Dt 28%, Mic 6"), and the 
 restoration of the custom was to be a sign of God’s 
 returning favour (Is 61°). Anointing is used as a 
 symbol of prosperity in Ps 92, Ee 9°. 
 
 2. Before paying visits of ceremony the head was 
 anointed ; so Naomi bade Ruth anoint herself before 
 visiting Boaz (3°). Oil of myrrh was used for this 
 purpose in the harem of Ahasuerus (Est 2!%). On 
 monuments in Egypt the host is seen anointing his 
 guest on his arrival ; and the same must have been 
 customary in Pal., as Simon’s failure of hospitality 
 in this respect is commented upon by our Lord 
 
 (Lk 7), This custom is referred to in Ps 23°, 
 The Isr. showed their goodwill to the captives of 
 Judah by anointing them before sending them 
 
 back at the command of Oded (2 Ch 28"), Mary’s 
 anointing of our Lord was according to this custom. 
 
 8. Before battle, shields were oiled, that their 
 surfaces might be slippery and shining (Is 215, 
 28S 12 RV). This practice is referred to several 
 times by classical authors, and is in use to this 
 day among some African tribes. 
 
 4, Asa remedial agent a. was in use on the 
 Jews in pre-Christian times; it was practised by 
 the apostles (Mk 61%), recommended by St. James 
 (54), mentioned in the parable of the Good 
 Samaritan (Lk 10), and used as a type of God’s 
 forgiving grace healing the sin-sick soul (Is 1%, 
 Ezk 16°, Rev 318). In post-apost. times the oil was 
 supposed to owe its virtue to its consecration by 
 prayer, which might be done by any Christian ; thus 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 Pe ee ree eo eee 
 
 * 
 ¢ 
 « 
 
 
 
 ANOINTING 
 
 Proculus anointed Severus, and healed him (Tertull. 
 ad Scap. iv.). By the 3rd cent. consecration of the 
 oil could only be done by the bishop (Innocent, 
 Decentio, viii.); although any Christian might 
 apply the holy oil, and the oil from the church 
 lamps was often taken for this purpose (Chrysostom 
 in Me $2). Oil was also consecrated by being 
 taken from the tombs of martyrs (1b. Homil. in 
 Martyr. iii.). By the 5th cent. the priest alone could 
 anoint (Labbe & Cossart, Concilia, ix. 419, § 10). 
 This a. was intended as a means of cure even as 
 late as the days of Bede (in Marci, i.c. 24). Thea. 
 of the dying was a heretical practice of the Mar- 
 cosians (Irenzus, i. 21. 5) and the Heracleonites 
 (Epiphanius, adv. Her, xxxvi. 2) for purposes of 
 exorcism. Theodoret says that the Archontici 
 also use oil and water, but apparently in a different 
 way (€mBdd\d\ovn, see Her, Kab. Compend. i. 11). 
 In the Rom. Church by the 12th cent. the idea of 
 healing had become obsolete, and the a. was 
 restricted to the dying (Council of Florence, 1439) 
 and applied before the Viaticum (lst Council of 
 Mainz, Can. xxvi.). It is called extreme unction by 
 Hugo de St. Victore (Swmma Sententiar. vi. 15), and 
 its place as one of the seven sacraments of the 
 Rom. Church was decided by the Council of Trent. 
 Calvin calls it histrionica hypocrisis (Inst. vi. 19, 
 § 18). 
 
 The ceremonial of anointing the leper when 
 cleansed was not remedial, but a sign of reconsecra- 
 tion. In Scripture the application of any soft 
 material, as moistened clay, to a blind man’s eyes, 
 is called anointing (Jn 9°). 
 
 §. Asin Egypt, the application of ointments and 
 spices to the dead body was customary in Pal. 
 (Ae 161, Lk 23%, Jn 19”); but they were only 
 externally applied, and did not prevent decomposi- 
 tion (Jn 11”). In later times the a. of the dead 
 
 with holy oil is recommended (Dionys. Areopag. 
 de Eccles. Hierarch. vii. § 8). 
 6. Holy things were by a. dedicated to God even 
 
 in ancient times. Thus Jacob consecrated the 
 stones at Bethel (Gn 2818, 354); and God recog- 
 nised the action (31'*). In Greece, Egypt, and 
 other countries dedication by oil was practised, and 
 is continued in the Rom. and Gr. rituals for the 
 consecration of churches. The tabernacle and 
 its furniture were thus consecrated (Ex 3078 40!°, 
 Ly 8"), and the altar of burnt-offering was re- 
 consecrated after the sin-offering (Ex 29%), Some 
 
 riodic hostia honoraria were anointed with oil 
 
 v 2! etc.); but no oil was to be poured on the 
 sin-offering (Lv 5", Nu 5%). It is not said that 
 the temple was consecrated by a., but there 
 was holy oil in the priests’ charge at the time 
 (1 K 1), as there was in the days of the second 
 temple (1 Ch 9”). 
 
 7. Priests were set apart by a. In the case of 
 Aaron, and probably all high priests, this was done 
 twice : first by pouring the holy oil on his head after 
 his robing, but before the sacrifice of consecration 
 (Ly 82, Ps 133?); and next by sprinkling after the 
 sacrifice (Lv 8%). The ordinary priests were onl 
 
 rinkled with oil after the application of the blood 
 of the sacrifice. Hence the high priest is called 
 the anointed priest (Lv 4°-5 and 6”). The holy 
 oil for this purpose was made of olive oil, cinnamon, 
 cassia, flowing myrrh, and the root of the sweet 
 cane (Acorus Calamus). It was to be used only 
 for these ceremonials, and its unauthorised com- 
 pounding was strictly forbidden (Ex 30"). In Egypt 
 there were nine sacred oils for ceremonial use. 
 A. in the ordination of presbyters and deacons 
 came into use in the 8th cent., but was not 
 practised in the early Church. 
 
 8. Of designation to kingship by a. we have 
 examples in Saul (1 S 10!) and David (1 S 167%). 
 This act was accompanied by the gift of the Spirit ; 
 
 ANOINTING 101 
 
 so, when David was anointed, the Spirit descended 
 on him, and departed from Saul; and Hazael was 
 anointed over Syria by God’s command (1 K 19"), 
 Kings thus designated were called the Lord’s 
 anointed. David thus speaks of Saul (1S 26") and 
 of himself (Ps 2). This passage is used by the 
 apostles as prophetic of Christ (Ac 4%), 
 
 9. By a. kings were installed in office. David 
 was again anointed when made king of Judah, and 
 a third time when made king of united Israel 
 (2S 24 5%). Solomon was anointed in David’s life- 
 time, and he refers to the a. in his dedication 
 prayer. It is not said that those who succeeded by 
 right of primogeniture were anointed; but when 
 the succession was disputed, Jehoiada anointed 
 Joash (2 K 11). Jehoahaz the younger son of 
 Josiah was anointed (2 K 23%) in place of his elder 
 brother Jehoiakim (see 23% %5), Kings of other 
 lands were anointed. This was early known to 
 the Israelites, as we learn from Jotham’s parable 
 (Jg 9%). The kings of Egypt were anointed, and 
 the a. is said to have been done by the gods 
 (Diimichen, Hist. Inschrift, i. 12); hence they are 
 called the ‘anointed of the gods.’ The king of 
 Tyre is also called the ‘anointed’ (Ezk 28"). Jehu 
 was anointed as beginning a new dynasty (2 K 9"). 
 Zedekiah is referred to as anointed (La 4”). British 
 kings were anointed in pre-Saxon days (Gildas, 
 de excidio Brit. i. 19), as were the Christianised 
 Saxons; but the first mention of a, at coronation 
 elsewhere in Europe is in A.D. 636 in the Acts 
 of the 6th Council of Toledo. Charlemagne, . 
 A.D. 800, was the first emperor anointed (by Pope 
 Leo 11.) A. is now a part of the ceremonial of 
 coronation in most Christian kingdoms, 
 
 10. A. is used metaphorically to mean setting 
 apart to the prophetic office; so Elijah is told to 
 anoint Elisha. This does not appear to have been 
 literally done (1 K 19!5). In Ps 105% the words 
 anointed and prophets are used as synonyms. The 
 Servant of the Lord calls himself anointed to preach 
 (Is 61’), and Christ tells the people of Nazareth 
 that this prophecy is fulfilled in Him (Lk 4!%), 
 
 11. Similarly in a metaphorical sense any one 
 chosen of God is called an anointed one; thus the 
 patriarchs are called God’s Messiahs (Ps 105"), and 
 Israel as a nation (Ps 84°, Hab 3'%, Ps 89%8- 5), 
 being promised deliverance on this account (Is 
 107, 1 S 2”). Cyrus is also called a Messiah 
 (Is 45!). The name Christ is the Gr. equivalent 
 of the Heb. Messiah=‘ anointed.’ The anointing 
 of Ps 45’ is taken in He 1° as prophetic of the 
 Saviour’s anointing. 
 
 In this sense, a8 a chosen people, believers are 
 said to be God’s anointed (2 Co 1%, 1 Jn 2? 27), the 
 unction being the gift of the Holy Spirit. In post- 
 tas times these words gave rise to the practice 
 of anointing with oil at baptism. This was done 
 by way of exorcism before the washing in the E. 
 hare in the days of Cyril (Catech. Mystag. ii. D), 
 as it seems from St. Augustine to have been the 
 practice in Africa (see Tr. 44 in Joannis, § 2, refer- 
 ring to anointing the blind man’s eyes before the 
 washing). But'Tertullian puts thea. after the wash- 
 ing (De resurr. Carnis, § viii.), as does Optatus, who 
 says that Christ was anointed by the dove after 
 baptism (de Schism. Donat. iv. 76). Upon these 
 texts, quoted above, coupled with the ‘sealing’ men- 
 tioned in Eph 1 4% and 2 Co 1”, the post-apostolic 
 Church based the ceremony of confirmation, in 
 connexion with which in the W. Church another 
 anointing became customary in the 5th cent. 
 
 LiTgRATURE.—Besides the references given above, see for 
 fuller details concerning the above sections—1. Papyrus Ebers, 
 p. 66; Erman, dgypten, 1835, p. 316. 4. Martene, de Ant. Ecel. 
 Rit., Rouen, 1700, i. 7; Dalleus, de duobus Latinoruwm Sacra- 
 mentis, Geneva, 1659; Decretum Hugenti IV. de Sept, Eccl. 
 
 Sacram., Louvain, 1557. 6. Arnobius, adv. Gent. i. 319; Fabri- 
 cius, de Templ. Christ., Heimstadt, 1704; Pausanias, vii. 22 
 
 
 
102 ANON 
 
 7. Theodulfus, Epise. Aurel. Capit. de Presb., ed. Migne, 193; 
 Ivo Carnotensis, vi. 121. A. MACALISTER. 
 
 
 
 ANON, a contraction for ‘in one,’ is used in AV 
 for ‘in one moment’ (RV ‘straightway’). Mt 13” 
 ‘a. with joy receiveth it’; Mk 1* ‘a. they tell him 
 of her’; Jth 13° ‘a. after she went fortli’ (RV 
 ‘after a little while she went forth’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ANOS ("Avws), 1 Es 9*.—One of the descendants of 
 Baani, who agreed to put away his ‘strange’ wife: 
 corresponding to Vaniah (7:3), Soar 10°, 
 
 ANOTHER.—A. is ‘one other,’ but sometimes 
 the idea is ‘a different one,’ of which there is a fine 
 instance in Gal 1° ‘I marvel that ye are so soon 
 removed from him that called you into the grace of 
 Christ unto a. gospel’ (Gr. érepoy, RV ‘a different 
 gospel,’ but v.7 ‘which is not a.’ Gr. ado; cf. 
 2Co 11‘). In2Ch 20% ‘every one helped to destroy 
 s.’; mod. Eng. would say ‘the other’; so RV in 
 Gn 15”, Ex 211° 37” etc., but not in Zec 11°. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ANSWER.—1. As a subst. a. is used in the sense 
 of apology or defence (Gr. dodoyla) in 1 Co 9° ‘mine 
 a. (RV ‘my defence’) to them that do examine 
 me’; 2 Ti 46 ‘At my first a. (RV ‘defence’) no 
 man stood by me’; 1 P 3% ‘ Ready always to give 
 an a. (RV ‘give a.’) to every man.’ Compare the 
 use of a. as a verb in Ac 24" ‘TI do the more 
 cheerfully a. for myself’ (RV ‘I do cheerfully 
 make my defence’), Ac 25% 16 261-2, Lk 12 2114, 
 2. In Ro 114 ‘what saith the a. of God unto him?’ 
 a. means oracle or divine response (Gr. xpyya- 
 triuds, the only occurrence of the word in NT, 
 but it is found in 2 Mac 24 xpnuaricpod yernbérTos, 
 ‘being warned of God’ AV and RV; see Sanday 
 and Headlam, Romans, pp. 173, 313). 3. In 1 P 371 
 ‘the a. of a good conscience toward God,’ a. is 
 prob. intended to mean defence, as above; but 
 the Gr. is not drodcyla but érepdrnua, and in what 
 precise sense the apostle uses that word is dis- 
 puted ; RV gives ‘interrogation,’ with two alterna- 
 tives in the marg. ‘inquiry’ and ‘appeal.’ See 
 Thayer, N.T. Lex. s.v. 4. Asa verb a. is often used 
 when no question has been asked. The most strik- 
 ing instance is Ac 5°, where St. Peter ‘answers’ 
 Sapphira, not only before she had opened her 
 mouth, but by asking her a question. 5. In Gal 
 4% ‘For this Agar is Mt. Sinai in Arabia, and 
 a> to Jerus.,’ a to= corresponds with (Gr. 
 oweoroxet—lit. ‘belongs to the same row or column 
 with’). Answerable occurs in AV only Ex 3818 
 ‘a. to the hangings of the court,’ i.e. ‘correspond- 
 ing to’; but RV adds Ezk 408 ‘a. unto (AV ‘over 
 peniey *”) the length of the gates,’ 457 4813 18dis, 
 Cf Bunyan, Holy War (Clar. Press ed. p. 92), 
 *This famous town of Mansoul had five Gates, in 
 at which to come, out at which to go; and these 
 were made likewise answerable to the Walls.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ANT (abn; némdalah, pbpunt, formica). The ant 
 is mentioned only twice in the Bible. Once (Pr 
 6°) with reference to the industry of this insect, 
 and again (Pr 30%) with reference to its wisdom 
 and foresight. There has never been any dispute as 
 to the industry of the ant. Sir John Lubbock 
 (Ants, Bees, and Wasps, p. 27) says, ‘They work 
 all day, and in warm weather, if need be, at night 
 too. I once watched an ant from six in the morn- 
 ing, and she worked without intermission till a 
 quarter to ten at night. I had put her to a saucer 
 containing larve, and in this time she had carried 
 off no less than 187 to their nests. I had another 
 ant, which I employed in my experiments under 
 continuous observation several days. When I 
 started for London in the morning, and again 
 when I went to bed at night, I used to put her 
 
 ANT 
 
 Se 
 
 into a small bottle, but the moment she was let 
 out she began to work again. On one occasion I 
 was away from home for a week. On my return I 
 took her out of the bottle, placing her on a little heap 
 of larvae, about three feet from her nest. Under 
 these circumstances I certainly did not expect her 
 to return. However, though she had been six 
 days in confinement, the brave little creature 
 immediately picked up a larva, carried it to her 
 nest, and after half an hour’s rest returned for 
 another.’ 
 
 With reference to the wisdom and foresight of 
 the ant there has been much discussion. Although 
 not expressly stated that the ‘meat’ which the ant 
 ‘prepares’ in the summer is for winter use, it is 
 generally agreed that such is the meaning of the 
 passage. The Greeks, Romans, Arabian natural- 
 ists, and Jewish rabbis confirm this opinion. Yet 
 many naturalists and commentators have disputed 
 this fact, and say that the writer adopted a 
 popular error, and that the ant does not store the 
 seeds which it takes in such quantities to its nest 
 as food, but only as a lining to its burrows, or for 
 some other unknown reason. They argue from 
 two considerations—(1) that the ant is carnivorous, 
 and has no use for the seeds which it accumulates 
 in its nest; (2) that the ant hybernates, and there- 
 fore does not need food in winter. Both of these 
 propositions are partially true and partially false. 
 All ants eat flesh greedily, but they are all passion- 
 ately fond of many things besides. Sir John Lub- 
 bock has shown that ants derive a very important 
 part of their sustenance from the sweet juice 
 secreted by aphides, a product hardly to be called 
 animal food more than honey. In the words of 
 Linneus, ‘the aphis is the cow of ants.’ Other 
 kinds of insects are utilised in the same manner. 
 Many ants keep flocks and herds of aphides. The 
 aphides retain the secretion until the ants are 
 ready to receive it, and the ants stroke and caress 
 them with their antenne, until they emit the 
 sweet excretion. The ants collect the eggs and 
 larvee of these aphides, store them with their own 
 during the long winter sleep, that they may be 
 hatched in the spring, and supply them again with 
 their favourite food. Here then, says Lubbock, 
 ‘our ants may not perhaps lay up food for the 
 winter, but they do more, for they keep during 
 six months the eggs which will enable them to 
 procure food during the following summer—a case 
 of prudence unexampled in the animal kingdom.’ 
 But it is also true that ants eat many articles of 
 pure vegetable food. Those of Palestine and 
 
 yria certainly eat all kinds of cake, sweetmeats, 
 more or less fruit, bread, meal, and seeds. In the 
 neighbourhood of every threshing-floorand granary, 
 and of stables, there are always immense numbers 
 of ants, which abstract surprising quantities of 
 grain, and store them in their nests. They often 
 carry the grains many feet or yards away, along 
 well-beaten roads, which cross each other in every 
 direction from the heaps of grain. Similar facts have 
 been observed in the warmer parts of Europe and 
 in India. The Mishna lays down rules in regard 
 to the ownership of grain so stored. Maimonides 
 has discussed the question as to whether it belongs 
 to the owners of the land or to gleaners, deciding 
 in favour of the latter. The ants, however, differ 
 from him, and are of opinion that the store belongs 
 to themselves. 1 am assured by native peasants, 
 well qualified to know, that the ants eat the grain 
 during the season of non-production. After the 
 first rains, the ants bring out their larve and the 
 stored grains to be sunned. Indian ants do the 
 same. Many of these grains are more or less 
 enawed, or the edible parts entirely consumed. 
 It was the opinion of ‘Aldrovandas and others of 
 the ancients, confirmed by the French Academy 
 
 
 
 —— 
 
 — 
 
 OS SS a ae ee oe, 
 
 - 
 

 
 
 
 ANTELOPE 
 
 
 
 (Addison’s Guardian, 156, 157) and of N. Pluche 
 (Nature displ. i. 128), that the ants systematically 
 bit off the head of the grain to prevent its germina- 
 tion. I think it unnecessary to ascribe to the ants 
 s0 much intelligence as would be implied in this 
 extraordinary measure, but it is no way improb- 
 able that the head would be the first part attacked, 
 as it is the softest portion of the grain, and the 
 most accessible, being uncovered by the silicious 
 envelope, as well as the sweetest morsel of the 
 whole. Lubbock tells us of a Texan ant that 
 clears disks, 10 or 12 feet in diameter, round the 
 entrance to its nest, to allow certain grains known 
 as ant-rice, and no others, to grow there. 
 
 Thus the ants ‘are exceeding wise.’ Many of 
 their nests also are marvels of construction, some 
 eomposed of galleries and chambers underground, 
 some built in the form of mounds or huts above 
 the surface. These are grouped in towns, con- 
 nected by surface roads, sometimes arched over 
 at places, and by underground tunnels. No less 
 than 584 species of insects are found in association 
 with ants, serving them in various ways, some 
 obvious, others not clear. But that they are 
 tolerated by the ants for reasons known to them- 
 selves is shown by the fact that ants will imme- 
 diately attack and drive out or kill any living 
 creatures which they do not like. Many of the 
 insects furnish some form of food, as in the case 
 of the aphides. Others rid the ants of parasites. 
 Others seem to be congenial to them for reasons 
 yet to be studied. 
 
 In addition to these insects, not of their own 
 family, ants make slaves of other ants. This is 
 not done by the capture of adult prisoners, but by 
 raids organised for the purpose of stealing the 
 eggs, larve, and pupe from the nests of other 
 species. These infant captives are taken to the 
 nests of their abductors, and raised as slaves. 
 These slaves do all or most of the domestic work 
 of their masters, who reserve themselves for the 
 noble art of war. 
 
 Ants also have accurate methods of division of 
 labour. To the younger ones are assigned some of 
 the lighter tasks, while the older ones engage in 
 the more serious and laborious work. In some 
 cases individuals are appointed to collect honey 
 and store it in large sacs in their bodies, to be 
 distributed to their idle masters, who do not 
 trouble themselves to leave their nests. 
 
 Lubbock thus sums up the evidence that ants 
 ‘are exceeding wise’: ‘The anthropwvid apes no 
 doubt approach nearer to man in bodily structure 
 than do other animals, but when we consider the 
 habits of ants, their social organisation, their large 
 communities and elaborate habitations, their road- 
 ways, their possession of domestic animals, and 
 even, in some cases, of slaves, it must be admitted 
 that they have a fair claim to rank next to man in 
 the scale of intelligence.’ G. E. Post. 
 
 ANTELOPE.—See Ox. 
 
 ANTHOTHIJAH (nny, AV Antothijah).—A 
 man of Benjamin (1 Ch 8%), See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY.—See Man. 
 
 ANTICHRIST. —See Man oF SIN. ANTILI- 
 BANUS.—See LEBANON. 
 
 ANTIOCH (’Avridyea).—In Syria, under the 
 Seleucids, there appear to have been at least five 
 places which at one time or another enjoyed this 
 title: Hippos on the hills above the E. shore of the 
 Lake of Galilee (’A. 4 pds “Irmw), Gadara (cf. 
 ent, De Urbibus; Reland, Pal. 774), Gerasa 
 in E. Gilead (’A. 4 pds r@ Xpvoopdg), all of them in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ANTIOCH 103 
 
 the Decapolis, and perhaps also Acco or Ptolemais 
 (Head, Hist. Num. 677); but the Antioch in 
 Syria was A. on the Orontes, distinguished as 
 "A. 9 pds, or éml, Aadry, and entitled pyrpdmrods 
 (vb. 656). 
 
 Under an Eastern people like the Arabs, the 
 natural capital of Syria is Damascus, on the borders 
 of the Arabian desert. But when the Greeks poured 
 into the land after Alexander, it was inevitable 
 that they should establish the centre of their govern- 
 ment nearer the Mediterranean and Asia Minor. 
 Accordingly, when the Seleucid Empire was 
 founded, Seleucus Nikator (Jos. c. Apion, ii. 4) 
 selected a site 120 stadia from the sea (Strabo, 
 Xvi.), where the Orontes, now El-Asi, and the 
 great roads from the Euphrates and Cele-Syria 
 break the long Syrian range and debouch upon the 
 coast. The projected Euphrates-Levant railway is 
 to pass by the same way. The valley is tolerably 
 wide, and both fair and fertile. ‘The city was 
 built partly on an island in the river, but mostly 
 on the N. bank of the latter, and up the slopes of 
 Mt. Silpius. By the time of Antiochus Epiphanes 
 (175 B.C.) it consisted of four quarters (rerpdoXs, 
 Strabo), divided by the long columned street 
 which was a feature of every Greek city in Syria, 
 and by a second which cut this obliquely. Temples 
 and other large public buildings were erected from 
 time to time by the Seleucids and their Roman 
 successors. Daphne was a neighbouring grove 
 sacred to Apollo (Jos. Ant. XVII. ii. 1; Pliny, HN 
 v. 18; 2 Mac 4%). Under the Seleucids the city 
 developed a mixed populace, essentially fickle and 
 turbulent, who frequently rose against their rulers. 
 There were Jews in Antioch from the time of its 
 foundation, for Seleucus Nikator gave them the 
 rights of citizenship (Jos, Ant. XII. iii. 1). Many 
 others must have fled or been carried captive to A. 
 during the Maccabzean period (ib. XII. XIII. passim). 
 The Antiochenes expelled Alexander Balas, and 
 offered the crown to Ptolemy Philometor, who, 
 however, persuaded them to receive Demetrius 
 Nikator (16. X11. iv. 7; but ef..1 Mac 113#-), They 
 besieged the latter in his palace; but with the 
 help of Jonathan Maccabeus and 3000 Jews he 
 regained the city, yet soon after was obliged to 
 yield it to Alexander’s son Antiochus and _ his 
 general Tryphon (Ané. x1. v. 3; 1 Mac 11%), 
 Under the Seleucids A. remained till B.c. 83, when 
 it was taken by Tigranes of Armenia. When 
 Pompey overthrew the latter, he made A. a free 
 city, and it became the seat of the Prefect, and 
 capital of the Rom. province of Syria. M. Antonius 
 ordered the citizens to release all the Jews whom 
 they had enslaved, and restore to them their pos- 
 sessions (Ant. XIV. xii. 6). When Pompey fell, A. 
 sided with Cesar, and after Actium with Augustus, 
 Both of the latter, as well as Herod the Great 
 (Ant. XVI. v. 3) and Tiberius, embellished the town 
 with theatres, baths, and streets. The harbour 
 of A. was Seleucia. The population was very 
 vigorous. They revolted several times against 
 Rome; and after the disastrous eartliquakes of 
 A.D. 37 and subsequent years they quickly restored 
 the town. Art and literature were cultivated so 
 as to draw the praise of Cicero; but with the 
 energy and brilliance of this people there was 
 ever mixed a notorious insolence and _ scurrility. 
 A large number of Romans settled in A., and 
 the Jewish community speedily grew in numbers 
 and in influence with the rest of the inhabitants 
 (Jos. BJ 11. xviii. 5), who protected them in the 
 first Jewish revolt against Rome, but afterwards 
 displayed a bitter hate against them (ib. VII. 
 v. 2), 
 
 It was when A. was filled with these rich and 
 varied elements of life—Josephus calls her the 
 third city of the Empire, next to Rome and Alex 
 
 
 
 
 
 
104 ANTIOCH 
 
 andria (BJ Itt. ii. 4)—that she entered the history 
 of Christianity. Antiochean Jews and proselyte 
 Greeks must have come under the influence of the 
 apostles’ ministry in Jerus. Nicolas ‘a proselyte 
 of A.’ was one of the seven deacons (Ac6°). pon the 
 persecution that arose about Stephen, the disciples 
 were scattered as far north as A. (Ac 119), and 
 among them some men of Cyprus and Cyrene, 
 who began to preach to Greeks (many ancient 
 authorities give ‘Grecian Jews,’ but surely Greeks 
 are meant,—for otherwise the distinction made 
 between the Cypriotes and Cyrenians and the 
 other preachers in 11” is meaningless). To them 
 at A. the Church at Jerus. sent Barnabas, who, 
 after seeing the situation, went and fetched Paul 
 thither from Tarsus. For a year they worked to- 
 gether in the church, teaching; ‘and the disciples 
 were called Christians first in A.’ The wit 
 of the et was otha he famous for giving 
 names. Prophets arrived from Jerus. predicting a 
 famine ; and when this came to pass, the Church of 
 A. proved once more the vigour of the population 
 from which it was drawn, by sending supplies 
 to Jerus. by the hands of Remmabes and Saul 
 (1b. 77-%), These returned to A., and after their 
 ministry ‘in the church’ they were sent forth by 
 the port of Seleucia to Cyprus on Paul’s first great 
 missionary journey (13'); and from this to A. they 
 returned, with their report of faith among the 
 Gentiles (14%). When Jews came down to teach 
 the necessity of circumcision for the latter, the 
 Church at A. sent Barnabas and Paul to Jerus. to 
 claim for them freedom from the law (15™); and 
 a deputation from Jerus. returned with the two 
 ambassadors (15”*-). After ministering for a time 
 in A., Paul and Barnabas set forth on their 
 second journey by the Cilician gates (Ramsay) to 
 Lystra (15%); Paul returned (18%); and A. was the 
 starting-point of his third journey (ib.¥), which 
 also was taken into Asia Minor, by the Syrian and 
 Cilician gates, one great line of the advance- 
 ment of Christianity westward. A. was not only 
 the first Gentile Church, but may be called the 
 mother of all the rest. This pre-eminence she con- 
 tinued to enjoy ; for it was probably her missionary 
 originality, rather than the tradition which made 
 Peter her bishop for two years (cf. Gal 24), 
 that gave her Patriarch precedence of those of 
 Rome, Constantinople, Jerus., and Alexandria. 
 A. was the birthplace of Ammianus Marcellinus, 
 John Chrysostom, and Evagrius. As long as she 
 remained part of an empire with its centre in 
 Europe, A. continued the virtual capital of Syria. 
 When the Arabs came, she, the city of the Levant, 
 yielded to the city of the Desert; and though 
 with the Crusaders‘she became once more the pivot 
 of the West in its bearing on Syria, and the centre 
 of the Exinalpelity of A. (from Taurus to Nahr-el- 
 Kebir), she fell away again when they left, and 
 Rare up to Damascus even her Christian Patriarch. 
 Now Antaki (Turkish), or Antakiyeh (Arab.), she 
 is a meagre town of 6000 inhabitants. Besides the 
 ruins of Justinian’s wall there are no ancient 
 remains of importance. 
 
 
 
 LirERATURE.—(Besides the ancient authorities already cited), 
 Reland, Paldstina, 119ff., where Jerome’s error, that A. was 
 Hamath (Comm. on Amos 6), or Riblah (Comm. on Ezek. 47), 
 is stated and opposed ; O. O. Miiller, Antiquitates Antiochene 
 (Gottingen, 1839); Noris, Annus et Epoche Syromacedonum ; 
 Gibbon and Mommsen, passim; Schirer, HJP I. i. 437, II. 
 
 assim ; various lives of St. Paul, esp. Conybeare and Howson’s ; 
 
 ewin, Fastt Sacri, passim ; Ramsay, Church in the Rom. Emp. 
 chs, ii.-vii., xvi. On A, under the Moslems, see the extracts 
 from Arab. geographers in Guy Le Strange, Palestine under the 
 Moslems, esp. 367-877. On the A. of the Crusaders, Rey, 
 Colonies Franques de Syrie aux 12me et 13me sitcles; ctf. 
 also Benjamin of Tudela’s Travels, a.p. 1168, and Bertrandere 
 de la Brocquiére’s in 1432; and on the modern city, see 
 Chesney, Euphrates Eapedition; and George Smith, Assyrian 
 Discover ies. G. A. aetna 
 
 ANTIOCHIANS 
 
 ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA (’Avriédyeca Teovdla, more 
 correctly rendered ‘Pisidian Antioch’) is defined 
 by Strabo (pp. 569, 557, 577) as a city o 
 Phrygia towards or near Pisidia. It was ee 
 ably one of the sixteen Antiochs founded by 
 Seleucus Nikator (301-280 ; Appian, Syr. 57), and 
 named after his father. The inhabitants claimed 
 to be colonists from Magnesia on the Meander ; 
 but traditions claiming Greek origin for Phrygian 
 cities were fashionable and untrustworthy. In 
 190 B.C. it was declared free by the Romans; an 
 its history is unknown until in 39 B.c. it was mad 
 by Antony part of the kingdom of Amyntas (a 
 we learn from Appian, Civ. v. 75, cf. Strabo, p. 
 569); on whose death in 25 it passed into Rom. 
 hands as part of the province GALATIA. At 
 some time earlier than 6 B.c. (C/L iii. 6974) 
 Augustus made it a colonia with Latin rights 
 (Digest, 50. 15. 8, 10) with the name Cesareia 
 Antiocheia, the administrative centre of the 
 southern half of the province, and the military 
 centre of a series of colonie (Lystra, Parlais, 
 Cremna, Comama, Olbasa) founded to defend the 
 province against the unruly and dangerous Pisidi- 
 ans in the fastnesses of the Taurus mountains. 
 The region or district to which Antioch belonged 
 is called Phrygia by Strabo (and also in Ac 16° 
 18, according to the South-Galatian theory, held 
 by some scholars, disputed by others), Pisidian 
 Phrygia by Ptolemy V., 5. 4, Pisidia by Ptolemy v., 
 4. 11, and by later authorities, showing that 
 gradually that part of Phrygia, which was included 
 in the province Galatia and separated from the 
 great mass of Phrygia (which was part of the 
 province Asia), was merged in Pisidia. Thus the 
 name Antioch towards Pisidia (Strabo, A.D. 19), or 
 Pisidian Antioch (to distinguish it from Antioch 
 on the Meander or Carian A nttoony gave place to 
 the name Antioch of Pisidia (Ptolemy V., 4. 11, and 
 some MSS. of Ac 134). The influence of the 
 preaching of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch radi- 
 ated over the whole region connected politically with 
 the city (Ac 13%). Antioch (as Arundel discovered) 
 is situated about 2 miles E. from Yalowatch 
 on the skirts of the long ridge called Sultan-Dagh, 
 in a strong situation, about 3600 ft. above sea- 
 level, overlooking a large and fertile plain, which 
 stretches away S.E. to the Limnai (Egerdir 
 Lake), and is drained by the river Anthios. The 
 ruins, which are impressive and of great extent, 
 have never as yet been carefully examined. An- 
 tioch was a great seat of the worship of Men 
 Askaénos; but the large estates and numerous 
 temple-slaves ruled by the priests were confiscated 
 by the Romans. Jewish colonists were always 
 favoured by the Seleucid kings, who found them 
 
 ood and trusty supporters; many thousands of 
 cee were nated in the cities of Phrygia (Jos. 
 Ant. xu. iii. f.; Cicero, pro Flacco, 28. 66-8); 
 and a synagogue at Antioch is mentioned Ac 13", 
 The influence ascribed to the ladies of Antioch (Ac 
 13°) is characteristic of Phrygia and Asia Minor 
 generally, where women enjoyed great considera- 
 tion, and often held office in the cities (see Paris, 
 Quatenus femine res publicas attigerint, 1891). 
 
 
 
 LrrzraTuRE.—Antioch is described by Arundel, Discoveries in 
 As. Min. i. 281f., and by Hamilton, Researches in As. Min. i. 
 472f.; see also Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp. pp. 25-35, St, 
 Paul, pp. 99-107: inadequate articles in Pauly-Wissowa, Eincy- 
 clop., and other geographical dictionaries ; many inscriptions in 
 Sterrett, Epigraphic Journey in As, Mi epee, 121ff., Wolfe Ha- 
 pedition in As. Min, p. 218ff.: Ritter, Erdkwnde von Asien, 
 xxi. p. 468, collects all the earlier accounts of travellers. See 
 the article on GALATIA. W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 ANTIOCHIANS (’Avtioyets, 2 Mac 4% 1%), — Tha 
 efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes to spread Gr. 
 culture and Gr. customs throughout his dominions 
 were diligently furthered by a section of the Jews 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eae eee eee 
 
 
 
 
 ot sl: ee eT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ANTIOCHIS 
 
 The leader of this Hellenizing party, Jason, brother 
 of the high priest Onias I1I., offered a large sum 
 of money to Antiochus to induce the king to 
 transfer the high priesthood to himself, and along 
 with certain other favours to allow the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem ‘to be enrolled as Antiochians,’ that 
 is, to grant them the titles and privileges of 
 citizens of Antioch. What was the precise nature 
 of the desired privileges we donot know. Antiochus 
 acceded to the proposal of Jason, and shortly after- 
 wards a per of ‘Antiochians’ from Jerusalem 
 was sent by him as a sacred deputation, to convey 
 a contribution of money for the festival of Heracles 
 at Tyre. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ANTIOCHIS (’Avriox!s, 2 Mac 4%), a concubine 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes, who, in accordance with 
 an old Oriental custom, assigned to her for her 
 maintenance the revenues of the two Cilician 
 cities, Tarsus and Mallus. This grant gave rise 
 to disturbances among the inhabitants of the two 
 cities, but we are not told what means were taken 
 by Antiochus to allay their discontent. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ANTIOCHUS (’Avrioxos, 1 Mac 12)* 14”; cf. Jos. 
 Ant, XI. v. 8), the father of Numenius, who was 
 one of the envoys sent (c. 144 B.C.) by Jonathan the 
 Maccabee to renew the covenant made by Judas 
 with the Romans, and to enter into friendly rela- 
 tions with the Spartans. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ANTIOCHUS I. (’Avrioxos, ‘the opposer’), sur- 
 named Soter, ‘deliverer,’ was born B.C. 324, son of 
 of Seleucus Nikator and of Apama, a princess of 
 Sogdiana. He succeeded his father (B.c. 280) on 
 the throne of Syria, but during the nineteen years 
 of his ee was concerned chiefly with the prose- 
 cution of his claims to the throne of Macedonia, 
 with the maintenance of his empire against Kelts 
 and eastern revolts, and with the repression of 
 the Gauls who had settled in Asia Minor. He was 
 slain by one of the latter in battle (B.c. 261). The 
 Sea of Coele-Syria was a matter of dispute 
 
 etween him and Ptolemy Philadelphus (1st Syrian 
 War), but it remained under the sovereignty of the 
 latter, and the S. districts do not appear to have 
 been invaded by Antiochus. . W. Moss. 
 
 ANTIOCHUS II. (surnamed Theos, ‘a god’) 
 succeeded his father, A. I., as king of Syria in B.c. 
 261. His kingdom was invaded soon after his 
 accession by the generals of Ptolemy Philadelphus 
 (2nd Syrian War), who occupied several of the 
 principal towns on the coast of Asia Minor. Peace 
 was concluded (B.C. 250), probably on condition 
 that A. should put away his wife Laodice, marry 
 Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy, and transfer the 
 auccession to her issue (Athen. ii. 45). In a short 
 time either Laodice was recalled, or A. endeavoured 
 to reconcile her; but, in mistrust or revenge for 
 the insult passed upon her, she plotted against A., 
 saused him (B.C. 246) to be poisoned and Berenice’s 
 infant to be put to death, and secured the throne 
 for her son Seleucus (App. Syr. 65; Justin, xxvii. 1; 
 Val. Max. ix. 14. 1). Mare are strong evidences 
 that A. conferred upon several cities of Asia Minor 
 a democratic constitution and the rights of auto- 
 nomy. His surname was given him by the Miles- 
 ians in gratitude for his victory over their tyrar.t 
 Timarchus (App. Syr. 65). The Jews in these 
 cities, and notably in Ephesus, shared in these 
 rights of citizenship; and this was the case, 
 both in the arrangement of cities rebuilt during 
 the Hellenic age, and in the reorganisation of 
 older cities effected chiefly by A. 1. See Arrian, 
 i. 17. 10 and 18. 2; Jos. Ant. XI. iii. 2; Apion. ii. 
 4; Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscript. Grec. nn. 166, 
 W71. Dn 11° is traditionally interpreted of Anti. 
 
 
 
 ANTIOCHUS IV. EPIPHANES 105 
 
 ochus (Jerome, ad Dan. 115), but the latter part of 
 the verse is almost hopelessly corrupt. 
 Re W. Moss. 
 ANTIOCHUS III. (‘the Great’) was the son of 
 Seleucus Kallinicus (B.c. 246-226), and succeeded 
 to the throne of Syria on the death of his brother, 
 Seleucus Keraunus (B.C. 223). Immediately after 
 his accession he made war upon Egypt; and in two 
 successive campaigns he led his army as far as 
 Dora, a few miles to the N. of Cesarea. A truce 
 suspended hostilities for a time (Polyb. v 60; 
 Justin, xxx. 1, 2), during which he put down 
 Molo’s rebellion in Media. In B.c. 218 he again 
 drove the Egyp. forces southwards, and himself 
 wintered at Piolamais: but the next year he was 
 completely defeated at Raphia (Polyb. v. 51-87; 
 Strabo, xvi. 759), near Gaza, and left Ptolemy 
 Philopator in undisputed possession of Cwle Syria 
 and Phenicia. The following years he spent in 
 warfare against Acheus, whom he took in B.C. 
 214, and in Parthia and Bactria, where his suc- 
 cesses gained for him his surname. But on 
 Ptolemy’s death, in B.c. 204, he formed an alliance 
 with Philip of Macedon for the partition of Egypt 
 between the two powers (Liv. xxxi. 14). In Judiva 
 he found a party among the Jews alienated from 
 Egypt, and with their help he extended his king- 
 dom to the Sinaitic peninsula. But an invasion 
 of his dominions by cata king of Pergamus, 
 checked his further progress; and in his absence 
 Scopas, an Egyp. general, overran Judea, and 
 recovered the lost territories. A. hastened to 
 oppose him, and at Paneas (IIdveov, a grotto of 
 Pan, which gave its name to the district), near the 
 source of the Jordan, gained a decisive victory 
 (B.C. 198), which made him again master of all 
 Pal. (Polyb. xvi. 18, xxviii. 1; Liv. xxx. 19; Jos. 
 Ant. XI. iii. 3). Judza was thus finally connected 
 with the Seleucid dynasty. Syrian otparyyol, or 
 military governors, were appointed; and regular 
 taxes were imposed, and leased to contractors in 
 the several towns. A. further guaranteed the 
 inviolability of the temple, and provided by ample 
 grants for the performance of its services (Jos. 
 Ant, XII. iii. 4). With a view to pacify Lydia and 
 Phrygia, he sent there 2000 Jewish families 
 from Mesopotamia with grants of land and im- 
 munity from taxation. The intervention of the 
 Romans prevented any further expedition ayainst 
 Egypt: and a treaty was made by which Ptolemy 
 Epiphanes took in marriage A.’s daughter Cleo- 
 patra, who was promised as her dower the three 
 provinces of Ceele-Syria, Pheenicia, and Pal. (Polyb. 
 xxviii. 17; App. Syr. 5; Liv. xxxv. 13; Jos. Ané. 
 xu. iv. 1). The transfer of the provinces them- 
 selves appears not to have taken place, though the 
 queen for a time shared in their revenue. Judea 
 was probably occupied by Syrian and Egyp. garri 
 sons side by side; and the people were subjected 
 to a twofold tyranny. A. retained the nominal 
 sovereignty ; but in B.C. 196 he left PrJ. in order to 
 conduct an expedition against Asia Minor (Liv. 
 Xxxili. 19), and became involved in a long war with 
 Rome. He was finally defeated in the battle of 
 Magnesia (B.C. 190), and three years later was 
 killed in an insurrection at Elymais. Dn 11179 is 
 traditionally interpreted of him, and he is men- 
 tioned in 1 Mac 1° 8*8, The statements in the 
 latter passage should be compared with App. Syr. 
 36 and Liv. xxxvii. 44, 56. R. W. Moss. 
 
 ANTIOCHUS IV. EPIPHANES (‘Emdar7s, ‘ illus- 
 trious’; also named émyavyjs, ‘madman,’ Polyb. 
 Xxvi. 10; vixnpdpos, ‘ victorious,’ and eds, on coins 
 and in Jos. Ant. XI. v. 5), second son of A. the 
 Great, was for 14 years a hostage at Rome, and, 
 after expelling Heliodorus, succeeded his own 
 brother Seleucus Philopator in B.c. 175. His 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 106 ANTIOCHUS IV. EPIPHANES 
 
 
 
 policy was to spread Greek culture (Tac. Hist. v. 8) 
 thiough his dominions, and so knit the various 
 eoples into a compact and single-purposed unity. 
 
 oon after his accession he was called upon to 
 settle a dispute at Jerus. between the high priest 
 Onias 1. and his brother Jason, the leader of the 
 Hellenizing party. Onias was driven from Jerus. 
 (2 Mac 44-6) ; and Jason secured the high priesthood 
 by the payment to the king of a large sum of 
 money and the promise thoroughly to Hellenize 
 the city (2 Mac 496, 1 Mac 1°); Jos. Ant. xl. 
 y. 1). A. soon after visited the city in person, and 
 was received with every mark of honour (2 Mac 4”), 
 In B.c. 171 Jason was himself supplanted by 
 Menelaus, who offered larger bribes; but the next 
 year he was encouraged by a rumour of the king’s 
 death in Egypt to besiege Jerus. (2 Mac 5°). The 
 tidings reached A. as he was in the midst of his 
 second prosperous campaign in Egypt, and at once, 
 ‘in a furious mind,’ he marched against Jerus. 
 The city was taken, many thousands of the people 
 were massacred, and the temple was robbed of its 
 treasures (1 Mace 17-24, 2 Mac 541; Jos. Ant. 
 XII. v. 3; Apion. ii. 7). Philip, a Phrygian of 
 specially barbarous temper (2 Mac 5%), was left 
 behind as governor of Jerus., and A. proceeded 
 with the spoils of the temple to Antioch. 
 
 In B.c. 168 A. set out on his last expedition 
 against Egypt, and was approaching Alexandria to 
 besiege it when he received from the Romans 
 Pere pory, orders to refrain from making war 
 upon the Ptolemies (App. Syr. 66; Liv. xlv. 12; 
 Polyb. xxix. 11; Justin, xxxiv. 3) Reluctantly 
 he withdrew from Egypt, and vented his rage upon 
 Jerus. (see Dn 11%). Apollonius, one of the chief 
 officers of revenue, was detached with an army of 
 22,000 men, with instructions to exterminate the 
 Jewish people and to colonise the city with Greeks 
 (2 Mac 5%, 1 Mac 1*-88). Availing himself of the 
 Sabbath law, Apollonius chose that day for entrance 
 into Jerus., es met with no effective resistance. 
 The men were killed, except a few who took refuge 
 with Judas Maccabeeus in flight, and the women 
 and children sold into slavery. The city was set 
 on fire, its walls thrown down, and their materials 
 used to fortify anew the old city of David, which 
 thenceforth uninterruptedly for 26 years was 
 occupied by a Syrian garrison. Menelaus still 
 remained high priest, but it is difficult to under- 
 stand what his duties were, as the daily sacrifices 
 are said to have ceased in the mor‘h of Sivan 
 (June). 
 
 A decree was then promulgated by A. through- 
 yut his kingdom that in religion, law, and custom 
 ‘all should be one people’ (1 Mac 1%; Polyb. 
 xxxviii. 18). In Judea alone the edict seems to 
 have met with serious opposition. Accordingly 
 the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision, and 
 abstinence from unclean food were specifically for- 
 bidden under the penalty of death. Upon the 
 altar of burnt-offering a smaller altar was built, 
 and on the 25th of Chislev (Dec. 168) sacrifice was 
 offered upon it to the Olympic Zeus (1 Mac 1™, 
 2 Mac 6?; Jos. Ant. xl. v. 4: see Dn 11%. The 
 phrase in Dn, opt pipwn, may have other refer- 
 ence, and is not without linguistic difficulty ; but 
 its oldest interpretation, in the LXX, is Bdé\vyya 
 épnudoews, which exactly agrees with the expression 
 in 1 Mac 15), The courts, too, of the temple were 
 polluted by indecent orgies. At the same time the 
 worship of Zeus Xenios was instituted in the Sam. 
 temple on Mt. Gerizim. The festivals of Bacchus 
 were introduced into the various towns, and the 
 Jews compelled to take part in them (2 Mae 
 67). A monthly search was made (1 Mac 1°*); and 
 the possession of a or of the book of the law 
 was punishable by death. Similar measures were 
 taken in all the cities frequented by the Jews in 
 
 
 
 ANTIOCHUS V. 
 
 
 
 the Syrian kingdom, and even in Egypt (2 Mae 
 6°), The effect upon the better Jews was ta 
 arouse a spirit of heroism, which showed itself at 
 first only in an inflexible refusal to renounce 
 Judaism. ‘They chose to die... and they died’ 
 (1 Mac 1%); and 2 Mac 6"—7 records with licence 
 certain instances which are further elaborated in 
 4 Mac, and of which Philo makes use in Quod 
 omnis prob. lib. § 13 (Mang. ii. 459). Open resist- 
 ance occurred first at Modin (Mwdéely or Mwéeely), 
 a mountain village E. of Lydda and N. W. of Jerus. 
 When the king’s commissioner came to see that 
 the edict was obeyed, Mattathias, the head of the 
 riestly Hasmonzan family, refused compliance, 
 <illed the officer, and fled to the hills (1 Mac 215-38; 
 Jos. Ant. XII. vi. 2: a tradition ascribes the first 
 rising to an outrage attempted upon a Jewish 
 bride). His example was imitated by many others 
 (1 Mac 2”); but a great slaughter of them took 
 place through their refusal to defend themselves on 
 a Sabbath (1 Mac 2°53), Mattathias persuaded 
 his followers that the law of the Sabbath did not 
 override the right of defence, and was joined by 
 many of the Asidzans (’Ao.dato, op HASIDIM). 
 His bands traversed the country, harassing the 
 Syrians with a guerilla warfare, everywhere de- 
 stroying the syabele of idolatry (1 Mac 24-4), 
 Towards the end of B.c. 167 Mattathias died, 
 and was succeeded in the military chieftainship of 
 his party by his son Judas Maccabzeus (wh. see). 
 After pursuing for a time with invariable success 
 his father’s practice of cutting off small companies 
 of the enemy by surprises, Judas found his 
 followers strong and expert enough to be trusted in 
 larger enterprises. In turn he routed an army of 
 Syrians and Samaritans under the command of 
 Apollonius, and a greater host at Bethhoron under 
 Seron, the general of Ceele-Syria (1 Mac 31-4; Jos, 
 Ant. XI. vii. 1). When news of the revolt of Judza 
 reached A., he himself was obliged to set out upon 
 an expedition into Parthia and Armenia, where 
 insurrection was spreading and the taxes were 
 withheld (Tac. Hist. v.8; App. Syr. 45; Miiller, 
 Fragm. ii. 10). But he left Lysias behind, as 
 regent and guardian of his son, with orders to 
 depopulate Judea (1 Mac 35-6; Jos. Ant. XII. vii. 2). 
 Lysias at once despatched a large body of troops 
 under the command of Ptolemy, Nicanor, and 
 Gorgias; and with them came merchants to 
 purchase the expected Jewish slaves (1 Mac 3%5-41), 
 At Emmaus ("Expaovp, the modern AmwAs), Judas 
 inflicted so signal a defeat upon Gorgias that the 
 Syrian troops fled out of the country (1 Mac 4), 
 In B.c. 165 Lysias in person led a still larger army 
 against Judas, but was completely defeated at 
 Bethzur (1 Mac 4%"; Jos. Ant. XII. vii. 5). Judas 
 regained possession of the entire country except 
 the citadel in Jerus., and on the 25th of Chislev 
 the daily sacrifices were restored (1 Mac 453, 2 Mac 
 10°; Jos. Ant. XII. vii. 6 and 7; Middoth, i. 6; 
 
 | Megillath Taanith, §§ 17, 20, 23). Meanwhile A. 
 
 had been baffled in an attempt to plunder in 
 Elymais (1 Mac 61) the temple of Nanaia (‘the 
 desire of women,’ Dn 11*?, identified with Artemis, 
 Polyb. xxxi. 11; with Aphrodite, App. Syr. 60; 
 or more probably with Adonis or Tammuz). He 
 retired to Babylon, and thence to Tabz in Persia 
 where he became mad and died (B.C. 164). 
 
 Lirerature.—Liv. xli.-xlv.; Polyb. xxvi.-xxxi.; App. Sy. 45, 
 66; Justin, xxiv. 3, are the principal classical authorities. Dn 
 1121-45 is generally interpreted of A. tv. (Jerome, ad Dan. c. 11), 
 and he is supposed to have been in the thought of the writer of 
 Rev 135. The Megillath Antiochus is legen » post-Talmudic 
 in date, and of little worth as history. Dérenbourg, Hist. 
 59-63, extracts from Megillath Taantth, which, with 1 and 2 
 Mac and Jos, Ant. xu. v., is the only Jewish source of value. 
 
 R. W. Moss. 
 
 ANTIOCHUS Y. (Evrdrwp, ‘born of a noble 
 
 father’) succeeded his father, A. Epiphanes, in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 et 
 
 ANTIOCHUS VL 
 
 ANVIL 107 
 
 
 
 B.C. 164, at the age of 9 (App. Syr. 46, 66) or 
 of 11 (Euseb. Chron. Arm. i. 348) years. Epiph. 
 had appointed his foster-brother (2 Mac 9”) Philip 
 as his son’s een (1 Mac 6-5; Jos. Ant. XII. 
 ix. 2); but Lysias, the governor of the provinces 
 from the Euphrates to Egypt, assumed that 
 function (1 Mac 3%). In B.c. 163 Lysias and A. 
 led an expedition to the relief of Jerus., which was 
 being besieged by Judas Maccab. (1 Mac 618° ; Jos. 
 Ant. XII. ix. 3). The armies met at Bethzacharias, 
 some 9 miles to the N. of Bethsura (Bethzur), 
 where Judas was defeated (Jos. Ant. XII. ix. 4; 
 Wars, I. i. 5; 1 Mac 6%). [2 Mac 13}*?7, on the other 
 hand, represents Judas as victorious, but is clearly 
 unhistorical.] A. took Bethsura, and proceeded 
 to lay siege to Jerus. Within the city scarcity of 
 food was soon felt, as the year was a Sabbatical 
 one (1 Mac 6°); and news that Philip was 
 approaching Antioch was received bythe besiegers. 
 eace was made on the condition that the Jews 
 should be left undisturbed in their national 
 customs (1 Mac 6°, 2 Mac 13%); but A. violated 
 this condition by destroying the city fortifications 
 and imprisoning the high priest (1 Mac 6"; Jos. 
 Ant, XII. ix. 7). Philip was conquered with ease at 
 Antioch; but in B.c. 162 A. himself was betrayed 
 into the hands of his cousin, Demetrius Soter, and 
 put to death (1 Mac 74, 2 Mac 14?; Jos. Ant. XII. 
 x. 1; App. Syr. 47; Polyb. xxxi. 19; Liv. Epit. 46). 
 R. W. Moss. 
 ANTIOCHUS YI. (surnamed ‘Emidavijs Acévucos on 
 coins, but @ebs in Jos. Ant. XIII. vii. 1) was a son of 
 Alexander Balas (App. Syr. 68) and Cleopatra. 
 In B.c. 145, while still a child, he was brought 
 from Arabia, where he had remained with his 
 father’s captor, and set up by Diodotus (Tryphon, 
 wh. see) as a claimant to the throne of Syria, 
 then held by Demetrius Nikator. Tryphon secured 
 the support of the Syrian generals, and of Jonathan 
 (wh. see), who was appointed to the civil and 
 ecclesiastical, Simon to the military, headship of 
 Pal.: and A. was acknowledged as king by the 
 greater part of Syria. The success of Jonathan 
 in subduing the whole country from Tyre and 
 Damascus to Egypt aroused the jealousy or the 
 fear of Tryphon, who, by stratagem, imprisoned 
 and afterwards put him to death (B.c. 143). The 
 next year (or possibly later: see Jos. Ant. XIII. 
 vil. 1; 1 Mac 13*!; App. Syr. 67, 68; Justin, xxxvi. 
 1; but the evidence of coins is in favour of the 
 earlier date) Tryphon procured the assassination of 
 by surgeons (Liv. Hpit. 55), and assumed the 
 crown of S. Syria in his stead. R. W. Moss. 
 
 ANTIOCHUS VII. (surnamed X.d477s, from the 
 lace of his education, Side in Pamphylia, Euseb. 
 . Arm. i. 349; also evceBijs in Jos. Ant. XIII. 
 viii. 2; and evepyérns on coins) was the second son of 
 Demetrius Soter. In B.C. 138 he expelled Tryphon, 
 and without further cree een obtained the throne 
 of Syria. At first he confirmed to Simon im- 
 munities granted by former kings, and added the 
 right of coining money (1 Mac 157°); but after- 
 wards demanded the surrender of the principal 
 fortresses (1 Mac 157881), Simon refused’ to give 
 them up, and defeated the king’s officer Cendebzeus 
 {1 Mac 161; Jos. Ant. XII. vii. 3). In B.c, 135 
 A. in person led an army into Judea, and besieged 
 Jerus. The siege Tasted for many months, in the 
 course of which A. sent sacrifices into the city at 
 the Feast of Tabernacles (Jos. Ant. XII. viii. 2), but 
 allowed no provisions to pass his lines. Peace was 
 at length made on terms which restored the Syrian 
 supremacy (Jos. Ant. XIII. viii. 3), without unduly 
 rovoking the intervention of Rome (id. XIII. ix. 2). 
 B.C. 129 Hyrcanus (wh. see) accompanied A. 
 
 in an expedition against the Parthians, but the 
 next year the king fell in battle with Arsaces VII. 
 
 (0b. XII. viii. 4; App. Syr. 68; Justin, xxxviii. 10; 
 Liv. Hit. 55). hk. W. Moss. 
 
 ANTIPAS (Antipater).—Ses under HERop. 
 
 _ ANTIPAS (’Av7lxas).—On)y mentioned in Rev 2%, 
 in the Epistle to the Churen of Pergamum, in the 
 following terms: ‘I know where thou dwellest, 
 where the throne of Satan 1s; and thou holdest my 
 name, and didst not depy my faith, even (or and) 
 in the days of Antipas mominative), my witness, 
 (my) faithful one, whe was slain among you, 
 where Satan dwelleth.’ Some authorities insert év 
 als (‘in which’) after the word ‘days’; and two 
 versions take the word Antipas as a verb, dvreimas 
 (‘thou didst contradict’); but there is no pro- 
 bability that this is correct. WH think it not 
 unlikely that ’Av7lara im the gen. should be read. 
 Various allegorical interpretations of the name 
 are current, one making A. the withstander of 
 all, and identifying him with Timothy ; another 
 descending as low as Antipas=Antipapa. But the 
 name must in all likelihood be that of a real man, 
 and is probably a shortened form of Antipater. 
 Antipas does not occur in the lists of the 70 disciples 
 (Pseud.-Dorotheus, Solomon of Basra), but Andreas and Arethas, 
 the commentators on the Apocalypse, speak of having read the 
 acts of his martyrdom. These are to be found in the Acta 
 Sanctorum, April 11 (April. tom. ii. pp. 2, 4, and 967). They are 
 rhetorical and late in their present form, and give no par- 
 ticulars of the saint’s life They represent him as being cast 
 into a heated brazen bull sn the temple of Artemis, by order 
 of a nameless governor durJng Domitian’s persecution. He was 
 apparently Bishop of Pergamum. According to one form of his 
 Acts (quoted by the Bollanctists from a Synaaarion), he prayed 
 that those suffering from toothache might be relieved at his 
 tomb. The bull in whicr he suffered was shown at Con- 
 stantinople (Cedrenus, 566, ed. Par.). In the Ethiopic calendar 
 his day is the 16th of Miyazia, M. R. JAMES. 
 
 ANTIPATER ('Avrisro-o0s).—A., son of Jason, was 
 one of two ambassadors sent by Jonathan to the 
 Romans and to the Spartans to renew ‘the friend- 
 ship and the confederacy’ (1 Mac 12!6 142), 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ANTIPATRIS (’Avrlrarpis), Ac 237..—A city at 
 the foot of the Judzan hills, on the road from 
 Jerusalem to Czsarea: founded by Herod the Great. 
 The various notices of its position, in relation to 
 places near, are fully explained by placing this 
 city at the large ruined mound above the source 
 of the ‘Aujah River, north-east of Jaffa. This site 
 is now called Rds el'Ain, ‘the spring-head’; the 
 Greek name having, as is usual in Palestine, been 
 lost. The ruins include the shell of a large medi- 
 geval castle, which is probably that called Mirabel 
 in the 12h cent. For a full discussion of this 
 question, see SWP vol. ii. sheet xiii. Josephus has 
 been wrongly supposed to place Antipatris at 
 Caphar Saba, farther north (Ant. xi. xy. 1, 
 XVI. v. 2; Wars, I. xxi. 9). C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ANUB (133y).—A man of Judah (1 Ch 48), 
 GENEALOGY, 
 
 See 
 
 ANVIL (oy5, a stroke, blow).—The word occurs 
 with this meaning only in Is 41’. The anvil of 
 the East is a boot-shaped piece of metal inserted 
 in a section of oak or walnut log. Larger or 
 smaller, it is used by tinsmiths, shoemakers, silver- 
 smiths, and blacksmiths. The description of the 
 metal worker in Is 41*7 is one that might have 
 been taken from the Arab workshop of the present 
 day. As the Oriental artisan has only a few simple 
 tools at his command, his work lacks the precision 
 and uniformity attained in the West by elaborate 
 machinery. Hence vivacious comment during the 
 process of manufacture, and a feeling of triumph 
 at times when the article turns out according to 
 sample. The act of welding on the anvil, to which 
 the prophet alludes, is esp. a moment of noisy 
 
108 ANY 
 
 enthusiasm and mutual encouragement between 
 the smith and his fellow-workman on the other 
 side of the anvil. They then call out to each other 
 to strike more rapidly and vigorously, before the 
 metal cools, orying ‘shidd! shidd’! the Arabic 
 equivalent of Isaiah’s ‘hazak’! ‘be of good 
 courage! Then the term applied to the soldering 
 —‘tob’! Arab. ‘tayyib’! that is, ‘good’ !—is at once 
 a call to cease from further hammering, and a 
 declaration that the work is satisfactory. 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 ANY.—1. Being probably composed of an one, 
 and dim. ending y (old Eng. tg), ‘any’ means ‘one 
 at all,’ ‘one of whatever kind.’ Of this orig. 
 Ineaning good examples are Ps 4° ‘ Who will show 
 us any good?’ 2 P 3° ‘not willing that any should 
 perish.’ 2. Any is not now used in the sing. with- 
 out ‘one,’ ‘more,’ or the like, but we find Jer 23% 
 ‘Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall 
 not see him?’ Ezk 7}8 ‘neither shall any strengthen 
 himself’; so Zec 13°, Jn 2% ete. 3. Any thing as 
 an adverb=‘at all,’ ‘in any respect,’ is found 
 2 Ch 9” ‘it (silver) was not any thing (RV ‘was 
 nothing’) accounted of’; Gal 5° ‘neither cireum- 
 cision availeth any thing’ (RV ‘anything’); Nu 
 173 ‘Whosoever cometh any thing near unto the 
 tabernacle of the Lord shall die’ (RV ‘Every one 
 that cometh near, that cometh near unto the tab. 
 of the Lord, dieth’); and even (Ac 25%) ‘neither 
 .. . have I offended any thing at all’ (RV ‘have 
 I sinned at all’). 4. Any ways=in any respect, 
 mod. ‘anywise,’ occurs Ly 204 ‘if the people of the 
 land do any ways hide their eyes from the man’; 
 Nu 30% ‘if he shall any ways make them void’ 
 (RV ‘if he shall make them null and void’); 2 Ch 
 32, Cf. Pr. Bk. ‘All those who are any ways 
 afflicted.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 APACE.—‘ Apace’ meant first of all ‘at a foot 
 pace,’ t.e. slowly. But before 1611 it had acquired 
 the opp. meaning, ‘at a quick pace,’ and in that 
 sense only is it used in AV. Tt occurs 2 § 18% 
 ‘And he came a.’ (357 351); Ps 682 ‘Kings of 
 armies did flee a.’ (77 pam, RV ‘flee, they flee’) ; 
 Jer 46° ‘their mighty ones... are fled a.’ Also 
 in Ps 58°, Pr. Bk. (and RV, v.”) ‘like water that 
 runneth a.’ ; and Sir 433 ‘He maketh the snow to 
 fall a.’ (xarécrevce xibva). Cf. Ps in Metre 92’— 
 
 ‘When those that lewd and wicked are 
 ane quickly up like grasa, 
 And workers of iniquity 
 do flourish all apace.’ 
 
 ‘Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds.’ 
 Shaks. Rom. and Jul. iii. 2. 1. 
 
 ‘Small weeds have grace, great weeds do grow apace.’ 
 Rich, 11T. ii, 4. 13. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 APAME (’Ardyun).—Daughter of Bartacus, and 
 concubine of Darius I. (1 Es 4”). 
 
 APES (os'p, képhim, wl@nxo, simiae).—Animals 
 of the simian type, imported by the merchant 
 navy of Solomon (1 K 10”, 2 Ch 9%). There is 
 no reason to believe that any one kind, or even 
 family, of apes is intended. Many kinds were 
 known to the ancients, and the ships of Asia 
 and Africa constantly brought then, as they do 
 now, various species of apes and monkeys. Aris- 
 totle divides the simians into three groups—the 
 xnBo, the wl@yxo, and the xvvoréparo. But it is 
 clear that the translators of the LXX did not 
 understand «7B to be the equivalent of képhim, 
 for they have translated the latter rl@yxo. As a 
 naturalist, Solomon would no doubt have wished 
 specimens of as many kinds as possible of so curious 
 an animal as the ape, and, regis ad exemplar, it 
 would have been fashionable among his courtiers 
 
 APHEK 
 
 to possess these grotesque mimics of humanity, 
 Hence the steady market for apes as well as 
 peacocks and ivory. G. E. Post. 
 
 APELLES (’Azed)js).—The name of a Christian 
 greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16”, and described as 
 the ‘approved in Christ.’ It was the name borne 
 by a distinguished tragic actor, and by members of 
 the household. Most commentators quote also 
 Hor. Sat. i. 5. 100, Credat Iudwus Apella, non ego, 
 See Lightfoot, Philippians, ie 172; Sanday and 
 Headlam, Romans, p. 425. For later traditions, 
 which are valueless, see Acta Sanct., April, tii. 4. 
 
 A. C. HEADLAM, 
 
 APHAREMA (’Adelpeua), 1 Mac 11*.—A district 
 taken from Samaria and added to Judea by De- 
 metrius Soter (Ant. XL. iv. 9), probably that round 
 the city Ephraim. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 APHARSACHITES.—See next article. 
 
 APHARSATHCHITES (xanoqpy Ezr 4°, probably 
 the same as the Apharsachites, * x:2075x Ezr 5° 6°).— 
 A colony of the Assyrians in Samaria; an eastern 
 people subject to the Assyrians. Ewald (#./ iv. 
 1878, p. 216) identifies them with the Hapyraxnrol 
 (Herod. i. 101), a tribe of the Medes, dwelling on 
 the borderland between Media and Persia. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON, 
 
 APHARSITES (x:p75x Ezr 4°).— One of the nations 
 transported to Samaria by the Assyrians. Other- 
 wise unknown. By many (e.g. Ewald, H.J. iv. 
 216) supposed to Ne Persians; 01 with the 
 prosthetic & in the Heb. form. Others have con- 
 ecturally identified them with the Parrhasians of 
 
 . Media. J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 APHEK (pox ‘a fortress’).—This was the name 
 of at least four places in Palestine. 
 
 1. A city whose king was slain by Joshua (Jos 
 1238), where we should read with the LXX, ‘the 
 king of Aphek in Sharon.’ This is probably the 
 city mentioned in 1 8 44. The Israelites were 
 at Ebenezer, between Mizpeh and Shen. With 
 common consent Mizpeh is located at Neby Samwitl, 
 but Shen is unknown, so Ebenezer and Aphek still 
 await identification. AKakon, in the plain of Sharon, 
 a strong position commanding the main entrance 
 to Samaria, would suit admirably, but no echo of 
 the ancient name has been heard in the district. 
 
 2. A city in the territory of Asher (Jos 134 
 19°°) from which the Canaanites were never 
 expelled (Jg 1%!— where it is written 79x). 
 Apparently in the ce | of Achzib, its position 
 is uncertain. A possible identification is’A/xa on 
 the Adonis, Nahr Ibrahim, but this seems to be 
 too far north. 
 
 3. A spot, generally ee to be in the plain 
 of Esdraelon, whence the Philistines advanced to 
 the battle of Gilboa (1S 29"). Wellhausen and W. 
 R. Smith give reasons for thinking this identical 
 with 1; and G. A. Smith now agrees (PEFSt, 
 1895, 252). If the identity is established, the 
 Philistines assembled in Sharon, and approached 
 Jezreel by way of Dothan. If, however, they 
 moved from Shunem to Aphek, against Saul, the 
 place must be sought in some ‘ fortress’ westward 
 of Jezreel; the fountain near which Israel was 
 encamped being most likely ‘Ain Jalid, at the N. 
 base of Gilboa. Fukdé'‘a, on the mountain itself, 
 is hardly possible. 
 
 4, The scene of Benhadad’s disastrous defeat 
 (1 K 207%), This place was in the mishér, wn, 
 the table-land east of the Jordan, and is probably 
 identical with Fk, on the lip of the valley eastward 
 
 * Kosters thinks that Apharsachites of Ezr 56 68 is an official 
 title which the author of 49 mistaken for the name of a tribe 
 or country (Herstel v. Isr. 66f.). 
 
 
 

 
 a] 
 
 Peace a 
 
 a 
 
 rior} 
 
 Sat 
 
 ee i 
 eel 
 
 = 
 caw 
 
 ee ee 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 APHEKAH 
 
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE 109 
 
 
 
 of Kal‘at e-Husn, overlooking the Sea of Galilee. 
 Fik is just the Heb. word without the initial 
 aleph ; but occasionally one hears the natives call it 
 "Afik, when the ancient name appearsentire. From 
 the edge of the valley eastward stretches the plain, 
 mishér, of Jauldn, where the great battle was 
 fought. Here the Syrians again suffered defeat at 
 the hands of Joash (2 K 131-%), 
 
 Lirerators.—W. R. Smith, O7JC2 pp. 278, 485; Wellhausen, 
 Comp. d. Hex. Be Hist. p. 39; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 
 Index, and esp. . Rev. (1892), p. 409 f. W. EwIna. 
 
 APHEKAH (npox).—A city not yet clearly identi- 
 fied. It may have been in the mountains of 
 Judah (Jos 15°), but is probably the same place 
 as Aphek 1. W. EwIna. 
 
 APHERRA (’A¢deppd), 1 Es 5%.—His descendants 
 were among the ‘sons of Solomon’s servants’ who 
 returned with Zerubbabel. This name, with the 
 five preceding and two succeeding names, has no 
 equivalent in the parallel lists of Ezr and Neh. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 APHIAH (n'px).—One of Saul’s ancestors (1 S 91). 
 
 APHIK (p'px).—A city of Asher (Jg 14), the same 
 as Aphek 2. 
 
 APHRAH.—See BETH-LE-APHRAH. 
 
 APOCALYPSE.—See REVELATION. 
 LYPSE OF BARUCH.—See Barucu. 
 
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.—No attempt to 
 study Christianity in its origins can dispense with 
 a knowledge of this literature. If we wish to 
 reconstruct the world of ideas and aspirations 
 which filled the heart of an earnest Jew at the 
 beginning of the Christian era, it is to this litera- 
 ture that we must have recourse for materials. 
 Although in its higher aspects Christianity in- 
 finitely transcends the Judaism that preceded it, 
 
 et in others it is a genuine historical development 
 rom such Judaism. Christianity came forth from 
 the bosom of Pharisaic Judaism, and in Apoca- 
 lyptic literature this form of Judaism found its 
 essential utterance. The value, therefore, of such 
 literature is obvious. From such writings, further, 
 we see how the great Pharisaic movement arose ; 
 how it in its turn had been a transformation and a 
 development of movements already at work in 
 the prophetic period. Thus Jewish Apocalypses 
 not only supply a history of religious beliefs in 
 the two pre-Christian centuries, but they also fill 
 up the otherwise unavoidable gap in the history of 
 Jewish thought, and constitute the living link 
 between the prophetic teachings and ideals of the 
 OT and their fulfilment in Christianity. 
 
 Apocalyptic took the place of Prophecy. The 
 Pealmis t exclaims with grief: ‘We see not our 
 signs; there is no more any prophet: neither is 
 a among us any that knoweth how long’ (Ps 
 
 APOCA- 
 
 But the immediate successor of Prophecy was not 
 Apocalyptic, but Scribism. The task of the 
 ascribes was to study the law and apply it to the 
 altered circumstances of the time. he a result of 
 their study and teaching, Israel was firmly estab- 
 lished in its adhesion to the law. But Scribism 
 could not satisfy the aspirations of the nation. In 
 one aspect we might describe it as an unproductive 
 age of criticism following a productive age of pro- 
 phetie genius. Its chief task was to study, dis- 
 criminate, and systematise the products of past 
 spiritual genius. For ever engaged in distinguish- 
 ing and criticising, it acquired the habits of caution 
 and fear as it lost those of courage and love. Its 
 maxims were mainly negative. Its highest service 
 
 
 
 was, not to inspire and lead into new paths of duty 
 and goodness, but to confine every enthusiasm and 
 new spiritual force within the narrow limits of a 
 traditional routine, and to close every avenue of 
 danger with a flaming sword and the unvarying 
 prohibition : ‘Thou shalt not.’ 
 
 But Scribism had another side. In times of 
 oppression especially, its efforts were directed to 
 finding an answer for hearts that were asking in 
 their anguish when God would visit and redeem 
 His people. By ignoring the fact that the pro- 
 phetic accounts of an ideal future for Israel could 
 not be literally fulfilled after the fall of the ancient 
 State, they easily found materials in the mass of 
 unfulfilled prophecy on which to build their hopes 
 anew. By symbolising what was literal and 
 literalising what was figurative, by various re- 
 arrangements and readjustments of the resulting 
 products, they were able to depict the future in a 
 certain chronological sequence, and arrive at this 
 desired consummation. By such means Scribism 
 in some measure kept alive the hopes of the nation. 
 
 It was to this side of Scribism that Apocalyptic 
 was naturally related, although at the same time 
 it was to a certain extent a revolt against the other 
 and chief pursuit of Scribism. The higher ideals 
 and larger outlook of Apocalyptic failed in due 
 course to find room within the narrow limits of 
 Scribism ; and whereas the anxious scrupulosities 
 of the latter were incompatible with anything but 
 the feeblest inspiration and vigour, the former 
 attested beyond doubt the reappearance of spiritual 
 genius in the field of thought and action. 
 
 Our conception of Apocalyptic will become 
 clearer by observing wherein it agrees with, and 
 wherein it differs from, OT prophecy. 
 
 1. Prophecy and Apocalyptic agree in this—(1) 
 That they both claim to be a communication 
 through the Divine Spirit of the character and 
 will and purposes of God, and of the laws and 
 nature of His kingdom. This, it is needless to 
 add, man could not attain to by himself. 
 
 (2) But Prophecy and Apocalyptic were related, 
 not only in their primary postulate, but, at least 
 in the case of the later prophets, in similarity of 
 materials and method. Thus the eschatological 
 element which later attained its full growth in the 
 writings of Daniel, Enoch, Noah, etc., had alread 
 strongly asserted itself in the later prophets, suc 
 as Is 24-27, Joel, Zec 12-14. Not only the be- 
 
 innings, therefore, but a well-defined type of this 
 Bee had already established itself in OT 
 prophecy. 
 
 2, But Prophecy and Apocalyptie differ in the 
 following respects :— 
 
 (1) Prophecy still believes that this world is God’s 
 world, and that in this world His goodness and 
 truth will yet be justified. Hence the prophet 
 addresses himself chiefly to the present and its 
 concerns, and when he addresses himself to the 
 future his prophecy springs naturally from the 
 present, and the future which he depicts is regarded 
 as in organic connexion with it. Zhe Apocalyptic 
 writer, on the other hand, almost wholly despairs 
 of the present; his main interests are supra- 
 mundane. He cherishes no hope of arousing his 
 contemporaries to faith and duty by direct and 
 personal appeals; for though God spoke in the 
 past, ‘there is no more any prophet.’ This 
 
 essimism and want of faith in the present, alike 
 in the leaders and the led, limited and defined the 
 form in which the religious ardour of the former 
 should manifest itself. They prescribed, in fact, 
 as a necessity of the age and as a condition of 
 successful effort, the adoption of pseudonymous 
 authorship. And thus it is that the Apocalyptic 
 writer approaches his countrymen with a work 
 which claims to be the production of some great 
 

 
 110 ~-APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE 
 
 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 
 
 figure in the past, such as Enoch, Moses, Isaiah, 
 Daniel, or Baruch. 
 
 Thus far two characteristics of Apocalyptic have 
 emerged—the transference of interest from the 
 present to the future, from the mundane to the 
 supra-mundane, and the adoption of pseudonymous 
 authorship. 
 
 (2) Another feature of Apocalyptic as distin- 
 guished from Prophecy was imposed upon it by the 
 necessities of the time, i.e. its indefinitely wider 
 view of the world’s histo Thus, whereas ancient 
 Prophecy had to deal with temporary reverses at 
 the hands of some heathen power, Apocalyptic 
 arose at a time when Israel had been subject for 
 centuries to the sway of one or another of the 
 great world-powers. Hence, in order to harmonise 
 such difficulties with God’s righteousness, it had to 
 take account of the réle of such empires in the 
 counsels of God; to recount the sway and down- 
 fall of each in turn, till, finally, the lordship of the 
 world passed into the hands of Israel, or the final 
 judgment arrived. The chief part of these events 
 
 elonged, itis true, to the past; but the Apocalyptic 
 writer represented them as still in the future, 
 arranged under certain artificial categories of time, 
 and as definitely determined from the beginning 
 in the counsels of God, and revealed by Him to 
 His servants the prophets. Determinism thus 
 became a leading characteristic of Jewish Apoca- 
 lyptic ; and accordingly its conception of history, 
 as distinguished from that of Prophecy, was 
 mechanical rather than organic. 
 
 (8) Again, Prophecy and Apocalyptic differ in the 
 harsher treatment dealt out to the heathen in the 
 final judgments. Israel’s repeated oppressions have 
 at last affected the judgment and insight of its 
 writers. The iron has entered into their soul. 
 No virtue or goodness can belong to their heathen 
 oppressors, and nothing but eternal destruction can 
 await the enemies of Israel in the time to come. 
 The ruthless cruelty they had experienced, inspired 
 them with a like ruthlessness towards the faithless 
 nation and the faithless individual; and expressions 
 descriptive of the future lot of such, which in pro- 
 phetic writings had been limited in their scope to 
 the present life, or were merely poetical exaggera- 
 tions, were accepted by Apocalyptic writers as true 
 of the future, and often intensified because in- 
 sufficient to satisfy their merciless hatred. Thus 
 it was in this period that the doctrine of the 
 future and eternal damnation of the wicked was 
 definitely formulated, and came to possess an un- 
 questioned authority. It is true that in later 
 times, as we discover from the Talmud, the severity 
 of this dogma was considerably moderated, but 
 only in favour of Israelites. No single mitigation 
 of the awful horrors foretold as awaiting the 
 wicked was extended to the hapless Gentile. 
 
 The foregoing will make the object of Apoca- 
 lyptic easy of comprehension. This object, in 
 err was to solve the difficulties connected with 
 a belief in God’s righteousness, and the suffering 
 condition of His servants on earth. The righteous- 
 ness of God postulated the temporal prosperity of 
 the righteous, and this postulate was accepted and 
 enforced by the law. But the expectations of 
 material wellbeing which had thus been authenti- 
 cated and fostered, had in the centuries immediately 
 preceding been falsified, and thus a grave con- 
 tradiction had emerged between the old prophetic 
 ideals and the actual experience of the nation, 
 between the promises of God and the bondage and 
 persecution they had daily to endure at the hands 
 of their pagan oppressors. The difficulties thus 
 arising from this conflict between promise and 
 experience may be shortly resolved into two, which 
 concern respectively the position of the righteous 
 as @ community and the position of the righteous 
 
 man as an individual. The OT prophets had 
 concerned themselves chiefly with the former, and 
 pointed in the main to the restoration or ‘resur- 
 rection’ of Israel as a nation, and to Iarael’s 
 ultimate possession of the earth as a reward of 
 her righteousness. But, later, with the growing 
 claims of the individual, and the acknowledgment 
 of these in the religious and intellectual life, the 
 latter problem pressed itself irresistibly on the 
 notice of religious thinkers, and made it impossible 
 for any conception of the divine rule and righteous- 
 ness to gain acceptance which did not render 
 adequate satisfaction to the claims of the righteous 
 individual. Thus, in order to justify the righteous- 
 ness of God, there was postulated the resurrection, 
 not only of the righteous nation, but also of the 
 righteous individual. Apocalyptic, therefore, 
 strove to show that, alike in respect of the nation 
 and of the individual, the righteousness of God 
 would be fully vindicated ; and, in order to justify 
 its contention, it sketched in outline the history of 
 the world and of mankind, the origin of evil and 
 its course, and the consummation of all things. 
 Thus, in fact, it presented a Semitic philosophy of 
 religion, The righteous as a nation should yet 
 possess the earth either in an eternal or in a 
 temporary Messianic kingdom, and the destiny of 
 the righteous individual should be finally deter- 
 mined according to his works. For though amid 
 the world’s disorders he might perish untimely, he 
 would not fail to attain through the resurrection 
 the recompense that was his due, in the Messianic 
 kingdom, or in heaven itself. The conceptions as 
 to the risen life, its duration and character, vary 
 with each writer. 
 
 The chief Apocalyptic writings which will be 
 treated of in this Dictionary are— 
 
 1. Apocalypse of Baruch, ® composite work 
 written 50-90 A.D. in Palestine, if not in Jerus., 
 by four Pharisees. Preserved only in Syriac. 
 
 2. Ethiopic Book of Enoch, written’ originally 
 in Heb. by at least five Hasid authors, 200-64 
 B.Cc., in Palestine. Preserved in Ethiopic and 
 partly in Greek and Latin. 
 
 3. Slavonic Book of Enoch, or The Book of the 
 Secrets of Enoch, written by an Alexandrian Jew 
 about the beginning of the Christian era. Pre- 
 served only in Slavonic. 
 
 4, Ascension of Isaiah, a composite work written, 
 1-100 A.D., by Jewish and Christian authors. Pre- 
 served in Ethiopic and partly in Latin. 
 
 5. Book of Jubilees, written originally in Hebrew 
 by a Pal. Jew, probably 40-10 B.c. Preserved in 
 Wahtonie, and partially in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, 
 and Latin. 
 
 6. Assumption of Moses, written in Palestine, 
 
 robably in Heb. or Aram., 14-30 A.D., by a 
 harisee. Preserved only in Latin. 
 
 7. Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, a com- 
 posite work written originally in Hebrew by two 
 Jewish authors belonging to the legalistic and 
 apocalyptic sides of Pharisaism, 130 B.c.-10 A.D., 
 and interpolated by a succession of Christian 
 writers down to the fourth century A.D. Pye- 
 served in the ancient Greek and Armenian ve- 
 sions. 
 
 8. Psalms of Solomon, written originaly in 
 Heb. by a Pharisee (or Pharisees), 70-40 B.c. 
 
 9. Sibylline Oracles, written in Greek hexa- 
 meters by Jewish and Christian authors, 180 B.c.- 
 350 A.D. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Hilgenfeld, Die Jtidische Apokalyptik, 1857; 
 Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, 1877; Smend, ‘ Jewish Apoca- 
 lyptic’ in ZAZ'W (1885) pp. 222-250; Schiirer, HJP u. iii 
 44.sqq. R. H. CHARLES. 
 
 APOCRYPHA.—The title ‘The aRe ha,’ or 
 ‘The Apocrypha of the OT,’ is applied by nglish- 
 
 a ee ee ee a a ee 
 
 
 

 
 APOCRYPHA 11] 
 
 
 
 speaking Protestants to the following collection of | these, 1 and 2 Es are not in Luther’s Bible, and 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 books and parts of books :— 
 BOOKS. ABBREY. 
 L. 1 Esdras ° ° ° . e e Py 1 Es 
 ii, 2 Esdras ° ° ° ° e e ° - | 2Es 
 fii. Tobit . ° ° ° ° ° ry e . To 
 fv. Judith . ° e . ° O . 5 . | Jth 
 vy. The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther 
 [i.e. 104-1674] . ~ . * ; “i . | Ad. Est 
 vi. The Wisdom of Solomon . Wis 
 
 vii. The Wisdom of Jesus the gon of Sirach, or 
 Ecclesiasticus . 9 c ‘ a c aa oir 
 viii. Baruch e Re een Bar 
 
 
 
 (Ch. vi.=The Epistle of Jeremy] A . » | Ep. Jer 
 ix. The Song of the Three Holy Children . . . | Three 
 {t.e. The Prayer of Azarias and the Song of 
 the Three.] 
 x. The History of Susanna ; 6 : - | Sus 
 xi. The History of the Destruction of Bel and the 
 Dragon 6 5 4 ‘ 8 i i - | Bel 
 fix. x. and xi. are the Additions to the Book 
 of Daniel] ie > = . * 3 . | Ad. Dn 
 xil. The Prayer of Manasses aie Greil 's . . | Pr.Man 
 xiil, 1 Maccabees . 5 é . . Se - | 1Mac 
 
 xiv. 2 Maccabees . ° . . . 2 Mac 
 
 Both the collection, and the use of the word 
 Apocrypha as its title, are distinctively Protestant, 
 though having roots in the history of the OT 
 Canon. The collection consists of the excess of the 
 Lat. Vulg. over the Heb. OT; and this excess is 
 due to the Gr. LXX, from which the old Lat. 
 VS wasmade. The difference between the Prot. and 
 the Rom. Cath. OT goes back, then, to a difference 
 between Pal. and Alex. Jews. The matter is 
 complicated, however, by the fact that the Vulg. 
 was revised after the Heb. by Jerome, and that 
 the extant MSS of the LXX differ much in contents 
 and order. For clearness and for reference in the 
 later discussion, the following tables are given. 
 They represent the official Vulg. (ed. 1592); the 
 two chief MSS of LXX; the Canon of Cyril, as a 
 representative of the view of the E. Church ; and the 
 Hebrew. The books of our A. are printed in italics, 
 other uncan. books, not in the A., in capitals. 
 
 
 
 2 Es is not in the LXX. On the other hand, 
 3 and 4 Mac are commonly present in the 
 LXX, but are not found in the Vulg. and A. The 
 same is true of Ps151. Further, the many more or 
 less significant variations of LXX from Heb. OT, 
 in text and order, do not appear in this comparison, 
 for, owing to Jerome, the Vulg. follows the Heb. 
 in the can. books, the LXX only in the case of 
 books not extant in Heb. The A., then, can be 
 said only in a general way to represent the 
 difference between the Heb. and the Gr. OT. The 
 books of the A. are treated in this Dictionary 
 individually under their titles. Under the heading 
 Apocrypha two matters require consideration : the 
 history of the use of the word ‘Apocrypha’ in 
 reference to books ; and the history and significance 
 of the collection now so called.* With these the 
 present article will deal in the following order :— 
 
 {. The word Apocrypha. 
 
 1. The Hidden Books of Judaism. 
 
 2, The words genuzim and hizonim. 
 
 8. The Hidden Books of Christianity, and the word 
 Apocrypha. 
 
 fi. The Apocrypha in Judaism, 
 
 L The Origin of the Coliection, 
 a. The Work of the Scribes. 
 b. The A. in relation to the Hagiographa. 
 ¢. Palestinian and Hellenistic elements in the A. 
 
 2. Its Use and Relation to the Canon, 
 a. In Hellenistic Judaism. 
 b. In Palestinian Judaism. : 
 
 8. Its Relation to the Religious Tendencies and 
 Parties of Judaism. 
 
 iii. The Apocrypha in Chriswanity. 
 
 1. In the New Testament. 
 
 2. In the Eastern Church, 
 a. Original Usage. 
 b. Scholarly Theory. 
 c. Manuscripts, 
 d, Versions. 
 é. The Later Greek Church, 
 
 8. In the Western Church, 
 a. Roman. 
 b. Protestant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vula. LXX. Hus. 
 Cod. Vat. (B). Cod. Alex. (A) 
 Pent Pent Pent i. ‘Torah’ (Law)— 
 Jos Jos Jos 1-5. Pent 
 ig 5 3B M. ‘Nebiim’ Prophets)— 
 1-4K 14K 14K Sat See a 
 1. 20h 1. 2 Ch 1. 20h 73 
 1 Es (=Ezr] 1Es XII 3 rd 
 2 Es (=Neh]) 2 Ks [=Eur+Neh] Is 9. K 
 0 Ps (151) Jer [with Bar La Ep. b. ‘ Latter* 
 Pr Jer) 10, Is 
 Est (Ad. 104-1674) Eo ae 
 Pe (150) Sob Bot 4 1, 12, Ezk 
 () I} '* ? 
 Pr Wis To 13. XII 
 Eo Sir Jth . iii. ‘Kethubim’ (Hagio- 
 Ca Est [Ad.*] 1 Es 20. Jer Bar La Ep. Jer grapha)— 
 Wis Jth 2 Es (=Ezr+Neh] 21, Ezk 14. Ps 
 Sir To 1. 2 Mac 22. Dn [Ad. 7] 15. Pr 
 Is 8. 4 Mao SS 16. Job 
 Jer (La Bar) Is Ps (151and14Canticles,| i.e. 12 historical, 6 17. Ca 
 Ezk Jer of which oneis Pr. | poetical, and 5 prophet- 18. Ru 
 Dn (Ad, 824-90 Threa Bar Mant) cal books. The number 19. La }‘ Megilloth’ 
 13 Sus La Job of the Heb. Can. is 20. Ec 
 14 Bel) Ep. Jer Pr reduced by joining Ru 21. Est 
 XII [¢.e. Minor Prophets) | Ezk Ec to Jg and La to Jer. 22. Dn 
 L 2 Mac Dn [(Ad.] Ca 23. Ezr-Neh 
 = Wis 24. Ch 
 
 
 
 *The Ad. Est are in| Sir 
 a gaia insmall type | their original places, 
 
 and with new paging: | viz. 10411) after 103;| Af 
 Pr. Man 112-126 before 11; 131-7 | originally, 
 8 Esdr [=1 Es] after 313; 138-18 141-19 
 4 Kedr (=2 Es}. 15 1-16 after 417; 161-24 
 
 after 842 
 
 Hymn. 
 
 
 
 After the NT stood 
 
 PsaLMs OF SOLOMON. 
 
 + 9are from OT. The 
 others—Magnijficat, 
 Nune dimittis, 
 dictus, and the Morning 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Some deviations from 
 this order, which is that 
 of the printed edd., are 
 found in the case of the 
 ‘latter’ prophets and 
 the Hagiographa in Tal- 
 mudic lists, which may 
 be more original. But 
 the three divisions and 
 the contents of each 
 remain fixed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bene- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 It is to be noticed that of our A., land 2 Es and 4 *In-this article Apocrypha (A.) signifies this collection; 
 
 Pr. Man are regarded also by Rome as a”. Of 
 
 pocrypha (A.) the books originally so called ; apocryphal (a!) 
 is used in either sense . 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 i. THE WORD ‘APOCRYPHA.’—The werd 
 dwxéxpugos, meaning ‘hidden,’ was no doubt at first 
 applied to books in quite a literal sense, as the 
 designation, whether by those who hid them or by 
 those from whom they were hidden, of books kept 
 from the public. The hiding of a book was easy 
 when copies were few. It might be done upon two 
 opposite grounds. An exclusive sect might hide 
 its sacred books in order to keep from outsiders 
 the secret laws or wisdom which they contained ; 
 or the religious authorities of a community might 
 hide books judged by them to be useless or harm- 
 ful. The two grounds might indeed approach each 
 other in the case of books judged unfit for public 
 use, not because of the error, but because of the 
 depth and difficulty of their contents. Indeed, a 
 book judged wholly erroneous and harmful we 
 should expect the authorities to destroy rather 
 than to hide. A certain value, or at least a certain 
 doubt, should naturally be attached to books 
 hidden in this sense, while their peculiar value is 
 the reason for their being hidden in the former— 
 which is, in all probability, the more original sense 
 of the Greek word. 
 
 From the place of secret books in Judaism and 
 in Christianity we may therefore hope to gain a 
 knowledge of the original sense and use of the 
 word ; and we shall find its first and proper applica- 
 tion to be, not to the books of our A., but to the 
 (chiefly apocalyptical) literature commonly desig- 
 nated Pseudeprgrapha. 
 
 1. THE HIDDEN Books or JUDAIsM.—Esoteric 
 doctrines and books do not belong properly to the 
 Isr. religion. Their home is in heathenism, from 
 which, however, they gained a foothold from time 
 to time in Judaism. The occult lore connected 
 with sorcery and magic lurked beneath the surface 
 of old Israel’s religion. fife, but was condemned by 
 law and prophets (Dt i8', Lv 1931, Is 8!9 19? etc.). 
 No priestly religion, indeed, can be without a 
 partly esoteric priestly tradition respecting rites, 
 their form, and perhaps their meaning. But it was 
 a characteristic of J asia that it was based upon 
 a priestly law made public and openly adopted by 
 the people (Neh 8-10). Yet Judaism did not 
 escape from the charm which mystery exerts over 
 the human mind. It was esp. in the after de- 
 velopments of OT wisdom literature under 
 Hellenic influence, on the one side, and of OT pro- 
 phetic literature, under Pers. and Bab. influence, 
 on the other, that the idea of the superior religious 
 value of hidden things, mysterious] iaeloaed to the 
 favoured few, took possession of the Jewish mind. 
 Even Jesus, son of Sirach, the Palestinian, finds 
 it the chief task of the wise man to discover the 
 ‘apocrypha,’ the hidden things, of wisdom and of God 
 (1421 39-7), and thinks that the hidden things of the 
 world are greater than the manifest (43**). ‘ Apoc- 
 
 ha’ was for him a word of honour (yet see 
 371-3 and 24-4), But it was esp. in Hel. circles 
 that the love of hidden things was cultivated. 
 Philo presents the results of his deepest study and 
 reflexion, and of his highest insight, in the form of 
 an exposition of the Pent., making of this a hidden 
 book, which only the initiated could understand. 
 
 There was, however, another way in which the 
 love of hidden things and reverence for antiquity 
 could be et ee Instead of hidden meanings in 
 epeny. published books, it was possible to think 
 of private teachings, by the side of the public, 
 committed by peers or prophet to the few, and 
 handed on to the present in a secret tradition, or a 
 hidden book. is was the 
 Pal. Jews who were interested in the secrets of 
 the future, and in prophecy. The beginnings of 
 the production of hidden books along this line can 
 be easily traced. If a prophet committed the 
 record of openly spoken predictions to the keeping 
 
 
 
 112 
 
 rocedure of those 
 
 
 
 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 
 
 
 of his disciples, to await the time of their fulfilment 
 (Is 81%), it would not be strange if he should give 
 them fuller knowledge for which the public was 
 not prepared. The Bk of Dan. is represented as 
 havin ae ‘shut up and sealed’ by its author, 
 until, long after its writing, the time came for its 
 publication (Dn 124%), This may well be called 
 ‘the fundamental passage for the conception of 
 apocrypha.’* Daniel eppears as the publication 
 of a book hitherto hidden. The justification of 
 the claim lies in the revelation of the mysteries 
 of Israel’s future which it contains, and in the 
 mysterious manner in which the revelation is made 
 in visions, through angels. It is indeed, in part, 
 an interpretation of the hidden sense of Jer 25¥ 
 291° (Dn 9), but the interpretation is given by an 
 angel. The way was prepared for Daniel by the 
 later prophets, in whom the vision of hidden things 
 plays an increasingly important part. Ezekiel’s 
 vision (ch. 1) became the favourite and fruitful 
 study of Jews who loved mysteries. Zee con- 
 tains similar material. But the chief development 
 of apo literature followed Daniel. Great 
 numbers of books were put forth during the cent. 
 before and the cent. after Christ, in the name of 
 pata or prophets, as books that had been 
 
 idden. They contain esp. disclosures of the 
 mysteries of the spirit world, of the future of 
 Israel, and of the abode and fortunes of the dead. 
 In one of these books the tradition is related 
 that Ezra was inspired to dictate to his scribes 
 the sacred books that had been burned at the 
 destruction of Jerus. ‘In forty days they wrote 
 ninety-four books. And when the forty days were 
 ended, the Most High spoke, saying: The earlier 
 books that thou hast written, publish openly, and 
 let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but 
 the last seventy thou shalt keep, that thou mayest 
 deliver them to the wise of thy people ; for in them 
 is the spring of understanding and the fountain of 
 wisdom and the stream of knowledge’ (2 Es 144-47), 
 In the 70 esoteric books, valued more highly by 
 the writer than the 24 books of open scripture, 
 we have the original conception of apocrypha. 
 The character of these books may be accurately 
 known from those that have survived, e.g. Enoch, 
 Assumption of Moses (in part), the Apoc. of 
 Baruch, and 2 Est itself. Their material is 
 largely foreign to Isr. traditions, and was com- 
 monly felt to be so. Yet traditional it must, in 
 the nature of the case, have been, and only in a 
 very limited degree the free invention of the 
 writers. That its source is, in an important 
 measure, to be found in the Bab. and Pers. re- 
 ligions, is highly probable. 
 
 If we ask in what circles of Judaism these books, 
 or the writings or traditions that lie behind them, 
 were current, various lines of evidence point to- 
 ward the obscure sect of the Essenes. The 
 possessed a secret lore and hidden books, and too 
 oath to disclose none of their doctrines to others, 
 and ‘to preserve equally both the books of their 
 sect and the names of the angels’ (Jos. BJ I. 
 viii. 7). In regard to the contents of their secret 
 books we are not left wholly in the dark. Jos. 
 rks that the Essenes derived from the study of 
 ‘the writings of the ancients’ (can. ?) a knowledge 
 of the healing properties of plants and stones (§ 6), 
 and that by reading ‘the holy books’ they were 
 able to foretell future things (§ 12). He also as- 
 cribes to them an elaborate doctrine of the pre- 
 
 * Zahn, Gesch. d. NT Kanons, 1. 185, cf. 124f., who, however, 
 does not put this observation to its natural use. 
 
 t Notice the different applications given to the titles, 1 and 2 Es, 
 in LXX, Vulg. and Eng. A. Still other confusions appear in 
 certain MSS. Misunderstanding would be avoided by calling 
 1 Es [=Vulg. 8 Es; LXX 1 Es) Greek Ezra, and 2 Hs (=Vulg. 
 4 Bad the Apocalypse of Ezra (¢.e. properly ch. 8-14), a1 
 4 Ezr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oe 
 
 ee a 
 
 
 
APOCRYPHA 
 
 existence of souls, and of the lot of good and bad 
 souls after death (§ 11). When, therefore, we find 
 in books like Enoch, the Assumptio Mosis, and 
 4 Ezr, disclosures of the secrets of nature and of 
 history, lists of angels, descriptions of heaven and 
 hell, and of the experiences of the soul after death, 
 beside other Essenic marks, such as the praise of 
 asceticism and the unfavourable estimate of the 
 second temple, the opinion seems not unfounded 
 that ‘their secret literature was perhaps in no 
 smal] degree made use of in the Pseudepigrapha, 
 and has through them been indirectly handed 
 down to us’ (Wellhausen). To attribute the 
 apocalyptical literature exclusively to Essenism, 
 however, as Jewish scholars wish to do, is without 
 historical justification. It is true that a rela- 
 tionship of Essenism with Zoroastrianism is prob- 
 able (Lightfoot, Colossians; Cheyne, Expository 
 Times, ii. 202-8, 248-53 ; Bampton Lect. pp. 417-21, 
 445-49); and Zoroastrianism treasured secret 
 books, some of which certain Christian Gnostics 
 claimed to possess. It is probable also that the 
 foreign (heathen) character of these books was felt 
 se many, since Judaism never gave these books 
 official sanction ; and no apocalypse after Dn was 
 preserved in Hebrew. Nevertheless, the foreign 
 elements here dominant reach far back into OT 
 literature ; and, on the other hand, Essenism was 
 much more closely related to Pharisaism than to 
 Zoroastrianism, being, in the first place, ‘only 
 Pharisaism in the superlative’ (Schiirer). If the 
 Essenes are to be understood historically as simply 
 more consistent protestants against the high- 
 nay of the Maccabzean princes than the 
 
 arisees, ing their protest to the point of 
 refusing all participation in the temple service,— 
 then in the Hasidzans of 1 Mac 2* 727 we have 
 the roots of both Pharisaism and Essenism, and 
 the Book of Dn would stand near the beginning 
 
 of each. The Messianic hope is the genuinely 
 
 Jewish element in the apocalypses. That this had 
 a far larger place in the mind of the Pharisee 
 during the two centuries preceding the destruction 
 of Jerus. than it had after that event,—and esp. 
 after Akiba’s death,—is evident to all but Jewish 
 scholars, who are apt to judge of the whole post- 
 exilic period by the Talmud. The proces peice 
 literature in question was, then, in all probability 
 valued and cultivated by Pharisees, certainly by 
 some circles of Pharisees, as well as by Essenes. 
 Indeed, in spite of its rejection by rabbinical 
 
 ism, germs of it survived, and afterwards 
 came to new life, in the late Jewish Kabbala, or 
 secret philosophy (12th cent.). 
 
 It is a striking fact that while official Judaism 
 rejected these hidden books, and declared for the 
 exclusive recognition of the 24 books of the 
 Canon, it yet proceeded to claim for itself the 
 
 ssession of an oral law which Moses delivered to 
 
 oshua when he gave the Pent. openly to Israel, and 
 which passed on through the hands of the elders, 
 the prophets, the men of the Great Synagogue, to 
 an unbroken succession of scribes (Pirke Aboth), 
 until it came to writing in the Mishna, and then 
 un the Talmud. By the theory of a secret tradition 
 the scribes sought to give their law the authority 
 of Moses, and yet account for its late appearance. 
 
 2. THE WorDs ‘GENUZIM’ AND ‘ HIZONIM.’— 
 The designation of these hidden books in Heb. 
 we donot know. A Heb. synonym for dwéxpupa 
 is 0322; but this word and the verb 11: are used 
 in the Talm., not of the secret books just described, 
 but usually of a hiding, by the authorities, of 
 books judged unfit for public use. A possible 
 exception is the reported ‘hiding’ by Hezekiah of 
 & book of medical lore, in order that the sick 
 might call rather upon God (Mishna Pesach iv. 9). 
 But it was ery. used with referonce to some 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 APOCRYIPHA 113 
 
 book of the Canon. Thus a worn-out roll of a 
 sacred scripture was ‘hidden,’ perhaps because, 
 though unfitted for use in the synagogue, it was 
 yet sacred and not to be destroyed (Mishna Sa!h. 
 ix. 6; Sanh. x. 6). But the word was commonly 
 used in reference to the question whether some 
 book should be withdrawn from the class of 
 sacred Scriptures. Thus there were habbis who 
 wished to ‘hide’ Pr, because of its contradic- 
 tions; Ca, because of its secular character; Ee, 
 because of its heresies. But th: objections were 
 in every instance met. The case of Fst was more 
 serious, and it is not improbable that 1t was put in 
 the class of genuzim for a time among certain 
 circles, though we have only the evidence of some 
 Christian lists of the Canon, which claim (or seem) 
 to follow the instructions of Jews (esp. Melito. See 
 below). 
 
 If there existed at any time a class of books 
 called genuzim, the Talmudic use of the word 
 would lead us to expect that it would contain 
 the books nearest to the Canon in authority or 
 common esteem: books which once stood within 
 the circle of sacred writings, or made a fair claiin 
 to stand there; in other words, books like tlie 
 antilegomena of early Christian use. If there were 
 such a class, Sir and 1 Mac, if not To and Jth, 
 should stand in it; but the word is never applied 
 to these books in extant writings. This is not, in- 
 deed, a proof that it was not so used ; and the testi- 
 mony of Origen ances that it was. He says 
 that the Jews had hidden Sus and other books 
 from the people, while Jth and To, they had told 
 him, they did not possess even among their hidden 
 books, or apocrypha (Ep. ad Afric.). 
 
 For writings that stood wholly outside of the 
 circle of sacred books, esp. for the books of heretics 
 such as the Samaritans, the Sadducees, and Chris. 
 tians (oyp ‘25p), the Rabbis had another name, 
 hizonim (psn 0720), lit. ‘external’ or ‘outside’ 
 books. The danger to Judaism of the reading of 
 these books led Akiba, who had himself been 
 attracted by them, to ah their use. ‘ Who- 
 ever reads in the sepharim hizonim has no part 
 in the world to come. Books, on the other hand, 
 like Sir and other such, which were composed 
 after the age of the prophets had been closed, may 
 be read just as one reads a letter.’* Sir, then, 
 and otaer such books, are not hizonim in Akiba’s 
 view, the correctness of which is evident from the 
 free use of Sir by Rabbis in Pal. for a century and 
 a half after Akiba, and in Babylon still later. 
 But it appears that the maintenance of a middle 
 class of Books between sacred and profane involved 
 dangers, and it was finally decided that ‘he who 
 reads a verse which is not out of the 24 
 books of sacred scripture, his offence is as if he 
 had read in the sepharim hizonim’ (Midr. r. 
 Num. § 14, and at Koheleth 12", cf. Jer. Sabb. 16). 
 It is possible that this practical transfer of books 
 like Sir into the class of hizonim may have ob- 
 scured the evidence of their having once been in 
 the class of genuzim. 
 
 3. THE HIDDEN BOOKS OF CHRISTIANITY AND 
 THE WorRD ‘ APOCRYPHA.’—Christianity was at its 
 beginning, even less than Judaism, a religion of 
 mysteries, to be hidden by the few from the many. 
 Christ’s words in Lk 107, Mt 11” (‘hidden’ 
 from the wise, revealed to babes), were a direct 
 contradiction of esoteric religion. If there are 
 apocrypha, hidden things, they are to be made 
 known (Mk 4, Lk 8”, cf. Mt 131”). 
 
 In Christ the hidden wisdom of God had become 
 manifest, and the mysteries of the coming of His 
 
 * For this rendering by Graetz of a corrupt text (Sanh. x. 1, 
 and the Bab. and Jer. Talm.), see Buhl, Canon and Text of OT, 
 p. 8; and cf. Hamburger, Real-Hncyc. ii. 68 ff. The Jer. Talm 
 gives Sirach as an illustration of the higonim. 
 
 
 
114 APOCRYPHA 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 
 
 kingdom were disclosed by its realisation. Yet 
 this faith gained a slow and hard victory. -In two 
 ways the love of mysteries and of the Sooke that 
 contained them was fostered. 
 
 (a) The Christian religion made its start in the 
 Jewish world in close connexion with the Messianic 
 ideas as they had been developed, esp. in the apoca- 
 lypses, from Dn onwards. Jewish Ch ristians clung 
 to the Jewish apocalyptic literature, modifying 
 indeed its references to the person of the Messiah, 
 making room for His earthly life and death, but 
 feeling the less need of radical changes because the 
 proper fulfilment of the Messianic hopes was con- 
 nected, not with the first, but with the second 
 coming of Christ. This led, naturally, less to the 
 production of new Christian revelations than to 
 the keeping and Christian editing of the old. 
 Jewish patriarchs and prophets were in this way 
 made to testify to the truth, and to forecast the 
 future, of Christianity. Thus the Book of Enoch 
 and the Apoc. of Ezra were used as authentic 
 revelations by many Church Fathers. Jewish 
 apocalypses of Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Is, Jer, 
 Baruch, and others in great numbers, in part 
 extant, but chiefly known to us only by name, 
 were treasured by early Christianity. 
 
 Even when apocalypses in the names of Christian 
 apostles were put forth, their material was of 
 necessity largely traditional and Jewish in origin. 
 
 These books, then, Jewish and Christian, are the 
 earliest apocrypha of Christianity (cf. the lists 
 below). They are books usually put forth as 
 having been hidden (the pseudepigraphic form), 
 and always contain accounts of hidden things 
 miraculously disclosed. 
 the Apoc. of St. John is called ‘a’ by Gregory of 
 Nyssa (Or. de Ordin. ii. 44) and by Epi anne 
 (Her. 51). The cultivation of such ‘hidden’ 
 books by no means belonged at first to heretical 
 sects, but was characteristic of early Christianity 
 in general. It was opposed chiefly by those who 
 fell under Gr. influence ; but among them another 
 sort of mystery took the place of the Jewish 
 apocalyptic, namely, the Gr. gnosis. 
 
 \4) As Jewish Christians made Christianity less 
 the fulfilment than the reaffirmation of Jewish 
 hopes, so Hel. Christians made it less the solution 
 of the mystery of existence than a new, supreme 
 mystery. Christ was made the central figure—in 
 one case in Jewish eschatology, in the other in Greek 
 cosmology. 
 
 St. Paul’s language in 1 Co 1 and 2 discloses the 
 existence in Corinth of those who valued a hidden 
 wisdom more than his gospel of the crucified Christ. 
 And later, at Colosse, St. Paul urges, against an 
 esrentially Gnostic tendency, as the word of God, 
 ‘the mystery which hath been hidden from the 
 ages and from the generations, but now hath been 
 munifested to his saints’ (1%). The mystery of 
 God is ‘Christ, in whom are all the treasures of 
 wisdom and knowledge hidden’ (daréxpugo., 2°). The 
 special Colossian gnosis, with its worship of angels, 
 ita asceticism, its visions, and its secret doctrines, 
 reminds us of Essenism. The strongest influence 
 on the development of a secret Christian gnosis 
 came, however, from Alexandria: Gnosticism being 
 daa ‘nothing but a Christian Hellenism’ (Har- 
 nack). 
 
 As the Jewish Apocalypse furnished one way of 
 connecting the new faith with the old, Hel. 
 allegorical interpretation supplied another ready 
 means of finding Christ and Christianity in the 
 OT ; thus making of it, as Philo did, a hidden book. 
 But the allegorical nethod was capable of a further 
 use. The Gr. Christian was less concerned to find 
 Christianity in the OT than to find Gr. philosophy 
 in Christianity. It was not an unnatural efiort, 
 
 afier St. Paul, and in apparent connexion with him. 
 
 In the latter sense even’ 
 
 to set the OT wholly aside, and to apply alle 
 
 to the person and ators of Christ. PG ostacieral 
 indeed, based and pushed its claims on the ground 
 of apostolic authority, and, with its rejection ot 
 the OT, it was even the first to feel the need of 
 new authoritative scriptures. But it established 
 its position (1) by requiring an allegorical inter- 
 pretation of the commonly received apostolic 
 writings, making them books of hidden import; 
 (2) by claiming to possess, besides the open apos. 
 tolic writings, a secret apostolic tradition (Basilides 
 and Valentinus claim to derive their secret gnosis 
 from pupils of St. Paul; the Ophites, from a pupil 
 of St. James, etc.) ; (3) by the production of greav 
 numbers of books, chiefly gospels and acts of the 
 various apostles;* (4) by the claim (like that of 
 Hel. Judaism) to immediate prophetic inspiration, 
 so that prophets and apocalypses played in some 
 Gnostic communities an important part, though few 
 traces of Gnostic apocalypses remain. 
 
 Hel. Gnosticism stands as the extreme con- 
 trast to the Jewish apocalyptic tendency. It re- 
 nounced the OT on which the Apocalypse rests, 
 and rejected the coming of Christ, the resurrection, 
 and the earthly kingdom, in which the Apoc. 
 centres. Yet both make of Christianity a mystery, 
 and claim for the books that unfold the mystery 
 especial sanctity. From these two sources came 
 multitudes of a* books into Christian use. They 
 were called A. by those who valued them, for the 
 word contained no necessary disparagement, but 
 described the character of the books; and they 
 were by no means condemned at the outset as 
 heretical. The Book of Enoch is directly cited by 
 Jude (vv.!4-5), who also uses the Assumptian of 
 Moses (v.°). From such books may have come 
 other citations and references which are not found 
 in known books (see Origen’s view below), The 
 Book of Enoch was used as a genuine and sacred 
 book by the Ep. Barnabas, Irenzeus, Tertullian, 
 and Clement of Alex. Tertullian says, indeed, 
 that it was not received by some Christians. He, 
 however, defends its reception (7.e. among the 
 books of sacred Scripture) by appealing to judas 
 and explains its absence from the Heb. scriptures 
 by saying that the Jews rejected it, as they did 
 other books, because it spoke of Christ, —an 
 explanation not, indeed, wholly unhistorical. 
 
 lement of Alex. uses Ass. Mos. and 4 Ezr, and 
 also many other prophetic A. unknown to us. 
 He was a warm defender of the value ot secret 
 traditions, and used not only Jewish, and even 
 heathen, but Christian secret yoeka He believed 
 in a secret tradition entrusted by Christ to His 
 disciples, and valued it highly (Strom. i. 11. 13. 14; 
 v. 60-4). Some of these traditions were preserved 
 in secret books, among which he cites certain a#! 
 gospels and acts. Though he knows that heretics 
 make a bad use of such books (Strom. iii. 29), yet 
 his view of A. as a whole is extremely favourable. 
 Origen is more discriminating. He finds a use for 
 A, in NT interpretation. In 1 Co 2, 2 Ti 3%, 
 He 1187, Mt 23%. 87 979 he finds references to a™ 
 books, and says that ‘not all A. current in the 
 
 name of holy men are to be received on account of | 
 
 the Jews, since they perhaps invented some for the 
 destruction of our true Scriptures and the confirma- 
 tion of false doctrines; but not all are to be re- 
 jected, since some pertain to the demonstration of 
 our Scriptures’ (Comment. on Mt 23%). Origen 
 seems, however, to have been influenced in his use 
 of the word by the Jewish genuzim, for in his Epist. 
 ad Afric. he speaks of Sus as made a! b 
 Jewish authorities, though the Christian Chure 
 did not so regard it. Jth and To, he says, 
 the Jews do not possess even among their A. 
 
 * See Lipsius in Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christian Biog., 
 arts. ‘Gospels’ and ‘ Acts of Apostles.’ 
 
 lo 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 
 
 APOCRYPHA 115 
 
 
 
 These books are not ‘secret’ in the proper sense, 
 and can be called A. only in the sense of being 
 withdrawn from publicity, and so from canonicity. 
 
 The defence of A. proper became more and more a mark of 
 heresy. Even Origen in Prol. in Cant. argues for their ex- 
 clusion, because of the corrupt traditions, contrary to true faith, 
 which they contain. They were long current in Gr., but 
 found no permanent place in the LXX, though the Oriental 
 VSS received some of them, and one became current in Lat., 
 though Vulg. did not give it recognition (4 Ezr). 
 
 Phiulaster of Brescia (on Heresies, c. 383-391 a.D.) condemns 
 the ‘heresy which accepts only 4., t.e. secrets of prophets and 
 apostles, not can. scriptures’; but he would allow A. to be read 
 tor the = of manners by the perfect,’ not in the church, and 
 not by all. 
 
 Privcillianus (tract iii.) argues, from the generally accepted 
 account of the restoration of the can. books by Ezra in 4 Ezr 14, 
 for the value of the 70 secret books also, including 4 EKzr 
 itself. Hpiphanius also justifies by the same reference the 
 use of various a! books, which he thinks were translated by the 
 Seventy in addition to the canonical. 
 
 The conviction, however, gradually prevailed that the cultiva- 
 tion of secret books was dangerous, both because of the errors 
 they contained and because of the sectarianism they fostered. 
 There could be no Catholic Church so long as sects could claim 
 to possess either new revelations or a secret apostolic tradition. 
 
 Secret doctrines and books were cut off by the two principles, 
 that valid inspiration was limited to the apostolic age, and that 
 only the books generally received in the churches were genuinely 
 anostolic. No doubt a sense of the unchristian character of 
 the books in question worked, together with the growing con- 
 viction that their possession was uncatholic, to bring about 
 their condemnation. The gradually prevailing Catholic prin- 
 ciple (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus) would give 
 to the very word apocryphus the meanings: false, spurious, 
 heretical. 
 
 The principle that only what the churches generally receive 
 isa lic is found in the Muratorian Fragment (2nd cent.). 
 Treneus stands early in the line of this growing Catholicism. 
 He opposes the theory, which Clem. Alex. defends, of the 
 existence and value of secret traditions (ii. 27. 2, iii. 2. 1, 3. 1, 
 14. 2, 15. 1), and condemns the ‘countless multitude of aa! 
 and gparous writings’ which the Marcosians, appealing to 
 Dn 12%, claim to possess, but which they really fabricate for 
 themselves. Hegesippus also speaks of ‘the so-called A.’ (i.e. 
 so called by the heretics themselves), and says that ‘some 
 of them were written in his own time by certain heretics’ (Eus. 
 HE iv. 22. 8). Tertullian charges the heretics with adding to 
 Scripture ‘secrets of A., blasphemous fables’ (Resur. Carnis 63) ; 
 and writes a vigorous polemic against the Gnostic claim to 
 possess a secret tradition (preescr. 22-27). He applies the word 
 apocryphus to an apoc. which he regards as spurious (Shepherd), 
 but not to Enoch, which he (as well as Irenzus) regards as 
 geenine (de pudic. 10, de anima, 2). Cyril of Jerus., in his 
 
 atechetics (iv. 83-6, ab. 848 a.p.), uses the word of all 
 Jewish books except the 22 which are openly read in the 
 churches. Oyril’s insistence that the A., 1t.e. the books not 
 read in the churches, are not to be read even in private, is 
 evidently aimed against the distinction of three classes of books 
 —those read in church, those read privately, and those wholly 
 rejected. This distinction is as old as the Muratorian Fragment, 
 which puts the Shepherd in such a middle class. It is implied 
 by Origen, in his discrimination among 4A. It is definitely 
 Roranlaved by Athanasius, who, in his 39th Easter Letter 
 (367 i gives the name A. only to the third class of books 
 written by heretics as pleased their fancy, and put forth as 
 old, to lead astray the simple. Athanasius gives no list of 
 these A., but later lists teach us the current understanding 
 Bate hrchogroph of Nicephorus (p h of Consta 1 
 
 ie Chronography tcephorus (patriarch of Constantinople 
 806-815), in a ‘Sa sad form which originated in Jerus. about 850, 
 contains a stichometric list of Biblical books which has inner 
 marks of a much earlier date (Zahn, ‘perhaps before 500’). It 
 contains (1) the can. books of OT and of NT; (2) the antile- 
 mena of OT and of NT; (3) A. of OT and of NT. Under 
 
 © last heading the following list is given:—Apocrypha of 
 
 OT : (1) Enoch, (2) Patriarchs, (3) Prayer of Joseph, (4) Testa- 
 ment of Moses, (5) Assumption of Moses, (6) Abram, (7) Eldad 
 and Modad, (8) Elijah, the prophet, (9) Zephaniah, the prophet, 
 10) Zachariah, father of John, [11] Pseudepigrapha of Baruch, 
 
 jbakkuk, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Apocrypha of NT ;(1) Itinerary 
 of Paul, (2) Itin. of Peter, (3) Itin. of John, (4) Itin. of Thomas, 
 ‘5) Gospel according to Thomas, (6) Teaching of the Apostles, 
 
 , 8) Clement’s [two Epistles], (9) [Epistles] of Ignatius, of 
 
 olycarp, and of Hermas. 
 
 Of the A. of OT, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 are, in whole or in part, 
 extant ; Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9 are cited as genuine ‘by Origen or some 
 still older Church Father.’ They are all Jewish apocalypses, 
 i.e. A. in the earliest sense, but the word now carries an 
 adverse judgment. This list is repeated in the so-called 
 Synopsis of Athanasius. Similar, but in some degree inde- 
 pendent, is the summary of A. in the anonymous ‘ List of sixty’ 
 can. books, which may represent the views of the Eastern 
 Church in the 7th cent. After the can. books follows the 
 intermediate class of ‘those outside of the sixty’; and then 
 ‘apocrypha’ as follows :—({1) Adam, (2) Enoch, (3) Lamech, (4) 
 Patriarchs, (5) Prayer of Joseph (6) Eldad and Modad, (7) Testa- 
 ment of Moses, (8) Assumption of Moses, (9) Psalms of Solomon, 
 (10) Apoc. of Elijah, (11) Vision of Isaiah, (12) Apoc. of Zeph- 
 
 aniah, (13) Apoc. of Zachariah, (14) Apoc. of Ezra, (15) History of 
 James, (16) Apoc. of Peter, (17) Itinerary and Teachings of the 
 Apostles, (18) Epistle of Barnabas, (19) Acts of Paul, (20) Apoc. 
 of Paul, (21) Didascalia of Clement, (22) Didascalia of Iynatius, 
 (23) Didascalia of Polycarp, (24) Gospel acc. to Barnabas, (25) 
 Gospel acc. to Matthew. 
 
 With reference to these lists, it is to be noticed that they 
 contain in general just those books, Jewish and Christian, 
 which were eae forth in the first place as A. in the proper 
 sense. Not the application but the interpretation of the word 
 is changed, in accordance with a changed estimate of une books, 
 Once valued by some as even super-can., they are now set apart 
 not only from the Canon, but from the class of books that are 
 good for i bes reading. Nevertheless, they still stand in a 
 recognised class by themselves under the old title Apocrypha, 
 and are distinct not only from secular or heathen books, but 
 from later heretical literature. The great part they played in 
 early Church history has so much recognition. 
 
 The Latin Church was further removed from the 
 traditional use of the word, and it is not strange 
 that we find there various novelties in its applica- 
 tion. The greatest extension of its use is found in 
 the Decretwm Gelasti, which presents a list of Bibl. 
 books that may be regarded as that of the Rom. 
 Synod of 382, under Damasus. After lists of OT 
 and NT, and a list of patristic works approved by 
 the Church, follows, under the heading Notitia 
 librorum apocryphorum qui non recipiuntur, a list 
 of some 60 titles. Only NT A. are given, and to 
 these are added (perhaps in later revisions of the 
 work) a miscellaneous collection of books con- 
 demned by the Church, including even the works 
 of Eusebius, Tertullian, Clement of Alex., etc., to 
 each of which, as to the earlier list, the adjective 
 apocryphus is added. 
 
 Almost equally novel in Christian usage is 
 Jerome’s extension of the word in the opposite 
 direction to cover the books of our A., though 
 this rests upon Heb. usage, as we know it from 
 Origen. ‘Quidquid extra hos [the 22 books of 
 Heb. Can.] est, inter dméxpvga esse ponendum’ 
 (Prologus Galeatus). Jerome, in practice, how- 
 ever, gives to our A. an intermediate position (see 
 below), in substantial harmony with Ru/finus, who 
 attempted to introduce the Eastern threefold divi- 
 sion into the West, and gave the name apocrypha 
 to the third class. 
 
 The Western Church, however, did not adopt 
 the threefold division. Against Jerome’s theory, 
 it included the second division in the first. Neither 
 did it extend the word apocrypha to heretical books 
 in general, but retained practically its original 
 application. Another estern novelty, how- 
 ever, maintained itself through the middle ages, 
 namely, the interpretation of the word apocrynhus 
 as meaning obscurity of origin or authorship. 
 According to Augustine, the A. were so called 
 ‘because their obscure origin was not clear to the 
 Fathers’ (de Civ. Det, xv. 23), and he opposes this 
 ase teat We to the idea of heretics, that they ‘are 
 to be held in a certain secret authority’ (c. Faust, 
 xi. 2). This brought confusion, for the word had 
 come to mean practically non-can., but obscurity of 
 origin was not a corresponding conception. So, 
 during the middle ages, it was variously modified 
 by extending the idea of obscurity or uncertainty 
 from the authorship to the truth of a book, or to 
 its reception by common consent of the Church. 
 Jth, a™ in the sense that its author is un- 
 known, was received (can.) because its truth is 
 evident (Hugo de St. Caro, 1240). Job, a* in the 
 same sense, is in the Canon because not uncertainly 
 confirmed by the authority of the Church (Hugo de 
 St. Victore, d. 1141). 
 
 The usage of Protestantism is prepared by 
 
 Carlstadt in his De canonicis scripturts, 1520. He 
 reviews the opinions of Augustine and Jerome, and 
 sides with the latter in respect both to the inter- 
 pretation of the word and its application to our 
 A. Not uncertainty of authorship, but simply 
 non-canonicity, is the meaning of the word apocry- 
 
 
 
 
 
116 APOCRYPHA 
 
 vhal, He applies the word to the books of our A. 
 as an adjective, not asatitle. Through Protestant 
 edd. of the Bible, beginning with Luther, the word 
 came, by a natural misunderstanding, to be re- 
 garded as the title of this particular collection, 
 and the word ‘ Story eres a’ was used of the 
 A. proper, which neither Jerome, Carlstadt, nor 
 Luther thought of depriving of their old name. 
 
 On the other hand, the name ‘ Apocrypha,’ to 
 which a bad sense adhered, contributed to a gradu- 
 ally diminishing regard for the books now so called. 
 
 ‘onclusions.—(1) The word apocryphal was used 
 before the Reformation quite consistently of a 
 certain class of books, namely, the Jewish and 
 Jewish - Christian Apocalypses, which we call 
 Pseudepigrapha, and the Apocrypha of the NT, 
 still so called, made up largely of the books of 
 Gnostic and other sects. These are properly secret 
 or hidden books in their formal claim and in their 
 contents, if not originally in their actual use. 
 
 (2) Jewish Rabbis applied a synonymous word, 
 genuzim, to books ‘hidden,’ t.e. withdrawn and 
 withheld from public (synagogue) use by the 
 Jewish authorities, and so made uncanonical. 
 This ‘hiding’ (the verb is used more often than 
 the adjective) might happen to books in no sense 
 of hidden origin or meaning. Through Origen and 
 Jerome, the Jewish word seems to have had some 
 influence upon the Christian. 
 
 (3) The Catholic Church, however, did not first 
 make books a” by excluding them from the Canon 
 (the verb is not used), but it decided that the 
 A. already existing under that name were not to 
 be regarded as sacred scriptures, since publicity and 
 universality were marks of genuineness and truth. 
 The secret books of sects were, as such, spurious 
 and false. 
 
 (4) It was therefore easy to forget that A. was 
 the original name of these books, and to regard 
 it as expressing the judgment of the Church concern- 
 ing them. Those books were hidden which belonged 
 to sects, which lacked common, open usage by 
 the Church. A” meant, not received by the Church. 
 But since books which the Church received were 
 thereby proved apostolic, a non-apostolic and 
 obscure origin was a mark of A. 
 
 (5) Protestantism went over to the Jewish usage, 
 applying the word to the books withdrawn by it 
 from the commonly accepted Canon, though this 
 no longer meant withdrawn from public reading and 
 common use, but only from full authority for 
 doctrine. Protestants thus came to apply the word 
 to books used with the canon in church service, not 
 disapproved but recommended as good and useful, 
 not secret or hidden in origin, meaning, or use. 
 The evil name, however, helped to lower the first 
 estimate of the books. 
 
 ii, THE APOCRYPHA IN JUDAISM. —1. 
 ORIGIN OF THE COLLECTION.—In order to under- 
 stand the origin and historical significance of the 
 collection of books which we call the A., it is 
 necessary to survey the work of the Jewish scribe, 
 for in the scribe the literary history of Judaism 
 centres. 
 
 (a) The Work of the Jewish Scribes.—This can, in 
 a general way, be divided into (A) the collecting 
 he editing of the sacred books, (B) the production 
 of new books. The transition between the two 
 was made by the tr. or eet and the 
 interpretation of the sacred books. More particu- 
 larly, (A) the scribes collected and edited (1) the 
 Law; (2) the Prophets, ‘former’ and ‘latter’; (3) the 
 rest of the religious literature of the nation, the so- 
 called Hagiographa. (B 1) In connexion with this 
 3rd Canon, which contains some independent work 
 of the scribes, the production of other books of 
 similar character was encouraged (e.g. the A.); 
 (2) with the Maccabzan crisis came a revival of 
 
 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 prophecy, and the production of books interpreting 
 and imitating those of the 2nd Canon (apocalypses, 
 
 or apocrypha proper) ; (3) the interpretation of the 
 Ist Canon, the Law, always a chief task of the 
 scribes, was especially stimulated after the de- 
 struction of Jerus., and resulted in the Mishna 
 and Talmud. 
 
 The synagogue was the centre of the scribe’s 
 literary activity ; and the centre of the synagozue 
 service was the Law. The religious instruction of 
 the people in the religion of the law was his aim. 
 His collection of other sacred books was for the 
 sake of their public reading in the synagogue 
 service, in exposition and enforcement of the Law. 
 Such public reading was the mark and meaning of 
 canonicity. The translations (Targumim) and 
 commentaries (Midrashim) that accompanied the 
 reading were for the same end, the religious teach- 
 ing of the community, and were free and oral 
 before they were fixed in writing. 
 
 The order of the independent work of the scribes 
 sketched above (B) reverses the order of their work 
 as editors (A). This sequence is not to be over- 
 pressed. The editing of the scribes involved, especi- 
 ally at first, independent work, in the way of com- 
 ment as well as selection and arrangement ; on the 
 other hand, their independent writing was always 
 based on tradition. Perhaps in the case of none 
 of the books of the scribes have we original works 
 in the proper sense. The stories of haggadists and 
 the visions of seers are revisions and elaborations 
 of traditional material. Further, the three lines 
 of independent work outlined existed side by side, 
 and the order given is only that of the first preval- 
 ence of each kind of work. Gr. influence favoured 
 the first, the Maccabzean reaction the second, and 
 the fall of the nation the third. Of the products 
 of the first kind, some gained admission into the 
 3rd Canon (Hagiographa), and so became the com 
 mon property of Pal. and Alex. Judaism and Chris- 
 tianity. But as they were especially congenial 
 to Jews who fell most under Gr. influence, some 
 of them were preserved, others contributed, by 
 Alex. Jews. So far as they gained a place in the 
 Gr. Bible, these, too, passed over to Christianity 
 (the A.). Products of the 2nd class we have con- 
 sidered under i. 1. Writings of the first and 
 second kinds are called by Jews Haggada, while 
 the third, the elaboration and definition of the 
 Law, is called Halacha. The A., then, are to be 
 viewed in close connexion, on the one side, with 
 the Hagiographa, and, on the other, with later 
 developments of the Jewish Haggada. 
 
 (6) The Apocrypha tn relation to the Hagio- 
 grapha.—That the three divisions of the Jewish 
 Canon (compare the list at the beginning of this 
 article) represent three successive collections, 
 widely separated in time, and that they stood 
 originally, in the Jewish view, in a decreasin 
 order of authority and importance, are ascertaine 
 facts in the history of OT Canon. The Hagio- 
 grapha is, then, a relatively late collection of 
 books on the whole late in origin, and, according 
 to the Jewish view, inferior in authority to Law 
 and Prophets. The order of books composing it 
 is variously given, and the limits of the collection 
 were open to dispute long after the Law and 
 Prophets were closed. In regard to Ca, Ke, 
 and Est, there were still differences of opinion up 
 to the time of Akiba (ec. 110-135 A.D.). 
 
 The Bk of Ps owes its place here to the fact that 
 its use was in the temple, not in the synagogue. 
 Apart from Ps and La, the Hagiographa consists 
 of (1) history, in continuation of that told in Kings 
 (Ezr-Neh); (2) history retold with a view to 
 instruction (Ch)*; (3) stories, based on history 
 
 *In the Midrashic treatment of history, Ch follows still 
 older attempts (see 2 Ch 2427 1322), 
 
 
 
APOCRYPHA 
 
 
 
 or tradition, told to illustrate religious truth (Ru, 
 Est, Ca(?), Dn). In Job the transition is made 
 one to (4) ethical and philosophical books 
 Pr, Ec). 
 Under similar headings fall the contents of 
 the A. (1) History proper is found in 1 Mac. (2) 
 History and ag are retold with edifying em- 
 bellishments. 1 Es is made up of extracts from 
 2 Ch (35. 36), Ezr, and Neh, with an additional 
 story of the wisdom of Zorobabel (3-5%). This 
 Midrash perhaps preceded the literal tr. of Ch, 
 Ezr, Neh, into Greek. Such an Haggadic addition 
 to history was Pr. Man (suggested by 2 Ch 33! 3%), 
 Est appears in the LXX only in the form of a 
 midrash, in which, among other things, are supplied 
 the letter referred to in 3%, prayers of Mordecai 
 and Esther at 41’, the decree mentioned in 8?” 
 Dn is similarly enlarged by a prayer and song 
 at 3”, and the new stories of Daniel’s wisdom, Sus 
 and Bel. Even the late Maccabean history is 
 treated in the Haggadic way in 2 Mac, an epitome 
 of a larger work by Jason of Cyrene, which adorns 
 the history with legendary elements to make of it 
 asermon on the Pharisaic religion. 3 and 4 Mac 
 are found usually in the LXX, though not in the 
 3 Mac is a poor example of moralising under 
 the form of history ; and 4 Mac makes an incident 
 in the Maccabean oy the text for a philosophical 
 treatise on the lordship of the religious reason 
 over the passions. (3) Of new stories the A. 
 contains two famous examples, To and Jth; 
 Tobit teaching the reward for the individual of 
 a faithful life of Pharisaic righteousness; Judith 
 connecting a patriotism like Esther’s with regard 
 for a ceremonially correct life. (4) Direct moral 
 and religious instruction (‘ethical Haggada’) is 
 represented by Sir and Wis, the one a Pal. con- 
 tinuation, the other a Hel. development of the 
 earlier wisdom books. As in the Hagiographa one 
 book, Dn, makes the transition from story to 
 rophecy, so in the A., Bar and the Ep. of 
 eremy are prophetic in character. It is not, 
 however, with prophecy nor with law, but with 
 history and story, that both Hagiographa and A. 
 have chiefly to do (cf. the use made of Dn by 
 Hellenists [LX X] and by later Palestinians [Enoch, 
 etc.]. The line between history and story is in 
 both an uncertain one, as history, too, is told for 
 religious, not for scientific purposes. With stories 
 and with proverbial sayings the Jewish Rabbis 
 long continued to occupy themselves. The value of 
 these forms of religious instruction no one will 
 question in view of the gospels. As to the relative 
 worth of their use in the Hagiographa and the A., 
 & fair judgment, apart from doctrinal considera- 
 tions, will strongly justify the choice of the Pales- 
 tinians, taking the two collections as wholes. A 
 relation between them is, however, not to be 
 denied, and is grounded in their history. 
 
 (c) Palestinian and Hellenistic Elements in the 
 Apocrypha.—The a" books of the LXX were in 
 part translations of Pal. (Heb.) books, in part 
 original writings of Greek Jews; but it is not 
 possible to draw the line between the two with 
 security. As the LXX was recognised asa tr., one 
 would expect that translations would more readily 
 find their way into it. Yet the Hel. scribes 
 were busy writers, especially in the lines which 
 the A. follows (history, story, wisdom). Sir 
 contains its own testimony that it was written in 
 Heb. and tr. by the writer’s grandson into Greek. 
 1 Mac was undoubtedly a Heb. book, and Jerome 
 (if not Origen) knew it in the original. Jth and 
 
 ‘o, Jerome knew in ‘ Chaldee,’ and a Heb. original 
 is almost certain. The Ad. Est may be Heb., or 
 at least similar additions may have arisen in Pal. 
 in connexion with the yearly celebration of Purim. 
 Pr. Man may have been Heb., and even 1 Es, if it 
 
 APOCRYPHA 117 
 
 eae the LXX 2 Es [Ezr-Neh], may have 
 ad a Heb. precursor, Of the Ad. Dn, Sus 
 turns on a Gr. play on words. Wis and 2, 3, and 
 4 Mac were certainly Greek. 
 
 2. USE OF THE APOCRYPHA AND ITS RELATION 
 TO THE CANON.—(a) In Hellenistic Judaism.— 
 The a® books are found in all MSS of the LXX, 
 scattered among the books of the Heb. Canon 
 without discrimination. These MSS are, indeed, 
 all of Christian origin, and some of them even 
 contain Christian songs; but, apart from these, they 
 undoubtedly represent the O'l which was current 
 among the Gr. Jews and used in Gr. synagogues 
 in the apostolic and early post-apostolic age. 
 The additions to the Heb. Canon are not only of 
 Jewish origin, but are, as a whole, books which 
 would interest Gr. Jews, but would not specially 
 interest Christians, since the prophetic element in 
 them is conspicuously small. The addition of 
 these books by Christians would be inexplicable. 
 The preservation of this longer OT by Christians 
 only, is naturally ed Ae by the fact that 
 soon after 70 A.D. Hel. Judaism in the distinct 
 sense ceased to exist, giving place either to 
 rabbinical Judaism or to Christianity; so that 
 the earlier difference regarding the limits of 
 sacred Scriptures between Pal. and Alex. Jews 
 survived only as a difference between Jews and 
 Christians. 
 
 We must not, however, conclude that the A. 
 had been in the strict sense canonized by Alex. 
 Judaism. Their place among Scriptures is rather 
 due, in part, to the supreme dignity of the Law; in 
 part to the broad view of inspiration current 
 among Hellenists. In a more exclusive way 
 than in later Pal. Judaism, the Pent. was to 
 Alexandrians the sacred Scripture, the Canon by 
 pre-eminence. It was such to Philo. In this 
 respect the Alexandrians perhaps remained at the 
 standpoint of the earlier Palestinians of the 3rd 
 and 2nd centuries B.c. When Alex. Judaism was 
 founded, the Law was the Canon of Judaism. 
 The work of the 70 concerned it alone (Aristeas). 
 The tr. of the other books into Greek in Egypt went 
 on, in part, side by side with the formation of the 
 2nd and 3rd Canons in Pal. That the suc- 
 ceeding translators disregarded the Pal. distine- 
 tion of Prophets and Hagiographa, and arranged 
 the books, after the Law, topically, though in 
 no fixed order, indicates their different view of 
 these books. The relatively freer tr. points in the 
 same direction; and this freedom passes over by 
 natural degrees into the incorporation of explana- 
 tory and illustrative additions of less or greater 
 extent. For this procedure the Pal. translators 
 of OT into Aram. (Targumim) had perhaps already 
 set the example. That, finally, Sir and Wis should 
 be put in connexion with the Solomonic books, 
 making, with Ps and Job, a volume of poetry, 
 or that, in connexion with Est, Jth and To shone 
 be inserted, cannot seem strange. This was made 
 easier by the Hel. view of inspiration. While 
 Palestinians inclined to limit inspiration to the 
 age of the prophets, long ended, the Alexandrians 
 regarded the divine spirit as still active, and viewed 
 as inspiration the experience of the thinker and 
 writer in moments of special clearness of insight 
 and exaltation of feeling. 
 
 Against the evidence that the LXX contained 
 a*! books, Philo’s silence is inconclusive. Philo’s 
 text is the Pent. It is true that he cites none of 
 the A., but in the prophetic Canon he passes by 
 Ezk and all the minor prophets except Hos and 
 Zee; and of the Hagiographa, except Ps, he makes 
 almost no use, citing Pr twice, Job and Ch once, 
 and Dn and the five Megilloth not at all. 
 
 (6) In Palestinian Judaism.—Here, too, the Law, 
 long the only Canon, remained supreme. The 
 
 
 
118 APOCRYPHA 
 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 
 
 Jewish scribes regarded the prophets as those who 
 eaye an authoritative interpretation of the Law, 
 anding on the Mosaic tradition from the elders to 
 the scribes. The Law has always had the chief 
 lace in the synagogue service, the prophets an 
 important secondary place, the Hagiographa a 
 
 place altogether subordinate. For a long time 
 these different collections could not be written on 
 the same roll. As they did not form one volume, 
 it was the easier to keep them distinct in use and 
 estimation. The books of the 2nd and 3rd Canons 
 were, however, according to the Jewish view, 
 inspired, and this in the end distinguished them 
 from all later books. Jos. (c. Ap. 1. 8) says that 
 the prophets ‘learned the earliest and most ancient 
 events by inspiration of God, and wrote down the 
 events of their own times plainly, as they 
 occurred.’ ‘But from Artaxerxes [Est] to our 
 times all events have indeed been written down ; 
 but these late books are not deemed worthy of the 
 same credit, because the exact succession of the 
 prophets was ee By the use of the formal 
 eee that with Malachi prophecy ceased (cf. 
 
 45-6 Zec 138, 1 Mac 4*° 9*7 1441), though they 
 could use the test only uncritically, the scribes 
 drew the line between Hagiographa and A., or 
 justified the line already drawn by the popular 
 religious sense. All the Hagiographa could be 
 regarded as meeting this test,* but Sir and 1 Mac, 
 which were the most valued books of the A., could 
 not. 
 
 It is true that Jesus Sirach himself does not 
 share this (later) view of inspiration. He ma 
 fates the earlier Pal. standpoint, from whic 
 Alexandrianism took its start. For him the Law 
 is supreme. It is the embodied Wisdom of God 
 (24%). In some sense his knowledge is all derived 
 from it (391-8 243°), Qn the other hand, between 
 the prophets and the high priest of his own time 
 he makes no sharp distinction (44-49); and for 
 himself he claims an inspiration like that of the 
 prophet (cf. 39°* with 48%, and see 11° 2451. 83 5] 15#.), 
 
 he step from Sir to the Hellenistic Wis is 
 not great. Here, too, the Law is the supreme 
 revelation (e.g. 184),+ and here, too, in answer to 
 prayer (cf. Sir 39°), the spirit of wisdom is given to 
 men, that spirit which is the life and reason of the 
 world, and which ‘generation after generation 
 enters into holy souls and makes friends of God 
 and prophets’ (777, cf. chs. 1. 6 ff.). 
 
 Apart from 4 Ezr, which, not being in the LXX, 
 does not deserve consideration at this point, the 
 other books of the A. make no claim to be 
 reckoned among sacred Scriptures. 
 
 It is not easy to estimate the significance of the 
 fact that we have no evidence in Jewish books that 
 they were ever so regarded. Disputes are recorded 
 regarding the exclusion of books of the Canon, but 
 none regarding the admission of a“ books. Yet it 
 should be said that the Jewish Rabbis usually 
 covered up the tracks of past wanderings from 
 the straight path that led to their own position. 
 That additions to Dn and Est, and books like To 
 and Jth, were once current among the Hagiographa 
 in Pal. isnot impossible. Josephus uses 1 Mac, 1 Es, 
 and Ad. Est, without distinction from can. books 
 as historical sources, and even says that he has 
 written his whole history ‘as the sacred books 
 record it’ (Ant. xx. xi. 2, cf. Pro. §3). Yet he 
 counts 22 books, and excludes from the first rank 
 all later than Est. In his time, then, the line had 
 been drawn. 
 
 In the rabbinical writings there are many 
 
 * Baba bathra 14 ascribes Job to Moses, Ru to Samuel, Ps to 
 David, Ca and Ec to Hezekiah and his friends, Dn and Est to 
 the men of the Great Synagogue, Ch to Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 t The identification of Wisdom with the Law is found also in 
 
 Bar 39ff-4, Judith and Tobit and his son are examples of the 
 glorification of the Law in life. 
 
 citations from Sir; Zunz* counts 40, among 
 them some ‘in a manner usual only of Scripture 
 passages,’ and some as late as the 4th cent., 
 which speak of it as one of the Kethubhim. Some 
 doubt, at least, regarding its perie is 
 robable. Of Ad. Est some traces exist in Heb. 
 iterature. Haggadic stories concerning Dn, 
 among them traces of Bel, are found. The Mae. 
 cabean legend of the mother and seven sons 
 (2 Mac, 4 Mac) was a favourite theme of rabbinical 
 Midrashim. Yet 1 Mac, which Jerome knew in 
 Heb., seems to have left no trace in rabbinical 
 books. The legend of Judith is found, though in 
 a form very different from the LXX, and Tobit is 
 still extant in Heb. Jerome says the Jews had 
 Jth and To, and regarded them as _ historical 
 but not as canonical; while Origen says they did 
 not possess them even among their A. 
 
 3. THE RELATION OF THE APOCRYPHA TO THE 
 RELIGIOUS TENDENCIES AND PARTIES OF J UDAISM. 
 —Of a theology of the A. it is unhistorical to 
 speak. The collection presents the ideas of no one 
 man or party, of no one period or place. The 
 theology, or the religious ideas of each book, may 
 be treated (see separate articles), or a history of 
 the religious ideas and movements in Judaism in a 
 given period (e.g. 200 B.c.-100 A.D.) may be under- 
 taken, in which these books will be important 
 sources; but the historian of theolo cannot 
 separate the A. from the later can. books on the 
 one side, and from Philo and Josephus, the 
 Pseudepigrapha and the early rabbinical literature, 
 on the other. 
 
 A few suggestions may, however, be made 
 regarding the relation of these books to the chief 
 religious tendencies and parties of Judaism. 
 
 The main distinction in the post-exilic Jewish 
 religion was that between the priest, whose sphere 
 was the temple and its cultus, and the scribe, 
 whose activity centred in the synagogue and the 
 law. The centre of gravity seems to have shifted 
 gradually from the temple to the synagogue, from 
 priestly ritual to the legalism of the scribes, whose 
 work made it possible for Jews in the Dispersion, 
 out of reach of the temple, to live religious lives, 
 and prepared Judaism to survive the loss of its 
 temple. The Hagiographa stands, as a whole, at 
 the earlier stage, beginning with the Ps, the book 
 of temple devotion, and ending with the great 
 temple history of Ch, Ezr, Neh. The five Megil- 
 loth also came into connexion with the cultus by 
 their use at the national feasts, though it is not 
 known how early this happened. On the other 
 hand, there is no early evidence of the regular use 
 of Hagiographa in the synagogue service, and of 
 the scribes’ legalism they contain little. Only 
 Dn, perhaps the latest book in this collection, can 
 be called Pharisaic in tendency. 
 
 In the A., on the other hand, the legal pre- 
 dominates over the priestly interest. Sir, perhaps 
 its oldest book, shows a transition from the priestly 
 standpoint of Ch (to which belongs 1 Es) to 
 the legal standpoint of the scribes (Zunz). The 
 writer delights in the temple and the high priest’s 
 impressive ceremony, and dwells upon Aaron much 
 more at length than upon Moses (ch. 45), and with 
 still more enthusiasm upon the Simon whose minis- 
 trations he had himself witnessed (ch. 50); while 
 Ezra, the patron saint of the Rabbis, is passed by 
 in his praise of famous men. Yet he praises also 
 the law as the wisdom of God (see above), and 
 glorifies the office of the scribe (38%-*4 391-4). 
 
 But it was especially the Maccabzan crisis that 
 sharpened the contrast between the two tendencies. 
 The desecration of the temple by Antiochus was 
 the occasion of the war. The recovery and recon- 
 secration of the temple was the great deed of 
 
 * Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden 2 Aufl. 1892, p. 106. 
 
 
 
7d setehy ¢ 
 
 
 
 political independence. 
 ‘about its temple. 
 
 APOCRY PHA 
 
 
 
 Judas. This meant to the scribes the re-observance 
 of the law, and with that they were content. It 
 meant to Judas the first step toward a recovery of 
 udaism was organised 
 Its supreme authority was the 
 high priest. So that the Maccabzan princes coveted 
 the high priesthood as a political power, and finally 
 gained it. But this was a violation of the law, 
 and alienated the legalists, who became a party of 
 separatists, Pharisees, with the scribes at their 
 head and the synagogue as their institution. 
 Against them the adherents of the temple and the 
 new high priests became an opposing party, the 
 Sadducees. The priestly tendency issued in a 
 political party, the scribal in a religious party; 
 and in the conflict of these parties the inner his- 
 tory of Judaism chiefly consisted until the fall of 
 Jerusalem. Since Sadduceism was bound up with 
 the temple and the national life, it ceased to be after 
 the destruction of temple and State; and since its 
 views were as obnoxious to Christianity as to sur- 
 viving Judaism, none of its distinct literary pro- 
 ducts could survive. The A., however, owing 
 partly to its Alex. selection, partly to its com- 
 paratively early date, is not a purely Pharisaic 
 soles and stands aside from the controversy 
 
 etween the two parties of which we know (from 
 the Pharisaic side) in Ps-Sol, Enoch, ete. Two 
 books of the A. are Sadducean in tendency. 
 Sirach writes before the Maccabzean wars, so that 
 his book can be called Sadducean only by anticipa- 
 tion. Sadducean in tone was not o is attach- 
 ment to the temple and the pHacthood | (above), but 
 also his reserve in regard to angels, his sceptical 
 attitude as to demons (21*’) and the future life (e.g. 
 1727-82 141-19 4]1-4), perhaps his insistence on the 
 entire freedom of man (15-7 177), and his spirit 
 of liberality toward outside sources of knowledge 
 and culture (e.g. 39‘), There is, indeed, a polemic 
 against a Pharisaic spirit of ceremonialism in 
 3418-26 351., 
 
 1 Mac follows the crisis out of which the parties 
 arose, but precedes their serious conflicts. The 
 writer’s admiration for Judas and his brothers, 
 ‘through whose hand salvation was given to Israel,’ 
 is unbounded (5%, cf, 3}-® 921f- 133-6 14257. 16? etc.), 
 He paints Simon’s reign in thoroughly Messianic 
 colours (14‘-!5), and in the decision that ‘until a 
 trustworthy prophet should arise . . . Simon should 
 be their prince and high priest for ever,’ his political 
 and religious creed was summed up. It was the 
 creed of Sadduceism. Sadducean also is the 
 writer’s attachment to the laws and customs of 
 the nation, and his opposition to innovations (2! 
 37. 2 6°? etc,); but laws are for the strengthening and 
 safety of the nation, and, when the observance of 
 even so sacred a law as the Sabbath exposed the 
 nation to danger, its non-observance was decreed 
 (2°21), He looks to the valour of the hero to win 
 Victories (no miracle even in 9™- 54 119-74); as Jos, 
 says, ‘The Sadducees take away fate... we are 
 ourselves the causes of good,’ etc. (Ant. XIII. v. 9). 
 His interest is in man more than in God, and in 
 the present more than in the future. 
 
 The essence of Pharisaism was that it gave 
 religion (i.e. legalism) the first place. The Sadducee 
 attempted to further the welfare of the individual 
 and of the nation by direct means (politics, war, 
 etc.) ; the Pharisaic faith was that if the individual 
 and the community kept the law, God would by a 
 supernatural act secure their welfare. The Saddu- 
 cees would set aside the law in smaller things 
 (Sabbath), or in greater (high priesthood), when 
 circumstances required. To the Pharisee the law 
 was inviolable, whatever the extremity. This is 
 the principle of Pharisaism. Out of it various 
 developments issued. 
 
 That the law might never be broken by inadvert- 
 
 APOCRYPHA 119 
 
 Neste 
 
 ence, the scribes put about it a ‘hedge’ of addi- 
 tional precautionary rules, the Halacha, or oral 
 law, which the Sadducees did not recognise. The 
 belief that well-being was God’s reward for the 
 observance of the law, and misfortune His punish- 
 ment for its transgression, though applied at first 
 to the present life and lot of men and nations, 
 might easily be referred to the future, and foster 
 the thought of a coming national glory for I[srael, 
 and of an individual life after death. It might 
 also stimulate the belief in miracles and in angels 
 and demons as agents of God’s blessings and judg- 
 ments. Yet these marks of later Pharisaism are 
 not uniformly or conspicuously present in the A. 
 Fasting is almost the only addition which we 
 find to the Mosaic law (To 12°, Jth 8° etc., cf. Dn 
 9° 10°), with a further ascetic emphasis upon (he 
 laws regarding food (Jth 10° 111? 12!:2, To 1%, Ad. 
 Est 1417, 2 Mac 5? 67), The creed of the Bk of 
 Jth is that no enemy can prevail against Israe] 
 so long as it keeps the ceremonial law, but if it 
 breaks it, under whatever stress, it will fall (517-2 
 119-19 817-20), Moreover, Judith’s deliverance of the 
 nation is conditioned upon her individual fulfilment 
 of the law even amid the greatest difficulties (8** 
 12)-*). This is true Pharisaism, and yet the book 
 contains neither Messianic hope, nor rewards afte1 
 death (1617 is not to be so understood), nor miracle, 
 nor angel. Tobit illustrates the Pharisaic prin- 
 ciple in the life of an individual. Legal righteous- 
 
 ‘ness is rewarded by deliverance from evil, long life 
 
 and prosperity ; while sin is always punished by 
 evil, and all evil is due to sin (3-6 1% 21 ]144-8.15), 
 Here angels and demons play a far greater part 
 than in any other book of the A. The national hope 
 also is expressed (13. 14+”), but there is no resur- 
 rection. The Bk of Bar contains the national hope 
 (230-85 425-87 51-9) but no individual resurrection. 
 2 Mac views the work of Judas as an illustration 
 of Pharisaism. It knows of no laxity regarding 
 the law (cf. 5% 6% 8% 12% 151). The history is 
 helped forward by angels and miracles and signs 
 (325%. 8 §2f 95 102 118 15124), The national hope 
 finds frequent expression (177-2 2%18 etc.); and, 
 here only in the A., the resur. of the bodies of the 
 righteous is insisted upon (7% 11-14 86 1215f. 1.446), 
 
 It is evident that the later marks of Pharisaism 
 
 (cf. Ac 23**) were not uniformly present. Legalism 
 stands as the characteristic mark. ‘This is the 
 book of the commandments of God, and the law 
 that endureth for ever. All they that hold it fast 
 are destined for life, but such as leave it shall die’ 
 (Bar 41). And since the law of life was Israel’s 
 law, with legalism went particularism. ‘O Israel, 
 happy are we! for the things that are pleasing to 
 God are made known unto us’ (Bar 44). Of this 
 feeling, and the corresponding contempt for other 
 peoples, passing over, in times of trouble, into 
 ealousy and hatred, there is enough in the A. 
 t inspires Ad. Est as it does Est itself. Jth and 
 2 Mac are dominated by it. It is a presupposition 
 of To (4? etc.). Even Sir shares it, though his ruling 
 interest is in the individual, not in the nation 
 (esp. 361-17, cf. 24, and in 44-50, e.g. 47%). Only 
 the Hel. Bk of Wis rises to a broader view. 
 In chs, 10-19 the special care of God for Israel 
 is shown. ‘In every way thou didst magnify 
 thy people, and glorify them, ... standing by 
 them in every time and place’ (19). But while 
 Israel is God’s son (1818, ef.4), He also loves all men 
 (1174-28 67 113), and His judgments are remedial 
 (122%), Nor, in spite of the first impression of 3%" 
 517-2 (cf, 47-19), does the writer hold to a future 
 earthly glory for Israel. The consummation is 
 heavenly (immortality of the soul, here first in 
 Jewish Fookey and is morally conditioned. 
 
 The Essenic type of Pharisaism is represented 
 only in 4 Ez, which does not properly belong te 
 
120 APOCRYPHA 
 
 = 
 
 the collection. Here only do we find a personal 
 Messiah. Hel. Judaism, which stood at one side 
 of the conflict between Pharisee and Sadducee, 
 is represented by Wis, which, though it sets the 
 religious life and faith in contrast to worldliness 
 and scepticism, puts no stress on ceremonialism, 
 but interprets the law in a more ethical sense, 
 and reviews the history of Israel to illustrate the 
 beneficent rule of God’s wisdom, rather than the 
 inviolableness of His law. 
 
 But 4 Ezr cannot be treated apart from other 
 apocalypses, nor Wis apart from other products 
 0 Helleniaite 
 
 It is chiefly in these two isolated books that 
 foreign elements are preminent. Apart from these, 
 and the (Pers. ?) angelology of To, the A. stands 
 in the main on (later) OT ground in its views of 
 God, of man, and of the world. 
 
 iii. THE APOCRYPHA IN THE CHRISTIAN 
 CHURCH.—1l. IN THE NEw TESTAMENT.—The 
 writers of NT used almost exclusively the LXX 
 OT, and we have no reason to suppose that a” 
 additions were wanting at that time. There are 
 no direct citations from A. ; this, however, is true 
 also of the disputed books, Song, Ec, and Est 
 as well as of Jos and Ezr-Neh. The Pent., 
 the Prophets, and the Pss were, for obvious 
 reasons, most frequently cited. The other books 
 of the Hagiographa, and the A., offered far fewer 
 material points of contact with Christianity, and 
 would not be allowed the same value in argument 
 by Jews. An acquaintance with a® books is, how- 
 ever, generally recognised in the case of some NT 
 writers. Thus there are parallelisms between 
 Ja and Sir (eg. Ja V® and Sir 5"), between 
 He and Wis (e.g. He 1° and Wis: 7”), and be- 
 tween Paul and Wis (cf. Ro 92 with Wis 15’; 
 Ro 1-82 with Wis 11. 13. 15; 2 Co 5+4 with Wis 
 9), which reveal familiarity with this literature, 
 but which do not imply that authority was ascribed 
 to it. The question of the relation of the A. to 
 the Canon cannot be decided on the ground of NT 
 usage. 
 
 2. IN THE EASTERN CuuRCH.—There is peculiar 
 difficulty in determining the place of the A. in 
 relation to the Canon in the E. Church because 
 of the conflict between different lines of evidence. 
 We shall consider (a) Original Usage, (6) Scholarly 
 Theory, (c) Manuscripts, (d) Versions, (e) The later 
 Greek Church. 
 
 (a) Original Usage.*—The Christian Church used 
 the LXX as its OT Scripture, and the Church 
 Fathers cite all parts of it with similar formulas. 
 1 and 2 Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, and the 
 Teaching of the Twelve, contain allusions to a” 
 by the side of can. books. Irenzus cites Ad. Dn, 
 Bar, and Wis; Tertullian—Sir, Wis, Ad. Dn, 
 and Bar; Clem. Alex. —Sir, Wis, Bar, To, 
 Ad. Dn; Cyprian—Sir, Wis, To, Bar; all 
 with the formulas (‘it is written,’ ‘Scripture 
 says, etc.) used of can. works. This usage con- 
 tinues to be the prevailing one, and Origen can 
 ppesal to the universal practice of the Church from 
 the beginning against the appeal of Africanus to 
 the authority of the Heb. Canon. 
 
 (6) Scholarly Theory.—The LXX came to Chris- 
 tianity from the synagogue of Hel. Judaism, and 
 with it was accepted the theory of the inspiration 
 ay! sacredness of this translation. The story of 
 its origin, told by Aristeas of the Pent., was ex- 
 tended to the whole, and heightened into absolute 
 miracle. (Justin, Dial. 68. 71. 84; Iren. iii. 21. 
 24; Tertul. Apol. 18; Clem. Strom. i. 38. 148. 
 149; Origen, ad Afric. 4; Cyril, Cat. iv. 34; Epi- 
 phanius, de mens.). But on the other hand, when- 
 ever the books of OT are counted, the number is 
 given as 22 (24), and is expressly derived from the 
 
 * See the references in Schiirer, HJ P §§ 82. 33. 
 
 APUCKRY PLES 
 
 
 
 Jewish (Heb.) Canon. That the LXX was a tr. 
 of the Heb. was, of course, never lost sight of, 
 but it was an inspired tr., sanctified by Christian 
 use from the apostles onwards. The discrepancy 
 between the two was obvious, and yet could not be 
 given its natural weight. The question of the 
 status of the A. depended upon the relative im- 
 portance given to traditional Christian usage and 
 current Jewish usage, summarily expressed in the 
 number 22, or to practice and theory, and upon 
 new theories devised for their adjustment. 
 
 Five possibilities seemed open: (1) To insert the 
 A. in OT in such a way as to retain the number 
 22. (2) To introduce some of the most valued 
 A. into NT (as distinctively Christian posses- 
 sions), or to append them at the end. (3) To make 
 a third class of books, between can. and uncan. 
 in dignity. (4) To give up the Heb. for the LXX 
 Canon, making theory square with practice. (5) To 
 give up the LXX for the Heb., making practice 
 square with theory. The first three ways are 
 followed, with more or less combination, in the 
 East, the fourth finally by Rome, the fifth finall 
 by Protestantism, though in neither case wit 
 entire consistency, since, in the Vulg., the LXX 
 has been considerably modified in accordance with 
 the Heb., and in the Prot. Bible the order of the 
 Vulg. (and LXX) has been retained. 
 
 It is important to set forth the place of the A. in the various 
 theoretical Canons of Eastern writers somewhat in detail. 
 
 Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 150-170 a.p.) learned from Jews 
 or Jewish Christians in Pal. the contents of OT. His list (Euseb. 
 iv. 26. 13, 14) contains only the books of the Heb. (omitting Est), 
 but the titles and order (?) are from the LXX (Oh after 
 K, Proph. after Poet. books; so in general: (1) History, 
 (2) Poetry, (3) Prophecy]. It cannot be certainly inferred that 
 Jer and Dn were without the al additions. The Muratorian 
 Fragment (175-200 a.D.) contains only NT (whether OT was 
 originally given is uncertain); but it inserts Wis between 
 2 Jn and Rev (as by Philo?), and gives to the Shepherd the 
 position of a book that is to be privately, not publicly, read. Its 
 place is not among prophets or apostles, but also not among 
 heretical books. The writer makes use of the ¢econd solution 
 of the problem and suggests the third. : 
 
 Origen (c. 185-254) deals with the problem with the fullest 
 knowledge. His great Hexapla testifies to the importance of 
 the problem presented by the deviating texts of OT Scripture, 
 and gave him minute familiarity with the divergence of the 
 L.XX from the Heb. In his Com. on Psalms (Eus. vi. 25. 1) he 
 wives a list of the 22 books of the Heb. Canon, apparently like 
 Melito’s, with the addition of Est. But he begins the use of 
 the first solution of the problem above suggested by including 
 in Jer not only La, but Ep. Jer (Bar?). Moreover, he says 
 that 1 and 2 Ezr were counted as one book. This would 
 he understood by Gr. readers as referring, not to the Heb. 
 zr and Neh, but to the LXX 1 Es and 2 Es [= Ezr+ 
 Neh). He mentions ‘the Maccabean books’ at the end of his 
 list as outside of the Canon. But from the Ep. to Africanus we 
 learn that this Heb. Canon was not regarded by Origen as of 
 final validity for Christians. He criticises the theory of a Heb. 
 Canon on the ground of traditional Christian practice (i.e. he sup- 
 plements the first by the fourth solution). His view is that the 
 present is not the original Heb. Canon, since Jewish rulers and 
 elders hid from the people passages that might bring them 
 into discredit (§ 9). On this ground Susanna is defended, 
 though it is now among the Jewish A. But To and Jth, 
 which the Jews do not possess even among their ‘hidden’ 
 books, are to be retained simply on the ground of Christian 
 usage. Providence must have guided the practice of the 
 Church, and Judaism is not to dictate to Christianity (the 
 Catholic principle). ; 
 
 Cyril, Bishop of Jerus. (Cat. iv. 83-86, ¢. 348 a.p.), insists 
 with equal stress upon the number 22, that of the Heb. Canon, 
 and the authority of the usage of the Church. His list of 
 22 (12 historical, 5 poetical, and 5 prophetical) he seems to 
 regard as that of the LXX in current use. His Jer includes 
 Bar, and his Dn (and Est?) the additions. He declares that 
 the books not read in the churches are not to be read in private, 
 and, after all, himself cites Wis as by Solomon (Cat. ix. 2, 16) 
 
 The Synod of Laodicea (c. 360) affirms Cyril’s list, «1th 
 minor changes of order. The list in Apost. Canon, 85, is ase 
 Ovril’s, with the addition, at the end of the histories, of 1-2 
 Mac. On the other hand, the metrical lists of Gregory of Naz. 
 ‘d. 890) and Amphilochius, though following the same order, 
 seem to have omitted the a@! additions as well as Est. 
 
 Epiphanius (c. 315-403) moves in the opposite direction. 
 Like Cyril, he regarded the LXX as the inspired tr. of the 22 
 books of the Heb. Canon; but besides 1 Es, Bar, Ep. Jer and 
 Ad, Dn, he seems to have included, under Est (with Ad. ?) 
 T» and Jth; and, against Cyril, he introduces an intermediate 
 c 1ss of writings, not ‘in the ark,’ but yet ‘good and useful.’ 
 Here belong Wis and Sir, which he puts after NT in his list 
 
 
 
 | 
 : 
 
 ee a ee ee  ———eae ee 
 
 ee ee ll 
 
APOCRYPHA 
 
 APOCRYPHA 121 
 
 
 
 (Her. 76, ct. Her. 86, de mens. 4). He thus provides for the 
 ractical recognition of all the A. except Mac and Pr. Man. 
 ere are still other books, apocrypha proper, some of which 
 the Seventy translate, upon which he does not wholly shut 
 the door (de mens. 5. 10). 
 
 Athanasius, in his 39th Easter Letter (367 a.p.), carries 
 through more consistently the third solution. His 22 books 
 include Bar, Ep. Jer, 1 Es (?), Ad. Dn. But after NT he 
 edds, ‘for greater exactness,’ that there are other books outside 
 of these, not canonized, but stamped by the Fathers as books to 
 be read by catechumens for their instruction. These are Wis, 
 Sir, Est, Jth, To, 4:3. and Shepherd. They are called avayi- 
 veoxousve, books to be read, t.e. by catechumens. 
 
 The threefold division is followed by the list in the 
 Chron. of Nicephorus, which, after the 22 books of OT and 
 the 26 of NT, gives ‘disputed’ books of OT, viz. 1-3 Mac, 
 Wis, Sir, Ps—Sol, Est, Jth, Sus, To. There follow the disputed 
 books of NT (Apoc. of Jn and of P, Ep. Bar and Gospel of 
 Hebrews), and, finally, the ‘apocrypha’ of OT and NT (above). 
 Here the A. are books whose canonicity is in dispute, dvriAryo- 
 piyva, The name and the estimate differ essentially from 
 Athanasius, though both are copied in the Synopsis of (Pseudo) 
 Athanasius, 
 
 In the ‘ List of 60,’ after the 60 can. books of OT and NT, 
 follow, as ‘outside of the 60,’ Wis, Sir, 1-4 Mac, Est, Jth, To. 
 After these come the ‘apocrypha’ (above). 
 
 We find then in the lists of writers of the 
 E. Church, from the 2nd to the 6th or 7th cent., 
 a practically unanimous adherence to the Heb. 
 Canon of 22 books, and efforts to harmonise this 
 with the Christian LXX by making the 22 as 
 comprehensive of LXX additions as Rega: and 
 by assigning to other books of the A., so far as 
 they were valued, a separate ee usually after 
 NT, but distinct from heretical, rejected books. 
 
 (c) Manuscripts.—It_is a striking fact that no 
 extant MS of the LXX represents even 4 ae 
 mately the Canon of veg or Athanasius. In no 
 known Greek text do the A. stand by themselves. 
 The codices ce with the usage, not with the 
 theory, of the E. Church. 
 
 Of the 9 uncials in which a! books are found, the Vat. and the 
 Alex. are given at the beginning of this article. Next in 
 importance (3) stands the Sin., which originally contained the 
 whole Bible. Of OT the extant parts are: ip eg dud of Gn, 
 Nu, 1Ch, and Ezr), Neh, Est, To, Jth, 1 Mac, 4 Mac, Is, Jer, La 
 
 rt), XII (except Hos, Am, Mic), Ps, Pr, Ec, Oa, Wis, Sir, Job. 
 4) Cod. Ephremi Syri (5th cent.), contains fragments of Job, 
 
 , Ec, Wis, Sir, Ca. (5) Cod. Venetus (8th or 9th cent.) 
 contains Job (end), Pr, Ec, Ca, Wis, Sir, XII, Is, Jer, Bar, La, 
 Dn [Ad.]}, To, Jth, 1-4 Mac. (6) Cod. Basiliano-Vaticanus (9th 
 cent.) contains second half of Pent., historical books, includin 
 1 He and Ad. Est. (7) Cod. Marchalianus (6th or 7th cent. 
 contains the prophets in the order of B (so Bar, Ep. Jer, Ad. 
 Dn). (8) Cod. Oryptoferratensis (7th or 8th cent.) contains the 
 
 rophets. (9) Palimpsest fragments of Wis and Sir, of 6th or 
 
 th cent. Swete does not cite 6 and 9, but adds cursive Cod. 
 Chisianus (9th cent.?), which contains Jer, Bar, La, Hp. Jer 
 Dn, according to the LX X [all other MSS have substituted Theo- 
 dotion’s Dn), Hippolytus on Dn, Dn according to Theod., Ezk, 
 Is. Both texts of Dn contain the additions. It is noteworthy 
 that several cursives of the poetical books give Ps—Sol in the 
 order, Job, Pr, Ec, Oa, Wis, Ps-Sou., Sir. [Swete, vol. iii. p. xvi. f.] 
 
 (d) Versions.—The Oriental translations of OT 
 were pearly all made from the LXX, and were 
 inclined rather to enlarge than to reduce its Canon. 
 
 The old Syr. Peshitta was an exception to 
 this rule. Its OT was from the Heb., and so con- 
 tained no A. It also lacked Ch. The influence of 
 the LXX was, however, so great that the Pesh. 
 was early revised in accordance with it, and the 
 a"! books were incorporated with some further 
 additions. The chief codex (Ambrosianus) contains 
 Wis, Ep. Jer, \and2 Ep. Bar, Jth, Apoc. BAR. [here 
 only) poe. of Ezra (=2 Es), 1-5 Mac. [5 Mac=Jos. 
 BJ vi.). Mm other MSS are found 1 Es, To, 
 Pr. Man. A MS of the 6th cent. has a ‘book of 
 women,’ viz. Ru, Est, Sus, Jth, THECLA. 
 
 Whoily exceptional, on the other hand, was the 
 critical view of the Nestorian school at Nisibis, 
 which put Sir in the class of fully can. books, and 
 regarded as of intermediate authority, Ch, Job, 
 Ezr, Neh, Jth, Est, 1 and 2 Mac, Wis, Ca. _ : 
 
 Exceptional also is a Syr. MS at Cambridge, in 
 which an attempt is made to arrange OT in chrono- 
 logical order. This naturally throws most of the 
 A. at the end. Wis is after Solomon’s books, Bar 
 and Ep, Jer after Jer. After the prophets, follow 
 
 Dn [and Bel], Ru, Sus, Est, Jth, Ezr-Neh, Sir, 
 1-4 Mac, 1 Es, To. 
 
 The Ethiopic version not only adopted the LXX 
 Canon without criticism, but added various books 
 besides 4 Ezr, several of which survived in no other 
 collection, ¢.g. Enoch, Jubilees, Ascension of Is, 
 etc. 
 
 The Armenian version also draws no line between 
 Canon and A. 
 
 (e) The Later Gr. Church.—The views of the 
 Fathers of the Eastern Church could not be without 
 permanent influence, but their failure to reach 
 consistency made it possible for the LXX to retain 
 its currency. At the time of the Reformation 
 some Eastern scholars, appealing to Cyril and 
 Athanasius, declared the a® books to be uncan. 
 So Metrophanes Critopulos (1625) and Cyril Luca 
 (1629). gainst them the Synods of Constanti- 
 nople (1638), Jaffa (1642), and Jerus. (1672) sus- 
 tained the older usage, and declared the full 
 canonicity of the A. It appears, however, that 
 clearness and consistency have never been reached, 
 for Philaret’s Longer Catechism of the Orthodox 
 Catholic E. Church (1839, ete.), which has official 
 sanction, gives to all books outside of the 22 a 
 subordinate place, as meant for the reading of 
 those just entering the Church (citing Athanasius) ; 
 while the official Bible of the Gr. Church contains 
 (after Ch) Pr. Man; (after Neh) 1 Es, To, Jth; 
 (after Ca) Wis, Sir; (after La) Zp. Jer, Bar; 
 (after Mal) 1-3 Mac, 4 Ezr. 
 
 3. IN THE WESTERN CHURCH. —(a) Roman 
 Catholic.—In the Lat. Church there was a stronger 
 inclination to let Christian usage, rather than 
 scholarly ery, determine the place of the A. in 
 the Canon; and this in spite of the fact that Rome 
 produced the man of all antiquity who most 
 strongly pressed the sole validity of the Heb. Canon 
 (Jerome), and committed to this very man the 
 revision of its OT Scriptures. 
 
 The earliest Lat. tr. (Itala) was made from the 
 LXX, and seems to have contained all the A. of the 
 LXX except 3 and 4 Mac, and to have added 2 Es. 
 
 Jerome first revised the Itala after the LXX, 
 but then tr. the OT anew from Heb. In thistr. the 
 A. would fall out. And this Jerome demands. In 
 the famous Prol. Galeatus he gives a list of the 22 
 books of the Heb. Canon in the Heb. order, and 
 adds, ‘whatever is beyond these is to be put among 
 the A.’ So Wis, Sir, Jth, To, and Shepherd ‘are 
 not in the Canon. Of Mac, I have found the first 
 book in Heb. ; the second is Greek,’ etc. 
 
 This explicit denial that even an intermediate 
 position should be given to the A. would, in con- 
 sistency, require their entire removal from the 
 Bible. But Jerome elsewhere gives these books 
 an intermediate position. For he says (Prol. to 
 Bks of Sol), ‘as the Church reads Jth and To 
 and the Bks of Mae, but does not receive them 
 among can. Scriptures, so also let it read these 
 two books [Wis and Sir] for the edification of the 
 
 eople, not for confirming the authority of Church 
 Rogan? Only by such a view can we understand 
 Jerome’s revision of Jth and To, which he under- 
 took, indeed, under protest and with careless haste, 
 excusing himself by the fact that they were 
 extant in Chaldee, and that the Council of Nica 
 counted Jth in the number of sacred Scriptures 
 (of this there is no other evidence). Jerome also 
 inserted the Additions to Dn and Est, distin- 
 eee them by marks, and collecting the Ad. 
 
 st together at the end of the book, where they 
 have remained, out of their proper place, ever 
 since. 
 
 After these concessions by Jerome himself, it is 
 not strange that the other books of the A. gradually 
 found their old place in his version as it gained 
 recognition. 
 
APOCRYPHA 
 
 APOCRY PHA 
 
 
 
 Of other Lat. Fathers, Hilary of Poitiers (d. 368) reaffirms 
 Drigen’s Can., but shows some inclination to add Zo and Jth, 
 or which Origen’s position gave ground. 
 
 Rujinus (d. 410), who studied at Alexandria and Jerus., gives 
 the E. list of 22 books, and puts the A. in an intermediate class, 
 which he calls (for the first time?) Ecclesiastici, viz. Wis, Sir, 
 To, Jth, Bks of Mac, and, in NT, Shepherd and Two Ways 
 lalso Judgment according to Peter?]. These the Fathers 
 wished to be read in the churches, but not brought forward for 
 the confirmation of faith. ‘Other Scriptures they named aa 
 which they wished not to be read in the churches.’ The three- 
 fold division is E., but the name ‘ecclesiastical’ and the 
 explanation (which is practically the view of Jerome also) are 
 new. The A. are to be read not privately, but in the churches. 
 This would originally have meant full canonicity. Buta dis- 
 tinction is attempted in degrees of authority for doctrine 
 among books which, in their text and in their church use, are 
 not distinguished. it is not strange that the theory of an inter- 
 mediate class gained no firm footing in the W., and that the 
 A. went into the first, not into the third class. 
 
 The early Lat. lists are characterised by the two groups, 
 (1) Ps, Pr, Ca, Ec, Wis, Sir ; (2) Job, Z'0, Est, Jth, 1 and2 Mac, 
 land 2 Es, in which, apart from the additions to the prophets 
 Jer and Dn, the books of A. are usually found. They are 
 found in the Can. of Mommsen, which perhaps represents the 
 average Western Can. of c. 3604.D. It includes the A., and still 
 counts 24 books (Rev 410) by the device of reckoning the 5 
 Solomonic books as one. ‘The West had not, however, the 
 interest in the number 24 that the East had in 22, and generally 
 disregarded even this formal agreement with the Jews. 
 
 Cassiodorus (Institutio, etc., chs. xii.-xiv., c. 644 a.D.) gives 
 Jerome’s (Heb.) Can., then Augustine’s, and finally the Can. of 
 the antiqua translatio, which represents Lat.usage before Jerome, 
 viz. Gn-Ch ; Ps, Sol 6 (Pr, Wis, Sir, Ec, Ca); Prophets ; Job, 
 To, Est, Jth, 1. 2 Es, 1. 2 Mac, The two groups are to be 
 noted. The divergence of the three lists from each other 
 seems to cause the writer no trouble. 
 
 Similar to this is the list of the Decretum Gelasii, which, if 
 it is that of the Synod of 382, is the first official Can. of 
 the Roman Church. It puts Wis, Sir with Solomonic books, 
 Bar with Jer, and ends with an ‘order of histories,’ which is 
 gue cee group, as follows: Job, Zo, 1.2 Es, Est, Jth, 
 
 5 ac. 
 
 The next official OT Can. was that of the African Councils of 
 Hippo (393) and Carthage (397): Gn-Ch, Job, Ps, Sol 6, 12 
 prophets, Is, Jer, Dn, Ezk, Zo, Jth, Est, 1. 2 Es, 1. 2 Mac. 
 Here Job is separated from the second group and put in its old 
 connexion with Ps, Pr. These councils were dominated by 
 Augustine, whose weight on the side of Church tradition over- 
 bore the influence of Jerome’s learning. Augustine stands for 
 the Catholic principle as determining the Can. (de doct. ii. 8, 12), 
 even when he feels the objections, e.g. to Wis and Sir, that 
 the ancient Church has received them is decisive (de civ. xvii. 
 20,1). Augustine gives, in de doct. ii. 8,13, a list of 44 books of 
 OT—22 historical, made by adding to Gn-Ch, as a secondary 
 list, our second group: Job, 7Z'o, Est, Jth, 1. 2 Mac, 1. 2 Es. ; 
 and 22 prophetical, made by prefixing to the 16 prophets our 
 first group: Ps, Pr, Ca, Ec, Wis, Sir. In his last book, how- 
 ever (Speculum), he seems inclined to put the A. at the end 
 of OT Can., separating Wis, Sir from group 1, and Job from 
 group 2. This may reveal a growing sense of the secondary 
 authority or security of the A. 
 
 Innocent 1. of Rome, in a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse 
 405), gives a list in which the two groups still appear: Gn-4 K 
 with Ru); Prophets; Solomon 5, Ps; ‘of histories,’ Job, To, 
 Est, Jth, 1. 2 Mac, 1. 2 Es, 1. 2 Oh. 
 
 The outcome of the matter in the Lat. Church 
 was the Vulg., and the leading MS of it (Cod. 
 Amiatinus, ¢c. 700) gives, tm the name of 
 Jerome, a list identical with that sanctioned at 
 Trent (see the list at the beginning of this article). 
 The order is nearer to that of Augustine in de 
 doct. ii. 8 than to that of the Council of Hippo. 
 The secondary group of histories follows the primar 
 (Gn-Ch), and the group of poetry follows it, preced- 
 ing the prophets. Job, however, is put between 
 the two, so that it might belong either to history 
 or poetry, and 1. 2 Mac are separated from the 
 exc and put at the end—a partial compromise 
 
 tween the topical place given to this group by 
 Augustine, and the more chronological place 
 assigned it in the Old Latin, and at Hippo. The 
 result is that the A. are found chiefly in the 
 middle of OT, distinguished in no way from other 
 books. Until the decree of Trent, however, it was 
 still possible to regard the A. as of inferior 
 authority, and, when can. was understood to mean 
 authoritative, even as not in the Canon. The 
 
 middle ages furnished some followers of Jerome 
 (e.g. Hugo of St. Victor, d. 1140; 
 Clugny, d. 1156; Nicolaus of L 
 gnticipate the view of Cardin 
 
 Peter of 
 ‘a, d. 1340) who 
 Ximenes (1437- 
 
 1517), who says in the Preface to the great Com- 
 plutensian Polyglott, that the a*! books are outside 
 of the Canon, and are received by the Churchasuselul 
 reading, not as authoritative for doctrine. Erasm s 
 (1467-1536) also follows Jerome, though expressing 
 himself with his usual reserve and formal sub- 
 mission to the judgment of the Church. ‘ Whether 
 the Church receives them as possessing the ame 
 authority as the others, the spirit of the Church 
 must know.’ Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent 
 at Augsburg (1518), would interpret the decision 
 of Councils and Fathers by Jerome. 
 
 Though the Vulg. Canon had been reaffirmed by 
 Pope Eugenius Iv. and put forth as a decree of the 
 Council of Florence (1439), it is not probable tha 
 the Roman Church would have taken the decisive 
 step of 1545, against the views of its own best 
 scholars, if it had not been for Luther. The 
 Council of Trent declared the Vulg. to be in all 
 parts of equal authority, and definitely rejected 
 the efforts of Ximenes and others to put the A. in 
 a separate class, ‘ecclesiastical’ or ‘deutero-can.’ 
 In the Bibliotheca Sancta of Sixtus Senensis the 
 case is correctly stated. The distinction of Proto- 
 can. and Deutero-can. or ecclesiastical books is 
 given (to the latter class belong, in OT, Est, To, 
 Jth, Bar, Ep. Jer, Wis, Sir, Ad. Dn, 1 and 2 Mac; 
 in NT, Mk 16°”, Lk 228-4, Jn 7-8", He, Ja, 
 2 P,2and3 Jn, Jude, Rev), but the distinction has 
 only historical significance. These books, it is 
 said, were not known till a late period ; were even 
 formerly held by the Fathers to be a*! and not can. ; 
 were at first permitted to be read my before 
 catechumens Athauasent then before all believers 
 (Rufinus), but only for edification, not for the con- 
 firmation of doctrine; but were at last adopted 
 among Scriptures of irrefragable authority. 
 
 This consistent position is deserted by modern 
 Catholics for the unhistorical view that the LXX 
 Can. was the original one, which was shortened 
 by Jews for an antichristian purpose; so that 
 the words proto-can. and deutero-can. reverse the 
 true state of the case, and have not even an 
 historical justification (Kaulen, in Wetzer u. 
 Welte, Encyk.? art. ‘ Kanon’). 
 
 (b.) Protestant.—Even on the ground of Catholic 
 scholarship those who denied the authority of the 
 Church must give the A. a secondary place. The 
 first Prot. effort to fix the place of the re was made 
 by Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, in his De 
 canonicis scripturis, 1520. He discusses the views 
 of Augustine and Jerome, and vindicates Jerome’s 
 position. He gives the Heb. OT Can., Law, Pro- 
 phets, and Hagiographa, thinks these divisions 
 indicate a decreasing order of value, and makes 
 cerresponding discriminations in NT. OT A. he 
 divides into tyo classes: (1) Wis, Sir, Jth, To, 
 1 and 2 Mac; ‘Hi sunt apocryphi, te. extra 
 canonem hebrzorum, tamen agiographi.’ (2) 3 and 
 4 Ezr, Bar, Pr. Man, Ad. SDoi ‘Hi libri sunt 
 
 lane apocryphi virgis censoriis animadvertendi.’ 
 his significant effort remained almost without 
 effect. 
 
 In contrast to this attempt to solve the problem 
 by historical means (to return to the original posi- 
 tion), Luther wavered between a free criticism of 
 the Can. by the Christian consciousness, and, for 
 poise purposes, the acceptance of the current 
 
 ible. He wished 1 Mac had the place of Est in 
 the Canon. Of Jth, To, Sir, is, he judges 
 favourably. Even Ad. Dn and Ad. Est have 
 much good in them. Bar and 2 Mac, on the 
 other hand, he condemns. 
 
 In Luther’s Bible (completed 1534) the A. stand 
 between OT and NT, with the title: ‘A., that is 
 books which are not held equal to the sacred 
 Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to 
 read.’ They include our A. with the exception of 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 APOCRYPHA 
 
 APOLLONIUS 123 
 
 
 
 land2Es. Luther's jud 
 was especially unfavourable, but for their omission 
 he had the authority of Jerome, whose view per- 
 haps affected their exclusion at Trent. 
 
 The Reformed Church took a somewhat less 
 favourable view of the A. In the Ziirich Bible 
 (1529-1530) they stand, in Leo Jud.’s tr., after NT, 
 as an appendix to the Bible, with the non-committal 
 preface ; ‘These are the books which by the ancients 
 were not written nor numbered among the Biblical 
 books, and also are not found among the Hebrews,’ 
 Here 1 and 2 Es are included, as well as 3 Mac; 
 while Three, Pr. Man, Ad. Est were added only in 
 later edd. 
 
 The French Bible of Calvin (1535) puts the A. 
 between OT and NT, with the title: ‘The volume 
 of the a® books contained in the Vulg. tr., which we 
 have not found in Heb. or Chaldee.’ Here 1 and 2 
 Es are included. A preface, doubtless by Calvin, 
 reaffirms Jerome's view as to the value of these 
 books. 
 
 Coverdale was the first to tr. the A. from Gr. into 
 Eng. (1536). He put them between OT and NT, 
 with the title: ‘Apocripha. The bokes and treatises 
 which amonge the fathers of olde are not rekened 
 to be of like authorite with the other bokes of the 
 byble, nether are they fofide in the Canon of the 
 
 ebrue.’ 
 
 Matthew’s Bible (1537) reproduces Coverdale’s 
 A., and translates Calvin’s Preface, stating that 
 these books are not to be read publicly in the 
 Church, nor used to prove doctrine, but only for 
 ‘furtherance of the knowledge of the history, and 
 for the instruction of godly manners.’ 
 
 Cranmer’s Bible (1540) divides OT into three 
 
 ts: (1) Pent., (2) Hist. books, (3) Remaining 
 
 oks; and adds, ‘The volume of the bokes called 
 erent, so called ‘because they were wont 
 to be read not openly and in common, but as it 
 were in secret and apart’! But in the reprint of 
 1541 they appear as A., and simply as ‘the fourth 
 part of the Bible.’ 
 
 The Bishops’ Bible (1568) treats the A. still more 
 favourably. The table of contents gives it as 
 ‘The fourth part called Apocryphus.’ The separate 
 title-page reads, ‘The Volume of the bookes called 
 Apocrypha.’ But a classified list of ‘the whole 
 Scripture of the Bible,’ under the headings Legal, 
 Historical, Sapiential, and Prophetical, is given, 
 which follows the Vulg., with two changes of order 
 due to its scheme (puts 1 and 2 Mac after Job, and 
 Ps before Is), and with the addition of 3 and 4 Ezr, 
 with the explanation in the case of these two books 
 only that they are apocryphal. 
 
 In the Authorized Version (1611) ‘the bookes 
 called Apocrypha are marked by the running title 
 ‘Apocrypha’ at the top of the page, but have no 
 preface or separate table of contents; and in the 
 table of lessons at the beginning they are included 
 under OT. 
 
 The edd. so far seem to indicate a growing rather 
 than diminishing regard for the books. It was not 
 long, however, before edd. of AV began to appear 
 in which the A. was omitted (1629, etc.). 
 
 The Confessions of Lutheran and Reformed 
 Churches agree substantially with Article vi. of the 
 Eng. Church (Lat. 1562, Eng. 1571), which, with 
 the list of A., explains: Oatid the other books (as 
 Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of 
 life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it 
 not apply them to establish any doctrine.’ But a 
 less favourable judgment, held at first by few, has 
 wy, through much controversy, prevailed in 
 
 otestantism. At the Synod of Dort (1618) a 
 strong, though unsuccessful, effort was made to re- 
 move the A. wholly from the Bible. In England the 
 Opposition came especially from the Puritans, and 
 took final form in the Westminster Confession 
 
 ent on these two books 
 
 (1648): ‘The books commonly called A., not being 
 of divine inspiration, are no part of the Can. of the 
 Scripture ; and therefore are of no authority in the 
 Church of God, nor to be in any otherwise approved, 
 or made use of, than other human writings.’ This 
 means the exclusion of the A. from the Bible and 
 from use in Church service, which the Puritans 
 demanded in 1689. It was not until 1827, after 
 two years’ sharp dispute, that the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society decided to exclude the A. 
 from al] its publications of the Bible. 
 
 Within the Church of England the number of 
 readings from the A. has been reduced. Origin- 
 ally covering Sept. 27-Nov. 23, in 1867 selections 
 from Wis, Sir, and Bar only are assigned for 
 Oct. 27-Nov. 17, beside some selections for certain 
 holy days. The latter, with readings from To, 
 Wis, and Sir for Nov. 2-20, are retained by the 
 Amer. Epis. Church, while the Irish removes all. 
 
 Among non-Episcopal Churches the A. has had 
 in recent years practically no recognition. 
 
 On the Continent the movement toward the ex- 
 clusion of the A. from edd. of the Bible has been 
 slower. The decision of the British Society in 
 1827 met with a storm of disapproval. The con- 
 troversy revived in 1850, when numerous works 
 appeared for and against the retention of the A. 
 in edd. of the Bible. Its ablest champions were, 
 among Conservative scholars, Stier and Hengsten- 
 berg; among Liberals, Bleek. In the Revision of 
 Luther’s Bible (1892) it still stands, with Luther’s 
 title. 
 
 The long controversy regarding the canonicity 
 of the a™ books, in which the power of tradition 
 and the weakness of reason in matters of religious 
 concern are conspicuously illustrated, may be said 
 to have ended for Protestantism. The modern 
 historical interest, on the other hand, is putting 
 these writings in their true place as significant 
 documents of a most important era in religious 
 history. 
 
 LITERATURE.—1. Text: Fritzsche, Libri Apoerpphi Veteris 
 Testamenti Greece (Lipsiw 1871); Edd. of the LXX, esp. Swete 
 (Camb. 1887-1894). 
 
 2. TRANSLATIONS INTO EnauisH: Ball, The Variorwm A. (AV, 
 with various renderings and readings), 1892; A Revised tr. by 
 Bissell (below); Churton, Uncan. and Apocryphal Scriptures 
 (1884); The RV of the A. (1895). 
 
 8. INTRODUCTION aND CommeEntarigs: Schiirer, HJP, tr. by 
 Macpherson, et al. 1885-1890, §§ 32, 33; Fritzsche and Grimm, 
 Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des 
 Alten Testaments (Leipzig, 1851-1860); Bissell, ‘The A. of the 
 OT’ (Lange-Schaff, Com. vol. xv. 1880); ‘The Apocrypha,’ 
 edited by H. Wace (Speaker’s Com. 1888). 
 
 4. GENERAL: Art. on the A. in Herzog, RE 2 Aufl. (b 
 Schirer); Smith, DB? (by Ryle); Wetzer und Welte, Encyk. 
 d. Kathol. Theol.2 (by Kaulen); Hamburger, RE [Jewish]. 
 
 See also articles Bisua, SEPTUAGINT, CaNoN, and literature there 
 
 cited. FRANK C. PORTER. 
 
 APOLLONIA (’Aro\Awria).—A pollonia, in Ac 17}, 
 a town through which St. Paul passed, after 
 leaving Amphipolis, on his way to Thessalonica. It 
 was an inland Greco-Macedonian town in the 
 district of Mygdonia, distant from Amphipolis a 
 day’s journey (Liv. xlv. 28) or about 30 miles, and 
 from Thessalonica about 38 miles. It lay not far 
 from the Lake Bolbe, and the Via Egnatia passed 
 through it. Little is known of its history. Its 
 name (so common as to be represented by 33 
 entries in Pauly-Wiss. RE, three in Macedonia 
 itself, while the most important was A. in Illyria) 
 seems preserved in the modern Pollina (Leake, 
 N.G. iii. 458). WILLIAM P, DICKSON. 
 
 KPOLLONIUS (’AmodAdvos). — Apollonius, a 
 
 personal name of frequent occurrence (under which 
 129 entries appear in Pauly-Wiss. AZ), is borne 
 by several persons mentioned in 1 and 2 Mac. 
 
 4. The first, in the apparent order of time, is 
 described (2 Mac 3°) as son of Thraseus (uv! 
 
 
 
124 APOLLONIUS 
 
 Thraseas ;—the RV notes the text as probably 
 corrupt, and suggests, as perhaps the true reading, 
 ‘Apollonius of Tarsus’), and governor (crparyyés) of 
 Cele-Syria and Phenice under Seleucus Iv. 
 Philopator (B.c. 187-175). One Simon, designated 
 as governor (RV guardian) of the temple (2 Mac 
 34 xpoordrys), having had differences with the high- 
 priest Onias concerning ‘market-administration’ 
 (dyopavoulas seems preferable to the common 
 reading rapavoulas), took his revenge by suggest- 
 ing to Apollonius that the temple at Jerus. con- 
 tained untold treasures, which might tempt the 
 king’s cupidity. A. conveyed the suggestion to 
 Seleucus, and induced him to send Heliodorus his 
 chancellor (RV; not ‘treasurer,’ AV), to Jerus. 
 to plunder the temple. The devices of Heliodorus, 
 the consternation occasioned by his purpose, and 
 the apparition by which it was bafiled, are narrated 
 in 2 Mac3. In4 Mac 4! the attempt is presented 
 as the act of A. himself, and not of Heliodorus. 
 
 2. At 2 Mac 473 an A., son of Menestheus, 
 appears, sent by Antiochus Epiphanes as envo 
 to Egypt on occasion of the ‘enthroning’ (which 
 seems the best interpretation of mpwroxdlowa or 
 mpwroxdjoa, literally the first ‘sitting on,’ or 
 formal ‘call to’ the throne) of Ptolemy Philometor 
 (in B.C. 173). He may not improbably be the 
 same A. whois mentioned by Livy (xlii. 6) as having 
 headed an embassy sent by Antiochus to Rome. 
 
 3. At 2 Mac 5% we find an A. sent by 
 Antiochus Epiphanes (in B.C. 166), with an army of 
 22,000 men, to Judea, under orders to slay all that 
 were of age for military service, and to sell the 
 women and children. Coming to Jerus. under pre- 
 text of peace, he took advantage of the Sabbath, 
 when the Jews were keeping their elt of rest, to 
 massacre ‘ great multitudes.’ He is characterised 
 as ‘that detestable ringleader’ (RV ‘lord of 
 pvodpxnv, not occurring elsewhere, 
 ‘ruler of the Mysians,’ but probably 
 
 pollutions’ ; 
 possibly 
 ‘leader in foul deeds’), while the use of the article 
 seems to point to one previously mentioned, and so 
 suggests his identity with the ‘governor of Cole- 
 
 Syria’ (in ch. 35 and 4*: No. 1 above). The 
 interval of nine years leaves this at least doubtful ; 
 but there is less reason to question his identity with 
 the person not named but described at 1 Mac 1” 
 as ‘chief collector of tribute’ sent by the Hellenizing 
 king to carry out his policy of destruction. Jos. 
 (Ant. xu. vii. 1) designates him as commandant 
 (crparnyss) of Samaria (apparently = provincial 
 governor, pepddpyns, XII. v. 5), and records his sub- 
 sequent fall, in conflict with Judas Maccabzeus, as 
 does also 1 Mac 32°12, 
 
 %. At 2 Mac 12? A., ‘son of Gennzus,’ appears 
 as one of the local commandants who, notwith- 
 standing the covenant that the Jews should have 
 rest and leave to observe their own laws, continued 
 to vex them, and to countenance such attacks on 
 their liberties as the treacherous massacre at Joppa, 
 which Judas hastened to avenge. Nothing more 
 is known of him. The pgtronymic ‘son of 
 Gennzeus’ distinguishes him from (1) the son of 
 Thraszeus and (2) the son of Menestheus; and 
 the suggestion of Winer (RWB s.v., following 
 Luther’s rendering edlen), that Tevvafov might be 
 taken as an adjective, ‘the well-born,’ used ironically 
 (presumably of the latter), is highly improbable; 
 
 or, as Grimm remarks, the irony would be too 
 covert, and Genneus occurs elsewhere as & proper 
 name (Pape, 8.v.). 
 
 5. en Demetrius 11. Nikator came forward to 
 claim his father’s crown in rivalry to Alexander 
 Balas (about B.c. 148), we learn from 1 Mac. 107-86 
 that he appointed (xaréorncev) A., who was over 
 Ceele-Syria; who gathered a great force, challenged 
 Jonathan the high priest as a supporter of Balas, 
 but, after a series of successful manceuvres on the 
 
 APOLLOS 
 
 part of Jonathan with the support of his brother 
 Simon, was defeated in battle at Azotus (B.C. 147). 
 From the mode of expression, he would seem te 
 have been previously governor under Balas, and 
 won over by Demetrius; which is the more prob- 
 able, if he is to be identified with the A. mentioned 
 by Polybius (xxxi. 19. 6 and 21. 2) as the ovvtpodos 
 Hontert arather) and confidant of the elder 
 Demetrius, who shared in the plot for his escape 
 from Rome, and may readily have sympathised 
 with the claims of the younger, when he came to 
 assert them. Jos. (Ant. XIII. iv. 3) calls him a 
 Daian, t.e. one of the Dai or Dahw near the 
 Caspian Sea, and speaks as though he fought 
 against Jonathan in the interest of Balas; but this, 
 as Grimm (in loc.) shows, is much less probable. 
 The circumstance that the A. of Polybius had two 
 brothers, Meleager and Menestheus (xxxi. 21. 2), is 
 a somewhat slender ground for assuming relation- 
 ship to the son of Menestheus (No. 3 above). 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 APOLLOPHANES (’Amo\\ogdvys, 2 Mac 10%"), a 
 Syrian killed at the taking of Gazara by Judas 
 accabeeus. This Gazara is not the well-known 
 town in the Shephelah, near to Nicopolis and 
 Ekron; probably it should be identified with 
 Jazer on the farther side of Jordan, in the 
 Ammonite country (so Rawlinson). See 1 Mac 5°, 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 APOLLOS (’Amo\\ds).—An Alexandrian Jew 
 (Ac 18%). Apollonius, of which Apollos is a 
 natural abbreviation, is the reading of Cod. D, 
 the chief representative of the Western text of 
 the Acts, which is here very interesting, and 
 ptt! presents a genuine tradition. He is 
 escribed as ‘fervent in spirit’ (see Ro 12"), as 
 ‘an eloquent man’ (for Aéyos means this rather 
 than ‘ learned’), and as ‘mighty in the Scriptures,’ 
 i.e. well versed in the Gr. Or. He seems to 
 have been connected with Alexandria by early 
 residence as well as by race, for D records that 
 his religious instruction was received éy rp rarpilé. 
 He came to Ephesus in the summer of 54, while 
 St. Paul was on his third missionary journey, and 
 there ‘he spake and taught accurately the things 
 concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of 
 John; aid he began to speak bo oe) in the syna- 
 ogue.’ The precise character of his religious 
 nowledge is not easily determined from these 
 few wanda It has been generally held that A.’s 
 instruction in ‘the way of the Lord’ (v.”, see 
 Is 408, Mt 3%) was such as any well-educated 
 Jew might have gathered from teaching like that 
 of the Baptist, based on the Messianic prophecies, 
 This view is confirmed to some extent by the 
 account of what happened when St. Paul returned 
 to Ephesus after A.’s departure. He there found 
 twelve disciples, who being asked, ‘ Did ye receive 
 the Holy Ghost when ye believed?’ returned an 
 answer which showed their ignorance of any dis- 
 tinctive gift of the Holy Spirit. They explained 
 that they had fore received John’s baptism, 
 but willingly accepted the Christian rite at St. 
 Paul’s hente It is probable that these men were 
 disciples of A., and that, having been influenced by 
 his teaching in the synagogues of Ephesus, their 
 knowledge of Christian truth fairly represented his. 
 But Blass (in Joc.) points out that the words “aAyral 
 and mioredcavres used of them are never used save 
 of Christians, and thus some knowledge at the 
 least of the Christian story may be supposed to 
 have been theirs. Indeed is said (v.2) to have 
 taught dxpBds the things concerning Jesus, al- 
 though he knew only of the baptism of John. 
 And so Blass suggests that, laces: from a 
 written Gospel which had reached Alexandria, A. 
 had learnt the main facts of the Lord’s life, and 
 that his ignorance of Christian baptism may be 
 
 
 
 Pe ee a a ae 
 
a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 APOLLOS 
 
 — 
 
 explained by his not having come in the way of 
 Christian teachers. Taking this view, the narra- 
 tive proceeds naturally : ‘But when Priscilla and 
 Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and 
 expounded unto him the way of God dxpiBéorepov.’ 
 It would seem probable, though the fact is not 
 stated, that A. received baptism at their hands, as 
 his followers in a like case did at the hands of St. 
 Paul. After some stay in Ephesus, A. determined 
 to go to Corinth, an invitation to do so having 
 come to him, according to the Western text, from 
 certain Corinthians who were in Ephesus at the 
 time. They gave him letters of commendation, 
 and when he arrived in Corinth ‘he helped them 
 much which had believed through grace; for he 
 ee ally confuted the Jews and that publicly, 
 showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the 
 Christ’ (Ac 1878), 
 
 In the spring of 57, A. having returned to 
 Ephesus, we learn from 1 Co (see as 12 and 3°) 
 that there were divisions among the Christians at 
 Corinth, the names of Paul and A. (as well as of 
 Peter) being used as those of party leaders.* The 
 question at issue may have been Gan as to the 
 relative importance of Paul and A. in the founding 
 of the Corinthian Church ; but it seems likely that 
 there was also a difference in the manner in which 
 the gospel was presented by each. Possibly the 
 eloquence of A. as contrasted with St. Paul’s 
 rugged style (see 1 Co 2!-?, 2 Co 11°) appealed to 
 a certain cultivated class at Corinth, and it may 
 be (though for this there is no proof) that some 
 doctrinal differences appeared after the lapse of 
 
 ears. The teaching of A.’s followers may, ¢.g., 
 
 ave degenerated into Antinomian Gnosticism. 
 However that ey be, the Corinthian Church was 
 agitated by bitter Mi opposed factions as late as the 
 time of Clement of Rome. But it is unlikely that 
 there was any personal disagreement between St. 
 VYaul and A. It has indeed been suggested that in 
 1 Co 2!, St. Paul has the eloquent x in his mind, 
 and again in 2 Co 3}, where he declares that he 
 at least needed no commendatory letters; and it 
 is curious that A. is not mentioned at all as one of 
 the founders of the Christian society at Corinth in 
 
 
 
 2 Co 1'*. But however we explain these passages, 
 they do not prove anything like serious estrange- 
 ment. In 1 Co 16!2, St. Paul, probably in answer 
 
 to an invitation for A., says, ‘As touching A., the 
 brother, [ besought him much to come unto you 
 with the brethren, and it was not at all his will to 
 come now for ‘not God’s will that he should 
 come now’); but he will come when he shall have 
 opportunity.’ A. may well have been unwilling to 
 return at a time when his presence would inflame 
 party spirit. The last mention of A. in the NT is 
 in Tit 3%. He was then (A.D. 67) in Crete, or was 
 shortly expected there; and St. Paul urges Titus 
 to set him forward on his journey with Zenas,—a 
 kindly message which, while it does not suggest 
 ies intimacy, does not suggest either any 
 
 ifference of interest or hostility of sentiment. 
 Jerome (in loc.) thinks that A. retired to Crete 
 until he heard that the divisions at Corinth were 
 healed, and says that he then returned and became 
 bishop of that city. 
 
 It was first suggested by Luther, and the opinion 
 is now widely held, that A. was the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. See HEBREWS. 
 
 Liverature.—Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, vol. ii. ch. 
 xiv. Neander, Planting, bk. iii. sh. vii. Retan, St. Paul, 
 
 . 240, 87217. Blass, Com. on Ac.2, pp. 201-3, and in Expos. 
 
 moe vit SAA Weicht. ih tx. 8. . H. BERNARD. 
 
 * Field, following Chrysostom, on 1 Co 46, suggests that the 
 names of the real party leaders are not known to us, and that 
 St. Paul substituted for them his own name and that of Apollos. 
 But, gee his note is interesting, we prefer to follow the 
 simpler more usual interpretation in the text. 
 
 
 
 
 
 APOSTASY 125 
 
 
 
 APOLLYON (‘Avo\\vwy ‘ Destroyer’).—Thie tr. of 
 the Heb. name ji738, the angel of the Abyss in Rev 
 9*, who was king over the destructive locusts. 
 In the Talm. tract Shabbath 55* we find reference 
 to the angels of destruction (aban ’axbn) who accom- 
 plish Lod Yaad on the wicked. They are six in 
 number; Wrath, Indignation, Anger, Destruction, 
 Desolation, and Consumption. Over these are 
 
 laced Abaddon and Maweth (mp Death). See 
 
 eber, System der Pal. Theol. p. 166. These 
 are obviously later Judaic Revetoriente of the 
 simpler ideas of OT; for the tendency of Judaism 
 after the Exile, and esp. during the Gr. period, 
 was to interpolate personal mediating activities 
 between the supersensuous and the phenomenal 
 world. But though this enormous development of 
 angelology was stimulated by Hellenic speculative 
 ideas, its ultimate source must be traced to Bab. 
 religion (cf. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 
 pp. 146 f.). Respecting the plague-demons of Bab. 
 exorcism and personifications of evil, see Sayce, 
 Hibbert Lect. pp. 306-312; cf. also 327-335. 
 
 Another name of like signification to that of A. 
 is the Hellenic ’Acpodatos Asmodeus, a name which 
 occurs in To 3° as that of the evil spirit which slew 
 the seven husbands of Sarah, daughter of Raguel. 
 This is the Greecised form of the Heb. ‘1p#x, ‘ Des- 
 troyer.’ The derivation of this name must obviously 
 be sought in the Heb. 1% ‘to destroy.’ The 
 etymology which connects it with the Pers, Aéshmn 
 daéva, leader of the devas, adopted by Levy in his 
 Chaldee Lex. from Windischmann (Zoroastr. 
 Studien), is by no means so probable. This personi- 
 fication ee to be the same as 6 ’Ododpetwv of 
 Wis 18”. In the Targ. on Ec 1"? he is called x30 
 ‘tw ‘king of evil spirits.’ It is not necessary 
 to refer to the Jewish fables which represent 
 Asmodeus as the offspring of Tubalcain and his 
 sister Noéma. Respecting Paul’s use of éAoOpeuris 
 (nv of Ex 12%), introduced by him into the 
 narrative of Nu 16%, see Heinrici- Meyer on 
 1 Co 10”. 
 
 The OT conceptions respecting Abaddon may be 
 gathered from a comparison of the passages Job 
 26° 28% 311% In the first of these the word 
 Abaddon stands in parallelism with Sheél or the 
 underworld (Hades), just as we find in Pr 15", 
 Delitzsch in his comment on this last passage 
 endeavours to draw a distinction between Sheél 
 and Abaddon, the latter designating the lowest 
 depth of Hades; but I see no warrant for this in 
 OT, though in later times we know that such a 
 distinction was made (Schwally, ibid. p. 166, on 
 Lk 1672-5, and Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, i. p. 169). 
 Moreover, in Job 31 the same conception prevails 
 in the mind of the writer as in the previous OT 
 
 assages to which we have referred. So also in 
 
 s 88", where Abaddon and the grave stand in 
 parallelism. On the other hand, it is worthy of 
 notice that in Job 28% we find the beginnings of 
 that personification which in later times was to 
 have so extended a development. For in that 
 passage both Abaddon and Death are personified, 
 and words are ascribed to them. Cf. the vivid and 
 dramatic portrayal of the devouring Sheél in Is 
 54, On the use of ;i724 in the Wisdom literature 
 of OT see art. ABADDON. 
 
 OwEN C. WHITEHOUSE. 
 
 APOSTASY.—The Eng. word does not occur. 
 The Gr. dmocracia is used twice: (1) in defining the 
 charge made against St. Paul (Ac 217") that he 
 ‘taught all the Jews which are among the Gentiles 
 to forsake Moses’ (so AV, RV; Gr. dzocraclavy did 
 Maveéws, lit. ‘a. from Moses’) ; and (2) as the word 
 used for the ‘falling away’ (so AV, RV) which 
 precedes or rte the revelation of the 
 ‘Man of Sin’ (2 Th 2%). See Comm. im loc. and 
 art. MAN OF SIN. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
—_ 
 
 126 APOSTLE 
 
 APOSTLE.—The proper meaning of dwécrodos is 
 an ambassador, who not only carries a message 
 like an d&yyedos, but also represents the sender. So 
 Herodotus (i. 21) of Alyattes to Miletus; (v. 38) 
 of Miletus to Sparta. The influence of Athens 
 diverted it for a time (e.g. Demosth. p. 252) to 
 mean a naval squadron; and in later law darécrodo 
 were the littere@ dimissorie by which a case was re- 
 ferred to a higher court. In Hel. Greek it returns 
 to its other meaning. This is not very distinct in 
 1 K 148 (Ahijah dz. oxdnpés to Jeroboam’s wife), the 
 only place where it is found in LXX, though 
 Symmachus has it clear in Is 18?(that sendeth ory 
 Ly the sea). So there seem to have been diécroho 
 sent from Jerusalem to collect the temple money, 
 and dméoro\o sent by the foreign Jews to bring it 
 to Jerus. Later on, the patriarch at Tiberias had 
 arécrokon at his disposal (Epiph. Her. 30, p. 129; 
 Cod. Theod. xviii. 8. 14, where Honorius, in 398, 
 abolishes the whole system of taxation. See 
 Gothofred, ad Joc.). 
 
 In NT it is found Mt 10? (ray 62 dwdexa dr.), 
 Mk 6* (ol da.—those sent forth, v.”), Jn 1316 (in the 
 
 eneral sense), and frequently in Luke and Paul. 
 ie (He 3!) of our Lord Himself, which is the 
 thought of Jn 1738, 
 
 After the ascension the number of the Lord’s 
 apostles was not fixed at twelve, except in the 
 figurative language of Rev 21". Setting aside 
 envoys of men (2 Co 8” dm. éxxdyorGv, Ph 2% 
 vudv 62 dw.) and false apostles (2 Co 11%, Rev 2?) 
 who needed to be tried (contrast ¢relpacas with 
 1 Jn 4! doxiudtere), we have first Matthias, though 
 it is best left an open question whether he was 
 permanently numbered with the Eleven. Of Paul 
 and Barnabas there can be no doubt (e.g. Ac 144 
 ol dw. B. xal II.), and of James the Lord’s brother 
 very little (Gal 1%, 1 Co 15’ and perhaps 9°). 
 Andronicus and Junias at Rome seem to be 
 ‘notable’ apes (Ro 167 érionuo év rois dr.), and 
 possibly Silvanus also was an gars On the 
 other hand, Timothy is shut out by the greetings 
 of 2 Co, Col, Ph, and ossibly 2 Ti 4° (evayye- 
 Xworo), and Apollos (1 Co 4% is indecisive) by 
 Clement (Zp. 47), who most likely knew the fact of 
 the case. 
 
 The first qualification of the apostle was to have 
 ‘seen the Lord’ (Lk 2448, Ac 18 22, 1 Co 9%), for his 
 first duty was to bear witness of the Lord’s resur- 
 rection (e.g. also Ac 2°2), Matthias, Paul, and 
 James (1 Co 15’) had this qualification ; probabl 
 Barnabas, Andronicus, and Junias, who were a 
 of the earliest disciples ; and very possibly Silvanus 
 also. On the other hand, it is unlikely of Apollos, 
 hardly possible of Timothy, who were not apostles. 
 We have no reason to suppose that this condition 
 was ever waived, unless we throw forward the 
 Teaching into the 2nd cent. The second qualifica- 
 tion was (2 Co 121%) the ‘signs of an apostle,’ which 
 consisted partly in all patience, partly in signs and 
 wonders and powers, and partly again (e.g. 1 Co 9?) 
 in effective work among his own converts. 
 
 These, however, were only qualifications which 
 others also held. A direct call was also needed, 
 for (1 Co 12% ero 6 Beds, Eph 44 atrés éSwxev) no 
 human authority could choose an apostle. In the 
 case of Barnabas and Saul (Ac 13°) an outward 
 commission from the Church was added; and if 
 Matthias remained an apostle, we must for once 
 assume that the outward appointment somehow 
 included the inward call of the Spirit. 
 
 The work of the apostle was (1 Co 1!") to preach, 
 or (2 Co 5”, Eph 67°) to be an ambassador on be- 
 half of Christ. He was (Lk 244) to be a witness 
 to all nations, and (Mt 281) to make disciples of 
 them, so that the whole world was his mission 
 field. There is no authentic trace (legends in 
 Eus. H# iii. 1, and apocryphal works) of any local 
 
 APPAREL 
 
 division of the world amongst the apostles, though 
 (Gal 2°) it was settled at the Conference that the 
 Three were to go to the Jews, Paul and Barnabas 
 to the Gentiles. St. Paul’s refusal (Ro 15”) to 
 ‘build on another man’s foundation’ was due 
 rather to courtesy and prudence than to any pen 
 ticular assignment of districts to another apostle. 
 
 It follows that the apostle belonged to the 
 Church in general, and had no local ties. He had 
 a right indeed (1 Co 9*° 14) to eat and drink and 
 live of the gospel, and to lead about a Christian 
 woman as a wife; but this was all. His life was 
 spent in journeyings, in labours, and distresses 
 (2 Co 64), standing in the front of danger like 
 (1 Co 4°) some doomed bestiarius of the amphi- 
 theatre. Certain dwelling-place he had none. 
 The Teaching goes so far as to declare him a false 
 
 rophet if he stays a third day in one place. St. 
 
 aul worked for months together from Corinth and 
 Ephesus; but they were only centres for his work, 
 no settled home for him. Only the unique posi- 
 tion of Jerus. seemed to call for a stationary 
 apostle in James the Lord’s brother, who, more- 
 over, was not one of the Twelve. John and Philip, 
 and possibly Andrew, only settled down in Asia in 
 their old age. 
 
 The apostle’s relation to the Churches he founded 
 was naturally indefinite. He would (Ac 14%) 
 choose their first local officials, start them in the 
 right way, and generally help them with fatherly 
 counsel (1 Co 44-15) when he saw occasion. There 
 is no sign that he took any share in their ordinary 
 administration. St. Paul interferes with it only 
 in cases where the Churches have gone seriously 
 wrong. All that he seems to aim at is (1) to up- 
 hold the authority committed to him ; (2) to chee 
 teachings which made the gospel vain, like the 
 duty of circumcision, the denial of the resurrec- 
 tion, or the need of asceticism; (3) to stop cor- 
 porate misconduct which the Churches themselves 
 would not stop, as when the Corinthians saw no 
 ean: harm in fornication, or turned the Lord’s 
 
 upper into a scene of disorder. Questions referred 
 to him he answers as far as possible on general 
 principles, giving (1 Co 7) a command of the Lord 
 when he can, and in default of it an opinion of his 
 own, and sometimes a hint that they need not 
 have asked him. 
 regular ruler in the same sense as a modern bishop, 
 but an occasional referee like the visitor of a college, 
 who acts only in case of special need. 
 
 LitrraturE.—Lightfoot, Gal., Excursus on The Name and 
 Office of an Apostle ; Harnack, Texte u. Unters. ii. 1, pp. 93-118 ; 
 Weizsicker, Apost. Zeitalter2 584-590; Haupt, Zum Verstdnd- 
 niss d. Apostolats im N.T., 1896. H. M. GWATKIN. 
 
 APOTHECARY is found Ex 30”: ® 37, 2 Ch 16%, 
 Neh 38, Ec 10!, and in every case RV gives per- 
 Sumer instead. For the ref. is not to the selling of 
 drugs, but to the making of perfumes (np spice, 
 perfume ; np] to mix spice or manufacture perfume; | 
 np a perfumer). But in Sir 38° 49! (uupeyds) RV 
 retains a., though from 49! it is evident that the 
 perfumer is meant. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 APPAIM (o:5x ‘the nostrils’).—Son of Nadab, a 
 man of Judah (1 Ch 2° #1), See GENEALOGY. 
 
 APPAREL.—In early Eng. a. is used of house- 
 hold furniture, the rigging of a ship, and the like, 
 but in AV it is confined to clothing. Although 
 the word is now practically obsol., RV (following 
 older VSS) has introduced it some ten times, In 
 1 S 17%-8 a. replaces ‘armour’ of AV, very 
 properly, for the reference is to Saul’s military 
 dress, not his armour. 1 P 34 RV ‘the incorrupt- 
 ible a. of a meek and quiet spirit’ is the only in- 
 stance of a fig. use of the word in the Bible. (Cf. 
 
 In general, the apostle is not a | 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 PS eee 
 
 eli 
 
 Chee, DSA 
 
 . Aes 
 
 Sr Ler nl 
 
 APPARENTLY 
 
 APPHUS 127 
 
 
 
 Ph 28, Tindale’s tr., ‘and was found in his a. as a 
 man,’ AV and RV ‘ fashion’). Apparelled occurs 
 2S 138, Lk 7%; to which RV adds Ps 93! >is 
 (both fig.). See Drgss. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 APPARENTLY, only Nu 128, and in the old 
 sense of ‘openly,’ ‘evidently,’ not as now, ‘seem- 
 ingly’: ‘With him will I speak mouth to mouth, 
 even a. (RV ‘manifestly’), and not in dark 
 speeches.’ Cf. Shaks. Com. Err, Iv. i. 78— 
 
 ‘If he should scorn me so apparently.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 APPARITION.—This word does not occur in AV 
 except in the Apocr., Wis 178 (Gr. tvdadua, RV 
 ‘spectral form’), 2 Mac 3™ (Gr., émpdvea, RV 
 ‘apparition, RVm ‘manifestation), and 54 (Gr. 
 éem@dvea, RV ‘vision, RVm ‘manifestation’). 
 The Revisers have introduced a. at Mt 1476, Mk 6” 
 as tr. of pdvtacua (AV ‘spirit’), J. HASTINGS. 
 
 APPEAL,—I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.—There 
 is no provision made in the OT for appeal in the 
 proper sense of the word, that is, for the recon- 
 sideration by a higher court of a case already tried. 
 The distinction made in the Law between the com- 
 petence of higher and lower courts is of a different 
 nature. A ‘great matter’ must be reserved for 
 the supreme court, while the lower officers are 
 competent to decide a small matter. This dis- 
 tinction is found in one of the oldest parts of the 
 Pent. (Ex 187-22 [E]), and in Dt 17% [D]. And 
 the allusion to the delays in legal proceedings of 
 which Absalom took advantage, 2 S 15°, also 
 points to the antiquity of what is, after all, an 
 obvious device inevitable in a growing nation. 
 The supreme court for the hardest cases was either 
 the king or pe roe or the prophet, as the mouth- 
 piece of J” Himself. The law of Dt 19%} is 
 more like real appeal, for there a ‘controversy’ 
 and ‘false witness’ seem to be presupposed before 
 ‘the judges make diligent inquisition’; but prob- 
 ably the first proceedings were rather admini- 
 strative than fadicial. and it hardly amounts to a 
 second hearing of the case on appeal. According 
 to 2 Ch 19" Jehoshaphat placed Zebadiah over 
 the judges whom he appointed city by city through- 
 out Judah; but it does not follow that he was to 
 hear poe from the local courts. 
 
 For the appellate jurisdiction of later times, see 
 SANHEDRIN. 
 
 Il. IN tHE NEW TESTAMENT.—Ac 25, 26, and 
 28! St. Paul was liable to be tried either by (1) a 
 Jewish, or by (2) a Roman court. (1) The Roman 
 government at this period allowed the authorities of 
 each synagogue to exercise discipline over Jews, 
 only they were not allowed to put any one to 
 death. The Sanhedrin at Jerusalem appears to 
 have had more moral weight and a wider juris- 
 diction (Ac 9? 26"), but not larger legal powers 
 (Jn 18*1); and the incidents of Ac 7°8 224 26! are 
 to be regarded as in the eye of the law cases of 
 lynching, at which the Roman government con- 
 nived. Roman citizen was entitled to claim 
 exemption from the jurisdiction of the synagogue, 
 but nevertheless St. Paul submitted to it five times 
 (2 Co 11%, Ac 281%), 
 
 (2) He was also liable to be brought before the 
 Roman governor in charge of the province or dis- 
 trict (Ac 18}? etc.). 
 
 When, then, Festus asked him whether he was 
 willing to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged 
 *betore me’ (Ac 25%), it is not clear whether the 
 es was that he should be tried (1) by the 
 
 anhedrin in the presence of Festus, or (2) more 
 probably by Festus himself at Jerusalem rather 
 than Cesarea, on the pretext that the charge could 
 be better sifted there; but if so, why is the 
 prisoner's consent necessary (Ac 25%)? In the 
 
 one case St. Paul ‘appeals’ from the Jewish tribunal 
 to the Roman, invoking Cesar himself as supreme 
 magistrate, because Festus was about to surrender 
 him to the Jewish authorities (see Ac 25"), In 
 the other case he ‘ appeals’ from Festus the delegate 
 (procurator) to the legal governor of the province, 
 viz. Cesar himself. It is further not clear whether 
 the alternative in Ac 251” was that St. Paul 
 should be released at once (Ac 2672 2818), or that 
 he should be compelled, in spite of his ‘appeal,’ 
 to stand his trial at Jerusalem. This last is not 
 impossible, for we learn from other sources (e.g. 
 Suetonius, Galba 9) that at this time even a 
 Roman citizen could not insist on being sent on to 
 thesupreme court from that of a provincial governor, 
 who had the power of life and death (jus gladiit) ; 
 but only it was at his peril that the governor 
 refused such an appeal. It was not uncommon for 
 the governor in such a case to write to the emperor 
 for instructions. The appeal in St. Paul’s case 
 has no connexion with either the provocatio ad 
 populum, or the appeal to the tribunes of the plebs, 
 as they existed under the Roman Republic. (See 
 Momumaen, Rdmisches Staatsrecht?, ii. 258, 931.) 
 W. O. BURROWS. 
 APPEASE.—To a. in its mod. use is to pro- 
 itiate an angry person. In this sense is Gn 32” 
 ‘IT will a. him with the present’ ; 1 Mae 13" 
 ‘Simon was a“ toward them’ (RV ‘reconciled unto 
 them’); and Is 578 RV ‘shall I be a‘ for these 
 things?’ Everywhere else in AV a. has the obs. 
 meaning of to quieten (which is the orig. meaning, 
 ad pacem, to ‘ bring to peace’), as Ac 19 ‘ when the 
 town-clerk had a* (RV ‘quieted’) the people’; 
 Pr 15 ‘But he that is slow to anger a* strife’; 
 Est 2! ‘ when the wrath of king Ahasuerus was a®’ 
 (RV ‘ pacified’); Sir 43% ‘he at® the deep’ (RV 
 ‘hath stilled’); 2 Mac 4%! ‘Then came the king in 
 all haste to a. matters’ (RV ‘settle matters’). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 APPERTAIN.—To ‘a. to’ is (1) to belong to, of 
 actual possession: Nu 16% ‘all the men that 
 a®t unto Korah’ (mipp Wx o737°92); Lv 6° ‘give it 
 unto him to whom it a%*’; Neh 28 ‘the palace 
 which a to the house.’ (2) To belong to, of right 
 or privilege: To 6 ‘the right of inheritance doth 
 rather a. to thee than to any other’; 2 Ch 268 
 ‘Tt act’ not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense’ 
 (1611 ed. ‘pertaineth not,’ so RV, Heb. a)-X>); Bar 
 2° «To the Lord our God a*+ righteousness’ (RV 
 ‘belongeth’); 1 Es 8%, 1 Mac 10 42, 2 Mac 15%. 
 (3) To be ieee Jer 10’ ‘Who would not 
 fear thee, yang of nations? for to thee doth 
 it a.’ (mpy? 49); 1 Es 12 ‘they roasted the Passover 
 with fire, as a’ (so RV; Gr. ds KxadhKe, as is 
 fitting. Cf. Lv 5” nsyn2 ‘according to the ordin- 
 ance’), See PERTAIN, PURTENANCE. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 APPHIA.—A Christian lady of Colosse, a 
 member of the household of Philemon, very 
 probably his wife. Her memory is honoured in 
 the Greek Church on Noy. 22, as having been 
 stoned to death at Colosse with Philemon, 
 Archippus, and Onesimus in the reign of Nero; 
 but the authority for this fact is unknown. The 
 name is Phrygian, being frequent in Phrygian 
 Inscriptions under the varying forms ’Am¢la, ’A¢dla, 
 *Amrdlas. In Philem. (v.?) the best attested reading 
 is ’Amdla; but ’Addia, Aude, "Armia are also found, 
 and the Latin VSS vary between Apphie, A pphiadi, 
 Appi. In the latter case it was probably assimi- 
 lated to the Latin Appia (Lightfoot, Coloss. p. 372; 
 Menzeon, November, pp. 143-147). W. Lock. 
 
 APPHUS (’Ar ois, Zag¢pots A, Zamrgpots x V, Apphus 
 
 (Vulg.), henna: (Syr.), 1 Mac 25 ’Addots (Jos. 
 Ant. XII. vi. 1)), the surname of Jonathan the Mas. 
 
128 APPIUS, MARKET OF 
 
 APPOINT 
 
 
 
 cabee. 
 
 The name is usually thought to mean 
 ‘Dissembler’ (573); and some suppose that it was 
 
 iven to Jonathan for his stratagem against the 
 tribe of the Jambri, who had killed his brother 
 
 John (1 Mac 9#7-#), H. A. WHITE. 
 
 APPIUS, MARKET OF (’Armlov ddpov, AV Appit 
 Forum, Ac 28'°), was one of the two points on St. 
 Paul’s journey to Rome at which he was met by 
 Christian brethren from the capital. It was 
 situated 43 miles from Rome, on the great Appian 
 military highway, which formed the main route 
 tor imtercourse with Greece and the East. As 
 a station where travellers halted and changed 
 horses, it naturally became a seat of traflic 
 and local jurisdiction. It was, moreover, the 
 aorthern terminus of a canal (fossa) which was 
 cairied alongside of the road, and was used, as we 
 learn from Strabo (v. 233), for the conveyance, 
 chiefly by night, of passengers in boats towed by 
 mules. Horace has (Sat. i. 5) preserved a vivid 
 picture of the place, with its boatmen, innkeepers, 
 and wayfarers, cheating, carousing, and quarrelling, 
 amidst an accompanying plague of gnats and frogs 
 from the Pomptine marshes. 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 
 APPLE (msn tappuah).—The conditions to be 
 fulfilled by the tappuah are that it should be a fine 
 tree, suitable to sit under (Ca 2°): ‘As the apple 
 tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved 
 among the sons. I sat down under his shadow 
 with great delight.’ It should be of size sufficient 
 to overshadow a booth or house (Ca 8°): ‘I raised 
 thee up under the apple tree; there thy mother 
 brought thee forth ; there she brought thee forth 
 that bare thee.’ It had a sweet fruit (Ca 2%): ‘and 
 his fruit was sweet to my taste.’ It also had a 
 pleeent smell (Ca 7°): ‘and the smell of thy nose 
 ike apples.’ It was used to revive a person 
 who was languid (Ca 2°): ‘Stay me with 
 raisins, comfort me with apples; for I am sick 
 of love. 
 
 The apple fulfils all the conditions perfectly. 
 It is a fruit tree which often attains a large size, 
 is planted in orchards and near houses, and is a 
 special favourite of the people of Palestine and 
 
 yria. It is true that the fruit of the Syrian 
 apple is far inferior to that of Europe, and especi- 
 city tw that of America. Nevertheless it is a 
 favourite with all the people, and in a few places fine 
 varieties have been introduced and thriven well. 
 Doubtless such an epicure as Solomon would have 
 had many of the choicest kinds. Almost all the 
 apples of Syria and Palestine are sweet. To 
 
 uropean and American palates they seem insipid. 
 But they have the delicious aroma of the better 
 kinds, and it is for this queliy that they are most 
 prized. Itis very common, when visiting a friend, 
 to have an apple handed to you, just tosmell. Sick 
 people almost invariably ask the doctor if they 
 may have an apple; and if he objects, they urge 
 their case with the plea that they only want it to 
 smell. If a person feels faint or sea-sick, he likes 
 nothing better than to get an appletosmell. It 
 is an everyday sight to see an apple put over the 
 mouth of the small earthenware water pitcher 
 (called in Arabic abriq) to ge a slight aroma of 
 apple to the water. The first thing with which 
 hs capricious appetite of a convalescent child is 
 tempted is an apple, which he fondles and squeezes 
 with his fingers to hed ¢ the aroma, but perhaps 
 never so much as bites. very favourite preserve 
 is also made of the apple. 
 
 It will be seen by these facts that the apple 
 fulfils all the conditions of the tappuah. Add to 
 this that the Arabic name ¢i/dh is identical, and 
 noway ambiguous as to its signification, and the 
 evidence is complete. There is no other fruit 
 
 which at all realises all these cunditions. The 
 quince has a sour, acerb taste, never sweet. The 
 citron was probably introduced later than OT 
 times; it has a fruit with a thick rind, eatabie 
 oink after a very elaborate process of preserving 
 with sugar. The pulp is never eaten in any form. 
 The orange is a fruit introduced from the Spanish 
 Peninsula during the Middle Ages. Its name, 
 burdekdn, is a corruption of the Arabic name for 
 Portugal, bartughal. It was probably not known 
 to the Hebrews. The apricot is not a fruit with 
 any special fragrance, and is never used as the 
 apple to refresh the sick. A further confirmation 
 of the identity of tappuah with aah, the Arabic 
 for apple, is the present name Zeffah for Beth- 
 tappuah (Jos 15%), 
 
 The ‘ pictures of silver’ (Pr 25") in which apples 
 of gold are said to be placed, may have been filigree 
 silver baskets for fruit. The Oriental silversmiths 
 excel in the manufacture of such ware. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 APPLE OF THE EYE (lit. ‘child [j\vx, dim. of 
 wx man] of the eye’; sometimes n3 ‘daughter of 
 the eye.’ Ps 178, in combination, py-na pwx> ‘as 
 child, daughter of, the eye.’ Once, Zec 28, 133 ‘ the 
 opening, door, of the eye’) is the ‘eyeball,’ or globe 
 of the eye, especially the pupil or centre, the organ 
 of vision; composed of exceedingly delicate and 
 sensitive structures, carefully shielded from external 
 injury. It is enclosed in the bony orbit, supported 
 behind and on the sides by a quantity of loose fat, 
 protected above by the eyebrows, and in front by 
 the eyelashes and eyelids, the lids closing instine- 
 tively in presence of danger. The surface is kept 
 continually moist by an almost imperceptible flow 
 of tears. ence its preciousness makes it a fitting 
 emblem of God’s unceasing and tender care for His 
 people, as in Dt 32, Ps 178, Zec 28. In Pr 7? the 
 same figure represents the preciousness of th 
 divine law; and in La 2° continuous weeping is 
 enjoined because of the terrible calamities that 
 had befallen the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 
 
 8. T. GWILLIAM. 
 
 APPOINT.—In earlier Eng. this word had a con- 
 siderable range of meaning, and there are many 
 bre in AV of obsol. or archaic uses. To a. is 
 literally ‘to bring to a point,’ t.e. fix or settle. 
 1. If the point in question is between two or more 
 persons, then it means to agree, as Jg 20 ‘ Now 
 there was an a sign between the men of Israel 
 and the liers in wait.’ Cf. Job 2" ‘Job’s three 
 friends. . . had made an appointment together 
 come to mourn with him and to comfort him.’ 
 2. If it is one’s own mind that is to be brought to 
 a oa or settled, then a. means to resolve, as 
 28 174 ‘The Lord, had a% (RV ‘ordained ’) to 
 defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel.’ 3. If it 
 is other persons or things, then a. means (a) to 
 make firm, establish, as Pr 8” ‘He a4 (RV ‘ marked 
 out’) the foundations of the earth.’ (6) To pre- 
 scribe or decree, as Gn 30% ‘A. me thy wages, and 
 I will give it’ ; 2S 15% ‘ Thy servants are ready to 
 do whatsoever my lord the king shall a.’ (RV 
 ‘choose ’); 2 Es 37 ‘thou at death in (RV ‘for’) 
 him’; Is 308 RV ‘every stroke of the a staff’ 
 (Heb. 710:0 ayn ‘ staff of foundation,’ AV ‘grounded,’ 
 RVm ‘of doom’); 1 Co 4° ‘a (RV ‘doomed’) to 
 death’; 1 Th 5° ‘God hath not a us to wrath.’ 
 (c) To set apart, as Job 7° ‘wearisome nights are 
 at to me’; Ac 1% ‘they a% (RV ‘put forward’) 
 two, Joseph. ..and Matthias.’ ence (d) to 
 assign to some purpose or position, as Lk 10! ‘the 
 Lord a other seventy also.’ In this sense a. is 
 used with ‘out’ in Gn 24“ ‘the woman whom the 
 Lord hath a* out (RV ‘a*4’) for my master’s son’ ; 
 Jos 20? A. out for you (RV ‘assi: ou’) cities of 
 refuge.’ Last of all (e)in Jg 18%. ” a. means to 
 furnish or equip: ‘six hundred men a4 (RV ‘ girt’) 
 
 
 
APPREHEND 
 
 with weapons of war.” With which cf. Shaka. Tit. 
 And. Iv. ii. 16— 
 
 ‘You may be armed and appointed well’; 
 
 and Tindale’s tr. of Lk 178 ‘Apoynt thy selfe and 
 serve me.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 APPREHEND is twice used in AV in the 
 still customary sense of ‘making prisoner,’ Ac 12+, 
 2 Co 11; but RV turns a. into ‘take’ in both 
 passages, in order to make the tr. of the verb 
 (mdfw) uniform. See Jn 73 32 44 g20 (39 1157 
 21% 10 Ac 37, Rev 19%. In Ph 3}% 3 9. is found 
 in the nearly obsol. sense of ‘laying hold of,’ and 
 is used fig., ‘If that I may a. that for which 
 also I am a® of (RV ‘was a by’) Christ Jesus’ 
 (Amer. RV ‘laid hold on’). To those, the only 
 examples of a. in AV, RV adds Jn 15 ‘And the 
 light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness ac 
 it not’ (AV ‘comprehended,’ RVm ‘overcame,’ 
 with a ref. to Jn 12% ‘that darkness overtake you 
 not,’ where the Gr. verb xara\auBdvw is the same) ; 
 and Eph. 3° ‘that ye... may be strong to a.’ 
 (game Gr. AV ‘may be able to comprehend’), ‘a 
 rainute and over-careful change,’ oie Mou.e. See 
 COMPREHEND, . HASTINGS. 
 
 APPROYE.—This word has now settled down 
 into the meaning of ‘to think well of’; examples 
 are Ps 49%, La 3%. But in other passages we 
 see it only approaching this meaning, and that 
 from two sides. We may a. of a thing if its worth 
 is tested by us, or if it is demonstrated to us. 
 Hence (1) to test, or a. after testing (Gr. doxiudtw 
 or ddxiuos): Ro 16 ‘Salute Apelles, a% in Christ,’ 
 28 and Ph 1° ‘thou a“ the things that are excel- 
 lent’ (RVm ‘provest the thicgs that differ’), Ro 
 1438, 1 Co 11 16%, 2 Co 10'8 137, 4 Ti 2'5, and in RV 
 Ro 14”, 1 Th 24, Ja 1".* And (.’) to demonstrate, 
 or a. after demonstration; Ac 2% 2umana%of God 
 among you (RV ‘unto you’) by micacles’ (darodedevy- 
 Héevov eis buds, ‘a strong word=ciearly shown, 
 pointed out specially or apart from uthers; it ex- 
 presses clearness, and suggests certwinty.’—Page 
 and Walpole, Acts, p. 18); 2 Co 64 ‘ix all things 
 a8 ourselves as the ministers of God’ wwuvlornue, 
 RV ‘commending’); 74 ‘Ye have a ysurselves 
 to be clear in this matter’ (cvvlcrnm, RV «s AV). 
 Cf. Pref. to AV (1611) ‘We do seek to a. ow-selves 
 to every one’s conscience,’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 APRON (an, Gn 37; cipsxlyOcor (semicinctirim), 
 Ac 19!),—The OT instance is sufficiently explaived 
 by the context. That of Ac 19!? was a wrappe of 
 coloured cotton, in shape and size resembling « 
 bath-towel, worn by fishermen, potters, wate. - 
 carriers, sawyers, etc., as a loin-cloth; worn alsv 
 by grocers, bakers, carpenters, and craftsmen 
 generally, as a protection to their clothes from 
 dust and stains, and as something to wipe their 
 perspiring and soiled hands upon. St. Paul would 
 wear an a. when making tent-cloth. The labori- 
 ousness of his life at Ephesus for the support of 
 himself and others is referred to in the farewell 
 words at Miletus (Ac 20%). Handkerchiefs and 
 aprons were chosen (Ac 19!) because they were 
 nent and portable, and of the same shape for all. 
 The incident referred to is in intimate agreement 
 with Oriental feeling. Superstition carries it to 
 
 * Craik (English of Shakespeare, p. 147) points out that a. in 
 
 the sense of prove or test is very frequent in Shaks. He quotes 
 Two Gent. of Verona, v. iv. 43— 
 
 *O, ’tis the curse of love, and still approved, 
 When women cannot love where they’re beloved.’ 
 
 And he says: ‘When Don Pedro in Much Ado about Nothing 
 (1. i. 394) describes Benedick as ‘of approved valour,” the 
 words cannot be understood as conveying any notion of what 
 we now call approval or approbation; the meaning is merely 
 that he had proved his valour by his conduct.’ 
 
 VOL. I.—a 
 
 AQUILA 129 
 
 disgusting excesses, as when the foam is taken from 
 the lips of one fallen insensible after the Moslem 
 religious dance (zikr), or when torches are frantie- 
 ally lit from the holy fire at Jerusalem. But the 
 underlying thought is that healing power being 
 from above must prefer consecrated channels. 
 G. M. MackIr. 
 
 APT has lost its orig. meaning of ‘fitted,’ which 
 has been taken up by the compound ‘adapted.’ 
 This, however, is the meaning of apt in the Bible: 
 2 K 246 ‘all of them strong and a. for war’ (nanbn py, ) 
 1 Ch 7; ‘a. to teach’ (didaxrexds), 1 Ti 37, 2 Ti 2%, 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AQUILA (’Axv)as, ‘an eagle’).—The first mention 
 which we have of Aquila in Scripture is in Ac 18?, 
 where he is Hescribad as ‘a certain Jew...a man 
 of Pontus by race.’ It has been conjectured that 
 St. Luke here fell into a mistake, and should rather 
 have described A. as belonging to the Pontian gens 
 at Rome, a distinguished member of which bore 
 the name of Pontius Aquila (see Cic. ad Fam. x. 
 33; Suet. Jul. Ces. 78). But for this there is no 
 warrant beyond the similarity of the names; while, 
 as further confirming A.’s connexion with Pontus, 
 we know that the A. who in the 2nd cent. trans- 
 lated the OT into Greek was a native of that 
 country (compare also Ac 2°,1 P14). Along with 
 Priscilla or Prisca his wife (see PRISCILLA), A. 
 had taken up his abode in Rome, but had to flee 
 owing to a decree of Claudius, in A.D. 52, expelling 
 the Jews (Suet. Claud. 25 says, ‘ Judzos impulsore 
 Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.’ For 
 the meaning to be attached to the passage, see 
 Neander, Pflanzung, I. p. 332, note 2; Lightfoot on 
 Philippians, p. 16, note 1; Plumptre, Bibl. Studies, 
 . 419). That the decree, however, did not remain 
 ong in force, is proved by the mention of a number 
 of Jews in Rome shortly afterwards (Ac 28'"), and 
 by A.’s own return (Ro 16’). From Rome A. sought 
 refuge in Corinth, where he received the apostle 
 Paul on his second missionary journey. tt has 
 been debated whether A. had embraced ristianity 
 before meeting Paul, or whether he owed his con- 
 version to the apostle. Against the former view 
 it is urged, that 1f he had been a Christian at the 
 time of Ac 18?, he would have been described by 
 the common name of yadyrijs or disciple ; against 
 the latter, that if Paul had brought him to the 
 truth, the fact would hardly have remained un- 
 recorded, and further, that community of occupa- 
 tion rather than community of belief is specia. Ly 
 mentioned as having brought the two together. 
 In the absence of fuller information it is impos- 
 sible to decide the question with certainty; but 
 the ready welcome which A. evidently accorded to 
 one whom the bulk of his fellow-eountrymen viewed 
 with such disfavour as Paul, inclines us to the 
 belief that when he came to Corinth he had at 
 least accepted the first principles of the Christian 
 faith, though his progress and growth in it he 
 doubtless owed to the apostle. If so, he and his 
 wife may be ranked as amongst the earliest 
 members of the Christian Church at Rome; and it 
 would be from them that Paul would learn those 
 particulars regarding the state of that Church to 
 which he afterwards refers in his Ep. (see Ro 18 
 1617-19), After about eighteen months’ intercourse 
 in Corinth, A. and Priscilla accompanied Paul on 
 his way to Syria, as far as Ephesus, where they 
 remained behind to carry on the work, amongst 
 those coming under their influence being Apollos 
 (Ac 184-28), They were evidently still at Ephesus 
 when 1 Co was written; and their house had come 
 to be regarded as the meeting-place ot one of those 
 little groups of believers into which, without any 
 definite organisation, the Church was then divided 
 (1 Co 16%; cf. Ro 16% 6), From Ephesus Aquila 
 and Priscilla returned to Rome, partly perhaps on 
 

 
 130 
 
 AQUILA’S VERSION 
 
 ARABAH 
 
 
 
 account of some great danger they had run on 
 Paul’s behalf, the warmth of the apostle’s greeting 
 proving, further, the general esteem in which they 
 were held (Ro 164). Eight years later we find 
 them again at Ephesus (2 Ti 4"). The frequency 
 of these changes of abode has caused difficulty, 
 but, apart from—the fact that an itinerant life 
 was strictly in accord with all that we know of 
 the Jews of that day, what more natural than 
 that A. and Priscilla should again desire to 
 revisit the city whence they had been driven, as 
 soon as it was safe to do so, even supposing they 
 were not specially sent by St. Paul to prepare 
 for his own coming? (See Lightfoot, Philippians, 
 p- 176; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. xxvii 
 and p. 418 ff.). 
 
 After 2 Ti 4% A. is not again mentioned in 
 Scripture, and the evidence of tradition regarding 
 him is very scanty. G. MILLIGAN. 
 
 AQUILA’S VERSION.—See GREEK VERSIONS. 
 
 AR (.y Dt 2°, comp. ‘y ‘city,’ or axio-ny Nu 2178, 
 Is 15!), on the south bank of the river Arnon, on 
 the northern border of the Moabite territory, 
 situated in a pleasant valley where two branches 
 of the river united (Nu 21! 22° ‘ the city of Moab’= 
 Ar of Moab). It is possibly the same as Kerioth 
 (Am 22, Jer 48%-4!), It is also almost certainly 
 referred to in Dt 2% as ‘the city that is by the 
 river,’ AV, or rather, ‘in the valley,’ RV (Heb. 
 bm, LXX ¢dpayt). The ruins of Rabbah, though 
 often identified with Ar, lie, not on the banks of 
 the Arnon, but at least 10 miles farther S., and 
 represent a later city built after the old Ar had 
 been destroyed by an earthquake in B.C. 342. 
 
 LireRATURE.—Driver, Deut. p 86 (on 29) and p. 45 (on 236); 
 Dillmann on Nu 2115; Delitzsch on Is 151; Dietrich in Merx, 
 Archiv, i. 320 ff.; Tristram, Land of Moab, p. 111; and see 
 turther under ARNON, KERIOTH, RABBAH. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 ARA (x x).—A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7%), 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ARAB (3738 ‘ambush’ (?)), Jos 155.—A city of 
 Judah in the mountains near Dumah. Perhaps 
 the ruin Er Rabiyah near Démeh. SWP vol. iii. 
 sheet xxi. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 ARABAH (73990).—This word occurs only once 
 in the AV (Jos 188) in the description of the border 
 of the lot of Benjamin; but in RV it has a more 
 extended meaning, and is applied to at least a 
 portion of the great valley (Wady el Arabah) 
 which stretches from the Gulf of Akabah into the 
 Jordanic basin. 1. In the former sense the name 
 applies to the broad plain of alluvial land stretching 
 from the N. shore of the Dead Sea along the right 
 bank of the Jordan for a distance of about 50 miles, 
 and bounded on the W. by the broken line of steep 
 slopes and precipitous cliffs which close in the valley 
 from its junction with the Wady el Jéseleh south- 
 wards to the heights of Kuruntfi] and the shore of the 
 Dead Sea itself. The surface is composed of suc- 
 cessive terraces of seous mar] and loam, rising 
 by steps from the river’s edge to a height of 600 
 ft., and marking the successive levels at which 
 the waters stood when they were receding to their 
 present limits. Nearly all authorities are now 
 agreed that the plain we are considering was the 
 site of the doomed cities Sodom and Gomorrah, 
 and afterwards of the Jericho of Joshua and the 
 more modern city in the time of our Lord. The 
 climate is tropical and the soil rich; and bein 
 
 abundantly supplied with water from the Wady e 
 ‘Aujah, the Kelt, and the Makuk, with natural 
 fountains such as the ‘Ain es Sultén and ‘Ain Dak, 
 it may well have deserved the title bestowed upon 
 
 it even in the days of Lot, ‘the garden of the 
 Lord’ (Gn 13). Near the banks of the Kelt is 
 situated the miserable village of Er-Riha, probably 
 the ancient Gilgal, surrounded by gardens producing 
 lemons, oranges, bananas, figs, melons, and castor- 
 oil trees. The copious spring of Es Sult4n breaks 
 out near the base of the limestone escarpment of 
 Kuruntfil, and its waters are caught in a basin of 
 solid masonry forming the ancient baths. The 
 temperature of the water in the pool, taken on 15th 
 January 1884, was 71° Fahr., but that of the spring 
 itself is doubtless higher. The locasity is rich in 
 natural history objects, especially birds, of which 
 Tristram records the bulbul (los xanthopygius), 
 the hopping-thrush (Crateropus chalybeus), the 
 Indian blue kingfisher (Alcyon smyrnensis), the sun- 
 bird (Cinnyris osea), Tristram’s grakle (Amydrus 
 tristrami), besides innumerable doves, swallows, 
 and commoner species. 
 
 2. In the latter sense the Wady el-Arabah corre- 
 sponds to the § Wilderness of Zin’ in part (Nu 
 34°), where it went up to the border of Edom on the 
 E. Its limits are stated above; and from the 
 Gulf of Akabah to the Ghor the distance is about 
 105 miles. At its S. end the Wady el-Arabah rises 
 
 adually from the shore of the Gulf of Akabah, 
 ined by a grove of palms, for a distance of 50 miles, 
 and with an average breadth of 5 miles; and at this 
 point, near] ee ee Mount Hor, it attains its 
 summit level of (approximately) 723 ft. above that 
 e the Red Sea, or 2015 ft. above that of the Dead 
 
 ea. * 
 
 On the E. the Arabah is bounded by the high 
 escarpment of Edom (Mount Seir), often broken 
 through by deep ravines which descend from the 
 table-land of the Arabian desert; except along these 
 ravines, the valley is almost destitute of herbage. 
 On the W. side the Arabah is bounded by terraced 
 cliffs of cretaceous limestone, along which the great 
 waterless plateau of the Badiet et-Tih (Wilderness 
 of Paran, Gn 217, Nu 12%*) terminates. The 
 floor of the Arabah is generally formed of gravel, 
 blown-sand, or mud flats; and these are sometimes 
 hidden beneath vast débdcles of shingle brought 
 down by torrents from the heights above and spread 
 fan-like over the sides of-the valley at the entrance 
 tothe ravines. The surface of the sandhills is often 
 marked with the footprints of gazelles, and, to a 
 smaller degree, of hyzenas and leopards; and at 
 intervals water can be had at springs or wells, of 
 which the best known are the ‘Ain el-Ghudy4n and 
 the ‘Ayun Ghurundel at the entrance to the valley 
 of that name. 
 
 Near the watershed (or saddle) at the limestone 
 ridge of Er-Rishy the Arabah is contracted to a 
 breadth of half a mile; but to the N. of this 
 as it begins to descend towards the Dead Sea 
 basin (the Ghor) it widens out to a breadth of 10 
 miles, and follows the course of the principal stream, 
 El-Jeib, which receives numerous branches from the 
 Edomite mountains on the E. and the Badieb-et 
 Tih on the W. These streams are fed by thunder- 
 storms in the winter months; but the Jeib is prob- 
 ably perennial; and along its banks, from the ‘Ain 
 Abu Werideh for several miles, thickets of young 
 palms, tamarisks, willows, and reeds line the course 
 of the stream. At this spot, which is 24 miles from 
 the banks of the Dead Sea, and at the level of the 
 Mediterranean (1292 ft. above the Dead Sea), are 
 to be found those remarkable lacustrine terraces of 
 marl, sand, and gravel, with numerous semi-fossil 
 shells of the genera Melanopsis and Melania, which 
 attest the extent to which the waters of the Dead 
 Sea had risen in the Pleistocene period. Other 
 
 * The height of the watershed above the sea-level was deter- 
 mined by Major Kitchener and Mr. Armstrong in 1888 to be 660 
 ft., and by M. Vignes in 1880 to be 240 métres, or 787 ft., mean 
 723 ft. ; or 2015 ft. above the surface of the Dead Sea. 
 
 —— Ee 
 
ARABAH 
 
 terraces of mar! are to be found at intervals as the | 
 traveller descends towards the margin of the Ghar ; 
 and here the valley breaks off in a semicircular line 
 of cliffs formed of sand, gravel, and marl, which 
 encloses the Dead Sea shore, and seems to be re- 
 ferred to in Jos 15° as the ‘ Ascent of Akrabbim.’ 
 Geology.—The Jordan-Arabah depression owes 
 its existence mainly to the presence of a line of 
 ‘fault,’ or fracture of the crust, which may be 
 traced at intervals from the G. of Akabah to the 
 E. shore of the Dead Sea and onwards towards 
 the base of Hermon. This line follows closely the 
 base of the Edomite escarpment, and its effect is to 
 cause the formations to be relatively elevated on 
 the E. and depressed towards the W. ‘Thus 
 the ecretaceous limestone (corresponding to the 
 English chalk formation) which forms the crest of 
 the Edomite escarpment and the plateau of the 
 Arabian desert above Petra, at an elevation of 3000- 
 4000 ft. above the valley, is brought down on 
 the W. side of the same valley to its very floor at 
 Er-Rishy, and forms (as stated above) that side of 
 the valley throughout its whole length, breaking 
 off in clifis of nearly horizontal strata. The more 
 ancient rocks which lie at the base of the Moabite 
 and Edomite escarpment never reach the surface 
 along the W. side of the Wady el-Arabah.* These 
 consist of red granite and gneiss, various meta- 
 morphic schists, seamed by dykes of basalt, diorite, 
 and porphyry ; above which the carboniferous and 
 cretaceous sandstones are piled in huge masses of 
 nearly horizontal courses, the whole surmounted by 
 the pee yellow beds of cretaceous limestone reach- 
 ing to the summit of the escarpment. The richness 
 of the colouring of the cretaceous sandstones, vary- 
 ing from orange through red to purple, has been a 
 source of admiration to all travellers, particularly 
 
 as it is yl pap hee amongst the ruined temples and 
 
 _ tombs of the city of Petra.t 
 
 Historical. othe Wady el Arabah appears to have 
 been twice traversed by the Israelites : first on their 
 way from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea, and afterwards 
 when obliged to retrace their steps owing to the 
 refusal of the king of Edom to allow them to pass 
 through his land (Nu 207}, Dt 28). No passage for the 
 host by which to circumvent Mount Seir was practi- 
 cable till they reached the stony gorge of the Wady 
 el Ithem, which enters the Arabah 4 miles N. of 
 Akabah. Traversing this rough and glistering 
 ravine under the rays of an almost vertical sun, it 
 is not surprising that (as we read) ‘the soul of 
 the peo le was much discouraged because of the 
 way’ (Nu 214). In later times the Arabah became 
 a caravan route from Arabia to Pal. and Syria. 
 The fort and harbour of Akabah (Ezion - geber) 
 now constitute an outpost for the Egyp. Govern- 
 ment, beyond which its authority does not ex- 
 tend ; the Arabah, as well as the Arabian desert, 
 being held by independent Arab chiefs. 
 
 Literature. — Burckhardt, Travels in Syria and the Holy 
 Land, 1822; De Laborde, Voyage en Orient, 1828; Hull, Mount 
 Seir, Sinai, and Western Palestine, 1889; ‘The Physical Geol. 
 and Geog. of Arabia Petra,’ etc., in Mem. PEF, 1886; Lartet, 
 Voyage d'Exploration de la Mer Morte, t. 3me, 1880; Robinson, 
 BRP, 1855; Stanley, Sinai and Pal.5, 1860; Blankenkorn, ‘Ent- 
 stehung u. Gesch. des Todten Meeres,’ in ZDPV, 1896. 
 
 Dean Stanley concurs with the view expressed 
 above, that it was through the Wady el Ithem (W. 
 Ithm) that the Israelites passed on their way to 
 Moab after their retreat from Edom ages 85). 
 
 E. HULL. 
 
 * Except at Ras el-Mugry, close to W. shore of G. of Akabah. 
 
 ¢ Stanley speaks of these colours as ‘ gorgeous,’—red passing 
 into crimson, streaked with purple, yellow, and blue like a 
 Persian carpet. Sinai, p. 87. 
 
 } The head waters of the G. of Akabah are fringed by an 
 extensive grove of the date palm (Phenia dactylifera), together 
 with some specimens of the rarer doum palm (Hyphene Thebaica), 
 which is also found in Upper Egypt and on the banks of the 
 Atbara., These trees are probably indigenous, as the old name 
 
 ' of Akabah was ‘ lath,’ which means a ‘grove of trees’ (Dt 28). 
 
 ARABIA 13] 
 
 ARABIA (a7y, ’Apafia), the name given by the Gr 
 geographers to the whole of the vast peninsula 
 which lies between the mainlands of Asia and 
 Africa. Of the application of the name in the 
 Bible some account is given under ARABIAN; 
 this article will contain a brief account of the 
 country itself, and of the references to it in the 
 sacred books, 
 
 i. GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY.—The shape of A. 
 was compared by Pliny to that of Italy, but the 
 breadth of the former is greater in comparison with 
 its length ; the length of the W. coast-line is about 
 1800 miles, while its breadth is about 600 miles 
 from the Red Sea to the Pers. Gulf. The Sin. 
 peninsula, which divides the Red Sea at its N. end 
 into the Gulf of Suez on the W. and the Gulf of 
 Akabah on the £., is ordinarily reckoned to A., of 
 which the sea forms the boundary on the W., S., 
 and E. sides. On the other hand, the N. limit.is 
 not so easily fixed. Some writers would draw an 
 imaginary line from the head of the Gulf of Akabah 
 to that of the Pers. Gulf; but this would cut the 
 S. extremity of the Hamad, or stony plain which 
 rises from the level of the Euphrates, and a little 
 N. of 29° suddenly alters into the broken dunes of 
 red sand called by modern writers Nefud. It seems 
 best, therefore (with the most recent authorities), 
 to extend the application of the name A. through- 
 out the Hamad, making the Euphrates for the 
 greater part of its course the N. boundary ; Syria, 
 which separates it from the Mediterranean, 
 forming, between about lats. 32-36°, its E. 
 neighbour. 
 
 For an incalculable period the sea has been re- 
 ceding from the Arabian coast, at a rate reckoned 
 at 22 métres yearly. Hence the peninsula is, esp. 
 on the W. and Rf sides, freed with lowlands, 
 called by the Arabs Tihamah ; yet on parts of the 
 E. coast the mountains rise directly from the sea. 
 Of the long coast-line on the W. side, much is 
 fringed with coral reefs, greatly endangering navi- 
 gation. Between these and the shore in man 
 pee a narrow passage allows only ships of small 
 
 urden to pass. The reefs commence in the Gulf of 
 Akabah, where alone has their nature as yet been 
 made the subject of minute investigation (see 
 Valter, ‘Die Korall-riffen der Sinait. Halbinsel,’ 
 Abhandl. d. Stichs. Akad., Math. Klasse, vol. xiv.). 
 The inlets in the coast form not a few harbours, 
 of which, however, owing to the paucity of towns 
 in the interior, only a few are of any importance: 
 Yanbo, the port of Medina; Jiddah, the port of 
 Mecca; Hodaida, the port of San‘a, on the W. 
 coast; Aden on the S.; Mascat on the E. Of 
 these, Aden perhaps is the same as the port which 
 bears the name Eden in Ezk 27%, called Athene by 
 Pliny, and Eudaimon Arabia by the author of the 
 Periplus; while Yanbo may be the ’Iaufla of 
 Ptolemy. The rest were not known to the ancients, 
 whose ports have for the most part disappeared 
 with the advancing coast-line. Of these, the chief 
 port of the incense country, Moscha according to 
 the Periplus, Abissa Polis according to Ptolemy, 
 has been recently identified by Mr. Theodore Bent 
 (Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1895) with a creek two 
 miles long and in parts one wide near the village 
 of Takha. Others that played an important part 
 in ancient times, Leuke Kome, Charmotas or 
 Charmutas, Okelis, Muza, and Canneh (Ezk J.c.), 
 have been located with more or less certainty by 
 Wellsted, Sprenger, Glaser, and other explorers. 
 While the W. and S. coasts are broken by no very 
 striking peninsulas, the sea which lies between A. 
 and Persia is divided by the peninsula which ends 
 in Ras Mesandum into the Pers. Gulf and the Sea 
 of Oman, while the Pers. Gulf is again broken by 
 the peninsula of Katar, to the W. of which lies the 
 island of Bahrain, with the exception of Socotra 
 
 
 
133 ARABIA 
 
 ARABIA 
 
 
 
 on the S. side, the most important of the islands 
 which lie off Arabia, 
 
 The geological character of A. is thus described by Mr. 
 Doughty : ‘The constitution of the Arabian peninsula appears 
 to be a central stack of Plutonic rocks which are granited with 
 traps and old basalts, whereupon are laid sandstones (continuous 
 with those of Petra, and probably ‘‘ cretaceous”), and limestones 
 (sometimes with flints) overlie the sandstones. Newer rocks are 
 the volcanic, and namely of the vast ‘‘ harrahs”: the flint land 
 of gravel (upon limestone with flint veins) that is A. Petrawa, in 
 which were found flint instruments (as those of Abbeville) by 
 Mr, Doughty at Ma‘n, 1875; and ancient flood soil, block drift, 
 \nams or clays in the valleys and low grounds.’ 
 
 The land won from the sea constitutes the low- 
 lands (called by the Arabs Tihamah), which fringe 
 the peninsula, and beyond which there rise ranges 
 of mountains on all three sides. On the N. the 
 great Nefud, which succeeds to the stony plain, 
 occupies the centre of the peninsula, with a greatest 
 breadth of 150 miles, and a greatest length of 400 
 miles. Of this wilderness of red sand the most 
 accurate description has been given by W. H. 
 Blunt (in Lady Blunt's Pilgrimage to Nejd, vol. ii. 
 app. i). Far greater, however, is the untrodden 
 desert (Ahkaf) which cuts off Central A. from the E, 
 and S.E. provinces. The sand of these wastes has 
 peculiar properties, which, according to Blunt, render 
 them as different from other deserts as a glacier is 
 from a mass of snow. To theS. of the former Nefud 
 rises the Jebel Aja, a red granite range, stretching 
 E. by N. and W. by S. for some 100 miles, with a 
 mean breadth of 10-15 miles, and rising to a height 
 of 5600 ft. (Blunt, /.c.). To similar heights do the 
 mountains rise which shut in the peninsula on the 
 W. and E. sides; Wellsted gives the measurement 
 6500 ft. for the peak of Mowilah (S. of the Gulf of 
 Akabah), while 9000 ft. is the height of some 
 
 ‘portions of the Jebel Akhdar, or Green Mountains, 
 
 which tower over Oman in the E. (according to the 
 latest researches of Mr. Theodore Bent, Contemp. 
 Rev. Dec. 1895). To the same height, according to 
 W. B. Harris (A Journey through Yemen, 1894), 
 do the passes by which Yemen is entered from the 
 S. rise in places; and if the measurements of this 
 writer are correct, the plateau of central Yemen, 
 in the S.E., has an average altitude of 8000 ft. 
 Farther to the E. this southern range sinks till, 
 where it separates the incense country from the 
 desert (about 55° long. E. of Greenwich), its eleva- 
 tion is not above 3000 ft. 
 
 Between the mountains and the Nefud in North 
 A. lies El-Hisma, the great sandstone country, 
 described by Doughty as ‘a forest of square- 
 built platform mountains, which rise to 2000 ft. 
 above the plain; the heads may be 6000 ft. 
 above sea-level.’ Between lat. 26° and 20° vast 
 tracts form what are called harrahs, beds of 
 basalt, where the sandstone is covered with lava. 
 The most northerly of these volcanic platforms, 
 called‘Uwayrid, stretches for 100 miles in length, its 
 middle point being about 120 miles from the Red 
 Sea. It is thickly strewn with the craters of 
 extinct volcanoes, so thickly that in places as 
 many as thirty can be seen at once. The highest 
 cf these peaks, called Anaj, is 7600 ft. About lat. 
 16° this phenomenon is repeated. We owe descrip- 
 tions of it to Doughty ana Glaser. 
 
 Of the rivers of A. none are navigable; few are 
 
 rennial, or reach the sea. Some such, however, 
 
 ave been marked in South A. by the travellers 
 Wellsted and W. B. Harris. Most of them dis- 
 appear in the sand at some part of their course. 
 Instead of a river system there is a system of 
 wadys, great receptacles for the water brought 
 down by the mountains, of which the surface for 
 large portions of the year is dry, but where water can 
 be got by digging. Such in North A. is the Wady 
 Sirhan, which bisects the country in a line parallel 
 with the Euphrates; in Central A., the Wady el- 
 Dawasir and Wady el-Rummah, N. and S. of 
 
 Yemamah respectively, both issuing in the Pers. 
 Gulf—with the former of these, or with one great 
 tributary of it, Glaser (Skizze, ii. p. 347) would 
 identify the Biblical Pishon; and the Wady el- 
 Humd, first traced by Doughty, which traverses 
 the Hijaz, and issues in the Red Sea. At Saihut 
 (long. 51°), on the S. coast, there issues the Wady 
 of Hadramaut, once probably an arm of the sea, 
 which in its course of 100 miles receives a series of 
 wadys that drain the mountains behind it; while 
 the mountains of Yemen pays are drained by 
 wadys called Maur, Surdud, Siham, Kharid, ete., 
 of which the course was traced by Glaser (‘Von 
 Hodaida nach San‘a,’ in Petermann’s Mitthetlungen, 
 1886). 
 
 The classical writers divided A. into A. Felix, A. Petrma, and 
 A. Deserta. This division was based on the political condition 
 of A. in the 1st cent. a.p., the first being free, the second 
 (inclusive of Idumza) subject to Rome, the third subject to 
 Persia. In the native divisions different Priactales as Sprenger 
 (Alt. Geog. Arab. p. 9) has pointed out, have been con 
 According to a tradition which he quotes, Mohammed, standing 
 at Tebuk (about 28° 0’, 37° 40’), said that all to the N. was Sham 
 (lit. the left, ordinarily used for Syria), all to the 8S. Yemen (the 
 right). According to this, the name for the province of Mecca, 
 Hijaz (lit. ‘the barrier’) would mean the land between Sham 
 and Yemen. More probably it meant the ‘middle region’ 
 between the lowlands and the Nejd (highlands). These last, 
 then, are terms of physical geography ; and as those by whom 
 they were applied iad no accurate instruments for determining 
 heights, it is natural that the limits of these provinces should be 
 very inexactly fixed. According to Blunt (/.c. i. 23s8qq.), —_ 
 includes all the land that lies within the Nefuds, ‘the o 
 doubt being whether it includes the Nefuds or not.’ The treble 
 division, Hijaz, Nejd, and Yemen, would thus include all A. 
 within the Tihamas; Nejd itself being subdivided into seven 
 provinces, whose names need not be Lyte here. Ordinarily, 
 however, it is not customary to extend the application of the 
 name Yemen beyond 45° E, of Greenwich. Yet the name 
 Hadramaut, applied in European maps to the vast region which 
 extends hence to the S.E. of the peninsula, has been shown by 
 Wellsted and Bent to be properly applied to a wady about 100 
 miles in length. Great discrepancies exist as to the delimitation 
 of the province of Oman on the E. side, which, according to 
 Palgrave (7'ravels, ii. 255), ‘touches Hadramaut on the 8., and 
 Katar, or at least its immediate vicinity, on the N., forming a 
 huge crescent, having the sea in front, and the vast desert of 
 South A. for its background’; while the travellers Wellsted and 
 Bent give the name a very limited application. 
 
 ii. CLIMATE, FLORA, AND FAUNA.—The fertility 
 of portions of Yemen is so great as to have become 
 proverbial in antiquity; and the few modern 
 travellers who have climbed the mountains which 
 tower above the S. coast, and have reached the table- 
 lands beyond, speak with enthusiasm of the wealth 
 of the soil, and the high degree of skill displayed 
 by the natives in cultivating it. The peti part 
 of the peninsula, however, is capable of supportin 
 but a small population. ‘Nothing like one-th 
 of its surface,’ says one of the most capable ex- 
 plorers, ‘is cultivated without irrigation, the task 
 of extending which beyond the valleys and natural 
 oases is poe beyond the power of Turk or 
 Arab. ast spaces of unchangeable and un- 
 changing barrenness spread themselves over it. 
 Joining themselves to these are larger and scarcely 
 less dreary regions, econ by ead moun- 
 tains accessible only to the goat; by labyrinthine 
 area ravines or gorges nena only the hardiest 
 shrubs; and by tepid cultivated palm-oases, thick 
 with semi-tropical vegetation’ (Tweedie, The 
 Arabian Horse). It must be observed that even in 
 Yemen, according to Glaser (Petermann’s Mittheit 
 ungen for 1884), cultivation even in this century 
 has been steadily diminishing. Thus the plateaus 
 between the basalt peaks were once cultivated, but 
 are so no longer. Cultivation is indeed confined 
 to the oases, which, of varying extent, enliven the 
 stony plain, and to the valleys which intersect the 
 central plateau, ‘some broad, some narrow, some 
 long and winding, some of little length, but almost 
 all bordered with steep and sometimes precipitous 
 banks, and looking as though they had been arti- 
 ficially cut out of the limestone mountain’ (Pal- 
 grave). In some of the more northerly oases 
 
 
 
ARABIA 
 
 not only cereals, but fruits such as the plum, the 
 omegranate, the fig, the great citron, sour and sweet 
 emons, are cultivated. The palm, which has been 
 compared to the camel for its small need of water, 
 is widely spread, and its dates form the staple food 
 of the nomad population. No part of the country, 
 however, except perhaps the desert called Ahkaf, 
 is quite destitute of vegetation; this has been 
 . in the case of the Nefud by Blunt, and 
 Youghty assures us that the harrahs form better 
 Kedawin country than the sandstone. 
 
 The flora and fauna of A. are still imperfectly 
 known. Glaser (Von Hodaida nach San‘a) states 
 that he has himself collected out of South A. more 
 than a hundred specimens of animals and birds 
 previously unknown. In the Nefud, Blunt ‘ascer- 
 tained the existence of the ostrich, the leopard, the 
 wolf, the fox, the hyzna, the hare, the jerboa, the 
 white antelope, and the gazelle; and of the ibex 
 and the marmot in Jebel Aja; of reptiles the 
 Nefud boasts, by all accounts, the horned viper 
 and the cobra, ee the harmless grey snake ; 
 there are also immense numbers of lizards. Birds 
 are less numerous... yet in the Nefud most of 
 the common desert birds are found.’ Of animals 
 the most characteristic of A. is undoubtedly 
 the camel, the ability of which to go without 
 water ‘twenty-five days in winter and five in 
 summer, working hard all the time,’ renders it of 
 unique service in the desert; the ‘observations on 
 the camel’ in Baron Nolde’s Reise nach Inner- 
 arabien, 1895, ch. vii., form the latest contribution 
 to our knowledge of this creature, with which the 
 early Arabian pects are fond of parading their 
 acquaintance. No less elaborate are their descrip- 
 
 tions of the Arabian horse, seen at its best in the 
 highlands of Nejd, of which special studies have 
 been made by 
 recently 
 Tweedie, 
 
 many English travellers, and most 
 by the English officer, Major-General 
 who would seem to have proved that the 
 home of this animal is elsewhere. The ass is to be 
 seen at his best in the province of Hasa, to the 
 N.W. of the Pers. Gulf. 
 
 iii, History AND ETHNOLOGY.—Of the history 
 of A. during the period covered by OT, little is 
 known, since the records begin much later. Some 
 notices, however, have been collected by Assyri- 
 ologists from the cuneiform inscriptions of cam- 
 paigns in which the ‘Arabs’ were concerned. In 
 854, Shalmaneser II. met in battle a confederation 
 in which was ‘Gindibu the Arab’ with 1000 camels. 
 In the next century Tiglath-pileser 111. makes an 
 expedition into A., and in the latter half of it we 
 find Assyr. influence extending over the N.W. and 
 E. of the peninsula; and in the following century 
 many tribes which can be identified with more or less 
 certainty as occupying localities in inner A. were 
 defeated by Esarhaddon at Bazu (Buz). From 
 these inscriptions, interesting as they are, we 
 learn, however, little more than the names of 
 states and occasionally of kings, many of which 
 offer easy Arab. EL yinslovios. The peninsula might 
 seem to have been occupied by a number of inde- 
 pendent tribes, subordinate to no central authority, 
 —a state of things to which the difficulty of com- 
 munication has very frequently reduced it. Nor 
 is much more light to be obtained from the 
 classical authors, who till the beginning of the 3rd 
 cent. B.C. had only vague ideas about the penin- 
 sula. Great collections of inscriptions have, how- 
 ever, been made both in N. and S. Arabia by Euro- 
 pean scholars, esp. Arnaud, Halévy, and Glaser ; 
 and although many of the most remarkable of 
 these still await publication, the Arabian states, of 
 which merely the names had been recorded by 
 Pliny and Ptolemy, and of which only a vague 
 tradition circulated among the Arabs, have become 
 far more familiar than formerly, and something 
 
 
 
 ARABIA 
 
 _— 
 
 has veen learnt about their lines of kings, the 
 extent of their territory, and their wars and 
 alliances. To the Eng. travellers Wellsted and 
 Cruttenden belongs the merit of having first called 
 attention to the existence of the ruined cities in 
 South A., whence the most important of these docu- 
 ments have been brought. Of the nations thus 
 rescued from oblivion the most important were the 
 Minzeans (the o-nyo of the Heb. records) and 
 Sabieans, whose dialects differed in certain par- 
 ticulars, while both had more in common with 
 Heb. than with Arabic. A third monarchy, of 
 which the indigenous name was Lihyan, has left 
 traces of its existence and its language in North 
 A., but far less distinct in their nature than those 
 of the former two. 
 
 The chief towns of the Minwans were Ma'in, Karnau, and Yatil, 
 all of them in South A. ; yet the presence of Minwzan inscriptions 
 at El-Ula in North A. would seem to show that their power 
 was not confined to the S. of the peninsula, and some scholars 
 would extend it as far N. as Gaza. While D. H. Miller would 
 make the Minwan empire simultaneous with the Saban, argu- 
 ments are adduced by Glaser and Hommel which make it prob- 
 able that the latter State was one of several that sprang 
 out of the ruins of the Minwan empire. Of these arguments, 
 besides the greater antiquity of the Minewan character and 
 dialect, may be noticed the fact that most of the names occurring 
 in the Mingwan inscriptions are prehistorical, while those in the 
 Sahwan inscriptions can frequently be identified; that the 
 Minzans are not mentioned in the Assyr. inscriptions, and must 
 therefore have been powerful at an epoch prior to the inter- 
 vention of the Assyrians in the affairs of A. ; that whereas Saba 
 is mentioned in some Minezan inscriptions, the Minwans are 
 never mentioned in those of Saba. It is urged, on the other 
 hand, that the acquaintance with the Minwans shown by Gr. 
 writers and in late parts of the Bible (1 Ch 441, Job 211 LXX) is 
 inconsistent with the hoary antiquity assigned them ; to which 
 the answer given by Glaser, that the classical writers are 
 acquainted with them as a nation but not as an empire, is per- 
 haps insufficient. The Minwan rule of El-'Ula is thought to have 
 extended over at least nine generations (Hommel, Au/sdtze, 
 p. 27); and the statement in Jg 1012 (cf. 2 Ch 201), that the 
 Israelites before they had kings had been saved from the Minzsans 
 implies that their power extended farnorth. Like other Oriental 
 States, it is probable that the power of Ma‘in varied greatly 
 with the capacity of particular rulers; for, while from the 
 Inscr. Halévy 504 it might appear that the Minzan king 
 Wagqah-il Yatha’ was a vassal of the king of Kataban, his son 
 Il-yafa-Yathar was a great conqueror, who extended his rule 
 over the whole region S. of Jauf from E. to W._ Lastly, we ma 
 notice as of great historical interest the Inscr. Halévy 535, whic 
 tells us of their successful resistance of an invasion of Saba and 
 Haulan, and how their god Atthar saved them from trouble in 
 a war that broke out between the king of the N. and the king 
 of the S. This invasion of Saba was, if Glaser’s theory be 
 correct, one of a series of attacks continued for a period of 200 
 years, during which the princes of Saba were endeavouring to 
 undermine the Minzan power,—an end achieved (according to 
 the same scholar’s reckoning) about 820 B.c. Both the inscrip- 
 tions and the Bible tell us more of Saba, the tribe whose kings 
 were the chief power in the south of A., till about a.p. 300 they 
 gave way to the Abyssinians. Their capital was Marib (Mariaba 
 of the classics), some 45 miles E. of San‘a, famous for the great 
 dam, the breaking of which was regarded by the Arab chroni- 
 clers as the immediate cause of the decline of the Sabean 
 empire (Sheba, Saba). The Sabwan empire was, without doubt, 
 simultaneous with monarchies of Kataban, Hadramaut (with 
 its chief town Sabata), Raidan, and Habashah, all of which are 
 mentioned as included in a treaty in an interesting inscrip- 
 tion commented on by Glaser (Die Abyssinier in Arabien, 
 p. 68 ff.), and assigned by him to the 2nd cent. 8.0. Habashah, 
 corresponding with the region now known as Mahra, was, 
 according to the same author’s calculations, absorbed by 
 Hadramaut about a.p. 45; the Katabanian state (with Timna 
 for its capital) was ruined at some time in the 2nd cent. B.c. ; 
 and from an inscription of extraordinary interest, published on 
 p. 118 of the work last quoted, we learn how the prince of Raidan 
 and Himyar was defeated by the king of Saba in spite of the 
 former’s alliance with Habashah, and from that time (8.0. 115?) 
 the kings of Saba style themselves kings of Saba and of Raidan. 
 When the Katabanians disappear from the inscriptions, the 
 Himyar (the Homeritw of the classical authors) come into 
 prominence ; and at the commencement of our era the south of 
 A. was shared by three monarchs, of Himyar, Hadramaut, and 
 Saba with Raidan. Aided by the Sassanians, the Himyars 
 presently became all-powerful in South A. ; in the middle of the 
 4th cent. the monument of Adulis tells us that the Sabsan 
 power had been overthrown, and the Abyssinians became rulers 
 of Yemen; in 378 the Arabs had made head against the 
 Abyssinians, and indeed confined them to the Tihamah, but in 
 625 the Abyssinians, with the countenance of the Byzantine 
 empire, in a victorious campaign killed the king of the Himyars. 
 
 The condition of A., as represented by the 
 authors of the inscriptions, is very different from 
 
 
 
134 ARABIA 
 
 
 
 the nomad and patriarchal condition which we 
 ordinarily associate with the name Arab, and 
 which is certainly associated with it in the Bible. 
 The Sabeeans and Mineans are people of fixed 
 habitations; they build fortresses, and live in 
 walled cities; they raise massive temples, and con- 
 
 struct works of irrigation on a grand scale. War 
 forms only an occasional incident in their lives ; 
 the main source of their wealth is commerce; and 
 besides agriculture, they carry on mining and 
 manufactures. Texts containing ‘ordres de police’ 
 give evidence, says M. Halévy, ‘d’une haute per- 
 fection d’organization civile, et de l’existence d’un 
 code pénal chez les Sabéens.’ Their inscriptions 
 are, many of them, specimens of the most finished 
 workmanship, and show signs of the cultivation of 
 other fine arts; nor can their civilisation be shown 
 to have been derived from any other nation. Their 
 Pantheon, says the same writer, was marvellously 
 rich, and of prodigious variety. The temples of 
 both the chief races were built east of the towns, 
 which would point to the worship of the sun; yet 
 this cannot be shown to have existed among the 
 Minzans ; neither do the Minean documents show 
 the worship of Al-Makah, the chief Sabzean deity. 
 Common to both was the worship of Attar (the 
 male Ashtoreth), who in Minean texts appears in 
 the two forms of ;pw and j27y, which, in the opinion 
 of D. H. Miller, mean the rising and setting sun. 
 Two female deities, Wadd and Nikrah, interpreted 
 by the same writer as ‘Love’ and ‘Hate,’ also 
 occupy an important place in the Minzean Pantheon. 
 Yet from the nature of things civilisation of this 
 kind can only have existed in South A. and the 
 cases; the life of the dwellers in the ‘ black tents,’ 
 as described by Burckhardt and Doughty in this 
 century, must have existed from immemorial time 
 in the desert. Several writers, indeed, suppose 
 the difference between the nomad Arabs and the 
 stationary Arabs to be one of race; and, strange 
 as it may seem, the purest Arab blood is supposed 
 to be found in the latter (a@ribah) ; while the name 
 of the former contains the idea of Arab by adoption 
 (muta‘arribah). Neither half of the Arab stock 
 can be traced with any probability to any other 
 country ; and ethnologists are now with something 
 like unanimity making A. the home of the whoie 
 Semitic race; and the emigrations of the Shammar 
 and Anezah clans northwards in search of richer 
 pasturage than the A" deserts afford, emigrations 
 which have taken place within the last century, 
 represent the continuation of a series of similar 
 waves of which the commencement is prehistoric, 
 all brought about by the same causes, though not 
 all following the same direction. The fact that the 
 names by which they call their towns and villages, 
 as well as the natural features of their country, are 
 all Arabic, and bear no trace of the memory of 
 another home, is, as Gen. Tweedie has pointed out, 
 strikingly in favour of the theory which makes the 
 Arabs autocthonous. 
 This autocthony naturally does not exclude the 
 resence of a certain number of colonists. Four 
 reek colonies are mentioned by Pliny, Ampelone, 
 Arethusa, Chalkis, and Larissa, of which the first 
 cnly seems capable of identification ; Glaser (Skizze, 
 ti. 154) tries to find it on the coast of Hijaz. Being 
 a Milesian colony, it must have been planted not 
 later than the 6th cent. B.c. The name Javan, 
 mentioned in Ezk 27! in a context which points to 
 A., is possibly to be interpreted of a Gr. colony in 
 the peninsula; and the statement of Diodorus 
 (iii. 43), that a tribe on the W. coast of A. culti- 
 vated friendly relations with Greeks of Beeotia and 
 the Peloponnesus, may have been rightly connected 
 with the existence of these colonies by Glaser (d.c. 
 p. 155). Jewish colonies also existed in A. long 
 before the time of the Prophet Mohammed ; in the 
 
 ARABIA 
 
 3rd and 4th cent. A.D. they would seem to have 
 been favoured by the Persians in opposition to the 
 Christian communities which had the support of 
 the W. empire (Die Abyssinier in Arabien, p. 175). 
 
 The ethnological tables of Gn would seem to take special note 
 of the inhabitants of A., who are assigned places in the human 
 family in the following passages: Gn 107 (children of Cush), 
 1022.23 (children of Shem), 1025-30 (children of Eber), 251-4 
 (children of Abraham and Keturah), 2512-18 (Ishmaelites). The 
 eminent explorer Carsten Niebuhr argued from the number of 
 places in Yemen and Hadramaut mentioned by ‘ Moses’ in these 
 places that the legislator must himself have travelled in the 
 country ; but his attempts at identifying them do litiie towards 
 confirming this proposition. More elaborate attempts ha ve been 
 made in more recent times, notably by Glaser in his Skizze, ii. 
 314-470, without, however, producing many convinving results. 
 The tables are not quite consistent, as the same names are 
 assigned different pedigrees ; but this Glaser would account for 
 by supposing the tables compiled at different periods between 
 the 11th and the 6th cent. B.c. Some of the names, such as 
 Sheba and Dedan, are known from other parts of Scripture, and 
 are otherwise famous; a few, e.g. Hadramaut (m)p"xsn), can be 
 identified with certainty ; several, esp. Ophir and Havilah, are 
 frequently mentioned in Scripture, but are difficult to localise. 
 Most of the names, however, occur in these tables only; and as 
 we are quite ignorant of the sources from which their compiler 
 drew, endeavours to localise them would seem to have little 
 scientific value. They doubtless signified to the compiler tribes 
 or nations ; but the ordinary rule for the interpretation of these 
 patronymic pedigrees, according to which the fathers stand to 
 the sons in the relation of genus to species, cannot be applied to 
 them. Thus the great nation of Sheba is called a son of Ra'mah 
 (probably the Regma of Ptolemy, a town on the Pers. Gulf, 
 Glaser,.p. 252), which is co-ordinated with it in Ezk 2722, and 
 Ra'‘mah itself a son of Cush. Still stranger is it that the patri- 
 arch of the Arab nations, including Ophir and Hadramaut, 
 Joktan, should have left so little trave in A. that Sprenger 
 (Geog. p. 50) is fain to identify the name with Bishat Yakzan, a 
 station on the incense road. Glaser, perhaps with greater 
 probability, connects it with Katan, a town of Hadramaut. It 
 is probable, therefore, that these tables, so far from being exact, 
 are as vague as might be expected in the case of so vast and un- 
 explored a country. Even Saba, which we know to have been a 
 powerful empire, is vaguely spoken of by the pee as & 
 distant country (Jer 620, J] 38), in NT as at the ends of the earth 
 (Mt 1242, Lk 1131), 
 
 iv. TRADE AND COMMERCE.—The chief import- 
 ance of A. to the ancients lay in its exports, of 
 which the most renowned was incense, a gum 
 
 obta.ned from a certain tree by incisions made in 
 
 the bark. The country where this product is culti- 
 vated is a narrow strip of the S. coast from about 
 53-55° long. E. of Greenwich, its headquarters being 
 the ancient city of Dafar (probably the 150 of Gn 
 10). After doubts had been cast even on the 
 possibility of A. producing incense (see the excursus 
 on this in Ritter, Erdkunde von Arabien), this region 
 was visited by Mr. Theodore Bent in 1895, who 
 described the industry in the Nineteenth Century 
 for Oct. of that year. It is uncertain whether its 
 cultivation ever extended over a much greater area 
 than now. 
 
 Sprenger (Geog. p. 299) regards the incense 
 country as ‘the heart of the commerce of the 
 ancient world,’ owing to the vast amount of it 
 required for religious rites, and terms the Arabs, 
 or, more nearly, the inhabitants of the incense 
 country, ‘the founders of commerce as it existed 
 in the ancient world.’ It is perhaps noteworthy 
 that the verb ‘Arab’ and its derivatives are used 
 in Heb. to signify ‘commerce.’ The incense traffic 
 of A. is alluded to by all the ancient writers who 
 speak of that country, and it formed the basis of 
 the proverbial wealth of the Sabszeans, who regu- 
 lated it with the utmost precision and severity (see 
 Sprenger, /.c. pp. 269-303). Reference is made to 
 this in the locus classicus for ancient commerce, 
 Ezk 27%. Other scents and spices are also men- 
 tioned as Arabian exports; but we notice as interest- 
 ing the observation of Glaser (l.c. p. 426), that the 
 
 articular spices mentioned in Ezk 27! as exported 
 rom a place we have grounds for locating in South 
 A. do not really grow there. Almost as famous as 
 the incense was the Arabian gold. The gold used oy 
 Solomon for gilding the temple is stated (2 Ch 3°) 
 to have come from Parwaim, which is plausibly 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 
 
 ARABIAN 
 
 identified by Glaser (/.c. 347) with Sak-el-Farwain, 
 a place mentioned by the Arabian geographer 
 Hamidani, who has preserved many notices of gold 
 
 Mines at one time worked in Central A. (see 
 Sprenger, pp. 49-63, and Glaser, p. 347 11.). And 
 since in Gn 10” Ophir, which by the time of the 
 composition of the Bk of Job has become a synonym 
 for gold, is called a son of Joktan, various scholars 
 have attempted to localise that famous gold-pro- 
 ducing region somewhere in Arabia ; and there are 
 stil] more forcible reasons for placing there the 
 land of Havilah, ‘where is gold, and the gold of 
 that land is good’ (Gn 2"), which Glaser has en- 
 deavoured to identify with the province Yemamah. 
 Precious stones, as well as gold and spices, were 
 brought by the 8S. Arabien queen to Solomon (1 K 
 10°); and these are mentioned by Ezk (27*) as the 
 merchandise of Saba. The exportation of iron 
 from Uzal, if that be the right reading, and if the 
 tradition which identifies Uzal with San‘a be cor- 
 rect (Ezk 27'*), would agree with the fact that the 
 steel of San‘a is still in high repute; moreover, 
 Mr. Doughty found places in Central A. where iron 
 might be worked with profit. In the same passage 
 of Ezk, Kedar and North A. are made to deal 
 in cattle, and Dedan in horse-cloths. There is 
 further mention’ in 27%, if the text be correct, of 
 embroidered textures ‘in well-secured chests’ from 
 Eden (and perhaps other 8. Arabian ports). This 
 would correspond with the high state of civilisation 
 which from the inscriptions we know theS. Arabians 
 at early times to have attained. Sprenger, ZDM/G 
 xlii. 332, states that before the time of Islam leather 
 was the chief export of Arabia. 
 D. 8. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 
 ARABIAN.—This word is used in different senses. 
 1. In Is 13° and Jer 3? it stands for ‘an inhabitant 
 of the desert or steppe’ (Heb. ‘27y, from 737y), with- 
 out any indication of nationality. 
 
 2. In the pre-exilic authors we read occa- 
 sionally of a tribe called collectively 19», ren- 
 dered in the EV ‘Arabia’ (1 K 10", Jer 25%, 
 Ezk 277). As the consonants of this word 
 are the same as those of the word rendered 
 ‘mingled people’ (Jer 25” ete.), and also of the 
 word rendered ‘evening,’ it is not always certain 
 which should be read. Thus in Is 21% the word 
 rendered in EV ‘Arabia’ should more probably be 
 tr. ‘evening’; while in 2 Ch 9" the punctuation 
 which signifies A. is substituted for the ‘mixed 
 tribes’ intended by the punctuators of 1 K 10%. 
 These ‘ Arabians’ are also mentioned in the Assyr. 
 inscriptions (see ARABIA), where the name of one 
 of their kings is given. Herodotus (iii. 5) also 
 speaks of an Arabian king through whose territories 
 the Pers. king Cambyses had to obtain a pass 
 before he could cross the desert to Egypt; and the 
 same historian gives us the name of a port on the 
 Mediterranean belonging to the Arabs, of which 
 the name (Ienysus) can be easily interpreted from 
 the Arabic (cf. anisa), but of the existence of which 
 We possess no other notice. The Arabian territory, 
 according to this author, was wedged in between 
 lands belonging to the ‘Syrians.’ In the Bible 
 this tribe is connected with Dedan and Kedar, and 
 is probably therefore to be located in N. Arabia; 
 the fact that it had a king makes it probable that 
 it possessed some fixed habitations or towns, since 
 that word is ordinarily associated with a royal 
 residence. The etymology of the name, like most 
 names of nations, 1s hidden in obscurity. 
 
 3. In the post-exilic records, where we meet with 
 the word, it ordinarily signifies Nabatean. In 
 2 Mac 58 we read of Aretas, the king of the Arabians ; 
 now Aretas was the name of several of the Nabatzean 
 kings, as we know from their own inscriptions ; 
 and Procopius speaks of Petra as the capital of the 
 Arabs, whereas it was famous as the capital of the 
 
 
 
 ARABIAN 135 
 
 
 
 Nabatieans. The Romans, who from the time of 
 the ill-starred expedition of A‘lius Gallus (B.C. 24), 
 in which the Nabatieans were their allies against 
 the Arabs, had good cause to distinguish the two 
 races, do not often confuse them; yet both 
 Diodorus and Procopius (quoted by Quatremére) 
 fall into this mistake. By the term ‘Arabia,’ then, 
 St. Paul (Gal 1" 4%) probably means the territory 
 of the Nabateans, which in the period of their 
 greatest prosperity extended from the Euphrates 
 to the Red Sea. One of their kings was the Aretas 
 whose ethnarch in Damascus endeavoured to arrest 
 St. Paul (2 Co 11°). The misapplication of ethnic 
 names is exceedingly common; and in this context 
 it may be noticed that in the Saban inscriptions 
 the Sabseans distinguish themselves from the 
 Arabians (ja1y; see J. Dérenbourg in CJS iv. fase. 
 2, p. 93), with whom classical antiquity identified 
 them. Perhaps ‘Nabatzan’ is the sense to be 
 attached to the name ‘Arabian’ applied to 
 Nehemiah’s opponent Geshem (Neh 2”), or Gashmu 
 (Neh 6°), whose name in its latter form bears a 
 genuinely Nabatean appearance. The important 
 art played by this,race was first pointed out by 
 Dane oe in his Htude sur les Nabatéens (1835), 
 the results of which were condensed by Ritter in 
 his Erdkunde von Arabien (1846, i. p. 111 ff.). The 
 inscriptions discovered at Madain Salih by Mr. 
 Doughty (Documents é¢pigraph. recueil. dans le 
 nord de VArabie, Paris, 1884), and recopied by 
 Euting (Nabat. Inschrif. 1885), have thrown con- 
 siderable light on their language, institutions, and 
 history. Having originally come from Mesopo- 
 tamia, this tribe. profited by the weakness of 
 the last Bab. kings to seize Petra, the ancient 
 capital of the Idumeans. The unique prey of 
 this fortress at the meeting-place of three great 
 commercial routes was the source of the wealth 
 which enabled them to attain a remarkable degree 
 of civilisation and luxury. Their first appear- 
 ance in history is in B.C. 312, when, according to 
 Diodorus (xix. ch. 95 sqq.), they successfully 
 resisted Athenzus, the genefal sent against their 
 fortress by Antigonus, king of Syria; their last in 
 A.D. 106, when A. Petraea was turned into a Rom. 
 rovince by Cornelius Palma. The possession of 
 
 amascus Aretas Iv. (‘ Philopatris,’ mentioned 
 in several of the Madain Salih inscriptions) is to 
 be ascribed to a temporary arrangement of the 
 emperor Gaius. The fact that the Nabatean 
 empire extended to E]-Hijr, called afterwards 
 Madain Salih, is certified for the time of Augustus 
 by the Rom. records. The notices of the Naba- 
 teeans in ancient literature are put together by 
 von Gutschmidt in the appendix to Euting’s Nabat- 
 eische Inschriften. 
 
 4, The employment of the name Arab for an 
 inhabitant of any portion of the vast peninsula 
 known to us as Arabia: begins somewhere in 
 the 8rd cent. B.c., though the only trace of it in 
 OT is in 2 Ch 2128, where the ‘ Arabians that are 
 near the Ethiopians’ would seem naturally to refer 
 to the neighbours of the Habashah, whom there are 
 grounds for placing in the extreme S. of Yemen , 
 it is not, however, clear how these tribes could 
 interfere in Jewish politics. In 2 Ch 267 God is 
 said to have helped Uzziah against ‘ the Arabians 
 who dwelt in Gur-Baal,’ and the Minwans ; as this 
 notice is not found in 2 K, its accuracy is open to 
 suspicion ; moreover, the name Gur-Baal bears no 
 trace of Arabian nomenclature, and only vague 
 conjectures can be hazarded about its situation. 
 Equally uncertain is the use of the name in 2 Ch 
 17. An Arab prince Zabdiel is mentioned in 
 1 Mac 1127 as murdering the Syrian king Alexander 
 Balas, who had taken refuge in ‘ Arabia’; anil 
 another Imalkue, or Iamblichus, as rearing the 
 same Alexander’s son (11%). The residence of 
 
 
 
136 ARABIC VERSIONS 
 
 thege princes, according to Diodorus (Excerpt. 32. 
 1), was called ’ABat. D. S. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 
 ARABIC YERSIONS.—Arab. VSS of the Bible 
 have been made from various sources, chiefly Gr., 
 Syr., and Coptic. It is, however, most improbable 
 that any Christian Arab. literature is as old as the 
 time of Mohammed. There were Christians in the 
 Arab. kingdom of Ghassin, E. of Damascus, and 
 at Nejrfn in 8. Arabia, but, to judge from our very 
 scanty historical information about the progress of 
 the Church in these regions, the ecclesiastical lan- 
 yuage was Syriac.* It was not till after the success 
 of the Koran had made Arabic into a literary lan- 
 guage, and the conquests of Islam had turned 
 large portions of Christian Syria and Egypt into 
 Arabic-speaking provinces, that the need of trans- 
 Jations of Seripture in the Arabic vernacular was 
 really felt. 
 
 The extant forms of NT in Arabic are best 
 divided according to the languages from which 
 they are derived. Thus we have—(i.) translations 
 from the Syriac; (ii.) translations directly from 
 the Greek; (iii.) translations from the Coptic; 
 at a later period we have also (iv.) eclectic com- 
 binations of the first three classes. It will be con- 
 ee to take the various divisions of NT separ- 
 ately. : 
 
 THE Four GosPELs.—(i.) Ts. from the Syr.—The 
 oldest representative of this class, perhaps the 
 oldest monument of Arab. Christianity, is the tr. 
 of the Gospels in a MS formerly belonging to the 
 Convent of Mar Saba near Jerus., now Cod. Vati- 
 vanus Arab, 13, called by Tischendorf arv@t (Greg. 
 vod. 101), and generally assigned to the 8th 
 cent.t From some Gr. Iambics at the end of the 
 MS we learn that it originally belonged to a certain 
 Daniel of Emesa, and contained the Psalter, the 
 Sospels, the Acts, and all the Epp. ; of these only 
 fragments of the Gospelst and the Pauline Epp. 
 now remain. The style is somewhat paraphrastic, 
 but internal evidence conclusively shows that the 
 Gospels have been tr. not directly from the Gr., 
 but from the Syriac Vulgate (Peshitta).§ 
 
 This free tr. from the Syr. Vulg. was probably 
 made in some locality where Syr. had been the 
 ecciesiastical language, and seems to have been 
 
 *Ibn Ishac about the middle of the 8th cent. a.p. (Wiisten- 
 feld’s Jbn Hisham, p. 150) quotes Jn 1523-161 as a prophecy con- 
 cerning Mohammed ; but the words are only a rough rendering 
 from the ‘ Palestinian’ Syr. version, not a quotation from an 
 already existing Arab. tr. See Guidi, Hvv. p. 6. 
 
 + The only accurate description of Vat. Arab. 13 is in Guidi, 
 Evv. p. 8. Considerable extracts from the MS are given in 
 Scholz, Krit. Reise, pp. 118-124. 
 
 t Mt 1027-middle of 26, Mk 519-168a, Lk 711-beginning of 10. 
 
 § E.g. in the account of the Temptation (Lk 41-13), Syr. Vulg. 
 and ar. vat exactly agree in the names of the Evil One. 
 In vv.1. 8 6 and 13 6 d:éBodos is rendered by Syr. Vulg. ‘the 
 
 Accuser’; ar. vat has Slavs ‘the Slanderer,’ and in y.1 
 stl Ay) Shaul ‘the calumniating Slanderer’ (for the 
 rendering of _)\qqJ! see 2 Ti 89 in all Arab. VSS). But 
 
 in v.5 Syr. Vulg. has ‘Satan,’ so ar. vat. has cy honcdl. 
 Th: Arab. VSS not derived from the Syr. have in all these 
 
 passages Cas! (=: Boros), but in v.8 they insert 
 
 bent L to render the Gr. saravz, a word here omitted 
 
 by both Syr. Vulg. and ar. vat. 
 
 It is worth noticing in this connexion that Syr. Vulg. and 
 ar. vat alone among critical authorities agree in inserting the 
 name ‘ Jesus’ in Lk 417. 
 
 Ar. vat has been wrongly cited (e.g. by Tischendort) as 
 omitting the ‘last twelve verses’ of Mk. It is owing to acci- 
 dental loss of leaves that the MS breaks off just before the end 
 
 of Mk 168, thus: —LulS lng} Lats aod Yee, ant 
 
 as Prof. Guidi has been kind enough to ascertain for this article. 
 
 
 
 ARABIC VERstONS 
 
 — 
 
 soon discarded at Mar Saba for a more literal version 
 made directly from the Greek. In other words, the 
 Gospel text of ar. vat was already obsolete by the 
 9th cent. A.D. No other Arabic version can claim 
 such a high antiquity.* 
 
 Another tr. from the Syr. Vulg. is found in cod. 
 Tisch. 12 at Leipzig (Greg. a 75), a bilingual 
 Syr.-Arab. MS of the 10th cent., brought to 
 Europe by Tischendorf from the Syrian Convent of 
 St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian desert. A few 
 leaves are at the British Museum (addl. 14467), 
 This MS has been fully described by Gildemeister. 
 The tr. keeps closely to Syr. Vulg., but some 
 renderings recall the phraseology of ar. vat, ¢.g. 
 
 bb ce U~») in Mt 10°" for ‘is not worthy 
 
 of me.’ This idiomatic phrase is not used in the 
 later Arab. VSS. 
 
 Here may be noticed the Arab. VS of Tatian’s 
 Diatessaron, which has been edited in full from 
 two MSS at Rome by Ciasca (Eng. tr. by Hamlyn 
 Hill). This VS was made, in the early part of 
 the llth cent., by the well-known scholar Abuw’] 
 Faraj ibn et-Tayyib from a form of the Syriac 
 Diatessaron in which the text had been almost 
 wholly assimilated to Syr. Vulg. It is therefore 
 nearly worthless as an authority for the text, 
 though most valuable for recovering the arrange- 
 ment of Tatian’s Harmony. 
 
 (ii.) T'rs, from the Gr. ma Arab. tr. made en 
 from the Gr. appears in some MSS of the 9t 
 cent., such as cod. K. ii. 31, in the Propaganda at 
 Rome, and the fragments of Tischendorf’s ‘ Lec- 
 tionary’ now at Leipzig (Greg. cod. 76). Both 
 MSS come from Mar Saba.t Very similar to these 
 is the Sinai MS Arab. 75.t These MSS have the 
 Gr. rirAo. and liturgical notes. They are perhaps 
 ultimately derived from a bilingual Gr.-Arab. 
 uncial MS generally quoted as 65, of which only 
 four leaves remain, one in its original home at the 
 Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and three in 
 the collection of Bp. Porphyry.§ 
 
 (iii.) T's. from the Coptic.—Most MSS of the see 
 (Bohairic) NT are accompanied by an Arab. VS. 
 Among these cod. Vat. Copt. 9, written in 1202 
 A.D. (Greg. cod. Copt. 30) seems to have been used 
 as a kind of standard text.|| We shall see later on 
 that the text of this MS is the ultimate source of 
 all the printed edd. of the Gospels in Arabic. 
 
 (iv.) Zhe two Eclectic Revisions.—None of the 
 Arab. texts hitherto considered have been in any 
 sense an official VS, and they present all the con- 
 fusing variety natural in such independent pro- 
 ductions. The need of a more fixed type, and one 
 which took account of all three great national 
 Vulyvates of the E.,—the Gr., the Syr., and the 
 Copt.,—was felt by the 13th cent., fe aoe in 
 Egypt, where Arabic had quite supplanted the 
 native dialect. 
 
 The first revised ed. of this kind was made about 
 1250 A.D. at Alexandria by Hibat Allah ibnel-AssAl. 
 This work, of which several MSS survive, consists 
 of a revised text of the Gospels with various read- 
 invs from the Gr., the Syr., and the Copt.4]_ It 
 was, however, found too cumbrous for a popular 
 VS, and towards the end of the 13th cent. was 
 
 *Some of the missing portions of ar. vat in Mt have been 
 supplied in a hand of the 10th cent. From the style and 
 vocabulary they seem to have been copied from the original MS 
 before the leaves were lost. 
 
 + Guidi, Zvv. pp. 9, 10; ZDMG@ viii. 585. 
 ments of this VS, see Guidi, pe oe Ly ee 
 
 t Mrs. Gibson, Cat. of Arab. MSS, frontispiece. 
 
 § The Arab. text of the Sinai leaf is printed by Dr. Rendel 
 Harris in Mrs. Lewis’ Cat. of Syr. MSS, Appx. p. 105. It seema 
 to be the conjugate of one of Bp. Porphyry’s leaves. 
 
 || Guidi, Evo. pp. 17, 23. 
 
 {| For detai!s of Ibn el-‘Assal’s work, see Guidi, vv. pp. 18-22 
 and Prof. Macdonald in Hartford Seminary Reord, April 1893 
 
 For later develop- 
 
 
 
 + 
 
 Li wile eke rile ganig ar neh antares Se 
 

 
 ARABIC VERSIONS 
 
 ARABIC VERSIONS 137 
 
 
 
 superseded by the modern ‘ Alex. Vulgate.’ This 
 is little more than the text of Vat. Copt. 9, filled 
 out by inserting from the Syr. or the Gr. those 
 numerous passages where the ancient Copt. VS 
 did not contain words found in Syr. Vulg. and in 
 the Gr. text of the Middle Ages. In many MSS 
 of this Alex. Vulg. (ar. alex.) these passages are 
 indicated by marginal notes.* 
 
 Besides these main types of text there are 
 several later MSS of the Gospels in Arabic in 
 which the language has been corrected or em- 
 bellished. Guidi (Hvv. p. 29) also mentions some 
 late MSS from Spain which appear to present a 
 tr. of the Latin Vulgate. 
 
 The printed edd. of the Gospels in Arabic are all 
 forms of the Alex. Vulg. Of these the chief are the 
 Rom. ed. of 1591, the ed. of Erpenius (Leyden, 
 1616), and Lagarde’s ed. of the Vienna MS (Greg. 
 cod. 36). The last is the only ed. containing the 
 marginal notes which belong to ar. alex. Some 
 edd. of Syr. Vulg. for use among the Maronites, of 
 which the most accessible is the Paris reprint of 
 1824, contain also a Carshfini VS (ar. carsh). This, 
 however, is simply ar. alex. slightly modified to 
 suit the Peshitta. 
 
 THE PAULINE EPIsTLEs.—({i.) T's. from the Gr. 
 of the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul are found in 
 ar. vat (8th or 9th cent., see above), and in a 
 Sinai MS (ar. sin.-Paul) of the 9th cent., the 
 text of which was published by Mrs. Gibson in 
 1894. Ar. vat has the so-called ‘Euthalian’ 
 sections, etc. + ; ar. sin, which is quite independent 
 of ar. vat, is remarkable for having no ‘ Euthalian’ 
 matter, but nevertheless it represents the late An- 
 tiochian text mixed with a few good readings. } 
 
 (ii.) A Tr. from the Syr. is found in a MS now at 
 St. Petersburg (Greg. cod. 134), brought by Ti- 
 schendorf ‘from the i? It is dated 892 A.D., and 
 appears to have been rendered from a Nestorian 
 copy of the Peshitta,§ but with glosses and addi- 
 tions like the Gospel text in ar. vat. From the 
 VS found in this MS (ar. pet) is ultimately derived 
 that of the printed edd. of Erpenius, and the Car- 
 shfini ed. of 1824. The latter agrees very closely 
 with B. M. Harl. 5474 (dated 1288 A.D.). 
 
 THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES.—No direct 
 Arab, tr. from the Gr. is known for the Acts and 
 major Cath. Epp. The chief edd. (ar. erp and ar. 
 earsh) seem to abo: as in the Gospels, an eclectic 
 mixture of the Copt., the Gr., and the Syr. In the 
 disputed Cath. Epp., which had no place in the 
 
 * Guidi, Hvv. pp. 22-24. He also points out (p. 35 ff.) the highly 
 important fact that the late text from which most MSS of the 
 Eth. VS have been corrupted is none other than ar. alex. 
 
 t For Ro (Scholz, Krit. Reise, p. 122) the numbers are: 
 5 sect., 19 capp., 34 (sic) quot. from OT, and 920 sticht. 
 Scholz also transcribes the whole of Philem and a few other 
 passages. As ar. vat has been wrongly quoted in 1 Tim 316 for 
 
  fhés, I give the whole passage (from Scholz): pr wl laa, 
 
 weal sel gill pyle ya alll guts 
 
 The fact that the two dots of } are never written in this MS 
 7G ‘ 
 
 seems to have prevented Schol from recognising that did. 
 
 FAN) simply represents scifue. Scholz’s text has sel 
 
 + 
 (tor Csaul), 
 
 1 See, oe Ro 165, Gal 615, 
 
 § See ZDMG viii. 584; Delitzsch, Hebrder, pp. 764-768, who 
 quotes the extraordinary rendering of ar. pet in He 29: and 
 80 he without God, who had united Himself with him as a 
 temple, tasted death for all men. The variant xyapis Oso is not 
 found in Syr. Vuly. except in Nestorian copies. In ar. erp this 
 is emended to express y«pirs Uso, and in ar. carsh we have ‘God 
 by His grace,’ as Syr. Vulg. See Gildemeister, p. 1 (n.), who 
 brings forward He 58 as another instance where ar. erp and ar. 
 carsh have a corruption of the text of ar. pet. 
 
 Peshitta (2 P, 2and 3 Jn, Jude), the tr. appears 
 to have been made directly from the Greek. 
 
 A tr. from the Syr. of Ac and all seven Cath. 
 Epp. (in the Gr. order) is found in a 9th cent. 
 Salen MS at Sinai (Mrs. Gibson’s Cat., No. 154). 
 In this text, while the other parts are from Syr. 
 Vulg., the disputed Cath. Epp. are translated from 
 the Pocockian VS (Syr. Poal.), now generally 
 printed in edd. of Syr. Vulg., and which is prob- 
 ably a fragment of the Philoxenian VS before its 
 revision by Thomas of Harkel.* This MS is thus 
 perhaps the oldest witness for Syr. bodl., though 
 it does not contain the purest text. 
 
 THE APOCALYPSE. The Apoc. was not a canoni- 
 cal book among the E. Churches; the Arab. VSS, 
 therefore, vary pel, Ar. erp is here perhaps 
 a combination of the Gr. and the Copt. Ar. carsh 
 contains some peculiar double renderings (e.g. 
 Rev 1°: *), but their source is not very clear. It is 
 not a tr. of the printed Syr. text. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT.—Arab. VSS of OT fall 
 under four heads, viz. trs. from the Gr., from the 
 Syr., from the Heb., and from the Sam. Of these 
 the greater bulk still remains in unexamined MSS, 
 only a portion of the various sources having been 
 printed. The great Paris Polyglott contains a 
 complete Arab. text of the whole OT except the 
 Apocr., and this text has been repeated with minor 
 variations in Walton’s Polyglott and in the New- 
 castle ed. of 1811, but it presents a singularly 
 mixed text. The Pent. is the version of Saadya 
 (see below). Jos is also from the Heb., but it does 
 not directly appear that Sa‘adya was the translator. 
 Jg,S, K, and Ch are all from the PeshittA, as is also 
 the Book of Job. The Prophets, Psalms, and Pro- 
 verbs are from the Greek, the Prophets being a 
 tr. made by a priest of Alexandria from a good 
 uncial MS resembling cod. A. This curious jumble 
 rests upon an Egyp. MS of the 16th cent. used by 
 the editors of the Polyglott(see Cornill’s Ezechiel and 
 Slane’s Cat. des. MSS arabes de la Bibl. Nat. p. 1). 
 
 Of the trs. from the Peshitté there are several 
 MSS. The Psalter was printed in Carshfini by 
 the Maronites in 1610 at a convent in the WAdy 
 Qizhayya (‘Psalterium qtzhayyensis’), and re- 
 
 rinted by Lagarde. Some lacunz in the Paris 
 
 olyglott (Cornill enumerates Ezk 1112 134 246-27 
 27% 4217. 18) are supplied in Walton from an Oxford 
 MS of this class. 
 
 There are also MSS containing a tr. from the 
 Copt. VS of the LXX. Of this Lagarde has pub- 
 lished Job (Psalterium, ete., 1876). An ed. of the 
 Psalter and Cant. with critical notes similar to 
 the work of Ibn-el-‘Assal (see above), is to be found 
 in B. M. Arund. Or. 15. 
 
 Several MSS present an Arab. tr. made from 
 the Sam. Pent. Specimens (incl. Ex 3, 4) are to be 
 found in a Programm by van Vloten, Leyden, 1803. 
 The best MS is peSbably that in the Cambridge 
 University Library (addi. 714). 
 
 The Arab. tr. of certain books of OT made direct 
 from the original Heb. have an interest of their 
 own for the history of interpretation, though the 
 almost invariably conform strictly to the MT. 
 Most of these trs. are from the pen of Sa‘adya 
 (ayo, Ar. Xrx.) the Ga’dn, a learned Rabbi, born 
 in the Fayyfim in Upper Egypt (A.D. 892-942). 
 His Babtioal rat have ete published as rollers 
 the Pent. at Constantinople in 1546, and again in 
 the Polyglotts (see above) ; Is. by Paulus, 1790-91 ; + 
 Cant. by Merx, 1882; Pr. capp. 1-9, by Bondi, 1888 ; 
 Job, by Cohn, 1889. In addition to these there is 
 
 the tr. of Josin the Polyglotts mentioned above. 
 Other VSS from the Heb., such as that in the 
 * Gwynn, Trans. of R. Irish Acad. xxx. pp. 375, 376. 
 t ‘ Very faulty... . Solomon Munk made important contribu: 
 tions to a more accurate text in vol. ix. of Cohen’s great Bible 
 (Paris, 1838)’: Cheyne’s Isaiah, vol. ii. p. 269. 
 
 
 
138 ARAD 
 
 17th cent. MS of the Pent., Ps and Dn, in B. 
 M. Harl. 5505, seem rather to belong to the era 
 of modern trs. 
 
 LITERATURE.—CRITICAL Discussions. — Guidi, Le Traduzioni 
 degli Evangelit in Arabo e in Etiopico (Reale Accademia dei 
 Lincei, anno cclxxxv.), Rome, 1888—the one indispensable work 
 for a general view of Arabic VSS; Gildemeister, De Hvangelirs 
 tn Arabicum e Simplici Syriaca translatis, Boun, 1865— 
 contains an account of the Leipzig MS, together with much 
 valuable information about the printed edd. of the Arab. Gos- 
 
 ls; Cornill, Hzechiel, Leipzig, 1886, Introd. pp. 49-57—con- 
 
 ins a careful investigation of the texts of the Polyglotts so far 
 as concerns Ezekiel. [De Sacy, Mém. de ? Académie des Inscrip- 
 tions, tom. xlix. anc. série. On Arab. VSS of the Pent.) 
 
 PUBLISHED TExtTs.—Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch. N.T., Leip- 
 zig, 1894, contains a useful list of all the then known Arab. MSS 
 of NT. Care must, however, be taken to look for the bilingual 
 MSS under the other language. Among the various catalogues 
 of public libraries I have found the British Museum Catalogue 
 (compiled by Cureton, 1846) especially valuable for the length 
 and number of extracts from the MSS. For tux OT.—Paris 
 Polyglott (see above, p. 137>) ; Walton’s Polyglott, London, 1652, 
 the Arab. repeated in the Newcastle ed. of 1811; Lagarde, 
 Psalt., [ob, Prov., Arabice, Gottingen, 1876—contains three VSS 
 of the Ps from the Gr. and the ‘ Psalterium Qazhayyensis’ from 
 the Peshitté, a VS of Job from the Copt., and Job and Pr from 
 the Paris Polyglott. (For Sa’adya, see the edd. enumerated on 
 p. 137%.) For tax NT.—Ed. Princeps, Rome, 1591 (repeated 
 1619, 1774), with a Lat. tr. by Antonius (sic) Sionita; Hd. of 
 Erpenius, Leyden, 1616 (=ar. erp); Hd. of the Polyylotts (re- 
 peated in the Newcastle ed. of 1811); Ed. Carshunica, Rome, 
 1703 (repeated in the Paris ed. of 1824 issued under the super- 
 vision of de Sacy=ar. carsh); Lagarde, Die vier Evangelien 
 arabisch, Leipzig, 1864 (see p. 1378); Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische 
 Reise, Leipzig, 1823: pp. 118-124 contain considerable extracts 
 from ar. vat (see pp.136,137>); Gibson (Mrs.), Studia Sinaitica, ii., 
 Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894, contains the text of ar. sin.-Paul.; 
 Stud. Sin. i. Appx. p. 105, contains the Sinai leaf of @h; Stud. 
 Sin. iii., Frontispiece, contains a page of ar. sin. 75 (see p. 1374) ; 
 Delitzsch, Hebrder, Appx. v. (pp. 764-769), contains extracts from 
 ar. pet.-Paul (see p. 137»). 
 
 THR DIATESSARON (see p. 136>).—Ciasca, Tatiani Evangeliorum 
 Harmoniae Arabice, Rome, 1888; Hill, The Earliest Life of 
 Christ, Edinburgh, 1894. F. C. BuRKITT. 
 
 ARAD (77).—A Benjamite who helped to put to 
 flight the inhabitants of Gath (1 Ch 8"). 
 
 ARAD (7y).—A city of one of the kings of the 
 Canaanites, assigned to the tribe of Judah (Jos 
 124), on the north-west border of the wilderness 
 of Judah, to which place (if the present text be 
 correct) a family of Kenites migrated from Jericho 
 (Jg 1%). It has been identified with certain ruins 
 on the top of a hill, Tell ‘Arfd, about 16 miles 
 south of Hebron, on the plateau to the south of the 
 Dead Sea. Eusebius and Jerome describe Arad as 
 20 Roman miles south of Hebron in the wilderness 
 of Kadesh. The king of Arad fought against the 
 Israelites as they were turning away from the south 
 of Palestine, but was defeated at Hormah (Nu 21: 
 33°). In these passages in Nu where the RV, 
 agreeably to the Heb. text, reads ‘king of Arad,’ 
 the AV less happily renders ‘king Arad.’ 
 
 LITERATURE.—Robinson, BRP? ii. 101, 201; SW iii, 403, 415; 
 Budde, Richt. u. Sam. 9ff.; Moore, Judges, 32ff. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 ARADUS (“Apados), 1 Mac 15%,—The Greek form 
 of the Heb. Arvad (wh. see). 
 
 ARAH (n7x ‘traveller’?).—1. In the genealogy of 
 
 Asher, 1 Ch 7%. 2. His family returned with 
 Zerubbabel, Ezr 2°, Neh 68 7}, 1 Es 5!™, See 
 GENEALOGY. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ARAM, ARAMAEANS (o7x, Zvpo, Syri. AV 
 ‘Syrians’ and ‘Syria’).—In Gn 10”+*% Aram is 
 the son of Shem, and father of Uz, Hul, Gether, 
 and Mash, the last of which is Arabia Petrzea, the 
 Mas of the cuneiform inscriptions (cf. Gn 2514), 
 In Gn 227 Aram is the son of Kemuel, the 
 son of Nahor, the two elder brothers of Kemuel 
 being Uz(AV Huz) and Buz (Bazu in the Assyr. 
 texts). 
 
 In the OT Aram includes the northern part of 
 Mesopotamia, Syria as far south as the borders 
 of Pal., and the larger part of Arabia Petriva. 
 
 ARAM, ARAMANANS 
 
 The inhabitants of this region were mainly of 
 Sem. origin, and spoke a Sem. language, which, 
 with its dialects, is known as Aramaic. Im some 
 parts of it, however, as at Kadesh on the Orontes, 
 near the lake of Homs, and at Carchemish (now 
 Jerablis or Jerabis) on the Euphrates, the Hittites 
 had occupied the country; and on the eastern 
 bank of the Euphrates, in the neighbourhood of 
 Carchemish, the powerful kingdom of Mitanni was 
 established, with a language of a very peculiar type. 
 An Aram. dialect was spoken by the Nabateeans 
 of Petra, and it is probable that the Ishmaelite 
 tribes must be classed as Arameans. 
 
 In the Assyr. inscriptions the name appears as 
 Aramu, Arumu, and Arimu, as well as Arma. In 
 a text of Tiglath-pileser 1. (B.c. 1100) the waters 
 on the east side of the Euphrates and westward 
 of Harran are termed mami mat Armd, ‘the 
 waters of the land of the Arameans.’ Assur- 
 nazir-pal II. (B.C. 883-823) states that he restored 
 to Assyria certain cities which a former Assyr. king 
 had fortified in the land of Nahri, towardsthe sources 
 of the Tigris and Euphrates, and of which the 
 “Arumu’ had taken possession. Among the 
 Aramvean princes whom he subdued here were 
 Ammi-baal and Bur-Hadad, t.e. Bar-Hadad or 
 Ben-Hadad. There were many Aramzean tribes in 
 Babylonia (Pukuduor Pekod, Nabatu or Nabateans, 
 Ru'ua, ete.) who lived under sheikhs on the banks 
 of the Tigris and Euphrates as well as on the coast 
 of the Persian Gulf. They were partly traders 
 partly pastoral nomads, and were collectively called 
 Arumu. The Assyrians never gave the name to the 
 populations westward of the Euphrates, who were 
 included under the general titles of Hittites and 
 Amorites. 
 
 In the OT, on the contrary, the name is applied 
 to the inhabitants of Syria as well as to those of 
 Mesopotamia. The different Aramzan districts or 
 states are distinguished by special titles. Meso- 
 potamia is known as Aram-naharaim, ‘Aram of 
 the two rivers,’ Tigris and Euphrates. It eorre- 
 sponds in part to the Nahrima of the Egyp. in- 
 scriptions, though the latter term deno the 
 district between the Euphrates and Orontes, 
 as well as the kingdom of Mitanni on the eastern 
 side of the Euphrates. In the Tel el-Amarna 
 tablets, however, it is confined to Mitanni. 
 The Assyr. country of Nahri lay in a different 
 direction, in the mountains of S. Armenia. 
 Cushan - rishathaim, king of Aram-naharaim 
 (AV Mesopotamia), who oppressed the Israelites 
 for eight years shortly after their entrauce into 
 Canaan (Jg 3°-!°), was a king of Mitanni. We learn 
 from the Tel el-Amarna tablets that in the 15th 
 cent. B.c. the kings of Mitanni or ‘Nahrima’ 
 had already interfered in the affairs of Palestine, 
 and had intermarried with the royal family of 
 Egypt. The troops of Mitanni accompanied the 
 northern hordes who attacked Egypt in the reign 
 of Ramses Il. (c. B.C. 1200); and as the king of 
 Mitanni is not named among the conquered in- 
 vaders, it is probable that he did not actually enter 
 Egypt, but remained behind in Canaan. This 
 would have been just before the Israelitish conquest 
 of that country, and would throw light on the 
 presence there of Cushan-rishathaim. 
 
 In certain passages of the Pent. assumed to 
 belong to P (Gn 25% 2875-7 3]18' 3318 (35% 35487); 
 the name of Aram-naharaim as applied to the 
 northern part of Mesopotamia is replaced by 
 Pad[dJan-aram, of which S’déh ’Ardm, ‘the 
 field of Aram,’ in Hos 12”, is supposed to be & 
 translation. Paddan is the same word as the 
 Syr. and Arab. padddn, a measure of land which 
 can be ‘ploughed’ by oxen in a day, and is found 
 in Assyrian under the form of paddnu. Padanu is 
 explained in the cuneiform lexical tablets as 
 
 
 

 
 Riss 
 
 — 
 — 
 ae 
 : 
 
 ‘tablets (B.C. 1400). 
 
 
 
 ARAM, ARAMA‘ANS 
 
 ARARAT 139 
 
 
 
 meaning ‘field’ or ‘ garden’ (WAT ii. 62. 33), 
 from a root which signifies to ‘cleave’ or ‘plough’ 
 the ground. It is also brought into connexion 
 with sharrdnu, ‘a high-road,’ whence the name of 
 Harran (Gn 11*! 28! 2745), and is the equivalent 
 of a Sumerian word signifying ‘foot’ or ‘plain,’ 
 which was used to denote ‘the land of the Amor- 
 ites’ (WATii. 50. 59). An early king of Babylonia, 
 Agu-kak-rimi (c. B.C. 1700) calls himself ‘king of 
 Padan and Alman.’ 
 
 On the western side of the Euphrates the 
 Aramzan states and language extended, eastward 
 of the Jordan, as far south as Mizpeh in Gilead 
 (Gn 314’, where the cairn is described as forming 
 a boundary between the languages of Aram and 
 Canaan). In the north was Aram of Zobah (the 
 Tsubité of the Assyr. texts, which place it east- 
 ward of Hamath). In the time of Saul (1S 14*) 
 ‘the kings of Zobah’ are mentioned, but soon after- 
 wards Zobah appears under the sole rule of Hadad- 
 ezer, son of Rehob (2 S 8?!2). Hadadezer, who 
 had ‘had wars’ with Hamath, was defeated by 
 Dayid ‘as he went to recover his border at the 
 river Euphrates.’ Subsequently, in spite of assist- 
 ance from the Aramzans of Damascus (2 S 8°), and 
 of Mesopotamia ‘beyond’ the Euphrates (2S 10°), 
 the army of Hadadezer was again overthrown 
 at Helam (perhaps Aleppo, Assyr. Khalman), and 
 ‘the kings that were servants to Hadadezer’ 
 became the vassals of Israel. Josephus transforms 
 the place Helam, which he calls Khalaman, into a 
 prince of Mesopotamia. Among the citiesof Hadad- 
 ezer captured by David were Tibhath (1 Ch 183, 
 ealled Betah in 2 S 88) and Berothai (Cun in 
 1 Ch 18%). Tibhath seems to be the Tubikh of 
 the Tel el-Amarna tablets and the preeroo a list 
 of Tahutmes It. at Karnak, the Tebah of Gn 22"4, 
 The whole district is probably that which is termed 
 Nukhasse in the Tel el-Amarna texts (Anaugas in 
 the Egyp. inscriptions). 
 
 Adjoining Aram-Zobah was Aram Beth-rehob 
 or Aram-rehob (2 S 10*%8), which may have de- 
 rived its name from the father (or ancestor) of 
 Hadadezer. Rehob is associated with Ish-tob, 
 ‘the men of Tob’ (see Jg 11°-5); but in 1 Ch 198 
 Aram-naharaim takes the place of both. To the 
 south came Aram-maacah or Maacah, which, 
 along with the adjoining Geshur, was assigned to 
 Manasseh, eastward of the lakes of Merom and 
 Gennesaret (Dt 3!4, Jos 12° 131-18 2 § 33 1337), 
 Like Tebah and Tahash, the Takhis of the Egyp. 
 monuments, Maacah was a descendant of Nahor 
 (Gn 22%). Between Maacah and Zobah was the 
 city of Damascus (As. Dimaska) which wasconquered 
 by the Egyp. king Tahutmes II. (B.C. 1480), and was 
 still subject to Egypt in the age of the Tel el-Amarna 
 Damascus is called Aram- 
 Dammesek in 2 S 8°, when it sent aid to Hadad- 
 ezer. The defeat of Hadadezer made it tributary 
 to David, but it recovered its independence early 
 in the reign of Solomon under Rezon the son of 
 Eliadah, who had been a vassal of the king of 
 Zobah (1 K 11%), Damascus soon became a 
 dangerous neighbour of the northern kingdom of 
 Israel, and at one time even exercised a sort of 
 suzerainty over Samaria. The other Aramezan 
 states of Syria were absorbed by it, so that eventu- 
 ally the name of Aram was applied to it alone; 
 but its power was finall aera by the Assyrians, 
 
 Foremost among the Aramean deities was 
 Hadad or Addu (also Dadu or Dadda), the sun- 
 
 od, identified by the Assyrians with their 
 mman (Rimmon), the air-god, also called 
 Amurru, ‘the Amorite.’ We find the combination 
 Hadad-Rimmon in Zec 124, By the side of 
 Hadad stood his divine son Ben-Hadad, as we learn 
 from the cuneiform inscriptions. At Sendschirli 
 Mention is made, besides Hadad, of Resheph the 
 
 fire-god, of El, Shamas, Or, and Rekeb-el or 
 Rekub-el, which may possibly denote ‘the chariot 
 of El.’ Numerous deities are referred to in the 
 Palmyrene inscriptions, such as Baal-samen, Agli- 
 bol, and Yarkhi-bol ; but several of them, like Bol, 
 or Nebo, or Sin the moon-god of Harran, were 
 borrowed from the Babylonian. So also was the 
 goddess Atar, the Bab. Istar, who, in combination 
 with the Syrian ‘Ati, produced the hybrid Atar- 
 gatis. In the south the Nabateans of Tema, 
 Petra, and the Sinaitic Peninsula had several 
 deities of their own, such as Aumos(?), Katsiu (Kas- 
 sios), and Zelem (As. Zalmu); but others, like Du- 
 sares and Allft, Manét, Kais, and Kaisah, they 
 shared with the Arabs. The gods of Syria are 
 mentioned in Jg 10°. For the Aramaic Language, 
 see LANGUAGE OF THE OT. 
 
 LirERATURE.—Renan, Histoire générale et systéme comparé des 
 Langues sémitiques (1863); Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen 
 Sammlungen, pt. xi., Ausgrabungen im Sendschirli i. (1898); 
 Baethgen, Beitrdge swr semitischen Religionsgeschichte (1888). 
 
 A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 ARAM (o7x).—1. A grandson of Nahor (Gn 221). 
 2. An Asherite (1 Ch 7*). 3 AV of Mt 13, Lk 3°, 
 See ARNI, Ram. 
 
 ARAMAIC YERSIONS.—See TArcums. 
 
 ARAMITESS (mx, Zdpa, Syra), a feminine form 
 which occurs in both AV and RV of 1 Ch 74, for 
 the elsewhere frequent term Syrian. 
 
 ARAM MAACAH.—1 Ch 19%, The more southerly 
 part of Syria. See ARAM. 
 
 ARAM-NAHARAIM, ARAM-REHOB, and ARAM- 
 ZOBAH.—See ARAM. 
 
 ARAN (778, Sam. 7x).—Son of Dishan the Horite 
 (Gn 36%, 1 Ch 1*), a descendant of Esau. The 
 name denotes ‘a wild goat,’ and Dishan ‘an 
 antelope’ or ‘ gazelle’ ; while Seir the ancestor is 
 ‘the he-goat.’ On the subject of Totem-clans in 
 the Bible, see Jacobs’ Biblical Archeology (1894), 
 ip. 64-103, and Robertson Smith on ‘ Animal 
 
 orship and Animal Tribes among the Ancient 
 Arabs and in OT’ (Journ. of Philology, No. 17, 
 vol. ix., 1880). H. oi RYLE. 
 
 ARARAT (n798, ’Apuevia).—The Biblical A. is the 
 Assyrian Urardhu (Urasdhu in the Persian period), 
 the name given to the kingdom which had 
 its centre on the shores of Lake Van. The 
 name seems to be connected with Urdhft, which, 
 a cuneiform lexical tablet (WAT ii. 486, 18) ex- 
 plains as ‘ Highlands’ (7id/a),* and which appears 
 as Urdhes in an inscription of the native king 
 Sar-duris II., who describes it as in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Lake Erivan. In Herodotus (iu. 
 94) the word takes the form of Alarodians. The 
 cuneiform writing of Assyria was borrowed by 
 the inhabitants of the country in the 9th cent. 
 B.C., and we learn from the inscriptions composed 
 in it that the native name of the kingdom was 
 Biainas or Bianas, the Byana of Ptolemy, now 
 Van. The capital of the kingdom, now repre- 
 sented by the modern city of Van, was called 
 Dhuspas; this gave its name to the district termed 
 Théspitis in classical geography, now Tosp. It 
 was upon ‘the mountains of A.’ that the ark 
 rested (Gn 84), and in Jer 51” A. is associated 
 
 * This is the explanation hitherto given by Assyriologists. 
 But I believe that the true explanation is different. Urdhfa or 
 Ararat was denoted by an ideograph, which usually represented 
 Accad in Babylonian, and signified ‘a mound’ or ‘tel,’ 
 in Assyrian tilla, because Tilla happened to be the name 
 of a city in Ararat with which the Assyrians were acquainted 
 in early times. It is called Tela by Assur-nazir-pal, and is 
 still known as Tilleh at the junction of the Sert and the 
 Tigris. 
 
140 ARARAT 
 
 with Minni and Ashkenaz. Minni, in fact, called 
 Mann4 or Minné in Assyrian, Mana in the Vannic 
 texts, adjoiued Ararat on the E., being separated 
 from it by the Kotur range, and Ashkenaz is 
 probably the Asguza of the Assyr. monuments, 
 which was situated in the same neighbourhood. 
 
 The name of Armenia, written Armina in Old 
 Persian, Kharminuya in Amardian, first appears 
 in the cuneiform inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis, 
 but the origin of it is quite unknown. It may be 
 connected with the Vannde word armani-lis, ‘a 
 stéle,’ or with Arman (‘the land of the Aram- 
 zeans’?), an Aramean district south of Lake Van. 
 Geographically, however, Armenia corresponds 
 with Ararat. The supreme god of A. was Khaldis, 
 who was worshipped under a variety of forms, and 
 from whom the inhabitants of the country took 
 the name of ‘ people of Khaldis.? Frum this was 
 derived the name of Khaldei or Khaldeans, 
 assigned by classical lean to the Armenian 
 population who bordered on Pontus, and which 
 was still preserved as late as the fifteenth century in 
 the name of Khaldia applied to Lazistan (Belek in 
 Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, ix. 1, p. 89). 
 
 The kingdom of Biainas or Ararat was originall 
 bounded on the north by the Araxes, and although 
 some of its kings made conquests still further 
 north, it never seems to have comprised the Mount 
 Ararat of modern times. This is still called Massis 
 by the Armenians themselves, and the extension to 
 it of the name of Ararat is of comparatively modern 
 date. Its great height, the larger of its two peaks 
 being 17,000 feet above the level of the sea, while 
 the smaller peak, 7 miles distant, is 13,000 feet 
 above the sea-level, has doubtless had much to do 
 with the belief that it was the spot on which the 
 ark rested. Arghuri, the only village which stood 
 on its slopes, is even pointed out as the spot on 
 which Noah planted his vineyard. It was first 
 ascended py Parrot in 1829, and the ascent has 
 since been achieved by Bryce and others. 
 
 The original site of the resting-place of the 
 ark lay towards the south of Ararat in the 
 Kurdish mountains, which divide Armenia from 
 Mesopotamia and Kurdistan. According to the 
 Bab. account of the Deluge, the ‘ship’ of 
 Xisuthros, the Chaldzean Noah, rested on the 
 
 eak of ‘the mountain of Nizir,’ which la 
 
 of Assyria, between 35° and 36° N. lat. 
 Similarly, Berosus the Chaldzan historian fixed 
 the spot in ‘the mountain of the Kordyzans’ or 
 Kurds (Jos. Anfé. I. iii. 6), and the Syriac version 
 replaces Ararat by Kardu in Gn 84%. Nicolaus 
 Damascenus also stated that the ark had rested on 
 ‘a great mountain in Armenia, beyond Minyas, 
 called Baris’ (Jos. Ant. I. iii. 6). Minyas is 
 Minni, and Baris is more accurately given as 
 Lubar in the Book of Jubilees (ch. v.). Lubar 
 was the boundary between Armenia and Kurdistan 
 (Epiphanius, Adv. Her. i. 5). The Jebel Judi is 
 still regarded by the Kurds as the scene of the 
 descent from the ark. It would seem, therefore, 
 that the spot has been successively shifted from 
 the mountain of Nizir (possibly Rowandiz) in the 
 east, to Jebel Judi or Lubar, and then to the 
 modern Mount Ararat in the far north. 
 
 The great plateau of Armenia, rising to a height 
 of from 6000 to 7000 feet above the sea, was 
 naturally a district which appeared to the dwellers 
 in the southern plains beyond the reach of the 
 Deluge. Intensely cold in the winter, it is equally 
 hot in the summer. The vine is indigenous there 
 (as it isin the Balkans), and the whole district is 
 marked by the results of voleanic action. It is note- 
 worthy that the present Armenian words for ‘gold’ 
 and ‘tin’ are identical with the Sumerian or proto- 
 Chaldean names of the same objects (oski, ‘gold,’ 
 Sumerian, guski, wuski; anag, ‘tin,’ Sum. nagga). 
 
 ARARAT 
 
 The cuneiform characters of Assyria were intro- 
 duced into the kinedom of Ararat in the 9th cent. 
 B.c. The syllabary was greatly simplified, each 
 character having only a single phonetic value 
 attached to it, and the greater number of charac- 
 ters expressing closed syllables being rejected. 
 The vowels were usually denoted by separate 
 characters, and a good many ideographs were 
 borrowed. It is to the use of these ideographs 
 that the decipherment of tle Vannic inscriptions is 
 mainly due. The inscriptions are carved on rocks, 
 altar-stones, columns, and the like, and are in a 
 language which shows little resemblance to any 
 other with which we are acquainted, though it may 
 be distantly related to modern Georgian. 
 
 The introduction of the cuneiform Boon was 
 paruly the result of the campaigns of the Assyr. 
 
 ings Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser II. in the 
 north, and it seems to have been connected with the 
 rise of a new dynasty which established itself on the 
 shores of Lake Van (about B.c. 840). The founder 
 of the dynasty was Sar-duris 1. the son of Lutipris, 
 who appears to have displaced Arame, the earlier 
 antagonist of Shalmaneser 1. Sar-duris was suc- 
 ceeded by his son Ispuinis (‘the settler’), who, 
 towards the end of his reign, associated his son 
 Menuas with him on the throne. Menuas was a 
 great conqueror and builder; he carried his arms 
 as far as Mount Rowandiz in the east, and beyond 
 the Araxes in the north, and he also claims to 
 have defeated the Hittites and the king of Mala- 
 tiyeh in the west. An inscription commemorative 
 of the event was engraved on the cliff overhangin 
 the Euphrates near Palu. Menuas was follow 
 by his son Argistis I., who has recorded in a long 
 inscription on the rock of Van the campaigns he 
 made year by year, and the amount of spoil he 
 brought back from them. The kingdoms of the 
 Minni and other nations in the neighbourhood 
 of Lake Urumiyeh were ravaged, and the Assyr. 
 forces are stated to have been overthrown. Sar- 
 duris I1., the son of Argistis, continued the con- 
 
 uests of his father, and extended his empire as 
 ar as the borders of Cappadocia. But his career 
 was suddenly checked by the revival of Assyria 
 under Tiglath-pileser 11. The northern league, 
 which the king of Armenia formed against the new 
 power, was shattered, and the Assyrians swept the 
 country up to the gates of the capital, Dhuspas or 
 Van. RusasI., the son and successor of Sar-duris, 
 was equally unfortunate in his attempt to check 
 the progress of Assyria, and after the overthrow of 
 his allies by Sargon, and the fall of the city of 
 Muzazir, he ‘cilled himself in a fit of despair. His 
 successor, Argistis I1., however, managed to pre- 
 serve his independence, as also did Erimenas, 
 against whom Esarhaddon was carrying on war, 
 when Sennacherib was murdered by his two sons, 
 It was to the court of Erimenas that the murderers 
 fled. His son Rusas I. improved the water-suppl 
 of Van, and built a palace, on the site of whe 
 various objects of Vannic art, such as ornamental 
 shields and man-headed bulls of bronze, have 
 been discovered. A few years later Sar-duris 1. 
 made alliance with the Assyr. king, Assur-bani- 
 al (B.C. 645). Ararat suffered soon afterwards, 
 ike the rest of W. Asia, from the invasion of the 
 Kimmerians and Scyths, in the wake of which it 
 is probable came the immigration of the bet fe 
 Armenians, and the fall of the old kingdom 
 of Ararat. According to the classical authors, 
 these Aryan Armenians were a Phrygian colony 
 (Herod. vii. 73; Eustath. on Dion. v. 694). ‘The 
 conquest of Armenia by Cyrus took place in 
 B.C. 546. 
 
 Lireratorr.—Sayce, ‘The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Van,‘ 
 in the JRAS xiy. 8, 4, xx. 1, xxv 1 (1893), xxvi. 4 (1894). 
 
 A. H. SAYCE 
 
 
 
ARATHES 
 
 ARCH 141 
 
 
 
 ARATHES ( Apiapdéys, x, AV Ariarathes; ’Apdé7s, 
 A, cursives, incorrectly, 1 Mac 15”), v. PHILCPATOR, 
 formerly called Mithridates, was king of Cappadocia 
 B.C. 163-130. He was a firm ally of the Paar 
 and, in accordance with their wishes, rejected the 
 
 roposal of a marriage with the sister of Demetrius 
 oter. The latter made war upon him, and expelled 
 him from his kingdom, setting up in his stead Holo- 
 hernes, a supposititious son of A. Iv. Philopator 
 Hed to Rome about B.C, 158, and by Rom. aid he 
 was restored to a share in the government. A few 
 ears later he again became sole king. In B.c. 139, 
 in consequence of an embassy sent by Simon Mac- 
 cabeeus, the Romans wrote letters to A. and 
 certain other eastern sovereigns in favour of the 
 Jews (1 Mac l.c.). See Diodor. xxxi. 19. 28. 32; 
 Justin xxxv. 1; Polyb. iii. 5, xxxii. 20, 23, xxxiii. 
 12; Appian. Syr. 47. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ARAUNAH (3px, also ax 2 8S 248 jnx 1 Ch 
 2135, 2 Ch 3!).—A Jebusite who owned a threshing- 
 floor on Mount Moriah. When David numbered 
 the people, and the pestilence was sent as a punish- 
 ment for his sin, this spot was indicated by the 
 prophet Gad as the place where an altar should be 
 erected to J”, because the plague had been stayed. 
 David went to A. and bought the threshing-floor 
 and oxen for 50 shekels of silver. The AES paid 
 is given in 1 Ch 21% as 600 shekels of gold—a 
 discrepancy which we have no means of explain- 
 ing. M. Boyp. 
 
 ARBA (ys7x) is described as ‘the great man 
 among the Anakim’ (Jos 1415), ‘the father of 
 the Anak’ (15"8), ‘the father of the Anok’ (21"), 
 This may mean that he was regarded as the 
 progenitor of the Anakim, and it certainly implies 
 that he was regarded as the great man in 
 their traditional history. Presumably he was 
 regarded as the founder of the city that bore his 
 name, and as having founded it seven years before 
 the Egyp. Zoan (Jos 1518, Gn 23? 357”, Nu 1372). See 
 ANAKIM, GIANT. Arbah, or Arba, City of. This 
 phrase occurs in AV in Gn 35”, Jos 15% 214. It is 
 simply a tr. of the name which elsewhere appears 
 as Kirjath-arba, or Kiriath-arba(which see). This 
 city is Hebron. W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 ARBATHITE (‘naqv7 2S 231), Klostermann sug- 
 gests ‘nawya n'a [see ABI-ALBON] ‘a native of Beth- 
 arabah,’ a town in the wilderness of Judah (Jos 
 15° © 1822); but ‘nanya occurs without na 1 Ch 11°, 
 and 7377 Jos 18%, J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ARBATTA (éy ’ApBdrros, AV Arbattis), 1 Mac 
 53.—A district in Palestine. The situation is 
 doubtful. It may be a corruption for Akrabattis 
 —the toparchy of Samaria near ’Akrabeh E. of 
 Shechem. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ARBELA.—The Syrian army under Bacchides, 
 which came from the N. upon Jerus. B.c. 161, is 
 described by the Gr. of 1 Mac 9? as proceeding ‘ by 
 the way that leadeth to Gilgal, and encamping 
 before Mesaloth, which is in Arbela (év ’ApSAa1s) ; 
 
 t possession of it and destroyed much people.’ 
 
 e sites represented by all these names are 
 disputed, and there are several alternatives 
 for the line of the Syrian march. The most 
 natural direction for Bacchides to take was along 
 the coast, and up the vale of Aijalon. On this 
 route there lay a Gilgal, the present Jiljuliyeh, on 
 the plain of Sharon, but no trace is now discover- 
 able of Mecadd@ or of “ApByd\a. Jos. (Ant. XII. 
 xi. 1) supposes that they came through Galilee, 
 which he reads instead of Gilgal. On this route 
 stands the modern Irbid, the identity of which 
 name with Irbil or Arbela is proved by the medi- 
 
 
 
 eval Arab geographers (Nasir-i-Khusrau calls it 
 Irbil, but Yakut and others Irbid; ef. Reland, 
 Pal. 358); and Robinson (BR ii. 398) suggests that 
 Mecadé@ or Maicadd@ stands for nidpp, a term he 
 thinks appropriate to the precipices, honey-combed 
 with caves, that always made Arbela a place of 
 Sey importance. But this identification is 
 doubtful. Again, Bacchides, having passed through 
 Galilee, might have approached Jerus. across Es- 
 draelon by the trunk road through Samaria, a 
 direction which is called in the Bk of Jth (47) the 
 dvaBdoes to Judea. On this route there lay a 
 strong fortress, Gilgal, the modern Jiljilia, which 
 might well have given its name to the route; and 
 Ewald identifies this with the Gilgal of our 
 passage (Hist. Eng. ed. v. 323). On the same road, 
 much farther N. than Gilgal, stands a Meselieh, 
 taken by some to be the Bethulia of the Bk of Jth, 
 and therefore a fortress that Bacchides, if advan- 
 cing by this direction, would certainly have to 
 reckon with; while close to Meselieh stands 
 Meithalin. These two offer a probable identifica- 
 tion for Meca\w#. The latter is said to lie & 
 "ApBAos, and this form of the phrase suggests that 
 Arbela (observe the plural) was the name, not of a 
 town, but a district. Now Eus. (Onom. art.”ApBy\a) 
 notes the name as existing in his time in Esdraelon, 
 94 miles from Lejjun, a position which suits the 
 entrances from KEsdraelon upon Meselieh and 
 Meithalin. It is just possible, therefore, that 
 “ApBnda was the name of the whole district. A 
 fourth alternative for the route of Bacchides was 
 through Gilead, which name is read for Gilgal by 
 the Syr. of 1 Mac 92. In the E. of Gilead there 
 lies to-day a point of strategic importance known as 
 Irbid ; but there is neither a Mesaloth nora Gilgal, 
 unless the latter be taken to be the Gilgal by 
 Jericho, which Bacchides might have passed had he 
 come upon Judea through Gilead. The Gilead 
 
 route, however, is much the least probable of 
 the four suggested. See BETH-ARBEL and GIL- 
 GAL. G. A. SMITH. 
 
 ARBITE (‘27x7).—The LXX (2 S 23%) apparently 
 reads ‘27x7 (the Archite), ef. Jos 16? and ‘Hushai the 
 Archite,’ 2S 15; but a place ’Arab, in the S. of 
 Judah, is mentioned Jos 15%. In the parallel 
 passage 1 Ch 11% we find ‘the son of Ezbai’ 
 (-3187]3), @ reading which is supported by several 
 MSS of the LXX 28 lc, (ulds rod “AcB.), and which 
 is probably correct, J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ARBONAI (ApBwvds, Jth 2%4).—A torrent appar- 
 ently near Cilicia. It cannot be represented by the 
 modern Nahr Ibrahim, since the ancient name of 
 that river was the Adonis; nor does the latter 
 answer to the term ‘torrent’ (xeluafpos) applied to 
 the Arbonai. C. R. 
 
 CONDER. 
 
 ARCH.—1. Of the Temple. The word ‘arch’ is 
 used in the plural (‘arches’) 14 times in Ezk 40, 
 That neither ‘arch’ nor ‘arches’ has any right to 
 appear in the Eng. Bible at all, an examination of 
 Ase Heb. word, of the versions, and of the context, 
 will make clear. The Heb. word is according to 
 the Mass. pointing 092°" ’élammim, which is the 
 lur. of 07's ’élam; the word is, however, onl 
 ound with suffixes, and as the text stands it is 
 sing. not plur.; it is the Keré or corrected 
 reading that makes the word plural. Twice 
 indeed (40%* ®) does the fem. plur. nisby occur ; but 
 Smend (Comm. p. 326) suspects an error. (Cornill 
 in y.6 reads 07s sing. ; v.® he rejects, following 
 most Heb. MSS.) In all the remaining 12 places 
 the written text makes it singular and not plural. 
 The word occurs nowhere outside this chapter, and 
 it is almost certainly either a synonym of ox 
 lam, porch, or a clerical error for this last word. 
 
 
 

 
 142 ARCHANGEL 
 
 That the translators of the LXX had before them, 
 in all the instances where either 2?°S or obi is now 
 found, one and the same Heb. word in the text, 
 is suggested by the fact that these translators use 
 but one Greek word, and that a mere translit. of 
 
 D?'s, viz. aiAdu. Cornill in his amended text of 
 
 Ezk reads Dory, never 22)%, and trs. by Vorhaile 
 (porch). It should be stated, however, that aiadu 
 trs. the Heb. word ‘2 saph, ‘threshold,’ in Ezk 
 465, and boy *ayil, ‘post,’ in 4019 14.16.49 and 411, 
 The Vulg. uses one word vestibulum for ’élam and 
 *ilam. The Targ. also uses but one word, this being, 
 however, RODIN -“lamma’, not, as the LXX would 
 lead us to expect, 8228 ’élamma’. It is certain 
 that ’élam is used in the sense of ’é%am in Ezk 
 4031. 81.35, prob. also in 40-23, where the ’élam is 
 said to be toward the outer court. The Douay 
 Version, which follows the Vulg. more closely than 
 the latter does the LXX, uses in all cases the 
 Eng. word porch. In the mod. Gr. version, crod, 
 porch, is the uniform rendering. In addition to 
 Cornill, Smend, A. B. Davidson (see their Com- 
 mentaries), Fried. Delitzsch (Prolegomena, p. 
 139), the Lexicons of Miihlau and Volck, Buhl, 
 Oxford, and the majority of recent critics, accept 
 the view that both Heb. words have but one 
 meaning, viz. porch. What is intended by 
 ‘porch’ in this connexion see under PORCH and 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 2. General. It is a debatable point whether the 
 Israelites in OT times were acquainted with the 
 arch as an architectural device, and whether they 
 used it. There is no corresponding word in 
 Hebrew ; but indeed few architectural terms are 
 found in this language. Heb. is the language of 
 poetry, of ethics, and of religion, and not of science 
 
 t. See ARCHITECTURE. 
 
 ane ss T. W. DAVIES. 
 ARCHANGEL.—See ANGEL. 
 ARCHELAUS.—See under HEROD. 
 
 
 
 ARCHERY.—Though bows are mentioned with 
 tolerable frequency in the OT, one is tempted to 
 think that the Israelites were not distinguished 
 above the surrounding nations by their skill in the 
 use of this weapon. The battle of Gilboa was 
 probably lost through the superiority of the Philis- 
 tine archers. David, after the battle, endeavoured 
 to encourage archery practice in Judah (2 § 13, 
 Reject RV and compare Driver, Notes on Samuel, in 
 loco). Elisha on his deathbed (2 K 1315419) promised 
 Joash victory over Syria by the use of the bow. 
 Probably the revival of Israel’s military power 
 under Jeroboam, son of Joash, was due to improve- 
 ment in archery; Hosea, a contemporary, speaks 
 (1°) of the bow as the national weapon of Israel. 
 
 The most effective and scientific use of the bow, 
 however, was that shown by the Assyrians. The 
 terror caused by their archery is hinted at in Is 528 
 and 3733, To judge from Assyr. reliefs, it seems 
 to have been the practice of Assyr. armies to over- 
 whelm their enemies with the bow, and to use the 
 spear and sword only when the foe was already 
 in flight. W. E. BARNES. 
 
 ARCHEVITES (82}278).—‘ The people of Erech,’ 
 a town identified with the Bab. Uruk (modern 
 Warka), on the left bank of the Euphrates. 
 It is mentioned in Gn 10, between Babel and 
 Accad, as the second city of importance in Nimrod’s 
 kingdom ; and its name occurs, in the inscriptions, 
 along with that of Accad, as one of the principal 
 towns in N. Babylonia. 
 
 Some of the inhabitants of Erech were ‘ deported’ 
 as colonists to Samaria by king Assurbanipal 
 (668-626). Their name is mentioned in Ezr 4° 
 along with dwellers in Babylon ; and the ‘ deporta- 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 ARCHITECTURE 
 
 tion’ of Archevites most probably indicates that 
 Erech sided with Babylon in the revolt of Samas- 
 sum-ukin against the Assyr. king (cf. Ryle, Hzra 
 and Nehemiah). H. BE. RYLE. 
 
 ARCHIPPUS.—Archippus is mentioned only 
 twice in NT. The short letter sent by St. Paul to 
 Philemon is addressed not only to Philemon and 
 Apphia, but also to ‘A., our fellow-soldier,’ as well 
 as to the church in Philemon’s house (v.2). The 
 position here assigned to A., between the mention 
 of Philemon and that of the church in his house, 
 renders it highly probable that he was, if not a 
 near relative (perhaps a son or brother), at any 
 rate one belonging to the household circle. ‘ Fellow- 
 soldier’ is doubtless applied to him (as to Epa- 
 phroditus, Ph 2%; cf. also Ph 4%, 2 Ti 28) as 
 enduring conflict in the service of the Church or 
 the gospel, probably in some official position ; 
 but what that position was, we have no means of 
 knowing. Nor is much more light supplied by 
 the other passage (Col 4!7) which speaks of his 
 ‘ministry (daxcoviay) in the Lord.’ ‘The term 
 diakovia need not necessarily be taken in its 
 technical sense of the office of deacon, or in that of 
 bishop or presbyter or evangelist; it may denote ~ 
 any service, but the adjunct év Kupfm defines it as 
 specially undertaken for the Church by one 
 ‘living and acting in the Lord under the sense of 
 holy obligation’ (Meyer). The form of the admoni- 
 tion has been thought to imply some misgiving or 
 doubt or censure, as though A. were still young or 
 subordinate, weak or too indulgent, or inclined to 
 be remiss, and so in special need of warning or 
 stimulus; but it need not convey more than that 
 the ‘service’ was a difficult one, in which he 
 might well be strengthened by the encouragement 
 of the Church acting on the apostle’s message. 
 The suggestion of Lightfoot, among others, 
 that A. was a Laodicean teacher, on the ground 
 that 417 is joined by «ai to the context in 
 which the Laodicean Church is spoken of, seems 
 improbable ; for, apart from other difficulties, why 
 should St. Paul have taken this roundabout way of 
 reaching A. (if not himself a Colossian) through a 
 strange church, when he was almost simultaneously 
 addressing him directly (Philem?)? There seems 
 little historical basis for the tradition that A. was 
 one of the 70 disciples, who became bishop of 
 Laodicea and suffered martyrdom at Chone. 
 
 WILLIAM P, DICKSON. 
 
 ARCHITE (°?787).—The native of a town (Erech?, 
 not Archi as in AV of Jos 16?) situated on the 
 north border of Benjamin, probably the modern 
 ‘Ain ’ Arik, west of Bethel. Hushai, David’s friend 
 (2S 15%), belonged to this town. See WP vol. iii. 
 sheet xvli. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ** ARCHITECTURE.— The influences which formed 
 the architecture of the Hebrews were very diverse. 
 Besides the highly developed structures of Egypt 
 and Babylon, there was the native Amorite building, 
 and the starting-point of the people themselves 
 from a nomadic life. The great tent of the taber- 
 nacle, with its chamber of wood, must have been } 
 the ideal type for a long period to the Hebrews. | 
 
 It is, according to Fergusson’s rendering of it (see } 
 TABERNACLE), strictly in accord with what may | 
 
 be seen as the system of development from the 
 Bedawi tent at present. A widespread low tent 
 is pitched, fencing of reeds or piles of stone is | 
 built around it to make a shelter from storms; the 
 tent is then carried out over the shelter walls, or | 
 else enclosed in a courtyard, and settlements are | 
 
 thus formed which are compounded of walling for | 
 
 the sides and tent for the covering. Such seems 
 to have been the principle of the tabernacle; and 
 
 long after the entrance into Pal. the Hebrews, in | 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner's Sons 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 ARCHITECTURE 
 
 the south at least, continued to depend on tents 
 and skins, instead of building and pottery. The 
 closely inhabited region south of Hebron, where at 
 every mile or two a name of an OT village is to 
 be found, is absolutely bare of any early building, 
 and not a fragment of Jewish pottery is to be 
 found there. This shows that the people retained 
 the nomadic type of life although settled on the 
 land. 
 
 The Amorite buildings of brick were massive and 
 imposing to a desert people: ‘cities great, and 
 fenced up to heaven’ (Dt 178). The thick walls of 
 well-laid brickwork, as seen at Tell Hesy, were 
 very strong defences, and quite wide enough to 
 have considerable houses built upon the wall (Jos 
 245). Woodwork was largely used (Jos 8?) ; but 
 probably for roofing, as no trace of vaulted brick 
 roofs has yet been found. This system of mud- 
 brick building continued to be used throughout 
 the Jewish history, as is seen at Tell Hesy, and 
 alluded to by Ezekiel (13!°-12); and such building 
 was probably in type, as well as material, a con- 
 tinuation of the Amorite style. What the external 
 appearance of these buildings was, is shown by the 
 figures of forts conquered by the Egyptians in 
 Syria, and represented on the monuments. High 
 blank walls gave no opening or hold for an enemy ; 
 pilasters and towers strengthened the faces and 
 corners of the forts; and projecting chambers 
 overhanging the more important points enabled 
 the defenders to prevent any sapping or scaling. 
 The gateway was a.projecting building in front of 
 the entrance, a plan which enabled the defenders 
 to make it a death trap to any attacking party ; 
 for on forcing the outer gate the besiegers would 
 be confined in a narrow space exposed to ceaseless 
 attack overhead. Defence at this age seems to 
 have been far superior to attack; and without a 
 siege train such forts could be reduced only by 
 stratagem (as at Ai) or by starvation. 
 
 When stone building was required, it appears to 
 have been probably of masonry hewn to fit on the 
 spot, or at least of irregular courses ; for the Jews 
 were astonished at proper construction, with hewn 
 stone all cut regularly in advance, and they 
 remark when neither hammer nor axe nor any 
 tool of iron was heard in the house while it was in 
 building (1 K 67). The mechanical Phoenicians 
 appear to have planned the temple entirely in 
 advance, as the Egyptians did in early times, 
 marking each stone with its place; Hiram’s 
 builders and the Gebalites being responsible for this 
 work (1 K 5!8), The stone was sawn with saws, 
 as in the best Egyp. work (1 K 7°). ‘The cause of 
 this Phoen. superiority in stonework is probably 
 from their occupying a rocky coast where brick is 
 less attainable, and a wet coast where stone is the 
 more needful. 
 
 Of the architectural forms very little is known 
 directly. The only carvings yet seen, which are 
 zertainly of the period of the monarchy, are the 
 slabs of Tell Hesy. There a cavetto cornice, like 
 the usual Egyp. form of the nineteenth dynasty, is 
 carved on a thin slab, which was placed over a 
 doorway as a lintel. From the want of solidity, 
 and the curve of the back, manifestly following 
 that of the face, it is evident that this was not a 
 structural, but only an ornamental member ; like 
 the similar thin stone lintels attached by 
 (wooden ?) pegs to the brick wall behind, in the 
 palace of Akhenaten at Tel el-Amarna. What the 
 real nature of the door-crown was has not been 
 preserved ; it may have been of wood, but looking 
 to Egyp. usage it is more likely to have been an 
 arch of brickwork, like the walls. 
 
 The sides of the doorways have also been pre- 
 served, though reversed in re-use in a later 
 building. They are decorated with pilasters, which 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ARCHITECTURE 143 
 
 show the form of the columns in use at that age, 
 A rounded low stone base supported the stout and 
 clumsy cclumn, which is even represented as equal 
 
 in diameter to the base. At least the ideal was 
 very different from that of the Egyp., whose column 
 was far narrower than its base. The column 
 diminished greatly upward, and was capped at the 
 top by a volute of Ionic nature. In the stonework 
 this volute seems to imitate a coil of metal; but 
 the whole design appears to come from a decorating 
 of wooden posts with rams’ horns, a similar idea to 
 the bucrania in Gr. use. On Assyr. monuments, 
 capitals are represented which have been considered 
 to foreshadow the Ionic; but the horn form (if it 
 ever existed in these) has been lost, whereas in the 
 earlier Jewish example, which is probably Solo- 
 monic, the coil is much more isolated and 
 pronounced. 
 
 These pilasters show by their shortness that a 
 dado existed below them, and was an important 
 feature in the building; but no stonework of a dado 
 has been preserved. A peculiar feature of, Jewish 
 design is the duplication of the doorway. In the 
 rock tombs there is a general tendency to a double 
 entrance ; sometimes only carried out in the porch, 
 where a pillar will stand directly in front of the 
 doorway. The same duplication is seen in the 
 building at Tell Hesy in which the stone slabs 
 were re-used, as above described: the object of the 
 building is not known, but on three sides, if not 
 four, it had two doors. As these doors required to 
 be secured by locks or fastenings, the taste for 
 double entrances must have been very strong. 
 Such a duplication occurs both in Assyr. and 
 Persian buildings, and belongs therefore to an 
 established system. 
 
 Of other ornament the drafting of the walls was 
 the most prominent, and is likewise known in 
 Persia. The edges of the stones were dressed to a 
 straight line with flat faces, while the middle of 
 each external face was occupied by a projecting 
 boss. This boss was sometimes left quite rough— 
 like the rusticated work of the Pitti palace; but 
 usually it was dressed flat, thus leaving the joint 
 lines recessed half an inch to 3 inches from the 
 main face of the wall, according to the scale of the 
 work. The great stones of the temple substructure 
 are the best known example of this work, but they 
 are not certainly older than Herod. On a smaller 
 scale this same work was found in the lower 
 courses of a door of the fortress at Tell Hesy, 
 which takes it hack to the middle of the Jewish 
 monarchy ; and from the persistence of the type 
 to the present day it appears to truly belong to the 
 country. 
 
 Of the plans of buildings we know even less than 
 of the decoration. The temple, as Fergusson has 
 pointed out, was simply a doubling of the 
 dimensions of the tabernacle, and we may carry 
 the parallel further. The great tent pitched over 
 the tabernacle sides extended beyond them, and 
 the covered space thus left around the tabernacle 
 would doubtless be used for subsidiary purposes. 
 This space was reproduced in the temple as a chain 
 of chambers all round the sides, a construction 
 which was not favourable to any grand treatment 
 of the exterior. The plan, therefore, was ruled by 
 its development from the previous sacred place. 
 In the later temple of Herod the great porch was 
 the most striking feature, and accords in taste with 
 the enormous porticoes of the Herodian rock- 
 tombs at Jerusalem, which are often much larger 
 than the tomb inside the rock. Minor buildings 
 of the age of the monarchy have been found in the 
 only excavations yet made in a city,—those at 
 Tell Hesy. One building already mentioned was 
 square, with two doors on each side. Another— 
 perhaps a barrack—was a long hall with two rows 
 
 
 
 
 
144 ARCTURUS 
 
 of columns from end to end. Until further 
 excavations may reveal more examples, we can 
 glean but little about the usual arrangements of 
 Jewish architecture. 
 W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. 
 
 ARCTURUS.—A star of the first magnitude in 
 the constellation Bodtes or the Herdman. Arcturus 
 is the rendering of AV for ¥¥% ‘Ash, Job 99, and 
 wy <Ayish, Job 3882, ‘> 
 
 The identification of ‘Ash, ‘Ayish, has formed 
 subject for wide conjecture. Versions: LXX 
 "Eorepov im both places (agreeing with Pesh. in 
 placing 72°?, Maeda, before “2 in 9%); Pesh. 
 Do 
 12025 ‘Jyyfithd of doubtful meaning, explained 
 by Arabic Lexx. as Capella Aurigze, but placed in 
 
 Taurus; Vulg. 9° Arcturum (whence AY), 3822 
 Vesperum; Targ. 9° transliterates, 38°? ‘the hen 
 
 \ 
 9 a 
 with her chickens,’ ¢.e. the Pleiades ; Sa‘adya, wis 
 
 ys, i.e. Ursa Major. In the Talm. Berachoth 
 
 58b, R. Yehuda explains ‘Ash as xn» Yatha, and 
 later Talmudists interpret this as ‘the tail of the 
 Ram,’ i.e. Pleiades, or ‘the head of the Bull,’ #.e. 
 Aldebaran with the Hyades. Ibn Ezra, ‘the Bear.’ 
 
 Among moderns there are two main explanations. 
 
 1. The great Bear or Wain; Ges., Del. RV, 
 etc. With the Arabs the four stars of this group 
 which form the quadrilateral are known as Na‘sh 
 ‘the bier,’ the three stars of the tail being ‘the 
 daughters of the bier,’ a phrase which resembles 
 that of Job 38%2 ‘‘Ayish with her children.’ It is, 
 however, impossible philologically to identify the 
 root of Arab. Na‘sh with Heb. ‘Ash, and still more 
 so with ‘Ayish. 
 
 2. The Pleiades ; Stern in Geiger’s Jiid. Zeitschr. 
 iii, 258 ff. ; Hoffmann, ZAT7'W. iii. 107 f.; Noldeke. 
 Stern points out that Job 3822-8 deals with weather 
 phenomena, and that therefore the constellations 
 mentioned vv.1- 82 appear to be regarded as 
 marking or influencing the changes of the seasons. 
 Since the Bear is visible in the N. hemisphere 
 throughout the year, it could scarcely be thought 
 of as a season prognosticator. Thus Job 3822 is 
 rendered, ‘Alcyone with her children,’ i.e. the 
 principal star of the Pleiades group with its 
 companions, the other constellations mentioned 
 being interpreted as the Hyades, Orion, and Canis 
 Major with Sirius. We then have allusion to four 
 groups regarded by the Greeks as signs of the 
 seasons, and rising in close succession one upon 
 another. The form ‘Ayish is thought to be correct 
 (so Dillmann) rather than ‘dsh, and Hoffmann 
 vocalises ‘Ayyfish, thus connecting with Pesh. 
 ‘Tyytitha. C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 ARD (18).—Benjamin’s son, Gn 4671, but his 
 grandson, Nu 26°=1 Ch 8% (Addar). Patronymic 
 Ardites (Nu 26%). G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY. 
 
 ARDAT (2 Es 92° AV Ardath), ‘a field’ in an 
 unknown situation. 
 
 ARDON (1'")8).—A son of Caleb (1 Ch 218), 
 
 ARELI (2878 ‘lion’ or ‘hearth of El’).—A son 
 of Gad (Gn 4616, Nu 2617). Patronymic Arelites 
 (Nu 2617), G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY. 
 
 AREOPAGITE( Apeorayirns, Ac 17 only), applied 
 to Dionysius (wh. see) as member of the Council 
 of the Areopagus. 
 
 AREOPAGUS (“Apewos Mdyos, AV ‘ Areopagus’ 
 Ac 1719, ‘Mars’ hill’ 1722).—The Hill of Mars is an 
 
 
 
 ARETAS 
 
 eminence nearly due west of the Athenian Akro- 
 polis, and separated therefrom by a low, narrow 
 declivity. Here sat from the earliest antiquity the 
 council of the Areopagus, at first a mainly judicial 
 body composed of Eupatride recruited annually 
 from the retiring archons. After the Macedonian 
 subjugation of Athens, and under the Roman rule, 
 this council probably retained more authority 
 within Attica than any other representative body, 
 and references to it in later Attic inscriptions are 
 numerous. The hill rises gradually from the W., 
 but drops abruptly on N. and E. On the summit 
 remain the benches cut out of the rock on which 
 the Areopagites sat in the open air (dmalOpior eduxd- 
 (ovro, Pollux, viii. 118). Sixteen worn steps cut in 
 the rock lead to the summit; and the two stones, 
 called the dpyol Aléo., the Aldos dvaidelas ‘of im- 
 placability,’ and #Spews ‘of ill-doing,’ still remain, 
 on one and the other of which sat the accuser and 
 the accused of murder. The council is termed in 
 Inser. Attic. iii. 714, ‘the most holy,’ 7d ceuvdrarov 
 suvédpiov ; and to us the awful associations, which 
 attached to the hill and to the cave of the Furies 
 at its foot, made it a fitting background for St. 
 Paul’s solemn declaration of a new faith in the 
 unknown God. However, there is no reason to 
 suppose that the curious idlers who led St. Paul 
 thither had any other end in view than to gain a 
 quiet spot, far removed from the hum of the busy 
 Agora below, where they might hear in peace what 
 this newest of enthusiasts had to say. The state- 
 ment of St. Luke, that the philosophers took St. 
 Paul by the hand (érAaBduevor, Ac 1719, cf. Ac 927 
 2319, also Mt. 1431, Mk 88), is not appropriate to 
 accusers bringing to trial a religious innovator. 
 Nor, if the meeting which St. Paul addressed had 
 been a judicial court, would it have dispersed in 
 the way related; some mocking, while others said, 
 ‘We will hear thee again of this matter.’ There- 
 fore Chrysostom’s view, that St. Paul was formally 
 arraigned before the Areopagite council, must be 
 dismissed. There is every reason, moreover, for 
 believing that in Ac 172-81 we have the actual gist 
 of what St. Paul said, and in tone it is not the 
 defence of a man forcibly apprehended and puton 
 his trial for blasphemy.* 
 
 Standing on the Areopagus and facing N., St. 
 Paul had at his feet the Theseion, and on his right 
 hand the Akropolis, with its splendid temples 
 intact. Such surroundings would fill with en- 
 thusiasm every cultured Christian of to-day. 
 Wherever St. Paul turned, his glance must have 
 fallen on the severe and lovely works of art which 
 still adorned the decadent city. Thus a table was 
 spread before him of which nineteenth century 
 humanists are laboriously but thankfully gather- 
 ing up the scattered crumbs. To St. Paul’s 
 Semitic imagination nothing of all this appealed. 
 It was to him just gold or silver or stone, 
 graven by art and man’s device, the work of a 
 period of ignorance at which God had mercifully 
 winked. 
 
 For a fuller disquisition on this point, and for 
 a description of the view of Athens from the Hill 
 of Mars, see Conybeare and Howson, Life and Ep. 
 of St. Paul, ch. x. F. C. CONYBEARE. 
 
 ARES (‘Apés), 1 Es 51°.—756 of his descendants 
 returned with Zerub.: they correspond to the 775 
 (Hizr 2°) or 652 (Neh 7!°) children of Arah (28), 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ARETAS (Aram. nnn, Gr. ’Apéras, more correctly 
 *Apébas, aS in the name of the famous bishop of 
 Cesarea Mazaca; the analogy of dperx probably 
 influenced the commoner spelling).—1. King of 
 the ‘ Arabians,’ 2 Mac 58 (see below). 2. King of 
 the Nabatzan Arabs, whose ‘ethnarch’ qr gover- 
 
 * See, however, Ramsay in Hwpos, 5th Ser, ii, 209 f., 261 f, 
 
 
 
ARETAS 
 
 nor, apparently at the instance of the Jews (Ac 
 91. , his wife may well have been a proselyte), 
 was guarding the city of Damascus to capture 
 (widoor, 2 Co 11°?) and destroy (Ac 9) St. Paul. He 
 escaped the ethnarch’s hands by the aid of the 
 disciples, who lowered him in a basket from a 
 window in the wall. This was shortly after St. 
 Paul’s conversion, which event, rather than his 
 escape from Damascus, would seem to be the 
 terminus a quo of the werd tpla érn of Gal 18 (see 
 Lighté. in loc.). Ifso, the escape may have taken 
 
 lace at any point of time during the three years. 
 if the escape itself is the point from which they are 
 reckoned, the conversion can hardly lie far behind. 
 
 How Damascus, a town within the Rom. prov. 
 
 ia, came to be guarded by the officer of an 
 
 king, is a much-debated question. The most 
 probable solution is the hypothesis of a temporary 
 extension of the Arab kingdom to Damascus. The 
 facts are as follows :— 
 
 The Nabatzeans (1013) are possibly identical with 
 the NEBAIOTH (nv13) of OT (so Jos, Ant. I. xii. 4. 
 The main difficulty is the unvarying distinctness 
 of the final consonants » and n). They were prob- 
 ably of Arab race, but used the Aram. language 
 for writing and inscriptions (Néldeke in Schenkel, 
 BL, 1872, s.v. Nabatier, and in ZDMG xvii. 703 
 8qq., Xxv. 122 sqq.). We first meet with them as a 
 formidable power in connexion with the wars of 
 Antigonus, B.C. 312, centred in the former Edomite 
 stronghold of SELA (Nabat. ‘Sal,’ Gr. Ilérpa, 
 hence the name for their country, ’ApaBla 7 pds rp 
 Ilérpg, or ‘ Arabia, Petraea’), whence their power 
 
 ually extended itself N. and S. Their first 
 own ruler is the Aretas of 2 Mac 5%, with 
 whom Jason was imprisoned (éyxAe.oGels) or, per- 
 haps, ‘ accused’ (adopting the conjecture éyxA7Gels), 
 B.C. 169. A. is répavvos, not yet a recognised ane 
 A few years later the Nabatzans appear as frien 
 to the Maccabean party (1 Mac 5% 9%). With the 
 decay of the Gr. kingdoms of Syria and Egypt the 
 Nabatzans increase in power ; about B.C. 105 their 
 ‘king’ Erotimus ‘nunc Aegyptum nunc Syriam 
 infestabat magnumque nomen Arabum viribus 
 finitimorum Be eaceaivas fecerat’ (Trog. Pomp. ap. 
 Justin, XXXIX. v. 5-6). By B.c. 85 A. III. is master 
 of Damascus; to him belong the coins Bao:déws 
 ae @AAAnvos struck at Damascus (Schiirer, 
 
 JP I. ii. 353, n. 11). He took the side of 
 Hyrcanus against Aristobulus, B.C. 65-62, and in 
 the latter year was attacked by Scaurus whom 
 Pompey had left as legate of Syria; Scaurus 
 obtained a nominal submission and a payment of 
 money (Jos. Ant. XIV. v.1; BJI. viii.1). Damascus 
 had elicady fallen into Rom. hands (An¢é. XIV. ii. 3; 
 
 BJ 1. vi. 2), in which it remained, with the excep- 
 tion to be noticed below, as part of the prov. of 
 Syria, but with certain liberties of its own (for 
 ad in detail see Schiirer, n. 14, in part modifying 
 
 ommsen’s important note, Provinces, Eng. tr. 
 vol. li. p. 148 sqg.). A. II. was succeeded by Malchus 
 
 (c. 50-28), Obodas I. (c. 28-9 B.c.), and A. Iv. (c. 9 
 B.C.-A.D. 40), the subject of the present article. 
 His original name was Aeneas, but he assumed 
 the name of A. on taking the kingdom (Jos. Ané. 
 XVI. ix. 4). In B.c. 4 he sends some unruly auxili- 
 aries to aid the expedition of Varus against the 
 Jews (BJ a. v. 1; Ant. Xvi. x. 9). After A.D. 28 
 he attacked and defeated Herod Antipas, partly 
 in revenge for the divorce of his daughter by the 
 latter (see HERODIAS, and Jos. Ant. XVIII. v. 1, 2: 
 the victory was transferred in Christian legend 
 to Abgar of Edessa ; Gutschmidt, Kleine Schriften, 
 ili. 31). Tiberius ordered Vitellius, propraetor of 
 ia, to chastise A. for this attack, but the news 
 of Tiberius’ death (A.D. 37) put an end to the ex- 
 pedition (Jos. ibid. § 3). 
 This brings us to the period of St. Paul’s escape, 
 VOL. I.—I0 
 
 ARGOB 145 
 
 which was within 3 years of his lirst visit to the 
 Church at Jerus., which latter again was within 
 14 years of the visit recorded in Gal 2. Taking 
 the latter (against Ramsay’s view, St. Paul the 
 Traveller, but see Sanday in Expositor, Feb. and 
 Apr. 1896) as identical with that of Ac 15, and 
 working back with the data of the Ac from the 
 arrival of FESTUS, A.D. 60, we time Gal 2 about the 
 year 51. ‘ Fourteen years’ previous, ¢.¢. about 38, 
 comes St. Paul’s first visit to the Church of Jerus., 
 and the three previous years again, viz. 38, 37, 
 and 36, bring us to the time of his conversion, and 
 cover the time of his escape from Damascus. 
 
 At some time, then, during the three years in 
 question, Damascus had come under A. It cannot 
 have been long before, as there are coins of Damas- 
 cus with the image and superscription of Tiberius 
 down to A.D. 34; but there are none with those 
 of Gaius or Claudius. The image of Nero begins 
 in 62-63. The inference is natural that the acces- 
 sion of Gaius marks the transfer. That A. could 
 have seized it by force in the face of Vitellius is 
 out of the question. But it is not improbable that 
 it was granted to him by the new emperor. Gaius 
 was not kindly disposed towards Herod Antipas, 
 and would not be unlikely to grant a mark of 
 imperial favour to his bitter enemy. It is true 
 that the deposition and banishment of Herod took 
 place only in the summer of 39 (Schiirer, I. ii. 36n.), 
 a date scarcely early enough for St. Paul’s escape 
 from Damascus. But the grant to Agrippa of the 
 tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias, with the title of 
 king, appears to have been one of Caligula’s first 
 acts (Ané. XVIII. vi. 10), and in 38 the emperor 
 
 ranted an Iturzean principality to Soemus (Dio 
 
 ass. lix. 12). A similar grant may well have been 
 made to Aretas. 
 
 A. must have lived till about A.D. 40, as of the 
 20 dated Aretas-inscriptions of el-Hegr, two be- 
 long to his 48th year, as also do certain coins. No 
 other Nabatzan king has left so rich a legacy of 
 coins and inscriptions. On both, his standing 
 title is Rahem-ammeh, ‘lover of his people’ (the 
 contrast with the @AéA\nv of A. Ill. supr. is 
 suggestive). Under him the Nabatzan kingdom 
 extended from the Euphrates to the Red Sea (cf. 
 Jos. Ant. I. xii. 4). By 62 Damascus had again 
 been taken over by the Romans, and belonged to 
 the province of Syria when, in 106, the Nabatean 
 kingdom itself was added to the empire as the 
 province of Arabia. 
 
 What is greatly wanted is a coin (or coins) of 
 Damascus between 37 and 54 A.D. Meanwhile, 
 it should be noted that 2 Co 11 is our solitary 
 
 iece of positive evidence for Damascus having 
 ormed part of the Nabatzan kingdom at any 
 time after the Christian era. The fact, as has 
 been shown above, has an important bearing on 
 Pauline chronology. 
 
 The best collection and discussion of the evidence 
 is in Schiirer, HJP I. ii., esp. his indispensable 
 Append. ii. on the Nabatwan kingdom, pp. 345- 
 362, to which the above article is principally 
 indebted. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Schiirer gives ample references to the lit. of the 
 Nabatewan kingdom. In more special relation to A. Iv. see 
 Clemen, Chronol. d. Paul. Briefe, § 22; Conybeare and Howson, 
 vol. i. ch. iii. appendix ; Euting, Nabatdische Inschriften aus 
 Arabien, Berlin, 1885 (containing a reconstructed list of kings 
 yd von Gutschmidt) ; J. G. Heyne, de Ethnarcha Aretae 
 
 rabum regis (Wittemb. 1755); Anger, de temporum in Act. 
 App. ratione, pp. 173-182; Wieseler, Chronologie, pp. 167-175, 
 and in PRE, s.v. Aretas ; Meyer-Wendt on Acts, Hinl. § 4 n.; 
 Rohden, de Palaestina et Arabia Provinciis Romanis (1885). 
 
 Also, in addition to the references in the body of this article, 
 see ARABIA, PauL, DamMasous, NEBAIOTH, ETHNARCH. 
 
 A. ROBERTSON. 
 ARGOB (2:58).—Apparently an officer of Peka. 
 hiah, king of Israel, assassinated by Pekah 
 together with the king his master and one Arieh 
 
 
 

 
 146 ARGOB 
 
 (2 K 15%); so Ewald, Thenius, Keil, and most. 
 Another explanation makes Argob and Arieh 
 conspirators with Pekah. Probably the passage 
 is corrupt. See Klostermann, who suggests the 
 emendation 733 nk yzqN-ny ‘with his 400 warriors’; 
 —by a sudden cowp Pekah and his 50 surprise 400. 
 C. F. BURNEY. 
 ARGOB (2398; once, Dt 3, with the art. 1397).— 
 A district mentioned in Dt 3* 3-4, 1 K 438, and de- 
 scribed as situated on the E. of Jordan, in Bashan, 
 in the kingdom of ‘Og, and as containing three- 
 score cities, all strongly fortified, ‘with high 
 walls, gates, and bars, besides very many cities of 
 the country folk’ (¢.e. unwalled cities : see Ezk 3814). 
 The particular district intended is uncertain. The 
 Targums of Onk. and Jon. represent Argob by x27 
 (Pseud.-Jon. x31»), t.e. the Trachonitis, or 6 Tpaxwr, 
 of Greek writers (see Schiirer, HJP 1. ii. 10ff.; 
 G. A. Smith, Geogr. 543), some 25 miles S. of 
 Damascus, a remarkable volcanic formation, in 
 shape resembling roughly a pear, about 25 miles 
 from N. to S., and 19 miles from E. to W., the 
 ragged surface of which consists of innumer- 
 able rocks or boulders of black basalt, inter- 
 sected by fissures and crevices in every direction 
 (see TRACHONITIS). This formation, which owes 
 its origin to the streams of lava emitted from the 
 Jebel Hauran, on the S.E., rises some 20-30 ft. 
 above the surrounding plain; and ‘its border is 
 as clearly defined as a rocky coast, which it very 
 much resembles.’ It forms a natural fortress, 
 which a small body of defenders could hold even 
 against a determined invader; and hence its 
 modern name the Leja (i.e. laja’ah, refuge, retreat). 
 Some modern writers have accepted the identifica- 
 tion thus suggested by Onk. and Jon., supporting 
 it further, partly by the fact that the Leja contains 
 the remains of several ancient cities, partly by 
 the philological arguments that pe 3 signifies 
 stony,’ and that the term 9an(AV ‘ region’), used 
 regularly in connexion with it in the OT, is in- 
 tended as a designation of its rocky boundary 
 spoken of above. The identification 1s, however, 
 extremely doubtful, and has been abandoned b 
 the best recent authorities. To take the latter 
 point first, the philological arguments appealed 
 to are exceedingly precarious. Argod can be inter- 
 preted stony only upon the questionable assump- 
 tion that the root 239 is cognate with 037: to judge, 
 however, from 139 clods of earth (Job 2133 38°8), it 
 would denote naturally a rich and earthy soil 
 rather than a stony one, and so (Smith, Geogr. 551) 
 is ‘probably equivalent to our word ‘‘glebe.”’ 
 And ban is a cord (Jos 2!5), or measuring-line (Mic 
 25), fig. a measured portion or allotment (Jos 174 
 19°), applied to a particular district or ‘region’ 
 (RVm), Zeph 2&7; there is consequently no 
 ground for supposing it to have been used speci- 
 ally on account of the rocky border of the Leja. 
 Secondly, the remains of ancient cities in (or 
 about) what must have been the biblical Bashan 
 are by no means confined to the Leja ; on the con- 
 trary, they are much more numerous on the sloping 
 sides of the Jebel Hauran (S.E. of the Leja), which, 
 covered by a rich and loamy soil, sinks down gradu- 
 ally, especially on the 8. and W., to the level of the 
 surrounding plain. The whole of this region is 
 studded with deserted towns and villages—accord- 
 ing to Wetzstein, who has described it most fully 
 (Reisebericht iiber Hauran u, die Trachonen, 1860, 
 p. 42), the E. and S. slopes of the Jebel Hauran 
 alone contain the remains of some 300 such ancient 
 sites; they are also numerous on the W. and 
 S.W. slopes (cf. Porter, Five Years in Damascus ?, 
 p. 229, 239, 251, 253). The dwellings in these 
 Auaereen localities are of a remarkable character. 
 Wetzstein distinguishes four kinds—(1) some are 
 the habitations of Troglodytes, being caverns 
 
 
 
 
 
 ARGOB 
 
 hollowed out in the side of a hill, or of a Wady, 
 in the soft volcanic rock, and so arranged as te 
 form separate chambers: these are chiefly on 
 the E. of Jebel Hauran (Wetzstein, Pp. 22, 44 f. 
 who names three, viz. Umm Dubéb, ‘Ajéla, and 
 Shibikke).* (2) Others are on a ree scale, 
 being subterranean chambers entered by shafts 
 invisible from above, and capable of forming a 
 secure retreat from an invader ; these are frequent 
 on the W. of the Zumleh range (ib. p. 46f. ; ef. 
 Oliphant, Land of Gilead, pp. 103, 108f. [about 
 Irbid]) ; an extensive underground city of this kind 
 at EDRE'I (at the N.E. foot of the same range) 
 was explored by Wetzstein (p. 47f.) and Schu- 
 macher (p. 121 ff.). (3) A third kind, of which 
 Wetzstein saw but one example, at Hibikke, on the 
 E. of J. Hauran, about 8 miles N.E. of Salchad, 
 consists of chambers cut out in an elevated plateau 
 of rock, and covered with a solid stone vault, 
 producing outside the appearance of a cellar or 
 tunnel, Hibikke was originally surrounded with 
 a wall, in the manner of a fortress (p. 48 f.), 
 (4) The fourth and commonest kind consists of 
 dwelling-houses built in the ordinary manner above 
 round, but constructed of massive well-hewn 
 looks of black basalt,—the regular and indeed 
 the only building material used in the locality, 
 —with heavy doors moving on Be outside 
 staircases, galleries, and roofs, all of the same 
 material : of this kind are the remains described 
 by Porter (/.c. chs, x.—xiii.) at Burak, on the N. 
 page of the Leja, Sauwarah, Hit, HeyAt, Bathani- 
 
 eh, Shuka, Shuhba, east of it, Kanawat and 
 Savoie on the W. slopes of J. Hauran, Bosra, 
 Salchad, and Kureiyeh, on its 8. slope (cf. Heber- 
 Percy, A Visit to Bashan and Argob, 1895, pp. 40, 
 
 47, 60, 71, ete., with photoeapae Many of 
 these cities are in such a good state of preserva- 
 tion, that, as Wetzstein observes, it is difficult for 
 
 the traveller not to believe that they are inhabited, 
 and to expect, as he walks along their streets, to 
 see persons moving about the houses. The archi- 
 tecture of these remains (which include temples, 
 theatres, aqueducts, churches, etc.) is of the 
 Greco-Roman period, and is such as to show that 
 between the first and the seventh centuries A.D. 
 the cities in question were the home of a thriving 
 and wealthy population. Can, now, any of these 
 deserted localities be identified with the ‘three- 
 score cities, with high walls, gates, and bars,’ of 
 the ancient kingdom of ‘Og? The spectacle pre-. 
 sented by many of them is so singular and impres- 
 sive that amongst those who visited and almost 
 re-discovered them, in the pee century, there 
 were some who assigned them confidently to a 
 remote antiquity, and who boasted that they had 
 themselves traversed the cities ‘ built and occupied 
 some forty centuries ago’ by the giant race of the 
 Rephaim: so, in particular, J. L. Porter, who 
 visited the district in 1853 (Five Years in Damas- 
 cus, 1855, ii. 206 f., ed. 2, pp. 257f., 263 f. ; Grant 
 Cities of Bashan, 1882, pp. 12, 13, 30, 84, etc.), and 
 Cyril C. Graham, who visited it in 1857 (Journal 
 of the Royal Geogr. Soc. 1858, p. 256 f., Cambridge 
 Essays for 1858, p. 160f.). The emphatic contra- 
 diction which Porter’s theory received from 
 Douglas Freshfield in The Central Caucasus and 
 Bashan, 1869, ch. ii., led to a somewhat heated 
 correspondence in the Atheneum for 1870 (June, 
 pp. 774, 837; July, pp. 18, 117, 148; cf. also 
 
 * The habit of dwelling in caves in these parts is illustrated 
 
 by an interesting but unfortunately mutilated inscription i) 
 
 (Le Bas and Waddington, Jnseriptions Grecques et Latines 
 recueillies en Grece et en Asie Mineure, iii. 1, No. 2329) from 
 
 Kanatha (Kanawat), on the W. slope of J. Hauran, which seems it 
 
 to speak of an attempt made by ne Agrippa (proh. Acros 1) a 
 to civilize rods tvgwAsiclavrxe], and reclaim them from theiz |} 
 Ov piadys xareoracis (cf. Jos. Ant. xIv. xv. 5; also, of the Leja, 
 bu liees gg epre aa ht 
 
 
 
AKGOB 
 
 ARIMATH AA 147 
 
 
 
 Porter, Damascus*, Preface). There can, how- 
 ever, be little doubt that Porter and Graham much 
 
 exaggerated the antiquity of these remains. As 
 has been stated, the prevalent style of architecture 
 is Greco-Roman ; in many of the cities Greek in- 
 scriptions, dating from the time of Herod onwards, 
 have been found, and, in the opinion of the best 
 and most independent judges, the extant remains, 
 at least in the great majority of cases, are not of a 
 more ancient date than the Ist cent. A.D. De 
 Vogné, the principal authority on the architecture 
 of the Hauran, in the preface (p. 4) * to his collec- 
 tion of 150 plates, called Syrie Centrale, Architec- 
 ture Civile et Religieuse du i au viit siecle (1867), 
 expressly states that he had found no structures of 
 an earlier date: Burton and Drake (Unexplored 
 Syria, 1872, i. 191-196) declare that even a careful 
 examination of foundations disclosed to them no 
 specimen of ‘hoar antiquity.’ Wetzstein and 
 addington express a similar judgment, though 
 not quite in the same Munaalitied terms: the 
 former (pp. 103 f., 49) agrees that in the main there 
 are no edifices earlier in date than the Christian 
 era, but allows that the Troglodyte dwellings, and 
 those found at Hibikke (see above), may be of very 
 great antiquity, and also that very ancient building 
 materials may be preserved in such places as Bosra 
 and Salchat; the latter writes (op. cit. p. 534): 
 ‘Malgré les recherches prolongées et minutieuses 
 te jai faites pendant un séjour de cinq mois 
 ans le pays, je n’ai pu découvrir aucun monu- 
 ment antérieur au régne d’Hérode. Il y a sans 
 doute des habitations grossitrement construites en 
 ierres brutes, des cavernes fermées par une 
 evanture en pierres séches, qui peuvent étre de 
 toutes les époques, et dont quelques-unes sont 
 peut-étre fort anciennes, mais, Je le répéte, il n’y a 
 ~ trace de civilisation réguliére, de temples, 
 *édifices publics, avant le régne d’Hérode.’ And 
 the majority even of such buildings, he adds, 
 are later than this, and belong to the period be- 
 tween Trajan and Justinian. The caves and 
 tunnel-like dwellings, described by Wetzstein, 
 however, can hardly be the strongly fortified 
 cities mentioned in Dt. Whether the low private 
 dwellings, built with ‘ ponderous blocks of roughly 
 hewn stone,’ on the antiquity of which Porter 
 (Damascus*, pp. v, 257) insists, are identical with 
 the ‘habitations grossitrement construites en 
 pierres brutes,’ which Waddington allows may be 
 ancient, can hardly be determined by one who has 
 not visited the country.t On the whole, it may be 
 safely concluded that the existing deserted cities 
 are not those of the ancient Argob;{ though it does 
 not seem improbable that some of the cities built 
 in the Greco-Roman period may have stood upon 
 the sites of cities belonging to a far earlier age, 
 and that in their construction the dwellings of the 
 ancient cities of ‘Og may have been, in some cases, 
 utilised and preserved. Perhaps future explora- 
 tion may prove the substructures to be of earlier 
 date than has been hitherto suspected.§ 
 
 The site of Argob cannot be determined with 
 certainty. Guthe (ZDPV, 1890, p. 237f.), in- 
 ferring from Dt 3'4 that Argob extended to the W. 
 as far as Geshur and Ma‘acah, places it, though 
 not without hesitation, in the country about 
 Der‘at (Edre‘i), and northwards as far as Nawa, in 
 which he says that there are sufficient ruins of 
 
 * Cited at length in Merrill, Hast of Jordan, p. 63. 
 
 + Heber-Percy, pp. 92, 95, states that at Roum (E. of Kanawat) 
 he found ruins different from any which he had hitherto seen, 
 viz. a village consisting of one-storied houses, built almost 
 entirely of rough unhewn stones; he thought that this had 
 been a village of peasants. 
 
 So iso G, A. Smith, Geogr. p. 624 f. 
 
 § W. Wright (Palmyra and Zenobia, p. 251) mentions that 
 he descended some 16-18 ft. in Burak, and found the walls there 
 
 to consist of enormous un stones, unlike those on the 
 surface. 
 
 ancient sites to justify the biblical description. 
 The inference based on Dt 3 is perhaps doubtful : 
 the verse seems to be written with a harmonistic 
 motive (see Comm., and JAIR), and hardly says 
 distinctly that Argob reached to Geshur and 
 Maacah. Dillm. suggested a site more towards 
 the E., between Edre'i and ‘Ashtaroth, and J. 
 Hauran. If there is reason in the supposition that 
 the deserted cities referred to above stand upon the 
 site of the ancient cities of ‘Og, the part of Bashan 
 in which they are most numerous would seem to 
 be the W. declivities of J. Hauran, N. of Salchah 
 (the S.E. limit of Bashan), the soil of which—a 
 disintegrated lava—is rich and fertile (Wetzst. 
 p. 40f.), such as might be described by a deriva- 
 tive of 139.* 
 
 LirERATURE.—On the cities of Hauran, see further (besides the 
 works already quoted), Merrill, Hast of Jordan, 1881, chs. ii.-v.; 
 and for inscriptions, Wetzstein, Ausgewdhite Griech. und Lat. 
 Inschriften gesammelt auf Reisen in den Trachonen und um 
 das Haurdngebirge, in the Abhandlungen of the Berlin 
 Academy, 1863, pp. 255-368 ; hile ang dat op. cit. Nos. 2071- 
 2548; Clermont-Ganneau, Recueil d’Archéol. Orient, i. (1888) 
 pp. 1-23; G. A. Smith, Critical Review, 1892, p. 55ff.; W. 
 Ewing in the PHF'St, 1895, p. 41ff., 131 ff., 265 ff., 346 ff. ; de 
 Vogué, Syrie Centrale, Inscriptions Sémitiques, 1868, chs. 
 ii-iii. p. 89ff.; the CIS un. i. fasc. 2, Nos. 162-193 (chiefly 
 repeated from de Vogué). The best map of the district is that 
 of Fischer (constructed chiefly on the basis of Stiibel’s Survey) 
 in the ZDPV, 1890, Heft 4. S. R. DRIVER. 
 
 ARIDAI (‘17% Est 9°), the ninth of Haman’s 
 sons, put to death by the Jews. The name is prob. 
 Persian, perhaps haridayas, ‘delight of Hari’ (Ges. 
 Thes. add.); but LXX has a different text. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ARIDATHA (xpq7y Est 98), the sixth son of 
 Haman, put to death by the Jews. The name is 
 pegs from the Persian Hariddta, ‘given by 
 
 ari’; but the LXX has @apaiéd6a, this name 
 coming fourth. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ARIEH (77x87, with def. article, ‘the lion’).— 
 Mentioned with Argob in a very obscure passage 
 (2 K 15%). See ARGOB. C. F. BuRNEY. 
 
 ARIEL (dxnx, ’Apuj\).—1. The name of one of 
 Ezra’s ‘chief men,’ Ezr 8'°, It doubtless signifies 
 here ‘lion of God.’ 2. The name, in RV (so LXX 
 and most moderns), of a Moabite whose two sons 
 were slain by Benaiah, one of David’s mighty men, 
 2S 23%,+ 1 Ch 11% (LXX, in later passage, has 
 rovs dvo dpijA) 3. A name, in Is 29-7 (four 
 times), for Jerusalem. The original meaning is 
 quite uncertain. It may be (see RVm) either (1) 
 ‘lion (or lioness) of God,’ so, among others, Ewald, 
 Cheyne (Comm.), Dillm.; or (2) ‘hearth of God,’ 
 so the Targum, Del., Orelli, W. R. Smith (OTJC? 
 
 . 356), Konig (Lehrgeb. d. Heb. Spr. ii. 1, p. 416). 
 
 he latter seems the more probable, in view 
 of bx»x (God’s hearth=altar, RV ‘altar hearth’), 
 Ezk 43%, and $x.x with the same signification on 
 the stele of Mesha (1. 12). Duhm (Comm. in loc.) 
 takes / as a formative letter, and suggests aryal as 
 original form (=sacrificial hearth). Cheyne (In- 
 trod. to Is. p. 187, n.) now favours this, and writes 
 Arial. A. R. 8. KENNEDY. 
 
 ARIMATHAA (‘Appabala), Mt 275-®,—The 
 situation of this place is not indicated. In the 
 Onomasticon (s.v. Armathem-Sophim) it is identi- 
 fied with Ramathaim-zophim (1 S 1’), and placed 
 near Thamna and Lydda. The village Rantieh 
 
 * The Onom. (p. 216) identifies "Apye8 with a village “Epya, 
 15 miles W. of Gerasa, which may well be er-Rujéb, on the W. 
 Rujéb, at just that distance from Gerasa; but this is clearly too 
 far south for the Argob in Bashan, 
 
 + AV has ‘two lion-like men of Moab.’ For other suggested 
 emendations, see Klostermann’s Comm. in loc., whose ingenious 
 conjecture has been accepted by Budde (in Haupt’s Bible) ; 
 Sayce, Atheneum, Oct. 9, 1886; and W. R. Smith, 469. 
 
148 ARIOCH 
 
 
 
 seems intended, but the various traditions disagree 
 and have no value. See SWP vol. ii. sheet xiv. 
 See also ARUMAH. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 ARIOCH (3'78).—41. ARIOCH was the vassal-king 
 of Ellasar, under the Elamite king Chedor-laomer, 
 when the latter invaded Canaan in the time of 
 Abraham (Gn 14!) The name has been found 
 in the cuneiform inscriptions of Babylonia.* 
 When the country was still divided into imore 
 than one kingdom, Eri-Aku, ‘the servant of the 
 moon-god,’ was king of Larsa (now Senkereh, 
 between the Tigris and Euphrates in the south 
 of Babylonia, a little east of Erechi: Larsa is evi- 
 dently the biblical Ellasar. The name of Eri-Aku 
 was transformed by his Sem. subjects into Rim- 
 Sin (pron. Riv-Sin, whence the 1 of Arioch), and ex- 
 plained as a Sem. compound, like the names of 
 other Bab. kings of the period. He was the son 
 of an Elamite, Kudur-Mabug, who is called ‘ the 
 father of the land of the Amorites’ or Syria, and 
 the son of Simti-silkhak. Inscribed bricks of his 
 exist, as well as contracts drawn up during his 
 reign. In his inscriptions he calls himself ‘the 
 shepherd of the possessions of Nippur, the executor 
 of the oracle of the holy tree of Eridu, the shepherd 
 of Ur, the king of Larsa, and the king of Sumer 
 and Accad,’ and in one of them he mentions his 
 conquest of ‘the ancient city of Erech.’ He was 
 attacked by Khammurabi, king of Babylon, and in 
 spite of the assistance furnished by the Elamites 
 was defeated and overthrown. Khammurabi an- 
 nexed his kingdom, and from henceforth Babylonia 
 became a single monarchy, with Babylon as its 
 capital. Mr. Pinches has lately found a tablet, 
 belonging, however, to a late period, in which 
 mention is made of Eri-Aku, Tudkhula or Tidal, the 
 son of Gazza (ni?), and Kudur-Lagamar, the Chedor- 
 laomer of Genesis. 2. The ‘captain of the king’s 
 guard’ in the time of Nebuchadrezzar, according 
 to Dn 2'*, The name, however, was Sumerian, 
 and not used at that period of Bab. history. It 
 has been taken from Gn 141. 3. King of ‘the 
 Elymeans’ or Elam, acc. to Jth 18. The name 
 has been borrowed from Gn 14!, where it stands 
 beside that of Chedor-laomer, king of Elam. 
 
 A. H. SAYcE. 
 
 ARISAI (‘pn Est 9°), the eighth son of Haman, 
 put to death by the Jews. The LXX has ’Apcaios, 
 in the ninth place. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ARISTARCHUS (’Aplcrapxos), the devoted fellow- 
 labourer of St. Paul, was a native of Thessalonica 
 (Ac 204 27?), He is first mentioned as having been 
 seized along with Gaius during the great riot at 
 Ephesus. e accompanied St. Paul from Troas on 
 his last journey to Jerusalem (Ac 20*), and thereafter 
 on his passage to Rome (Ac 277). He was with St. 
 Paul at Rome when he wrote the Epistles to the 
 Colossians and to Philemon (Col 4, Philem 4). It 
 has been suggested that he shared St. Paul’s im- 
 prisonment voluntarily, and that he and Epaphras 
 (cf. Col 41°, Philem™) may have participated in 
 the apostle’s bonds alternately. The word used by 
 St. Paul in these passages (cvvatxuddwros) has led 
 to the further suggestion that the reference is to 
 spiritual captivity, that in common with the 
 apostle they were held captive by Christ; but 
 that is not likely. Tradition affirms that Aris- 
 tarchus suffered martyrdom in Rome _ under 
 Nero. W. Moir. 
 
 ARISTOBULUS (’Apiord8ovd0s).—1. Amongst the 
 list of persons greeted by St. Paul at the end of 
 the Epistle to the Romans (16"°) are certain called 
 rods éx r&v “ApioroBovAov, ‘members of the household 
 
 * But see Winckler, Ketlinsch. Bibliot. Bd. iii. 1 Halfte, 92 ff. ; 
 Schrader, COT?, ii. 301, Crit. Rev. Apr. 1894, p. 126. 
 
 ARK OF NOAH 
 
 of Aristobulus.’ The following is the explanation 
 of this phrase given by Bishop Lightfoot. ~ 
 
 A., son of the elder A. and Berenice, grandson 
 of Herod and brother of Agrippa. (see HEROD), 
 lived and died a private man, was a friend of the 
 Emperor Claudius, and apparently a resident in 
 Rome. It is suggested that the ‘ household’ of A. 
 were his slaves, who after his death, which must 
 have taken place before this time, had become the 
 propery of the emperor, probably by legacy. We 
 
 now that in other cases members of households 
 which became the property of the emperor, 
 retained their name. We find Maecenatiami 
 (CIL vi. 4016, 4032), Amyntiani (ib. 4035, cf. 
 8738), Aerppion, Germaniciani. So, too, there 
 might be Aristobuliani, and this would be trans- 
 lated of ’ApusroBovhov. This household would pre- 
 sumably contain many Jews and other Orientals, 
 and would therefore be a natural place in which to 
 find Christians. The name Herodion following, 
 was that of a Jew, and suggests a member of the 
 Herod family. See HERODION, NARCISSUS. 
 
 LiTrraTuRE.—Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 172; Sanday and 
 Headlam, Romans, p. 425. For later traditions, which have 
 little value, see Acta Sanctorum, March, ii. 374, 
 
 2. Ptolemy’s teacher, 2 Mac 1%, 
 
 A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 ARIUS (*Apys, 1 Mac 127-%), a king of Sparta, 
 In y.7 the name he in the corrupt form of 
 Aapetos ; inv. many MSS read ’Ovdpys or ’Overdpys, 
 a form produced by the combination of ’Ovig “Apys 
 (so v.29 in AV Onwares); but x*’Ovaapys, Vet. Lat. 
 Arius; in Jos. Ant, XII. v. 8, the reading varies 
 between “Apecaos and ’Apevs, the latter being the 
 more correct form. The person referred to is 
 Areus I., the grandson and successor of Cleo- 
 menes II., who was king of Sparta from 309 B.C, 
 to 265 B.c., and was contemporary with the high 
 
 riest Onias I., the successor of Jaddua. The 
 Spartans were at that time engaged in a struggle 
 against Antigonus and his son Demetrius Polior- 
 cetes, and they probably hoped to create difficulties 
 for their opponent by raising disturbances in the 
 East. Friendly letters were interchanged between 
 Areus and Onias (probably about 300 B.c.); and 
 Jonathan Maccabeus refers to these communica- 
 tions in a letter which he sent by his ambassadors 
 to Sparta (about 144 B.c.), 1 Mac 127#-19%, Cf, 
 Schiirer, AJP I. i. 250f. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ARK OF INFANT MOSES.—A box (n3n tébhah), 
 made of bulrushes or pap reeds, the stems of a 
 succulent water plant, rendered watertight by layers 
 
 of slimeand pitch, in which Moses when three months ~ 
 
 old was placed and committed to the river (Ex 2°), 
 The oe seemingly is of Egyptian origin, primarily 
 meaning ‘hollow,’ ‘a concave vessel,’ and the 
 possible source of the obscure Heb. root which 
 appears in ’0b, ventriloquist, necromancer, ghost. 
 
 Papyrus reeds were commonly used in Egypt for | 
 
 the construction of light boats. A very similar 
 story of a remarkable preservation is told on a 
 Babylonian tablet from Kouyunjik, about Sargon L., 
 a monarch who reigned in Agade, one of the cities 
 
 of the Euphrates valley, c. 3500 B.c. It is said 
 
 (see Smith, Chaldean Genesis, 880, p. 319) that | 
 
 his mother placed him in a basket of rushes, 
 sealing up his exit with bitumen, and launchin 
 him ona river which did not drown him, from whic: 
 he was taken and brought up by his preserver. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 ARK OF NOAH.—The vessel built by the patriareh | 
 
 at God’s command for saving life upon the earth 
 during the great Flood. The perio 
 
 84 P); hence it was necessary that large accommo- 
 
 dation should be provided for the storage of | 
 The ark, in short, is to be conceived | 
 
 provisions. 
 
 of detention | 
 within it is said to have lasted over a year (Gn 74 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 il i ee 
 
tee 
 
 Jong, 874 ft. broad, and 524 ft. high. 
 
 ARK OF THE COVENANT 
 
 
 
 ARK OF THE COVENANT 149 
 
 
 
 of as an immense floating store, fitted to he | Had these sources come down to us intact, we 
 
 solidly on the surface of the waters. Its dimeusions 
 were: 300 cubits long, 50 cubits broad, and 30 
 eubits high. The length of the cubit is six hand- 
 breadths, and is usually reckoned at 21 inches. In 
 our measures, therefore, the ark would be 525 ft. 
 In 1609, Peter 
 Jansen of Horn in Holland built a vessel of the 
 same proportions, and found that it would stow 
 one-third more cargo than other ships of ordinary 
 structure. It has been calculated that it would 
 contain a space of 3,600,000 cubic ft., and that after 
 9/10 had been set aside for storage of food, there 
 would be over 50 cubic ft. each allowed for 7000 
 pairs of animals. Such calculations, though in 
 earlier times treated with all seriousness, now 
 receive little consideration. The measurements 
 iven in the biblical text are not sufficiently 
 Gatatlod, nor is the description of the whole con- 
 struction sufficiently explicit, to form the basis of 
 such conclusions. (See BABYLONIA, FLOOD.) 
 
 The ark was built of gopher wood, supposed to 
 mean pitch wood, and possibly, as Delitzsch 
 suggests, the conifer cypress, much used by the 
 Phenicians for shi buaain on account of its 
 lightness and durability. it was divided into 
 ‘rooms’ or ‘nests,’ 0°37. The whole structure was 
 three storeys in height, and was lighted by windows 
 under the roof on each side. The pitch used to render 
 the ark watertight was not vegetable, but mineral 
 pitch or asphalt. Berosus, writing about B.c. 300, 
 asserts that remains of the ark were then found in 
 Armenia, which were used in making bracelets and 
 amulets. Between the announcement to Noah of 
 the coming Flood and the actual fulfilment of the 
 judgment, there intervened, ace. to Gn 6? (J), 120 
 years, and during that time the ark was building, 
 and Noah was, by word and by act, a preacher of 
 righteousness to his generation (1 P 3, 2 P 2°). 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 ARK OF THE COVENANT.—i. NAME.—The ark 
 (783) was the most ancient and most sacred of the 
 religious symbols of the Heb. nation. Its name 
 in the oldest sources is ‘the ark of J’’ (m7 jx), or 
 ‘the ark of God’ (o'nbx “x). In Dt we first* meet 
 with the designation ‘ark of the Covenant of J”’ 
 (" n2 “x), Dt 108 31% 2-26 shortened elsewhere to 
 the familiar ‘ark of the Covenant,’ Jos 3% etc. In 
 several passages of the older hist. books (cf. LXX 
 text of 1 S 4°) which have been edited by writers of 
 the Deuteronomic school, the earlier form ‘ark of 
 J”’ has been expanded to ‘ark of the Covenant of 
 J” (as is clear from such grammatical impossibilities 
 as we find in Jos 3-17), and the favourite expres- 
 sion ‘ark of the Covenant’ intentionally or unin- 
 tentionally substituted for the earlier forms. A 
 still later designation, ‘ark of the testimony’ 
 (mya “x), occurs only in P, Ex 252 etc. The 
 rest of the names occasionally met with are merely 
 variations of these. Throughout all the books 
 we find ‘the ark’ as the popular and universally 
 intelligible designation. 
 
 ii, HisToRY OF THE ARK.—In this article we 
 propose to confine ourselves to the history and 
 significance of the ark as given in the pre-exilic 
 literature. Its place in the scheme of the Priests’ 
 Code will be discussed in the article TABERNACLE. 
 In the prophetic narrative of the Pent. (JE) the 
 ark first appears as an object of peculiar sanctit 
 in the important passage Nu 10%#.+ Here it is 
 expressly recognised as the leader of the host in 
 the march through the desert, in virtue of its 
 being, in some sense, the dwelling-place of J”. In 
 another passage from the same source, Nu 14, 
 the ark is intimately associated with Moses. 
 
 * nvia in Nu 1033 (J) 1444(E) (cf. Bacon, Triple Trad. of the 
 
 Ezod. pp. 171, 189) is almost certainly an editorial insertion. 
 t Probably J, see n.* 
 
 should have had much earlier information than 
 anything which we now have regarding the origin 
 and construction of the ark. No one can read the 
 present text of Ex 33 without being struck with 
 the abrupt transition from vv.}6 to v.™, and with 
 the sudden introduction of ‘the tent’ (v.7) as of 
 something already explained. We may therefore 
 consider it a matter of certainty that the compiler 
 of the Pent. has omitted from the prophetic 
 source the accounts of the erection of ‘the tent 
 of meeting’ as inconsistent with the much fuller 
 account in P. Another question now emerges. 
 Did the excised portion of JE also contain an 
 account or accounts of the construction of the ark ? 
 To this an affirmative answer must be given; for 
 if we read carefully the retrospect given in Dt 
 10°, and bear in mind that the whole of D’s 
 historical references are taken from the prophetic 
 naiTatives, we can scarcely have any doubt that in 
 JE, as it lay before the author of D, there must 
 have been a record of the construction by Moses of 
 ‘an ark of wood’ (Dt 10!) before his ascent to 
 the mount. In the absence of the original text 
 of these older sources, it is no longer possible to 
 nee with certainty as to their mode of conceiving 
 
 ”s relation to the ark. The most probable 
 view seems to be that already referred to as found in 
 the antique poetical fragment, Nu 10%, where 
 J” is conceived of as personally present in the 
 ark, and guiding the march of His chosen people. 
 The same representation is met with somewhat 
 later in the composite narrative (chiefly JE)* of 
 the passage of the Jordan, in which the ark, borne 
 by the priests, shows the way, while the people 
 follow at a considerable distance (Jos 3°*-), uring 
 the subsequent conquest of W. Pal., as related in 
 the Books of Jos and Jg 1-2 from materials of 
 various dates, the ark and the tent of meeting 
 must have had their headquarters in the standing 
 camp at Gilgal (Jos 9° 10%), the former we may 
 suppose frequently accompanying the tribes to 
 battle. Thus we know the prominence given to the 
 ark in the siege of Jericho (Jos 6); and the sacrifice 
 in the presence of the ark on Mt Ebal (Jos 8° 
 from D?) may be taken as a typical episode in the 
 history of the conquest. From Gilgal the head- 
 quarters were moved by divine command to Bethel 
 (Jg 2). + 
 
 The next resting-place of the ark was at Shiloh, 
 in the territory of Ephraim. Here, according to 
 P (Jos 181), it was deposited by Joshua himself, 
 and here it is found at the close of the period of 
 the Judges (1 S 3%). The original tentt is now 
 replaced by a temple (1S 1° 3°), the guardians of 
 which are members of an ancient priestly family 
 (18 27), with Samuel the Ephraimite as attendant. 
 
 The following section (chs. 4!-7') is a document 
 of the first importance as a record of the popular 
 conceptions of the ancient Hebrews with regard to 
 the ark. The various incidents in the narrative 
 are too familiar to need repetition. The leading 
 thought throughout is the conviction that the 
 resence of the ark secures the presence of J” 
 Himself in the ey of the Hebrews.§ 
 
 The capture of the sacred object by the Philis- 
 
 *See Bennett’s ‘Joshua’ in Haupt’s Bible; Kittel, Hist. i., 
 Eng. tr., pp. 282, 283; Driver’s art. ‘Joshua’ in Smith’s DB2, 
 
 t+ See Moore’s Comm. ad loc. ; Kittel, Eng. tr., pp. 270, 275. 
 So most moderns, MT Bochim. The tradition that the ark 
 once had its home in Bethel may be recognised in Jg 2027» 28a, 
 a late marginal gloss, 
 
 t The words of 1 § 22%, wanting in LXX, are admittedly a 
 very late addition to the original text (Wellh., Driver, Klost., 
 Budde). 
 
 § This is clear from the whole tenor of the narrative without 
 our requiring to read, with Klost., ‘our God’ (13°75x) for ‘unto 
 us’ (43). It is also more than probable, in view of the femin. 
 construction in v.17, that we should render, ‘that he may come 
 and save us.’ Of. 60 
 
150 ARK OF THE COVENANT 
 
 ARK OF THE COVENANT 
 
 
 
 
 
 tines, the effect of the news on the aged Eli, the 
 incidents of its sojourn in Phil, territory, and its 
 restoration, are graphically told by the narrator.* 
 After a short stay at Bethshemesh, the ark is 
 removed to Kiriath-jearim and deposited in the 
 house of Abinadab ‘in the hill,’ while Eleazar, his 
 son, is set apart as its guardian. Here it remained, 
 according to a later addition to the text, for twenty 
 years, a period admittedly too short by at least a 
 generation.t Why an object of such sanctity was 
 nvt restored to its proper home in the temple of 
 Shiloh we can only conjecture. Most probably the 
 temple had been destroyed, and Shiloh{ itself 
 occupied by the Philistines. As a result a period 
 of spiritual declension followed, lasting well into 
 the reign of Saul § (ef. 1 Ch 13%). The centre of 
 the purest teaching must have been the home of 
 Samuel at Ramah (1S 72”), the fruit of which we 
 may perhaps trace in the nig religious con- 
 ceptions that mark the reign of David. 
 his sovereign, once securely seated on the 
 throne of ‘all Israel,’ took active steps for the 
 removal of the ark to his new capital on the slopes 
 of Ophel, as related at some length in 28 6 
 and lovingly expanded in 1 Ch 13. The text of the 
 former passage has suffered greatly, but the general 
 sense is clear, From the house of Abinadab at 
 Kiriath-jearim [otherwise Baalath (of Judah), Jos 
 15°] the ark is brought in state on the way to Jerus. 
 The sons of Abinadab, Uzzah and Ahio, are in 
 charge of the new cart on which the ark has been 
 peeed the former walking|| beside the ark, the 
 atter guiding the oxen in front. Dismayed by a 
 sign of the divine displeasure, David desists from 
 his purpose for a time, leaving the ark in the 
 custody of Obed-edom the Gittite. After three 
 months, however, the removal is successfully 
 accomplished, and the ark safely deposited ‘in the 
 midst of the tent that David had pitched for it’ 
 (v."). After this, in the epigrammatic words of 
 the Chronicler, the ark had rest (1 Ch 6%). For 
 the last time we meet with the ark as the re- 
 presentative of J” on the field of battle in the 
 campaign against the children of Ammon (25 11). 
 Somewhat later, on the occasion of Absalom’s 
 rebellion, when the priests Zadok and Abiathar 7 
 (2 S 157), in accordance with ancient custom, 
 wished to take the ark as the guarantee of 
 J’’s presence with them, the king shows that 
 he has attained to a worthier view of the divine 
 nature by ordering the restoration of the ark to 
 its proper abode in Jerusalem. 
 the ast chapter in the history of the ark opens 
 with its removal by Solomon from its modest 
 tent, and its installation in the inner sanctuary of 
 the temple, ‘under the wings of the cherubim’ 
 (1 K 8). From this point onwards there is no 
 mention of the ark in the older histor’cal books. 
 Was it, as some think, among ‘the treasures of 
 the house of the Lord’ which Shishak carried off 
 
 “It is important to observe that the MT of 619 will not bear 
 the rendering put upon it by AV and RV, ‘because they looked 
 into the ark.’ The text, however, is corrupt. Adopting 
 Klostermann’s ‘happy suggestion’ (Budde) we render, ‘ But the 
 sons of J. did not rejoice among the men of B. when they beheld 
 the ark of J’, and he smote,’ etc. 
 
 t There is no ground in the text for the statement in Smith’s 
 DB? ‘that to Kiriath-jearim ‘‘all the house of Israel” resorted 
 to seek J’.’ Whatever may be the meaning of the obscure 
 and probably corrupt 173, 72, the verse serves as the introduc- 
 tion to the following narrative of Samuel’s prophetic activity. 
 
 { It isa mistake to base the assertion that ‘in the early part 
 of Saul’s reign Ahiah was the Lord’s priest in Shiloh’ (Smith’s 
 DB2Ark) on 18 143, for the qualifying phrase refers, not to 
 Ahiah, but to Eli. Equally groundless is the supposition (op. 
 cit.) that the ark may have been at Nob. 
 
 §In 1 8 14188 where the true rendering is clearly ‘the 
 ephod’ (LXX; cf. v.3), the retention of ‘the ark’ in RV is 
 Inexcusable. V.18b ig, of course, an explanatory gloss like 
 Ig 2027, 
 
 1 Emend. abit nity, v.48, Then., Dr., Kitt., Bud. 
 
 ¥ The text is again uncertain ; see Driver, in loo. 
 
 
 
 so early as the reign of Rehoboam? (1 K 14%). Or 
 was it first removed by Manasseh to make way for 
 his image of Astarte (2 Ch 337), and reinstated 
 by Josiah (35°), to perish finally in the destruction 
 oh city and temple by Nebuchadrezzar? The latter 
 
 seems on the whole the more probable view (cf.. 
 
 2 Es 10”), if the single reference, Jer 3!%17, 
 really implies (which is doubtful) the existence of 
 the ark in the prophet’s day, although it must be 
 confessed that the silence of the rest of the pro- 
 hetic literature is difficult to explain (cf. Kuenen, 
 vel. of Israel, i, p. 233). The fable of 2 Mac 2¢ is 
 evidently based on the passage of Jeremiah just 
 quoted. There was no ark in the second temple 
 (Jos. Wars, V. v. 5). 
 
 iii. From the analogy of other objects bearing 
 the same name,” as well as from the measurements 
 in the scheme of the priestly code (Ex 251°), wa 
 
 may best think of the ark as an oblong chest of 
 
 acacia or shittim wood (so Dt 108, doubtless 
 following the other sources JE ; see §ii. above). In 
 the absence of the original text of these sources in 
 Ex 33. 34 it is impossible to say with absolute 
 certainty whether the ark was represented by 
 them as furnished with figures corresponding to 
 the cherubim of P (Ex 25%), They are not 
 mentioned in Dt 108, nor in the Books of Sam. 
 or Kings —the phrase ‘that sitteth upon the 
 cherubim’ (RV) of 1 S 44, 2 S 63, if not a late 
 gloss (so Kuenen, Smend, Nowack, ete.), bein 
 
 capable of another explanation. The language o 
 
 1 K 8% further seems to imply the absence of 
 cherubim on the ark itself. This result is con- 
 firmed by what we may infer as to the size of the 
 sacred chest, for we find it carried by two priests 
 (2 S 15%, also in corrected text of v.%4, 1S 4#), 
 An important difference of representation exists 
 between the provisions of the Priests’ Code—by 
 which the ark had to be carried by Levites (Nu 
 33! 41), as distinguished from a higher caste of 
 Aaronic priests—and those of the older legislation 
 of Dt. First, indeed, among the privileges of the 
 whole priestly tribe of Levi enumerated in Dt 10 
 —privileges assigned to them, we can _ scarcely 
 doubt, as the reward of their zeal and fidelity in 
 the cause of J” (Ex 32°f-)—is that of bearing ‘the 
 ark of J”’ (cf. Dt 31%). And this is in accord 
 with the evidence of the older historical books in 
 which the priests are the bearers of the ark [see 
 reff. above, and cf. Jos 3° (E), & (J), 6%22 (KE), 
 833, 1 K 276 836+ ete.]. As to the precise relation 
 of the ark in early times to the ritual of sacrifice, 
 we have no contemporary evidence. 
 
 iv. Every student of OT who has realised to 
 what extent the pre-exilic literature has been 
 worked over by later editors, will appreciate the 
 difficulty, if not the impossibility, of gaining an 
 accurate estimate of the conceptions entertained 
 of the ark in the earliest times. So much depends 
 also on the opinion we may form of the historical 
 value of even our oldest sources. 
 however, seems clear. The ark is in these sources 
 something more than a mere symbol of the diwne 
 presence. By the popular mind, at least, J” 
 was conceived as actually residing in the ark,—a 
 conviction clearly reflected in the ancient fragment, 
 Nu 10-36, That the ark was regarded as, in 
 some sense, the abode of the Deity, is apparent 
 also, as we saw above, from the early narratives in 
 the Books of Samuel. Even by David himself, if 
 we can trust the reading, the ark is still spoken of 
 as God’s habitation (2 S 15%), 
 
 Only on the basis of this conception can we 
 
 * Viz. the outer coffin of Joseph’s mummy (Gn 5026), and 
 en rid fags up by Jehoiada the priest in the temple (2 K 129ff. 
 
 In 1 K 84 and is a late insertion (see 2 Ch 65). In 
 | passages, such as 1 § 615, the original practice has been 
 
 to conform to the requirements of the priestly legislation. 
 
 
 
 This much, | 
 
 
 
 $$$ 
 

 
 
 
 = 
 
 . Middle 
 
 ARKITES 
 
 — 
 
 explain the fact that in all the passages we have 
 studied, ‘before the ark of J”’ is identical with, 
 or parallel to, ‘before J”’ Himself (cf. e.g. Jos 6° 
 with 6°*). What is done in close proximity to 
 the ark is everywhere represented as done in the 
 
 resence of J”, as sacrifice (2 S 6"), casting of lots 
 (Jos 18° 1°), dancing (2S 6'”), and the like. With the 
 spread of more developed views of religion under 
 ts influence of prophetic teaching, the importance 
 of the ark undoubtedly decreased, a fact to which 
 we may perhaps ascribe the silence of later 
 writings regarding it. The ark in any case must 
 be regarded as from the first a national and not 
 a merely tribal sanctuary.t Its loss is bewailed 
 as a national calamity (1 S 47+). Nor does the 
 writer see reason (even granted that 1 K 8° may 
 be a gloss) for rejecting the ancient tradition 
 which the author of Dt found in his sources, 
 that the ark contained the tables originally 
 deposited there by Moses himself (Dt 10’). The 
 view now generally adopted by continental writers, 
 that if the ark really contained anything at all, 
 it was a stone or stones of fetish origin, involves a 
 conception of Moses and his teaching which the 
 writer cannot share. On the other hand, the 
 statement that the ark contained also the pot of 
 manna and Aaron’s rod that budded (He 9*), seems 
 based on a late Jewish tradition. 
 
 LiTgRaTURE.—The Comm. of Dillmann on Exodus, Driver on 
 Dt, Klostermann on Sam. and Kings; the critical works of 
 Wellhausen and Driver on the text of the Books of Sam. ; 
 the treatises on Heb. archwology of Benzinger and Nowack 
 iret. ii.); articles in Stade’s Zeitschrift by Kautzsch, 1886; 
 
 eyring, 1891; and esp. Couard, 1892 (‘Die religidse nationale 
 Bedeutg. der Lade 23 also art. ‘Bundeslade’ in Riehm’s Hand- 
 wort.2; Kostersin Theol. Tijdschrift, 1893 ; and R. Kretzschmar, 
 Die Bundesvorstellung im A.T. (1896), c. 7, ‘Die Bundeslade,’ 
 
 - A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 ARKITES (‘p7v, Gn 10”, 1 Ch 15), represented 
 as descendants of Canaan, founders of the Phen. 
 city of Arka, in later times Cwsarea Libani, birth- 
 place of the Roman emperor Alexander Severus, 
 about 12,miles N. of Tripolis. Arka is also men- 
 tioned in the inscription of Tiglath-pileser II. as one 
 of the towns reduced by that monarch (Schrader, 
 COT? i. 87, 246). Jos. (Ant. I. vi. 2) states that 
 Arueas, one of the sons of Canaan, possessed Arce, 
 situated at the N.W. base of the Lebanon. It was 
 still a place of considerable importance in the 
 ges, and sustained a severe siege in A.D. 
 1138, but was taken by the Crusaders. Its site is 
 now marked by the ruins of Tell Arka. See 
 Schiirer, HJP 1. ii. 201 f. J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 ARM (vit; zeréa'), the outstretched arm ; also the 
 straight foreleg of an animal. 1. As a unit of 
 measurement arm follows the hand with its digit, 
 palm, span, and gives the standard length called 
 the ‘ammah (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, s.v. 
 *cubit’). As this seems to have varied from 17°6 
 in. to 25°19, it is possible that besides the reckon- 
 ing of the fore-arm, there was another of the 
 arm’s-length, the latter corresponding to the 
 modern Arab. dhird‘a, 24in. The kindred Arab. 
 word for full-arm (dhard‘a) also means, like the fig. 
 use of zerda’, capacity, influence, power. 2. Fig. 
 
 ‘| use of Arm.—Among Orientals the extended arm 
 
 is a familiar sign of animation and action. During 
 the excitement of discussion, it is an understood 
 prelude to speech, and implies the possession of 
 something that ought to be heard. Throughout 
 the Bible the a. is an expressive emblem of power 
 to direct, control, seize, overcome, and hence also 
 describes the purpose, either of punishment or 
 protection, towards which the power is employed. 
 Thus the Exodus is freq. referred to as the ‘ out- 
 
 * Of. also Jg 20259, where for ‘stood before it’ render ‘stood 
 re him’; see Moore, in loc. nN 
 + Wellh., Stade, and others have suggested that the ark was 
 the palladium of the tribe of Joseph. 
 
 ARMENIAN VERSION 151 
 
 
 
 stietched a.’ of God. Similarly the a. of Pharaoh 
 is said to be broken; and the doomgf Eli’s famil 
 
 is called the cutting off of his a., and that of his 
 father’s house. In the same way, the unwelcome 
 novelty of the spiritual kingdom and its living 
 sacrifice raises the prophetic lament—‘to whom 
 hath the a. of the Lord been revealed’? (Is 53'). 
 Further, the original meaning of power is some- 
 times transcended, and by frequency of special 
 association the motive of holiness is transferred 
 to the a.—‘The Lord hath made bare his holy 
 arm’ (Is 52!°). On the other hand, utter powerless- 
 ness is the a. ‘clean-dried-up’ (Zee 11"), Cf. Job’s 
 imprecation on the abuse of power (Job 31”). So 
 the appeal of the helpless is ‘Put on strength, O 
 arm of the Lord!’ (Is 51°), Hence, finally, the 
 contrast between the man who makes flesh his 
 arm, and Israel for whose security ‘underneath 
 are the Everlasting Arms’ (Dt 33”). See also 
 HAND. G. M. MAcKIE. 
 
 ARMENIA.—See ARARAT. 
 
 ARMENIAN YERSION OF THE OT. — The 
 following points need discussion as regards the 
 Armenian OT, 
 
 i. The text from which it was translated. 
 ii. Its value for critical purposes. 
 iii. Its date, and where it was made. 
 iv. Its contents, and order of books. 
 
 i. The Arm. OT is a version of the Gr. LXX, 
 the text of which it everywhere fits closely as a 
 
 love the hand that wears it. This statement has 
 
 een controverted ;* but its truth is apparent if 
 we anywhere open the Peshitta or Massora and, 
 noting their peculiarities, look for them in the 
 Armenian. Let us test it then by a few cases where 
 the Syriac Peshitta varies from the LXX; but 
 where the LXX is exactly rendered by the Arm., 
 the sense of which I occasionally add within square 
 brackets. 
 
 Gn 1! esse coli et esse terrm.—2 deserta et inculta [invisibilia 
 et non preparata].—§ et fuit divisitque [et sit dividere]—% om. 
 nod tyévero ob'tas.—! om. 6 sds after disxspietv.—8 OM. wad s]d0v 6 
 ~~ oe xadév.—9 in locum unum—9 om. xa) evr4zOy as far as 
 agin n Erpa, 
 
 Gn 201 Racem et Gedar [Cades et Sur]—alt. Gedar [in Geraris 
 and so in v.3].—4 populum innocentem [ignorantem et iustum). 
 —5 En ipse [nonne ipse]—5 om. mihi after dixit—5 om. sed ego 
 before in simplicitate.—6 cohibui te [peperci tibi].—? om. vir 
 before propheta.—8 om. omnes before homines. 
 
 Ex 18! Jethron [Iothor] — Median [Madian] — Deus Moai 
 [Dominus M.]—add. Filios before Israel.—? add. filiam suam.— 
 3 Gerson [Gersam]—quoniam dixerat [dicit]. ; 
 
 341 om. et ascende ad me in montem.—3 in manu sua [secum). 
 —stetit ibi cum eo [stetitque coram eo ibi]—nomen hoc, 
 Dominus [in nomen Domini]. 
 
 Lv 301 add. ad eum—Dicito filiis Israel [loquere ad filios I. 
 dices].—2 et ex iis [vel de iis] —proiecerit ex semine suo in 
 alienigenam [dederit semen suum principi, and so in 203}— 
 2 add. vir eius modi.—3 dabo furorem [statuam faciem]—sanctu- 
 arium [sanctitatem]—sanctitatis mes [sanctificatorum meorum], 
 
 Nu 36! capita patrum familie [principes tribus filiorum}— 
 Gelaad (Galaad]—de familia Manasse filii Ioseph [de fam. fil. Ios.) 
 —magnatibus congregationis, capitibus patrum filiorum [prin- 
 cipibus domorum patriarcharum fil.). 
 
 t 311 Abiens igitur Moses, locutus est [et consummavit M. 
 loquiJ—ad_universum Israelem [ad omnes filios Israel}—? add. 
 filius—et Dominus [nam eee 
 
 Jos 221 Rubil [Ruben].—? vos custodistis [vosmet audistis).— 
 3 ecce multis abhinc diebus [tot dies] —ad presentem usque 
 diem, et custoditis [immo plus usque hodie temporis cust. ].— 
 4 add. quandoquidem—Deus [D. noster}—revertimini ergo et 
 abite aa civitates vestras [nunc igitur revertentes redite in 
 domus vestras]—quam possedistis [possessionis vestrw]—add. ab 
 oriente. 
 
 2 Ch 833 Secundum opera [de omnibus abominationibus}— 
 Israelitarum [filiorum Israel].—3 remdificavit enim [et revertit 
 et edificavit]—altaria idolis [statuas Baalimez]. Fabricavit tigres 
 [fecit lucos]—add. et adoravit eas—omnes coli copias [omnem 
 potentiam coli). 
 
 Ps 1102 om. év xiow.—3 Populus tuus laudabilis [=with thee is 
 the beginning]—sanctitatis [sanctorum tuorum]—ab antiquo te 
 
 
 
 *H.g. Dr. Ars’ak Ter Mikelian (Die Armenische Kirche. 
 Leipzig. 1892) writes, p. 85: ‘Die Biicher des Alten Testamenves 
 kénnen unmoglich aus den LXX tibersetzt worden sein ’ 
 
152 ARMENIAN VERSION 
 
 
 
 filium ae [ante Luciferum genui te).—4 non mentietur [non 
 ee it eum]—sicut Melchizedec [=*‘ according to the order of 
 .’).—§ implebit cadavera [= ‘he maketh many the blows’) 
 Is 33— 
 Syniac Version. 
 Vae diripienti: vos ne 
 diripiatis, et deceptor nequa- 
 
 Armenian Version. 
 Woe unto those who distress 
 you, but yourselves no one can 
 
 | 
 
 quam decipiet vos, cum distress: and he that despiseth, 
 volueritis diripere, diri- | despiseth not you. For they 
 piemini. Domine miserere , shall be given over unto defeat 
 
 nostri, quoniam in te est 
 fiducia nostra: esto adiutor ! 
 noster in matutino, et salva 
 nos in tempore angustiw. 
 
 who despise you, and like the 
 moth upon the garment, s0 
 shall they be given over to de- 
 feat. Lord, pity us; for in thee 
 have we hoped. The seed of 
 the unfaithful hath come to 
 destruction ; but our salvation 
 is in thee in time of straits. 
 
 In all these cases the Arm. is faithful, as against 
 the Syr., to the LXX. In spite of this general con- 
 formity, however, there are numerous cases in 
 which the Arm. supplies omissions of the LXX ; 
 e.g. Is 66° runs thus in the Arm.: ‘But the law- 
 less who offers to me an ox as offering [is just as if 
 one should smite the head of a man, and he that 
 offers the sheep as offering] is just as if one should 
 slaughter a dog.’ Here the words bracketed have 
 dropt out of the ordinary LXX text ; but they were 
 added to the LXX text by Sym. and Theod. 
 
 In Jeremiah the traces of correction by direct 
 or indirect use of the Massoretic or Syr. texts are 
 frequent, e.g. ch. 16? the Arm.=et ne gignantur 
 tibi filii et filie. In v.4it=sed in exemplum erunt 
 super faciem terre. In gladio cadent et in fame 
 consummabuntur. Et erunt cadavera eorum in 
 cibum volatilibus celi et bestiis terre. In the 
 above the plural gignantur .. . filii et filize in v.?, 
 and in v.* exemplum, belong to the LXX; but 
 the arrangement of clauses in v.4, as also the addi- 
 tion cadavera eorum, are due to the Syr. or to the 
 Massora., It may be noticed that Jerome, who con- 
 sulted the Heb. text, combines it with the LXX 
 in just the same way, only reading with the Heb. 
 sterquilinium for es In order to demon- 
 strate this composite character of the Arm. text, I 
 
 ive a collation with Tischendorf’s text of ch. 23. 
 
 herever the variants of the Armenian reflect the 
 Massoretic or Syr. texts, or both, I add M or S or 
 SM. 
 
 Jer 231 eirdéy) Arm. cov: mews SM—ibid. add. gyal Kipios SM. 
 —2 Kipios 04666 "lopaga SM—éal rods woipeévos rove woiaivovros 
 SM—vuav) + Atyes Kipios SM.-—4 xronl.] + neque erunt neglecti: 
 8+neque aberrent: M+neque deficient.— 5 dimeiev] dIixasocurns S. 
 —6 ‘laotdex)+7 dizosoourn yuay: iustitia nostra (t.e. losedek) SM 
 —ibid.+iv ros xpogyraig, and vv.7 8, which in the LXX come at 
 the end of the chapter, are added here by the Arm. as by SM.— 
 ® before cuverpin Arm, add. exi robs xpogyras.—l” before ors aad 
 +nam impleta est tellus adulteris as in M; (S adulteris et 
 raptoribus)—rotray) ‘of sweuring’: M has periurii—wovpés) sig 
 rovnpiav.—t] tr. poo, x. ispeb¢ M—eldov] 3 poy.—l2 ixiox. avrav]+ 
 Aeyes Kipsos SM.—13 Sa wepeies] ‘of Shmrn.’ SM.—15 Kipioc]+exer- 
 cituum erga prophetas SM—<izpov} aixporytos.—16 xpognrav)+ 
 vay xpognriveyvtay SM—parasotory]+exeivor yery and om. fauroig M 
 
 bpae, xapdice SM,.—18 yvwricaro]+uerbum meum: SM uerbum 
 
 eius.—20 om. ir» SM—om. «ito S—om. fas &y—wird dad iyyuph- 
 pearos) iyxsipnuae SM—vorrovery wiro)+voovytts M.—21 om. pr. xai 
 M—atrods|+ aro riiv movnpay Oday avray xe SM,—27 iirocbioboes]+ 
 voy Awdy ou SM.—23 om. xpos airdy S.—29 om. obras of Adyos pow 
 SM.—3) om. 6 6t3¢ SM.—32 om, Bie rovre SM—pewda] + ripe 
 Kipios SM—xeei ob] zoe) SM.—33 tparyowos) tpwryon os SM—zpo- 
 onr7s)+Aéyov SM.—34 6 icpedg M.—39 O74 ob od tws.—36 pbyo: abrod) 
 +‘but ye will turn back the words of the living God, the Lord 
 of powers, our God. But thus say to the prophet (S dic alicut): 
 What answer made unto you the Lord, and what spake the 
 Lord? If yesay,’ etc. So SM. 
 
 The arrangement also in the Arm. of verses and 
 chapters of Jeremiah follows SM and not the LXX. 
 Where S and M differ it is usually M which the 
 
 ‘Arm, follows; but the basis of its text, even where 
 it is so copiously supplemented as in this chapter 
 of Jeremiah, is clearly the LXX. It is certain, 
 then, that in OT the Armenians translated the 
 LXX, supplementing it, however, and adjusting it 
 to the Massoretic text. The only question remain- 
 ing regards the medium through which they knew 
 the Massora. From their traditional account of 
 
 the making of the version we might infer that 
 
 
 
 
 
 ARMENIAN VERSION 
 
 
 
 they knew the Heb. through the Syr., and in the 
 case of some few parts of OT this may have 
 been so. But more often, and especially in the 
 prophetic books, it is the Heb. rather than the 
 Syr. text which directly or indirectly was used. 
 
 This composite character of the Arm. text is prob- 
 ably due to the fact that the translators used the 
 Hexaplaric text of Origen, whose obeli andasterisks, 
 marking additions of the LXX to the Massora, or 
 additions to the LXX from Aq. Sym. Theod. Gr. 
 VS of the Massora, here and there survive in Arm, 
 MSS,* as well as actual marginal references te 
 these Gr. VSS. used by Origen. The Armenians, 
 then, must have made their version from a Hexa- 
 plaric text such as we have in the Gr. Codices 22 
 and 88. 
 
 ii. In answering the first question, we have by 
 implication answered also the second of those 
 which we asked above, viz. as to the value for 
 critical purposes of the Arm. version. It needs only 
 to be added, that for beauty of diction and accuracy 
 of rendering the Arm. cannot be surpassed. The 
 genius of the language is such as to it of a tr. 
 of any Gr. document both literal and ; 
 true to the order of the Gr., and even reflecting its 
 compound words, yet without being slavish, and 
 without violence to its own idiom. We are seldom 
 in doubt as to what stood in the Armenian’s Gr. 
 text; therefore his version has almost the same 
 value for us as the Gr. text itself, from which he 
 worked, would possess. The same criticism is true 
 of the Arm. NT as well. 
 
 iii. Three Arm. writers of the 5th cent., 
 Koriun, Lazar of Pharpi, and Moses of Chorene, 
 record that the Scriptures were translated between 
 A.D. 396 and 430 by Mesrop, the elaborator of the 
 Arm. alphabet, Sahak the Patriarch, Eznik, and 
 others. According to Koriun (p. 10 of Arm, 
 edition of Venice, 1833), Mesrop, with the help of a 
 Gr. scribe Rufinus, began a version in Edessa about 
 397 A.D., commencing with the Proverbsof Solomon. 
 The context implies that they used a Gr. copy 
 and they may have taken the second half of a Bible, 
 complete in two volumes, of which the second began 
 with Proverbs. There can be no other reason wh 
 they began there. Later on Koriun and Ezni 
 fetched back from Constantinople an accurate and 
 sure copy of the Scriptures, and the work of trans- 
 lation already begun by Sahak was resumed. 
 
 Moses of Chorene says that Sahak’s inchoate 
 version was from the Syr., because the Pers. king 
 Meroujah had burned, thirty years before, all the 
 Gr. books of the Armenians. eee however, who 
 is more credible, declares that Sahak’s version of 
 the Old and New Testaments was made from Gr. 
 Lastly, Moses (iii. 60) declares that Sahak and 
 Mesrop, not content with their Byzantine ‘ exact’ 
 copies, sent himself to Alexandria for the purpose 
 of completing their work in ways not clearly speci- 
 fied. Moses also states that two of the translators, 
 John and Artzan, on their way to Constantinople, 
 stayed in Caesarea (? of Ca dee The ac- 
 counts of these writers then aa little to our know- 
 ledge. We may only gather that texts from 
 Edessa, Byzantium, and Alexandria were used by 
 the translators. The translation itself was no 
 doubt made in the basin of Ararat, where lay the 
 earliest centres of Arm. Christianity, Valarshapat, 
 with its convent of Edschmiatzin, and Twin. 
 
 iv. The books of the OT in Arm. MSS follow 
 the order given in Tischendorf’s LXX (Lipsizx, 
 1880) as far as 1 and 2 Es (except that 2 Es in eS 
 =the Gr. Ezra); then follow: Neh (called in the 
 
 * E.g. in Ex 334 the Arm.=‘ And the congregation havin, 
 heard that evil word, lamented lamenting* and the man di 
 not take the ornament on his person.’ If the Syr, Hexaplaric 
 version of Paul of Tela had not been made nearly 200 years after 
 
 the Arm., the latter might almost have been regarded as 8 
 translation of it. 
 
ARMENIAN VERSION 
 
 ARMENTAN VERSION 153 
 
 
 
 lower margin 3 Es), Est, Jth, To, 1 to 3 Mac, Ps, 
 Pr, Ec, Ca, Wis, Job, Is, the XII Prophets, Jer, 
 Bar, La, Death of Jer, Dn, Ezk, Death of Ezk. 
 In some codices Job follows 3 Mac and precedes 
 Psalms. Various Apocr. books also appear in the 
 MSS, viz.: The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, 
 the History of Joseph and his wife Asenath, 
 and the Hymn of Asenath. All these are given 
 in Lord Zouche’s Bible after Gn and before Ex 
 under the general title of ‘Book of Parali- 
 pomena,’ as if they were esteemed part of the 
 same. In other MSS the Testaments succeed 
 Dt. These are not given in printed editions of 
 the Arm. Bible, nor are they found in all codices. 
 The same is true of the apocr. entitled ‘the Death 
 of the Twelve Prophets,’ and ‘the Prayer of 
 Manasses.’ The Third Book of Ezra or Esdras, 
 usually known as the Fourth, follows Nehemiah 
 in the MSS which contain it, eg. in the MS 
 Bible of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 Each book of OT is prefaced by a brief introduc- 
 tion of unknown authorship, but coeval with the 
 version; and also by a umay, of contents. 
 Besides the usual preface to the Ps, some MSS 
 introduce a passage of David the Philosopher, 
 another of Athanasius, and a third of Epiphanius 
 of Cyprus. Dn is translated from the text of 
 Theodotion. Sir was twice translated, first of 
 all in the 5th century, and again, perhaps, in 
 the 8th. The former version is printed in the 
 Venice Bible of 1860, and is the more complete and 
 accurate though it does not comprise the whole of 
 the Gr. text, ch. 8, for example, being omitted: the 
 latter was printed in Zohrab’s Bible, Venice, 1805. 
 Uscan toade and published in his Bible a third ver- 
 sion in the year 1666. F. C. CONYBEARE. 
 
 ARMENIAN VERSION OF NT.—The old Ar- 
 Menian writers (mentioned in § iii. ARMENIAN 
 VERSION OF OT) give us no special information 
 in regard to the date and circumstances of their 
 version of NT. Whatever statements they make 
 apply to itas to OT. Codices of the four Gospels 
 of great age are relatively common, written in 
 large uncials for church use.* Codices of the rest 
 of NT separate from the Gospels are rare, and 
 will generally be found to have formed part of a 
 larger MS containing the entire NT. hey are 
 not common at all before the 13th cent., before 
 which epoch also codices of the entire Bible 
 are very rare. The OT is never found apart 
 from the New, and the extreme rarity of uncial 
 OT fragments in the bindings of later MSS 
 suggests that the entire Arm. Bible was never 
 written out from beginning to end except in a 
 small hand, though there were, of course, uncial 
 lectionaries for church use, and the Bibliothéque 
 Nationale contains such a lectionary written prob- 
 ably in the 9th cent. In Edschmiatzin there is 
 an entire Bible on parchment of 1151, and two more 
 on paper of 1253 and 1270. In Venice, one of 1220. 
 The F ordon Bible Society has a choice copy of 
 about 1600, Lord Zouche another not so old. 
 
 Separate codices of the Gospels rarely occur in 
 hich St. John precedes the Synoptists ; but in the 
 library of M. Enfédjans in Tiflis there is a very 
 old specimen of such a codex. The order of the 
 rest of the NT books in the oldest MS at Venice, 
 written A.D. 1220, is as follows: Acts, Catholic 
 Epistles, Revelation of John the Apostle, Epistles 
 of Paul, at the end of which is added the letter of 
 the Corinthians to Paul. The Ep. to the Hebrews 
 
 * At Moscow is an Evangeliar.,dated 887. At Venice in the 
 San Lazzaro Library are two, dated 902 and 1006 respectively. At 
 Edschmiatzin, two of 989, 1035. In Erzeroum, one of 986. In St. 
 Anthony’s convent in Constantinople, one of 960. In the Sevan 
 monastery in Russian Armenia, one of 966. In the Bibliothéque 
 Nationale, in the British Museum, and in private collections, are 
 many more very ancient copies. 
 
 precedes those to Tim. and follows Thess. In a 
 13th cent. MS of the Brit. Mus. (Add. 19,730, Saec. 
 xiii.), the order of books is this: Apocalypse, 
 Epistles of Paul, Acts, Cath. Epistles. In this and 
 in other codices the apocryphal rest of St. John 
 usually follows St. John’s Gospel. 
 
 The Gospels invariably have the Canons of 
 Ammonius added in the margin, and are preceded 
 by Eusebius’ letter to Carpianus, with the tables 
 of the Canons. The Acts and Epistles of St. Paul 
 are preceded by the prefaces, summaries, lists of 
 Testimonia and Colophons of Euthalius, whose 
 marginal chaptering and subdivisions and calcula- 
 tions of sticht in the text are also added in the 
 older MSS. In these we also find a division of 
 Acts and Cath. Epistles each into forty-nine chap- 
 ters; and in the case of Acts, this rather artificial 
 system presupposes that of Euthalius. 
 
 _ Acollation of the Arm. text of the OT is given 
 in the Septuagint of Holmes and Parson (Oxon. 
 1798-1827). A collation of the Arm. NT was 
 first published by Tregelles, and the same is given 
 in Tischendorf’s later edd. Moses of Chorene 
 asserts that the NT, like the OT, was first 
 rendered from Syr., and that this first version was, 
 about A.D. 430, revised from more exact Gr. texts 
 from Constantinople. This tradition is certainly 
 correct, for Prof. Armitage Robinson (Zuthaliana, 
 Cambridge, 1895) shows that the Arm. NT’ bears 
 traces of having been made from an ancient form 
 of the Syr. text, such as that which Mrs. Lewis 
 recently discovered at Mount Sinai. This earlier 
 version from Syr. may be the ‘First translation’ of 
 the Gospels to which Theodoros Chrhthenavor 
 (Contra Majragoumatzi) refers in the 7th cent. 
 as having contained the disputed verses Lk 22. «4, 
 
 These references are so important that I translate them from 
 the Venice ed. p. 148: ‘They (7.e. the phantasiaste) say, it 
 was not by weakness, but by strength, that He (t.e. Christ) over- 
 came the enemy. So do His own words testify. The house of 
 the giant is not plundered, unless first the strong man is bound.’ * 
 And if this be true, it is Pain, they say, that the First transla- 
 tion is not to be accepted, which in the (episode of His) prayin, 
 relates the ‘ Bloody Sweat’ of the almighty ‘Word of God, an 
 that He was encouraged by the angel.’ 
 
 Ibid. p. 154: ‘The letter of the Gospel spoke of the sweat 
 allegorically, aa it were of blood; but not (as) a welling-out of 
 blood from a wound made with a weapon.’ 
 
 In the same context we read that the heretics in question con- 
 tended that the ‘old edition of the Gospel is not to be accepted’ 
 because Gregory the Illuminator, in his homiletic exposition of 
 all the Gospel oracles which announced the economical passibility 
 of the Divine Word, yet made no special mention of the ‘ Bloody 
 Sweat’ passage. 
 
 The answer of Theodore to this argument is that neither did 
 the Nicene Fathers nor the new recension of the Scriptures recog- 
 nise more than fourteen Epistles of Paul; yet that Gregory had 
 cited and so testified to the Third Epistle of the Corinthians to 
 Paul, which the said Fathers had passed over in silence, and which 
 was ‘not added in the new translations.’ The verse cited by 
 Gregory is 3Co 11: ‘The lawless prince when he desired to be 
 God bound all men under sin.’ ‘This’ (i.e. 8 Co), says Theo- 
 dore, ‘was contained in the ancient teat, but not in the new ed. 
 (=cvyypegn). If, however, because of its omission from the text 
 of the newly issued translations you reject the older Gospel as 
 not true, you, in doing so, calumniate even the great sage 
 Gregory, though you make a show of praising him. But if the 
 truthful Gregory did not in composing (his work) follow the 
 chapters in their order of the entire Gospel, but wrote with 
 peculiar simplicity to suit those who were weak in understanding 
 what they heard, merely propounding testimonies in a summary 
 way to satisfy immediate needs, and confirming (the Gospel 
 statements) by the prophecies, then why do you make a 
 stalking horse of him? 
 
 The above passages warrant two inferences, one 
 certain, the other probable. 
 
 (1) The Armenians had a first or early version of 
 NT which contained the verses Lk 23°“ and 
 also 3 Corinthians. 
 
 (2) Gregory had this early version. He quoted 
 3 Co from it, and he would have quoted Lk 
 22%. also, only his literary purpose did not re- 
 quire him to do so. 
 
 I do not see how else we can interpret the last 
 paragraph of Theodore. The same conclusion can 
 
 * This appears to be an extracanonical citation, 
 
154 ARMENIAN VERSION 
 
 be reached by another way. For the version of 
 3 Co belonged to the first translation of the NT. 
 Gregory had this 3 Co, and cited it. Is it likely 
 that he would have used an outlying portion of 
 NT in a certain edition of it, and not have had 
 the Gospels also? We may note that the ‘ First 
 translation,’ as it contained Paul’s Epistles, can- 
 not have been merely an Arm. Diatessaron, though 
 the statement that Gregory did not cite the texts 
 in order is suggestive of such a supposition. If 
 these inferences are just, the first Arm. version 
 of NT was made at the beginning rather than 
 towards the end of the 4th cent., although the 
 native historians of the 4th cent, are silent about 
 it.” 
 
 Parts of NT were translated in the 5th cent., 
 but were omitted from the later Arm. Canon. 
 Thus the Apocalypse was not read in church 
 before the 12th cent., when Nerses of Lampron 
 issued a much changed recension of the old version. 
 Similarly the last twelve verses of Mk were 
 rendered in the 5th cent., for Eznik cites them 
 about A.D. 435; but they hardly appear in the 
 MSS before the 13th cent., and then not 
 as an integral part of the second Gospel. Ina 
 10th cent. codex of the Gospels at Edschmiatzin 
 they are headed by the title ‘of Ariston the Pres- 
 byter,’ written in small red uncials by the first 
 hand. Ariston has been identified with Aristion 
 the teacher of Papias. And the knowledge which 
 the Armenians had that the verses were his and 
 not Mark’s, explains the hostile attitude towards 
 them of the Arm. Church. 
 
 The episode of the woman taken in adultery is 
 likewise absent from the oldest MSS; though it 
 is cited as early as A.D. 950 by Gregory of Narek. 
 The Edschmiatzin codex of A.D. 989 is the oldest 
 codex which contains it, though not in the form in 
 which Gregory and the later codices give it, but as 
 follows :— 
 
 ‘A certain woman was taken in sins, against whom all bore 
 witness that she was deserving of death. They brought her to 
 Jesus (to see) what he would command, in order that they 
 might malign him. Jesus made answer, and said, ‘‘Come ye, 
 who are without sin, cast stones, and stone her to death.” But 
 he himself, bowing his head, was writing with his finger on 
 the earth, to declare their sins; and they were seeing their 
 several sins on the stones. And, filled with shame, they 
 departed, and no one remained, but only the woman. Saith 
 Jesus, ‘‘Go in peace, and present the offering for sins, as in their 
 law is written.”’ 
 
 This primitive form of text has the Arm. equiva- 
 lent of ra r7s worxadldos written against it in the 
 margin by the first hand. It is probably derived 
 from Papias or the Heb. Gospel. 
 
 One other reading of the old Arm. version 
 deserves notice. It occurs in the oldest known 
 codex, dated A.D. 887, preserved in the Lazareffski 
 Institute at Moscow. It is in Mt 2%, and as 
 follows: 6 doryp... éoTd0n érdvw rod omndalov od 
 jv rd wadlov. The same text is found in the Prot- 
 evangel, c. xxi., and accounts for the variant here 
 found in the Codex Beze. 
 
 The Arm. Bible was first printed at Amsterdam 
 in 1666, but from a single manuscript, and the 
 
 rinted text was in places adjusted to the Latin 
 Maieatee A later edition, issued in 1733 by 
 Mechitar in Venice, was mainly a reprint of the 
 edition of 1666. The first critical edition was 
 issued in 1805 at Venice under the care of Zohrab, 
 who used several codices, the best of them one 
 written early in the 14th cent. The variants 
 of the MSS used are given under the text; but 
 
 *A comparison of the Arm. text of the Paulines with 
 Ephrem’s commentary (preserved in Arm.), with the Syr. and 
 with the closely allied Georgian Version, demonstrates that the 
 Arm. and Geo. versions were originally made from the pre- 
 Peshitta Syr. text used by Ephrem, and were afterwards cor- 
 rected from Gr. texts. This revision of these two versions was 
 probably made about 400 a.D., and was more thorough in the 
 ease of Arm. than of Georgian. 
 
 ARMOUR, ARMS 
 
 without distinguishing in which codex which 
 variant is read. However, one codex of the Arm. 
 Bible differs very slightly from another. Other 
 edd. have been published in Moscow, Constanti- 
 nople, and Venice during this century; those of 
 Venice being particularly good and reliable. There 
 is not the slightest foundation for the statement 
 sometimes made, that the Arm. version was in the 
 time of the Crusaders conformed to the Lat. Bible. 
 At that time, indeed, the Lat. chaptering begar to 
 be added in the margin, and the Prologus Galeatus 
 of Jerome was translated, and in some codices 
 alfixed, to the Book of Kings; but no changes were 
 made under Lat, influence in the text itself. 
 F. C. CONYBEARE, 
 
 ARMHOLE occurs Jer 382 and Ezk 13% Sah 
 ‘elbows’). The meaning of the Heb. word (>'¥x, 
 see Oxf, Heb. Lex. and Davidson on Ezk 13") is 
 doubtful, but the word in AV means the armpit, 
 as it is now called. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ARMLET (1212 kimdz, AV tablet, Ex 35%, 
 Nu 31°).—A flat open clasp worn on the upper 
 arm, mentioned among the votive offerings of geld 
 for the tabernacle (see BRACELET). 
 
 G. M. MAcgIg. 
 
 ARMONI (*35x).—Son of Saul by Rizpah (2S 21%). 
 
 ARMOUR, ARMS.—I. nOT. The Heb. nearest 
 equivalent to ‘armour’ is maddim (no 1 S 17%), 
 rendered ‘clothes’ in 1 S 4 (a fugitive arrives 
 from the battle ‘ with his clothes rent’). 
 
 It is a plural word signifying the different parts 
 of asoldier’sdress. The coat of mail, shiryén (ji), 
 would be chiefly meant, but the helmet and shield 
 and the loose cloak, simlah (nboy Is 95), are in- 
 cluded. Ehud (Jg 31%) wears a dagger under his 
 maddim, i.e. between the shiryén ant the simlah. 
 
 The Heb. nearest equivalent for ‘arms’ is 
 kélim (0°22), @ word of general significance, ‘ move- 
 able property, instruments of any kind, arms,’ in- 
 cluding the quiver (Gn 27), and probably the 
 shield (hence the common phrase, ‘bearer of ‘ 
 4.€. armour-bearer), 
 
 A third word rendered ‘armour’ is halizah (nyy>q 
 2S 2"). It describes the equipment of a soldier 
 which an adversary would strip off as spoils, and 
 is rendered (in the plural) ‘spoil’ in Jg 14% 
 (AV and RV). 
 
 II. With regard to armour and arms in use ig 
 NT times among the Romans, two passages, one 
 from Polybius (c. 167 B.C.) the other from Josephus 
 (c. 70 A.D.), may be left in an abridged tr. to speak 
 for themselves, and to illustrate ihe language of 
 St. Paul (esp. Eph 64”), Polyb. vi. 23: (a) ‘The 
 Roman panoply consists in the first place of a 
 shield (9upeds), the breadth of which, measured b 
 the are which it forms, is 24 ft. and the len, 
 is 4 ft., while the depth (thickness) reaches 3 
 inches . . . And there is fitted to it an iron boss 
 which wards off great blows from stones and from 
 pikes, and in general from darts though hurled 
 with violence. (6) And along with the shield is a 
 sword (udxapa); now this a man wears on his 
 right thigh, and it is called the Spanish sword. 
 And this has an excellent point; and a powerful 
 cut can be delivered with both its edges, because 
 the blade is strong and durable. (c) Next come 
 two jJavelins (i.e. the pila), and (d) a bronze helmet 
 (meptxepadala), and (e) a greave* (N.B. sing.). And 
 in addition to all this they are adorned with a 
 crown of feathers and with three upright purple- 
 red or black feathers about a cubit in length, so 
 that when these are added to the crest the soldier 
 in full armour appears to be double his own height. 
 - - - (f) Now the majority when they have further 
 put on a bronze plate, measuring a span every way, 
 
 * It was worn on the right leg (Vegetius, bk. i. c. 20). 
 
 
 
ORT eel 
 
 
 
 re me 
 
 
 
 
 
 ey See en ee Re el eee ee, ee ee Ae 
 
 ey ar SE ieee i has 
 
 * ARMOUR-BEARER 
 
 
 
 which they wear on their chests and call a heart- 
 guard (xapd.0ptdaé), are completely armed; but those 
 citizens who are assessed at more than 10,000 
 drachme wear, together with the other arms 
 mentioned, cuirasses made of chain-mail.’ 
 
 Josephus, BJ Ul. v. 5 (vol. iii. p. 236 of 
 Bekker’s edition): ‘ Now the infantry are armed 
 with cuirasses (@épat) and helmets (xpdvos), and 
 wear swords (paxatpodopéw) on both sides. But 
 the sword (éigos) worn on the left is much the 
 longer of them, for that on the right is not more 
 than a span in length. And the infantry escort of 
 the general carry lance (Aéyx7) and buckler (dozis), 
 but the rest of the array a spear (fvorév) and a 
 shield (@vpeds), and in addition to these a saw and 
 a basket, a mattock and an axe, and further a 
 thong, and a reaping-hook (dpéravov), and a chain, 
 and three days’ provisions, so that the infantry are 
 little short of beasts of burden. And the cavalry 
 have a long sword (ud¢a1pa) on the right side, and a 
 long lance (xovrés) in the hand, and a shield (@upeds) 
 held slantwise by the side of the horse. And from 
 & quiver (xara ywpurod) hang three or more darts 
 (4xkwv) having broad points, and in size little less 
 than spears (ddpv); and all have helmets and 
 cuirasses like the infantry.’ 
 
 LiITERATURE.—(@) For OT, Nowack, Heb. Arch. (1894), pp. 362- 
 367, and Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities, 1894 (Illustrations of 
 weapons found at Tell el-Hesy, i.e. Lachish). 
 
 (b) For NT, Polybius, vi. 23; Josephus, BJ iii. 5, and 
 Lindenschmit, Tracht und Bewajinung des Rémischen Heeres 
 
 rend der Kaiserzeit, Braunschweig, 1882. 
 W. E. BARNES. 
 
 ARMOUR-BEARER.—The office is mentioned in 
 very early times in connexion with Abimelech 
 (Jg 9°) and Saul (1 S 314). An armour-bearer’s 
 functions were various; he slew those whom his 
 chief struck down (1 S 14%); he carried the great 
 shield (zinnah) in front of a champion to protect 
 him from treacherous arrows (1 8 17’, and Homer, 
 Il. iii. 79, 80) ; or, again, he collected arrows aimed 
 against his chief for his chief to discharge again. 
 This last function was executed by Mohammed 
 when a lad in attendance upon his uncles (Ibn 
 Hishim, p. 119, l. 1, quoted by We R. Smith, 
 OTJC? p. 431). . E. BARNES. 
 
 ARMOURY.—There was naturally no store of 
 arms nor place for keeping them in Israel before 
 the Sta thabiment of the nucleus of a standing 
 army under Saul. Saul found the nation, or at 
 least the southern tribes, almost destitute of arms 
 in the true sense (1 S 131°): no doubt he remedied 
 the defect as far as possible (1 S 8%). <A tower 
 named after David, perhaps built by him, held 
 1000 shields (Ca 44). Solomon kept 200 golden 
 shields and 300 golden bucklers in the ‘house of 
 the forest of Lebanon’ (1 K 10! 2"). This armoury 
 was doubtless in Jerusalem (Is 22° ‘The armour 
 in the house of the forest’), and lasted till at least 
 Hezekiah’s day. Shields and spears were kept 
 even in the temple in the days of Jehoiada the 
 ed (2 K 11"), This store was attributed to 
 
 ing David. W. E. BARNES. 
 
 ARMY (x2y 2abha’, ‘service,’ as we say in Eng. 
 ‘the Service’; bn hayil, ‘force, host’; oy ‘am, 
 ‘people,’ a frequent designation; 39> mahcnch, 
 properly ‘an army encamped’ ; 72379 ma‘drakhah, 
 ‘an army in array’). — The history of warfare 
 among the Israelites may be divided into two 
 periods. During the first of these, which was 
 closed by the establishment of the kingdom, Israel 
 had fighting men, but no army, i.e. no permanent 
 organised force ; during the second period, which 
 lasted to the fall of the Southern kingdom, there 
 always existed the nucleus at least of an army, 
 both in the north and in the south, attached to the 
 person of the sovereign. There was no doubt a 
 
 ARMY 155 
 
 
 
 partial revival of military organisation at the revival 
 of independence under the Hasmcneean princes. 
 
 No standing army existed before the time of the 
 kings. But the beginnings of the formation of 
 a fighting caste appear under Saul, consisting of 
 (1) picked ‘regulars’ to form the nucleus of an 
 army (1 S 14°"), and (2) ‘regular’ officers to com- 
 mand the militia, who formed the bulk of the army 
 in the field. 
 
 How, then, in the earlier period was an army 
 formed to meet an emergency? Under the most 
 rudimentary conditions four elements are required 
 to make a fighting force, viz. (1) men, (2) officers, 
 (3) arms, (4) commissariat. 2 
 
 i, MEN.—It was difficult, before the kingdom was 
 established, to collect a sufficient number of men 
 even for small border wars. The sons of Israel 
 were, indeed, numerous enough to cope in turn with 
 such adversaries as Moab, Midian, Ammon, and 
 Philistia ; but Israel was a group of tribes rather 
 than a nation, and the bond of union was so feeble 
 that single tribes, or groups of two or three, were 
 left to bear unaided the brunt of invasion or 
 oppression. 
 
 The work of the Judges and of Saul, the earliest 
 king, was to unite, as far as was possible, the 
 tribes of Israel, and to bring border wars to a 
 speedy conclusion by the application of organised 
 force. But authority had to be won before it 
 could be exercised, and the leader had to assert 
 his leadership by some striking deed or sign before 
 his countrymen would rally round him. Ephraim 
 rallied round Ehud the Benjamite after he had 
 assassinated the king of Moab (Jg 3%), Gideon 
 roused N. and E. Israel by destroying the altar of 
 Baal, and appearing as the champion of the 
 worship of J” (Jg 674-*4). In the civil war against 
 Benjamin the warlike passion of all the remaining 
 tribes was stirred by the sight of the remains of the 
 murdered concubine (Jg 19). Saul gathered his 
 first host by the pictured threat to destroy the 
 oxen of every man who failed to present himself. 
 Even remote Judah on this occasion, we are told, 
 sent thirty ‘thousands’ to the relief of Jabesh- 
 gilead (1511), Against the Amalekites, Judah 
 was not so keen (1 § 15%), having perhaps family 
 relations with them ; in any case Judah sent only 
 10,000 (MT), 30,000 (LXX). 
 
 The difficulty regarding the numbers of the 
 Israelite armies must be mentioned here. 
 
 These numbers are often surprisingly high. 
 Thus in 1 § 118 it is stated that Saul numbered 
 over three hundred ‘thousand’ men in Bezek for 
 the relief of Jabesh-gilead. If we take ‘thousand’ 
 in its literal numerical sense, we get a number 
 equal to more than one-tenth of the whole popula- 
 tion of the land—a number improbably large. 
 ‘Thousand,’ however, is used (Mic 5?) to designate 
 the chief towns of Judah, perhaps as each con- 
 taining, together with its de endent hamlets, a 
 population of about a thousand, The men of such 
 a town would probably be called a thousand (4x) 
 when they went forth to war, and their headman 
 would be called the captain of a thousand. The 
 actual number of this tactical unit would va: 
 much according to the urgency of the danger. It 
 would probably, however, never exceed 300 men, 
 and might conceivably fall below 100. According 
 to this reckoning, Saul’s army of relief was not in 
 any case more than 90,000 in number, and it may 
 have been but 30,000. 
 
 Side by side, however, with this loose reckoning, 
 the Israelites may have had a stricter system of 
 counting. Thus the number of men of war carried 
 into captivity with Jehoiachin, viz. seven thousand 
 (2 K 24"), is quite probable in itself, and consist- 
 ent with other indications of number. Similarly 
 ‘thousand’ is no doubt to be understood in its ordi. 
 
156 ARNA 
 
 nary numerical sense in 2 K 13’, where it is said that 
 the Israelite army was reduced by Syrian ravages 
 to 50 horsemen, 10 chariots, and 10,000 infantry. 
 
 The existence of two reckonings side by side, 
 one based on the numerical sense of ‘thousand,’ 
 the other on ita territorial sense, is not a serious 
 difficulty. To an Oriental, numbers are important 
 only either when they are sacred numbers of 
 mystic meaning, or when it is necessary to indicate 
 generally the relative proportions of things. 
 
 The example set by Saul of gathering picked 
 warriors round him was followed by David, who 
 on his accession already had a band of some 
 600 armed vassals. At the time of Absalom’s 
 revolt David’s guard must have grown in number, 
 if we rightly read 2 S 158 to mean that the 
 Gittites belonging to it amounted by themselves 
 to 600, without reckoning the numbers of the 
 Cherethites and Pelethites, The strength of the 
 whole guard may be guessed from the fact that 
 Ahithophel thought it useing to take 12,000 
 chosen men to ensure success in his proposed pur- 
 suit of David (2 S 17). 
 
 ii. OrFicERS. — After the host was collected 
 under its commander, some organisation had 
 to be given to it. Captains of ‘thousands’ and 
 ‘hundreds’ had to be appointed. The army ‘was 
 numbered,’ or, according to the Heb., ‘ appointed 
 officers over itself’ (papn Jg 20). Two results 
 were gained. fficers were appointed under 
 the eye and influence of the commander over 
 thousands and hundreds; and, secondly, the com- 
 mander learnt the number of these tactical 
 units, ‘thousands’ or ‘hundreds,’ under his com- 
 mand. Besides these ‘regimental’ officers, one 
 or more officers bearing the title of ‘scribe’ were 
 attached to the army in the field to aid in its organi- 
 sation, to serve as provost-marshals, and to make 
 » list of the booty taken (Jg 514 and 1 Mac 5%). 
 
 iii. ArMs.—In the earliest days, no doubt, each 
 man brought his own arms, for we hear of no 
 store of arms till after the establishment of the 
 kingdom (see ARMS). There is nothing to show 
 that the Israelites had horses and chariots until 
 after Saul’s day. An Israelite army in the time 
 of the J ae was probably a crowd of men carry- 
 ing bows, slings, and rustic weapons, such as clubs 
 and oxgoads (Sg 58, 1 S 13). Though individu- 
 ally equal in valour, they were probably far inferior 
 in armament to a people like the Philistines, who 
 were sufficiently advanced in the art of war to 
 possess chariots, swords, and spears, and perhaps 
 an organised corps of archers (1 S 31°). 
 
 iv. COMMISSARIAT. — Commissariat is twice 
 alluded to in the OT. In Jg 20” a tenth of 
 the assembled Israelites are sent ‘to fetch victwal’ 
 (gédah my, ‘food taken in hunting’) that the 
 Pas may carry out their expedition against 
 
 ibeah. Again, in 1 K 20” the children of Israel 
 ‘were mustered mt wees victualled’ (RV) for a 
 campaign against the Syrians. 
 
 Oe W. E. BARNES. 
 
 ARNA.—One of the ancestors of Ezra (2 Es 1), 
 cerresponding apparently to Zerahiah of Ezr 74 
 and Zaraias of 1 Es 87, 
 
 ARNAN (}nx).—A descendant of David (1 Ch 371). 
 While MT has 378 "33, LXX reads ’Opvd vids abrod (se. 
 preceding ‘Papdé\)= Orna his son. See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ARNI (WH ’Apvel, TR ’Apéu, AV Aram).—An 
 ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3%), called in Mt 14 Ram 
 (RV). Cf. Ru 4, 1 Ch 2%), and see GENEALOGY. 
 
 ARNON (jinx). —Two streams unite about 13 
 miles E. of the middle of the Dead Sea to form 
 the A., now known as Wady el-Mojib. Of these 
 the N. one (Wady Waleh) is formed by a number 
 
 AROM 
 
 of brooks—often dry—rising near the Haj route, 
 N. of 31° 30’ N. TheS. branch, which is the more 
 important, drains most of the country between the 
 Haj route and the Dead Sea, between 31° 30’ and 
 31° 10’, and is formed by the streams now known 
 as Seil S’aideh, Wady es-Sultan, Seil Lejjun, and 
 Wady Bali‘a. These are all united before reaching 
 the neighbourhood of ‘Ar‘air, and flow theree 
 almost direct W. for about 20 miles, when they 
 are joined by the Wady Waleh. The E. half thus 
 forms a complete network of streams (the pax *bna). 
 For the greater part of its course the river flows 
 through a deep trench some 2 miles in breadth at 
 the top and about 40 yards at the bottom. The 
 rocky and precipitous banks consist of limestone 
 capped with basalt, and rise in places to a height 
 of 1700 ft. Their slopes are fringed with oleanders, 
 tamarisks, and willows, and near the mouth with 
 castor-bean and cane. Like most rivers in Pal. its 
 stream varies in width and velocity according to 
 the season of the year. Where it issues from its 
 steep banks to the flat shore of the Dead Sea it 
 ranges from 40 to 100 ft. in width, and from 1 to 4 
 ft. in depth, while near ‘Ar‘air, where the old road 
 from Heshbon to Kircrosses it, and where the remains 
 of an old bridge still exist, it is almost dry in July. 
 The A. formed a strong natural boundary, and 
 early separated the territories of the Amorites and 
 Moab (Nu 213, cf. Jg 11"); later those of Reuben 
 and Moab (Dt 3!%). Isaiah mentions the ‘fords of 
 A.” (16), and Jeremiah uses ‘A.’ as the name of 
 a district (48”). The river is also mentioned on 
 the ‘Moabite Stone.’ On the N. edge of the S. 
 stream was the town Aroer (see AROER), and 
 between the N. and S. streams Dibon (see DIBON). 
 LirgraTurRE.—Robinson, Phys. Geog. of Pal. 164-166; PEFSt 
 (1895), 204, 215. G. W. THATCHER. 
 
 AROD (7\7x).—A son of Gad (Nu 26!")=Arodi 
 (nx), Gn 4636, Patronymic Arodites (Nu 261). 
 
 AROER (ry\y).—1. A oly in the portion assigned 
 to the tribe of Judah (1 S 30%), prob. in what is 
 now the Wady Ararah, 20 miles S. of Hebron and 
 12 miles to the S.E. of Beersheba. To the elders 
 of this city David sent a share of the Pe taken 
 from the Amalekites who had attacked Ziklag. 2. 
 A well-known city on the N. bank of the Arnon, 
 generally described by its situation in order to dis- 
 tinguish it from other cities of the same name (Dt 2 
 3}2 448, Jos 12? 139, Jg 1176, 28 245). It was part of the 
 region conquered by the Amorite king Sihon, and 
 so, at the time of Israel’s attack, it lay to the N. of 
 the Moabite territory. It was assigned to the tribe 
 of Reuben, and formed the S. frontier city of that 
 tribe. It is this Reubenite city that is named with 
 the S. towns as having been built by the children 
 of Gad before the definite settlement and distri- 
 bution of the land (Nu 32%). When the Syrians 
 under Hazael conquered all the trans-Jordania 
 district, Aroer is named as the S. limit (2 K 10%). 
 In later times the Moabites, from whom it had 
 been taken first by the Amorites, regained possession 
 of it from the Israelites (Jer 48"), Eusebius speaks 
 of it as still standing in his day. 3. A town in the 
 portion assigned to the tribe of Gad, in the valley 
 of Gad, originally an Ammonite city (Jg 11%), in 
 the district watered by the Jabbok, east of Rabbah 
 (Jos 1375). The cities of Aroer, referred to in Is 17?, 
 are evidently the two trans-Jordanic cities of the 
 Moabites and the Ammonites. Gentilic name 
 Aroerite, 1 Ch 11, J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 AROM (’Apéz), 1 Es 5'*.—His descendants are 
 mentioned among those who returned with Zerub- 
 
 babel. The name has no parallel in the lists of 
 Ezr and Neh, unless it represents Hashum (B ‘Aeéu, 
 A ‘Aoovy) in Ezr 2”, H. Sr. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 
 
ARPACHSHAD 
 
 ARPACHSHAD (1¥257s).—The third son of Shem, 
 A. was the father of Shelah, and grandfather of 
 Eber, from whom the Hebrews traced their descent 
 (Gn 10”-*4111°13), Gesenius regards the name as also 
 pe venating a people or region, and thinks the con- 
 jecture of Bochart not improbable, that this is ’Afja- 
 waxirts, Arrapachitis, a region of Assyria near Ar- 
 menia (Ptol. vi. 1), the native land of the Chaldzans. 
 Jos. (Ant. I. vi. 4) says that from him the Chaldeans 
 were called Arphaxadeans (’Ap¢atadatous). 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 ARPAD (15>x).—A city of Syria north-west of 
 Aleppo, 2 K 18% 1913, Is 10° 36” 373, Jer 493, Now 
 the ruin Tell Erfid. The city stood a two years’ 
 siege by Tiglath-pileser 11. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ARPHAXAD (’Apdaéd5).—1. A king of the Medes 
 (Jth 1%), He reigned at Ecbatana, which he 
 strongly fortified. Nebuchadrezzar, king of 
 Assyria, made war upon him, defeated him, and put 
 himtodeath. Some Pave identified A. with Deioces, 
 the founder of Ecbatana, and others with his son 
 Phraortes. But the former of these died in peace, 
 and the latter fell while besieging Nineveh. The 
 narrative in Judith would accord better with the 
 Poepoattion that he was Astyages or Ahasuerus, 
 the last king of the Medes according to Herodotus. 
 2. The spelling of Arpachshad in AV, and at Lk 
 6 by RV also. See ARPACHSHAD. 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 ARRAY (formed by prefixing ar to the subst. 
 rot, rat, order, arrangement) is common in AV for 
 the arrangement or order of an army in battle, 
 always in the phrase ‘set in a.’ or ‘putina.’ (But 
 RV gives once ‘order the battle a.’ 1 Ch 12%.) 
 The subst. is also used once for dress, i.e. garments 
 arranged in order on the person, instead of the 
 common word raiment (=arrayment), 1 Ti 2° 
 ‘not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly 
 a.’ (luaricuds, RV ‘raiment’). And in this sense 
 the verb is frequent, as Gn 41 ‘a him in 
 vestures of fine linen’ (Heb. #3), as always, except 
 Jer 43! any) ; Mt 6” ‘Solomon in all his glory was 
 not a like one of these’ (repBd\d\w, so Lk 12” 
 234; but évdtw, Ac 122 ‘Herod, a in royal 
 apparel’), ‘Array’ does not mean in the Bible, as 
 it does now, ‘to dress up with display,’ but simply 
 to put on raiment, to dress. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ARROGANCY.—Arrogance, though quite as old 
 as arrogancy (both being forms of arrogantia, the 
 assertion of more than one has a right to), is not 
 used in AV, but RV givesit at Job 35" (ws, the 
 only occurrence of the Heb. word, AV ‘extremity’). 
 Arrogancy is found in AV 1S 2°, Pr 8%, Is 134, Jer 
 4829 RV retains these, and adds 2 K 19%, Is 166 37”, 
 Wis 58, giving also arrogant, Ps 5° 73° 754 (for ‘ fool- 
 ish’ or ‘fool’ of AV), and arrogantly, Ps 754 944, 
 
 . HASTINGS. 
 
 ARROW (y7).—The arrow of the Hebrews was 
 probably like that of other early nations in con- 
 sisting of a light shaft with a head of flint or 
 metal. Owing to the suddenness with which the 
 arrow inflicted wounds, and to the fact that such 
 wounds often came from an unseen hand, the arrow 
 was used as a symbol of the judgments of God. 
 Job, in his sickness, complains that he is struck by 
 the poisoned arrows of the Almighty (Job 64). 
 God overthrows the mischievous plotters by wound- 
 ing them suddenly with an arrow (Ps 64”). 
 
 Again, the secret mischief done by slanderers is 
 compared to the wound of an arrow (‘whose 
 teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a 
 sharp sword,’ Ps 57‘). Children begotten in their 
 father’s youth are likened to arrows (Ps 127°). 
 Arrows are also a symbol of that which is care- 
 font guarded and highly valued; thus, Israel 
 itself is God’s polished arrow, ‘he hath made me a 
 
 ART 457 
 
 polished shaft, in his quiver hath he kept me 
 close’ (Is 49? RV). W. E. BARNES. 
 
 ARROWSNAKE (Is 34% RV for AV ‘great owl’). 
 —See SERPENT. 
 
 ARSACES (’Apcdens, connected possibly with the 
 Armen. Arschag) was a Scythian (Strabo, xi. 515) 
 from the banks of the eee who founded the 
 Parthian empire and the dynasty of the Arsacid 
 (Justin, xli. 5; Strabo, xv. 702). The sixth king of 
 the name (known also as Mithridates I.) subdned 
 Persia and Media, and when eprored by Demetrius 
 Nikator, who thought the people would rise in his 
 favour and afterwards assist him against Tryphon, 
 deceived him Ws a pretence of negotiations, and in 
 B.C. 138 took him prisoner (1 Mac 14!*; Justin, 
 xxxvi. 1). Demetrius received in marriage Rhodo- 
 gune, daughter of A. (App. Syr. 67), but died 
 during his captivity (Jos. Ant. XII. v. 11; Justin, 
 xli. 6; Oros. v. 4). In 1 Mac 15” A. is mentioned 
 among the kings to whom was sent an edict (Jos. 
 Ant. XIV. viii. 5) from Rome forbidding the per- 
 secution of the Jews; but there is a lack of con- 
 firmatory evidence of this, though the incident 
 would, notwithstanding the independence of 
 Parthia, accord with the practice of Rome. 
 
 R. W. Moss. 
 
 ARSIPHURITH (B ’Apcecgoupel0, A ’Apordp., AV 
 Azephurith), 1 Es 5'°.—112 of his sons returned 
 with Zerubbabel (B omits the number). The 
 corresponding name in Ezr 28 is Jorah (jv, B 
 Ovpd, A "Iwpd); and in Neh 7* Hariph (4, B 
 ‘Apelp, A ‘Apelu). It has been conjectured that the 
 name in 1 Ks is due to a mistaken combination of 
 the two forms in Ezr and Neh, the ¢ in the second 
 syllable being due to confusion between c and e. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ART.—The Hebrews, like many other nations, did 
 not excel equally in all branches of art. In litera- 
 ture and poetry they have shown great ability in all 
 ages down to the present time. In music they 
 were apparently quite the equal of their neigh- 
 bours, judging from the variety of instruments 
 named and the frequent references to singing and 
 playing, and in modern times they fully sustain 
 this character. But, on the contrary, in mechanical 
 arts, in form and design, and in representations, they 
 showed an inability amounting to positive aversion. 
 That this aversion was not on religious grounds 
 alone is evident on seeing that, when sculptured 
 figures were made for the temple, the chief artist 
 in metal was a Tyrian half-breed, and there was 
 not among the Jews ‘any that can skill to hew 
 timber like the Sidonians’ (1 K 5°). Probably the 
 aversion and the prohibition to imitate natural 
 forms acted and reacted on each other, so that all 
 ability was lost. We find in earlier times that, on 
 the contrary, artistic work is attributed entirely to 
 Hebrews shortly after the Exodus, when the Egyp. 
 training and skill would be still possessed (Ex 35%). 
 
 There does not appear to be much that can be 
 distinctively marked as Jewish or Palestinian in 
 the motives of design ; many of the elements that 
 we can trace in the scanty remains showing E 
 or Bab. origin. What original style Pal. possessed 
 among the Amorites was mostly destroyed by the 
 Heb. invasion. This can be traced best in the 
 
 ottery, as, though simple in forms and material, it 
 is the most continuous series that we nave. The 
 Amorite shows good and original forms of a pure 
 style ; the Pheenician is entirely different, but also 
 well shaped and original ; but the Jewish pottery 
 has no original motives, and is merely a degra- 
 dation of the Amorite, running down into complete 
 ugliness and baseness (see POTTERY). In architec- 
 tural forms there appears to be little that is 
 distinct from Egyp. sources. The details have 
 
158 
 
 been noticed under ARCHITECTURE; but the 
 general impression is that a plain and simple 
 masonry with some locad features was overlaid by 
 foreign designs. The motive of a row of bucklers 
 hanging over a parapet is sugested in the modifi- 
 cation of Gr. metopes and triglyphs on the so-called 
 ‘Tomb of Absalom’ ; and it appears to be an early 
 
 [Some 
 
 JEWISH DECORATION, HERODIAN ‘TOMB OF ABSALOM.’ 
 
 ART 
 
 
 
 
 
 feature, as Solomon made two hundred targets and 
 three hundred shields of beaten gold for the house 
 of the forest of Lebanon. The shields were used 
 by the guard (1 K 14”), but the targets may have 
 been cecorative. The tapering form of the Moabite 
 Stone is rather akin to Assyr. than Egyp. types. 
 And the horns upon the pillars (Ionic volutes) 
 belong to the same source. 
 
 In surface decoration some late examples seem 
 to reflect a national style, as we do not know of 
 any external source for them. The graceful design 
 of plant forms decoratively treated over the door 
 of the so-called tombs of the Judges (perhaps 
 Maccabeean), the later and more classical foliage 
 work of the so-called tombs of the kings (Herodian), 
 and the great golden vine which Herod placed over 
 the front of the temple, point to a treatment of 
 surfaces which is most nearly akin to some Egyp. 
 work that is probably of Mesopotamian motive. 
 In the plant Teeoraes of the columns, etc. of 
 Akhenaten’s palace at Tel el-Amarna there is the 
 same flowing style of foliage covering the surfaces, 
 and the motive of this may well have come from 
 norther.. Syria or Mesopotamia, like other influ- 
 ences of that reign. In the absence of any details 
 about early Syrian art, it seems that we may per- 
 haps see in this one of its features, which lasted until 
 the Greek period. That surface decoration was 
 a main feature of the richer Jewish work is shown 
 by the details of the temple: ‘ He carved all the 
 walls of the house round about with carved figures 
 of cherubim, and palm trees, and openings of flowers, 
 within and without’ (1 K 6”), and the doors were 
 likewise decorated (vv.*” *). On the bronze bases 
 of the lavers were ‘lions, oxen, and cherubim’ 
 (1 K 7”), and ‘cherubim, lions, and palm trees’ 
 (v6), This frequent decoration with palm trees 
 is singularly un-Egyp., and points to a Mesopo- 
 tamian influence, as palm trees and winged genii 
 are very characteristic of that style. 
 
 Of sculpture in the round the most striking 
 examples must have been the great cherubs of 
 olive wood, plated with gold, which stood in the 
 most holy oS Fe Their height of ten cubits, or 
 fifteen to twenty feet, shows that they were joined 
 and built up of many pieces, like the hoe statues 
 in Egypt. The wings, stretching out to a width 
 equal to the height, were also, of course, joined on. 
 The position of these cherubs was not at all like 
 that described of the similar figures on the mercy- 
 seat of the ark; the latter were face to face, but 
 those of the temple stood side by side, both facing one 
 way. The most holy place was twenty cubits wide; 
 of each cherub ‘from the uttermost part of one 
 wing unto the uttermost part of the other were 
 ten cubits,’ and they stood ‘so that the wing of 
 the one touched the wall, and the wing of the 
 other cherub touched the other wall, and their 
 wings touched one another in the midst of the 
 house’ (1 K 6%”), They appear to have only 
 had two wings each, like those of the merey-seat, 
 and in this resembled Egyp. cherubic figures, while 
 
 ARTAXERXES 
 
 
 
 the Assyr. many-winged figures are more akin to 
 the four-winged of Ezekiel or the six-winged of 
 Revelation. Inactual artistic work only two-winged 
 figures appear to have been made. But we must 
 not hastily suppose that these were direct copies of 
 the winged figures of Egypt; the Heb. figures 
 were male, while the Egyp. poe winged 
 figures were always female, and often specialised 
 as Isis and Nepthys. The symbolic meaning of 
 these statues is outside of our scope here; but the 
 strange duality of two equal figures placed side by 
 side is parallel to the two great columns before 
 the temple, and the curious feature of a double 
 entrance to porches with a central pillar, as seen 
 in the tombs. 
 
 Figures of animals were also made, as the brazen 
 serpent, which was still treasured and wordt 
 down to the time of Hezekiah; also the twelve 
 oxen of Solomon, which seem to have been done 
 away with by Ahaz, as there is no mention of them 
 in the plunder (Jer 52) after he had removed the 
 brazen sea from them (2 K 16”). This unnatural 
 motive of placing a great vessel on the backs of 
 animals is unknown in Egypt, unless in some of 
 the Asiatic goldsmith’s work; but the same idea 
 appears in Syria, where the goddess Kedesh stands 
 on a lion’s back. 
 
 In embroidery we see another sign of Asiatic 
 rather than Egyp. influence. No embroidered robes 
 appear on Egyp. figures, at least until post-Exodic 
 times ; whereas in Babylonia and Assyria dresses 
 are constantly represented as being embroidered 
 with elaborate patterns. The Egyp. system was that 
 of appliqué work of leather, which was elaboratel 
 carried out in complex patterns ; and such a style 
 of decoration still survives in the usual tent-lining 
 of Egypt, where pieces of various coloured cloths 
 are all stitched on to the backing in a pattern, and 
 elaborate inscriptions cut out and applied in the 
 same way. The mention of large figures upon the 
 curtains and vail of the tabernacle appears as if 
 they were appliqué; but they are only on the linen 
 curtains, so that leather work of this kind is not 
 implied. On the other hand, the making of gold 
 wire by cutting up sheet gold is specially described 
 for the ephod (Ex 39%), and this shows that dresses 
 were certainly embroidered with thread. 
 
 ew 
 LOTUS AND BUD PATTERN (Egyptian), misnamed in Palestine as 
 BELL AND POMEGRANATE. 
 
 Until some extensive and well-directed excava- 
 tions may open up for us the remains of Syrian 
 and Jewish art, it is hepeless to do more than 
 indicate the mere outlines. These seem to show | 
 a native Syrian style, influenced mainly by | 
 Mesopotamia, but also in some respects by Egypt. 
 
 A single good slab of stone might teach us far 
 more than all we know at present. i 
 W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. 
 
 ARTAXERXES (xpyvnmy, xaovnmy).—The name 
 is written Artakhshatra in Old Persian, Artaksatsu 
 and Artaksassu in Bab. cuneiform, and is derived 
 from the Persian arta, ‘great,’ and khshatra, 
 ‘kingdom.’ The meaning of ‘ great warrior,’ there- 
 fore, given to it by Herodotus (vi. 98) is incorrect. 
 Ardeshir is the later Persian form of the name. — 
 
 The only Artaxerxes mentioned in the OT is | 
 Artaxerxes I. Longimanus (or ‘Long-handed’), | 
 the son of Xerxes, who reigned B.C. 464-425, | 
 
 
 

 
 ARTEMAS 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ewald, Hitzig, and other commentators have 
 oS pen that in Ezr 4’-% the pseudo-Smerdis (B.C. 
 522) is meant under the name of Artaxerxes. But 
 the ee scenery of the cuneiform inscriptions has 
 shown that the Persian kings did not bear double 
 names of the kind implied by the theory, and the 
 difficulty felt by the commentators has been 
 occasioned by the insertion of letters which relate 
 only to the rebuilding of the city and walls of 
 Jerusalem into the narrative of the rebuilding of the 
 temple. The 24th verse of the chapter ought im- 
 
 mediately to follow the 5th. (See ZERUBBABEL.) 
 It may have been in consequence of the letters 
 whieh passed between the Persian king and his 
 tepresentatives in Palestine that in his seventh 
 ear Ezra was allowed, with other priests and 
 emple-servants, and a ge from the imperial ex- 
 chequer, to go up from Babylon to Jerusalem and 
 there settle the affairs of the community (Ezr 7. 8). 
 Thirteen years later (B.C. 444), Nehemiah, the cup- 
 bearer of Artaxerxes, was allowed to leave Susa for 
 Jerusalem for a similar purpose, the first result of 
 his mission being the restoration of the city walls. 
 Artaxerxes was the third son of Xerxes, and 
 ' after the assassination of his father made his way 
 to the throne by crushing the Bactrians under his 
 brother Hystaspes, and murdering another brother, 
 Darius. In B.c 460 Egypt revolted; but in spite 
 of the assistance rendered by Athens to the rebels, 
 the revolt was suppressed in B.c. 455. In B.c. 449 
 the war with Greece was ended by a treaty, known 
 as that of Kallias, by which Athens gave up Cyprus, 
 and Persia renounced her claims to the Gr. cities 
 of Asia Minor. Not long afterwards Megabyzos 
 the satrap of Syria revolted, and compelled the 
 Persian king to agree to his own terms of peace. 
 
 erxes was succeeded by his son Xerxes II. 
 
 A. H. SAYCE. 
 ARTEMAS.—A trusted companion of St. Paul, 
 uy the later part of his life (Tit 3). According to 
 Dorotheus (Bibl. Maxima, Lugd. 1677, iii. p. 429) 
 he had been one of the 70 disciples, and was after- 
 wards bishop of Lystra, but there is no extant 
 evidence to support either statement. An Artemas 
 is honoured in the Greek Menza for April 28, but 
 
 pe eently he is not the same. 
 
 though Jerome (de nom. Hebraicis) treats the 
 name as Hebrew, and explains it as ‘anathematizans 
 sive conturbans,’ it is undoubtedly Greek, formed 
 from “Aprejus (cf. ‘Epuds, "ONuuras, Znvas, Eradpas), 
 perhaps by contraction from Artemidorus, a name 
 
 common in Asia Minor. W. Lock. 
 
 ARTILLERY (1 S 20% AV, ‘weapons’ RV).-—A 
 general word, including in its meaning both bows 
 and arrows. The word still survives in the name 
 of the Honourable Artiilery Company of London, 
 which was originally a guild or club of archers. 
 
 In 1 Mac 6" ‘artillery’ (‘mounds to shoot from,’ 
 RV) is the tr. of Bedoordcas, ‘ranges of warlike 
 engines’ set against a besieged oat 
 
 7. E, BARNES. 
 
 ARUBBOTH (niss7), 1 K 4! only.—A district, 
 apparently in the south of Judah, near Hepher and 
 Recah. he Negeb plains are perhaps intended. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ARUMAH (ax), Jg 9.—The refuge of Abime- 
 lech when driven out of Shechem, supposed to be 
 the ruin Z/ ’Ormeh, on the hills S.E. of Shechem. 
 In the Onomasticon (s.v. Ruma) it is placed at 
 Remphis, in the region of Diospolis (Lydda), which 
 was ‘by many called Arimathea.’ The village 
 Rentis seems to be meant, near Rantieh. See 
 SWP vol. ii. sheets xii. and xiv. 
 
 C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 ARVAD, ARVADITES (17x, 7), northernmost 
 city of the Canaanites, and race inhabiting it (Gn 
 10*, 1 Ch 17%), The city was built on an island, 
 
 ASA 159 
 
 
 
 Arvad or Aradus, now Ruwad, off the Syrian 
 coast, about 2 miles from the mainland, 3 or 4 miles 
 north-east of Tripolis, scarcely a mile in circum- 
 ference, on which houses were built close together 
 and very high, so as to accommodate a large popu- 
 lation in a small space. On the mainland opposite, 
 at some distance from the coast, lay the town of 
 Antarados. According to Strabo, figures from 
 Sidon settled there and built the city in B.C. 761, 
 but these can only have dispossessed or reinforced 
 older inhabitants, probably like those of Sidon 
 from around the Persian Gulf, under whom it had 
 already risen to a position of some importance. 
 As far back as about B.c. 1100, we find Tiglath- 
 pileser I. speaking of sailing into the great sea in 
 ships of A. (Schrader, COT?i. 173). In Ezk 278" 
 the men of A. are mentioned along with those of 
 Sidon as supplying mariners and warriors to Tyre 
 in the time of her glory. In B.c. 138 the Phen. 
 town Aradus was one of those named in a circular 
 from the Roman Senate as containing a large 
 Jewish ete oe towards whom the kings of 
 Egypt, Syria, ete. (to whom the despatch is 
 aieendl. are enjoined to show favour (1 Mac 
 1516-33, See Schiirer, HJP I ii. 221). 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 ARZA (xy7x).—Prefect of the palace at Tirzah, 
 in whose house king Elah was assassinated by 
 Zimri at a carouse (1 K 16°). C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 ARZARETH (2 Es 13®).—A region beyond the 
 river from which the ten tribes are to return. It 
 has been Ais to represent the Heb. noinx yx 
 (Dt 1978), and became the subject of many later 
 Jewish legends concerning the Sabbatic River 
 beyond which the lost tribes were to be found— 
 variously identified with the Oxus and the Ganges. 
 The true site of the Sabbatic River is, however, 
 in Syria, north-east of Tripoli, the present Nahr es 
 Sebta. Northern Syria appears to be called the 
 Land of Akharri or ‘westerns’ in cuneiform 
 texts. C. R. ConpDER. 
 
 AS.—There are some obs. uses of this conj., but 
 they are mostly quite intelligible. 4. As concern- 
 ing occurs Lv 4”, 1 Ch 2671, Ac 28°2, Ro 9° 1178, 1 Co 84, 
 2 Co 112, Ph 4%; and as concerning that, Ac 13% 
 ‘as c. that he raised him up from the dead’ (Gr. 
 simply érc); as pertaining, Ro 41, He 9°; as touch- 
 ing, Gn 27%, 1 S 20%, 2 K 228, Mt 18192931, Mk 12°6, 
 Aci5" 2155 Rolls, leCo $1 162)21Co 94 Phr3' 
 1 Th 4°, 2 Es 15%. In these phrases (the Gr. is 
 generally a simple us érl, card, and esp. mepl) the 
 as is now dropped. So in whenas, Sir Prol. i. 
 ‘whenas therefore the first Jesus died,’ Sir 337, 
 2 Mac 15°; while as, He 98; what time as, 
 Bar 1, 1 Mac 5, 2 Mac 17; like as, Jer 23” ‘Is not 
 my word like asa fire?’,Wis 18"; as it were, Rev 8” 
 ‘burning as it were a lamp’ (RV ‘as a torch’); cf. 
 Ps 148, Pr. Bk. ‘eating up my people as it were 
 bread.’ On the other hand as=‘as if’ in Ac 10", 
 Rev 5° ‘a Lamb as it had been slain’ (ws, RV ‘as 
 though’), 13%. As stands for ‘that’ in 1 Mac 10% 
 125 ‘so as we are delivered from our enemies.’ 
 In Lk 2" it is an adv. ‘as the angels were gone 
 away from them into heaven’ (#s, RV ‘ when’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ASA (xox, perhaps ‘ healer’).—1. King of Judah 
 c. B.C. 918-877. The history of his reign as given 
 in 1 K 15%, when compared with that in 2 Ch 14 
 16, presents an excellent illustration of the different 
 view-points of the two writers. For convenience 
 we shall keep the two narratives apart. 
 
 (A) Ace. to 1 K 15° A. did what was right in 
 the eyes of the Lord, opposing every form of 
 idolatry, putting away the kédeshim or lepddovdos 
 out of the land, and removing the idols which his 
 fathers had made. He even degraded the queen- 
 
160 ASADIAS 
 
 
 
 ASARA 
 
 
 
 mother because of ‘an abominable image’ (nybzn) 
 which she had made for (an) Asherah. Being 
 attacked by Baasha, king of Israel, he used the 
 treasures of the temple and the palace to buy the 
 alliance of Benhadad, king of Syria, who, by the 
 vigour of his attack 8 ¥8 the N. kingdom, speedil 
 compelled Baasha to leave Judah in peace. With 
 the materials of Baasha’s abandoned works at 
 Ramah, A. built Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah. 
 (In Jer 41° there is mention of a pit at Mizpah 
 which A. had made ‘for fear of Baasha, king of 
 Isr.’) In his old age A. suffered from a disease in 
 his feet. He died in the 41st year of his reign, 
 and was succeeded by his son J St octap hae 
 
 (B) In 2 Ch 14-16 Asa’s reforming zeal is placed 
 in a still more favourable light. Cf. 2 Ch 14° (but 
 see 151”) with 1 K 154. As a reward for this zeal A. 
 enjoyed peace and prosperity in the early years of 
 his reign, and during this period he built fortresses 
 and made other warlike preparations, assembling 
 an army of 680,000 men (14°). He was thus 
 enabled to meet and conquer Zerah the Ethiopian 
 (which see). (The historicity of this campaign 
 there is no reason to call in question, although the 
 numbers must be excessive). After this victory 
 A. was met by the prophet Azariah, the son of 
 Oded, who exhorted him to carry out further 
 religious reforms (151-8). In obedience to this call, 
 a popular assembly, representing not only Judah, 
 but certain districts of the N. kingdom, was held 
 at Jerus. in the 3rd month of the 15th year of A.’s 
 reign. A solemn covenant was entered into to 
 seek the Lord with all their heart and all their 
 soul (15'2), On account of A.’s conduct in this 
 matter, another period of peace was enjoyed by the 
 land, which continued till the 35th year of his 
 reign (15%). In his 36th year (16*-) war broke out 
 with Baasha, king of Israel, and A. hired the help 
 of the king of Syria. This action was viewed by 
 Hanani the seer as indicating a want of faith in 
 God, and he addressed reproaches and threatenings 
 to the king, who thereupon cast the faithful pro- 
 phet into prison, and at the same time began to 
 oppress some of his subjects (167). As a punish- 
 ment for this he was, in his 39th year, attacked by 
 a disease in his feet, which led him to seek not to 
 the Lord, but to physicians (16!). Upon his death 
 in the 41st year of his reign he was buried with 
 most gorgeous funeral rites (161). 
 
 The Chronicler’s additions to the earlier narrative 
 comprise, then, A.’s building of fortresses and other 
 warlike preparations, his victory over the Ethiop. 
 king, more detailed specifications of time, his 
 severity towards Hanani and others, and the 
 details as to his obsequies. The subjectivity of 
 the Chronicler is marked throughout, but there is 
 no reason to doubt that for the basis at least of 
 these additions he had documentary authority, 
 although very serious difficulties, which have never 
 been satisfactorily explained, attach to the chrono- 
 logy of his narrative. These are fully discussed 
 in the literature cited below. 
 
 2. A Levite, the father of Berechiah (1 Ch 9"). 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Graf, Ges, Bich. d. A.T. 187 ff. ; W. R. Smith, 
 OTJC2 141, 147; Sayce, HCM 363f., 465f.; Wellhausen, Ges. 
 Ter. (1878) p. 212 ; Kittel, Hist. of Heb. ii. 248 ff. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 ASADIAS (‘Acadtas, prob. =7107, ‘J” is kind,’ cf. 
 1 Ch 3”).—An ancestor of Baruch (Bar 1). 
 
 cI 
 
 ASAHEL (dxnvy) is the name of four men men- 
 tioned in OT. 1. The youngest son of Zeruiah, 
 David’s sister, and the brother of Joab and Abishai. 
 He war famous for his swiftness of foot, a much 
 valued gift in ancient times. He was one of 
 David’s thirty heroes, probably the third of the 
 second three (2 S 23%), He was also commander 
 
 of a division in David’s army (1 Ch 277). He was 
 slain by Abner (2 8 238-5), 2. A Levite, who with 
 other ten Levites and priests went throughout all 
 the cities of Judah and taught the people in the 
 reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 178). 3. A subordinate 
 collector of offerings and tithes in the reign of 
 Hezekiah (2 Ch 31). 4. Jonathan, son of A., 
 opposed Ezra’s action in connexion with the divorce 
 of foreign wives (Ezr 10%). MvIr. 
 
 ASAIAH (ny, ‘J” hath made’).—41. One of the 
 deputation sent by Josiah to consult Huldah the 
 prophetess, 2 K 22!2-14 (AV Asahiah), 2 Ch 34”. 
 2. Cine of the Simeonite princes who attacked the 
 shepherds of Gedor, 1 Ch 4°. 8. A Merarite who 
 took part in bringing the ark to Jerus., 1 Ch 6” 
 15%1, 4. The first-born of the Shilonites, 1 Ch 9°, 
 called in Neh 115 Maaseiah. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ASANA (A ’Acavd, B ’Aoo-), 1 Es 5*.—His de- 
 scendants were among the ‘temple servants’ or 
 Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel: he is 
 called Asnah (m3px, ’Acevd), Ezr 25, Nehemiah 
 omits. H. Sr. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ASAPH ("ox ‘gatherer’).—4. The father of 
 Joah, the ‘recorder’ or chronicler at the court of 
 Hezekiah (2 K 18! *7 etc.). 2. The ‘keeper of the 
 king’s forest,’ to whom king Artaxerxes addressed 
 a letter directing him to supply Nehemiah with 
 timber (Neh 28). 3. A Korahite (1 Ch 261), same 
 as Abiasaph (wh. see). 4. The eponym of one of 
 the three guilds which conducted the musical 
 services of the temple in the time of the Chronicler 
 (1 Ch 15! ete.). The latter traces this arrange- 
 ment to the appointment of David, in whose reign 
 Asaph, who is called ‘the seer’ (2 Ch 29%), is 
 eg) bat to have lived. We ay know practi- 
 cally nothing about the worship in the first temple, 
 although the probability that the musical service 
 was even then to a certain extent organised, is 
 witnessed to by the fact that at the return from 
 exile ‘the singers, the sons of Asaph’ (Neh 7“, 
 Ezr 2*), are mentioned as a class whose functions 
 were recognised and well established. At first the 
 Asaphites alone seemed to have formed the temple 
 choir, and in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 (wherever we have the memoirs of the latter in 
 their original form) they are not yet reckoned 
 among the Levites. At a later period they share 
 the musical service with the ‘sons of Korah’ (see 
 KORAHITES). When the latter become porters and 
 doorkeepers, the guild of Asaph appears supple- 
 mented by those of Heman and Ethan; and as, in 
 the estimation of the Chronicler (c. 250 B.c.), 
 Levitical descent is necessary for the performance 
 of such functions, the genealogies of Asaph, 
 Heman, and Ethan are traced respectively to 
 Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, the sons of Levi 
 (1 Ch 68-47), W. R. Smith (OTJC p. 204, n.) 
 remarks that the ‘ oldest attempt to incorporate the 
 Asaphites with the Levites seems to be found in the 
 priestly part of the Pentateuch, where Abiasaph, 
 “the father of Asaph,” or in other words the 
 oon of the Asaphite guild, is made one of the 
 three sons of Korah (Ex 6%).’ Pss 50 and 73-83 
 have the superscription 4>x?, which means in all 
 
 robability that they once belonged to the hymn- 
 books of the Asaphite choir (see PSALMS). 
 
 LiTeRatuRE.—Kuenen, Rel. of Israel, ii, 204, iii. 77; Graf, 
 Geschicht. B. des A.T. 223, 239 ff.; Wellhausen, Geschichte, 152, 
 n.; Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 387 f.; Schiirer, 
 HJP ti. i. 225f., 271f.; Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, 101, 111. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ASARA (’Acapd, AV Azara), 1 Es 5*.—His sons 
 were among the temple servants or Nethinim who 
 returned under Zerubbabel : omitted in the parallel 
 lists in Ezr and Neh. H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
e 
 \ 
 oo 
 we 
 
 
 
 ASARAMEL 
 
 ASCENSION 161 
 
 
 
 ASARAMEL (‘Acapapé\ x» V, Zapayné A, AV 
 Saramel).— A name whose meaning is quite 
 
 uncertain (1 Mac 14%). See RVm. 
 ASAREL (>sqvx, AV Asareel).— A son of 
 Jehallelel, 1 Ch 41°, See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ASBASARETH (1 Es 5®).—A king of Assyria, 
 probably a corrupt form of the name Esarhaddon, 
 which is found in the parallel passage Ezr 4’. 
 AV form Azbazareth comes from the Vulg.; LXX 
 has ’AcBaxag¢d0 B, ’AcBacapéO A; Syr. 
 (Ashtakphath). H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ASCALON.—Jth 27, 1 Mac 10% 11 1253, for 
 ASHKELON. 
 
 ASCENSION.—Ascension is the name given to 
 that final withdrawal of the Risen Christ from His 
 disciples which is described in Ac 1°. There is 
 no account of anything exactly like it in the OT, 
 though the same word has been applied to the de- 
 cera of Enoch and of Elijah from this life. In 
 
 ir 441° as in He 115 Enoch’s removal is called a 
 translation (“ereré0n), but in Sir 49 as in Ac 1! 
 it is an assumption (dveAjugbn dd ris yfjs). This 
 last alone seems to employed of Elijah. In 
 the LXX of 2 K 2" we have dvediug¢0n “Hrxod ev 
 svaceoup ws els roy ovpaydy, and in Sir 48° Elijah is 
 6 dvahnudéels év Nalham rupds. Cheyne’s Hallowing 
 of Criticism treats this last as ‘the grandest prose 
 poem in the OT,’ but, even so, it opened the mind 
 to the idea that human life might have another 
 issue than that which awaits it in the ordinary 
 course of nature. 
 
 In the NT the A. does not bulk largely as an 
 independent event. In Mt it is not mentioned at 
 all. In Mk it is found only in the dubious 
 appendix (16°), and there it is narrated in OT 
 words, a fact which suggests that the writer is 
 recording what he believed, not what he had 
 seen. The first half of the verse—dverjuddn els 
 tov ovpaydy —is from 2 K 2"; and the second— 
 éxdbicev éx detiGv rod Oeoi—from Ps 110!. The 
 explicit reference in Lk 24°) (diéorn dm’ atrdv cal 
 dvepépero els tov otpavdv) has the last five words 
 doubly bracketed in WH. ‘The A.,’ they say in 
 a note, ‘apparently did not lie within the proper 
 scope of the Gospels, as seen in their genuine texts ; 
 its true place was at the head of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, as the preparation for the day of Pente- 
 cost, and thus the beginning of the history of the 
 Church.’ The insertion of the words, dvegpépero els 
 rdv ovpavér, in Lk 24°!, would thus be due to some one 
 who assumed that ‘a separation from the disciples 
 at the close of a Gospel must bethe A.’ But it can 
 hardly be doubted that Luke means in these verses 
 (24°°->) to describe the final separation of Jesus 
 from His disciples, so that the assumption in ques- 
 tion wouid be justified ; and the difficulty remains 
 untouched, that this final separation, whatever its 
 circumstances, seems to take place, on the most 
 natural construction of the whole passage (vv.13-53), 
 on the evening of the Resurrection day, whereas in 
 Ac 1 it is forty days later. In the Fourth Gospel 
 there are more explicit references to the A. than 
 in any of the rest, but no narrative. ‘What if ye 
 shall see the Son of Man ascending (dvaBalvovra) 
 where he was before?’ (6%). More notable still is 
 the language of 20”, where Jesus says to Mary Mag- 
 dalene, ‘Touch me not; for I have not yet ascended 
 (dvaBéBnxa) to the Father: but go to my brethren 
 and tell them, I ascend (dvaBalyw) tomy Teather and 
 your Father, and my God and your God.’ The 
 
 resent tense in this last clause is not quite clear. 
 
 t might describe what was imminent, an A. close 
 at hand: but Westcott renders it, ‘I am ascend- 
 
 VOL. I.—II 
 
 ing,’ as if the process had actually begun. ‘In one 
 sense the change symbolised by the visible A. was 
 being wrought for the apostles during the fort; 
 days, as they gradually became familiarised wit 
 the phenomena of Christ’s higher life’ (Com. on 
 Jn 20”). But it is confusing to combine with 
 the visible A. the idea of something going on in 
 the apostles’ minds for six weeks before. Christ’s 
 manifestations of Himself during those weeks to 
 His disciples, undoubtedly familiarised them with 
 the idea that now He no more belonged to this 
 world, but had another and higher mode of being ; 
 but the A., as a separate event, is more than this. 
 It is the solemn close of even such manifestations, 
 and the exaltation of Christ into a life where con- 
 tact with Him may be more close and intimate 
 than ever (this is the force of ‘Touch me not; for 
 I am not yet ascended’), but must be purely 
 spiritual. In the Book of Acts (1°) the A. narrative 
 is most complete. Jesus had been speaking to the 
 disciples about the universal destination of His 
 kingdom, and the promised gift of the Spirit, and 
 as He finished He was taken up (ér7/p6)—here only 
 in NT applied to the A.) while they looked on, 
 and a cloud received Him out of their sight. Two 
 men in white raiment assured the apostles that He 
 would come in like manner as they had seen Him 
 go into heaven. 
 
 The Epistles may be said to look at Christ in 
 His exaltation, ‘seated at the right hand of God,’ 
 and rather to involve the A. than to refer directl 
 toit. Yet there are passages in several in whic 
 allusion seems to be made to the same event as is 
 described in Acts. Eph 4°? is one. Christ is 
 there spoken of as 6 dvaBas trepdyw mdvrwy roy 
 ovpaydy. Similarly, though there is perhaps a more 
 poetic and less historical flavour in the words, we 
 read of Him in He 4" as dteAndvOdra rods wvpavous 
 and in 7% as bWyAédrepos TOv ovpavdy yevduevos. There 
 is less dubiety as to the reference in 1 P 3” és 
 dor év dekiG Oeod mwopevOels els ovpavdy, and in the 
 hymn cited in 1 Ti 3° dvedjugdn ev 54¢y, where 
 the same word is used as in Mark and in Acts. 
 
 It is quite true to say that the A. is not separ- 
 ately emphasized in the NT as an event distinct 
 from the Resurrection, or from the state of exalta- 
 tion to which it was the solemn entrance. But it 
 is quite false to say that it is identified with either, 
 or that Resurrection, A., and sitting at God’s right 
 hand, are all names for the same thing. Certainly 
 each of them might be used in any age, and they 
 might be used still as a comprehensive name 
 for the glory of Christ, but this does not abolish 
 the distinction between them. When Jesus rose 
 from the dead, He ‘manifested himself’ to His 
 disciples. Already He belonged to another world, 
 and it was only when He would that He put Him- 
 self in any relation with those who had loved Him 
 in this. After each manifestation He parted from 
 them; how, we cannot tell; the NT only sug- 
 gests that it was not in that way which marked 
 the A. When faith in the Resurrection was as- 
 sured in the apostles’ hearts; when He had ex- 
 
 ounded to them the Christian significance of the 
 br, and the universal destination of the gospel ; 
 when He had again promised the Holy Spirit to 
 endue them with power from on high, He parted 
 from them for the last time in such a way that 
 they knew it was the last; He passed with some- 
 thing like ey state to the right hand of the 
 Father. To talk about Copernicanism in thi> 
 connexion, and to object to the whole idea of tne 
 A. because we cannot put down the heaven into 
 which Jesus entered on a star-map, is to miscon- 
 ceive the Resurrection and everything connected 
 with it. The Lord of glory manifested Himself to 
 His own, and at last put a term to these manifesta- 
 tions in a mode as gracious as it was sublime; but 
 

 
 162 
 
 ASCENSION 
 
 ASENATH 
 
 
 
 the whole series of events is one with which as- 
 tronomy has nothing to do. 
 
 Neither is there any reason to argue back from 
 the phenomena of the Epistles, through those of 
 the Gospels, to the conclusion that the Christian 
 belief in the exaltation of Jesus created the beau- 
 tiful myth of the A. Westcott and Hort may be 
 right in their suggestion that the A. does not 
 belong to the idea of a Gospel, though the sugges- 
 tion does not of itself seem conclusive ; but even if 
 the final parting of Jesus is referred to in Lk 24°), 
 and even if the date is not the same as in Ac 1, 
 it does not follow that the story in Acts is mythi- 
 cal. Luke may have learned the details more 
 accurately in the interval that elapsed between the 
 composition of his two works ; and in any case it is 
 highly improbable that a myth-producing spirit, 
 which had the same motive to impel it from the 
 first hour the Resurrection was preached, should 
 have suddenly (as it would be in this case) gener- 
 ated an A. myth at the very moment when it 
 would dislocate St. Luke’s histories. Neither is 
 there any reason to oppose to each other, as many 
 do, the A. narrative and what is called the religious 
 idea underlying it, as husk is opposed to kernel. 
 The Christian faith certainly holds that ‘Christ, 
 as the transfigured One, is absolutely exempt from 
 the limitations of earth and nature, and that He, 
 the ever-living One, is the head of humanity, 
 exalted in glory, in whom humanity is conscious 
 of its own exaltation’ (Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon, 
 s.v. Himmelfahrt Jesu). But the A. story is not 
 the husk of which this faith is the kernel. It is the 
 record of the last and apparently the most impos- 
 ing of those manifestations of the Risen One to 
 which this faith owes its origin. No kind of ob- 
 jection lies against the A. which does not lie also 
 against the Resurrection. Its historicity is of the 
 same kind, though the direct attestation of it is 
 less; and the manifestation of Christ, at a later 
 date, under quite exceptional circumstances, to St. 
 Paul at his conversion, while it is in harmony with 
 the fact of the A., does not really affect its signifi- 
 cance as the formal cessation of this mode of mani- 
 festation. 
 
 In itself the A. is no more than a point of 
 transition: its theological significance cannot be 
 distinguished from that of the Resurrection and 
 Exaltation of Christ. If we regard Christ merely 
 as ideal man, the A. may be said to complete the 
 manifestation of human nature and its destiny : 
 this exaltation, and not the corruption of the grave, 
 is what God made man for. Man is not revealed in 
 moral character simply ; there is a mode of being 
 which answers to ideal goodness, and the A. is our 
 clearest look at it. If we regard it in relation to 
 the work of Christ’s earthly life, it merges in His 
 exaltation as God’s acknowledgment of that work, 
 and the reward bestowed on him for it (see Ph 
 26-11), If we regard it in relation to the future, it 
 seems to be, judged by our Lord’s own words in 
 Lk 24", Ac 18, and Jn 14-16, the condition of His 
 sending the Spirit in the power of which the 
 apostles were to preach repentance and remission 
 of sins everywhere. It enthroned Him, not only 
 in their imaginations, but in reality ; He was able 
 now to exercise all power in heaven and on earth. 
 ‘ Being therefore exalted, and having received of 
 the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath 
 poured forth this which ye seeand hear. For David 
 ascended not into the heavens’ (ov« dvéBy). This is 
 the aspect of the subject which prevails in the NT. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—The subject is discussed in all the Lives of 
 Christ: as typical on opposite sides may be named Neander 
 (p. 484ff. Eng. tr.) and Hase, Geschichte Jesu, § 118. See also 
 
 wete, The Apostles’ Creed, p. 64 ff., the commentators on Ac 
 19ff. 5 Milligan, Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood, Lect. I. ; 
 aad Knowling, Witness of the Epistles, p. 397 ff. 
 
 J. DENNEY. 
 
 ASCENT is the rendering in AV of three Heb. 
 words. 1, aby ma‘dleh, used of the ‘ ascent (pass) 
 of Akrabbim’ (Nu 344), and the ‘ ascent of the Mt. 
 of Olives’ (2S 15), Besides these two instances 
 
 (all that occur in AV), RV correctly gives the 
 same rendering ‘ascent,’ where uses such 
 
 gare as ‘the going up to,’ in Jos 10 15*7 1817, 
 g 83,18 94,258 15%, 2 K 977, 2 Ch 2016 32%, Is 155, 
 Jer 48°, in all of which the same Heb. term 1); 
 employed. The pe niby of the cognate fem. 
 form occurs in the well-known title of several 
 Psalms (mbypn vv, AV ‘Song of degrees,’ RV 
 ‘Song of ascents’). See PSALMS. 2. ny ‘6lah, is 
 rendered ‘ascent’ by both AV and RV in 1 K 105, 
 ‘his ascent by which he went up into the house & 
 the Lord,’ although RVm offers as an alternative 
 rendering, ‘ his burnt-offering which he offered in,’ 
 ete. This last is certainly the usual meaning of 
 n?y, and there appears to be no sufficient reason for 
 departing from it in the present instance. 
 Bolawion offered sacrifices on the colossal scale 
 referred to in 1 K 8, the admiration of the queen 
 of Sheba was natural enough. This is the view of 
 the passage taken by Kittel, Reuss, Kamphausen, 
 Kautzsch, etc., and it has the support of LXX 
 (dAckavrwow), Syriac and Vulg. 3. In the parallel 
 passage 2 Ch 9 we find aby anes This word 
 signifies elsewhere an fies as chamber’ (vzrepgov), 
 and it is so rendered, or by ‘chamber’ alone, in 
 1 K 17% 2 K 4101, 9 § 1833 1 Ch 28", 2 Ch 3° 
 Neh 3, Ps 104% 48, Jer 221 4 (in Jg 3% ® both A 
 and RV have ‘ parlour ’).* If we retain the MT, we 
 must understand the reference to be to an upper 
 chamber which Solomon was building (observe the 
 imperf. 7by:) upon the temple. This, however, yields 
 an improbable and unsuitable meaning, and in all 
 likelihood the text ought to be corrected from in‘by 
 to rmby (LXX édoxavrdyara) in conformity witli 
 1 K 10° (see notes on 2 Ch 9 by Kittel in Haupt’s 
 Sacred Bks. of OT, and by Kautzsch in Heil. Schr. 
 an ALT); J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ASEAS (’Acalas), 1 Es 9*2—One of the sons of 
 Annas who by te to put any, his ‘ strange’ wife, 
 called Isshijah (7y:=‘ whom J” lends’), Ezr 10%. 
 
 ASEBEBIAS (’AceSnBlas, AV Asebebia). — A 
 Levite who accompanied Ezra to Jerus., 1 Es 8, 
 
 ASEBIAS (A book fe B omits, AV Asebia).—A 
 Levite who returned with Ezra, 1 Es 8%. 
 
 ASENATH (nox).—The daughter of Poti-pherah, 
 priest of On, and wife of Joseph. She was the 
 mother of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gn 41 © 46), 
 The name may mean ‘belonging to (or favourite 
 of) Neith’ (Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v.). She is com- 
 memorated by the Greek Church apparently on 
 Dec. 138, and by the Ethiopian on the Ist of 
 Senne. The story of A. has been made the 
 subject of a remarkable novel which exists in 
 Greek (the original language), Syriac, Armenian, 
 and Latin, as well as in many medieval European 
 versions made from the Latin. The Latin is 
 itself not older than the 13th cent., and is the 
 work, as is believed, of Robert Grosseteste, 
 bishop of Lincoln, or of one of the scholars associ- 
 ated with him. The name of the romance is 
 either the History of A. or The Book of the Con- 
 Session of A. It has been assigned by its last 
 editor, P. Batiffol, to the 5th cent. It is certain, 
 however, that the Syriac version is as old as the | 
 6th cent., and the probability is that the origina] — 
 is at least as early as the 3rd cent. 
 
 In its present form it is a Christian version of a 
 Jewish legend. A full account of the story may be 
 seen in Hort’s article in Smith’s Dict. Christ. Brogr. — 
 Summarised it runs thus: A. is the proud and beauti- 
 
 > is 
 
ASH 
 
 ful daughter of Pentephres of Heliopolis. She lives 
 in magnificent seclusion and despises all men. Her 
 father and mother propose that she shall marry 
 Joseph, now prime minister to Pharaoh. She rejects 
 the thought with scorn. However, Joseph soon 
 arrives at the house on one of his journeys through 
 Egypt to collect corn. Asenath sees him and at once 
 falls in love. But Joseph, who has a horror of all 
 women, will have nothing to say to her, and can- 
 not even kiss her, since she worships idols. He 
 blesses her, and then she retires to her room. 
 Here she shuts herself up for seven days in sack- 
 cloth and ashes, throws her idols out of the window, 
 and does strict penance. On the 8th day she 
 utters a long prayer. Thereafter an angel comes 
 to her in the form of Joseph and blesses her, and 
 gives her to eat of a mystic honeycomb, on which 
 ae of the cross is made. A., then accepted 
 of , arrays herself in beautiful garments, and 
 goes forth to meet Joseph, who now returns to 
 the house. The parents are away, but the be- 
 trothal takes place in their absence ; and then the 
 wedding in Pharaoh’s presence. At this point the 
 Armenian version makes a break, and ends the first 
 part ; here also in Syr., Arm., and Lat., but not 
 in any known Greek MS, occurs a lamentation of 
 Asenath for her former pride. 
 
 The second part of the book contains the story 
 first of A.’s introduction to Jacob when he came to 
 Egypt, and then, at great length, of an attempt on 
 the part of Pharaoh’s firstborn son to abduct A.,— 
 an attempt in which he enlists the services of Dan 
 and Gad, and in which he is baffled by Benjamin, 
 Simeon, and Levi, and loses his life. This part of 
 the story, which is very well told, has hardly any 
 religious interest, save in the forgiveness of Dan 
 and Gad by A. But in the first part of the book 
 the religious element is far more prominent. 
 Stress is laid on purity and on repentance. 
 
 The raison d’étre of the book, or rather, of the 
 Jewish legend which lies behind it, is to evade the 
 difficulty of Joseph’s marriage with a heathen 
 wife: and, as Batiffol and Oppenheim (see Lit.) 
 have shown, the ety eons legend made A. a Jewess 
 by birth. It identified her with the daughter of 
 Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, and of Shechem. This 
 has been slurred over in the Greek novel; but it 
 is implied by certain words in the Syriac, where 
 A.’s visit to Jaceb is described. 
 
 The romance is altogether one of the most 
 successful, from a literary point of view, that the 
 apocryphal literature affords. It was widely 
 known in Europe by means of the extracts from 
 it which Frater Vincentius (Vincent of Beauvais) 
 included in his Speculum Historiale in the 13th 
 century. 
 
 LirsraTuRE.—Vincent’s Lat. version and a fragment of the 
 Gr. in Fabricius’ Cod. Pseud. V. T. ; Syriac in Land’s Anecdota 
 aberieg iii. 1870; Lat. tr. of Syriac by Oppenheim, Fabula 
 
 osephi et Asenetha, 1886; Gr. by P. Batiffol from four MSS in 
 
 8 
 Studia Patristica, 1889 ; Lat. (complete version) from two Cam- 
 bridge MSS communicated by the present writer to M. Batiffol, 
 
 and published by him 
 
 op. cit.; Armenian recently published at 
 Venice by P. Basile. 
 
 M. R. JAMES. 
 
 ASH (nk, ’oren, wlrvs, pinus) (Is 444%, AV. RV 
 has fir, with ash in m.).—The conditions to be 
 ed by this tree are that its wood should 
 be suitable to be carved into an image, and 
 used for fuel; that it should be a familiar tree, 
 planted, as distinguished from the forest trees 
 mentioned in the former part of the verse; and 
 that it should be nourished by rain, and not b 
 artificial irrigation, as in the case of almost a 
 the Ealtivated trees of Syria and Palestine. These 
 conditions exclude several of the candidates. They 
 make it improbable that the unknown tree ’aran, 
 described by Abu Fadli as growing in Arabia 
 trea, is intended. Sush a tree would not be 
 
 ASH 163 
 
 likely to be planted, nor to thrive out of the 
 stations where it is indigenous. Salvadora Per- 
 sica, proposed by Royle, is a desert shrub, with a 
 trunk out of which it would be impossible to find 
 a piece large enough to carve into a graven image, 
 and in every other wey quite Gascdocie Luther’s 
 surmise, that the final 1 of the Heb. original is a 1, 
 and that the tree is a cedar, is forbidden by the 
 
 revious mention of the cedar in the same passage. 
 
 he en ash of AV has no support 
 from philology. It is wholly improbable that ’oren 
 has any connexion with ornus. There are three 
 species of ash in Syria—Fraxinus Ornus, L., which 
 grows in the mountains from Lebanon to Amanus ; 
 fF, excelsior, L., Amanus and northward; and F, 
 oxycarpa, Willd., var. oligophylla, Boiss., Tel-el- 
 Kadi (Dan) to Antilebanon, Lebanon, and Aleppo. 
 The modern Arab. name for the last is dardar Ape, 
 the elm). It is a fine tree, with a hemispherical 
 comus, 15 to 45 feet high, and has a trunk which 
 would furnish wood suitable for the requirementa 
 of the text. But it grows wild, usually near or by 
 water, and therefore would not likely have been 
 selected as a tree which the ‘rain doth nourish.’ 
 Fir is an unfortunate guess, as there are other 
 words which correspond to the different sorts of 
 fir. Pine has the authority of the LXX. There 
 are three species of pine growing in the Holy 
 Land—Pinus elie pail Mill, the Aleppo Pine; 
 P. Brutia, Ten.; and P. Pinea, L., the maritime or 
 stone pine. The latter tree fulfils best the condi- 
 tions of the ’oren. 
 
 It is a tree well known by the Arabic name 
 gsnowbar, with a resinous, hard wood, capable of 
 being carved, and much used for fuel, especially in 
 the public ovens. It produces large cones, and an 
 edible seed, for which it is cultivated, and the 
 taste of which when roasted resembles that of a 
 roasted peanut. Moreover, it is a tree which is 
 very extensively planted, and always in sandy 
 places or on dry hillsides, where it receives onl 
 the rain. It is one of the few cultivated (planted) 
 trees in this land which are never watered except 
 by the rain. It is never planted in irrigated 
 ground. The seed is sown in low-lying districts 
 along the coast after the first rains, when the 
 vents is softened, and in the mountains in the 
 atter days of February, when all danger of the 
 tender sprout being nipped by frost has passed 
 away, but when there is prospect of rain sufficient 
 to ‘nourish’ the seedling for its exposure to the 
 blazing sunshine during the eight long rainless 
 months that are to follow. The explanatory clause 
 of our passage has very peculiar force with refer- 
 ence to this tree. The objection of Celsius, that 
 the pine does not bear transplanting, is futile, as it 
 is only said that they were planted. The same 
 word is used for the lign-aloes (Nu 24°), and the 
 cedars (Ps 104!6), both of which it is said the 
 ‘Lord planted,’ t.¢. sowed, for they were certainly 
 not transplanted. Also God is represented as 
 planting the desolate places (Ezk 36°). Vast 
 groves of snowbar have been planted at points 
 along the coast to arrest the movement of the 
 sand dunes. Such a grove was planted by Ibrahim 
 Pasha in 1840 near Beirfit, and is one of the 
 most picturesque features of the beautiful plain 
 between the city and Lebanon. Large numbers of 
 these groves are planted on the red sandstone of 
 Lebanon, and in parts of Palestine. As the tree 
 grows, the lower branches are lopped off, and only 
 a pinshtonoi shaped top is left. The trees grow 
 near together and very uniformly, so that the top of 
 a large grove such as that near Beirfit, when looked 
 upon from the mountain, presents a flat green 
 surface, which constitutes a very marked and 
 attractive feature of the landscape. When planted 
 on steep mountain sides, as in Lebanon and on 
 
 
 
164 ASHAN 
 
 ASHER 
 
 
 
 the Apulian coast of Italy, the tall trunks, sur- 
 mounted by their dense crown of evergreen leaves, 
 fringe the tops and dot the sides of the rugged grey 
 peaks witha beauty hardly rivalled by any other tree. 
 G. E. Post. 
 ASHAN (jx), Jos 15*2 197, 1 Ch 4% 65°,—Per- 
 
 haps the same as Cor-ashan, which see. It was 
 a town of Judah, near Libnah and Rimmon, 
 belonging to Simeon, and not far from Debir. It 
 must have been on the slopes of the hills east of 
 Gaza, but the site is doubtful. C. R. ConpDER. 
 
 ASHARELAH (nbywwx, AV Asarelah). — An 
 Asaphite (1 Ch 257), called in v.14 Jesharelah (see 
 Kittel’s notes on 1 Ch 414 25% 4), 
 
 ASHBEA (va¥x) occurs in an obscure passage 
 (1 Ch 47 ‘house of A.’) where it is uncertain 
 whether it is the name of a place or of aman. See 
 GENEALOGY. 
 
 ASHBEL (53zx, perh. corrupted from $yavx ‘man 
 of Baal’).—The second son of Benjamin (1 Ch 8'; 
 ef. Gn 4671, Nu 26%). In Nu 26% Ashbelite, in- 
 habitant of Ashbel, occurs. 
 
 ASHDOD (77x ‘fortress’?).—One of the five 
 great Philistine cities. Jos 1122 138 154-47, 1 § 51-7, 
 2 Ch 268, Neh 4713%, Jer 257 475, Am 18, Zeph 24, 
 Zec 9°, Azotus, 1 Mac 58 10%, Ac 8“. It is now 
 the mud village Zsdid, on the edge of the plain, 
 close to a large hillock of red sand, backed by 
 dunes of drifted sand which extend to the shore 
 cliffs. A few ae grow near, and water is supplied 
 by apond. The sand probably covers the site of 
 the ancient city. The inhabitants, in type and 
 dress, resemble the Egyp. rather than the Pal. 
 peasantry. A small gem was found here in 1875, 
 representing Dagon as a fish-man; but this may 
 be comparatively recent, resembling Gnostic gems 
 of the 2nd cent. A.D. A. was not taken by the 
 Hebrews, and was the refuge of the Anakim (Jos 
 11”). The villages near it belonged to Judah 
 (Jos 15+), The inhabitants were still independ- 
 ent in the time of Samuel (1 S 51), but A. was 
 attacked by Uzziah (2 Ch 26°). Its inhabitants were 
 enemies of the Jews after the Captivity (Neh 4’), 
 and it is mentioned as a reproach that the children of 
 the mixed marriages spoke ‘ half in the speech of 
 A.’ (Neh 13%). The city is said in the 7th cent. B.c. 
 to have sustained a 29 years’ siege by Psammitichus 
 (Herod. ii. 157). In B.c. 711 ‘A was besieged by 
 Sargon after the capture of Samaria. Its king, 
 Yavan or Yamanu, had been set up in place of 
 the Assyrian nominee Akhimiti, whom Sargon 
 placed on the throne instead of a certain Azuri 
 who had refused tribute. The Philistines, Jews 
 (Ja’udu), Edomites, and Moabites were allied, and 
 had sent for aid to Pir’u (Pharaoh?); yet A. was 
 obliged to submit to the Assyrians. In B.c. 702 
 Sennacherib, according to his own record, freed 
 Mitinti (who seems to have been also king of 
 Ashkelon about thirty-four years later) from 
 Hezekiah, and ha became tributary for a time to 
 Assyria. In B.C. 668 the name of the king of A., 
 tributary to Assurbanipal, was Ahimilhi or 
 Ahimelech. The city was taken by Judas Mac- 
 cabzeus (c. 165), and again (c. 148) by Jonathan 
 (1 Mac 5® 10%). It became a bishopric in the 4th 
 cent. A.D., but its importance gradually decreased, 
 and the site was not generally Enawil in the Middle 
 Ages. See SWP vol. iii. sheet xvi. 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 ASHER (7x ‘happy ’).—This was the name of 
 Jacob’s eighth son, the second born to him by 
 Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid ; her elder son being Gad 
 (Gn 35%). Asher had four sons and one daughter 
 (Gn 46" R), A ‘ happy’ lot was predicted for him in 
 
 Jacob’s blessing, ‘his bread shall be fat, and he 
 shall yield royal dainties’ (Gn 49” J). His good 
 fortune is also foreshadowed in the blessing of 
 Moses, ‘Blessed be Asher with children; let 
 him be acceptable unto his brethren, and let him 
 dip his foot in oil’ (Dt 33%). When Israel left 
 Egypt the adult males of the tribe numbered 
 41,500; more than either Ephraim, Manasseh, or 
 Benjamin. Before the invasion of Western Pal. 
 the numbers had grown to 53,400 (Nu 1* 26% P). 
 The tribe appears in the name-lists with the 
 others throughout the earlier books. The posi- 
 tion of Asher in the desert march was between 
 Dan and Naphtali on the N. of the tabernacle 
 (Nu 2-89 P), Sethur, the chief, went with the head 
 men of the other tribes from the wilderness of 
 Paran to spy out the land (Nu 13%). Of Asher in 
 future days little is deemed worthy of record save 
 his inglorious failures. As his rich territory lay 
 close to the Phoenician cities with their open 
 markets and prosperous commerce, he seems ve 
 soon to have identified his interests with theirs. 
 This may account for his failure to take posses- 
 sion of many of the cities that had been allotted 
 to him (Jg 1%), and also for his na when, 
 in opposition to Sisera and his host, Zebulun 
 ‘ jeoparded their lives unto the death, and Naphtali 
 upon the high places of the field,’ while he ‘sat 
 still at the haven of the sea, and abode by his 
 creeks’ (Jg 5!7- 18), The decline of Asher was so 
 rapid that the name does not appear in the list of 
 chief rulers in the days of David (1 Ch 27!*-4), He 
 shares with Simeon the reproach of having given 
 no hero, judge, or ruler to Israel. Not wholl 
 lost, a few from Asher with others from Manasse 
 and Zebulun ‘humbled themselves and came to 
 Jerusalem’ in response to the call of Hezekiah 
 (2 Ch 30"), Of this tribe was the saintly Anna, 
 whose lofty piety sheds a ray of glory upon the 
 family in the gathering evening of the nation’s 
 life (Lk 255-8), 
 
 We cannot accurately trace the boundaries of 
 the territory of Asher. Even if the towns appor- 
 tioned to it (Jos 19%!) Jg 1-33; see also Jos 
 17! 11) were all identified, which they are not, 
 the difficulty would remain. Each town carried 
 with it the land belonging to its citizens, the 
 limits of which it is impossible to determine. 
 Dor, the modern Tanturah, on the seacoast S. of 
 Carmel, although inhabited by Manasseh, was in 
 the lot of Asher (Jos 17'11), Nahr ez-Zerka, 
 known also as the ‘ Crocodile River,’ would there- 
 fore form a natural boundary to the south. The 
 border may then have passed over the S.E. 
 shoulder of Carmel. Touching the western point 
 of Esdraelon, the territory of Issachar, it pro- 
 ceeded northward in an irregular line, at a 
 distance of eight to ten miles from the sea, 
 skirting the western edge of Zebulun and Naph- 
 tali. early opposite Tyre, probably, it bent 
 eastward, taking in a large part of what is now 
 called Beldd Beshdrah and Beldd esh-Shukif, 
 turning seaward again in the direction of Sidon. 
 This agrees with the account of Josephus (And. 
 v. i, 22), ‘The tribe of Aser had that part which 
 is called the Valley [by which he evidently means 
 the low land along the seaboard], even all that 
 part which lay over against Sidon.’ This includes 
 much of the finest and most fruitful land in 
 Palestine. Grain, excellent in quantity and 
 quality, is grown on the Phoenician plains. The 
 orchards of Acre and the orange groves of Sidon 
 are justly held in high repute. Even in the decay 
 of the country it continues to yield ‘ royal dainties,’ 
 many tons of oil being sent annually to the palaces 
 in Constantinople, the produce of these deep, rich 
 valleys in Upper Galilee, where the hardy pecs 
 cultivate the olive as of old. W. Ewina. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oe eee a 
 
ees) 
 at 
 
 Ss 
 Ay 
 
 * 
 is 
 24 
 B? 
 a. 
 
 
 
 ASHERAH 
 
 ASHERAH (m7wx).—1. A Phoenician and Canaan- 
 ite goddess (Ex 34!8 RVm) (a) the same as or (6) 
 distinct from ‘Ashtéreth. The name occurs (1) in 
 two Pheen. inscriptions, one from Kition, ZDMG 
 xxxv. 424, the other from Ma‘sub, Rev. Archéo- 
 logique (1885), v. 380. In the first, as read by 
 Schréder, one ‘Abdosir dedicates a statue to ‘the 
 Mother ’Ashérah.’ The second speaks of ‘‘Ash- 
 toreth in the ’Ashérah’; (2) in the Tel el-Amarna 
 inscriptions (RP 2nd Ser. ii. 67, iii. 71, v. 97, vi. 
 50). In these mention is made of one ‘Abad- 
 *Ashrat, t.e. Servant of ’Ashrat, and the latter word 
 is said to be emphasized as a divine name (Schrader, 
 Leitsch. fir Assyr. iii. [1888] 364) ; (3) in the OT, 
 Jg 3’ ‘the children of Israel... served the 
 Baalim and the Asheroth’; 1 K 15%=2 Ch 1516 
 *‘Maacah... made an abominable image for an 
 Asherah’?; 1 K 18% ‘the prophets of the 
 Asherah’; 2 K 217 Manasseh ‘set the graven 
 image of Asherah’ in the temple; 234 ‘vessels 
 that were made for Baal and for the Asherah’; 
 23° Josiah ‘brought out the Asherah from the 
 house of the Lord’; 237 ‘the women wove hang- 
 ings for the Asherah.’ (For’Ashérah as a goddess, 
 see Kuenen, Rel. of Israel, ii. 88; Movers, Die 
 Phénizier, i. 560; Sayce, HCM 81.) 
 
 But the existence of this goddess is a disputed 
 oint. The evidence, it must be admitted, is very 
 imited, and not decisive. With regard to the 
 
 Phen. sources, the word on the Kition inscription 
 supposed to represent ’Ashérah is differently read 
 by Stade, 7A WP (1881) 344 f., and in the C/S i. 1.13; 
 whilst the phrase in the Masub inscription is 
 obscure, ans can be explained in different ways 
 
 (Halévy, Rev. des Etudes Juives, xii. 110; Hoffmann, 
 Ueber einige Phon. Inschr. 26 ff.). Again, the value 
 of the evidence of the Tel el-Amarna inscriptions 
 pen this point is as yet uncertain (Nowack, Hed. 
 
 reh. ii. 307, n. 2; W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. 173 n). 
 And, lastly, the OT passages are perhaps best ex- 
 lained by supposing that the compilers of the hist. 
 oks misunderstood the term ’Ashérah, and con- 
 fused it with ‘Ashtodreth (Stade, Gesch. des Volkes 
 Isr. i. 460; Nowack, p. 19; W. R. Smith, p. 173; 
 Montefiore, Hibbert Lect. 89). 
 
 2. A sacred tree or pole. The ordinary furni- 
 ture of a Can. high-place or shrine consisted of the 
 altar, near to which stood a stone pillar or Mazzé- 
 bah, and a sacred tree or ’Ashérah, 1 K 14%, 2 K 
 184. For an altar and an ’Ashérah of Baal, cf. 
 Jg 6%-%, When the Israelite invaders appro- 
 
 riated for their own religious worship the 
 igh-places of the Canaanites, they adopted also 
 the Mazgzébahs and ’Ashérahs, Mic 5!}4, Is 178 
 97°, Jer 177, 1 K 14%, 2 K 17716 Not until the 
 centralisation of the cultus at Jerus., carried out 
 by Josiah, did the high-places, and with them the 
 pillars and sacred trees, become illegal, Dt 167. 
 
 An idea of the appearance aad nature of an 
 *Ashérah may be obtained from a comparison of 
 some of the passages in which the word occurs. 
 It was a tree, or stump of a tree, planted in the 
 earth, Dt 162; it could be artificially made, Is 
 178, 1 K 14° 16%; it was made of wood, Jg 6%; 
 it might receive an image-like form, 1 K 15!8; it 
 could be ‘cut down,’ Ex 34!%, ‘plucked up,’ Mic 
 64, ‘burnt,’ Dt 12%, or ‘broken in pieces,’ 2 Ch 
 344, What are supposed to be representations of 
 such sacred trees may be seen in Rawlinson’s 
 An ient Monarchies, ii. 37, or in Nowack, ii. 19. 
 
 The original signification of the ‘Ashérahs 
 is not clear. Some have held that they were 
 symbols either of a supposed goddess ’Ashérah 
 (Kuenen, Rel. Isr. ii. 75, 88, 247), or of ‘Ashtoreth 
 (Baethgen, Beitrdge, 218f.; Oettli on Jg 37 in 
 Strack and Ziéckler’s Kurzgefasster Momm.). 
 Others believe them to have been connected with 
 Phallic worship (Movers, Collins, PSBA, June 
 
 ASHIMA 165 
 
 4, 1889, 291; M. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Cyprus, the 
 Bible, and Homer, 146, 170); but against this, 
 see W. R. Smith, p. 437. Perhaps the most probable 
 view is that which sees in the ’Ashérahs a survival 
 of tree-worship, whilst the Mazzébahs represent a 
 survival of stone-worship (W. R. Smith, p. 169; 
 Stade, Gesch. i. 460 ff.; Pietschmann, Gesch. der 
 Phomizier, 213; Nowack, ii. 19). 
 
 The rendering ‘grove’ (plu. ‘groves,? RV 
 Asherim) of AV comes from LXX d)oos, a trans. 
 which, though possible in some cases, is obviously 
 inappropriate in others, e.g. 1 K 143 1518 2 K 238, 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Driver on Dt. 1621; Moore on Jg 37 6%; and 
 the reff. above. Fora fresh attempt to connect tree and pillar 
 veneration with Phallic worship, see Trumbull, The Threshold 
 Covenant (1896), p. 228 ff. W.C. ALLEN. 
 
 ASHES.—1. ‘Sackcloth and ashes’ are, in OT, 
 Apocer., and NT alike, the familiar tokens of humi- 
 liation and penitence, generally accompanied b 
 fasting (Job 42°, Is 58°, Dn 9%, Jon 3%, Est 4}, Jt 
 44,1 Mac 3%, Mt 117, Lk 10% ete.). Ashes were 
 also, with earth and dust, the usual signs of mourn- 
 ing, 28 1%, Job 28-13, Jer 6%, Is 61%, In both cases 
 the penitent or mourner took the ashes and cast 
 them with ee gesture ‘toward heaven,’ so 
 that they fell on his person, and especially on his 
 head, a custom not confined to the Hebrews (cf. 
 Iliad, xviii. 23 ff.). In extreme cases the mourner 
 sat upon a heap of ashes (Job 28). References to the 
 custom are freq. in Scripture (see, in addition to 
 passages already quoted, Job 2!? 428, Jer 67, Ezk 
 27”, Est 4°, Jth 4" 91, 1 Mac 347 4%), The priests 
 in times of great affliction seem to have put ashes 
 on their ‘mitres,’ Jth 4% Ashes upon the head 
 were also a sign of physical humiliation and dis- 
 grace (2 S 13%, Ezk 2818, Mal 43). Ashes are used 
 in OT, alone or with ‘dust,’ * as a natural synonym 
 of worthlessness and insignificance, Gn 1827, Is 44”, 
 Job 13” (proverbs of ashes= worthless, trashy pro- 
 verbs) 30", Sir 10%. 2. The same term (15x, o7r0dés) 
 is employed in Nu 19%! (P) to denote the mixture 
 composed of the ashes proper of the red heifer and 
 those of ‘cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet,’ and 
 used for the preparation of the so-called ‘water 
 of separation.’ See PURIFICATION, RED HEIFER. 
 3. The priestly term. tech. for the ashes of the 
 animals burnt in sacrifice is 1¥3 (lit. fatness, LX X 
 meérns), Ly 11° 4 6-11 (P); the corresponding verb 
 denotes the clearing away of the accumulated fat 
 ashes, Ex 27°, Nu 45. See TABERNACLE. 4%. The 
 word rendered ‘ashes’ in Ex 981° (m5 of uncertain 
 origin, and only found here) more probably signifies 
 ‘soot,’ as in the m. of RV. See Commentaries. 
 5. In 1 K 20%: 41 ‘ashes’ in AV is a mistranslation, 
 from a confusion of 72x, a bandage, with 758 ashes ; 
 RV correctly, ‘with his head-band over his eyes.’ 
 For the use of ashes in the preparation of bread, 
 see BREAD. . R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 ASHHUR (1nvx, AV Ashur).—The ‘father’ of 
 Tekoa (1 Ch 2* 45), See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ASHIMA (xox, 2 K 17).—A deity of the 
 Hamathites, who introduced its worship into 
 Samaria, when settled there by Sargon in place 
 of the exiled Israelites. Many conjectures have 
 been made as to its identity, but none has been 
 generally accepted. Jewish tradition has repre- 
 sented it as a hairless goat, or, again, as a cat 
 to which the ram of the guilt-offering was sacri- 
 ficed. Similarity of sound has led to comparison 
 with the Pers. asmdn, Zend. azmano, heaven, with 
 Eshmun, the eighth of the Phen. Kabirim, and 
 with the Bab. Tashmetu, goddess of revelation, 
 
 *Ges. Lex. (12th ed.), following Barth’s suggested connexion 
 (Etym. Stud. 20) of 7X with Arab. ghibar ‘dust,’ would render 
 by ‘dust’ in all the passages above, by ‘a.’ only in Nu 199. 10, 
 
 
 
166 ASHKELON 
 
 
 
 aon. 
 
 wife of Nebo. As Hamath was occupied by the 
 Hittites, the name very possibly is of Hittite origin. 
 J. MILLAR. 
 ASHKELON (j\9pvx, in AV Eshkalon, Jos 13°; 
 Askelon, Jg 138, 1S 6", 2S 1”; Ashkelon, Jer 25” 
 477, Am 18, Zeph 24, Zec 9°; in Apocr. Ascalon both 
 AV and RV).—One of the five chief cities of Phil- 
 istia, between Joppa and Gaza, standing on low clifis 
 close to the shore, and without a harbour. It con- 
 tinued to be under the rule of native chiefs or 
 kings down to the Greek period. It is first noticed 
 monumentally in the Tel el-Amarna tablets, about 
 B.C. 1480-1450, the inhabitants being said to have 
 offered tribute to the Khabiri. Letters in this 
 collection from Yamir-Dagan and Dagan-takala, 
 chiefs of Ashkelon, subject to the Pharaoh, show 
 the early worship of Dagon among its inhabitants. 
 A. was reconquered in the 14th cent. B.c. by 
 Ramses 1. In the 7th cent. B.c. its king is noticed 
 as a tributary of Esarhaddon, and of Assurbani- 
 al, and was named Mitinti. It was captured by 
 onathan, brother of Judas Maccabeus (1 Mac 
 10% 11%), Herod the Great was born at A., and 
 beautified it with new buildings (Jos. Wars, I. xxi. 
 11). In the 4th cent. A.D. it became a bishopric, 
 and was conquered by the Moslems in the 7th cent. 
 The Crusaders took it in 1153, and it submitted 
 to Saladin in 1187. The latter demolished its 
 walls in 1191, but they were rebuilt by Richard 
 ‘ Lion-Heart’ next year, and subsequently again 
 destroyed by agreement with Saladin At the 
 present day the ruins of these later walls enclose 
 only gardens supplied by wells and half-covered 
 with sand. The modern name is ‘Askelan. A 
 curious bas-relief, representing Ashtoreth with two 
 attendants, has been excavated in the ruins, and a 
 gigantic statue Pee Roman) was found and 
 destroyed by Lady Hester Stanhope. Until the 
 13th cent. A.D. A. was an important fortress in all 
 ages, and a depot on the trade route to Egypt. 
 See SWP vol. iii. sheet xvi. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 ASHKENAZ (132¥x, Gn 108, 1 Ch 15).—The eldest 
 son of Gomer, giving name to a Japhethite people, 
 referred to along with Ararat and Minni in Jer 
 51%’, and therefore apparently in or near Armenia, 
 somewhere between the Black and the Caspian 
 Seas. Ashken is an Armenian proper name, and 
 az is an Armenian name ending. Ascanios, the 
 Homeric hero, was a Phrygian, while there is an 
 Ascanian lake in Phrygia as well as in Bithynia. 
 Later tradition associates the name of Scandinavia 
 with that of this race. See F. W. Schultz in 
 Herzog, art. ‘Gomer,’ vol. v. 271 f., and comm. on 
 Gn 108 by Delitzsch and Dillmann. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 ASHNAH (73x). The name of two towns of 
 Judah. 1. Jos 15°83, near Zorah; the site is 
 unknown. 2. Jos 15%, near Nezib, farther south 
 than the preceding, also unknown. In the Ono- 
 masticon @ village, Asan, is noticed, 15 (or, in the 
 Greek, 16) miles from Jerusalem. The direction 
 is not stated, and it may be the Heb. Jeshanah, 
 though identified with Ashan. C. R. CoNnDER. 
 
 ASHPENAZ (135¢x, etym. uncertain).—The chief 
 of Nebuchadrezzar’s eunuchs (Dn 1°). 
 
 ASHTAROTH (ninpy, in .orm the plural of 
 Ashtéreth; cf. ‘Andthoth from ‘Andth; the name 
 is no doubt an indication that the place was once 
 a notable seat of the worship of ‘Ashtoreth),—A 
 place mentioned in OT as (with Edre'i) one of 
 the two royal cities of ‘Og, the king of Bashan (Dt 
 14, Jos 91° 124 131-81), and as a Levitical city (1 Ch 
 67 () ; the parallel text Jos 2177 has BE ESHTERAH, 
 i.e. probably House, or Temple, of ‘Ashtoreth) 
 assigned (according to P) to the Gershonites. So 
 
 ASHTAROTH 
 
 far as the biblical dat« go, ‘Ashtaroth might be 
 
 identical with ‘Ashteroth-Karnaim (the name being 
 merely abbreviated from it); if, however, the 
 statements of Euseb. (in the Onom.) be correct, the 
 two places were distinct. In the Onom., namely. 
 we read: ‘(1) Ashtaroth Karnaim: there are still 
 two villages [of this name] in Bashan, 9 miles 
 distant from each other, between Adara (Edre'i) 
 and Abila (p. 209, Lag.). (2) <Ashtaroth: an 
 ancient city of Og, in Bashan, 6 miles from Adara 
 (p. 213). (3) Karnaim Ashtaroth: now a lar; 
 
 village in the corner [see Jerome, p. 108, 18] of 
 Bashan, where the traditional dwelling of Job is 
 shown (p. 268).’ Now, an ancient tradition (see 
 Wetzstein in the App. to Delitzsch’s Hiod (E. tr. ii. 
 397 ff.; ed. 2, p. 552 ff.) places'Uz, the fatherland of 
 Job, in this region; at the top of a long, low hill, 16 
 miles N.N.W. of Edre'i, on which stands the 
 village of Sa‘diye (also called Sheikh Sad), is a 
 mosque, containing the Sakhret Ayyub, or Job’s 
 Stone, a monolith of basalt, against which, 
 according to the legend reported by Arab. writers, 
 the patriarch leaned as he sat on the ground and 
 received his friends (see Wetzst. p. 563, and 
 Schumacher, Across the Jordan, pp. 189-191, with 
 plans and cuts) ; at the foot of the hill, from what 
 is supposed to be the spot where, at the close of his 
 sufferings, Job stamped his foot (cf. Kor. 38%*-), 
 gushes forth the beautiful ‘Job’s Spring,’ the 
 waters of which, after flowing a short distance, are 
 conducted to the Hammam Ayyub, or Job’s Bath, 
 reputed to possess healing virtues (Wetzst. p. 
 562; Schum. p. 193 f. ; also PE FSt, 1895, p. 180) ; 
 slightly to the S. of this, Wetzstein (p. 561 f.) 
 saw the Makdm Ayyub, or Tomb of Job; a 
 little farther S., about # of a mile from Sheikh 
 Sad, at a government settlement now called 
 El-Merkez, there was, until recently (for its 
 place is now occupied by barracks), a Dér Ayyub, 
 or Monastery of Job, the foundation of which is 
 assigned by Abulfeda (Hist. anteis/., ed. Fleischer, 
 p. 128) to the Ghassanide prince ‘Amr I. in the 
 3rd cent. A.D. (Wetzst. pp. 564-566; Schum. p. 
 196 ; Socin in Bid. Pal.? 303: Schum. p. 197 also 
 describes here a Makadm Ayyub, or Tomb of Job, 
 which is not mentioned ne Wetzst.; but van 
 Kasteren, ZDPV, 1893, pp. 200-204, declares this 
 building to be not 30 years old, and argues that 
 the site of the Makim must have been changed 
 since Wetzstein saw it in 1858). All these Job- 
 antiquities are frequently mentioned by Arab. 
 v. Kast. l.c.). The 
 
 described more fully by Schumacher in the ZDPV, 
 1892, 1421. (with photographs): the representa- 
 tion of an Egyp. king worshipping before a deity 
 can be traced upon it, together with characters, 
 which Erman (id. 18938, 205 ff.) reads as Wesr-ma'- 
 Re’, ‘chosen of Re’,’ the official title of Ramses Il. 
 (19th dynasty); it is consequently in reality 
 a monument of the age when the Egyp. kings 
 held rule over Syria. Further, only 24 miles 
 S.S.W. of Sheikh Sa‘d there is a hill, Tell ‘Ashtera 
 
 (\ iuA.c), rising about 80 ft. above the surrounding 
 4 
 
 plain, and watered at its foot by the same copious 
 stream spoken of above as having its source in 
 ‘Job’s Spring,’ and here called Moyet en-Neb 
 Ayyub (‘stream of the prophet Job’). Tell 
 ‘Ashteraé was a military centre in the Middle Ages 
 (Néldeke, ‘Zur Topogr. u. Gesch. der Hauran- 
 gegend,’ ZDMG, 1875, p. 431, with the references) ; 
 and there are remains of fortifications around the 
 summit, together with massive blocks of stone at 
 
 
 
ye ee Oe a a ee ee 
 
 a eee ay 
 
 aa 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tia ee ee es ee 
 
 ASHTAROTH 
 
 ASIITORETH 167 
 
 
 
 its S. and S.W. base, running up the hill to meet 
 the wali at the top, all of a character betokening 
 an early age (Merrill, Hast of Jordan, 329 f. ; cf. 
 Schum. Across the Jordan, p. 209). There is a 
 strong presumption that the ‘ Karnaim Ashtaroth ’ 
 of Euseb. was one of these localities ; and Wetzst. 
 (p. 575; Eng. tr. p. 427), Guthe (ZDP V, 1890, p. 235), 
 and v. Kasteren (2. 1891, p. 213), all identify the 
 biblical ‘Ashteroth-Karnaim with Tell 'Ashtera,— 
 the last named scholar, who interprets (after Wetzst. ) 
 the name as Righitying’ Ashtaroth near Karnaim (cf. 
 Moresheth-Gath, etc.), supposing, further, that 
 Karnaim (which Euseb. connects closely with Job’s 
 home) was at Sheikh Sa‘d, though owning (7d. 1893, 
 p. 197 f.) that this site is hardly so inaccessible as 
 ‘Karnaim’ is described as being, in 2 Mac 12”). 
 
 If, however, this was the ‘ Karnaim Ashtaroth’ 
 of Euseb., where was his ‘ Ashtaroth’? Just 94 
 miles south of Sheikh Sa‘d, and 64 (Schum.) — 
 or 8 (Stiibel’s map, ZDPV, 1890, Heft 4) — 
 miles N.W. of Edrei,—almost exactly, therefore, 
 at the distances assigned by Enuseb.,—is the 
 village of Hl-Mezeirib—situated on the great 
 pilgrim-track (the Derb el-Haj) between Daimas- 
 cus and Mecca, and the first halting-place of the 
 pilgrims after leaving Damascus. A Va descrip- 
 tion, and view will be found in Schumacher, pp. 
 157-166. The situation of El-Mezeirib gives it 
 importance: an annual fair is held there at the 
 time ef the Mecca-pilgrimage: the ancient city 
 (which lies in the centre of a small lake) ‘ must 
 have been once a strongly fortified place,’ and the 
 ruins and huge basaltic Mocks, scattered about the 
 shores of the lake, ‘seem to be the remains of pre- 
 Mohammedan buildings’ (Schum. p. 165). This 
 may well be the ‘ Ashtaroth’ of Euseb. (so Buhl, 
 Topogr. des Noérdl. Ostjordanlandes, 1894, p. 16). 
 Wheitner, however, it is the biblical ‘Ashtaroth, 
 the residence of ‘Og, is less certain. There is a 
 site, 44 miles S. of Tell ‘Ashtera, and 11 miles 
 N.W. of Edre'i, called Yell el-Ash'‘ari, which, 
 though no argument in favour of the identi- 
 fication can drawn from the Arab. name 
 (which is radically different from ‘Ashterd), is 
 preferred by others (eg. v. Kasteren, ZDPV, 
 1891, p. 213), and which is adapted, by its 
 situation (see the description ander ASHTEROTH- 
 KARNAIM; and for a view, Oliphant, Land of 
 Gilead, 87 f., where the name is wrongly spelt 
 Asherah), fora royal stronghold. On the whole, 
 there is a reasonable probability that Tell ‘Ashtera 
 is one of the two ‘Ashtaroths (if there were two), 
 and that either El-Mezeirtb or Tell el-’Ash‘ari was 
 the other. And if Euseb. distinguishes the two 
 laces correctly (though in calling both Ashtaroth 
 aim he shows confusion), the former was‘ Ash- 
 teroth-Karnaim, and one of the latter ‘Ashtaroth. 
 Others identify Tell ‘Ashtera with ‘Ashtaroth, and 
 either Tell el-’Ash‘ari (Oliphant, Schum. pp. 207 f., 
 209) or Mezeirib (Buhl) with ‘Ashteroth-Karnaim : 
 this is opposed to Euseb., and we do not know, as 
 Schum. tacitly assumes, that ‘Ashteroth-Karnaim 
 was a more considerable place than ‘Og’s capital, 
 ‘Ashtaroth ; but it seems to have the adyantage of 
 providing for Karnaim a site more nearly agreeing 
 with the description in 2 Mac 127). : 
 
 The antiquity of ‘Ashtaroth (if the name be read 
 and identified correctly) is attested independently 
 
 by Egyp. and Assyr. inscriptions: an Astertu 
 occurs in the list of places in Southern 
 Syria conquered by Tahutmes II., of the 18th 
 dynasty, in his twenty-second year (Tomkins, 
 
 SBA ix. 262, and in RP? v. 45, No, 28; W. Max 
 Miiller, Asien u. Eur. nach altdg. Denkm. p. 162; 
 ef, Wiedemann, Ag. Gesch. 348 f., 371); and an 
 Ashtarti is mertioned in the correspondence, from 
 Pal., with Amendphis Iv. (15th cent. B.C.) as 
 having been in the possession of the Egyptians, 
 
 and being seized by rebels (Bezold and Budge, Tha 
 Tel el-Amarna Tablets in the Brit. Mus., Nos. 43, 
 64; cf. Sayce, Patriarchal Age, 1895, pp. 133, 153). 
 The writers named identify these places with 
 ‘Ashteroth-Karnaim ; but they may equally well 
 have been the later capital of ‘Og, ‘Ashtaroth 
 (supposing this to have been distinct). 
 S. R. DRIVER. 
 
 ASHTEROTH-KARNAIM (o:772 niravy Ashtaroth® 
 of the two horns).—This is given in the Sam. Targ. 
 as onp myoy t+ ‘‘Aphinith Karnaim,’ and in the 
 Arab. vs of Saadya as ‘Es-Sanamain.’ It is a site 
 of hoary age. The Rephaim were there smitten 
 by Chedorlaomer (Gn 14°). Under this name it is 
 seen no more in canon. Scrip. ; but it appears as 
 ‘Carnaim’ or ‘Carnion’ in the Books of Mac. It 
 is a city ‘great and strong’ (1 Mac 5%), It is ‘hard 
 to besiege, and difficult of access, by reason of the 
 narrowness of the approaches on all sides’ (RV 
 2 Mac 127), Judas Maccabeus took the city by 
 assault. The inhabitants took refuge in the great 
 temple of Atargatis, an idol resembling Dagon of 
 the Philistines ; by some also identified with the 
 Gr. Astarte. There some five and twenty thousand 
 were slain, and the temple itself was destroyed. 
 
 The distinction between Ashtaroth and Ashteroth- 
 Karnaim, indicated in the Onomasticon, is con- 
 firmed by the existence of two sites bearin 
 similar names, Tell ‘Ashteré and Tell ’Ash'ars. 
 Eusebius and Jerome describe Ashteroth-Karnaim 
 as vicus grandis in angulo Batanee, distin- 
 guishing two villages of the same name, 9 miles 
 apart, which lay inter Adaram et Abilam civitates. 
 From Tell ’Ash‘ari, Der‘ah (Adara) is distant 11 
 miles to the S.E., and Adil (Abila) 14 miles 
 to the S.W., while Zell ‘Ashterd is about 5 
 miles N. Tell ’Ash‘ari is @ position of great 
 strength. On one side is the deep gorge of the 
 Yarmuk, on the other extends a great chasm at 
 the head of which is a waterfall. Built on this 
 projecting headland the city was protected on the 
 only side open to attack by a triple wall, traces of 
 which still remain. There are ruins of a temple 
 beside a bridge which spans the Yarmuk lower down, 
 possibly that destroyed by Judas. Tell ‘Ashterd, 
 standing in the plain, although once girt b 
 mighty walls, could never have been a place of suc 
 strength as this. The question of identification 
 can be settled only by excavation. The Sam. 
 Aphinith, which may be'Afineh on Jebel Haurdn, 
 not far from eth (Waddington, No. 2296-7), 
 and the Arab. Hs-Sanamain on the Haj road, 
 south of Damascus, 20 m. N.N.E. of Tell ‘Ashtera, 
 are palpably impossible. W. EwINa. 
 
 ASHTORETH (nyRvy. plur. nteyy ‘Ashtdroth).— 
 The principal goddess of the Sidonians (1 K 115-%, 
 2 K 231%), and a prominent goddess among the 
 Phenicians gaieiallsa in whose honour Solomon 
 built a high-place on the hills opposite the temple 
 (l.cc.), who is stated (by different Deut. writers) 
 to have been worshipped previously by the un- 
 dpelare Israelites, Te 23 108, 1 S 7%* 12! —all 
 ur., ‘Ba‘al (or the Ba‘als) and the ‘Ashtoreths,’ 
 t.¢. ‘Ashtoreths distinguished by the places at 
 which they were worshipped, or by special attri- 
 butes,—and in whose temple at Ashkelon (1 S 
 31°)t the Philistines deposited the armour of 
 Saul. The true pronunciation of the word was 
 robably ‘Ashtart (cf. LXX and other Gr, writers, 
 Acrdprn): ‘Ashtoreth (cf. Molech for Milk) perhaps 
 arose by malicious substitution of the vowels of 
 
 * As pointed by the Massoretes, Ashtéroth is the construct 
 state of Ashtaroth, the plural of Ashtéreth. 
 
 + So Petermann’s MS A: Petermann’s text, however, hag 
 Dp nanwy; and Walton’s Polyglott reads WIP n°s"py. 
 
 t Read ‘house (i.¢. temple) of ‘Ashtdreth’: cf. LXX as v2 
 
 *Acraprisoy. 
 
168 ASHTORETH 
 
 bosheth, ‘shame.’ ‘Ashtart is frequently mentioned 
 in Pheen. inscriptions, and is an element in numer- 
 ous Phen. proper names. Tabnith, king of Sidon, 
 styles both himself and his father Eshmun‘azar 1., 
 priest of ‘Ashtart ; and in his sepulchral inscription 
 places his tomb under her protection, declaring 
 that its violation would be an ‘abomination to 
 Ashtart’ (see the Inscr. in full in Driver, Notes on 
 Samuel, p. xxvi). Eshmun‘azar, son of the Tabnith 
 just mentioned, and his mother Am'‘ashtart, 
 ‘priestess of ‘Ashtart, our lady (jn25),’ state that 
 they have built a house (temple) for ‘Ashtart in 
 Sidon (CIS I. i. 3'%16), This was probably the 
 great temple of ’Aordpry in Sidon, which Lucian 
 visited (de Dea Syria, § 4). Besides, however, 
 this temple which was dedicated to ‘Ashtart, as 
 patron-goddess of Sidon, Eshmun‘azar and his 
 mother built another in honour of a second 
 ‘Ashtart, bearing the title of Sya ow ‘name of 
 Baal’ (7b. 1. 18).* So again Bod‘ashtart, another 
 king of Sidon, builds a temple nminvy *5x> ‘to his 
 god ‘Ashtart’ (2b. 45). It is in accordance with the 
 leading position thus accorded to ‘Ashtart at Sidon 
 that on Sidonian coins the goddess is often figured 
 standing on the prow of a galley, with her right 
 hand, holding a erown, stretched forward, as though 
 pointing the vessel on its way.t 
 
 According to Menander, as reported by Jos. (Ant. 
 vill. v. 3; ¢. Ap. i. 18), Hiram built in Tyre a 
 Soke to Herakles (Melkart), and afterwards one 
 to ‘Ashtart, whose priest was Ithobal, Jezebel’s 
 father: in Tyre, however, Melkart was the principal 
 god, and ‘Ashtart took the second place. The 
 worship of ‘Ashtart is also widely attested in the 
 Pheen. colonies on the coasts and islands of the 
 Mediterranean, esp. in Cyprus, Sicily, and Car- 
 thage. At Kiti (Kition) in Cyprus we read of an 
 image erected by a worshipper ninvyd nad ‘to his 
 lady, to ‘Ashtart’ (CIS 1 11); from the same 
 
 locality we have an Inscription (16. 86) giving par- 
 
 tic ulars of the provision made for the service of her 
 temple, including builders, door-keepers, barbers, 
 scribes, and other attendants. In Gul (Gaulus, 
 near Malta) we hear of a ninwy na w7pp, or ‘sanctu- 
 ary of the tome of ‘Ashtart’ (CJS ib. 1382); and 
 her worship at Eryx, in Sicily, is attested by two 
 Inscriptions, one found in Eryx itself, the other 
 from Sardinia, beginning with the words, ‘To the 
 lady, to ‘Ashtart,’tand ‘To ‘Ashtart of Erekh,’ 
 respectively. At Carthage, one‘Abdmelkart styles 
 himself (1b. 255) ‘servant of ‘Ashtart, the glorious 
 (nvixn)’; and we read (7b. 263) of Am'‘ashtart wx 
 nainvy wx noya ‘who is of the people of the men of 
 ‘Ashtart,’ t.e¢. who belonged to the people attached 
 tohertemple. Of names compounded with ‘Ashtart 
 we find Am‘ashtart (¢b. 314 a/.), and Ammath'‘ashtart 
 (46° al.), ‘handmaid of ‘A.’; Ger‘ashtart, ‘client 
 [Cheyne on Ps 151] of ‘A.’ (138? and often); 
 ‘Abd'ashtart, ‘servant of ‘A.’ (115'),§ usually con- 
 tracted to Bod'‘ashtart (475 35° and very often); 
 ‘Ashtartyathan, ‘‘A. has given’ (721+2); see further 
 references in Bloch, Phan. Glossar (1891).|| 
 
 * Name=manifestation (cf. Ex 234, Dt 124, etc.). Others, 
 however (as Halévy, E. Meyer, Dillm., Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. 
 307), render ‘ Ba‘al’s Celestial ‘Ashtart’ (cf. below), pronouncing 
 bY; and in1.16 group the letters into DIN ODw nanwy ‘'Ashtart 
 of the glorious heavens.’ 
 
 Cf. B. V. Head, Hist. Numorum, p. 678; Babelon, Les Rois 
 de Syrie, p. cxliii, 152, 162, with the two spirited representa- 
 tions, Plate xxii. 6 and 22. The goddess is also represented on 
 the coins of other Phen. cities, as Aradus, Berytus, Botrys, 
 Byblus, Tyre, etc. (Head, U.c. pp. 668, 669, 674, 676). 
 
 t Followed by the words nm 7hn, t.¢. (probably) ‘of long 
 life,’ an epithet of the goddess, whence it has been plausibly 
 conjectured that the city Eryx—on inscriptions and coins (CIS 
 L i. p. 1738) J7N—received its name. 
 
 § The name also of Hiram’s grandson (Jos. 6. Ap. 1. 18,— 
 "“ABdaorparoe). 
 
 || With the precedfng paragraph cf. Bathgen, Sem. Rel.-Gesch. 
 1883, pp. 31-37. 
 
 ASHTORETH 
 
 Although, however, ‘Ashtart was thus a dis. 
 tinctively Pheen. goddess, Phoenicia was not her 
 original home. he prototype of ‘Ashtart was 
 Ishtar, a deity who had for long held a conspicuous 
 
 lace in the Pantheon of Assyria, and who was 
 ocalised, with special attributes, in many different 
 cities of Assyria and Babylonia.* In a prayer of 
 Asshurnazirpal, purporting to date ¢. 1800 B.c., 
 Ishtar of Nineveh is addressed by him as ‘queen of 
 the gods, into whose hands are delivered the com- 
 mands of the great gods, lady (dilit) of Nineveh... 
 daughter of Sin (the moon-god), sister of Shamash 
 (the sun-god), who rules all kingdoms, who de- 
 termines lecteoe the goddess of the universe, lad 
 of heaven and earth, who hears petitions, hee 
 sighs, the merciful goddess who loves justice’ ; he, 
 her ‘ priest-king,’ protests that she had called him 
 to his throne, “A had restored and beautified her 
 temple ; and he calls upon her now to hear his cry, 
 and to heal him in his sickness. Other monarc 
 (Shalmaneser II., Sennacherib, etc.) place Ishtar 
 next to Asshur, and speak of both together as 
 marching at their side, directing them in their 
 wars, and giving them victory over their foes. 
 Esarhaddon, for instance, says,t ‘Ishtar, the lady 
 of onslaught and battle, who loves my priest- 
 hood, stood at my side and brake their bows.’ 
 Shalmaneser I. also styles her ‘ princess (rishti) of 
 heaven and earth’;+ and Esarhaddon calls her 
 equees (sharrat) of all.’§ Another aspect of 
 Ishtar’s character is brought before us in the 
 curious mythological poem, which recounts her 
 descent into the Underworld in search of the heal- 
 ing waters which should restore to life her bride- 
 groom Tammuz, the young and beautiful Sun-god, 
 slain by the cruel hand of winter. Here it is 
 related how, as she journeys towards the realm of 
 Allat, queen of the dead, ‘ the land without return, 
 the house of darkness,’ she is stripped in succession, 
 as she passes its seven gates, of all her attire, her 
 crown, ee earrings, her necklace, her mantle, her 
 girdle, her bracelets, and her tunic: while she 
 is there all intercourse between male and 
 female ceases in the animal creation; at last, 
 at Ea’s command, she is released, her adorn- 
 ments are restored to her, and she returns to 
 earth. Here Ishtar, who is evidently conceived 
 as the goddess of fertility and productiveness, 
 symbolises, it seems, the lifegiving earth, which 
 loses, one by one, its adornments as it passes 
 into the dark prison-house of winter, to have 
 them restored to it at springtime, as nature 
 eyo with the returning love of the youthful 
 sun-god.|| 
 
 Another Ishtar is Ishtar of Arbela, daughter of 
 Asshur, and sister of Marduk, styled by Esar- 
 haddon ‘lady of ladies, terrible in onslaught, lady 
 of battle, queen of the gods,’ a martial goddess, 
 who appears to Asshurbanipal in a vision, armed 
 with quivers and a bow, and brandishing a sword, 
 and promises him victory against his foes. Ishtar 
 of. Uruk (Krekh) plays an important part in the 
 legend of Izdubar (Gilgamish): when the hero has 
 delivered Uruk from an: Elamites, who have been 
 besieging it, and won for himself the crown, Ishtar 
 offers him her hand: he refuses it, reproaching her 
 with the levity with which she bal chosen and 
 
 * The following quotations from Assyr. sources are taken from 
 G. A. Barton’s study, ‘The Semitic Ishtar Oult,’ in Hebraica, 
 April-July, 1893, and Oct. 1893-Jan. 1894, where the ino 
 in which they occur are translated at length. Cf. also Tiele, 
 Bab,.-Ass. Gesch. 526-528. Nana is also identified with Ishtar ; 
 but it has not seemed necessary, for the purpose of the preseut 
 article, to pursue this subject. 
 
 i Scheeder KATA 117 (on Jg 213), 
 
 $ Schrader, p. 117 (on Jg 
 
 § KAT2 33317, 
 
 || The poem may be read also in Sayce’s Hibbert Lectures, 
 P. 221 ff.; or in A, Jeremias, Die Bab.-Ags. Vorstellungen vow 
 
 eben nach dem Tode (1887), p. 10 ff. 
 
 
 

 
 =.) 
 
 7, 
 
 -= 
 
 es 
 
 ees 
 
 Fe hee EPS a laa eal 
 
 
 
 ASHTORETH 
 
 
 
 discarded her former husbands.* Here Ishtar is 
 not only lavish with her love, but appears almost 
 as a polyandrous goddess.+ In other respects the 
 ‘lady ot Uruk’ resembles Ishtar of Nineveh. 
 Ishtar of Babylon is addressed in a hymn as 
 ‘mother of the gods, fulfiller of the commands of 
 Bil, producer Aa verdure, lady of mankind, be- 
 gettress of all, mother Ishtar, whose might no god 
 approaches,’and whose aid and sympathy asuppliant 
 may expect to receive.t This was the goddess 
 under whose protection, in virtue of a singular 
 custom—reported independently by Herodotus (i. 
 199),§ the author of Bar 6, and Strabo (xvi. 1. 20), 
 —the women of Babylon placed themselves by the 
 sacrifice ot their chastity. 
 
 Lastly, Ishtar is identified with the planet 
 Venus: on this aspect of her nature it will be 
 sufficient, however, to refer to the passages trans- 
 lated in Schrader, KAT? on Jg 235, or in Sayce, 
 Hibb. Lect. p. 253 f. (cf. p. 269=Jeremias, Izdubar- 
 Nimrod, p, 62). 
 
 Though Ishtar was thus variously localised, her 
 general attributes remained the same. She occupied 
 a place in the Assyr. Pantheon next to Asshur 
 himself :|| in particular, she was (1) the lady (or 
 mistress) of the locality in which she was wor- 
 shipped ; (2) queen of the gods, and princess of 
 heaven and earth ; (3) a warrior goddess; (4) the 
 goddess of generation and productivity ; (5) she 
 was identified with the planet Venus. These 
 aspects of her nature are retained as her cult 
 travels westwards, sometimes one being more 
 prominent than the other, sometimes several being 
 combined. 7 
 
 From the notices contained in OT itself, it would 
 not be possible to determine the ideas associated 
 with the Phen. ‘Ashtart, or the character of her 
 rites ; but there are many independent indications 
 which make these clear. She must have been pre- 
 eminently the goddess of sexual passion. By 
 Greeks and Pheenicians alike she is habitually 
 identified with "Agpodirn ; and there are sufliciently 
 definite allusions to the unchaste character of the 
 rites with which she was worshipped.** Lucian 
 (De dea Syria, § 4) visited a great temple of Aphro- 
 dite in Byblus (Gebal), in which the rites of Adonis 
 (who corresponded to TAMMUZ, q.v.) were per- 
 formed: here such women as would not shave 
 their hair in commemoration of his burial, were 
 obliged to sell themselves to a stranger, the money 
 received being expended on a sacrifice to Aphrodite 
 (cf. the Bab. custum referred to above). At 
 Aphaka in the Lebanon there was a temple of 
 Aphrodite,tt the rites practised at which were of 
 such a character that they were suppressed by 
 Constantine (Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 55). 
 
 Again, as we saw, Ishtar was ‘queen of the 
 gods, and princess of heaven and earth’; and it 
 scarcely admits of doubt that the ‘Queen of 
 
 * Barton, Hebraica, Oct. 1893-Jan. 1894, p. 1ff.; Sayce, l.e. p. 
 246 ff.; Jeremias, 7zdubar-Nimrod (1891), p. 24 f. 
 
 + W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem.2 p. 56, 
 
 ? Barton, pp. 15-17; Jeremias, U.c. p. 58f.; Zimmern, Bab. 
 Busspsalmen, p. 33 ff. 
 
 § Moaurre, as Hdt. calls the goddess (whom he identifies with 
 Aphrodite), is probably Belit,—the word rendered ‘lady’ in the 
 extracts cited above, and the fem. of Bel (Ba’al), lord. 
 
 || How fully, in the popular creed, Ishtar became the goddess 
 mat’ iLoxy», may be inferred from the fact that the plur. 
 tshtardt was used to express the idea of female divinities in 
 general (KAT? 180). 
 
 §] The etymology of Ishtar, as of ‘Ashtart, is obscure: there 
 is no apparent Sem. derivation, and the conjectures that have 
 been offered are not satisfactory ; the Arab. ‘athara (Barton, 
 Pp. 71) is not to fall simply, but to stumble or trip. It is, perhaps, 
 of non-Sem. origin (KAT2179; Sayce, Hibb. Lect. 252f.). The 
 gender of the deity, after it was adopted by the Phonicians, 
 tea oda externally by the addition of the fem. termina- 
 
 ** Hence her worship may be alluded to in passages such as 
 Hos 413.14, Jer 220 etc, 
 
 oom Ecel. Hist. ii. 5; Zosimus, i. 58,—cited by Barton, 
 p. 82, 
 
 
 
 ASHTORETH 169 
 
 Heaven,’ to whom, in Jeremiah’s day, the women 
 of Judah offered cakes (o°2, a peculiar term) 
 and other sacrifices (Jer 7}8 4417-19) was either 
 the Assyr. Ishtar,* or her Phen. counterpart 
 ‘Ashtart. ‘Celestial,’ now, is an epithet applied 
 to ‘Ashtart elsewhere. Sanchoniathon (p. 80) 
 speaks of Astarte as daughter of Ovpavés; and 
 Sozomen remarks that the Aphrodite mentioned 
 above as worshipped at Aphaka, was called ther« 
 Ovpavla. The temple of Ovpavia ’Agpodirn, also, ix 
 Ashkelon, mentioned by Herodotus (i. 105), and 
 stated by him to be the oldest of that goddess of 
 which he could learn, can hardly be any other than 
 the temple of ‘Ashtart, referred to in 1S 31%.+ All 
 this becomes clearer if we supplement the some- 
 what scanty notices which we possess of ‘Ashtart 
 herself by the more abundant materials relating to 
 Aphrodite. For not only did Aphrodite correspond 
 in general character to ‘Ashtart, but nothing is 
 more certain than that her attributes were largely 
 moulded upon those of ‘Ashtart, and that many 
 elements in her cult were of Phen. origin. Alread y 
 Homer frequently speaks of Aphrodite as Kumpis 
 (Zl. v. 330, etc.) and Kuépea (Od. viii. 288, ete.), and 
 alludes to her temple at Paphos,t which, then and 
 afterwards, was so celebrated that no term is 
 more frequently applied to Venus by classical 
 writers than Paphia or Cypria. Cyprus, however, 
 is known independently to have been not only 
 colonised from Pheenicia, but also (see above) to 
 have been devoted to the worship of ‘Ashtart ; and 
 according to Herodotus (/.c.), the Cyprians them- 
 selves declared their temple (at Paphos) to have 
 been founded from that of Ovpavia ’Adgpodirn at 
 Ashkelon ; while the temple of the same deity in 
 Cythera, the island off the S. coast of Lacedzmon, 
 reputed to be the oldest and most sacred of Aphro- 
 dite in Greece (Pausan. iii. 23. 1), is stated likewise 
 by Herodotus (ib.) to have been a Phoen. founda- 
 tion. Cicero also speaks (N. D. iii. § 59) of four 
 distinct Venuses, one being ‘ Syria Cyproque con- 
 cepta, que Astarte vocatur, yuam Adonidi nupsisse 
 proditum est.’ That A piredite was the goddess of 
 sexual passion, needs, of course, no proof; and 
 Cyprus was the chief centre, whence her worship 
 was diffused through the Gr. world. But, secondly, 
 she often bore in Greece also the title Ovparta ; 
 temples of ’Agpodirn Ovpavia are thus mentioned, 
 not only at Cythera, but also at Athens, Argos, 
 Corinth, Thebes, and elsewhere ;§ and speaking of 
 the one at Athens, Pausanias expressly remarks 
 (i. 14. 7) that Ovpavla was reverenced first by the 
 Assyrians, then by the Paphians of Cyprus, and 
 the Phcenicians dwelling in Ashkelon, from whom 
 
 * See the essays on the ‘Queen of Heaven’ by Schrader in the 
 Berichte of the Berlin Academy, 1886, p. 489 f., andin the Z. fiir 
 Assyr. 1888, pp. 356-360; and by Kuenen in his Abhandlu en, 
 1894, p. 206. These scholars point to an inscription in which 
 among 20 titles ot ‘the lady (bilit) of countries, the queen 
 eb Ishtar, there actually occurs that of ‘ queen 
 malkatu) of heaven. Schrader further remarks that there is 
 independent evidence of an ‘Ashtar, conceived specially as a 
 celestial goddess, being prominent at the same time in the name 
 ‘‘Athar of Heaven,’ mentioned in the inscriptions of Asshur- 
 banipal, as the goddess of a N. Arabian tribe (KAT? on Jer 718 ; 
 on 'Athar='Ashtar, see below). Of. also Sayce, Hibb. L. pp. 
 261, 269 f. (=Jeremias, .c. 62 f.). 
 
 1 Cf. how, on a bilingual votive tablet found at Athens (CJS 
 1 i, 115), an Ascalonite 'Abd'ashtart (nbpex nmainvyry) is 
 
 called in the Gr. text ’Agpodicios. Certain types of the coins of 
 Ashiselon also exhibit the head of Astarte: B. V. Head, Hist. 
 Nuimorwm, 1887, p. 679f.; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre 
 Sainte, 1874, pp. 179f., 202 (No. 13), 206 (No. 2). The dove, 
 which (see below) was sacred to ‘Ashtart, is also a standing 
 feature on the imperial coins of Ashkelon; see De Saulcy, /.c. 
 p. 179, Nos. 9 and 10 (both with head of the goddess), 189-191 
 (Augustus), Nos. 8, 10, 11, 13, etc., and Plate ix. 5, 6. 
 
 t Od. 8, 362: 4 3° a&px Kiapov txave Qiroupssidie "Agpodiry "Es 
 Tle gov, tvice d¢ of réevos Bayeds rs Ounsis 3 ct. En. i. 415-417. 
 
 § Paus. i. 14. 7, 19. 2; ii. 23. 8; vi. 20. 6, 95. 1; viii. 32. 2; ix. 
 16. 3. The Greeks often understood Oivcayia to be the goddess 
 of loftier, purer love, as opposed to "Agpodiry warvdnuos, wha 
 represented the merely sensual passion (Xen. Symp. Bie 
 Paus. ix. 16. 4, Bekk.). 
 
170 ASHTORETH 
 
 her cult was introduced into Cythera. Then, 
 thirdly, Ishtar, as shown above, was also a martial 
 goddess. From the mere fact that Saul’s armour 
 was deposited by the Philistines in the temple of 
 ‘Ashtart at Ashkelon, it could hardly be inferred 
 that ‘Ashtart bore there a martial character (for 
 trophies of a victory might be dedicated to any 
 deity); but there are some other indications which 
 support this supposition. In the temple of Cythera, 
 which, as we have seen, was founded from 
 Pheenicia, if not from Ashkelon, the statue of 
 the goddess was a féavoy wricpevor (Paus. iii. 23. 1). 
 At Corinth and Sparta also there was an ’Adpodirn 
 amrdcpevn (10. ii. 5. 1; iii. 15. 10, Bekk.); several 
 epigrams in the anthology (Jacobs, ii. 677-679) 
 describe Aphrodite as armed with helmet and 
 spear; she also receives the epithet wxndédpos, and 
 is revresented with the weapons of Ares (as in the 
 well-known statue called the Venus of Capua).* 
 Nor was the influence of the Phen. ‘Ashtart con- 
 fined to the Gr. world. The worship of the Rom. 
 Venus, originally a goddess of springtime, of 
 gardens, of blossoming vegetation, assimilated 
 many elements from her cult. Mention has been 
 made already of the great Phen. temple of ‘Ashtart 
 at Eryx in Sicily ; and this seems to have formed 
 a centre as influential for the diffusion of her rites 
 in Italy as Paphos or Cythera had been for their 
 diffusion in Greece. That the goddess worshipped 
 at Eryx was identified by the Romans with Venus, 
 can be readily shown: who does not recollect 
 Horace’s ‘ Erycina ridens, Quam Jocus cireumvolat 
 et Cupido’ (Carm. i. 2. 33f.), or the passage in 
 which Virgil connects her with the Venus of 
 Cyprus, ‘Tum vicina astris Erycino in vertice 
 sedes Fundatur Veneri Idalie’ (4’n. v. 759f.)?+ 
 Venus Victrix and Venus Genetrix, also, just 
 develop ideas which we have already seen com- 
 bined in ’Agpodirn Ovpavia, viz. that of the martial 
 
 goddess of victory, and that of the fertile mother 
 ot all.t 
 Some account of the temple and rites of the 
 
 Paphian Aphrodite is given by Tacitus (Hist. ii. 
 2.3).§ Kwupas, a personage who plays a consider- 
 able part in Cyprian mythology (cf. Jd. xi. 19-23), 
 was its reputed founder ; the priests of the goddess, 
 who were also kings, were styled Kivupadat. Only 
 male victims were offered in sacrifice to her, kids 
 being accounted the best for purposes of ewtz- 
 spictum, for their skill in which her priests were 
 famed. No blood, however, was shed upon the 
 altar, which, though standing in the open air, was 
 supposed never to be rained upon. The goddess 
 herself was symbolised by a cone.|| Her devotees 
 were initiated with impure rites.? Doves were 
 
 * Preller, Griech. Mythol.8 i. pp. 2792. 8, 2808, 2811, 
 
 ¢ Votive tablets found at Eryx bear also the inscription 
 Vanersi Erveinat (C/ DL 7253-5, 7257). 
 
 $ See further, Preller, Rim. Mythol.3 i. pp. 435, 437, 442 f., 445. 
 
 § On the site, dimensions, etc. of the ancient temple, in so 
 far as they can be recovered by excavation, the report of the 
 Cyprus Exploration Fund in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 
 1888, pp. 149-224, supersedes everything that had been previously 
 written. (The statements of Di Cesnola in his work on Cyprus 
 are highly untrustworthy; see tb. p. 204f.; Gardner, New 
 Chapters in Greek History, p. 175.) The principal ancient 
 notices respecting the temple are collected by M. R. James, 
 ib. p. 175-192. 
 
 || Simulacrum dea non effigie humana, continuus orbis latiore 
 initio tenuem in ambitum metw# modo exsurgens, et ratio in 
 obscuro. Upon the coins of Cyprus, struck under the Rom. 
 emperors, in the name of the xowéy Kuapiwy, this sacred cone, 
 standing in its temple, with a dove, or doves, on the roof, is a 
 constant feature ; see Perrot et Chipiez, Hist. of Art in Cyprus 
 and Phen. figs. 58, 199, 202 (Eng. tr. i. pp. 123, 276, 281); Rawlin- 
 son, Hist. of Phoen. p. 145; or Head, p. 628. Stone cones about 
 a yard in height, also, no doubt, symbolising the goddess, have 
 been found at Athiénau (Golgi), and in Gozzo (Gaulus) and 
 Malta (Perrot et Chip. figs. 205, 223); and a cone is often 
 figured on gems, etc. (7d. figs. 29, 232, ch. iv. end). 
 
 4 Clem. Alex. Protrep. pp. 12, 13; Arnob. adv. Gentes, v. 19; 
 Justin, xviii. 56. Cf. the close of the passage of Hdt. (i. 199) 
 Feferred to above, ivayy di xa) vis Kispou ies) wapardaciog 
 Teery v6 p05. 
 
 ASHTORETH 
 
 La 
 
 sacred to her.* A large number of inscriptiona 
 have been found at Paphos, headed Iadig ‘A¢po- 
 diry: in many of these parents dedicate thei 
 children to the goddess.t 
 
 ‘Ashtart appears to have been generally repre- 
 sented asa female figure, somewhat short in stature, 
 usually naked, with rounded limbs, but sometimes 
 draped, the hands Sorpos ay the breasts, t or some- 
 times with one holding a dove in her bosom ;§ 
 terra-cotta statuettes of this description are found 
 not only in Cyprus, but also upon most of the 
 isles and coasts of the Aigean Sea. Figs. 381, 
 382 in Perrot and Chipiez’ work are particularly 
 interesting. The right hand here supports the 
 breast, while the left hand is extended pict eo 
 in front: may figures of this kind, one is tempted 
 to ask, have formed the type out of which the 
 Venus of Medici was ultimately developed?|| Clay 
 figures, of the same general type, usually con- 
 sidered to represent Ishtar, are also found in 
 large numbers in the ruins of Mesopotamia, and at 
 Susa.9] 
 
 In some localities ‘Ashtart seems further to have 
 been regarded as a moon-goddess. Thus Lucian 
 (De dea Syria, § 4), speaking of the temple at 
 Sidon, mentioned above, says, ws puév avrot Aéyouow, 
 "Aordpryns éorly: ’Aordprny 6 éyd Soxéw Ledyvalny 
 éupevat; and Herodian declares (v. 6. 10) that 
 Ovpavlavy Polvixes ’Aorpodpxny dvoudtoucr, cedhvny elvas 
 Oéovrtes.** 
 
 How this transformation of the character of 
 Ishtar tt took place is not perfectly certain. It is 
 conceivable that Ba‘al, as Ba‘al Shamaim (Ba‘al of 
 heaven), was identified with the sun; and hence 
 his consort ‘Ashtart might not unnaturally be 
 regarded as the moon. Another explanation is, 
 however, possible. There was great intercourse in 
 antiquity between Pheenicia and Egypt; and the 
 influence of Egypt is palpably impressed upon 
 Phen. art. The Egyp. goddesses Isis and Hathor, 
 now, are habitually represented as supporting upon 
 
 * Cf. Antiphanes, ap, Athen. vi. 71, p. 257, xiv. 70, p. 655 ; and 
 the Paphiw columbz of Martial (viii. 28), etc. Many representa- 
 tions of doves in marble and terra-cotta have been found in 
 and about the site of the temple. The dove is also often figured 
 on the coins of Paphos, sometimes with the head of Aphrodite 
 on the obverse: see J. P. Six’s Essay on the Coins of Oyprus in 
 the Revue Numismatique, 1883 (p. 269ff.), pp. 355-357, 364 
 nee No. 36 = Gardner, Types of Greek Coins, x. 47), and Pl. 
 vii. 18. 
 
 + Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions recueillies en Grece, 
 etc., 2794, 2798 (here 6 apyos trav Kivupwday dedicates his grand- 
 son), 2801: Journ. of Hell. Studies, l.c. p. 225ff. Nos. 8, 33, 
 35, 39, 41, 42, etc.; p. 259. 
 
 } Perrot et Chipiez, fig. 291, from Tharros in Sardinia; fig. 
 321, from Cyprus; figs. 374, 375, with strange heads, and huge 
 ears and earrings; figs, 379, 380; fig. 417=Rawl. p. 204 (four 
 well-modelled figures, on a sarcophagus, from Amathus); fig. 550 
 (two figures, on a decorated patera, now at Athens, with an 
 Aram. inscription, y5‘p 73 7235: Euting, Punische Steine, p. 
 33f.). In fig. 150, from Cyprus, the hands are on the waist; 
 similarly in a bas-relief from Ashkelon, fig. 314 (Eng. tr. ii. fig. 
 88 [fig. 277 of the orig. =fig. 1, vol. ii. of tr.}). 
 
 § Fig. 20; fig. 142—Rawl. Phen. p. 327; fig. 323, from Sardinia. 
 The figures, similar in general appearance, but holding a disc 
 on the breast, may represent the same goddess (2b. fig. 193; fig. 
 233, from Sardinia (these two also in Rawl. p. 142); fig: 290, from 
 Tharros ; fig. 324; likewise the seated figures, with the hands on 
 the knees (fig. 299, fig. 322). Whether figures of the repre- 
 sented in fig. 345, draped, with the hands straight down the 
 sides, also represent her, is uncertain. 
 
 || E. Curtius, ‘Das Phén. Urbild der Mediceischen Venus,’ 
 in the Archdol, Zeit. 1869, p. 63; cf. Perrot et Chip. pp. 556f., 
 627 [Eng. tr. ii. 155, 225). 
 
 { See Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 477 ; Loftus, Chaldea 
 and Susiana, p. 379f. (of the Persian age); Perrot and Chip. 
 Hist. of Art in Chald. and Ass. i. 80, 83 (fig. 16); Rawl. .4ne. 
 Mon.4 i, 140; Heuzey, Les figurines anti de terre cuite du 
 Musée du Louvre (1883), Plate ii. 3, 4; iii. (cf. those from Oyprus, 
 iv., ix. 4, 5, x. 7, xi. 6; and Rhodes, xii. 5); and in the Rev. 
 Arch. xxxix. (1885), pp. 1-10. 
 
 ** Whether the name ASHTEROTH-K ARNATM contains an allusion 
 to this aspect of ‘Ashtart (‘the ‘Ashtarts of the two horns’) is 
 uncertain ; Karnaim may be the name of a locality (‘‘Ashtaroth 
 of—i.e. near—Karnaim'). 
 
 tt For Ishtar, though sister of Shamash (the or acl 
 daughter of Sin (the moon-god), not the moon-goddess h f 
 
 
 
ASHTORETH 
 
 their head, between two cow-horns, the solar disc.* 
 Isis, further, is stated by Plutarch to have jour- 
 neyed to Byblus (Gebal), where she was called by 
 some ’Aordprn ;t and in the famous Stele of Yehaw- 
 melek, king of Gebal, the king is represented as 
 making his offerings before a horned goddess, 
 closely resembling the Egyp. Isis, while the accom- 
 panying inscription is a petition addressed by him 
 to his ‘mistress, the lady of Gebal.’t Philo of 
 Byblus says also that ’Aordprn 7 meylorn . . . emeOnre 
 TH idiakepads Bacirelas mapdonuov KEPaArAhHy Tavpov 
 (Sanchoniathon, ed. Orelli, p. 84). In the light of 
 these facts it is not impossible, as Meyer suggests, 
 that the disc and horns with which ‘Ashtart was 
 represented may have been misunderstood, and 
 taken to be the symbols of the full and crescent 
 moon respectively. 
 
 ‘Ashtart, then, if what has been said abeye be 
 correct, was the link connecting Ishtar with Aphro- 
 dite and with Venus. Born originally in the far 
 E., the goddess was born again, for the Greeks, 
 from the foam (aégpés) by Cyprus; and once brought 
 under touch of the creative genius of Greece, her 
 character was transformed ; particular aspects of it 
 were made more prominent; if in one direction she 
 was identified more and more with the sensuous 
 side of human nature, in other directions her attri- 
 butes were idealised; she furnished art with its 
 most attractive ideals of female grace and beauty 
 (see already JJ. xiv. 214-217—her keordy indvra) ; 
 she became even the personification of the all- 
 pervading, living force of nature. ‘Comme la 
 nature méme dont se résumaient et se personni- 
 fiaient sous ce nom toutes les énergies, Astarté, 
 vraie souveraine du monde, dans son activité sans 
 repos, ne cessait de détruire et de créer, de créer et 
 de détruire. Par la guerre et par les fléaux de 
 tout genre, elle ¢éliminait les étres inutiles et 
 vieillis ; en méme temps, par l’amour et la généra- 
 tion, elle présidait au perpétuel renouvellement de 
 la vie.’§ This far-reaching conception of the 
 range of her activity is exhibited strikingly in a 
 passage placed by Plautus in the mouth of an 
 Athenian woman,|| and in the fine exordium, 
 addressed to the ‘ Ayneadum genetrix,’ with which 
 Lucretius opens his great poem, De rerwm natura.J 
 
 Traces of a corresponding Sem. deity elsewhere.— 
 There was a S. Sem. male deity, ‘Athtar (which 
 agrees phonetically with Ishtar; cf. wow, XS, 
 etc.), mentioned in the Sabzan inscriptions (from 
 San‘a, the capital of Yemen); but little definite 
 is at present known about him, except that the 
 gazelle or antelope was sacred to him.** 
 
 There are also some compound names of deities, 
 in which ‘Ashtar (or ‘Ashtart) forms part. Mesha‘ 
 relates (Stone, l.c.) that he ‘devoted’ 7000 Isr. 
 captives to wnatnwy, t.e. ‘Ashtar-chemosh, or‘Ashtar 
 of Chémiésh. Among the Phoenicians, also, we find 
 Milk'ashtart, a deity formed by combination of the 
 
 * See representations in Rawlinson, Hist. of Anc. Eg. i. 365, 
 868; or Maspero, The Dawn of Civilisation, pp. 132, 175, 177, 187. 
 
 + De Osir, et Iside, § 15. 
 
 + CJS 1. i. 1. See representations in Rawlinson, Hist. of 
 Phen. p. 340; or Perrot et Chipiez, i. p. 69; ef. also the impos- 
 ing bronze figure in the last-named work, p. 78 (fig. 26). The 
 name of this goddess is not given; but it is highly probable that 
 it was ‘Ashtart; coins of Byblus exhibit habitually a cone 
 (which, as has been shown, was her symbol), standing in the 
 court of a temple (see the excellent representation in Perrot et 
 Chip. fig. 19 (p. 61), or Rawl. Phan. p. 146). 
 
 § Perrot et Chipiez, p. 69; cf. 321, and esp. 626-628 [Eng. 
 tr. i. 69 f., 831 f., ii. 224-226]. 
 
 | ‘ Diva Astarte, hominum deorumque vis, vita, salus: rursus 
 eadem que est Pernicies, mors, interitus. Mare, tellus, ceelum, 
 sidera, Jovis quecumque templa colimus, eius ducuntur nutu, 
 illi obtemperant, Eam spectant’ (Mercator, IV. vi. 825 ff.). 
 
 q See parallels from earlier Gr. poets in Munro’s notes ad loc. 
 
 ** Mordtmann and Miller, Sab. Denkmdler, 1883, p. 66; W. R. 
 Smith, RS? p. 466. Cf. Barton, /.c. p. 58 ff.; Bithgen, pp. 117- 
 121. The epithet ]P1W seems to indicate that he was viewed as 
 oe oe (morning) star ; cf. Hommel, Siid-Arab. Chrestom., 
 
 » P. So. 
 
 attributes of Milk (Molech) * and ‘Ashtart (CTS 
 I. i, 8! 2505; and in the Inscr. of Ma‘subt), and 
 Eshmun‘ashtart (ib. 245). Among Aram.-speak- 
 ing peoples rnvy became rnny (cf. av, xxdn, etc.), 
 which was soon written 1ny,{ whence ’Atapydris 
 (Palmyrene anyrny, § Syr. 1852, also represented 
 
 by Aeprerd), t.e. ‘Athtar of ‘Ati,\| the name of a 
 deity much worshipped in parts of Syria, esp. at 
 Hierapolis (between Antioch and Edessa), and also 
 (2 Mac 1276) at Karnion (probably either near 
 to, or identical with, ‘Ashteroth-Karnaim: see 
 ASHTAROTH). 
 
 See, further, Roscher’s Ausf. Lexicon der Griech. wu. Rim. 
 Mythol. (1884-1890), arts. Astarte (by E. Meyer), and ApHro- 
 pire (by Roscher and Furtwingler), pp. 396 ff., 400 ff. ; Farnell, 
 Cults of the Greek States, chs, xxi,-xxiii. (which appeared since 
 the above article was written). S. R. DRIVER. 
 
 ASHURITES (‘Y'"82, B @aceipe!, A @acortp, Luc. 
 ’E(p).—One of the tribes over whom Ishbosheth 
 ruled (2 S 29). The name is clearly corrupt, for 
 neither the Assyrians (YS), nor the Arabian tribe 
 
 aw Gn 258) can be intended. Ewald, Thenius, 
 Wellh. follow the Pesh. and Vulg. in reading ‘the 
 Geshurites’ (‘"¥39), whose territory bordered on 
 that of Gilead (Jos 125 13!), and who might there- 
 fore be suitably included here. It has been urged, 
 however, against this view, that Geshur was an 
 independent kingdom at this time (cf. 2 S 33 1387), so 
 that Ishbosheth could not have exercised control 
 over it. We must therefore read, with Kohler, 
 Klost., Kirkp., and Budde WS? ‘the Asherites,’ 
 i.e. the tribe of Asher (cf. Jg 182); this reading is 
 supported by the Targ. of Jonathan (ws nya 5y), 
 and agrees well with the context ; according to the 
 latter, the dominions of Ishbosheth extended from 
 Asher to Benjamin on the W. of Jordan, and 
 further included the large tract of Gilead on the E, 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 ASHVATH (")%2),—An Asherite (1 Ch 7), 
 
 ** ASIA (CAola) was the Roman province which 
 embraced the W. parts of the great peninsula 
 now called Asia Minor, including the countries 
 Mysia, Lydia, Caria, and great part of Phrygia, 
 with the Dorian, Ionian, and olian coast-cities, 
 the Troad, and the islands off the coast (Lesbos, 
 Chios, Samos, Patmos, Cos, etc.). The name, as 
 thus used, was created by the Rom. administra- 
 tion. The Gr. geographers generally employed 
 the name Asia to denote the whole continent ; but 
 the Romans during the 2nd cent. B.C. were 
 accustomed to term the Pergamenian sovereigns 
 (with whom they were in close political relations) 
 ‘kings of Asia’; and when Attalus II. bequeathed 
 his kingdom to Rome in 133, it was formed into 
 a province, and named Asia. With rare excep- 
 tions, historians and geographers under the earlier 
 Roman Empire use the name Asia only in 
 two senses,—either the Roman province or the 
 entire continent. About A.D. 285, Asia was 
 greatly reduced in size, Caria, Phrygia, Lydia, 
 and Mysia (Hellespontus) being separated from it; 
 and the name Asia was then restricted to the 
 coast-cities and the lower valleys of the Meander, 
 Cayster, Hermus, and Caicus. In the NT, 
 as is generally agreed, ‘Asia’ means the Rom. 
 province (Ac 29 being a possible exception). At 
 first Pergamos was the capital of the province; 
 
 * See the writer’s note on Dt 1810, 
 + Clermont-Ganneau, Recueil d’ Archéol. Orientals, i. (1888) 
 81 
 
 kadovar]; and 
 see Néldeke in the ZDMG, 1870, pp. 92, 109 ; E. Meyer, 2b. 1877, 
 pp. 730-784, The N. Arabian ‘‘Athar of Heaven’ has been 
 already mentioned above. 
 
 § De Vogiié, Syrie Centrale, No. 8, p. 8. See further 
 Bithgen, pp. 68-75. 
 
 || On the deity called ‘Adé, cf. Biithgen, p. 70 f. 
 
 a Cr. Strabo, p. 785, eran yene 5é thy ’A@apav 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Song 
 
 
 
172 ASIARCH 
 
 
 
 but after a time the superior advantages of Ephesus 
 gave it the pre-eminence, and the rule was that 
 the governors must land there. Under Augustus, 
 and even earlier, Ephesus was the supreme ad- 
 ministrative centre of Asia, and the headquarters 
 of the great provincial officials; but the title 
 ‘First of Asia’ (rpdéry ’Aclas) was keenly contested 
 also by Pergamos and Smyrna. ‘The governor, 
 who bore the title proconsul, was appointed by the 
 Senate by lot from among the senior ex-consuls ; 
 not less than five years must have elapsed between 
 consulship and proconsulship ; and, owing to the 
 number of ex-consuls, the usual interval became 
 longer as time passed (being twelve or more 
 years in the 2nd cent.). As a rule, the office was 
 annual; but in exceptional cases a second year, 
 and still more rarely even a third year, of office 
 was permitted. Asia was one of the most wealthy 
 and populous and intellectually active of the 
 Rom. provinces; hence the natural sequence of 
 the work done by Paul and Barnabas on their first 
 journey was to preach in the great cities of Asia; 
 and this was evidently St. Paul’s intention on his 
 second journey, until he found himself prevented 
 from speaking the word in Asia (Ac 16°). The 
 evangelisation of Asia was reserved for the third 
 journey, when, during St..Paul’s residence of two 
 years and three months in Ephesus, ‘the entire 
 population of Asia heard the word’ (Ac 19!) ; 
 partly on account of the frequency with which the 
 provincials came to Ephesus for trade, religion, 
 law, or festivals; partly through missions of St. 
 Paul’s coadjutors to the leading cities of the 
 province. In OT Apocr., dating before the forma- 
 tion of the Rom. province, the term Asia denotes 
 the continent. On the Asian Jews, see the cities 
 Cos, EPHESUS, LAODICEA, etc. 
 
 LiterATuRE.—The best article on Asia is in Ruggiero, Dizio- 
 nario Epigrayico di Antichita Romane: see also Marquardt, 
 Rim. Staatsverwaltung, i. pp.333-349 ; Mommsen, Provinces 
 of the Rom. Emp. (Rém. Gesch. v.) ch. viii. ; and Ramsay, His- 
 torical Geography of Asia Minor, chs. A-E: the account of the 
 proconsuls of Asia given by Waddington, Fastes dela Province 
 d’ Asie, requires to be supplemented by the list of governors in 
 the Dizionario. W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 ASIARCH (Acidpyns) was the title of certain 
 officials of the Rom. province Asia, whose nuin- 
 ber, tenure of office, and mode of appointment are 
 most obscure. Such widely divergent views are 
 still held about the Asiarchate that it is hardly 
 possible to give any adequate account of it in our 
 limited space. The Asiarchs (like the analogous 
 officials, Galatarch, Syriarch, Lykiarch, Pam- 
 phyliarch, etc.) were provincial, not municipal 
 officials; and they exercised certain powers in 
 the Association in which the whole province of 
 Asia united for the worship of Rome and the 
 Emperors, called Commune Asiw (Kowdv *Actias). 
 That the Asiarchs were the high priests of the 
 temples of the Imperial worship erected by the 
 Commune Asie in Pergamos, Smyrna, Ephesus, 
 Cyzicus, Sardis, and perhaps other cities (apyiepeds 
 Tis Aolas va@v TAY, OY vaovd Tov, év Tlepyduy, K.T.A.), 1S 
 denied by some good authorities, but seems to us 
 highly probable: we take the term A. as a popular 
 conversational name, which gradually established 
 itself even in official usage, for these ‘high priests 
 of the temples of Asia.’ We also regard it as 
 probable (though it cannot be definitely proved) 
 that, beyond the high priests of the temples in 
 the individual cities, there was a supreme high 
 priest as head of the entire provincial cult. ‘These 
 high priests seem, along with probably some other 
 officials, to have formed a sort of Council, which 
 managed the business of the Commune Asiw, and 
 had the disposal of certain funds intended for the 
 maintenance of the Imperial temples and cere- 
 monial. The Commune Asie celebrated in the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ASMOD.AUS 
 
 el 
 
 great cities of the province festivals with games, 
 called Kowa ’Acias év Sur'pyn Aaodiuceig, x.t.A.; and 
 the games were presided over by an A., perhaps 
 the supreme A., if we are right in supposing his 
 existence. It is not improb. that the Council of the 
 Asiarchs sat at stated periods in the great cities 
 alternately ; and that they assembled at the city 
 where the Kowd ’Acias were being held. In that 
 case the Asiarchs were prob. assembled at Ephesus 
 for such a purpose when they sent advice to St. 
 Paul to consult his safety (Ac 19%) ; and perhaps 
 the festival had both brought together a vast 
 crowd of the Asian populace, and shown Clearly to 
 the artisans that their trade in selling small shrines 
 to the pilgrims and devotees who had flocked to 
 the festival was dwindling. ‘he tenure of oftice of 
 the Asiarchs, acc. to our view, was four years (a 
 term which was very common for such offices in 
 the E. provinces) ; but some high authorities hold 
 that the Asiarchs were appointed annually. It is 
 certain that the proconsul governing Asia (which 
 see) took some part in the appointment; but the 
 details are doubtful and disputed. An A. enjoyed 
 great dignity in his native city, and coins or in- 
 scriptions of very many cities in the province com- 
 memorate the names of Asiarchs sprung from thence. 
 They acted, doubtless, as presidents in local 
 festivals as well as in the provincial games (Kowd 
 Actas), and, of course, incurred in such cases con- 
 siderable expense, part of which was compulsory, 
 but most was voluntary (from ambition, or gener- 
 osity, or ostentation). 
 
 LiterAtuRE.—Brandis in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Eneyclope- 
 die, arts. ‘Archiereus’ and ‘A siarches’; Monceaux, De Communi 
 Asie; Biichner, De Neocoria; Mommsen, Provinces of the Rom. 
 Emp. (Réimische Geschichte, vol. v.) ch. viii.; Lightfoot, S¢. 
 Ignatius and St. Polycarp, ii. p. 987 ff.; Beurlier, Le Culte 
 Invperial; Guiraud, Les assemblees provinciales del’ Empire 
 Romaine ; Hicks, Ancient Gr. Inserip. in the Brit. Mus. iii. ps 
 87; Ramsay, Classical Rev. iii. p, 174 ff., Cities and Bishoprics 
 of Phrygia, i. pp. 55-58, and ii. ch. xi. 
 
 W. M. RAMSAY. 
 ASIBIAS (A ‘Aoi Bias, B ‘AccBetas), 1 Ks 92,—One 
 of the sons of Phoros or Parosh who agreed to put 
 away his ‘strange’ wife; answering to Malchijah 
 (2) in Ezr 10% (7272, but A’AgaBid, 8 Sa8-, B om.). 
 H. ST. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ASIDE, that is, on (or to) one side, has a moral 
 sense=astray, in Ps 14% ‘They are all gone a., 
 they are all together become filthy’; Sir 27 ‘go 
 not a., lest ye fall.’ J. HASTINGS, 
 
 ASIEL (78’Y.).—1. Grandfather of Jehu a 
 Simeonite ‘ prince’ (1 Ch 4%). 2. (Asihel) One of 
 five writers employed by Ezra to transcribe the law 
 (2 Es 1424), 8. CAcufa; Heb. 5x»y; AV Asael) A 
 forefather of Tobit (To 11). Probably a corrupt 
 form of the name Jahzeel (7339) Gn 46%4), a son of 
 Naphtali; A. is said to belong to this tribe. 
 
 J. T. MARSHALL, 
 
 ASIPHA (A ’Aceipd, B Taceupd), 1 Es 529, —His 
 sons were among the temple servants who returned 
 with Zerubbabel. Called Hasupha (8P2) Ezr 248, 
 Neh 7%. H. ST. J. THACKERAY, 
 
 ASMODZAUS (‘12U8 To 38 17) is probably identi- 
 cal with the evil demon of the ancient Persian 
 religion, Ashma deva = the ‘covetous’ or ‘lustful 
 demon,’ When the Hebrews borrowed the name, 
 they connected it with V.%, to destroy. Hence this 
 is the being called 6 cAcOpedwy in Wis 18, and 1123 
 =6 amodAdtwy in Rev 91, In the latter passage 
 he is styled ‘angel of the abyss’ and ‘king’ of the 
 destructive creatures shaped like locusts, but with 
 men’s faces and flowing hair. The only mention 
 of Asmodzus in the Gr. Bible is in Tobit, where he 
 is described as md movnpdy damdviov; Vulg. demonium 
 nequissimum; but in the Aram. and Heb. VSS 
 ‘King of the Shedhim.’ By this name he is known 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 in the Bab. Talmud (Pesachim 110a), and in the 
 
 Targ. of Ec 1%. In To 6 (B. Syr. Itala) we 
 are told that he ‘loved’ Sarah, the daughter of 
 Raguel, and that he slew seven men to whom she 
 was married as soon as they entered the nuptial 
 chamber (38), When Tobias visited Raguel, he also 
 at once loved Sarah, and yet naturally was afraid to 
 marry her; but his companion, Raphael in disguise, 
 taught him how to exorcise the demon by a fumiga- 
 tion of the heart and liver of a fish. The demon fled 
 to Upper Feypt, where he was pursued by Raphael 
 and bound (To 8°), after which the pious couple 
 lived in peace. The Shedhim are the da:uéna of the 
 Gospel narrative. They were conceived by the 
 Jews as distinct from the fallen angels of the Book 
 of Enoch, in being mortal, of both sexes, and, 
 according to some, the offspring of those angels 
 and human mothers (Chagigah 16a; Edersheim, 
 Life and Times of Jesus, ii. 759-763). As Sammael 
 was head of all the Satans, so Asmodeus was king 
 of the demons, and the long-haired Lilith was 
 their queen (Hrubin 1000). In Talmudic legends, 
 Asmodzeus was implicated in Noah’s drunkenness ; 
 and after revealing to Solomon the whereabouts of 
 the worm Samir, which noiselessly shaped the 
 stones of the temple, he dethroned that monarch 
 for a while, assumed his appearance, and was the 
 real author of the offences which history ascribes to 
 Solomon. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Gfrérer, Urchristenthum, 1. 878-424; Kohut, 
 Jiidische Angelologie und Dédémonologie, p. 72; Eisenmenger, 
 Entdecktes Judenthum, 1893 edition, ch. xvi. 
 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 ASNAH (ajox=Aram. 39% ‘thorn bush,’ ’Acevd). 
 —The head of a family of Nethinim which returned 
 _ with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2, 1 Es 56°"), 
 
 ASOM (‘Acéu), 1 Es 9*.—His sons were amon 
 those who put away their ‘strange’ wives. Calle 
 Hashum (o%9), Ezr 10%. 
 
 ASP.—See SERPENT. 
 
 ASPALATHUS (dorddados, balsamum, Sir 241). 
 —The name of an aromatic associated with 
 cinnamon in the Peete cited, but impossible to 
 identify. Pliny (Nat. Hist. xii. 52, ae xxiv. 68, 
 69) speaks of a thorny plant known by this name, 
 and which in the first passage he identifies with 
 the Erysisceptrum, and in the second seems to 
 distinguish from it. The same plant is alluded to 
 by other ancient authors, but with such indefinite- 
 ness that we are unable to identify it with any 
 known plant. It is probable that there were two 
 or more plants, and more than one _ vegetable 
 product, known by this name. G. E. Post. 
 
 ASPATHA (xpsox, Est 97).—The third son of 
 Haman, pet to death by the Jews. The name is 
 perhaps from the Persian aspaddta, ‘ even by the 
 (sacred) horse’ (so Ges, Thesaurus, add.). 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 ASPHALT.—See BITUMEN. 
 
 _ASPHAR Pool (Adxxos ’Acddp), 1 Mac 98.—A 
 
 1 in the desert of Tekoa, or Jeshimon, where 
 Névathan and Simon the Maccabees encamped. 
 The site is doubtful. 
 
 ASPHARASUS (’Acddpacos), 1 Es 5°.—One of the 
 leaders of the return under Zerubbabel. Called 
 Mispar (15>), Ezr 2?, and Mispereth (nq37>), Neh 77. 
 
 ASRIEL (xx, in AV of 1 Ch 7 Ashriel).—A 
 Manassite (Jos 172, Nu 26%; in the latter the 
 patron. Asrielite occurs). Acc. to the LXX of 
 1 Ch 7% A.’s mother was an Aramitess, a concubine 
 of Manasseh. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 
 
 ASS.—4. (ron, 757 Adimér ; vos, brotiryov, asinus). 
 Hamér is the generic name for the ass, and the 
 specific designation of the he-ass (Arab. himdr). 
 
 Few animals are mentioned more frequently in 
 the Scriptures than the ass. It was used for a 
 variety of purposes. 
 
 (1) For riding. For this purpose it was used 
 by both rich and poor. Moses took his wife and 
 two sons on an ass to Egypt, passing through the 
 Sinaitic desert (Ex 4°); Balaam rode a she-ass 
 (Nu_ 2271-3); the unnamed prophet rode an ass 
 (1 K 1313-23. 24. 27-29); gq did Achsah (Jos 1518, Jg 
 1), the thirty sons of Jair (Jg 104), the sons of 
 Abdon (Jg 12), Abigail (1 8 25%. 3), Ahitho- 
 
 hel (2 S 17%), and Mephibosheth (2 S 19%). 
 hen it is said that Christ is ‘lowly,’ because He 
 should ride on an ass (Zec 9°; comp. Mt 21%), 
 the reference is not to any degradation in the 
 riding of an ass, but to the peaceful nature of His 
 advent. The horse was used in war, and a king 
 coming on a horse would be surrounded by military 
 circumstance and pomp. Asses are yet ridden by 
 persons of rank in State and Church. There are 
 many fine breeds of them, and every large city of 
 the interior boasts its special strain. Many of 
 these are sold at very high prices. They have a 
 rapid walk, and an easy shuffling pace or short 
 canter. They are exceedingly sure-footed. Some 
 of them are breast high, and weigh as much as a 
 small horse. White asses (Jg 5) fetch specially 
 high prices, and are very handsome beasts, while 
 their caparisons are often quite magnificent. 
 These consist of a thick stuffed saddle, often covered 
 with crimson, or dark green, or other rich coloured 
 cloth, bound with braids of brighter colours, and 
 with silver ornaments and dangling tassels of 
 woollen twist. The headstall and bridle are like- 
 wise decorated with shells, silver studs, and plates, 
 and not infrequently composed in part of silver 
 chains. A callae of silver links, with a breastplate 
 of the same metal, completes the adornment. 
 
 (2) For burdens. Abraham probably loaded his 
 ass with wood (Gn 223); the sons of Jacob loaded 
 their asses with corn (Gn 42%-%7); Joseph sent 
 twenty asses bearing the good things of Egypt to 
 his father (Gn 45%); Jesse sent an ass-load of 
 provisions by David to Saul (1 S 16%); Abigail 
 oaded her present to David on asses (1S 251), as 
 also Ziba (2S 161); the provisions for the feast at 
 David’s coronation at Hebron were brought on asses 
 (1 Ch 12”); asses were used in harvesting (Neh 
 135), The ass is still the most universal of all 
 beasts of burden in Bible lands. Small ones can 
 be bought for a pound or two. There is a great 
 variety in the breeds of pack-asses. Some are no 
 larger than a Shetland pony, while others are as 
 large as a small mule, and carry very heavy loads. 
 They are very economical to keep, living on straw, 
 thistles, stubble, and a very small quantity of 
 grain, and standing any amount of exposure and 
 harsh treatment. 
 
 (3) For ploughing. The expression ear (Is 30%) 
 means to plough (comp. 32). It was not allowed 
 to plough with an ox and an ass together (Dt 22), 
 The writer has seen a camel and an ass yoked 
 together to a plough. The equation of force was 
 made by tethering the ass at the long end of a cross- 
 bar, which was fastened to the front of the plough. 
 Doubtless the reason of this prohibition was the 
 principle of the Mosaic law, that there should be 
 no intermixtures. Thus priests could not have 
 patched or parti-coloured garments. Piebald cattle 
 could not be offered in sacrifice. Cattle could not 
 gender with a diverse kind. A field might not be 
 sown with mingled seed. A garment could not be 
 made of two different sorts of stuffs, as linen and 
 woollen. A person with patches of leprosy, mixed 
 with patches of clean skin, was unclean, while one 
 
 
 

 
 174 ASSAMIAS 
 
 
 
 ASSEMBLY 
 
 
 
 covered all over with leprosy was clean. This 
 rinciple enters into the whole symbolic economy. 
 Tt is intended to illustrate simplicity and purity. 
 Asses’ milk is used as food by the Arabs, and 
 is recommended for persons of scrofulous and 
 tubercular tendencies. The flesh of the ass was 
 not allowed to the Hebrews as food, because the 
 animal does not divide the hoof and chew the cud. 
 In the famine at the siege of Samaria, however, 
 ‘an ass’s head was sold for eighty pieces of silver’ 
 (2 K 6%). In Jg 15° Samson says, ‘with the 
 jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps.’ In the 
 Heb. there is a fine alliteration, oq 7g Non ‘nda 
 ‘with the jawbone of an ass a heap, two heaps,’ 
 the word for ass and heap being the same. 
 
 2. The she-ass (jinx Q@thén; 7 8vos, bvos O7rela; 
 asina, Arab. ’atdn) was Balaam’s mount (Nu 
 2271-83), Saul went to search for the stray she- 
 asses of his father Kish (1 S 9°). The Shunammite 
 rode one (2 K 4%-%), It has always been custom- 
 ary to separate the females of the flocks and herds 
 at times. David had an officer charged with the 
 care of the she-asses at such times (1 Ch 27%). 
 It is said that the vigour of the stock of the Egyp. 
 ass is maintained by tying the she-asses at the 
 border of the deserts on either side of the Nile 
 Valley, so that they may receive the visits of the 
 Asinus Onager, Pall., the original of the domestic 
 ass of the East. 
 
 8. The Heb. term “y, ‘ayir; ros; pullus asine ; 
 Arab. jahsh, corresponds to four Eng. equivalents 
 in the AV.—(1) Foal (Gn 32" 49") ; (2) ass colt (Gn 
 494, Jg 10 12"); (3) young ass (Is 30°%4); (4) 
 colt (Job 1177, Zec 9°). The Arab. equivalent of 
 the Heb. ‘ayir is, as before said, jahsh, i.e. young 
 ass, and not ‘ayir, which means the ass in general. 
 The stupidity of the ass is proverbial in the East 
 as well asin the West. The allusions to this quality 
 in the Bible are not, however, unequivocal (Is 1°, 
 Pr 26°). 
 
 4. Two words are used in the Heb. for the wild 
 ass—(1) x78, pere’ (Gn 16%, where Ishmael is called 
 a wild ass man, Job 6 111? 24° 395, Is 324, Jer 274, 
 Has 8°); (2) sy, ‘drédh (Job 39°, Dn 5, Chald. x-77y). 
 We have no philological grounds for determining 
 the species referred to, nor any certainty that the 
 terms are more specific than their Eng. equivalents. 
 The parallelism in Job 39° does not necessarily 
 imply two species. The Arabs have a large 
 or Aa of names for the lion, the camel, the 
 horse, the ass, and other familiar animals. Tris- 
 tram gives two species of wild asses as found in 
 the deserts contiguous to Palestine, Asinus Onager, 
 Pall., which he considers to be ‘drédh, and Asinus 
 hemippus, St. Hil., which he regards as pere’. For 
 neither of these specifications does he give any 
 philological authority. It is safe to believe that 
 the scriptural writers had no particular species in 
 view, but the general characteristics of all known 
 wild asses. G. E. Post. 
 
 ASSAMIAS(B‘Accaplas, A‘Acaulas, AV Assanias), 
 —One of twelve priests entrusted with the holy 
 vessels on the return to Jerus., 1 Es 8%, 
 
 ASSAPHIOTH (B Accadelw0, A ‘Acadgutsé, AV 
 Azaphion), 1 Es 5*.—His descendants returned 
 with Zerubbabel among the sons of Solomon’s 
 servants. Called Hassophereth (B ‘Acepfpaé, A 
 “Aceddpaé), Ezr 25; Sophereth, Neh 7°” (B A 
 LZapdpab, x -0). St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ASSASSIN.— Used in RV of Ac 21% as a transla- 
 tion of the Greek otxdpiuos (AV ‘murderer’). St. 
 Paul is said to have been mistaken by Lysias, the 
 
 chief captain, for the EGYPTIAN who had ‘led into 
 the wilderness the 4000 men of the Assassins.’ 
 According to Jos. there arom? in Judea during 
 
 
 
 the procuratorship of Felix a body of men called 
 
 o.xdpio. They were robbers, who carried under 
 their garments a short sword, about the size of a 
 Persian scimitar (dx:vdxys), curved like a Roman 
 sica, whence their name, which was of Latin 
 origin. They used to commit their murders openly, 
 and by day, mingling in the crowd at feasts. Their 
 first conspicuous exploit was the murder—accord- 
 ing to Josephus at the instigation of Felix—of 
 Jonathan, son of Annas, who had been high priest 
 (prob. in 55 or 56 A.D.). After this, men lived in 
 constant dread of them. They were conspicuous 
 under Felix, who sent troops against them, and 
 at a later date they took a leading part in the 
 Jewish War, and in the disturbances which led to 
 it, being always amongst the most violent of the 
 combatants. They held Masada, and from thence 
 pees the country. Eventually some of them 
 
 ispersed to Egypt and Cyrene, where, under the 
 combined influence of want and fanaticism, they 
 introduced a reign of terror. 
 
 Josephus never definitely connects them with the 
 EGYPTIAN (wh. see), as does St. Luke. 
 
 Apart from the illustration afforded to the 
 narrative of the Acts, the robbers and impostors 
 who were so numerous at this time, illustrate the 
 fanaticism, both religious and political, which 
 culminated in the fall of Jerusalem. 
 
 LirgraTuRE.—Jos, Ant, xx. viii. 6, 10, ix. 8; BJ wu. xiii. 8, 
 xvii. 6, Iv. vii. 2, ix. 6, vu. viii. 1, 2, 4, 6, x. 1, 2; Schiirer, 
 AJP t ii. 178 fi. A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 ASSAULT.—See CaImEs AND PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 ASSAY is not found as subst. As verb it has 
 two general meanings: 1. Test, prove, of which tle 
 only example is in the Preface, 1611, ‘Toa. whether 
 my talent . . . may be profitable in any measure 
 to God’s Church.’ 2. Set oneself to do (more than 
 merely attempt) ; so all the occurrences in AV; 
 Dt 4% ‘ Hath God a® to go and take him a nation ?’ 
 Job 4? ‘If we a. to commune with thee’ (both 7193) ; 
 18 17® ‘David girded his sword upon his armour 
 (RV apparel), and he a® to go’ (982) 5 Ac 9% ‘he 
 a? to join himself to the disciples,’ 167 ‘they a“ to 
 go into Bithynia,’ 2 Mac 2” (all wepdtw); He 11% 
 ‘which the Egyptians a'™® to do’ (metpay \aBortes). 
 RV retains all these, and adds Ac 24% ‘ who, more- 
 over, a to profane the temple’ (repdtw, AV ‘ who 
 also hath gone about to’); 267 ‘the Jews. . . aed 
 to kill me’ (wetpdouar, AV ‘ went about to kill me’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ASSEMBLE, now almost entirely intrans., is 
 trans., intrans., and reflex. in AV, as Mic 4° ‘In 
 that day, saith the LorD, will I a. her that halteth, 
 and I will gather her that is driven away’; Dn 61! 
 ‘Then these men a® (RV ‘a together’), and found 
 Daniel’; Nu 10% ‘all the assembly shall a. them- 
 selves to thee’ (RV ‘gather themselves unto 
 thee’). ‘A. together’ occurs as tr. of the same 
 verbs without change of meaning; and even ‘a. 
 together with,’ Ac 1‘ ‘and [Jesus] being a to- 
 gether with them’ (cuvadifdwevos, with atrois under- 
 stood; AVm and RVm ‘eating with them’ after 
 Vulg. convescens. The reference would then be 
 to Lk 2441, Jn 2113, where Jesus is spoken of as 
 ‘eating with’ the disciples. But this meaning of 
 ovvadl{w, as if derived from dys, ‘salt,’ instead of 
 ad%s, ‘crowded,’ is scarcely made out). In He 10% 
 ‘not forsaking the a of yourselves together,’ the 
 Gr. is a noun (émovvaywyi). ‘A. into’ is found 
 Jer 214 ‘I will a. (RV ‘gather ’) them into the 
 midst of the city.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ASSEMBLY.—A. is employed in AV as the 
 rendering of several Heb. words, the two most 
 important of which are m1y and $y. The Re zisers, 
 however, have endeavoured (as they have ‘hem 
 

 
 5 
 
 
 
 Pn a an ee ee eee OO 
 
 
 
 ASSENT 
 
 selves explained in their Preface) ‘to preserve a 
 consistent distinction’ between the words ‘assembly’ 
 and ‘congregation,’ ‘without aiming at absolute 
 uniformity.’ This they have done by rendering 
 m2 and its cognate verb by ‘assembly’ an 
 ‘assemble,’ retaining ‘congregation’ for 77y. This 
 last is the older word of the two, denoting a 
 thering or assem bly of any kind, whether for 
 eliberative (as Gn 49°) or other purposes. Gradu- 
 ally, however—mainly through the influence of 
 Dt— 7p assumed a more technical signification as 
 denoting the Israelitish community, in whole or in 
 part. Thus m7 dap, Dt 23%, denotes the theo- 
 cratic community. ‘The assembly’ par excellence 
 is frequent in P in the sense just given, although 
 not so characteristic of this document as the 
 synonymous term 77y, which occurs over a hundred 
 times in the technical sense of the theocratic 
 community or congregation of the Exodus. It is 
 doubtful if s7y occurs in any genuine pre-exilic 
 text in this sense. See CONGREGATION. 
 LirgraTuRE.—Moore, Judges, 201, crit. note; Giesebrecht in 
 Btade’s Zeitschrift, i. 243t. On dip read Holzinger, ibid. ix. 105. 
 On ivveuos ixxAneia (Ac 1939), Ramsay in Expos. 5th Ser. iii. 137 fi. 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 ASSENT, the subst., in the archaic sense of 
 accord or consent, occurs 2 Ch 18}? ‘the words of 
 the prophets declare good to the king with’ one a.’ 
 (73, ary caiouth *), &. Carlyle, Past and Present, 
 ‘Travelling with one a. on the broad way.’ The 
 verb is found Ac 24° ‘the Jews also a’ (TR ow- 
 é0evro, edd. cvveréSevro, RV ‘joined in the charge’). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 ASSESSOR.—An a. is one who sits beside a 
 magistrate to act as his adviser. The word occurs 
 only 1 Es 9 RV, ‘Mosollamus and Levis and 
 Sabbateus were a* to them’ (cuveSpdBevoar avrois, 
 lit. ‘judged alongside of them’), The simple verb 
 BpaBevw, ‘to act as umpire, arbitrate,’ occurs Col 3% 
 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,’ RVm 
 ‘arbitrate’; see Meyer and Lightfoot, in loc. The 
 compound karafpaB8evw is found Col 2!‘ Let no man 
 beguile (RV ‘rob’) you of your reward’; «.=‘to 
 decide against one, and ‘to decide against one 
 unjustly,’ hence ‘to rob.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ASSHUR.—See Assyria. 
 
 ASSHURIM (ovmwx).—An Arab tribe, descended 
 from Abraham and Keturah (Gn 25%), whose 
 identity cannot be traced. (Cf. Dillmann and 
 Delitzsch /.c.). J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ASSIDUOUS, only Wis 8 RV ‘in a. commun- 
 ing with her is understanding’ (év cuvyyupvacia 
 oudlas, t.e. ‘in constant exercise of fellowship.’ 
 The simple yuuvacla is used 1 Ti 4° swyarikh ¥., 
 ‘bodily exercise’). _ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ASSIR (7ox).—1. A son of Korah (Ex 6%, 1 Ch 
 6”), 2. A son of Ebiasaph (1 Ch 6%-%7). 3. A son 
 of Jeconiah (AV and RVm of 1 Ch 3”). It is 
 prob., however, that RV correctly renders ‘Jeconiah 
 the captive’ (198). See Oaf. Heb. Lex. s.v. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ASSOCIATE.—Only Is 8°, and there reflex., ‘A. 
 
 urselves, O ye people.’ Heb. wy, not from ay ‘ to 
 
 friendly,’ ‘combine together,’ as Targ., Vulg., 
 AV, ete.; but from yyy ‘to make a noise,’ RV 
 *Make an uproar’; though Del. prefers yy7 ‘to be 
 evil’; while Cheyne follows LXX, yvGre (i.e. 37), 
 ‘take knowledge.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ASSOS ("Acoos), in the Roman province of Asia, 
 was an ancient city on the coast of the 
 Troad, some miles E. of Cape Lectum ; the Aolic 
 dialect was spoken in it ; and it was said to be an 
 AEolic colony. It was planted on a hill that rises 
 
 ASSURANCE 175 
 
 with a long steep ascent from the water’s edge 
 and the natural strength was increased by walls. 
 which still stand in wonderfully good preservation. 
 The sculptures of the temple of Athena on the 
 summit of the hill (most of which are now in Paris, 
 the rest being in Constantinople and Boston, 
 U.S.A.) are among the most important remains of 
 archaic Gr. art. The harbour of A., formed by ap 
 artificial mole, was situated at the foot of the hil 
 on which the city stood ; and beside it now cluster 
 the houses of the modern village Behram. This 
 harbour gave the city considerable importance in 
 the coasting trade of ancient times (Ac 20"), as ie 
 attested by its coinage, which begins early in the 
 5th cent. (when the city was released from the 
 Persian domination), and continues as late as A.D. 
 235. The importance of A. under the Pergamenian 
 kings is shown by its re-foundation with the name 
 Apollonia, a favourite Pergamenian name (Pliny, 
 NH vy. 123). The trade of great part of the S. 
 Troad has passed through the harbour of A. 
 at_all periods of history. It was connected by 
 a Roman road with Troas and the coast of the 
 Troad generally, and the road from Troas to A. re- 
 quired less time than the voyage round the long 
 projection of Cape Lectum (Ac 20"). Wheat was 
 extensively grown in the district, according to 
 Strabo, p. 735; but valonia is the chief modern 
 export. 
 
 LITERATURE.—The best account of A. is by J. T. Clarke, R 
 on the Investigations at Assos, Boston 1882. Many inscriptions 
 are published by Sterrett in Papers of American School at 
 Athens, i. pp. 1-90. W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 ASSUR (2 Es 2)=AssHuR, ASSYRIA. 
 
 ASSURE, ASSURANCE.—Assure in the sense of 
 ‘give confidence to,’ ‘confirm,’ is used in 1 Jn 3” 
 ‘hereby we know that we are of the truth, and 
 shall a, our hearts before him’ (zel@w, lit. ‘ per- 
 suade’), Cf. 2 Ti 3 ‘Abide thou in the things 
 which thou. . . hast been a® of’ (mo7dw), and 
 Ac 17% *He hath given assurance (xlo7is) unto all 
 men.’ Assurance is RV tr. of brdcracis (AV ‘ sub- 
 stance’), He 111, a word of great importance in Gr. 
 
 hilosophy and Chr. theology, and which occurs in 
 
 T 2Co94, RV ‘confidence’; 1127 RV ‘confidence’ ; 
 He 1° RV ‘substance’; 3 RV ‘confidence.’ ‘ Full 
 a.’ is the tr. of wAnpodpopla, Col 27, He 64 (RV 
 ‘fulness’), 107 (RV ‘ fulness’); but the same word 
 is tr. ‘much a.’ in 1 Th 1% A. is found also 
 Wis 6" ‘ the a. of incorruption ’ (BeBalwors dpdapalas). 
 Cf. Ac 16! ‘assuredly gathering’ (cvyfiBatovres, 
 RV ‘concluding’). . HASTINGS. 
 
 ASSURANCE.—The religious and moral value 
 of firm conviction is fully recognised in Scripture. 
 It is the very aim and object of the divine message 
 in whatever form it comes to produce it. Without 
 it there cannot be that peace and joy in the sov) 
 which constitute the highest blessing of religiun, 
 nor that inward strength which alone can fit man 
 for moral conquest. The want of it makes the 
 ‘double-minded man,’ who is compared to the 
 ‘surge of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed’ 
 (Ja 1°), Even in OT times it was realised, as shown 
 in the beautiful description of Isaiah (321), where 
 for AV ‘quietness and assurance’ RV reads ‘ quiet- 
 ness and confidence,’ the original word denoting 
 ‘to hang upon something,’ hence fig. ‘to trust.’ 
 A word ty which St. Paul expresses this state of 
 mind is wéreipat, ‘I am persuaded,’ whether he 
 refers to the certainty of God’s love in Christ 
 (Ro 8%), or to that which he had committed to his 
 Lord (2 Ti 1?*). The term, however, most fre- 
 quently used for A. in NT and also in patristic 
 writers is mAypodopla. From the fact that the 
 cognate verb appears probably for the first time in 
 
 
 
176 ASSURBANIPAL 
 
 the LXX of Ec 811, where it is a tr™ of the Heb. 
 
 x2P, Cremer (Bib. Theol. Lex.) infers that it was 
 of Alex. origin. It means ‘to be fully persuaded, 
 to be fixed and firm’ (Ro 14°, Col. 4!2). The noun 
 occurs in Col 27, mA. ris cuvécews, “full a. of 
 understanding’; 1 Th 15 év mA. roaaw; He 64 wa. 
 THs éAntdos ; He 1072 ra. aicrews. In the last two 
 passages RV (also Westcott in loc.) renders ma. by 
 the simpler word fulness rather than full assurance 
 (as AV), ‘the full measure or development of hope,’ 
 ‘faith which has reached its mature vigour.’ 
 A. STEWART. 
 
 ASSURBANIPAL.—Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, 
 died in B.C. 668, while on his way to suppress a re- 
 bellion in Egypt. Samas-Sum-ukin (Saocdodbxivos 
 of Ptolemy ), an illegitimate son, had been set over 
 the province of Babylon. Assurbanipal was heir 
 to the throne of Nineveh. A Heb. writing of the 
 name is probably found in Tizr 419 1218 (Schrader, 
 COT ii. 65; Delitzsch, Paradies, 329; contra, 
 Halévy, Revue Etudes /Juives, ix. 12). His own 
 cuneiform annals and letters give us an abundance 
 of information regarding his long reign. His first 
 expedition was the prosecution of the unfinished 
 campaign of his father against the Ethiopian 
 Tirhakah. ‘This rebellious leader fled to Ethiopia 
 only to await the withdrawal of the Assyr. forces. 
 The native governors of the provinces, as Necho and 
 Sarludari, were aroused by ‘Tirhakah to form a 
 coalition against foreign authority. But Assyria 
 pounced down upon them, carried off prisoners, 
 and drove Tirhakah back to his lair, where he 
 died about B.C. 664. Egypt was again tranquil, 
 though hiding a volcano. An invasion of Egypt 
 by Tantitamon (Assyr. Urdamant) precipitated the 
 last and decisive campaign of A. In B.C. 662 the 
 Assyr. army fell upon Egypt, and drove Tantit- 
 amon out of its bounds, captured and plundered 
 Thebes, and carried off to Nineveh great booty. 
 This concluded the sway of Ethiopia over the land 
 of the thrifty Egyptian. 
 
 A.’s next expedition enveloped the E. coast of 
 the Mediter. Sea, which rendered him submission. 
 The king of Lydia, Janus-like, gave presents 
 to A.,and made a league with TuSamilki of Egypt. 
 This combination succeeded finally in throwing 
 Assyria out of Egypt. The country of Van next 
 fell before the arms of A. Elam, which had for 
 centuries stood as a peer of its neighbours, fell at 
 last, after several bloody battles continuing through 
 a course of years, at the feet of the conqueror from 
 Nineveh. His half-brother at Babylon, elated with 
 flatteries and thirsting for independence, threw off 
 the yoke of Nineveh. A. swept down upon Bab., 
 overthrew the opposition, and captured the city. 
 The seceding ruler, fearing the wrath of A., took 
 refuge in his palace, and burned it over his head (B.0. 
 648). The secession of Samas-sum-ukin is probably 
 (Schrader, COT ii. 538-59) but a hint at a general 
 uprising against Assyria throughout the 8.W., in 
 which Manasseh of Judah was involved (2 Ch 
 331), The Arabians likewise were forced to sub- 
 mission, and A. was again lord of his empire. 
 
 This ‘oreat warrior was also an enthusiast in 
 other occupations. With the help of Assur and 
 Istar he was able to cope with and slay lions. 
 One of his chief sports seems to have been fighting 
 lions, either those which were wild in the forests or 
 those which were loosed from cages for the purpose. 
 
 But the most important feature of his career for 
 us was his interest in literature. His library in 
 Nineveh, which was uncovered by G. Smith, has 
 preserved for us thousands of clay tablets, which 
 were copied from older tablets in other libraries of 
 his land. The topics treated are historical, ethical, 
 linguistic, religious, aud many otlers—all pertain- 
 ing to Assyria and Babylonia. 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 As a builder, he was equal to his predecessors. 
 The remains of his palace at Kouyunjik testify 
 to the architectural ingenuity and taste of the 
 monarch. In many cities of his empire he built 
 beautiful temples to the gods, and adorned all with 
 exquisite pieces of art. He laid every available 
 source under tribute to his royal enterprises. 
 
 As a ruler and warrior, as a builder, as a littera- 
 teur, he is well deserving the title given him in 
 Kizr 4°, The last years of his reign are compara- 
 tively wrapped in obscurity. 
 
 Lirzrature.—In the original, G. Smith, Hist. of Assurb., 
 original and interlinear tr. 1871 ; As. Disc. p. 817 ff.; Rawlinson, 
 West. Asiatic Inscrip. iii. 17-27, 30-34, v. 1- 10, iii, 28, 35-38, iv} 
 4547; S. A. Smith, Keilschrifitente Asurb. Heften ii. und iii. 
 In tr. RP vol. i. 1st series, p. 55 f.; Keilinsch. Ratha) pp. 
 152-269 ; 8. A. Smith, Keilschrifiteate Asurb. Heft. i 
 
 IRA M. PRICE, 
 
 ASSWAGE (so AV, after the common, though 
 not invariable, spelling of the 16th to 18th cent., 
 RV ‘assuage’) is used trans. Job 16°°5, Sir 1816 
 ‘shall not the dew a. the heat ?’; and intrans, 
 Gn 8! ‘the waters aed,’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 **ASSYRIA (7's).— 
 
 i. Natural Features and Civilization. 
 ii. History. 
 1. Sources, 
 2. Chronology. 
 3. Annals of the Kings, 
 fii. Literature. 
 
 A. is the country, famed in antiquity, on the east 
 of the middle Tigris between 35° and 37° N, lat. 
 The only town on the west of the Tigris, on the 
 Mesopotamian tableland, was the old capital of 
 the kingdom, Assur, from which the whole land 
 takes its name. Its northern boundary is formed 
 by the wilds of the Armenian-Kurdish mountains, 
 in which the Tigris rises, and through whieh it 
 flows till it enters the plain near Nineveh, over 
 against the town which is now called Mosul. 
 On the east it is bounded by the ranges of 
 Zagyros, which derive their name from the Assyrian 
 zakru, ‘pointed, high.” These ranges form a 
 continuation of the Armenian mountains, and 
 reach as far as Elam. They are the source of the 
 great and little Zab, which flow into the valley 
 of the Tigris. Of the other tributaries of the 
 Tigris the Khusur may be mentioned (the Hhéser, 
 Ehosr-Su of to-day), which empties itself into the 
 Tigris between the ruin-mounds of Kouyunjik and 
 Nebi-yunus, and thus flows right through the 
 midst of ancient Nineveh. Ancient Assyria ex- 
 tended in later times beyond these narrow 
 boundaries ; on the north-west to the left source of 
 the Tigris, the Subnat (now Sebbeneh-Su) ; on the 
 west to Khabur and Belikh, two well-known 
 tributaries of the Euphrates in Mesopotamia ; 
 and on the south to the Radanu and Turnat, 
 tributaries of the Tigris—one of which is to be 
 identified with the modern Diyala. 
 
 The Climate of Assyria—as.we might imagine 
 from its comparatively northern situation—may be 
 said to be really very temperate. The general 
 nature of the country is preponderatingly moun- 
 tainous. Only the capitals were situated on the 
 Tigris in the valley, e.g. ancient Assur, Nineveh, 
 and Kalakh (Calah Gn 101%). The new royal 
 residence built by Sargon, Dur-Sarrukin (Sargon’s 
 castle), the modern Khorsabad, was situated to 
 the north of Nineveh, just at the foot of the 
 mountains; while the well-known city of Istar, 
 the market-town Arbela (Arbailu, 7.e. Town of the 
 Four Gods—now called Erbil), together with the 
 ereat military place to the south-west of it, Kakzi 
 (modern Shemamek), etc., were situated in the 
 higher parts of Assyria. 
 
 With regard to the Flora of Assyria, the slopes 
 of the last-mentioned mountain districts were 
 
 
 
pxp wos 3y ampr “YSINGUIp A “HELO LVL 
 ae emonsuy ouplesSoan ySanqeaps ayy, 
 
 ——) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ae 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 OoT og 0 
 a FH 
 SeTy Usmoug 
 
 — “VIMASSV ‘VINO'LE: 
 SSID | U Ad SARC 
 
 
 
 OTYYp LT 
 
 
 
 va 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
ASSYRIA 
 
 
 
 covered with oak, plane, and wild pine trees; while 
 on the plain proper, besides abundance of nuts, fig 
 and olive trees flourished, together with the vine 
 plant. ‘These last were originally unknown to the 
 Hast-Semitic districts, and were first imported by 
 the Assyrian kings from Syria. Agriculture was 
 coufined mainly to the cultivation of wheat, barley, 
 hemp, and millet. 
 
 The Fauna was formerly far more varied than 
 it is to-day, as the pictures on the monuments 
 and the statements in the inscriptions prove 
 beyond the possibility of doubt. In addition to 
 hares, roes, stags, and mountain goats, lions and 
 wild oxen (rimu, Heb. ré’@m) were found in great 
 numbers—the former in the tall reed plantations 
 on the banks of the Tigris, the latter in the moun- 
 tain districts, the happy hunting-grounds of 
 the Assyrians. Magnificent horses—the famous 
 Assyrian chargers, which were probably of the 
 Medo-Elamite type—and cattle, goats, and sheep 
 pastured on the slopes ; while wild asses and camels 
 are known only in later times, through the 
 Assyrian incursions into the Syro-Arabian desert. 
 The culture of bees was also actively carried on. 
 Of domestic animals, the dog may be mentioned ; 
 of wild beasts, the panther, the wolf, the bear, and 
 some others. 
 
 With regard to kinds of stone—alabaster (pilu), 
 which was employed for the Assyrian bas-reliefs, 
 wasfound on the left bank of the Tigris in abundance. 
 Of metals—iron, copper, and lead were found in any 
 quantity in the Tiyari mountains near Nineveh. 
 
 Not only is Assyria far more rugged by 
 nature than Babylonia, which is much more 
 southerly and lies nearer the sea, but the in- 
 habitants of the two countries differed in character, 
 
 the Assyrians being of a much more powerful and 
 rugged type than their Babylonian brothers, in 
 spite of the fact of their common Semitic origin 
 
 and speech. The Babylonians have been very 
 appropriately called the Greeks, and the Assyrians 
 the Romans of the ancient East. Especially 
 striking is the resemblance between the Assyrian 
 type of face, as it appears in pictorial representa- 
 tions on the monuments, and the features which 
 we meet with to-day in the majority of Jews; 
 while the pictures of the Babylonian kings suggest 
 no such associations to our minds. The ancient 
 Assyrians had purer Semitic blood in their veins 
 than the Babylonians, for the latter in very 
 early times show traces of an admixture of other 
 races. The best authorities advocate the view 
 implied in the table of races in Gn 10, which 
 reckons only Assur and Aram (not Babel or 
 Shinar) among the sons of Shem. In proof of this, 
 v.41 may be cited (‘out of that land,’ viz. Shinar or 
 Babylonia, ‘he [t.e. Nimrod] went forth into 
 Assyria and builded Nineveh,’ etc.), a statement 
 which is confirmed by the monuments. As Assyria 
 was originally only an offshoot from Babylonia, its 
 language—at any rate the language of its litera- 
 ture, which is the only one known to us—is also 
 Babylonian. The writings themselves, as well as 
 the art and science, bear the clearest witness that 
 they are equally dependent upon the motherland of 
 Babylonia. It is noteworthy that while the oldest 
 Assyrian inscriptions exhibit most clearly the old 
 Babylonian cuneiform characters, after the time of 
 Tiglath-pileser 1. (c. B.C. 1100) they evolved a style 
 ot writing which fell back upon what can be proved 
 to be a debased form of Babylonian writing, 
 which previously existed only in North Mesopo- 
 tamia. Hence there arose, in distinction from the 
 new Bab. writing, a special form of new Assyr., 
 in which were written most of the Assyr. royal 
 inscriptions, and, above all, the many clay tablets 
 of the Assyr. court libraries, up to the time of 
 Assurbanipal. 
 
 VOL. I.—I2 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 
 
 The Assyrian Religion, too, is essentially the 
 same as the Babylonian, with some modifications. 
 When, for instance, on the so-called Black Obelisk 
 of Shalmaneser II. (B.C. 859-825) mention is made 
 of the following gods: Asur, Anu, Bel, Ea, Sin, 
 Ramman, Samas, Merodach, Nindar (or Ninib), 
 Nergal, Nusku, Belit, and Istar, this list is 
 identical with the Babylonian Pantheon (see BABY- 
 LONIA), with the exception of the god Asur, who 
 heads the list, but is entirely wanting to the 
 Babylonians. This Asur, the chief god of Assyria, 
 was originally only a differentiation of Anu, or the 
 god of heaven. His name An-sar, which after- 
 wards became Assar, Assur, Asur, ‘Host of 
 Heaven,’ appears in the Bab. cosmogony, but plays 
 in the Bab. religion a far less important part. 
 Probably on account of the similarity of sound 
 between the name of the god and the name of the 
 country Assur (originally Asur, from the Sumerian 
 A-usar ‘ water plain’), the originally more abstract 
 god of heaven, Asur, was exalted to the highest 
 place and became king of the gods. Special reverence 
 was also paid to the storm god Ramman, who in 
 the most ancient times cannot be very clearly dis- 
 tinguished from the god of the air, In-lilla or Bel. 
 Assur and Ramman, therefore, held a similar place 
 in Assyria to Anu and Bel, who were the two chief 
 divinities of the old Babylonians. Further, we 
 find an Istar of Nineveh, an Istar of Arbela, and 
 an Istar of Kitmur, the two former being goddesses 
 of war, while the latter appears to be a goddess of 
 love ; and finally, two masculine divinities of hunting 
 and war, Nindar (Nin-ib) and Nergal. Proper 
 names, especially those of the kings, always serve 
 as a test which enables us to determine the 
 amount of favour meted out to the different 
 divinities. Here we meet most frequently with 
 Assur and Ramman (= Bel, cf. Rammdan-nirari, 
 ‘Ramman is my help,’ with Bel-nirari). 
 
 In the case of the word Shalman-asarid (Shal- 
 maneser), the name Shalman appears to be a 
 cognomen of the god Nindar. The latter the 
 Assyrians preferred to call Asharid Ilani, ‘ Prince 
 of the gods.’ The pronunciation Adar instead of 
 Nindar (written Nin-ib) has no foundation to rest on. 
 
 While in Babylonia, the mother-country of 
 Assyria, the priests were always more powerful 
 than the kings, in Assyria the king himself was 
 also chief priest, and upon him the priesthood was 
 completely dependent. Primarily, however, the 
 king of Assyria was a general. The army always 
 played the chief rdle in Assyria. The king was 
 also the chief judge. All his subjects might come 
 direct to him with their petitions and suits, which 
 were always decided with the strictest impartiality 
 and in accordance with the provisions of the 
 laws, to which the king himself always bowed. 
 Hence disobedience and rebellion were severely 
 punished, as all the enemies of the king were 
 regarded as rebels against Assyria as well. In the 
 treatment of captives and prisoners the Assyrians 
 displayed an inhumanity which we rightly regard 
 as revolting. The court, as the political power of 
 the nation increased, became ever more and more 
 magnificent. 
 
 In Architecture, again, the Assyrians seem, in 
 course of time, to have surpassed their original 
 teachers, the Babylonians. It is characteristic of 
 the Assyrians, that far more magnificence and 
 wealth were expended on the palaces than on the 
 temples. For although the kings in their inscrip- 
 tions never omit to lay due emphasis on the 
 temples which they built, yet, as a matter of fact, 
 the excavations (see below) have brought to light 
 the remains of far more palaces than temples. The 
 statues of the kings, like those of the gods, were 
 made with great skill and care, but pre-eminence was 
 reached by the Assyrian artists in bas-relief, with 
 
 
 
ASSYRIA 
 
 which the walls of the palaces were adorned. The 
 older specinicns are rather stiff and clumsy ; but the 
 productions of the age of Sargon and Sennacherib 
 show a very marked improvement, and the 
 highest perfection was reached in the reign of 
 Assurbanipal. The British Museum affords the 
 best opportunity for admiring the war scenes, the 
 triumphal processions, the pictures of private life, 
 and especially the realistic hunting pictures, 
 which form the masterpieces of the Assyrian 
 artist. But the impulse to this development of 
 Assyrian art will probably have cone from with- 
 out. With the increasing growth of the Assyrian 
 empire, immense treasures of merchandise and art 
 poured into Nineveh and Kalakh (cf. Nah 2°) from 
 the newly-conquered provinces ; and these import- 
 ations stand in direct relation to the refinement 
 that took place in the taste for art. 
 
 In Literature the Assyrians entirely followed 
 Bab. models, as, to take a single illustration, the 
 prayer of Assur-nazir-pal I. (c. B.C. 1050) to the 
 goddess Istar proves. In most cases they con- 
 tented themselves with simply copying out Baby- 
 lonian literature. But in this way they did us a 
 greater service than if they had composed 100 or 
 1000 poetical imitations of a second-rate char- 
 acter. For it is owing entirely to the activity of 
 the Assyrians as collectors of books, and especially 
 of Assurbanipal, the Mecenas of literature, that 
 the bulk of Bab. literature has been preserved for 
 us. In scientific literature too—astronomy, mathe- 
 matics, medicine, grammar, lexicography—all alike 
 were simply copies of Bab. originals. It was only 
 in practical mechanics that the Assyrians advanced 
 beyond their Bab. masters, as can be proved from 
 the process they adopted for transporting the 
 colossal images of bulls, as it is depicted on the 
 bas-reliefs. In this connexion brief reference may 
 
 also be made to the convex lenses found in 
 Nimroud, used perhaps for the purpose of magni- 
 fying the writing on the clay tablets, which was 
 
 often very minute. 
 
 As far as Agriculture is concerned, Assyria was 
 not, owing to its more northern aspect, the rich 
 corn-bearing land that Babylonia was; but all the 
 more on this account efforts were made on the part 
 of the kings, by the construction of canals and 
 weirs, to increase the fertility of the soil. The 
 water needed for the land, which was supplied in 
 such abundance by the mountain streams, was in 
 this way properly regulated and distributed. 
 
 HISTORY OF ASSYRIA.—Thanks entirely to the 
 excavations of the ruins of the old cities, especially 
 Nineveh and Kalakh, the history of Assyria from 
 its earliest beginnings, c. 2000 B.C., to the fall of 
 Nineveh, can be set forth with great detail and 
 exactness. The great number of inscriptions * 
 which have been brought to light puts us in the 
 position of being able to write an uninterrupted 
 history of the Assyr. empire for many centuries. 
 In these Discoveries the palm belongs without 
 doubt to Englishmen—especially to Sir Austin 
 Henry Layard (d. 1894) and Hormuzd Rassam. 
 
 It was Claudius James Rich who first discovered 
 the ruins of Nineveh, and drew the attention of 
 investigators to this city, which is of such import- 
 ance to antiquarians. After visiting Mosul three 
 times (the first visit being paid in 1811), and super- 
 ficially examining the rubbish-mound which is to 
 be found on the opposite bank of the Tigris, he 
 resolved in the year 1820 to make a thorough 
 examination of it, the results of which were 
 published sixteen years later (1836), in accordance 
 with the terms of his will. The scanty remains of 
 
 * With regard to the decipherment of these inscriptions, 
 without which they would remain a dead mass, see the article 
 on the subject in Hommel, Geschichte Bab, u. Assyr., Of. the 
 literature of the subject at the end of this article. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 sculptures and inscribed stones brought by him to 
 Europe formed the basis of the Assyrian collection 
 in the British Museum, which has since become so 
 splendid, and confirmed the conjecture made by 
 Joseph Hager in 1801, that the same cuneiform 
 writing which had been found in Babylon at the 
 end of the previous century was the foundation of 
 the culture of the Assyrian world-empire. New 
 paths of rich promise were thus pointed out to 
 Oriental archeology. 
 
 The excavations of the Frenchman P. EZ. Botta, 
 1848-45, at Khorsabad, a village five miles to the 
 north of Nineveh, and, above all, of the English- 
 man Austin Henry Layard at Nimroud, the site 
 of ancient Kalakh (end of 1845 to middle of 1847), 
 and at Kouyunjik, ancient Nineveh (1849-51), 
 brought to light a whole series of Assyr. palaces 
 and a multitude of sculptures and inscriptions, 
 after a slumber of 2500 years. It was Layard who 
 urged Botta to persevere with his excavations, 
 which at first were fruitless; and some years 
 afterwards, when Layard himself commenced to 
 excavate, he found in the consul, Hormuzd Rassam, 
 an indefatigable helper—a fact which was first 
 clearly recognised and duly acknowledged some 
 ten years later. At Khorsabad, Botta had the 
 good fortune to lay bare the first Assyr. palace, 
 which had been built by king Sargon (Is 201), 
 Dur-Sarrukin (castle of Sargon), the bas-reliefs and 
 inscriptions of which now embellish the Louvre in 
 Paris; while Layard, in Nimroud and Kouyunjik, 
 excavated no fewer than five great palaces, of 
 which the antiquities were brought to the British 
 Museum. By this stroke of good fortune the 
 greater part of the famous clay tablets of the 
 library of king Sardanapalus (Assurbanipal) now 
 came to light. 
 
 Additions were made in the following years to 
 these discoveries of Botta and Layard by the 
 after-gleanings of Rassam, from 1851-54, in Kou- 
 yunjik, and of the French architect Victor Place in 
 Khorsabad. In 1854 Rassam excavated the North 
 Palace of Assurbanipal, and by this stroke of 
 fortune discovered a fresh portion of the library 
 mentioned above. 
 
 During the next decades Assyr. excavation was 
 at a standstill; but, to make up for this, the first 
 three volumes of the great work on Assyr. inscrip- 
 tions, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia 
 (1861, 1866, 1870), were published during that 
 period by Henry Rawlinson, Edwin Norris, and 
 George Smith. This book was preceded by a 
 volume of Assyr. inscriptions, edited by Layard, 
 1861, a work which, it must be admitted, was 
 not nearly so accurate as that of Rawlinson. 
 To this period also belongs the preliminary settle- 
 ment of the grand problem of decipherment inaugu- 
 rated by Rawlinson, Hincks, and Oppert. 
 
 In the years 18738 and 1874 the excavations 
 in Nineveh were resumed, the unfortunate 
 George Smith, who died of fever in Aleppo on 
 Aug. 19, 1875, making two journeys of investiga- 
 tion, which produced rich results. Amongst many 
 other finds, this enthusiastic and gifted young 
 investigator discovered a number of clay tablets 
 belonging to the library of Assurbanipal, amongst 
 them being the Bab. account of the Flood and 
 other allied mythological texts (see BABYLONIA). 
 These discoveries won for him a celebrity and 
 popularity such as few others have attained. 
 
 The work which had been resumed by Smith, 
 and which was unfortunately cut short by his 
 premature death, was continued by the veteran 
 Hormuzd Rassam in a further expedition in the 
 years 1877-78, from which he came back with 
 far richer spoil than even G. Smith’s. Mention 
 must here be made of the discoveries of a temple 
 in Nimroud, the famous bronze gateway of Bala- | 
 
 
 

 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 wat, with its sculptures dating from the 9th cent. 
 B.C. (see below, under Shalmaneser II.), and 1400 
 more tablets from the library of Assurbanipal, not 
 to speak of the ‘finds’ on Bab. ground made in 
 1878-79 and 1880-81. Since then no further 
 systematic excavations have been organised in 
 Assyria, but every year some fresh Assyr. relics 
 are brought to England through the agents of the 
 British Museum. 
 
 Several Assyr. monuments and inscriptions have 
 also come to light outside Assyria. To this 
 class belong, first of all, the statues of the Assyr. 
 kings found at Nahr el-Kelb, or Dog River, two 
 leagues north of Beirut; next, some inscriptions 
 of the kings found in the district at the source 
 of the Tigris, and in the ruins of Kurkh, 20 
 miles beyond Diarbekr; and, above all, the tablets, 
 dating from B.C. 1500, discovered about the end of 
 1887 at Tel el-Amarna in Upper Egypt. Among 
 these were the letters written in cuneiform charac- 
 ters and directed to the Pharaohs Amenhotep IIL. 
 and IV., the greater number of which are now in 
 the Berlin Museum, though a good many are in 
 the British Museum, and a few in Cairo. The 
 last included a letter written by the Assyr. king 
 Assur-uballit to Amenhotep IV. It may be here 
 remarked that the letters of the kings of Mitanni 
 (on the middle Euphrates), which belong to the 
 Tel el-Amarna find, are also written in Assyr. 
 cuneiform characters, as is the case with the so- 
 called Van inscriptions of the Armenian kings, 
 which belong to a later time, B.C. 800.  Assyr. 
 inscriptions have also been found in Cappadocia, 
 which probably date about B.c. 2000, but unfor- 
 tunately they do not contain the names of any 
 kings. 
 
 Finally, a short account must be given of the 
 valuable find some years ago—also made outside 
 Assyria—in Zinjirli near Mar‘ash, on the borders 
 of Cilicia and Syria, by the Oriental ethnologist 
 Felix von Luschan. After the discovery by L. Ross 
 in 1845 of a stele of Sargon in Cyprus, Luschan 
 found in the neighbourhood of Zinjirli (the Assyr. 
 vassal state of Sam’al) a monument of the Assyr. 
 king Esarhaddon, with a full inscription, besides 
 eighteen Hittite sculptures and three old Aramaic 
 inscriptions. Both the monument of Sargon and 
 that of Esarhaddon are in the Royal Museum at 
 Berlin, which also contains the many relics dug 
 up in Zinjirli. 
 
 The excavations just described have brought to 
 light Assyr. inscriptions which constitute our 
 primary sources for Assyr. history. ‘These sources 
 are most copious, being composed not only of annals 
 and the so-called votive inscriptions which form the 
 most important element, but also of decrees, letters, 
 reports, sale-contracts, ete. Chronicles too, which 
 date from the first beginnings of real historiography, 
 were discovered. While the inscriptions of the 
 kings were written either on the walls of the palaces 
 or on obelisks and monoliths, or even on the sides 
 of rocks, the chronicles were found in the Assyr. 
 libraries. The two most complete works that 
 have come down to us are: (1) the so-called Syn- 
 chronistic History of Babylonia and Assyria, from 
 c. B.C. 1400-800, in which there is unfortunately a 
 great gap between B.c. 1050-900; and (2) the 
 Babylonian Chronicle, which covers the time from 
 Nabonassar to Assurbanipal (744-668). Since 
 Babylonia all through this period was subject 
 to the supremacy of Assyria, the last-mentioned 
 document, which is of paramount importance, 
 
 ' affords far more valuable contributions towards 
 
 Assyrian than towards Babylonian history. Most 
 welcome light is also thrown on Assyrian history 
 by other Babylonian documents, of which we may 
 mention a long inscription, which has been brought 
 to Constantinople, of the Babylonian king Nabo- 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 179 
 
 
 
 nidus, dealing with the invasions of Assyria by 
 the Medes. 
 
 Second in importance as sources for the history 
 of Assyria come the Books of the Kings of Isiael, 
 which form a most valuable complement to the 
 official account of the Assyr. kings, the latter 
 being sometimes a little coloured and not always 
 absolutely true to fact. Furthermore, we have the 
 Prophetic Literature of the OT, which is in many 
 respects more important for our subject than the 
 historical records. Last of all may be mentioned 
 the records of the Classical Historians, which, how- 
 ever, with the single exception of the famous Canon 
 of Ptolemy, as it is called, are of very little use. 
 
 This table of rulers, which begins with Nabon- 
 
 assar, B.C. 747, brings us to the question of Chron- 
 ology. It contains the list of Bab. kings (including 
 also the Assyrians Poros [Puru, Tiglath-pileser], 
 Sargon, and Esarhaddon), with accurate particulars 
 of the dates of their reigns, down to Nabonidus. 
 Then it gives their Achemenidzean successors down 
 to Alexander the Great, and ends with the rulers 
 of Egypt (the Ptolemies and the Romans). The 
 Canon of Ptolemy was appended to the well-known 
 astronomical work of Claudius Ptolemzus, as a 
 commentary (based on Bab. and Alex. computa- 
 tions) upon the eclipses of the sun and moon 
 alleged to have been seen; and consequently 
 it bears within itself the guarantee of its trust- 
 worthiness. ‘The statements of the Bab. Chronicle 
 and the many chronological notes on Assyr. and 
 Bab. inscriptions were confirmed by it, and, con- 
 versely, confirmed its accuracy. It also furnished the 
 key for determining the chronology of the most im- 
 portant Assyr. chronological document, the Zponym 
 Canon, found in the library of Assurbanipal. 
 ’ From B.C. 900 to 667 (that is, to the time of 
 Assurbanipal) these incomparable and invaluable 
 lists give year by year the chief officers of state, 
 and always make a special point of noting the 
 accession of every new king to the throne. After 
 the time of Samsi-Ramman IY. (B.C. 824-812) this 
 list is further supplemented by the contents of 
 the so-called ‘List of Expeditions’ (extending to 
 B.C. 700), in which, opposite to every naine, there is 
 a short notice of the different campaigns carried 
 out in each year. But it was by the help of the 
 Canon of Ptolemy that we were first able to bind 
 the Eponym Canon together in chronological order 
 from beginning to end, and thus establish the 
 fact that the first officer mentioned in it, Assur- 
 dan, belongs to the year B.C. 902, the last, Gabbaru, 
 to B.c. 667. It is therefore possible to fix the 
 exact dates of the reigns of all the Assyr. kings 
 who fall within this period, from Rammén-nirari 
 II. to the accession of Assurbanipal. 
 
 The earlier epochs, also, can be dated from these 
 fixed points, at any rate partially and approxi- 
 mately. The rulers of Assyria have left us some 
 special chronological notes in their inscriptions 
 which refer to kings who lived long before them. 
 
 (a) Sennacherib relates that the Bab. king 
 Marduk-nadin-akhi carried off to Babylon, at 
 the time when Tiglath-pileser I. was king of 
 Assyria, two images of gods, which he himself, 
 418 years later, had brought back. It is clear, 
 therefore, since this statement belongs to the 
 year of the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib, 
 viz. B.c. 689, that the year B.C. 1107 may be 
 definitely fixed as a certain date in the reign 
 of Tiglath-pileser 1. (¢. B.C. 1120-1100 ?). 
 
 (b) The same Sennacherib remarks, on another 
 occasion, that he recognised amongst the Bab. 
 treasures a seal of Tuklat-Nindar, the son of 
 Shalmaneser I., which had been taken to Babylon 
 600 years before. This fixes the reign of Tuklat- 
 Nindar somewhere about B.C. 1300 (more exactly 
 1289). We must take into consideration, how- 
 
ASSYRIA 
 
 180 
 
 
 
 ever, the fact that the round number 600 may, 
 if necessary, stand for 560, or even 550; in this 
 latter case, we should have the average date of 
 B.C. 1250. 
 
 (c) Finally, Tiglath-pileser I., whose date is 
 approximately fixed by consideration (a), says 
 that, 60 years before, his great-grandfather, the 
 long-lived Assur-dan, pulled down a temple which 
 had fallen into ruins, and evidently had not 
 finished rebuilding it when death overtook him. 
 Thus Assur-dan died somewhere about B.C. 1175. 
 
 (d) The same ‘Tiglath-pileser, in the same 
 passage, had previously remarked that the temple 
 in question was built by the old high- priest 
 Samsi-Ramman, son of Ismi-Dagan, 641 years 
 before. ‘The date of Samsi-Ramman is therefore 
 fixed about B.C. 1815. 
 
 A series of specially important dates for Bab. 
 chronology is to be found in the inscriptions of 
 the Bab. king Nabonidus (B.C. 555-539). (See 
 BABYLONIA.) We possess also a list of the 
 kings of Babylon, which unfortunately is not 
 quite complete, beginning c. 2000 B.C., as well as 
 the so-called ‘Synchronistic History’ (see above), 
 which gives side by side a complete enumeration 
 of the kings of Babylon and their Assyr. con- 
 temporaries. From these sources we secure, 
 although indirectly, some fresh basal points for 
 Assyr. chronology. 
 
 Finally, we conclude, from some astronomical 
 notices in Egyp. inscriptions, that Tahutmes III. 
 reigned from 1503-1449, and further obtain B.C. 
 1400 as the date of the death of Amenhotep ITI. 
 and the accession of Amenhotep IV. Thus the 
 date of both these kings, with their Bab. and Assyr. 
 contemporaries, is approximately fixed (see above, 
 on the discoveries at ‘Tel el-Amarna). 
 
 The first beginnings of Assyrian History will 
 probably always remain veiled in darkness. That 
 the Assyrian state was originally an offshoot from 
 Babylonia may be regarded as certain from its 
 writing, language, and religion, as well as from 
 the witness, by no means to be despised, of Heb. 
 tradition (Gn 10!1), which confirms this inference, 
 and which is itself of Bab. origin. It is certain, 
 too, that the oldest rulers of Assyria known to us 
 styled themselves ‘priest (Sumerian, pa -te- si; 
 Assyr. issaku) of the god Assur.’ Besides the 
 two priest-kings mentioned in the chronology, 
 viz. Samsi-Ramman* and his father Ismi-Dagan, f 
 we know of others whose tablets have come down 
 to us, viz. a certain Jriswu and his father Hhallu, 
 as well as of a second Samsi-Ramméan and his 
 father Igur- (or Bel-) kapkapu.t 
 
 It is noticeable that the title ‘Patesi’? is not 
 bestowed on the last-named, so that it looks as if 
 he or his son Samsi-Rammdan was the first founder 
 of the Assyr. state. In that case we must, of 
 course, place this Samsi-Ramman before B.C. 1816, 
 probably about B.C. 1850 or even B.c. 1900. On 
 the other hand, the later king, Rammé@n-nirari 
 lil. (c. B.C. 800) calls himself ‘the descendant of 
 the old king Bel-kapkapu, who ruled even before 
 the primitive period of the reign of the Sulili.’ 
 Finally, Esarhaddon, grandson of the usurper 
 Sargon, claims to be ‘the perpetual descendant 
 of Bel-bani, son of Adasi, king of Assyria.’ By 
 this Bel-bani is probably meant one of the kings 
 who sat on the Assyr. throne during the period 
 between B.C. 1800 and 1500. It was during this 
 period that the rulers of Assyria assumed the 
 official title ‘King of Assur,’ instead of the old 
 title ‘ Patesi.’ About B.c. 1800 we find in Assyria 
 
 * J.e, ‘my son is Ramman’ (Bel). 
 
 + I.e. ‘Dagan heard.’ Dagan is another name for Bel. 
 old Bab. king of Nisin bore the same name. 
 
 t¢ Ze. ‘Bel is mighty.’ Igur (Ocean of Heaven) is another 
 name for the god Bel. 
 z 
 
 An 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 
 
 the arrangement by which the year (limmu) was 
 called after the chief officer of state; and even at 
 that time Assyria, which, owing to the position of 
 its old capital Assur on the west bank of the 
 Tigris, had begun to gravitate unduly towards 
 the north-west, must have cultivated commercial 
 relations with Cappadocia. Only on this supposi- 
 tion can we account for the fact that a considerable 
 number of Assyr. contract-tablets, containing lists 
 of contracts in ancient writing, which belong to 
 this period, have been discovered in Cappadocia. 
 We may also infer that the intermediate territory, 
 especially Mesopotamia and Harran, was probably 
 at times under Assyr. rule, or, at any rate, Assyr. 
 influence. 
 
 To the period when the Assyrian rulers bore 
 the title ‘Patesi’ probably belong most of the 
 half - mythological, half - historical narratives 
 which have been preserved for us in the Assyrian 
 libraries. In one of these a description of the 
 building of temples in Sirgulla, Nippur, and 
 Nisin is followed by an account ‘of terrible 
 wars, and a famine so fearful that brothers ate 
 one another, and parents sold their children for 
 gold, and the treasures of Babylon were carried 
 to the land of Su, the king of Babylon 
 allowing the treasures of his own palace to be 
 handed over to the prince of Assur.’ It is of 
 some importance that in this text the ruler is 
 called, not ‘king,’ but ‘prince’ (ruba@) of Assur 
 at that time. The so-called ‘Legends of the 
 Plague-Demon’ (see BABYLONIA) seem to refer to 
 the same events. The inhabitants of Su, the 
 wild Sutzans, who at that time possessed the 
 greater part of Assyria, and a part of Mesopotamia 
 as well, are proved to have been the originators 
 of the fearful devastations in Babylonia; and it 
 appears from the same text, that not the Sutzans, 
 but the Elamites, those old foes of Babylon and 
 Assur, were the instigators. Finally, the dis- 
 astrous wars were diverted from the territories of 
 the Euphrates and Tigris to the west, from which 
 we may surmise that the predatory Sutzeans poured 
 also over a part of Syria and Palestine. As a 
 matter of fact, some centuries later, in the Tel el- 
 Amarna letters, the Sutzans are mentioned as the 
 enemies of the Phan. town Gebal (Byblos). In 
 the Egyp. inscriptions of the New Kingdom 
 (somewhere about B.C. 1600) a similar name (Setet) 
 proves that the Asiatics in general, and more 
 particularly the Asiatic hunting tribes, as well as 
 the Bedawin of the Syro-Arabian desert, ex- 
 tended their marauding expeditions at that time, 
 just as they do to-day, to Palestine and Phoenicia, 
 on the one side, and beyond Mesopotamia and the 
 territory to the east of the Tigris, on the other. 
 
 Accurate and uninterrupted knowledge of Assyr. 
 history begins about the year B.C. 1500. Possibly, 
 however, the two kings Assur-nirart and Nabu- 
 dan belong to the previous centuries, which as far 
 as our knowledge is concerned are complete blanks. 
 All that we know about these kings is that they 
 were contemporaries of a king—about whom also 
 we know nothing—Ramman-musheshir of Kar- 
 dunias (i.e. of Babylon, at the time of the Kassite 
 rulers). From B.c. 1500 to B.c. 1480 <Asur-bel- 
 nishé-shu, who was contemporaneous with the Bab. 
 Kara-indash, and Puzur-Assur, the contemporary 
 of Burnaburias I., ruled over Assyria. The Syn- 
 chronistic History relates that they settled the 
 boundaries between Babylonia and Assyria. Wedo 
 not know whether Puzur-Assur (‘security of the 
 god Assur’) was the direct successor, or, as is 
 possible, the grandson of Asur-bel-nishé-shu 
 (‘ Assur is lord of his people’). It must have been 
 one of these kings, however, who sent presents to 
 the powerful Pharaoh Tahutmes III. (B.C. 1504~ 
 1450) in token of his allegiance, as was also done by 
 
 
 
ASSYRIA 
 
 the kings of Mitanni and Sangar (West and East 
 Mesopotamia) and the king of Arrapach (east of 
 Assyria, in the mountainous district, at the source 
 of the lower Zab). The presents of the king of 
 Assyria and those of his nearest neighbours stand 
 out pre-eminently on the Bab. Blue Stone (lapis- 
 lazuli, Assyr. ukn&) which has been brought from 
 Mt. Bikni in Media. 
 
 From Asur-nadin-akhi (c. B.C. 1480) to the year 
 B.C. 1050 we possess an absolutely complete series 
 of the kings—the son as a rule succeeding his 
 father. Almost all these rulers are to be found 
 mentioned on the inscriptions, and the ‘Synchron- 
 istic History’ gives us further information about 
 most of them. We can with perfect certainty, 
 therefore, draw out the following list :— 
 
 Assyria. 
 
 Assur-nadin-akhi. 
 Asur-uballit, son of above 
 (c. B.C. 1400). 
 
 Babylon. 
 
 Kurigalzu I. (?) 
 Burnaburias II, 
 Karakhardas. 
 Kadashman-kharbt. 
 Bel-nirari, son of above. HKurigalzu II. 
 Pudu-ilu, son of above. 
 Ramman-nirari I., son 
 of above. 
 Shalmaneser JI., son of 
 above. 
 
 99 
 ‘Nazi-maraddash. 
 
 Kadashman-turgu. 
 
 Kadashman-burias. 
 (probably also) Shagarakti-shuriash. 
 
 Tuklatt-Nindar, son of e tbéiash 
 
 to 
 above. 
 Ramman-shum-uzur. 
 
 Assur-nazir-pal I., son Ramman-shum-uzur. 
 of above. 
 Bel-kudur-uzur. 
 Nindar-pal-isharra(prob- 
 ably son of above). 
 Assur-dan, son of above 
 (d. ¢. B.O. 1170). 
 Mutakkil-Nusku, son of 
 -above (reigned till c. 
 1150). 
 Assur-rish-ishi, 
 above. 
 Tuklat-pal-isharra so. 
 (Tiglath-pileser), son 
 of above. 
 Assur-bel-kala, 
 above. 
 Samsi-Ranvman, brother 
 of above. 
 Assur-nazir-pal IT., son 
 of above (c. B.C. 1050). 
 
 While at the beginning of this period (c. B.C. 
 1400) Babylonia had still the supremacy in the 
 Euphrates and Tigris districts, and aspiring Assyria 
 possessed in Mitanni a powerful and dangerous 
 rival, in a few centuries the picture was totally 
 changed. As early as the reign of Ramman- 
 nirari I., who has given us the first long royal 
 inscription that we possess, Assyria commenced the 
 upward march which was afterwards so steadily 
 maintained, and the campaigns of Tiglath-pileser I. 
 laid the foundation of the great world-empire 
 which Assyria became in later times. ~ 
 
 Assur-uballit*® J. is well known to us from 
 a letter which he wrote to the Pharaoh Amen- 
 hotep (Amenophis) IV. expressing his allegiance 
 to him, in which he describes himself as the son 
 of Assur-nadin-akhi. He is also distinguished for 
 his energetic attempt to secure, by familv relation- 
 ships, the right of interference in the affairs of 
 
 Zamama-shum-idina, ¢. 
 B.C. 1180. 
 
 son of Nabu-kudur-uzur I, ¢. 
 B.C. 1145-1122. 
 
 Marduk-nadin-akhi. 
 
 son of Marduk-shaptk-zirim. 
 
 Ramman-pal-idina. 
 
 * Or Asur-uballit, or Ashur-uballit. The Assyrians sometimes 
 spell the name of their national god Assur, and sometimes Asur, 
 The sibilant is properly pronounced sh, but was very early pro- 
 nounced s in Assyria, in contradistinction to Babylonia, 
 
 ASSYRIA 181 
 
 Babylon. The Bab. crown prince Kara-khardas 
 had become his son-in-law. Assur-uballit lived to 
 see not only his accession to the throne, but also 
 the accession of his grandson Kadashman-kharbi. 
 
 The last-named, however, was overthrown by the 
 Kassites, who were then predominant in Babylon, 
 because the interference of his royal Assyr. mother 
 Mubaltlitat-shertia and of his grandfather proved 
 dangerous to them. ‘The murderers of Kadashman- 
 kharbi placed a certain Suzigas (or, according to 
 another tradition, Nazibugas) upon the throne in 
 his stead. But the aged Assur-uballit did not 
 allow him to be unavenged. He got Suzigas put 
 to death, and placed his own great-grandson, 
 Kurigalzu, who was still a minor, upon the throne. 
 The last-named king, who reigned c. 50 years, 
 came into conflict with two Assyr. kings, Bel-nirari 
 and his grandson Ramman-nirari, about the posses- 
 sion of a portion of Mesopotamia. 
 
 Under Assur-uballit and his grandson Pudu-ilu, 
 the Assyrians succeeded in freeing themselves from 
 the suzerainty of the kings of Mitanni. Twushratta,* 
 the powerful king of Mitanni, who was the con- 
 temporary of Assur-nadin-akhi (the father of Assur- 
 uballit), as well as of Assur-uballit himself, lent 
 the image of Istar of Nineveh to Egypt, obviously 
 in order that his daughter, who was married 
 to the Pharaoh, might be able by its help to 
 practise her native cultus. The natural infer- 
 ence is that Assyria was then a mere vassal state 
 of Mitanni, and that Nineveh had become, to 
 say the very least, the common Istar sanctuary 
 for both Mitanni and Assyria. In the language of 
 Mitanni, which is a Hittite and not a Semitic 
 dialect, Istar of Nineveh is called Sha’uspi; and 
 Sargon, 700 years later, lifted up his hands to 
 ‘Sha’uspi, the ruler of Nineveh’ (Cylinder Inscrip. 
 1. 64), thus calling Istar by a name which reminds 
 us of the times of Tushratta. Now it is expressly 
 stated that Asswr-uballit destroyed the military 
 forces of the extensive region of Shubari (i.e. 
 Mesopotamia), and that Pudu-ilu not only subju- 
 gated the mountaineers of Guti (Arrapachitis), 
 but also defeated the Akhlami and Sutzans, the pre- 
 datory nomads of Mesopotamia. These territories, 
 however, in the days of Tahutines III. were under 
 the absolute and uncontrolled rule of the inde- 
 pendent kings of Arrapach and Mitanni. We 
 may regard it as almost certain, that even in the 
 days of Bel-nirfri the once powerful Mitanni was 
 overthrown by the sudden attacks of these Sutzans, 
 a result which was heartily welcomed by the 
 aspiring Assur. 
 
 Ramman-nirari [., in the inscription mentioned 
 above, briefly recounts all these events in the reigns 
 of his three immediate predecessors, in order to 
 relate how he rebuilt the towns which had been 
 destroyed in the previous wars which devastated 
 the territories on the east and west of Assyria. 
 Owing to the fact that the land of the Guti (Goiim, 
 Gn 14) had been overthrown by his predecessors, 
 some boundary disputes arose with Babylonia, since 
 the territory in question had formerly been within 
 the Bab. sphere of influence.t ‘The Bab. king 
 Nazi-Maraddash, however, was conquered by Ram- 
 man-nirari, and compelled to consent to a fresh 
 delimitation of the boundaries, more favourable 
 to Assyria. 
 
 Under the rule of his son Shalman-Asharid 
 (Shalmaneser) J., ¢. B.C. 1800, Assyria made an im- 
 portant advance. This king undertook a whole series 
 of campaigns against the mountainous regions to 
 
 * Son of Sutarna, who was the son of Artatama, a contempo- 
 rary of the Pharaoh Tahutmes tv. Tahutmes tv. was related 
 by marriage to the kings of Mitanni. An elder brother of 
 Tushratta, who died early, was called Arta-sh{imara. 
 
 + There exists an inscription of a king of Guti, written in old 
 Bab. cuneiform characters, which vividly calls to mind the era 
 of old Sargon of Agade, c, B.0, 3700. 
 
 
 
182 ASSYRIA 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 the north of Mesopotamia, between the modern | quered Zaméama-shum-idina of Babylon, and by 
 
 Diarbekr and Malatiyeh, advancing into the in- 
 terior of Western Armenia as far as the country 
 which is often called in the cuneiform inscriptions 
 Musri (Musur-dagh on the Upper Euphrates). It is 
 interesting to note that North Mesopotamia, near 
 the mountains of Masius (Assyrian, mts. of 
 Kasyar), is always called the land of Arimi or the 
 Arameans, not onty in the inscriptions of Shalman- 
 eser I. himself, but also in a later account of the 
 campaign, which dates from the time of Assur- 
 nazir-pal (1. We naturally compare with this the 
 biblical derivation of the four peoples, Uz, Hul, 
 Gether, and Mash (this latter = Mt. Masius), from 
 Aram (Gn 103), Asa matter of fact, shortly before 
 the reign of Shalmaneser, the Aramzan nomads 
 must have been driven away from the Bab.-Elamite 
 frontier (the biblical Kir, Am 9’, cf. Is 22%, Kir near 
 Elam), their original home, into Mesopotamia, The 
 Akhlami too (after whom a stone in the breast- 
 plate of the Heb. priests was called Akhlamah, Ex 
 2819), who were conquered by Pudu-ilu, are expressly 
 stated by Tiglath-pileser I. to have been Arameans. 
 Shalmaneser I. took from the Bab. king Kadash- 
 man-buriash several towns in the district of 
 Dir-Kurigalzu (near the modern Baghdad). He 
 wished, too, to be regarded as a builder. He laid 
 the foundation of a new residence Kalakh (Gn 
 1012), Assur having up to this time been the capital 
 town, and built afresh the sanctuary of Istar in 
 Nineveh, which Assur-uballit had only very roughly 
 restored. And, finally, it is worth remarking that 
 he was the first Assyr. king who assumed the title 
 ‘King of the World’ (Sar kissati) on his inscrip- 
 tions, a circumstance which obviously stands in 
 special relation to the conquest of Mesopotamia, 
 and more particularly to the acquisition of the 
 primitive sanctuary-town Harran. 
 
 Shahnaneser’s son Tuklat-Nindar I.* was prob- 
 ably still a contemporary of the Babylonian king 
 Shagarakti-shuriash (¢. B.C. 1269-1257(?)), certainly 
 of his successors Bibéiash (B.C. 1256-1249(?)), Bel- 
 nadin-shumi (B.C. 1248), Hadashman-kharbi (3.0. 
 1247-6), and Rammd@n-shum-idina (B.0. 1246- 
 1240(?)). The last-mentioned was king only in 
 name, for after Babylon had been enfeebled by the 
 invasion of the Elamite king Aidin-khutrutash, 
 Tuklat-Nindar seized the Bab. empire for himself 
 for seven years, calling himself king of Sumer and 
 Akkad. Finally, however, he was overthrown by 
 his own son Assur-ndzir-pal I, while the throne of 
 Babylon was successtully occupied by Rammdan- 
 shum-uzgur,+ son of Ramman-shum-idina. A seal 
 with the inscription ‘overthrow of Kardunias,’ 
 which was struck at Babylon in the time of Twklat- 
 Nindar, was brought to Assyria 600 years later by 
 Sennacherib. Of course 600 is a round number, 
 and the event may reasonably be connected with 
 the year 1246 of the Chronicle of the Kings of 
 Babylonia (comp. above, p. 179°). 
 
 We do not know whether the next Assyr. king, 
 Bel-kudur-ugur, was a son, or, as is possible, a 
 brother of Assur-nazir-pal I. The Synchronistic 
 History informs us that he was conquered by 
 the powerful Babylonian king Ramman-shum-uzur 
 (B.C. 1239-1209(?)) and lost his life in the battle. 
 His successor Nindar-pal-isharra had great diffi- 
 culty in repulsing Ramman-shum-uzur’s attack 
 on the town of Assur. It appears, however, that 
 he was successful at last in victoriously driving 
 back the Bab. army. He was succeeded by his 
 son Assur-dan I., who lived to an advanced age, 
 and towards the end of his reign (B.C. 1181) con- 
 
 * Or Tukulti-Nindar (i.e. ‘Nindar is my help’). The 
 Hebrews write a similarly formed name, 7wkulti-pal-isharra as 
 Tiglath-pileser. They seem therefore to have written Tuklat-p- 
 instead of Tukulti-p-. 
 
 + The name ideographically written is Ranuman-MU-SIS. 
 Possibly Rammén-nadin-akhi could also be read. 
 
 
 
 this means extended the Assyr. frontier beyond 
 the lower Zab. : 
 
 In the reign of Assur-dan’s son Mutakkil-Nusku, 
 the Mosks (the biblical 72), a people from Asia 
 Minor, made an incursion into North Syria and 
 the contiguous district of North-West Mesopo- 
 tamia. This incursion seems to have set in motion 
 other waves. The Akhlami (who had been 
 formerly subdued by the Assyrians) on the Middle 
 Euphrates, the Lullumi* and the Guti to the north 
 and east of Assyria, lifted up their heads again ; 
 and so Mutakkil-Nusku’s son, the energetic Asswr- 
 rish-isht (‘ Assur lifted up his head’), had to under- 
 take the great task of reconquering these old 
 enemies before he could think of subduing the 
 Mosks. His Bab. contemporary Nabu-kudur-uzur 
 I, (c. 1145-1122) had the glory of conquering the 
 same Lullubi (as the Babylonians call them, instead 
 of Lullumi), who had extended their settlements 
 into the mountains between Armenia and Media, 
 some distance within the frontiers of Assyria and 
 Babylonia. Probably it came at last to a struggle 
 between the two kingdoms, which was settled by 
 the Assyr. king obtaining a victory over Nebu- 
 chadrezzar I., who was, notwithstanding, a dis- 
 tinguished and powerful prince. 
 
 The first really great Assyr. conqueror, however, 
 was Assur-rish-ishi’s son Tuklat-pal-isharra (Tig- 
 lath-pileser) £, whose name means ‘ Help of the 
 son of Isharra’ (7.e. the god Nindar). While, in 
 former times, only the Babylonian kings—and last 
 of these Kadashman-kharbi and Nebuchadrezzar— 
 had penetrated as far as the so-called ‘ Westland’ 
 or Martu, he was the first Assyrian king to under- 
 take campaigns in this direction, reaching even the 
 frontiers of Palestine. He journeyed on ships of 
 Arvad in the north of Phoenicia, to the Mediter, 
 Sea, and killed a great sea monster called a n@khir 
 (‘snorting’), probably somewhere between Arvad 
 and the Gulf of Issus. He also hunted wild oxen 
 (rimu, Heb. re’em) at the foot of Lebanon. His 
 renown reached even to Egypt, and the Pharaoh 
 of the day sent to Assyria a female pag@ (probably 
 an ape), a crocodile, and a hippopotamus for his 
 zoological gardens. 
 
 In his annals, which contain about 800 lines, 
 there is a detailed account of his first six cam- 
 paigns (B.C. 1120-1115), the results of which are 
 summed up in the following words: ‘ Altogether 
 42 countries with their rulers, reaching from 
 beyond the lower Zab—the districts of the moun- 
 tain forests on the other side of the Euphra- 
 tes—to the land of the Khatti and the Upper 
 Western Sea (Gulf of Issus), from the beginning of 
 my reign to the end of the fifth year, have been 
 conquered by my hand, and I have received tribute 
 and taxes from them.’ A further campaign, which 
 carried him to Lebanon, is not included, as it 
 was undertaken in a later year. Unfortunately, 
 up to the present we know of this last-named 
 campaign only incidentally through another in- 
 scription which describes his hunting expeditions. 
 Tiglath-pileser was also the first Assyr. king who, 
 besides the title ‘King of the World’ (Sar kisSati) 
 which his predecessors had borne before him, 
 assumed another title known to old Babylonian 
 history, viz. ‘King of the Four Quarters of the 
 World,’ and rightly, for he was the first to reach 
 the Mediterranean Sea. With regard to his special 
 campaigns, by far the most important was the war 
 against the Mosks of Asia Minor (Meshech, Gn 102, 
 Ezk 2738 38), who, 60 years before, had made an 
 
 * Lulimtu means ‘ring.’ Probably by the Lullumi are meant 
 the mountain races in general which were scattered round 
 about, and formed, as it were, a ring from the Upper Euphrates 
 to the little Zab, reaching to Mesopotamia and Assyria and even 
 the frontiers of Babylonia, 
 
 
 
 i. 
 J 
 
Te = 
 
 ? 
 4 
 i 
 
 n4 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 
 
 incursion into North Mesopotamia and conquered 
 the land of Kummukh (Commagene, on the farther 
 bank of the Euphrates).. The Kurkhi (Kurdi?), 
 who lived in the mountainous districts towards 
 Armenia, had also joined the Mosks as allies. 
 The scene of the war lay between Commagene 
 on the Euphrates and the Gordyan mountains on 
 
 the Upper Tigris. We may conclude from their 
 names that the tribes of these districts were all 
 of Hittite and non-Semitic nationality. The 
 names of two of the hostile kings conquered by 
 Tiglath-pileser are of special interest, Aili-Tishup 
 son Of Kali-Tishup, and Sadi-Tishup son of Khatu- 
 shar. 'Tishup was the name of one of the Hittite 
 gods. Inthe time of Ramses Il. we hear of a Hittite 
 named Tar-Tishbu. Moreover, the old storm god 
 of Armenia and Mitanni was called Tishupash ; 
 and, finally, the same name for a god turns up again 
 in Susa as Tishpak. Khatu-shar, too, is identical 
 with Kheta-sar, by which name a Hittite foe of 
 Ramses II. is called. Now Ahatwu was a divinity of 
 the Hittite population scattered about from the 
 west of Asia Minor to Elam. The names of the 
 Lydian kings, Aly-attes and Sady-attes, which were 
 formed like Kali-Tishup and Sadi-Tishup, prove 
 this, for the god Attes, spelt in Aramaic in- 
 scriptions ghaté (.ny, -yaris in ’Arap-yaris ; -Kerw in 
 Aepxerw), cannot be any other than the one which 
 appears in Khatu-shar. 
 
 North of Kummukh, Tiglath-pileser made tri- 
 butary the land of Khani-rabbat, so often men- 
 tioned in the cuneiform inscriptions (the great 
 Kheta-land of the Egyp. inscriptions), near Milid 
 (Malatiyeh). This country (erroneously transcribed 
 Khani-galbat by some Assyriologists) was the old 
 mother-land of the Hittites. There was no longer, 
 however, a great Hittite empire at the time of 
 Tiglath-pileser, but the Aramzans had attempted 
 to establish themselves in several places in the 
 north of Syria and Mesopotamia. Tiglath-pileser 
 expelled them from the region between the 
 Euphrates and Belikh, the original country of the 
 Mitanni, and plundered their pasture-grounds 
 which were situated along the farther bank of the 
 Euphrates, the land of Sukhi (Shuah, Gn 252; Job 
 211, ‘ Bildad the Shuhite’). He also conquered by 
 force of arms the land of Musri in West Armenia, 
 against which Shalmaneser I. had formerly waged 
 war, and the Cappadocian district of Kuméanu, 
 which was in alliance with it. Thus he not only 
 restored his kingdom to the size it had attained 
 in the time of Shalmaneser I., but expanded it 
 still farther, especially in the direction of Armenia ; 
 and by pushing forward towards North Syria and 
 the Mediterranean, mapped out the path for Assyr. 
 expeditions in the future. The Bab. king Marduk- 
 nadin-akhi (cf. above, p. 179>) succeeded in robbing 
 the Assyrians of the images of Ramman and his 
 consort Shala which belonged to the (Mesopo- 
 tamian?) town Ikallati, but Tiglath-pileser in- 
 flicted a signal defeat upon him in his own 
 country. Amidst all these expeditions, architecture 
 and the material welfare of the country were 
 not neglected by Tiglath-pileser, who bestowed 
 special attention upon the restoration of the old 
 temple of the gods Anu and Ramm4An in the ancient 
 capital Assur (cf. above, p. 180). 
 
 Tiglath-pileser was succeeded by his son Ashwr- 
 bel-kala (‘ Assur is Lord of All’), who removed 
 the royal residence from Kalakh to Nineveh. He 
 married the daughter of the Bab. king Ramm4an- 
 pal-idina, but evidently died without children, since 
 his brother Samsi-Rammdan III. succeeded him on 
 the throne. We possess an earnest petition of the 
 son of the latter, Assur-nazir-pal IL, to the 
 goddess Istar of Nineveh, in which he prays that 
 he may be cured of an illness. After this (c. 
 1050) Assyria underwent a period of decline, 
 
 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 183 
 
 during which not even the names of the kings 
 have been preserved. We only know of one of 
 them, Assur-irbi (c. 990?), who set up an image 
 of himself at the Gulf of Issus, and from whom 
 the Arameans took away the two fortresses on 
 the Euphrates, Pitru (Pethor, Nu 225, Dt 234) and 
 Mutkinu, which had been conquered in the time 
 of Tiglath-pileser I. 
 
 The powerful development of the Aramzans at 
 this time is also clearly reflected in OT, in the 
 history of David (see 2 S 10!6, where Hadadezer 
 brings Arameans from the other side of the 
 Kuphrates). The growth of the power of Israel 
 under Saul, David, and Solomon forms a striking 
 contrast to the decline of Assyria about B.C. 1000. 
 
 Probably the immediate successor of this Assur- 
 irbi was Tuklat-pal-ixyarra (‘Viglath-pileser) JZ. 
 After him we have an accurate and genealogical 
 list of kings, without any gaps at all. 
 
 Tiglath-pileser Il. c. 970. 
 
 Assur-dan II. (son of above) c. B.C. 980-918. 
 
 (Here the Eponym Canon begins). 
 Ramman-nirari 11. (son of above) B.C. 912-891. 
 Tuklat-Nindar If. (son of above) B.C. 890-885. 
 Assur-nazir-pal III.'(son of above) B.C. 884-860. 
 
 Under the last named king a new period of 
 development commenced for Assyria. Of the 
 four predecessors of Assur-nazir-pal, we only 
 know that Ramman-nirfri II. waged some wars 
 against his Bab. contemporaries Samas-mudammik 
 and the latter’s successor Nabu-sum-iskun; and 
 that Tuklat-Nindar advanced to the sources of the 
 Tigris, and threw his heart into the task of again 
 reducing to subjection the mountainous districts 
 in the north, a work which was continued by 
 Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser II. For the con- 
 quests made by Tiglath-pileser I., after so much 
 effort, had been lost again long ago. 
 
 Assur-nazir-pal rebuilt Kalakh, and selected it 
 for his royal residence in memory of his great 
 predecessor Shalmaneser I., after whom he also 
 named his son (Shalmaneser II.). His main ambi- 
 tion was to annex the whole of Mesopotamia to 
 Assyria, which he succeeded at any rate partially 
 in accomplishing. The little Araimean principality 
 Bit-Adini (which is. called Bené-Eden 2 K 19”, and 
 is situated between the Euphrates and Belikh) 
 offered strong resistance to the Assyrians, and 
 Assyria only succeeded in getting the payment of 
 a temporary tribute from it. Greater results, 
 however, were achieved among the mountain 
 tribes on the east, between the lakes Van and 
 Urmia, in the countries of Mannai (Minni, Jer 5177, 
 which certainly ought to be vocalised °22, near 
 Ararat), Kirrur, and Zamua, the last-mentioned 
 being situated to the south of the lake of Urmia. 
 In North Syria further opposition was experienced 
 from the little states that had sprung up on the 
 wrecks of the Hittite empire, whose princes still 
 bore Hittite names, though the populations were 
 Canaanite. The most noteworthy of these was 
 Karkhemis, where king Sangar reigned ; and next 
 to that the land of Unki (‘Amk) or Khattin* on 
 the Orontes, the capital of which was called 
 Kunulua, and the king Lubarna. Both these 
 territories were traversed by the Assyrians. ‘The 
 Assyrians advanced right up to Lebanon and the 
 coast of Phoenicia, so that the towns of Tyre, 
 Sidon, Gebal, Arvad, etc., were compelled to send 
 valuable presents in order to induce the hostile 
 forces to march away. The Bab. contemporary of 
 Assur-nazir-pal was Nabu-pal-idina. (See BABY- 
 LONIA.) 
 
 The reign of Assur-nazir-pal’s son Shalmanu- 
 asharid (Shalmaneser If.), B.C. 859-825, marks a 
 turning-point in Assyr. history in several direc- 
 
 * Written Pa-ti-in, but probably Khattin (the Hittite) is the 
 right reading. 
 
184 ASSYRIA 
 
 
 
 tions. Instead of being satisfied with merely 
 sending threatening expeditions to exact a fresh 
 payment of tribute, he introduced a systematic 
 plan—afterwards always adopted—of placing 
 governors over conquered territories, and thus 
 making them actual provinces and putting them 
 under direct Assyr. control. Moreover, it was in 
 his reign that the first contact between Assyria 
 and the kings of Israel (Ahab and Jehu) took 
 place. Lastly, it was his reign that saw the first 
 beginnings of the Armenian empire under the 
 kings Arimi and Sarduri (Siduri, or, more accur- 
 ately, Sarduw’arri), whose successors gave Assyria 
 so much trouble, till they brought it to the brink 
 of ruin. Tiglath-pileser Ill. and Sargon were the 
 first to succeed in breaking its power, and in 
 helping Assyria forward to new development. 
 The oldest Armenian inscriptions, which date 
 from Sarduri |., are written in Assyr. cuneiform 
 characters and Semitic-Assyrian, while his suc- 
 cessors employ their own Armenian dialect (related 
 to the Georgian), though they use the Assyr. 
 method of writing as well. 
 
 We are very fortunate in possessing pictorial 
 representations of several events in the reign of 
 Shalmaneser. These are to be found chiefly in 
 the magnificent reliefs on the bronze doors of 
 Balawat (Imgur-Bel), and also in the remarkable 
 pictures on the ‘Black Obelisk,’ as it is called. 
 In five series and on four panels are to be seen 
 ambassadors from Gurzan (on Lake Urmia), from 
 king Jahua (Jehu) of Israel, from the land of 
 Musri in West Armenia, from Marduk-pal-uzur of 
 Suchi, and from Karparunda of Khattin. Both 
 monuments are in the British Museum. The in- 
 scription on the series devoted to the land of 
 Musri says: ‘Tribute from Musri. Camels with 
 double humps, oxen from the river Sakiya (or 
 Ivkia ?), asiswu (ikind of antelope), female elephants, 
 and apes.’ The words of the inscription are con- 
 firmed by the pictures, which actually contain 
 double-humped camels, wild steers, an antelope, 
 an elephant, and four apes. This land of Musri, 
 which must be looked for neither in Afghanistan 
 nor in India, but to the north-east of Cilicia, is 
 mentioned in the Bible, 1 K 1028, according to 
 Which Solomon brought his horses from Muzrim 
 and from Kwi (Cilicia), as the emended reading 
 runs. Double-humped camels (Assyr. udrati, from 
 the Arm. uldu, Sansk. ustra) were to be found in 
 different parts of Armenia, and Assur-nazir-pal 
 boasted, as did also Tiglath-pileser I. and Tahut- 
 mes LII., that he had killed elephants in Mesopo- 
 tamia. Shalmaneser made his way into the land 
 of Tabal (the biblical Tubal), which lies to the 
 west of Malatiyeh, where he took possession of the 
 silver, salt, and alabaster works which he found 
 on the mountains, and took the opportunity of 
 exacting tribute from the neighbouring Musri; 
 then he invaded the land of Ku’i (on the Cilician 
 coast), reaching the city of Tarzi, the well-known 
 Tarsus, the birthplace of the apostle Paul. He 
 advanced into Armenia as far as the sources of 
 the Euphrates; then he proceeded eastward to 
 Parsua, the motherland of the Persians, lying 
 to the east of Lake Urmia, and southwards to 
 Namar, which was formerly a protectorate of 
 Babylon, lying to the south of Lake Urmia. 
 His journeys were thus more extensive than those 
 of any of his predecessors. In Babylonia, in the 
 year B.C. 853, Nabu-pal-idinaé was overthrown by 
 his son Marduk-shum-idina, whose brother Marduk- 
 bel-usati, however, raised a revolt against him. 
 Thereupon Marduk-shum-idina relinquished to his 
 brother the southern part of Babylonia, formerly 
 known as the land of Kaldu* (or Imgi), at the same 
 
 * The name existed at an earlier date in an older form, Kardu 
 (whence Kardunias), The form Kasdu (Heb. Kasdim) is only 
 
 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 
 
 time calling upon the king of Assyria for assist- 
 ance. Shalmaneser attacked and killed the re- 
 bellious brother of the Babylonian king, and 
 naturally claimed an extension of frontier in 
 return for his services. 
 
 Of far greater interest for biblical history is 
 the campaign of Shalmaneser against the town of 
 Hamath (Amattu or Amatu) on the Orontes, and 
 its allies, in B.C. 854, the sixth year of his reign. 
 Shalmaneser had scarcely conquered (B.C. 856) 
 and imprisoned one of his most stubborn op- 
 ponents, king Akhuni of Bit-Adini (see above), 
 when a powerful army came out to meet him near 
 Karkar (on the line of march from Aleppo to 
 Hamath) : 
 
 Chariots. Horsemen. Foot. 
 i! 
 
 Bir-idri of Damascus 200 1200 20,000 
 
 Irkhulini of Hamath . : 700 700 10,000 
 Akhabbu of Sir’il . . : 2000 ae 10,000 
 Gui . : 5 ye 5% 500 
 Musri. 2 F oe ann 1,000 
 IrKanat . 5 5 10 10,000 
 Matin-ba‘al of Arvad aie ate 200 
 Usanat . : = dg ae 200 
 Adunu-ba‘al of Shiana , 80 are 10,000 
 Ba’sa (son of Rukhub) of 
 Ammon. F . . , 1,000 
 Camels 
 Gindibu the Arab . : Ras As 1,000 
 
 A mere glance at this table shows that the three 
 most important princes of this league were Bir- 
 idrt (Benhadad) of Damascus, Irkhuliniof Hamath, 
 and Akhabbu of Sir’il. Besides these, two Phoen. 
 cities were prominent in supplying troops, Irkanat 
 (probably =‘Arka, 2)2 Gn 1017) and Shiana (or 
 Siana, *)° of Gn 10!7, which must be corrected to 
 “N2). Akhabbu of Sir’il is no other than king Ahab 
 of Israel, who chose Jezreel (the modern Zer’in) 
 for his royal residence ; and who, in his last year 
 (B.C. 854), before he went to the war against the 
 Syrians, in which he lost his life, had undertaken 
 the obligation of leading an army against the 
 Assyrians. Shalmaneser’s victory over Damascus 
 and Hamath does not seem to have been very 
 permanent, since on two occasions, in B.C. 849 and 
 846, his annals give an account of the repulse of 
 the Syrians and their twelve allies. On the first 
 occasion (B.C, 849), in all probability, the Israelites 
 were present in the battle under the leadership, 
 not of Ahab, but of his son Joram. Joram, how- 
 ever, soon after was attacked by Benhadad, and 
 Samaria was in a state of siege. The Syrians 
 withdrew only upon receiving information that a 
 hostile force was marching against Damascus. 
 The foes, however, were not Hittites and Musrites 
 (2 K 78, i.e. from the land of Musri in West 
 Armenia), as the Syrians in their panic at first 
 believed, but there is the highest probability that 
 they were the Assyrians who, in the year 846, 
 made a new expedition against Damascus. Finally, 
 in the year 842 Shalmaneser made a fresh attack 
 on Syria, this time against Bir-idri’s (Benhadad’s) 
 successor Khaza-ilu (Hazael), whom he defeated, 
 and ultimately besieged in Damascus. The sur- 
 rounding country was devastated, and Shalmaneser 
 took the opportunity of exacting tribute from 
 Tyre, Sidon, and ‘ Jahua of the house of Omri.’ On 
 the black obelisk already mentioned there are 
 pictures of the ambassadors of this same Jahua, 
 bringing gifts, with the following inscription: 
 ‘Tribute of Jahua, son of Khumzi: silver, gold, a 
 vessel of gold, a ladle of gold, golden drinking cups, 
 golden buckets, tin (or lead), a staff for the king’s 
 hand, and spear-shafts (budilkhati) I received.’ 
 That this Jahua, in spite of the inaccuracy of the 
 expression ‘son (i.e. according to the Assyr. use of 
 the word, ‘of the dynasty’) of Omri,’ must be 
 identified with Jehu of Israel, is a fact which does 
 a dialectic variant. By this we see, at the same time, that the 
 
 Heb. expression Ur-Kasdim had its origin long before the 
 time of Shalm. u. 
 
 a 
 : 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 not admit of the least doubt. Although at first a 
 good deal of difficulty was felt on account of the 
 dates (Ahab B.C. 854, Jehu 842), the identification 
 of Ahab with Akhabbu of Sir’il, and of Jahua 
 with Jehu, must now be regarded as settled. The 
 chronology of the period of the kings of Israel, as 
 is generally admitted, has been confused by later 
 redactors, a fact which is clearly proved from the 
 summary of the length of the reigns * alone. Now 
 that the dates 854 and 842 have been absolutely 
 fixed, we have obtained data of the highest value 
 for restoring the original numbers in the text of 
 the Bible (see below, under Tiglath-pileser I11). 
 
 The great Shalmaneser I1., who lost his life in 
 a rebellion, was succeeded by his son Samsi- 
 Ramman IV. B.C. 824-812, who led expeditions 
 against the Bab. kings Ba’u-akhi-idina and 
 Marduk-balat-su-ikbi, and also against the land 
 of Kaldu. Advancing into Media as far as the so- 
 called ‘ White Mountain,’ Elwend, near Ecbatana 
 (Hamadan), he sought to make the lands of 
 Mannai and Parsua, to the north and east of 
 Lake Urmia, secure against the ambition of the 
 Armenian king Ispuinis, son of Sardu’arri I., who 
 was eager to conquer them. 
 
 His son Ramman-nirart LI. (B.0. 811-783) suc- 
 ceeded in advancing still farther into the heart 
 of Media—right up to the Caspian Sea. He was 
 very young when he came to the throne. In all 
 probability his mother, the Bab. princess Sammu- 
 ramat (the Semiramis of Greek legend), held the 
 regency for him at first. In Armenia, his powerful 
 rival Menuas, who lived at Turuspa (Thosp) on 
 the Lake of Van, caused him much trouble, wrest- 
 ing from the Assyrians several powerful vassal 
 states, e.g. Khani-rabbat (Melitene) and Dayaini. 
 It is to be regretted that the account of Ramman- 
 nirari’s campaigns against Syria and Palestine are 
 so very scanty: ‘From the upper part of the 
 Euphrates to the land of Khatti (North Syria), 
 Amutiri (Coelesyria) to its farthest borders, 
 Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri (Israel), Udumu 
 (Edom), and Palastu (Philistia), right up to 
 the great western sea, I reduced to subjection 
 and exacted tribute and imposts: I marched 
 against the ‘‘land of asses’? (Damascus), and 
 shut up Mari’a, king of the land of asses (mat 
 imiri-sw), in his chief town Damascus. Dread of 
 renowned Assur struck him to the earth: he 
 clasped my feet and gave himself up.... His 
 countless wealth and goods I seized in Damascus ; 
 his residence in the midst of his royal palace.’ 
 The Assyr. list of officers for the year 804 mentions 
 an expedition to the town of Batali (= 12bya at 
 the foot of Hermon ?), and for the year 797 one to 
 Manzu’ati (332? ?), which is evidently a town of 
 the Israelites. In one of these years Ramman- 
 nirari’s expedition against Damascus, Edom, and 
 Philistia must have taken place. It happened 
 either at the end of the reign of the Isr. king 
 Jehoahaz, or at the commencement of the reign of 
 his successor Joash. According to the Bible, 
 Benhadad son of Hazael was king of Damascus 
 at the time. lf this be so, Mari’a is only a title, 
 ike the Aramaic Marya’, ‘ Lord,’ unless we see in 
 Mari’a a brother of Hazael of whom nothing else 
 is known. 
 
 Under the successors of Ramman-nirari, Shal- 
 maneser III. B.C. 782-773), Assur-dan III. (B.C. 
 772-755), and Asswr-niraxt IL (B.C. 754-745), 
 Assyria was always losing more territory to the 
 Armenians. Armenia was ruled at this time by 
 
 * From Rehoboam to the sixth year of Hezekiah there are 
 260 years, while from Jeroboam r. to Hoshea (conquest of Samaria) 
 there are only 241. As s matter of fact, from the death of 
 Solomon to u.o. 722 there are only 218 years. The mistake 
 arises with regard to Pekah. Instead of Pekahiah 2 years, Pekah 
 20 years, we ought simply to read Pekah 2 years. Pekahiah is 
 only the fuller form of the name Pekah. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 185 
 
 the mighty kings Argistis (c. B.C. 780-760) and 
 Sardu’arri II. (B.C. 760-730), and ultimately all ‘the 
 lands of Na’iri’ to the north of the Tigris, from 
 Melitene to Lake Urmia, came into its possession. 
 
 This period of deepest eclipse (whilst Israel 
 flourished at the same time under Jeroboam I.) 
 was followed by an era of prosperity, which lasted 
 for a long time without a break under the usurper 
 Palu or (to give him his official title) Tuklat-pal- 
 isharra I1f., called in the Bible TViglath-pileser 
 (B.C. 745-727), who raised Assyria to a height 
 unreached before, and may therefore be called, 
 and with much reason, the real founder of the 
 great Assyrian monarchy (in its largest sense). 
 For the first time in history Tiglath-pileser 
 brought Babylonia, where Nabu-nazir (Nabo- 
 nassar) reigned from B.C. 747-732 and Nabu-nadin- 
 zir from B.C. 733-732, directly under the sway 
 of the Assyr. sceptre. He also reconquered the 
 territories that had been lost to Armenia, and 
 annexed to the Assyr. empire a great part of Syria, 
 where before there had only been at the best of 
 times some vassal states—never any properly 
 constituted provinces. In Babylonia, Tiglath- 
 pileser had next to deal with the Aramezean tribes 
 on the frontiers of Babylon and Elam, among 
 whom the Pukfdu (Pek6éd, Ezk 2378, Jer 5021) and 
 Gambulu played the chief part, and to whom also 
 belonged the Nabatu,* who at later times 
 emigrated to the north-west of Arabia. The in- 
 stigators of this rebellion were probably the small 
 states of the Kaldi, or Chaldeans, in the south 
 and middle of Babylonia. The prime mover was 
 a certain Ukinzir (Chinzeros) from Bit-Amukkan, 
 who ultimately, in B.C. 731, succeeded in seizing 
 the Bab. throne. Already after the defeat of the 
 Arameans in 745, Tiglath-pileser had assumed the 
 title ‘King of Sumer and Akkad,’ but now, after 
 his victory over Ukin-zir, he got himself crowned 
 ‘King of Babylon’ with great solemnity at the 
 new-year festival of B.C. 728. 
 
 In the year B.C. 744 Tiglath-pileser marched 
 through the land of Namri (see above) right into 
 the interior of Media to the Bikni mountains, to 
 Demavend, that lies to the south of the Caspian 
 Sea, in order to reassert Assyr. influence, which 
 had been destroyed by the Armenians. He re- 
 conquered also (B.C. 787) the provinces of Parsua 
 and Bustus, that lie between Armenia and Media. 
 In the North of Syria the Armenians had been 
 driven out by Mati-el of Jakhan (also written 
 Akhan), who was called, in accordance with his 
 descent, Prince of Bit-Agtsi. Tiglath-pileser 
 besieged him in his royal residence at Arpad 
 (Tell Erfiid, north of Aleppo, the biblical Arpad), 
 which, after three years’ resistance, fell into his 
 hands in B.C. 740. He had previously (B.C. 743) 
 repelled the Armenian army which tried to impede 
 the siege of Arpad, and had defeated it in a de- 
 cisive battle on the Upper Euphrates. 
 
 Tiglath-pileser was now able for the first time to 
 advance into the interior of Syria. In the year 
 B.C. 7388 he conquered the town of Kullant 
 (Calno, Is 10°), which lies to the north of Hamath, 
 and overpowered ‘Asriya’u of Ja’udi.’t Nineteen 
 districts of Hamath fell before him and were 
 captured, while Kullani, which was evidently the 
 residence of Asriya’u, became the seat of an Assyr. 
 governor. Thereupon all the independent kings 
 of Syria who lived in the neighbouring regions 
 (Kustaspi of Kummukh, Razunnw of Damascus, 
 
 * The Arabian Vabaydti mentioned in Assurbanipal’s inserip- 
 tion are a totally different people. They are the Nebaioth of 
 the OT. The Nabatu (Arab. 033), on the other hand, are the 
 well-known Nabatwans. They were of Aramean origin, as the 
 
 Nabateean inscriptions inform us. 
 + Not Judah (7717) but a country in the north of Syria 
 
 YN), as the inscription of king Panammu of Sam’al makes 
 obvious, 
 
 
 
 
 
ASSYRIA 
 
 Minikhimmi of Samirina, Hiram of Tyre, Sibitti- 
 bi’il of Gebal, Urik of Ku’i, Pisiris of Carchemish, 
 Ini-el of Hamath, Panammu of Sam/’al, Tarkhulara 
 of Gurgum), and some also who lived in more re- 
 mote districts, viz. the princes of Milid (Malatiyeh) 
 and Tabal (Tubal), and a North-Arabian queen, 
 Zabibi,* came to do homage to the great king. 
 Another expedition to the West followed in the 
 year B.C. 734, which was specially directed against 
 Philistia, where king Khanunu (Hanno) of Gaza 
 was defeated. 
 
 The main campaign against Damascus and 
 Israel, however, belongs to the years B.C. 733 and 
 732. In Israel, Pekah (Assyr. Pakakhu) had just 
 succeeded Menahem on the throne. Rezin (Ra- 
 zunnu), king of Syria, was defeated. Damascus 
 was besieged (B.C. 733) and captured (B.C. 732). In 
 Israel, Tiglath-pileser took a series of towns, in- 
 cluding the whole land of Naphtali (2 K 1579), and 
 Pekah was compelled to pay a very considerable 
 tribute. In the year B.C. 731 he was murdered, and 
 Hoshea (Assyr. Ausi’t’) was confirmed by Tiglath- 
 pileser as king of Israel. After the fali of Damascus 
 (B.C. 7382), which forthwith became the seat of an 
 Assyr. governor, the following princes, Sanib of 
 Ammon, Salaman of Moab, Mitinti of Ashkelon, 
 Jw ukhazi (i.e. Joahaz=fuller form of Ahaz) of 
 Judah, and Kaus-malak of Hdom, were compelled 
 to pay tribute. Ahaz had some time previously 
 called in Tiglath-pileser to protect him against 
 Pekah and Rezin, who had robbed him of the 
 harbour of Elath. The Arabian queen Samsi 
 was also conquered by the Assyrians, who took the 
 opportunity of advancing into the north of Arabia 
 for the first time. ‘Thereupon certain Arab tribes, 
 even the remote Sabzeans, sent him rich presents. 
 
 The following synchronisms in Tiglath-pileser’s 
 annals, which may be safely trusted, are of 
 
 supreme importance for the chronology of Israel 
 and Judah :— 
 738  3B.C., Menahem of Israel. 
 
 Pekah of Israel. 
 
 732 3, Ahaz of Judah. 
 
 731(?) ,, Hoshea of Israel. 
 
 To this it may be added that Rezin of Damascus, 
 as is stated both in the Bible and in the inscriptions, 
 was the contemporary of all these kings. 
 
 If we accept B.C. 854 as the last year of Ahab, 
 B.C. 842 as'the first year of Jehu, and B.C. 722 as 
 the date of the destruction of Samaria, we may 
 construct the chronology of Israel as follows :— 
 
 842 B.C., lst year of Jehu, who reigned 28 years. 
 
 814 lst year of Joahaz, no tld 
 
 797 1st year of Joash, eee LO 
 
 782 16th year of Joash and 
 
 1st year of Jeroboam Il. ,, 41 
 41st year of 
 Zechariah reigned 6 months. 
 Shallum one month. 
 1st year of Menahem, 
 10th ee Aa ” 
 1st year of Pekah. 
 
 731 2nd year of Pekah 
 
 730 lst year of Hoshea as 9 
 
 722 9th year of Hoshea and 
 
 conquest of Samaria. 
 There is room in this arrangement for only a two- 
 years’ reign of Pekah. Exactly the same things 
 are related of Pekahiah as of Pekah, and the two 
 names are virtually the same (see above). It is 
 clear that the original text of the Bk. of Kings 
 had only one Pekah (or Pekahiah), who reigned 
 
 738-2 ,, 
 
 * Probably she was the princess of the Bir’wans (for which 
 we may, however, substitute Sab’wans, N3D, not to be con- 
 founded with the Sab’wans, xni), an Arabian tribe which is 
 always mentioned first in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser 
 that speak of the tribute of the Arabians. (Mas’xans= xwnp, 
 Temeans = Xp )n, Sabeans= x3w, Khayappwans =7p»y, etc.) 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 two years, between Menahem and Hoshea. The 
 addition of Pekah’s twenty years to Pekahiah’s two 
 was the work of a later editor, and, as a result, 
 all the synchronisms of Israel and Judah for this 
 period naturally fell into disorder. Instead of 
 there being an irreconcilable antagonism between 
 the Bible and the inscriptions in relation to 
 chronology, the latter rather help us to correct 
 an old error in the text of the Bible (not in the 
 Bible itself as the word of God—only in the text), 
 while they have essentially confirmed the truth of 
 the biblical narrative throughout. 
 
 We have still to speak of a policy which Tiglath- 
 pileser was the first to introduce, and which 
 essentially contributed to the strengthening of the 
 Assyrian empire. In forming new provinces, he 
 and his successors adopted the following plan. 
 As the cuneiform inscriptions and the Books of 
 Kings (e.g. 2 K 159 176) relate, all sections of the 
 population were transplanted into distant pro- 
 vinces, and, conversely, the territories thus left 
 empty were settled with other prisoners of war. 
 
 Finally, with regard to king Panammu of 
 Samal, mentioned above in connexion with the 
 year B.C. 738, the Berlin Museum now possesses 
 several inscriptions from Zinjirli (south of 
 Mar‘ash, Assyr. Markasi) belonging to Panam- 
 mu’s son Bir-Rokeb (2293), which are written 
 in old Phen. characters, and composed in a 
 dialect which is a mixture of Can. and Aramaic. 
 These inscriptions mention Tiglath-pileser,—the 
 word being spelt in the same way as in the OT, 
 apbandan (it is also on one occasion spelt >pyypnban) 
 —calling him ws 75n, and on one occasion 
 ‘Lord of the four quarters of the earth’ sx 1p 
 xp rsx oyan (Assyr. shar-kibrat-irbitti, king of the 
 four quarters of the world). Panammu, son of 
 Bir-zur, died in the camp of Tiglath-pileser at 
 Damascus B.C. 783 or 732, whereupon Bir-Rokeb 
 was appointed king of Sam’al by the Assyr. king. 
 The inscriptions of Zinjirli relate that Bir-ztr, 
 the grandfather of Bir-Rokeb, was murdered by a 
 usurper (probably the Asriya’u mentioned in the 
 annals of Tiglath-pileser) from the neighbouring 
 country of Ja’udi (1s‘), whereupon Panammu 
 turned to Tiglath-pileser for protection. It seems 
 that in previous times another Panammu, son of 
 Karal, had ruled over Ja’udi (181), one of whose 
 inscriptions (in somewhat ancient writing) has 
 lately been found. Both these Panammu belonged 
 to the dynasty of Gabbar, which in the time of Shal- 
 maneser II. was in possession of Sam’al, and whose 
 kings were called 133 129 (kings of Kabbar). The 
 gods of Sam’al and Ja’udi are Hadad-El, Rokeb- 
 El (who was also called na bys=Lord of the 
 House), Shemesh, and Reshep—the last-named 
 being a special god of Ja’udi. The name of the 
 usurper Asriya’u (most probably=*rny) points to 
 an Israelitish descent. A usurper of Hamath in 
 the time of Sargon was called sometimes J1@- 
 bi‘di, sometimes Ja’u-bi‘di, which also points to his 
 Isr. origin. The redactors of the Books of Kings 
 appear to have possessed information about this 
 Asriya’u of Ja’udi, since they evidently identified 
 him with king Uzziah* of Judah, and in many 
 places the name »yy has been substituted in the 
 text for ayy. Sam’al, too (=Northland), was not 
 unknown to the Bible, for Nu 2424 evidently ought 
 to read: ‘A vessel (?) shall come from Sam/’al 
 (sxnwp) and boats from Kittim (Cyprus) which 
 shall afflict Asshir (not Assyria, but=Asshurim, 
 Gn 258, 2 S 2%), and shall afflict Eber ; moreover, he 
 himself also (=Og of Bashan, ef. LX X) shall come 
 to destruction.’ The whole passage refers to the 
 attacks made by the populations of the Mediter. 
 
 * Prophetic literature clearly shows that Uzziah was his onl 
 name, as also does the well-known old Heb. Seal ‘ of Shebanyé, 
 servant of Uzziy6,’ yy say yaw. 
 
 
 
 alia dl 
 
| ASSYRIA 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 (Europe and Asia Minor) upon Syria and Egypt in 
 the days of Ramses III. 
 
 Tiglath-pileser was followed by Shalman-asharid 
 Iv., the Shalmaneser of the Bible (B.C. 726-722), who 
 was probably his son. As king of Babylon he was 
 
 called Ululai (Kluleus), 7.e. ‘he who was born in 
 
 the month Elul.’ Immediately after his accession 
 to the throne, before the year B.U. 727 was over 
 (726 was the first oficial year of his reign), he 
 conquered the Assyr. town Shabarain(Sepharvaim, 
 2K 17%?). In the year B.C. 724 he began to invest 
 Samaria, which fell at the end of a three years’ 
 siege, in the first month of the reign of his suc- 
 cessor Sargon, who took all the credit for this 
 achievement, as well as for the transportation of 
 the ten tribes, without thinking of his predecessor. 
 The Bible account, however, very justly connects 
 the name of Shalmaneser with the fall of the 
 Northern Kingdom (B.C. 722). 
 
 Israel now, like the kingdom of Damascus 
 before, became an Assyr. province, Samaria being 
 the seat of the governor. 
 
 The zenith of Assyr. power was reached in the 
 reign of the usurper Sargon* (Assyr. Sharru-ukin 
 = ‘the king has restored order’), B.C. 721-705, who 
 is only once mentioned in the Bible (Is 201), in 
 connexion with the taking of Ashdod. In the very 
 year that he entered upon his reign (‘at the 
 beginning of his reign,’ as the official expression 
 runs), B.C. 722, he carried of the inhabitants of 
 Samaria, 27,290 men, to the rivers Belikh and 
 Khabor, the river of Gozan, and the cities of Media 
 (2 K 17°), settling Babylonian (Cuthaites) and 
 other colonists in the territories of the conquered 
 city. 
 
 Sargon’s main political ambition was the con- 
 solidation of Babylonia, as well as the provinces of 
 Assyria which bordered upon Armenia, and finally 
 Syria. This ambition was realised by the final 
 reduction of Armenia, whose king at that time 
 was Rusa (or Ursa), the son of Irimenas, and also 
 by the humiliation of the Manneans t+ (712 Jer 5127), 
 who were the most powerful allies Armenia 
 possessed, and of the Sagarteans (Assyr. 
 Zikirtu), an Eranian nomadic tribe which lived 
 to the east of the Mannzans; and finally by the 
 war against Elam. The last-named state was 
 henceforth the most dangerous foe the power of 
 Assyria possessed, and was always in firm alliance 
 with the small states of South Babylonia (the so- 
 called Chaldzeans), and above all with Bit-yakin. 
 The prince of Bit-yakin, Marduk-pal-idina, im- 
 mediately after the death of Shalmaneser, had 
 seized the throne of Babylonia for himself. In B.c. 
 721 Sargon, who had till then been occupied 
 with other duties, marched against him and his 
 ally Khumbanigas of Elam. The battle was inde- 
 cisive; and Sargon had to march against the 
 Armenians; so that it was not till B.c. 710 that 
 he was successful in defeating Marduk-pal-idina, 
 and getting himself crowned king of Babylon (B.c. 
 709-705). This Marduk-pal-idina is the Merodach- 
 baladan of the Bible, whose embassy to Hezekiah, 
 which is related in 2 IK 2012 as a supplement to 
 Sennacherib’s campaign, belongs either to B.C. 715 
 (first year of Hezekiah’s reign) or to 708, in which 
 year Merodach-baladan was king of Babylon a 
 second time. 
 
 Of Sargon’s other campaigns, those against 
 
 * The Hebrew ]\17D is based upon a similar word in popular 
 use, Sarginu (=‘ mighty Be 
 
 + In the year .c. 745 a Manneean governor Daiukku is men- 
 tioned in the annals of Sargon, and in B.c. 713 a land of Bit- 
 Daiukku between Man and Illip (in the west of Media). In 
 Assyrian it is called Mdt Bit-Daiukku, ‘Land of the Dynasty 
 (House of the Prince) of Daiukku.’ This Daiukku is evidently 
 the Dejokes (Deivces) of Greek tradition, who, according to the 
 later story, was the first king of Media. Gamir also (Gomer, Gn 
 
 10?) is mentioned as haying broken into Armenia even in the 
 time of Sargon. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 187 
 
 Syria, Palestine, and Arabia have special interest 
 for the OT student. The first, B.C. 720, was an 
 expedition to suppress an insurrection which a 
 certain [-bi'di,* who is also called Ta’u-bi’di, had 
 raised in Hamath. This Ilt-bi'di had not only 
 induced the Assyr. provinces of Arpad, Simyra, 
 Damascus, and Samaria to revolt, but had also 
 formed an alliance with Khantinu (Hanno) of 
 Gaza and Sib’i (x1D 2 K 174, 7.e. Sev’e) of Hgypt. 
 Probably Judah, where Ahaz was still on the 
 throne, was also included in the alliance, since 
 Sargon once calls himself (indeed before he speaks 
 of Hamath at all) the ‘Conqueror of the remote 
 land of Judah.’ The Egyp. army was, however, 
 defeated at Rapikhu (Raphia, south of Gaza), and 
 Hanno found himself in an Assyr. prison, while 
 Ilfi-bi’di and his other allies were defeated and 
 destroyed at Karkar (in the neighbourhood of 
 Hamath). 
 
 In the year 715 Sargon undertook a campaign 
 into the interior of North Arabia ‘against the 
 remote Arabians of the Desert, of whom the wise 
 and learned knew nothing.’ The tribes of Thamtd, 
 Ibadid, Marsiman (Gn 265!8 owan, according to 
 LXX Macoap, 1 Ch 4% Macewau ?), and Khayappa 
 (78%, LXX Taléa) were conquered, and partially 
 settled in Samaria. Thereupon Pir’u (cf. ox 45 Jos 
 108, scarcely equivalent to Pharaoh) of Musur (the 
 territory called Ma‘in-Muzran of the South Arabian 
 inscriptions, in the north of the peninsula of 
 Sinai ?), queen Samsi of Aribi (a part of North 
 Arabia), and the Sabeean Ita’amar (1Dxyn) of the 
 South Arabian inscriptions), ‘ the kings of the sea- 
 coast and the desert,’ brought rich presents, among 
 which were ‘sweet-smelling spices of the moun- 
 tains’ (frankincense), gold, precious stones, horses, 
 and camels. 
 
 In the year B.C. 711, the same year in which the 
 North Syrian state Gurgum (capital town Markasi, 
 modern Mar‘ash) became an Assyr. province, t a 
 certain Yamani, who is also called Yatna, ¢ over- 
 threw king Akhimiti of Ashdod. When the 
 Assyrians despatched an expedition against Ash- 
 dod (ef. Is 20), Philistia (Pilistu), Juda (Ja’fidu), 
 Edom (Udumu), and Moab (Ma’ab), instead of 
 sending their presents to Assur, sent them to king 
 Pir’u of Musur, who has been already mentioned, 
 because they trusted to him and to Arabia (Cush, 
 Is 203 and often in the OT). Ashdod and Gath 
 (Gimtu) were conquered and made into an Assyr. 
 province, but Yamani fled to the ‘king of Milukh’ 
 (north-west of Arabia, cf. Job 39° ane, parallel to 
 312). It is evidently the same Pir’u of Musur 
 who is alluded to in a parallel passage which runs, 
 ‘He (Yamani) fled to the territory of Musur which 
 belongs to the district of Milukh,’ the last phrase 
 being added to distinguish this Musur from the 
 Musur which is the equivalent of Egypt. 
 
 Besides these campaigns of Sargon’s, which are 
 of great importance for the study of the Bible, 
 we may further mention that in B.C. 709 he 
 received presents from seven Cyprian kings. An 
 image of him, which is now in Berlin, was dis- 
 covered on the island of Cyprus (see above, p. 178*). 
 
 The new residence which Sargon built for him- 
 self in Khorsabad (see above, p. 178>) was conse- 
 crated in the year B.C. 707. In the year B.C. 705, 
 however, he fell by the hand of an assassin, who 
 was probably instigated by his own son Sennacherib. 
 The latter, strangely enough, never mentions his 
 father in his inscriptions. As far as the character 
 of Sargon is concerned, it is sufficiently clear from 
 
 * On this name, see above. Others read Ilu-ubi‘di and Ja-ubi‘di 
 (or Ilia-ubi‘di) with much less probability. 
 
 + Already, in 8.0. 717, a similar fate had befallen the powerful 
 town of Carchemish (cf. Is 10%). Kummukh (Commagene), too, 
 came under the power of Assyria in B.c. 708. 
 
 t+ Compare the Assyrian name for C prus, Jatnana, of which 
 perhaps Jaman, Javan (Ionia) is a parallel (dialectical) form. 
 
188 ASSYRIA 
 
 ASSYRIA 
 
 
 
 his inscriptions that as ‘Father of his country’ he 
 deserves the praise of being called a ‘righteous and 
 noble prince’ (cf. especially on this point the very 
 instructive cylinder inscription which has been 
 translated by Lyon). 
 
 Sin-akhi-irba (‘Sin multiply the brothers’), the 
 biblical Sennacherib, reigned from B.C. 704-681. He 
 it was who removed the royal residence from 
 Kalakh back again to Nineveh, which, by exten- 
 sive building operations, and at the expense of 
 Babylon, which he destroyed in a very barbarous 
 fashion, he elevated into the capital of the united 
 empire of Assyria and Babylonia. The great 
 palace, too, in the south-west of Kouyunjik deserves 
 to be specially mentioned—the ‘peerless palace,’ 
 which in later times the grandson of Sennacherib, 
 Assurbanipal, surrounded with buildings. Nor 
 must we forget the great arsenal (bit kutalli) at 
 Nebi-yunus, which Esarhaddon extended, and the 
 magnificent waterworks in the neighbourhood of 
 Nineveh. 
 
 The most important political undertakings of 
 Sennacherib were his wars against Elam and Baby- 
 lonia on the one side, and his expeditions to the 
 West on the other. The only other campaign worth 
 mentioning was one against Cilicia (properly 
 Khilakku, the mountain district in the interior * 
 of Cilicia) and Tabal (the biblical Tubal), which 
 probably belongs to the year B.C. 695. Probably 
 it is this expedition that is referred to in the re- 
 mark of Berosus, that Sennacherib, ‘after a severe 
 struggle conquered the Ionians who dwelt on the 
 Cilician coast, and then [re]founded Tarsus.’ The 
 Assyrians had also to deal with this district a 
 second time in the days of Sennacherib, in the year 
 B.C. 681; for at the moment when Sennacherib was 
 murdered, the crown prince Esarhaddon was in 
 Khani-rabbat (east of Tabal) with his troops. 
 
 In Babylonia, Merodach-baladan the Chaldee, 
 who is so well known from the inscriptions of Sargon, 
 had established himself once more upon the throne, 
 having allied himself for this purpose with Kudur- 
 nankhundi of Hlam and the Aramzan nomad 
 tribes. Sennacherib conquered Merodach-baladan 
 and his allies, and placed a certain Bel-ibni on the 
 throne of Babylon. After several vicissitudes, when 
 the Elamites, as allies of Babylonia, always had a 
 hand in the game (Merodach-baladan himself on 
 one occasion taking part in the struggle again), 
 in B.C. 691 the bloody battle of Khalélin, which 
 ended unsuccessfully, or at any rate indecisively, for 
 Sennacherib, was fought against the united armies 
 of the Elamites, Babylonians, Aramzans, Chal- 
 deans, and certain districts of Media. The Median 
 districts Anzan (also written Anshan), where the 
 dynasty of Cyrus originated, and Illip, were now, 
 as allies of Elam, for the first time called after 
 Parsua, the motherland of the later Persians. At 
 last, in the year B.C. 689, Sennacherib succeeded in 
 taking possession of Babylon, and in wreaking 
 fearful vengeance upon it. It was levelled to the 
 ground, and only rebuilt again in later times under 
 Sennacherib’s gentler and nobler-hearted son Esar- 
 haddon. 
 
 Sennacherib’s great expedition to the West, 
 which was undertaken in the year 701, began with 
 the punishment of king Luli (Eluleus) of Sidon, 
 who fled ‘into the sea,’ possibly to Cyprus or else 
 to the island of Tyre, which, if we are to trust our 
 Greek sources of information, was besieged by the 
 Assyr. king in vain. 
 
 In Sidon a new king, Tuba’al (Ethobaal), was 
 appointed, to whom Sarepta, Akko, and other 
 Pheen. states were given. Arvad and Gebal 
 
 * Ku’i (4)P 1 K 1028), on the other hand, is the Cilician coast- 
 
 land, Khilakku probably occurs in the Bible, Ezk 271 79m) 7108, 
 ae Khelak. Thus both names for Cilicia are found in 
 the OT. 
 
 (Byblus), however, like Ashdod of Philistia and 
 the states bordering on Judea, Ammon, Mvuab, and 
 
 Edom, offered a voluntary tribute. ‘The town of 
 Ashkelon in Philistia, whose king Sidka (Zedekiah) 
 refused to pay tribute, together with Joppa 
 (Yappti) and other towns, were conquered and 
 plundered. The town of Ekron (Amkarrina) 
 handed its king Padi, who had submitted to the 
 Assyrians, over to Hezekiah (Ahazakiya’w) of 
 Judah. Ekron and Judah called in to their assist- 
 ance the king of Musur (see above) and the 
 archers of the king of Milukh, but were defeated 
 by Sennacherib at Eltekeh (Altaku). Sennacherib 
 next besieged and conquered 46 fenced cities and 
 villages of Judah, and carried off 200,150 of their 
 inhabitants as prisoners, until at last he pitched 
 his camp in Lachish (Assyr. Lakishu), the extreme 
 south-western corner of Judah. Up to this 
 point the passage in 2 K 1818 acrees with the 
 Assyr. narrative: ‘In the fourteenth year of king 
 Hezekiah (B.C. 701) did Sennacherib, king of 
 Assyria, come up against all the fenced cities of 
 Judah, and took them.’ Then the Bible account 
 goes on to say that Hezekiah sent a message of 
 peace to Sennacherib at Lachish, and that Senna- 
 cherib promised to abstain from further hostilities 
 on the payment of 300 talents of silver and 30 
 talents of gold (2 K 1814-16), In spite of this, as 
 the biblical narrative continues (2 K 1817 to 198), 
 Sennacherib sent his chief officer with an army to 
 invest Jerusalem, but was obliged to return to 
 Assyria again without having effected his purpose. 
 The main points of this record agree with Senna- 
 cherib’s own account: ‘and Hezekiah himself I shut 
 up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem (Ur-Salimmu), 
 his royal city. I threw up entrenchments against 
 him, and when any one came out of the gate of the 
 city, I punished him. The cities that had been 
 taken away from him I cut off from his land and 
 gave them to the kings of Ashdod, Ekron (Padi), 
 and Gaza. In addition to his former assessment 
 (see above, ‘the 300 talents of silver and the 30 
 talents of gold’), I added other tribute, and exacted 
 it from him. Dread of the greatness of my 
 majesty overwhelmed Hezekiah; while the Be- 
 dawin (? Assyr. amel Urbi) and his own special 
 warriors, whom he had collected together to 
 defend Jerusalem, rendered him no assistance (irsw 
 batlati). In addition to the 30 talents of gold and 
 800* talents of silver, precious stones, antimony t 
 . .. his daughters and women from his harem, 
 male and female slaves, he sent his ambassadors 
 after me, to bring to Nineveh an extra gift of 
 tribute and an expression of his fealty.’ 
 
 To a later period (this we must infer from 
 the fact that mention is made of the Ethiopian 
 king Tirhakah, called Tarkfi by Esarhaddon and 
 Assurbanipal), belongs the account given in the 
 Bible (2 K 19°87), It really appears as if Sennacherib 
 had undertaken, shortly before his death, an ex- 
 pedition against the Arabians (cf. the inscriptions 
 of Esarhaddon, and Herodotus If. 141), and had 
 made use of the opportunity to march a second 
 time against Hezekiah as well. 
 
 Shortly after this, on the 20th of Tebet 681 B.c., 
 he was murdered by his own son, or, according to 
 the account in 2 K 198’, by his two sons, Adrammelech 
 and Sharezer. The rebellion lasted till the 2nd of 
 Adar, about a month and a half, because Esar- 
 haddon, who had been appointed by Sennacherib 
 to succeed him, was at that time absent in Armenia, 
 whither the conspirators marched against him, 
 only, however, to be defeated. 
 
 Esarhaddon thereupon ascended the throne 
 
 * The annual tribute of 300 talents of silver imposed on 
 Hezekiah was thus increased by 500 talents. 
 
 + Here follows an enumeration of a series of other special 
 presents. 
 
 
 
ASSYRIA 
 
 amidst general rejoicing, on 18th of Adar 681 B.c., 
 and set himself to the task of rebuilding the town 
 of Babylon, towards which he had always shown 
 special favour. 
 
 Ashur-akhi-idina (i.e. ‘ Asur give still a brother’), 
 the Hsarhaddon of the Bible, reigned from B.C. 
 630-669. During his reign a great danger 
 threatened Assyria, on account of an invasion of 
 the Cimmerians (Gimirrai; their land was called 
 Gamir ; see above, p. 1874, note), who joined with 
 the Medes and burst like a storm upon the country. 
 These Cimmerians were Eranian nomads, who, 
 according to classical tradition, had originally 
 come from the north coast of the Black Sea, and 
 who had threatened even in the time of Sargon to 
 cross the Caucasus into Armenia. ‘There was a 
 certain Dusanni of Saparda (1222, Ob v.?), an 
 Ispakat of Ishktiza (n>vs), a Median chief 
 Mamitiarsu, and a Kastarit of Karkassi (the 
 Karkasia of the inscriptions of Sargon) in Media, 
 who, in conjunction with the Mannzans, and with 
 Tiuspa, leader of the Gimirrai, threatened the east 
 frontier of Assyria, and more especially Kishassu, 
 which, since the time of Sargon, had been an 
 Assyr. town, and which probably they were suc- 
 cessful in taking. Ashur-akhi-idina, however, ad- 
 vanced into Media as far as Patus’arra (Marei- 
 xopes, Strabo xv. 3), ‘to the borders of the salt 
 desert at the verge of the Bikni mountains’ (or 
 Demavend). In the north-west he conquered the 
 Cilicians, who had allied themselves with Ishkallu 
 of Tabal, Muggallu of Milida, and the Kuzzurakai, 
 enlisting Greek soldiers against them, as Berosus 
 narrates. 
 
 Ashur-akhi-idina’s chief successes, however, were 
 inthe West. After he had conquered and beheaded 
 (676) the king of Sidon, Abdi-Milkut, he besieged 
 king Ba‘al in Tyre, and brought to a successful 
 issue a very hazardous expedition to the remote 
 land of Bazu (13 of Job 327), in the interior of 
 Arabia. He also led on two occasions (B.C. 
 
 674 and 671) expeditions to Egypt against the 
 Pharaoh Tirhakah. He conquered Memphis (B.C. 
 671), and established over it an Assyr. vassal-king, 
 
 Necho by name. The Assyr. troops advanced as 
 far as Thebes (Nii, 83), so that Tirhakah was 
 compelled to flee into his Ethiopian motherland. 
 Ashur-akhi-idina was the first Assyr. king able to 
 assunie the proud title ‘King of Assyria, Egypt, 
 Paturisi (=Upper Egypt, pins), and Kis (Nubia 
 or Ethiopia).’ He boasted of the palaces he built, 
 and especially of the great arsenal in Nebi-yunus, 
 for the rebuilding of which, he tells us, 22 
 kings (of whom 10 were princes of towns in 
 Cyprus) were compelled to send materials : Ba‘al of 
 Tyre, Manasseh (Minasi) of Judah, Kausgabri of 
 Edom, Musur of Moab, and the kings of Ammon, 
 Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, Ashdod, Gebal, and Arvad. 
 
 Manasseh is also mentioned in the time of 
 Assurbanipal, though only briefly, at the commence- 
 ment of his reign (B.C. 668); and as the Bible 
 account says that he reigned till 642, his trans- 
 portation to Babylon, mentioned in the Books of 
 Chronicles, must have taken place under Assur- 
 banipal, and not under Esarhaddon. 
 
 Esarhaddon was about to invade Egypt a third 
 time, in B.C. 669, when he was taken ill on the 
 journey. He died on the 10th of Arahsamna 
 (Marcheshvan) in the same year. 
 
 His son and successor, Assur-bani-pal (the Sarda- 
 napalus of the Greeks, the Osnappar of the Bible, 
 Ezr 41°), B.c. 668-626, was marked out by Esar- 
 haddon as heir to the throne with great solemnity 
 on the 12th of Iyyar B.c. 669. After coming to the 
 throne, he allowed his brother Samas-sum-ukin 
 (Sammughes, or Saosduchinos), in accordance with 
 Esarhaddon’s wishes, to be crowned king of Babylon 
 (in Iyyar B.C. 668). He was the last great king of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ASSYRIA 189 
 
 Assyria. In his reign we clearly see the downfall 
 of the Assyr. world-empire approaching. Assur- 
 bani-pal had been educated from early youth in 
 the arts and sciences of the Babylonians, and it 
 is entirely owing to his literary tastes that we 
 possess sO many remains of old Bab. literature in 
 new Assyr. copies (see above, p. 178°). He was a 
 real Oriental despot, keeping his generals and 
 armies busy in the provinces and along the 
 frontiers, while he himself lived at home, with his 
 wives, his sciences, and the service of his gods. 
 
 One of the first of Assur-bani-pal’s under- 
 takings was directed against Egypt. ‘Tirhakah had 
 regained possession of Memphis. The expedition, 
 which had been broken off owing to the death of 
 Esarhaddon, was resumed. ‘Tirhakah was de- 
 feated and pursued to Thebes, whence, however, 
 as before, he escaped to Ethiopia. The smaller 
 princes of the delta were enrolled as Assyr. 
 vassal-kings. Some of them (such as Necho of 
 Sais) who tried to throw off the Assyr. yoke, and 
 called in Tirhakah to help them, were compelled to 
 go in chains to Nineveh. Necho obtained favour 
 with Assurbanipal again, and was reinvested with 
 the rule of Sais.* Meanwhile Tirhakah had died, 
 and his nephew Tandamani (Tanut-Amon), son of 
 Sabako, conquered Thebes and On (Heliopolis). 
 Assurbanipal marched against Egypt a second 
 time, drove out the king of Ethiopia, and made 
 Necho’s son Psamtik (Assyr. Pisamilku) Pharaoh 
 B.C. 663. Afterwards Psamtik, by the help of the 
 Jonian and Carian troops which Gyges, king of the 
 Lydians, had sent to him, succeeded in freeing 
 himself from the control of Assyria. The Gyges, 
 just mentioned (Assyr. Gfigu), requested help 
 from Assurbanipal, when the Cimmerians (see 
 above) invaded Lydia in B.C. 657. His son Ardys 
 drove out the Cimmerians from Lydia, and after- 
 wards conquered the whole of Asia Minor up to 
 the river Halys. 
 
 The might of Assyria spent itself, in the time of 
 Assurbanipal, in the conflict with Babylonia and 
 Elam. It was only after a furious struggle that 
 Assurbanipal succeeded in defeating his insurrec- 
 tionary brother Samas-sum-ukin (who in B.C. 648 
 threw himself, in despair on account of his defeat, 
 into the flames of burning Babylon), and his allies 
 the Elamites, and in conquering Susa B.C. 640, thus 
 putting an end to the kingdom of Elam. Samas- 
 sum-ukin’s other allies, the Chaldeans, the Baby- 
 lonian Aramzans, the kings of the West (probably 
 Manasseh was amongst them) and of Arabia 
 (specially of Kidru, z.e. 172, and Nabayati, 7.e. ™ 22) 
 were also subdued. These contests, however, so 
 weakened the resources of Assyria, that revolt 
 following on revolt was the order of the day, especi- 
 ally in the Mannan and Median districts (between 
 Armenia and Elam). Some expeditions against 
 Akhsir, king of the Manneans, against Biris- 
 khadri, a Median, and against the sons of Gdagi 
 (cf. Ezk 38 and 39, Gog and Magog, i.e. the land of 
 Gog) and of Sakhi (the Sakes ?), could not keep back 
 for many decades the storm that was even now 
 beginning to rage. With regard to the attacks 
 instigated by Tugdammi (cf. Lygdamis, captain of 
 the Cimmerians, Strabo i. 8. 21?) and his son 
 Sanda-kshatra against Assyria, our information is 
 based on dark hints contained in a prayer of 
 Assurbanipal to Merodach, the god of the city of 
 Babylon. Whether Assurbanipal reigned from 
 B.C. 648-625 over Babylonia, under the name 
 Kandalanu, known to us from contract-tablets 
 and through Ptolemy, or whether this was the 
 
 * The same thing also probably happened in the case of 
 Manasseh, only at a later time, when Assur-bani-pal was staying 
 in Babylon (instead of Nineveh), probably shortly after the death 
 of his rebellious brother Samas-sum-ukin (B.0. 648), whose ally 
 Manasseh had been. 
 
 
 
ASSYRIA 
 
 name of a rival king, cannot be definitely deter- 
 mined. We only know that after the death of 
 Assurbanipal, the Chaldean Nabopolassar (Nabii- 
 pal-uzur), who was originally one of Assurbanipal’s 
 generals, obtained for himself the Bab. throne 
 (8.C, 625-605). In Assyria itself Assurbanipal was 
 succeeded by his son Aswr-itil-ila@ni (the fuller form 
 of which was Assur-itil-ilani-ukin), who ruled at 
 least four years, and by his other son Sin-shar-ishkun 
 (at least seven years), who was probably the Sarakus 
 of Berosus, and hence the last king Assyria ever 
 had. It was in his day that the swamping of 
 anterior Asia, by the Sakean Scythians (men- 
 tioned in OT), the Umman-manda (or hordes of 
 the Manda) of the Assyr. inscriptions, took place. 
 This was only the prelude to theend. As anewly- 
 discovered cylinder of the Bab. king Nabonidus 
 relates, fifty-four years before the consecration of 
 the temple of Sin in Harran, which had been 
 destroyed by the Manda hordes, a Manda king, 
 who was probably called Arbak,* working in con- 
 junction, as the cylinder just mentioned clearly 
 proves, with Nabopolassar (Belesys), razed to the 
 ground the famous Assyrian capital. Nineveh 
 probably ‘fell into the hands of the Medes in 
 607, after a two years’ siege, since the comple- 
 tion of the temple of Sin seems to belong to some- 
 where about the third year of Nabonidus (553). 
 
 Nahum’s prophecy was literally fulfilled, and the 
 whole of Western Asia breathed freely again when 
 the stronghold of their tyrants was demolished. 
 The small remaining territory (since the Pharaoh 
 Necho I. had taken away Palestine and Syria) was 
 divided between the Scythians, to whom the Medes 
 of classical tradition (Cyaxares) belonged, and the 
 Babylonians, Mesopotamia falling to the latter. 
 The names Assur and Nineveh survived, to a large 
 extent, because of the lasting effects of the influence 
 of the Assyr. empire in politics and culture alike. 
 Even down to the Christian era this is proved by 
 (among other reasons) the fact that the whole 
 district of the Euphrates and Tigris (including 
 Babylonia) was called Assyria by the Greeks and 
 Romans, and even to-day we call the science 
 which has to do with the antiquities of both 
 Assyria and Babylonia, and which has thrown 
 new light on many important passages in Holy 
 Writ—-Assyriology. 
 
 LITERATURE.—(A) Excavations AND INsorteTions.—C.J. 
 Rich, Residencein Koordistan and on theSiteof Ancient Nine- 
 veh, 2 vols. 1886; A. H. Layard, Vin. and its Remains, 1848 ; 
 The Monuments of Nin., 1849, 1853 ; P. E. Botta, Monwments de 
 Ninivé, 5 vols. Paris, 1849-51; A. H. Layard, Inscriptions in 
 Oun. Char. 1851; P. H. Gosse, Assyria, her Manners and 
 OQustoms, London, 1852; A. H. Layard, Discoveriesinthe Ruins 
 of Nineveh and Babylon, 1853; Felix Jones, Topography of 
 Nineveh (3 large maps of the whole country between the Tigris 
 and the Upper Zab), 1855; H. Rawlinson, Cun. Inser. of W. 
 Asia, 5 vols. 1861-84; G. Smith, Assyr. Discoveries - Hxplor. 
 and Discov.on Siteof Nineveh, 1875; Delitzschu. Haupt, Bettr. 
 2. Assyriologie wu. sem. Sprachwissensch. 8 vols. Leipzig, 1889- 
 96; Assyr. Bibliot. 13 vols. Leipzig, 1881-96. 
 
 (B) Tue Laneuaar.—Oppert, Lléments de la Grammaire 
 Aasyr. Paris, 1860; Sayce, dn Assyrian Grammar for Com- 
 parative Purposes, London, 1872; Friedr. Delitzsch, Assyrian 
 Grammar, tr. by Kennedy, Berlin, 1889; also Assyr. Hand- 
 worterb. Leipzig, 1894-96 ; C. Bezold, Kwrzgf. Ueberblick tiber 
 die Bab.-Assyr. Literatur. Leipzig, 1896. 
 
 ((’) ComprLatrions(periodicals, journals, ete.).— 7SBA. London, 
 1872-18938, 9 vols.; PSBA. London, 1878-1896, 18 vols. ; Zetitsch. 
 f. Keilschrififorschung, founded by F. Hommel, edited by OC. 
 Bezold and F. Hommel, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1884 and 1885; Zeitsch. 
 f. Assyriologie (continuation of above), edited by O. Bezold, 
 Leipzig, 1886-96, 11 vols.; Recueil de travaux relatifs ad la 
 philologie et av Archéologie Egyp. et Assyr. ed. by G. Maspero, 
 Paris, 1879-96, 18 vols.; Revue d’ Assyriologie et d’ Archéologie, 
 ed. by Oppert and Ledrain, Paris, 1884-96, 3 vols.; Bab. and 
 Orient. Record, a monthly magazine, ed. by de Lacouperie, 
 
 
 
 * According to Ctesias, he was called Arbakes. A clear 
 allusion to this name is found in Nabonidus’ cylinder inscription, 
 ‘Vengeance took (riba tukt?) the fearless king of Manda’; ef. 
 turru tukty (=shakan gimilli), to take vengeance, and Heb. 
 2°9, 158 2539, Justini.3 gives the fuller form Arbactus (prob. the 
 Eranian Arba-tukhta, of which Arbak is a form of endearment), 
 
 
 
 
 
 ASTONISHED 
 
 1887-93, 6 vols.; RP, being Eng, tr. of the Assyr. and Egyr. 
 Monuments, vols. 1,3, 5, 7,9, 11, London, 1878 fol. ; New Series, 
 London, 1888, fol. ; Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, collection of 
 Assyr. and Bab. Texts, inscribed and translated, ed. by E. 
 Schrader, vols. 1 and 2 (Assyr. Kénigs-inschr.), Berlin, 1889-90. 
 
 (D) Arr.—Perrot et Chipiez, Histoire de V Art dans 
 UV Antiquité, vol. ii. Chaldéens et Assyriens, Paris, 1884; 8. 
 Birch and T. G. Pinches, Bronze Ornaments from Balawat, 4 
 pts. 1880-82. 
 
 (2) GroGkapny OF ASSYRIA, AND ITS RELATIONS TO THE OT.— 
 Schrader, Keélinsch. und Geschichtsforschung ; Hin Beitrag 
 zur monumentalen Geogruphie, Geschichte, und Chronologie 
 der Assyrer, Giessen, 1878 ; Delitzsch, Fried. Wolag das Para- 
 dies? (pp. 169-329 give a detailed description of the geography 
 of Upper Asia, based on the Assyr. Royal Inscriptions) ; Delattre, 
 LD Asie Occidentale dans les inscriptions Assyriennes, Brux- 
 elles, 1885; Schrader, COT"? tr. from the Germ. by O. C. White- 
 house, 2 vols. London, 1889. 
 
 (f) Spnctat Booxs on THE History or Assyr1A.—George 
 Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern 
 World, 4 vols. London, 1862-67 ;4thed, 1879 (Assyria= the second 
 
 “monarchy) ; George Smith, Assyria from the Harliest Times to 
 
 the Fall of Nineveh, London, 1875; Hommel, Geschichte Bab. 
 uw. Assyr., Berlin, 1885-89 (pp. 58-184 give a detailed account of 
 the decipherment and excavations); C. P. Tiele, Bab.-Assyr. 
 Gesch. 2 vols. Gotha, 1886 and 1888; Winckler, Gesch. Bab. wu. 
 Assyr., Leip. 1892; Altorient. Forschungen, Leip. 1893-95 ; 
 Lincke, Assyrien wnd Nineveh in Geschichte und Sage nach 
 B.0. 607, Berlin, 1894. F, HOMMEL. 
 
 ASTAD (A’Acrad, B’Apyat, AV Sadas).—1322 or 
 8622 of his descendants are mentioned as returning 
 with Zerubbabel (1 Es 518), He is called Azgad 
 (72!) in the can. books; and 1222 descendants are 
 mentioned in the parallel list in Ezr 212 (B ’Aoyd8, 
 A?’AByd5), 2322 in Neh 7!7(B ’Agydd, & "Aordd, A 
 ’"Ayerdd). He appears as Astath (Acrdé), 1 Es 888, 
 when a second detachment of 111 return under 
 Ezra (=Ezr 8!2, B’Aordd, A’A¢yd6). Azgad appears 
 among the leaders who sealed the covenant with 
 Neh. (Neh 10% B ’Aayad, A ?AGyd3). 
 
 H, St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ASTATH.—See ASTAD. 
 
 ASTONIED, the past part. of the old verb 
 astony, of which astonish is a later corruption,* is 
 found only in OT, but there ten times, Ezr 93: 4, 
 Job 178 18”, Is 5214,+ Jer 149, Ezk 417, Dn 3% 419 69, 
 RV retains ‘astonied’ (and even changes ‘aston- 
 ished’ into ‘astonied’ at Ezk 31); but Amer. 
 RV prefers ‘astonished,’ except Dn 5° where RV 
 and Amer. RV give ‘perplexed’ (¥2¥, the only 
 occurrence). See ASTONISHED. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ASTONISHED.—This part. (the finite verb does 
 not occur) had undoubtedly more force when AV 
 was made than it has now. Perhaps the verb 
 astound, which started off later from the orig. 
 astonien or astunien, has carried away some of its 
 strength. The orig. idea was to stun or stupefy 
 as with a thunderbolt (Lat. extonare ‘to thunder’; 
 ef. Milton, Hist. of Britain, ‘Astonished and 
 struck with superstition as with a planet’; and 
 the Argument to Par. Lost, Bk. i., ‘Satan with his 
 Angels lying on the burning lake, thunderstruck 
 and astonished’) ; then to shock mentally, bewilder. 
 The earliest occurrence of the part. seems to be in 
 Coverdale’s Bible (1535) at Jer 2!2, which was re- 
 tained in AV, ‘Be a., O ye heavens, at this, and 
 be horribly afraid.’ It is used 14 times in OT 
 astr. of 92%, once (Job26") of N29, In NT it is tra 
 of extArjoow 10 times (9 times in Gosp., and always 
 in ref. to Christ’s words, except Mk 7% of His 
 works; once in Ac 13! ‘being a. at the teaching of 
 the Lord’) ; of ét/arnu: 6 times, of dauBéw and AduBos 
 
 * ‘The suffix ish is, in most other words, only added where 
 the derivation is from a French verb ending in -¢7, and forming 
 its pres. part. in -issant; so that the addition of it in the 
 present case is unauthorized and incorrect. It was probably 
 added merely to give the word a fuller sound, and from some 
 dislike to the form astony, which was the form into which the 
 M.E. astonien had passed.’—Skeat, Hiymol. Dict.? 8.0. 
 
 + In this great passage (Is 5214) the edd. of AV subsequent to 
 1638 have generally changed what Scrivener calls ‘the pathetic 
 astonied ’ into ‘the more commonplace astonished.’ The Camb, 
 Bible restores it. 
 
 
 
ASTROLOGIAN 
 
 
 
 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY 191 
 
 
 
 weptexe. once each.” RV retains ‘a.’ throughout 
 On, but in NT changes it into ‘amazed,’ when the 
 Gr. is other than ékzAjcow. Astonishment is 
 found only once in NT, Mk 5® ‘they were a 
 
 with a great a.’ (RV ‘amazed with a great amaze- 
 ment,’ Gr. éxcraots) in ref. to the raising of Jairus’ 
 daughter. But RV adds Mk 16° ‘trembling and 
 
 a. had come upon them’ (Gr. ékoracis, AV ‘they 
 trembled and were amazed’). In OT a. is more 
 frequent. In Ps 60° ‘thou hast made us to drink 
 the wine of a.’ (abyna, RV ‘staggering’), the obs. 
 ay sense of stupefaction is conveyed. (Cf. 
 s 51" ‘thou hast drunken the bowl of the cup of 
 staggering [same Heb.], and drained it.’) As tr™ 
 of apy ‘a.’ freq. means an object of a., and always 
 in a strong sense; esp. in Jer., as 2518 ‘to make 
 them a desolation, an a., an hissing, and a curse.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 ASTROLOGIAN is the more accurate form, 
 having the classical termin. -anus added to a class. 
 root. But while the analogous form theologian 
 held its ground, astrologer with the Eng. term. -er 
 drove this out. It is found in Dn 2%, AV 1611, 
 and Camb. Bible, but is replaced by astrologer in 
 nearly all mod. editions. . HASTINGS. 
 
 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY. — Heavenly 
 bodies, in Genesis, are called ‘lights’ or ‘ bodies 
 giving light’ (7ixp, pl. nhkp ma’ér, médroth). Dill- 
 mann (Genesis) remarks that in no other work (of 
 creation) is the object of their creation so fully 
 indicated, and asks whether a silent contrast to 
 heathen superstition, which was attached to the 
 stars, may not lie therein. The object of the 
 heavenly bodies is stated to be ‘to divide between 
 the day and the night,’ and ‘for signs, for seasons, 
 and for days and years,’ and it is for this purpose 
 that they are fixed (lit. ‘given,’ opk jan, ‘and he 
 [Godj gave them’) in the firmament. The whole 
 account of the creation and placing of the heavenly 
 bodies is, in fact, based on the old geocentric view 
 of the ancient astronomers, which mainly prevailed 
 until the birth of modern astronomy. The account 
 as given in Gn, however, is correct for the time 
 at which it was written, and suited the needs of 
 the people to whom it was addressed. The 
 heavenly bodies were among the great marvels of 
 the creative power of God, and they are taken 
 purely and simply from the point of view of what 
 they are for us, and the effect they have upon our 
 minds, regardless of any precpnceived or acquired 
 scientific ideas and theories that we may possess. 
 
 Not less than the Hebrews did the Babylonians 
 and Assyrians regard the heavenly bodies as for 
 signs and: seasons, days and years; and this view 
 was associated with their usual heathen ideas that 
 the heavenly bodies were divinities. The following 
 translation of the portion of the Bab. creation 
 story, corresponding with Gn 1, will form a basis 
 of comparison with the two accounts :— 
 
 “He (Merodach) formed the stations of the great gods— 
 
 stars were their likeness ; he caused the lwmasi + to be set; 
 
 he ok Bed the year; be outlined the forms (of the constella- 
 
 he Caneel Niece stars { to be assigned to each of the 12 months; 
 
 from the day of the year § he formed the figures ; 
 
 he caused the station of Jupiter || to be founded to make known 
 their limits, 
 
 that an error might not be made, that none might sin. 
 
 * Besides izicrnus (Jth 1116 1317 151, Sir 4318, 1 Mac 1622) and 
 Ocepej3iw (Wis 173, 1 Mac 68), the Apocr. gives ‘a,’ as tr™ of rapéccw 
 ‘Jth 147), eretw (Jth 1611), ixranoow (Wis 134), and zetarAjoow 
 2 Mac 3%), thereby showing more clearly the force of the 
 Eng. word. 
 
 + The Zumasi were seven in number, and seem to have been 
 constellations, among them being Arcitenens. 
 
 ¢ Or, possibly, constellations. ; 
 
 § Apparently =new year’s day. 
 
 {So Jensen. The original word is Nibiru, regarded by Fried. 
 Delitzsch in 1885 as being=Heb. 132 ma’abhar, ‘place of 
 passing,’ here =‘ zodiac.’ 
 
 He set with him the station of Bel and fa; 
 
 he opened then great gates on both sides, 
 
 the bolt he made strong on the left and the right— 
 
 in its middle-point the zenith. 
 
 He caused Nannaru (the moon) to shine, (and) he ruled the 
 night, 
 
 he semcuated him also as the thing of the night, to make known 
 the time. 
 
 Monthly, without failing, he enclosed (him) in a ring, 
 
 at the beginning of the month to shine in the evening, 
 
 the horns proclaiming to make known the division (of time}— 
 
 on the seventh day with a (half)-ring.’ 
 
 At this point the text is mutilated ; but after the 
 placing of the moon, the chief god of the Babylonians 
 is represented as turning his attention to the sun, 
 and ‘when the sun arrived on the horizon of 
 heaven,’ he seems to have addressed and directed 
 him as to his course. Imperfect as the Bab. text 
 here is, it is nevertheless easy to see that it is the 
 account of a nation who knew much more of 
 astronomy, on the whole, than the Hebrews. This 
 is, in fact, indicated by the large number of tablets 
 from Babylonia and Assyria referring to astrology 
 that have been found, as well as those referring to 
 astronomy proper, in which the stars and planets 
 are enumerated and classified, and their positions 
 sometimes described. Catalogues of these works 
 were made, and explanations how to use them were 
 given. References, not only to stars, but also to 
 comets, are found, but they are comparatively rare. 
 
 The Hebrews, in OT, do not seem to have looked on the stars 
 from an astronomical or astrological point of view, but rather as 
 signs placed in the heavens, one of their most important func- 
 tions being to show the power of the Almighty. Thus we are 
 told that He created them (Gn 116, Job 99, Ps 88 ete.), 
 counts them, names them (Ps 1474), and has the whole of them 
 in His power (Job 97). To the horrors of His judgment-day it 
 belongs that the stars lose their brightness (Is 1310, Ezk 327, 
 Lk 2125, Jn 320, Rev 812), fall from heaven like withered leaves 
 (Is 344—the stars are here called ‘all the host of heaven’),—a 
 simile in all probability derived from the observation of falling 
 or ‘shooting’ stars, just as the reference, in Jude v.13, to 
 ‘wandering stars’ possibly derived its origin from the comets 
 which came to excite the wonder and terror of the world. In 
 the expression ‘courses’ of the stars (Jg 5?) it is the planets 
 that are referred to. The distance of the stars from the earth 
 seermn to have struck the nations of the ancient world, hence 
 the mention of the stars in Job 2212, cf. also Is 1418. The com- 
 parison of their brightness is made in 1 Co 1641, and their 
 great number referred to in He 1113, 
 
 - The stars are, as a rule, indicated by the usual 
 
 word 33:2 kékab, Arab. kawkab, Syr. kawkebd, 
 Eth. kawkab and kokab, Assyr. kakkabu. One of 
 the poetic expressions for ‘stars’ is 772 °35'3 ‘ stars 
 of the morning,’ an expression applied apparently 
 to the angels (Job 38’); and the words ‘ morning 
 star’ could also be applied to a man who was con- 
 sidered to be great, like the high priest Simon 
 (Sir 50°); to a thing greatly to be desired, as 
 ‘salvation’ (2 P 1") and ‘heavenl glory > (Rev 2”) ; 
 and, finally, to Christ Himself (Rev 22'°). 
 
 The date at which the stars were divided into 
 constellations is very remote, and there is consider- 
 able uncertainty as to the pea period and 
 the people with whom this division had its origin. 
 In all probability, however, it is due to the Chal- 
 dzeans, who seem to have had it from the Ak- 
 kadians, most of the names of the signs of the 
 zodiac and constellations being written in the non- 
 Sem. dialect of ancient Babylon. The Hebrews, in 
 their turn, may have obtained their knowledge of 
 the constellations from the Chaldzans, but we have 
 no real evidence of the fact. 
 
 The well-known constellation of the Great Bear, 
 wy ‘ash (Job 9°) or wy ‘ayish (fem. Job 38%),* is 
 said to be connected with na‘sh ‘a bier,’ the name 
 of that constellation in Arabic. The ‘sons’ of 
 ‘Ayish (vy) are spoken of in Job 38%, and are 
 regarded as the three stars in the tail of the bear, 
 a parallel to the Arab. expression banat na'‘sh 
 ‘the daughters of the bier,’ which means the 
 
 * For ‘ the bear’ of the RV the AV has ‘ Arcturus’ 
 
192 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY 
 
 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY 
 
 
 
 same thing. The Arab. legend connected with the 
 constellation of the Great Bear is as follows :— 
 
 Na‘sh having been killed by Gedi (the pole star), 
 the children of Na’‘sh (the sons in front with the body 
 of their father, the daughter behind with the nurse, 
 who carries a child in her arms) go round nightly 
 seeking the murderer, with the hope of avenging 
 their father’s death. Canopus VERS Suhél), how- 
 ever, wishes to go to the help of Gedi, but, having 
 set out too late, finds himself always foiled, not 
 being able to reach his point in time to prevent the 
 approaching catastrophe. Whether some legend 
 similar to this was attached to the constellation 
 by the ancient Hebrews is uncertain, and, whilst 
 admitting a likeness in the Heb. and Arab. names, 
 the differences in their forms must, nevertheless, 
 not be forgotten. Fried. Delitzsch points out that 
 the Heb. wy elsewhere (Job 4” etc.) means ‘a 
 moth,’ and that a star bearing that name (sdsu 
 ‘moth ’) seems to have been known to the Assyro- 
 Saal atren (WALT ii. 49,64). M. A. Stern (in the 
 Jiid. Zeitschr. 1866) regards this constellation as 
 the Pleiades. 
 
 Another constellation mentioned is Orion, in Heb. 
 bpp (Job 9° 38%, Am 58), pl. opp (Is 13%).* The 
 word means, literally, ‘the fool,’ or ‘ impious one,’ 
 corresponding with Arab. jabbar, Syr. gabbara,t 
 Chald. niphla ‘the giant,’ the name given to this 
 constellation by the Semites of old because regarded 
 as the figure of s man—probably one of the larger 
 male figures seen on those Bab. boundary-stones 
 which show figures of the constellations. Gesenius 
 suggests that they (the Hebrews, etc.) seem to 
 have looked on this constellation as the figure of 
 an impious giant bound in the sky, whence Job 
 38! * Canal thou loose the bands of Orion?’ The 
 plural in Is 13 ‘ constellations,’ means, literally, 
 ‘the Orions ’—the giant constellations of the sky, 
 prominent by their brightness. A very ingenious 
 suggestion is that quoted in the Chronicon Pas- 
 chale, Cedrenus, John of Antioch, and others, 
 from Pers. sources, that Chesil or Orion is the 
 impious giant Nimrod chained to the heavens. 
 This, however, is late, and probably has no solid 
 basis as its origin. 
 
 The well-known passage in Job (9°) supplies us 
 also with the fab for the Pleiades, 122 kimah, 
 Syr. kima, Arab. thurayyd, words meaning ‘ heap,’ 
 ‘cluster,’ ‘plenty,’ ‘multitude,’ from the seven 
 larger stars and the smaller ones closely grouped 
 therewith. The Arabs also call the Pleiades 
 an-najm ‘the star,’ or ‘cluster’ par excellence, 
 said to be so named on account of their monthly 
 conjunction with the moon, by which they served 
 to measure time, and thus rule the calendar. 
 In Job 38%, mp2 nw, ‘the cluster (AV ‘sweet 
 influences’) of the Pleiades’ is mentioned, corre- 
 sponding with the Arab. ‘akd ath-thurayya. The 
 Rabbis (see R. David Kimchi in his Lexicon) 
 thought that the ‘ bands of the Pleiades’ referred 
 to their influence upon vegetation, kimah having 
 
 eat cold, and binding up the fruit, though R. 
 
 saac described the influence of the Pleiades as 
 being the reverse of this, ripening the fruits. In 
 the Pers. pects (Sadi, Hafiz, etc.) these stars 
 are regarded as a brilliant rosette with a central 
 star, etc. 
 
 The popular name used by Luther, ‘ die Glucke,’ 
 t.¢. ‘ the clucking hen,’ reminds one of the English 
 name ‘hen and chickens,’ and the French poussi- 
 niére, O.F. pulsiniére. The appearance of the 
 constellation of the Pleiades being conventionally 
 that of a large star surrounded by several smaller 
 
 * The LXX has “Errspos in Job 99; ’Qpiay in Job 3831, The 
 ee Amos 58 differs entirely from the received text of 
 
 e Heb. 
 
 + Also called in Syr. ‘iyatha, a word which is said also to mean 
 Aldebaran, Capella, and the Pleiades. 
 
 ones, was likened to a brood-hen with her chickens 
 under her wings, hence this name; and for this 
 reason the Pleiades were also supposed to be the 
 same as Succoth-benoth, which is rendered by R. 
 David Kimchi ‘hen (with) chickens.’ This name 
 for the Pleiades, which occurs in the Targ. to Job, 
 is said also to be usual with the Arabs, ether 
 the Hebrews of ancient times had also this idea, is 
 uncertain, and seems to be improbable. It is to be 
 noted that Fried. Delitzsch denies the meaning 
 ‘star-cluster’ for this constellation, and connects 
 p'2 kimah with the Assyr. kimtu ‘family,’ ex- 
 plaining it as the ‘ family of stars,'—an etymolo 
 which does not invalidate, as will be seen, the 
 popular legends concerning it. 
 
 m3 wp; ‘the fleeing serpent,’ or ‘swift serpent’ 
 (Job 261), has been regarded as the sign of the 
 dragon, between the Great and the Little Bear; 
 but this identification is very uncertain. It would 
 seem, however, to be something connected with 
 the sky, as is indicated by the first part of the 
 verse: ‘ By his spirit are the heavens garnished’ 
 (RV), or, ‘ beauty ’ (m). 
 
 The sign of the Twins (Castor and Pollux, AV; 
 The Twin Brothers, RV; Gr. Acédcxovpor) is men- 
 tioned as the name of a ship in Ac 28",* 
 
 The word ni} mazzdréth (a plural form, Job 
 38*3), is, with common consent, regarded as signi- 
 fying ‘the signs’ of the zodiac, which come forth 
 
 in their season,’ and, as is implied, could not be 
 led forth by aman. In 2 K 23° occurs the word 
 nibyo mazzaloth, translated ‘planets’ in the AV 
 and RV, with the marginal reading ‘ twelve signs’ 
 of the zodiac. This word is compared by Jensen 
 and others with the Assyr. manzalts, WAI 
 iii. 59. 35, a comparison which is not without its 
 difficulties, as, if correct, it would imply complete 
 ignorance of the root of the Assyr. word on the part 
 of the Heb. scribes, manzalti being for manzazti,t 
 by a common law of interchange between z and /— 
 ignorance which would not, however, be altogether 
 inexcusable, as the Chaldee form is xtbyp mazzda- 
 laya, and, though unprovided with the feminine 
 ending, would present the same root, the individual 
 signs being 732, mazzal. The Chaldee forms them- 
 selves, however, seem rather to increase the diffi- 
 culty of connecting nibyp with the Assyr. manzalti. 
 
 That expression in Job 9° which accompanies the 
 names of the constellations, namely, jpn 275 
 hadré témdn, ‘the chambers of the south’ 
 (=Arab. akhadir al-janib or mukhadi’ al-janiub), 
 is one of peculiar interest. Gesenius would render 
 it ‘the most remote southern regions’; but it seems 
 better to regard it as meaning ‘the southern con- 
 stellations,’ some of which, in all probability, re- 
 ie aes pictorially ‘chambers, from which 
 
 eathen (divine) creatures looked out, similar to 
 the reliefs representing the constellations on the 
 Bab. boundary-stones. Should this explanation 
 be correct, ‘the chambers of the south’ would be 
 in contradistinction to mazzaroth or mazzaloth 
 ‘the constellations’ (of the north), but the un- 
 certainty of the exact signification of the two 
 expressions makes every attempt at explanation 
 unsatisfactory. A point to be noted is that an 
 Arab. translation of Job 9° mentions ‘ the heart of 
 the south,’ a name of Suhel or Canopus, the princi- 
 pal star in the constellation of the Ship (Delitzsch, 
 Job, 2nd ed. p. 128 n.), which marks, by its rising, 
 
 *The Bab. names of the signs of the zodiac were (about 
 B.0. 500) as follows: The Workman=the Ram; Mulu and the 
 Bull of Heaven=Taurus; Stb-zi-anna, and the Great Twins= 
 Gemini ; Allul=Cancer ; the Great Dog=Leo; the Ear of Corn= 
 Virgo; Zibanit = Libra; the Scorpion = Scorpius; Papi = 
 Arcitenens ; the Fish-goat=Caper ; Gula=Amphora; the Water- 
 channel and the Tails=Pisces. There were also many other 
 constellations, the number of which is uncertaing 
 ae changes would be i, manzarti, manzalti, mas 
 
 i. 
 
 
 
 
 
ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY 
 
 
 
 the season in which the fruit becomes ripe through 
 the increase of the heat. The ‘heart of the south’ 
 would seem to go with and explain the ‘ chambers 
 of the south.’ 
 
 Venus is apparently mentioned (Is 141%) under 
 the name 557 Aélél, ‘the shining one,’ with the 
 addition v2 ‘son of the morning,’ t.e. Lucifer, 
 the day-star, a name of Venus as the morning 
 star, to which the king of Babylon is, in this 
 passage, compared. This Heb. word agrees in 
 meaning with that used for Venus in Arab., 
 namely, zwharah ‘ splendid (star),’ and is from the 
 same root as the Assyr. é/élu ‘to be bright.’ Strange 
 to say, however, no Assyr. name for Venus from this 
 root has been as yet found, the word generally 
 
 uoted, mustiilu, being a ghost-word, due to a 
 aulty copy.* As the Assyrians knew, from the 
 earliest times, that Venus as a morning and as an 
 evening star was the same, it is probable that the 
 Hebrews were aware of the fact also.t 
 
 In Am 5%, where it is said, ‘Yea, ye have 
 borne Siccuth your king, and Chiun your images, 
 the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves’ 
 (RV), there is oy any doubt that Chiun (}3 
 kiyytin) is the Assyr. kdawanu (or, as read by some, 
 kaiwanu), the planet Saturn, which was known to 
 the Bab. and Assyr. under that name, preserved in 
 Arab. under the torm kaiwdn, and in the Peshitta 
 as kaiwdand, and of which the ‘Paddy of the LXX 
 is supposed to be a corruption. The pointing of 
 the Has, form is regarded by Schrader as incorrect, 
 and he therefore writes, upon the model of the 
 Arab., ete., "2 kéwan.$ Chiun or Kéwan does not 
 properly belong to Heb. astronomy, but it probably 
 cives us the name of the planet Saturn among the 
 Hebrews, who seem to have worshipped him under 
 the form of the star which represented him. 
 
 Mention of the sun is common, but the passages 
 in which it is referred to are rather general than 
 truly astronomical. It is used to indicate the time 
 of the day, as ‘when the sun went down’ (Gn 
 151”), ‘ till the sun be hot’ (Neh 78) ; comparison, as 
 ‘clear as the sun’ (Ca 6%), ete. ete. In the 
 account of the Creation it is called the ‘ greater’ of 
 the ‘two great lights’ (Gn 18), made ‘to zule the 
 day,’ and set in the firmament of the heaven ‘ to 
 
 ive light upon the earth,’ and, with the lesser 
 ight, ‘to divide the light from the darkness’ 
 (vv.1619), The sun would also be included among 
 the lights in the firmament of the heaven in v.™, 
 which were ‘for signs, and for seasons, and for 
 days and years.’ It will be seen from this that the 
 astronomical ideas of the Hebrews with regard to 
 the sun were strictly those of an observer on the 
 surface of the earth, and were based upon the 
 strictly practical view of its value in the matters 
 of everyday life—in fact, they were the ideas 
 Senaially held by the people of that and succeeding 
 ayes until the birth of modern astronomy. If we 
 had the Bab. account of the Creation complete, we 
 should in all probability find therein views em- 
 bodying those in the first chap. of Genesis. What 
 may be regarded as a poetical astronomical view 
 of the sun in his course is that contained in Ps 
 19*-5, where the ‘tabernacle of the sun’ is men- 
 tioned, and he is compared to ‘a bridegroom coming 
 out of his chamber,’ and ‘rejoicing as a strong 
 
 * The Assyr. word for the planet Venus is generally read Dilbat, 
 more correctly Delebat (Asdé¢ger), explained as Nabat kakkabu 
 ‘the star Nabat,’ or ‘(she who) proclaims.’ 
 
 1 It is to be noted that the Heb. word hélél is masc., and in 
 this resembles Heosphoros (Hesperus); but the name in Assyr., 
 Arab., etc., is fem. The name Lucifer, applied to Satan, is due 
 to Hieronymus and the Fathers of the Church, and apparently 
 had its origin in the legend of the fall of the angels, introduced 
 into the works of Bishop Avitus, the poet Cedmon, and Milton 
 in Par. Lost (cf. Lk 1018, Rev 127"), 
 
 t Schrader reads in the same passage Sakkath for Siccuth, and 
 compares this word with the cuneiform Sak-kut, one of the 
 names of the god Ninip, worshipped of old in Babylonia. 
 
 VOL. I.—12 
 
 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY 193 
 
 
 
 man to run his course.’ This poetical description 
 of the sun, however, reminds one of those Bab. 
 cylinder-seals on which the sun-god is represented 
 as a man, from whom rays of light stream forth so 
 dazzling that the divine attendants who open the 
 doors which enclose him are obliged to look the 
 other way whilst performing this duty.* The 
 going forth of the sun ‘from the end of heaven,’ 
 and the ‘circuit unto the ends of it’ (v.‘), refer, 
 naturally, to the daily journey of the sun, which, 
 as it would seem from this passage, had been 
 noticed to be a curved course in the heavens. As 
 with the Babylonians and Assyrians, the sun was 
 used to mark the points of the compass, east being 
 ‘the rising sun,’ west ‘the setting sun,’ ete. The 
 indication of the different parts of the day from 
 the position of the sun was, no doubt, from actual 
 observation, the use of sun-dials (see below) not 
 being by any means common in the ancient East. 
 For further information see SUN. 
 
 There is no express mention of eclipses in the 
 Bible, but certain expressions, such as ‘ I will cause 
 the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the 
 earth in the clear day’ (Am 8%), have been 
 regarded as referring to something of the kind. In 
 the case of the above quotation, the fact that noon 
 is mentioned in connexion with the sun going 
 down might well refer to an eclipse; but in the 
 case of Mic 3%, Zec 14°, Joel 2! 8! 35, which were 
 formerly taken to refer to eclipses, this can hardly 
 be the reference, as the phenomena accompanying 
 the obscuration of the sun and the moon do not 
 favour that view. So also the passing reference in 
 Jer 15° ‘her sun is gone down while it was yet 
 day,’ can only mean that ‘ good fortune has ceased 
 for her.’ Reference to an eclipse has heen seen 
 also in 2 K 204, Is 388, where the shadow going 
 back ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz is spoken of ; 
 but real observation under natural conditions 
 would be necessary before accepting this as being 
 conclusive or even probable. This supposed eclipse 
 has been identified with an annular eclipse ut the 
 sun in 689 B.C. (Bosanquet in the Trans. Soc. Bibl. 
 Archeology, vol. iii. p. 31 ff., vol. v. p. 261, etc.). 
 The same writer also understands Ezk 3018 327: § to 
 refer to the total eclipse of the sun in B.C. 556; 
 but there is the same objection to this as to the 
 supposed references in Micah, Zech., and Joel. 
 
 e Hebrews had more than one word for the 
 moon (see Moon), serving to designate the luminary 
 in a general sense, when full, and when new. The 
 apparent motions of the moon were well known to 
 the Hebrews, as it was by that heavenly body that 
 their festivals were fixed; and it has a special 
 importance, because the Heb. year, like that of the 
 abylontanit was lunar, and was used to fix ‘signs 
 and seasons’ more, provesty than any other 
 heavenly body. The moon played a part just as 
 pee in Bab. astronomy, for there was not 
 only a large series of forecasts connected with its 
 movements, but it was also used, as with the 
 Hebrews, to determine the beginning of the month, 
 and thus to fix the dates of the various festivals, 
 etc. (FESTIVALS). The Heb. idea of the moon as 
 ‘the lesser light to rule the night,’ finds its echo in 
 the Bab. account of the creation of the heavenl 
 bodies (translated above), in which she is describe 
 as the ruler of the night, the indicator of the 
 beginning of the month, and apperenuy (by her 
 changes) the divider of the month into weeks. It 
 is not unlikely that the Hebrews learned these 
 astronomical uses of our satellite from the Baby- 
 lonians, probably at some early period, and also 
 during the Captivity, by which time Bab. 
 
 * ical hymn to the sun-god, from Borsippa, 
 Ransitee ban when going to rest, and a of the peeceical of 
 
 the bolts and the satisfaction of the door of heaven on his arriva] 
 at the end of his daily journev. 
 
194 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY 
 
 astronomy had made great progress. Eclipses of 
 the moon seem not to be referred to in the Bible. 
 In all preanty most of the nations of the 
 ancient East had, like the Babylonians and 
 Assyrians, professional astrologers, by whom the 
 stars were consulted, horoscopes drawn, and lucky 
 days predicted, for such as wished to know what 
 the future had in store for them, so that they 
 might ‘know the ordinances of heaven,’ and their 
 ‘ dominion in the earth’ (Job 38%). The Hebrews, 
 however, seem to have been less of astrologers than 
 the nations around, for the prophet Jeremiah (10?) 
 exhorts them not to learn the way of the nations, 
 and not to be dismayed at the signs of heaven, for 
 the nations were dismayed at them, implying that 
 the Hebrews, at least at that time, did not imitate 
 ‘the nations’ in the matter of astrology to any 
 great extent, though there was, in truth, a tendency 
 todoso. The antiquity and reality of the belief 
 in the influences of the stars in the ancient East is 
 well brought home to us in Deborah’s triumphal 
 song, where she says ‘the stars in their courses 
 fought Ape Sisera’ (Jg 5°), which, though only 
 a poetical figure, is sufficiently characteristic. 
 Older, however, than the above, are the many 
 tablets of the Babylonians and Assyrians referring 
 to forecasts. Through a long series of years, prob- 
 ably extending into four millenniums, these nations 
 seem to have carried on observations, which they 
 _ quoted, with the omens derived from current 
 events, for future reference. Again and again, 
 moreover, we meet with communications which 
 assed between the Assyr. kings and the astrologers, 
 in which the former inquired what the stars indi- 
 cated with regard to Assyria and the nations around. 
 Thus we meet with such predictions as, ‘If, upon 
 the 16th day (of the month Ab), an eclipse happen, 
 the king of Akkad will die, Nergal (z.e. pestilence) 
 will destroy the land.’ ‘If, on the 16th day (of the 
 
 month Elul), an eclipse happen, the king of a 
 
 foreign land or the king of Hatte will come and take 
 the throne. Rain from heaven and flood from the 
 channel will overflow.’ The planets and the sun 
 and moon also furnished omens of a similar nature, 
 for it was supposed that what had happened before 
 would, under similar astral influences, es again. 
 
 When, accordingly, the Hebrews came into 
 close contact and relationship with the Assyrians 
 and pabylonians, they found them to be nations 
 among whom astrology, far from being forbidden 
 and in disfavour, was a recognised institution, 
 resorted to by all, from the king downwards—a 
 venerable ‘science.’ The desire to know the future 
 was, no doubt, as strong in the breasts of the 
 Hebrews as in those of their conquerors, and they 
 must often have resorted to those ‘astrologers,’ 
 ‘stargazers,’ and ‘monthly prognosticators’ (Is 
 478) of whom the prophet speaks so contemptuously. 
 The astrologers are called oy 3h (Keré), 
 generally rendered ‘ dividers of the heavens’; the 
 stargazers o'33129 oh, lit. ‘those who gaze on 
 the stars’; the monthly prognosticators py 
 owind, AVm ‘that give knowledge concerning 
 the months’ — probably those who predicted at 
 every new moon what was likely to happen 
 during the coming month. In Dn 1” 2? ete., the 
 RV has rightly ‘enchanters’ for the ‘ astrologers’ 
 (D’Ayx) of the AV, and the same remark holds 
 good for the Aramaic form j’5yx in v.”” etc. These 
 iblical expressions for the various kinds of 
 astrologers, it must be noted, are, to all appearance, 
 true Hebrew words, not borrowings from the 
 Assyrians and Babylonians, showing, in all pro- 
 bability, that celestial forecasts were far from 
 being altogether novelties with the Hebrews. 
 Nevertheless, as has been already remarked, they 
 seem to have been generally averse to divination of 
 this kind, partly on account of the general pro- 
 
 ATARGATIS 
 
 hibition against the use of divination and the 
 ractice of augury (Dt 184, 2 K 21°), partly 
 ecause such $ the people as were rigid 
 monotheists (and among these we must class all 
 OT writers) looked upon the heavenly bodies as 
 the objects of adoration by the heathen nations 
 around, and mentioned them therefore but seldom 
 —partly because they had but little need to speak 
 of them, but also because they wished to avoid 
 reference to those things likely to call up in the 
 mind of the reader heathen practices. 
 T. G. PINCHES. 
 
 ASTYAGES (’Acrudyys, 80 Herodotus, Xenophon ; 
 Assyr. Istuvigu) was the son of Cyaxares, king of 
 the Medes, and succeeded to the throne on the 
 death of his father, B.c. 584. His wife was the 
 daughter of Alyattes, king of Lydia, his sister was 
 the queen of .Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and 
 
 - Cyrus was his daughter’s son by a Persian father. 
 
 According to Bel and the Dragon (v.1), when A. 
 was gathered to his fathers, ‘Cyrus of Persia re- 
 ceived his kingdom.’ Not, however, in the way of 
 ordinary succession. Herodotus (i. 127-130), con- 
 firmed by the Annalistic Tablet af Cyrus (RP 2nd 
 Ser. v. 159) records that when A. marched against 
 the disaffected Persians under Cyrus, his own troops 
 deserted him or would not fight, and he was de- 
 feated and taken prisoner, thus losing his crown 
 in B.C. 549, after a reign of 35 years. He was the 
 last of the line of Median kings (known,on the 
 monuments as kings of the Manda), \ffio had 
 reigned 150 years—the list being as foliows :— 
 Deioces (Daiukku), B.c. 699-646 ; Phraortes (Fra- 
 vartis), B.C. 646-624; Cyaxares (Kastariti), B.C. 
 624-584 ; Astyages (Istuvigu), B.C. 584-549. 
 
 Leen eee = po ae bs ie fet vol fii 
 . .); Stor e Nations, Media, . Viil., ix. ; Sayce, 
 yom p. Nin ff. rg Bab.-Assyr. Geschichte, Pr iN ies” 
 
 . NICOL. 
 
 ASUR (‘Acovp, AV Assur), 1 Es 5°!.—His sons 
 returned among the temple servants under Zerub- 
 babel. Called Harhur (xn7p, ‘Apovp), Ezr 2, Neh 7°, 
 
 ASYLUM.—See REFUGE. 
 
 ASYNCRITUS (’Actyxpiros, "Aove-, Asyncritus), 
 Ro 16'4,—A Christian greeted by St. Paul with 
 four others ‘and the brethren that are with them,’ 
 
 erhaps members of the same small community. 
 
 The name occurs in Rom. Ins. CUZ vi. 12,565, of 
 
 afreedman of Augustus. See Sanday and Headlam, 
 
 Romans, p. 427. For later traditions, which may be 
 
 neglected, see Acta Sanct., April, i. 741 ; June, iv. 6. 
 A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 ATAD (7x7 373, ‘thorn’), Gn 50!-".—Appears 
 to have been ‘ over Jordan’ (see ABEL-MIZRAIM), a 
 threshing-floor on the road to Hebron. The site 
 is unknown. 
 
 ATAR (A ’Ardp, B omits, AV Jatal), 1 Es 5%,.— 
 His sons were among the porters or coor eee 
 who returned with Zerubbabel. Called Ater, 
 
 2, Neh 7*. 
 
 ATARAH (77), 
 of Onam (1 Ch 2°). 
 
 ATARGATIS.—The worship of this Syrian 
 oddess is nowhere named in the canonical books, 
 ut in 2 Mac 12 mention is made of a temyile of 
 
 Atargatis (RV Atergatis) at Carnion in Gilead 
 (Arapyaretov,’ Arepyaretov, A, the former being shown 
 by inscriptions to be the more correct form of the 
 name). In inscriptions discovered at Delos this 
 goddess is generally joined with Adad, and once 
 she is styled ’Adpodirn ’Ardpyarts. In Palestine the 
 principal seat of her worship wasat Ashkelon, where 
 she was probably identified with the Heavenly 
 
 wife of Jerahmeel and mother 
 
 
 
ATAROTH 
 
 Aphrodite (whose temple is named by Herodotus, 
 i. 105). Another famous shrine of Atargatis was 
 at Hierapolis, or Bambyce (Mabug), on the 
 Euphrates (Lucian, De Syria Dea, 14; Pliny, Hist. 
 Nat. v. 23). At both these shrines sacred fish 
 were kept, and at Ashkelon the goddess herself was 
 represented as a woman with a fish’s tail (Lucian, 
 l.c,; comp. Ovid, Metam. iv. 44-46). According to 
 the Gr. version of the legend, Atargatis, or Derceto 
 (to use the shorter form of the name, more 
 commonly found in Gr.), was a maiden, inspired 
 by Aphrodite with love for a youth who was 
 worshipping at her shrine. him Derceto 
 became the mother of a daughter; but, filled with 
 shame, she threw herself into the water at Ash- 
 kelon, or at Hierapolis, whereupon she was changed 
 into a fish (Diod. Sic. ii. 4). According to Hyginus, 
 Astron, ii. 30, she was saved by a fish. The child, 
 who had been exposed, was brought up at the 
 temple of Aphrodite, and became the famous 
 Assyrian queen Semiramis. 
 
 Older derivations of the name have become 
 obsolete since the discovery on coins and Pal- 
 myrene inscriptions of the true Sem. form of the 
 hame Anyjny or wnyany. In the first part of this 
 word we may recognise the Aram. form of the name 
 which appears in Assyr. as Ishtar, in Heb. as 
 shtareth (nzayy), and in Phoenician as Astarte 
 (p7eyy). Comp. also ’A@dpa in Strabo, xvi. 27, 
 The second portion of the name is usually under- 
 stood to be the title of another deity, Ati or 
 Attah, whose name is found in Melito, Apology 
 (Migne, Patr. Gr. vy. 1228), on inscriptions from 
 Pheenieia and fn proper names) from Palmyra, 
 and perhaps also in such personal names as 
 Alyattes, Sadyattes, etc. For the compound name 
 we wight then compare Astar-Chemosh of the 
 Moabite Stone. Lagarde, however, shows 
 (Mittheilungen, i. 77) that this explanation is not 
 free from difficulties. The Gr. legend, the sacred 
 fish at Ashkelon and Hierapolis, and the representa- 
 tions of Atargatis as half woman, half fish, all 
 point to an original connexion between this 
 goddess and the water; and she is probably a 
 personification of the fertilising power of water. 
 
 Carnion, a town which may probably be identified 
 with Ashteroth-karnaim (Gn 14°), was taken and 
 destroyed by Judas Maccabeus during an 
 expedition into Gilead about B.c. 163, and. the 
 inhabitants who fled to the temple of Atargatis 
 were put to death (2 Mac 12)8-9, cf. 1 Mac 5%“; 
 Jos, Ant. XII. viii. 4). 
 
 LirgraturE.—On Atargatis, see, further, Baudissin in 
 Herzog's Real-Encycl.? i. 786-740; Vigouroux, Dict. de la Bible, 
 R 1199; Schiirer, HJP u. i. 18f., Index, p. 91 f.; W. R. Smith, 
 
 Sp. 159f. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ATAROTH (nrinypy, nivyy, ‘crowns’), the name of 
 several towns east and west of Jordan.—1. Ataroth, 
 
 Nu 323-4, is in both places named next Dibon, 
 which is identified with the present Dhibdn (see 
 Dison), and Ataroth is doubtless Khirbet ‘Attards 
 on Jebel ‘Attards, which latter may be the Atroth- 
 shophan of v.®, It is 3 or 4 miles east of Ma- 
 cherus, where the Baptist was imprisoned and 
 murdered. The objection that it is said to have 
 been built by the children of Gad, while this site 
 is in the territory of Reuben, would apply alse to 
 Dibon and Aroer; it only proves that the tribes 
 were greatly intermingled, or at first aided one 
 another (as Jg 1*) in conquering and possessing 
 their territories. 2. Jos 16%, a town on the border 
 of Benjamin and Ephraim, towards its western ex- 
 tremity. Conder recognises it in the modern 
 Ed-Dérich, on the W. slope of the hill which lies 
 south of Bethhoron-the-nether. 3. Ataroth-addar, 
 Jos 165 181°, apparently the same as the preceding. 
 4. Jos 16’, a town on the same boundary of Ephraim 
 
 ATHALIAH 
 
 and Manasseh, but towards its eastern extremity 
 next Naarath (which see). Conder suggests Teli 
 et-Trfiny in the Jordan Valley, or Khirbet Kaswal, 
 also called Kh. et-Taiyireh. The name is lost. 
 Démeh, the Edumia of the Onomasticon, with its 
 ancient rock-cut tombs, is about the place one 
 would look for it. Three places, one 4 miles north 
 of Samaria, a second, 6 miles north of Bethel, a 
 third, 7 miles north of Jerusalem, now bear the 
 name Atéra, but are unnamed in Scripture. 5. 
 Atroth-beth-Joab, 1 Ch 2°4, possibly = Atarites. 
 A family is more probably meant than a place. 
 
 A. HENDERSON. 
 ATER.—41. (7px ‘ binder’ ?) The ancestor of certain 
 temple porters who returned with Zerubbabel, 
 Ezr 216%, Neh 77+, 2. (A ’Artp, B’Agtihp, AV 
 Aterezias, reading ’Arhp ’Efexlov as one word) 
 1 Es 5%; cf. Ezr 26%. His sons returned with 
 Zerubbabel. The title ‘(son of) Hezekiah’ was 
 
 probably given to distinguish him from Ater (4). 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ATERGATIS.—See ATARGATIS, 
 
 ATETA (A ’Arnrd, B om.: AV Teta, from the 
 Aldine Tyrd), 1 Es 5%=Hatita, Ezr 2, Neh 7, 
 
 ATHACH (zpy), 1 S 30°.—An unknown town in 
 the south of Judah. 
 
 ATHAIAH (*:py).—A man of Judah dwelling in 
 Jerus. (Neh 11‘), See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ATHALIAH (mbny ‘whom J” has dragged 
 roughly ’),* daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (2 K 8'8), 
 called daughter of Omri, 2 K 8%, 2 Ch 22%, She 
 married Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of 
 Judah (2 K 818, 2 Ch 18! 215); and as she inherited 
 her mother’s strong character, her influence for evil 
 was predominant over both her husband and her son 
 (2 818.27, 2 Ch 22°4), Under her influence the 
 cult of the Zidonian Baal prevailed in Judah to 
 such a degree that the temple of J” was ‘ broken 
 up’ (2 Ch 247),—the materials being probabl 
 used for the temple of Baal,—so that a thoroug 
 restoration was needed in the following reign. 
 On the death of Ahaziah, Athaliah, who enjoyed 
 already much authority as queen mother, and 
 probably had a considerable following amon 
 the people, procured the massacre of all her grand- 
 children, Joash alone escaping, and Athaliah was 
 queen of Israel for six years. No particulars are 
 recorded of her reign, but the circumstances of 
 her deposition are related eye According to 
 2 K 11, the high priest Jehoiada, having won over 
 ‘the captains over hundreds, of the Carites and of 
 the guard,’ apeneed that the portion of them wha 
 formed the temple guard on the Sabbath day 
 should be posted in three equal divisions at the 
 three main approaches to the temple, i.e. (a) the 
 entry from the nar (Jos.; cf. 1 10°, 2 K 1638); 
 (6) ‘the gate Sur’; (c) ‘the gate behind the 
 guard’ (Ewald’s idea [HI iv. p. 135], that ‘the 
 watch of the king’s house’ means the usual palace 
 guard, seems inconsistent with Jehoiada’s words in 
 v.°); while the other two companies should not go 
 off guard as usual, but ‘compass the king round 
 about’ wherever he went. Additional solemnity 
 was given to the proceedings by the use made of 
 David’s dedicated armour. See JOASH. Roused 
 by the unusual noise caused by the acclamations 
 which greeted the coronation of Joash, Athaliah 
 came into the re alone, her guard having been 
 
 revented from following her (Jos. Ant. IX. vii. 3). 
 The truth flashed upon her at once; ‘she rent her 
 clothes, and cried, Treason, treason!’ Any 
 
 * Cheyne suggests the Assyr. root bry “to be or become great 
 (as in etellitu, ‘lady,’ ‘queen’); then Athaliah=‘J” is exalted. 
 (See Expos. Times, vii. 484, 568, viii. 48.) 
 
 
 
196 ATHARIM 
 
 ATHENS 
 
 
 
 syrapathy that might have been evoked was 
 
 cowed by the overwhelming display of force. The 
 sacred precincts might not be polluted with her 
 blood, ‘so they made way for her,’ and she passed 
 out, and was struck down ‘by the way of the 
 horses’ entry to the king’s house.’ The variations 
 of the Chronicler (2 Ch 23) from this account are 
 characteristic. Under the second temple, uncir- 
 cumcised foreigners were not permitted to approach 
 holy things; he therefore substitutes for ‘the 
 Carites and the guard’ the courses of priests and 
 Levites whose weeks of service began and ended 
 respectively on that Sabbath. They are posted at 
 (a) ‘the king’s house,’ (6) ‘the gate of the 
 foundation’ (1\07 for 0), (c) ‘the doors.’ The 
 captains—five in number, whose names are given— 
 having been thus deprived of their men, are re- 
 presented as ‘set over the host’ (v.'4), @.e. the 
 whole population capable of bearing arms, and are 
 obliged to ‘go about in Judah, and gather the 
 Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the 
 heads of fathers’ houses,’ to Jerusalem. The 
 young king is publicly presented to ‘all the 
 congregation,’ not, as in Kings, secretly to the 
 captains alone. The people, who take a very 
 subordinate part in Kings, fill, with the Levites 
 not on duty (cf. 2Ch 5"), the temple courts. Thus, 
 while.in Kings the deposition of Athaliah is 
 effected by a sudden coup d’état carried out by the 
 high priest and foreign mercenaries, and every 
 precaution is taken against a popular rising in 
 Athaliah’s favour; in Chron. it is the act of the 
 whole nation, constitutionally represented by the 
 ecclesiastical and civil authorities, and it is exe- 
 cuted in the most deliberate and orderly fashion. 
 ‘The sons of Athaliah,’ 2 Ch 247, has been 
 explained to mean (a) Ahaziah and his brethren 
 before they were carried away, 2 Ch 21” (Jos, 
 Ant. IX. viii. 2); or (5) the priests of Baal (Jerome, 
 Qu. Heb., in loc.) ; or (c) her illegitimate children. 
 2. 1 Ch 8%, a Benjamite dwelling in Jerus. 3. 
 Ezr 87, father of Jeshaiah, who was one of Ezra’s 
 companions. N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 ATHARIM (o-px7 477), Nu 21!.—Either, a proper 
 name of a place from which the route was named ; 
 so RV ‘the way of Atharim,’ as LXX,—or, ‘the 
 way of tracks,’ i.e. a regular caravan road (cf. 
 Arab. ’Jthr, a trace). The rendering of AV, ‘ way 
 of the spies,’ follows Targ. and Syr. ; ons may then 
 be a plur. of 77x in a sense slightly different from 
 that given above, or=o", ‘spies.’ The ‘way of 
 Atharim’ will then be that described in Nu 137!-%, 
 See HORMAH. A, T, CHAPMAN. 
 
 ATHENIANS (’A@nvaia, Ac 177); “Avdpes ’AOnvato., 
 17% AV, RV ‘men of Athens’),—Inhabitants of 
 ATHENS. 
 
 ATHENOBIUS (’A@nvdfBc0s, 1 Mac 158-4), a friend 
 of Antiochus vit. Sidetes. When Antiochus had 
 gained some successes against Tryphon, he sent 
 Athenobius to Jerusalem to remonstrate with 
 Simon Maccabzeus for the occupation of Joppa, 
 Gazara, the citadel of Jerusalem, and certain 
 places outside Judea. Simon was ordered to sur- 
 render his conquests or to pay an indemnity of 
 1000 talents of silver; but he refused to promise 
 more than 100 talents, and with this answer A. 
 was obliged to return in indignation to the king. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ATHENS (’A@jva1).—St. Paul having sent Timo- 
 theus away, ‘thought it good to be left at Athens 
 alone’ (1 Th 3). From Ac 17 we learn what he did 
 and said during his solitary stay. Leaving aside 
 the history of A., I shall describe the aspect of this 
 famous city in St. Paul’s epoch. St. Paul, like 
 Apollonius of Tyana, landed at the Pirzus, and, 
 
 like him, would have walked to A. by the new 
 road, called Hamaxitos, which ran north of the 
 ancient roadway, already encumbered with the 
 ruins of the great wall of Pericles. 
 
 Pausanias, in his description of A. (i. 1. 4), and 
 Philostratus,* relate that along this road were 
 raised at intervals altars to the unknown gods. 
 St. Paul marked these, and worked them into his 
 argument against ple addressed upon the 
 Areopagus to the Stoics and Epicureans. On his 
 left hand, as he entered the Pireus gate of the 
 city, St. Paul skirted the Ceramicus or ancient 
 burial-ground, where we still see, bared b 
 recent excavations, some of the old sculpture 
 tombstones ; to look upon which is a revelation to 
 us of the noble and, in its calm self-restraint, almost 
 divine regret with which, in the fourth century B.C., 
 Athenian workmen could depict death and the last 
 farewells of mortals. 
 
 Innumerable booths of olive, fruit, and fish 
 sellers were no doubt set up then as now round the 
 entrances to the city. St. Paul would pash his 
 way past these, and, leaving to his left the noble 
 temple of Theseus, which remains intact in its 
 grandeur, he would enter the Agora. Here his 
 eye fell on portico after portico, painted by the 
 brush of famous artists, and adorned with the 
 noblest statues. But St. Paul would not have 
 admired these so much as the tower and water- 
 clock of Andronicus, telling out to him the hours 
 of his solitary waiting. This still stands to-day, 
 along with a few ruinous arcades, the sole remnant 
 of an architectural splendour which eclipsed that 
 of the Piazza del Duomo of Pisa, or of the Piazza 
 di San Marco of Venice. The impression which 
 the latter makes on one of us to-day might be 
 compared with that of which St. Paul would have 
 been sensible as he entered the Athenian Agora ; 
 if at least he could, in spite of his Semitism, have 
 felt the charm of the highest plastic art. 
 
 The Agora was dominated on its south side 
 by the abrupt hill of Mars and the still more 
 impressive heights of the Acropolis, and it was 
 such a place of resort as is to-day the Pi 
 San Marco at Venice. There St. Paul found 
 himself amidst the throng of ‘all the Athenians 
 and strangers who spent their time in pian 7 
 but either to tell or to hear some new thing.’ 
 In the Stoa Poecilé he met with the successors 
 of Zeno, the Stoics, with whom, as with the 
 Epicureans, he, like a second Socrates, ‘disputed 
 daily.’ And perhaps when he wearied of these 
 discussions, and of the noise of the rich men’s 
 slaves chaffering over their purchases, or of the 
 porters +Drour eg round, of the quack doctors 
 and barbers, he may have passed on by the 
 Via Tripodum and have gained the theatre of 
 Dionysus on the south side of the Acropolis, there 
 to witness, perhaps, the performance of a play of 
 Euripides or Menander ; or he may, from the other 
 end of the Agora, have gone up by the temple of 
 the Furies to the Acropolis, and have mounted the 
 steps of the Propylea of Mnesicles, whose columns 
 still remain to awe us with their sublime harmony. 
 Having thus gained the platform of the Acropolis, 
 he would wander through a forest of the most 
 perfect statues, pacing round that most glorious 
 shrine and monument of all, the temple of the 
 virgin goddess Athene, whose power and attri- 
 butes were destined with the triumph of St. Paul’s 
 new gospel, and, after an epoch briefer than that 
 which had already elapsed since its erection, to 
 
 ass on by seeming inheritance to the Blessed 
 irgin of the orthodox Greek Church. 
 
 * Philostratus, Vit. Apollon. 6. 2: cagpéverriper yap v8 wel 
 whicey Otay oS Aiyuy xu) ratve *AOhynesy, Pe nas byrberen 
 mete Buco) Wpuvras. This, of course, refers to St. Paul's own 
 
 y. 
 
 
 
ee "+ 
 
 ATHENS 
 
 
 
 St. Paul ‘disputed in the synagogue with the 
 Jews, and with the devout persons’ (Ac 17"). It 
 has been thought that the site of this synagogue 
 ney ve fixed by a slab found in the ancient district 
 of Koropus at the foot of Hymettus, bearing the 
 legend : airy 4 wvdAn Tod Kuplov, Sixaroe eloehevoovTm 
 év airy (Ps 118”).* But this is a monument only 
 of the third or fourth century, and is of Christian 
 origin. Other slabs, however, have been recovered 
 in A. bearing Jewish inscriptions, and marking 
 the burial-places of Greek Jews. And we have 
 in the writings of the Jew Philo, by a single 
 generation earlier than St. Paul, and, like him, an 
 ardent apostle of monotheism, some graplic 
 allusions to A., whither, no doubt, he went, like 
 Horace, as to the chief centre of art and philosophy. 
 For A. was the university city of the Roman world, 
 as it was also the focus from which the sacred rays 
 of learning radiated to Tarsus, Antioch, and 
 Alexundria. In his youthful essay on the theme 
 that every good man is free, Philo declares the 
 Athenians to be the keenest-sighted mentally of 
 the Greeks (‘EA\jvwy d&vdepkéorara didvouay), and 
 says that A. is to Greece what the pupil is to the 
 eye, or the reason to the soul.t And in these 
 words, which follow in the same context, he 
 doubtless describes a scene which he had actually 
 witnessed— 
 
 *It was only yesterday that the actors were exhibiting 
 tragedy, and were reciting those famous lines of Euripides— 
 
 “* For Freedom is a name all precious, 
 Even if a man hath little thereof, 
 Let him esteem himself to have great riches.” 
 
 Then I beheld that all the spectators stood up on tiptoe with 
 excitement, and with loud cheers and sustained cries prolonged 
 their applause of the sentiment no less than their applause of a 
 poet, that not only glorified Freedom in deed, but glorified its 
 very name.’ 
 
 Such was the impression which A. made on a 
 cultured Jew, who yet reprobated not less keenly 
 than St. Paul the worship by man of the works of 
 his own hands ; and we may well believe that St. 
 Paul’s heart also beat high as he entered so famous 
 a city. 
 
 Contemporary writers give the Athenians the 
 same characteristics of over-religiousness and 
 versatile curiosity as does St. Paul. One of these 
 witnesses is himself a Jew, namely Josephus the 
 historian, who declares (Contra Ap. ii. 12) the 
 Athenians to be the most pious of the Greeks (rods 
 evoeBeovdrous r&v “EA\jvwv). Testimony of like 
 effect is rendered by Livy, xlv. 27: Athenas inde 
 plenas quidem et ipsas uetustate fame, multa 
 tamen uisenda habentes; arcem, portus, muros 
 Piree~m urbi iungentes. . . . Simulacra Deorum 
 homimamgue, omni genere et materiz et artium 
 insignea. Petronius Arbiter, Sat. c. 17, unkindly 
 hints shat it was easier to find gods in A, than 
 men: Utique nostra regio tam priesentibus plena 
 est Muminibus, ut facilius possis Deum, quam 
 homisem inuenire.t 
 
 Nor was the desire of the Athenians to hear 
 something new unnatural. For theirs was a city 
 without commerce, but whose traditions and 
 memories led many who had leisure and liked 
 diseassion to resort thither. Among Alciphron’s 
 Le*ters (ii. 3) is one by Menander the poet, relating 
 tow he had declined the invitation of Ptolemy to 
 Jleuve A. and settle in Alexandria. In _ this 
 charming jeu d’esprit we zet a picture of A. in its 
 decadence, which shows how delightful a place it 
 was to live in for religious persons of leisure and 
 cultivation. 
 
 * See Inser. Attic. et. Romane, 404 and 3545-3547. 
 
 +Of. Milton, Paradise Regained, iv. 240: ‘ Athens the eye of 
 Greece, mother of arts.’ 
 
 $ Philostr. Vit. Apollonit Tyane, iv. 19, says of his prophet 
 that he ray ueby 3% romrny diccActiv, ivecdy, CrAobbT ag Tovs ‘Alinvaciovs 
 dav, batp ispdiy 3uerizaro. The experiences of Apollonius—a 
 ore spiritual teacher than most—in Athens were curiously 
 similar to those of his contemporary St. Paul. 
 
 ATONEMENT 197 
 
 LITERATURE.—Conybeare and Howson, ch. x. ; Wordsworth’s 
 Athens and Attica; and the classical works of Leake, Grote, 
 Thirlwall, Curtius, Wachsmuth, Gregorovius, Stadt Athen im 
 Mittelalter ; A. Mommsen, Athene Christiane. 
 
 F. C. CONYBEARE. 
 
 ATHLAI (ny, perhaps for aboy).—A Jew who 
 married a foreign wife (Ezr 10%, 1 Es 9%™), See 
 GENEALOGY. 
 
 
 
 ATIPHA (‘Ave¢d), 1 Es 5°.—See HATIPHA. 
 
 ATONEMENT.—By its derivation this word de- 
 scribes the setting ‘at one’ or reconciliation of two 
 parties who have been estranged. It is used in 
 the English Bible as the equivalent for various 
 forms of the root 153} in OT, and for cara\\ay7 in 
 NT. The verb 153 (to cover) is used to describe 
 the effect of the sacrifices at the original conse- 
 cration of the high priest and the altar (Ex 29%, 
 Ly 84, Ezk 43” etc.), and of the annual sacrifices 
 for the renewal of the consecration of the high 
 priest and his household, of the people, and of the 
 tabernacle (Lv 16” etc.), on the day called expressly 
 ‘the Day of Atonement.’ 
 
 It is used also to describe the effect of the 
 sacrifices offered on behalf of the nation and of 
 individual Israelites, peeeonally in connexion 
 with the ‘ whole burnt-offering’ (Lv 14), but more 
 frequently in connexion with the various forms of 
 ‘sin’ ed ‘trespass’ offerings (Lv 4” etc., Nu 5%), 
 the prescribed acknowledgment of guilt or de- 
 filement incurred accidentally or in ignorance. 
 
 It is used, besides, to describe the effect of the 
 intercession of Moses at Sinai (Ex 32%), of the 
 incense offered by Aaron (Nu 16"), and of Phinehas’ 
 summary judgment on Zimri (Nu 25%). The 
 offences for which atonement is accepted in these 
 cases go far beyond anything with which the 
 Levitical sacrifices were appointed to deal, and so 
 the way is prepared for the hope of atonement for 
 ‘moral offences as such’ expressed in Ps 65* 78% 
 79°, cf. Pr 168, Dn 9%. 
 
 The same verb when it describes the direct 
 action of God is translated ‘to pardon’ (2 Ch 30%, 
 ef. Ezk 16°). 
 
 The subst. 123 (LXX ddrpov=‘ ransom,’ cf. Mk 
 1045) is used of ‘blood money’ (Ex 21%, Nu 35%), 
 sanctioned on behalf of a man gored by an ox, but 
 not in a case of homicide; and of the half-shekel 
 paid at a census (Ex 301). 
 
 n> (LXX 7 lAacrhpiov) =the mercy-seat. 
 
 Two points in regard to the provision for atone- 
 ment under the old covenant deserve especial 
 attention. First, this provision is ascribed directly 
 to divine appointment. The sacrifices, therefore, 
 while bearing witness to the existence of an 
 obstacle in the way of man’s communion with God, 
 were guarded against the gross misinterpretation 
 which would represent them as human devices for 
 overcoming God’s reluctance to forgive. Second, 
 the power of atonement resided in the blood, as 
 containing the life of the sacrificial victim (Lv 
 172). Under cover of the blood of a victim slain 
 by his own hand in acknowledgment of the 
 righteousness of the divine judgment on his sin, 
 and in virtue of the life still quick within it, 
 liberated rather than destroyed by death, and 
 brought by consecrated hands into direct contact 
 with the symbols of the divine presence, the wor: 
 shipper, in spite of his defilement, might himseli 
 draw nigh to God. 
 
 In NT, though the thought is fundamental, and 
 finds expression in a variety of forms, e.g. Forgive- 
 ness, Propitiation, Redemption, the word Atone- 
 ment or its equivalent Reconciliation (karaddary7}, in 
 LXX practically confined to 2 Mac 5”) is found 
 only in 2 Co 58", Ro 5! 1115, cf. Col 17. Here, as 
 in OT, the use of the word presupposes an estrange- 
 ment between God and man. On man’s side this 
 
198 ATONEMENT 
 
 estrangement is the direct consequence of his sin. 
 On God’s side it is the direct consequence of His 
 holiness and His love. Because He is holy and 
 lovir.g, He cannot be indifferent to sin. His wrath 
 must rest upon the disobedient (Jn 3*, cf. Ro 1). 
 Now in human wrath there mingles almost 
 inevitably a feeling of personal irritation, pique, or 
 resentment, The lancaags of the NT is carefully 
 chosen to guard against the supposition that any 
 such shadow mars the purity of the divine indig- 
 nation. Men are spoken of as God’s enemies 
 (éx4pol, Ro 5”, cf. 87), but God is never spoken of as 
 the enemy of man. Men are invited to accept the 
 offered reconciliation; God is never brought beforeus 
 as Himself needing to be appeased or reconciled. On 
 the contrary, the atonement originates with Him. 
 See esp. 2 Co 5 ‘God was in Christ reconciling 
 the world unto himself,’ Ro 3% ‘whom God set 
 forth to be a propitiation.’ The atonement, there- 
 fore, of which the gospel speaks, cannot, any more 
 than the means of atonement provided under the 
 law, be regarded as a device i overcoming any 
 reluctance on God’s part to forgive. It is the 
 provision which He Himself has made for the 
 removal of the obstacle to communion which sin 
 has introduced. 
 
 Let us consider a little more closely what this 
 obstacle is. 
 
 Sin is lawlessness (1 Jn 3‘). It is the refusal on 
 man’s part, a refusal now as it were ingrained in 
 his very nature, to remain in subjection to the law 
 of God (Ro 8’). Each act of sin, therefore, is the 
 outward sign of a spiritual alienation from God. 
 But yet more. Each act of sin reacts upon the 
 sinner, and increases his alienation. It not only 
 weakens his power of moral self-determination, 
 and so makes him more than ever a slave to his 
 sin (Ro 714); it incurs fresh guilt, and so adds new 
 terror to the curse of the law (Gal 3!) ; it deepens 
 his defilement, and so makes him shrink more than 
 ever from the presence of God. And the wages of 
 sin, which from another point of view express 
 the peserent of God upon it, is death (Ro 6%). 
 
 The power by which this obstacle has been over- 
 come springs from the person of Christ. He Himself 
 is our peace (Eph 214), He, the Eternal Son of the 
 Eternal Father, is the Lamb ‘ foreknown before the 
 foundation of the world’ (1 P 1”), and the restora- 
 tion of the broken harmony of the universe (Col 1”, 
 cf. Eph 1”) springs from His eternal surrender of 
 Himself to do the Father’s will (He 10%). This 
 eternal sacrifice, which is thus seen to have its 
 roots deep in the inmost mystery of the divine 
 nature, was manifested in time, and became 
 effectual for our redemption, when the Word was 
 made flesh and revealed at once the relation in 
 which mankind stands to Him and His own 
 eternal relation to the Father, through a life on 
 earth of perfect obedience to the Father’s will. 
 This obedience reached its final consummation 
 when He shed His blood upon the cross, and His 
 life, even as the life of the sacrificial victims in the 
 OT, was set free by death for the work of our recon- 
 
 ciliation. The atonement, therefore, is ascribed 
 specificall to His death (Ro 5”), His cross (Eph 
 2'6), and His blood (Col 1”). 
 
 The cost of the atonement is represented from 
 two sides,—as it affected the Father, who ‘spared 
 not His own Son, but freely gave Him up for us 
 all’ (Ro 8%); and as it affected the Son, who 
 ‘suffered for us’ (1 P 274), and by ‘ whose stripes we 
 are healed’ (1 P 2%, cf. Is 535). The cost to the 
 Father we clearly have no power to conceive, and the 
 Bible makes no effort to define it. The sufferings 
 of the Son in our flesh were human sufferings. We 
 are able therefore in some measure to conceive of 
 them. They were the direct result of His perfect 
 acceptance of all the consequences that the 
 
 ATONEMENT 
 
 presence of sin in the world entails upon us. They 
 culminate on the one side in an agonising and 
 shameful death ; on the other in an unfathomable 
 depth of spiritual suffering, when for a moment it 
 seemed as if even God had forsaken Him (Mt 27%, 
 ef. Mt 26°%-44 and parallels, He 5’). 
 
 Such light as we can receive on the relation of 
 these sufferings to the work of our atonement is 
 derived chiefly from the typical ritual of OT 
 sacrifices. This included, as we have seen, (1) the 
 presentation of an offering with an acknowledg- 
 ment of guilt, (2) the slaughter of the victim, (3) 
 the symbolic use of the blood so shed. Each of 
 these elements found a place in the sacrifice on the 
 cross. 
 
 (1) Christ Himself, as the Head of our race, 
 pees Himself as an offering on our behalf, 
 
 he laying down of His life is represented as 
 His own deliberate voluntary act (Jn 10%), He 
 made His soul an offering for sin (Is 53", cf. Mt 
 268). He gave His life (yux7) a ransom for many 
 (AvTpov dyrl mrokAdv, Mt 20%). This presentation 
 involved, according to OT analogy, the surrender to 
 death of an appointed victim, together with a con- 
 fession of our guilt, and the acceptance, with a full 
 acknowledgment of its justice, of the sentence of 
 death which has been pronounced upon us for our 
 sin. 
 
 (2) He was at the same time not only the Offerer 
 but the Victim. His whole life was (as we have 
 seen already) a life of perfect self-surrender to the 
 loving service of His brethren in trustful obedience 
 to His Father’s will. His voluntary submission to 
 the death of the cross for the redemption of His 
 murderers, was the ultimate expression at once of 
 His obedience and of His love. It is therefore 
 the culminating point in His offering, and the final 
 test of its completeness, 
 
 (3) The blood of the offering, which, again 
 according to OT analogy, is regarded as the special 
 seat of the atoning power, is represented as being 
 sprinkled on those who enter the new covenant 
 (He 12%, 1 P 1’). It is brought into the most 
 intimate and impressive relation with each one of 
 them when he takes into his hands the Cup of the 
 covenant (Mt 26” etc., cf. Ex 248) and drinks of it 
 according to the commandment. 
 
 In the power of the same blood, our Lord, as the 
 
 eat High Priest, has entered into the inmost 
 
 eaven, and there without ceasing offers inter- 
 cession (He 7%) on our behalf. The blood thus 
 becomes a living bond reuniting man to man and 
 the whole race of man to God. 
 
 The etiect of the atonement is therefore to re- 
 move altogether the obstacle introduced by sin, to 
 undo the work of the devil (1 Jn 3°), and to open 
 anew the way by which sinful men can return into 
 communion with their Father in heaven (He 10”). 
 The blood of Christ, understood in the full measure 
 of its spiritual reality, reveals the true law of man’s 
 being, and brings home to him the extent of his 
 degradation. By its revelation of the love of God 
 triumphant over sin, it wins men back from their 
 spiritual alienation, making them ready to return to 
 their allegiance, and willing to give up their sin. It 
 cleanses their consciences from the stain of sin, and 
 sets them free from the curse of the law, by the 
 assurance that a perfect satisfaction has been 
 offered to the righteous claims of the divine 
 justice, and by enabling them to make their own 
 the perfect confession of their sins that has already 
 been offered in their name. It is the wellspring of 
 a new power of moral self-determination by which 
 they may be enabled, in spite of the tyrannous 
 domination of past habits acquired and inherited 
 (1 P 18), and in the midst of an atmosphere of 
 temptation, to live henceforward in obedience te 
 (od’s will, submitting in patience and in hope te 
 
 ee ee oe ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Be 
 
 ATONEMENT, DAY OF 
 
 ATONEMENT, DAY OF 199 
 
 
 
 all the suffering that He may require from them, 
 whether by way of discipline or of service. It 
 thus robs even death itselt of its sting. 
 
 It is true that we can but dimly see why such a 
 sacrifice as the death of Christ should have been 
 necessary, and guess in the light of partial 
 human analogies at the secret of its power. But 
 it is enough for our present guidance to know that 
 the sacrifice itself has been offered, and that there 
 have been men in every age who, from their own 
 experience, have borne witness that it is effectual. 
 See also FORGIVENESS and PROPITIATION. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Among English treatises on the Atonement it 
 will be enough to mention M‘Leod Campbell, On the Nature of 
 the Atonement; R. W. Dale, The Doctrine of the Atonement ; 
 F. D. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice; H. N. Oxenham, The 
 Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement; B. F. Westcott, The 
 Victory of the Cross. See also Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 
 817-400; Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, 479-487 ; Simon, 
 Redemption of Man; Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, iv. 
 1-124 et passim (see Index); Weiss, Bib. Theol. of NT, i. 419- 
 452, ii. 202-216; Ritschl, Christ. Lehre von d. Rechtfert. u. 
 Versihn. (Ung. tr. of Pt. i., History of the Christian Doctrine 
 ¥ Justification and Reconciliation); Baur, Lehre von d. 
 
 ersohn. tn ihrer gesch. Entwickelung ; Thomasius, Lehre von 
 Christi Person u. Werk; Harnack, Luther's Theologie mit bes. 
 Bezieh. auf seine Versohn.-u. Erlis.-lehre. 
 
 J. O. F. Murray. 
 ATONEMENT, DAY OF (on=27 ov Ly 2377 259, 
 tpépa (é&)iNacwod, dies expiationum, or (Lv 23”) pro- 
 pitvationis).*—The principal passages relating to 
 this great annual fast of the Jews are Lv 16 and 
 23*6-34; but some additional particulars are to be 
 found in Nu 297-4, Ex 30; ef. Lv 25%. All these 
 ee, though probably belonging to different 
 ates, are connected with the priestly code. The 
 Day of Atonement, which was a day for the 
 assembling of the people for divine worship (a 
 ‘holy convocation’ Ly 2377), was kept in the 
 autumn, on the 10th day + of the 7th month, or, 
 according to our reckoning, from the evening of 
 the 9th till the evening of the 10th. The people 
 were charged (Lv 237-*?, cf. 16% 31), under pain of 
 extermination from the community, to rest from 
 every kind of work, and to ‘afflict their souls,’ 
 the last res denoting the strict abstinence from 
 food and drink which marked a day of fasting 
 and self-humiliation. The special offerings for the 
 day (in addition to the regular burnt-, meal-, and 
 drink- offering), are prescribed in Nu 297"; they 
 consisted of a young bullock, a ram, and seven 
 lambs of the first year, as burnt-offerings, with 
 their appropriate meal-offerings, viz. three-tenths 
 of an ephah for each bullock, two-tenths for the 
 Tam, and one-tenth for each lamb, also of a he- 
 goat for a sin-offering. These additional offerings 
 are similar to those for the Ist day of the month, 
 and the 8th of the Feast of Booths (vv.1-& 35-38), 
 The distinctive ceremonial of the Day of Atone- 
 ment is described at length in Lv 16. The high 
 priest first selected for himself a young bullock for 
 a@ sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering; 
 then, having bathed, he discarded his distinctive 
 golden vestments, and arrayed himself in gar- 
 ments of white linen. After this he took from 
 the people a ram for a burnt-offering, and two 
 an for a sin-offering, and ricecenod to choose 
 y lot from the two goats one for J” and one for 
 
 AZAZELYt (Lv 16°), This done, he offered the 
 
 * Oalled by the later Jews nny the day, 725 Nov (cf. Is 118 
 LXX) the great day, ox ov the fast-day, Menachoth, xi., 
 end, R39 NDI the great fast; ct. 4 ynersia, Acts 279, Ep. Bar- 
 nab. 73. 4, Jos. Ant, xvil. vi. 43 4 rie », wietpe, XIV. iv. 3 (on xIv. 
 xvi. 4, cf. Schiirer, H/P 1. i. 398 n.); 4 Asyouéyy »., Philo, ii. 138, 
 691; yorsings toprh, ii. 296. 
 
 t Apparently the 10th day of this month was at one time 
 regarded as, New Year’s Day ; see Ezk 401 and cf. Lv 259. 
 
 t voy ne, to make atonement for it, because, probably, by 
 standing before J” during the ceremonial which follows, it shares 
 in the atonement made thereby for the sanctuary, and so 
 becomes fitted to bear away the sins of the people. So Hengst., 
 Riehm, Keil, Nowack (Heb. Archdol. ii. 192), a 
 
 bullock, which he had selected previously, for him- 
 self and his family; and having filled a censer 
 with coals from the altar of burnt-offering, and 
 taking with him a handful of incense, he entered 
 the Most Holy Place, where he threw the incense 
 upon the burning coals, causing thereby a cloud of 
 smoke to envelop the ark and_the mercy seat; 
 after this he dipped his finger in the blood of the 
 bullock, and sprinkled the blood once on the front 
 (or east) side of the mercy seat, and seven timesin _ 
 the vacant space in front.of the mercy seat (vv.""¥4), 
 Having thus completed the atonement for himself 
 and his house, the high priest returned to the court ; 
 and after killing the goat of the people which had 
 been allotted to J”, he again entered the Most 
 Holy Place, and sprinkled its blood, in the same 
 manner as that of the bullock, on the front of the 
 mercy seat and before the mercy seat. The puri- 
 fication of the Most Holy Place being thus accom- 
 po the high priest went out into the Holy 
 ‘Place (called the “tent of meeting” v.""), and there 
 performed a similar atoning ceremony. The de- 
 tails of this ceremony are not described in Lv 16; 
 but in Ex 30”, which seems to be a later addition 
 to P, we learn that the blood of the sin-offering of 
 atonement was to be placed on the golden altar of 
 incense, which is nowhere mentioned in Lv 16. 
 During this time no one except the high priest_ 
 was allowed to be present in the tabernacle. 
 “When thé-high priest again~came™ out into the 
 court, he completed the atonement of the sanc- 
 tuary by placing on the horns of the altar of. 
 burnt-oflering * some of the blood both of the 
 bullock and of the goat, and with his fingers 
 sprinkling the blood seven times on the altar 
 (v.59), The living goat was then brought near ; 
 and the high priest, having placed both hands 
 upon its head, confessed over it all the sins.and 
 offences of the Israelites ; after Which the goat was 
 led away; by a man standing in readiness, into the 
 wilderness for Azazel, that it might bear the 
 iniquities to a land ‘cut off,’ i.e. to one remote 
 tom human habitations, from which there was no 
 chance of its bringing back again its burden. of 
 ruilt (v.22), ‘The high pace then returned to 
 ie Holy Place, and after bathing, and putting on 
 his usual priestly garments, came out and offered 
 the two burnt-otterings (vv.* 5) for himself and for 
 the people (vv.%").” Finally, the fat of the sin- 
 offerings having been consumed in sweet smoke 
 upon the altar, the rest of their flesh (in accord- 
 ance with the general rule, Lv 4! 2! etc.) was 
 carried outside the camp and destroyed by fire; 
 those to whom this service was ntciaten and 
 also the man who had led away the goat for 
 Azazel, being not permitted to return to the con- 
 gregation till they hac bathed, and washed their 
 clothes (vv.5): 
 
 Two main questions arise in connexion with the 
 Day of Atonement, which, as we shall see, are in 
 some measure connected with each other: (1) to 
 what date is the ceremonial enjoined in ch. 16 to 
 be ascribed? (2) is the chapter describing it homo- 
 geneous in structure? 
 
 (1) We hear nothing of the observance of the 
 Day of Atonement in pre-exilic times, nor is any 
 mention made of this day in the earlier legal 
 codes (‘Book of the Covenant,’ Dt, H). On the 
 other hand, there are several points in the law 
 regulating its observance which seem to connect 
 it with the period after the exile, when the 
 ceremonial aspects of sin and atonement at least 
 occupied a more prominent ‘place in the life and 
 
 * The altar of v.18 cannot be the altar of incense. The purifi- 
 cation of the Holy Place has been described in v.16f For 
 “before J”’ (v.18), cf. Lv 15: J” dwells in the tabernacle (Ex 
 258. 22), and the great altar stands in front of this. 
 
 + V.25 seems to be misplaced. Its natural position would be 
 immediately after v.19 (cf. 48-10. 19. 28 etc.). 
 
200 ATONEMENT, DAY OF 
 
 
 
 tinought of the people than was the case pre- 
 viously. The phrase ‘to afflict the soul’ (wp) nyy, 
 see Ly 1679 81 237. 29. 82, Ny 297) occurs elsewhere 
 only Is 58% 5 1° (exilic) and Ps 35 (influenced by 
 Jer). Fasting as a religious observance was prac- 
 tised among the Hebrews in ancient times; but 
 we first hear of annual fasts on stated days in 
 connexion with th fall of Jerusalem (Zec 735 8}%), 
 The elaborate ritual of the blood probably points 
 to a comparatively late date (cf. Ly 4!!, one of 
 the later portions of P; and contrast 9°"); while 
 the nearest analogies to the public confession of 
 sins (16?!) are to be found in post-exilie writings 
 (Ezr 9, Neh 147.98, Dn 94°), Moreover, the priestly 
 prophet Ezekiel, in his legislation for the restored 
 people (ch. 40-48), prescribes a ceremonial, which, 
 while its general aim is similar to that of the Day 
 of Atonement, is much simpler in character; he 
 enjoins, viz. (451%), two solemn purifications of 
 the sanctuary on the Ist day of the first month, 
 and on the Ist of the seventh month (so LXX ; see 
 RVm), when a young bullock was to be slain for 
 a sin-offering on behalf of all who might err 
 through inadvertence or natural slowness (728 w'xp 
 np), and the blood of the victim was to be placed 
 on the doorposts of the temple, on the corners of 
 the ledge of the altar, and on the gateposts of the 
 inner court. The prophet, in his legislation for 
 the future, attaches himself largely to existing 
 usage ; if, therefore, the law of Lv 16 had been in 
 his day a time-honoured institution, would he 
 have either disregarded it or stripped it of so 
 many of its significant rites? Does it not seem 
 more probable that the law of Lv 16 is a develop- 
 ment of the simpler ceremonial prescribed by 
 Ezekiel? Indeed, there are reasons for supposing 
 that its introduction was decidedly later than 
 Ezekiel’s time. In Neh 8-10 we possess a fairly cir- 
 cumstantial account of the events of the 7th month 
 of B.c. 444, including, for instance (8?- 18-18), notices 
 of what happened on the Ist and 2nd days of the 
 month, and the observance, in accordance with 
 Lv 23°9-42, of the Feast of Booths from the 15th to 
 the 23rd days; that being so, it is remarkable, if 
 the fast of the 10th day had been an established 
 institution, that no mention should be made of its 
 observance, especially when we are expressly told 
 (91*-) that the 24th dae was observed as a day of 
 fasting and of confession of sins. Reuss, indeed, 
 on the ground that the fast of the 24th would 
 have been superfluous, if the fast of the 10th had 
 just preceded, argued (Hist. sainte et la loi, i. 260) 
 that Lv 16 did not even form part of the law-book 
 read by Ezra; but, as Kuenen (Hew. § 15. 32; cf. 
 Dillm. NDJ p. 673; Stade, Gesch. ii. 182) points 
 out, this argument is hardly decisive; the fast of 
 the 24th is manifestly intended as a special token 
 of humiliation for national shortcomings, prepara- 
 tory to the conclusion of the covenant (9°) ; it 
 has thus little or nothing in common with the 
 annually-recurring Day of Atonement, and it might 
 have been appointed whether Lv 16 was contained 
 in Ezra’s law-book or not. But Kuenen agrees 
 that the non-mention of the day on the part of 
 the well-informed narrator of Neh 8-10 is ‘very 
 strange,’ if it were an established institution, and 
 considers it to be an indication that it was intro- 
 duced for the first time in the law-book of Ezra, 
 though not observed at once, on account of its 
 forming part of a new system, which had not yet 
 been formally accepted by the people. Whether 
 this argument be satisfactory or not, it is import- 
 ant to recollect that the argument against the 
 antiquity of the Day of Atonement is not, as it is 
 often represented as being (e.g. by Delitzsch, in 
 his study on the subject, ZK WL, 1880, p. 173 tf.), 
 solely an argumentum e silentio: that, as Kuenen 
 observes (TA. Tijdschr. 1883, pp. 207-212), is but one 
 
 ATONEMENT, DAY OF 
 
 — 
 
 argument out of many; the Day of Atonement is 
 
 art of a system, the ceremonial system of the 
 
 riest’s Code; when, therefore, the question of its 
 antiquity is raised, it cannot be treated by itself, 
 but forms part of a larger question, viz. the 
 antiquity of that system as a whole, and must be 
 answered in the same sense as that in which the 
 wider question is answered. 
 
 (2) The second question is whether Ly 16 forms 
 a_homogeneous whole. The chapter is connected 
 with the narrative of the death of Aaron’s sens for 
 offering strange fire (ch. 10; cf. 16 ‘that he die 
 not,’ and }-!3; and contrast ‘ fire from the altar,’ 
 v./2, with ‘strange fire,’ 10'); but it treats of two 
 distinct subjects, without clearly indicating the 
 transition from one to the other. It opens with a 
 warning addressed to Aaron against rashly enter- 
 ing the Most Holy Place, and prescribes the pre- 
 liminary rites to be performed, whenever he 
 may have occasion to do so.* It passes on to 
 describe a solemn atoning ceremony to be per- 
 formed’ for the tabernacle itself, and for the 
 worshippers; and it concludes with the institution 
 of an annual fast on the day of the atoning cere- 
 mony. This change of subject suggests a doubt 
 whether the chapter in its present form can be 
 wholly the work of one writer. Dillmann explains 
 the change of subject, and the connexion with 
 ch. 10, by the supposition that originally the 
 chapter contained the description of a ceremony of 
 
 urification, to be performed in consequence of the 
 pailan ene brought upon the tabernacle by the sin 
 of Nadab and Abihu. He supposes that directions 
 were given for the repetition of the rite after any 
 subsequent desecration ; that in later times it had 
 become the practice to perform this service once, 
 and once only, in every year; and that the chapter 
 was altered to suit the later practice. This ex- 
 planation, however, requires us to supply a good 
 deal which is not stated, and only indirectly 
 suggested, by the present text. 
 
 A different solution of the difficulty is proposed 
 by Benzinger. In an interesting and suggestive 
 study on Lv 16 (ZA7'W, 1889, p. 65 ff.), Benzinger 
 points out that the literary form of the chapter is 
 imperfect. Thus v.° and v.1* are really doublets, 
 suggesting that vv.7 are derived from another 
 source; there is a sharp break between v.* and 
 v.22; vv."9-#4¢ are not really a summary of the fore- 
 going verses, for they introduce some new points 
 (fasting and the date), and, while mentioning the 
 white garments of the high priest, say nothing about 
 the more important ceremonies connected with the 
 sprinkling of the blood, and the goat for Azazel ; 
 finally, v.#> suggests the immediate carrying out 
 of some definite command given to Moses. <Ac- 
 cordingly, Benzinger, who is followed by Nowack 
 (Hebr. Arch. ii. 182-194), distinguishes between 
 earlier and later portions of the chapter, and con- 
 siders that the older sections are vy.}-4 61a 
 (omitting ‘which is for himself’) 18 > (regula- 
 tions defining the conditions under which Aaron, 
 when occasion required, was to enter the Holy of 
 Holies), and vv.?** (a law prescribing a relatively 
 simple rite of atonement—substantially identical 
 with the inaugural ceremony of 97—to be re- 
 peated annually on behalf of the people and sanc- 
 tuary, and specifying the manner in which the 
 day was to be observed publicly). In this form, 
 he points out, the law for the Day of Atonement 
 would agree closely with Lv 23*°%, where also 
 stress is laid on the necessity of fasting and ab- 
 stention from work, but no allusion is made tc 
 the special ceremonies prescribed in the centra: 
 portion of ch. 16. The ‘offering by fire’ of 23”, 
 
 * With vy.2 13 (‘that he die not’), comp. Ex 2835 (the con 
 
 ditions under which Aaron may enter the Holy Place); alec 
 Kx 3020. 21, Nu 419, 
 
ATONEMENT, DAY OF 
 
 ener ee EEE 
 
 ATONEMENT, DAY OF 2U) 
 
 
 
 and the ‘sin-offering of atonement’ of Nu 29”, 
 would both be explained by the sacrifices alluded 
 to in Lv 16*-% (or Nu 1574-6) and described more 
 fully in Lv 9. The more elaborate ritual pre- 
 scribed in the rest of the chapter (vv. 7-1 14-28)* ig, 
 upon Benzinger’s view, a subsequent development 
 of that enjoined in vv.™-*, which, as it now stands, 
 is interwoven with directions relating to Aaron 
 alone, on account of its having become the custom 
 for the high priest to enter the Holy of Holies on 
 the Day of Atonement only. 
 
 That the ritual prescribed in this chapter was of 
 gradual growth is indeed highly probable; but it 
 may be doubted whether a merely literary analysis 
 can adequately indicate its successive stages. The 
 words not at all times in v.? suggest that even 
 when the supposed earlier law was formulated, 
 there were restrictions on the occasion as well as 
 on the manner of the high priest’s entering the 
 Holy of Holies, and the terms of vv.””* appear to 
 presuppose some preceding regulations, defining 
 more particularly the character of the atoning 
 ceremonies there alluded to.t It is true, 2376-% 
 is parallel to 167-**, in the stress which it lays 
 upon the manner in which the Day is to be ob- 
 served by the people; but it also presupposes in 
 v.4 some Batiél atoning rites, the nature of which 
 it does not itself more closely define.t + Hence it 
 seems that to limit the original regulations of the 
 Day of Atonement to v.”-** would leave them less 
 systematic and erpicte than is probable. The 
 more elaborate ritual prescribed for the blood, as 
 compared with 97-%15, and even with 4% 7-17-18, is 
 not necessarily due to its being a later develop- 
 ment: it may be due to the special solemnity of 
 the occasion, a ceremonial enacted once a year 
 only on behalf of the entire nation. The chapter 
 Eadoabtedly deals with two distinct subjects (the 
 conditions under which the high priest might enter 
 the Most Holy Place, and the annual Day of 
 Atonement for the sins of the nation), which it 
 imperfectly connects together. We may conjec- 
 ture that the association of these two subjects is 
 due to the fact that the occasions of the high 
 priest’s entry into the Most Holy Place came 
 gradually to be limited to the single annual Day 
 of Atonement: it is also highly pee (esp. in 
 view of Ezk 45'8-°) that the ritual of this day was 
 originally simpler than that now prescribed in Lv 
 16; but it may be doubted whether the successive 
 stages in the amalgamation and development of 
 the two ceremonials can be distinguished by 
 means of a literary analysis. 
 
 The Mishnic treatise Ydmd (t.e. the Day) gives 
 several fresh details respecting the ceremonies 
 observed on the Day of Atonement in the time of 
 the Second Temple.§ Minute directions were given 
 to ensure the ceremonial purity of the high priest 
 on that day. For the seven days preceding he 
 dwelt in a special chamber, and not in his own 
 house. It is expressly stated that he entered four 
 times into the Most Holy Place, viz. on the three 
 occasions suggested by Lv 164-15, and again 
 after the evening sacrifice, to bring out the censer, 
 and the plate which had held the incense. Tt is 
 said that a stone three fingers high stood in the 
 
 * Except v.17> and v.%b> (from and make), which Benzinger 
 treats as later harmonistic glosses. 
 
 + The circumstantial enumeration of v.33 must surely pre- 
 suppose something more than either the ordinary sin-offering 
 of the community (Nu 1522-26), or even Ly 99-15; moreover, it 
 exactly summarises the principal present contents of vv.1+28, 
 
 } The ‘ offering made by fire’ of 2327 will not be the special 
 atoning sacrifice intended ; for that offering is common to most 
 of the sacred seasons mentioned in ch. 23 (y.8.18b. 25.36), Nu 
 297-11 also alludes (v.11) to the ‘sin-offering of atonement’; but 
 the calendar of sacred seasons, contained in Nu 28-29, may be 
 of later date than the present form of Lv 16. 
 
 § Cf. Ep. Barnab. c. 7 (with Gebhardt and Harnack’s notes), 
 where some of the same details are alluded to. 
 
 a 
 
 Holy of Holies in the place of the ark (v. 2). Im 
 mediately before slaying the sin-offering for him. 
 self, the high priest, laying his hands upon it, 
 made the following confession: ‘I beseech ‘Thee, 
 
 O Lorp, I_haye done iniquitously, T ave trais- 
 
 gressed, I have sinned before Thee, I, and my 
 house, and the sons of Aaron, Thy holy people. | 
 beseech Thee, O Lord, forgive (153), now, the 
 iniquities, and the transgressions, and the sins, 
 wherein I have done iniquitously, and trans- 
 gressed, and sinned before Thee, I, and my house, 
 and the sons of Aaron, Thy holy people’ (iv. 2). 
 The blood of each of the siu-offerings was sprinkled 
 by the high priest, once upwards and seven times 
 downwards, first on the Holy of Holies, and after- 
 wards been the veil in the Holy Place: lastly, 
 mixing the blood of the two victims, he put some of 
 the mixture on the altar of incense, and poured out 
 the remainder at the foot of the altar of burnt- 
 offering (vi. 1,2). With regard to the two goats, we 
 are told that they were to resemble one another as 
 closely as possible (vi. 1; ef. Barnab. 7 éuolovs). The 
 lots were made of boxwood, and afterwards of 
 gold ; the high priest drew out one lot in each 
 hand, and then tied a ‘tongue’ of scarlet cloth * 
 upon the neck of the goat destined for Azazel. 
 ne done ef ae ok riest’s confession were, 
 ‘We beseech thee, O Lorp, Thy_people,.the 
 house of Israel, have done pa aaiy trans- 
 gressed, and sinned before Thee. We_ beseech 
 Thee, O Lorb, forgive, iow, the iniquities, the 
 transgressions, and the sins, wherein Thy people, 
 the house of Israel, have done iniquitously, trans- 
 gressed, and sinned before Thee’ (vi. 2). The goat 
 ‘was led away, accompanied by some of the nobles 
 of Jerusalem ; and its arrival at a place which was 
 regarded as the edge of the wilderness was sig- 
 nalled back to the high priest in the temple. 
 Finally, the goat was conducted by a single man 
 to a steep place called Suk, where it was thrown 
 backwards over the edge of the cliff, and dashed 
 to pieces among the rocks (vi. 6-8). The site has 
 been identified by Schick (ZDPYV iii. 214 tf.) with 
 a crag near the village of Bét-hudédfin, on the 
 road running through Bethany into the wilder- 
 ness, 12 miles east of Jerusalem (see AZAZEL). 
 
 The Day of Atonement represents the culminat- 
 ing institution of the Levitical system. Not only, 
 from a merely formal point of view, does Lv 16 
 form the climax of the sacrificial and purificatory 
 ordinances contained in Lv 1-15, but the cere- 
 monial itself is of a peculiarly comprehensive and 
 representative character. It was a yearly atone- 
 ment for the nation as a whole (including the 
 priests) ; and not only for the nation, but also for 
 the sanctuary, in its various parts, in so far as 
 this had been defiled during the past year by the 
 sins of the people, in whose midst it stood. The 
 sins thus atoned for must not, however, be sup- 
 posed to be those committed ‘with a high hand’ 
 (Nu 15%), ¢.¢e. defiantly and wilfully; but sins of 
 ignorance and frailty (dyvojjuara, He 97), such as 
 human nature, even when striving after God, is 
 ever liable to.t 
 
 * pear by pwd : Barnab. 78 +3 ipsov +0 xdxxivoy. 
 
 + The Jews, as Danz [see ad jin.], pp. 1010-1012, shows from. 
 the Mishna (Shebw' oth 18), Maimonides (Comment. on Yéma 42), 
 and Abarbanel (771n7 w17"5, Venice, 1584, fol. 251, col. 3, 1. 14 ff.), 
 in view of the comprehensive terms of Ly 1616.21.30, held that 
 the sacrifices of this day made atonement for all sins of every 
 kind, whether done involuntarily or deliberately ; but this is an 
 exaggeration which is in conflict with the general theory of the 
 Jewish sacrifices. The sin-offering made atonement only for 
 sins committed ‘in error,’ t.¢, accidentally and involuntarily 
 (Ly 42. 13.22.27, Nu 152429), not for those committed ‘ with a high 
 hand’ (Nu 1589), t.e. defiantly and deliberately ; and it is in- 
 credible, in spite of the terms of Lv 1616.21, that the sacrifices 
 of this day can have so far deviated in principle from the general 
 theory of the priestly legislation as to have been supposed te 
 atone, e.g., for the sin of an impenitent murderer. The cere- 
 
 monial of the Day of Atonement was designed in fact to effect 
 
 
 
202 ATONEMENT, DAY OF 
 
 The ceremonial was enacted at the central 
 sanctuary ; but the individual Israelites, by their 
 abstention from labour and fasting, not only ex- 
 
 ressed at the same time their humiliation for sin, 
 bat also signified their co-operation in the offices 
 of the day; provision was thus made for the 
 ceremonial being more than a mere opus operatum. 
 As it was the highest atoning ceremony of the 
 year, the blood was not merely applied, as in 
 other cases (Lv 4), to the altar of burnt-offering, 
 or even to the altar of incense; it was taken into 
 the Holy of Holies, and sprinkled, not once only, 
 but seven times, as close as possible to the place 
 immediately associated with the presence of J” 
 (Ex 25°, Nu 78). Once a year the sins of the 
 people were thus solemnly atoned for, and the 
 nation’s lost holiness was restored (v.*° ‘to cleanse 
 you: from all your sins shall ye be clean before J”’). 
 The slain goat made atonement for the people’s 
 sins, and restored their peace and fellowship with 
 God ; the goat over which the people’s sins were 
 confessed, and which was afterwards sent away to 
 Azazel in the wilderness, symbolised visibly their 
 coniplete removal from the nation’s midst (Ps 103”, 
 Mic 7): ‘a life was given up for the altar, and 
 yet a living being survived to carry away all sin 
 and uncleanness’: the entire ceremonial thus 
 symbolised as completely as possible both the 
 atonement for sin, and the entire removal of the 
 cause of God’s alienation. 
 
 As regards the part taken in the office by the 
 high priest, it is to be observed especially that 
 the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement was the 
 highest exercise of his mediatorial office: he per- 
 formed an atoning rite on behalf of the entire 
 ree le; and, represented by him, the entire people 
 
 access on that day to the presence of J”. As 
 the representative of a sinful people, he natur- 
 
 aur ‘discarded his gorgeous high-priestly~dréss,* 
 
 and assumed~an-attire, which, being plain and 
 destitute~ofornament, was such as became a 
 suppliant suing for forgiveness; while, being 
 white, it symbolised.the purity and innocence 
 required in those who appear in the immediate 
 presence of the Holy One (cf. the angels in Ezk 9% 
 11 1026.7, Dn 105 1287). Nor can he, even then, 
 complete the atonement for the people, until he 
 has first offered atonement for his own sins; and 
 when he enters the Holy of Holies, the incense 
 burnt by him there forms, further, a protecting 
 cloud, coming as a veil between himself and the 
 holiness of J’, and at the same time possessing a 
 propitiatory efficacy (Nu 16%). 
 
 Jos. (Ant. Il. x. 3) gives a short account of 
 the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement; and 
 Philo, in his treatise repl rijs éBdoujs, § 23 (II. 296, 
 Mangey), draws out the ethical teaching which he 
 understands them to imply. Allusions to the holy 
 day are also found in Sir 505*, Ac 279, He 97-2, 
 
 The later Jews were not unconscious of the 
 deeper spiritual truths of which the ceremonial of 
 the Day of Atonement was the expression. Philo, 
 for instance (/.c.), speaks of it as an occasion for 
 the discipline of self-restraint in regard to bodily 
 indulgences: the more effective, as it came at a 
 season of the year when the fruits of the earth 
 had just been gathered in, and the temptation to 
 an tdeal_atonement and reconciliation on behalf of the nation, 
 as such ; its benéfits extending to idividuals, only in so. far 
 “as they had sinned involuntarily, or were trul ee Comp. 
 Oehler, § 140 (Eng. tr. ii. 43 ff.); Riehm, A "heol. § 37. 2; v. 
 Orelli, in Herzog2, xvi. 414; R, W. Dale, The Atonement, pp. 85, 
 466-470 ; C. G. Montefiore, The Bible for Home Readvng, 1896, 
 p. 144 ff. (where the ancient significance of this annual rite is 
 well pointed out). 
 
 * His dress became, in fact, almost that of the ordinary 
 priests, except that he had still a ‘turban’ (n5)y2)—though 
 only one of white linen, not his usual decorated one (Ex 2836!-)— 
 instead of a ‘cap’ (713D, Ex 2840), and a plain linen ‘sash’ 
 (8338), instead of a coloured one (Ex 2849), 
 
 “efficacy of the work of Christ. 
 
 ATROTH-SHOPHAN 
 
 indulgence would be naturally the stronger; ab- 
 stinence at such a season would raise men’s 
 thoughts from the gifts to the Giver, who could 
 sustain life kal da rovrwy xal dvev ro’rwy. Those 
 who took part in the prayers for the day asked 
 for forgiveness, not in dependence upon their own 
 merits, dda did Thy Dewy piow rod auyyvdunvy wpd 
 koddcews dplfovros (cf. Vit. Mos. ii. 4, 1. 188; Leg. 
 Cat. 39, 1. 591). The Mishna also is careful to 
 teach that the ceremonies of the Day of Atone- 
 ment are ineffectual unless accompanied by_re- 
 pentance. ‘Death and the Day of Atonement 
 work atonement, where there is repentance (Ai1wha), 
 Repentance makes atonement for slight trans- 
 gressions, both of omission and of commission ; 
 and in the case of grave ones, it suspends punish- 
 ment till the Day of Atonement comes, and brings 
 atonement. If aman says, ‘‘I will sin, and (then) 
 repent, I will sin, and (then) repent,” Heaven does 
 not give him the means of practising repentance ; 
 and if he says, “‘ I will sin, and the Day of Atone- 
 ment will bring atonement,” the Day of Atone- 
 ment will bring him no atonement’ (Yémd, viii. 
 8-9). 
 
 The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews con- 
 
 .trasts..(9%":) the work of the high priest on the 
 priest 
 
 Day_of Atonement with the superior atonin 
 The Jewish hig 
 ‘priest entered once yearly* into the Holy of 
 Holies, with the blood of appointed victims: Christ 
 entered once for all into.the true sanctuary, the 
 
 He obtained not a temporary, but an 
 
 liyerance (9"-!), His blood o far more efficacious 
 for the cleansing and renovation of human nature 
 (941-14. 28-8) than that which was offered under the 
 Jewish law. And whereas, under the Law, full 
 access to God was limited to the high priest, and to 
 him, moreover, under many restrictions of time and 
 mode, Christ has opened a new and living way, 
 by which those whose hearts are properly purged 
 from an evil conscience may at all times have free 
 access to the Father (9%! 1019-22), 
 
 LITERATURE.—(a@) The treatise of the Mishna, Yémd, with 
 Lat. tr. and notes in Surenhusius’ ed. of the Mishna, 1699, ii. 
 p. 206 ff. ; also ed. by Sheringham, 1648, ed. 2 (with an elabor- 
 ate comparison [p. 105 ff.] of the work of the high priest with 
 that of Christ, by J. Rhenferd), 1696; and (with Heb. text 
 pointed, and short notes, and glossary) by H. L. Strack (Berlin, 
 1888): many passages of the Gemara on the same treatise are 
 also translated by Wiinsche, in Der Babyl. Talmud in seinen 
 Haggadischen Bestandtheilen, i. (1886), pp. 840-389 ; see further, 
 on the Jewish ritual of the day, Otho, Lea. Rabb. 1675,2 1757 
 (s.v. Expiationis Festum); J. Lightfoot, The Temple Service, c. 
 15 (Works, 1684, ii. 961-4); J. A. Danz, ‘ Functio Pontif. M. 
 anniversaria,’ in Meuschen, NT ex Talm. tilustr. 1736, pp. 912- 
 1012 (with copious extracts from Jewish sources), followed, pp. 
 1013-39, by Rhenferd’s ‘Comparatio’ (supr.); Maimonides, 
 Hilchoth yém hak-kippurim, etc., at the end of Delitzsch’s 
 Comm. on the Hebrews ; Edersheim, The Temple: tts Ministry 
 and Services, pp. 263-288. (b) J. Spencer, de Legg. Hebr.2 (1686), 
 1. viii. ; Bahr, Symb, des Mos. Cultus, 1839, ii. 664 ff. ; Oehler, 
 OT Theol. §§ 140, 141; Schultz, OT Theol. i. 367 f., 402-6; Dill- 
 mann on Ly 16; Nowack, Hebr. Arch. ii. 183-194; Delitzsch, 
 ZEWL, 1880, pp. 173-183; Kuenen, Th. T. 1883, pp. 207-212, and 
 Hex. $15. 82; Wellh. Hist. 110-112; Stade, Geach. ii. 182, 258- 
 260; Benzinger, ZATW, 1889, pp. 65-88. 
 
 S. R. DRIVER and H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ATROTH-BETH-JOAB.—See ATAROTH. 
 
 ATROTH-SHOPHAN (jw nowy. LXX has Zwddp 
 and yiv Zwddp, as well as DwPdv [Swete’s notes]).— 
 A town of Gad (Nu 32%). The identification is 
 doubtful, as the tribes of Gad and Reuben seem 
 confused, Dibon, Ataroth, and Aroer being given 
 
 * gaeouk rov ivevrou (97). Exactly the same expression is used 
 by Philo (Leg. Gat. l.c.; cf. De Mon. ii. 2, 11. 223; and e#ag xar’ 
 ivievtov, Jos. BJ v. v. 7 end, 8 Mac 111), The meaning is, of 
 course, on one day in the year, not on one occasion: Ly 1618-15 
 implies more than one entrance on the day; according to the 
 Mishna, the high priest entered four times, viz. with the incense 
 (Yéma, vy. 1), with the blood of the bullock (v. 3), with the 
 blood of the goat Me 4), and at the close of the day, after the 
 ordinary evening burnt-offering, to fetch out the censer and 
 incense-dish, which he had left there (vii. 4). 
 
 actual presence of God, through His own blood i 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 se ee ee ey 
 
ATTAI 
 
 Sat as cities of Gad, while they certainly were in 
 euben’s territory. If Atroth-shophan lay near 
 Ataroth, it may be, as Tristram suggests (Late 0 
 Moab, p. 276), that the cone-shaped Jebel ‘Attards 
 represents the former and Khirbet ‘Attaris the 
 latter. If it lay near Jazer and Jogbehah (which 
 see), named immed. after it, it must be sought 
 farther N.—possibly at Saffit beside the latter. 
 A. HENDERSON. 
 
 ATTAI (‘ny).—1. A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 25-36), 
 2. A Gadite warrior who joined David at Ziklag 
 (1 Ch 12"). 8. One of Rehoboam’s sons (2 Ch 11”). 
 
 ATTAIN has now lost its literal meaning ‘to 
 reach a place,’ which occurs in Ac 27}? ‘if by an 
 means they might attain to Phenice’ (RV ‘ Hach 
 Phenix’). Elsewhere in AV the meaning is fig., 
 asnow. In Ph 3" the same Gr. verb (xaravrdw) is 
 used as in Ac 277 just quoted, ‘if by any means I 
 might a. unto the resurrection from the dead.’ 
 But in the next verse (‘not as though I had already 
 a°’) the verb is different (AauBdvw, RV ‘ obtained’), 
 being connected rather with the verb (xaradapuBdvw) 
 tr’ ‘apprehend’ in the same verse. See APPRE- 
 HEND. In Ph 3 ‘whereto we have already a*,’ 
 there is no word corresp. to ‘already’ in Gr., 
 ‘already a%’ is an attempt to tr. ¢@dvw, which, in 
 Ro 9* is tr¢ ‘attain’ simply. But in Ph 3 an 
 adv. (#5n) is used. In 1 Ti 4° AV gives a wrong 
 direction to the thought: ‘ good doctrine, where- 
 unto thou hast attained’ (Gr. rapaxodovdéw, RV cor- 
 rectly, ‘which thou hast followed,’ adding wnti 
 now to complete the sense). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ATTALIA (’Arradla) was ‘a city on the coast of 
 Pamphylia, founded by Attalus m. Philadelphus 
 (B.C. 159-138), as the harbour (Ac 14%) through 
 which the S. parts of the great Pores 
 
 . sea, 
 
 adage might communicate with the 
 with Syria, and with Egypt; and throughout 
 subsequent history it has retained its name and its 
 importance as a seaport. It is now (or at least was 
 until steamships revived some other harbours like 
 Mersina) the chief harbour of the S. coast of 
 
 Asia Minor, bearing the name Adalia. In the 
 Byzantine ecclesiastical system A. was originally 
 subject to Perga, the metropolis of Pamphylia 
 Secunda, but in 1084 it was made a metropolis ; 
 there can be no doubt that this elevation in rank 
 was due to the fact that Perga had completely 
 decayed, and was a mere name, giving a title to the 
 metropolitan bishop. The aaah harbour of A. is 
 still used by boats, though steamships anchor out- 
 side, and it was in use in the end of the 12th 
 cent. (Anna Commena, ii. p. 113). The river 
 Catarrhactes flowed into the sea near A., though 
 it has now been diverted into so many channels for 
 irrigation and other purposes that it hardly de- 
 serves to be called a river. The cults mentioned 
 at A. seem all to spring from its Pergamenian 
 origin, as Zeus Soter, Athena, Apollo Archegetes. 
 LITERATURE.—The best account of A. is in Lanckoronski, 
 Stddte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, i. pp. 6-82 and 153-163 : see 
 also Beaufort, Karamania ; Spratt at § Forbes, Lycia. 
 W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 ATTALUS (“Arrados, 1 Mac 15”).—Attalus I1. 
 Philadelphus was king of Pergamum 159-138 B.c. 
 He promoted the imposture of Alexander Balas, 
 who claimed to be a son of Antiochus Epiphanes 
 (Justin, xxxv. 1), and sent a body of troops to Syria 
 to support the pretender. hen the embassy 
 sent by Simon Maccabzeus came to Rome (B.C. 139), 
 the Senate passed a decree in favour of the Jews, 
 and wrote to the kings of Pergamum, Egypt, 
 Syria, Cappadocia, and Parthia, and to several 
 small autonomous States, instructing them to 
 respect the independence of the Jewish territory. 
 Josephus (Ané. XIV. viii. 5) records a decree of the 
 
 AUGUSTUS 203 
 
 Senate in favour of the Jews, which he assigns to 
 the time of Hyrcanus 11, But the terms and cir. 
 cumstances of this decree resemble so closely those 
 of the decree referred to in 1 Mac 15!8“, that 
 many modern scholars consider that the Senatus- 
 consultwm preserved by Josephus is really to be 
 connected with the embassy of Simon. f. esp 
 Schiirer, HJP 1. i. 266 ff. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ATTENDANCE in the obs. meaning of attention 
 is found 1 Ti 4% ‘Till I come give a. (RV ‘heed ’! 
 to reading.’ Cf. Barrow, Works, vol. iii. sec. 22, 
 ‘What is learning but diligent attendance to in- 
 struction of masters?’ Thesame Gr. verb (rpocéxw) 
 is used He 7!* ‘no man gave a. at the altar’; 
 but it is generally tr4 ‘ give heed to,’ as Ac 8% 10.11; 
 in 1 Ti 3° it is used in a bad sense ‘given to much 
 wine.’ In 1 Mac 15* attendance= retinue. 
 
 J. HASTINGS, 
 
 ATTENT and ‘attentive’ were both in use, and 
 both are found in AV without difference of mean- 
 ing, the former in 2 Ch 6® ‘ let thine ears be attent 
 unto the prayer,’ and 7%, J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ATTHARATES (A ’Ar@apdérns, B’Arrapar}), 1 Ea 
 9*,—A corruption of the title ‘the Tirshatha,’ cf. 
 Neh 8°, and see Attharias. 
 
 ATTHARIAS (‘Ar@aplas, AV Atharias).—A cor- 
 ruption of xpyano ‘the Tirshatha,’ which appears 
 as a proper name in 1 Es 5”, cf. Ezr 2 ‘Adepoadd, 
 A (‘Aéepoad, B). The mention of ‘ Nehemias and 
 Atharias’ in 1 Es is doubly a mistake ; Zerubbabel 
 the Tirshatha is referred to. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ATTIRE.—See DRrEss. 
 
 ATTUS (A ’Arroés, B om., Tisch.? Aarrots, AV 
 Lettus), 1 Es 8” called son of Sechenias.—He was 
 
 andson of Shechaniah (1 Ch 37%). The same as 
 Foe Ezr 8?, where ‘of the sons of Shecaniah’ 
 has been wrongly attached to the next clause. The 
 form in AV and Tisch. is due to confusion of A 
 and A. H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 AUDIENCE.—Now ‘the people gathered tohear,’ 
 signifies alwaysin AV after Lat. audientia, the act 
 of hearing or attention to what is spoken. In OT 
 the word is simply ‘ears’ (o'3)x), as Gn 23! ‘in the 
 a. of the children of Heth.’ In NT ‘give a.’ occurs 
 Ac 13'6 1512 22, where the Gr. is simply dxovw, 
 hear ; so Lk 20* ‘in the a. of all the people’; but 
 Lk 7! ‘when he had ended all his sayings in the 
 a. of the people,’ the Gr. is els ras dxods, ‘in the 
 ears.” J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AUGIA (Atyia), 1 Es 5*.—A daughter of Zorzelleus 
 or Barzillai. Her descendants by Jaddus were 
 among the priests who could not trace their gene- 
 alogy after the return under Zerubbabel, and were 
 removed from the priesthood. Her name is not 
 
 iven in the lists of Ezr and Neh, and is omitted 
 eas by the Vulg.; perhaps it has arisen out of 
 ‘the Gileadite,’ echt follows Barzillai in those 
 lists. H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 AUGURY.—Lv 19%, Dt 18"™, 2K 215, 2 Ch 33%, 
 all RV, for AV ‘times.’ See DIVINATION. 
 
 AUGUSTUS (Atyovoros, Lk 2! ; ZeBaoréds, Ac 257%), 
 —1. The first Roman emperor. His original 
 name was that of his father, Caius Octavius; 
 as the heir of Caesar, who was his grand- 
 uncle, he received the names Julius Cesar; in 
 his subsequent career he was designated Caius 
 Julius Cesar Octavianus. The title Augustus was 
 given him by the Senate after he had attained 
 to supreme power. Augustus was born B.C. 63. 
 
 
 
204 AUGUSTUS’ BAND 
 
 After spending a studious youth, he came suddenly 
 to the front at the death of Ceesar (B.C. 44), when 
 he began to manifest the singular adroitness of 
 character by which he made and maintained his 
 position. Marching against Antony ostensibly in 
 defence of the republic, he came to terms with the 
 usurper. At first he had the chief place in a 
 triumvirate. But one after another his rivals were 
 removed out of his way, till the defeat of Antony 
 at Actium (B.C. 31) left him undisputed master of 
 the Roman world. InB.c. 29 he returned to Rome, 
 and thenceforth ruled autocratically under the 
 forms of republicanism, establishing and preservin, 
 order throughout his wide dominions, till he die 
 in old age, saddened by family trouble, morose and 
 suspicious, leaving Tiberius, whom he had already 
 associated with himself in the government, as his 
 successor (A.D. 14). As the Jews were subject to 
 Rome, Augustus became their supreme ruler. 
 After the battle of Actium, Herod, previously a 
 supporter of Antony, passed over to the victorious 
 side, and was confirmed in his kingdom by 
 Augustus, who added to his territory on the 
 occasion of a subsequent visit to Syria (B.C. 20, 
 Jos. Ant. XV. x. 3). In honour of the emperor, 
 Herod erected a marble temple at Panias, built the 
 capital, Ceesarea (B.C. 10), and rebuilt Samaria, 
 calling it Sebaste. After Herod’s death Augustus 
 carried out his wishes in the division of his king- 
 dom among his sons (Jos. Ant. XVII. xi. 4), but 
 subsequently joined Judea and Samaria to the 
 province of Syria, exiling their ruler Archelaus 
 (Jos. Ant, XVII. xiii. 2). Jesus Christ was born in 
 the time of Augustus, and was about eighteen years 
 old when the emperor died. Augustus ordered a 
 more or less complete census to be taken on four 
 oscasions, viz. in B.C. 26 and 6, A.D. 4 and 14 (Lk 2!). 
 
 2. The title of subsequent Roman emperors. 
 The Augustus (ZeBacrds) mentioned in Ac 257}-% 
 (AV) is Nero. In RV the word is translated ‘the 
 emperor.’ 
 
 LirERATURE.—Dion Cassius ; Suetonius ; Tacitus ; Josephus ; 
 Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire; Duruy, His- 
 tory of Rome (edited by Mahaffy); Gardthausen, Augustus und 
 
 Seine Zeit; H. Schiller, Geschichte der rémischen Kaiserzeit ; 
 Hertzberg, Geschichte des rdmischen Kaiserreiches. 
 
 W. F. ADENEY. 
 
 AUGUSTUS’ BAND (Ac 27! ocreipa ZeBaorh, 
 RV ‘the Augustan Band’).—A similar name is 
 the Italian , ee (Ac 10! ometpa "Iradcxyj). In 
 each case RVm has ‘cohort’ for ‘ band.’ 
 
 The two designations have been fully discussed 
 by E. Egli(to whom I am chiefly indebted in the fol- 
 lowing article) in ZWTh. xxvii. (1884) p. 10ff. In 
 both cases it may be said that there is no reference 
 to Roman legionaries. Judea from 6 A.D. to shortly 
 before 70 A.D. was in the position of the ‘inermes 
 provincie,’ and was petonnes only by auxiliary 
 troops. The bulk of these auxiliaries were pro- 
 vincials ; thus, in the case of Cesarea, Josephus 
 tells us (BJ 1. xiii. 7; cf. Ant. xIx. ix. 2) 
 that the larger part of the garrison consisted of 
 Syrians. 
 
 The Augustan and Italian bands (cohorts), there- 
 fore, were not in any case legionary. The latter, 
 no doubt, was one of the many ‘cohortes civium 
 Romanorum,’ ‘ cohortes Italicorum voluntariorum,’ 
 which consisted of volunteers recruited in Italy, 
 i.e. for the most part of Italians who had been 
 unable to find service in the Pretorian Guard. 
 
 The Augustan band (which may or may not be 
 identical with the Italian band) had the name 
 ‘ Augustan’ asa title of honour. We read on an 
 inscription: ‘Ala Aug(usta) ob virtutem appel- 
 lata’ (Orelli’s Corpus, No. 3412), Egli, following 
 Schiirer, is inclined to accept as proved that this 
 title of honour was sometimes borne by auxiliary 
 as well as by legionary troops. We have, how- 
 
 AVENGE 
 
 ever, no monumental evidence to prure that any 
 Cesarean cohort was called ‘ augusta.’ 
 
 As regards strength, a cohort sometimes num. 
 bered 1000, sometimes 500 men. As regards com- 
 
 osition, a cohort was sometimes made up of 760 
 infantry and 240 cavalry. Such a cohort was 
 called a ‘ militaria equitata.’ See BAND, CAPTAIN. 
 
 W. E. BARNES. 
 
 AUL is the spelling in mod. edd. of AV. The 
 spelling of 1611 was ‘aule.” Wyclif (1382) has 
 ‘alle,’ Ex 21° ‘he shal thril his ear with an alle’ 
 (ed. 1388 ‘a nal,’ a mistake arising from joining 
 the 7 of ‘an’ to ‘awl,’ the forms nal, nall, nalle, 
 and nawl being found. Cf. Topsell (1607), ‘The 
 worm... must be pulled out by some naul or 
 needle’), Geneva Bible has ‘awle,’ (Coverdale, 
 ‘botkin’), RV ‘awl.’ See AWL. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AUTEAS (Atralas, Hodiah RVm, Hodijah AVm). 
 —A Levite who taught the law under here (1 Es 
 9%), Called Hodiah, Neh 87. 
 
 AUTHORIZED VERSION.—See VERSIONS. 
 
 8 A 
 AYARAN (Avapdy, Vulg. Abaron, Syr. GQ, 
 (Hauran), 1 Mac 2°, but in 68 Zavapdy A, Adpay x V, 
 Vulg. Saura, Syr. as before), surname of Eleazar, the 
 brother of Judas Maccabeus. The name probably 
 signifies ‘pale’ (j})1, from “sn, to be white, or pale). 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 AYEN (j1).—A place-name occurring in this form 
 in Ezk 30%, The LXX gives ‘H)ov é\s, the usual 
 Gr. name of On, and it is evident that the name 
 was intentionally distorted from On to Aven, 
 ‘idolatry’ (see Oxf. Heb. Lew.), by a punning change 
 of vocalisation quite permissible in Heb. The slight 
 was the more contemptuous, as On was snosndctalte 
 the most important city in Egypt. With regard 
 to the context it should be remembered that On, 
 lying on the main road between the heart of Egypt 
 (at Memphis) and Syria, has been a notable battle- 
 field on many occasions, even since the ruin of the 
 a See BETH-SHEMESH and ON. , 
 he Plain (aypa bikah) of Aven (Am 15, RV ‘the 
 valley of Aven’) is probably the Plain of Ceele- 
 Syria, so called from the idolatrous worship of the 
 Sun in the great temple of Baalbek. 
 F. Lu. GRIFFITH. 
 AVENGE is found in AV both as trans. and 
 intrans. verb, 1. Asa trans. verb the object may 
 be (1) a person, and then the meaning is ‘ to vindi- 
 cate’ by punishing the offender. Thus (a) actively, 
 Lk 18° ‘A. me of mine adversary,’ Nu 315 ‘a. the 
 Lorp of Midian’ (RV ‘execute the LORD’s ven- 
 geance on M.’); (0) pass., 1 S 14% ‘that I may be 
 a‘ on mine enemies’; (c) reflex., 2 S 18! ‘the 
 LorD hath a him of his enemies.’ The prep. that 
 overns the offender is indifferently on or of. (2) 
 he object may be a thing, and the meaning ‘ to 
 take satisfaction for,’ as Be 328 ‘he will a. the 
 blood of his servants.’* 2. As an intrans. vb. 
 it is rare, and occurs in AV once only, Ly 1918 
 ‘Thou shalt not a. nor bear any grudge against 
 
 * Once the person on whom the vengeance falls is made the 
 subject of the verb, Gn 424 ‘If Cain shall be avenged seven- 
 fold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.’ This is the sense 
 in which the passage is taken by the Douay Bible, which 
 translates, ‘Sevenfould vengeance shall be taken of Cain,’ and 
 adds the comment, ‘by prolongation of his miserable life 
 til his seventh generation, when one of his own issue slew 
 him.’ AV follows the Geneva, which has the marg. note, ‘He 
 mocked at God’s sufferauce in Kain, jesting as though God 
 would suffer none to punish him, and yet give him licence to 
 murther others.’ But the Heb. means, ‘if Cain shall take 
 vengeance for any wrong done him, Lamech (perhaps with the 
 use of the new weapons) much more.’ So Del. : ‘ Denn sieben- 
 fach wird Kain geracht,’ Dillm., etc. Of.G. W. Wade, The Bock 
 of Genesis (1896), p. 214, ‘The Song of Lamech celebrates tlie 
 invention of weapons, and implies that the possession of then 
 confers the power of exacting greater vengeance than tha 
 demanded by God against anyone who might slay Kain.’ 
 
 
 
= a 
 
 the children of thy people. In mod. usage 
 ‘a.’ is retained for the sense of just vengeance, 
 while ‘revenge’ is used for the gratification of 
 resentment. This distinction does not obtain in 
 AV, but RV has endeavoured to introduce it. 
 Thus Jer 15° ‘a. me of my persecutors’ (for AV 
 ‘revenge me’), Nah 1? ‘ The LorD is a jealous God 
 and a*® (AV ‘revengeth’), and 2 Co 10° ‘ being in 
 readiness to a. all disobedience’ (AV ‘ revenge’). 
 Cf. also ‘avenger’ for ‘revenger’ in Nu 35}% 1.4 
 3.2795 14%, Ro 134, and ‘avenging’ (subst.) for 
 ‘revenge,’ 2 Co 74. Again, Lv 1918 ‘thou shalt 
 not a.’ (RV ‘take vengeance’); in Ro 12” ‘ Avenge 
 not yourselves, beloved,’ is retained, because the 
 ref. 1s to righteous vengeance. Avenger of blood. 
 See GoEL. Avengement is found 2 S 22%™, and 
 avengements Ps 18*"™ for ‘vengeance.’ Cf. Edward 
 Irving, Babylon, ii. 319, ‘The Lord, in all His 
 avengements, hath... aneye... to the reforma- 
 tion of the wicked.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AYITH (nny), Gn 36°.—A Moabite city. The 
 site is unknown. 
 
 AYOID.—This verb is used thirteen times in AV 
 {counting Wis 16416 one), yet it does not twice 
 translate the same word. In1S 18" there is an 
 instance of the intrans. use, ‘ David a® out of his 
 presence twice.’ Cf. North, Plutarch, ‘they made 
 proclamation ... that all the Volsces should avoid 
 out of Rome before sunset.’ In this sense ‘avoid’ 
 is most frequently used in the imperative. Thus 
 Coverdale’s tr. of Mt 16% is ‘ Auoyde fro me, 
 Sathan.’ Cf. Shaks. Comedy of Errors, Iv. iii. 48— 
 
 * Satan, avoid! I charge thee, tempt me not!’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AYOUCH.—Dt 261”-* only, ‘Thou hast at the 
 LORD this day to be thy God . . . and the Lorp 
 hath a thee this day to be his peculiar people.’ 
 Advocare became in French first avouer, whence 
 Eng. ‘ avow,’ and then avochier, whence ‘ avouch,’ 
 the latter with a more technical meaning, ‘ to call 
 on one in law as defender, guarantor,’ etc. In AV 
 avouch is scarcely to be distinguished from the use 
 of ‘avow’ with a person as obj. ‘to acknowledge, 
 declare to be one’s own.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AYVA, AYYIM, AYVITES (o wn, of Evaito.).—The 
 ae 2 Avim, Avites is incorrect. 1. A people 
 which lived in villages near Gaza, and was super- 
 seded by the Caphtorite Philistines (Dt 2%). In 
 the Sept. their name is confounded with that of 
 the Hivvites, and some scholars have regarded 
 them as a branch of the Hivvites. That they 
 were not so, but were of the giant peoples of Pal., 
 is rendered probable by two considerations: (1) 
 they are spoken of in Dt 2 precisely as are the 
 other giant peoples, ely that they are not ex- 
 pressly said to be rephaim; (2) the name is 
 uniformly used in the plural (‘the Avvim,’ that 
 is, the Avvites, not the Avvite), a usage by which 
 the Philistines as a whole, and the several giant 
 
 ples, are distinguished from the Can. peoples. 
 That they once had possessions in the mountain 
 country, as well as near Gaza, may be probably 
 inferred from the fact that one of the towns of 
 Benjamin was called ‘the Avvim’ (Jos 18%). The 
 statement that the Caphtorim destroyed them does 
 not necessarily imply that they were then exter- 
 minated ; and we oe them mentioned among the 
 peoples that Joshua failed to conquer, along with 
 the Philistines but not of them, the Avvites going 
 along with the Gazite, the Gittite, the Ekronite, 
 etc. (Jos 13%). Presumably, these Avvim are to be 
 identified with the Anakim who were left over in 
 Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Jos 11**), and were the 
 ancestors of the giants of David’s time. See 
 GIANT, REPHAIM. 
 
 2. People from Avva (cf. Ivvah, 2 K 18% 19}, In 
 37%), whom the king of Assyria settled in N. Israel 
 after the capture of Samaria, and who set up idol- 
 atrous worship there (2 K 17%: 31), 
 
 W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 AYYIM (oxy), Jos 182.—A town of Benjamin, 
 unknown. See preceding art. 
 
 AWAIT.—Only Ac 9* ‘their laying await (Gr. 
 h émtBovdh atrdv, RV ‘their plot’) was known of 
 Saul.’ Await is often read as if it were an adv.; 
 it is, however, a subst. Tindale has simply ‘ There 
 awayte wer knowen of Saul.’ Blount, Law Dict. 
 (1691), says, ‘ Await seems to signify what we now 
 call waylaying or lying in wart, to execute some 
 mischief.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AWAY WITH.—41. Is 1? ‘the calling of assem- 
 blies, I cannot away with.’ Although with the 
 force of a verb, it is really an adv. with the verb 
 elided, get away with, t.e. get on with, tolerate. 
 Cf. More, Utopia, p. 165 (Arber ed.), ‘He could 
 not away with the fashions of his country folk’; 
 and Sanderson, Serm. (1621), ‘ He being the Father 
 of lyes . . . cannot away with the Truth.’ The 
 Heb. has a still greater ellipsis than the Eng., 
 being simply d2wx> I cannot. Such verbs, how- 
 ever, as 55: to be able, xp to refuse, are really trans. 
 in Heb. See Davidson, Syntax, p. 129. 2. Other 
 elliptical expressions, as Ex 19% ‘ Away, get thee 
 down’ (RV ‘Go, get thee down’), Ac 2273 ‘ Away 
 with such a fellow from the earth,’ are easily ex- 
 plained and still in use. 3. ‘Make him away’ 
 in 1 Mac 16%=‘make away with him’ (RV 
 ‘destroy him’; cf. Wis 12? AV ‘to destroy 
 them at once,’ RV ‘to make away with them at 
 once’), J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AWE —Besides He 12% RV (for AV ‘reverence,’ 
 Gr. dé0s), only in the phrase ‘stand in awe.’ AV 
 gives Ps 44 (129), 338 (733), and 11916! (1n5). RV re- 
 tains these, changing also ‘fear’ into ‘stand in 
 awe’ in Ps 22% (x7:), Is 29 (pry); and ‘ was afraid’ 
 into ‘stood in awe of’ in 1 S 18% (m3), Mal 25 
 (nog). Ruskin (Mod. Painters, Il. mm. i. 14, § 26) 
 says that awe is the contemplation of dreadfulness 
 from a position of safety, as a stormy sea from 
 the shore; while fear is the contemplation of 
 dreadfulness when one is obnoxious to danger from 
 it. Perhaps it was with a feeling for some dis- 
 tinction of this kind that RV made those changes ; 
 but in old Eng. awe stood for fear or dread even 
 of an acute kind, and no such distinction can be 
 discovered in AV either from the Heb. or the 
 English words. Cf. Shaks, J. C. 1. ii. 95— 
 
 ‘I had as lief not be as live to be 
 In awe of such a thing as I myself. ’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 AWL (yy7>).—An instrument mentioned in Ex 
 21° and Dt 15” in connexion with the boring of the 
 ear of aslave. In Syria the awl is used only by 
 shoemakers and other workers in leather. tt is 
 straight, and tapers to a sharp point. 
 
 W. CARSLAW. 
 
 AX, AXE (in most modern editions of AV spelt 
 az, although the edition of 1611 had aze through- 
 out) is EV tr. of seven Heb. words, the distinction 
 
 between which cannot always be discovered, 1. 73 
 (probably ‘pick-axe’) Dt 19° 20, 1 K 67, Is 10%. 
 
 2. 339 (properly ‘sword’) Ezk 26°, 3, Swip (RV 
 ‘hatchet’) Ps 74% 4. a1379 2S 12%, The same 
 word should be read in the parallel passage 
 1 Ch 20% for 5. 73, which means ‘saw’ (cf. 3° 
 and 2S 12%), 6. 1yyp Is 4442 (AV ‘ tongs’), Jer 10°. 
 7. omp Jg 9%, 15 13 *- 21, Ps 745, Jer 4672, 
 
 In NT aze occurs twice (Mt 3”, Lk 8°) as tr. of 
 délyn. See also the following article. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 
 

 
 206 AXE 
 
 
 
 
 
 AZARIAH 
 
 
 
 AXE.—Two types of axe were known in both | AZAREL (5yn1y).—1. A Korhite fol! ower of David 
 
 Egypt and Palestine. One was developed from the 
 stone axe, and is longer from back to edge than it 
 is across. 
 
 
 
 BRONZE AXE, 
 (From Tell el Hesy.) * 
 
 The other type was purely metallic, and was 
 developed from a sharp edge of metal inserted 
 into a stick, as seen in early Egyp. forms. 
 
 
 
 OOPPER AXE (BATTLE AXE?) 
 (From Tell el Hesy.)* 
 Probably the first type was used as a tool, the 
 
 second as a weapon. 
 In Egypt the axe was attached to the handle, 
 
 but neither passed through the other. In Assyria 
 the axe appears to have passed through the handle 
 (Bonomi, Nineveh, fig. 69). But the handle 
 passing through the axe, as in modern usage, is 
 unknown until the Roman age. 
 
 The material of axes as tools was first stone, 
 then copper, bronze, and, lastly, iron. The latter 
 metal was unknown for tools in Egypt, and still 
 rare in Assyria at 700 B.c. Hence the use of 
 the word ‘iron’ for axe-head among a party of 
 peasants in Pal. two centuries earlier (2 K 65), 
 seems as if it were a variation due to a later copyist. 
 
 W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. 
 
 AXLE, AXLETREE.—See WHEEL. 
 
 AZAEL (’Afdn\os).—Father of the Jonathan who 
 with Ezekias undertook the investigation of the 
 matter of the foreign marriages (1 Es 9", cf. Ezr 10° 
 Asahel). 
 
 AZAELUS (B’Afdndos, A ’Afajr), 1 Es 9*%.—One 
 of those who put away their ‘strange’ wives after 
 the return under Ezra. There is no corresponding 
 name in Ezr 10%. 
 
 AZAULIAH (imbyx ‘whom J” hath set apart’; 2 K 
 228, 2 Ch 348).—Father of Shaphan, the scribe 
 under Josiah. 
 
 AZANIAH (mu ‘J” hath heard’).—-A Levite 
 (Neh 10°). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 AZARAIAS (B’A¢apalas, A Sapalas, AV Saraias), 
 
 1 Es 8!.—Seraiah, the father, or more prob. a more 
 
 remote ancestor, of Ezra (Speaker's Com. on 2 Es 1), 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 * By kind permission of the Committee of the Palestine 
 Exploration Fund. 
 
 
 
 at Ziklag (1 Ch 128). 2. A son of Heman (1 Ch 
 2538), called in v.4 Uzziel. 3. Son of Jeroham, 
 prince of the tribe of Dan when David numbered 
 the people (1 Ch 27”). 4. A son of Bani, who had 
 marie a foreign wife (Ezr 10%). 5. A priest, the 
 son of Ahzai (Neh 113%). 6. One of the Levite 
 musicians who marched upon the right at the 
 dedication of the walls (Neh 12%). (AV has in the 
 first five instances Azareel, and in No. 6 Azarael.) 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AZARIAH (nm, any, ‘Whom J” aids’).—1. 
 King of Judah; see UzzIAH. 2.2 Ch 22° for 
 Ahaziah. 3. 2 Ch 15'® a prophet, son of Oded, 
 who met Asa’s victorious army, on their return 
 from defeating Zerah the Ethiopian, at Mareshah, 
 and urged them to begin and persevere in a religious 
 reform. His speech is a general illustration, from 
 the experience of the past, of his opening words; 
 ‘The Lord is with you while ye be with him; and 
 if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye 
 forsake him, he will forsake you.’ It is conceived 
 in the same spirit as the historical retrospects in 
 Jg 24-23 and N eh 9, ‘Now, for long seasons’ (v.*), 
 ‘in those times’ (v.°), refer to periods of national 
 defection; ‘the inhabitants of the lands,’ ‘nation 
 against nation’ (vy.° 6), are magniloquent indi- 
 cations of the foreign oppressions, or the civil wars 
 between the various tribes of Israel (cf. Gn 251°). 
 Kamphausen renders the whole passage in the 
 future; but a prediction seems irrelevant here. 
 In v.® ‘ Azariah’ should be read for ‘Oded,’ with 
 Pesh. Vulg. A; B has ’Aédé, but ’Q6%6 in v.}, 
 where A has ’Add6 (in 289 both have ’2576). 4. 
 High priest in the reign of Solomon, 1 K 4%, 
 where he is called son of Zadok, though really of 
 Ahimaaz (1 Ch 6°). The note in 1 Ch 6" ‘he it is 
 that executed the priest’s office in the house that 
 Solomon built in Jerusalem,’ is misplaced, and 
 must refer to this man, and not to his grandson of 
 the same name. 5. 1 Ch 6, Ezr 78, father of 
 Amariah, who was high priest under Jehoshaphat. 
 This man, therefore, must have held the office in 
 the reign of Asa; on this list see AMARIAH, 
 Nos. 2, 3. 6. High priest in the reign of Uzziah 
 (2 Ch 268°), who with his attendant priests with- 
 stood and denounced the king when he pre- 
 sumptuously attempted to usurp the priests’ office 
 of burning incense upon the altar. The wrath of 
 Uzziah at being thus resisted, and his persistence, 
 were at once divinely punished. An earthquake 
 took place (Jos. Ant. Ix. x. 4; cf. Am 1}, Zee 145); 
 ‘the leprosy brake forth in his forehead’; the 
 
 riests ‘looked upon him’ (ef. Lv 13%), and thrust 
 
 im out of the temple. In 2 K 15° we only read 
 that ‘the Lord smote the king, so that he was a 
 leper.’ The conclusion is almost inevitable, that 
 here, as often elsewhere, the Chronicler has 
 supplied a justification for the afflictions of a good 
 man. The narrative acquires additional signifi- 
 cance when we note that in expanding 1 K 9”, he 
 omits the statement that Solomon ‘burnt incense 
 upon the altar that was before the Lord.’ 7. 
 2 Ch 31, high priest in the reign of Hezekiah, 
 described as ‘chief priest, of the house of Zadok,’ 
 and ‘the ruler of the house of God’ (v.38). This 
 last phrase is also found in 1 Ch 9", Neh 114, where 
 it is uncertain whether it refers to Ahitub 11. or to 
 Azariah (Seraiah), t.e. Eliashib, as representative 
 of that house (Rawlinson). A very similar title is 
 applied in Jer 20! to Pashhur, who was not high 
 priest. Perhaps the office indicated is that of the 
 ‘Captain of the temple’ (Ac 4! 5%-%6). To this 
 high priest and to Hezekiah the Chronicler ascribes 
 the building of store chambers in the temple to 
 receive the oblations of the people. 8. In the 
 
 genealogy. of Jehozadak, 1 Ch 6'*14, and in that 
 , Ezr 71, Azariah (Ezerias, 1 Es 81; Azarias, 
 
 of Ezra 
 
ets me ees 
 
 , 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AZARIAS 
 
 eee eed 
 
 2 Es 1%) is son of Hilkiah, high priest under 
 Josiah, and father of Seraiah, who was killed by 
 Nebuchadrezzar. There is room in the histor 
 for such a high priest; but in 1 Ch 9", Neh 114, 
 in a list of those priests who dwelt in Jerusalem in 
 the time of Nehemiah, is found an Azariah or 
 Seraiah, whose genealogy is traced up to the 
 second Ahitub, and is all but identical with that of 
 Jehozadak and Ezra. This Azariah must be the 
 riest clan, second in the list, Neh 10?; called 
 Vay (wa) in the lists, Neh 121-18, where it comes 
 third. In Neh 12*%, where both Azariah and Ezra 
 are mentioned, perhaps the former is the same as 
 Seraiah; see No. 7. 9.1 K 45, a son of Nathan, 
 who ‘was over the officers,’ t.e. the twelve com- 
 missariat officers (v.7). 10. 1 Ch 28, son of the 
 Ethan whose wisdom was surpassed by that of 
 Solomon (1 K 4%), 44. 1 Ch 2%, a man of Judah 
 who had Egyptian blood in his veins (v.*4), 12. 
 1 Ch 6%, a Kohathite Levite (called Uzziah in 
 1 Ch 6%), an ancestor of the prophet Samuel. 
 13, 14. 2 Ch 212, Azariah and Azariahu, two of the 
 six sons of Jehoshaphat, to whom their father gave 
 ‘creat gifts’ and ‘fenced cities,’ and who were 
 slain by their elder brother Jehoram on his acces- 
 sion (B om. both, but A has them). 15,16. 2 Ch 
 231, Azariah and Azariahu, two of the five ‘ captains 
 of hundreds’ who assisted Jehoiada in the restora- 
 tion of Joash. It is just possible that the second 
 of these, ‘the son of Obed,’ may be the same as 
 No. 11, who was the grandson of Obed. 17. 
 2 Ch 2814, one of the four ‘heads of the children 
 of Ephraim,’ in the reign of Pekah, who supported 
 the ae het Oded when he rebuked the army of 
 Israel for purposing to enslave the captives of 
 Judah. He and his fellows treated the captives 
 kindly, and conducted them back to Jericho. 
 18, 19. 2 Ch 292, two Levites, a Kohathite and a 
 Merarite. The son of the former, Joel, and the 
 latter, were among those who took a leading part 
 in cleansing the fepple in the reign of Hezekiah. 
 20. Neh 3%, one of those who repaired the wall of 
 Jerusalem, probably a priest. 24. Neh 7’, called 
 Seraiah, Ezr 2?; Zacharias, 1 Es 5°; one of the 
 twelve leaders of Israel who returned with 
 Zerubbabel. 22. Neh 87 (LXX om.); Azarias, 
 1 Es 9%, one of those who helped the Levites to 
 ‘cause the people to understand the law.’ 283. 
 Jer 43%, son of Hoshaiah (the Maacathite, 40%), 
 also called Jezaniah (408, 421), Jaazaniah (2 K 25”), 
 ete. He was one of the ‘captains of the forces’ 
 who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. They warned 
 him of his danger (Jer 40'%), and endeavoured 
 to avenge his murder (41%). But, the assassin 
 escaping, they feared lest they should be implicated 
 in the affair, and prepared to flee into Egypt. 
 
 . They then went through the form of consulting 
 
 Jeremiah; but when he advised them to stay in 
 Judza, ‘all the proud men’ refused, and carried 
 off the prophet to Egypt. 24. The Heb. name of 
 Abednego, Dn 1* 7-11-19 217 (see HANANIAH). 
 N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 AZARIAS (’Afaplas).—1. 1 Es 9”), called Uzziah, 
 Ez 107, 2. 1 Es 9%, one of those who stood beside 
 Ezra at the reading of the law: the name is 
 omitted in Neh 84. 3.1 Es 9%, called Azariah, 
 Neh 87, 4. Name assumed by the oC Raphael 
 (To 5)? 6% 18 78 92), 5. A captain in the army of 
 Judas Maccabzeus (1 Mac 51: 56 6), 
 
 AZARU (B “Agapos, A” Agoupos, AV Azuran), 1 Es 
 6'5,_The progenitor of a family of 432 who re- 
 turned with Zerubbabel. There is no corresp. name 
 in the lists of Ezrand Neh. Heis perhaps identical 
 with Azzur (B’Adovp; & A ‘Afgovp) in Neh 10”. 
 
 AZAZ (iy), a Reubenite, the father of Bela 
 (1 Ch 6°). 
 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 
 
 “AZAZEL 207 
 
 
 
 AZAZEL (5ixy).—The name of the spirit (Lv 
 168: 1°- 25), supposed to have its abode in the wilder- 
 ness, to whom, on the Day of Atonement, the goat 
 laden with the sins of the people was sent (1d. 
 v, 20-22), ‘Azazel is not mentioned elsewhere in OT; 
 but the name occurs in the Book of Enoch (2nd 
 cent. B.C.) as that of the leader of the evil angels 
 who (Gn 64) formed unions with the daughters of 
 men, and (as the legend is developed in the Book 
 of Enoch) taught them various arts, and whose 
 offspring, the giants, filled the earth with unright- 
 eousness and blood. On account of the wicked- 
 ness wrought by ‘Azazel upon earth, the four 
 archangels, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael 
 (9! Gr.), are represented as impeaching him before 
 the Almighty, who thereupon (ch. 10) bids Raphael 
 bind him hand and foot, and secure him, under 
 ‘rough and jagged rocks,’ at a place in the desert 
 called ‘Dudael,’ until on ‘the great day of judgment’ 
 he is cast into the fire.* hether this legend is 
 developed from the notice of ‘Azazel in Lv, taken 
 in connexion with the fact that the goat was 
 actually, in the time of the Second Temple, led 
 away to lsc at the spot referred to, or whether 
 the belief in the existence of such a spirit, bound 
 in the wilderness, had already arisen at the time 
 when the ceremonial of Lv 16 was framed, we do 
 not know: the latter alternative is supported by 
 Cheyne (ZATW 1895, pp. 153-156), who supposes 
 that the aim of this part of the ritual of the Day 
 of Atonement was partly to pews the ignorant 
 people with a visible token of the removal of the 
 sins of the year, partly to abolish the cultus of the 
 se‘trim (Lv 177, 2 Ch 115, 2 K 238 [reading uy he- 
 goats, for onye gates] ; ef. Is 1371 3414), by substitut- 
 ing a single personal angel, ‘Azazel (evil no doubt 
 by nature, but rendered harmless by being bound), 
 for the crowd of impersonal and dangerous se‘trim. 
 But whatever the precise attributes with which 
 ‘Azazel was invested at the time when the ritual 
 of Lv 16 was framed, there can be little doubt that 
 the ceremonial was intended as a symbolical 
 declaration that the land and people are now 
 purged from guilt, their sins being handed over to 
 the evil spirit to whom they are held to belong, 
 and whose home is in the desolate wilderness, 
 remote from human habitations (v.22 ‘into a land 
 cut off’). No doubt the rite is a survival from an 
 older stage of popular belief, engrafted on, and 
 Neoomimiodated to, the sacrificial system of the 
 Hebrews. For the expulsion of evils, whether 
 maladies or sins, from a community, by their being 
 laid symbolically upon a material medium, there 
 are many analogies in other countries (see J. G. 
 Frazer, The Golden Bough, ii. 182 ff.).t The belief 
 in goblins, or demons (jinn), haunting the wilder- 
 ness and vexing the traveller, is particularl 
 common in Arabia (see Wellhausen, Ppeste Arab. 
 Heidentums, pp. 135-140) +: in OT it is found in 
 Ly 177, Is 137 3414 (‘satyrs,’ lit. he-goats, and 
 Lilith, the night-monster), ‘Azazel must have 
 
 * Of. 545f. 554. 67 and 81, which also mention ‘Azazel, but treat 
 him not as first but as tenth in command, are considered by 
 Dillm. and Charles(Hnoch, p. 61) to belong toa later stratum of the 
 work, The first part of the name Duda-el has been ingeniously 
 explained by Geiger (Jtid. Ztschr. 1864-1865, p. 201) as a cor- 
 ruption of Hadiudé in ‘ Béth Hadudo’ (‘place of sharp rocks’), 
 the place 12 miles from Jerus., to which, anoonhng to the 
 Mishna (Yoma 646.8), the Targ. of Ps.-Jon. (on Lv 1610. 22), and 
 other authorities, the goat was led on the Day of Atonement, 
 and precipitated over the rocks that it might perish. Béth 
 Hadudé has been identified, with great probability, with a 
 ruined site now called Bét-hudédin, on the edge of a chalk 
 range, overhanging a steep and rocky chasm, nearly due E. of 
 Jerus., and at the required distance (Schick, ZDPV, 1880, 
 
 9 
 
 . 218). 
 
 + In the OT the aim of the rite described in Lv 146f. 51-58 (the 
 living hird let loose in the ritual of purification after leprosy) is 
 probably similar (Dillm. p. 5382; Nowack, Arch. ii. 291f.; W. R. 
 Smith, Rel. Sem. p. 422). 
 
 t The ghdi (‘surpriser’; plur. ‘aghwdl) was one of them 
 (Lane, Arab. Lex. p. 2911). See also Smith, Rel. Sem.? p. 126 ff. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 AZAZIAH 
 
 
 
 208 
 
 been such a spirit, sufficiently distinguished from 
 the rest, in popular imagination, to receive a 
 special name, and no doubt invested with attributes 
 which, though unknown to us, were perfectly 
 familiar to those for whom the ceremonial of Lv 16 
 was first designed. 
 
 The meaning of the name is very uncertain. 
 No root Siy is known in Hebrew; but ‘azala in 
 Arab. means to remove, place far apart; hence 
 it has been conjectured that the name may have 
 signified the averter of evil (Ges.),* or have denoted 
 a spirit, supposed to separate travellers in the desert 
 from their companions, or divert them from their 
 way (Steiner, and, with some reserve, Dillm.).+ 
 Cheyne considers that the name was originally 
 bxny ‘God is strong’ (ef. samy 1 Ch 15%),t but 
 that it was afterwards deliberately altered, to 
 conceal the true derivation of the fallen angel’s 
 name.§ 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Ges. Thes. 8.0. (p. 1012f.); Dillm. on Lv 168; 
 Nowack, Arch. ii. 186f. (where further references are given): 
 also Ewald, Alt, . 479f.; Lehre von Gott, ii. 291f.; Oehler, 
 OT Theol. § 140; Schultz, OT Theol. i. 403-406. 
 
 S. R. DRIVER. 
 
 AZAZIAH (iny).—4. A Levite musician who 
 took part in the proceedings when David brought 
 up the ark to Jerus. (1 Ch 15”). 2. The father 
 ay Hoshea the prince of Ephraim when David 
 numbered the people (1: Ch 27). 3. An overseer 
 of the temple in Hezekiah’s reign (2 Ch 31"), 
 
 AZBUK (piziy Neh 31*).—Nehemiah, the son of 
 A., took part in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. 
 
 AZEKAH (nay ‘a place hoed over’).—A city of 
 Judah, named Jos 10-4, 18 171, 2 Ch 119, Neh 11°, 
 It was evidently near the valley of Elah and near 
 Gath, and was a frontier fortress of Rehoboam. 
 The Jews inhabited it ‘and the villages thereof’ 
 after the Captivity. The later notices would agree 
 with a site in the south, where the name might be 
 traced at Tell el ‘Azek; but this would not suit the 
 earlier notices. The name El “Azek is stated to 
 occur in the hills north of the valley of Elah, but 
 
 * Averruncus. So Olsh. § 188, Stade, § 1249, treating ‘azd’zél 
 as (anomalously) softened from the intensive form ‘azalzél. 
 
 t The form of the word is peculiar, and resembles one of the 
 types of Arab. ‘broken,’ or collective, plurals. This was re- 
 marked long ago by Bochart (Hieroz. i. 750,—with many 
 examples), though he assigned to it an improbable meaning: 
 Steiner (Schenkel, Bibellew. v. 599), adopting the same sug- 
 gestion, but interpreting more probably, conjectures that 
 originally ‘azazél was a collective designation of such spirits of 
 the desert (from a sing. ‘azzal: Wright, Ar. Gramm. i. § 305, IT.), 
 and that it only gradually became the name of a single spirit. 
 
 t Not only Gabriel and Michael in Dn, but also many of the 
 other names of angels in the Book of Enoch, are compounded 
 with El ‘God’ (Ariel, Raphael, Kokabiel, Tamiel, etc.: see vi. 7). 
 
 § The rendering of AV scape-goat, inherited from the ‘Great 
 Bible’ of 1539, may be traced back through Seb. Miinster 
 (‘caper abiturus’), Coverdale (‘the free sees Luther (‘der 
 ledige Bock’), and Jerome (‘caper emissarius’) to the rpéyog 
 darepyo peavoc (V,10 cguéwevos) of Symmachus (2nd cent.) ; but implies 
 a derivation Oia, =)bix Wy ‘the going goat’) opposed to the 
 genius of the Heb, language (which does not form such com- 
 porns). besides being inconsistent with the marked antithesis 
 
 etween for ‘Azazel and for Jehovah, which does not leave it 
 open to doubt that the former is conceived as a personal being, 
 to whom (cf. v.26) the goat is sent. The Targ. of Ps.—Jon. (on v.10} 
 and other Jewish authorities interpret ‘Azazel as the name of 
 the ‘strong and difficult place’ (wp) *4pn an¥,—implying the 
 view that the first part of the word was in some way connected 
 with 1) strong) in the wilderness to which the goat was sent: 
 the LXX (v.8 42 dxorourain, V.10 gly shy &rorourgy, v.26 sie 
 &gsewv) seems to have rendered freely, treating the word in v.8 
 as meaning the one sent away (see Field, Hexapla, Auctarium, 
 
 . 60), and in v.10. 26 as meaning dismissal ; the latter rendering 
 
 as also been adopted by some moderns. But these explana- 
 tions are equally open to philological or other objections, which 
 place them out of the question, All the principal modern 
 authorities agree in explaining ‘Azazel as a personal name. 
 Scape-goat is, however, a felicitous expression; it has become 
 classical in English ; and there is no reason why it should not 
 be retained as a term descriptive of the goat sent into the 
 wilderness, provided it be clearly understood that it is in no 
 way a rendering of the Heb. ?inty, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 AZZUR 
 
 the repeated investigations of the Survey parties 
 failed to establish its existence. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 AZEL (byx ete ‘noble’).—4. A descendant of 
 Jonathan (1 Ch 8°7-%—9#.44)) See GENEALOGY. 
 2. (AV Azal) The name of an unidentified site in 
 the neighbourhood of Jerus. (Zec 145), possibly the 
 same as Beth-ezel of Mic 14. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AZETAS (’Afnrds), 1 Es 5%.—The head of a 
 family which returned with Zerubbabel. There ig 
 no correspending name in the lists of Ezr and Neh. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 AZGAD.—See ASTAD. 
 
 AZIEI.—One of the ancestors of Ezra (2 Es 1%) 
 celica’ Azariah, Ezr 7*, and Ozias (AV Ezias), 
 1 Es 87. 
 
 AZIEL (xy, B’Otesr, A -t-).—A Levite skilled 
 in the use of the psaltery (1 Ch 15”). A shortened 
 form of Jaaziel (>x"1y:), as he is called 1 Ch 15%, 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 AZIZA (xy, cf. Palmyr. y).—One of the Jews 
 who had taken oe wives (Ezr et Called 
 ZARDEUS (wh. see) 1 Es 9%, H. A. WHITE. 
 
 AZMAYETH (nypv).—1. A descendant of Saul 
 (1 Ch 8%), 2. One of David’s mighty men (25 23%, 
 1 Ch 11*), prob. identical with A. of 1 Ch 12%, 
 whose sons joined David at Ziklag, and A. of 1 Ch 
 275, who was ‘over the king’s treasuries.’ 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 AZMAVETH (my, given in 2 § 23%1,1 Ch 8%, 
 as a personal name), 1 Ch 12’, Ez 2%, Neh 7%2,—A 
 town of Benjamin, the same as Beth-azmaveth in 
 the last-cited passage, inhabited by the Jews after 
 the meget et Now Hizmeh, a small place on the 
 hills S.E. of Gibeah. See SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 AZMON (jor), Nu 344, Jos 154. Ezem, Jos 
 15” 19°.—A place on the border of Judah, some- 
 where south of Beersheba, afterwards given to 
 Simeon. The site is unknown. 
 
 AZNOTH-TABOR (128 ni3}x ‘the ears of Tabor’) 
 Jos 19%.—This marked the 8.W. corner of the 
 lot of Naphtali. The lower slopes of Mt. Tabor. 
 
 AZOR (’Afép).—An ancestor of Jesus (Mt 114), 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 AZOTUS ("Afwros).—4. Ashdod (wh. see), Jth 2%, 
 1 Mac 425 5% 1077. 78. 83. 84 114 1434 1619 Ac 8 2, The 
 hill on which Ashdod stands (1 Mac 9"), 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 AZRIEL (5x ‘help of God’).—4. The head of 
 a ‘father’s house’ in the half tribe of Manasseh 
 E. of Jordan (1 Ch 5%). 2. A man of Naphtali 
 (1 Ch 27). 8. The father of Seraiah (Jer 36”). 
 
 AZRIKAM (og7y).—41. A son of Neariah (1 Ch 
 33), 2, A descendant of Jonathan (1 Ch 8 9%), 
 8. A Levite (1 Ch 9%, Neh 11%). 4. The ‘rule: 
 of the house’ under Ahaz, slain by Zichri the. 
 Ephraimite (2 Ch 287). 
 
 AZUBAH (n31y).—4. Wife of Caleb (1 Ch 2'* ¥). 
 2. Mother of Jehoshaphat (1 K 22“=2 Ch 20*}). 
 
 AZZAN (j3x).—Father of Paltiel (Nu 34”), 
 
 AZZUR (wy ‘helper’).—4. One of those whe 
 sealed the covenant (Neh 101"). 2, Father of 
 Hananiah the false prophet (Jer 28). 3, Fathe: 
 of Jaazaniah, one of the princes of the people (Ezh 
 1L'). Nos. 2 and 3 are spelt in AV Azur. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
=o © 
 
 
 
 BAAL 209 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 B.—This letter is used in critical notes in the 
 OT and NT (except in Rev) to denote the readings 
 of ‘the Vatican MS’ (Codex Vaticanus 1209). It 
 is a quarto volume, consisting at present of 759 
 leaves of fine vellum, written (except the poetical 
 books of OT) in three columns to a page. It has 
 lost 31 leaves at the beginning (Gn 1-46%), part of 
 a leaf at f. 178 (2 K 25-7 10-18), 10 leaves after f. 348 
 (Ps 1057"-137°) [Eng. 106. 138]. The NT begins on f. 
 618, and breaks off at f. 759 in the middle of He 9. 
 The books are arranged in the following order: Gn 
 to2Ch, Es 1 and 2, Ps, Pr, Ec, Ca, Job, Wis, Sir, Est, 
 Jth, To, 12 Proph, Is, Jer, Bar, La, Ep. Jer, Ezk, Dn 
 (Theodotion’s version), Gospels, Ac, Cath. Epp., Ro, 
 land 2 Co, Gal, Eph, Ph, Col, 1 and2Th, He. The 
 codex never contained the Prayer of Manasses or 
 the Books of the Maccabees. The loss of leaves at 
 the end makes it impossible to speak definitely of 
 the contents of its NT canon. Of the books now 
 recognised it lacks 1 and 2 Ti, Tit, Philem, Rev. The 
 missing chapters in He and the Rev were added in 
 15th cent., perhaps, as Tregelles conjectures, in pre- 
 paration for its presentation to the Library. This 
 part of the MS is quoted as ‘263’ (Greg. ‘ 293’) in He, 
 as ‘91’ in Rev. The orig. MS was written at some 
 time in 4th cent., and is the work, according to 
 Tischendorf (the Roman editors reserve their judg- 
 ment), of three scribes, one of whom, the scribe who 
 wrote NT, is identified (also by Tischendorf) with 
 the scribe who wrote part of OT and a few leaves 
 of NT in & (which see). On this identification it 
 seems impossible as yet to pronounce a final verdict. 
 Armitage Robinson, however, has pointed out that 
 there is other evidence to show that the two great 
 Bibles once stood side by side in the same library 
 (Euthaliana, p. 37). This evidence is supplied by 
 the presence in the margin both of § and B (in each, 
 apparently, as the result of an early insertion) of 
 a remarkable system of chapter-numbering in the 
 Acts, derived ultimately from the work of Eu- 
 thalius, and found besides in two important MSS 
 of the Latin Vulg. (am and fu). 
 
 In the Gospels B lacks the Ammonian sections 
 and Eusebian canons, and presents a division into 
 sections which appears besides only in & (Codex 
 Zacynthius) an 8th cent. MS of St. Luke. In 
 Acts, besides the system already referred to, there 
 is an earlier (?) one, making 36 chapters. The 
 Cath. Epp. also show an earlier and a later system 
 of division into chapters. From the earlier system 
 2 P was apparently excluded. The system in the 
 Pauline Ep . is remarkable. They are treated as 
 a single book, and the sections numbered continu- 
 ously throughout, the sequence of the numbers 
 showing that in the source from which this system 
 of division was derived, Hebrews stood between 
 Galatians and Ephesians. 
 
 The birthplace of the MS is still obscure. Hort 
 suggested me; Armitage Robinson’s work on 
 Euthalius gives some plausibility to Rendel Harris’ 
 suggestion of Cesarea. The Text of the MS was 
 revised soon after it had been written, with the 
 help of a fresh MS, by a corrector who is quoted 
 as B? in the NT and B* by Swete in the OT. Six 
 centuries later another scribe (B»=B*) retraced the 
 faded original writing throughout. In consequence, 
 the work of the original scribe is almost entirely 
 hidden from sight except in the case of isolated 
 words or letters which the restorer, for one reason 
 or another, omitted to retrace. 
 
 The text of the OT section of this MS has been 
 generally accessible since it was taken as the basis 
 
 VOL. I.—I4 
 
 of the Roman edition of the LXX in 1587. Its 
 NT text, on the other hand, during the first half 
 of the present century, was to be ascertained only 
 by a comparison of three more or less imperfect 
 collations,—one made by Bartolocci in 1669, pre- 
 served in Paris ; one made for Bentley by Mico about 
 1720 (supplemented by Rulotta 1730), preserved 
 in Trin. Goll., Cambridge ; and one by Birch, pub- 
 lished in 1788, 1798, and 1801. The MS was taken 
 to Paris by Napoleon, and there carefully exam- 
 ined, though not collated, by Hug in 1809. After 
 ivs restoration to the Vatican it was inspected. at 
 various times by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and 
 Alford, but under conditions that precluded 
 thorough collation. Since 1850 three editions, 
 purporting to give the text of the MS, have been 
 ublished at Rome. The first, under the names of 
 
 ai and Vercellone, in 1857; the second, under 
 the same names, in 1859; the third, under the 
 names of Vercellone and Cozza, at various dates 
 between 1868 and 1881. These editions are now 
 superseded by a magnificent reproduction in photo- 
 graphic facsimile of the entire MS. Its readings 
 in the OT are most readily accessible in Swete’s 
 Camb. edition, 1887-1889. They are recorded in 
 the NT in the critical editions of Tregelles and 
 Tischendorf. 
 
 Notr.—The same symbol, in critical notes on Rev, denotes an 
 8th cent. MS of Rev, also preserved in the Vatican. It is to 
 be carefully distinguished from the MS described above, and it 
 would prevent confusion if this latter MS were referred toas B,. 
 
 J. O. F. Murray. 
 B.—A symbol used in criticism of Hex. by 
 Dillmann to signify the work of the Elohist 
 (E); by Schultz for that of the Jahwist (J). See 
 HEXATEUCH. F. H. Woops. 
 
 BAAL (%y3, BdéadX or Badd).—The word means 
 owner or lord, and is used both of men and gods. 
 When used of men it implies possession, so owner 
 of house, land, cattle, etc. ; then it comes to mean 
 husband. When applied to gods it also means 
 owner, not sovereign, possessor of the land rather 
 thantruler ofmen. Thus we have the B. of Tyre, the 
 B. of Peor, etc., and, by an extension, B. of other 
 objects, ¢.g. B.-berith ; sometimes B. is prefixed to 
 the name of a god, so possibly in the case of Baal- 
 
 ad. The name was so obnoxious to the Jews in 
 ater times that nv (désheth, shame) was freq. 
 substituted for it (see ISHBOSHETH). Thus we get 
 Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth for Ishbaal, Meribbaal ; 
 and Dillmann has shown that this is the origin of 
 the fem. 7 Bdad (4 alox’vn being the keré) that we 
 find in the prophetic books (LXX) and Ro 114. 
 
 The areal conception is a problem of great 
 difficulty and obscurity, the more so on account of 
 the misconceptions that have gathered about it. 
 It is commonly held that there was a supreme 
 deity known as Baal, who is frequently identified 
 with the sun. It will be convenient to examine 
 first the alleged solar character of Baal. The 
 evidence may be thus summarised. We find on 
 inscriptions Baal Hammon, and on a Carthaginian 
 monument Baal Hammon is represented with a 
 crown of rays. The Hammanim are sun-pillars, 
 and used in idolatrous worship. The root means 
 ‘to be hot.’ Further, Baalbek was called by the 
 Greeks Heliopolis (sun-city). At Beth-shemesh 
 (house of the sun) there was a temple to B. But 
 this evidence is far from cogent, and much too 
 slender to bear the identification of B. with the 
 sun; at the most it will show only that the sun was 
 
sometimes regarded as a B. This is all that can 
 be inferred from the temple of B. at Beth-shemesh ; 
 and the Gr. name of Baalbek is even less weighty, 
 since evidence of that kind is necessarily somewhat 
 late. And, on the other hand, B. and the sun are 
 distinguished, 2 K 235. It was perfectly natural 
 for sun-worshippers to speak of the sun as a B., 
 but it does not follow that the converse is true, 
 and that B.-worshippers identified the object 
 of their worship with the sun. It is not probable 
 that B. was even a sky-god. It is true that the 
 Baalim were regarded as the producers of fertility, 
 and to them were ascribed the corn and wine and 
 oil (Hos 2°§), We think of the sun and rain as 
 givers of fertility. But much of the district where 
 B. worship prevailed was not fertilised by rain, 
 but by natural and artificial irrigation. The land 
 that was thus naturally watered and made fruitful 
 was said in Arabia to be ‘ watered by the Bal’; and 
 in the phrase ‘what the sky waters and what the 
 Bal waters,’ the latter is expressly distinguished 
 from the former. So the Mishna and Talmud draw 
 a distinction between land artificially irrigated 
 and land naturally moist, calling the latter the 
 ‘house of B.’ or ‘field of the house of B’ (W. R. 
 Smith, #S? 97). Itis true that in Pal. the cultiva- 
 tion of corn Ae pee on rain, and corn was cer- 
 tainly regarded as a gift of the Baalim. But 
 analogy would make the transition possible from 
 the idea of the Baalim as givers of fertility through 
 the springs of the oasis to the idea that they gave 
 it through the rains of heaven. It is true that 
 analogy may have worked the other way, and that 
 they may first have been conceived as givers of 
 rain, and then as givers of the fertilising streams 
 and underground waters. If, as Néldeke and 
 Wellhausen think, B.-worship originated in Arabia, 
 the former view would be more probable. W.R 
 Smith, however, argues that ‘cults of the B. type 
 and the name of B. itself’ were borrowed alon 
 
 with agriculture from the Northern Semites, an 
 
 entered Arabia with the date-palm. At the same 
 time, he argues forcibly that B.’s land is not origin- 
 ally land watered by the sky, but by ‘springs, 
 streams, and underground flow,’ although later the 
 Baalim were regarded as fertilising the land 
 watered by rain. 
 
 We may now pass to the question whether the 
 common view is correct, that B. was the name for 
 the supreme deity of the Canaanites. It is a 
 serious objection to this view, that, except in 
 names, neither on the monuments nor in the OT 
 can we find B. as a proper name standing by itself. 
 We frequently have B. with the article, the B., or 
 B. followed by the name of a place, quality, ete. 
 In the former case the use of the article precludes 
 us from treating B. as a proper name: it means the 
 divine owner or landlord of the district in question. 
 Similarly in the latter case the particular B. in- 
 tended is distinguished from other Baals by the 
 addition of the qualifying words. It is said by 
 some that B. was originally one and the same deity, 
 but for the consciousness of the people, the B. of 
 one place was a different god from the B. of 
 another (cf. Baethgen, Beitrage, p. 19). But if 
 that had been so, we should have expected to find 
 traces of this original deity, whereas all we find is 
 one Baals into which he has been differentiated. 
 Nor is it easy on this view to account for the use 
 of the plural ‘the Baalim.’ This has been inter- 
 preted as an oe plural ‘great B.,’ or as 
 images of B., or B. under his various manifesta- 
 tions. But, taken with the facts already men- 
 tioned, by far the most natural explanation is that 
 the word is a collective plural, and means the local 
 Baals. And if this be so, it follows that B. can 
 hardly be the sun, for it is the same everywhere, 
 while the Baalim were distinct from each other, 
 
 ae 
 
 and thus our previous conclusion is confirmed by 
 an independent line of argument. 
 
 The evidence seems to warrant the following 
 statement. There was originally no supreme deity 
 called B., nor is B. to be identified with the sun. 
 There was only the Baal (or Baals) of particular 
 places distinct from each other. The worship 
 probably arose in connexion with agriculture. 
 The local Baals fertilised each his own district by 
 his streams and springs, and hence they were the 
 owners of these naturally fertile spots. Tribute 
 was therefore due to them, whether for the crops 
 raised on the fertile ground, or for the water used 
 in making land fertile by ide cs By a natural 
 extension the fertility of land watered by rain was 
 also ascribed to the Baals. But by a process, to 
 which we have abundant parallels in the cults of the 
 powers of fertility, the giving of animal fruitfulness 
 was attributed to them, and their worship was thus 
 debased by repulsive immorality. These Baalim 
 seem from Hos 2” to have had their individual 
 names. Itisadmitted by W. R. Smith that ‘in later 
 times B. or Bel became a proper name, bet in con- 
 nexion with the cult of the Bab. Bel’ (#S? 95). 
 
 When Israel entered Canaan the worship of thé 
 Baalim was everywhere present. As it was esp. 
 associated with agriculture, which the Israelites 
 learnt from the Canaanites, there was danger lest 
 they should take over also the religious festivals 
 connected with the various agricultural seasons, 
 and thus succumb to the deadly fascination of the 
 sensual nature-worship of the older inhabitants. 
 That this actually happened we learn from the 
 history. Matters were made worse by the custom, 
 which we find among the Israelites, of speaking 
 of J” as Baal. Since B. was not a proper name, 
 but only an appellative, this custom was perfectly 
 innocent, and all that was meant was that J” was 
 the divine owner of His people, or the husband 
 of Israel. But this double use of the term Baal 
 for the local deity and for J” tended to produce 
 confusion between them, and by this syncretism 
 the conception of J” was debased by elements 
 borrowed from nature-worship, and the lapse into 
 idolatry was made much easier. The fact referred 
 to, that the Israelites spoke of J” as Baal, has 
 been disputed, but rests on very strong evidence. 
 We have names such as Ishbaal and Meribbaal, 
 and even such a name as Bealiah (1 Ch 12°), 
 ‘J’ is Baal.’ Further, we learn from Hosea that 
 the Israelites called J” Baali, i.e. my Baal (Hos 2" ; 
 see Driver, Sam. 186, 195 f., 279; Gray, Heb. Prop. 
 Names, 141 ff.). 
 
 With Ahab a new phase emerges. The B. whose 
 worship he established was Melkart, the B. of 
 Tyre, his wife’s home (1 K 16%). We have here an 
 instance of a local B. worshipped in a foreign 
 country. The worship of Melkart was not in- 
 tended to supersede the worship of J”, but to exist 
 side by side with it. Elijah forced on the popular 
 mind the conviction that J” and Melkart: were 
 mutually exclusive. The worship was discontinued 
 by Jehoram, the son of Ahab (2 K 3?), but stamped 
 out by Jehu’s treacherous slaughter of its adherents 
 (2 K 108-27), In Judah it seems to have been estab- 
 lished by Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, and 
 continued by Ahaziah (2 K 818 27), We find it in the 
 reign of Athaliah, and it was suppressed at her death 
 (2 i 118), The later B.-worship, to which we find 
 
 several references in the prope (Hosea, Jeremiah, 
 
 Zephaniah), seems to have been the worship of the 
 local Baalim rather than of Melkart. 
 
 The Baalim were chiefly worshipped at the 
 high-places, but also on housetops. Obelisks stood 
 beside their altars, and sometimes an Asherah or 
 sacred pole. Chiidren were offered as burnt- 
 offerings in the valley of Hinnom (Jer 19°; 
 but cf. RS?372n.). We often read of incense being 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 BAAL 
 
 
 
 BAAL-ZEPHON 
 
 
 
 offered to them. Melkart was worshipped with 
 animal sacrifices, and homage was done to him by 
 bowing the knee and kissing his image. He had 
 not only priests, but prophets. These are numbered 
 at 450 in the time of Ahab, and a very graphic 
 picture of their frenzied prayers and cutting of 
 themselves to gain the attention of their god is 
 given in 1 K 18%, 
 
 LirmraTuRE.—By far the most important discussion is that of 
 W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites,? pp. 93-113. The follow- 
 Ing may also be consulted :—Oort, 7'he Worship of Baalim in 
 Isr.; Baudissin, Jahve et Moloch, and in Herzog, RE 8.v.; 
 Nowack, Heb. Archdol. ii. 301-305; Baethgen, Beitrage zur 
 Sem. Religionsgesch.; Konig, Die Hauptprovieme, pp. 35-33; 
 Dillmann, Monatsbertchie der Akad. der Wissensch. zu Berlin, 
 1881, p. 601 ff. A. 8. PEAKE. 
 
 BAAL (5y3).—1. A Reubenite, the tather of 
 Beerah, who was carried captive by Tiglath-pileser 
 (1 Ch 55). 2. A Gibeonite, granduncle of Saul 
 (1 Ch 8%=9%), 
 
 BAAL, BAALAH, BAALATH (ys, nbys, nby2).— 
 4. Baalah (1 Ch 13°, Jos 15* 1°), a name for Kiriath- 
 jearim. 2. Baalah Mount (Jos 15"), the ridge 
 which runs west from Ekron to Jabneel. 3. Baalah 
 (Jos 15”), a city in the extreme south of Judah, 
 prob. the same as Balah, Jos 19* (= Bilhah, 1 Ch 4”) 
 and Bealoth, Jos 15%. 4. Baalath (Jos 19%), a town 
 of Dan. The site is uncertain. 5. Baalath (1 K 
 9'8=2 Ch 8°); the town is noticed with Tadmor, but 
 also in the second passage with Beth-horon. The 
 site is uncertain. It might be No. 4. 6. Baalath- 
 beer (Jos 19%; Baal, 1 Ch 4°), This seems to have 
 been perhaps the same as Ramah of the Negeb, 
 according to the first passage. Evidently a hill in 
 the Tih plateau, S. or 8.E. of Beersheba. A con- 
 spicuous object in this part of the desert is the white 
 dome of the small shrine called Kwbbet el Baul, 
 which may retain the name, S. of Tell el Milh. 
 
 C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 BAAL-BERITH (n73 5y3=‘lord of the covenant’), 
 the god of Shechem, where he had a temple, Jg 8* 
 94; also called El-berith, Jg 9*°. The name may 
 mean the god who presides over covenants, cf. Zevs 
 Opxtos ; or the god of the Can. league which centred 
 at Shechem ; or the god of the covenant between 
 Canaanites and Israelites, cf. Gn 34. 
 
 G. A. CooKE. 
 
 BAALE-JUDAH (apm: *by2 2 S 6?).—The same as 
 Baalah (Jos 15°, 1 Ch 13°), the old name of 
 KIRIATH-JEARIM, which see. The name is no 
 doubt an error for ‘ Baal of Judah’ (cf. parall. 1 Ch 
 13° ‘to Baalah,’ and Jos 15® 1814, where it is called 
 Kiriath-baal, t.e. ‘city of Baal’). It must have 
 been noted once as a seat of Baal-worship. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BAAL-GAD (73 by3 ‘Baal of fortune’?), Jos 117 
 127 13°.—Close to Hermon, but in the valley of the 
 Lebanon. It must have been, therefore, on the 
 north-west slopes of Hermon. The most probable 
 site is at ‘Ain Jedeideh, ‘the strong spring,’ in this 
 direction, near the road to Damascus. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BAAL-HAMON (jin7 5y2), Ca 8".—Perhaps for 
 Baal-Hermon, or the Amanus. See SYRIA. 
 
 BAAL-HANAN (137 by2 ‘ Baal is gracious ’).—1. A 
 king of Edom (Gn 36%, 1 Ch 14-5), 2, A 
 Gederite who had charge of David’s olive and 
 
 _ sycomore trees (1 Ch 27%). 
 
 BAAL-HAZOR (isp 5y2), 2S 13°, near Ephraim, 
 appears to be the high mountain east of the 
 road to Shechem, called Tell/‘Astir. It is very 
 rugged, with grey limestone slopes, and with a 
 small group of oaks at the top beside a shrine, and 
 tuins of a town, SWP Fol ii. sheet xiv. See 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 
 
 BAAL-HERMON (ji077 5y3), Jg 3’, 1 Ch 5%. See 
 HERMON. 
 
 BAALI and BAALIM.—See BAAL. 
 
 BAALIS (obys, Beded), the king of the children 
 of Ammon at the time of the murder of Gedaliah 
 (Jer 40 (Gr. 47] 34). 
 
 BAAL-MEON (j\yp Sy3), Nu 32°8, 1 Ch 58, Ezk 259, 
 Beth-baal-meon, Jos 137. Beth-meon, Jer 48”; 
 poy Beon, Nu 32°.—A town of Reuben near 
 
 ibon. It is named on the Moabite Stone, 1. 9, as 
 built by Mesha. The present ruin, Ma'‘in, a large 
 mound at the edge of the plateau west of Medeba. 
 The ruins are those of a Roman town. See Mem. 
 East Pal. Survey, vol. i. s.v. The valley beneath 
 to the south is well watered. In the Onomasticon 
 (s.v. Baalmeon) this site is noticed as still a large 
 village near Baaru (Macherus; see Reland, Pal. 
 pp. 487, 611, 881), and 9 Roman miles from Heshbon, 
 where were natural hot springs. The springs are 
 those of Callirrhoé, in the great ravine of the 
 Zerka Ma‘in to the south. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BAAL-PEOR (riys 5y3, Beehgeywp, Dt 48>, Nu 25°, 
 Ps 1068) was the local deity of Mt. Peor. In Dt 
 485, Hos 9" it is perhaps the name of a place. The 
 Israelites are said (Nu 25°) to have worshipped him 
 during their stay in Shittim. It is frequently sup- 
 posed that his worship was especially licentious, 
 since in the same context mention is made of the 
 unchastity of the Israelites with the women of 
 Moab and Midian. But the two facts are not 
 definitely connected, so that we have no evidence 
 for this opinion (cf. Driver on Dt 4%). 
 
 A. S. PEAKE. 
 
 BAAL-PERAZIM (oxy 5y3), 2S 5”, 1 Ch 14%, 
 It was near Jerusalem, but the situation is un- 
 certain. See Driver on 2S 5”. 
 
 BAALSAMUS (Baddcayos, AV Balasamus), 1 Es 
 9%; in Neh 8’, MAASEIAH. 
 
 BAAL-SHALISHAH (nyby Syz), 2 K 4 Com- 
 pare Shalisha. The situation is uncertain, but it 
 seems to have been in Mount Ephraim. The 
 village Kefr Thilth preserves the name of Shal- 
 isha. See SWP vol. ii. sheet xiv. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BAAL-TAMAR (197 Sy3 ‘Baal of the palm’), 
 Jg 20,—It was near Bethel and Gibeah,—perhaps 
 connected with the palm of Deborah (Jg 4°), which 
 was between Bethel and Ramah,—a position which 
 might suit the notice of Baal-tamar, whence 
 Gibeah was attacked. C. R, CONDER. 
 
 BAALZEBUB (2:3; 5y3, Bdad potav, 2 K 1% 86-16), 
 —A Baal of flies, worshipped in Ekron, and 
 consulted SPS eet the son of Ahab and king 
 of Israel. y he was called Baal of flies is 
 not clear. Probably he was regarded as the lord 
 of flies, and worshipped by those who did not wish 
 to be troubled by them. If Baal were the sun, the 
 name would probably be connected with the fact 
 that the heat of the summer sun calls out the flies 
 in such numbers that in hot countries they become 
 a plague. But this is probably not so (see BAAL). 
 
 e see from the narrative in Kings that he was 
 specially famous as a giver of oracles. Probably the 
 busy flies, who swarm everywhere, were regarded 
 as his messengers. In NT (Mt 10% 12% 2”, Mk 3”, 
 Lk 11" 18 1%) the name is changed to Beelzebul 
 (BeedgeBovrA, WH BeeteBovrd, AV and RV Beelzebub, 
 RVm Beelzebul; cf. Beliar for Belial), and has 
 become a, name for the prince of the devils. 
 
 A. S. PEAKE. 
 BAAL-ZEPHON (jby 9y3) is mentioned Ex 149, 
 
212 BAANA 
 
 BABEL, CITY AND TOWER OF 
 
 
 
 Nu 337 only, as one of three places near ‘ the sea’ 
 crossed by the Israelites. It was the seat of some 
 form of Baal-worship, the character of which, as 
 indicated by Zephon, is uncertain. Gesenius (Thes. 
 
 . 225b) translates B-Z. by locus Typhonis vel 
 oshons sacer, and others are disposed to regard 
 Typhon as a variant of Zephon. But Typhon 
 seems to be pure Greek, with a suitable Gr. deri- 
 vation, and no good reason has been adduced for 
 attributing an Egypt. origin to the word. Typhon 
 was called by various names, the most common 
 being Set. Set appears to have been regarded as 
 a god of foreigners, and was combined, or perhaps 
 confused, with Baal. Other explanations of Zephon 
 are, (1) the north, or the north wind, making it 
 equivalent to }5¥; (2) a watch-tower, from the 
 root 75x. The word }\ps occurs as a proper name 
 Nu 26", and in the parallel passage (Gn 461°) jipy 
 occurs, which seems to be derived from 75s. 
 
 The situation is as uncertain as the etymology. 
 It has been placed on the N. shore of Egypt by 
 Brugsch, who identifies it with Mt. Casius ; about 
 the middle of the present Isthmus, on some hill like 
 Shekh Ennedek (Naville) ; at Jebel ‘Atakah, or a 
 spot on the E. side of the modern canal nearly 
 opposite fort Ajrud. The conjecture of Ebers 
 (Durch Gosen zum Sinai, p. 570) that Phenician 
 sailors propitiated the god ofthe north wind when 
 starting southwards on ‘a voyage down the Gulf of 
 Suez is a plausible one. The much quoted tract of 
 Plutarch, de [side et Osiride, may be referred to for 
 further information about Typhon; and in Bau- 
 meister, Denkmiiler des class. Alter. p. 2135b, there 
 is a picture, Egyptian in style (No. 2393). 
 
 A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 BAANA (x13, possibly for my-ja ‘son of dis- 
 tress’?; but this and similar contractions are highly 
 uncertain).—1. (1 K 4!) and 2. (1 K 418) Two of 
 Solomon’s twelve commissariat officers. 3. (Neh 3‘) 
 Father of Zadok, one of the builders of Jerusalem 
 under Nehemiah. 4. (1 Es 58 Baavd A B) One of the 
 leaders of the poopie who returned from the Capti- 
 vity with Zerubbabel. Possibly the same as (3) and 
 BAANAH (3). C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 BAANAH (73y3).—1. Son of Rimmon, a Benjamite 
 from Beeroth, who, with his brother Rechab, mur- 
 dered Ishbosheth and brought his head to David 
 at Hebron. They were slain at David’s command, 
 and their hands and feet hung up over the pool 
 in Hebron (2 S 45"), Possibly the brothers had fled 
 from Beeroth, a Gibeonite city, when Saul slew the 
 Gibeonites (2 S 21). 2. A Netophathite, father 
 of Heled (Heleb), 2S 23, 1 Ch 11%. 3. One of those 
 who returned from the Exile with Zerubbabel (Ezr 
 23, Neh 7’, and probably 107”), See also BAANA(= 
 #3). J. F. STENNING. 
 
 BAANI (A Baavi, B -vel, AV Maani from the 
 Aldine text), 1 Es 9*%=Bani, Ezr 10*4. 
 
 BAARA (x y3).—Wife of a Benjamite (1 Ch 88). 
 
 BAASEIAH (n:vy3 probably by error for ‘yn, 
 Maagal, B).—A Kohathite (1 Ch 6%), 
 
 BAASHA (xy¥y3), son of Ahijah, of the tribe of 
 Issachar. He seems to have been of lowly origin, 
 as the prophet Jehu describes him as having been 
 
 exalted out of the dust’ (1 K 167). When Nadab, 
 son of Jeroboam I., was besieging the Philistine 
 town of Gibbethon, Baasha conspired against him 
 and slew him. He also exterminated all the seed of 
 Jeroboam, thus fulfilling the sentence pronounced 
 by Ahijah the Shilonite. Ascending the throne of 
 the ten northern tribes about B.c. 914, he reigned 
 for twenty-four years. His reign was that of a 
 restless and warlike adventurer. He carried on a 
 
 long war with Asa, king of Judah. Unable tc 
 withstand him, Asa purchased the help of Ben- 
 hadad, ae of Syria, who invaded the northern 
 frontiers of Israel, and captured several towns. 
 This drew Baasha away from the work in which 
 he had been engaged, the building of a fort called 
 Ramah, to blockade the north of Judah. Asa led 
 his forces against Ramah and destroyed it, usin 
 the materials to build the towns of Geba an 
 Mizpah (1 K 15'**!, 2 Ch 1616). (See AsA.) In 
 matters of religion Baasha did not profit by the 
 warning given in the destruction of Jeroboam and 
 his house, but followed his evil example in main- 
 taining the calf- worship. On this account the 
 same fate was denounced | against his house by the 
 prope’ Jehu, son of Hanani(1 K 167). He himself, 
 owever, died a natural death, and was buried 
 Elah, his oon ee 
 
 in Tirzah, his capital. 
 Boyp. 
 
 him on the throne (165). 
 
 BABBLER.—To ‘babble’ (a word supposed to 
 be formed from the childish sound ba 6a, with 
 freq. term. Je) is to talk incoherently, hence fool- 
 ishly or unseasonably. ‘Babbler’ is given in AV 
 as tr. of ba‘al hallashén (jwn bya), lit. ‘the lord of 
 the tongue’ (RV ‘the charmer’), Ec 10"; Aamorijs 
 (RV ‘braggart’), Sir 207; and omeppodésyos, Ac 1738, 
 
 In the last word there is a touch of something worse than 
 babbling. It was applied first to the crow, as the bird that picks 
 up scattered grain (ewipue ‘aseed,’ and Atysy ‘to gather’); then 
 to any ‘parasite’ or ‘ hanger on,’ who picks up what he can in 
 the market or harbour by his wits. Such an one is indifferent 
 as to the obligation of his words, and so any mere bes ma: 
 have been called a spermologos.* See Trench, On the AV, p. 156f. 
 
 Babbling as a subst. is found in Pr 23” ‘who 
 hath b.?’ (wv, RV ‘complaining’); Sir 19° 20° 
 (Aadd) ; 1 Ti 6%, 2 Ti 2) ‘profane and vain b*’ 
 (kevopurian, lit. ‘empty talkings’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BABE.—Two distinct words have been tr‘ ‘ babe’ 
 in NT. 1. Bréphos (8pépos), either an unborn 
 (Lk 14 “) or recently born child, Lk 2! 16, ] P 23 
 (with adj. dprvyévynros ‘newborn’); Lk 18% RV 
 ‘they brought unto him also their b*’ (AV 
 ‘infants’); Ac 7 RV (AV ‘young children’); 
 2Ti 3" RV ‘fromab. (AV ‘ child’) thou hast known 
 the sacred writings.’ 2. Népios (vjmos), a child 
 that cannot yet speak (v7=‘ not,’ éros=‘a word’), 
 Mt 11% 2136, Lk 102, Ro 2”, 1 Co 3!, He 5%. It is 
 a pity that RV has not kept these words distinct. 
 ‘Infant’ (in ‘not,’ fans ‘speaking’) is so evident 
 a tr® of népios that it might have been used 
 throughout for that word, and for that word only, 
 leaving ‘babe’ for bréphos. Then the point of 
 Mt 21!* would have been seen at once, ‘Out of the 
 mouth of infants (children not old enough to 
 speak) thou hast perfected praise’; and of Ro 2” 
 “a teacher of infants.’ Besides, népios carries the 
 suggestion of contrast between infancy and man- 
 hood (réAetos, adult, as He 51 %, 1 Co 14”, or 
 dvip, man, as 1 Co 184, EV ‘child,’ Eph 4% 14, EV 
 ‘children’). And the further use of ‘infant’ to 
 Ben a legal minor would very well express the 
 apostle’s point in Gal 4 ® ‘as long as the heir is 
 an infant,’ ete. (EV ‘ child’). 
 
 In OT ‘babe’ is given as tr® of na‘ar (7y3) Ex 2°, 
 the usual word for a boy of puberty=zais, puer; 
 of ‘Olé (Sbiy) Ps 82174, a suckling ; and of ta‘aldl 
 (Syn) from the same root, Is 34. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BABEL, CITY AND TOWER OF.—The city of 
 Babel or Babylon was, from the time of Kham- 
 murabi downwards, the capital of the Babylonian 
 empire. It was especially famous for its temple 
 
 * Ramsay, in a full and interesting discussion of this word in 
 the Expositor (5th ser. vol. ii. pp. 220f., 262f.), denies all 
 reference to speaking. The Athenians, he thinks, applied this 
 slang term of contempt to St. Paul simply as one who did not 
 belong to their learned and exclusive society. 
 
 
 
Saas) oi, 7 orl 
 
 ; 
 ; 
 
 
 
 BABI 
 
 BABYLON IN NT 213 
 
 
 
 Sag-illa (‘of the exalted [lit. ‘reaching to the 
 clouds’] head’), situated upon the east bank of the 
 
 Euphrates. At Bamip a (Birs-Nimroud), the 
 neighbouring town to Babylon, there may be seen 
 at the present day a ruined temple of Nebo which 
 was called “Ae te Babylonians 4-Zidda (‘house of 
 eternity’). Like the latter, the temple E-sag-illa, 
 dedicated to Bel-Merodach, had seven storeys, 
 following in this the fashion of all the larger 
 Babylonian temples (see BABYLONIA, p. 220°). A 
 detailed account of Babylon, unquestionably based 
 on personal observation, is given by Herodotus 
 (i. 178 ff.). It is now generally admitted that the 
 sanctuary of Zeus-Belos mentioned by him must 
 be identified, not with the still partially preserved 
 temple of Nebo at Borsippa, but with the temple 
 Sag-illa, which was then standing, although it has 
 long since disappeared. The latter temple, more- 
 over, not only consisted of the sacealled? zikkurat 
 or storied tower just mentioned, which bore the 
 special name of E-timin-an-ki (‘house of the foun- 
 
 ation-stone of heaven and earth’); it wasa whole 
 complex of sanctuaries. In one of these stood the 
 famous imageof Bel-Merodach, theannual touching 
 of which by the kings of Babylon at the New Year's 
 festival served to confirm afresh their title and to 
 establish their dominion. On this account Xerxes 
 had it removed (cf. C. F. Lehmann, Samas-sum- 
 ukin, p. 49), while he spared (Her. i. 183) the other 
 image of Zeus (no doubt the statue of Nebo, which 
 also had a place in Sag-illa). His removal of the 
 first occasioned the mistake into which later his- 
 torians (e.g. Arrian and Strabo) fell, of supposing 
 that Xerxes completely destroyed Sag-illa. 
 
 With regard to the site of Babylon, the ruinous 
 heaps running from N. to S. and all on the E. 
 bank of the Euphrates, represent the following 
 ancient structures: Jumjuna=the great banking- 
 house; Tell ‘Amrfn=Sag-illa ; Kassr=one of the 
 palaces of Nebuchadrezzar (the royal palace 
 mentioned by Herodotus was on the W. bank); 
 Babil = the famous terraced gardens. The two 
 
 eat walls described by Herodotus (i. 181) were 
 built by Nebuch. 11., who, in a special sense, was the 
 refounder of Babylon. The outer wall was named 
 Nimitti-Bel (‘dwelling of Bel’), the inner Jmgur- 
 Bel (‘ Bel was gracious’), probably in imitation of 
 the names of the walls of Nippur, the ancient city 
 of Bel (Nimitti-Marduk and Imgur-Marduk). 
 
 In the biblical story of the Tower of Babel (Gn 
 11)*), v.® is probably a later addition, for Babel 
 was certainly not amongst the oldest sanctuaries 
 of the land of Shinar (Chaldza). In this con- 
 nexion a tradition preserved by the LXX of Is 10° 
 is of the highest interest. e read there, rhv 
 
 dpav Thy érdvw BaBvdAGvos kal Xadavvi (according to 
 alm. tradition Calneh is the ancient Nippur) od 6 
 mipyos gxodou7On, ‘the country above Babylon and 
 Calneh where the tower was built.’ Kis, to whose 
 situation these words may perhaps refer, contained 
 the famous temple Kharsag-kalamma (‘mountain 
 of the world,’ cf. Is 141%), and in the same city 
 Khammurabi built the temple Miti-ursagga, whose 
 “top (sag) he carried up (i//a) as high as heaven’ 
 oe wm). The same Khammurabi would then 
 
 ave built also Sag-illa at Babel. See also 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. F. HoMMEL. 
 
 BABI (A Bafi, B Ba:tp), the head of a family 
 which returned with Ezra (1 Es 8*), called in Ezr 
 84 Bebai (wh. see). 
 
 BABYLON IN OT.—See BABEL, BABYLONIA. 
 
 BABYLON IN NT.—1. In Mt 17-27, Ac 74 
 (adapted from Am 57) the name certainly denotes 
 the ancient city. 
 
 2. The name occurs in Rev 14° 161° 17° 18? 10 21, 
 
 In 17° it is described as pvorhpioy, t.€. a name to be 
 allegorically interpreted (cf. Rev 118 1612 2-*), A 
 full discussion would require an investigation of 
 the apocalyptic HOB ECry generally. The chief 
 conditions, however, of the problem are these: B. 
 is described (1) as ‘the harlot,’ the supreme anti- 
 thesis of ‘the bride,’ ‘the holy city,’ ‘the new 
 Jerus.’; (2) as the centre and ruler of the nations, 
 148 171. 15.18; (3) as seated on ‘seven mountains,’ 
 179 (see Wetstein’s note); (4) as the source of 
 idolatry and impurity, IYEES ETS Tita, TRB 
 Eph 4“, ] P 45+); (5) as a great trading centre, 
 19% 11-19; (6) as enervated by luxury, 187 12%-22; 
 (7) as the arch-persecutor of the saints and of ‘the 
 witnesses of Jesus,’ 17° 192, These considerations, 
 taken together, are decisive (a) against the view of 
 a few interpreters, that by B. is meant Jerus. ; 
 (6) in favour of the almost universal view that 
 Rome is symbolised by B. This use of the name in 
 an early Judzo-Christian book isin harmony with 
 (1) the many analogies between ancient B. and 
 Rome, both being capitals of great empires, homes 
 of idolatry and impure luxury, oppressors of ‘the 
 Israel of God’; (2) the Jewish love for mystic 
 names, Rome and the Rom. Empire being often 
 designated among the Jews as Edom (see, ¢.g., 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. p. 29 ff.) ; (3) the Jewish con- 
 ception of the antagonism of the Rom. Empire to, 
 and its destruction by, the Messianic kingdom (see 
 Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, p.364f. ; Edersheim, 
 Jesus the Messiah, ii. p. 439); (4) the fact that 
 Rome is called B. in what may well be an early 
 Jewish portion of the Sibylltne Oracles, viz. v. 143, 
 158 (for the different views on Bk. v. see Schiirer, 
 HJP i. iii. 286f.). The comparison of Rome to 
 B. underlies much of Jewish apocalyptic litera- 
 ture (2 Es, Apoc. Baruch; cf. Ryle and J@mes’ 
 note on Psalms of Solomon, ii. 29). The only 
 assage from Talmudic literature Soren cited 
 or this mystic use of B. is the Midrash Shir 
 hashirim Rabba, i. 6 (quoted by Wetstein on Apoc. 
 178; see also Levy, Newh. u. Chald. Worterb. 
 1905). Zunz (Lit. der Synag. Poesie, p. 100 f.)* 
 refers also to Midr. Ps. 121 and Banitar rabba, 
 c. 7 (end), noting that the name Babylonians was 
 given by Jews to the Christians (Gen. Haggada, 
 c. 27, in Jellinck’s Beth ha Midrash, iv. p. 41). The 
 interpretation of B. in the Apoc. as Rome dates 
 from the earliest times; it is implied in Iren. v. 26. 1, 
 distinctly stated in Tert. adv. Mare. iii. 13=adv. 
 Judeos, 9). So Jerome and Augustine, quoted by 
 Wetstein on Apoc. 17%. Andreas (Cramer, Catena, 
 p. 560) speaks of it as derived ‘from ancient teachers 
 of the Church.’ Such opinions as that by B. is 
 meant (a) ‘New Rome’ (=Constantinople), ‘because 
 in it, in the times of the Arians, much blood of the 
 orthodox was shed’ (Cramer, Catena, p. 429) ; (b) the 
 Papacy, either at Avignon or at Rome (see Speaker's 
 Com. iv. 754), scarcely belong to historical inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 8. The name B. is found in 1 P 5”, dowdtera 
 buds 4 év BaBvAdve ocuvexdexT}. N and some other 
 authorities add éxxAnola. Two cursives read év 
 ‘Péuy. Three interpretations of B. in this passage 
 have been suggested: (1) The Egyp. B., which, 
 however, is described by Strabo (xvii. p. 807) as 
 simply pobptov épuuvév. (2) The eat B. But 
 (a) there is apparently no evidence either that St. 
 Peter was ever at B. or that a Christian church 
 existed there in early times; (6) in Jos. Ant. XVIII. 
 ix. 5-9 we have positive evidence as to the desola- 
 tion which befell the Bab. Jews about A.D. 40, and 
 the consequent improbability that an Apostolic 
 Church would have been planted among them (ef. 
 Neubauer, Géogr. du Talm. p. 344). (3) Rome. 
 The evidence in its favour is both internal and 
 external: (a) Internal evidence. It harmonises 
 * Ihave to thank the Rev. A. Lukyn Williams for this reference 
 
214 BABYLONIA 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 with (i.) The context. The language is allegorical, 
 the Church being spoken of as a lady (cf. 2 Jn }- 18), 
 Moreover, St. Mark is mentioned as being with St. 
 Peter. Now, St. Mark was summoned to Rome by 
 St. Paul (2 Ti 4!!), probably towards the close of 
 A.D. 67, and very early tradition describes St. Mark 
 as St. Peter’s companion and interpreter (Papias 
 ap. Eus. H# iii. 89) at Rome (Iren. iii. 1, Clem. 
 Alex. ap. Kus. H# ii. 15, vi.14). (ii.) The figurative 
 application elsewhere in the epistle (11 241°) of 
 language primarily used of ancient Israel. (iii.) The 
 general tone of the epistle, especially in regard 
 to persecution, duty towards the state, and ‘the 
 universality of [St. Peter’s] teaching’ (Hort, 
 Judaistic Christianity, p. 155). (iv.) ‘The order 
 of the provinces in 1, Silvanus coming from 
 the West and landing in Pontus. (b) External 
 evidence. (i.) The Apoc. (see above) shows that 
 Asiatic Christians at this time would so understand 
 the name B. (ii.) Such was the ancient interpre- 
 tation. Eus. H# ii. 15 introduces it by the 
 significantly indefinite gaci (see the actly just 
 above; it may, however, refer to Papias and 
 Clement Alex. just mentioned). It seems, indeed, 
 to have been universally accepted, till Calvin (in 
 loc.), for controversial reasons, urged the literal 
 interpretation. (iii.) Ancient testimony is unani- 
 mous, and from its range seems decisive, for a visit 
 of St. Peter to Rome. The evidence for this visit 
 is collected and discussed by Bishop Lightfoot, 
 Clement, ii. p. 493 ff. See also art. on ST. PETER. 
 F. H. CHASE. 
 **BABYLONIA, the cradle of the civilisation of 
 the whole of anterior Asia and the West, and prob- 
 ably also of that of ancient Egypt, is the territory 
 enclosed by the lower Euphrates and Tigris, ex- 
 tending from the neighbourhood of the modern 
 Baghdad to ‘the mouth of the rivers,’ The latter, 
 however, in ancient times flowed separately into 
 the Persian Gulf, a little above Basra. The extra- 
 ordinary fertility of the soil here, as in the case of 
 the Delta of the Nile, was due to the extensive and 
 careful canal system of the early colonists. As 
 soon as these canals fall into disrepair, the same 
 cheerless waste of waters presents itself again to 
 view, as in primitive times. 
 
 The country of Babylonia, which extends from 
 about 30°-338° N, lat., is bounded on the W. by 
 the Arabian desert, from which it is separated only 
 by a very narrow strip of cultivated land ; on the N. 
 by Mesopotamia proper; on the E. by the plain at 
 the foot of the Elamite Mountains, over which in 
 ancient times nomadic Aramzan tribes used to 
 wander (the land of Kir [17] of Is 226, Am 97) ; 
 and on the S. by the Persian Gulf. 
 
 The Climate, especially in South Babylonia, is 
 extraordinarily warm. ‘The months during which 
 rain prevails are from November to February. 
 At the present day, according to the accounts of 
 travellers, the heaviest rains occur in November 
 and December; but in ancient times, as the names 
 of the months prove, the rainy season would 
 appear to have been in Tebet (122 Est 2!) and 
 Shebat (22% Zec 17), te. from the end of December 
 to the end of February. Not only the Sumerian 
 names for these months (ab-ba-ud-du ‘coming from 
 the sea,’ and ash-a-an ‘curse of the rain’), but also 
 the Semitic (tibétw ‘submersion,’ and shabatu 
 ‘ destruction’), refer to rain-storms. 
 
 The fertility of the soil, already mentioned, 
 went hand in hand with the mildness of the 
 climate. ‘There were two sowings every year (in 
 Tebet and in Nisan), and two harvests (the first in 
 Adar and the second in Sivan, t.e. May-June). 
 The Chief Productions were wheat (Sumerian zig, 
 zid, whence otros, Semitic she’w), which gave from 
 fifty to a hundred fold return; sesame, which 
 yielded oil; and the date-palm, introduced at a very 
 
 
 
 
 
 early period from Arabia (Magan). This tree satis- 
 fied all the remaining wants of the people, since from 
 it they obtained wine, vinegar, honey, flour, and 
 material for all kinds of wickerwork. ‘The stones 
 were used by smiths as a substitute for char- 
 coal, and when steeped served for fattening oxen 
 and sheep. The reed which grew by the numer- 
 ous canals attained a height of 15 feet, and was 
 used for building huts and for the construction of 
 mats, and even boats. In the latter case asphalt 
 was employed for pitching purposes. Gn 614 sxy 
 apa (AV ‘an ark of gopher wood’) must probably 
 be explained in this way, since gipa@ru means 
 originally a ‘reed-stand.” On the other hand, 
 there were none of the trees characteristic of the 
 lands adjoining the Mediterranean Sea (the vine, 
 the olive, and the fig). For these only the Western 
 Semites have common names, although the vine 
 (Sumer. gishtin ‘tree of life,’ Semitic-Babylonian 
 karanu), and the fig tree (Sum. dib, Sem. tintu, tittw) 
 were in course of time introduced from abroad. 
 Stone and minerals were almost unknown in 
 the alluvial soil. The absence of these was, how- 
 ever, atoned for by the excellent building material 
 that lay to hand in the clay, while the best 
 possible mortar was obtained from the asphalt con- 
 tained in the numerous naphtha wells. All the 
 buildings in ancient Babylonia were accordingly 
 constructed of brick. When sandstone, or still 
 harder kinds of stone, such as basalt or diorite, 
 were used (e.g. for statues), they were brought by 
 ship—even in the earliest times—from the terri- 
 tories along the frontier (Mesopotamia, Elam, 
 Arabia). ‘The same is true of alabaster, marble, 
 gold, silver, copper, tin, iron, and lead; all of which 
 are mentioned as early as the Sumer. inscriptions, 
 With regard to the Fauna, the lion (nisu, labbw) 
 was a very common tenant of the reed-beds between 
 Arabia and Babylonia; and not only the panther 
 (nimru), the jackal (akht, barbaru), the fox 
 (Selibu), and the wild boar (shakh@, dabit), but 
 especially the wild ox (rimu, Heb. ©), frequently 
 figure in the literature and the pictorial repre- 
 sentations (e.g. on the oldest cylinder-seals). 
 Many species of gazelles, antelopes, and wild goats 
 were found along the frontiers of the country. 
 The horse (sis@, Heb. pi, but Syr. 8:0.) was 
 unknown to the earliest settlers. The Sumerians 
 called it ‘ass of the East’ or ‘the mountain’ 
 (anshu kurra), just as by circumlocution they 
 called the lion lig-magh ‘big dog.’ The strictly 
 domestic animals were the cow (alpw), the sheep 
 (sénu, lahru, and other words), the goat (inzw), the 
 ass (iméru, an incorrectly written form of himéru, 
 Sumerian anshu), and the dog (kalbu). The 
 elephant (pirw) of Mesopotomia, the camel (gam- 
 malu) and the wild ass (burimu) of Arabia, were 
 also known to the Babylonians. Such a word as 
 gammalu shows by its very form (if it were a 
 genuine Babylonian word it would be written 
 gamlu) that it has been borrowed from Arabia. 
 Of tame birds, we may mention the raven (G@ribw), 
 the swallow (sinuntu), and the dove (swmmatw) 
 (cf. Gn 87 and the Babylonian account of the 
 Flood) ; of half-wild birds, geese and waterhens 
 (the late Heb. Sunn ‘cock,’ comes from the 
 Sumerian dar-nugalla ‘king’s fowl’), falcons 
 (surdt&) which were tamed even at this early period 
 by the Babylonians for the purpose of hunting. 
 Of birds of prey, the eagle (ard and erfi, also 
 nashru) holds the first place, then come the owl 
 (ixstpu, Heb. 1%!) and the horn-owl (kad), ete. 
 In the sphere of Ethnology and Language, it 
 can be shown that a dualism existed in Babylonia 
 from the earliest period. The Swmerians, who in 
 all probability came from Central Asia, and whose 
 language is related to the Turanian, as the 
 Babylonian method of writing proves, were the 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
 
 
 4 
 ; 
 | 
 

 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 founders of all the civilisation of anterior Asia. 
 Besides these, we find as early as B.C. 5000 or 6000 
 distinct traces of a Semitic population, which came 
 from the North-West (Mesopotamia) and took 
 possession of the civilised settlements founded by 
 the Sumerians, until, by their gradual incorpora- 
 tion with the original inhabitants of the country, 
 there arose a single new race. 
 
 The Semitic Babylonians have the closest re- 
 lationship with the other Semites (Hebrews, 
 Arabs, and Aramzeans), and yet, in opposition to 
 these, they form a special group, as the grammar 
 and lexicon clearly prove. If the Syro-Arabian 
 Semites may be properly designated west Semites, 
 the ancient Egyptian speech, on the other hand, 
 belongs to the east Semitic, or the Bab.-Assyrian 
 branch of Semitic languages. The Egyptians must 
 in the remotest antiquity have emigrated from 
 Mesopotamia to Africa. Apart from considerations 
 of grammar and the great number of Sumerian 
 loan-words contained in their language (which is 
 otherwise Semitic), this is proved by extensive 
 coincidences between the Egyptian and Babylonian 
 systems of writing, their religion, and other 
 branches of culture.: 
 
 The Religion of the Babylonians meets us even 
 in the oldest inscriptions as a tolerably finished 
 system. Although most of the names of the gods 
 are Sumerian, the Semites must have had a more 
 or less important share in the development of this 
 system. Many gods have two names, one Semitic 
 and one Sumerian, e.g. Bélu ‘Lord’ (West Semitic 
 Ba‘al), Sumerian Ln-lilla, ‘Lord of the air,’ and 
 we cannot always be certain that the Sumerian 
 name is the older and more original. As kings who 
 are without doubt Semitic (e.g. the kings of Nisin) 
 set up Sumerian inscriptions, so may Semitic 
 gods in primitive times have received Sumerian 
 names even from Semitic Babylonians, especially 
 since Sumerian continued for long to be the sacred 
 tongue. The beginnings of Babylonian culture go 
 farther back than any inscriptions, and we cannot 
 therefore answer questions such as this with any- 
 thing like certainty. We get, however, the general 
 impression that the baser elements of the Baby- 
 lonian religion originally belonged to the Sumer- 
 ians, while the purer and nobler ideas in it came 
 from the Semites. The sovereign, position occu- 
 pied by Bel (in spite of his secondary rank in the 
 genealogical system) points to this conclusion, 
 Even the Star-worship (Sun, Moon, and Planets), 
 which the Semites at an early date conjoined with 
 the cult of Bel, is a far purer and nobler type of 
 Polytheism than the crude idolatry of so many 
 other heathen peoples. 
 
 If the Sumerians in their old incantations 
 always invoke Heaven and Earth as the two 
 highest powers of nature, regarding the earth-god 
 as the ‘good? spirit and offering him the greater 
 devotion, it seems to have been the Semites who 
 expanded this dualism into a genealogical system : 
 first by inserting their Bel between the original two, 
 and then by adding the sun and planet-gods, which 
 were all regarded as children of the earth-god. It 
 seems to have been the Semites, too, who converted 
 the more general conception of ‘ Heaven’ into the 
 more special one of an ‘ocean of heaven,’ which 
 extended over the Firmament (‘the waters above 
 the Firmament,’ Gn 1"). To this they gave the 
 Sumerian title nwn (with a dialectical variant 
 dun), and regarded it also as continuing behind 
 the horizon and under the earth. This ‘Ocean 
 of Heaven,’ Anun or Anum (as the Sumerians pre- 
 ferred to write it), was placed at the top of the 
 genealogical tree. Then came Bel, ‘Lord of the 
 air’ (En-lilla, Sem. Bel-zakiki), as his son, and Ka 
 or En-ki (‘Lord of the earth’) as his grandson. 
 An ancient title for Bel, as god of the air and 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONTA 215 
 
 
 
 the storm, was Ramman (Sumer. Martu and Imir), 
 who in course of time became a separate god, 
 worshipped alongside of Bel. In primitive times 
 the Moon-god (Sin) and Ea had likewise common 
 titles (e.g. Hn-zu, ‘Lord of wisdom,’ Semitic Bel- 
 niméki), the Moon-god being hence called the first- 
 born son of the god Bel. 
 
 Anum (shortened, Anu) was originally thought 
 of as without a consort, for the goddess Anat or 
 Antu is only a later philosophical abstraction, and 
 has nothing whatever to do with the West Semitic 
 my. On the other hand, both the consort of Bel, 
 Nin-lilla (‘mistress of the air,’ in Semitic abso- 
 lutely Béltw ‘ mistress’) or Ba’u, and the consort 
 of Ea, Dam-gal-nunna or Damkina, were female 
 personifications of the Ocean of Heaven. The four 
 children of the Earth-god (who was represented 
 as a Ram) and his consort Damkina, the goddess 
 of Heaven, were Merodach (Amar-uduk, Mar- 
 uduk, and simply Marduk, as he was specially 
 called in Babylon), the god of the morning-and- 
 spring sun, his sister and consort star, his hostile 
 brother Nergal, and the latter’s consort Ghanna 
 (nay) or Gula, whose name was written with the 
 same ideogram as the town of Nineveh (Nin@). 
 A very ancient designation of Merodach was 
 Gur-alimma (same ideogram as ‘domicile’ and 
 ‘eye’). <A god originally identified with Nergal 
 (god of agriculture and of the kingdom of the 
 dead), but afterwards differentiated from him, was 
 Nin-tb (or Nindar) god of war. The god Dumu-zi 
 or Tammiz, of whom the same myth is related as 
 of the Egyptian Osiris, was only another mani- 
 festation of Merodach. Finally, mention must be 
 made of the son of Merodach, Nabé or Nusku, the 
 messenger of the gods, the god of the art of writing, 
 who also appears as the god of fire, and bears other 
 titles besides (e.g. Nin-gish-zidda). His consort 
 was Tashmétu (‘ hearing prayer’). 
 
 In very early times Merodach, Istar, Nergal, 
 Nindar, and Nabfi (Nebo) became Planet-gods, and, 
 corresponding to their relative distance from the 
 earth, the following was the primitive arrange- 
 ment: Sin (Moon), Nabi or Dun-pa-uddwu (Mer- 
 cury), Istar or Dilbat (Venus), Samas (Sun), Nin-ib 
 or Kdivanu (Mars), Marduk or Gud-bir (Jupiter), 
 and Nergal (Saturn). Afterwards Nin-ib and Nergal 
 changed places, Kaivanu becoming Saturn. Simi- 
 larly, the title Gud-bir was at a later period given 
 to Nabfi (Merodach’s son), and the new name 
 Mulu-babbar (written Te-ud) assigned to Jupiter. 
 The conjunction of Sakkut (read ™=2) and Kévan 
 in Am 56 may be compared with the conjunction 
 
 of the gods Tibal (Earth? ban), Sakkut (title of 
 Nindar, originally Sa-kud, ‘judge,’ sc. of the dead 
 in the under-world), and Kaivanu in a Semitic 
 exorcism (WAT iv. 59, 8). 3 
 
 The oldest sanctuary of the gods, whose names and 
 genealogical connexions have just been enumerated, 
 and the special home of the gods in Babylonia, was 
 the ancient town of Nun-ki (‘place of heaven’) or 
 Eridu (Uru-Dugga, ‘good town’ or ‘town of the 
 good god,’ t.e. Ka). There too, ‘at the mouth of 
 the rivers,’ stood the holy palm (G%s-kin, Semitic 
 Kiskanfai), the famous oracle-tree of Eridu, to 
 which the ancient Babylonian ideas of Paradise 
 attach themselves, since here is to be found ‘the 
 pure abode, which stretches out its shade like a 
 grove, but within it no one treads’ (WAT iv. 15, 
 52 ff.). Besides this, the Babylonians had also 
 another conception of a land of the gods to the 
 south of the mouth of the Euphrates, and of a 
 river of death and an Island of the Blessed far out 
 in the ocean. In the epic of Gisdubar, the hero, 
 the biblical Nimrod, sets out from Erech by land 
 through Arabia, to seek for his great-grandfather 
 Sit-napisti (the biblical Noah), who has been 
 translated to Paradise. Between Aga and Salma, 
 
216 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 the mountains of the land of Mashu, dwell the 
 mythical scorpion-men,» who guard the gold of 
 Mount Arallu. After a long journey ‘through 
 the land of darkness,’ GiSdubar at last reaches the 
 sea-coast and the palace of the virgin goddess 
 Sabitu (i.e. the Sabzan), thence he travels to the 
 ‘waters of death,’ and crossing over arrives at 
 the residence of Sit-napisti. It looks as if the 
 incense-island Sokotra, to the south of Arabia, 
 had furnished the material for this conception. 
 
 The conception of Hades or ‘the land without 
 return’ (Bab. Shélu, from shw’alu ‘place of judg- 
 ment,’ al irsiti ‘town of the under-world,’ and 
 other similar names) is also found amongst the 
 Babylonians, who place it in the farther south, 
 where the waters of the ocean extend below the 
 earth and connect themselves with the under part 
 of the Ocean of Heaven. Here the different gods of 
 the under-world, especially the night-and-winter 
 sun (also called the South sun, Nin-ib, Nergal) 
 but also the fire-demon Nebo-Nusku, and the 
 Moon-god, acted as judges of the dead. All this 
 clearly implies the notion of a retribution beyond 
 the grave. Besides the Eden, which is conceived 
 of as situated on the coast of the Persian Gulf 
 (7 from Sumerian Edin, ‘ desert,’ * ‘low ground’), 
 there is also a Paradise above in Heaven with the 
 names Eg-arsag-kur-kurra (‘Mountain-house of 
 the lands’) EH-garsag-kalamma (‘House of the 
 Mt. of the World’), Hkur (‘Mountain-house,’ 
 properly H-gur ‘House of the Ocean of Heaven’), 
 E-sharra (‘House of assembly,’ WP 17 Is 1418f), 
 Since the Babylonians thought of the north as 
 above, and of the south as below, it is evident why 
 this mountain of the gods is, in Is 14!3, placed to 
 the north (its opposite is Sheol, 141), and we are not 
 to think of any earthly mountain, such as Ararat. 
 
 The Babylonians also connect the serpent with 
 Paradise. In the epic of Nimrod it is the serpent 
 which snatches the plant of rejuvenescence from 
 Gisdubar as he returns home. In a well-known 
 picture on an old cylinder-seal, a serpent is twining 
 itself behind a seated female (?) figure. In front 
 of the figure stands a palm, and on the other side 
 of the palm sits a personage whose ox-horns mark 
 him out as a divinity. Both figures, however, are 
 stretching out their hands to the fruit of the tree 
 that stands between them. The Babylonian 
 dragon of the primeval world is represented as 
 a monster with the head of a lion and the feet of 
 an eagle; but after his defeat by Merodach he is 
 transported to Heaven in the form of a serpent. 
 In connexion with this we may remember that 
 the ‘serpent-god,’ who is regarded as masculine, 
 is called the ‘watcher (r@bisw) of the house of 
 heaven.’ Finally, Nebuchadrezzar set up, both at 
 the gates of Babylon and on the threshold of the 
 temple of Bel, colossal bulls and enormous serpents 
 of metal as guardians. 
 
 Unfortunately, no direct parallel to the biblical 
 account of the Fall and the expulsion of man from 
 Paradise has been as yet found in Babylonian 
 literature. Nevertheless, apart from the pictorial 
 representation mentioned above, the legend of 
 Adapa presents a parallel. Adapa, who is called the 
 ‘seed of mankind,’ forfeits for ever the immortality 
 offered to him by the god of heaven by his refusal 
 to take the bread and water of life. If, in addition 
 to this, we note the prominent place occupied by the 
 knowledge of sin and the yearning after forgive- 
 ness amongst the Babylonian Semites, the exist- 
 ence of a narrative of the Fall, standing in intimate 
 relation to Paradise, can scarcely any longer be 
 doubted. The same remark applies to the con- 
 fusion of tongues at the building of the Tower. 
 The Tower of Babel (Gn 11) is indeed a tower of 
 
 * Observe the wording of Gn 28 ‘and God planted a garden in 
 Eden,’ z.e. according to the above explanation, ‘ out in the waste.’ 
 
 
 
 steps, and, as such, a temple; and, according to 
 the Babylonian conception, men were created by 
 God to build temples for the gods. At the same 
 time the presumption of wishing to climb up to 
 heaven comes out clearly in the Etana legend, 
 where it is punished by a downfall. 
 
 Sacrifices and prayers played an important part 
 among the Babylonians at all times. Besides the 
 priests, there were also the magicians and sooth- 
 sayers with their exorcisms. The laws and or- 
 dinances (ter?ti nim) of the gods are often men- 
 tioned ; and we can see clearly, from the hymns and 
 litanies that have come down to us, that the ritual 
 of sacrifice and worship was a rich one. Liturgical 
 forms, like so much else, had their home in Baby- 
 lonia, as can be proved down even to the minutest 
 details of expression. There are two chief kinds of 
 sacrifices mentioned in the oldest inscriptions: the 
 prescribed daily sacrifice ging or sattukku (Sumer. 
 sa-dug, probably a word originally borrowed from 
 the Arabian sadakat ‘right’), and the freewill 
 sacrifice nindab (723), which originally consisted 
 of a gift of corn (Sumer. nidab) to the goddess Istar. 
 Other expressions for sacrifice are: kurbannu 
 (1222), properly ‘ presentation,’ nik& (properly ‘liba- 
 tion,’ but used for sacrifice in general, since 
 libations were always used at the sacrifice of 
 beasts), Autrinnu ‘incense-offering,’ z?bu (from zib’u 
 =nar), sirku (‘drink-offering’), and surkinu. Itis 
 worth remarking that the same word which is used 
 in Hebrew of pardon and forgiveness, nD, is used in 
 Babylonian of sprinkling sick or unclean men. 
 Sickness, however, is always treated by the Baby- 
 lonians as a result of sin, and hence sacrifice is 
 always regarded as a propitiation for sin. Human 
 sacrifice, up to the present, has been found por- 
 trayed only upon ancient seal-cylinders,* and it is 
 still open to question whether the victim does not 
 represent a god rather than a man. In that case 
 there would be an allusion to a myth unknown to us. 
 Of the many expressions for ‘ prayer’ and ‘petition’ 
 in use, suppd, a denominative from sippu, a thresh- 
 old, has a special interest, because the threshold 
 of the house or the temple was the place at which 
 prayer and sacrifice were offered in ancient times. 
 
 From the earliest times the temples were re- 
 garded in Babylonia as the earthly dwelling- 
 places of the gods (Bab. bitu, ixirtu, and ekallu 
 >»n, which usually, however, means palace). 
 They were generally in the form of a tower of 
 steps (zikkuratu), and were three storeys and 
 sometimes seven storeys high, the latter being 
 an earthly copy of the seven heavenly spheres, or 
 circles, of the planets. Occasionally these temples 
 contained also the graves of the kings (gigunu), as 
 in the case of a temple of Gudea. In the ‘ Holy of 
 Holies’ there were special divisions, which were 
 called by several names, parakku, papahu, 
 panpanu, di’u, usukku, and sukku (cf. 722, also used 
 in a religious sense). It is remarkable that the 
 oldest form of the ideogram for parakkw clearly 
 represents tapestry or a curtain (cf. "21?). 
 
 The functions of the priests, seers or prophets, 
 magicians and soothsayers, often overlap one 
 another in the texts, though they were in reality 
 always very carefully differentiated. The most 
 common expressions for priest are kalf@ and sangt 
 (Sumerian sag), the high priest being hence called 
 sangu-mahhu (from sag ‘priest’ and mah ‘high”’), 
 for seer and prophet mahh&, from which the word 
 magician is derived, asé% (which also means 
 ‘physician,’ Sumer. azu, originally signifying ‘he 
 who knows’), and ba@r@ (‘the seer,’ exactly = the 
 Heb. 785). The Heb. word 8°32) is also found, at 
 any rate in the name of the god Nabi’u, Nabi, 
 Nebo (‘proclaimer,’ ‘herald,’ as a planet, Hermes). 
 
 *Ménant, Collection de Olercg, No. 116-182; pierres 
 gravées, 1. figs. 94, 95, 97. 
 
 
 
 —— eS 
 
 | 
 | 
 

 
 BABYLONTA 
 
 
 
 The Heb. }75 also has its equivalent in the Bab. 
 muskinu (from muskahinu), ‘one who pays homage 
 or worships.’ The rich cultus of the Babylonians, 
 in addition to its numerous sacrifices, prayers, and 
 litanies, included from an early period also sacred 
 water (agubbii), censers (adaguru), processions 
 
 (masdahu), barges of the gods (as in Egypt). All 
 
 these naturally had their chief place at the 
 
 numerous festivals. 
 
 Not only were there Festivals which were re- 
 peated on certain fixed days every month (as the 
 nubattu or festival specially connected with the 
 worship of Merodach and his consort Zarpanit on 
 the 3rd, 7th, and 16th days of the month, or 
 the so-called ‘unlucky-day,’ &mu limnw [corre- 
 sponding to the Hebrew Sabbath], which was held on 
 the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th of the month, and 
 had to be observed as a day of fasting and repent- 
 ance even by the king), but there was also a series 
 of annual festivals, of which the Festival of the 
 New Year (zagmukku, akitu) was regarded as the 
 most sacred. At this festival Bel (in Babylon Bel- 
 Merodach, in Sirgulla Ningirsu, as the consort of 
 Ba’u) entered the holy assembly-room (ubsuginna) 
 in order to fix the fates of men, especially that of 
 the king, for the coming year. This Festival of 
 the New Year and the Spring was also held in re- 
 membrance of the day of Creation. After Bel 
 had conquered the dragon and made the world, on 
 the 8th and 11th days of the new year he entered 
 Dulazagga, the ‘ holy of holies’ of Ubsuginna, for 
 the purpose mentioned above (Epic of the Creation, 
 Table ili. 1. 61, Nebuk. ii. 54-65). 
 
 In this connexion the ancient names of the 
 Babylonian Months, as they are given from about 
 B.0. 2000 both in Sumerian and Semitic, are as 
 follows :— 
 
 1. Barag-zag-gar (‘the Holy of Holies of the 
 Temple’). Nisannu, also named Arah— 
 rabuti (month of the great gods, i.e. Anu 
 and Bel): begins on 21st of March. March- 
 April. 
 
 2. Gud-si-di (‘ ox of right guidance’ (?)). 
 
 April-May. 
 
 Shigga (month of bricks). Sivanu, likewise 
 called Kusallu and Sitan. May-June. 
 
 4, Shu-gunna (sowing). Dw’ fizu (Tammuz), also 
 
 5 
 
 Tyaru. 
 
 co 
 
 Pit-habi (‘ opening of door’). June-July. 
 
 . Bil-bil-gar (fire month). Abu, also month 
 of the star or bow (or Sirius). July- 
 August. 
 
 6. Gur-Ninni (harvest of Istar). Ululu (Elul). 
 August-September. 
 
 7. Dul-azagga (see above). Tashritu (=begin- 
 ning). September—October. 
 
 8. Apin-dua (the lifting of the watering-can ?). 
 Arah-samna (the eighth month, Marches- 
 van). October-November. 
 
 9. Gan-gan-na-ud-du (month of clouds). Aisilivu. 
 November-—December. 
 
 . Ab-ba-ud-du (month of the sea). Tibttw, also 
 Tamtiru (vain). December—January. 
 
 . Ash-a-an (curse of rain). Shabatu, also 
 Isin-Ramman (festival of the storm-god). 
 January-February. 
 
 She-gur-kud (gyrain-harvest). Adaru, also 
 Arah-sibéti (month of the seven evil gods). 
 February—March. 
 
 The names of months in use amongst the Hebrews 
 
 after the Exile are well known to have been 
 
 derived from the Semitic names which are always 
 mentioned second in the foregoing list. As the 
 names Dul-azagga, which is used in connexion 
 with the New Year, and Tisri, which signifies 
 
 ‘beginning,’ show, the New Year Festival must, 
 
 at some early date, have been held in harvest 
 
 instead of in spring. This also explains why 
 the god of the seventh month is Samas (the sun, 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 217 
 
 Lg 
 
 who rules the year), and why the Babylonians, 
 even in later times, instead of a second Adar, 
 intercalated occasionally a second Elul (very 
 rarely a second Nisan) as the last month of 
 the year. In the time of Abraham the month 
 in Babylonia had 30 days, as is clear from tha 
 contract-tablets. The year thus consisting of 360 
 days, it was necessary every six years to inter- 
 calate a thirteenth month—generally a second 
 Adar. The Babylonians also recognised a lunar 
 year of 824 days, whose months each contained 
 27 days. From this they fixed the ratio of silver 
 (moon) to gold (sun) as 27 : 360 (lunar month : 
 solar year) =3 : 40=1: 131. A lunar month 
 had three weeks of 9 days or 60 wddu (the uddu 
 was reckoned as 6 x 6 x 6=216 minutes). The 
 Babylonians divided the day into twelve double- 
 hours, and the double-hour into 60 minutes, 
 their unit of time being thus equal to about two 
 minutes of our reckoning, corresponding to the 
 time taken by the sun to traverse a space in the 
 heavens equal to his apparent diameter. 
 
 In the contract-tablets of the later kings of Ur 
 (about B.C. 2800), some centuries therefore before 
 Abraham, we find a list of Sumerian names for 
 the months, only three of which correspond with 
 those mentioned above, viz. the 4th (Shu-gunna), the 
 5th (Festival of the Fire-god), and the 12th (She- 
 gur-kud). The first month in this old list is called 
 She-illa (‘when the grain grows tall’), the 7th 
 ‘Feast of Tammuz,’ the 8th ‘Feast of king 
 Dungi’ (who was worshipped as a god), and the 
 9th ‘Feast of Ba’u.’ Even at this date there is 
 already evidence of the intercalation of a second 
 Adar (dir she-gur-kud). 
 
 It is much to be regretted that no special 
 calendar of festivals has been discovered up to the 
 present. We only know that Bel was the patron 
 god of Nisan, Ea of Iyyar, Sin of Sivan, Nin-ib 
 of Tammuz, Nin-gis-zidda (Nebo, as Fire-god) of 
 Ab, Istar of Elul, Samas of Tisri, Merodach of 
 Arahsamna, Nergal of Kislev, and Ramman of 
 Shebat, and that probably the chief festival of the 
 gods mentioned was held in the months that 
 corresponded to them. It is most likely, however, 
 that not only different epochs, but also different 
 places of worship, had their own special festivals. 
 At Sippar, for instance, the City of the Sun in 
 N. Babylonia, Samas had special feast-days not 
 only on 7th Nisan and 7th Tisri, but also on 10th 
 Iyyar, 3rd Elul, 15th Marcheshvan, and 15th Adar. 
 In this connexion it may be noted that, judging 
 from the Heb. Feast of Purim (14th and 15th 
 Adar), there was probably in Babylonia a feast 
 observed in honour of Istar the sister of Samas. 
 
 The circumstance that each month had its 
 patron deity, has a partial connexion also with 
 the Division of the Zodiac, which originated in 
 Babylonia before B.c. 3000. At that early date 
 the principal constellations, and especially those 
 that are traversed by the sun, moon, and planets, 
 were already known by nearly the same names as 
 they bear to-day. They formed twelve ‘stations’ 
 (manzaztu, hence mazzartu and mazzaltu, from 
 which are borrowed Heb. ™ 4», mbtp [Job 8882, 2 K 
 23°] and Arab. manzal). From B.C. 2000 onwards 
 it can be demonstrated that the order of the 
 months was Nisan, Iyyar, etc. This reckoning 
 starts with the Ram (Aries) as the vernal point, 
 but there was an older order which began with the 
 Bull (Taurus, the symbol of the god Merodach). 
 The latter system, which finds the vernal poiut in 
 the Pleiades, carries us back at least to somewhere 
 about B.c. 4000. The Zodiac was also divided into 
 a region of Anu (Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo), a 
 region of Bel (Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius), 
 and a region of the earth-and-water god Ea (Capri- 
 cornus, Aquarius, Pisces, Aries). These last four 
 
BABYLONTA 
 
 constellations, lying between Sagittarius and the 
 Pleiades (7??, cf. Bab. kimtu, ‘family’), and form- 
 ing the path of Ea, are what are called in Job 9° 
 ‘the chambers of the south’ (722.270). Along this 
 path of Ea (Sumer. sil sigga, written with the signs 
 tar and pa), lay, according to Bab. notions, the 
 entrance to the under-world; hence the constella- 
 tion Sagittarius was called ka-sil ‘opening of the 
 path,’ and the corresponding month Kisilivu 
 (Kislev). But as the Babylonians were fond of 
 applying one and the same designation to stars in 
 opposite quarters of the heavens, Orion was also 
 named ka-sil (Heb. 72?) and the month Sivan, 
 which belonged to Gemini, was called Kusailu. It 
 is certainly no fortuitous circumstance that pre- 
 cisely at the point where the path of Ea begins 
 (between Sagittarius and Capricornus), another 
 path, the Milky Way, intersects the ecliptic, and 
 that the ecliptic is again crossed by the Milky 
 Way at the point where the path ends, exactly 
 between Gemini (month Sivan) and Orion (Bab, 
 shu-gi or shibu, also ka-sil, Heb. 2°D2), The Great 
 Bear was called by the Babylonians ‘ Wagon-star’ 
 (more precisely kakkab sumbi, ‘ star of the baggage- 
 wagon’), by the W. Semites ‘ Lion-star’ (Heb. YY, 
 cf. Syr. $>°2, Arab. ‘ay@th), for the Arab. na‘sh 
 (Bab. néshu) also meant originally ‘lion.’ The 
 underlying explanation is probably that the Lion 
 of the Zodiac (Bab. ‘dog-star’), on account of his 
 nearness to the sign of the Great Bear, was thought 
 of as harnessed to the latter as his wagon. Ata 
 
 later period the Babylonians designated the Dog 
 (our Leo) aré (‘lion’) ; inSumer. dig means ‘ dog,’ 
 and lig-magh ‘lion’ (literally ‘big dog’). 
 
 ‘The oldest reliable evidence for the Bab. origin 
 of the zodiacal signs is derived from the ancient 
 Bab. boundary-stones with their pictorial repre- 
 
 sentations. These date from the 12th cent. B.C., 
 and from them we obtain the following series :— 
 Ram, Bull, two dragons = Gemini, Hydra (south of 
 Cancer) with a spindle, Dog, Ear of corn with a 
 cow (the symbol of the virgin Istar), Balance 
 (Yoke), Scorpion, Scorpion-man with a bow 
 (Sagittarius), Goat-fish (a goat with the body and 
 tail of a fish) or Tortoise, Pitcher, and Water-hen 
 (Horse), to which the Raven, as symbol of the 
 intercalary month (originally a second Elul), is 
 added as a thirteenth sign (hence the raven is 
 viewed as a bird of evil omen). That the real 
 origin of this system goes back, however, to a far 
 remoter antiquity, is proved not only by the star- 
 names found in the so-called astrological work 
 (c. B.C. 2000), but by the circumstance that 
 throughout the latter the Pleiades (Taurus) 
 appear as the first of the zodiacal signs. The 
 exact astronomical proof was rendered possible by 
 the Planet-tables of the Arsacid period (2nd cent. 
 B.C.), and the laborious task was undertaken by 
 the Jesuit fathers Epping and Strassmaier. It 
 turned out,* moreover, that the Babylonians were 
 acquainted not only with the twelve signs of the 
 Zodiac, but (quite in accord with the testimony of 
 Diodorus, ii. 30) also with 24 (afterwards 27) 
 stations of the moon? and 36 stations of the 
 planets (the so-called decani). That is to say, they 
 divided the ecliptic as the path of the sun into 12, 
 as that of the moon into 27, and as that of the 
 planets into 36 parts, and distinguished each part 
 by certain stars. The same investigation makes 
 it probable that the 24 ‘hour-stars’ and the 36 
 ‘decani-stars’ of the ancient Egyptians were 
 borrowed in the remotest antiquity from Baby- 
 lonia. (We shall presently describe [p. 220 f.] how 
 the Babylonians wove the signs of the Zodiac into 
 * The proof of this will be found in Hommel’s art. ‘ Ursprung 
 u. Alter d. arab. Sternnamen’ in ZDMG, Bd. 45, pp. 592-619. 
 
 + The names of these passed in course of time from the Baby- 
 lonians to the Arabs, Persians, Hindus, and Chinese, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 the composition of both their great epic poems, the 
 one concerning the Creation, the other concerning, 
 Nimrod.) Of remaining stars we have yet to men- 
 tion Sirius, ‘bow-star’ (kakkab kashti) ; Procyon 
 (kakkab mishri, lit. ‘north star’ or ‘northern 
 weapon,’ in contradistinction to the ‘southern 
 weapon,’ viz. Sirius) ; ashkar or tk@ (Arab. ‘ayyuk) 
 = Capella; ‘king-star’ = Regulus in Leo; ‘jackal- 
 star’? = Antares in Scorpio; sig-bil-sagga = Myra 
 Ceti, south of Aries, the ‘fire-star’ (or star of 
 Nimrod or Gisdubar) ; etc. ete. In the whole list 
 there are only a few names which cannot now be 
 identified. 
 
 Babylonia was the home not only of Mathe- 
 matics (see below) and Astronomy, but of 
 Astrology. This is eloquently witnessed to by 
 the so-called astrological work mentioned above, 
 which bears the special title, nd Bel, ‘illumina- 
 tion of Bel.’ The seers (b@r%) and magicians 
 (mahkhu), who are so often mentioned along with 
 the priests, were, above all, ‘star-gazers’ and 
 ‘ prognosticators’; cf. Dn 2?, where already the 
 name Kasdim (Chaldeans) appears as synonymous 
 with magicians. ‘That the pdyo. of Mt 2! were 
 likewise Chaldieans, is plain from various passages 
 of the astrological work, where we read, ‘ Under 
 such and such a constellation a great king shall 
 arise in the land of Martu (Palestine), and peace 
 and joy shall prevail in the land.’ 
 
 If Bab. Medicine did not reach a level much 
 higher than that of magical formule,* the ac- 
 quaintance of the Babylonians with Mathematics 
 deserves all the fuller recognition. The subject 
 will be best elucidated by a brief survey of the 
 Bab. Metrology, from which admittedly all the 
 ancient metrological systems (that of ancient 
 Egypt included) were derived. The latter circum- 
 stance proves indirectly how remote is the anti- 
 quity to which the beginnings of the system 
 must be carried back. Metrology, moreover, lays 
 the foundation for the material civilisation of a 
 people, as religion does for their spiritual develop- 
 ment. For the Babylonians the connecting link 
 between the two was Astronomy. 
 
 First, as regards linear measure, we now know 
 from the scale of Gudea (¢. B.C. 2500), published in 
 de Sarzec’s Découvertes, that the half-cubit (+ great 
 cubit) was divided into 15 finger-breadths of 16:6 
 mm, each. The cubit thus contained 498 mm., and 
 the great cubit (ammatu rabitu) 996 mm. These 
 again were divided respectively into 30 and 60 
 finger-breadths. Both the small and the great cubit 
 were also divided into six equal parts, the former 
 containing 6 x 5, the latter 6 x 10 finger-breadths. 
 The latter system of division appears, for instance, 
 in the tablet of Senkereh (WAT iv.? 37), on the 
 reverse of which are given the squares and cubes 
 of the cubit from the number 1 up to 60, and on 
 the obverse the fractions and multiples of the 
 cubit. We learn that a ‘reed’ (gi or kant) was 
 6 great cubits; a gar (written with the sign sha) 
 12 great cubits; an wsh (stadium) 60 gar or 720 
 great cubits; a kasbu (parasang) 30 ush (c. 21 
 kilomet.) ; and a double-kasbu 60 ush. In all pro-— 
 bability there was also a small kasbu, answering 
 to the small cubit, and containing 10,800 cubits 
 (c. 102 kilomet.). 
 
 Besides its division into sixths, the cubit was 
 divided also into 10 (5) hand-breadths (each of 6 
 finger-breadths). Further, as we learn from the 
 
 * Important conclusions can be deduced, however, from the 
 Bab. literature, notably from the bilingual magical formule 
 and from the Epic of Nimrod, regarding the nature of certain 
 diseases, For instance, the ‘head-disease’ so frequently men- 
 tioned, which is accompanied with violent fever, is erysipelas ; 
 the symptoms of Gisdubar’s illness are those of dwes venerea ; 
 while the disease of Ea-bani appears to have been leprosy. 
 There is also frequent mention in the religious texts of fever 
 and plague. 
 
 
 
BABYLONIA 
 
 scale of Gudea, the finger-breadth (16-6 mm.) was 
 divided into 180 parts, of which, however, the only 
 ones in actual use were the 7; (495), fy (ids), + 
 (Pro) $ Gio) t Gi4vo)s $ Cs'o)s and 5 Gro . The 
 hand-breadth, whose minimum was taken at 99, and 
 maximum at 99°6 mm., served, moreover, as the side 
 of a cube which contained exactly a a (nearly a 
 litre), and which, when filled with water, weighed 
 a great mina (c. 990 grammes). In the same way, 
 as is well known, a cubical decimetre (i.e. a litre) 
 of water weighs a kilogramme. In this most 
 ingenious fashion did the Babylonians in that 
 remote antiquity derive not only their superficial 
 measures and their measures of capacity, but even 
 their weights from a common standard, the hand- 
 breadth. It is further to be noted that in the 
 latitude of Babylon (31° N. lat.) the length of the 
 seconds’ pendulum is 992:35 mm., which is almost 
 exactly equal to the length of the Bab. double- 
 cubit (990-996 mm.). 
 
 From their linear measure the Babylonians de- 
 rived also their reckoning of time. A distance of 
 300 double-cubits is covered by an average walker 
 in 4 minutes (¢}, of the whole day), a great kasbu 
 (21,600 cubits) in four hours or a night-watch. 
 Thus the kasbu was used to mark the periods of 
 the day; +, of a day (2 ho.) being a small, and 4 
 a great kasbu. The reckoning was controlled by 
 the observation that the sun requires exactly 
 2 minutes (5 of the double-hour) to traverse a 
 space equal to his apparent diameter. Thus dis- 
 covered, the system of reckoning by 60 (sussu, 
 originally sudsu, t.e. $ of 860) was adopted by the 
 Babylonians as the fundamental principle of their 
 whole metrological system. It was astronomy * 
 then, in conjunction with the linear measures 
 derived from the cubit and the hand-breadth, that 
 gave birth to the famed sexagesimal system, which 
 spread from Babylon over almost the whole world. 
 With this goes naturally the division of the circle 
 into 720 (360) degrees; and the observation that 
 the sixth part of the circumference of a circle is 
 equal to the radius, stands also in the closest 
 relation to the same system. Both the principles 
 referred to were known to the Babylonians from 
 the earliest times. 
 
 By squaring the various linear measures, we 
 obtain the corresponding superficial measure. As 
 early as the time of the kings of Ur we meet 
 with the ‘field’ (gan) = 1800 ‘ gardens’ (sar) ; and 
 the ‘garden’ (60 sq. cubits ?) =60 gin. t Then the gin 
 (1 sq. eubit ?) was divided into 180 she. Besides the 
 great gan of 1800 sar, there was originally a small 
 gan of 180 sar; hence the great gan bears the 
 name also of bur-gan (‘ten gardens’). The Baby- 
 lonians, moreover, gave designations to pieces of 
 land according to the amount of seed-corn required 
 to sow them. Thus, e.g., they would speak of a 5 
 gur cornfield. This introduces us to — 
 
 Measures of capacity. In Abraham’s time there 
 were already three systems simultaneously in 
 use: the gur of 360 4a, the gur of 3800 sa (4 
 less than the first, and standing to it in the 
 same relation as the gold mina of 50 shekels 
 to the silver mina of 60 shekels), and the gur 
 of 180 4a. The last-named system of reckon- 
 ing, ace. to which the 4a contained about 2 
 litres, was the only one in use in the New Bab. 
 period. Now, since the Heb. kor (75) contained 
 180 £ab (42), just as the Bab. gur contained 180 
 
 * Especially through the observation that in the course of the 
 apparent revolution of the celestial sphere, 7 of the ecliptic (7.e. 
 1 sign of the Zodiac) takes exactly two hours (34 of a sidereal 
 day) to pass before the eye of one watching the starry heavens 
 by night. 
 
 + It is possible, however, that the length of side of the sar was 
 60 great cubits, in which case its area would be 3600 sq. cubits, 
 while that of the gin would be 60 sq. cubits, and of the she 3 of 
 a sq. cubit. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 219 
 
 
 
 ka, it is clear that the Hebrews borrowed both 
 the names and the divisions from the Baby- 
 lonians. The Heb. has even preserved the original 
 and fuller form of the name Za, namely fab. 
 Besides the £a (see above for its origin) there 
 were also larger sub-divisions of the gur or kor, 
 such as the pi or ‘ass’s burden’ (imtru Heb. sn) = 
 3 gur; the a’ (Heb. Bath or Ephah) = 75 gur; the 
 bar (Heb. Se’ah) =); gur, ete. In addition to 
 this, the 4a (originally about a litre) was divided 
 into 60 parts, which, as in the case of the mina 
 and the sar, were called gin. Since among the 
 Hebrews the hin (7,7) was the 60th part of the kor, 
 as amongst the Babylonians the gin was the 60th 
 part of the 2a, »7 must also be a Bab. loan-word. 
 It found its way into Heb. through the medium 
 of Egypt, where the hin ‘was the fundamental 
 measure ; and the name ephah also comes from 
 Egypt.* Besides this division of the £a into 60 gin, 
 we meet with another into 10 gar (written sha). 
 
 Finally, in regard to weights, the talent (gun, 
 Semit. perhaps gaggaru) contained 60 mine (mana, 
 Semit. manw@) ; the mina 60 shekels (gin with the 
 sign ¢u, Semit. si4lu ‘weight,’ and, as the original 
 measure, Zuddu ‘cup’); the shekel 860 (180) she 
 (or grains of corn). But, as happened so often 
 in the Bab. metrology, there were several systems 
 of weight in use simultaneously: [1] The heavy 
 mina of about 990 gr. (the weight of the a filled 
 with water, see above). [2] The light mina, which 
 weighed } of the heavy, i.e. c. 495 gr. (491-492 er. 
 in the case of the weights still extant). [3] A 
 weight =%8 of the light mina (50 instead of 60 
 shekels) used specially for gold, the so-called 
 gold mina, usually = 409-410 gr. Even c. B.C. 2000, 
 however, there had come into use a gold mina of a 
 higher (so-called royal) standard = 4271 gr., as can 
 be proved from a weight recently found at Nippur. 
 [4] A weight about 4 more than the light mina, 
 the Bab. silver mina = 546 gr. Although the last- 
 named is a derived and secondary weight, it is 
 still very ancient, for its 60th part, the silver 
 shekel of 9-1 gr., answers exactly to the ancient 
 Kgyp. Zed, which is likewise =9-1 gr. The Bab. 
 ideogram for shekel has not only the pronuncia- 
 tion siflu Conv), but also Auddu (Arab. £adah ‘cup’), 
 and this Zuddw is naturally the prototype of the 
 Egyp. Zed, which weighs exactly the same. Ten 
 of these Zed made up the Egyp. pound (deben, not 
 uten) of 10 shekels (91 gr.), and in point of fact 
 there was also a Bab. weight of 10 shekels, whose 
 name was in Sumer. garash{ and in Semit. tibnu, 
 but which was also designated absolutely abnu 
 ‘stone’ (cf. 2 S$ 1425 9227 138, and Pr 1611 D»> 238, 
 Bab. aban kisi). Three of these made up a half- 
 mina, and six a mina. 
 
 In regard to Bab. Art (architecture, sculpture, 
 engraving, etc.), our former conceptions have been 
 fundamentally changed by the excavations at 
 Telloh and Niffer (in South and Central Baby- 
 lonia). From these we see that as early as B.C. 
 4000-38000 the bloom of art in Babylon was such as 
 was in some respects never attained in later days, 
 —a case quite analogous to that of Egypt in the 
 era of the Pyramids. Under the older kings of 
 Sirgulla the style of art is of course still some- 
 what awkward and crude, but under the older 
 Patesi it shows a high finish, e.g. in the carving of 
 the beautiful silver vases of En-timena (c. B.C, 3800); 
 and the cylinder-seals and reliefs of the old kings 
 of Agade (Akkad), c. B.C. 3500, are still more finely 
 executed. At Nippur, prior to B.0. 4000, architects 
 already used the arch of burned brick, which 
 formerly was supposed to have originated at a 
 
 * The Egyp. word ephah (‘épt) is, however, ‘itself originally 
 derived from the Bab. pitwu. 
 
 + This garash is the Perso-Indian karasha, which is also a 
 weight of 10 shekels. 
 
 
 
220 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 much later period. The Bab. temples, formed of 
 brick like Bab. buildings in general, were in 
 ‘stage’ form, and had either three or seven storeys, 
 the latter number in imitation of the seven planet- 
 spheres (see p. 216>). The oldest kings already refer, 
 in their inscriptions, to palaces, and on a statue 
 of Gudea (ec. 2900) we find even the plan of such 
 a building. The surface of each brick was stamped 
 with an inscription of six to ten lines, and formed 
 a square with a side of 330 mm. (i.e. + of a cubit = 
 1 Bab. foot). The science of hydraulics was also 
 highly developed (dams, canals, sluices, cisterns, 
 etc.). From the fragments of vases which still 
 exist (beautifully ornamented, and in some cases 
 with lengthy inscriptions), formed either of 
 alabaster or of clay, we see that pottery had made 
 great advances in the very earliest times. The 
 same is true of weaving. Long before the time of 
 Abraham, the magnificent Bab. carpets and 
 mantles were in high repute (cf. Jos. 724). Music 
 and poetry (on the latter see the remarks on Bab. 
 literature, below) were sedulously cultivated. As 
 early as the time of Gudea we find a twelve- 
 stringed harp portrayed. ‘To the forms of poetry 
 belonged, as we have now learned, a_highly- 
 complicated strophic system, as well as the regular 
 succession of a certain number of cadences, and 
 finally the so-called parallelismus membrorum. 
 The diorite statues of the Patesi of Sirgulla 
 may confidently be matched against the famous 
 statues of wood and diorite which belong to the 
 Egyp. art of the so-called ancient empire. Special 
 skill was displayed, however, by the Babylonians 
 at all periods, in engraving; and their cylinder- 
 seals, which date as far back as c. B.C, 4000, show a 
 fineness of execution which cannot but arouse our 
 admiration. Mythological scenes are the favourite 
 subject ; particularly common is the portrayal of 
 such as belong to the circle of legends which 
 formed itself around GiSdubar (Nimrod). The in- 
 scriptions appended give, as a rule, simply the 
 name and title of the owner of the seal and his 
 father; but as these are frequently kings, such 
 cylinder-seals not infrequently serve as important 
 sources for the tracing of history. Metallurgy, 
 finally, was also in an advanced stage in early 
 days. The relation of silver to gold was in point 
 of value 3: 40, or 1: 131, the same ratio as that of 
 the. ancient lunar month of 27 days to the 
 solar year of 360 days. From the first we find the 
 Babylonians acquainted also with the smelting of 
 iron. The latter was originally obtained from 
 meteoric stones, hence the Sumer. name an-bar, 
 ‘heavenly metal.’ They had also learned the 
 composition of bronze (Sumer. zabar, Semit. 
 siparru) from copper and tin. They were ac- 
 quainted even with the manufacture of glass. As 
 early as c. B.C. 1500 we meet with cobalt-coloured 
 glass as an artificial substitute for the costly lapis- 
 lazuli imported from Media. 
 
 The Literature of Babylon, as was to be ex- 
 pected from a people so highly civilised, was of the 
 most varied character and greatest extent. Un- 
 fortunately, in spite of the numerous discoveries 
 made by excavation (esp. the remains of actual 
 libraries, inscribed on clay tablets), only the ruins 
 of this literature have been preserved; but in this 
 form we have specimens of at least all the more 
 important branches. 
 
 First, as regards literature in the narrower 
 sense, the poetry of Babylon, even the so-called 
 secular epic, e.g. the Nimrod-epos, bore an essen- 
 tially religious character. To the poetical fragments 
 which have come down to us either in Sumerian 
 alone, or (as is generally the case) with a Semitic 
 interlinear translation as well, belong above all 
 the numerous magical formule (with the title 
 enna or shiptu, ‘incantation’), as well as a great 
 
 
 
 BABYLONTA 
 
 
 
 number of hymns to the gods, and penitential 
 psalms. While the first-named are composed in 
 relatively old and pure Sumerian and generally 
 written ideographically, the last two show an 
 admixture of numerous later forms of speech: 
 they contain Semit. loan-words and frequent in- 
 stances of phonetic writing (the so-called imi-sal 
 forms or ‘women’s speech’ in opposition to the 
 ‘priests’ speech’ of the earliest period). From all 
 this, the N. Babylonian and Semit. origin of the 
 penitential psalms, and of a large number of the 
 hymns to the gods, may be certainly inferred. 
 Moreover, the line of thought in the penitential 
 psalms, notwithstanding their being composed in 
 Sumerian, is far more Semitic than Sumerian. In 
 particular, there appear in them with tolerable 
 clearness purer religious conceptions, approaching 
 monotheism. While the magical formule cer- 
 
 tainly go back to a very remote antiquity, the 
 
 penitential psalms may possibly have taken their 
 rise somewhere between B.C. 3000 and 2000, 7.e. in 
 the last centuries before Abraham. In any case, 
 they are essentially more recent than the formule. 
 
 By far the greater half of the Bab. literature 
 was composed, however, only in the Semit. idiom 
 of the country. This is true of certain magical 
 formule (e.g. the so-called ‘burning series’ or 
 mala, i.e. burning of wax figures of evil spirits or 
 of witches) and many hymns to the gods. ‘To the 
 same class belong, above all, the epic poems of 
 which, fortunately, a whole series have come 
 down to us, more or less perfectly preserved. 
 These poems might with equal propriety be called 
 mythological texts, for the purely epic and narra- 
 tive element in them is constantly mingled and 
 combined with the mythological. The most im- 
 portant and (as is proved by the order adopted for 
 the zodiacal signs, the Ram, kusarikku, being last) 
 the oldest poem is — 
 
 (a) The Creation epos. ‘When heaven above 
 had not yet been named and earth below yet bore 
 no name — but the ocean (aps@, D>»), the primeval, 
 their progenitor, and chaos ( Tih@mat or mummu T.) 
 the bearer of them all, yet mingled their waters 
 together, when as yet no cornfield was cultivated, 
 and no reed seen— when as yet none of the gods 
 existed, no name they bore, destinies were not yet 
 assigned, then were born the gods [of mwmmw or 
 chaos]; Lukhmu and Lakhamu came forth [first], 
 zons grew up (=elapsed?) . . Anshar and 
 Kishar were born, long days passed by till at 
 length Anu, Bel, and Ea were produced ; [but the 
 son of Ea and Damkina was Marduk the creator 
 of the world].? So begins, in remarkable accord 
 with Gn 1!#, this poem, whose commencement 
 has also come down to us in Greek in Damascius’ 
 Quest. de primis principiis. The further course of 
 events described is briefly as follows: After the 
 above-named gods originated from chaos, a strife 
 arose between Tihamat (5.7.7), the female personifi- 
 cation of the primeval ocean, and the rest of the 
 gods. Anu claims the right to decide the dispute ; 
 Tihamat, however, declares war, and binds the 
 tablets of destiny (cf. the Urim and Thummim of 
 OT) to the breast of her consort Kingu. Anshar,* 
 after fruitless attempts, through the medium of 
 Anu, Ea, and Marduk, to conciliate Tihamat, 
 sends to inform Lukhmu and Lakh&amu that 
 Marduk is prepared to undertake the conflict with 
 Tihamat, The detailed account of this conflict 
 between the god of light, Marduk, and the dark 
 primeval ocean,t makes up the 4th canto of the epos, 
 which fortunately we possess complete. Marduk 
 
 * Originally identical with Anu, An-Sar being = heaven’s host, 
 but afterwards differentiated from him, and at a later period 
 assimilated to ASSur (Damascius ’Acowpés). 
 
 + In pictorial representations Tihimat appears as a dragon 
 
 (hence the serpent of the Bab. boundary-stones) with a lion’s 
 head, hence she is called also Jabbu, ‘ lion.’ 
 
 
 
BABYLONIA 
 
 conquers the dragon and his eleven helpers (cf. 
 Job 918), cleaves lihaémat, and out of the one half 
 fashions the firmament of heaven, in which he 
 assigns their places to the gods Anu, Bel, Ea, and 
 to the moon and the stars, while out of the other 
 half he fashions the earth. The eleven helpers were 
 placed in the sky as the zodiacal signs, Merodach 
 himself being the twelfth. The connected frag- 
 ments still extant make it plain that thereafter 
 followed a description of how plants and animals, 
 and finally man, were all formed by Bel-Merodach. 
 Beside this there was another Bab. myth, according 
 to which it was the god Ea who formed man of clay. 
 Moreover, in the epos, Bel the god of the air and 
 of storm, whom the Babylonians portrayed with 
 thunderbolts in his hand, is confounded with 
 Merodach, a circumstance which points to Babylon, 
 whose tutelary deity, Merodach, was called the 
 younger Bel. The original notion that the elder 
 Bel (Semit. Bélu ‘lord’ kar’ egox7v) was the 
 creator, finds its echo in Genesis (cf. the ‘spirit of 
 God’ of Gn 1? with the Sumerian name of Bel, 
 En-lilia, ‘lord of the air’ or ‘ the wind’). 
 
 (6) Vhe so-called Nimrod-epos (cf. Gn 10%), 
 The 12 cantos of this magnificent poem stand in 
 evident relation to the 12 signs of the Zodiac, of 
 which, however, it is no longer the Bull but the 
 Ram that comes first. The hero GiSdubar, also 
 called Nartidu (for Namriidu), Namrasit, and 
 Gibil-zamis, sprang from a city which afterwards 
 completely disappeared, Surippak (on the river 
 Surappu?). He becomes king of Erech, where he 
 rules as a tyrant, until the gods create Ka-bani, a 
 kind of Priapus, todestroy him. The two, however, 
 strike up a friendship after Gisdubar has overcome 
 a mighty lion. (This last scene is often depicted 
 on cylinder-seals and reliefs.) Together they next 
 deliver the city of Erech from the Elamite 
 Istar, the 
 
 oppressor Khumbaba (Combabos). 
 goddess of love, now offers to GiSdubar her hand, 
 which, however, is refused by the hero (Canto 6). 
 Out of revenge Istar sends a scorpion, whose sting 
 proves fatal to Ea-bani; Gisdubar himself she 
 
 smites with an incurable disease. In consequence 
 of this he sets out, in quest of relief, for the 
 dwelling-place of his great-grandfather Sit-napisti 
 (=rescue of life), the Bab. Noah (‘ Rest’ 7.e. of the 
 soul), far away on the ocean in the Isles of the 
 Blessed. With this aim he first traverses, amidst 
 great dangers, the land of Mashu (Central Arabia, 
 
 kW? or 8YD of the OT), and then crosses the 
 waters of death to Sit-napisti, who (Canto 11) gives 
 him a detailed account of his escape from the 
 Deluge (see below), heals him of his disease, and 
 presents him with the plant of life. The latter, 
 however, is snatched from him on his way home 
 by an earth-lion (i.e. a serpent). On his arrival at 
 Erech, he bewails, in the temple of the goddess 
 Ninsunna, the death of his friend Ea-bani, and 
 prays the god Nergal to restore the spirit of 
 Ea-baini to him. With the granting of this re- 
 quest, and a graphic description by Ea-bani of the 
 under-world, the epos closes. 
 
 (c) The Bab. Story of the Deluge. This is con- 
 tained in the 11th canto of the Nimrod-epos (see 
 previous section). When the great gods, with Bel 
 in his quality of storm-god (Bel-Ramman) at their 
 head, determined to send a flood,* Ea revealed to 
 Sit-napisti in a dream how he might save himself 
 by constructing aship. Ten gar (120 cubits) was to 
 be the height of its sides, and the same was to be 
 the width of its deck; it was to have six storeys, 
 each of which was to have seven divisions, while 
 
 * As a judgment on the sins of the inhabitants of Surippak. 
 This is clear from the close of the Deluge-story, e.g. lines 184-5 
 (or, ace. to another reckoning, 1. 170), where we read, ‘ Upon 
 the sinner let his sin lie, and upon the transgressor his trans- 
 gression, but let no flood come any more as a punishment upon 
 man’ (ef. the parallel in Gn 874), 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 the area was divided into 9 parts (3 on each side of 
 a square ?). Since the length is not specified, we 
 are probably to think of the Bab. ark as square- 
 shaped, thus forming a cube. On the 7th day the 
 vessel was ready ; then for 6 days on end the rain 
 fell in torrents, till on the 7th day again the 
 storm abated. After other 7 days, during the 
 whole of which the ark had been in sight of Mt. 
 Nisir (‘rescue’), Sit-napisti sent forth a dove. 
 ‘The dove flew hither and thither, but since it 
 found no resting-place, it returned. Then I sent 
 forth a swallow,’ so proceeds the story, ‘and let 
 it go; the swallow flew hither and thither, but 
 since there was no resting-place, it returned. 
 Then I sent forth a raven, and let it go; the raven 
 flew away, saw the abating of the waters, 
 approached wading and croaking, but returned 
 not.’ On the top of Mt. Nisir, S. of Lake Ur- 
 mia and E. of Assyria,* and thus between Media 
 and Armenia (Ararat), the ark stranded. The 
 gods smelt with pleasure the odour of the seven 
 vessels of incense offered by Sit-napisti; especially 
 gratified was Istar, the goddess of the bow; and 
 Ea besought Bel never more to send a flood upon 
 the earth. Bel suffered himself to be persuaded, t 
 took Sit-napisti and his wife by the hand, blessed 
 them (cf. Gn 91), and translated them to Paradise. 
 
 We have to note finally that here, as in the case 
 of the Creation-epos, both the OT writers, the 
 Jahwist (J) and the Elohist (P), have a surprising 
 number of points of contact with the details of the 
 Bab. text, from which it is evident that these 
 coincidences carry us back to a very early date. 
 
 (d) Istar’s descent to Hades. Istar determines 
 to descend to Hades to free the dead who dwell 
 there. As she passes through the seven gates of 
 the under-world, all her garments and ornaments 
 are taken from her, and Nin-ki-gal or Allatu (for 
 Aralatu), the goddess of Hades, orders her servant 
 Namtar the plague-demon, to smite Istar with 
 disease. Meanwhile in the upper - world all 
 procreation ceases, owing to the absence of the 
 goddess of love, until the gods send Uddusu- 
 namir (‘his brightness is fair,’ a transposition of 
 the name Namra-uddu or Nimrod) to Allat with 
 the request that she would allow Istar to return 
 to earth. 
 
 (e) The Namtar-legend. The gods are holding 
 a banquet, and send to their sister Nin-ki-gal (Al- 
 latu), who had been carried off by Nergal, a message 
 desiring that she would send for the portion of 
 food meant for her. Thereupon she sends her 
 herald Namtar to heaven. VNergal’s distrust is 
 awakened by this intercourse between his wife and 
 the heavenly powers, and he imagines that she is 
 planning flight. Accordingly, although he loves 
 her dearly, yet, tortured by jealousy, he resolves 
 to have her put to death. He stations the four- 
 teen watchers of the under-world as sentinels at 
 the gates, and orders Namtar to strike off the head 
 of Nin-ki-gal. The latter pleads with her husband 
 to spare her life, and she will submit to any con- 
 ditions, nay, will give to him the sovereignty over 
 the earth. Nergal weeps for joy, kisses his wife, 
 and wipes away her tears. Unfortunately, the 
 other parts of this legend, which has come down to 
 us in a copy written in Egypt amongst the Tel el- 
 Amarna correspondence, are of so fragmentary a 
 character that it is impossible to extract from them 
 a connected story. 
 
 (f) The Adapa-legend (also derived from Tel el- 
 Amarna). Merodach, the son of Ea, appears here 
 
 * The Assyr. king Assur-nazir-pal mentions this mountain in 
 connexion with an expedition to the land of Zamua., See 
 Assyria (p. 183b). 
 
 + It is worth noting that Bel, upon a similar occasion, 
 namely, after his conquest of Tihimat, gives up his bow to 
 Anu, who solemnly, in the presence of all the gods, hangs it up in 
 heayen (cf. the bow of Gn 918 which God sets ‘in the cloud’). 
 
 
 

 
 222 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 under the name of Adapa as the progenitor of man.* 
 Adapa, who had broken the wings of the south 
 wind, is cited before the god of heaven to justify 
 himself. His father, Ea, counsels him not to 
 accept of the food offered him there, as it will 
 cause death. Adapa follows this advice, but finds 
 that by his refusal he has forfeited immortality, 
 since it was really the ‘food of life’ which Anu 
 offered him. 
 
 (g) The Etana-legend. Etana (1>'8 1K 511?) 
 applies to the sun-god for something to mitigate 
 the pains of parturition for his wife. He is referred 
 to the Eagle, which can furnish him with the 
 requisite ‘birth-plant.? As Etana relates to the 
 Eagle how in a dream (?) he had seen the gate of 
 Anu and that of Istar, the Eagle offers to carry 
 him up to heaven. ‘The enterprise succeeds in the 
 first instance, and the two arrive at the gate of 
 Anu, but in flying to the gate of Istar the strength 
 of the Eagle gives way, he falls headlong, and 
 Etana atones for his presumption by his death. 
 He is transferred as a demi-god to the under-world. 
 Shortly afterwards the Eagle also loses his life 
 through the cunning of a serpent whose young he 
 had devoured. 
 
 (h) The legends of the god ZA (Sumer. Jm-dugud, 
 the ‘storm-bird god’). Acc. to one form of the 
 story, Ziti steals the tablets of destiny from Bel- 
 Merodach, and Rammfn and various other gods 
 decline, from fear, to take them back from him. 
 Acc. to another text, the god Lugal-banda (the 
 moon-god) sets out for the distant mountain of 
 Sabu (in Central Arabia) to overreach Zi by 
 cunning. In the heavens the god Zfi is represented 
 by the constellation Pegasus, and Taurus (Mero- 
 dach) is his son. 
 
 (i) The legend of the god Girra (Nergal as god 
 of war). A devastating inroad of the Sutzei (the 
 Semitic nomad tribes of Mesopotamia) directed 
 against Babel, Sippar, and Erech, is in dramatic 
 fashion connected with the conflict of Nergal and 
 his herald, the fire-god (or Nebo), with Merodach, 
 the tutelary god of Babylon. The mention of the 
 Assyrians and the Kassites plainly indicates that 
 this poem did not originate prior to the so-called 
 Kassite period. 
 
 Special mention is due also to the second tablet 
 (written entirely in Semit.) of the exorcism-series 
 shurpu, in which the priest in the form of a long 
 litany inquires what may have been the trans- 
 gressions that have brought the punishment of the 
 gods on the man who is possessed or sick. ‘ Has 
 he perchance set his parents or relations at variance, 
 sinned against God, despised father or mother, lied, 
 cheated, dishonoured his neighbour’s wife, shed his 
 neighbour’s blood?’ etc. The coincidences with 
 the Heb. Decalogue, and with the Egyp. Ptah- 
 hotep sentences, or the Trial of the Dead before 
 the 42 judges of the dead, are unmistakable. 
 
 That the Babylonians, as well as the ancient 
 Egyptians, possessed also historical narratives in 
 romance-form, is proved by the stories of Sargon 
 of Agade and Kudur-Dugmal. The former of 
 these has also come down to us in Greek from the 
 pen of Allian, only that the Gr. writer has con- 
 founded the name of Sargon with that of Gilgames. 
 Sargon is the illegitimate son of a princess, who 
 gives birth to him in secret and exposes him to 
 perish. The child, however, is brought up by a 
 gardener, and in the end comes to the throne. 
 The only new element lian introduces into the 
 story is that the boy was rescued by an eagle. 
 (This is prob. due to a mistaken combination with 
 the Etana-legend). ‘The legend (in metrical form) 
 
 * In Berosus’ list of the patriarchs, Adapa (Alaparos is a con- 
 fusion with Ilaprat, the name of the messenger of Anu) is the 
 son of Aloros (7.e. the goddess Aruru, the wife of Ea) and father 
 of Amelon (amé/u=man). 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of the invasion of Babylonia by the Elamite king 
 Kudur-Dugmal (a later form of Kudur-Lagamar) 
 furnishes at the same time the best proof of the 
 historicity of Gn 14. For the Heb. narrative is in 
 accord with the original inscriptions dating from 
 the time of Khammurabi (Amraphel), and not with 
 the later Bab. legend. Yet the latter is what we 
 should have expected if the Hebrews had first made 
 acquaintance with the matter of Gn 14 during the 
 Exile. The history knows of only the father of 
 Iriaku (Arioch) of Larsa, who was king of Iamutbal, 
 and resided at Dfir-ilu on the Elam.-Bab. frontier ; 
 the legend, on the other hand, makes of the city 
 Diir-ilu a son of Iviaku, viz. Dfir-makh-ili, of whom 
 neither the Bible nor the inscriptions contain any 
 notice. 
 
 Of great variety, although not belonging in the 
 stricter sense to literature, are the other com- 
 ponents of Bab. writing. ‘Tables of paradigms and 
 lexical-lists served to facilitate the learning and 
 practice of the Sumer. speech. But along with 
 these there were also lists containing only Semitic 
 words (the so-called synonym-lists) and forms (e.g. 
 the word-table, WAZ v. pl. 45). As an intro- 
 duction to the complicated writing, there were 
 syllabaries and collections of signs. Very numerous 
 also are the commentaries which the Babylonians 
 have left to us. These deal partly with the 
 poetical literature, especially with the rare words 
 that occur in it, and partly with the explana- 
 tion of legal and agricultural terms in the old 
 Bab. contract-tablets (the so-called ana-itti-su 
 series). In such instances whole laws are some- 
 times quoted verbatim, so that we thus get a 
 glimpse of the most ancient codes of the Baby- 
 lonians. "The contract-tablets themselves, which 
 have come down to us in great abundance from all 
 epochs of Bab. history, do not indeed belong to 
 literature, but deserve special mention here because 
 they supply us with the most interesting informa- 
 tion not only about business but about all the 
 possible details of private life. 
 
 A sort of counterpart to the lexical-lists is pre- 
 sented by the lists of names of places, countries, 
 temples, officials, and stars, as well as the numerous 
 lists of gods. We must mention also the numerous 
 omen-texts, medical prescriptions, astronomical 
 and mathematical tables, and finally some lists 
 connected with the history of literature (e.g. a list 
 of epic poems with the names of the authors or 
 collectors). The historical literature will be dealt 
 with below, when we come to speak of the sources 
 of Bab. history. How the most important of the 
 latter, namely, the inscriptions, were brought to 
 light, we learn from the intensely interesting 
 
 History of Excavations. As early as 1802 the 
 first considerable Bab. inscription, on the so-called 
 Caillou de Michaux, a boundary-stone of the 12th 
 cent. B.C., was brought to Europe, and soon after- 
 wards, through the efforts of the Kast India 
 Company, a whole collection of Bab. antiquities 
 (among them considerable inscriptions of Nebuch- 
 adrezzar) was brought from Bassorah to the 
 British Museum and the East India House. But 
 it was not till 1811 that Mr. C. J. Rich, the re- 
 discoverer of Nineveh, was able to explore more 
 thoroughly Hillah, the ruins of ancient Babylon. 
 In the fifties archeological research was resumed 
 in Babylonia by the Englishmen, W. K. Loftus, 
 J. E. Taylor, and A. H. Layard, who discovered 
 the ruined sites of Niffer (Nippur), Warka (Uruk or 
 Erech), Senkereh(Larsa), Mukayyar (Ur), and Abu 
 Shahrein (Eridu) ; and by the Frenchmen, Fresnel 
 and Oppert, who instituted further excavations at 
 Hillah (Babel and Borsippa). In these ruins just 
 named, in S. Babylonia, the inscriptions discovered 
 were all brief, but on account of their antiquity 
 they were proportionately important. These con- 
 
 a Ta a ey a oe 
 
 
 
 
 
 wh Se 
 
 
 
, 
 { 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 sisted for the most part of so-called brick stamps,* 
 although in Babel more considerable inscriptions 
 were found, dating especially from the period of 
 the New Bab. empire. Meanwhile Henry Rawlin- 
 son had deciphered the Bab. version (the so-called 
 third form) of the trilingual Achemenidean in- 
 scription of Persepolis. ‘The key was found in the 
 old Pers. version (the so-called first form), which 
 had already been interpreted by G. F. Grotefend 
 (1802), Rawlinson, and Burnouf, and which had 
 been proved, by the two last named in particular, 
 to be in an Indo-Germanic language. The work of 
 deciphering the third form (whereby also the 
 cuneiform inscriptions of the Ninevite monuments 
 became readable and intelligible) was continued 
 and perfected in the sixties by the talented 
 Hincks, the Englishman E. Norris, and the Parisian 
 scholar Julius Oppert. Later on, in the seventies, 
 the excavations in Babylonia, notably at Babel 
 and in the surrounding country, were continued, 
 especially by George Smith and Hormuzd Rassam. 
 In the course of his last expedition (1880-1881) 
 Rassam discovered the ruins of Sippar-Agade at 
 the modern Abu-Habba, along with the archives 
 of the ancient temple of the sun. Moreover, by 
 digging in Tell Ibrahim, 10 Eng. miles EK. of Babel, 
 he was able to prove once for all that this was the 
 site of the ancient Kutha, as Rawlinson had already 
 conjectured. 
 
 The work of bringing to light the oldest civilisa- 
 tion of Babylonia (Sumer. as well as Semit.), leaving 
 out of account the small beginnings of Loftus and 
 Taylor, has been due especially to the Frenchman de 
 Sarzec, and to the American University of Penn- 
 sylvania (Peters and others, and at a later period, 
 above all, J. H. Haynes and the scientific director 
 of the fund, Prof. H. V. Hilprecht). Through 
 their excavations at Telloh (1876-1881) and at 
 Niffer (1888-1896), the history and archeology of 
 Babylonia have been enriched as they had never been 
 before ; from c. B.C. 5000 we can trace continuously 
 the civilisation of Babylonia by aid of monuments 
 and inscriptions. Instead of the cuneiform proper, 
 the oldest inscriptions still use linear signs, in 
 which it is often quite possible to trace clearly the 
 figures that form the basis of the system. The 
 Americans also discovered at Niffer nearly 1000 
 contract-tablets of the so-called Kassite period, 
 whose dates now enable us to fix with certainty 
 the exact succession of the then reigning monarchs. 
 
 Of ‘finds’ outside Babylonia, we must men- 
 tion above all the clay tablets which were dis- 
 covered at Tel el-Amarna in Upper Egypt (see 
 ASSYRIA). Among these there are letters to the 
 Pharaohs not only from Bab. kings, but also from 
 a great many Phen. and Pal. governors. The 
 Bab. writing and language were then (c. 1400 B.C.) 
 employed for diplomatic communications over 
 almost the whole of W. Asia. The Elamites too 
 borrowed their mode of writing from the Baby- 
 lonians, as at a later period the Armenians did 
 from the Assyrians. Further, it is becoming ever 
 more probable that even the so-called Can. or 
 Pheen, form of writing, to which the 5. Arabian is 
 most nearly allied, was derived not from the 
 Egyptians, but from the Babylonians, and as early 
 indeed as c. B.C. 2000, It is a transformation into 
 cursive of a number of old Bab. signs, and may 
 have originated in EK. Arabia about the time of 
 the first N. Bab. dynasty, which was of Arabian 
 descent. 
 
 Sources for Bab. History. ‘These are, first 
 and foremost, the inscriptions discovered in course 
 of the excavations we have described; but the 
 
 * The only exceptions were Senkereh (Larsa) and the adjacent 
 Tel Sifr; for there Loftus found a great number of old Bab. 
 contract-tablets dating from the time of Khammurabi and 
 Triaku (or the epoch of Abraham). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 Assyr. libraries brought to light in the palaces of 
 Nineveh have also supplied us with a number of 
 copies not only of the Bab. religious writings, 
 but also of historical records. In the art. ASSYRIA 
 we have already spoken of the so-called ‘ synchron- 
 istic history’ and of the ‘ Bab. chronicle.’ During 
 the last two decades there have been recovered 
 also numerous remains of Bab. libraries, esp. from 
 the time of Nebuch. downwards, reaching as far 
 as the Seleucid period. To these we are indebted 
 not only for the many Bab. duplicates of the. 
 remains of Bab. literature hitherto known only 
 from the library of Assurbanipal, but also for not 
 a few passages that are entirely new. Even at 
 Tel el-Amarna, as was already remarked (p, 221»). 
 the fragments of two ancient Bab. legends about 
 the gods were found. 
 
 Apart from the innumerable contemporaneous 
 and original monuments of Bab. -kings, and the 
 contract-tablets so important for a knowledge of 
 chronology and of private life, not to speak of 
 other records of a more private character, we have 
 to mention as a historical source of the very first 
 rank the great Bab. List of Kings. This contains 
 the names of the kings of Babel from the Arab 
 dynasty down to the last native king Nabonidus 
 (Nabu-na’id), with note of the length of the reign 
 of each. We have already (p. 222*) referred to 
 some poetically embellished traditions. On the 
 omen-lists, as they are called, and on the great astro- 
 logical work, as important historical sources for the 
 old Bab. era, we shall speak afterwards, when we 
 come to deal with the history of Sargon and the so- 
 called younger kings of Ur. Amongst extra-Bab. 
 sources, the first rank must be assigned to the 
 OT writings (Gn, esp. chap. 14, the Bks of Kings, 
 the Prophets, esp. Jer, Ezk, Is 40-66, and finally 
 Ezr-Neh). Only a secondary place belongs to the 
 scanty notices of classical writers, whose import- 
 ance is specially due to the fact that they have 
 preserved for us some valuable citations from the 
 work (unhappily lost) of the Bab. priest Berosus. 
 For the new Bab. period, and esp. for the topo- 
 graphy of Babel, a valuable authority on many 
 points is Herodotus, who himself visited Babel 
 in the course of his travels. Also in Strabo’s 
 geography we find several interesting details 
 regarding Babylonia. On the other hand, the 
 information must be pronounced rather untrust- 
 worthy and inexact which the extant fragments of 
 Ctesias give us concerning Bab. History. We have 
 already (see ASSYRIA) said all that is most essential 
 about the value of the so-called Canon of Ptolemy 
 (2nd cent. A.D.) for Bab. chronology. In con- 
 junction with the so-called Bab. Chronicle, which 
 runs parallel to it, and the list of kings (which 
 unhappily is not free from gaps), whose starting- 
 point was first accurately fixed by aid of the Canon, 
 the latter forms the most important source for the 
 
 Chronology. Besides the Canon of Ptolemy 
 and the Assyr. and Egyp. synchronisms already 
 described in art. ASSYRIA, important chronological 
 data are supplied by the later historical inscrip- 
 tions, esp. those of Nabonidus, and by some 
 earlier monuments. In using these data, however, 
 it must always be borne in mind that in all pro- 
 bability, as early as the time of Assurbanipal, the 
 Bab. chronographers had already fallen into the 
 error of making the first two dynasties in the list 
 of kings successive instead of contemporaneous. 
 C@nsequently, a number of the following dates 
 must be reduced by 368 years, the duration of the 
 second dynasty. 
 
 a. A boundary-stone, dated the 4th year of king 
 Bel-nadin-apli (Hilprecht, Old Bab. Inscrip. i. pl. 
 30), informs us that from Gulkishar, king of 
 the sea-land (i.e. Gulkisar, the sixth king of 
 the second dynasty), to Nebuch. I., there were 
 
 
 
224 BABYLONIA 
 
 696 years. Now, since Bel-nadin-apli was the 
 immediate successor of Nebuch. I., the first four 
 years of his own reign must be added to the 
 above number, giving us the round number of 
 700 years between the death of Gulkisar and the 
 time when the boundary-stone was set up. As 
 the latter date is c. B.C. 1118, the death of Gul- 
 kisar would have to be dated B.C. 1818, or a few 
 decades later, for the round number 700 may, if 
 need be, stand also for 650 or 660. 
 
 b. Sennacherib relates that 418 years before the 
 destruction of Babylon (B.C. 689), Marduk-nadin- 
 akhi, the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser I. of 
 Assyria, carried away two images of gods from 
 the Assyr. city of Ikallati to Babylon. This im- 
 plies that in B.c. 1107, and during the reign of 
 Marduk-nadin-akhi, Babylonia had the upper 
 hand of Assyria. Now it so happens that a 
 boundary-stone, dated the 10th year of Marduk- 
 nadin-akhi, records a great victory gained that 
 year over Assyria, so that this 10th year will be 
 B.C. 1107, or, in other words, the first year of M.’s 
 reign must be dated B.C. 1117. 
 
 c. Assurbanipal, in connexion with the conquest 
 of Elam (c. 640 or later), mentions that the image 
 of a god brought back by him from Elam to Erech 
 had been carried away from the latter city 1635 
 years before, by Kudur-nankhundi. This invasion 
 of Babylonia by the Elamites must accordingly 
 have taken place c. B.C. 2275. It is quite possible, 
 however, that, for the reason stated above, this 
 last number ought to be reduced by 368 years, and 
 that the date should be B.C. 1907. 
 
 d. Nabonidus relates that he restored the temple 
 E-ulmash at Sippar-Anunit (i.e. Agade), which 
 had not been restored since the reign of Shaga- 
 raktiburiash 800 years before. This gives us as 
 the year of the death of the latter (which took 
 place 750-800 years before Nabonidus, who himself 
 reigned B.C. 555-539) a date somewhere between 
 B.C. 13800 and 1350, (See further below, under 
 Kurigalzu 11.) 
 
 e. In the same inscription (WAJ, v. pl. 64) 
 Nabonidus states that 8200 years before himself, 
 the old king Narém-Sin, son of Sargon (now known 
 to us from the inscriptions as Sargani-shar-ali, 
 king of Agade), founded the temple of Samas at 
 Sippar. This carries us to the high antiquity of 
 B.C. 3750 for the reign of Narém-Sin. This figure, 
 however, for the above reason, should certainly be 
 reduced to c. B.C. 3400. 
 
 f. Nabonidus further mentions, in an inscription 
 which found its way to the Brit. Museum in 1885, 
 that Burnaburias restored the temple of the sun 
 at Larsa 700 years after Khammurabi. Since 
 this undoubtedly refers to the more celebrated 
 monarch of that name, Burnaburias II. (¢. 1400- 
 1375),* we are enabled thus to fix the date of 
 Khammurabi’s reign at c. B.C. 2100. And, as a 
 matter of fact, we obtain c. 2139-2084 as the date 
 of his reign, if we follow the later custom of 
 adding together the years of dynasties A and B 
 as if they had been successive instead of con- 
 temporaneous, and if we assume (with Dr. Peiser, 
 Zeitsch. f. Assyr. vi. 264-271) as the probable 
 duration of dynasty C only 399 instead of the 
 traditional 576 years (6 sosses and 39 years, instead 
 of 9 sosses and 36 years). In reality, however, 
 Khammurabi, the contemporary of Abraham, must 
 have reigned B.C. 1772-1717 or 1949-1894. 
 
 History of Babylonia. As far back as we 
 can go, and thus in any case considerably earlier 
 than B.C, 4000, we find Sumerians and Semites side 
 by side in Babylonia. Yet we can see clearly 
 enough—(1) that the Semites in the earliest period 
 were settled for the most part in the N.W., and 
 that they penetrated into Babylonia from Meso- 
 
 * In any case, Burnaburias 1. reigned only 40 years earlier. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 potamia (Harran), while the Sumerians, at a very 
 early date, were confined to the extreme S.E. of 
 the Euphrates region; (2) that the Sumerians 
 were the founders of Bab. civilisation, and that in 
 the remotest antiquity they certainly at one time 
 occupied the whole of Babylonia. The Semites 
 not only employed at all times the Sumerian 
 writing, which they accommodated as they best 
 could to their purposes, but for a long time (at 
 least for official records, such as dedicatory inscrip- 
 tions) they used the Sumer. language as well. It 
 was not till shortly before Sargon of Agade (ce. 
 B.C. 3500) that in N. Babylonia inscriptions began 
 to be composed also in Semitic. 
 
 At the period to which the oldest hitherto dis- 
 covered inscriptions belong, the canal running 
 from N. to S. (the modern Shatt-el-Hai), and 
 uniting the Tigris with the Euphrates, formed the 
 boundary between two very ancient kingdoms— 
 the Sumer. kingdom of Sirgulla (Lagash) or Girsu, 
 lying to the E. of the above-named canal, and the 
 Semit. kingdom of Uruk (Erech) and Ur tothe W. 
 of the same canal. A part of the latter kingdom, 
 probably the region between Ur, Arabia, and the 
 Persian Gulf, on the right bank of the Euphrates, 
 was already known as Ki-Ingi, i.e. region of Ingi, 
 a name which soon came to be applied to the 
 whole kingdom of Erech, but more especially to 
 that part of it which lay in S. Babylonia, to the 
 W. of Sirgulla. The oldest form of this name 
 appears to have been Imgur or Imgir. From Ki- 
 Imgir arose in course of time, through dialectical 
 pronunciation, Shimir, Shumir (from the time of 
 Khammurabi onwards the name for §. Babylonia) ; 
 while the intermediate form Shingar has been 
 preserved in the Heb. 1y1~, Shinar, properly Shing- 
 har (Gn 10° 112). The oldest religious centre of 
 the kingdom of Sirgulla was Nun-ki or Uru-dugga 
 (Eridu, see above, p. 215»), while that of Erech and 
 of the Bab. Semites in general was Nippur, with 
 its sanctuary of Bel of ancient fame. Acc. to 
 Talmudic tradition, the biblical Calneh (Gn 10”, 
 cf. Is 109 LXX, rhv xdpav thy érdvw BaBvdAdvos ral 
 Xadravv7, ob 6 mipyos gkodoundn) was only another 
 name for Nippur, and, in point of fact, in an 
 enumeration of the most important cities of Nim- 
 rod’s kingdom (Babel, Erech, Accad, Calneh), 
 Nippur could scarcely be omitted. 
 
 A third kingdom which meets us even in the 
 oldest inscriptions (e.g. in those of king En-shag- 
 sag-anna [Bel-shar-shame ?]) as a rival of Erech, 
 is that of Kis (written Kis-ki). This name was 
 also borne at a later period by a city that lay 
 some three leagues N.E. of Babel. A close con- 
 nexion subsisted between this Kis, whose popula-~ 
 tion was also undoubtedly Semitic, and a city on 
 the Tigris called Sabban (written Ud-ban-ki, ‘ city 
 of the hordes of the bow’), probably the later 
 Opis. In the oldest dedicatory inscriptions found 
 at Nippur, we find mention not only of priest- 
 princes (Patesi, e.g. a certain Utuk), but also of 
 kings of Kis (e.g. En-bil-ugun and Ur-Dun-pa- 
 uddu or Amil-Nabu). 
 
 One of the most remarkable of the above-named 
 kings of Erech was Lugal-zag-gi-si (Semit. 
 perhaps Sharru-mali-imfikki-kini, ‘the king is full 
 of eternal strength’). He calls himself ‘king of 
 Erech, king of the world (kalamma),’ while to his 
 father Ukush he gives only the title ‘patesi of 
 Gishban’ (‘ bow-city,’ ¢.e. Harran in Mesopotamia). 
 Besides Erech, he possessed also Ur, Larsa, Nippur, 
 and Gishban (Harran) ; Sippar-Agade and Babel 
 appear as yet to have played no part in history, 
 while both in Kis and in Sirgulla their own kings 
 held sway. The date of these old kings of Erech 
 must be fixed at the latest at somewhere before 
 B.0. 4000. Judging from the type of writing, this 
 period included also a certain Lugal-ki-gub-ni-gul- 
 
 
 
 ey Te ee ee ae ee a 
 

 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 gul (Sem. perhaps Sharru-mushaklil-manzazi) and 
 his son Lugal-si-kisal, both of whom style them- 
 selves ‘king of Erech, king of Ur.’ The kings of 
 Sirgulla, En-ghigalla, and Uru-kaginna must also 
 be assigned to the same era. While the two last- 
 named very ancient monarchs have left us only a 
 few inscriptions, we have all the more monuments 
 of Ur-ghanna (acc. to others to be read Ur-Nina), 
 and of his grandson E-dingirrana-du.* ‘The latter 
 in particular, who by preference styles himself 
 ‘patesi,’ instead of ‘king,’ of Sirgulla, must have 
 been a great warrior. ‘The so-called ‘ Vulture- 
 Stele’ (now in Paris), the earliest monument of 
 old Bab. sculpture, and other recently-discovered 
 stones, give us both by word and by picture a 
 detailed account of his great victory over the cities 
 of Gishban (Harran), Kis, Sabban, and Az, and 
 the consequent deliverance of Erech, Ur, and 
 Larsa from the hands of the N. Bab. Semites. It 
 is an interesting circumstance that already at this 
 date there is mention also of a city A-idinna 
 (Semit. Nadu), in which we may recognise with 
 certainty the ‘Nod in front of Eden’ of Gn 416, 
 It is, perhaps, the same city which meets us some 
 centuries later under the name Agade (Akkad) or 
 Sippar-Anunit. To the nephew of E-dingirrana- 
 du, the patest En-timinna, we owe a silver vase, 
 remarkable for the fineness of its execution, with 
 the figures of animals portrayed upon it. As 
 dedicatory inscriptions of this patest have been 
 found also at Nippur, he must certainly, like his 
 uncle, have had possession also of N. Babylonia. 
 
 This hegemony of Sirgulla over Erech and Nippur 
 may have existed about and after B.c. 4000. 
 
 During the following centuries, however, we 
 find Nippur again in the hands of Semit. kings, 
 who arrogate to themselves the proud title lugal 
 kish, i.e. ‘king of the world.’ + To these monarchs 
 (Ma-ishtu-su and Alu-musharshid) we owe the 
 earliest known of Bab. inscriptions composed in 
 Semitic. They resided either at Kis or at Agade. 
 Shortly thereafter (c. B.C. 3500) we meet with the 
 first real kings of Agade (see above, p. 224%), Sar- 
 gani-shar-ali (later curtailed to Sargani) or Sargon, 
 and his son Naram-Sin the latter of whom, how- 
 ever, no longer styles himself ‘king of Agade,’ 
 but ‘king of the four quarters of the world’ (shar 
 kibrati arbai). An omen-tablet, dating from a 
 later period, tells us of great expeditions of Sargon, 
 reaching as far as the coast of the Mediter., which 
 is perfectly credible, for it was the Conquest of 
 Syria that led to the introduction of the title 
 ‘king of the four quarters of the world,’ which 
 was actually assumed by Sargon’s son. And the 
 evidence that Narém-Sin extended his sway far 
 beyond the limits of Babylonia is furnished by 
 the inscription, coupled with a portrait of him, 
 which was found at Diarbekr in N. Mesopotamia, 
 and by the alabaster vase which is entitled ‘a 
 piece of booty from the land of Magan,’ i.e. Arabia. 
 That at this period the Bab. sway extended over 
 N. Syria, Mesopotamia, Elam, and N. Arabia, 
 may be regarded as certain, and one of the most 
 recent ‘finds’ of de Sarzec has proved also that 
 amongst the vassals of Narém-Sin was a patesi of 
 Sirgulla, named Lugal-ushumgal. 
 
 Whether the rule of these kings of Agade en- 
 dured yet longer we know not. On the other 
 hand, the patesi of Sirgulla must have for many 
 centuries maintained their supremacy over S.E. 
 Babylonia. One of these, the famous Gudea, prob- 
 ably extended his sway over even the whole of 
 Babylonia. In his numerous and lengthy inscrip- 
 
 * Or E-dingarréna-ginna, The name =‘ bringing (going) into 
 the house of his god.’ 
 
 + The determinative of place being omitted. ‘King of Kis’ 
 would be dugal Kish-ki; but, at the same time, the title dugal 
 kish contains a play upon the name of the city Kis, 
 
 VOL, I.—I4 
 
 BABYLONIA 225 
 
 
 
 tions, all composed entirely in Sumerian, he boasts 
 of having brought the stones and timber for his 
 buildings from the most diverse regions and moun- 
 tains of the west country (Martu) and Arabia. 
 Moreover, he conquered Elam, especially the part 
 of it known as Anshan (‘asses’ land’). Special 
 interest is awakened by the mention of the cedar 
 mountain Amanu, the mountain Ibla (for Libla, 
 i.e. Lebanon ?), the mountain Tidanu of Martu 
 (Dedan in the E. Jordan district), and the name 
 Martu itself (for Amartu, z.e. land of the Amor- 
 ites). Of Arabian districts, we find named not 
 only Magan (originally Ma‘an ?) or E. Arabia, but 
 also Milukh (N.W. Arabia, probably including the 
 Sin. peninsula), Khakh (near Medina), and Ki- 
 mash (‘district of Mash,’ the modern Gebel Sham- 
 mar). Khakh yielded gold dust, Milukh gold 
 dust and precious stones, Magan and Ki-mash 
 copper. Notwithstanding all this, Gudea no- 
 where styles himself ‘king of the four quarters of 
 the world,’ whence it appears plain that he did not 
 actually possess these regions outside Babylonia, but 
 simply ensured by treaties the passage of his cara- 
 vans through them. Of his predecessors (Ur-Ba’u, 
 Nam-maghani, Ur-Ninsun, etc.) we know nothing 
 of this kind ; their sphere of activity was probably 
 restricted to Sirgulla. Gudea’s son, Ur-Ningirsu, 
 was still patest of Sirgulla, but shortly thereafter 
 a king of Ur named Ur-gur, who was probably of 
 Semit. origin, succeeded in subjugating the greater 
 part of Babylonia. In almost all the cities of 
 Babylonia (Ur, Erech, Larsa, Nippur) we encounter 
 temples built by him, and he was, at the same 
 time, the first to assume the title ‘king of Ki- 
 Ingi and Ki-bur-bur (Akkad),’ which, at a later 
 period, was rendered ‘king of Sumer and Akkad.’ 
 But it was his son Dungi who succeeded in de- 
 throning the last patesi of Sirgulla, one Idimm{4ni 
 (written Gullu-ka-ni). Dungi also built a temple 
 for Nin-Shu-anna (i.e. ‘lady of Babel,’ to be identi- 
 fied with Zarpanit the wife of Merodach), and for 
 Nergal (Shit-lam-ta-uddu-a) the temple of Shit- 
 lam at Kutha, as well as various temples at Sir- 
 gulla and Girsu (Telloh). To what period Ur-gur 
 and Dungi are to be assigned cannot unfortunately 
 be determined with certainty, since we do not 
 know whether the space of time that intervened 
 between them and the kings of Nisin was a long 
 orashort one. The very latest date we can assign 
 to Gudea is c. B.C. 2500, to Ur-gur and Dungi of 
 Ur c. 2400, and to the kings of Nisin c. 2300-2100 ; 
 but it is quite conceivable that Ur-gur and Dungi 
 reigned as early as c. 2700-2600, and Gudea c. 
 2800. It must further be mentioned that there 
 are Semit. as well as Sumer. inscriptions, in which 
 Dungi styles himself not ‘king of Ki-Ingi and 
 Akkad,’ but ‘king of the four quarters of the 
 world,’ a circumstance which points to the fact 
 that he must have held possession of part of Syria 
 and Elam, and thus, as a matter of course, of 
 Mesopotamia. 
 
 About the same period we have to place a 
 certain Mutabil, governor of Dfir-ilu, who calls 
 himself ‘breaker of the heads of the people of 
 Anshan (Elam), uprooter of Barakhsi.’ Since his 
 special god is Gudi (=Nabi?), and his capital 
 Diir-ilu, it is certain that the Elamite district of 
 Iamutbal, whose capital was also Dir-ilu, derived 
 its name from him (Elam. ia=land, and Mutbai 
 =Mautabil). The land of Barakhsi is already 
 mentioned, in conjunction with Elam, by Alu- 
 musarsid of Kis, as a conquered region ; the name 
 reminds one both of Barkhazia (a Median province 
 in time of Tiglath-pileser III.) and of the well~ 
 known Barsua (for Barakhsi may be read Bara’si). 
 
 Of the same date, in all probability, are the 
 bricks, found by M. Pognon, of the three patesi 
 of Ashnunna (or Umliash), viz. Ibalpil, Ur-Ningis- 
 
226 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 zidda (or Amil-Nusku), and Kullaku. It is differ- 
 ent with the inscription of king Anu-banini of 
 Lulub, found in the mountains of Batir (the 
 modern Ser-i-pul near Holvan), and esp. with that 
 of king Lasirab of Guti. The character of the 
 signs used justifies us in assigning these to a 
 much earlier date, about the time of Naram-Sin 
 of Agade, or shortly thereafter. 
 
 The kings of Nisin, of whom we now know a 
 whole series (Ishbi-Nergal, Amil-Nindar [Ur-Nin- 
 ib], Libit-Istar, Bur-Sin, Idin-Dagan, and Ishmi- 
 Dagan), were, as their names show, Semites. They 
 held Nippur (which is always named first in their 
 inscriptions), Ur, Eridu, Erech, and Nisin; and, 
 like the middle kings of Ur (Ur-gur and Dungi), 
 they style themselves ‘king of Ki-Ingi and Ki- 
 bur-bur (Sumer and Akkad).’ The site of Nisin 
 has not yet been accurately determined ; at a later 
 period it was pronounced Isin, and in the time of 
 the so-called Pashi-dynasty (12th cent. B.C.) was 
 the seat of a Bab. governor, on the same footing 
 as Babel itself, Khalvan, Namar, and Ushti. 
 
 The last of these monarchs, Ishmi-Dagan, was 
 followed by the so-called younger kings of Ur. 
 The first of these was one Gungunu, probably, as 
 his name suggests, a usurper. Besides him we 
 know of three successive kings, Ini-Sin, Bur-Sin 
 (written differently from the king of Nisin of the 
 same name), and Gimil-Sin. In addition to Ur, 
 they held in Babylonia certainly Nippur and 
 Eridu, and styled themselves not ‘king of Ki- 
 Ingi and Akkad,’ but uniformly ‘king of the four 
 quarters of the world.’ Numerous contracts of 
 sale, dating from this period, testify not only to 
 the flourishing condition of trade, cattle-breeding, 
 and agriculture, but also to the political import- 
 ance of the kingdom. These kings of Ur waged 
 successful wars against Zapshali (on the borders of 
 Cilicia and Syria), Elam (Anshan), Lulub (in N.E. 
 of Babylonia), Sabu, and Ki-mash (in N. Arabia), 
 and other territories. Several of these countries 
 became Babylonian vassal-kingdoms, whose princes 
 married Babylonian princesses. ‘This was the case, 
 e.g., with Zapshali, Anshan, and Markhasi. 
 
 Nevertheless, these kings of Ur do not appear to 
 have had possession of the whole of Babylonia ; for 
 the great astrological work, ‘ lumination of Bel,’ 
 which originated at this epoch, and which once 
 names even king Ini-Sin, makes it plain that be- 
 sides the kings of Ur there were kings of Kisharra 
 (Sumer. ki-sharra, synonym. with kish, ‘ world’) 
 and Akkad. These are mentioned even as rivals 
 of the Ur monarchs. We hear also of kings of 
 Imgi (cf. Ingi in the name Ki-Ingi). Since Imgi 
 became afterwards the ideogram for Kaldu, 
 ‘Chaldees,’ this will, at the time of the kings of 
 Ur, have been the designation of the extreme south 
 of Babylonia, the so-called ‘sea-land.’ The astro- 
 logical work mentions also foreign enemies, such 
 as Elam and Anshan, Guti, the Sutzan nomads, 
 Ishnunna, the island of Bahrein, Nituk or Dilmun, 
 the land of Khattu, and very frequently the land 
 of Martu. If this first mention of the Hittites is 
 highly interesting, still more worthy of our atten- 
 tion is the connexion in which Martu (the west 
 land) is introduced. This implies that at that 
 period Ur exercised supremacy over the whole of 
 Palestine (including the eastern Jordanic territory 
 and Ccoele-Syria). For, when the king of Ki- 
 sharra (N. Babylonia) in passing snatches the 
 sceptre of Ur, Martu at the same time falls into 
 his hands. The name Sab Manda (or Umman 
 Manda, a designation at a later period of the Scy- 
 thians and Medes) also occurs in the astrological 
 work, where it is applied to the Elamite mountain- 
 eers, who carried off the image of Bel (the god of 
 Nippur). 
 
 To the same period (c. B.C. 2100-1900 at the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 latest) ought to be assigned, in all probability, 
 certain kings of Erech, who have left us inscrip-~ 
 tions, viz. Sin-gashit (who, like Gisdubar, styles 
 himself son of the moon-goddess Nin-sun, and 
 whose possessions, besides Erech, included the 
 Elamite border-land of Amnanu) and Sin-gamil. 
 A vassal of the latter, named Ilfi-ma-ilu (properly 
 Ilfi-ma-Gisdubba, but generally called simply 
 llfi-ma), the son of Nab-shimia, was the founder 
 of the so-called 2nd dynasty in the Bab. list of 
 kings (B.C. 1948-1580). Within the last decades 
 of the younger kings of Ur falls also the attack 
 upon Erech by the Elamite monarch Kudur- 
 nankhundi (see above, p. 224*). 
 
 The younger kings of Ur were followed by the 
 kings of Larsa (c. B.C. 1900-1750 at the latest). 
 One of the first of these was Niv-Ramman, who 
 takes the title ‘shepherd of Ur, king of Larsa.’ 
 His son Sin-idinna first arrogated to himself the 
 additional title, ‘king of Ki-Ingi and Ki-bur-bur 
 (Sumer and Akkad),’ which implies that he must 
 have extended his sway from the region of Ur and 
 Larsa as far as N. Babylonia. His successors 
 bore the same title; we know two of them— 
 one whose name also began with Sin, and another 
 the Elamite king’s son Jra-Aku, who as king 
 of Larsa took the names also of Rim-Sin and 
 Arad-Sin. (All three forms of the name mean 
 ‘servant of the moon-god.’) 
 
 About the same time as Sin-idinna assumed the 
 title ‘king of Sumer and Akkad,’ an Arabian 
 dynasty established itself in Babylon, which now 
 for the first time becomes of political importance. 
 This is dynasty A of the Bab. list of kings. Acc. 
 to the most probable reckoning, it lasted from 1884- 
 1580 B.c.,* and its kings were the following : — 
 years 
 , 15 
 . 35 
 
 years 
 Samsu-ilfina 85 (son of former) 
 Abishu’a . 
 . 14(son of former)| Ammi-satana 25 
 
 8 
 
 Sumu-abi . 
 Sumu-la-ila 
 Zabiu . 
 Api-Sin . .1 » 
 Sin-muballit 80 i 
 Khammu-rabi 55 js 
 As we mentioned already, Iri-Aku, the contem- 
 porary of Khammurabi, was of Elamite origin. 
 His father Kudur-Mabuk was king of the border- 
 land of Iamutbal (see above, p. 2255). It was the 
 latter who, under the protection of the Elamite 
 king Kudur-Lagamar (see above, p. 222”), dethroned 
 the Semite kings of Larsa, and installed his son 
 Triaku in their place. In an inscription Kudur- 
 Mabuk even calls himself adda (i.e. in W. Semit. 
 malik, ‘king’) of Martu. This renders perfectly 
 intelligible the account given in Gn 14 of Kudur- 
 Lagamar’s (Chedorlaomer’s) attack upon the terri- 
 tory extending from Sodom to Elath. King Tud- 
 ghul (Tidal) of Guti (Goiim), and Khammu-rabi 
 (semiticised Kimtu-rapaltu, hence Amarpal, the 
 Amraphel of Gn 14!) of Babylon, were vassals of 
 the Elamites. As early as the reign of Sin- 
 muballit, Iriaku had captured the city of Nisin, as 
 we learn from dates in contract-tablets. An in- 
 scription of Iriaku’s further mentions the capture 
 of Erech. The later Bab. legend (see above, p. 
 222>) could even tell of a plundering of Babylon by 
 Kudur-Lagamar. The energetic Khammurabi (prob. 
 B.C. 1772-1717) succeeded, however, in shaking off 
 the Elamite yoke, and in driving not only Iriaku of 
 Larsa, but also his father Kudur-Mabuk, out of 
 Babylonia. In this way the supremacy over the 
 west land (Martu) came into Khammurabi’s hands, 
 as is perfectly established by recently discovered 
 inscriptions, in which not only Khammurabi, but 
 his third successor Ammi-satana, take the title 
 ‘king of Martu,’ in addition to such Bab. titles as 
 ‘king of Babel,’ or ‘king of Sumer and Akkad.’ 
 
 * It is certainly no fortuitous circumstance that in Egypt, 
 
 about the same period, an Arabian dynasty, the so-called Hyksos, 
 held rule. 
 
 Ammi-zaduga 22 
 Samsu-satana 31 
 
 
 
BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 From the time of Khammurabi onwards, the 
 city of Babel (Bab-ili, ‘gate of God,’ Sumer. Ka- 
 dingirra and Tin-tir, the latter=‘ seat of life’) con- 
 tinued to be the residence of the Bab. monarchs. 
 Although the above-named king was of Arabian 
 descent, yet the Babylonians, down to the latest 
 generations, considered him, on account of his ex- 
 pulsion of the Elamites and his canal works, to be 
 the real founder of the Bab. kingdom, which from 
 his time onwards was inseparably associated in 
 men’s minds with the metropolis Babel. The pros- 
 perity of the country under his rule and that of his 
 successors is witnessed to by a number of contract- 
 tablets. In one of the latter, dating from the 
 reign of Apil-Sin, we encounter Abi-ramu as a per- 
 sonal name, as the father indeed of one Sha-martu ; 
 showing that the biblical name Abraham was 
 current in Babylonia even two generations earlier 
 than Khammurabi. Nearly about the same date 
 falls also the founding of the Assyrian empire (see 
 ASSYRIA). This took its rise probably from Nisin, 
 for Resen of Gn 10!” is the same name as Nisin (cf. 
 Unuk with Uruk, Erech), and the royal name, 
 Ishmi-Dagan, meets us both at Nisin and at Assur, 
 and that too at the earliest period, c. B.c. 1800. 
 
 The Arabian dynasty (A in kings’ list) was in all 
 probability succeeded immediately by the so-called 
 Kassite dynasty (C of list, c. B.C. 1580-1180), which 
 derives its name from the ancient designation 
 Kash for Elam. This explanation is to be pre- 
 ferred to that which derives the epithet from 
 Koocaton, the wild mountaineers who were subdued 
 by Sennacherib, and who by him are certainly 
 called Kassfi. The founders of the Kassite dynasty 
 
 were natives rather of the extreme south of Baby- 
 lonia, bordering upon Elam, the region which was 
 called Kardunias, 7.e. land of the Kardu (dialecti- 
 cally Kasdu) or Kaldu. 
 
 In the time of the Kassite 
 dynasty this name was extended to designate the 
 whole of Babylonia. 
 
 The first king of this dynasty was Gaddash (in 
 kings’ list Gandish), who styles himself ‘king of 
 the four quarters of the world, king of Sumer and 
 Akkad, king of Babalam.’ We have no very 
 exact details till we come to the seventh king, 
 Agu-kak-rimi (also called simply Agu), the son of 
 Ur-Ziguruvash. He calls himself ‘king of the 
 Kassites and Akkadians, king of the wide land of 
 Babel, who causes numerous peoples to settle in the 
 land of Ashnunnak, king of Padan (Mesopotamia, 
 ef. the OT ‘ Paddan-aram’) and Alman (the district 
 E. of Mesopotamia and 8S. of Assyria), king of the 
 land of Guti, widely extended peoples, the king 
 who rules the four quarters of the world.’ He 
 records how he brought back from the land of 
 Khani (N. Syria) the images of Merodach and 
 Zarpanit, which had formerly been carried off. 
 Khani (also called Akhanu, Iakhanu, and Khiana) 
 is the region between Carchemish and *Azaz, hav- 
 ing Arpad for its capital. The proper home of the 
 Hittites was Khani-rabbat, the ‘great Kheta-land’ 
 of the Egyp. inscriptions, to the N. of the above 
 region, between Mar‘ash and Malatiyeh. As the 
 territorial name Khattu was probably originally 
 Khantu, an invasion of Babylonia by the Hittites 
 must have taken place shortly before the reign of 
 Agu-kak-rimi. Now the accession of the latter 
 must be dated c. B.C. 1500, and this mention of 
 predatory incursions of the Hittites into Babylonia 
 thus tallies pretty well with the first mention of 
 the Hittites in the Egyp. inscriptions under 
 Tahutmes III. (B.C. 1503-1449). 
 
 With the third or fourth successor of Agu-kak- 
 rimi begin the relations of Babylonia with the 
 aspiring empire of Assyria. (The details have 
 already been fully given in article ASSYRIA, hence 
 in what follows we shall notice only what has no 
 connexion with Assyr. history.) The first kings 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 about whom we again possess detailed information 
 are those who had diplomatic relations with the 
 Pharaohs Amenhotep Ill. and Iy., and whose 
 letters have been recovered through the famous 
 ‘find’ of clay tablets at Tel el-Amarna (see above, 
 p. 228). The circumstance that at that period 
 (shortly before and after B.c. 1400) Babylonian was 
 the language used for official communications all 
 over W. Asia, is now readily explained as the con- 
 sequence of the hegemony of Babylon over the 
 western land, which endured for centuries (from 
 the time of the younger kings of Ur till c. 
 B.C. 1600). 
 
 From the correspondence between Kallimma- 
 Sin of Kardunias and Nimmuria (Amenhotep III.) 
 of Egypt, we gather that the father of Kallimma- 
 Sin (probably Kurigalzu I.) had formerly given his 
 daughter in marriage to Amenhotep III., and that 
 a daughter of Kallimma-Sin’s is now to be sent to 
 the harem of Amenhotep. The same subject, that 
 of marriage and gifts, is discussed in the letters of 
 king Burnaburies II. (B.C. 1410-1380?) to Nap- 
 khuraria (Amenhotep IV.) the son of Nimmuria. 
 Burnaburias speaks of himself as the son of Kuri- 
 galzu, and of the latter as the contemporary and 
 friend of Amenhotep III.; presumably, therefore, 
 B. was a younger brother of Kallimma-Sin, who 
 must have died young. Of the Assyrians B. speaks 
 as his own subjects, but of the land of Kinahhu 
 (Canaan) as an Egyp. province through which his 
 ambassadors have to pass. It is also mentioned that 
 the friendly relations between Egypt and Babylonia 
 date from the time of the Bab. king Kara-indas, 
 i.e. the fourth or fifth predecessor of Burnaburias 
 II. Burnaburias Il. was probably succeeded by 
 Kudur-Bel (who reigned at least eight years) ; then 
 came Kara-khardas, the son-in-law of the Assyr. 
 king Assur-uballit, who reigned but a short time, 
 and was succeeded by his son Kadashman-kharbi I. 
 The latter conquered the Sutzan nomads, and 
 constructed fortresses for defence against them in 
 the land of Amurrfii (Ceele-Syria). On account of 
 his relationship, however, to the Assyr. king, he 
 was not regarded as a genuine Kassite, and was 
 assassinated. Shuzigas (or, acc. to another account, 
 Nazibugas) was placed upon the throne, but was 
 immediately deposed by the Assyrians, who in- 
 stalled in his place Assur-uballit’s grandson, Kuri- 
 galzu IT. (1364-1320 ?) who was still in his minor- 
 ity. It is impossible to say for certain whether the 
 previously mentioned (p. 224°) Shagaraktiburias, 
 the son of Kudur-Bel, was a rival king (perhaps 
 during the minority of Kurigalzu II.), or whether 
 he directly followed Kudur-Bel. The first, how- 
 ever, appears the more likely. In a recently-dis- 
 covered passage of the synchronistic history (RP. 
 new series, v. 108) there is reference to internal 
 complications during part of the reign of Kuri- 
 galzu II. The latter, the ‘king without an equal,’ 
 was a powerful monarch ; he conquered the city of 
 Shasha in Elam, i.e. the well-known Susa, and 
 assumed the title of ‘king of Sumer and Akkad, 
 king of the four quarters of the world.’ The name 
 of the Elamite king whom he conquered was 
 Khurba-tila. Kurigalzu Il. was succeeded by 
 Nazi-maruddas (1320-1295), Kadasman - turgu 
 (1294-1278), KadaSman-burias (1277-1276), an un- 
 named king (1275-1270), Shagarakti-surias (1269- 
 1257), Bibéias (1256-1249), Bel-Sum-idina (1248- 
 1247), Kadashman-kharbi II. (1247-1246), and Ram- 
 man-s§um-idina (1246-1240). See ASSYRIA. Under 
 the last three Babylonia had much to suffer from 
 the inroads of the Elamite king Kidin-khutrutas. 
 An upward movement, however, again took place 
 during the 30 years’ reign of Ramméan-Sum-uzur 
 (1239-1209) and the reigns of his son Meli-sipak 
 (1208-1194) and his grandson Marduk-pal-idina 
 (1193-1181). To the time of these three kings 
 
 
 
BABYLONIA 
 
 bo 
 bo 
 1e2) 
 
 
 
 belong the oldest known boundary-stones with the 
 zodiacal signs portrayed upon them.* (These are 
 fully described by T. G. Pinches, in his Guide to 
 the Nimroud Central Saloon, London, 1886, pp. 
 44-55. After the last of these Kassite kings 
 Zamama-sum-idina (B.0. 1180) and Bel-sum-idina 
 (1180-1177) there followed a Semitic reaction, 
 which connects itself with the 
 
 Dynasty of Pashi (1177-1043). Unfortunately, 
 the name of the founder of this new dynasty is un- 
 known. The fourth, in all probability, of its kings 
 was Nabi-kudurri-uzur (Nebuchadrezzar) J., the 
 son of Nindar-nadin-Sumi (written Nin-ib-sum-mu). 
 He waged war on the mountaineers of E. Babylonia 
 (including Elain), and also on the land of Martu. 
 Unfortunately, his inscriptions do not make it 
 perfectly clear with what part of Syria he engaged 
 in hostilities, but it appears to have been the 
 district of Antilibanus, for in an inscription which 
 ought probably to be ascribed to him there is 
 mention of a war against the peoples of the land 
 of Khattu and against Ammananu (cf. Lamanan 
 of the Egyp. inscriptions). From an elegiac poem 
 we learn that the statue of Bel had been captured 
 by the enemy, but was then recovered by Nebu- 
 chadrezzar. On this occasion the king consulted 
 the ancient oracles of the astrological work 
 ‘Tllumination of Bel,’ where in point of fact there 
 is mention of the return of the statue of Bel from 
 Elam to Nippur in the time of the younger kings of 
 Ur. From ali this it is quite plain that when 
 Nebuchadrezzar received the kingdom it was in a 
 dilapidated condition. 
 
 Nebuchadrezzar was succeeded by Bel-nadin- 
 apli. Vhen came Marduk-nadin-akhi (see above, p. 
 2248), who reigned B.C. 1117-c. 1100, Marduk-Saptk- 
 zirim, and Ramméan-pal-idina (see ASSYRIA). The 
 next to the Jast of the eleven Pashi kings was 
 Marduk- akhé-irba (B.C. 1064-1052). To his reign 
 belongs a boundary-stone, on which we read the 
 name of a Khabirite, Kudurra the son of Basish, 
 along with a certain Kassa and one Khirbi-Bel. 
 We know also of a Khabirite, Kharbi-shipak, from 
 another text which treats of campaigns of the 
 Assyrians and Babylonians in Phoenicia (WAT, 
 pl. 384, No. 2). This shows that the Ahabiri, who 
 play an important réle in the Tel el-Amarna corre- 
 spondence as enemies of Jerusalem, cannot possibly 
 be the Hebrews, but must have been Kassite 
 Babylonians. 
 
 The Pashi dynasty was followed by the kings of 
 the Sea-land, 7.e. the district in the extreme south 
 of Babylonia. The Kassite nationality of this 
 dynasty, which lasted from B.C. 1043-1022, is 
 evident from the names of its kings — Simmas- 
 shipak, Ea-mukin-ziri, and Kasst-nadin-akhi. 
 
 The next dynasty was that of Bazi, which in- 
 cluded three kings who reigned from 1021-1002, viz. 
 E-ulmash-shakin-shumi, Nindar-kudurri-uzur, and 
 Amil-Shukamuna. These were followed by a single 
 Elamite king, whose name has not been preserved 
 (1002-996). ‘This whole period, from the end of the 
 Pashi dynasty, was a stormy one. Shortly before, 
 the temple of Samas at Sippar had been destroyed 
 by the Sutzan nomads; then during the reign of 
 Kassfi-nadin-akhi there was a great famine—so 
 that the land had no rest. It was not until the 
 next, once more a Babylonian dynasty, that better 
 conditions were again inaugurated (B.C. 995-782). 
 The first king, Nabi-mukin-apli, to whose reign 
 an extant boundary-record must be assigned, 
 reigned 36 years (B.C. 995-960), and Nabé-pal- 
 idina, who is known from Assyrian history as 
 a contemporary of Assur-nazir-pal, also had a 
 reign of more than 30 years (c. B.C. 885-853). Be- 
 
 * Yor the proof that it is really the twelve-fold division of the 
 
 Zodiac that is represented here, see F, Hommel’s ‘ Astronomie 
 der alten Chaldier’ in Ausland, 1891-1892. 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONIA 
 
 
 
 tween these two reigns there is an unfortunate 
 gap, which as yet is represented by only a few 
 names. Only the last four kings of this dynasty 
 are included in the kings’ list. 
 
 To Nabt-pal-idina we owe the beautiful Cultus- 
 tablet of Sippar, which is adorned with a relief of 
 the sun-god. It was this king that restored the 
 temple of the sun which had lain in ruins since 
 the ravages of the Sutzeans, and re-established his 
 worship in Sippar. From the reign of his son 
 and successor Marduk-sum-idina down to the rise 
 of the New Babylonian empire under Nabo- 
 polassar, the history of Babylon, so far at least as 
 known to us, is connected in the closest fashion 
 with that of ASSYRIA (to which article the reader 
 is referred for details). During this period Baby- 
 lonia was in complete political dependence upon 
 Assyria. When independent movements show 
 themselves, they proceed almost invariably from 
 the Kaldi (Chaldeans) in 8. Babylonia, who were 
 the Semitic successors of the Kassites, and from 
 the nomadic Aramzan tribes between Elam and 
 Babylonia. The best type of these Kaldi princes 
 is Marduk-pal-idina IT., the Merodach-baladan of 
 OT, and contemporary of Sargon and Sennacherib 
 (see ASSYRIA). A votive inscription of his (in the 
 Berlin Museum) contains,a grandiloquent descrip- 
 tion of the prosperity of the land under his sway 
 as compared with the misery of the ‘rulerless 
 time’ that preceded his reign. 
 
 Of Chaldean origin were also the founders of 
 the New Babylonian empire, Nabopolassar and 
 his son Nebuchadrezzar II. 
 
 Nabi-pal-uzur (B.C. 625-605), wrested his inde- 
 pendence from Assyria, and caused himself to be 
 proclaimed king of Babylon. We have inscriptions 
 of his, in which he speaks of building temples at 
 Babel and Sippar, and of constructing a canal at 
 the latter city. Some Bab. cities, however, such 
 as Erech, still belonged to the Assyr. king Sin- 
 sar-iskun. With the view of conquering and 
 dethroning the latter, Nabopolassar allied himself 
 with the Manda king (Arbaces? See ASSYRIA), 
 i.e. with the leader of the Medo-Scythian hordes. 
 While Nabopol. advanced in person with his army 
 against. N. Mesopotamia, the Manda hordes burst 
 into Babylonia, where they plundered the cities 
 that still owned the Assyr. sway, and into Assyria 
 itself, where, c. B.c. 607, Nineveh fell into their 
 hands, and was utterly destroyed. In order to 
 help Nabopolassar, who was hard pressed by the 
 Assyrians, the Manda invaded also the territory 
 of Harran. It was upon this occasion that the 
 very ancient temple of the moon, which existed 
 there, was destroyed. Thus, by the aid of the 
 Medes, the Babylonians came once more into 
 possession of Mesopotamia, and so paved the 
 way towards Syria. There, in B.c. 605, at Car- 
 chemish, the crown-prince Nebuchadrezzar defeated 
 Necho of Egypt, and in consequence of his victory 
 was acknowledged as sovereign lord by the whole 
 country as far as the S. border of Palestine. 
 Amongst others, homage was done to him by 
 Judah in the person of its king Jehoiakim. The 
 news of his father’s death recalled Nebuchadrezzar 
 to Babylon. 
 
 Nabi-kudurri-uzur II. (the Nebuchadrezzar of 
 OT), during his long reign of 44 years (B.C. 604— 
 561), contrived to make Babylonia in the fullest 
 sense the heir of the shattered Assyr. empire. At 
 the same time, by his building activity, he con- 
 verted his capital Babylon into one of the most 
 magnificent and most beautiful cities of antiquity. 
 His chief attention was directed to the Bel-temple 
 Sag-illa at Babylon, and the Nebo-temple Zidda 
 at Borsippa, but he by no means neglected the 
 temples at Sippar, Kutha, Erech, Larsa, and Ur. 
 In addition he constructed in Babylon new streets, 
 
 
 
BABYLONIA 
 
 embankments, and palaces (cf. the Greek legend 
 of the ‘hanging gardens’ of Semiramis), and forti- 
 fied the city by double walls, so strong that it 
 might be deemed impregnable. 
 
 As the inscriptions of Nebuch. speak of almost 
 nothing but his buildings, we have to gain in- 
 formation about his numerous wars from various 
 extra-Babylonian sources, such as the OT and the 
 classical writers. We know the course of events 
 in Judah, where, at the instigation of the warlike 
 Pharaoh Hophra (Apries), Zedekiah, a Babylonian 
 vassal, renounced his allegiance, an act to which 
 Nebuch. replied by laying siege to Jerusalem 
 (2 K 251). The fall of Jerusalem in B.C. 587 led 
 to the exile of the Jews in Babylon (B.C. 586-537), 
 and made of Judah a Bab. province. A similar 
 fate befell the other states which, in reliance upon 
 Egypt, had withheld their tribute from Babylon, 
 viz. Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon. ‘lyre, 
 however, in spite of a 13 years’ siege, could not be 
 taken, but had to resume payment of the former 
 tribute. Hophra, after the defeat of his army by 
 Nebuch. (B.C. 587), ventured on no further attack, 
 and it was not till 568 that Nebuch. again took 
 the field against Egypt (where meanwhile Amasis 
 had dethroned Hophra), and occupied some parts 
 of the Delta. Of a war carried on by Nebuch. 
 against the Arabs of Kedar we know from Jer 
 4928-83, Jn the course of the war which the Median 
 king Cyaxares waged with Lydia, Nebuch. used 
 his influence, after the battle on the Halys, B.c. 
 685, to bring about peace between Lydia and 
 Media. By this politic step he prevented his 
 dangerous rival from becoming too strong. Within 
 the reign of Nebuch. also falls an event, which at 
 a later period under his successors proved to have 
 been charged with fateful issues from the New Bab. 
 empire, —the occupation of Elam by the newly- 
 arisen kings of Ansan in N. Elam. As late as 
 the beginning of Nebuch.’s reign Jeremiah knows 
 
 of reigning kings of Elam (Jer 2525), whereas in 
 585 Ezekiel already speaks of the Elamites as dead 
 
 and gone (Hzk 3274), We know that an Indo- 
 Germanic prince of Pers.-Achzemenidan origin, 
 named Teispis (Tsheispis), proclaimed himself king 
 of Ansan c. B.C. 600. He was the great-grand- 
 father of the famous Kuras (Cyrus), and he left 
 behind him two sons. The elder, Kuras by name 
 (grandfather of Cyrus), fell heir to the kingdom 
 of Ansan, which he probably enlarged by conquer- 
 ing the rest of Elam; the younger, Ariaramna, 
 founded for himself a kingdom in KE. Iran. He 
 was the great-grandfather of ‘Darius the Mede,’ 
 the future king of Persia. What share Nebuch. 
 had in this conquest of Elam we know not, but 
 some share in it is suggested by a recently-dis- 
 covered inscription, according to which Nebuch. 
 brought back an image of Istar from Susa to 
 Erech. 
 
 The son and successor of Nebuch. was Amil- 
 marduk (the Evil-merodach of OT), who reigned 
 from 661-560. It was he who released the unfor- 
 tunate Jehoiachin of Judah from his prison(2 K 2527). 
 Failing to establish himself on a right footing with 
 the priests, he was murdered by his own brother-in- 
 law, Nergal-shar-uzur (the Neri-glissar of classical 
 writers), who had the priests upon his side. 
 
 Neriglissar (B.C, 559-556) was married to a 
 daughter of Nebuch., and even during the reign of 
 the latter enjoyed the greatest consideration, as is 
 proved by various contract-tablets. Like his father, 
 Bel-sum-i8kun, he bore the title rub& imga (‘the 
 exalted sage’), a circumstance which proves at 
 the same time that Neriglissar is to be identified 
 with the Rab-mag (= rub& imga) Nergal-sharezer 
 of Jer 39°13, Nerigl.’s inscriptions tell us of his 
 building of temples and of the completion of his 
 palace in Babylon. The passage which runs, ‘the 
 
 
 
 
 
 BABYLONTA 229 
 
 
 
 rival and adversary I destroyed, the foes I exter- 
 minated, the insubordinate opposers I consumed,’ 
 refers not only to the murder of Amil-Marduk, but 
 also to foreign enemies, in whom we should probably 
 recognise the same Manda hordes whom Nabonidus 
 shortly afterwards drove back from Mesopotamia. 
 
 Neriglissar died in 556, leaving a son scarcely 
 come of age, Labashi-Marduk, who, according to 
 the judgment of the priests, was not fit to rule on 
 account of ‘bad character’; and was consequently 
 deposed the same year. A Babylonian, not a 
 Chaldee, was called to the throne in his room, 
 Nabu-nvid (‘the god Nebo is exalted’), the 
 Nabonidus of the classical writers, who reigned 
 from B.C. 555-5389. He was more a lover of anti- 
 quarian research than an energetic ruler. He 
 rebuilt a whole series of the oldest Bab. temples, 
 é.g. at Sippar, Larsa, and Ur, and at the same 
 time instituted elaborate inquiries into the history 
 of the building (cf. the dates that have been thus 
 recovered, above, p. 224*). On the other hand, with 
 the most painful shyness he avoided Babylon, even 
 when its situation was one of extreme peril; it 
 was his son Bel-shar-uzur, the Belshazzar of 
 Daniel, who, in the capital, carried on the work of 
 government, without, however, bearing the title 
 of king. Nabonidus’ first concern was to rebuild 
 the ancient temple of Sin in Harran. The Manda 
 king Istuvigu (7.e. the Median prince Astyages) 
 had, however, invaded Mesopotamia, and it was 
 only when he had been repelled through the assist- 
 ance of king Kuras of Ansan (i.e. the well-known 
 Cyrus king of Persia, B.C. 558-530) that Nabonidus 
 was able to prosecute his building design. This 
 repulse of the Manda took place c. B.c. 554 or 553. 
 Through his decisive victory over Astyages (B.C. 
 550), Cyrus became at the same time king of the 
 Median empire; consequently the Bab. Chronicle 
 now calls him ‘king of Parsu,’ instead of giving 
 him his official title, ‘king of Ansan.’ In the year 
 547 took place the successful campaign of Cyrus 
 against Croesus of Lydia, during which Nabonidus 
 and the king of Egypt had joined the league 
 formed against Cyrus. The latter was now 
 master of the whole of Asia Minor. The punish- 
 ment of Egypt was deferred till the time of Cyrus’ 
 successor Cambyses (B.C. 525), but that of Baby- 
 lonia came in 539, in which year (16th Tammuz, 
 i.e. about the beginning of July) Cyrus got posses- 
 sion of Babylon, through the treachery of its 
 priests, without drawing a sword. Three and a 
 half months later he made his triumphal entry 
 into the city, and eight days afterwards his 
 general Gubaru (Gobryas) caused the king’s son, 
 i.e. Belshazzar, to be put to death (cf. also Dn 5). 
 Nabonidus was spared, and banished to Karmania. 
 This was the end of the independence of Babylonia, 
 and the beginning of the great Persian world- 
 empire. Nevertheless, the kings of Persia did every- 
 thing possible to mitigate the lot of the Baby- 
 lonians: they allowed the native form of worship 
 to continue ; exalted Babylonian to the rank of one 
 of the three languages of the empire (Persian, 
 Elamite, Babylonian; see above, p. 223°); and 
 called themselves upon Bab. inscriptions ‘king of 
 Babel, king of the countries.’ Under the mild 
 rule of Cyrus, the day of return also drew nigh for 
 the Jews who had remained true to the old home. 
 Thus the end of the Bab. empire means at the 
 same time the beginning of the Jewish community, 
 whose real commencement coincides with the re- 
 building of the temple predicted in Is 4478, When 
 in the latter passage Cyrus (Koresh) is called by 
 J!’ ‘my shepherd,’ there is here an allusion to the 
 Elamite etymology of the name Kuras (‘ shepherd’), 
 According to Strabo, the Aryan name of Cyrus 
 was Agradates. 
 
 The later history of Babylon is bound up with 
 
 
 
BABYLONIA 
 
 that of Persia, and afterwards of Alexander the 
 Great and his successors, the Seleucid and Arsacid 
 kings. The names of all these rulers occur in 
 connexion with the dating of Bab. contract-tablets 
 and in other inscriptions. There is extant, for 
 instance, a cylinder-inscription of Antiochus Soter 
 from Birs Nimroud, in which also the queen 
 Stratonike (Astartanikku) is commended to the 
 protection of the Bab. gods. Not only so, but the 
 Bab. literature, even bilingual (Sumer.-Semit. ) 
 hymns not excepted, was still copied out and 
 cherished as late as the Parthian era. The agri- 
 cultural impoverishment of the country under the 
 Parthians led, however, to the gradual dying out 
 of the tradition of the priests which had been so 
 long preserved. The knowledge of the ancient 
 writing and speech was utterly lost until in our 
 own century it was recovered through the acute- 
 ness and enthusiasm of European scholars, and is 
 now in ever-increasing measure shedding light upon 
 the history of the most ancient civilisation, but 
 above all upon biblical history. 
 
 LITERATURE. — (Those works are not included which deal 
 with Assyria as well as Babylonia, as they have been already 
 enumerated in Literature at end of AssyRIA). 
 
 (A) ExoavaTions AND INSoriIPTIoNs.—C, J. Rich, Vurrative 
 of a Journey to the Site of Bab. in 1811, London, 1839; J. EB. 
 Taylor, Notes on the Ruins of Mugeyer, London, 1855 (JRAS), 
 Noteson Abu Shahrein and Tel el Lahm, London, 1855(JRAS); 
 W.XK. Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susi- 
 ana, with an Account of Excavations at Warka, the Erech of 
 Nimrod, London, 1857; J. Oppert, Hapéd. en Mésopot., Paris, 
 1863 ; H. Rassam, Recent Discoveries of Anc. Bab. Cities, Lon- 
 don, 1884 (7/SB.A); E. deSarzec, Décowvertes en Chaldée, Paris, 
 1884 ff.; H. V. Hilprecht, The Bab. Hapedition of the Univ. of 
 Pennsylwania, Series A, Cuneif. Texts, vol. i. 2 parts, Philad. 
 1898, 1896; Frd. Delitzsch, Assyr. Lesestiicke®, Leipzig, 1885; 
 H. Winckler, Der Thontufelfund von El-Amarna, 1889-1890 
 (the tablets of the museums of Berlin and Cairo) ; C. Bezold and 
 E. A. Wallis Budge, The Tel el-Amarna Tablets in the Brit. 
 Mus., London, 1892; ©. Bezold, Catal. of Cun. Tablets in 
 Kouyunjik Collection of Brit. Mus., 4 vols. London, 1889-1896 ; 
 P. Haupt, Das Bab. Nimrodepos, Leipzig, 1884, 1891; T. G. 
 Pinches, Tewts in the Bab. Wedge- Writing, London, 1882; J.N. 
 Strassmaier, Bab. Texte (New-Bab. contract-tablets), Leipzig, 
 1887 ff.; George Reisner, Swner.-Bab. Hymnen nach Thonta- 
 feln griech. Zeit. (of the Berlin Mus,), Berlin, 1896. 
 
 (B) Sumerian LANGUAGE (for the Semit.-Bab. see AssyRrA).— 
 A. H. Sayce, On an Accadian Seal, London, 1871 (Journ. of 
 Philology); Accadian Phonology, Trans. of Philol.Soc., London, 
 1877; Fr. Lenormant, La langue primitive dela Chaldée et les 
 idiomes Touraniens, Paris, 1815, Htwdes Accadiennes, 8 vols. 
 Paris, 1878-1879; F,. Hommel, Die swmero-akkad. Sprache, 
 Leipzig, 1884 (Zeitsch, f. Keilschriftf.), The Swmner. Language 
 and its Affinities, London, 1886 (JRAS), Sumer. Lesestiicke, 
 Miinchen, 1894, Der bab. Ursprung d. egypt. Kultur, Miinchen, 
 1892; P. Haupt, Akkad. w. swner, Keilschrifiterte, Leipzig, 
 1881-1882, Die akkad. Sprache, Berlin, 1883; R. E. Briinnow, 
 A Classified Listof Cun. Ideographs, Leyden, 1889; A. Amiaud 
 et L. Méchinaux, Tableau compare desécritures Bab. et Assyr., 
 Paris, 1887; C. F, Lehmann, Die Evistenz d. sumer. Sprache 
 (against Halévy’s Recherches critiques sur Vorigine de la 
 civilisation Bab., Paris, 1876, and other pamphlets of the same 
 author), Leipzig, 1892 (ch. 4 on Samas-sum-ukin making up more 
 than a third of the whole book). 
 
 (C) TRANSLATIONS, COMMENTARIES, ETC.—E. Schrader, Keé- 
 linschrifil. Bibliot. vol. iii. (Bab. historical inscriptions), Ber- 
 lin, 1890-1892, vol. iv. (juridical texts by F. Peiser), Berlin, 1896, 
 vol. y. (the Tel el-Amarna letters by H. Winckler), Berlin, 1896 ; 
 C. Bezold, Die Achaemenid. Inschr., Leipzig, 1882 ; H. Zimmern, 
 Bab. Busspsalmen, Leipzig, 1885; C. F. Lehmann, Samas-swm- 
 ukin, Konig von Bab., Leipzig, 1892 (see also above, under 
 (B)); B. Meissner, Betirdge 2. altbab. Privatrecht (contract- 
 tablets of the time of Khammurabi), Leipzig, 1893; H. Zimmern, 
 Beitrdge z. Kenntniss d. bab. Religion (1, die Beschwirungs- 
 tafeln * Surpw’), Leipzig, 1896; K. L. Tallqvist, Die assyr. 
 Beschworunysserie ‘Maki,’ Velsingfors 1891, 1894 (Acta Soc. 
 Fennice); L. W. King, Bab. Magic and Sorcery, being the 
 prayers of the lifting of the hand, London, 1896; P. Haupt, 
 Die swner. Familiengesetze, Leipzig, 1879; H. Pognon, Jn- 
 scrip. Bab. dw Wadi Brissa, Paris, 1887; Fried. Delitzsch, 
 Bab. Weltschépf.-epos, Leipzig, 1896. 
 
 (D) Crv1Lisation, ASTRONOMY, RELIGION, ETO.—F. Hommel, 
 Die semit. Volker wu. Sprachen, vol.i., Die Vorsemit. Kulturen 
 en Aigyp. u. Bab., Leipzig, 1888, Die Astronomie d. alten 
 Chaldder, Stuttgart (in the weekly journal ‘Ausland’), 1891, 
 1892; P. Jensen, Kosmologie d. Bab., Strassburg, 1890; A. H. 
 Sayce, Hibbert Lectures (Religion of the ancient Babylonians), 
 London, 1887, HOM, ist ed. 1893, 5th ed. 1885; Ed. Stucken, As- 
 tralmythend. Hebr,, Bab.,u. digyp., Leipzig, 1896; A. Jeremias, 
 Bab.-Assyr. Vorstell. v. Leben n. d. Tode, Leipzig, 1887; Fr. 
 Lenormant, La magie chez les Chaldéens, Paris, 1874 (Eng. tr.. 
 London, 1877), Ladivination et la science des présages chez les 
 
 BACCHIDES 
 
 Chaldéens, Paris, 1875; C. P. Tiele, Gesch. d. Relig. im Alter- 
 tum, i., Gesch. d. egyp. u. d. bab.-assyr. Relig., Gotha, 1895 ; 
 Fr. Lenormant, Les origines de Vhistoire, 2 vols. Paris, 1880, 
 1882; H. Gunkel, Schonfung u. Chuos, Gottingen, 1895; De 
 Clereq et J. Ménant, Catalogwe method. et raisonné de la col- 
 lection de Clereg, vol. i. (seal-eylinders) Paris, 1885 ff.; C. F. 
 Lehmann, Das altbab. Mass- uv. Geawichtssystem, Leiden, 1893. 
 
 (#) Hisrory.—G. Smith, Hist. of Babylonia, ed. by A. H, 
 Sayce, London, 1877; G. Maspero, 7'/e Daron of Civilization?, 
 ed. by A. H. Sayce, London, 1896; The Struggle of the 
 Nations, ed. by A. H. Sayce, London, 1896; J. F. McCurdy, 
 History, Prophecy, and the Monwments, vol. i. New York 
 and London, 1894, vol. ii. New York and London, 1896. 
 
 F. HOMMEL. 
 
 BABYLONISH GARMENT (T2Y ODS, Wry ror- 
 «ttn, RV Bab. mantle).—The Heb. means, liter- 
 ally, ‘mantle of Shinar’ (Jos 72!), the name by 
 which Bab. was known to the ancient Hebrews. 
 Naturally, it is not an easy matter to decide, even 
 approximately, what kind of garment this can 
 have been. Jos (Ant. V. i. 10) gives rein to 
 his imagination, and describes it as ‘a royal 
 garment woven entirely of gold,’ or ‘all woven 
 with gold.’ There is no doubt that a dress of this 
 description would be ‘goodly’ in the extreme. 
 The probability is that it was a garment of em- 
 broidered stuff, such as Babylon was famed for 
 (ef. Pliny, viii. 74, and Martial, Hp. viii. 28); and 
 the statement in the Bereshith Rabba (§ 85, fol. 75. 
 2), that it was a robe of purple (an opinion which 
 k. Chanina bar R. Isaac also shared ; ef. Kimchi on 
 Jos 721), is just as likely to be correct as any other. 
 There were probably many centres of the weaving 
 industry in ancient Babylon, that of Sippar being 
 most likely the chief. Many tablets referring to 
 woven stuffs have been found on the site of that 
 city, and testify to the extent of the industry ; and 
 long lists of dress material and garments bear 
 testimony to the diversity of the work and the 
 patterns used. The common expression lubulti 
 birme is generally taken to mean stuffs woven in 
 patterns of various designs, like embroidery, the 
 weaver of such cloth being called ispar (or usbar) 
 birmi. T. G. PINCHES, 
 
 BACA, THE VALLEY OF (8337 ?2%.).—A valley 
 through which pilgrims pass to Zion (Ps 84° AV; 
 RV has ‘ weeping,’ m. ‘balsam-trees’). Ancient 
 versions, including LXX and Vulg., render valley 
 of weeping, possibly from confusion between ‘23 
 (‘weeping’) and 8)3, whose plural (2 S 574, 1 Ch 
 1414-15) designates a tree, variously identified with 
 the mulberry (AV and RV), the pear tree (LXX 
 1 Ch 14), the balsam (Gesenius), and the poplar 
 or aspen (Tristram, Nat. Hist.). 
 
 If an actual valley (the article is not quite con- 
 clusive; see Ec 316, where two undoubtedly ideal 
 places have the article), it may be identified either 
 with ‘the valley of Achor, i.e. trouble’ (Jos 724: 76 
 etc.) ; ‘the valley of Rephaim’ (2 S 518-22, Is 17°) ; 
 a Sinaitic valley with a similar name (Burckhardt); 
 or the last station of the caravan route from the 
 north to Jerusalem (Renan, Vie de Jésus, ¢. iv.). 
 
 Perseverance and trust not only overcome diffi- 
 culties, but turn them into blessings; this is the 
 lesson, whether the valley be real or only (as the 
 Vulg. vallis lacrymarum has become) an emblem 
 of life. A. S. AGLEN, 
 
 BACCHIDES (Baxyiéns) is first mentioned as a 
 friend of Antiochus Epiphanes (Jos. Ant. XII. x. 
 2). Under Demetrius Soter he held the gover- 
 norship of Mesopotamia, and was sent to establish 
 Alcimus in the high priesthood (see ALCIMUS). 
 Upon the death of Judas he drove Jonathan across 
 the Jordan, garrisoned a number of positions in 
 Judea, and, having thus pacified the country, 
 returned to Demetrius (B.C. 160), or more probably 
 was recalled by direction of the Romans. Two 
 years later he was sent back in response to an 
 
 
 

 
 BACCHURUS 
 
 
 
 appeal froin the Syrian faction, who imagined that 
 Jonathan in his fancied security might be taken 
 unawares. Jonathan, however, threw himself into 
 the fortress of Bethbasi, not far from Jericho. ‘To 
 this B. laid siege; but, when his own peril in- 
 creased through the success of the sallies against 
 him and the rising of the country in his rear, he 
 accepted Jonathan’s proposal for a treaty of peace. 
 Jonathan was invested (B.C. 158) with the governor- 
 ship of Judea, and B. covenanted to withdraw the 
 Syrian forces (but not completely, see 1 Mac 101%), 
 and he himself finally left the country (1 Mac 7° 
 91-72, Jos. Ant. XII. x.-XIII. i.). k. W. Moss. 
 
 BACCHURUS (Bdkyovpos), 1 Es 974.—One of the 
 ‘holy singers’ (lepoyaAra), who put away his 
 ‘strange’ wife. There is no corresponding name 
 in the list of Ezr 10%, where there are three porters 
 and one singer to answer to two porters and two 
 singers of 1 Es. The name here may be a cor- 
 ruption of Uri ("x) in Ezra. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BACCHUS.—See Dionysus. 
 
 BACENOR (Baxjywp, 2 Mac 12%), a Jewish 
 officer, apparently a captain of horse, in the army 
 of Judas Maccabeus which went to attack 
 Gorgias, the commandant of Idumea (or Jamnia, 
 1 Mac 5, Jos. Ant. XII. vili. 6). 
 
 BACKBITE.—To bite behind the back. Ps 158 
 only, ‘He that be» not with his tongue’ (bn, RV 
 *slandereth’). Backbiter, Ro 1° only (xardAaXos) ; 
 ef. (in Rushw. Hist. Coll. 1659, i. 492) ‘ Diogenes 
 being asked what beast bit sorest, answered, Of 
 wilde beasts, the Back-biter; of tame, the Flatterer.’ 
 Backbiting is found as an adj. Pr 25% ‘The north 
 wind bringeth forth rain: so doth a b. tongue an 
 angry countenance’ (172 jw ‘a tongue of secrecy’), 
 Sir 28-15. and as a subst., Wis 11, 2 Co 12” 
 (kxaradaXla, tr? in 1 P 2} ‘evil speakings’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BACKSIDE is used in AV as tr. of three words: 
 —1. 10x ’ahar, Ex 3! ‘he led the flock to the b. of 
 the desert’; RV ‘back’; but the Heb. is a prep. 
 here, ‘ behind the desert’ (cf. 115 ‘ the maidservant 
 that is behind the mill’), that is, to the pasture- 
 lands on the other side of the desert from the 
 Midianite encampments. 2. “inxs ’dhdr, Ex 26% 
 ‘the b. of the tabernacle,’ RV ‘ back’; the Heb. 
 isa subst. in the plu., ‘hinder parts,’ as in 33% 
 ‘thou shalt see my back parts,’ 1 K 7% (=2 Ch 44) 
 ‘hinder parts,’ Ezk 8! ‘backs.’ 3. dmiGev, Rev 5} 
 ‘a book written within and on the b.’; RV ‘ back’: 
 but the back of a book is not the same as the re- 
 verse side of a roll. St. Jolin was struck, not only 
 with the fact that the roll was sealed, but also 
 with the amount of writing it contained. Like 
 Ezekiel’s (2!) ‘roll of a book . . . written within 
 and without,’ it had writing on both sides, which 
 was as unusual with an ancient roll as with modern 
 printer’s reanuscript. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BADGER, BADGERS’ SKINS (ea tahash, nhy 
 ovnn ‘Groth téhdshim). —LXX. tr. téhdshim b 
 baxlv@iva and tdvOuva, and Vulg. by ianthine, whic 
 signifies sky-blwe. Some ancient VSS translate 
 the word black. There is, however, no etymo- 
 logical reason for this. 
 
 The badger, Meles taxus, L., is found in moderate 
 numbers throughout Syria and Pal., and possibly 
 in the Sin. desert. But it is not found in sufficient 
 numbers to make it probable that it could furnish 
 material enough for the upper covering of the 
 tabernacle (Ex 25° 264 357-* ete.). Such skins 
 would be too light for the purpose, still more so for 
 sandals (Ezk 16!°. In this passage the Heb. has 
 
 tahdsh alone, without ‘6réth. The AV has added 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BAG 
 
 ‘skins’ without italics. The RV has ‘sealskins’[m. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 porpoise-skins’] in all the passages). There is, 
 moreover, no philological warrant in Heb. or cog- 
 nate languages for the translation of the A V badgers’ 
 skins. The Arab, for badger is ghureir, andk-el- 
 ard, and fanjal. None of these names has any 
 connexion with échdshim. The Arab. word tuhas 
 signifies the dolphin. The Arabs of the Sin. desert 
 use the skin of the Halicore Hemprichii, Ehr., a 
 cetacean found in the Red Sea, for making sandals, 
 This is called tim, and the flesh of it is eaten. It 
 is quite likely that the skin of the dolphin would 
 be similarly used. It is no objection to the use of 
 this hide for making ladies’ sandals that it was 
 coarse. . Its firm texture would fit it for the use 
 intended, and the currier’s art would adorn it suit- 
 ably for the high-born wearers. Such durable and 
 waterproof skins as those of the dolphin and 
 halicore would be eminently appropriate for cover- 
 ings of the tabernacle. Another species of the 
 same genus, Halicore Tabernacult, Russ., is also 
 met with in the Red Sea, and could have furnished 
 its quota of skins. 
 
 It is clear that the ‘éréth téhdshim, whatever 
 their colour, were procurable in Sinai in quantities 
 sufficient for making coverings to the tabernacle, 
 and were at the same time suitable for sandals, 
 It is unlikely that seal skins (so the RV) were 
 found in suflicient quantities, if indeed the word 
 téhadshim means that animal. It may be, how- 
 ever, that it covers not only the dolphin, but the 
 halicore, porpoise, seal, and other marine animals 
 having a general resemblance to the dolphin 
 type. In any case we may safely reject the badger. 
 (See Davidson on Ezk 16” and Dillm. on Ex 255.) 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 BZSAN (vlot Ba:dv).—The name of a tribe other- 
 wise unknown, which on account of its hostility to 
 the Jews was utterly destroyed by Judas Mac- 
 cabeeus (1 Mac 54), 
 
 BAG.—41. nip, ory5a +52; mhpa; bag for food, shep- 
 herd’s wallet, or scrip for a journey, made of a kid’s 
 skin with a strap fastened to each end so as to hang 
 from the shoulder, and holding one or two days 
 allowance of bread, raisins, olives, cheese, ete. ; 
 one of the emblems of the pastoral and pilgrim 
 life; parent of the hunting-bag and portfolios of 
 higher oftice. Into it David put the pebbles when 
 going to meet Goliath (1S 17”). The command to 
 dispense with it (Mt 10, Mk 68, Lk 98) meant for 
 the disciples complete trust in those visited, in 
 their message, and in their Master. 
 
 2. 02 (Arab. kis), bag for merchant’s weights, 
 made of stout cotton, leather, 01 in the form of a 
 flexible rush-basket. This bag is still a necessity 
 with the Syrian peasant or trader when selling 
 from house to house his olive-oil, figs, grape-syrup, 
 cheese, etc. The special warning against false 
 weights (Dt 2543, Pr 205) was due to the fact that 
 pebbles and odd pieces of metal were doubtless, 
 then as now, used thus as weights, putting the 
 purchaser at the mercy of the seller. Hence the 
 Arab. proverb, ‘The hand of an bonourable man is 
 a balance.’ 
 
 3. B. for money, purse. 
 have— 
 
 (a) 0'p kts, Pr 14, Is 46°, where the use of the 
 commonest word for bag seems suggestive of waste. 
 
 (6) on harit (Arab. haritat), 2 K 5%, into which 
 Naaman’s gift was put. The occurrence of the 
 same word in Is 3” (AV ‘crisping pins,’ RV 
 ‘satchels’) would suggest that some kind of 
 ornamentally-woven pouch or satchel was used. 
 
 (ec) wy zgérér (Arab. surrat), something tied, 
 either round about like a parcel, or at the neck 
 like a pouch. The purse of the mod. Syrian 
 peasant is a little bag, sometimes of woven silk 
 
 In this connexion we 
 
 
 
232 BAGGAGE 
 
 
 
 thread, but usually of yellow cotton. The open 
 mouth is not drawn close by a string, but is 
 gathered up by one hand, and then by the other 
 the neck of the bag is carefully whipped round. 
 
 
 
 Baé, PURSE, shy, 
 
 The ceremony of tying and untying is still a 
 quaintly arresting feature in its use. It was such 
 a purse that was found in the sacks of Joseph’s 
 brothers, Gn 42%, Job compares the irrevocable 
 vast to the purse with a seal on its string, Job 14)”. 
 
 nblessed prosperity is money in a bag with 
 holes, Hag 18 Similar to this zérér or tied-bag 
 was the BadAdvruov in Lk 1288 22%, and in Jn 12° the 
 y\woodkouov, a term derived from the pouch for the 
 mouth-piece of a musical instrument. 
 
 (d) In the NT this bag or purse is also expressed 
 by ¢dvy (Mt 34 109, Ac 21", Rev 18 158). A modern 
 illustration of this is found in the waist-belt of 
 
 
 
 BAG, GIRDLE-PURSE, Savm, 
 
 the Syrian peasant, which is double for a foot and 
 a half from the buckle, thus making a safe and 
 well-guarded purse. G. M. MackIg. 
 
 BAGGAGE.—In AV Jth 7%, 2 Mac 12” ‘the 
 women and children and the other b.’ (dwocxevy). 
 RV gives b. for ‘carriage’ at 1 S 1722, and for 
 ‘carriages’ at Is 10%, Ac 215; and Amer. RV 
 gives b. for ‘stuff’ at 1 S 25° 30%. See CARRIAGE 
 and STUFF. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BAGO (A Bayé, B Baval), 1 Es 8“.—The head of 
 a family who returned with Ezra from Babylon, 
 called BAGoI, 1 Es 5'*; Biaval, Ezr 214, 
 
 BAGOAS (Baydéas).—A eunuch in the service of 
 Holofernes (Jth 121 13-15 1331414), The same name 
 appears in Persian history as that of the eunuch 
 who poisoned Artaxerxes Ochus, and according to 
 Pliny (HN XIII. iv. 9) it is the Persian equivalent 
 of the Gr. evvodxos. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BALAAM 
 
 
 
 BAGOI (A Bavyol, B Bocal), 1 Es 5'4.—2066 of his 
 descendants returned from captivity with Zerub. 
 Called BIGVAI (33), Ezr 214 (2056 desc.), Neh 7% 
 (2067); Bao, 1 Es 8”. 
 
 BAGPIPE.—See Music. 
 
 BAHURIM (o0%n3).—The place where Michal is 
 parted from her husband Phaltiel, as she is being 
 taken back to David at Hebron (2 § 3%%). The 
 village also where Shimei lived ; he came out thence 
 to curse David when fleeing from Jerus. towards 
 Jordan (2 8 165). In this village Jonathan and 
 Ahimaaz took refuge when carrying news to 
 David from Jerus.; they concealed themselves in 
 the well of a house, and so managed to elude the 
 servants of Absalom, who had been sent to capture 
 them (2 8 178). According to the account of 
 David’s flight from Jerus. (ch. 15 ff.), it seems that 
 he did not take the southern and more usual road 
 to Jericho, which passes through Bethany, but 
 adopted the shorter and more difficult route, which 
 runs in a N.E. direction over the Mt. of Olives. 
 The Targ. preserves a tradition which identifies B. 
 with Almon (Jos 218), the modern Almit, about 4 
 miles N.E. of Jerus. and 1 mile beyond Anathoth 
 (Anfta), near the S. boundary of Benjamin. This 
 view, which is accepted by most moderns, agrees 
 with the local details supplied by the narrative of 
 David’s flight. After leaving the summit of the 
 Mt. of Olives (15®° 16!), David made his way down 
 the E. slopes of the range towards Jordan. A ‘rib’ 
 or ridge of hill apparently ran parallel to this N. 
 route, from which it was separated by a 
 ravine or gully (16° ‘let me go over now’), 
 so that Shimei, running along the top of 
 the hill, could cast stones and dirt at the 
 king with impunity. Barhumite (28 23% 
 *om3) is eleanle a mistake for Baharumite 
 =a native of Bahurim, which is more 
 correctly given by the Chronicler (1 Ch 
 11% »p:1730 5 point ‘e772 the Bahurimmite). 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 BAITERUS (Boa:rypods, AV Meterus), 1 
 Es 5!7.—The sons of B. returned with 
 Zerub., to the number of 3005. It probably 
 represents a Heb. place-name beginning 
 with Beth- : but there is no corresponding 
 name in the lists of Ezr 2 and Neh 7. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BAKBAKKAR (7p373).—A Levite (1 Ch 
 915), See GENEALOGY. 
 
 BAKBUK (p:2p2).—The ancestor of cer- 
 tain Nethinim who returned with Zerub. 
 (Ezr 251, Neh 75). Called AcuB (1 Es 5%). 
 
 BAKBUKIAH (7:p2p73).—1. A Levite who ‘ dwelt 
 at Jerusalem’ (Neh 11!"). 2. One of the porters 
 who ‘ kept the ward at the storehouses of the gates’ 
 (Neh 12%). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 BAKEMEATS.—Gn 40” only, ‘all manner of 
 b. for Pharaoh’ (Heb. lit. ‘all kinds of food of 
 Pharaoh’s bakers’ work’). Dr. Murray (Oxf. Eng. 
 Dict.) gives the meaning of b. as simply ‘ pastry, 
 a pie.’ It is any kind of meat baked or cooked: 
 cf. Chaucer, Prologue to Cant. Tales, 345— 
 
 *Withoute bake mete was never his hous 
 Of fleissch and fissch.’ 
 And Shakespeare, Hamlet, I. ii. 180— 
 ‘The funeral baked meats 
 Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables.’ 
 J. HASTINGS, 
 BAKING.—See BREAD, 
 
 BALAAM (oy>s).—Nu 22-24. 31818, Dt 234 (Neh 
 132), Jos 13 24°10, Mic 6°, 2 P 215, Jude v., Rev 24, 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 BALAAM 
 
 The subject of a very remarkable story in con- 
 nexion with the wanderings of the Israelites in the 
 wilderness. The present narrative has arisen from 
 the combination of several more or less ancient 
 traditions. According to the latest, embodied in 
 the Priestly Code (P), and contained in Nu 318 16 
 (comp. Rev 2'4); Balaam was a Midianitish coun- 
 sellor, who persuaded his people to seduce the 
 Israelites by means of certain immoral rites. This 
 is probably to be connected with the great sin of 
 poe peor (Nu 25), or, to be more accurate, with 
 the affair of Cozbi (25%-), which has been combined 
 with the story of Baal-peor (251°), the former being 
 connected with the Midianites, the latter with the 
 Moabites. In revenge for this, Balaam was after- 
 wards slain with the princes of Midian (Nu 318, Jos 
 13°). It has been conjectured that this story arose 
 partly out of a sear on the part of the priestly 
 narrator in conceiving of a heathen being an inspired 
 rophet of God, partly from the need of accounting 
 or the great sin of the Israelites. It is, however, 
 very doubtful whether this story belongs to the 
 earliest form of P, and it is by Kuenen assigned 
 to the very latest redactor. It is significant that 
 Rev 2 definitely connects the immorality with 
 sacrificial rites to heathen gods,—a fact implied, but 
 not distinctly stated by P. 
 
 The more ancient and far more picturesque story 
 is that contained in Nu 22?-24. According to 
 this, Balaam is a prophet from Pethor, which is by 
 the Euphrates, a place otherwise unknown, who 
 is bribed by Balak, king of Moab, to come and 
 pronounce a curse on the Israelites. Balaam 
 earnestly endeavours to carry out Balak’s wishes, 
 but by divine inspiration pronounces a blessing 
 instead of a curse. He is dismissed by Balak, and 
 returns to his home, and is heard of no more. It 
 is obvious that this story has no point of contact 
 with that of P, and can be reconciled with it only 
 by modifying or eliminating 24%. If Balaam had 
 returned to his home he could not be in the 
 Midianitish camp immediately afterwards. It is 
 generally admitted that Nu 22-24 belongs to the 
 composite narrative known as JE. But there is 
 some difference of opinion as regards the critical 
 analysis of the passage. Some, having regard to 
 its general unity of purpose and sentiment, have 
 assigned it in its totality to J; others refer only 
 the episode of Balaam’s journey to J and the 
 rest to E. It is probable, however, that here, as 
 elsewhere, there has been a more continuous 
 interweaving of the two sources. The sacrificial 
 rites of 22%-23° seem to point to E, and the 
 poetry of that section seems to require that it 
 should be referred in the main to one source. On 
 the other hand, the episode of Balaam’s journey, 
 with little doubt, belongs to J. There are also 
 signs of composite authorship in other parts. Thus 
 22% and 22” are evidently duplicates, so are vv.? and 
 ‘>, A helpful criterion is the distinction of divine 
 names in certain verses of ch. 22, esp. ® and ”; 
 where, as in 23', an anthropomorphic character is 
 assigned to God Himself as contrasted with the 
 angel of J” of v.” etc. It seems therefore right to 
 assign vv.* 1-12 and © to E, but these pretty clearly 
 carry with them vv.® #16, Jt matters little how 
 we assign the remaining verses, as both accounts 
 must have contained statements of the same kind. 
 But if J is the fundamental account, vv.47 will 
 belong to it. Ch. 24 involves a further question. 
 If the prophecies of ch. 23 belong to E, it is 
 
 robable that these belong to J. ‘But they are 
 
 velieved to have undergone a very considerable 
 revision and expansion by a later reviser, either 
 before or after the union of Jand E. The passage 
 esp. assigned to a late date is vv.*°-*4, which refers 
 to the period of Assyr. ascendency. The insertion 
 of ‘the elders of Midian’ in 2247 is probably the 
 
 
 
 BALAAM 233 
 
 work of a much later reviser, who thereby thought 
 to connect the story more closely with that of P. 
 If this analysis is in the main correct, there will 
 be found a considerable difference of character in 
 the stories of J and E. According to the first, 
 Balaam makes no difficulty about going, nor does 
 he receive any revelation forbidding it, but of his 
 own accord he intimates to Balak that asa prophet 
 he is entirely under the control of J’. Balaam dis- 
 covers his sin in going, only by the intervention of 
 ‘the angel of J’,’ and at once proposes to return. 
 For the first time he is permitted to go, but only 
 on the condition that he does not attempt to resist 
 the inspiration of God. 22° is indeed referred by 
 some to the reviser of JE, but some such limited 
 ermission is at any rate implied in v.%. When 
 3alaam arrives at Kiriath-huzoth, he is shown the 
 whole company of the Israelites dwelling according 
 to their tribes. The spirit of God comes upon him, 
 and he bursts into a rhapsody of praise, sugyested 
 in its form by the sight before him. The chief 
 thought is the splendour of the huge encampment 
 in its ordered array— 
 
 * As gardens by the river side, 
 As lign-aloes which J” hath planted, 
 As cedar trees beside the waters.’ 
 
 What Balaam, according to the story, foretells, is 
 the increase in the multitude of the people and the 
 ower of their king. This provokes Balak’s anger; 
 
 e smites his hands together, and would have dis- 
 missed Balaam at once; but with great dignity the 
 latter justifies himself, and, regardless of Balak’s 
 wrath, he proceeds to predict the destruction, first 
 of Moab, then of Edom, at the hand of the king of 
 Israel. Balak himself seems overawed by the torrent 
 of inspired rhetoric, and he has nothing more to 
 say to the prophet, who immediately retires. J’s 
 narrative is terse and vigorous throughout, full of 
 quaintness, yet always dignified and picturesque 
 without grandiloquence. What remains of E’s 
 narrative falls distinctly below it in point of 
 literary merit.. It is more ornate, but less really 
 beautiful. There is a tendency to what appears 
 like an artificial repetition of similar incidents. 
 Balak twice appeals to Balaam, who twice in his 
 turn appeals to God, and twice receives an answer 
 from Him. Thrice Balak builds for Balaam seven 
 altars, and offers a bullock and a ram on every 
 altar, and the language in which Balak’s command 
 is given and carried out is repeated each time. We 
 might add that thrice Balaam pronounces a 
 blessing instead of a curse, only that the third 
 blessing of E has disappeared in ch. 24 to make 
 way for the blessing of J. There is, moreover, 
 besides its anthropomorphism, a want of spontaneity 
 and naturalness about the story. We feel this in 
 the way that Balaam parleys with God (234). He 
 tells Him that he has prepared the seven altars, and 
 offered a bullock and a ram on every altar, and 
 implies therefrom a hope that He will grant his 
 wish; and there is an almost mechanical view of 
 inspiration in the thought of the word put in 
 Balaam’s mouth (23°). What a difference between 
 this and the thought of J (24*), that the Spirit so 
 takes possession of him that his whole nature is 
 agiow! Then again, how unnatural comparatively 
 Balak’s conduct is! How strange that he should 
 have put up with Balaam’s utterances so com- 
 placently, and contented himself with a mild 
 remonstrance. (See HEXATEUCH, NUMBERS.) 
 
 But the most important difference in the 
 stories is the contrast which they present in 
 the character of Balaam. In J there is nothing 
 reproachful in his conduct. He acts up to his light 
 with perfect consistency. But the Balaam of E 
 is of a much lower order. He has indeed a 
 higher perception of the moral beauty of righteous. 
 
 
 
234 BALAH 
 ness. He can say with all sincerity, ‘Let me die 
 the death of the righteous, and let my last end be 
 like his’ (23!"). This can hardly at so early a date 
 mean, ‘May I in some future state have the 
 rewards, even without the reality, of a righteous 
 life here,’ but, ‘May I in my last moments have 
 the satisfaction of feeling that I have lived a 
 righteous life to the very end.’ But, in spite of 
 such noble sentiments, the Balaam of is a 
 selfish, grasping man. He covets the rewards of 
 Balak, and 1s restrained from taking them only by 
 a sordid fear of God, who could make the conse- 
 quence of so doing worse than losing them. He is 
 not content to know God’s will, but tries by every 
 means in his power to cajole God into changing 
 His mind, or, in other words, making wrong right. 
 Five times he attempts to obtain God’s consent, 
 and always fails. t may be thought that this 
 estimate of Balaam’s character as portrayed in E 
 assumes a higher view of God and morality than 
 E may be supposed to have had. The God of 
 1S 15% was not ‘a man, that he should repent.’ 
 But could this be said of the God of E? Probably 
 not; but, at any rate, Balaam’s persistence is 
 evidently due to selfishness and greed. 
 
 Some regret may be felt on the ground that such 
 a critical analysis of Balaam’s story destroys its 
 value as the study of an instructively composite 
 character. But this is not so much so as appears 
 at first sight. The great sermon of Bp. Butler, 
 for example, depends almost entirely on the nar- 
 rative of E. is allusion to P’s story as part of 
 Balaam’s career does not affect his main argument 
 much more than the words of Micah (6°) erro- 
 neously put by him into Balaam’s mouth, The 
 real value of his sermon arises out of his insight 
 into human nature and motive. On the other side, 
 
 it is only fair to state that the critical process 
 removes at least one very serious moral difficulty, 
 that, as the narrative now stands, God allows 
 Balaam to go on certain conditions, and before the 
 conditions have been violated is angry, and punishes 
 him for acting on this permission. 
 
 The date and origin of the Balaam story cannot 
 
 be determined with certainty. The reference to 
 the subjugation of Moab (24!"), if we suppose that 
 these are prophecies only in a literary sense, seems 
 to point, for the Jahwistic narrative, to a date 
 
 osterior to David’s Moabitish war (2 S 8); and 
 it is hardly likely to be much later—indeed it 
 is highly probable that the story is based on a much 
 earlier legend. The speaking of animals is a 
 common feature of the early folk-lore of many 
 nations, and this incident has its obvious parallel 
 in the Jahwistic story of Paradise. Among some 
 of the Norwegian peasantry the belief that bears 
 could speak, and refrained from doing so only 
 from fear of man, continued down to comparatively 
 recent times. 
 
 LITERATURE.—The story and character of Balaam have been 
 the subject of a large number of treatises and sermons. By far 
 the best known, and generally acknowledged to be the most 
 valuable, is the great sermon of Bp. Butler upon the character of 
 
 Balaam. Among those of more recent date may be mentioned 
 the sermons of F. D. Maurice and Isaac Williams. 
 
 F. H. Woops. 
 BALAH (753), Jos 19%.—A town of Simeon, 
 rhaps the same as Bealoth, and apparently the 
 Bilhah of a parallel passage 1 Ch 4”. None of 
 
 these is known. C. R. CoNDER. 
 BALAK (p?2 ‘making empty or waste’).— 
 A king of Moab who, according to a story pre- 
 served in Nu 22-24, hired the prophet Balaam 
 to curse the Israelites before their entry into 
 
 Canaan. See BALAAM. F. H. Woops. 
 
 BALAMON (Badaydv, AV Balamo).—A town near 
 Dothaim (Jth 8%, cf. Ca 81). 
 
 BALDNESS 
 
 BALANCE (mina, 737, fvydv). Weighing was per 
 formed from early times in Egypt, and was probably 
 thence borrowed by the Hebrews. All Oriental 
 balances were equal-armed, the principle of lever- 
 age in the steelyard having been apparently an 
 Italian invention, carried into the East under Roman 
 influence. In Egypt before the Exodus, balances 
 of all sizes were employed; the larger ones having 
 a fixed pole for support, a beam of several feet in 
 length, and large scale pans hung by cords. To 
 test the evenness of the balance a tongue was 
 attached to it, but instead of observing the tongue 
 against a long vertical sling of the balance, as in 
 modern times, the ancient tongue was below the 
 beam, and the verticality of it (and evenness of the 
 beam) was observed against a plummet. As the 
 plummet was easily set swinging by a lurch of the 
 stand, the characteristic action shown in weighing ig 
 for the man to steady the plummet with his hand 
 in order to read its position. Smaller balances were 
 held in the hand, hung by a cord. The beam was 
 
 BALANCE BEAM, WOOD. 
 
 a circular bar, tapering to the ends; the suspension 
 was by a hole through it, or sometimes merely by a 
 string tied around it, which would give great 
 opening for fraud ; the pans were hung by cords, 
 which passed through slanting holes cut in the 
 beam, emerging in the width of the ends. ‘ 
 
 In OT the balance appears as a regular article 
 of daily use. Abraham weighs four hundred 
 shekels of silver for the field of Ephron (Gn 23") ; 
 and soon after Eliezer gives weighed jewellery, an 
 earring of half a shekel and two bracelets of ten 
 shekels, to Rebekah. The total weight of the gold, 
 silver, and bronze used for the tabernacle is all 
 stated (Ex 38%4-°) ; and the weight of the offerings 
 made at the dedication (Nu 7! etc.). And this 
 is quite in accord with the style of the elaborate 
 suminaries of weights which the Egyptian scribes 
 used to reckon up at this period. This preciseness 
 of weighing, however, seems to have been lost to 
 the Hebrews in Pal., as there is no record of the 
 weighing of metal for the temple, and David 
 mentions quantities in the vaguest manner (1 Ch 
 22\4), while the habit of using the balance seems to 
 have revived in the later and more commercial 
 times, to judge by the frequent mention of it in 
 late books. 
 
 The falsification of the balance was common 
 among the Hebrewsas shown by continual denuncia- 
 tions of the practice. In Leviticus just balances are 
 enjoined (19°), as by Ezekiel (45") ; and Amos (8°), 
 Micah (611), and the Proverbs (11') specially inveigh 
 against false balances. The exactness of the 
 balance was even considered a divine matter, as 
 well as the precision of the weights (Pr 16”). 
 For these references to the standards, see WFIGHTS 
 AND MEASURES, W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, 
 
 BALD LOCUST.—See Locust. 
 
 BALDNESS, loss of the hair.—Two forms are 
 contrasted in Lv 13%, amp or crown-baldness 
 (dardxpwua, LXX), and no2i or forehead baldness ; 
 the Heb. name referring to the fictitious appear- 
 ance of height which it gives to the head (davaga- 
 Advrwua, LXX). These forms are also distinguished 
 by Aristotle (Hist. An. iii. 11. 8). Baldness did 
 not render the Israelite ceremonially unclean, and 
 thus differed from the Bahereth garaath or spot 
 of the contagious parasitic disease Tineatonsut ans 
 or ringworm, the condition described by Celsus as 
 ophiasis ; while the other form of spot mentioned 
 along with it in Lv 13, Bohak or psoriasis, is not 
 
 
 
4 
 4 
 3 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 BALDNESS 
 
 BALM 235 
 
 
 
 contagious (Lv 13), and did not therefore make 
 the sufferer unclean. Baldness is not a sign of 
 old age in the Bible, like grey hair; but is re- 
 garded as due to excessive labour with exposure to 
 the sun, as in those employed in the siege of Tyre 
 (Ezk 29"*), among whom it may have been induced 
 by the salt water and a salt fish diet, supposed in 
 Shetland to cause baldness. An Arab. poet calls 
 crown-baldness the baldness of slaves, while the 
 other form is called noble baldness, as due to the 
 Pore of a helmet. It was to be a sign of the 
 
 egradation and servitude of backsliding Israel, 
 that instead of curled and dressed hair they were 
 to show baldness (Is 3%). 
 
 ‘Bald-head’ was a term of reproach (2 K 2”), as 
 was calvus among the Romans, and ¢adaxpés among 
 the Greeks (see Suetonius in Ces. 45. 3, and Aristo- 
 phanes, Nubes, 240; Hguites, 550). Synesius wrote 
 a defence of baldness of which an Eng. tr. was 
 ma poehed by Fleming in 1579. A more famous 
 
 efence was Hucbald’s remarkable alliterative 
 poem of 136 lines, de laudibus calvitti, each word of 
 which begins with the letter C (Dornavius, Amphi- 
 theatro Sapient. Socrat. i. 290). 
 
 Baldness seems not to have been common in Bible- 
 lands, nor is it very frequently noticed among the 
 Jews to thisday. The name of Kareah, father of 
 Johanan (2 K 25%), means ‘ bald-head,’ and Korah 
 refers to baldness, as Lat. name Calvus (Gn 36°-16, 
 Ex 6%). Possibly, the frequency of ceremonial 
 shaving of the head may have had some effect 
 in preventing it. This reason is given by Hero- 
 dotus for its rarity in Egypt (iii. 12). ummy 
 heads, though often shaven (see Gn 41"), are seldom 
 bald. I have found only three bald heads out of 500. 
 Egyptians generally concealed baldness by wear- 
 ing wigs, and one female head in the Camb. Mus. 
 had locks of hair gummed on over the bare scalp. 
 In Papyrus Ebers (c. B.C. 1500) there are eleven 
 prescriptions to prevent baldness. But, although 
 rare in Egypt, Leo Africanus says it is common in 
 Barbary. any of the Egyp. priests were shaven, 
 and are therefore called Feket or bald-headed ; and 
 Pore it was for contrast that baldness disqualified 
 
 or the priesthood in Isr. (Lv 21”, LXX), although 
 it did not preclude them from partaking of the 
 sacred food. Even shaving the head was for- 
 bidden to the priest (Lv 215). A similar contrast 
 is implied in the prohibition of ‘rounding the 
 corners’ of the head (Lv 19%’) among ordinary 
 Israelites to distinguish them from their heathen 
 neighbours, who cut their hair in a circular form, 
 as that of Dionysus was cut (Herod. iii. 8). The 
 modern Egyptians and Bishari adopt a similar mode 
 of cutting ; while the Pal. and Arabian Jews keep 
 the Levitical custom, and, at the halaka or first 
 cutting of the hair at the age of four years, do not 
 cut the corners (Schechter, Jewish Quart. Rev. 
 
 ii. 16). 
 
 Artificial baldness, by shaving, was a sign of 
 mourning, not only among the Jews, but among 
 other races. Bion’s comment on its folly, quasi 
 calvitio meror levetur, is quoted by Cicero (Tusc. 
 Disp. iii. 26). In this manner Mardonius and his 
 army mourned for Masistius, cutting off not onl 
 their own hair, but that of their horses (Herod. 
 ix. 24; see also Patroclus’ funeral, J/. xxiii. 46; 
 also Odyss. iv. 198; Seneca, Hippol. 1176). Micah 
 bids the women of Mareshah make themselves bald 
 (12*), and enlarge their baldness as the nesher or 
 sega (Egyp. vulture), which has a featherless 
 head. Baldness, produced by cutting off the hair, 
 is associated with mourning in Is 15? 22!, Jer 4857 
 16°, Ezk 27%, and Am 8. It is used metaphorically 
 for mourning in Jer 475 and Ezk 738, 
 
 Symbolical baldness by shaving was the sign of 
 the expiry of the Nazirite’s vow (Nu 6). At the 
 expiry of his vow St. Paul shaved his head at 
 
 Cenchrew, and he fulfilled Jater the ritual of 
 purification (Ac 18!§ 21%). Shaving in connexion 
 with vows was not peculiar to the Jews; thus 
 the pronls of Argos shaved their heads in token 
 of their vow to recover Thyrwa (Herod. i. 82). 
 Shaving the forehead was not permitted to the 
 Jews (Bechorat 43. 3, and Sifré on Nu). These 
 shavings were essentially representative sacrifices ; 
 in the usual heathen form, they were intended to 
 propitiate the deity invoked. The Jewish tonsure 
 was partly thanksgiving, hence the hair was burnt 
 in the fire of the peace-offering (Nu 618); it was 
 also partly purificatory, ‘as if by this, deficiencies 
 in religious service were cut off’ (Rabanus Maur. 
 de Cleric. Inst. i. 3). Shaving was on this account 
 part of the ceremony of the purification of Levites 
 (Nu 8’). Among some races partial tonsure is a 
 tribal mark, as, for example, the occipital tonsure 
 of the Philippine tas. 
 
 The primitive Christian tonsure was votive, and 
 was falsely supposed to have been invented by St. 
 Peter (Greg. Tour. de gloria Martyr. i. 28), but 
 really dates from the 5th cent. The Petrine or Rom. 
 crown-tonsure represented the crown of thorns 
 (Raban. i. 3). he Eastern or Pauline tonsure 
 was total shaving or close Scoping of the head, 
 and was derived from Egypt. he Celtic or 
 Johannine tonsure, which was @ shaving of the 
 front of the head in front of the ears and vertex, 
 existed in Spain, where it was forbidden by the 
 4th Council of Toledo (Canon xli.); it was also 
 
 ractised in Celtic Britain (Gildas, Epist. ii.), 
 
 reland, and Scotland (Bede, Hist. Eccl. iv. 1, v. 2), 
 as well as among the Saxons (Apollinaris Sidonius, 
 Epist. ad Lamprid. viii. 9). It was probably the 
 survival of a pre-Christian badge of servitude, as 
 the word Maol, ‘ bald-headed,’ for servant existed 
 in pre-Christian times, as in the names Maolduin 
 ei Maoldarach. Lucat-Maol was a heathen 
 antagonist of St. Patrick. Tonsure of women 
 was, in the judgment of St. Paul, shameful 
 (1 Co 115), aa the early Church decided at the 
 Council of Gangra that if a woman polled her head 
 she should be excommunicated (Socrates, HZ iii. 
 42). See BARBER, HAIR, SHAVING. 
 
 A. MACALISTER. 
 
 BALM (ny zort, nx gért; LXX pnrlvn; resina). 
 —It is impossible to determine, on philological 
 grounds, the substance intended by z0éré; and as 
 the ancient translations do not agree on the sig- 
 nification of the word, it must remain uncertain. 
 The substances with which it is mentioned (Gn 
 37%, cf. 434) make it probable that it was an 
 aromatic gum or spice. If the substance alluded 
 to by Jeremiah (8? 464 518) be the same, powerful 
 medicinal virtues were attributed to it. It was 
 clearly an article of commerce in Gilead, dealt in 
 by Judah and Israel (Ezk 27”). No mention is 
 made of a balm tree as growing in Gilead. It is 
 not certain from the expressions, ‘Is there no balm 
 in Gilead?’ and ‘Go up into Gilead and take 
 balm,’ that the substance was produced there, any 
 more than from the expression that ‘Judah and 
 the land of Israel, they were thy merchants, they 
 traded in balm,’ implies that it was produced in 
 their country. Gilead was an indefinite geo- 
 graphical expression for the district stretchin 
 eastward from the Jordan to the Euphrates an 
 an unknown extent southward. A portion of the 
 commerce of Arabia passed through it, and spices 
 and balms and incense formed an important part 
 of the wares carried by the Ishmaelites through this 
 territory. Whether the substance was produced 
 in it or not, Gilead would seem to have been an 
 entrepét for it. This is all we know from Scrip- 
 ture as to the substance or substances intended. 
 Any attempt to identify them must be conjectural, 
 and he who hazards a guess will be largely in. 
 
236 BALNUUS 
 
 BAND 
 
 
 
 fluenced by his opinion as to whether balm was a 
 protuct of Gilead or an article of commerce there 
 and in Pal. If we assume that it was a product of 
 Gilead, we have no known tree in that region 
 which produces a medicinal aromatic gum or 
 spice. Jastich has been supposed by some to be 
 the substance. The tree which produces it, how- 
 ever, although abundant along the coast and lower 
 mountains of W. Pal., has not been reported E. 
 of the Jordan. The author searched for it in the 
 forests of Gilead and Bashan without finding it. 
 Moreover, the Ishmaelites (Gn 37%) brought it, 
 with Arabian gums and spices, through Gilead to 
 Dothan on their way to Egypt. Mastich is, and 
 always has been, a leading product of Chios and 
 other islands of the Ai’gean Sea, and was certainly 
 not a product of Arabia, Pliny (Nat. Hist. xii. 36), 
 indeed, speaks of a mastich produced in India and 
 Arabia, but it was produced bya ‘prickly shrub,’ and 
 therefore cannot bethe gum from Pistacia Lentiscus, 
 L. In other places he calls the true mastich resin of 
 lentisk (xxiv. 22. 28). Heattributes to it a long list 
 of virtues, principally astringent and detergent. 
 
 Mecca balsam, the product of Balsamodendron 
 Gileadense, Kth., and B. Opobalsamum, Kth., has 
 the weight of tradition in its favour. Jos. (Ant. 
 VII. vi. 6) says that the Jews believe that the queen 
 of Sheba, who doubtless had botanical gardens in 
 many places, gave Solomon a root of it; and we 
 have evidence that it was cultivated in the lower 
 Jordan Valley. ‘Tristram says, ‘From Jericho 
 Cleopatra obtained plants for her gardens at 
 Heliopolis ; an imperial guard was placed ove the 
 gardens, and twice was the balm tree exhibited in 
 triumph in the streets of Rome.’ It has, however, 
 now disappeared. The product of these trees is 
 known in Arabic by the name of balasdn, from 
 which Bddcapor, balsamum, balsam, and balm are 
 probably derived. The balasdn tree is defined by 
 the Arab. lexicographers as ‘a certain kind of tree 
 or shrub, resembling the camphire (fenna), having 
 many leaves, inclining to white, in odour resem- 
 bling the rue, the berry of which has an oil which 
 is more potent than the berry, as the berry is than 
 the OOK! Avicenna speaks of its properties and 
 virtues at length, and quotes Dioscorides to the 
 effect that the tree ‘grows only in the country of the 
 Jews, which is Palestine, in the Ghor.’ He probably 
 alludes to the plantations in the neighbourhood of 
 Jericho, but is mistaken in supposing that this was 
 the only or the principal station for the tree. That 
 Avicenna does not confound it with the mastich is 
 clear from the fact that he presently says that 
 ‘some prefer to mix this unguent (gum) with other 
 unguents (gums), as unguent of the green berry, 
 and unguent of camphire (hen~a), and unguent 
 gum) of the mastich tree.’ Balm of Gilead was 
 formerly much used even in Europe, but it has now 
 passed out of the pharmacopceias. 
 
 The monks of Jericho have adopted the zakktim, 
 Balanites Afgyptiaca, Del., as the Balm of Gilead. 
 They prepare an oily gum from the fruit of this 
 species, which is sold in tin cases to travellers as 
 the Balm of Gilead. It is said also to be beneficial 
 in the treatment of wounds and sores. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 BALNUUS (A Béddvovos, B Badvois), 1 Es 9*1,— 
 BINNUI in Ezr 10, which see. 
 
 BALSAM.—See BALM. 
 
 BALTASAR (BaAracdp), the Greek form of Bel- 
 shazzar in Dn 5 etc., Bar 1", and also of Belte- 
 shazzar, Dn 4, etc. Clearly, the names are confused 
 in ignorance ; for while vate, renders both names 
 promiscuously by Baltassar, Syr. renders both by 
 Blitshatsar. Codex A in Dn presents Bapracdp. 
 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 BAMAH (Ezk 20”) is the Heb. name for ‘High 
 Place’ (wh. see), and is retained by the EV in the 
 second half of this verse on account of the 
 etymology given in the first half. It is obviously 
 a contemptuous derivation that the prophet means 
 to suggest ; but the precise point of it cannot be 
 clearly ascertained. The word is resolved into its 
 syllables, and these appear to be identified re- 
 spectively with two words meaning ‘come’ and 
 ‘what’; thus: ‘ What (MAH) is the Ba-mah where- 
 unto ye come (BA)?’ Ewald and others have 
 supposed that the verb ‘ come’ (or ‘ enter’) is uscd 
 in an obscene sense, with an allusion to the immoral 
 practices associated with the worship at these 
 sanctuaries (cf. Am 27, Hos 4%); but this view, 
 even if adopted, does not remove the obscurity 
 of the verse. A parallel may be found in the 
 derivation of the word for ‘manna’ in Ex 16% (see 
 RY). J. SKINNER. 
 
 BAMOTH (rips), Nu 21)”, a station in the 
 journey from the Arnon to the Jordan, probably the 
 same as BAMOTH-BAAL, Nu 224! RVm (‘the high 
 
 laces of Baal’ AV, RV), to which Balak brought 
 
 alaam. Bamoth-baal is mentioned in the list of 
 cities belonging to Reuben (Jos 1317) along with 
 Beth-baul-meon, and both being seats of Baal- 
 worship they may be included in ‘the high places’ 
 of Is 15?; but the reference here is doubtful (cf. 
 Dillmann’s note on the verse in his Jsaiah). no. na, 
 mentioned on the Moabite Stone, 1. 27, as restored 
 by Mesha, may be the same as Bamoth. For its 
 position see ExoDUS, ROUTE OF. 
 
 A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 BAN (A Bd», B Baevdv), 1 Es 5°7.—The head of a 
 family which could not trace their descent from 
 Israel at the return under Zerub. The passage is 
 corrupt. The corresp. name in the lists of Ezr 2 
 Neh 7 is Tobiah; but in both of the can. books 
 some MSS of the LXX insert a name viol Bovd, 
 of which Ban may be the equivalent. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BANAIAS (Bavalas) 1 Es 9®=BENAIAH Ezr 10%. 
 
 BAND.—Three words of different origin and 
 meaning but the same spelling are all found in 
 AV. 1. Band=anything that dids, whether for 
 confinement or for strengthening. The Heb. 
 words are (a) nay ‘dbhéth, something twisted or 
 twined. Job 39 ‘Canst thou bind the unicorn 
 (RV ‘wild-ox’) with his band?’ Hos 114 ‘I drew 
 them with cords of a man, with bands of love’; so 
 Ezk 3” 48; but tr? ‘cords’ Jg 151% 14, Pg 23 11877 
 129%. It is the word tr? ‘wreathen (work)’ in 
 Ex 2814. 22. 24. 35 3915. 17. 18. (5) ios “éstir (RON ‘Esti’, 
 Dn 4% 3%, Ee 7%), anything that will bind‘ 
 whether a flaxen rope or an iron fetter. Jg 15' 
 ‘his (Samson’s flaxen) bands dropped from off his 
 hands’; Dn 4% ‘a band of iron and brass,’ so 
 Dn 43, Ee 7°, (c) bag hebhel, a rope or cord, not 
 for binding (though Ezk 27%, Job 41!, Est 18) so 
 much as for use on board ship (Is 33%), for fasten- 
 ing tents (Is 33”), and especially for measuring, a 
 measuring-line (2 § 8?"r, Ps 785 etc.). In AV 
 hebhel is tr? ‘bands’ only in Ps 119® ‘the bands of 
 the wicked have robbed me’ (where ‘bands’ no 
 doubt= ‘troops,’ by mistrans"; RV ‘The cords of 
 the wicked have wrapped me round’); and Zee 
 117: 4, the name of one of the two staves, ‘ Bands,’ 
 representing the brotherhood between Judah and 
 Israel, the other, ‘Beauty,’ representing the 
 covenant made with all the people. (d) anim métah, 
 the pole or chief part of the yoke that binds the 
 oxen together. In AV only Lv 26%, Ezk 3471 
 (RV ‘bars’). (e) naxq0 hargubbah only in plu.= 
 bonds, Is 58° ‘to loose the bands (RV ‘ bonds’) of 
 wickedness’; or pains, Ps 734 ‘there are no bands 
 in their death.’ (f) 1~\0 mogér, properly some 
 
 
 
 EE eo 
 
 aA 
 
BANI 
 
 
 
 BANNER 237 
 
 
 
 thing for chastising, hence a bond for curbing, 
 Job 395 ‘who hath loosed the bands of the wild 
 ass?’, Ps 2° ‘Let us break their bands asunder,’ 
 107!4, Is 2872 527, Jer 2”. In all these passages 
 Amer. RV gives ‘bonds,’ but Eng. RV retains 
 * bands,’ and even turns ‘bonds’ into ‘bands’ in 
 Jer 5° 27? 308, where this is the Heb. word. 
 (g) Arvin méshékhah, a rope to draw with, only Job 
 38"! ‘or loose the bands of Orion ?’ 
 
 The Greek words are (a) decubs, something that 
 binds, Lk 8”, Ac 167° 22%; (6) cuvéecuss, some- 
 thing that binds closely, Col 2” ‘all the body, 
 being eepolied and knit together through the 
 joints and bands’; and (c) fevxrnpia, that which 
 yokes, only in Ac 27 the fastening of the rudder. 
 
 In all these places ‘bond’ would be used in mod. 
 English; and ‘bond’ is quite frequent in AV as 
 tr™ of some of those words, esp. decpds. 
 
 2. Band=a flat strip, a ribbon. (In this sense 
 b. is from French bande ; but as the strip or stra 
 would be used for binding, it came to be identifie 
 with 1. Both come originally from bindan ‘to 
 bind’). (a) n2y sdphah, ‘a lip,’ tr4 ‘band’ only in 
 Ex 39% ‘there was a hole in the midst of the 
 robe. . . with a band (RV ‘ binding’) round about 
 the hole.’ See also HEADBAND (Is 3” only), and 
 SWADDLINGBAND (Job 38° only). RV gives ‘band’ 
 for ‘girdle,’ ayn héshebh, in Ex 28% 27 2 995 
 395 20. 21, Ly 87, () xdords, a dog’s collar, then any 
 collar or chain for the neck (frequent in LXX, as 
 Gn 41 ‘[Pharaoh] put a gold chain about his 
 {Joseph’s] neck,’ 1 124 ‘Thy father made our 
 ee grievous’). «xAods is tr? ‘band’ Sir 6% ‘her 
 
 ands are purple lace.’ 
 
 3. Band=troop, company. (Its origin is difficult 
 to trace. Du Can e says that the company o 
 soldiers formed by Alfonso of Castile was called a 
 banda, from the red banda or ribbon worn by 
 them as a sash; but Littré gives late Lat. bandum 
 ‘banner’ as the original.) The Heb. words so tr? 
 are (a) 338 dgaph, only plu. and only in Ezk 12 
 U7! 388i. 8. 23 394° RV keeps ‘bands’ in 124 17%, 
 tut gives ‘hordes’ in the other passages. The 
 word means originally the wing of an army, Assyr. 
 agappu. (b) wa gédhidh, from [773] to penetrate, so 
 a band invading a country. r? ‘band’ in 2 § 4?, 
 ee loo een 13-2 242d” Ch 7* 12's at 
 2 Ch 22). RV retains, except 1 K 11% ‘troop.’ 
 (c) ’n hayil=strength, a strong army, a force; 
 tr? ‘band’ only 1 S 10% (‘a b. of men,’ RV ‘the 
 host’) and Ezr 8* (‘a b. of soldiers,’ so RY). 
 (d) yxn hdzéz (pep. of [psn] to divide, hence divided 
 into companies. Only Pr 30?" ‘The locusts have 
 no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands.’ 
 (e) a3nD mahdneh, the ordinary word for a ‘camp.’ 
 Only Gn 327‘ Jacob. . . divided the people... 
 into two bands’ (RV ‘companies’), and 32!° ‘and 
 now I am become two bands’ (RV ‘ companies’). 
 (f) on ré’sh =‘ head,’ only 1 Ch 12% (RV ‘heads’) 
 and Job 1 ‘The Chaldeans made out three 
 bands’ (so RV). The only Gr. word is oretpa, which 
 was the usual equivalent of the Lat. cohors, a co- 
 hort, which when complete consisted of 600 regular 
 soldiers, being the tenth part of alegion. Cohorts, 
 like regiments, had their distinguishing names, 
 of which we find the ‘Italian,’ Ac 10!, and the 
 ‘Augustan,’ 27. In Jn 18% ” the ‘band’ would 
 not ronsist of a whole cohort, so that o7etpa must 
 have had some elasticity of usage ; cf. 2 Mac 8. 
 
 ‘Band’ as an intrans. verb occurs Ac 23? ‘ the 
 Jews banded together’ (rowjoavtes svorpopyv, mak- 
 ing a conspiracy ; the word is used of the riotous 
 assembly in Ephesus, Ac 19%), J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BANI (‘32).—1. A Gadite, one of David’s heroes 
 (2S 23%), 2.3. 4. Levites (1 Ch 6%, Neh 3", cf. 87 
 (= Binnui of Ezr 8% and Neh 10°)). 5. A Judahite 
 (J Ch 9‘). 6. Head of a family of returning exiles 
 
 
 
 f | flowed. 
 
 (Ezr 2! =[Binnui of Neh 7!°] 10”, Neh 10%). 7. 
 One of those who had married foreign wives (Ez1 
 10), The utmost uncertainty prevails as to the 
 number of occurrences of the name B. owing to the 
 confusion between it and similar names. See 
 BINNUI. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BANIAS (B Bawds, A Bavl, AV Banid), 1 Es 8°, 
 —Ancestor of Salimoth, who returned with Ezra 
 from captivity. The name does not appear in the 
 
 arallel list Ezr 8, having prob. dropped out from 
 its resemblance to the preceding word ‘sons’ (*33). 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BANISHMENT. — See CRIMES AND PUNISH- 
 
 MENTS. 
 
 BANK.—1. A raised earthwork from which to 
 storm a city,2S 20% ‘they cast up a b. against 
 the city’ (Adpb sélélah, from $49 to raise up, RV 
 ‘mount’), so 2 K 19°, Is 37°35 (Amer. RV ‘mound’). 
 
 The RV has changed ‘thine enemies shall cast a trench about 
 thee,’ Lk 1943, into ‘thine enemies shall cast up a bank abou. 
 thee,’ although the Revisers did not read sapiuBerotoiw with 
 L marg., T, WH; but accepted wsp:Badotew of TR. On the 
 reading see Plummer’s Luke. 
 
 This meaning, now obsol., is nearer the original 
 sense of ‘bank’ than the next, but the oldest of 
 all is seen in Ca 5!8 RV ‘banks of sweet herbs.’ 
 2. The margin of a river, Heb. (a) may sdphah, 
 ‘lip,’ Gn 41”, Dt 48, Jos 12? 13% 16 2 K 23 Ezk 
 477 12, Dn 12° (RV gives ‘brink’ at Gn 41’, Dn 
 125- 5, ‘edge’ in Dt 4, Jos 12? 137-16, leaving the 
 rest unchanged, and turning ‘brink’ into ‘ bank’ 
 in Ezk 47°). (0) 113 gddhah, perhaps meaning ‘eut 
 away,’ Jos 3% 41, Is 87, always of banks over. 
 (c) aya (ace. to kethibh, keré 773) gidhyah, 
 only 1 Ch 12%, also of banks overflowed. 3. The 
 tbe of a money-changer or money-dealer ; then 
 his office or shop. It occurs only Lk 19” (Gr. 
 tpdmefa, the ordinary word fora table). RV gives 
 bankers for ‘exchangers’ in Mt 2577 (Gr. rpaze- 
 flrs [-elrns T, WH)). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BANNAS (Bdvvos, AV Banuas), 1 Es 5%.—A name 
 occurring among the Levites who returned with 
 Zerub. The names Bannas and Sudias answer to 
 Bene-Hodaviah in Ezr 2”, of which they are per- 
 haps a corruption. The corresponding words in 
 Neb 10° are ‘Shebaniah, Hodiah’ (Zafavia, ‘Qdoud). 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BANNEAS (Bavvalas, AV Baanias), 1 Es 9%= 
 
 BENAIAH (Ezr 10%), which see. 
 
 BANNER, ENSIGN, STANDARD.—1. $11 degel, 
 ‘banner, standard.’ This was to be used to mark 
 the Cita eee of each tribe in the camp in the 
 wilderness (Nu 2?). The Shulammite in her beauty, 
 which overcomes the beholder, is compared (Ca 
 6*-1°) to forces encamped (or possibly, marching) in 
 order under banners (niz3119 kannidgdléth). A 
 degel is properly ‘that which is meant to be seen’ ; 
 dagdlu in Assyrian being the common word for 
 ‘to see.’ 
 
 2. 03 nés, ‘ensign,’ possibly means either that 
 which shines (00}=ys3) or that which ts lifted up 
 (Do3=xw3). The brazen serpent was pot upon & 
 nés (Nu 21°), i.e. possibly upon the degel of one 
 of the tribes. The common use made of the nés 
 was to set it upon some high hill as a signal to 
 assemble (Is 11” and 133). 
 
 In Is 10!8 (‘ They, t.e. the Assyrians, shall be as 
 when a standard-bearer, nésés, fainteth’) nearly 
 all modern authorities (not RV text) render, ‘As 
 when a sick man pineth away.’ The old rendering 
 is, however, defensible, if we may supply the wor 
 ‘heart’; 00: 25 cops, ‘as when the heart of a 
 standard - bearer fainteth. Again in Is 59% 
 (‘ When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the 
 
 
 

 
 238 BANNUS 
 
 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 
 
 Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against 
 him’) modern scholars allow no reference to a 
 standard. Yet the rendering ‘the Spirit of the 
 Lord raiseth a standard against him’ may be 
 defended by Is 11. 
 
 On the Assyrian reliefs, standards are shown 
 carried into battle borne on the chariots of the 
 Assyrians. One such standard (of which a good 
 engraving is given in Madame Ragozin’s Assyria, 
 p. 252) has the device of an archer, probably the 
 god Asshur, standing above two bulls. The fact 
 that an ensign might thus be a religious symbol 
 gives point to Is 11 ‘[J”] shall set up an ensign 
 for the nations.’ 
 
 The Roman standards also, since they bore the 
 image of the emperor, had a religious character, 
 owing to the worship paid to the emperors. The 
 Jews regarded them as idols (Jos. Ant. XVIII. iii. 1), 
 and the Roman soldiers, on one occasion at least, 
 sacrificed to them (Jos. War, VI. vi. 1: Kkouloavtes 
 Tas onualas els 7d lepdv Kal Oduevor THs dvarodiKas 
 mwAns dvtixpus EOvoay avrats airééc). This sacrifice 
 was offered in honour of Titus, the emperor’s son, 
 after the capture of the temple. 
 
 W. E. BARNES. 
 
 BANNUS (Bavvois), 1 Es 9*.—Either BANI or 
 BINNUI in Ezr 10, (See these names.) 
 
 BANQUET.—In the 17th cent. and earlier, b. 
 frequently signified, not the general feast, but the 
 wine that came after; not eating and drinking, 
 but drinking only. 
 
 ‘Bring in the banquet quickly ; wine enough 
 Cleopatra’s health to drink.’ 
 Shaks. Ant. and Cleop. 1. il. 11. 
 
 ‘We'll dine in the great room, but let the music 
 And banquet be prepared here.’ 
 Massinger, Unnat, Comb. iil. 1. 
 
 This is the meaning of b. wherever it occurs in 
 AV. The Heb. and Gr. words are—4. nnn mishteh, 
 ‘a drinking,’ from any ‘to drink’ (Est 5% 5 6 8 12.14 
 614 72-7-8 Tn 51°), 2. any shdthah, Est 7! ‘So the 
 king and Haman came to b.’ (lit. ‘to drink’). 
 3. m! yayin, ‘wine,’ Ca 2* ‘He brought me to 
 the banqueting house’ (lit. ‘house of wine’). 
 4. cvproc.ov=‘ drinking together,’ Sir 325 49! ‘a b. 
 of wine’; 1 Mac 1618, 2 Mac 277. 5. méros, ‘drink- 
 ing’ [Jth 121°], 1 Mac 16%, 1 P 4° ‘ banquetings’ 
 (RV ‘carousings’). 
 
 The only possible exceptions are Job 41® ‘Shall 
 the companions make a b. of him?’ (RV ‘make 
 traffic of him,’ Heb. 112 kaérah ‘to bargain’; and 
 Am 67 ‘the b. (RV ‘revelry’) of them that 
 stretched themselves’ (Heb. 5192 mirzéah, from 
 root = to scream, ‘here used of yells of joy ’— 
 Orelli), But in these passages also, though b. 
 is not the best tr., its meaning was no doubt the 
 same. See FEAST. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BAPTISM— 
 L TERMINOLOGY. 
 (a) In the LXX, 
 (b) In the NT, 
 
 Il. OT Tyres. 
 a) The Cloud and the Sea (St. Paul} 
 b) The Deluge (St. Peter). 
 (c) Other Types (Patristic). 
 
 TL Partiau ANTICIPATIONS. 
 (a) Proselyte Baptism. 
 (b) John's Baptism. 
 
 TV. Tae History or CurisTiIAN BapriaM. 
 (a) The Institution. 
 (b) The Recipients, 
 (c) The Minister. 
 (d) The Rite. 
 
 Vv. Tae Docrrine or CuristiIaAN Baptism. 
 
 I. TerminoLtocy.—(a) In the LXX is simple 
 verb eae is frequent in the sense of ‘dip’ (Ex 
 128 Ve OP 148-46. 51 ete.) or ‘immerse’ (Job 9%"). 
 
 literally, of Naaman dipping in the Jordan (2 K 5%) 
 and of Judith bathing (127); once metaphorically, 
 n dvoula pe Barriga (Is 214); and once Of cere- 
 monial washing after pollution, Bamrifopevos amd 
 vexpov (Sir 31 347%). The usual verb for cere- 
 monial washing is Aoverdar (Liv 148% 155-20. 18. 16-23 
 16* 4-23 etc.), the middle voice being used because 
 the unclean person performed this cleansing for 
 himself. The active is used ~of Moses" washing 
 Aaron and his sons before they exercised their 
 ministry (Ex 294 40, Ly 8%), and of the Lord 
 washing Jerus. (Ezk 164). But Bamritew is never 
 used in the LXX of any initiatory rite. 
 
 —Of the two cognate sabstantives Bamriopos and 
 Barricpa, neither is found in the LXX; while 
 dovrpov occurs thrice (Ca 4? 6°, Sir 31 [34]*). 
 
 (5) In the NT the use of Bdrrew is the same 
 as in the LXX (Lk 16%, Jn , and perhaps 
 Rev 19%, where the reading is very uncertain) ; 
 but the use of Barrlfe» undergoes a great change. 
 As in Sir 31”, it is used of ceremonial purifi- 
 cation (Lk 11%, and perhaps Mk 74, where the 
 reading is again uncertain); and, as in Is 214, it 
 is used metaphorically, viz. by Christ of His suffer- 
 ings (Mk 108 av ae 128) Nie with ree few 
 exceptions, Barrl{w always refers to washing for a 
 religious purpose, the administration of the sacred 
 rite of ablution, ‘baptizing’ in the technical sense ; 
 and in this sensé Xovw is not used: It is om 
 
 Lk 11% that in itself Bamrifw does not necessarily 
 mean immefsion, as ana (Inst. iv?” 157 19)-anid 
 othersa88ért. “This is its usual meaning, however ; 
 Polybius uses it of sinking ships (i. 51. 6, xvi. 6. 2). 
 We find Barrigew used both absolutely (Mk 14, 
 Jn 1%. 26 322 23. 26 42 etc.) and with an ace. (Jn 4', 
 Ac 88, 1 Co 11416), and very often in the passive 
 (Mt 34-1416 Mk 16 Lk 34, Ac 24 ete.). The 
 verb is sometimes followed by a preposition, indi- 
 cating either the element into which (els Tov "Topddvny, 
 Mk 1°) or in whitir (erro Topodvy, Mk 15; év tdart, 
 Mt 3", Jn 1°6%8)the immersion takes place ; or the 
 end or issue of it (els perdvoray, Mt 3"; els ddeow 
 dpapriayv, Ac 2°; els rd Svoua twos, Mt 28%, Ac 816 19°). 
 
 Of the substantives, both Bawrieuds and Barricpua 
 are found; and the distinction commonly drawn 
 between them as to NT usage is probably correct ; 
 but there are not enough instances for a secure 
 induction, From Mk 74 and He 9” we infer 
 that Bamricucs usually meant lustration or cere- 
 monial washing.. Ro 6% with Eph # and—1 P 
 37% would indicate that Bdmriuca was reserved for 
 baptism proper. But in He 6? Barricuav probably 
 retarded Christian baptism, and in Col 2” the 
 more difficult reading Barmcu@ elaims attention. 
 Jos. uses Barricuos to designate John’s baptism, 
 and Bdmrios of the performance of the rite (Ant. 
 XVIUG Vere): 
 
 The Latin VSS and Fathers make no dis- 
 tinction between baptismus and baptisma. The 
 Vulg. has baptismus penitentice ( 14, Lk 33, 
 Ac 13% 19+), baptisma Joannis (Ac 1”), unum 
 baptisma (Eph 4°), and even baptismata calicum 
 (Mk 74), aad baptismatum doctrine (He 67). A 
 neut. nom. baptismum is found in the best MSS 
 of the Vulg., Mt 21%, and in various other 
 passages in representatives of the Old Latin, ey. 
 Mk 10°88 (a 7). In Lk 204 we have baptismum 
 (f Vulg.), baptismus (c d), baptisma (e). See 
 Rénsch, tala und Vuigata, p. 270. Cyprian some- 
 times uses both baptisma and baptismus in the 
 same passage without change of meaning, eg. Ep. 
 Ixxiv. 11; comp. Ep. lxix. 2, Ixx. 2, ete. Twice 
 in NT Aovrpoy is used of baptism: i. Tov béaros 
 (Eph 5%), X. madvyyeveclas (Tit 3°); and the word 
 oceurs in no other connexion. It and its equivalent 
 /avacrum soon became technical terms in this sense 
 (Just. Mart. Apol. i. 61. 79; Cypr. De Hab. Virg 
 
 The intensive Sarrite» occurs four times: twice | 2. 23; De Lapsis, 24, etc.). 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 eo at 
 
 py 1h ae Soe ee 
 
 Watt ay ee eS See os 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 If. OT Tyrrs.—We have apostolic authority 
 for finding two types of Christian baptism in OT 
 history, but in neither case are the details of the 
 type quite certain. 
 
 Be aul takes the Israelites being under the cloud 
 and passing through the sea as an image of baptism 
 (1 Co 10'-#); where being under the cloud points 
 to submersion, while passing through the sea may 
 signify emersion; or (less well) the cloud may 
 typify the spiritual element in baptism, and the sea 
 the material element. 
 
 Still more expressly St. Peter makes the saving of 
 a few persons through water at the Flood a figure 
 of the Christian rite (I P 3-71); where the water 
 which purged the earth of its wicked inhabitants 
 by floating the Ark saved its inmates. Luther 
 Boe! inverts this, when he remarks that ‘ baptism 
 is a greater deluge than that described by Moses, 
 since more are baptized than were drowned by the 
 Deluge.’ 
 
 Beyond these two we need not go. But patristic 
 writers find baptism typified in a variety of things, 
 some of which are remote enough, e.g. not only 
 in the passage of the Jordan (Jos 3!7) and the 
 cleansing of Naaman (2 K 544), but in the river of 
 Paradise, the well revealed to Hagar, the water 
 from the rock, the water poured upon Elijah’s 
 offering, ete. etc. Tertullian asserts that the 
 primeval water ‘brought forth abundantly the 
 moving creature that hath life’ (Gn 1°), in order 
 that there should be no difficulty in believing that 
 baptismal waters can give life (De Bapt. iii.). In 
 a like spirit Be viccioe respecting Christian baptism 
 were found with great freedom, not only in Zech- 
 ariah’s fountain... ‘for sin and for uncleanness’ 
 (13!), in Isaiah’s promise that sins red as scarlet 
 shall be white as snow (1}8), and in Ezekiel’s, ‘I 
 will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall 
 be clean. . . . A new heart also will I give you, 
 and a new spirit will I put within you’ (36-5), but 
 even in the hart panting after the water brooks 
 (Ps 42), and in the waters breaking out in the 
 desert (Is 35°). 
 
 Without presuming to determine anything re- 
 specting intended types and prophecies, we may 
 safely say that those washings which were required 
 by the Mosaic Law as a means of entering or re- 
 entering the congregation, especially in its closer 
 
 relations with J”, had considerable analogy with 
 Christian baptism. But that is a very different 
 
 thing from Cyprian’s sweeping assertion, Quoti- 
 escunque aqua sola in scripturis sanctis nominatur, 
 baptisma predicatur (Ep. \xiii. 8); and this he applies 
 not only to OT (Is 438-2! 4871), but to NT (Jn 413-14 
 737-8, Mt 58). 
 
 III]. PARTIAL ANTICIPATIONS.—When we ap- 
 proach the history of baptism as a rite of religious 
 initiation, we are confronted with the question, 
 Where does the history begin? We may set aside 
 heathen baptisms as having no historic connexion 
 with the subject, except so far as ceremonial ablu- 
 tions may be common to the human race. But a 
 baptism which prevailed in Iceland and some parts 
 of Norway is worth mentioning as a partial parallel. 
 The father decided whether an infant was to be 
 nurtured or exposed. If he wished to preserve it, 
 water was poured over it and a name given to it; 
 and to ill it after this ceremony of admission to 
 the community was murder. ter the introduc- 
 tion of Christianity (c. A.D. 1000) this baptism still 
 continued for some time side by side with Christian 
 baptism. Omitting pagan lustrations, we have 
 three conspicuous examples of the rite, all originat- 
 ing in the same part of the world: preeelyt 
 baptism, John’s baptism, and Christian baptism. 
 
 ich of these three is chronologically the first, 
 and therefore the possible suggester of one or 
 both of the others? This question was very 
 
 BAPTISM 239 
 
 hotly debated in the first half of the 18th cent. 
 on controversial grounds, to find arguments for or 
 against infant baptism and sacramental doctrine. 
 In the 19th cent. the question has been examined 
 with less heat, and of late has dropped out of 
 notice. The monograph of Schneckenburger, Ueber 
 das Alter der jiidischen Proselytentaufe, Berlin, 
 1829, is still quoted as the leading authority on the 
 subject. Massecheth Gerim, the Talmudic authority 
 on proselytes, or Septem Libri Talmudici parvi 
 Hierosolymitam, was published by Kirchheim, 
 Frankfurt a/M. 1851. 
 
 (a) Proselyte Baptism.—According to the teaching 
 of later Judaism, a stranger who desired to become 
 a Proselyte of the Covenant, or of Righteousness, 
 z.é. in the fullest sense an Isr., must be circumcised 
 and baptized, and then offer a sacrifice; circum- 
 cision alone was not enough. Three of those who 
 had instructed the stranger in the Law became his 
 ‘fathers’ or sponsors, and took him to a pool, in 
 which he stood up to his neck in water, while the 
 great commandments of the Law were recited to 
 him. These he promised to keep. Then a benedic- 
 tion was 
 water, taking care to be entirely submerged. In the 
 case of women, baptism and sacrifice were the things 
 required to admit them tothe full privileges of Israel. 
 But for both male and female proselytes sacrifice 
 was abolished after the destruction of the temple. 
 
 That this baptism of proselytes is not an original 
 feature in Judaism is manifest. The Rabbis indeed 
 found a trace of it in Jacob’s command to his house- 
 hold, ‘ Put away the strange gods that are among 
 you, and purify yourselves, and change your gar- 
 ments’ (Gn 352); and even in God’s command to 
 Moses, ‘Go unto the people, and sanctify them 
 to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their 
 ae Renae (Ex 19°), where Eee to be sancti- 
 
 ed are certainly all Jews. hen ‘the daughter 
 of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river’ 
 (Ex 2°), this also, the Talm. said, is to be regarded 
 as the baptizing of a proselyte. But we may 
 safely assert that there is no mention of proselyte 
 baptism anywhere in~OT or in the_Apocr. T 
 is equally silent. And this is by no means all. 
 Josephus, Philo, and the older Targumists are silent 
 also; and there is little more than a probable 
 allusion to it in the Mishna. None of the early 
 Christian writers seem to know anything about it ; 
 and this is specially notable in the case of those 
 who have discussed Judaism, or ae aaa or both, 
 e.g. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian. Let 
 
 us admit that the Fourth Book of the Sibylline. 
 
 Oracles is of Jewish origin, and that the line, é 
 morapois Novcacbe Sov Séuas devdorwr (164), refers to 
 proselyte baptism; and that Arrian refers to it 
 also, when he says of one who is a heathen, 8rav dé 
 dvahdBy 7d mdéOos BeBaypevov tore kal éorl Tp byrt 
 kal kadeiras "Iovdatos (Diss. Epict. ii. 9); and that 
 the reading of the Ethiopic VS of Mt 23% ‘ye 
 compass sea and land to baptize one proselyte,’ 
 is beyond question. Nevertheless, these three 
 aut ring us much (if at all) earlier 
 than the 2nd cent.; and that at that time 
 
 roselytes were baptized on their admission to 
 Wate is not in dispute. at is wanted is 
 direct evidence that before John the Baptist made 
 so remarkable a use of the rite, it was the custom 
 to make all proselytes submit to baptism; and such 
 evidence is not forthcoming. 
 
 Nevertheless, the fact is not really doubtful. It 
 is not credible that the baptizing of proselytes was 
 ‘instituted and made essential for their admission 
 to Judaism at a period subsequent to the institution 
 of Christian baptism }"and tha supposition that it 
 was” borrowed from the rite enjoined by Christ is 
 monstrous. From the infancy of Christianity the 
 hostility of the synagogue to the Church was such, 
 
 
 
 ronounced, and he p unged beneath the | 
 By 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 240 
 
 
 
 that the mere fact that baptism was universally 
 known as the rite by which Gentiles were admitted 
 to the Christian community, would have made it 
 impossible for Jews to accept it as the rite for 
 admitting Gentiles to the Jewish community. 
 Against a consideration of this kind the silence 
 of Scripture and of Josephus and Philo is of little 
 weight; it is one more instance of the danger of 
 the argument from silence. No passage has been 
 pointed out in either Josephus or Philo in which it 
 would have been necessary, or even natural, to 
 mention proselyte ase and the same may be 
 said of Scripture. e subject is not mentioned, 
 because there was no need to mention it. In the 
 Mishna it is stated that the school of Shammai 
 allowed a Gentile who was circumcised on the eve 
 of the Passover to wash and partake of the paschal 
 lamb, while the school of Hillel did not; and this 
 points to the washing of proselytes as a customary 
 accompaniment of circumcision. But what may be 
 regarded as conclusive is, that the baptizing of 
 preeyes would follow of necessity from the regu- 
 ations which required a Jew to bathe in order 
 to recover Levitical purity (Ly 11-15, Nu 19). 
 Judeus quotidie lavat, quia quotidie inquinatur, 
 says Tertullian (De Bapt. xv.); and again, Omnibus 
 licet membris lavet quotidie Israel, nunquam tamen 
 mundus est (De Orat. xiv.). If the mere possibility 
 of contact with pollution requires such purification, 
 how much more would one who had live in heathen 
 pollution require a complete purification before he 
 was admitted to full membership in the House of 
 Israel. Moreover, it should be noted that the 
 authorities quoted above—the Sibylline Oracles, 
 Arrian, and the Ethiopic VS—all mention baptism 
 as the sign of change, and say nothing about 
 circumcision. The reason for which possibly is, 
 that, after the abolition of the sacrifices, baptism 
 was the only rite which was applicable to both 
 sexes; and the large majority of proselyter were 
 women (Kraus, Enc. d. Christ. Alterth. ii. p. 823). 
 Every Gentile, whether man or woman, who became 
 a Jew, was purified from heathen pollution by 
 immersion. 
 
 About the other hypothesis there is no difficulty. 
 Assume that baptism for proselytes was a well- 
 established custom when John began to preach, 
 and we have an obvious reason why John adopted 
 the rite. Not that this was his only reason; but 
 that, so far as the custom was of any influence, it 
 was a recommendation and not an objection. And 
 the same argument applies to Christian baptism, 
 which becomes more, and not less, intelligible 
 when we consider that it was preceded by baptism 
 for proselytes and the baptism of John. 
 
 LITERATURE.—For the abundant literature on the subject, and 
 for references to the Talm., see Edersheim, Life and Times of the 
 Messiah, ii. App. xii.; Schiirer, HJP nm. ii. § 81, p. 319; Herzog, 
 RE xii. p. 250, Ist ed. ; less full in 2nd ed. p. 800. 
 
 (6) The Baptism of John.—Although there is no 
 doubt that baptism was a Jewish rite of initiation 
 before John began to preach, yet the history of 
 baptism, so far as direct evidence is concerned, 
 begins with him. That he who derived his title 
 from it (6 Bamritwr, Mk 6'4-*; 6 Bamriorhs, Mt 3}, 
 
 Mk 8%, Lk 7”, Jos. Ant. XVIII. v. 2) made use of 
 
 the rite in preparing Israel for the kingdom of God, 
 is an historical fact beyond dispute. And we need 
 not doubt that in using it he was influenced by the 
 levitical purifications enjoined by the Law and by 
 the baptism of proselytes. But his baptism was 
 different from both. It is evident that, if it had 
 not had special characteristics, he would not have 
 received a special name, and his right to administer 
 it would not have been challenged. His baptism 
 differed from the washings prescribed by the Law 
 in these three respects—(1) They were acts of 
 lustration, restoring a man to his normal condition; 
 
 
 
 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 his was an act of preparation, leading a man to an 
 entirely new spacer (2) The man levitieally 
 unclean baptized himself, like Naaman in the 
 Jordan; the penitents who came to John were 
 baptized by him. (3) The Tegal washings merely 
 cleansed from levitical uncleanness; his was a 
 symbol and _seal of moral purification. The moral 
 preparation required by John is pointed out in the 
 THs WuxAs Oucaocivy mpoexxexabappévys of Jos. (Ant. 
 XVII. v. 2) as plainly as in the Bdmricua perarolas 
 of Scripture (Mk 14, Lk 3°). The spirit of repent- 
 ance was assumed with a view to remission of 
 sins. 
 
 John’s baptism differed from \_proselyte baptism 
 in being administered to Jews. e meaning of 
 the cha eet eg then ety. thou?’ (Jn 
 1%) seems to be, ‘What right hast thou, who art 
 neither the Messiah nor the Prophet, to treat 
 Israelites as if they were proselytes? Jews are 
 fit for the Messianic kingdom without any such 
 purification.’ 
 
 And while John’s baptism differed from, these 
 Jewish rites-on the one hand, so it differed from 
 Christian baptism on the other. This difference 
 was clearly pointed out by the Baptist himself. 
 ‘LT indeed baptize you with water unto repentance 
 .... he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost’ 
 (Mt 3"); ‘He that sent me to baptize with 
 water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou 
 shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon 
 him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy 
 Spirit’? (Jn 13; comp. our Lord’s words, Ac 1° 
 115). And that this difference was regarded as 
 essential, isshown bythe fact that Ephesian disciples 
 who had received John’s baptism were rebaptized 
 into the name of the Lord Jesus, and then received 
 the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands 
 by St. Paul (Ac 19%). Cyril of Jerus., in con- 
 trasting John’s baptism with Christian baptism, 
 says, that the former ‘ bestowed only the remission 
 of sins’ (Catech. xx. 6; comp. iii. 7). But there is 
 nothing in Scripture to show that it bestowed that. 
 Tertullian points out that ‘baptism for the re- 
 mission of sins’ refers to a futwre remission, which 
 was to follow in Christ (De Bapt. x.), And it may 
 be doubted whether, if John’s baptism had con- 
 ferred remission of sins, Jesus would have sub- 
 mitted toit. Its main aspect was preparation for 
 the kingdom of God; and in this aspect it fitted 
 well into the opening of Christ’s ministry. To 
 everyone else this preparatory act was a baptism 
 of repentance. The Messiah, who needed no re- 
 pentance, could yet accept the preparation. B 
 means of this rite the people were consecrat 
 to receive salvation, and He was consecrated to 
 bestow it. 
 
 We are told by St. John that the disciples of 
 Jesus baptized many, and that this led to an 
 inaccurate statement that Jesus Himself baptized 
 (3% 41-2), As to the nature of this baptism we 
 are told nothing; but. if not identical with the 
 baptism of John, it vould be more akin to that 
 than to Christian baptism. It was preparato 
 and not perfecting, symbolical and not sacramental. 
 The arguments of Tertullian on this point are 
 weighty (De Bapt. x.-xii.). Was Christian baptism 
 
 ossible until Christ had died and risen again? 
 
 he theory that this early baptism by Christ’s 
 disciples was the baptism of the gospel, but that its 
 full effects remained latent until after the resur- 
 rection, is not helpful; and to suppose with Peter 
 Lombard that it was In nomine Trinitatis, scilicet 
 in e@ forma in quad baptizaverunt postea (Sent. iv. 
 Dist. ui. 7), is utterly unreasonable. W hen John was 
 put into prison, Jesus Himself continued John’s 
 preaching. ‘He came into Galilee, preaching the 
 gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled 
 Bact the kingdom of God is at hand> repent ye' 
 
 
 
 
 
Ps =e 
 
 as a \et od 
 
 L + a th i" 
 
 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 441 
 
 
 
 (Mk 115), Is it improbable that, while Christ 
 continued the preaching of John, His disciples 
 continued the baptism of John? In that case 
 there is no need to raise the question whether 
 they baptized ‘into the name of the Lord Jesus’; 
 for John certainly did not do so. In any case 
 it is improbable that, at a time when the dis- 
 ciples had such inadequate views of the office of 
 Jesus, they would baptize into His name. This 
 baptism was teen not accompanied by the gift 
 of the Spirit: ‘for the Spirit was not yet given; 
 because Jesus was not yet glorified’ (Jn 7%). 
 And it is to be noted that neither in the mission of 
 the Twelve nor in that of the Seventy is there 
 any command to baptize (Lk 9'5 10''%), That 
 omission is intelligible, if this early baptism, like 
 that of John, was merely preparatory, a symbolical 
 act conferring no grace. But the omission would 
 be strange if there was thee in use a rite equal 
 in efficacy to the baptism of the gospel. Until 
 Christ had died and risen again, and sent the Holy 
 Spirit upon His disciples, no such baptism by them 
 
 was possible. 
 IV. THE HIsToRY OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 —This subject, as treated in NT, may be 
 
 discussed under four heads—(a) the Institution, 
 (2) the Recipients, (c) the Minister, (d) the 
 ite 
 
 (a) The Institution of Christian baptism is to be 
 dated from Christ’s farewell command, ‘Go ye and 
 make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them 
 into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost’ (Mt 28). This command the 
 Twelve do not attempt to carry out until they 
 are free from the earlier charge (Lk 24). But 
 directly they have ‘been clothed with power from 
 on high,’ Peter begins to exhort the people to 
 ‘repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus 
 Christ unto the remission of their sins’ (Ac 2°), 
 and with seh great success. But here we are at 
 once struck by the fact that, in spite of Christ’s 
 command to baptize into the name of the Trinity, 
 no mention is made of the Trinity, but only of ‘ the 
 name of Jesus Christ.’ And this first and important 
 record of Christian baptisms does not stand alone. 
 The Samaritans who were converted by Philip were 
 ‘baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus’ (Ac 
 816), Peter at Caesarea commanded that Cornelius 
 and those with him should be ‘baptized in the 
 name of Jesus Christ’ (10). And the Ephesian 
 disciples, when they were convinced of the in- 
 sufficiency of John’s baptism, were ‘baptized into 
 the name of the Lord Jesus’ (19°). Moreover, there 
 is no mention in NT of any one being baptized 
 into the name of the Trinity; and the expression 
 “baptized into Christ’ (Ro 6%, Gal 37; comp. 
 1 Co 1 6") is more in harmony with the passages 
 in the Acts than with the divine command as re- 
 corded Mt 2819. * 
 
 Various explanations of these statements in the 
 Acts have been suggested. 
 
 (1) This baptism into or in the name of Jesus 
 Christ is that which was practised by Christ’s 
 disciples during His ministry (Jn 4'-*). Having 
 been accustomed to this form, they continued to 
 use it ‘probably through life,’ although Christ 
 had expressly ordered the Trinitarian form, and 
 although the Holy Spirit was not always imparted 
 when this imperfect form was employed, whereas 
 the gift of the Spirit always accompanied baptism 
 
 * Jt is worth noting that in all the instances of baptism ‘in’ 
 or ‘into the name’ the verb is in the passive. Except in the 
 original charge, the phrase ‘to baptize into the name’ does not 
 occur ; itis always ‘to be baptized into the name’ or ‘in the 
 name,’ This holds good of 1 Co 115 also, where sig 16 ipedy dvope 
 Bérriee is a false reading, and tSerriclnrs (RA BC* gyptt. 
 Vulg. Arm.) is right. In the Eastern Churches the formula is 
 not ‘I baptize thee,’ but Baariferas 6 dovAes rod Jeov; and this is 
 probably more ancient than the Western formula familiar to us. 
 
 VOL, I.—I6 
 
 in the name of the Trinity (Dict. of Chr. Biog. i. 
 B 241). This is scarcely credible. The Ephesian 
 isciples were rebaptized because their original 
 baptism was inadequate. Can we suppose that 
 they then received a baptism that was also de- 
 fective? And would the disciples have adhered to 
 a form which experience proved to be less uniformly 
 efficacious, even if we allow that they would ignore 
 the express command of Christ? tt is admitted 
 that this inferior form of baptism went out of use 
 at an early date—perhaps soon after the First 
 Gospel became current. 
 
 (2) Baptism in the name of one Person of the 
 Trinity is virtually baptism in the name of the 
 Trinity, and is valid. ‘This seems to be the view of 
 Ambrose. Quod verbo tacitum fuerat, expressum 
 est fide. Cum enim dicitur: In nomine Domini 
 nostri Jesu Christi, per wnitatem nominis impletum 
 mysterium est: nec a Christi baptismate Spiritus 
 7 2 eo «© Qus unum dixerit, Trinitatem 
 
 Si Christum dicas, et Deum Patrem a 
 oe unctus est Filius, et ipsum qui unctus est 
 
 iliwm, et aed Sanctum quo unctus est desig- 
 
 ing on Ac 19°; and it is rash to say that ‘he is 
 probably speaking of the confession of the recipient, 
 not of the formula.’ Bede understands Ambrose 
 to be writing of the baptismal formula, and accepts 
 the solution that baptism in the name of Jesus 
 Christ is really in the name of the Trinity (Super 
 Acta, Exp. x. 48; Migne, xcii. 970). See also Peter 
 Lombard (Sent. iv. Dist. iii. 4), Hugo Victor (De 
 Sacram. i. 13), and Aquinas (Summa, iii. 66. 6). 
 This view was confirmed by the Council of Frejus 
 (A.D. 792), and apparently by Pope Nicholas 1 
 (858-867) in his Responsa ad Bulgaros. 
 
 (3) When St. Luke says that people were 
 ‘baptized in (or into) the name of the Lord Jesus,’ 
 he is not indicating the formula which was used in 
 baptizing, but is merely stating that such persons 
 were baptized as acknowledged Jesus to be the 
 Lord eid: the Christ; in short, he is simply telling 
 us that the baptism was Christian. When Peter 
 heals the cripple at the Beautiful Gate of the 
 temple, the form of the words used is quoted: ‘In 
 the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.’ No 
 such form of words is quoted in any of the passages 
 in which persons are said to be baptized in or into 
 the name of Jesus Christ. There is no evidence © 
 against the supposition that in these and in all 
 other cases the formula used was that which Christ 
 enjoined. This is erhaps what Cyprian means 
 when he says on Ac 2% Jesu Christi mentionem 
 facit Petrus, non quasi Pater omitteretur, sed ut 
 Patri Filius quoque adjungeretur (Ep. \xxiii. 17). 
 In 1 Co 102, where the Israelites are said to have 
 been ‘baptized into Moses’ (els ray Mwvofv), the 
 meaning is that they were baptized into obedience 
 to him and acknowledgment of his authority, not 
 that his name was called over them in some 
 formula. See Lightfoot on 1 Co 1%, 
 
 (4) The original form of words was ‘into the 
 name of Jesus Christ’ or ‘the Lord Jesus.’ Baptism 
 into the name of the Trinity was a later develop- 
 ment. After the one mention of it, Mt 28%, we 
 do not find it again until Justin Martyr, and his 
 formula is not identical with that in the Gospel : 
 én’ dvoparos yap Tov marpds Tv Sdwv Kal deawdrou Geod 
 kal Tov cwrfpos judy "Incod Xpicrod xal mvevuaros 
 aylov 7d év TH Udare TéTE AouTpdy TocovvTat (A pol. i. 61). 
 It is probable that, when the Trinitarian formula 
 had become usual, it was regarded as of divine 
 authority, and was by some attributed to Christ 
 Himself. This tradition is represented in Mt 
 28, and is perhaps an indication that the First 
 Gospel in its extant form is later than the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. That in the apostolic 
 
42 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 
 
 age there was no fixed formula is shown, not 
 only by the difference between Matt. and the 
 Acts, but by the difference between one passage 
 in the Acts and another, and also by traces of 
 other differences in the Epistles. Baptism ‘into the 
 name of the Lord Jesus’ (Ac 8!® 195), or ‘in the 
 name of Jesus Christ’ (2°° 10%), or ‘into Christ 
 Jesus’ (Ro 6°), or ‘into Christ’ (Gal 37), had 
 sufficed. Comp. mplv ydp, prot, popéoa rdv AvOpwrov 
 70 bvoua Tov vlov Tov Beov, vexpés éorw (Hermas, Sim. 
 ix. 16. 3); where, however, rod vlod is possibly an 
 insertion (A omits). 
 
 Of these four explanations the second and third 
 are far more satisfactory than the other two, and 
 the third seems to be the best. It is a violent 
 hypothesis to suppose that words of such importance 
 as Mt 28! were never spoken by Christ, and yet 
 were authoritatively attributed to Him in the 
 First Gospel. The insertion of the doxology after 
 the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 61%) is not parallel. Not 
 only is the insertion of less importance, being 
 covered by genuine utterances of Christ as well as 
 by 1 Ch 29", but it is absent from all the most 
 ancient authorities, including all Greek and Latin 
 commentators; whereas the baptismal formula in 
 Mt 28 is in all authorities without exception. 
 It is as well attested as any saying of Christ which 
 is recorded in one Gospel only. Nor does the 
 variation of the Trinitarian formula given by 
 Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 61) cause any difliculty. 
 He is net giving the exact words used in baptism, 
 but is paraphrasing them, so as to make them a 
 little more intelligible to the heathen whom he is 
 addressing. It is reasonable to believe that Christ 
 prescribed the Trinitarian formula, and that His 
 command was obeyed. 
 
 (6) The Recipients of Christian baptism were 
 required to repent and believe. This 1s set forth, 
 both in the Lord’s commands and also in the first 
 instance of baptism on the Day of Pentecost. 
 ‘Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized 
 every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto 
 the remission of your sins’ (Ac 28), Here repent- 
 ance is expressed and faith in Jesus Christ is 
 implied, as in the farewell charge to the apostles 
 recorded by St. Luke: ‘that repentance and re- 
 mission of sins should be preached in His name 
 unto all the nations’ (2447). More often it is faith 
 that is expressed and repentance that is implied, 
 as in the charge recorded in the appendix to Mk: 
 ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
 the whole creation. He that believeth and is 
 baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth 
 shall be condemned’ (1615-18), So also in the case 
 of the jailer at Philippi (Ac 16%), of the 
 Samaritans (8), of Cornelius and his company 
 (10-48), and of the Corinthians (18%). Compare the 
 Western insertion Ac 8%. Of the two requisites, 
 faith is the one which more needs express state- 
 ment. Repentance without faith in Christ was 
 possible, as in the case of John’s baptism. Faith 
 in Christ without repentance was not possible. 
 Comp. He 10”. 
 
 All the instances just quoted (especially those of 
 viie converts on the Day of Pentecost, of Cornelius 
 and his friends, and of the Philippian jailer and his 
 household) tend to show that no great amount of 
 instruction or preparation was at first required. 
 But somewhat later, after the apostles, who had 
 been a protection against tne admission of un- 
 worthy candidates, had died out, and after the 
 Chara had had larger experience of unreal con- 
 verts, much more care was taken to secure definite 
 knowledge and hearty acceptance of the truths of 
 the gospel. 
 
 This primitive freedom in admitting converts to 
 
 pressly mentioned. Whole households were some- 
 times baptized, as those of Lydia, Crispus, the 
 jailer, and Stephanas; and it is probable that there 
 were children in at least some of these. Thera 
 may also have been children among the three 
 thousand baptized at Pentecost. According to the 
 ideas then prevalent, the head of the family repre- 
 sented a summed up the family. In some 
 respects the paterfamilias had absolute control of 
 the members of his household (Maine, Ancient 
 Law, ch. v.). 
 unnatural thing that the father should make a 
 complete change in his religious condition and that 
 his children should be excluded from it. Moreover, 
 the analogy of circumcision would lead Jewish 
 converts to have their children baptized. Had 
 there been this marked difference between the twe 
 rites,—that infants were admitted to the Jewish 
 covenant, but not to the Christian,—the difference 
 would probably have been pointed out; all the 
 more so, because Christianity was the more com- 
 prehensive religion of the two. There is therefore 
 prima facie ground for chins that from the 
 first infants were baptized. And this position is 
 strengthened by general declarations of Christ 
 Himself: ‘Suffer the little children to come unto 
 Me; forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom 
 of God’ (Mk 10%). ‘Except a man (rs) be born 
 of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the king- 
 dom of God’ (Jn 3°); where there is no intimation 
 that children are exempted. On the contrary, the 
 condition of children is given as the ideal for 
 entrance into the kingdom (Mt 18°). 
 
 But there is primd facie evidence on the other 
 side. Not only is there no mention of the baptism 
 of infants, but there is no text from which such 
 baptism can be securely inferred. ‘Make disciples 
 of all the nations’ (Mt 281°), implies those who 
 are old enough to receive instruction. That little 
 children may be brought to Christ, and are a type 
 of Christian innocence, does not prove that they 
 are fit to receive baptism. And we cannot be sure 
 that Jn 3° is meant to include infants, because 
 Jesus often states general principles, and leaves His 
 Church to find out the necessary limitations. An 
 ordinance may be generally necessary to salvation, 
 and yet not be suited to infants; which is the 
 Western view of the Lord’s Supper. Seripture tells 
 us that repentance and faith are requisite for 
 baptism. Assuming that infants have no need of 
 repentance, can we assume that faith also may be 
 dispensed with? Cyprian slurs this (Zp. Ixiv. 5). 
 He points out that adults must have faith, which 
 includes repentance, and that infants have no sins 
 of their own to repent of; but he is silent about 
 infants’ lack of faith. Those who maintain that the 
 infantine state is a substitute for faith and repent- 
 ance, must remember that faith and repentance are 
 the conditions given in Scripture, and that the 
 infantine state is not mentioned as an equivalent. 
 It is probable that all that is said in Scripture about 
 baptism refers to the baptism of adults. Until 
 there were many Christian parents to whom 
 children were born, the question of baptizing 
 infants would be exceptional; and perhaps evan- 
 gelists used their own discretion ; for infant baptism 
 is, at any rate, nowhere forbidden in Scripture. 
 
 (c) The Minister in baptism is not determined ; 
 and lay baptism is in much the same position as 
 infant baptism. It can be neither proved nor 
 disproved from Scripture. The commission to 
 baptize was given in the first instance to the 
 Eleven (Mt 2815-2), but we are not sure that no 
 others were present. Moreover, it is in virtue of 
 Christ’s presence (‘Lo, I am with you alway’) 
 that they have the right to baptize; and this 
 
 baptism is in itself an argument in favour of infant | presence cannot be confined to the apostles. We 
 are not told who baptized the three thousand at 
 
 baptism, although no baptism of an infant is ex- 
 
 
 
 And it would have seemed an. 
 

 
 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 
 
 
 
 —— 
 
 Pentecost ; and the apostles, if they baptized any, 
 can hardly have baptized them all. DO peatenidy, 
 Ananias baptized St. Paul, but this is not clear 
 (Ac 22!) He was ‘a certain disciple’ (9!°), and 
 ‘a devout man according to the law’ (2212), and 
 presumably alayman. Peter commanded Cornelius 
 and his company to be baptized (10%); and we 
 assume that it was done by the brethren from 
 Joppa, who are not said to be presbyters or deacons. 
 From the silence of Scripture respecting the minister 
 on these and other occasions, we may infer that an 
 ordained minister is not essential. 
 
 (d) The ite is nowhere described in detail; but 
 the element was always water, and the mode of 
 using it was commonly immersion. The syzabolism 
 of the ordinance required this. It was an act of 
 eta and hence the need of water. A 
 
 eath to sin was expressed by the plunge beneath 
 the water, and a rising again to a life of righteous- 
 ness by the return to light and air; and hence the 
 appropriateness of immersion. Water is mentioned 
 in Ac 8% 10%, Eph 575, He 10??; and there is no 
 mention of any other element. Immersion is im- 
 Le in Ro 64 and Col 2% But immersion was a 
 
 esirable symbol rather than an essential. In the 
 prison at Philippi it can hardly have been possible ; 
 and it is not very probable in the house of Cornelius. 
 Wherever large numbers of both sexes were baptized, 
 the ditficulty of total immersion in each case must 
 have been great. And if immersion better ex- 
 ree the cleansing of the whole man, pouring 
 
 etter expresses the outpouring of the Spirit, whose 
 operation is not dependent upon the amount of 
 water, nor upon the manner of its application. 
 Comp. Cyprian, Ep. lxix. 12. 
 
 As to the form of words used in baptizing, 
 what has been said above may almost sufiice. if 
 from the first there was only one form, that form 
 was Trinitarian; from the 2nd century it was 
 certainly the only form. Justin’s evidence (Apol. 
 i. 61) has been quoted, and Tertullian describes 
 the practice in his day: nec semel, sed ter, ad 
 singula nomina im personas singulas tinguimur 
 (Adv. Prax. xxvi.).* Wherever St. Matthew’s 
 Gospel was received the Trinitarian formula would 
 become obligatory ; and that carries us back long 
 before Justin Martyr. But it is possible that for a 
 time the form of words varied. 
 
 The ‘anointing’ (2 Co 1”, 1 Jn 277) probably 
 refers to baptism ; but to anointing with the Spirit, 
 not with ie Yet unction at baptism is as old as 
 Tertullian (De Bapt. vii.). The ‘sealing’ (2 Co 
 1, Eph 18 4%) also may refer to baptism, but not 
 to signing with the cross: 4 odpayls ody 7d Udwp 
 éorw (Hermas, Sim. ix. 16. 4). Whether ‘the good 
 confession in the sight of many witnesses’ (1 Ti 6!2) 
 refers to a profession of faith at Timothy’s baptism 
 (Ewald, Hausrath, Pfleiderer), is uncertain; the 
 many witnesses point rather to ordination (Holtz- 
 mann). That the difficult passage 1 P 37! refers 
 to the answers or pledges made by the candidates 
 at baptism, is very doubtful. 
 
 V. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.— 
 Scripture teaches that baptism, rightly adminis- 
 tered to those who are qualified by repentance and 
 faith to receive it, has various beneficial results. 
 These are closely connected, either as cause and 
 effect, or as joint effects, or as different aspects of 
 the same fact. But they are capable of analysis 
 and of separate treatment. They are mainly (1) 
 Reveneration or New Birth, (2) Divine Affiliation, 
 (3) Cleansing from Sin, (4) Admission to the 
 Chureh, (5) Union with’ Christ, (6) Gift of the 
 Spirit, (7) Salvation. 
 
 * In the Eastern Churches trine immersion s regarded as the 
 only valid form of baptism; and the Catechism explains that 
 ‘this trine immersion is a figure of the three days’ burial of our 
 Saviour, and of His resurrection’ (Mose hake, p, 42) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 243 
 
 
 
 (1) Christ Himself said, ‘Except a man be horn 
 anew (yevv7n07 dvwOev), he cannot see the kinedom 
 of God’; and He explained this as meanin:, 
 ¢ Except a man be born of water and the Spirit 
 (Jn 3*°), which until Calvin’s day had universally 
 been interpreted as referring to baptism. The 
 metaphor was not new. Jews spoke of the admis- 
 sion of proselytes to Israel as a ‘new birth.’ ‘ Art 
 thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not 
 these things?’ (Jn 3"), perkaps refers to this com- 
 mon use of the phrase. But in any case ‘ water 
 and Spirit’ refer to the outward sign and inward 
 gift at baptism as effecting a new birth. This is 
 confirmed bySt. Paul’s ‘daver of regeneration (Aourpdv 
 mahtyyevecias) and renewing of the Holy Spirit’ 
 (Tit 3°), which also was universally understood as 
 meaning baptism. And baptism is called ‘ washing 
 of regeneration,’ not merely because it symbolizes it, 
 or pledges a man toit, but also, and chiefly, because 
 it effects it (Holtzmann, Huther, Pfleiderer, Weiss). 
 
 (2) This new birth brings us into a new relation- 
 ship to God: the baptized are made His children 
 or sons. ‘For ye are all sons of God, through faith 
 in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were 
 baptized into Christ did put on Christ’ (Gal 32% 2), 
 ‘To them gave he the right to become children 
 of God’ (Jn 1; comp. 1 Jn 47). That being 
 ‘begotten of God’ (1 Jn 3°47 518), or becoming a 
 ‘child of God’ (1 Jn 3! 52), or a ‘son of God’ 
 (Ro 8419, Gal 3%), is synonymous with being 
 ‘born anew,’ need not be doubted. The first birth 
 is of man; the second or new birth is of God. So 
 that it makes little matter whether we translate 
 dywOev (Jn 3°) ‘anew’ with Justin (Apol. i. 61) and 
 the Lat. and Eth. VSS, or ‘from above’ with 
 Origen and most of the Greek Fathers. A new 
 birth is a birth from above, and vice versd. And 
 the passages in which these expressions occur 
 show that regeneration or being begotten by God 
 does not mean merely a new capacity for change in 
 the direction of goodness, but an actual change. 
 The legal washings were actual external purifica- 
 tions. Baptism is actual internal purification. 
 
 (3) John’s baptism was ‘wnto remission of sins,’ 
 els Adeow ayapriovy (Mk 14, Lk 38). Christian 
 sane is not only this (Ac 2°, Lk 247, where eds 
 and not «al is the better reading), but it confers 
 remission of sins. Ananias says to Saul: ‘ Arise, 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins’ (Ac 
 2216; comp. 10 1358, He 107). St. Paul, after 
 Hone at the sinful past of the Corinthians in the 
 
 ays of their heathenism, continues: ‘ But ye were 
 washed, but ye were sanctified,’ ete. (1 Co 6"). 
 And the same is said of all Christians; for ‘ Christ 
 loved the Church, and gave himself up for it; that 
 he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the 
 washing of water with the word’ (Eph 5-5), 
 
 (4) That baptism involved admission to the 
 Church hardly needs to be more than stated. It 
 was an instrument for this very purpose, analogous 
 to circumcision. The recipient of baptism, like the 
 recipient of circumcision, is admitted to a new 
 external covenant and new spiritual privileges, and 
 is thereby pledged to new daciea ‘o say that a 
 person is baptized, is to say that he has been 
 admitted to the Christian communion. ‘They then 
 that received his word were baptized: and there 
 were added unto them in that day about three 
 thousand souls’ (Ac 2#; comp. 1 Co 12}8), 
 
 (5) As the Church is the body of Christ (Col 118), 
 to be admitted to the Church 1s to be united with 
 Christ, and to become one of His members (1 Co 
 1277), ‘For as many of you as were baptized into 
 Christ did put on Christ’ (Gal 3%’); and Christians’ 
 ‘bodies are members of Christ’ (1 Co 6%; comp 
 Eph 4-16), This is not only true in general, but 
 in a special way baptism makes us partakers in the 
 death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. ‘We 
 
 
 
244. BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 
 
 who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized 
 into his death. We were buried therefore with 
 him through baptism into death: that like as 
 Christ was raised from the dead... so we also 
 might walk in newness of life’ (Ro 6%4; comp. 
 Co] 2}. 31), This great change is always spoken 
 of as past, not as continuing (Ro 6% 182 g215 
 etc.). The reference is to some definite occasion 
 when it took place. 
 
 (6) That Christian baptism confers the gift of the 
 Spirit, whereas John’s baptism did not, was one o: 
 the most marked points of difference between them 
 (Mt 34, Mk 18, Lk 338, Jn 1%, Ac 1976), ‘In one 
 Spirit were we all baptized into one body. . . and 
 were all made to drink of one Spirit’ (1 Co 12). 
 And hence not only is the whole Church ‘a habita- 
 tion of God in the Spee (Eph 2”; comp. 2 Co 
 616, 1 P 2°), but each individual Christian is a 
 temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Co 6” 31%), And ‘the 
 Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that 
 we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; 
 heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ’ (Ro 8!* 1"). 
 
 (7) This involves one more result. Those who 
 are ‘joint heirs with Christ’ have a pledge that 
 they will one day enter into that inheritance which 
 He now enjoys. It has various names. It is 
 salvation. ‘He that believeth, and is baptized, 
 shall be saved’ ({Mk] 16%). Those who were 
 added to the Church were ‘those that were being 
 saved’ (Ac 247; comp. 16°, 1 P 154 321). It is 
 the kingdom of God. ‘Except a man be born of 
 water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God’ (Jn 35). It is eternal life. 
 After speaking to Nicodemus of the necessity of 
 being born anew of the Spirit, Christ says that God 
 has sent Him into the world, ‘that whosoever be- 
 lieveth on him should not perish, but have eternal 
 life’ (3457). By baptism we are grafted into Him 
 who is the life (14°), and he that hath the Son hath 
 the life (1 Jn 5). Those Jews who refused to be 
 admitted into the Church ‘judged themselves 
 unworthy of eternal life’ (Ac 13%). In writing 
 to Titus, St. Paul sums up several of these aspects 
 of baptism (3°), 
 
 These are the chief effects when valid baptism 
 has been administered to those who are duly 
 
 ualified by repentance and faith to receive it. 
 Bat what is the result when these two sets of con- 
 ditions are separated? There is the case of those 
 who are qualified, but are not baptized. And there 
 is the case of those who are baptized, but are not 
 qualified. Simon Magus is an example of the 
 latter. In Scripture there is no certain instance of 
 the former, nor any express statement respecting 
 such. But the solution afterwards reached throws 
 light on scriptural language, and may be briefly 
 mentioned here. 
 
 It was universally held that a catechumen who 
 was martyred before baptism was a member of 
 Christ. His ‘baptism of blood’ supplied the de- 
 fi iency. But a catechumen who was willing to 
 suffer for the faith, and yet died without martyrdom 
 or baptism, seemed to be equally a member of Christ; 
 as Ambrose contends (De obitu Valent. Consol. 52; 
 Miene, xvi. 1375). This led to a general concession 
 that the faithful unbaptized may possess the sub- 
 stance of regeneration before baptism; and this 
 involved a modification of the doctrine as to the 
 actual effect of baptism upon the faithful recipient. 
 As early as Tertullian we find the admission: 
 Lavacrum tllud est obsignatio fidei; que fides a 
 penitentie fide incipitur et commendatur. Non 
 tdeo abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, quoniam jam 
 corde loti swmus (De Pen vi.). Baptism is a seal 
 (cpparyls, signaculum). The metaphor was used of 
 circumcision (Ro 4"), and was very early trans- 
 ferred to baptism (?2 Co 1”, ? Rev 94): see reff. 
 {in Suicer, s.v.. and in Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. ii. 
 
 226. A seal makes a document formally com: 
 plete ; but the document may be binding without 
 it. And if before baptism jam corde loti swmus, 
 what is this but regeneration? Nevertheless, to 
 regard baptism as a mere form which may be 
 neglected with impunity would be arrogant dis- 
 obedience, like the first attitude of Naaman towards 
 Elisha ; and such disobedience would be evidence 
 that the inward justification had not taken place. 
 An unbaptized believer is like a testator who has 
 made a will but has not signed it. He may die 
 without signing it. If itis clear that he had full 
 intention of signing, and was merely waiting for 
 suitable witnesses, the will may be accepted as a 
 valid expression of his wishes. But if he has post- 
 
 oned the signature indefinitely, the presumption 
 is that he was not decided as to his intentions. It 
 is the contempt of baptism when it may be had, 
 not the lack of it when it may not, that is 
 perilous. 
 
 The case of Simon Magus is very different. He 
 was baptized without repentance and faith. Was 
 that a mere waar form? By no means. He was 
 admitted to the Christian body, and received the 
 baptismal character. The technical name for such 
 a person was Fictus, t.e. one who received baptism 
 unworthily. And it was held from the first that 
 
 God always does His part in the baptismal contract, | 
 
 whether the baptized can avail himself of it or no. 
 The grace which the Fictus, through unworthiness, 
 could not receive at the time of baptism, was 
 always ready for him when repentance and faith 
 made him worthy. Hehad ceased to be a heathen, 
 and had received a Christian title, which could be 
 made good by change of heart. This doctrine 
 follows of necessity from the doctrine that baptism 
 is genera y necessary, and yet may not be repeated. 
 Otherwise, the case of the unworthy recipient would 
 be hopeless. His first baptism would be without 
 effect ; and he may not have a second. But it is 
 because his baptism has done all that is required, 
 if ony he makes himself capable of profiting by it, 
 that he may not have it repeated. Simon is ex- 
 horted to repent, not with a view to a second 
 baptism, but to the forgiveness which would have 
 been his had his baptism been worthily received, 
 and which may still be won (Ac 8”). When 
 whole tribes were baptized at once, baptisin with- 
 out the necessary repentance and faith must have 
 beencommon. But this defect was not irreparable ; 
 and meanwhile the Eee: had a title to spiritual 
 plesines which could be appropriated by change of 
 eart. 
 
 Mutatis mutandis the same principle may hold 
 respecting the baptism of infants. At baptism the 
 infant receives remission of the guilt of original sin, 
 admission to the Christian community, and a title 
 to heavenly gifts to be appropriated afterwards, 
 Scriptural doctrine refers to the baptism of adults 
 who are qualified by repentance and faith. The 
 application of that doctrine to infants is an un- 
 certain inference; and we must be cautious in 
 drawing it. Caution is also required in estimating 
 the statements of Christian writers of the first three 
 centuries respecting baptismal regeneration, We 
 must consider two points especially. (1) Is the 
 writer speaking of the baptism of adults or of that 
 of infants? With us, if nothing is said to the con- 
 trary, baptism commonly means infant baptism. 
 Early Christian writers would almost always have 
 the baptism of adults in their minds, (2) In what 
 sense does he use the word ‘regeneration’? Some- 
 times it is a mere synonym for the fact of baptism. 
 In Scripture every Christian is hypothetically a 
 saint: and so every baptized person is hypothetic- 
 ally regenerate. Tt is assumed that the baptism 
 has been in all respects complete. In this sense, to 
 call an infant ‘ regenerate’ may mean no more than 
 
 
 
BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD 
 
 that it has been baptized, and may be no evidence 
 of the writer’s convictions as to the immediate 
 effect of baptism on infants, 
 Lirerature. — For the abundant literature on baptism, see 
 * Smith, DB? i. 354, and Dict. of Chr. Ant. i. 112; Schaff-Herzog, 
 Encycl.® i. 198, 209; Herzog, RH? xy. 251. The following may 
 be selected. For the subject in general, the articles on baptism 
 in Smith, DB and Diet. of Chr. Ant. For patristic comments 
 on Scripture, Suicer, s.v., and Pusey, Scriptural Views of Bap- 
 tism, being Tracts for the Times, 67, 68, 69; for Cyprian in 
 particular, the index in Hartel, ii. 875-377 ; and for Augustine, the 
 index in Migne, xlvi. 102-111. For the philosophical argument, 
 Mozley, Review of the Baptismal Controversy. For the archw- 
 ology, Martene, De Ant. EHecles. Ritibus; Goar, Zuchologion 
 Grecorum; Augusti, Denkwitrdigkeiten aus. d. Christ. 
 Archdéologie, vii. ; Kvaus, Real-Eneykl. d. Christ. Alterth. ii. ; 
 Hotling, Das Sacrament ad. Jaufe. Bingham is somewhat dis- 
 appointing, but later editions supply certain defects, For pictu- 
 resque description, Stanley, Christian Institutions. 
 A. PLUMMER. 
 
 BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.— The expression 
 of BarriCduevor brép Trav vexpay, ‘those who are 
 baptized for the dead,’ has from early times been 
 a perplexity to expositors, and with our present 
 knowledge it is impossible to do more than 
 determine the direction in which a correct solution 
 may be found. It is possible to show what 
 kind of interpretation the language of 1 Co 15” 
 requires ; and, when this is done, other kinds of 
 interpretation are excluded as impossible. 
 
 The interpretations are very numerous. Horsley 
 (see below) has collected thirty-six, and it would 
 perhaps be possible to add to the number. It is 
 
 well that such collections should be made for 
 reference, but it is not necessary to multiply them. 
 The thirty-six are classified under three heads: 
 four explain the text by a reference to legal 
 purifications ; three of metaphorical baptism, e.g. 
 being baptized in calamity ; twenty-nine of sacra- 
 
 mental baptism. A more simple and useful 
 classification is that into those which explain oi 
 Barri(dnevor rip Tay vexpov as referring to ordinary 
 Christian baptism, and those which make it refer 
 to something abnormal. 
 
 1. The ablest exposition of the first kind of 
 explanation in its best form is probably that of 
 T. S. Evans in the Speaker's Commentary (iii. pp. 
 372, 373). He contends that the view of the Greek 
 expositors is unquestionably right, and that sep 
 Tay vexpav Means, ‘with an interest in the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead,’ i.e. ‘in expectation of the 
 resurrection.’ The objections to this kind of 
 interpretation are three. (1) of Barr. imrép 7. v. 
 seem to be a special class, and not all Christians 
 in general. (2) There is no instance in NT, if 
 anywhere at all, of this use of trép. (8) The 
 ellipse of rs avacrdsews is very violent. If St. Paul 
 had wanted to abbreviate tis dvactdcews TaY 
 vexpav, he would have omitted rév vexpav, which is 
 superfluous, rather than tis avacrdcews, which is 
 vital. 
 
 2. The reference is clearly to something abnor- 
 mal. There was some baptismal rite known to the 
 Corinthians which would be meaningless without 
 a belief in the resurrection. The passage does not 
 imply that St. Paul approves of this abnormal rite, 
 but simply that it exists and implies the doctrine 
 of the resurrection. And here all certainty ends. 
 We cannot determine what this rite was. The 
 practice of vicarious buptism, te. of baptizing 
 living proxies in place of those who had died 
 unbaptized, unquestionably existed in some 
 quarters in Tertullian’s time (De Resur. 48; Adv. 
 Marcion, vy. 10), but probably only among heretics. 
 And the practice may easily have grown out of an 
 ignorant ‘ wresting’ of this ‘hard to be understood’ 
 (2 P 3'6) saying of St. Paul. We have no know- 
 ledge that this vicarious baptism was practised by 
 any religious body in St. Paul’s day. 
 
 Lireratore,. — For collections of interpretations and for the 
 literature of the subject, see an article on Necrobaptisin, by 
 
 
 
 
 
 BARABBAS 
 
 Rey. J. W. Horsley, in the Newbery House Magazine for June 
 1889 ; the notes in Meyer, Alford, Stanley, and Wordsworth ; 
 Suicer, 7'hesawrus, 640. A. PLUMMER. 
 
 BAPTIST. — See JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 BAR.— The Aram. word for ‘son’; in Aram. 
 parts of Ezr and Dn constantly; four times in 
 Heb. (Pr 31? ¢er, Ps 212 [if text correct]). It is used, 
 especially in NT times, as the first component part 
 of several names of persons, as Barabbas, Bar- 
 jesus, Bar-jonah, Barnabas, Barsabbas, Barthol- 
 omew, Bartimzus, — which see in their places. 
 
 J. H. THAYER. 
 
 **BARABBAS.—The Greek form of the name 
 BapaBBas represents the Aramaic Bar-abba = 
 ‘son of the teacher’ or ‘of the master.’ The name 
 is not rare in the Talm. (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on 
 Mt 2716), and one instance indicates that Abba 
 may sometimes have been a proper name. Renan 
 (Vie de Jésus, p. 406) prefers Bar-rabban (the 
 form preserved in the Harclean Syr.), which would 
 mean ‘son of a Rabbi.’ So also Ewald. All four 
 evangelists mention Barabbas as the criminal 
 whom the hierarchy urged the multitude to 
 demand in preference to Jesus Christ, whom Pilate 
 offered to release in honour of the Passover. We 
 are told that Barabbas was ‘a notable prisoner’ 
 (Mt 271%), ‘who for a certain insurrection made 
 in the city, and for murder’ (Lk 231%), ‘ was lying 
 bound with them that had made insurrection’ 
 (Mk 157), and that he was a ‘robber’ or brigand 
 (Jn 18#°). He may have been connected with the 
 two ‘robbers’ who were crucified with Jesus; but 
 we cannot be sure that the oraciacral of Mk 157 
 include the two robbers. The ordois, or ‘insur- 
 rection,’ in which Barabbas took part was perhaps 
 a looting of houses rather than a popular up- 
 rising. 
 
 The name ‘Jesus’ before that of Barabbas in 
 Mt 2716. 17 is an interesting reading found in a few 
 cursives, in the Armenian Version, and in some 
 copies of the Jerusalem Syriac. With this insertion 
 Pilate’s question runs thus: ‘Whom will ye that 
 I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus 
 which is called Christ?’ This reading was known 
 to Origen; and he does not condemn it, although 
 he thinks that the many MSS which omit the 
 ‘Jesus’ are probably right. Ewald (Life of Christ, 
 p. 241), Renan (Vie de Jésus, p. 406), Trench 
 (Studies in the Gospels, p. 296), and others defend 
 the reading; and Meyer conjectures that the 
 common name suggested the substitution of one 
 Jesus for another. But the reading is rejected by 
 all the best critics. It would be amazing that the 
 true reading should be lost from all uncials, nearly 
 all cursives, and all the more ancient versions. 
 The words of Jerome, ad loc., do not necessarily 
 imply that ‘Jesus Barabbas’ was the reading in 
 the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He says: 
 Iste in evangelio quod scribitur juxta Hebreos filius 
 magistri eorum interpretatur; which may mean 
 that this document contained the words, ‘ Barabbas, 
 which being interpreted is, Son of their Master.’ 
 But if the Gospel according to the Hebrews had 
 ‘Jesus, Son of their Master’ for ‘Jesus Barabbas,’ 
 then this may be the source from which the name 
 ‘ Jesus’ got intosome copies of St. Matthew. Ifthe 
 name was not in the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews, then we may adopt Tregelles’ conjecture, 
 that the interpolation arose first in v.!” through 
 accidental repetition of the last two letters of 
 juiv, the second IN being afterwards interpreted 
 as an abbreviation of *Incodv. The copies known 
 to Origen seem to have had the Iygody in v.1’ only. 
 That Barabbas had this name, and that the evan- 
 gelists missed the startling coincidence, is not 
 probable. A. PLUMMER, 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
 
 
246 BARACHEL 
 
 BARJESUS 
 
 
 
 BARACHEL (9x22 ‘he whom God blesses’).— 
 Only in Job 3276 The father of Elihu, described 
 as ‘the Buzite,’ probably a descendant of Buz, 
 second son of Milcah and Nahor, Gn 227). See 
 Buz. W. T. Davison. 
 
 BARAK (pa, Bapdx, ‘lightning-flash.’ The name 
 is found in Punic, Barcas, surname of Hamilcar ; 
 Sabzean, op71; Palmyrene, p11; de Vogiié, Syrie 
 Centrale, lxxvi. 2; Ledrain, Dict. des Noms Propres 
 Palmyr. 1887, s.v.), son of Abinoam ; his history 
 is recorded in Jg 4and 5. He was summoned by 
 Deborah to be her ally in the struggle against the 
 Canaanites. He dwelt in Kedesh-naphtali (Jg 4°), 
 and was probably a member of the tribe of Issachar 
 (5°). Hence he belonged to the district which had 
 suffered most at the hands of the Canaanites: 
 perhaps he had been actually their prisoner.* He 
 receives from Deborah the plan of the campaign; he 
 is to move his troops, 10,000 men of Naphtali and 
 Zebulun, in the direction of Mt. Tabor, while she 
 undertakes to attract Sisera’s army towards the 
 same place, and promises to deliver Sisera himself 
 into his hands (45-7), The writer does not regard 
 B.’s urgent request that Deborah should go with 
 him as worthy of blame; nor is it necessary to 
 interpret the prophetess’ announcement that the 
 honour of the expedition will not be his but a 
 woman’s, as a punishment for his hesitation (see 
 Moore, Judges, p. 117). B. collects his forces at 
 Kedesh, moves to Tabor, and opens the engage- 
 ment by a rush down the mountain (41° }?-14, cf, 
 515) ; the battle is fought out at the foot. In ch. 5, 
 on the other hand, the battle takes place along the 
 right bank of the Kishon (vv.-2!), The Canaanites 
 routed, B. pursues them to Harosheth, and then 
 follows Sisera on foot, and comes up to the tent of 
 Jael to find him lying dead, with a tent-peg 
 through his temples. According to 5!, B. joined 
 Deborah in singing the Ode of Triumph in ch. 5. 
 
 In 18 12" the LXX, Pesh., and many moderns 
 read Barak for Bedan. B. thus becomes a repre- 
 sentative leader along with Jerubbaal, Jephthah, 
 and Samson(?). This agrees with the impression 
 as to B.’s position which we gain from Jg 5. 
 
 G. A. COOKE. 
 
 BARBARIAN.—St. Paul (1 Co 14"), wishing to 
 emphasize the fact that the tongues with which 
 those possessed of the Holy Ghost spoke were not 
 any intelligible forms of speech, and that hence 
 they required an interpreter also inspired, says, ‘ If 
 then I know not the meaning of the voice, toma 
 be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that 
 speaketh will be a barbarian unto me.’ Here he 
 uses the word in its proper sense as one who spoke 
 unintelligibly. So Homer, in whom the word first 
 occurs, speaks of the Kapes BapBapdpwva (II. ii. 867), 
 the Carians who spoke in a strange tongue. Since 
 the word Barbarh means in the earliest Arm. the 
 language of a race or people, Homer may have 
 meant the Carians who spoke a barbarh, that 
 having been the Carian word for their national 
 language. However this be, the word Barbarian 
 means all through Gr. literature a man who did 
 not seeps Greek, especially the Medes, Persians, 
 and Orientals generally. The Romans or Latins 
 were called Barbarians by the Greeks even to the 
 latest days of the Byzantine Empire, and at first 
 even called their own tongue Barbarian; though 
 from the Augustan age onward they excepted 
 their own tongue. In the same way Philo, a 
 Hellenized Jew, calls his native Heb. a barbarian 
 tongue, and states (Vita Mosis, § 5, vol. ii. p. 188) 
 that the Law was translated from Chaldaic into 
 Greek because it was too valuable a treasure to be 
 
 * Many translate 512 ‘lead captive thy captors,’ pointing We 
 tor 33y. 
 
 enjoyed by only the Barbaric half of the human 
 
 race. 
 
 In Col 3"! St. Paul speaks of ‘Greek and Jew,... 
 barbarian, Scythian.’ Yet the Scythians were 
 typical barbarians. But the context proves that 
 St. Paul is not here aiming at a scientific division 
 of the human race. Elsewhere (e.g. Ro 1™) he 
 adopts the current phraseology: ‘I am debtor 
 both to Greeks and to Barbarians,’ where the 
 later phrase (v.15), ‘to the Jew first, and also to 
 the Greek,’ proves that, like Philo, St. Paul con- 
 ventionally called his own countrymen barbarians. 
 The barbarous people in Malta (Ac 28?) were 
 probably old Pheenician settlers, and the epithet 
 only means that they were not a Greek-speaking 
 population. F. C. CONYBEARE. 
 
 BARBER (353, Ezk 5! only). Shaving the head 
 is a very common custom in Eastern countries. In 
 India, many of the religious sects are distinguished 
 by the manner in which the head is shaved. Some 
 leave a tuft of hair on the crown of the head, 
 others a tuft above each ear. In Syria, old men 
 frequently have the whole head shaved and allow 
 the beard to grow. Young men shave the cheeks 
 and the chin, and cut the hair of the head short. 
 The upper lip is never shaved except in S. India, 
 where it is done as a sign of mourning. Absence 
 of the moustache is looked upon, in Syria, as a sign 
 of the want of virility. The barber plies his trade 
 in any convenient place—by the roadside, or in the 
 courtyard of a khan. The ground serves as a seat 
 both for the operator and the person operated on; 
 a tin or copper basin holds the water required ; 
 and the hands of the patient, passed over the head 
 or the chin, tell him whether the work has been 
 done satisfactorily or not. The barber also 
 eradicates superfluous hairs from the nose, ears, 
 and other parts of the body; removes accumula- 
 tions of wax from the ears; and performs the 
 operations of tooth-extraction and blood-letting. 
 W. CARSLAW. 
 
 BARCHUS (B Bayovs, A Bapxyote, AV Charchus, 
 1 Es 5%2)=Barxkos, Ezr 2%, Neh 7°, The AV form 
 is taken from the Aldine ed. (Xapxovs). 
 
 BARIAH (na ‘fleeing’).—A son of Shemaiah 
 (1 Ch 32), See GENEALOGY. 
 
 BARJESUS (Bapiyoots), a man described in Ac 138 
 as ‘magian, prophet of lies, Jew,’ whom Paul and 
 Barnabas, faves in Cyprus, found in the train 
 of the proconsul Sergius Paulus, as one of the 
 amici or comites who always accompanied a Rom. 
 governor. In Jos. Ant. XX. vii. 2 we find a similar 
 case: Simon, ‘a Jew, by birth a Cypriot, and pre- 
 tending to be a magian’ (observe the striking, 
 though not exact, similarity of the triplet), was one 
 of the ‘friends’ of Felix, the procurator of Judea, 
 and was used by him to seduce Drusilla from her 
 husband Azizus, king of Emesa. Such men, prob- 
 ably Bab. Jews, ‘skilled in the lore and uncanny 
 arts and strange powers of the Median priests’ 
 (cf. Mt 27- 16),—not simply sorcerers and fortune- 
 tellers, but ‘men of science,’ as they would now be 
 called (being then beyond their age in acquaint- 
 ance with the powers and processes of nature), and 
 not mere isolated self-constituted pretenders, 
 but representatives of an Oriental system and 
 religion,—appear to have been numerous at that 
 period, and to have exerted considerable influence 
 on the Rom. world. It was with a system, there- 
 fore, rather than with a man, that the representa- 
 tives of the system (‘the way’) of Christ, also 
 struggling for influence in the Rom. empire, came 
 here into conflict. The proconsul, ‘a man of 
 practical ability’ (cuverés), interested, we may 
 suppose, in nature and philosophy, but, as ouverés, 
 

 
 BARJONAH 
 
 
 
 not to be thought of as under ascendency, enjoyed 
 the society of this man. But, hearing that there 
 were just now two travelling teachers in Cyprus, 
 and taking them to be of the class that went about 
 giving demonstrations in rhetoric and moral philo- 
 sophy, and sometimes ended by settling down as 
 professors in the great universities, he invited, or 
 ‘commanded,’ their presence at his court. The 
 exposition of Christianity then given by Paul and 
 Barnabas clearly produced upon Sergius Paulus a 
 considerable impression; for Barjesus found it 
 necessary to oppose them openly, and divert the 
 proconsul from the faith by ‘perverting the ways 
 of the Lord,’ lest he should be supplanted in his 
 position, his power and his gains; because (accord- 
 ing to the apt and interesting expansion of the 
 Codex Bez) the proconsul ‘was listening with 
 much pleasure to them.’ Then ‘Saul, who was also 
 Paul,’—7.e. standing forth (for the first time in 
 the narrative), suitably to the occasion, as a Rom. 
 citizen named Paul,—faced the wonder-worker in 
 a manner, so to say, after his own kind, yet sur- 
 assing it, and wrought a wonder upon the worker 
 imself, proving to the proconsul, already deeply 
 impressed, that behind Paul stood a divine power. 
 n ver. 8 the phrase ‘ Elymas, the magian, for so 
 is his name translated,’ is somewhat perplexing. 
 It certainly looks, at the outset, as though Elymas 
 (now first introduced as a second appellation of 
 Barjesus) geent to be a tr. of that name; but this 
 cannot be. £lymas—which is the Gr. form either 
 of an Aram. word alimd=strong, or, as is more 
 probable, of an Arab. word ‘alim, wise (cf. the 
 Arab, plural wlema, the order of the learned, and 
 the ‘wise men’ and ‘wise women’ of our folk- 
 lore)—is here more reasonably (though this solu- 
 tion of the difficulty is not quite satisfactory) tr. 
 by pdyos. Codex D (Bezze), with its Latin d, alone 
 differs from other uncials, and reads ‘Ero.yas, son of 
 the ready, a reading strangely accepted by Kloster- 
 mann, Blass, and “Ramsay (to whose St. Paul the 
 Traveller this article is under special obligation ; 
 see pp. 73ff.). But neither will thisdoasasynonym 
 for Barjesus, or for the Syr. Barshemd, son of the 
 Name (i.e. Jesus). The origin of the variant 
 ‘Erowuds is a mystery ; perhaps it was itacism, a 
 =v. But the versional and patristic variants for 
 Barjesus, such as Bariesouan (or -am), Bariesubam, 
 and Barieu (maleficus, Jerome), appear to be due to 
 a desire of copyists to avoid associating the name 
 of Jesus with one whom St. Paul calls son of the 
 devil. J. MASSIE. 
 
 BARJONAH.—See Bar and PETER. 
 
 BARKOS (o'py3, cf. Bab. Barkfisu).—Ancestor of 
 certain Nethinim who returned with Zerub. (Ezr 
 253, Neh 755=Barchus, 1 Es 5°). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 BARLEY (vy sé‘6rah, «p.04, hordewm).—Barle 
 (Arab. sha‘ir) is a well-known grain, of whic 
 several varieties are cultivated, Hordewm dis- 
 tichum, H. tetrastichum, and H. hexastichum, the 
 wild originals of which are not known. One of 
 the wild species of the genus Hordewm in Pal., 
 however, approaches the cultivated species near 
 enough to make it possible that it may be the 
 stock, or a partial reversion of cultivated barley to 
 type. It is H. ithaburense, Boiss (H. spontaneum, 
 Roch), which grows abundantly in Galilee, in the 
 region of Merj ‘Aydin, and in places in the Syrian 
 desert between Palmyra and Hamath. It differs 
 from H. distichum by the smaller size of its spikes 
 and grains, and the great length of its awns, which 
 are sometimes a foot leng. 
 
 Barley is cultivated everywhere in Palestine, 
 principally as provender for horses (1 K 4%) and 
 asses. It takes the place of oats in Europe and 
 
 BARNABAS 247 
 
 
 
 America, as the cut straw of barley and wheat 
 takes the place of hay. It is also used among the 
 poor for bread, as in ancient times (Jg 74%, 2 K 
 4%, Jn 6°13, and cakes Ezk 41%). It was mixed 
 with other cheap grains for the same purpose 
 (Ezk 4°). When any one wishes to express the 
 extremity of his poverty, he will say, ‘I have not 
 barley bread to eat.’ This fact illustrates several 
 allusions to barley in Scripture. Barley meal was 
 the jealousy offering (Nu 515); it is mentioned 
 by Ezekiel as the fee paid to false prophetesses 
 by people who epastltad them (Ezk 13°); it was 
 the symbol of the poverty of Gideon’s family, 
 and his own low estate in that family; by a 
 ‘barley cake’ Midian’s great host was to be over- 
 thrown (Jg 7%), 
 
 The barley harvest begins in April in the depth of 
 the Jordan Valle , and continues to be later as we 
 ascend to the higher mountains, till, at an altitude 
 of 6500 ft., it takes place in July and August. It 
 was probably the time of the barley harvest when 
 the Israelites crossed the Jordan (Jos 3%). It is 
 earlier than the wheat harvest (Ex 9%!-5?), The 
 barley harvest was a recognised date (Ru 1”, 2S 
 21° 1°), varying, of course, with the altitude. Barley 
 issown in Oct. and Nov. That which is sown in the 
 districts below the frost level continues to grow 
 through the rainy season till the harvest. That 
 which is sown on the high mountain levels springs 
 up, the top dies under the snow, and then the 
 biennial stalk springs up when the snow melts, and 
 grows with great rapidity and vigour. Barley is 
 not sown in the spring in Pal. and Syria. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 BARLEY HARYEST.—See TIME. 
 
 BARN.—See AGRICULTURE. 
 
 BARNABAS (BapvdBas, xi2393 ‘the son of ex- 
 hortation’).—A name given by the disciples to 
 Joseph, a Levite of Cyprus (Ac 4%). He is clearly 
 to be distinguished from ‘ Joseph called Barsabbas’ 
 (Ac 1%), though there is ancient authority for 
 identifying him with one of the seventy disciples 
 of our Lord (Euseb. HE i. 12; Clem. Alex. Misc. 
 ii. 20). When we first hear of B., it is as selling a 
 field,—for the old Mosaic enactments forbidding 
 Levites to possess land (Nu 187%, Dt 10°) had 
 long since fallen into abeyance (see Jer 32’),—and 
 laying the price at the apostles’ feet (Ac 4°¢ %), 
 The general esteem in which he was held is proved 
 by the influence which he exerted in commending 
 the young convert Saul to the apostles at Jerus, 
 (Ac 9%). The way in which the two are introduced 
 inclines one to the belief that B. and Saul must have 
 met before—a belief which is rendered the more 
 probable by the near proximity of C bar to Tarsus, 
 and the natural wish of B. asa ie lenist to visit 
 the university there. In any case, B. seems from 
 the first to have formed a high idea of Saul’s 
 ability and energy ; for when despatched to Antioch 
 ona Aetisate mission, he had no sooner discovered 
 the growing capabilities of the work there than he 
 ‘went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul’; and when 
 he had brought him to Antioch, ‘for a whole year 
 they were gathered together with the Church, and 
 taught much people’ (Ac 11-6, a.p, 42). ‘Thus, 
 twice over, did B. save Saul for the work of Chris- 
 tianity’ (Farrar). A practical proof of the success 
 of their joint labours was afforded by the relief 
 which the Church at Antioch despatched by their 
 hands to the elders at Jerus. on the prophetic 
 intimation of a coming famine (Ac 1177), O 
 their return to Antioch the two friends were, at 
 the bidding of the Holy Ghost, solemnly separated 
 and ordained for the work of the Church (Ac 13°); 
 and from this time, though not of the number 
 of the twelve, they enjoyed the title of apostle 
 
248 BARODIS 
 
 
 
 BARTIMAUS 
 
 
 
 (Ac14*!4_ On the significance of the title, see Light- 
 foot, Gal. 92 ff. and art. APOSTLE). Accordingly, B. 
 accompanied Saul (or, as he was now to be known, 
 Paul) on his first missionary journey, visiting first 
 of all his native Cyprus (A.D. 45). Later at Lystra, 
 erhaps from his tall and venerable appearance, 
 is was identified with Jupiter, while Paul, as the 
 chief speaker, passed for Mercury (Ac 14'*). The 
 qoutes ended, as it had begun, at Antioch, and 
 from this city B. once more accompanied Paul and 
 certain other brethren to Jerus. to consult with 
 the apostles and elders regarding the necessity of 
 circumcision for Gentile converts (Ac 15!*), It 
 is remarkable that in this narrative B. is mentioned 
 vefore Paul (v.), contrary to the usual order of 
 the names since Ac 13“ (cf. however Ac 144), 
 He may perhaps have spoken first as the better- 
 known of the two, and also as the one to whom the 
 judaizing section of the assembly would take less 
 exception. After the conference the two apostles 
 returned to their old task of teaching and preach- 
 ing in Antioch (Ac 155), and in A.D. 49 planned 
 a second missionary journey to revisit the scenes 
 of their former labours (Ac 15**), But they were 
 unable to agree upon taking with them John 
 Mark, who had formerly deserted them, and the 
 contention was so sharp ‘that they parted asunder 
 one from the other.’ B. took Mark, who was his 
 cousin, and sailed to Cyprus; while Paul chose 
 Silas, and journeyed through Syria and Cilicia. 
 From the fact of Paul’s being specially ‘com- 
 mended by the brethren to the grace of God,’ it 
 would seem as if the general feeling of the Church 
 were on his side rather than on the side of Bar- 
 nabas. B. is not again mentioned in the Acts of 
 the Apostles; but from the respect and sympathy 
 with which St. Paul subsequently refers to him in 
 his Epp. (1 Co 9°, Gal 235 ‘even Barnabas,’ Col 4), 
 we are entitled to infer that though they did not 
 again actually work together, the old friendship 
 was not forgotten. There is no hist. ground for 
 identifying ne as some are inclined to do, with ‘ the 
 brother’ whom St. Paul sent on a mission to the 
 Corinthians (2 Co 818); but from 1 Co 9° we learn 
 that B., like Paul, earned his livelihood by the 
 work of his hands, while Col 4° has been taken 
 as proving that by this time (about A.D. 63) B. 
 must have been dead, else Mark would not have 
 rejoined Paul (cf. 2 Ti 4", 1 P53), For an account 
 of B.’s further labours and death we are dependent 
 upon untrustworthy tradition. 
 
 It is interesting, however, to notice that the 
 authorship of the Ep. to the Hebrews is attributed 
 to B. by Tertullian (see HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO), 
 while there is still extant an Epistle of B. which, 
 ace, to external evidence, is the work of this B., 
 but on internal grounds this conclusion is now 
 ‘generally disputed. (See the arguments briefly 
 stated in Hefele, Patrwm Apostolicorum Opera, 
 3 ix ff., and more fully in the same writer’s Das 
 
 endschreiben des Apustels Barnabas aufs neue 
 untersucht, iibersetzt, und erklart, Tiib. 1840. Cf. 
 also Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers.) 
 G. MILLIGAN. 
 
 BARODIS (Bapwéels), 1 Es 5%.—There is no cor- 
 
 responding name in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 BARRENNESS.—As parental authority was the 
 pons and mould of patriarchal social life, it fol- 
 owed that to be without offspring was to exist in 
 name only. To have had children and to have lost 
 them was the strongest possible claim upon sym- 
 pathy. With Jacob it was the crown of sorrow 
 (Gn 42% 43"), It was this desolation in its most 
 distressing form which the Lord Jesus met in the 
 funeral procession at Nain (Lk:7}2), 
 
 But to be a wife without motherhood has always 
 been regarded in the East not merely as a matter 
 
 of regret, but as a reproach, a humiliation that 
 might easily lead to divorce. It is a constant 
 source of embarrassment, as the welfare of the 
 children is a never-omitted subject of inquiry in 
 Oriental salutation. Courtesy sometimes gives 
 the dignity of fatherhood, the name Abu-Abdullah 
 (father-of-Abdullah) to a man advancing in years 
 without children to bear his name. Sarah’s sad 
 laughter of despair (Gn 18), Hannah’s silent 
 pleading (1 S 12°), Rachel’s passionate alternative 
 of children or death (Gn 30!),—all this and such-like 
 wretchedness of spirit may be found familiarly 
 repeated in the homes of modern Syria (see CHIL- 
 DREN). The fruitfulness or sterility of land are, 
 much in the same way, regarded as bringing satis- 
 faction or disappointment to man, and as imply- 
 ing the blessing or curse of God (Dt 78, Ps 107#4*-). 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 BARSABBAS.— See JOSEPH BARSABBAS and 
 
 JUDAS BARSABBAS. 
 
 BARTACUS (Bdpraxos, Jos. ‘Pafetdxns, Vulg. 
 Bezaces, O.L. Bezaces, Bezzachus).—The father of 
 Apame, the concubine of Darius (1 Es 4”). The 
 epithet attaching to him, ‘the illustrious’ (6 
 Gavuacrés), was probably an official title. The 
 name Bartacus (which appears as po" in the Syriac) 
 recalls that of Artachzas (’Apraxalys), mentioned 
 by Herod. (vii. 22, 117) asa person of high position 
 in the Persian army of Xerxes. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BARTHOLOMEW (Bap@odopaios)\— One of the 
 
 apostles, according to the lists of Matthew, Mark, . 
 
 Luke, and Acts (1¥). Both by the early Church 
 and in modern times Bartholomew has been gener- 
 ally identified with Nathanael of the Fourth 
 Gospel, although important authorities can be 
 cited in opposition to this view. The strongest 
 arguments in favour of the identification are—(1) 
 that Bartholomew is never mentioned by St. John, 
 nor Nathanael by the Synoptists; (2) that in the 
 lists of the Synoptists, Bartholomew is coupled with 
 Philip, which tallies with St. John’s statement 
 that it was Philip that brought Nathanael to 
 Jesus. Itis easy to understand how St. John, with 
 his fondness for symbolism, should have preferred 
 the name Nathanael (=God has given it) to the 
 mere patronymic Bartholomew (=son of Talmai). 
 Supposing the identity established, we know 
 nothing of Nathanael Bar-Talmai further than is 
 recorded in Jn 145-5! 2]? (gee NATHANAEL). The 
 traditions as to his preaching the gospel in India 
 and his martyrdom are entitled to no credit. 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BARTIMAUS (Bapripacos, t.e. the son of Timzus, 
 a name variously derived from the Gr. ripaios, 
 honourable; or from the Arab. asamm, blind; or 
 from Aram. tamya, unclean, polluted).—One of two 
 blind beggars healed by our Lord at the gate of 
 Jericho, and whose name alone is given, apparent! y 
 from his having been the spokesman (Mk Ge, 
 cf. Mt 207-4, Lk 18%5-43). St. Luke speaks of the 
 healing as taking place as Jesus came nigh unto 
 Jericho, while St. Matt. and St. Mark say that it 
 was as He went out. Various explanations have 
 been offered, as that one blind man was healed at 
 the entrance to old Jericho, and the other, B., as 
 Jesus left the new town which had sprung up 
 at some little distance from it. Perhaps what 
 actually happened was that B., beggin at the gate 
 of Jericho, was told that Jesus wit. His co npan 
 had entered the city, and having heard of His 
 power, sought out a blind companion, along with 
 whom he intercepted Jesus as He left the city the 
 next day, and then was healed (so substantially 
 Bengel, Stier, Trench, Ellicott, Wordsworth, 
 M‘Clellan). If this be so, we have fresh evidence of 
 the persistence of purpose which throughout the 
 
 ee 
 
BARUCIL 
 
 
 
 incident B. displayed; while the strong faith which 
 led him to address Jesus by His Messianic title, 
 ‘Thou Son of David,’ ought not to pass unnoticed. 
 G. MILLIGAN. 
 BARUCH (3:73 ‘ blessed’), son of Neriah, was of a 
 very illustrious family (Jos. Ant. x. ix. 1), his 
 brother Seraiah being chief chamberlain (App Ww) 
 to Zedekiah (Jer 51°). His chief honour, how- 
 ever, lay in his being the devoted friend and 
 secretary of the prophet Jeremiah. Every great 
 soul has, in degree, its Gethsemane: and this 
 event came to Baruch (Jer 45) while writing 
 (LXX éypagev) at Jeremiah’s dictation a number 
 of minatory prophecies against Jerusalem, which 
 he was charged to read on a fast day in the courts 
 of the temple (Jer 36!*), The stern words, 
 ‘Seekest thou great things for thyself? Seek 
 them not,’ bated the young nobleman to ‘drink 
 the cup’—to face the wrathful multitude, and to 
 read the eae of desolation and woe, which 
 king Jehoiakim afterwards burned (Jer 36%), 
 We next find Baruch (Jer 32) as witness to the 
 purchase by Jeremiah of a field in Anathoth, at a 
 time when the prophet was in prison and the 
 Chaldeans had been for months besieging Jeru- 
 salem. When the city fell during the following 
 ear, B.C. 586, Baruch resided with the prophet at 
 aL are (Jos. Ant. X. ix. 1). But after the 
 murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael, the people, afraid 
 of the wrath of the Chaldeans, and imputing the 
 advice of Jeremiah to remain in Judga (Jer 42) 
 to the undue influence of Baruch over him (Jer 434), 
 compelled both of them to go with them to Egypt 
 (Jer 43*7), How long he resided in Egypt is 
 uncertain. Jerome gives as the Heb. tradition 
 that he and Jeremiah died there almost at once 
 (Comment. in Is. xxx. 6,7). Josephus implies that 
 they were both taken to Babylon by Nebuchad- 
 rezzar after he had conquered Egypt, B.C. 583 (Ant. 
 X.ix. 7). Another tradition states that he remained 
 in Egypt till the death of Jeremiah, and then went 
 to Babylon, where he died twelve years after the 
 fall of Jerusalem (Hitzig on Nah 3°"), With 
 strange disregard of chronology, Midrash rabba 
 on Ca 5° speaks of Baruch as teacher of Ezra in 
 B.C. 458, and thus as forming the link of connexion 
 setween the prophets and the scribes. 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 BARUCH, APOCALYPSE OF.—The discovery 
 of the long lost Apocalypse of Baruch is due to 
 Ceriani. This book has survived only in the Syr. 
 version, of which Ceriani had the good fortune to 
 discover a 6th cent. MS in the Milan Library. 
 Of this MS he published a Latin tr. in 1866 (Jon. 
 Sacr, 1. ii. 73-98), which Fritzsche reproduced 
 with some changes in 1871 (Libri Apocryphi V.T. 
 Pp. 654-699). The Syr. text appeared in 1871 
 (Mon. Sacr. Vv. ii. 113-180), and a photo-litho- 
 tae facsimile of the MS in 1883 A 
 tragment of this book has long been known to the 
 world, viz. chs. lxxviii.-Ixxxvii., which constitute 
 Baruch’s Epistle to the nine and a half tribes that 
 had been carried away captive. This letter is to 
 be found in the London and Paris Polyglots in Syr. 
 with a Latin rendering ; in Syr. alone in Lagarde’s 
 Libri V.T. Apocryphi Syriace, 1861. The Latin tr. 
 is also found in Fabricius’ Cod. Pseudepig. V.T., 
 and the English in Whiston’s Authentic Records. 
 i. THE SYRIAC VERSION IS DERIVED FROM THE 
 
 GREEK.—That this is so is to be inferred on various } i 
 
 grounds. First, this statement is actually made on 
 the Syr. MS. In the next place, we find that Gr. 
 words are occasionally transliterated. Finally, 
 some passages admit of pia pete only on the 
 epotliesta that the wrong alternative meanings of 
 certain Gr. words were followed by the translator. 
 
 ii. THE GREEK VERSION WAS DERIVED FROM 
 THE HeBREW.—For (1) the quotations from OT 
 
 BARUCH, ArUUCALYPSE OF 249 
 
 
 
 agree in all cases but one with the Massoretic text 
 against the LXX. (2) Unintelligible expressions 
 in the Syriac can be explained and the text restored 
 by retrans. into Hebrew. (3) Certain anomalies 
 in the Syriac can be accounted for as survivals 
 of Heb. idiom. (4) Many paronomasie discover 
 themselves on retrans. into Hebrew. (This and 
 all other questions affecting our Apoc. are fully 
 dealt with in Charles’ Apoc. of Baruch, 1896.) 
 
 iii, ANALYSIS OF THE BooK.—The author, cr 
 rather authors, of this book write in the name of 
 Baruch, the son of Neriah, for literary purposes. 
 The scene is laid in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, 
 and the time embraces the period immediately pre- 
 ceding and subsequent to the capture of the city by 
 the Chaldeans. Baruch speaks throughout in the 
 first person. He begins by declaring that in the 
 twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah, king of Judah, the 
 word of the Lord came unto him. ft is noteworthy 
 that the book thus opens with a gross chronological 
 error; for Jeconiah reigned in reality only three 
 months, and had been already eleven years a captive 
 in Babylon before the fall of Jerusalem. If we in- 
 clude in our consideration the letter to the tribes in 
 the Captivity, the book naturally falls into seven 
 sections, divided in all but the last case by fasts, 
 the fasts being of seven days in all instances save 
 the first. This artificial division is due to the final 
 editor of the book. ‘The grounds for regarding the 
 work as composite will be given later. 
 
 The first section (1-5) opens with God’s con- 
 demnation of the wickedness of the kingdom of 
 Judah, and the announcement of the coming de- 
 struction of Jerusalem for a time and the captivity 
 of its people. But Jeremiah and those who are 
 like him are bidden to retire, first because ‘their 
 works are to the city as a firm pillar, and their 
 prayers as a strong wall’ (2). Baruch thereupon 
 asks what will be the future destinies of Israel, 
 mankind, and the world. Will Israel no longer 
 exist, mankind cease to be, and the world return 
 to its primeval silence (3)? God replies that the 
 city and people will be chastised only for a time 
 (41); that the city of which it was said, ‘On the 
 palm of my hands have I written thee,’ is not the 
 earthly but the heavenly Jerusalem prepared afore- 
 time in heaven, and already manifested in vision to 
 Adam, Abraham, and Moses (4?"7). Baruch replies 
 that the enemy will destroy Zion or pollute the 
 sanctuary, and boast thereof before their idols, 
 Not so, God rejoins: the enemy will not overthrow 
 Zion nor burn Jerusalem, and thou thyself wilt 
 witness this. Baruch thereupon fasts till the even- 
 ing (5). In the next section (6-9) the Chaldeans 
 encompass Jerusalem on the following day. It is 
 not they, however, but angels who overthrow the 
 walls, having first hidden the sacred vessels of the 
 temple in the earth till the last times. The Chal- 
 deans then enter and carry the people away captive. 
 Jerusalem is delivered up for atime. Baruch fasts 
 seven days. Inthe third section (10-12) Jeremiah is 
 bidden to accompany captive Judah to Babylon, 
 and Baruch to remain in Neruealens to receive dis- 
 closures on the things that should be hereafter. 
 Baruch now despairs of all things: ‘Blessed is he 
 who was not born, or, being born, has died.’ Let 
 nature henceforth withhold her increase, and the 
 joy of the bridegroom and the bride be no more. 
 Wherefore should woman bear in pain and bury 
 in grief?’ Let the priests, moreover, return to 
 God the temple keys, confessing: ‘We have been 
 found false stewards.’ ‘Oh that there were ears 
 unto thee, O earth, and a heart unto thee, O dust, 
 and go and announce in Sheol, and say to the dead: 
 ‘Blessed are ye more than are we the living.”’ 
 Baruch then fasts seven days. In section four 
 (13-211) Baruch is told that he ‘will be preserved 
 till the consummation of the times’ to bear testi- 
 
250 BARUCH, APOCALYPSE OF 
 
 mony. When Baruch complains of the prosperity 
 of the wicked and the sufferings of the righteous, 
 God declares that it is the future world that is 
 made on account of the righteous, and that blessed- 
 ness standeth, not in length of days, but in their 
 quality and end. Baruch fastsseven days. In the 
 fifth section (217-47) Baruch deplores the vanity 
 and vexation of this life: ‘If there were this life 
 only . . . nothing could be more bitter’; he sup- 
 plicates God to bring about the promised consum- 
 mation, ‘that his strength might become known 
 to those who esteem his long-suffering weakness.’ 
 In answer thereto God reproves him for his trouble 
 over that which he knows not, and his intrusion 
 into things in which he has no part, and declares 
 that until the preordained number of souls is born, 
 the end, though at hand, cannot yet be: neverthe- 
 less, ‘My coming redemption ... is not far 
 distant as aforetime; for, lo! the days come when 
 the books will be opened in which are written the 
 sins of all those who have sinned, and again also 
 the treasuries into which the righteousness of all 
 those who are justified in creation is gathered.’ 
 Furthermore, when Baruch asks regarding the 
 nature and duration of the punishment of the 
 wicked, it is revealed that the coming time will be 
 one of tribulation, divided into twelve parts, at the 
 close of which the Messiah will be revealed (29. 30). 
 Thereupon Baruch summons a meeting of the 
 elders into the valley of Kidron, and announces 
 the coming glories of Zion. Soon after follows 
 his vision of the cedar and the vine, by which the 
 destinies of Rome and the triumph of the Messiah 
 are respectively symbolised (36-40). The Messiah 
 will tide till this world of corruption is at an end. 
 When Baruch asks who shall share in the future 
 blessedness, the answer is: ‘Those who have be- 
 lieved.’ Thereupon Baruch (44-47) summons his 
 eldest son, his friends, and seven of the elders, and 
 acquaints them with his approaching end. He 
 exhorts them to keep the law; to teach the people; 
 for such teaching will give them life, and ‘a wise 
 man shall not be wanting to Israel, nor a son of 
 the law to the race of Jacob.’ After another 
 fast of seven days, Baruch, in the sixth section 
 (48-76), prays on behalf of Israel. Then follows 
 a revelation of the coming woes, and Baruch’s 
 lamentation over Adam’s fall and its sad effects (48). 
 Baruch, in answer to his prayer, is instructed as to 
 the nature of the resurrection bodies (52). Then 
 follows an account of the cloud vision (53-74). In 
 this vision Baruch sees a cloud ascending from the 
 sea and covering the whole earth. And it was full 
 of black and clear waters, and a mass of lightning 
 appeared on its summit. And it began to dis- 
 charge first black and then bright waters, and 
 again black and then bright waters, and so on for 
 twelve times in succession. And finally it rained 
 black waters, darker than all that had been before. 
 And after this the lightning flashed forth, and 
 healed the earth where the last waters had fallen, 
 and twelve streams came up from the sea and 
 became subject to that lightning (53). In the 
 subsequent chapters the interpretation is given. 
 The cloud is the world, and the twelve successive 
 discharges of black and bright waters symbolise 
 twelve evil and good periods in the history of the 
 world. The eleventh period, symbolised by the dark 
 waters, reterred to the capture of Jerusalem by 
 the Chaldeans, and the twelfth, bright waters, to 
 the renewed ig NaS Israel and the rebuilding 
 of Jerusalem (54-68). The last black waters pointed 
 to wars, earthquakes, fires, famines ; and such as 
 escaped these were to be slain by the Messiah. 
 But these last black waters were to be followed 
 by clear, which symbolised the blessedness of the 
 Messianic kingdom which should form the inter- 
 vening peliod between corruption and incorruption 
 
 BARUCH, APOCALYPSE OF 
 
 (69-74). Baruch then expresses his wonder over 
 God's wisdom and mercy, oud receives a fresh 
 revelation as to his coming departure from the 
 earth. First, however, he is to summon the people 
 together and instruct them (75. 76). This Baruch 
 does, and admonishes the people to be faithful; for 
 though teacher and prophet may pass away, yet 
 the law ever standeth. At the request of the 
 peers Baruch writes two epistles—one to their 
 
 rethren in Babylon, and the other to the tribes 
 beyond the Euphrates. The latter is given in 
 78-87, but the former is lost. 
 
 iv. DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THE BOOK, AND 
 THEIR DATES.—This question cannot be discussed 
 here save in the briefest manner; but no treatment 
 of the book is adequate without some consideration 
 of it. Till 1891 this book was taken to be the work 
 of one author. In that year, however, Kabisch, 
 in an article entitled, ‘ Die Quellen der Apocalypse 
 Baruchs’ (Jahrbicher f. protestantische Freolocie, 
 1891, pp. 66-107), showed on several grounds that the 
 book is sprung from at least three or four authors. 
 Thus he distinguishes 1-23, 312-35, 41-52, 77-87 as 
 the groundwork written subsequent to A.D. 70, since 
 the destruction of the temple is implied throughout 
 these chapters. Further, these sections are marked 
 by a boundless world-despair which, looking for 
 nothing of peace or happiness in this corruptible 
 world, fixes its regard on the afterworld of incor- 
 ruption. In the remaining sections of the book, 
 however, there is a faith in Israel’s ultimate triumph 
 here, and an optimism which looks to an eart. 
 Messianic kingdom of sensuous delights. In these 
 sections, moreover, the integrity of Jerusalem is 
 throughout assumed. Kabisch, therefore, rightly 
 takes these constituents of the book to be prior to 
 A.D. 70. These sections, however, are not the work 
 of one writer, but of three, two of them being 
 unmutilated productions, 7.e. the Vine and Cedar 
 Vision, 36-40, and the Cloud Vision, 53-74, but 
 the third a fragmentary Apocalypse, 248-29. From 
 the bulk of this criticism there is no ground for 
 variance. By independent study, and frequently 
 on different grounds, I have arrived at several of 
 Kabisch’s conclusions. Other parts of his theory, 
 however, call for modification. As the result of an 
 exhaustive study of the book, I offer the following 
 analysis, for the grounds of which the reader 
 must refer to my recent book, The Apocalypse of 
 Baruch. The main part of the book was written 
 after the fall of Jerusalem, ¢.e. 1-26, 31-35, 41-52, 
 75-87. All these chapters are derived from one 
 writer, save 1-8, 441-7, 77-87. These must be discri- 
 minated from the rest, as their diction and their out- 
 look as to the future of Jerusalem differ from those 
 adopted in the rest of these chapters. The rest of 
 the book was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. 
 It consists of the two visions mentioned above, 1.e. 
 36-40 and 53-74, and a fragmentary Apocalypse, 27- 
 30. Jewish religious thought busied itself mainly 
 with two subjects, the Messianic Hope and the Law, 
 and, in proportion as the one was emphasized, the 
 other fell into the background. It is noteworthy 
 that the parts of this book written prior to the fall of 
 Jerusalem are mainly Messianic, and only mention 
 the law incidentally, whereas in the sections written 
 after its fall all the thought and the hopes of the 
 writers centre in the law, and the law alone. More- 
 over, whereas the earlier sections are optimistic as 
 regards the destinies of Jerusalem, the later are 
 
 ermeated with the spirit of an infinite despair. 
 The ditferent elements of the book were combined 
 not earlier than A.D. 100, and not later than A.D. 
 130. The grounds for this determination cannot 
 be given here. It should be observed that a portion 
 of the short Apocalypse, 27-30, is queted by Papias, 
 and attributed by him to our Lord. See Irenzeus, 
 Ady. Her. v. 33. 3. 
 
 
 
—_ 
 
 BARUCH, APOCALYPSE OF 
 
 BARUCH, BOOK OF 
 
 —<— LL 
 
 v. AUTHORSHIP. —AI] the writers from whom this 
 book is derived were Pharisees. They all agree 
 in teaching the doctrine of works. Jeremiah’s 
 works are a strong tower to the city, 2?; the 
 righteous have no fear by reason of their good 
 works, 147; they are justified thereby, 219 241-2 
 51’; they trusted in their works, and therefore 
 God heard them, 63%5 857; righteousness is by 
 the law, 675. 
 
 Again, as regards the law, the teaching is like- 
 wise Pharisaic. It was given to Israel, 174 19% 
 59? 77%; the one law was given by One, 48"; it 
 will protect those who receive it, 321, and requite 
 those who transgress it, 487; so long as Israel 
 observes the law it cannot fall, 48%; God’s law is 
 life, 38°. Again, the carnal sensuous nature of the 
 Messiah and His kingdom, which are described only 
 in the earlier portions, 28-30, 397-40, 72-74, is 
 essentially Pharisaic. The future world is created 
 on behalf of Israel, according to one of the later 
 writers, 15’; according to the earlier writers the 
 present world was ultimately for Israel, and their 
 enemies would suffer destruction, 27, 40, 72. 
 
 vi. RELATION TO 4 EzRA (2 EspRAS).—The affini- 
 ties of this book with 4 Ezr are both striking and 
 numerous. (1) They have one and the same object 
 —to deplore Israel’s present calamities and to 
 awake hope either of the coming Messianic king- 
 dom on earth, or of the bliss of the righteous in 
 the world to come. (2) In both, the speaker is a 
 notable figure in the time of the Babylonian 
 Captivity. (3) In both there is a sevenfold 
 division of the work, and an interval (generally 
 of seven days) between each division; and as in 
 the one Ezra devotes forty days to the restoration 
 of the Scriptures, in the other Baruch is bidden to 
 spend forty days in teaching Israel before his 
 departure from the earth. (4) They have many 
 doctrinal peculiarities in common: man is saved 
 by his works, 2 Es [6°] 8 97, Apoc Bar 2? 14% 
 ete. ; the world was created on behalf of Israel, 2 Es 
 6° 741 918, Apoc Bar 14” 157; man came not into the 
 world of his own will, 2 Es 85, Apoc Bar 14148; a 
 predetermined number of men must be born before 
 the end, 2 Es 4**- 97, Apoc Bar 234-5; Adam’s sin was 
 the cause of physical death, 2 Es 3’, Apoc Bar 234; 
 the souls of the good are kept safe in treasuries till 
 the resurrection, 2 Es 4%-41 72 [654-6], Apoc Bar 
 307, But the points of disagreement are just as 
 clearly paid, In 2 Es the Messianic reign is 
 limited to 400 years, 7%-*, whereas in Baruch this 
 period is indeterminate. Again, in 2 Es the Messiah 
 is to die, 7%, and His reign to close with the death 
 of all living things; whereas according to Apoc 
 Bar 30! the Messiah is to return in glory to 
 heaven at the close of His reign, and according to 
 73. 74 this reign is to be an eternal one. Again, in 
 2 Es the writer urges that God’s people should be 
 Eee by God’s own hands and not by the 
 
 ands of their enemies, 5 *°; for these have over- 
 thrown the altar and destroyed the temple, 107); 
 but in Baruch it is told how angels removed the 
 holy vessels and demolished the walls of Jerusalem 
 before the enemy drew nigh, 6-8. On the question 
 of original sin, likewise, these two books are at 
 variance. While in 2 Es the entire stream of 
 physical and ethical death is traced to Adam, 
 3% 41,22 430 748, and the guilt of his descendants 
 minimised at the cost of their first parent (yet see 
 859-60), Baruch derives physical death indeed from 
 Adam’s transgression, 17° 234 54, but as to 
 ethical death declares that ‘each man is the 
 Adam of his own soul,’ 54!° (yet see 48%). 
 
 LiITERATURE.—In addition to the works already cited in this 
 article the reader may consult Langen, De apocalypsi Baruch 
 anno superiori primum edita commentatio (1867); Ewald, Gott. 
 
 gel. Anzeigen (1867), PP 1706-17, 1720; History of Tarael, 
 yiii. 57-61 ; Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (1877), pp. 117-1382 ; 
 
 Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch (1879), pp. 190-198; Dillmann, 
 
 ‘Pseudepigraphen’ in Heraog’s RE* xii. pp. 356-358; Deane, 
 Pseudepigrapha (1891), pp. 130-162; Je Faye, Les A pocalypses 
 Juives (1892), pp. 195-204; Charles, Apoc. of Baruch, 1896. 
 . H. CHARLES, 
 
 BARUCH, BOOK OF.—One of the deutero- 
 canonical books of OT found in LXX between Jer 
 and La, in the Lat. Vulg. after La, and in the Syr. 
 as the second Letter of Baruch—the first Letter 
 having been recently ascertained to be part of 
 the Apoc. of Baruch (wh. see). The book claims 
 to have been written by Baruch, the friend and 
 secretary of Jeremiah ; but in reality it consists of 
 four portions so distinct that they ee probably 
 come from four different authors. 
 
 11-14, Historical preface, giving @ description of the origin 
 and purpose of the book. 
 
 115-38, A confession of the sins which led to the Captivity, 
 and a prayer for restoration to divine favour, largely in 
 Deuteronomic phraseology. 
 
 89-44, A panegyric on Wisdom, and an identification of 
 ee with Torah, after the manner of the later Hokhmio 
 scnool. 
 
 45-59. Consolation and encouragement to the exiles, with 
 such rich personification as to recall some of the most 
 poetical passages in Deutero-Isaiah. 
 
 We will describe and comment on these parts in 
 the order in which we conceive that they came 
 into existence. 
 
 i. The second section, 15-38, will thus claim our 
 first consideration, and it may be subdivided into 
 two parts— 
 
 (1) 15-25. This we designate AN ANCIENT FoRM 
 OF CONFESSION OF SIN USED BY THE PAL, REMNANT. 
 It professes to have been sent from Babylon to 
 Jerus., to be read in the house of God ‘on the day of 
 the feast and on the days of solemn assembly’ (1 
 RV). It opens with words found also Dn 9? ‘To 
 the Lord our God belongeth righteousness, but 
 to us confusion . . . tothe men of Judah and to 
 the inhabitants of Jerus.’; and its restricted design 
 for the use of the home remnant is intimated in 
 the non-occurrence of the words of Dn ‘and to 
 all Isr. that are near and that are afar off,’ etc. ; 
 as well as by the words Bar 2% 5, ‘He hath given 
 them to be in subjection to all the kingdoms that 
 are round about ws . where the Lord has 
 scattered them: and they have become ‘‘ beneath 
 and not above,” because we sinned.’ The con- 
 fession of sins is national, embracing the whole 
 pee from the Exodus, and recognising in the 
 Exile the righteous fulfilment of repeated warnings. 
 
 (2) 28-38. THe EXILES’ CONFESSION, 253, AND 
 PRAYER, 24-38. The confession of the exiles opens 
 as the above (cf. also Dn 97) with the words, ‘To 
 the Lord our God belongeth righteousness,’ etc., 
 but the suppliants do not describe themselves as 
 ‘men of Judah.’ Indeed we would submit—though 
 it seems to have escaped notice hitherto—that this 
 penitential prayer was not meant for the same 
 persons as the foregoing. This is evident from 
 913 «We are left a few among the nations where 
 thou hast scattered ws’ (contrast this with 24 
 ‘The Lord hath scattered them’), v.44 ‘Give us 
 favour before those who have led us captive.’ So 
 also vv.2% ©, Further, the confession, 2°12, is little 
 more than a repetition in different order of phrases 
 found in 1*-25; only, that in the second confession 
 the suppliants do not (as we have seen) identify 
 themselves with Judah; and the divine threat 
 realised in their experience is captivity, 2715; 
 whereas, in the first confession, it was that they 
 had eaten the flesh of their children, 2)*. At 2 
 the confession turns to prayer for pardon and bless- 
 ing, pleading the divine election of Isr., the divine 
 compassion and the divine glory. They acknow- 
 ledge the error of not obeying the warnings of 
 Jer (7% 8? 2741 29°- 8) to be submissive to the king 
 of Babylon, and regard that as the cause of the 
 national ruin. In 2” the suppliants admit that to 
 them personally God has manifested ‘leniency and 
 
 
 
252 BARUCH, BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 compassion.” They quote several eute from 
 Dt (collected Kneucker, p. 30) which threaten 
 dirine wrath on their sins, but which a/so promise 
 that if in captivity they repent, God will renew 
 His covenant, and restore them. They virtually 
 express their faithful allegiance, and claim the 
 promises. 
 
 Ch, 81-8 is regarded by Bertholdt and Reusch as a separate 
 
 salm; but, as shown by Kneucker (p. 263) and Gifford (in 
 Beaker? Apocr. ii. 267), the links of connexion between this 
 portion and the foregoing are beyond dispute. Here the absence 
 of the sense of personal demerit is still more apparent. True 
 they say, ‘ We have sinned,’ but thé ‘ we’ denotes the solidarity 
 of Isr.; for in 34 they say ‘ Hear the prayer of the sons of those 
 who sinned against Thee, for they were disobedient, and the 
 evils cleave to us.’ ‘We have put away from our hearts every 
 beauty of our fathers who sinned against Thee.’ ‘Lo! we are 
 to-day in our captivity,’ 38. 
 
 Date of Composition.—The foregoing analysis 
 helps materially in this decision. [irst, it shows 
 Reusch, Welte, and other Romanists to be mistaken 
 in claiming that 15-38 is the work of the historical 
 Baruch in B.C. 583: for (a) if so, there would be in 
 the suppliants the sense of personal demerit ; and 
 (b) their description of themselves as ‘ sons of those 
 who sinned’ would be quite out of place. Again, 
 our analysis serves to render still more untenable 
 the theory of Hitzig, Kneucker, Schiirer, and some 
 recent English writers, that our section was com- 
 posed after the destruction of Jerus. by Titus. 
 (1) We would ask, Could the Jews of A.D. 80 acquit 
 themselves of personal blame? and could they 
 speak of themselves as the unfortunate sons of the 
 real culprits? (2) In 2!7 we have the same hope- 
 less view of death as appears in Ps 65 and Is 387%. 
 As Reuss says, it indicates ‘a time when the belief 
 in a resurrection did not yet exist.’ (3) There is 
 in the section before us no clear indication that 
 Jerus. and the temple were at the time in ruins. 
 The only allusion to the state of Jerus. is in 2 
 ‘Thou hast made (€yxas) thy house as it is this 
 day,’ but this may refer to a low condition or 
 desecration of the temple. Had the city been in 
 ruins, surely the poignant grief of the patriotic Jew 
 could not have failed to express itself. (4) There 
 is a very close resemblance between Bar 115-2)? and 
 Dn 9*; in fact there are only three important 
 variations, and these all refer to the condition of 
 Jerusalem. Daniel’s prayer is stated to have been 
 uttered in the first year of Darius, at the close of 
 the Captivity, and three times the desolate state of 
 Jerus. is referred to, Dn 91 17 18; but in Bar all are 
 omitted. On any theory as to the relative priority 
 of Dn and Bar this is significant ; but on Schiirer’s 
 theory it amounts to this, that a man writing about 
 A.D. 80, while slavishly imitating Dn 9, abruptly 
 and intentionally selects for omission those parts 
 only which refer to the desolate sanctuary. This 
 we consider highly improbable. 
 
 We are thus drawn to the theory of Ewald, who 
 assigns our section to the times after the conquest 
 of Jerus. by Ptolemy I. in B.C. 320 (Die Jiingsten 
 Propheten, 269), or of Reuss, who assigns it to the 
 times of the first Ptolemies. Its origin may be 
 even earlier. At all events there does not seem 
 valid reason, with Fritzsche, to assign our section 
 to the Maccab. period (Hb. z. d. Apocr. i. 173) on 
 the ground of its dependence on Dn 9. The 
 dependence is by no means self-evident: But if it 
 were so, and if the Book of Dn in its present form 
 be late, this does not preclude the use of pre- 
 existent materials; and it is surely conceivable 
 that in Dn 9 we have an ancient form of prayer 
 traditionally associated with the name of Daniel, as 
 the confession and prayer before us were associated 
 with the name of Baruch. Bissell (Lange’s Apocr. 
 417) and Gifford (Speaker’s Apocr. 250) are also in 
 favour of the early authorship of our section. 
 
 Original Language.—It is highly probable that 
 
 —>=_ 
 
 BARUCH, BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 
 
 11-38 was first composed in Heb. ; though the Gr. 
 text and VSS that have been tr. from the Gr. are 
 all that survive. The very fact that the two 
 prayers were designed for religious assemblies— 
 the former one for the temple—is strong presump- 
 tive proof of Heb. authorship (so Bissell, 417). In 
 the margin of the Milan Ms of the Syr. Hexap. 
 text these words occur on 1” and 28: ‘ This is not in 
 the Heb.’ (Zéckler blunders twice in stating this.) 
 But, apart from this, the linguistic evidence alone 
 seems conclusive. 
 
 1. There are cases in which an awkward word in 
 the Gr. can be shown to possess one of two mean- 
 ings of a Heb. word, and the other meaning is that 
 required by the context— 
 
 122 épydtecOat, to work, forserve. So 73y 
 2‘ dBarov, wilderness, ,, astonishment. ,, a2v 
 2° dvOpwros, man, yy» each, oo TN 
 28 eEwher, outside, », Streets, >» Nisin 
 2” BouBnots, buzzing, »» crowd. » oD 
 1° Secudrns, prisoner, ,, locksmith. 99 0D 
 
 2. Cases in which the unsuitable word suggests 
 its own corrective, if we tr. it into Heb. and sub- 
 stitute different vowels or change one consonant. 
 
 1° udvva, wrong translit. of ap3D. 
 
 2% dmoocrékn= 13] for 137 plague. 
 
 34 reOvnkérwv="DD ,, ‘DP men. 
 
 38 Sdd\jow= aAXwD ,, TOD astonishment. 
 
 3. Cases of slavish imitation of Heb. idiom m 
 violation of the Greek. The word xal occurs 120 
 times ; four times in the sense of ‘ but,’ like Heb. 1, 
 2%. 27, 90 38, ~Then we have od. . . éxet=ny Wr, and 
 od. . . éx’ airg=rby wy. But, to appreciate the 
 full force of the evidence, one has simply to attempt 
 to retranslate the section. The idioms are Hebraistic 
 everywhere. The Heb. seems, as Fritzsche says, 
 to gleam through so plainly that one cannot doubt 
 that the Gr. isa tr. Kneucker has, on the whole, 
 given an admirable rendering of our section into 
 the original Hebrew. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that most of the above 
 awkward renderings occur in the LXX Gr. of Jer. 
 There can be little doubt that he who translated 
 Jer also translated Bar 1-38, and probably found 
 it in Heb, attached to Jer. (So Westcott in Smith 
 DB.) The Greek of the rest of Baruch is almost 
 certainly from another hand. We have here a 
 further evidence of the antiquity of our section. 
 
 ii. THE HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION, l)-4,—This 
 is probably from a later author, because of the 
 discrepancies between it and 15-38. We conceive 
 the matter thus: There were in existence two 
 penitential prayers—one for the remnant, one for 
 the exiles—both associated with the name of 
 Baruch, and the problem was to find a suitable 
 historic origin for them. The solution is: Baruch 
 is in Babylon, and reads a form of confession and 
 
 rayer, 2°-38, to king Jeconiah and the exiles. They 
 isten, weep, and fast, and long that their brethren 
 in Judah should also turn to the Lord, B. writes 
 a confession suited to the Judseans, 1-25, and the 
 exiles send it to Judah by him. Thus does the 
 would-be historian explain the duality of 1-38. 
 His historic locus now calls for explanation. The 
 book was written in the 5th year on the 7th of the 
 month, at the time of the year when the Chal- 
 deans took Jerus., t.e. on the fifth anniver of 
 the first fall of Jerus., B.c. 597—the era from which 
 Jer, Ezk, and Dn reckon. In B.c. 593 Seraiah, 
 brother of Bar., was in Babylon with king Zedekiah 
 (Jer 51), The nature of their mission is uncertain, 
 but it was such as to rouse expectation; for at 
 
 the same time prophets in Babylon, Jer 27'%, and — 
 
 Hananiah in Judah, Jer 28%, foretold that within 
 two years the sacred vessels would be restored, and 
 Jeconiah and the exiles allowed to return; but Jer 
 
 
 
 —" 
 
 ee a a oe 
 
BARUCH, BOOK OF 
 
 sternly contradicts this (Jer 29). T*2se are the 
 circumstances, shortly after which our author says 
 that B, composed his book. The effect of the read- 
 ing of it we havedescribed. In penitence the people 
 send to Joakim the priest—probably the Sagan— 
 money with which to purchase sacrifices and in- 
 cense to offer on the altar of J”. Thus far there is 
 verisimilitude in the story. Jeconiah might well 
 be present, for the first exiles, ‘the good figs,’ were 
 treated far more leniently than the second. The 
 hoof of ignorance and late authorship shows itself, 
 however, (1) in the statement that Jerus. was burnt 
 with fire in Jeconiah’s reign; (2) that the exiles 
 asked the Judeans to ‘ pray for Nebuchad. and his 
 son Baltasar.’ The monuments show that Bel- 
 shazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who usurped the 
 throne of Babylon; and though Belshazzar might 
 claim to be ‘son’ of Nebuchad. to add to his 
 dignity, the title could not be given by one living 
 years before. (3) The restoration of the silver 
 vessels made by Zedekiah after the deportation 
 of Jeconiah (1° °%) is a hopeless tangle. The 
 
 assage has probably been worked over by a 
 Tater hand, who conceived of the locus as five 
 years after the final destruction of the city and 
 temple. 
 
 iii. A HOKHMIST’s MESSAGE TO THE EXILES, 
 3°-44,—‘O Isr. why art thou in the land of thy foes? 
 and grown old in a foreign land?’ The reason 
 is, ‘Thou hast forsaken the fountain of Wisdom.’ 
 Learn where Wisdom is, and there thou wilt find 
 life and joy and peace. But where does Wisdom 
 dwell? Have kings found her in the thickets of 
 the forests hunting the boar? Have birds stored 
 in royal aviaries seen her on high? Have silver- 
 workers mining under the earth seen her? Young 
 men, with vision unbedimmed by sin, can they give 
 noclue? Merchants of Phenicia and Teman, have 
 they not seen her by sea orland? The heroes of the 
 
 hoary past,—the giants,—can they help? No. God 
 only knows her abode—the Creator of the beasts, 
 
 the lightning, and the stars. He has embodied 
 Wisdom in the Law, and given it to Jacob. And 
 in this guise Wisdom appears on the earth and is 
 peostaible to man. The eternal Law is Wisdom 
 incarnate. Walk in her light, O Israel! and give 
 not thy glory to another, nor thy advantages to a 
 strange nation. 
 
 Date.—Much of this section (3°) is a close 
 imitation of Job 28 and 38; yet it possesses as 
 much poetic fervour as an imitation can well do. 
 It has nothing in common with 153° except the 
 exile. The part which is truly original is 3°-4‘, 
 and therefore here we must seek for the date of 
 composition. Israel is ‘God’s beloved,’ ‘having 
 (Ro 2°) in the Law the form (udpdwow) of know- 
 ledge and of truth’; and she is charged not to give 
 her glory to another, nor her advantages (cvupé- 
 povra, cf. Ro 31) to a foreign people, but to walk in 
 the light of the law, cf. Bar 42, Ro 2! Evidently, 
 the privileges referred to are spiritual ones; and 
 Kneucker can hardly be incorrect in maintaining 
 that Gentile Christians, the oy, are the d\dédrpiov 
 €@vos, of whom the rigorous Jew bids his co- 
 religionists beware. There is no reference to recent 
 calamities. Israel has ‘grown old in a foreign 
 land.’ Therefore I should place this section a few 
 years before, or some years after, the fall of Jerus- 
 alem in A.D. 70. 
 
 Original Language.x—We would submit that 
 3°44 was first composed in Aramaic. The evi- 
 dence we offer is based on a comparison of the 
 Greek with the versions—the Peshitta and Syr. 
 Hexapla. When the various readings are tr. 
 into Aramaic we obtain either one Aramaic word 
 with the two desiderated meanings, or two words 
 so nearly alike as easily to be mistaken for one 
 another, 
 
 BARUCH, BOOK OF 
 
 316 peoples, N'DDY 
 18 fabricators, paap 
 19 disappeared, innox 
 1 laid hold, 1s 
 
 remembered, 727% 
 meditates on, xyinD 
 4 watches, pamsp3 
 *” appeared, ydan 
 4 advantage, pny 
 
 . world, 
 
 . who acquire, } 
 . sinned, WINN 
 . cared for, 
 
 . trod, 
 
 . seeks out, 
 
 . places, pansn3a 
 . wasrevealed, 1banx 
 . dignity. xIpY 
 
 It will be observed that the words are uniformly 
 Pal. Aramaic—in some cases peculiar to that 
 dialect. The author, therefore, was of the school 
 of Sirach and not of Philo. 
 
 iv. A HELLENIST’S ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THE 
 EXILES, 4°-5°.—This section is clearly divisible into 
 four odes, each commencing with some form of the 
 verb Oappetv, and to these is appended a Ps closely 
 related to the 11th of the Ps 33 Sol. 458 is drawn 
 entirely from the Song of Moses in Dt 32. After 
 this, in a passage of some beauty and originality 
 (4°16), Jerus. is personified as a woman, narrating 
 her troubles to the neighbours of Zion; then (v.1%*-), 
 as if on the eve of captivity, she bids her children 
 shorten their adieux, as she has put on the sack- 
 cloth of prayer. The prayer is not in vain. Joy 
 comes to her from the Holy One (v.”2). The mother 
 (v.25) again addresses her children, but now in terms 
 of hopefulness, begging them to be patient and in- 
 tensely prayerful, since the hour of deliverance is 
 at hand. At 4° the author assumes the role of 
 the prophet, and foretells the doom of Israel’s foes, 
 and then (4°°-5’) he announces the future prosperity 
 of Zion in a passage of remarkable beauty, but too 
 closely copied from Ps-Sol 11. 
 
 Date.—We unhesitatingly place the composition 
 of this section after the destruction of Jerus. by 
 Titus. Ryle and James have certainly proved the 
 dependence of Bar on the Psalter (Psalms of Soi. 
 lxxii.-Ixxvii.) ; and there is little reason to suspect 
 that it ever existed except in Greek. The Gr. moves 
 so easily and is fairly idiomatic. Its Hebraisms are 
 due to quotations from books themselves tr. from 
 Sem. sources. The fall of the city is still within 
 the memory of the writer; the desolation is com- 
 plete; its captives have gone forth with wailing and 
 woe. The increasingly joyful tone can hardly have 
 arisen within ten years of the destruction of the 
 city, as Kneucker holds. Hope must again have 
 kindled in the Jewish breast, and possibly the 
 events in the reign of Hadrian, A.D. 118, are those 
 to which the writer looks forward; though all 
 through this interval most of the Jews never 
 doubted that the temple would be rebuilt. The 
 author of 4°-5° was pro aby the translator of 3°-4‘, 
 
 Canonical Standing.—Though there is stron 
 evidence that 1'-3° was composed in Heb., an 
 some evidence that it once followed Jer in the 
 Canon, it was dropped before the time ofjJerome; so 
 that he says (Pref. in Jer), ‘nec legitur nec habetur 
 apud Hebreos,’and Epiph. (de mens.) bears the same 
 testimony. In the Gr. of the Apost. Const. v. 20 it 
 is, however, said to be used by the Jews (? of the 
 Dispersion) on the 10th of Gorpizus, ¢.¢e. on the 
 Day of Atonement. The reference is wanting in 
 the Syr. text, and has no confirmation whatever. 
 Our book is not mentioned by any NT writer or 
 apost. Father, but from Athenagoras (fl. 176) on- 
 wards for centuries it is quoted as canonical by 
 almost every Christian writer of eminence. This 
 remark applies especially to 3° ‘This is our God. 
 oe og 1B tach found out the way of knowledge. 
 . . . Afterward did she (i.e. Wisdom) appear on 
 earth and was conversant with men.’ Kneucker 
 and Schiirer regard v.*% (EV *’) as a Christian in- 
 terpolation ; but without sufficient reason. The 
 writer personifies Wisdom, and identifies her with 
 the Law; as we see from 4! (which ought never 
 
 
 
254 BARZILLAI 
 
 BASE 
 
 a 
 
 to have been separated by a chapter-division) ‘ This 
 is the book of the commands of God, even the Law 
 which abides for ever.’ Christian writers tena- 
 ciously claimed this as a panes for the divinity 
 of the Wisdom-Logos, and therefore firmly retained 
 Bar in the Canon. Jerome was the first for two 
 centuries to call its canonicity in question, and 
 hence Bar is wanting in Codex Amiatinus; but 
 his criticisms produced no apparent result on the 
 beliefs of his age. 
 
 Reusch, a Romanist commentator, Mad an exhaustive 
 account of the citations from Bar by early Christian writers, and 
 devotes an appendix to their explanations of 336-88, From these 
 citations I compute that, of the 75 verses’ from 39-59, 43 are 
 found, cited as canonical, in the pages of Christian writers. 
 
 It is also interesting to note that in every extant List of 
 Canonical Books, Bar either is named or can be proved to be 
 included under Jer—the only doubtful exception being that of 
 
 Melito. Didymus Alex. + 395 distinctly says that Jer and Bar 
 form one book. 
 
 List or Canonical Books. 
 
 Melito . - ¢,180 Is, Jer, XII. Proph. 
 Origen . - +253 Jer, Lam, Ep, but quotes Bar as Jer. 
 Conc. Laod. . 363 Jer, Bar, Lam, Ep (of Jeremy). 
 Hilary . - +367 Jer, Lam, Ep, but quotes Bar as Jer. 
 Athanasius . 373 Jer, Bar, Lam, Ep. 
 Cyril Jer. - +386 Jer, Bar, Lam, Ep. 
 Conc. Carth.. 397 Jer (but see Buhl, 61-62). 
 Greg. Naz. . +391 Jer, but quotes Bar 336 as Scr, 
 Epiphanius . {403 Jer, Lam, Ep, Bar (Her. 8. 6). 
 Rufinus . - +410 Jer, but quotes Bar 336 as Scr. 
 Jerome - +420 Jer, first to reject Bar. 
 Augustine . 430 Jer, but quotes Bar often. 
 Codex x. . Jer, Lam, Ep, fragmentary. 
 
 B. 4 Jer, Bar, Lam, Ep. 
 
 A. = Jer, Bar, Lam, Ep. 
 
 D. = Jer. 
 Cassiodorus . ¢.540 Jer. Quotes Bar as Jer, 
 Anast. Sin. . ¢.550 Jer. Quotes Bar as Jer. 
 John Damasc. +750 Jer. Quotes Bar often. 
 
 From the last quarter of the 2nd cent. to the 
 time of the Reformation, Jerome’s is almost the 
 only discordant note in the harmony of universal 
 acceptance in the Christian Church. Wyclif in the 
 
 reface to his Bible inserted the statement from 
 
 erome, that in OT nothing but the Heb. Canon is 
 of divine authority, but published all the Apocr. 
 Luther and the other Reformers removed Bar from 
 the Canon; but, though Ximenes and Erasmus 
 were both disposed to draw a line of demarcation 
 between canon. and apocr. books, the Council of 
 Trent peremptorily included Bar and the rest of 
 the Apocr. among the sacred books of Scripture. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Copicrs anp VERsions.—Of Gr. uncials Bar 
 {s found in A, B, Q, otherwise known as iii., ii., xii. The 
 palimpsest I contains 112-23 and 312-48, (See, for description of 
 these MSS, Swete’s OT in Gr. iii., Introd.) There are also 22 Gr. 
 cursives, named and classified by Kneucker, pp. 91-97. Further, 
 there are two Lat. VSS, aand b. a is that found in Clementine 
 edd. of the Vulg., of which Vercellone’s is perhaps the most 
 accurate. Bar is really the old Lat. unrevised by Jerome, for 
 he himself says ‘Librum Baruch . . . pretermisimus.’ b is a 
 recension of a, iinproving its Latinity, altering some of its 
 readings to agree with B, and indulging in explanatory com- 
 ments (Kneucker 141-163). b was edited by Jos. Caro, Rome, 
 1688; vy Sabatier; and in Bibliotheca Casinensis, vol. i, (1873). 
 There are also two Syr. VSS: (1) The Peshitta, which is most 
 acc:ssible in Lagarde’s Libr. Apocr. Syr., and (2) the Syr.-Bexap. 
 My ed. is the one in Ceriani’s Mon. sac. et prof. tom. i. fase. i. 
 1861. Since then, however, the work has been reproduced by 
 photo-lithography. (Swete, op. cit. xiii.) 
 
 EXEGETICAL HELPs.—The most thorough comm. is Kneucker’s 
 Das Buch Baruch, Leipzig, 1879. Other useful works are: 
 Gifford in Speaker's Apocr. vol. ii.; Bissell in Lange’s series ; 
 Zockler, Apok. in the Kgf. Kom. 1891; Ewald, Die jiingsten 
 Propheten, 1868; Fritzsche, Handbuch z. d. Apocr. vol. i. Leipzig, 
 1851 ; Reusch, Hrkldr. d. Buchs Baruch, Freiburg, 1853 ; Reuss, 
 AT, vol. vi. 1894; Hiivernick, De lib. Bar., Konigsberg, 1861. 
 Isagogic material is also to be found in Schirer, HJP t1. iii. 
 188 f., and Hilyenfeld’s Zeitschrift for 1860, where Hitzig deals 
 with Bar, p. 262 ff., Kneucker in 1880, and Hilgenfeld in 1879-80. 
 
 . T. MARSHALL. 
 
 BARZILLAI (‘9173 ‘man of iron’?, BeptedX).—1. A 
 wealthy Gileadite of Rogelim, who came to David’s 
 aid during his flight from Absalom (2S 172"), He 
 refused to accompany the king to Jerusalem on his 
 return, on the ples of his great age and unsuit- 
 ability for the life of the court, but sent his son 
 Chimham in his stead (19%). And to him, in grati- 
 
 tude for his father’s services, David would seem to 
 have granted a ‘ lodging place,’ or caravanserai for 
 travellers, out of his own patrimony in Bethlehem, 
 which 400 years later still bore his name 
 (Jer 4117). Dean Stanley even favours the con- 
 jecture that, in accordance with the immovable 
 usages of the East, it was probably the same whose 
 stable at the time of the Christian era furnished 
 shelter for two travellers with their infant child, 
 when ‘ there was no room in the inn’ (Hist. of the 
 Jew. Ch. vol. ii. p. 154). Other sons of B. must 
 have followed, if they did not accompany, Chimham 
 over Jordan, and all were specially commended by 
 David, on his deathbed, to the care of Solomon 
 (1 K 27). Of B. himself we hear nothing further 
 beyond the mention, so late as the return from the 
 Captivity in Babylon, of a family of priests whe 
 traced their descent to a marriage with the 
 Gileadite’s daughter (Ezr 2%, Neh 7%). 2. A 
 Meholathite whose son Adriel married Michal the 
 daughter of Saul (2 S 218). G. MILLIGAN. 
 
 BASALOTH (A Baadw@, B Bacadéu), 1 Es 5%,— 
 BaZLuTH, Ezr 257; BAZLITH, Neh 7%, 
 
 BASCAMA (4 Bacxapd), 1 Mac 13%,—An un- 
 known town of Gilead. 
 
 BASE (see also ABASE, DEBASE).—The adj. 
 ‘base’ (from Fr. bas, ‘shallow,’ ‘low,’ but prob. 
 of Celtic origin) is used to express—1. That which 
 is literally ‘low,’ not high, as Spenser, FQ1. v. 31, 
 ‘An entraunce, dark and base. . . Descends to 
 Hell.’ Of this use we still have ‘ base’ of sounds 
 (though we spell it ‘ bass’) ; cf. Shaks., 1 Hen. IV. 
 Il, iv. 5, ‘I have sounded the very base string of 
 humility.’ There is no example of this meanin 
 in the Bible. 2. Figuratively, low in the socia 
 scale, of lowly birth or station, then unassuming, 
 humble. This is the meaning of b. in AV: Is 35 
 ‘the b. against the honourable’ (7.e. the low-born 
 against the nobles) ; Ezk 17 ‘that the kingdom 
 might be b., that it might not lift itself up’ (Heb. 
 boy ; so 294-15 2 § 622, Mal 29, Dn 417 ‘the most 
 High... setteth up... the basest of men’); 
 Job 308 ‘children of b. men’ (oy"3 4a, lit. ‘sons of 
 no name,’ i.e. sons of him who has no name=the 
 ignoble). In NT: 1 Co 1% ‘b. things of the world, 
 and things which are despised, hath God chosen’ 
 (dyev}s, ‘of low birth’); 2 Co 10! ‘Now I Paul 
 myself beseech you by the meekness and gentle- 
 ness of Christ, who in presence am b. among you’ 
 (RV ‘in your presence am lowly’; the Gr. is 
 rarevés, which in NT signifies ‘lowly, either in 
 position, as Ja 1° ‘let the brother of low degree 
 glory in his high estate’; or in heart, as Mt 11” 
 “IT am meek and lowly in heart’). 3. Morally low, 
 mean, contemptible, the meaning of the word in 
 mod. English. This meaning was known in 1611, 
 and it is probable that there is at least some moral 
 reprobation in Ac 175 ‘certain lewd fellows of 
 the baser sort’ (RV ‘certain vile fellows of the 
 rabble’; Gr. dyopatn, lit. ‘of the market place,’ 
 i.e. loungers). RV has introduced ‘base’ in this 
 sense in Wis 2'6 ‘We were accounted by him as 
 b. metal’ (AV ‘counterfeits,’ Gr. x«l8dydos) ; and 
 Dt 13% ‘Certain b. fellows are gone out’ (AV 
 ‘certain men, the children of Belial,’ Heb. osx 
 y5a-32=* men, sons of worthlessness’; elsewhere 
 Eng. RV retains the AV Ponrec of this phrase, 
 ‘son of Belial,’ ‘man of Belial,’ etc., though 
 belial (wh. see) is not a proper name; but Amer. 
 RV always changes it into ‘base fellow,’ except 
 1S 16‘ wicked woman’ (AV ‘daughter of Belial ’). 
 
 Base, as subst. (from Lat. basis after Gr. Bésis, ‘a stepping,’ 
 then ‘that on which one steps, or anything stands’) is distinct 
 from the adj. in origin and meaning, and once was distinct 
 in pronunciation. It occurs freq. in AV as tr. of (1) mékhénah 
 
 
 
BASEMATH 
 
 
 
 {esp. in 1 K 7 of the stands for the lavers of brass in Solomon’s 
 temple); (2) kén, 1 K 729.31 (RV ‘pedestal,’ which had better, 
 perhaps, been given as tr. of mékhénah, the kén being appar- 
 ently not the stand of the lavers, but the upright projections 
 which kept them in their place*); and in RV (8) yésddh (AV 
 *bottom’); (4) yarék (AV ‘shaft’); (5) gabh, Ezk 4318 (AV 
 ‘higher place,’ where the difference between ‘base’ as pedestal 
 and ‘ base’ the adj. is well seen; the gabA being a raised place, a 
 mound, and so here the elevated base of the altar. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BASEMATH (nova ‘fragrant’; AV Bashemath). 
 —1. One of the wives of Esau. In Gn 26% (P) she 
 is called the daughter of Elon the Hittite, while 
 in Gn 36° (prob. R) she is said to have been Ishmael’s 
 daughter, and sister of Nebaioth. But in Gn 28° 
 (P) Esau is said to have taken Mahalath, the 
 daughter of Ishmael, the sister of Nebaioth, tobe his 
 wife; and in Gn 36? the first mentioned of Esau’s 
 wives is Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite. 
 There is manifestly a confusion of names in the 
 text, which cannot be satisfactorily explained. 
 The Sam. text reads Mahalath instead of Base- 
 math throughout Gn 36, and on the whole it seems 
 most probable that these are different names for 
 the same person. 2 (1 K 4%, in AV Basmath) 
 A daughter of Solomon, who became the wife of 
 Ahimaaz, one of the king’s officers who was pur- 
 veyor for the royal household in the district of 
 Naphtali. R. M. Boyp. 
 
 BASHAN [jan ‘The Bashan’; perhaps, like the 
 modern Arab. Bathaniyeh, it means ‘soft earth.’ 
 With the def. article in all hist. statements except 
 1 Ch 5”; also sometimes in poetry (Dt 33”, Ps 
 135" 136”), and aeey (Is 2}8, Jer 2279 5019, Am 
 4'); but in prophecy and poetry the art. is more 
 often omitte (is 33%, Ezk 27° 3918, Mic 74, Nah 14, 
 Zee 11, Ps 22 (Eng.!) 6816 3 (Eng. 22)].—In a 
 region where all placenames were used more or 
 less loosely, it is difficult to define the limits of 
 Bashan, but the name was applied to territory N. of 
 Gilead, and seems generally to have meant the whole 
 of the most northerly of the three great divisions of 
 E. Pal.,—Bashan, Gilead, Moab. It first appears as 
 the kingdom of Og (Nu 21*, Dt 14 etc.), extending 
 as far E. as Salecah, the present Salkhat, the last 
 great town towards the Arabian desert, and in- 
 cluding Edrei, Ashtaroth, and Golan (Dt 14 3! 4%, 
 Jos 91° 124 1311: 12. 31 908 91°7). If Ashtaroth be the 
 present Tell Ashtéra, and the city Golan lay within 
 the present Jaulan, this would mean that B. 
 proper covered all the S. of Hauran, including the 
 region known to-day as En-nukra, It is the same 
 expanse, between the Leja and Gilead, which seems 
 to have been covered in Gr. times by the name 
 Batanza (Jos. Ant. XV. x. 1, XVU. ii. 1; Vita 11, 
 etc. ; Euseb. Onom. art. Bacay). Whether in this, 
 its more proper sense, the name extended to the 
 Jordan Valley it is impossible to say, till we know 
 where Geshur and Maacah lay. Indeed, Jos 12* 
 131-18 seem to imply that the latter came between 
 B. and the Jordan Valley (cf. Guthe, ZDPV xii. 
 232). If the opinion were correct which identifies 
 Argob with the Lejd, then B. must have extended 
 to the N. and E. of the latter; but for that identi- 
 fication there is no real evidence. The kingdom 
 of Og is said to have contained a large number of 
 cities, and these have been alleged by Porter 
 (Giant Cities of Bashan) to be the large basalt ruins 
 so thickly strewn across Hauran ; yet none of the 
 latter, with one or two trifling exceptions, bear 
 any proof of a date earlier than the rise of Gr. 
 civilisation in these parts under the protection of 
 the Rom. Empire. 
 
 In a general sense the name B. was attached to 
 the long edge of the E. plateau, as seen across 
 Jordan from W. Pal., and the name is frequently 
 
 *In the corresponding description of the tabernacle, RV 
 
 translates kén ‘base’ (AV ‘foot’), Ex 3018-28 318 3516 388 3939 
 4011, Ly 811, 
 
 
 
 BASKET 255 
 
 joined with Carmel and Lebanon as one of the 
 most prominent features in view of N. Israel (see 
 CARMEL). Another verse, ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp, 
 he leaps from B.’ (Dt 33”), carries the name up te 
 the foot of Hermon, where the position of the city 
 of Dan is to be looked for, not at Tel el-Kadi on 
 the defenceless floor of the Jordan Valley, but 
 rather at Banias, actually on the E. hills, and 
 therefore a site from which Dan could justly be 
 said ‘to leap from B.’ Again, the term ‘mount’ 
 or ‘mountains of B.’ is uncertain, but prob. depends 
 on the interpretation to be given to the description 
 of them in Ps 68% as ‘mountains of humps’ or 
 ‘ protuberances’ or ‘ bold heights.’ This can hardly 
 be the triple summits of Hermon to which it has 
 been applied both by Olshausen and Baethgen. It 
 suits far better the many broken cones of extinct 
 craters which are scattered over B. (Delitzsch). 
 Wetzstein proposes the Jebel Hauran or Druz; but 
 this appears unlikely, even though it were proved 
 that the Mt. Salmon of the previous verse were 
 the same name as that which Ptolemy gave the 
 Jebel Hauran, viz. Asalmanus (cf. Guthe, ZDPV 
 xii, 231). 
 
 B. was celebrated for its breed of cattle (Dt 3214), 
 which are also the types throughout OT of cruel and 
 loud-mouthed oppressors; similarly, Amos calls 
 the censorious and tyrannical matrons of Samaria 
 ‘kine of B.’ (4+). 
 
 The name B. survived in Gr. times as Batanea 
 (as described above). Batanzea was part of Philip’s 
 tetrarchy. Conder thinks it appears in NT as the 
 ‘Bethany beyond Jordan’ (the most probable 
 reading of Jn 1%, see Westcott and Hort); but if 
 so well known a province as Batanza had been 
 intended, and not rather some town, the epithet 
 ‘beyond Jordan’ would hardly have been added. 
 To-day the name survives, Ard el-Bathaniyeh ; 
 but since the 10th cent., when, according to Idrisi, 
 it was still the province in which Edrei stood, it 
 has drifted round to the E. of the Leja, where it 
 will be found in the most recent maps. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Besides what is quoted, Reland; Wetzstein, 
 Reisebericht ; Merrill, Hast of Jordan; Driver, Deut. 47, 360; 
 Smith, Hist. Geog. pp. 542, 549-553, 6570 ff.; Buhl, Geog. ait. 
 Pal. 117 £. (on Dan, 238). G. A. SMITH. 
 
 BASHMURIC YVERSIONS.—See EayptiaAn VER- 
 SIONS, 
 
 BASILISK.—See SERPENT. 
 
 BASKET, a vessel made of plaited reeds, twigs, 
 palm-leaves, or other iaterial: The word is used 
 in aye as the equivalent of five Heb. and three Gr. 
 wordas. 
 
 1. bo sal, a bag of flexible interwoven twigs, 
 probably similar in shape to the basket in which a 
 carpenter carries his tools. Three such baskets 
 the chief baker of Pharaoh dreamt he carried on 
 his head (Gn 40% 1% 18), probably in the manner 
 represented on the tomb of Ramses HI. (Wilkin- 
 son i. 401). These were baskets of white bread 
 (RV), not white baskets as in AV, or openwork 
 baskets, asSymmachus, Similar baskets were used 
 to carry the unleavened bread and the oiled cakes 
 and wafers for the offering of consecration of the 
 priests (Ex 29°; also Ly 878) ; hence in Lv 8* it 
 is called the basket of consecration. Such baskets 
 were also used for the Nazirite’s offering (Nu 
 615: 17. 19), Gideon carried the flesh of the kid and 
 the unleavened cakes of his provision for the angel 
 ina basket of this sort (Jg 6"). The name Sallai in 
 Neh 118 12” has been fancifully supposed to refer 
 to a family of basket-makers, but this is highly 
 improbable on etymological grounds. 
 
 2. mbpbo salsilloth, in Jer 6°, is translated 
 ‘orape-gatherer’s baskets,’ the taltalah of the 
 
256 BASKET 
 
 
 
 BASON 
 
 
 
 Arabs. Such baskets are represented in the 
 Egyptian tomb-pictures (Wilkinson, i. 383). The 
 context, however, makes it probable that the word 
 is connected with zalzallim, used in Is 18°, meaning 
 young shoots or tendrils, for the idea in the verse 
 is the gleaning of an already stripped vine. Tal- 
 tallim 1s used in Ca 5" for twisted ete of hair. 
 
 3. xm ¢éne’, a basket for ordinary household or 
 agricultural use, employed for carrying the first- 
 fruits (Dt 2674). L renders it xépradXos, which, 
 like the Roman corbis, was a basket tapering 
 downwards. National prosperity, consequent on 
 well-doing, was trpitied by the blessing of the 
 basket (téne’) and the store (Dt.285). The opposite 
 condition was attended with a curse on the 
 basket (v.2"). 
 
 Tena and tennu are common Egyp. names for a 
 basket. In line 2 of the Canopic decree the 
 Arsinoite basket-bearing priest is called tend n 
 met Arsinatt. This is rendered in the Gr. version 
 canephorus, the name given to the Athenian 
 basket-bearing girls at the feasts of Dionysus and 
 Demeter. The basket-bearing priest is a con- 
 spicuous feature in the Assyrian sculptures. 
 
 4. 331 didh, the xddafos of the LXX, was prob- 
 ably also a tapering basket, like that ceed by 
 the Romans for wool (Virg. 4ineid, vii. 805) or by 
 the Greeks for fruit (Aristoph. Lysistr. 579). In 
 it were contained the figs of Jeremiah’s vision 
 {241 4), Large baskets of this kind were used for 
 carrying clay to the brick-kilns; these are referred 
 to in Ps 81° (RV; not ‘pots’ asin AV). They are 
 represented in Egyp. paintings as carried on the 
 back, over one shoulder, as in most Ushabti 
 figures, or else they were borne between two on a 
 pole, or two were carried by a yoke resting on the 
 shoulders, as shown in a painting at Beni-hassan. 
 In any case the deliverance of the Israelites is well 
 expressed by the removal of their shoulders from 
 the burden. In baskets of this kind the heads of 
 Ahab’s sons were sent to Jehu at Jezreel (2 K 10’). 
 This word is also translated ‘kettle’ in 1S 2, as 
 in Job 41” (see Kettle in art. Foon). 
 
 5. 2bp kélibh, rendered by LXX dyyos, is used 
 in Am 8}? for a basket containing summer fruits. 
 The same word in Jer 5” signifies a bird-cage, 
 probably of basketwork, in which sense the word 
 occurs in Phenician and Syriac. Compare kAwBés 
 in Antipater’s epigram (Anthol. Palat. vi. 109. 3). 
 
 The 133 ¢ébhah of papyrus reeds, in which the 
 infant Moses was exposed, was a sort of basket. 
 Teb is the Heyeen name of a mummy-case. 
 Other Egyptian baskets were mesen, a fruit basket 
 of palm leaves and rushes for carrying dates; 
 hotep, a basket for carrying meat (Pap. Anastasi) 
 or flowers (Diimichen), senab, seg, and xaxa, a 
 basket for catching fish, such as that figured on 
 the tomb of Ti; compare the Aakkah of Hab 1. 
 
 In the NT three words are used which are 
 translated basket— 
 
 1. xdguvos, used in all the accounts of the miracle 
 of feeding the 5000, for the baskets in which 
 the fragments were gathered, Mt 14%, Mk 6%, 
 Lk 917, Jn 6. According to Juvenal (Sat. iii. 14, 
 yi. 541) the Jews carried about with them these 
 wicker baskets for their food in Gentile countries 
 to prevent defilement. Kophinot were used to 
 carry agricultural poe (Columella, xi. 8). 
 Their sizes were probably variable, but the word 
 is used for a Beeotian measure of capacity equal to 
 two gallons (CIG 1625, 46). 
 
 2. opvpls, the kind of basket in which the frag- 
 ments were gathered after the feeding of the 
 4000, Mt 15°”, Mk 88. It was probably a large 
 provision basket, possibly of ropework, such as 
 those which the lake-dwelling Pzonians used for 
 fishing with (Herodot. v. 16). In such a spuris 
 the disciples let down St. Paul from the walls of 
 
 
 
 Damascus, Ac 9%. The spuris and kophinos are 
 contrasted in Mt 16%, Mk 8%, the former 
 being probably the larger. The medieval com- 
 mentators fancifully allegorized these baskets 
 (see Rabanus Maurus, Adleg. in Script. ed. Migne, 
 898 ; and for references to the sportule of the cler, 
 and others, see Chrysost. Hp. to Valentinus, 
 Migne, iii. 731; and Cyprian’s Hp. ad clerum et 
 plebem. p. 324). 
 
 3. capydvy, used only in 2 Co 11" in reference to 
 the basket by which St. Paul escaped from 
 Damascus. The word means anything net: as 
 in Aischyl. Suppl. 769, but is used of a fish basket 
 by Timokles (A70.i.). See Pollux, Onomast. vii. 27. 
 
 The other receptacles mentioned in the NT, ripa 
 or wallet; yAwoodxouor, Judas’s bag; and Badddvriov, 
 used thrice in Luke, were probably of leather. 
 The rivat, on which John the Baptist’s head was 
 brought to Salome, was probably a wooden 
 platter. 
 
 In the early Church, cophini or canistra, wicker 
 baskets, were used for carrying the eulogia or con- 
 secrated bread and wine to those not present at 
 the Eucharist (Jerome, Ep. ad Rusticum, ed. 
 Migne, cxxv. 1078). Illustrations of these baskets 
 are referred to in Martigny’s Dict. des Antig. Chrét. 
 p. 246. The word basket is of Celtic origin, from 
 a root which signifies to twist round. Its British 
 source, which has been questioned on dubious 
 grounds by recent etymologists, is referred to b 
 Martial, xiv. 99. From the Schol. on Juv. xii. 46, 
 we learn that baskets were used to hold cups and 
 pots when they were being washed in running 
 water. (See Bulenger. de Conviviis, iv. 10, 11). 
 
 A. MACALISTER. 
 
 BASON.—1. Bason® is the rendering in EV of 
 various Heb. words, and of the Gr. vrrip (Jm 13°). 
 Of the former the most frequently used is py? 
 (LXX giddy, orovdetov, cf. Jos. U.c. inf.), which 
 denotes a bowl or basin used in the sacrificial ritual 
 of tabernacle and temple. The officiating priest 
 or priests caught the warm blood, as it streamed 
 from the victim, in the basin, from which it was 
 dashed against the altar (Ex 291° ete.), or other- 
 wise manipulated as the ritual required (see 
 SACRIFICE). The basins used for this purpose 
 were of bronze (Ex 278, 1 K 7“). About their size 
 and shape we have no further information. They 
 probably resembled somewhat the basin of bronze 
 
 resented by ‘a servant of Hiram’ to the Phen. 
 seity Baal-Lebanon, of which a reconstruction 
 from the remaining fragments is given in the CJS 
 I. i. 23. The same term (p7>) is applied to the 
 silver bowls or basins presented by the princes of 
 the congregation with a meal-offering (Nu 7}%*-). 
 The weight of each basin, 70 shekels,—prob. about 
 32 oz. troy,—shows that the p71) was not of very 
 large dimensions, Among the furniture of the 
 temple of Solomon, basins of gold are repeatedly 
 mentioned (1 K 7, 2 K 1233, Jer 52! ete.). The 
 number of these made by Hiram is given as 100 in 
 2 Ch 48 (with wh. cf. the statements Ezr 1%", and 
 contrast the exaggerations of Jos. Ant. VII. iii. 
 7, 8). Fifty such golden basins were presented by 
 ‘the Tirshatha’ to the second temple (Neh 7”). 
 
 2. Bason is also in a few places the rendering of 
 jo, which, if the reading of 2 S 17% be correct (cf. 
 Klosterm. in loc.), was the name for a basin as a 
 common article of household furniture, such as is 
 denoted by umrip (Jn 135) With this agrees its 
 use by JE in the account of the institution of the 
 Passover (Ex 12” by the LXX mistranslated rapa 
 Thy Ovpav). ae some passages the word is translated 
 
 * The Amer. Revisers prefer throughout the more modern 
 spelling ‘ basin.’ 
 
 
 
 
 
BASSAI 
 
 2p. 
 
 may be considered as a word of later origin than 
 
 the others. It occurs alongside of py}>, and must 
 
 therefore have differed fromit; but in what ‘aspect 
 
 we do not know. It is rendered in RV unitormly 
 
 by ‘bowl’ (which see). aAi3x ‘basins,’ occurs only 
 x 248, A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 BASSAI (B Baocal, A Baocd, AV Bassa), 1 Es 51° 
 = Bugzal, Ezr 2", Neh 72. 
 
 BASTARD is one born out of wedlock ; and that 
 is the meaning in He 12° ‘then are ye bastards (v400x) 
 and not sons,’ its only occurrence in NT; but in 
 OT it is probable that 192 mamzér, of which b. is 
 the tr. where it occurs (Dt 237, Zec 9°, only), means 
 a child of incest, not simply an illegitimate child. 
 See Driver on Dt 23%. Wis 4 (heading) has ‘ Bastard 
 slips shall not thrive’ as a paraphrase of 4° ‘ But 
 the multiplying brood of the ungodly shall not 
 thrive,’ where the meaning is probably general’= 
 ‘base,’ as in Spenser, #.Q. i. 24— 
 
 "For all he taught the tender ymp was but 
 To banish cowardize and bastard feare.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BASTHAI (Bacéal, AV Bastai), 1 Es 5°'=BzEsal, 
 zr 2° Neh 7°, 
 
 BAT (non ‘atalléph, vuxrnpls, vespertilio).—The 
 bat is placed at the end of the unclean fowls (Lv 
 11%, Dt 141%), but in Lv 11” the explanatory 
 clause, ‘all winged creeping things that go upon 
 all four,’ makes it perfectly plain that the bat 
 is intended. The Arab. popular name for the bat 
 is witwdt, and the classical name is kAuffdsh. The 
 Heb. name, ‘dtalléph, signifies the night-lier, in 
 allusion to the habits of the animal. The Arab. 
 Dame signifies the weak-sighted, referring to the 
 fact of the small eyes of bats, which see poorly by 
 tay. A man who has day-blindness is called 
 tkhfash, i.e. bat-eyed, from this circumstance. 
 3ats are mammals, with a very light skeleton and 
 body, and large membranous wings, spread _be- 
 tween the elongated phalanges, and from them 
 and the bones of the forearm and arm to the body 
 and legs. They are nocturnal in their habits, 
 ‘pending their day in sleep, with their wigs 
 tolded up, and suspended by a hook at the tip of the 
 forearm, caught in some crevice of the roof of the 
 cavern, or the ceiling of the tomb or ruin (Is 2)*-21) 
 where they have made their home, or fixed to the 
 branch of a tree. The mousy smell of their haunts 
 {s overpowering where they are numerous. When 
 not asleep, they are constantly squeaking like 
 mice and rats. en disturbed they fly in rapid 
 circles around their dark abode, or sweep in a cloud 
 out of its exit. At night they fly forth noiselessly, 
 and circle around houses and gardens. They pluck 
 pee quantities of apricots, dates, and other fruits, 
 and bring them to the porches of houses and 
 devour them, leaving quantities of the seeds and 
 skins on the pavements, and spotting with their 
 ordure the walls of the house as they fly. It is 
 eustomary to protect the clusters of dates, and of 
 many other fruits, by a sort of basket or bag tied 
 over them, and sometimes the whole tree by a net, 
 lest all the fruit should be eaten by these rapacious 
 feeders. The bats of the Holy Land vary from 
 the size of a mouse to that of arat. They swarm 
 everywhere in the caves, tombs, and ruins. When 
 a cavern or tomb is being explored the bats often ex- 
 {inguish the torch or candle as the traveller passes 
 througha narrow opening. Tristram gives a list 
 of fifteen bats found in Palestine. The bats of the 
 coast and mountains hibernate. But Tristram says 
 that those of the Jordan Valley seem to be always 
 active. G. E. Post. 
 
 BATH.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 VOL, I.—I7 
 
 BATH, BATHING 257 
 
 
 
 BATH, BATHING.—1. In contradistinction to 
 the washing (wh. see) of particular parts of the 
 body, hands, feet, etc., bathing is used in this 
 article of the washing of the whole body,* and that 
 either by the application of water, by pouring or 
 otherwise, to the body, or by the immersion of the 
 body in water, which alone is bathing in the strict 
 sense of the term. The Heb. of the OT does not 
 distinguish between the processes, both of which 
 are expressed by 707] to wash (the body, as opp. to 
 p32 to wash clothes); for washing by immersion 
 3p is once employed in OT (2 K 54, AV ‘dipped 
 himself,’ but pnjin 5"). In later times it became the 
 usual ol eee ae for bathing. The new-born infant. 
 among the Hebrews was bathed in water (Ezk 
 16‘) before being dressed. Some scholars have 
 seen a reference to this custom in Ex 18, where 
 they detect in the mysterious word oj74 the 
 name of the stone basin or bath in which the 
 infants were bathed (Ges. Thes.; Siegfried and 
 Stade’s Lex. s.v.; also Kalisch, Comm. tn {oc.). 
 With this very doubtful exception, there is no 
 mention in OT of a bath, for which later Kab. 
 used Pos mp, ete. (see below). In the everyday 
 life of the ordinary Heb. there would be neither 
 the water nor the privacy—nor, for that matter, 
 the inclination—necessary for bathing in the ordi- 
 nary sense. The few instances oF bathing ia 
 Scripture are in connexion with a river, as in the 
 case of Pharaoh’s daughter (Ex 2°), and Naaman 
 (2 K 5%, LXX ¢famrlcaro); a fountain (Jth 127); oz 
 a pool (birket), as at Samaria (1 K 22°*), Bethesda 
 (Jn 5), and in Joakim’s garden (Sus!®). No doubt 
 in the palaces of royalty and the houses of the 
 wealthy there were, even in ancient times, as at 
 Nineveh, Tiryns, and elsewhere, arrangements 
 for the bath, but no reference tosuch arrangements 
 is found in OT or Apocrypha. 
 
 2. In the cases, other than those already cited, 
 where ‘ bathe’ occurs in AV and RV (in the latter 
 more frequently), the process referred to must be 
 understood as the ablution of the body by the 
 application of water, not by bathing in the ordinary 
 sense of the word.+ 
 
 The prescription Lv 15% ‘he shall bathe his 
 flesh in running (Heb. living) water’ seems at first 
 sight fatal to the proposition just laid down, that 
 purification from ceremonial and other defilement 
 was originally by a process of ablution and not of 
 immersion ; but it is evident from the context that 
 the words in question are a euphemism for lavabit 
 genitalia sua (see Dillm., Strack in /oc.). Such ablu- 
 tions were also practised on the ground of ordinary 
 cleanliness (2 g 112, Sus°*-), and, in particular, 
 before appearing in the presence of superiors 
 (Ru 3°, Jth 10° wepexddcaro, but 12! éBamricaro, 
 ‘bathed,’ as above), and @ fortiort in the presence 
 of God for worship (see Dillmann on Gn 35° for 
 parallel passages). 
 
 8. The cleansing properties of water were in- 
 creased, as among other nations, by the use of a 
 
 * This simple distinction gives the key. to the often misunder. 
 stood passage Jn 1310 (see Westcott in Speaker’s Com.). 
 
 ¢ It is therefore somewhat misleading to apply such expres 
 sions as ‘ bathe himeelf in the water’ (Ly passim) to the ablutions 
 required by the Levitical legislation in certain specified cases 
 (see PuRIFIcaTion). The preposition in n1m3 has in these ordi. 
 pances throughout the meaning of ‘with,’ not ‘in,’ as ir 
 x3 ‘with fire,’ ‘washed with milk,’ abna (see below). Ino 
 few passages AV gives the correct rendering ‘he shall wash his 
 flesh with water,’ which has been unwarrantably departed from 
 in RV (see Ly 226, Dt 2311), Even in the ritual of the Day of 
 Atonement there was no provision in ‘the holy place’ of the 
 tabernacle for the high priest ‘bathing his flesh in water’ 
 (Lv 164 2% RY), the process in question being ablution by 
 applying water from a basin or other vessel, as may be seen in 
 various representations on Greek vases. See illustration in 
 Gardner and Jevons’ Manual of Gr. Antiquities, 1894 
 (from Gerhard’s Auserles. Vasenbilder, pl. 277). Ct. 
 Wilkinson’s woodcut of an Egyptian lady at her ablutiozs, vol. 
 §, Cop. ed. 1854) p. 34, 
 

 
 
 
 BATH-RABBIM 
 
 
 
 258 
 
 vegetable alkali (nqs Jer 2%, RV ‘soap’), natron, 
 a mineral alkali (173 Jer 2%, RV ‘lye’), and 
 ‘washing-balls’ (Sus 27 cyjypara, on which see reff, 
 iiller’s Hdbuch d. klass. Alterth. etc., 
 
 in Iw. 
 bd. iv. p. 444c). To wash with milk was con- 
 sidered, as at the present day, highly beneficial to 
 the complexion (Ca 51%); and it seems to have been 
 & popular superstition that royal blood possessed 
 similar properties, which explains the curious note 
 (1K ) that the harlots of Samaria bathed in 
 the pool in which Ahab’s chariot had been washed 
 (so RV, see Speaker's Commentary in loc. and 
 Additional Note B, p. 624). 
 
 4. Public baths are first met with in the Greek 
 period. The yuuvdovov erected by the Hellenizing 
 party in Jerus. in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes 
 ( ac 114, 2 Mac 4% 12) must have contained the 
 usual hot and cold baths. _Remains of baths from 
 the Roman period exist in various parts of the 
 country. In 1895 a Roman bath was discovered a 
 Bhatt inistanee from the Pool of Siloam (PEFS¢#, 
 Oct. 1895, p. 306ff.). That some even of the 
 most respected Jewish doctors frequented the 
 
 ublic baths (pio, Snudorov,* pl. nvpin Abod. Zar. 
 r 7) is shown by the anecdote told of Gamaliel 
 bathing in the bath (pq», pl. nixymp) of Aphrodite 
 in Acco (Acre, Abod. Zar. iii. 4, Strack’s ed.). In 
 Herod’s temple, as we mush expect, there was a 
 bath-room (77°27 nz) for the priests (Yoma iii. 2). 
 With the increasing stringency in the observation 
 of the ceremonial requirements of the law (cf. 
 Mk 7‘), the bath became, for the laity as well, an 
 all-important factor in the religious life of the 
 community, as may be seen from the number of 
 treatises of the Talm. devoted to the various aspects 
 of this subject (see PURIFICATION). 
 
 5. In the Roman period, also, we first find a 
 reference to the medicinal value of the hot springs 
 in various localities. Thus Herod the Great, near 
 the end of his life, was sent to take the warm baths 
 at Callirrhoé, E. of the Dead Sea (Jos. Ant. XVII. 
 vi. 5). Those of Tiberias (Ané. XvItt. ii. 3) and 
 Gadara were also celebrated. On this part of the 
 subject see Hamburger, aE. Bibel u. Tal. vol. ii. 
 *Heilbiider’; Leop. Liw, Zur Medezin, etc., in 
 Gesammelte Schriften, iii. 1893, Bs 367 ff. 
 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 BATH-RABBIM (o'3rn3 ‘daughter of multi- 
 tudes,’ Ca 7‘).—A gate of Heshbon near fish 
 
 ols. Perhaps the rock cutting on the edge of 
 
 lhe slope, above the stream west of Heshbon, by 
 which the main road approaches the city on the 
 user immediately to the east. The stream is 
 ull of small fish. See SEP vol. i. s.v. Hesbdan. 
 
 C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 BATHSHEBA (y3¢-n3).—The wife of Uriah the 
 Hittite, and afterwards of David, and the mother 
 of Solomon. The tragic story of David’s adulte 
 with her, and of his treachery towards her husband, 
 is recounted in 2 § 11. Bathsheba is variously 
 described as the daughter of Eliam (2 S 11%), or of 
 Ammiel (1 Ch 3°, where, moreover, her name is 
 written Bathshua). It has been suggested with 
 some probability that the father of Bathsheba is 
 to be identified with the Eliam of 2 S 2334, who 
 was a son of Ahithophel the Gilonite. This might 
 explain the latter’s desertion of David as an act of 
 revenge for the seduction of his granddaughter and 
 the murder of her husband. Once introduced into 
 the palace as the wife of David, Bathsheba seems 
 to have quickly accommodated herself to her new 
 rank, and to have gained a commanding influence 
 at court. She displayed considerable skill and 
 not a little ambition upon the occasion when, in 
 conjunction with Nathan the prophet, she bent 
 the aged David to her will, and secured the 
 
 * For the identity of the two words see Fieischer’s note sub 
 wiomry in Levy, Chald. Wérterd. Ot. }>3, Bararsis, etc. 
 
 
 
 BAVVAI 
 
 
 
 succession to the throne for her son Solomon 
 (1 K }1)), J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BATHSHUA(1 Ch 2° 3°).—See BATHSHEBA, SHUA. 
 
 BATTERING-RAM.—This instrument is first 
 clearly mentioned in Ezk (4? 21% ‘rams’ =o73 
 karim). The Hebrews probably adopted it from the 
 Assyrians, the great takers of cities. In its essence 
 it was a stout pole, probably with a metal ferule or 
 head, worked with a motion which was half a fall 
 
 iS 
 Stel 
 
 
 
 BATTERING-RAM. 
 (from a relief in the British Museum.) 
 
 workers was supplied by placing it under a roofed 
 shed or in a tower. The whole machine was often 
 brought forward on wheels. 
 
 Perhaps, however, some rough machine was 
 known in earlier times, and its use may be referred 
 to in 1 K 20" (‘place js engines],’ RVm) and in 
 2S 20% (‘all the people battered [onnvp] the wall 
 to throw it down’). W. E. BARNES, 
 
 BATTLE.—See WAR; and for the various battJes, 
 consult their place-names, and the art. ISRAEL. 
 
 BATTLE-AXE (psp mappez, Jer 51”).—Perhaps 
 the same weapon as the [battle]-hammer (v5) of 
 Jer 50%, The head of such a weapon made of 
 copper has been found at Tell el-Hesy, the ancient 
 Lachish, among the ruins of the ‘ First’ city. (It 
 is figured in art. AXE, second fig. on p. 2064), On 
 the Assyrian relief in the British Museum, repre- 
 senting the battle against the Elamites in which 
 their king, Te-umman, was killed, an Assyr. 
 soldier is shown using & weapon which might be 
 a double hammer or a double axe, or a combination 
 of hammer and axe, no doubt a ma pez. 
 
 The word 1ip ségor, in Ps 35%, which is tr. RVm 
 ‘ battle-axe,’ is rather to be taken after AV and RV 
 (text)asaverb. The marg. reading Ad Sa & point- 
 ing 739, and an identification with the Pers. weapon 
 odyapts mentioned by Herodotus and Xenophon. 
 Cheyne, however (inloco), gives 119 =od-yapis = ‘dirk.’ 
 
 W. E. BARNES, 
 
 BATTLE-BOW (Zec 9" 10*).—See Bow. 
 
 BATTLEMENT.—See Fortress, HovsE. 
 
 BAYVAI (33, AV Bavai, Neh 318).—In the da 
 of Nehemiah, Bavvai, the son of Henadad, the 
 ruler of half the district of Keilah, rebuilt a portion 
 of the wall of Jerusalem, on the south-east of the 
 city. He was of a Levitical family (their brethren, 
 cf. v.”), In v.% he appears as Binnui the son of 
 Henadad, and this is probably the correct form 
 (Smend, Ltsten, p. 12). In L Bevel A, Bedel B. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 
 
 
 
Pr: Syd 
 
 
 
 BAY 
 
 BAY, the colour, occurs Zec 6° 7. See CoLours. 
 ‘Bay’ of the sea, Jos 15*5 18” (ldshén, lit. 
 ‘tongue’); and RV turns ‘creek’ into ‘bay’ 
 Ac 27* (xéd7os, ‘bosom,’ ‘lap’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BAY TREE (mx ’ezrah).—The proper trans- 
 lation ef the only passage where this word occurs 
 (Ps 37%) would seem to be that of RV, ‘like a 
 green tree in its native soil.’ The rendering of 
 the LXX, xédpos rod Ac:Bdvov, assumes that nqjx is a 
 clerical mistake for mx, a wholly unnecessary 
 assumption. The guess, bay tree, of AV is still 
 wider of the mark. G. E. Post. 
 
 BAYITH (rm3z).—The Heb. and cognate word in 
 Sem. for the general term ‘house.’ Its etymology 
 is doubtful, though referred (by Ges. Thes.) to a 
 root m3. Cf. ret AR bitu, house; Sab. na, na, a 
 fortress, temple; Palmyr. xnv2po na, is sepulchre 
 (de Vogiié, Syrie centrale, 32, 64). In Aram. ma 
 is rendered spend the night. This word is found 
 with construct relation (Beth) in freq. combination 
 in proper names of places: Beth-el, Beth-barah, 
 etc. (see sep. artt.) It is also used as inclusive of 
 a country or condition ; ot. house of bondage (Dt 
 5%), house of meeting (in Sheol, Job 30¥) ; also in 
 fig. expressions which do not appear in the Eng. 
 version, for example Is 3”, Ex 36%. It also desig- 
 nates ‘family ’in such passages as house of Pharaoh 
 (Gn 50‘), house of Levi (Ex 21), house of Israel (Ru 
 41), A few times it refers to the land of Israel 
 as house of J” (Hos 8'). Its principal meanings 
 seem to be (1) a place for halting, resting, or 
 living; (2) a family or tribe not necessarily con- 
 nected with any spot or place; (3) a place and a 
 family as closely related under the one term. 
 
 Bayith (AV Bajith) occurs as a proper name in 
 Is 15? ‘He is Bons up to B.’ or (marg.) ‘B. is gone 
 up to the high places.’ LXX gives us no help, 
 reading Aumeiabe eg’ éavrovs, dmrodeirat yap Kal AnBay. 
 It is not improbable that n:3 here is to be taken in 
 its common sense, and not as a proper name. In 
 that case we should render, with Delitzsch, ‘They 
 go up to the temple house.’ IRA M. PRICE. 
 
 BAZLITH (ms2 Neh 7%), Bazluth (mby3 Ezr 
 2°2 ‘ stripping ’=Basaloth, 1 Es 5*).—Founder of a 
 family of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel. 
 
 BDELLIUM (nb42 bédélah, Gn 2%, Nu 117).— 
 Bédélah is a word of exceedingly doubtful signifi- 
 cation: by some being interpreted a gum;* by 
 others, a precious stone.t e are not, however, 
 concerned with the translation, but with the 
 original Heb. word. It seems improbable that 
 a vegetable product should be associated in the 
 account of Eden with ‘gold’ and the ‘onyx’ (or 
 ‘beryl’ in margin). The reference to the word in 
 Nu 11" helps to throw some light upon the nature 
 of bédélah; the ‘eye’ of the manna is said to be 
 like the ‘eye’ of 6bédélah; and, as suggested by 
 Sir J. W. Dawson, the substance must have been 
 known to the Hebrews of the Exodus as having a 
 peculiar lustre, and occurring in rounded grains of 
 a greyish colour ‘like coriander seed’ (Ex 16*).+ 
 These illustrations at once suggest the pearl, which, 
 though not a mineral, is a hard, stony substance, 
 Poend in form, and with special lustre, much prized 
 by the ancients as an ornament, abundant in the 
 waters of the Persian Gulf,§ and in all probability 
 
 * If bdellium be the correct translation for bédélah, then, 
 ee to Josephus, it was ‘one of the sweet spices,’ Ant. 
 M1. 
 
 ¢ The LXX renders it by &r@paé in Gn and by xpieraaddos in 
 Nu. The translators, therefore, considered it to be a precious 
 stone, but leave the reader a choice between two bh Gastieht 
 
 ¢ Modern Science in Bible Lands, p. 190. 
 §G. N. Curzon, Persia, ii. 455 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BEAM ; 259 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 in those of the rivers entering from the north, such 
 as the Euphrates, Tigris (Hiddekel), and the twa 
 other streams descending from the highlands of 
 Persia. Probably those obtained from the Pison 
 (the modern Karun?) were of peculiar beauty and 
 value. Fresh-water mussels producing pearls 
 frequent many rivers in both hemispheres, as for 
 example those of the British Isles, Saxony, 
 Bohemia, Bavaria,. United States and Canada, 
 Japan and China; the rivers in which the pearl 
 mussels breed are chiefly those descending from 
 mountainous regions in temperate and sub-tropical 
 climates; in the case of the Pison the waters 
 descending from the mountains at high altitudes 
 would have afforded the conditions of temperature 
 required for their vitality. 
 
 LiITERATURE.—Delitzsch, Neuer Com. iiber die Gen. p. 84(Eng. 
 tr. i. 127); Dillmann, Genesis, p. 57; Spurrell, Notes on Gen. 
 p. 80; Tristram in Hxpos. Times, iv. 259; Dawson, Mod. Science 
 
 in Bible Lands, p. 115; also in Expos, 8rd ser. iii, 201, and 
 Expos. Times, iv. 369. E. Huu. 
 
 BE is frequent for ‘are’ in the pres. indic. 
 pl. of all persons, but not invariable, nor can any 
 system be discovered: cf. Ps 107” ‘Then are they 
 glad because they be quiet’; and Mt 97° ‘thy 
 sins be forgiven thee’ with the parallel passage 
 Lk 5” ‘thy sins are forgiven thee.’* Eng. RV 
 agri etek Amer. RV always, gives ‘are’ for 
 ‘ be. 
 The verb ‘to be,’ in one or other of its parts, 
 translates a great variety of Heb. and Gr. expres- 
 sions, some of which are highly idiomatic, and 
 should be attended to. In NT the commonest 
 word, after e/ul, is ylvouar, which is probably never 
 identical with e/ul, since it expresses coming into the 
 state rather than being in it, but cannot always be 
 distinguished from it in English. (It is precisel 
 the distinction between sein and werden.) R 
 wherever possible gives ‘ become,’ as Jn 10! ‘ they 
 aha become one flock’ for AV ‘there shall be one 
 old.’ 
 
 Observe also—1. ‘To be’ in its primal sense of 
 ‘to exist,’ as in Hamlet’s famous line— 
 
 ‘To be, or not to be, that is the question.’ 
 
 Gn 5% ¢‘ And Enoch walked with God ; and he was 
 not, for God took him’; Wis 13! ‘ out of the good 
 things that are seen know him that is’; He 11° 
 ‘he that cometh to God must believe that he is.’ 
 2. ‘To be the case,’ esp. in the phrase ‘ be it that,’ 
 Job 194 ‘And be it indeed that I have erred.’ 3. 
 ‘To belong to,’ esp. in ‘ peace be to,’ ‘ grace be to,’ 
 ete., Sir 25° ‘ Well is him that hath found prud- 
 ence.’ 4 ‘To happen,’ Ac 21° ‘So it was (cuvéBn) 
 that he was borne of the soldiers.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BEACH.—In Mt 137, Jn 214, Ac 215 27%. ©, 
 that is, wherever the Gr. in NT is alyadés, RV 
 changes ‘shore’ into ‘beach,’ leaving ‘shore’ for 
 xethos (=72y=‘ lip’). The beach is properly the 
 part of the shore washed by the tide. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BEALIAH (7:by2 ‘ J” is lord’).—A Benjamite who 
 joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12°). 
 
 BEALOTH (n\byz), Jos 15%.—An unknown town 
 in the extreme south of Judah. See BALAH. 
 
 BEAM is the tr. of several Heb. words, as— 
 4. mx ’eregh, Jg 164, a weaver’s hand-loom (to 
 which Samson’s hair was fastened), not simply 
 
 * In 1611 the two forms seem to be still equally acceptable, and 
 for the most part AV follows previous versions. The prevoms 
 versions do not always agree, however. Thus in Mt 2214 Tindale 
 has, ‘For many are called, but feawe be chosen’; but the Great 
 Bible, ‘For many be called, but feaw are chosen.’ About the 
 middle of the 17th cent. ‘are’ generally replaces ‘be,’ as may be 
 seen by comparing the Prayer-Books of 1604 and of 1662 (e.g. 
 Keeling’s Liturgie Britannica, pp. xxii, 6, 38, 98, etc.). 
 

 
 260 BEANS 
 
 
 
 the beam. The same word is tr4 ‘shuttle’ Job 7°. 
 2, 12 manér, a weaver’s beam, to which the web 
 is attached. Goliath’s spear handle is compared 
 to it, 1 S 177 and 2 S 21"; his brother Lahmi’s, 
 1 Ch 20°; and that of an Egyptian slain by 
 Benaiah, 1 Ch 11%. 8. ap kérah, 2 K 62-5, 2 Ch 3’, 
 Ca 1’, a beam to be used as the rafter of a 
 house; hence the roof itself used fig. for the 
 house, Gn 19° ‘they are come under the shadow 
 of my roof.’ ‘Beam’ in older Eng. was used for 
 the tree before it was squared into a beam; this 
 use is found in 2 K 65 ‘as one was felling a 
 b. 4. 13 gébh, 1 K 6° for the beams supporting the 
 roof of Solomon’s temple; but the meaning (per- 
 haps the reading) is uncertain. 5. yy 2éld‘, 1 K 78 
 in ref. to Solomon’s own house. In 65 the same 
 word is tr4 ‘chambers,’ which seems to be its 
 meaning in 7° also. See RVm. 6. op kdphis, 
 Hab 2" ‘the stone shall cry out of the wall, and 
 the b. out of the timber shall answe~ it ’—a girder 
 ee (a connectendo, says Ges. Thes. s.v.). 
 
 In NT, only doxés, Mt 7% * 5, Lk 641: 54 of the 
 beam in the eye: a common classical word for a 
 beam of wood, esp. for roofing. LXX uses it for tr™ 
 of kérah, Gn 198, 1 K 675,Cal”, J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEANS (5:5 pél, xéauos, faba).—There is no 
 reason to doubt that the vegetable alluded to is 
 the horse-bean, faba vulgaris, L. It is still 
 known by the Arabs as fil, which is the same 
 word as the Heb. pél. It is extensively cultivated 
 in the East, and furnishes a coarse cheap article 
 of diet, which is, however, eaten by the rich as 
 well as the poor. There are several other kinds 
 of beans grown in Palestine, as the string bean, 
 Vigna Stnensis, L., var. sesquipedalis, L., which 
 is known as liibiyeh belediyeh, and the kidney bean, 
 Phaseolus vulgaris, L., libiyeh ifrangiyeh, and a 
 climbing bean known as libiyeh kusds, which is 
 aes) a variety of Phaseolus multiflorus, L. 
 
 he ful (horse-bean) is used in two stages of its 
 development: one, the pods in the unripe state, 
 like string beans; the other, the ripe beans, which 
 are boiled as the ordinary white beans. In both 
 these stages they are made into a stew with meat, 
 and a large proportion of fat, or with oil alone, and 
 often flavoured with onion or garlic. Fal is sown 
 in Oct. or Nov., after the early rains, and harvested 
 earlier or later in the spring, according to the stage 
 in which it is to be used. When harvested for the 
 seed, it is plucked up by the roots, the stalks are 
 trodden and cut to pieces on the threshing-floors, 
 and the seeds extracted and winnowed, as in the 
 case of other grains. It was the seeds that were 
 ground with barley, lentiles, millet, and fitches to 
 make bread (Ezk 4°). It is mentioned only 
 once more as part of the supplies brought by the 
 trans-Jordanjc friends of David when he had fled 
 to Mahanaim (2 S 17%). This, with the other 
 supplies, would be just what would be needed and 
 available to-day in the same region and under 
 similar circumstances. G. E. Post. 
 
 BEAR (25 or 1% déb, Apxros, Epxos, ursus, ursa). 
 —There is but one species of bear in Syria, Ursus 
 Syriacus, Ehr. It is known to the natives b 
 the name dubb, which is the Arab. form of dé. 
 It closely resembles the brown bear, Ursus arctos, 
 L., of Europe. It has, however, a greyish brown 
 fur. Tristram says that it is closely allied to Ursus 
 tsabellinus, pair of India. The bear is found in 
 all the wilder regions of alpine Lebanon and Anti- 
 lebanon, far more abundantly in the latter range, 
 esp. its more unfrequented northern solitudes, 
 than in the former. uring the cold weather of 
 winter, esp. in exceptionally rigorous seasons, it 
 somes down to the lower mountains in search of 
 food. It is found sparingly in the mountains of 
 
 BEAST 
 
 
 
 Bashan, Gilead, and Moab. Very rarely is it seen 
 in Western Palestine. 
 
 The bear feeds peneieey, on roots, buibs, fruits, 
 and other vegetable products. It is fond of the 
 chick pea, which is much cultivated on the higher 
 levels, where the farmer often suffers serious losses 
 from the bear’s voracity. When not abundantly 
 supplied with vegetable food, it will attack sheep 
 and other animals. It rarely attacks man, but, 
 on the contrary, usually runs away from him as 
 fast as possible. 
 
 It is clear that bears were once abundant in 
 Palestine, when that country was more wooded than 
 it is now. David killed one in Judea (1S 1754), 
 Two she-bears are said to have torn forty-two chil- 
 dren between Jericho and Bethel (2 K 2*). There 
 are a number of allusions to the characteristics ot 
 bearsin OT. The bear lies in wait (La 3"). The 
 she-bear, ‘robbed of her whelps,’ is described as 
 specially ferocious (2 S 178, Pr 17!2, Hos 13°). It is 
 spoken of as second to the lion in danger to man 
 (1 Si 1734038 Amo) A. graphic picture of the 
 eget reign of the Messiah is the cow and the 
 
 ear feeding together, and their young lying down 
 together (Is 117). 
 
 There is not the slightest warrant for the LXX 
 rendering, dvxos (wolf, Pr 28), nor pépiuva 
 (anxious thought, Pr 17"), for d6d. In hoth 
 passages the bear is undoubtedly meant. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 BEARD.—The Egyptians strongly disliked hair 
 on the face : they shaved themselves, and compelled 
 their slaves also to do so. Joseph, coming from 
 prison, had to shave before appearing to the kin 
 (Gn 414), The unshaven face betokened grief. 
 False beards, however, were worn, varying in size 
 and shape with the rank of the individual. Those 
 of the common people were short—that of the 
 monarch, long and square-bottomed: deities are 
 represented with beards curled up at the end, 
 The Jews and kindred peoples have always attached 
 extreme importance to the beard. The leper alone 
 was bound to shave (Lv 14°), The Jews appear 
 with beards in the Assyr. sculptures of the taking 
 of Lachish. They had no special rule for their 
 slaves; unlike the Romans, who, when they took 
 to shaving, compelled their slaves to wear beards. 
 ‘Cutting off the corners of the beard,’ and making 
 cuttings in the flesh, are prohibited (Lv 1976-8), 
 These practices are marks of idolatry (Jer 41°), 
 and the peoples of the ‘ polled corners’ are to drink 
 the wine-cup of God’s wrath (Jer 97° 25% 49%), 
 Certain neighbouring nations cut off the hair 
 between the ear and the eye in honour of the 
 god Orotal. The prohibition distinguished Israel 
 from idolaters. In time the Jews came to regard 
 the hairs on this part as sacred; hence the long 
 grotesque love-locks of the modern Ashkenazim. 
 
 A large graceful beard is a coveted distinction 
 in the East, often securing respect for its Ha 
 sessor. Carefully tended, it may yet in grief be 
 neglected, and actually plucked (2 S 19%). The 
 Arab who shaves disgraces his family, who for 
 generations are called ‘sons of the shaven one.’ 
 To injure a man’s beard is a deep insult (28 10* 
 etc.). When a Greek priest is deposed, the heaviest 
 humiliation is the cutting of his beard. Deliberate 
 defilement of the beard would be accepted as clear 
 proof of madness (1 8 21'%), It is common to 
 swear by the beard; and in pressing a suit, success 
 is greatly facilitated by placing a hand, if possible, 
 under the beard of him who is addressed. 
 
 W. EwIna. 
 
 BEAST.—Three words in Heb. are so translated 
 in AV and RV. 14. apna béhémah, the Arab. 
 béhimah, which is defined as ‘ any quadruped, even 
 if it live in water, or any animal not endowed with 
 reason.’ In the sense of a quadruped, we have 
 
 
 
i. aoe 
 
 BEATING 
 
 BEATITUDE 261 
 
 
 
 clean beasts (Gn 7*); in contradistinction to nvra 
 (Gn 67, Ex 9° 2); animals to be eaten (Ly \}7); 
 mammadlia, as constituting one of the four prin- 
 cipal classes of the vertebrates, beusts, fowls, creep- 
 tng things, and fishes (1 K 4%); in the sense of 
 the animal kingdom (Pr 30”); of domestic ant- 
 mals (1 K 18°), esp. riding animals (Neh 24); of 
 wild animals (Dt 32%). This word is arbitrarily 
 tr. in both AV and RV catéle (Gn 1-26 220 314 714. 21 
 9° Ps 50” etc.). See CATTLE. 
 
 2. vyz be‘ir (Ex 225, Nu 20%" AV ‘beasts,’ but v.* 
 of the same chapter ‘cattle.’ ‘Cattle’ is read b 
 RV in Nu 20% ® "| and by AV, RV in Ps 78%. Bot 
 give ‘ beasts’ in Gn 451”, the only other occurrence 
 of the word. 
 
 3. mn hayyah (haytho, poetic form, with old 
 case ending, Gn 1*, Ps 50° 79? etc.). It is used 
 (1) of animals in general (Gn 8”, Lv 11? etc.); 
 (2) in contradistinction to béhémah, i.e. wild 6b. 
 (Gn 7*4 81 9? etc.), specialised in the b. of the reed 
 (marg. AV, text RV Ps 68°); evil 6. (Gn 37”: 8 
 ete.); b. % the field (Ex 23" etc.); ravenous b. 
 (Is 35°). The word hayyah is tr. in other places 
 living creatures (Ezk 1° etc.); life (Ps 143°, Is 57”, 
 
 _ RV quickening, etc.) ; appetite (Job 38°); living 
 thing (Gn 1% etc.)= Arab. See ‘animal.’ 
 
 The words for beast in NT are chiefly : 1. Onplo», 
 Ac 284 of a viper; Tit 1)? of the Cretans; more 
 generally in He 12”, Ja 3’, It is the word used 
 more than 30 times in Rev for the Beast of 
 the Apocalypse (on which see NUMBER, REVELA- 
 TION). 2. The word {Gory is used in Rev 4§ foll. 
 of the ‘living ones’ who were round about the 
 throne (AV ‘beasts,’ RV more suitably ‘living 
 creatures ’). G. E. Post. 
 
 BEATING.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 BEATITUDE.—The word ‘ beatitude’ does not 
 occur in the English Bible. In Biblical Theology 
 it signifies either (1) the joys of heaven, or (2) 
 one of the declarations of blessedness made by 
 Christ as attached to certain virtues, or conditions, 
 or persons. The word in this latter sense is the 
 subject of this article. * 
 
 Several of Christ’s declarations of blessedness 
 are isolated beatitudes, called forth by special cir- 
 cumstances: Mt 11° = Lk 7%, Mt 13!6 = Lk 10%, 
 Mt 244 = Lk 12°, Mt 16”, Lk 11% 1287, Jn 1317 
 20%, There are no beatitudes in St. Mark, and the 
 word paxdpios does not occur in his Gospel, but in the 
 Catholic Epistles and the Apoc. there are several : 
 fees a Ja 2 Rev 13 14 16% 19° 20° 227-4 
 
 Lut the term is most commonly used of those 
 
 eneral declarations of blessedness made by Christ 
 in the discourses recorded by St. Matthew (v.*4) 
 and St. Luke (67-22), which are sometimes dis- 
 tinguished as the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ 
 
 * Beatttudo is used in this sense as early as Ambrose; Quatuor 
 tantum beatitudines sanctus Lucas Dominicas posuit, octo vero 
 sanctus Mittheus: sed in his octo tlle quatuor sunt, et in isis 
 quatuor ille@ octo. Hic enim quatuor velut virtutes umplecus est 
 
 _cardinales (Expos. Evang. sec. Luc. v. 49, Migne, xiv. xv. 1649). 
 In Gr. pexnpiouss has this meaning in the Lilurgy of St. 
 Chrysostom and elsewhere; the uzaxapicwos are sung on Sundays 
 instead of the third antiphon. Ip English this use of ‘ beati- 
 tude' is perhaps not earlier than 1500. 
 
 St. MATTHEW. 
 Blessed 
 
 1, are the poor in spirit: for 
 theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 2. are they that mourn: for 
 they shall be comforted. 
 
 4. are they that hunger and 
 thirst after righteousness: for 
 they shall be filled. 
 
 8. are ye when men shall re- 
 
 you, and persecute you, 
 
 ye shall laugh. 
 2. are 
 
 
 
 St. LUKE. 
 Blessed 
 1. are ye poor: for yours is 
 the kingdom of God. 
 3. are ye that weep now: for 
 
 e that hunger now: 
 for ye shall be filled. 
 
 4. are ye, when men shall hate 
 you, and when they shall sepa- 
 
 and the ‘Sermon on the Plain.’ The question 
 whether the two evangelists give us divergent 
 records of the same discourse cz records of two 
 different but similar discourses, will probably never 
 cease to be discussed, for proof is impossible. But 
 the beatitudes as Recorded by each are a consider- 
 able element in the evidence. In Mt we have 
 eight beatitudes and no woes; in Lk four beati- 
 tudes and four corresponding woes. Moreover, in 
 the beatitudes which are common to both there 
 are important differences. (1) Those in Mt are 
 in the third person, and apply to all mankind: 
 ‘for theirs is,’ ‘for they shall’ ete. Those in Lk 
 are in the second person, and apply primarily to 
 those present: ‘for yours is,’ ‘for ye shall,’ ete. 
 (2) In Lk the more spiritual words which occur 
 in Mt are omitted, and the blessings are assigned 
 to external conditions. Actwal poverty, sorrow, 
 and hunger are declared to be blessed,—no doubt 
 as opportunities of internal graces; and the 
 corresponding woes are uttered against actual 
 wealth, jollity, and fulness of bread,—as sources 
 of grievoustemptation. In the last beatitude there 
 is less difference between the two. In Lk there is 
 no blessedness assigned to unpopularity, unless it 
 is incurred for the Son of Man’s sake; and there 
 is no woe on ey for His sake. 
 
 The first difference explains the second. The 
 universal declarations in Mt require the spiritual 
 conditions. The special declarations in Lk, being 
 addressed to disciples, do not. Even for pagans, 
 to be poor in spirit and to hunger after righteous- 
 ness are blessed things: but it is only to the 
 faithful Christian that actual poverty and actual 
 hunger are sure to be blessings. To others these 
 trials may be barren suffering, or may harden 
 rather than chasten. The beatitudes omitted in 
 Lk are the third, tifth, sixth, and seventh of Mt, 
 viz. those relating to the meek, the merciful, the 
 pure in heart, and the peacemakers. 
 
 The eight beatitudes may be regarded as an 
 analysis of perfect spiritual wellbeing ; and nowhere 
 in non-Christian literature shall we find so sublime 
 a summary of the best elements in the felicity 
 attainable by man. They correct all low and 
 carnal views of human Sever But it is 
 fanciful to find a gradation in the order in which 
 they are recorded, e.g. that poverty of spirit is the 
 death of self-righteousness; mourning the burial 
 of self-righteousness; meekness the virtue that 
 takes the place of self-righteousness, ete. 
 
 It is more to the point to notice that they do 
 not describe eight different classes of people, but 
 eight different elements of excellence, which may 
 all be combined in one and the same man. Some 
 of them, indeed, are almost certain to be so com- 
 bined, e.g. being poor in spirit with meekness, and 
 endurance of persecution with mourning. And 
 perhaps it is not untrue to say with Ambrose that 
 the four given by St. Luke virtually include the 
 whole eight; but to make each of the four cor- 
 respond to one of the four cardinal virtues is to 
 force the meaning of one or the other. 
 
 The following table will show in a clear way the 
 difference between Mt and Lk in the four beati- 
 tudes which they have in common :— 
 
 Sr. LUKE. 
 Woe 
 1. unto you that are rich! for 
 ye have received your consolation. 
 3. ye that laugh now! for ye 
 shall mourn and weep. 
 2. unto you, ye that are full 
 now ! for ye shall hunger. 
 
 4. when all men shall speak 
 well of you! for in the same 
 
 
 
 
 
262 BEAUTIFUL GATE 
 
 
 
 and say all manner of evil against 
 you falsely, for my sake. Re- 
 jolce, and be exceeding glad: 
 or great is your reward in 
 heaven: for so persecuted they 
 the prophets which were before 
 you. 
 
 BEAUTIFUL GATE.—See JERUSALEM. 
 
 BEBAI.—1. (133) The eponym of a family of 
 returning exiles (Ezr 2" 8” 1078, Neh 736 1015, 1 Es 
 6 9), See GENEALOGY. 2. (Byfal) An ete 
 unknown locality mentioned only in Jth 154. 
 and Vulg. omit. The text is probably corrupt. 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 BECAUSE was formerly used (and is still used 
 locally) to express the purpose. Thus Burton, 
 Anat, Mel. (1621) ‘ Anointing the doors and hinges 
 with oyl, because (=in order that) they should not 
 creak.’ There are two examples in AV, Wis 117 
 ‘And winkest at the sins of men b. they should 
 amend’ (RV ‘to the end they may repent’); 
 Mt 20% ‘And the multitude rebuked them b. 
 (RV ‘that ’) they should hold their poe 
 . HASTINGS. 
 BECHER (733 ‘ young camel ’).—1. Son of Eph- 
 raim, Nu 26%=1 Ch 7 where the name appears as 
 Bered. Patronymic in Nu 26* Becherites (AV 
 Bachrites). 2. Son of Benjamin, Gn 46”, 1 Ch 7%8 
 and implicitly in 1 Ch 8! where for MT, >3zx W232 
 =his first-born, Ashbel, we should probably read 133 
 $3avix)= Becher and Ashbel. AI Stare, 
 
 BECHORATH (Ax33).—One of Saul’s ancestors 
 (1 S 9}, 1 Ch 78). 
 
 BECK (from verb ‘beck,’ which is a short form 
 of beckon), now nearly displaced by ‘nod,’ occurs 
 2 Mac 88 AV and RV, ‘ Almighty God, who at a 
 beck can cast down both them that come against 
 us and all the world’ (Gr. él vetyart). 
 
 Beckon occurs more frequently, but only in NT. It deserves 
 attention on account of the precision of the Greek words. 
 
 1. There is the simple »ss#, to nod, to make signs with the 
 head, Jn 1324 of Simon Peter’s nod to John to ask who was to be 
 the betrayer ; Ac 2410 of Felix’s nod to Paul to speak. 
 
 2. Ascvede, lit. ‘to nod through,’ Lk 122 of Zacharias’ beckon- 
 ing (RV ‘ making signs’) to the people, 3sa perhaps expressing the 
 range—not to one, but to many. 
 
 8. Karavi, lit. ‘to nod down to,’ Lk 57 ‘ they beckoned 
 unto their partners in the other boat.’ 
 
 Other compounds of vss@ found in NT, but not tr4 ‘ beckon,’ 
 are (1) ixvetw, Jn 513 ‘Jesus had conveyed himself away’; 
 2) ivvad@, Lk 162 ‘they made signs to his father’; and (3) 
 iwivséo, Ac 1820 ‘he consented not.’ 
 
 4. Then there is esiw ‘to shake,’ with its compounds dveosia, 
 Biacsio, xateetiw, of which only the last is trd ‘ beckon,’ to make 
 signs with the hand, esp. before beginning to address an audi- 
 ence, Ac 1217 1316 1988 2140, J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BECOME.—41. As tr. of rpérw ‘to be seemly,’ 
 ‘appropriate,’ ‘b.’ is found Mt 3%, Eph 5% 1 Ri 
 2°, Tit 2! (RV ‘befit’), He 2! 776 ‘such an high 
 riest became us.’ In Tit 2° ‘in behaviour as 
 ecometh holiness’ (RV ‘reverent in demean- 
 our’), the Gr. is one word lepomwpems, from lepds 
 ‘sacred’ and mpérea ‘it is becoming.’ In Ro 
 16? ‘as becometh saints’ the Gr. is délws rap 
 aylwy * worthily of the saints’; soin Ph 177 ‘as it 
 becometh the gospel of Christ’ (RV ‘worthy of’). 
 2. In Bar 318 occurs the obsolete phrase ‘ where is 
 become,’ for ‘ what is become of’: ‘ Where are the 
 princes of the heathen become?’ (RV omits ‘ be- 
 come’). Cf. Wither (1628), ‘Why should the 
 wicked . . . say, Where is their God become ?’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BECTILETH Plain (7d redlov Bacxrecdalé), Jth 
 271.—Between Nineveh and Cilicia. Perhaps the 
 Bactiali of the Peutinger Tables, 21 miles from 
 Antioch. The Syriac supposes an original reading, 
 ndwp n'a ‘ house of slaughter’ (?). C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 | his staff,” which adopts the L 
 
 
 
 
 
 BED 
 
 sawn! 
 
 rate you, and reproach you, and manner did their fatheis to the 
 cast out your name as evil, for false prophets. 
 the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice in 
 that day, and leap for joy: for 
 behold, your reward is great in 
 heaven: for in the same manner 
 did their fathers to the prophets. 
 
 A. PLUMMER. 
 
 BED (for which RV substitutes ‘couch’ in 1 Ch 
 51, Est 1° 78, Job 173, Ps 418, Pr 716, Ca 138, and 
 ‘litter’ in Ca 37) is AV tr. of the following Heh. 
 words :—1, 32vp (fr. 32y¥ ‘lie down’) 40 times. 2. 
 wis: (fr. ys: ‘spread out’) poet. 1 Ch 5! (fr. Gn 494), 
 Job 178, Ps 63° 1328, 3. yyp (fr. same root) Is 287%. 
 4. navy, (‘flower-bed’) twice, Ca 5% 67, to which 
 RV adds Ezk 177, 5, avy (fr. my: ‘stretch out’) 
 26 times. 6. wy (a four-post bed?) 4 times, 
 Job 7%, Ps 413, Pr 736, Ca 17% The last two 
 words appear to be parallel in meaning ia Am 64, 
 ‘that lie upon beds (nivp) of ivory, and stretch 
 themselves upon their couches (onvy).’ Both are 
 used also in the sense of ‘bier,’ 7» in 2S 3%, 
 bry in Syr. (comp. ‘a7sd’ in Lk 714), while a7¥9 is 
 applied in 2 Ch 16 to Asa’s resting-place in his 
 tomb. All this lends support to the opinion of 
 those who interpret the ‘ bedstead’ of Og (Dt 3") of 
 a sarcophagus (see Driver, ad loc.). The word 7», 
 written without vowel points, might be read either 
 men ‘bed’ or a»p ‘staff.’ Hence in Gn 47* we find, 
 ‘Israel bowed himself wpon the bed’s head, the tr. 
 following MT (aver werdy), while in He 112! we 
 have ‘Jacob worshipped, ae upon the top of 
 
 éml 7d Akpov Tis 
 pdBdov atrod. See next article. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BED.—The bed of the Hebrews did not differ 
 in essential respects from that of other Oriental 
 peoples. It consisted of a mat and quilt to lie 
 upon, and a covering or coverlet. ‘ For the bed is 
 shorter than a man can stretch himself on it; 
 and the covering narrower than that he can wrap 
 himself in it’ (Is 28%), The adjuncts were the 
 pillow and the bedstead and its ornaments. 
 Amongst all classes the custom was to sleep in 
 the day-clothes without any material change of 
 garments ; sheets were therefore superfluous. In 
 its simplest form the bed consisted cule the day- 
 clothes and the outer garment or cloak. ‘If thou 
 at all take thy neighbour’s garment to pledge, thou 
 shalt restore it to him by that the sun goeth down: 
 for that is his only covering ; it is his garment for 
 his skin: wherein shall he sleep?’ (Ex 2277), 
 
 The ordinary bedding used throughout the East 
 at the present day is probably similar in character 
 to that which has been in use for centuries, and con- 
 sists of (1) a mat of rushes or straw; (2) skins, or 
 a cloak or a quilt stuffed with dry herbs, hair, or 
 vegetable fibre to lie upon ; (3) a covering of light 
 stuff in summer, or of skins or quilted stuff in 
 winter. The bedding is rolled up (Pr 2277) in the 
 morning, and, after being aired in the sun, is put 
 away in a chamber or closet. Many of these beds 
 are kept in a house, and, when the inmates are few, 
 they are sometimes stacked one on another and 
 form a temporary bedstead. There is little differ- 
 ence between the bed for sleeping on and the divan 
 or couch for resting on during the day. The bed 
 is essentially an article that can be moved about 
 readily from place to place. ‘ Bring him up to me 
 in the bed, that I may slay him (15 19"). £ Behold, 
 men bring on a bed a man that was palsied’ (Lk5*-), 
 
 There is usually some portion of the house set 
 apart as a room where the whole family may sleep. 
 ‘My children are with me in bed, I cannot rise 
 and give thee’ (Lk 1158), Among the very poorest 
 a portion of the floor is set apart, and this is often 
 somewhat raised up above the surrounding flocr so 
 as to serve as a bedstead. When there are two 
 
 
 
 
 
BED 
 
 storeys, the beds are on the upper floor, and durin 
 the summer time they are usually on the flat roof. 
 Thus references are constantly made to going up 
 to bed, which may indicate either a bed raised up 
 on a bedstead, or situated in an upper chamber, or 
 on the roof (Gn 49%), ‘Thou shalt not come down 
 from the bed whither thou art gone up’ (2 K 14); 
 ‘nor go up into my bed’ (Ps 132°; cf. 1 S 28°), 
 
 The bed is usually placed near the wall of the 
 chamber, and there are indications that it was 
 
 laced alongside the wall. ‘Then he turned his 
 ace to the wall and prayed unto the Lord’ (2 K 20”). 
 
 The bed used by watchmen, both when in the 
 fields watching for marauders and when acting as 
 doorkeepers, is of the simplest form, and requires no 
 description: ‘A booth in a vineyard, as a lodge in 
 a garden of cucumbers’ (Is 15. See CUCUMBER). 
 
 n accordance with the wealth of the house or 
 family, the bed is enriched and embroidered. This 
 is so also among the Bedawin and dwellers in 
 tents. ‘I have spread ny couch with carpets of 
 tapestry, with striped cloths of the yarn of Egypt; 
 I ae perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and 
 cinnamon’ (Pr 731"); ‘the couches were of gold 
 and silver’ (Est 1), 
 
 Pillows and cushiens are the usual adjuncts of 
 beds in the East at the present day and it may be 
 assumed that they were as generally used in early 
 days in Palestine as they were among the Greeks 
 after the Homeric age. A piece of stone such as 
 that used by Jacob (Gn 28") at Bethel would be 
 naturally accepted as a pillow by a native of 
 Palestine on the line of march at the present day. 
 The quilt or pillow of goats’ hair placed by Michal 
 (1 5S 19!) in David’s bed, though only a makeshift 
 hastily put together, indicates the use of pillows 
 at that time. Those mentioned Ezk 13!8 do not 
 necessarily appear to be bed pillows. Pillows at 
 the present day are usually made of the same stuff 
 as the bedding, but more profusely ornamented 
 and embossed, and in wealthy houses covered with 
 satin, silk, and embroidery. ‘The silken cushions 
 of a bed’ (Am 3!%), Sometimes the finest linen is 
 lightly tacked on the embroidery, probably to 
 protect the face from the roughness of the work. 
 
 Among the poorer classes, bedsteads, when used, 
 were probably light portable frames for keeping 
 the bedding off the ground, and for carrying sick 
 persons, ason a litter. Although there is no direct 
 allusion to a bedstead except perhaps that of Og, 
 king of Bashan, there are several references which 
 indicate that beds were raised above the floor. In 
 the passage relating to Jacob’s ‘bed of sickness’ 
 (Gn 47"), the ‘bed’s head’ is referred to. SeealsolS 
 19'5, 2S 351, Lk 518-25, In whatever sense the passage 
 referring to Og, ‘ behold his bedstead was a bedstead 
 of iron’ (Dt 3"), is to be understood, the hard black 
 basalt so common in Bashan is probably referred to. 
 
 There are numerous indications that in the 
 houses of the wealthy, and in the palaces, there 
 were bedsteads highly ornamented, and that the 
 richness and magnificence of the beds and bed- 
 steads among the Asiatics was at least equal to 
 that which obtained among the Greeks and 
 Romans. The bedsteads in the most wealth 
 houses were of costly kinds of wood, veneered with 
 tortoise-shell and ivory, and ornamented with gold 
 and silver. The couches of ‘gold and silver’ 
 (Est 1°) probably included the bedstead. The same 
 may be said of the ‘ beds of ivory’ (Am 643"), The 
 
 . ten beds with feet of silver, and the furniture be- 
 
 longing to them, sent to Eleazar the high priest (Jos. 
 Ant. XI. ii. 15), evidently included the bedeteada: 
 
 The ornaments of the bedstead included the 
 canopy and pillars. ‘King Solomon made himself 
 a palanquin of the wood of Lebanon. He made 
 the pillars thereof of silver, the bottom thereof of 
 gold, the seat of it of purple’ (Ca 3"). ‘There 
 
 BEE 263 
 
 were hangings of white cloth, of green, and of blue, 
 fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to 
 silver rings and pillarsof marble; the couches were 
 of gold and silver upon a pavement of porphyry 
 and white marble, and alabaster and stone of blue 
 colour’ (Est 1°), ‘Now Holofernes rested upon 
 his bed under a canopy, which was of purple, and 
 gold, and emeralds, and precious stones inwoven’ 
 (Jth 1074), C. WARREN. 
 
 BEDCHAMBER.—See House. 
 
 BEDAD (113).—The father of Hadad, king of 
 Edom (Gn 36°=1 Ch 1), 
 
 BEDAN (j}3).—1. Mentioned with Jerubbaal, 
 Jephthah, and Samuel as one of the deliverers of 
 Israel (1S 12"), The name does not occur in Jg, 
 and it is probably a corruption for Barak (so LX 
 and Pesh.). Chronologically Barak should precede 
 
 Gideon, but the order cannot be pressed (ef. v.°). 
 The Jews explain [13 as=]7"]3 ‘a son of Dan,’ é.e. 
 Samson; this isimpossible. The more obvious emen- 
 dation, ‘Abdon (j72y, Ewald), isunsuitable, since little 
 is known of this hero. 
 
 2. A Manassite (1 Ch 7!7), 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 BEDEIAH (aya=arjay ‘servant of J”’).—One of 
 those who had taken foreign wives (Ezr 10*): in 
 1 Es 9* apparently Pedias. 
 
 BEE (1123 débérdh, ué\ucoa, apis).—The bee is 
 known in Arab. as nahi, but dabr is a swarm of 
 bees, pl. dubtir, The common term for wasp or 
 hornet is dabbdr, which is a corruption of zenbir. 
 
 The bee is an insect found in large numbers in 
 Syria and Pal., both wild and hived. The wild bee 
 is most common in lonely ravines, where it makes 
 its nest in the clefts of the precipitous rocks, often 
 with great difficulty accessible to man. They also 
 make their hives in hollow trees (1S 14”: 2); but as 
 the forests are few in these lands, they are a lesa 
 natural refuge for the bees than the rocks (ef. Dt 
 323, Ps 8115). Tristram says that they are specially 
 abundant in the wilderness of Judea, and that most 
 of the honey sold in S. Pal. comes from these wild 
 hives. This explains the allusion (Mt 3°), ‘and his 
 meat was locusts and wild honey.’ It also explains 
 the sentence (Dt 1“), ‘The Amorites, which dwelt 
 in the mountain, came out against you, and chased 
 
 ou, as bees do.’ When tame bees are disturbed, 
 it is well known how furiously they will attack 
 their disturber. But their vehemence is as nothin 
 to that of the wild bees, which are unaccustome 
 to man. Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, p. 299) 
 says, ‘The people of Mav’alia (in Wady Karn) 
 several years ago let a man down the face 
 of the rock by ropes. He was entirely protected 
 from the attacks of the bees, and extracted a large 
 amount of honey; but he was so terrified by the 
 prodigious swarms of bees that he could not be 
 induced to repeat the exploit.’ The Psalmist says 
 (Ps 11812), ‘They compassed me about like Lees,’ 
 alluding to the threatening attacks of these insects. 
 
 It was said of the land of promise that it was a 
 ‘land flowing with milk and honey.’ This is 
 partly justified by the wild bees and honey, but 
 still more so by the large numbers of domesticated 
 bees. Every peasant’s house has its beehives. 
 Sometimes they are boxes, as with us ; sometimes 
 a broken water jar is made to serve; but more 
 usually they are wicker cylinders, about 4 ft. long 
 and 10 in. in diameter, plastered over with cow- 
 dung, and stopped with the same material at either 
 end, except a few holes for the entry and exit of 
 the bees. These hives are often piled in a pyra- 
 midal shape, with four or more at the base, and 
 
 lastered together with cow-dung to protect them 
 ror the heat, and shaded with ioahohae of trees. 
 
 
 
264 BEE 
 
 For hiving bees, mancuvres are used similar to 
 those so common in the West. The superior of a 
 convent near Beirdt had a chest partially filled 
 with figs, through the keyhole of which a swarm 
 of bees cer The following day four jars, 
 with a little grape honey smeared inside, were put 
 in succession to the keyhoie, and filled with bees. 
 
 It is certainly not customary for the people in 
 Bible lands to hiss to their bees (Is 738). It might 
 have been in Bible days. It is, however, universal 
 to whistle to pigeons in order to recall them from 
 their flight. undreds of persons can be seen on 
 the flat roofs of the houses in the large cities 
 amusing themselves in this manner a little before 
 sunset, Sir John Lubbock believes that bees lack 
 the sense of hearing. 
 
 The honey is usually extracted about the time 
 of the Feast of the Cross, in the middle of Sept. 
 A man with his face masked with iron gauze and 
 his hands protected with mittens, simply puts his 
 hands into the hive and extracts the combs, leavin 
 a little for the bees. The honey is usually Bidlected 
 out of the combs, and packed in jars (bottle, marg. 
 1 K 14%) or tins, and sometimes in skins. The 
 people of the Antilebanon plateau, north of Damas- 
 cus, raise large quantities of honey. 
 
 A bee cultivator from America settled some 
 years ago in Beirfit to raise bees. He spoke of 
 the Syrian bee as superior to the usual breeds of 
 Europe. 
 mellifica of Europe, and of a lighter colour. 
 the Apis fasciata, Lat. 
 
 As many of the plants to which the bees resort 
 are aromatics, much of the honey has a decided 
 flavour, often very agreeable, sometimes a little 
 rank, The wax is principally used in making 
 tapers for religious purposes. ‘There is no evidence 
 that candles were known in ancient times. The 
 ore are very fond of honey. The their 
 
 ead in it. 
 
 (Ex 16%) and pastry with it. They sometimes 
 preserve fruit in it. oy eat it in quantities sur- 
 rising to Occidentals. It is seldom eaten direct 
 rom the comb. It has been from the earliest 
 times an article of commerce in Bible lands. 
 Jacob sent some of it to his son Joseph (Gn 43), 
 Judah and Israel sold it to Tyrian merchants for 
 export (Ezk 27”). Stores of honey were collected 
 for this purpose, as at Mizpah (Jer 418). Consider- 
 ing the large quantities of honey produced in Pal. 
 there is no occasion for supposing that v2 débash 
 signifies the dibs, the grape honey of our time. 
 
 Much controversy has taken place over the 
 swarm of bees in the carcase of the lion (Jg 148). 
 The simple fact is, that in a few hours after an 
 animal is dead, jackals, dogs, and vultures often 
 reduce the carcase to a ligamentous skeleton, 
 which is soon dried in the fierce heat, and would 
 make as savoury a hive as the cow-dung-plastered 
 baskets which are used for raising bees, and the 
 cow-dung trays on which silk-worms are developed. 
 
 Honey, 37 débash, could not be used in burnt- 
 offerings (Lv 24). 
 
 Honey is used to illustrate moral teachings. A 
 man is exhorted to eat honey and the honey comb 
 (Pr 24'%), but warned against surfeit (Pr 251% 27), 
 It was a simile for moral sweetness (Ezk 33), 
 and for the excellence of the law (Ps 19%°), of 
 pleasant words (Pr 16%), and of the lips (Ca 4"), 
 and as a figure for love (Ca 5%). 
 
 The LXX adds to Pr 68 ‘Go to the bee, and 
 learn how diligent she is, and what a noble work 
 she produces ; whose labour kings and private men 
 use for their health. She is desired and honoured 
 by all, and, though weak in strength, yet since 
 she values wisdom she prevails.’ This passage 
 exists in the Arabic version, and is quoted by 
 ancient writers. G. E. Post, 
 
 It is somewhat smaller than the ae 
 t is 
 
 ee 
 hey make certain kinds of cakes 
 
 BEER-LAHAI-ROI 
 BEELIADA (yz5ya ‘Baal knows’).—A son of 
 David, 1 Ch 14’, changed in conformity with later 
 usage (see ISHBOSHETH) into Eliada (yyy ‘El 
 knows’) in 25 538, J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BEELSARUS (Beé\capos), 1 Es 58.—One of the 
 leaders (rpoyyovpevor) of those Jews who returned 
 to Jerus. with Zerub., called BILSHAN, Ezr 2?, Neh 
 77. The form in 1 Es appears not to have come 
 through the Gr. of the canonical books, but to be 
 due to a confusion of 1 and } in the Heb. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BEELTETHMUS (BeéAre@uos). — An officer of 
 Artaxerxes residing in Pal., 1 Es 2) (LXX !5-21), 
 It is not a proper name, but a title of Rehum, 
 the name immediately preceding it in Ezr 4° (A 
 Baadrdy’). It is a corruption of oy» Sya=‘lord of 
 judgment,’ and is rendered ‘chancellor’ by AV 
 and RV in Ezr, ‘story-writer’ in 1 Es 2” (6 ra 
 mpootimrovra, LXX). ‘The title has been explained 
 by the Se inscriptions, and signifies ‘lord of 
 official intelligence’ or ‘ postmaster’ (Sayce, Introd. 
 to Ezr., Neh., and Est. p. 27). See CHANCELLOR. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BEER (7x3 ‘a well’).—1. A station in the journe 
 from Arnon to the Jordan, mentioned No PACE 
 with a poetical extract commemorating the digging 
 of a well at this spot. The context indicates the 
 neighbourhood, but further identification of the 
 station is wanting. Perhaps the words translated 
 ‘and from the wilderness,’ which immediately 
 follow this extract (Nu 2138), should be translated 
 (following the LXX dd ¢péaros), ‘and from 
 Beer,’ or ‘the well.’ It is generally identified 
 with Beer-Elim (‘well of mighty men ’?), mentioned 
 Is 15°, and in the second part of the compound 
 name it may be conjectured that there is reference 
 to the event commemorated in the song, Nu 217-18, 
 See Budde in New World, Mar. 1895, p. 136 ff. 
 
 2. The place to which Jotham ran away after 
 uttering his parable (Jg 97). Its position is un- 
 known. If, as some suppose, it is the same as 
 Beeroth (Jos 917), its site is fixed (see BEEROTH). 
 But Beeroth is in Benjamin, and it seems probable 
 that Jotham fled to his own people in Manasseh, 
 and not southward. A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 BEERA (x7xa).—A man of Asher (1 Ch 7%), 
 GENEALOGY. 
 
 See 
 
 BEERAH (79x3).—A Reubenite who was carried 
 captive by Tiglath-pileser (1 Ch 5°), 
 
 BEER-ELIM.—See BEER. 
 
 BEERI (7x3).—1. The father of Judith, one of 
 Esau’s wives (Gn 26*4), sometimes wrongly identi- 
 fied with ANAH (which see). 2. The father of the 
 prophet Hosea (Hos 1). H. E. RY LE. 
 
 BEER-LAHAI-ROI (‘x5 ‘n> 1x2 ‘Well of the 
 Living One that seeth me,’ Gn 167 24° 251),— 
 It is expressly described as ‘the fountain in the 
 way to Shur,’ signifying that it was well known, 
 on the way to Egypt whither the Egyptian 
 Hagar was naturally fleeing. It is placed between 
 Kadesh and Bered; but the site of neither is 
 certain. Bered has been located at El-Khalasah, 
 13 miles S.W. of Beersheba. When Abraham 
 dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, he is said (Gn 20!) 
 to have sojourned in Gerar at the same time or 
 shortly after. Gn 25" and 26! also imply that 
 the well, Beer-lahai-roi, was not very far from 
 Gerar. Rowland claims to have found the true 
 site at ‘Ain Motlahhi, some 50 miles S. of Beer- 
 sheba, and 10 or 12 miles W. of ‘Ain Kadis (PE F'st#, 
 1884, p. 177). (See BERED, HAGAR, ISAAC, SHUR.) 
 
 A. HENDERSON 
 
 
 
BEEROTH 
 
 BEEROTH (nya ‘ Wells’).—One of the confeder- 
 ate Hivite cities which wilily made alliance with 
 Joshua after the overthrow of Ai (Jos 9”). It 
 was afterwards in the territory of Benjamin (Jos 
 18%), The Beerothites, like the Gibeonites, main- 
 tainéd their independence as a tribe in Israel even 
 after the return from the Exile (Ezr 2%, Neh 77°). 
 The occasion of their flight to Gittaim (2 S 4°) is not 
 mentioned ; and it is uncertain if that is the town 
 named (Neh 11*). Rimmon, the father of the mur- 
 derers of Ishbosheth, and Naharai, Joab’s armour- 
 bearer (2 S 237 RVm, 1 Ch 11°*), were Beerothites. 
 It is identified with Bireh, 8 miles N. of Jerusalem 
 on the great northern road, the usual halting 
 place on the first night from Jerusalem. Tradi- 
 tion connects it with the story of Lk 2%-* as the 
 place whence Mary and Joseph returned to Jeru- 
 salem. There is no reason to doubt the correctness 
 of this tradition, as the distance is convenient, and 
 the usage of Eastern caravans seldom changes. 
 
 A. HENDERSON. 
 
 BEEROTH-BENE-JAAKAN (jy: °3p noy3), in Dt 
 1086 RV; ‘Beeroth of the children of Jaakan,’ AV, 
 LXX Bypdéd. The place is called Bene-jaakan in 
 the list of stations, Nu 33°32, From Gn 36”, 
 1 Ch 1* the Bene-jaakan are descendants of Seir 
 the Horite, and the name of the adjacent station, 
 ie peetdged (which see), contains 1h. The border 
 of Seir or Edom is the probable situation of this 
 unidentified spot. A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 BEER-SHEBA (yse 7x3, Arab. Bir es Sebd).— 
 A village, or settlement, on the N. bank of the Wady 
 es-Seba, deriving its special interest from its con- 
 nexion with the patriarchs. It was the residence 
 successively of Abraham (Gn 21%), of Isaac (Gn 
 26%), and of Jacob (Gn 28"), and received its 
 name (‘ Well of the oath’) as having been the penn 
 marked by a well, where Abraham entered into 
 covenant with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21% E). 
 (A different derivation is adopted in Gn 26° J.) 
 It was afterwards visited by Elijah when fleein 
 from the wrath of Jezebel on his way to Hore 
 (1 K 19%). Beer-sheba fell within the lot of the 
 tribe of Simeon (Jos 19?), though included in the 
 wider boundaries of Judah. It was bounded on the 
 8. by the Negeb or ‘South Country,’ a spacious 
 tract of undulating chalky downs, wide pastures, 
 and generally waterless brook courses. Its position 
 in the extreme south gave rise to the phrase ‘from 
 Dan to Beersheba’ (Jg 201, 1 S 3” etc.)=all the 
 territory of Israel. he converse ‘from B. to 
 Dan’ occurs in 1 Ch 212, 2 Ch 305. The soil in 
 the valleys where there is some moisture is exceed- 
 ingly rich, and is rudely cultivated by the fellahin, 
 who succeed in producing fine crops of wheat and 
 barley. In the tracts around Beer-sheba the 
 Bedawin find ample pasturage for their flocks and 
 herds, which towards evening assemble in crowds 
 around the wells as they did three thousand years 
 ago. That the district was once thickly inhabited, 
 yotly in the early Christian centuries before the 
 
 ohammedan irruption, is shown by ruined walls 
 and foundations which are visible at intervals for 
 several miles between Bir es-Seba and el-Tel Milh. 
 The position of Bir es-Seba is marked by lines of 
 foundations along some rising ground above the 
 N. bank of the river, amongst which is the 
 foundation of a Greek church, with apse, sacristy, 
 and aisles; and in the valley below are the cele- 
 brated wells sunk through alluvial deposits into 
 the limestone rock. These are five or six in number; 
 and of the two principal ones the larger is regarded 
 with confidence as coming down from the time of 
 Abraham. This (according to Tristram) is the 
 tradition of the Arabs, who point to it as the 
 work of Ibraham el-Khalil (Abraham the Friend). 
 
  ———————————————————————————— __L _ _Le 
 
 BEGOTTEN 265 
 this part of Pal., states that the depth of the well 
 is 45 ft., and that it is lined with rings of masonry 
 to a depth of 28 ft. That some of the stones are 
 not very ancient is shown by his discovery of a 
 tablet dated 505 a.H., at a depth of 15 courses. 
 This, however, does not throw any doubt on the 
 extreme age of the well itself, but only suggeste 
 that it had been repaired during the 12th cent. 
 The marble blocks which form the rim of the well 
 are deeply cut by the ropes used for drawing water ; 
 and rude marble troughs of circular form are 
 arranged round the well for the use of ‘the cattle. 
 A second well, 5 ft. in diameter, is found at about 
 300 yds. to the W. of that just described, and in 
 Pe opposite direction is a third, 23 ft. deep, which 
 is dry. 
 
 The desert of Beer-sheba is very beautiful in 
 spring and early summer when the surface is 
 carpeted with herbage and flowers; but later in the 
 year it is parched and desolate in the extreme, not 
 a tree breaking the monotony of the landscape or 
 the rays of the sun. 
 
 Tell es-Seba is the site of a village at the junction 
 of the W. el-Khalil, which comes down from 
 Hebron on the north, with the W. es-Seba, and is 
 24 miles from Bir es-Sebé. From its summit, 950 
 ft. above the Mediterranean, a commanding view 
 is obtained of the country around, terminating 
 along the E. in the deep ravines and rocky slopes 
 which lead down to the basin of the Dead Sea. 
 
 LITERATURE. — Conder, Tent Work, 1880; Hull, Mount Seir, 
 Sinai, and Western Palestine, 1889; PEF Map of Western 
 Palestine, by Conder and Kitchener ; see also Driver and Trum- 
 bull in EHapos. Times, vii. 567 f., viii. 89. KO AVE: 
 
 BEESHTERAH (mpyy3), Jos 21”, 
 OTH. 
 
 BEETLE.—The word rendered beetle in the AV 
 and cricket in the RV (Lv 11”) is Sinn hargél. 
 It is an insect of the grasshopper kind, having 
 ‘legs above its feet’ to leap with. The Heb. root 
 $30 hargal, as its cognate harjal in Arab., signifies 
 to leap. The Arab. word harjalet signifies a flight 
 of locusts, and harjuwwdn, the / and n being inter- 
 changeable, a sort of grasshopper or locust that 
 leaps without flying. See Locust. G. E. Post. 
 
 See ASHTAR- 
 
 BEEVES, the pl. of ‘ beef,’ is used in Lv 22% 4, 
 Nu 31%: 30. 88. 38. 44 for the animals themselves, not 
 their flesh. Cf.— 
 
 * A pound of man’s flesh, taken from a man, 
 Is not so estimable, profitable neither, 
 As flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats.’ 
 Shaks. M. of V. 1. iii. 68. 
 
 RV retains all but Lv 22, AV ‘a free-will offer- 
 ing in beeves or sheep,’ RV ‘a free-will offering of 
 the herd or of the flock.’ The sing. does not occur 
 in AV or RV, but the Douay Bible (1609) renders 
 Dt 14° ‘the pygargue, the wilde beefe (AV ‘wild 
 ox’), the cameloparde.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEFORE, meaning ‘in the presence of, occurs 
 frequently, and as the tr of a great variety 01 
 Heb. and Gr. words. Notice Gn 11° ‘ Haran died 
 before his father Terah’ (37 Sy ‘before the face of,’ 
 RV ‘in the presence of’); Sir 364‘ As thou wast 
 sanctified in us before them, so be thou magnified 
 among them before us’; 39% ‘He seeth from 
 everlasting to everlasting, and there is nothing 
 wonderful before him’; He 28 “Yet have we not 
 prayed before the Lord.’ In Gal 38 ‘the Scrip ure 
 .,. preached before the gospel unto Abraham,’ the 
 words are a lit. tr. of the Greek (rpoeuvnyyeXloaro 
 and b. =‘ beforehand,’ as RV. See AFORE. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEGOTTEN.—Only begotten is the tr® in AV 
 
 Conder, who carried out the Ordnance Survey of | and RV of uovoyerys at To 87, Jn D® 31% 38, He 11% 
 
 
 
266 BEGUILE 
 
 1 Jn 4°, all (except To 8", He 11 ‘Abraham... 
 offered up his cule b. son’) in ref. to Christ. The 
 same Gr. word is found in Lk 7" ‘the only son 
 of his mother,’ 8 ‘he had one (RV ‘an’) only 
 daughter,’ and 9° ‘he is mine only child.’ 
 Firstbegotten is the tr. of mpwréroxos in He 1°, 
 and in Rev 1®° (both in reference to Christ), a 
 word which is here by RV and elsewhere by AV 
 and RV tr‘ ‘ firstborn.’ It would have been more 
 accurate if ‘ first-begotten’ had been given as the 
 tr® of rpwr., and ‘only-born’ of ov. The meaning 
 of the latter is indeed, as Westcott points out, 
 obscured under the tr® ‘only-begotten,’ since in 
 its reference to Christ it is the Son’s personal 
 Being, not His generation, that is the thought. 
 Both words express the Son of Man’s uniqueness 
 among the sons of men, ov. more absolute y than 
 mpwr., and more directly in relation to the Father. 
 See Thayer, NT Lex.; and Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. 
 Lex. of NT Greek, s.vv., and (esp. for tpwr.), Light- 
 foot on Col 1”, J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEGUILE.—‘ To beguile’ is to act with guile, 
 to deceive; but (like ‘amuse,’ which originally 
 meant ‘to bewilder’) it is mostly employed now 
 in the sense of ‘to charm away’ (care or time). 
 This meaning, though as old as 1611, does not 
 occur in AV, where on the contrary we find the 
 word signifying directly to cheat, as Col 21 ‘ Let 
 no man b. you of your reward’ (Gr. caraBpaBevw, 
 from Bpafeiov ‘a prize,’ RV ‘rob you of your 
 
 rize.’ See the criticism of this tr. by T. 8S. Evans 
 
 Lat. and Gr. Verse, p. xlix). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEHALF (by his half, i.e. on his side, then as a 
 prep. with a direct object, bihalf him) is used 
 only in prepositional phrases ‘in or on (his) 
 behalf,’ and (now almost entirely) ‘in or on behalf 
 of.’* Until recently a clear distinction was pre- 
 served between ‘on behalf of’ and ‘in behalf of,’ 
 the former signifying ‘in reference to’ or ‘on 
 account of,’ the latter only ‘in the interest of,’ 
 ‘for the sake of.’+ This distinction is preserved 
 in AV. Thus, Ex 277), ‘it shall be a statute for 
 ever unto their generations on the behalf of the 
 children of Israel’ (that is, the beaten oil shall be 
 a perpetual gift from or on the part of, myo, the 
 children of Racal}: 1 Co 14 ‘IT thank my God 
 always on your behalf’ (zep bud», RV ‘ concerning 
 you’). But 2 Ch 16° ‘ the eyes of the LORD run to 
 and fro throughout the whole earth, to show 
 himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart 
 is perfect toward him’; Ph 1” ‘in the behalf of 
 Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to 
 suffer for his sake’ (RV ‘in his behalf’). But 
 ‘in this behalf,’ or ‘on this behalf,’ indifferently, 
 as 2 Co 9° ‘in this behalf,’ 1 P 41° ‘on this behalf’ 
 (both év 7@ pepe rovrg, TR, but in 1 P 4" editors 
 prefer évéuart, whence RV ‘in his name’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEHEADING.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 BEHEMOTH (ninza béhéméth, perhaps for Egyp. 
 p-ehe-mau, ‘ox of the water’).—The word is tr. 
 in all passages except Job 40%™ as the plural of 
 bchémah, with the signification of beasts. It has 
 been supposed by some that beast (Ps 73”), which is 
 in the original béhéméth, refers to the same animal 
 as that in Job. But the first member of the paral- 
 lelism in the psalm refers to ignorance, and the 
 putting of the intensive plural béhéméth= beasts, in 
 the second, would seem to condense into his folly 
 all that is in the beasts. Others have supposed 
 that béhéméth negeb, the beasts of the south (Is 
 
 * Oaf. Eng. Dict. and Century Dict. say behalf is used only 
 with on or tn, forgetting Dn 1118 AV ‘a prince for his own b.’ 
 
 + Except where the meaning is ‘in the uame of,’ when either 
 form was used. 
 
 BEL 
 
 30°), refers to the animal] of Job, and that the south 
 was Egypt. But negeb refers to Egypt only in one 
 other context (Dn 11 often). Isaiah more probably 
 refers to the southern portion of Judea and the 
 wilderness of et-Tih, and the fact: that a partial 
 catalogue of the beasts is given makes it improbable 
 that one beast, and that not a savage or venomous 
 creature, is intended. 
 
 There can be no reasonable doubt that the 
 hippopotamus is the animal intended in Job. As 
 some have thought that some other extinct or 
 living animal, or some animal tye, as the pachy- 
 dermatous, was intended, it will be well to examine, 
 in the light of an accurate rendering, whether the 
 description corresponds to that of the hippopotamus. 
 15 Behold behemoth, which I made with thee ; 
 
 He eateth grass like an ox. 
 
 16 Behold, his strength is in his loins, 
 
 And his power in the muscles of his belly. 
 17 He lowers his tail like a cedar ; 
 
 The sinews of his thigh are braided togethes. 
 18 His bones are tubes of copper, 
 
 Their bulk as a forging of iron. 
 19 He is the first of God's works : 
 
 He who made him gave him his sword. 
 20 For the hills bring him forth pasture ; 
 
 All the beasts of the field sport there, 
 21 Beneath the lotus tree he lieth down, 
 
 In the shadow of the reed and swamp. 
 22 The lotus trees overshadow him ; 
 
 The willows of the streams surround him. 
 23 Behold the river swells, and he does not flee; 
 
 He is confident though Jordan were poured into his mouth. 
 24 Will one take him before his eyes ; 
 
 Or will one bore his nostrils with hooks (rings)? 
 Remembering that this is Oriental poetry, there 
 is nothing in it which does not well apply to the 
 hippopotamus: he is herbivorous (v.%); he is 
 remarkable for the stoutness of his body (v.!*); his 
 tail is thick and rigid, and his legs sinewy (v.?") ; 
 his bones are solid (v.18); he is the largest animal 
 indigenous in Bible lands; his teeth cut the 
 herbage as with a sword (v.); he comes up out of 
 the water to the plantations to feed; the term Azll 
 is applicable to low elevations as well as to high, 
 and in the language of poetry could be used of the 
 knolls arising from the general level of the Nile 
 basin (v.2°); the lotus tree (Zizyphus Lotus, L.) is 
 common, as also reeds and swamps, in the neigh- 
 bourhoods where he dwells (v.71) ; so also the willows 
 by the streams (v.””); the allusion to the inundation 
 of Egypt fits his case (v.¥); his strength is such 
 that a direct attack is hazardous, and the poet 
 challenges the reader to bore his nostrils, and lead 
 him with a hook or ring like an ox (v.%). 
 
 The allusion to behemoth is the approach to the 
 climax which is reached in leviathan, the crocodile. 
 The poet reoes (ch. 38) with the foundation of 
 the earth, advanced to the powers of inanimate 
 nature, then through the lesser phenomena of 
 animal life to the largest of the quadrupeds, to 
 finish with the invulnerable, untamable ‘ king over 
 all the children of pride’ (ch. 41%). 
 
 LiteraTuRE.—Ozf. Heb. Lex. &v.; Dillmann and Davidson 
 on Job 4015ff. ; Delitzsch on Is 308, G. E. Post. 
 
 BEHOVE. —‘Behoof’ is profit, advantage; it 
 occurs only in Pref. to AV 1611 ‘ For the behoof 
 and edifying of the unlearned.’ ‘ Behove,’ nov 
 only in the impers. phrase ‘it behoves,’ signifies 
 necessity arising from peculiar fitness. In AV 
 only Lk 244 ‘it bet Christ to suffer’ (TR 2c, 
 edd. and RV omit), and He 2” ‘it be him to be 
 made like unto his brethren (égeAe). RV adds 
 Lk 2476, Ac 178 (both ée), J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEKA (AV _ Bekah). —See WEIGHTS AND 
 MEASURES. 
 
 BEL (53), origmally one of the Bab. triad, but 
 
 synonym. in OT and Apocr, with Merodach, ‘the 
 younger Bel,’ the tutelary god of Babylon (Jer 50? 
 
 
 
BEL AND THE DRAGON 
 
 61, Is 46!, Bar 6“), 
 
 See BAAL, BABYLONIA, BEL 
 AND THE DRAGON. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BEL AND THE DRAGON.—Two legends attached 
 to the book of Dn in the Gr. and other VSS. As 
 in the rest of Dn, the ordinary printed text is that 
 of Theod. (©); but Swete has given the text of 
 the unique LXX MS Chisianus, on the opposite 
 page, throughout Dn. In B our stories follow Dn 
 without a break ; in A Q, with the intervention of 
 the heading 8pacis 8’. In Vulg. they form ch. 14 of 
 Dn. In LXX and Sjyr.-Hex. we have the heading, 
 ‘From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Joshua, 
 of the tribe of Levi.’ 
 
 Bel.—The points of this story as to which © and 
 LXX agree are briefly these:—-In Babylon is an 
 image of Bel which Daniel refuses to worship. 
 The king expostulates, and shows how much food 
 it daily devours. Daniel in reply arranges that 
 the king shall see the lectisternia set, and the 
 doors sealed ; but takes care, when the priests are 
 gone, that the king shall see the floor sieved with 
 
 e ashes. Next morning the seals are intact, but 
 the floor shows marks of naked feet, and the 
 secret door is revealed by which the food has been 
 taken away. After this the priests are put to 
 death and the image destroyed. 
 
 Theod.’s task was to revise LXX. In the case 
 before us he had a document, probably Aram., 
 which differed in detail considerably from LXX. 
 In wv.*® he largely transcribes LXX; but after 
 that uses his own materials very freely. The 
 chief variations between © and PxXX are these: 
 LXX extracts the story from a pseudepigraphic 
 work of Habakkuk, and introduces Daniel as ‘a 
 certain man,’ ‘a priest, son of Abal, a companion 
 of the king.’ © by attaching the story to Dn 
 identifies him with the prophet, and makes the 
 Bel’s 
 
 king to be Cyrus, successor of Astyages. 
 daily allowance is in LXX, besides the flour, 4 
 sheep and 6 firkins of oil; in 0, 40 sheep and 6 
 
 firkins of wine. The Phillipp’s cylinder, 1. R. 65, 
 records that Nebuchadrezzar’s daily offering was 
 one fine ox, fish, fowl, etc., the best of oil, and the 
 choicest wines like the waters of a river (Ball, 
 Speaker's Apocr. ii. 352). LXX introduces in 
 vv.417 ‘honourable priests,’ friends of the priest 
 Daniel, with whose signets the doors are sealed. 
 © does not. LXX says the food offered was found 
 in the houses of the priests. © omits this. While 
 8, not LXX, says that Daniel destroyed both the 
 image and the Temple of Bel. Cf. Hdt. i. 183; 
 Strabo, xvi. 1. 
 
 The Peshitta is taken from @. Its chief deviations from @ are 
 v.4 ok rams,’ ‘Bel my God’ (cf. Schrader, COT ii. 60) v.6 
 "Bel is alive’; v.14‘ The king sealedit . . . with the ring of 
 Daniel.’ More important, however, are the cases where it dis- 
 cards ©, and follows LXX, as in v.7 igteeg 5 has he ever 
 eaten’; v.18 ‘He saw all eaten which had been offered to 
 Bel’; while in v.21 we have a conflate reading, ‘consumed 
 what was “‘ offered to Bel” LXX, ‘‘on the table”’ @. Neubauer 
 in his Tobit gives a passage from Midrash Rabba de Rabba, 
 where, in Greek-rabbinic characters, is found an almost verbatim 
 transcript of the Peshitta as given by Lagarde. The Vulg. gives 
 8 minutely accurate tr. of @. The Syr.-Hex. in Ceriani’s Mon. 
 Sac. et prof. follows LXX ; but its marg. gives three readings of 
 @:;: ‘40 sheep’ for ‘four’; ‘wine’ for ‘oil’ in v.4; and the 
 account of the sieving of the floor in v.14. 
 
 The Dragon.—The points common to all Jewish 
 varieties of this Haggada are as follows: There 
 was in Babylon a great dragon, widely revered, and 
 fed by its worshippers. aniel was again a non- 
 conformist. In reply to the king’s expostulations 
 he volunteered to kill the monster, if the king 
 would consent, without any weapon. Permission 
 being granted, he made a large bolus, of which 
 
 itch was the chief ingredient, and threw it down 
 
 he dragon’s throat ; thus causing it to burst and 
 die. ag etal enraged, clamoured for Daniel’s 
 death. e king yielded, and Daniel was cast into 
 
 BEL AND THE DRAGON 267 
 
 a den, where were 7 lions; and he was there 6 or 
 7 days. On the last day Habakkuk was cookin 
 food for his reapers, when an angel came aad 
 carried him and his pons through the air (cf. 
 Ezk 8°, and Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
 Resch, Agrapha, 381 ff.) to the lions’ den, to feed 
 Daniel. When the king came and found Daniel 
 alive, he magnified J”, and cast the accusers into 
 the den, where they met with instant death. 
 
 The dragon myth had a much wider circulation 
 than that of Bel, and was much more flexible in its 
 details. It is doubtless a Judaized version of the 
 old Sem. myth of the destruction of the old dragon, 
 which, terrestrial, maritime, or celestial, represents 
 Chaos or Disorder, which was destroyed by the god 
 of the pens order of things. In the Bab. myth, 
 it is Tihamat who is assailed by Bel-Merodach. Bel 
 let loose a storm-wind * which the monster received 
 into its mouth, and ‘with violence the wind filled 
 its belly,’ and ‘its belly was stricken through’ (cf. 
 Gunkel, Schépfung it Chaos, 320-323, and Ball in 
 Speaker's Apocr. ii. 347). 
 
 The fluidity of the myth is shown by the way in 
 which almost every version furnishes details of. its 
 own. LXX contributes that Daniel used ‘30 pounds 
 of pitch,’ v.77; that the king consulted with his com- 
 panions, v.™; that the lions’ den was reserved for 
 conspirators against the king, and that thelionswere 
 fed daily on the bodies of two criminals, v.*1; that 
 the mede of death was selected that Daniel might 
 not receive burial, v.*2; and that Habakkuk had 
 with him a jug of mixed wine, v.¥. Vulg. closely 
 follows 9, but, besides some smaller deviations, it 
 appends a doxology, v.*, after the manner of Dn 
 6*6- 27, Lagarde’s Syr. adheres closely to 9; but it 
 adds, v.*, that the sang came to the den ‘to weep 
 for Daniel,’ and makes a brief repetition in v.™. 
 Neubauer’s vers. from Midrash Rabba de Rabba, 
 which is mostly a mere transliteration of Syr., adds 
 one item not found elsewhere: ‘and they covered 
 the den with a stone, and sealed it with the king’s 
 ring, and with their signets,’ v.24: and with 
 Walton’s vers. it says, ‘the angel put his hand on 
 the head of Habakkuk.’ Raymund Martini, who 
 wrote an anti-Jewish work, Pugio Fidei, in the 
 13th cent., cites Bel and the Dragon, professedly 
 from a Midrash Major on Genesis (Neubauer’s Tobit, 
 p. vili.). His text is almost an exact counterpart 
 (only by a better scribe) of the unique MS con- 
 taining Midrash Rabba de Rabba, except a 
 hiatus by homeeoteleuton in v.* (see Delitzsch, De 
 Habacuci Vita, p. 32). Another Midrash gives a 
 condensed account of the dragon myth in Heb., 
 but says that Daniel took straw and wrapped nails 
 in it which pierced the monster’s viscera (Béreshith 
 rabba, § 68; Del. p. 38). Josippon ben Gorion, the 
 pseudo-Jos., the author of a mytho-historical work, 
 c. A.D. 940, ascribes the death of the dragon to 
 combs concealed in pitch; he fixes sunset as the 
 hour of Habakkuk’s transportation, and says that 
 he returned ‘before the reapers finished eating,’ 
 Del. op. cit. 40. 
 
 Gaster (PSBA, Nov. Dec. 1894) announces the discovery of an 
 Aram. text of the story of the Dragon in the Chronicles of Jerah- 
 meel. This he claims to be the very text used by # in revising LXX. 
 It is certainly a striking document. Its dialect, both in vocabu- 
 lary and grammatical forms, is that of Onkelos. It is a longer 
 narrative than any other, and possesses some unique readings ; 
 as, ¢.g., ‘flax’ in v.27; ‘withoutsword or spear,’ v.26; ‘ Daniel 
 was in the den seven days,’ v.30; ‘land of Israel,’ v.83; ‘and 
 when Habakkuk’s spirit returned to him,’ v.37, But the 
 antiquity of its text is, I think, most clearly evinced by the fact 
 that it contains many readings found in the several VSS, but 
 until now deemed unique ; and thus it seems to be a ‘Source.’ 
 With the Vulg. only, it reads, ‘ behold now,’ v.23; ‘what ye 
 
 *The Aram. word for ‘storm-wind’ is NDT; for ‘ pitch,’ 
 xo. Is this an accident? or does it not rather indicate that 
 the story circulated in Aram., and thus ‘pitch’ was in time 
 substituted for ‘storm-wind’? Of. the omission of in 77 
 for bys. 
 
 
 
268 BELA 
 
 BELIAL 
 
 
 
 worship,’ v.27; and ‘from the den of lions,’ v.42. With Syr. | 
 
 only, it reads, ‘and the dragon swallowed them, and died,’ v.27 ; 
 ‘My Lord,’ v.35; ‘in one hour,’ v.39; * who slandeved Daniel,’ 
 v.42, With Josippon, it adds that the anyel took Habakkuk 
 ‘with the food that was in his hands,” y.3¢, and states that 
 Daniel put iron combs in the pitch, and that, when the pitch 
 melted, the combs peried the viscera of the dragon, and thus 
 caused its death, v.26, 
 
 Language.—Most scholars, from Eichhorn to 
 Kénig, have considered the orig. lang. of these 
 stories to be Greek; but Gaster’s discovery looks 
 strongly, if uot decisively, in favour of Aramaic. 
 The confusion of x5y1=storm-wind, and x51=pitch, 
 
 oints in the same direction. The awkward word 
 (LXX) opayicduevos=onn is best explained by 
 supposing that the latter was read for ono=kneloas ; 
 and besides this, many divergent parallel readings 
 yield, when translated, very similar Aram. words, 
 
 €.g.— 
 
 17 look at seals, banox|safe...?. . >anaa 
 
 18 king rejoiced, 7n | looked, : : xin 
 
 19 see the guile, pw | threshold, . .  RDpy 
 
 31 / of the doomed, x»377 | and 2 rama,. 2 eI 3) 
 { =Tepxadapuara 
 
 # inthemidst, Vulg.,.12 | in the den, Chr, . 23 
 
 cause of his msnp xy 
 
 “3 (Roce Ss snp 12K 
 destruction, So 9, Vulg. 
 
 So Chr, Syr. 
 
 Canonicity.x—The Roman Church admits the 
 enuineness of these stories, as of the rest of the 
 XX; and in the uncritical age of the early 
 
 Church, many Gr. and Lat. Fathers quoted them 
 as part of Dn, e.g. Irenzeus, iv. 5.2; Tertullian, de 
 eaablairic: ¢.18; and Cyprian, ad Fortunatum, c. 11. 
 Julius Africanus was the first to call the matter in 
 dispute, in his Letter to Origen. Origen replied ; 
 and in his Stromata, Book x., expounded Susanna 
 and Bel. From this exposition Jerome quotes in 
 his commentary on Dn 13. 14.___‘In his Prefatio in 
 Danielem, Jerome, while in sympathy with 
 Africanus, conceals himself behind a learned Jew. 
 He says he had heard a Jew deride the Gr. additions 
 to Dn. The Jew asked what miracle, or indication 
 of divine inspiration, there was in a dragon’s being 
 killed by a piece of pitch ; or in the detection of the 
 tricks of the priests of Bel. These things were done 
 rather by the prudence of a clever man than by the 
 prophetic spirit. As to Habakkuk’s aérial flight, 
 with a bow! of pottage in his hand, the Jew refused 
 to accept Ezk 8° as at all parallel: since Ezk 
 in the spirit saw himself being curried, and ‘was 
 brought in visions of God to Jerus.’ Still Jerome, 
 in view of the universal acceptance of the 
 ‘ Additions,’ decided to publish them ‘veru ante- 
 posito.” Other objections urged more recently are 
 (1) the inconsistencies of 6 and LXX, and their 
 many improbabilities. (2) That dragon-worship 
 was unknown in Babylon (so Eichhorn, Bissell). 
 This is probabl true; but the Babylonians had a 
 snake deity. Ci. Baudissin in Herzog, art. ‘ Drache 
 zu Babel,’ and Ball, 357. (3) The image of Bel 
 was not destroyed in the reign of Cyrus, but by 
 Xerxes; Hdt. i. 183. 
 
 LITERATURE.—For MSS in which our stories are found, see 
 DanieL. The best Com. is Ball’s in Speaker’s Apocr. Other 
 useful helps are Bissell in Lange’s series; Fritzsche, Handbuch 
 zu den Apoe. vol. i.; Zockler in Kgf. Kom. 1891; Delitzsch, de 
 Habacuct vita atque etate, 1842; Schiirer, HJP nu. iii. 184 ff.; 
 Josippon ben Gorion, ed. Breithaupt, 1710; Zunz, Goltesdienstl. 
 Vortrdge, p. 129 ff., 1892; Neubauer, 7'obit, Oxford, 1888. 
 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 BELA (yb3).—1. ‘The son of Beor reigned in 
 Edom ; and the name of his city was Dinhabah. 
 And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of 
 Bozrah reigned in his stead’ (Gn 36% 8, ef. 1 Ch 
 11), The close resemblance of this name to that 
 ot ‘Balaam (oy>3), the son of Beor,’ the seer, is 
 noteworthy, and has given rise to the Targ. of 
 Jonathan reading ‘Balaam the son of Beor’ in 
 Gu 36%. 
 
 Apparently Bela, the first Edomite king, was not 
 anative of Edom. Possibly we have in these names 
 the preservation of an old tradition respecting the 
 succession of dynasties and their royal residences. 
 Of Dinhabah nothing is known; but, according to 
 Knobel, the name Danaba is found in connexion 
 with Palmyrene Syria (Ptol. 5. 15. 24), Danabe 
 with Babylonia (Zosim. Hist. 3. 27), and Dannaba 
 with Moab (Onomast. 1. 14. f. ed. Lag.). Bela the 
 son of Beor may have been of Aramzan origin. 
 For Balaam, the son of Beor, is said to have come 
 from Pethor on the Euphrates (Nu 22°, ef. Dt 23°), 
 a town which has been identified with the Pitru of 
 the Assyrian inscriptions on the W. bank of the 
 river, at its junction with the SAdshfr (Sagurri), a 
 little south of Carchemish (see Schrader, COT? 
 i. 143). Now, when this fact is considered in con- 
 nexion with the mention of the sixth Edomite 
 king (Gn 36%’), who presumably came from the 
 same Euphratie region, ‘Shaul of Rehoboth by the 
 River’ (Rehoboth being placed by some Assyri- 
 ologists at the junction of the Euphrates and the 
 Chaboras, Riehm HW B? 1291), there is evidently 
 some ground for the theory that Bela the son of 
 Beor was an Aramean, or possibly Hittite, con- 
 queror who came from the banks of the Euphrates. 
 Still, nothing is known of him; and even the age 
 in which he lived is uncertain; nor can we at 
 sare say whether Beor (=‘ burning’), whose sor 
 
 e is termed, was a man or a local deity. 
 
 The Sept. transliterates Béd\ax (Cod. A), Béadex 
 (Cod E), as if Bela was to be identified with the 
 king of Moab rather than with the seer. 
 
 2. The eldest of the sons of Benjamin (Gn 467, 
 Nu 26%, 1 Ch 76 8!), According to 1 Ch 8° he was 
 the father of Addar, Gera, Abihud, Abishua, 
 Naaman, Ahoah, Gera (a second mention), Shep- 
 huphan and Huram. According to Nu 26 the 
 sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman. 
 
 8. ‘The son of Azaz, the son of Shema, the son 
 of Joel, who dwelt in Aroer, even unto Nebo and 
 Baal-meon ; and eastward he dwelt even unto the 
 entering in of the wilderness from the river 
 Euphrates’ (1 Ch 5* °). He was a Reubenite, and 
 a dweller in the Moabite territory. It is note- 
 worthy that this B., like the Edomite king men- 
 tioned above, seems to have been traditionally 
 connected with the Euphrates. H. E. RYLEz. 
 
 BELAITES, THE (‘y)2n), the descendants of Bela 
 (2), one of the divisions of the tribe of Benjamin 
 mentioned in Nu 26%, 
 
 BELA (yba), Gn 14%8.—A name of ZOAR. 
 
 BELCH.—Ps 597 ‘ they b. out with their mouth’ 
 (yan, used again in a bad sense Ps 944, RV ‘prate’; 
 but in a good sense 19? ‘utter speech,’ Del. ‘ well 
 forth speech’; and 119!” ‘utter praise’). B., which 
 is orig. to void wind noisily from the stomach oy 
 the mouth, is rarely used in a good sense, thoug 
 Wyclif has ‘belkid out a good word’ in Ps 45! 
 (RV ‘overfloweth with a goodly matter’); rather 
 as Stanyhurst, nets, ii. 67, ‘I belcht owt blas- 
 phemye bawling.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BELEMUS (B7epos), 1 Es 2! (8, LXX). See 
 BISHLAM. 
 
 BELIAL (5y:5a).—The common view is that this 
 word is derived from ‘3 not, and Sy: in Hiph. to 
 profit ; and that its primary meaning is ‘ worthless- 
 ness,’ ‘ wickedness,’ and its secondary ‘ destruction.’ 
 But Cheyne has sought to show (Hzpositor, June 
 1895, p. 435) that this derivation is erroneous, and 
 that the primary meaning is ‘hopeless ruin,’ and 
 the secondary ‘great or extreme wickedness.’ He 
 regards the word as a mythological survival, the 
 
 
 
BELIE 
 
 
 
 name of ‘the subterranean watery abyss’ which 
 was understood to mean ‘the depth which lets no 
 man return’ ("yy: °)2). In the OT the word in the 
 sense of ‘ worthlessness’ or ‘ wickedness’ is mostly 
 found in combination with a noun: ‘daughter’ 
 (1S 1%), ‘thing’ (Dt 15%), ‘man’ (1S 25%, 2S 167 
 20!, Pr 167’), ‘witness’ (Pr 19%), ‘ person’ (Pr 6%), 
 ‘men’ (1 S 304), ‘sons’ (Dt 13%, Jg 1972 204, 1S 213 
 10” 2517, 2S 235, 1 K 211-13, 2 Ch 137), and in the 
 AV following the Vulg. is, with few exceptions, 
 rendered literally, as if a proper name; so also 
 frequently in the RV; but the margin here gives 
 renderings, ‘base fellows,’ ‘wicked woman,’ etc., 
 which the American Revisers desired to see in the 
 text. Owing to the poverty of the Heb. language 
 in adjectives, this combination was ‘a favourite 
 expression in the accounts of the earlier monarchical 
 period’ for sinners of ‘deepest dye.’ In the sense 
 of ‘destruction’ the word is found only four times, 
 Ps 18‘ RV ‘floods of ungodliness’ ; but Cheyne and 
 others, ‘the rushing streams of perdition’; Ps 41° 
 AV and RV ‘an evil disease’; Nah 1" AV ‘a 
 wicked counsellor,’ RV ‘that counselleth wicked- 
 ness,’ but Cheyne assigns to belial here the sense 
 of ‘hopeless ruin’; 1 AV ‘the wicked,’ RV ‘the 
 wicked one,’ but others render ‘the destroyer’; 
 and Cheyne sees here already a transition to 
 the absolute use of the word as a personal 
 name for Satan, found in 2 Co 6%, In this 
 passage the AV and RV both read fedlad; but the 
 reading now usually preferred is BeAlap, which is 
 ‘either to be ascribed to the harsh Syr. pro- 
 nunciation of the word feXfad\, or must be derived 
 from 7y: $3, lord of the forest.’ St. Paul uses the 
 word as a name of Satan with reference to unclean 
 heathenism ; and his use shows that the word had 
 come to be used generally as a proper name. 
 Milton gives this name to the fallen angel who is 
 the representative of impurity (Par. Lost, i. 490- 
 605; Par. Reg. ii. 150). A. E. GARVIE. 
 
 BELIE.—To belie is to tell lies about a person 
 or thing, as Wis 1 ‘the mouth that belieth 
 slayeth the soul’ (xarayevdoua, in ref. to xara- 
 Aadla ‘ backbiting’ mentioned before). Then ‘to 
 
 ive the lie to,’ ‘contradict,’ as Jer 54 ‘They have 
 
 lied the Lord’ (#53, RV ‘ denied’). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BELIEF occurs in AV only 2 Th 2" ‘b. of the 
 truth’ (Gr. rloris); to which RV adds Ro 10” ‘b, 
 cometh of hearing’ (Gr. mloris, AV ‘faith’). ‘ Un- 
 belief’ occurs frequently, as tr™ of dzel@ea or 
 dmorla. See FAITH. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BELL.—Bells as a means of making a public 
 call seem to have been quite unknown in the 
 Mediterranean world until late Roman _ times. 
 Judging from the great development in China and 
 India, and in Buddhistic worship, it seems prob- 
 
 
 
 able that the use of large bells is due to the 
 farther East. The means of public call amon: the 
 
 
 
 BELSHAZZAR 269 
 
 
 
 Hebrews was never by a bell, but by trumpets; 
 these are stated to be of silver (Nu 102), and are 
 shown as a special part of the holy spoils on the 
 arch of Titus, though, strange to say, the ram’s 
 horn, shophar, is still used in synagogues. On a 
 small scale, tinkling bells were fees or religious 
 purposes in post-Exodic times in Egypt, as among 
 he Hebrews. But they are only mentioned on the 
 borders of the high priest’s robe (Ex 28% ospys) ; and 
 the tinkling there was properly by their striking the 
 alternating pomegranates, rather than by a clapper. 
 The design of bells and pomegranates is apparently 
 the old Egyp. lotus and bud border, such a pattern 
 having lost its original meaning in course of 
 transfer to other lands. See ArT. The bells of 
 the horses referred to in Zec 14” (mibym) seem more 
 likely to be bridles, as in AVm, as a small horse-bell 
 is not so suitable for an inscription as the long length 
 of bridle or trappings. Small bells of the ball and 
 slit form were used in Pal. in late Jewish times, as 
 one was found at Tell el-Hesy. 
 W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. 
 BELLOWS.—The only mention of bellows in 
 Scripture is Jer 6” (790). Derivation,* context, and, 
 in particular, the evidence of the VSS (LXX guonrtp, 
 Vulg. sufiatorium, Pesh. mappéhd, Targ. Jon. 3¥p 
 o'n53, a blacksmith’s bellows), confirm the traditional 
 rendering. There is no reason for supposing that 
 ‘smelting-oven’ is intended, as has been suggested 
 by Bezold, Zeitsch. f. Assyriol. ii. 448. We do not 
 know if the Jews had the bellows as an article of 
 domestic furniture, the reference above being to the 
 bellows of the metal-smelter. An excellent illus- 
 tration of the bellows as used for this purpose in 
 ancient Egyptis given by Wilkinson in his Anc. Egyp. 
 (1854) ii. 316. The bellows there figured consist oF ‘a 
 leather bag, secured and fitted into a frame, from 
 which a large pee extended for carrying the wind 
 to the fire. They [the bellows] were worked b 
 the feet, the operator standing upon them, wit 
 one under each foot, pressing them alternately, 
 while he pulled up each exhausted skin with a 
 string he held in his hand.’ The tube or pipe 
 seems to have been of reed, ‘tipped with a metal 
 ed to resist the action of the fire’ (Wilk. 
 oc. cit). A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 BELLY.—See Bopy, 
 
 BELMAIM (BeAfalu Jth 7°, BacAyaly Jth 4*).—It 
 seems to have lain south of Dothan, but the topo- 
 
 aphy of Judith is very difficult. Bileam in 
 Nanoech lay farther north than Dothan. 
 
 C. R. ConpER. 
 
 BELOVED is the tr® of a7x ’dhabh, to love; or 
 a1 dédh (possibly the original of 12 ddvidh David) 
 used often in Ca, elsewhere only Is 5! ‘a song of 
 my b.’; or [11] yadhidh, as Ps 127? ‘he giveth 
 his b. sleep’; or 1pnD mahmddh, onl os 916 
 ‘the b. fruit of their womb.’ And in Yr either 
 dyardw or (most freq.) dyamrnrés. The latter word 
 has been tr4 ‘dearly b.’ in nine places (RV always 
 omits ‘dearly’), and ‘well-beloved’ in three 
 places (RV omits ‘ well’). ‘ Dearly b.’ is found 
 in OT, only Jer 127 ‘the dearly b. of my soul!’ 
 (mvp yédhidhith, so RV). ‘ Well-beloved’ is 
 found Ca 18 (11 RV ‘beloved’), Is 5! [+] so 
 RV). ‘Greatly b.’ is given in Da 9” 10" 1°, in ref. 
 to Daniel, as tr® of ning (or niteq) hAmddhéth, lit. 
 ‘desirable things,’ thus 9% ‘thou art greatly b.’= 
 ‘thou art a precious treasure.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BELSHAZZAR is mentioned in Dn as the son of 
 Nebuchadrezzar, and the last reigning king of 
 Babylon, just on the eve of its fall, before Cyrus. 
 The word appears in the forms wyxyb3 (Dn 5!) and 
 
 “From np} to blow. The formation in Heb. denotes ar 
 instrument or tool; see Barth, Nominalbdg, etc., 1894, § 1690. 
 

 
 270 BELSHAZZAR 
 
 
 
 BENAIAH 
 
 
 
 syvxb3 (Dn 7!). LXX and Th. read Badracdp, and 
 Jos. (Ant. X. xi. 2) says that among the Bab. he was 
 known as son of NaBodvdydos. Herodotus speaks 
 of him as Labynetus 1. son of Labynetus 1. (Ne- 
 buchadrezzar). Xen. (Cyrop. vii. 5. 3) says that 
 Babylon was taken by night while the inhabitants 
 were revelling. 
 
 But there is one prolific source of information for 
 this period and king, viz. the cuneiform inscriptions. 
 In these we find that the last king of Babylon was 
 Nabonidus (Na-bi-n@id), and that his firstborn 
 son was named Belshazzar. One method of writing 
 
 the name is as follows: J »y oy b> pa 
 
 Bel-Sarra-usur, ‘may Bel protect the king.’ He 
 was thus the prince-regent of the throne. The 
 authority for these statements is the following (in 
 Rawlinson’s W. Asiatic Inscr. i. 68, col. ii. line 24 f.): 
 ‘and as for Bel-Sarra-usur, the exalted son, the 
 offspring of my body, do thou cause the adoration 
 of thy great divinity to exist in his heart; may he 
 not give way to sin; may he be satisfied with 
 life’s abundance.’ There is no evidence that he 
 was related as grandson (cf. Dn 5!) to the old 
 monarch and creator of the new Bab. empire. 
 According to the inscr. Nabonidus was son of Nabt- 
 balat-su-ikbi. Rawlinson conjectures (Herodot. 
 Essay viii. § 25) that B. may have been related to 
 Nebuchadrezzar through his mother (Dn 5"), the 
 wide-awake counsellor on that last fateful night. 
 Schrader’s theory (COT ii. 132 f.), that ‘father’ is 
 used here in the broad signification of predecessor 
 and ruler in the crowning period of Bab. history, is 
 more plausible. Such usage is held by some to be 
 paralleled by ‘Jehu, son of Omri’ (Layard’s Inser. 
 p. 982; Rawl. WAT vol. iii. p. 5), when Jehu was 
 the extirpator of Omri’s dynasty. (See on other 
 side Sayce, HCM 525 ff.) It is then just possible 
 that the writer of Dn intended only to designate 
 B. as a successor of king Nebuchadrezzar on the 
 throne. It appears from at least three contract 
 tablets (Strassmaier, Bab. Texte: Inschriften von 
 Nabonidus, vols. i. and iii., and Tablets, Nos. 184, 
 581, and 688; a tr. by Sayce in FP, new ser. iii. 
 124-126) that B. was a man of some property, and 
 was obliged to transact business on legal principles. 
 On one tablet we find that ‘the secretary of B., 
 the son of the king,’ Nebo-yukin-akhi, ae a 
 house for a term of three years, for one and one- 
 half manehs of silver, sub-letting of the house 
 being forbidden, as well as interest on the money. 
 Nated, ‘5th year of Nabonidus king of Bab.,’ i.¢. 
 B.c. 551. On the second tablet facts of greater 
 interest ye or ‘The sum of 20 manehs of silver 
 for wool, the property of B., the son of the king, 
 which has been handed over to Iddin-Merodach 
 - . . through the agency of Nebo-zabit the 
 steward of the house of B., the son of the king, 
 and the secretaries of the son of the king 
 
 The house of . . . the Persian and all his property 
 in town and country shall be the security of B., 
 the son of the king, until he shall pay in full the 
 money aforesaid.’ Dated, ‘11th year of Nabonidus 
 king’ [of Bab.], i.e. B.c. 545. On the third tablet, 
 a steward, Nebo-zabit-id4, of the house of B., had 
 lent through a loans-broker a sum of money, 
 and taken as security the crops to be grown near 
 Babylon. Dated at ‘Babylon, the 27th day of the 
 second Adar, the 12th year of Nabonidus, king of 
 Babylon,’ 7.e. B.C. 544. 
 
 There is now ample evidence that this ‘son of 
 the king’ held a high office under his father-king. 
 On an annalistic tablet of Nabonidus (ef. Pinches 
 in TSBA vii. 153 ff.), the prince-regent, in the 7th 
 year of his father’s reign, was with the army in 
 Akkad with the chief men of the kingdom, the 
 king himself being in Tema. This describes the 
 
 game condition of things in the 9th, 10th, and 11th | 
 
 
 
 
 
 years. In the 17th year Cyrus led his forces acrosa 
 the boundary lines of yueivie Nabonidus, with 
 the army stationed in Akkad, attempted to defend 
 Sippar against the invader. But on the 14th of 
 Tammuz the city fell, without a stroke, into the 
 hands of Cyrus, and Nabonidus fled. On the 16th 
 the general of the army of C , Gobryas, entered 
 Babylon ‘without, fighting.’ Neither during nor 
 after the battle at Sippar do we find the name 
 of B. on the somewhat mutilated and broken in- 
 scriptions within ourreach. By some (e.g. Schrader) 
 he is thought to have perished in a battle at 
 Akkad; acc. to others (as Pinches and Hommel), 
 he was slain in the final taking of Babylon. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Add to the reff. in the article, Schrader, COT'2 
 ji. 180, 185; Sayce, Mresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, 
 p. 158, and HCM pp. 497, 525ff.; Evetts, New Light on the 
 Bible and the Holy Land, p. 298 ff.; Farrar, Daniel, p. 203 ff.; 
 and Whitehouse and others in Expos. Times, iv. 400, v. 41, 69, 
 180, 285, 882, 474. See also art. BABYLONIA, p. 229d. 
 
 IrA M. PRICE. 
 
 BELTESHAZZAR (7y¥x¢b3, ate the Chal- 
 deean name given to Daniel (Dn 17275), Opinions 
 differ as to whether the first part of the compound 
 contains the name of Bel (male) or of Beltis or Bilat 
 (female). The latter view is supported by Sir H. 
 Rawlinson and Sayce, the former by Canon Raw- 
 linson (Ancient Monarchies, iii. 82). Those who 
 derive the word from Bel have explained it in 
 different ways. (1) It is asserted. that Bel is here 
 a genitive form, and that zar=sar (Ww)=prince: 
 ‘the prince whom Bel favours’ (Ges.). (2) The 
 word is regarded as a contraction for Bel-baldtsw- 
 ugur=‘Bel protect his life’ (Fried. Delitzsch). 
 (3) It is derived from Bel, tisha (Heb. xyw ‘a 
 secret’) and usur (133})=to guard—the composition 
 of the elements giving a meaning which might be 
 considered appropriate in the case of Daniel. 
 
 G. WALKER. 
 
 BEN (73 ‘son’).—A Levite, 1 Ch 1518, omitted in 
 
 arallel list in v.%in both MT and LXX. The 
 
 atter omits it also in the first-named passage. 
 
 BEN-ABINADAB (2372873, AV ‘son of Abina- 
 dab’).—One of Solomon’s commissariat officers 
 (1 K 4%), 
 
 BENAIAH (3733, 33 ‘J” hath built up’).—1. Son 
 of Jehoiada, a priest (see JEHOIADA) of Kabzeel, 
 a town in the 8S. of Judah (Jos 15”). B. is an 
 exainple of the silent faithful soldier. A ‘mighty 
 man’ rather than a general, he is not specially men- 
 tioned in the history of David’s campaigns, but was 
 captain of the bodyguard of Cherethites (Carites, 
 2 20%, Kethibh, cf. 2 K 114) and Pelethites (2S 8'%), 
 The RVm ‘council’ for ‘guard’ in 2 § 23% is 
 supported by the LXX and Vulg., and by 1 Ch 
 275, if we read with Bertheau and Graf ‘after 
 Ahithophel was Benaiah, son of Jehoiada’ (instead 
 of ‘J. son of B.’), as ‘king’s counsellor.” He was 
 captain of the host for the third month, his 
 lieutenant being his son Ammizabad (1 Ch 27 *-5), 
 
 His special exploits indicate a man of extra- 
 ordinary activity. They are detailed in 2 8 237. 
 (copied 1 Ch 11%), (a) ‘ He slew the two [sons of] 
 Ariel [of] Moab,’ which probably means two cham. 
 pions of Moabitish sanctuaries (Sayee, HCM* pp: 
 349, 376. But see Budde ad Joc. in Haupt’s of; 
 (5) A lion having been, in winter time, driven by 
 hunger near human habitations, and fallen into a pit 
 or dry well, Benaiah descended into it and killed the 
 wild beast. (c) He encountered an Egyptian cham- 
 pion (5 cubits high, Ch) whose spear was like the 
 side of a ladder, ws €UXov dtaBdOpas (Ewald, the beam 
 of a bridge, EV ‘like a weaver’s beam’). Benaiah, 
 
 who was armed only with a staff, grappled with his 
 cumbrously armed antagonist, and slew him with 
 his own spear. These feats gave him a place abova 
 
ae 34 
 
 Bt 
 
 
 
 BEN-AMMI 
 
 BEN-HADAD 
 
 271 
 
 
 
 ‘the thirty,’ and last of the second three mighty 
 men ; the others being Abishai, and probably Joab. 
 It is implied (2 S 151%) that he accompanied David 
 in his flight from Absalom, and he remained faith- 
 during Adonijah’s rebellion (1 K 181%), At 
 David’s request he assisted Zadok and Nathan in 
 the coronation of Solomon (vv. *:*), On this 
 occasion he makes a speech to David, which is 
 re-echoed by the king’s servants (v.*’). As chief 
 of the bodyguard he executed ate (1 K 2%), 
 Joab (v.™), and Shimei (v.*). e succeeded 
 Joab as captain of the host under Solomon (1 K 2% 
 44, 2. (2 ¢ 23, 1 Ch 11%) One of David’s mighty 
 men, of Pirathon in Ephraim (Jg 12"*-15), He was 
 captain of the host for the eleventh month (1 Ch 
 27"), 8. (1 Ch 4%) A prince of Simeon. 4. (1 Ch 
 1538 ® 16°) A Levite singer, in David’s time, ‘of 
 the second degree,’ who played ‘with psalteries 
 set to Alamoth.’ 5. (1 Ch 15% 16%) A priest, in 
 David’s time, who ‘did blow with the trumpets 
 before the ark.’ 6. (2 Ch 20'*) An Asaphite Levite, 
 ancestor of Jahaziel. 7. (2 Ch 31)%) A Levite, in 
 Hezekiah’s time, one of the overseers of the dedi- 
 cated things. 8, 9, 10, 14. (Ezr 10% %-%.43) Four 
 of those who ‘had taken strange wives.’ In 1 Es 
 9%. 31. %. 35, Banneas, Naidus, Mamdai, Banaias 
 respectively. 12. (Ezk 11-4) Father of Pelatiah, 
 one of the ‘ princes of the people.’ 
 N. J. D. WHITE. 
 BEN-AMMI (‘sy73 ‘son of my peoples) the son of 
 Lot’s younger daughter. According to the popular 
 Heb. tradition, preserved in Gn 19%, he was the 
 ancestor of the Ammonite nation, the father of the 
 fey 22. But the explanation in this narrative, 
 that ‘ Ammon’ is equivalent to Ben-ammi, rests on 
 no scientific foundation, and, like the derivation 
 given of Moab in the same context, is based on 
 the resemblance in the sound of the two words. 
 The name ‘ Ammi,’ which is found in the cunei- 
 form inscriptions as part of the title of Ammonite 
 sovereigns, ¢.g. Ammi-nadab, has,been identi- 
 fied with a deity (Dérenbourg, Rev. Etudes Jwives, 
 1881, p. 123f.; Halévy, JA vii. 19, p. 480f.; 
 but see Gray, Heb. Prop. Names, 49f.). Traces of 
 this deity are perhaps to be found in the Heb. 
 names Ammiel, Amminadab, Ammihud,- Ammi- 
 shaddai. According to Sayce (Patr. Pal. p. 22), 
 Ammi or Ammo was the name of the god who gave 
 his name to the nation; and the same scholar 
 conjectures that ‘even the name of Balaam, the 
 mzan seer, may be compounded with that 
 of the god’ (p. 64). We find it (Ammi) in the 
 roper names both of 8S. and of N.-W. Arabia. 
 The early Minzan inscriptions of 8. Arabia con- 
 tain names like Ammi-karib, Ammi-zadika, and 
 Ammi-zaduk (p. 63). Sayce mentions also the 
 Babylonian ony Ammi-satana, and the Edomite 
 Ammianshu. This gives a more probable origin 
 for the name Ammon than the one recorded in 
 Gn 19%-88, which has been said to emanate from 
 racial hostility. The Hebrew legend has probably 
 attributed the foulness of Ammonite religious 
 rites to hereditary taint, for which a play on the 
 names Moab ani on offered an explanation. 
 . E. RYLE. 
 BEN-DEKER (777773 ‘son of Deker’; vids Pixas 
 B, vids PfixaB Luc., vids Aaxédp A. Deker pean 
 means sharp, piercing instrument, as in Talmud). 
 —Patronymic of one of Solomon’s twelve com- 
 missariat officers (1 K 4°). C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 BENE-BERAK (723 32), Jos 19*%.—A town of 
 Dan near Jehud (e-Yehudiyeh), now the village 
 Ibn Ibrdk, E. of Jaffa. See SWP vol. ii. sheet xiii. 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 BENEFACTOR.—Lk 22” only, ‘they that ex- 
 ercise authority over them (the Gentiles) are 
 talled benefactors.’ The word is an exact tr™ of 
 
 
 
 the Gr. Evepyérns, a title of honour borne by twa 
 of the Gr. kings of Egypt before Christ’s day, 
 Ptolemy Il. (B.C. 247-222) and Ptolemy Ix. 
 (B.C. 147-117). Hence RV properly spells with 
 a capital, ‘ Benefactors.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 _ BENE-JAAKAN (jy: 32).— A station in the 
 journeyings, mentioned Nu 33#!- 82 (cf. Dt 10°, and 
 see BEEROTH-BENE-JAAKAN). A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 BENEYOLENCE.—1 Co 7? only, ‘ Let the hus- 
 band render unto the wife due b.’ where b. is used 
 in the sense of affection. This tr®, which is due 
 to Tindale, follows TR riv édehouévnv edtvorav; but 
 all edd. give simply ryv éd¢edyv, whence RV ‘her 
 due’; cf. Rheims ‘his dette.’ The Gr. word 
 edvoa thus occurs only in Eph 67, ‘ goodwill’ 
 EV; the verb is found Mt 5% ‘Agree with (lc 
 evvoGv) thine adversary quickly.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEN-GEBER (733772, AV ‘son of Geber,’ which 
 see).—Patronymic of one of Solomon’s 12 com- 
 missariat officers who had charge of a district N.E. 
 of the Jordan (1 K 4"), C. F. BuRNEY. 
 
 BEN-HADAD (770772, vids ‘Adep, Benadad).—Three 
 kings of Damascus of this name are mentioned in 
 the OT. Ben-hadad 1., the son of Tab-rimmon, 
 the son of Hezion (? Rezon), was bribed by Asa of 
 Judah, with the treasures of the temple and palace, 
 to attack Baasha of Israel while the latter was build- 
 ing the fortress of Ramah, and thereby blocking the 
 Jewish high-road to the north. Asa urged that 
 there had been alliance between his father and 
 Tab-rimmon ; but his gold was doubtless more efli- 
 cacious in inducing Ben-hadad to invade the 
 northern part of Israel, and so oblige Baasha to 
 desert Ramah. Thereupon Asa carried away the 
 stone and timber of Ramah, and built with them 
 Geba and Mizpah (1 K 15'82), Ben-hadad 11. 
 was the son and successor of Ben-hadad I. We 
 have an account of his war with Ahab, and unsuc- 
 cessful siege of Samaria, in 1 K 20. Thirty-two 
 kings are said to have been his vassals or allies. 
 He was, however, signally defeated at Aphek, and 
 compelled to restore the cities taken by his father 
 (1 20%), as well as to grant the Israelites a 
 bazaar in Damascus. At a later period Ben-hadad 
 again besieged Samaria; but a panic fell upon his 
 army, and they fled, believing that the king of 
 Israel had hired against them ‘the kings of 
 the Hittites and the kings of the Egyptians’ (2 K 
 7®-7). Having fallen ill, Ben-hadad afterwards 
 sent Hazael to the prophet Elisha, who had come 
 to Damascus, to ask whether he should recover; 
 but the result of the mission was, that on the 
 following day Hazael smothered his master and 
 seized the crown (2 K 87), Ben-hadad II. was 
 the son of Hazael, and lost the Israelitish conquests 
 that his father had made. Thrice did Joash of 
 Israel ‘smite him, and recovered the cities of 
 Israel’ (2 K 1375), 
 
 Ben-hadad, ‘son of the god Hadad,’ is a 
 Hebraised form of the Aram. Bar-hadad, which 
 appears in the Assyr. inscriptions as Bur-hadad 
 and Bir-dadda. ur-hadad was a prince of 
 northern Mesopotamia, who was put to death by 
 
 .Assur-nazir-pal, and Bir-dadda is mentioned by 
 
 Assur-bani-pal as a north Arabian prince (WAI 
 ili. 24. 10). Hadad, Dadda, or Dad, and Addu, 
 are stated by the cuneiform lexical tablets to be 
 variant forms of the same divine name, the god 
 Hadad being further identified in them with Rim- 
 mon. But it would seem that, like Hadad, Bar- 
 
 hadad was also a divine name, and denoted the 
 
 ounger deity whom the Syrians associated with 
 his father, the sun-god. A Bab. contract, dated 
 Nabonidus (B.C. 547), relatea 
 
 in the ninth year o 
 
 
 
 
 
272 BEN-HAIL 
 
 to a certain Syrian called Bar-hadad-nathan, who 
 had adopted Bar-hadad-amar as a son. As the 
 Jews Hebraised Bar-hadad into Ben-hadad, so 
 the Babylonians changed it into Abil-hadad, abil 
 being the Babylonian word for ‘son.’ 
 
 It follows from this that Bar-hadad or Ben- 
 hadad cannot have been the full name of a king. 
 And the Assyr. inscriptions prove that such was 
 the case. They have much to tell us about Ben- 
 hadad 01., whom they call Dad-idri, the Hebraised 
 form of which is found in the OT as Hadad-ezer. 
 In B.c. 853 Dad-idri and his allies were utterly 
 defeated at Karkar on the Orontes by Shalman- 
 eser Il. of Assyria. The king of Damascus had 
 brought into the field 1200 chariots, 1200 horses, 
 and 20,000 men; his allies were Irkhulini of 
 Hamath, with 700 chariots, 700 horses, and 10,000 
 men; Ahab of Israel, with 2000 chariots and 10,000 
 men; the Kuans, from the Gulf of Antioch, with 
 500 men; 1000 Egyptians; 10 chariots, and 10,000 
 men from the land of Irkanat (Arka); Matinu-baal 
 of Arvad with 200 men; 200 men from Usanat 
 (near e); Adoni-baal of the Sinites with 10,000 
 men; Gindibu the Arab with 1000 camels, and 
 Baasha the son of Rehob of Ammon with more 
 than'100 men. The battle must have been fought 
 shortly before Ahab’s death and his final rupture 
 with Ben-hadad (1 K 22'*). Shalmaneser states 
 in one passage that 20,500—in another passage 
 14,000—of the enemy were left dead on the field. 
 
 Five years later Dad-idri was again defeated b 
 Shalmaneser, and in B.c. 845 Shalmaneser entere 
 Syria with 120,000 men and overthrew the com- 
 bined forces of Dad-idri, Irkhulini, and ‘ the twelve 
 kings of the coast of the upper and lower sea.’ 
 Professor Schrader is doubtless right in thinking 
 that by the latter expression are meant the Phe- 
 nician and north Syrian portions of the Mediter- 
 ranean. Four years later Shalmaneser’s opponent 
 in Damascus was Hazael, so that Dad-idri (Ben- 
 hadad-ezer) must have died between B.c. 845 and 
 841. A. H, SAYCE. 
 
 BEN-HAIL ($1073 ‘ son of might’).—A prince sent 
 by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah 
 (ao Ch17’). (Butsee Gray, Heb. Pr. Names, 65, 231.) 
 
 
 
 BEN-HANAN (3773 ‘son of @ gracious one’).—A 
 man of Judah (1 Ch 4”), 
 
 BEN-HESED (1077;3, AV ‘Son of Hesed’ [= 
 ‘kindness’]).—Patronymic of one of Solomon’s 
 twelve commissariat officers who had charge of a 
 district in Judah (1 K 4%), C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 BENINU (3333, perhaps ‘ our son ’).—One of those 
 who sealed the covenant (Neh 107%). 
 
 BENJAMIN (2133, or more usually jpy2 bin- 
 yamin, ‘son of the right-hand,’ Berayelv).—4. The 
 youseee of thesonsof Jacob. He was born between 
 
 ethel and Ephrath, and Rachel died in giving 
 him birth. As she was at the point of death she 
 named him Ben-oni (‘jix]3 ‘son of my sorrow,’ 
 LXX vids édtvys pov), but Jacob changed it to 
 Benjamin, probably to avoid the evil omen of the 
 name Benoni (Gn 3518). He and Joseph were full 
 brothers, they being theonly sonsof Jacobby Rachel, 
 and he was the only son of Jacob born in Canaan. 
 That he is enumerated by P among the sons born in 
 Paddan-aram (Gn 35*-*) need not be pressed. At 
 the time of the famine (Gn 42 ff.) Joseph insisted 
 that he should come down with his brethren on their 
 second visit to Egypt to buy corn. Jacob is most 
 reluctant to send him, but Judah (according to J, 
 Reuben according to E) answers for his safety, 
 andhegoes. Onhis arrival, according to E, Joseph 
 - makes himself known to his brethren, and gives B. 
 
 BENJAMIN 
 
 
 
 800 pieces of silver and five changes of raiment. 
 According to J, he gives B. a mess five times as 
 large as that given to the others; then brings them 
 back after their departure, and threatens to keep 
 B. as his slave because the silver cup is found in 
 his sack; and, moved by the eee appeal of 
 Judah, declares who he is. At this time B. is 
 represented as quite young, ‘a little one,’ and the 
 pet of the family (Gn 44”). But in Gn 467 he is 
 spoken of as the father of ten sons, who are un- 
 questionably regarded as going down to Egypt 
 with Jacob (Gn 46%), There is no need to reconcile 
 these incompatible views, as the latter belongs to 
 one of the latest strata in the Hex., being probably 
 due to R. 
 
 It is held by many modern critics that B. is not 
 a hist. character, but the eponymous ancestor of 
 the tribe. If so, the account in Gn will throw 
 light on the early history of the tribe. The tribal 
 system, as we have it in the biblical history, is 
 probably not earlier than the conquest of Canaan. 
 Originally there were Leah tribes and Rachel tribes. 
 To the latter belonged the tribes grouped under the 
 name of Bilhah, and the tribe of Joseph. To the 
 tribe of Joseph it would seem that B. originally 
 belonged, but became a distinct tribe earlier than 
 Manasseh and Ephraim, which were always recog- 
 nised as belonging to Joseph, while B. was regarded 
 as, like Joseph, a son of Jacob. But we find a 
 trace of the earlier view in 2S 19”, where Shimei, 
 a Benjamite, ner, of himself as belonging to the 
 house of Joseph. It is also probable that B. was 
 the latest formed of the tribes, except Ephraim and 
 Manasseh ; and the record of the birth in Canaan 
 (Gn 3518) is a reminiscence of this formation after 
 the conquest. 
 
 The territory of the tribe adjoined that of 
 Ephraim. Its limits and the towns in it are given 
 in Jos 184-8, a passage which belongs to the late 
 document P. According to this, it was bounded on 
 the E. by the Jordan, on the N. by a line passin 
 from Jordan by Jericho on the N. to Bethel, an 
 thence to Beth-horon ; on the W. by a line passin 
 from Beth-horon to Kiriath-jearim; and on the 8. 
 by a line reaching from Beth-horon to the N. bay 
 at the Salt Sea, keeping Jerus. on the N. Twenty- 
 six towns are mentioned, the chief of which are 
 Jericho, Bethel, Geba, Gibeon, Ramah, Mizpeh, 
 Jerusalem, Gibeath, and Kiriath. It isnot certain, 
 however, whether all these towns properl belonged 
 to B. Bethel is regarded by Jg 1* as belonging to 
 ‘the house of Joseph,’ and it certainly belonged to 
 the N. kingdom, though this does not preclude the 
 view that it was in the territory of B. The case of 
 Jerus. is somewhat similar. It stood near the 
 border line that divided B. from Judah, and the 
 Jews spoke of the temple itself asin B., while its 
 courts were in Judah. Till the time of David it 
 was in the hands of the Jebusites. There are 
 some indications that before the Exile Jerus. was 
 reckoned to Judah. Thus (Jer 37) ‘Jeremiah 
 went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land 
 of B.’ On the other hand, in the blessing of 
 Moses, the temple is certai ly regarded as in B.: 
 ‘Of B. he said, The beloved of the Lord shall dwell 
 
 by him; he covereth him all the day 
 
 long, and he dwelleth between his shoulders’ 
 (Dt 33%). Jer 6!‘Flee for safety, ye children of 
 B., out of the midst of Jerus.,’ has little bearing on 
 the point. } 
 
 The character of the country was fitted to breed 
 a race of hardy warriors rather than peaceful 
 agriculturists. The level of the country was more 
 than 2000 ft. above the sea, and it was studded 
 with many hills. G. A. Smith has thus described 
 it: ‘A desolate and fatiguing extent of roc 
 latforms and ridges, of moorland strewn wi 
 
 ulders, and fields of shallow soil thickly mixed 
 
 / 
 
 in safety 
 
 
 
BENJAMIN 
 
 with stone, they are a true border,—more fit for 
 the building of barriers than the cultivation of 
 food’ (Hist. Geog. hy 290). This had its influence 
 on the character of the tribe, which is graphicall 
 depicted in the blessing of Jacob: ‘B. is a wo 
 that ravineth: in the morning he shall devour 
 the prey, and at even he shall divide the spoil’ 
 (Gn 497”). And the character of the land helped B. 
 to play its magnificent part in the warfare against 
 the Philistines. Several important roads ran 
 through it towards Judah and Jerus., and these 
 were commanded by its fortresses. Michmash, 
 Geba, Ramah, Adasa, Gibeon, formed ‘a line of 
 defence that was valid against the Aijalon and Ai 
 ascents, as well as against the level approach from 
 the N.’ (Smith, Hist. Geog. p. 291), while Bethel 
 commands the routes from Gophna and Shechem, 
 and ‘a road from the Jordan Valley through the 
 passes of Mt. Ephraim.’ From the E. and W. 
 sides, passes atrike up into the heart of the country, 
 those on the E. side being much the more difficult. 
 Through the western passes the Philistines de- 
 livered their attacks against the tribe. 
 
 The history of B. is important till the time of 
 Saul only. The tribe took part in the campaign of 
 Deborah and Barak “Sih Sisera (Jg 514). The 
 narrative in Jg 19-21 also falls in the period of the 
 Judges, but calls for special discussion. It was in 
 connexion with the Philistine ae that the 
 greatest work of B. was done. The narrative is 
 in parts concise and obscure, so that the exact 
 development of events is hard to follow. But the 
 movement for the deliverance of Israel that proved 
 ultimately successful, seems to have originated in 
 B. The anointing of a king was for the breaking 
 of the Philistine yoke, and he was selected from the 
 tribe of B. aud it was within B. itself that the 
 movement for freedom began. (See SAUL.) 
 
 On the death of Saul, his own tribe B. naturally 
 remained faithful to his house. The ony, of 
 Ishbosheth, commanded by Abner, seems to have 
 consisted chiefly of Benjamites. In the ferocious 
 combat, when twelve men of Abner engaged twelve 
 of Joab’s army, the former are spoken of as 
 ‘twelve for B.’ (2 S 2"), and Abner’s soldiers are 
 referred to as ‘the children of B.’ (2%). In the 
 subsequent negotiations between David and Abner, 
 special mention is made of B. apart from the rest 
 of Israel (‘and Abner had communication with the 
 elders of Israel . . . And Abner also spake in the 
 ears of B.: and Abner went also to speak in the 
 ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to 
 Israel and to the whole house of B.,’2S 3!7-1), After 
 Ishbosheth had been murdered by two Benjamites, 
 David became king over the whole of Israel. But 
 the hate of him was not dead in B. When he fled 
 from Jerus. on the occasion of Absalom’s rebellion, 
 it was a Benjamite of the house of Saul, Shimei, 
 who pursued him with curses (2 § 16°). And when, 
 through David’s unwise partiality for Judah, dis- 
 
 ute arose between the latter and the other tribes, 
 it was a Benjamite, Sheba, who raised the standard 
 of revolt (2S 19. 20). 
 
 Ut is therefore natural to expect that, when the 
 revolt took place from Rehoboam, B. should throw 
 in its lot with the seceding tribes, and not with 
 J It is, however, stated explicitly in some 
 
 w 
 ee es, that B. remained with Judah (1 K 127 3, 
 Ch 11 
 
 12, 3 148 15? 9 etc.). But there are other 
 passages which point another way. Thusin1 K 12” 
 we read ‘there was none that followed the house 
 of David but the tribe of Judah only.’ The 
 prophecy of Ahijah is a little ambiguous; the 
 garment is rent into twelve pieces, of which ten 
 are given to Jeroboam with the explanation that 
 he is to have ten tribes. But the house of David 
 is to have, not two tribes, but one (1 K 117°’), If 
 Levi is patied, and Ephraim and Manasseh 
 
 VOL, I.—I 
 
 BERACAH 273 
 
 counted as one tribe, Israel would consist of eleven 
 tribes, and B. would then be reckoned among the 
 ten tribes. The truth is, probably, that B. as a 
 whole joined the revolt. But owing to its nearness 
 to Judah, and especially to the fact that Jerus., 
 the capital city otf Judah, was, even if not wholly 
 in B., yet on the border, the S. part of the tribe 
 can hardly have escaped union with Judah. After 
 the overthrow of the N. kingdom, the territory of 
 B. largely fell into the hands of Judah, and many 
 Benjamites are mentioned among those who re- 
 turned from exile. The Apostle Paul belonged to 
 this tribe. 
 
 One incident in the history of the tribe has been left for 
 separate examination. This is the outrage at Gibeah, and 
 alnost entire destruction of B., in consequence of its support of 
 the perpetrators (Jg 19-21). The narrative as it stands presente 
 insuperable difficulties. These are chiefly to be found in the 
 account of the war with B. (Jg 20). Israel is spoken of as 
 a ‘congregation,’ and represented as acting 
 one man, unlike everything else we know of the 
 size of the army raised (400,000) is quite incredible, and the 
 incidents of the campaign no less so. B. with 26,700 destroys 
 in two days 40,000 Israelites, but does not lose a single man. 
 On the third day the whole tribe of B. is destroyed, with the 
 exception of 600 men. The date given for this is vague; it is 
 said to_have been in the days of Phinehas, the grandson of 
 Aaron. This chapter presents close points of contact with P in 
 the Hex. Oritics are generally agreed that its representations 
 are on that account unhistorical. But it isa matter of dispute 
 whether this gacgment should be passed on the whole story. 
 Some (¢.g. Wellhausen) regard it as a povt-ex. fiction, intended 
 to throw discredit on Saul and his tribe and family. “The out- 
 rage takes place in Gibeah, a place specially connected with 
 Saul; and that it is perpetrated on a Levite increases its heinous- 
 ness; while the inhospitable character of the inhabitants comes 
 out, not only in their disgraceful conduct, but in the fact that 
 the only man who offers entertainment is not a native of the 
 place. Saul’s tribe consents to the crime, and refuses to sur- 
 render the authors of it. Jabesh-gilead, which Saul had res- 
 cued from the Ammonits, and whose inhabitants had rescued 
 Saul’s body from the Phil., is the only place which did not join 
 in the holy war against B., and is destroyed for this. The 
 details also recall the conduct of the men of Sodom. It is true 
 that the coincidences with points in Saul’s history are very 
 striking. Yet it is difficult to resist the conviction that there 
 must be a hist. basis for chs. 19 and 21, and for so much of ch. 
 20 as relates the extermination of a large part of the tribe. 
 That the whole of Israel took part cannot be maintained; 
 
 ro Judah (2018), to which the murdered woman belonged, 
 nok the chief part in inflicting vengeance. See Moore (Judges, 
 tn loc.), who argues forcibly for the view taken here. 
 
 2. A great-grandson of Benjamin (1 Ch 7). 3. 
 One of those who had married a foreign wife 
 (Ezr 10*, prob. same as B. of Neh 3 12), 
 A. 8. PEAKE. 
 BENJAMIN, GATE.—See JERUSALEM. 
 
 BENO (33 ‘his son’).—In both AV and RV a 
 proper name in 1 Ch 24%. 2, but we should perhaps 
 Pater, ‘of Jaaziah his son, even the sons of 
 Merari by Jaaziah his son’ (Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v.). 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 BENONI.—See BENJAMIN. 
 
 BEN-ZOHETH (no'r73).—A man of Judah (1 Ch 
 4), The text appears to be corrupt. 
 
 BEON (jz), Nu 82°.—See BAAL-MEON. 
 
 BEOR (7\yz ‘a burning,’ Bewp).—1. Father of 
 Balaam, Nu 22° 243-15 J, Jos 24° E(LXX omits), 
 also Nu 318, Dt 234, Jos 1372, Mic 65, 2 P 2%5(Bosor, 
 AV and RVm). 2. Father of Bela, king of Edom, 
 Gn 36° J, 1 Ch 1%. G. H. BATTERSBY. 
 
 BERA (373, etym. and meaning unknown).— 
 King of Sodom at time of Chedorlaomer’s invasion 
 (Gn 14?), 
 
 BERACAH (a9, ‘ blessing,’ AV Berachah).—One 
 of Saul’s brethren who joined David at Ziklag 
 (1 Ch 128), 
 
 BERACAH, Valley (79732), 2 Ch 20% only.—‘ The 
 valley of blessing,’ where Jehoshaphat gave thanks 
 
 
 
274 BERAIAH 
 
 
 
 for victory over the Ammonites, Moabites, and 
 Edomites, who had marched from Engedi to Tekoa 
 (vv. %), The name survives at the ruin Breikidt 
 on the main road from Jerusalem to Hebron, west 
 of Tekoa. See further in Robinson, BR ii. 189; 
 Thomson, Land and Book, i. 317; G. A. Smith, Hist. 
 Geog. of Holy Land, 272; and SWP vol. iii. sheet xxi. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BERAIAH (a:x72 ‘ J” hath created’).—A man of 
 
 Benjamin (1 Ch 8*). 
 
 BEREA (Bepéa, 1 Mac 94).—See BERGA. 
 
 BEREAYE, now restricted to the loss of relatives 
 or friends, once meant to deprive of any possession. 
 Thus Ee 48 ‘For whom do I labour, and b. (RV 
 ‘deprive,’ Heb. 7972) my soul of good?’ In this 
 sense ‘bereft,’ an alternative past tense and past 
 pio with ‘ bereaved,’ is still used. Bereft, not 
 in AV, is given by RV at 1 Ti 6 ‘b. of the truth’ 
 (AV ‘destitute, Gr. dmecrepnuévos). RV also 
 introduces bereavement, Is 49° ‘ The children of 
 thy b.’ (abe 33, that is, says Cheyne, who adopts 
 the same rendering, ‘those born while Zion 
 thought herself bereft of all her children’; AV 
 ‘the children which thou shalt have, after thou 
 hast lost the other’). RV introduces further the 
 very rare word bereayer, Ezk 36% ‘a b. of thy 
 nation,’ of which the latest example found by Ozf. 
 ray Dict. is in W. Hall, Man’s Gt. Enemy (1624): 
 ‘Of soule and bodie’s good hee’s a bereauer.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BERECHIAH (a:3723, abbrev. from 37373; ‘J” 
 blesseth’).—1. Father of Asaph (1 Ch 6”, AV 
 Berachiah). 2. Son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3”). 37 
 Father of Meshullam, one of Nehemiah’s chiefs 
 (Neh 3% ® 618), 4, A Levite guard of the ark (1 Ch 
 916 15%). §, Father of the prophet Zechariah (Zec 
 UV). 6. An Ephraimite chief (2 Ch 281). See 
 GENEALOGY. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BERED (Person).—See BECHER. 
 
 BERED (793 ‘hail’(?), Gn 16).—1. A place be- 
 tween Beersheba and Beer-lahai-roi. The Targum 
 of pseudo- Jonathan identifies it with Haluza, 
 now Halasah, the Elusa of Ptolemy, where there 
 are extensive ruins 13 miles south of Beersheba. 
 The ecclesiastical history of Elusa in this era is 
 given by Robinson, i. 201, 202. Jerome says the 
 inhabitants in his time called it Baree. Possibly 
 this was the correct name, as such a change is 
 not likely to occur in speech, but could very 
 easily indeed be made in writing by the change 
 of j into 7, At Halasah there is a distinct bend 
 on the hills and the valley between them, such 
 as might most naturally suggest the name 73 
 
 ‘a knee.’ See map in Trumbull’s Kadesh Barnea. 
 A. HENDERSON. 
 BERI (3, perhaps="x2, Oxf. Heb. Lex., and 
 
 connected with 1x2 ‘a well’).—A division of the 
 Asherite clan Zophah, 1 Ch 7°°. See BERITEs. 
 W. H. BENNETT. 
 
 BERIAH ("y72).—The etymology is quite un- 
 certain, the root y72 not being used in Hebrew. 
 The root occurs in Arabic in the senses of mownt, 
 excel, be munificent. The name may have meant 
 distinguished, hero, or chieftain. The statement 
 in 1 Ch 7% that Beriah 2 was so called ‘ because it 
 went evil (ayia, lit. ‘in evil’) with his house,’ in- 
 dicates what the name in course of time may have 
 come to suggest, and does not give its original 
 etymology. 1. A son of Asher, and the clan 
 phot rom him. Gn 4617 (P, probably late 
 atratum), Nu 26-46 (P), 1 Ch 7% 8 include B. 
 among the sons of Asher, and make him the 
 ancestor of the clans of Heber and Malchiel, who 
 are mentioned as his sons. In the LXX, how- 
 
 
 
 BERITES 
 
 
 
 ever, of Nu 26% (LXX ”) the clause ‘of the song 
 of Beriah’ is omitted, probably by an oversight, 
 so that Heber and Malchiel appear as direct de- 
 scendants of Asher. In Nu 26%, B. is the ancestor 
 of ‘the clan of the Beriites’ (‘yan nn5yn). 2..A son 
 of Ephraim, and a clan descended from him. This 
 clan in later times included large Benjamite elements. 
 B. is not included in the list of Ephraimitic clans in 
 Nu 26%-37 (P); but in 1 Ch 770-23 we read, ‘And 
 the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his 
 son, and Tahath his son, and Eleadah his son, and 
 Tahath his son, and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah 
 his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath 
 that were born in the land slew, because they came 
 down to take away their cattle. And Ephraim, their 
 father, mourned many days, and his brethren came 
 in to comfort him. And he went in to his wife, and 
 she conceived, and he called his name B., because it 
 went evil with his house.’ The mention of Ephraim 
 at first sight suggests that this episode occurred at 
 the beginning of the sojourn in Egypt 3 but Ezer 
 and Elead appear to be brothers of the second 
 Shuthelah, and six generations are mentioned be- 
 tween them and Ephraim. They came down to 
 Gath, presumably from the neighbouring highlands 
 of Ephraim. ‘Ephraim’ and ‘his brethren’ can 
 scarcely mean the pekerders who lived and died 
 in Egypt. Actual sons of Ephraim must have 
 come from Egypt, across the desert, past Phil. and 
 Can. towns. simple and probable explanation 
 seems to be that the chronicler is using a natural 
 and common (cf. Jg 21!+*) figure to describe the 
 distress in the tribe of Ephraim when two of its 
 clans were cut off, the sympathy of the neighbour- 
 ing tribes, and the fact that a new clan Beriah was 
 formed to replace those that were cut off. This 
 new clan was partly Benjamite: In 1 Ch 8 we read 
 of two Benjamites, ‘Beriah and Shema, who were 
 heads of fathers’ houses of the inhabitants of 
 Aijalon, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath.’ 
 The episode was probably somewhat as follows :— 
 Two Ephraimite clans, Ezer and Elead, set out to 
 drive the cattle ‘of the men of Gath, who were 
 born in the land,’ ¢.e. of the aboriginal Avvites, 
 who had been dispossessed by the Philistines, but 
 still retained some pasture lands. The Ephraimites 
 were defeated, and ej all the fighting men of 
 the two clans perished. The victors invaded 
 Ephraim, whose border districts, stripped of their 
 defenders, lay at the mercy of the enemy. The 
 Benjamite clans Beriah and Shema, then occupy- 
 ing Aijalon, came to the rescue and drove back the 
 invaders. The grateful Ephraimites invited their 
 allies to occupy the vacant territory, and, in all 
 probability, to marry the widows and daughters 
 of their slaughtered kinsmen. Hence B. is some- 
 times reckoned as Ephraimite and sometimes as 
 Benjamite. (Cf. Bertheau, also Eapositor’s Bible, 
 on1Ch7and 8.) 8. A Levite of the clan Gershom, 
 1 Ch 232. 2, 
 
 Beriites.—See under 1 above. 
 
 W. H. BENNETT. 
 
 BERITES (043) occurs only in the account of 
 Joab’s pursuit of the rebel Sheba, in the obscure 
 and doubtful passage 2 § 2025 ‘Joab... went 
 through all the tribes of Israel unto Abel, and to 
 Beth-maacah, and all tke Berites: and they were 
 gathered together, and went also after him. And 
 they came and besieged him in Abel,’ ete. (RY). 
 The MT apparently intends to state that Joab 
 came to the district of the Berites, possibly de- 
 scendants of BrERI, and that all the tribes of 
 Israel gathered together, etc. According, however, 
 to Driver, Text of Samuel, 264, the MT yields no 
 intelligible sense if ‘all the Berites’ is coupled te 
 what precedes; went after (rqn8 382n) must mean 
 to go into a place after any one. He understands 
 
 that Sheba went through all the tribes of Israel to 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 BERNICE 
 
 ——_—_—_— 
 
 Abel, and the Berites—or rather Bichrites (see 
 helow)—followed him into Abel as allies. Both 
 Driver and Budde (Sam. in Haupt’s Sacred Books 
 ¥. OT) follow Klostermann in reading oa 
 
 ichrites, for 073 Berites, after the LXX év Xappel. 
 Sheba is styled ‘ben Bikhri.’ Many others read 
 nn72 choice young men, after Vulg. viri electi. 
 
 W. H. BENNETT. 
 BERNICE or BERENICE (Bepvixyn).—See HEROD. 
 
 BERGA,—Tvo places bearing this name fall to 
 be noticed, along with a third which appears as 
 Berea. 1. Bercea (Bépo.a or Béppoa), a Macedonian 
 city, which was the scene of brief but fruitful mis- 
 sionary work by St. Paul, after Jewish hostility 
 had driven him away from Thessalonica (Ac 
 17°14), It was situated in the district called 
 Emathia (Ptol. iii. 12), at the eastern base of 
 Mount Bermius (Strabo, vii. 26), about 30 miles 
 S. of Pella, and 50S.W. of Thessalonica. It was 
 an old town, whose natural advantages in a well- 
 watered and fertile district gave to it considerable 
 population and importance, which it still retains 
 under the name of Verria or Kara Feria (see the 
 interesting description in Leake, NG iii. 290-292). 
 The Jewish residents in St. Paul’s time were not 
 only numerous enough to have a synagogue, like 
 those in Thessalonica, but are commended as nobler 
 
 . in disposition (evyevéorepa) than they, in respect of 
 their readiness to receive the word preached, and 
 daily to examine what they heard by the light of 
 their own Scriptures ; so that many Jews believed, 
 as well as not a few women of Greek nationality and 
 ‘honourable estate’ (evoxnudywv). When Jewish 
 tealots from Thessalonica came thither and stirred 
 vp fresh troubles, the newly-converted ‘ brethren’ 
 at once sent St. Paul out of the city ‘to go as far 
 ai to’ (ws, rather than #s=‘asit were’) the sea, by 
 which he went on to Athens, leaving Silas and 
 Timotheus behind at Bercea.’ Sopater, another of 
 St. Paul’s associates, is designated as a Beran 
 (Ac 20%). Tradition made Onesimus first bishop 
 of the Church (Const. Ap. vii. 46). 
 
 2. In 2 Mac 134 Bercea appears as the place at 
 which Antiochus Eupator caused Menelaus, the 
 former high priest, to be put todeath. This Berea 
 was the well-known Syrian town now called Haleb 
 ‘or Aleppo; it lay between Hierapolis and Antioch, 
 about one and a half day’s journey from either; 
 it was named by Seleucus Nikator after the Mace- 
 donian city; it became in the Middle Ages the 
 capital of a Saracenic power, resuming its earlier 
 name of Haleb; and though it has suffered much 
 during the present century from earthquake, 
 
 lague, and cholera, it remains an imposing and 
 important city of about 100,000 inhabitants. 
 
 3. At 1 Mac 9* Berea (Bepéa) is mentioned as 
 a place to which Bacchides, after ‘encamping 
 against Jerusalem,’ removed, while Judas lay en- 
 camped at Elasa prior to the battle in which the 
 latter fell. It is now generally identified with 
 Beeroth (Jos 9!) or Beroth (1 Es 5), the modern 
 Bireh, situated about ten miles north of Jerus., 
 on the main road to Nablfis and the north. For 
 description of ruined church there, see SWP vol. 
 ili. p. 88 f. WILLIAM P. DIcKsoNn. 
 
 BEROTH.—See BEEROTH. 
 
 BEROTHAH (nnina), Ezk 4716; Berothai (‘nix3), 
 25S 88, but in 1 Ch 18°, Cun (see Kittel, ad Joc.).— 
 A Syrian city. The first cited passage seems to 
 show that Beirfit is not intended, since the town 
 Jay between Hamath and Damascus. The name 
 probably signifies ‘fir trees,’ and is thought to 
 survive in Wddy Brissa, on the eastern slope of 
 Lebanon, near Kadesh on the Orontes. 
 
 C. R. CONDER, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BESOR 275 
 
 
 
 BEROTHITE (‘n43), 1 Ch 11%; Beerothite (‘77x3), 
 2S 4-3. 5.9 9337, An inhabitant of Beeroth. 
 
 BERYL.—See STONES, PRECIOUS. 
 BERZELUS.—See ZorZELLEUS. 
 
 BESAI ('p3).—‘ Children of B.,’ Nethinim who 
 deg with Zerub. (Ezr 2%, Neh 752;=Basthai, 
 1 Es 5**), 
 
 BESIDE, BESIDES.—These two forms seem to 
 have been used in 1611 (and earlier) indifferently ; 
 ef. Mk 3# ‘ He is beside himself,’ 2 Co 518 ‘ whether 
 we be besides (so 1611) ourselves,’ and Ac 2674 
 ‘Paul, thou art beside thyself’; again, as to Ac 
 26*4, Tindale, who introduces this tr", has ‘ besides,’ 
 Cranmer ‘beside,’ the Geneva ‘besides,’ AV 
 ‘beside.’ Modern edd. of AV give ‘beside’ 125 
 times, ‘besides’ only 8 times, but in ed. of 1611 
 the relative proportion was closer. 
 
 Treating both forms as one word, then, b. is 
 either an adv. or a prep., and the meaning is ‘ by 
 the side of.’ But the side may be reached either 
 from a position that is farther off or from one that 
 is still nearer. Compare Ps 23? ‘ He leadeth me b. 
 (>u) the still waters,’ Is 32” ‘Blessed are ye that 
 sow b. (dy) all waters,’ or 1 S 19% ‘I will go out and 
 stand b. (1) my father,’ with Mt 14” ‘five thou- 
 sand men, b. (xwpls) women and children,’ or Gaule 
 (1629), ‘Oh, doe him not the wrong to look b. him, 
 for if you see him not, hee comes by to no purpose’ ; 
 or Foxe, Acts and Mon. ii. 384, ‘He put the new 
 Pope Alexander b. the cushion and was made pope 
 himself.’ Hence b. expresses either addition or 
 separation. 
 
 4, ADDITION.—Gn 19" ‘ Hast thou here any b.?’ 
 (iv); Mt 257° TI have gained b. (é7/) them five talents 
 more’; Lk 24?! ‘ Yea and b. (cvv) all this’; 2 P 15 
 ‘And b. this, ... add to your faith virtue’ (Gr. Kai 
 aird rotro dé, RV ‘ Yea, and for this very cause’) ; 
 Philem vy.” ‘thou owest unto me even thine own 
 self b.’ (rpocopetves ); Sir 17‘ B. this he gave them 
 knowledge’ (pocé0nkev atrois). 
 
 2. SEPARATION.—Jos 228 ‘God forbid that we 
 should rebel . .. to build an altar... b. (1250 
 ‘separate from’) the altar of the Lord our God 
 that is before his tabernacle’ (AV ‘ beside,’ RV 
 “besides’); Is 434 ‘b. me ( "1y530) there is no Saviour.’ 
 Hence arises the expression ‘ beside oneself’ which 
 occurs three times, Mk 3”, 2 Co 5% (both élornuc), 
 Ac 264 (uatvouat). Compare ‘b. the mark’; ‘b. the 
 real issue’ (Froude); ‘ Like an enchanted maid b. 
 her wits’ (Hood); ‘I felt quite b. myself for joy 
 and gratitude’ (Q. Victoria); ‘A Lyeis properly an 
 outward Signification of something contrary to, or, 
 at least, b. the inward Sense of the Mind’ (South). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BESODEIAH (Avtioa Neh 3°).—Meshullam, the 
 son of Besodeiah, took part in repairing the Old 
 Gate. The name means, perhaps, ‘In the secret of 
 J”,’ a oz, ef. Jer 231% 2. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 BESOM.—Is 14” only, ‘I will sweep it with the 
 b. of destruction ’ (xyxn2, from xpxn tro here ‘sweep,’ 
 so lit. ‘I will sweep it with the sweeper of e- 
 struction’; cf. »» mud, mire; and for the simile 
 Is 30 ‘ to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity’ 
 [RVm ‘ destruction,’ Cheyne ‘annihilation,’ Heb. 
 8,0]). The besom, though used in earlier Eng. and 
 still locally as a mere synonym for ‘broom’ (cf. 
 Lyly, Huphwes, 1580, ‘There 1s no more difference 
 betweene them than between a Broome and a 
 Beesome’), is properly made, not of broom, but of 
 heath, in Devonshire called bisam or bassam. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BESOR, Brook (tv37 5n3), 1S 30° 1 21._A torrent, 
 apparently south or south-west of Ziklag, on the 
 

 
 
 
 276 BESTEAD 
 
 way to the country of the Amalekites and Egypt, in 
 the Tih desert. he name has not been recovered. 
 It is identified by Guérin with the Wady LRazze, 
 which flows into the sea 8. W. of Gaza. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 BESTEAD.—Is 8” only, ‘hardly b. and hungry.’ 
 ‘Bestead’ (the proper spelling is bested, the other 
 arose from a supposed connexion with bestead, to 
 help) means simply ‘placed,’ and that is its 
 meaning here. The Heb. is one word, 7p}, niph. 
 toa from yp, to be hard. Amer. RV has ‘sore 
 istressed,’ Cheyne ‘hard-prest.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BESTIALITY.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 BESTOW (from 0: or be and stow a place) means 
 in mod. Eng. to confer as a gift, but is used in A 
 in other obsolete senses. 14. To place, 1 K 10% 
 ‘chariots and . . . horsemen whom he b% in the 
 cities for chariots’ (RV ‘in the chariot cities’). 
 Cf. Shaks. Temp. v. i. 299— 
 
 ‘Hence, and bestow your luggage where you found it.’ 
 
 2. To lay up in store, to stow away, Lk 12” 
 ‘I have no room where to b. my fruits.’ 3. To 
 apply to a special use, 2 K 12! ‘the money to be 
 b® on workmen’; Dt 14% ‘thou shalt b. that 
 ey for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after’; 1 Co 
 133 ‘though I b. all my goods to feed the poor’ (Gr. 
 yYoulfw to teed by giving morsels, from Ywyuds @ mor- 
 sel), 4. Tospend (without special application), 1 Co 
 12% ‘those members of the body oak we think to 
 be less honourable, upon these we b. more abundant 
 honour’ (repirl@yur, RVm ‘put on’); Jn 4% ‘T sent 
 ou to reap that whereon ye b® no labour’ (xomidw, 
 V ‘ whereon ye have not laboured’). Cf.— 
 ‘Fellow, wilt thou bestow thy time with me?’ 
 Shaks. Jul. Ces. v. v. 61, 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BETAH (npz), 2S 8°.—See TIBHATH. 
 
 BETANE (Bard), Jth 1°.—A place apparently 
 south of Jerusalem, and not Bethany. It may be 
 the same as Bethanoth. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 BETEN (j»2), Jos 19%.— A town of Asher, 
 noticed next to Achshaph. The site is doubtful. 
 In the fourth century (Onomasticon, s.v. Bathne) 
 it was shown 8 Roman miles east of Ptolemais 
 (Acco), and then called Bebeten or Bethbeten. 
 The place intended appears to be the present 
 village EZ B'aneh, which would be suitable for 
 the position of Beten. See SWP vol. i. sheet v. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH (3), the second letter of the Heb. alphabet 
 (see ALPHABET). Beth is the heading or title of 
 the second part of Ps 119, and each verse of that 
 en begins with this letter (see PSALMS). In Heb. 
 
 éth (m3) is the construct form of bayith (ma) ‘a 
 house,’ and enters into the composition of many 
 place-names. See BAYITH, NAMES. 
 
 BETHABARA (ByOaBapd, Heb. 3p m3 ‘place of 
 passing over,’ Jn 1% AV only).—It was east of the 
 river, and a day’s distance at most from Cana of 
 Galilee (2'). The reading in § A B C is Bethany 
 (so RV), as in the time of Origen, who, how- 
 ever, regarded this as incorrect. The traditional 
 site, from the 4th cent. A.D. (Onomasticon, s.v.) was 
 at the ford east of Jericho; but this is clearly 
 much too far south. The name survives at the 
 ford called ‘Abdrah, north-east of Bethshean, and 
 this is the only place where this name occurs in 
 Palestine. The site is as near to Cana as any point 
 on the Jordan, and within a day’s journey. See 
 SWP vol. ii. sheet ix. C. i CONDER. 
 
 BETH-ANATH (my-m™a ‘temple of Anath,’ so 
 
 BETH-BARAH 
 
 Nestle, Baethgen, Meyer), Jos 19%, Jg 1%. —A 
 town of Naphtali, now the village ‘Ainatha, in the 
 mountains of Upper Galilee. (SWP vol. i. sheet iv.) 
 See DABERATH for the early Egyptian notice. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 BETH-ANOTH (nisp-n’a, perhaps ‘temple of 
 ‘Anath’), Jos 15°. — A town in the mountains of 
 Judah near Gedor. It is the present Beit ‘Ainin, 
 S.E. of Halhul. SWP vol. iii. sheet xxi. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 BETHANY (Bydavia).—1. A village near Jeru- 
 salem (Mt 211”), near Bethphage, and at the Mount of 
 Olives (Mk 11’, ef. +12), where was Simon’s house 
 
 means perhaps ‘house of dates.’ It is a small 
 stone village, on the south-east slope of Olivet, 
 north of the Jericho road, surrounded with fig- 
 ardens and terrace-walls. The most conspicuous 
 eature is the tall square tower in the centre of the 
 village, which belonged to the convent of St. 
 Lazarus, founded by queen Milicent in A.D. 1147 
 for Benedictine nuns. There is a vault below, 
 converted into a diminutive rock-cut chapel Se 
 apses cut to the east. This is shown as the tom 
 of Lazarus. A church was shown at this spot in 
 the 4th century, but the ancient rock-cut tombs 
 are farther to the east beside the road. See SWP 
 vol. iii. sheet xvii.. and Neubauer, Géog. Tal. 
 s.v., for the Talmudic notices. 2. RV of Jn 1%, 
 See BASHAN, BETHABARA, C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 BETH-ARABAH (737y7 13), ‘plare of the Arabah’ 
 (wh. see), Jos 15% ® 1822; Arabah, 18!8,—A place in 
 the Jericho plain, apparently north of Beth-hoglah, 
 in the ‘wilderness.’ In the last cited passage 
 the district only is mentioned. The name has 
 not been recovered. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH-ARBEL (5x37x 7°32), Hos 10% only.—The 
 site is quite uncertain. It is said to have been 
 spoiled by Shalman (perhaps Shalmaneser III.), and 
 may have been in Syria. Two places called 
 Arbela exist in Palestine, one (now /rbid) west of 
 the Sea of Galilee (Jos. Ant. XII. xi. 1), the other 
 (Irbid) in the extreme north of Gilead, both 
 noticed in the 4th cent. A.D. (Onom. s.v. Arbela). 
 (See Schrader, KAT? 440 ff.; G. A. Smith, Twelve 
 Prophets, 217, n. 5; Wellh., Kl. rg 123.) 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETHASMOTH (Ba:6acui6), 1 Es 5'*°.—For Beth- 
 azmaveth. 
 
 BETH-AYEN (px m3 ‘house of iniquity,’ or 
 ‘idolatry’ ?).—Close to Ai (Jos 7?), by the wilder- 
 ness (18/2), north-west of Michmash (1S 135), and 
 on the way to Aijalon (14%), still inhabited in the 
 8th cent. B.c. (Hos 58). The ‘calves of Bethaven’ 
 were probally those at Bethel close by (Hos 105). 
 Bethel is prob. meant also in Hos 4 5° (see Am 55) 
 108 (Aven). The name may have been altered 
 from original jie ng ‘house of wealth. See 
 BETHEL, p. 278%. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 BETH-AZMAYETH (Neh 7%).—See AZMAVETH. 
 BETH-BAAL-MEON (Jos131”).—See BAAL-MEON. 
 
 BETH-BARAH (™3 3), Jg 74.—Near Jordan 
 and the valley of Jezreel. Some suppose it to be 
 
 the same as Bethabara, in which case the guttural 
 has been lost in copying. The situation would 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 suit. See BETHABARA. 
 
 
 
BETHBASI 
 
 BETHEL 277 
 
 
 
 BETHBASI (Ba:@8acl), 1 Mac 9% *.—Jos, (Ant. 
 XII. i. 5) reads Bethhoglah. The name has not 
 been recovered. Jonathan and Simon the Has- 
 monzans here hid in the desert of Jericho, It may 
 represent an ancient ‘s3 a‘, or ‘ place of marshes.’ 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH-BIRI (‘x73 3), 1 Ch 4°.—A town of 
 Simeon, perhaps textual error for nix3> na Jos 198 
 =Lebaoth, Jos 15°. The ruin Bireh on the west 
 slopes of the Debir hills may be intended. See 
 SWP vol. iii. sheet xxiv. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 BETH-CAR (79 73), ‘place of a lamb,’ 1S 74. 
 —The Peshitta reads Beth-jashan (see SHEN). 
 The whole topography of this episode is doubtful, 
 for the sites of Mizpeh and Ebenezer are uncer- 
 tain. Beth-car evidently stood above a valley 
 by which the Philistines fled from the hills near 
 Jerusalem. The present ‘Ain Kdrim, a village 
 overlooking the upper part of the valley of Sorek, 
 west of Jerusalem, would be a possible site. It 
 is the later Carem (added verse, LXX Jos 15°). 
 See BETH-HACCHEREM. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH - DAGON (jisrn'a ‘house of Dagon,’ Byé- 
 Jaywv, Bayadi7j\).—The name of two different towns 
 mentionedinOT. 141. One of these (Jos 15“) is in the 
 territory of Judah, in the second of the four groups 
 of the cities of the lowland or Shephelah, and is 
 provisionally identified with Beit-dejan, about 4 
 miles §.E. of Joppa. 2. The other (Jos 19”) was one 
 of the border cities of Asher, apparently to the E. 
 of Carmel, and is not identified. There is another 
 Beit-dejan, however, farther to the N., and perhaps 
 yet others (see G. A. Smith’s Hist. Geog. p. 332 n., 
 
 . 403 n.), indicating that there were many Beth- 
 ia ons. Jos. mentions a Dagon ‘beyond Jericho’ 
 (Wars, 1. ii. 3; Ant. XU. viii. 1). Perhaps this 
 points to a time when the worship of Dagon was 
 widely disseminated, both in and out of the Phil. 
 country. However, the name may mean no more 
 than ‘corn house.’ See DAGON. In the time of 
 Hezekiah, Sennacherib captured the Beth-dagon 
 near Joppa (Smith, Assyr. Disc. & 303). : 
 
 . J. BEECHER. 
 
 BETH-DIBLATHAIM (o'n>25 n'a ‘house of two 
 fig-cakes’?).—In Jer 48” mentioned with Dibon and 
 Nebo, see ALMON-DIBLATHAIM ; the next camp to 
 Dibon before Nebo (Nu 33**-), It is thought by 
 some to be the Diblath of Ezk 64; but this seems 
 impossible. The name (which occurs on the 
 Moabite Stone, 1. 30) has not been found in Moab. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH-EDEN (Am 1° marg.).—See EDEN. 
 
 BETHEL (5xna ‘house of God,’ LXX Bac6f), 
 Jos. Byé7\, BeOi\y ods) is usually identified with 
 the modern Bétin (PEF Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 305), 
 about four hours N. of Jerusalem, on the Nablis 
 road (Jg 21'¥), though the ancient town may have 
 lain farther N. than the present villave (Baed. 
 Paldst.* p. 215). The situation is high up (2880 ft.) 
 in the central range; hence the mention of ‘hill- 
 country’ (Gn 128, Jos 161, Jg 45, 1 S 137), and the 
 use of the verb ‘ to go up,’ in connexion with Bethel 
 (Gn 35}, Jos 16}, Jg 12? 201: 8-1, 1 § 103, Hos 45). 
 
 The earlier name of Bethel was Luz (Gn 28” R, 
 35° R, 48° P, Jos 18!% P, Jg 1% J). In Jos 16? 
 JE, however, a distinction is made between the 
 two places (‘from Bethel to Luz’). Perhaps, there- 
 fore, the spot where Jacob spent the night was not 
 actually in Luz, but in its neighbourhood. * 
 
 *Dillmann, Genesis®, p. 887. Jos 162 might be rendered 
 ‘from Bethel-Luza’; but this wonld imply that Bethel is deter- 
 mined by Luz, whereas everywhere else it is Luz that is 
 determined by Bethel, the better-known place, ‘ Luza,’ then, 
 may be a gloss inserted to accommodate the passage to Jos 
 1813, The LXX has tlie name not here (162), but at the end of 
 ol, Dillm. Num. Deut. Josh.2 p. 539. 
 
 Eusebius, in the Onomasticon (s.v. Aovta), places 
 Luz of Joseph 9 miles from Neapolis, Jerome 
 (Onomast. ib.), ‘in tertio lapide Neapoleos’; but 
 
 neither of these distances can be right. The 
 Talmud mentions some curious legends in con- 
 nexion with Luz: ‘where blue wool is dyed; a 
 place which neither Sennacherib nor Nebuchad- 
 rezzar could take, and where the angel of death is 
 poverlesy: etc.* Another town called Luz was 
 ounded by a man of Bethel in the land of the 
 Hittites (Jg 1%), 
 
 The first mention of Bethel occurs in the account 
 of Abraham’s immigration: the patriarch pitches 
 his tent in the neighbourhood of Bethel, builds an 
 altar, and worships J”. He visits this sanctuary 
 a second time, on his return from Egypt (Gn 128 
 133: J). But the origin of the name, and the 
 foundation of the sanctuary, is especially con- 
 nected with a memorable episode in the life of 
 Jacob. Two divergent accounts exist. According 
 to the one, Jacob encounters the vision at Luz in 
 the course of his flight zo Haran (Gn 281-24); this 
 is the earlier narrative, and belongs to JE; accord- 
 ing to the other, God appears to him on his 
 return from Paddan-aram, many years later (Gn 
 359-18. 15); this is the account of P. 
 
 a. To take the earlier narrative first. 
 composite in structure. The two documents, J 
 and E, are interwoven, and differ considerably in 
 details. In J (vv,!8161%), J” appears standing 
 beside Jacob, and repeats the promise made to 
 Abraham (123 13!*16 J), adapting it to the circum- 
 stances of Jacob, whose words on awaking are, 
 : eh J” is in this place, and I knewit not. And 
 he called the name of the place Bethel’ (house of 
 £il).t In E (10-12-17. 18, 20-22)" on the other hand, we 
 hear of the stone pillow, of the ladder, and of the 
 angels; Jacob’s exclamation is, ‘ This is none other 
 but the house of God,’ ete.; he sets up the stone 
 as a pillar (mazzéba), anoints it with oil, and 
 makes a solemn vow. 
 
 It is difficult to account for these divergences. 
 Some authorities, such as Wellhausen,} suppose 
 that J contained an independent narrative ; others, 
 as Kuenen,§ hold that we have here, not the work 
 of J, but a passage expanded and modified from 
 E by ‘a follower of J’; according to the latter 
 scholar, J probably carried back the consecration of 
 Bethel to Abraham and not to Jacob (Gn 128; ef. 13°), 
 
 6. In the later account of P (Gn 35%-1815) there 
 is no mention of the characteristic features of the 
 earlier narrative. The salient points here seem 
 to be that God changes Jacob’s name to Israel, 
 and the name Bethel is given to the place because 
 God spake with him there. God reveals Himself 
 by the name E]-Shaddai, and the promise (vy.!: !%) 
 is cast into the form characteristic of P. This 
 account is referred to again in 48° P, 
 
 In Hos 124 the vision at Bethel comes after 
 Jacob’s wrestling, i.e. after his return from Paddan- 
 aram, as in P, though not necessarily implying 
 that Hosea used this narrative.|| In the subsequent 
 
 * Talm. Bab. Sota, 466; Bereshith Rabba, ch. 69. See Neubauer, 
 Géogr. du Talm. p. 156. 
 
 + Cf. Beth-Shemesh, Beth-Dagon (Jos 1541), Beth-Peor 
 (Dt 329), Beth-Baal-Meon (Jos 1817), 
 
 t Comp. de Hex. p. 33. The variations which occur in the terms 
 of the promise in v.14 when compared with the other promises 
 in J (Gn 123 1314 1818 2218) are explained by supposing that J 
 here has been worked over by a later hand. 
 
 § Hexateuch, p. 147. The ‘follower of J' incorporated 123b 
 almost word for word in v.14, and modified EB in v.21>; thus 
 vv.13-16 become homogeneous with 2214-18, It will be noticed 
 ve both views involve a modification of J in a lesser or greater 
 
 egree, 
 
 } Gn 359-15 has been expanded by the redactor with extracts 
 from JH, eg. in v.14. The mazzéba and libation are quite 
 foreign to P. The word ‘again,’ v.9, is pot original, but was 
 inserted to harmonise with Guo aslo, It is the second visit 
 to Bethel recorded by HE aad once, perhaps, a fuller 
 narrative, which lies behind the prophet’s words. Kuen. (b, 
 Pp. 228. 
 
 It is 
 
278 
 
 BETHEL 
 
 
 
 narrative E records the command to return to 
 Bethel, where Jacob had set up and anointed a 
 pillar; now he builds an altar in memory of the 
 revelation years before (Gn 351-367), ‘And he 
 called the name of the place El-Bethel.’* Nothing 
 is said of the fulfilment of the vow to dedicate 
 a tenth promised in 28>; but this particular is 
 generally held to have been inserted later. On 
 the occasion of this second visit Deborah, Rebekah’s 
 nurse, died, and was buried ‘below Bethel, under 
 the oak.’ 
 
 Thus tradition connected Bethel with the patri- 
 archal history; and the connexion is a witness to 
 the high antiquity of the sanctuary. It has been 
 supposed that, like many other sanctuaries, such as 
 Jerusalem, Jericho, Shechem, Hebron, etc., Bethel 
 was originally a Canaanite holy place, and that 
 after it had passed into the hands of the Israelites 
 it was adopted into Israelite traditions, and 
 assigned a patriarchal consecration. On the other 
 hand, there is no clear evidence that Bethel was a 
 Canaanite sanctuary; all that the OT knows 
 about its earlier history is that its ancient name 
 was Luz; so we are justified in concluding that its 
 sanctity was of purely Israelite origin.t At the 
 same time, it possessed a sanctity independent of 
 the dedication which Jacob is said to have given 
 it. It was a haunt of angels, a place where a 
 ladder was always fixed between earth and heaven; 
 and when Jacob passed the night there he saw it. 
 It was not so much that J” found Jacob, as that 
 Jacob was unconsciously guided to find J” there. 
 
 The setting up and anointing of the pillar in 
 Bethel is important as illustrating primitive re- 
 ligious ideas. Several of these pillars are men- 
 tioned in the history of Jacob (Gn 31® 35% E; 
 cf. Jos 24° EK), and the narratives give the impres- 
 sion that they were memorial-stones, marking the 
 scene of a divine revelation. But this was not 
 their fea significance. It is the stone of 
 Bethel, not the place, that is called ‘a house of 
 God’ (Gn 28”), the stone being regarded as the 
 shrine of the Deity, and the symbol of His 
 presence. § 
 
 In the Book of Joshua Bethel is mentioned 
 several times in connexion with the capture of Ai 
 (Jos 7? 8° 12.17 JE); its inhabitants assisted those 
 of Ai in attacking the Israelites (Jos 8”). he 
 Deuteronomic compiler of Jos defines the situation 
 of Ai by Bethel, showing the importance of the 
 place in his day, and mentions a king of Bethel 
 (Jos 12% 16 J), 
 
 A frontier town on the S. border of Joseph (Jos 
 16:2 JE), and on the N. border of Benjamin (Jos 
 1815 P), it is reckoned as belonging sometimes to 
 Benjamin (Jos 18” P), sometimes to Ephraim 
 (Jg 1% J, 1 Ch 7%). Lying on the frontier, it 
 must have changed hands from time to time; e.g. 
 
 * That is, El of Bethel ; a local name of J”, pointing to a belief 
 in a local deity inhabiting this particular spot. Cf. the name 
 of the mazzéba of Shechem, ‘El God of Israel’ (Gn 3329), and 
 of the place where Abraham sacrificed the ram (Gn 22)4); 
 80, too, El-rof, the God of the well of Lahai-roi (Gn 1613); El 
 Olam, the God of Beersheba (Gn 2133), Cf. the various local 
 names of Baal. See Nowack, Hebr. Archdologie, ii. p. 9, and 
 Stade, Geschichte d. V. Isr. i. p. 447. The LXX, Pesh. Vulg. 
 omit the first El (Gn 357), perhaps because the expression was 
 not understood, There is no need to doubt its originality. 
 
 + So Néldeke, ZDMG xlii. p. 482; but see Benzinger, Hebr. 
 Archdologie, p. 125. 
 
 t Wellhausen, Composition, p. 82; W. R. Smith, Rel. of Semites, 
 p. 110; Benzinger, ib. p. 376. 
 
 § W. R. Smith, 7d. 4, 187; Benzinger, ib. pp. 57, 3880; Nowack, 
 Hebr. Archdol. i. p. 91, ii. p. 9; Stade, Geschichte, i. p. 456. 
 Thus 5yxn°3 passed into Greek and Latin as Basrdasy and buetylus, 
 the Afflos Amapol, AMos tu~uyo (prob. atrolites), which were 
 worshipped as divine. Curious information on this subject may 
 be found in Huseb. Prep. Kvang. i. 10, and in Photius, Bibliotheca, 
 ecxlii. p. 1062f. Cf. also Lucian, Alex, 80; Tac. Hist. ti. 8; 
 Clem, Alex. Strum. vii. p. 713. The sacred stone of Mceca is a 
 well-known example from Semitic paganism which has survived 
 {n Islam, Stone-worship is alluded to in Is 578. 
 
 BETHEL 
 
 Abijah, king of Judah, is said to have taken Bethel 
 from Jeroboam (2 Ch 131%). 
 
 After its capture and occupation by the house of 
 Joseph (Jg 1%), Bethel became, together with 
 Jericho, Ai, and Hebron, one of the principal 
 settlements of the Israelites. Gilgal was the head- 
 quarters at the first stage in the occupation of the 
 land, Bethel at the second (Jg 2} LX X: dd Tadyan 
 él BacOyaA).* 
 
 In the period of the Judges Bethel became the 
 chief religious centre of the northern tribes. The 
 ark was stationed there (Jg 201%); it was fre- 
 quented as a place for sacrifice (Jg 2°» Budde, 1 8 
 10%), or for consulting the divine oracle (Jg 20'* ™ 
 21°), and the sanctuary was rendered accessible by 
 roads (Jg 20% 211%), In the neighbourhood was 
 the palm under which Deborah the prophetess 
 dwelt (Jg 4°); and, in a late passage, Samuel is 
 said to have included Bethel in his yearly circuit 
 (1S 78), 
 
 The importance of the sanctuary was greatly 
 increased by Jeroboam I. Its geographical posi- 
 tion combined with political expediency to make it 
 the religious capital of the N. kingdom. Here and 
 at Dan the golden calves or steers were set up, 
 and a form of J”-worship organised in accordance 
 with the practice of the popular religion (1 K 12% 
 8t.),+ This no doubt provoked a certain amount of 
 opposition from the prophets; probably Ahijah 
 disapproved of it (1 K 14°). he story of the 
 ‘man of God from Judah’ who cried against the 
 altar of Bethel is, however, much later than this 
 period, so that we cannot be sure how far it repre- 
 sents the contemporary opinion of the prophets. 
 The story is given in 1 K 13 (‘ Bethel,” vv.%* 101 
 82) +t Elijah, Elisha, and Amos have nothing te say 
 against the golden calves; Elijah himself was sent 
 to Bethel by the Lord (2 K 22). 
 
 In the reign of Ahab a Bethelite named Hiel 
 rebuilt Jericho (1 K 16%), 
 
 The splendour and importance of the sanctuary 
 increased with the prosperity of the N. neers. 
 The worship instituted by Jeroboam had the 
 support of Jehu (2 K 10”); but it was under 
 Jeroboam II. that the great Ephraimite sanctuary 
 reached the summit of its renown as ‘a royal 
 sanctuary and house of the kingdom’ (Am 77%), 
 It had its dignified priesthood (Am 7") and college 
 of prophets (2 K 2°; cf. 1 K 13"); the ritual, the 
 sacrifices, the public feasts, attained a degree of 
 luxurious splendour unparalleled before. But all 
 this went along with a deep-seated degradation, 
 moral and religious. Amos gives a vivid picture 
 of Bethel at this period. The sanctuary itself had 
 become the seat of, cruelty and extortion ; the sacred 
 feasts, supported out of the tithes (4*),§ had de- 
 generated into luxurious banquets for the nobles at 
 the expense of the poor (54). Hence the sanctu 
 of Bethel is denounced in unmeasured terms bot. 
 by Amos and Hosea (Am 3" 44, Hos 10"); it is 
 threatened with severe visitation and overthrow of 
 its altar (Am 9! 3" ‘ Bethel shall come to nought’ 
 [Aven] 5°).|| In Hosea, Beth-aven has become 
 
 *The Heb. text here is to be corrected from LXX. The 
 latter, however, is not its original state, for ix) roy KaauOuaves 
 xaiis a gloss inserted to satisfy the dubious 0°337 bx of the 
 Heb. See Budde, Richter u. Sam. pp. 20f., 89. In v.5 o°55 
 is in its right place. Wellhausen, Comp. p. 215, notes that 
 D'22 was in the neighbourhood of Bethel (Gn 358, M32 yx), 
 
 + The golden calves were not of Egyptian but of native origin. 
 For the popular worship of J” under the form of an image, see Jg 
 827 174 1814, 30f, etc. 
 
 ‘ t oe LOT, p. 188; Kuenen, Kinleitung, ii. p. 76 (Germ. 
 Tans. ). 
 
 § See W. R. Smith, Rel. of Semites, p. 229 ff. Gn 2821f. no doubt 
 justified and explained the custom of paying tithes at Bethel 
 (Am 44). See above. 
 
 it W R. Smith, id. p. 470. Perhaps the altar was ‘a pillar 
 crowned by a sort of capital bearing a bowl,’ serving as a kind 
 
 of cresset. This would give additional force to the language ox 
 Amos in 91, 
 
 
 
 
 
“was at times ‘troubled.’ 
 
 BETH-EMEK 
 
 the desecrated name of Beth-cl (42 6° 105) ;* the | angel troubling the waters (v4) is om 
 
 BETH-HACCHEREM 279 
 
 
 
 he desecrated name of Beth-el (41 5° 10° ®) :* the | angel troubling the waters (v.4) is omitted in x 
 
 calf-worship is for the first time emphatically 
 denounced as the very root of Israel’s sin. 
 
 The prophets’ denunciations were soon fulfilled, 
 for Bethel must have been involved in the general 
 overthrow of the N. kingdom by the Assyrians in 
 722 ; cf. Jer 4818. According to Jewish tradition, 
 Shalmaneser ‘carried off the golden calf which 
 was in Bethel, and departed to set it up.’ t 
 
 During the Captivity Bethel is mentioned as the 
 residence of a priest who was despatched by the 
 conquerors to teach the strangers settled there 
 ‘how they should fear J’’’ (2 K 1728), 
 
 The reforming zeal of Josiah was directed against 
 so much of the sanctuary as had survived the 
 Assyrian devastation. The king carried to Bethel 
 the ashes of idolatrous vessels from Jerusalem ; he 
 defiled the altar which was still standing, but 
 allowed the monument of the prophet, who had 
 foretold the overthrow, to remain undisturbed (2 K 
 Q34- 16. 17. 19), 
 
 Among the exiles who returned from Babylon 
 ‘the men of Bethel’ are named (Ezr 278=Neh 
 72) ; and the ancient city was inhabited once more 
 by the children of Benjamin (Neh 11%). In the 
 fourth year of Darius a deputation was sent from 
 Bethel to Jerusalem to inquire about the con- 
 tinuance of the stated fasts (Zec 7?). 
 
 In the wars of the Maccabees Bethel was one of 
 the places fortified by Bacchides (1 Mac 9%), 
 Finally, it was captured by Vespasian in his 
 campaign against Jerusalem (Jos. Jew. Wars, IV. 
 ix. 9). 
 
 2. Here was another Bethel in Judah, mentioned 
 in 1 S 3027, Jos 194 29n3, and 1 Ch 430 DRIN3 Ci 
 for the form 7832). It ismentioned in the Midrash 
 (Ekha ii. 3) as one of the three places in which 
 Hadrian placed garrisons to, arrest deserters, The 
 site is unknown.t G. A. COOKE. 
 
 BETH-EMEK (P5202 ™3 ‘house of the deep 
 valley’), Jos 1927.—A town of Zebulun in the 
 border valley, east of Acco, apparently near 
 Cabul. The name has not been recovered. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETHER (122°27 ‘mountains of cutting’—or 
 ‘of divisions,’ Ca 217)—If a proper name, the 
 famous site of Bether near Jerusalem (see added 
 verse of LXX Jos 1559) might be intended, the 
 hill-ridge to the south being uncultivated land, 
 near woods in which deer might have been found. 
 Bether is celebrated for the resistance of the Jews 
 to Hadrian under Bar-Cochba in A.D. 135 (see 
 authorities quoted by Robinson, Bib. Res. vol. iii., 
 and the account in Neubauer’s Géog. Talm. s.v.). 
 The site was recognised-by Canon Williams at 
 Bittir, south-west of Jerusalem—a village on a 
 cliff in a strong position, with a ruin near it called 
 ‘Ruin of the Jews,’ from a tradition of a great 
 Jewish massacre at this place. See SW-P vol. iii. 
 sheet xvii. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 **BETHESDA (BnGecdd, TR), Jn 5?.—A pool at 
 Jerusalem, by the mpoBaric7 or ‘sheep place’ 
 (market or gate), having five porches or cloisters. 
 In s and L the name is given as Bethzatha (comp. 
 the name of Bezetha for the north quarter of 
 Jerusalem), in B it is Bethsaida. It appears to 
 have had steps from the cloisters, and the water 
 The account of the 
 
 * The LXX points 7)8 M3 as PS M3, and transliterates olxos 
 "Ov, Hos 415 58 105 (8) 124; Aquila renders olkos avwhedods. 
 Targ. on Hos 415 58 gives Sxnva, Oyril, in Hos. (Opera, vol. iii. 
 p- 145, ed. 1638), connects olxos “Qv (=7Téuevos “HAiov) with 
 Heliopolis. 
 
 + Seder ‘Olam, ch. xxii. 
 
 } Probably the Chesil (»b>) of Jos 158° is a textual error for 
 this same Bethel (cf. notesin Haupt’s Sacred Bks. of OT inll.cit.). 
 
 
 
 
 
 B and D, but occurs in A C3, the Vulgate, the 
 Peshitta, etc. It may therefore be thought that 
 the troubling of the waters had a natural cause. 
 The site is not definitely fixed by the description. 
 The Sheep Gate was north of the Temple, but a 
 place where the flocks were gathered for watering 
 may be intended. The most probable derivation 
 of the name seems to be from 71¥3 1°32 Betheshdah, 
 ‘house of the stream’ (see under PISGAH, and 
 Gesen. Lex. s.v.). The traditions as to Bethesda 
 have varied. In the 4th century it was placed 
 (Onomasticon, s.v. Bethesda) at the win Pools, in 
 
 ‘the ditch at the north-west angle of Antonia, one 
 
 of these being the Sheep Pool and the other that 
 with porches, the fifth of which was supposed to 
 divide the two; but this pool was very probably 
 made in the fosse at a later period (2nd or 6th 
 century A.D.). In the 12th century Bethesda was 
 shown farther north, at the Piscina Interior west 
 of St. Anne. It is now shown at the Birket 
 Israil, part of the northern fosse immediately east 
 of the ‘win Pools; but here, again, the masonry 
 is of later date than that of the Herodian walls of 
 the Temple. A more probable site for Bethesda is 
 the Virgin’s Pool (Gihon and En-rogel), the only 
 natural spring of Jerusalem, at the foot of the 
 Ophel slope south-east of the Temple, as proposed 
 by Robinson. This answers the requirements that 
 it still presents the phenomenon of intermittent 
 ‘troubling of the water,’ which overflows from a 
 natural syphon under the cave, and that it is still 
 the custom of the Jews to bathe in the waters of 
 the cave, when this overflow occurs, for the cure 
 of rheumatism and of other disorders. It is also 
 still the place where the flocks are gathered for 
 watering. A long flight of steps leads to the 
 cave, and the débris is heaped up round these, so 
 that it is impossible to say whether any buildings 
 existed round the cavern. A Greek text of late 
 date was found by Tobler built into the masonry 
 near. The name, ‘ house of the stream,’ would be 
 suitable for this site, whence a stream flowed to 
 Siloam. See SWP, Jerusalem vol., s.v. ‘Ain Umm 
 ed Deraj; also Westcott and Hort’s N.7. App. 76>. 
 ; C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH-EZEL (7389 m3), Mic 111,—Perhaps ‘ place 
 near,’ see AVm: mentioned with Zaanan and 
 Shaphir. It seems to have been a place in the 
 Philistine plain, but the site is unknown. Accord- 
 ing to some it is=Azel of Zec 14, 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH-GADER (172 ™2), 1 Ch 25!, mentioned 
 with Bethlehem and Kiriath-jearim. It may be 
 the same as Geder, Jos 1218, 
 
 BETH-GAMUL (73 ™3), Jer 48?3.—A place 
 in Moab, noticed with Dibon, Kiriathaim, and 
 Beth-meon. It is now the ruin Umm el-Jemal, 
 towards the east of the plateau, south of Medeba— 
 a site where a Nabatzean inscription was found by 
 Warren, which may date about the 2nd cent. A.D. 
 
 C, R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH-GILGAL (Neh 129, AV ‘ house of Gilgal’), 
 perhaps identical with Gilgal to the east of Jericho. 
 See GILGAL. 
 
 BETH-HACCHEREM (°}77 2 ‘place of the 
 vineyard’), Neh 314, Jer 61. It appears to have 
 had a commanding position for a beacon or 
 ensign. Tradition fixed on Herodium south of 
 Bethlehem, probably because it was a conspicuous 
 site near Tekoa, with which it is noticed. <A 
 possible site is ‘Ain HK@rim west of Jerusalem, 
 where there are vineyards. On the hill to the 
 east are the remarkable stone cairns which stand 
 above the valley of Rephaim. See SWP vol. iii. 
 sheet xvii. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
280 BETH-HARAM 
 
 
 
 BETH-JESHIMOTH 
 
 
 
 BETH-HARAM (077 ma, AV Beth-aram) was 
 situated ‘in the valley-plain of the Jordan’ (Jos 
 13°”). In Nu 32% Bethharan. Its site has been 
 recovered at Tell Rameh at the mouth of the Wddy 
 Heshbdan, 6 miles east from the familiar bathing- 
 pure of pilgrims in the Jordan. According to 
 
 ristram it retains its old name, and is still known as 
 Beit-Harran (Land of Moab, p. 348). Eusebius de- 
 scribes it as Betharamphtha. Jos. calls it Amathus 
 (Ant. XviI. x. 6). It was rebuilt and fortified by 
 Herod Antipas when he became tetrarch, and in 
 honour of the Roman empress was called Livias 
 or Libias. Merrill (Hast of the Jordan, p. 383) 
 pives good reasons for believing that it was in the 
 palace here that Herod celebrated his birthday by 
 the feast recorded (Mt 14%3, Mk 6?!-28), and that the 
 Baptist’s head was brought hither from Machzrus, 
 some 20 miles south. A. HENDERSON. 
 
 BETH-HARAN (195 13), Nu 32%,.—See BETR- 
 HARAM. 
 
 BETH-HOGLAH (nin mz ‘place of the part- 
 ridge’), Jos 15°18®, In theJericho plain. Now the 
 large spring called ‘Ain Hajlah, ‘partridge spring,’ 
 south-east of Jericho. Close by is the monastery 
 called Kasr Hajlah, occupied by Greek monks, but 
 which in 1874 was still a fine medieval ruin, with 
 frescoes of the 12th cent., since destroyed. See 
 SWP vol. iii. sheet xviii. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 BETH-HORON (ji\in-n3 ‘place of caves’ ?). — 
 {n 1 Ch 7* RV we read that Sheerah, daughter of 
 Ephraim, built ‘Beth-horon, the nether and the 
 upper, and Uzzen-Sheerah.’ Her name possibly 
 survives in Beit-Sira = Uzzen-Sheerah, and certainly 
 the other two places ascribed to her atill exist, 
 with their old appellations but little changed. 
 Their survival and use historical importance are 
 due to their position. 
 
 From the valley of Aijalon three gorges break 
 through the steep wall of the western front of the 
 central range of Palestine. The northernmost of 
 these is the pass to El-Jib (Gibeon), up which, always 
 the easiest approach from the west to the Jewish 
 capital, a well-trodden path leads, in about fifty 
 minutes, to Beit-dr et-Tahta or Lower Beth-horon. 
 {t stands on a ridge, about 1240 ft. above the sea, 
 with the remains of a castle near. Crossing a 
 small wady, and mounting a long and steep ascent, 
 rocky and rough, but with the rock in places cut 
 into steps, the traveller after an hour’s climb 
 reaches Beit-dr el-Féka or Upper Beth-horon, 
 which stands 1730 ft. above the sea, on a mountain 
 spur with a deep valley both to north and south. 
 
 he village is small, but exhibits traces of ancient 
 walls aad foundations, and to the east of it is a 
 reservoir, epearnty of great antiquity. 
 
 So situated, the B.s could not fail to be con- 
 nected with the march and retreat of armies. 
 ‘Throughout history we see hosts swarming up 
 this avenue or swept down it in flight.’ Stow 
 than one memorable battle takes its name from B. 
 (see below). Thrice the two towns were fortified 
 —by Solomon (1 K 9!7, 2 Ch 85), by the Syrian 
 general Batchides (1 Mac 9”, Jos. Ant. XIII. i. 3), 
 and by the Jews against Holofernes (Jth 4*5), 
 It was by B. that Cestius Gallus advanced in the 
 first onset of the Roman armies on Jerusalem, and 
 down its gorge he was driven in rout by the in- 
 surgent Jews (Jos. }Vars, 11. xix. 1, 8). And B. 
 saw the first Crusaders march to Jerusalem; and 
 saw Richard, in the third Crusade, in vain try to 
 force a passage by the same route. 
 
 A further importance attached to the two towns 
 as frontier posts. Both Upper and Nether Beth- 
 horon were either on, or lose to, the boundary 
 between Benjamin and Ephraim, being reckoned 
 
 
 
 the possession of the latter tribe (Jos 165 18% 
 21%, 1 Ch 6%). After the rupture of the king- 
 dom they naturally fell to Israel. The absence of 
 mention of them in Ezra and Nehemiah may indi- 
 cate that they did not form part of the Return 
 settlement, though they must have been close on 
 its frontier. If the designation of Sanballat (‘the 
 Horonite’) connects him with B. (and not rather 
 with Horonaim), this would be conclusive of its 
 dependence on Samaria. But under the Maccabees, 
 about B.C. 161, we find B. described as ‘a village 
 of Judea’ (Jos. Ant. XII. vii. 1), though it was not 
 till sixteen years later that the district in which 
 it lay was formally transferred by the Syrian 
 monarch. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Robinson, BRP iii. 59, with references there to 
 
 patristic and other writers; Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land, 
 210, 218, 264 Baedeker, Pal. and Syria, 142; Stanley, Sin, and 
 . 212, 
 
 BATTLES OF BETHHORON. —The_ Gibeonites, 
 being besieged by the five kings, had summoned 
 Joshua to their relief. By a forced march he 
 obeyed the summons. At sunrise ‘he was already 
 in the open ground at the foot of the heights of 
 Gibeon,’ and the battle began. It had three stages. 
 
 The Canaanites were thrown into dismay by the 
 shout and the sudden onset of Israel, and broke, 
 flying up the rocky ascent to Upper B. (Jos 10°). 
 
 But they made no stay there, and we next see 
 them in headlong flight down the other side of the 
 ridge towards Lower B., while a terrible storm 
 raged, and contributed more to their defeat than 
 even the pursuit of the Israelites (v."). 
 
 It is here that the prose narrative is interrupted 
 by the quotation from the Book of Jashar, where 
 ‘the hero appears in the ancient song of the Book 
 of Heroes,’ standing on the crest of the hill with 
 outstretched hand and spear, calling to the sun to 
 stand still upon Gibeon, and the moon in the valley 
 of Aijalon (v.!2#-), 
 
 ‘In the lengthened day thus given to Joshua’s 
 
 rayer comes the third stage,’ the hiding of the 
 fore in the cave of Makkedah, where they were 
 pnetied while the pursuit of their beaten forces 
 asted, and were then put to death (vv.?%%7), 
 
 The second battle of Beth-horon was won by 
 Judas Maccabzeus over Seron, ‘a prince of the 
 army of Syria.’ Judas, born at Modin, in the 
 neighbourhood, must have foreseen his advantage 
 from the nature of the ground, as he saw the 
 Syrians ‘coming near to the going up of Beth- 
 horon.’ But he trusted more to the help of 
 J”, and, encouraging his scanty host by reminding 
 them that ‘the eet of battle standeth not 
 in the multitude of a host, but strength cometh 
 from heaven,’ he ‘leapt pipes upon the foe, 
 and drove them down to the plain. This was 
 in B.C. 166. Five years later he won another 
 victory on the same ground over Nicanor (1 Mac 
 318-24 789-50; Jos, Ant. XII. vii. 1, x. 5.). 
 
 A. S. AGLEN. 
 
 BETHINK.—In 1 K 8*, 2 Ch 6% b. occurs as a 
 reflex. verb in the obsol. sense of ‘ to take thought,’ 
 “to come to oneself’; ‘if they shall b. themselves 
 
 . and repent’ (15x an ‘bring back to heart.’ 
 See the same phrase in Dt 4™ ‘ consider it in thine 
 heart,’ RV ‘lay it to thine heart’; 30! ‘call to 
 mind’; Is 44! ‘none considereth in his heart,’ RV 
 ‘calleth to mind’; 468 [dy] ‘ ting eens to mind’; 
 La 37 ‘recall to mind’). Cf. L 
 came to himself’ (Gr. els éavrdv é\Owv). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BETH-JESHIMOTH (in AV also Jesimoth) (‘3 
 niovsn, ‘the place of the desert’), the S. limit of the 
 encampment on ‘the plains of Moab’ at the close 
 of the Journeyings, Nu 33”. In Jos 12° it is men- 
 tioned as in the S. of the Arabah towards the Dead 
 
 Sea. In 13” it is assigned to Reuben, the ‘slopes 
 
 15” ‘when he 
 
 
 
BETH-LE-APHRAH 
 
 — 
 
 of Pisgah’ being mentioned immediately before it ; 
 and in Ezk 25° it is spoken of as belonging to Moab. 
 Eusebius places it )0 miles S. of Jericho, and Jos. 
 (Jewish Wars, Iv. vii. 6) refers to Byoiudé in that 
 direction. Some ruins and a well at the N.E. end 
 of the Dead Sea bear the name of Suwaimeh, which 
 is considered as a modification of Jeshimoth; and 
 this situation suits the requirements of the biblical 
 narrative. A. T. CHAPMAN, 
 
 BETH-LE-APHRAH (mpy>n3, AV ‘house of 
 Aphrah’).—The name of a town apparently in 
 Phil. territory, whose site is quite unknown (Mic 
 1°), In the call ‘at B. roll thyself in the dust,’ 
 there is a double play upon words, ‘Aphrah contain- 
 ing a punning allusion to ‘Aphar (dust) and wenn 
 (roll thyself) to ‘py>5 (Philistine). It seems out of 
 the question to identify the pace with Ophrah of 
 Benjamin (Jos 18%). See G. A. Smith, Jwelve 
 Prophets, 383 f. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BETH-LEBAOTH (nin3b nvz), Jos 19° ‘house of 
 lionesses’?— A town of Simeon near Sharuhen. 
 Unknown. (See BETH-BIRI.) 
 
 BETHLEHEM (075 m3 ‘ place of bread ’).— Two 
 laces so named in Palestine are noticed in the 
 
 1. Bethlehem Judah, called also Ephrathah, the 
 home of David, 5 miles S. of Jerusalem. Itisnowa 
 small white town on a spur running out east from 
 the watershed. The inhabitants are Christians, 
 and wear a peculiar costume. At the east end of 
 the town is the Church of the Nativity and 
 attached monastery, standing above the orchards 
 of figs and olives, and the vineyards which surround 
 this prosperous village. The church is perhaps 
 the oldest in existence founded for orthodox Greek 
 rites ; the pillars are those of Constantine’s Basilica, 
 commenced about A.D. 330; the mosaics on the 
 wall above belong to the 12th cent. The oak 
 roof was given by Edward 11. To the north is 
 the Latin chapel, and under this the cave-chapel, 
 in which Jerome is said to have lived while writing 
 the Vulgate. The Cave of the Nativity, under the 
 choir of the ancient Basilica, is the only site 
 (excepting the chapel on Olivet) connected with 
 the history of Christ, which is noticed before the 
 establishment of Christianity by Constantine. A 
 cave in Bethlehem, supposed to mark the ‘inn’ of 
 the Nativity, is noticed by Justin Martyr in the 
 2nd cent. A.D. (Trypho, 78): it was known to 
 Origen, and appears to have been found, in the 
 4th century A.D., consecrated to Tammuz, and 
 standing in a grove, which was cut down when 
 the place was reconsecrated by queen Helena. 
 An ‘inn’ at Bethlehem is possibly referred to in 
 Jer 41!7(RVm), the place being on one of the high- 
 ways to the south. In the Hebron hills there are 
 many rock-cut stables for cattle, which resemble 
 the cave under the choir at Bethlehem, which 
 possesses a rock-cut recess that may have been a 
 mangegs 
 
 Some scholars suppose Bethlehem to take its 
 name from Lakhmu, a deity noticed in the Assyrian 
 account of the Creation, but it is not known that 
 he was adored in Palestine. Under the name 
 Ephrath, B. is noticed in Jacob’s time (Gn 35! 
 48’, if the gloss ‘the same is B.’ is correct), but it is 
 not mentioned in the Book of Joshua (except in the 
 added verse, LXX Jos 15). The name Bethlehem 
 first occurs in 1 § 164. The cemetery is noticed 
 in 2 S 22 and the well in 2 S 23146 The tra- 
 ditional site of this well is a rock-cut cistern north- 
 west of the town. Bethlehem is ill supplied with 
 water, and depends mainly on the Roman aque- 
 duct tunnelled through the hill. The most prob- 
 able site is a well to the south in the valley. 
 
 BETH-NIMRAH 281 
 
 
 
 The family of Caleb spread to Bethlehem (1 Ch 
 219. 24. 51. 54); the Philistines held the city in the 
 time of Saul (2 S 23, 1 Ch 11%"); the well is 
 then described as being ‘at the gate.’ Bethlehem 
 was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11°), and occu- 
 pied by the Jews after the Captivity (Ezr 27, Neh 
 7%). In the 8th cent. B.c. (Mic 5’) it appears to 
 have been a small place, still known by its old 
 name Ephrathah, as well as by the later (comp. Ru 
 2 44), but possessing cornfields and—in Jeremiah’s 
 age—an inn(?). Whether Bethlehem is intended in 
 Ps 132° as a place where the ark was supposed to 
 be, appears doubtful. The birth of rist at 
 Bethlehem is noticed in Mt 2'-56&8 [Lk 24 15, 
 The manger was not in the inn (Lk 27), but prob 
 ably belonged toit. The Gospels refer to Micah (5) 
 as prophesy ing the birth of Messiah at the home 
 of David. 
 
 The city was sacred to Christians from the 
 earliest times, and the first care of the Crusaders 
 was to secure the safety of its Christian population 
 in A.D. 1099, before Jerusalem was taken. It was 
 subsequently made a bishopric. One of the most 
 remarkable Christian texts is that on the font 
 in the Basilica, which is said, with true modesty, 
 to have been presented by ‘those whose names 
 are known to the Lord. The glass frescoes 
 are of high interest, and were presented by 
 Michael Comnenos in the 12th cent. a.D. The 
 crests of knights who visited the church in the 
 Middle Ages are drawn upon the shafts of the 
 Basilica pillars. For a study of this church, see 
 de Vogiie, Eglises de la Palestine, and SWP vol. 
 iii. sheet xvii. For population, see PALESTINE. 
 
 2. Bethlehem of Zebulun. Jos 19", and perhaps 
 Jg 12% ©,__Now the village Beit Lahm, in the low 
 hills, 7 miles N. W. of Nazareth. SWP vol. ii. sh. v. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETHLEHEMITE (‘nnn n'a), a native of Beth- 
 lehem, is applied to Jesse in 1 S 16! 18 17°, and to 
 Elhanan in 2 S§ 21. In 1 Ch 20° also we should 
 
 rob. read ‘onda n'a for MT ‘onbny. See ELHANAN, 
 
 AHMI. J. A. SELBIE, 
 
 BETH-LOMON (Ba:$\wpGv), 1 Es 5.—For Beth- 
 lehem of J udah. 
 
 BETH-MAACAH (npyp m3). — A descriptive 
 epithet of the city of Abel, 2 S 2015, where ‘Abel 
 and B.’ should be ‘ Abel of B.’ (cf. 1 K 15”, 2 K 15”), 
 See ABEL, No. 1. 
 
 BETH - MARCABOTH (nsznpn wz ‘place of 
 chariots’), Jos 19°, 1 Ch 4°.—A city of Simeon 
 in the southern plains, near Ziklag, deserted in 
 David’s time. The site is unknown. 
 
 BETH-MEON,—See BAAL-MEON. 
 
 BETH-MERHAK (py720 m3), 2 S 15" RV, for 
 the AV ‘a place that was far off’; RVm ‘the Far 
 House.’—Stade and others understand it to mean 
 the last house of the city. No town so called is 
 known between Jerusalem and Jericho. 
 
 BETH-MILLO (Jg 9° RVm; 2 K 12” AVm, text 
 “house of Millo’),—See MILLO. 
 
 BETH-NIMRAH (77; n'3), ‘place of leopard.’ 
 In Nu 323 Nimrah. See v.*%, Jos 1377.—The same 
 as Nimrim, Is 15°. Now the ruined mound Zell 
 Nimrin, at the foot of the mountains opposite 
 Jericho. A good-sized stream flows N. of the mound 
 to join the Jordan. The town, with others in the 
 Shittim plain, belonged to Gad; the only city in 
 this region assigned to Reuben being Beth-jeshi- 
 moth, south of the plain. In the 4th cent. A.D. 
 Nimrim was known (Onomasticon, s.v. Betham- 
 
BETH-PAZZEZ 
 
 naram) as lying 5 Roman miles north of Livias 
 (Tell er-R&ameh). See SHEP vol. i. s.v. Tell 
 Nimrin. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 BETH-PAZZEZ (y¥5 m3), Jos 192%.—A town of 
 Issachar near Engannim and Enhaddah. The 
 name has not been recovered. 
 
 BETH-PELET (nbs m3), RV; in AV Beth-palet, 
 Jos 157”. Beth-phelet, Neh 117.—The Paltite 
 (nds), 28 23”, called by seribal error Pelonite in 
 1 Ch 11” 27, was an inhabitant of this place. 
 The site was south of Beersheba, but is unknown. 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 BETH-PEOR (11y5 m3), Dt 3% 4% 34%, Jos 13%. 
 See BAAL-PEOR (Nu 25°) and PEOR (Nu 23”8),—A 
 Moabite town given to Reuben. The ‘ top of Peor’ 
 commanded a view of the Jeshimon west of the Dead 
 Sea, and seven altars were here erected by Balak. 
 The Shittim Valley was ‘ over against Beth-peor,’ 
 and from Nebo the body of Moses is said to have 
 been taken to a valley in Moab, ‘over against Beth- 
 
 eor,’ which was not the Arabah or Shittim Valley. 
 he name of Peor has not been found east of 
 Jordan, but the site is placed near Heshbon in the 
 
 Onomasticon (s.v. Abarim and Fogor). There is no 
 doubt that Beth-peor was named from Baal-peor 
 (my5), the god of the Moabites and Midianites ; 
 and a possible site for the ‘top of Peor’ is the 
 cliff at Minyeh, south of Wady Jedeideh (probably 
 Bamoth Baal) and of Pisgah (Nebo). The three 
 points of view of the Israelite camp (Nu 23) were 
 evidently on the edge of the Moabite plateau, 
 whence alone Shittim was visible; and the view 
 from Nebo appears (v.’4) to have been less extensive 
 than from the other two sites, so that ridges ex- 
 tending farther west than Nebo would meet the 
 requirement. This applies to the ridge above 
 Wady Jedeideh, and to the ridge of Minyeh, the 
 latter being the most southern, and extending 
 farthest west. From it we may suppose (Nu 
 2418-21) were seen Edom, Amalek, and the ‘ nest of 
 the Kenite’ on a crag, indicating a position in the 
 south of Moab, whence Edom and the conspicuous 
 knoll of Yukin (Cain) are seen. The name Min- 
 
 eh is connected with a legend, and means ‘ wish- 
 ing,’ being the name of a deity, Meni (Is 65"). 
 Seven circles, including central altar-stones, still 
 exist at the edge or tne cliff. Farther east is a 
 remarkable circle. with three standing stones, at 
 a place called e’-Mareighdt, or ‘the smeared 
 things ’—evidently an ancient place of worship. 
 Round the circle are numerous erect stones, and 
 to the north a large group of cromlechs. This 
 site, on the same ridge with Minyeh, may repre- 
 sent the old Beth-peor or ‘temple of Peor,’ 
 while Minyeh itself represents the ‘top of Peor.’ 
 To the south of the ridge is the fine ravine of 
 the Zerka M&in— probably Nahaliel or the 
 ‘valley of God,’ and this would be a natural site 
 for the burial of Moses in a valley ‘ over against 
 Beth-peor.’ 
 
 In the added verse of the LXX, after Jos 15°, a 
 Peor in Judah is noticed. This was also known 
 in the 4th cent. A.D. (Onomasticon, s.v. Fogor) 
 as near Bethlehem. It is the present ruin Faghir, 
 north-west of Bethlehem, and, though named from 
 the same deity, is quite a distinct site. 
 
 Lirrrature.—Mem. East Pal. Survey, vol. i., for Minyeh and 
 
 E)-Mareighat, under those names, and Mem. West Pal. Survey, 
 vol. iii. sheet xvii. for the Judwan site. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETHPHAGE (Bn6¢ay}), Mt 211, Mk 11!, Lk 
 19%,.—A village near Bethany, which see. The 
 site is unknown. The name means ‘place of 
 figs.’ See Neubauer, Géog. Tal. s.v. for the Tal- 
 mudic notices, which do not, however, suffice to fix 
 the site. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETHSAIDA 
 
 BETH-RAPHA (x57 n’3), perhaps ‘house of the 
 iant,’1Ch4%, Perhaps not a geographical name. 
 ee REPHAIM. 
 
 BETH-REHOB (a'nyn'3, 3 olkos ‘Paap, J; 
 2S 10%, in v.® ‘Rehob’; ag beinot also Rehob 
 of Nu 13*).—A district of Syria near Hamath. 
 From its situation in the valley in which lay Dan, 
 or Laish (Jg 187+), Robinson was led to suggest 
 Hunin, which commands the plain of Hileh. If 
 Rehob means a ‘broad place’ or ‘boulevard,’ it 
 could hardly be at Hunin. Thomson would place 
 Beth-rehob at Banias. (See REHOB.) 
 
 A, HENDERSON. 
 
 BETHSAIDA (By6cadd, ‘House of Sport,’ or 
 ‘Fisher-home’).—Opinion is much divided as to 
 whether this was the name of two ples or only 
 of one, on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. 
 That one B. stood to the east of the Jordan, near 
 its entrance into the lake, in the district of Lower 
 Gaulonitis, is beyond dispute. It was this village, 
 ‘situated at the Lake of Gennesaret,’ that Philip 
 ‘advanced to the dignity of a city, and called it 
 by the name of Julias, the same name with Cesar’s 
 daughter’ (Jos. Ant. XVIII. ii. 1; see also Ant. 
 XVII. iv. 6; BJ u. ix. 1; m1. x. 7; Life, 71, 72, 
 73; and Jerome, Com. on Matthew, 16%). This 
 corresponds to Bethsaida of Lk 9”, near which was 
 the ‘desert place’ of Mt 144 and Mk 6%, where the 
 5000 were fed. Codex x stands alone, possibly-as 
 the result of an interpolation, in describing the 
 scene of this miracle as near ‘to Tiberias.’ In this 
 neighbourhood also probably lay the ‘desert place’ 
 where the 4000 were also miraculously supplied, 
 whence Jesus sailed with his disciples to ‘the parts 
 of Dalmanutha,’ in ‘the borders of Ma: ? or 
 ‘Magdala,’ returning thence ‘to the other side,’ 
 ‘to B.’ (Mt 1587-8, Mk 81-22), 
 
 As to the existence of a second B., west of the 
 Jordan, on the lake shore, there is great diversit; 
 of opinion; but where such authorities as Reland, 
 Robinson, Stanley, and Tristram agree, there is at 
 least a presumption in their favour. Thomson 
 (Land and Book, ii. p. 423) suggesta that the 
 Jordan may have divided the town, the western 
 part being ‘in Galilee,’ the eastern part being that 
 ‘which Philip repaired and called Julias,’ In 
 Smith (DB, art. ‘ Bethsaida’), it is sug ested that 
 ‘if there was only one B. it was probably near the 
 mouth of the Jordan, and perhaps, like Kerak 
 (Tarichza), surrounded by the river, and so liable 
 to be included at one period in Galilee, and at 
 another in Gaulonitis.” G. A. Smith (Hist. Geog. 
 p: 458) says: ‘B. in Galilee need not mean that it 
 ay W. of the Jordan, as the province of Galilee 
 ran right round the lake, and included most of the 
 level coast-land on the E.’? But none of these 
 suggestions quite satisfies the requirements of the 
 Gospel story. The feeding of the 5000 took place 
 on the other side of the sea from Capernaum, near 
 B. Julias. Thence Jesus sent His isciples ‘ £° 
 before him unto the other side, to B.’ (Mk 6*). 
 John (6!") describes them as going ‘over the sea to- 
 wards Capernaum.’ B., whither they were sent, 
 and Capernaum, were therefore practically in the 
 same direction from the place where they em- 
 barked. This could not be true of B. Julias and 
 Capernaum, even if the latter were at Tell Ham, 
 which is most unlikely (see CAPERNAUM). If, on 
 the other hand, Capernaum were at Khan Minyeh, 
 and B. say at e¢t-Jabgha, the direction from the E. 
 coast would be practically identical, and a very 
 slight deflection from its course by the storm 
 would be sufficient to bring the boat to land in 
 Gennesaret. Again, it would be difficult to prove 
 Uinat the ‘ province of Galilee ran right round the 
 lake.’ Josephus is indeed guilty of confusion in 
 speaking of Judas of Gamala, who headed a revolt 
 
 18%, 
 
 
 
against the Romans, now as a Gaulonite (Ant. 
 XVI. i. 1) and again as a Galilean (Ané. XVIII. 
 i. 6), but nowhere does he indicate that the district 
 of Gamala belonged to Galilee. It is true that 
 subsequently, for military purposes, Gamala, ‘as 
 the strongest city in these parts,’ was put under 
 Josephus along with the two Galilees (BJ 1. xx. 4), 
 but he was careful to distinguish what belonged to 
 the different provinces. Thus he says that along 
 with other cities ‘in Gaulonitis’ he fortified 
 Gamala (BJ 1. xx. 6). Jesusretired to B. on hear- 
 ing of the murder of John the Baptist, and the 
 presumption is that he went out of the jurisdiction 
 of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee. If B. 
 Julias had been in the province of Galilee, Philip 
 would hardly have ventured to interfere with 
 it. But Josephus explicitly says it was in 
 ‘Lower Gaulonitis’ (Bo I. ix. 1). For ‘B. of 
 Galilee’ we must therefore turn to westward of 
 the Jordan. 
 
 B. Julias has usually been identified with et-Tell, 
 a considerable ruin situated E. of the Jordan, just 
 where the river leaves the hills, and enters the 
 plain of e/-Batetha. In the absence of any definite 
 proof, however, it is natural to suppose that the 
 city, ‘Fisher-home,’ stood much nearer the lake. 
 This supposition is supported by the existence of 
 an ancient site, by the mouth of the river, close to 
 the shore, calle Mas'adiyeh, wherein we may 
 detect some resemblance to the old name. The 
 remark of Josephus (BJ Il. x. 7) that the Jordan 
 3 Sei by the city of Julias’ into the Sea of 
 
 alilee would apply to either of these sites, but 
 perhaps most appropriately to the latter. Atten- 
 tion may be drawn to the abounding grass, cover- 
 ing the rich plain, and running up like a wave 
 of emerald over the lower slopes of the E. hills. 
 There is no place round the lake where the natural 
 luxuriance was so likely to call forth John’s 
 remark, ‘now there was much grass in the place.’ 
 The Arab. barriyeh ‘the wilderness,’ or wild graz- 
 ing land beyond the cultivated plots surrounding 
 the town, doubtless corresponds to the ‘desert 
 place’ of the Gospels. ; 
 
 The most probable site for ‘B. of Galilee,’ as yet 
 suggested, is e¢-7dbgha (Heptapegon ?) on the N. W. 
 shore of the Sea of Galilee. It lies in a little vale, 
 bordering a beautiful curve in the beach, E. of the 
 rocky promontory of Tell ‘Areimeh,—the monkish 
 ‘ Mensa Christi,—which forms the N.E. boundary 
 of the plain of Gennesaret. Capernaum (Kh4n 
 Minyeh) to the south-west, and Chorazin (Karfseh) 
 among the hills to the north-east, B. would here 
 occupy the middle position, probably indicated by 
 the order in which Jesus refers to these cities 
 (Mt 112-3). This seems to be confirmed by Willi- 
 bald (A.D. 722), who, coming from Magdala through 
 Gennesaret, passed first Capernaum, then B., 
 whence he went on to Chorazin. Perhaps also 
 a reminiscence of the ancient name is found in that 
 
 ‘of the local shrine of Sheikh ‘Aly es-Saiyddin 
 
 ‘Sheikh ‘Aly of the Fishermen.’ Copious streams 
 of water from the warm springs on the E. edge of 
 the vale served in time past to drive several mills 
 on the shore, being conducted thither by aqueducts, 
 
 | now crumbling and covered with ferns and ivy. 
 
 They also afforded supplies, led round the W. pro- 
 montory, to water part of the plain of Genne- 
 saret (see art. CAPERNAUM). he vale is ex- 
 tremely fertile, and has been chosen by the Prus- 
 sian Catholic Pal. Society as the site of B., for the 
 establishment of a religious colony. The shallow 
 water round the little bay literally swarms with 
 fish, attracted thither by the warm water from 
 the springs. This place, and the coast of el- 
 Bateiha, near the other B., are to this day favour- 
 ite haunts of the fishermen from Tiberias. 
 W. EwINe. 
 
 | BETHSAIDA BETH-SHEMESH 283 
 
 
 
 
 
 BETHSHAN (15S 31° 12,2 § 2133 1 Mac 5°? 12 41) 
 = Bethshean, 
 
 BETH-SHEAN (in OT jxw-nva or ye-n'3 ; in Apocr. 
 Ba:écdy, 1 Mac 5° 1241, or Bedod, 1 Mac 12”, also 
 Zxvddv wos, 2 Mac 12”, cf. v. Jth 3; in Jos. also 
 ZkvObrohs; in some class. writers, as Pliny, HN 
 v. 74, and on coins Nysa. In modern Arab. 
 Beisdn).—A town between the Little Hermon and 
 Gilboa ranges, on a plain about 300 ft. above the 
 valley of the Jordan, and about 3 miles to the W. 
 of that river. The old town was built on the 
 basaltic plain now occupied by the small village of 
 Beisan and the tell or mound to the N. of it. To 
 the S. is a large extent of marsh, between which 
 and the town runs an ancient road leading from 
 the N. end of the Jordan to Jenin. The tell is 
 bounded on the N. by the river Jalud, beyond 
 which the ancient sepulchres still exist. oth 
 mound and plain are covered with the ruins of 
 temples, walls, and a large amphitheatre. In OT 
 Beth-shean does not play an important part, 
 epparontly because, although according to ‘the 
 oldest book of Heb. history’ it was apportioned to 
 Manasseh (Jos 17!+16, cf. 1 Ch 7%), it remained in 
 the hands of its own people (Jg 1%’). After the 
 battle of Gilboa the bodies of Saul and his sons 
 were carried by the Philistines to Beth-shean, 
 and there fastened to the wall (or in the ‘ broad 
 place’), whence they were removed later by the 
 men of Jabesh-gilead (1 § 31°18, 2§ 2134). In the 
 reign of Solomon the city seems to have given its 
 name to a district (1 K 4). 
 
 The name Scythopolis given to this city as early 
 as the 3rd cent. B.C. seems to contain a trace of an 
 invasion of Scyths mentioned in Herodotus, i. 105 
 (cf. Pliny, HN v. 74), or to be due to the use of the 
 word ‘Scyths’ to denote barbarians generally. In 
 the 3rd cent. B.C. Scythopolis paid tribute to the 
 Ptolemies. In 218 it surrendered to Antiochus the 
 Great. About a century later it fell into the hands 
 of John Hyrcanus, but was taken from the Jews 
 by Pompey, restored by Gabinius, and became an 
 jadapendent town of the Rom. Emp. and one of the 
 most important cities in the Decapolis. In the 4th 
 cent. A.D. it was the seat of a bishopric. 
 
 LiteRATURE.—For description of the site—SWFP fi. 101-114; 
 Robinson, Later BR 326-332. For history —Schirer, HJP 
 1. i. 110ff.; Jos, Ant. and Jewish Wars. 
 
 G. W. THATCHER. 
 
 BETH-SHEMESH (wny na ‘temple of the sun’). 
 —Three places so named occur in the OT in Pal. 
 4. Jos 15 2116, 1 S 67, 1 K 4°, 2 K 14, 1 Ch 
 6°, 2 Ch 28'%=Irshemesh of Jos 19, a city of 
 Judah given to the Levites, and afterwards in- 
 cluded in Dan. It was here that the ark rested 
 by a stone (see ABEL), and it was a chief city of 
 Solomon’s province of Dan. Amaziah was here 
 captured by Jehoash of Israel, and the Philistines 
 took it in the time of Ahaz. It is the present 
 ruin ‘Ain Shems, in the valley of Sorek S.E. of 
 Zorah. (SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii.) 2. Jos 19%, 
 a city of Naphtali in Upper Galilee. See Jg 1%. 
 The site is unknown. 3. Jos 19% A city in 
 Issachar. The site is also doubtful. There is a 
 Tell esh-Shemstyeh in the Jordan Valley, but it 
 seems to be too far north to be in Issachar, 
 although its proximity to Tabor would perhaps 
 suit (Pal. Survey Map, sheet ix.) 
 
 It is to be noted that No. 1 is specially noticed 
 (2 K 14") as belonging to Judah, to distinguish it 
 from the other sites. Bethshemite occurs as 
 gentilic derivative from this name in 1 S 6 18, 
 
 C, R. ConDER. 
 
 BETH-SHEMESH.—‘ The pillars of Beth - she- 
 mesh that is in the land of Egypt’ (Jer 43).— 
 The LXX, being written in Egypt, gives simply 
 
 ods orvdous ‘HAlov wédews rods ev “Oy, ‘ the pillars of 
 
 
 

 
 
 BETH-SHITTAH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Heliopolis that are at On.’ The place is therefore 
 On in Lower Egypt. Like Heliopolis, ‘city of the 
 sun,’ Beth-shemesh, ‘ house of the sun,’ is here a 
 translation of Per Ra‘, ‘house of the sun,’ the 
 sacred or temple name of On. The pillars, or’dx, 
 niayd, must be the obelisks characteristic of the 
 worship of Ra, the sun-god. See AVEN and ON. 
 F, Lu. GRIFFITH. 
 BETH-SHITTAH (7»zn n’3), ‘ place of the acacia,’ 
 Jg 722,—In the vicinity of Abel-meholah. It is 
 the present Shutta, a village on a knoll, in the 
 Jezreel Valley. See SWPP vol. ii. sheet ix. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 BETHSURA (Ba:6covpa), 1 Mac 4% © 67. 26. 31 4.50 
 9°2 1014 11° 147, 2 Mac. 13'-22.—The Greek form 
 of Bethzur. In 2 Mac 11° Bethsuron. 
 
 BETH-TAPPUAH (nemrn'3), ‘place of apples,’ 
 Jos 15°.—In the Hebron mountains, a town of 
 Judah (see Tappuah in 1 Ch 2), Now the 
 village Taffdh, west of Hebron. SWP vol. iii. 
 sheet xxi. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETHUEL (5x:nz).— The son of Nahor and 
 Milcah, nephew of Abraham, and father of Laban 
 and Rebecca (Gn 22% 2416-4. 47.50. 9520 982.5), In 
 Gn 28° (P) he is called ‘ Bethuel the Syrian’ (‘27N9). 
 While peaeenuly mentioned, he only a ae in 
 person in the narrative of the betrothal of Rebecca 
 to Isaac, and even then his son Laban is the prin- 
 zipal agent in the transaction." This may have 
 been due to a usage which gave a brother a special 
 interest in the rept tation and disposal of his 
 sister (cf. Gn 3451-3, 2 § 13%), Jos. (Ant. 
 l. xvi. 2) speaks of Bethuel as dead at the time. 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 BETHUEL (Ping), 1 Ch 4”. Bethul (dnz), Jos 
 19*,—A town of Simeon, noticed with Hormah, 
 
 apparently S. of Beersheba. The site is unknown. 
 See BETHEL 2. 
 
 ever means ‘to seek diligently’ as RVm, rather 
 than ‘to seek early’; so Job 85 245, In Gn 26% ‘they 
 rose up b. in the morning,’ the idea expressed by 
 ‘b.’ is again in the verb (0°3¥7), and b. or ‘ early ’ 19 
 the correct idea ; so 2 Ch 36% ‘rising up b.’ (RV 
 ‘early’). Besides the above, ‘b.’ occurs Sir 6 
 (heading) ‘Seek wisdom b.’ (in ref. to v.% ‘ gather 
 instruction from thy youth up’), 6% 51”, 1 Mac 
 452 5 1197, Betime is found only in Bel v.'® ‘In 
 the morning b. the king arose’ (kal GpOper 6 
 Bactheds 7d rpwt). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BETOLION (B Berokw, A Byr-, AV Betolius), 
 1 Es 57,—52 persons of this place returned from 
 captivity with Zerub. (See BETHEL.) Ezr 2% has 
 ‘the men of Bethel and Ai’ 223, and the number 52 
 belongs to the next named place, Nebo. 1 Es has 
 perhaps dropped a line in the Hebrew. 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 BETOMASTHAIM (Ba:rouacbdin, Jth 154, AV 
 Betomasthem) ; BETOMESTHAIM (BeropecOcdip, 4°, 
 AV Betomestham).—Apparently N. of Bethulia 
 and aoe Dothan. There is a site called Deir 
 Massin W. of the Dothan plain, but the antiquity 
 of this name is doubtful. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETONIM (0°3b3), Jos 13%.—In N. Gilead. The 
 name may survive in that of the Butein district, 
 the extreme N. of Gilead. 
 
 BETRAYAL OF TRUST.—See Crimes. BE- 
 TROTHING.—See MARRIAGE, 
 
 BETTER.—As a subst. ‘ one’s betters,’ the word 
 is not used in AV, but the adj. in Ph 2° shows how 
 that expression arose: ‘let each esteem other b. 
 than themselves’ (depéxovras). The verb is found 
 Mk 5* ‘was nothing bettered, but rather grew 
 worse’ (t.¢. made better, lit. ‘ profited,’ dperdw). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BETWEEN, BETWIXT.—‘ Between’ was once 
 used freely with a reflexive pronoun to express 
 that which is confined to two (or more) persons. 
 Thus Tindale’s tr® of Jn 11° is ‘and spake bitwene 
 themselves’ (yer? dddjAwy, AV ‘among’). V 
 has Lk 23" ‘they (Pilate and Herod) were at 
 enmity b. themselves’ (xpés davrovs TR, edd. mostly 
 airovs); Ac 26%! ‘they talked b. themselves’ (mpés 
 ddAnAous, RV ‘ they spake one to another’) ; Ro 1“ 
 ‘to dishonour their own bodies b. themselves’ (év 
 éavrois TR, edd. mostly adrots; see Sanday and 
 Headlam in loc. ; RV ‘among themselves’). We 
 still retain the phrase ‘ b. ourselves !’ 
 
 Between and betwixt were for a long time inter- 
 changeable; the latter is now archaic or local. 
 Betwixt is used in Gn 17” 2315 2678 30% 3157. 90. 61. 53 
 326, Job 9% 36%, Ca 14, Is 5%, Jer 394, 1 Mac 124 
 165, Ph 1%. RV retains all except Job 36” (see 
 RV and Davidson im loc.), and adds Job 4” ‘ B. 
 morning and evening’ (AV ‘from... to’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEULAH (Heb. nba ‘married’ (of a wife)).—Is 
 62+5, An allegorical name applied to Israel by 
 the Deutero-Isaiah. She was no longer to be a 
 wife deserted by God, as she had been during the 
 Captivity, but married (1) to God, (2) by a strange 
 application of the figure, to her own sons. In 
 
 os 1. 2 the figure in its first application is re- 
 versed. There it is used to point out the faithless- 
 ness of Israel to her Spouse. F. H. Woops. 
 
 ] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BETHUL (inj), Jos 19.—See BETHUEL. 
 
 BETHULIA (Batrovdovd), Jth 4&7 G1. 18.14 71.7 
 10. 13. 31 131° __A town near Dothan, on a hill over- 
 looking the nee: with springs in the valley. The 
 site was unknown in later times, and Veal at 
 Safed, in Galilee, in the Middle Ages. The village 
 of Mithilieh answers in position to these require- 
 ments, being south of Dothan, on a hill at the 
 edge of the plain. See SWP vol. ii. sheet xi. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETH-ZACHARIAS (Ba:0faxapid), 1 Mac 6? 33, — 
 A village on the mountain pass, south of Jerusalem 
 and west of Bethlehem, now the ruin Beit Skaria. 
 See SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BETH-ZUR (ns7'3), ‘house of rock,’ Jos 15%, 
 1S 307 (in LXX), 1 Ch 2*, 2 Ch 11’, Neh 
 318. The Bethsura of 1 Mac 4” etc. A town of 
 Judah in the Hebron mountains, fortified by 
 Rehoboam, and still important after the Captivity. 
 Judas Maccabeeus here defeated the Greeks under 
 Lysias in 165 B.c. The present ruined site, Beit 
 Sur, on a cliff west of the Hebron road, near 
 Halhul, is remarkable for a ruined tower, prob- 
 ably built in the 12th cent. A.D., and for more 
 ancient rock-cut tombs. See SWP vol. iii. sheet 
 xxi. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BETIMES is ‘in good time,’ as Pr 13% ‘he that 
 loveth him [his son] chasteneth him b.’ (i.e. in early 
 life) ; the Heb. is 1p: ‘nq¥,t lit. ‘visits him [qi- 
 gently] with chastisement,’ the idea expressed by 
 ‘ betimes’ being contained in the verb, which how- 
 
 * In Gn 2450 the words ‘and Bethuel’ were probably inserted 
 
 sy RB. See Ball’s note in Haupt’s Heb. OT. 
 ¢ On this double accus. see Davidson, Syntaz, § 77. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BEWAIL as a reflex. verb occurs only Jer 4% 
 ‘the daughter of Zion that b*™ herself’ (np; [all], 
 ‘to breathe,’ hithp. ‘ gasp for breath,’ as RV). In 
 Lk 8° 23” the meaning is ‘to beat the breast in 
 grief (xdwrouat, used without an obj. in Mt 11!" ‘ye 
 have not lamented,’ RV ‘did not mourn,’ and 
 24). See MOURNING. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BEWITCH 
 
 BEWITCH.—Ac 8° ‘Simon .. . used sorcery, 
 and b% the people’ (élornmu, RV ‘amazed’ as fre- 
 uently, and as AV in v.¥; but see BESIDE) ; so 8". 
 n Gal 3! ‘O foolish Galatians, who hath b® you ?’ 
 (RV ‘did b. you?’); the Gr. is Bacxalyw, ‘ to speak 
 evil of,’ next ‘ bring evil on,’ and so, as here, ‘lead 
 into evil’ (see Lightfoot, ad loc.); it is used here 
 only in NT, but in LXX Dt 28% (for py), Sir 
 14°8, Bewitching.— Wis 4"? ‘the b. of naughtiness’ 
 (Bacxavla gavddérnros, Vulg. fascinatio). It seems 
 probable that in all these passages (as in 4 Mac 
 178 215, Bacxavla) the reference is more or less con- 
 sciously to ‘the evil eye’ (cf. Bdcxavos for py y2 Pr 23° 
 282), See DIVINATION, EYE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEWRAY, distinct in origin and meaning from 
 ‘betray,’ is to reveal, disclose. Cf. Adams, Works, 
 ii. 238 ‘Well may he be hurt... . and die, that 
 will not bewray his disease, lest he betray his 
 credit.’ Pr 29% ‘he heareth cursing, and bewray- 
 eth it not’ (RV ‘he heareth the adjuration and 
 uttereth nothing,’ wan ‘shew,’ ‘tell’); 27° (x7 
 ‘proclaim,’ so RVm, but RV ‘encountereth’ from 
 wy ‘light upon’); Is 16° ‘hide the outcasts; b. 
 not him that wandereth’ (nb: ‘ uncover,’ ‘ reveal’ ; 
 Amer. RV ‘betray.’ Sir 27" ‘if thou b@* his 
 secrets’ (dwroxadtrrw ; #0 27%); Mt 26" thy speech 
 be thee’ (d9\4v oe woet, ‘makes thee manifest’). 
 Bewrayer, only 2 Mac 4! ‘a b. of the money, and 
 of his country’ (évdelxrys, ‘one who reveals,’ RV 
 ‘who had given information of the money, and 
 had betrayed his country ’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEYOND.—1. This is in AV the occasional 
 rendering of Heb. x3ya be'ébher, which, when 
 attached to 125 ‘the Jordan’ (as it alwaysis, except 
 Jg 118, 1 S 31’, Jer 252) assumes considerable criti- 
 cal importance. In AV j72 sae is tr’ ‘ beyond 
 Jordan’ in Gn 50! 4, Dt 3% 2%, Jos 9!° 138, Jg 51’; 
 ‘on this side J.’ Dt 12-5 38 44 47, Jos 14-159! 197 297; 
 ‘on the other side J.’ Dt 11”, Jos 2!° 77 12} 224 242 
 814.15, Jo 10°, 1S 317; and ‘on the side of J.’ Jos 5}. 
 RV gives ‘beyond J.’in every place. Again 73yp 
 is used with pryp, Nu 22! 321% 19 82 3415 354, Jos 13% 
 148 175 187 227, Jg 7*; and the simple 13y Dt 4” 
 (AV ‘on this side’), Jos 137 (AV ‘on the other 
 side’). Nowitis true that the phrase may equally 
 well be tr. ‘across J.’; itis also true that it is used 
 of either side of the Jordan (cf. Dt 3° east, with 
 3%. 25 west); it even seems that ‘beyond Jordan’ 
 may be used of that side of the Jordan on which 
 the writer himself stands (Jos 5! 9! 127); but the 
 critical importance of the phrase lies in this, that 
 wherever the author of Deut. speaks in his own 
 person (as Dt 1) 5 44- @ 4. ©) it refers to the country 
 east of Jordan; wherever Moses is introduced as 
 the speaker (as Dt 3% * 11%) it refers to the west.* 
 From which the conclusion is drawn that the 
 author (at least of Deut.) must have lived after 
 Moses’ day, from whom he is careful to distinguish 
 himself. 
 
 LiITERATURE.—Green, Higher Criticism of the Pent. p. 50; 
 Douglas, Why I still believe that Moses wrote Deut. p. 30, and 
 Lex Mosaica, p.95; Perowne, Contemp. Rev. Jan. 1888, p. 143 f.; 
 Driver, Deut. p. xliif.; Harper, Deut. p. 4f. 
 
 2. To go beyond=to circumvent, 1 Th 4° ‘that 
 uo man go b. and defraud his brother’ (vrepBalvw, 
 RY ‘ transgress,’ RVm ‘ overreach’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BEZAANANNIM (Jos 19% RVm).—ZAANANNIM. 
 
 BEZAI (‘s3).—4. One of those who sealed the 
 covenant (Neh 104). 2. The eponym of a family 
 
 * The only exception is Dt 38, where, although in a passage 
 attributed to Moses, ‘ beyond Jordan’ means the land of Moab ; 
 but ‘the long archmological note’ in which the phrase occurs 
 is held to be a comment of the writer’s or of some editor, not 
 original to Moses. See Harper, Deut. p. 6. 
 
 BEZER 285 
 
 that returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2”, Neh 72) 
 Bassai of 1 Es 51%, 
 
 BEZALEL (bxya, Becedefr, Beseleel, AV Bezaleel). 
 —1. The chief architect of the tabernacle. The 
 name occurs only in the narrative of the Priests’ 
 Code and in the Bk of Chron. (1 Ch 2”, 2 Ch 
 1°). It probably signifies ‘in the shadow (i.e. 
 under the protection) of El.’* In both the sources 
 named, B. is given as ‘the son of Uri, the son of 
 Hur, of the tribe of Judah.’ The various links in 
 the genealogical chain will be found in 1 Ch 28-19% 
 %.50, There is no ground for identifying the grand- 
 father of B. with Hur, the companion of Moses 
 (Ex 17°). According to P’s representation, B. was 
 expressly called (o¥3 ‘nx7R) by J” (Ex 31?) to super- 
 intend the erection of the ‘tent of meeting,’ and 
 endowed with the special gifts required for the 
 proper execution of his task (vv.*°). He was also 
 charged with the construction of the furniture for 
 court and tabernacle, as well as with the prepara- 
 tion of the priestly garments, and of the necessary 
 oil and incense. Yet while B. is represented as, in 
 the main, merely carrying out the Divine in- 
 structions, he is also said to be endowed with 
 originality of invention as regards details (Ex 31 4 
 35°). Among the gifts thus bestowed upon him, not 
 the least was the gift of teaching the arts of which 
 he was himself a master, to his subordinates (Ex 
 35), the chief of whom was Aholiab (Ex 318 35 
 etc.). See TABERNACLE. 2. B. occurs in Ezr 10” 
 as one of the eight sons of Pahath-moab that had 
 married foreign wives in the days of Ezra. 
 
 A. R. 8. KENNEDY. 
 
 BEZEK (p}3).—Two places so called are perhaps 
 to be distinguished in OT. 14. Jg 15. place 
 attacked by Judah after Joshua’s bens, probably 
 Bezkah, a ruin W. of Jerusalem, in the lower hills. 
 SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. 2. 1S 118, where Sau) 
 
 athered Israel before advancing on Jabesh-gilead. 
 
 The most pee. site in this connexion is the ruin 
 
 Ibzik, N.E. of Shechem, opposite Jabesh. This site 
 
 was known in the 4th cent. A.D. (Onomasticon, s.v. 
 
 Bezec), but identified with No. 1. It was 17 Rom. 
 
 miles from Shechem, on the road to Scythopolis 
 (Beisfn), which is correct. (See Moore on Jg 1°.) 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 BEZER (1y3 ‘ fortress ’).—A descendant of Asher 
 (1 Ch 7%). 
 
 BEZER (7y3, Bécop).—A city belonging to Reuben, 
 situated ‘in the wilderness, on the wp,’ or flat 
 table-land, E. of Jordan (Dt 4%, Jos 208), a city of 
 refuge (dl.cc.), allotted, according to P, to the 
 
 Merarites (Jos 2195, whence 1 Ch 67%(®). It is 
 mentioned also by Mesha’ (Moab. Stone, 1. 27), 
 as ais in ruins in his day, and as having been 
 rebuilt by him, after his revolt from Ahab, and ex- 
 pulsion of the Israelites from the territory N. of the 
 Arnon (which, though assigned formally to Reuben, 
 was occupied by the Moabites; see MOAB). From 
 its being described as being in the ‘ wilderness’ (cf. 
 Dt 2°)—+.e. in the great rolling plains of grass or 
 scrub stretching out on the E. of Moab (Tristram, 
 Moab, pp. 148, 169)—it may be inferred that it was 
 efenated towards the E. border of the Moabite 
 table-land. The site has not yet been recovered. 
 Euseb. (Onom. 232) identifies it wrongly with 
 Boorpa, in Bashan, the capital of the later province 
 of ‘Arabia’ (G. A. Smith, Geogr. 624). Kusr 
 Bshér, which has been suggested, about 15 miles 
 S.E. of Dhiban (see the map in PEFS¢ 1895, p. 
 204), is too far to the S., being on the S. side ot 
 the Arnon, and consequently not in the territory 
 of Reuben at all (Jos 1315): the name, moreover, 
 
 * Cf. Sil-Bél, a king of Gaza in the time of Sennacherib and 
 
 his successors, see COZ under Jos 1122; also Ina-silli-Bél, 
 Ges, Lex.12), 
 
 
 
BEZETH 
 
 does not correspond ana mig as it ought to do. 
 Bezer is not improbably identical with Bozrah 
 (LXX Boodp), one of the cities in the possession of 
 Moab. mentioned by Jer (48%), and also, it is 
 implied (7.™), situated on the ‘table-land.’ 
 8. R. DRIVER. 
 BEZETH (Bn{é6), 1 Mac 7!°.—A place apparently 
 near Jerus. Jos. calls it Bethzetho (Ant. XII. x. 2), 
 and mentions it as a village. The situation is 
 doubtful. It may be a corruption for Berzetho. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 BIBLE.— 
 
 A. Internal Relations of the Bible. 
 I. Names. 
 II. Original Languages. 
 III. Division and Arrangement. 
 IV. Canon. 
 i. OT Canon and Criticism 
 ii. NT Canon, 
 V. Text. 
 VI. Versions. 
 B. External Relations of the Bible. 
 1. The Literature of other Religions. 
 Il. The Bible in relation to this Literature. 
 i. Revelation. 
 fi. Inspiration. 
 
 A word or two of explanation may be desirable 
 as to the purpose which the article ‘Bible’ in a 
 Bible Dictionary is intended to fulfil. Its design 
 is twofold, according as it has in view the internal 
 or the external relations of the sacred volume. 
 The whole Dictionary being intended to explain 
 the form and illustrate the contents of the B., the 
 special article should, as far as may be, afford the 
 means of gathering the information thus supplied 
 into the unity of a system, of exhibiting it in 
 topical rather than alphabetical order, so that the 
 usefulness of a systematic work may be, to some 
 extent, combined with the convenience of the 
 lexical arrangement. In particular, the article 
 should give, in an abridged and ordered form, an 
 account of the various parts of which the Bible 
 consists, and the various forms in which it has 
 appeared, including such subjects as Canon, Text, 
 aed Versions, referring to the special articles so 
 entitled for details. In this way it will be of use 
 to those who desire no more than an outline or 
 summary of these subjects, or who wish to under- 
 stand their mutual relations. It should include, of 
 course, the particulars respecting the B. as a 
 whole, such as its names and arrangement. 
 Having thus, in the first part, surveyed- its in- 
 ternal relations, the article should proceed in 
 the second part to consider the B. as one of 
 the sacred literatures of the world, its claims to 
 uniqueness and authority, its reception in the 
 Christian Church, and the position accorded to it 
 there. Into the two divisions thus indicated, the 
 present article will fall. 
 
 A. INTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 I. NAMES.—The word ‘Bible’ is derived from 
 the Greek. Ancient books were written upon the 
 Byblus or Papyrus reed, and from this custom 
 naturally came the Gr. name f/f)os (Mt 1), in the 
 diminutive form f.8\loy (Lk 4!”) for a book. As 
 the recognised records of Divine Revelation, the 
 writings which made up their sacred volume 
 became known to the Greek Christians as ra 
 fit\la, ‘the books’ par excellence. This ex- 
 pression is said to a be for the first time in this 
 connexion in the 2nd Epistle (14*) falsely attributed 
 to Clement of Rome, and written probably towards 
 the middle of the 2nd cent.; but the word 
 afterwards became very common, though generally 
 qualified by an adjective such as ‘holy,’ ‘divine,’ 
 ‘canonical.’ In its Latin form, however, by a 
 misunderstanding in which there is not a little 
 significance, the neuter plural ‘biblia’ (gen. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 
 
 bibliorum) came to be regarded and treated as a 
 fem. sing. (gen. iblie), the transition being uo 
 doubt assisted by the ars conception of the B. 
 as the one utterance of God rather than as the 
 multiplicity of voices speaking for Him. As a 
 singular name, accordingly, it has been adopted 
 into the language of the Western Church, and is 
 employed in the tongues of modern Europe. 
 
 nother name, ‘ Bibliotheca,’ appears to have 
 been commonly used for the B. throughout the 
 Middle Ages, as evidenced by the paronomasia— 
 ‘ Habeo bibliothecam in mea bibliotheca’—which 
 was then current. It appears with this meaning 
 in old English, and was technically employed by 
 medieval writers to designate a complete MS of 
 OT and NT. When originally used by certain 
 of the Lat. Fathers, such as Jerome, the adjective 
 ‘Divina’ had been prefixed to ‘ Bibliotheca,’ but 
 this was ere long dispensed with, and, as in the 
 case of ‘the Books,’ the Scriptures became pre- 
 eminently ‘the Library.’ This change of the 
 point of view from plurality to unity is, as we 
 shall see afterwards, preciaely aa which modern 
 thought and investigation find it necessary~ to 
 some extent to reverse. But it is interesting to 
 observe the process thus embodying itself in 
 language. 
 
 The names employed in OT and in the Apocr. 
 for the Jewish Scriptures are such as ‘the books’ 
 (Dn 92), ‘the holy books’ (1 Mac 12°), ‘ the book of 
 the law’ (1 Mac 15 34), ‘the book of the testa- 
 ment’ (1 Mac 1°”), In the NT the usual term is at 
 ypagpal, ‘the Scriptures’ (Lat. scriptura), that is, 
 the sacred writings (Mt 21% 22”, Lk 24%, Jn 5%, 
 Ac 18%). It is to be noted, that while the 
 Jewish Scriptures as a whole are thus designated, 9 
 ypag%, in the singular, is always used for a special 
 passage (Lk 4%, Jn 20°, Ja 28), and not as with us, - 
 by whom Scripture is employed perhaps even more 
 frequently in the collective than in the special 
 sense. ccasionally for the simple ai ypagal we 
 find ypadat dylac (Ro 1%) or 7a lepa ypdéupara (2 Ti 
 3), Another variant is when the leading (Jewish) 
 divisions of OT are indicated, as ‘the law, the 
 prophets and the psalms’ (Lk 24), ‘the law and 
 the prophets’ (Ac 28%), ‘the law’ (Jn 12%). The 
 same practice is also common in rabbinical writ- 
 ings, though sometimes, instead of the divisions, 
 the number of the books is given, and the OT is 
 known as ‘The Twenty-four’; sometimes, again, 
 the simple term ‘The Reading’ is employed, 
 which, in contrast with ai ypa¢al, reminds us of 
 the use of the Scriptures in the services of the 
 synagogue. By the early Christians the most 
 commn designation for the whole B. was ‘The 
 Scriptures,’ accompanied as a rule by some such 
 adjective as in the case of Biblia. 
 
 he term ‘Testament,’ in the expression ‘ Old 
 and New Testaments,’ applied to the two great 
 divisions of the B., has an interesting history. 
 There can be no doubt that it is due to an acci- 
 dental mistranslation of d.a67jxn, which, originally 
 meaning ‘arrangement’ or ‘disposition,’ came 
 to signify a testament or will. But in the LXX 
 the word was adopted as the tr. of the Heb. na or 
 ‘covenant,’ and the ‘new covenant’ was in due . 
 time expressed by the same term. St. Paul speaks 
 of the Heb. Scriptures read in the synagogue as 
 the ‘old covenant’ (2 Co 3% RV), and of the 
 ministers of Christ as ‘ministers of a new covenant’ 
 (2 Co 38). Only in He 961” is it possible to main- 
 tain that the sense of testamentary disposition 18 
 more probable than that of covenant. By the 
 end of the 2nd cent., accordingly, we find i 
 madarh diabijxn, the old covenant, and 4 xawh 
 diabijKn, the new covenant, the established expres- 
 sions for the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. 
 Origen, in the beginning of the 3rd cent., 
 
 
 
BIBLE 
 
 BIBLE 287 
 
 
 
 mentions ‘ the divine Scriptures, the so-called Old 
 and New Covenants’ (De Princip. iv. 1). 
 
 In the Latin rendering of di:a07«n there was at 
 first some hesitation between instrwmentum and 
 testamentum, both legal terms, the former de- 
 noting any authoritative or official document; the 
 latter, as already indicated, meaning ‘will’ or 
 ‘disposition’ (of property). Instruwmentum is 
 referred to by Tertullian as being used in Africa; 
 but the other, through the authority of the Vulg., 
 — into more general use. When in the Vulg. 
 
 erome is translating directly from the Heb., he 
 uses fedus or pactum for the Heb. bérith; but 
 when, as in T and in certain portions of 
 OT, he is revising the Old Lat. Version, he 
 allows testamentum to remain. Thus, though in 
 thought the Christian Church has never lost sight 
 of the two great divisions of Scripture as the 
 records of the two dispensations or covenants 
 which God instituted for His people, the idea has 
 been somewhat obscured by the titles appropriated 
 to these groups of writings. 
 
 II. ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.—The language of by 
 far the greater part of OT is Hebrew. The name 
 Hebrew ("72y) is applied to Abraham (Gn 14%), either 
 in respect of descent from an ancestor Heber (Gn 
 101. 4. 25), or more probably because he came (Jos 
 248) ‘from the other side of the flood,’ 1739 72yp. 
 Hebrew is a branch of the great Semitic (so called 
 from Shem, son of Noah) family of languages, and 
 has its cognates in the Arabic, the Assyrian of the 
 cuneiform inscriptions, the Aramaic, Pheenician, 
 and Ethiopic tongues. Though traces of dialectic 
 differences appear in the Scriptures themselves 
 (compare the pronunciation of the word Shibboleth, 
 Jg 12%), the comparative isolation of the Hebrews 
 peered their pmeuaee more or less unaffected by 
 oreign influences until after the Captivity, when 
 other eletnents were introduced intoit. The Hebrew 
 (Aram,‘ dialect is referred to several times in 
 NT (Jm 5? 1918 17-20, Ac 21% 92? 9614), and even (Mt 
 26%) a provincial (Galilean) form of this. The 
 a ee ta the general use of Hebrew in OT 
 are Ezr 48-6!8 722-22, Jer 104, Dn 24-73, These 
 pees are written in an Aramaic dialect, which, 
 
 owever, differs from that in which the Targums 
 were written, and also from Syriac. 
 
 The language of NT writers, on the other hand, 
 is Greek, but in the form known as Hellenistic 
 Greek, that is, the form which had come into 
 use among the Hellenists or Jews of the Dis- 
 
 ersion. “From the time when Alexander the 
 
 reat (B.C. 356-323) founded a Jewish colony in 
 Alexandria, this dialect had established itself at 
 all centres where Jew and Greek came into fre- 
 quent contact. The OT had been translated into 
 it, forming the version known as the Septuagint 
 (LXX), and this ‘Hebrew thought in Greek 
 clothing,’ as it has been termed, gave its tone and 
 character to the language in which the NT is also 
 written. At the time of Christ, Greek was the 
 prevailing language throughout the Roman Empire, 
 the language of educated men, and no less that of 
 peatrervial life. It has been ably argued that 
 Greek was the common language of Palestine in 
 the days of our Lord, and that the Gospel records 
 therefore present us with His discourses in the 
 very words in which they were spoken. But the 
 general consensus of opinion is against this 
 hypothesis, and indeed there is reason to believe 
 that the greater part, at least, of St. Matthew’s 
 Gospel, may have had an Aramaic original. The 
 Greek of NT is the ‘common dialect,’ which 
 had been formed out of Attic Greek by the intro- 
 duction of provincialisms and the various modifi- 
 cations necessary to enable it to serve many 
 purposes throughout a vast region. As it appears 
 in our sacred writings it is largely influenced, as 
 
 already indicated, by the LXX, and adapted for 
 the communication of the religious ideas due to 
 the special character of Christianity. 
 
 III. DIvIsIon AND ARRANGEMENT.—The great 
 division of the B., as already mentioned, is into 
 the Books of the OT and those of the NT. The 
 former consists, in the Eng. B., of 39 books, but in 
 the Heb. B. of 24 only—1 and 2 8, 1 and 2 K, 1 and 
 2 Ch, Ezr and Neh, and the 12 Minor Prophets 
 being respectively counted as one book. The 
 number, according to the account of Josephus, was 
 in his time still further reduced by adding the 
 Book of Ruth to Judges, and that of Lamentaticns 
 to Jeremiah. This reckoning probably originated 
 in a desire to bring the number of books, possibl 
 as part of a general mnemonic scheme, into accord- 
 ance with the number of letters in the Hebrew 
 alphabet. It was in use, according to the testimony 
 of Origen, as late as the middle of the 3rd cent. 
 Another enumeration is that of Epiphanius, who, 
 by resolving Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles again 
 into two books each, made of the twenty-four, 
 twenty-seven books. A point of greater interest 
 and importance is the grouping of these books. 
 In the Heb. B. they fall into three main 
 divisions :—l. The Law, or Torah (n\n); 2. The 
 Prophets, or Nebiim (o°x'33) ; 3. The Holy Writings, 
 or Kethubim (o°21:np, dydypada). The Torah in- 
 cludes the five books (Pentateuch) associated with 
 the name of Moses. The Nebiim are divided into 
 the ‘ former abn ee or historical books, and the 
 ‘latter prophets,’ or prophetical writings in the 
 stricter sense. The Kethubim include (a) the 
 Poetical books—Ps, Pr, Job; (6) the five Megilloth 
 or Rolls—Ca, Ru, La, Ec, Est ; (c) other books, Dn, 
 Ezr, Neh, 1 and2 Ch. Within these divisions the 
 order of the books sometimes varied, and other 
 divisions of great antiquity are extant ; but the one 
 given is of special importance, as will be seen when 
 we touch upon the history of the Canon. In LXX 
 (A.) the arrangement is mainly determined by a 
 consideration of the contents of the books: first 
 come the Historical, then the Prophetic, and 
 lastly the Poetical books. From the LXX this 
 arrangement passed into the Vulg. and other 
 versions. 
 
 Paci: | (2) Jon (allegorical). E. Sapiential: (1) Pr 
 of Ezk (40-48) and Zec (1-68). 
 
 The NT presents no serious difficulty in regard 
 to the arrangement of its books. These, 27 in 
 number, fall naturally into the following groups. 
 1. The Gospels. 2. The Acts of the Apostles. 3. 
 The Epistles of St. Paul, among which the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews may for this purpose be included. 
 4. The General Epistles. 5. The Book of Reve- 
 lation. This distribution, which has passed from 
 the Vulg. into general acceptance by the Christian 
 Church, is commended by its conformity with the 
 order of contents of the several books. First, the 
 Life of Christ ; then the Activity of His Apostles, 
 and the foundation of the Church of Christ ; then 
 the correspondence of those engaged in this work ; 
 and lastly, the sole monument of the apocalyptic 
 spirit and its activity within the Church. The 
 arrangement found in the MSS presents some 
 interesting and suggestive variations, and has been 
 held to point to an early division into four groups 
 —the Gospels, the Acts and Catholic Epistles, the 
 Pauline Epistixe, and the Apocalypse. Usually 
 

 
 
 
 288 BIBLE 
 
 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 
 
 the Catholic Epistles pee those of St. Paul, and 
 among the latter the Epistle to the Hebrews is often 
 found coming before the Pastoral Epistles. The 
 order of the Gospels also varies ; probably from a 
 feeling that those written by apostles should have 
 recedence of those by ‘apostolic men,’ they are 
 Tequently arranged (e.g. in Codex Bez), Mt, Jn, 
 Lk. Mk. For the purpose of following the develop- 
 ment of thought and doctrine in the NT, it is 
 desirable to keep in view not only the arrangement 
 determined by contents, but approximately the 
 chronological order in which its books appeared. 
 The following is such an approximate order: the 
 great Epistles of St. Paul to the Thess, Cor, Gal, 
 and Rom; the Ep. of St. James; Ph, Eph, Col, 
 Philem; 1 P, the Synoptic Gospels, Ac, the 
 Pastoral Epistles, Jude, Rey, He—all prior to the 
 destruction of Jerus. by Titus, A.D. 70. 2 P and 
 the Gospel and three Epistles of St. John come 
 after the destruction of Jerus., the last towards 
 the end of the Ist cent. 
 
 Minor divisions of the sacred text, which are for the most 
 part also modern divisions, have been made for two distinct 
 purposes—(1) to adapt it for use in the poise services, whether 
 of the Synagogue or of the Church ; and (2) for convenience of 
 reference. Upon the elementary expedient of separating words 
 and sentences by short spaces to pee facility in reading, or 
 upon that of indicating the members of a etical composition, 
 either by an interval between them or by writing them on 
 different lines, it is not necessary to dwell. It is only remark- 
 able how long the inconvenient ecriptio continua maintained 
 itself, especially in the MSS of the Greek text. To the first of 
 the two classes of divisions mentioned belong the Parshioth and 
 Haphtaroth of the Hebrew Scriptures. The former (n\y73, 
 sing. 7% 5 Parashah) are sections mainly of the Pentateuch, 
 though extended in principle to other parts of the OT. They 
 are disdnguished as Smaller and Larger Parshioth, and the 
 smaller are again divided into closca and open. Of the smaller 
 there are 669 (379 closed and 290 open) in the Pentateuch ; of the 
 larger 54, the latter being commonly called Sabbath Parshioth, 
 one being appointed to be read on each Sabbath of the year. 
 In certain years, according to the Jewish reckoning, there 
 were 54 Sabbaths; when there were less than that num- 
 ber, two Parshioth were read on one Sabbath. The open 
 Parashah (indicated by 8, for 7515), generally introducing 
 ® subject of greater importance, was begun on a new 
 line; the closed (indicated by 6, for 23ND) might begin 
 in the middle of a line. The Haphteroth were selected 
 sections from the prophetical writings, read in connexion 
 with the appointed sections of the Law, and usually stand- 
 ing in some correspondence with the latter. They were 
 analogous to the Pericopm of later ecclesiastical usage. It was 
 common to refer to these Hebrew scctions by words denoting 
 the subject,—as the Parashah Balaam, red hevfer, etc., compare 
 Mk 122 (ei wis Bérov, in the Bush; Ro 112 iv "Hale, in Elijah 
 (RVm),—or sometimes by the words beginning the section. 
 Divisions more nearly corresponding to our present verses are 
 referred to in the Talmud as Pesukim (0°05), and perhaps 
 were early denoted by the Soph-pasuk (:) now used at the end 
 of verses in our Hebrew Bibles. There is some doubt as to how 
 far Jerome’s capitula and versus correspond to the Parshioth 
 and Pesukim of the Jews. Sometimes his versus seem to indi- 
 cate whole verses, sometimos only the evixa or members of a 
 verse in the poetical books. 
 
 Turning to MSS of the NT, there is found even so early as the 
 Codex Vaticanus (4th cent.) a marginal indication of sections 
 divided according to the sense, and apparently constructed for 
 purposes of reference. It bears traces of having been copied 
 from a yet more ancient document. A division of the Gospels 
 into larger chapters (xe¢éAcie majora) is ascribed to Tatian, the 
 disciple of Justin Martyr. These are also known as ¢irAa from 
 the summary of the contents of the section commonly appended 
 to the numeral indicating it. In Latin the x«peruie were 
 termed breves and the summaries breviaria. The relations of 
 the different narratives of the same event contained in the 
 Gospels must early have attracted attention, and to exhibit 
 these was the design of the xsgcrAase minora, attributed to 
 Ammonius of Alexandria, who lived in the 8rd cent. Upon 
 these Eusebius of Cxsarea a century later founded his ten 
 canons, by means of which it is possible to ascertain whether a 
 passage occurs in one Gospel alone or in any combination of two 
 ormore. In the 5th cent. Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria, 
 peinied first St. Paul’s Epistles and then the Acts and Catholic 
 
 pistles, divided into xsgcacie similar to the riraa of the 
 Gospels ; and Andreas, Archbishop of the Cappadocian Cwrsarea, 
 completed the work so far by dividing the Apocalypse into 
 twenty-four paragraphs (Aye), of which each was subdivided 
 into three xs¢cAaia. (But see Robinson, Huthaliana, 1895). 
 
 The modern division of the whole Bible into chapters has 
 usually been attributed to Hugues de St. Cher (Hugo de 
 Sancto Caro), Provincial of the Dominicans in France, after- 
 wards Cardina! in Spain (died a.p. 1263), but recent investi- 
 
 gations ascribe it with greater ore to Stephen Langton, 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, died 1227 (see Gregory, Prolegomena 
 to Tischendorf’s NT, ed. viii. D. 164; Konig, Hinleit. in das 
 Alte Test. p. 464). Engaged about 1248 in pepers @ con- 
 cordance, or index of declinable words, Hugo, adopting Lang- 
 ton’s division into chapters, subdivided them by placing the 
 letters A-G in the margin at equal distances from each other. 
 The chapters were soon introduced into the Latin Vulgate, and 
 thence into Greek MSS and printed editions circulating in the 
 West. Scrivener (Introd. to the Crit.of NT) gives several instances 
 of inappropriate division due to this arrangement, the sense 
 being materially interrupted. The indication of minor divisions 
 by marginal letters was soon found inadequate and nega 
 and Robert Stephens in his Greek Testament of 1551 introdu 
 the system of verse divisions which is still in use. Already 
 about 1437 Rabbi Nathan had employed a similar system, alon 
 with Hugo’s division into chapters, for the OT, in connexion wit! 
 a concordance of the Hebrew Bible. This Stephens used as his 
 model, but the work was executed hurriedly, tnter equitandwm 
 (‘while resting at the inns on the road,’ interprets Scrivener), on 
 a journey between Paris and Lyons, according to the informa- 
 tion supplied by his son, Henry Stephens, in 1576. Stephens’ 
 verse-divisions were adopted in the Geneva English Bible of 
 1560, and subsequently in the AV of 1611. As they are found in 
 practice to break up the sense of the text, the RV has printed 
 the text in paragraphs, indicating chapter and verse in the 
 margin only. The first printed edition of the Heb. Bible with 
 chapters is that of Bomberg, 1526; the first with the versea 
 numbered is that of Athias, 1661. 
 
 IV. Canon.—The word ‘Canon’ means ‘pattern, 
 rule’; probably in the first instance it denoted a 
 measuring line. It does not appear to have had 
 any religious Pew e in pre-Christian times. 
 Its use by the Christian Church for the ‘rule of 
 faith and life’ was possibly suggested by such 
 passages in the NT as Gal 61, Ph 3", Since the 
 time of Cee it has been applied to the Holy 
 Scriptures of OT and NT as being the recognised 
 authority and court of appeal m regard to 
 Christian faith and practice. It was the content, 
 however, not the range of the Scriptures, which 
 was thus designated. The application of the term 
 involves Church recognition, that the Scriptures 
 are separated from all other literature in virtue 
 of the authority thus ascribed to them. Thus 
 Rufinus translates the xavovixés of Origen by regu- 
 laris or publicus, opposing the books of which the 
 adjective is used to the Apocr. and Libri Ecclesi- 
 astict, Athanasius was among the first to apply 
 it to the writings which contained the regulative 
 content. Some have thought that the word Canon 
 was used for the list of books appointed to be read 
 in churches ; but this ease inconsistent with the 
 fact that the Libri Ecclesiastict were also used for 
 this purpose. Nor does the suggestion that it was 
 the practice of the Alexandrian grammarians to 
 apply the term ‘canonical,’ in the sense of 
 ‘classical,’ to certain Greek authors, appear to 
 have an ascertained bearing upon the istian 
 usage. 
 
 i. OT Canon.—The formation of the Canon of 
 OT is a subject involved in much obscurity. That 
 the process was a long and gradual one lies in the 
 nature of the case, but the trustworthy indications 
 are few, and the way is thus opened for those 
 efforts of criticism, working upon the contents of 
 the sacred books, which have in recent years 
 assumed such remarkable proportions. There can 
 be no doubt that the large collection was formed 
 by the aggregation of smaller ones, to which 
 some have traced allusions in such OT passages 
 as Dt 1738 31% 2% 1 § 10%, Pr 25!, and perhaps 
 Zec 74, though the last may refer to the oral 
 rather than the written law. There are also 
 references to the earlier prophets in the pages of 
 the later. The grouping of the books in the Heb. 
 Bible, which has been already adverted to, may 
 further be taken as at least a rough indication of 
 the growth of the Canon. In both the Heb. and 
 LXX arrangement of the books the first place is 
 occupied by the Pent., and this notwithstanding 
 the great variations in the order of the later books, 
 Here, therefore, we may fairly conclude that we 
 have the starting-point of the process. This was 
 
 
 
 
 
BIBLE 
 
 BIBLE 289 
 
 
 
 the literature recognised as sacred when Ezra read 
 the Torah in the hearing of the whole people 
 (Neh 8). To this would ere long be added such 
 records of Israel’s history and such portions of the 
 writings of Israel’s prophets as survived, forming 
 the second of the great divisions. Then, finally, 
 the miscellaneous collection known as the Hagio- 
 grapha would be formed for the preservation of 
 those works which were deemed worthy of being 
 placed beside the Law and the Prophets. As 
 to the occasions of these steps being taken, and 
 in connexion with the whole subject, there are 
 traditions, some of which were accepted in Christian 
 times, but which are in general to be regarded 
 with suspicion, even where they cannot be shown 
 to be absolutely untrustworthy. Thus the second 
 stage mentioned above is in 2 Mac 2! ascribed to 
 Nehemiah, who is said to have ‘founded a library’ 
 and ‘ gathered together the acts of the Kings and 
 the Prophets, and the writings of David and the 
 epistles of the Kings concerning the holy gifts.’ 
 he succeeding verse, 2'4, mentions an effort of 
 Judas Maccabzeus to recover the documents which 
 had ‘fallen out’ during the great war of independ- 
 ence, and it may have been on this occasion that 
 the bulk of the Hagiographa was brought together. 
 A more famous tradition is that of the Great 
 Synagogue, which, beginning its work under the 
 residency of Ezra, still existed in the time of 
 imon the Just. To this body the formation of 
 at least the first two divisions of the Canon was 
 ascribed. These two had at any rate obtained 
 general recognition, while the third was at least 
 in course of construction when, probably in the 
 beginning of the 2nd cent. B.c., the Prologue to 
 Ecclesiasticus speaks of ‘the Law itself, the Pre- 
 hets and the rest of the Books.’ The reference in 
 osephus to the 22 Books is in terms which indicate 
 that the Canon had already been for some time 
 completed, and his Canon was evidently identical 
 with ours. Though it is true that certain books, 
 as Ec and Ca, were still disputed by the Jews them- 
 selves as late as A.D. 90, it may be held that, so 
 far as historical indication goes, the OT Canon 
 was coy completed a century before Christ. 
 It was certainly the uniform tradition of the Jews 
 that prophetic inspiration had ceased with Malachi, 
 and it is worthy of remark that the very myths 
 with which they ultimately surrounded the forma- 
 tion and close of the Canon could have arisen only 
 in the course of a considerable period of time. 
 Before glancing at the way in which this problem 
 has in modern times been attacked from another 
 side, it may be well to refer to the so-called Alex- 
 andrian Canon and OT epee pha. The LXX 
 {see below) was made up partly of translations from 
 the Hebrew, partly of productions in the Greek 
 language of later Jewish literature. The con- 
 clusion that there was a recognised Alex. Canon 
 distinct from that of Pal. has found much favour 
 with Rom. Cath. critics, asit seemed to give autho- 
 rity to the Apocrypha. These books were exten- 
 sively used the Church Fathers, and Jerome 
 himself included Judith among the Hagiographa. 
 But it is more probable that there was no intention 
 to erect a separate standard of Canonicity, and that 
 the additional books were admitted partly owing 
 to the Canon of Palestine not having yet been 
 definitely or authoritatively fixed, part owing to 
 & certain breadth of practical view. It is to be 
 noted that the grandfather of Jesus Sirach indicates 
 no knowledge of any other than the Heb. Canon, 
 and that Philo, though he took a wide view of 
 inspiration, is said, like NT itself, never to cite the 
 cet he books. The books so named vary 
 greatly both as to their contents andvalue. 1 and 
 2 Mae are histories—the former highly, the latter 
 much less, trustworthy ; others (1 Es, To, Jth, 3 and 
 VOL, IL—19 
 
 4 Mac) are rather historical romances. Some (Wis, 
 Sir) are collections of wise sayings or philosophical 
 treatises; others are intended to supplement the 
 canonical books, or to illustrate the acts and words 
 of persons mentioned in the latter. It was by 
 popular suffrage rather than formal acceptance that 
 these books obtained their places in the Greek B., 
 which, it must be remembered, was the B. of the 
 ppcrieds age, and so formed part of the heritage 
 of the Christian Church. 
 
 The problem of modern criticism has been, not 
 so much the formation and completion of the 
 Canon as an authoritative collection, regarding 
 which it has been able to add little to the meagre 
 historical indications already noticed, as the rise of 
 OT as a literature and its relation to the religious 
 life and thought of Israel. Certain features of the 
 sacred narratives—such as, double accounts of the 
 same event, differences of expression and phrase- 
 ology, differences even of tone and modes of think- 
 ing, and, in the Pent., references to events long 
 after the time of Moses—had been early noticed, 
 and could scarcely fail to suggest that they had 
 been compiled from still earlier documents, or had 
 had notes and explanations inserted by later hands 
 than those of the original authors or compilers. 
 The serious analysis, esp. of the Pentateuchal 
 writings, began when, in 1753, Astruc, a French 
 physician, pointed out that the more remarkable 
 of these lines of cleavage coincided with the re- 
 spective use of Elohim or J” as names of God. 
 
 struc himself set the example, which was only 
 too readily followed by aetna s critics, of ex- 
 cessive detail in his analysis, since he parcelled out 
 the Book of Genesis among no fewer than twelve 
 different writers. The phenomena, however, to 
 which he called attention, being berons dispute, 
 obviously needed explanation, and, when they were 
 found pervading other books, and esp. the Book 
 of Joshua, seemed to prove, not only that these 
 writings were of Somppette character, but that they 
 belonged to a later date than had previously been 
 assigned to them. His successors assumed at first 
 that the Elohist, whose narrative begins with Gn 1, 
 was the earlier; and his writing was known as the 
 basis or Grundschrift, the sections marked by the 
 use of the name J” being held to have been inserted 
 into this fundamental document as supplementary 
 to it. A more careful investigation undertaken by 
 Hupfeld, and published in 1853, showed not only 
 that the Jahwistic portions belonged to a docu- 
 ment which, originally independent, had been 
 interwoven with bie sther: but that there were at 
 least two Elohists whose respective work could be 
 distinguished, while one of them stood in the closest 
 relation with the Jahwist. Taking these two 
 together, it may be stated as a fact now generally 
 accepted, that there are three great divisions dis- 
 cernible in the Pentateuch, or elements rather of 
 which it consists—(1) The work of the Deutero- 
 nomist belonging mainly to the fifth book; (2) that 
 of an Elohistic writer,—to which the name of 
 Priestly Code, Priestercodex, is commonly given, 
 beginning, as already mentioned, with Gn I; 
 (3) the combined narrative of the Jahwist and a 
 second Elohist. It is true that analysis, fol- 
 lowing the lines of Astruc, has often gone much 
 further, and that OT criticism has been brought 
 into disrepute in many quarters and laid itself 
 open to counter-criticism, not only by this excess, 
 but by the great divergence of view among the 
 earlier critics, and the confidence, and even ar- 
 rogance, with which they pronounced upon the 
 smallest detail. But while the disagreements of 
 critics show that their work is yet far from com- 
 plete, and that there are probably many points as 
 to which certainty is no longer attainable, the 
 main results of their work eannot be ignored, and 
 

 
 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 
 
 290 
 
 are no more to be disposed of by a general appeal 
 to inspiration than Hugh Miller’s question as to 
 how the fossil shells came to be in the rocks was 
 answered by the quarryman’s explanation—‘ When 
 God made the rocks, He made the shells in them.’ 
 Thirty years ago the problem of the Pent., and 
 with it that of the whole OT, took a new phase, 
 when not only linguistic and literary considerations 
 were brought to its solution, but also considera- 
 tions derived from a closer examination of Israel’s 
 history and of the progress of its religious thought 
 and practice. The whole question has been made 
 to turn on the chronological relation of the Priestly 
 Code (P) to the Jahwistic-Elohistic document (JE). 
 Formerly the author of P was regarded as the 
 oldest writer, even by such critics as Hupfeld, 
 Ewald, and Knobel; now he is regarded as the 
 latest, not only by Kuenen, Wellhausen, and 
 Reuss, but even by Delitzsch and Driver. Critics, 
 however, when maintaining the late date of 
 a writing in its present form, often admit that 
 earlier documentary or traditional elements may 
 be embodied in it. It is indeed sixty years since 
 the view which has recently commended itself to 
 so many was broached by W. Vatke. Vatke was 
 led to his conclusions, however, mainly by a priors 
 considerations, and his book lay long neglected in 
 consequence of the philosophical and technical 
 form in which it was written. A similar theory 
 was kndiopen dently developed by Reuss of Strass- 
 burg, and made Dae by two of his pupils, H. Graf 
 in a work issued in 1866, and Kayser in one pub- 
 lished in 1874. Kuenen followed up the same 
 views in his great work on the Religion of Israel 
 (1869-70), while Wellhausen in his publications of 
 1876 and 1878 carried them to the furthest point 
 which they have yet reached. It is claimed as a 
 special merit in Wellhausen’s work that it ‘ excited 
 interest in these questions outside the narrow 
 circle of specialists by its skilful handling of the 
 materials, and its almost perfect combination of 
 wide historical considerations with the careful in- 
 vestigation of details.’ The Grafian, or Graf- 
 Wellhausen, hypothesis was made known, or at 
 least popularised, in Britain through the writings 
 of Robertson Smith. The starting-point of the 
 theory is found in a study of the legislation con- 
 tained in the Pent., and a comparison of the 
 religious history and practice of Israel with what 
 might have been expected had the whole of this 
 legislation been known and observed from the 
 beginning. It seemed to Vatke impossible ‘that 
 a whole nation should suddenly sink from a high 
 stage of religious development to a lower one, as 
 is asserted to have been so often the case in the 
 times of the Judges and Kings.’ It is claimed 
 that the only explanation of the religious life of 
 Israel is that many of the laws were either un- 
 known or non-existent. Again, when the three 
 components of the Pent. were examined, each was 
 found to contain a distinct legislation in a his- 
 torical setting. Of these the simplest and probably 
 the earliest was that known as the Book of the 
 Covenant (Ex 20-23), while the most complex, and 
 therefore presumably the latest, was that of the 
 Priestly Code. Between these came Deuteronomy. 
 Not without exception perhaps, but in a sufficiently 
 striking manner, the course of the history was 
 found to reflect, and to be best explained by this 
 order of the laws. The spiritual tide which lifted 
 the life of Israel from stage to stage, leaving at 
 each its memorial deposit of legislation, was due 
 to the prophets, who, by their impassioned appeals 
 and denunciations of abuses, were the means of 
 purifying the ree of their people, and raising 
 it toa point of elevation, after reaching which it 
 etrifaction which is not 
 he Law is the product, 
 
 unhappily fell into that 
 only i 
 
 ecay, but death. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 
 
 not the antecedent, of the prophetic activity; to 
 reverse the order is, in the words of Wellhausen, 
 to begin with the roof instead of the foundation; 
 but if the legislations fall into the order above 
 indicated, it almost necessarily follows that the 
 narratives in which they are respectively embedded 
 must be regarded as originating in the same order. 
 To separate the law from the history was the 
 defect of Graf, corrected by Kuenen and Well- 
 hausen. But to accept law and narrative as 
 emerging in the portions and order supposed, is 
 to revolutionise the whole conception previously 
 entertained of Israel’s history, and of its literary 
 development. We conclude this brief account 
 with the verdict pronounced upon the theory by 
 a master in this department, A. B. Davidson of 
 Edinburgh—‘ The strength of the theory lies in 
 its core aate with the practice, as we observe 
 it in the historical books, and in the general out- 
 line of the religious history which it draws. Its 
 weakness lies in the incapacity which as yet it has 
 shown to deal with many important details, and 
 particularly in the assumption, meat! necessary 
 to its case, that the ancient historical ooks have 
 been edited from a Deuteronomistic point of view. 
 
 The following chronological scheme of OT literature, founded 
 mainly upon Driver's Jntroduction, may be found useful :—* 
 
 13th-llth cent. B.c. (period of Judges). Song of Deborah 
 Blessing of Jacob, David’s elegy (2 8 1). 
 
 10th-9th cent. B.o. Song of Solomon(?); sources incorporated 
 in Judges and Samuel; J and E. 
 
 8th cent. B.c. Amos, 760-746; Hosea, 746-734; Zechariah 
 (chaps. 9-11, which, however, include also post-exilic elements, 
 if they are not, as some hold, wholly post-ex.) ; Isaiah (750-700), 
 721 marking the end of the kingdom of Israel ; Micah. 
 
 7th cent. B.o. Dj; Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel (sources earlier 
 Ruth; Nahum (664-607); Zephaniah (earlier years of Josiah, 
 t.e. 639-621); Jeremiah (called 626). 
 
 6th cent. Habakkuk (608-598); Jeremiah; 1 and 2 Kings 
 (sources earlier); Lamentations; Obadiah (partly before and 
 partly after 586, which marks the commencement of the Exile) ; 
 Proverbs (partly before and partly after the Exile); Job; P; 
 II Isaiah and fragments; Ezekiel (taken captive 597. The last 
 three fall during the Exile, say, 586-536); Haggai (520 seqq.); 
 Zechariah (chaps. 1-8, 520 seqq.). 
 
 5thcent. Joel (after Captivity); Jonah ; Zec(12-14); Malachi 
 (probably about 432). Memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah (c, 450- 
 430) incorporated in our Ezr-Neh. 
 
 4th cent. Ecclesiastes (not earlier than latter years of Persian 
 rule, ending 332); Esther (early Rhea of Greek period, be- 
 ginning 332, or 3rd cent.); 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezr-Neh in 
 present form (shortly after 332, long subsequent to Ezra). 
 
 2nd cent. Daniel. The Psalms prob. belong to most of these 
 periods, including even the Maccab. (168-165), but chiefly to the 
 later ones (ex. and post-ex.) 
 
 ii. NT Canon.—The Jewish Scriptures became 
 the B. of the early Christian Church. Round 
 them in course of time gathered collections of 
 Christian writings to which canonical authority 
 was ultimately ascribed. But as in the case of 
 OT the process was gradual. There was clearly 
 no deliberate intention on the part of NT writers 
 to make Scripture. The Jewish reverence for OT 
 which the apostles inherited would prevent any 
 such thought arising. That NT should have been 
 written at all by men who shared in such a tradi- 
 tional ee has been characterised by Westcott 
 as a ‘moral miracle of overwhelming dignity.’ 
 The writings were evidently called forth br the 
 circumstances of the Church, and only as a second 
 thought gathered together and invested with 
 authority. In order of an Ee the Epistles 
 naturally took precedence of the Gospels. The 
 facts of the Gospel history formed the staple of 
 the apostolic preaching, and, though in the earliest 
 years communicated orally only, must have tended 
 to assume a fixed traditional form. So long as 
 the apostles survived, and the Church had not 
 extended beyond the reach of their personal in- 
 struction, the necessity of committing this tra- 
 dition to writing would be scarcely recognised. 
 The conviction widely held during that first age, 
 
 * Compare the table given by Sanday, Inspiration, p. 435 ff.; and 
 by Kautzsch, 47’, of whichatr. is given in Expos. Timea, vi. 517 & 
 
 
 
BIBLE 
 
 that the end of the world was near, would also 
 tend to discourage any effort of this kind. With 
 the extension of the Church, the rising doubts as 
 to the impending catastrophe, and the removal of 
 the apostles, the need for a permanent record 
 would be felt and supplied. hat small collec- 
 tions of memorabilia, notes of apostolic preaching, 
 were made and circulated we know on the testi- 
 mony of St. Luke, whose object is expressly declared 
 to be the displacement of these by a more trust- 
 worthy account (Lk 1’), Meanwhile the apostles 
 had supplemented their personal activity by epis- 
 tolary communications, and thus the material for 
 a new (Christian) Canon was accumulated. It is 
 probable that all the books composing our NT 
 were written by the end of the Ist cent. of our 
 era. This, indeed, is generally acknowledged, except 
 where, asin the case of Baur and the early Tiibingen 
 school, a speculative reconstruction of early Church 
 History necessitates the ascription of later dates 
 to certain of the books. The recognition, however, 
 of NT books by the Church as of apostolic author- 
 ship and authority was a matter of much longer 
 time. It is not until the 4th cent. that all the 
 books of the present Canon are found included in 
 any list. The Didaché, or Teaching of the Twelve 
 Apostles, an early treatise, the MS of which was 
 discovered so recently as 1873, makes it clear that 
 in the quarter whence it emanated in the end of 
 the Ist or beginning of the 2nd cent. only a few of 
 them were known. It was only to be expected, 
 however, that certain books, or small collections 
 of books, should be known and received within 
 po urely limited areas, from which they 
 
 adually passed into the use of the Church at 
 arge. Though there was no formal attempt to 
 create a Canon, and for long no formal decree 
 authorising it, a certain Christian wisdom and 
 discretion is seen at work in the acknowledgment 
 
 of writings both individually and collectively. The 
 criterion was from the first apostolicity, immediate, 
 or all but immediate, connexion with the apostles. 
 Only those books were admitted which could be 
 regarded as the most faithful records of the work 
 of Christ and His apostles, and as the suitable 
 
 foundation of Christian ee The need 
 which was so soon felt, of exhibiting the truths 
 characteristic of Christianity in opposition to the 
 ising mysticisms of the gnostics and the 
 Fanatical evelopments of Montanism, hastened the 
 rocess, by driving men to the study of the primi- 
 jive records of the faith. For this purpose the oral 
 teaching, which still continued, was insufficient, 
 as gnosticism itself appealed to the written records. 
 These accordingly ceased to be regarded as mere 
 rivate and occasional writings ; they became more 
 han books which might be publicly read for 
 edification ; they were the recognised arbiters in 
 a great doctrinal contest; to them both sides 
 appealed, and the foundations of NT were laid. 
 
 The chief sources for the history of NT Canon in the period of 
 its formation are the Christian writers, esp. those who took part 
 in the great controversies with heretics during the 2nd and 3rd 
 centuries, the fragments of the heretical writings themselves, 
 the ancient versions, and sundry lists of recognised books which 
 have come down to us. Westcott (Canon of the NT) divides the 
 history of this period as follows :—I. a.p. 70-170, during which 
 time, though the evidence adducible is fragmentary, it is of 
 wide hes pe direct, uniform, and comprehensive ; a margin still 
 remained of books whose authority was disputed or at least un- 
 
 ed, and the idea of a Canon was implied rather than 
 expressed. Its ‘formation’ may have been gradual, but it was 
 certainly undisturbed. It was a growth and not a series of 
 contests. II. a.p. 170-803, during which the available evidence 
 is largely pogo’ and the consciousness of a collection of 
 sacred books mes more distinct. Still its work is ‘to con- 
 struct and not to define,’ the age ‘was an age of research and 
 thought, but at the same time it was an age of freedom.’ ‘Even 
 controversy fai to create a spirit of historical inquiry,’ and 
 thus the evidence gathered from writers of the 3rd cent. ‘ differs 
 from that of earlier date in fulness rather than in kind.’ III. 
 a.D. 803-397, during which the Canon formed the subject of 
 deliberation and decree at great Councils of the Church, at 
 
 BIBLE 291 
 
 one of which, the third Council of Carthage, held in the yeaz 
 397, the books of NT recognised ‘are exactly those which are 
 generally received at present.’ 
 
 Some of the chief Paes of this development 
 can alone be indicated here; further information 
 will be found in the special article (NEW TESTA. 
 MENT CANON). Justin Martyr, the apologist 
 about A.D. 150, records the fact that certain 
 apostolic writings were read along with the 
 prophets on the Lord’s Day in the churches both 
 in city and country. Among these writings he 
 especially refers to what he calls ‘The Memoirs 
 of the Apostles,’ which almost without doubt were 
 the Canonical Gospels, He refers to the Apocalypse 
 by name, and evinces an acquaintance with several 
 of St. Paul’s Epistles. The list known as the 
 Muratorian Fragment, from Muratori, who pub- 
 lished it at Milan in 1740, which probably repre- 
 sents the view of the Roman Church towards the 
 end of the 2nd cent., refers to the Gospels, to the 
 Acts as the work of St. Luke, enumerates 13 Epp. 
 of St. Paul, acknowledges St. Jude, 2 Epp. of St. 
 John (probably the 2nd and 3rd), and ie Apoc. 
 The fragment is somewhat mutilated, and in this 
 way the incompleteness of its reference to the 
 Gospels, and its omission of 1 P and 1 Jn are 
 possibly to be accounted for. It adds the Apoc. 
 of St. Peter, though with an indication of doubt, 
 and expressly excludes two Epistles which had 
 been circulated under St. Paul’s name—one to the 
 Laodiczeans, and the other to the Alexandrians. 
 The Peshitta or Syriac Version of NT was the B. of 
 the Syrian Christians of a period not later than 
 the end of the 2nd cent. It included all the 
 beoks of our Canon except 2 and 3 Jn, 2 P, Jude, 
 and Rev. The old Lat. Version, also of the 2nd 
 cent., omitted only He, Ja, and2P. The heretic 
 Marcion, about the middle of the same cent., com- 
 posed a Canon of his own in accordance with his 
 peculiar views. This embraced the greater part 
 of the Pauline Epp. and a modification of St. 
 Luke. Tatian’s Diatessaron, or ‘Harmony of the 
 Four Gospels,’ which, as has recently been con- 
 clusively proved, were the tour Gospels of our 
 Canon, not only testifies to the existence of these, 
 but signalises by this treatment of them their 
 peculiar position and authority, which was similarly 
 emphasized a little later by the fanciful analogy 
 by which Ireneus sought to show that there 
 could be only fowr Gospels. By A.D. 250 we 
 have the evidence of Irenzus as representing the 
 churches in Gaul, Clement of Alexandria and 
 Origen representing the Egyptian churches, and 
 Tertullian representing the churches of North 
 Africa, practically concurring in their testimony 
 to the contents of that body of Scripture which, 
 with increasing distinctness, was taking its place 
 as the authoritative Canon. Doubt still affected 
 only Ja, 2 P, 2and 3 Jn, and Rev, while Hebrews 
 was in the churches of Rome and Africa not 
 recognised as Pauline. Eusebius in his Eccles. 
 History, composed about A.D. 325, gives valuable 
 information and testimony as to the state of the 
 question in his time. He distinguishes the books 
 which claimed to be authoritative as Homo- 
 logowmena, or universally acknowledged books ; 
 Antilegomena, or disputed books; and Notha, or 
 spurious books. The Antilegomena included Ja, 
 ude, 2 P, 2 and 3 Jn, also Hebrews and Rev. 
 Eusebius hazards the opinion that Hebrews may 
 be a Greek tr. of a Heb. Pauline original. St. 
 Jerome, towards the close of the 4th cent., gives 
 much the same account of the state of opinion in 
 his time, while he himself accepts all the books of 
 our present Canon. St. Augustine likewise accepts 
 the Canon in its present form, and was present at 
 that Council of Carthage (397) at which, as alread 
 stated, ecclesiastical sanction was given to it. It 
 
 
 
292 BIBLE 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 
 
 must be admitted that this conclusion was reached 
 rather on popular and consuetudinary than critical 
 grounds, and it is no matter for surprise that the 
 uestion of canonicity was reopened at the Re- 
 ormation, and again within the last half century. 
 Nothing, however, has been proved which affects 
 the claim of the large majority of NT books, and 
 those of chief interest and value, to be the record 
 of the faith once delivered to the saints. The 
 wisdom with which, on the whole, the line has 
 been drawn is only made more apparent on a con- 
 sideration of those books, such as the Epp. of 
 Clement, the Ep. of Barnabas, and the Shepherd 
 of Hermas, which long maintained a position on 
 the very borders of Scripture, and are given at the 
 vonclusion of NT in certain very ancient MSS. 
 lt only remains to mention the large number of 
 apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses 
 (the Notha of Eusebius), of which some, as the 
 Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of Paul and Thekla, 
 have long been known, while of others, as the 
 Gospel and Apocalypse of St. Peter, fragments 
 have only recently (1886) been discovered. 
 
 V. TeExtT.—i. Hebrew.—Until the invention of 
 printing, in the 15th cent., the only mode of trans- 
 mitting ancient books was by the slow and labori- 
 ous method of copying one MS from another. 
 Hand-copying, like typography itself, is subject 
 to special tendencies to error. Since any mistake 
 may be confined to a single MS, though almost 
 certain to be continued in any copies made from 
 it, it is obvious that the work of tracing out the 
 original text by a comparison of MSS is a difficult 
 and delicate one. It forms the subject of a special 
 study, called Textual Criticism, and demands no 
 little ability, poe: and tact. For many 
 centuries the rolls written for use in the synagogue 
 have been prepared with scrupulous care, and the 
 texts which they represent have been preserved, it 
 may be said, free from variation. his applies 
 to the books of the Law, the Haphtaroth or lessons 
 from the Prophets, and the Megilloth, the five 
 books (Ca, Ru, La, Ec, Est) read on the great 
 festivals. It applies, however, only to the con- 
 sonantal characters, since these rolls were written 
 without points and accents, and does not apply to 
 the period before the scribes of the Jewish tradi- 
 tion took the rolls under their special care, nor so 
 strictly to the MSS intended for private use, which 
 had the vowel points together with the Massoretic 
 notes and amermea nk It is said that the earliest 
 Heb. MS of which the age is known dates from 
 A.D. 916, but few are extant which have come 
 down from an earlier period than the 12th cent., 
 and these, as will readily be understood from what 
 has been said, represent a single tradition, and are 
 of no use for comparative purposes. The work, 
 first of the Talmudists between the Ist and 5th 
 centuries, and then of the Massoretes from the 
 6th to the llth centuries, has fixed the Heb. text 
 (hence called the Massoretic) to the utmost attain- 
 able degree of exactness. But that prior to the 
 labours of the scribes the Heb. Scriptures had been 
 subject to the ordinary conditions of MS copying, 
 is evident from the numerous and important varia- 
 tions found in the Samaritan Pent. and the LXX. 
 These agree Slope in many readings in regard 
 to which both differ from the Heb. text, and they 
 are comparatively independent witnesses—the one 
 to the state of the text in possibly the 5th cent. 
 B.C., the other to that in the 3rd. 
 
 ii. Greek.—Many ancient MSS contain the LXX 
 version of OT along with the text of NT. It 
 seems, therefore, more convenient to divide MSS 
 into Hebrew and Greek than into OT and NT. 
 Two facts in the early history of NT Scriptures 
 are worthy of note. The one is the wholesale 
 destruction of the sacred books during the perse- 
 
 eation of Diocletian (A.D. 302), and the other that 
 in A.D. 330 fifty large and carefully prepared copies 
 of the Scriptures were made by order of the 
 Emperor Constantine for the use of the churches 
 of Constantinople. The former event is doubtless 
 accountable for the fact that no MS exists which 
 is older than the 4th cent. For a thousand years 
 subsequently the sacred text may be tr in a 
 continuous and increasing stream of MSS. About 
 100 of these are Uncials, written, that is, in capital 
 letters—a mark of early date; the remainder, 
 numbering nearly 2000, being Curses, that is, in 
 the smaller running hand which was used from the 
 9th cent. onwards. An interesting class of MSS 
 are the Palimpsests, in which the sacred text has 
 been more or less obliterated and some later work 
 written over it. Short articles on the five leading 
 uncials will be found under their respective 
 symbols: viz. (1) the Codex Sinaiticus, known by 
 the symbol x, (2) the Codex Vaticanus (B), (3) the 
 Codex Alexandrinus (A), (4) the Codex Ephraemi 
 (C), and (5) the Codex Beze (D). 
 
 VI. VeRsIoNS. — Renderings of the Scriptures 
 from the original into other tongues are not only 
 interesting in themselves as giving us the form in 
 which the B. brought its message to the various 
 peoples of the earth, but (esp. those of ancient 
 times) are of very great value for determining 
 what the original text itself was. They tap, as it 
 were, the stream of MS evidence at various points 
 from which we have parallel and independent 
 streams available for comparison with the parent 
 stream and with each other. It is evident that, 
 to derive the full benefit from this circumstance, a 
 critical text of the VSS must be prepared with the 
 same care as of the original. Given this, and it is 
 obvious how important the VSS become in decidin; 
 between rival MS readings, as also for purposes 0 
 interpretation. The weakness of this branch of 
 textual criticism is the defective state of the text 
 of even the most important versions. Along with 
 the VSS proper are justly reckoned those refer- 
 ences in the writings of the early Fathers, which 
 are in effect fragmentary MSS or VSS, according 
 as they are quotations or translations. 
 
 Of OT the most important version is the Alex- 
 andrian, known as the Septuagint (LXX), from 
 the tradition that the portion of it embracing the 
 Law was made by 72 scribes or scholars sent by 
 the high priest from Jerus. to Alexandria at the 
 request of Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 285-247). 
 This tradition, afterwards extended to the whole 
 version, has not only been overlaid by many mythical 
 elements, but originally rested upon a letter by one 
 Aristeas, which is now admitted to bea forgery. It 
 is, moreover, contradicted by the differences in merit 
 and value which distinguish the several books, as 
 well as by the divergence in the methods of para- 
 oe and interpretation employed. There can 
 
 e no doubt that a succession of translaters of 
 varying capacity and skill were engaged upon this 
 version. The work was carried on probably during 
 the 3rd and 2nd cents. B.C., the greater part being 
 completed at the latest by B.C. 132, the date 
 allied to in the preface to the Greek rendering 
 of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. There were other 
 Greek VSS, such as those of Aquila, Theodotion, 
 and Symmachus; but none of these was s0 
 widely influential or so extensively used as the 
 LXX. It is of importance not only as an aid to 
 the study of the Heb. OT, but as introductory to 
 the Greek NT, the language of which is largely 
 based upon it. From it sprang other VSS, such as 
 the Itala or Old Latin Version, certain Syriac 
 VSS, the Athiopic, Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, 
 Georgian, Gothic, and Sclavonic VSS, together 
 with the Arabic VSS, which were not taken 
 directly from the original The Targums or in- 
 
 
 
BIBLE 
 
 terpretations were rather paraphrases than trans- 
 lations. The necessity for them arose from the 
 substitution of Aramaic for Heb. as the ordinary 
 language of the Jews after their return from the 
 Exile. The most important is the Targ. of Onkelos 
 on the Pent., which keeps more closely to the 
 original than the others, and is remarkable for 
 careful as well as skilful work. 
 
 Of VSS which embrace both OT and NT, one 
 of the earliest and most valuable is the Syriac 
 Peshitta, the name meaning ‘simple’ or ‘ faithful.’ 
 Its relation to one or two VSS of equal or greater 
 antiquity is still sub judice. It dates from the 
 2nd cent. A.D. Its place in the history of the 
 Canon has already been mentioned. The Phil- 
 oxenian or Monophysite Version is not an inde- 
 pendent rendering, but a peculiar modification of 
 the Peshitta. The Old Lat. Version (the Itala) 
 prob. arose in N. Africa, was made (as already men- 
 tioned) from the Greek of the LXX, and is only 
 known from citations in patristic writers. It was 
 in the course of revising the Old Latin that Jerome 
 conceived the design of making a new translation 
 of OT direct from the Hebrew. This work, begun in 
 A.D. 390, occupied him fourteen years, and was for 
 long most unfavourably received. It was accused of 
 being heretical, and even Augustine underrated it. 
 It received ecclesiastical sanction first in Gaul ; later 
 
 _ it was recognised by Gregory the Great, but 200 
 
 years more elapsed before it became in the West 
 the generally received and authoritative version, 
 thenceforward known as the Vulgate or ‘ popular’ 
 version. The text of the Vulgate is in a very un- 
 satisfactory condition, having been almost from the 
 first oy bee owing to the existence and use alon 
 with it of the Old ati, and the not unnatur 
 transference of readings from the one into the other. 
 
 Of the multitude of modern VSS of the B. it is 
 impossible here to speak. Our own English B. 
 has a long and interesting history (see under art. 
 VERSIONS). Most modern VSS differ from the 
 ancient in the extent of the critical apparatus on 
 which they are based. They do not depend upon 
 a single MS or a single version in another tongue. 
 This is esp. the case with the most recent revisions, 
 which, as for instance our own RV, attempt to 
 present, both in regard to text and interpretation, 
 the nearest possible ee to the language of 
 the original writers of the Scriptures. 
 
 B. THE EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE 
 BIBLE. 
 
 Having now, so far as space permits, analysed 
 the B., shown the parts of which it is made up, 
 the forms in which it has appeared, their relations 
 to each other, and their history up to the point at 
 which this collection practically assumed its present 
 form, we turn to its consideration as a whole, its 
 character as a literature, and its relation to Chris- 
 tianity and the Christian Church. The B. is the 
 pared book of Christianity. Round it—its origin, 
 history, and contents—circle many of the most 
 important problems which affect the nature and 
 claims of the Christian faith. As Christianity is 
 admittedly the highest and purest form of religion 
 known to man, it may be said that the religious 
 destinies of the race depend upon the B. He, cer- 
 tainly, who would cadariun what Christianity 
 is, must have a clear conceptiun of what the B. is 
 and teaches. 
 
 I. THE LITERATURE OF OTHER RELIGIONS.— As, 
 however, there are other religions besides Chris- 
 tianity, there are other literatures which are 
 regarded as sacred and authoritative by the 
 adherents of these religions. Some of them, 
 indeed, claim to be the vehicles of Divine Revela- 
 tion. It may be well, therefore, to consider wnat a 
 sacred book is, and how it acquires thie character, 
 
 BIBLE 293 
 
 and to give a brief account of the chief sacred 
 books of the world. It is one great characteristic 
 of them that they have in every case grown; they 
 are collections, literatures, rather than books; not 
 composed at once, or proceeding from one hand, 
 but combining many diverse elements, and gener- 
 ally reflecting the history and developments of a 
 religion through a considerable period of time. 
 This is to a great extent true even of the Koran, 
 which is more of the nature of a book than any 
 of the others. With the exception again of the 
 Koran, it is probable that large portions of their 
 contents were handed down by tradition before 
 being committed to writing. Religion began in 
 custom rather than in thought, and was embodied 
 in ceremonies before these were explained by means 
 of doctrines. However simple the primitive worshi 
 might be, it naturally tended to assume fixed 
 forms; the same words would be used in incanta- 
 tion and prayer, and these would be accompanied 
 by the same acts and observances. When religious 
 custom became more complicated and more highly 
 organised, the tradition was preserved first by 
 means of a sacred caste or priesthood, and then 
 by writing down the tradition itself. Hence the 
 most ancient portion of such literatures usually 
 consists of liturgical formulas and ritual texts, 
 where the former give the words to be used and the 
 latter give the directions for the accompanying 
 acts. ‘The priestly class becoming naturally the 
 learned class, and their writings remaining for a 
 long time the only national literature, it was to be 
 expected that many matters of interest would 
 receive notice in that literature which could not 
 be strictly and absolutely described as religious. 
 Thus mythological and historical particulars which 
 were already ancient, and because of their antiquity 
 were held in reverence, would be carefully set 
 down. Laws first of ceremonial purification and 
 later of moral worthiness, the priestly wisdom in 
 its exercise even about civil matters, histories, 
 especially of the heroes of the nation and of the 
 faith, genealogical and other registers,—all, in fact, 
 which was regarded by those who were identified 
 with the religion as having permanent value became 
 a part of the sacred book. These features can be 
 traced in OT itself, and are generally characteristic 
 of what are known as the Bibles of mankind. The 
 canonical position et ea by such writings is due 
 to their acceptance by nations or religious com- 
 munities as of decisive authority especially in 
 matters affecting faith and worship, and is usually 
 supported by ascribing to them a supernatural 
 origin, or at least the authority due to them as 
 the work of the founders of the respective religions, 
 or as belonging to the period of development when 
 the influence of the founder was still fresh and his 
 initiative unimpaired. 
 
 For our present purpose it is only necessary to 
 take account of the literary monuments of the 
 chief ethnic religions. Fuller details may be found 
 in such works as Chantepie de la Saussaye, 
 Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte (of which the first 
 volume has been translated); Tiele, Outlines of the 
 History of Religion ; Menzies, History of Religion; 
 and in the literature as cited in these works. For 
 a brief sketch of the religions themselves, see 
 RELIGION. 
 
 The sacred books of China bring us face to face 
 with the practical paradox, that, while none have 
 ever been more influential in moulding the life of 
 a people, no inspiration or supernatural authority 
 is claimed for them. They are received with the 
 reverence due to the sages from whom they pro- 
 ceeded, and their guardians are not so much priests 
 as scholars. The five chief books of Confucianism 
 are termed King,—i.e. classical, canonical,—and 
 are partly the original werk of the master, partly 
 
 
 
294 BIBLE 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 
 
 (eid race and selections by him from pre-exist- 
 ing literature, with possibly, to some small extent, 
 later additions. In character they range from 
 extremely dry chronicles to the interpretation of 
 magical formulas, rules of conduct, and sacred 
 songs. The Li-Ki contains laws for domestic and 
 social life at once comprehensive and minute, and 
 by them the life of the whole Chinese Empire has 
 been moulded to the present day. Its fundamental 
 lesson is the inculcation of reverence, and it is full 
 of finely conceived and inspiring thoughts. The 
 four Shoo, or records of the philosophers, contain 
 much that is of interest, particularly the Memora- 
 bilia of Confucius himself and the writings of 
 Mencius, one of the most powerful and practical 
 of Chinese thinkers. The teaching of the latter as 
 to human nature has been compared with that of 
 Bishop Butler, since it regards human nature in 
 its ideal as a system or constitution in which the 
 rightful ruler of the entire nature is the moral 
 will. The Tao-ti-King is the sacred book of Taoism, 
 which divides with Confacluntearn and a form of 
 Buddhism the religious homage of the Chinese 
 
 eople. The author of this ‘Book of Doctrine and 
 
 irtue’ was the philosophic mystic Lao-tsze, who 
 was born about half a century before Confucius 
 (B.0. 600). Lao-tsze traces the origin of things to 
 an impersonal reason, and directs men to seek the 
 supreme good by way of contemplation and asceti- 
 cism; at the same time many of his utterances 
 are Pee by great beauty and genuine moral 
 insight. 
 
 In India we meet with a twofold stream of 
 literature,—that of Brahmanism and that of Buddh- 
 ism,—the former being the main factor in the 
 development of modern Hinduism. The Brahmanic 
 literature includes the Vedas proper, consisting of 
 four books or collections of hymns, the Brah- 
 manas, or ritualistic commentary upon these, and 
 the Upanishads or speculative treatises containing 
 the philosophy of the universe which the Vedic 
 hymns seemed to imply. All these form part of 
 the Veda, or knowledge par excellence, and belong 
 to revelation or ‘S’ruti’ (hearing), as having been 
 communicated to inspired men from a higher 
 source. A second order of books is similarly 
 termed ‘Smriti’ (recollection or tradition), and 
 includes the law books, the great Epic poems, and 
 the Puranas or ancient legends. Of these various 
 works the most important and interesting from 
 our present point of view are the Rigveda, the 
 Laws of Menu, and the Epics. The Rigveda is of 
 the greatest gees Pant and reveals much of the 
 life and manner of thinking and feeling of the 
 earliest invaders of India from the north of whom 
 anything is known. The hymns are spirited and 
 intensely national in tone. They were designed 
 for use at the sacrifices, of the ritual of which they 
 formed an essential part. The gods addressed in 
 them are pre-eminently Nature deities, whose 
 
 wer is extolled and whose aid and favour are 
 invoked. The Laws of Menu form one of those 
 codes for the regulation of conduct which have 
 gradually grown into shape. Much of it is believed 
 to belong to prehistoric times, and the main bod 
 of the code is undoubtedly very ancient, tndriph 
 in its present form it is probably not older than 
 the 2nd cent. A.D. It has been described as ‘a 
 kind of Indian Pentateuch, resting on the funda- 
 mental assumption that every part of life is 
 essentially religious.’ It originated either in a 
 particular locality or with a particular school, but 
 
 adually extended its authority over the entire 
 indu eer It consecrates the system of Caste, 
 but, while it exalts asceticism, its regulation of 
 ordinary life is touched with a fine spirit and 
 marked by a practical morality. The great Epic 
 poems, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, 
 
 chiefly influenced the transition from the ancient 
 Brahmanism to modern Hinduism. With their 
 countless legends and deep personal interest, they 
 appealed to those whom neither speculation nor 
 ritual could move. They are the Bibles of the 
 people, and celebrate the achievements of the 
 ancient heroes, Rama and Krishna. The latter is 
 regarded in the Mahabharata as anu incarnation of 
 Vishnu, one of the supreme Hindu deities. The 
 idea of incarnation of deity is indeed the chief 
 addition made by these poems to the religious 
 thought of India, and was probably developed 
 under the necessity of competing with Buddhism 
 for popular favour. Turning to the sacred litera- 
 ture of Buddhism, it is best represented in what is 
 known as the Southern Canon, the form in which 
 the books are used by the Buddhists of Ceylon. 
 They are written in Pali, while those of the 
 Northern Canon are in Sanskrit. They are other- 
 wise termed the Tripitaka, or three baskets, from 
 the manner of preserving the leaves in each volume, 
 and were accepted as canonical about B.C. 250. 
 The three ‘ baskets’ are the Vinaya Pitaka, which 
 gives the rules of Buddhism as a religious com- 
 munity, and especially of its monastic order; the 
 Abidharma Pitaka containing the philosophic or 
 speculative doctrine of the faith; and the Sutta 
 Pitaka consisting of reminiscences of the parables 
 and sermons of Buddha, in which the religion is 
 adapted to common life. To the last belong the 
 Dhammapada, ‘sentences of religion,’ the most 
 popular of all the Buddhist books. The Dhamma- 
 pada and the Sutta-nipata are said to ‘rank among 
 the nee impressive of the religious books of the 
 world.’ 
 
 The religion specially identified with Persia is 
 Zoroastrianism, and the B. of Zoroastrianism is 
 commonly known as Zend-Avesta. Properly, how- 
 ever, ‘Avesta’ is the text,—like the Indian ‘ Veda’ 
 it means ‘knowledge,’—and ‘Zend’ is the com- 
 mentary:or annotation upon it. The commentary 
 is in a different language from the text. The 
 latter consisted originally of 21 books, but practi- 
 cally only one of these has survived. It consists 
 of ie parts—the Yasna, a collection of liturgies 
 along with some hymns; the Visperad, consisting 
 of sacrificial litanies; and the Vendidad, an ancient 
 law book, with which are incorporated a number 
 of legendary narratives. While the prevailing 
 character of the Zend-Avesta is that rather of a 
 book of devotion than of the records of a religion, 
 a Bible in our sense, there is discernible within it 
 a variety of religious conceptions which illustrate 
 its essentially composite character. At the same 
 time it contains many passages of an extremely 
 noble and spiritual character, and the religion of 
 which it is the monument has had no inconsider- 
 able influence upon both Judaism and Christianity. 
 
 The only other sacred book of the first rank 
 which it is necessary for us to notice is the Koran 
 of the Mohammedans. The name signifies ‘read- 
 ing.’ It has already been remarked that the 
 Koran differs from other sacred literatures in being 
 the production of one man. Mohammed is its 
 author, the revelations being written down by the 
 followers of the prophet, after whose death the 
 fragments were gathered together and formed, 
 unfortunately with a total lack of arrangement, 
 into the unity of a single book. The attempts of 
 modern scholars to set the swras or chapters in 
 chronological order has largely increased the 
 interest of the book, and thrown light upon the 
 spiritual development of the prophet himself. In 
 such an arrangement the earliest utterances are 
 seen to be full of emotional fire, brief, poetic, 
 pointed. The later are longer and more prosaic, 
 dealing with all varieties of subjects, personal and 
 domestic, civil as well as religious. They contain 
 
 
 
BIBLE 
 
 
 
 
 BIBLE 295 
 
 
 
 also elements drawn from Jewish and Christian 
 sources. Yet the Koran throughout claims to be 
 inspired in the strictest sense, its words are the 
 words of God Himself. 
 
 Il. THE BIBLE IN RELATION TO THE LITERA- 
 TURE OF OTHER RELIGIONS.—Whiat, then, is the 
 relation of the literature thus briefly described to 
 the Christian Scriptures? It is not necessary to 
 depreciate the former in order to exalt the latter. 
 We have already noted that there is wisdom, 
 truth, and spirituality in these books of non- 
 Christian faiths. They and the religions with 
 which they are connected have been the light of 
 generations of human beings. They are associ- 
 ated with the civilisations of the world and its 
 great historical epochs. What we have now to 
 ask is, whether, apart from the question of Divine 
 Revelation, to which we shall presently advert, 
 any of them possess the qualities fitting them to 
 become the sacred books of the world, or whether 
 the B., from this point of view, has any manifest 
 superiority over them? If we turn to Contncian: 
 ism and its authoritative literature, we find every- 
 where a consecration of the past, even where it 
 is not understood, which is the deadly enemy of 
 progress ; the life of the people is bound in fetters 
 of habit and ceremony which political changes 
 and revolutions have not dufheed to break. The 
 characteristics of the Chinese mind, with its want 
 of comprehensiveness, and excessive attention to 
 minute detail, are reflected in its ‘classics,’ Moral 
 and spiritual life is crushed out under the burden 
 of external precepts and directions, and there is a 
 determined adherence to the level of the purely 
 human, an avoidance of all reference to the 
 divine, which ignores and tends to mutilate the 
 higher side of man’s being, and to deprive him of 
 an ideal. It is no wonder that the mysticism of 
 the Tao-ti-King had an attraction for those out of 
 whom the spiritual life was not wholly crushed. 
 But Taoism, notwithstanding its philosophical and 
 ethical excellences, ‘as a religion is a dismal 
 failure, and shows how little philosophy and morals 
 can do without a historical religious framework to 
 support them’ (Menzies). The sacred literature of 
 India is characterised net only by its immense 
 extent, but by the great variety of standpoints re- 
 presented in it. What failed to meet the wants of 
 a single people can scarcely be expected to satisfy 
 the entire human race. The Vedic hymns ex- 
 hibit the instability of polytheism. The Brah- 
 Manic system endeavoured to meet this defect 
 by means of its philosophical developments ; but in 
 so doing unfitted itself to be a popular religion. 
 Hence India, during the supremacy of Brahmanism, 
 had in reality two religions, the speculative and 
 the idolatrous and mythical. The separation be- 
 tween the two tended to intensify their several 
 
 eculiarities, as well as to degrade the popular 
 aith—a difficulty which was only partially met by 
 the incarnation ideas which emerge in the great 
 Epics, Even Buddhism, which presents a personal 
 object of affection and imitation to the worshipper, 
 is condemned by its one-sidedness. If in Con- 
 fucianism we havea religious positivism which will 
 not look at the Divine, in Buddhism we have an 
 agnosticism which cannot find it. It is a religion 
 of despair; it cannot become the spring of human 
 effort, promote civilisation, or contribute to social 
 progress. The sacred books which have sprung 
 up on soil like this, reflecting the peculiarities of 
 their origin, must be held as falling short of the 
 required conditions on which alone they could 
 supersede all others. Zoroastrianism as a religion 
 may be said to be already dead, modern Parsism 
 being a compai atively uninfluential modification 
 of it. The Zend-Avesta is of interest, as we have 
 
 seen, for the noble elements contained in it, and 
 
 for the traces of its thought which are to be found 
 in the teachings of other faiths; but even in the 
 vortions which have come down to us, it shows 
 itself, like the literature of Brahmanism, a mixture 
 of diverse views and standpoints. Its mainly 
 liturgical character, and the view presented in It 
 of the supreme Deity, so far as a dualistic system 
 can be said to have a supreme Deity, prevented it 
 from spreading much beyond the region of its 
 origin. The Mohammedan Koran is equally un- 
 fitted to become the book of a universal religion. 
 Like Confucianism, though in a different way, 
 Islam is a foe to progress. ‘Its ideas are bald and 
 poor; it grew too fast; its doctrines and forms 
 were stereotyped at the very outset of its career, 
 and do not admit of change. Its morality is that 
 of the stage at which men emerge from idolatry 
 . . its doctrine is after all no more than negative. 
 Allah is but a negation of other gods. ... He 
 does not enter into humanity, and therefore he 
 cannot render to humanity the highest services.’ 
 
 Westcott, in an interesting article contributed to the Cam- 
 bridge Companion to the B., distinguishes the sacred books of 
 the pre-Christian ethnic religions from the OT Scriptures under 
 three heads. 1. They are unhistorical. ‘In no case is the 
 revelation or autnoritative rule given in them represented as 
 embodied and wrought out step by step in the life of a people. 
 The doctrine is announced and explained, and fenced in by 
 comment and ritual; but it finds no prophets who unfold and 
 apply the divine words to the varying circumstances of national 
 growth, which at once fix their application and illuminate their 
 meaning.’ 2. They are rstrogressive. ‘The oldest portions of 
 the several collections of the Chinese, Indian, and Persian Scrip- 
 tures are confessedly the noblest in thought and aspiration ; 
 and, secondly, ritual in each case has finally overpowered the 
 strivings after a personal and spiritual fellowship with God.’ 
 3. They are partial. In their most complete form they may 
 be said to be ‘a Psalter completed by a law of ritual.’ ‘On the 
 other hand, the B. contains every element which the representa- 
 tives of different races have found to be the vehicle of religicus 
 teaching, and every element in its fullest and most fruitful form.’ 
 
 If these features, we may add, nre conspicuous on a com- 
 parison with the O7, the argument is strengthened when ths 
 NT is brought into view. There the highest reaches of doctrine 
 and devotion are embedded in history ; there the culmination 
 of all the divine progress is attained ; there in amplest measure 
 are to be found the sources of man’s purest an highest life. 
 And the B. thus completed suggests a point of distinction which 
 perhaps does not belong to the OT alone. The ethnic Scriptures 
 are essentially national, or at least racial; they are bound by 
 limits of place and time, the natural products of the circum- 
 stances in which they arose; the B. may be admirably adapted 
 to the needs of place and time, it alone appzals to man as man, 
 and most marvellously combines 2 truly historical character 
 with an adaptability to be the religious guida and instructor of 
 mankind. It has proved its power to travel and to speak to the 
 hearts of men of varying countries and climes. 
 
 i. Revelation.—A usual feature of the sacred 
 books we have been considering is the claim made 
 by them, or on behalf of them, that they are vehicles 
 of a divine fevelation. The Chinese alone do not 
 claim that their books are inspired, though they 
 regard them with a reverence as deep as anything 
 connected with their religion calls forth. The 
 three parts of the Veda, as we have seen, are dis- 
 tinguished as S’ruti, ‘revelation,’ from the Smriti, or 
 ‘tradition.” The Vedic hymns themselves were held 
 to possess supernatural powers, and were raised to 
 the rank of a divinity. The Avesta had been, 
 according to the Persians, communicated to Zara- 
 thustra (Zoroaster) by Ahura, the good god, him- 
 self. The Koran, according to the Mohammedans, 
 is an earthly copy of a heavenly original, which 
 the angel of revelation made known to the prophet 
 during his ecstasies; it was the subject of one of 
 their greatest controversies whether the Koran as 
 it stands, down to the very word and letter, was 
 not uncreated and eternal, and free therefore from 
 every possible imperfection. The motive of such 
 conceptions lies upon the surface. If, on the one 
 hand, it is man’s way of expressing his boundless 
 reverence for that which is ancient or of proved 
 value, it is, on the other hand, due to the desire of 
 feeling himself on solid ground in regard to the 
 highest and most mysterious concerns of life, those 
 
 
 
 
 
296 BIBLE 
 
 which relate to the power above him and the 
 future before him. Somewhat similar claims are 
 made on behalf of the B. It also brings a revela- 
 tion from God; it also is an inspired book. Are 
 all such claims equally futile? Because they are 
 made on behalf of many books, are they true of 
 none? Such a conclusion would be obviously in- 
 ept. Ifa revelation is necessary for man, and if it 
 is in the highest degree unlikely that God would 
 leave man without this necessary guidance,—points 
 which we cannot fully discuss in this place,—it 
 must be somewhere, and the fact that there are 
 unfounded claims to its possession should stimulate 
 the search for it, not lead to its abandonment. 
 And these claims, if nothing more, are a pathetic 
 confession of man’s sense of helplessness in presence 
 of the deeper problems of existence, of his felt 
 need for higher guidance. Nor is it necessary to 
 deny that the conviction so strongly held had a 
 relative justification. A better and juster view 
 of the pies of the world than that formerly 
 entertained, leads us to see that in them also God 
 was educating the world for Himself. In their 
 higher phases, by means of their loftier spirits, a 
 - message was delivered to the nations, in which 
 they were not wrong in recognising His voice. In 
 comparison with Christianity they may be classed 
 as ‘natural’ religions, but at least God was speak- 
 ing in the worthier manifestations of the ‘nature’ 
 which He had made. We are prepared, therefore, 
 rather than unfitted by their study, to recognise in 
 Christianity a divine revelation, and in the B. an 
 inspired book, while the question of degree of In- 
 spiration, and as to what Inspiration itself in- 
 volves, is directly suggested by. it. 
 ii. Inspiration.—The Christian doctrine of In- 
 
 epuetion was largely an inheritance from the Jews 
 along with the OT, to which alone it at first 
 applied. After the begs Boag of Prophetism, 
 
 and the reconstitution of the ‘Church-people’ of 
 {srael on the basis of the written law, it is not 
 surprising that rigid and even mechanical views of 
 Inspiration prevailed. The Talmud, while ad- 
 mitting degrees of Inspiration, declared that the 
 Pentateuch at least had been divinely dictated to 
 Moses; while Alexandrian Judaism, doubtless 
 uxder Platonic influences, and on the analogy of 
 the heathen Mantic, held that it involved a total 
 suspension of the human faculties. The first 
 Christian writer to propound a theory of this kind 
 is Justin Martyr, who could not conceive of the 
 things above being made known to men other- 
 wise than by the Divine Spirit using righteous men 
 like a harp or lyre, from which the plectrum elicits 
 what sound it will. This view was followed with 
 more or less emphasis by such writers as Tertul- 
 lian, Irenzeus, Origen; while others, like Chry- 
 sostom, Basil, Jerome, were disposed to recognise 
 the individuality of the several writers as mould- 
 ing their respective work. While Eusebius affirms 
 that it would be rash to say that the sacred pen- 
 men could have substituted one word for another, 
 and Augustine sometimes ascribes to them an 
 absolute infallibility, the latter betrays some dis- 
 position t? recognise the human element when he 
 says that the evangelists wrote ‘ut guisque memi- 
 nerat et ut cuique cordi erat.’ Two circumstances 
 probably prevcated the early Church from defin- 
 itely adopting an extreme doctrine on this subject. 
 One was the struggle with Montanism, which led 
 to a clearer distinction being drawn between in- 
 spiration and ecstasy. The other was the autho- 
 rity still ascribed to the tradition of the Churches, 
 which was so much on a level with that attri- 
 buted to Scripture that Irenzeus could complain of 
 the difficulty of dealing with heretics who could 
 appeal from one to the other, as suited their pur- 
 pose. The same duality of resource characterised 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 the common practice of the Church of that a 
 whose bishops invoked now the B. and now tradi- 
 tion in favour of their judgments. In the succeed- 
 ing period, the inspiration of the B. was in many 
 quarters maintained in an uncompromising form, 
 while practically the B. was more and more sub- 
 ordinated to tradition as embodied in the Church, 
 On the one hand, it was held to be useless te 
 inquire the name of the writer of a passage of 
 Scripture since the Holy Spirit was the author of 
 all Bont stare or it was asserted that the Holy 
 Spirit formed the very words in the mouths of 
 prophets and apostles; on the other, the Church 
 placed itself between the individual Christian and 
 the B., which gradually became comparatively 
 unknown and inaccessible. Its authority was not 
 so much disputed as ignored. This was pace 
 the position maintained throughout the Middle 
 Ages—a position definitely formulated by the 
 Council of Trent and the Tae Roman Catholic 
 theologians. It was the Reformers who revived 
 the appeal to Scripture in opposition to the autho- 
 rity of the Roman Church and its traditions. This 
 they did, however, without pronouncing upon the 
 ee which the authority they ascribed to the 
 . seemed to a later age to involve. It was enough 
 for them that the ‘good news’ was declared in it, 
 that by its use a soul could draw near to God with- 
 out priest or rite. Luther proposed to revise the 
 Canon, or at least to estimate the value of the 
 several books by the distinctness with which Christ 
 was preached in them—a criterion which, it is evi- 
 dent, was at once too narrow and too wide, exclud- 
 ing some books which not only Christian antiquity, 
 but devout usage, had consecrated, and including, 
 if consistently carried out, masses of Christian 
 literature.. Zwingli and Calvin maintained as 
 firmly as Luther the supremacy of the B., while 
 also keeping an open mind as to its several parts. 
 For them the substance and content was every- 
 thing, the form of secondary importance. The 
 Confessions of that epoch in general share this 
 freedom of attitude, though those of the Reformed 
 Churches are more explicit than the Lutheran. 
 The 17th cent. was a period at once of violent con- 
 troversy and of rigid definition. The Jesuits on 
 the one hand, the Socinians and Arminians on the 
 other, attacked the authority of Scripture in the 
 interests of Ecclesiasticism or Rationalism. Pro- 
 testant orthodoxy, whether in the Lutheran or 
 Calvinistic form, intrenched itself on the founda- 
 tion of the B., identifying inspiration with in- 
 fallibility, and the record with the revelation it 
 ecnyeyed The sacred writers were regarded as 
 the passive instruments, the amanuenses, of the 
 Divine Spirit. Inspiration was defined as includ- 
 ing the impulsus ad scribendum, the suggestio 
 rerum, and the suggestio verborum. The diversity 
 of style apparent in Scripture was explained as the 
 voluntary accommodation of Himself to the writers 
 by the Holy Spirit. At the same time, with so 
 exalted an authorship, the language could not be 
 anything but pure and exact; no barbarisms or 
 solecisms could enter into the Greek of the NT, 
 and even the vowel points and accents of the Heb- 
 rew text were inspired—an opinion stamped as 
 orthodox by the Swiss Formula Consensus of 1675. 
 From the theory of inspiration thus formulated 
 (and exaggerated) followed the attributes (affec- 
 tiones sew proprietates Scripture sacre) which the 
 dogmatic writers ascribed to the B. These are 
 primary and secondary. The primary are: 1. Diw- 
 ina auctoritas, resting upon its external evidences 
 and internal qualities; but, above all, upon the 
 testimonium Spiritus Sancti, or the witness of God 
 in the soul. This authority constitutes the Scrip- 
 tures the sole tribunal in matters of faith and life, 
 2. Perfectio or sufficientia ; the B. contains all that 
 
 
 
BIBLE 
 
 
 
 BIBLE 297 
 
 
 
 is nece tosalvation. 3. Perspicuitas. The B. 
 is self-explanatory. Passages may be more or less 
 obscure, but these must be explained by means 
 of the simpler and clearer declarations. Rightly 
 used, it requires no other interpreter. 4. Eficacia. 
 The B. is a means of grace, having the power of 
 converting the sinful and consoling the sad. The 
 secondary attributes are necessitas, integritas et 
 perennitas, puritas et sinceritas fontium, authen- 
 tica dignitas. ‘These indicate generally that a 
 revelation must be written, cat that, in all re- 
 spects, the B., as we have it, is the B. as it was 
 intended to be. 
 
 It is unnecessary to pursue further the histo 
 of the idea of inspiration as applied to the 
 Enough has been said to show the position which it 
 held, and how it was liable to be modified accord- 
 ing to the circumstances in which the Church of 
 successive ages found itself placed. Before touch- 
 ing, however, upon the position accorded to the 
 B. at the present day, attention must be directed 
 for a moment to the relation in which the question 
 of canonicity stands to that of inspiration, since 
 these together have determined the manner in 
 which the B. has been received in the Christian 
 Church. The formation of a Canon at all implies 
 that authority is attributed to the writings in- 
 cluded init. The history of the Canon has shown 
 us that it was formed ely, as the result of 
 ocal usage, which fixed and extended itself, and 
 not as the outcome of criticism or even formal de- 
 termination on the part of the whole Church or its 
 more important divisions. By the end of the 4th 
 cent., as we have seen, the B. stood practically as 
 we haveit now. Yet its limits were not settled in 
 such a way that the Reformers of the 16th cent. 
 felt themselves precluded from rediscussing them. 
 Their tendency was, in the first instance, to examine 
 this and other accepted usages of the Church in 
 the light of historical inquiry. But the oppor- 
 tunities and the material for a competent historical 
 investigation were wanting. The questions at 
 issue were largely decided upon the basis of feel- 
 ing, either individual or general. The exigencies 
 of controversy necessitated a rapid arrival at a 
 decision which should be practical and readily in- 
 telligible. While, therefore, it was not upon the 
 authority of the Church, but through an intuitive 
 
 reception supposed to reside in the believing 
 es that the contents of the B. were 
 received, the B. thus acknowledged was neverthe- 
 less the same B. as that of the 4th cent. And this 
 once determined, the doctrine of Inspiration was 
 frequently employed to lift it out of the region of 
 historical criticism, and to make its limits and 
 contents a matter of dogmatic definition. Thus we 
 have the rather remarkable resalt that inspiration 
 in the sense of a supernatural guarantee for their 
 truth and authority is claimed for a series of writ- 
 ings, while no claim is, or can be, made for a super- 
 natural determination of the precise writings which 
 are to be included in the series. If the latter 
 
 uestion isstill open to historical criticism, and must 
 be determined, as every book on Biblical Intro- 
 duction proves to us anew, on grounds of historical] 
 investigation, it is impossible for a dogmatic de- 
 finition of inspiration to be ae in more than a 
 general way to such a series of books; and in that 
 case the question, what inspiration is, and what 
 are its limits or degrees, is again opened uP So 
 long as inspiration cannot be claimed for the pro 
 cess by which canonicity is determined, canonicit 
 cannot be held to fix the bounds of inspiration. It 
 is true that, as Westcott remarks (Bible in the 
 Church, pp. 293, 294), the usage which fixed the 
 Canon ‘is only another name for a divine instinct, 
 
 & providential inspiration, a function of the Chris- 
 tian body’; that ‘history teaches by the plainest 
 
 examples that no one part of the B. could be set 
 aside without great and permanent injury to the 
 Church which refused a portion of the apostolic 
 heritage. We are now in a position to estimate 
 what would have been lost if the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews or the Epistle of St. James or the 
 Apocalypse had been excluded from the Canon. 
 And, on the other hand, we can measure the evils 
 which flow equally from canonising the Apocrypha 
 of the OT, and denying to them all ecclesiastical 
 use.’ 
 
 In more recent times, and at the present day, 
 cases may be pointed out of almost all the varieties 
 of view on the subject which our brief historical 
 sketch brought to light. Some carry inspiration 
 to the extreme of literalism, some appear to deny 
 it in any sense in which it is not applicable to 
 Boeny and other forms of art. Unreserved con- 
 
 emnation should not be poured upon either of 
 these extremes. The first 1s held not only by the 
 unthinking multitude,—‘ the indolence of human 
 nature,’ Mr. Gladstone remarks (Butler, iii. p. 17), 
 ‘would be greatly flattered by a scheme such as 
 that of the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture,’— 
 but by thoughtful men who have seen in it the 
 logical conclusion of their religious theories; the 
 second, not only by those who are indifferent to re- 
 ligion, but by fine spirits who have not seen the 
 hg aad or perhaps the need of anything further. 
 ‘he large majority of inquirers, however, recog- 
 nise frankly the true inspiration of the B., and 
 also that the determination of its nature, degrees, 
 and limits must be the result of an induction 
 from all the available facts. 
 
 On the one hand, full weight must be given to 
 that remarkable testimony of history which West- 
 cott, in the passage quoted above, signalises. 
 But a still more remarkable phenomenon of the 
 same kind is apparent in the pages of the B. itself. 
 From one point of view, nothing can be more un- 
 systematic and fragmentary than its contents. 
 It is full of contrasts and surface-discrepancies. 
 It is made up of extracts from the lives of indi- 
 viduals and the experiences of a people. All 
 forms of literature are represented in it (see The 
 Literary Study of the Bible, by R.G. Moulton). It 
 presents no systematised theology or ethics. Yet 
 a closer observation reveals the unity underlying 
 all this variety. A progress is discernible from 
 the first page to the last. Revelation corresponds 
 to revelation, like the outcropping of the same 
 rock-stratum in different places. One thought, 
 one plan, is seen to pervade the whole, and to make 
 the B., if the product of many minds, the outcome 
 of one Spirit,—not a ‘library’ only, as has been 
 said, but a ‘book.’ Again, in so far as the B. is 
 admitted to be inspired, its testimony to itself, the 
 testimony of part to part, cannot be ignored. This 
 is an argument which may easily be pushed too 
 far and made to prove too much ; its application 
 in any absolute way wouid require, for example, 
 the question of canonicity to be already settled. 
 But the great argument for the real inspiration of 
 the B. in a special sense is that it commends itself 
 to the minds of those who devoutly receive it,— 
 what the Reformers designated the testimonium 
 Spiritus Sancti. The relation of this to other 
 evidences for the unique authority of Scripture is 
 expressed by the Westminster Confession (ch. i. 5) 
 thus: ‘We may be moved and induced by the 
 testimony of the Church to an high and reverend 
 esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness 
 of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the 
 majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, 
 the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory 
 to God), the full discovery it makes of the only 
 way of man’s salvation, the many other incompar. 
 able excellences, and the entire perfection thereof 
 
 
 
293 BIBLE 
 
 are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evi- 
 dence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwith- 
 standing, our full persuasion and assurance of the 
 infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is 
 from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing 
 witness by and with the word in our hearts.’ This 
 is the religious test of the value of Scripture. 
 But it obviously applies only to the knowledge of 
 salvation, of which Scripture is the vehicle. It is 
 religious, not speculative—still less historical or 
 scientific. However real and important the fact 
 to which it points, it bears upon it a stamp of in- 
 dividuality, subjectivity. s seen at work in 
 Luther, for example, ‘it is impossible to read his 
 comments on Holy Scripture without feeling that 
 he realises its actual historical work and con- 
 sequent spiritual meaning in a way which was un- 
 known before. For him the words of apostles and 
 prophets are ‘living words,” direct and immediate 
 utterances of the Holy Spirit, penetrating to the 
 inmost souls of men, and not mere premisses for 
 arguments or proofs’ (Westcott, l.c. pp. 245, 246). 
 But a criterion which in Luther and other Re- 
 formers was compatible with a large degree of 
 liberty, gave rise in its later and more formal 
 application to the ‘summary method,’ as Westcott 
 calls it, of cutting the knot of a difficulty, dis- 
 posing of evidence by dogmatically pronouncing it 
 superfluous, and assuming that history has been 
 fully interrogated and has spoken its last word, 
 and so converting a great truth into a fetter and 
 a falsehood. 
 
 On the other hand, while the elements which 
 thus make for the inspiration of the B. and its 
 unique authority as a spiritual guide are widely 
 and fully recognised, the human element in 
 Scripture has in recent times forced itself upon 
 the attention of the thoughtful. Here it is not 
 merely that by evident signs the biblical writers 
 show that they were not simply amanuenses writing 
 to the dictation of a Spirit above them; it is not 
 the occurrence of discrepancies and inconsistencies 
 in the B. itself, or in connexion with external 
 history and modern science: it is rather the 
 recognition of a progressive revelation in the B., 
 that it contains the history of the struggle between 
 the Divine light and human ignorance and sin, 
 that the revelation is conveyed to us in such 
 measure and manner as each of the writers was 
 able to apprehend it and give it forth. Thus the 
 process traced in an earlier portion of this article, 
 whereby the ‘books’ became the ‘Book,’ the 
 change of the point of view from plurality to 
 unity, is one which wisdom, thought, and investiga- 
 tion find it necessary, to some extent, to reverse. 
 In order to understand even this unity aright, it is 
 found essential to scrutinise the several parts of 
 which it is made up, the manifold media through 
 which the revelation has been given, the several 
 stages through which the B. as we know it has 
 been evolved. This side of it will fall to be more 
 carefully considered in the article THEOLOGY ; in 
 the meantime it is needful to observe that, as 
 Gladstone remarks, ‘if any development of Divine 
 Revelation be acknowledged, if any distinction of 
 authority between different portions of the text be 
 allowed, then, in order to deal with subjects so 
 vast and difficult, we are at once compelled to 
 assume so large a liberty as will enable us to meet 
 all the consequences which follow from abandoning 
 the theory of a purely verbal inspiration’ (Butler, 
 iii. 17). 
 
 The subject of Inspiration and the B. is in our 
 time canvassed mainly in two connexions — the 
 rights of criticism, and the question of authority 
 in matters of faith. Christianity as a historical 
 celigion cannot be exempted from the application 
 of the principles of historical inquiry, nor can the 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 B. as literature be exempted from the canons of 
 criticism which apply to the other religions of the 
 world and their sacred books. So far all reason- 
 able persons may be said to be agreed. The 
 difficulties which have arisen in connexion with 
 criticism have resulted from the division of the 
 critics into two schools, one of which assumes that 
 all the phenomena of the sacred history and its 
 record must be explained by natural causes ony 
 that the history of the Hebrew people is exactly 
 hel with that of Athens or of Rome, that the 
 ife of Christ is strictly of the same order as that 
 of Socrates ; while the other school recognises and 
 allows for the element of the supernatural when it 
 is seen at work. The one studies the Christian 
 development without sympathy, therefore without 
 understanding ; the other avoids presuppositions, 
 and seeks to apprehend the facts from within as 
 well as from without. But the latter, no less than 
 the former, feels that the respect due to the 
 Christian documents themselves imposes the duty 
 of a careful examination and appreciation of them 
 in the light of their history. The object of criticism 
 is not destruction only, it is a means of ascertain- 
 ing truth, and it is not true reverence which 
 would place the B. outside of its sphere of opera- 
 tion. 
 
 More pressing, perhaps, than even the distrust of 
 criticism which prevails in many quarters, is the 
 search for authority. If the B. is not to be like an 
 Act of Parliament, operative ‘to the last and 
 farthest extremity of its letter,’ how is it to retain 
 that quality which the Westminster Confession 
 ascribes to it of being the final court of appeal in 
 all controversies of religion? How is the divine 
 and authoritative element to be separated from the 
 human and fallible? How, in fact, is revelation, in 
 the sense of communicated knowledge, possible by 
 means of the Scriptures? We may briefly notice 
 two recent attempts to meet this difficulty. 
 
 Denney (Studies in Theology, Lect. ix.) quotes with approval 
 the words of Robertson Smith, in which he gives a modern 
 rendering of the testiémoniwm Spiritus Sancti: ‘If I am asked 
 why I receive Scripture as the word of God, and as the only 
 perfect rule of faith and life, I answer with all the fathers of the 
 Protestant Church, Because the B. ts the only record of the 
 redeeming love of God, because in the B. alone I find God 
 drawing near to man in Christ Jesus, and declaring to us in 
 Him His will for our salvation. And this record I know to be 
 true by the witness of His Spirit in my heart, whereby Iam 
 assured that none other than God Himself ts able to speak such 
 words to my soul.’ Denney, however, clearly perceives what we 
 have pointed out above, that this is ‘a doctrine of the Divine 
 message to man,’ not ‘a doctrine of the text of Scripture.’ His 
 view is that coming to Scripture ‘without any presuppositions 
 whatever,’ without any ‘antecedent conviction that it is in- 
 spired,’ we become convinced that it is inspired because ‘it 
 asserts its authority over us as we read,’ it has ‘ power to lod; 
 in our minds Christianity and its doctrines as being not only 
 generally but divinely true,’—its power to do this bela ee 
 cisely what we mean by inspiration.’ A starting-point having 
 been thus acquired, by ‘working out from it the area of 
 certitude may be really enlarged.’ Having accepted the 
 B. as in the main inspired and authoritative, the same con- 
 viction may be indirectly entertained regarding all which is 
 not self-evidencing. The Canon is to be received on the general 
 assumption that the Church as a whole is less likely to be mis- 
 taken than an individual inquirer. This is all that can be 
 arrived at by the multitude of Christian believers, or can be 
 urged upon those whose minds are perplexed upon the subject ; 
 for the rest ‘the theologian will know how to distinguish 
 between the letter of the record and God revealing Himself 
 through it.’ 
 
 Fairbairn (Christ in Modern Theology, p. 496 ff.) appears to 
 rest the authority of the revelation given in the B. upon the 
 inspiration of those through whom it came—inspiration being 
 described as a possession of the spirit of man by the Spirit of 
 God. This is the converse of the view last referred to, where the 
 revelation and the response it awakens in the mind of the 
 hearer or reader is the guarantee of the inspiration. Indeed, on 
 Fairbairn’s view the relations of inspiration and revelation 
 seem to be reversed. ‘God inspires, man reveals; inspiration 
 is the process by which God gives; revelation is the mode or 
 form—word, character, or institution—in which man embodies 
 what he has received.’ In this way a position is gained from 
 which the adaptation of religious ideas to the circumstances of 
 a people or age may be explained. But the attention and 
 interests of men must ever be engaged with the revelation 
 
 
 
 YT. 
 
BIBLE 
 
 BIGVAI 299 
 
 
 
 rather than the nspiration. The reality of the latter is a small 
 matter apart frum the character of the former. ‘The essential 
 function of inspiration is the formation of the personalities— 
 both the minds for the thought and the thought for the minds 
 —through whom the religion is to be realised ; and the essential 
 function of revelation is to embody in historical form—literature, 
 character, worship, institution—what inspiration has created.’ 
 But it is surely a false distinction thus to make the inarticulate 
 divine and the articulate human. How can the former be a 
 
 mtee for the latter? And in so far as inarticulate, how is 
 fre inspiration of Hebrew prophets and Obristian apostles to be 
 distinguished from that of Hindu or Persian poet or sage? It 
 is true that ‘the inspiration of the men who read’ is made ‘as 
 intrinsic and integral an element in the idea of revelation as 
 the inspiration of the men who wrote.’ But in both cases the 
 theory jie sae 8 test which has all the subjectivity of the 
 appeal e testimonium Spiritus Sancti without the recog- 
 nition of the divine quality of the revelation itself which enters 
 into the latter. It seems open also to the same kind of criticism 
 which Sir Wm. Hamilton, in a well-known essay, applied to 
 Bchelling’s metaphysical theory : the intellectual intuition being 
 only ible in the absence of consciousness, is no help to the 
 conscious ersten of what it alone can give assurance of ; 
 it is ‘in the state of personality, and non-intuition of the 
 Absolute, that the philosopher writes; in writing therefore 
 about the Absolute, he writes of what is to him as zero,’ What, 
 in like manner, is to connect the revelation which man gives to 
 man, with the inspiration, the state of possession, in which it is 
 supposed to be received? 
 
 These instances serve to illustrate the difficulties 
 surrounding the question. It is probable that no 
 theory of inspiration will ever solve all these 
 
 . difficulties or be regarded as entirely annette § 
 It may be fully and freely recognised that the B. 
 has a unique excellence of its own, qualities which 
 set it apart from even the greatest literary achieve- 
 ments of the race, while yet it has been constructed 
 in such a way that the human element, the pecu- 
 liarities and even the limitations of its writers, 
 have been consistently maintained. In two re- 
 spects, we of this age are perhaps in a more 
 favourable position for peaing with the question 
 than those who have gone before us. On the one 
 hand, it is possible to compare the Christian religion 
 and its Scriptures with the non-Christian religions 
 and their sacred books with both a knowledge anda 
 sympathy which in earlier times were undreamt of. 
 
 nm the other, a closer and more intimate know- 
 ledge of the Bible itself as a living book and not 
 as a mere repertory of proof texts, is one of the 
 marks of our time. ‘Criticism has, by bringing 
 the sacred books into relation with sacred history, 
 done something to restore them to their real and 
 living significance . . . by binding the book and 
 the people together, and then connecting both with 
 the providential order of the world, it has given us 
 back the idea of the God who lives in history 
 through His people, and a people who live for Him 
 through His word’ (Fairbairn, /J.c. p. 508). What- 
 ever be the results of the literary analysis of the 
 biblical books, or the bearing of archeological 
 discovery upon the history they record, this is the 
 aim of historical criticism, and it can scarcely be 
 doubted that the service it has rendered to classical 
 and Oriental literature may be, and must be, 
 rendered to the B. also. s a part of it, that 
 practice which we have noticed of studying the 
 thought of the B. in its development, and tracing 
 it through its successive representations, is of the 
 highest significance and value. In any case it is 
 to be remembered that the B. contains the most 
 ancient and most authentic documents bearing 
 upon the origin, the nature, and the characteristic 
 features of the Christian religion, and especially 
 upon the person and work of its Founder. This 
 gives to it an interest, if not an authority, which 
 cannot be disputed. Of the revelation which we 
 believe to have come through Christ, it is the earl 
 and reliable record. To it, therefore, the Churc 
 of later ages has naturally turned to correct her 
 aberrations, and to obtain a renewal of her life. 
 What the B. has been to individuals cannot be 
 told. If the history of the world has a meaning, 
 and is not a succession of fortuitous circumstances, 
 
 we cannot fail to recognise the centre of that 
 history in Christ, and the animating force of its 
 later ph in the spiritual movement He inaugu- 
 rated, ithout the B. this movement could not 
 be understood, or its influence continued and 
 extended. We cannot doubt, therefore, that the 
 God whose providence has ruled and shaped the 
 history, whose Spirit moved and spoke in Christ, 
 has also inspired the B. and made it what it is— 
 the vehicle of the highest spiritual thought, the 
 
 urest moral guidance man has known. It itself 
 Invites inquiry, and takes its place in the historical 
 development. Sacred scholarship must finish the 
 work upon it which it has begun. But withal the 
 B. remains, and will remain, the most precious 
 heritage of mankind. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—The Literature relating to the first part of this 
 article will be found in connexion with the several special 
 articles (CANON, TExT, etc.) to which reference is made. On the 
 subjects of Revelation and Inspiration, any of the great dog- 
 matic works, or any History of Doctrines, may be consulted, as 
 well as articles in such Encyclopedias as the Encycl. Brit., 
 Herzog, Lichtenberger. Among monographs may be mentioned : 
 Lee, Inspiration of Holy Scripture; Bannerman, Inspiration ; 
 Gaussen, Théopneustie ; Jamieson, Baird Lectures; Horton, 
 Revelation and the Bible; and Sanday, Bampton Lectures, in 
 which, after desling with the early history and application of 
 the doctrine, the writer compares in his concluding Lecture the 
 traditional and inductive Theories of Inspiration. 
 
 A. STEWART. 
 
 BICHRI (23).—In 2 S 20! Sheba is called ‘the 
 son of Bichri’; translate rather ‘the Bichrite,’ i.e. 
 a member of the clan which traced its descent to 
 Becher, the son of Benjamin (Gn 46”). 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 BID, bade, bid (2 K 5%, Zeph 17) or bidden (Mt 
 and Lk passim), ‘to invite’ to a feast, etc. (now 
 archaic or local) ; 1 S 938: 22 (x2), Zeph 17 ‘he hath 
 bid his guests’ (wap7, RV ‘ sanctified’ with a ref. to 
 18 165); Mt 22%‘ sent for his servants to call (xadéw) 
 them that were bidden (also xa\éw, but in perf. 
 ptcp.) to the wedding’ (RV ‘ marriage feast’). In 
 1 Co 107" ‘If any of them that believe not bid you 
 to a feast’ (xa\éw, with no word for ‘ feast’); Lk 
 142 ‘lest they also bid thee again’ (dvrixadéw). 
 
 To bid=to command, is common ; but notice Lk 
 99, Ac 18”! ‘ bid farewell’ (daordcooua, used in Mk 
 6“ ‘when he had sent them away,’ RV ‘taken 
 leave of them’; Ac 188 ‘took his leave of’; 2 Co 
 218 ‘taking my leave of’; Lk 14* ‘ forsaketh,’ RV 
 *renounceth ’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BIDE, Wis 8" ‘they shall bide my leisure’ 
 (repiuévw, translated ‘ wait for’ Ac 14, so RV here). 
 ‘ Bide’ is mostly replaced in mod. Eng. by ‘abide’ 
 (which see). J. cence! 
 
 BIDKAR (7773, possibly for "77773; but this and 
 similar contractions are highly uncertain).—A chief 
 oftiicer of Ahab and subsequently of Jehu (2 K 9%), 
 
 C. F. BURNEY. 
 BIER.—See BURIAL. 
 
 BIGTHA (x32 Est 12°).—One of the seven eunuchs 
 or chamberlains of king Ahasuerus. For the name 
 compare Abagtha (ib.) and Bigthan (27). In the 
 LxXk the names are different, Bapatl, Bwpaty B, 
 ’OapeBwd A, taking the place of Ee 
 
 . A. WHITE. 
 
 BIGTHAN (jn Est 27), BIGTHANA (x3ni2 6?).— 
 One of two chamberlains or eunuchs of Ahasuerus 
 (Xerxes) who conspired against the king’s life. 
 Their treachery was discovered and foiled by 
 Mordecai. R. M. Boyp. 
 
 BIGVAI (113).—1. A companion of Zerub. (Ezr 
 2?=Neh 77, ef. Ezr 24=Neh 7, Ezr 84, where the 
 name appears as the head of a family of returning 
 exiles). 2. One of those who sealed the covenant 
 (Neh 108). See GENEALOGY. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
300 BILDAD 
 
 BILDAD (1252, LXX Baddd8, ‘Bel hath loved’ 2). 
 — Described in Job 2" as one of Job’s three friends. 
 He is called ‘the Shuhite,’ indicating his descent 
 from Shuah (nW), son of Abraham and Keturah 
 (Gn 25). Abraham is described as sending Shuah, 
 with other sons of concubines, to ‘the East 
 country,’ and his descendants probably lived in a 
 district of Arabia not far from Idumxa. The 
 region is not to be confounded with the trans- 
 Hauran Schakka, or the Zaxxala of Ptolemy, to the 
 east of Batanwza. The LXX describes B. as rév 
 Zavxalwy répayvos. For a description of the part 
 taken by B. in the colloquies, see Jos, Book oF. 
 It may be here briefly said that his position is in 
 every sense intermediary between Eliphaz and 
 Zophar. He speaks after the one and before 
 the other; his speeches are shorter than those 
 of Eliphaz, longer than those of Zophar. He 
 is also more violent than the older and graver 
 Eliphaz, but less blunt and coarse than the third 
 spokesman who follows him. He speaks thre 
 times, in chapters 8, 18, and 25, the last time very 
 briefly. W. T. DAVISON. 
 
 BILEAM (oy3), 1 Ch 6”.—A Levitical city of 
 Manasseh, the same as Ibleam of Jos 174, Jg 127, 2 K 
 9”; prob. the mod. Bel‘ame (see Moore on Jg 1”), 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 BILGAH (7372 ‘cheerfulness’).—1. Head of the 
 15th course of priests (1 Ch 24"). 2. A priest who 
 returned with Zerub. (Neh 12°18), The same as 
 Bilgai (Neh 108). H. A. WHITE. 
 
 BILGAI.—See BILGAH. 
 
 BILHAH, PERson (773, BédAXa; in B of 1 Ch 738 
 Badan ; Bala, Bara).—A slave-girl given to Rachel 
 by Laban, Gn 29” (P), and by her to Jacob asa 
 concubine, Gn 30% 4 (JE); the mother of Dan and 
 Naphtali, Gn 30+ 7 (JE) 3575 (P) 46% (R), 1 Ch 73, 
 She was guilty of incest with Reuben, Gn 35% (P). 
 The etymology is uncertain. These narratives 
 and genealogies are to be regarded as embodying 
 early traditions as to the origin and mutual rela- 
 tions of the tribes, rather than personal history. 
 Tribes are traced to a concubine ancestress, because 
 they were a late accession to Israel. 
 
 W. H. BENNETT. 
 
 BILHAH, PLAcE (A753, A Badaa’, B’ABeAdd, Bala). 
 —A Simeonite city, 1 Ch 4 = Baalah (733), Jos 15”; 
 Balah (793), Jos 19%, and (?) Baalath (nby3), Jos 194, 
 1 K 9%, 2 Ch 8% Site uncertain. Kittel (Sacred 
 Books of OT, 1 Ch 4%) proposes to point ngs 
 Balhah; cf. VSS and arate! passages. 
 
 W. H. Bennett. 
 
 BILHAN (jqb2).—1. A Horite chief, the son 
 of Ezer (Gn 367=1 Ch 1*). 2. A descendant of 
 Benjamin, son of Jediael, and father of seven sons 
 who were heads of houses in their tribe (1 Ch 7). 
 See GENEALOGY. R. M. Boyp. 
 
 
 
 
 
 BILL.—1. A bill of divorce or divorcement, Dt 
 241. 8, Ts 501, Jer 38 (nn 190 sépher kérithith, lit. ‘a 
 writ of cutting off’ (see Driver on Dt 241, who 
 compares Sir 2578 dréreue atriy, ‘cut her off’) ; Mk 
 10* (8iBAloy drogractov, the LXX tr® of sénher 
 kérithith ; also used Mt 5% AV, RV ‘writing of 
 divorcement’; and 19’, AV as 5%, RV as Mk 104). 
 See MARRIAGE. 
 
 2. A debtor’s written account, Lk 167 (TR 7d 
 Ypdupa, edd. ra ypdupara, RV ‘ bond’). Edersheim 
 (Jesus the Messiah, ii. 272 f.) points out that the 
 Gr. word here employed was sometimes used in 
 rabbinical writings (Hebraised gerammation), and 
 corresponded with the Syr. shitre, which denotes 
 ‘writings’ that were either formal, when they 
 were signed by witnesses and the Sanhedrin of 
 three; or informal, when only the debtor himself 
 
 BIRTH 
 
 signed. The latter were most frequently written 
 on wax, and thus easily altered. See DEBT. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BILSHAN (jvba ‘inquirer’).—A companion of 
 Zerubbabel (Ezr 2?, Neh 77= Beelsarus, 1 Es 5°). See 
 GENEALOGY. 
 
 BIMHAL (nna for ‘073 ‘son of circumcision’ ?).— 
 A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7%). 
 
 BINEA (xy}3).—A descendant of Jonathan (1 Ch 
 857 943), 
 
 BINNUI ("32 ‘a building’).—1. Head of a family 
 that returned with Zerub. (Neh 7°=Bani of Ezr 
 2%), 2. A Levite (Ezr 8* (prob.=Bani of Neh 8? 
 and Bunni of Neh 94), Neh 12°). 3. A son of Pahath- 
 moab (Ezr 10® =Balnuus of 1 Es 9%). 4. A son of 
 Bani who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10%), 
 There appears to be a confusion in some instan- 
 ces between the similar names 433, 33, 13. See 
 BAvVVAI, GENEALOGY. . A. SELBIE. 
 
 BIRDS.—See FowLs. 
 
 BIRSHA (yvra, etym. and meaning unknown).— 
 King of Gomorrah at the time of Chedorlaomer’s 
 invasion (Gn 14?), 
 
 BIRTH.—Among the Hebrews, as among the 
 Orientals generally (comp. Herod. i. 136, of the 
 Persians), a high value was placed upon the 
 possession of children (see, ¢.g., Gn 16? 29°! #4 30}, 
 1S 1625, 2 K 414, Ps 127%-5), and especially of sons 
 (see 1S 12, Jer 20%, Job 3°), while childlessness 
 was regarded as a heav reproach (Gn 30%, Lk 
 1%) and punishment (2 g 6%, Hos 9114), Par. 
 turition seems generally to have been oe (Ex 1, 
 yet see Gn 315), as it is with Syrian and Arabian 
 women at the present day, and cases in which the 
 mother died in childbirth (Gn 3518, 1 S 4) were 
 probably quite exceptional. From the phrase used 
 in Gn 50%, cf. 30%, it has been supposed that in 
 early times the child was actually born upon its 
 father’s knees (see Nowack, Heb. Archéol. i. 165), 
 according to customs of which traces are found in 
 several primitive peoples (Ploss, Das Weib,? ii. 
 177 ff.) ; or at least that the newly-born infant was 
 placed in its father’s lap as a token of recognition 
 and adoption. We find, however, no clear 
 reference to such customs in historical times. 
 Indeed, the father was not present at the birth of 
 the child (Jer 20!) ; the mother was attended b 
 other women (1 8 4”), and the assistance of a mid- 
 wife was often called in (Gn 3517 387%, Ex 11st 
 Compare article MipwiFE). The newly-born 
 infant, after its navel-cord had been cut, was 
 bathed in water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in 
 swaddling-clothes (Ezk 164, Lk 27). The practice 
 of rubbing infants with salt is still retained among 
 the fellaheen of Pal., who believe that children 
 are strengthened and hardened by this means 
 (ZDPV iv. p. 63). The child received its name 
 from the mother (Gn 2992 30, 1S 17, 1 Ch 4%) or 
 from the father (Gn 16 1718, Ex 2”, Hos 14; 
 see especially Gn 35"8), the choice of name being 
 often derecu ne by special circumstances attend- 
 ing the birth. In later times, at any rate, a 
 boy received his name at his circumcision on the 
 eighth day (Lk 1° 271), The mother was regarded 
 as unclean for the space of seven+thirty-three 
 days after the birth of a son, or for fourteen + 
 sixty-six days after the birth of a daughter (Lv 
 12), This difference may probably be exvlained 
 from the belief, which existed also elsewhere, that 
 the ibe aoe of a puerperal state continued longer 
 in the latter case (Hippocr. ed. Kiihn, i. 392; 
 Dillmann on Ly 12°). dee PURIFICATION. The 
 
 
 
BIRTHDAY 
 
 firstborn, when a son, belonged to J’, and must 
 therefore be redeemed (Ex 13!% 34°) for the 
 sum of five shekels (Nu 18!-), The child was 
 usually suckled by the mother (Gn 217, 1 S 1%, 
 1 K 3%), but a nurse (np}"p) is sometimes mentioned 
 (Gn 24 358, 2 K 117); it was not fully weaned 
 for two or three years(2 Mac 77’; cf.1S 1°?-*4),—in 
 Mohammedan law, indeed, mothers are bidden to 
 suckle their children for at least two years,—and 
 the completion of the weaning was sometimes 
 celebrated by a feast (Gn 21°). H, A. WHITE. 
 
 BIRTHDAY.—The custom of observing a birth- 
 day as a festival seems to have been widely spread 
 in ancient times. Herodotus (i. 133) speaks of this 
 ee among the Persians. In Gn 40” we 
 
 ear of the celebration of the birthday of the king 
 of Egypt, and in the times of the Ptolemies the 
 inscriptions of Rosetta and Canopus bear witness 
 to the same custom. ‘The birthdays of the kings 
 were celebrated with great pomp. They were 
 looked upon as holy, no business was done upon 
 them, and all classes indulged in festivities suit- 
 able tothe occasion’ (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, 
 1847, v. 290). For Roman birthdays, cf. Marquardt, 
 Privatleben d. Romer, i. 244f. According to 2 Mac 
 67 the birthdays of the Syrian kings were com- 
 memorated every month by means oF sacrifices, of 
 which, in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, the 
 Jews were forced to partake. In the Gospels (Mt 
 14°, Mk 67!) we read of the feast made by Herod 
 
 Antipas to his nobles on his birthday, on which 
 occasion the daughter of Herodias danced before 
 the guests. The proper Greek term for such festival 
 is 7d yereOdua (cf. Jos. Ant. I. v. 3), ra yevéora being 
 used to denote a feast commemorating a person’s 
 death (Herod. iv. 26); but in later Greek we find 
 ra yevéo.. and similar phrases used in the sense of 
 
 birthday (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 18, lvi. 46, lxvii. 2; 
 Alciphro, iii. 18, 55; cf. Jos. Ant. xu. iv. 7: rip 
 | soated huépav). The meaning of 7a yevéouw in the 
 ospels has indeed been disputed, many com- 
 mentators referring the word to the anniversary 
 of the king’s accession—a day which we know to 
 have been observed by some of the Herodian 
 rinces (Jos. Ant, XV. x1. 6: riv juepay ris dpxijs). 
 n support of this view appeal is made to the 
 Mishna (Ab. Sar. i. 3), where by the side of the 
 ‘yevéow, of the kings’ (0°270 Sy x1013°3), mention is 
 also made of apron no) 7750 oF, i.e. ‘the day of birth 
 and the day of death.’ So Wieseler, Beztrage, p. 
 182; Hausrath, New Testament Times (E.T. 1880), 
 ii, 122; Edersheim, Life and Times (1891), i. 672. 
 But no certain instance can be quoted from Greek 
 literature to ea the supposed meaning of ra 
 yevéou.; and the Pal. Gemara (Jer. Ab. Sar. i. 39c) 
 explains x’013"1 as equivalent to birthday. In the 
 Bab. Gemara indeed (Ab. Sar. 10a), where the 
 meaning of the word is discussed, the final decision 
 is in favour of the interpretation ‘day of accession’; 
 but from the context it appears highly probable 
 that here, as elsewhere, the Talmudists were 
 essing at the meaning of an unknown word. 
 a Meyer on Mt 14°; Schiirer, HJ P 1. ii. 26f. 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 BIRTH, NEW.—See REGENERATION. BIRTH- 
 RIGHT.—See FAMILY. 
 
 BIRZAITH (mma Kethibh, mna Keré, AV Birza- 
 vith), 1 Ch 73!.—Apparently a town of Asher, prob- 
 ably Bir-ez-Zeit, near Tyre, C. R. ConDER. 
 
 BISHLAM (o0v3=obw-;2 ‘ peaceful’ ?).—An officer 
 of Artaxerxes in Pal. at the time of the return from 
 ey under Zerub., Ezr 4’. Called BELEMUS in 
 1Es2'*, The LXX renders the name by év elpyvn, in 
 peace, as if it were the greeting at the beginning of 
 the letter which follows. H. ST. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 BISHOP 301 
 
 BISHOP (érlcxoros) and ELDER (mpecBvrepos).— 
 The words are too closely connected in NT and 
 sub-apostolic writings to be separated here. First, 
 to trace their use outside the churches, 
 
 1. émicxoros is common in the general sense of an 
 overseer ; rarer as an Official title. We have (a) 
 in the flourishing age of Athens, ér. sent to regu- 
 late new colonies or subject cities like Spartan 
 harmosts. They were called érpednral in Rom. 
 times. (6) After Alexander, two ér. at Thera 
 are directed to receive some money and put it at 
 interest; and éz. at Rhodes are munici a officers 
 whose duties are unknown. (c) In LXX éz. are 
 taskmasters, as Is 60!” (3), or minor officers, as 
 Neh 11° (7°75), or 1 Mac 1 the commissioners 
 of Antiochus who enforced idolatry. In L 
 also, as Ps 108%, we first find the office denoted 
 by émioxom}. (d) In the 3rd cent. A.D. we have 
 ém. as municipal officers in about ten inscriptions 
 from Batanza, the Decapolis, and those parts, 
 where they seem to have had some authority over 
 sacred revenues (rd rod Oeod). Of its use (e) tor the 
 treasurers of private associations there are no very 
 clear traces. The common word was émipeAyris, as 
 with the Essenes. 
 
 2. mpecBurepos. The city councils in Rom. times 
 were commonly called BovAal, not ‘yepovolat or 
 mpeoBurépia. e@ yepovola, of which mpecBtrepoa 
 were members, were not private societies, but 
 corporations for purposes like the games, or the 
 worship of the city-god, or the burial of their 
 members. Their officers were mpocrdrat, dpxorres, 
 mponyouueva. (b) The Jewish cities of Pal. were 
 governed by a fovAy of 7, or, in sek bel places, 23 
 mp. (0%32]). These formed a court of justice, and 
 may have managed the synagogue. The organisa- 
 tion of the Jews in Antioch, Alexandria, etc. was 
 on the same lines, except that in Rome there were 
 several such corporations. 
 
 Now, though the Lord commanded His disciples 
 to form a society, there is no indication that either 
 He or His apostles ever pes any definite 
 form for it. We should therefore expect to find 
 them following existing models till the new spirit 
 of the society began to express itself in new 
 forms. 
 
 In NT we have fairly frequent mention of 
 bishops and elders (passages collected in art. 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT), and the two offices seem 
 much the same. This is proved thus :—(1) Bishops 
 and elders are never joined together, like bishops 
 and deacons, as separate classes of officials. (2) 
 Ph 1! ‘ to bishops and deacons’ (no article). If there 
 had been a distinct order of elders, it could scarcely 
 have been omitted. So 1 Ti 3 passes over the 
 elders, though (5!) there certainly were elders at 
 Ephesus, and had been (Ac 201”) for some time 
 
 ast. Conversely, Tit 1°7 passes over bishops, 
 
 escribing elders in their place, and in nearly the 
 same words. (3) The bishops described to Timothy, 
 the elders of 1 Ti 5!’, and those of 1 P 5%, have dis- 
 tinctly pastoral functions. So, too, have the elders 
 of Ac 20 and those described to Titus. (4) The same 
 persons seem to be called bishops and elders (Ac 
 2017 8, Tit 157 tva xaracricys mpecBurépouvs . . . dei 
 yap tov émlaoxomoy x.7.d.). The words are also 
 synonyms in Clement ad Cor. xlii. 44, and (b 
 implication) in Teaching, xv., and Polycarp, Phil. 1. 
 It is only in Ignatius that the bishop takes a 
 distinct position. The geneeal equivalence of the 
 two offices in the apostolic age seems undeniable, 
 though so far we must not assume that every 
 bishop was an elder or vice versd, or that there 
 never were any minor differences between them. 
 The difference of name may of itself point to some 
 difference of crieh : and this is our next question. 
 
 As regards elders, it seems likely that the name 
 comes from Jewish sources. Theofliceis already half 
 
 
 

 
 302 BISHOP 
 
 
 
 BIT, BRIDLE 
 
 
 
 hinted at in Lk 22” (hardly in Ac 58 vedrepo: cf. 
 veavloxo.) ; and we have every reason to think that 
 the churches (even those not of Jewish origin) 
 largely followed the arrangements of the syna- 
 
 ogue. Their meeting is actually called cwaywyh 
 in Ja 2?, and the Ebionites retained the name even 
 in the 4th cent. It may, however, be noted at 
 once, that if the office and the name were adopted 
 from the Jews, it does not follow that the duties 
 were even originally quite those of the 037] of the 
 synagogue. 
 
 The origin of bishops is more doubtful. The 
 name may perfectly well be Jewish, though the 
 early connexion of the word with Gentile churches 
 is against this. The LXX use of éricxoros and 
 émicxor} may have suggested it ; but Gentile Chris- 
 tians might have todtd a still readier hint in the 
 bates meaning of the word, combined with its 
 reedom from special associations with idolatry. 
 Yet on the other side is the connexion of bishops 
 with deacons, and Clement’s direct appeal to Is 601". 
 The question is best left undecided. 
 
 APPOINTMENT.—In the first age popular election 
 and apostolic institution seem to have been co- 
 ordinate. The Seven (Ac 6° °) are chosen by the 
 people, and instituted by the apostles with prayer 
 and laying on of hands. Something similar seems 
 indicated for the Lycaonian elders, though xetpo- 
 rovicavres (Ac 14%) grammatically refers to the 
 eae who by prayer with fastings commended 
 them to the Lord. The elders in Crete are ap- 
 pointed (Tit 15 ta xaracrfoys) by Titus, and appar- 
 ently the bishops at Ephesus by Timothy in like 
 manner, though 1 Ti 5”, He 6? seem not specially 
 concerned with the matter ; but it does not follow 
 that there was no popular election. In any case 
 Timothy or Titus sould have to approve the candi- 
 date before instituting him: so that the particular 
 description of his qualifications need not mean 
 that they had to select him in the first instance. 
 As soon as we get outside NT (Teaching, xv., 
 Clement, xliy. liv.) popular election becomes very 
 conspicuous, though neither does this exclude a 
 formal institution. The elders are already attached 
 to the apostle even in the conveyance of special 
 gifts (1 Ti 4'4, where the contrast of werd with the 
 6.4 of 2 Ti 16 may indicate their secondary position) ; 
 and when the unlocal ministry died out, they 
 would act alone in the institution to local office. 
 How soon an episcopate was developed is a further 
 uestion ; and very much a question of words, if 
 the development was from below. 
 
 In conclusion, it would seem that the outline of 
 the process was much the same in all church 
 offices—first designation, then institution by prayer 
 with (at least commonly) its symbolic accompani- 
 ments of laying on of hands and fasting. But 
 there is one all-important distinction, that if the 
 designation to local office was by popular election, 
 that to unlocal office was by the will of the Holy 
 Spirit (Ac 13%, of Apostles; 1 Ti 44 118, apparently 
 oh an Evangelist, 2 Ti 4°). 
 
 DUTIES. —(1) General Superintendence.—Elders 
 in Ac 20%, 1 Ti 5”, Tit 17, 1 P 528 (xaraxup. is 
 xuptevew done the wrong way), bishops in 1 Ti 3° 
 Indicated possibly in kxvBeprvjces, dvrirjupes, 1 Co 
 12%; more distinctly ee 44 rods 62 rouévas Kal 
 didacxddouvs, so pointedly contrasted with the 
 unlocal officers. So mpoiorduevon 1 Th 5, Ro 128 
 remind us of the bishops and elders, 1 Ti 34 mpoicrd- 
 pevov, 517 apoecrwres. The iyyotmevo. or mpony. also 
 
 of He 137-1"-%, and of Clement, ad Cor. i. 26, 37, 
 may be set down as bishops or elders, for (a) men 
 entitled to obedience must have other than the 
 
 urely spiritual functions of the unlocal ministry ; 
 (6) the bishops at Corinth evidently own no higher 
 authority, so that they must themselves be the 
 ryouper os. 
 
 Under this head we may place the share taken 
 by the elders (a) at Jerus., in the deliberations of 
 the apostles (Ac 15°) and in the reception held 
 by James (Ac 2118); (6) elsewhere, in the laying 
 of hands on Timothy, 1 Ti 4%. 
 
 (2) Teaching.—1 Th 5” rpotcrduevo. admonishin 
 in the Lord, 1 Ti 3? the bishop apt to teach, 5! 
 elders who toil in word and teaching, Tit 1° the 
 elder or bishop must be able to teach, and to con- 
 vince the gainsayers. 
 
 Preaching is rather connected with the unlocal 
 ministry ; but in its absence the whole function of 
 eae worship would necessarily devolve en the 
 ocal. This may be hinted He 137 17-* (no officers 
 named but 7yovuevor), and in any case it is pias 
 enough in Teaching, xv., and Clement speaks vf 
 bishops mpoodépovres ta Swpa, Which must not be 
 limited to the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 (3) Pastoral Care.—This is everywhere so con 
 spicuous that references are hardly needed. 
 
 To it we may refer (a) visiting of the sick, with 
 a view (Ja 5!) to anointing and cure; (b) care of 
 strangers and @ fortiori of the poor, 1 Ti 3?, Tit 1%, 
 the bishop to be giAdgevos. 
 
 So far we have not discriminated the duties of 
 bishops and elders. But was there any difference 
 at all? Harnack thinks that while bishops and 
 deacons had the care of public worship and the 
 poor, eldersrather formed a court attached to the 
 church, and as such were occupied with govern- 
 ment and discipline. The apparent identity of the 
 offices would then be no more than an identity of 
 persons. The weightiest members of the church 
 would naturally hold both offices, and give the 
 tone to both. This theory explains points like the 
 difference of names and the marked separation 
 between the two classes. It may contain more 
 than a germ of the truth ; but it cannot be accepted 
 without important reservations. (a) It is not 
 likely that duties were quite so definitely separated. 
 If the elders began with discipline and general 
 oversight, they would be re soon to take up 
 more spiritual duties, as the Seven did. Those 
 who had gifts to minister the word and teaching, 
 would rather be honoured than hindered ; so that 
 many of them might easily be doing pastoral work 
 (esp. if they were bishops also) before the end of 
 the apostolic age. In any case (bd) bishops and elders 
 are identical in the Pastoral Epistles, so that the 
 distinction must by that time have been nearly lost. 
 This, however, depends on their date. Harnack 
 (Chronologie, 1897, p. 484) still places the relevant 
 passages in the middle of the 2nd cent. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Loening, Gemeindeverfassung d. Urchristen- 
 thums ; Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 181-269; Gore, Christian 
 Ministry, esp. note K; Hatch, Bampton Lectures (1880), tr. 
 into Germ. with excursuses by Harnack (1883) ; artt. on Origin 
 of the Christian Ministry by Sanday, Harnack, Gore, Rendel 
 Harris, Macpherson, Simcox, and Milligan in Eaposttor, 3rd 
 series, vols. v. and vi. ; Weizsaicker, A post. Zeitalter, pp. 599-612. 
 
 H. M. GwWATKIN. 
 
 BISHOPRICK.—Ac 1™ ‘His b. let another take’ 
 (RV ‘office’ with marg. ‘Gr. overseership.’) The 
 Gr. is émicxor}, which here and in 1 Ti 3’ means 
 the office or work of an érlcxomos (see BISHOP) ; but 
 primarily and chiefly in NT describes God's visi- 
 tation, as Lk 19“ ‘ the time of thy visitation,’ 1 P 
 22 ‘the day of v.’? The same office is described 
 in Ac 1 as ‘ ministry and apostleship ’ (d:iaxovla wal 
 dtrocTo\h). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BIT, BRIDLE (y93, and, otonp, yadcvds).—The dis- 
 tinction between these words is not maintained in 
 AVand RV. 4. jo resen (Arab. rasan) is a halter. 
 Thus in Job 30" RV, ‘they have cast off the bridle 
 before me,’ the reference is to a horse or mule that 
 has slipt off the halter with which he was tied, and 
 is risking about in the rough glee of discovered 
 freedom. Such had become the behaviour of the 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 BITHIAH 
 
 BITTER, BITTERNESS 
 
 303 
 
 
 
 rabble before Job. So in Is 30%, instead of ‘a 
 bridle in the jaws of the people,’ read ‘a halter on 
 the jaws of the peoples’ (oy 9> dy I; 
 
 2. app metheg ; xardwdbs (2 K 19%, Pr 268, Is 37%, 
 Ja 3° RV, Rev 14”) is a bridle, which includes the 
 bit, as the primitive bridle was simply a loop on 
 the halter-oord passed round the lower jaw of the 
 horse. Hence in Ps 32° RV, ‘ whose trappings must 
 be di¢ and bridle,’ the meaning is rather bridle 
 and halter, as the two means of holding them in. 
 The Psalmist had been speaking of willing service 
 that only needed a directing eye, and the contrast 
 is to the disinclination of the horse and mule that 
 needed bridle and halter to bring them near. 
 
 8. pion> mahsom, is a muzzle. Hence, ‘I will 
 keep my mouth with a bridle’ (Ps 39!) should 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SS 
 
 ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rer 
 GERI 
 4 
 
 MODERN SYRIAN MUZZLE, 
 
 clearly be ‘with a muzzle,’ asin RVm. To lose the 
 distinction is here to lose the meaning, which is 
 enforced silence. A bridle is not used to keep a 
 horse from biting. The muzzle is the basket of 
 rope network that was not to be put on the oxen 
 of the threshing-floor, but must be put over the 
 mouth of the horse, mule, or donkey that bites its 
 companions, the other baggage-animals, and causes 
 disarrangement of their loads. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 BITHIAH (na ‘daughter,’ t.e. worshipper, ‘of 
 J”’).—The daughter of a Pharaoh, who became 
 the wife of Mered, a descendant of Judah (1 Ch 
 418). Whether Pharaoh is to be taken here as the 
 Egyp. royal title or as a Heb. proper name, it is 
 diffealt to determine. The name B. may indicate 
 one who had become a convert to the worship of 
 J", which would favour the first supposition (but 
 LXX B reads Tedd). If the other wife of Mered is 
 distinguished as ‘the Jewess,’ RV (AV Jehudijah), 
 this would still further strengthen the supposition. 
 But the text of 1 Ch 47-18 appears to be defective, 
 and does not afford ground for more than conjec- 
 ture. (See Kittel, ad loc. in Haupt.) 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 BITHRON (jinn27), 2 S 2”, ‘the gorge,’ probably 
 not a proper name,—a ravine leading to Mahanaim. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 BITHYNIA (B.6uvia), a countr 
 
 in the north of 
 Asia Minor, bordering on the Propontis (Sea of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Marmora), the Bosphorus, and the Euxine (Black 
 Sea), was bequeathed to the Romans in B.c. 74 by 
 the last king, Nicomedes 1m. The coast of Pontus 
 was united with it in a single province by Pompey 
 in B.C. 65, and the joint province was administered 
 according to the principles embodied in a lex Pom- 
 peta. But the two parts of the province always 
 retained a certain distinction from one another; 
 the official name was regularly double (Bithynia et 
 Pontus) ; there were two high priests, the Bithyni- 
 arch and the Pontarch (like Asiarch, Galatarch, 
 Lykiarch, ete.); and hence Pontus and B. are men- 
 tioned separately in 1 P14. Bithynia adjoined Asia, 
 and hence, when Paul and Silas were prevented 
 from preaching in Asia (Ac 16°), they naturally 
 proceeded towards B., but, coming near the frontier, 
 were not permitted to enter it; and they kept on 
 towards the W. through Mysia till they came out 
 at Troas. B. was a senatorial province, governed 
 like Achaia (which see) ; but Pliny governed it on 
 a special mission from the emperor, 111-3, and 
 wrote the reports to Trajan which give so much 
 information about the province and the Christians 
 init. B. was arich, fertile, peaceful, and highly 
 civilised province. Jews in B. are mentioned by 
 Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, § 36 (Mang. ii. 587); but 
 they are not noticed in the list given in Ac 2°", 
 It is remarkable that Byzantium (Constantinople), 
 along with, doubtless, the peninsula at the end of 
 which it was situated, was included in the province 
 of Bithynia et Pontus, as we learn from Pliny, ad 
 Traj. bs 43, 44. Two great roads traversed B., 
 one connecting Nikomedia and Nicwa (the two 
 chief cities) with Doryiaion and Phrygia in general, 
 the other connecting them with Ancyra direct—a 
 road which in later times became important as 
 che route of European pilgrims by land to Jeru- 
 salem, 
 
 LITERATURE. — Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, 1. pp. 
 349-357; Hardy in Pref. to his ed. of Pliny, Hypist. ad Trajan; 
 Ainsworth in Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc vol. ix.; Hamilton, 
 Researches in As. Min.; Ritter, Kleinasien (Erdkunde von 
 Asien, vols. xx. xxi.), i. pp. 650-768; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of 
 As. Min. pp. 179-211, 240 ff. ; Th. Reinach, Numism. des Kois de 
 Bith. Pliny’s report on the Bithynian Christians is treated in all 
 Early Church histories and in the works on the position of the 
 Church in the empire by Neumann, Hardy, etc. 
 
 W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 BITTER, BITTERNESS.—in the literal sense of 
 b. to the taste, the word occurs in such passages 
 as Pr 277 (of food, opposed to sweet), Ex 15”, Ja 341 
 Rev 8" (of water), and Is 24° (of strong drink). 
 See also article BITTER HERBS. In most of the 
 passages, however, where the words above given 
 are used in Scripture, it is in a figurative or tropical 
 sense. The examples that follow do not claim to 
 be exhaustive. 
 
 i. We may note, in the first place, the use 
 of ‘bitter’ in an objective sense, of cruei, biting 
 words (cf. mxpol Aéyvo), Ps. 64°; of the keenness of 
 the misery which results from forsaking God, Jer 
 2; from a life of sin in general, Jer 4!8, and ot 
 impurity in particular, Pr 54. It is applied to the 
 misery of servitude, Ex 1; and to the misfortunes 
 due to bereavement, Ru 1”, Am 8”, 
 
 ii. In a more subjective sense, bitter and bitter- 
 ness describe such emotions as sympathy in 
 bereavement, Ru 118, and misfortune, Ezk 2781; the 
 poignant sorrow of childlessness, 1 S 1°, and peni- 
 tence, Mt 267; the keenness of disappointment, 
 Gn 27%; and the general feeling of misery and 
 wretchedness, Job 3”; emotions often relieved by 
 a corresponding ‘b. cry,’ Gn 27%, Est 4) ete., and 
 by the shedding of ‘ bitter tears’ (cf. Homer’s mixpdv 
 daxpvov), Mt 267 and often. 
 
 Under this head may be classed the cases where 
 ‘bitter’ in the original refers rather to fierceness of 
 disposition, as in 28 178 (‘as a bear robbed of her 
 whelps’), allied with a readiness to take offence, 
 
 
 
 
 
304 BITTER HERBS 
 
 BITUMEN 
 
 
 
 Hab 1° (‘the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty 
 nation’), Jg 18%. Cf. Eph 4, Ro 3%, 
 
 iii. Another set of fig. applications belongs 
 rather to the sphere of ethics than to that of 
 psycholo Thus Isaiah characterizes those who 
 would subvert the fundamental distinction of 
 right and wrong as putting ‘b. for sweet, and 
 sweet for b.’ (5%). So also Dt 32°, where the 
 reference is to the moral poison exhaled by 
 the corrupt nations of Canaan. The same idea 
 of moral depravity is somewhat differently ex- 
 
 ressed in Dt 2918 (@, from which (see LXX render- 
 ing) are derived the expressions ‘ gall of bitterness,’ 
 Ac 8%, and ‘root of bitterness,’ He 12%. 
 
 iv. Finally, there is to be noted the term. techn. 
 ‘the water of bitterness that causeth the curse’ 
 Nu 538 RV (cf. Kautzsch’s tr. ; das fluchbringende 
 Wasser des bitteren Wehs), which plays so im- 
 portant a part in the ordeal there described. 
 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 BITTER HERBS (0% mérérim, mixplées, lactuce 
 agrestes).—It is hardly possible for an Oriental to 
 dine without a salad, and these salads are composed 
 of many kinds of herbs, some mucilaginous, as the 
 purslane, Portulaca oleracea, L. ; others crisp, as 
 the cucumber ; others aromatic, as parsley ; others 
 bitter, as the watercress, Nasturtium officinale, 
 L. ; the pepper grass, Lepidium sativum, L. ; the 
 endive, Cichorium Intybus, L.; the lettuce, 
 Lactuca sativa, L. Such as these and many 
 others like them can be found everywhere, and 
 suit the requirements of the Passover ordinance 
 (Ex 128, Nu 9"). More bitter still are the 
 numerous medicinal plants, as colocynth, worm- 
 wood, scammony, POppy; and many others which 
 were in the hs et’s eye when he said (La 3!5 m), 
 ‘He hath ol me with bitternesses (mérérim) ; 
 he hath made me drunken with wormwood.’ 
 
 The use of bitter herbs at the Passover was not 
 to remind the Israelites of the bitterness of their 
 bondage (Ex 1), but, as in the case of bread 
 withuut leaven, to remind them of the haste 
 with which they fled. A meal of unleavened 
 bread, roast lamb, and a salad of bitter herbs, 
 was the simplest and quickest that could be pre- 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 BITTER WATER.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 BITTERN (5p, 5p kippéd, éxivos, ericius).— 
 Gesenius regards kippéd as the same as the Arab. 
 kunfudh, the porcupine ; and with him agree most 
 of the VSS. Tristram, Houghton, and others 
 favour the rendering bittern of the AV. They 
 argue as follows :—(1) That the porcupine has not 
 been noted as an inhabitant of ruins. But this is 
 equally true of the bittern, and it is far less prob- 
 able that it should be said of the bittern than of 
 the porcupine. The bittern is a swamp bird, and 
 would not choose ruins, but reeds and fens, for a 
 residence. The porcupine, however, is a shy 
 solitary animal, and might easily choose its home 
 among the fallen columns of abylon (Is 14%), 
 Nineveh (Zeph 21‘), or Idumea (Is 34"), (2) That 
 the porcupine could not climb to the capitals of 
 columns. This is not essential, however, as the 
 allusion is rather to the fallen stones of a ruin 
 than to the capital of a standing column. (3) 
 That ‘ their voice shall sing in the windows’ (Zeph 
 24), Their, however, is not in the original, and 
 we may quite as well supply a, and understand by 
 “a voice’ the sighing of the wind among the fallen 
 stones and through the empty casements, rather 
 than the grunt of a porcupine, or the booming of a 
 bittern, neither of which can be called singing. 
 (4) That poreupines do not frequent water pools 
 (Is 14%), This, however, is inconclusive, since 
 Babylon was to be a possession for the kippéd, and 
 
 (not in) pools of water—i.e. desolate ruins, where © 
 kippéd could live, and marshes. 
 
 he passages in which the name kippéd occurs 
 are intended to express desolation and ee absence 
 of human residence. They are parallel to a large 
 number of similar ones in which the desolation is 
 symbolised by the residence of various beasts and 
 birds. These are usually chosen because of their 
 shyness, and the certainty that where they are 
 man is faraway. It by no means follows that in 
 every case all of them, or perhaps any of the par- 
 ticular ones, should dwell in the ruin. It is quite 
 contrary to the habits of the bittern to dwell in 
 
 ‘ruins. The porcupine, as a man-fearing animal, 
 
 like the cormorant (RV pelican), owl, raven, dragon 
 (RV jackal), owl (RV ostrich), wild beasts of the 
 desert, wild beasts of the island (RV wolves), satyr 
 (probably wild goat), screech owl (RV nignd 
 monster), great owl (RV arrowsnake), and vulture, 
 represents the idea of desolation in its concrete 
 form. In the spirit of poetic exaggeration it is said 
 (Is 3416), ‘no one of these aR | fail, none 
 
 want her mate.’ To bind down this exalted 
 imagery to literalism would convert every ruin into 
 a menagerie, tenanted by a motley array of 
 fabulous as well as actual beasts and birds. ith 
 the philological evidence in favour of the unfudh 
 (porcupine), and with the unsoundness of the 
 foregoing zoological objections, we may safely 
 follow the RV, which makes it porcupine. 
 
 
 
 PORCT PINE. 
 In the foreground, under the larger animal, are a full-grown 
 and @ young hedgehog. 
 
 The porcupine, Hystria cristata, L., is found 
 along the sea-coast, and in the lower mountain 
 districts of Pal. and Syria. It feeds on roots, 
 bark, fruits, and vegetables. It inhabits holes and 
 subterranean clefts, and might well find a retreat 
 among ruins. The flesh is eaten by the natives, 
 who know it by its classical name kunfudh. It is 
 about 2 feet in length, mie of the tail, 
 which measures 5 to 6 in. It is covered with the 
 familiar quills. When the animal is tranquil they 
 lie appressed to its body. When it is excited the 
 are erected. It is noctvenal in its habits, an 
 seldom seen by man. G. E. Post. 
 
 BITUMEN (Gn 11° “97, dodadros, EV ‘slime,’ 
 RVm ‘bitumen’).—The mineral substance which 
 has given to the Dead Sea the name Lacus Asphal. — 
 tites (Jos. Ant. I. ix.), in which case it is mineral 
 pitch of the group of the hydrocarbons. This 
 mineral is abundant in several Eastern countries, 
 and was used in very early times as a substitute 
 
 ’ 
 
 
 
ee 
 
 
 
 BIZIOTHIAH 
 
 for mortar in the buildings of Chaldea.* It is 
 found in Persia, Assam, Upper Burma, particularly 
 at Rangoon, at Baku, near the Caspian, and in the 
 valleys leading down from the west to the Dead 
 Bea, especially Wadies Derejeh and Mahawat, in 
 eompany with sulphur.t 
 
 The bitumen in the Dead Sea basin is probably 
 derived from the bituminous limestones of the 
 Cretaceous series, and reaches the surface through 
 fissures in the rock. In the case of marine lime- 
 stones or shales containing large quantities of 
 animal or vegetable matter, either of terrestrial or 
 of aquatic origin, bitumenization may take place 
 under suitable conditions of temperature and 
 moisture, giving rise to springs of bitumen or 
 petroleum, and from such a source the bitumen of 
 the Dead Sea basin may be supposed to have its 
 origin. E. HULL. 
 
 BIZIOTHIAH (n:n\y2), Jos 15%,—A corruption for 
 
 nisa ‘her villages,’ referring to Beersheba, as the 
 {xx al x@pas airdy indicates (cf. also Neh 117’), 
 
 
 
 BIZTHA (73, Est 11°).—One of the seven eunuchs 
 or chamberlains of king Ahasuerus. A suggested 
 etymology is the Persian besteh, ‘bound,’ hence 
 oo ‘eunuch.’ The LXX here reads Matd»y B, 
 
 fay w® Bated A, H. A. WHITE. 
 
 BLACK.—See Cotours. Asa subst. b. is found 
 in Sir 19% AVm, and Jer 14? ‘they sit in b. upon 
 the ground.’ As a verb, Bar 67! ‘ their faces are 
 b* through the smoke that cometh out of the 
 
 Epc *(uedalvw). Blackish, Job 61° ‘b. by reason 
 of the ice’ (772, used here of a turbid torrent, RV 
 * black’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BLAINS.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 BLASPHEMY (Srac¢npula, vb. Bracdnueiv, adj. 
 and subst. B\do¢yyos) is derived as to its second 
 element from ¢ijun, speech, but the etymology of 
 the first element is still quite uncertain, opinions 
 ses 3 divided among fPAdarw I injure (the form 
 would then, properly, be Prayidnula), BAdE slack, 
 doltish, Baddw I hit in throwing (Eustath. ad. Hom. 
 It, 2, p. 219, 4 rais phyacs BdddAwy, Aoldopos), and 
 
 Sos worthless (root, bhies). The usage, however, 
 is distinct enough. In classical and NT Greek (as 
 also in EV) the word is not restricted, as in 
 ordinary Eng. phraseology and Eng. law, to the 
 divine relation, but has the general sense of 
 slanderous, contumelious speech against either 
 God or man. As a matter of fact, in classical 
 Greek the human relation is the rule, Bracd¢nula 
 being only by transference applied to the gods 
 (Plato, Rep. 381 E); and, as often as not, in this 
 connexivn, it signifies a word not so much of 
 irreverence as of ill-omen (opp. to ev¢nula), a word 
 amiss, an unlucky word, as when one unintention- 
 ally prays for “al instead of good (Eur. Jon, 1189; 
 Plato, Legg. 800, 801). In the Heb. OT (mostly in 
 the form giddéph, the word selected by Delitzsch 
 in his Hebrew NT) and in the LXX there is always 
 a notion of contemptuous sacrilege in word or act 
 (1 Mac 2°) towards God (2 K 19%, ef. 187) directly 
 or indirectly, through men or things connected 
 with Him, e.g. His pepe (Is 525, Ps 7418), His 
 champions (2 Mac 12'4), His holy land (Ezk 351), 
 His temple (1 Mac 7%); once, by transference, 
 towards a heathen god (Bel®). In NT the wider 
 classical usage appears, and there is not always 
 the same clear connotation of divine connexion. 
 the word being sometimes equivalent to aggravated 
 contumely, or slander (cf. Dem. pro Cor. iv. 12. 3, 
 eis rovroy woNNdxis awécxwye kal wéxpt aloxpais Bdac- 
 
 * Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies, vol. i. ch. 8. 
 ¢ Tristram, Land of Israel, pp. 281, 358. 
 VOI. I.—20 
 
 BLASPHEMY 305 “ 
 
 gnulas); Tit 3%, Mt 15, 1 Co 10”, Ro 38 1416 
 Eph 4*1 (|| Col 38), 1 Ti 64,2 P 24, It is not, how- 
 ever, to be ignored that the recognised relation of 
 God to all created beings may have induced the 
 choice of the word B\acg¢nula to express what is in 
 the last resort an offence against Him. (Cf. the 
 OT use ; also the parallel in Sir 3"%, and the thought 
 in such passages as 1 P 2!” taken with Tit 32.) 
 
 A special use in NT touches the human assump- 
 tion of what is God’s, the degradation of the 
 infinite glory of the unapproachable God to the 
 finite nature of the creature. Thus the word is 
 eee the mouths of the Jewish accusers of 
 
 hrist (Mt 9° 26, Jn 10%, Lk 5%), and is employed 
 likewise conversely by the NT writers and speakers 
 to depict the sacrilegious and insulting denial b 
 the Jews to Christ of what was His due status (Mi 
 27°, Lk 22 23%), and their equally sacrilegious and 
 insulting charges against Him (Ac 13% 18° 261), 
 
 The punishment of those who blasphemed, 4.e. 
 sinned in word or act ‘with a high hand,’ i.e. in 
 impious rebellion pene J”, not in thoughtless- 
 ness and weakness of the flesh (see Keil, Bib. Arch. 
 ii. 377, Eng. tr., on Sins of Ignorance), but wilfully 
 and presumptuously, was ‘cutting off’ (Nu 15%) 
 or death by stoning (Lv 24-16), Instances of 
 blasphemy in act are the profanation of the Sabbath 
 by work (Ex 31*4), the neglect of circumcision 
 (Gn 1714), and idolatry in all its relations (Ex 22”, 
 1 Mac 2°). It was on the ground of blasphemy that 
 Christ was handed over for execution to the 
 Romans (Mt 26, Jn 197), and. that Stephen was 
 stoned in an irregular outbreak of priests and 
 people (Ac 6" 757), To the ordinary sins of blas- 
 phemy the Jews added the more technical sin of the 
 ‘pronunciation’ of the name J”, through a mis- 
 interpretation of ‘pronounce’ in Ly 24" apart from 
 its limitative context. For this reason the LXX 
 rendered J” by 6 xvpios, and the Hebrew Jews sub- 
 pee Adonai or Elohim, as they do to the present 
 
 ay. 
 
 According to the teaching of Christ in the 
 Synoptists (Mt 12%, Mk 3%, Lk 12), the ‘blas- 
 phemy against the Holy Ghost’ was a sin. of such 
 surpassing heinousness that it was unpardonable. 
 Not so, He says, the blasphemy against the Son of 
 Man. Now, the Son of Man was God’s Messiah, 
 His pre-eminent representative; and blasphemy 
 against Him would have been, in theocratic con- 
 ception, pat parallel with blasphemy against God 
 Himself (Ex 2278), What, then, wast: Re hiauphen¢ 
 against the Holy Ghost, this sin of unwonted 
 aggravation, so heinous that, contrary to Jewish 
 notions, even death brought the sinner no nearer 
 to pardon (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Mt 12%)? In 
 the context Christ is referring to special acts of 
 His in which the Holy Spirit, as a moral power, 
 manifested Himself obviously and unmistakably. 
 Any man who, with such demonstration before his 
 eyes, declared this power to be immoral (Mk 3%), 
 openly denouncing as evil that which was plainly 
 good, exhibited a state of heart which was hopeless 
 and beyond the scope of divine illumination or 
 divine influence; he was the most high-handed, 
 wilful, ee Sa despiser of the divine. In 
 his position of blasphemer he could not be forgiven ; 
 for God to put such a sin behind His back was in 
 the moral nature of things a contradiction and an 
 impossibility. Not so culpable was the blasphemy 
 even against the Son of Man; for in His state of 
 humiliation, with the mists of the flesh about Him, 
 His dignity was not so obvious, so unmistakable, 
 so irresistibly convincing. In this case there 
 might be ‘defect’; in the other there was ‘de- 
 fiance.’ So much for the strict context and the 
 special occasion. When we reach out beyond 
 these and seek to find a more gouetal application, 
 we have need of great diffidence. Ges point, 
 
806 BLAST 
 
 BLESSEDNESS 
 
 
 
 however, seems clear: the context debars us from 
 making the blasphemy simply the equivalent of 
 continued impenitence in any sin, as if Christ had 
 meant to say that any conscious sin, persisted in, 
 becomes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It is 
 hard to conceive that Christ in these words merely 
 put into another form the maxim ‘no repentance, 
 no pardon.’ At the same time we cannot wholly 
 agree with those who assert that there is ‘no con- 
 nexion’ whatever between the blasphemy against 
 the manifest Holy Ghost and the sin against the 
 light of spiritual experience in He 6*8, and that 
 these sins are ‘altogether dissimilar’ (S. Davidson in 
 Kitto, Encyc., s.v. ‘ Blasphemy’). Nor do we know 
 
 enough tu be sure that the ‘sin unto death’ in 
 
 1 Jn 5'* ‘stands apart’ entirely from the sin with 
 which Christ is dealing. Yet, on the whole, it 
 seems reasonable and consistent with the OT 
 sacrificial theory (cf. Keil, as above) to affirm that 
 any sin which is explainable by the defect of the 
 flesh, its mere willingness and its weakness, is 
 not to be classed with the wilful, strong-armed, 
 arrogant blaspheming of good as evil. And it is 
 observable that the crucifixion of Christ, which in 
 He 6° is a metaphor for apostasy, is in Ac 3”, in 
 its literal sense, attributed by St. Peter to dyvaa, 
 tgnorance. Doubtless, there is a time and a place 
 wherein willingness shades off into wilfulness, and 
 weakness into presumption ; neglect of the divine 
 illumination is the inclined plane towards the 
 detestation of it; and when the heart can deliber- 
 ately say, ‘ Evil, be thou my good,’ its utterance is 
 not far from blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. 
 J. MASSIE. 
 
 BLAST (from dlesan ‘to blow’) is used in AV: 
 4. Of the blowing of a wind instrument, Jos 65 
 ‘when they make a Jone b. with the ram’s horn.’ 
 2. The blowing of the breath of J”, Ex 15° ‘ with 
 the b. of thy nostrils the waters were gathered 
 together’ (Heb. nn riah, ‘breath’; cf. Is 30% 
 ‘ breath,’ 33" ‘ breath,’ 377 AV ‘blast,’ RV ‘ spirit,’ 
 2 K 197 AV ‘blast,’ RV ‘spirit’). 3. The breath, 
 i.e. the tyranny of violent peoples, Is 254 (nin). 4. 
 Blowing that withers or curses, 2 S 221%, Job 4%, 
 Ps 18° (apy; néshdmah). So blasted =‘ blighted’ 
 Gn 41% 3-27, 2 K 19% Is 3727; and blasting= 
 ‘blight’ Dt 28”, 1 K 8°’, 2 Ch 6%, Am 4°, Hag 2”, 
 The reference is to the effect of the sirocco east 
 
 wind. See Hos 13" for its effect on water, and 
 
 Jon 48 on man. Says Thomson, ‘it rushes down 
 every gorge, bending and breaking the trees, and 
 tugging at each individual leaf. ... The eyes 
 tn flerae, the lips blister, and the moisture of the 
 body evaporates, . . you become languid, ner- 
 vous, irritable, and despairing’ (Land and Book, 
 ii. 262). In Ps 18", Pr. Bk. ‘ blasting ’=Ddlast. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BLASTUS (BaAdoros).—A chamberlain of HEROD 
 AGRIPPA I. (wh. see), mentioned Ac 12”. It was 
 through his intervention, presumably secured by 
 bribery, that the people of Tyre and Sidon prevailed 
 upon the king to receive an embassy from them at 
 gesarea. He is described as ‘chamberlain,’ rév 
 éml rol xoirGvos rod Baciéws. Neither the name 
 nor the incident of the embassy occurs in Josephus 
 —a proof of the complete independence of the two 
 accounts (but see on the other side, Krenkel, 
 ' Josephus und Lucas, p. 203). A.C. HEADLAM. 
 
 BLAZE.—Mk 1® ‘to blaze abroad the matter’ 
 (RV ‘spread abroad,’ Gr. dagnultw, in Mt 28° tr¢ 
 ‘commonly reported,’ RV ‘was spread abroad’ ; 
 in Mt 9°) dSuepjpicay adrdv, ‘ they spread abroad his 
 fame’). This verb blaze=to ‘blow,’ then ‘ pro- 
 claim,’ ‘ publish,’ is to be distinguished from blaze 
 =burn. See Oxf. Eng. Dict. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BLEMISH.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 BLESSEDNESS.—The word ‘ blessedness' is not 
 found in the OT, and it only Spree three times 
 in the NT (AV), and then as the translation of 
 a word (“aKxapirués) which indicates the ascription 
 of blessing, not the state of the blessed, so that the 
 Revisers have rightly expunged it, substitutin 
 ‘blessing’ in the first two cases (Ro 4°%9%), an 
 ‘gratulation’ in the third (Gal 4"5). Nevertheless, 
 the idea which it conveys is the result of a 
 legitimate generalisation from biblical statements. 
 By the term ‘blessedness’ we understand the 
 Summum Bonum regarded as a gift from God, or 
 as enjoyed in some divine relationship—a divine 
 Summum Bonum. Throughout the Bible this is 
 centred in the idea of life, in its more elementary 
 stages as the normal human existence on earth, in 
 its more advanced condition as eternal life ({wh 
 alwvios). The Hebrew seems to have regarded length 
 of days as a supreme object of desire (e.g. Ps 214). 
 Hence, while it is a most terrible curse fora man to 
 be cut off in the midst of his days (e.g. Ps 55%), for 
 his life to be spared is a blessing devoutly sought 
 after (e.g. Ps 3915), so that to live on to a ripe old 
 age is the crowning mercy (¢.g. 1 Ch 29%). The 
 OT idea of blessedness is largely temporal and 
 external, though mingled with higher spiritual 
 thoughts as in Ps 16°, Next to the life of the 
 individual is the extension of that life in his family 
 and the perpetuation of it through his descendants, 
 so that the natural human instinct for immortality 
 is in a measure satisfied by contemplating the 
 prospect of an endless posterity. For this reason, 
 as also because of the present good which the 
 
 ossession of a family is to a man, that is an 
 important item in the OT notion of blessedness. 
 Earthly prosperity enters into the notion, not 
 merely on its own account, but also as a sign of 
 God’s favour, although the latter point is disputed 
 throughout the Book of Job. In the Proverbs, 
 abundance of goods—one’s barns filled with plenty 
 (Pr 3'*)—is treated as a great sign of prosperity, 
 but wisdom is there regarded as the Suwm- 
 mum Bonum (Pr 47). In Messianic prophecy the 
 thought of blessedness is expanded to signify the 
 national weal rather than purely individual pro- 
 sperity. This is to come in a golden age of wide- 
 spread plenty and general happiness, following a 
 triumph over the enemies of Israel. In particular, 
 justice will take the place of tyranny and robbery, 
 good order will be maintained, and universal peace 
 prevail (e.g. Is 11%, 6517-5), It is principally - 
 through the two ideas of righteousness and peace 
 that the ideal is advanced to amore spiritual con- 
 ception (e.g. Ps 119!), In the NT the idea of 
 blessedness is ereeay, elevated. According to tke 
 Synoptists, Jesus Christ speaks of eternal life as 
 the supreme boon of the future (e.g. Lk 18%), 
 According to the Fourth Gospel, He rells much 
 more largely on this subject, and treats it as a 
 present possession (e.g. Jn 647). St. Paul follows, 
 accentuating the blessedness of eternal life as 
 God’s gift to man (Ro 6¥). In the beatitudes with 
 which He opens the Sermon on the Mount, our 
 Lord describes, not only the characters that will 
 be blessed, but also the nature of the highest good. 
 The blessed are, according to St. Luke, the poor, 
 they that hunger and weep now, and they who are 
 hated, separated, and reproached by men; and 
 their blessedness is to possess the kingdom of God, 
 and to be filled and laugh (Lk 6-2). According to 
 St. Matthew, they are more spiritually regarded as 
 the poor in spirit, they that mourn, the meek, they 
 which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, the 
 merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and 
 
 they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake ; 
 while their blessedness consists respectively in 
 having the kingdom of heaven—elsewhere described 
 as a pearl of great price (Mt 13)—in being com. 
 
 
 
og. 
 ' Blessing by man. 
 
 BLESSING 
 
 —— 
 
 forted, pepericing the earth, being filled, obtaining 
 mercy, seeing od, being called the children of 
 God (Mt 5%"). In the Parable of the Talents, 
 future blessedness takes the form of high honour 
 together with enlarged service (Mt 25”). ‘I'he 
 Apoc. describes the blessedness of the Church in 
 the victory and reign of Christ and the coming of 
 the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21. 22). See also 
 BEATITUDE, HAPPINESS. W. F. ADENEY. 
 
 BLESSING (Aj, evdAoyla).—Throughout the 
 Bible we meet with two forms of blessing. (1) 
 Blessing by God. This is either (a) a direct and 
 immediate act of God in conferring some boon, as 
 expressed by the phrase, ‘The Lord blessed Obed- 
 edom and all his household’ (2 S 6"); or (6) a 
 divine utterance expressing the will of God to 
 confer future favour, and thus approaching the 
 
 eneral usage of the word, which is indicative of 
 mediction, or speaking with a wish for the good 
 of the persons concerned, od: ‘God blessed them, 
 saying, Be fruitful,’ etc. (Gn 1”). The blessing 
 of God is primarily of persons, and secondarily of 
 things, as implied in the phrase, ‘ Bless, Lord, his 
 substance’ (Dt 334). The secondary blessing is 
 attached to a day in the benediction of the Sabbath, 
 ‘God blessed the seventh day’ (Gn 2%). (2) 
 This is really an appeal for the 
 
 first form of blessing, a prayer that Gad. will confer 
 His own blessing on the object of the speaker’s 
 good wishes. But it comes to be regarded as in 
 3ome way directly beneficial, just as the evil eye is 
 supposed to blight directly, while the curse proper 
 is an appeal to Heaven to smite its object, as the 
 true blessing is an appeal to Heaven to confer some 
 boon. This seems to be the case with the 
 atriarchal blessings, Isaac directly determining the 
 estiny of Jacob; and yet the language employed 
 shows that the actual source of the boons spoken 
 of is looked for in God (Gn 27%-*). In such a 
 case the peculiar privilege of conferring a blessing 
 resolves itself into a peculiar right to seek certain 
 favours of God. A similar condition may be 
 discovered in Balaam’s benediction of Israel. While 
 the narrative implies a belief on the part of Balak 
 that the seer has peculiar mystic powers of cursing 
 and blessing, Balaam’s utterances are simply 
 ne, declaring the will of J” and predicting the 
 estiny of Israel (Nu 23. 24). A man who is excep- 
 tionally blessed is taken as the model and type of 
 blessing, and is then said to be ‘a blessing’ (Gn 12%) ; 
 and others are said to bless themselves by him, in 
 the sense that they appeal to the blessing he has 
 received as a specimen of what they desire for 
 themselves, e.g. ‘The nations shall bless them- 
 
 selves in him’—i.e. by Him, by reference to His 
 
 blessing (Jer 47). When our Lord is described in 
 the Gospels as blessing, no doubt the idea is 
 analogous to the second form of blessing, the 
 appeal to Heaven to confer favour, with the 
 associated thought that Jesus Christ had especial 
 power in making this appeal. Thus we must 
 understand the action of the mothers who brought 
 their children to Him for a blessing as they might 
 have brought them to a holy Rabbi (Buxtorf, Syn. 
 Jud. p. 138). But with those who perceived His 
 divine nature, the act of blessing by Jesus Christ 
 must have passed over into the primary and 
 immediate act of God in conferring grace, e.g. in 
 the final benediction (Lk 2451). The blessing of 
 bread, of which we read in the Gospels, is equivalent 
 to giving thanks for it, the thought being that 
 good received gratefully comes as a blessing 
 (compare evAdynoevy in Mt 14° and evdAoyjoas ard, 
 in Mk 87 with evyapicrjocas in Mt 15%). To bless 
 Ged is to praise Him with acknowledgment of His 
 
 ess and expressed desires for His glorv. The 
 act of blessing was usually performed by the 
 
 
 
 BLOODTHIRSTY 307 
 
 
 
 imposition of hands (e.g. Gn 4817", Mt 191); or, 
 where a number of persons were concerned, with 
 uplifted hands (e.g. Ly 9”, Lk 24%) The priests 
 pronounced a benediction after every morning and 
 evening sacrifice, according to a triple formula 
 (Nu 6%*6; Keil, Biblical Archeol. ii. p. 457). A 
 more primitive form of blessing seems to have 
 been used under the kings (e.g. 1 K 855 ; Ewald, 
 Antig. pp. 15, 132). A benediction was regularly 
 pronounced at the close of the synagogue service 
 (Buxtorf, Syn. Jud., note subjoined to index). 
 
 W. F. ADENEY. 
 BLINDING.—See CrimEs. BLINDNESS.—See 
 MEDICINE. 
 
 BLOOD.—By the Hebrews, as by other ples 
 of antiquity, the blood, both of man and of beast, 
 was regarded as the seat of the soul (w5}), that 
 is, of the vital principle common to all sentient 
 organisms (Lv 17" ‘the life [EV, Heb. nephesh, 
 ‘soul ’] of the flesh isin the blood,’ and parll. pass.). 
 When we reflect how little we know even now, 
 notwithstanding all our advance in physiology and 
 allied sciences, of the mystery of life and death, 
 we can in some measure realise the emotions of 
 awe and dread—not without a large admixture of 
 the superstitious element—with which the earl 
 Semites must have regarded the shedding of Bisa 
 
 Inasmuch as all slaughter was originally sacri- 
 fice, the real significance of the provision, carried 
 back by Heb. tradition to the days of Noah (Gn 
 9‘), that the blood of animals slain for human food 
 was forbidden or taboo, will demand careful in- 
 vestigation under the article SACRIFICE (see also 
 Foop). To the same art. belongs the study of the 
 piacular or expiatory efficacy at biged. which finds 
 expression in the familiar words: ‘ Without 
 shedding of blood is no remission’ (He 92), 
 
 Akin hereto is the cathartic or purificatory use 
 of blood in the Jewish ceremonial system for cases 
 of uncleanness of the highest degree, such as 
 leprosy (Ly 145 5#), the discussion of which 
 besa to the art. on PURIFICATION (which see 
 also for the uncleanness caused by blood in the 
 cases enumerated in Ly 121% 151%), 
 
 For another and very ancient blood-rite, the 
 essential significance of which survives even in the 
 most sacred rite of Christian worship (Mt 26%), see 
 COVENANT. 
 
 Among all nations blood has played a conspicu- 
 ous part in magical rites, but the only trace of its 
 superstitious use in the OT seems to be the inci- 
 dent recorded in 1 K 22%, and already explained 
 in the art. BATHING (§ 3). (See Strack, Der Blut- 
 aberglaube; Trumbull, The Threshold Covenant.) 
 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 BLOOD, AYENGER OF.—See GOEL. 
 
 BLOODGUILTINESS.—In AV only Ps 51" ‘ De- 
 liver me from b., O God’ (0°93, plu. of 03 ‘ blood ’), 
 RV adds Ex 22% (Heb. v.' 2), 1 S 257% 3, the Heb. 
 being the same. W. R. Smith (O7JC? p. 441) 
 points to Ezk 18" as proving that the Heb. phrase 
 does not necessarily mean the guilt of murder, 
 but any mortal sin, such sin as, if it remains un- 
 atoned, withdraws God’s favour from His land 
 and people (Dt 218, Is 15), a remark which has 
 an obvious bearing on the occasion of the 5lst 
 psalm. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BLOOD, ISSUE OF.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 BLOODSHEDDING.—Sir 27* only (&yvois afu- 
 aros); but He 9” ‘ without shedding of blood is no 
 remission ’ (aluarexxvola). 
 
 BLOODTHIRSTY.—In AV Pr 29” only, ‘thep 
 hate the upright’ (07 Y3x ‘men of blood’), RV 
 
308 BLOODY FLUX, BLOODY SWEAT 
 
 BOAZ 
 
 
 
 adds Ps 5° 55" 139", the Heb. being the same, 
 AV ‘bloody’; RV more literally ‘man of blood’ 
 S 167-8, ‘men of blood’ Ps 26%. Cf. Ex 4%: % 
 ‘bridegroom of blood’ (AV ‘ bloody husband’). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BLOODY FLUX, BLOODY SWEAT.—See MEDI- 
 CINE. 
 
 BLOOM, as a trans. verb, occurs Nu 178 ‘ the 
 rodof Aaron . .. bloomed blossoms.’ Cf.— 
 
 * And all amid them stood the tree of life, 
 High eminent, blooming ambrosial fruit 
 Of vegetable gold.’ 
 Milton, Par. Lost, iv. 219. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BLUE.—See CoLours. ‘Blue’ is tr™ of nbza 
 
 tékhéleth in all its occurrences, and of wv shésh, Est 
 
 1$AV. Also Sir 45” ‘b. silk’ (sdxwvos, RV ‘blue’) ; 
 6” (AVm, RV, Gr. vaxlvOvos); and 23” ‘a blue 
 mark’ (uddwy, RV ‘a bruise’; cf. Sir 28!" ‘the 
 stroke of a whip maketh marks in the flesh,’ and 
 1 P 274 ‘ stripes,’ same Greek, from Is 535 LXX). 
 Blueness, Pr 20” ‘the b. of a wound cleanseth 
 away evil’ (ni1z9 habbiréth, ‘stripes,’ RV ‘stripes 
 that wound’), See MEDICINE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOANERGES (Soarnpyés, deriv. uncertain, ‘sons of 
 thunder’) is the surname given by our Lord to His 
 disciples James and John. Considerable obscurity 
 gathers round the question why it was given to 
 the sons of Zebedee. It is mentioned only in 
 Mk 3!", and never seems to have prevailed as Simon 
 Peter’s new name did. It is not likely either that 
 it was meant as a perpetual rebuke of their un- 
 regulated zeal (Mk 9° 10%’, Lk 9%), or that it refers 
 specially to their thundering forth the gospel. 
 
 he likelihood is that it is both descriptive and 
 prophetic of the union of the passionate and vehe- 
 ment with the gentle and loving in their character, 
 and of the fact that once and again tempests of 
 long-restrained emotion would Furst forth out 
 of the deep stillness of their ues 
 natures. . 
 
 BOAR.—See Swink. BOAT.—See SHIP. 
 
 reserved 
 MUIR. 
 
 BOAZ (1ys=‘ swiftness,’ from a root 1y3 not occur- 
 ring in Heb., not as was supposed ty \a=‘in him is 
 strength,’ Béos, Béot).—The head of the Hezronites 
 who lived at Beth-lehem-judah, after Elimelech’s 
 departure into the country of Moab(Ru2!). He is de- 
 scribed as a mighty man of wealth (RVm ‘ valour’). 
 His fields lay apparently at some little distance 
 from Beth-lehem (v.‘). It was in them that he first 
 caught sight of Ruth as she was gleaning. He 
 had heard of her already as a faithful and loving 
 daughter, and begged her to remain in his fields, 
 assuring her of his protection, and inviting her to 
 partake of some food in the field (vv.°"), One night, 
 whilst B. was sleeping in his threshing-floor, Ruth, 
 instructed by her mother-in-law, came, and by 
 placing herself at his feet claimed to be taken 
 under his protection. Thereupon he promised that 
 if the kinsman who was nearer than he would not 
 do his duty to her as next of kin, he would take that 
 duty upon himself (ch. 3). B. therefore bought the 
 right of redemption from the next of kin, including 
 in it the right to take Ruth to be his wife to raise up 
 seed to Mahlon (4'*-), The marriage was celebrated, 
 and in due course a son was born to B. and Ruth, 
 called Obed, who, according to the genealogy at 
 the end of the Bk of Ruth and in 1 Ch 2%, was 
 the grandfather of David. How far this is an 
 instance of the use of what is called the law of the 
 Levirate will be found discussed in another article 
 (RuTH). B. has a further interest for us, as his 
 name occurs in both the genealogies of our Lord 
 (Mt 15, Lk 3%). According to the Jewish authori- 
 
 ties he was the same as Ibzan of Jg 12° (see 
 Moore, Judges, p. 310). The difficulties of the 
 chronology of the genealogy from Perez to David 
 have not yet been satisfactorily cleared up. The 
 narrator of B.’s marriage does not hint at any 
 irregularity in it such as we should expect if Ezr 
 9!- 2 and Neh 13? or even Dt 23* ¢ were known to him. 
 H. A. REDPATH. 
 
 BOAZ (1s, LXX Badd¢ in B, and Bods in A of 
 1K 72; in 2Ch 3” the LXX has Icxvs ‘ strength’), 
 —The name of one of the two pillars erected in the 
 porch of Solomon’s temple, the other being Jachin, 
 1K 7*1,2 Ch 3", Jer 527): 22, ‘Boaz’ stood on the left 
 looking eastward, i.e. it was on the north side of the 
 entrance of the temple. Its height was 18 cubits, 
 its circumference 12, its diameter being conse- 
 quently 3,4 cubits. Surmounting it was a chapiter _ 
 5 cubits high, ornamented with network and with 
 pomegranates (Jer 52”-*8), There is, however, a 
 good deal of confusion as to the ornamentation 
 of the chapiters, though all agree that they were 
 lily-shaped at the top. The apparent discrepancy 
 as to its height is owing to the fact that the 
 ornament uniting the shaft to the chapiter is 
 sometimes included in the reckoning, and some- 
 times not. ‘Jachin’ and ‘ Boaz’ were exactly of 
 the same form and size; both were hollow and 
 made of brass, the thickness of the brass being 
 four fingers, t.e.°4 inches (Jer 521). 
 
 Ewald, Thenius, Merx, and Nowack are of 
 opinion that these pillars served for supports to 
 the roof of the house. Nowack (Bid. ane ii. 33) 
 refers to Ezk 40-49 as showing that the pillars of 
 Ezekiel’s temple were supports; but the passage 
 does not prove that they were more than orna- 
 ments. On the other hand, Hirt, Stieglitz, Cugler, 
 Schnaase (all architects), Bahr, Riehm, Keil, and 
 Lumby argue that the pillars stood in the porch, 
 unconnected at the top, and that the only function 
 they served was that of ornamentation. (See Keil, 
 Bib. Arch.i. 169f.). In favour of this opinion are 
 the following points: (1) The ornamentation on 
 the top already mentioned. (2) Their height was 
 23 (18+5) cubits. Now the porch was, according 
 to 2 Ch 34 and Jos. (Ant. VII. iii. 2), 120 cubits; 
 according to Bertheau 30; but in the opinion of 
 most critics it was 20 cubits high, answering to 
 the length (see PorcH). None of those measure- 
 ments would suit if the pillars stood under and 
 supported the roof of the porch. (3) The pillars 
 were hollow. (4) Hiram’s work was to decorate, 
 and not to build any essential part of the temple. 
 
 But, though no more than ornaments to the 
 Israelites, the origin of these pillars must be 
 sought among the Syrians and Phenicians, who 
 commonly erected such pillars in front of their 
 temples. In front of his temple at Tyre, the 
 Syrian god, Melkart, is represented by two pillars 
 (Herod. 2. 44). Before the temples of Paphos 
 and Hierapolis there were likewise two pillars. In 
 these cases, the pillars stood for deity, and they 
 formed a part of that Phallic worship of which we 
 are finding more and more traces in the ancient 
 world (see Dudley, Naology, p. 130 f.; W. R. Cobb, 
 Origines Judaice, pp. 207-238; and Trumbull, 
 Threshold Covenant, p. 230n.). Nowack (ii. 34) and 
 W. R. Smith (2S p. 191, note 1) incline to believe 
 that even to the Israelites these pillars were 
 symbols of J”, so that, if they are right, the true 
 God was set forth by these Phallic emblems, as 
 in the northern kingdom He was worshipped in 
 the form of a young bull (b:y ‘éged). But it is un- 
 likely, to say the least, that if these pillars stood 
 for J” we should have no intrmution of it in the 
 writings of the OT. Benzinger (Bib. Arch. p. 385) 
 points out that pillars of this kind are found in 
 the front of the pennies of Amon in Egypt (ef. 
 p. 250 of the same work). 
 
 
 
“ae Gta. 
 
 BOCCAS 
 
 But why two 7 gaara if but one deity is thus 
 represented 2 mong the Semites and other 
 peeve peoples, gods went in pairs, male and 
 emale, as Baal and Ashtoreth, Osiris and Isis, 
 ete. Possibly the two pillars stood for male and 
 female, the active and passive principle in nature. 
 This is not necessarily opposed to the Phallic 
 origin of the symbol, since at this stage their 
 origin might have been wholly unknown, the 
 mere fact of their representing deity being possibly 
 the only thought in the mind of the people. 
 
 The words ‘Jachin’ and ‘ Boaz’ are certainly 
 ere names. The LXX so regards them in 1 K 7%, 
 
 ut in 2 Ch 37 the words are translated Karép@wois 
 (a setting right) and ‘Ioxvs (strength). 
 
 Gesenius explains the words as names of the 
 donors or builders. This is only a guess. No 
 other part of the temple is designated in this way 
 except Solomon’s porch, which belongs to the 
 time of Herod. Ewald (Gesch. iii. 4) holds that 
 they are names of honoured men, perhaps sons of 
 Solomon. This is not more likely than Gesenius’s 
 opinion. Keil follows Kimchi in making the 
 names (‘ He will establish,’ ‘In Him is strength’) 
 Sere of the solidity and strength of the king- 
 
 om of God among Israel, as having its central 
 pot in the temple. Klostermann (Komm.) trans- 
 ates and explains by ‘Stand-halter und der Trotz- 
 bieter,’ the ‘firm and defying one,’ referring to 
 God. Thenius (Komm.) joins both words to make 
 the expression ‘He will establish by strength’; 
 but the text is against it, and so is the fact that 
 there are two pillars, each with a name of its own. 
 
 T. W. DAVIEs. 
 BOCCAS.—See BorirTu. 
 
 BOCHERU (i135),— A descendant of Jonathan 
 1 2 AG For form of name cf. Gashmu, 
 eh 6}. 6, 
 
 BOCHIM (o'D5n), ‘weepers,’ Jg 2!.— Unknown 
 as a geographical site. Possibly the orig. reading 
 was 5yn'3. See Moore, ad Joc., and BETHEL. 
 
 BODY.—1. Early biblical usage had no fixed 
 term for the human body as an entire organism, 
 and, consequently, none to use, as such, in precise 
 antithesis to ‘soul’ or ‘spirit.’ An assortment of 
 terms was employed, each of which strictly denotes 
 only one part or element of the bodily nature, 
 such as trunk, bones, belly, bowels, reins, flesh. 
 The last is by far the most prominent, probably 
 as supplying to the body its form, colour, and 
 beauty. Flesh is used through both Testaments 
 for the corporeal nature of man in connexion 
 with and contrast to the inner or spiritual nature. 
 (See FLEsH.) Of the other terms, 7°13 (once in late 
 Heb., 1 Ch 10" a:3) originally probably the cavity 
 containing the vitals, most nearly denotes the 
 whole, and is applied both to the hving body (Gn 
 47'8) and to the corpse (1 S 317°); Bones (oyy, oxy) 
 once, Ps 139% prob. collectively, ‘my bony frame.’ 
 The word is suggestively used to denote the 
 reality or strength of a thing, i.e. the thing 
 itself (Ex 241°, Job 21%). Some of these ancient 
 terms for the bodily parts have passed over into 
 the NT, and indeed into all popular speech with 
 certain definite psychical connotations. Thus 
 Belly (jo2, «oiAla) stands throughout Scripture for 
 the seat of appetite and of the carnal affections 
 (e.g. Ro 1638, p 3}9), yet also connotes the inward 
 
 nature, the innermost of the soul (cf. Pr 188 2027. % 
 228 Jn 7%). So Bowels (oyp, oon), besides its 
 literal, or first meaning, is plentifully used, met- 
 onymice, for the sympathetic or compassionate 
 affections (Gn 43%, 1 K 3, 2 Co 6” 75, Ph 2}, 
 Col 312), That the same kind of transference 
 from the bodily to the mental region has taken 
 
 BOLDNESS 309 
 
 
 
 place with the terms Heart and Retne goes with. 
 out saying. 
 
 2. Later OT writers may have come under the 
 influence of Greek thought in construing the 
 whole body or outer man as the dwelling, clothing, 
 or integument of the soul. If the expression 
 (Job 4°) sph na ‘houses of clay,’ refers, as is com- 
 monly thought, to human bodies, it is an 
 instance closely imitated by the Apocr. writer 
 (Wis 9%) in ale hrase ‘earthly tabernacle’ or 
 ‘frame’ (RV), and which reappears in 2 Co 5 
 In Daniel the Aramaic word ov: is used for boly 
 (Dn 37 4% [Heb.] 5), and another Aramaic word 
 (of Persian origin) 7373 is used along with 57 (71) 
 in exactly the figurative manner so familiar to 
 later thought, ‘My spirit was grieved in the midst 
 of my body’ (lit. ‘of his sheath’). 
 
 3. In the NT, body (céya) signifies the complete 
 organism with all its members (1 Co 12" etc.), and 
 stands in clear and constant antithesis to ‘soul’ 
 and ‘spirit.’ Throughout the whole of Scripture 
 the place of the body as an integral constituent 
 of man’s nature is insisted on. This must be 
 made prominent in our Bible doctrine of man as 
 contrasted with philosophic and other notions 
 depreciatory of his bodily nature. But for this, 
 as well as for the Bible Dualism or Dichotomy, 
 see art. PSYCHOLOGY, J. LAIDLAW. 
 
 BODYGUARD.—1 Es 3‘ RV only. See GUARD. 
 BOHAIRIC VERSIONS.—See Eayrr1an VER- 
 
 SIONS. 
 
 BOHAN (jos, perhaps ‘covering’). — A son of 
 Reuben, acc. to Jos 15° 1817 (both P). The stone of 
 B. is mentioned in these two passages as forming 
 a mark of division between J mak and Benjamin. 
 It is impossible to identify the site where it stood. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BOILS.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 BOLDNESS.—In OT ‘bold’ is given as tr™ of 
 nya bdtah to trust, Pr 28! ‘the righteous are b. as 
 a lion.’ In Gn 34% ‘Simeon and Levi... came 
 upon the city boldly,’ the Heb. is the noun nya 
 betah from bdtah, and is applied, not to Simeon 
 and Levi, but to the inhabitants of the city, ‘ ay 
 came upon the city (dwelling) securely’ (so RV, 
 but RVm ‘ boldly’). In Ee 8! ‘boldness’ is lit. 
 ‘strength’ (1) ‘éz), and is tr? ‘hardness’ in RV. 
 
 In Apocr. ‘bold’ oceurs in a bad sense, Sir 84 
 ‘Travel not by the way with a b. fellow’ (rodunpés 
 RV ‘rash man’), and 198 ‘a bold man shall be 
 taken away’ (Wuxh ToAunpd, RV ‘a reckless soul’). 
 
 The adj. roAmnpés occurs in NT only Ro 1515 ‘I write the 
 more boldly unto you’ (TR roAunporspor, WH coApmporipws); and 
 voAymres ‘an audacious person,’ only 2 P 210 (AV ‘ presumptu- 
 ous,’ RV ‘daring’); but roAucw is frequent, the most interest- 
 ing occurrence being 2 Co 102 where the apostle uses first bappia 
 and then roAuéw, both trd ‘be bold’ in AV, but in RV ‘that I 
 may not when present show courage with the confidene where- 
 with I count to be bold against some.’ Thayer says that 0. 
 denotes confidence in one’s own strength or capacity, +. bold- 
 ness or daring in undertaking ; 6. has reference more to the 
 character, +. to its manifestation (NT Lex. p. 628; cf. Sanday 
 and Headlam on Ro 1515: ‘the boldness of which St. Paul 
 accuses himself is not in sentiment, but in manner’). The 
 Ionic form of 6. (Qepré@) occurs in LXX and NT only as im- 
 
 erat. ‘take courage,’ ‘fear not,’ etc. Thus, Sir 1910 ‘If thou 
 es heard a word, let it die with thee; and be bold (d«pou), 
 it will not burst thee’; Mt 1427 ‘Be of good cheer’ (Aapceirs). 
 The only compound of these verbs in NT is dwroreApcm@, Ro 1 
 only, ‘Isaiah is very bold,’ lit. ‘is bold by himself.’ 
 
 But there is a nobler boldness in the NT than 
 these. In the Gr. it is expressed by mappncia 
 (lit. ‘fulness’ or ‘freedom of speech,’ wav pjors) 
 and rappnordtoun ; and although these words are 
 used by classical authors and the LXX, this b. 
 reaches a higher manifestation under the Gospel, 
 which is its very foundation. Thus Eph 3% ‘ Christ 
 
 
 
310 BOLLED 
 
 BOOTH 
 
 
 
 Jesus our Lord, in whom we have b. and access’ ; 
 He 10” ‘ Having therefore, brethren, b. to enter 
 into the holy place by the blood of Jesus’; 1 Jn 
 417 ‘that we may have b. in the day of judgment’ ; 
 He 4° ‘Let us therefore come boldly (RY ‘draw 
 near with b.’) unto the throne of grace.’ For the 
 most part it is boldness of speech, but its founda- 
 tion is the same: Jn 7% ‘He speaketh boldly’ 
 (RV ‘o oe Ac 4°! ‘they were all filled with 
 the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God 
 with b.’; 13 ‘Paul and Barnabas waxed bold 
 (RV ‘spake out boldly’) and said’; 1 Th 2? ‘we 
 were bold (RV ‘ waxed bold’) in our God to speak 
 unto you the Gospel of God.’ See COURAGE. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOLLED.—Ex 9*! ‘the barley was in the ear, 
 and the flax was bolled’ (RVm ‘was in bloom’; 
 Heb. 5y3a gibh‘él, lit. ‘was bud,’ §.¢. was in bud). 
 
 he Eng. word boll (originally something swollen) 
 is a seed vessel, a pod ; hence ‘ was bolled ’ (= ‘ was 
 in seed ’) expresses a further stage of growth than 
 the Heb. warrants. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOLSTER (something ‘swollen,’ cf. ‘ bolled’) is 
 new used of the longer and firmer cushion under 
 the pillows, but was formerly often syn. with 
 pillow. It occurs in AV of 1 § 1933-16 267.11. 12. 16, 
 where RV always ‘head’; thus 1S 19% ‘ Michal 
 . .. puta pillow of Spee hair for his b.’ (RV ‘at 
 the head thereof’). The same Heb. (nv/x79) is tr@ 
 ‘ pillows’ Gn 28-18, and in 1 K 19° [all] ‘head,’ 
 marg. ‘bolster’; RV always ‘head.’ (For the 
 peculiar reading by ‘pey2p 1 S 26", Budde gives 
 yoexie9 in agreement with other passages and the 
 
 here.) J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOND.—See BAND. 1. In the foll. passages the 
 Gr. word tr4 ‘bond’ is dod)os, ‘slave,’ 1 Co 12", Gal 
 $8, Eph 68, Col 3% (RV ‘bondman’), Rev 1316 1978. 
 2. There is a fig. use of b. in Ac 8%, Eph 4%, Col 3! 
 where the Gr. is cdvdecyos, a surgical word (though 
 not confined to surgery) meaning ‘a ligament’; 
 hence Col 3 ‘love, which is the b. of perfectness’ 
 means that love unites all the virtues and graces 
 into one perfect man in Christ Jesus, just as the 
 ligaments bind the body; in Eph 4° ‘the b. of 
 peace,’ peace is itself the ligament or uniting 
 power ; Ac 8” ‘thou art in the gall of bitterness, 
 and in the b. of iniquity ’ is not so clear, and it has 
 sometimes been said that Simon is described as ‘a 
 bundle of iniquity,’ but that meaning of c. lacks 
 support (see Thayer, s.v.); rather, ‘thou art 
 bound by the ligatures or fetters of iniquity.’ The 
 Gr. word oc. is las found Col 2! (where see Light- 
 foot), RV ‘all the body, being supplied and knit to- 
 gether through the joints ad bands.” 
 
 Bondmaid, a female slave, Lv 19” (mnay) ; 254 + 
 (apy, tr? ‘maid’ in v.*); Gal 4” (acdtoxn, tr. 
 *bondwoman ’ 4%- #. 9.31, all of Hagar, RV ‘ hand- 
 maid’; x. is used also of the maid who recognised 
 Peter, Mt 26°, Mk 14%, Lk 2256, Jn 1817 [see 
 DAMSEL], of Rhoda, Ac 12", and of the Philippian 
 fortune-teller, 161°), Bondman and Bondwoman= 
 slave, are frequent. Bondservant occurs in AV 
 only once, Lv 25" ; but where the Gr. is dofXos, slave, 
 RV often turns ‘servant’ of AV into ‘ bondservant’ 
 (in favour of ‘slave’ see Horwill, Contemp. Rev. 
 May 1896, p. 707). Bondservice, 1 K 977 ‘upon 
 those did Solomon levy a tribute of b. (1a, RV 
 ‘raise a levy of bondservants’). Bondslave, 1 Mac 
 2" (dovAn, not in NT, but freq. in LXX, RV ‘ bond- 
 woman’). See SLAVERY. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BONNET is the rendering in AV of two Heb. 
 words, 7y239 (Ex 28” 29%, Lv 8!5) and 15 (Is 3”, 
 Ezk 4418), In Ex 39% the two are conjoined, ‘7x5 
 niyaion. RV uniformly gives, instead of bonnets, 
 head-tires, except Ezk 448 ‘ tires.’ 
 
 Both terms apparently refer to the same part 
 of the head-dress of the ordinary priests. Ita 
 distinctive importance, with regard to the priestly 
 office and fan is implied in Is 61?° 1K jA3; Jng9, 
 ‘as a bridegroom makes his head-ornament like a 
 priest’s,’ which Dillm. and Del. understand of 
 winding it up into a conical point (cf. Nowack, 
 Heb. Arch. ii. 117). 
 
 In determining what the bonnet was: (1) we find 
 it distinguished from the miznepheth or turban of 
 the high priest, on the compactly folded front of 
 which the old plate lay baer with a cord 
 (Sn5 Ex 28% 87), a less ornate form being worn 
 on the Great Day of Atonement (Lv 16‘). 
 was highly ornamental ‘for glory and beauty’ (Ex 
 28%). (3) It was of fine linen (Ex 3978). (4) It was 
 one of the items of elaborate female attire (Is 3”). 
 
 These allusions seem to converge towards an 
 article of outdoor wear, needed where service 
 exposed to the sun, and yet having a distinctly 
 decorative purpose. These conditions are best met 
 by the loose kerchief for head and neck, which is 
 still a striking feature in Oriental dress; and in its 
 protective usefulness and dignified elegance is an 
 accommodation at once to the climate and the 
 character. 
 
 While this bonnet or head-tire among the 
 Bedawin is simply a square of black or blue 
 cotton, and the day-labourer improvises anything 
 to cover the back of the head = | neck, that worn 
 by the men of the towns and villages is a fabric 
 about a yard square of the finest white silk, usually 
 edged with bright stripes, and called a kifiyeh. 
 
 The corresponding art. of female dress is the 
 graceful outdoor veil for the head and neck, called 
 a turhah. 
 
 This would connect ny229 with yap, and the Arab. 
 kubba‘ah ‘cowl.’ According to this interpretation, 
 a survival of the article in a modified form may be 
 seen in the drapery that droops in light loose folds 
 from the high turban of the Oriental priest; and, 
 
 
 
 TURBAN OF ORIENTAL (GREEK) PRIEST. 
 
 by its connexion with the monk’s hood and the 
 conventual veil, is still among the insignia of 
 priestly dress. (See DREss.) G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 BOOK.—See WRITING. 
 
 BOOTH.—At the season when the fruits of field 
 and orchard are ripening, the Syrian peasant often 
 finds it prudent to leave his home in the village 
 and take up his abode for a time in ‘the portion of 
 the field’ belonging to him, for the double purpose 
 of guarding his produce against ill-disposed neigh- 
 bours, and of more effectively carrying on the work 
 
 
 
BOOTY 
 
 BOTTLE 311 
 
 
 
 To shelter him 
 
 of the grain and fruit harvests. 
 and his from the noonday heat and from the dews 
 of night (cf. Is 4°), a small hut is hastily constructed 
 of leafy branches from the nearest trees. Such an 
 erection is called in Heb. 730, by AV variously 
 
 rendered ‘booth,’ ‘ tabernacle,’ ‘pavilion,’ ete. 
 Jonah’s b. was of this description (4°), and so were 
 those in which Jacob sheltered his cattle (whence 
 the name Succoth), Gn 33”, The army in the 
 field was similarly protected by booths, 2 S 11%, 
 1 K 2036 (EV ‘ pavilions’). 
 
 In the East the custom still prevails, whereby 
 the owners of small adjoining vineyards combine 
 to secure the services of a watcher to protect the 
 ripening grapes from robbers and wild beasts. For 
 the more efficient discharge of his duty the watch- 
 man is provided with a more elaborate booth. Four 
 stout poles are fixed in the soil a few feet apart ; to 
 these uprights four cross pieces are firmly secured, 
 some six or more feet from the ground. Boards 
 resting on the cross-pieces form the floor, while the 
 roof is made in a similar way of boughs of trees or 
 matting. In this elevated watch-tower the watch- 
 man spends his nights, gun in hand, the open sides 
 allowing an uninterrupted view of the area to be 
 observed. This is the ‘b. that the keeper maketh’ 
 to which Job refers (27°), and the ‘cottage (RV 
 booth) in a vineyard’ to which Isaiah compares 
 the desolate daughter of Zion. See illust. under 
 CucuMBER. For booths as used at the FEAST OF 
 TABERNACLES, see that article. 
 
 A. R. 8S. KENNEDY. 
 BOOTY.—See WAR. 
 
 BORDER of THEGARMENT.—See DRESS, FRINGE. 
 Borderer, 2 Mac 9* ‘the princes that are borderers 
 and neighbours’ (ol rapaxelwevor). The word is now 
 almost restricted in fox to those who dwell on 
 the Border between England and Scotland. Here 
 it is an accurate tr®, in the sense of one whose 
 country touches another’s. 
 
 BORITH (2 Es 12).—One of the ancestors of Ezra, 
 called in 1 Es 8? Boccas, and in 1 Ch 6° ™, Ezr 74 
 BUKKI (which see). 
 
 BORN, BORNE.—41. The Oxf. Eng. Dict. discovers 
 43 different senses in which the verb ‘to bear’ is 
 used ; the last being ‘to give birth to,’ spoken of fe- 
 male mammalia, andesp. women. The past ptcp. of 
 this verb is either ‘ borne’ or ‘ born’ (rarely ‘ bore’), 
 and these forms were at first used indiscriminately 
 for all the senses of the verb. About 1660 ‘borne’ 
 was generally abandoned, and ‘born’ retained in 
 all senses. But about 1775 ‘borne’ was re-estab- 
 lished and used for all the senses of the verb but 
 one, ‘ born’ being restricted to ‘ brought into the 
 world.’ And ‘born’ is even in that restricted 
 sense confined to the passive voice and a kind of 
 neuter signification; it is not used when the 
 mother is spoken of. 
 
 ‘ Borne’ was the invariable spelling of 1611, but 
 later edd. and printers introduced ‘ born’ wherever 
 the meaning is ‘ brought forth.’ RV has carefully 
 restored ‘borne’ wherever the signification is 
 active ; thus Gn 2]® ‘his son that was born unto 
 him,’ AV and RV; but 217 ‘I have born him a son 
 in his old age,’ RV ‘borne’. See also HOMEBORN. 
 
 2. ‘Born again’ in 1 P 1% (RV ‘having been 
 begotten again,’ as 1%) is one word in the Gr. (dva- 
 yevvdw) ; in Jn 37 ‘ born again’ (RV ‘ born anew’) 
 two words (yevvdw dvwOer) ; but that the compound 
 word in 1 P 1*-# is an exact equivalent of the two 
 words in Jn 3*-7, and that therefore dyw0ev=‘ anew’ 
 here, not ‘from above,’ has been proved, esp. by 
 Ezra Abbot in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel 
 (Boston, 1880, p. 34 f. ; London, 1892, p. 30ff.). See 
 REGENERATION. 
 
 8. In 1 Co 158 ‘one b. out of due time,’ the Gr. 
 isa single word, écrpwya, an untimely birth, an 
 abortion.* J. Hisrivas, 
 
 BORROWING.—See Dzsrt. 
 BOSOM.—See ABRAHAM’s Bosom. 
 
 BOSOR (Booép), 1 Mac 5%: *6,—A town in Gilead. 
 The site is uncertain. 
 
 BOSORA (Bocop@), 1 Mac 5% *,—Mentioned with 
 Bosor. Apparently the great city of Bosrah—the 
 Roman Bostra on the E. of Bashan, which is not 
 mentioned in the Bible. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BOSS (Job 15%).—Bucklers and shields were 
 made of successive skins stretched over a frame, 
 a layer of metal being superimposed on the 
 whole. To break the force of a blow, metal studs 
 or bosses were affixed in addition. dorlées dugandé6- 
 eocat were known to Homer (JJ. iv. 448). The Heb. 
 word 0°33 gabbim, ‘ bosses,’ properly means things 
 rounded, e.g. the back of an animal or the felloe of 
 a wheel. Possibly in Job 15% the true meaning is 
 simply the convex (back-like) side of a shield, or 
 again it might be the metal rim (‘felloe’), ‘ thick,’ 
 perhaps, because threefold, as in the shield of 
 Achilles (J2. xviii. 479, rept 8 dyrvya oe paewhy 
 tplrhaxa). W. KE. BARNES. 
 
 BOTANY.—See PLANTS. 
 
 BOTCH, a swelling (the same word orig. as 
 ‘boss’), but confined to disease, an eruption in the 
 skin, Dt 2877 ‘the b. of Egypt,’ and ® ‘a gore b.’ 
 (7a, RV ‘ boil,’ as elsewhere in AV Ex 9% 2%, Ly 
 1338-19. 20. 38 (1611 ‘bile’], 2 K 20’, Job 27, Is 387 
 [all]). See MEDICINE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOTTLE (non, Wa, 533, p2p2, 3%, doxds; RV skin, 
 wine-skin). —The multiplicity of names is sug- 
 gestive of its manifold use, serving as a receptacle 
 at once for a tear (Ps 568) and a thunderstorm 
 (Job 3837), The mention of bottle in connexion with 
 the Gibeonites, Hagar, David, etc., refers to both 
 pastoral and agricultural life (Jos 94, Gn 21,18 
 25'8), The bottle was a leathern bag made from 
 the skins of the young kid, poat, cow, or buffalo. 
 The largest ones were roughly squared and sewn 
 up. The smaller were drawn off entire, thus retain- 
 ing the shape of the animal with the legs removed. 
 Those for holding water, milk, butter, and cheese 
 usually had the hair left on, but for wine and vil 
 the tanning had to be more thoroughly done. This 
 was by means of oak-bark and seasoning in smoke, 
 a process that gave a pitchy astringency of flavour 
 to the wine contained in them. The distension that 
 the leather underwent once, and once only, during 
 fermentation, gave the parable that each age must 
 interpret for itself with regard to the new treat- 
 ment of new truths (Mt 9!7, Mk 22, Lk 5%7), 
 
 The skin-bottle, being portable and unbreakable, 
 was admirably suited for the deep stone-built well, 
 the shepherd’s troughs, and the encampment of the 
 traveller in waterless districts. The carrying of 
 water for sale for household purposes has often 
 been an emblem of servitude, and is chiefly done 
 by the aged and infirm. One of the characteristic 
 figures in Oriental towns during summer is the 
 man who sells from his dripping goat-skin the 
 refreshing drink of iced-water flavoured with 
 lemon, rose, or liquorice, toni aaey clapping his 
 brass cups, and crying ‘ Drink, drink, thirsty one’ 
 (cf. Is 551). While the bottle is highly prized, and 
 its water is a grateful necessity, the luxury of the 
 
 * On this word see esp. Huxtable in Hapositor, Second series, 
 vol. iii. p. 269 ff. 
 
312 BOTTOM 
 
 
 
 
 
 BOWL 
 
 
 
 East belongs to the spring itself, to the draught | 2 S 22!=—Ps 18°, and 144° (the Heb. is the common 
 
 from the fountain of living waters. Hence the com- 
 
 parison at Jacob’s well (Jn 44), and the one blessed 
 terminus of all the Shepherd’s leading (Rev 7?”). 
 
 For Bottle of earthenware see PITCHER, VESSEL. 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 BOTTOM.—1. Common enough for thedeep of the 
 sea, ‘ bottom’ is used in Zee 1® for a deep place in 
 the land, a valley: ‘the myrtle trees that were in 
 the b.’ (RVm ‘shady place,’ Heb. TR 7)s»3, Baer 
 nbso3; the pl. is used of the depths of the sea Jon 
 2, of a river Zec 10", and of miry places Ps 697; 
 see Wright on Zec 1°). Compare— 
 
 ‘ West of this place, down in the neighbour bottom.’ 
 Shaks. As You Like It, rv. ii. 79. 
 The word is still used locally in this sense. 2. 
 The pl. ‘ bottoms’ occurs Jon 2° ‘I went down to 
 the b. of the mountains’ (332, lit. ‘a cutting off,’ as 
 AVm); Wis 17'4 ‘out of the bottoms of inevitable 
 hell’ (€& déuvdrov d5ov puxGr). 
 
 8. Bottomless Pit is the AV tr® of ¢péap ris 
 a4Bvccov, Rev 913 (RV ‘pit of the abyss’), and of 
 &Bvocos alone, 94 117 178 208 (RV ‘abyss’). See 
 ABYSS. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOUGH.—Dt 24% AVm, ‘when thou beatest 
 thine olive tree, thou shalt not bough it’ (text 
 ‘thou shalt not go over the boughs again’). This 
 is the only example of a verb ‘b.’ in this sense, and 
 it has been missed by Oxf. Eng. Dict. It is formed 
 directly from the noun in imitation of the Heb. (1x21 
 from x5 a bough). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOUGHT.—1 S 25” AVm ‘in the midst of the b. 
 of asling.’ The b. is the loop or ‘ bowed’ part of 
 the sling on which the stone was laid. Bow, as 
 most modern versions of AV have it, was never 
 used in this sense. ‘ Bout’ is another spelling, as 
 Milton, L’ Allegro, 140— 
 
 ‘In notes, with many a winding bout 
 Of linkéd sweetness long drawn out.’ 
 J. HASTINGS, 
 
 BOW.—41. In archery, see next article. 2. See 
 RAINBOW. 3. Bow as a verb is of frequent occur- 
 rence, rendering many Heb. and Gr. words. Most 
 usages are clear, but notice: ‘ Bow,’ or ‘bow the 
 knee,’ now obsolete or archaic, as Jg 5” ‘ At her 
 feet he bowed, he fell, he lay’ (Moore, ‘sank down, 
 fell, lay still,’ who explains that 7) is properly 
 ‘bend the knees,’ kneel, crouch, squat on the heels, 
 said of a mortally wounded man whose knees fail 
 under him, 2 K 9*); the same Heb. in Est 3? 
 ‘Mordecai b@ not nor did him reverence,’ t.e. 
 neither b® the knee nor fell prostrate ; and in Ps 
 22 « All they that go down to the dust shall b. 
 before him,’ which Del. explains: all that for want 
 are ready to die (the ‘dust,’ .»y, being the grave), 
 go down upon their knees, because they are 
 esteemed worthy of a place at this table; and Is 
 45% “unto me every knee shall bow,’ quoted in Ro 
 144, Ph 2” (kdurrw). In Mt 27%‘ they bowed the 
 knee before him,’ RV ‘ kneeled,’ the Gr. is yovureréw 
 from yévu, knee, and rérw, t.e. tirtw, fall. Of Gn 
 41% ‘they cried before him, Bow the knee,’ the 
 Heb. 923% is separately discussed under ABRECH. 
 
 Besides ‘bow the knee’ we have bow the head, Is 
 585 ‘to bow down his head as a rush,’ Jn 19 ‘he 
 bowed his head and gave up the ghost’; bow the 
 face, Lk 245 ‘they were afraid, and bowed down 
 their faces to the earth’; bow the back, Ro 11; 
 bow the shoulder, Gn 49 ‘he bowed his shoulder to 
 bear’; bow the neck, Sir 33% ‘A yoke and a collar 
 do bow the neck’; bow the loins, Sir 47” ‘thou didst 
 bow thy loins unto women’; bow the ear, 2 K 1938 
 ‘LORD, bow down thine ear (RV ‘incline thine 
 ear’), and hear’; and bow the heart, 2 S 19'4 ‘he 
 bowed the heart of all the men of Judah’; ‘ Bow 
 the heavens,’ a strongly transitive use, is found 
 
 verb 7»; ndtdh, to bend, and the figure is that J* 
 caused the clouds to descend with Him as He 
 descended to judgment). See BowIna. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOW.—‘ Battle-bows,’ so named (Zec 91 104), 
 were probably of bronze (nyn3 néhosheth), a metal 
 harder than copper, being composed of copper and 
 tin, different therefore from our brass, a Ake is a 
 mixture of copper and zinc. Such bows needed 
 great strength to bend (Ps 18% RV, which, how- 
 ever, reads ‘bow of brass.’ Cf. 2K 9%). Bows 
 
 ‘might also be made of two straight horns joined 
 
 peer (Homer, J7. iv. 105-111), or again of 
 wood. 
 
 ‘A deceitful bow’ is used (Ps 78°’, Hos 7**) as a 
 figure for a person who disappoints the hopes formed 
 of him. A bow might be ‘deceitful’ through 
 simply ee its mark, or through breaking, and 
 so missing. Teucer’s bow-string breaks (Homer, 
 Jl. xv. 463-465), and the arrow wanders from the 
 mark, ‘Deceitful’ (12 rémiyyah) might also be 
 rendered ‘slack,’ so that possibly a badly-strung 
 bow may be meant. . E. BARNES. 
 
 BOWELS.—1. Literally, as 2 Ch 21° ‘the LorD 
 smote him in his bowels (o'yp) with an incurable 
 disease’;* Ac 1!8 ‘he burst asunder in the midst, 
 and all his bowels (orAdyxva) gushed out.’ 2. Figur- 
 atively as the seat of deep-felt emotions: (a) with 
 7D>3=murmur or thrill, of affection or sympathy, 
 Is 16" 635 (the cogn. subst. AV _ paraphrases 
 ‘yearning ’) Jer 31”, & 54; (6) Ps 408 ‘ Thy law is 
 in the midst of my bowels,’ t.e. the object of my 
 innermost affections; (c) of distressing emotions, 
 Job 30” (see Davidson, ad loc.), La 1° 2" (lit. ‘are 
 in ferment’). See Bopy and MEDICINE. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BOWING (13), Ps 628, meaning bulged, burst, 
 overthrown.—The ref. is to the effect of a sudden 
 and heavy fall of rain, the ‘overflowing shower’ 
 of Ezk 131 38”, which in an hour sometimes con- 
 verts a garden into a sheet of water. To obviate 
 such pressure, garden walls in Syria are built with 
 openings to let off the water. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 BOWL.—i. A vessel of this sort, a hollow dish in 
 which to receive the milk of the flock and present 
 the simple family meal, is indispensable for even 
 the lowest stage of nomad life. For these purposes 
 the primitive Hebrews, like the wandering tribes 
 of to-day, doubtless used bowls of wood instead of 
 fragile earthenware. It was in such a dish, ‘a b. 
 fit for lords’ (AV ‘a lordly dish’), that Jael offered 
 Sisera a draught of sour milk (Jg 5%). The same 
 word (550, L rexdvn, (A, Aaxdvyn), see Moore, 
 Judges, pp. 164 f.) denotes the b. into which Gideon 
 wrung ‘ie water from his fleece (Jg 6%). From 
 both these passages it may be inte that the so 
 was a dish of at least medium size; in Gideon’s 
 case it may have been of the porous earthenware 
 (see POTTERY) which has been in use among the 
 settled PoBPeriee of Canaan from the earliest 
 times. any specimens of this ware were found 
 by the officers of the Pal. Expl. Fund, and more 
 recently by-Flinders Petrie and Bliss in the mound 
 of Tell eget! (see Petrie, Lachish, and Bliss, 
 A Mound of Many Cities, passim). 
 
 ii. The large silver bowls presented by ‘the 
 princes of the congregation’ Na 7}5%-) have been 
 mentioned under BASON. The same word (py) is 
 applied by Am (6°) to the large and costly bowls 
 
 *Cf. 2 Mac 95 of Antiochus Epiphanes; ‘But the Lord 
 Almighty, the God of Israel, smote him with an incurable and 
 invisible plague; for as soon as he had spoken these words, a 
 pain of the bowels that was remediless came upon him, and 
 sore torments of the inner parts; and that most justly, for he 
 had yorpated other men’s bowels with many and strange 
 torments. 
 
 et ein 
 

 
 oe oe le ey eee ne ee 
 
 
 
 _ drupacea, Lab. 
 
 BOX 
 
 BRACELET 313 
 
 
 
 used by the nobles of Samaria for their debauches. 
 Jer. mentions a stil] larger b. (y33, AV ‘ pot’—Gn 
 442% of Joseph’s ‘ cup’), corresponding to the crater, 
 from which the drinking cups (niod) were re- 
 plenished (Jer 355). The material was no doubt 
 silver. 
 
 iii. In AV bowl is the rendering of y'23 as applied 
 
 to the cup (RV) or calyx of beaten work used as an 
 ornament on the stem and branches of the golden 
 candlestick (see under TABERNACLE). 
 iv. nba Zec 4%, also in correct text of v.2, is the 
 bow! or receptacle for oil in the candlestick of 
 Zechariah’s vision, and is used in the same sense 
 with ref. to the ‘lamp of life’ (Ec 125). It also 
 denotes the bowl-shaped or spheroidal capitals of 
 Jachin and Boaz (1 K 7“, 2 Ch 41-18), 
 
 v. In Is 517-22, for ‘dregs of the cup,’ etc., RV 
 renders ‘b. of the cup’ (b\3 ny3p) ; the second word, 
 however, is best regarded as a gloss to explain the 
 preceding unusual word. In Rev passim RV adopts 
 ‘bowl’ as the equivalent of giddy (AV ‘vial’). For 
 other changes of RV (including 7153, AV ‘bason,’ 
 RV ‘ bowl’), see BASON. A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 BOX.—In 2 K 9}8 AV, a box (75) of oil is men- 
 tioned, RV vial. In 1S 10! it is said that Samuel 
 ‘took the vial (45) of oil,’ in 16! God’s command to 
 Samuel is ‘fill thy Aorn (772) with oil.’ It seems 
 probable that horn is the true meaning, as, being 
 closed at the tip, it could easily be sealed up at 
 the other end and carried about. Perfume boxes 
 (#53783) are spoken of in Is3® RV. In Van Dyck’s 
 Arab. tr. they are called hdndjir, the common 
 word for small pots of earthenware for carrying 
 ointments. In Mt 267, Mk 14°, Lk 797 ‘alabaster 
 box (RV cruse) of ointment’ (d\dSacrpov) is men- 
 tioned. The word used in Arabic is kdrirah, 
 which may mean a small vase or jar of earthen- 
 ware or other material. In Syria alive oil is often 
 kept sealed up in small earthen jars. The word 
 alabaster, though originally applied to vases made 
 of that substance, seems to have been often used 
 for a vessel containing an unguent without special 
 regard to the material of which it was made. As 
 the ointment referred to is said to have been very 
 
 recious, it is probable that the vase may have 
 nm alabaster. The breaking refers, of course, to 
 the seal, not to the vase. W. CARSLAW. 
 
 BOX TREE (wxna téashshir, drgebxn, xédpos, Aq. 
 Th. @aacovp, buxus, pinus).—The only species of 
 box found in Bible lands is Buus longifolia, Boiss., 
 which is a shrub from 2 to3 ft. high. It does not 
 grow south of Mt. Cassius, and it is unlikely 
 that it did in historical times. It is improbable that 
 it was at all familiar to the Hebrews. 
 
 The other trees alluded to in the three passages in 
 which the ¢éashshir is mentioned (Is 41” 603, Ezk 
 27°) were familiar. They are the cedar, shittah (RV 
 acacia), myrtle, fir, oak, pine(?). It is unlikely that 
 an unfamiliar and insignificant bush would be asso- 
 ciated with these, which, with the exception of the 
 ae the emblem of greenness and triumph, were 
 
 lordly trees, and familiar to those who heard the 
 prophecy. Its name signifies erectness or tall- 
 ness, Which indicates that it also was a stately 
 tree. Unfortunately, philology gives us no help 
 in solving the question, as the word téashshir has 
 not been preserved in the Arabic. The old Arab. 
 VS gives sherbin, which is one name for the wild 
 form of Cupressus sempervirens, L., the cypress. 
 This is a stately tree, and everyway suitable. There 
 are a number of other fine evergreens in Bible lands, 
 as the Cilician spruce, Abies Cilicica, Boiss. ; the 
 alpine juniper, Juniperus excelsa, L. (Arab. 
 lizzab) ; the large-fruited juniper, J. macrocarpa, 
 Sibth. et Sm.; the plum-fruited juniper, J. 
 . ; any one of which would do for 
 
 téashshir. Itis useless to come to the LXX for 
 light, as it translates the word in one passage Aevcn, 
 the white poplar, and in another xédpos, the cedar. 
 The positive determination of the tree is hopeless, 
 It would be better to transliterate it, as in the case 
 of the algum, and call it the téashshir. 
 G. E. Post. 
 BOY.—See CHILDREN. 
 
 BOZEZ (yy\3), 1 S 144.—A steep cliff on one side 
 of the Michmash gorge opposite Seneh. It seema 
 to be the northern cliff, a remarkable bastion 
 of rock E. of Michmash. The valley is precipitous, 
 and the S$. cliff is in shade during most of the day, 
 while the N. is exposed to the noonday sun. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 BOZKATH (nps3).—A town of Judah, Jos 15™, 
 2 K 22}, in the plain near Lachish and Eglon. 
 Unknown. 
 
 BOZRAH (my 3 ‘a fortification’).—There were 
 several places of this name, and the effort to 
 identify them has resulted in some confusion. In 
 Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. 1893, the 
 letterpress rules out Bosrah in Haurdn; yet a 
 picture of this city is given as an illustration 
 of Bozrah. Bozrah of Edom was a city of great 
 antiquity (Gn 36%=1 Ch 1). Its fate is identi- 
 fied with that of Edom (Is 348, Jer 49%, Am 
 12), It is referred to again in Is 63!, and probabl 
 in Mic 2% £/-Buseireh, 7 miles 8.W. of Tufileh, 
 the ancient Tophel (Dt 1°), on the main road N. 
 from Petra, suits the geographical conditions ; but 
 the ruins are insignificant. Another possible 
 identification is Kustir Bashair. ‘These towers lie 
 about 15 miles S.E. of Dibon (Dhiban), and more 
 probably represent Bezer—ry3—‘ in the wilderness,’ 
 the city of refuge (Dt 4“), and the Bezer of the 
 Moabite Stone. (See, however, BEZER.) 
 
 There remains the question of Bozrah in Moab 
 (Jer 48%), Some (e.g. Dillmann on Deut.) identif 
 this with Bezer; but the great city Bosrah esh- 
 Sham in Haurdn has also many advocates, This 
 latter is certainly the Bosora of 1 Mac 5***, The 
 case for Bosrah rests chiefly on the identification 
 of Umm el-Jemal, 15 miles S., with Beth-gamal, 
 and Hl-Kurtyeh, 7 miles E., with Kerioth, named 
 with Bozrah in this passage. Beth-gamal, however, 
 may be identical with J email, 8 miles E. of Dibon, 
 while Beth-meon is almost certainly Ma‘in S.W. 
 of Medeba. It is also contended that Bozrah 
 being in the Méshér, Bosrah is too far north. But 
 Aphek is in the Mishér ; so probably was Bosrah, 
 lying to the S.E. The cities of Moab, ‘far and 
 near,’ are included in this judgment. Bosrah is 
 just about the same distance from Nebo as ¢él- 
 Buseireh, viz. about 60 miles, and it may quite 
 possibly have been in the hands of Moab at that 
 time. W. EwIna. 
 
 BRACELET (vny, myx, 19, dnp, ning). — The 
 bracelet has always been a favourite ornament in 
 the East. It is found of many designs: plain ring, 
 flat band, of twisted wires, interlinked rings, and 
 connected squares, solid or perforated, with or 
 without pendants. Bracelets are made of gold, 
 silver, copper, brass, glass, and even enamelled 
 earthenware. While highly ornamental, they 
 had, when in the possession of women, the further 
 recommendation of being inalienable: not to be 
 taken by the husband, nor seized for his debts. _ 
 
 The bracelet of Gn 3818 is in RV ‘cord,’ referring 
 probably to the cord of softly-twisted wool for the 
 shepherd’s head-dress. The bracelets of Ex 35”, 
 RV ‘brooches’ (unoriental), were most likely 
 nose-rings, ; 
 
 The bracelet appears, together with the crown, as 
 one of the royal insignia in 2S 1". It is probable 
 
314 BRAG 
 
 BRASS 
 
 
 
 that in 2 K 114 also we ought, with Wellhausen 
 and W. R.Smith(O7./C?, 311 n.), to read ‘bracelets’ 
 (nyiys1) for ‘testimony’ (nny), G. M. MAcKIE. 
 
 BRAG.—Jth 165 ‘He bragged (elrev, RV ‘he 
 said’) that he would burn up my borders’; Sir 11 
 (heading) ‘ Brag not of thy wealth’; 2 Mac 97 ‘he 
 nothing at all ceased from his bragging’ (dyepwxla, 
 RV ‘rude insolence’); and 15% ‘with proud 
 brags’ (ueyadavxnoe, 80 RV). This is probably 
 one of the undignified words in the Apocrypha of 
 1611, of which Scrivener complains. ‘Even when 
 their predecessor (the Bishops’ Bible) sets them a 
 better example, they resort to undignified, mean, 
 almost vulgar words and phrases; and, on the 
 whole, they convey to the reader’s mind the pain- 
 ful impression of having disparaged the import- 
 ance of their own work, or sf having imperfect] 
 realised the truth that what is worth doing at all 
 is worth doing well’—Introd. to Camb. Paragraph 
 Bible, p. lxv*. The word is still in use, and still 
 somewhat undignified. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BRAMBLE.—See THORNS AND THISTLES. 
 
 BRAN.—In Bar 6® ‘The women. . . burn bran 
 for perfume’ (ra rirvpa). See PERFUME, 
 
 BRANCH is the tr. in OT of a variety of Heb. 
 words, of which those that chiefly concern us are 
 —1, m0) (from 1) ‘trim’ or ‘ prune’), used of the 
 branch of a Pb Nu 13%, Ezk 157, and 
 figuratively of Israel in Nah 2°. It is this term 
 that is employed in Ezk 8)’, where the words, ‘ They 
 put the branch to their nose,’ apparently describe 
 some ceremony connected with sun- worshi 
 Little, however, is known with certainty bee 
 ing the custom referred to, even if the text is not 
 corrupt. (See commentaries of Smend and of A. B. 
 Davidson, ad Joc.) The same word also occurs in 
 the phrase 3) no) ‘strange slips,’ of Is 17 See 
 ADONIS, 2. np3v, lit. ‘sucker’ Job 14’, used of 
 Israel under the figure of a cedar Ezk 17”, an olive 
 Hos 148, a vine Ps 80" (RV ‘shoot’), of the wicked 
 under the figure of a tree Job 8!* (RV ‘shoot’) 15°, 
 Vigorous, widely-spreading branches are a symbol 
 of prosperity (ct. Ps 37°, where the wicked man is 
 spoken of as ‘spreading himself like a green tree 
 in its native soil’ ). 3. 759 Job 15%, properly ‘palm- 
 branch’ as in RV of Is 9% 19%, where ‘palm- 
 branch’ and ‘rush’ are parallel respectively to 
 ‘head’ and ‘tail,’ the rulers and the rabble (cf. 
 Del. ad loc.). 4. 7y3, lit. a little fresh green twig, 
 as in Is 111 60, Dn 11’. The word is used in the 
 ode on the king of Babylon, Is 14%, where the 
 words ‘ an abominable branch’ (ayn} 1y3) apparentl 
 designate a useless shoot cut off and left to rot (ct. 
 Jn 15% éBrAjOn &w ws 7d KAfua kal énpdvOn, ‘he is 
 cast forth as a branch, and is withered’). 5. ny. 
 The chief interest of this term lies in its employ- 
 ment in Messianic prophecies. Instead of ‘ branch,’ 
 W. R. Smith and &. A. Smith prefer to render it 
 ‘spring.’ RVm offers a choice amongst the 
 renderings ‘shoot,’ ‘sprout,’ ‘bud.’ In the earliest 
 passage where npy occurs with a Messianic refer- 
 ence, Is 47, it has manifestly no personal sense. 
 ‘The spring of J”, the God-given fruits of the 
 earth, are the true glory of the remnant of Israel, 
 the best of blessings, because they come straight 
 from heaven, and are the true basis of a peaceful 
 and God-fearing life’ (W. R. Smith, Prophets of 
 Israel, 329). The language both of Is 4? and of 11! 
 seems to underlie Jeremiah’s reference to the 
 Messianic king as the ‘Righteous Branch’ (n>y 
 ps) or ‘Branch of Righteousness’ (727 ndy), Jer 
 235 335, ny reaches, finally, the rank of a personal 
 name of the Messiah in Zec 3° 6% ‘my Servant 
 the Branch,’ ‘the man whose name is the Branch.’ 
 
 6. 37 is used os fae by P of the ‘ branches’ of 
 the golden candlestick in the tabernacle, Ex 25" 
 37% etc. 
 
 In NT four Gr. words are tr.‘ branch.’ 4. 
 Batovy, Jn 12" (cf. 1 Mac 13°). Palm Sunday is 
 called in the Greek Church % xupiaxh raév Batwv. 2. 
 kdddos, Mt 13% etc., used figuratively of descend- 
 ants, 6-9. of Israel as the ‘natural branches,’ 
 Ro 1126 17. 18. 19. 21 (ef, Sir 23% 405). 3. xAqua, used 
 especially of a vine-branch, Jn 157-6, where Christ 
 is the vine and His disciples are the branches. 4& 
 o7iBds, Mk 118, @ dx’ dAcy. It is remarkable that 
 Matthew, Mark, and John, in describing Jesus’ 
 triumphal entry into Jerus., each use a different 
 word for ‘ branch,’ namely, xAddos, or:Bds, and Bato» 
 respectively. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BRAND.—1. Zec 3% ‘a b. plucked out of the 
 fire’ (wx ’dd, perhaps orig. a bent stick used to 
 stir the fire, Oxf. Heb. Lex. ; tr4 ‘firebrand,’ Is 74 
 ‘these two tails [7.e. stumps] of smoking fire- 
 brands’; and Am 4" ‘a firebrand’ [RV ‘ brand,’ to 
 keep up connexion with Zec] plucked out of the 
 burning’). 2. Jg 155 ‘ when he had set the brands 
 on fire * (75, tr’ ‘ firebrand’ 15). Samson’s ‘ fire- 
 brand’ was a stick of wood wrapped with some 
 absorbent material and saturated with oil (Moore, 
 Judges, p. 341). It is the same Heb. word that 
 is used of the ‘lamps’ (RV ‘ torches’), which 
 Gideon’s men carried in their pitchers, Jg 7%, 
 The name of Deborah’s husband, Lappidoth (Jg 4*), 
 is a plu. of the same word. See LAMP. For 
 Branding, see CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BRASS (n¢n3, xaAxés).—Brass is composed of 
 copper and zinc in the proportion of 2 of the former 
 to 1 of the latter. The word is of frequent use in 
 the Bible, but it is uncertain whether in any in- 
 stance it means the alloy just described, as brass ig 
 very rarely found amongst the remains of early es 
 while, on the other hand, bien and implements 
 of copper and bronze are abundant, associated with 
 those of stone and, less frequently, of iron. The 
 expression in Dt 8° ‘a land... out of whose hills 
 thou mayest dig brass,’ shows that the word was 
 used for copper. That the latter was worked 
 largely in Arabia Petrea is well known (see MINES, 
 MINING). The abundance of bronze, which is an 
 alloy of copper and tin, amongst the early nations 
 both of Asia and Europe is the more remarkable 
 as tin is of rare occurrence ; but its value in giving 
 hardness and other qualities to copper was dis- 
 covered more than 2000 years B.o. Thus knives, 
 hatchets, hammers, spears, and other articles, both of 
 copper and of bronze, have been discovered amongst 
 the ruins of Chaldzeadating back to about B.C. 2286.* 
 The use of copper, bronze, and other metals was 
 known to the ancient Egyptians before the Exodus, 
 and they appear to have understood the art both 
 of hardening bronze and of making it flexible to a 
 degree unknown tous.t The art of making bronze 
 is clearly referred to by Homer in his description of 
 the fashioning of the shield of Achilles by Vulcan 
 (Jl. xviii. 474, where copper and tin [xacctrepos] 
 are both melted in the furnace); and amongst 
 the ruins of Troy, brought to light by the memor- 
 able labours of Schliemann, battle-axes, lances, 
 knives, arrow-heads, and various ornaments both 
 of copper and of bronze, were discovered, together 
 with the moulds of mica-schist and sandstone in 
 which some of these weapons were cast.¢ Copper 
 and bronze celts have been discovered by di Cesnota 
 
 * Rawlinson Anc. Monar. i. 96 (ed. 1879). 
 
 t Wilkinson, Anc, Egyp. iii. 241, 253; Perrot and Ohipies, 
 Hist. Anc. Egyp. Art, ii. 378 (1883), Evans considers that when 
 the earliest books of OT were written, gold, silver, iron, tin, lead, 
 brass, and bronze were known; Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 
 
 { Schliemann, JZios, vii. 433-485; Troja, p. 100. Troy 
 captured by the Greeks about B.0. 1184. 
 
 4 
 ; 
 . 
 } 
 
 
 
* 
 
 BRAVERY 
 
 in Cyprus amongst the remains of Phoenician 
 settlers,* and they are abundant in Europe and the 
 British Isles associated with remains of pre-historic 
 man. 
 
 BIBLE REFERENCES.—In the Bible ‘brass’ (#.e. 
 copper or bronze) is referred to both actually and 
 symbolically ; and it may be desirable to consider 
 the passages under these two heads— 
 
 (A) Actual.—i. In Gn 4” Tubal-cain is described 
 as the ‘forger of every cutting instrument of brass 
 and iron,’ RVm ‘copper and iron.’ This is the 
 earliest record of the use of these metals. Some 
 doubt has been thrown by Evans on the word iron, 
 and he suggests that it has been introduced at a 
 later period during transcription, and that it does 
 not necessarily belong to the age in which Tubal-cain 
 lived.t 2. In Ex 387% the altar of burnt-offering 
 overlaid with brass ; also the laver and vessels of 
 brass. The brass of the offering was 70 talents and 
 2400 shekels (v.”). 3. In Nu 219 Moses makes a 
 serpent of brass, and sets it upon a standard. 4. 
 Dt 8°* A land whose stones are iron, and out of 
 whose hills thou mayest dig brass’ } (copper). 5. In 
 18 17° Goliath of Gath clad in armour of brass. 
 6. In 28 8° King David took ‘exceeding much 
 brass’ from Betah and from Berothai, cities of 
 Hadadezer. 7. In 1 K 7 Hiram of Tyre ‘a 
 worker in brass.’ 8. In 2 K 2514, Jer 52!7 the 
 brazen vessels and pillars of the house of the Lord 
 broken and carried away by the Chaldeans. 9. In 
 1 Ch 15" ‘Cymbals of brass.’ 10. In Job 2812 
 ‘ Brass keopper) is molten out of stone.’ 44. In Mt 
 10° ‘Provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in 
 your purses.” 12. In Rev 9” ‘Idols of brass.’ 
 
 (B) Symbolical.—1. (Dazzling heat and drought) 
 Dt 28% ‘Thy heaven that is over thy head shall be 
 brass.’ 2. (Strength, resistance) Job 6 ‘Is my 
 flesh of brass’? ‘his (behemoth’s§) bones are as 
 tubes of brass,’ Job 40% RV; he (leviathan||) 
 ‘counteth brass as rotten wood,’ Job 41”, 3. (Power) 
 Ps 107° ‘He hath broken the gates of brass’; 
 Is 45? ‘I will break in pieces the doors of brass.’ 
 4. (Richness) Is 60" ‘ For wood (I will bring) brass.’ 
 §. (Brilliancy) Dn 2" ‘His belly and thighs of 
 brass’ (Nebuchadrezzar’s image) ; Dn 10° ‘ His feet 
 like in colour to burnished brass’ (Daniel’s vision) ; 
 also Rev 1%. 6. (One destitute of love) 1 Co 13! 
 ‘Sounding brass or a clanging cymbal,’ RV. 
 
 E. HULL. 
 
 BRAYERY.—Although b. is used in the modern 
 sense of courage as early as in any other, it had 
 two other meanings which have now been lost. 
 1. Connected probably with ‘ brag’ etymologically, 
 it expressed boasting, as ‘No Man is an Atheist, 
 however he pretend it, and serve the Company 
 with his Braveries’—Donne (1631); and esp. a 
 military display, as ‘The whole Campe (not per- 
 ceiving that this was but a bravery) fled amaine ’— 
 Raleigh (1614), Hist. of World, 111. 93. 2. It ex- 
 pressed splendour, often passing into ostentation 
 (so still locally), as ‘The braverie of this world 
 . . . likened is to flowre of grasse ’—Tusser (1573). 
 This is the meaning of b. in Is 38 ‘the b. of their 
 al rnaments’ (njx5n Amer. RV ‘ beauty ’). 
 Cf, Shaks. Taming of Shrew, Iv. iii. 57— 
 
 * With scarfs and fans and double change of bravery.’ 
 
 Bravely occurs Jth 104 ‘(Judith) decked herself 
 bravely (éxa\\wrloaro of5épa) to allure the eyes of 
 all men that should see her.’ It is the general 
 
 sense of ‘finely,’ ‘handsomely.’ Cf. Celia’s posting 
 words in As You Like It, 11. iv. 43: ‘O, that’s a 
 
 oY ane Bronze Imp. pp. 5, 6; see also Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 
 
 ¢ Perrot and Chipiez, supra cit, il. 878. 
 § Hippopotamus. 
 
 Crocodile, 
 
 | | 
 
 BREAD 315 
 
 brave man { he writes b. verses, speaks b. words, 
 swears b. oaths, and breaks them bravely’; and 
 Scot. ‘ braw,’ ‘ brawly.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BRAWLER.—To brawl] in its earliest use, and 
 till the beg. of the 17th cent., was simply to 
 Spe rok or fight (without the ‘noisily sc in- 
 
 ecently ’ of Johnson); and this seems to be the 
 meaning in AV. Brawl as subst. occurs Sir 2714 
 ‘their brawls make one stop his ears’ (udxn, RV 
 ‘strife’). Brawling as subst. Sir 31”; as adj. Pr 21° 
 25% ‘a b. (RV ‘contentious’) woman’ (0°3;7 nvx, 
 tr? ‘contentious woman’ 27; ef. ‘contentious 
 man’ 2671), Brawler occurs in AV 1 Ti 33, Tit 3? 
 (Gr. duaxos, RV ‘contentious’). RV gives ‘ braw- 
 ler’ for AV ‘given to wine’ 1 Ti 3%, Tit 17 (Gr. 
 wdpovos, RVm ‘ quarrelsome over wine’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BRAY.—There are two distinct words, and both 
 oceur. 
 
 4. To make a harsh cry, once used of horses 
 and other animals (cf. Job 307 ‘Among the 
 bushes they bray,’ spoken of Job’s mockers who 
 are ‘dogs of the flock,’ and Ps 42! Geneva Bible, 
 ‘As the hart brayeth for the rivers of water,’ 
 retained in AVm), now used only of the ass: Job 
 6° ‘ Doth the wild ass b. when he hath grass ?’ 
 
 2. To beat small, to pound, still in use but freq. 
 (if not always) with ret. to its (only) occurrence in 
 
 , Pr 27#, which is Coverdale’s tr® (1535) 
 ‘Though thou shouldest bray a foole with a 
 estell in a morter like otemeell, yet wil not his 
 oolishnesse go from him.’ Cf. Stubbes (1583), 
 ‘ The word of God is not preached vnto them, and 
 as it were braied, punned, interpreted, and ex- 
 pounded.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BRAZEN SEA.—See SEA. BRAZEN SERPENT. 
 —See SERPENT. 
 
 BREACH.—A b. may be either (1) the breaking 
 itself, or (2) the result of the breaking. 1. Nu 
 14% ‘Ye shall know my b. of promise’ (mun, RV 
 ‘alienation, RVm ‘revoking of my promise’); 
 2S 68 ‘the LorD had made a b. upon Uzzah’ ( 
 perez, RV ‘had broken forth,’ cf. Gn 38%); Job 
 1644 ‘ He breaketh me with b. upon b.’ (perez). 2. 
 A place that is broken, as Is 30%, ‘a b. ready to 
 fall’ (perez); Lv 24 ‘ B. for b., eye for eye, tooth 
 for tooth’ (13% shebher): or the gap that is thus 
 made (the mod. use), as Am 4° ae: shall go out 
 at the b*, every one straight before her’ (perez) ; 
 Jg 5” ‘Asher continued on the seashore, and 
 abode in his b®’ (7750 miphrdz, RV ‘ creeks,’ i.e. 
 gaps in the shore, Vulg. portus, Wyclif ‘havens’ ; 
 the Heb. word occurs only here, see Moore in Joc.) ; 
 La 2"8 ‘thy b. (shebher) is great tike the sea, who 
 can heal thee?’ For B. of Covenant see CRIMES. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BREAD (07 lehem, dpros).—i. A word used in the 
 
 Bible in several senses— 
 
 
 
 1, As food in general, of animals, as Job 245 and Is 6525; or of 
 man, as Gn 819, where the word is first used. See also Gn 4713, 
 Job 3320 etc. In the sense of solid food as opposed to drink, 
 Ps 10415, In the sense of the bare necessary sustenance of life 
 it is used in Is 3316, Ex 2325, and in the Lord’s Prayer (?). See 
 also 1 K 1711, 
 
 2. The kind of food which comes forth from the earth, 
 vegetable food, as in Job 285, Is 3028, and 5510, contrasted with 
 bdsar or flesh in 1 K 178, 
 
 8. Lehem is used as the name of the miraculous food where- 
 with the Israelites were fed in the wilderness, Ex 164. 22, called in- 
 terrogatively ‘manna’ or ‘ what’? ‘ bread of heaven,” in Ps 10540, 
 In Nu 215 this bread is called kilkel, ‘mean or insignificant.’ 
 
 4. The staple food of a nation is called the ‘ staff of b.’ (Lv 26%, 
 Ezk 416), or the stay (support) of b. (Is. 31). Hence famine is the 
 breaking of the staff of b., and is typified by the selling of bread 
 by weight, Lv 2626, Ezk 416, nds which are productive of 
 b.-stuffs are called Lands of b., as Egypt (Gn 4154) and Babylon 
 (Is 3617), whose fertility in producing corn is mentioned by 
 Herodotus, i. 1938. Abundance of f is called ‘fulness of b.,’ 
 so often a snare to mankind, as it was to Sodom (Ezk 164), 
 
 
 
316 BREAD 
 
 such an abundance is promised to Asher as fatness of b. (Gn 4920), 
 Personal poverty is described as want of b. (Is 6114, La 111, 44), 
 Such poverty may be a punishment, as in the curse pronounced 
 on the descendants of Joab (28 329) and Eli (1 § 296), or on the 
 wicked in general (Job 2714), but may be due to misfortune, 
 not crime (Ec 911), The Psalmist, however, never found the 
 children of the righteous in this plight (Ps 3725). The poor are 
 described as ‘wandering for b.’ (Job 15%). Abstinence from b. 
 may be the token of a vow, as in the case of David (2S 335); and 
 the asceticism of John the Baptist is expressed by Christ by 
 the phrase ‘neither eating b. nor drinking wine’ (Lk 733). 
 
 5. The hastily prepared food offered to a stranger or wayfarer 
 in token of welcome and hospitality is called b., as in Gn 1418 
 185, So Joseph bade his servants ‘set on b.’ for his brethren 
 Gn 4331); and the witch of Endor thus entertained Saul 
 
 § 2822), For want of this hospitality, the Succothites were 
 punished by Gideon (Jg 815), and the Ammonites and Moabites 
 were excluded from the congreg. of Isr. (Dt 234, Neh 132). Such 
 hospitality was customary among the Bedawin (Is 2114), as all 
 travellers have testified from Sinuhat (RP vi. 131) to Doughty 
 (Arabia Deserta, 1888). Our Lord bade His apostles not to 
 take bread with them, but to partake of hospitality on their 
 missionary journeys (Lk 93). On such occasions the host 
 breaks the b. for his guests; eo Christ did for the multitude 
 whom He fed by miracle (Mt 1419 etc.), and for His disciples at 
 the Last Supper (Lk 2219 etc.). So St. Paul acted as host to his 
 shipmates during the storm (Ac 2735). Breaking of b. became 
 the early name of the communion feast of the primitive Ohurch 
 (Ac 242.46 207, 1Co 1016 1123), The breaking has special rele- 
 vancy to the common form of the Jewish bread. 
 
 6. B. was the most convenient form in which to give food to 
 the poor; hence giving (literally breaking) b. to the hungry is a 
 common expression for the dispensing of charity (Pr 229, Is 587, 
 Ezk 187-16). To withhold this was a crime (Job 227). In the 
 ha pep chapter of the Egyp. Bk. of the Dead (cxxv. 1. 38) it 
 
 said of the righteous man that he has given b, to the hungry ; 
 and this claim is occasionally found in funeral inscriptions 
 (RP ii. 14). In Ps 13215 God promises to satisfy the poor of His 
 people with bread. 
 
 7. B, made from corn, being dry and portable, was the best 
 food for a journey. With it ar was victualled for her return 
 to Egypt (Gn 2114), and Saul when in search of the lost asses 
 (18 97). The Gibeonites imposed on Joshua by showing that their 
 bread had become dry and crumbled. Nikkud signifies a 
 crumb, and the nikkudim were crumbs rather than mould- 
 pie LXX, however, renders it s0peridy, as also Theod. and 
 
 imchi (Jos 95). 
 
 8. B. was used to aid in eating soft food, so Jacob gave Esau 
 b. with his pottage (Gn 2534), and Rebexah prepared b. for 
 Isaac’s savoury meat (Gn 2717), The exsey given by our Lord 
 to Judas was probably a sop of bread. 
 
 ii. The materials of which bread was made were 
 barley, wheat, spelt, millet, and lentiles. (See 
 articles under these titles.) 
 
 The best bread was made of wheat, »yn (Gn 30"), 
 which when ground was called n2p7 or meal (Jg 6, 
 181%,1K 4” 17-14), In Egypt wheat was called 
 
 hi or ha; when 
 when cut and winnowed khakha. Several kinds 
 were grown, the common (Triticum vulgare) and 
 the many-eared (7. compositum), which sometimes 
 
 owing it was called etti, and 
 
 has seven ears on a stalk (Gn 415). Two kinds 
 are distinguished by Jewish authors, the light- 
 coloured and the dark (Peah 2°*; see also Tris- 
 tram, Land of Israel, 584). The word for an ear 
 of corn, nay, in the Ephraimite dialect was pro- 
 nounced stbboleth (Jg 12°); in rabbinical writings 
 shibboleth sho’al is used for Adgilops or wild oats, 
 and shiphon for another kind of oats, which are 
 not mentioned in the Bible. When full but not 
 
 uite ripe, these ears were often roasted or boiled, 
 the ‘parched corn’ of the Bible (Lv 2314, 1 § 17", 
 2S 17%), and called by the Arabs ferik (see also 
 2 K 4%), the best ears for the purpose being grown 
 in highly cultivated garden-land (Lv 2", Targ. Ibn 
 G'anach). The word Aittah in the singular usually 
 means the cereal as growing, and is used in the 
 plural for the cut and winnowed grain. It wassown 
 either broadcast (Mt 13%) or in rows, 7h (Is 28%), 
 translated ‘principal’ in AV. The wheat harvest 
 was usually in May, and the grain was reaped with 
 
 a sickle, as in Egypt (Dt 16°, Joel 31°, Rev 1414), and: 
 
 bound in sheaves, or cut off short by the ears in 
 the Picenian mode (Job 24%; see Varro, de re 
 rustica, i. 50), or pulled up by the arm (Is 17, 
 see also Peah, 4. 10, and Maundrell’s Journey, p. 
 144). The sheaves, called ov2>x from being bound 
 (Gn 377, Ps 126°), or ongy (Ru 21%), or anpy (Lv 
 23, Dt 24% Ru 27-2, Job 24!) from being 
 
 BREAD 
 
 collected in bundles, were piled in heaps (vj 
 Ex 22%, Jg 155), and were carted to the threshing- 
 floor (Am 213; see AGRICULTURE), aflat, well-levelled 
 surface in a high place, exposed to the wind, 
 preferably the S. or S.E. wind from the wilderness, 
 and therefore dry. Such threshing-floors were 
 permanent landmarks (Gn 50! 4, 2 § 2416 18), on 
 which the grain was trampled by oxen, or run 
 over by a haruz (Is 287’), morag, or sledge (Is 
 41°, 2 S 24%, 1 Ch 21%), called mowrej at the 
 present day. Gideon, being afraid to go to ¢ 
 public threshing-floor, beat his grain with a flail iz 
 private (Jg 6"). The corn, winnowed with a fork 
 and shovel or fan, was collected and stored in a 
 cache, or underground chamber, or dry well with 
 clay walls (2 8 17, Jer 418), or in an inner 
 room. Thomson (Land and Book, i. 90) speaks of 
 these underground receptacles as specially useful 
 in proteceing the grain from ants. It is re- 
 markable that there is no reference to these 
 grain cisterns in the Mishna. Barns or gran- 
 aries were also used (Job 39!2, Mt 13”, Lk 3!” 
 12}8), The first sheaf cut was presented as a wave 
 sheaf before the Lord (Lv 23), and sometimes 
 decorated with lilies and other flowers (Ca 72. See 
 for similar ceremonies Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 
 334). There were several qualities of wheat; that 
 of Minnith being esteemed the best (Ezk 271”). 
 Pannag, given as a place-name in AV, is rendered 
 cassia In the LXX and millet in the Peshitta, but 
 is left untranslated in RV. It was prob. some kind 
 of aromatic or spice. Michm and Zaént’ah 
 were also famous for wheat, as was ‘Ephrajin, 
 where the straw grew so long that the proverb 
 ‘bringing straw to ‘Ephrajin’=‘ bringing coals to 
 Newcastle’ (Menah. 85. a. 5). The meal used in 
 the offerings is called np, or finely ground (Ex 29%, 
 Ly 2°, Nu 7 etc.), to distinguish it from the nd 
 or ordinary meal. The best is called heleb kiliot 
 hittah, ‘fat of kidneys of wheat’ (Dt 324). Thia 
 fine flour was the food of the wealthy (1 K 4%, 
 2K 7, Ezk 16" 19, Rev 1818), 
 
 Another material used in making bread was jn4 
 (Ezk 4°), which is the Arab. dukhan. This was a 
 smaller grain, probably dhurah (Sorghum vulgare), 
 which is extensively grown in Bible lands, and used 
 as a food-stuff by the peasantry. It is the chief 
 cereal of the poor in Arabia; but dhurah bread 
 is not generally relished by Europeans. 
 
 np93 or spelt (Triticum spelta) is another coarse 
 grain, with coarse strong straw and prickly heads, 
 often sown on the borders of barley fields to enclose 
 them (Is 2875), See Surenhusius (Mishnah, Kilaim 
 Amst. i, 121). The grains, of spelt do not easily 
 separate from the husk when rubbed in the hands, 
 as do those of wheat (Lk 6'). It ripens later than 
 barley, and so escaped the plague of hail (Ex 9%), 
 The word is tr? ‘rye’ in AV in this place, and 
 ‘fitches’ in Ezk 4°; but these are certainly incorrect. 
 In LXX itis rendered édvpa, which was in Greece 
 used as food for horses (Homer, J/. v. 196). Aq. 
 and Theod. tr. it {¢a, which is a different species of 
 grain, Triticum zea (Dioscorides, II. cxi. ; Theo- 
 passes HP viii. 1. 3; Sprengel, Geschichte 
 
 otan. p. 36). Ibn G'anfch tr* it ‘vetch.’ ¢¢a was 
 also a cattle food, see Odyss. iv. 41. 604. LXX calls 
 Elijah’s cake (1 K 19%) olwrités. Herodotus says 
 that the Egyp. bread was made of olyra (ii. 
 36. 77); and in the Book of the Dead spelt (do?) 
 is the grain represented as growing in the fields of 
 the under-world (cix. 5); but the monuments show 
 that wheat was also a common food-stuff (Ex 9°), 
 The genuine rye (Secale cereale) was probably not 
 cultivated in Bible lands; it is called in Gemara 
 neshman by a paronomasia on Is 28%, 
 
 Beans, ‘is, were used as an ingredient in bread 
 (Ezk 4°), and were also eaten roasted or parched 
 (ba); see 2S 17%. Lentiles, ov'qw, were also made 
 
 
 
Into bread (Ezk 4°); the small red lentile or ‘adas 
 is still used for this purpose among the poorest 
 classes in Egypt (Sonnini). Lentiles and beans 
 were ey among the oi) or ‘pulse’ on which 
 Daniel and his companions were fed (Dn 18); but 
 the word means vegetables in general. The flamen 
 dialis among the Romans was forbidden to use 
 beans as food (Aulus Gell. Noct. Attic. 10. xv. 12). 
 
 iii. Bread-corn of any sort is called }23, and this 
 word is often associated with wine as descriptive 
 of fertility (Gn 277% *7, Dt 738 1114 1217 184 285! 3328, 
 2 K 18%, 2 Ch 315 3278, Ps 47, Is 36’, La 22, Hos 
 27s Hag 144) Zec 9", Jl 1°17, Neh 5? 10°), 
 Grain when winnowed and stored is called 13, as 
 Gn 41* 4235, Pr 11°, Am 8°, This word is rarely 
 used of grain on the stalk (as Ps 65° 72"), and in 
 Jer 23% is used of grain as contrasted with the 
 husk or straw. wan is also used in the Talmud to 
 indicate the grain as distinguished from the straw 
 (Sabb. 181, Brn 6°91), Standing corn was commonly 
 distinguished as 7pp. 
 
 Corn was prepared by bruising im a mortar or 
 grinding in a mill; in the former case it is called 
 nipy, as in 2 § 17, Pr 27%, where the point of 
 the figure seems to be, that though the fool be 
 associated with wise men he does not lose his 
 characteristic folly. The mortar or maktesh and 
 the pestle or ‘é/i were usually of stone. 
 
 The mills in common use were called mn, the 
 dual form referring to the twostones. They were 
 in shape like the bradh or quern in use until com- 
 paratively recent times in the Hebrides and West 
 of Ireland, and consisted of a nether millstone or 
 sekeb, which was fixed, and convex on its upper 
 surface, upon which the upper millstone or rekeb 
 (‘the chariot,’ in Arabic the rakib, ‘rider’) 
 rotated. In this was a central hole through 
 which the grain was poured, while the stone was 
 being rotated by means of a handle fixed in its 
 upper surface, near its edge. The upper millstone 
 is made of a porous unpolishing lava from the 
 Hauran, while the nether (proverbially hard) is 
 either of the same material; or else of compact 
 sandstone, limestone, or basalt. The history and 
 references to such mills are given at length in 
 Goetz, de molts et pistrinis veterum; Hoheisel in 
 Ugolini’s Thesaurus, xxix.; and Heringius, de 
 molis veterwum. The corn was daily ground by 
 women (Mt 24‘), usually by a pair of slaves (Ex 
 115, Is 47%. Cf. Plautus, Mercat. ii. 3. 62; Odyss. 
 xx. 105), who sat on the ground, facing each other, 
 and worked together. Among the poor it was done 
 by the wife (Shabbath vii. 2); hence the expres- 
 sion in Job 31° means to become another’s concu- 
 
 desolation (Jer 25!°, Rev 18%). The sound of the 
 grinding in Ec 124 may be the chant of the women 
 (Odyss. xx. 105. 119; see also Aristoph. Thes- 
 peer. 480). In later days mills became larger, 
 and were moved by animal power, or wind or 
 water, and grinding became a trade (Demai iii. 4). 
 Asses are mentioned in rabbinical writings as used 
 for this purpose, and an ass in a mill was a pro- 
 verbial phrase (in Mischar hapenninim, quoted by 
 Buxtorf, Florileg. Hebr. 309). The great millstone 
 in Mt 18° is pros duxds, either a millstone turned 
 by an ass (RVm), or else a nether millstone (Ludolf, 
 tn loco; see Hoheisel, p. 57; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. 
 in Lue. xvii.) called ‘the ass,’ because it bore the 
 burden of the top stone. 
 
 The meal or flour, when ground, was next mixed 
 with water, and kneaded into dough. In Egypt 
 this was done by the feet (Herod. ii. 36) as repre- 
 sented on the tomb of Ramses Il., but among the 
 Jews usually in kneading-troughs (mishereth). 
 
 These were shallow wooden bowls (Ex 8°), which 
 could easily be bound up in their clothes (Ex 12%), 
 Harmer has conjectured that the word refers to a 
 leathern bag or bread-wallet, often carried by the 
 Arabs (iv. 366); but this is improbable. Bread- 
 mal ing was at first a family occupation, done b 
 the wife (Gn 18°), the sister (2S 13%), the female 
 servants (1S 81%) or other female member of the 
 household (1 § 28%, Jer 718 4419, Mt 1333). In later 
 days baking became a trade (Hos 7* 6); and in 
 towns the breadsellers occupied a definite place in 
 the bazaar, ‘the bakers’ street’ (Jer 3721). This place 
 may be referred to Neh 3!! 12°, where the ‘tower of 
 the ovens’ is mentioned, as tannur is used for a 
 baker’s oven in Ly 2! 11% 2676, Hos 74. Josephus 
 speaks of the bakers in Jewish towns (Antf. XV.ix. 2). 
 In the family, bread was baked daily as wanted, 
 as it became tough and unpalatable when stale 
 (Gn 18%). It has been conjectured that this daily 
 pretarevion is referred to in the Lord’s Prayer; 
 ut the petition rather refers to quantity than 
 ey (for signification of émtovovov see Lightfoot, 
 evision, 195; and art. LORD’S PRAYER). The 
 amount of a daily baking was an ephah(=3seahs 
 or measures of meal=44 pecks), as in Gn 18°, 
 Mt 13%, Jg 6%, 1S 1%. Probably this was pro- 
 portional to the size of the oven, and the amount 
 was smaller in time of famine (Ly 26%). Salt was 
 mixed with the dough (Ezr 6° 772), which was then 
 ready for the rapid preparation of unleavened 
 bread or for leavening. In the latter case a 
 small portion of old fermented dough, 7ky, was 
 mixed with the kneaded dough or py3 (as in Ex 
 12*4. 39), This rapidly induced panary fermenta- 
 tion in the whole mass, and ‘raised’ the bread, 
 then called yon haméz or soured bread (Ex 12°, 
 Hos 7*), as opposed to nis> mazzoth or unleavened 
 bread, so called because in flat cakes. The 
 
 dough was usually left in the kneading-trough to 
 
 ferment; and this took some time, during which 
 the baker could sleep (Hos 7°), when he had left a 
 low unstirred fire to keep it warm to encourage 
 the process. Leayven was used as a symbol of that 
 which is old (Schneider, Zeitsch. f. Theol. 1883, 
 333) ; and sometimes for that which is corrupt, the 
 leaven of the Pharisees or of Herod (Mt 16%, 
 Mk 85, Lk 12}, 1 Co 5’); or that which exercises a 
 secretly dominating influence (Mt 13%, 1 Co 58, 
 Gal 5°; see Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo xciv.). 
 Leaven was prohibited in those offerings made by 
 fire to the Lord (Lv 2" 7! 82, Ex 29%, Nu 6"), ag 
 the sacrifice should consist of what is fresh and 
 pure; but in such offerings as the peace-offering 
 (Lv 73%) and the pentecostal loaves (Lv 231") 
 leavened bread might be used, for these were to be 
 eaten by the bls The use of leavened bread 
 was prohibited during the Passover week ; and all 
 leaven was to be burnt before the 14th Nisan, as 
 during the Theocracy the eating of leavened b. at 
 this time was a capital offence, as was the burn- 
 ing of leavened b. in the daily sacrifice. Hence 
 Amos sarcastically bids the Isr. increase their sin 
 by offering leaven in the thanksgiving (45). This 
 sea of leaven being an emblem of corruption was 
 known to the classics. Persius uses fermentum in 
 this sense (14%); and A. Gellius (Noct. Attic. x. 
 15. 19) tells us that the flamen dialis was not 
 allowed to touch flour mixed with leaven. Bresd 
 was sometimes fermented with wine-lees in place 
 of leaven; see Pesachim iii. 1. 
 
 The first dough of the new harvest was made 
 into a cake, and offered as a heave-offering (Nu 
 15%). This mo-y was leavened; some have sup- 
 posed it to be coarse meal, but the rabbinical 
 authorities understand it as leavened dough (see 
 Halla). This offering is referred to in Neh 10” 
 and Ezk 44°, where it is stated to be for the 
 use of the priest; for superstitious uses of this 
 
 
 
318 BREAD 
 
 see Otho, Lexicon Talm. under the word Challa, 
 . 495, 
 4 The cakes or loaves were usually flat and 
 circular, @ span in diameter, and about an inch 
 thick ; these are called, from their shape, nina (Ex 
 29%, Jg 85, 1S 10°, Pr 6%). In Jg 78 the word is 
 bby (Kéthibh, for which Kéré has Foy) ; such cakes 
 were like flat stones (Mt 79, Lk 11"). Three such 
 loaves were a meal for one person (Lk 115), and one 
 was prison fare (Jer 377), or a charity dole (1S 2°). 
 At the average price of barley in NT times, as 
 well as it can be estimated, 200 pennyworths of 
 barley bread would have been about 5000 loaves 
 —a mouthful to each of the multitude (Jn 67). 
 Abigail’s 200 loaves, the fill of the pannier baskets 
 of an ass, would serve for a reasonable feast for 
 David and his men (1 § 2518, 2 § 16!). Other kinds 
 of bread were nibn, Nu 15”, Ly 8%, probably also 
 cylindrical or round cakes; possibly these may 
 be, as has been tes ped punctured cakes, 
 the punctures being depressions made by the 
 smooth pebbles in the oven (cf. the «6Aué of the 
 Greeks; LXX renders cake in 2S 6” 138 by 
 kodXAvpls); nia2>, folded or rolled-up cakes, some- 
 thing like Mee supposed by some to be 
 heart-shaped (2 S 13°), possibly a cake with 
 aromatic seeds added as a carminative. For these 
 finer cakes the dough was twice kneaded. niay 
 were round cakes also (Gn 18°, 1 K 1733, Ezk 412), 
 op}, tr. eracknels (1 K 14° AV), were probably 
 cakes sprinkled on the surface with aromatic seeds, 
 like the barm-brack of the Irish (literally aran 
 breac, spotted bread). The widow of Zarephath calls 
 cakes by what was ee @ provincial name, yp, 
 The methods of baking were various. The 
 earliest mentioned is baking upon the hearth 
 (Gn 18°), that is, on the heated stones of the 
 hearth, the embers being drawn aside and around 
 it. This was probably the Passover method 
 (Ex 12). Elijah’s cake was baked on the hot 
 embers (1 K 19°); so the bread in Jn 21%. B. thus 
 baked was the ¢yxpudlas dpros of Hippocrates, as in 
 LXX. The common method of baking in later 
 times was in ovens, of which there were several 
 kinds. Fixed ovens were commonly hollows in 
 the floor, often of the principal room, about 
 4’x 3’, coated with clay, and heated by being 
 filled with burning fuel. Such were possibly the 
 ors of Lv 11%, ortable ovens, 739, were earthen 
 or stone jars, about 3 ft. high, heated inwardly 
 with wood (1 K 17", Is 44", Jer 738) or dried grass 
 and herbage, xépros (Mt 6°); in the absence of 
 other fuel, dried camel dung or cow dung was 
 used (Ezk 4% 15), When the oven was fully 
 heated the cakes were put in. Then dough was 
 sometimes spread on the outside of the oven; and 
 such a cake, like one baked on a hot hearthstone, 
 requires to be turned, or else it remains raw on 
 one side, while burnt on the other (Hos 78). Ovens 
 of both kinds are still in use in Bible lands. Some- 
 times cakes were baked in a pan or n3q>, which 
 was a flat plate of metal or earthenware, like a 
 ‘girdle,’ which could be made to stand on its 
 edge (Ezk 4%). This was placed over the fire, with 
 the cake laid upon it (Lv 67 79, 1 Ch 237), 
 Tamar’s pan was nwv>, probably a deeper, concave 
 one, out of which the cakes were poured in a heap 
 (2S 18°), like the rdynvov of Aristophanes (Zq. 929). 
 The nymp of Ly 27 7°, which is distinguished in the 
 latter passage from the mahabath or flat pan, was 
 probly some kind of shallow pot for boiling the 
 meal for the offering, which is mingled with oil, 
 and not a frying-pan, as in both RVand AV. A 
 mess of food thus prepared is still known among 
 some Bedawin tribes, and is called ftita. This ma 
 be the meal offering ‘ which is soaked’ of 1 Ch 23”. 
 Unleavened bread was, and still is, made into 
 thin flat cakes, o°p'77 (Ex 297, Ly 24); hence they 
 
 
 
 BREAD 
 
 = —_ 
 are called wafers, In Ex 29? the cakes made wi 
 oil (Adyava) are contrasted with the wafers anointed 
 with oil. These were both made in or upon an 
 oven (Lv 24); a third kind, the friza of the Latin 
 writers, were made in a mahabath (27). Un- 
 leavened bread is called 7y2, as in Ex 125, when 
 contrasted with leavened bread irrespective of 
 shape. All forms of bread were broken when 
 being used,—not cut (Mt 141° 267, Lk 24%, Ac 2%), 
 the pieces being xAdoyvara, broken pieces. It 
 was smeared with olive oil (1 K 17}”), as we now 
 use butter; occasionally with honey, which was 
 sometimes mixed in the dough (Ex 16%), as in the 
 yvedtitropara of Dioscorides (4%), or the ceremonial 
 mupapodvres (Ephippus, E¢nf. 1°). Butter as well 
 as honey was el with bread (2 S 1729, Is 7%); 
 but honey, being a fermentable substance, was 
 prohibited in burnt-offerings (Lv 2"). In Egypt 
 the forms of bread were equally varied ; and in the 
 picture of the baker’s workshop referred to there 
 are conical loaves, flat cakes, rolled-up cakes, and 
 cakes spotted with seeds. In the list of offerings 
 in the great Harris papyrus and other lists there 
 are enumerated kelushta (=halloth), mes, san or 
 sannu, funeral cakes; kiki or pyramids, like the 
 kikkaroth; hebnen, or cakes i offering ; baat, 
 kemhu, hefa, and tetet cakes. The commonest 
 form was the conical, of which clay models were 
 commonly placed in tombs as symbols of funeral 
 food. Egyp. bread is represented monumentally 
 as carried in baskets on the head of the baker, 
 as in ‘the chief baker’s dream (Gn 40!")._ The words 
 there used, "1h ‘bp, rendered ‘white baskets’ in 
 AV, and ‘ baskets of white b.’? LXX, Aq. aye and 
 RY, is possibly the Heyy. kheru, used of the food 
 for a funeral offering. For mode of carrying see 
 Herod. ii. 35. 
 
 iv. Breaking bread was part of the funeral feast 
 among the Jews, as among other naticns (Jer 16! 
 RV, Ezk 241", Hos 91). Thus the funeral feast for 
 Abner was kept at Hebron (2S 3%). The funeral 
 feast is also mentioned in the apocr. Ep. of Jer 
 (Bar 6%!) ; and Tobit bids his son to ‘pour out his 
 b. on the burial of the just’ (417). For the Egyp. 
 funeral feasts see Budge, The Mummy, p. 172; 
 for other references see Garmannus, de Pane 
 Lugentium, Ugolini, xxxiii. Sometimes coarse 
 barley bread was used in these feasts, ‘non pro 
 deliciis apponitur sed tantum ut servilis fames 
 relevetur’ (Petrus Cellensis, Liber de Panibus, 
 Migne, ccii. 917). 
 
 v. Bread formed part of certain offerings, as 
 the pentecostal loaves, and the peace- and trespass- 
 offerings, in which form it is called the b. of their 
 God (Lv 21%). Most of this was eaten by the 
 
 riests after being offered (Lv 211”). The special 
 
 .-offering was the pile of shewbread (b. of the 
 presence, 05 O79, pro. ris mpodécews, Ex 25° 3513, 
 1S 218, 1 K 78), which was placed on a pure table 
 of acacia wood in the Holy Place of the tabernacle, 
 with frankincense (cf. Jos. Ant. 1. x. 7; Schiirer, 
 HJP wu. i. 235 f.). Twelve of these cakes, each 
 made of $ of a peck of flour, were placed in two 
 piles, six in each pile, every Sabbath morning, 
 ‘on behalf of the children of Israel’; the old cakes 
 being eaten by the priests in a sacred place, when 
 the new cakes were brought in; and the frank- 
 incense was burned when the cakes were changed 
 (Lv 24°-8), The aay of making these was laid 
 on the sons of Kohath (1 Ch 9%). The table was 
 covered with a blue cloth, and had on it certain 
 dishes on which the cakes were set in order 
 (Nu 47). In the temple this table was overlaid 
 with gold (1 K 78). In 2Ch 4 tables in the plural 
 are mentioned. It was this holy b. which Ahime. 
 lech gave to David, contrary to the law (158 21°, 
 Mt 124). Probably the allowances, afterwards so 
 liberally provided for the priests in the Priestly 
 
 
 
BREASTPLATE 
 
 
 
 HIGH PRIEST'S BREASTPLATE 319 
 
 
 
 Code, were, during the troubled times of Saul, 
 scanty, erratic, and often omitted; contrast the 
 liberal temple allowance by Ramses II. in the 
 Harris papyrus, &P vi. When the shewbread was 
 reinstituted by Neh., a poll-tax of 4 shekel was laid 
 on the Jews (Neh 10%, Mt 17%). In the corrupt 
 days of the kingdom the table had become polluted, 
 and it and its vessels were cleansed in the days of 
 Hezekiah (2 Ch 29', Ezk 447); but in later days 
 they were equally careless (Mal 1’), For further 
 articulars and pictures see Abraham ben David, 
 e Templo, Ugolini’s Thesaurus, ix. p. 298, and the 
 references ; Otho’s Lex. Talmud, sub voce, p. 496. 
 vi. The word Bread is used Se RI ae 
 (a) As expressing the perquisites of an office 
 (Neh 9"). (5) The legitimate spoil of conquest 
 (Nu 14°). (c) Those who do not earn their liveli- 
 hood are said to eat the bread of idleness (Pr 31”). 
 (d) The profit of sinful courses is called the 0. of 
 wickedness (Pr 41"); and the short-lived advantages 
 ained by falsehood are called b. of deceit (Pr 20°”) 
 ecret sin is compared to ‘b. eaten in secret’ 
 (Pr 9"). (e) Suffering and sorrow are called eating 
 the b. of adversity: (Is 30”), or of affliction (Dt 16°, 
 1 K 2277, 2 Ch 18%), or of tears (Ps 80°). Sorrow 
 is also expressed as eating ashes as bread (Ps 102°). 
 LrrerATURE.—Besides the several works referred to in the 
 text, further information will be found in Kitto, Cyclopedia; 
 Paulsen, vom Ackerbau d. Morgenlands; Thomson, Land and 
 Book; Vogelstein, Die Landwirthschaft in Paldstina zur Zeit 
 der Mishndh, Berlin, 1894; Revue des Etudes Juives, xxii. 58; 
 Voigt, Rheinisch. Mus. 1876, 107. See also the Travels of 
 Niebuhr, Wellsted, Burckhardt, and Doughty. The ancient 
 literature will be found summarised in the articles of Ugolini, 
 Bchottgen, and Goetz, in vol. xxix. of the 7’hesaurus. Varro 
 and Cato, de re rusticd, may also be consulted with advantage. 
 A. MACALISTER. 
 BREASTPLATE.—41. wn hoshen, a plate worn as 
 rt of the high priest’s dress (see next art.). 
 . [Te shirydn, Ospot. Both the Heb. and Gr. 
 words probably described a cuirass rather than a 
 simple breastplate. Such a cuirass as worn by the 
 Greeks protected the back as well as the breast 
 and stomach. In addition, it often gave protection 
 to the neck and to the hips. It was well suited to 
 suggest the many-sidedness of ‘righteousness’ (Is 
 59" = Eph 6"). Another form of the word, shiryon, 
 is usually rendered ‘coat of mail.’ The phrase 
 ‘coat of mail of righteousness’ is awkward, but it 
 is more accurate than ‘breastplate of righteous- 
 ness’ in both places cited above. In 1 Th 58 faith 
 and love form the @Wpat, perhaps with a hint at 
 the two parts, front and back, of which it was 
 usually made. The Rom. lorica (=@uWpat) was 
 of various kinds. It was sometimes (a) a simple 
 jacket of leather reaching to the middle of the 
 thighs with double thickness at the shoulders, or 
 (6) an arrangement of iron or brass rings which 
 could be worn over a leathern jacket, or (c) a vest 
 made of small metal plates overlapping one 
 another, or, lastly, (7) when called segmentata it 
 consisted of two broad pieces for the back and 
 breast respectively, of five or six bands fastened on 
 to the ‘ breast-plate’ and ‘ back-plate’ and running 
 round the lower part of the body, and, lastly, of four 
 such bands over each shoulder. The ‘segments’ 
 are stated to have been of leather; and the fact 
 that no broad plates of iron have been found 
 cowed the many remains of Rom. armour which 
 e 
 
 have been brought to light, is against the modern 
 theory that the lorica segmentata was of iron. See 
 also Polybius ‘F’ quoted under ARMOUR. 
 
 W. E. BARNES. 
 
 BREASTPLATE OF THE HIGH PRIEST.— 
 The most important part of the distinctive dress 
 of the high priest, according to the Priests’ 
 Code, was the pectoral or breastplate (jwn, more 
 fully psyn(n) “n, Targ. x13 wn (Arab. husn ed-din, 
 ‘excellency of judgment’) LXX Aédyov (var. 
 Noveiov) ris xploews or 7. xploewy (but once zepu- 
 
 or}O.ov, Ex 284), Vulg. rationale, r. judwiti). The 
 orig. signification of the Heb. word has been lost. 
 Of the various suggested etymologies only two de. 
 serve mention. The one is lwald’s (Antig. of Isr. 
 p. 294), that jn is ‘a dialectic form of joh, i.e. 
 pocket,’ etc. (from a root jon to store up), hence 
 navn “n would probably mean ‘the pouch of the 
 oracle.’* The other possible root is wn, Arab. 
 hasan, to. be beautiful, ‘hence possibly jy'n, either 
 as chief ornament of ephod, or as the most excel- 
 lent precious article of high priest’s attire’ (Oxf. 
 Heb. Lex. s.v.). 
 
 The directions for the construction of the b. are 
 given in Ex 281%, with which the parallel section 
 398-21 ney be compared. The material was the 
 same as that of the ephod (see EPHOD), the richest 
 and most artistic of the textile fabrics of P (‘of 
 gold, of blue, of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine 
 twined linen,’ 28% RV). A cubit’s length of this 
 material was required, the width being a span or 
 half-cubit ; when folded in two, it formed a square, 
 measuring a span each way. Into one of the faces 
 of this square—henceforth to be the outer side of 
 the b.—were inserted by means of gold settings, 
 probably of filigree work, four rows of jewels, 
 three inarow. The identification of these twelve 
 jewels must start from the renderings of the LXX, 
 and is still in some cases little more’than probable 
 (see art. STONES, PRECIOUS, also the Comm. in loco, 
 and the literature infra, esp. the learned work of 
 Braun, pp. 627-745). On each jewel was engraved 
 the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. All 
 that has been written as to the order in which the 
 names were arranged is mere speculation. The 
 whole, however, had a fine significance; for thus 
 the high priest wore ‘upon his heart the names of 
 the children of Israel, for a memorial before J” 
 continually ’ (28%), 
 
 The b. was kept in position by the foll. simple 
 device. At the right and left top corners, respect- 
 ively, of the outer jewelled square, was fixed a 
 gold ring, through which was passed a gold chain, 
 or rather cord (for it had no links) ‘of wreathen 
 work.’ These chains were then passed over, or 
 through, or otherwise attached to, a couple of gold 
 ornaments (AV ‘ouches’)—probably rosettes (LXX 
 domdloxas) of es filigree—which had previously 
 (v.!5) been fixed to the shoulder-pieces of the ephod 
 in front. Similarly, at the right and left bottom 
 corners of the inner square were fixed two gold 
 rings, through each of which was passed a ribbon 
 or ‘lace of blue’(RV). Corresponding to these twe 
 rings on the b. were two of the same material, 
 attached, like the rosettes above mentioned, to the 
 shoulder-pieces of the ephod. Their precise posi- 
 tion, however, is difficult to determine, owing to the 
 want of clearness in the existing description of the 
 ephod (Ex 2812). They may, perhaps, be best 
 thought of as sewed to the sleul devices of the 
 ephod at points lower than the rosettes by the 
 length of the chains and square, so that, in short, 
 the rings of the ephod and those of the b. were in 
 immediate contact, and fastened together by the 
 blue lace.t The latter, in this way, would be 
 entirely hidden by the b., which would account for 
 the iaie material of the lower fastening com- 
 pared with that of the upper. By this means the 
 b. was securely held in its place, so that it should 
 rest just ‘above the cunningly woven band of the 
 ephod’ (v.%8). The main purpose of the b., there 
 can pean) be any longer a doubt, was to provide 
 a receptacle for the sacred lot, the mysterious 
 UriM and THUMMIM (wh. see). It should be added 
 
 * So Kautzsch, ‘Orakel-Tasche.’ Cf. Aéys0y (oracle) of LXX. 
 
 + The latest representation, in Nowack’s Archdologie, ii. p. 
 119 (from Riehm’s H W B2 i. 402), cannot be correct. If the laces 
 were attached so high as there represented, the b., so far from 
 being kept from shifting, would fall forward every time the 
 high priest had occasion to bend his body. 
 
 
 
320 BREATH 
 
 BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 
 
 that the description of the b. by Jos. (Ané. m1. 
 vii. 5, and Wars, Vv. v. 7) must be used with caution. 
 LiTERATURE.—Besides the comm. on Exod. consult the class, 
 work of Braun, Vest Sacerd. Heb. Amstel. 1680; Bahr, Sym- 
 Bolik d. Mos. Kultus2ii. p. 61ff.; Neumann, D, Stiftshiitte, 1861, 
 pp. 1650-159 (with fine illustrations in colours); Ewald’s An- 
 tiquities (Eng. tr.), 204 ff. ; Keil’s Arch. (Eng. tr.) i. ; Nowack’s 
 Arch. ii. 119; Ancessi, L’Hgypte et Moise, le part. ‘Les Véte- 
 ments du Grandprétre,’ 1875. A. R. 8S. KENNEDY. 
 
 BREATH.—See Spirit. 
 
 BREECHES (o:p39p, epioxedf, feminalia: for 
 illustr. of last, see Rich, Dict. of Antig.).—This is 
 the name given to the undergarment ordered b 
 Ezk (4415), and the legislation of P (Ex 28% 39%, 
 Ly 6° 16‘) to be worn on grounds of modesty (13 
 in above pass. is a euphemism, see under BATH) 
 by the priests when engaged in the more solemn 
 duties of their office. The b., more accurately 
 drawers, were made of white linen, were very 
 short, like our modern bathing drawers, reaching 
 to below the loins and fastening round the waist. 
 The theta are said to have worn a similar 
 Vereen ilkinson in Rawlinson’s Herod.?ii. 113). 
 
 os. gives a description of it as worn in his time 
 (Ant, 101. vii. 1. Cf. Kalisch on Ex 284; Braun, 
 De Vest. Sacerd. Hebr. 1680, lib. ii. cap. i. De 
 p02 Brachis Sacerdotum, with illustr. p. 450). 
 
 A. R. 8. KENNEDY. 
 
 BRETHREN OF THE LORD. — The phrase 
 ‘brother’ or ‘brethren’ of the Lord is used several 
 times in the NT of James and other persons. 
 There has been much controversy as to the actual 
 relationship implied, whether we are to understand 
 ‘brethren’ literally as meaning sons of the mother 
 and reputed father of Jesus (the Helvidian view), 
 or sons of Joseph by a former marriage (the 
 Epiphanian view), or sons of Clopas or Alpheus, 
 the husband of a sister of the mother of Jesus (the 
 Hieronymian view). 
 
 A. The passages bearing on the subject are Mt 1”, 
 Lk 2? (birth), Jn 2 (common household), Lk 416-8 
 (preaching at Nazareth), Mk 3 ® (attempts of 
 Mary and His brethren to restrain Jesus; cf. Mt 
 127, Lk 8), Jn 77° (going up to the Feast of 
 Tabernacles), Mt 27°, Mk 15”: 47 161, Lk 24 Jn 
 19% (the crucifixion), Ac 14, Gal 18, 1 Co 95 
 (after the Resurrection). 
 
 I think that any one reading these passages, 
 without any preconceived idea on the subject, 
 would naturally draw the conclusion that Mary 
 was the true wife of Joseph, and bore to him at 
 least four sons (James, Joses, Judas, and Simon) 
 and two daughters; that the sons were not in- 
 cluded among the twelve apostles, but were, on 
 the contrary, disbelievers in the Messiahship of 
 Christ, and inclined at one time to entertain doubts 
 as to His sanity, though after His death they threw 
 in their lot with His disciples. Setting aside the 
 apocryphal books of the NT, the earliest refer- 
 ence to this subject in the post-apostolic writers is 
 found in Hegesippus (about A.D. 160). His testi- 
 mony, preserved by Eusebius (HH iv. 22), is 
 quite consistent with the conclusion to which we 
 are led by the language of Scripture, while it is 
 totally opposed to the Hieronymian view. It is to 
 the effect that ‘after the martyrdom of James the 
 Just on the same charge as the Lord, his paternal 
 uncle’s child, Symeon the son of Clopas, was next 
 made Bishop of, Jerus., being put forward by all 
 as the second in succession, seeing that he was a 
 cousin of the Lord.’ Cf. this with HZ iii. 22, where 
 Symeon is said to have succeeded the brother o 
 the Lord as bishop, and ec. 20, where Jude also is 
 called brother of the Lord. 
 
 Tertullian (d. A.D. 220) is, however, the first who 
 distinctly asserts that the ‘brethren’ were uterine 
 brothers of Jesus. Arguing against Marcion, who 
 
 
 
 had made use of the text, ‘ Who is my mother, and 
 who my brother?’ to prove that Christ was not 
 really man, he says: Nos contrario dicimus, primo, 
 non potuisse lt annuntiari quod mater et fratres 
 ejus foris starent... si nulla illi mater et fratres 
 nulls fuissent. ... At vere mater et fratres ejus 
 foris stabant.... Tam proximas personas foris 
 stare, extraneis intus cb ad sermones ejus... 
 merito indignatus est. Transtulit sanguinis nomina 
 in alios, guos magis proximos pro fide judicaret .. . 
 tn semet ipso docens, eae elke < aut matrem aut 
 Sratres preponeret verbo Dei, non esse dignum dis- 
 cipulum (Ado, Mare. iv. 19). Similarly arguing 
 from the same text against the Marcionite Spe 
 he says ‘the words are not inconsistent with the 
 truth of His humanity. Noone would have told 
 Him that His mother and His brethren stood with- 
 out, gui non certus esset habere illum matrem et 
 fratres. ... Omnes nascimur, et tamen non omnes 
 aut fratres habemus aut matrem. Adhuc potest 
 et patrem magis habere quam matrem, et avunculos 
 magis quam fratres. ... Fratres Domini non credi- 
 derunt in illum. ... Mater eque non demonstratur 
 adhesisse et... . Hoc denique in loco apparet in- 
 credulitas eorum’ (De Carne Christi, 7). As Ter- 
 tullian in these passages gives no hint that the 
 brothers of Jesus stood to Him in any other 
 relation than other men’s brothers do to them, or 
 that His relationship to them was not as real as 
 that to His mother, so in other treatises he 
 takes it for granted that Mary ceased to be a virgin 
 after the birth of Christ (De Monogamia, 8): Due 
 nobis antistites Christiane sanctitatis occurrunt, 
 monogamia et continentia. Et Christum quidem 
 virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum (‘being 
 about to defer her marriage union till after the 
 birth of her son,’ lit. ‘being about to marry first 
 after her delivery’) ut uterque titulus sanctitatis in 
 Christi sensu dispungeretur per matrem et virginem 
 et univiram; and in even plainer words (De Virg. 
 Vel. 6), where he discusses the meaning of the salu- 
 tation benedicta tu inter multeres. ‘ Wasshe called 
 mulier, and not virgo, because she was espoused ? 
 We need not, at any rate, suppose a prophetic 
 reference to her future state as a married woman’: 
 non enim poterat posteriorem mulierem nominare, 
 de qua Christus nasci non habebat, id est virum 
 passam sed illa (tllam?) que erat praesens, que 
 erat virgo (‘for the angel could not be referring to 
 the wife that was to be, for Christ was not to be 
 born of a wife, i.e. of one who had known a hus- 
 band; but he referred to her who was before him, 
 who was a virgin’). 
 
 These words of Tertullian, himeelf strongly 
 ascetic, which were written about the end of the 
 Qnd cent., do not betray any consciousness that 
 he is controverting an established tradition in 
 favour of the perpetual virginity. And Origen 
 (d. 253 A.D.), though upholding the virginity, and 
 objecting to the phrase used above by Tertullian 
 (quod asserunt eam nupsisse post partum, unde 
 approbent non habent, Com. in Luc. 7), does not 
 claim any authority for his own view, but only 
 argues that it is admissible.* For the statement 
 that the ‘brethren’ were sons of Joseph by a 
 
 redeceased wife, he refers to two aporyayes 
 
 ooks, dating from about the middle of the 2nd 
 cent., as the authority for his view that the 
 ‘brethren’ were sons of Joseph by a predeceased 
 wife. One of these books is the Gospel of 
 Peter, which, as we learn from Eusebius (HH 
 vi. 12), Serapion, bishop of Antioch at the 
 end of the 2nd cent., forbade to be used in a 
 Cilician church, on the ground that it favoured 
 the heretical views of the Docete. The latter 
 portion of this Gospel (of course not containing 
 the passage referred to by Origen) was dis- 
 
 * Comm, in Matt. xii. 55 (vol. iii, p. 45, Lomm.) 
 
BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 covered in a fragmentary condition in Egypt & 
 few years ago, the Hditio Princeps being published 
 in 1892. The other book to which Origen refers 
 is still extant, the Protevangelium Jacobi. It 
 contains the story of Anna and Joachim, the 
 
 arents of Mary, of her miraculous birth and 
 etrotbal to Joseph to be her guardian, he having 
 been designated for this honour, against his will, 
 out of all the widowers of Israel, by the dove 
 which issued from his rod. The names of Joseph’s 
 sons are variously given in the MSS as Simon, 
 Samuel, James. 
 
 I think that these facts prove that the belief in 
 the Perpetual Virginity, which was growing up 
 during the 2nd cent. and established itself in 
 the 3rd cent., was founded, not upon historic 
 evidence, but simply on sentimental grounds, 
 which may have gained additional strength from 
 opposition to the Ebionites, who denied the mir- 
 aculous birth of the Lord (Orig. c. Cels. v. 61). 
 Even Basil the Great, who died in A.D. 379, in 
 discussing the meaning of Mt 1°, still holds the 
 belief in the Virginity, not as a serra article 
 of faith, but merely as a pious opinion.* It is un- 
 necessary to give the names of others who held that 
 the ‘brethren’ were sons of Joseph by a former wite. 
 The chief supporter of this view is Epes, who 
 wrote against the Antidicomarianite about the year 
 A.D. 370. The view of Tertullian was reasserted by 
 Helvidius, Bonosus, and Jovinianus, about the 
 year A.D. 380. 
 
 B. Jerome’s answer to Helvidius, which fastened 
 on the Western Church the doctrine of the Perpetual 
 Virginity and the interpretation of ‘brethren’ in 
 the sense of ‘ cousins,’ appeared about the year A.D. 
 383. He begins by identifying James the Lord’s 
 brother with James the son of Alpheus, one of the 
 Twelve. Otherwise, he says, there would be three 
 disciples called James, but the distinctive epithet 
 minor attached to one of them in Mk 15“ implies that 
 there could be only two. Moreover, St. Paul calls 
 him an apostle in Gal 11 ‘other of the apostles saw 
 I none, save James the Lord’s brother.’ Again, 
 in Mk 6° we find a James and Joses amongst the 
 brethren of Jesus, and in Mk 15* we read that 
 Mary, the mother of James and Joses, was present 
 at the crucifixion; but in Jn 19% this Mary (whom, 
 as mother of James, we know to be wife of 
 Alpheus) is called Mary of Clopas, sister of the 
 Lord’s mother. James is therefore the cousin of 
 the Lord; the word brother being used for kinsman. 
 Later writers carried the Eheory. further by identi- 
 fying Alphzeus and Clopas as double forms of the 
 
 amaic Chalphai, and by identifying ‘Judas of 
 James,’ who occurs in Xt. Luke’s Tist of the 
 apostles (Lk 6'6, Ac 1%), with the writer of the 
 
 pistle (who calls himself ‘brother of James’), 
 and also with the brother of Joses, James, and 
 Simon, in Mk 6°. Simon is further identified with 
 Simon Zelotes, who is joined with James and Judas 
 in the list of the apostles; and some hold that 
 Matthew, being identical with Levi, sonof Alpheus, 
 must belong tothe samefamily. Bp. Lightfoot calls 
 attention to the fact that not only does Jerome 
 make no Cea to any traditional support for 
 this view, but that he is himself by no means con- 
 sistent in holding it. Thus in his comment on the 
 Galatians, written about A.D. 387, he says: ‘James 
 was called the Lord’s brother on account of his 
 high character, his incomparable faith, and his 
 extraordinary wisdom; the other apostles are also 
 called brothers (Jn 207), but he pre-eminently so, 
 to whom the Lord at His departure had committed 
 the sons of His mother (i.e. the members of the 
 Church at Jerusalem).’ In.a later work still, the 
 edi to Hedibia, written about 406, he speaks of 
 
 ary of Cleophas (Clopas) the aunt of our Lord, 
 
 * Hom. in Sanct, Christ. Gen. ii. p. 600, ed. Garn. 
 VOL. 1.—21 
 
 BRETHREN OF THE LORD 321 
 
 
 
 and Mary the mother of James and Joses, as 
 distinct persons, ‘although some contend that the 
 mother of James and Joses was His aunt.’ 
 
 (1) In the above argument of Jerome it is 
 assumed that the word ‘brother’ (d4ded¢és) may be 
 used in the sense of cousin (dveyids, found in Col 
 41°), The supporters of this theory do not offer an 
 parallel from the NT, but they appeal to classica, 
 use both in Greek and Latin, and to the OT. The 
 examples cited from classical Greek are merel 
 oo of warm affection, or else metaphorical, 
 as Plato, Crito, § 16, where the laws of Athens are 
 made to speak of of juérepor ddedgol ol év Aldou vdpot. 
 There is no instance in classical Greek, as far as I 
 know, of déeXpés being used to denote a cousin. In 
 Latin frater may stand for frater patruelis, where 
 there is no danger of being haenndorataa (cf. Cic. 
 ad Att. i. 5.1). The Heb. word is used loosely to 
 include cousin, as in Gn 14'*16 (of Abraham and 
 Lot), where the LXX has déedgidods; in Lv 104, 
 where the first cousins of Aaron are called brethren 
 (ddeAgol) of his sons, Nadab and Abihu; in 1 Ch 
 2371-22 (“The sons of Mahli, Eleazar and Kish. 
 And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: 
 and their brethren the sons of Kish took them’) 
 where also the LXX has ddeAgol. These passages 
 seem to me to be hardly covered by the general 
 tule laid down by Bishop Lightfoot (p. 261): ‘In 
 an affectionate and earnest ppeeal intended to 
 move the sympathies of the hearer, a speaker 
 might not unnaturally address a relation or a 
 friend or even a fellow-countrymanas his ‘‘ brother”: 
 and even when speaking of such to a third person 
 he might through warmth of feeling and under 
 certain aspects so designate him.’ I think, how- 
 ever, the Bishop is entirely right when he goes on 
 to say: ‘It is scarcely conceivable that the cousins 
 of any one should be Shae Ny and indeed 
 exclusively styled his ‘‘ brothers” by indifferent 
 persons; still less, that one cousin in particular 
 should be singled out and described in this loose 
 way, ‘‘James, the Lord’s brother.”’ If we remark, 
 too, the care with which Hegesippus (quoted above) 
 employs the term déeA¢és of St. James and St. Jude, 
 the brothers of the Lord, while he keeps the term 
 dveyits for Symeon, the cousin of the Lord and 
 second bishop of Jerusalem, we shall feel that 
 there is a strong probability against the use 
 of ddedgol in NT to denote anything but brothers, 
 
 (2) Jerome’s main argument is that James the 
 Lord’s brother was one of the Twelve, and therefore 
 identical with James the son of Alpheus. He 
 pe this assertion on a single passage in St. 
 
 aul, which I shall presently examine. Bishop 
 Lightfoot and others have shown that it is not a 
 necessary consequence of St. Paul’s language, and 
 that it is opposed to the distinction everywhere 
 made in the NT between the brethren of the 
 Lord and the Twelve. Thus in Ac 1"4, after the list 
 of the Eleven including James the son of Alphzus, 
 we read, ‘these all continued instant in prayer’ 
 ody yuvatl xal Mapidy ro pntpl rod “Inood Kat 
 Tots ddedgots atro’p. Again, in Jn 2! we read 
 that Jesus went down to Capernaum aéréds kal 7 
 Barnp avrod wat of ddedqgol cal of pabynral airod: Kal 
 éxe? Eueway od moddds huépas; and in Mt 124 ‘One 
 said to him’ (30) 4 pArnp cov Kal ol ddeAdgol cov tw 
 ésrhxacw (nrotvrés co AaATou ... ‘and stretchin 
 forth his hand to his disciples he saith’ (dod 
 payrnp pov Kal ol ddeddpol pov: boris yap Oy roijoy Td 
 0éAnua 708 ILarpés pov,rod év ovpavots,adrés wot ddehpds kal 
 adedgh xal wirnp éortv. In the last passage there is 
 the same strong antithesis between natural earth] 
 ties and His duty to His Father in heaven, whic 
 we observe in the words spoken by Him when 
 found as a boy in the temple. Notice also that 
 there is in this passage not only a distinction made 
 between the brethren of Jesus and His disciples, 
 

 
 
 
 822 BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 but a certain opposition is implied, which is 
 brought out more clearly in St. Mark’s narrative 
 of the same event (37+*!-5), From the latter it 
 appears that the reason why they of His family (ot 
 wap avrod) desired to speak with Him was because 
 the rumour which had reached them of His 
 incessant labours led them to believe that His 
 mind was overstrained. AsSt. Mark goeson to say 
 (v.22) that the scribes accused Jesus of casting out 
 devils through Beelzebub, and as we further read 
 in St. John (107 84) that many said, ‘He hatha 
 devil, and is mad,’ it would seem, though it is not 
 expressly stated, that these calumnious reports of 
 His enemies had not been without effect on some 
 members of His own family. At all events, they went 
 out prepared kparfjcu ai’réy, t.e. to put Him under 
 some restraint. This narrative gives additional 
 
 int to the words in Mk 64, spoken with imme- 
 
 iate reference to the unbelief of the people of 
 Nazareth, ov« €orw mpodrjrns &ripuos el wh ev rp warpld. 
 avrod kal év rots avyyevetow aitrod kal év ry olkla 
 avrod. If it were simply the disbelief of towns- 
 people not immediately related to Him, there 
 seems no need for the addition ‘in his own kinsfolk 
 and in his own house.’ This inference, which we 
 naturally draw from the words of St. Mark, is 
 confirmed by the express statement of St. John 
 (735), ove yap ol ddeAgol atrod érlorevoy els atréy, and 
 by our Lord’s words addressed to them (y.”), ob 
 Sivarar 6 Kbopos pucely buds: eue Se puce?, bre éyw 
 Haprup® wept abrod bri rd Epya adrot movnpd éorww. 
 Compare this with the words spoken shortly after- 
 wards to the disciples (15%), el éx rod xécpovu Fre, 6 
 kéopos Gy 7d Yuov epider Sri Se ex Tod Kdcpmovu ovK ore, 
 GAN’ éya ebéreEa duis ex Tod Kbopov, bid TolTo pice? buas 
 6 xbopos 
 
 The words on which Jerome lays stress are Gal 
 3819 GyArOov els ‘Iepordruua loropjoa Kyday al 
 éréuewa mpds avrdv jucpas dexdmevre Erepov 5é Tr 
 drocréAwy ob eldov, el wh "IdewBov rdv ddedpdy rod 
 Kuplov. But even if we give its usual force to el u7, 
 it will not follow that St. James was included in 
 the Twelve, for there can be no doubt that in Gal 
 19 érepov looks backward to Ky¢av, not forward to 
 
 "IdxwBov. The sentence would have been complete 
 at «ldov, ‘I saw Peter and none other of the 
 apostles.’ Then it strikes St. Paul, as an after- 
 
 thought, that the position of James, as president 
 of the Church at Jerusalem, was not inferior to that 
 of the apostles, and he adds ‘ unless you reckon 
 James among them.’ That the term ‘apostle’ was 
 rot strictly confined to the Twelve appears from 
 another passage in which James is mentioned, 
 1Co 1547, Here it is said that Jesus after His resur- 
 rection ‘appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, 
 then to above five hundred brethren at once, then 
 to James, then to all the apostles,’ where we should 
 perhaps consider the term to include the Seventy, 
 according to the view of Irenzeus and other atl 
 writers. At any rate there can be no doubt as to 
 St. Paul’s apoctoehie! Barnabas also is called an 
 apostle (Ac 14‘: 14), probably also Andronicus and 
 unias (Ro 167) and Silvanus (1 Th 2°).* The 
 most natural interpretation of the two passages 
 just dealt with is that which concedes the name 
 ‘apostle’ in the wider sense to St. James, but 
 makes a distinction between him and the Twelve. 
 (3) Scarcely less strong is the argument against 
 the Hieronymian view drawn from what we read 
 of the relation of the brethren of the Lord to His 
 mother. Though, according to this view, their own 
 mother Mary was living at the time of the cruci- 
 fixion, and though there is nothing to show that 
 their father was not also living, yet they are never 
 found in the company of their parents or parent, but 
 always with the Virgin. They move with her and 
 
 * See Lightfoot, Ic, pp. 92-101, and the Didaché, xi. 1. 5, with 
 Funk's notes. 
 
 
 
 
 
 BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 her divine Son to Capernaum and form one house- 
 hold there (Jn 2"); they take upon themselves to 
 control and check the actions of Jesus; they go 
 
 with Mary ‘to take him,’ when it is feared that 
 His mind is becoming unhinged. They are referred 
 to by the neighbours as members of His family in 
 exactly the same terms as His mother and His 
 reputed father. It is suggested indeed that the 
 Virgin and her sister were both widows at this time, 
 and had agreed to form one household; but this 
 is mere hypothesis, and is scarcely consistent with 
 the romans of the neighbours, who endeavour to 
 satisfy themselves that Jesus was not entitled te 
 speak as He had done, by calling to mind those 
 nearest to Him in blood. 
 
 (4) That Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary 
 the mother of the Lord is not only most improb- 
 able in itself (for where do we find two sisters with 
 the same name?), but is not the most natural 
 interpretation of Jn 19” elorjkecay d¢ wapd 7g 
 oraupe Tod *Incod 7» unrnp avrod Kal % ddeAph THs 
 bytpos atrod, Mapla h rod KX\wrd cal Mapla 7 May- 
 dadnv} (translated in the Peshitta, ‘His mother 
 and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleopha and 
 Mary Magdalene’), If we compare this verse with 
 Mk 15 and Mt 275, we find that, of the three 
 women named as present in addition to the mother 
 of Jesus, Mary Magdalene occurs in all three lists; 
 ‘Mary the mother of James and Joses’ of the two 
 synoptic Gospels is generally identified with ‘Mary 
 of Clopeas and we then have left in Matthew 
 ‘the mother of the sons of Zebedee,’ in Mark 
 ‘Salome,’ and in John ‘his mother’s sister. 
 Salome is generally identified with ‘the mother 
 of the sons of Zebedee,’ and there seems good 
 reason also for identifying her with ‘his mother’s 
 sister’ in the Fourth Gospel. It does not seem 
 likely that St. John would omit the name of his 
 own mother; and the indirect way in which he 
 describes her is very similar to the way in which 
 he refers to himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus 
 loved.’ If we are right in this supposition, it is 
 natural that the two sisters should be paired 
 together, and then the two other Marys, just as 
 we have the apostles arranged in pairs without a 
 connecting particle in Mt 10%4. If the sons of 
 Zebedee were so nearly related to our Lord, it 
 helps us to understand Salome’s request that they 
 might sit on His right hand and on His left hand 
 in His glory, as well as the commendation by our 
 Lord of His mother to one, who was not only His 
 best-loved disciple, but her own nephew. If, how- 
 ever, this interpretation is correct, if the sister of 
 the Lord’s mother is not the mother of James and 
 Joses, but the mother of the sons of Zebedee, then 
 the foundation-stone of the Hieronymian theory 
 is removed, and the whole fabric topples to the 
 ground. 
 
 (5) I take next two minor identifications, that 
 of ‘ James the Less’ with the ‘ brother of the Lord,’ 
 and that of *Iovdas ’IaxdéBou, of Lk 61% and Ac 1%, 
 with Jude the writer of the Epistle, who calls 
 himself ‘brother of James.’ We have seen that 
 Mary the mother of James rof puxpod and of Joses, 
 in Mk 15”, is probably the same as Mary of 
 Clopas, and that we have no reason for inferring 
 from the Gospels that she was related to Jesus. 
 If so, there is an end to the supposition that James 
 the Less is James the brother of the Lord. But it 
 is worth while to notice the mistranslation in 
 which Jerome imagined that he found a further 
 argument for the identification of our James with 
 the son of Alpheus. The comparative minor, he 
 says, suggests two persons, viz. the two apostles 
 of this name. But the Greek has no comparative, 
 simply rod puxpod, ‘the little,’ which no more 
 implies a comparison with only one person than 
 any other descriptive epithet, such as evepyérns oF 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 gPirdderpos. As to “Iovdas "IaxdSov, no instance is 
 cited for such an omission of the word dde\¢és, and 
 we must therefore translate ‘Judas son of James’ 
 with the RV. Independently of this, if James, 
 Judas, and Simon are all sons of Alpheus, what a 
 strange way is this of introducing their names in 
 the list of the apostles, ‘James of Alpheus, Simon 
 Zelotes, Judas of James’! Why not speak of all 
 as ‘sons of Alpheus,’ or of the two latter as 
 ‘brothers of James’? Why not speak of all as 
 ‘brethren of the Lord’? It is especially strange 
 that, if Judas were really known as such, he should 
 have been distinguished in John (14) merely by a 
 negative, ‘Judas not Iscariot,’ and in the other 
 Gospels nee appellation ‘Lebbzeus’ or ‘Thaddzus’ 
 (Mt 108, Mk 338), 
 
 C. We have still to examine two crucial passages 
 which have to be set aside before we can accept 
 either the Epiphanian or the Hieronymian theory: 
 Mt 1% "Iwoh . . . wapédaBev rhy yuvaixa abrod Kat 
 obk éylywoxev atrhy Ews od Erexev vidv, and Lk 27 kal 
 rexev roy vldy airis roy wpwréroxov. Reading these 
 in connexion with those other passages which 
 speak of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, it is 
 hard to believe that the evangelists meant us to 
 understand, or indeed that it ever entered their 
 heads that the words could be understood to mean, 
 anything else than that these brothers were sons 
 of the mother and the reputed father of the Lord. 
 It has been attempted, however, to prove that we 
 need not take the passages referred to in their 
 ordinary and Dears Thus Pearson, treat- 
 ing of the phrase éws od, tells us that ‘the manner 
 of the Scripture language produceth no such infer- 
 ence’ as that, from a limit assigned to a negative, 
 we may imply a subsequent affirmative; and he 
 cites the following instances in proof. ‘When 
 God said to Jacob, ‘‘I will not leave thee until I 
 have done that which I have spoken to thee of” 
 (Gn 28%), it followeth not that, when that was 
 done, the God of Jacob left him. When the con- 
 
 clusion of Deuteronomy was written it was said of 
 Moses, ‘‘No man knoweth of his sepulchre uato 
 this day” (Dt 34°), but it were a weak argument 
 to infer from thence that the sepulchre of Moses 
 
 has been known ever since. hen Samuel had 
 delivered a severe prediction unto Saul, he ‘“‘came 
 no more to see him unto the day of his death” 
 (1 S 15*); but it were a strange collection to 
 infer, that he therefore gave him a visit after he 
 was dead. ‘‘ Michal the daughter of Saul had no 
 child unto the day of her death” (2 S 6%); and 
 yet it were a ridiculous stupidity to dream of any 
 midwifery in the grave. Christ promised His 
 presence to the apostles ‘‘until the end of the 
 world” (Mt 28); who ever made so unhappy a 
 construction, as to infer from thence that for ever 
 after He would be absent from them?’ (Creed, 
 Art. m1. Chap. iii. p. 174). 
 
 It is difficult to believe that a man of Pearsou’s 
 ability can have been blind to the difference 
 between two kinds of limit, the mention of one 
 of which suggests, while the mention of the other 
 negatives, the future occurrence of the action 
 spoken of. If we read ‘the debate was adjourned 
 
 the papers should be in the hands of the 
 members,’ it as certainly implies the intention to 
 resume the debate at a subsequent period, as the 
 phrase ‘the debate was adjourned till that day 
 six months,’ or ‘till the Gr. Kalends,’ implies the 
 contrary. So when it is said ‘to the day of his 
 death,’ ‘to the end of the world,’ this is only a 
 more vivid way of saying in secula seculorum. 
 In like manner the phrase ‘unto this day’ implies 
 that a certain state of things continued up to the 
 very last moment known to the writer: the sug- 
 ro is, of course, that it will still continue. 
 e remaining instance is that found in Gn 28%, 
 
 BRETHREN OF THE LORD 323 
 This is a promise of continued help on tha part 
 of God until a certain end is secured. When 
 that end is secured God is no further bound by His 
 
 romise, however much the patriarch might be 
 Justified in looking for further help from his 
 general knowledge of the character and goodness 
 of God. To take now a case similar to that in 
 hand ; supposing we read ‘ Michal had no child till 
 she left David and became the wife of Phaltiel,’ 
 we should naturally assume that after that she 
 did have a child. So in Mt 1” the limit is not 
 one beyond which the action becomes naturally 
 and palpably impossible; on the contrary, it is just 
 that point of time when under ordinary circum- 
 stances the action would become both possible and 
 natural,* when, therefore, the reader, without 
 warning to the contrary, might naturally be 
 expected to assume that it did actually occur. 
 Whether this assumption on the part of the reader, 
 natural under ordinary circumstances, may become 
 unnatural under the very extraordinary circum- 
 stances of the case, will be discussed further on. 
 I confine myself here to the argument from 
 language.t 
 
 The natural inference drawn from the use of the 
 word rpwréroxev in Lk 2’ is that other brothers 
 or sisters were born subsequently ; otherwise why 
 should not the word povoyevijs have been used as in 
 To 3% povoyerhs elus rp warpl pov, Lk 72 8” etc. ? 
 In Ro 8” the word is used metaphorically, but 
 retains its natural connotation, zpwrébroxoy év 
 modnots dde\pois, and so in every instance of its 
 occurrence in the NT. It occurs many times in its 
 literal use in the LXX, e.g. Gn 27! 32 4333, Dt 2115, 
 1 K 16%, 1 Ch 5! 26 but, so far as I have 
 observed, never of an only son. There are also 
 circumstances connected with one remarkable 
 episode in our Lord’s childhood which are more 
 easily explicable if we suppose Him not to have 
 been His mother’s only son. Is it likely that 
 Mary and Joseph would have been so little solicit- 
 ous about an only son, and that son the promised 
 Messiah, a3 to begin their homeward journey 
 after the feast of the Passover at Jerusalem, 
 and to travel for a whole day, without taking the 
 pains to ascertain whether He was in their com- 
 pany or not? If they had several younger children 
 to attend to, we can understand that their first 
 thoughts would have been given to the latter ; 
 otherwise is it conceivable that Mary, however 
 complete her confidence in her eldest son, should 
 first have lost Him from her side, and then have 
 allowed so long & time to elapse without an effort 
 to find Him 7 
 
 D. There are, however, some difficulties which 
 must be grappled with before we can accept the 
 Helvidian theory as satisfactory. (1) If the 
 mother of Jesus had had other sons, would He 
 have commended her to the care of a disciple 
 rather than to that of a brother? (2) Is not 
 the behaviour of the brethren towards Jesus that 
 of elders towards a younger? (3) The theory is 
 opposed to the Church tradition. (4) It is ab- 
 horrent to Christian sentiment. 
 
 (1) Bishop Lightfoot regards the first objection 
 as fatal to the theory. ‘Is it conceivable,’ he 
 says, ‘that our Lord would thus have snapped 
 
 * Compare Plut. Qu. Conv. viii. 1; Diog. L. iii. 2 (on the vision 
 which appeared to Ariston warning him sy svyyiverOos cH 
 yuveixs till the birth of her son Plato: Origen, Against Celsus, i. 
 37, refers to this as an arg. ad hom.); Hygin. F. 29, quoted in 
 Weistein’s note, im loco; Athenag. Apol. 83: as yap 6 ytwpyas 
 narupirrey bis oy rie oripunre Bunter wépictves, ox tmiorsipor, 
 xed huwiv wérpry ixOuuies 1 xidoweiie; Const. Apost. vi. 28. 5: 
 wht pohy byxumoverocis susAsireacay (Taig yuroitiy of Bydpis), ox 
 ial wosday yup yivets TeUTS FoIOdsIy, KAA’ HOovns yep. Clement 
 
 | of Alexandria (Strom. iti. p. 548) calls this a law of nature. 
 
 + Laurent remarks on the use of the imperfect iy/verxs imply- 
 ing abstinence from a habit (‘refrained from conjugal inter: 
 cuurse’) as opposed to the far more usual ive denoting a single 
 act 
 
 
 
324 BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 
 
 BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 
 
 asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection ?’ 
 (p. 272). The usual answer to this is that the 
 
 sbelief of the Lord’s brothers would naturally 
 separate them from His mother. But as this 
 disbelief was even then on the point of being 
 changed into undoubting faith ; and as the separa- 
 tion (if it ever existed, of which there is no evi- 
 dence) was, at any rate, to be changed in a day or 
 two into the closest union with all true followers 
 of the Lord; and as the preparation for this 
 change must have been long perceptible to the eye 
 of Jesus, it seems necessary to find another way of 
 meeting the objection, if it is to be met at all. I 
 think, ‘however, that Bp. Lightfoot goes a little 
 too far when he speaks just below of this hypo- 
 thesis requiring us to believe that the mother, 
 though ‘living in the same city’ with her sons, 
 ‘and joining with them in a common worship 
 (Ac 144), is consigned to the care of a stranger, of 
 whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate.’ 
 We have seen that there is reason for believing 
 Salome to have been the sister of Mary, and John 
 therefore her nephew ; but however this may be, 
 in any case, as her Son’s dearest friend, he must 
 have been well known to her. And if we try 
 to picture to ourselves the circumstances of the 
 case, it is not difficult to imagine contingencies 
 which would make it a pid natural arrangement. 
 It is generally ee (from 1 Co 9°) that the 
 brothers of the Lord were married men: the usual 
 age for marriage among the Jews was about 
 eighteen: supposing them to have been born 
 before the visit to the temple of the child Jesus, 
 they would probably have married before His 
 crucifixion. If, then, all her children were dis- 
 persed in their several homes, and if, as we 
 naturally infer, her nephew John was unmarried, 
 and living in a house of his own, is there anything 
 unaccountable in the Lord’s mother finding a home 
 with the beloved disciple? Cculd this be regarded 
 in any way asa slight by her other sons? Must 
 they not have felt that the busy life of a family 
 was not suited for the quiet pondering which now 
 more than ever would characterise their mother ? 
 and, further, that this communion between the 
 mother and the disciple was likely to be, not only 
 a source of comfort to both, but also most profit- 
 able to the Church at large ? 
 
 (2) It depends more upon the positive age than 
 the relative age of brothers, whether the inter- 
 ference of a younger with an elder is probable or 
 
 improbable. When all have reached manhood and’ 
 
 have settled in their different spheres, a few years’ 
 difference in age does not count for much. It 
 might, however, be thought that those who had 
 
 own up with one like Jesus must have felt such 
 i and reverence for Him, that they could never 
 dream of blaming or criticising what He thought 
 best to do. Yet we know that His mother, to 
 whom had been vouchsafed a much fuller revela- 
 tion than was possible in their case as to the true 
 nature of her Son, did nevertheless on more than 
 one occasion draw upon herself His reproof for 
 ventured interference. If we remember how little 
 even those whom He chose out as His apostles 
 were able to irae His aims and methods up 
 to the very end of His life, how different was their 
 idea of the kingdom of heaven and the office of 
 the Messiah from His, we shall not wonder if His 
 
 ounger brothers, with all their admiration for 
 
 is sere and goodness, were at times puzzled 
 and bewildered at the words that fell from His 
 BPE if they regarded Him as a self-forgetting 
 idealist and enthusiast, wanting in knowledge of 
 the world as it was, and needing the constant care 
 of His more practical friends to provide Him with 
 the ordinary comforts and necessaries of life. 
 Thus much, I think, is certain from the known 
 
 facts of the case; and we need nothing more than 
 this to explain t heir fear that His mind might be 
 overstrained, and their attempt to dictate the 
 measures He should adopt in going up to the 
 Feast, just as His mother had attempted to dictate 
 to Him at them arriage at Cana. 
 
 (3) We have seen that, so far as we can speak of 
 a tradition on this subject, it was in favour of the 
 Epiphanian theory from about the end of the 
 second century till it was unceremoniously driven 
 out of the field by Jerome in the year 383: we 
 have seen, too, that Jerome himself abandoned his 
 own theory in his later writings. But it was so 
 much in accordance with the ascetic views of the 
 time, that it was adopted by Augustine and the 
 Latin Fathers generally; while in the Eastern 
 Church, Chrysostom, who, in his earlier writings, 
 favours the Epiphanian view, comes round to 
 Jerome in the later, and Theodoret may be men- 
 tioned on the same side. The later Greek Fathers 
 are, however, almost all on the side of Epiphanius ; 
 and the Greek, Syrian, and Coptic Calendars mark 
 the distinction between James the brother of the 
 Lord and James the son of Alpheus by assigning 
 a separate day to each. This distinction is also 
 maintained, apart from any statement as to the 
 exact relationship implied by the term ‘ brother,’ 
 in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions of 
 the second cent., and the Apostolic Constitutions of 
 the third. 
 
 Historical tradition, therefore, on this subject 
 there was properly none when Jerome wrote, any 
 more than there is now, but there was a wing 
 feeling in favour of the perpetual virginity, which 
 took definite shape in the title de:rap0évos used of 
 Mary by Athanasius; and the apocryphal fictions 
 were eagerly embraced as affording a support for 
 this belief. 
 
 We cannot doubt that those who were agitating 
 for a stricter rule would make use of the example of 
 the Virgin, insisting on the name as implying a 
 permanent state, and would endeavour to give an 
 artificial strength to their cause by the addition of 
 imaginary circumstances to the simple narrative of 
 the gospel. Thus it was not enough to suppose 
 the brethren of the Lord to be sons of Joseph by a 
 former wife ; Joseph’s age must be increased so as to 
 make it impossible for him to have had children by 
 his second wife, though this supposition contradicts 
 what the upholders of this view maintain to be the 
 very purpose of Mary’s marriage, viz. to screen 
 her from all injurious imputations. How could 
 the marriage effect this, if the husband were above 
 eighty years of age, as Epiphanius says, following 
 the apocryphal Gospels? Again, if this were the 
 case, why should not the evangelist have stated it 
 simply, instead of using the cautionary phrases mply 
 h ouveddcitv and ovk éylywoxev abrhv ews od érexev? But 
 even this was not enough for the ascetic spirit. 
 Further barriers must be raised between the con- 
 tamination of matrimony and the virgin ideal. 
 Joseph himself becomes a type of virginity: the 
 ‘brethren’ are no longer his sons, but sons of 
 Clopas, who was either his brother by one tra- 
 dition, or his wife’s sister's husband by another. 
 Mary is made the child of promise and of miracle 
 like Isaac, though not yet exalted to the honours © 
 of the Immaculate Conception; and we see 
 Epiphanies already feeling his way to the doctrine 
 of her Assumption, which was accepted by 
 One other 
 
 Gregory of Tours in the 6th cent. 
 
 development may be noticed, as it is found in the 
 Protevangelium, c. 20, though not mentioned by 
 Epiphanius, viz. that not only the Conception but 
 the Birth of our Lord was miraculous; in the 
 words of Jeremy Taylor: ‘ He that came from His 
 grave fast tied with a stone and signature, and 
 into the college of the apostles, the doors being 
 
 
 

 
 ; 
 
 5 
 a 
 b; 
 is 
 
 
 
 BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 shut. . . came also (as the Church piously believes) 
 into the world so without doing violence to the 
 virginal and pure body of His mother, that He did 
 also leave her virginity entire.’* This miracle, 
 superfluous as it is, and directly opposed to the 
 words of St. Luke (2%), is yet accepted by Jerome 
 and his followers, and the allegorical method of 
 interpretation is pressed to the utmost in order to 
 gain some support from the OT for the doctrine 
 of the derapfevia. Thus we find Pearson (Creed, 
 p. 326) citing, as a proof of it, Ezk 44? ‘This 
 gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no 
 man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the 
 God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall 
 be shut.’ It would surely have been more to the 
 point to cite the words of the Messianic psalm 
 (698): ‘I have become a stranger to my brethren 
 and an alien unto my mother’s children’ ; this psalm 
 being used to illustrate the earthly life of our Lord, 
 both by St. John: ‘The zeal of thy house has 
 eaten me up; they gave me also gall for my meat, 
 and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink’; 
 and by St. Luke: ‘Let tneir habitation be desolate.’ 
 
 (4) We go on, however, to consider that which 
 has been all along the real obstacle in the way of 
 a literal acceptation of the Scripture narrative, 
 viz. the objection on the ground of Christian 
 sentiment. It is ‘the tendency,’ says Dr. Mill (/.c. 
 
 . 301), ‘of the Christian mystery, God manifest 
 in the flesh, when heartily received, to generate an 
 unwillingness to believe that the womb thus 
 divinely honoured should have given birth to other 
 merely human progeny.’ ‘The sentiment of 
 veneration for this august vessel of grace which 
 has ever animated Christians . . . could not have 
 been wanting to the highly-favoured Joseph.’ ‘On 
 the Rae Nae of refuting these sentiments... . 
 the truly Catholic Christian will have pleasure in 
 
 teposing.’ So Epiphanius, Jerome, and other 
 
 ancient writers speak of this as a ‘pious belief,’ and 
 the same is reiterated by Hammond and Jeremy 
 Taylor cited by Mill (p. 309). In answer to this I 
 would say that, unless we are prepared to admit all 
 
 the beliefs of the medizeval Church, we must be- 
 ware of allowing too much authority to pious 
 opinions. Is there any extreme of superstition 
 which cannot plead a ‘pious opinion’ in its favour? 
 Of course it is right in studying history, whether 
 sacred or profane, to put ourselves in the position 
 of the actors, to imagine how they must have felt 
 and acted ; but this is not quite the same thing as 
 imagining how we ourselves should have felt and 
 acted under their circumstances, until at least we 
 have done our best to strip off all that differentiates 
 the mind of one century from the mind of 
 another. If we could arrive at the real feeling 
 of Joseph in respect to his wife, and of Mary 
 in respect to her Son before and after His 
 birth, this would undoubtedly be an element of the 
 highest importance for the determination of the 
 gecrion before us; but to assume that they must 
 
 ave felt asa monk, or nun, or celibate priest of 
 the Middle Ages; to assume even, with Dr. Mill, 
 that they fully understood the mystery ‘God 
 manifest in the flesh,’ is not merely to make an 
 unauthorised assumption, it is to assume what is 
 palpably contrary to fact. Mary and Joseph were 
 religious Jews, espoused to one another, as it is 
 natural to suppose, in the belief prevalent among 
 the Jews that marriage was a duty, and that a 
 special blessing attached to a prolific union. To 
 both it is revealed from heaven that the Messiah 
 should be born of Mary by a miraculous conception. 
 Joseph is told that ‘his name is to be called Jesus, 
 because he shall save his people from their sins.’ 
 
 * Chrys. Hom. cxlii. (ap. Suicer, ii. p. 306): 6 Xprrroc weponrbey sx 
 
 Mat pas xxl eAvTes Fusiver 4 erp, This was affirmed in the 79th 
 Canon of the Council in 7'rullo towards the end of the 7th ceas. 
 
 BRETHREN OF THE LORD = 325 
 
 Mary is told, in addition, that ‘he shall be called 
 the Son of the Highest, and that the Lord God 
 shall give him the throne of his father David, and 
 he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever.’ 
 There is surely nothing in these words which 
 would disclose the Christian mystery ‘God manifest 
 in the flesh.’ They point to a greater Moses, or 
 David, or Solomon, or Samuel. Mary’s hymn of 
 praise is founded on the recollection of Hannah’s 
 exultation at the fulfilment of prophecy in the 
 birth of her son. Her mind would naturally turn 
 to other miraculous births, to that of Isaac under 
 the old dispensation, to that now impending in the 
 ease of her cousin Elisabeth. And as there was 
 nothing in the announcement made to them which 
 could enable them to realise the astounding truth 
 that He who was to be born of Mary was Very God 
 of Very God, so there is nothing in the subsequent 
 life of Mary which would lead us to believe that 
 she, any more than His apostles, had realised it 
 before His resurrection. On the contrary, it is 
 plain that such a belief fully realised would have 
 made it impossible for her to fulfil, I do not say 
 her duties towards her husband, but her duties 
 towards the Lord Himself during His infancy and 
 childhood. It is hard enough even now to hold 
 together the ideas of the humanity and divinity of 
 Christ without doing violence to either; but to 
 those who knew Him in the flesh we may safely 
 say it was impossible until the Comforter had come 
 and revealed it unto them. As to what should be 
 the relations between the husband and wife after 
 the birth of the promised Child there is one thing 
 we may be sure of, viz. that these would be deter- 
 mined, not by personal considerations, but either 
 by immediate inspiration, as the journey to Egypt 
 and other events had been, or, in the absence of 
 this, by the one desire to do what they believed ta 
 be best for the bringing up of the Child entrusted 
 to them. We can imagine their feeling it to be 
 a duty to abstain from bringing other children into 
 the world, in order that they might devote them- 
 selves more exclusively to the nurture and training 
 of Jesus. On the other hand, the greatest prophets 
 and saints had not been brought up in solitude. 
 Moses, Samuel, and David had had brothers and 
 sisters. It might be God’s will that the Messiah 
 should experience in this, as in other things, the 
 common lot of man. Whichever way the Divine 
 guidance might lead them, we may be sure that 
 the response of Mary would be still as before: 
 ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me 
 according to thy word.’ Even if the language of 
 the Gospels had been entirely neutral on this 
 matter, 1t would surely have been a piece of high 
 presumption on our part to assume that God’s 
 
 rovidence must always follow the lines suggested 
 
 y our notions of what is seemly ; but when every 
 conceivable barrier has been placed in the way of 
 this interpretation by the frequent mention of 
 brothers of the Lord, living with His mother and in 
 constant attendance upon her; when He is called 
 her firstborn son, and when St. Matthew goes into 
 what we might have been inclined to think almost 
 unnecessary detail in fixing a limit to the sepa- 
 ration between husband and wife, — can we 
 characterise it otherwise than as a contumacious 
 setting up of an artificial tradition above the 
 written Word, if we insist upon it that ‘ brother’ 
 must mean, not brother, but either cousin or one 
 who is no blood-relation at all; that ‘ firstborn’ 
 does not imply other children subsequently born ; 
 that the limit fixed to separation does not imply 
 subsequent union ? 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Fuller information may be found in Bishop 
 Lightfoot’s dissertation on the Brethren of the Lord, admirable 
 alike for thoroughness, clearness, and fairness, which is contained 
 in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ed. 10, pp, 
 
 
 
$26 BRIBERY 
 
 BRIDE 
 
 
 
 252-291. Itisfrom him I have borrowed the terms Hieronymian, 
 Epiphanian, Helvidian, to classify the main theories which have 
 been put forward on the subject. He himself held the second 
 theory. The first is advocated by Dr. Mill (Pantheistic 
 Principles, pt. ii. py Saree, and in a less extreme form by 
 Dr. P. Schegg (Jakobus, der Bruder des Herrn. Miinchen, 1883). 
 The argument for the third is given in Credner’s Hinleitwng, 
 Laurent’s Neutest, Studien, Farrar’s Early Days of Christianity, 
 ch. xix., the articles ‘Maria’ and ‘Jakobus’ in Herzog’s Encycl. 
 J. prot. Theol., and the introduction to my Commentary on the 
 Epistle of St. James, from which the present article is chiefly 
 taken. J. B. Mayor, 
 
 BRIBERY.—See CrIMEs. 
 
 BRICK (9()= the usual material for building 
 throughout all Eastern countries is mud brick. In 
 rainless Egypt this is a perfect substance for walls, 
 and the great defences of towns and sanctuaries 
 were immensely massive walls of dried mud, up to 
 80 ft. in thickness. The same was used for arches 
 and domes and for pillars, as in the great hall of 
 700 pillars of Akhenaten. In Babylonia as wide a 
 use of mud brick is found, walls, ramparts, and 
 zitkkurats being entirely made of it, from the 
 earliest Bab. age downward. In Persia, India, 
 China, and Mexico, mud brick is a universal 
 material ; it has sheltered far the greater part of 
 the human race, and the use of red or burnt brick 
 is que an exception in history. In Pal. mud 
 brick was largely used in Amorite times, thick 
 fortifications being made of it. The form was more 
 like the Babylonian, being 1 square tile, whereas 
 the Egyptians used a brick of our present shape. 
 Throughout the Jewish period, mud brick was 
 generally used, faced with stone jambs and lintels 
 at the doorways, and plastered white all over. 
 Such was the Egyptian method. In Philistia, 
 down to the present time, the villages are of mud- 
 brick houses domed, and the rainfall is absorbed 
 by a thick crop of grass which grows on the roof, 
 and is the pasture ground of the goats. 
 
 In the OT there is allusion to burning bricks 
 for the tower. of Babel (Gn 11%); and such burnt 
 bricks were largely used in Babylonia, owing to 
 the wetness of the soil and climate. They were 
 very rare in Egypt until Roman times, but became 
 general in the age of Constantine. 
 
 The brick-making in Egypt was a common 
 occupation for captives, and the celebrated picture 
 at Thebes of the foreign brickmakers, guarded b 
 an Egyp. overseer, is very well known. The blac 
 Nile soil of the country is first dug down into a 
 hole already made at any convenient spot near the 
 water ; it is then mixed with sufficient sand, if a 
 good quality is desired, and with chopped straw, 
 which is cut up thus by the threshing rollers used 
 at harvest. Water is poured over it, and it is 
 trampled into a smooth paste. Baskets of this 
 paste are then carried out to the moulding ground, 
 a smooth clear space near at hand. The moulder 
 
 laces his wooden mould on the ground, lifts a 
 ern handful of the mud, and drops it in, presses 
 it down, and wipes off the surplus ; he then lifts the 
 mould frame by its handle, and leaves the brick on 
 the ground to dry ; the frame is then placed close 
 to it, and another is moulded, until the ground 
 is covered with bricks in regular rows, These 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BRICK STAMP OF WOOD, EGYPTIAN, XVIII. DYN. 
 
 remain for a week or more to dry in the sun, and 
 are then ready for building. From the 18th to 21st 
 
 dynasties the bricks for government buildings often 
 bear a stamp of the king’s name, and sometimes a 
 special stamp naming the particular building for 
 which they were intended. The wooden stamps 
 for this purpose have been found, as well as the 
 moulding frames. 
 
 In the celebrated question of the straw (Ex 57%), 
 which has passed into an English proverb, there 
 is something to be said on the Egyp. side. Straw 
 was not by any means universally used, often plain 
 mud and sand, or mud and pebbles, were used ; and it 
 was far more important to get the tale of bricks done 
 than to be too particular about the straw. Next, 
 the chonyes straw regularly kept in stock and 
 eepelte (the ¢ibn of the present day) is a very 
 valuable cattle food, and the main support at 
 animals during the inundation, as it is more sweet 
 and grassy than Eng. straw. Hence to restrict 
 its use for brick-making, and to require waste 
 material, such as stubble, to be found, was quite 
 mpeeatl: and many more bricks are to be seen 
 made with waste than those containing good food 
 tibn. We may note that the taskmasters were 
 the Egyp. overseers, while the officers were Hebrews, 
 chiefs of the gangs, held responsible for the 
 quantity delivered. Considering the well-known 
 character of the Hebrews (Nu 114 215), we must 
 not take their grievances too seriously. They had 
 at least in Egypt a good and full diet, by their own 
 confession (Nu 115), as good as, or better than, that 
 of the Egyp. peasant of the present day. 
 
 W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE. 
 
 BRIDE.—In patriarchal times the bride is com- 
 monly chosen, not by the bridegroom, but by his 
 parents or friends, and they do not necessarily 
 consult him. Abraham sends a confidential servant 
 to find a bride for Isaac (Gn 24). Judah takes 
 Tamar as a bride for his son Er (38°). Isaac in- 
 structs Jacob as to his choice (287). And, in the 
 absence of the father, Hagar takes a wife for 
 Ishmael (217). Where the bridegroom chooses, 
 it is his father who makes the proposal, as in the 
 cases of Shechem (3448) and Samson (Jg 141°), 
 Whether the consent of the bride was usually 
 asked, is not clear; Gn 24° is not evidence. 
 Perhaps Rebekah was only asked whether she 
 would go at once; it had been previously agreed 
 that she was to go. And these patriarchal customs 
 have not undergone much change in the East: a 
 bride may know nothing of the bridegroom till the 
 wedding. 
 
 The bride was commonly paid for; i.e. her 
 father received money or service in return for 
 his consent to part with her (Gn 31% 34%, 1S 
 185-27 ete.), The bride herself received no dowry ; 
 and To 7*4 is the earliest mention of a marriage 
 contract, which perhaps was of the nature of a 
 settlement. 
 
 Betrothal was much more serious than ‘ engage- 
 ment’ is with us. Unfaithfulness on the part of 
 the bride during the interval between betrothal 
 and marriage was regarded as adultery, and might 
 be punished with death (Dt 22%-*4), She was to 
 be stoned, not strangled; and this makes it 
 probable that the ‘woman taken in adultery’ 
 was betrothed and not yet married ([Jn] 8*°). 
 Nothing of the kind is found in Greek or Roman 
 law, according to which betrothal was a mere 
 pipe on the part of the bride to ner the 
 
 ridegroom, and did not create any legal obliga- 
 tion. There was no penalty for breach of promise 
 (Smith, Dict. of Ant. 3rd ed. ii. p. 140a). 
 
 The main feature in the marriage ceremony, 
 which was a legal formality rather than a religious 
 rite, was the fetching of the bride from the house of 
 her father to the house of the bridegroom or his 
 father. Among the Greeks the bride prepared 
 herself for the wedding by a bath; and at Athens 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 BRIDEGROOM 
 
 
 
 the water for dourpoy vuudixdy was taken from the 
 fountain Callirrhoé. There is reason for believing 
 that Jewish brides did the like, and that there is 
 allusion to this custom (Ru 3%, Ezk 23", Eph 5?"-7), 
 If the last reference is correct, the allusion is ver 
 striking. At the wedding the bride wore a veil, 
 which entirely covered her, a sash, and a crown. 
 ‘Attire’ in Jer 2® prob. means the bridal sash 
 (cf. Is 3° RVm, 4918), and kallah, the Heb. word 
 for bride, is by some connected with the crown.* 
 The bride remained veiled throughout; and thus 
 Jacob did not detect the substitution of Leah for 
 Rachel (Gn 297-5), Embroidery, perfumes, and 
 jewels were usual with those who could afford 
 hem (Ps 45%: 18-14, Ts 4918 611°, Rev 217), 
 
 In mystical language ‘the bride’ in the OT 
 is Israel, and the bridegroom or husband is 
 J”. This image prevails throughout Ps 45, and is 
 found in various passages in the Prophets (Is &4° 
 625, Jer 34, Hos 2”). Possibly the Song of Songs 
 was mystically interpreted among the Jews even 
 before it was admitted to the Canon. Hence 
 
 idolatry on the part of Israel is ‘playing the 
 harlot’ (Jer 3'%5), is ‘whoredom’ (Hos 4! 9}), 
 
 and worthy of death (Ps 73”). 
 
 In the NT ‘the bride’ is the Church, and the 
 bridegroom is Christ (2 Co 11%, Rev 197 2179, 
 Mt 9, Jn 3%); and in the Apoce. the bride is 
 usually the ideal Church, the heavenly Jeru- 
 salem. But in Rev 22! we have ‘the bride’ 
 used of ‘the Church militant here on earth,’ 
 praying to her Lord to return to her. Here 
 again, also, an apostate Church iv regarded as e. 
 harlot (17)-5). A, PLUMMER. 
 
 BRIDEGROOM.—Much that might be said unde 
 this head has been anticipated in the article BRIDE 
 To this day in the East the bridegroom has, as « 
 rule, little to do with the choice of the bride 
 Love matches are rare, and in many cases are 
 impossible. In the OT we see that where the son 
 chose his own bride independently of his parents, 
 his relations with the latter were not happy (Gn 
 26% % 2746), Jehoiada the priest chooses wives 
 for the orphan king, Joash (2 Ch 24%, comp. 2518). 
 The interval between betrothal and marriage might 
 be of any duration, for the espousal of children to 
 one Becther has always been common in the East ; 
 but a year for maidens and a month for widows 
 seems to have been customary. 
 
 On the wedding day the bridegroom wore a 
 io (Ca 34, comp. Is 61) as well as the 
 
 ride, and was often profusely perfumed (Ca 3°), 
 Weddings commonly took place in the evening; 
 and at the proper time the bridegroom sets out, 
 along with his ‘companions’ (Jg 14"), the ‘sons of 
 the bride-chamber’ (Mk 2%, Lk 5%), with lights 
 (2 Es 10!-?) and music (1 Mac 9%), to fetch the 
 bride. She also is accompanied by companions, 
 maidens, some of whom start with her from her 
 father’s house (Ps 45%), while others join the 
 bridal party afterwards, all of them provided with 
 lamps (Mt 25!-8). Thus they go to meet the 
 bridegroom, who conducts the whole party to the 
 wedding feast, which might last many days (J 
 
 14", To 8), The details of the ceremony ould 
 vary, esp. as regards magnificence; but there was 
 not of necessity any religious rite. The essential 
 act was the bridegrooin’s fetching the bride from 
 her home to his. Of the custom of providing 
 wedding garments for guests nothing is known 
 with certainty (Mt 224-1), for Jg 148 is not in 
 point ; but rich clothing is in the ‘rast one of the 
 commonest of presents. A bridegroom was exempt 
 from military service between betrothal and mar- 
 
 * But this is very uncertain (cf. Frd. Delitzsch, Proleg. 130 f. ; 
 
 Noldeke, ZDMG, 1886, p. 737). W. R. Smith (Kinship, 292) 
 makes kalldh=‘ one closed in.’ 
 
 BRIDEGROOWM’S FRIEND 
 
 327 
 
 
 
 riage (Dt 207), and for a year after marriave (Dt 
 24°, comp. Lk 14”). This points to the conclusion 
 that in the case of adults the time of betrothal did 
 not usually exceed a year. 
 
 For the relation of bridegroom to bride as 
 typical of the spiritual relationship between 
 J” and Israel, and between Christ and the Church, 
 see the article BRIDE. A. PLUMMER. 
 
 BRIDEGROOM’S FRIEND.—The Jewish custom 
 of having a special ‘friend of the bridegroom’ 
 (6 Ptros rod vuudtov) is alluded to only once in 
 Seripture (Jn 3”), where John the Paptisé is 
 contrasting his own position with that of Christ. 
 His disciples must not be jealous of the success of 
 Christ, for Christ is the riddevecen who is the 
 cepioee of the bride, while John is only the 
 
 ridegroom’s friend, who prepares for the marriage, 
 and has his reward in the joyous expression of the 
 Bridegroom’s satisfaction. The importance of the 
 friend of the Bridegroom comes to an end when the 
 marriage is over, but that of the Bridegroom con- 
 tinues to increase. 
 
 This ‘friend of the bridegroom’ must not be 
 confounded with ‘the sons of the bride-chamber’ 
 (ol vlol rod vuupSvos), who were very numerous (Mt 
 95, Mk 2, Lk 5%). Indeed any wedding guest 
 might be included in the expression, or even any 
 one who took part in the bridal procession. The 
 ‘friend’ was somewhat analogous to our ‘ best 
 man,’ but he had far more onerous and delicate 
 duties. Sometimes he took the place of a parent in 
 negotiating the marriage at the outset. He was 
 the chief agency of communication between the 
 betrothed parties in the interval between espousals 
 and marriage. He made the preparations for the 
 wedding, and in some cases presided at the mar- 
 riage feast. He conducted the married pair to 
 the bridal chamber. 
 
 The custom of having groomsmen of this kind 
 seems to have prevailed in Judea, but not in 
 Galilee. In this, as in other things, the customs 
 of Galilee were more modest and simple. And it 
 is worth noting that at the marriage in Cana of 
 Galilee there is no mention of any Shoshebheyna or 
 groomsman, a point which confirms the accurac 
 of the narrative. The ‘ruler of the feast’ 1s 
 evidently not the ‘friend of the bridegroom,’ for 
 he compliments the bridegroom upon the vices 
 surprise of excellent wine towards the end of the 
 feast. Had he been the ‘friend of the bridegroom,’ 
 the arrangements would have been his own, and 
 his remark would have been different. When the 
 Baptist speaks of the ‘friend of the Bridegroom,’ 
 he is not in Galilee, and being a Judean his 
 language is in accordance with Judean customs 
 (see Edersheim, Life and Times of the Messiah, 
 i. pp. 354, 355, and notes 663, 664). 
 
 ihre Talmud frees the ‘friends of the bride- 
 
 room’ and all the ‘sons of the bride-chamber’ 
 rom the duty of dwelling in booths at the Feast 
 of Tabernacles. Almost everything is to give 
 way to the duty of making glad the bridal pair. 
 They are not to be made to fast or mourn; and 
 if in the wedding procession they meet a funeral, 
 it is the funeral that must turn aside. 
 
 John the Baptist came to make overtures from 
 the Bridegroom to His people (ol 5.0), to prepare 
 them for espousal with Him, to present them to 
 Him when any were ready, to point Him out to 
 them (Jn 1%). St. Paul claims to hold a similar 
 office in reference to his converts. ‘Iam jealous 
 over you with a godly jealousy : for I espoused you 
 to one Husband, that I might present you as ‘a pure 
 virgin to Christ’ (2 Co 11?). The time until the 
 Second Advent is the interval between betrothal 
 and marriage; and, until the marriage of the Lamb 
 takes place, the apostle feels that he is in a 
 
328 
 
 large measure responsible for the conduct of the 
 bride. A. PLUMMER. 
 
 BRIDGE.—The word is not found in OT or NT 
 (although LXX of Is 37% has xal 20yxa yépupar), 
 occurring only in 2 Mac 128 AV, in connexion with 
 the siege of Caspis by Judas. The rarity of the 
 bridge was due to the foll. circumstances: (1) 
 Rivers often served as tribal boundaries and 
 military barriers. (2) Most of the streams were 
 torrents in winter that were apt to sweep away 
 bridges, and in summer were easily forded. (3) 
 The roads on each side were not usually meant for 
 vehicles, but were bridle-paths for such baggage- 
 animals as camels, mules, and donkeys. Recent 
 excavations have proved that at Nippur, in Baby- 
 lonia, the arch of burnt brick was in use as early as 
 4000 B.c. (See BABYLONIA, p. 219°.) 
 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 BRIDLE.—See Bit. BRIERS.—See THORNS 
 AND THISTLES. 
 
 BRIGANDINE (j4p siryén, Jer 464 51° AV).—A 
 mail-shirt worn by a brigand, #.e. in its original 
 sense, a light-armed soldier. RV has ‘coat of 
 mail.’ See BREASTPLATE. W. E. BARNEs. 
 
 BRIMSTONE (n53, Ociov).—Sulphur is one of the 
 most widely distributed of mineral substances. It 
 occurs in combination with various metals, forming 
 sulphurets and sulphates, and in combination with 
 lime, producing gypsum; it is also found in all 
 volcanic countries, often in a pure state and in 
 large masses; as, for example, in Sicily, Italy, 
 Volcano (one of the Lipari Islands), Teneriffe, Ice- 
 land, ete. The exhalations of volcanoes include, 
 generally, sulphurous acid and sulphurated hydro- 
 gen, two gases which, if moist, readily decompose 
 each other into water and sulphur. In Palestine 
 sulphur is present in most, if not all, of the hot 
 springs which break out along the valley of the 
 
 ordan and Dead Sea, while gypseous bands are 
 abundant amongst the deposits which form the 
 terraces of the valley, and were portions of the bed 
 of the Jordan valley lake at a time when the 
 waters of the Dead Sea stood at a level of several 
 hundred feet above its present surface.* On the 
 east side of the present lake there are several hot 
 sulphur springs, the most important of which are 
 the Zerka Ma‘in (Callirrhoé) and Wady Ghuweir.t 
 The former, described by Josephus,t has a maxi- 
 mum temperature of 143° F. according to Canon 
 Tristram.§ On the western side of the Dead Sea 
 there are several sulphur springs, sometimes rising 
 at the margin of the waters, such as those of Shukif, 
 near ‘Ain Jidi, and S. of Wady Khuderah, and at 
 Wady Maharat; all these have a high temperature.|| 
 The HamméméAt near Tiberias are well known, and 
 are still largely used for the cure of rheumatism and 
 other disorders. The temperature as determined 
 by Anderson reaches 143° F.; the waters are highly 
 sulphurous.1 Next to the above the most import- 
 ant cael eit speage near the Jordan valley are 
 those of the Yarmuk, N. of Umm Keis (Gadara), 
 described by Robinson ;** the temperature reaches 
 109° F., and the remains of the Roman baths are 
 still standing. There can be no doubt that the 
 high temperature of the springs in the valleys of 
 
 BRIDGE 
 
 * Dr. Blanckenkorn discusses the process of formation of 
 Bebe deposits in the Jordan valley : ‘Enst. und Gesch. des 
 
 odten Meers,’ Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Paldstina-Vereins (1896). 
 
 ¢ Tristram, Land of Moab, p. 353. 
 
 Ant. xvi. vi. , 
 
 $ Land of Moab, p. 242. The above is the temperature of the 
 hottest of several springs at its source. Lartet gives the 
 temperature of 88° F. (31° Cent.), but this was taken from the 
 stream. Voyage d’ Exploration, p. 290 (1880). 
 
 | Tristram, Land of Israel, pp. 283, 305, and 358, 
 
 q Lieut. Lynch’s Exped., O/f. Rep. p. 202. 
 
 ** Phys. Holy Land, 241. 
 
 BRING 
 
 
 
 the Jordan and the Yarmuk is due to the passage 
 of the waters through volcanic rocks belonging te 
 late Tertiary periods which still retain some of their 
 original heat at various depths below the surface; 
 and, as Lartet observes, most of the springs on the 
 east side of the Jordan rise from the great line of 
 fault which ranges along the base of the Moabite 
 table-land * (see ARABAH). 
 
 Brimstone is, besides in the narrative of Gn 19%, 
 repeatedly referred to in connexion with denuncia- 
 tions of the wrath of God on the wicked, whether 
 nations (Dt 29%, Is 34°) or individuals (Ps 11°), The 
 extensive occurrence of sulphur in the depression 
 of the Dead Sea indicates that this substance may 
 have contributed towards the destruction of the 
 Cities of the Plain. E. HULL. 
 
 BRING.—There are many obsolete or archaic 
 uses of the verb ‘to bring’ in AV, of which 
 the following deserve attention. 1. ‘Bring on 
 the way,’ i.e. to escort, Gn 18!6 ‘ Abraham went 
 with them, to b. them on the way’ (ndy); Ac 21° 
 ‘they all brought us on our way... till we 
 were out of the city’ (rporéurw, so Ac 15°, Ro 15%, 
 2 Co 1’), Or ‘to bring on one’s journey,’ Tit 31, 
 1 Co 16° ‘that ye may bring me on my ean a 
 whithersoever I go’ (rpowéurw, RV ‘b, forward 
 on my j.’, as 3 Jn® AV, RV). Cf. Tourneur 
 (1611) Tie skie is dark; we'll bring you o’er 
 the fields.’ Similar is the phrase ‘to bring by a 
 way,’ Is 4216 «I will bring the blind by a way that 
 they know not’; and cf. 25 738 ‘thou hast brought 
 me hitherto.’ 2. Bring about occurs only twice, 
 and not in the mod. sense of ‘ cause to happen,’ but 
 ‘cause to come round’ (Heb. 307), 1 S 5° ‘they 
 have brought about the ark of the God of Israel 
 to us’; 2S 3!2‘to b. about all Israel unto thee.’ 
 Cf. Shaks. 3 Henry IV. i. v. 27— 
 
 ‘How many hours bring about the day ?* 
 
 8. Bring again, in the sense of . bring back,’ 18 
 frequent (Heb. mostly 27). In Gn 14% ‘b. back’ 
 ead ‘b. again’ are used in turn, showing that 
 the phrases were identical in meaning and in- 
 different in use, ‘And he brought back (293) 
 all the goods, and also brought again (3'vq) his 
 brother Lot.’ A favourite expression is ‘b. again 
 the captivity,’ always of J” (‘again’ is used with 
 the first person, Jer 30% 4847 49%, Ezk 165% 2914 395, 
 Jl 3}, Am 94; ‘back’ with the 2nd and 8rd pers., 
 Ps 147 536 851).+ ‘Back’ is omitted in AV, but 
 introduced by RV, in Ec 3” ‘who shall b. him to 
 see (RV ‘b. him back to see’) what shall be after 
 him?’ See AGAIN. 4. Bring forth is the tr® of 
 a great variety of expressions whose shade of 
 meaning ought not to be obliterated. Notice 
 eet Is 412! ‘bring forth your strong reasons,’ the 
 only example of the obsol. meaning ‘to adduce,’ 
 ‘express’; cf. More (1532) ‘The places of Scripture 
 whiche Helvidius broughte furth for the con- 
 trarye.’ 5. Bring up. Besides the use of this 
 phrase literally, as ‘to bring up out of Eyypt,’ 
 Gn 464 ‘I will go down with thee into Egypt; and 
 I will also surely bring thee up again’; or ‘up to 
 Jerus.’ in ref. to its height, 2 S 6% ‘David... 
 brought up the ark of the LORD with shoutiny,’ 
 Ezr [4s All these did Sheshbazzar bring up, when 
 they of the captivity were brought up from Baby- 
 lon unto Jerusalem’; or to the temple in ref. to its 
 elevated situation, Neh 10° ‘the Levites shall 
 bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of 
 our God’; or ‘up out of ..e earth,’ 1 5 288 ‘and 
 he (Saul) said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the 
 familiar spirit, and bring me up whomsoever I 
 
 *Lartet, supra, cit.; Hull, Geology of Arabia-Petrea ana 
 Palestine, Mem. Pal. Explor, Soc. (1886), p. 23. 
 
 t The Heb., strangely enough, is always 33%. The meaning 
 is disputed. See Driver on Dt 308. 
 
= ere 
 
 lt te att en ee 
 
 ses lo it ah a lid 
 
 BROID, BROIDER 
 
 
 
 BROTHERLY LOVE 323 
 
 
 
 shall name unto thee,’ so ®& 11 >%. 18: besides these, 
 there is the familiar phrase to bring up, #.e. train, 
 children ; see esp. Gn 507, 2 K 10°, 2 § 218, Job 
 $138, Pr 297, La 45, Lk 416 Ac 13! ‘Manaen, which 
 had been brought up with Herod’ (RV ‘the foster- 
 brother of’), 228, Eph 6. But the most important 
 is the obsol. use of this phrase to signify the 
 originating of slander, as Dt 2219 ‘he hath 
 brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel’; 
 ef. Nu 13" ‘they brought up an evil report of the 
 land.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BROID, BROIDER.—1 Ti 2° ‘with broided hair’ 
 (vy wAéyuaow, ‘in plaits’). RV gives the mod. 
 spelling ‘ braided,’ as AV in Jth 10° ‘braided the 
 hair of her head,’ for Coverdale’s ‘broyded.’ Cf.— 
 
 ‘ Hir yelow heer was broyded in a tresse 
 Be back.’ 
 
 Chaucer, Knighi’s Tale, 1061. 
 Broidered is given Ex 28‘ as tr. of yawn tashbéz, ‘a 
 b. coat’ (RV ‘coat of chequer work’); and seven 
 times in Ezk (167° 1% 18 9616 277.16. 24) ag tr. of appr 
 rikmah. ‘ Broid,’ which means to weave or plait, 
 and ‘ broider,’ which means to adorn with needle- 
 work (mod. ‘embroider’), have no connexion in 
 pe ology or meaning (though they were often 
 confounded in the 16th cent.), yet most mod. edd. 
 
 of AV give ‘ broidered ’ for ‘ broided’ in 1 Ti 2°. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BROKENHEARTED.—Three words (mistakenly 
 spelt with hyphen in mod. edd. AV) are (1) 
 *brokenfooted,’ Lv 21%, (2) ‘ brokenhanded,’ 21 
 (x, 537 19%, which Ozf. Heb. Lex. takes to mean 
 fracture of the leg and of the arm), and (3) 
 ‘ brokenhearted,’ Is 61) (a$-1223), Lk 498 (cuvrerpin- 
 pévos Thy xapdlay, exactly as LXX of Is 611). For 
 the thought cf. Ps 3438 517 10916 23, Pr 1518, Is 5715 
 
 667, and see CONTRITE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BROOCH, Ex 35% RV.—See BRACELET, BUCKLE. 
 
 BROOK (5n3).—There is no absolute distinction 
 between a brook and a river, except as regards size, 
 and this distinction will vary with each country. 
 Perhaps the only stream in Palestine to which the 
 term ‘river’ is applicable is the Jordan; but in the 
 AV the term is applied to a few other streams 
 such as the Kishon (Jg 47 5%; in 1 K 18 it is 
 called a ‘brook’), and the ‘ River of Egypt AV 
 (WAdy el-‘Arish), Nu 34°, is translated ‘ Brook of 
 Egypt,’ RV. 5n3 has no pore Eng. equivalent, 
 ‘brook’ suggesting something too small. It cor- 
 responds exactly to Wady. 
 
 alestine, regarded in the widest sense of 
 the term, is remarkable for its ‘brook’ courses. 
 Many of them, however, are now dry, or only 
 occasionally contain water; but they testify by 
 their depth and extent to the existence of a former 
 
 riod when the rainfall was much greater than it 
 Is at the present day. This observation applies 
 especially to the valleys of the Sinaitic peninsula 
 and the great limestone plateau, known as the 
 Badiet et-Tih, extending from the southern limits 
 of the territory of Judah along the Bahr es-Saba 
 to the Sinaitic mountains. Most of the ‘ brooks’ of 
 Northern and Western Palestineare perennial (being 
 fed in dry weather by the springs which issue forth 
 from the limestone strata or other permeable for- 
 mation, such as the basaltic sheets of the Haurfin 
 and Jaulfin), and give rise to many fine streams, 
 of which the Hieromax (Yarmfik) is the most 
 important. 
 
 Vestern Palestine. The brooks of the region 
 lying to the west of the Jordan valley take their 
 rise near the centre of the plateau in springs, and 
 thence descend to the shores of the Mediterranean 
 on the one hand, or to the Jordan and Dead Sea on 
 
 through deep and narrow channels, and then, or 
 reaching the maritime plain, they follow a sluggish 
 course to the sea-coast. It is otherwise, however, 
 with the brooks entering the Jordanic valley ; for, 
 in consequence of their sources being less distant 
 from their outlets than is the case with the 
 Mediterranean tributaries, and the vertical fall 
 being much greater, they have eroded their 
 channels sometimes to extraordinary depths, and 
 issue forth on the Jordanic plain through ravines 
 bounded by lofty walls of rock which are continuous 
 with the cliffs and escarpments forming the margin 
 of the plain itself. As examples of these may be 
 mentioned (a) the WAdy el-‘Aujeh, which has its 
 source at a height of about 3000 feet above the 
 level of the Mediterranean, and descends to ita 
 outlet in the Jordan valley to a depth of 1200 feet 
 below the same plane; the total fall being 4200 
 feet within a distance of about 15 miles, or at the 
 rate of 280 feet per mile; (6) the Kelt, which, 
 rising in springs at Bireh (Beeroth) at a level of 
 about 2800 feet, reaches the Jordan at a level of 
 1170 feet below the same plane within a distance 
 of 21 miles; the fall being at the rate of 190 
 feet per mile; and (c) the brook Kidron (Wady el- 
 Nahr), which, rising at the Virgin’s Fountain, E. 
 of Jerusalem, at a level of about 2400 feet, enters 
 the Dead Sea through the remarkable gorge of 
 Mar Saba, at a level of 1300 feet below the same 
 plane; the total fall being at the rate of 264 feet 
 
 er mile. These examples will suffice to give some 
 idea of the character of the brook channels to the 
 east of the ridge, or plateau, of Western Palestine. 
 Some of those that enter the Jordanic depression 
 from the Moabite een pass through remarkably 
 deep channels, of which the Callirrhoé (Zerka’ 
 Ma in) and the Arnon (Mojib) are examples. 
 
 i. HULL. 
 
 BROOM, Job 304 RV.—See JUNIPER. 
 BROTH, Jg 6°: ®, Is 654.—See Foon. 
 BROTHER.—See FAMILY, and BRETHREN. 
 
 BROTHERLY LOVE.—Brotherly love ( poate oe) 
 is the love which Christians cherish for 6ach other 
 as “brothers.” The word ‘brother’ has, according 
 to Grimm, four senses in the NT, It is (1) brother 
 by natural birth, as in Mt 4; (2) member of the 
 same nation, as in Ro 9°; (3) fellow-man, asin Mt 
 
 5% though it may be questioned whether the sense 
 is not in this passage and in Mt 7° fellow-citizen 
 in the kingdom of God; and (4) fellow-Christian. 
 The last sense is the prevailing and characteristic 
 one in the NT. The people who call God ‘ Father,’ 
 and Jesus ‘Lord,’ call each other ‘brother’ and 
 ‘sister’ (Ja 2%, Ro 161). <A collective name for the 
 whole body from this point of view is ddeAd¢érns, 
 the brotherhood (1_P 5°), In1_P.2'™ the com- 
 nfandment to honour.all..is. followed by that to 
 love the brotherhood. The verb used in this case, 
 and ii most similar cases, is dyaray; but the sub- 
 stantive for brotherly love is’ dradergia. It is the 
 fundamental and all-inclusive duty of Christians 
 as related to each other. It goes tack to express 
 words of Christ, asin Jn 13%5 ‘In this shall all men 
 know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one 
 to another.’ In St. John’s Epistles (1 Jn 2° 310 14 
 47- 11.20 51) it is made the criterion, both to Christians 
 themselves and to the world, of the reality of their 
 faith, ‘we know that we have passed from death 
 unto life, because we léve-the~bréthren.’ In St. 
 
 s earliest Epis it is"referred to 
 
 as a thing which may be taken for granted among 
 Christians: ‘Concerning ¢Aadeddla you have no 
 need that any one should write to you; for you 
 ourselves are taught of God to love one another.’ 
 
 the other. The former commence with a rapid fall | In other words, it is an instinct of the new nature. 
 ~ - 
 
 
 
330 BROWN 
 
 
 
 In the Epistle to the Romans (12!°)St Paul bids Chris- 
 tians in their brotherly love be ¢:Adcropyou, i.e. love 
 one another with the unforced natural affection of 
 those who really are members of the same family. 
 St. Peter in his first pees (17) makes uradedgia 
 dvuréxpiros, ‘ undissembled brotherly love,’ the very 
 end in view when believers sanctify their souls in 
 obedience to the truth. To receive the divine 
 message in the gospel is to consecrate the soul for 
 a life ruled by love. The writer’s own fervid spirit 
 inspires his words when he adds, ‘love one another 
 from the heart ardently.’ In the second Epistle 
 (17) prradedpla and dyday are combined to com- 
 plete the garland of Christian virtues. ¢:AadeAdia, 
 the mutual love of Christians, is to be added to 
 edcéBea, since a religion which does not unite its 
 devotees by bonds of reciprocal affection is fatally 
 onesided ; and grad. is to be supplemented by 
 dydrn, the love of the members in the household 
 of faith for each other, by a larger love which 
 excludes none. Wherever there is fellowship of 
 life there must be fellowship of love as well. he 
 tie is as real between man and man as between 
 Christian and Christian, but in the nature of 
 things it cannot be so close. Brotherly love will 
 vary in its manifestations with the varying 
 necessities of human life, but in He 13! (‘Let 
 piraded gla continue,’ or ‘ abide’) two modes of its 
 manifestation are urged which were specially 
 important in NT times. The first is hospitality. 
 This was the more to be enforced on the Hebrews, 
 because they might be tempted even by surviving 
 religious scruples to shut their doors on those who 
 were really their brethren in Christ though aliens 
 to their traditions. But its importance as an 
 element in ¢AadeAdla is shown also by such 
 passages as 1 P 4°, Ro 128. The other is assist- 
 ance to persons enduring persecution for the 
 pospel. he Hebrews are praised (He 6 and 
 i0%-) for what they have already done in this way; 
 and here the duty is finally commended to them 
 by the consideration that they themselves are also 
 ‘in the (a) body,’ and therefore liable to the same 
 calamities, and possibly soon to need the same con- 
 sideration. The actual devotion of Christians to 
 both these forms of brotherly love—hospitality and 
 care of prisoners—is curiously ucts in Lucian, 
 De Morte Peregrini, § 12. 16. See Bleek on He 13!. 
 J. DENNEY. 
 
 BROWN is used only in Gn 380% %.35. 40 (J) to 
 describe certain of Laban’s sheep (on, RV ‘ black’). 
 See COLOURS. 
 
 BRUIT.—Jer 10” ‘ the noise of the bruit is come’ 
 (nov RV ‘rumour,’ Amer. RV ‘tidings’); and 
 Nah 3” ‘all that hear the bruit of thee’ (so RV, 
 Amer. RV ‘report,’ Heb. yoy. Both Heb. words 
 from yoy to hear). B. occurs also 2 Mac 4° ‘the 
 b. thereof was spread abroad’ (¢7ju7, RV as AV); 
 87 ‘the b. of his manliness was spread everywhere’ 
 (Aadid, RV ‘his courage was loudly talked of 
 everywhere’). In all these places b. (which is the 
 Fr. it from bruire to make a noise, roar) means 
 simply report. The word is pronounced as brute, 
 as indeed it was very often spelt. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BRUTE, BRUTISH.—‘ Brute beasts’ (2 P 2}2, 
 Jude v.?°) is a more forcible tr. than the ‘ creatures 
 without reason’ of RV, and it is an exact render- 
 ing of the Gr. (4doya {Ga*); for ‘brute’ is from 
 Lat. brutus heavy, dull, irrational. Cf. Lupton 
 (1580), ‘more senselesse than the senselest or 
 brutest beast in the world.’ In the Pref. to AV 
 oceurs ‘Bruit +-beasts led with sensuality.’ In 
 
 * Lit. ‘senseless animals.’ In Ac 2527 (EV ‘ unreasonable’) 
 nara 2 by Thayer and others in the sense of ‘contrary 
 
 t ‘Bruit’ was the spelling of AV ed. 1611 in 2 P 2!2, but 
 ‘brute ’ in Jude v.10 
 
 BUFFET 
 
 2 P 22 Wyclif and Rheims NT have ‘ unreasonable 
 beasts,’ Tindale, Cranmer, Geneva, and AV ‘brute 
 beasts’ ; but in Jude v.! while Wyclif and Rheima 
 have ‘dumb beasts,’ Tindale, Cranmer, and 
 Geneva give ‘ beasts which are without reason.’ 
 
 Brutish is given in Ps 94°, Is 194, Jer 10% 142 - 
 
 517, Ezk 213! as tr. of the verb wa bd‘ar ‘to be 
 stupid’; and in Ps 49% 926, Pr 12! 302, to which 
 RV adds Ps 73” as tr. of the noun wW3 bear 
 ‘brutishness.’ The idea is thoughtless ignorance 
 like that of beasts. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BUCKET.—See under Foon. 
 
 BUCKLE, or rather brooch (réprn, fibula), on 
 the same principle as a modern safety-pin, by 
 which the over-garment or wrap (xAaiva, palla, 
 sagum) was pinned at the shoulder. In the 
 Rom. world presents often took the form of brooches 
 (Plaut. Epid. v. i. 33; Mil. Glor. Iv. i. 13), as 
 presents of jewellery are made amongst us. The 
 rewards for valour, distinguished service, ete.,in the 
 Rom. army, took sometimes the shape of brooches 
 (Arch. Epigr. Mitth. iii. p. 51), which came to 
 resemble modern epaulettes and served as military 
 decorations. In the Western Provinces of the 
 Rom. Empire golden brooches were common, and 
 have survived to our day in great numbers. In the 
 Oriental Provinces, however, as appears from 
 1 Mac 10° 1158 14“, only kings or king-priests were 
 allowed the use of gold. This restriction of the 
 use of gold (as of purple) is probably a survival of 
 one of the ‘royal and priestly’ taboos, found all 
 over the world. But, when taken up into the 
 political system of the Empire, it produced a sort 
 of Order of the Buckle, which may be compare 
 with our Order of the Garter, though no myth was 
 invented to account for the origin of the former. 
 
 F. B. JEVONS. 
 
 BUCKLER (j:5 mdgén).—The buckler was a round 
 shield, small and easily carried, whereas the true 
 shield, Heb. ayy zinnah (= Oupeds in ne 615), was 
 large and oblong, sometimes carried by a bearer 
 (18 177), sometimes used as a screen behind which 
 an archer might shoot against the defenders of a 
 wall (Ezk 268, where the tr. should be ‘shall set up 
 shields’). Polybius describes the shield as bee 
 a double framework of wood fastened together wit 
 glue and with a covering on the outer surface, first 
 of linen and then of calf’s skin. It had also round 
 the edge, above and below, an iron rim, so that it 
 could meet sword-cuts from above, or again be 
 fixed firmly against the ground without injury 
 (Polyb. vi. 23. Cf. the rest of the passage (a) 
 quoted under ARMOUR). 
 
 It was this true shield, just described, which was 
 carried by the legionaries, and to which St. Paul 
 alludes: Eph 6% ‘the shield of faith.’ Cf. Ps 914 
 ‘His truth is a shield and a buckler’ RV, where, 
 however, ‘buckler’ should be ‘enclosing-shield,’ 7776 
 soherah, a synonym of zinnah. God’s faithfulness 
 meeting man’s faith makes man’s defence perfect. 
 
 W. E. BARNES. 
 
 BUFFET, a dim. from buff ‘a blow’ (still exist- 
 ent in blind man’s buff), is (1) noun=a blow, as 
 Jn 19° Wye. ‘thei gauen to hym buffattis,’ and (2) 
 verb=give blows, beat, as Pilgr. Perf. (1526) 259 
 ‘When he was buffetted and beten for vs.’ In AV 
 the verb only is used, and always as tr. of xohagifw 
 (Mt 2687, Mk 14%5,.1 Co 41, 2 Co 127, 1 P 2”), which 
 means to strike with the fist, a word found only in 
 NT and later eccles. writers. RV gives ‘ buffet’ as 
 tr. also of drwmidtw in 1 Co 9% ‘I b. my body’ (AV 
 ‘keep under,’ RVm ‘ bruise’). The same word is 
 tr? ‘ wear out’ in Lk 18° ‘ Lest she wear me out by 
 her continual coming’ (AV ‘weary me,’ RVm 
 ‘bruise me’). It is an extremely forcible word, 
 
 literally ‘to give a blow beneath the eye’ (iré and | 
 
 
 
eK Se 
 
 BUGEAN 
 
 
 
 BUNNI (33, *92), Neh 94 10% 115, but in each 
 
 Gy), then ‘to beat black and blue.’ (See Hapos. 
 Times, vol. i. p. 243 ; and Plummer, Lwke in loc.). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 BUGEAN. — A descriptive epithet applied to 
 Haman in Ad. Est 12° RV (AV_ has ‘ Agagite’). 
 Not only in this passage, but in Est 31 8° 9", LXX 
 reads Bovyaios for Heb. ‘33x, but everywhere except 
 in the Apocr. book RV retains the AV rendering 
 Agagite. Bovyatos occurs in Homer (JJ. xiii. 824, 
 Od. xviii. 79) as a term of reproach=‘ bully’ or 
 ‘braggart.’ Whether the Sept. intended it in this 
 sense, or as a gentilic adjective, is wholly uncertain. 
 See AGAGITE, HAMAN. ‘J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 BUKKI (*72).—1. Son of Jogli, a prince of the 
 tribe of Dan, and one of the ten men entrusted 
 with the task of dividing the land of Canaan 
 among the tribes of Israel (Nu 34%). 2. Son of 
 Abishua and father of Uzzi, fifth in descent from 
 Aaron in the line of the high priests through 
 Phinehas (1 Ch 6°5!, Ezr 74). In 1 Es 8? he is 
 called Boccas, for which Borith is substituted in 
 2Es1?. It is doubtful whether he ever filled the 
 office of high priest, as the statements of Josephus on 
 the point are contradictory (Ant. V. xi. 5, VII. i. 3). 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 BUKKIAH (37pa, full form of Bukki).—A Levite 
 of the sons of Heman, and leader of the sixth band 
 or course in the temple service (1 Ch 25*-}%), 
 
 BUL (5:3, Botd A, Bul, 1 K 6%).—See TIME. 
 BULL, BULLOCK, WILD BULL.—See Car and 
 Ox. BULRUSH.—See REED. 
 
 BULWARK.—1. (=bole-work, i.e. a defence 
 made of the trunks of trees or of logs of wood) is 
 the tr. of Heb. 5p él, ‘rampart’ (Is 261, bm nivin 
 héméth wd-hél, ‘walls and rampart’; refxyos xal 
 meplrexos, LXX; murus et antemurale, Vulg.). 
 Isaiah (/.c.) gives the paradoxical promise that 
 God will appoint salvation, i.e. free space uncon- 
 fined by walls (cf. for this meaning of ‘salvation,’ 
 Ges. Thes. s.v. yor=Arab. wasi‘a) to be Zion’s 
 walls and bulwarks (cf. vv.?4, open gates and trust 
 in God commended). 
 
 The #él (1 K 21% ‘rampart,’ RV) with its ditch 
 (ia b6r, Jer 41°) was, as the VSS show, an outer 
 defence for the wall. Jerusalem had such a hél 
 (Ps 4818), but only, no doubt, on the side on which 
 the walls, not being on the edge of a precipice, 
 needed extra defence. At the present day there 
 would be room for such a work only on the N.and W. 
 The Psalmist (/.c.), calls on the spectators to observe 
 that not even the outer defences of Zion had been 
 touched during the invasion of which he speaks. 
 
 2. Bulwarks (Dt 20” 1p mdzér, and Ec 9% 
 p'tisp mézédhim) are also the hasty defences raised 
 by besiegers to protect themselves while attacking 
 fortified places. Such defences were largely made 
 of wood (Dt /.c.), and so were rightly called bul- 
 warks. The ‘bank’ (Lk 19® xdpag, ‘palisade’ 
 RVm) served the double purpose of shutting in the 
 besieged and of defending the besiegers. 
 
 W. E. BARNES. 
 
 BUNAH (x3 ‘intelligence ’).—A man of Judah, 
 a son of Jerahmeel (1 Ch 2”), 
 
 BUNCH is used of (1) a bundle of hyssop, 
 Ex 12” (mx=something tied together); (2) a 
 cluster of raisins 2 S 16}, 1 Ch 12” (py=something 
 dried) ; and (3) a camel’s hump Is 30° (nv3i, of un- 
 certain origin). The last is the most original 
 meaning of the Eng. word (which is also of uncer- 
 tain origin): cf. Trevisa (1398), ‘A camell of 
 Arabia hath two bonches in the backe’; and— 
 
 * This pois’nous hunch-back’d toad,’ 
 Shaks. Rich. ITT. 1 til. 246. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BURIAL 331 
 
 case perhaps the text is corrupt; cf. Bertheau- 
 Ryssel. See GENEALOGY. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 BURDEN.—1. In OT ‘burden’ is the term used 
 (in AV and RY) to represent the Heb. xvp massa 
 (fr. xy3), both in the sense of a load, and in that of 
 an utterance or oracle. In the latter case the 
 rendering is supported by the ancient VSS (except 
 the LXX, which has \jjuua, spaua, Spacis, etc.). It 
 was partly determined by the fact that the pro- 
 phecies of which it formed the title were mainly of 
 a threatening character, the burden thus being the 
 threats of punishment imposed upon the place or 
 people concerned. But this translation is now 
 generally abandoned. Some of the prophecies to 
 which the word is applied are not comminatory. 
 Thus, Zec 12 contains a promise of victory to 
 Jerus. through the direct intervention of J” on 
 behalf of His people. See also Zec 91, Pr 30} 31}, 
 the Eng. tr. in the two latter instances reversing 
 their usual procedure, and rendering by prophecy 
 (AV), oracle (RV, in text, and burden in m.). It 
 is not surprising that the massa’ should so seldom 
 have been other than denunciatory, when we 
 remember the chief occasions and objects of Heb. 
 prophecy. Jer 23% is intelligible only if we 
 suppose that the prophets were accustomed to 
 apply the word mass@ to their prophecies in the 
 sense of oracle or utterance. here the scoffers 
 are reproved, simply because they pervert the word 
 and give it the meaning of burden. Massa’, there- 
 fore, simply means something taken up solemnly 
 upon the lips (cf. Ex 231, Ps 153 164, Ezk 36°, and 
 the repeated ‘took up his parable’ used of Balaam 
 in Nu 28), in particular, a divine utterance or oracle. 
 Although used of false oracles (La 2"), it is not 
 used of a merely human utterance except in Pr 
 30! 31! (both doubtful) ; and even here, if the text 
 is correct, a semi-divine precept is referred to. 
 
 2. In NT ‘ burden’ denotes the woes and troubles 
 of this earthly life (popriov, Mt 11°°), the legal ordi- 
 nances of the Pharisees (¢opria Bapéa, Mt 234), the 
 difficulties in which the Christian may be involved 
 in consequence of his having yielded to temptation 
 (8dpn, Gal 67), and the load of personal responsi- 
 bility, or, at all events, the difficulties and trials 
 that are inseparable from the Christian life (¢oprlov, 
 Gal 6°). The only other passage we need compare 
 with these is He ]2!, where, instead of burden, we 
 have in AV and RV weight (8yxos); the lit. mean- 
 ing of the word is encumbrance, and connotes 
 whatever prevents men from fully developing 
 their spiritual nature. Various distinctions may 
 be drawn between these words. Thus, Bdpos and 
 popriov in Gal 6-5 mean respectively a burden that 
 aa ought to be got rid of, and one that must 
 be borne (see Lightfoot). Again, dyxos suggests not 
 so much weight as cumbrousness. But these dis- 
 tinctions are of no great importance. 
 
 J. MILLAR. 
 BURGLARY.—See CRIMES, 
 
 BURIAL in Bible lands followed speedily upon 
 death. Among the Jews of the E. at the present 
 day burial takes place, if possible, within twenty- 
 four hours of death, Mohammedans bury their 
 dead the same day, if death takes place in the 
 morning; but if in the afternoon or at night, not 
 till the following day. Immediate burial was 
 rendered necessary among the Jews of Canaan by the 
 rapidity of decomposition in that climate, requirin; 
 survivors, as in the case of Abraham on the death 
 of Sarah, to bury their dead out of their sight (Gn 
 231-4). The defilement to which contact with a 
 dead body gave occasion (Nu 19"-!4) was a further 
 reason among the Jews for speedy burial. Lazarus 
 was buried on the day of his death (Jn 11 ™), Is 
 
832 BURIAL 
 
 was expressly commanded (Dt 217%) that the 
 body of aman who had been hanged should not 
 remain all night upon the tree, but should be buried 
 that day ; and it may have been a sense of the 
 awfulness of the judgment which had overtaken 
 Ananias and Sapphira that hurried on the under- 
 takers in their case (Ac 5-4). It was in accordance 
 with this provision of the Jewish law (cf. Dt 21% 
 with Gal 33%), as well as with the dictates of 
 humanity, that Joseph of Arimathea went to 
 Pilate and begged the body of Jesus for burial on 
 the day of the crucifixion (Mt 2757), 
 
 Immediately the last breath was drawn, it was 
 the duty of the oldest son, or, failing him, of the 
 nearest relative present, to close the eyes of the 
 dead (Gn 464). The mouth, too, was closed, and the 
 cheekbones bound together (Jn 11“). The kiss 
 imprinted upon the lifeless form of the patriarch 
 Jacob by Joseph as he ‘ fell upon his father’s face 
 and wept upon him’ (Gn 50!), may point to no 
 uniform custom, but only to a natural impulse of 
 affection. At the owes day, when a Jew is 
 drawing near his end, it is customary to bring in 
 ten witnesses—an easy thing, as the house is 
 usually full of friends waiting to raise the lamenta- 
 tions which tell that the sufferer has passed away. 
 The death is announced, as it was of old, by a tumult 
 of lamentation and the weeping and wailing of 
 peony mourners (Mk 5*#-), [See MOURNING. ] 
 
 hen death occurs, those who are present rend 
 their clothes, and all water and leaven must be cast 
 out of the house itself as well as out of the houses 
 of the three nearest neighbours, the belief being 
 that the Angel of Death wipes his sword in these 
 two things. Offerings for the dead seem to have 
 been forbidden under the Mosaic law (Dt 26"). 
 
 The preparations for burial could scarcely be, in 
 the circumstances, of a very elaborate character. 
 In the case of Ananias (Ac 5), we read that ‘ the 
 young men wrapped him round, and carried 
 
 im out and buried him.’ What they did was 
 likely this: they unfastened his girdle, and then 
 taking the loose undergarment and the wide 
 cloak which was worn above it, used them as a 
 winding-sheet to cover the corpse from head to 
 foot. ut there was usually more ceremony. 
 Combining various allusions which we find in the 
 cae and the Acts, we learn that the corpse was 
 washed (Ac 9°7), anointed with aromatic ointments 
 (Jn 127 1999, Mk 161, Lk 241), wound in linen 
 clothes with spices (Jn 19, Mt 27, Mk 15%, Lk 
 235 ; cf. also To 12)%, Sir 381°), hands and feet 
 being bound with graveclothes and the face bound 
 about with a napkin (Jn 11% 20%7), It would 
 appear that in later times at least there was a 
 confraternity of young men whose duty it was to 
 attend to these proprieties on behalf of the dead (Ac 
 56 8?). But it was, perhaps, only in cases like those 
 mentioned in the references that they were called 
 upon to act. It was on the loving hands of 
 relatives and friends, and ordinarily of female 
 friends, as in the passages referred to above, that 
 these ministries devolved, among the Jews as 
 among the Greeks. In fact, the practice among the 
 Greeks, both by similarity and by contrast, affords 
 an interesting illustration. One not unfamiliar 
 instance may be cited : Electra believing Orestes to 
 be dead, and his ashes placed in the sepulchral urn 
 pephocles, Electra, 1136-1142), addresses him thus; 
 ‘Woe is me! These loving hands have not washed 
 or decked thy corpse, nor taken up, as was meet, 
 their sad burden from the flaming pyre. At the 
 hands of strangers, hapless one, thou hast had 
 those rites, and so art come to us, a little dust in a 
 narrow urn.’ These last words show the point of 
 contrast. Burning of the dead, which was the 
 custom among the Greeks, was no part of Jewish 
 practice. The Rom historian Tacitus (Hist. v. 5) 
 
 BURIAL 
 
 expressly notices that it was matter of piety with 
 the Jews ‘to bury rather than to burn dead bodies.’ 
 The exceptions (if they be exceptions, for the Heb. 
 text is in dispute) were cases of emergency, the 
 burning of the bodies of Saul and his sons by the 
 men of Jabesh-gilead (1 S 3122"), although even 
 then they buried their bones under the tamarisk at 
 Jabesh, and David had them finally laid to rest in 
 the sepulchre of Kish (2 S 21-4); and the case 
 supposed by the prophet (Am 6°) in the desolation 
 which was to come upon Israel, when it may have 
 been on account of pestilence and accompanying 
 infection that burning was preferred. Burning was 
 reserved for the living who had been found guilt: 
 of unnatural sins (Lv 20! 219) ; and Achan and his 
 family after having been stoned to death were 
 burned with fire, and all their helenear ae os 77), 
 When St. Paul speaks of giving his y to be 
 burned (1 Co 13%), he accommodates his language to 
 the Greeks of Corinth, to whom such a thing was 
 familiar, and by whom such self-immolation would 
 be understood. And as the burning practised by 
 the Greeks was no part of ordinary Jewish custom, 
 neither was embalming as practised by the Egyp- 
 tians, the cases of Jacob Re Joseph (Gn 50* *6) being 
 obviously special. Among the Assyrians the corpse 
 was arrayed for burial in the dress and ornaments 
 and weapons that had been worn during life; and 
 although the allusions are not clear, this may be 
 referred to in certain passages of Scripture (1 S 28%4, 
 Is 14", Ezk 3277), Among the Jews and Mohamme- 
 dans of the present day, the corpse is arrayed in the 
 holiday apparel of former life. 
 
 It was a great indignity for a corpse to remain 
 unburied and become food for the beasts of prey 
 (2 S 21111, 1 K 13% 141 16421745 2K 91, Jer 7% 81 
 922 1416 164, Ezk 295, Ps 79%, Rev 11°), and uncovered 
 blood cried for vengeance (Ezk 24°; ef. also Ezk 
 3911-16), the idea being the same as among other 
 
 eoples, that the unburied dead would not only 
 inflict trouble upon his family, but bring defile- 
 ment and a curse upon the whole land. Even 
 malefactors, as we have seen, were allowed the 
 privilege of burial (Dt 21? ); and the denial of it 
 to the sons of ee gave occasion for the touchin 
 story of her self-denying care of the dead (2 
 211), It was an obligation binding Bee all to 
 bury the dead found by the way (To 1?® 2°). 
 
 The dead body was carried to the ve upon a 
 bier or litter—Heb. mittah, a bed (2 S 3%, cf. Lk 
 74 and 2 K 137). The bier was a simple flat board 
 borne on two or three staves by which the bearers 
 carried it to the grave. Coffins were unknown 
 among the Israelites, as they are among the E. Jews 
 to this day; the coffin in which the embalmed 
 remains of Joseph were preserved being the oul 
 one mentioned in Scripture (unless Asa’s bed, 2 Ch 
 1614, be another), and being in conformity, not with 
 Jewish but Egyp. usage (Gn 50%; cf. Ex 13", Jos 
 2482), A procession of mourners, with professional 
 mourning women leading the way, followed, who 
 made the air resound with their lamentations (Ec 
 12°, Jer 917, Am 5! See MourNING). A funeral 
 procession among the Jews at the present day 
 always moves swiftly along the road, because there 
 are ee to be innumerable Shédim, or evil 
 spirits, hovering about, and desirous to attack the 
 soul, which is considered to be in the body until 
 interment takes place and the corpse is covered 
 with earth. When the body is let down, the bier is 
 withdrawn, and a heap of stones is piled over the 
 shallow grave to preserve the dead from the depre- 
 dations of hyznas and jackals. It was the belief of 
 the Jews that the dead did not cease to be. There 
 was a gathering place of the departed, commonly 
 called Sheol among the Jews, and known also to the 
 Greeks and Babylonians, where a kind of geet 
 life was preserved in the under-world. In accord: 
 
 
 
BURIAL 
 
 ance with that belief, the dead were buried in the 
 sepulchres of their fathers when it was at all 
 possible. Machpelah was the family burying-place 
 of Abraham and Sarah and their descendants 
 and connexions (Gn 251° 49*! 50"), although there 
 were notable exceptions— Rachel being buried 
 where she died on the way to Ephrath, which is 
 Bethlehem (Gn 35! R) ; and Joseph in Shechem, the 
 
 arcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of 
 
 amor (Jos 2452), Among the Israelites, all who 
 possessed any land, or who could afford it, had 
 their family tombs hewn out of the rock in the 
 hillside, each sepulchre containing many niches for 
 the reception of bodies. Many generations of a 
 family could thus be placed in the ancestral tomb, 
 and countless numbers of such tombs are to be 
 found all over the country. Of this Machpelah is 
 the first example (Gn 23). Joshua was buried in 
 the border of his inheritance at Timnath-serah 
 (Jos 24°), Samuel was buried in his house at 
 Ramah (1 S 251). Joab was buried in his own 
 house in the wilderness (1 K 2¥4), In the days of 
 the Sate special mention is made of the 
 burial of kings. Manasseh, king of Judah, was 
 buried in the garden of his own house, in the 
 garden of Uzza (2 K 21"); and of Amon, his son, it 
 is said that he also was buried in his sepulchre in 
 the garden of Uzza (2 K 21%), Josiah seems to 
 huve been buried in the same tomb as his father 
 and grandfather (2 K 23%), At the burial of same 
 of the kings (Asa is singled out by the Chronicler 
 for special notice, 2 Ch 16") there was burning of 
 aromatic wood and fragrant spices (Jer 345); but 
 there were exceptions in the case of unpopular and 
 wicked kings, of whom Jehoram, the son of 
 Jehoshaphat, is specially mentioned (2 Ch 21”). Of 
 Jehoiakim it was prophesied that there would be 
 none to lament for him, and that he should be 
 buried with the burial of an ass (Jer 221°), his dead 
 
 body yy. drafted out of sight and left to decay 
 where it lay. 
 
 The graves of the dead were variously made. 
 They were sometimes simply dug in the earth, as 
 in this country, and as, in fact, they are among the 
 E. Jews at the present day. Sometimes natural 
 
 caves or grottoes were used as graves. And often 
 they were hewn out in the rock, and provided, as 
 we have seen, with galleries and chambers. In 
 times of oppression fugitives found shelter in these 
 rocky ate (Jg 67,1 S 13%, He 11%) ; and in the 
 time of our Lord poor creatures possessed with 
 demons took up their abode in them (Mk 5*-), The 
 hills and valleys around Jerus. were honeycombed 
 with these rock-hewn sepulchres of the dead. To 
 the mouth of the sepulchral cave a stone was 
 rolled to protect the remains deposited within from 
 the ravages of wild beasts (Jn 118, Mt 287). Tombs 
 were sometimes very spacious. In Joseph’s tomb, 
 where Jesus was laid, there was room for several 
 persons (Mk 1618). It is quite in accordance with 
 this that we find in a famous passage of Ezk (ch. 
 32), Sheol represented as a vast burying-place, not 
 of individuals, but of nations. The place of burial 
 in NT times was outside the cities and villages 
 (Lk 7”, Jn 11°°), and the instinct that seeks a quiet 
 grave and the shade of trees for the resting-place 
 of our dead influenced the choice of a burying-place 
 in the earliest times (Gn 23” 358, 1 S 31, Jn 19%). 
 There was public provision made for the burial of 
 strangers (Mt 27’); and there was at Jerus. in the 
 closing days of the monarchy a public burying- 
 ound (Jer 26”), probably where it is to this day, 
 tween the city wall and: the Kidron Valley. 
 Besides the heaping of stones on ordinary graves 
 for protection, stones and pillars were set up as 
 memorials of the dead (Ezk 39%, 2 K 23", where 
 RV reads, ‘ What monument is that which I see?’ 
 and the reference is not toa title or inscription, but to 
 
 BURST, BURSTING 333 
 
 asepulchral pillar). Jacobset a pillar upon Rachel’s 
 grave (Gn 35”), and Rachel’s tomb is a monument 
 of her pathetic story to this day. On the road 
 from Engedi to Petra, on the crest where the first 
 view of Mount Hor is obtained, is e conspicuous 
 cairn, which we are told marks the | arying-place 
 of Aaron. There is no express mention of the 
 Pyramids of Egypt in Scripture, but it is possible 
 that ‘ the desolate places’ said by Job to have been 
 built by kings and counsellors of the earth (Job 314) 
 refer to them. Absalom’s grave in the wood of 
 Ephraim had a heap of stones raised over it (2S 
 18/7) ; but this, as in the case of Achan (Jos 77°), was 
 not for honour, but for contumely. 
 
 There is no religious service at funerals among 
 the Jews of the E., and there is no indication that 
 there was any in Bible times. There is little 
 in their burial customs to indicate belief in a 
 resurrection ; but the belief of a resurrection, as 
 well as of a future life, obtains widely among the 
 Jews in every land. At this hour thousands of 
 Jewish graves on the sides of the Valley of 
 Jehoshaphat, where the Jews have come from all 
 lands to be buried, bear witness to the belief that 
 associates the coming of the Messiah with a blessed 
 resurrection. They hold that Messiah will descend 
 upon the Mt. of Olives, and will pass through these 
 resting-places of the dead as He enters in glory the 
 Holy City. 
 
 LrveraturE.—Keil, Bib. Arch. ii. 199 ff. ; Nowack, Heb. Arch. 
 {. 187 ff. ; Artt. Begrabniss in Herzog, RE, and Riehm’s Bib. Lex.; 
 * Burial’ and ‘ Tombs’ in Kitto, Cycl.,and Smith, DB; Whitehouse. 
 Primer of Heb. Antig. ; Thomson, Land and Book (8. Pal. an 
 Jerus., see ‘Funerals’ in Index) ; Tristram, E. Customs in Bible 
 Lands; Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs; Sayce, Social 
 Life among Assyr. and Bab. ; Series of art. in df QR on ‘ Death 
 and Burial Customs among the Jews,’ by A. P. Bender, 1894- 
 1896. T. NICOL. 
 
 BURIER, a very old word for grave-digger, is 
 found in Ezk 39" ‘ till the buriers have buried it in 
 the Valley of Hamon-gog,’ where it was introduced 
 by the Wyclifite version of 1382. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BURNING.—See BURIAL, CREMATION, CRIMES, 
 SACRIFICE. 
 
 BURNING BUSH.—In the account of the call of 
 Moses, given by the prophetic narrative of the 
 Pent. (JE), the Angel of J” is represented as 
 appearing to Moses ‘in a flame of fire out of the 
 midst of a bush,’ Ex 374, The word for bush in 
 the original (730) is found only in this passage and in 
 the reference thereto in Dt 3316. Its derivation is 
 unknown, and we have no means of ascertaining 
 what species of shrub is referred to. See BUSH. 
 
 The expression used by our Lord in the parallel 
 passages Mk 12%, Lk 20°7 émt rod (ris) Barov, illus- 
 trates the then current method of referring to 
 passages of the Scriptures, the reference in this 
 case being to the section of the Torah or Pent. in 
 which the incident of the burning bush is related 
 (ef. Ro 112 ‘in Elias’), Hence the RV rendering : 
 ‘in the place concerning the bush.’ 
 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY, 
 
 BURNT-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE. 
 
 BURST, BURSTING.—4. Of the death of Judas 
 it is said (Ac 118) that ‘falling headlong, he burst 
 asunder in the midst.’ The verb tr4 ‘b. asunder’ 
 (Adcxw) is always in classical Gr. (this is its only 
 occurrence in NT or LXX) used of making a loud 
 noise, ‘to crack’; here it is bursting accompanied 
 with noise. 2. In Pr 31 ‘thy presses shall b. out 
 with new wine’ (713, RV ‘ overflow’), ‘b. out’ is 
 used ‘hyperbolically, as a strong expression for 
 to be exuberantly full,’ acc. to Oxf. Hna. Dict., 
 which has found only another example ‘without 
 ‘out ’)—Homilies (1563) ‘thy presses shall b. witb 
 
 
 

 
 834 BUSH 
 
 
 
 BY 
 
 
 
 new wine.’ But cf. the common phrase ‘ready to 
 b.,’ and Sir 19" ‘If thou hast heard a word, let it 
 die with thee; and be bold, it will not b. thee.’ 
 8. Bursting in Is 30'4, ‘there shall not be found 
 in the b. of it a sherd to take fire from the 
 hearth,’ has the obsol. sense of ‘breaking into 
 fragments’ (Heb. ‘napa ‘in the breaking up,’ 
 abstr. for concr.; Vulg. de fragmentis ejus ; RV 
 ‘among the pieces thereof’). Cf.— 
 ‘You will not pay for the glasses you have burst?’ 
 haks. Tam. of the Shrew., Induce. i. 8 
 J. HastINnas. 
 BUSH (np séneh, Bdros, rubus),—The etymolo 
 of this word sheds no light on the kind of bus 
 in which J” appeared to Moses (Ex 3%*%4 Dt 
 3316), It undoubtedly refers to a thorny shrub. 
 Gesenius seems to imply that there is a connexion 
 between it and senna. Thisis, however, not so, as 
 the senna plant is not thorny, and is too insignifi- 
 cant a bush (not more than 2 to 3 ft. high) to have 
 been chosen for the theephanys The translation 
 Bdros, in the LXX, gives the opinion of the 
 scholars of that time in favour of the bramble 
 (Rubus, blackberry). Rubus discolor, W. et Nees, 
 grows everywhere in Pal. and Syria. 2. tomen- 
 tosus, Borckh., grows in Syria and northward ; its 
 var. collinus, Boiss., grows along the coast of Pal. 
 and Syria, and in the lower mountains. A bush 
 of this has been planted by the monks of the 
 convent of St. Catherine in Reet in the rear of 
 the chapel of the Burning Bush, and testifies to 
 their opinion that this was the bush in question. 
 But Rubus has not been found wild in Sinai, which 
 is south of its range, and climatically unsuited to it. 
 The following are among the thorny shrubs 
 which grow in Sinai: — Capparis spinosa, L. ; 
 C. galeata, Fres.; Ochradenus baccata, D. C.; 
 Zizyphus Spina-Christi, L.; Acacia Nilotica, Del.; 
 A. tortilis, Hayne; A. Seyal, Del. Any one of these 
 shrubs or small specimens of the trees, which often 
 assume a bushlike form, would answer the ety- 
 mological and other requirements of séneh. The 
 attempt to establish a connexion between séneh 
 and sant, the classical Arab. name for Acacia, is 
 not defensible on philological grounds. It is better to 
 regard the term as indefinite, meaning a thurn bush, 
 and not attempt to identify it. G. E. Post. 
 
 BUSHEL.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 BUSYBODY.—To express an individual, ‘ body’ 
 was used early with a tinge of compassion, as 
 Coverdale’s tr. of Ps 14! ‘The foolish bodyes saye 
 in their hertes: Tush, there is no God.’ This is 
 the sense the word has in ‘ busybody,’ of which the 
 earliest example is Tindale’s tr. (1526) of 1 P 45 ‘a 
 b. in other men’s matters,’ which Cranmer, Geneva, 
 and AV retained, but RV has changed into 
 ‘meddler’ (Gr. dddorpiericxomos, an overseer 
 (bishop) of other men’s affairs: the word is found 
 nowhere else). ‘Busybody’ is found also in 
 1 Ti 5% (Gr. meplepyos, taken up with trifles ; the 
 neut. 7a aeplepya is used in Ac 19, AV and RV 
 ‘curious arts’; Page, ‘things better left alone, 
 not meddled with’); and in 2Th 3! (areprepydfouat, 
 the verb from ‘eplepyos). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BUT.—The archaic uses are few: 1. Lk 9 ‘We 
 have no more but five loaves’ (RV ‘than’). Cf. 
 T. Beard (1597), ‘It was no sooner said but done.’ 
 The same Gr. (ot mAelwy 4) is tr4 by ‘but’ alone in 
 Ac 241! ‘there are yet but twelve days since I went 
 up’ (RV ‘not more than’), 2. Nu 22% ‘Go with 
 the men; but only the word that I shall speak 
 unto thee, that thou shalt speak,’ a stronger 
 ‘only’ (05x, tr simply ‘but’ in Nu 23% ‘thou 
 shalt see but the utmost part of them’). 3. Gn 
 21% ‘neither yet heard I of it, but to-day.’ The 
 
 
 
 mod. expression would be ‘until,’ but the Heh 
 ("A72) means ‘ except.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BUTLER.—While the modern sense of this word 
 is that of a superior servant in the houses of the 
 wealthy, whose work is to superintend general 
 domestic affairs, its derivation from the French 
 word boutillier, and its original meaning, indicate 
 the special office of offering wines and drinks at 
 the meals of the rich, and durin entertainments. 
 It is in this latter sense that it is used in Gn 40! 
 and 41°, and the Heb. word (apyp he who gives to 
 drink) is thus tr. elsewhere cupbearer (Neh 1), 
 1K 10°, and 2Ch 9‘). (See CUPBEARER.) 
 
 J. WORTABET, 
 BUTTER.—See Foon. 
 
 BUZ (ns).—1. The second son of Nahor and 
 Milcah, and nephew of Abraham (Gn 22”). Elihu, 
 one of the friends of Job (Job 322), is called a 
 Buzite, and may have belonged to a, tribe of that 
 name against which judgments are denounced by 
 Jeremiah (Jer 257), This tribe, being mentioned 
 along with Dedan and Tema, seems to be located 
 in Arabia Petrea, and it is possible that in early 
 times it had migrated thither from Mesopotamia. 
 2. A man of the tribe of Gad (1 Ch 54). 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 BUZI (‘n3).—The father of the prophet Ezekiel 
 (ch. 1’), and consequently a member of the riestly 
 house of Zadok. Of the man himself nothing is 
 known. Jewish writers were led to identify him 
 with Jeremiah, partly by a supposed connexion of 
 the name with a verb meaning ‘despise,’ and 
 partly by a theory that when the father of a 
 prophet is named it is to be understood that he 
 also was a prophet. This view is referred to with 
 apparent approval by David Kimchi: ‘In the 
 Jerus. Targ. [he is called] Ezekiel the Bie 
 the son of Jeremiah the prophet; and Jeremiah 
 is called Buzi, because [the people] despised him’ 
 (Comm. ad loc.). J. SKINNER. 
 
 BUZITE (‘2, LXX Bovttrns).—See Buz. 
 
 BY was originally an adverb, meaning near, and 
 became a prep. through a change in the order of 
 words; thus, ‘the folk him by stood’ (by-stood), 
 ‘the folk stood him by,’ ‘the folk stood as him.’ 
 
 1. In this orig. sense ‘ by’ is of freq. occurrence ; 
 generally in OT as tr. of byx, as Neh 43 ‘Now 
 Tobiah the Ammonite was by him’; Pr 8° ‘When 
 he arpeiee the foundations of the earth, then I 
 was by him’; Ezk 1 ‘When the living creatures 
 went, the wheels went by them’ (RV ‘ beside’); 
 or of ny, as Ezk 438 ‘their threshold by (nx) my 
 thresholds, and their post by (osx, RV ‘ beside’) 
 my es ; or of oy, as Gn 354 ‘the oak which was 
 by Shechem,’ 1 K 1° ‘ Adonijah slew sheep... b 
 (oy) the stone of Zoheleth, which is by (o¥x R 
 ‘beside’) En-rogel’; or of wy (‘12y), as Dt 5% 
 ‘stand thou here by me.’ In NT the Gr. is mapa, 
 as Lk 947 ‘Jesus... took a child, and set him by 
 him’ (ap’ éavrge, RV ‘by his side’); or mpés, as 
 Mk 11‘ ‘found the colt tied by the door’ (RV « at’). 
 In this sense ‘by’ is the frequent accompaniment 
 of certain verbs, as go, Ps 1298 ‘they which go 
 by ; stand, 1 K 13% ‘the ass stood by it, the li m 
 also stood by the carcase’ (both yx); sit, Neh 28 
 ‘the a also sitting by him’; dwell, Neh 4% 
 ‘the Jews which dwelt by them’; set, Lk 9% as 
 above (for ‘set by’=esteem, see SET); lay, 1 Co 
 16? ‘let every one of you lay by him’ (rap' éavr@). 
 Evidently of the same meaning also is ‘by’ in the 
 phrases ‘by the sea side’ Mt 131; ‘by a river side’ 
 Ac 168; ‘by the highway side’ Mk 10*; and ‘by 
 
 the way side’ Mt 134 (all wepd). Then the word 
 ‘side’ gets dropped, and we have the phrase ‘ by 
 
 Tf ee ee 
 

 
 BY 
 
 BYWAY 336 
 
 
 
 the way,’ very common in Eng. of the 17th cent. 
 and earlier ; as Dt 11® ‘by the way where the sun 
 goeth down’ (397 ‘29s); Lk 104 ‘salute no man by 
 the way’ (xara rip 656%, RV ‘on the way’); Sir 8° 
 ‘Travel not by the way with a bold fellow’ (év 659, 
 RV ‘in the way’); cf. 2 P 3} ‘by way of remem- 
 brance’ (év drouvice, RV ‘by putting you in re- 
 membrance’); and Shaks. Jul. Ces. I. 1. 218— 
 ‘Now, good Metellus, go along by him,’ 
 
 where Pope, mistaking the phrase, changed ‘by’ 
 into ‘to,’ and was followed by other early editors. 
 In the same drama (IU. i. 161) Shaks. puts a play 
 upon the word into the mouth of Antony, who says 
 to Cesar’s murderers— 
 
 ‘No place will please me so, no mean of death, 
 As here by Cawsar and by you cut off.’ 
 
 2. In such a phrase as ‘go by the way’ (e.g. 
 Job 21” ‘ Have ye not asked them that go by the 
 way ?’) the way is in a sense the means, and this is 
 believed to have led to the extensive use of ‘by’ 
 as the prep. introducing the means, instrument, or 
 origin. For this purpose ‘by’ is the tr. of many 
 Heb. and Gr. expressions, and there is no part of 
 the Eng. Bible where we are so liable to be led 
 astray, either by an archaism (of which one notable 
 example will be referred to), or by a mistrans- 
 lation (of which many examples might be given). 
 The danger is greatest in NT, because of the 
 number and variety of the Gr. Preps and also 
 because these Gr. preps. are often afiected by the 
 Hebrew. The Revisers have rendered an incal- 
 culable service by their watchful care in trans- 
 lating the preps. ; and even when they have not 
 ax told enough to disturb familiar but mislead- 
 ing renderings, they have nearly always indicated 
 the correct tr. in the ced is Thus in Jn 1% 10 
 ‘All things were made by him,’ ‘The world was 
 made by him’ (AV, RV, but RVm through, Gr. 
 &’ atrod); while in He 67 ‘herbs meet for them by 
 whom it is dressed’ (even AVm gives ‘for whom,’ 
 RV text ‘for whose sake,’ Gr. 6: os). The most 
 important and treacherous archaism is the use of 
 ‘by,’ which now denotes the agent, to express the in- 
 strument, the agent being expressed by ‘of.’ Thus 
 we read, Mt 4! ‘Then was Jesus led up of the 
 Spirit (t7d rod rvedparos) into the wilderness to be 
 tempted of the devil’ (bd rof dia8ddov); but in 
 y.* ‘Man shall not live by bread alone’ (éz’ dpry) ; 
 again in 2” ‘being warned of God in a dream’; 
 but v.2 ‘which was spoken by the prophets’ (d4 
 trav xpopnrav, the prophets being the channel 
 of communication, KVm ‘through the prophets’). 
 Lightfoot (Fresh Revision of NT, Pp. 132 ff.) 
 emphasizes the importance of this distinction, 
 pointing out that it affects the doctrines of In- 
 spiration and the Person of Christ. ‘ Wherever 
 the sacred writers have occasion to quote or to 
 refer to OT, they invariably apply the prep. dd, 
 as denoting instrumentality, to the lawgiver, or 
 the prophet, or the psalmist, while they reserve 
 tré, as signifying the primary motive agency to 
 God himself’; thus Mt 1” ‘that it might be ful- 
 filled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet’ 
 (td [rod] xuplov dia rod wpog¢yjrov, RV ‘by the Lord 
 through the prophet’). Again, ‘the prep. which 
 is especially applied to the office of the Divine 
 Word is bd.” Bat here we have to deal with not 
 only an archaic meaning of the prep. ‘by,’ but 
 also with a capricious use of it in the AV. Thus 
 Jn 1*-10* All things were made by him,’ ‘The world 
 was made by him’ (both 6’ atrod); v.7 ‘that all 
 men through him might believe’ (d’ avrod), and v." 
 ‘ grace nd truth came by Jesus Christ’ (da "Inood 
 Xpicrod). The fact is that about 1611 the word 
 * by’ was losing its special sense of instrumentality, 
 and there are a few clear examples of its employ- 
 ment to express the primary source or agent, as 
 
 
 
 Mt 22%! ‘have ye not read that which was spoken 
 unto you by God?’ (b7d 7of 6eo0) where all the 
 previous versions have ‘of God.’ (See OF.) 
 
 8. ‘Two by two,’ ‘three by three,’ means two 
 beside two, three beside three. But in older Eng. 
 these phrases were frequently shortened; thug 
 1 Co 14” ‘let it be by two (xara dvo) or at most by 
 three’; Lk 914 ‘by fifties in a company’ (RV ‘in 
 companies, about fifty each’); so 1 K 5 ‘b 
 courses,’ 2 K 5? ‘by companies.’ And this idea of 
 nearness is present in certain fig. expressions of 
 time, as 18 25” ‘if I leave of all that pertain to 
 him by the morning light’; Ex 226 ‘by that (=by 
 the time that) the sun goeth down’; even in the 
 phrase ‘by the space of,’ where the meaning is 
 during, as Ac 137 ‘by (RV ‘for’) the space of 
 forty years.’ 
 
 4. As nearness suggests comparison, such ex- 
 pressions as ‘set by,’ ‘set light by’ are easily under- 
 stood. (See SET.) But from this, ‘by’ came to be 
 used after verbs of thinking, knowing, etc. in the 
 sense of ‘about,’ as Shaks. Adl’s Well, V. iii. 237— 
 
 ‘By him, and by this woman here, what know you?’ 
 
 Then this passed into the meaning of against, of 
 which there is a probable* example in 1 Co 44 ‘I 
 know nothing by myself’ (RV ‘against myself’). 
 Cf. Foxe, Book of Martyrs: ‘Thou hast spoken 
 evil words by the queen...’ ‘No man living upon 
 earth can prove any such things by me’; Sander- 
 son, Works, ii. 37, ‘Far be it from us to judge 
 men’s hearts, or to condemn men for that we know 
 not by them.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BY AND BY.—In earlier versions ‘ by and by’ is 
 the usual tr. of e’@vs or evOéws, as it then con- 
 adage meant immediately. Thus Latimer in 
 one of his sermons says, ‘the clapper brake, and 
 we could not get it mended by and by; we must 
 tarry till we can have it done. It shall be mended 
 as shortly as may be.’ But about 1611 this 
 meaning was passing away.t ‘The inveterate pro- 
 crastination of men,’ says Trench, ‘had caused it 
 to designate a remoter term; even as “‘ presently ” 
 does not any longer mean ‘“‘at this present,” but 
 ‘in a little while.”’ So AV retains ‘by and by’ 
 only in four places, Mt 13% (ev@vs, RV ‘straight- 
 way’), Lk 17’ (ev@éws, RV ‘straightway’), 21° 
 (ev0éws, RV ‘immediately’), Mk 6” (ééaurjjs, RV 
 ‘ forthwith’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 BYWAY.—Only Jg 5° ‘the travellers walked 
 through byways’ (mbp>av nimjy; AVm and RVm 
 ‘crooked ways,’ which is Coverdale’s tr. Moore 
 points out that both words are in Mishnice Heb. 
 used tropically of tortuous conduct; but he be- 
 lieves that here the first word, ninqy, is erroneously 
 repeated from the preceding line to the detriment 
 of both the poetical expression and the rhythm ; he 
 translates ‘those who travelled the roads went by 
 roundabout paths’). In Eng. as in Heb. the word 
 signifies, not a side road merely, but a secret path, 
 a path to take in seeking to escape observation. 
 Thus Spenser, /.Q. I. i. 283— 
 
 ‘That path he kept which beaten was most plaine, 
 Ne ever would to any bye-way bend.’ 
 Hence the transition was easy to tortuous conduct, 
 as Coverdale’s tr. of Is 57!” ‘he turneth him self, 
 and foloweth ye bywaye of his owne hert.’ 
 
 RV introduces ‘bypaths’ in Jer 18% (nian3, AV, 
 
 ‘ paths’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 * Probable, tor this meaning of ‘ by,’ though never common, is 
 clearly made out; but the Gr. being tuaura (Vulg. mihi) one is 
 not certain that Tindale, whom the others follow, did not miss 
 the meaning, and translate the word as an instrumental dative. 
 
 + Tindale and the Gen. Bible have ‘ by and by’ in many places 
 in which AV has ‘immediately.’ Thus Mk 18! ‘the fever for- 
 soke hir by and by’ tes ‘anoon,’ Rhem, ‘incontinent,’ but 
 Cov. and the rest as A so 212 45, Lk 649, Jn 621, eto. 
 
 
 
C 
 
 C.—This symbol is used in critical notes on the 
 Text of OT and NT to indicate the readings of the 
 Codex Ephraemi Be rescriptus in the National 
 Library at Paris. The MS is assigned to the 5th 
 cent. Tischendorf, on somewhat slender grounds, 
 suggests Egypt as its birthplace. In the 6th cent. 
 the NT was carefully revised by the first corrector 
 (C?). In the same or in the succeeding centu 
 some changes were introduced in the OT (C4). 
 Tischendorf hazards a conjecture that during this 
 
 eriod of its history the MS was in Palestine. 
 
 y the 9th cent., at any rate, it had found its way 
 to Constantinople, and there the NT came into the 
 hands of a second corrector (C*) who revised the 
 MS for liturgical use. 
 
 In the 12th cent. the MS must have been taken 
 to pieces, the separate sheets of vellum sponged 
 over to obliterate the original writing, and then a 
 certain number of the sheets used again to receive 
 a Greek translation of some works of Ephraim 
 the Syrian. Hence its description as a codex 
 rescriptus or palimpsest. After the fall of Con- 
 stantinople in 1453 the MS was taken into ttaly, 
 and finally passed into the hands of Catherine as 
 Medici. At her death it became the property of the 
 French Royal Library. Its real value was not recog- 
 nised at first. It was not till the end of the 16th 
 cent. that the older writing attracted attention. 
 In 1716 Bentley set Wetstein to work at a syste- 
 matic collation. In 1834 the MS was chemically 
 treated to intensify the ancient writing—on the 
 whole with good effect. Still the task of deciphering 
 the faded letters calls for extraordinary patience 
 and skill; and Tischendorf deserves unstinted 
 praise for the edition that he published (Leipzi 
 1843 and 1845) as the result of ten months’ har 
 work in the Library at Paris. 
 
 The MS contains at present 209 leaves, written 
 in single columns: 64 contain fragments of Job, 
 Proverbs, Eccles., Wis. ofSol., Sirach, and Canticles; 
 145 contain large portions (not quite two-thirds of 
 the whole) of NT, including fragments from every 
 book except 2Jn and2 Th. The Ammonian sec- 
 tions are marked in the margin of the Gospels, and 
 the list of chapters at the ppinning of St. Luke 
 and St. John are preserved. There are no indica- 
 tions of chapters in the other books of the NT. 
 Hort has shown that there is reason to believe 
 that Rev was transcribed from a separate exemplar, 
 consisting of about 120 small leaves (Intr. p. 268). 
 
 J. O. F. MURRAY. 
 
 C.—A symbol used in criticism of Hex. by 
 Dillmann to signify the work of the Jahwist (J); 
 by Schultz for that of the Elohist (E). See 
 
 EXATEUCH. 
 
 CAB.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 CABBON (j\23), Jos 15.—A town of Judah near 
 Eglon. The name has not been recovered. 
 
 CABIN is used once in AV in the obsol. sense of 
 @ prison cell, Jer 371 ‘ When Jeremiah was entered 
 into the dungeon, and into the cabins’ (nig [all], 
 something vaulted, from 739 to bend; AVm, RV 
 *cells’). The word is rare in this sense, but in 
 frequent use for a hermit’s cell, as Caxton, Chron. 
 Eng. ccliv. 329, ‘They put hym in a Cabon and his 
 ehapelyne for to shryue hym.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CABUL (37), Jos 197, 1 K 9%.—A town of 
 
 Asher on the border of Zebulun. The district was 
 ceded by Solomon to Tyre. Prob. the large village 
 Kabil EK. of Acco. See SWP, vol. i. sheet v. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 CAESAR (Kaicap).—This name was adopted by 
 Octavius, subsequently known as Augustus, after 
 the death of his uncle Julius Cesar, and passed on 
 to his successors as the official designation of the 
 Roman emperors, until the third century A.D., 
 when it came to be used for the junior partners in 
 the government, in distinction from the title 
 Augustus, which was reserved for the supreme 
 rulers. No name was ready at hand to describe 
 the unique office of the real autocrat in a nominal 
 republic. While the word ‘king’ was hated at 
 Rome on account of its associations with the 
 legendary history of the city, and despised by the 
 victorious generals who were familiar with it as the 
 title of defeated Oriental rulers, the fame of Julius 
 Cesar suggested the use of his name by his heir. 
 The following Ceesars fall within NT times :— 
 
 Augustus . B.C. 31-A.D. 14. 
 Tiberius . ; . A.D. 14-37. 
 Gaius (Caligula) . ,, 37-41. 
 Claudius . ° © 99 41-54. 
 Nero ; 4 * po DS—68s 
 Galba ° . ° yy 68-69. 
 Otho ' ° A rw wth 
 Vitellius . . Peirsol 
 Vespasian : © 53 69-79. 
 Titus . ; so ae TORSIe 
 
 Domitian 6 oi) apa) CLOG, 
 
 Four of these are referred to in NT, viz 
 Augustus (Lk 2!), Tiberius (Lk 31), Claudius (Ac 
 1178 187), Nero (Ph 47, 2 Ti 4)*17), Augustus was 
 ruling when Jesus Christ was born, and continued 
 to rule until He was about eighteen years of age; 
 Tiberius was emperor during the remainder of Hi 
 time of obscurity, Hispublic ministry, His death and 
 resurrection. Although our Lord accepted the title 
 of king (Jn 18%), ane admitted that He was the 
 Messiah (Mk 8”: ®, Jn 4% 25), He never came into 
 conflict with the political claims of the ruling 
 Cesar. The Gospel record mentions only one 
 occasion on which He touched on those claims, and 
 on that occasion it was because they had been 
 forced on His notice (Mk 12)*1”). The coin for which 
 He then called was a denarius with the image and 
 legend of Tiberius upon it (see MONEY), and His 
 judgment was to the effect that the acceptance of 
 this coin by the Jews was a sign that the 
 admitted the Roman rule over them, under whic. 
 circumstances they were morally bound to render 
 Cesar his dues, not forgetting the dues of God. In 
 the Fourth Gospel the Jews threaten Pilate with 
 a charge of disloyalty to Cesar (Tiberius), and 
 describe the claims of Jesus to be a king as 
 amounting to sedition against Cesar; and the 
 priests, who represent the ancient aristocratic 
 rulers of Israel, expressly declare that they have 
 no king but Cesar (Jn 19! 15), Caligula is not 
 referred to in the NT. His time coincides with 
 the early ministry of St. Paul. Aquila and 
 Priscilla are stated to have come from Italy to 
 Corinth in consequence of a decree of Claudius 
 (the fourth Ceesar) banishing all Jews from Home 
 (Ac 18%. SeeCLAUDIUsS). Since Nero was in power 
 when St. Paul was arrested at Jerusalem, it was to 
 him that the apostle, as a Roman citizen (Ac 22”- 8), 
 appealed from the local tribunal at Caesarea (Ac 
 25°-13), The right of appeal to Cesar was allowed 
 
 
 
CASAR’S HOUSEHOLD 
 
 CASSAREA PHILIPPI 33’ 
 
 
 
 to citizens, but not to provincials (Pliny, pis. x. 
 96 (al. 97); Schirer, H/P I. ii. p. 59; Mommsen, 
 Staatsrecht, 3rd ed. pp. 255-257). The Apoc. appears 
 to contain frequent obscure allusions to the Cesars, 
 and especially to Nero, one passage (Rev 17}) 
 seeming to point to the first seven emperors, and 
 in such a way as to suggest that the book must 
 have been written under the sixth (Galba). 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Dion Cassius, Suetonius, Tacitus; Capes, The 
 Early Empire; Merivale, History of the Romans under the 
 Empire; Duruy, History of Rome (ed. by Mahaffy); H. Schiller, 
 Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit ; Hertzberg, Geschichte des 
 rémischen Kaiserreiches. W. F. ADENEY,. 
 
 CHISAR’S HOUSEHOLD. — This phrase occurs 
 with a mark of emphasis in the salutations sent 
 from St. Paul’s friends at Rome to the Church at 
 Philippi, where we read, ‘All the saints salute you, 
 especially they that are of Cesar’s household (udduora 
 6 ol éx ris Kaloapos olklas, Ph 472). The domus or 
 Ci eeae Cesaris included the whole imperial house- 
 
 old, and extended to the attendants of the emperor 
 in the provinces as well as at Rome. Lightfoot 
 gives a list of some of these, from which it is 
 evident that the phrase contains no indication of 
 the rank of the persons to whom it refers. They 
 may have been courtiers of high position; the 
 execution of Titus Flavius Clemens, a man of 
 consular rank and cousin to the emperor, and the 
 banishment of his wife Flavia Domitilla, the 
 emperors niece, and her daughter Pontia, by 
 Domitian, for the vague crimes, contemtissime 
 inertia (Suet. c. 15), atheism (dGedr7ys), and in- 
 clination to Jewish customs (Dion. Cass, Ixvii. 14), 
 have suggested the probable opinion that these 
 people were Christians. Still, most probably in 
 the time of St. Paul the Christian members oi the 
 imperial household were slaves, or freedmen of 
 humble position. The apostle’s association with 
 the soldiers who guarded him may have led to the 
 introduction of the gospel to the palace attendants, 
 although the statement that the prisoners were 
 put under the Pretorian guard (Ac 28° AV) is 
 absent from the best MSS. The imperial house- 
 hold must have constituted so large a proportion of 
 the population of Rome that there is nothing sur- 
 
 rising in the fact that some of its members came 
 into contact with Christian teachers. The interest- 
 ing fact is that converts were won from so frightful 
 a circle of dissoluteness as the court of Nero 
 (Suetonius, Nero, 28, 29). The names of a number 
 of the imperial attendants of this period having 
 been recovered from sepulchral monuments among 
 the columbaria in the neighbourhood of the Appian 
 Way, Lightfoot pointed out the identity of some 
 of these names with several that occur in the 
 list of salutations in Ro 16, viz. Amplias, Urbanus, 
 Stachys, Apelles, Narcissus, Tryphena, eyes 
 Patrobas (Patrobius), Philologus, Julia (Julius). 
 The probability that the last chapter of Ro is 
 really part of an “ee to the Ephesians deprives 
 these coincidences of their supposed value. Most 
 of the names are not uncommon. 
 
 LrrgraTurE.—Lightfoot, Philippians, n. on ‘Czsar’s House- 
 hold’ ; owe and Howson, St. Paul, ch. xxvi.; Ramsay, 
 St, Paul the Trav. p. 853; Weizsicker, Apost. Age (Eng. tr.), 
 il, 182. W. F. ADENEY. 
 
 CHISAREA (Kaicapela), Ac 10! 218 23%- 8,—The 
 city N. of Jaffa, on the seashore, orig. called Strato’s 
 Tower, rebuilt by Herod the Great, the capital of 
 Judza under the Procurators, and where St. Paul 
 was imprisoned. It was famous for its port, which 
 Josephus compares with the Pireus, though the 
 latter was very much larger (Ant. Xv. ix. 6). The 
 present ruins include the walls of the ancient city, 
 and within them those of a much smaller town 
 ot the twelfth cent., with walls rebuilt in the 
 thirteenth by St. Louis, The cathedral, of which 
 
 VOL. I.—22 
 
 only foundations remain, appears to stand on the 
 site of the temple raised by Herod to Augustus 
 (Jos. Ant. xv. ix. 6; Wars, I. xxi. 7). On the S., 
 outside the medieval town, are ruins apparently of 
 a large theatre close to the shore. On the E. is a 
 cursus, with a fine goal of granite, now overthrown. 
 Two aqueducts from Carmel brought the waters of 
 the Zerka, or Crocodile River, to the city. They are 
 Rom. work, with round arches, running over the 
 swamps, and a tunnel through the clifis, with rock- 
 cut staircases descending in wells. A few Bosnian 
 colonists have houses in the ruins. Czsarea was a 
 bishopric from the fourth to the thirteenth cent. 
 A.D., of which the most celebrated bishop was 
 Eusebius. In NT times it had a mixed population, 
 and conflicts between the Jews and their fellow- 
 citizens were frequent. On the outbreak of the great 
 war, the Jewish population was massacred (Jos. 
 Wars, U. xviii. 1, Vil. viii. 7; Schiirer, HJP 11. i. 
 86f.). It was also the scene of a Moslem massacre 
 when taken by the Crusaders in A.D. 1101. For full 
 account, and plans of the ruins, see SWP, vol. ii. 
 sheet x. See also Neubauer, Géog. Talm. s.v. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 CHSAREA PHILIPPI (Kaicapela 4 Alrrov, 
 ‘Cesarea of Philip’).—It was so named to dis- 
 tinguish it from Caesarea Palestina on the sea- 
 coast. It possibly appears in the OT as Baal- 
 
 ad, but its history for us begins with Herod the 
 teat. (For suggested identification with Dan, 
 see Smith, Hist. Geog. p. 480.) 
 
 No spot in Palestine can compare with this in 
 romantic beauty. It stands on a triangular 
 terrace 1150 ft. above sea-level, cut off from 
 Hermon by Wady Khashabeh, and bounded on the 
 S. by Wady Za‘areh. Abundant water produces 
 luxuriant vegetation, fertile fields stretch away 
 to westward, while groves of stately poplars, great 
 oaks, and lowlier evergreens surround the place 
 with perennial charm. The fortress Kal'at es- 
 Subeibeh, or Kal‘at Banias, crowns the hill behind 
 the village. A position of great antiquity and of 
 enormous strength, its possession has always been 
 essential to the holding of the western meadows. 
 The old city was surrounded by a ood) wall, 
 flanked by massive towers, and protected by a 
 ditch on the east. North of the village, in the 
 face of a steep rock, is Magharet Ras en-Neba’, 
 ‘Cave of the fountainhead.’ ‘Very deep and full 
 of still water’ in the days of Josephus, the crumb- 
 ling rock has filled the cavern. The waters rise 
 all along the base of the gravel bank in front, and, 
 
 athering together, rush away in arrowy streaks 
 pereeon anks of evergreen, under the arch of an 
 old Roman bridge; then, as becomes ‘the de- 
 scender’ (}77:2), plunge down a narrow ravine, and, 
 taking the stream from Wady Za‘areh, flow on ‘to 
 join the brimming river’ from Teli e/-Kadi in the 
 
 lain. West of oe spring, on a projecting crag, 
 is a small shrine of E/-Khudr, that strange object 
 of Oriental reverence identified with St. bore 
 and also with the prophet Elijah. Away to the 
 N.E. rises the mighty bulk of Hermon, culminat- 
 ing in the snowy crest full 8000 ft. above the spring. 
 
 Paal- ad—the god of good fortune—gave place 
 to the Gregan Pan. The scene of his worship at 
 the fountain was called the Paneion (7d Iavevov, Jos. 
 Ant. xv. x.’ 3), whence the whole district took 
 the name of Paneas, Iaveds (Ant. ibid.). Zenodorus 
 dying at’ Antioch, Augustus gave this region to 
 Herod (B.c. 20), who built here a temple of white 
 marble in honour of his benefactor. Philip, to whom 
 it passed as part of the tetrarchy of Trachonitis, 
 enlarged and beautified the town, and in compli- 
 ment to the emperor called it Cesarea, adding ‘of 
 Philip,’ to distinguish it from his father’s town, and 
 also, no doubt, to secure the memory of his own 
 name. Its great and abiding interest, however, ia 
 
CAGE 
 
 
 
 derived from the visit of our Lord, and the amazing 
 event witnessed by these silent hills(Mt 1618, Mk 8%). 
 Agrippa I. called the city Neronias (Ant. Xx. ix. 
 4); and, as is proved from the city’s coins, this 
 name, with Cesarea, survived some time. Paneas 
 then again asserts itself with Caesarea, and finally 
 Ceesarea disappears, and Paneas takes permanent 
 possession in the Arabic form of Banids, for the 
 Arabs have no p. Vespasian and his army found 
 refreshment here before their descent on the Sea 
 of Galilee (BJ ul. ix. 7). After the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, Titus Cesar here ‘ exhibited all sorts 
 of shows,’ many of the captives being destroyed by 
 wild beasts, and others forced to slay each other 
 in gladiatorial displays (BJ vu. ii. 1). Later it 
 became the seat of a bishop, under Antioch. Its 
 bishops were present at the councils of Nicza, A.D. 
 325; Chalcedon, A.D. 451, ete. Inthe stormy history 
 of the crusades the town and castle played an im- 
 portant part. Eusebius (bk.vi. 18) mentions a Chris- 
 tian tradition that the woman healed of an issue 
 of blood (Lk 8**) was a native of Banids, her house 
 being shown, with statues representing the event. 
 
 The modern village consists of about fifty houses, 
 occupied by Moslems. There are few antiquities. 
 Fragments of broken columns and carved stones, 
 a Roman aqueduct nearly buried in refuse, part of 
 the old walls and castle, and several niches in the 
 rock over the spring, are peony ail that 
 remain of the splendours of old Czsarea Philippi. 
 
 W. EwInc. 
 
 CAGE (2:52), Jer 5%.—The houses of the rich, 
 stuffed with craftily-obtained wealth and articles 
 of luxury, are compared to a cage full of birds. 
 The reference in the previous verse to bird-traps 
 would at first suggest that ‘cage’ here continues 
 the thought of fowling, but the stress laid on the 
 fulness of the houses points perhaps to a wicker- 
 ease or crate full of pigeons and fowls. This isa 
 common market sight in the East: the crate 
 being literally stuffed, and the birds craning their 
 necks out at every opening to get breath and 
 escape oppression. The meaning of ‘cage’ is sup- 
 ported by the cage (xdpraddos) of Sir 11%, which is 
 the Arab. kartal ‘hamper’ of the present day. 
 
 ‘Cage’ in Rev 18? (dvAaxj) means ‘ hola? 1.6. 
 ‘prison’ (RVm), or the word may lave here an 
 accent of mockery, representing the owls and bats 
 as mounting guard over the traditions of the past. 
 No onewould think of putting ‘unclean and hateful’ 
 birds in a cage or crate, as they were unfit for food 
 and too ill-omened for ornament. 
 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 CAIAPHAS (Ka:d¢as), more correctly ‘Joseph C.’. 
 
 (cf. ‘Joseph called Barsabbas,’ Ac 1%), appointed 
 high priest of the Jews by the Rom. procurator 
 Valerius Gratus (predecessor of Pontius Pilate), and 
 removed b Vitellius A.D. 37 (Jos. Ant. XVIII. ii. 2, 
 iv. 3). . was son-in-law to Annas (Ananus), 
 high priest A.D. 7-14. Some confusion has arisen 
 from Lk 3? ‘in the high priesthood of Annas and 
 C.,’ and Ac 4° ‘ Annas the high priest and C.’ (cf. 
 Mk 167), as well as Jn 18-22 where ‘the high 
 priest’ almost certainly designates Annas. (For 
 explanation of this usage of terms see ANNAS, 
 SANHEDRIN.) The chief priests were at this period 
 mostly Sadducees (Ac 4! 51”, cf. Jos. Ant. XV. ix. 3), 
 and in the final conflict with Jesus they played a 
 more prominent part than the Pharisees, as they 
 did also in the subsequent persecution of the 
 apostles. When the popularity of Jesus had 
 received a powerful impulse from the raising of 
 Lazarus, C. was the leading spirit at the council 
 which was held to devise measures to stem the popu- 
 lar current (Jn 11%), His counsel was to put Jesus 
 to death before a tumult of the people should bring 
 down upon the nation the vengeance of the Romans. 
 His action upon this occasion illustrates his char- 
 
 
 
 CAIN 
 
 
 
 acteristic disregard of justice and religion, and 
 shows with what adroitness he could hide self- 
 interest under the cloak of patriotism. But there 
 was a deeper meaning in his words than he was 
 conscious of; and the evangelist finds in them 
 a high-priestly prophecy of the atonement (vv. 5 ; 
 ef, Ex 28°, Nu 27?!)—with which may be compared 
 similar unconscious testimonies in Mt 27:8! and 
 Mk 15%. The policy which C. advocated at this 
 meeting, he was largely instrumental in carrying 
 out. It was in ‘the court of the high priest who 
 was called C.’ that ‘the chief priests and elders’ 
 resolved to take Jesus ‘by subtilty’—with the 
 help of Judas (Mt 26%: 414-16); and it was C. that 
 took the leading part in the trial of Jesus at the 
 nocturnal meeting held immediately after the 
 private examination before Annas (Jn 18%, Mt 
 26°7-68), The procedure under C.’s presidency was 
 a travesty of justice, and while they ‘sought false 
 witness against him,’ Jesus kept silence; even 
 when challenged by C. to speak,—till the latter, 
 despairing of establishing any relevant charge by 
 means of witnesses, solemnly adjured Jesus to say 
 whether He was ‘the Christ, the Son of God.’ At 
 once the unfaltering answer came (although the 
 speaker knew that He would have to seal His 
 testimony with His blood), whereupon C., with an 
 affectation of pious horror, rent his garments, 
 saying, ‘He hath spoken blasphemy . . . What 
 think ye?’ — to which ‘they answered, He is 
 worthy of death,’—a sentence that was ratified 
 next morning at a formal meeting of the Sanhe- 
 drin (Mt 27"*; Jn 18%). After this C. is only 
 once mentioned by name in the NT (Ac 4°), associ- 
 ated with ‘as many as were of the kindred of the 
 high priest’ in the trial of Pever and John; but in 
 all probability he is ‘the high priest’ of Ac 517-21. #7 
 7 9!, who continues to persecute the Church. 
 J. A. M‘CLyYMonrt. 
 
 CAIN (jz), Firstborn of the first pair (Gn 4%). 
 As murderer C. marks. a further stage in the down- 
 ward course of the fallen race, while he also 
 foreshadows its material progress. The name, 
 which J derives from the mother’s joyful ex- 
 clamation at the ‘acquisition’ of a man-child (aR 
 procure), may also have suggested the secondary 
 notion of the man of blood (2 @ spear). A tiller 
 of the soil (4?), C. offered a sacrifice of the produce 
 of the earth (4°), which, however, was not viewed 
 by God with acceptance (4°). The ground of the 
 divine displeasure has commonly been sought in 
 the tardiness of the offering, or in its comparative 
 worthlessness,—in the latter case, either because 
 he withheld his best, or because of the insufficiency 
 of a sacrifice without blood; but, while the spirit 
 of C. may well be supposed to have expressed itself 
 in delay and niggardliness, the text does not carry 
 us beyond the prophetic idea that the offering, 
 owing to the character and inward disposition of 
 C., could not please God (cf. He 114). As to the 
 manner in which God intimated His rejection of 
 the sacrifice, the narrative is also silent, though 
 the analogy of the primitive history suggests 
 various forms of the revelation —especially the 
 audible voice of God, or the refusal of the consum- 
 ing fire. Wrothful and dejected at the slighting 
 of his is C. is rebuked by God (4%7), who 
 teaches him that joy (forgiveness?) is the reward 
 of well-doing, but the penalty of wrong-doing the 
 temptation to further sin.* The guilt of the fratri- 
 cide is aggravated by premeditation in LXX and 
 
 *So substantially the received text and rendering. Man 
 modern scholars translate: ‘Is it not so that, whether thou 
 bring fair gifts, or bring them not, sin lies at the door?’—but 
 do violence to the key-word (nx¥) without any clear gain vo 
 the sense. LXX reads: odx ty épbas wpoosvéyxns, dpbais db py 
 
 dicans, Huapres ; hovyaoov—a variation got by slightly changing a 
 word in the Heb. (‘at the door’), but this reading seems to mi 
 the point by discovering the fault in ceremonial irregularity. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAIN 
 
 CALAH 339 
 
 
 
 other versions, where C. is represented as inviting 
 Abel to go with him into the field (48). As the 
 motive of the murder, Heaney. is sufficient, without 
 following Jewish scholastics in supposing disputes 
 about religion or property. More sandened than 
 Adam, C. would conceal his guilt, but is convicted 
 by the voice of the shed blood which cries from the 
 ground (4%); and, agreeably to his deeper guilt, 
 the curse which is upon the earth, by which it had 
 been made an instrument of punishment, is further 
 heightened (41%), Adam is driven from Eden, Cain 
 from tillage-land. Afraid for his life, which he 
 feels to be forfeited, C. is vouchsafed the pro- 
 tection of the threat of a sevenfold vengeance and 
 of a special sign (41°). By the sign has been 
 understood a miracle wrought in confirmation of 
 the promise of protection, or a reiterated miracle 
 which in time of need might deter or terrify an 
 assailant, e.g. a lightning flash, or intermittent 
 signs of leprosy; but the idea rather appears to 
 be that a permanent physical brand was imprinted, 
 which would identity him to his kind, to whom 
 by report his crime, and the will of God concern- 
 ing him, were sufficiently known. It is further 
 related that C. went forth into the land of Nod or 
 Wanderland (4!5), where, consistently enough with 
 OT social ideals, if not with C.’s doom of vagabond- 
 ism, the first city is built by the first murderer (41), 
 
 The NT allusions to C. (besides He 114; 1 Jn 31, 
 Jude") are very general, referring simply to the 
 spirit of his life as the antithesis to Ohtistina 
 faith and brotherly love. The vindication of C. 
 was undertaken by the Cainites (cf. Epiphanius 
 adv. Hereses, i. 3, 38), who represented him as 
 possessed of a dignity, power, and enlightenment 
 superior to Abel—a phenomenon which is not 
 without its parallels in modern pleas for the 
 emancipation of the modern man from the self-sacri- 
 ficing ethics of Christianity. The many problems 
 raised by the narrative were a fertile theme for 
 the Jewish rabbis. The tradition that C. was 
 slain by an arrow from the bow of Lamech, who 
 mistook him for a wild beast, and thereafter killed 
 his youthful son who had misled him, is a fanciful 
 structure reared by the same hands on the founda- 
 tion of Lamech’s wild song. 
 
 The history of C. and Abel belongs in substance 
 to the Jahwistic section of the Pentateuch (J, Dill- 
 mann’s C), which may be concisely described as a 
 body of tradition edited in the light of prophetic 
 revelation. That the story was not found by the 
 writer in its present setting, but was transferred 
 by him from a later situation to the primeval 
 period, is argued on various grounds—that its dis- 
 tinction of farmer and shepherd, and also of fruit- 
 offerings and animal sacrifices, cannot have been 
 primitive, much less the building of a city, and 
 especially that it assumes the existence on the 
 earth of a widely-distributed Dida On the 
 other hand, it must be said that none of the 
 problems are absolutely insoluble, with the pre- 
 suppositions of the history as it lies before us. 
 Possibly, Assyriology may throw more light on 
 the question discovering fresh points of con- 
 tact between the OT and the cuneiform inscrip- 
 tions. According to Budde, it is constructed on the 
 basis of hints in the genealogies and patriarchal 
 narratives. What remains unaffected by criticism 
 is the prophetic inspiration manifested in the repre- 
 sentation of God’s holiness and long-suffering, in 
 the analysis of the guilty heart, and in the know- 
 ledge of the rapid diffusion of the principle of sin, 
 cd its tendency to steadily increasing heinousness 
 as manifested in outward act. 
 
 LrTsRATURE.—See esp. Dillmann, Genesis; Delitzsch, New 
 Com. on Genesis; Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte; Ryle, Early 
 Narratives of Genesis. For Jewish speculation, Eisenmenger, 
 Entdecktes Judenthum, . P. PATERSON. 
 
 CAINAN (Kawdvy, WH Kawdéu).—1. The son of 
 Enos and father of Mahalaleel (Lk 3%” 8), See 
 KENAN. 2. The son of Arphaxad (Lk 3%, which 
 follows LXX of Gn 10% 11), The name is 
 wanting in the Heb. text of the last two passages. 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 CAKE.—See BREAD. 
 
 CALAH (nb>).—The name of a city mentioned in 
 Gn 10" as having been founded by Nimrod, or by 
 Asshur; for the rendering of the RVm ‘Out of 
 that land went forth Asshur,’ is by many scholars 
 
 referred to that of the RV text, ‘ Out of that land 
 e (i.e. Nimrod) went forth into Assyria.’ C. is 
 here spoken of, together with Nineveh, Rehoboth- 
 Ir, and Resen, as having been built, according to 
 Heb. tradition, in the earliest ages of Assyr. history. 
 
 This city of C. was one of the four cities which 
 together formed the huge city of Nineveh. Its 
 ruins were discovered by Layard beneath the 
 mounds which had gone by the name of Nimrid, 
 lying some 20 miles 8. of Winaveh Kouyaniiic and 
 occupying the S. portion of the V-shaped piece of 
 country at the junction of the Tigris and the 
 Greater Zab. 
 
 The impression produced by the passage in 
 Genesis is that Nineveh and ate adjacent towns 
 were founded at an age long previous to the time 
 of Abraham. But we gather from the cuneiform 
 inscriptions that the real founder of Nineveh was 
 Shalmaneser I. (B.C. 1300), and that he was the 
 builder of C. (Kalhu), the southern suburb of the 
 great Assyr. capital. C., after the death of its 
 founder, seems to have been allowed to fall into 
 neglect until the days of Assur-nazir-pal (c. B.C. 
 880), who practically rebuilt it. He surrounded it 
 with a massive wall, on the N. side of which alone 
 are the traces of 58 towers. He erected in it 
 beautiful pomples and palaces; by a canal he led 
 the water of the Greater Zab into the midst of the 
 city, and adorned its banks with lovely fruit- 
 gardens and vineyards. But the principal buildin 
 of all seems to have been his own palace (called 
 the N.W. pereee), the walls of which were covered 
 with superb bas-reliefs, representing the king en- 
 gaged in his duties as priest and warrior. The 
 remains of these splendid works of art were care- 
 fully excavated under the superintendence of 
 Layard, George Smith, and Rassam; and they 
 present to the visitor of the British Museum the 
 most striking extant memorial of the art and 
 magnificence of the ancient Assyr. empire. To 
 the E. of the N.W. palace, Shalmaneser II., son 
 and successor of Assur-nazir-pal, built another 
 palace, known as the central, in which was 
 found the famous ‘black obelisk,’ containing the 
 memorials of Shalmaneser, and the inscription 
 beginning with the words that have. been de- 
 ciphered as ‘tribute of Jehu son of Omri.’ This 
 was also the palace and residence of the Tiglath- 
 pileser of whom we read in Scripture. But it was 
 pulled down by Esar-haddon (B.C. 681), who used 
 the materials to erect his own, the S.W., palace; 
 and a fourth smaller building, on the St. was 
 begun by Assur-itil-ilani, the last but one of the 
 Assyr. kings. 
 
 All these buildings were raised upon the huge 
 palace-hill, a gigantic terrace made of bricks and 
 faced with stone, 40 feet above the river bed, at the 
 S.W. angle of the city wall. The old river bed 
 must have flowed close by the W. side of this vast 
 structure, access to which, on the city side, was 
 obtained by steps. The size of the terrace may be 
 appreciated from the fact of the mound measuring 
 600 yards (N. and S.) by 400 (E. and W), while the 
 mound at its N. W. corner forms a hill 140 feet high. 
 
 After the fall of Nineveh, we hear nothing more 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
340 
 
 CALAMOLALUS 
 
 
 
 CALF, GOLDEN CALF 
 
 
 
 of C. in history. The work of exploring its 
 wonderful mounds, and of excavating its treasures, 
 will always be associated with the name of the 
 famous discoverer of the site, Sir H. Layard. 
 
 LiTsraTuRE.—Schrader, COT2?; Riehm, HWB; Smith, DB’; 
 Bayce, HCM, and Pair, Pai. ; and the art. Assyria. 
 
 H. E. RYLE. 
 
 CALAMOLALUS (A Kankapwrddos, B Kadapuwxdros), 
 1 Es 5*.—A corrupt place-name, probably due to a 
 conglomeration of the two names Lod and Hadid 
 in Ezr 2° (A Avdddy, Ad3, ‘ASI; cf. Neh 737), 
 
 CALAMUS.—See REED. 
 
 CALCOL (5552).—A Judahite, a descendant of 
 Zerah (1 Ch 2°), otherwise described in 1 K 4°! (where 
 AV has Chalcol) as a son of Mahol, famous for 
 wisdom, but surpassed by Solomon. 
 
 CALDRON.—See Foon. 
 
 CALEB (353, Xadé8) is one of the numerous words 
 in OT which are used both as the name of an 
 individual and the eponym of a family or clan. 
 Acc. to the narrative of Nu 13. 14, C. was (alike 
 in JE and P) one of the men sent by Moses to 
 ‘spy out’ the land; in JE he is the only one of 
 the spies who dissents from the opinion that the 
 Canaanites were too strong to be conquered ; 
 and to him alone is exemption granted from the 
 sentence of exclusion from the Promised Land 
 (Nu 14%). In P, Joshua is also named as one of the 
 spies; both are equally faithful, and both have 
 ae and promises bestowed upon them (Nu 14). 
 
 E’s narrative, which is the older, is followed in 
 Dt 122-86. 3° and Jos 14 &!4 (where the words ‘and 
 concerning thee’ [v.*] seem to be an editorial 
 addition). In the last-named passage, C. at the 
 age of 85 claims from Joshua the fulfilment of 
 the pron:ise of Nu 14%, and, in answer to his 
 applicatiimm, has Hebron and the neighbouring hill- 
 country assigned to him, ‘because that he wholly 
 followed the Lord the God of Israel.’ 
 
 The chief interest of the name C. centres, how- 
 ever, in its use as the eponym of the great family 
 of the Kalibbites (Calebites). The latter name is 
 most ey to be explained as an instance of 
 totemism. e Kalibbites were a dog-tribe (a53= 
 dog). While the K. became eventually one of the 
 most important constituents of the tribe of Judah, 
 C. is truly represented in 18 25° (Nabal of the 
 house of C.) 30 (the Negeb of C.) as distinct 
 from Judah. On the other hand, the Chronicler 
 traces C.’s descent to the patriarch Judah (1 Ch 2* 
 5. 9. 18, 42ff-), and makes Jerahmeel his elder brother. 
 The difference between the original and the 
 ultimate relation of C. to Judah explains these 
 divergent accounts of C.’s descent, which are found 
 in difterent documents belonging to different periods 
 and dominated by different motives. While, as we 
 have seen, the Chronicler makes him a descendant 
 of Judah, he is called by JH, the Kenizzite (Nu 32”, 
 Jos 14% 14), or son of Kenaz, like Othniel his 
 younger brother (Jos 15", Jg 13 3%). This Kenaz 
 appears in Gn 36% @ among the tribes of Edom, 
 and in vy." is expressly designated the grandson of 
 Esau. For probable explanation of Caleb-ephratah 
 1 Ch 274, see GENEALOGY. 
 
 Taking all the data together, the course of 
 events was probably something like this. The 
 Kalibbites, separating from the main stock of the 
 Kenizzites, who had their settlements on Mt. Seir, 
 penetrated into the hill-country of S. Canaan as far 
 as Hebron. Their relations with Judah were more 
 or less friendly at the time of the conquest, an« 
 ultimately they coalesced with that tribe, and came 
 to be reckoned as one of its chief clans. The 
 statements that C. alone spoke hopefully of the 
 
 
 
 prone of conquering Canaan (Nu 13”), and that 
 e afterwards received Hebron as the reward of his 
 faith (Jos 14%), may contain a reminiscence of 
 the circumstance that the Kalibbites penetrated 
 into Canaan directly from the S., and before the 
 advent of the tribe of Judah. The name of C. 
 may still survive in the Wady el-Kulab, 10 miles 
 S. of Hebron. 
 
 LitgRATURE.—Driver, LOT 58, 77, 103, Dt. 25f.; Moore, Jud 
 30f.; W. R. Smith, O7/C2 279n., 402, Kinship and Mar. in 
 Arab. 200, 219; Budde, Richt. u. Sam. 4 ff.; Wellhausen, de Gent, 
 et Fam. Jud., and Comp. d. Hew. 337f.; Kuenen, Rel. Ler 
 i. 135 ff., 176 ff.; Graf, der Stamm Simeon, 16-18; Benzinger, 
 Heb. Arch, 293 ff. J. A. SELBIE, 
 
 CALENDAR.—See TIME. 
 
 CALF, GOLDEN CALF.—i. The use of the word 
 ‘calf? in EV to designate the images of Aaron 
 and Jeroboam is somewhat misleading. The Heb. 
 writers invariably (for Hos 105 see below) employ 
 for this purpose the word )ay ‘égel, which, however, 
 like the corresponding fem. 773» ‘eglah, has a 
 wider ee than our calf. Thus we read of 
 an ‘eglah of three years old (Gn 15°), and of another 
 giving milk (Is 77, cf. Hos 10", Jer 50% RV). A 
 comparison of Jer 318 with Jg 14'*, where the 
 reference is to a young bull and a young cow 
 respectively, of an age to be broken to the plough, 
 shows conclusively, apart from considerations 
 drawn from the study of comparative religion, 
 that ‘ége/ is the appropriate term for a young bull 
 just arrived at maturity. It is a mistake, there- 
 fore, to suppose that the use of the word to denote 
 the images in question is due either to contempt 
 on the part of the sacred writers, or to the diminu- 
 tive size of the images themselves (so most recently 
 Bacon, Triple Trad. of the Exodus, p. 134, who 
 would translate ‘/ittle bull’). The feeling of con- 
 Ket which Hosea undoubtedly entertained to- 
 wards the bull-worship of his countrymen has 
 usually been detected in the unique fem. my 
 yma Hos 10° MT. But the MT is here certainly 
 at fault ; for not only do the LXX and Pesh. ver- 
 sions preserve the sing., but the repeated occur- 
 rence of the sing. masc. suffix in the rest of the 
 verse unmistakably points to the usual bay as the 
 original reading. In the LXX the rendering is 
 uniformly ypédcxos, except in the books of Kings 
 where the fem. dduaXts, a heifer, is adopted. The 
 reason for this procedure may perhaps be found in 
 the desire of the translator or translators of this 
 part of the OT to avoid the use of pdcxos, as sug- 
 vesting to Egyptian readers the sacred bulls of 
 Memphis and Heliopolis. Herodotus and other 
 Greek writers, as is well known, designate the 
 latter as pwdoxo, and in the LXX itself the 
 word is tied. to Apis (‘o"Ams .. . 6 wdcxos cov 
 Jer 265 [MT 4615]), The occurrence of the fem. 
 in To 15 (rj Bdad ry dauddre, Cod. B—but Cod. x 7g 
 ubcxw xTA) is to be explained by the favourite 
 substitution of nga for bya by Jewish doctors (see 
 esp. Dillm. in Sitzwngsber. d. Berl. Akad., June 
 1881, on ‘ Baal with a fem. article’—cf. Ro 11‘ and 
 LXX passim). 
 
 ii. AARON’S GOLDEN BuLL.—One of the most 
 important incidents which Heb. tradition has 
 preserved of the wanderings is that which now 
 occupies the 32nd chap. of Exodus. A very 
 cursory examination is sufficient to show that 
 the narrative in its present form cannot be the 
 product of a single pen. Thus (a) the author of 
 vv.*14 cannot be the author of vv.%-*4; (6) v.™ 
 cannot have been written by the same hand as 
 v.%; (c) if the chapter is a unity, the evident sur- 
 prise of Moses in vv.!8- 19 is inexplicable after the 
 explanation in vv.” 8 Without going further inte 
 
 the details of the analysis—which in this part of 
 Exodus is exceedingly difficult—we may simply 
 
 a 
 
CALF, GOLDEN CALF 
 
 
 
 remark that the main strand of the narrative is 
 almost certainly from the pen of the Ephraimite 
 historian, E. Additions thereto have been drawn 
 from the other prophetic source, J, not without 
 some modifications from the pen of the redactor of 
 the two narratives. The main point to note is 
 that the historicity of the incident is attested by 
 our oldest sources, and confirmed by the author of 
 Deuteronomy who based his own narrative (Dt 97- 
 10*) on these sources, frequently, indeed, using their 
 ipsissima verba (see parallel columns in Driver’s 
 
 eut. pp. 113, 114). This conclusion does not 
 exclude the possibility that the narrative in re- 
 ceiving its final literary form may have absorbed 
 some reflection of the religious sympathies of the 
 writers (see below). 
 
 The following is a réswmé of the leading features 
 of the narrative as now presented : — Becoming 
 impatient under the continued absence of their 
 leader, the people prevail on Aaron to make a god 
 (ond) which should go before them. With the 
 material furnished by the golden earrings of the 
 women and children ‘a molten calf’ is fashioned 
 (the details of the process are obscure), before 
 which an altar is built, and to which, as a symbol 
 of J"—see esp. v.® ‘to-morrow is a feast to J”’— 
 
 ivine honours are paid. The rest of the chapter 
 tells of J’s anger, of Moses’ energetic intervention, 
 of Aaron’s truly Oriental apology, and, finally, of 
 the destruction of the calf (here again the process 
 is difficult to explain), and of 3000 of its wor- 
 shippers. The uncertainty which prevails with 
 regard to the reading and rendering of v.‘ (see the 
 Comm. in loc.) renders it impossible to speak 
 positively as to the construction of the image. 
 A comparison of v.‘ with v.”, and of both with 
 other passages where similar images and their 
 manufacture are described, such as Dt 7, Is 3072 
 40 441° etc., seems to point to a wooden core 
 overlaid with gold (cf. what is said below of the bulls 
 of Jeroboam). If this supposition is correct, the 
 image was no doubt life-size or over, as is sug- 
 gested both by the amount of gold provided and by 
 the fact that Aaron built an altar before it (v.°). 
 Much ingenuity has been expended in the endeavour 
 to explain the methods of destruction enumerated 
 in v.”. The most probable explanation seems to 
 be that after the core had been charred and 
 burned, the casing of gold (Dt 7%, Is 30%) was 
 reduced to minute fragments (‘dust’ Dt 97) by a 
 process of crushing similar to that employed at the 
 present day by the poorer classes in the East in 
 the peeraeation of cement from broken pottery * 
 (ef. Dn 2% 85), Asa supreme mark of contempt, 
 the ‘dust’ thus obtained was cast ‘ upon the brook 
 that descended out of the mount’ (acc. to an 
 interesting detail supplied by Dt 9%), and the 
 children of Israel Since to drink of it (cf. the 
 ee procedure, Nu 5% *), 
 
 Deferring to a later stage the question as to the 
 origin, Egyptian or other, of this so-called ‘ calf- 
 worship,’ we must, before passing from the incident 
 of Ex 32, refer to the problem, raised by recent 
 criticism, of the Ereinal, connexion and historical 
 purport of the narrative. The key to the simplest 
 solution of the problem is that furnished by the 
 account in Dt 108° of the separation of the tribe 
 of Levi for the exclusive exercise of the priestly 
 office. The introductory phrase ‘at that time,’ 
 v.°, refers, we can hardly doubt, to the incidents 
 recorded in ch. 9. Now, if we keep in mind the 
 fact that the great prophetic history-book, as it 
 lay before the author of Dt, contained much 
 which the final redactor excised to make way for 
 the divergent and ampler details of P, the sugges- 
 
 * The pottery is reduced to fine dust by rolling a large stone 
 backwards and forwards over the fragments, as may be seen any 
 summer in the Birket es-Sultan at Jerusalem. 
 
 341 
 
 CALF, GOLDEN CALF 
 
 
 
 tion seems most reasonable, that Ha 32 in its 
 original connexion formed the introduction to JE’s 
 account of the consecration of the tribe of Levi to 
 the priesthood. The priestly prerogative, in short, 
 was represented in JE as the reward bestowed 
 by J” on the sons of Levi for their fidelity to his 
 cause at an all-important crisis in the history of the 
 wanderings. The use of the standing expression 
 for the pay consecration ("5 7) x?D) in Ex 32” 
 leaves no doubt as to the nature of the ‘ blessing’ 
 (v.”) that was about to be bestowed upon the tribe 
 (cf. also Dt 33° * where we have probably another 
 reference to the incidents of Ex 32). 
 
 While regarding the explanation just given of 
 the main purport of the narrative in its original 
 connexion as the most probable, we would not seek 
 to deny that other motives may also have influ- 
 enced the early narrators. No fh traimtes writer 
 of the 8th cent. B.c., imbued with the spirit of the 
 
 rophetic teaching, could have committed to writ- 
 ing the incident of the golden calf without penning, 
 at the same time, an implicit condemnation of the 
 recognised worship of Northern Israel. That the 
 narratives of Ex 32 and 1 K 12% are not inde- 
 
 endent of each other is plain from the almost 
 identical words with which the images are intro- 
 duced (Ex 328, 1 K 12%, cf. Neh 9}8), Indeed it is 
 more than probable that the author of Ex 32° de- 
 liberately chose the unusual plural construction 
 (mova... mox) in order to make his covered 
 polemic more pointed.* 
 
 iii. THE BULLS OF JEROBOAM I.—The cardinal 
 passage, 1 K 1276-8 (cf. 2 Ch 113+ 15), is by every 
 token to be assigned to the Deuteronomic compiler 
 of the book of Kings, who flourished ¢. B.c. 600 
 (see Driver, LOT! 183; Kittel, op. cit., Eng. tr. ii. 
 211-212). Whether the compiler is here building 
 on an older written foundation or not, the passage 
 undoubtedly bears the stamp of genaine history. 
 The situation is perfectly natural and intelligible. 
 Jeroboam found that, despite the success of his 
 revolution politically, the temple of Solomon, with 
 its numerous priesthood and no doubt imposing 
 ritual, still exercised an irresistible attraction for 
 the worshippers from the Northern Kingdom. 
 Justifiably enaite a reaction in favour of the 
 Davidic dynasty if such religious pilgrimages were 
 to continue, Jeroboam felt himself compelled to take 
 measures to provide a counter-attraction—a sanc- 
 tuary or sanctuaries that might retain the more 
 devout of his subjects within his kingdom. While 
 thus maintaining (against Stade, Geschichte, i. 352) 
 the essential accuracy of the compiler’s estimate 
 of Jeroboam’s principal motive, we would by no 
 means exclude, as an important factor in the case, 
 the desire—on which Stade lays exclusive stress— 
 to pose as the protector of the ancient sanctuaries 
 and the patron of their priests, to whom Jeroboam 
 may have looked for political support. Indeed it 
 is not improbable that many of the Northern 
 priesthood had already begun to realise that the 
 temple of Solomon must inevitably make for the 
 centralisation of the cultus, and, fixe the priest- 
 hood of Babylonia in the case of Cyrus, they may 
 have been among the first to welcome the new 
 sovereign. 
 
 We can also understand the motives that led to 
 tne selection of Bethel and Dan as the chief seats 
 of the rival worship. The former recommended 
 itself as having been, from time immemorial (Gn 
 
 * This suggestion holds good whether we translate ode 
 in the above passages by ‘God’ or by ‘gods.’ On the construc- 
 tion of ** with a plur. vb., see Driver, Deut. p. 65; Strack’s 
 excursus in his Genesis, pp. 67-68 ; Baudissin, Stud. z. semit. 
 Religionsgeschichte, note pp. 55-57. If we must render ‘gods,’ 
 
 then clearly the use of the phrase in 1 K is the older, for (as 
 Kittel has pointed out, Hist. of the Heb., Eng. tr. ii, 212) it ia 
 only in the case of Jeroboam, and not in the case of Aaron, that 
 the plural ‘ gods’ has any meaning. 
 
 
 
 
 
$42 CALF, GOLDEN CALF 
 
 CALF, GOLDEN CALF 
 
 
 
 2819 35°, Hos 124.5), one of the chief sanctuaries of 
 the land, and it was besides conveniently situated 
 for intercepting the pilgrims on their way to 
 Jerusalem. During the whole period of the exist- 
 ence of the Northern Kingdom, the sanctuary of 
 Bethel continued to be its religious centre (see esp. 
 Am 7), and evensurvivedits downfall for a century, 
 until finally destroyed during the reformation of 
 Josiah (2 4 2315-9), The city of Dan had also 
 from the generation succeeding the conquest been 
 a noted sanctuary, and its situation commended 
 it as the religious centre of the tribes to the east 
 and west of the sea of Galilee. The new sanctu- 
 ary, however, did not survive ‘the captivity 
 of the land’ Wg 18), at the hand of Tiglath- 
 pileser, B.C. 734 (2 K 15”), although Josephus speaks 
 of ‘the temple of the golden cow’ (ris xpvofs 
 Bobs), as if its ruins, at least, were still standing 
 in his day (Wars, Iv. i. 1). 
 
 With regard to the size and construction of 
 Jeroboam’s bulls we have no precise information. 
 As in the case of the image fashioned by Aaron, 
 we may best think of them as consisting of a 
 wooden core overlaid with gold. This view would 
 be considerably strengthened could we be sure that 
 the obscure word 0'23¥ (Hos 8°) has the meaning 
 here which it bears in the Talmud, viz., splinters or 
 shavings of wood (see Wellhausen, Die kleinen 
 Propheten, in loc.).* They were probably of con- 
 siderable size, and represented a young but full- 
 grown bull. There is no authority for supposing 
 that they were winged, like the bulls of Assyria, 
 or were copies of any ‘cherubic emblem,’ whether 
 in Solomon’s temple (so Farrar, Expositor, viii. 
 {1893]: ‘Was there a Golden Calf in Dan ?’) or 
 elsewhere. We are further expressly informed 
 that Jeroboam ‘set the one in Bethel, and the 
 other put he in Dan’ (1 K 12”). The view recently 
 put forward by Klostermann in his Komm. in loc. 
 1887), and repeated in his Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. 
 (1896), and supported by Farrar (ut sup.), that 
 both images were set up at Bethel, requires un- 
 warrantable liberties with the text, and is contrary 
 to all the available evidence (cf. Am 8, To 15 rq 
 pboxy ... év Ady (x)). On the other hand, it is 
 thought by many recent scholars that the bull 
 symbolism was not confined to the two great 
 sanctuaries already mentioned. Stade, indeed, 
 oes so far as to say that there is evidence in 
 
 osea for the presence of bull-images at all the 
 more important sanctuaries (7ZAT W, 1883, p. 10). 
 The strongest claim is perhaps for the capital, 
 Samaria (Am 8" ‘they that swear by the sin of S.’), 
 although it is doubtful whether the city or the 
 country is here intended. If the latter, the refer- 
 ence would be to the image at the chief sanctuary 
 at Bethel. The same form of worship was also, in 
 the opinion of many, practised at Beersheba and 
 Gilead + (Am 44 55 814, Hos 415 915 121 [Heb.!"]).+ 
 
 The ritual of these northern sanctuaries does not 
 seem to have differed much from that of the great 
 sanctuary of the South (see an exhaustive presenta- 
 tion of the evidence of Amos and Hosea on this 
 polns af Oettli in Greifswalder Studien, ‘Der 
 
 ultus bei Amos u. Hosea,’ 1895). The priests, 
 however—derisively named 093 (‘ black-coats’ ?) 
 by Hosea (10°)—were recruited from all.the tribes, 
 not, as in the South, from the tribe of Levi 
 exclusively, which thing was an offence to the 
 historian, writing from the standpoint of the 
 Deuteronomic law (1 K 12%, 2 K 23°, and cf. 2 Ch 
 11 13%), Mention is made of various kinds of 
 
 * The Targ. Jonathan renders O°'230 by pmd "03 ‘shavings 
 of (wooden) boards,’ Of. Shabbath (ed. Strack) 41 o'wan no) 
 carpenters’ shavings. 
 
 ¢ For reff. to the opinion of certain Fathers that there was a 
 calf at Gilgal, see G@. A. Smith, The Twelve Prophets, i. 37. 
 
 $ Jerome, however, is too explicit with his bobus tmmolantes, 
 in the last passage cited. . 
 
 sacrifice, although not of human sacrifice (as some 
 would interpret Hos 13? ox ‘n3i, see the Com- 
 mentaries). This passage further refers to the 
 practice of kissing the bulls as an act of worship, 
 either by throwing kisses to them (as in Job 31”) 
 or by actually kissing the images, as the Moslems 
 do the ‘black stone’ at Mecea (cf. 1 K 1918). 
 
 iv. THE ORIGIN OF THE BULL SYMBOLS.—We 
 have deferred to this stage the inquiry as to the 
 origin of this form of religious symbolism. It is 
 needless to occupy space with proof of the absurdit 
 of the opinion so long current in the Church, bot: 
 Jewish and Christian, that we have here a species 
 of avowed idolatry. Whatever abuses may have 
 crept in at a later period, however gross may have 
 become the conceptions of the people regarding the 
 golden bulls, it is now universally acknowledged 
 that they were originally a sincere attempt to 
 symbolise the true covenant God of Israel. Whence, 
 then, did the Hebrews derive this symbol? How 
 came they to represent the Deity under the form 
 of a young bull? The answer, almost uniformly 
 given from the days of Philo and the early fathers 
 to our own, has been: The Hebrews borrowed this 
 symbolism from the Egyptians. Now, it is indeed 
 a striking coincidence that both Aaron and Jero- 
 boam had intimate relations with Egypt just 
 before they fashioned their respective images. But 
 it is a mistake to speak of Jeroboam as a protégé 
 of Shishak or Sheshonk of Egypt, for this monarch 
 claims to have captured cities from Central as well 
 as from Southern Palestine in the course of the 
 raid referred to in 1 K 145%, Some of the difficul- 
 ties in the way of accepting the Egyp. origin of the 
 so-called calf or bull worship are these: (a) The 
 Egyptians worshipped only the diving bulls aoe 
 and Mnevis, as incarnations of Osiris and of the 
 Sun-god respectively ; (6) it would have been the 
 height of absurdity to speak, as Aaron did, of the 
 golden calf as representing the God that brought 
 the Hebrews up out of Egypt, had the image been 
 a reflection of an Egyp. deity ; (c) the historical 
 situation of 1 id 12% requires that the new 
 symbolism by which Jeroboam hoped to consolidate 
 his kingdom should not be an importation from 
 without, but something genuinely national. For 
 these and other reasons the majority of the more 
 recent writers on this subject prefer to seek the 
 origin of the bull-symbolism in the native religious 
 tendencies of the Hebrews themselves—tendencies 
 which they shared with the other Semitic peoples 
 about them. Among an agricultural people there 
 could be no more natural symbol of strength and 
 vital energy than the young bull. The leaning to 
 this particular symbolism was, so to say, in the 
 blood, from the far-off days when the ancestors of 
 the Hebrews were still beyond the flood (Jos 24). 
 This view of the native origin of the so-called bull- 
 worship has been adopted not only by such men as 
 Vatke (Bibl. Theol. p. 398), Kuenen (Relig. of 
 Israel, i. passim), and Dahan (Theol. d. Propheten, p. 
 47), but by more conservative scholars, such as 
 Dillmann (£xodus, 1880, p. 337; Handb. d. AT 
 Theol. 1895, pp. 98-9), and Rauatacan in Germany, 
 and hesitatingly, in our own country, by Robertson 
 (Early Relig. pp. 215-220, where a full discussion 
 of the problem will be found). 
 
 vy. ATTITUDE OF THE PROPHETS AMOS AND 
 HOSEA TO THE BULL-SYMBOLS.—We cannot bring 
 this article to a close without a brief reference to 
 this topic. However excellent Jeroboam’s in- 
 tentions may have been in the institution of the 
 new form of the national cultus, and however 
 little the contemporary representatives of Jahwism 
 may have found amiss therein, we cannot escape 
 the conclusion that he, unwittingly it may be, 
 sanctioned a declension from the pure teaching of 
 the great prophet and founder of Israel’s religion, 
 
 
 
CALITAS 
 
 CALL 343 
 
 
 
 with its imageless worship of J”. The silence of 
 the earlier prophets is a fact, explain it as we may. 
 It has even been questioned if Amos condemns the 
 bulls of the northern sanctuaries (but see above for 
 Am 4* 55), Hosea, on the other hand, is unable to 
 express the intensity of his scorn for them. He 
 saw what his predecessors in the prophetic office 
 had not seen, how dangerous an approach to the 
 worship of the heathen deities of Canaan the 
 institutions of Jeroboam had provided. This wor- 
 ship of J” by images had helped on a gradual assimi- 
 lation of the religion of J” to that of Baal, which 
 now threatened to prove fatal to the former. Bull- 
 symbolism was rapidly pie mere bull-worship. 
 So that while, in justice to Jeroboam, we may 
 fairly modify the sweeping condemnation passed 
 upon him by the later biblical writers, imbued 
 with the loftier spiritual teaching of Deut., we 
 must also charge him with having hindered, not 
 helped forward, the divine purpose in the election 
 of Israel. ‘In reality, man cannot with impunity 
 bring down the invisible God to the sphere of the 
 visible ; he thereby empties the idea of God of its 
 ethical content ; it loses for him its sanctifying, 
 elevating, disciplining, and purifying power ; Gad 
 for him, sinks to the ical as heathen idol, which 
 makes no higher demands on men. This is amply 
 proved by the history of the Northern kingdom ; 
 its image-worship became for it a bridge by which 
 to pass over into genuine heathenism; the 
 heathenish, secular atmosphere (Sinn) and heathen 
 immorality overpowered it, and brought about the 
 ae dissolution of the State’ (Dillmann, 
 andbuch, p. 167). 
 
 LiTeRATURE.—Besides the Comm. on Exodus and Kings, and 
 the works on OT Theology by Kuenen (Religion of Israel esp. 
 vol. i, 73-75, 235-86, 260-62, 345-347), Schultz, Smend, an 
 Dillmann (Handbuch d. AT Theologie, 1895, pp. 98-9, 166-7), the 
 foll. special works may be consulted: Of the older writers 
 Moncajus, Aaron Purgatus (in Critict Secri, ix., a brief sum- 
 mary is given by Matt. Poole in his Synopsis under Ex 382); 
 Boshart, Hierozoicon, lib. ii. c. 84; De Aureis... Vitulis, pp. 
 829-360 ; Selden, De Dis Syris, pp. 45-64. Of modern works, E. 
 Konig, Hauptprobleme, etc., pp. 53-58, and Die Bildlosigkeit d. 
 ee Jahwehcultus, 1886 ; also on the same lines, Robertson, 
 
 ‘arly Religion of Israel, ch. ix. ; Baudissin, Studien, etc. vol. i., 
 and his art. ‘Kalb (goldenes)’ in PRE, vii. 395-400 (esp. 
 ne as to prevalence of bull-worship among the Sem. 
 tribes); 8. Oettli, ‘Der Kultus bei Amos u. Hosea’ in Greifs- 
 walder Studien, 1895, pp. 1-84; also art. ‘Calf’ in Smith, DB2 
 (by Farrar). A. R. 8. KENNEDY. 
 
 CALITAS (A Kanlras, B Kaxelrais).—One of the 
 Levites who undertook to repudiate his ‘strange 
 wife,’ 1 Es 9%. He bore a second name, Colius 
 (A Kados, B Kévos). The reading of B is Kévos, 
 odros Kaveirals, xe Ila@atos, which should perhaps be 
 read, as Dr. Swete conjectures, odros kadetrat 
 Zxewa0aios; but this is an emendation of the Gr. on 
 the part of B, and does not represent the original 
 Heb. of Ezra, as a comparison with Ezr 10% 
 *Kelaiah (the same is Kelita), Pethahiah’ shows. 
 A Levite of the same name, and probably the same 
 person, is mentioned as one of those who expounded 
 the Law, 1 Es 9% (Kadelras=Kelita, Neh 8’, where 
 LXX omits). H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 CALKER.—To calk (or cawlk as the spelling has 
 been for the last century), from calcare ‘to tread,’ 
 is to stop up a seam, esp. of a ship, by treading or 
 pressing in oakum or the like. Cf. Dampier, Voy. 
 (1697), ‘In the South Seas the Spaniards do make 
 Oakam to chalk their Ships, with the husk of the 
 Coco-nut.’ ‘Calker’ occurs in this sense, Ezk 
 27° 7 (Heb. p33 ‘2102, AVm ‘stoppers of chinks’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CALL.—Teo call is originally to ‘shout,’ and esp. 
 to shout so as to summon. 1. Hence one of its 
 earliest applications is to invite, now archaic or 
 obsolete, but found in AV, as 2 8 15" ‘with 
 Absalom went two hundred men out of Jerus. that 
 
 were called’ (RV ‘invited’); Jn 2? ‘And both 
 Jesus was called (RV ‘bidden’), and his disciples, 
 to the marriage’; Rev 19° ‘ Blessed are they which 
 are called unto (RV ‘bidden to’) the marriage 
 supper of the Lamb.’ 2. Closely connected with 
 this is the call to some duty, as 1 S 28% ‘TI have 
 called thee, that thou mayest make known unto 
 me what I shall do’; esp. by God, as He 11# 
 ‘Abraham, when he was called to go out into a 
 lace’; Ac 13? ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul 
 or the work whereunto I have called them.’ 
 Then the word is used particularly and technically 
 of the Divine call to partake of the blessings of 
 redemption; 1 Co 1° ‘God is faithful, by whom 
 ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus 
 Christ our Lord’; whereupon they who are thus 
 called (having obeyed*) are described as ‘the 
 called,’ 1 Co 1% ‘ But unto them which are called’ 
 (Gr. avrots dé rots kAnrois, RVm ‘unto the called 
 themselves,’ Lightfoot ‘to the believers them- 
 selves’), See CALLING. 3. When one is called it 
 is often by name, from which comes the idiom to 
 call a person or thing so and so, to give a name: 
 Gn 1° ‘God called the light Day, and the darkness 
 he called Night’; 2S 6? ‘the ark of God which is 
 called by the Name, even the name of the Lord of 
 hosts that sitteth upon the cherubims’ (RV; see 
 NAME). And according to a usage which is now 
 archaic if not obsolete, the calling is transferred 
 from the person or thing to the name, as Mt 1” 
 ‘thou shalt call his name Jesus’; Gn 32% ‘Th 
 name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel.’ 
 See also He 5! ‘Called (RV ‘named’) of God an 
 high priest after the order of Melchisedec’ (Gr. 
 mpocayopevev [all] ‘expresses the formal and solemn 
 ascription of the title to Him to whom it belongs, 
 ‘addressed as,” ‘‘ styled” ’—Westcott in loc. It is 
 a public designation—dyopevew, from dyopd the 
 market-place); 71! ‘and not be called after the 
 order of Aaron’ (AéyecOa, ‘be spoken of as,’ RV 
 ‘be reckoned’); and ef. Ac 1175, Ro 78, where 
 xpnuarigerr is tr. ‘call’ (see Sanday-Headlam on 
 0 7°). 
 
 4, Some phrases demand attention. Call again, 
 i.e. call back (see AGAIN), as Bar 3* ‘He that 
 sendeth forth light and it goeth, calleth it again.’ 
 Call back=invite to return, 1 Es 1° (Gr. peraxaréw, 
 used in middle voice in NT =‘ send for,’ Ac 74 20!7 
 2475. 26); and fig. =take back a promise, Is 31? ‘ will 
 not c. back his words’(¥p7). Call for: (1) Send for, 
 cause to come, Est 5!° ‘he sent and called for his 
 friends’ (xa, RV ‘ fetched’); Ac 24% ‘when I have 
 a convenient season, I will c. for thee’ (ueraxaréw, 
 RV ‘c. thee unto me’); 28” ‘ For this cause there- 
 fore have I called for you, to see you’ (rapaxadéw, 
 only here in this meaning, elsewhere ‘beseech,’ 
 Mt 8581-34 and often; ‘entreat,’ Lk 15%, 1 Co 4%, 
 1 Ti 5', so here RV; ‘exhort,’ He 3 ‘exhort one 
 another daily,’ and often; ‘comfort,’ 2 Co 14, etc.) ; 
 Ac 137 ‘Sergius Paulus... called for Barnabas 
 and Saul’ (zpocxadéw, RV ‘called unto him’; but 
 Ja 54 ‘let him ec. for the elders of the church,’ 
 RV retains, though Gr. the same); Ac 10° 114 
 (ueraréurw, RV ‘fetch’). (2) Ask, request, 1 K 853 
 ‘to hearken unto them in all that they call 
 for unto thee’ (x77, RV cry’); Ac 16” ‘he called 
 for a light’ (airéw) ; Mt 277 ‘This man calleth for 
 Elias’ (RV ‘calleth Elijah’), and Jn 11% ‘The 
 Master is come, and calleth for thee’ (RV ‘calleth 
 thee,’ both gwvéw). Call forth: Is 314(x7R); Ac 24? 
 ‘when he was called forth, Tertullus began to 
 
 *In the Gospels there is a distinction between the ‘Called,’ 
 xAnroi, i.e. those who have received the invitation to enter the 
 Messiah’s kingdom, and the ‘Chosen’ (:xAsxro/), t.e. those who 
 have obeyed it: Mt 2214 ‘Many are called, but few chosen.’ 
 But in the Epistles this distinction vanishes, the writer having 
 in mind the divine greatness and force of the call, not the 
 human acceptance or rejection of it. See Lightfoot on Col 812, 
 Sanday-Headlam on Ro 11. 
 
344 CALLING 
 
 
 
 accuse him’—the tr. of Tindale, RV ‘called,’ as 
 in mod. law-court phraseology, ‘Call the next 
 witness’ (Gr. xadéw). Call on or call upon, used 
 frequently, but always of God or the Name of God 
 (822 or éwixadéw), as Ps 50% ‘ce. upon me in the day 
 of trouble.’ In Ac 15” ‘all the Gentiles, upon 
 whom my name is called, saith the Lord’ (from 
 Am 9! ‘the heathen which are called by my name’) 
 we see the reverse side. See this phrase in Dt 28” 
 (aby xqQ] mA oy, ‘J”s name is called over thee’) 
 and Driver’s note there, 
 
 “Tne sense of the phrase,’ says Driver, ‘appears clearly from 
 2S 12%8, where Joab, while besieging Rabbah, sends to urge 
 David to come in person and take it, “‘lest J (emph.) take the 
 city, and my name be called over it,” i.e. lest I gain the credit 
 of having captured it, and it be counted as my conquest. The 
 phrase expresses thus the fact of ownership—whether acquired 
 
 y actual conquest or otherwise (cf. Ps 4912(1))—coupled at the 
 same time with the idea of protection; and occurs frequently, 
 esp. with reference to the people of Israel, Jerus., or the Temple. 
 The passages are: Am 912, Jer 710. 11, 14.30 149 1516 (of Jer. him- 
 self), 2529 3234 3415, 1 K 88 Masha by Ch 633, Is 6319, 2 Ch 714, 
 Dn 918.19, (In NT Ac 1517, Ja 27, both quotations by James 
 from Am 912,] It isto be regretted,’ adds Driver, ‘that in EV 
 the phrase is generally paraphrased obscurely, ‘“‘called by my 
 name” (which really corresponds to a different expression, 
 ‘DUI Np), Is 437; cf. 481, Nu 3242); but the literal rendering, 
 which in this case happens to be both clearer and more forcible 
 than the paraphrase, is sometimes given in RVm (¢.g. in 1 K 84).’ 
 Call in question: Ac 19 (éyxakéw, RV ‘ accuse’), 
 23% 2421 (xplyw). In these places, as elsewhere in 
 older English, the phrase means to put one on 
 his trial before a court of justice. Cf.— 
 
 ‘He that was in question for the robbery. 
 Shaks. Henry IV. (Pt. 2) 1. fi. €3. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CALLING (kAjors, vocatio), God’s invitation to 
 man to accept the benefits of His salvation. It is 
 God’s first act in the application of redemption, in 
 accordance with His eternal purpose (Ro 8%). 
 A distinction is made between God’s calling and 
 men’s acceptance of it (Mt 2016), the unrestricted 
 offer and the appropriation which results from a 
 hearty appreciation of what it implies. On God’s 
 
 art it is sure, and without repentance (Ro 11”), 
 
 od in Christ calls to Himself all who are in need 
 of Him, and those who feel their need, come. 
 God’s calling of man is in Christ and unto fellow- 
 ship with Himself in Christ (Ph 3%), and is con- 
 veyed to all peoples by the preaching of the gospel 
 and the administration of ordinances (Mt 281% 2°), 
 In respect of its ethical significance and the 
 spiritual condition which it aims at working in all 
 who respond, it is described as a toy calling’ 
 (Ro 1’, 1 Co 1?, 2 Ti 1°), and a ‘heavenly calling’ 
 (He 3!). See ELECTION. J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 CALLISTHENES (KadvXtcOévns, 2 Mac 8%3),—A 
 Syrian, who was captured by the Jews in a small 
 house, where he had taken refuge, in the course of 
 certain successes which followed the great victory 
 over Nicanor and Gorgias, in B.c. 165 (comp. 
 1 Mac 4'*4), At a festival in celebration of the 
 victory, the Jews burnt Callisthenes to death, 
 because he had set fire to the portals of the temple 
 (comp. 1 Mac 4°). H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CALNEH, CALNO (ribs, t:b2, Kaddvvn, Xaddvn, 
 Chalanne).—Calneh is mentioned as one of the 
 four towns of the kingdom of Babylon (Gn 10! 
 ‘And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, 
 and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of 
 Shinar’), but cannot be identified with certainty. 
 Some have thought it to be the Nipuru of the Bab. 
 and Assyr. inscriptions, the same as Niffer, a town 
 situated between the Euphrates and the Tigris ; 
 but this is an impossible identification. Most of 
 the historians, like the Targum of Jerusalem, 
 Eusebius, Jerome, and Ephraim the Syrian, identify 
 it with Ctesiphon in Seleucia beyond the Tigris 
 towards Elam; but this is also worthless. No 
 
 ce 
 
 CAMEL 
 
 
 
 written record, in fact, has yet been found of the 
 Calneh of Gn 10”, the suggested identification of 
 Calneh with Kul-unu (Kullaba or Zirlaba) being 
 rendered still more doubtful by the fact that Kul- 
 unu is closely connected with Erech, and was 
 perhaps a part of that ey The Calno of Is 10 
 (‘is not Calno as Carchemish?’ etc.), where, 
 according to the LXX, the tower was built, and 
 the Calneh of Am 6? (‘Pass ye to Calneh and 
 see, and from thence go ye to Hamath the great, 
 then go down to Gath of the Philistines’), which 
 seem to be mentioned as Syrian cities, are probably 
 to be identified with the Kulnia * mentioned along 
 with Arpad and Hadrach, both cities of Syria, in 
 the Assyr. tribute lists (WAT ii. 53, No. 3), and 
 cannot be the same as the Kullani mentioned with 
 the cities and districts lying to the north of Assyria 
 in the geographical list (WAT ii. 53, No. 1, 1. 6°), 
 and therefore cannot be the same as the Kullani 
 captured by Tiglath-pileser m1. Notwithstanding 
 that Kullani can hardly be identified with the Calno 
 or Calneh of Isaiah and Amos, it is not improb- 
 able that Fried. Delitzsch’s identification of these 
 biblical names with Kullanhu, situated about 6 
 miles from Arpad, may be correct. It seems 
 certainly to be the best that has yet been 
 suggested. L. A. PINCHES. 
 
 CALYARY.—See GoLGOTHA. 
 CALYES OF THE LIPS (Hos 14?).—See Lip. 
 
 CAMEL.—While the Arabic has scores of words 
 for the camel and its varieties and states, the Heb. 
 words are but two— 
 
 (1) 9a gamdal, xdundos, camelus ; the generic name 
 for the camel, preserved exactly in the Arab. jamal, 
 and in all W. languages. It is one of the earliest 
 mentioned beasts in the Bible. Abraham had large 
 numbers of camels (Gn 24” ete.); also Jacob (Gn 
 304 31% 327-15); they were carriers between Arabia 
 and Egypt (Gn 37”) ; the Ethiopians (Cushites) had 
 camels in abundance (2 Ch 1415); also the queen of 
 Sheba (1 K 102); Job had 3000 (Job 1°), then 6000 
 (4212); the Midianites and Amalekites had them 
 ‘as the sand by the seaside for multitude’ (Jg 
 72), No one who has not travelled in the deserts 
 where camels are reared can realise the force of the 
 latter passage. In a waterless waste of sand and 
 flint chips, with nothing but the salty shrubs of 
 the desert for pasture, immense droves of camels 
 find a subsistence, and, when not worked, become 
 fat on their diet of thorns and salsolas, with an 
 occasional mouthful of tamarisk. They have been 
 steadily employed, not only to traverse the deserts, 
 but in the internal traffic of Pal. and Syria and 
 Asia Minor. David captureda large number of them 
 from the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites (1S 
 27°). Benhadad used them in Damascus (2 K 8%). 
 
 The camel was used for riding (Gn 24% 3154; 
 camel’s furniture means the sort of palanquin in 
 which Rachel rode, called in Arab. haudaj, ana 
 still used for women and children). The Amale- 
 kites and the Midianites used them, as the Arabs 
 now do, in war (Jg 74, 1 8 307). They were 
 even used to draw chariots (Is 21’). The trappings 
 of riding camels were sometimes ornamented with 
 gold (Jg 871), 
 
 The Hebrews were expressly forbidden to eat 
 camel’s flesh (Lv 114, Dt 147). It is, however, 
 eaten by the Arabs of the desert, and in the towns 
 bordering on it. It is coarse, but not unpalatable 
 nor unwholesome. The Arabs also use camel’s 
 milk, fresh and in the form of clabber. Its use 
 is not mentioned in the Bible. ‘Thirty milch 
 camels, with their colts’ (Gn 32"), were given by 
 
 ees thus, according to Mr. Pinches’ correction of the 
 et. 
 
ae ae ©. 
 
 CAMEL 
 
 
 
 Jacob to Esau, who was a Bedawi. Both probably 
 drank camel’s milk, although this is not necessaril 
 implied in the passage. Even if Jacob’s descend- 
 ants Byeied the prohibition to use camel’s flesh to 
 the milk also, Jacob was not under this law. 
 
 The skins of camels are used for sandals, and 
 were probably always so used. Camel’s hair was 
 he and woven into cloth (Mt 34, Mk 14). Elijah, 
 the forerunner of John, may well have had a 
 similar mantle (1 K 1913-19), The ‘rough garment,’ 
 AVm ‘garment of hair,’ RV ‘hairy mantle’ (Zec 
 13), may have been of camel’s hair or of goat’s 
 
 air. 
 
 The camel is always loaded, and usually mounted, 
 in the kneeling posture (Gn 241), he pack- 
 saddle is usually of the cross-tree form. The oad, 
 on level ground, may be as heavy as 600 lbs. or 
 more. In hilly districts, and over stony roads, the 
 load is lessened. In going up from ‘Ain-Jidi to 
 Jerus. there is a steep part of the road where 
 the cameleers take off their loads and carry them 
 up the rocks on their backs, and lead the camels 
 up and reload them at the top. There are cal- 
 losities under the camel’s breast, his fore and hind 
 knees, and on the sole of his foot. The ‘stable 
 for camels’ (Ezk 25°) is a kneeling place. The 
 signal to kneel is a tap with a stick on the camel’s 
 neck ; and to rise, a jerk of his halter, with a mono- 
 aie khikh. The foot is padded with a thick 
 elastic mass of fibrous tissue, which makes the step 
 noiseless, and protects from the angular flint chips 
 and thorns, over which so much of his way lies. 
 The breadth of the camel’s foot prevents him from 
 sinking into the sand. On the other hand, the 
 broad and comparatively smooth surface of the 
 sole makes it very slippery on rocks, or in clayey 
 and muddy places, Cases often have disastrous 
 falls on such roads. 
 
 The camel has a provision for storing water in a 
 cee ary cavity in his stomach. This water 
 can be absorbed, or passed into the alimentary 
 canal as needed. Besides this, he has a supply of 
 nourishment in his hump, which is a storehouse of 
 fat, reserved for the long fasts or insufficient pro- 
 vender which are so often his lot. The Arabian 
 camel has one hump, and the Bactrian two. 
 Bactrian camels sometimes appear in N. Syria. 
 Nothing in the way of pasture, however dry or 
 succulent, comes amiss to the camel. He is also 
 fed on cut straw, and kirsenneh, a sort of lentils, 
 horse ns, and sometimes barley. If water is 
 convenient, and he has no access to succulent 
 forage, he will drink every day, or once in two 
 days. The Arabs have a pee whoop, ‘ oowha,’ 
 py aaich they call camels to water. The latter 
 often go a week or more without water. To keep 
 the camel’s body from vermin, the Arabs anoint it 
 with tar, the smell of which, with the emanations 
 from the skin, is certainly most unsavoury. They 
 are ill-natured, quarrelsome animals, and in the 
 rutting season often dangerous. The tite of a 
 camel is often quite poisonous, producing death 
 from septicemia. An enraged camel has been 
 known to bite off the top of a man’s skull. 
 
 (2) "132 bikré, pl. const. of 122 béker (Is 60%), is 
 rendered in both AV and dromedaries. 
 ™22 bikrah (Jer 23) is also rendered dromedary, 
 with the pronoun her following, to indicate that a 
 female is intended. The etymological signification 
 of both, however, is young camel, (so RVm) the 
 first male, and the second female, They correspond 
 both in form and meaning with the Arab. bekr and 
 bekrah. In both, the allusion is to the vigour and 
 swiftness of youth. In the passage in Isaiah there 
 is a climax, ‘the multitudes of camels shall cover 
 thee, the young camels (bikré) of Midian.’ It is 
 similar to the climax in the case of Lamech, ‘I have 
 slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to 
 
 CAMEL’S HAIR 343 
 my hurt.’ Lane says, ‘the term bekr= young camel, 
 applied to a camel, corresponds to Sata=young 
 man, applied to a human being; and bekrah, a 
 young female camel, to fatdt, a young woman. 
 Bekr and fata are more specialised than the 
 general terms jamal=camel, and rajul=man ; and 
 bekrah and fatdt are more specialised than nakah 
 =female camel, and mar at=woman. And in 
 both pairs of cases the specialised words refer to 
 excellence.’ There is nothing in the Heb. original 
 in the above passages, nor in its Arab. equivalent, 
 to indicate that it was the intention of the respective 
 writers to refer to a blooded camel (dromedary), an 
 animal for which the Heb. contains no word. The 
 Arab. has such a word, hajin, but beker is not its 
 equivalent, as above shown. Some have sup- 
 posed that ninmp kirkaréth, which is rendered 
 in AV and RV ‘swift beasts’ (Is 66”), means 
 dromedaries (so RVm), deriving it from 7) to leap 
 or gallop, alluding to the long trot of the dromedary. 
 If so, this would be an additional reason for not 
 identifying beker and bekrdh with the dromedary. 
 It is more probable, however, that we should 
 regard ninp72 as a reduplicated form of 19 kar= 
 palanquin (Gn 31% the Arab. haudaj). With 
 this corresponds the LXX rendering oxidfia, and 
 the Vulg. carruce. 
 
 Twice the camel, on account of its being the 
 largest animal familiar to all in Bible lands, is 
 used to point a moral. Once, to rebuke the hypo. 
 crisy of the Pharisees and scribes, it is said (Mt 
 23% RV), ‘Ye blind guides, which strain out the 
 gnat, and swallow the camel.’ Again it is said 
 (Mt 19%), ‘It is easier for a camel to go through a 
 needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the 
 kingdom of God.’ The hyperbole here is no more 
 striking than that of the preceding passage. 
 Some, claiming a knowledge of the from 
 birth or long residence, have said that this latter 
 comparison had its origin in the custom of stripping 
 a camel—belated until the great gate of a city was 
 closed for the night, so that it could no longer 
 enter in the usual i Fes its load, and Pane or 
 pushing it through the small gate which is made 
 in the panel of the larger one. They have alleged 
 that the force of the comparison is to be sought in 
 the fact that a rich man must be apres of his 
 wealth to enable him to squeeze through the 
 narrow gate of heaven, as the camel is stripped of 
 his load that he may be forced through the panel 
 gate of the city. Some have even gone so far as 
 to say that this small gate is known in the E. 
 by the name of the ‘needle’s eye.’ In reply, we 
 would say—(1) That this small gate is known by 
 the name khaukhah, but no one of the many 
 whom we have asked ever heard the name needle’s 
 eye applied to it. We believe this to be a fabri- 
 cation. (2) No camel could be forced through 
 the khaukhah. It is a gate from 3 to 4 feet in 
 height, and from 18 inches to 2 feet in breadth, 
 and its bottom is from 1 to 2 feet above the 
 ground, and by no possibility could a camel be 
 got through it. (3) Could we suppose a khaukhah 
 so exceptionally large that a camel could be 
 forced haaaeh it, the hyperbole would be quite 
 lost. G. E. Post. 
 
 CAMEL’S HAIR (Mt 34, Mk 1).—The cloth made 
 of camel’s hair is of blanket-like texture, softer 
 than the black sack-cloth of goat’s hair. In colour 
 it varies from cream to cinnamon and darker 
 brown, so that by means of this variety a pattern 
 is sometimes introduced to relieve slightly the 
 general dinginess of tone. The large enve oping 
 garment, with its plain belt of leather, which John 
 the Baptist wore, was the common and incon: 
 spicuous dress of the desert: it was a sufficient 
 covering by day and night, and doubtless he had 
 
346 CAMP 
 
 CANA 
 
 
 
 come to prefer it. It was the harmonious vesture 
 of the prope when he delivered his message of 
 protest and preparation, and such simplicity of per- 
 sonal life is still the consistent accompaniment of 
 any voice crying against social luxury and ecclesi- 
 astical pride. See CAMEL. G. M.. MACKIE. 
 
 CAMP is the usual rendering of the Heb. *jq2 
 mahdneh, tr?in LXX mwapeuBor}. In 2 K 68 it re- 
 presents 392 tahdnah, on which see Oaf. Heb. Lex. 
 
 A camp was a collection of tents ( g7™), or of 
 huts or booths (1 K 20% RVm, Neh 814). Camps, 
 when large, were pitched in the plain for convenience 
 (Jg 6%); when small, on hills for safety (Jg 4). 
 In either case it was necessary to choose a spot 
 within reach of water; thus the army of the 
 Northern Confederacy pitched ‘at the waters of 
 Merom’ (Jos 115), Gideon encamped ‘beside the 
 spring of Harod’ (Jg 7), Jonathan the Maccabee 
 ‘by the water of the pool Asphar’ (1 Mac 9%). 
 
 Nor defence a position of natural strength was 
 generally chosen, oe the side of a ravine or valley 
 (cp. 1S 14 173), further defence was perhaps 
 provided by the Syyp ma‘gal (1 S 17% 267 ‘ barri- 
 cade’ RVm). The meaning of the word is, how- 
 ever, not certain (see CARRIAGE). Most authorities 
 take it to mean a laager, t.e. a line of wagons 
 arranged as a barricade, nj ‘dgdlah being ‘a 
 wagon.’ In1§ 17 the LXX (A) and Aquila give 
 orpoyyUAwows, Which probably means either a circular 
 line of defence or a circular camp;* Syr. has 
 simply ‘camp,’ while Targ. gives as equivalent a 
 transliteration of the Gr. word xapdxwya, ‘ palisade.’ 
 In 1 S 267 LXX (AB) gives Aaprivn, a ‘covered 
 ehariot’ or ‘litter.’ 
 
 As a precaution against surprise, a watch was 
 set when danger was feared (Jg 7%; ep. Jg 8"); 
 but camps were usually too strongly entrenched 
 to be openly attacked (cf. 1 8 17: 18 forty days 
 delay on both sides, and 1 K 20” seven days delay). 
 
 In Nu 2(P) a detailed account is given of the 
 arrangement of the camp of Israel in the wilder- 
 ness, the principle being that each tribe was 
 grouped round a standard which had a fixed 
 position with regard to the Tabernacle at all halts. 
 
 In the NT the stationary Roman camp (7 wapep- 
 Bon) at Jerusalem is mentioned several times as 
 ‘the castle’ (Ac 21%, etc.). In He 13": ¥ the name 
 ‘camp’ is applied to the Jewish Church of the 
 writer’s own day by an easy adaptation of the 
 language of the Hexateucsh: In Rev 20°, by a 
 further adaptation, the term ‘camp of the saints’ 
 is fitly applied to the Christian Church, in that it 
 suggests the three thoughts of organisation, war- 
 fare, and pilgrimage. W. E. BARNES. 
 
 CAMP as a verb (mod. ‘encamp’) is found Ex 
 
 192, Is 298, Jer 50”, Nah 317 (Heb. m1n, Amer. RV 
 
 *fencamp’), and 1 Mac 10% 117% 134, 2 Mac 13 ‘he 
 camped by Modin’ (RV ‘ pitched his camp’). 
 
 CAMPHIRE, 53 kopher, xvtmpos, cyprus (Ca 
 14), and plur. ones képhdrim (Ca 41%). — The 
 henna plant, Lawsonia alba, L., is a shrub from 
 6 to 10 feet high, with opposite branches, often 
 becoming spinescent, opposite, oblanceolate to 
 obovate leaves, and panicles of cream-coloured 
 flowers. The Orientals are extremely fond of the 
 odour of the henna, which to most Occidentals is 
 heavy, mawkish, and rather stifling. They fre- 
 quently put a sprig of it into their nosegays, and 
 the women often put it in their hair, to make 
 themselves attractive. Sonnini says that the 
 put it in their bosoms for a similar reason, whic 
 
 * Doughty (Travels in Arabia Deserta, ii. 309) notes that he 
 once saw ‘sixteen booths pitched ring-wise,’ and explains the 
 arrangement as a precaution against camel-thieves, the camels 
 being placed within the ring. 
 
 illustrates the comparison of Ca 1%14, For ita 
 fragrance it was cultivated with spikenard and 
 frankincense and myrrh (Ca 41 14), 
 
 Henna is also extensively used in the east to 
 stain the hands, feet, and hair. The hands and 
 feet are stained in lines or diamonds or other 
 figures, by passing strips of cotton cloth around 
 them in such a way as to leave the lines or figures 
 desired uncovered. A paste made of the powdered 
 leaves of the henna and a little water is applied to 
 the skin in the interstices of the bandage, and the 
 hands tied up in a rag over night. When the 
 paste is washed off, an ochreous red stain is left op 
 the parts, while the white skin occupies the spaces 
 which were covered by the bandages. If desired, 
 this colour can be Gide a deep blackish-brown by 
 applying a mixture of lime and hartshorn over 
 the stain left by the henna paste. Often the 
 nails are thus blackened, while the figures on the 
 hands and feet are left red. Brides, especially 
 among the Moslems, are elaborately adorned in 
 this way, as also infants and young adie Old 
 women often dye the hair with henna. It is some- 
 times applied in cases of inflammation, with an 
 idea that it disperses the congestion. 
 
 @. E. Post. 
 
 CANA (Kava rijs TadstAalas, ‘Cana of Galilee’).— 
 This was the native place of the disciple Nathanae 
 (Jn 21%), the scene of Christ’s first miracle (Jr 
 2-1), where also the nobleman from Capernaum 
 secured the healing of his son (Jn 4%). From 
 these passages, where alone the place is mentioned 
 in the Scriptures, we learn, regarding the site, 
 only that it was in Galilee, on higher ground than 
 Capernaum. Jesus went down (xaré8y) to Caper- 
 naum (Jn 2%). The nobleman besought Him to 
 come down (xara$j). In attempting to identify 
 the site, therefore, we have practically nothing to 
 guide us but etymology and tradition. Josephus 
 gives but little help, his references being evidentl 
 to other places, with perhaps one exception. He 
 fixes his residence at Cana, a village of ilee 
 (Vita, 16), and afterwards (tb. 40) adds that it 
 was in the plain of Asochis. The ancient name 
 was probably Kanah (737), of which the Gr. (Kava) 
 is as nearly as possible a transliteration, and the 
 name would be correctly represented in the Arab. 
 (Kand@ or Kanat, for it is spelt both ways). Again, 
 in Kana el-Jelil the latter word is si Lm ee trans- 
 literation of the Heb. Galil (b:)=Galilee, and 
 has nothing whatever to do with the Arab. jalil, 
 ‘creat’ or ‘magnificent.’ It is the Arab. name for 
 the province of Galilee to-day. Kdand el-Jelil is 
 therefore the exact Arab. equivalent of Kava rfs 
 Ta\talas. This name is found attached to a con- 
 siderable ruin on a slope of the hills north of ed- 
 Battauf, the ancient Asochis. There are many 
 rock-hewn tombs. Several water cisterns have 
 been found, but no spring. The Heb. name (Ap, 
 ‘the place of reeds’) would be most appropriate, 
 as overlooking the marshy plain, where reeds still 
 are plentiful. It is commonly called Khirbet Kana; 
 but one hears also, occasionally, Kand el-Jelil on 
 the lips of the natives. It fulfils the NT condi- 
 tions, being in Galilee, higher than Capernaum, 
 which coda be reached by road N. of the Tor‘an 
 range, towards the Jordan Valley, without any 
 circuit to the south. 
 
 The only serious rival to Khirbet Kana is Kefr 
 Kennah, on the Tiberias road, 3% miles from 
 Nazareth. It occupies rising ground on the 
 southern edge of Sahl Tor'adn, the branch cut 
 from el-Battauf, by the Tor'dn hills. The doubling 
 of the medial nwn is against the identification with 
 the Gr. Kavé. Were other difficulties overcome so 
 as to make Kennah represent the Heb. 73p, the name 
 would have no appropriateness here, with neither 
 marsh nor reeds for miles around, This line of 
 
 
 

 
 ; CANAAN, CANAANITES 
 
 CANAAN, CANAANITES $47 
 
 
 
 raerid leads very decidedly towards Khirbet 
 ana, 
 ‘tradition yields no clear result. It is often 
 difficult to get any satisfaction out of the wit- 
 nesses: they are far from exact, and frequently 
 contradictory. A very early tradition mnst have 
 located Christ’s first miracle at Khirbet Kanda. 
 Eusebius (c. 270-340) and Jerome evidently identify 
 Cana with Kana in Asher, some 8 miles S.E. of 
 Tyre. They could not mean Kefr Kennah, which 
 was not in Asher. In favour of Khirbet Kand may 
 also be mentioned Saewulf, 1102; Brocardius, 1183; 
 Marinus Sanutus, 1321; Breydenbach, 1483; and 
 Anselm, 1507. As against these, St. Paula, 383; 
 St. Willibald, 720; Isaac Chelo, 1324; and Qua- 
 resimus, 1616. The last named mentions the tra- 
 dition regarding Kanda only to dismiss it. His 
 position has since been stoutly maintained by the 
 monks of both Greek and Latin Churches. Both 
 have considerable ecclesiastical property in Kefr 
 Kennah, and in the Gr. church a jar is shown, 
 said to have been used in the miracle. West of the 
 village is a spring, whence, it is said, the water 
 made wine was drawn. An old sarcophagus serves 
 as drinking-trough. The balance of evidence is in 
 favour of the northern site. Conder (Tent Work 
 in Pal.) has suggested another possible site at ‘Ain 
 Kana, on the highway from er-Reineh to Tabor. 
 W. Ewina. 
 CANAAN, CANAANITES (jy37, Xavdav, Xavdavos, 
 Chanaan).—Canaan is the son of Ham, according 
 to Gn 9” 10°, and the brother of Cush (Ethiopia), 
 Mizraim (Egypt), and Put. In consequence of 
 Ham’s conduct towards Noah whendrunken, Canaan 
 was cursed, and it was prophesied that he should be 
 the servant of his brethren, Shem and Japheth 
 
 (Gn 97-27), The passage, however, does not 
 agree very well with the context, as the wrong to 
 oah had been committed by Ham, and not by 
 
 Canaan, and it has therefore been supposed that it 
 is taken from an ancient poem. The prophecy was 
 fulfilled when the Canaanites were conquered first 
 by the Israelites, the descendants of Shem, and 
 aiterwards by the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. 
 The tenth chapter of Genesis is geographical 
 rather than ethnological, and the relationship be- 
 tween the nations and states mentioned in it 
 denotes their geographical position, not their racial 
 affinities. When it is said that Canaan was the 
 brother of Cush and Mizraim, we are transported 
 to the age of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Egyp. 
 "Retiree when Palestine was a province of Egypt. 
 The statement is not applicable to a later period, 
 and so indicates the age to which it belongs. 
 The name of Canaan is derived from a root signi- 
 ‘to bow down,’ and (as St. Augustine 
 noticed) means ‘ the lowlands’ of Palestine. Prim- 
 arily it was applied to the coast, secondarily to the 
 valley of the Jordan (Nu 13”). But in time it 
 came to be extended to the whole country, includ- 
 ing the ‘mountainous districts occupie by the 
 Amorites. The name appears under two forms. 
 The shorter form is found in the Gr. Xva (Euseb. 
 Prep. Evan.i. 10; Hekat. Frag. 254, ed. Klausen ; 
 Steph. Byz. p. 721), which was Hellenized into 
 Agénér, ‘the manly one.’ Khna or Agénér was 
 the older name of Pheenicia, and also the eponym- 
 ous ancestor of the Can. and the father of Phonix, 
 or Pheenix himself (Euseb. /.c.). In the Tel el- 
 
 Amarna tablets, as well as the lexical tablets of | 
 
 Nineveh, the name is sometimes written Kinakh- 
 khi (with A for the Can. ‘Ayin), and represents 
 the greater part of southern Pal. as far north as 
 
 the frontiers of the Amorites. The longer form of 
 the name, Canaan, is met with in the hieroelyphic 
 texts; Seti. destroyed the Shasu or Bedawin from 
 the eastern rampart of Egypt ‘to the land of 
 Canaan,’ and captured their fortress of ‘ Kana‘an,’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 which Conder has identified with Khurbet Kan‘an 
 near Hebron. Among the geographical names 
 enumerated by Ptolemy Auletes at Kom Ombo 
 is that of ‘Kan'an.’ The name was preserved 
 among the Pheenicians, the original inhabitants 
 of the sea-coast. Coins of Laodiceia on the 
 Orontes bear the inscription, ‘ Laodiceia, mother 
 (or ated in Canaan’; and St. Augustine states 
 that in his time the Carthaginian peasantry in 
 northern Africa, if questioned in Pheenician as to 
 their race, answered that they were ‘Chanani’ 
 (Hap. Epist. ad Rom. 13). In some of the-Tel el- 
 Amarna tablets, moreover, we find Kinakhna. 
 
 The Gr. oi, ‘Pheenician,’ is the equivalent 
 of ‘Canaanite’; and ®owl«y, Pheenicia, is the origi- 
 nal Canaan on the sea-coast. In Latin the name 
 apres as Penus, Punicus. Point in the sense 
 ot ‘purple-dye’ and ‘date-palm’ seems to be 
 derived from its use as a gentilic, the one being 
 ‘the Phcenician dye,’ the other ‘the Phcenician 
 tree’; the date-palm having been brought from 
 Egypt to the Phenician coast and there become 
 naturalised. But phanix, ‘a palm,’ may be the 
 Reyna benr, beni, just as the name of the 
 fabulous bird phenixis the Egyp. bennu. It is prob- 
 able that we must seek the origin of the name 
 *Pheenician’ in the Fenkhu of the Egyptian monu- 
 ments, a name applied in a text of Tahutmes III. at 
 Karnak to the people of Canaan (Brugsch, Agypt- 
 ologie, ii. p. 466). It thus corresponds exactly 
 with the Kinakhkhi of the Tel el-Amarna tablets. 
 We must suppose that the termination was im- 
 agined to be the same as that of Kilix ‘Cilician’ 
 and similar words, and that the name was accord- 
 ingly identified with dowds and golmos, and explained 
 to signify ‘red,’ the Latin Penus being borrowed 
 from ¢owés. 
 
 In the bilingual Decree of Kanépos the Gr. 
 Pheenicia is replaced in the hieroglyphic text by 
 Keft. W. Max Miiller has tried to show that 
 Keft was rather Cilicia, but unsuccessfully. The 
 name appears in Greek as Képheus and Raphéne. 
 Képheus, father of Andromeda, was said to have 
 been a king of Joppa (Steph. Byz. s.v.), and the 
 Chaldieans of Babylon were first called Képhénes, 
 according to Hellanicus. Keft, in fact, seems to 
 have denoted the whole sea-coast of Phcenicia, 
 from the Gulf of Antioch to Jaffa. 
 
 Another name 3 lied to Canaan and Syria b 
 the Egyptians was ane which embraced the whole 
 country from the frontiers of Egypt to Aup in 
 northern Syria. It denoted more especially the 
 northern part of the region, from which wine was 
 imported into Egypt; while the southern part of 
 Pal., particularly towards the sea-coast, was termed 
 Zahi. The most general name was Rutennu or 
 Lutennu, which corresponded to our ‘ Syria.’ 
 
 The mercantile pursuits of the Phcenicians caused 
 the word ‘ Canaanite’ to become synonymous with 
 ‘merchant’ (Is 238, Ezk 174, Hos 12’, Zeph 1%, 
 Job 416, Pr 31%). In an Egyp. Weather on the 
 other hand, mention is made of ‘Canaanite slaves 
 from Khal’ (Anastasi, iv. 16. 2). 
 
 Isaiah (1918) calls Heb. the lancuage of Canaan, 
 and the decipherment of the Phcenician inscrip- 
 tions, as well as the names of Can. persons and 
 places mentioned in the OT, show that the 
 description was correct. Hebrew and Pheenician 
 (or Can.) differed only in a few unimportant par- 
 ticulars, such as the absence in Pheenician of a 
 definite article. The Tel el-Amarna tablets prove 
 that there was little or no difference between the 
 language of Canaan in the cent. before the Exodus 
 and that of the Pheenicians and of the OT in later 
 times. In some of the letters written from Canaan 
 the writer adds the Can. equivalent of the Bab. 
 word he is using. Thus the king of Jerusalem 
 uses anuki, ‘ iD the Heb. anokht, instead 
 
 
 

 
 348 CANANZAN 
 
 
 
 
 of the Bab. anaku, and zuru'u the Heb. 
 géroa’, ‘arm,’ instead of katw; while other cor- 
 respondents from southern Fal. explain the 
 Bab. sige ‘horses,’ kazira ‘cattle,’ risu ‘head,’ 
 same ‘heaven,’ elippi ‘a ship,’ tna kati-su ‘in 
 his hand,’ and arfi-su ‘after him,’ by the Can. 
 gigi (Heb. sis), makani (Heb. mikneh), rusu (Heb. 
 résh), saméma (Heb. shamayim), anay (Heb. ’6éni), 
 badiu (Heb. béyado), and akhrun-u (Heb. akhr6n-o). 
 The Phenician governors Bre batnu (Heb. beten) 
 for the Bab. panté ‘stomach,’ mima (Heb. mayim) 
 for mami ‘water,’ Khaparu and nar (Heb. ‘dphdar) 
 for tpru ‘dust,’ and kilubt (Heb. kélub) for khu- 
 kharu ‘a cage.’ Similar evidence is borne by 
 the Can. words borrowed by the Egyptians under 
 the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties; e.g. 
 markabute ‘chariots,’ ‘agolte ‘wagons,’ hurpu 
 (hereb) ‘sword,’ espat ‘quiver,’ shabud (shebet) 
 ‘staff,’ supdr ‘scribe,’ baith ‘house,’ bdarkat ‘ pool,’ 
 yum ‘sea,’ nahal ‘brook,’ ‘ebete (‘ebed) ‘slave,’ 
 gamal ‘camel,’ zaba’ ptt na‘aruna ‘young 
 men,’ parzal ‘iron’ (cf. Lauth, ‘Semitische Lehn- 
 worter im Aigyptischen,’ in ZDMG. xxv. 4, 1871). 
 The Can. script at the time was the cuneiform 
 syllabary of Babylon; the so-called Phenician 
 alphabet was not introduced till afterwards. The 
 earliest known inscriptions in this alphabet are 
 the Moabite Stone (B.c. 850), a dedication by 
 Hiram of Tyre to Baal-Lebanon, which may be 
 of the same date, and a single word on a piece 
 of pottery found by Bliss on the site of Lachish at a 
 depth of 300 feet. 
 ne of the Tel el-Amarna letters was sent by 
 Burna-burias, king of Babylon, to Amenhotep Iv. 
 of Egypt to complain of outrages committed upon his 
 ambassadors in Canaan (Kinakhkhi). At Khinna- 
 tuni (‘Ain-Athun; ef. the modern ‘Ain-Ethan, near 
 Solomon’s Pools, between Bethlehem and Hebron) 
 they were attacked by Sum-Adda (Shem-Hadad), 
 the son of Balumme (perhaps Balaam), and Sutatna 
 (also called Zatatna), the son of Saratum of Acco 
 (Acre), the feet of one being cut off, and the face of 
 another trampled upon. ae Canaan belonged to 
 Egypt, and its ‘king’ was an Egyp. vassal, Burna- 
 burias calls upon the Pharaoh to punish the 
 assailants and restore the silver they had stolen, 
 otherwise amicable relations between Babylon and 
 Egypt will be broken off. In another letter 
 it is stated that Kuri-galzu, the predecessor of 
 Burna-burias, refused the proposal of the Kuna- 
 khians, by whom the Can. seem to be meant, that 
 they should revolt to him from Egypt. Another 
 letter is from a king of northern Syria ‘ to the kings 
 of Kinakhna, the servants’ of the Pharaoh, asking 
 them not to hinder his ambassador on his way to 
 Egypts while in a fourth Abi-melech of Tyre says he 
 has heard from Canaan (Kinakhna) that ‘the king 
 of the land of Danuna is dead and his brother has 
 succeeded him as king, and that his country is 
 tranquil’; that ‘one half of the city of Ugarit has 
 been burnt and its troops have perished’; that ‘the 
 Hittite army has departed,’ but that ‘Etagama, 
 the prince of Kadesh, and Aziru (the Amorite) are 
 hostile, and are fighting against Namya- yizi.’ 
 Here Canaan seems to be used in a wide sense. 
 LiTERATURE.—Movers, Die Phinizier (1841-1856); Pietsch- 
 mann, ‘Geschichte der Pho6nizier,’ in Oncken’s Allgemeine 
 een 4 ; Rawlinson, History of Phenicia (1889); Renan, 
 
 ission de Phénicie (1864); CIS, vol. 4. (1881-1890); RP, New 
 
 Beries, iii., v., vi. (1890-1894). A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 CANANZAN or CANAANITE occurs in Mt 104 
 and Mk 3! as a designation of Simon, one of the 
 disciples of Jesus. The first is the correct reading, 
 the Gr. Kavavaios being the transliteration of six‘p 
 (a late Heb. derivative from x}~=7ealous). It is 
 rendered in Lk 6 and Ac 1 by {Awris (zealot). 
 The Cananzans or Zealots were a sect founded by 
 
 
 
 CANON 
 
 Judas of Gamala, who headed the opposition te 
 the census of Quirinius (A.D. 6 or 7). They bitterly 
 resented the domination of Rome, and would fain 
 have hastened by the sword the fulfilment of the 
 Messianic hope. During the great rebellion and 
 the siege of Jerusalem, which ended in its destruc- 
 tion (A.D. 70), their fanaticism made them terrible 
 opponents, not only to the Romans, but to other 
 factions amongst their own countrymen. 
 LirERaTuRE.—Josephus, Wars of the Jews, rv. iii. 9, v. 1, VIL. 
 viii. 1, ete. ; Schiirer, HJP 1. ii. 80f., 177, 229; Keim, Jesus q 
 Nazara, i. 256f. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 CANDACE (Kavédxn), queen of the Athiopians, 
 is mentioned Ac 8%’, Her treasurer was baptized 
 by Philip (which see), near Gaza, on his return 
 from Jerus., where he had gone to worship. C. 
 seems to have been a dynastic title of the queens 
 of AXthiopia. Pliny says (vi. 29)... ‘regnare 
 feminam Candacen, quod nomen multis iam annis 
 ad reginas transiit.’ From the time of Alexander 
 the Great the dowager queens used to reign. C. 
 mentioned Ac 8” was probably rich, since the 
 eunuch baptized by Philip was said to be ‘over all 
 her treasure.’ (See Rawlinson, Herodotus, ii. 30 n. 3 
 Strabo, Geogr. xvii. 1. 54; Pliny, HN vi. 35.) 
 
 C. H. PRICHARD. 
 
 CANDLE, CANDLESTICK.—1. In AV ‘candle’ 
 Bpueece in nine passages of OT as the rendering 
 of 73 nér, and in eight passages of NT as the 
 rendering of Avyvos. In the whole of these passages, 
 with two exceptions (Jer 25, Zeph 1), but see 
 marg.), RV adopts the more accurate rendering 
 ‘lamp’ (which see). 
 
 As indispensable to the furnishing of a simple 
 ‘ prophet’s chamber’ we find mention of a bed, a 
 table, a stool, and a candlestick (7739, 2 K 4°). The 
 article in question, however, is rather a lamp-stand 
 (cf. Petrie, Tell el-Hesy, p. 104), and corresponds 
 to the NT Avxvla, now rendered more correctly in 
 the Gospels by ‘stand’ (Mt 5%, Mk 471, Lk 816 11% 
 in RV). In Dn 9° is mentioned the candlestick 
 or candelabrum of Belshazzar’s banqueting hall. 
 For the golden candlestick of the tabernacle and 
 the temple, see TABERNACLE. 
 
 2. The custom, practised from time immemorial 
 in the East, of allowing a house lamp to burn 
 night and day, is the source of the frequent figure 
 by which the continually burning lamp pictures 
 the continued prosperity both of the individual 
 and of his family (see Ps 18% ), ‘thou wilt light 
 my candle,’ 1 K 11%). Conversely, ‘to put out the 
 candle of the wicked’ (Pr 24”, Job 18°) is to make 
 his home desolate and bring destruction on himself. 
 This familiar metaphor is employed in the Apoc. to 
 describe the fate with which the Church of Ephesus 
 was threatened: ‘I will remove thy candlestick 
 out of his place’ (Rev 2°), A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 CANE.—See REED. 
 
 CANKER.—As subst. 2 Ti 2” ‘their word will 
 eat as doth a c.’ (ydyypawa, RV ‘ gangrene’). 
 As verb, Ja 5° ‘ Your gold and silver is e%’ (xariéw, 
 RV ‘rusted’), The mod. spelling of the subst. is 
 ‘cancer,’ which is found as early as the beg. of 
 the 17th cent. For the verb, cf. Shaks. Temp. 
 Iv. i. 192— 
 
 * As with age his body uglier grows, 
 So his mind cankers.’ 
 See MEDICINE. 
 
 CANKERWORM.—See Locust. 
 
 CANON.—In this article an attempt will be made 
 to give a general view of the history of the idea 
 involved in the application of the word Canon to 
 Holy Scripture; and in so doing the use both of 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
 urn eo 
 
CANON 
 
 
 
 this and other terms to express the idea in question 
 will be noticed. The history of the process whereby 
 the actual Canons of the Jewish and the Christian 
 Scriptures were arrived at will be more fully traced 
 under the heads OLD TESTAMENT CANON and NEw 
 TESTAMENT CANON. 
 
 The conception of a C. virtually existed long 
 before this precise term was employed. We have 
 it wherever there is the notion of a collection of 
 writings marked off as peculiarly sacred and as 
 having a special Divine authority. Writings of 
 the past would be likely for the first time fully to 
 acquire this position when an age had come in 
 which the living voice of prophecy was no longer 
 heard. This view of them would not preclude the 
 
 ossibility of an addition to the number of inspired 
 ks at a future epoch of revelation. It is also 
 to be observed, though to some this may at first 
 ae seem strange, that a belief in a distinct class 
 of writings of this kind was not incompatible with 
 some diversity of opinion as to its extent, and with 
 doubts on this subject in the minds even of those 
 who were fully persuaded of the main facts. And 
 this is true even of the time after the word C. was 
 introduced. The idea of a C. no doubt gained to 
 some degree in definiteness through controversies 
 as to the writings which were to be held to form 
 part of it. But in essence it was presupposed in 
 those controversies; and their chief result was 
 simply to fix more clearly and firmly the limits of 
 the Canon. 
 
 There was no exact equivalent for the word 
 among the Jews in respect to OT, but we have the 
 idea clearly implied in the expression ‘ the Scrip- 
 tures’ as employed by J ews addressing Jews in NT 
 (e.g. Mt 21%, Jn 5°, Ac 18%); and the word 
 ‘Scripture,’ as used in the singular for a par- 
 ticular passage, also involves it, since each passage 
 so named derived the binding force which is attri- 
 buted to it from being contained in the body of 
 sacred writings. So again, where Jos. (c. Ap. i. 8) 
 makes a formal statement concerning these books 
 and their number, the recognition of a C. is 
 implied. And we have it also in the collective 
 words used in the Talm. for the Divine Scriptures, 
 such as xqpp (‘reading,’ from their being read 
 \ haat) in the synagogue) and wypn ‘anp (‘the 
 
 oly writings ’). 
 
 he Christian Church adopted the Scriptures of 
 the Jews as herown. She also in process of time 
 extended the idea of ‘Scripture’ to another body 
 of writings, which in one or more groups were 
 named along with those of OT. Pseudo-Clement 
 of Rome’s 2nd Ep. (c. A.D. 150) speaks of 7a PiBAla 
 kat ol dadorodo (i.e. the OT and the apostolic 
 writings). Fresh names, also, were introduced 
 2 erate of the fact that she possessed two such 
 collections, or such a collection in two parts. 
 Melito, bp. of Sardis, circ. A.D. 170, speaks of ra 
 Tis waratas SiadyKns BiBrla (ap. Euseb. HE iv. 26), 
 ‘the books of the Old Covenant’ (or Testament). 
 And we have evidence about the end of the same 
 cent., in the writings of Clement of Alexandria 
 and Tertullian, that the names madaid diadyjxy 
 (vetus testamentum) and véa dta€yjxn (novum 
 testamentum), the names that have become the 
 most prevalent of all, had been transferred to the 
 actual writings of the two dispensations. Ter- 
 tullian himself preferred (see c. Mare. iv. 1) the 
 term Instrumentum (of legal associations =‘ docu- 
 mentary record or proof’). He frequently employs 
 it, applying it sometimes to particular books, and 
 sometimes separately to OT or to NT, but also to 
 the Scriptures asa whole. From éa6zjxn the adj. 
 
 évdid@nxos was formed ; it occurs repeatedly in the 
 writings of Origen and Eusebius, in a sense closely 
 corresponding to ‘canonical’ (e.g. Philocal., iii. and 
 Euseb. HE iii. ce. 3, 9, 25, vi. c. 14). 
 
 
 
 CANON 349 
 
 
 
 Another iirsinls art dednuocrevpévas ypapal ‘writ- 
 ings which have been made public,’ used by Origen 
 and others, needs somewhat fuller consideration. 
 A certain vagueness attaches to it owing to the 
 fact that these writings are contrasted with such 
 as are ‘apocryphal’; and while this word is common 
 in the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd cent., it does not 
 seem ever to occur at this time with the precise 
 connotation which it has since acquired. The 
 original and fundamental signification of ‘ apocry- 
 eee > was that of something withheld from general 
 nowledge. But there might be various reasons 
 for so treating different writings. There were suine 
 among the Jews, as there were also some Christians, 
 esp. in the Church of Alexandria, who were 
 inclined to value highly lore which they considered 
 to be unfit to be communicated even to all the 
 faithful, and suited only for the study of the wise. 
 But this peer. was never strong enough either 
 among Jews or Christians to lead to the establish- 
 ment of a class of writings regarded as authoritative 
 and yet not imparted to all ; and the spirit of Chris- 
 tianity in particular was wholly opposed to such 
 reservation. All writings regarded as inspired were 
 naturally included among the dedyyoorevpévac—those 
 ‘made the public property of the whole Church.’ 
 We have still, however, to ask what was meant by 
 and implied in this ‘ publication,’ and, as a further 
 point, whether it could really serve to mark off the 
 writings regarded as, in the full sense, authoritative 
 from all others. The chief means of the publishing 
 in question was the regular reading in the con- 
 gregation. And no doubt this solemn reading 
 served to impress upon the people generally the 
 idea of the special authority of the books which 
 they heard in this way ; while the need of a rule 
 for directing it may have been one influence which 
 promoted the formation of the C. of OT, as it was 
 certainly of NT. But it seems too narrow a view 
 of the words dnpooteverbot, or publicari, to regard 
 them (as Zahn does, Gesch. d. Kanons, i. p. 134) as 
 meaning little or nothing more than ‘to be read in 
 church.’ If the publication connoted by these 
 terms was closely associated with the public 
 reading, it was so because that act was the chief 
 symbol of the general reception and acknowledg- 
 ment of the books by the Church, which had been 
 informally arrived at, and which found expression 
 in various habits of speech and practice. It must, 
 however, further be observed that the fact of par- 
 ticular books being publicly read would seem to be 
 often too inconsiderately taken as evidence that 
 they were regarded as Scripture in the full sense of 
 the term. It is not to be supposed that the public 
 reading would necessarily be regarded as havin 
 the same significance, or that the rules for it would 
 be conceived in the same spirit, everywhere and 
 always. There might be, and in point of fact 
 there were, varieties of custom acc. to differences 
 of circumstances and of theological temper. At 
 some times and places there would be comparative 
 laxity, at others special strictness. The Mura- 
 torian C. (cire. A.D. 200, written at Rome or in the 
 neighbourhood) reveals a disposition to exclude 
 from public reading all works of secondary or 
 doubtful authority. This might be due to the 
 special genius of the Rom. Church, or to a sense of 
 the need of watchfulness which the recent spread 
 of Gnosticism and Montanism and the circulation 
 of the writings of these sects had created. On the 
 other hand, at the very same epoch, we find 
 Serapion, bp. of Antioch, first allowing the public 
 reading of the Gospel of Peter at a place within his 
 diocese, though he knew very little of the work 
 and held it in no particular esteem, and then 
 afterwards forbidding it, when he became more 
 fully acquainted with its contents, and found that 
 it was doing harm (Euseb. H# vi. 12). Again, te 
 
 
 
CANON 
 
 
 
 pass to a later age.. With Cyril of Jerus. in his 
 catechetical lectures, delivered circ. A.D. 340, the 
 class of books ‘openly read in the church’ is 
 coterminous with that of those ‘acknowledged 
 among all,’ and is the opposite of as es a 
 and he knows no third division (Catech. iv. ce. 33, 
 35). Athanasius, on the other hand, writing not 
 long afterwards, but representing the usages of 
 another Church, distinguishes between ‘ canonical 
 books,’ ‘books that are read,’ and ‘apocryphal 
 books’ (Zp. Fest. 39, i. 768, ed. Bened.). And 
 Rufinus at the end of the cent. distinguishes in the 
 same way, and gives the name of ‘Church books,’ 
 Ecclesiastict libri, to the second class (De Symb. 
 ec. 37, 38). 
 
 We shall now be in a position to estimate rightly 
 the amount of significance to be attached to 
 the introduction of the words Canon, canonical, 
 and canonised with reference to the books of 
 Scripture ; but we must first determine which of 
 them was so used earliest, and when? Some have 
 supposed that the employment of the adjective in 
 this connexion preceded that of the substantive, 
 and that it is to be traced back to Origen, on the 
 ground that the epithets canonici and regulares 
 are applied to the books of Scripture in portions of 
 his works which we possess only in Rufinus’ tr. 
 No reliance can, however, be placed upon this 
 argumert, since these would be the most con- 
 venient renderings for such a word as évdidOnKo, 
 which, as we have seen, certainly belonged to 
 Origen’s terminology. Moreover, Rutinus so 
 renders this very word in passages of Eusebius, 
 where we have both the original and his translation. 
 The earliest instance which can be adduced of the 
 occurrence of either xavdy or a derivative in the sense 
 now under consideration is in the Festal Epistle 
 of Athanasius above referred to, written in A.D. 
 367. The participle cavomfsueva is there used of 
 the books of Holy Scripture. It seems, however, 
 improbable that the verb xavovifew, or its parts, 
 should have been so applied before the term xavdy 
 had been used of the ee collectively. And a 
 little later Amphilochius, the eminent bishop of 
 Iconium, concludes a catalogue of them, which he 
 gives in his Jambi ad Seleucum with the words odros 
 dwevdéoraros Kavay av eln rav Oeomvetotuv ypapov. The 
 word, which originally meant a rod, and thence a 
 measure, had been already applied in the sense of 
 a rule or norm, and that variously, both in classical 
 and ecclesiastical usage. It will suffice here to 
 notice the phrase 6 xavav rijs ddnOelas, for the 
 Church’s creed, which had long been familiar. It 
 has been questioned whether, when the word xavéy 
 was first used in connexion with the Scriptures, 
 the primary intention was to express the thought 
 that they form the rule of faith and life for the 
 Christian, or to denote the list whereby the con- 
 tents of the Scriptures is correctly defined. The 
 latter seems to be the true view. It is the 
 simplest ; and, moreover, it would be hard other- 
 wise to explain the use of the verb xavovifewv, which 
 is applied both to particular books and to the 
 books collectively. The other idea would, however, 
 also be readily suggested to the mind by the 
 associations of the word xaywy. And accordingly 
 we find Isidore of Pelusium, in the earlier half of 
 the 5th cent., expressing himself thus: ‘ the Canon 
 of the truth, I mean the Divine Scriptures’ (Ep. 
 114), 
 
 It will be perceived, then, that no essentially 
 new point of view was implied in the use of the 
 term Canon and its derivatives in connexion with 
 Holy Scripture. At thesame time it is noteworthy 
 that they began to be employed at a time when 
 special efforts were being made in different quarters 
 to remove ambiguities with respect to, and to 
 codify, the contents of the Scriptures. 
 
 CAPERNAUM 
 
 
 
 For further illustrations of some of the points 
 here touched upon, and for the considerations 
 which determined the inclusion or exclusion of 
 particular books, or groups of books, the reader 
 must consult the arts. APOCRYPHA, OLD TESTA- 
 MENT CANON, and NEw TESTAMENT CANON. 
 
 V. H. STANTON. 
 
 CANOPY (kwvwretov, from xkévwy (Mt 23%), gnat, 
 mosquito). — Originally a mosquito-net. The 
 canopy of the bed of Holofernes, ‘which was of 
 purple, and gold, and emerald, and precious stones 
 inwoven,’ was taken by Judith ‘from the pillars’ as 
 a trophy, and given by her ‘for a gift (avd9npa) 
 unto the Lord’ (Jth 107 13°35 16%). ‘Canopy 
 occurs also in RV at Is 4° ‘Over all the glory shall 
 be spread a canopy’ (AV ‘defence’). The Heb. is 
 npn, which here only has the sense of a canopy for 
 protection ; elsewhere it means a bridegroom’s (Pa 
 19>) or a bride’s (J1 2**) chamber. F. C. PORTER. 
 
 CANTICLES.—See Sona or SONGs, 
 
 CAPER-BERRY (mi¥2x ’dbiyyénah, xdaraps, Eo 
 12°). The authority of the gx and of some of 
 the Rabbis is in favour of the tr. ‘caper-berry’ 
 RV, instead of ‘desire’ AV.—This is the fruit 
 of Capparis spinosa, L., a perennial shrub, rooted 
 in the clefts of rocks and walls, with straggling, 
 more or less pendulous, branches, and orbicular to 
 ovate leaves, 1 to 2 inches in length, and white 
 flowers 2 to 3 inches broad. It grows in all the 
 Mediterranean basin. The ripe berry is oblong to 
 obovate-oblong, and 2 to 24 inches long. The 
 young berries have a pungent flavour, and are 
 ickled as a condiment. The Arabs of the Sin. 
 esert call it el-dsdf, while the people of Pal. and 
 Syria know it by the name kabar, which is mani- 
 festly a modification of xérmapis. Like all pungent 
 plants, it is stimulating to the erotic instinct. The 
 idea of those who tr. ’dbiyyénah ‘caper-berry’ is 
 that even this stimulant shall fail to excite desire. 
 The principal Rabbi of Beirfit assures me that the 
 tr. of AV ‘desire’ is that of the majority of the 
 Jewish commentators. In either case the object is 
 the same, that is, to express the decadence of the 
 bodily powers with the advance of years. 
 G. E. Post. 
 CAPERNAUM (TR Kazepvaoty, from which our 
 English word is taken; but Kadapvaotvp, supported 
 by BaDZ, etc., is undoubtedly correct, represent- 
 ing the original ovn:-153).—This city is mentioned 
 only in the Gospels, and derives all its interest 
 from association with the life of Christ. To it 
 Matthew applies Is 9! (Mt 4816), After His 
 rejection at Nazareth, Christ made His head- 
 uarters in C., and it is called ‘his own city’ 
 (Mt 9!). Here only was it said of Him ér é& olky 
 éorlv—that He was at home (Mk 2'). Peter and 
 Andrew of Bethsaida (Jn 1“) had settled in C. (Mk 
 1*°), and on the neighbouring beach they first heard 
 and followed the Master (Mk 1"). Matthew 
 (Mt 9°), or Levi (Mk 24, Lk 57), was here called 
 from ‘the place of toll.’ Many miracles were 
 wrought here (Mk 1%). The following are speciall 
 mentioned, viz. healing centurion’s servant (Mt 8”, 
 Lk 7'); nobleman’s son cured by a word from Cana 
 (Jn 446); Simon Peter’s mother-in-law cured of 
 fever (Mk 1%); paralytic healed (Mt 91, Mk 2', 
 Lk 538); unclean spirit cast out (Mk 1%, Lk 4%), 
 Here the lesson of humility was taught from a 
 little child set in the midst (Mt 187, Mk 9%-%6), 
 A famous discourse in the synagogue is reported 
 in Jn 6. Over C., highly favoured but unrepent- 
 ant, the heavy woe was pronounced, ‘And thou 
 Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven ?— 
 thou shalt go down to Hades’ (Mt 11, Lk 10% RV). 
 C., invariably called wé\s, ‘a city,’ was an 
 important position, held by a body of Roman 
 
 
 
CAPERNAUM 
 
 
 
 troops (Mt 8° etc.). 
 
 It was also a customs-station 
 (Mt 9° etc.). The commander of the soldiers 
 thought it worth while to ingratiate himself with 
 the people by building them a synagogue (Lk 7°). 
 It was the residence of a distinguished officer of 
 the king (Jn 4%). But beyond the facts that it 
 was on the seashore (Mt 4'%), and was in or near 
 the plain of Gennesaret (Jn 6'7-2!; see also Mk 
 655, Mt 14*), there is nothing in the NT to indi- 
 cate the site. Twice mentioned by Josephus (Vita, 
 72, BJ wu. x. 8), neither passage is decisive. 
 Tradition wavers between two sites, and a warm 
 controversy has long raged over the question. 
 
 The claims of ‘Ain em-Madowwerah, ‘the round 
 fountain,’ a large spring on the N. edge of Gen- 
 nesaret, may be dismissed. There is nothing 
 near it to indicate the site of a great city; and it 
 waters only a small portion of the plain. 
 
 The two serious rivals are Khan Minyeh, at the 
 N.E. corner of the plain, and Zell Him, on the 
 shore, fully 2 miles nearer Jordan. The case for 
 Tell Him rests chiefly upon the name, the size 
 of the ruins, their position on the eastward road, 
 and the testimony of certain travellers. It is 
 suggested that the Arab. Teli took the place of 
 Caphar when the city became ruinous, na falling 
 from Nahum. This is an almost impossible deriva- 
 tion. A Jewish Rabbi, Tankhum, is said to be 
 buried here. The derivation from his name is 
 both easy and natural. An alternative derivation 
 is suggested from the Heb. nin=‘ brown’ or ‘ fire- 
 blackened,’ of which Arab. Him is an exact trans- 
 literation. Then Zell Hiim=‘the black mound,’ 
 truly descriptive of the ruins, could only date from 
 a time subsequent to the destruction of the city. 
 Along this road only the eastern traffic would pass. 
 The northern caravans never came this way. 
 Jerome, Theodorus (532A.D.), Antoninus Martyr (?), 
 A.D. 600, and John of Wiirtzburg (1100), may be 
 taken as favouring Te/] Him. Josephus, hurt on 
 the Jordan, was carried to C.; but this was not 
 necessarily the nearest town. He was evidently 
 anxious to reach his headquarters at Tarichea 
 (Vita, 72). It is much against Tell Him that 
 there is no fountain there; and nothing like that 
 ole by Josephus within about a couple of 
 miles. 
 
 On the other hand, there are many considerations 
 in favour of Khan Minyeh. Gennesaret was a 
 well-defined district, generally allowed to corre- 
 spond with el Ghuweir, ‘the little Ghér,’ lying 
 Deng the N.W. shore of the sea (see Jos, BJ Ill. 
 x. 8). The disciples started from the other side to 
 go to C. (Jn 6!”). The waters being stilled, they 
 were straightway ‘at the land whither they were 
 going’ (1b. v.24). Matthew (14*4) says ‘they came 
 to the land, unto Gennesaret.’ (So also Mk 6°.) 
 Those who sought Jesus in the morning found 
 Him at C. (Jn 6%), and He addressed them in 
 the synagogue. C. was thus either in or close 
 to Gennesaret. This condition is met by Khan 
 Minyeh; not at all by Tell Him. Remains of an 
 ancient city are found in the plain between Khdn 
 Minyeh and the sea; also on the adjoining Tell 
 ‘Arevmeh, where probably a large church once 
 stood. Standing at the junction of the two great 
 roads which must always have united behind 7'ed/ 
 ‘Areimeh, that to eastward along the shore, and 
 that to the north by Khan Jubb Yusif, it occupied 
 a position of first importance in the district. All 
 the traffic from north, south, east, and west passed 
 through the hands of its customs officers. The 
 spring of which Josephus speaks (BJ 1. x. 8) may 
 not have been actually in the plain. Certainly it 
 was not ‘Ain et-Tineh. At ef-Tabigha (Hepta- 
 pegon?), on the edge of the valley beyond Tell 
 Areimeh, rise several springs, one of great volume, 
 the largest fountain in Galilee. An old aqueduct 
 
 CAPHTOR 351 
 
 
 
 
 
 led the water across the vale, along the face of the 
 cliff in a rock-cut channel, and into the plain at 
 Minyeh sufficiently high to water a large area. 
 Historical evidence is on the whole favourable to 
 Khan Minyeh. Antoninus Martyr (600) is claimed 
 on both sides; but the latter site is supported by 
 Arculfus, end of 7th cent. ; St. Willibald, middle 
 of 8th cent.; Eugesippus, middle of 12th cent.; 
 Brocardius, end of 13th cent.; Quaresimus, 1620, 
 who says that a ruin, called in Arab. Minieh, is 
 the site of Capernaum. 
 
 The absence of any reminiscence of the ancient 
 name is a difficulty withsome. But from the Talm. 
 we learn that C. was, for the Jews, associated 
 with the Minim, the name by which they desig- 
 nated the Christians, who were numerous in the 
 city. The Huta of the Talm., ‘the sinners,’ are 
 the sons of Caphar Nahum, and again these are 
 identified with the Minim. Among the Jews, 
 C. was the city of Menai down to the 14th cent. 
 The name given to the inhabitants is probably 
 preserved in Khan Minyeh. The balance of 
 evidence is at present greatly in favour of this 
 site. W. Ewina. 
 
 CAPH or KAPH (3).—Eleventh letter of Heb. 
 alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalm to 
 designate the 11th part, each verse of which begins 
 with this letter. 
 
 CAPHARSALAMA (Xad¢apoadayd), 1 Mac 72%.— 
 epparebily near Jerus. Kefr Silwdn, the village of 
 Siloam, is possibly intended. SWP, vol. iii. sh. xvii. 
 
 CAPHIRA (A Kadipd, B Ietpd), 1 Es 54°.—A town 
 of Benj., inhabitants of which returned with Zerub. 
 In Ezr 2% CHEPHIRAH (7793, B Kadetpd, A -t-); ef. 
 Neh 7%. See CHEPHIRAH. 
 
 CAPHTOR (7hna2, oD, XagGoprelu, Caphtormm). 
 —The Caphtorim were geographically connected 
 with Egypt according to Gn 104%; and in Dt 
 2% we read: ‘The Avvim, which dwelt in villages 
 as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, which came forth 
 out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their 
 stead.’ ere the Caphtorim are identified with 
 the Philistines, who are stated to have come from 
 Caphtor in Am 97 and Jer 474 (where Caphtor is 
 ealled an ‘isle’ or ‘coastland’). Consequently in 
 Gn 10*4 the words, ‘whence went forth the Philis- 
 tines,’ must be out of place, and should follow 
 Caphtorim instead of Casluhim. Caphtor has been 
 identified with both Cyprus and Crete, but the names 
 do not agree. Ebers (4gypten und die Bicher 
 Moses, 1868) proposed to see in Caphtor an Egyp. 
 compound Kaft-ur, ‘Greater Kaft’ or ‘ Pheenicia,’ 
 and made it the coast of the Delta, which was 
 thickly covered with Pheenician colonies. But this 
 theory has been overthrown by the excavation of 
 the temple of Kom Ombo in Upper Egypt in 1892. 
 On the wall of the south external corridor is a 
 series of cartouches containing the names of the 
 countries supposed to have been conquered by 
 Ptolemy Auletes and collected from older monu- 
 ments of various ages. Among the names are those 
 of Kaptar (Caphtor) and Kasluhet (Casluhim), each 
 with the determinative of ‘country’ attached to it. 
 Kaptar ends the first line, and is immediately pre- 
 ceded by the names of Persia, Susa, Babylon, and 
 Pontus, while Kasluhet (followed by Zoar) is the 
 fifth name of the second line, which begins with 
 the inhabitants of the Sinaitic peninsula and 
 northern Syria. The names, however, have prob- 
 ably been registered at haphazard, so that no 
 conclusion can be drawn from their order. 
 
 The Philistines seem to have entered Palestine in 
 the course of the great invasion of Egypt by the 
 northern nations in the eighth year of Ramses III. 
 

 
 
 
 852 CAPPADOCIA 
 
 
 
 CARAVAN 
 
 
 
 Prof. Prések combines this fact with the statement 
 of Justin, that in B.c. 1209 a king of Ashkelon 
 stormed Sidon, and that the fugitive Sidonians 
 founded Tyre. The dates would agree very well. 
 At any rate, the Pulista or Philistines are closely 
 associated with the Zakkal (Teukrians?) in the 
 attack on Egypt in the time of Ramses I1I., whereas 
 the latter appear alone in an earlier attack in the 
 time of Merenptah. 
 
 From 1S 30", Ezk 25! Zeph 2°, we may 
 gather that the Philistines were also known as 
 the Cherethites or Cretans, as the Sept. tran- 
 scribes the name. In this case Caphtor must be 
 identified with Crete, or at all events with some 
 district in that island. Recent discoveries have 
 shown that Crete was a centre of culture in the 
 prekistone age of the eastern Mediterranean, and 
 
 t A. Evans has pointed out that it possessed a 
 peculiar system of pictorial writing (see his article 
 on ‘Primitive Pictographs’ in the Journal of 
 Hellenic Studies, xiv. 1894). A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 CAPPADOCIA (Karzadoxia), a large country in 
 the E. of Asia Minor, was formed into a Kom. 
 rovince by Tiberius in A.D. 17, on the death of 
 ane Archelaus. It was administered by a pro- 
 curator, sent out by the reigning emperor; and it 
 was treated as an unimportant outlying district. 
 In A.D. 70, however, Vespasian united it with 
 Armenia Minor as one of the great frontier pro- 
 vinces of the empire, placing it under the rule of a 
 legatus Augusti pro pretore, who was selected by 
 the emperor from among the ex-consuls ; and he 
 stationed a legion (XJJ. Fulminata) at Melitene as 
 arrison to maintain the defence of the Euphrates 
 ine. At this period a great territory, ruled by 
 Antiochus Epiphanes of Commagene, lying be- 
 tween the provinces Cilicia and Cappadocia, and 
 including part of Lycaonia, was incorporated in 
 C.; and under succeeding emperors, especially 
 Trajan, the size and importance of the province 
 were greatly increased, and more troops were 
 stationed in it. The commercial capital of the 
 province was Cesareia - Eusebeia-Mazaka; the 
 military centres were Melitene and (after Trajan) 
 Satala. Between about A.D. 76 and 106, both 
 Galatia and ©. were placed under one gover- 
 nor. Jews in C. are mentioned in Ac 2%, and 
 implied in Philo, Leg. ad Gaiwm, § 36 (Mang. ii. 
 587) : a letter in their favour from the Rom. Senate 
 to Ariarathes, king of C., about B.c. 139, is men- 
 tioned 1 Mac 15; in the 3rd cent. after Christ and 
 later, a great Jewish population in Cesareia is 
 alluded to in the Talmud. The easy road from 
 Tarsus through the Cilician Gates tempted them 
 onwards towards the N., to take advantage of the 
 lucrative trade between Central Asia and the 
 Black Sea harbours, esp. Amisus: the road passed 
 through C. and Pontus (Ac 18’). This trading 
 connexion led to the early extension of Christianity 
 over both countries (1 P 1'). 
 
 LrrgraTurs.—Marquardt, Rémische Staatsverwaltung, i. pp. 
 865-374; Ritter, Klewnasien, i. pp. 236-339, ii. 286-272 ; Ramsay, 
 Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor, pp. 267-319, 346-356, 449f., and the 
 map in St. Paul the Trav. for provincial divisions ; Neubauer, 
 Géog. du Talmud; Th. Reinach, Numism, des Rois de Capp. 
 
 W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 CAPTAIN.—I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.—The 
 AV translates no fewer than 13 different Heb. 
 words by ‘captain,’ and many of these words have 
 other renderings as well. he RV has scarcely 
 introduced much greater consistency. (1) ww, often 
 translated ‘prince,’ used especially of ‘captains of 
 thousands’ (x:Alapxos), etc., and ab the ‘captain of 
 the host’ (d4px.orpdrnyos). For the ‘captain of the 
 host of the Lorpb’ (Jos 5"), and for ‘Michael 
 your prince’ (also Dn 10# etc.), see under GoD 
 and ANGEL. (2) 13}, the foremost officer, used of 
 
 the king (1 S 9°—RV prince or leader, LXX dpywr)y 
 the same Heb. word is used also of the ‘leader of 
 the house of Aaron’ (1 Ch 1277), and of the ‘rulers 
 of the house of God’ (2 Ch 35% etc.). See below. 
 (3) wis, literally head, Nu 144 etc., LXX dpxnyés. 
 (4) wy3, literally lifted up, Nu 2° etc., RV prince, 
 LXX dpxwv. (5) py, literally one who decides, Jg 11° 
 etc., RV chief texocpt Dn 1118), LXX dpxnyés or 
 Hyovmevos. (6) 1950, RV marshal, Jer 517, Nah 317, 
 (7) m3, usually of the governor of a territory, 2 K 
 18%, Hag 1 ete. (8) 31=(1), only in later Heb., e.g. 
 2K 25% (9) byz, baal, ‘ master,’ Jer 37}, captain 
 of the ward. (10) ey Ex 147, 2 K 9% etc., probably 
 knight or equerry, LXX rpiordrys. The other three 
 words are (in AV) mistranslated captain, 2 K 11* ¥, 
 Jer 13%, Ezk 2122 (3, m>x, 12, respectively). 
 
 II. Captain represents three words in the NT 
 (1) x:Alapyos—used vaguely of a military officer, 
 and technically as the equivalent of the Roman 
 ‘prefectus’ or ‘tribunus militum.’ One such 
 officer was regularly in charge of the Roman garri- 
 son at Jerusalem, which probably consisted of a 
 cohort of auxiliaries, about 1000 men in all. The 
 commander would be a Roman citizen (Ac 22%), the 
 soldiers provincials (not Jews, but meny of them 
 Samaritans), who would receive the franchise on 
 discharge. Whether the word has the technical or 
 the vaguer sense in Jn 18” is not clear. (2) o7pa- 
 rnyos—used in Lk 22452 and Ac 4! 5%-% of the 
 one of the Temple, together with his chief 
 subordinates, whe are perhaps the same as the 
 three ‘keepers of the threshold’ (2 K 2518, Jer 354, 
 and see Josephus, Ant. X. viii. 5). This captain 
 (123, see (2) above) is mentioned Jer 20! ( 
 qryovpevos) and Neh 11"), and is called in 2 Mac 3¢ 
 mpoordrns Tod lepod, and in Josephus (Anf. XX. vi. 2, 
 etc.) orparnyés. Probably he and his chief sub- 
 ordinates are indicated by the term ‘rulers’ in 
 Ezr 9? and often in Neh (0332p, LXX orparzyol or 
 &pxovres) ; see Schiirer, HJP 1. i. 258. The captain 
 was at least a Levite, and commanded a small 
 body of police, probably themselves priests; and 
 he had the duty of keeping order in the Temple, 
 and watching there by night. (3) dpxnyés—He 2” 
 —probably to be understood rather as author and 
 beginner than as commander in a fight (ef. Ac 3% 
 581, He 122), 
 
 The captain of the guard (crparoreddpyns, Ac 281 
 TR and AV) would, perhaps, be the ‘princeps 
 castrorum peregrinorum’; it would hardly mean 
 the ‘prefectus pretorio,’ whose title is never so 
 rendered in Greek. But the sentence is omitted 
 by RY following the best authorities: it is, how- 
 ever, an ancient ‘ Western reading,’ and possibly 
 records a real tradition. (See Mommsen in 
 Sitzungsb. d. kgl. preuss. Akad. d.Wissensch., phil.- 
 hist. Classe, 1895, p. 495, and art. PRAZTORIUM.) 
 
 W. O. BuRROWwsS. 
 CAPTIVITY.—See ISRAEL. 
 
 CARABASION (B Kapafaceudv, A -oidv), 1 Es 9%, 
 —A corrupt name of one of those who put away 
 their ‘strange’ wives. It seems to correspond to 
 MEREMOTH in Ezr 10%, The conjecture that it 
 should be read xat ‘PaBaciwy is not supported (as is 
 stated in Speaker’s Comm.) by the Vat. text. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 CARAYAN, not used in AV, is given by RV in Job 
 618: 19 (nimy est.) for AV ‘paths,’ ‘troops’; in Is 214 
 (pte. of mx) for AV ‘travelling companies’; and 
 in Ezk 27% ‘ The ships of Tarshish were thy cara- 
 vans for thy merchandise,’ for AV ‘The ships of 
 Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market,’ taking 
 ning from ww to travel (after Gesen.) not vv to sing. 
 But Davidson doubts: ‘The camel has been called 
 the ship of the desert, but conversely to call an 
 east-indiaman a caravan is too brilliant for the 
 prophet.’ See his note. In older Eng., however, 
 

 
 
 
 CARBUNCLE 
 
 CARE 353 
 
 
 
 the word ont have been applicable without 
 
 crediting Ezekiel with the brilliant metaphor, 
 since ‘ caravan’ was used from the beg. of the 17th 
 to the middle of the 18th cent. for a fleet of ships, 
 as Fuller, Com. on Ruth (1654): ‘A caravan... 
 sailing in the vast ocean.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CARBUNCLE.—See Stonss, PRECIOUS. 
 
 CARCAS (0273, Est 17°), one of the seven eunuchs 
 or chamberlains of king Ahasuerus, An etymology 
 suggested is the Persian kargas, ‘vulture.’ The 
 
 gives a different name. 
 
 CARCASE (the spelling has been indifferently 
 carcase or carcass throughout, though dictionaries 
 have given carcass alone, or by preference since 
 Johnson) is used now only of the dead body of a 
 beast, or contemptuously of a human being, but 
 was formerly used freely of either. The Heb. 
 words are various: (1) 113 géviyyah (used of living 
 body also) is so tr. only Jg 148° of the c. of 
 Samson’s lion (RV ‘ body’), which is also (14°) 
 called (2) abe mappeleth (fr. b>} to fall, as rréua 
 fr. wlarrew, cadaver fr. cadere), which has this 
 meaning only here; elsewhere ‘fall’ Pr 2916, Ezk 
 9618-18 3116 3910 or ‘rnin’? Ezk 277731" [all]. (3) 
 5 peger ; and (4) nba; nébhélah are often tr. ‘car- 
 case.’ Both are also oe lied to the trunk of an 
 idol, peger Lv 26% ‘I cast your carcases upon 
 the carcases of your idols’; nébhélah Jer 16% 
 ‘they have filled mine inheritance with the carcases 
 of their detestable things.’ Both words are used 
 in Heb. of dead bodies only, so that the tr. ‘dead 
 earcase’ of Dt 148, Ezk 6°, is as needless for the 
 Heb. as in the Eng.; RV omits ‘dead.’ 
 
 In Bel® ‘in the den there were seven lions, and 
 they had given them every day two carcases and 
 two sheep’ (so RV, AVm ‘slaves,’ Gr. cdépara, lit. 
 ‘bodies,’ used of ‘servants,’ t.e. slaves, To 10). 
 
 In NT ‘ carcase’ occurs Mt 24% ‘ wheresoever the 
 c. is, there will the eagles be gathered together’ 
 (rapa, as in Wis 438); and He 3” ‘ whose carcases 
 fell in the wilderness’ (x)or, lit. ‘limbs,’ the LXX 
 tr. of 125 in Nu 14” ®2 where the language is nearly 
 identical). . HASTINGS. 
 
 CARCHEMISH (w7273; omitted in the LXX 
 at 2 Ch 35”, but at Jer 26 (Heb 46}? Xapyeis [Q, 
 Kapyxapyeis]; Vulg. Charcamis). There have been 
 various conjectures as to the site of this city, 
 which was finally correctly located by Messrs. 
 Skene and Geo. Smith, by means of the Assyrian 
 inscriptions. Carchemish is at present represented 
 by the mounds of Jerablfis (Smith, Yaraboloos) or 
 Fiera lis, on the western bank of the Euphrates, 
 described by Smith as a grand site, with vast walls 
 and palace-mounds 8000 ft. round, and containing 
 numerous sculptures and monoliths with inscrip- 
 tions, many of which are now in the British 
 Museum. Pococke says that the ruins are rect- 
 angular, and measure 4 mile long by 4 mile wide. 
 The mounds lie between Birejik and the junction 
 of the Sajur and the Euphrates. Carchemish, the 
 chief city of the Hittites, was called Karkamis by 
 the Babylonians, Gargamis and Kargamis by the 
 Assyrians, and Karikamai(?)sa or Karakamisa by 
 the Egyptians, and the city was known—perhaps 
 renowned—as a trading centre as early as the 3rd 
 millennium B.c.* Amen-em-hebe, one of the cap- 
 tains of Tahutmes II. (c. B.C. 1600), refers to his cam- 
 pe against the people of Karikamai(?)sa, where 
 
 e took prisoners ;+ and about B.c. 1200 Tiglath- 
 pileser I. of Assyria plundered ‘the land of the 
 neighbourhood of Subi as far as Carchemish (Kar- 
 
 * Before the reign of the Bab. king Ammi-zaduga, c. 2100 B.o. 
 + W. Max Miiller, Asien und Europa nach altdgyptischen 
 , Leipzig, 1893. 
 VOL. I.—23 
 
 gamis) of the land of Hatte (Kheta or Hit) in a 
 single day.’ There is no record, however, that 
 the fortress was taken on this occasion. The 
 ruler of Carchemish about B.c. 880 was Sangara, 
 who paid a large amount of tribute, chiefly in 
 manufactured things, such as furniture and woven 
 stuffs, also metal, to ASsur-nazir-pal, king of 
 Assyria. Sangara afterwards came into conflict 
 with Shalmaneser II., son of Assur -nazir- pal, 
 about B.C. 858, and the Assyrian king says that 
 he captured Sangara’s cities, receiving from the 
 latter, when he submitted, 2 talents of ‘gold, 70 
 talents of silver, 30 talents of copper, 100 talents 
 of iron, 20 talents of purple cloth, 500 weapons, 
 his daughter with a dowry, 100 daughters of the 
 great men of the place, 500 oxen, and 5000 sheep, 
 and fixed as his (yearly) tribute 1 maneh of ol. 
 1 talent of silver, and 2 talents of purple cloth, 
 one payment of which is duly recorded as having 
 taken place. The large amount of the war in- 
 demnity and the tribute testify to the prosperity 
 and commercial importance of the city. On the 
 bronze gates found by H. Rassam at Balawat 
 the reception of tribute by Shalmaneser 1. is 
 twice represented, and in each case a picture in 
 relief of the fortress is given. The city was finally 
 taken by Sargon of Assyria in B.C. 717, when 
 Pisiri or Pisiris, its last king, was made prisoner. 
 From this time it formed part of the Assyrian 
 empire, and was administered by an Assyrian 
 governor.* Its importance as a trading centre 
 continued under its new rulers, the ‘maneh of 
 Carchemish’ being one of the standard weights in 
 use at Nineveh. Later notices of the city occur 
 in the Bible itself, when Pharaoh-Necho defeated 
 Josiah in the battle in which the Jewish king lost 
 his life (2 Ch 35”), and was himself defeated by 
 Nebuchadrezzar, four yours later (B.C. 605), under 
 the walls of the city Jer 467), in the battle which 
 decided the fate of Western Asia. The patron 
 deity of the city was the Asiatic goddess wor- 
 shipped under the name of Atargatis, whose wor- 
 ship, when the city fell into decay, was transferred 
 to the city now represented by Membij, which 
 became the new Hierapolis, and continued in ex- 
 istence after the old city of Carchemish was de- 
 serted. The meaning of the name is unknown. 
 T. G, PINCHES. 
 
 CARE.—The Preps meaning of this word, and 
 of all its compounds (of which there occur in AV 
 ‘careful,’ ‘carefully,’ ‘carefulness,’ ‘careless,’ 
 ‘carelessly’) is trouble or sorrow. But from a 
 very early period it was confounded with Lat. 
 cura (with which it has no connexion, being a 
 purely Teutonic word), and the meaning of cura, 
 viz. attention to something or somebody, became 
 attached to it. This affected even the original 
 word, so that care in the sense of sorrow became 
 anxiety, as if due to over-attention; while the 
 compounds have now actually dropped their original 
 meaning, and adopted that of cura wholly. But 
 throughout the history of the word, and esp. in 
 AV, we can trace the two senses side by side. 
 
 1. Care is both subst. and verb. As subst. (1) 
 Anxiety (Gr. pépyuva): Mt 13”, ‘the care of this 
 world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the 
 word’; so Mk 4”, Lk 84 21% ‘ cares of this life,’ 
 2 Co 11% ‘the care of all the churches’ (RV 
 ‘anxiety for’), 1 P 5’ ‘ Casting all your care upon 
 him’ (RV ‘ anxiety’), 1 Mac 6'° ‘my heart faileth 
 for very care.’ In OT, 18S 10? ‘thy father hatk 
 left the care of the asses (i.e. concern about, 
 731, lit. ‘“‘the matters of the asses”), and sorroweth 
 for you,’ Ezk 418 ‘ they shall eat bread by weight, 
 and with care’ (nix1, RV ‘carefulness’). (2) 
 Attention (esp. earnest attention, the original 
 meaning of the word in turn affecting this 
 
 * The name of the governor in B.0. 691 or 692 was Bél-emurini. 
 
354 CARE 
 
 borrowed meaning; Gr. o7ovd}): 2 Co 7% ‘our 
 care for you in the sight of God’ (RV ‘earnest 
 care,’ as 816 AV, RV); Ph 4 ‘your care for me’ 
 (rd gpovetvy, RV ‘thought for me’) Wis 617 74 
 (ppovris) As verb (1) Anaiety or concern (Gr. 
 peptuvdw) 3 1 Co 7%. 8. % « But I would have you with- 
 out carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for 
 the things that belong to the Lord, how he ma 
 lease the Lord: but he that is married caret, 
 or the things that are of the world, how he ma 
 ple his wife’ (RV ‘is careful for’); 12%, Ph 2”, 
 n OT, 2 S 18° ‘if we flee away, they will not care 
 for us, neither if half of us die, will they care for 
 us’ (Heb. 25 nw). (2) Attention: Dt 11" ‘a land 
 which the Lord thy God careth for (w23, RVm 
 ‘seeketh after’), the eyes of the Lord thy God are 
 always upon it’; Ps 1424 ‘no man cared for my 
 soul. When the expression is care for, the dis- 
 tinction is not always obvious, since it is the person 
 that is anxious about who will give attention to; 
 but in the foll. passages (where the Gr. is uéec) 
 the meaning is always anxiety or concern: Mt 
 2216, Mk 124, Jn 10% ‘ he is an hireling, and careth 
 not for the sheep,’ 12° ‘not that he cared for the 
 goor, Ac 18!” ‘Gallio cared for none of these 
 things,’ 1 Co 77, 1 P 5’ ‘He careth for you.’ On 
 the other hand, to take care of (émimedéouar) must 
 be ‘ to give attention to,’ Lk 10% ‘he brought him 
 to an inn and took care of him,’ 10®, 1 Ti 3° ‘if a 
 man know not how to rule his own house, how shall 
 he take care of the church of God?’ Hence 1 Co 
 9° AV, ‘ Doth God take care for oxen?’ (ué\e) is 
 @ serious mistranslation. God does take care for 
 oxen, as for all living creatures, but it is only for 
 man that He may be said to have concern (RV ‘ Is 
 it for the oxen that God careth ?’). 
 Careful.—l. Anaious, Lk 10“ ‘ Martha, Martha, 
 thou art c. and troubled about many things’ (uep:- 
 pegs RV ‘thou art anxious’), Ph 4° ‘Be careful 
 
 for no. hing’ (udev peptuvdre, RV ‘In nothing be 
 
 anxious’). In OT, Jer 178 ‘he shall be as a tree 
 planted by the waters . . . and shall not be ¢. in 
 the year of drought’ (1x3); Dn 3!6‘O Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, we are not c. to answer thee in this 
 matter’ (nvo, RV ‘we have no need,’ RVm as 
 AV). Cf. Shaks. Tit. And. Iv. iv. 84— 
 © The eagle suffers little birds to sing, 
 And is not careful what they mean thereby.’ 
 
 In Apocr., Bar 38 ‘They... were 80 ©.’ (uepiuvav- 
 ves); to which RV adds 2 Es 2” ‘Be not c. over- 
 much,’ an expression which brings out the differ- 
 ence between careful=anxious, and careful= 
 attentive or painstaking; in the latter sense, as 
 we put it, ‘you cannot be too careful.’ 2. Atten- 
 tiwe to one’s interests, painstaking : Ph 4 ‘Now at 
 the last your care of me hath flourished again ; 
 wherein ye were also c., but ye lacked opportunity’ 
 (éppovetre, RV ‘ye did take dhonght); it 3° ‘that 
 they which have believed in God might be c. to 
 maintain good works’ (porrifw); 2 K 4% ‘thou 
 hast been ec. for us with all this care’ (775, usually 
 ‘to tremble,’ and so here ‘ to be anxiously careful,’ 
 its only occurrence in this sense). 
 
 Carefully.—In the sense of anxiously, c. occurs 
 only Mic 1 ‘the inhabitant of Maroth waited 
 c. for good’ (nbn, lit. ‘has been in pain,’ RV 
 * waiteth anxiously’). In the sense of attentively, 
 there are in AV Dt 15° ‘if thou. hearken’ (yipy-ox 
 dr ks ‘if hearkening thou shalt hearken,’ RV 
 ‘if thou shalt diligently hearken,’ as AV in 11” 
 281, same Heb.); Wis 12 ‘we should e. think of 
 thy goodness’ pepiuvGuev, RV ‘ ponder’); Ph 28 ‘IT 
 sent him the more ¢.’ (crovdatorépws, RV ‘the more 
 diligently ’) ; He 12” ‘he sought it c. with tears’ 
 (éx{yréw, RV ‘sought it diligently’). To these 
 RV adds Mt 27-16 (axpBsw, AV ‘diligently ’), 28 
 (dxp8Gs AV ‘diligently’), Ac 18% (dxpBws, AV 
 ‘ diligently ’) 187° (dxpi8ws AV ‘ perfectly’) and He 
 
 CARMEL 
 
 12% ‘ Looking c¢.’ (éricxorobvres, AV ‘looking dill. 
 gently ’). 
 
 Carefulness, in tiie sense of anaiety, is given 
 in AV (as tr. of a391) Ezk 123*19; to which 
 RV adds 4% (AV ‘care’), Jos 22% (AV ‘ fear’). 
 In the same sense is Sir 30% ‘c. bringeth age 
 before the time’ (uépyuva, RV ‘care’); and 
 1 Co 72 *T would have you without c.’ (dyépiuros, 
 RV ‘free from cares’). Cf. Latimer, Ser. 1. 413, 
 ‘Consider the remedy against carefulness, which 
 is to trust in God.’ But the sense of watchful 
 and helpful interest is clear in 2 Co 74 ‘what c. it 
 wrought in you’ (o7ovd}, RV ‘earnest care’); for 
 the same apostle commends ¢. in this passage, who 
 had condemned it in the previous. 
 
 Careless and Carelessly have always the mean- 
 ing of without trouble or anxiety, in security (the 
 Heb. being always noz ‘to trust,’ or nya ‘con- 
 fidence’) ; ‘careless’ Jg 187, Is 32%1% Hzk 30° 
 (but RV adds Pr 191° Heb. 7y5 ‘a despiser’) ; ‘ care- 
 lessly ’ Is 478, Ezk 39°, Zeph 2%. Cf.— 
 
 * Raise up the organs of her fantasy ; 
 Sleep she as sound as careless infancy.’ 
 Shaks. Merry Wvees, v. v. 66. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CARIA (Kapla) is actually mentioned only in 
 1 Mac 15 as one of the places to which the Rom. 
 Senate sent a circular letter in B.C. 139-138 in 
 favour of the Jews. The political entity which is 
 here meant was probably the Chrysaorian con- 
 federacy, in whieh most of the cities (esp. the 
 inland cities) of C. were united, meeting at the 
 temple of Zeus Chrysaoreus at Stratonicea. C., 
 most of which belonged to the Rhodians from 190 
 to 168, was then declared free by the Romans; and 
 this confederacy was the responsible government 
 until 129, when the country was incorporated in 
 the province of Asia. The coast cities of C. were 
 chiefly Greek, and did not belong to the confederacy: 
 of these Miletus was Ionian; Cnidus, Cos, and 
 Halicarnassus were Dorian: hence the Rom. Senate 
 sent their letter about the Jews (see DELUS) to the 
 Dorian cities, Cnidus, Halicarnassus, Cos, and also 
 to Rhodes and Myndus (which seem to be nearly 
 the complete list of Carian governments). 
 
 W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 CARITES (3) occurs in the Kethibh of the Heb. 
 text and margin of RV in 2 § 20%, where the Keré 
 has Cherethites (‘n12), and in RV of 2 K 114, where 
 the AV has captains (RVm executioners). The 
 Carites were possibly Phil. mercenaries from Caria, 
 as the Cherethites were from Crete. See CHERE- 
 THITES, and cf. W. R. Smith, O7/C? 262 n. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 CARMEL (b> ‘garden’), Jos 15%, 1S 154 
 252-7. 40, 2 S 2385, 1 Ch 1157.—A city of Judah in the 
 Hebron mountains, where Saul set up a ‘hand’ or 
 memorial stone, and where Nabal lived in possession 
 of flocks. One of David’s heroes was a Carmelite. 
 Now the ruined town Kurmul, on the hills about 
 10 miles S.E. of Hebron, chiefly remarkable for the 
 remains of a large square tower, built in the 12th 
 cent. A.D., and for a very fine large reservoir. See 
 SWP vol. iii. sheet xxiv. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 CARMEL (usually with the def. art. 2>720 ‘the 
 
 arden’ or ‘garden-land’; without it only in 
 
 os 1975, Jer 4618, Nah 14; 6 Kdpundos ; but generally 
 ’3n 39 ‘Mount of the Carmel’; dpos 7d Kapyhdov; 
 Jos. Kapundos, Kapusdov 8pos. In later Heb. ore 
 In the list of places conquered by Tahutmes III. in 
 Pal., No. 49 reads Kalimna, which Tomkins takes 
 as Kalamon or Carmel ; and No. 48, Rshkadsh, by 
 which Maspero understands Rosh-Kodshu, ‘the 
 sacred headland’ of Carmel. Mod. Arab. Kirmial, 
 but more usually Jebel Mar Elyas).—This long 
 headland, which forms one of the great features 
 of Pal., is of the same hard limestone as the cen 
 
 
 
CARMEL 
 
 tral range of the country, but is separated from 
 the latter by hills of softer formation, which are 
 therefore more worn than itself, and now lie lower 
 and are opened up by passes. The promontory of 
 Carmel rises above a narrow sea-beach to a height 
 of some 500 ft. at the monastery ; thence the ridge, 
 running S.E., ascends (PEF Teese Map, sheets 
 v. and viii.) 94 miles to Esfia (1742 Ry and 
 then sinks for 3} miles more to its end at El- 
 Mahraka (1687 ft.) ; beyond which there is a sudden 
 dip into the Wady el-Milh, a valley that separates 
 Carmel from the lower hills aforesaid, the Belad 
 er-Ruhah. The ridge is well-defined, and in shape 
 a wedge, with the thin end seaward, in breadth 
 from plain to plain 14 miles, but at the thick or 
 inland end as much as 84 miles broad. The sides are 
 ee differently disposed. The S.W. sinks slowly 
 by long ridges and glens upon the plain of Sharon; 
 the N.E. is abrupt and steep above the plains of 
 Haifa and Esdraelon. At the foot of the latter 
 runs Kishon, for the most part parallel to the axis 
 of the mountain. The limestone of C. abounds in 
 flints, ‘ geodes’ (known as ‘ Elijah’s melons’), and 
 fossils ; and on the N.E. igneous rocks crop out from 
 a basalt formation that extends to the Sea of Galilee 
 
 Digh sky-line, with the line of Bashan 
 
 and the great mass of Hermon, form the three 
 andest features of all views from Esdraeclon, 
 alilee, and the mountains of Ephraim. Accord- 
 ingly C., Gilead or Bashan, and Lebanon are 
 frequently named together in OT (Is 33° 353, 
 Mic 7 etc.). Once C. is coupled with Tabor: 
 *« Pharaoh is but a rumour?” As I live, saith 
 J”, surely like Tabor among mountains, and like C. 
 by the sea, shall he come!’ (Jer 464). At opposite 
 ends of Fsdraelon (the very scene of Pharaoh’s 
 coming) the two hills stand out, symbols of that 
 which shall certainly be established as fact, and 
 make its Petes elt. Sweeping seaward, in 
 the face of the rains, C., as its name declares, is 
 resent this is 
 wild—a thick growth of underwood, grass 
 owers, ed Re of oak, carob, and many 
 ere and there a grove of great 
 
 mos 
 and 
 evergreens, with 
 trees. Van de Velde asserts that there was not 
 
 eer clothed with verdure. At 
 
 a flower found him in Galilee or in the mari- 
 time plain which he did not alse meet on C., 
 ‘still the fragrant lovely mountain that it was 
 of old’ (i. 317, 318). But there are, too, frequent 
 olive-groves, and other gardens, with prosperous 
 villages ; while the more numerous grooved floors 
 and troughs that have been traced in the rock 
 below the brushwood, prove that, in ancient times, 
 there was an even greater cultivation, and chiefly 
 of olive and vine. Accordingly, in OT Carmel is 
 the very type of a luxuriant fertility (Is 357 etc.) ; 
 her decay the prophets’ most desperate figure of 
 desolation (Am 1’, Is 339 etc.). The German 
 colonists at Haifa have resumed the culture of the 
 vine on the N. slopes of the promontory. 
 
 C. plays no part in the political or military 
 history of Palestine. The great campaigns swept 
 past her on either side: in military tactics the hill 
 was only an obstacle to be avoided. By far the 
 most armies, whether going north or south, crossed 
 between Esdraelon ene Sharon by the passes to the 
 east of C. Some of the Syrian advances south, 
 Rom. legions when passing from Ptolemais to 
 Cesarea, Richard Lionheart and the Third Crusade, 
 Napoleon on his retreat from Acre,—these followed 
 the sea road under the promontory. May not this 
 quality of being neither a goal in itself, nor on the 
 road anywhere, be the origin of the curious Tal- 
 mudie word 0p 9? 
 
 The aloofness of C. from the central range made 
 its ridge but an uncertain appendage to the terri- 
 
 CARMEL 354 
 
 tory of Israel. According to Jos 19” it was assigned 
 to the tribe of Asher; but their tenure must fa 
 been intermittent. The kings of N. Israel seem to 
 have held it as they held Gilead ; but even in the 
 time of Amos (9*) ‘the top of C,’ is regarded as 
 a hiding-place of fugitives from J”; and in later 
 history it lay outside Samaria, and was sometimes 
 allotted to Galilee, but frequently subject to Tyre 
 (Jos. BJ Ii. iii. 1). 
 
 The causes, however, which disabled C. from 
 political rank, contributed to enhance its fame as 
 asanctuary. ‘In its separation from other hills, 
 its position on the sea, its visibleness from all 
 quarters of the country, its uselessness for war 
 and traffic, in its profusion of flowers, its high 
 platforms and groves, with their glorious prospects 
 of land and sea, C. must have been a place of 
 retreat and of worship from the earliest times.’ 
 Maspero thinks to identify it in the lists of Tahut- 
 mes III. under the name of ‘headland of holiness’ 
 (see above); and even before Elijah’s day there 
 seem to have been upon it altars both to Baal and 
 J”. For here, as on ground which both of them 
 held to be sacred, the representatives of the two 
 religions met to appeal to their respective deities, 
 and decided the argument between them (1 K 
 187%), Tradition and the agreement of man 
 modern explorers (see esp. Stanley, Sin. and Pal. 
 353 f.) place the scene at the E. end of the ridge, 
 at a place called El-Mahraka, or ‘the burning,’ 
 where Druses have a sanctuary and are said still 
 to perform a yearly sacrifice ; there is a good spring 
 just below (cf. Jos. Ant. VIII. xiii. 5). Itis interest- 
 ing that immediately below, on the banks of Kishon, 
 a great mound is boat as the Tell el-Kasis or 
 Mound of the Priests. But the derivation of the 
 modern name of Kishon, the Nahr el-Mukatta, as 
 if it meant river of slaughter, is both improbable 
 in itself and impossible to connect with the 
 slaughter of the priests. When it is said that 
 Elijah afterwards went up to the ‘head of C.’ it 
 is possible that ‘headland * is meant, in which case 
 the tradition is correct that places the site of his 
 waiting for rain near the monastery ; but the word 
 may also mean ‘top,’ any spot on the long summit 
 of the ridge, which almost everywhere is in sight 
 of the sea. A point near the E. end and the altar 
 of J” would better suit the context, and esp. the 
 story of Elijah’s subsequent race to Jezreel in 
 front of Ahab’s chariot. It is possible that the 
 great prophet from Gilead chose as his subsequent 
 residence the scene of the triumph of J”, and 
 evidently C. is meant by ‘the mountain’ on 
 which, according to the extraordinary ay (2 K 
 19-15), he called down fire on the king of Israel’s 
 soldiers sent to arrest him for his inbartaneaee with 
 the ambassadors to Ekron. Elisha visited C. after 
 the departure of Elijah (7b. 2%); and when the 
 Shunammite was in need of him, she went to seek 
 and found him there (4%). 
 
 Probably for reasons already stated, C. does not 
 again appear in OT as the scene of any sacred 
 function ; but in heathen hands the sanctity of 
 the hill was preserved. Tacitus describes it as the 
 site of an oracle, without an image ‘tantum ara et 
 reverentia’ (Hist. ii. 78); and Vespasian, having 
 sacrificed here, is said to have received from the 
 priests the prediction that he would be sae 
 (Suetonius, Fes as. 5). Jamblichus (Vit. Pyth. iii. 
 (15)) describes C. as ‘sacred above all mountains, 
 and forbidden of access to the vulgar’ (see W. R. 
 Smith, 2S 146). As we have seen, the probable 
 site of Elijah’s altar is still held sacred by the 
 Druses. But it is Christianity which has chiefly 
 perpetuated the ancient sanctity of C., and the 
 mountain has given its name to the great order 
 of Carmelite Friars, whose convent stands upon 
 the promontory above the sea. Louis the Saint, 
 
 
 
356 CARMELITE, CARMELITESS 
 
 
 
 of France, founded the convent; but its legends 
 trace the order of its monks in unbroken succession 
 from Elijah himself, by Elisha, the sons of the 
 prophets, John the Baptist, and the Essenes! The 
 church of the convent is dedicated to the Virgin 
 Mary, whom the interpretation of the Rom. Church 
 sees prefigured in the cloud for which Elijah sent 
 his servant to look; and who, according to many 
 legends, frequented the neighbourhood of the 
 convent with the child Jesus, 
 
 LITERATURE. —Besides works quoted above, see Seetzen, Reisen, 
 ii. 96f.; Robinson, BR iii. 189; Conder, T'ent-Work, i. 169 ff. ; 
 Laurence Oliphant, various papers in the PEF Quarterly, 1882- 
 1886, and his Life by Mrs. Oliphant. G. A. SMITH. 
 
 CARMELITE, CARMELITESS (‘bn 725, np z2n).— 
 An inhabitant of Carmel in Judah, which is to be 
 distinguished from the well-known Carmel in the 
 north; it lies in the small but fertile plateau 
 between Hebron and the south desert. Nabal lived 
 with his wife Abigail at Maon, a mile to the S., 
 but his farms were at Carmel (1S 257). Maon, 
 Carmel, and Ziph are mentioned together, Jos 15® ; 
 cf. G. A. Smith, Hist. Geran p. 306. Hezrai (or 
 Hezro), one of David’s ‘thirty,’ came from this 
 district (2 S 23%). 
 
 J. F, STENNING. 
 CARMI (72).—1. A Judahite, the father of 
 Achan (Jos 7!:18,1 Ch27), 2. The Carmiof 1 Ch 4! 
 should probably be corrected, with Well. and Kittel, 
 to Chelubai ('53), i.e. Caleb (cf. 1 Ch 2%38). 3, The 
 eponym of a Reubenite family (Gn 46°, Ex 64,1 Ch 
 5”), me Carmites of Nu 26°. See GENEALOGY. 
 
 CARMONIANS (Carmonii, 2 Es 15°, AV Car- 
 manians).—A people occupying an extensive dis- 
 trict north of the entrance to the Persian Gulf, 
 between Persis on the west and Gedrosia on the 
 east. Accounts of the country and of the people, 
 who are said to have resembled the Medes and 
 Persians in customs and language, are to be found 
 in Strabo (xv. p. 726), Ptolemy (vi. 8), Am. Mar- 
 cellinus (xxiii. 6), and other ancient writers. The 
 name survives in the present town and district of 
 Kirman. In the above verse, which is one of the late 
 additions to the Second Book of Esdras, it is said that 
 the Carmanians shall come forth like wild boars, 
 shall join battle with the ‘dragons of Arabia,’ and 
 lay waste a portion of the land of the Assyrians. 
 The reference is probably to Sapor I. (A.D. 240-273), 
 the founder of the Sassanid dynasty, who, after 
 defeating Valerian, overran Syria, and destroyed 
 Antioch. He was subsequently driven back across 
 the Euphrates by Odzenathus and Zenobia (ef. 
 Lupton in Speaker’s Com. ad loc.). The errone- 
 ous form Carmonians, which is supported by the 
 best Latin MSS, is possibly due to confusion with 
 Carmona, an important city in Spain (so James in 
 Texts and Studies, Il. ii. p. xx). H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CARNAIM, Kapyéw, 1 Mac 5° (Kapydiw) 4 44, 
 and Carnion (7b Kdpyov), 2 Mac 12°'-?6 (RVm 
 Carnain).—The ancient Ashteroth-Karnaim (which 
 see). 
 
 CARNAL, CARNALLY.—In OT of sexual inter- 
 course, Lv 187° 199, Nu 5/8. Butin NT = ‘of the 
 flesh’ (capxicés). In Ro 87 ‘the carnal mind,’ Gr. 
 is ppévnua tis capkds, RV ‘mind of the flesh’; so 
 He 9! ‘carnal ordinances’; Sikaupara capkds, 
 ‘ordinances of flesh.’ See FLESH. 
 
 CARNION.—See CarNAIM. 
 
 CARPENTER (#9 ‘artificer,’ e.g. 2K 22°; yy ey 
 ‘artificer in wood.’ eg. 2K 12"!; rékrwy, Mt 13°, 
 Mk 6').—The early use of timber structures and 
 agricultural tools must have necessitated some 
 
 CARRIAGE 
 
 
 
 form of carpentry among the Isr. in primitive 
 times, and the close intercourse of the Hebrews 
 
 with the Egyptians who have left mural repre. | 
 
 sentations of carpenters at work with a variety of 
 tools, afforded an Sper eat, for the development 
 of the art. Nevertheless, the Jews were backward 
 in technical skill. In the first mention of car- 
 penters in the Bible they are foreigners imported 
 into Pal. for builders’ work, which would seem 
 to have been beyond the capacity of the Isr. 
 themselves. Phoen. workmen were engaged on 
 the building of David’s house, Hiram of Tyre 
 sending carpenters to work the timber which he 
 also furnished (28 5"). Similarly, the timber 
 work as well as the masonry in Solomon’s temple 
 was executed by Phen. artisans owing to the 
 confessed inability of the Jews (1 K 5%), the 
 Jewish workmen only assisting as labourers (1 K 
 5%), When, however, carpenters ede at the 
 restoration of the temple by Jehoash, there is 
 no mention of these men being foreigners (2 K 12"), 
 Those who repaired the temple under Josiah alse 
 seem to have oer Jews (2 K 22°). Nebuchadrezzar 
 carried the carpenters and smiths together with 
 Jeconiah and the princes into captivity (Jer 24! 293, 
 where, indeed, we only read 7, not yy #17; but 
 then the mention of ‘smiths’ suggests that the 
 ‘artificers’ were workers in wood). In Is 44% 
 there is a picture of a carpenter with his tools 
 carving a@ wooden idol; but this refers to a Bab. 
 artist. At the rebuilding of the temple under 
 Zerub. the carpenters appear to have been Phe- 
 nicians (Ezr 3’). Zechariah’s ‘carpenters’ may 
 have been any kind of artisans. According to the 
 first Gospel, Joseph was a carpenter (Mt 13%); 
 according to the second, Jesus Himself (Mk 6%). 
 Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 150) states that ‘He was 
 in the habit of working as a carpenter when 
 among men, making ploughs and yokes’ (Trypho 
 88). This more definite statement 1s not attribu' 
 
 to the Memoirs of the Apostles, and seems to have 
 been derived from tradition. See Delitzsch, Jewish 
 Artisan Life. W. F. ADENEY. 
 
 CARPUS.—An inhabitant of Troas, with whom 
 St. Paul stayed, pola on his last sonrney to 
 Rome (2 Ti 44) he name is Greek, but we have 
 no means of proving his nationality. His memory 
 is honoured, as one of the seventy disciples, by the 
 Greek Church on May 26, and by the Roman and 
 Syrian Churches on October 13. A late tradition 
 found in the list of the seventy disciples, attri- 
 buted to Hippolytus, and in that by Dorotheus, 
 describes him as having become bishop of Berytus 
 or Bercea, in Thrace. (Acta Sanctorum, ey 26, 
 Oct. 18; Monologion, May 26; Nilles, Kalen- 
 darium Manuale, i. pp. 165, 461.) W. Lock. 
 
 CARRIAGE.—In the AV this word occurs five 
 times in the OT, once in the NT, and four times 
 in the Apocrypha, but never in the sense which 
 the word bears in modern English. It denotes 
 regularly ‘something carried,’ or, as we should 
 say, ‘baggage.’ The passages are arranged below 
 according to the various Heb. or Gr. words 
 rendered by carriage. 
 
 (1) 18 172%, Is 10%b3, LXX oxev}J—a word of 
 Math wide signification, and corresponding roughly 
 to the English ‘things.’ In the first place in Samuel 
 the ref. is to the present brought ty David to his 
 brothers in Saul’s army, in the second and in Isaiah 
 to the baggage of an army. RV ‘And David left his 
 baggage in the hand of the keeper of the baggage.’ 
 ‘At Michmash he layeth up his baggage.’ 
 
 (2) Is 46’ o> n\xv}=your carried things, of the 
 Babylonian idols, which the priests were accus- 
 tomed to carry about in solemn procession. RV 
 ‘The things that ye carried about. 
 
 
 
CARSHENA 
 
 (3) Jg 18% mpazn, LXX 7d Bdpos, but A (rhv 
 Krijgw avrod) thy évdotov=the heavy, or perhaps the 
 recious goods, referring to the baggage of the 
 anites, or more probably to the images which 
 nad been stolen out of Micah’s house. RV ‘the 
 goods.’ 
 (4) Ac 21% ‘We took up our carriages’ is the 
 translation of émicxevacdweva. The Greek word 
 expresses the completion of the preparations neces- 
 sary for the journey from Cesarea to Jerusalem ; 
 but others understand the term of the loading 
 of the baggage animals. RV ‘We took up our 
 bagea, e,’ RVm ‘made ready.’ 
 the Apocrypha, carriage, t.e. baggage, repre- 
 sents drapria (Jth 2!73) and dooce (1 Mac 9% *), 
 In the margin of the AV the phrases, ‘the 
 place of the carriage,’ and ‘in the midst of his 
 carriages,’ occur as alternative renderings to the 
 word ‘trench’ found in the text of 1 S 17” 26°. 
 The Heb. expression is 53y> (LXX 17” orpoy- 
 yodwots ; 26° dayzrijvn), and denotes the circular 
 ‘laager’ or barricade formed by the baggage and 
 baggage-wagons round the place of encampment. 
 RV ‘the place of the wagons.’ RVm ‘ barricade.’ 
 Even here ‘ aa i ’ is probably not to be under- 
 stood in the modern sense of ‘a vehicle.’ See 
 CaMP. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CARSHENA (x3773).—One of the wise men or 
 counsellors of king Ahasuerus, Est 1%. See 
 ADMATHA. 
 
 CART (A)., Suata, plaustrum—in the AV the 
 same word is also rendered WAGON in Gn 4519 21.27 
 465, Nu 75#-).—Such vehicles, drawn usually by two 
 oxen (Nu 7*7-8, 1 § 67, cf. 2S 6%), were used for 
 the conveyance of persons (Gn /.c.), goods (Nu /.c., 
 land 2 Sli.c., and Jth 15"), or produce (Am 2”). 
 Artificial roads seem to have existed in Palestine 
 from a very early period (Nu 20”, Jg 20°, 1S 6%); 
 and the Canaanites conquered by Joshua at the 
 Waters of Merom possessed war chariots (Jos 11°, 
 cf. 17! 18), Nevertheless, the rough mountainous 
 country of Judah and of central Pal. was not suit- 
 able for vehicles, and it is to be noticed that we 
 first hear of wagons in connexion with the flat 
 opeeat of Egypt, or the level plain of Philistia. 
 Carts for agricultural produce may well have been 
 used from the earliest times (Am 2", cf. Is 518), and 
 for these roads would not be required (see G. A. 
 Smith, Hist. Geog. p. 667 ff.). The wagons men- 
 tioned in Nu 7° were probably covered vehicles 
 (LXX Aaprnyixal, Aq. cxeracral); but the word 2 
 is obscure, occurring again only in Is 66” in 
 the sense of ‘litters.’ The ordinary carts prob- 
 ably resembled those still in use in the East, 
 which have two wheels of solid wood; but on 
 monuments from Nineveh and Egypt we find 
 representations of vehicles with two and four 
 wheels, the wheels being constructed with six or 
 eight spokes (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 396; Wilkin- 
 son, Anc. Egyp. il. 211, iii. 179). 
 
 In Is 284 (perhaps also in Am 2") the ‘cart’ of 
 EV is really a threshing wagon. Similar instru- 
 ments are still to be seen in the East. The 
 consist of three or four parallel rollers, ridged with 
 iron, and fitted into a square wooden frame (see 
 AGRICULTURE). Horses are employed to draw 
 these threshing wagons in Syria at the present day 
 (comp. G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. p. 613), and they 
 were used for this purpose even in Isaiah’s time, if 
 the ordinary text of Is 28% is correct (see Duhm, 
 ad loc.). H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CARVING.—1. Carved (RV graven) image (50s), 
 the figure of deities and such-like sculptures used 
 in idolatrous worship (Jg 188, 2 Ch 337”, 34° 4). 
 Teref pesel, idolatrous food, is a Jewish name 
 
 CASLUHIM 
 
 for NT. 2. Carving in relief-work (niybpp *mns), as 
 in the ornamental panelling in the holy place of 
 the temple (1 K 6”, Ps 74°), the two words in the 
 former es indicating the raised effect (nop) and 
 the hollowing of the gouge (ybp). 3. ‘Carved 
 works,’ RV ‘striped’ (nizvn), spoken of a bed-cover 
 (Pa7At)s 
 
 Decorative art among the Hebrews was meagre 
 and unoriginal, and generally debased what it 
 imitated (see ART, ARCHITECTURE). It had little 
 to encourage it, as its chief employment was in the 
 service of religion, and the true religion was the 
 worship of the Invisible. The Heb. mind differed 
 from the Greek in obeying an ordinance because it 
 was an ordinance, rather than because of the com- 
 
 ulsion of its inward beauty. In the building of 
 
 olomon’s temple the best art available was em- 
 ployed upon the richest materials, but the details 
 are more about outlay than effect, and the point 
 of view in the description is sacrifice rather than 
 symmetry. The result of the finished glory is left 
 to be imagined. Finally, the second command- 
 ment was interpreted as a specific prohibition. In 
 the same way the Moslems abstain from the repre- 
 sentation of life in ornament, and have developed 
 the decorative treatment of geometrical form. 
 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 CASE (casus, anything that befalls one, hence 
 any condition of one’s affairs): Ps 144° ‘ Happy is 
 the people that is in such a case’ (732; cf. Ac 25! 
 RY); Jn 5° ‘he had been now a long time in that 
 case’ ; 2 Es 167 ‘ they shall think themselves to be 
 in good case’ (cf. Geneva Bible, Gn 40% ‘ When 
 thou art in good case, show mercie unto me,’ AV 
 ‘When it shall be well with thee’); Ex 5” ‘they 
 were in evil case,’ cf. Jon 4° RV; Dt 194 ‘ this is 
 the case of the slayer’ (122); and Mt 19” ‘if the 
 case of the man be so with his wife’ (alrla). The 
 phrase ‘in any case’ occurs in the obs. sense ‘by 
 any means’ in Dt 221 ‘ thou shalt in any case bring 
 them again’ (‘bringing thou shalt bring,’ RV 
 ‘thou shalt surely bring’); and 24%. In Mt 5” 
 ‘Ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven,’ the Gr. is the two negatives (ov 4%), which, 
 in the declining lang. of NT, are not always more 
 emphatic than the single negative, but they seem 
 to be so here (RV ‘in no wise’). In Ro 3° RV 
 gives ‘are we in worse case than they?’ for AV 
 “are we better than they ?’ (Gr. rpoexéueda. See 
 Field, Otiwm Norv. iii. ad loc., and an excellent 
 note in Sanday-Headlam’s Romans). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 CASEMENT.—See HoussE. 
 
 CASIPHIA (x:pp>, or, in full, oipen xpp ‘the 
 place Casiphia’).—Judging from the two refer- 
 ences to this city in Ezr 8”, it was situated 
 on or near the river Ahava, on the way from 
 Babylon to Jerusalem; but neither of these names 
 is to be located with certainty. If C. be connected 
 with the word keseph, ‘silver,’ as is implied by 
 the LXX tr. (& dpyuply rod rérov), ‘with the 
 money of the place,’ it may have been situated 
 in the ‘land of silver’ (Sarsu or Zirsu) mentioned 
 in the well-known Assyr. Geogr. tablet WAT ii. 
 51; but as the position of this place also is un- 
 known, it does not help us to identify the site of 
 Casiphia. The city seems to have been the home 
 of the Nethinim or ‘temple-servants’ during the 
 reign of Artaxerxes. I. A. PINCHEs. 
 
 CASLUHIM (onbos, Xacuwrely).—A name oceur- 
 ring in Gn 10%, 1 Ch 1”, in connexion with the 
 names of other peoples there spoken of as descended 
 
 * The cogn. Arab. hatba means ‘to be of a dark, dusky colour’: 
 hence the reference may be to some dark-hued, or Perpers 
 darkly-striped, stuff. (Of. Aram. ptep. méhatbéthd, ‘variegated,’ 
 in Syr. VS of 2S 1319, and see Oa. Heb. Lew. 8. 10M.) 
 
 
 
358 CASPHOR 
 
 
 
 from Mizraim, esp. the Caphtorim and Philistines 
 (which see). 
 
 CASPHOR (Kacdup, 1 Mac 5%; Xacduv, Xacpsd, 
 1 Mac 5%, AV Casphon; Kaozmely, 2 Mac 12%, 
 Caspin).—Near a large lake in Gilead. The site is 
 unknown. 
 
 CASSIA.—This word occurs in three places in 
 OT, and is AV and RV rendering for two Heb. 
 words. 1. m7, kiddah, LXX Ex 30* ips, but 
 Ezk 27” omits. 2. niyyp Kézt'dth, xacla, casia, 
 Ps 458. It is highly probable that the reference in 
 both these Heb. words is to the cassia lignea, the 
 product of Cinnamomum Cassia, Blume. Two 
 substances are believed to be obtained from this 
 species. (a) Cassia bark, cortex cassie, a kind of 
 aromatic bark, with the smell and flavour of cinna- 
 mon, and resembling it in pene appearance and 
 properties. The root kiddah, in both Heb. and 
 Arab., signifies a strip, and seems to refer to the 
 strips of the bark of cassia lignea. ‘The Arab. VS 
 has salikhah for cassia, from a root also meaning 
 to strip off or decorticate. The exact substance 
 meant by salikhah is as uncertain as that intended 
 by cassia. It is also called ‘arfaj and ramth, and 
 is probably the same as darsini. (b) Cassia buds, 
 clavellt cinnamomi, the immature flowers of the 
 above. Both are produced in China. Coarser 
 varieties are produced in Malabar, Manilla, and 
 Mauritius. It is probable that they were known 
 to the Greeks and Romans, although the accounts 
 of cassia given in the classical authors are inde- 
 finite and conflicting. The cassia of Scripture 
 must not be confounded with the species of the 
 genus cassia which yield the senna of commerce 
 and medicine. Nor is it at all probable, notwith- 
 standing the LXX prs, that it is orris. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 CAST as a subst. occurs Lk 22 ‘a stone’s c.’ 
 (Body); as an adj. Jer 38-12 ‘old c. clouts’ 
 (nianp [all]). The verb is freq., and is used in some 
 obsol. meanings. 1. In its simplest sense =‘ throw,’ 
 it is now archaic, having been displaced by ‘throw’ 
 itself, but is often found in AV, as Jn 87 ‘let him 
 first c. a stone at her’; 1 Mac 6" ‘engines and 
 instruments to c. fire and stones, and pieces to c. 
 darts, and slings’—in such a case the verb has 
 gone out of use with the instrument. 2. The ex- 
 pression cast lots translates several Heb. words 
 (see LOT); the practice is seen in Pr 16 ‘The 
 lot is c. into the lap.’ 8. To ‘c. (=sow) seed’ is 
 now mainly fig. Ch Ee 11) ‘c. thy bread upon 
 the waters.’ 4. C. was formerly used of animals, 
 meaning to give birth to, as Walton, Angler (1653), 
 i. 26, ‘ There be divers fishes that cast their spawne 
 on flags and stones.’ But it was specially used of 
 an untimely birth, as Job 21 ‘their cow calveth, 
 and casteth not her calf,’ and extended to fruit- 
 trees, as Dt 28 ‘thine olive shall ec. his fruit’; 
 Rev 68 ‘as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs, 
 when she is shaken by a mighty wind.’ 5. C. was 
 extended to actions that involved some continuous 
 effort, as Zec 58 ‘he ec. it (RV ‘her’) down into 
 the midst of the ephah; and hee. the weight of 
 lead upon the mouth thereof’; the erection of a 
 pillar, Gn 31° ‘Behold this heap and this pillar 
 which I have c. betwixt me and thee’ (RV ‘ set’); 
 and esp. an earthwork, as 2 S 20" ‘they c. up a 
 bank against the city’ ; Jer 6° ‘ Hew ye down trees, 
 and c. a mount against Jerusalem.’ 
 
 The foll. phrases deserve attention : Cast about 
 is used in two senses, Mk 14°! ‘having a linen 
 cloth c. about his naked body’ (epi8dAdw); Jer 414 
 ‘So all the roel ... cast about and returned’ 
 (325: ‘turned round’). Cf. Raleigh (1591), Last 
 Fight Rev. 19 ‘Persuaded . . . to cut his maine 
 saile, and cast about.’ Cast away is both lit. and 
 
 CASTLE 
 
 
 
 fig., as Mk 10” ‘ And he, casting away his gar- 
 ment, rose’ (dro8d\dw) ; Ro 111 ‘ Hath God c. away 
 his people?’ (a4mw0éw, RV ‘cast off’); 1175 ‘if the 
 casting away of them be the reconciling of the 
 world’ (diofod7); Lk 9% ‘if he . . . lose himself, 
 or be c. away’ (fnudw, RV ‘forfeit his own self’), 
 Different is 1 Co 977 ‘lest . . . I myself should be 
 a castaway’ (dddxwos, RV ‘rejected.’ The Gr. 
 word occurs also Ro 1%, 2 Co 13° &7, 2 Ti 38, Tit 
 16, where EV gives always ‘reprobate,’ and He 
 6° AV, RV ‘rejected.’ See Sanday - Headlam 
 on Ro 1%: doxidtw=1. ‘to test,’ as 1 Co 3%; 
 2. ‘to approve after testing,’ as Ro 178 28; hence 
 d5éxuos = ‘rejected after testing,’ ‘reprobate’). 
 Cast down—(1) lit. Mt 275 ‘ he c. down the pieces of 
 silver’; Sir 19°? ‘Casting down his countenance, 
 and making as if he heard them not’ (RV ‘ bowing 
 down his face’) ; (2) fig. ‘to defeat,’ ‘to humble,’ 
 2 Co 10° ‘Casting down imaginations, and eve 
 high thing that exalteth itself’; Rev 12! ‘the 
 accuser of our brethren is c. down’; 2 Co 49 ‘c. 
 down, but not destroyed’ (xaraBdd\dw, as Rev 121° 
 RV ‘smitten down’); Job 67 ‘ye see my casting 
 down, and are afraid’ (noq RV ‘a terror’); Neh 6! 
 ‘they were much c. down in their own eyes’; (3 
 ‘ec. down’=‘ dejected,’ is rare, only Ps 425 & 1 435 
 ‘Wny art thou ec. down, O my soul?’ (nninya 
 ‘bowed down’). Cast forth is used in the obsol. 
 and very rare sense of spreading roots, Hos 145 ‘he 
 shall grow as the lily, and c. forth his roots as 
 Lebanon’ (727 ‘strike’). Cast in—(1)=‘sow,’ Is 
 28% *¢e. in the principal wheat’ (RV ‘put in the 
 wheat in rows’); (2) in phrase ‘ce, in one’s lot,’ 
 Pr 14 ‘C. in thy lot among us’ (Heb. lit. ‘ cause 
 thy lot to fall among us’); (3) ‘cast in one’s 
 teeth,’ Mt 2744 ‘The thieves also, which were 
 crucified with him, ce. the same in his teeth’ (Gr. 
 dveldivov atr@ [edd. airév]=‘ reviled him,’ RV ‘ce. 
 upon him the same reproach.’ It was Tindale that 
 introduced ‘ cast in His tethe,’ to which Cranme1 
 added ‘the same’; Wyclif has ‘upbraiden Hym 
 of the same thing’); (4) ‘ec. in one’s mind’= 
 ‘ponder,’ Lk 1% ‘she... cast in her mind what 
 manner of salutation this should be’ (d:adoyltopat) : 
 cf. 2 Mac 1138 ‘ casting with himself what loss he 
 had had’; and Addison (1719), ‘I have lately 
 been casting in my thoughts the several unhappi- 
 nesses of life.’ Cast out, in many obvious senses, 
 also (1)=vomit, Is 2619 ‘the earth shall c. out the 
 dead’ (RV ‘c. forth’); ef. Hollybush (1561), ‘He 
 that hath a drye cough and doth not caste out’ ; 
 and Wyclif’s tr. of 2 P 2% ‘The hound turnede 
 agen to his castyng’; (2) ‘to excommunicate’ or 
 make an outcast, sf 9% «Jesus heard that they 
 had ¢. him out’; (3) ‘to expose’ children, Ac 7 
 ‘they c. out their young children’ (roe?y éx@erov). 
 Cast upon: ‘to make dependent on,’ Ps 22! *J 
 was c. upon thee from the womb.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 CASTANET.—See Music, 
 
 CASTLE.—1. The word, 77», rendered castle in 
 the AV of Gn 258, Nu 31”, 1 Ch 6%, denotes properly 
 a circular group of tents, the Wek of a 
 nomad tribe—RV ‘encampment’; L éraunts ; 
 1 Ch xdun; Vulg. oppidum, castellum, caula, ete. 
 In English translations of the Bible till the 16th 
 cent., ‘castle,’ like the Latin castellum, is often 
 used in the sense of ‘ village’; but the rendering of 
 the AV seems. to be due to the influence of Jewish 
 tradition. Thus in the Targs. 17» is rendered by 
 x222, t.e. a large town, Onk. in Gn 25%; xwwop= - 
 castra, T, Jer. ib.; xpiva, t.e. a fortress, T. Jer. 
 in Ezk 254, Similarly, the word is rendered in- 
 correctly ‘ palace,’ Ps 69% AVm; Ca 8? AV. 
 
 2. It seems to have been the custom, from an 
 early date, among the inhabitants of Pal., to eect 
 in their towns a fortified tower or citadel, e.g. the 
 
 
 
co, a 
 
 wT) ee oe 2S oe eh a 
 
 | 
 : 
 i 
 | 
 4 
 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 CASTOR AND POLLUX 
 
 ‘tower’ (5222) of Penuel (Jg 8%"), or of Thebez 
 (ib. 9%); the ‘hold’ (nx) and tower of Shechem 
 (1b, 9%); the ‘stronghold’ of Zion at Jerusalem 
 (28 57% °=1 Ch 1157, AV ‘castle’). Citadels 
 of a similar character were built in connexion 
 with the royal palaces at Tirzah (1 K 16'8) and at 
 Samaria (2 K 15%); but the word here used, jinx, 
 which does not appear before the royal period, is 
 at not only to a castle or fortress (Pr 18), 
 ci. Ps 48%, La 2°), but generally to palaces or 
 
 rominent buildings (cf. Hos 84, Am 3%, Jer 92! 
 
 0!8 etc.). Many of the kings of Judah devoted 
 their attention to strengthening their dominions 
 by fortifying cities in strong positions, and build- 
 ing towers and castles to protect outlying districts 
 (2 Ch 17 274, cf. 1 Ch 27%; on the word ni37'3, 
 see below). Such measures are ascribed especially 
 to Jehoshaphat and Jotham. 
 
 In the time of Nehemiah we hear of a castle or 
 citadel in Jerusalem, which is apparently con- 
 nected with the temple (Neh 2° 7%), The term 
 m3, which is found only in late Hebrew, is applied 
 to the Temple of Solomon (1 Ch 29! *), and to 
 the Persian royal castle or palace at Susa (Neh 1’, 
 Dn 8?, Est passim) : it is probably of Persian origin 
 (baru =fortress, castle), and a derivative from it, 
 nv373, also occurs (2 Ch 17% 274). The citadel of 
 Nehemiah stood probably on the site afterwards 
 eccupied by the castle of the Hasmonzan high 
 priests and kings, to which Josephus gives the 
 name of Paps (Ant. XV. xi. 4, XVUI. iv. 3; Wars, 
 I. xxi. 1). When the temple was rebuilt, Herod 
 also rebuilt and strengthened this fortress, calling 
 it Antonia after his patron M. Antonius, It 
 stood on the north side of the temple, with which 
 it was poincwed by means of cloisters and stairs 
 (xaraBdces, Jos. Wars, V. v. 8; dvaBabuol, Ac 21*), 
 Under Roman rule, the one cohort, which formed 
 the permanent garrison at Jerusalem, was stationed 
 in this fortress, for its position enabled the officer 
 in command to keep watch over the temple and 
 its courts. From the fort of Antonia the com- 
 mandant (x:Alapxos) with his soldiers appeared on 
 the occasion of the riot raised against St. Paul 
 (Ac 2151-86), while in the barracks attached to the 
 fort (7apeuBorh, lit. camp, AV castle) the apostle 
 was confined till he was sent under escort to 
 Ceesarea (Ac 2157 22% 231°), The destruction of the 
 communications between Antonia and the temple 
 was one of the first acts of the Jews on the outbreak 
 of the rebellion in A.D. 66 (Jos. Wars, II. xv. 6). 
 
 In Maccabzean times we hear of another citadel 
 in Jerusalem, in the city of David, which, both in 
 l and 2 Mac and in Josephus, bears the name of 
 "Axpa, also ’Axpbrods (2 Mac 4!+27 5°). Though 
 not originally built by Antiochus Epiphanes (see 
 2 Mac Jl.c.), it was newly fortified by him, and 
 occupied by a Syrian garrison (1 Mac 18, Jos. 
 Ant. xi. v. 4). The Jews, under the leadership of 
 the Maccabees, made several ineffectual attempts 
 to expel the Syrians (1 Mac 61% 1089 11%") ; but 
 it was not till B.c. 142 that Simon forced the 
 garrison to capitulate, and entered the citadel in 
 triumph (1 Mac 134-5), According to 1 Mac 14%, 
 Simon strengthened and garrisoned the fort; 
 but Josephus (Ant. xu. vi. 7; Wars, v. iv. 1) re- 
 lates that the fort was destroyed, and the hill on 
 which it stood levelled after three years’ continuous 
 labour, in order that it might no longer overlook 
 the temple. The site of Acra is much disputed ; 
 but the question whether it stood north (so most 
 writers) or south of the temple (Schiirer, H./P 1. 
 i. 207f.; Benzinger, Heb. Archaol. p. 47), cannot be 
 discussed here. . A. WHITE. 
 
 CASTOR AND POLLUX.—See DioscuRl. 
 
 CAT.—It seems strange that an animal so well 
 
 CATHOLIC EPISTLES 359 
 
 
 
 known, and so long associated with man in Egypt, 
 should not have been domesticated among the 
 Greeks and Romans, or mentioned in the canonical 
 books of Scripture. The word afAovpo: is used once 
 in the Apoer. (Ep. Jer v.**[Gr.?!]). Herodotus (ii. 66) 
 uses the word for the domestic cat. This animal 
 is now more common by far in Bible lands than 
 in the West, yet Tristram and Houghton declare 
 that no trace of its name is found in classical 
 authors, except in connexion with Egypt. There 
 are two species of wild cat in the Holy Land. 
 Felis maniculata, Riipp., the Abyssinian wild -at, 
 which is supposed to te the wild original of the 
 domestic cat, and is called by the Arabs kutt el- 
 khald, is rare west of the Jordan, but common to 
 the eastward. The body is 2 ft. long, and the tail 
 llin. Felis chaus, Gild., the jungle cat, is known 
 in Arab. as el-kutt el-barri. It is about as large as 
 the domestic cat, and resembles a lynx. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 CATERPILLAR.—See Locust. 
 
 CATHOLIC EPISTLES (éricro\al xadodtKxal).— 
 The title given to a group of seven Epistles of the 
 NT, which bear the names of James, Peter, John, 
 and Jude. From an early period in the history of 
 the Church these Epistles were dealt with as a 
 class by themselves. ‘There were reasons for this, 
 lying in their contents and in their generally ac- 
 cepted authorship. They form a distinct and in- 
 teresting section of the NT literature. They have 
 some obvious points of aftinity with each other. 
 There are resemblances, ¢.g., between 1 P and Ja; 
 while Jude and 2 P have much matter in common. 
 These seven Epistles have some remarkable coin- 
 cidences both with other books of the NT and 
 with non-canonical writings of ancient date. 
 There are unmistakable similarities in thought 
 and style, with certain marked differences, between 
 the Johannine Epistles and the other writings 
 ascribed to St. John. There are resemblances be- 
 tween 1 P and the Pauline Epistles, especially 
 those to the Romans and the Ephesians. Jude 
 quotes the pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch, and 
 refers, as it seems, to the Assumption of Moses; 
 while in James we have reminiscences of Ben Sirach. 
 
 These seven Epistles are not all of one piece. 
 There are notable differences in style and contents 
 between the several members of the group. While 
 they are all letters, they differ considerably in 
 epistolary form. Some of them (2 and 3 Jn) are 
 simple, personal letters. One of them (James) is 
 rather of the nature of a sententious Wisdom 
 writing, like parts of the Hokhma literature of the 
 OT and Judaism. Others, especially 1 Jn, have 
 the appearance of Pastorals or Epistolary Mani- 
 festoes (Westcott’s The Epistles of St. John, pp. 
 xxix, xxx; Moulton’s The Literary Study of t 
 Bible, pp. 292, 442). As a class, Rewer. they 
 have a character which readily distinguishes them 
 from the Epistles which bear Paul’s name, and from 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. They make a con- 
 tribution of essential value to the body of NT 
 teaching. They have their own ideas, their own 
 forms of expression, their own aspects of the truth 
 taught in common by the first Christian writers. 
 They have had different degrees of acceptance in 
 different parts of the Church and in different ages. 
 They have been, and continue to be, the subject of 
 much debate with regard to their origin, date, 
 authorship, and claims. For these questions see 
 the articles on the several Epistles. 
 
 These seven Epistles are not given in the same order in 
 ancient MSS, versions, and catalogues. Jerome notices a 
 difference in this respect between the Greek and the Latin 
 codices (Prolog. 7. Epist. Canon.). The order in which they 
 stand in our English Bible (Ja, 1 and 2 P,1, 2, 3 Jn, Jude) 
 is the order in which they occur in most ancient documents. 
 It is the order that is followed in Codex B, in the Canon of the 
 
 
 
360 CATHOLIC EPISTLES 
 
 CATHOLIC EPISTLES 
 
 
 
 Bynod of Laodicea (c, A.D. 363), in the lists of Athanasius, Oyril of 
 Jerus., Epiphanius, Gregory Naz., Leontius, Jerome, Nicephorus, 
 Amphilochius, the ‘ Sixty Books,’ Isidore, and John of Damascus 
 (see Westcott’s Canon of NT, PP. 640-679). Eusebius also (HZii. 
 23) speaks of James as reported to have written ‘ the first of the 
 Catholic Epistles.’ Butin the Canon of the third Council of Car- 
 thage (4.D. 397), in the Apostolic Canons, and in the Claromontane 
 Stichometry (See. vii.), they are given as 1 and 2 P, 1, 2, and 3 
 Jn, Ja, and Jude, Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. ii. 12) enumer- 
 ates them as two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one 
 of James; which succession is followed also by Philastrius. 
 Rufinus, again (Comm. in Symb. Apost. § 36), names them in 
 the order of 1 and 2 P, Ja, Jude, 1, 2, and 8 Jn; Innocentius 
 (ad Husuperium Ep. Tolosanum) in that of 1, 2,8 Jn, 1 and 2 P, 
 Jude, Ja; Gelasius (Decretum de lib. recep. et non recep.) in that 
 of land 2 P, Ja, 1, 2, 3 Jn, Jude; while Junilius Africanus, 
 noticing a difference in respect of extent of recognition between 
 the first two and the five which follow, gives them in the 
 succession of 1 P, 1 Jn, Ja, 2 P, Jude, 2 and 3 Jn. Neither 
 have they the same place in the series of the NT books as given 
 in ancient MSS, versions, and catalogues. In most they come 
 between the Acts and the Pauline Epistles. This is the case 
 with the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, Codices B and A, 
 the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Leontius, the ‘Sixty 
 Books,’ Cassiodorus, John of Damascus, etc, Thisis the position 
 assigned chem in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischen- 
 dorf, Treg elles, Westcott and Hort. But in the Canon of the 
 third Council of Carthage, in Rufinus, in Amphilochius, and 
 in Codex &, they are inserted between the Pauline Epp. (with 
 He) and the Apoc. ; and this is the place given them by Gries- 
 bach in his critical edition. The same arrangement is so far 
 followed also in the lists of Gregory Naz., Nicephorus, Philas- 
 trius, and Junilius Africanus, where they come after the Pauline 
 Epp.; and in that of Epiphanius, where they precede the Apoca- 
 lypse. In the Apostolic Canons they are placed between the 14 
 Epp. of Paul and the 2 FD: of Clement ; in Augustine, Innocen- 
 tius, and Isidore, between the Pauline Epp. and Acts ; in Jerome, 
 between the Acts and the Apoc. ; in the Claromontane Sticho- 
 metry, after the Pauline Epp. and before the Ep. of Barnabas 
 wenpores to mean here the Epistle to the Hebrews), the Rev. of 
 n, and the Acts. In Gelasius they appear after the Apoc. and 
 last in the list of our NT books; in the Synopsis of Chrysostom, 
 after the Acts and last in the list. While in our English Bible 
 they come between He and Rev, in the German Bible they are 
 dealt with in a singular fashion. Instead of being brought into 
 one series there, five of them (those ascribed to Peter and John) 
 are introduced between Philem and He, and two of them (Ja 
 and Jude) are placed between Hebrews and the Apocalypse. 
 Nor, again, has the group of Cath. Epp. been of the same com- 
 pass at all times or in all parts of the Church. The first of the 
 seven to be generally received seem to have been 1 Pand 1 Jn. 
 The other five were accepted later, and at different times, Ja 
 apparently at a comparatively early period. Chrysostom’s 
 Synopsis mentions only three. Junilius Africanus places 1 P 
 and 1Jn by themselves, and explains that very many add 
 Sacer quamplurimi) the remaining five. Amphilochius 
 Iamb, ad Selewcum) notices that some say seven Cath. Epp. 
 are to be received, others only, three, viz. one of James, one of 
 Peter, one of John. , Cassiodorus (De Instit. div. lib. xiv.) men- 
 tions only the Hpistole Petri ad Gentes (if the reading is 
 correct), Jacobi, Johannis ad Parthos. But it may be said 
 that, in the Eastern Church at least, by the end of the 8rd or 
 the beginning of the 4th cent. the group included the whole 
 seven. In Eusebius (HE ii. 23) they appear as seven, and the 
 terms used of them imply that they had a recognised place, 
 though not all quite the same place, in the Church. The Syrian 
 Church, on the other hand, occupied a peculiar position in 
 relation to these Epp. In that Church the group consisted 
 only of three, 1 P,1 Jn, and Ja. The remaining four formed 
 no part of its Canon. 
 
 The history of the term ‘ Catholic’ is of interest. 
 It is a term used frequently by the Fathers; and 
 while it is employed by them of writings outside 
 the NT Canon, it seems never to be applied by 
 them to any of the NT books but these seven— 
 neither to any of the Pauline Epp. nor to the Ep. 
 to the Hebrews. For its application to these seven 
 we are indebted to the Church of the East. It was 
 not limited to these, however, in the usage of the 
 great theologians of the East. Clement of Alex- 
 andria (Strom. iv. 15), e.g., employed it of the letter 
 of the Church of Jerus. given in Ac 15. It was 
 applied by Origen (Contra Celsum, i. 63) to the 
 
 p: of Barnabas. It was even used to describe a 
 heretical composition. For Eusebius (HZ iv. 23) 
 speaks of an Ep. written by Themison, who appears 
 to have been a eee of Montanus, as a ‘certain 
 Catholic Epistle.’ But it was applied to certain 
 members of our group at an early period. Origen 
 (Selecta in Psalm., in Ps. iii. c. 3,7; Comm. in 
 Joann. vi. c. 18) speaks of things said by Peter ‘in 
 the Catholic Epistle’; of ‘the Catholic Epistle of 
 John’ (Comm. in Matt. xvii. c. 19); an of the 
 
 v 
 
 statement regarding the angels which ‘Jude the 
 apostle’ makes ‘in the Catholic Epistle’ (Comm. 
 in Ep. ad Rom. B. v. t. iv., in the Latin tr.). 
 Dionysius, in like manner, speaks of ‘the son of 
 Zebedee, the brother of James,’ and ‘ the Catholic 
 Epistle which bears his name’ (Euseb. H£# vii. 
 25). And by the 4th cent. it had come to be a 
 designation of the group of seven. Eusebius, who 
 reports (HE vi. 14) Clement of Alexandria to have 
 included ‘Jude and the other Catholic Epistles’ 
 in the accounts of the canonical writings which 
 he gave in his Hypotyposes, speaks himself of 
 ‘ James, whois said to have written the first of the 
 Catholic Epistles,’ and of the Ep. of Jude as one 
 which ‘ not many indeed of the ancients have men- 
 tioned,’ but which ‘is also one of the seven called 
 Catholic Epistles’ (HZ ii. 23). So the Canon of 
 Athanasius names the émorodal xafodtxal Kadov- 
 pevae Tov dmocrb\wy érrd; the Canon of the 
 Laodicene Council enumerates émicrodal xafodcxat 
 érrdé ; and the Canons of Cyril of Jerusalem and 
 Epiphanius speak of them in terms indicating 
 that they were seven in number, bearing the 
 common title of Catholic. 
 
 In the Western Church these Epp. seem to have 
 been later in receiving a general designation, and 
 the title by which they came to be designated was 
 a different one. The term Catholic is indeed 
 applied to them. Jerome (De vir. ill. ¢. 1), €.9., 
 says of Simon Peter that he wrote two Epistles 
 pe catholice nominantur ; of James (id. ¢. 2), that 
 
 e wrote unam tantum... epistolam, que de 
 septem catholicis est ; and of ‘Jude the brother of 
 James’ (1b. c. 4), that he left a ‘small Epistle’ gue 
 de catholicis est. But elsewhere (Prolog. 7. Epist. 
 Canon.) he writes of the epistolarum septem, que 
 canonice nuncupantur. d this term canonice 
 seems practically to have taken the place of 
 Catholice in the Latin Church as the common 
 designation of the seven. At what time, however, 
 this came to be the case, is not quite certain. 
 Junilius Africanus (c. A.D. 550) employs it. He 
 speaks of 1 P and 1 Jn as forming part of the 
 seventeen libri canonict which make the species 
 (Scripture), dealing de simplici doctrina as distin- 
 guished from history, prophecy, and the species 
 proverbialis. To this he adds the statement— 
 adjungunt quamplurimi quinque alias que Aposto- 
 lorum Canonice nuncupantur; id est; Jacobi L., 
 Petri secundam, Jude unam, Johannis II. (De 
 
 art. divin. legis. i. 2). Cassiodorus, too, employs 
 it in the following statement about Clement—in 
 epistolis autem canonicis Clemens Alexandrinus 
 pre t qui et Stromateus dicitur, id est in 
 pistola S. Petri prima et secunda, et Jacobi 
 
 uzedam Attico sermone declaravit (De inst. div. 
 ite. c. 8). Hence it is thought that by the 6th 
 cent. this term Canonice was the meats Pees 
 tion of the group in the Western Church. Yet 
 Cassiodorus uses the term also of the Apostolic 
 Epistles as a whole. And how it happened that 
 this title took the place of Catholice in one half of 
 the Christian communion, is difficult to explain. 
 It is supposed by some to have been due to mere 
 mistake. ‘By asingular error,’ it is Said, ‘the grou 
 of letters was called in the later Western Chusrc 
 ‘canonical’ (canonice) in place of ‘catholic’ 
 (Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. xxix). 
 Others, e.g., Bleek, think that it ‘ originated in the 
 belief that by Catholic as applied to these Epistles 
 in the Greek Church was meant universally recog- 
 nised and received by the Church, without reference 
 to any distinction between them and the Pauline 
 Epistles’ (Introd. to NT, ii. p. 135, Clark’s tr.). 
 Other explanations, some of them of a fanciful 
 kind, have been proposed ; as, ¢.g., by Liicke in 
 SK, 1836, iii. pp. 643-659. 
 
 There is much that is still far from clear as re 
 
 
 

 
 — = 
 
 2s SS 
 
 ee — 72 
 t 
 
 CATHOLIC EPISTLES 
 
 
 
 CATHOLIC EPISTLES 361 
 
 
 
 gards the origin and use of the terms Catholic and 
 Canonical in this connexion. Different views have 
 been taken of the precise meaning and intention 
 of the title Catholic. Some fanciful speculations 
 have also been indulged in. It has been supposed 
 by some (Pareus, Prolog. in Jac.) that the name 
 kaOotxai as applied to these Epp. was accidental, 
 no definite purpose being attached to it. It has 
 been supposed by others to be intended to express 
 their doctrinal harmony; Augusti, ¢.g., taking 
 it to designate them as ‘in der Lehre iiberein- 
 stimmende Schriften.’ The main explanations 
 proposed, however, are these. 
 
 4. That the term refers to the authorship of these 
 writings and their position asa distinct group. This 
 is the view of Hug, who regards the word as a 
 ‘technical expression for one class of biblical writ- 
 ings which possesses it exclusively and communi- 
 cates it to no other; namely, for that class which 
 comprised in itself the didactical compositions of 
 the apostles collectively, with the exception of Paul, 
 kaQodixds, 1.€. Kadddrov Kal ovddgHBdyv. When the 
 Gospels and Acts of the Apostles constituted one 
 peculiar division, the works of Paul also another, 
 there still remained writings of different authors 
 which might likewise form a collection by them- 
 selves, to which a name must be given. It might 
 most aptly be called the common collection, xaodKov 
 oivrayya, of the apostles, and the treatises con- 
 tained in it, xowal and xafodxal, which are com- 
 monly used by the Greeks as synonymous.’ He 
 appeals in support of this to Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, who, he says, ‘calls the Epistle, which was 
 dictated by the assembly of the apostles (Ac 15”), 
 the Catholic Epistle, as that in which all the 
 apostles had a share, rhy émicrodhy KadoduKhy Tov 
 drocré\wy dardvrwy.’ Whence he concludes that 
 ‘the seven Epistles are Catholic, or Epistles of all 
 the apo: who are authors’ (Introd. to Writings 
 of NT, p. 537, etc., Wait’s tr.). This explanation 
 has been followed more or less completely by 
 Schleiermacher and Pott, by Eichhorn so far, and 
 some others. Otherwise it has met with little 
 favour. Itis not borne out by Clement’s statement. 
 It disregards the fact that the term Catholic is ap- 
 eg by early ecclesiastical writers to compositions 
 ike the Ep. of Barnabas, the Ep. of Dionysius, 
 the Ep. of Themison. It makes éricrodal xaGodexal 
 equivalent to al doural émicroAal xafddov, But there 
 is nothing to show that the term xafodxés was em- 
 ployed elsewhere to express any such idea as that 
 of common apostolic authorship, one collection of 
 writings written by adi the apostles together. 
 
 2. Others, therefore, take the term to refer to 
 the place of these Epistles in the Church, their 
 ecclesiastical recognition, the fact that they were 
 universally received as genuine, their canonicity. 
 Michaelis (Introd. to NT, vi. p. 270, Marsh’s tr.) 
 takes this view, holding that the word was used 
 by Origen to distinguish 1 P and 1 Jn as undis- 
 puted pp. from 2 P, 2 and 3 Jn, and Jude, about 
 which there was no such consent of opinion, and 
 that it was given also to these five in course of 
 time as they ceased to be doubted. This explana- 
 tion, or one not materially different, is given alse 
 by Horne, Guericke, and others. It is supposed 
 by some that there is an indication of the identifica- 
 tion of the word Catholic with the word Canonical 
 in the Muratorian Fragment, in the puzzling sen- 
 tence ‘ Epistola sane Jud et superscriptio Johannis 
 duas in Catholica habentur.’ Some refer in support 
 of this view to the passage in which Eusebius, 
 speaking of James who is ‘ said to have written the 
 first of the Catholic Epistles,’ and of Jude as also 
 ‘one of the seven Catholic Epistles,’ adds that 
 ‘nevertheless we know that these, with the rest, 
 are publicly used in most of the churches’ (HZ ii. 
 23). This is relevant, however, to the question of 
 
 
 
 public use in the church, but not to more. [or it 
 speaks also of James as ‘considered spurious 
 (voGeverat). Most found rather on the passage, also 
 in Eusebius (## iii. 3), in which mention is made 
 of certain works ascribed to Peter, his Acts, the 
 Gospel according to Peter, the Preaching, and the 
 fevelation of Peter, and it is said of them ‘we 
 know nothing of their being handed down among 
 catholic writings (ov5’ d\ws év KaOodKots lower mapa- 
 dedouéva), for neither of the ancients nor of those 
 of our own time has any ecclesiastical writer 
 made use of testimonies from them.’ Here, it is 
 thought, the word in the phrase év xaQodxois must 
 have the sense of genuine, undisputed, universally 
 recewed. Others, however, think the phrase may 
 mean ‘handed down among catholic Christians 
 (Charteris, Canonicity, p. 289), or publicly read in 
 the churches, the question of genuineness not being 
 in view (Kirchhofer, Quwellensammlung, p. 257). 
 It is with the distinction between disputed and 
 undisputed books that Eusebius deals there. But 
 what is referred to in his statement is not one 
 class of the NT books, but these books as a whole; 
 not the Catholic Hpp. in particular, but the 
 Catholic writings (ypapav) generally. Further, if 
 the sense supposed were the true sense, the term 
 would be no distinctive title of these seven Epistles, 
 marking them off from the Pauline Epistles, which 
 were no less canonical or generally recognised in 
 the Church. Nor does this view consist with the 
 fact that the term catholic is used by Origen, as 
 we have seen, of the Ep. of Barnabas, and by 
 Eusebius of the Epp. of Dionysius of Corinth to 
 the Lacedemonians, the Athenians, the Nicomedt- 
 ans, and other Churches (HE iv. 23), of none of 
 which it could be said that they were canonical or 
 universally received. Nor has it regard, again, to 
 the fact that only some of the seven Epistles were 
 universally received at the time when the term 
 was applied to the group as a whole. Eusebius 
 himself in his chapter on ‘The Divine Scriptures 
 acknowledged as genuine, and those that are not’ 
 (HE iii. 25), distinguishes 1 Jn and 1 P as év épuodo- 
 younévos from the other five as of the dvtiAeyouderwy 
 yrupluwy 5 obv dus rots woddots. There is nothing 
 in the facts to conflict with the idea that this came 
 in course of time to be the sense. There is every- 
 thing to rebut the assertion that it was the original 
 and proper sense. 
 
 8. Others suppose that the term refers to the 
 character of the contents of these Epp., the catho- 
 licity of their doctrine, distinguishing them from 
 others which were heretical as orthodox or authori- 
 tative Epp.,—Epp. whose teaching was in harmony 
 with Christian truth, or the Church’s faith. So 
 Salmeron held it to define them as giving the one 
 true catholic doctrine which the whole Church 
 might profitably receive. Similar is the explana- 
 tion of Cornelius 4 Lapide and others. This view, 
 too, is supposed to be favoured by the passage in 
 which Eusebius speaks of the Acts, the Gospel, and 
 other alleged writings of Peter. But the supposi- 
 tion has as little to support it in this case as in (2). 
 The term so interpreted would equally fail to serve 
 as a distinctive title of the group; for in this sense 
 Paul’s Epp. were as catholic as these. Further, it 
 overlooks the fact that the title is used of the 
 heretical Epistle of Themison. 
 
 4%. Consequently, it is held that the term refers 
 to the destination of the Epp., designating them 
 as Encyclical letters, differing from the Pauline 
 Epp. as being addressed, not to individuals or to 
 single Churches, but to the Church universal, to 
 circles of Churches, or to readers scattered over wide 
 territories. This is the explanation given by 
 
 Oecumenius (Sec. x.) in the Preface to his Com 
 mentary on the Epistle of James: ca@odxal Aéyovrat 
 atra: woel éyKiKMior. Ov yap ddwpicpévws EOver évi 
 
 
 
362 CATHOLIC EPISTLES 
 
 CATTLE 
 
 
 
 mobdec ws & Oetos Iaddos, olov ‘Pwualos 4} KopirOlos, 
 mporpuyel Tatras Tas émicro\as 6 T&v ToLovTwWY TOU 
 kuplov pabnray Olacos, d\N\A nadddou Tots mioTois, Fre 
 "Iovdalos rots év rq dvacmopg, ws xal 6 Ilérpos, # cal 
 maou Tots bd Thy abriy mlarw Xpioriavots reXovow. It 
 is the explanation given also by Leontius (c. A.D. 
 590): xKaOodtxal 8€ exAnOnoav éredy od mpds ev 
 €Ovos éypdpOnoay ws al rod Ila’\ov émicrodal (De 
 Sectis Act. ii.). Suidas also treats xafodixds and 
 éyxtk\wos @8 synonymous when used of letters. 
 This is the explanation which is preferred by most. 
 It retains for the adjective the sense which it has 
 in ancient, non-ecclesiastical Greek; the sense 
 which it also has when it is used of the Church; 
 the sense which can be traced back, in the applica- 
 tion of the term, to particular writings, at least to 
 the close of the 2nd cent. It is the sense that best 
 suits Clement’s statement on the letter addressed 
 by the ‘apostles and elders and brethren’ at 
 Jerusalem to the ‘brethren which are of the 
 Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia’ (Ac 15%, 
 ete., especially in view of the extent of its publica- 
 tion, Ac 164). It is the most natural sense for the 
 term as used by Origen, in the passages cited above, 
 of 1 Jn, 1P, Jude, and Barnabas; by Clement, 
 of Jude in his Hypotyposes; and by Dionysius 
 of Alexandria, of 1 Jn (Euseb. H£ vii. 25). It 
 fits the tenor of 1 Jn, and is sufficiently consistent 
 with the expressed destination of other members 
 of the group of seven. Ja, 1 P, 2 P, and Jude are 
 addressed, it is true, to definite circles of readers. 
 But these are large circles, embracing the Chris- 
 tians and Churches of many lands, and differing 
 widely from those which the Pauline Epp. have in 
 view. James is meant for the brethren in the ex- 
 tensive Jewish Dispersion ; 1 Pet. for the Churches 
 of five provinces of the East; 2 Pet. and Jude, for 
 circles still less particular or defined. The remain- 
 ing two have inscriptions referring to individuals, 
 and are in no pe sense general Epistles. Their 
 position is explained either by the fact that they 
 were interpreted at an early period as general Epp., 
 the Church being taken to be addressed under the 
 personal designation of the éxAexrn xupla of 2 Jn 
 and the Gaius of 3 Jn (Clem. Alex. Hypotyposes) ; 
 or by the circumstance that, being accepted as 
 genuine letters of the Apostle John, they were 
 naturally associated with his jirst Epistle, and so 
 came to e included in the group of which it formed 
 apart, and toshare in the title borne by the group. 
 t would appear most probable, therefore, that 
 the title ‘catholic’ had from the beginning its 
 proper sense of ‘general’; that it was used to 
 designate letters of the nature of circular or ency- 
 clical Epistles ; that in this sense it was applied at 
 least from the end of the 2nd cent. to particular 
 writings both within and without the NT literature 
 roper; that in this sense it was applied first to 
 individual members of the group, and by the time 
 of Eusebius to the seven as a class distinguishable 
 in this respect from the Pauline Epp.; that in 
 course of time other ideas became connected with 
 it, and its use became less constant; that by the 
 6th cent. it became identical with canonical in the 
 Western Church, and assumed a more dogmatic 
 character. There are things at the same time 
 which indicate that its use was not quite fixed or 
 uniform even at the close of the 4th cent. or the 
 beginning of the 5th. Some, indeed, contend 
 that when Origen speaks of 1 Peter as a Catholic 
 Epistle he means to distinguish it as a genuine 
 or accredited Epistle from 2 Peter as a disputed 
 Epistle. It is muck more reasonable to understand 
 it there in the sense of general or encyclical. But 
 there are passages in Eusebius which are of 
 another kind. We have one such, ¢.g., that in 
 HE iii. 3, where, speaking of acknowledged and 
 disputed books, he says of certain writings alleged 
 
 to be by Peter, that they are not év xadoNxots 
 mapadedouéva. We have another in H# iv. 23, 
 where mention is made of the ‘Catholic Epistles’ 
 of Dionysius of Corinth. The Churches to which 
 these kpistles were addressed are named—the 
 Lacedemonians, the Athenians, the Nicomedians, 
 the Church of Gortyna, and the ‘other Churches 
 in Crete,’ ete. They are mostly particular Churches, 
 and it is not a sufficient explanation to say, with 
 Westcott (Epp. of St. John, p. xxviii), that the 
 ‘word is used of letters with a general applica- 
 tion (though specially addressed) which made no 
 claim to canonical authority.’ It must be admitted 
 that, as in the case of the process by which these Epp. 
 came to form a collection and to rank as sees 
 80, in the history of the names given to them asa 
 group in the Eastern Church and in the Western, 
 all is by no means clear yet. 
 
 LITERATURE.—See the usual books on NT Introd., especially 
 those by Hug, Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Jiilicher ; the Prolegomena te 
 the Comm. on the Epp., é¢.g. Westcott on The Ep. of St. John; 
 the standard books on the Canon of NT, esp. Westcott, General 
 Survey of Canon of NT ; Charteris, Canonicity ; Reuss, Hist. 
 of Canon ; also Kirchhofer’s Queliensammilung ; Gloag, Introd. 
 to the Cath. Epp. pp. 1-11; Eusebius, ut sup.; Pott, Proleg. 
 ad Ep. Catholicas, pp. 1-68 ; Mayerhoff, Einleit. in die Petr. 
 Schriften, pp. 31-41 ; Herzog, RH; Sanday, BL on Inspiration ; 
 Harnack, Saheb, d. Dogmengesch., who assigns their author- 
 ship to unknown prophets or teachers such as appear in the 
 Didache. S. D. F. SALMOND. 
 
 CATHUA (A Kadéoud, B Kova), 1 Es 5°.—One of 
 the heads of families of temple servants who 
 returned with Zerub. from captivity. It appears 
 to correspond to GIDDEL in Ezr 2*7; cf. Neh 7%. 
 
 CATTLE.—No fewer than six Heb. and two Gr. 
 words are tr. in the Bible by cattle. 1. 7379 
 mikneh. The primary meaning of the word is 
 wealth or possessions. It is so tr. Ee 2’, where 
 183) 723 73p2 is rendered AV ‘possessions of great 
 and small cattle,’ RV ‘possessions of herds and 
 flocks.’ Among nomads, whose riches consist 
 principally in herds and flocks, the word for pos- 
 sessions came to mean cattle. Thusthe Arab. mdl, 
 
 1. amw4l, when used in connexion with the shep- 
 
 erd’s life, usually means cattle in the generic 
 sense. JMikneh certainly includes horses, asses, 
 oxen, sheep, and goats (Gn 471°), where Joseph says, 
 ‘give your cattle (0375), and I will give you for 
 your cattle’ (02392). Thenarrator then states (v.17) 
 that ‘they brought their cattle (o73p0). . . horses 
 ... flocks (j8xn ‘2, RVm cattle of the flocks)... 
 cattle of the herds (17237 ‘5, RVm also cattle of the 
 herds)... asses; and he fed them with bread for 
 all their cattle’ (07°3p7-b2). +The historian then says 
 (4738), ‘my lord also hath our herds of cattle’ 
 (72920 ‘D). Mikneh may also be understood, in all 
 passages where its meaning is not otherwise defined, 
 to include all the domestic animals, which con- 
 stituted so much of the wealth of the Hebrews. 
 Mikneh is also rendered herd as above (Gn 47?8), 
 and flocks (Ps 78%). The expression 7p) 'v3x (Gn 
 46*2), awkwardly rendered in text AV ‘their trade 
 hath been to teed cattle,’ RV ‘they have been 
 keepers of cattle,’ is better rendered as AVm ‘they 
 are men of cattle,’ or, still better, herdmen. An- 
 other meaning of the root 7, from which mikneh 
 is derived, is to buy, and in Hiphil to cause to 
 buy, i.e. to sell. This is the true meaning in the 
 passage (Zec 13°) 43397 01x, where AV has rendered 
 the clause ‘man taught me to keep cattle,’ as if 
 732, which means also to possess, meant particularly 
 to possess or keep cattle. KV renders the passage 
 ‘I have been made a bondman,’ i.e. man has sold 
 me. 2. 7292 behémdh, tr* cattle in the places where 
 it occurs with mn (Gn 1% 314 1, Ps 1481, Is 461), 
 also, arbitrarily, in many other places. Probably 
 the Eng. word beast, which is as flexible in its 
 meaning and use asbéhémdh, would more adequately 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 CAUDA 
 
 express it, 3. js 26’. This word is translated 
 AV ‘cattle’ in two places (Gn 30“ 31), in both 
 of which RV has ‘ flocks,’ t.e. both sheep and goats. 
 4. 9R3 bakdr. This word, whicb means ozen, is 
 rendered in one place cattle (J1 11°), 373 *17y ‘ herds of 
 cattle,’ 5. vya beir. Twicein AV translated cattle 
 (Nu 204, Ps 78%), RV adds Nu 20%", See BEAST. 
 6. ny seh. This word, which primarily means one 
 ef a flock of sheep or goats (cf. Arab. shat), is 
 once tr. AV ‘lesser cattle,’ RV ‘sheep’ (Is 7%), 
 and once AV, RV ‘small cattle’ (Is 43%). See 
 SHEEP. 
 
 The word ‘cattle’ occurs twice in NT, once (Jn 
 4) as the tr™ of @péupara, and once (Lk 17’) in 
 the collocation ‘feeding cattle’ (xoimalvovra, RV 
 ‘keeping sheep’). G. E. Post. 
 
 CAUDA (Kaféa in B, confirmed by a few inferior 
 authorities, by Kavéé in Suidas, Kavdos in Notitia 
 Episcopatuum, viii. 240; Gaudus in Pliny, Nat. 
 
 ist. iv. 12 (61), and Pomp. Mela, ii. 114. Kndaida 
 is the form in x, supported by the majority of other 
 authorities, and by KaAavdos in Ptol. iil, 15. 8; 
 Hierocles, Synecd. 651, 2,* and Notitia Episcop. 
 9. 149; and Kn)avdla in the Stadiasmus Maris 
 Magni, § 328, AV Clauda) was an island off the S. 
 coast of Crete. Amid the varying forms of the 
 name, the preference must be given to the forms in 
 which the letter L is omitted, as is proved beyond 
 dispute by the mod. forms Gavdho in Greek and 
 Gozzo in Italian. The Alex. ship laden with corn 
 in which Paul sailed from Myra for Rome, after 
 lying becalmed for a considerable time in Fair 
 axons, roceeded on its course favoured by a 
 light Bercerty breeze ; but shortly after rounding 
 Cape Matala (about 4 miles on its course), while 
 the vessel was standing towards W.N.W. across 
 the mouth of the Gulf of Messara, it was caught by 
 a sudden eddying blast from E.N.E., which struck 
 down from the lofty mountains of the island, and 
 it could do nothing except scud before the wind, 
 until, after running about 23 miles, it was able to 
 get under the lee of Cauda (Ac 27!5), where in 
 calmer water it became possible to attend to the 
 condition of the ship. The perfect agreement of 
 the description in Ac with the natural features and 
 winds of the coast (where, according to Captain 
 Stewart, R.N., ‘southerly winds almost invariably 
 shift to a violent northerly wind ’) has been admir- 
 ably brought out by James Smith in his Voyage 
 aha. Shipwreck of St. Paul, p 96 ff. According to 
 Suidas, wild asses of unusually large size lived on 
 the island. There was a city on the island, which 
 was the seat of a bishop in Byzantine times. It 
 lay almost due 8. of Phenix, and is mentioned 
 next to it in the Byzantine authorities. 
 
 W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 CAUL (Fr. cale, a small cap or head-dress. Now 
 obsol.).—1. (nn) The fatty-envelope of the liver, 
 which, with the fat of the kidneys and other inward 
 parte (Ex 29". 22, Ly 34, etc.), was to be burnt on the 
 altar as an offering by fire unto the Lord. In Hos 
 13° the rending of the caul or enclosure (715) 
 of the heart is a term of uttermost destruction. 
 See MEDICINE. 
 
 2. nora” Is 318, RV ‘networks.’ This was most 
 probably the small head-veil, now of fine net- 
 work or art muslin with floral designs, worn in 
 the East over the brow and crown, and fastened 
 loosely behind the neck under the hair. It is 
 counted indelicate to go to the door or garden 
 without it. Much art is often expended upon it. 
 It is fringed with silk embroidery, and adorned 
 with gold thread, tiny gilt discs, and other orna- 
 ments, The Heb. shabis seems to have the same 
 root-meaning as the Arab. mutashabbas, applied 
 
 * Constantine Porphyrog, de Them., is hardly an independent 
 authority, but depends on Hierocles, whom he very often quotes. 
 
 
 
 CAVE 363 
 
 
 
 to the network or interlacing of tree-branches ; 
 and similarly, the Arab. term for fine damask of 
 branch and foliage-like design is mu-shajjar, from 
 shajarah, a tree. G. M. MAcKIE. 
 
 _ CAUSE.—The obsol. phrase ‘ for his c.’=‘ for his 
 sake’ is used 2 Co 7!* ‘ I did it for his c. that had 
 done the wrong’ (évexev). Cf. Ps 69% Pr. Bk. ‘ Let 
 not them that trust in thee. . . be ashamed for 
 my ¢.’ (3, AV ‘for my sake,’ RV ‘through me’). 
 Twice ‘c.’ is used in the vague sense of ‘matter’ 
 (as if on the way to Ital. cosa, Fr. chose): 1 K 12% 
 ‘the c. was from the LORD’ (3p, LX X peracrpoph, 
 RV ‘it was a thing brought about of the Lorp); 
 2 Ch 10" ‘the c. was of God’ (3p}, LX X as before, 
 the only occurrences of the Gr. as of the Heb.; RV 
 ‘it was brought about of God’). Causeless is an 
 ady. in 1 S 25% ‘thou hast shed blood c.’ ; but not in 
 Pr 26? ‘the curse c. shall not come’ (both oj7, RV 
 here ‘ that is c.,’ after Geneva). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CAUSEWAY.—This is the spelling of mod. edd. 
 of AV (except in Pr 15%) for the 1611 spellin 
 ‘causey.’ But the words are not the same. 
 causey is a mound or dam, made by treading (late 
 Lat. calcidre), and a causeway is a way or road 
 formed on such a mound. It occurs 1 Ch 26!* 38; 
 Is 78 AVm (1611 causeway) for ‘highway’ in text: 
 the Heb. (app mégillah) means a may ‘cast up’ 
 or raised up. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CAYE (A7yp, orjdaor, spelunca).—l. Palestine is 
 a region abounding in caves; hence the frequent 
 reference to them in the Bible. Natural caves 
 and caverns are to be found in most countries 
 formed of limestone strata and considerably ele- 
 vated above the sea level; such as Malta, icily, 
 parts of Italy,* and Derbyshire in England. In 
 such countries the underground acidulated waters 
 dissolve channels for themselves out of the rock, 
 and upon a change of level with reference to their 
 outlet, they leave these channels for others; the 
 old channels becoming caverns with generally dry 
 floors, and roofs decorated with stalactites. The 
 elevated character of Western Palestine and its 
 calcareous structure have naturally resulted in the 
 formation of caves which in OT times, and still 
 later, have become interwoven with the historical 
 events of that country; and, as Dean Stanley 
 observes, when Christianity became degraded in 
 the early centuries, caves, the real or supposed 
 scenes in the history of our Lord, became the 
 seats of worship amongst the Eastern Christians. 
 Thus the ‘cave of the Holy Sepulchre’ at Jerusalem 
 and the ‘cave of the Nativity’ at Bethlehem,t 
 both discovered or identified (according to Eusebius) 
 by the empress Helena, have remained shrines of 
 semi-idolatrous devotion down to the present day. 
 
 2. Prehistoric man appears to have made caves 
 his dwelling wherever available, and it is not 
 improbable that the Horites of Mount Seir (Gn 14° 
 36”), who were cave dwellers as their name implies, 
 were the representatives of early cave-dwelling 
 races of other countries.t The Horites were ex- 
 pelled by the Edomites; and the vast caverns 
 artificially hewn out of the sandstone rock of 
 Petra, the Edomite capital, attest the extent to 
 which these early inhabitants made use of such 
 hollows both for habitations and as sepulchres for 
 the dead.§ See Driver on Dt 2}, 
 
 **Quatuor sunt montane gentes, Tarati, Soffinati, Balari, 
 Aconites, in speluncis habitantes,’ Strabo, v. 225. 
 
 + It may be observed that there is no authority in the account 
 of the Nativity for connecting the event with a cave: see Mt 
 Ql, Lk 27.12, 
 
 t Strabo, i, 42, xvi. 775, 776. 
 
 § The caverns of ord Egypt, hewn out of the same forma- 
 tion, ‘the Nubian Sandstone,’ were made use of by the ancient 
 Egyptians for similar purposes. 
 
364 CEDAR 
 
 CEDAR 
 
 
 
 3. Caves were largely made use of in the troublous 
 times of Israelitish history as places of refuge: as 
 such the following may be specially mentioned :— 
 
 (a) The cave in the hills above Zoar inhabited by 
 Lot and his two daughters (Gn 19%). 
 
 (6) The cave of Makkedah at Beth-horon, in 
 which the five kings of the Canaanites hid them- 
 selves (Jos 10'S), 
 
 (c) Caves in which the Israelites hid themselves 
 from the Midianites in the time of the Judges 
 (Jg 6*), and from the Philistines in the time of 
 Saul (1 S 135). Both these references point to the 
 conclusion that caves, both natural and artificial, 
 were very numerous in these times; some of them 
 may be now covered over and their entrances 
 hidden from view. 
 
 (d) One of the most celebrated caves in biblical 
 history was the cave of Adullam, in which David 
 took refuge from the wrath of Saul (1 S 22}, 
 2S 231%). Adullam was one of the cities of Judah, 
 and the residence of a Canaanite king (Jos 12”), 
 and the cave was probably the largest of several 
 occupying a position near the summit of the table- 
 land, and overlooking the Plains of Philistia.* 
 
 (e) The cave of En-gedi, in the cliffs overlooking 
 the Dead Sea, was another place of refuge for 
 David, after he had been dislodged from the cave 
 of Adullam (1 S 2379 24%), See ENGEDI. 
 
 (f) The cave in which Obadiah fed the prophets 
 of the Lord in the days of Ahab (1 K 184). This 
 cave was probably situated on the flank of Mount 
 Carmel. 
 
 The above instances explain the language of 
 Is 219. 19. 21 where ‘men shall go into the caves of 
 the rocks, and into the holes of the earth, from 
 before the terror of the LoRD, and from the glory 
 of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake mightily 
 the earth. 
 
 4. Caves, both natural and artificial, were used 
 as places of sepulture: the cave of Machpelah, 
 purchased of Ephron the Hittite, was the sepulchre 
 of Sarah (Gn 23/9), and afterwards of Abraham 
 (Gn 25°), Isaac (3527-9), and Jacob (50!%). There 
 can be no doubt but that the mosque of Hebron 
 covers the last resting-place of the patriarchs ; it 
 is a spot considered of the highest sanctity by the 
 Arab tribes.t E. HULL. 
 
 CEDAR (1x ’erez, xédpos, cedrus).—We cannot 
 enter intelligently on the discussion of the cedar 
 without premising that the Heb. word ’erez was 
 probably used for three or more different trees. In 
 this it resembles its English equivalent. Cedar, 
 in English, is used for the cedar of Lebanon, for 
 the Bermuda cedar, of which lead pencils are 
 made, for Juniperus Virginiana, L., and for 
 Cupressus thyoides, L., and other trees. The cedar 
 wood, which (acc. to P) was used with scarlet 
 and hyssop for purification (Lv 144, Nu 19%), was 
 not, in all probability, the cedar of Lebanon, but 
 ga plant obtainable in Sinai, and afterwards in 
 Palestine. Such a tree is Juniperus Phenicea, L., 
 which is found on Mt. Hor, mi on the brow of the 
 Edomitic limestone clifis overlooking the Arabah, 
 and probably in the Sinaitic peninsula. If no 
 longer there, there is nothing in the climate to 
 hinder its having grown there formerly. Houghton 
 erroneously calls it oxycedrus, which is a shrub 
 pr small tree of the mountains of Syria. 
 
 It is uncertain what tree is meant by ’drazim 
 (Nu 248). They are said to be trees growing by 
 water. The cedar of Lebanon does not grow in 
 moist places. On the contrary, it seeks the dry 
 sloping mountain-side, where nothing but the 
 moisture in the clefts of the rocks nourishes 
 
 * Josephus, Ant. vi. xii. 2; Conder, Tent Work, p. 153. 
 
 t Ib. 238; see also Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, i. 101, 149; 
 *obingon, Travels, ii. 79. 
 
 it. Unless we suppose, as has been hinted in 
 the article on ALOES, that the location of the 
 ‘drazim is poetic licence, we must suppose some 
 water-loving tree to be intended in this passage, 
 certainly not the Cedrus Libani, Barr., nor Juni- 
 perus oxycedrus, Lam., nor indeed any of the 
 coniferze of the Holy Land. 
 
 Avicenna defines ’arz, in Arab., as the well- 
 known juniper Jerry. This is the product of 
 Juniperus communis, L. 
 
 In most of the passages of Scripture not already 
 cited, probably in all, there can ie no doubt that 
 the cedar v ebanon is intended. Let us analyse 
 them in detail. (1) It was abundant (1 K 6918 
 10”). There is every reason to believe that the 
 cedar was exceedingly abundant in Solomon’s day. 
 The remains of the old forests exist above el- 
 Me4sir, Barfik, ‘Ain-Zehalta, el-Hadeth, Besherri, 
 Sir, and the Dunniyeh. They probably covered 
 all the sub-alpine peaks of Lebanon. It is also 
 extremely probable that the cedar flourished in 
 those days on Hermon and Antilebanon, both of 
 which belong to the Lebanon system, and are 
 suited climatically to the growth of these trees, 
 Large forests of them exist in Amanus, and then2e 
 
 
 
 & CEDAR FROM THE BESHERRI GROVE. 
 
 (It is not one of the largest, but exhibits the characteristic 
 shape and horizontal ramification.) 
 
 they extend northward and westward to Akher- 
 dagh, and for a long distance into the Taurus. The 
 cedar existed also in Cyprus; and large forests 
 of it are found in the Atlas and the Himalayas. 
 (2) It was a tall tree (Is 2%, Am 2°). Several of 
 the trees in the Besherri grove are 60 or 70 ft. high. 
 In Amanus it often reaches 100 ft. It is quite 
 likely that it reached or exceeded this height in 
 Lebanon. (3) It was not only a tree ‘of a high 
 stature,’ but one ‘with fair (beautiful) branches, 
 and with a shadowing shroud’ (dense shade) (Ezk 
 318). No quality of the cedar tree is more Leautiful 
 than its horizontal spray, with an upper surface 
 flat, and presenting an even carpet of dark green, 
 
 Fie 
 
 
 
. 
 : 
 r 
 ; 
 : 
 
 ue ® 
 
 2.78 2, ee 
 
 LES ae ee eee Oe 
 
 ornamented with its yellow staminate and purple 
 pistillate cones. (4) It was suitable for the masts 
 of ships (Ezk 27°). It has been objected that the 
 cedar has a thick, gnarled trunk, too short for a 
 mast. This is true of the old weather-beaten 
 veterans in the open groves of Lebanon at the 
 present day. But in Amanus, where the growth 
 is close and forest-like, there are multitudes 
 of tall straight trunks, every way suitable for 
 masts. Indeed, many of the younger trees of the 
 Besherri grove would make excellent masts for 
 ships of the size of those in Ezekiel’s time. It has 
 been proposed to consider the Pinus Halepensis, 
 Mill., as the ’erez here intended. It is curious that 
 this pine is still known in some parts of Lebanon 
 by the name ’arz, and also in the neighbourhood of 
 syepPe. But it is not so well adapted to masting 
 as the true cedar, and, although abundant through- 
 out Lebanon, is also equally abundant in Pal., 
 east and west of the Jordan. It is unlikely that 
 Ezekiel would have spoken of the tree distinctively 
 as the ‘cedar from Lebanon,’ if he had intended 
 the Aleppo pine, which the Tyrians could have cut 
 from the hill-country close to their city. (5) It 
 was suitable for beams, pillars, and boards (1 K 6° 
 7"). The cedars of Amanus, where the normal 
 owth obtains, could furnish a board 60 to 80 ft. 
 ong, and 6 to 8 ft. wide at the bottom, and 2 or 
 more at top. They could furnish pillars and beams 
 of any required thickness. The timber is inde- 
 structible by dry rot or borers. It is close-grained, 
 sound to the heart, preenh, and of a pleasing 
 colour. We have abundant testimony as to its 
 durability. Pliny says that the cedar roof of the 
 temple of Diana at Ephesus lasted 400 years. 
 That of the temple of Apollo at Utica lasted 1170 
 ears. (6) It was suitable for carved work, as 
 images (Is 44'4-15), Cedar wood is better fitted for 
 this purpose than almost any other wood in the 
 land. It is hard, close-grained, and takes a high 
 olish. (7) It must be full of sap (Ps 92). The 
 samic juice of the cedar exudes from every pore. 
 Large beads and nodules of the fragrant resin form 
 on ihe uninjured branches. An incision into the 
 bark is followed by a copious distillation of the 
 same. Where two branches meet and rub together, 
 they each pour out the life-giving sap, which 
 cements them, so that they grow fast to one 
 another. Numerous examples of this can be seen 
 in the grove at Besherri. (8) It was the king of 
 trees. a is placed at the head of the vegetable 
 kingdom by Solomon (1 K 4%), Abimelech con- 
 cedes its superiority (Jg 9%). It is perhaps 
 alluded to as ‘the glory of Lebanon’ (Is 35? 60). 
 The cedars are ‘the trees of the Lord’ (Ps 104%), 
 The Arabs still know them by the name’arz er-rubb, 
 ‘the cedars of the Lord.’ When the cedar falls, 
 the fir, itself a noble tree, howls, as a vassal for his 
 lord (Zec 111-2). When Jehoash wished to express 
 his contempt for Amaziah, he compared himself to 
 a cedar and Amaziah to a thistle, and said, ‘there 
 passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and 
 trode down the thistle’ (2 K 14°). The highest 
 boast of Sennacherib was that he would ‘cut down 
 the tall cedars’ (Is 37%). (9) Of this tree much 
 of the temple was built, also the palaces of David 
 and Solomon, and many other grand buildings of 
 Jerusalem. It was probably at that epoch that the 
 denudation of Lebanon began. 
 
 The cedar is known by the natives of restricted 
 localities in Lebanon by two other names. Thus 
 the people in the neighbourhood of ‘Ain-Zehalta, 
 Bartk, and el-Me‘Asir call their cedars tbhul. The 
 people in the neighbourhood of Sir call it tnd. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 CEILING.—See CIELING. 
 CELIBACY.—See MARRIAGE. 
 
 CENSER 
 
 CELLAR.—In AV only (1 Ch 27% %) for wine or 
 for oil. The Heb. (1yix) 1s common for any store or 
 storehouse. RV gives ‘c.’ for AV ‘secret place’ 
 in Lk 11%, reading xpirrn ‘a vault,’ ‘crypt,’ for 
 xpumréy. ‘hidden.’ "The Greek word is use y Jos. 
 BJ vy. vii. 4, ‘They set the tower on fire, and 
 leapt into the c, beneath.’ See House. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CENCHREA.—Cenchree or Kenchreae (not, as 
 AV, Cenchrea; usually spelt Keyy., by T., 
 Kevx.), where St. Paul, before sailing for Syria, had 
 his hair shorn in compliance with a vow (Ac 18!8), 
 and where Phoebe was a deaconess (Ro 161). C, 
 was the seaport of Corinth, on the eastern side of 
 the isthmus (see CORINTH). It doubtless had its 
 share in the bustle, luxury, and licence of the 
 mother-city; but, under the influence of St. 
 Paul, it early became the seat of a local church, 
 whose deaconess had the honour of bearing the 
 apostle’s letter to the Roman Church. 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 
 CENDEBAUS (KevdeBaios), a general of Anti- 
 ochus VII. Sidetes, who was given the command 
 of the sea-coast, and sent with an army into 
 Palestine in order to enforce the claims of Anti- 
 ochus against Simon Maccabzeus (comp. ATHENO- 
 BIUS). Cendebzus occupied Jamnia, fortified 
 Kidron, a place not otherwise known, and then 
 began to make raids upon Judea. Owing to his 
 advanced age Simon did not go out to battle 
 himself, but placed his two sons, Judas and John, 
 in command. The battle took place in a plain 
 not far from Modin; and the Jews, although 
 obliged to cross a torrent-bed before commencing 
 the attack, gained a complete victory over Cende- 
 beus, and pursued the Syrians as far as Kidron 
 and the neighbourhood of Ashdod (1 Mac 15* 16°; 
 ef. Jos. Ant. XIII. vii. 3). H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CENSER.—Two Heb. words are thus rendered in 
 our Eng. version, 777 and nqypp. The latter, from 
 the same root as the word for incense, is rendered 
 by the LXX in the two places where it occurs 
 (2 Ch 26%, Ezk 8") @yuarjpor. For this reason 
 xpvoodv Oujyuaripiov of He 94 has been understood 
 since Jerome’s time to mean ‘ golden censer’ (AV, 
 RV). The best modern authorities, however, have © 
 decided in favour of the rendering ‘ golden altar of 
 incense’ (so RVm after Bleek, Del. etc.), a sense in 
 which the word frequently occurs in Philo and 
 Josephus (for reff. see Thayer, NT Lex. sub voc.). 
 
 Elsewhere in OT the vessel used to carry the 
 charcoal on which the incense was burned is termed 
 nam. In AV and RV our translators have only in 
 certain cases given the rendering ‘censer,’ pre- 
 ferring ‘ Firepan’ in those passages, apparently, 
 where the ann> is Ree tional among the utensils 
 connected with the altar of burnt-offering, as in Ex 
 278, Nu 44 RV* etc. 
 
 There is no reason for this distinction, one and the 
 same utensil being intended throughout. The nn 
 was so constructed as to be capable not merely of 
 lifting the glowing charcoal from the altar of 
 burnt-offering,—so much is indicated by its ety- 
 mology from 779 to take up ‘live coals’ from the 
 hearth,—but also of containing a quantity sufficient 
 to burn at least two handfuls of incense (Lv 161%). 
 We may therefore think of it as a bowl-shaped 
 implement furnished with a short handle,—in other 
 words, as a species of ladle. The censers of the 
 Pent. (only in P) are of the same material as the 
 great altar, aaeeits bronze (Ex 278, cf. Nu 16% 9), 
 Those of Solomon’s temple were of gold (1 K 7, 
 
 * It is not correct to say, as in Smith’s DB,?i. p. 552, that the 
 vessels enumerated (Nu 414) are those of ‘the golden Altar, f.e. 
 of incense.’ These have been mentioned but not named in v.10, 
 Besides, ‘ the altar’ (v.13) is invariably in the Pent. the altar of 
 burnt-offering. 
 
 
 

 
 366 CENSUS 
 
 
 
 2 K 25%). 
 nexion with the daily offering in Tamid v. 4, 5, 
 Yoma iv. 4. The favourite LXX renderings are 
 rupécoy (cf. Sir 50°) and Outcxy (cf. 1 Mac 172). 
 
 t is now impossible to say, in what respect, if 
 
 A censer of silver is mentioned in con- 
 
 at all, the ngnp differed from the nwypp. Delitzsch 
 is certainly mistaken in identifying (art. ‘ Riuch- 
 erpfanne’ in Riehm’s HBA?) the latter with the 
 vessel designated 42 (see Nu 7“), EV spoon, more 
 probably a bowl with a handle, and therefore of 
 similar shape to van (hence LXX 6vtcxy), in any 
 case a vessel in which the incense was kept (cf. the 
 nis) with incense on the table of Sew breal Ex 
 25"). The context in which it occurs (see above) 
 requires us, in each case, to see in the npn a 
 proper censer. 
 
 ne censer (\i(Bavwrds) appears along with incense 
 in the imagery of the Apoc. (85). In 58 the ‘golden 
 vials (¢idAas) full of odours’ (RV more correctly 
 ‘the golden bowls full of incense’) have been 
 suggested by the nis2 or incense-holders just men- 
 tioned. For the use of this vessel in Herod’s 
 temple see Tamid v. vi. 
 
 Among the implements of the golden candlestick 
 were its nian>, EV snuff dishes. These were prob- 
 ably not trays for the snuffers as the LXX render- 
 ing in Ex 25° (i7é0eua) would suggest, but rather a 
 utensil of the same shape as the censer, in which 
 to er and carry away the burnt portions of the 
 wicks. 
 
 Representations of the censers used by the 
 ancient Egyptians are still extant. They con- 
 sisted of a small pot or cup with a long hanans 
 (Kitto, Encycl. Bibl. Lit. 1862, p. 461) into which 
 little pellets of incense were projected at intervals 
 by the priest. 
 
 In early Christian times the use of censers is not 
 mentioned ; it appears to have commenced about 
 the 4th cent. A.D., probably for antiseptic fumiga- 
 tion In the 8th cent., however, their use was 
 genera, and directions for their adoption were 
 
 iven by local synods. But symbolical meanings 
 
 ecame a degrees attached to the burning of 
 incense. In many cathedrals on the Continent 
 and in this country very valuable thuribles or 
 censers of gold and silver (cf. Herod. iv. 162; 
 Thucyd. vi. 46; Cic. Verr. iv. 21-24) are still to be 
 found, some of them weighing as much as 16 lbs., 
 and evidently not intended to be swung like the 
 ordinary censer. In form modern censers vary 
 considerably, being usually oval, but sometimes 
 square. The ordinary form used by the Jews is of 
 an octagonal shape. In Europe they are generally 
 furnished witha perforated lid, and havethreechains 
 to the lower portion, a fourth chain being attached 
 to the lid, so that it can be raised when required. 
 There is usually a small shallow pan enclosed in 
 the censer to receive live charcoal. They are 
 now usually made of brass, as used in the Roman 
 and Anglican services. The incense used for the 
 censer is generally carried by an acolyte in a boat- 
 shaped brass box, containing a spoon for sprinkling 
 it on the censer. 
 
 LrrERaTURE. —Sonneschmid, De Thymiaterio sanctissimo 
 
 eGiiel 17-23 ; Deyling, Obs. ii. 565 seq. ; Ugolini, Thesaur. xi. ; 
 entze in Nov. Bibiioth. Brev. v. 337 seg.; Zeibrich, De Thur. 
 
 Gerb. 1768; Royal, De Thurib. 724; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 
 444f.; Schiirer, HJ P wu. i. 295. 
 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY and E. M. HoLmeEs. 
 
 CENSUS.—See Davin, QUIRINIUS. 
 
 CENTURION (Latin, centurio; Gr. xevruplwy 
 in Mk; éxarovdpxns, éxardvapyos in Mt, Lk, and 
 Ac,—see critical authorities in Grimm-Thayer for 
 the two forms of this word).—An officer in the 
 Roman army in command of a century (centuria), 
 which corresponded to the civil curia, and consisted 
 
 
 
 CENTURION 
 
 of a body of men numbering from 50 to 100, 
 according to the size of the legion of which it was 
 a subdivision. Though resembling a British cap- 
 tain in the size of the unit under his command, 
 the centurion in social position was equal only to a 
 British non-commissioned officer. He could not 
 become more than a centurion, except through 
 exceptional circumstances, but left the service 
 when his time was up and settled in some small 
 town, to live on the smaller or larger fortune he 
 had acquired in the wars. 
 
 We meet with centurions in the NT on five 
 occasions—two of these being connected with 
 incidents in the life of our Lord, one with St. 
 Peter, and two with St. Paul. 4. At Capernaum 
 a centurion came to Jesus to seek healing for his 
 servant (Mt 853, Lk 771°), This man was a 
 Gentile, but probably not.a Roman, because the 
 occurrence took place in the dominions of Herod 
 Antipas (see Holtzmann, Handkom. in loc.). The 
 Herods would be inclined to imitate their Roman 
 
 atrons in the organisation of their armies. 
 
 he centurion shows a warm syne for his 
 slave, such as was rare among Romans. His 
 reference to his being a man under authority, 
 having soldiers under Sin, would be esp. appropri- 
 ate on the lips of a subordinate officer to whom the 
 duty of obeying his superiors was as familiar as 
 that of commanding his men. The Capernaum 
 centurion had probably resided for some time in 
 the city, which would thus appear to have been 
 guarded by a garrison. There he had been so 
 attracted by the good qualities of Judaism as to 
 have built a synagogue, from which it may be 
 inferred that he was a believer in the God of Israel, 
 though evidently he was not a proselyte. He 
 evinced great kindness of heart, humility, and 
 faith—the exceptional strength of his faith sur- 
 prising and delighting our Lord. 2. A centuricn 
 was in charge of the execution of Jesus. This man 
 must have been in the Roman army, as the cruci- 
 fixion was carried out under the orders of Pontius 
 Pilate, the Roman Procurator. The Synoptists note 
 the impression produced on him by the spectacle of 
 the last scene in the life of our Lord. According 
 to St. Matthew and St. Mark, he exclaimed, 
 ‘Truly this’ (Mk ‘this man’) ‘was the son (or 
 a son) of God’ (Mt 27%, Mk 15%); and according 
 to St. Luke ‘he glorified God, saying, Certainly 
 this was a righteous man’ (Lk 237). Whichever 
 phrase he used, it cannot be supposed that as 
 a heathen he fully appreciated the divinity of 
 Christ, but it is clear that he was impressed with 
 our Lord’s goodness and greatness. This centurion 
 appears again a little later when Pilate inquires of 
 him as to the fact and time of the death of Jesus 
 (Mk 15%). 3. Cornelius, the first Gentile baptized 
 and received into the Church (Ac 10), was a 
 centurion of the Roman garrison at Caesarea, the 
 headquarters of the Procurator, and belonged to 
 the ‘Italian band ’—(which see). It is evident 
 from the narrative, that Cornelius, like the 
 Capernaum centurion, had been deeply impressed 
 with the religious ideas of the people among whom 
 he was serving ; but it is also evident that he had 
 not become a prose red St. Peter’s scruples 
 would not have needed to be removed by the vision 
 on the house-top, and it seems clear that he was 
 not satisfied with the measure of light he perceived 
 in Judaism. 4. Several centurions of the cohort 
 at Jerusalem under the command of a chiliarch 
 (called ‘the chief captain’ in Ac 21%! AV and 
 RV) appear during the riot at Jerusalem, and the 
 subsequent rescue of St. Paul and his arrest (Ae 
 218 20°5. 26 9317. 23) There would be ten venturions 
 
 to a cohort if the numbers were complete. 5. 
 After his appeal to Cesar, St. Paul was conducted 
 to Rome under the charge of a centurion named 
 
 — ~~ 
 
 
 
a a ep 
 
 3 
 i 
 : 
 : 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CEPHAS 
 
 CHAIN 
 
 367 
 
 
 
 Julius, with whom he came to be on very friendly 
 terms (Ac 27}: 1-4 2816), This centurion was ‘of 
 Augustus’ band’ (which see), Ac 27}. 
 
 W. F. ADENEY. 
 CEPHAS.—See PETER. 
 
 CERTAIN.—1. The orig. meaning of c. is fixed 
 or definite, not fluctuating. It is seen in Ex 164 
 ‘gather a c. rate every day’ (ina oin37, RV ‘a 
 day’s portion every day’); 2Ch8™® ‘after a c. 
 rate every day’ (a7, 01733, RV ‘as the duty of 
 every day required’); Neh 11% ‘ac. portion. . . 
 for the singers, due every day’ (\o\'2 Ding] 7x, 
 RV ‘a settled provision... as every gar re- 
 quired’); 1 Co 4" ‘we... have noc. dwelling- 
 place’ (derarofyev). See also Dn 2% ‘the dream is 
 c.’ (a¥: ‘fixed,’ cf. 2° ‘I know of certainty,’ same 
 Heb.) ; Ac 25% ‘of whom I have no ec. thing to 
 write’ (d4opadjs). Or oc. after being ascertained, 
 Dt 13% ‘Then shalt thou inguire, and make 
 search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be 
 truth, and the thing c.’ (j\23), and 174. In this 
 sense is the phrase ‘for certain,’ 1 K 2°, Jer 26; 
 and ‘for a certain,’ 1 K 2” ‘know for a c.’ (RV 
 ‘for c.’), where the a is redundant. See A. 
 
 2. When a person or thing is taken out of the 
 fluctuating multitude and fixed in the mind, it 
 need not be further specified, and so becomes in- 
 definite, as in the common phrases ‘ a certain man,’ 
 etc. (Heb. 23x, wx, or wy, Gr. 71s mostly, also 
 dvOpwros, Mt 18% 21% 227, and efs). Thus we have, 
 Ac 8% ‘a c, water’; 5? ‘ac. part’; Lk 23" ‘ac. 
 sedition’ ; 2 Ch 18? ‘after c. years’; Ezr 1018 ‘c. 
 chiefs of the fathers’ (RV ‘c. heads of fathers’ 
 houses’); and Dn 84 ‘IT heard one saint speaking, 
 and another saint said unto that c. saint which 
 spake,’ where we see the word changing from its 
 definite to its indefinite use. ‘Certain’ in this 
 sense is freq. used alone, where we now use the 
 vaguer ‘some,’ as Nu 16? ‘c. of the children of 
 Israel’; 1 Ch 19° ‘there went c. and told David’; 
 Lk 8” ‘it was told him by c. which said’; 18° 
 ‘unto c. which trusted in themselves.’ 
 
 Certainly. 1 S 20° ‘Thy father certainly know- 
 eth that I es found grace in thine eyes,’ not ‘it 
 is certain that thy father knoweth,’ but ‘th 
 father knoweth for a certainty’ (Heb. yy yy, R 
 ‘knoweth well’); se 20°, Gn 437, Jer 13! 40! 
 42.22, Same Heb. in Jos 23% ‘know for a 
 certainty’; 1 K 2” ‘know for certain’; 2” ‘know 
 for a certain’; Jer 265 ‘know ye for certain.’ 
 
 Certainty is used in the obsol. sense of ‘the 
 fact,’ or ‘actual circumstances,’ in Lk 14 ‘ that thou 
 mightest know the ce. of those things’ (do¢ddeua) ; 
 Ac 21% 22 (7d dogadés). Cf. Shaks. Ham. Iv. v. 
 
 140— 
 “If you desire to know the certainty 
 Of your dear father’s death.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CERTIFY, in AV, means not ‘to make certain’ or 
 ‘assure,’ but simply ‘to make to know,’ ‘tell.’ In 
 OT it occurs (1) Bor 414. 16 510 724 (yin) ; (2) 2 § 1578 
 (vin) ; (3) Est 2? (rox, RV ‘tell’). In Apocr. Wis 
 188 (rpoywacxw), Ep. Jer! (dvayyéddw), Bel? (decxviw), 
 1 Mac 147! (amayyérrw), 2 Mac 18 (dtacapéw), 2 Mac 
 11% (eldéres). In NT Gal 1" ‘TI certi ou’ (yrw- 
 
 ¢w, RV ‘I make known to you’). Cf. Ps 395 Pr. 
 
 k. ‘Lord, let me know mine end, and the number 
 of my days, that I may be certified how long I 
 have to live’ (AV ‘that I may know how frail I 
 am,’ RV ‘Let me know how frail I am’); 19? Pr. 
 Bk. ‘One day telleth another, and one night certi- 
 fieth another.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHABRIS (Xafpels).—One of the three rulers of 
 Bethulia, Jth 6! 8!° 10°, 
 
 CHADIASAI (B ol Xaiidoar, A Xaddoar, AV they 
 
 of Chadias), 1 Es 5*.—They are mentioned with 
 the Ammidioi as returning, to the number of 422, 
 with Zerub. There are no corresponding names in 
 the lists of Ezraand Neh. Fritzsche (Hzeg. Handd. 
 in loc.) identifies them with the people of Kedesh 
 in Judah (Jos 15”), H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 CH/ZEREAS (Xaipéas, AV Chereas) was brother 
 of Timotheus, the leader of the Ammonites, and 
 held command at the fortress of Gazara, i.e. prob- 
 ably Jazer in the trans-Jordanic territory (see 
 1 Mac 5**), Chzereas was slain upon the capture 
 of Gazara by Judas Maccabzeus (2 Mac 10°?-*), 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CHAFE.—To c. is to make warm (Lat. cale- 
 Sacere, late Lat. calefare, old Fr. chaufer) ; next to 
 make warm by friction; then (as with ‘friction’ 
 itself) to irritate. In 2 178 only (AV, RV) ‘they 
 be chafed in their minds, as a bear robbed of her 
 whelps in the field’ (w5} 2 ‘ bitter of soul’). Cf.— 
 
 ‘Calmnesse is great advantage ; he that lets 
 Another chafe, may warm him at his fire, 
 Mark all his wandrings, and enjoy his frets," 
 G. Herbert, Temple (‘ Church Porch,’ lifi.} 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHAFF.—The AV renders by this term four 
 Heb. words. 1. win hdshash. This word occurs 
 but twice in OT, Is 5*% 334, where it is rendered 
 AV ‘chaff.’ It would be better rendered ‘ cut grass’ 
 or ‘dry grass’ (as Is 5% RV). 2. yD or yd méz. 
 This is chaff separated from the grain by winnow- 
 ing. It is usually tr. in LXX xvois (Ps 14355, Is 29°, 
 Hos 13%), once xvois dxvpov (Is 171%), and once 
 kovioprds=dust (Job 21"*). In the Oriental process 
 of winnowing by tossing the cut straw, grain, and 
 chaff into the air, the grain falls vertically back on 
 the heap, the cut straw is carried a little distance 
 away and deposited in another heap, while the 
 chai, consisting of the husks and the finer particles 
 of the straw, is carried to and beyond the borders 
 of the threshing-floor. Hence the imagery of the 
 passages cited. 3. j3n tebhen, the same as the 
 Arab. tibn=cut straw, This word is only once tr. 
 ‘chaff’ (Jer 2378 AV, where LXX renders é¢xupor, 
 and RV ‘straw’). In all the other passages where 
 it occurs, except Job 21!*, where it is incorrectly 
 rendered ‘stubble,’ it is tr. ‘straw.’ Cut straw is 
 preferable. See STRAW. 4 ny ‘dr. This is an 
 Aramaic word of somewhat uncertain signification. 
 Some have derived it from the root iy to be blind, 
 and regard it as that which blinds, such as the 
 minute particles called AV ‘chaff of the summer 
 threshing-floors’ (Dn 2"). The LXX rendering 
 xovoprés in this passage would make it the dust 
 and not. the chaff of the threshing-floor. This con- 
 tains, however, many minute spicules of the straw, 
 husks, and beards of the grain. G. E. Post. 
 
 CHAIN.—The Bible frequently refers to chains, 
 and uses a great variety of words to describe the 
 different articles and their uses. Chains were 
 chiefly employed for (1) ornament, (2) restraint. 
 
 1. Ornament.—1. There was the more solid form 
 of simple or twisted ring for the neck (729 from 
 137; cf. Arab. rabat, ‘to bind’). Such was Joseph’s 
 gold chain (Gn 41%), also Ezk 16%. The Maronite 
 Christians of Lebanon regard it as a charm against 
 evil spirits, or the evil eye (see AMULET). It is 
 called a ¢awk, and in the mod. Arab. version of the 
 Bible by Van Dyck the ouch of the high priest’s 
 dress is so translated. This chain may be of gold 
 or silver, but the poorer classes, as the Bedawin, 
 wear chains of copper or brass. 2 There was 
 a more elaborate form, made of plaited wire, like 
 (1), but with jewels inserted and pendants attached, 
 or, instead of the metal twist, composed of separate 
 
 arts in ate balls, or links (corresp. to Arab. 
 kd). It did not encircle the neck closely, 
 
 Kiladat, % 
 
 
 
368 
 
 CHALCEDONY | 
 
 CHALDEE VERSIONS 
 
 
 
 like the tawk, but hung loosely from it. The chain 
 vf Dn 5716-2 was probably of this order, and 
 exaniples of it are found in Jg 8%, Ps 73°, Ca 4°, 
 Pr 1°, It is customary in Syria to hang a crescent 
 of silver, called the Azali, by a hair rope or chain 
 round the necks of valuable camels or horses (cf. 
 Jg 871-6), 3, The flexible chain (a7v9¥, Arab. silsilah, 
 ‘link-chain’) for suspending and festooning pur- 
 poses (Ex 2814. 395 1 K 77, 2 Ch 3°38), 4, In 
 
 u 31° RV ‘ankle-chain’ (which see). 5. In Ca 1” 
 (39, Arab. haraz) RV ‘strings of jewels’ means a 
 necklace of gems, beads, or stielta strung on a 
 thread. 6. In Is 3” (nipn}, Arab. nutafah) RV 
 ‘pendants’ means ear-drops, in design like a pearl 
 or drop of water. 
 
 2. Restraint.—Named from the metal, copper 
 (nyn3), La 37, In Jer 39752" chain is transl. fetters 
 (see FETTER); also in AV in Jg 167,258 3%, 2K 
 257, 2 Ch 33" 36%. Chain in Ps 68° is corrected in 
 RV to ‘prosperity’ (a7y12). In NT the references 
 to chains for restraint present little difficulty. The 
 chief terms are d\vois, Mk 5°, Ac 28”, 2 Ti 1%, 
 Rev 20!: cepd in 2 P 24 ‘chains of darkness’; 
 decuss in Jude * “everlasting chains,’ which be- 
 comes a fig. ‘bond’ in Lk 13%. 
 
 Modern brass was unknown in ancient times, 
 but there was an alloy of copper andtin. The feet 
 of prisoners were secured by a chain of copper (nyn3, 
 Arab. sildsil nahds, ré5n) attached to copper rings 
 encircling each ankle, which were widened to 
 receive the ankle, and then closed by a few strokes 
 of a hammer. For the sake of safe custody, as 
 the soft copper rings ee be opened, the prisoner’s 
 eyes were put out (2 K 25’). In NT mention is 
 made of the Roman custom of securing a prisoner 
 by a chain, one end being fastened to the prisoner’s 
 wrist and the other to that of the soldier who 
 guarded him (Ac 12° 28”), W. CARSLAW. 
 
 CHALCEDONY.—See STONEs, PRECIOUS. 
 
 CHALDAA, CHALDHANS.—o3 (or o> ry) is 
 the usual OT designation of Chaldza (Jer 50! 51% 
 245 2512); thesame word isseen in o> x (Gn 11%) 
 ‘Ur of the Chaldees.’ The. Bent reads Xandaiou, 
 substituting a liquid (1) for a sibilant () before a 
 dental (d). The corresponding form in the Assyr. 
 inscrip. is mat Kaldd, ‘land of Chaldeans.’ 
 
 i. "tne LAND.—The land of the Chaldeans, in 
 OT, usually covers what is included in the term 
 Babylonia, not inclusive of Mesopotamia in its 
 larger sense, but of the lower or between-rivers 
 Babylonia. Delitzsch (Paradies, p. 128 f.) main- 
 tains that the Bab. name Kasdu, then KaXsi, is 
 but the earlier designation of the ‘territory of the 
 Ka’ (da, meaning ‘ territory’), a people who held 
 sway over middle Babylonia for some time before 
 the 13th cent. B.c. (cf. also Del. Sprache der 
 Kosséer). The land of the Kaldd, for some cen- 
 turies after B.c. 1000, was located S.E. of Babylon, 
 reaching to Bit-Yakin and the head of the Pers. 
 Gulf, and poets swinging round W. to the edge 
 ef the Arabian desert. In the inscr. of Ramman- 
 nirari 1. (Rawlinson, WAT i. 35, No. 1, line 22) 
 Kaldi covers all Babylonia in the expression Sarrdnt 
 da mat Kaldi, ‘kings of the land of C.’ Sargon 
 always speaks of the rebel Merodach-baladan at 
 Babylon as Sar mat Kaldi, ‘king of the land of 
 Kali,’ or gar mat Bit-Yakin, ‘king of the land 
 of Bit-Yakin.’ So the Persian Gulf is mentioned 
 as tdmtum $a Bit-Yakin, interchangeably with 
 tamtum ga mat Kaldi, indicating that the Pers. 
 Gulf was the sea of the Chaldxa of that day. 
 Sennacherib (Rawlinson, WAT i. 37, line 37) draws 
 a line between the Arabians and Arameans on the 
 one hand, and the amélu Kaldia, ‘the people of the 
 Chaldzans,’ on the other. In the time of the de- 
 cline of Assyria and the rise of New Babylonia the 
 
 term Kaldd included N. and S. Babylonia and the 
 territory occupied by certain foreign tribes and 
 peoples adjacent to them, who were later included 
 in the name as used by the prophet-priest Ezekiel 
 (23%), The later Chaldzea was about 400 miles long 
 N.E. and 8. W. by an average of 100 miles in width. 
 The derivation of the word is somewhat doubtful, 
 though it may be related to the name of a nephew 
 of Abraham, Chesed (13), of which it is a plural, 
 in Gn 22%, Itis also the same in root-form as the 
 Assy. kasada, ‘to conquer.’ 
 
 ii. THE PEOPLE.—The origin of the Chaldzans 
 is enveloped in the mists of antiquity. Whence 
 and when they migrated into lower Babylonia is 
 also an unsolved riddle. Winckler (Gesch. Bab. 
 und Assyr. p. 99 f.) finds the first hint of such a 
 
 eople in the ‘dynasty of the coast-land’ [meer- 
 andes], in the person of Ea-mukin-sumi, king of 
 Kardunia’, where the latter’s territory is distin- 
 guished from the ‘coast-land,’ at about the middle 
 of the 10th cent. B.c. It is also thought that the 
 names of the kings of this dynasty are Kassite, 
 thus sustaining a conjecture (ct. Del. as above) that 
 the Kosseans, the Kasdd, were the pioneers of the 
 Chaldzans in Babylonia. If these conjectures are 
 true, then we find already in this period a mixed 
 population in the lowlands, reaching as far as the 
 
 ers. Gulf. But the character of the Chaldzans, 
 as we know them afterwards, is stron, BAe 
 They pushed north from the Pers. fe against 
 Babylon, and for centuries contended with Assyria 
 for its possession. They were in early times 
 nomads and agriculturists, despising city life. 
 But their contact with the more advanced civilisa- 
 tion of lower Babylonia led them to respect and 
 to foster centres for self-protection. Soon this 
 industrious, thrifty people built and fortified 
 cities, and extended their boundaries to the north 
 against the older and more cultured capitals. In 
 the second half of the 8th cent. B.c. we find north 
 of Babylon the ‘kingdom’ of Bit-Dakkuri; and 
 Sargon, as well as his successors on the throne of 
 Assyria, had their hands full in holding at bay this 
 vigorous people. The Chaldean kings who forced 
 their way to the throne of Babylon were probably 
 heads of different cities, states, or tribes of that 
 
 eople. Merodach-baladan, son of Baladan, was 
 line of Bit-Yakin, Ukin-zir of Bit-Amukkani, and 
 Suzub, a Chaldean, from some other place or tribe. 
 
 iii. THE LANGUAGE.—The language of the Chal- 
 deans was the Bab. cuneiform, almost identical 
 
 rammatically and lexically with the Assyrian. 
 
 he term ‘Chaldee’ as applied to certain chapters 
 of Dn and Ezr is incorrect, and should not be so 
 employed. The correct term is Aramaic. 
 
 iv. ‘tHE WisE MEN.—In Dn (1‘ and often) the 
 term ‘ Chaldeans’ is generally used in the sense of 
 astrologers, astronomers. The same sense is seen 
 in classaicl writers (as Strabo, Diodorus). Schrader 
 (COT ii. 125) says, ‘The signification ‘‘ wise men,” 
 that we meet with in the Bk of Dn, is foreign te 
 Assyrio-Bab, usage, and did not arise till after the 
 fall of the Bab. empire.’ Delitzsch (Calwer Bibel- 
 lexicon, p. 127*) regards this usage as built upon 
 the fact that Bab.-Chaldza had been the home and 
 the chief seat of astrological and astronomical 
 knowledge from one ages. The attempted identi- 
 fication of the peoples in the region of the Black 
 Sea (mentioned by Xenophon as Chaldeans) with 
 those in lower Mesopotamia has proved a failure. 
 See BABYLONIA. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Delattre, Les Chald. jusqu'a la fond. de Temp. 
 de Nebuch. 1889; Winckler, Untersuch. z. alt . Ges. 1889, 
 47 ff.; — Ges. Bab. und As. 1892, 111 ff.; Tiele, Bab.-As. Ges, 
 1888, 65, 207, 211, 286 ff., 422; on Chaldwan learning, Meyer, E., 
 Ges. des Alterthums, 1884, vol. i. p. 185 f.; Hommel, Ges. Bab. 
 und As. 1885, pp. 386 ff., 404 ff. Ira M. PRICE. 
 
 CHALDEE YVERSIONS.—See Tarcums 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 CHALK-STONES 
 
 CHAMPAIGN 369 
 
 
 
 CHALK-STONES (737338).— This expression is 
 used only once, Is 27°, where Israel’s repentance 
 evinces itself by the destruction of idolatrous 
 altars, whose stones:are to be as chalk (or lime- 
 stone) broken in pieces, calcined and slaked for 
 
 mortar (see Delitzsch, ad Joc.). The expression 
 is of much interest as showing that the practice 
 of burning limestone and aa | with water was 
 ractised in Pal. in OT times. The limestone of 
 Pal. consists largely of white granular carbonate 
 of lime of the same geological age as the Chalk 
 formation of England. E. HULL. 
 
 CHALLENGE.—In the sense of ‘claim,’ Ex 22° 
 tan manner of lost thing which another challen- 
 geth to be his’ (12x, RV ‘one saith’). Cf. More 
 (1513), ‘He began, not by warre, but by Law, to 
 challenge the crown.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHALPHI (AV Calphi)=Alpheus (Xad¢el, Jos. 
 Ant. XIII. v. 7, Xayéas), the father of Judas, one 
 of the two captains of Jonathan Maccabeus who 
 stood firm in a battle fought against the Syrians 
 at Hazor in N. Galilee (1 Mac 11”). 
 WHITE. 
 
 H. A. 
 CHAMBER as a verb occurs Ro 13 ‘ Let us walk 
 honestly, as in the day. . . notin chambering and 
 wantonness’ (xolrn, ‘a bed,’ Lk 117; ‘the marriage 
 bed,’ He 13*; here ‘illicit intercourse’; cf. Ro 9” 
 xolrny Exovea, ‘having conceived’). See HOUSE. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 CHAMBERLAIN.—An officer in the houses of 
 kings and nobles charged with the care of their 
 apartments, dress, etc., though the office often im- 
 ay other duties of trust. In OT the word occurs 
 2 K 23" and repeatedly in Est, where the original 
 is eunuch (7p); but it is generally believed that 
 this name is not to be taken always in a literal 
 sense, and hence it is often rendered by the word 
 officer. In Esther, however, the chamberlain 
 evidently belongs to that class of persons who are 
 entrusted with the watchful care of the harems of 
 Oriental monarchs. In NT at Ac 12” it is said 
 that the people of Tyre and Sidon sought the 
 favour of Herod Agrippa through the mediation of 
 Blastus ‘the king’s c.’ (rdv érl rod Koravos rod 
 Bacidéws), showing that the office was one of con- 
 siderable influence. The word occurs again in AV 
 in Ro 16%, but is rendered in RV more pe 
 ‘treasurer (olxovéuos) of the city,’ in connexion wit 
 the name of Erastus, a Christian of Corinth, from 
 which place it is generally believed that St. Paul 
 wrote ap Ep. to the Romans, and where it is not 
 likely there would be a chamberlain in the 
 primary sense of the word. J. WORTABET. 
 
 CHAMELEON.—AV so renders nb kédh, xapa- 
 déwv, chameleon, the second of the lizards mentioned 
 in Ly 11%, which RV renders land-crocodile. On 
 the other hand, RV renders by chameleon the last 
 of the animals mentioned in this passage, n>vyjn 
 tinshemeth, dorddak, talpa, which A Veraaders mole. 
 
 The Heb. kédh is used in many passages in its 
 etymological sense of strength, but only in the 
 present for an animal. Nothing in its etymology 
 
 ints to the chameleon. Among the lizards the 
 
 ‘and-monitor, which is the land-crocodile of the 
 ancients, Psammosaurus scincus, Merrem., is next 
 to the Nile-monitor, Monitor Niloticus, Geoffr., in 
 size and strength. The Arabs call both waral 
 (vulgo waran). They distinguish the first as 
 waral el-ard=the land-waral, and the second as 
 waral el-bahr=water-waral. But the first is also 
 called dabb=3¥ 246, which is the name of the 
 last animal in the previous verse, translated in 
 AV tortoise, and in RV great lizard. It often 
 attains a length of from 4 to 5 ft. It would there- 
 fore be better to render z4b, land-crocodile or land- 
 SOL. I.—24 
 
 monitor, and kédh, Nile-monitor or water-monitor. 
 This would carry out the etymological idea of 
 strength, as the water-monitor is a foot or two 
 longer than its land relative, and Arabian stories 
 are full of the records of its power in fighting, not 
 only snakes, but the dabd itself. This would give 
 to two of the lizard group appropriate specific 
 names. Both are noted for devouring crocodile’s 
 eggs. The Nile-monitor was held in great reverence 
 in ancient Egypt on this account. 
 
 As before said, RV gives chameleon for tin- 
 shemeth (Lv 11%). While it is perhaps probable 
 that this animal is a lizard, as its name stands 
 at the end of a list of lizards, it is by no means 
 certain. It is also at the end of a list of things 
 ‘that creep upon the earth’ (117). In those 
 days there was no scientific study of objects of 
 Nature, and the collocation of the different clean 
 and unclean animals was with reference to char- 
 acteristics which are not recognised in any other 
 system of classification (114% -%), It is quite 
 poate therefore, that tinshemeth is not a lizard, 
 
 ut the mole-rat of Syria, Spalax typhlus, which, 
 although not a true mole, has all its habits and its 
 general aspect. The LXX and Vulg. renderings 
 strengthen this possibility. There is, however, 
 one strong objection to rendering tinshemeth ‘ mole- 
 rat.’ Itis that holed (Lv 11”) tr. in both VSS (on 
 the authority of the LXX ya)%, and Vulg. mustela), 
 weasel, very probably refers to the mole-rat. See 
 MOLE, WEASEL. It is inadmissible to suppose 
 that the same animal is. mentioned twice, by 
 different names, so close together in the same list. 
 
 There seems to be no warrant for the adoption 
 of chameleon for tinshemeth, excepting the deriva- 
 tion of the word from a root signifying to breathe, 
 coupled with the ancient opinion that the chameleon 
 lived on air. It must not be forgotten that, in the 
 same chapter, tinshemeth is given as the name of 
 an aquatic fowl (v.18, cf. Dt 141%). SeeSwan. On 
 the whole, we think the question of the identity of 
 both tinshemeths very unsatisfactory, and well- 
 nigh insoluble. a. E. Post. 
 
 CHAMOIS (173 zemer, xapundordpdadts, camelo- 
 pardus).— This was one of the wild animals 
 allowed to the Israelites as food (Dt 145), and 
 therefore presumably accessible to them. This 
 would make a rer the renderings camelopard 
 and chamois. ‘Tristram establishes a very strong 
 
 robability that it is the mountain-sheep of 
 
 pt and Arabia, called in N. Africa aoudad, 
 and in Arabia kebsh, which signifies a ram. It is 
 known to naturalists as Ovis tragelaphus, and lives 
 in small flocks in the most rugged mountain dis- 
 tricts from Barbary to Egypt. The Xebsh of Sinai 
 is probably identical with it, though as yet no 
 naturalist had seen it. The Bedawin know it well. 
 It may well be supposed that it was abundant in 
 the Mosaic age, and, as it was allowed to the 
 Israelites for food, they may have done much 
 toward its extinction in those parts. It is more 
 than 3 ft. in height, has no mane, but long hair 
 down its throat and breast, and on the fore-legs, 
 forming a sort of ruffles to the knee. It is very 
 active, bounding from rock to rock. It has 
 massive horns, 2 ft. in length, and curving gently 
 backward. G. E. Post. 
 
 CHAMPAIGN means ‘an open plain’ (from Lat. 
 campania, It. campagna, old Fr. champaigne). Ut 
 oceurs Dt 11 (in 1611 champion, a later forin 
 which was introduced in the beg. of 16th cent.) 
 ‘the Canaanites, which dwell in the ce.’ (azqw, RV 
 ‘ Arabah’); Ezk 372™ (1611 champian, a still later 
 form), and Jth 5! ‘in the c. countries’ (é rots 
 medias, RV ‘in the plains’). The word is pron. 
 sham’pan. J. HASTINGS. 
 
$70 CHAMPION 
 
 
 
 CHAMPION (from late Lat. campio, one who 
 fights in the campus or open plain) is an accurate 
 tr. of the Heb. in 1S 17* * (ojarrvx, lit. ‘the man 
 
 of the space between,’ that is, the space between 
 
 the two armies, which is called in Gr. the peraly- 
 juov). But in 17" Goliath is simply called ‘mighty 
 one’ (7133), and the ‘champion’ of AV and RV is 
 unhappy. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHANCE.—The ‘reign of law’ is no discovery 
 of the 19th century. It was an accepted, even an 
 axiomatic, fact to the ancient Hebrew through- 
 out the whole course of his history. And more 
 than that, the law was the immediate expression 
 of a personal will, not the fortuitous harmony of 
 working forces. ‘Chance,’ therefore, has scant 
 recognition in OT orin NT. Neither cuvvrvxla nor 
 réxn occurs in NT; and réxn only twice, cuvruxla 
 not once, in LXX. The first occurrence of réy7 in 
 LXX is Gn 30" xat elrev Acla ’Ev rixy, ‘and Leah 
 said, With fortune!’ following the kethibh 73: 
 béghddh (in pause), which RV also follows, ‘an 
 Leah said, Fortunate!’ The other occurrence of 
 roxy is Is 654 éroudtovres r@ Saipovly tpdmrevav «at 
 mwAnpodvres TH TUXD Képacua, ‘preparing for the 
 demon a table, and filling up for fortune a mixed 
 drink.’ Here riéx7 stands for Heb. \33 Mént, which 
 most scholars identify with Venus. But diaudnoyv 
 stands for 11 Gad, an old Semitic name for the god 
 of Fortune, found in inscriptions, proper names, and 
 common in Syr.=rvxy. See GAD. art from the 
 passages above, the nearest approach to a recog- 
 nition of ‘chance’ is in 1 S 6°, where the Philistines 
 devise a method of discovering whether the 
 calamities they had suffered while the ark was in 
 their midst were due to the presence of the ark, or 
 whether ‘it was a chance that happened to us’ (7799, 
 LXX otvrrwya); but here, as in the other places 
 where the same Heb. is used (Dt 23" ‘that which 
 chanceth him,’ Ru 23, 1 § 2078, Ec 214 15 319 ter 92. 3), 
 the idea is not something independent of J”, but 
 something unexpected by man. The prevalent 
 Hebrew mind on the matter is expressed in the 
 proverb (16%)— 
 
 ‘The lot is cast into the lap; 
 But the whole disposing thereof is of the Lorn.’ 
 
 The other places in which ‘chance’ occurs are 
 these: Ec 9" ‘time and c. happeneth to them all’ 
 (yas, elsewhere only in 1 K 54 and tr. ‘occurrent,’ 
 not ‘chance,’ but external incident or event; cf. 
 2 Es 10” ‘these things which have chanced’); 
 Lk 10* ‘by c. there came down a certain priest 
 that way’ (cvyxvpla, again not ‘chance,’ but ‘con- 
 currence’ or ‘coincidence,’ see Plummer in Joc.) ; 
 and so 1 Co 15%’ ‘it may c. of wheat, or of some other 
 grain’ (ef réxo; t.e. we cannot tell which; cf. 14 
 el roxor, ‘it may be’); while in Dt 22° ‘If a bird’s 
 nest c. to be before thee in the way,’ and 2 § 18 
 ‘As I happened by c. upon Mount Gilboa,’ the 
 Heb. is simply ‘come upon’ or ‘ meet’ (#72). 
 
 For the verb ‘c.’=turn out (1 Co 15°”) cf. Cover- 
 dale’s tr. of Ph 1° ‘Ye same shal chaunce to my 
 Saluacion.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHANCELLOR.—‘Rehum the c¢.,’? Ezr 48% 
 (oyy-dya, lit. ‘the lord of judgment’). Dhém in 
 Assyrian is the technical word used of the official 
 reports forwarded to the kings of Assyria and 
 Babylonia by their correspondents abroad. With 
 this Sayce identifies the Aram. ¢é@m, and trans- 
 lates bé‘él té'ém, ‘lord of official intelligence’ or 
 ‘postmaster.’ ‘Chancellor,’ even in its old sense 
 of royal notary or official secretary to the king, is 
 thus unsuitable; while in mod. usage the word 
 is restricted to special offices, all very different 
 from this. See BEELTETHMUS, REHUM. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 
 
 CHANGE.—1. See CHANGE OF RAIMENT; and 
 notice that the sing. is used for the pl. in J 
 14.13.19 ‘thirty change of garments’ (R 
 ‘changes’). The Heb. word (75°5n) there and else- 
 where used in ‘ change’ of raiment is found in three 
 difficult passages: Job 10" ‘changes and war are 
 against me,’ which may mean ‘relays’ of soldiers 
 as in 1 K 54, but see Davidson in loc. In Job 14 
 ‘all the days of my appointed time will I wait till 
 my c. come,’ the meaning is clearly ‘release’ from 
 the worry of life, as the soldier 1s released when 
 his watch is over. But in Ps 55° ‘who have no 
 changes, and who fear not God,’ this meaning, if 
 possible, is not so easy. See Oaf. Heb. Lex. s.v, 
 2. In Lv 278 ‘if he c. it at all, then both it and 
 the c. thereof shall be holy,’ c.=exchange (770A, 
 RV ‘that for which it is changed’). Cf. Heywood 
 (1562), ‘Chaunge is no robry, but robry maketh 
 chaunge.’ 3. Wis 14% ‘changing of kind’ (yevécews 
 évad\ayy, RV ‘confusion of sex’). 4. Changeable 
 in Is 3” ‘the c. suits of apparel,’ means that may 
 be changed ; Cheyne, state dresses, named in Heb. 
 from their being put off when the occasion for 
 their use was over. 5, Changer. See MONEY. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHANGE OF RAIMENT.—The expression occurs 
 in Gn 45”, where Joseph gives to Benjamin five 
 changes of raiment (n>py nip"Sq) ; in Jg 14, where 
 Samson offers thirty changes of garments (0723 ‘n) ; 
 also in 2 K 5° 8, as part of Naiman gift. In 
 Jg 17° part of Micah’s wages was to be an outfit of 
 clothing (0122 72y). The separate mention (J, g 14 
 of the innermost garment (7p AV ‘sheet,’ R 
 ‘linen garment’) indicates that ‘ change of raiment’ 
 referred to outer articles of dress. These, under 
 some difference of name, pattern, and material, 
 acc. to life in desert, village, or city, were two: 
 (1) the coat or tunic (njh2, y:7dy), in the form of a 
 dressing-gown worn with girdle; and (2) the cloak 
 or mantle (Sy, iudriov), of more ample and loose 
 pattern. See CoAT, CLOAK, DREss. 
 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 CHANT was formerly (and is still sya! 
 used as a simple synonym for ‘sing.’ So Am 
 ‘that chant (Coverdale, ‘synge’) to the sound of 
 the viol’ (»725 [all], RV ‘sing idle songs’). 
 
 CHANUNEUS (Xavovvatos, AV Channuneus), 
 1 Es 8* (47 LXX).—A Levite, answering to Merari, 
 if to anything, in the parallel list in Ezr 8. 
 
 CHAPEL.— The Frankish kings looked with 
 special reverence on the capella or cloak of St. 
 Martin: which was carried before them in battle and 
 invoked in oaths. The name capella was then used 
 for the sanctuary in which its capellani guarded 
 this treasure. steps which can readily be 
 traced, the same Jeske ania came to be given to 
 and sanctuary attached to a palace and containing 
 holy relics, to any private sanctuary, to any room 
 or building for worship, not being a church. Our 
 AV employs its English equivalent chapel at 
 Am 7}, but the RV has discarded this in favour 
 of sanctuary. The latter comes nearer the mean- 
 ing of the original, mikdash, which signifies a holy 
 place. The former, however, aptly suggests that 
 dependence on the king which was one of the 
 characteristics of the sanctuary at Bethel. As an 
 English Chapel Royal is not a parish church belong- 
 ing to the public, but a place of worship under the 
 control ies meant for the use of the sovereign, so 
 were such buildings as that at Bethel intended 
 primarily for the king. Itwas byhis permission that 
 the people found a place there. Even at Jerusalem, 
 Solomon built temple and palace in close proximity 
 to each other: ef. Ezk 438. Chapel occurs also in 
 
 1 Mac 147 (RV ‘shrine’), 2 Mac 10? (RV ‘sacred in 
 closure’), 113 (RV ‘sacred place’). 
 
 J. TAYLOR. 
 

 
 
 
 CHAPHENATHA 
 
 
 
 CHAPHENATHA (Xad¢v~94), 1 Mac 1287.—Close 
 to Jerus. on the east. Unknown. 
 
 CHAPITER (from Lat. ceput, through the 
 French) is now displaced, in ordinary speech, by 
 the cognate form ‘capital,’ which the American 
 Revision Company wish to substitute for the older 
 form retained by the British Revisers. 1. n7n3, 
 LXX érl@eua, the spherical capital, 5 cubits high, 
 of each of the two great brazen pillars—J ACHIN and 
 Boaz (wh. see)—of Solomon’s temple. The passage 
 recording the construction of these pillars, 1 K 7/57 
 (with which cf. 2 K 2517, 2 Ch 412-13, Jer 52%), is one 
 of the worst preserved in the OT, and much un- 
 certainty still prevails as to the precise form and 
 ornamentation of the capitals. For details see art. 
 TEMPLE, and compare the reconstruction of Stade 
 in his Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, i. p. 332, and of 
 Perrot and Chipiez in Hist. of Art in Sardinia and 
 Judea (Eng. tr.), i. plates 6 and 7. In 2 Ch 3}5 
 my is used for these chapiters. 2. nqnd appears in 
 MT of 1 K 7* as a part of the brazen lavers made 
 by Hiram for the eons, but is almost certainly a 
 corruption of nbnp (Ewald, Stade, Klost.). See 
 LAveR. 3, In Ex 36% we read that the upper 
 portions or tops (o7¥"7, EV ‘their chapiters’) of 
 the five pillars which supported the ‘screen for 
 the door of the tent’ (RV) were to be overlaid with 
 gold, while the corresponding parts of the pillars 
 of the court were to be overlaid with silver (Ex 
 3817-19. 28), Although all these pillars were of one 
 piece, the parts thus treated would have the 
 appearance of capitals (LXX xegpaNlées). 
 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 CHAPMAN (Anglo-Sax. cedp ‘trade,’ and mann 
 ‘man’) is used only once in AV, 2 Ch 9" ‘ Beside 
 that which chapmen and merchants brought; (‘¥3x 
 on, RV ‘the chapmen,’ Amer. RV ‘the traders’). 
 For the same Heb., RV gives ‘chapmen’ (AV 
 ‘merchantmen’) 1 K 10%, and it is an appropriate 
 tr. if the word had been still in use. For its 
 meaning cf. Rogers (1642), ‘It is not a meete 
 thing that man should be both chapman and 
 customer.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHAPT.—Jer 144 ‘Because the ground is chapt, 
 for there was no rain in the earth’ (nnn, Amer. RV 
 ‘chapped,’ RVm ‘dismayed,’ for the Heb. has both 
 meanings). Bradley (1727) in his Farmer's Dict. 
 speaks of ‘claiey or stiff earth . . . subject to cha 
 during the heat of summer’; but the word, whic 
 means ‘ cracked,’ is no longer used of land. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHARAATHALAN (B Xapaafardvy, A Xapa 
 "AGaddp, AV Charaathalar), 1 Es 5°%°.—A name 
 
 iven to a leader of certain families who returned 
 
 om Babylon under Zerub. But ‘Charaathalan 
 leading them and Allar’ is due to some perversion 
 of the original, which has ‘Cherub, Addan, Immer,’ 
 three names of places in Bab., from which the 
 return was made (Ezr 2° jax 1773, Xapovs (A Xepov8), 
 "Hédy; cf. Neh 7°). The form in 1 Es may be 
 partly accounted for by confusion between © and B, 
 and between Aand A. UH. Sr. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 CHARAX (Xépaxa, els rév, 2 Mac 12%, RV ‘to 
 Charax,’ AV ‘to Characa’).—East of Jordan, and 
 apparently in the land of Tob. Unknown. 
 
 CHAREA (A Xaped, B om.), 1 Es 5°%=HARSHA, 
 Ezr 252, Neh 75, 
 
 CHARGE, CHARGEABLE.—To charge (late Lat. 
 carricare to load, from carrus a wagon, whence 
 old Fr.charger) is ‘to load,’ and a charge is ‘a load,’ as 
 we still speak of ‘charging’ a gun, and of its ‘charge.’ 
 But in the Bible the word is used only figuratively. 
 1. To burden one, or be a burden on one, AV ‘be 
 
 CHARGER 37] 
 
 chargeable,’ Neh 5% ‘the former governors, that 
 
 had been before me, were c. unto the people’ (37233 
 oy, lit. ‘made heavy on,’ RVm aid burdens 
 upon’); esp. in the matter of expense, 28 13% 
 ‘let us not all now go [to the sheep-shearing feast], 
 lest we be c. unto thee’ (1333, RV ‘be ‘burden. 
 some’); 1 Th 2° ‘because we would not be c. unto 
 any of you’ (émPapéw, ‘be a weight upon,’ RV 
 ‘that we might not burden’; so2 Th 38); and2Co 
 11° ‘I was ce. to no man’ (xaravapxdw, only here and 
 123.14 though LXX gives simple vapxdw as tr. of 
 yp ‘to be dislocated,’ ‘torn away,’ Gn 325 32 dis, 
 Job 33%, Dn [LXX] 11°. The vb. x. is to benumb, 
 as a torpedo [vydpxn] might benumb, and so to 
 ache one by laying another’s maintenance on 
 nim). Cf. Geneva B. ‘I was not slothful to the 
 hinderance of anie man’; RV ‘I was not a burden 
 on any man.’ 2. The burden of expense is also 
 expressed by ‘charge,’ both verb and subst.: Neh 
 10% ‘to c. ourselves yearly with the third part of a 
 shekel for the service of the house of our God’ 
 (jo3); 1 Ti 5'® ‘let not the church be charged’ 
 (BapetoOac, RV ‘be burdened’ as in 2 Co 54 EV); 
 1 Co 9 ‘that. . . I may make the gospel without 
 c.’ (dddmavos); 9" ‘who goeth a warfare any time 
 at his own charges?’ (/dtous 6ywrlos); Ac 21% ‘be at 
 charges with them’ (RV ‘for them,’ dardynoov ém’ 
 avrots, ‘spend upon them’). Cf. Shaks. Rich. II, 
 I. ii. 256— 
 
 ‘T’ll be at charges for a looking-glass.’ 
 
 8. To lay a special duty upon one, as 2 Ch 367= 
 Ezr 1? ‘he hath charged me to build him an house 
 in Jerus.’ (72). Then this duty or responsibility is 
 expressed by the subst. ‘charge,’ Job 348 ‘Who 
 hath given him (God) a c. over the earth?’ (7)8); 
 Jth 7* ‘he dispersed the people every one to their 
 own ¢.’ (rapeufor4). Then the word is freely used 
 (as tr. of nqD¥>), esp. in Nu (P) in a half-technical 
 sense, quite foreign to any modern idiom. Thus 
 the duty is called, Nu 4% ‘the ec. of this burden.’ 
 Since imposes it, it is ‘the c. of the Lord,’ Lv 
 8%, It is also called ‘the ec. of the sons of Gershon’ 
 (Nu 35), because on them the burden lies. And 
 from its object or extent it is described as- 1% ‘the 
 c. of the tabernacle of the testimony’; 3*! ‘ the e. 
 of the ark’; 3° ‘the ec. of the children of Israel’; 
 or 3% ‘the c. of the sanctuary, for the c. of the 
 children of Israel.’ 4. This meaning passes easily 
 into care or custody: 2 K 7" ‘to appoint to the ec. of 
 the gate’ (1757); 1 Ch 9°8 (Sy); Ac 8” ‘who had the ec. 
 of all her treasure’ (érl); Nu 31 ‘the men of war 
 which are under our ¢.’ (1): cf. Ac 1° AVm ‘ office 
 or charge’ (émucxory, AV ‘ bishoprick,’ RV ‘ oftice,’ 
 RVm ‘overseership’). 5. From ‘give ac.’ (Mt 4%, 
 Lk 4°, 1 Ti 61%), or ‘ give in c.’ (1 Ti 5’ ‘ these things 
 give in ¢.,’ mapayyé\\w, RV ‘command’), there 
 naturally arises the meaning of ‘enjoin’ or ‘com- 
 mand,’ of which the examples are numerous and 
 obvious,” and the subst. c.=a command, as 2 § 185, 
 Ac 16%-*% (‘charging the jailor to keep them 
 safely ; who, having received such a c.’), 1 Ti 138 
 68, 6. The last and heaviest weight to lay on one 
 is to ‘lay blame,’ found chiefly in the phrase ‘la 
 to the c. of,’ Dt 218, Ps 354, Ac 7® 23”, Ro 8%, 2 Ti 
 416. But the simple verb is also used in this sense, 
 2S 38 ‘thou chargest me to-day with a fault con- 
 cerning this woman’; Job 1” ‘nor charged God 
 foolishly’ (RV ‘with foolishness’), 4%° ‘his angels 
 he chargeth with folly.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 a“ 
 
 CHARGER (orig. either something that may be 
 loaded or something to load with. See CHARGE).— 
 A charger is ‘a large plate or flat dies for carrying 
 alarge joint of meat,’ Oxf. Eng. Dict. The word is 
 
 a 
 
 * But see Mt 930, Mk 143 ssraitly charged,’ co yom 
 Thayer on that word, Gould’s note on Mk 148, and 
 vol. i. p. 172 ff. 
 
 ces, With 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 372 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CHARIOT 
 
 
 
 used as tr. of (1) aqyp Nu 7 passim, the silver ec. 
 offered by various princes as a dedication gift ; (2) 
 Senay Ezr 1% ‘thirty chargers of gold, a thousand 
 chargers of silver,’ being part of the vessels of the 
 house of the Lord restored by Cyrus; (3) rivat Mt 
 1481, Mk 6%: 28 of the charger in which John the 
 Baptist’s head was presented to Salome, and by her 
 to her mother. See BASKET, Foon. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHARIOT (239, 3:27 Ps 104%, n329p, nw Ps 46°, 
 G@pya, currus),—In ancient times war chariots 
 formed an important part of the military strength 
 of a nation. We learn from Egyptian monu- 
 ments that they were largely employed in the 
 armies of the Hittite and Palestinian kings, and 
 thence they were introduced into Egypt about the 
 17th cent. B.c. (Brugsch, Hist. of Lgypt, i. 295). 
 An Egyp. poem mentions that the Hittites brought 
 2500 SLinote against Ramses II. (B.C. 1360); and 
 when the Egyptians defeated the allied forces of 
 the Syrians at Mewdas in the 14th cent. B.C., they 
 captured 2041 horses and 924 chariots. A papyrus 
 relating to the same period described the adven- 
 tures of an Egyptian mohar or official, who drove 
 through Pal in a chariot, accompanied by his 
 servant. In the OT we read of the chariots and 
 horsemen of Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus 
 (Ex 14° 15'-4), In Pal. the Israelites must have 
 become familiar with the use of chariots in war 
 long before they adopted them. Thus they were 
 used by the Can. kings defeated at the Waters of 
 Merom (Jos 11**), by Jabin and Sisera, who had 
 900 chariots of iron (Jg 4*35 5%); and it was 
 through their iron chariots that the Canaanites of 
 the valleys were able to maintain themselves 
 against the conquering Israelites (Jg 1, cf. Jos 
 1716-18), These chariots were doubtless built of 
 wood (cf. Jos 11° ‘burnt their chariots’) and plated 
 or strengthened with iron. The translation of 
 Vulg. currus falcati (Jg 1! 4% 18) seems to involve 
 an anachronism; for the use of scythes attached to 
 the axles of war chariots was probably introduced 
 from Persia. Certainly, chariots of this kind are 
 never represented on the monuments of Egypt or 
 Assyria, and Xenophon attributes the invention to 
 Cyrus (Cyrop. vi. 1. 27). In the time of Saul the 
 Philistines invaded the country of Israel with 3000 
 chariots (1 § 135 LXX (Luc.]; see Driver, Text of 
 Sam.). David, during his Syrian wars, captured 
 1000 chariots (1 Ch 18‘), and on another occasion 
 700 (2S 10'8) ; but, following the example of Joshua 
 (Jos 11%), he maimed the horses, reserving only 
 sufficient for 100 chariots (2S 8‘). The introduction 
 of chariots into the Israelite army dates from the 
 time of Solomon, who maintained an establishment 
 of 1400 chariots (1 K 106, 2 Ch 14) and 4000 horses 
 (2Ch 9, in 1 K 48 [Heb. 5°] wrongly 40,000). These 
 were stationed partly in Jerusalem and partly in 
 more suitable cities selected for the purpose (1 K 9” 
 108). Both chariots and horses were mainly im- 
 ported from Egypt, and a profitable trade in them 
 was carried on with the Hittite and Syrian kings. 
 We are told that a chariot was brought from 
 Feypt for 600 shekels of silver, and a horse for 150 
 shekels (1 K 10%", 2 Ch 116), From this time onwards 
 chariots form a regular part of the army both in 
 the northern and southern kingdoms (1 K 16°, 2 K 
 714 916. 2110? 137-14 81 Ts 27, Mic 5° etc.). In particular, 
 the king seems regularly to have gone to battle in 
 his chariot (1 K 22%, 2 K 23% of. 1K 1218, 9 K 92), 
 Zimri held the important office of captain of half 
 the chariots (1 K 16%). There seem, however, to 
 have often been difficulties in securing a sufficient 
 supply of horses (2 K 71% 1875); hence in the time 
 of Isaiah there was a strong party in Judah which 
 favoured a close alliance with Egypt (Is 302 16 31! 
 36°). But the consciousness still survived that the 
 use of chariots had been introduced from heathen 
 
 CHARIOT 
 
 
 
 countries. Hence, while the historian looks upon 
 them as a mark of regal despotism (18 8"), and the 
 Deuteronomic law forbids the king to multiply 
 horses (Dt 173%), the prophets regard horses and 
 chariots as a sign of dependence on human aid 
 instead of on divine protection (Hos 17 14° (Heb. 4], 
 Is 27 30'6 31’), and they predict their destruction in 
 the Messianic future (Mic 5! [Heb. *], Zec 91°). 
 
 Frequent allusion is made to the use of war 
 chariots by the Syrians (1 K 20715 2251, 2 K 6'h), 
 the Assyrians (Is 5% 37%, Nah 3?), the Egyptians 
 (2 K 78, Jer 46+), and others (Ezk 23” 267, Is 43", 
 Jer 517, Hag 2). Chariots were used also in the 
 later Syrian kingdom (Dn 11, 1 Mac 1” 8°), and 
 Antiochus Eupator is said to have possessed 300 
 chariots armed with scythes (2 Mac 13?). 
 
 The chariot was employed also in times of peace 
 (Gn 50°, 1 K 18#t-, 2 ae 21 10Ut- Is 66”), and was 
 regarded as a mark of high rank. Thus Pharaoh 
 assigned to Joseph his ‘second chariot’ (Gn 41%) ; 
 Absalom and Adonijah prepared chariots and horses 
 to mark their claims to the throrfe (28 15', 1 K 1); 
 ef. also Is 228, Jer 17% 224. In the NT the only 
 chariot mentioned, except in Rev 9°, cf. 181%, is that 
 of the Ethiopian treasurer of Candace (Ac 8**). 
 The heathenish practice of dedicating horses and 
 chariots to the sun, introduced by some of the 
 later kings of Judah, was abolished by Josiah 
 (2 K 23%), 
 
 The chariots of the Hebrews doubtless resembled 
 those used by the surrounding nations, and repre- 
 sented on Egyp. and Assyr. monuments. ey 
 were two-wheeled vehicles, open behind, drawn by 
 two horses, and containing two (1 K 22*) or perhaps 
 three persons (2 K 9%). The latter view is sup- 
 ported by the special Heb. term for an officer, 
 shalish (vy), lit. third man; see Ex 147 154, 2 K 7? 
 9% 10% 15% etc. The Egyp. chariots were of light 
 and simple construction, the material employed 
 being wood, as is proved by sculptures represent-. 
 ing the manufacture of chariots. The axle was 
 set far back, and the bottom of the car, which 
 rested on this and on the bees was sometimes 
 formed of a frame interlaced with a network of 
 thongs or ropes. The chariot was entirely open 
 behind, and for the greater pay of the sides, which 
 were formed by a curved rail rising from each side 
 of the back of the base, and resting on a wooden 
 upright above the pole in front. From this rail, 
 which was strengthened by leather thongs, a bow 
 case of leather, often richly ornamented, hung on 
 the right-hand side, slanting forwards; while the 
 quiver and spear cases inclined in the opposite direc- 
 tion. The wheels, which were fastened on the axle 
 by a linch-pin secured with a short thong, had six 
 spokes in the case of war chariots, but in private 
 vehicles sometimes only four. The pole sloped up- 
 wards, and to the end of it a curved yoke was 
 attached. A small saddle at each end of the yoke 
 rested on the withers of the -horses, and was 
 secured in its place by breast-band and girth. No 
 traces are to * seen. The bridle was often orna- 
 mented ; a bearing-rein was fastened to the saddle, 
 and the other reins passed through a ring at the side 
 of this. The number of horses to a chariot seems 
 always to have been two; and in the car, which 
 contained no seat, only rarely are more than two 
 persons depicted, except in triumphal processions. 
 
 Assyrian chariots did not differ in any essential 
 points from the Egyptian. They were, however, 
 completely panelled at the sides, and a shield was 
 sometimes hung at the back. The wheels had six, 
 or, at a later period, eight spokes ; the felloes were 
 broad, and seem to have been formed of three 
 distinct circles of wood, sometimes surrounded by 
 a metal tire. While only two horses were 
 attached to the yoke, in the older monuments a 
 third horse is generally to be seen, which was prob- 
 
 
 
CHARITY 
 
 ably used as @ reserve. The later chariots are 
 square in front, not rounded; the car itself is 
 larger and higher; the cases for weapons are 
 ‘ae in front, not at the side; and only two 
 
 orses are used. The harness differs somewhat 
 from the Egyptian. A broad collar passes round 
 the neck, from which hangs a breast ornament, the 
 whole being secured by a triple strap under the 
 belly of the horse. s in Egypt, there are no 
 traces visible; two driving-reins are attached to 
 each horse, but the bearing-rein seems to be un- 
 known. In addition to the warrior and the 
 charioteer, we often see a third man, who bears a 
 shield ; and a fourth occupant of the chariot some- 
 times appears, 
 
 The Hittite chariots, as represented on Egyp. 
 monuments, regularly contain three warriors. In 
 construction they are plainer and more solid than 
 the Egyptian, and the sides are not open. The 
 chariots on Persian sculptures closely resemble 
 the Assyrian. 
 
 In Sir 49° the first vision of Ezekiel is alluded to 
 as ‘the chariot of the cherubim,’ and that chapter 
 (Ezk 1), under the title of ‘the chariot,’ figures 
 largely in later Jewish mystical speculation. Cf. 
 Schiirer, HJP tl. i. 347. . 
 
 LirsRaTURE.—Layard, Nineveh (1849), ii. 848-356 ; Rawlinson, 
 Five Great Monarchies (1864), it, 1-21; Wilkinson, Ancient 
 Egyptians (1847), i. 335-359 ; Nowack, Heb. Archdologie, i. 366. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CHARITY.—From 1 Co 8! onwards ‘charity’ is 
 pomntly employed in AV as the tr. of dydr7; in 
 RY it does not occur. 
 
 The Gr. word d&yér7 is supposed to have been coined by the 
 LXX. It is found in no profane author, not even in Josephus, 
 and only once in Philo iC ape In LXX it occurs 2 8 126 (A) 
 1815, Ec 91-6, Ca 24.5.7 35. 10 58 76 94.6. 7bis, Jer 22 always as tr. of 
 1308 ; end in Wis 39 618, Sir 4811. It has been supposed that the 
 LXX felt the need of a word of purer suggestion than any in 
 existence, but 2 8 1315 (the love of Amnon for Tamar) disproves 
 that supposition. What the LXX seems to have felt the need of 
 was a stronger word than either éyamnois or gid‘c, with which 
 they elsewhere translate 790%. Thus in 2S 1315, Rc 91.6 it is 
 used in emphatic contrast to ‘hate.’ 
 
 When Obristianity came, having received the new revelation 
 of the love of God, it found this word as yet unspoilt by common 
 use, and adopted it to express the new divineidea. Perhaps the 
 fact that the LXX had used it to express the intensity of love, 
 made it the more easily adopted, for this was now also a leading 
 thought, as in 1 Jn 48.16 ‘God is love,’ and 419 ‘ Herein is love, 
 not t we loved God,’ etc. 
 
 The word is used 117 times in NT (including 2yéreu, ‘love- 
 feasts,’ Jude 12 [and 2 P 213 L Tr WH)), always of love with 
 which God has something todo. Its distribution, accord. to 
 Moulton and Geden’s NT Concord., is as follows: Synop. 2 (Mt 
 24123, Lk 1142), Jn 7, Ro 9,1 Co 14, 2 Co 9, Gal 3, Eph 10, Ph 4, 
 Col 5, 1 Th 5, 2 Th 8, 1 Ti 5, 2 Ti 4, Tit 1, Philem 3, He 2,1 P 3, 
 2P2,1Jn18,2Jn2, 3 Jn1, Jude 3, Rev 2. That is, Synop. 2, 
 Jn (including Rev) 30, Paul 75, He 2, P 6, Jude3. It is not 
 
 in Mk, Ac, Ja. 
 
 Jerome experienced the difficulty which, has been attributed 
 to the LXX. There was no direct equivalent in Latin for dyéry. 
 Amor was impossible, suggesting idolatry as well as sensuality. 
 He sometimes chose dilectio, esteem, and sometimes caritas 
 (charitas), dearness, though both words, being comparatively 
 weak, missed the very point for which 2ya» had first been 
 coined. Dilectio is found in Vulg. 24 times, caritas 90 times 
 (1 P 514 gives a different tr.) ; but the choice of one or the other 
 seems accidental. ary 
 
 Wyclit followed the Vulgate, giving ‘love’ for dilectio and 
 ‘charity’ for caritas everywhere, except in Col 18-13 where he 
 has ‘loving’ for dilectio, not ‘love’; and in 1 Oo 134 where he 
 uses the pronoun ‘it’ for the third caritas. 
 
 le systematically avoided ecclesiastical words, and so dis- 
 carded ‘charity’ entirely, using ‘love’ everywhere, except Ro 
 1415 ‘charitably’ (zar& ayéanyv), and Col 113 ‘His dear Son’ for 
 ‘the Son of his love.’ Tindale was followed by Coverdale, the 
 Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible, except that the Geneva has 
 ‘charity’ in Rev 24.19, 
 
 The Bishops restored ‘charity’ into the foll. places: Ro 
 1310048, 1 Co 81 181.28 dter 8 18bis 141 1614, Col 314, 1 Th 
 36.12 58, 2Th 18, 1 Ti 15 215 412, 2 Ti 222 310, Tit 22, 1 P 48bis 
 614, 2 P17, 1 Jn 81, 3 Jn6, Jude212, Rev 219; while they 
 
 dale’s ‘charitably’ in Ro 1415, and his ‘dear Son’ 
 
 Vulg. precisely, 
 ‘charity’ is omitted 
 
 The translators of AV followed the Bishops, except in Ro 
 
 CHASEBA 373 
 
 1310 bis, 1 Th 312 58, 1 Jn 31, and Jude 2, where they capriciously 
 prefer ‘love’ to ‘ charity.’ 
 
 The RV gives ‘love’ wherever the Revisers found éyéay in 
 the text they adopted; for they reckoned it their special dut 
 to translate the same Gr. word by the same English ward, if 
 that could possibly be done. No other Eng. version is so con- 
 sistent. ‘Charity’ never occurs. 
 
 The word ‘charity’ entered the Eng. language at 
 two different times. First in the form cherte (from 
 Fr. chierté, cherté) and with the ordinary meaning 
 of the Lat. caritas, ‘dearness,’ both in reference 
 to price and affection. Next in the forms caritat, 
 caritet, charitet, charité, from the popular use of the 
 caritas (caritatem) of the Vulg. in the Church to 
 indicate Christian ‘love.’ The two words were too 
 close to be kept distinct, and in the 17th cent. 
 cherte was discontinued. 
 
 After the Vulg., charity was used of the love of 
 God, as 1 Jn 4° 16 ‘God is charite’ (Wyclif)=‘God 
 is charitie’ (Rheims—dydrry is tr. by ‘c.’ through- 
 out 1Jn in Wyclif and Rhemish). Its meaning 
 as applied to man is well expressed by Abp. 
 Hamilton, Catechism (1552), ‘Quhate is cherite ? 
 It is lufe, quharby we lufe God for his awin saik 
 . . . and our neichbour for God’s saik, or in God.’ 
 But such a word could not resist the strong 
 tendency to degeneration, if indeed it had not de- 
 generated in the use of the Vulg. itself. As early 
 as Caxton we find the general sense of kindly dis- 
 position, leniency. Thus, Cato 3, ‘I... beseche 
 alle suche that fynde faute or errour that of theyr 
 charyte they correcte and amende hit.’ Dr. G. 
 Salmon (Gnosticism and Agnosticism, p. 211) 
 thinks it probable that the popular limitation of 
 the word to sean Speed arose from its freq. em- 
 ployment in appeals of preachers either for money 
 on behalf of some good object, or for prayers on 
 behalf of the souls in purgatory; the common 
 exordium being, ‘Good Christian people, we pray 
 you of your charity to give so and so.’ 
 
 That there was a feeling about 1611 against the 
 use of ‘love’ in the language of religion is shown 
 by Bacon’s remark (1603), ‘I did ever allow the 
 discretion and tenderness of the Rhemish trans- 
 lation in this point, that finding in the original 
 the word dydwn and never épws, do ever translate 
 Charity and never Love, because of the indifferency 
 and equivocation of the word with impure love’ 
 (the statement is incorrect, since Rheims gives 
 ‘love’ for dydrn 23 times, but it expresses the 
 feeling of the day). But it does not appear that it 
 was in deference to any such feeling that the 
 Bishops and AV introduced ‘charity’ again, but 
 either to avoid ‘the scrupulosity of the Puritans,’ 
 or to escape the charge of ‘unequal dealing towards 
 a great number of good English words.’ The objec- 
 tions to ‘ce.’ as a tr. of dyday are that it is now 
 obsolete in the sense of ‘love,’ suggesting a mild 
 toleration, in place of the noblest and most search- 
 ing of virtues; and that its use in AV (esp. through- 
 out 1 Co 13) has given rise to the mistaken idea that 
 St. Paul is less the apostle of love than St. John. 
 See ALMSGIVING and LOVE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHARM.—See AMULET and DIVINATION. 
 
 CHARME (Xapu4, AV Carme), 1 Es 5%.—Called 
 Harim, Ezr 2°, Neh 7%, The form in 1 Es is 
 derived from the Heb., and not from the Gr. form 
 in the canonical books. 
 
 CHARMIS (Bx Xapyels, A Xadyels=-m7> Gn 46°). 
 —Son of Melchiel, one of three rulers or elders of 
 Bethulia (Jth 6% 8! 10°), 
 
 CHASE.—See HUNTING. 
 
 CHASEBA (Xace$d), } Es 5°.-—-There is no corre: 
 sponding name in the lists of Ezr and Neh. 
 
 
 
874 CHASTENING, CHASTISEMENT 
 
 CHECKER WORK 
 
 
 
 TRIBU- 
 
 CHASTENING, 
 LATION. — The idea represented by the words 
 chastening or chastisement fills a considerable 
 
 CHASTISEMENT, 
 
 space both in OT and NT. In Heb. it is usually 
 expressed by the verb 70, 191, and the substantive 
 70%, with which m>)7 and nnzin are frequently com- 
 bined ; and in Gr. by the corresponding verb and 
 subst. watdedw and maidela. The etymological con- 
 nexion of these last words with mais suggests that 
 education, in the widest sense of the word, in- 
 cluding reference to the means as well as the end 
 of the process, is the main idea involved. And on 
 the whole this is true. In one passage, Eph 64, 
 fathers are charged to bring up their children in 
 the watdelg cat vovOeclg xvplov, where madela is the 
 Christian discipline of character, as it ought to 
 be enforced in the Christian family. The same 
 idea is presented in He 12°, where fathers are 
 regarded in the character of ma:devral—as those 
 who exercise discipline over their children, and 
 esp. over their faults, for their good. This same 
 conception is rad ane without reserve to God. One 
 of the most striking passages is Pr 34 ‘ My son, 
 despise not the chastening (a:dela) of the Lord, 
 nor faint when thou art rebuked (é\eyxépevos) b 
 him; for whom the Lord loveth he chastenet 
 (wa:deve), and scourgeth every son whom he 
 receiveth.’ This is quoted and enforced in He 
 124 and Rev 3% The idea insisted upon is that 
 the troubles which befall the people of God are not 
 to be read as signs of His hostility, but of His 
 paternal care. ‘What son is he whom the father 
 chasteneth not?’ In a larger sense, perhaps, than 
 this, the grace of God is spoken of as having 
 appeared in saving power, teaching us (ratdevovca) 
 that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we 
 ehould live soberly, righteously, and godly. 
 Teaching’ here suggests too little, and probably 
 ‘disciplining’ or ‘chastening’ is too narrow; but 
 the conception of the Christian life offered in this 
 passage is that of education under a power which 
 1s at once gracious and severe. The xdps which 
 brings salvation to men employs resources of all 
 kinds to put them in complete possession of it. 
 Often the idea of painful correction is prominent, 
 and in one place the severe word ‘judgment’ 
 appears in the context. The abuses connected 
 with the Lord’s Supper at Corinth had produced 
 much sickness and not a few deaths in the Church 
 (1 Co 11%). Men had been eating and drinking 
 ‘judgment’ to themselves. Yet even under such 
 judgments (xpivduevor), the apostle teaches, Chris- 
 tians are not objects of God’s hostility: He is seek- 
 ing their good; ‘we are being chastened by the 
 Lord, that we may not be condemned with the 
 world.’ Even in those peculiar passages where the 
 chastisement seems so awful or extreme that Satan, 
 not God, is made the instrument of it, this holds 
 ood. The sinner in 1 Co 5is delivered to Satan, 
 for the destruction of the flesh indeed (by death ?), 
 but that the spirit may be saved in the day of the 
 Lord Jesus. Soin 1 Ti 1° Hymenzus and Alex- 
 ander are handed over to the Adversary, that they 
 may be taught under his hands (radev0der) not to 
 blaspheme. Compare also St. Paul’s own case: 
 the thorn in the flesh is called an angel of Satan, 
 yet it disciplines him in the Christian grace of 
 humility. The human mind, so long as it dwells 
 in the human body, will not be able to avoid 
 calling such things ‘evils’; no chastening for the 
 present seems matter of joy: it is all grief and 
 pain, and it is only afterward, when the fruit of 
 righteousness appears, that we can see it is 
 something to thank God for, a real indication of 
 His love ae His children. The large use made in 
 the Apocrypha of the idea of ‘chastisement’ for 
 the moral interpretation of experience is ver 
 striking. One of the chief passages is Wis 34’. 
 
 There we find the conception that suffering is a 
 trial, which, when one stands it successfully, brings 
 & sure reward : a reward too, as in 2 Co 4! out 
 of proportion to the suffering, éAlya madevdévres 
 peydra evepyernOjoovra. The idea of purification 
 also, as well as that of testing, is involved in the 
 comparison of Wis 3° ds xpucdv év xwveurnply édoxl- 
 pacev atrovs. The gracious and patarial aspects 
 of chastisement are signalised in Wis 111: the 
 people of God are chastened in mercy, the wicked 
 are judged and tormented in wrath; His own He 
 puts to the proof ws warip vovderdv, the others He 
 condemns ws drérouos Bactkeds. So again, in 2 Mac 
 616, though God ‘ chastens with calamity,’ He never 
 abandons His people. This is the main thought of 
 the NT passages also: suffering is the rod in a 
 Father’s hand, and the sole instrument by which 
 the purposes of the Father’s love can be effected. 
 
 The word tribulation has come into our lan- 
 guage from the vole rendering, not of radevw, 
 but of OA(8w, OAlus. In NT none of the passages in 
 which these words are used suggest explicitly that 
 ‘tribulation’ is disciplinary. It is said, indeed, 
 that we must through many tribulations enter into 
 the kingdom of God (Ac 14”), but they are rather 
 barriers to be forced, dangers to be disregarded, 
 than disciplines to be welcomed. In 2 Co 1® the 
 idea occurs that one man may have to suffer in 
 order to acquire the gift of administering con- 
 solation to others. Once in OT (Is 261%) the ideas 
 of ‘tribulation’ and ‘chastening’ are expressly 
 combined : év 6AlWer puxpd % madela cov Huiv; but as 
 arule @Alys (affliction or tribulation) is used in a 
 more purely objective way. It may be, in point of 
 fact, an instrument of 7acdela, but that is not the 
 point of view to which of itself it leads. 
 
 J. DENNEY. 
 CHASTITY.—See CRIMES, and MARRIAGE, 
 
 CHEBAR (133, XoBdp, Ezk 11-8 315-23 1015. 2. 22 433), 
 —A river in ‘the land of the Chaldeans,’ by the 
 side of which Ezekiel saw his first vision of the 
 Cherubim. Near the banks of this stream was 
 Tel-abib, the home of a colony of Jewish exiles, 
 among whom Ezekiel lived and prophesied (Ezk 
 3!), The Chebar has commonly been identified, 
 in accordance with a Syrian Christian tradition, 
 with the Habor (7an, ’ABdppas), the modern Chabour, 
 which runs into the Euphrates not far from the 
 site of Circesium. But the two names are very 
 different, and Babylonia, whither the Jews were 
 deported (2 K 24!5t Jer 29%. 2°), can hardly be con- 
 sidered to include Northern Mesopotamia. It is 
 therefore more probable that the Chebar was one 
 of the numerous canals in the neighbourhood of 
 Babylon to which the name of ‘river’ was often 
 given (cf. Néldeke in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lewxicon). 
 The name, however, has not yet been discovered 
 in any of the numerous lists of rivers'and canals 
 which are to be found in Assyrian and Babylonian 
 literature. The word is probably connected with 
 the Semitic root 123 to be great ; hence it has been 
 suggested that Chebar was another name of the 
 Nahar Matcha, or Royal Canal of Nebuchadrezzar. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CHECK in the obsol. sense of ‘rebuke’ or ‘re- 
 proof’ occurs Job 20° ‘I have heard the ec. of my 
 reproach’ (RV ‘reproof which putteth me to 
 shame’). Cf. Pepys, Diary, 26th Sept., ‘I was 
 very angry, and... did give him a very great 
 check for it, and so to bed’; and Shaks., Henry IV. 
 Iv. iii. 34, ‘I never knew yet but rebuke and 
 check was the reward of valour.’ RV gives the 
 verb in 1 S 247 in the mod. sense of ‘ restrain,’ ‘ se 
 David checked his men with these words’ (AV 
 ‘ stayed’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHECKER WORK (now generally spelt chequer 
 

 
 CHEDOR-LAOMER 
 
 CHELOD 375 
 
 
 
 { 
 work) is work arranged after the pattern of a 
 
 chess-board (which was orig. called ‘a checker or 
 chequer’). 1K 7!7 ‘nets of checker work’ (o'>7y 
 m3” nvy),—trellis work of some material used to 
 ornament the ‘ chapiters’ of the pillars in Solomon’s 
 temple. In 2 K 1’ the sébhdkhGh is a ‘lattice’ in 
 an upper chamber through which Ahaziah fell. 
 In Job 18° it is a net for snaring. J. HASTINGS, 
 
 ee OMER 87TH, Xedodryoulp, Chedor- 
 lahomor). —Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, com- 
 manded the vassal-kings Amraphel of Shinar, 
 Arioch of Ellasar (which see), and Tidal, king of 
 Goiim, in the war against the Canaanite princes of 
 Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar 
 (Gn 14*""%), After twelve years of servitude the 
 latter had rebelled against Chedorlaomer, who, with 
 his allies, thereupon marched into the west, on the 
 eastern side of the Jordan, smiting the Rephaim in 
 Bashan, the Zuzim or Zamzummin in Ammon, the 
 Emim in Moab, and the Horites in Mount Seir. 
 He then turned northward through Kadesh-barnea 
 (now ‘Ain Kadis), and ‘smote all the country of the 
 Amalekites (or Bedawin), and also the Amorites 
 that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar’ or En-gedi, on the 
 western shore of the Dead Sea. Then followed a 
 battle with the Canaanite princes in the vale of 
 Siddim, which resulted in the defeat of the 
 Canaanites, the death (?) of the kings of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah, and the capture of their cities. ‘Abram 
 the Hebrew,’ however, armed 318 of his men and 
 fell upon the conquerors by night near Dan in the 
 extreme north, pursuing them to Hobah, west of 
 Damascus, and recovering the spoil of Sodom, as 
 weil as his nephew Lot. 
 
 Chedorlaomer is the Elamite name Kudur- 
 Lagamar,* ‘servant of Lagamar,’ one of the 
 
 rincipal Elamite gods. Similar names are Kudur- 
 
 ankhundi, ‘ servant of the god Nankhundi,’ and 
 Kudur-Mabug, the father of Eri-aku (Arioch). 
 In the time of Eri-aku, Babylonia was under the 
 suzerainty of Elam; and while Eri-aku reigned at 
 Larsa and Ur, and claimed sovereignty over the 
 whole of Chaldea, an independent dynasty was 
 ruling at Babylon ‘in the land of Shinar.’ © ada 
 Mabug is called by his son ‘the father of the land 
 of the Amorites,’ or Syria and Palestine, which 
 implies some kind of authority there, but he never 
 has the title of king. He was also ‘the father 
 of Iamutbal,’ a frontier district of Elam. The 
 ‘land of the Amorites’ had been subdued by the 
 Bab. conqueror Sargon of Accad many centuries 
 before (in B.c. 3800). Four times he marched into 
 Syria, and, after erecting an image of himself by 
 the shore of the Mediterranean and crossing the 
 countries ‘of the sea of the setting sun,’ he united 
 his conquests into a ‘single’ empire. His son 
 Naram-Sin made his way into the Sinaitic Pen- 
 insula, and must therefore have followed the same 
 road as Chedorlaomer. A later king of Babylonia, 
 Ammi-satana (B.C. 2230), still calls himself ‘ kin 
 of the land of the Amorites’; and the deep an 
 permanent influence of Babylonia in Canaan, 
 evidenced by the Tel el-Amarna tablets, proves 
 that Bab. domination must have long continued 
 there. Ammi-satana was the great-grandson of 
 Khammurabi, the king of Babylon who overthrew 
 Eri-aku and his Elamite allies, and united all 
 Babylonia under one monarch. Khammurabi 
 died sixty years before the accession of Ammi- 
 satana, so that, as he reigned fifty-five years, we 
 may place the expedition of Chedorlaomer about 
 B.C, 2330. A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 CHEEK, CHEEK-BONE (‘t, Arab. Jahi, ‘jaw- 
 
 * The name Ku-dur-la-ukh-ga-mar has now been read by P. 
 Bcheil on a tablet of Khammurabi (see Rev. Bib. Internat. 1896, 
 Bp 600, and Rev. de Théol. 1897, p. 83 ff.). 
 
 bone’; diiyah, ‘beard’; staydév).—1. The cheek, 
 with fts ruddy token of health, is a feature of 
 beauty (1 S 16%, Ca 1° 518), In the Lebanon vine- 
 yards a species of tinted grape is called ‘maidens’ 
 cheeks.’ On the other hand, as of something that 
 ought not to be, it is said of Jerusalem in her 
 desolation, ‘her tears are on her cheeks’ (La 1°). 
 
 2. It is connected with manliness and pride. To 
 be smitten on the cheek, as described in 1 K 22%, 
 2 Ch 18%, Job 16”, Ps 37, Is 508, meant the greatest 
 omnes affront, and implied that there was no 
 
 rther power to resist. This gives emphasis to 
 Mt 5°, Lk 6”, where the want is not of 
 of will, to resist. G. M. 
 
 CHEEK TEETH.—J1 1° ‘he hath the cheek 
 teeth of a great lion’ (niybne, RV ‘jaw teeth,’ as 
 in Pr 30" ‘ their ey teeth as knives’ AV, RV; 
 but in Job 29?” [all] ‘jaws,’ RVm ‘great teeth’) 
 Cheek teeth=molar teeth, is found in Caxton, 
 Chron. Eng. (1480), ‘ Al that ever were borne after 
 that pestilence hadden ij chekteth in hir hede 
 lesse than they had afore. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHEER.—The ‘ cheer’ is orig. the face (Fr. chére, 
 late Lat. cara), as Caxton, Golden Legend, ‘In 
 the swete of thy chere thou shalt ete brede.’ Then 
 the expression of the face; and so, any state of 
 mind, or mood, as Shaks., Sonnets, xevii. 13, ‘so 
 dull a cheer’; but generally with adj. ‘good.’ So 
 always in AV (except 1 Es 9 ‘Then went they 
 their way to make great c.’), as in the phrase ‘ Be 
 of good cheer,’ Mt 9? 1477, Mk 6, Jn 16%, Ac 23 
 (all Oapoéw) ; Ac 277 25-38 (eXOuuéw or eOuuos); and 
 in RV Job 9” (aybax, AV ‘comfort myself,’ RVm 
 ‘brighten up’). Finally, the word came to signi 
 ‘good spirits,’ whence the verb ‘ to cheer,’ Jg 9", 
 or ‘cheer up,’ Dt 245 (RV ‘ cheer’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 CHEESE.—See Foon. 
 
 CHELAL (597 ‘perfection’).— One who had 
 married a foreign wife (Ezr 10°). 
 
 CHELLIANS.—Probably the inhabitants of the 
 town CHELLUS (which see). Cf. Jth 1° 2%. 
 
 CHELLUS (Xedov’s or Xeodo'’s).—From the text 
 (Jth 1°) this place is supposed to have been situated 
 S.W. of Jerus. near Betane, and N. of Kadesh and 
 the river (var. ‘ torrent’) of Eeyrt, identified with 
 the Wady el-‘Arish. Reland thinks it may be 
 Haluzah (ayn), the site well known to the Gr. 
 and Rom. geographers under the altered form of 
 Elusa, ebceted ene the source of the Wady es- 
 Sani stream. The mention of a land of the Chel- 
 lians by the wilderness, to the south of which 
 were the children of Ishmael (Jth 27), is looked 
 upon as supporting this view of the position of C. 
 Doubt must, however, be regarded as haga atk 
 ing the identification of C. with Haluzah or Elusa 
 if the Syr. transcription Kalon (with K for Ch) be 
 correct. C. is also regarded as a mistake for Chelul 
 =Halhul, Jos 15°. I. A. PINCHES. 
 
 CHELOD (B Xeneovn, * Xecdaovdd, A Xedeors, Old 
 Lat. Chelleuth, Vulg. omits, Syr. Chaldzeans).—Jth 
 1% reads, not as AV and RV ‘many nations of the 
 sons of Chelod assembled themselves to battle,’ but 
 ‘there came together many nations unto the array 
 (or ranks) of the sons of Cheleul’; less naturally 
 ‘to battle with (against) the sons of Ch.’ (els 
 mapdratw vigvy X.). Syriac ‘to fight against the 
 Chaldeans,’ is improbable. It is not certain 
 whether the ‘many zations’ are allies of Nebuch- 
 adrezzar or of A:,naxad, nor whether they come 
 to help or to fight the ~ «ins oi Ch.’ Probably v.* 
 summarises v.; hence ‘suns of Ch.’ should be 
 
 ower, but 
 ACKIE. 
 
376 CHELUB 
 
 
 
 Nebuchadrezzar’s army. But he is, in Jth, king of 
 Assyrians, not Chaldeans. No probable conjecture 
 as to Aram. original has been made. 
 F. C. PORTER. 
 CHELUB (3:53).—1. A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 
 4), 2. The father of Ezri, one of David’s super- 
 intendents (1 Ch 27%). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 CHELUBAI (7333), 1 Ch 2°, another form of 
 Caleb. Cf. 1 Ch 2! #, and see CALEB. 
 
 CHELUHI (mp Kethibh, 1mbp Keré, Cheluhu 
 RVm, Chelluh AV).—One of the Bené-Bani who 
 had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10%). 
 
 CHEMARIM.—In EV this word is found only in 
 Zeph 1*; but the original 023, of which it is the 
 transliteration, is used also at 2 K 23° and Hos 10°, 
 and in both instances Chémdrim is placed in the 
 margin of AV and RV ‘idolatrous priests,’ and 
 ‘priests’ holding the post of honour in the text. 
 It is a little curious that at Zeph 14, the one case 
 where our versions have it, it is probably an inter- 
 polation: the LXX omits it, and the parallelism is 
 spoilt by its presence. Wellhausen wished to 
 assert its claim to a place in Hos 4‘, but other 
 critics have rightly denied this. Chdmer, of which 
 Chémérim is the plural, is of Aram. origin,* and 
 when used in Syr. carries no unfavourable con- 
 notation. In the Peshitt&é Version of the OT it 
 is employed at Jg 17°12 of Micah’s idolatrous 
 priests, but at Is 61° of the true priests promised 
 to the restored Israel. In the Pesh. Vers. of the 
 NT, Ac 19* has it as the rendering of vewxépos, 
 thus reminding us of the Latin editui (=temple- 
 attendants) of Hos 10°, Zeph 14; and the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, passim, employs it of the Levitical 
 priests and of our Lord (2!7 3! 41415 55-10, and many 
 other places). In the Heb. of the OT, however, 
 Chémdrim always has a bad sense: it is applied to 
 the priests who conducted the worship of the calves 
 (2 ¥ 238, Hos 105), and to those who served the 
 Baalim (Zeph 1‘). Kimchi believed the original 
 significance of the verbal form was ‘to be black,’ 
 and explained the use of the noun by the assertion 
 that the idolatrous priests wore black garments. 
 Amongst recent lexicographers Brockelmann ac- 
 cepts this derivation. Others take the root to 
 mean, ‘to be sad,’ the chiimra being a sad, ascetic 
 
 erson, @ monk or priest. The two ideas run 
 into each other, as is well exemplified at Ezk 3135, 
 where Pesh. has chémird, LXX écxéracevy, Vulg. 
 contristatus est, EV caused to mourn. 
 J. TAYLOR. 
 
 CHEMOSH (vin> Kémésh, Xayis).—The national 
 deity of the Moabites, as J” was the national deity of 
 the Israelites. He is frequently referred to as the 
 
 od of Moab both in the OT and on the Moabite 
 stone, and the Moabites‘are referred to as the people 
 of Chemosh (cf. Nu 21”, Jer 484%). On the Moabite 
 Stone we have a king Chemosh-melek. We also 
 read of a deity Ashtor-Chemosh, not to be identified 
 with C., but distinct. In the inscription, Mesha, 
 the king of Moab, represents the subjection of Moab 
 to Israel as due to the fact that C. was angry with 
 his land. At length the anger of C. was appeased, 
 and he bade Mesha go and take Nebo from Israel. 
 C. drove Israel out from before him, and restored to 
 Moab the land taken by Israel. The slaughter of 
 the ees of 'Ataroth is spoken of as a gazing-stock 
 to C. esha accordingly made a high place for C., 
 because he had saved him and made him victorious 
 over his foes. That upon occasion he might be 
 worshipped with human sacrifices is probable from 
 2 K 3”, where the king of Moab offered his eldest 
 s0n as a burnt-offering, and thus forced the Israel- 
 
 * In an inscrip. found near Aleppo we find \7w 7D3=priest of 
 ' Bahar (the moon). See Rev. Sémit. 1896, pp. 280, 282. 
 
 CHERETHITES AND PELETHITES 
 
 
 
 ites to raise the siege. olomon built a high-place 
 for C. ‘the abomination of Moab’ (1 K 11"), which 
 lasted till the time of Josiah’s reformation, when 
 it was destroyed (2 K 23"), According to Jg 11* 
 C. was also the national deity of the Ammonites; 
 but this can hardly be correct, since Milcom was 
 their special god. tt has been suggested that the 
 text should be corrected, and Milcom read here; 
 but perhaps, as Moore says, the error runs through 
 the whole learned argument (Judges, p. 295). 
 A. S. PEAKE. 
 
 CHENAANAH (n3y33).—41. A Benjamite (1 Ch 77). 
 2. The father of Zedekiah the false prophet in the 
 reign of Ahab (1 K 22", 2 Ch 181), 
 
 CHENANI ('339, prob. for 77337).--A Levite (Neh 94). 
 
 CHENANIAH (3339 or 373). —Chief of the Levites 
 at the removal of the ark from the house of Obed- 
 edom (1 Ch 15”: 27), named among the officers and 
 judges over Israel (1 Ch 26”), 
 
 CHEPHAR-AMMONI (°j'oy7 753), ‘village of tha 
 Ammonites,’ Jos 18%.—A town of Benjamin. 
 Probably the ruin Kefr ‘Ana near Bethel. See 
 SWP vol. ii. sheet xiv. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 CHEPHIRAH (7527), ‘village,’ Jos 97 18%, 
 Ezr 2%, Neh 7.—One of the four Hivite cities 
 which made peace with the Hebrews, re-peopled 
 after the Captivity, having belonged to Benjamin. 
 Now Kefireh S.W. of Gibeon, in a position which 
 aids to determine the W. border of Benjamin. 
 See SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 CHERAN (}}?).—One of the children of Dishon, 
 the son of Seir, the Horite (Gn 368, 1 Ch 1“). The 
 Sept. transliteration, acc. to Dillm., is pene 
 based on a supposed connexion of the word wit. 
 72=a lamb. H. E. RYLE. 
 
 CHERETHITES AND PELETHITES (‘nbs °79). 
 —A designation repeatedly applied to a body of 
 troops in the service of David, which seem to have 
 formed the king’s bodyguard. As to the deriva- 
 tion of the words, opinions have differed. Gesenius 
 explained them as = executioners and runners (from 
 the verbs m2 and nbs), their duty being to inflict 
 capital punishment, and also to convey the king’s 
 mandates as quickly as possible to those who held 
 places of government. Linguistic and other objec- 
 tions seem to be fatal to this theory, as well as to 
 another which makes ‘np to be so called from n1 
 =to be expelled from one’s country (Zec 14?),— 
 an explanation which would identify it with the 
 Sept. rendering of ‘nv (Philistine) by “AAédu)os. 
 
 t seems to be unquestionable that Cherethite 
 and Pelethite are not common but proper names. 
 The Cherethites, as a tribe inhabiting the southern 
 border of Canaan, are thrice ‘mentioned in the 
 OT (1 S 30%, Zeph 2°, Ezk 25%), and in all these 
 peeeat they are associated so closely with the 
 
 hilistines as to be practically identified with them. 
 Now we know from Am 9’, Dt 2”, and Jer 474 
 that the Philistines were believed to have come to 
 Canaan from Caphtor, which is generally identified 
 with @rete. May Cherethites not be another form 
 of Cretans? Instead of Cherethites, the Kethitbh of 
 2S 20% offers the reading Carites. So in 2 K 11*18 
 the true reading as restored in RV is Carites, 
 where AV reads Captains. The terms Cretans 
 and Carites may both be represented readily 
 enough by ‘3. That ‘nds is simply a variation of 
 ‘*wbs (Philistine) was Ewald’s opinion, and hag 
 since been generally accepted. 
 
 The Cherethites and Pelethites were thus a Philis. 
 tine bodyguard, originally introduced by David, 
 whose action is explained by his relations with the 
 
 
 

 
  -—_ €~ 
 
 es Se 
 
 
 
 CHERITH 
 
 ae 
 
 Philistines prior to his accession to the throne. 
 This conclusion finds further support in the fact 
 that in 2 S 15'* the Gittites, who were certainly 
 Philistines, are coupled with the Cherethites and 
 Pelethites. These men were chosen on the same 
 principle as the Swiss Guards at European courts 
 and the Oriental Janissaries, whose fidelity is in 
 proportion to their freedom from local ties and 
 interests. His Philistine mercenaries proved them- 
 selves worthy of David’s confidence by standing by 
 him amidst the troubles occasioned by Absalom, 
 Sheba, and Adonijah (2S 1518 207, 1 K 1%). While 
 some have confined the existence of this bodyguard 
 to the reign of David, others have found traces of 
 it down to the close of the Judean kingdom. The 
 mention of the Carites in 2 K 11 is in favour of the 
 latter view. It was the officers of the Carians and 
 the foot-guards that enabled Jehoiada to accom- 
 plish the overthrow of Athaliah, and the installa- 
 tion of Jehoash as king. Soin 1 K 14% we read 
 of guards who accompanied the king when he 
 visited the sanct , and from 2 K 114™ it is 
 evident that the royal bodyguard formed also the 
 guard of the temple. Is there any reason to con- 
 clude that these ds were foreign mercenaries ? 
 W. R. Smith adduces two passages from OT to 
 aks their identity with the Cherethites and 
 elethites. Zeph 1° speaks of men connected with 
 the court who were clad in foreign garb, and who 
 leaped over the threshold, and filled their masters’ 
 house with violence and deceit. Smith finds here 
 an allusion to the Philistine custom of leaping 
 over the threshold of the sanctuary (1 S 55); but 
 others deny the validity of his argument, and make 
 ‘leaping over the threshold’ simply a name for house- 
 breaking,* while those who are clothed in foreign 
 b are Israelites who ape foreign customs. Be 
 as it may, Smith’s other OT reference seems to 
 be conclusive. In Ezk 44* there is a bitter com- 
 plaint that uncircumcised foreigners were permitted 
 to keep guard in the sanctuary, and to discharge 
 functions which the prophet would henceforth 
 confine to the Levites. ho can these be except 
 the guards referred toin2K 11? This conclusion 
 is strengthened if Smith is right in his conjec- 
 ture that prior to the time of Ezekiel the king’s 
 ds slaughtered the animals provided by the 
 for the temple, or intended for the royal 
 table. As he points out, the Heb. designation for 
 captain of the d is onsya 322=chief of the 
 slaughterers (of cattle). ‘The bodyguard were 
 also the royal butchers, an occupation not deemed 
 unworthy of warriors in early times’ (W. R. Smith, 
 OTJC? p. 262,n.; cf. Kittel, Hist. of Heb. ii. 
 153 n., 164 3 Driver, Text of Sam. 172, 267). 
 J. A. SELBIE, 
 CHERITH (np $n3).—The brook by which Elijah 
 lived (1 K 17%) was ‘before Jordan,’ i.e., accord- 
 ing to familiar usage, on the E. of Jordan. Elijah 
 ‘was of the inhabitants’ (or ‘sojourners,’ RV) of 
 Gilead, or according to the L ‘of Tishbeh of 
 Gilead,’ and would be well acquainted with the 
 hiding-places of that country. If the ‘Ravens’ 
 (0-37) were an Arab tribe, as many believe (see 
 OREB), it must have been well to the E. where 
 they pastured their flocks. The popular identifica- 
 tion of the brook Cherith with the Wady Kelt 
 between Jerus. and Jericho is unwarranted. 
 A. HENDERSON, 
 CHERUB.—A proper name (Ezr 2°, Neh 7%) ; one 
 of the places from which certain families, on the 
 return from Babylon, failed to prove their register 
 as genuine branches of the Israelite people. The 
 name has been identified with the Chiripha of 
 Ptolemy. See CHARAATHALAN. H. E. RYLE. 
 *In view of the Oriental reverence for the threshold, this 
 
 Yeems an unlikely explanation. (See Trumbull, 7hreshold 
 Covenant, p. 259f.; and for the Philistine custom, p. 116f.) 
 
 
 
 CHERUBIM 377 
 
 CHERUBIM (0°39) or 0°3397, xepovBlu; sing. 3173, 
 xepov8).—By this name are denoted the winged 
 creatures which, in the religious symbolism of OT, 
 are not infrequently mentioned as attending upon 
 the Most High, and as possessed of certain sacred 
 duties in the court of the heavenly beings that 
 surround the throne of God. 
 
 What the Heb. conception of a ‘cherub’ was, 
 does not appear at all certain. And if, as seems 
 most probable, both name and thing were derived 
 from a primitive stage of religious thought in W. 
 Asia, this uncertainty in the Israelitish writings 
 admits of a natural explanation. For writers who 
 were under the influence of the worship of J” would 
 shrink from giving a description that might lend 
 itself to obvious comparison with the idolatrous 
 symbolism of other religions. 
 
 i. In OT we find references to the cherubim 
 (1) in the Israelite version of primitive myth; 
 (2) in early Heb. poetry ; (3) in apocalyptic vision ; 
 and (4) in the descriptions of the furniture and 
 adornments of the ark, the tabernacle, and the 
 temple. 
 
 1. Gn 3% ‘And he placed at the east of the 
 garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flame of a 
 sword which turned every way, to keep the way of 
 the tree of life.’ The function of the cherubim 
 here is to guard the approach to the sacred tree. 
 The number of the searebicd appointed for this 
 duty is not mentioned; nor is it stated, as is 
 usually supposed, that each of the cherubim bore 
 in his hand a flaming sword. We are only told 
 that a sword with darting flames was entrusted 
 to them for the purpose of keeping the way. 
 
 It has been natural to compare with these 
 guardian, or sentinel, ‘cherubim’ the monster 
 winged bulls with human heads which stood at the 
 entrance of Assyr. palaces and temples. M. Le- 
 normant having suggested, on the authority of a 
 talismanic inscription, that kirwbu was an Assyr. 
 name in use for the steer-god, the temptation to 
 connect the cherubim of Gn 3 with the Assyr. 
 figures was almost irresistible. But this use of 
 kirubu is questionable; the cherubim in our 
 passage are not limited totwo; thereis no mention 
 of a gate of Paradise; and the function of the 
 cherubim is evidently primarily connected with 
 the sword, which, to Nie from the description, 
 is probably intended to denote lightning. 
 
 2. Ps 18% (=2 S 22") ‘And he rode upon a 
 cherub, and did fly.’ In the context of this 
 poetical description, the Psalmist describes the 
 
 ower of J” as manifested in the thunderstorm. 
 
 “is represented in flight through mid-air, borne 
 up upon the wings of a cherub, while the light- 
 nings flash before Him (‘at the brightness before 
 him,’ v."). The cherub appears to be the mighty 
 winged spirit of the storm,—on whose back J” 
 Himself is seated. He is the personification of the 
 swift storm-cloud that sweeps down as upon eagles’ 
 wings. J” is carried by the cherub, as the Tndiag 
 god Vishnu by Garuda, and as Oceanus by the 
 griffin (Atsch. Prom. 395). : 
 
 3. In the prophetical writings of Ezekiel we 
 have two allusions to the cherubim. (1) In Ezk 28" 
 ‘Thou wast the anointed cherub that covereth ; 
 and I set thee so that thou wast upon the holy 
 mountain of God ; thou hast walked up and down 
 in the midst of the stones of fire.’ Here the 
 prophet compares ‘the Prince of Tyre’ to one of 
 the chosen attendants upon God, a cherub whose 
 wings, as in the Holy of Holies, shaded the mercy- 
 seat, one whose abode was in the holy mountain, 
 and one who there walked among the flashing 
 lightnings that surrounded the Divine Presence. 
 A ‘cherub,’ according to this account, abides in 
 the sacred precincts of the Most High, and round 
 about him play the thunderbolts. The idea of the 
 
378 CHERUBIM 
 
 CHERUBIM 
 
 
 
 thundercloud is combined with that of heavenly 
 guardianship. 
 
 (2) The imagery employed by the same prophet 
 in the Vision of the Cherubim (Ezk 10) is very 
 obscure, and introduces a much more complex idea. 
 The prophet recognises them as identical with ‘the 
 living creatures that I saw under the God of Israel 
 by the river Chebar’ (10”), referring to the vision 
 Gu ‘the chariot’ in ch. 1. These were four in 
 number (10!) ; they had each four faces, ‘the face 
 of a cherub, a man, a lion, and an eagle’ (#4), and 
 ‘four wings’ (74), As one of their faces was that 
 of ‘a cherub,’ and the prophet on seeing them 
 ‘knew that they were cherubim’ (”), the shape of a 
 ‘cherub’ as of a fabulous creature must have been 
 well known through popular representations (cf. 
 1K 7”). Unfortunately, the prophets description 
 throws no further light upon their shape. But pre- 
 sumably it must have resembled that of an ox (ef. 
 Ezk 1°). He tells us that the ‘glory of the LoRD’ 
 rested above ‘the cherubim’ (10) ; that their pro- 
 gress was straight forward (#7); while they moved 
 not with wings only, but with whirling wheels, and 
 burning fire was between them (* 7). We have the 
 thought of the thunderstorm connected with their 
 appearance in Ezk 14; the noise of their wings 
 (14) suggests the thunder; fire and lightning 
 attend them (11%), 
 
 Altogether, this description, though much more 
 complex and involved than any that has been sug- 
 gested by the previous passages which we have con- 
 sidered, presents no sort of contradiction to them. 
 In all probability it represents an elaboration, in 
 accordance with the general style and character- 
 istics of Ezekiel’s literary work, of the older and 
 simpler conception.. The ‘cherub,’ as one of the 
 powers of heaven, in poetry impersonated the 
 storm-clouds that do J”s bidding; in Ezekiel’s 
 vision there are four such ‘cherubim,’ correspond- 
 ing to the four quarters of the sky. In poetry, J” 
 had ridden on the cherub; in the vision the 
 cherubim not only flew, but moved on wheels, 
 supporting the glory of J”. In poetry the light- 
 nings flashed before the cherub; in the vision 
 there is fire between the cherubim, and ‘the 
 living creatures’ ran and returned as the appear- 
 ance of a flash of lightning. 
 
 4. The representation of the ‘cherubim” occu- 
 pied an important place in Heb. ‘sacred art. (1) 
 The figures of two ‘cherubim’ were placed on the 
 mercy-seat of the ark (Ex 258-1), Unfortunately, 
 no minute account is given of their appearance. 
 We are only told that their wings lifted upwards, 
 and were outspread so as to cover the ark, and 
 that they were presented in a posture facing one 
 another, but looking down upon the ark—an atti- 
 tude to which we may suppose the apostle makes 
 reference in 1 P 1%, hey were composed of 
 ‘wrought gold,’ possibly hammered solid gold as 
 opposed to plated gold. As the mercy-seat covered 
 by their wings was only 3 ft. 9 in. (24 cubits) 
 long, the figures of the cherubim were quite 
 small. 
 
 (2) Figures of cherubim were introduced into 
 the veil or hanging screen which separated the 
 Holy Place from the Holy of Holies (Ex 26*1). It 
 has commonly been considered that, as the way 
 into the Holiest was through this curtain, the 
 thought intended by these representations of 
 cherubim may have been similar to that expressed 
 by the guardian cherubim who guarded ‘the way 
 of the tree of life’ in Gn 3. 
 
 (3) Solomon’s temple contained in its Holy of 
 Holies two colossal cherubim, 10 cubits (or 15 ft.) 
 high, made of olive wood and overlaid with gold. 
 The wings of the cherubim were spread out, and 
 measured 10 cubits from the extremity of one 
 wing to the extremity of the other. The Holy of 
 
 Holies was a cube of 20 cubits or 30 ft. ; and the 
 two cherubim touched with their outer wings the 
 wall on either side, while they touched one another 
 with their outstretched inner wings. The whole 
 span of their four wings was 20 cubits, equal to 
 ie width of the sanctuary. They each therefore 
 stood at the same distance from one another as 
 they did from the wall on either side (1 K 6%). 
 From this description we should certainly infer 
 that they had arch only two wings. In2 Ch 3h 
 the same general account is given of the ‘ cheru- 
 bim’ of ‘image-work’ in Solomon’s bese tic but 
 it is added that ‘they stood on their feet, and 
 their faces were toward the house,’ by which is 
 prokepy meant, facing the entrance. lt has been 
 
 isputed whether the smaller cherubim which 
 protected the mercy-seat of the ark were retained 
 in Solomon’s temple. And it may be granted that 
 the height of the Solomonic cherubim made it 
 perfectly possible, but scarcely probable. 
 
 (4) ‘Cherubim’ were introduced, along with 
 ‘palm-trees and open flowers,’ into the carved 
 woodwork with which the walls and doors of the 
 exterior and interior of the temple were adorned 
 (1 K 6%. 8.8), In the description of the ‘ brazen 
 sea’ it is recorded that in the ornamentation there 
 were figures of ‘lions, oxen, and cherubim’ (1 K 7”). 
 
 From these OT passages we can gather no pre- 
 cise conclusion as to the shape and general figure 
 of the cherub, according to Hebrew treatment in 
 poetry and art. It had wings; it s on feet 
 (2 Ch); its face was not that of a man, a lion, or 
 an eagle (Ezk 104). It may haveresembled an ox. 
 But we are driven rather to suppose that its figure 
 was an imaginary one, like that of a griffin ora 
 dragon. 
 
 hether its name is of Sem. origin or not, is 
 a disputed point (see below). There is not suffi- 
 cient reason to doubt that the original idea belongs 
 to the early childhood of Israel’s religion, and is 
 thus aot. to similar conceptions in other races. 
 
 The prominence given to the cherubim in the 
 passages we have passed in review makes it very 
 unlikely that they had been borrowed from other 
 countries or foreign religions. For we can hardly 
 imagine the one representation of a living 
 creature, which was permitted in the construction 
 of the ark, the tabernacle, and the erie to 
 have been derived from an alien source. The fact 
 that the making and designing of the cherubim is 
 apparently recorded without any consciousness of 
 the violation of the second commandment, is in 
 itself an indication that the conception of these 
 creatures belongs to an original national idea—the 
 superstitious element of which was destined to be 
 removed by the teaching of J” worship. Thus the 
 ‘cherub’ survived as one of the traces of a Heb. 
 mythology, which was retained by the prophets 
 because it represented pictorially the attributes of 
 the majesty of the God of Israel, and was pun ed 
 to express more vividly the means by which His 
 glory is revealed to man. 
 
 Besides the winged bulls familiar to us from the 
 Assyr. remains, we come across many representa- 
 tions of winged monsters and chimeras in the 
 countries adjoining Palestine. Egyp. religious art 
 is said to have borrowed from Syria the figure of 
 the Sefer, or Seref (cf. the Heb. ‘seraph’). Phoen. 
 monuments contain representations of winged 
 griffins guarding the sacred tree (cf. a white marble 
 relief from Arados in the Museum of the Louvre). 
 The famous monster represented on the tomb of 
 Chuecu-hotep, an Egyp. king (c. B.C. 2100), gives 
 us a leopard, from whose back issues a human 
 head, with wings on either side of the neck. All 
 these are attempts apparently to comoine the 
 attributes of strength and swiftness in animals 
 with the intellect of man, in representation of the 
 
 
 
-———---- 
 
 —— a aT me 
 
 
 
 CHERUBIM 
 
 CHERUBIM 379 
 
 
 
 ‘demon’ spirits (see Pietschmann’s Gesch. der Phin- 
 
 izter, p- 176, 177). To this category belongs in all 
 
 nobability the earliest Heb. idea of the cherubim. 
 
 aving been popularly associated with the thunder- 
 cloud, their presence and form were transferred, 
 in the language of Heb. poetry and vision, to the 
 personal court and attendance of J”, whose presence 
 was proclaimed by the voice of thunder (cf. Ex 
 196, 1 S 121”, Ps 77/8). They therefore bear a close 
 analogy to the seraphim (Is 6), who personified the 
 lightnings that surround the throne. Perhaps the 
 two groups of attendant beings are referred to in 
 Ps 104° 4, 
 
 The expression applied to J”, He ‘sitteth upon, 
 or inhabiteth, the cherubim’ (o°397 3%), which 
 we find in 2 K 19%5, Ps 80! 99!, Is 3716, is not with- 
 out difficulty. The rendering ‘sitteth between 
 the cherubim’ is an explanation, not a transla- 
 tion, of the original: nor does it give the full 
 meaning of the words. To the Heb. poet the 
 cherubim are not only the attendants of J”, but 
 the bearers and upholders of His throne. The 
 thunderclouds are the dark wings of these minis- 
 ters of God. They bear Himup. And to this, which 
 is the picture presented by the service of the mute 
 forces of nature, there is an analogy presented 
 by the service of God’s people. Hence the earthly 
 correlative to ‘thou that sittest upon the cheru- 
 bim’ is ‘ thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel’ 
 (Ps 22°, and see Cheyne’s note). 
 
 In later Jewish theology the cherubim take 
 their place among the highest angels of heaven. 
 Thus Enoch speaks of the court of the palace of 
 heaven. ‘Its ceiling was like the path of the 
 stars and lightnings, with fiery cherubim between 
 in a transparent heaven’ (xiv. 11, ed. Charles). Of 
 the throne he says, ‘Its circuit was as a shining 
 sun and the voice of cherubim’ (xiv. 18, ed. 
 Charles). Speaking of the host of heaven, he 
 mentions ‘ Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is 
 over Paradise, and the serpents, and the cheru- 
 bim’ (xx. 7, ed. Charles); and in another passage 
 he speaks of ‘all the host of the heavens, and all 
 the holy ones above, and the host of God, the 
 cherubim, seraphim, and ophanim, and all the 
 angels of power, ete. (Ixi. 10, ed. Charles). Cf. ‘and 
 round about were seraphim, cherubim, and oph- 
 anim: these are they who sleep not, and guard 
 the throne of His glory’ (lxxi. 7, ed. Charles). 
 The Jews regarded them as supernatural beings, 
 without attempting to define them. Josephus, 
 speaking of the cherubim in the temple, says none 
 could tell or even guess what they were like (ras 
 6¢ xepouBets ovdels drrotal ries joay elmety ovdé elkdoat 
 Sivara, Ant. VIII. iii. 3). Philo, referring to the 
 cherubim over the ark, mentions that in the 
 opinion of some they represented the two hemi- 
 spheres (so Philo himself, De Cherub. § 7); but his 
 own preference was to identify them with the two 
 most ancient and supreme attributes of the Al- 
 mighty—the power of creating, and the power of 
 ruling (éym dé av efron Sydrodcba d’ brovody ras 
 mpecBuraras Kal dvwrdtw dvo Tod “Ovros Suvdwers Tijv 
 Te monrikhy Kal Baoikjv. "Ovoudserac d¢ perv 
 ronTixy Stvasus abrod eds, Kad’ fy eOnxe Kal érolyce 
 kai dtexbopunoe Thde Td Wav’ 7 6é Baorixh Kbpios, 7 TOV 
 yevonévuw Apye kal odv dixy BeBalws émtxparet, Vit. 
 Mos. iii. 8, ed. Mangey, ii. 150). 
 
 ii. In NT they are spoken of in the Ep. to the 
 Hebrews in connexion with the ark, ‘ above it the 
 cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat’ 
 (He 9°), where the expression, ‘the cherubim of 
 
 lory,’ conveys the special thought of created 
 lees ministering to the manifestation of the 
 divine glory. In the Apoc. they are represented as 
 ‘living creatures,’ four in number, full of eyes, 
 standing in the midst of the throne, and round 
 about the throne of God (Rev 4°"). From this 
 
 description it is difficult to understand their exact 
 position. But presumably the words are intended 
 to convey the picture of the four ‘living animals’ 
 upholding the throne, and facing outwards towards 
 the four quarters of heaven, and the scene is de- 
 rived from Ezekiel’s vision. 
 
 Rabbinic theology regarded the cherubim as 
 youthful angels, but also as those who were ad- 
 mitted into the special group of spirits attending 
 the throne of God. The ‘living creatures’ support 
 the throne at rest ; the cherubim bear the glory 
 of God as it passes through heaven (cf. Weber, 
 Altsynag. Palast. Theolog. 163, 164). There is a 
 strange passage in the treatise Chagigah (13b, i. 25) 
 which has reference to the cherubim, and the 
 passages in Ezk 1 and 10. The passage concludes, 
 ‘What is the meaning of cherub? R. Abohu 
 said, It is equivalent to a growing child. For 
 so in Babylon a young child is called Rabya. 
 R. Papa said to Abohu, But, as it is written, 
 The first face was the face of the cherub, and 
 the second face was the face of a man, and the 
 third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face 
 of an eagle, this shows that the face of a cherub 
 is the same as the face of a man. There are 
 large faces, and there are small faces’ (see trans- 
 lation by Streane, pp. 73, 74). 
 
 ili, It remains to mention the various deriva- 
 tions which have been given of the word. (1) As 
 has been mentioned above, it was derived from 
 the Assyr. kirubw; but apparently considerable 
 uncertainty hangs over this derivation. (2) Renouf 
 (PSBA, 1884, p. 193) conjectured that it was de- 
 rived from the Egyp. xeref. (3) Gesenius con- 
 nected it with a Syr. word meaning ‘strong.’ 
 (4) Others have suggested another Syr. word 
 meaning ‘to plough.’ It is difficult to resist the 
 impression that the word must have a common 
 origin with ypvy, ‘ griffin,’ ‘ hippogriff.’ 
 
 But, for the present, the etymology of the word 
 must be considered doubtful. The explanations 
 which were given of the name by the Fathers 
 Bt be illustrated by the following. 
 
 lem. Alex. Strom. v. 240: é0é\a 5é 7d broua 
 Tov xEpouBlu Snodv alcoOnaw modhAnpy. 
 
 Theodorus ap. Theodoret, Quest. in Gen. iii.: 
 GANG XepouBlu Kade? way 7d duvardy’ otrws Aéyet, 6 KaOH- 
 pevos érl Trav xepovBiu, dvrl Tod 6 duwvards Bacirevdww, 
 kal, éréBn éml xepouBlu cal éwetaoOn, avTl rod, pera 
 TOAATS Wapeyéevero THs Suvdpwews. 
 
 Jerome, Comm. in Is. lib. iii. cap. vi.: In 
 septuagesimo nono psalmo legimus: Quit sedes 
 super cherubim manifestare ; qui in nostra lingua 
 interpretantur scientee multitudo. Unde et Domi- 
 nus in aurige modum super cherubim aperte 
 sedere ostenditur. . . . In cherubim ergo ostendi- 
 tur Dominus; in seraphim ex parte ostenditur, ex 
 parte celatur. 
 
 Augustine, Hnarrat. in Ps 79? [Eng. 801]: Qui 
 sedes super cherubim. Cherubim sedes est gloriz 
 Dei, et interpretatur Plenitudo scientia. Ibi sedet 
 Deus in plenitudine scientiz. Licet intelligamus 
 cherubim sublimes esse ceelorum potestates atque 
 virtutes; tamen si vis, eris cherubim. Si enim 
 Cherubim sedes est Dei, audi quid dicat Scriptura : 
 Anima justi sedes est sapientiz. 
 
 Didymus Alexandrin., Expos. in Ps 79 [Eng. 80]: 
 Kaéjpevos 6¢ émi rdv xepouBlu 6 kipids dori, ws ev re 
 éfexind waplorarar, "Epéwerar de rots év Trois Swors odowv, 
 rerevxdat TalTys THs mpoonyoplas dxd Ths mpocovans 
 atrois coplas. IlAA00s yap yywoews Epunveverat Ta 
 xepovBly. 
 
 These patristic explanations seem to go back to 
 Philo’s statement that the Greek meaning of 
 ‘cherubim’ was ‘much knowledge,’ 4 rarplg per 
 yAwrry mpocaryopeverar xepouvBlu, ws dé dy “ENAqves 
 elrrovev, éxlywwots Kal érioriun ror} (Vit. Mos. lib 
 iii. § 8; Mangey, ii. 150). 
 
 
 
380 CHESALON 
 
 
 
 LirgRaTukE.—The subject is extensively discussed in the 
 standard works on the Theology of the OT, by Oehler, Smend, 
 Schultz, Dillmann; and on the Archwology, by Nowack and 
 Benzinger. See also Cheyne’s ‘Excursus’ in vol. ii. of his 
 Teaiah, and his Notes on the word in Com. on Psalms. 
 
 H. E. Rye. 
 
 CHESALON (j'bp3).—Near Kiriath-jearim on the 
 border of Judah, Jos 15 Now the village Kesla 
 on the hill N. of Kiriath-jearim. See SWP vol. 
 ii. sheet xvii. It is noticed in the 4th cent. A.D. 
 (Onomasticon, s.v. Chasalon) as a large village in 
 the Jerus. district. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 CHESED (799).—One of the sons of Nahor and 
 Milcah (Gn 22 J). He is obviously here intro- 
 duced into the genealogy of the Terahites as the 
 
 resumptive forefather of the Casdim (a2) or 
 
 haldzans. This probably represents a different 
 tradition from that in P, where Ur of the Chaldees 
 (i.e. Casdim) is spoken of as the dwelling-place 
 of Terah (Gn 11), Nahor’s father. 
 
 It is noticeable that the eldest of the brothers of 
 Chesed is Uz, and that in Job 1 the Casdim (trans- 
 lated Chaldzans) are found invading the territory 
 of Uz. Gn 22?-23 probably represent, in the terms 
 of genealogy, the supposed kinship of allied clans 
 who dwelt in Mesopotamia. The Heb. tradition 
 gives the names of tribes identified with various 
 localities om the borders of the plain of Mesopo- 
 tamia. H. E. RYE. 
 
 CHESIL (5p), Jos 15°,—The LXX reads Bethel, 
 
 robably for Bethul, as in the parallel passage, 
 Nes 194, and >») of MT is prob. a textual error. 
 (So Ozf. Heb. Lex. and Siegtfried-Stade.) 
 
 CHEST.—4. In order to defray the cost of certain 
 tepairs of the temple, the priest Jehoiada placed in 
 the court (our authorities are not agreed as to the 
 exact location; cf. 2 K 129 (Heb. 10) 29 Ch 248, with 
 LXX in each case) a chest (ji1x), in the lid (Heb. 
 door) of which a hole had been bored, for the 
 reception of the offerings of the worshippers, as 
 recorded 2 K 12‘ (Heb. 8%) (LXX xiBwrés, Vulg. 
 gazophylacium), and, with variations, 2 Ch 24° 
 (yAwoodbxouov, arca). The ark (of the covenant) is 
 also invariably denoted by ji7x, either alone or 
 with qualifications (see ARK i.). So, too, the. coffin 
 in which Joseph’s mummy was placed (Gn 50”). 
 The feature common to all three is the rectangular 
 shape; the first two certainly, the third most 
 pre ably, were of wood. TAwscdxopuov, used by the 
 
 XX translator of Chron. as a synonym of K:Bwrés, 
 is freq. employed by the later Gr. translators as the 
 rendering of }/1x in all the three applications given 
 above, as by Aquila in Gn 50”, where the so-called 
 Targ. of Jonathan also renders xopmba. Jos. 
 further uses it (Ant. VI. i. 2) to denote the ‘ coffer’ 
 (EV, 19x 1 S 68-) or small chest in which the 
 Phil. princes deposited the golden mice, while in 
 NT it is applied to the cash-box of which Judas 
 Iscariot had charge (Jn 12°13”). In the temple 
 of Herod, 13 chests stood in the court of the 
 women, to receive the various kinds of money gifts, 
 in shape resembling a trumpet (if the treatise 
 Shekalim vi. 5 may be trusted), wide at the bottom 
 but gradually narrowing towards the top, hence 
 called ining It was into one of these chests that 
 the widow cast her slender offering (Mk 12%, 
 Lk 211), 
 
 2. In AV and RV we find in Ezekiel’s inventory 
 (27*4) of the merchandise of Tyre ‘chests (0.33) of 
 rich apparel, bound with cords and made of cedar.’ 
 But the sense ‘chests’ for this word is without 
 sufficient support (see comm. of Cornill, Davidson, 
 Smend), and the word rendered ‘made of cedar’ 
 must mean ‘strong, durable,’ so that we should 
 proeenly. render ‘cloths of cords twined and 
 
 urable.’ A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 CHIEF 
 CHESTNUT TREE (jimqy ‘armén, w)dravos, 
 platanus). —‘Armén is mentioned twice in OT 
 
 once as one of the trees in which Jacob ‘pilled 
 white strakes’ (Gn 30°’), and set them before the 
 flocks at the watering troughs, and again as one of 
 the trees with which the cedar of Lebanon, sym- 
 bolical of Assyria, is compared (Ezk 315). The 
 chestnut tree, which is the rendering of the Rabbis 
 and of AV, is not indigenous in any part of 
 Syria and Pal., and does not succeed in cultivation. 
 It has probably never grown there except as an 
 exotic. The plane tree of LXX, Vulg., and RV, 
 Platanus Orientalis, L., on the contrary, grows 
 everywhere by, and in, watercourses, and is one 
 of the finest trees of the country. It has a trunk 
 which is often 6 to 10 ft. in diameter, and 50 to 
 100 ft. high, spreading branches, and large palmate- 
 lobed leaves. The monecious flowers are in 
 endulous, spherical heads, the fertile becoming as 
 arge as a small walnut. The name ‘armén signi- 
 fies naked, and probably refers to the fact that 
 the outer layers of bark scale off as in the 
 Eucalyptus globulus, leaving a smooth surface. 
 When peeled, it would leave a white streak. Plane 
 trees grow in Mesopotamia, Chestnut trees do 
 not. ‘There can be no reasonable doubt that the 
 ‘arm6n is the plane tree. It is called in Arab. dio. 
 In Sir 24 wisdom is compared to a eae tree 
 by the water. G. E. Post. 
 
 CHESULLOTH (nidp2n), Jos 19%*.—The same as 
 Chisloth-tabor, Jos 19%. A place on the border 
 of Zebulun. Now the ruin of Jksdl at the foot 
 of the Nazareth hills, in the fertile plain W. 
 of Tabor. In the 4th cent. A.D. (Onomasticon, s.v. 
 Chasalath) the site was known as near Tabor, but 
 it was also wrongly identified with Achshaph (see 
 Onomasticon, s.v. Acsaph and Achaseloth). The 
 ruin is chiefly remarkable for a cemetery of tombs 
 apparently medizval. See SW vol. i. sheet v. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 CHETH or HETH (p).—Eighth letter of Heb. 
 alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalm to 
 designate the 8th part, each verse of which begins 
 with this letter. 
 
 CHEZIB, Gn 38°.—See ACHZIB, 
 
 CHIDE.—To chide (past ‘chode’) is to wrangle ; 
 then to scold or sharply rebuke; so Ps 103° ‘ He 
 will not always c.’ (27). Cf. Ps 18%, Pr. Bk. Tv 
 chide with is to wrangle with one, have an alterci- 
 tion with one; so Gn 31% ‘Jacob was wroth, anil 
 chode with Laban,’ Ex 172°4(RV ‘strive’), Nu 2v*, 
 Jg 8} (all 24). Chiding as subst. occurs Ex 17’ 
 ‘because of the c. of the children of Israel’ (31>, 
 RV ‘ striving’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHIDON (j73).—The name acc. ‘o 1 Ch 13° of 
 the threshing-floor where Uzzah was struck dead 
 for rashly touching the ark (see UZZAH). In 2S 6° 
 the name is given as Nacon, which Budde con- 
 siders to be a less probable reading. No locality has 
 ever been identified with either name. The view has 
 been advanced that C. is the name, not of a place, 
 but of the proprietor of the threshing-floor, and 
 attempts have been made to identify him with 
 Araunah or Ornan the Jebusite. 
 Driver and Wellh. on 2S 6°.) R. M. Boyp. 
 
 CHIEF.—i. In old Eng. as in modern, ‘chief’ 
 was both a subst. and an adj.; but in AV (though 
 it is the tr. of some twenty Heb. words, all substs.) 
 it is seldom if ever a substantive. The Oaf. Eng. 
 Dict. quotes as a subst. the occurrence of ‘c.’ in Nu 
 3° and Ps 105%°; but even these are not certain 
 instances. If ‘c.’? were a subst. in Nu 3”, then 
 in 3% ‘ Eleazar shall be chief over the chief of the 
 
 eT ea ee a ee 
 
 (See further 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ’ 
 1 
 
 CHILD, CHILDREN 
 
 CHILD, CHILDREN 381 
 
 
 
 Levites,’ the plu. would be used, ‘ over the chiefs’ 
 (a'x’y;}, RV ‘ princes’), there being no example of 
 the sing. used for the plural. It is prob. that ‘c.’ is 
 an adj. with ‘men’ understood. In Ps 105% ‘He 
 smote also all the firstborn in the land, the c. of 
 all their strength,’ the Heb. (ny, lit. ‘ beginning,’ 
 the common word for ‘ first-fruits’) is the same as 
 in Am 6! ‘c. of the nations’ and 6° ‘the c. oint- 
 ments,’ where the word is clearly an adj. in the 
 one case, and probably in the other. Cf. Lk 11% 
 ‘the c. of the devils’ (dpxwv, RV ‘ prince’), with 
 141 ‘one of the c. Pharisees’ (dpywy, RV ‘one of 
 the rulers of the P.’). Hence when RV gives 
 ‘chiefs’ for AV ‘chief,’ as ‘the chiefs of the 
 Levites’ 2 Ch 35°, ‘the chiefs of the priests’ 361, 
 Ezr 8% 2% 105, it introduces a plu. not found in 
 AY, and a word of doubtful application. 
 
 ii. ‘Chief’ is given as tr. of 4. ro’sh, ‘head,’ 
 esp. in the phrase ‘c. of the fathers’ (RV ‘ heads 
 of the fathers’ houses’), on which see Ryle on Ezr 
 1° and art. FAMILY. In Ezk 38%* 39! ro’sh is 
 taken by RV as a proper name, Rosh (wh. see). 
 2. Kéhén, ‘ priest,’ referring to David’s sons (2 S 
 818) and to Ira the Jairite (206), is mistranslated 
 ‘ce. ruler’ (RV ‘priest’), after the gloss of the 
 Chronicler (1 Ch 18!7), See Driver, Notes on 
 Samuel, on 2S 8 and art. PRIESTS. 3. In Pr 16% 
 ’allaph (*p>x, fr. [nde] cleave to) is tr. ‘chief friends,’ 
 evidently from a recollection that ‘allipA also 
 means ‘duke’ of Edom throughout Gn 36, and in 
 Ex 15%, 1 Ch 151. 52. 58.64; and in Zec 12°-6 * gover- 
 nor’ (RV ‘chieftain’). But in the latter sense 
 ’alldph is best taken from’eleph (dx), ‘a thousand,’ 
 that is, ‘leader of a thousand,’ ‘chiliarch.’ Dr. 
 Murray (Ozf. Eng. Dict.) thinks this passage in 
 Pr (16 ‘ a whisperer separateth c. friends’) has sug- 
 gested the Scot. ‘chief’=intimate, as ‘They’re 
 very c. wi’ ane anither.’ 4. In Is 14° ‘[Hell] 
 stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the c. ones 
 of the earth,’ the Heb. for ‘c. ones’ is ‘attddim 
 (onary), lit. ‘he-goats,’ here as the Jeaders of the 
 flock; Cheyne (after Kay), ‘bell-wethers.’ See 
 Cheyne in Joc., and cf. Zec 10. 
 
 iii. In NT ‘chief’ renders dpxywv (Lk 11° RV 
 ‘prince,’ 141 RV ‘ruler’); 7yovpeva, leaders (Ac 
 15”); and mpdros, first frequently. In Ac 16” 
 * Philippi, which is the c. city of that part of 
 Macedonia,’ chief city capital, metropolis (cf. 1 Ti 
 subscr.); but it is a mistrans., for Amphipolis 
 was the c. city of that part of M., Thessalonica 
 being the c. city of the whole province. Here 
 mparos must mean ‘ first,’ that is, first to be reached 
 in the direction St. Paul came: RV ‘a city of 
 M., the first of the district.’ For Chief Priest 
 see PRIEST; and for ‘Chief of Asia,’ Ac 19%! 
 ‘certain of the c. of Asia’ (’Acidpyns, RV ‘ chief 
 officers of Asia,’ RVm ‘ Asiarchs’), see ASIARCH. 
 
 iv. When ec. lost its obsol. sense of supreme, and 
 was weakened into ‘leading’ (cf. Am 6° ‘anoint 
 themselves with the chief ointments’=choice), 
 comparison became possible. ‘Chiefer’ is not 
 found in AV, but ‘chiefest’ occurs 1 S 29 9” 217, 
 2 Ch 32%, Ca 5°, 2 Mac 134, Mk 10“, 2 Co 115 124 
 (both ‘very chiefest,’ Gr. brephlav), 1 Ti swbscr. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHILD, CHILDREN (7b:, }2).—The Heb. lan- 
 age has a rich variety of words adapted to the 
 fferent stages by which infancy passes into man- 
 hood and womanhood. This wealth of description 
 indicates the importance of what is described. No 
 word in the Bible contains so much of God’s good- 
 ness and human happiness as is found wrapped up 
 in the word ‘child.’ Most of these associations 
 are common to the human family everywhere and 
 in all ages; some are Oriental, a few are special 
 to Israel. (See BIRTHRIGHT, CIRCUMCISION, RE- 
 DEMPTION.) 
 
 4. Children as gifts of God and tokens of divine 
 
 JSavour.—The desire to possess children has always 
 been a marked feature of Oriental life. Rachel 
 spoke as the mother of her people when she cried, 
 ‘Give me children, or else die’ (Gn 30'). This 
 desire gives their chief value to the tombs of saints 
 and the superstitious shrines of modern Syria. 
 The petition always carries with it a vow to do or 
 
 ive something in honour of the saint appealed to. 
 
 n the same way, but with a wiser devotion, 
 Hannah went to the tabernacle of God, and after- 
 wards named her child Samuel (‘God hath heard’), 
 and surrendered him to the Lord’s service (1 S 1" %), 
 To this devout recognition is due the fact that 
 while many names, such as Isaac, Manasseh, Moses, 
 Ichabod, were suggested by some incident or 
 anxiety of the hour, and names of females were 
 often taken from objects of beauty in nature, such 
 as Deborah, Esther, Rhoda, many others con- 
 tained the name of God, or an attribute of God, as 
 Elimelech, Athaliah, etc. So among the Arabs 
 we have Shikri (‘my gratitude’), Saladin (salah- 
 ed-din ‘virtue of religion’),‘Abd-ul- Hamid (‘servant 
 of the Blessed’), Naamat-Ullah (‘grace of God’). 
 For the same reason, Oriental feeling is rather 
 against the observance of birthdays, as it seems to 
 turn the sense of favour into an occasion of feasting. 
 In a life so full of uncertainties, it has always 
 seemed safer to be humbly thankful for a gift than 
 to appear elated by a possession. Nothing is more 
 dreaded or disliked by an Oriental parent than to 
 have a child’s healthy or beautiful appearance com- 
 mented upon without thanks being expressed to 
 God in the same breath. The mention of the 
 divine name is understood to avert the curse of the 
 evil eye. Children are ‘the heritage of the Lord’ 
 (Ps 127°), and in Arabic salutation they are referred 
 to as ‘the guarded ones.’ 
 
 2. Parental and filial affection.—Child-life has 
 always been the great emblem of what appeals to 
 human affection and responds to it. ith the 
 young, love, that in the ordinary lives of men is 
 often the hireling of selfish interests, is always a 
 free and tndepentent instinct. The child’s natural 
 assurance that it must be so with all, appears amid 
 sordid commonplaces and surrendered ideals as a 
 remembrancer of Eden, and a type of what the 
 kingdom of God is meant to be (Mt 18? 19%). The 
 Bible is throughout a book for the families of men, 
 and finds the fulfilment of all its teaching in the 
 life of the Sinless Man. Its references, especially to 
 child-life, are so simple and realistic that in read- 
 ing them one forgets the antiquity of the narra- 
 tive. The Land is here in very close affinity with 
 the Book, for the strength of the family affections 
 is the brightest feature of Oriental life. The infant 
 in the ark of bulrushes cries like a child of to-day 
 on beholding the strange face of his deliverer 
 (Ex 2), Again, in 2 K 4! we have a child’s re- 
 peated cry of pain, the instinctive appeal to the 
 father, and the resource of a mother’s comforting 
 and care. Isaiah takes note of the first words a 
 child learns to i (Is 84), and Naaman’s flesh be- 
 comes ‘like the flesh of a little child’ (2 K 51), 
 Solomon reveals his own wisdom in revealing the 
 strain that could be put upon the love even of a 
 degraded mother. David cries over his rebellious 
 
 et still beloved son, ‘ Would God that I had died 
 or thee!’ (2S 18%), The cruelty to their infants 
 was one of the experiences that made it impossible 
 for the captives to forget Jerusalem (Ps 137%). 
 Such an experience was in its turn the worst thin 
 that could happen to the oppressors of Israe 
 (Nah 3). The transmission of suffering to the 
 innocent of the third and fourth generations was 
 one of the mightiest intimidations of the moral 
 law (Ex 347). Hagar could not bear to sit alone: 
 and watch the last unconscious movements of her 
 dying child (Gn 211%). ‘When my children were 
 
382 CHILD, CHILDREN 
 
 CHILMAD 
 
 
 
 about me’ (Job 295), was a touching summary of 
 vanished happiness. Amos, seeking to picture the 
 day of ruin that Israel was precipitating by whole- 
 sale corruption, could find nothing more expressive 
 of all that was bleak and bitter and unbearable 
 than ‘ the mourning of an only son’ (Am 8"). 
 
 It was in such a prepared cradle of family ex- 
 erience, with its tenderest ties of affection, and 
 olds of life’s sweetness and sorrow, that the gospel 
 
 of the unexpected and unspeakable gift was laid. 
 ‘He gave his only-begotten Son’ (Jn 31%); ‘He 
 spared not his own Son’ (Ro 8%), 
 
 3. The importance of the parental position.— 
 Mingled with the natural affection of parents to- 
 wards their children, was the fact that their posses- 
 sion meant increase of dignity, influence, and 
 wealth. This is shown in the preference for male 
 children. In the home-circle, daughters might be 
 as affectionate and as much beloved as sons, but 
 in the expansion and continuance of the family 
 name, in the holding of property, the acquisition 
 of wealth, and generally with regard to worldly 
 prosperity, sons and not daughters were the 
 precious gifts of God. The former especially were 
 the olive-shoots springing up from the roots of the 
 parent stem (Ps 128%). Hence the forfeiture and 
 reproach connected with childlessness, and the 
 rejoicing over a man-child born into the world. 
 In Syria the paternal position is so important 
 that the father usually ceases to be called by his 
 own name, and receives that of his firstborn son, 
 as Abu-Yuseph (‘father of Joseph’). If a middle- 
 aged man has no son, courtesy often gives him a 
 fictitious paternity, and styles him Abu- Abdullah 
 (‘father of ‘Abdullah’). The son might also be 
 known by the father’s name as a sort of surname. 
 Thus David’s full name was David Jesse, or ben- 
 Jesse (‘son of Jesse’). It was quite unusual for 
 the son to receive in circumcision the name of the 
 father until late in Israel’s history (see Gray, Heb. 
 Prop. Names, 2 ff.). The father was still alive, 
 and needed as yet no memorial, but a son often 
 received the name of a grand-parent, to keep alive 
 the name of the departed, and with the name to 
 inherit his gifts and graces of character. The later 
 custom appears in Lk 1 ‘They would have called 
 him Zacharias, after the name of his father.’ The 
 authority of the parents over their children, and 
 over all arrangements for their welfare, was com- 
 plete and far-reaching. One of the commandments 
 was devoted to this relationship, and one of the 
 death-penalties of the law of Moses was to meet 
 the case of filial disobedience (Dt 21%). Hence 
 the solemnity of the charge against Israel (Is 1°), 
 and the deep meaning of the confession, ‘I am no 
 more worthy to be called thy son’ (Lk 15%). 
 
 4, Heredity.—Given a life with little change in 
 its outward conditions, and with a law that con- 
 trolled every detail of life, it followed that time 
 would be an intensifier of the parental features. 
 Among the Arabs the epithet ‘dog’ has for its 
 climax ‘son of a dog.’ As one of their proverbs 
 states the problem, ‘If the father be onion and 
 the mother garlic, how can there be sweet per- 
 fume?’ When Saul asked the young slayer of 
 Goliath, ‘Whose son art thou, young man?’ (18 
 17°°), the question would not only reveal the family 
 of David, but also account in part for the courage 
 he had shown. Hence the incriminations, ‘ Ye are 
 the children of them that killed the prophets’ 
 (Mt 23%); ‘If ye were Abraham’s children, ye 
 would do the works of Abraham’ (Jn 8%) ; and the 
 defence, ‘How can Satan cast cut Satan?’ (Mk 3%), 
 So Ezk 18?, Ac 13” ete. 
 
 5. Spiritual sense of father, son, brother.—The 
 use of the word son in a fig. sense carries the three 
 chief meanings of the literal use, namely, (1) affec- 
 tion, (2) obedience, (3) likeness. By these signifi- 
 
 cations we must interpret ‘sons of the Highest, 
 ‘children of belial,’ ‘son of peace—perdition—dis 
 obedience—the commandment.’ The new creature 
 born of the Spirit receives new preferences and 
 powers for the new life in Christ Jesus. St. Paul 
 speaks of Timothy and Onesimus as his children ; 
 and St. John finds his chief delight in the fact 
 that his children walk in the truth. The Lord’s 
 Prayer is an assemblage of all that the children 
 should be and do and expect in order to please 
 their Father in heaven. In the prohibition, ‘call 
 no man your father upon the earth’ (Mt 23°), the 
 allusion was most likely to a formality of ecclesi- 
 astical homage, like the salutation ‘ Rabbi’ of v.® 
 Among the Syrian Christians it is customary te 
 salute the priest as Abzna (‘our father’). 
 
 In the East the family is always reckoned from 
 the standpoint of the chief or oldest representa- 
 tive. Those whom he calls children are brethren. 
 Thus the women of Bethlehem said, ‘There is a 
 child born to Naomi’ (Ru 4"). This custom gave a 
 vital and affectionate largeness of meaning to the 
 word ‘brother.’ When Christians seek to realise 
 the brotherhood that belongs to the society of the 
 redeemed, the most effective way is found to be a 
 return to Bible thought and Oriental custom, 
 namely, united service to the Head of the family, 
 devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. See also 
 FAMILY; and for Children of God see Gop, 
 CHILDREN OF. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 CHILEAB (3x52).—The second son of David by 
 Abigail, the wife of Nabal the Carmelite (2S 33). 
 In 1 Ch 3' he is called Daniel, while the LXX in 
 Sam. has Aadoud, which is also given by A in 
 1 Ch; but B reads Aapmyr. ellh. considers 
 that 2x2 is only a variant for 2153, a bye-form of 
 35>, and therefore not unsuitable for a descendant 
 of the house of Caleb. A comparison of the Heb 
 text, in which the last three letters of Chileab are 
 repeated in the following word, favours the reading 
 of the LXX, which would correspond to the Heb. 
 mv5q or 17:53 (Delaiah), cf. 1 Ch 3% 2418, Ezr 2°= Neh 
 783, Neh 61°, Jer 361% 2, J. F. STENNING. 
 
 CHILION and Mahlon were the two sons of 
 Elimelech and Naomi, Ephrathites of Bethlehem- 
 judah, who migrated asa family into the country of 
 Moab in consequence of a famine ‘in the days when 
 the judges judged’ (Ru 1?), They married women 
 of the Moabites, Mahlon marrying Ruth and 
 Chilion Orpah (Ru 4"), and after a sojourn of ten 
 years in Moabite territory died there. (Chilion= 
 wha ‘wasting away’=Kedawy, Xedkadvy, LXX B. 
 Mahlon=j\onp ‘sickly’=Maadrwrv, LXX, Mahalon, 
 Vulg., as if the Heb. was originally read jon 
 to connect the name with the hiph. ptep. of aby.) 
 Neither of these names occurs elsewhere in the 
 Bible. Jesse is called an Ephrathite of Bethlehem- 
 judah in 1S817!% The two names occur in varying 
 order in Ru 1? and 4°, so that no conclusion can 
 be drawn as to which was the elder. The Targ. 
 on 1 Ch 4” connects them with the Joash and 
 Saraph of that passage. H. A. REDPATH. 
 
 CHILMAD (7953) occurs in Ezk 27% at the close 
 of the list of nations that traded with Tyre. The 
 name has been thought to be the Aram. form of 
 Charmande, a town on the Euphrates mentioned 
 by Xenophon (Anad. i. 5. 10). George Smith 
 identified Chilmad with the modern Kalwf&dha 
 near Baghdad. The LXX reads Xapudy, which is 
 perhaps the prov. of Carmania in S. Persia. None 
 of these conjectures has much probability. After 
 Asshur (which there is no reason to mop means 
 anything else than Assyria) we sho certainly 
 expect a country rather than a town, and at the 
 Sal of the list an important and well-known 
 
 
 
ee eae ee es eee ee 
 
 CHIMHAM 
 
 
 
 CHIUN 383 
 
 
 
 country. The Targ. seems to have read ‘p53 
 (‘all Media’). But the best suggestion, after all, 
 ig perhaps that of Joseph Kimchi (adopted by 
 Hitzig and Cornill), who reads the word 19, 
 explaining: ‘[Asshur etc. were] as those accus- 
 tomed to come to thee with their merchandise.’ 
 It is to be noted that the Heb. has no ‘and’ before 
 Chilmad. The whole verse, however, shows traces 
 of textual derangement. J. SKINNER. 
 
 CHIMHAM (0722, 1793).—Probably the son (cf. 
 1 K 2’) of Barzillai the Gileadite, who returned with 
 David from beyond Jordan to Jerus. after the death 
 of Absalom (28 19%4). Acc. to Jer 41” (Keré o7n3), C, 
 would seem to have erected a caravanserai near 
 Bethlehem for the benefit of those travelling from 
 Jerus. to Egypt; others suppose that the inn was 
 named after him as the owner of the land, and 
 infer that C. received some land near Bethlehem 
 from David. See BARZILLAI. J. F. STENNING. 
 
 CHIMNEY.—In Hos 13° ‘as the smoke out of 
 the c.,’ the Heb. is ’drubbah (A274), a lattice, hence 
 a latticed opening in a room whence the smoke 
 escapes. But in 2 Es 6* [all] ‘c.’ is the tr. of Lat. 
 caminus, the very word from which c. comes; and 
 the meaning is not the flue or vent, but the fire- 
 ea or oven, ‘or ever the chimneys in Sion were 
 
 ot’ (RV, after Syr., ‘or ever the footstool of 
 Sion was established’). This is the oldest mean- 
 ing of the word in Eng., and is found as late as 
 Goldsmith. Cf. Milton, L’Adlegro, 111— 
 
 ‘ Then lies him down the lubbar fiend, 
 And, stretch’d out all the chimney’s length, 
 Basks at the fire his hairy strength.’ 
 And Goldsmith, Deserted Village, 235— 
 ‘While broken tea-cups, wisely kept for shew, 
 Ranged o’er the chimney, glistened in a row.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHINNERETH (n7:2).—A city (Dt 3”, Jos 113, in 
 latter spelt Chinneroth, 19*°) which gave its name 
 to the Sea of Chinnereth (Nu 34", Jos 12° 13?7), the 
 OT designation of the Sea of Galilee. The site of 
 the town is uncertain, but it follows Rakkath 
 even Tiberias), and may have been in the 
 plain of Gennesaret (cf. 1 K 15”). 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 CHIOS (7 Xlos) was a large island which formed 
 
 of the province of Asia, situated in the 
 Aigean Sea off the Ionian coast, still called Scio 
 oe to the Italian form), about 32 miles 
 ong from N. to S., and in breadth varying 
 from 18 to 8 miles. It is separated from the 
 mainland by a channel of varying width, which 
 at its narrowest (about 5 miles across) is blocked 
 by @ group of small islands. The ship in which 
 St. Paul sailed from Troas to Patara (on his 
 way to Jerus.) passed through this channel as 
 it sailed S. from Mitylene; and it anchored for 
 a night on the Asian coast opposite the island, 
 and thence struck across the open sea S. to 
 Samos (Ac 20"). The voyage of Herod by Rhodes, 
 Cos, Chios, and Mitylene, towards the Black 
 Sea, described by Jos. Ant. XVI. ii. 2, affords an 
 interesting comparison with that of St. Paul. The 
 channel is very picturesque. The chief city of the 
 island, bearing the same name, is situated on 
 ita E. coast, towards the S. end, probably 
 facing the point where St. Paul’s ship lay at 
 anchor. The island is rocky (esp. in the broader 
 N. part) and unproductive, except that it was 
 famous for its wine, and its gum mastic has 
 been a source of trade and profit both in ancient 
 and in modern times. It was one of the seven 
 places that claimed to be the birthplace of Homer; 
 and a much stronger body of tradition speaks in 
 favour of it than for any of the other claimants. 
 Like Cnidus, Cos, Cyzicus, lium, Samos, Smyrna, 
 
 Mitylene, and many other cities of the province 
 Asia, C. had the rank of a free city, which im- 
 plied merely that in certain respects it was ad- 
 ministered according to native law, while other 
 Asian cities were administered according to Rom. 
 law. W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 CHISLEY, AV Chisleu (boo, 
 
 Lexenro’ B, 
 Xacendod A, Neh 1}, Xaceded Zee 74). 
 
 See TIME. 
 
 CHISLON (j\bpa ‘strength,’ Xacddv).—Father of 
 Elidad, Benjamin’s representative for dividing the 
 land (Nu 34?! P), 
 
 CHISLOTH-TABOR, Jos 19!2,—See CHESULLOTH. 
 
 CHITHLISH (vn2), Jos 15”, in AV Kithlish.— 
 A town in the Shephelah of Judah. The site is 
 unknown. 
 
 CHITTIM (1 Mac 1 8°) for Krvriat. 
 
 CHIUN.—Notwithstanding the fact that both 
 Luther and our AV have this word, it has con- 
 tinued, even to our own time, to be an open question 
 among English and German scholars whether }1'3 
 is @ common or a proper noun. If it were the 
 former, it would signify the litter or pedestal on 
 which the image of a deity was carried in cere- 
 monial processions [see illustrations in Perrot and 
 Chipiez’s Chaldea and Assyria, i. 75, ii. 90]. 
 Ewald maintained this view: ‘113, gestelle, von }.20 
 stellen mit dem ° als zweitem Wurzellaute.’ W. 
 R. Smith, too, held that a ‘pedestal’ was meant 
 (Prophets of Israel, p. 400). The balance of opinion 
 however, preponderates in the other direction. 
 Chiun is obviously parallel to Siccuth (RV), or 
 rather Saccuth (Assyr. Sak-kut): if the one 
 is the name of a deity, so is the other. Moreover, 
 it would be very strange if the prophet spoke of 
 the litter rather than of the god carried on it. 
 Ka-ai-va-ou (Schrader, KAT p. 443;* cf. SK 
 1874, p. 327) is the Assyr. name of the planet and 
 planetary deity Saturn, who was credited with 
 malignant influences. In Arab. and Persian, Saturn 
 is called by the same name. Rawlinson, PAwnicia, 
 p. 26, speaking of the immigration of Pheenician 
 tes into the Egyptian pantheon, says that this 
 
 eity found his way there under the name Ken. 
 The appositional phrase, ‘your star-god,’ falls in 
 perfectly with this interpretation. The evidence 
 of the VSS is discordant. Aq. and Sym. have x.oby 
 [Jer. says chion]. The LXX ‘Paddy, a corruption 
 of Kaddv. The Targ. and Pesh. reproduce the 
 Heb. The Arab. has Raphana; Vulg. imaginem. 
 
 With regard to the sense of the only passage, 
 Am 5*, where this deity is spoken of, there can be 
 no doubt that it is a threat: ‘But ye shall take up 
 Sakkuth your king, and Kaiv4n [or Kév4n] your 
 star-god, your images which ye have made for 
 
 ourselves, and I will cause you to go into exile.’ 
 
 Vellhausen, Die K7. Proph. p. 83, argues that this 
 threat must be a later addition, seeing that the 
 Israelites of Amos’ day were not chargeable with 
 the worship of Assyr. gods. The form of the word 
 has struck many students as anomalous. An 
 ingenious explanation has recently been advanced. 
 After adverting to the fact that its vocalisation is 
 the same as that of Siccuwth [mop, jv3], Dr. C. C 
 Torrey says: ‘It seems to me pretty certain that 
 for the form of these two names in our present 
 text we are indebted to the misplaced wit or zeal 
 of the Massoretes. It is the familiar trick of fitting 
 the pointing of one word to the consonant skeleton 
 
 * Schrader, in the above-cited passage, states that Sakkut ix 
 another name for Adar or Adrammelech, and that as A-tar= 
 Father of Fate, so Sak-kut=Head of Decision, both words being 
 of Accadian-Sumerian origin. 
 
884 CHLOE 
 
 
 
 CHRISTIAN 
 
 
 
 of another, as in nmjney, ob, nok, and so on. In 
 this case the pointing is taken from the word yipy 
 shiggdz, ‘‘abomination.”’ J. TAYLOR. 
 
 CHLOE (XAén), mentioned only in 1 Co 1".—St. 
 Paul had been informed of the (cxlcpara) dissen- 
 sions at Corinth brd rév X)dz7s, t.e. prob. by some 
 of her Christian slaves. Chloe herself may have 
 been either a Christian or a heathen, and may have 
 lived either at, Corinth or at Ephesus. In favour 
 of the latter is St. Paul’s usual tact, which would 
 not suggest the invidious mention of his inform- 
 ants’ names, if they were members of the Corinth- 
 ian Church. A. ROBERTSON. 
 
 CHOBA (Xwf4), Jth 4*. Chobai (Xwfat), Jth 1545, 
 maleeed with Damascus.—Perhaps the land of 
 opah. 
 
 CHOKE.—Death by drowning is not now de- 
 scribed as ‘ choking’; so in Mk 5" ‘the herd... 
 were choked in the sea,’ Amer. RV changes 
 ‘choked’ into ‘drowned’; but RV retains, to pre- 
 serve uniformity in tr. of rvlyw. ‘ Choking’ occurs 
 Sir 51‘ ‘ from the c. of fire’ (4rd rvvypod rupés). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHOLA (Xw\d).—An unknown locality men- 
 tioned in Jth 154, 
 
 CHOLER (Gr. xodépa, Lat. cholera), bile, is used 
 in Sir 31” 37 in the sense of a disease, ‘ perhaps 
 cholera, diarrhea’—Ozf. Eng. Dict. (xorépa, R 
 *colic’); and in Dn 87 11" in the sense of bitter 
 
 ene (72). Both meanings are old, and belonged 
 indeed to the Lat. cholera as early as the 3rd and 
 4th cent. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHORAZIN (TR Mt 117! Xopatty, Lk 10 Xwpatty ;s 
 TTrWH always Xopafelv).—A town situated at the 
 N. end of the Sea of Galilee on the W. of the 
 Jordan. The meaning of the name is uncertain. 
 It was a ‘city’ (dds), and therefore possessed a 
 synagogue, Our Lord laboured in it, as is shown 
 by His mention of it in Mt 117, Lk 10%. It is not 
 mentioned in Josephus, but the Jewslong after the 
 time of Christ praised the superior quality of its 
 wheat (Bab. Tal. ‘Menahoth’ 85 A). Jerome (c. A.D. 
 400) locates it at two miles from Capernaum, but 
 says that it was deserted. Beyond these meagre 
 notices the place has no history. Thomson (1857) 
 found a ruin called Kerazeh, which from its location 
 and the correspondence of names he thought was 
 the site of Chorazin. Wilson (1866) examined and 
 described the remains at this place, and confirms 
 the identificution of Thomson. This view is now 
 generally accepted. The ruins are of some import- 
 ance, the entire stonework, walls, columns, and 
 ornamentation being composed of black basalt 
 rock. A short paved road ran from the town to 
 the great caravan road leading past the Sea of 
 Galilee to Damascus. S. MERRILL. 
 
 CHORBE (Xopfé, AV Corbe), 1 Es 5!=Zaccal, 
 Ezr 2°, Neh 7}4, , 
 
 CHOSAMAUS.—In 1 Es 9” Siuwr Xocapatos 
 A, or Xocdyaos B, takes the place of jiyny, the 
 reading of the parallel passage Ezr 10% (see 
 SIMEON, No. 2). It is not improbable that the Gr. 
 reading is due to a copyist’s error, especially seeing 
 that the three proper names that follow Simeon in 
 the text of Ezra are omitted in 1 Es. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE, 
 
 CHRIST.—See JEsuS CHRIST, and MESSIAH. 
 
 CHRISTIAN (Xpioriavds, Ac 11% 2678, 1 P 416),— 
 The name borne by the ‘ followers of Christ’ in all 
 @ges and countries from NT times. 
 
 
 
 I. Place and date of origin.—According to the 
 account in Ac 11% the first to have the name 
 applied to them were the members of the church 
 at Antioch. This fact is especially mentioned by 
 the author of the Acts in a manner which shows 
 that he attached great significance to it. The 
 evangelising work in the city of Antioch waa 
 being carried out by men of eats and Cyrene 
 (i.e. by Hellenists), and though perhaps not 
 directed to Gentiles who had no previous con- 
 nexion with the synagogue (for we can scarcely 
 substitute “EAAnvas for “E\Anvords in face of the 
 MS evidence; see Westcott and Hort, N.7. in 
 Greek, Introd. ad loc.), yet on more liberal lines 
 than hitherto. In Antioch, too, was established 
 the first considerable church outside Palestine. 
 The mother-church of Jerus. was not slow to 
 recognise the importance of these events. Barnabas 
 was sent to guide and control the new community, 
 and the result of a year’s work in co-operation 
 with his chosen partner, Saul, was that they 
 s tant a great multitude, and the disciples were 
 called Christians first in Antioch.’ e cannot 
 fix exactly the date of this ‘whole year’ (v.), but 
 it is certainly before the Herodian persecution of 
 44, and, to judge from the expressions of v.?” 12! (ép 
 TavTats Tais Huepats, Kat’ éxeivoy Tov Kaipdv), not ve 
 long before it; perhaps between 40-44, whic 
 leaves room for the possibility that the words ris 
 éyévero ert Kiavélov, ‘which came to pass in the 
 days of Claudius,’ in v.% may imply that Agabus’ 
 prophecy was uttered in the reign of Caligula. 
 
 The objections made to the statement of Ac 1126 are based 
 ultimately upon the theory which discredits the authority of 
 that book as a comparatively late document. If we regard the 
 Acts as the work of St. Luke, the account it gives of the origin 
 of the name ‘Christian’ is invested with the authority of con- 
 temporary evidence, which cannot lightly be set aside on account 
 of Space difficulties. 'The objections which have been raisea 
 on the score of these difficulties may be gathered under three 
 heads. (a) Baur (Paul, His Life and Work, i. 94, footnote, 
 Eng. tr. 1873) says that the termination is Latin, and seems to 
 think that the name arose in Rome. The termination tanus 
 was used in Latin during the time of the civil wars to denote 
 ‘followers of’ (e.g. ‘Cxsariani,’ Hist. Bell. Afr. 13; ‘Pompeiani,’ 
 Cesar, Bell. Civil, iii. 44 et pass.), and acquired this meaning 
 from the adjectival sense ‘belonging to,’ which the form 
 already possessed, although it was very seldom used, iF 
 Tamphiliana domus (from ‘Tamphilus’), Nep. Att. xiii. 2; 
 Casarianum bellum, tb. vii. 1; Catoniana familia, Cic. ad Q. 
 Frat. 1v. vi. 5; Miloniana tempora, Balbus ap. Cic. E. a, Att. 
 1x.7,B2. The adoptive names in -tanusare not parallel because 
 the ‘i’ in these cases belongs to the stem of the gentile name, 
 e.g. Amilianus, Zmilius. So far, then, Baur was justified. The 
 termination -ianus was common in Latin of this period. But as 
 names like Cesariani, Pompeiani, etc., were known and used 
 throughout the whole Rom. Empire, it seems to have become 
 the fashion in Greek-speaking countries also to form other words 
 on the same analogy. Thus (omitting ‘ Herodiani,’ which may 
 have originated in Roman official circles) we find names such as 
 those mentioned in Hegesippus (ap Eus. Eccl. Hist. iv. 22), 
 Liwviavol, Kaproxpatiavol, Qvadrsytinavol, BaoAsidicvol, Laropyi- 
 devoi, The theory that this -s.vos is a native ‘ Asiatic type’ of 
 termination is not borne out by the instances quoted, in which 
 either the ‘i’ belongs to the stem, e.g. ’Aciavés (Acie) Dapdi- 
 ays (Zépdus), or the words are late enough to have been copied 
 from the Latin termination. But the instances quoted above 
 show that, whether derived from the Latin or not, the termina- 
 tion became common enough in Greek, and therefore there is no 
 necessity to ascribe to the name Xpiersavés @ Roman origin. 
 
 (b) Hausrath (N.7'. Times: Apostles, ii. pp. 211, 212, Eng. tr. 
 1895) objects to Ac 1126 that we find no trace of the word 
 ‘Christian’ in contemporary literature until the time of Trajan 
 But until the Neronian persecution the sect car scarcely have 
 attracted much attention in the Roman hterary class, and from 
 the year 64 to the time of Trajan the extant literature is ex- 
 tremely scanty, and so in both cases we are not justified in 
 arguing ex silentio, On the other hand, however, passages in 
 Tacitus and Suetonius furnish us with an indirect argument 
 that the name was known and used in Rome in the year 64. 
 Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) says, ‘quos... Christianos 
 appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus,’ etc. The imperfect 
 ‘appellabat’ is significant when we remember that Tacitus was 
 probably living in Rome in 64, and an eye-witness of the 
 Neronian persecution. It is quite probable that he is recording 
 a circumstance which he remembered in connexion with these 
 events, viz. that the word ‘Christiani’ was in everybody’s 
 mouth, and he somewhat naturally believed Christ Himself to 
 have been the author (auctor) of the name. Suetonius, writing 
 only a year or two later than Tacitus, also introduces the name 
 ‘Christiani’ into his reference to this persecution (Nere, 16, 
 
CHRISTIAN 
 
 ‘afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis 
 nove ac malefica’). Some have found additional evidence for 
 an early use of the name in the supposed occurrence of the 
 word in an inscription at Pompeii, t.e. dating before a.D. 79. 
 But this inscription (ClJL iv. 679), which is merely a few 
 lines scribbled upon a wall, cannot be deciphered with any 
 certainty. The letters -RISTIANI are fairly plain, and before 
 the R are two faint od gh ea ae strokes, probably II (=E). If 
 they are meant for the horizontal stroke has quite dis- 
 appeared. The drift of the whole inscription is as uncertain as 
 the reading of this word. See V. Schulze in ZKG@ iv. 125 ff. ; 
 Friedlander, Darstellungen aus der Sittengesch. Roma, iii. 645, 
 pn. 8; O. F. Arnold, Neron. Christenverfolg. p. 54. 
 
 Equally indecisive is the mention of the name in Josephus 
 (Ant. xvii. iii. 3), deivs v6 viv ray Kpsotiavay awd rovds avenac- 
 age etx iwidsrt 76 Qudey. This section is deservedly suspected 
 
 y the great bulk of modern scholars to be entirely or partly a 
 later forgery. The latest editor, Niese (Flavii Josephi Opera, 
 Berlin, 1892, Introd. to vol. iii.), rejects the whole section as an 
 interpolation. Others (e¢.g.G. A. Miller, Christus bei F’. Josephus) 
 incline to accept a substratum of authentic matter. The pas- 
 sage is not found at all until it occurs in a quotation by Euse- 
 bius (Hist. Eccl. i. 11; Dem. Evang. iii. 5), since whose time the 
 whole is repeated (excepting quite unimportant divergences) in 
 all MSS and other evidence for the text of this part of Josephus’ 
 works. (Besides the books referred to above, see also on this 
 subject O. Arnold, XXX Epistole de F. Josephi testimonio 
 
 Jesu Christo tribuit, 1661; O. Daubuz, Pro testimonio F. 
 
 hi de Jesu Christo, 1706; F. H. Schedel, F. Jos. de Jesu 
 Christo testatus, 1840 ; Gieseler, Lehrb. d. Kire. 
 en, Th. Quartalschrift, 1865, 1; Schiirer, 
 
 € R. A. Lipsius urges the silence of St. Paul’s Epistles, and 
 os eed of the whole body of the earliest Christian literature. 
 e 
 
 each, 1824, i. 65; 
 JP 1, ii. 143 ff.). 
 
 regards the Asiatic origin of the name as probable, but is 
 not inclined to date it earlier than the last decade of the 1st 
 cent. But even if we set aside, as he does, the evidence of 
 Acts and 1 Peter, this silence explains itself from the fact that 
 the name arose in non-Christian circles, and was for some time 
 confined to them. 
 
 II. By whom was the name invented ?—Here we 
 are left without direct evidence. The xpyyuarioa 
 (EV ‘were called’) of Ac 11% might be used in- 
 differently of a name adopted by oneself, or given 
 by others (see Thayer, NJ Lex. s.v.). But there 
 are certain hints which furnish some clues. 
 
 (a) The Christians do not seem to have used it of 
 themselves, at any rate within the apostolic period. 
 They called themselves ‘the brethren’ (ol dde\gol, 
 Ac 14? 15, Ro 16 etc.), ‘the disciples’ (ol uadyral, 
 Ac 11* 1352 20%), ‘the saints’ (oi dye, Ro 16%, 
 1 Co 161, Eph 18 etc.), ‘the faithful’ (of wicrol, Ac 
 10%, 1 Ti 4°13), ‘the elect’ {ol éxdexrol, Mt 247, 
 Mk 13”, 2 Ti 2,1 P 1), ‘the way’ (7 656s, Ac 9? 
 19% 3 2472), but never ‘Christians.’ In the onl 
 
 ge in which this is apparently not true (1 
 
 416), ‘asa Christian’ is parallel with ‘as a thief,’ 
 ‘as a murderer,’ which shows that the writer is 
 yea for the moment from the point of view 
 of the heathen persecutor. St. Paul (Ac 26”) 
 seems even to avoid using the name ‘Christian,’ 
 which Agrippa had employed, and to substitute 
 for it the periphrasis rorofros diotos cal ¢yd elms. It 
 is not probable, then, that we must look to Chris- 
 tians themselves for the invention of this title. 
 
 (6) Nor is it much more probable that the Jews 
 invented it. The only direct name by which they call 
 the Christians in NT is that of Nagwpatou, ‘ Nazarenes’ 
 (Ac 245). Elsewhere they speak of them as # alpeois 
 arn, ‘this sect’ (tb. 28%; cf. 244). On one occa- 
 sion, indeed, we find the word in the mouth of 
 the Jewish king Agrippa (Ac 26%). But Agrippa 
 had spent a great part of his life in Rom. circles, 
 and was speaking on this occasion at Czesarea 
 before a Rom. audience. It is too much then to 
 infer from this passage that the word ‘Christian’ 
 was in use among the Jews. On the other hand, 
 there is a strong @ priors improbability that the 
 Jews, even in irony, would call the new sect 
 ‘followers of the Messiah, the Anointed One’ (4 
 Xpiorés). 
 
 (c) More probably it is to the heathen populace 
 of Antioch that we must look for the origin of the 
 name. It was amongst the populace (‘vulgus,’ in 
 toc. cit.) that Tacitus’ attention was drawn to the 
 word in Rome. It was (next to the Jews) the 
 heathen populace whose notice was first attracted 
 
 VOL. I.—26 
 
 CHRISTIAN 
 
 by the Christians. And their notice was attracted 
 to them as the preachers of one Christos. This 
 name was always on their lips. It was the name 
 in which they were baptized (Ac 2® 81° 10%, Ja 27*). 
 It is not surprising, then, that the Antiochenes, 
 hearing that this Christos had been alive not more 
 than fifteen ears before, should call his followers the 
 Xporiavol, e must, however, leave room for the 
 possibility that the word may have originated in 
 the Latin-speaking suite of the legatus, 1.e. in the 
 official class, though not necessarily as an official 
 name. Though we hear of nothing which would 
 bring the Christians prominently before this class 
 in Antioch, as happened in other towns, yet, in our 
 complete ignorance of the relations between the 
 Christians and this official class in Antioch at the 
 time, this might easily be the case without our 
 knowing anything of it. 
 
 Ill. Early spread of the name.—We must be on 
 our guard against overestimating the attention 
 which the Christian body attracted in Antioch at 
 the time when the name wasinvented. The &y)os 
 lxavés, ‘much people,’ of Ac 11% might be almost 
 unnoticeable in so large a metropolis as Antioch, 
 and the arrival of another new teaching would 
 easily escape observation in a great centre of 
 thought, where all the religions of the world jostled 
 with one another. St. Luke, writing at a time 
 when the name had become famous, assigns to its 
 origin an importance reflected from its later 
 history. He is writing also from within the 
 Christian circle, to which the name would be 
 familiar long before its application became general. 
 But though confined, it may be, in its beginnings 
 to that quarter of the city where the Christians 
 had settled, it must have spread very quickly 
 beyond Antioch to all parts of the empire whither 
 Christianity had made its way. Less than twenty 
 
 ears after its birth we hear it mentioned in the 
 
 om. official circle at Caesarea as a familiar word, 
 whose signification was too well known for it to 
 need introduction or explanation (Ac 26%). A year 
 or two later it is in common use among the popu- 
 lace of Rome (Tac. Joc. ctt.), and not far from the 
 same date St. Luke indirectly implies that the 
 name has become famous (1178). St Peter, writing 
 probably between 64-67 from Rome to the Christian 
 communities in Asia Minor (1 P 5" 1"), assumes 
 that it is quite well known over all that district 
 (ib, 4/5), From the correspondence between the 
 younger Pliny and the emperor Trajan in 112-113 
 we find that it is by that time equally familiar 
 to members of the official bodies in Rome and 
 Bithynia. Finally, in the 1 pene Epp.» written in 
 the first or at the beg. of the second decade of the 
 2nd cent., we find for the first time that the Chris- 
 tians have accepted the name and use it amongst 
 themselves (e.g. Eph. 114, Rom. 3, Loleep 7). 
 
 IV. Significance of the name.—St. Luke evidently 
 wishes to connect the origin of the name with the 
 final departure of Christianity from merely Jewish 
 ideals and the dawning consciousness of this fact 
 in theGentile mind. It is then fair to ask, ‘ What 
 were the distinctive marks of the new sect to those 
 who first used the word Christian?’ If it did not 
 originate as a sarcastic jeu d’esprit, it very soon 
 came to be used with a contemptuous signification. 
 It occurs with an ee of scorn in the 
 mouth of Agrippa, ‘With but little persuasion 
 thou wouldest fain make me a Christian ’ (Ac 26%). 
 
 * Many editors take this passage as a direct allusion to the 
 name ‘Christian.’ The expression +3 évoed tives ial tive 
 xaAsiv is @ Hebraism which occurs many times in the LXX. The 
 Heb. equivalent denotes that the person whose name is ‘called 
 over’ a thing possesses the rights of ownership in it. See esp. 
 28 1228 ‘Lest I take the city, and my name be called upon it’ 
 (RVm), and the note of Driver, ad loc (Heb. Text of Sam.). 
 The allusion in Ja 27 is, then, more correctly referred te 
 baptism in the name of Christ (see Mayor, Ep. af St. James, ad 
 loc.). See also art. Carn. 
 
 
 
586 CHRISTOLOGY 
 
 From 1 P we learn that in heathen mouths ‘ Chris- 
 tian’ was practically equivalent to ‘malefactor’ 
 (425118 Vet. 213 '318): hat were the reasons for this 
 ae and contemptt They were perhaps mainly 
 our. 
 
 (a) The object of the Christians’ worship was a 
 crucified may:, ‘unto Jews a stumbling-block, and 
 unto Gentiles foolishness’ (1 Co 1%). Compare 
 the contempt expressed in the Palatine graflito, 
 probably of the 2nd cent., representing a Christian 
 worshipping a crucified man with an ass’s head. 
 
 (6) The Christians themselves were ‘not many 
 wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many 
 noble’ (2b.%), but ‘base’ and ‘despised’ (16.4). 
 peny of them were slaves (Eph 6°, Col 3, 1 P 2'8, 
 1 Co 7#). 
 
 (c) There was much in heathen social life 
 which, even if innocent in itself, suggested associa- 
 tions offensive to Christian scruples (1 P 4* 4, 1 Co 
 81-8, Ro 141-3), Again, it must have caused many 
 heart-burnings and domestic strifes when the new 
 religion made its way into families. Hence arose 
 the hatred of Christians as morose and unsociable 
 Puritans. 
 
 (d) Besides merely holding aloof from heathen 
 gociety, Christians were fearlessly outspoken in 
 condemnation of its vices and idolatry (Eph 2)? 
 49 Ro 118-53), The secret consciousness that such 
 condemnation was not at bottom unfounded, em- 
 bittered the heathen world still more against its 
 self-constituted censors. From this hatred it was 
 but a short step to the fabrication of slanders 
 (1 P 2" 316), and such charges found a shadow of 
 support in the mystery with which the Christians 
 invested their acts of worship. At the same time 
 the proofs of their world-wide organization gave 
 them the aspect of a secret society banded together 
 against the religion and manners of the day. 
 
 Somewhat later in the corrupted form ‘Chres- 
 tianus’ the Apologists applied the word to 
 themselves as tis “good ’ (xpyorol). The word 
 Xpiorés, though known to the Greeks as an ad- 
 jective, was not used as a proper name except to 
 translate the Hebrew ‘ Messiah.’ Xpyords, on the 
 other hand, was a tolerably familiar name. Hence 
 arose the corruption (probably towards the middle 
 of 2nd cent.) into Xpyoriavol. Suetonius (Claud. 25) 
 uses ‘Chrestus’ for ‘Christus’; but there is no 
 evidence that he connected the name with ‘ Chris- 
 tiani,’ which appears (ero, 16) without any variant 
 reading ‘Chrestiani.’ It appears as ‘Christiani’ 
 also in Tacitus and Pliny (doc. cit.). Justin Martyr 
 plays on the double name (Ap. i. 55 A), Scov ye 
 éx rod dvéuaros rods Karnyopobyras maddov Koddferv 
 bdelrere.  Xpiocriavol yap elvar xarnyopovuea* rd dé 
 xenorby puccioba ob Slkavov. Cf. Tert. Ap. 3, ‘cum 
 et perperam Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vobis 
 (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de 
 suavitate et benignitate compositum est.’ 
 
 LrreraTurs.—R. A. Lipsius, Uber den Ursprung und dltesten 
 Gebrauch des Christennamens, 1873; Zeller, Bibl. Wérterbuch 
 a.v. ‘Christ’; Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, 1889, Ignatius, i. pp. 
 415-419; Keim, Aus dem Urchrist. Essay vi., Fragmente aus 
 der rom. Verfolgung, § 1, ‘Das neronische Verbrechen und der 
 Christenname’ ; C. F. Arnold, Neron. Christenverfolg. ; Ramsay, 
 Church in Roman Empire (passim). S. C. GAYFORD. 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY.— The purpose of this article 
 is to reproduce the conception of Himself and of 
 His relation to God left by Christ in the minds 
 of His earliest followers; and then to estimate the 
 truth and worth of this conception. For this 
 inquiry, we fortunately have, in the NT, abund- 
 ant materials. We there find various, and in 
 
 reat part independent, witnesses speaking to us 
 rom the first and second generations of the fol- 
 Jowers of Christ, and comprising some who stood 
 :n close relation to Him. 
 
 i. 1. The undiyputed and well-attested genuine- 
 
 ‘CHRISTOLOGY 
 
 ness of some of the Epistles of St. Paul, and the 
 
 preven genuineness of the others, make these the 
 est starting-point for our inquiry. For in them 
 
 we have a secure platform on which we may stand 
 
 firmly, and from which we can survey the entire 
 
 evidence. We shall then consider the Synoptic 
 
 oerel and the writings attributed to the Apostle 
 ohn. 
 
 Throughout his Epistles we notice the profound 
 reverence with which St. Paul bows before Christ as 
 in the presence of One incomparably greater than 
 himself or the greatest of men. There is no con- 
 
 arison of Christ with other men, and no trace of 
 ainiliarity, or of that sense of equality, which no 
 differences of rank or ability can altogether efface. 
 But there is everywhere a recognition of the 
 honour of being a servant, or indeed a slave, of so 
 glorious a Master. 
 
 sit. Paul speaks of Christ, eg. in Ro 14 5%, 
 1Co 1°, Gal 44, as the Son of God, using this term 
 as « title of honour distinguishing Him even from 
 ths adopted sons of God. In Ro 8%, and again 
 in v.®2, he calls Him God’s own Son whom He sent 
 into the world and gave up on behalf of us all. 
 This last passage suggests a comparison with a 
 human father who gives up to peril or death his 
 own son to save others who are not his sons. And 
 this comparison dominates the whole teaching 
 of St. Paul and of the NT about the death of 
 Christ. It implies that Christ is the Son of God 
 in a sense not shared by other men. Now the word 
 son suggests derivation of one person from another. 
 And the term Son of God given to Christ as a 
 mark of honour, distingwishing Him from all others, 
 suggests irresistibly that He is derived from the 
 Father, but in a manner differing in kind from 
 hae by which we sprang from the Creator’s 
 
 ands. 
 
 In Ro 3% St. Paul teaches that God gave up 
 Christ to die in order to harmonise with His own 
 justice the justification of those who believe in 
 Christ. This implies, not only that among a race 
 of sinners Christ is sinless, but that in moral 
 worth He is equal to the whole race for which He 
 died. In Ro 5 Christ is contrasted with 
 Adam as the second and greater Head of the race. 
 This gives to Him a unique superiority to all the 
 generations of men. 
 
 In Ro 2! we read that ‘God will judge the 
 secret things of men through Jesus Christ’ ; and in 
 2 Co 5” St. Paul writes that himself and all others 
 ‘must needs appear before the judgment-seat of 
 Christ.’ Similar teaching is attributed to St. Paul 
 in an address recorded in Ac 17°. In 1 Th 4% 
 we read that at the voice of Christ the dead will 
 rise; and in Ph 3” that by His mighty power 
 He will transform the lowly hodias of His servants 
 into the likeness of His own glorious body. 
 
 In Col 116, a document which we may accept 
 with complete confidence as written by St. Paul, we 
 read that in Christ, and through His agency, and 
 for Him, all things, even the successive ranks of 
 angels, were created ; that He is earlier than all 
 things ; and that in Him all things have their unity, 
 or ‘stand together.’ 
 
 All this proves decisively that, in the eyes of the 
 pupil of Gamaliel, the Carpenter of Nazareth stood 
 infinitely above men and angels, in a position of 
 unique dignity and unique nearness to God. This 
 must be accepted as well-attested historical fact. 
 
 2. We turn now to another group of documents 
 differing widely from the Epistles of St. Paul, the 
 Synoptic Gospels. These were accepted without 
 a shadow of doubt in the latter part of the 2nd 
 cent. all round the Mediterranean as written by 
 the Apostle Matthew, and by Mark and Luke, 
 friends of apostles. The First Gospel, as the 
 farthest removed from the theological standpoint 
 
 
 

 
 ' the Parable of the 
 
 eee ee ee” ee ee oe ee re 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY 
 
 of St. Paul, is specially valuable in the inquiry 
 before us. 
 
 Throughout the Synoptic Gospels we find Christ 
 making for Himself claims corresponding to the 
 homage constantly paid to Him in the Epistles of 
 St. Paul. In Mt 5!’ the young Teacher from Naza- 
 reth announces that He has come, not to annul 
 the law and the prophets, but to complete and 
 fulfil. In ch. 117” He asserts that He alone and 
 those taught by Him know God. He calls to Him- 
 self all the weary and heavy-laden, and promises 
 to give them rest by laying upon them His yoke. 
 Yet He speaks of ieee as meek and lowly of 
 heart. And no one resents these strange assertions 
 as involving undue assumption. 
 
 As in the Epistles of St. Paul, so in the Synoptic 
 yee Christ is called, in a special sense, the Son 
 of God. This title is given to im by a voice from 
 heaven at His baptism, in Mt 3”, Mk 1", Lk 3”; 
 and His claim to it is the question at issue in His 
 temptation. The same august title is, as narrated in 
 Mt 16", given to Him by St. Peter, and is accepted 
 by Christ at an important turning-point of His 
 teaching. Its meaning is expounded by Christ in 
 ineyard in Mt 218-41, Mk 
 12), Lk 2096; where, er the ill-treatment of 
 his servants, the master sends his son, thinking 
 that, whatever the vinedressers have done to them, 
 they will reverence him. Christ here claims to be 
 as much above the prophets of the Old Covenant, 
 above Moses and Isaiah and John the Baptist, as 
 the master’s son is above the highest of his ser- 
 vants. The same contrast is found in He 358, 
 where Moses is called a faithful servant in the 
 household, and Christ a Son over the household. 
 That this comparison is found in these four docu- 
 ments, one of them so different from the others, 
 reveals its firm place in the thought of the apos- 
 tolic Church. It implies clearly that, to the 
 writer’s thought, Christ’s relation to God, in virtue 
 of His derivation from Him, differs in kind from 
 that of even the greatest of men. 
 
 As recognised by St. Paul, but more conspicu- 
 panty, Christ claims in Mt 7% 13! 1627 2551-45, and 
 in the parallel passages, that in the great day He 
 
 will sit upon a throne and pronounce judgment on 
 all men; while the angels do His bidding as His 
 
 servants, This teaching raises Christ as much 
 above the rest of mankind as the undee who sits in 
 dignity on the bench is above the criminal who 
 stands at the bar. 
 
 3. Another marked type of NT teaching is found 
 in the Fourth Gospel, which a unanimous tradi- 
 tion, reaching back to the 2nd cent., and supported 
 by powerful internal evidence, attributes to the 
 beloved Apostle John. In it we have teaching of 
 Christ given, apparently, not as in the Synoptic 
 Gospels to the many, but to a favoured few, and 
 of the utmost value. 
 
 Christ is here represented as making for Him- 
 self claims practically the same as those recorded 
 in the Synoptic Gospels. In Jn 757% He bids all 
 the thirsty to come to Him and drink; and de- 
 clares that they who believe in Him shall them- 
 selves become fountains of living water. He calls 
 Himself in 8}? 95 ‘ the light of the world’; and in 
 1041-16 ‘ the good Shepherd ’ of the ‘one flock.’ In 
 10” He asserts, ‘I and the Father are one.’ In 
 11* He calls Himself ‘the Resurrection and the 
 Life’ ; and in 14° claims to be the only way through 
 which men can come to God. 
 
 In close harmony with the Epistles of St. Paul 
 and the Synoptic Gospels, Christ speaks of Himself 
 in Jn 5” 9 ll4as the Son of God. The same title 
 is in ch. 1%: “ given to Him by the Baptist and by 
 Nathanael. In ch. 31% 38 Christ claims to be the 
 only-begotten Son. The same term is found in 
 1 Jn 4°, and a similar one in Jn 1 ¥*, 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY 387 
 
 In Jn 5” Christ asserts that ‘the Father has 
 given all the judgment to the Son, in order that 
 all men may honour the Son according as the 
 honour the Father’; and that an ‘hour comet 
 when all that are in the graves will hear his voice 
 and will go forth, they who have done the good 
 things to a resurrection of life, and they who have 
 done the bad things to a resurrection of judgment.’ 
 
 In Jn 10* 58 the enemies of Christ assert that 
 by speaking of God as His ‘own Father,’ Christ 
 was making Himself God, or equal to God. This 
 equality is involved in 5! ‘whatever things he 
 does, these also the Son does in like manner’; in 
 14° ‘he that hath seen me hath seen the Father,’ 
 and in ch. 16% ‘all things, so many as the Father 
 hath, are mine.’ 
 
 In close harmony with Col 126, we read in Jn 1? 
 ‘all things through his agency came into being, 
 and apart from him came into being nothing which 
 hath come into being.’ This careful repetition of 
 a word denoting to begin to be isa marked contrast 
 to v.1 ‘in the beginning was the Word.’ Sov." 
 ‘the world through his agency came into being.’ 
 
 In Jn 20%, in view of the pierced hands and side 
 of the Risen One, Thomas accosts Him as ‘my 
 Lord and my God.’ This supreme honour Christ 
 accepts. It is given to Him, in express words, by 
 the evangelist in Jn 1’, where we read ‘the Word 
 was God.’ The assertion immediately following, 
 that through His agency all things were made, 
 compels us to accept this term as involving the 
 infinite attributes of deity. 
 
 Similar honour is paid to Christ in the Book of 
 Revelation. In Rev 5° we see Him in the midst 
 of the throne as a slain lamb, an object of worship 
 and lofty praise to those nearest the throne, and 
 to every creature in heaven and earth and sea. 
 Yet the interpreter angel twice (19! 22°) refuses 
 worship from John, saying, ‘ worship God.’ 
 
 ii. It is now evident that throughout the various 
 documents and types of thought contained in NT 
 we have one harmonious picture of the dignity of 
 Christ. In the Epistles of St. Paul we noticed the 
 
 rofound reverence with which he bowed before 
 hrist as in the presence of One far greater than 
 himself or the greatest of men, and we found a 
 complete counterpart to this reverence in the lofty 
 claims which in each of the four Gospels He is 
 recorded to have made for Himself. In all these 
 documents the title Son of God is claimed by 
 Christ, of is given to Him, as a title of unique 
 dignity, and as noting a unique relation to God. 
 The meaning of this title is determined by the 
 Parable of the Vineyard recorded in each of the 
 Synoptic Gospels, by the term only-begotten Son 
 in the Fourth Gospel and in the Ist Ep. of St. 
 John, by St. Paul’s appeal to the love of God 
 manifested in the gift o His own Son to save men, 
 and by the contrast in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 between Moses, a faithful servant, and Christ the 
 Sonof God. This agreement, in writers so various, 
 leaves no room to doubt that, as matter of historical 
 fact, this title, and in this sense, was actuall 
 given to Christ by His earliest followers. It is 
 equally clear that they looked upon Him as the 
 designated Judge of the world. e have also seen 
 that the two greatest writers of NT looked upon 
 Christ as earlier than the universe, and as the 
 Agent through whom it was created. One writer 
 ives to Him the supreme title God, and records 
 is own earlier acceptance of the same. 
 
 iii. In this harmonious account, by various writers, 
 of the dignity of Christ we notice marks of develop- 
 ment. In the Synoptic Gospels we find it in ita 
 most rudimentary form ; in the Epistles of St. Paul 
 it is more fully developed ; in the Fourth Gospel 
 the development is complete. Even within the 
 writings of St. Paul, and again within the Fourth 
 
 
 

 
 388 CHRISTOLOGY 
 
 - CHRISTOLOGY 
 
 
 
 Gospel, we notice development. In 1 Co 8° we 
 read of ‘one Lord, through whom are all things’ ; 
 and in Col 12% 1’, written in the mature thought of 
 St. Paul’s first imprisonment, we read that the 
 Soa existed before all creatures, and that through 
 His agency even the successive ranks of angels 
 were created,—a thought much in advance of any- 
 thing in his earlier Epistles. Very much in 
 advance of Christ’s teaching about Himself before 
 His death, are the exclamation of Thomas, and 
 Se ea of the evangelist that ‘the Word was 
 God. 
 It is worthy of note that this development 
 proceeds always on the same lines, that whatever 
 we read about Christ in the Epistles of St. Paul, 
 and indeed in the Fourth Gospel, is either a 
 necessary inference from the teaching of Christ 
 about Himself in the First Gospel, or is needful in 
 order to give to that teaching unity and intelli- 
 ibility. Between the accounts of the dignity of 
 hrist given by the different writers of NT there 
 is no contradiction. They differ only in their 
 degree of definiteness and completeness. Indeed 
 there is much greater difference between Mt 19!” 
 and 28 and between Jn 1! and 14% than between 
 the teaching of the First Gospel, taken as a whole, 
 and that of the Fourth. 
 
 Possibly, the more fully developed teaching of the 
 Epistles of St. Paul and of the Fourth Gospel about 
 the Son of God may, in its literary form, have 
 been influenced by Gentile modes of thought and 
 expression. Certainly, St. Paul’s modes of thought 
 and expression were moulded by his Gentile sur- 
 roundings. But the complete harmony of all NT 
 writers about the Son of God, and the infinite gulf 
 which separates their teaching from all other earlier 
 or contemporary teaching, leave no room for sub- 
 stantial contributions from sources external to 
 Israel. Contemporary Greek or Oriental thought 
 does little or nothing to elucidate the teaching of 
 NT about the Son of God. 
 
 iv. The eee | adduced and expounded above 
 involves a new and definite conception of God. For 
 the assertions of Christ in the NT are equivalent 
 to a claim to share with the Father the infinite 
 attributes of deity ; and the contrast between Him 
 who was with God in the beginning and the 
 universe which sprang into being by His agenc A 
 suggests irresistibly that, whereas even the bre t 
 ones of heaven began to be, He exists, as a person 
 distinct from the Father, from eternity. 
 
 Faint indications in the OT of a plurality of 
 
 ersons in the Godhead have been pointed out. 
 But they are dim and uncertain. The definite and 
 complex and yet harmonious conception of God, 
 which underlies the teaching about Christ of the 
 various writers of NT, is altogether different 
 from every conception of God set forth in the 
 entire literature of the world, except so far as 
 later literature has been moulded by Christian 
 teaching. It is a matter of simple historical fact 
 that the NT embodies a complete revolution in 
 man’s thought about God. 
 
 This new and complex metaphysical conception 
 of God has survived to our day, and has been in all 
 
 es the deep conviction of an immense majorit 
 of the followers of Christ, and esp. of nearly a 
 those who have done most to spread His name and 
 influence. We hear much about theological 
 differences between contending Churches and 
 schools of Christian thought. Far more wonder- 
 ful than these differences is the agreement of the 
 mass of the servants of Christ about the dignity 
 of their Master, and about His relation to Goan 
 
 Of this agreement, the various Creeds and 
 Confessions of the various Churches are decisive 
 
 roof. The so-called Nicene Creed is accepted by 
 both Greek and Romar Churches, and even by the 
 
 Armenian Church, which rejected the subsequent 
 Definition of Chalcedon. Even this wide agree- 
 ment is not the whole. While rejecting much of 
 the teaching of the Church of Rome, the German 
 and Swiss and Eng. Reformers clung tenaciously 
 to the doctrine of the Son of God embodied in the 
 Nicene Creed. It is to-day the deep conviction of 
 both Anglicans and Nonconformists in England 
 and of the various Churches in America. In other 
 words, the remarkable agreement of the various 
 writers of NT about the dignity of Christ finds a 
 complete counterpart in the wonderful agreement 
 of an immense majority of His followers in all 
 ages and nations. 
 
 v. Of these well-attested historical facts, only 
 three explanations are possible. 
 
 It ey be suggested that Christ was Himself in 
 error. If so, the greatest religious teacher the 
 world ever knew, the author of a religious impulse 
 which has changed and raised human thought and 
 life, was in deep error touching the nature of God 
 and touching His own relation to God; and His 
 error has been shared by nearly all those who have 
 done most for the religious life of men. If this be 
 so, the Light of the World was, and they to whom 
 He has been the Light of Life are, in deep dark- 
 ness. So absurd a suggestion is not worthy of a 
 moment’s consideration. 
 
 The only remaining alternative is either that 
 Christ is in very truth what the various writers of 
 NT represent Him as claiming to be, and being, 
 or that His immediate followers, those who gained 
 for Him the homage of succeeding ages, and 
 through whom He became the Saviour of the 
 world, misunderstood altogether the teaching of 
 their Master about Himself and about God, and 
 made for Him, and represented Him as makin 
 for Himself, claims which He would have rejosted 
 with horror as blasphemous. This hypothesis 
 pes us to believe that the various and very 
 different writers of NT, including a friend and 
 colleague of the murderers of Christ, fell into the 
 same error, and adopted the same complicated 
 metaphysical conception of God therein involved. 
 Nay, more. It requires us to believe that this 
 error survived the theological conflicts of later 
 days, and is now the deep and cherished, but mis- 
 taken, conviction of nearly all those who have done 
 most to spread the name of Christ and the bless- 
 ings of Christianity. This is the easiest alternative 
 ye to those who reject the harmonious teachin; 
 of the NT about Christ and the historic faith o 
 the Church of Christ. 
 
 vi. One more difficulty remains. Not a few intelli- 
 gent and educated men who pay homage to Christ 
 as the greatest of men refuse to accept as correct 
 the portrait of Him givenin NT. If this portrait 
 be incorrect, these men have detected an ancient 
 and serious error, and have restored to the civilised 
 world the true conception of God. We expect to 
 see in them as a fruit of their important discovery 
 some moral and spiritual superiority to those who 
 are still held fast by the great delusion. We look 
 in vain. They who deny the divinity of Christ 
 have done very little to carry the gospel to the 
 heathen, to rescue the perishing at home, or to help 
 forward the spiritual life of men. 
 
 On the other hand, if the confident belief of tha 
 apostles and of the mass of Christians in all ages 
 be correct, the facts of modern Christendom are 
 explained. If Christ be the only-begotten Son of 
 God, His birth was by far the greatest event in the 
 history of our race, and Himself infinitely greater 
 than the greatest of men. We wonder not that 
 His advent was a new era in human thought and 
 in history, and that the Christian nations enjoy 
 to-day a position of unique superiority to all others. 
 
 The precise relation of the Son to the Father 
 
 
 
 , 
 “ 
 1 
 
CHRONICLES, I. AND IL. 
 
 
 
 CHRONICLES, I. AND IL. 389 
 
 
 
 belongs to the domain of systematic doctrinal 
 theology. The various yet harmonious Veaclithg 
 of NT implies that the Son is, in a real and 
 lorious sense, equal to, yet personally distinct 
 Tom, subordinate to, and one with, the Father. 
 But this mysterious subject lies beyond the scope 
 of this article. 
 
 It has been sufficient for our purpose to show 
 that the various and very different writers of NT 
 
 ive one harmonious account of the dignity of 
 
 hrist and of His relation to God, that this con- 
 ception has been in all ages the deep conviction of 
 the mass of His followers, and that this remarkable 
 unanimity, ancient and modern, can be explained 
 nly by the truth of the conviction so widespread 
 and so firm. 
 
 This important result of our examination of 
 documentary evidence receives wonderful con- 
 firmation from the direct inward moral and 
 spiritual effects of the doctrine expounded above. 
 In all ages the vision of the Son of God, divine yet 
 human, has been a powerful stimulus to every kind 
 of excellence, an encouragement in conflict, a joy 
 in sorrow, and the Light of Life under the Cmte 
 of death. The moral helpfulness of this vision is 
 & sure witness that the vision itself is an appre- 
 hension of objective reality. J. AGAR BEET. 
 
 CHRONICLES, I. and II.—PosITIon In CANON.— 
 The name Chronicles is given, in the English Bible, 
 to two books written in historical form, which 
 immediately follow 1 and 2 Kings. In the LXX 
 their position is the same. This arrangement is 
 due to similarity of contents. Heb. MSSplace them, 
 as one book, in the third division of OT, Kéthibhim 
 (o'3:nz), the Hritings (Hagiographa), either at the 
 beginning (so in the Massoretic lists and in Spanish 
 MSS) or at the end (so in the Talmud, Baba 
 bathra 13b-15, usually in German MSS, and from 
 these in printed Heb. Bibles), rarely in some other 
 
 ition (e.g. third, after Dn and Ezr, Kennicott 
 
 ; it is not probable that Jerome (Prol. Galeat.) 
 had MSS authority for placing it third from the 
 end, followed by Ezr and Est). Its position, 
 whether prefixed or affixed to the other Hagio- 
 grapha, is probably due to the late date at which 
 canonical authority was ascribed to it. Exactly 
 when this occurred we cannot say. The historian 
 Eupolemus (c. B.C. 150) seems to have known, not 
 merely the Heb. text, but the LXX translation 
 of Ch, so that it appears to have been reckoned in 
 the Canon not much after B.c. 200, at latest (Euseb. 
 Prep. Evang. ix. 33, 34, cf. 2Ch 2*1°; Freudenthal, 
 Alex, Polyhistor, 108, 119, cited by Schiirer, HJP 
 I. iii. pp. 162, 204). 
 
 Unity.—It is evident that the two Books of Ch 
 are really one. The narrative is continuous, and 
 the division due only to convenience, like the 
 modern division of a book into volumes. Like the 
 division of S and K, it was made in Alexandria 
 prior to our oldest MSS of LXX, passed through 
 the LXX into the Vulg. and the modern versions, 
 including the Eng., appeared in Heb. in the printed 
 text of the Bomberg Bible (1521), and is now 
 customary in printed Heb. Bibles. The Books of 
 Ezr and Neh form a continuation of the same 
 work, by the same hand, and might with pro- 
 priety be entitled 3 Chronicles, or included under 
 the one name of Chronicles (see EZRA AND 
 NEHEMIABR). 
 
 NAmE.—The name of Chronicles in Hebrew is 
 Dibhéré Hayydmim (0°27 7127), a phrase occurring 
 frequently in K and Ch with the meaning annals, 
 or records of such and such a king (lit. the acts of 
 the days of, etc.). The LXX (followed by the 
 
 Vulg.) adopted the name Téa Ilapademéueva, of 
 doubtful meaning ; the usual interpretation is of 
 things passed over, by Sam. and 
 
 ings, but this 
 
 does not explain the present tense of the participle. 
 The Eng. name Chronicles is a fairly good trans- 
 lation of the Heb. name. It can be traced back to 
 Jerome (Prologus Galeat.; introduction prefixed 
 to his trans. of S and K): ‘Septimus [liber] Dabre 
 Ajamim (o' 37), id est verba dierum, quod 
 significantius Xpovxéy totius divine historiz pos- 
 sumusappellare. Qui liber apud nos Ilapadecwopevwy 
 primus et secundus inscribitur’ (Migne, Hieron., 
 ed. Vallarsi, ix. 554). 
 
 CONTENTS.—The period embraced in Ch extends 
 from Adam to the Restoration of the Jews under 
 Cyrus. 
 
 (1) 1 Ch 1-9 contain chiefly genealogies (begin- 
 ning ‘Adam, Seth, Enosh’), coming down through 
 Noah’s sons, and then particularly through the 
 line of Shem to Esau and Israel and their sons, 
 with their descendants. The last twelve vv. of 
 ch. 1 contain a list of Edomitish kings and chiefs. 
 In the various genealogies many problems arise, 
 due in part to defective text, in part to lack of 
 completeness in the tables, in part to a confusion 
 between names of persons and names of places and 
 peoples. Brief narratives, from various periods, 
 are interspersed among the genealogies (e.g. 2% 
 49- 10. 89-48 59. 10. 18-22, 25.26) The last genealogy in this 
 collection, 9°“! (repeated, with some differences, 
 from 87-8), makes a kind of transition to the 
 following section. 
 
 (2) a. 1 Ch 10-29 are concerned with David’s 
 reign, the introduction being the last battle and 
 the death of Saul (ch. 10), and the conclusion the 
 accession of Solomon (23! 28° 29"), 6. 2 Ch 1-9 
 are devoted to Solomon’s reign. c. 2 Ch 10-36 
 contain the history of the kingdom of Judah down 
 to the fall of Jerus., with the division of the 
 kingdoms as preface, and the Restoration-edict of 
 Cyrus as appendix, or, more exactly, as intro- 
 duction to the history of the Restoration and the 
 early Jewish community given in Ezr-Neh. (On 
 the parallels, see below.) 
 
 STYLE.—The style of Ch is strongly marked. 
 The genealogical lists, the religious interests, and 
 the edifying tendency of the author (see below) of 
 themselves impart a certain tone to it; thus there 
 is often comparative brevity and lack of precision 
 in describing external affairs, —even such important 
 ones as the temple-building, Sennacherib’s invasion, 
 and the fall of Jerus.,—while pedigrees, speeches, 
 and matters relating to ritual are given at length. 
 Other essential features of it are a peculiar vocabu- 
 lary, peculiar syntactical habits, and noteworthy 
 idiosyncrasies in phraseology (see esp. Driver, LOL 
 502 tt., and C. C. Torrey, Ezra-Nehemiah). 
 
 The following words and phrases oceur (in Heb.) 
 only in Ch (incl. Ezr-Neh), and in writings certainly 
 still later (Est, Dn, Ec, Ps-titles) * :— 
 
 1. bax howbeit, but, 2 Ch 14 19% 33", Ezr 10%; 
 also Dn 107 2. 
 
 2. nax letter, f 2 Ch 30" 6, Neh 27; & 9 65 17-19; also 
 Est 97 29, 
 
 3. pax purple, T 2 Ch 2" (Heb. v.®), cf. Aram. 
 xp Dn 57 16 ;_the more common Heb. ]2278 is 
 most frequently late, and occurs in 2 Ch 2% 3%, 
 
 4, nisq lands, as a designation of the territory 
 of Israel, f 2 Ch 155; this territory is certainly 
 included (if not solely designated) in Ezr 3° (text 
 dub.) 9! 24, Neh 10°8 (Heb. v.%); even xq: nisqx 
 1 Ch 132; apm niqy 2 Ch 11; dy qe: 235 wy mbsqen-da 
 2 Ch 343, (The pl. form mse is chiefly late in all 
 senses. ) 
 
 5. yiz, pa byssus, tT 1 Ch 4?! 1577 (but: emend after 
 2S 614), 2 Ch 2" (Heb. v.38) 34 5"; also Est 1°; it 
 occurs also MT Ezk 27" but del. & Cornill. 
 
 *In this art. the sign f indicates that ali the passages are 
 cited in which a particular word or phrase occurs. @=Gr, 
 version of LXX. GL=Lucian’s recension. $=Syr. versiow 
 (Peshitta). W=Vulgate. 
 
 
 
390 
 
 6. 33 spoil, tT 2 Ch 14% 2518 28" Ezr 97, Neh 44 
 (Heb. 3%) ; also Dn 11% %, Est 93% 15 26, 
 7. y'29 skilled, skilled (in), tT 1 Ch 15” 257. ® 27%, 
 2 Ch 343 (other kindred meanings are chiefly late). 
 8. rlyy'2 fortresses, | 2 Ch 17! 274. 
 8. ong chosen, | 1 Ch 7” 97 16%; ninq3 id., | Neh 
 5 
 
 CHRONICLES, I. AND IL 
 
 
 
 10. o''0771 drachme, f Ezr 28=Neh 7”, Neh 
 77-72 (Heb, 77-71) ; osoax, fT 1 Ch 297, Ezr 877, 
 
 11. 2399 midrash, f 2 Ch 13”? 2477, 
 
 12. 9°97 how? f 1 Ch 13; also Dn 10" (cf. Aram.). 
 
 13. mad $$n praise J”, of technical Levitical 
 function, f 1 Ch 16* % 23% 89 258, 2 Ch 538-18 2019 99% 
 307, cf. 1 Ch 29%, 2 Ch 20%, Ezr 34+"; may 95n 
 ft Ezr 3”, Neh 543; $n abs., f 1 Ch 23°, 2 Ch 78 84 
 2318 29% 312, Neh 12%. 
 
 14, ny Hiph. reject, t 1 Ch 28°, 2 Ch 11'4 291, 
 
 15. 1 come out, appear, of leprosy, f 2 Ch 26", 
 
 16. ainanD binders, joints, f 1 Ch 22%, 2 Ch 341), 
 
 17. pig Hithp. sq. 329=withstand, f 2 Ch 1378; 
 aq. oy=hold strongly with, 1 Ch 11°, 2 Ch 16°; also 
 Dn 107, 
 
 18. agi7=royal power, t 2 Ch 12! 2616; also Dn 11%. 
 
 19. mig joy, f 1 Ch 16”, Neh 8”. 
 
 20. 2p be sick, t 2 Ch 16” (usually an). 
 
 21, oven sufferings, t 2 Ch 24° (pnp, sickness, 
 occurs f Pr 18", 2 Ch 211°). 
 
 22. npzbnp division, course (of Levitical and priestly 
 organization), t 1 Ch 238 241 Q6!- 12.19 O71. 1. 2. 2 4. 4. 4 
 6.6.7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12.18.1415 Ogi. 18-21 9 Ch Hl gl414 938 
 B12 2 16, 16.17 354.10 Neh 1138, 
 
 28. pp =pious deeds (of men), f 2 Ch 32% 35%, 
 Neh 13%, 
 
 24. yi knowledge, 2 Ch 2-12; also Dn 17 
 and (=mind, thought), Ec 10”. 
 
 25. ova ov =day by day (for earlier o\ 0"), f 2 Ch 
 307, Ezr 34, Neh 8%; ova or> 2 Ch 24"; ova oirny) 
 1 Ch 12”; ova oF r372 2 Ch 8¥8; ofp of nidy Ezr 34. 
 
 26. wmna be genealo ically enrolled, f 1 Ch 4% 
 617-17 78.4.9. 40 gi.22 9 Ch 1Qi5 3116.17.18.19 zr 269 
 Neh 7%, Ezr 81-8, Neh 75. 
 
 27. jp: Hiph. use the right hand, ¢ 1 Ch 12. 
 
 28. 9372p bemantled, f 1 Ch 15” (ef. prob. Aram. 
 87372 mantle). 
 
 29. #32 footstool, f 2 Ch 9'* (cf. NH, Aram.). 
 
 30. 5x3, D¥39 oversee, direct ; overseer, director, 
 t 1 Ch 157 234, 2 Ch 22:18 (Heb. vv. 17), 34128, Ezr 
 3°; also in titles of Pss 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 11. 12. 13. 14. 
 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 31. 36. 39. 40. 41. 42. 44. 45. 46. 
 47. 49. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 
 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 75. 76. 77. 80. 81. 84. 85. 
 88. 109. 139. 140; also in title Hab 3”. 
 
 81. 2; jn=submit, yield to, t 2Ch 308; nna jn= 
 id., 1 Ch 29%; wyind on jm=give their pledge that 
 they would send away, Ezr 10 ; 5 ab yn; set the heart 
 to (do) a thing, etc., fT 1 Ch 22", 2 Ch 1118, Dn 10”, 
 Ee ]s- 17 721 8 16. 
 
 82. voy = appoint, institute, establish (priests, 
 Levites, prophets, ete.), f 1 Ch 6%! (Heb. v.') 151617 
 1734, 2 Ch 814 98 1125-22 195.8 22! 255 305 317 338 352, 
 Ezr 38, Neh 67 78 12%) 13% (cf. 10%); also Dn 
 ]] 11. 18. 14, 
 
 33. (o7Dy, DY, DY) Oy-dy IDY stand on his stand- 
 tng, t.e. in his place, ete., f 2 Ch 30'¢ 345! 351°, Neh 
 13"; also Dn 88 10; with op for py Neh 98; 
 without vb. Neh 87. 
 
 34. abyndb=exceedingly, t 1 Ch 14? 225 2317 293. 25, 
 2 Ch 12 16%2 1712 2019 268 344, 
 
 35. n> 1sy control (=possess) power, be able, f a 
 b inf. 1 Ch 2914, 2 Ch 2° (Heb. v.5); sq. 5 subst. 2 Ch 
 229; abs. 2 Ch 13%; also abs. Dn 1088 and (axy 
 yia ma) 116; sy alone=have power, be able, f 2Ch 
 14%, sq. > inf. 2037. 
 
 36. ornbyp cymbals, f 1 Ch 13° 1516 19 8 165. 42 251. 6, 
 2 Ch 5!? 38 29%, Ezr 3, Neh 1277. 
 
 37. vey he-goat, f 2 Ch 29%, Ezr 8®; also Dn 8° 5 
 
 21 (Aram. 19). 
 
 CHRONICLES, L AND IL 
 
 
 
 38. Ww, “Wy of priests and Levites:—ounba ny 
 t 2 Ch 364, Ezr 8% (+on5m) 10°; ondrw t 1 Ch 
 15%, ‘bq “Wy v.16, 2 Ch 35°; cf. wy of chief musician, 
 — 15” (also ovz>yn Iy) wIpyy 245, and wp IW Is 
 43”), 
 
 39. TivH, ow, and (Ezr 2%=Neh 7%) nin, 
 singer(s), f 1 Ch 6 (Heb. v.18) 9411 t. Ch; Ezr 
 tis M>Neh 7446-78 Kizr 7? 10%) Neh 7#4-12%t; 
 
 eh. 
 
 40. wy alabaster, f 1 Ch 29? (cf. wy, T Est 18, Ca 5"), 
 
 41. onyiw porters, gate-men, of temple, etc., a 
 sacred function, fj 1 Ch 97+19t. Ch; Ezr 2% ”= 
 Neh 7* 7, Ezr 77 10%, Neh 7!+7+t. Neh. (The word 
 occurs elsewhere only 2 S 18%—but rd. ryvg, see 
 Driver—and 2 K 7 of porter of a city and a 
 palace.) 
 
 The following exilic and post-exilic words and 
 phrases are, in the meanings given, characteristic 
 of Chronicles, although not exclusively so :— 
 
 1, any possession, 1 Ch 78 97, 2 Ch 11311, Neh 
 11°; also Ezk 44%: 414 t, Ezr, Ps 28, Gn 178+43 t. 
 Gn, Lv, Nu, Dt, Jos (all P). 
 
 2. 131 Niph. f 2 Ch 267; also Is 538, Ps 88°, and 
 (in different senses) Ezk 374, La 3°4, Est 21, 
 
 3. 232 common-land, 1 Ch 51° 6 (Heb. v.“)+40t. 
 1 Ch 6, 13?, 2 Ch 114 31"; also Ezk 45? 485-17 and 
 Nu 35? § 45-7, Jos 147212 +55 (or 59, if vv.% 97 belong 
 to MT) t. Jos 21 (all P). . 
 
 4. 019 footstool, T 1 Ch 287; also Is 661, La 2}, 
 Ps $9° 110! 1327. 
 
 5. wp nya holy adornment, f 1 Ch 16%=Ps 96%, 
 2 Ch 2077; also Ps 29? (post-exil. 2). 
 
 6. yee great number, f 1 Ch 29%, 2 Ch 11% 31”; 
 also Jer 49°? (v. also re ye 
 
 7. 1 kind, sort, t 2 Ch 1614, Ps 144”, 
 
 8. pp} refine, Pu. refined, 1 Ch 2818 294; also Is 258, 
 Ps 127; Pi. refine, Mal 3°; Qal id. Job 28! 3677. 
 
 9. sp Pi. purify, 2 Ch 29-16-18 345558" Neon 
 13% 80; also Ezk 39!%, Job 377, Mal 3%; and esp. 
 make or pronounce clean, ceremonially, Ezk 43%, 
 Lv 13°+15 t. P, Neh 12; morally, Ezk 2448 t. 
 Ezk, Lv 16” (P), Mal 3%, Ps 514, Jer 33°; Hithp. 
 purify oneself, 2 Ch 30%, Ezr 6, Neh 12° 137; 
 also Cin 35? (R?), Nu 87, Jos 22, ef. Lv 144 7-8 1. 14. 
 17. 18. 19. 25. 28.28.31 (al) P), Is 66%. aay purifying, 
 tT 1 Ch 23%, 2 Ch 30, Neh 12"; also Ezk 44*6, Ly 
 124 5 1.37. 8 ] 42. 23. 92 1518 Nu 69 (all P); p= phger 
 ally pure, clean, 1 Ch 28", 2 Ch 34 917 13"; also 
 Zec 3°55, Job 28%, Ezk 36%, Ex 25" +430 t. Ex, Ly 
 (all P or H). 
 
 10. mn overspread, overlay, t 1 Ch 294; also Ezk 
 131- 11. 12. 14. 15. 1 228, Lv 14%. 43. 48. 
 
 Ll. arby, s-Sy = according to the 
 1 Ch 2522366 2 Ch 2318 2618 9927, 
 Jer 5% 3333. 
 
 12. 13; Hithp.=give thanks, in ritual worship, 
 t 2 Ch 30” ;=confess, Ezr 10!, Neh 1° 97-8; also Lv 5° 
 162 26”, Nu 57 (all P or H), Dn 94” (v. also injr.). 
 
 13. nivpin_ generations, 1 Ch 1% 57 7% 49 88 9% 34 
 2631; also Ru 418, Gn.5!4 28 t. Gn, Ex, Nu (all P). 
 
 14. 30 writing, t 1 Ch 28, 2 Ch 24 (Heb. v.29) 
 354, Ezr 2°= Neh 7%, Ezr 47; also Ezk 13°, Dn 10”, 
 Est ]|2 32. 14 48 88. 9. 9. 18 927, 
 
 15. byp commit a trespass, 1 Ch 2? 5% 1018, 2 Ch 
 12? 2616 18 9819. 22 996 307 3644, Ezr 10? 1°, Neh 18 1377 ; 
 also Ezk 14%+6 t. Ezk, Lv 5%+11 t. Lv, Nu, Dt, 
 Jos (all P), Pr 16%; 5yp trespass, 1 Ch 9' 10", 2 Ch 
 2819 2919 33” 3614, Ezr 92-4108; also Ezk 14%+5 t. 
 Ezk, Lv 5%+11 t. Lv, Nu, Jos (all P), Dn 9’, Job 
 21% (esp. frequent as cogn. ace. with ?y>). 
 
 16. 038 v3 coll.=persons, | 1 Ck 5*; also Ezk 
 2738, Nu 31%: #. 46 (P); in Gn 95 (P) own vo}=life of 
 man. 
 
 17. 223 Niph. be expressed by name, f 1 Ch 12% 
 (Baer ®) 164, 2 Ch 28% 31%, Ezr 87°; also Nu 117 (P), 
 
 18. 1py=rise (for earlier oxp, 1 Ch 204 21, Ezr 2% 
 = Neh 7®, Neh’8°;.also Dn 87-25 104 ]]2)* #7428 
 
 uidance of, 
 zr 3; also 
 
 
 
CHRONICLES, lL. aND IL 
 
 —. 
 
 ™.21-31 121, Est 44, cf. transition to this usage 
 Ezk 2! 37%, 
 
 19. a9yp west, tT 1 Ch 7% 12! 2616 18% 9 Ch 32% 
 33"; also Is 43° 59, Dn 8°, Ps 75° (Heb. v.”) 10312 
 
 20. dy mn ane any the fear of J” came upon, t 2Ch 
 144 (Heb. v.28) 17° 197 20° (andy ape; ef. jn} ma 
 ~by iansny 1 Ch 1417); elsewhere ~by " a3 55} 1S 117, 
 Job 13", and so of fear of men, or undefined fear, 
 
 - Ex 1516, Est 817 92 3, 
 
 21. bap receive, t 1 Ch 12! 214, 2Ch 2916 Ezr 
 8”, Pr 19”, Job 2! 10 Est 44 93-27; bapn=be in 
 front of (cf. Aram. 537) Ex 26° 3612 (P). 
 
 22. niax yey of heads of families, | 1 Ch 72 
 6. 10. 18, 28 99 33, 34 152 239. 24 246. 81 9621. 26. 3: 27}, 2 Ch 
 1? 198 23? 2612, Ezr 15 29 312 42.8 g1 1016 Neh 77% 71 
 815 1212. 22.23; also Ex 6%, Nu 3126 3278 36!-1, Jos 14! 
 19° 21)-1 (all P). 
 
 23. yv. Hiph. display wickedness, do wickedly, 
 t 2. Ch 20% 22%, Neh 9*; also Job 3412, Ps 1068, Dn 95 
 11 1270, 
 
 24, nby weapon, f 2 Ch 23” 325, Neh 417-3 (Heb. 
 vv.1-17); also Job 3318 36%, Jl 28, cf. id.=shoot, 
 sprout, Ca 433, 
 
 25. ‘nypw hear me (in beginning a speech), f 1 Ch 
 287, 2 Ch 134 15? 20” 281 295; also Gn 235 (hear us), 
 vy.® 1. 18. 15 (all P), 
 
 The following occur occasionally in pre-exilic 
 literature, but are especially characteristic of 
 Chronicles :— 
 
 1. 12x=promise or command sq. inf. 2 8 24" 
 2 K 8%, but esp. 1 Ch 21” 27%, 2 Ch 8 14 oir 
 2921- 97. 80 3]4. 11 3531, Neh 9; also Dn, Est, ete. 
 
 2. anwx=guilt, wrong-doing, Am 8 (in concrete 
 sense), but esp. 1 Ch 21%, 2 Ch 2418 2810. 18. 18. 18 3923, 
 Ezr 9% 7- 18.15 1010.19; also Ps 698, Lv 4° 5% (P), also 
 (in another sense) Lv 5% (P), 2216 (H), 
 
 3. oda m3 house of God, 1 Ch 9": 8 6+ (52 times 
 in Ch, Ezr, Neh); of sanctuary at Shiloh, Jg 1831. 
 
 4. 33=¢troop, of divisions of army, Mic 4" 
 (doubtful date), but esp. 1 Ch 74,2 Ch 25% 10. 18 9611), 
 cf, Job 29% (of a marauding band it is both early 
 and late). 
 
 5. nbva greatness, 2S 72-%=1 Ch 17% 1%, 1 Ch 
 29"; also Ps 712! 145 % 5, Est 14 6? 102, 
 
 6. ma wI3 seek J” in prayer and worship, Am 546, 
 Hos 10”, Is 9" etc., but esp. 1 Ch 28%, 2 Ch 124 
 14*-7(Heb. vv.?-5)15? 22 1612 22° 265, Ps 1054=1 Ch 16"; 
 prnby(n) e472 Ch 19° 26530"; mar vy 1 Ch 22", 2 Ch 
 15'8 208, Ezr 62; onbdxd '1 2 Ch 174 312 348, Ezr 42, 
 
 7. jpor= multitude, Jg 47,18 1418 ete. ; but also 
 2 Ch 138 142° 20? 12.15.24 397; also Ezk, Dn (v. 
 also supr.). 
 
 8. mui = be enraged, t 2 Ch 26-19; ny rage,f 2 Ch 
 16 28°; also tpeet) Is 30”, Mic 7°, Pr 19%, and 
 (raging of sea) Jon 1. 
 
 9. 139 locust, grasshopper, Nu 13° (JE), but esp. 
 2 Ch 7, Ly 117(P), Is 40”, Ec 12°. 
 
 10. dh calendar month, merely numbered (not 
 named), 1 K 12% 8, Jer 1° etc., esp. 1 Ch 12% 
 Q7?. 8. 4, 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 18. 14. Leh 2 Ch 8 4 12t. 2 Ch, Ezr 
 3'+10t. Ezr, Neh 77 8214, Ezk 24! 321, Lv 16+ 
 oft. P, Hag 11-38, Zec 1! 71-3, Est 3! ete. 
 
 ll. ajn=seer, Am 7"; Mic 37 etc., 2S 24"=1 Ch 
 21°, and esp. 1 Ch 25° 29”, 2 Ch 9% 1215 192 2925. 30 
 3318. 19 3515, 
 
 12. pip Hithp.=strengthen oneself, 1 S 308 (‘nna 
 mm2), 2S 3°, 1 K 20”, but esp. 2 Ch 1? 12)8 1371 171 
 214 231 25" 27, 158 (=take courage), Ezr 7% (=gain 
 strength); also Dn 10 (id.); =put forth one’s 
 strength, Gn 487, Nu 13” (both JE), Jg 20”, 1S 47, 
 2S 10%, but also 1 Ch 19%, 2 Ch 32° (v. also 
 supr.). 
 
 13. mysn clarion, as sacred instrument, f 2 K 
 124, but esp. (for use by priests only) 1 Ch 138 
 1516. 24. 28 16 SheF 2 Ch 5. $. 13 1312- 14 2028 9976. 27. 5 
 Ezr 3, Neh 12%: 41; also Ps 98° and Nu 16% +5 6 
 
 391 
 
 78-910 316 (all P); .xsn vb. denom, Pi. and Hiph. 
 sound a clarion, f 1 Ch 15%, 2 Ch 53-18 78 1314 2928, 
 
 14, 17; Hiph.=praise, of ritual worship, 2S 22” 
 = Ps 18°=108'; also Is 124 251, but esp. Ps (67 t.) 
 
 CHRONICLES, L. AND IL 
 
 and 1 Ch 163+ 7. 8. 34. 35. 41 9330 258 2933, 2 Ch 513 78. 
 20" 31°, Ezr 34, Neh 117 12%; ajia=thank- 
 afering, Am 4°, 2 Ch 291-81 3316; also Ps, Jer, 
 and P. 
 
 15. 32; adj. right (hand), 1 K 68 7®, 2 K 11"; 
 also 1 K 72=2 oh 317 Keré, 2 Ch 4° 230 Ezk 48 
 Keré, 47-2, Ex 29°+8 t. P. 
 
 16. p> Hiph. set up, prepare, ete. 28 5, 1 K 2% 
 etc., but esp. 1 Ch 14? 287, 2 Ch 121 175+ 36 t. Ch. 
 
 17. 037 gather, ¢ Is 28% (Hithp.), but also 1 Ch 
 227, Neh 12“; also Ezk 227! 39%, Ps 337 1472, Est 
 416 Ke 28: 26 35, 
 
 18. y37 Niph. be humble, humbled, humble oneself, 
 18 73,1 K 21” etc., but esp. 1 Ch 204, 2 Ch 74 
 12%. 7. 7. 12 1318 3011 3926 3312. 19. 23, 28 3427, 27 367? ; Hiph. 
 humble, subdue,t Jg 4%, Dt 98,2 S 8!=1 Ch 18}, 
 also 1 Ch 17, 2 Ch 28"; also Is 255, Job 4012, Ps 
 815 10732, 
 
 19. 1 xbp=consecrate, Jg 175, 1 K 13%, but also 
 1 Ch 29°, 2 Ch 139 16% 29%!; also Ezk 43% and Ex 
 2841 299. 29. 38. 85 3929 Ty 933 1683211 Nu 3% (all P). 
 
 20. mabo kingdom, reign, Nu 247 (JE), 1 S 20%, 
 
 1 K 2®, but esp. 1 Ch 11°+27+. Ch., Ezr 1! 456 
 7! 81, Neh 9% 12%; Est 12+25t. Est, Dn 1'+15 t. 
 Dn, Ex 44, 5 t. Ps, 3 t. Jer. 
 
 21. 33; Hithp. offer (oneself) willingly, ft Jg 5* 
 (in war), but esp. (in sacred gifts and services) 1 Ch 
 995. 6. % 9 14. 17.179 Ch 1718, Ezr 16 255 35 Neh 112, 
 
 22. -y help, of divine assistance, 1 S 7%, Gn 49% 
 etc., but esp. Ps and 1 Ch 12® 157, 2 Ch 144.1) 
 (Heb. v.¥) 18%! 258 267 328. 
 
 23. 123) wy riches and honour, } 1 K 3%, but esp. 
 1 Ch 2912 8, 2 Ch 121-12 175 18! 32°7; also Pr 318 838, 
 Ec 6?. 
 
 24, 255 abundantly, 1 K 107=2 Ch 15=9”, and 
 cap. 1 Ch 438 1240 993. . 4. 5, 8. 14. 15 992. oe 2 Ch 99 (Heb 
 v.8) 418 91.9 1123 1415 (Heb. v.14) 159 168 175 181-2 2078 
 O41. 24. 27 o73 2985 30° 13. 24 315 325. a), Neh 95 ; also 
 Zec 1414, 
 
 There are also classes of peculiarities in Ch, 
 many of them syntactical; e.g. omission of the 
 relative ; -n for the relative; 1yv) yw and other 
 such repetitions with }, in a distributive sense; 
 nib22) and other temporal inf. phrases at beginning 
 of sentence (for older nibz> ‘m7, ete.) ; and particu- 
 larly the use of prepositions :—? ¢. inf. with cir- 
 cumstantial force, at the end of sentences, as 1 Ch 
 151 ete. ; b c. inf. denoting purpose, ete. ; 7? as the 
 accusative sign after a verbal suffix, e.g. 1 Ch 5% 
 and without a preceding suffix 2 Ch 26%; of 137 
 win T 1 Ch 16%, 2 Ch84 31; pyp=without, e.g. 1Ch 
 994, 2 Ch 142; xdbb=without t 2 Ch 15%%8; dsb— 
 wholly, namely, e.g. 1 Ch 13} ete. ; ? and (oft.) -3?, 
 carrying on another preposition (*359, oy, etc.), or 
 introducing a nominative 1 Ch 2676 28!- 21 298 ; the 
 curious combination 7), in nwerz2) f 1 Ch 15", and 
 0? | 2 Ch 308; the frequent and noteworth 4 WwW 
 before both verbs and nouns, e.g. 1 Ch 28”, 2 Ch 164 
 36/6; 2 of accompaniment, without a verb, 1 Ch 16° 
 etc.; 3 before adverbs, 4 oxnpa 2 Ch 29%; and 
 others (see esp. Driver, LOT 504-506). 
 
 The peculiar and often anomalous phraseology 
 of Ch, which is apparent in every chapter, may 
 be further illustrated by the following specimens 
 chosen almost at random :— 
 
 1 Ch 10% says that (Saul died...) because he 
 did not obey J”’s command, and because he made 
 inquiry by necromancy ; in Heb. thus: wx "* 737 >y 
 
 : wm sia Stew on re" vd 
 11° speaks of heroes whom David had, o'pinnen 
 riadond bytwrbeay imabdpa toy 
 
 128 (Baer, EV v.!”?) makes David say, ‘I wil] 
 
 
 
392 CHRONICLES, I. AND II. 
 
 
 
 CHRONICLES, L AND IL 
 
 
 
 heartily join with you,’ in Heb. thus: o2*by vb-mom 
 1n:? 232, lit. ‘I will have a heart toward you for 
 unitedness.’ , , , 
 2818 “yay pn" ay ODD) O'YAD? AN] O'FIIDD AZ776N AYNID?, 
 i.e. frefined ‘nald} or the pattern at the Shanlok 
 (viz.) the cherubim (viz. of) gold (making them, 
 notice ») to spreading out and covering over the 
 ark, ete, 
 2819 bon by” 1 anaa bbq, the whole by a writing 
 from the hand of J” upon me hath he taught. 
 29% “sa, Sxowr-byywdy anay agg ovyT) and the times 
 (i.e. experiences) which have passed over him and 
 over Israel, etc. 
 2 Ch 11 ny; ji07 Sx, and he sought a crowd of 
 wives (but rd. perh.’ ond ww"), 80 F. Perles, Ane. 47). 
 158 855) at pad Nb mpg wade 85> Syed ova oy 
 ;mn, and long was Israel without a true God, 
 aa without a priest as teacher, and without 
 a law. 
 16° vox aby nzgb-py pionnd, to show himself stron 
 in helping those whose heart is perfect towar 
 him ("¥x omitted before 0325). 
 21 oy” op: ppo ney mys op: ons) aN, 4.e. and it 
 came to pass after some days, even about the time 
 of the outgoing of the end of two years. 
 DaATE.—(1) The peculiarities of language already 
 noted give an overwhelming presumption in favour 
 of a very late date for Ch. (2) Specific evidence 
 appears—(a) 1 Ch 3% where Anani is named accord- 
 ing to MT in the 6th generation after Zerubbabel, 
 or about B.C. 350; (@k, followed by SD, makes 
 Anani the llth from Zerubbabel, or about B.c. 
 250-200) ; probably also (6) the expressions ‘ king- 
 .dom of Persia,’ ‘king of Persia,’ 2 Ch 367 2 2. 2, 
 if, as is likely, these expressions were used to dis- 
 tinguish the Persian rulers, not from the Semitic 
 Babylonian, but from the later Greek (note the 
 absence of this expression in the contemporary 
 references of Neh 2! 514 13°; also 11%-% ete.). (8) 
 Further specific evidence appears in Ezr-Neh,— 
 originally one work with Ch—(a) the terminus 
 a quo is given Neh 136 ‘the 32nd year of Artax- 
 erxes’=B.C. 433; (6) Jaddua, Neh 12", is 6th high 
 priest after Joshua (Hag 11-12 24, Zec 3}. 8. 6. 8 9 64) ; 
 Hliashib, 3rd in this list, was a contemporary of 
 Nehemiah (Neh 3! 134%); Josephus, Ant. XI. 
 vill. 4, names Jaddua, as high priest in the time of 
 Alexander the Great, B.c. 333; (c) Darius I. 
 (Codomannus) reigned B.C. 336-332, and his reign 
 (‘ Darius the Persian’) is mentioned Neh 12”; (d) 
 on ‘the Persian’ (/.c.), and ‘king of Persia,’ Ezr 
 (13: 1-2) 18 37 48. 5. 5.7.24 G14 71, of 2 (6) supra; (e) late 
 words and constructions, evident Aramaic influ- 
 ence in the language, and extended Aramaic 
 poreece (Ezr 48-3 51-618 71226), On the other 
 1and, if Eupolemus knew the LXX translation of 
 Ch (cf. POSITION IN CANON, supr.), the original 
 must have had canonical authority not much later 
 than B.c. 200. From all these indications it is 
 safe to say that Ch was not composed before B.C. 
 Ze and may have been composed as late as B.C. 
 PARALLELS. 
 
 1 Oh 114=Gn 68-22 (condensed by omitting chronol. notes). 
 
 15-22=@n 10229 (om. Gn 109-12), 
 
 124-27 = Gn 1110-26 (condensed by omitting chronol. notes). 
 
 13=Qn 213 etc., and 1615 etc. (condensed). 
 
 129-81= Gn 2518b-16a, 
 
 182. 88—Gn 252. 3a. 4, 
 
 184= Qn 2519-26 (condensed). 
 
 185-54— Gn 3610-43 (condensed). 
 
 21.2= Gn 3523-26 (condensed). 
 
 285=Gn 4612, with additions from Gn 88; cf. Nu 2619-21, 
 
 28.7, cf. Jos 71, 1 K 431, 
 
 28 has no ji. 
 
 29-12, cf. Ru 419-22 (to Jesse). 
 
 213-17, cf. 1 S 166-13, 2 § 218 1725, 
 218-24 descendants of Caleb, no J. These are 
 225-41 Jerahmeel, no ff. evidently to a 
 242-49 further sons of Caleb, no i. large extent 
 250-55 descendants of Caleb’s son Hur, ne J.) geogr. names. 
 31-9 David's children=2 § 32-5 513-16 131, 
 
 
 
 10h gia kings of Judah, descendants of Solomon, cf. 1 K 12- 
 2K 2: 
 
 4. 
 817-24 descendants of Jehoiachin, ending with Anani, no 
 cf. Mt 112 from Jehoiachin to Zerubbabel). 
 41-23 Judah’s descendants. Little | (on v.1 cf. Gn. 4618, 
 Nu 2619-21), 
 424 Simeon’s descendants, cf. Gn 4610, Ex 615, Nu 2612 18, 
 425-27 Simeon’s descendants, no |. 
 428-33 “7 cities= Jos 192-8, 
 43448 ,, descendants, and narrative about them, no j. 
 61-28 Reuben, Gad, and 4 Manasseh; on 5% cf. Gn 469, 
 
 Nu 265.6, 
 
 618 (Heb. 527-29), Levi :—Aaron’s sons, cf. Gn 4611, Ex 616 
 18. 20.23, Nu 32, 
 
 6415 (Heb, 53041), chief priests till fall of Jerus., no |. 
 
 616-53 (Heb. 61-47), Levitical genealogies, no | (only ocoa- 
 sional reff.). 
 
 654-81 (Heb. 638-66), Levitical cities, cf. Jos 2110-89, 
 
 715 Issachar, cf. Gn 4613, Nu 2623. 25, 
 
 76-12 Benjamin, cf. Gn 4621, Nu 2638. 88, 
 
 718 Naphtali, cf. Gn 4624, Nu 26%. 49, 
 
 71419 Manasseh, cf. Nu 2629-83, 
 
 720-29 Ephraim, cf. Nu 2635.36, Jos 16. 
 
 730-40 Asher, cf. Gn 4617, Nu 2644. 45, 
 
 8140 Benjamin, incl. Saul’s descendants, through Jonathan ; 
 cf. Gn 4621, Nu 2638. 39, 1 § 1449. 59, 2 § 28 44 912, 
 
 91-85 Post-exilic families in Jerus. (some | in Ezr and Neh). 
 
 935-44 Saul’s family = 829-40 (some divergencies of detail). 
 
 101-12 Saul’s last battle, and death=1 § 311-18, 
 
 1013.14 Moral reflection, no J. 
 
 1118 David, king at Hebron=2 8 61-8, 
 
 1149 David captures Jerusalem=2 8 5610, 
 
 aiev ase}. heroes, cf. 2 8 238-89 (additional name 
 in Ch). 
 
 121-22 David’s followers at Ziklag, no j. 
 
 1223-40 David’s king-makers, no . 
 
 131-14 Ark brought from Kiriath-jJearim=2 § 61-11, 
 
 141.2 Hiram and David=2 § 611. 12, 
 
 143-7 David’s children in Jerusalem=2 § 518-16, 
 
 148-17 David’s conquest of Philistines=2 8 517-25, 
 
 151-2 Ark brought to Jerusalem. 
 
 1529 Michal’s contempt. Squads 
 1614. 87-43 Sacrifices, Blessing of people, ded). 
 Levitical ministers of ark. pen 
 168-22 = Ps 1051-15, 
 16885 Psalm on the occasion :— 1623-88 = Pg 961-13, 
 
 1634, 35 =: Pg 1061. 47. 4b, 
 
 171.2 David's desire to build temple=2 8 71-3, é 
 
 173-15 Prophecy of Nathan=2 8 7#17, 
 
 1716-27 David’s prayer and thanksgiving=2 8 718-29, 
 
 181-13 David's foreign conquests=2 S 81-14, 
 
 1814-17 David’s internal rule=2 § 816-18, 
 
 eer David’s war with Ammon=2 8 101-19 111f 
 
 2048 David’s war with Philistines=2 S 2115-22, 
 
 211-80 David’s numbering of people, and its penalty; pur 
 chase of Ornan’s threshing-floor=2 S 241-25, 
 
 221-19 David's preparations for temple-building, no {. 
 
 231 David appoints Solomon his successor, cf. 1 K 183-89, 
 
 232-2734 David’s elaborate Levitical and ritual arrange- 
 ments, incl. musical ; appointment of other officials, no |. 
 
 281-21 291-19 Further announcement by David of plans for 
 temple, and of Solomon as his successor, no }. 
 
 2920-30 Accession of Solomon and death of David, cf. 1 K 
 133-39 911. 12, 
 
 8 Ch ees Solomons reign; his sacrifice at Gibeon, cf.1 K 
 3 
 
 11417 Solomon’s reign; its splendour, etc., cf. 1 K 1026-29, 
 
 = Bulsing of temple (and palace), cf. 1 K 5-7 (con- 
 
 ensed). 
 
 61-14 Dedication of temple, cf. 1 K 81-11 Soxpandeax 
 
 61-42 Prayer of Solomon=1 K 81261 (yvy,54-61 om. in Ch). 
 
 71-11 Sacrifices, etc., cf. 1 K 862-66 (expanded), 
 
 712-22 Solomon’s vision of J”, cf. 1 K 91-9, 
 
 8. 9 Further glory of Sol.’s kingdom, cf, 1 K 910-28 101-25 
 (many differences of detail); specifically 91-12, Queen of 
 Sheba=1 K 101-13, 
 
 931 Death of Solomon=1 K 1148, 
 
 191-19 Accession of Rehoboam, and division of kingdom= 
 1 K 121-20, : 
 
 111-23 Rehoboam’s reign, cf. 1 K 1221-24 1421-24 (expanded). 
 
 121-16 Rehoboam and Shishak, cf. 1 K 1425-31, 
 
 131-22 Abijah, and his war with Jeroboam, cf. 1 K 1518 
 (expanded). 
 
 14. 15 Asa, his reforms and success in war, cf. 1 K 1592 
 (expanded). 
 
 16 Asa’s apostasy, no jl. 
 
 17 Jehoshaphat, his reforms and might, cf. 1 K 2241-46 
 (expanded). 
 
 18 Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab=1 K 221-85. 8, 
 
 19 Prophet’s rebuke for this alliance, no }. 
 
 201-34 Jehoshaphat’s success against Moab, Amnon, and 
 Edom, no J (takes the place of 2 K 34-27), 
 
 2035-87 Jehoshaphat and ships of Tarshish, cf. 1 K 2248. 49. 
 
 21 Jehoram’s wicked reign, and disaster, cf. 2 K 816% 
 (expense, « 
 
 22: Mg sea wicked reign, and disaster, cf. 2 K 8% 2% 
 9 a 
 
 2210-12 Athaliah’s wicked reign, cf. 2 K 1113, 
 231-21 Athaliah’s overthrow by Jehoiada, cf. 2 K 112 
 (expanded). 
 
 7S Se er 
 
 ' 
 ‘ 
 3 
 ; 
 
 
 
. 
 ‘ 
 ; 
 _ 
 
 
 
 CHRONICLES, I. AND IL. 
 
 
 
 CHRONICLES, I. AND II. 393 
 
 
 
 2 Oh 241-27 Joash’s reign, first good, then bad, cf. 2 K 121-21 
 
 (expanded). 
 
 251-28 Amaziah’s reign, first good, then bad, cf. 2 K 141-20 
 ieepanded). 
 
 261-22 Uzziah’s reign, first good, then bad, cf.2 K 14m. 
 151-7 (expanded). 
 
 271-9 Jotham’s good reign, cf. 2 K 1582-38. 
 281-27 Ahaz’s wicked reign, cf. 2 K 161-20 (expanded). 
 291-36 Pepe good reign; reforms, cf. 2 K 1818 (ex- 
 n % 
 -27 Hezekiah’s passover, no J. 
 811-21 Hezekiah’s reforms, cont., no |. 
 area “reese invasion, cf. 2 K 181887 191-87 (con- 
 ensed), 
 8224 Hezekiah’s sickness, cf. 2 K 201-11 (condensed). 
 8223. 25-88 Hezekiah’s pride; homage from others; death, 
 ef. 2 K 2012-21 (modified and condensed). 
 331-20 Manasseh’s wicked reign, captivity, and repentance, 
 cf. 2 K 211-18 (greatly modified). 
 8321-25 Amon’s wicked reign, cf. 2 K 211926, 
 841-33 Josiah and his reforms, the law-book, etc., cf. 2K 
 221-20 231-20, 24-28, 
 
 851-19 Josiah’s over, cf. 2 K 2321-23 tly ded. 
 
 8520-27 Sodabts death; Gt & K 2329. 30 eve Eig ton ; 
 
 8618 Jehoahaz’s reign, cf. 2 K 233135, 
 
 8648 Jehoiakim’s reign, cf. 2 K 2338. 37 241-6 (condensed). 
 
 869.10 Jehoiachin’s reign, cf. 2 K 24817 (condensed). 
 
 8611-18 Zedekiah’s reign, cf. 2 K 2418-20 251-7 (condensed) ; 
 with v.12 cf. also Jer 371.2, 
 
 8614-16 Moral reflections, no || (cf. 2 K 2420), 
 
 8617-21 Fall of Jerus., cf 2 K 258-21 (condensed); with v.2 
 cf. also Jer 259.11. 12 2910, 
 
 8622. 23 Restoration-edict of Cyrus=Ezr 11-8, no other J. 
 
 Comparison.—A. The foregoing table shows at 
 once, that while parts of Ch have no parallel in the 
 earlier books, eye are still larger portions of 
 those books unrepresented in Ch. The following 
 are such portions of Samuel and Kings :—1 S 1-30, 
 28 1-4. 9. 112-37 121-15 13-20, 211-14 29. 231-7, 1 K 11-82 
 Qi9. 18-46 31-8. 16-28 41-84 13, 141-20 1525-84 16-21, 2 K 1-7. 
 8!-5 9. (chiefly), 10. 13. 15°! 17, 2572-6. 27-80. They 
 include (1) ha entire activity of Samuel, and the 
 reign of Saul (except the close) ; (2) David’s lament 
 for Saul and Jonathan, his conflict with Ishbosheth, 
 and dealings with Mephibosheth ; (3) the story of 
 Uriah and Bathsheba ; (4) the story of Amnon and 
 Tamar, and Absalom’s flight and recall; (5) 
 Absalom’s rebellion and David’s exile; (6) the 
 Psalm of 2 S 22=Ps 18; (7) the ‘Last Words of 
 David’ 23!-7; (8) the intrigues and struggles 
 attending Solomon’s accession; (9) evidences of 
 Solomon’s wisdom and poetic gifts ; (10) Solomon’s 
 alliances with foreign women, and his idolatries in 
 later life ; (11) his vexation by adversaries, includ- 
 ing Jeroboam; (12) the entire history of the 
 Northern Kingdon, after the division, except when 
 the account of the Southern Kingdom makes 
 necessary some mention of the Northern ; (13) the 
 governorship and murder of Gedaliah, after Jeru- 
 salem’s fall ; (14) the exile-life of Jehoiachin. 
 
 B. Ch condenses also, in several places, and as a 
 result gives statements with less precision than the 
 earlier books. These passages are chronological 
 (as in the genealogies 1 Ch 1), architectural (as in 
 the case of the temple-building 2 Ch 2-4; the 
 building of Solomon’s pe is not described at 
 all), political (as Sennacherib’s invasion 2 Ch 32)"; 
 the reigns of the last kings 2 Ch 364%), or humili- 
 ating (Michal’s contempt 1 Ch 15%; sickness of 
 Hezekiah 2 Ch 32%; fall of Jerusalem 2 Ch 3617-1; 
 the same quality may partly account for the cases 
 mentioned under the previous head). That Ch 
 expands some political and military narratives is 
 also true, and will be noticed below. Other narra- 
 tives are modified in various ways, e.g. the sacrifice 
 by Solomon at Gibeon (2 Ch 1*°), the overthrow of 
 Athaliah (2 Ch 23), and the reigns of Jehoram (2Ch 
 215%), Ahaziah (2 Ch 22!*), Joash (2 Ch 24), Ahaz 
 (2 Ch 28), and Manasseh (2 Ch 33!-”); some of 
 these will be noticed below under D. 
 
 c. In those parts of Ch which have no parallel in 
 S and K, as well as in Ch’s expansions and modi- 
 fications of narratives occurring in them, certain 
 definite interests are prominent: —(1) Moral 
 reflections and explanations of calamities as 
 
 divine judgments, e.g. 1 Ch 10814, 2 Ch 36!"8; so 
 Shishak’s invasion is explained 2 Ch 12%, and 
 Jehoram’s misfortunes 2 Ch 21-16-19, cf, the ‘letter 
 of Elijah the prophet’ vy.5, and the wreck of 
 ships at Ezion-geber 2 Ch 2187, and Amaziah’s 
 defeat 2 Ch 25'*16 and Uzziah’s leprosy 2 Ch 
 2616-21, and Josiah’s death 2 Ch 352); (2) divine 
 interpositions in war, e.g. 2 Ch 1335 16 1412-18 gyj22-2s ; 
 (3) speeches and prophetic addresses, hortatory, 
 didactic, ete. ; also prayers : e.9. 1 Ch 225-4) Dy'a10 
 20h, 2 Ch 134-22 14 151-7 167- 192: 8, 9-11 905-12. 14-17 
 217-5 (writing of Elijah) 257-8 28° 995-1) 308-8 
 (decree of Hezekiah) 327-8 3571; (4) matters connected 
 with worship, including Levitical, ritual, and 
 especially musical appointments, e.g. 1 Ch 15. 16 
 
 (including the Psalm vv.) 22-96. 28. 29, 2 Ch 
 512. 13 7. 8.6 gis. 16 1}3- 14. 16 138-12 178 9 198-11 2019 21. 28 
 
 232. 4, 6. 7. 8. 18, 19 245. 6. 11 9618-20 291- 6. 7. 12-36 30. 31. 
 
 34% 12. 18. 80 351-19. 25; a peculiar case is 2 Ch 8! where 
 Solomon’s wife, the daughter of Pharaoh, is 
 brought to the house built for her because the 
 house of David has become too holy by reason of 
 the coming of the ark; contrast 1 K 3! 78 9"4. (On 
 some additions of another kind, see below.) 
 
 D. It remains for us to examine the parallel 
 passages a little more closely, selecting some of 
 those most important for purposes of comparison :— 
 
 In some cases the agreement is close, almost exactly verbal, 
 as 1 Ch 101-12=1 § 31, 2 Ch 919=1 K 101-10, 2 Ch 18=1 K 221-35 
 (including the blunder of v.28b), etc. In others there is im- 
 portant divergence, e.g. :— 
 
 1. 1 Ch 63-15 (Heb. 530-41) gives the list of chief priests through 
 Eleazar, son of Aaron ; most of the chief priests known to Sam. 
 and Kings do not appear in this list, viz. Eli 1 8 19 230, Ahitub, 
 Eli’s grandson (son of Phinehas) 1 S 143, Ahijah 1 S 143, and 
 Ahimelech 21? 229. 11. 20 etc, (both described as ‘son of Ahitub,’ 
 and hence identified by Bertheau, Klost. ad. ; ‘ brothers,’ accord- 
 ing to Kittel, Gesch. ii. 173, etc.), Abiathar, son of Ahimelech 13 
 2220, who was deposed by Solomon 1 K 226f Zadok, whom 
 Solomon substituted, appears as 10th in Ch’s list, the son of an 
 Ahitub, son of Amariah. Missing also are Jehoiada 2 K 114 etc., 
 and Urijah 2 K 1619 etc. Azariah appears ia Solomon’s time, bué 
 1 K 42 calls him son of Zadok, while in Ch he is son of Johanan}; 
 Hilkiah 2 K 224 etc. appears in Ch, and so does Seraiah 2 K 2613, 
 These occasional agreements make the variations all the harder to 
 explain. 1 Ch 2423 makes Ahimelech a descendant of Aaron 
 through his son Ithamar, and these and the following vv. make 
 an attempt to satisfy their rival claims by recognising both in: 
 the temple service. 
 
 2. 1 Ch 1310 explains the death of Uzzah as 2 8 67 does; but 
 1 Ch 1518 gives a new reason, viz., because the Levites did not 
 carry the ark, 
 
 3. 1 Ch 205 Elhanan killed Lahmi, brother of Goliath; but 2S 
 2119 he killed Goliath himself. 
 
 4. 1 Ch 21! it is Satan that moves David to number Israel, in 
 28 241 it is J”. 
 
 5. 2 Ch 18ff. explains Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon by saying 
 that the tent of meeting and the brazen altar were there (cf. 
 1 Ch 2129); but 1 K 33f says that Sol. worshipped at the high 
 places, and sacrificed at Gibeon because that was the great high 
 place ; and v.15 speaks not only of his coming back to Jerus, 
 (2 Ch 138), but also of his standing before the ark and sacrificing 
 there, which Ch omits. 
 
 6. 2 Ch 71.3 the sacrifices at the temple dedication are 
 ona by fire from heaven ; there is nothing of this in 1 K 
 g62ff., 
 
 7. 2 Ch 71222 and 1 K 91-9 both describe a second appearance 
 of J” to Solomon ; but the language used by them differs, esp. 
 ie ithe condensation of 1 K 9! and the insertion of vv.1%-16 in, 
 
 8. 2 Ch 145 176 (cf. 193) commend both Asa and Jehoshaphat 
 for removing the high places; but 1 K 16514 2243 tell us thett 
 these kings did not remove the high places (so also 2 Ch 151% 
 
 2083), 
 
 9. 2 Ch 2035.86 gays that Jehoshaphat allied himself with 
 Ahaziah of Israel to make ships [for an expedition by sea 1 
 2249]; but 1 K 2249 says that Ahaziah proposed the joint expe 
 dition, and Jehoshaphat refused. 
 
 10. 2 Ch 2036 says that they made ships at Ezion-geber to g¢ 
 to Tarshish (on the Mediterranean, not accessible from EzioD 
 geber); but 1 K 2248 simply speaks of Tarshish-ships (larg 
 sea-going vessels), and says they were destined for Ophir. 
 
 11. 2 Ch 217 says ‘ J” would not destroy the house of Davia, 
 because of the covenant,’ etc. ; but 2 K 819 says ‘J” would ot 
 destroy Judah for David his servant’s sake.’ 
 
 12. 2 Ch 229 describes Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah thus: ‘ And 
 he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him (for he was hid in 
 Samaria) and brought him to Jehu: and when they had slain 
 him, they buried him,’ etc. ; but according to 2 K 9g2Iff. 
 Ahaziah drove out from Jezreel with Joram to meet Jehu, fled 
 on discovering the treachery, and was killed in his flight. He 
 died at Megiddo, was brought by fus servants to Jerusalem, 
 
 a. 
 
394 CHRONICLES, J. AND IL 
 
 and buried there ‘in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of 
 David.’ 
 
 13. 2 Ch 23 represents the overthrow of queen Athaliah thus: 
 Jehoiada and the captains of hundreds, and all the Levites in 
 the cities of Judah, and the heads of families of the people, 
 making ‘all the congregation,’ were gathered at Jerus.,— 
 Athaliah being ignorant of it,—but while v.3 says ‘all the con- 
 gregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God,’ 
 y.6 provides that only priests and ministering Levites be 
 allowed to enter the temple, and then the king is proclaimed, 
 and Athaliah slain; but 2 K 11, while agreeing as to the main 
 facts, represents a secret conspiracy between Jehoiada and the 
 captains of the foreign mercenaries who served as temple guard ; 
 the meeting-place was the temple, into which the foreigners 
 came and took their oath; the Levites, trained singers, burnt- 
 offerings, law of Moses, etc., which appear in Ch, are all lacking 
 
 in K, 
 
 14. 2 Ch 2414, speaking of the collection for repairing the 
 temple, under Jehoash of Judah, says, ‘they brought the rest 
 of the money before the king and Jehoiada, whereof were 
 made vessels for J’’s house’; but 2 K 1213 says that no 
 vessels were made for J’’s house out of the proceeds of the 
 collection. 
 
 15. 2 Ch 242.17ff. makes Joash reign righteously ‘all the days 
 of Jehoiada the priest,’ and after Jehoiada’s death apostatise ; 
 but 2 K 122 says, ‘ And Jehoash did that which was right in the 
 eyes of J’ all his days, (namely) wherein Jehoiada the priest 
 instructed him,’ and K tells us nothing of any apostasy or 
 wickedness, only criticising (v.), as in other cases, the non- 
 removal of the high places, 
 
 16. 2 Oh 285-15 describes slaughter and bondage inflicted on 
 Judah by Pekah of Israel in the reign of Ahaz, which is net 
 only unknown to 2 K 16 and Is 7, but is inconsistent with 2 K 
 165, Ig 71. 4.7, 
 
 17. 2 Ch 2816ff. makes Ahaz send to the king(s) of Assyria for 
 aid against the Edomites and Philistines ; but 2 K 167 expressly 
 says that it was agains the kings of Arum and Israel. 
 
 18. 2 Ch 2820.21 gays that ‘Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria 
 came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not,’ 
 and again : ‘he helped him not.’ With this 2 K 169 is in contra- 
 diction. 
 
 19. 2 Oh 8311-19 reprenents Manasseh as humbled and changed 
 in heart by captivity, and as a reformer in the latter part of his 
 rei 2 K 21 knows nothing of this, paints him in colours 
 wholly dark, and makes the fall of Jerus. a punishment specifi- 
 cally for Manasseh’s sins (cf. also Jer 154). 
 
 20. 2 Oh 34 represents Josiah’s reforms as accomplished in 
 his 12th year (v.3), and the law-book as discovered in his 18th 
 year. 2 K 22. 23 represent the reforms as suggested and 
 occasioned by the discovery of the law-book, and as occurring, 
 like that discovery, in the 18th year of his reign. 
 
 E. One peculiarity of Ch, which involves some 
 discrepancies with the earlier books, is a fondness 
 for large numbers, ¢.g. 1 Ch 184 19° make David 
 capture 7000 horsemen and slay 7000 chariotmen, 
 over against 700 of each in 2S 84 10; according 
 to 1 Ch 21% David pays 600 shekels of gold for 
 Ornan’s threshing-floor, according to 28 24“ on] 
 50 shekels of silver; 24 tribes, according to 1 Ch 
 521, capture from the Hagrites 100,000 prisoners, 
 50,000 camels, 250,000 sheep, and 2000 asses; 1 Ch 
 12 represents that 339,000 men came to make David 
 king ; 1 Ch 224 says that David provided for the 
 temple building 100,000 talents of gold (=4,911,000 
 kilograms), and 1,000,000 talents of silver (=at 
 least 33,660,000 kgs.); Shishak (2 Ch 2%) came 
 with 1200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen, and people 
 without number; 2 Ch 13%}7 makes Abijah, with 
 400,000 men, fight against Jeroboam with 800,000, 
 and kill 500,000 of them; Asa (2 Ch 148) had 
 800,000 men of Judah and 280,000 of Benjamin; 
 Zerah the Ethiopian, his opponent, had 1,000,000 
 men and 300 chariots (2 Ch 14°); Amaziah (2 Ch 
 25°. 8) had 300,000 soldiers of his own, and hired 
 100,000 more from Israel; Azariah (2 Ch 261%) had 
 an army of 307,500 men; Pekah (2 Ch 28° 8) killed 
 120,000 Judean warriors in one day, and carried 
 off 200,000 captives. 
 
 F. The combination of these various peculiarities 
 of the author gives a very different aspect to the 
 history from that found in the earlier books. The 
 
 re-royal time has only a genealogical interest for 
 ey The beginning of the kingdom, the first 
 reign, the attempts of Saul’s dynasty to maintain 
 itself, are no concern of his. Practically, David is 
 his first king. David and Solomon are kings of 
 almost spotless excellence, and enjoy undisturbed 
 rosperity. The ceremonial law of the Priests’ 
 ode is recognised and observed by David, even 
 
 CHRONICLES, I. AND 1L 
 
 before there is a temple. The service is stately 
 and rich. After the division of the kingdom the 
 ten tribes are not of importance enough to be 
 mentioned, except incidentally. Interest is con- 
 centrated on Judah and Jerusalem. All good 
 Judwan kings, trained in the law of one exclusive 
 sanctuary, of course forbade the high places. Sins, 
 when they do occur, are sternly punished by God, 
 and public calamities are due to sins. Huge 
 numbers give majesty and importance to many 
 scenes, and to the (eiaedoi in its continuous 
 history, and central in that history is the hand of 
 God, His temple, His solemn ordinances, His cere- 
 monial and impressive worship, 
 
 Sources.—l. For 1 Ch 1-9 the sources are appar- 
 ently genealogical lists in Gn, Ex, Nu, Jos, and 
 (occasionally) $,—the relation between Ru 4/7 and 
 1 Ch 2°: is doubtful,—also other lists not found in 
 the earlier canonical books. The latter is the 
 case particularly in the latter half of 1 Ch 2, and 
 in chs. 4. 6 and the middle of 7 (see esp. Wellh. 
 De gentibus, and Kittel). Only twice in these 
 chapters is there reference to an earlier writing ; 
 the first is in 1 Ch 5!7, but whether this writing 
 (or these writings, v. infr. IL. 18) really served the 
 Chronicler as a source is extrouialy doubtful 
 (Kuenen, Ond.? i. 483); the second is in 1 Ch 9! 
 (see below). ; 
 
 The Psalm 1 Ch 1685 is made up of parts of 
 three Psalms found in our Psalter (see PARALLELS, 
 above). 
 
 The question as to the origin of 2 Ch 36% 4 
 (Restoration-decree of Cyrus)=Ezr 1-*4, belongs 
 rather to a discussion of Ezra-Nehemiah. 
 
 Ch’s own references to earlier writings (with the 
 exceptions noted above) are in the main part of 
 the book, 1 Ch 10-2 Ch 3674. 
 
 II. Ch refers by name to the following works :— 
 
 1. (a) The Book of the Kings of Judah and 
 Israel, 2 Ch 161 25*6 288 ; evidently =(b) The Book 
 of the Kings of Israel and Judah, 277 3577 368. 
 
 2. The Book of the Kings of Israel, 1 Ch 9} (so 
 Bertheau, Keil, Oettli, Kautzsch, RV; &, Kuenen 
 doubtfully. AV adds ‘and Judah,’ which otherwise 
 is subj. of following vb.). 
 
 3. The Doings of the Kings of Israel (2 Ch 33% 
 (for Manasseh). 
 
 4. The Midrash of the Book of Kings, 2 Ch 2477 
 (for Joash). 
 
 5. The Vision of Isaiah the Prophet, son of 
 Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and 
 Israel, 2 Ch 32%, 
 
 6. The Words of Jehu, son of Hanani, which are 
 taken up into the Book of the Kings of Israel, 
 1 Ch 20* (for Jehoshaphat). 
 
 The following were probably of limited com- 
 pass :— 
 
 7. The Words of Samuel the Seer, and the 
 Words of Nathan the Prophet, and the Words of 
 Gad the Seer, 1 Ch 29”, 
 
 8. The Words of Nathan the Prophet, and the 
 Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the Vision 
 of Iddo the Seer regarding Jeroboam, son of 
 Nebat, 2 Ch 9”, 
 
 9. The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet and of 
 Iddo the Seer for reckoning by Genealogies, 
 2 Ch 12%, 
 
 10. The Midrash of the Prophet Iddo, 2 Ch 1373, 
 
 1l. The rest of the Doings of Uzziah, first and 
 last, did Isaiah the Prophet, son of Amoz, write, 
 2 Ch 267. 
 
 12. The Words of the Seers, 2 Ch 3379 (cf. v.18; so 
 @i, Bertheau, Kautzsch ; of Hozai, P, Oettli, RV). 
 
 The author refers also to— 
 
 13. A genealogical enrolment in the days of 
 Jotham and in the days of Jeroboam [11.], 1 Ch 5" 
 (since these kings were not contemporary, are twa 
 lists referred to 2). 
 
 
 
CHRONICLES, I. AND IL. 
 
 14. The Later Doings of David, 1 Ch 2377. 
 
 15. The Chronicles (o°>:7 ‘723) of king David, 
 1 Ch 27%, 
 
 16. The Lamentations (a collection in which the 
 lamentations over Josiah were included), 2 Ch 35”. 
 
 But these are not all separate works. 1 (a) and 
 (5) and 5 refer obviously to the same ; so probably 
 do 2, 3, and 6; for although ‘Judah’ is not men- 
 tioned in the title (except possibly in the case of 2), 
 3 and 6 relate to kings of Judah, and the title is 
 therefore presumably abbreviated. It is highly 
 likely that 4 is another designation of the same 
 work. The prophetic writings 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 
 12 are possibly, though not demonstrably, sections 
 of the same comprehensive book. If not, they are 
 in any case of subordinate consequence. As to 
 13-16 it is not clear that these have actually con- 
 tributed anything to Ch; 16 certainly has not. 
 
 It is true that the Chronicler explicitly appeals 
 to none of the documents named as authorities for 
 what he states, but only as repositories of (further) 
 information. Nevertheless, it is probable that the 
 Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, cited 
 under different names, is the main source of Ch. 
 The many agreements with S and K prove that 
 Ch used either these books or some work based on 
 these. There is no evidence that it used the 
 sources of S and K; these books must themselves 
 have been known to the author, for they had lon 
 been in existence in his time, and the order an 
 choice of material follow theirs to a large extent ; 
 moreover, the matter which is peculiar to Ch 
 shows the marked characteristics of the author’s 
 style, in sharp contrast with those of the matter 
 corresponding to that of Samuel and Kings; 
 in particular, the following additional proofs 
 show that Ch does not go behind them for its 
 materials :— 
 
 2 Ch 15!” 208 state that Asa and Jehoshaphat 
 did not remove the high places. This is in conflict 
 with the author’s own statements 14° 178 (cf. 19°), 
 and is evidently due to unthinking imitation of his 
 source. It appears 1 K 15% 22%, and the agree- 
 ment is almost verbal. These statements, how- 
 ever, certainly belong to the Deuteronomic redac- 
 tion, and not to the sources of Kings. 
 
 Other passages common to Kings and Ch, which 
 must be original with Kings (several of them 
 Deuteronomic, and none from the sources) are 2 Ch 
 10%=1 K 12), 2 Ch 217-8 1b—9 K gis. 2.22 9 Oh 
 25?:4=2 K 145-6 (verbally), 2 Ch 28!=2 K 164 
 pee) 2 Ch 31 based on 2 K 18; cf. also 2 Ch 
 322=2 K 18” (substantially), 2 Ch 33°=2 K 21° 
 (verbally). 
 
 A special class of passages consists of those 
 which are appropriate in Sam. and Kings, but 
 have become unfitting or meaningless because of 
 omissions by. Ch :— 
 
 1 Ch 14%" begins, ‘ And David took yet more (1\y) 
 wives at Jerus.’=2 S 15!-16, although 2 S 37° to 
 which “\y refers, is omitted in Ch. 
 
 1 Ch 20! ‘But David tarried at Jerus.’=28 11; 
 it is in conflict with 1 Ch 20%*; this is due to the 
 omission of the story of Uriah and Bathsheba 
 2S 117-12%, and of 127-29 which tell of Joab’s 
 summoning David. 
 
 2 Ch 82 (=1 K 9™ 3 in part) mentions the 
 daughter of Pharaoh incidentally (not indeed 
 with great respect) as Solomon’s wife, although 
 1 K 3%. 78 are omitted. 
 
 2 Ch 10? speaks of Jeroboam’s return from 
 Egypt, ‘whither he had fled from the presence of 
 Solomon the king’=1 K 12?, although 1 K 11°” 
 are omitted. 
 
 2 Ch 10" refers specifically to Ahijah’s prophecy 
 about Jeroboam=1 K 12, although the prophecy 
 itself, 1 K 11°°-*, is omitted. 
 
 2 Ch 32}8 specifies ‘the Jews’ speech’ =2 K 18%, 
 
 CHRONICLES, L AND IL 395 
 
 although 2 K 185, which gives point to this detail, 
 is omitted. 
 
 Some of these passages are more cogent than 
 others, but all are confirmatory of the position 
 that our S and K and nothing earlier (with possible 
 exceptions noted below) underlie Ch in its narrative 
 portions. 
 
 It is, however, improb. that the Chronicler used 
 these canonical books directly, as the chief source 
 of his historical material. We have seen that his 
 main interests are not political, and that he omits 
 or greatly condenses many matters which do not 
 contribute much to his purposes. At the same time 
 some of his material not found in S and Kis ofa 
 political and personal nature, e.g. the fortifications 
 of Rehoboam, and his might and wisdom 2 Ch 
 115-12. 17.23, Asa’s war with the Ethiopians 2 Ch 
 14°15, Jehoshaphat’s war with Moab, Ammon, 
 and Edom 2 Ch 20, Amaziah’s relations with his 
 Israelitish mercenaries 2 Ch 255-13, Uzziah’s wars 
 and buildings 2 Ch 26*!°, the successful invasion 
 of Pekah 2 Ch 28515, and of the Edomites and 
 Philistines vy.!7- 18, Some of these narratives the 
 Chronicler uses to point his own moral teachings, 
 but it is most unlikely that he either invented 
 them, or resorted to some special source for them ; 
 they are not such as particularly appeal to him. 
 Most likely, therefore, he found them in the 
 document which was his main source for other 
 matter, and, finding them, used them to enforce 
 his religious views. This source was probably the 
 Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (see above), 
 which was, in that case, based on our S and K, with 
 additional matter of uncertain and probably varying 
 value. Since the style of these additions (with a few 
 minor exceptions) resembles that of the Chronicler, 
 it may be that this Book of the Kings was produced 
 in the school to which he belonged. The alternative 
 is to suppose that he rewrote them. That he at 
 least retouched them is probable. How far the 
 
 eculiar religious and ecclesiastical tone of Ch is 
 ue to this source we cannot tell, but the presence 
 of the same in Ezr-Neh, which do not depend on 
 this Book of the Kings, makes it clear that this 
 tone was such as the Chronicler himself would 
 roduce, and probably it is, throughout, mainly 
 ue to him. 
 
 HISTORICAL TRUSTWORTHINESS.—The late date 
 of Ch presumably hinders it from being a historival 
 witness of the first order. It could be so only if 
 its sources were demonstrably such. But it has 
 no sources certainly older than the canonical S and 
 K; its chief source is probably much later. An 
 interval of 250 or 300 years separates it from the 
 last events recorded in K. In all cases of conflict, 
 then (see the examples above), preference must be 
 given toS and K. The obvious special interests of 
 Ch also (see above) are not to its advantage as a 
 simple witness to facts. Intrinsic probability 
 points the same way in many instances (see especi- 
 ally Comparison D, Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 
 16, 20, and Driver, Bertheau, Oettli, etc., on the 
 passages); this holds true of the huge numbers 
 of Ch as well. 
 
 If this is so in the parallel narratives, it must 
 be so likewise in those matters which we owe 
 entirely to Ch. Some of these conflict with the 
 known course of the history, e.g. the complete 
 Levitical arrangements of David and his successors ; 
 others are in themselves most unlikely, e.g. 
 Amaziah’s dealings with Israelitish mercenaries. 
 It is plain that the character of Ch’s testimony, 
 when we can control it by parallel accounts, is not 
 such as to give us reason to depend on it with 
 security when it stands alone. Perhaps it does not 
 enlarge our stock of historical matter beyond that 
 given in S and K. We cannot say absolutely 
 that it does not; e.g. Kebeboam’s buildings, 
 
 
 
396 CHRONICLES, I. AND IL. 
 
 
 
 Uzziah’s buildings and wars, Hezekiah’s water- 
 works, Manasseh’s captivity, ete., may be in part, 
 or altogether, stated accurately, and to some of 
 them a certain degree of probability attaches (cf. 
 Kittel), but on the unsupported evidence of Ch we 
 cannot be sure af them. It is not certain whether 
 his source derived them from other documents or 
 from tradition, and we cannot tell with positive- 
 ness how far they are trustworthy. This uncertainty 
 passes over into Ch itself. Its main value lies in 
 another direction. (On the Restoration-edict of 
 Cyrus, see Kosters, Het Herstel van Israél, 1894, 
 and art. EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.) 
 
 CHARACTER OF THE CHRONICLER.—It would be 
 most unjust to call the Chronicler a falsifier. He 
 shows himself, on the contrary, as a man of great 
 sincerity and moral earnestness. Even if falsifica- 
 tion had, in his time, when his conception of the 
 history was widely accepted, had any sufficient 
 motive, he would have been incapable of it. His 
 view of the past is that of a son of his own age, in 
 whom the historical imagination had not been 
 largely developed. The Pent. had long been com- 
 
 lete, and its latest code had a firm grasp on the 
 ives and the minds of the people, and on his own. 
 He did not conceive of a time, since the kingdom 
 began, when it was otherwise. He was almost 
 certainly a Levite, and probably a musician. He 
 was trained in the law, and ew its religious 
 power. God was near His people in it, God Him- 
 self enforced it. Membership in God’s people was 
 to him a great privilege, and genealogies that 
 assured it, of great importance. These habits and 
 convictions, the result of inheritance and of train- 
 ing, determined his mode of writing history. David 
 and Solomon he idealised, presenting strongly and 
 without much qualification those sides of their 
 character which appealed to him, and depicting 
 the religion of their time according to what seemed 
 to him the necessary conditions of righteousness. 
 The Northern Kingdom, as apostate, was of little 
 interest for him. The history of the Southern 
 Kingdom was his concern mainly because it was 
 ecclesiastical history—‘ Ecclesiastical Chronicle of 
 Jerusalem’ Reuss has called it (cf. Literature 
 below). God was watching and judging it on the 
 basis of His complete law; it fell at last because 
 ‘all the chief of the priests, and the people, trans- 
 gressed very much after all the abominations of 
 the heathen; and polluted the house of J’,’ and 
 when they were rebuked ‘mocked the messengers 
 of God, and despised his words, and misused his 
 prophets’ (2 Ch 36!*-18), The whole conception of 
 the history was not that of a mere individual, but 
 that of an age, from which the individual could 
 not separate himself, 
 
 VALUE OF CHRONICLES.—It follows from the 
 foregoing paragraphs that the value of Chronicles 
 is not mainly that of an accurate record of past 
 events. Nevertheless, its value is real and great. 
 It is, however, the value more of a sermon than of 
 a history. 
 
 1. We must, indeed, remember that there is a 
 certain negative historical value in the fact that Ch 
 
 agrees with S and K to so large an extent. It is not |. 
 
 an independent witness, but at least it appears that 
 as to the main course of the pre-exilic history there 
 was, when Ch was written, no variant tradition 
 which the author thought worth noticing. 
 
 2. We must remember, further, that there may 
 be good historical material in matter peculiar to 
 Ch, ¢.g., in the genealogical lists and some scattered 
 incidents (see Kuenen, Kittel, Gray), although the 
 determination of its limits and the interpretation 
 of it will require critical acumen. 
 
 3. The knowledge the author gives us of his own 
 time, also, is historically important. The fact that 
 he clothes old history with his own contemporary 
 
 CHRONICLES, I. AND II. 
 
 habits makes his own time more intelligible to us. 
 We understand better how religious Jews thought 
 and felt in the 3rd cent. B.c. This enlivens and 
 vitalizes the period for us, and prepares us better 
 to appreciate the conditions of the work of Jesus 
 and His disciples. 
 
 4. The author’s selection of matter emphasizes 
 the fundamental and permanent elements in the 
 history. He gives only a one-sided view of David, 
 and yet he thereby throws stress on David’s real, 
 though, as we know, not unwavering desire for 
 righteousness. He thinks chiefly of the Southern 
 Kingdom, but that kingdom is the one of historical 
 importance in the development of religion. And 
 so with other details. In this, as in the particulars 
 following, he served his own age, and the service 
 continues to ours. 
 
 5. His belief in God was intense, as one activel 
 governing the world, punishing the evil an 
 rewarding the good, demanding obedience and 
 worship, but long-suffering and gracious to His 
 people in spite of their sin. There is at times 
 something mechanical in his conception, but it is 
 strong and effective. 
 
 6. He illustrates for us the value and the limita- 
 tions of the law in spiritual education. Obedience 
 to its smallest requirements was an avenue to God. 
 Formalism, the subordination of the moral to the 
 ceremonial, is the accompanying danger, and the 
 Chronicler did not wholly escape it. “But the law 
 really was a means of spiritual growth, and this 
 the Chronicler exemplifies. Devotion to it did 
 not exclude some breadth of spiritual sympathy, as 
 the beautiful passage 2 Ch 3018 1° distinctly shows. 
 
 7. He bears witness, also, to the value of the 
 liturgical element in religion. Worship is to him 
 a rich and stately thing. The art of music has its 
 contribution to make. The most thorough pre- 
 paration, and splendid execution, befit the service 
 in which men approach the Almighty God. This 
 thought, too, has its dangers. The essence of 
 worship is always in the soul of the worshipper. 
 But the ideal of worship includes both the genuine 
 spirit and the fitting expression of it, and the 
 
 hronicler teaches here a permanent lesson. 
 
 Thus Ch illustrates for us God’s use of a pro- 
 fessedly historical writing to enforce His truth, 
 both in spite of, and by means of, the very qualities 
 which impair its excellence as pure history. 
 
 TEXT.—Ch appears to have been less read, and 
 hence less often copied, than many other books. 
 One source of textual error is therefore minimised. 
 The history of its transmission is, however, long 
 enough to give much room to textual criticism. 
 The text of Ch can often be corrected, in parallel 
 passages, by that of S and K, but more often the 
 author is himself responsible for variations. The 
 peculiar characteristics of Ch are centr not 
 textual. Sometimes Ch has preserved the better 
 reading. The greatest number of textual questions 
 is connected with proper names. The following, 
 taken from parallel texts, may serve as illustra- 
 tions :— 
 
 Ch has the worse reading :— 
 
 1Ch 1° nom, GB Epepad, A Pigae, GL Prpad= 
 
 np Gn 10%, so Gh. 
 
 1” yp, GB om., A GL Mosoy ;=0> Gn 10% 
 (where & also Mosox, but erroneously ; 3p 
 has already occurred, v.?). 
 
 1® opin, GB Away, GL Hyayv=jo Gn 36%, 
 G A:uay (interchange of 1 and ° especially 
 frequent). 
 
 1 poy, GB Dwray, A Twrap, GL Adovay=pby 
 Gn 36”, G& Twrwv, G&L Twrap. 
 
 18 mby Kethibh, mby Keré, GB Twha, GL 
 Adova=m>y Gn 36%, @& Twa, 
 
 
 
CHRONICLES, I. AND IL 
 
 1 Ch 38 yoy ds, GB Edeoa, A GL Edioapa=yerdy 
 28 515, Oy Edeous, ete. 
 4% 3°», OB lapew, A Iape.B=)>: Gn 46%= Ex 6 
 =Nu 26”, so G iz all. 
 18°57 syq7q, Ge Adpa(a)fap=yy71q 28 8*** (Gr 
 here also, erron., Adpaafap), 
 etc. etc. 
 _ The reading is doubtful :— 
 1 Ch 1% ‘5x, GB Zwdap, GL Zergoun='by Gn 36", 
 Ck Zwopap. 
 1® »5¥, GB Dwf, A Zwhap, GL Larpe='5y 
 Gn 367, G&B Zw¢, G&L Zwday. 
 1% ys, dk Doywp, GL Paova=i> Gn 36", & 
 
 Doywp. 
 
 3 Se, GB Aapymd, A GL Aadoua = 3x22 8 3?, 
 Gr Aadowa (!). 
 
 4% bxio3=Nu 26", @& (in both) Nayouy\= dyin 
 Gn 46!= Ex 65, so ¢& (in both). 
 
 ‘my=Nu 26%, G&B (in Ch) Zapes, A GkL Zapa(e), 
 Gr (in Nu) Zapa=75s Gn 46°=Ex 6", G (in 
 both) Zaap, 
 
 etc. etc. 
 
 Ch has the better reading :— 
 1Ch 17 oy, G ‘Podioe (GL Awdaveu)=0974 Gn 
 104, Gr ‘Podiot. 
 1® jay, GB (cal) Qvav, A (kal) Ovxapy, GL (cal) 
 Taaxay=]py) Gn 36”, Gk (kal) Ovxary, GL (xat) 
 Touxap. 
 2S oxyown CB db ’Iopand(e)irns (Gk L "lapandlrys) 
 = ein 2S 17%, so GB GL, A ‘Iopanrelrns. 
 8%. 83 — 939-29 Lyon, Or AgaBaadr, leBaad, IoBaad 
 Baak=nyav'x 2S 28+10 t. Sam, O& leBocde, 
 and (most often, strangely) MeudiBoode. 
 8™ 4 by3 snp = 9 and (better, see Kittel) ya" 
 v.”, Gr MepiBaad, MexpiBaar, MeppiBaar, OkL 
 MepudiBacd=ny'en 28 44414 t. Sam, Gr Mep- 
 giBoobe, OL MeudiBaar, exc. 2S 21° Meugu- 
 fas9e (for distinction). 
 117 339 =2 S 218, G (in Ch) Zofoyu, ete., 
 nL LoBoxxa, UB (in Sam) OcBoxa, A ZeBoxaer, 
 GL DoBexxc='739 2 S 237, GB ex ray vidr, 
 ZuaBer, 
 etc. etc. 
 For further details see in Wellh. De gentibus, 
 ete.; Kittel, Books of Ch. in Hebrew; Driver, 
 Hebrew Text of Samuel. 
 
 Lirgrature (selected).—T7#XT.—S. Baer and F. Delitzsch, 
 Inber Chronicorum (1888); R. Kittel, The Books of Chronictes in 
 Hebrew, Critical ed. of the Heb. Text. (ed. Paul Haupt), 1895. 
 
 TRANSLATIONS.—E. Reuss, Chronique ecclésiastique de Jéru- 
 salem, 1878 (La Bible, iv. parts . Kautzsch, Biicher der 
 Chronik, 1893, 1894 (in Die Heilige Schrift d. A.T., ed. 
 Kautzsch). ss : 
 
 CoMMENTARIES.—E. Bertheau, Biicher der Chronik, 2te Aufl. 
 1873 (in Kurzgef. Exeget. Handbuch z. A.T.); S. Oettli, Biicher 
 der Chronik, 1889 (in Kurzgef. Exeget. Kommentar z. A.T.); 
 ©. F. Keil, Biicher der Chronik, 1870 (in Biblischer Kom- 
 mentar tiber d. A.T.), Eng. tr. 1872; W. H. Bennett, The 
 Books of Chronicles, 1894 (in The Expositor’s Bible); J. Robert- 
 son in Book by Book (1892), pp. 111-119; Cc. J. Ball in Bishop 
 Ellicott’s Commentary ; cae in Lange’s Bibelwerk, 1874 
 
 Eng. tr. by J. G. Murphy). i 
 ‘ CHITIOAL Discussions.—M. L. de Wette, Beitrdge zur 
 Binleitung in d. A.T. i. 1806; K. H. Graf, Die Geschichtlichen 
 Biicher d. A.T. 1866, 114-247; W. R. Smith, Encycl. Britan. 
 8.v. 1876, OT JC? (1892) 140 ff., 182ff.; J. Wellhausen, Gesch. 
 176-237, Eng. tr. 171-227; A. Kuenen, Onderzoek, 2nd ed. vol. i. 
 1887, 483-520; S. R. Driver, LOT, 1891, 434-507 ; C. H. Cornill, 
 Einleitung, 1891, 268-276; G. Wildeboer, Origin of the Canon 
 of the Old Testament [1891] 1895, 51, 142 f., 152) 0162, Lat. d: 
 A.T. 1895, 404-420; W. E. Barnes, ‘ Religious Standpoint of the 
 Chronicler’(in Am. Journ, Sem. Lang. and Literature, October 
 1896), ‘Chronicles a te Ne (in Expository Times, viii. (1897), 
 816f.); Schiirer, HJP u. i. 309, 340, iii. 162; Girdlestone, 
 i aterosmaphs, 1894 (passim); Sanday, Bampton Lectures on 
 Inspiration (1893), 102, 163, 244, 253 ff., 308, 455, 457; Ewald, 
 History of Israel, i. 169 ff. ; Jennings, ‘Chronicles’ (in Thinker, 
 July, September, November, 1892); R le, Canon of the Old 
 Testament (1892), 138 f., 145, 151, 162; Ladd, The Doctrine of 
 Sacred Scripture (1883), |. 108 ¢., 373 ff., 646 ff., 646 f. ; Montefiore, 
 Hibbert Lectures (1892), pp. 447 ff., 454, 483; Driver, ‘The 
 Speeches in Chronicles’ in Expositor, Apr. and Oct. 1895 ; 
 Schrader, KAT? (1883), 366 ff. ; on the genealogies in particular, 
 J. Wellhausen, De gentibus et familiis Judais hires 1 Ch. 2-4 
 enumerantur, 1870; G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper 
 Names, 1896, ch. iii. FRANCIS BROWN. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TESI. 397 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE OT.—The OT con. 
 tains data from which a chronology may be com- 
 ae from the creation of the world to tha 
 
 estruction of Jerus. by the Chaldeans. Fou 
 convenience, this chronology may be considered 
 under several periods. 
 
 i, FROM THE CREATION TO THE FLOOD. — The 
 data for this period, which are found in the genea- 
 logical table of Gn 5 and the notice of the year of 
 the Flood in Gn 7°, are given differently in the Heb 
 text, the Sam., and the LXX. These differences 
 are exhibited in the following table :— 
 
 i 
 
 Age of each when next 
 was born or event 
 occurred. 
 
 Adam , 
 
 Seth 
 
 Enosh 
 
 Kenan . 
 
 Mahalalel 
 
 Jared . 
 
 Enoch . . 
 
 Methuselah . 
 
 Lamech . 
 
 Noah 5 . 
 
 Years from Creation to the Flood 
 
 
 
 1656 
 
 Thus we have three different lengths assigned 
 for the period from the creation of man to the 
 Flood. The numbers of the Heb. text have gene- 
 rally been regarded as the original, although 
 recently those of the Sam. have been defended by 
 Dillmann and Budde. The LXX text, however, 
 was accepted by the Hel. Jews and the early 
 Christian Church, and has found defenders among 
 certain Eng. scholars (Hales, Jackson, Poole, 
 Rawlinson, and others), who have looked upon 
 it with favour as furnishing a chronology more in 
 accord with the antiquity of man than that of 
 the Heb. text. But these numbers, whichever 
 table may be regarded as the original, cannot, 
 in any case, be accepted as historical, and hence 
 for a real chronology of the early ages of man they 
 are valueless. To accept them as genuine records 
 is to assume from the creation of man a degree of 
 civilisation high enough to provide a settled 
 calendar, and a regular registration of births and 
 deaths, and the preservation of such records from 
 the creation of man to the time of the composition 
 of Gn. All that is known of primitive antiquity 
 is against such a supposition. The art of writing 
 was not then known; and however tenacious may 
 have been the memory of man, it is doubtful 
 whether language then possessed the requisite 
 terminology for the expression of such lapses of 
 time. Man also has been upon the earth for a far 
 longer period than that given even by the LXX 
 chronology. The conjectural character of the table 
 of Gn 5 may be also recognised from the varia- 
 tions of the three texts. Such liberties would prob- 
 ably not have been taken with figures supposed to 
 rest upon authentic historical documents. The 
 sacred writer chose the form of a genealogical table 
 to represent the early period of the world’s history. 
 The number of the patriarchs, ten, is a common 
 one in the lists of the prehistoric rulers or heroes 
 of many peoples. It appears at once to be a sug- 
 gestion from the ten fingers. The length assigned 
 for the period from the Creation to the Flood is 
 more difficult of explanation. Accepting that of 
 the Heb. text, the most probable explanation is 
 seen in connecting the 1656 years with the subse- 
 quent data given for the period between the Flood 
 
 
 

 
 398 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TEST. 
 
 
 
 and the Exodus, which together make 2666, or 
 two-thirds of 4000 years. Four thousand years, 
 according to a Jewish tradition, were to elapse 
 from the creation of the world to the coming of 
 the Messiah. Two-thirds of that period, then, 
 would have passed at the Exodus, or the giving of 
 the law and founding of the Jewish Theocracy at 
 Mount Sinai. 
 
 ii. From THE FLOOD TO THE Exopus.—For 
 the period from the Flood to the birth of Abraham, 
 we have a genealogical table in Gn 111% similar 
 to that of Gn 5, and likewise given differently in 
 the three ancient texts. In this instance, however, 
 the Sam. and LXX VSS are almost identical, both 
 
 iving a much longer period than the Heb. text. 
 he LXX also has an extra name, Cainan, wanting 
 in both the Heb. and Sam. texts, giving 130 addi- 
 tional years; and the years of Nahor at the birth 
 of Terah in the LXX are 179, while in the Sam. 79. 
 The variations are shown in the following table :— 
 
 
 
 Age of each when next 
 was born or event 
 occurred. 
 
 Heb. Sam. LXx 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shem . ° > . 
 Arpachshad. e ‘ . : 85 135 135 
 Cainan. . . . . Rv 130 
 Shelah , : . . . . 80 130 130 
 Eber . . . . . ° 84 134 134 
 Peleg . ‘ . ° * 30 130 130 
 Reu . . ° . . . 82 132 132 | 
 Serug . . . . . is 30 130 130 
 Nahor . ° ° ° . . 29 79 179 
 Terah . e . e ° . 70 70 70 
 Abraham . . . . vee 
 
 890 1040 1270 
 
 
 
 Yrs. of Shem’s life bef. the Flood *100 100 100 
 From Flood to birth of Abraham 290 940 1170 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Of these three texts the Heb. is undoubtedly 
 the original. The LXX and Sam. show an endeav- 
 our to gain more time by systematically heighten- 
 ing the birth year of the patriarchs. The extra 
 name of the L&X probably arose from a desire to 
 make the number of the patriarchs ten (perhaps 
 they were so originally), and thus bring the table 
 more into conformity with that of Ga 5. The 
 LXX text has been preferred by Hales, Jackson, 
 Poole, and others as providing a more adequate 
 time than the Heb. text for the growth of the 
 nations of antiquity. But the LXX period is too 
 short. It places the Flood at about 3000 B.c. But 
 Egyptian remains point to a civilisation whose 
 beginnings were not later than 5000 years B.C., and 
 very likely millenniums earlier (Maspero says 8000 
 or 10,000 years B.C.), and Assyr. discoveries have 
 revealed an historic period extending to as early 
 a date. This table came evidently from the 
 same source as that of Gn 5, and is of the same 
 artificial character, except that in some of the 
 patriarchal names are reminiscences of peoples and 
 
 laces. 
 
 y The data for the period from the birth of Abra- 
 ham to the Nxodus are given in the notice of the 
 age of Abraham at the birth of Isaac (Gn 215), and 
 of Isaac at the birth of Jacob (Gn 25”), and of 
 Jacob at his descent into Egypt (Gn 47°), and 
 
 * More exactly, according to the statement of Gn 111° that 
 hshad was born ‘two years after the Flood,’ the years of 
 Shem’s life before the Flood are 98 years. But the ‘two years 
 after the Flood’ is probably a gloss inserted by some one who, 
 overlooking the round and systematic character of the data of 
 the lives of the patriarchs, desired to make the birth of Arpach- 
 shad correspond exactly to the deta’led statements of the 
 duration of the Flood (Gn 76 813. 14), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF DLD TEST. 
 
 of the length of the sojourn of the children of 
 Israel in Egypt (Ex. 12°). In this last passage 
 the LXX and Sam. texts make the sojourning of 
 
 the children of Israel to include also the sojourning 
 of the patriarchs in the land of Canaan. From 
 these data we present the following table with a 
 summary of the preceding tables, with also the 
 reference to the age of Abraham at his call from 
 Haran (Gen. 124) :— 
 
 
 
 Age of Abraham on leaving Haran. . 75 75 
 Age of Abraham at the birth of Isaac. 100 25 
 Age of Isaac at the birth of Jacob . 4 60 60 
 
 Age of Jacob at the descent into Egypt . 180 180 
 Years of the patriarchal sojourn in 
 Canaan . ° A 5 , 5 fe 215 ae 
 Years of the patriarchal sojourn in Egypt 430 480 
 Years of the sojourn in Egypt according 
 toLXx . 5 . = ig. 215 ae 
 From the birth of Abraham to the Exodus . ° 720 
 
 From the Flood to birth of Abraham . * 290 
 From the Creation to the Flood . . . . 1656 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 From the Creation to the Exodus . 5 . ‘ 2666 
 
 How nearly these numbers represent the actual 
 duration of the beginnings of the people of Israel, 
 and of their sojourn in Fert, cannot now be 
 determined. They are evi ay from the same 
 original source as the previous tables, and there is no 
 reason to suppose that authentic historical records 
 underlie them.* Some early hist. reminiscences, 
 however, may be preserved in them. The number 
 400 for the years of the oppression in Egypt 
 appears in Gn 15%, which belongs to one of the 
 earliest sources of the Hexateuch. 
 
 The Period of the Sojourn in Liat descent 
 of the children of Israel into Egypt, according to 
 the story of Joseph, took place when a Sem. 
 foreigner might be received at the Egyp. court 
 with favour, and his people readily granted posses- 
 sions in the land. he reign of the Hyksos or 
 Shepherd-kings meets this condition, and the 
 descent of the children of Israel at that time is 
 both an ancient tradition and the view generally 
 accepted by biblical scholars. The period of the 
 Hyksos rule, owing to the obscurity and uncer- 
 tainty of Egyp. chronology, cannot be very 
 definitely determined. It lasted several centuries, 
 and terminated not later than 1530 Bot A 
 famine is recorded as occurring during the reign of 
 Aphophis or Apepi, one of the last of the Hyksos 
 rulers; and this monarch may have been the 
 Pharaoh of Joseph. He is so mentioned by George 
 Syncellus, a historian of the 9th cent. A.D.; and 
 the supposition is received with favour by Sayce, 
 Brugsch, Kittel, and others. It is, however, only 
 a supposition. 
 
 The Pharaoh of the oppression, under whom 
 the children of Israel built the treasure cities 
 Pithom and Raamses (Ex 1), was Ramses II. 
 This fact, long conjectured, has been definitely 
 settled by Naville’s identification of Pithom, and 
 discovery that it was built by Ramses 1. The 
 Exodus has usually been assigned (by Brugsch, 
 Ebers, Rawlinson, Sayce, and others) to the reign 
 of Menephtah (Merenptah) or Seti 0., the im- 
 mediate successors of tas 11. Since, however, 
 both of these kings were no mean sovereigns, 
 and apparently controlled both Pal. and the 
 Sin. Peninsula, it may be better (with Kittel, 
 Maspero, Wiedemann, and others) to assign 
 
 * According to the documentary hypothesis of the composi- 
 tion of the Pent. or Hex. they belong to the priestly document 
 now generally regarded as the latest portion of the Pentateuch. 
 
 + This is the date given by Ed. Meyer as the latest possible, 
 and is thus accepted by Wendel and Erman. Other dates given 
 for the close of this period or the beginning of the New Empire 
 are Wiedemann, 1750; Brugsch, 1706; Mariette, 1703; Rawlinson, 
 1640; Lepsius, 1591. 
 
 | 
 : 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF VLD TEST. 399 
 
 
 
 the Exodus to the period of royal weakness and 
 general anarchy following their reigns at the 
 close of the 19th dynasty (not later, according to 
 Meyer, than 1180 B.C.; according to Rawlinson and 
 others, about a cent. earlier), M°Curdy (Hist., 
 pee, and the Mon.) places the Exodus in the 
 20th dynasty, in the latter part of the reign of 
 Ramses Ill., or immediately after his reign. He 
 does not think the Egyp. control in the Sin. Pen- 
 insula or in Pal. to have been sufficiently relaxed 
 at an earlier period for either the Exodus or the 
 conquest of Pal. to have been possible. He gives 
 the date about 1200 B.c. The children of Israel, 
 however, during the reign of Ramses ILI, (1180- 
 1148) may have been wandering in the desert and 
 taking possession of the country E. of the Jordan. 
 This would allow about 50 years from their depar- 
 ture from Egypt to their entrance into W. Pal., 
 corresponding roughly with the biblical 40 years. 
 This much at least seems certain, that Pal. was for 
 many centuries an Egyp. province, and that the 
 conquests under Joshua cannot well have begun 
 until the close of the 19th dynasty, and probably 
 the close of the reign of Ramses 1. The view of 
 some writers (F. C. Cook, Conder, Kéhler, Sharpe, 
 and others), who have assigned the Exodus to 
 earlier periods, is refuted by Naville’s discove 
 of Pithom, built by Ramses 1.; by the Tel el- 
 Amarna tablets, which show that Pal. was 
 thoroughly an Egyp. province during the 18th 
 dynasty ; and by the fact of the control exercised 
 by Seti 1. and Ramses uJ. over Pal. within the 
 19th dynasty. * 
 
 iii. FROM THE EXODUS TO THE FOUNDING OF THE 
 TEMPLE.—The founding of Solomon’s temple is said 
 in 1 K 6 to have taken place in the 480th year 
 after the Exodus (according to the LXX, in the 
 40th year). Such an exact statement, if historical, 
 requires that an accurate system of reckoning time 
 was employed by the children of Israel during 
 all those years. A provision for this has been seen 
 in the yearly Heb. festivals, and especially in the 
 Sabbatical and Jubilee years. If this, however, 
 was the case, it is strange that we do not find 
 traces of such a mode of reckoning in the OT. 
 While there are allusions to the recurrence of 
 feasts as indicating a year’s time, there is nothing 
 to indicate festivals or Sabbatical or Jubilee years 
 as being regarded as the units or termini of any 
 calendar. The only method apparent is by the 
 years of the monarch of the land. Before the royal 
 period we have no evidence of any system of 
 reckoning dates, and it is probable that during the 
 period from the Exodus to the founding of the 
 temple, Sabbatical years and years of Jubilee were 
 not observed. The number 480 appears, like the 
 numbers of the Pent., to be conjectural, arising 
 from the supposition that from the Exodus to the 
 founding of the temple there were 12 genera- 
 tions of 40 ye each. This period, however, is 
 too long. he interval from the Exodus to the 
 founding of the temple is probably nearer 300 than 
 500 years. The Exodus we have seen can in no 
 case be placed earlier than after the reign of 
 Ramses I1., and the building of the temple oc- 
 curred not later than the middle of the 10th 
 cent. B.C. Reliable chron. data for comput- 
 ing the exact length of this ae. we may well 
 believe were not preserved. The disorganised con- 
 dition of affairs during the period of the judges, 
 when there was no central authority, is against 
 the supposition of the use of a settled calendar and 
 the official registration of events. The chron. 
 
 * Since the above article was in type, the new inscription of 
 king Merenptah mentioning the people of Israel has been dis- 
 covered. This may call fora revision of the opinion expressed 
 
 above in regard to the date of the Exodus, and may require its 
 assignment to an earlier period. See Eayrt, Exopus (Route). 
 
 data of the Book of Judges appear also to be 
 somewhat artificial. They are as follows :— 
 
 Israel seryes Cushan-rishathaim (38) ; . 8 years. 
 Deliverance by Othniel: the land rests (3) . 40 
 
 ” 
 
 
 
 Israel serves Eglon (314) , ‘: : fe 180% 
 Deliverance by Ehud: the land rests (880) 80) es 
 Oppression by Jabin (43) . . : Fi 5 20s, 
 Deliverance by Deborah ; the land rests (531). 40 ,, 
 Oppression by Midian (6!) 5 : 5 i. hot Ba 
 Deliverance by Gideon ; the land rests (828) . 40 ,, 
 Abimelech reigns over Israel (922) . ; ee Bis 
 Tola judges Israel (102) 23 
 Jair judges Israel (103) . 22 on 
 Oppression by Ammon (108) . A F nee? tc emery 
 Jephthah judges Israel (127). rn ° ea Oss 
 Ibzan judges Israel (12%) . ' G . b Why 
 Elon judges Israel (1211) . 10.755 
 Abdon judges Israel (1214) 5 . Soi 
 Oppression by the Philistines (181) - ; . 30) 5 
 Samson judges Israel (1520 1681) 4 ; eee eas 
 Total 410 years 
 To these years must be added— 
 The sojourn in the Wilderness 40 years. 
 
 The conquest under Joshua 
 
 The judgeship of Eli (18 418) . My 2 
 The judgeship of Samuel . *20 
 The reign of Saul Te ot 
 
 The reign of David ak 211) » . . 40 
 Of the reign of Solomon (1 K 6!) . ne 3 
 
 Total - 144+x+y years. 
 
 According to these figures the entire period is 
 over 550 years, and the repeated occurrence of 40 
 or its multiple shows that some of the numbers are 
 round, and probably conjectural. 
 
 Some of the judgeships recorded in the Book of 
 Judges may have been local and contemporaneous 
 with others. In that case no chronology can be 
 computed from these statements. In all fikelihood, 
 however, the numbers were designed to represent 
 480 years,—the years of oppression, like those of 
 a usurper, as is customary in Oriental reckonings, 
 being not counted, their interval being included 
 in the years of rest belonging to a lawful ruler. 
 ceeiryaie on this principle we have the following 
 result :— 
 
 Moses. ; . . a s 40 years. 
 Joshua and the Elders . ° ae 
 Othniel . A 5 F : 40 5 
 Ehud. . LO Ss 
 Barak 40° 5 
 Gideon : 5 A w a = » 40 iy 
 Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and 
 
 Abdon . a ‘ r 5 Oi ere 
 Samson 20 99 
 Eli ‘0 
 Samuel ° PAD 5 
 Saul . } Aer 
 David . . . ° . mm G0 55 
 Solomon . . ° . . ore 
 
 440+x+y years. 
 If 30 yeara (cf. Jos. 24”) are given to Joshua and 
 the elders, and 10 years to Saul, we have exactly 
 480 years. t 
 iv. FroM THE FOUNDING OF THE TEMPLE TO 
 THE FALL OF JERUSALEM. —This era is marked by 
 an advance in culture among the Hebrews, and in 
 the office of royal recorders or scribes provision 
 seems to have been made for the regular regis- 
 tration of important events. These events were 
 probably dated by the years of reigning monarchs. 
 At least we find this system in 1 and 2 K, Jer, 
 and Ezk. A provision, however, for the keep- 
 ing of exact chron. records does not neces- 
 sarily imply their preservation, and the Books of 
 Kings, our biblical source for the chronology of 
 this period, were not written until its close, several 
 
 * The assignment of 20 years to Samuel is an inference from 
 1872. The period of Israel’s desire for the Lord is rezarded ag 
 representing Samuel’s judgeship, and ceasing when the people 
 desired and chose a king. 
 
 t The above scheme is Noldeke’s. Moore (Judges, p. xlif.) 
 onits Saul as being to a Judawan writer an illegitimate sovereign 
 and assigns, after LXX, 20 years to Eli, and conjectures 40 years 
 each for Joshua and Samuel. 
 
 
 
 
 
400 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TST. 
 
 
 
 centuries after the earlier events narrated. The 
 writer of these books, it is true, refers constantly 
 to ‘the book of the chronicles of the kings of 
 Judah,’ and ‘to the book of the chronicles of the 
 kings of Israel,’ as sources of hisinformation. Butit 
 is not known whether he had access to original royal 
 records or only to two historical works based in 
 some way upon them. Probably the latter, be- 
 cause (1) it is unlikely that the State records of 
 the N. kingdom were preserved and brought to 
 Jerus. ; (2) the references are not to the chronicles 
 or annals themselves, but to the book of the 
 chronicles; and (3) it is difficult to account for 
 the statements of the writer in reference to dates 
 of accession and lengths of reigns, if he had access 
 to original records. 
 
 1 and 2 K give a complete list of the mon- 
 archs of Judah and Israel, and the length of their 
 reigns in years from Solomon to the fall of Samaria 
 and of Jerusalem. The commencement of eachreign 
 is dated by the year of the reign of the contem- 
 poraneous king in the other kingdom. This mode 
 of cross-reckoning is evidently that of the biblical 
 writer, for it is scarcely possible that in either 
 kingdom the year of the king of the other king- 
 dom should be used to fix the date of its own king. 
 An examination of the synchronisms leads to a 
 similar conclusion. From the construction of the 
 Heb. sentence in many instances the synchronisms 
 appear to be an addition to a statement of the 
 simple duration of a reign, and they seem in some 
 instances to reveal an attempt at an adjustment 
 of two unequal series of numbers. Rehoboam and 
 Jeroboam came to the throne at the same time, 
 also Athaliah and Jehu. The sums of the years 
 of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah 
 between these two dates should be the same. 
 That of Israel, however, as is seen in the following 
 table, exceeds that of Judah by 3 years. (The 
 7 days of the reign of Zimri are omitted, for that 
 week naturally was reckoned as belonging either 
 to the reign of Elah or Omri.) :— 
 
 Rehoboam . A - 17| Jeroboam ° - 22 
 Abijam . e « Si Nadabic) ion eae ee 
 Asa. - . » 41/ Baasha. “a - 2 
 Jehoshaphat o <« 25: Hiahie 5.0 ttc0 chee 
 Joram . @ oe) Jel S| Omri iis, arate emis 
 i . . » Li} Ahab . . - 22 
 Ahaziah ° ° neem 
 
 Joram. . 4 - 12 
 
 95 98 
 
 Sincethelengthsof thereignsareexpressed in even 
 ears, and since actual reigns must have embraced 
 actions of a year, it is apparent that these years 
 
 are calendar years. The question now arises 
 whether the calendar year in which a king died 
 was reckoned as his own last year and the Ist year 
 of his successor, or whether the Ist year of his 
 successor began with the following new year. 
 The former method of pre-dating introduces the 
 confusion of a calendar year being reckoned as 
 belonging to tworeigns; and yet it is in accordance 
 with the Heb. usage, which reckoned fractions of 
 time as full units. For example, the siege of 
 Samaria, which began in the 4th and ended in the 
 6th year of Hezekiah, is said to have lasted 3 years 
 (2 id 18*-), There is also the familiar example 
 of ‘the 3 days’ of Christ’s being in the grave. The 
 latter method of post-dating was the usual one of 
 the Assyrians. With them the general practice 
 was to count the regnal years from the new year’s 
 day after the accession, and to call the period 
 between the accession and the Ist new years day 
 ‘the beginning of the reign’; while the year from 
 the new year’s day was called ‘the Ist year,’ and 
 the following ones were numbered successivel 
 
 from it. Which of these methods was systemati- 
 cally used by the Hebrews cannot now he decisively 
 
 determined. Possibly, neither of them consistently 
 or entirely. The Talm. testifies appar to the 
 method of pre-dating (Wieseler, Chron. Synopsis, 
 
 . 47), and this has often been assumed as the 
 Fieb. method. Jer. and Ezk., however, post-dated, 
 and many scholars (Dilimann, Stade, Wellhausen, 
 and others) believe this to have been the Heb. 
 method. The writer or compiler of 1 and 2 K, 
 as will be seen from the following table of syn- 
 chronisms, used both methods :— 
 
 Rehoboam ‘ “ 7 7 Jeroboam. 
 In 18th of Jeroboam (1 K 
 151), Abijam. . . 1/18 
 2/19 
 In 20th of Jeroboam (1 K 
 159), Am . . .(1)3 0 
 
 1/2 
 
 2 | 22.1. Nadabin tnd of Ase (1 K 
 
 8| 1.2. Baasha in 8rd of Asa(1K 
 1528. 83), 
 
 26 | 24, 1. Hlah in 26th of Asa (1 K 
 
 87 2 Zimri in 27th of Ava (1K 
 
 1 Omri in 27th of Asa (1K 
 1615f.), 
 
 si} & 
 88 | 12. 1. Ahab in 88th of Asa (1 K 
 Ps 1679), 
 In 4th of Ahab (1 K 2241), 
 Jehoshaphat (1) s é 
 17 21 1. Ahaziah in 17th 
 ehoshaphat (1 K 2251), 
 18 | ee» jehochagial (EN 
 In 5th of Joram (2 K 816), 
 Jehoram ° . -1.22] 6 
 4.25] 8 
 In 12th of Joram (2 K 8%5), 
 Ahaziah F » =~ S&B 
 
 The methcd of post-dating is here applied to 
 the reigns of the S. kingdom until the reigns of 
 Jehoram and Ahaziah, the former of whom is 
 made co-regent with his father for four years. Asa 
 and Jehoshaphat come to the throne in the years 
 preceding their Ist years, while Abijam comes 
 in his Ist year. Thus we have two methods of 
 post-dating. The reigns of the N. kingdom are 
 all pre-dated, and Ahaziah is made co-regent with 
 Ahab for one year. Thus the total length of the 
 reigns is shortened, and the interval from Solomon 
 to Athaliah becomes 90 years. 
 
 In 1 K 16% Omri is said to have eke to reign 
 in the 3lst year of Asa, and in 2 K 1” Joram 
 in the 2nd of Jehoram. Both of these state- 
 ments are im general harmony with a scheme of 
 
 ost-dating the kings both of Israel and Judah. 
 This fact, with the apparently systematic oer. 
 of the intervals expressed by the reigns of the N. 
 kingdom and then of the S. kingdom, to make them 
 agree, suggests the possibility of the lengths of the 
 reigns not being entirely derived from accurate his- 
 torical sources, and yet pie a chronological 
 sclieme which the author did not feel free to modify. 
 
 Samaria fell, according to 2 K 18", in ‘the 6th 
 
 ear of Hezekiah, which was the 9th of Hoshea, 
 ee of Israel.’ The durations of the reigns of 
 the kings of Judah and Israel from the accessions 
 of ‘Athaliah and Jehu to this year, then, should 
 be the same. The figures recorded in 2 K, how- 
 ever, give quite a different result— 
 
 Athaliah . * Gyears.{ Jehu . . 28 years. 
 Joash . » 40 4 Jehoahasz a) AT ares 
 Amaziah. ot (20:0; Joash . o 216 ey 
 Azariah . . 8 y Jeroboaam . 41 ,, 
 Jotham . o ©1160 Zechariah . 6 months, 
 Ahaz - 1 , Shallum . e ” 
 Hezekiah Pete, yt Menahem - 10 years. 
 
 Pekahiah ok 
 
 Pekah . oe ss 
 
 Hoshea . . 9 » 
 
 165 148 yrs. 7 mos. 
 
 
 
; 
 4 
 ' 
 
 . 
 ; 
 : 
 Is 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TEST. 
 
 Thus the years of the reigns of the southern 
 kingdom exceed those of the northern kingdom by 
 over 21 years. 
 
 The following table gives the biblical synchron- 
 
 isms of this period.” (The various statements 
 have been adjusted to each other by allowing the 
 variable factor of a co-regency, and reckoning the 
 Ist year either from the commencement of the 
 co-regency or of the sole reign) :— 
 
 Athaliah , . e . 
 In 7th of Jehu (2 K 121 
 Joash . 
 
 1 Jehu 
 
 z 
 6 
 1 
 22 | 28 
 28 | 1 Jehoahasz in 28rd of Joash 
 K 181), 
 87 | 15 (1) Jehoash in 87th of Joash 
 (2 K 1810), 
 88 
 9 
 
 In 2nd of Jehoash (2 K 141), 
 Amasiah ae 1 16 (2) 
 2) 89 | 17 (8 
 840) 40 
 4) 572 
 @) 6} 7(4 
 (10) 15 | 16(18) Jeroboam in 15th of 
 Amasiah (2 K 14%). 
 In 87th of Jeroboam (2 K 
 151), Azariah ao 2 a 
 88 | 41. 1. Zachariah in 88th of 
 Azariah (2 K 158) 
 2. Shallum in 89th of 
 Azariah (2 K 1613), 
 90 Menahem in 39th of 
 ie Avariah (2 K 1517), 
 49 | 10 
 60 | 1 Pekahiah in 50th of Azariah 
 : (2 K 1523), 
 1) 2 
 62) 1 Fon 52nd of Agariah 
 In £nd of Pekah (2 K 152%), 
 Jotham. ee CL ae 1/2 
 o 9/10 
 8) 16 | 17 
 In 17th of Pekah (2 K 16), 
 Abas 2. wets 
 9 3 18 
 11 (49) | 20 
 12 (20) | 1 Hoshea in 20th of Jotham 
 
 
 
 and 12th of Ahaz (2 K 
 1530 171), 
 In 8rd of Hoshea (3 K 181), 
 Hezekiah ea. ty 14 3 
 15 4 
 16 (2 5 
 In 6th of Hezekiah (2 K 9Samaria taken in 9th of 
 1810), Samaria taken . Hoshea (2 K 176 1810), 
 
 The following tables (a) (5) (c) give dates for the 
 accession of the kings of Judah, and (d) (e) (/) of 
 the kings of Israel—(a) according to 1 and 2 
 Ch, in which the durations of the reigns are 
 the same as those mentioned in 1 and 2 K, and 
 are given without reference to the corresponding 
 reigns of the N. Se spony so that their sum 
 would be naturally taken as the duration of the 
 8. kingdom; (6) according to the tables of syn- 
 chronisms given above ; (c) according to a determi- 
 nation from the Assyr. inscriptions. An asterisk 
 indicates a co-regency ; but see the following pera- 
 
 aphs. (d) corresponds to (a), and is adjusted to 
 it by pre-dating the reigns of Nadab, Elah, and 
 Ahaziah, and lengthening that of Jeroboam I. to 51 
 
 ears, and Pekah’s to 30. (e) and (/) correspond 
 (5) and (c). The explanation of (c) and (/) is 
 given in the following peregre ne. (a) and (d) 
 correspond essentially to Ussher’s system of dates 
 given in the margin of the AV. Of these tables 
 only (2) and (e) represent approximately the course 
 of history. The others are given merely for the 
 sake of comparison. 
 
 * According to this table the number of years from the 
 accessions of Athaliah and Jehu to the fall of Samaria is 129, 
 This table, with the one above of synchronisms, however, has 
 not been given to present the course of history, but to give a 
 bird's-eye view of the chronological statements of 1 and 2 K. 
 
 VOL. I.—26 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TEST. tu: 
 
 
 
 
 
 David (40) . , 7 
 Solomon (40) . ’ 
 
 Temple founded :; . . | 1015 | 965 978 
 Rehoboam(i7). : + . | 989 | 939 | 937 
 Abijam(3). . 2. gS «| «(962 | «ee | = 980 
 ECT Co a eS ae 959 919 917 
 Jehoshaphat (25). . . 918 878 876 
 Jehoram (8) Fi . ° ° 893 *857 851 
 Ahaziah(i) . « . « | 885 | 850 | 843 
 Athaliah (6) - ss gsa | 849 | 842 
 Joash (40) . noes 878 843 836 
 ‘Amaziah (29) Shi eeicesteesesit| "oat i) 706 
 * 
 Azariah (Uzziah) (52). . | 800 | *ao1 | { “780 
 Jotham(ié) . . . «| 757 | veo | 4 “758 
 ARGO) sec et rad | rade fo 8 
 
 Hezekiah (29) . ° ° ° 725 
 
 Fall of Samaria . . A 5 719 722 722 
 Invasion of Sennacherib . e 711 ar 701 
 Manasseh (55) . erate, O08, |W. pel 
 Amon (2) . oe 641 os 641 
 Josiah (31) 7 . ° . 639 - 639 
 Jehoahaz (3 months) . . 608 ee 608 
 Jehoiakim . S . . ° 608 o 608 
 Jehoiachin (3 months) . 597 oo 597 
 Zedekiah (11) . 2 . . 597 ee 597 
 Destruction of Jerusalem. . 686 se 686 
 
 @)|eo |W 
 Jeroboam (22). ». «» « | 989 | 939 937 
 Nadab (2) . . e ° ° 967 918 915 
 Baasha(24) 5 » «© 966 917 914 
 Miai(Q) 0 5s wt | O42! | 808 oe 
 Zimri(7days) . . » » | 941 | g08 | {808 
 Omri—ig). . . « » | 91 | sos | 4800 
 Ahab (22) . A 3 ° ° 919 882 875 
 Ahaziah (2 . ° ° ° 897 *862 853 
 Joram (12) Ree ic ° ° 896 861 852 
 Jehu (28) . . ° ° ° 884 849 842 
 Jehoahaz (16) . . oe 856 821 815 
 Joash (17) . . ° . ° 840 *807 798 
 Jeroboam 1, (41) 5 . ° 823 *804 782 
 Zachariah (6 months . ° 771 763 741 
 Shallum (1 month) . pias 770 763 741 
 Menahem (10) . e ° ° 770 762 741 
 Pekahiah(2) . » © 760 752 737 
 Pekah (20) eS rk Se 758 750 736 
 Hoshea (9) Soe ari 728 730 734 
 Fall of Samaria . ° ° 719 722, 722 
 
 Our examination of the biblical statements shows 
 from the variety of the modes of reckoning, and 
 from the apparent inconsistencies of the synchron- 
 isms (unless an ever variable factor in co-regencies 
 is assumed), that we must look to another source 
 for determining the true chronology of this period. 
 Such a source, in a limited degree, has been found 
 in the Assyr. inscriptions. These inscriptions are 
 dated by the Assyr. calendar or canon. In this 
 canon, which exists in several copies, all of which 
 closely agree, covering the period from about 900 
 B.C. to about 650 B.c., each year bears the name 
 of an officer called an eponym. From the mention 
 of a total eclipse, which occurred in 763 B.C., is 
 determined the date of all the remaining years. 
 The following persons and events of biblical history 
 are mentioned in the Assyr. inscriptions, and dated 
 by the Assyr. canon (COT ii. p. 167 ff.). -— 
 
 Ahab (at the battle of Karkar) 
 
 Jehu (the payment of tribute) . 
 Azariah (war with Tiglath-pileser) 
 Menahem (payment of tribute) . 
 Pekah (conquered by Tiglath-pileser) 
 Ahaz (payment of tribute) . 5 
 Hoshea (successor of Pekah) 7 . 
 Fall of Samaria (near the close of the year). 722 
 Invasion of Sennacherib ° . ° . 
 Manasseh : . . 
 
 Sicvelece ws 
 w-3-7 ~_ 
 0 
 @ 
 
 According to the Assyr. sources, Tiglath-pileser 
 I1l. (745-728) conducted a campaign (742-738) against 
 Syria, Hamath, and Palestine. At the head of 
 a coalition against him (742-740) is mentioned 
 
402 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TEST. 
 
 Azariah, king of Judah. Menahem is also men- 
 tioned 9s paying tribute in 738. During the years 
 737-735 Ke ath-pileser was campaigning in the 
 East, but in 734 he returned to suppress another 
 coalition in the West, when he conquered Pekah, 
 ands appointed Hoshea king of Samaria in his 
 stead. 
 
 According to the biblical account, Menahem 
 and Azariah were contemporaries, and Menahem 
 paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser (called Pul in 2 K 
 15); and after the brief reign of Pekahiah the son 
 of Menahem, in the last year of Azariah, Pekah 
 came to the throne. Pekah, with Rezin king of 
 Damascus, in the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, 
 made war’on Judah, evidently to coerce Judah to 
 form an alliance against Assyria. During the reign 
 of Pekah the N. kingdom suffered great loss of 
 territory and inhabitants by Assyr. invasien, and 
 Pekah was followed by Hoshea, 
 
 These two accounts, the biblical and Assyrian, har- 
 monize, and it only remains for us to fix the dates. 
 In 737 Pekahiah is king, perhaps having come to 
 the throne in the previous year. His reign is brief, 
 and in 736 or 735 ie is slain by Pekah. In 737 or 
 736 Azariah dies, and Jotham, who for some 14 
 
 ears may be thought of as having been co-regent, 
 lis father being a leper, becomes sole king. In 735 
 Ahaz succeeds Jotham ; in 734 Pekah is slain, and 
 Hoshea becomes king. Samaria falls in the winter 
 of 722-721. Thus in this period the biblical chrono- 
 logical statements must be considerably modified. 
 The result is given in tables (c) and (/). 
 
 A difficulty is also presented in 2 K 181413, 
 which date the fall of Samaria in the 6th year of 
 Hezekiah, and the invasion of Sennacherib in the 
 14th; but the former event occurred in 722, and the 
 latter in 701. According to the former reckoning, 
 Hezekiah came to the throne in 728 or 727; and 
 according to the latter, in 715 or 714. If we adopt 
 the latter reckoning, the reign of Ahaz must be 
 lengthened to some 20 years, and that of Manasseh 
 or of Hezekiah shortened some 10 years. A co- 
 regency of Hezekiah with Ahaz has been suggested 
 as the solution, or that the date of an invasion of 
 Sargon in 711 may have been given for that of 
 . Sennacherib. According to this latter solution, 
 however, Hezekiah would have come to the throne 
 in 725 or 724. 
 
 The presence of Ahab at the battle of Karkar 
 brin is reign down to 854 at least. At this 
 battle, according to the Assyr. inscription, Ahab 
 appears as an ally of the king of Damascus. 
 According to 1 K 20% Ahab formed such an 
 alliance, which lasted three years (1 K 22"). Inthe 
 third year of the alliance the truce was broken, and 
 Ahab was slain at Ramoth-gilead (1 K 22! 87-40), 
 Assuming the alliance to have been made in 855, 
 the close of Ahab’s reign, then, may be placed in 
 853.* See AHAB. 
 
 In the period before Ahab a change in the 
 biblical length of the reign of Omri has been 
 thought by some scholars necessary from the state- 
 ment of Mesha on the Moabite Stone, where he 
 says: ‘And Omri took possession of the land of 
 Méhédeba, and it (Israel) dwelt therein during his 
 days, and half his son’s days, forty years.’ If ‘his 
 son’ is Ahab, then Omri’s reign must be lengthened 
 at the expense of Baasha’s. In favour of this is 
 the importance and lasting impression of Omri’s 
 reign (Mic 6'*). The ‘land of the house of Omri’ in 
 
 * Another explanation of the events of this period is, that the 
 king present as a Syrian ally at the battle of Karkar was not Ahab 
 but Ahaziah or Joram, the Assyr. scribe having unwittingly 
 given the name of the father for that of the son, being ignorant 
 of the latter’s accession. e argument for this view is that 
 Israel would not have assisted the wi bbper: except as a vassal, 
 and that such vassalage immediately followed the battle of 
 Ramoth-gilead. Ahab’s death, then, probably would have 
 eccurred in 855. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TEST. 
 
 lly inscriptions is a standing designation for the 
 N. kingdom. If, however, ‘his son’ means Omri’s 
 grandson Joram, then no great change is needed. 
 This is more probable, agreeing with 2K 1} 38, 
 which place the revolt of Moab (unlikely to have 
 happened under the powerful king Ahab) in the 
 reign of Joram. If we knew from Egyp. history 
 the precise date of Shishak’s reign and invasion 
 of Palestine, we could fix definitely the reign of 
 Rehoboam (‘In the 5th year of Rehoboam, Shishak 
 came up against Jerusalem,’ 1 K 14%). As far ag 
 Egyp. history gives any light on this point, it con- 
 firms the date given in (c). 
 
 For the period between the death .of Ahab and 
 that of Azariah (Uzziah) it is necessary to shorten 
 several reigns. The disturbed condition of affairs 
 at the death of Jeroboam 11.—a destructive rivalry 
 of factions is indicated in the prouhree writings 
 —suggests the shortening of Menahem’s reign to 
 three years to allow the others of Israel to stand. 
 Internal evidence favours allowing the reigns of 
 Athaliah and Joash to remain unchanged. The 
 sole reigns of Azariah (Uzziah) and Jotham, then, 
 may be shortened by sate them co-regents for a 
 number of years with their fathers. 
 
 The periods given for the reigns of Amon, 
 Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and 
 Zedekiah are undoubtedly correct. The following 
 table gives the dates and synchronisms of their 
 reigns :— 
 
 Amon’s accession 
 
 Ist year of Jere- 
 miah’s mi 
 
 (Jer 12), 
 
 Discovery of the 
 Book of the Law 
 (2 K 223. 8). 
 
 (2 K 2381) Jeho- 
 ahaz 3 mos, 
 reign and Battle of Megiddo 
 Jehoiakim’s (2 K 2328), 
 
 accession 
 
 Jeremiah’s 28rd 
 and Nebuchad- 
 rezzar’s 1st (Jer 
 261. 5), 
 
 (2 K 248-18) Je- 
 hoiachin’s 38 
 mos. reign 
 and Zede- 
 kiah’s acces- 
 sion 
 
 8th of Nebuchad- 
 rezzar (2 K 
 
 2412), 
 596 
 587 
 586 
 
 Zedekiah’s 1st year 
 “A 10th ,, 18th of Nebuchad- 
 
 rezzar (Jer 321), 
 19th of Nebuchad- 
 
 rezzar and des- 
 
 ” 11th ,, 
 
 truction of Jeru- 
 salem (2 K 258), 
 
 These dates are determined by Nebuchadrezzar’s 
 lst year, which, according to Ptolemy’s Canon,* is 
 604. The reigns given in the table above are post- 
 
 dated. This arrangement is the one generally 
 accepted. Some, however, have preferred to pre- 
 date them. Then Jerusalem falls in 587 or 588. In 
 favour of this are Jer 52”, which place seemingly 
 the captivity of Jehoiachin and destruction of 
 Jerusalem in the 8th and 18th years of Nebuchad- 
 rezzar. The battle of Carchemish (Jer 46?) is dated 
 in the 4th year of Jehoiakim. According to Tiele 
 and others, this took place in 605, the year of 
 Nebuchadrezzar’s accession, This pre dates the 
 4th year of Jehoiakim. 
 
 From the facts presented, it is evident that only 
 
 * The Canon of Ptolemy is a chron. compilation by the cele- 
 trated Alexandrian scholar Ptolemy of the 2nd cent. A.D., with 
 astronoinical notes, commencing B.C. 747 with the reigns of the 
 Bab. kings. As far as it has been tested, it has proved an 
 accurate and reliable document. See AssyYRiA, p. 179°. 
 
 
 

 
 
 Ans eee eee lL lee ee 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF OLD TEST. 
 
 
 
 a few dates in Israel’s history can be fixed with 
 
 absolute certainty. The time of most events can 
 only be given definitely within a space of two or 
 three years. There generally remains that amount 
 of uncertainty, hence few tables of dates furnished 
 by OT chronologists exactly agree. 
 
 In view of the corrections which must be made 
 in the OT chron. statements from the founding of 
 Solomon’s temple to the destruction of Jerus., and 
 in view of the apparent endeavour of the writer of 
 1 and 2 K to preserve and harmonize in his syn- 
 chronisms the recorded lengths of the reigns of 
 kings, the question may arise whether in this 
 
 eriod as well as the former ones the chronological 
 ta may not be bee conjectural or artificial, 
 complete historical data for both theS. and N. king- 
 dom not having been preserved. This is the view of 
 W. R. Smith, Stade, Wellhausen, and others. In 
 its favour is the fact that from the founding of 
 Solomon’s temple to that of Zerubbabel, according 
 to the biblical numbers, there are 480 years, and 
 the duration of the N. kingdom (omitting the 
 2 years of Elah or reducing Baasha’s to 22) is 240 
 years. The combinations seen in the length of the 
 reigns suggest also, it is said, artificiality. 
 
 Solomon. . . 87 Brought forward 259 
 Rehoboam . 17 \ 20 Jotham . . 16) 
 Abijam. . 8 Ahaz - « 16>88 
 ASR eS teu! «Al Hezekiah. . 6 
 Jehoshaphat. 25 Hezekiah, . 23 
 = Ho eet 
 Athaliah . 6 Josiah . . 81 
 Josh . . . 4 Jehoiakim 5 ui hss 
 Amaziah - 2 \ 81 Zedekiah . li 
 Ussiah . - 52 Captivity. . - &0 
 
 * Oarry forward . 259 
 
 The combination of 41 +81+38=40+80+40, it is 
 said, cannot be mere chance. 
 
 A system likewise, it is claimed, appears in the 
 years of the first eight kings of legal 
 
 Total - 480 
 
 Jeroboam . 22 Omri 12 
 WNadab'*. . 3 Ahab eee ee 
 Baasha (24) . 22 [4% Ahaziah . . 2 [8 
 Elah_. eee Joram . - 12 
 
 Here are eight kings reigning 96 years, an aver- 
 age of 12 for each. Three reign 12+10, three 
 12-10, and two 12. 
 
 From the inaccuracy of some of the biblical 
 numbers, and from the symmetry of their sum, it 
 is not improbable that missing lengths of the 
 reigns of some kings were supplied by conjecture, 
 so as to make the duration of the N. kingdom 240 
 years, and the interval between the founding of 
 the two temples 480 years. Such an arrangement 
 would be helpful to the memory and analogous to 
 reckonings of the early periods of the world and of 
 Israel, and such an arrangement also finds a 
 counterpart in the genealogy of Jesus in Mt, where 
 
 . the generations are reduced to three series of 14 
 
 each. But, taking the biblical data as a whole for 
 this period, they do not present sufficient symmetry 
 to be entirely or mainly artificial. Errors doubt- 
 less crept into lists of reigns, and the lengths of 
 some probably were not preserved, and hence were 
 supplied by conjecture. 
 
 vy. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PosT-EXILIC PERIOD. 
 —When Judah became a vassal, and her own kings 
 ceased, the years of foreign rulers, as we have 
 already seen at the beginning of the Captivity, 
 were employed in dating events. The time of 
 these rulers is fixed by the Canon of Ptolemy. 
 The following table gives the Pious OT chrono- 
 logical references of this period :— 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 403 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nebuchadrezzar’s 19th | 586 
 
 Oyrus’ accession . - | 539 
 
 » Istyear . 638 
 637 | Return under Zerubbabel 
 
 636 | Founding of the Temple (Ezr 38) 
 
 Darius’ accession . . | 522 
 
 »» 2nd year . . | 520 
 
 Fall of Jerusalem (2 K 258) 
 Capture of Babylon by Cyrus 
 Edict for the Return (Ezr 1) 
 
 Haggai and Zechariah pro- 
 phesy (Hag 11, Zec i 
 fy es a - | 616 | Temple finished (Ezr 615) 
 Artaxerxes’ accession . | 465 
 ” 7th year . | 458 
 
 oy 2th , .| 445 
 
 Ezra arrives at Jerusalem 
 (Ezr 78) 
 
 Nehemiah’s mission to Jerusa- 
 lem (Neh 21) 
 
 LirrratTurs.—For the Chron. of the Hex. consult the Com- 
 mentaries of Delitzsch, Dillmann, and other writers on that 
 portion of the OT; also Lenormant, Beginnings of History, 
 ch, vi.; Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte, ch. iii.; Kittel, 
 History of the Hebrews, §§ 19, 25; (for Chron. of Judges, 
 § 30, 2); F. C. Konig, ‘Beitrage zur Biblische Chronologie,’ in 
 ZEW, 1883; Noldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A.T., 
 pp. 173-198. For the regal period: Brandes, Abhandlungen 
 zur Geschichte des Orients im Alterthum, 1874; Wellhausen, 
 ‘Die Zeitrechnung des Buches der Konige,’ in JDTh, 1875; 
 ‘Chronology of the Kings of Israel] and Judah compared with 
 the Monuments,’ in Church Quart. Rev., Jan. 1886; 8. Sharpe, 
 Heb. Nation and Itt., pp. 381ff., 389ff.; G. Smith, Assyr. 
 Epon. Canon, chs. i. and vii.; W. R. Smith, Journ. of Philology, 
 x. p. 209 ff.; Kamphausen, Chron. der Hebrdischen Kénige, 1883 ; 
 Schrader, COT ii. 161-175, supplemented by O. O. Whitehouse, 
 pp. 820-324, 1888; Orr, ‘Assyr. and Heb. Chron.,’ in Pres. 
 
 ev., Jan. 1889; Kittel, Hist. of the Hebrs., § 53a, 1892; 
 Wellhausen, Proleg. to Hist. of Israel, 285f., 1883; Stade, 
 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 88 ff., 558 ff., 1887. 
 
 E. L. CuRTIs. 
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 I. THE GOSPELS. 
 
 The data for the chronology of the Life of Christ 
 group themselves round three points, the Nativity, 
 the Baptism, and the Crucifixion, and the intervals 
 between these, namely, the age of Christ at the 
 Baptism, and the duration of the Ministry. Ifsome 
 of them could be settled conclusively, the rest 
 could be deduced at once: for instance, the date of 
 Christ’s birth combined with his age when baptized 
 would fix the date of the Baptism ; if the moments 
 of the beginning and end of the Ministry are 
 known, its length follows; and so on. But as it is, 
 since for no one of these dates or intervals is there 
 demonstrative proof, while yet about each of them 
 conclusions more or less prvbable can be reached, 
 it is sapere? to investigate them separately, and 
 to check the tentative results by comparison with 
 one another. 
 
 A. THE DATE OF THE NATIVITY.—1. The Year. 
 —a. St. Matthew tells us that Jesus Christ was 
 born in the reign of Herod the Great, who at some 
 period not more than two years afterwards ordered 
 a massacre of all the infants at Bethlehem, and 
 that the Holy Family fled to Egypt, where the 
 remained for the rest of the king’s lifetime (Mt 
 gi. 18-16. 19) Thus Herod’s death is the terminus ad 
 quem for the Nativity. 
 
 For the chronology of the events of Jewish history of NT 
 times, the primary authorities are the BJ and Ant. of Josephus 
 (quoted throughout this article in the critical edition of B. 
 Niese, Berlin, 1887-1895). Josephus nowhere states the exact 
 year of Herod’s death, but he gives the length of his reign from 
 two more or less fixed starting-points, and the length of his 
 three successors’ reigns to more or less fixed concluding points. 
 (i.) Herod when he died, not very long before the Passover, had 
 reigned 37 years* as king de jure since the Roman decree of the 
 184th Olympiad (middle of 8.0. 44 to middle of B.c. 40), and con- 
 sulship of Domitius Calvinus and Asinius Pollio [B.o. 40]; Ant. 
 xiv. xiv. 4, 5, xvu. viii. 1; BJ 1. xxxiii, 8, Thus the decree 
 belongs to the first half of B.o. 40: but as it is uncertain even so 
 whether the month was earlier or later than the month (March?) 
 of Herod’s death, it is uncertain also whether the 37th year 
 had begun before March B.o. 4, or only before March B.c. 3. 
 (ii.) He had reigned also 34 years as king de facto since the 
 death of Antigonus; and Antigonus died ‘on the day of the 
 great Fast (Sept.-Oct.] in the consulship of M. Agrippa and 
 Canidius Gallus [B.c. 37], 27 years to a day since the entry cf 
 
 * That is, according to the general rule of ancient calcula 
 tions,—to which attention is here called once for all,—not 37 
 years or something over, but 37 years or something less, 
 
 
 
 
 
404 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 Pompey into Jerusalem in the consulship of Antonius and Cicero’ 
 [B.0. 63 less 27=8.0. 86]. Of these two discordant reckonings 
 for Antigonus’ death, 84 years from the first would put Herod’s 
 death in the beginning of B.o. 8, 84 from the second in the 
 beginning of B.o. 2; and if the second may reasonably be set 
 aside as due to the confusion of all chronology previous to the 
 introduction of the Julian calendar in B.o. 46, even B.O. 87 is 
 inconsistent with the evidence of Dio, a later but equally well 
 informed historian, who names the consuls of 8.0. 38, Claudius 
 and Norbanus, so that the 34 years would expire in B.o. 4 (Jos. 
 Ant. xiv. iv. 8, XIV. xvi. 4, XVI. viii. 1; BJ 1. xxxiii. 8: Dio, xlix. 
 22). (iii.) Of Herod’s successors, Archelaus, king of Judza, was 
 banished in the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius [a.D. 6], 
 when in the ninth year of his reign according to BJ, the tenth 
 according to Ant. As his accession was near the beginning of 
 the year, the former reckoning would throw it probably in 
 B.0. 3 (possibly in B.o. 4), the latter probably in B.c. 4 (possibly 
 B.c. 5). If the two may be reconciled by supposing that the 
 banishment fell very early in a.p. 6, before the anniversary of 
 the accession, and that Ant. reckons Archelaus’ second and 
 succeeding years from Jan. 1, both would point to B.o, 4; if 
 otherwise, Ant. as the later and fuller work is more likely to 
 have corrected an earlier error than to have introduced a new 
 one, so that B.o. 4 is in any case the more probable date (BJ u. 
 vii. 3; Ant. xvu. xiii. 2, 8, cf. Vita, 1; Dio, lv. 25. 27). ce} 
 Herod Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, reigned 37 years, and die 
 
 in the 20th year of Tiberius—that is, reckoning from Augustus’ 
 death in August A.D. 14, between August A.D. 33 and August A.D. 
 84, which would leave Herod Philip’s accession doubtful between 
 B.0. 3 and 4 (Ant. xvul. iv. 6). (v.) Herod Antipas, tetrarch of 
 Galilee, was issuing coins as late as his 44th year; and as 
 his banishment by Gaius Caligula (March a.p. 37-Jan. A.D. 41) 
 can hardly have been later than a.p. 89—his rival and nephew, 
 Herod Agrippa, left Palestine after him, and was apparently 
 at Lyons with the emperor in the winter of a.p. 39-40—his 
 2nd year would go back to B.c. 4, and his accession (since the 
 Jewish princes apparently reckoned their years from Nisan 1) to 
 the P de preceding Nisan 1 B.0. 4 (Dio, lv. 24; see further, Philo 
 in Flaccum, 5, ed. Mangey, ii. 621; Jos. Ant. xvin. vi. 11, vii. 2 ; 
 
 _.Madden, Coins of the Jews?, p. 122). 
 
 Thus the year of Herod’s death was probably B.o. 4, possibly 
 B.o. 8; and one further note of tinse im Josephus may help to 
 resolve the doubt. An eclipse of the moon occurred at a 
 moment when Herod, lying at Jericho in his last illness, had 
 ag revived. He grew worse again, and was taken to the 
 
 aths of Callirrhoé across the Dead Sea; but when all remedies 
 failed he was brought back to Jericho, and thither as a last 
 caprice of tyranny he summoned to his bedside all the leading 
 Jews of Palestine, intending a general massacre of them at the 
 moment of his death. Then the long expected authorization 
 from Augustus of the execution of Antipater arrives and is at 
 once acted on; five days later the king succumbs himself. 
 The funeral rites occupy a week, and soon afterwards the 
 Passover is ‘close at hand’ (Ant. xvi. vi. 4-ix. 3). Now the 
 only lunar eclipses visible in Palestine during B.c. 5-3 were 
 those of March 23, B.o, 5, Sept. 15, B.o. 5, and March 12-13, 
 B.0. 4. But unless the events just catalogued can be spread over 
 12 or 18 months, from March 12, B.o. 4, to March 81 (the passever 
 of B.0. 8), which is very unlikely, the year B.c. 3 for Herod’s death 
 is excluded. If, on the other hand, one month seems as much 
 too little for them as twelve are too much, the eclipse may be 
 that of September, B.o. 6, the king’s death falling six months 
 afterwards, about March, B.o. 4. 
 
 The Nativity, however, must be placed, not 
 only before this, but, as St. Matthew’s account 
 seems to imply, some time before it; for the 
 age limit fixed for the massacre of the innocents, 
 and the sojourn of the Holy Family in Egypt, 
 have both to be allowed for, even if the one is 
 to be qualified by Herod’s determination to set a 
 limit on the safe side, and the other by St. Luke’s 
 silence. The Birth of Christ may so far be placed 
 one, a or even three years before Herod’s death, 
 B.C. 7-5. 
 
 With the longer interval from B.c. 7 would tally Kepler the 
 astronomer’s suggestion, that the star of Mt 22 was a con- 
 unction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, such as occurred 
 
 the constellation Pisces in May, October, and December of 
 B.o. 7. The statement of a medizval Jew, R. Abarbanel, that the 
 conjunction of these two planets in Pisces is to be a sign of 
 Messiah’s coming, may perhaps have been derived ultimately from 
 ancient traditions known to the Chaldeans. On the Other 
 hand, it is maintained that the conjunction of B.c. 7 was never 
 close enough for the planets to appear asa single star, though even 
 this would hardly be conclusive against Kepler’s view. But in 
 any case chronological conclusions cannot be primarily rested 
 on such a. basis. 
 
 b. St. Luke dates the Nativity by a general 
 census ordered by Augustus and carried out in 
 Syria by the legate Quirinius (2? airy [4] dmo- 
 ypagh mpurn eyévero tyemovevovros THs Zuplas Kupyvlov). 
 The bracketed article is to be omitted with B D 
 (and in effect x); the clause is to be rendered, 
 
 not ‘this was the first census [of those that were 
 made] while Quirinius was governor of Syria,’ but 
 ‘this was taken as the first census [of the whole 
 series down to the present] while Quirinius,’ ete. : 
 so Clement of Alexandria, dre mpGrov éxé\evoar amro- 
 ypapas yevéc Oat (Strom. i. 21. 147, p. 407, ed. Potter). 
 
 A famous census did indeed take place, Quirinius being the 
 are sent to carry it out, ten years or more after the 
 
 ativity, when Judwa, on the deposition of Archelaus in a.D. 6, 
 became a Roman province; and it provoked the revolt of Judas 
 the Gaulonite or Galilean (Ant. xvil. xiii. 5, xvill. i. 1; Ac 637) 
 But there is also reason to believe that Quirinius must be the 
 name wanting on a mutilated inscription which describes some 
 official who twice governed Syria under Augustus; and in that 
 case another census might be postulated for his other tenure to 
 justify St. Luke, if it were not that even this other cannot 
 possibly have coincided with the Nativity. The period from B.o, 
 10 or 9 till Herod’s death is exhausted by the tenures of M. Titius, 
 O. Sentius Saturninus, and P. Quintilius Varus. Varuscame asthe 
 immediate successor of Saturninus not later than the summer of 
 B.c. 6—for coins of his are extant of the 25th year of the era of 
 Actium (Sept. B.o. 81], t.e. Sept. B.c. 7 to Sept. B.c. 6—and was 
 still in office at the time of Herod’s death. Quirinius conse- 
 quently had either left some years before the Nativity or did 
 not arrive till after it (Ant. xvi. viii. 6, ix. 1, XVIL Vv. 2, ix. 3; 
 Mommsen, Res Geste Divi re do p. 169 ff.). 
 
 St. Luke then is in error in the name of Quirinius ; it does not 
 follow that he is in error in the fact of acensus. ‘It must be 
 remembered that the chronological data of Lk 2 and 3 were in 
 all probability supplied by himself and not by his ‘‘sources”’ ; 
 Gore, Dissertations, p. 20. The evangelist’s acquaintance with 
 Palestine was perhaps limited to the two years of St. Paul’s 
 imprisonment at Casarea ; and if his source made mention simply 
 of a census, he may easily have been misled into identifying it 
 with the great Roman census of A.D. 6-7, e the more 
 famous by the revolt it occasioned. Nor is there any inherent 
 improbability in the hypothesis of a census in Judwa somewhere 
 within the years B.o. 8-5. Of another client prince, Archelaus 
 of Cappadocia, Tacitus happens to relate that he took a census 
 ‘after the Roman manner’ under Tiberius; Ann. vi. 41. And if 
 Herod did set himself to supply the information to his suzerain 
 (for the statistics of the resources of the empire, dependent 
 states included, were a favourite study of Augustus), it may 
 well be believed that he veiled his purpose under forms adapted 
 to the susceptibilities of his Jewish subjects, and so, in avoiding 
 the scandal caused by the later Roman census, avoided also the 
 notice of history. 5 
 
 St. Luke’s evidence, then, adds nothing trust- 
 worthy for the chronology of the Nativity beyond 
 its synchronism with a census. 
 
 c. But if St. Luke’s census has no date, or rather 
 a wrong one, does early Christian tradition help to . 
 fix the Nativity more eae 
 
 Patristic writers, in nearly all cases where a date 
 is given for the Nativity, appear to deduce it from 
 the date of the Baptism or Crucifixion; though it 
 may be noted in passing that the earlier Fathers 
 are a good deal nearer the mark with the year B.C. 
 3-2 than Dionysius Exiguus, the 6th cent. author 
 
 of the present calculation of the Christian era 
 (Iren. Her. 11. xxi. 3, ed. Massuet; Clem. Al. 
 Strom. i. 21, 147; ‘Tert.’ adv. Judeos, 8; 
 
 Hippolytus in Dan. iv., ed. Bratke, p. 19, 1. 3). 
 There is, however, one casual statement of Ter- 
 tullian’s which serves in remarkable fashion to 
 bridge the gap left by the dissociation of Quirinius’ 
 name from the census of the Nativity. The 
 Marcionites defended their Doketic views of 
 Christ’s humanity by appeal to kis own question, 
 ‘Who are my mother and my brethren?’ inter- 
 preted as a denial of all human relationships; the 
 assertion of the Jews, ‘Thy mother and thy 
 brethren stand without,’ became on their view a 
 mere desire to ‘tempt’ Christ. Tertullian reminds 
 them inter alia that Christ’s family could easily 
 have been discovered from the census known to 
 have been taken under Augustus in Judea by 
 Sentius Saturninus: census constat actos sub 
 Augusto nunc in Judea per Sentium Saturninum 
 apud quos genus eius inquirere potuissent (adv. 
 Marcionem, iv. 19). Here, of course, if Tertullian 
 had said Quirinius, he would have been merely re- 
 peating St. Luke ; but he names instead Quirinius’ 
 enultimate predecessor, governor about B.C. 9-6. 
 hether or not Tertullian himself means to connect 
 this census with the Nativity is not quite clears 
 
; 
 4 
 r 
 4 
 ; 
 ‘ 
 7 
 o. 
 4 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 408 
 
 
 
 the point is, that the name Saturninus, since it 
 can hardly be a mere slip for St. Luke’s Quirinius, 
 must have come from an independent authority, 
 ny. the same as supplied another reference to 
 
 aturninus in Tert. de pallio, i. In general trust- 
 worthiness, Tertullian is Pnmeaatirabl inferior to 
 St. Luke; but a Roman lawyer could command 
 familiar access to many sources inaccessible to a 
 ean from the provinces, and it is hardly rash 
 to believe that in this one instance the former has 
 by a happy chance preserved the evidence which at 
 once confirms and corrects the latter,—confirms the 
 fa:t of a census, and corrects the name from 
 Quirinius to Saturninus.* 
 
 If this correction be accepted, the census taken 
 while Saturninus was Syrian legate cannot fall 
 later than the time when Varus succeeded him, in 
 or before the middle of B.c. 6. The order of events 
 in St. Matthew will permit of an interval of two 
 or three years between the Nativity and Herod’s 
 death ; and the data appear to be best harmonized 
 by attributing the census of the Nativity to B.c. 7 
 or the beginning of B.C. 6. 
 
 2. The Month and Day of the Nativity.—Of these 
 nothing is really known; for the patristic evidence, 
 interesting in itself, though too voluminous for 
 discussion here, leads to no real results. It must 
 suffice to say that the oldest traditional date for 
 Christmas Day is, in the East, Jan. 6, in the West, 
 Dec. 25. The earliest trace of the one is the 
 observance of Jan. 6 as the festival, not of the birth 
 of Christ but of his Baptism, by the Basilidian 
 Gnostics of the time of Clement of Alexandria 
 (Strom. i. 21.147, p. 408); and a Gnostic tradition 
 is worth meting at all. The other first appears in 
 Hippolytus’ newly-recovered Fourth Book on Daniel 
 (p. 19, 1. 2} and was probably deduced by him 
 
 om March 25, a day which in his Chronicle marks 
 not only the Crucifixion but the Conception, the 
 yéveois Xpiorob side by side with the rdGos. 
 
 B. THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE NATIVITY AND 
 THE BAPTISM.—St. Luke relates that Jesus at the 
 time of the Baptism was about 30 years of age, 3% 
 airds Fv "Inoods dpxdmevos woel érav tpidxovra. The 
 word dpxdéyevos does not qualify the description of 
 age, as supposed by the earliest known interpreters, 
 
 alentinians of the Ptolemzan school ap. Iren. 1. 
 xxii. 5, ad baptismum venit nondum qui triginta 
 annos suppleverat, sed qui inciperet esse tamquam 
 triginta annorum ; and so, too, Epiphanius, Her. 
 li. 16, rpidxorra pev érav Grd’ od mijpys* did Aéyer 
 ’"Apxéuevos. It rather means ‘when just commenc- 
 ing his ministry,’ an idiomatic use of dpxecGat 
 paralleled in Lk 23° dp&duevos ard ris Tadshalas; Ac 
 12 dptduevos dard Tod Bamrricparos ‘Iwdvov; Ac 10” 
 dpiduevos dard rs TadtAalas perd 7d Bdarriocua 8 éxnprter 
 "Iwdyns. 
 
 The chronological reference, in fact, is limited to the words éasi 
 isd» spiéxevve, into which in turn the meaning has been read 
 that our Lord waited till he had completed the 30 years of 
 an authorized teacher. But Jewish ideas do not seem to have 
 attached any such importance to this particular age. The 
 minimum limit for the Levitical service, even if originally 30, 
 —and Tey Nu 43. 47 (Heb.), 1 Ch 233 are to be set Nu 43. 47 
 
 ) 8%, which give 25,—had been reduced to 20 before the 
 
 e of the Chronicler (1 Ch 23%. 27), who ascribes the change to 
 David. On the other hand, so far as there was any official age 
 for teaching, it was not 30 but 40; see the treatise Aboda Zara 
 in the Bab. Talm. (ed. Frankfort, 1715, fol. 19): quoted by 
 Schoettgen, ad loc.): Ad quodnam vero cetatis momentur 
 exspectandum est antequam vir doctus alios docere possit ? 
 Resp. Ad exactos annos quadraginta. Similarly, Irenwus con- 
 trasts the prima indoles iuvenis of 230 years with the magistri 
 shag etatem, which appears to be 40 (11. xxii. 4,6). The 
 
 races of an age standard of 30 for different offices of the 
 Ohristian ministry are due, of course, directly to thio very 
 aap St. Luke ; so expressly the Council of Neo-Cmsarea, 
 canon 1i. 
 
 
 
 “It is possible that the same source is alluded to in Jos. 
 Vita, 1, written at Rome under Domitian, ry pay rod yévous 
 fyeday Bimdox iy, ws iv Taxis Inpeorious diATOS dvayvsypaleLivny sUpor. 
 
 Thus there is no reason to press St. Luke’s note 
 of time into meaning either ‘when not yet 30 years’ 
 or ‘at the moment of attaining the teacher’s age 
 of 30 years.’ The phrase is an elastic one, and 
 will cover any age from 28 to 32. Reckoned from 
 the Nativity of Christ in B.c. 7-6, the probable 
 limits for the date of the Baptism would thus be 
 A.D. 22-27, a result which must now be tested by 
 ae conformity with the direct evidence for this 
 
 ate. 
 
 C. For the BAPTISM the Gospels supply a terminus 
 ad quem in the synchronism of the passover men- 
 tioned next after it with the years of the building 
 of the temple (Jn 2”) ; and a terminus a quo in the 
 synchronism of the beginning of the Baptist’s 
 ministry with the years of Tiberius (Lk 3}), 
 
 &. In 220 siccipaxovra xxl IE irscw wxodougln 6 vase obrog, BAY 
 the Jews in argument with our Lord, meaning, not that Herod’s 
 temple had taken 46 years from its commencement to its 
 completion at some moment of the past,—for the work was only 
 just complete when the Jewish revolt broke out (Jos. Ant. xx. 
 1x. 7),—but that at the time of speaking it ‘had been in course 
 of building’ 46 years, the aorist being exactly paralleled in the 
 phrase used of the temple of Ezra (Ezr 516 awé rors tus tou viv 
 axodojertm xa) odx ertdtotn, ‘from that time to this it has been 
 in course of building, and has not been brought to completion’). 
 Herod’s temple was begun, according to BJ in his 15th, 
 according to Ant. in his 18th year (BJ 1. xxi. 1; Ant. xv. xi.1); 
 and as Jos, in both books summarizes the length of Herod’s 
 reign by a double computation from the de jure kingship in B.c. 
 40, and the de facto kingship in B.0. 87, an obvious solution of 
 the discrepancy would be to count the 15th year from the 
 later, the 18th from the earlier, of the two starting-points, both 
 reckonings then converging on 8.0. 28. Butin fact Jos., when he 
 gives a single date, invariably computes it from the de facto 
 kingship only. So in Ant.—the book which on the hypothesis 
 just mentioned would employ the reckoning from B.o. 40 for the 
 commencement of the temple—the battle of Actium (Sept. B.o. 
 31) is put in the 7th year of Herod; Augustus’ second visit to 
 Syria, which was not earlier than 8.0, 21 (for it was 10 years after 
 the first, and that in turn was after Actium), is datedin the 17th 
 year; and the completion of Cwsarea is fixed in the 92nd 
 Olympiad (B,0. 12-8), and in the 28th year (Ant. xv. v. 2, vi. 7, 
 xvi. v.1; BJ1. xx. 4). Seeing, then, that the divergence cannot 
 be accounted for as a double reckoning, it must arise from the 
 correction in Ant. of an error of BJ, so that Josephus’ ulti- 
 mate date is the 18th year from B.0, 37, or in other words B.o, 
 20-19. The passover of the first year will probably be that of 
 B.0. 19, and the passover of the 46th year that of a.D. 27. 
 
 Thus the latest date for the Baptism is the early 
 months of A.D. 27. 
 
 b. Lk 3! ty itu wevrixaidsxdra vis tytpovias TiBapiov Kalirapos 
 «. » byévero pau Ueod txi "lwavyy. Reckoned from Augustus’ 
 death, Aug. 19, A.D. 14, the 15th year of Tiberius would run 
 from Aug. A.D. 28 to Aug. A.D. 29, so that the Baptism of Christ 
 could scarcely fall before a.p. 29. Even if Tiberius’ 2nd year be 
 dated from Jan. 1, A.D. 15, so that his 15th corresponds with 
 A.D. 28, matters are hardly mended, for that year, too, would 
 be irreconcilable with the results attained in the first two 
 sections of this article, with the temple chronology just dis- 
 cussed, and with the conclusions which will be established below 
 from a comparison of the length of the Ministry with the date 
 of the Crucifixion. If St. Luke really places the opening of the 
 Baptist’s preaching as late as a.D. 28, he must, as in the case of 
 Quirinius, have fallen into error. Writing half a century after 
 the events, and perhaps himself sharing the view which limited 
 the public Ministry of Christ to a single year, he might have 
 deduced the 15th year for the commencement of the Ministry 
 from A.D. 29, the date assigned by very early tradition for its 
 close. 
 
 At the same time, it is not quite so easy to suppose him 
 deceived about the beginning of the Ministry as about the 
 census of the Nativity. Not only were the events 30 years 
 nearer his own time, but they were of so much more public a 
 character, that they must have been matter of knowledge in a 
 far wider circle, among the Baptist’s disciples—with whom St. 
 Luke’s writings seem to show a special acquaintance—as well as 
 among the followers of the Christ. Is it certain, then, what 
 is meant by the 15th year of Tiberius? A modern reader 
 is tempted to transfer to the lst cent. his own associations 
 with hereditary monarchy, where each rulei’s rights and powers 
 come into existence at the moment of his predecessor’s demise, 
 neither sooner nor later. The Roman Empire of Augustus was 
 scarcely in fact, certainly not in law, hereditary. The pre- 
 rogatives of the emperor were due theoretically to the various 
 oftices which he held; and in dating events, as on coins and 
 inscriptions, he would recite the number, not of the years of his 
 reign, but of his consulships, his imperatorships, and his years 
 of tribunician power. Clearly, none of these official methods 
 were followed by St. Luke, for Tiberius was never consul more 
 than five times, nor imperator more than eight, while his 
 tribunician power, held permanently as one of the primare 
 factors in the imperial character, was already in its 16th yeas 
 at the time of Augustus’ death. Nor was there yet any 
 
406 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 stereotyped literary usage upon the point. §8t. Luke's contem- 
 poraries, if Romans, would probably have been employing the 
 old system of dating by the consuls of each year; if Orientals, 
 they might still be using the Olympiads (8.0. 776), the era of 
 Alexander or the Greeks (8.0. 312), the era of Sulla (8.0. 85), or 
 the era of Actium (8.0. 31). So when he himself elected to adopt 
 the still novel reckoning by imperial years, he would find 
 no absolutely fixed tradition as to the moment from which to 
 compute them; and it has lately been pointed out (Ramsay, 
 St. Paul the Trav. p. 387) that not very long before the prob- 
 able date of the Gospel, Titus had been associated in the empire 
 with his father Ge rare by the simultaneous reception of 
 the proconsular and tribunician power, together with other 
 insignia of imperial rank (July 1, a.D. hs The conditions of 
 his own day, Ramsay thinks, may have led the evangelist to 
 emphasize the similar elevation of Tiberius, on whom a special 
 enactment had already in Augustus’ lifetime conferred a 
 position in the provinces co-ordinate with the elder emperor’s, 
 so that provincial custom may have taken that as the starting- 
 point of his reign (Velleius Paterculus, ii. 121 ; Suetonius, 7%. 
 21 ; compare Bury, Students’ Roman Empire, p. 64 ; Mommsen, 
 Staatsrecht, ii. 8, p. 1159, n. 3). As to the exact year of the 
 law, authorities differ; most of them connect it with the grant 
 of the tribunician power for life in a.p. 13; but there is no 
 necessity to synchronize the two, and Mommsen, on the ground 
 of the context in Velleius, puts it two years earlier, in a.D. 11. 
 
 If this solution is possible—and it is not given 
 here for more—the various data are brought into 
 complete ane e The mission of the Baptist in 
 the 15th year of Tiberius, calculated from A.D. 11, 
 will fall in A.D. 25-26; the Baptism of Christ may 
 be assigned to A.D. 26-27; and the first passover 
 of the Ministry, being at the same time the 
 passover of the 46th year of the temple building, 
 will follow in the spring of A.D. 27. 
 
 D. The interval between the Baptism and the 
 
 Crucifixion, or DURATION OF THE MINISTRY.— 
 a. St. Mark’s Gospel, the closest representative of 
 the common synoptic tradition, contains few pre- 
 cise indications of time ; events are strung together 
 by no more than the vague expressions ‘ straight- 
 way, ‘after not many days,’ ‘after many days.’ 
 The general impression, however, which the 
 synoptic narrative seems calculated to produce, 
 and probably in primitive times did produce, is 
 thai the period described was one of no consider- 
 able length. In the absence of other data, especial 
 importance accrues to two episodes which contain 
 in themselves or their surroundings evidence of the 
 season of the year. Describing the feeding of the 
 5000, St. Mark adds to the common tradition 
 ne Haeaideilg ie ees that the grass showed the 
 resh green of early spring (ém! r@ xAwp~y xbpTw 
 Mk 6°: cf. Mt 1415 Lk 93). And the pices) of 
 the ears of corn (Mk 22=Mt 12!'=Lk 63), the 
 harvest being ripe but not yet cut, will fall, if 
 the ears were barley, at earliest in April, and if 
 wheat, at latest in June; see R. Samuel, quoted 
 by Wetstein on Jn 4%, 
 
 Here, then, a spring or early summer in Mk 2 is 
 succeeded by early spring in ch. 6, the lapse of one 
 he intervening; while a second year is postulated 
 
 y the events of chs. 6°10, which include jour- 
 neys to the districts of Phenicia, of Upper Galilee, 
 and of Perea (7% 877 101), and shut out the possi- 
 bility that the miracle of ch. 6 and the passover of 
 the Crucifixion can belong to the same spring; so 
 that, at least if the order is even roughly chrono- 
 logical, a two years’ ministry would already underlie 
 the record. And though our earliest authority, 
 Papias, seems to deny just this characteristic to 
 St. Mark, saying that, while the facts were all 
 accurate, the order was not (dxpiBds &ypaper ov 
 pévro, rdfer, quoted in Eusebius, H/F iii. 39), yet 
 he probably does not mean by this more than the 
 absence of a framework for the history such as St. 
 Luke supplies by notices of movement towards 
 Jerus., and St. John by notices of Jewish festivals. 
 In any case an investigation of the internal evi- 
 dence borne by the Gospel itself, though neces- 
 sarily cursory, and limited to a single section, will 
 best show to what extent it may be allowed or 
 denied to be chronological. 
 
 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 From the opening of the Galilean ministry in 
 Mk 1" the narrative runs continuously, the scene, 
 the actors, the horizon being all Galilean, and 
 Galilean only, as far as3%. At this Wage a change 
 takes place, and the larger world of Palestine 
 begins to play a part on the stage. The audience 
 is drawn, not from Galilee only, but from Jerus., 
 Judea, Idumeza, Persea, and Pheenicia; the opposi- 
 tion is reinforced by scribes from the capital; the 
 apostles are organized into a body for more system- 
 atic evangelization (3% 1+). To this division, under 
 which the first two chapters mark the inchoate 
 stage of the Ministry, the character of the say- 
 ings and doings recorded in them fairly corre- 
 sponds. Five miracles arouse the attention of the 
 populace, and spread the fame of their author 
 (17-2"), just as five episodes bring out teaching 
 which provokes the criticism, and soon the hostility, 
 of the scribes and Pharisees (2!~3*); the cure of the 
 paralytic with the forgiveness of his sins, where 
 the miracle suggests the teaching, forming the 
 transition from the first half of the section to the 
 second. This presentation of development and 
 progress is an argument for the substantially 
 chronological character of the record, so far at 
 least that an episode of the opening section, such 
 as that of the ears of corn, would prima facie be 
 dated in the actual order of events before an 
 episode so much posterior to the great break in 3¢ 
 as the feeding of the 5000. ith much less 
 hesitation it may be laid down that the miracle 
 of ch. 6 cannot possibly be placed in the same 
 spring as the Crucifixion ; so that these three data, 
 thie late spring of one year, the early spring of 
 another, and the passover time of a third, suggest 
 the testimony of St. Mark’s Gospel to at least a 
 two years’ Ministry (but see below, p. 4108). 
 
 On the other hand, it does not follow that the 
 arrangement of events within each section is 
 chronological ; rather, the evangelist would cer- 
 tainly seem to have here deserted the principle of 
 temporal order for the principle of grouping. For 
 instance, although his general scheme in 1'4-3° ig 
 borne out by the natural presumption that some 
 miracles arresting publie attention preceded in 
 time the opposition offered to doctrine which 
 might otherwise have passed unnoticed, yet it is 
 hardly likely that all the miracles came first and 
 all the teaching after. That is to say, the proba- 
 bility that the episode of the ears of corn really 
 preceded all events from 3° onward, does not carry 
 with it an equal probability that it preceded also 
 the events of 3'6, or followed those of 1?!-2%2, 
 Even if the sections as wholes are in chronological 
 order, the events within each section are obviously 
 massed in groups. 
 
 b. St. Luke’s account of the Ministry divides 
 itself in the main into two well-marked portions, 
 of which the first (41+-9°°) is parallel to the common 
 tradition of the other Synoptists, while the second 
 (95-198) is almost entirely peculiar ; and with this 
 division corresponds a (seemingly methodical) 
 arrangement of notes of place which serves as a 
 setting for the history. 
 
 In the first portion, representing the Galilean 
 ministry of the common tradition, the localities 
 named are, with one exception, and that more 
 apparent than real, exclusively Galilean: 4! Gaii- 
 lee, }® Nazareth, *! Capernaum ; 5! Lake of Genne- 
 saret; 7! Capernaum, 4“ Nain; 8% Mary is of 
 Magdala, and Joanna is wife of Herod’s steward ; 
 2.26 Lake of Galilee, with its opposite shore. 
 Mention is made, as in St. Mark, of the gathering 
 of hearers from Judea, Jerus., Tyre and Sidon, 
 and of the fame of Christ’s miracles ‘in all Judza 
 and the country round’ (517 6” 7!7); but nowhere 
 is our Lord himself. removed from Galilee save in 
 the single statement in 4“ that he was ‘ preaching 
 
 
 
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 407 
 
 
 
 in the synagogues of Judea’: "Iovdalas, x BCLQR 
 ete. ; T'adtAalas, Textus Receptus. Apologetic in- 
 terest has detected here an ‘undesigned coinci- 
 dence’ with the Judzan ministry in St. John; but 
 the truth is that in this and some other passages 
 St. Luke is using ‘Judea’ in the extended sense 
 of ‘Palestine,’ a term unfamiliar to NT and to 
 the Ist cent. A.D. generally. When St. Luke 
 wrote, the Rom. province, though it then included 
 all Palestine except Upper Galilee, was still 
 known only as Judea (Schiirer, HJP 1. ii. 257). 
 Traces of this usage in his writings (side by side 
 with the narrower sense in which Juda was 
 pepowd to Samaria or Galilee) would be Ac 26” 
 * Damascus, Jerus., all the country of Judxa and 
 the Gentiles’; Ac 10*7 ‘throughout all Judea, begin- 
 ning from Galilee,’ and the similar phrase Lk 235 
 (cf. 6!* 7}7), in each of which cases ‘all Judea’ 
 appears to mean Palestine. The phrase may have 
 been used in 4“ as a sort of comprehensive intro- 
 duction to the Ministry ; and though it does not, 
 totidem verbis, confine our Lord to Galilee, it does 
 not necessarily take him beyond its borders. The 
 definite indications of the first half of the record 
 are unanimously Galilean. 
 
 In sharp contrast with this, the section peculiar 
 to St. Luke opens with the statement about Christ 
 that ‘as the days of his assumption were coming 
 to the full, he set his face firmly to go to Jeru- 
 salem’; 9°) éy 7G ouprdnpodcba ras tudpas Tis dva- 
 Ajews abrod. Again and again the same direction 
 is emphasized in the remaining chapters. He is 
 journeying through cities and villages, teaching 
 and making his way to Jerus. 13”; he passes 
 through the midst of Samaria and Galilee on his 
 journey to Jerus. 17"; he is going up to Jerus. 
 18%; he is near Jerus. 19%. It is clear that all 
 these chapters, to the mind of the evangelist, 
 represent a conscious working up (though not 
 necessarily a direct journey) towards Jerus., and 
 ‘the filling up of the days of his assumption’ is a 
 phrase which cannot cover more than a few months 
 at the outside. Nor is there anything to suggest 
 that, the second group of chapters being thus 
 limited in duration, the previous group, which 
 occupy a shorter space in the record, extended 
 over any much longer period. Indeed it is not im- 
 probable that St. Luke shared the’ view, widely 
 os from very early times, that confined the 
 
 inistry to a single year; it is even possible that 
 he himself, like so many of the readers of his 
 Gospel, interpreted in this sense the reference 
 preserved by him to Isaiah’s prophecy of the 
 ‘acceptable year of the Lord’ (Lk 4%=Is 61°). 
 
 c. St. John’s Gospel distinguishes itself from 
 the other three by its careful enumeration of six 
 notes of time, five of them Jewish festivals, 
 between the Baptism and the Crucifixion; and 
 these precise and detailed recollections of an eye- 
 witness must be allowed decisive weight against 
 the apparently divergent testimony of the third 
 Synoptist, not to say that their very precision may 
 have consciously aimed at a silent correction 
 of impressions erroneously derived from earlier 
 evangelical narratives. 
 
 nak ivyis ty #8 rdoya tay "loudalen xai dviBn sis “Lapordry 
 4 "Inesis. et 3) de sn woig “leporodipcoss iv ee verte iy Br 
 
 ey ouais Abysre® Sri es carpdunvis iets xed b Ospicpds 
 “obs \bot Nye eae ire pars rae Loladuabs Dudiv xed thareits 
 wig xdpas Ori Asuxei slow xpos Ospicpeor. 
 
 ve eavre tv bopry [or 4 iopry] rar “lovdaiov wad avisy 
 "Inoous sig leporcavjece, 
 .. iy 31 iyyis vi wdoxe [or omit +d xdeya] % bopr) vir 
 iy. 
 
 72 ty Bi invis 4 doped cay "loudaiov 4 exmvornyic. 
 
 1022 ivivero wove te iyxoivice iv Trois ‘Léporortjeoss. 
 
 Of these, the first and last two are straicht- 
 forward statements which need nocomment. The 
 second admits of alternative explanations either as 
 
 harvest-time or as four months before it. To the 
 third attaches, not only a variety of reading be- 
 tween ‘the feast’ and ‘a feast,’ but, whichever 
 reading be adopted, a doubt as to the actual feast 
 intended by it. The fourth involves, again, a 
 question of reading, carrying with it the difference 
 of a complete year in the chronology of the 
 Ministry ; and as this problem is at once simpler 
 and more momentous than the other two, it will 
 be on all grounds best to begin with it. 
 
 (1) Jn 64. If the words 7d rdcya are retained, 
 three passovers are mentioned by St. John (21 64 
 11°), so that the Ministry will extend over at least 
 two years. If the words are excised, ‘the feast of 
 the Jews,’ which was ‘near’ at hand, may be 
 identified with the Feast of Tabernacles, described 
 as ‘near’ in 77, and the chronology of the Ministry 
 can then be arranged on a single-year basis: 21% 
 Passover in March or April, 4° harvest in May, 
 5! Pentecost in May or early June, or Trumpets 
 in September, 64 7? Tabernacles in October, 10” 
 Dedication in December, 11° Passover again. 
 
 This latter reading, in the belief that it brought 
 the Fourth Gospel into harmony both with the 
 Synoptists and with the earliest extra-canonical 
 tradition, was championed first by Browne in his 
 Ordo Seclorum (London, 1844), and afterwards 
 with more hesitation by Hort in an exhaustive note 
 ad loc. in Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Test. (App. 
 pp. 77-81), from which many of the data in this 
 article have been drawn. But any prima facie 
 presumption on such grounds in favour of the 
 omission of 7d rdécxa would be counterbalanced by 
 the consideration that every known MS, whether 
 of the original Gr. or of the VSS, contains the 
 phrase or its rendering; moreover, the evidence of 
 St. Mark is, as it stands, against the single-year 
 Ministry, while the evidence of the Fathers is 
 much more evenly divided than these two writers 
 supposed. Still, the high authority which attaches 
 to all that Hort wrote demands a closer investi- 
 gation of his arguments. It will be shown that 
 the shorter reading (a) is a phrase unlikely to 
 have been penned by St. John; (f) is unsuitable, 
 as interpreted by Hort, to the context; (7) is un- 
 supported by the direct witness of more than a 
 single Father. 
 
 a. If the words sé réexa are not genuine, 8t. John wrote 
 simply iyybs tv 4 iopry tay lovdaiwy, and by this he is supposed 
 to have meant the Feast of Tabernacles, as being beyond all 
 others ‘ the feast’ of the Jews. No doubt both in the OT and as 
 late as the Mishna ‘ the feast’ is used to denote Tabernacles : see 
 Cheyne on Is 302%. But even if Tabernacles retained this 
 pre-eminence,* so that St. John as a Jew could have so used the 
 phrase himself, would he have done it in writing for Gentile 
 Christians? To them Passover and Pentecost were instinct 
 with associations from the Gospel, while Tabernacles spoke only 
 of the Law, and ‘the feast’ can only have papecetec! to them, as 
 the same or a still vaguer phrase sugges in 5! to Irenwus, 
 the Feast of Passover. And the evangelist, who habitually 
 means by ‘the Jews’ the enemies of Christ, can hardly have 
 been so wedded to Jewish usage as to employ language which 
 would have one meaning for himself and another for his 
 Ephesian disciples. 
 
 8. The evidence of context tells the same tale. In the first 
 place, the abundance of the grass (Jn 610 wodvg : xAmpos in Mk 639 
 of the same occasion) points to spring and not to autumn. 
 Further, ‘after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee’ 
 (In 71 wspiusrers:), and yet on Hort’s hypothesis the same feast 
 which was already near in 64 is still only near—iyyis in both 
 cases—in 72, 
 
 y. The patristic evidence for omission can be reduced from 
 the four witnesses quoted by Browne and Hort—Irensus, a 
 heretical sect described by Epiphanius and called by him Alogi, 
 Origen, and Cyril of Alexandria—to the single testimony of 
 Origen, 
 
 Irenzus brings the Gnostic theory of a one-year aay dl to 
 the test of agreement with St. John’s Gospel, where he finds 
 that our Lord went up to Jerus. after the Baptism to three 
 Passovers—the first after the miracle of Cana, the second when 
 
 
 
 * On the one hand, it is for Passover that Joseph and Mary 
 are said to have gone up yearly to Jerus., Lk 241; on the other, 
 Oyril Alex., probably from Origen, says on Jn 1156 Ovy O41 evcyxm 
 hy xévras euvdenusiv ws "lepouradne iv ve sdoxe of ial va 
 oxnvornyig. 
 
408 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 Re 
 
 he cured the paralytic, the third at the Crucifixion (Her. n. 
 xxii. 8). This Father is so eager, it is urged, to swell the 
 number of Passovers that he includes the unnamed feast of 51, 
 and it is impossible that he should have failed to note so clear a 
 case as 64 would be, if the word Passover had stood there in his 
 text. But, in fact, Irenwus is professing to quote only the Pass- 
 overs at which Christ was present, quoties secundum tempus 
 pasche Dominus post baptisma ascenderit in Hierusalem , and 
 with this aim he catalogues minutely the journeys to and fro. 
 He is not professing to exhaust the number of Passovers, for he 
 goes on to argue that the Ministry lasted for ten years or more. 
 
 The Alogi, according to Epiphanius (Her. li. 22), rejected St. 
 John’s Gospel as inconsistent with the rest, for the reason, 
 among others, that instead of one Passover it records the 
 observance of two. While they were about it, says Epiphanius, 
 they might have accentuated the inconsistency by pointing to, 
 not two, but three Passovers in this Gospel. ere the answer is 
 again that St. John does not speak of the ‘observance’ of more 
 than two Passovers by visits to Jerusalem. 
 
 Origen’s Comm. on St. John is defective for chs. 5-7. But 
 on ch. 435(tom. xiii. 39, 41), against the view of the Valentinian 
 commentator Heracleon, that the material harvest was four 
 months off, and the season therefore winter, he pleads for the 
 alternative of actual harvest-time from the sequence of the 
 events in the secceeding chapters, where 435 is followed almost 
 at once by the feast of 51, and the feast of 51 by a mention of 
 the Tabernacles as ‘nigh at hand’ (64 or 727). The argument 
 clearly postulates the absence of any intervening Passover at 64; 
 and though it is possible in the loss of the commentary on the 
 verse itself to attribute this to mere oversight, yet the omission 
 of ré wzexa in Origen’s text is made more probable by the 
 evatsaee of his follower Cyril, the fourth and last witness 
 
 eged. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary, like those of so many 
 later Fathers, is composite; his own contributions are in- 
 extricably mixed up with those of his predecessors, notably of 
 Origen. Hence, if Cyril (ed. Pusey, i. 398, 399, 404) both gives 
 the disputed words +é wae, not only in the biblical text at the 
 head of the section (a position where, no doubt, scribes were 
 prone to replace the more familiar reading), but in two allusions 
 at an earlier point ; and at the same time explains our Lord’s 
 removal beyond the Sea of Galilee (Jn 61) by his desire to avoid 
 the thronging crowds whom the near shies of the Feast (not 
 of Passover but) of Tabernacles would attract to Jerus.,—the 
 simplest solution of the inconsistency is to suppose that +é 
 séoye really stood in Cyril’s own text, and that the connexion 
 9! the Tabernacles with the retreat beyond Tiberias is repeated 
 from Origen. 
 
 Thus of Hort’s four witnesses the evidence of two, Irensus 
 and the Alogi, does not really bear on the point raised at all ; 
 while the testimony of Cyril, so far as it is adverse to the words, 
 appears to resolve itself into the testimony of Origen. But it is 
 much easier to suppose that Origen in his Commentary either 
 conjecturally emended or altogether passed over a notice that 
 he saw to be irreconcilable with his earlier conception of a single- 
 year Ministry, than that he has alone preserved the apostolic 
 text against the concurrence of all other authorities. 
 
 On no ground, external or internal, can the 
 omission of the reference to a Passover in 64 be 
 defended as original or genuine. The Fourth 
 Gospel excludes the possibility of anything less 
 than a two-year Ministry. The result is a quite 
 simple chronology for the second half of the Gospel. 
 From 6‘ to 1155 the space covered is exactly a year, 
 the autumn Feast of Tabernacles (7?) and the winter 
 Feast of Dedication (107?) being signalized in the 
 course of it, The earlier chapters (2! to 64) present 
 a more complicated problem, the solution of which 
 depends primarily on the meaning to be attached to 
 the notices of the season in 4* and of the feast in 5?. 
 
 (2) Jn 4%, Allusion is here made to two seasons 
 of the year, a period four months from harvest : 
 ‘Say ye not, There are yet four months, and 
 then cometh harvest?’; and the harvest itself: * 
 ‘Behold the fields, for they are white already to 
 harvest.’ Of these, only one of course can be meant 
 in the literal sense; and the question is, which? 
 The patristic exegesis of the passage shows that 
 the difficulty was felt from the first. The earliest 
 recorded commentator, the Valentinian Heracleon, 
 ‘like the majority, interpreted literally, and said 
 that the material harvest was four months off, but 
 that the harvest of which the Saviour was speak- 
 ing, the harvest cf souls, was ready and ripe.’ 
 Origen answers that it was rather the middle or 
 end of harvest-time, for the connexion of the 
 
 * The first ears of barley harvest would be ready in the most 
 forward districts at the end of March ; the most backward wheat 
 would be cut in June. April and May would be the principal 
 harvest months. 
 
 
 
 narrative proves that it cannot have been winter. 
 You cannot allow, he says, as much as eight or 
 nine months—April to January—after the pass- 
 over of ch. 2, for there is nothing in the story to 
 suggest so long a period, and the impression made 
 on the Galileans at that passover was still fresh in 
 their minds when Christ came on to Galilee after 
 leaving Samaria (4*) ; nor can you allow as much 
 again—January to October—between this episode 
 and the Feast of Tabernacles soon to be mentioned :* 
 Orig. in Jn. tom. xiii. 39, 41. 
 
 It is not possible at this stage to dismiss either 
 explanation as in itself inadmissible. The words 
 of the verse, especially the ér, ‘sti// four months,’ 
 have, perhaps, @ more natural meaning if the 
 harvest was actually four months off. On the 
 other hand, the immediate context, the promise of 
 the water which should quench all thirst, has been 
 thought to suggest a warmer season than January, 
 the discourses in St. John’s Gospel being, it is said, 
 always fitted to their external surroundings. On 
 this view it has been ae that the rerpdunvor 
 is a proverbial phrase for the interval between seed- 
 time and harvest, ovx duets Aévyere standing for ré 
 deyduevov, the regular idiom for a proverb. It is 
 said in answer that no such words are elsewhere 
 preserved; but phrases of similar meaning, em- 
 
 hasizing the interval between preparation and 
 Tuition, are common in all languages. It is said 
 also that a strict reckoning would make the 
 interval rather six months than four; but the 
 Rabbis (see Wetstein, ad doc.) were accustomed to 
 divide the year into six stages of two months—seed- 
 time, winter, spring, harvest, summer, dog-days— 
 so that four months does actually cover the period 
 between the two. Considering, too, the differences 
 of climate in different parts of Palestine, and the 
 differences of season between barley and wheat 
 harvest, there is nothing improbable in supposing 
 that the interval which can be described as one 
 . six months can be described also as one of 
 our. 
 
 Origen has really hit the mark in making the 
 relation of the passage to the general chronological 
 arrangement of the Gos el the determining factor 
 in a date which could otherwise only be left open. 
 This relation involves, in the first place, a dis- 
 cussion of the third and last of the doubtful time- 
 notices in St. John. 
 
 (3) Jn5'. Alternative readings ¢opr# and % éopr#, 
 and alternative explanations of either reading. 
 
 h éoprh was analyzed in the discussion of Jn 64 
 above, and was found to imply either Passover or 
 Tabernacles, though the very existence of a doubt 
 as to the relative precedence of the two feasts 
 made the use of the phrase without further defini- 
 tion unlikely in itself, 
 
 éoprj would leave the feast intended quite un- 
 certain. Origen and Epiphanius both argue 
 rightly that the indefiniteness excludes Passover ; 
 the former apparently made it Pentecost (as does 
 his follower Cyril, though the text at the head of 
 this section of the Commentary contains the 
 article), the latter gives a choice between Pentecost 
 and Tabernacles (Orig. in Jn. tom. xiii. 39; Epiph. 
 Her. li. 21, Dind.).¢ But just as Tabernacles is 
 important enough to rival the claim of Passover to 
 be meant by the definite 7 éop77, so equally with 
 Passover it is too important to satisfy the in- 
 definite éopr4, which must be referred to one of the 
 less important festivals, Pentecost (May), Trumpets 
 (September), Dedication (December), or Purim 
 (February). 
 
 * The latter part of the argument is, of course, vitiated by 
 Origen’s neglect of the Passover of 64; see above. 
 t The fact that Origen, who certainly did not read the article, 
 
 uses of the same feast the words ssp) ray iv oH dope rise 
 ‘lovdaiey ... rexpayuivey (tom. xiii. 64), shows bow in 
 
 oblique references the article would creep in. 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
3-6). 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 409 
 
 See eG mire: re nn nm nn SSS 
 
 As between the two readings, the article is found ing OLA 
 1-118 33, the Egyp. VSS, Eusebius of Cwsarea, Oyril-text (per- 
 haps, too, Irenmus, since he made the feast a Passover, see above 
 on Jn 64); it is omitted by A B D, Origen, Epiph. Chrys. 
 and the Paschal Chronicle. The weight of external evidence 
 favours the latter group, for it has not only early but varied 
 attestation ; whereas the other is of more homogeneous type, 
 originally purely Alexandrine, and may easily owe its post-Nicene 
 supporters to the influence of Eusebius of Cmsarea, and the 
 theory which he brought into prominence of a three years’ 
 Ministry with four Passovers. And when to this is added the 
 suspicious character just shown to attach on internal grounds to 
 4 iops#, ioprn without the article may confidently claim to repre- 
 sent the text of the evangelist. 
 
 Thus the first half of the Gospel gives (1) a pass- 
 over, 2); (2) a note of time, either May or 
 January, 4°; (3) an unnamed minor feast, 51; (4) 
 a second passover, 64. These could be combined 
 in more than one way to fit into a single year: e.g. 
 (a) Passover—May—any lesser feast—Passover ; 
 or (8) Passover—January—Purim (February)— 
 Passover. 
 
 But, Js the minimum duration of the Ministry 
 which results from St. John’s Gospel also the 
 ‘maximum? Is it to be assumed that if the 
 notes of time in 2!8-64 can be co-ordinated into a 
 single year, and those of 64-11" into a second, no 
 further latitude is possible? This is the crucial 
 question. 
 
 A negative answer is implied in Ireneus, the 
 earliest in time, the most trustworthy in position, 
 of all extant patristic authorities (Her. 1. xxii. 
 The limitation of the Ministry by the 
 Valentinians to a single year he disproves at once 
 from the record of three visits to Jerus. for the 
 passover (see on Jn 6‘above); but he finds also three 
 other considerations which prove that the total 
 length of the Ministry was far in excess, not only of 
 one, but even of two or three years’ duration. 
 (i.) A priori; The Lord came to save and sanctify 
 every age, whether of infants, children, boys, 
 youths, or men, and to be at once the perfect 
 example and the perfect master and teacher of all ; 
 their example, by passing himself through each of 
 the stages of human life; their teacher, by attain- 
 ing the age of teaching.* (ii.) Scriptural: St. 
 J aa records (87) that the Jews asserted that Jesus 
 could not have seen Abraham, because he was still 
 under fifty years old—a phrase implying that he 
 was not far off fifty, at any rate over forty, since to 
 a man between thirty and forty the retort would 
 have been, ‘Thou art not yet forty years old.’ 
 (iii.) Traditional: The elders who gathered round 
 St. John during his long old age in Asia, disciples 
 some of them, of other apostles as well, have 
 all handed this down as the apostolic teaching. 
 Of these arguments the first two do not come to 
 much ; but the third does establish a prima facie 
 claim, only to be rebutted by the overwhelming 
 evidence on the other side. Is there, then, no 
 method of explaining, or at least minimizing, this 
 at first sight conclusive appeal to Johannine 
 tradition? In a later passage (V. xxxiii. 3) Irenzeus 
 makes a similar appeal to ‘ the elders who had seen 
 John, the disciple of the Lord,’ and embodies their 
 witness to the Lord’s teaching about the Millennial 
 times in a passage which he then defines as the 
 written testimony of ‘ Papias, the hearer of John 
 and companion of Polycarp’; and since Papias’ 
 work was primarily a commentary on sayings or 
 oracles of the Lord, it is a legitimate conjecture 
 that if the earlier passage contains a particular 
 exegesis of the text Jn 8°’, accompanied by emphasis 
 on the authority of the elders, there, too, the 
 authority and the exegesis are those of Papias, 
 and probably of Papias only. But Papias had no 
 title beyond that of antiquity to the exaggerated 
 deference which Irenzeus pays him. <A writer so 
 ‘feeble-minded’ (the phrase is from Eusebius) 
 
 * T.e. 40 years; see above on Lk 823, p. 4058. 
 
 would have been just the one to press home to its 
 narrowest meaning the a fortiori argument, ‘ Thou 
 art not yet fifty years old,’ of the Jewish contro- 
 versialists ; it is even conceivable that he attributed 
 the ‘forty and six years’ of the literal temple to 
 the human temple of our Lord. 
 
 But because a theory which extends the length 
 of the Ministry to ten or fifteen years is on all 
 grounds untenable, it does not at once follow that 
 an addition of one year, or even two, to the 
 minimum implied by the recorded passovers would 
 be equally out of court. At the same time, the 
 cumulative effect of the four following considera- 
 tions seems decisive against even this amount of 
 deviation from the stricter interpretation of St. 
 John’s narrative. 
 
 a. However widely gate writers differ from one another 
 in their estimate of the number of passovers mentioned, they 
 all, save Irensus (t.¢. Papias?) only, agree in believing that the 
 enumeration, whatever it is, is exhaustive. Origen in his earlier 
 writings appears to have reckoned no more than the two pass- 
 Overs; consequently the Ministry lasted only ‘a year and 
 some months’ (de Principiis, iv. 5). If Eusebius and the 
 Paschal Chronicler find four Passovers in the text, they allot to 
 the Ministry a period of between three years and four. If 
 Jerome, Epiphanius, and Apollinaris speak of three Passovers, 
 they also define the length of the Ministry as two years, or two 
 years and so many days. In itself too much weight must not 
 be attached to this consensus, since the natural tendency of 
 chronologers is to make the most of what they find in their 
 authorities, and to build up conclusions even where the 
 data are slight and insufficient. In this case, however, the 
 Fathers appear to be doing no violence to the intentions of the 
 evangelist. 
 
 8. For if St. John wrote with earlier forms of the Gospel 
 tradition in his mind or before his eyes, and made it one of his 
 objects to supplement their deficiencies by restatement of 
 neglected facts,—as with regard to the Judwjan Ministry or the 
 day of the Crucifixion,—it is reasonable to suppose that the 
 numerous notes of time which mark off his narrative into 
 stages are purposely introduced in definite contrast to the looser 
 Synoptic account; and he could only remove the erroneous 
 impression which had perhaps been deduced already from 
 other Gospels as to the length of the Ministry, by substituting 
 in his own Gospel an exact or fairly exact chronology. The 
 proof that St. John mentions so many passovers, and so many 
 only, amounts, then, to a presumptive proof that there wers 20 
 more to mention. 
 
 The two preceding arguments are independent of the par- 
 ticular number of passovers recorded in St. John’s Gospel; the 
 two which follow derive their force from the result above 
 established, that three passovers, or a minimum of two years, are 
 there assigned to the Ministry. 
 
 y- An early tradition, dating back certainly to the Gnostics of 
 the 2nd cent., and perhaps to St. Luke himself, limited the 
 Ministry to a single year; every year, therefore, added to 
 the minimum of two years required by St. John makes it more 
 difficult to understand how the error can have had so ancient 
 an origin or so wide a diffusion. 
 
 3. If the apparent narrowness of the framework in which the 
 Synoptic narrative is set paved the way in part for the theory 
 of the single year, an almost equally rapid succession of events 
 is implied by two indications in the Fourth Gospel—indications 
 which, but for the actual enumeration of the feasts, might well 
 have seemed to limit the Ministry to an even shorter duration 
 than two years. Ch 44 ‘the Galileans received him, havin 
 seen all things that he did at Jerus. at the feast,’ refers to 2 
 ‘when he was in Jerus. at the passover at the feast, many 
 believed on his name, beholding the signs which he was doing’; 
 and ch. 721-23 ‘One work I did, and ye are all marvelling.... 
 I made a man sound every whit on the sabbath day,’ reaches 
 back to 51-9, Not only can there have been no visit to Galilee 
 between 223 and 4495, no visit to Jerus. between 51 and 721, but 
 the intervals themselves must have been relatively small; eight 
 or nine months is the outside limit for the former; and since 
 many signs were performed at the first recorded visit to Jerus., 
 the impression of the one miracle which marked the second 
 visit would scarcely stand out with unique distinctness for much 
 more than a similar period. As 721 was spoken at Tabernacles, 
 and a Passover intervenes at 64, this is so far an argument tor 
 not putting back the visit of 51 beyond the previous Purim 
 (February). 
 
 The cumulative effect of these considerations 
 warrants the conclusion that while two years must, 
 not more than two years can, be allowed for the 
 interval from Jn 2%-3 to Jn 115; and it now 
 remains only to ask how far the results established 
 from St. John’s Gospel agree with the more 
 tentative results deduced from St. Mark’s. 
 
 acompareda withe. St. Mark’s Gospel was shown 
 (p. 406), if its order of events can be taken as 
 eirokcligieal to imply, exactly like St. John’s, a 
 
410 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 two-year Ministry. Its second note of time, the 
 spring of the miracle of the 5000, corresponds exactly 
 to the Passover mentioned as ‘nigh’ on the same 
 occasion in St. John (Mk 6%=Jn 64). Its first 
 note, the harvest of the ears of corn (Mk 2”), must, 
 if recorded in its proper place, belong to the 
 months immediately succeeding the passover of 
 Jn 2. It would follow at once that the visit 
 welcomed by the Galileans (Jn 4), being the first 
 visit to Galilee after Jn 2, must precede Mk 2”; 
 and St. John’s note of time in Samaria (Jn 4%) 
 must be placed between the passover and the 
 episode of the ears of corn, t.¢. at the actual harvest 
 season. Very soon after the passover—room has 
 only to be found for the visit of Nicodemus—per- 
 haps about April 20, since es in A.D. 27 fell 
 on April 11 or 12, Christ leaves Jerus. with his 
 disciples and makes a stay in the ‘land of Judea’ 
 while John was still preaching; but the Baptist’s 
 arrest probably followed shortly, and may actu- 
 ally have been the cause of our Lord’s removal 
 through Samaria to Galilee, at a time when at 
 least the barley was ripe, say about the middle 
 of May (Jn 3% * 41, and Westcott, ad loc.). ‘ After 
 the arrest of John, Jesus came into Galilee’ is 
 St. Mark’s description of the same moment, 1%. 
 So far the chronology is smooth enough; the 
 difficulty is to know whether the six weeks, which 
 is the utmost that can be allowed between the 
 middle of May and the end of wheat harvest, are 
 enough to cover the opening stages of the Galilean 
 Ministry down to the episode of the ears of corn. It 
 has been shown above (p. 406°) that within his first 
 section St. Mark certainly groups events by subject- 
 matter rather than by time, so that there is no @ 
 priort reason against placing the episode of the 
 corn during, or even before, the circuit of the village- 
 towns (xwyorddes, i. 38), which is almost the only 
 distinctively marked occurrence in these chapters. 
 No doubt, however, such a scheme as this would 
 crush the early Galilean Ministry into an un- 
 comfortably narrow space; the double call of the 
 apostles, for instance, is more appropriate if a sub- 
 stantial interval, during which they had returned 
 to their ordinary avocations, elapsed between the 
 return to Galilee in May and the second and final 
 call. But if the harmonization is thought im- 
 possible, it is the chronological order of the events 
 in St. Mark, and not the limitation of the Ministry 
 to two years, which must be given up. The corn 
 piece must be transferred to the second year of 
 the Ministry, and placed after the miracle of the 
 Five Thousand. 
 
 d. A secure result being thus established from 
 the Gospels for the length of the Ministry, 
 want of space compels the omission of the section 
 on the evidence of antiquity,—evidence the less 
 essential that it is wholly secondary, being 
 based on deductions, some correct, some incorrect, 
 from the Scriptures themselves. Suffice it to say 
 briefly, that among ante-Nicene writers, against 
 the evidence for a single year of the Ptolemzan 
 Valentinians, the Clementine Homilies (xvii. 19), 
 Clem. Al. (Strom. i, 145, vi. 279), Julius Africanus 
 (Routh, Rel. Sac. ii. pp. 240, 306), Hippolytus’ later 
 works (Paschal Cyne and Chronicle), and Origen’s 
 earlier (in Levit. Hom. ix. 5, de Prince. iv. 5), are to 
 be set, for a two to three years’ Ministry, Melito 
 (Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 121), Heracleon (to judge 
 from his interpreting Jn 4% of winter), Tatian’s 
 Diatessaron, Hippolytus’ Fourth Book on Daniel, 
 and Origen (c. Celsum ii. 12, Comm. in Matt. 
 xxiv. 15, and probably in the lost Comm. on Is. 
 xxix. 1). No writer before Eusebius maintains a 
 three to four years’ Ministry. 
 
 #. THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION.—a. The 
 Four Gospels.—l. The dating by officials: a, the 
 governor ; 8, the high priest. 
 
 a. All the Gospels besides the Acts and Pastoral 
 Epistles name Pilate (Pontius Pilate in Mt 272, Ac 
 47, 1 Ti 6%) as the governor before whom Christ 
 was tried. His tenure of the procuratorship is 
 approximately fixed by Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 
 ii. 2, iv. 2: (1) he came as successor to Valerius 
 Gratus, whose eleven years, since they fell wholly 
 under Tiberius, must have extended at least to 
 A.D. 25; (2) he left after ten years of office, and 
 was still on his way to Rome when Tiberius died, 
 March A.D. 37, so that he can hardly have reached 
 Palestine before A.D. 27; and as Lk 13! 23" (not 
 to speak of Lk 3!) show that he was not quite 
 newly come at the time of the Crucifixion, the 
 possible passovers for the latter are reduced to nine, 
 A.D. 28-36. 
 
 B. As high priest Caiaphas is named by St. 
 Matthew (26 5”), and so emphatically by St. John 
 (11 1812-4) as to suggest that he is correcting the 
 less technically accurate statement of St. Luke, 
 who includes under the title both Caiaphas and 
 his sometime previously deposed predecessor Annas, 
 (3? él dpxrepéws “Avva, kal Kaidg@a; but in Ac 4° 
 Annas to the exclusion of Caiaphas, “Avvas 4 
 dpxvepeds kal Kaidgas). Caiaphas was appointed 
 under Valerius Gratus before Pilate’s time. He 
 was deposed by Vitellius, legate of Syria, on the 
 occasion of a visit to Jerus. for the passover, the 
 
 ear of which can be established within certain 
 
 imits, for (1) his successor Jonathan was deposed 
 by the same Vitellius during another visit for one’ 
 of the festivals of A.D. 37—probably Pentecost,* 
 since the newsof Tiberius’ death on March 16 arrived 
 at the same time; at latest, therefore, Caiaphas’ 
 deposition was at the passover of A.D. 36, and the 
 Crucifixion at the passover of A.D. 35; (2) the 
 death of Herod Philip in the 20th year of Tiberius, 
 A.D. 33-34, is mentioned by Josephus & page or 
 two after the account of Caiaphas’ removal, with 
 the fairly precise indication Tore, ‘at that time,’ so 
 that, if this order of events is correct, the Passover 
 of A.D. 34 is the terminus ad quem for Caiaphas, 
 and that of A.D. 33 for the Crucifixion. See 
 Josephus, Ant. XVII. ii. 2, iv. 3-v. 3. 
 
 The Crucifixion under Pilate and Caiaphas can 
 hardly then lie outside the years A.D. 28-33. 
 
 2: The dating by the calendar: a, the day of the 
 week ; f, the ay the (Jewish) month. 
 
 a. Since the Resurrection admittedly falls on 
 the first day of the week, Sunday, the Crucifixion, 
 which was according to Jewish reckoning on the 
 ‘third day’ before, took place on a Friday. No 
 proof of this would be needed were it not that 
 it has been strangely suggested (by Westcott, 
 Introduction to the Stud of the Gospels ?, appendix 
 to ch. vi. p. 348) that the day of the Crucifixion 
 was not Friday but Thursday, on the ground of the 
 peer that the Son of man was to be three 
 
 ays and three nights in the heart of the earth, 
 Mt 12”. But against this view tradition and the | 
 NT are equally decisive: (1) The Wednesday and 
 Friday fast is now traced back as far as the 
 Didache, 8’. (2) The most common NT phrase for 
 the day of the Resurrection in comparison with 
 the Crucifixion is rq rplry (Gospels eight times 
 besides 1 Co 15*), which in Gr. never did or could 
 mean anything but ‘on the second day,’ whether 
 the day after to-morrow or the day before yester- 
 day ; cf. Lk 13%, Ac 27!819 Ex 19!%1], 1] Mac 9%, 
 Even the apparently stronger phrases pera rpeis 
 juépas (Mk 8*!, Mt 27%: 6) and rpeis qudépas xal rpets 
 vixras (Mt 12”), mean exactly he same thing; cf. 
 Gn 4217-18 xal éero avrods év pudaxy Huépas Tpets* elarev 
 
 *Ifit had been the passover, Josephus would probably have — | 
 
 mentioned the fact, as he does on the previous occasion of 
 Caiaphas’ deposition. If the passover of A.D. 87 fell on March 
 20-21, Pentecost was about May 8-9, seven to eight weeks after 
 Tiberius’ death. 
 
 
 

 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 ee 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 411 
 
 ey 
 
 82 abrots ry hyepg TH Tplrp, Est 4!° wh ddynre unde 
 wlyre éwl nudpas Tpeis viKra Kal Huépay, taken up in 5} 
 (=154 Vulg.) wal eyévero ev ry tuépa TH Tplry.. . 
 wepteBdrero Thy Sdéav avrfs. (These exx. mostly from 
 Field’s admirable note on Mt 16%—misprinted *— 
 in his Otiwm Norvicense, iii. p. 7.) 
 
 . But the day of the week must be combined 
 with the day of the month before any further 
 results can be attained. On what day, then, of the 
 (Jewish) month did the Crucifixion fall ? 
 
 The passover was kept at the full moon of 
 Nisan, the first month of the Jewish ecclesiastical 
 year ; and the months being lunar and commencing 
 with the new moon, the full moon fell about the 
 15th. On the 14th, in the afternoon, the paschal 
 lamb was killed, Ex 12° explained by Josephus, BJ 
 VI. ix. 3, dwd évdrys dpas wéxpis évdexarns, and Philo 
 (ed. Mangey, ii. 292) xara peonuBplay ews éomépas ; 
 it was eaten on the evening of the same natural 
 day, but as the Jewish day began at sunset, that 
 was already Nisan 15. On the 16th the first-fruits 
 of the barley harvest were offered or ‘waved’ 
 before the Lord (Lv 234+; Jos. Ant. II. x. 5). 
 The whole feast of unleavened bread lasted seven 
 days, from the 15th to the 21st inclusive. 
 
 ether the Crucifixion fell on the 14th or on 
 
 the 15th, whether (that is) the passover by a few 
 hours followed it or preceded it, has always been a 
 question. For the present purpose, however, it is 
 only an important one in so far as it may happen 
 that in any one of the possible years Friday 
 might be reconcilable with one but not with the 
 other of the two days. But the observation of 
 the Jewish months often cannot be restored with 
 such absolute certainty that if Friday could be 
 Nisan 14 in any particular year it could not be 
 Nisan 15, or vice versa. Moreover, the arguments 
 on each side (unlike most of the points treated 
 hitherto) are well represented in accessible author- 
 ities: see in favour of the 14th—Sanday, Author- 
 ship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 
 ch. xii., or Westcott, Introduction to the Gospels, 
 ee to ch. vi.: for the 15th — Edersheim, 
 esus the Messiah, ii. 479-482 ; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 
 R xxxi; M‘Clellan, New Testament, pp. 473-494. 
 
 o more then need be said here upon the Gospels 
 than that, while prima facie the evidence of St. 
 John tells for the 14th and that of the Synoptists 
 for the 15th, indications are not wanting in the 
 synoptic narrative (e.g. the episodes of Simon of 
 
 yrene and of the deposition from the Cross, Mk 
 1571. 2. 46) which confirm the Johannine view. 
 Probably, here as elsewhere St. John in repeatedly 
 implying that the passover was still future (13! rpo 
 dé THs eoprys TOD macxa, 13% dydpacov dv xpelay Exopev 
 els Thy écopriv, 18% wa wh wavOGdow ad\rAa pdywow 7d 
 adoxa) is intending to correct silently a false im- 
 yon to which other accounts had, or might 
 
 ave, given rise.* 
 
 For the decisive evidence of Christian antiquity, 
 reaching back Eapebly to St. Paul himself, in 
 favour of Nisan 14, see below, p. 412. 
 
 In which years, then, between the already estab- 
 lished limits A.D. 28-33, could Friday have fallen 
 on the 14th—regard being also had to the less 
 probable 15th—of Nisan ? 
 
 The matter is not so simple as it looks ; for it is never possible 
 to be certain which day was reckoned as the new moon or 
 
 * The regular synoptic use of ra rzcxva for the supper on the 
 evening of Nisan 13-14 is possibly illustrated by passages in 
 Philo, #sp) vis iBdours xa) sav iopeav, which seem to distinguish 
 the rey of the 14th from the a{uue of the 15th-21st (ii. 278, 
 292, 293): e.g. ® siracprn dk [dopr%] ray diaBarnpioy 4 xaderas 
 wire’ sinary 3h 4 tov doTaxioy cwapyh, TO lnper dpcyue’ bxrn 
 
 Bi alum. (2) kysras di 4 revdnu0os Ovoiw tivenproxasdexeTn TOU 
 penvos. (3) cuvewres di rois 3ieBarnpiows boprh... & 
 St. Mark, f» di ro wtcya xal re alumnae 
 imply a consciousness of this distinction 
 Mt 2617, Mk 1412, Lk 221.7, 
 
 aluun, oes 
 re die ntpes (141), 
 Contrast, however, 
 
 first of any given month, and not always possible to be certain 
 which month was reckoned as the Nisan or first of any given 
 year. 
 
 (1) How was the beginning of a Jewish month fixed? Theo- 
 retically, no doubt, by simple observation ; and since astronomers 
 can calculate the true time of conjunction for any new moon, it 
 is possible, by adding so many hours (not less than about 80) for 
 the crescent to become visible, and by taking the first sunset 
 after that, to know when each month ought to have begun, if 
 the Jewish observations were accurately made. But what was 
 to happen when observation was impossible? Was the new 
 month to be put off as long as every night happened to be 
 cloudy? Were the Jews of the dispersion from Babylon to 
 Rome to be left ignorant on what day the new month was com- 
 mencing in Jerusalem? Empiric methods must have been 
 qualified by the permanent rules of some sort of calendar. It 
 must at least have been recognised that, the average length of a 
 lunation being 294 days, no month could be less than 29 or 
 more than 30 days. 
 
 The subjoined table (cf. Salmon, Introd. to NT’. appendix to 
 Lect. xv.; Mas Latrie, 7'résor de Chronologie, p. 94) gives, first, 
 the terminus paschalig or 14th of the paschal moon according 
 to the present Christian calendar; secondly, the beginning of 
 the 14th day, reckoned from the time of the astronomical new 
 moon of Nisan ; and thirdly, the fourteenth day, reckoned from 
 the first appearance of the new moon at sunset (it being remem- 
 bered that the Jewish day began at that hour)}— 
 
 A.D. 28 Sa. 27 M. 28 M., 2 a.m, (29-) 30 ML 
 29 F. 16 A. 15 A., 8 p.m. (17-) 18 A, 
 
 80 Tu. 4A, 4A., 8p.m. (6-) 7A, 
 
 31 Sa. 24 M 25 M., 1 a.m. 26-) 27 M. 
 
 82 Sa. 12 A. 11 A., 11 p.m. 13-) 14 A, 
 
 83 W. 1A. 1A., 1 p.m. es 3A, 
 
 or( 3-) 4A. 
 
 The first and third columns may safely be taken to represent 
 the possible extremes in any year, and it will be seen at once 
 that Friday cannot have fallen on Nisan 14 or 15 in the three 
 years A.D. 28, 31, 82—in each of these the choice lies from 
 Saturday to Monday or Tuesday for the 14th, and from Sunday 
 to Tuesday or Wednesday for the 15th—and must be sought for 
 therefore in one of the remaining years, A.D. 29, 30, 33. 
 
 (2) But how is it certain that the full moons au given were 
 those of Nisan rather than of some other month 
 
 Nisan was originally that lunation before the middle of which 
 the first ears of barley harvest were ripe (Dt 169, Lv 2310); and 
 if, when the previous month Adar ended, the earliest barley was 
 not within a fortnight of being ripe, a 13th month, Veadar, 
 was intercalated. But as with the month, so also for the com- 
 mencement of each year, a systematic calendar must soon have 
 replaced simple observation, for strangers from the Dispersion 
 could not visit Jerus. for the passover unless they knew before- 
 hand whether a 13th month were to be intercalated or not. 
 Such a method as was wanted for correlating the lunar 
 months with the solar year exists in the still familiar rule that 
 the pascha] full moon is that immediately following the spring 
 equinox ; and this was certainly in use—nor is there any trace 
 of any rival system of harmonization —before the Christian 
 era. 
 
 But the equinox itself, though the reckoning of it varied only 
 within narrow limits, was not an absolutely fixed point. The 
 computation ultimately accepted by the whole Christian world, 
 that of the Alexandrians of the 4th cent., fixed it on March 21. 
 But Anatolius of Laodicea (see the passage of his xavévis rob 
 awaoxe, A.D. 277, preserved in Eus. HE vii. 32), assigning the 
 first new moon of the first year of his cycle to Phamenoth 26 
 =a.d. xi kal. Apr. = March 22, says that the sun is then already 
 in the 4th day of the first ru#ue (or 12th part of his annual 
 course from equinox to equinox), which he therefore placed on 
 March 19. Moreover, according to the same authority, there 
 were those who, disregarding the equinoctial limit, erroneously 
 took for the paschal month what was really not the first month 
 of one year but the last of the preceding—and that against the 
 testimony of the old Jewish authorities, Philo, Josephus, 
 Muszus, and the still earlier Agathobuli and Aristobulus, Who 
 these people were whom he is attacking, Anatolius in the extant 
 fragment does not say; but the evidence of various 4th cent. 
 writers makes it all but certain that they were the Jews of his 
 day. The Encyclical Letter of Constantine at Nicea dissuades 
 from imitation of the Jewish pascha, celebrated as it is ‘twice in 
 one year’: the Apostolic Constitutions recommend independence 
 of Jewish calculations and careful attention to the equinox, 
 lest the feast should recur ‘twice in one year’—t.e. once 
 rightly, just after the one spring equinox, and once wrongly, 
 just before the next; and the Paschal Homily of pseudo- 
 Chrysostom (A.D. 387) appeals from the contemporary Jews and 
 their neglect of the equinox to their wise men of antiquity, 
 Philo, Josephus, and others, in terms which seem to 
 borrowed direct from Anatolius. (Socrates, HE i. 9; Apost. 
 Const. y. 17; Chrysostom, ed. Bened. viii. Appendix, p. 277; cf., 
 too, Epiphanius, Her. 1. 3.) 
 
 It is quite likely that this supposed error of the Jews simply 
 meant that they reckoned the equinox earlier than their 
 Christian contemporaries, better equipped in astronomical 
 
 ——— 
 
 * Philo (op. cit. ii. 293) connects the title of ‘first month’ 
 given to Nisan in the OT with the concurrence of the spring 
 equinox as an annual reminder of the beginning of all things; 
 and see below for the catena of Jewish authorities appealed to 
 by Anatolius, who quotes the actual language of ‘ Aristebulus 
 one of the Seventy.’ 
 
 
 

 
 412 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 knowledge, had learned to do; with the result that the Jews 
 would be sometimes keeping the passover when the Christians, 
 holding that the equinox was not yet past, waited for the next 
 full moon. In any case the farther back the Church’s paschal 
 calculations can be traced, the earlier does the equinox appear 
 to have been set. Anatolius himself put it two days before the 
 Alexandrian reckoning, just as Hippolytus, the first known 
 author of a Christian cycle (A.D. 222), put it a day before 
 Anatolius. And both Jews and Christians of primitive times 
 may quite possibly have reckoned it a day earlier even than the 
 March 18 of Hippolytus. 
 
 Now, in the list of the six passovers of A.D. 28-33 
 there was one year, A.D. 29, in which the new 
 moon of Nisan is placed as late as April 2, 
 8 p.m., and the 14th as late as April 15-18; but 
 the argument; of the last two paragraphs shows 
 that the previous lunation, if its new moon fell in 
 the early hours of March 4 and its 14th on March 
 17-19, has an equal or superior claim to be con- 
 sidered the month of Nisan. The 14th in this case, 
 if it fell on March 18, would actually be a eee 
 and March 18 is really the most probable of the 
 alternatives. It is true that calculation from the 
 erie of the new moon after sunset would make 
 
 isan 1= March 6, Nisan 14=March 19. But the 
 caution has already been given that simple obser- 
 vation must have been superseded before A.D. 29 by 
 calendar rules; and one of these rules, which may 
 well go back to our Lord’s time, was that Adar never 
 consisted of more than 29 days; Nisan therefore 
 commenced a day sooner in relation to the new 
 moon than if it had followed a month of 30 days, 
 so that in this year Nisan 1 would rather be 
 March 5. Suppose, further, that the equinox was 
 calculated one day earlier than by Hippolytus, 
 two days earlier than by Anatolius, ried Nisan 
 14=March 18, A.m 29, satisfies the equinoctial 
 limit also. 
 
 Three years then, A.D. 29, 30, 33, satisfy the 
 Gospel evidence for the date of the Crucifixion: 
 and the choice between them must now be made 
 by recourse to other authorities. 
 
 b. Tradition outside the Gospels. 
 
 1. The Jewish Date.—Though the evidence ob- 
 tained from these supplementary sources deals, as a 
 tule, with Roman or other civil computations, the 
 question as between Nisan 14 and 15 is definitely 
 answered by a continuous chain of tradition from 
 the lst cent. to the 4th. 
 
 St. Paul wrote his First Epistle to the Corinth- 
 fans about passover-time (5° Gore ¢oprdtwuev, cf. 
 168), and paschal symbolism underlies his allusions 
 both to the Crucifixion, 57’ éxxaddpare rhvy madadv 
 fine... Kal yap 7d rdoxa Huay érvdn Xpiocrds, and 
 to the Resurrection, 15 vuvl d¢ Xpusrds eyiyyeprat éx 
 vexpav amrapxh Toy Kexoiunuévwy, On Nisan 14 and 
 16, then, the days of the sacrifice of the passover 
 and of the offering of the first-fruits, St. Paul’s 
 Churches appear to have kept the memorials of 
 the Crucifixion and of the Resurrection. In the 
 next century the Quartodecimans, as their name 
 implies, observed Nisan 14, not 15: the theory of 
 the Tiibingen school, that what these Johannine 
 Churches observed on the 14th was not the Cruci- 
 fixion but the Last Salvia is too preposterous to 
 call for refutation. efinite testimony for the 
 14th, from lost writings of three ‘holy Fathers of 
 the Church,’ is quoted in the Paschal Chronicle 
 (A.D. 641: ed. Ducange, pp. 6, 7). (i.) Claudius 
 Apollinaris of Hierapolis, c. A.D. 180, in his zepl 
 Tod wdoxa Abyos accused of ignorance those who 
 connected the 14th, not with the true Lord’s pass- 
 over, the great Sacrifice, but with the Last Supper,* 
 and put the Crucifixion on the 15th, on the sup- 
 
 * Strictly, of course, the Last Supper and the Crucifixion were 
 on the same Jewish day ; but early Christian usage soon began 
 to use, even for these days of the lunar month, not the Jewish 
 reckoning from sunset to sunset, but the ordinary reckoning 
 from midnight to midnight. Apollinaris distinguishes the two 
 
 days just in the same way as Clement puts the washing of the 
 feet on the 13th, the Passion on the 14th. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 osed authority of St. Matthew’s Gospel : a view, 
 e says, which is out of harmony with the law,— 
 apparently because the paschal lamb is an OT 
 type of Christ,—and sets the Gospels at variance 
 with one another, obviously because St. John waa 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 admitted to give the quartodeciman date.  (ii.) 
 Clement of Alexandria, in a work bearing the 
 same title, contrasted the years before the Min- 
 istry, when Christ ate the Jewish passover, with 
 the year of his preaching, when he did not eat 
 it, but suffered on the 14th, being himself the 
 paschal Lamb of God, and rose on the third day 
 [the 16th], on which the Law commanded the 
 priest to offer the sheaf of first-fruits. (iii.) Hip- 
 olytus of Portus, in his De pascha and Adv. omnes 
 reses [to be distinguished from the now recov- 
 ered longer treatise, Refutatio omnium heresium], 
 asserted that Christ ate a supper before the pass- 
 over, but not the legal passover: odros yap hy 7rd 
 Ildoxya 7d wpoxexnpvypévov kal Tedevovpevor Ty wpiopevy 
 
 elt f ; 
 f other early writers Irenzus (IV. x. 1) is 
 hardly clear; but Tertullian (adv. Jud. 8)* seems to 
 imply Nisan 14. Africanus is quite unambiguous, 
 mpd 5é THs mas ToD wdoxa Ta wepl Tov Lwrnpa suvéBy 
 (Chronicon, fr. 50 ap. Routh, Rel. Sac. ii. 297). 
 Even as late as the end of the 4th cent. three 
 writers, all specialists on chronology, can still be 
 cited on the same side: Epiphanius, Her. 1. 2, 
 &e yap roy Xpiordv dv recoapecxadexdry nuépg 
 OvecOac; Ps.-Chrysostom (A.D. 387: ed. Bened. 
 viii. App. p. 281), the Crucifixion fulfils the Mosaic 
 ordinance that the lamb should be sacrificed be- 
 tween the evenings on the 14th; Julius Hilarianus 
 (A.D. 397: de die pasche et mensis xv, ap. Gallandi, 
 viii. 748), the sacrifice of a lamb from the flock 
 is replaced by the sacrifice of the Lord Christ 
 himself on Juna aviv. Add to these Anon. in 
 Cramer’s Catena in Mt. p. 237, and Orosius, Hist. 
 vii. 4. 15, the darkness took place év ry 1d’ juépa 
 THs cedhvys, quartam decimam ea die lunam, as well 
 as the Paschal Chronicle itself and the civropos 
 dujynots, an Egyptian system incorporated in it 
 (ed. Ducange, pp. 221, 225). ! 
 
 But by this time the opposite view, which first 
 emerges in the 3rd cent.—in the West, Ps.-Cyprian, 
 Computus de pascha (A.D. 243: Hartel’s Cyprian, iii. 
 248), § 9 manducavit pascha, § 21 passus est luna 
 zv; in the East, Origen on Mt_26" (Delarue, iii. 
 895), Jesus celebravit more Iudaico pascha corpor- 
 aliter... quoniam... factus est sub lege—was 
 beginning to be the prevalent one. So certainl 
 Ambrose, ad epp. 4imilie (c. A.D. 386: ed. Bene 
 ii, 880), Chrysostom (eg. Hom. in Mt. |xxxii. 
 ed. Field, ii. 461, the passover superseded by the 
 Eucharist, 7d xepddaoy r&v éoprdav airav Kkaradver ép’ 
 érépav abrods peraribels tpdretay), Proterius of Alex- 
 andria, ad Papam Leonem (A.D. 444, printed as 
 ep. exxxiii. in the Ballerini Leo) ziv luna mensis 
 primi... pascha manducans ... sequenti die 
 xv luna crucifigitur ; and probably. Theophilus of 
 Alexandria, ad Theodosiwm Imp. iv. (A.D. 386: Gal- 
 landi, vii. 615); for though the Greek has 79 rec- 
 capecxatdexaralg, the Latin decimaquinta tallies with 
 Ambrose and Proterius, who both appear to be 
 borrowing from Theophilus. 
 
 This later view appears to be derived from the 
 use of rdécxa in the Synoptic Gospels: Origen, ite 
 most influential supporter, is directly commenting 
 on the text of St. Matthew. On the other hand, 
 none of the earlier witnesses for the 14th, save 
 Apollinaris, the champion of the Johannine 
 Churches of Asia Minor, appeal to St. John’s 
 Gospel; rather they represent an independent and 
 
 *In favour of the genuineness of chs. 1-8 of this treatise se 
 Fuller Dict. Christ. Biogr. iv. 827>; Harnack Gesch. der altchr. 
 Peseadh obit i. 671; against, Burkitt Old Latin and Itala, pp 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 413 
 
 
 
 decisive confirmation of it by the living voice of 
 rimitive tradition. 
 
 2. The civil year may be identified either by the 
 consals or by the regnal years of the emperor; 
 less frequently by reckoning from some one of the 
 special eras in use in the East, such aa the 
 
 lympiads or the era of Alexander (othezwise 
 called of the Greeks), B.c. 312. 
 
 a. The earliest authority who appears to have fixed the Oruci- 
 fixion by implication to a definite year is the pagan annalist 
 Phlegon, whose ‘chronological collection on the Olympiads’ 
 ranged from Ol. 1. 1 (B.0. 776) down to the times of Hadrian, 
 a.D. 117-138. A general account of the work is given by the 
 patriarch Photius (cod. 97), though even he failed to get beyond 
 the fifth book, or about B.o. 170. Photius summarizes the last 
 chapter which he read, as a sample of the style and contents 
 of the whole, concluding that ‘the reader gets regularly bored 
 with the lists of names and of victors in the Olympic contests, 
 and with the excessive and unseasonable details about prodigies 
 and prophecies, which crowd out all real history.’ Probably it 
 was this interest in the marvellous which led Phlegon to men- 
 tion the predictions of Jesus Christ, though his knowledge was 
 so vague that, if Origen’s phrase is rightly understood, he con- 
 fused the personalities (or perhaps only the miracles) of Christ 
 and of St. Peter (c. Cels. ii. 14, evyzulsis iv roig wspi Llérpou os wspi 
 ov 'Incov). 
 
 What gives him his interest for the present parpoee is that 
 he recorded under Ol. 202. 4 (a.p, 32-33) the darkness which 
 accompanied the Crucifixion; though, since the evidence is at 
 second or even at third hand, it is difficult to disentangle his 
 actual words. (i.) The reference in the middle of a fragment 
 quoted by Syncellus from the Chronicon of Julius Africanus (Fr. 
 50; Routh, Rel. Sac. ii. 297, 477) is, as Routh has seen, probably 
 an interpolation due to Syncellus’ confused recollections of 
 Eusebius. (ii.) The earliest genuine allusions are two in Origen: 
 c. Cels. ii. 33, Phlegon recorded in the 13th or 14th book of his 
 Chronicles the eclipse under Tiberius and the great earthquakes 
 of that time: Comm. in Mt. 134 (Delarue, iii. 922), heathen 
 opponents urge that an eclipse, such as the Gospels mention,* 
 cannot possibly take ree at full moon,—Phlegon recorded, 
 indeed, an eclipse under Tiberius, but not an eclipse at full 
 moon. (iii.) But though he did not mention the full moon in 
 so many words, an Anonymus in Cramer’s Catena in Mt. 
 p. 237—followed by pseudo-Origen in Mt. (see Routh, op. cit. 
 479)—does assert t he related the eclipse as a marvel, r«pa- 
 défas yeyvevoros, and the Christian writer naturally understood 
 by the ‘paradox’ the coincidence with the full moon. (iv.) A 
 further restoration of Phlegon is possible from the Chronicle 
 of Eusebius as represented in the Armenian version, in Jerome’s 
 Latin version, and in the quotations of George Syncellus. ‘In 
 the same year as the Crucifixion (t.e. Tiberius 19; see below) 
 the following notice occurs in pagan historians: ‘‘the sun was 
 eclipsed; an earthquake occurred in Bithynia, and most of 
 Nicwa fell to the ground”: still more precisely Phlegon, the 
 celebrated chronologer of the Olympiads, registers in his 13th 
 book, under Ol. 202. 4 [a.D. 32-33], ‘‘an eclipse of the sun more 
 striking than any previously on record, for it became night at 
 the sixth hour of the day, so that stars were visible in the 
 heavens; and a great earthquake in Bithynia overthrew most 
 of Nicwa.”’ Obviously, these two quotations are not inde- 
 pendent of one another; the first and more general looks like 
 @ summary by some intermediate writer of the same passage 
 from Phlegon which Eusebius then transcribes direct and in full. 
 
 That Phlegon was here drawing again on Christian sources, 
 whether the canonical Gospels or not, appears not to have been 
 suspected by Origen or Eusebius, but in face of the mention of 
 the ‘6th hour’ cannot admit of doubt. It does not, however, 
 follow that he borrowed the year also from them; for an 
 annalist, if he has not found a precise date in his authorities, 
 is bound to invent one. If he ascribed the portents of the 
 Crucifixion to the 202nd Olympiad simply, a.p. 29-33, he would 
 not stand in manifest contradiction to the other early evidence. 
 But if he really fixed them particularly to the 4th year, a.p. 33, 
 he is the only witness before Eusebius’ time to do so; and in 
 that case the most probable hypothesis is that he knew from 
 his Christian authorities no more (and from the Gospels as the 
 stand he could hardly have learned more) than that the Oruci- 
 fixion fell in the latter part of Tiberius’ reign, and fixed on 
 .D. 33 because he may have already found reason to select 
 that year for the Bithynian earthquake. 
 
 Eusebius, however, found Phlegon’s date harmonize admir- 
 ably with his own theory of the length of the Ministry, and so 
 his Chronicle assigns the Baptist’s mission (after Lk 3!) to 
 Tiberius 15, the mission of Christ to Tiberius 16, and the Passion 
 to Tiberius 19 (4.D. 33).+ The latter item is guaranteed both by 
 Syncellus, trous 16’ cas TiBspiou Baciasins, and by the Armenian ; 
 Jerome, no doubt because he allotted to the Ministry only two 
 to three years, and not like Eusebius three to four, substitutes 
 Tiberius 18. 
 
 8. Far more important is the tradition—found, it is true, in 
 
 
 
 * Mt 2745=Mk 1583 simply exéros ivivere; but in Lk 2344 the 
 true text appears to add rod Alou ixdsiwovrog with RBCL, both 
 oR versions, Origen 2/, (rather 3/,) and Cyril of Jeru- 
 em ¢/,. 
 wet oo fusebius’ reckoning of imperial years see immediately 
 low. 
 
 no extant authority as ancient as Phlegon, but found in sa 
 many authorities that the common source must ascend to a 
 remote antiquity—which fixes the Crucifixion in the consulship 
 of the two Gemini, or in the 15th or the 16th year of Tiberius, 
 or in the year 340 of the Greeks. 
 
 L. Rubellius Geminus and O. Fufius (or Rufius, or Rufus, 
 or Fusius) Geminus were the consuls of a.p. 29. The Seleucid 
 era (era of Alexander, era of the Greeks) commences Sept. 
 B.0. 312, so that its 340th year runs from Sept. a.p. 28 to Sept. 
 a.D. 29. But this same spring of a.p. 29 can be reckoned, 
 according to different methods of calculation, as belonging 
 either to the 15th or 16th year of Tiberius, who succeeded 
 Augustus in Aug. a.D. 14, so that, on the strict reckoning, 
 the passover falling in his 15th year will be that of a.p. 29. 
 But the imperial year might sometimes be adjusted to the 
 calendar year—to which corresponded the consul’s tenure of 
 office, Jan. 1 to Dec. 31—by beginning a second imperial year 
 on the first New Year’s day of each reign: compare the practice 
 of Trajan and his successors in commencing a 2nd year of 
 tribunicia potestas on the annual inauguration day of new 
 tribunes next after their accession (Lightfoot, Jgnatius!, 
 ii. 398). In this case the 15th year would be exactly equi- 
 valent to A.D. 28, the 16th to a.p. 29. Or again, the example 
 of the chronographers suggests that the converse might be 
 done and the fractional year simply omitted, each emperor’s 
 first year beginning on some fixed day: thus, for instance, 
 it will be shown (see below in part ii. of this article, TuE 
 AposTouic AGE, under Felix and Festus, p. 418) that Eusebius 
 appears to commence each emperor's 1st year in the Sept. follow- 
 ing his accession. Either year then is compatible—but the 15th 
 more normally—with the spring of a.D. 29, under the consul- 
 ship of the Gemini.* 
 
 (i.) Clement of Alexandria, ‘ With the 15th year of Tiberius and 
 15th of Augustus, so are completed the 30 years to the Passion; 
 and from the Passion to the destruction of Jerusalem are 42 
 years 3 months,’ Strom. i. 147 (Potter, i. 407). (ii.) Origen, 
 perhaps copying Olement, ‘If you examine the chronology of 
 the Passion and of the fall of Jerusalem... from Tiberius 15 
 to the razing of the temple, 42 years are completed,’ Hom. in 
 Hierem, xiv. 13 (c. a.p. 245; Delarue, iii. 217), and compare 
 ce. Cels, iv. 22. (iii.) Tertullian, ‘In the 15th year of [Tiberius’) 
 reign Christ suffered’; ‘the Passion . . . under Tiberius Owsar 
 in the consulship of Rubellius Geminus and Rufius [al. Fufius) 
 Geminus,’ adv. Jud. 8 (but the authorship is doubtful). (iv.) 
 Hippolytus, in his early 4th book on Daniel (ed. Bratke, p. 19), 
 gives two irreconcilable data, Tiberius 18 [=a.p. 31, 32] and the 
 consulship of ‘Rufus and Rubellio,’ the former doubtless his 
 own combination of a three years’ Ministry (for he also says 
 that Christ suffered in his 33rd year, doc. cit.) with St. Luke’s 
 15 Tiberius, the latter already traditional; and this year, 
 29 a.D., alone reappears in his other works, His Chronicle 
 (Chronica Minora, ed. Mommsen, I. i. B. 131) reckons 206 years 
 from the Passion to the 13th of Alexander Severus, A.D. 234-235 ; 
 his Paschal Cycle marks the 32nd year as that of the Passion, 
 and since it was a recurring cycle of 112 years beginning in A.D. 
 222, the 32nd year will be equivalent to a.p. 253, or 141, or 29. 
 v.) Julius Africanus, as represented in the Greek of Eusebius’ 
 
 emonstratio Evangelicu and Ecloge Prophetice, and in that of 
 Syncellus—Routh, Hel. Sac. ii. pp. 301, 302, 304—wrote Tiberius 16, 
 as represented in the Lat. of Jerome, Comm. in Dan. ix. (Vallarsi, 
 v. 683), Tiberius 15; but since all authorities agree in the 
 equation to Ol. 202. 2 [=a.pD. 80, 31], it is practically certain 
 that the 16th is correct. (vi.) Pseudo-Cyprian, Computus de 
 Pascha, 20 (a.pD. 243: Hartel, iii. 267) places the Passion of 
 Christ in the 31st year of his age, and 16th of Tiberius Casar’s 
 reign. (vii.) Lactantius, Div. inst. Iv. x. 18, ‘In the 5th of 
 Tiberius, that is, the consulship of the two Gemini’; Mort. pers. 
 2, ‘in the consulship of the two Gemini.’ (viii.) The Abgar 
 legend as given in Eusebius, H# i. 13, dates the Resurrection 
 and the preaching of Thaddzus in the 340th year [v.e. of the 
 Greeks: A.D. 28-29]. (ix.) Of one other authority, the apocr. 
 Gospel narrative entitled ‘Acts of Pilate,’ the value turns en- 
 tirely on the date of its composition, and on the true reading 
 of its chronology of the Crucifixion ; and both these points call 
 for fuller discussion. 
 
 Date of the Acts of Pilate. — Tischendorf, the latest editor 
 (Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. 2, 1876, pp. 312-410), concludes for 
 the beginning of the 2nd cent. ; Lipsius, the latest critic (Die 
 Pilatus-Acten, 1886, pp. 33, 40), ‘not before about the middle of 
 the 4th,’ ‘probably in the reign of Julian’ (A.D. 361-363). Appeal 
 is made to these Acts for the day of the Crucifixion by pseudo- 
 Chrysostom (4.D. 887: ed. Bened. viii. App. p. 277); 80, too, 
 Epiphanius (4.D. 376: Her 1. 1) states that certain of the 
 Quartodecimans commemorated the Passion always on March 
 25 in deference to these Acts, though he himself had found 
 copies of them where the date given was not March 25 but 
 March 18, Now, if in a.p. 376 these Acts were being claimed as 
 the authoritative sanction for a practice unique in the Christian 
 world, and if there existed already divergent traditions of the 
 text on this very point for which they were cited, they must 
 surely have had at that date a history behind them. So far 
 from having been written under Julian, a presumption is 
 raised that they are earlier than the lost Acts published under 
 
 * But the 16th year—see below under Africanus and pseudo- 
 Cyprian—may also be a combination of Lk 3! (Tib. 15), as 
 giving the beginning, not of the Baptist’s ministry only, but of 
 Christ’s, with the estimate of one year for the duration of the 
 Ministry to which both these writers adhered. Julius Hilari- 
 anus, however (infra, p. 414), gives both Tiberius 16 and 
 A.D. 29. 
 
 
 
414 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 the saine title by the apostate Theotecnus (mfnister of the per- 
 
 secutor Maximin Daza: Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, pp. 
 821-323), who perhaps drew from them the idea of his own 
 forgery. That, as Lipsius has shown, the chronological pro- 
 logue bears in all the extant authorities clear traces of Eusebius’ 
 influence, proves no more than that these Acts, like so many 
 other apocrypha, were subject to successive recastings. Nor 
 are the arguments by which Harnack (Chronologie, pp. 603-612) 
 reinforces Lipsius at all conclusive. On the other hand, the 
 treatment of the charge ix wopysiae yeyivynras seems to speak 
 strongly for an early date ; for even if Theotecnus revived the 
 scandal, which is possible enough, a Christian counterblast 
 would have used far stronger language than do the extant Acts 
 about the virginity of the Mother of our Lord. The author was 
 not improbably a second-century Palestinian of Ebionite tend- 
 encies. 
 
 Chronology of the Acts of Pilate.—Tischendorf’s text of the 
 prologue translated runs: ‘In the 15th year [so with two Greek 
 MSS ; two others and one of the two Armenian recensions—see 
 Conybeare’s edition, Studia Biblica, iv.,Oxford,1896—give ‘18th’ ; 
 the Latin, the second Armenian, and apparently the Coptic have 
 *19th’) of the government of Tiberius Casar, emperor of the 
 Romans, and of Herod, king of Galilee, in the 19th year of his 
 rule, on the 8th before the kalends of April, which is the 25th of 
 March, in the consulship of Rufus and Rubellio, in the 4th year 
 of the 202nd Olympiad, Joseph Caiaphas being high priest of 
 the Jews.’ Undeniably, the references to Tiberius 19, to Herod 
 and his 19th year, to Ol. 202. 4, are derived from Eusebius’ 
 Chronicle; but these may be due to later revision, and there 
 are other data, the 15th of Tiberius, the two Gemini, the 25th 
 or 18th of March, which are as certainly not Eusebian, though 
 the consulship at least is as constant a factor in the different 
 versions as the year of Herod or the Olympiad. Considering how 
 many vicissitudes befell all early Christian literature, how just 
 the apocryphal Gospels would be picked out to satisfy the 
 demand for sacred books in Diocletian’s persecution, how easily 
 each generation (all the more that exuberant fancies were 
 allowed no play upon the canonical records) would embellish 
 such material by aid of the newest lights, it is no unreasonable 
 hypothesis that a ‘Eusebian’ recension has influenced all 
 existing copies, while two of them still betray in their ‘15th of 
 Tiberius’ a relic of the unrevised document in a point where 
 the redactor has most certainly been at work. On this view no 
 more is original than ‘In the 15th year of Tiberius, on the 8th 
 [more probably 15th, see below] before the kalends of April, in the 
 consulship of Rufus and Rubellio, in the high priesthood of 
 Joseph Caiaphas.” 
 
 Here, then, are nine ante-Nicene authorities, of whom four 
 (‘Tert.’, Hipp., Lact., Act.-Pil.) give the consulship cf the Gemini, 
 four (Clem., Or., ‘Tert.’, Act.-Pil.) Tiberius 15, two (Afr., Ps.- 
 Oypr.) Tiberius 16. Five post-Nicene Western authorities on the 
 same side need simply be catalogued : Liberian Chronicle (A.D. 
 854; Lightfoot, Clement, i. 253) ‘under Tiberius, consuls the 
 two Gemini, March 25’; Julius Hilarianus, De mundi duratione 
 xvi., and De die pasche et mensis xv (both A.D. 397 ; Gallandi, 
 viii. 238, 748), ‘Tiberius 16,’ but De mund. dur. xvii., also ‘ 369 
 
 ears from the Passion to the consulate of Casarius and Atticus’ 
 A.D. 397], which clearly cannot mean anything later than A.D. 
 29; Sulpicius Severus, Chronica, ii. 27 (A.D. 401), ‘Herod 18, 
 consuls Fufius Geminus and Rubellius Geminus,’ where the 
 Herod date must be from Jerome’s version (A.D. 378) of Eusebius’ 
 Chronicle; Augustine, De civ. Dei xviii. 54,‘ consuls the two 
 Gemini, March 25’; Prosper Tiro, Chronicon (ap. 433 : Chronica 
 Minora, ed. Mommsen, |. ii. p. 409), distinguishes what quidam 
 ferunt, t.e. Jerome’s chronology, from the usitatior traditio of 
 ‘Tiberius 15, consuls the two Gemini.’ The Western Church, 
 then, during the century A.D. 350-450, notwithstanding the 
 authority of Jerome’s Chronicle, still upheld the traditional date 
 for the Crucifixion in a.p. 29. 
 
 y. (i.) Of divergent notices, the earliest after Phlegon—not 
 counting Hippolytus’ 18th of Tiberius, since he himself discarded 
 it—is again from a heathen writing, the Acts of Pilate by Theo- 
 tecnus. Eusebius(# i. 9)thoughtit enough proof of forgery that 
 they ascribed the Crucifixion to Tiberius’ 4th consulship, for this 
 fell in the 7th year only of his reign [4.D. 21], and Pilate did not 
 even reach Judea till the 12th. But Lipsius (/.c. p. 81) points 
 out that Tiberius’ next consulship in a.D. 31, though Eusebius 
 reckoned it the 5th, is the 4th in the Fasti Idatiani (the common 
 ground-work of the consular lists in Epiphanius and the Paschal 
 Chronicle), so that Theotecnus may really have meant, not A.D. 
 21 but A.D. 31. (ii.) Of Eusebius’ Chronicle, both in the original 
 and (iii.) in Jerome’s version, mention was made in connexion 
 with Phlegon; of its followers there is no need to speak. (iv.) 
 Epiphanius (a.D. 376; Heer. li, 22-25) writes out in full a con- 
 sular list from his date for the Nativity, Jan. B.o. 2, to his date 
 for the Baptism, Nov. a.p. 28.* Beyond this point the Ministry 
 extends over two complete consulships, the one that of the two 
 Gemini, the second that of Rufus and Rubellio, and closes 
 only in the third, that of Vinicius and Longinus Cassius. 
 Obviously intending to come down to March a.p. 31, he has, by 
 the error—gross even for him—of splitting into two the single 
 
 ir of A.D. 29, Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, named 
 in fact for the Crucifixion the consuls of A.D. 80, It is possible 
 that behind the confusion lies some older authority who 
 reckoned a shorter Ministry with the Passion under Vinicius 
 
 * He counterbalances his omission of the consuls of a.p. 4, 
 Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus, by inserting between 
 A.D. 6 and 7 the fictitious pair Cesar and Capito. His consuls 
 for a.D. 13, Flacous and Silvanus, are only a corrupt form of 
 the real names Plancus and Silius Cxcina. 
 
 and Longinus in their real year. (y.) Paulus Orosius (A.D. 417 | 
 Hist. vii. 4. 13) gives Tiberius 17 for the Crucifixion, presum- 
 ably reckoning two years as from the Baptism in Tiberius 15. 
 
 Summary of Patristie Evidence for the Civil 
 Year.—A review of this witness from Phlegon to 
 Epiphanius, from Tertullian to Augustine and 
 Prosper, sums itself up in two questions : (i.) Is it 
 a priort probable that tradition would preserve 
 independent evidence for the date of the Cruci- 
 fixion? (ii.) If so, do the data suggest that such 
 has actually been the case? 
 
 (i.) Patristic evidence for the duration of the Ministry was 
 passed over for want of space, being unnecessary in face of the 
 full testimony of the Gospels, and unhelpful because it is ai. 
 based ultimately on them ; is there cause for thinking that the 
 case would be different here? Yes; for while the date of the 
 Nativity, for instance, was known familiarly to too few, and the 
 length of the Ministry was of too secondary importance, to have 
 gn occasion to a constant tradition, the conditions are quite 
 
 issimilar and indeed unique in respect to the date of the 
 Passion. Here was to every Christian eye from the first the 
 turning point of the world’s evolution ; and the Church’s con- 
 fession had always put in the forefront the historical setting 
 ‘under Pontius Pilate ’—see 1 Ti 618 rod pcpruphouvros tx) Tlovriou 
 Thad, Ign, Magn. 11 (with Lightfoot’s note) tv» xawpa vue 
 nyswovies II, TI., and the early Roman Creed, céy iwi II, IL 
 oravpwHévtc. It cannot, then, be considered improbable that a 
 still more definite dating by consuls or by regnal years of the em- 
 peror may have been noted while there was yet opportunity, and 
 may have filtered down in oral tradition or lost documents 
 through the obscure generations that intervene, till it could 
 come to light, together with so much else that is beyond question 
 primitive, in the writings of the age of Tertullian. 
 
 (ii.) But do the facts bear out what is thus @ priort not im- 
 probable? was there anything in the review of authorities that 
 could claim to be a date of this sort for the Crucifixion? 
 Nothing, clearly, unless it were a.p. 29 (consulship of the 
 Gemini=15 Tib. =? 16 Tib.); for if Phlegon’s a.p. 32-33 had been 
 traditional, it could not have failed to have reappeared some- 
 where or other in the ante-Nicene Christian testimony ; Hip- 
 polytus’ (ultimately discarded) 18 Tib. depended simply on 
 a combination of the Johannine chronology of the Ministry 
 with Lk 31; Theotecnus, if he really meant a.D. 31, re 
 arrived at it by the same process ; Eusebius depende jointly 
 on Phlegon and on his own interpretation of St. John; Epi- 
 phanius’ chronology is, even more than Eusebius’, independent 
 of all predecessors. It is easy enough to rid the field of rival 
 theories ; the only question is, to what e does the evidence 
 for a.D. 29 go back, and how far can it explained on other 
 hypotheses than that of the survival of an independent and 
 genuine tradition ? 
 
 The three earliest witnesses for the consulship, the dating that 
 most obviously means A.D. 29, are ‘ Tertullian,’ Hipp and 
 the Acts of Pilate. Of these, Hippolytus, at least, derived it 
 from some pre-existent source, for (not knowing to what year it 
 really belonged) he incorrectly synchronizes it with Tiberius 18. 
 Further, he and Tertullian are independent of one another, since 
 the latter distinguishes the Gemini as Rubellius and Rufius or 
 Fufius, the former (with the Acts of Pilate) erroneously as 
 Rufus and Rubellio. It is hardly possible on the evidence that 
 the common source can be later than A.D. 150, and it may be 
 indefinitely earlier. It is true that Phlegon was apparently 
 ignorant of the tradition, but it need not be supposed that it 
 was universally spread by Hadrian’s time, and after all Phlegon 
 was a heathen, and not likely to be conversant with all that was 
 being handed down within the Christian body. 
 
 But granting this antiquity, can the year still be accounted 
 for as a mere deduction from the Gospels, in the sense that the 
 consulship is a secondary date developed out of 15 Tiberius (the 
 date for the Passion in Clement and Origen), and that that in 
 turn came from Lk 81? Possibly; yet it is surely not easy to 
 believe that the evangelist’s synchronism of the commencement 
 of the Baptist’s ministry with a certain year should have been so 
 widely supposed to apply to the whole period, not only before 
 Christ’s Baptism, but also as far as his Passion. No doubt the 
 Ptolemwan Valentinians of Irenzus’ time (Iren. 1. i. 8, iii. 1-3; 
 ll. xx. 1, xxi. 1) based calculations on 30 years as the whole Lite 
 of Christ, which is really the Gospel reckoning for his age at 
 the commencement of his Ministry; but even they did not 
 leave out of account the period of John’s sole ministry. 
 
 It appears, then, not indeed certain, but possible 
 and even probable, that a trustworthy Christian 
 tradition does point to A.D. 29 and the consulate 
 of the Gemini as the year of the Crucifixion. 
 
 3. A brief review, finally, of the evidence for the 
 day of the civil month. 
 
 Perhaps the earliest witnesses are Basilidians quoted by 
 Clement (Strom. i. 147, ed. Potter, p. 408), who varied between 
 Phamenoth 25, Pharmuthi 25, and Pharmuthi 19 {March pW 
 April 20, April 14]. To March 25 a larger and weightier group 
 subscribes : in Latin, ‘Tert.’ adv. Jud. 8, mense Martio tem 
 bus pasche die viti calendarum Aprilium; and for a.d. viii 
 kal. Apr. simply, the Liberian catalogue of a.D. 854, Julius 
 Hilarianus De die pasche xv (Gallandi, viii. 748), Aug. De cto 
 
 
 
CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 415 
 
 
 
 xviii. 54, and the Martyrologium Hieronymianum : in Greek, +¥ 
 ape bard xxAdavday 'AxpidAiwy, Hippolytus, Comm. in Dan., ed. 
 soe) 19 (80, too, the wa0og Xpirrot in his paschal tables is 
 attached to this day); Acta Pilati, according to the Quarto- 
 decimans in Epiphanius, Her. 1.1, and to pseudo-Chrysostom 
 (ed. Bened. viii. App. p. 277)—most of Tischendortf’s Greek MSS, 
 supported by the Latin and Armenian versions add iris ieriy 
 izes winery Maprion: bapsvab xb’, in the Bivromos dinyneis in- 
 corporated in the Chronicon Paschale, ed. Ducange, pp. 224, 
 225. For March 23 are three witnesses: Lactantius, Div. inst. rv. 
 x. 18, ante diem decimum kalendarum Aprilium; persons 
 known to Epiphanius, ic. suis 38 chi pd dixa xadnvdar 
 *AspiAAiey; and the Paschal Ohronicler (op. cit. p. 221), ri x9 
 sot Mepriov «mys. Epiphanius had further seen copies of the 
 Acta Pilati which gave March 18, while his own view is decided 
 in favour of yet another date, March 20: Heer. 1.1, its 31 sdpouey 
 artiy, ix cay [lege axrov] TLAdrou iv ols onemives xpd dimaweves 
 worevday "Awpidrimy ro wilos yeysricbos” r&AnOy db, Os ix TOAANE 
 dxpiPsins tyvasy, iv TH mpd dixarpidy xadcvdar "AwpiAdrAlay Tov 
 curnpe wixovbivas maruanousy ; Cl. Her, li. 23. 
 
 The first reflection suggested by this catena is the unanimity 
 with which (a) from some of the Basilidians) Christian 
 antiquity attributed the Crucifixion to a day not later than 
 
 25; the second, that if a confusion between the récxya 
 eravphesoy and the ricya averréesoy be allowed for, the dates, 
 March 23 and 25, March 18 and 20, pair off with and explain one 
 another—+.e. if March 25 was understood, not of the Crucifixion 
 but of the Resurrection, March 23 became the day of the 
 Orucifixion ; or by a similar but converse process, March 20 
 
 ht be transferred from the Resurrection (with the Crucifixion 
 
 on 18) to the Crucifixion. Thus eliminating the three 
 Basilidian dates as probably mere Gnostic fancies, of the two 
 that alone are left, March 18-20 and 23-25, March 25 
 
 ‘ertullian, sa oa ia Acts of Pilate? etc.) has clearly older 
 and better testimony than March 23 (Lactantius, some known 
 to ie, Pas Chronicle), and March 18 (c»rivpageu of 
 Acts of Pilate older than Epiphanius) than March 20 (Epiphanius 
 himself). But these ultimate days, March 18 and 25, are exactly 
 a week apart, and very likely the one is to be explained as a 
 conscious alteration of the other ; but which of which? 
 
 For that day of the two for which authority is vastly pre- 
 sac reg March 25, Dr. Salmon in an admirable article on 
 
 ppolytus (Dict. Christ. Biogr. iii, 92) looks upon that 
 writer’s Paschal Cycle, published about a.p. 221, as the single 
 source. Hippolytus there (very erroneously) supposes that 
 after each eight years the full moon comes round to the same 
 vm of the solar month again; and accepting the traditional 
 date a.D. 29 for the Orucifixion, he naturally assumes that, 
 since the full moon in a.p. 221 did actually fall on March 25, 
 the full moon in A.D. 29, 192 or 8x24 years earlier, must have 
 fallen on the same day. ‘ Actually this is a week astray, the 
 true day being March 18. We are safe in presuming that 
 whenever March 25 is mentioned as the day of the Passion, the 
 Cycle of Hippolytus is the source of the account.’ Yet this 
 theory, simple and attractive as it is, herd satisfies all the 
 elements of the problem. It might be possible to explain the 
 wide acceptance of March 25 in both East and West by the 
 dual ay ion of Hippolytus, a Greek writer on Western soil ; 
 but ‘Tert.,’ Adv. Judeos, if genuine, and Hippolytus’ own Com- 
 mentary on Daniel, would still stand in the way of deducing 
 March 25 as the day for the Passion directly from March 25 as 
 the day of the moon in A.D, 221. For Tertullian’s Mon- 
 tanist writings commence about A.p. 200, and his whole literary 
 activity was almost at an end by a.p. 220, so that if the first 
 portion of the adversus Jude@os is ‘certainly Tertullian’s, and 
 
 ertullian’s while still a churchman’ (Fuller in Dict. Christ. 
 . iv. 8270), its chronology cannot be due to the Paschal 
 Cycle of a.p. 221. In the same way Hippolytus’ Fourth Book 
 on Daniel ‘ was epee eay written much earlier than the’ 
 Chronicle and Paschal Tables (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 392); and 
 as it, too, gives March 25 for the Passion (from which also 
 ultimately comes its Dec. 25 for the Nativity, see above, p. 4058), 
 a second reason is supplied for pushing back the origin of the 
 tradition of March 25 into the 2nd cent. 
 
 Genuine, of course, the tradition cannot be, because, as 
 Salmon says—see also the table given earlier in this article—not 
 the 25th but the 18th was the March full moon in A.p, 29. But 
 this is exactly the day remaining still for discussion, that, 
 namely, which was given in copies Epiphanius had seen of the 
 Acts of Pilate. It is true that even in these Acts March 25 
 is supported (i.) by all existing MSS and versions; (ii.) by 
 those Quartodecimans who regularly kept the Pascha on 
 March 25 on the authority of the Acts; (iii.) by pseudo- 
 
 m in A.D. 387, who accepts the date as historically 
 true on the same authority. It is possible, therefore, that the 
 18th is simply an accidental corruption, IE’ instead of H’ before 
 the kalends of April; but it is possible also that it is the 
 genuine reading of the Acts, altered intentionally at some early 
 period, whether because the 25th was already then the more 
 popular date, or because the 18th was increasingly open to the 
 
 icion of falling before the equinox. And if genuine 
 in the Acts, it is a really curious and remarkable confirma- 
 tion of a possible date for the Crucifixion, Friday Nisan 14 of 
 the year A.D. 29. 
 
 Dr. Salmon indeed says (Joc. cit.) that ‘it is obvious that if 
 early trustworthy tradition had beret < the day of the solar 
 year on which our Lord suffered, the Church would not have 
 
 rplexed herself with calculations of paschal full moons.’ But 
 i ) not all traditions which may in fact be true were necessarily 
 known to be true to the ancients; (ii.) after all, what the 
 Church was aiming at in paschai cycles was a system for cal- 
 
 culating beforehand in terms of the solar year a day that was 
 not solar but lunar. As pseudo-Ohrysostom lucidly points ont 
 the different data of the chronology of the Orucifixion wi 
 not converge in ordinary years ; the Church could only imitate 
 the season as far as was practicable, combining elements from 
 the solar year (the equinox as a first term a quo), from the 
 lunar year (the full moon as a second term a quo), and from 
 the week (Friday). But if the day of the solar year had been 
 considered alone, the full moon would necessarily have been 
 thrown over, and the full moon was the one point which all 
 Christians united in treating as essential to a proper paschal 
 celebration.* 
 
 It is not unreasonable, then, to hold that the solitary datum 
 preserved by Epiphanius does add a slight additional weight 
 to the probability that the Orucifixion should be placed on 
 Friday March 18, A.D. 29. 
 
 Conclusion.—To sum up briefly: the separate 
 results of five lines of enquiry harmonize with one 
 another beyond expectation, so that each in turn 
 supplies fresh security to the rest. The Nativity 
 in B.C. 7-6; the age of our Lord at the Baptism 
 30 years more or less; the Baptism in A.D. 26 
 (26-27) ; the duration of the Ministry between two 
 and three years; the Crucifixion in A.D. 29: these 
 five strands, weak no doubt in isolation, become, 
 when woven together, the strong and stable support 
 of a consistent chronology of the Life of Christ. 
 
 LivERATURE.—For all the preliminary chronological matter 
 which underlies subjects such as that of this article, Ideler, 
 Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie 
 2 vols. 1825, is still standard. Of books more especially devoted 
 to the chronology of the life of Christ special mention should 
 perhaps be made of Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. der Evang, 
 (Eng. tr. by Venables), and Caspari, Chronol. u. geog. Hinlert. 
 (E.T. by Evans), The writer of the present article—some 
 points of which had been adumbrated in previous studies of 
 his own, Patristic evidence and the Gospel Chronology in the 
 Church Quarterly Review for Jan. 1892, pp. 390-415, and A 
 Paschal. Homily printed in the Works of St. Chrysostom, in 
 Studva Riblica, ii. pp. 130-149, Oxford, 1890—has learnt much, 
 and derived many references in certain parts of his work, 
 from three writers (though with their general conclusions he 
 in each case disagrees): H. Browne, Ordo Seclorum, London, 
 1844 , Hort on Jn 64, in Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament, 
 1881, App pp. 77-81; and R. A. Lipsius, Die Pilatus-Acten, 
 Thiel, 1886. 
 
 Il. THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 
 
 The Apostolic Age may be defined, for the pur- 
 poses of this article, as the period lying between 
 the Crucifixion [A.D. 29, less probably A.D. 30] 
 and the destruction of the temple. Outside these 
 limits lie, no doubt, several of the NT writings, for 
 the chronology of which see the articles on them; 
 but NT history may fitly be said to close with 
 the great catastrophe of A.D. 70. 
 
 These first 40 years of Christian history are 
 roughly conterminous with the labours of St. Peter 
 and St. Paul, and the principal documents con- 
 cerned are, on the one hand, their Epistles, on the 
 other, the Acts, one half of which book is in effect 
 devoted to each of the two great apostles. But the 
 writings in question do not bear on the face of 
 them any continuous system of notes of time ; and 
 the chronology must be based, in the first instance, 
 on such synchronisms as are given, principally in 
 Acts, with Jewish or Roman history, namely— 
 
 (1) The reign of Aretas of Damascus (2 Co 11°, 
 ef. Ac 9”), 
 
 (2) The reign and death of Herod Agrippa I. 
 (Ac 12}-28), 
 
 (3) The famine under Claudius (Ac 1178-®° 12%), 
 
 (4) The proconsulship of Sergius Paulus in 
 Cyprus (Ac 137). 
 
 (5) The expulsion of the Jews from Rome 
 under Claudius (Ac 18). 
 
 (6) The proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia 
 (Ac 183”). 
 
 * The only exceptions to which Dr. Salmon might appeal are as 
 late as the 4th cent.: (i.) the Quartodecimans and Cappadocians, 
 said by Epiphanius, Heer. 1. 1, always to observe March 25 as 
 their reexa; (ii.) the Montanists of Asia Minor, said by pseusdo- 
 Chrysostom to observe the 14th, not of a lunar but of the 
 ‘ Asiatic’ solar month beginning on March 24, so that their 
 waoxe fell always on April 6. 
 
416 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 (7) The reign of Herod Agrippa ., and mar- 
 riage of his sister Drusilla to Felix (Ac 
 25382622), 
 (8) The procuratorships of Felix and Festus 
 (Ac 2138 23% 2410. 27), 
 (9) The Days of Unleavened Bread (Ac 20%7), 
 (10) The persecution under Nero. 
 
 Two prelceery notes may be offered here. 
 
 a. Imperial Chronology.—Augustus died Aug. 19, a.D. 14; 
 Tiberius died March 16, a.D. 87; Gaius Caligula died Jan. 24, 
 a.D, 41; Olaudius died Oct. 13, a.p. 54; Nero died June 9, 
 
 A.D. 68. 
 
 b. Authorities for the Period outside NT Writers.—These are 
 Pencipally three: for Jewish affairs, Josephus; for Roman, 
 
 ‘acitus and Suetonius: and as they are occasionally incon- 
 sistent with one another, it is important to define their position 
 and epporeaattics as historians. (i.) Tacitus, born not later and 
 probably not much earlier than A.D. 54, published his latest 
 work, the Annals, or history of the empire from the death of 
 Augustus to the death of Nero, at the end of Trajan’s reign, 
 ¢, A.D. 115; but the work as now preserved is imperfect, being 
 deficient for the ten years A.D. 37-47, besides two shorter lacunce 
 in a.p. 30 and 66-68. The materials at his command for all at 
 least that passed in Rome were ample, though his anti-imperial 
 tendencies may colour his version of the facts in relation not 
 only to the emperors, but to their ministers or favourites. 
 (ii.) Suetonius, the junior of Tacitus by some 20 years, wrote 
 his Lives of the Cesare (from Julius to Domitian) under Hadrian, 
 puleey about A.D. 120. As Pas secretary to that emperor, 
 
 e may have had access to additional personal details about the 
 earlier sovereigns, such as distinguish his anecdotal biographies 
 from the more ambitious and more orderly history of Tacitus. 
 (iii.) Josephus, the historian of Judaism, was more strictly a 
 contemporary of the infancy of the Christian Church than 
 Suetonius or even Tacitus. Born in a.p. 37-38 and brought 
 up in Jerus., he left that city for three years’ stay among 
 the Essenes, A.D. 53-56, and left Pal. on a mission to Rome in 
 A.D. 63-64. His share in the Jewish revolt—for he commanded 
 in Galilee, and was taken prisoner at Jotapata—did not prevent 
 him from espousing at once the Roman cause, or attaching himself 
 tothe fortunesof Vespasian and Titus. Thus his works on the 
 Jewish War (written before a.D. 79) and on the Antiquities 
 (completed in Domitian’s 13th year, A.D. 93-94) are dominated by 
 the distinct purpose of presenting himself and his countrymen 
 in as favourable a light as possible to the Romans. On the 
 other hand, a writer in Rome enjoying imperial patronage, who 
 had spent in Pal. most of the years with whose events this 
 article is concerned, was unusually well placed for ascertaining 
 the facts, and, except where his ‘ tendency’ has to be discounted, 
 his testimony cannot be dismissed off-hand even when con- 
 fronted with that of Tacitus. 
 
 1. Aretas at Damascus.—This Aretas (the fourth 
 Aretas in the line of Nabatzan kings, on which 
 dynasty see Schiirer, H/JP I. ii. 348 ff.) reigned 
 within the rough limits B.c. 9-A.D. 40; the exact 
 dates are unknown, but it is certain (a) that he 
 reigned over 47 years, inscriptions being extant 
 of his 48th; (8) that he died somewhere between 
 the death of Tiberius—which brought to a close 
 operations begun against him at that emperor’s 
 order by the legate of Syria, Vitellius (Ant. xvm1. 
 v. 1, 3)—and the middle of the reign of Claudius, 
 when his successor Abias is found waging war on 
 Izates of Adiabene (about A.D. 48; Ant. XX. iy. 1). 
 But Damascus did not belong to Nabatza, and 
 was certainly under direct Roman administration 
 in A.D. 33-34, and in A.D. 62-63, for Damascene 
 coins of these years are extant and bear the heads 
 of Tiberius and Nero respectively, without any 
 such allusion to the local prince as was invariable 
 in the coins of client states. It must have come, 
 then, into the hands of Aretas after A.D. 33-34; 
 if by force, the empire would hardly have suffered 
 the Nabatzan line to reign unmolested till A.D. 
 106 ; if by grant, the donor must almost certainly 
 have been, not Tiberius, whose quarrel with Aretas 
 has just been mentioned, but Caligula, who, unlike 
 Tiberius (see the instance of Herod Philip in the 
 next section), encouraged the dependent prince- 
 lings of the East. [The silence of Tacitus will 
 then admit of easy explanation, the Annals being 
 defective throughout Caligula’s reign.] In this 
 ease, St. Paul’s escape from the ethnarch of the 
 city must be placed not earlier than the middle 
 ot A.D. 37; in any case not earlier than A.D. 34. 
 
 2. Reign and Death of Herod Agrippa I.—The 
 
 tetrarchy of Herod Philip (Lk 3!) was on his 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TESTI. 
 
 death, about A.D. 33-34, incorporated by Tiberius 
 into the province of Syria, but ‘not many aays’ 
 after the accession of Gaius (March 16, A.D. 37) 
 was conferred with the title of king on Herod 
 Agrippa, son of Aristobulus, and grandson of 
 Herod the Great, who was then living in Rome; and 
 to this territory the tetrarchy of Antipas was added 
 in A.D. 39-40, and Judea, Samaria, and Abilene 
 on Claudius’ accession, early in A.D. 41. Agrippa 
 reigned altogether, according to BJ, three years 
 over the whole kingdom, and three years over 
 the tetrarchies, according to Ant., tour years 
 under Gaius,—three over Philip’s tetrarchy and 
 the fourth over Antipas’ as well,—and three under 
 Claudius over all Pal., the year of his death being 
 ‘the 7th of his reign and 54th of his life.’ The dis- 
 crepancy concerns Gaius’ reign only (Ant., the later 
 an er work, appears the more accurate), and 
 ‘three years’ under Claudius are common to both 
 accounts. But Ané., as has just been said, also 
 speaks of ‘the 7th year,’ which (reckoned from the 
 spring of A.D. 37) suggests A.D. 43-44 rather than 
 44 simply. Against this, however, may be set 
 the evidence of Agrippa’s coinage, which appar- 
 ently goes on to a 9th year;* for even if, as is 
 likely enough, the Jewish kings commenced a 
 fresh year on the lst of Nisan following their 
 accession,t the 9th year cannot possibly have 
 begun before Nisan 1, A.D. 44, and even then 
 only if the original grant from Caligula preceded 
 Nisan 1, A.D. 37, so that Agee second year 
 may have begun on that day. e coinage reck- 
 oning by itself would suggest rather A.D. 45 than 
 44; Josephus would be compatible with the latter 
 part of A.D. 43; the two in combination are most 
 easily reconciled by a date in A.D. 44 after Nisan 
 (BJ . xi. 6; Ant. XVI. iv. 6, vi. 10, vii. 2, 
 XIX. v. 1, viii. 2). 
 
 3. The Famine under Claudius.—On Agrippa’s 
 death Judea is made again into a procuratorshi 
 under Cuspius Fadus. He intervenes in a quarre 
 between the Jews of Perea and the city of 
 Philadelphia, seizes and executes the brigand leader 
 Tholomeus, and from that time forward keeps 
 Judea clear of similar disturbances; then (rére) 
 enters on a dispute with the authorities at Jerus. 
 over the custody of the high- priestly robes. 
 ‘About this time,’ card rotrov rdv xatpdv, Helena, 
 queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates become con- 
 verts to Judaism ; the story and antecedent circum- 
 stances are related at length, and it is added that 
 Helena, seeing that their kingdom was at peace and 
 her son envied even by foreigners for the divine pro- 
 tection he enjoyed, desired to go up to the temple 
 at Jerus., while Izates made great preparations of 
 gifts to be offered there. Her arrival was pecu- 
 liarly well-timed, for famine was raging ‘at that 
 moment,’ kara rdv Katpdv éxeivor. ut Josephus 
 does not say that all this happened under Fadus, 
 On the contrary, having digressed to relate what 
 
 
 
 *See Madden, Coins of the Jews, ed. 2 (1881), p. 180. The 
 ascription of these coins to Herod Agrippa i. is impossible ; 
 de Saulcy, however, thinks them Jewish forgeries, and Madden 
 speaks hesitatingly, not having seen the coins themselves. But 
 if the electrotypes may be trusted, the figure is quite certain, 
 and there appears no reason except the nological difficulty 
 for doubting them. 
 
 +See the Gemara of Babylon, Tractate Rosk-hashanah or 
 the New Year, fol. 2a: ‘Our rabbis teach that a king whe 
 ascends the throne on the 29th Adar has completed a year 
 as soon as he reaches Nisan 1.’ 
 
 { The emperor’s answer to the deputation sent to Rome on 
 this subject is dated in the consulship of Rufus and Pompeius 
 Silvanus; and if these were, as is generally assumed, 
 suffectt of A.D. 45, the letter will fall somewhere after the early 
 months of that year. [Older editors read xpo rscecpay xadavday 
 *lopaiov, but the latter word is simply a retranslation of Iulit 
 in the inferior Latin MSS; Niese omits it, and marks a lacuna.) 
 But to date by other than the consules ordinarii would be so 
 vnusual, if not unexampled, that (especially in the absence of 
 any other proof of the existence of these particular suffeots) 
 the genuineness of the letter must be considered doubtful. 
 
 
 
> 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 417 
 
 
 
 was contemporary with Fadus, namely, the con- 
 version of Helena and Izates, he continues the 
 digression through the long chapters XX. ii. iii. iv., 
 bringing the history of Adiabene down to a point 
 much later even than this visit: and then, after 
 returning to Fadus and recording the revolt and 
 death of Theudas under him, he goes on to say 
 that his successor was Tiberius Alexander, ‘in 
 whose time it chanced that the great famine in 
 Juda occurred in which’ Helena acted so gener- 
 ously. After Alexander, of whom nothing further 
 is related except the execution of the sons of 
 Judas the Galilean, Cumanus comes as the new 
 pepearatr 3 in the 8th year of Claudius [A.D. 48], 
 
 erod king of Chalcis dies. These two last events 
 are reversed in BJ; ‘after Herod of Chalcis’ death 
 Claudius gives his kingdom to the younger Agrippa, 
 and Cumanus succeeds Alexander.’ Both accounts, 
 in fact, treat the two changes as practically sim- 
 ultaneous, so that Josephus certainly places 
 Cumanus’ arrival in A.D. 48. Thus the whole 
 tenure of both Fadus and Alexander falls within 
 the limits of the years 44-48 A.D.; and since the 
 bulk of the events recorded under the former is 
 considerably the greater, Alexander cannot have 
 arrived before, say, the spring of A.D. 46. This 
 is the terminus a quo for Helena’s visit; and as 
 Helena had not apparently heard of the famine 
 before she arrived, it is the terminus a quo for 
 the famine also, while Josephus’ language leaves 
 no doubt that ‘the great famime’ ran its whole 
 course under the same governor. It is therefore 
 possible that it should be placed, or placed partly, 
 in A.D. 47; it is certain that even the earlier part 
 of the crisis cannot be placed before A.D. 46 (Ant. 
 xx. i. 1, 2, ii. 1, 5, v. 1,2; BJU. xii. 1). 
 
 4. The Proconsulship of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus. 
 —The name of this governor has been found in 
 a Cypriote inscription ém Iavdov [dvO]urdrov ‘in 
 Paces proconsulship,’ but unfortunately without 
 any synchronism which would fix the year. On 
 the other hand, a dedication to Claudius in the 
 name of the city of Curium in Cyprus by the 
 proconsul L. Annius Bassus, ‘in accordance with 
 a decision previously taken by the proconsul Julius 
 Cordus,’ is signed ‘in the 12th year,’ i.e. of the 
 emperor, A.D. 52. Cordus’ tenure, if, as seems to 
 be implied, he was Bassus’ immediate | Sues ona 
 will cover the year 51, so that in neither of those 
 two years can place be found for Paulus. (Ces- 
 nola, Cyprus, p. 425; Boeckh, CIG 2632.) 
 
 5. The Expulsion of the Jews from Rome under 
 Claudius is recorded in Suetonius (Claudius 25), 
 dudeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes 
 Roma expulit ; but as this writer’s method is to 
 group together the events in any one reign of 
 similar character—in this case dealings with the 
 provincials—no suggestion of a date is given at 
 
 Tacitus, whose Annals, however, are extant 
 during the last seven years only of Claudius’ reign, 
 A.D. 47-54, says nothing of the Jews, though he 
 mentions, under A.D. 52, the expulsion of the 
 astrologers from Italy, a measure at once ‘cruel 
 and ineffective.’ Orosius, A.D. 417 (Hist. vil. 
 vi. 15), is the earliest authority to give a date, 
 Claudius Ix. =A.D. 49, quoting it as from Josephus ; 
 but, in fact, Josephus is as silent as Tacitus, not 
 about the date only, but about the whole matter. 
 Nor is there any reason to believe that Orosius 
 had access to Josephus direct; the only other 
 reference to him (VII. ix. 7) appears to be repeated 
 from Jerome’s Chronicle. It must therefore remain 
 uncertain whether or not Orosius’ source in this 
 case is trustworthy. [Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 68) 
 supposes that all Orosius’ dates for events under 
 Claudius are a year too early (as might easily 
 be the case if, for instance, he was sya a 
 chronicler like Eusebius, whose lst of Satie 
 
 VOL. I.—a7 
 
 
 
 began, not in Jan., but in Sept. A.D. 41; see below, 
 No. 8. a), so that this expulsion would then rather 
 belong to A.D. 50.) 
 
 6. The Proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia must 
 fall after A.D. 44, in which year (Dio Cassius, 
 lx. 24) this province, taken by Tiberius in A.D. 15 
 into his own hands, and ruled thenceforward by 
 legatt propretore (avricrpdrnyor), was restored to 
 the control of the senate, and to administration by 
 proconsuls (dv@vrara). Further, if Gallio so far 
 shared the disgrace of his famous brother Seneca 
 —who was only recalled in A.D. 49 (Tac. Ann. 
 xii. 8) from an exile that had lasted about eight 
 
 ears—that he would have been passed over while 
 it lasted, then the terminus a quo is not 44 but 
 49, or rather, since the proconsuls entered on their 
 provincial governinents early in the year, A.D. 50. 
 At the same time, the distinction between thea 
 method of appointment to imperial and to sena- 
 torian provinces was just this, that the emperor 
 was quite unfettered in his choice, while, in the 
 other case, all ex-holders of officesin Rome, ex-con- 
 suls and ex-prators, succeeded naturally to sena- 
 torian governorships; Dio, for instance (Joc. cit.), 
 describes this very change as one from selection to 
 lot: rhv oe ’Axalay Kal rhv Maxedoviav alperois 
 dpxovow € odmrep 6 TiBdpios Apt didouévas dmédwer 6 
 Knavdios tore ry KA py. Still, it is likely enough 
 that candidates obnoxious to the government 
 either did not stand at all, or were unsuccessful 
 by arrangement at the balloting. Gallio, then, 
 entered on office in Achaia certainly not before 
 A.D, 44, and probably not before 49, or even 50.* 
 
 7. The Reign of Herod Agrippa IT. and Mar- 
 riage of Drusilla to Felix.—This Agrippa, son of 
 Herod Agrippa 1, at his father’s death was 
 thought too young to succeed; but on the death 
 of another Herod, his uncle, king of Chalcis, in 
 the 8th year of Claudius (A.D. 48), he obtained that 
 Eee ity, from which he was transferred after 
 
 laudius had completed his 12th year, t.e. about 
 the beginning of A.D. 53, to the two tetrarchies of 
 Philip and Lysanias, i.e. the northern part of 
 Palestine. On this accession to new dignity he 
 bestowed his sister Drusilla in marriage on Azizus 
 of Emesa, a husband whom, not long after, yer’ ov 
 wodvv xpovov, she deserted for the Roman pro- 
 curator Felix. Thus, if Josephus’ order of events 
 is correct, St. Paul’s appearance before Felix and 
 Drusilla, which was after, but not very long after. 
 Pentecost (Ac 20! 24!-*4), cannot fall in A.D. d4, but 
 at earliest in A.D. 54 (Ant. XX. v. 2, vii. 1, 2). 
 
 8. a. The Procuratorship of Feliz.—The events 
 which led up to the deposition of the last- 
 mentioned procurator, Cumanus (appointed in A.D. 
 48), are related in full by Josephus, Ant. xXx. vi. 
 1-3, more briefly by Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54; the two 
 writers, while consistent in the main alout 
 Cumanus, differ seriously in regard to Felix. Both 
 agree that troubles broke out between the Gali- 
 leans and Samaritans, originating, says Josephus, 
 in an assault on Galileans travelling up to Jervs. 
 for one of the feasts. Both agree that the Roman 
 soldiery intervened; that the quarrel was taken 
 before Quadratus, legate of Syria, who investigated 
 the responsibility of the Roman officials for their 
 conduct in relation to it; and that the ultimate 
 result was the deposition of Cumanus. Both agree 
 further on the date ; for Tacitus records the pro- 
 ceedings under A.D. 52, Josephus mentions the 
 recall of Cumanus immediately before the notice 
 of the completion of Claudius’ 12th year, Jan. A.D. 
 53. On the other hand, Josephus, throughout the 
 
 *See also Ramsay, Hzpositor, March 1897, p. 206: Seneca 
 addressed his de Ira to his brother, not under the adoptive name 
 Gallio, but under the name Novatus; and if it is true that he 
 wrote this treatise after his return from exile, it follows that hia 
 
 brother’s adoption, and subsequent appointment to a proconsul- 
 ship under the name Gallio, must also be not earlier than a.D. 49, 
 

 
 418 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 story, speaks of Cumanus &s the only governor, 
 whether of Galilee, Samaria, or Judea. Tacitus 
 gives Cumanus in Galilee and Felix in Samaria 
 co-ordinate jurisdiction; which of them ruled Judea 
 proper is not said by him in so many words (by his 
 authority perhaps not at all), but he apparently 
 assumes it to be Felix, whom he introduces as 
 tampridem Iudee impositus. Thus in Josephus, 
 Cumanus is the only procurator arraigned before 
 Quadratus, and even he is sent off to the imperial 
 tribunal; in Tacitus, Cumanus and Felix are 
 equally involved ; but since Felix was brother to 
 Pallas, the emperor’s favourite and minister, the 
 legate, to avoid having to condemn him, puts him 
 on to the commission for the trial of his partner in 
 guilt, who is condemned then and there for the 
 crimes of both. 
 
 How are these divergences to be reconciled? The answer is 
 not without a direct bearing on the chronology of St. Paul’s 
 life ; see below, No. 8, 6. Let it be conceded, then, to Tacitus, 
 that Felix must have been holding some position in Samaria of 
 sufficient rank to qualify him as one of the tudices for Cumanus’ 
 trial. So much, indeed, is warranted by Josephus’ statement, 
 that the high priest Jonathan was continually urging good 
 government on Felix when procurator, ‘lest he himself should 
 incur blame before the populace for having requested his 
 appointment from the emperor’ (Ant, xx. viii. 5), a request 
 which was more natural if Felix were already known in Palestine. 
 Some of the best modern authorities (Mommsen, Roman Pro- 
 vinces, Eng. tr. ii. 202; Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 313) follow Tacitus 
 further still. But Josephus, after all, E giving a detailed 
 account of the history of his own country during his own life- 
 time; and to him it must be conceded in turn that Cumanus’ 
 rule certainly included Judwa (in the narrower sense) with 
 Jerus., and that Felix was probably only a subordinate of his 
 in Samaria. Prejudice against so near a relation of Pallas made 
 it easy for Tacitus or his authority to project back on to the 
 earlier years of Felix’ residence something of the position, and 
 a.share of the misdeeds, of his later procuratorship. 
 
 A third authority for the dates of Felix’ tenure 
 is the Chronicle of Eusebius—the Armenian VS, 
 with some MSS of Jerome’s tr., placing his arrival 
 in the 1lth year of Claudius, the other Lat. MSS 
 iu the 10th. [In the Bodleian MS of the Jerome, 
 this note commences in the second of the two lines 
 given to the 10th year, is continued through the 
 two lines of the llth year, and ends in the first 
 line of the 12th.) But how are these imperial 
 years reckoned ? 
 
 So much weight is laid by Harnack (Chronologie, pp. 238-287) 
 on Eusebius’ evidence, that this preliminary difficulty must be 
 disentangled in some detail. Both Harnack himself (ib. p. 234) 
 and Lightfoot (e.g. Biblical Essays, p. 223, n. 2; but this essay 
 is as old as a.p. 1863) assume a reckoning in the case of each 
 emperor from his own accession-day. But it is in the last 
 degree unlikely that a chronicle, where every year is reckoned 
 continuously from Abraham, should admit in the paralle) column 
 of imperial years a system perpetually changing ; and if Titus, 
 though he reigned three months of a 8rd year (June 79-Sept. 
 81 a.D.), or Trajan, though he reigned six months of a 20th year 
 (Jan. 98-Aug. 117 a.D.), are yet allotted only two and nineteen 
 years respectively, it seems clear that, as was to be expected, 
 the imperial years are manipulated into accord with the more 
 fixed arrangement. But two questions still remain. 
 
 (i.) Where did Eusebius fix his new year? It is natural to 
 think first of Jan. 1, the commencement of the Roman consular 
 year. But Eusebius was an Eastern, and in the East the year 
 was all but universally commenced abéut September. “The 
 Jewish civil year began in September; the old Attic lunar year 
 in July; the old Macedonian lunar year in October; the 
 talendars of Asia Minor in imperial times used the Macedonian 
 months made into a solar year, commencing Sept. 23; the 
 similar calendar of Syria used the same months in thesame way, 
 only that each month was pushed down one place, so that the 
 year presumably began at the end of October; the Alexandrian 
 year on Aug. 29; the era of Alexander or the Greeks was 
 reckoned from Sept. B.c. 312; the Indictions, an invention of 
 Eusebius’ own day, were counted, certainly from September, 
 probably from Sept. a.D. 312. The strong presumption that 
 Eusebius would range himself with all this mass of usage is re- 
 inforced by his use of the Olympiads as parallel, year by year, to 
 his own years of Abraham, for the Olympiads began in July, and 
 a year that began on Jan. 1 must be out of reckoning with an 
 Olympiad year for either its first or last six months. 
 
 (ii.) Granted, then, that each Eusebian year began in the 
 September of a Julian year, can that Julian year be conclusively 
 fixed? Now, the starting-point of the Olympiads is known to be 
 July of the Julian year B.c. 776; if, therefore, a fixed relation 
 is established between Eusebian years of Abraham and Olym- 
 Veco a fixed relation between Eusebian and Julian years 
 ‘ollows. Unfortunately, the two versions of the Chronicle differ 
 
 
 
 by one year as to which year of Abraham is parallel to Ol. 1. 1, 
 the Armenian giving Ann. Abr. 1240, Jerome 1241, and sa 
 throughout. That Jerome is the more trustworthy is now, 
 through the labours of Hort and Lightfoot, recognised even by 
 scholars who had pinned their faith to the Armenian (80, ¢.g., 
 Harnack, Chronologie, p. 113 ff.) ; and in this particular case two 
 synchronisms of years of Tiberius with the Olympiads, the one 
 given in the preface to the Chronicle (Jerome), and repeated in 
 the Prep. Evang. of Eusebius himself (x. 9. 1), the other given in 
 the note on the Crucifixion (both Jerome and the Armenian), 
 clench the proof. In the first case Tib. 15 is said to coincide 
 with Ol. 201, or more fully in the Prep. Hvang. with Ol. 201. 4. 
 Now, in the Chronicle itself Tib. 15=Abr. 2044 (Jerome and 
 Armenian)=Ol, 201. 4 Jerome, but Ol. 202. 1 Arm. In the 
 second case the date for the Crucifixion is supported by appeal 
 to Phlegon’s date, Ol. 202.4. Now, Tiberius 19 (which is unm 
 questionably Eusebius’ date for the Passion, see previous art. 
 p. 4138)=Abr. 2048 (Jerome and Arm.)=Ol, 202. 4 Jerome, 
 Ol. 203.1 Arm. Clearly, then, the parallelism of the columns 
 is right in Jerome, wrong in the Armenian. 
 
 It follows from this investigation that, accord- 
 ing to Eusebius, Tiberius 1=Ol. 198. 2 (Jerome) 
 mye A.D. 14 to Sept. A.D. 15; Gaius 1=Ol. 204. 1 
 (Jerome)=Sept. 37-Sept. 38 A.D. ; Claudius 1=Ol. 
 205. 1(Jerome)=Sept. 41-Sept. 42 A.p.; Nero1=Ol. 
 208. 3 (Jerome)=Sept. 55-Sept. 56 A.D. As the true 
 accession-days of these four emperors were Aug. 
 19, A.D. 14; Mar. 16, A.D. 37; Jan. 24, A.D. 41; 
 Oct. 13, A.D. 54, an entirely consistent result is 
 obtained, namely, that Husebius commences the 1st 
 regnal year of each emperor in the September next 
 after his accession. hen, therefore, he puts the 
 arrival of Felix in Claudius 11, he means not (as 
 Harnack says) Jan. 51 to Jan. 52, but Sept. 51 to 
 Sept. 52, and his evidence, instead of contradict- 
 ing, comes into line with that of Tacitus and 
 Josephus. 
 
 b. The Departure of Felix and Arrival of 
 Festus.—The chronology of so large a period of 
 St. Paul’s apostleship can be reckoned without 
 difficulty backwards and forwards from his im- 
 prisonment at Caesarea, that this date of Felix’ 
 recall becomes the most important of the series of 
 synchronisms that have been under discussion. 
 Yet there is none about which opinions vary more 
 widely, years so far apart as A.D. 55 and 61 being 
 preferrea by different enquirers; what may be 
 called the received chronology (Wieseler, Chron. 
 des apost. Zeitalters, pp. 66-99 ; Lightfoot, Biblical 
 Essays, pp. 217-220; Schiirer, HJP 1. ii. 182, and 
 the bibliography there given) ae ee it to A.D. 
 (61 or) 60, but not earlier, while a few older 
 writers, reinforced now by Harnack (o.c. p. 233 ff.), 
 push it back to quite the beginning of Nero’s 
 reign, A.D. 55 or 56. Blass (Acta Ap. pp. 21-24) 
 leaves the question open, but is, on the whole, 
 against the ‘received’ view; Ramsay (see No. 9, 
 below) modifies the latter by one year, to A.D. 59. 
 
 (i.) Arguments for the later date, A.D. 60 or 61, 
 
 a. St. Paul at the time of his arrest, two years 
 before Felix’ recall, addresses him as ‘for many 
 years past a judge of this nation,’ é« roA\Gv érar 
 byra Kpirhy ro ever rovrw (Ac 2437), a phrase 
 which it is said cannot mean less than six or seven 
 
 ears’ procuratorship, t.e. from 52 to 58 or 53 A.D. 
 Bat it has just. been shown from Tacitus that 
 Felix had been in Samaria before he came into 
 office in Judea; and since St. Paul’s pa is 
 naturally to press all that could truly be said of 
 Felix’ experience, he would not too minutely 
 distinguish between his present position as pro- 
 curator and his previous position as a subordinate. 
 The éryn odd are therefore to be reckoned from 
 an indeterminate point previous to A.D. 52, and no 
 ral deduction of any sort can be drawn about 
 them. 
 
 8. Josephus, after the mention of Nero’s acces 
 sion, records as all happening under Felix: the 
 death of Azizus, king of Emesa; the succession 
 of Aristobulus in Chalcis, and readjustment ot 
 the dominions of the younger Agrip a; the 
 jealousy between Felix and the high priest 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ss Le ee 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 Jonathan, and the reign of terror which, after 
 Jonathan’s assassination, prevailed at each of the 
 feasts ; the appearance of various robber chiefs or 
 impostors, especially a certain Egyptian; and 
 lastly, the ‘great quarrel’ between the Jewish and 
 Syrian inhabitants of Cesarea (Ant. Xx. viii. 4-8). 
 
 ow, this long succession of incidents cannot, it is 
 said, be brought within less than five or six years, 
 t.e. from Oct. 54, Nero’s accession, to 60 A.D., 
 especially as the rising of the Egyptian was already 
 ‘before these days’ (Ac 21°) at the time of St. 
 Paul’s arrest, two years from the end of Felix’ 
 tenure. But two considerations deprive this line 
 of argument of a good deal of its force. 
 
 (1) Josephus naturally groups together all he has to say 
 about Pal. under Felix. That "4 does this after Nero’s acces- 
 sion, means that he conceived, not that the whole state of things 
 described began only then to be true, but at most that the 
 main part of Felix’ government, and its most striking events, 
 belonged to the new reign; and this, if Felix’ procuratorship 
 began in A.D. 52, could easily be the case so long as it ended not 
 earlier than A.D. 57 or 58. Exact information about the latter 
 date Josephus obviously did not possess, or he would, as in 
 other cases, have given it. 
 
 (2) The various events described were not necessarily succes- 
 sive. The political arrangements in Galilee or Chalcis, the 
 
 wing disorder in Jerus., the risings in Palestine, may all have 
 een in progress at one and the same time. Even the revolt of 
 the Egyptian is not given as the last in order of time of a series of 
 such events, but as the most striking illustration of the decep- 
 tions practised on the highly-wrought minds of the popelaee by 
 tmoiracle-mongers of all sorts; for whereas the rest led their 
 followers off into the wilderness with the promise of signs and 
 wonders, ‘a fellow from t about this time,’ xar& rover soy 
 xcipby, gave rendezvous for the Mt. of Olives, that from thence 
 he might show how the walls of Jerus. should fall down at his 
 bidding. At the same time, if this rising is to be placed under 
 Nero at all, then St. Paul’s arrest cannot fall before Pentecost 
 65, or rather, if the full natural meaning is to be given to the 
 words #pé reise ray duspur, before Pentecost 56, and Felix’ 
 recall before the summer of 57 or rather 68 A.D. 
 
 It appears, then, that the arguments used 
 to support the ‘received’ date, A.D. 60, will not 
 bear the whole weight placed on them, but that, 
 so far as they go, they do suggest a year not 
 earlier than A.D. 58, or at any rate than 57. The 
 arguments used on the other side must now, 
 in turn, be subjected to examination. 
 
 (ii.) Arguments for an early date, A.D. 55 or 66. 
 
 a. Eusebius’ Chronicle places Festus’ arrival in 
 Nero 2, ¢.e. according to Harnack, in the year 
 Oct. 55-Oct. 56 A.D. ; and Eusebius’ chronology of 
 the procurators is probably derived from Julius 
 Africanus (A.D. 220), who, whether through the 
 Jewish kings of Josephus’ contemporary, Justus 
 of Tiberias,* or through personal enquiry (for he 
 lived in Palestine), had excellent opportunities 
 of arriving at the facts. But, again, a twofold 
 answer may be given. (1) In any case Eusebius’ 
 true date for Festus is Nero 2=Sept. 56-Sept. 57 
 A.D., see above, p. 418°. (2) It cannot be too often 
 repeated that chroniclers were tempted to invent 
 dates for all undated events of historical interest ; 
 and as Festus’ connexion with St. Paul would 
 deter a Christian from passing him over without 
 mention, it is possible that Eusebius (or Africanus), 
 if the usual authorities failed him, simply set him 
 exactly midway between his predecessor Felix, 
 A.D. 51-52, and his successor Albinus, A.D. 61-62. 
 
 For the last tor, Gessius Florus, Eusebius gives Nero 
 10=Sept. t. 65 a.D.; this agrees well enough with 
 Josephus’ statement that the breaking out of the war—Aug. 
 66 a.p.—fell in the 12th year of Nero (t.e. on Josephus’ system 
 Oct. 65-Oct. 66) and 2nd of Florus, Ant. xx. xi.1. For Albinus, 
 the last but one, Eusebius has Nero 7=Sept. 61-Sept. 62 a.v. ; 
 and Josephus relates that a certain visionary was brought before 
 Albinus at the Feast of Tabernacles, four years before the war, 
 te. Oct. 62 a.D., BJ VI. v. 3, so that Eusebius’ date is at any rate 
 the latest possible, and is very likely correct. 
 
 8. Felix on his recall was prosecuted before 
 Nero by the leading Jews of Cesarea, and ‘ would 
 
 * Photius, cod, 33, read this book, and says that it extended 
 from Moses to the death of the last Jewish prince, Herod 
 Agrippa ., in a.p. 100. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 419 
 
 certainly have been condemned for his wrong- 
 doings towards the Jews had not his brother 
 Pallas, who at that moment stood very high in 
 Nero’s favour, interceded on his behalf,’ Ant. xx. 
 viii. 9. Now, according to Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 14, 
 15, Pallas was removed from office not long before 
 Britannicus celebrated his 14th birthday; and 
 Britannicus was born just after his father Claudius’ 
 accession, circa Feb. 41 A.D. But, again, if Pallas’ 
 retirement fell in Jan. 55 A.D., and Felix’ trial 
 hola it, the latter must have fallen in the very 
 
 rst months of Nero’s reign, and Festus must have 
 come out as procurator in the summer of A.D. 54 
 under Claudius, a result which it is hopeless to 
 try and reconcile with the other authorities. 
 
 Harnack, 0.c. p. 238, on the ground of the confusion which 
 besets even the best chronologists through the different methods 
 of reckoning imperial years, conjectures that Tacitus has mis- 
 takenly put Britannicus’ 14th birthday for his 15th, so that the 
 whole story should be transferred from A.D. 55 to 56. But this is 
 unlikely : in the first place, because Tacitus reckons his years, 
 as Roman naturally would, by consulships, and not by regnal 
 years of the emperor at all; in the second place, because the 
 detail about Britannicus’ age introduces the account of his murder, 
 and that was far too crucial an event to be likely to be misdated. 
 It seems obvious—there is certainly no reason against the view 
 —that Pallas retained sufficient influence in the early years after 
 his retirement to be able to secure immunity for his family. 
 Tacitus expressly says that he stipulated that no inquiry should 
 be made into his conduct in office, a very different attitude to 
 what most fallen ministers had to adopt under the empire. 
 Doubtless, Josephus exaggerates when he speaks of Nero at the 
 date of the trial as pddscra 3% vires dice Tics aywy ixsivoy, but 
 this appears to be aul his way of accounting for the acquittal 
 of an oppressor of the Jews. 
 
 Stated as a proof for the year A.D. 55 or 56, this 
 argument, too, breaks down ; but if restated witha 
 more modest scope, it will be found not without 
 force. It is, in fact, difficult to believe that the 
 Jews would not have gained their case against 
 Felix had Poppea already acquired that ascendency 
 over Nero which enabled them under the next 
 procuratorship to win their cause in the matter of 
 the temple wall against Festus and Agrippa com- 
 bined, Ant. XX. viii. 11. It is under A.D. 58 that 
 this woman’s first introduction to Nero is recorded, 
 but it was not till A.D. 62 that she set the crown 
 to her ambition by marrying him, Tacitus, Ann. 
 xiii. 45, 46, xiv. 60ff. It was in the same year, 
 62, that Pallas, who, according to Ann. xiv. 65, 
 was too rich and too slow in dying for Nero’s 
 avarice, was poisoned. Not improbably, the in- 
 terest of Claudius’ favourite waned with that of 
 Claudius’ daughter, so that it was no mere coin- 
 cidence that the same year saw the murder of 
 Octavia to make room for Poppa, and the murder 
 of Pallas. Anyhow, considering the respective 
 histories of Pallas and Poppza, the years 57, 58 
 (59?) would appear to suit the circumstances of 
 Felix’ acquittal better than the years 60, 61. 
 
 In the result, then, the arguments for the ex- 
 treme position on either side have been shown to 
 be equally devoid of conclusive force. But, on the 
 other hand, each set of them, though it does not 
 establish its own case, tends to disprove the 
 opposite. The facts about Pallas and Poppza, not 
 to speak of the evidence of Eusebius, do not prove 
 that Festus succeeded Felix as early as 55 or 56, 
 but they do seem to exclude a date as late as A.D. 
 60. Conversely, the account of Felix’ procurator- 
 ship in Josephus, though it does not show that he 
 was governor as late as 60 or 61, does seem to show 
 that he remained later than A.D. 56. The prob- 
 abilities, therefore, both sides being considered, 
 concentrate themselves on the intermediate years 
 A.D. 57-59 for Felix’ recall (A.D. 55-57 for St. 
 Paul’s arrest). 
 
 9. The Days of Unleavened Bread (Ac 20°") in St. 
 Paul’s third missionary journey have lately been 
 brought again into notice by Ramsay (Lxpositor, 
 May 1896, p. 336) as a date which ‘can be fixed 
 not merely to the year, but to the month and 
 
 
 
420 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 
 
 day.’ ‘The Passover was celebrated and the Days 
 of Unleavened Bread were spent in Philippi. 
 Thereafter the company started for Troas; and 
 their voyage continued into the fifth day. In 
 Troas they stayed seven days; the last complete 
 day that they spent there was a Sunday, and they 
 sailed away early on a Monday morning. Now, 
 on the system common in ancient usage and 
 followed by Luke... the seven days in Troas... 
 began with a Tuesday and ended with a Monday. 
 Further, the Tuesday of the arrival in Troas must 
 be also counted as the fifth day of the voyage.’ 
 ‘It follows, therefore, that the party started from 
 Philippi on a Friday. The only question that 
 remains is whether the company started on the 
 first morning after the Days of Unleavened Bread. 
 Considering that the plan was to reach Jerus. by 
 Pentecost, and that time was therefore precious, 
 we need not hesitate as to this point. ... he 
 slaying of the Passover in that year fell on the 
 afternoon of a Thursday, and the Seven Days of 
 Unleavened Bread continued till the following 
 Thursday. That was the case in A.D. 57, but not 
 in any of the years immediately around it.’ 
 
 On this thesis three remarks suggest themselves. (i.) The 
 calculation of days from the departure from Troas back to the 
 departure from Philippi, and the inference that the latter was 
 made on the earliest day possible, Nisan 22, are probable, 
 though not absolutely certain. (ii.) The only years considered 
 by Ramsay as open to discussion are 4.p. 56-59. But these years, 
 though they include the latest, do not include the earliest 
 possible dates for the end of the 3rd missionary journey and the 
 arrest at Jerusalem, which of course followed this passover at 
 Philippi at the interval of a few weeks. A.D. 65 was even found 
 (see No. 8. b, above) to be so far one of the three most likely years, 
 and for security’s sake a.D. 64 may be also taken into account. 
 (iii.) The uncertainty which day in any year was really kept as 
 Nisan 14 is always considerable. Most investigators, and 
 Ramsay among them, appear to think that the question is 
 solved by labelling the first evening on which the new moon 
 was visidle Nisan 1. But the Jews must before this have modi- 
 fied the method of simple observation by something in the 
 nature of a calendar or cycle (CHRON. OF THE GosPELs, above, 
 p. 411), and any such cycle no doubt deviated not infrequently 
 from the results of simple observation. Certainly, the days of 
 the terminus paschalis or Nisan 14 for these years according to 
 the Alexandrine cycle, which has prevailed in the Christian 
 Church ever since the 4th cent., differ sensibly from those 
 supplied by Lewin’s Fasti Sacri or Wieseler’s Cheonalogts p. 
 115 (and accepted by Ramsay), being always one day, and some- 
 times two days, the earlier.* 
 
 A.D. Alexandrine. Lewin. Wieseler. 
 64 Apr. 9, T. Apr. 10, W. 
 65 Mar. 29, Sa. Mar. 80, Su. 
 56 Apr. 17, Sa. Mar. 19, F. Apr, 18, Su. 
 
 (or Mar. 18? Th.) 
 
 57 Apr. 5, T. Apr. 7, Th. Apr. 7, Th. 
 58 Mar. 25, Sa. Mar. 27, M. Mar. 27, M.’ 
 59 Apr. 13, F. Apr. 15, Su. Apr. 15, Su. 
 
 Now, supposing, as seems a fair estimate, that the 
 Alexandrine date is the earliest possible for each 
 
 ear, and two days later the latest, Nisan 14 may 
 
 ave been a Thursday in any of the three years 
 A.D. 54 (Apr. 11), 56 (Mar. 18), 57 (Apr. 7). What, 
 then, can fairly be claimed for Ramsay’s investiga- 
 tion is, that against the other three years, A.D. 55, 
 58, 59, a certain presumption of improbability does 
 remain ; and with regard to the two later of these 
 three years this result serves to confirm the result 
 attained in the last section. Combining this with 
 the previous enquiry, A.D. 56 and 57 appear the 
 probable alternatives for the year of St. Paul’s 
 arrest, A.D. 58 and 59 for the recall of Felix and 
 close of the two years’ captivity at Caesarea. 
 
 10. The Persecution under Nero, and Martyrdoms 
 of St. Peter and St. Paul.—That the two apostles 
 were martyred on the same day is an erroneous 
 deduction from the common festival on June 29, 
 which is really the day of the common translation 
 of their relics to the safe concealment of the Cata- 
 
 * That the Alexandrine date is always beforehand with the 
 date depending on simple observation will be due to the cycle 
 computators reckoning Nisan 1 from the time of astronomical 
 mew moon, not from the time, about 80 hours later, when it 
 @rst became visible to observers. 
 
 combs during the persecution of Valerian, Tusca 
 
 et Basso coss. (A.D. 258). But that both were 
 martyred at Rome, and both under Nero, has been 
 in eflect the constant tradition of the Church; 
 Peter and Paul, with some date under Nero, 
 headed the Roman episcopal list in Julius Africanus 
 (Harnack, Chronologie, pp. 124 ff., 171); according 
 to Dionysius of Corinth, they taught together 
 in Italy, and were martyred xara rdv abrov katpbr 
 (ap. Eus. HZ ii. 25; c. A.D. 170); and St. Clement 
 of Rome himself, addressing the Corinthians about 
 A.D. 96, sets before their he ‘the noble examples 
 of our own generation,’ the good apostles, Peter 
 and Paul, and that great multitude of elect which 
 was gathered together with them in divers suffer- 
 ings and tortures, women being exposed as Danaids 
 and Dirces (1 Clem. v. vi. : cvvnOpolc0n mod rhiG0s). 
 That the ‘great multitude’ is that of the Neronian 
 martyrs, would be all but certain from the parallel 
 account in Tacitus of the multitudo ingens and 
 addita ludibria of the Christian victims of Nero 
 (Ann. xv. 44); and the whole proof is clenched by 
 the coincidence of Tacitus’ mention of the emperor's 
 ardens—i.e. the horti Neroniani on the Vatican 
 ill—as the scene of the executions, with the state- 
 ment of the Roman Gaius (ap. Eus. H.£. ii. 25; c. 
 A.D. 200), that the relics of St: Peter rested on the 
 Vatican as those of St. Paul on the Ostian Way. 
 
 But the date of the apostles’ martyrdom, if it fell in the 
 Neronian persecution properly so called, can hardly have been 
 far removed from the great fire of Rome in July a.p. 64, since 
 Tacitus says expressly that it was to provide scape-goats to bear 
 his own responsibility for the arson that Nero first devised an 
 attack on the Church. It is true that Suetonius speaks of the 
 punishment of Christians under Nero in general terms and with- 
 out assigning any particular date: Nero 16 (in the middle of a 
 list of things animadversa severe et coercita) afjlicti suppliciis 
 Christiani genus hominum superstitionis nove ac malefice. But 
 Suet. is not in the habit of giving dates at all; and further it is 
 quite true that the Neronian trials did settle for good the 
 crucial] question of the illegality of Christianity, while yet it ia 
 clear from Tac. that the violence of the first outbreak stood out 
 as something vastly different in degree if not in kind from the 
 normal condition of occasional martyrdoms which followed. It 
 is true again that Eusebius assigns the apostles’ death to the 
 very end of Nero’s reign, a.D. 68. But he gives this date to the 
 whole persecution, as the last and worst of all Nero’s crimes.. 
 As he did not use Latin writers, Tacitus’ account was unknown 
 to him, and he has no idea that the persecution had anything 
 to do with the fire at Rome, of which he only speaks in the 
 vaguest terms under Nero 9 (10) éuapnojcol ysyovecs roAdol tr 
 "Paun. The actual year he doubtless selected because his (or 
 rather Africanus’) chronology of the Popes, calculated back from 
 cent. 8 by the years of their tenure of office, brought the 
 accession of Linus, and therefore the apostles’ martyrdom, to A.D, 
 67-68. What is really por bake is that he, like Clement, closely 
 associates the two apostles with the rest of the victims of the 
 persecution ; and this, taken into connexion with the evidence 
 of Tac. and of Gaius, seems to fix their death to within a year at 
 any rate of the great fire, middle of a.p. 64-middle of 65 [Harnack, 
 0.c, p. 240, still more precisely, July a.D. 64; but this is to limit 
 the possibilities unreasonably.] 
 
 Probably, modern writers would not have been 
 so reluctant to admit this, if the received chron- 
 ology had not prolonged St. Paul’s first Roman 
 captivity till at least the spring of A.D. 63, so that 
 the two years or less which would intervene before 
 his martyrdom on the dating just suggested would 
 be insufiicient to cover what is known or reason 
 ably conjectured about his final missionary journey 
 But it has been now shown (see Nos. 8. 6, 9) that not 
 60, but 58 or 59, is the true date of Festus’ arrival 
 in Judea, and therefore not 63, but 61 or 62, the 
 end of the two years (Ac 28") of the first Roman 
 captivity. Is there, then, any reason to suypose 
 that the two to four years which intervene in this 
 revised chronology are too few to satisfy the evi- 
 dence as to St. Paul’s movements? Properly perhapa 
 this enquiry belongs to a later stage in tle investi- 
 gation; but as it stands outside the Acts, and 
 establishes the terminus ad quem, parallel to the 
 terminus a quo of the Crucifixion, for the subject- 
 matter of this article, there is a special advantage 
 in speaking of it at this place. p 
 
 That St. Paul after his release carried out the 
 
 
 

 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 421 
 
 
 
 deaire long before expressed by him (Ro 15”) to 
 go onfrom Rome to Spain, is made more than 
 probable by the testimony of St. Clement, that the 
 apostle ‘preached righteousness to the whole world, 
 and reached the boundary of the West’ (ém! rd 
 réppa ris Stoews é\Ouv, ad Cor. v.), and of the 
 
 uratorian Canon [c. A.D. 200], profectionem Pauli 
 ab urbe ad Spaniam a eg da For a journey 
 to districts so untouched, where the very founda- 
 tions of Christianity would still have to be laid, 
 at least a year must be allowed ; and six months 
 more must be added for the preaching on the route 
 through Southern Gaul—Marseilles, Arles, Nimes, 
 Narbonne—if the Tadarla to which Crescens was 
 
 sent (2 Ti 4) was, as Eusebius, HZ iii. 4, and 
 
 other Greek Fathers suppose, not the lesser Gaul 
 of Asia Minor, but the greater Gaul of the West. 
 
 That St. Paul also revisited the East results 
 from the Pastoral Epistles ; and even critics who, 
 like Harnack (0.¢. p. 239, n. 3), reject these Epistles 
 as a whole, admit that genuine accounts of St. 
 Paul’s movements after his release have been in- 
 corporated in them. But for the journey to 
 Ephesus and Macedonia (1 Ti 1°), for the evangeli- 
 zation of Crete (Tit 15), for the final visits to 
 Troas, Miletus, and perhaps Corinth (2Ti 4' *), 
 for the winter at Nicopolis (in Epirus ; Tit 3”),* a 
 second eighteen months are required. 
 
 Thus three full years, though not necessarily 
 more, appear to have elapsed between St. Paul’s 
 departure from and return to Rome ; and it follows 
 that if his martyrdom in the first great outbreak 
 of Nero’s persecution holds good, of the two alter- 
 native years to which his release was narrowed 
 down (No. 9, above), A.D. 61 has an advantage over 
 A.D. 62, and A.D. 56, 58 over A.D. 57, 59 as the years 
 of his arrest at Jerusalem and of his journey as a 
 ptisoner to Rome. 
 
 So far, then, ten points from Jewish and secular 
 history have been fixed with more or less prob- 
 ability: (1) Aretas in possession of Damascus, 
 certainly not before A.D. 34, probably not before 
 A.D. 37 ; (2) Herod Agrippa I.’s death, probably in 
 A.D. 44; (3) the famine in Jerusalem, not before 
 A.D. 46; (4) the proconsulate of Sergius Paulus in 
 Cyprus, not in A.D. 51, 52; (5) the expulsion of the 
 Jews from Rome, perhaps in A.D. 49 or 50; (6) the 
 eae of Gallio in Achaia, probably not 
 
 efore A.D. 49 or 50; (7) the marriage of Drusilla 
 with Felix, not before A.D. 54; (8) the appointment 
 of Felix as procurator of Judea in A.D. 52, and 
 his recall in one of the years A.D. 57-59; (9) of 
 these three years the first seems to be excluded 
 by the note about the days of unleavened bread ; 
 (10) and the third seems to be excluded by the 
 calculation of the necessary interval between St. 
 Paul's hearing before Festus and his martyrdom in 
 A.D. 64 (64-65). Thus the crucial date of Festus’ 
 arrival seems to be established as A.D. 58, and 
 therefore the close of the Acts after St. Paul’s two 
 ears captivity at Rome as A.D. 61; and a sort of 
 ramework is erected into which the details to be 
 gathered, first, from the comprehensive history of 
 the Acts, and, secondly, from the fragmentary 
 notices in the Epistles, have now to be inserted. 
 
 (A) The Acts; second half (chs. 13-28). For the 
 special criticism of this book, see ACTS OF THE 
 
 POSTLES. More need not be said here than that 
 Ac is accepted in what follows as containing, on 
 the whole, an accurate and trustworthy picture of 
 events between Pentecost and St. Paul’s (first) 
 Roman captivity, A.D. 29-61. The picture is cut 
 up, as it were, into six panels, each labelled with a 
 general sununary of progress; and with so careful 
 
 aa That 1s, if St. Paul’s intention to winter there was carried 
 
 an artist, the divisions thus outlined are, in the 
 absence of more precise data, the natural starting 
 point of investigation. (i.) First period, 1. The 
 Church in Jerus., and the preaching of St. Peter: 
 summary in 67 ‘and the word of God was in- 
 creasing, and the number of disciples in Jerus. was 
 being greatly multiplied, and a large number of the 
 priests were becoming obedient to the faith.’ (ii.) 
 Second period, 68. Extension of the Church 
 through Pal.; the preaching of St. Stephen; 
 troubles with the Jews: summary in 9 ‘the 
 Church throughout all Galilee and Judea and 
 Samaria was having peace, being built up, and 
 walking in the fear of the Lord and in the con- 
 solation of the Holy Spirit was being multiplied.’ 
 (iii.) LAird period, 9°. ‘The extension of the Church 
 to Antioch; St. Peter’s conversion of Cornelius ; 
 further troubles with the Jews: summary in 12% 
 ‘and the word of the Lord was increasing and 
 being multiplied.’ (iv.) Fourth period, 12%, Ex- 
 tension of the Church to Asia Minor ; preaching 
 of St. Paul in ‘ Galatia’; troubles with the Jewish 
 Christians: summary in 16° ‘the Churches tien 
 were being confirmed in the faith, and were 
 abounding more in number daily.’ (v.) fifth period, 
 165. Extension of the Church to Europe; St. 
 Paul’s missionary work in the great centres, such 
 as Corinth and Ephesus: summary in 19” ‘so 
 forcibly was the word of the Lord increasing and 
 prevailing.’ (vi.) Sixth period, 197, Extension of 
 
 the Church to Rome; St. Paul’s captivities: sum- 
 
 marized in 28%! ‘ proclaiming the kingdom of God 
 and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus 
 Christ with all boldness unhindered.’ 
 
 Of these six sections the protagonist in the first 
 three is St. Peter, in the last three St. Paul ; and 
 the two halves into which the book thus naturally 
 falls make almost equal divisions at the middle of 
 the whole period covered. But the further con- 
 sideration of the earlier half may best be post- 
 
 oned until the rich chronological material of tha 
 ater sections has been set in order. 
 
 Starting-point of St. Paul's First Missionary Journey (1st 
 M.J., Ac 133).—The summary which closes the third section of 
 the Acts intervenes between the notices of the death of Herod 
 Agrippa 1. (4.p. 44 ; see No. 2, above), and of the completion of 
 SS. Paul and Barnabas’ famine ‘ministry’ at Jerus. ; so that it 
 appears a legitimate inference that between these two events some 
 considerable interval elapsed, Further, as there was no famine 
 before the year a.p. 46 (No. 3, above), the delegates can scarcely 
 have returned earlier to Antioch, unless the Antiochene Church 
 had not merely begun to collect contributions in anticipation, 
 which was natural enough, but had closed their fund before the 
 famine was heard of, which does not seem natural at all. Oer- 
 tainly, if the delegates helped to administer the relief, the year 
 46 is the earliest possible. 
 
 Nor was the start on the lst M.J. made immediately after 
 their return to Antioch. The description introduced at this 
 point (131) of the personnel of the Antiochene ‘prophets and 
 teachers’ suggests at least some further period of settled work ; 
 and as the journey westwards meant a start either by sea or over 
 the Taurus, it would not be entered upon in the winter months,— 
 indeed it will be assumed in the following discussion as axiomatic 
 that St. Paul’s journeys are as far as possible to be placed in the 
 summer (March or April to Nov.), and that during the other 
 months he was in general stationary. Thus the spring of A.D. 
 47, or more particularly the end of the paschal season (in that 
 year circa Mar. 28-Apr. 4), is the earliest starting-point at all 
 probable. 
 
 Duration of the First Missionary Journey (Ac 134-14%).— 
 Crossing to Cyprus the apostles landed at Salamis and passed 
 through the whole island as far as Paphos, preaching in the 
 Jewish synagogues (135-6). The stay in Cyprus can hardly have 
 been less than some months; the results, at any rate, en 
 couraged the Cypriote Barnabas to select it as his share of the 
 communities visited or founded in common (158. 39), At earliest, 
 then, in the summer of the same year, A.D. 47, the party crossed 
 to the mainland of Pamphylia; and whether or not Ramsay’s 
 attractive conjecture be true, that the ‘infirmity of the flesh’ 
 was a malarial fever caught there in the lowlands and necessitat- 
 ing an immediate move up into the hills, no stay is recorded 
 anywhere short of Pisidian Antioch (Antioch P.). To the 
 evangelization of this city and of Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, 
 the main efforts of the journey were devoted ; and as the return 
 was made by the same route, the three first-named cities wera 
 visited twice. The first sojourn in Antioch P. was long enough 
 for the word to be ‘spread abroad through the whole districti’ 
 (1349 ; cf. the similar but stronger phrase in 1910 of the two yeare! 
 
422 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TES1 
 
 
 
 otay at Ephesus), At Iconium a ‘long time’ was spent (ixavav 
 xpovev, 148). With Lystra and Derbe the ‘surrounding country’ 
 was evangelized (148-7), and at Derbe the disciples made were 
 ‘many’ (ixayvois, 14 The return visits were no doubt 
 shorter; but as they included the work of confirming and 
 organizing the new communities (iwicrnpiZovres, yeipotovncayres 
 * psoBuripous, 1422. 23), they cannot well have been hurried. The 
 second stay at Perga, unlike the first, was sufficiently long for 
 the preaching of the word (1425: contrast 1318.14), From the 
 Pamphylian coast the voyage homeward was made direct. 
 ere the indications are expressed in such general language, 
 opinions will differ as to the length of time signified. But as it 
 is certain that no one will estimate the stay in the interior at 
 less than six months, and the hills between Antioch P. and 
 Perga would not have been recrossed in the winter (Dec.-March), 
 the whole absence from Antioch in Syria (Antioch 8.) must have 
 rolonged itself beyond a year; indeed the smallest space of 
 ime which will reasonably cover the details of the Acts is 18 
 months. Let it be supposed roughly that the apostles arrived in 
 Oyprus in April and left it in July ; that they reached Antioch 
 P. by Aug. 1, Iconium by Nov. 1, spending there the five winter 
 months, down to the paschal season (probably circa Mar. 18-25) 
 of a.D. 48, Lystra by April 1, Derbe by May 15, the two latter 
 being far less populous or important cities than the two former ; 
 that they began the return journey about July 1, getting down 
 to the Pamphylian lowlands at the beginning of Oct., and back 
 to Antioch S. a month later, say Nov. 1, a.p. 48. It is easy to 
 allow more than this, and Ramsay raises the total from a year 
 and 7 months to 2 years and 3 or 4 months, ending in July a.p. 
 49 (Ch. in Rom. Emp. pp. 65-73). But the shorter estimate, if it 
 satisfies St. Luke’s language, and it seems to do so, is to be pre- 
 ferred on the ground that it seems unlikely that the apostles on 
 this their first missionary experiment should have separated 
 themselves from their base at Antioch S., which was yet so near 
 them, for as long a period as over 2 years. 
 
 Interval between the First and Second Missionary Journey : 
 the Apostolic Council (Ac 1427-1535), —The two apostles after 
 their return from the 1st M.J., and before their visit to Jerus., 
 ‘resided’ at Antioch 8. ‘for no short time’ (d:irpiBov ypovov odx 
 éA‘yer, 1428); and although it is just possible that the phrase 
 may be meant to cover the whole period up to the starting-point 
 of the 2nd M.J., yet even so the earlier portion itself cannot have 
 been less than the four winter months from Nov. 1, A.D. 48, 
 onwards. For the Council, it may be taken for granted, would 
 not have been held during those months ; and indeed since the 
 Twelve were by this time no longer settled at Jerus., the 
 opportunity for the Council must have been found in their 
 assembling for one of the great Jewish feasts. Thus the earliest 
 possible occasion will have been the passover of a.D. 49, circa 
 April 5-12. But as Paul and Barnabas are said to have ‘ passed 
 through Phenice and Samaria, expounding the conversion of the 
 Gentiles ’ (15%),—and though this does not, of course, imply the 
 game delay as the foundation of new communities, it does 
 exclude the idea of hurried movements,—it is really more likely 
 that they kept their passover at Antioch S., and spent the six 
 weeks following in a leisurely progress towards Jerus., arriving 
 there for the Council at Pentecost (May 24). They may easily 
 have been back again at Antioch S. by the end of June; and 
 as the further ios fh only amounted. to ‘certain days’ (npuépas 
 vwés, 1536), there is no reason why the start for the 2nd M.J. 
 should not have been made in the late summer of the same year, 
 say Sept. 1, a.D. 49, ten months after the return from the previous 
 aaah (On the visit of St. Peter to Antioch, Gal 211, see 
 
 low, p. 4242.] 
 
 Duration of the Second Missionary Journey (Ac 1536-1822), — 
 That St. Paul should start so late in the year, while it would 
 have been very unnatural when he was breaking new ground in 
 unknown districts, as in the lst M.J., was natural enough 
 when he was going primarily to revisit existing Churches; the 
 winter would be spent among them, and they would serve in 
 turn for bases from which, in the spring, he might make his 
 way on again to further and more strictly missionary labours. 
 This, in fact, is what St. Paul probably did do on his 2nd M.J. 
 He left Antioch S. by land, ‘ pees, through Syria and Cilicia 
 confirming the Churches’ (154! imsernpZay ; cf. 1422 1823), a phrase 
 which certainly implies a good deal more than a night’s rest at 
 each place. Thus several Churches, such as, no doubt, that of 
 Tarsus, were ‘ visited’ before he reached the Churches of the 1st 
 M.J. at all. That of these Derbe is first mentioned, and then 
 Lystra (161), follows from the adoption on this occasion of the 
 land route over Taurus, which must have been crossed not later 
 than November. It is not St. Luke’s habit to describe anything 
 in much detail but the foundation of new Churches,—contrast, 
 ¢.g., the first visit to Macedonia (1612-1715) with the second (202), 
 —so that no deduction can be drawn from his silence as to 
 any events beyond the circumcision of Timothy (163). On the 
 contrary, the interpolation at this point of the fourth period- 
 summary in 165, though no doubt primarily intended to 
 emphasize the great step forward into Europe which follows, 
 marks also a beating of time between the old work and the new, 
 and suggests that the one was more than a mere episode on the 
 way to the other; St. Paul must have stayed everywhere long 
 enough to mark the progress going on, the ‘daily increase in 
 numbers.’ Nor is it at all likely that fresh ground would be 
 broken in the winter months. It can only have been after the 
 passover (March 25-April 1) of a.p. 50 that he concluded at 
 Antioch P. the seven months’ ‘ visitation’ of existing Churches, 
 and plunged forward into the unknown. 
 
 That the phrase ‘ Phrygian and Galatian district’ (riy Spuyicy 
 nai Dadariany x dpa, 166) or ‘ Galatian and Phrygian district’ (rn 
 Tad xdpuv xa: Spvyinv, 1828) means not two places, but one and 
 
 the same, follows as well from the inclusion of both under a 
 single article, as from the fact that the names are given in reversa 
 order on the second occasion, though the direction of the 
 journey was the same as on the first, from east to west. St. 
 Paul’s object on leaving Antioch P. was naturally the group 
 of famous and populous cities on the western coast. [The 
 Phrygo-Galatic region, if it lay on the route to Ephesus, can 
 have had nothing to do with Galatia in the narrower ethnical 
 sense, which was far away to the N. and N.E.; and this is only 
 one of many arguments which combine to make Ramsay’s view 
 that the ‘ Galatian’ Churches are those of Antioch P., Iconium, 
 Lystra, and Derbe, all but demonstrably true.] Entrance, how: 
 ever, into the province of Asia was barred by divine intervention ; 
 and St. Paul directed his eyes to the next great group of cities, 
 and turned northwards for Bithynia, only to find thesame check 
 when he reached the Bithynian border. This time the western 
 direction was left open, and the party skirted Mysia unul they 
 touched the coast at a point north of ‘Asia,’ namely Troas, 
 But as it is implied throughout these verses that no settlement 
 was made for preaching, not more than a month need be 
 allowed between the departure from Antioch P. and the arrival 
 in Europe. The proclamation of the gospel at Philippi, Thessa- 
 lonica, Berea, and Athens must have occupied all the summer 
 of a.D. 50: the stay at the two former towns, at least, was long 
 enough to found flourishing Churches, and the ‘ three Sabbaths’ 
 at the synagogue of Thessalonica (172) represent, no doubt, not 
 the whole of St. Paul’s residence, but only the time anterior to 
 the seperation of Christians and Jews, cf. 1867 198.9, Ramsay, 
 indeed, allots eleven months to these four places (Ch. in Rom, 
 Emp. p. 85); but in the absence of any hint at specially lengthy 
 sojourns—contrast 1349 143 etc.—six weeks at Philippi, two or 
 three months at Thessalonica, and a few weeks each at Berwa 
 and Athens must be considered sufficient. The sea route from 
 Berea to Athens is likely to have been taken before the 
 autumnal equinox, and the apostle was doubtless eager to get 
 on to his future headquarters, so that the arrival at Corinth 
 may be placed in October a.D. 50. The total stay there of eighteen 
 months (for the #pépas ixxvés of 1818 are probably to be included 
 in the évieurdv xo eves 6E of 1811) will last till April a.p. 62, thus 
 covering two winters and a summer. St. Paul, as might be 
 expected, arrives at the end of one travelling season and leaves 
 at the beginning of another. The departure, if made, as in 
 other cases, immediately after the paschal season (circa April 
 2-9, A.D. 52), would be timed to bring St. Paul (vid Ephesus and 
 Cwsarea, 1818-22) to Jerus., as on the 3rd M.J., for the Feast of 
 Pentecost. There the stay was only for the purpose of ‘ salut- 
 ing the Church,’ and the apostle went on at once to his old home 
 at Antioch 8., arriving, say, in June A.D. 52, after an absence of 
 two years and nine months. 
 
 Duration of the Third Missionary Journey.—But Antioch 
 was no longer an effective centre for St. Paul’s work ; it was 
 out of reach of his new Churches in Macedonia and Achaia, 
 while his ‘Galatian’ Churches would be supervised quite as 
 easily from Ephesus, whither he was pledged to return if he 
 could (1821). If advantage was to be taken of the travelling 
 season for the highlands of Asia Minor, no long delay was pos- 
 sible ; the farewells at Antioch 8, were therefore probably brief 
 (1823 wom oos Pr digs vive t2mAdey ; contrast the continuous work 
 implied in 1125 182 1428 1535), and a start made on the 3rd M.J. 
 about August A.D. 52. 
 
 This time the passage across Asia Minor seems to have been 
 less protracted. Nothing is said of a stay in Cilicia (contr. 1541) ; 
 it is only in the Galatian Churches of the Ist M.J. that St. Paul, 
 as he moved in order from one to another, set himself to ‘ estab- 
 lish’ all the disciples (S:upyeuavos xobsens . . . ornpifwv, 1873). 
 This visitation, and the not very long or difficult journey between 
 Antioch P., the westernmost of these cities, and Ephesus, need 
 not have extended over much more than the remaining months 
 of A.D. 62. Perhaps about the turn of the year, while travellin 
 in the less rugged districts was still feasible, St. Paul reach 
 Ephesus, and entered on a long residence there, certainly of 
 two years, almost certainly of two years and three months— 
 that is, if 1910 sotto di ixévero iwi irm 30, refers only to the dis- 
 puting in the school of Tyrannus, and excludes the three months 
 of the synagogue preaching, 198. It is true that in the case of 
 the stay at Corinth (see just above) the later and fuller calcu- 
 lation is inclusive and not exclusive of the earlier and briefer: 
 for Ephesus, on the contrary, the supplementary evidence of 
 Ac 2U31 cpiriay . . . 0x iravecpuny appears to decide the ques- 
 tion in favour of a total length of considerably over two years 
 of residence. The period thus reckoned terminates at earliest 
 in March or April a.p. 55. (A departure not before spring is 
 confirmed by the evidence of the two Corinthian Epistles. 
 1 Co, written about the paschal season (March 30-April 6 is 
 A.D, 55), announces a plan for leaving Ephesus after Pentecost, 
 for travelling through Macedonia, and perhaps wintering ip 
 Corinth (1 Co 58 165-8),—a plan which would provide for a much 
 longer, though less immediate, visit to Corinth than the original 
 intention of going there on the way to Macedonia (cf. 2 Co 146 
 and 1 Co 167 od Bidw yeep tucs apts tv wxpedw idsiv). The Ephesian 
 riot may have even precipitated the departure before Pentecost 
 (Ac 201).]_ At some time, then, in the spring of a.p. 55, St. Paul 
 launches himself on a new cycle of wanderings, intended to 
 include Macedonia, Achaia, Jerus,, and Rome (1921), [2 Co im- 
 plies that he had planned to preach at Troas, and stayed there 
 long enough to find an opening, but ultimately hurried on into 
 Macedonia, the sooner to meet Titus and the news from Corinth 
 (212. 13),] Through Macedonia he travelled slowly, visiting as he 
 went the Churches of the 2nd journey, and possibly founding 
 others (202 360d» re feipm ixaive xual wapaxmrious adrovs Aoye 
 woAAw), until he reached Greece proper, or ‘Hellas.’ There, or 
 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 in ee ee inne Gosscnciy. Gal aad Ro Gan pa words in Corinth, he stayed three months—obviously 
 the winter months of a.p. 55- 56, since the return journey brought 
 him to Philippi just in time for the passover (March 18-25 a.p. 
 66), 2U8. This longer route through Macedonia was a sudden 
 substitute, at the time of starting, for the direct voyage to Pal. 
 (20%), and the party had to hurry in consequence if the distance 
 rom Philippi to Jerus. was to be covered in the six weeks 
 between the end of the paschal season and Pentecost (2016), A 
 week (six days) was spent at Troas, and another at Tyre, per- 
 haps while waiting for weather or ships; but the journey be- 
 tween these two places was made with only necessary halts, and 
 “i pee to have occupied not more than a fortnight. The ‘days 
 
 { remained to spare were spent at Cmsarea (2110), and Jerus. 
 was probably reached just in time for the feast. 
 
 St. Paul’s Captivities.—At Jerus. St. Paul was arrested (May 
 A.D, 56), and conveyed thence to Cwsarea, where his imprison- 
 ment, though not of a rigorous character, had lasted a full two 
 rene | Queries aAnpalsiens, 2427) when Porcius Festus succeeded 
 
 ‘elix in the middle of a.p. 68. Festus, unlike his predecessor, 
 gave a fairly prompt hearing to the case (251. 6. 13. 23), and late in 
 the summer St. Paul, having appealed to Cwsar, was sent, with 
 other prisoners, in charge of @ centurion to Rome. But the 
 voyage was much delayed by contrary winds, and they were 
 pam off Crete at a time when the great fast (Tisri 10=circa 
 
 ept. 15 in a.p. 58) had already y gone by—how long gone by St. 
 
 e does not say (279). Even if the wreck took place as late as 
 the beginning of November, and the three months at Malta 
 (2811) are reckoned to the full, the voyage was continued early in 
 February, before navigation ‘would naturally have begun; but 
 no doubt an official on government business would be more 
 likely than ordinary folk to risk sailing at an unpropitious 
 season. Anyhow, somewhere in the early months of a.p. 59 St. 
 Paul may be) believed to have arrived in Rome, and after ‘two 
 whole years’ (3uriey Avy, 2880), ¢.e. in the spring of a.p. 61, 
 the book of the Acts closes, and leaves him still a prisoner ; 
 though the mention of the particular period suggests that a 
 different condition of things supervened at the end of it, in 
 which case the release, and visit to Spain, would follow at this 
 point. [See for the rest of St. Paul’s life, supra, pp. 420» 421.) 
 
 Thus the second portion of the Acts, from the 
 beginning of the Ist M.J. (137-28*), covers a period 
 of fourteen years, certainly not less, and appar- 
 ently not more; and if the starting-point was 
 cightly placed in A.D. 47, the fourteen years will 
 come to an end in A.D. 61. 
 
 (B) The Epistles of St. Paul. 
 
 Of these the Pastoral Epistles fall outside the. 
 Acts, and have been dealt with already (p. 421). 
 The two to the Thess. were written in the company 
 of Silas and Timothy, the first not long after 
 leaving Athens, 1 Th 1 312-6 2 Th 1; that is to 
 say, during the long stay at Corinth on the 2nd 
 Mi. A.D. 51 (50-52). The two to the Cor. fall, the 
 one just before, the other soon after, the depar- 
 ture from Ephesus for Macedonia, towards the end 
 of the 3rd M.J., A.D. 55 (see above, p. 422°), The 
 Epistle to the Rom. belongs to the winter residence 
 at Corinth, A.D. 55-56 (Ro 16! 15%-8=Ac 19%}, 
 The Epistles to Philippi, Ephesus, Colosse, and to | 
 Philemon belong in all probability to the Roman 
 imprisonment, A.D. 59-61. But the one Epistle 
 which contains something of a chronology of St. 
 Paul’s life (Gal 18-2'), the one Epistle which 
 would bring together a point in the second half 
 of the Acts with a point in the first, is also, from 
 the absence of allusions to contemporary history, 
 unfortunately the most difficult to date of all the 
 Epistles, 
 
 Date of the Galatian Epistle.—(i.) Resemblance 
 of style and subject-matter has generally led critics 
 to assign Gal to the second group of Epistles, with 
 1, 2 Co and Ro, or even to a particular place in 
 that group, between 2 Co and Ro (so Lightfoot, 
 Galatians®, pp. 44-56), t.e. on the chronology above 
 adopted, in the latter part of A.D. 55. But perhaps 
 too much stress has been laid on such resemblances 
 taken alone,—as though St. Paul’s history was so 
 strictly uniform that a given topic can only have 
 been handled at a given moment,—and too little on 
 the influence of external circumstances to revive 
 old ideas or call out new ones. Thus the Philippian 
 and Ephesian letters belong to the same period ; 
 but the difference of conditions between the 
 ‘ Asiatic’ province and a Romanized community in 
 Macedonia has produced a marked difference of 
 topics and illustrated a marked progress of 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. eee eet ae NOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 423 
 
 thought. Conversely, Gal and Ro may grapple 
 with “the same problems on the same lines (and yet 
 what an alteration of tone between the two !) with- 
 out being at all nearly synchronous with one 
 another, The Galatian Epistle must be earlier than 
 the Roman, earlier, that is, than A.D. 56; nothing 
 more can be asserted positively, so far. (ii.) At 
 the other end, tle terminus a quo for the Epistle is 
 the Ist M.J.; thus, even if addressed, as is prob- 
 able, to the Churches then founded, it falls after 
 A.D. 48. Further, the phrase in 418 ‘because of 
 weakness of the flesh I preached the gospel to you 
 7d mpbrepoy,’ implies ezther some considerable lapse 
 of years, ‘in the old time,’ or a second visit ‘on 
 the former of my two visits.’ With the first 
 alternative a date as late as A.D. 53-55 is possible ; 
 with the other, the Epistle must fall between the 
 second and third visits, i.e. between the spring of 
 A.D. 50 and the autumn of A.D. 52 (supra, p. 422). 
 
 (Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 189) dates the letter from Antioch 8. 
 immediately before the third visit, and finds a reason for this 
 precision in the assertion that so critical a situation must have 
 called of necessity for a prompt personal inspection; but it 
 might be urged with at least equal reason, from Gal "18 obras 
 taxtes wstariOsots, that the interval after St. Paul’s last visit— 
 whichever that was—had not been a long one.) 
 
 Visits to Jerusalem in the Galatian Epistle.— 
 For the date, then, the years A.D. 50-55 remain 
 open; and therefore St. Paul when he wrote had 
 paid ‘according to the Acts either three visits to 
 Jerus.,—Ac 95-8 after the flight from Damascus, 
 Ac 11®° 12 the contribution for the famine, c. A.D. 
 46, Ac 15**° the apostolic Council, A.D. 49,—or 
 four, adding to the three former Ac 18%, the flying 
 visit at the end of the 2nd M.J., A.D. 52. In the 
 Epistle, on the other hand, two visits only are 
 named, the first a fortnight’s visit to Cephas (Gal 
 ue): the second an official visit of the representa 
 tives of Gentile to the representatives of Jewish 
 Christianity (Gal 21-10), Thus, even if St. Luke’s 
 enumeration is exhaustive, St. Paul omits either 
 one or two visits altogether. But if this seems 
 a difficulty, the solution is simple; St. Paul is 
 enumerating, not his visits to Jerus. per se, but his 
 visits for intercourse with the elder apostles, mpds 
 Tovs mpd éuod dmoorédous (Gal 117), and would necés- 
 sarily omit any visit when they were absent. 
 What, then, of the occasion when the famine con- 
 tribution was brought to Jerusalem? If St. Luke 
 mentions only elders or presbyters as the recipients 
 of the bounty (Ac 11*), the natural, though of 
 course not the only possible, explanation i is that the 
 elders—that is, the local ministry with St. James 
 the Lord’s brother at their head—were by that 
 time the supreme authority. Certain it is that, 
 whether gradually or at some definite moment, 
 the Twelve did’ separate themselves from the 
 Church at Jerus., and became more completely the 
 missionaries which after all their commission from 
 Christ and their very title of ‘apostles’ meant 
 them to be. After the persecution of Herod they 
 are never mentioned at Jerus. save during the 
 Council of ch. 15. Doubtless, they returned from 
 time to time, as opportunity ‘offered, to keep the 
 feasts like other Jews; but neither at St. Paul’s 
 fourth nor at his fifth visit is there the least hint 
 of their presence. [If the ancient tradition that 
 the apostles, according todivine command, remained 
 at Jerus. for twelve years after the Ascension 
 (Predicatio Petri, ap. Clem. Al. Strom. vi. 5; 
 Apollonius a Eus: HE vy. 18: Harnack, o.c. B 
 243; von Do schiitz, Texte u. Unters. xi. 1, pp. 5 
 148) substantially represents historic fact, as ma 
 well be the case, then A.D, 41 or thereabouts will 
 mark their departure.] Here is ample reason for 
 St. Paul’s silence about the visit of Ac 11. 12 and 
 (if the Epistle was written after the summer of 
 A.D. 52) that of Ac 18. Thus the firat visit of Gal 
 
 
 
424 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 —_ 
 
 corresponds with the first of Ac; the second of Ac 
 is. omitted; and the second of Gal answers to the 
 third of Ac (A.D. 49). 
 
 [This connexion of Gal 21-16 with Ac 15 is generally accepted, 
 and a strong argument for it is the common atmosphere of crisis 
 which pervades both narratives, told though they are from 
 different points of view. Ramsay, however (St, Pati, pp. 153- 
 166), strongly maintains that the second visit of Gal can only be 
 the second of Acts. Some of his points have been answered here 
 by anticipation ; some illustrate the micrologie which Harnack, 
 not wholly without cause, attributes to him, e.g., that the same 
 visit oannot be said in St. Paul to have been xara awoxcAnpiy, 
 Gal 22, in St. Luke to have been by commission from the Church 
 of Antioch, as though the Spirit and the Church never spoke in 
 harmony. Very attractive, however, is the identification of St. 
 Paul’s ‘emissaries from James’ (Gal 212 sod idbsiv tiveg and 
 "lexe ov) with St. Luke’s ‘emissaries from Judma’ (Ac 15! sivis 
 xatsAdcvris awd THs “lovdaies), for this would make St. Peter's 
 desertion of the Gentile Christians at Antioch to precede and not 
 to follow his championship of their cause at Jerus., and would be 
 # real point of superiority over the common view that St. Peter 
 and St. James gave a formal pledge of brotherhood, and then 
 violatedit. But this identification of the two Judaizing missions 
 from Jerus. to Antioch may be accepted side by side with the 
 ordinary view that Gal 21f=Ac 15, if Gal. 211-14 be allowed in 
 erder of time ei Gal 21-10, There is nothing like the 
 irura of Gal 118.2) 21 to suggest that the chronological series 
 is continued. On the contrary, St. Paul’s argument may per- 
 haps be best paraphrased as follows: ‘I have not received my 
 gospel from the elder apostles, I went up to their headquarters 
 at Jerus., not on my conversion, but first at an interval of 8 
 years, and then at one of 14; the first a private visit, the second 
 an Official one, when I treated with them, and was recognized 
 by them, on equal terms, So far from simply submitting to 
 them, I once publicly rebuked their chief on the occasion when 
 he was on my ground at Antioch, and backed out of his own 
 liberal principles under pressure from representatives of James.’ 
 If this interpretation be correct, Rameay has failed indeed 
 to prove his wain point, but has shown the way to a subsidiary 
 rearrangement of much importance. The dispute at Antioch 
 may then be placed in the winter (a.D. 48-49) before the Council, 
 at which St. Peter ‘employs to others the argument that had 
 convinced himself,’] 
 
 Date of St. Pauls Conversion.—The second visit 
 of Galatians being thus identified with the Council, 
 the date has already been fixed asin all probability 
 A.D. 49 (above, p. 422"); and this visit itself was 
 ‘at an interval of 14 years’ (did dexarecodpwr érdv, 
 Gal 2'), while the first visit was ‘3 years after’ the 
 conversion (sera rpla érn, Gal 138). But are the 14 
 years of the second visit also to be reckoned from 
 the conversion (11 years, therefore, from the first 
 visit), with Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 382, or from the 
 first visit (17 from the conversion), with Lightfoot, 
 ad loc.? The Greek suits either alternative; the 
 argument favours the former, for St. Paul would 
 naturally state the intervals at the highest possible 
 figure. The first of the synchronisms established 
 above (p. 416*) gives weight to the same side ; when 
 St. Paul came to Jerus. on his first visit, he had 
 just fled from the ethnarch of Aretas at Damascus 
 (2 Co 1184= Ac 9%. *), and Aretas probably did not 
 become master of Damascus till A.D, 37. But the 
 addition of the 3 to the 14 years would throw 
 back the first visit to A.D. 35-36, probably beyond 
 the time of Aretas, and the conversion to A.D. 32-33, 
 whereas the inclusion of the 3 in the 14 would put 
 the conversion in A.D. 35-36, and the first visit 
 under Aretas in A.D. 38. 
 
 (C) The first half of the Acts: chs. 1-12. 
 
 Thus, from the dates established in the second 
 lialf of the Acts, it is possible, by means of the 
 Epistles, to argue back to the first half of the 
 Acts and to reach two rough dates for the con- 
 version of St. Paul (Ac 9)*-), a.p. 35-36, and for 
 his first visit to Jerus. (Ac 9”), A.D. 38. It re- 
 mains only to adjust, by the help of these points, 
 the division into periods (see p. 421), which is the 
 single hint at a chronology supplied by St. Luke 
 in the earlier part of his work. St. Paul’s con- 
 version apparently followed not very long after 
 8t. Stephen’s martyrdom, and that, in turn, is the 
 first event recorded in the 2nd section of the 
 Acts (9! 8° 67°), The first period, of relatively 
 undisturbed progress will then end about A.D. 35, 
 having covered six years-from A.D. 29. The second 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 
 
 period, marking a commencement, but only a com- 
 mencement, of conflict, begins in A.D. 35, and the 
 last event mentioned in it is St. Paul’s first visit 
 to Jerus., A.D. 38; but the eful development 
 implied in the summary of this perio (981) justi- 
 fies, perhaps, the extension of the period as far 
 as A.D. 39-40. The third period ends with the 
 record of advance in 12%, after the death of Herod 
 in A.D. 44, and before St. Paul’s second visit (at 
 any rate before its conclusion) at the time of the 
 famine in A.D. 46, and lasts altogether from 
 A.D. 39-40 to, say, A.D. 45. That the chronology 
 here adopted results in a more or less even division 
 of periods—i. from A.D. 29; ii. from A.D. 35; 
 iii. from A.D. 39-40; iv. from A.D. 45-46; v. from 
 A.D. 50; vi. from A.D. 55 (to A.D. 61)—such as St. 
 Luke seems to be contemplating, must be con- 
 sidered a slight step towards its verification. On 
 the other hand, Harnack’s chronology, which puts 
 St. Paul’s conversion in the same year as the 
 Crucifixion, or, at latest, in the following, allotting 
 even in the latter case no more than about 18 
 months to Ac ]-9}8, neglects these period-divisions 
 altogether. 
 
 Conclusion.—This article may be concluded by 
 & comparison of the dates here adopted (col. ii.) 
 
 ‘with schemes preferred by three representative 
 
 writers—Harnack (col. i.), who throws everything 
 early ; Lightfoot (col. iv.), who throws all the 
 latter part late; and Ramsay (col. iii.), who in- 
 vestigates independently, but is nearer to Light- 
 foot than to Harnack. 
 
 Crucifixion . . 
 
 St Paul’s conversion 
 
 Ist visit to Jerus. 
 
 2nd ow " 
 
 Ist M.J. 5 ° . 
 
 Council at Jerus., 2nd M.J.. 
 
 Corinth reached late in : 
 
 4th visit to Jerus., 8rd M.J. 
 
 Ephesus left . . > ° 
 
 5th visit to Jerus., arrest at 
 
 Pentecost . ° . 
 
 Rome reached early in, 
 
 Acts closesearlyin . 
 
 St. Peter’s martyrdom, 
 
 8t. Paul’s martyrdom , . 
 
 If these several schemes are brought to the test 
 of agreement with the ten results established on 
 a balance of probabilities in the first half of this 
 article, it follows with regard to each in turn— 
 
 1, That certainly Harnack (A.D. 33), and prob- 
 ably Ramsay (A.D. 35-36), put St. Paul’s first visit 
 to Jerus., and therefore his flight from Damascus, 
 earlier than it seems that Aretas can have ob- 
 tained possession of the latter city. 
 
 2. That for the death of Herod Agrippa 1., 
 A.D. 44 is accepted in all schemes. 
 
 3. That Harnack, at least, yee the return from 
 the second or famine visit to Jerus. [A.D. 44 7] con- 
 siderably before the famine can have begun. 
 
 4. That no scheme puts the lst M.J. and visit 
 to Cyprus (A.D. 45, 47, 48) in either of the two 
 years which are impossible for Sergius Paulus’ 
 por eraee te. 
 
 5. That all schemes bring St. Paul to Corinth 
 (autumn of A.D. 48, of 50, of 51, of 52) under 
 Claudius; but that if Orosius’ date for the expul- 
 sion of the Jews from Rome (A.D. 49-50) is correct, 
 then, since Aquila’s arrival inined ost 
 St. Paul’s (Ac 18? rpoogdrws é\n\vd0ra), Harnack’s 
 date is certainly too early; Lightfoot’s certainly, 
 and Ramsay’s possibly, too late. 
 
 6. That all schemes make St. Paul appear before 
 Gallio at Corinth (A.D. 49-50, 51-52, 52-53, 53-54) 
 in a possible year for the latter’s proconsulship ; 
 but that the earliest of these years, Harnack’s, 
 is not a likely one. 
 
 7. That, in the same way, Harnack’s scheme 
 makes St. Paul appear before. Felix and his wife 
 
 
 

 
 CHURCH 
 
 
 
 CHURCH 425 
 
 
 
 Drusilla at Ceesarea (A.D. 54), in the earliest pos- 
 sible + a of the marriage. 
 
 8. That Harnack puts the recall of Felix and 
 arrival of Festus too early (A.D. 56) to suit the 
 evidence of Josephus, just as Lightfoot puts it too 
 late (A.D. 60) to suit the evidence of Tacitus, and 
 that a date equally distant from these two (A.D. 
 58) is aoe s best of all. 
 
 9. That Harnack’s year for St. Paul’s arrest 
 (A.D. 54), and still more Lightfoot’s (A.D. 58), are 
 less easy to reconcile with the chronology of the 
 passover at Philippi than A.D. 56 or 57. 
 
 10. That Lightfoot’s year, and, to a less extent, 
 Ramsay’s year, for the release of St. Paul from the 
 first Roman captivity, are diflicult to reconcile with 
 his martyrdom in A.D. 64-65. 
 
 The evidence from these synchronisms, taken 
 individually, does not pretend to amount to 
 demonstrative proof; but the whole of Harnack’s 
 scheme, and all the latter part of Lightfoot’s, 
 appear to contradict them at too many points 
 to be entertained. Of the other two, RKamsay’s 
 is perhaps nowhere superior, and at several points 
 inferior, to that of the present article, which is 
 recommended as a consistent and fairly satis- 
 factory harmonization of a good many results 
 which, like the sticks in the faggot, are separately 
 weak, but together strong. 
 
 LrrzRaTurE. — The received view depends on Wieseler’s 
 Chronol. d. apost, Zeitalters, 1848. The English reader may 
 find it expounded in Venables’ tr. of Wieseler, in Lewin’s Fastt 
 Sacri, 1865, or in Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, pp. 216-233, 
 
 sthumously printed from notes of a course of lectures de- 
 ivered in 1863, but seeming, in essentials, to represent his 
 latest views. Most recent English writers had gepepted this 
 chronology without question, until Ramsay, St. Paul the 
 Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1895 (see also for some 
 
 ints his Church in the Roman Empire, 1893), subjected it 
 G partial re-examination and restatement. His main con- 
 tention, the identification of the visits of Gal 21-10 and Ac 12%, 
 bas not met, and is perhaps not likely to meet, with much 
 acceptance; but in spite of this, and in spite of an unneces- 
 sarily dogmatic tone, his contribution to the subject is a real 
 and substantial one, and the present article is very much more 
 indebted to him than to any other writer. German books have 
 in the main acquiesced in Wieseler’s resulta, ¢.g. Schurer’s 
 invaluable Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes tm Zeitalter Jesu 
 Christi, ed. 2, 1886-1890. Some Roman Catholic writers, in- 
 deed, clung to the system which throws back the chronology 
 of St. Pauls later life by four or five years behind Wieseler’s ; 
 and these have been now reinforced by Blass, Acta A posto- 
 lorum, 1895, pp. 21-24, who does not commit himself beyond 
 a trenchant criticism of the received view, and by Harnack, 
 Chronol. d. altchristl. Litteratur bis Eusebius, i. 1897, pp. 233-244, 
 whose adhesion is thoroughgoing, though his treatment of the 
 evidence is unequal and unsatisfactory. C, H. TURNER. 
 
 CHURCH (éxxdyola).—For the history of the 
 word éxxAyola and its relation to such Heb. terms 
 as $72 and nyy, see art. CONGREGATION. 
 
 In the present art. we shall discusa— 
 
 I. DerInimion OF CHURCH IN NT. 
 II. Te Actua Cuurcu. 
 (A) Conditions of Membership. 
 (B) The Life of the Church. 
 i. The Public Worship. 
 ii. Christian Rule of Conduct. 
 (C) The Single Community. Its Functions and Organi- 
 
 zation. 
 (D) The whole Church. 
 
 IM. Tue Ipkau Cuurce. 
 
 I, DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH IN NT. — 
 "Exadqola is used in NT of a single community of 
 Christians, or of the sum of the single communi- 
 ties, the whole body of Christians. In the last 
 sense, two points of view are possible, and both 
 are found in NT. We may think of the Church 
 as an ‘empiric matter of fact,’ 7.e. as a collection 
 of individuals, the actual Church, or we ma 
 cease to think of the Church as a noun of mul- 
 titude and regard it as a single individual entity, 
 the ideal Church. The second point of view is 
 closely related to the first. If we ask what is in 
 
 the minds of the writers in this usage, we find 
 that ultimately they are thinking, not of a single 
 
 entity, but of a collection of individuals. So 
 when St. Paul says the Church is the ‘ body’ or 
 ‘bride’ of Christ, he is really expressing under 
 the figure of a single entity, the Church, the 
 relation in which Christ stands to the individual 
 members. There is, however, a real difference be- 
 tween the conception of actual and ideal Church 
 in two respects. (1) The conception of the actual 
 Church regards it as it really is, t.e. a body of indi- 
 viduals of various degrees of imperfection ; while the 
 teal Church isa body whose members represent the 
 ideal of membership, i.e. it is a perfect Church, or 
 at least one free from the negative aspect of evil. 
 (2) The actual Church is composed of the members 
 who are still alive and in the world at thie time of 
 speaking; while the conception of the ideal Church 
 does not denote a definite number of members at 
 a definite time, but implies a membership inde- 
 pendent of time. The latter is, in fact, an ideal, 
 not an empirical, body. Hence it splits off from 
 the later conception oh ihe ‘invisible’ Church, i.e. 
 the Church as composed of all its members, dead 
 and living; for it refers neither to dead nor living 
 Christians, but to an indefinite body of members 
 belonging to no time, present, past, or future, 
 because it is a timeless feet conception. 
 
 The conception of the Church in NT stands in so close a 
 relation to two other conceptions, viz. the ‘people of Israel’ 
 and the ‘kingdom of God,’ that it is necessary here to say 
 something as to the connexion between these ideas. 
 
 (a) The Church and the People of Israel.—The Jewish nation, 
 by the crucifixion of the Messiah, brought down upon them- 
 selves their final and irrevocable rejection. Jews were called 
 upon to save themselves from ‘this crooked generation’ (Ac 24%), 
 Since Christ came there was ‘none other name under heaven 
 which is given among men wherein we must be saved’ (412), 
 It was no longer enough to live after Moses; it was only 
 by accepting the baptism of Christ that the Jew could obtain 
 remission of sins. But at the outset the Christian still remained 
 a Jew. His new profession did not absolve bim from the law 
 and the institutions of Moses. So the Church starts as a society 
 within the Jewish nation. The distinction is already to hand 
 between the actual Isr. and the true people of God. The be- 
 lievers are the ‘remnant’ (cf. Ro 11) in the actual Israel, which 
 is the preparation for the restored and perfected Isr. of the 
 prophets. The Christ, who has already once appeared, is 
 waiting for ‘Israel’ to repent and believe on Him, that He 
 may come again and all things be restored (Ac 319-21 631), All 
 that do not accept Him shall be utterly destroyed from among 
 the people (3%). Here, then, we see the Church identified with 
 the people of Israel, but distinguished, on the one hand, froin 
 the existing Jewish nation, and, on the other, from the restored 
 Isr. of prophecy. The ‘second coming’ is to see the identifi- 
 cation of the actual with the ideal Isr., by the incorporation of 
 those who believe on Christ with the latter, and the destruction 
 of the unbelievers. So in the Messianic age, Church and ideal 
 Isr. and actual Isr. will be one and the same, but at present 
 they are distinguished. It was necessary, however, that this 
 view should be modified when the admission of Gentiles was 
 permitted without demanding circumcision from them. The 
 previous conception of the Church and of the future restored 
 Isr. was confined to the exclusively national ideals of Jewish 
 tradition. It did not travel beyond the ‘Israel after the flesh.’ 
 In the Pauline conception, however, the Church is still regarded 
 as the chosen folk, but a distinction appears between Isr. ‘after 
 the flesh’ (1 Co 1018) and the ‘Isr. of God’ (Gal 616), God has 
 taken from the heathen a ‘people for his name’ (Ac 1514), and 
 in this new Isr. ‘they are not all Isr. which are of Isr.’ (Ro 9). 
 The faithful remnant within Isr., which before was identified 
 with the Church, is now but a small part of it. The ‘oracles of 
 God’ are no longer entrusted to the Jewish nation, for the 
 Christians have succeeded the Jews as the vehicles of inspiration 
 (Eph 35, He 1.2, cf. with 23.4). The Church, then, stands over 
 against the actual Isr, as a non-Jewish spiritual Israel. In the 
 picture of Ro 111824, the Church is an olive tree in which the 
 
 atriarchs are the ‘root,’ the unbelieving Jews are rejected 
 
 ranches, and the Gentiles new branches grafted in from the 
 wild olive. At the same time, to the Jewish and primitive 
 Christian, belief in a restoration of the natura) Isr. to the posi- 
 tion of a world-subduing kingdom (cf. Ac 18) succeeds the idea 
 of the kingdom of God as Christ Himself conceived it, t.e. the 
 universal rule of Christian principles, a cosmopolitan instead 
 of a national conception. 
 
 (b) The Church and the Kingdom (of Heaven) of God.—The 
 fundamental conception underlying the various meanings of 
 the kingdom of God is that of the say Ar (Baoirtin) of God 
 or Christ. Bagss‘e in Greek was a word with a wider range of 
 significance than we generally attach to the En 
 dom,’ and the shades of meaning which it bore determine also 
 the different conceptions of the kingdom of beaven. We have 
 thus («) the abstract sense of Baoisic, t.e. those moral and 
 spiritual qualities which are in consonance with the will of 
 
 . word ‘king- 
 
 
 
426 CHURCH 
 
 God. It is thus that St. Paul says, ‘the kingdom of Godis. . 
 
 righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost’ (Ro 1417); 
 or that Christ compares it to the hid treasure and the pearl of 
 great price (Mt 134-46); or that He says, ‘Seek ye first his 
 kingdom and his righteousness’ (Mt 633, Lk 1231), ‘The k. 
 
 of God is within you’ (Lk 1721), It is probably also used in this 
 
 sense in the expressions, ‘the glad tidings (or the gospel) of 
 the kingdom’ (Mt 423, Lk 8! etc.), ‘to preach the kingdom’ 
 
 (Lk 443, Ac 2025 etc.). (6) In a concrete sense the establishing 
 of such a rule considered as an event. We have here two 
 points of view from which such an event might be considered. 
 
 (1) As soon as Christ’s teaching found disciples, the kingdom 
 was already established ; or if we regard the miraculous power 
 of Christ over nature, we alent say with Him, ‘if I by the 
 spirit of God cast out devils, then is the k. of God come upon 
 you’ (Mt 1228, cf. Lk 1120), From the point of view of the 
 kingdom already established, it is compared to the rapid growth 
 of a mustard tree (Mt 1381-32), or leaven spreading through 
 meal (7b. 33), (2) A future establishment of the kingdom. This 
 idea is especially connected with the second coming of Christ 
 ‘with the angels of his power, in flaming fire’ (2 Th 18, cf 
 ib, 5.810), the establishment of the kingdom in power (cf. 
 
 Mt 32 610, Lk 1720, 1 Co 1550-54), A third but rare use is (3) the 
 present rule of God in heaven (2 Ti 418, cf. Lk 2342.43, Jn 1836), 
 
 (y) BaosAsia = sphere of rule, not so much local, as in the 
 prevailing use of ‘kingdom,’ but in the sense of the society or 
 community over which the rule extends. This meaning has 
 also two variations corresponding to the first two meanings 
 of (6). They are (1) the actual society of professing Christians, 
 peeing good and bad members: so in Parables of the Tares 
 Mt 1324-30), the Draw-net (ib. 47-50), and the Wedding Garment 
 (ib. 221-13), but always with a reference to (2) the blessed society 
 of those who are admitted to the kingdom at the second coming, 
 when it is established with power in its perfection. As the 
 society of the blessed, to be rejected from which is eternal 
 misery, its membership is the reward of faithful service; cf. 
 
 the expressions, ‘Theirs is the k. of heaven’ (Mt 53-10, cf. 
 Lk 620), ‘to enter into, to inherit the k.’ (Mt 520, Ac 1422, 
 Gal 521, Col 113, and many other places). 
 
 Of these meanings ixxAnci« coincides only with the last. It 
 does not per se connote any moral or spiritual qualities, e.g. we 
 would not say, ‘The Church is righteousness and peace and 
 oy,’ etc. Nor could we use the word txxaycie of anevent. It 
 ig properly a collective noun, denoting the people of God. Even 
 when it is spoken of ideally or as a person, the fundamental 
 meaning is still that of God's folk.* The ‘kingdom of God’ 
 is then a very much wider conception than ‘Church.’ Where 
 the two occur side by side (Mt 1618), the ‘kingdom’ appears 
 as the future and heavenly counterpart of the Church. The 
 ‘bindings’ and ‘loosings’ of the latter shall be counted valid 
 in the former ; cf. the words ‘on earth’ (=Ohurch), ‘in heaven’ 
 (=kingdom), 1b. 19 1818, cf. Jn 2023. 
 
 Il. THe ActuaL CHURCH is the society of 
 Christians, or a part of it. 
 
 (A) Membership.—The necessary qualifications 
 for membership were repentance of former sins and 
 submission to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ 
 (Ac 28), which carried with it the demand of faith 
 in Christ. The privileges of membership acquired 
 at baptism were : (1) The Christian became recon- 
 ciled with God through appropriating to himself 
 Christ’s satisfaction for sin (Ro 5! 647, Col 17-2), 
 His past life of sin no longer stood against him in 
 his account with God. He was justified. (2) He 
 was sanctified, and henceforth was called ‘holy’ 
 (dyos), because he belonged to God by the conse- 
 eration of baptism (1 Co 6"). (38) He received the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost (Ac 2%) as a supernatural 
 power within him. (4) He was admitted to the com- 
 mon life and sacraments of the Christian brother- 
 hood. On his part, in turn, he was bound, so far 
 as he could, to live up to the high standard of 
 that life, ‘to put on the new man, which after God 
 hath been created in righteousness and holiness of 
 truth’ (Eph 4%). 
 
 (B) The Life of the Church.—The new life, to 
 which the convert was introduced by his baptism, 
 was the practical expression of the relation in 
 which he stood to God as a member of His ‘people.’ 
 His life was henceforth given up to the service of 
 God. And that service was the worship of God 
 in the public gatherings of worship and in the 
 holiness of his private life. So we may consider 
 the life of the Church under these two aspects: 
 (1) the public worship, (2) the Christian conduct. 
 
 * He 1233 wavnyipss xed ixxAngcia xpwtoroxwy is not to the point 
 as an instance of a distinctively Christian usage of txxaAyoin. 
 It is plain from the connexion with ravnyipu that txxAyoa is 
 used here in a quite general meaning, ‘assembly,’ without refer- 
 ence to ite technical Ohristian significance. 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 i. The Public Worship. 
 
 This subject divides itself into two branches: (1 
 Occasional ceremonies. These were the rites of 
 baptism and ordination. We hear nothing of special 
 forms of service in connexion with marriage or 
 burial. (2) Ordinary services. These were also of 
 two kinds: (a) a public (i.e. not confined to Chris- 
 tians) service, which was of a didactic (‘ edification,’ 
 1 Co 14%) and missionary character; (6) the 
 ‘breaking of the bread,’ a private (t.e. confined 
 to Christians) act of worship. 
 (1) Occasional Ceremonies.—(a@) Baptism was the 
 ite by which the convert was formally admitted 
 as a member of the Church (Ac 2). It was 
 therefore (Mt 28!) to be administered to every 
 Christian without exception. St. Paul always 
 takes it for granted that his hearers have been 
 baptized (e.g. Ac 19%, Rv 68, Col 24-14). It is indeed 
 regarded as necessary for salvation that a man 
 should have undergone this ceremony (Jn 35), which 
 saves the Christian as the ark saved Noah (1 P 
 3% 21), At the same time, it is never regarded as 
 a merely mechanical means of salvation, but is 
 contrasted with circumcision by its spiritual 
 significance (Col 21-1"), and the subjective element 
 (i.e. faith and a good conscience) is insisted upon 
 as the necessary accompaniment of the ceremonial 
 act, if the receiver would obtain its advantages 
 (1 P 37). The ritual of baptism consisted of an 
 immersion of the baptized person in water (Mt 3°, 
 Mk 1”, Ac 8). The baptizer accompanied the act 
 with the formula ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ 
 (Ac 238 816 1048 19°, cf. Ja 27), or more fully ‘in the 
 name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
 Ghost’ (Mt 28, Didache 7). No limitations are 
 expressly mentioned in NT which forbid us to 
 suppose that the right to baptize did not belong to 
 every Christian, but as a matter of fact we find no 
 instances of persons baptizing except those with 
 some sort of recognized position of authority. Our 
 Lord (Jn 4*) and the apostles (Ac 10, 1 Co 1”) 
 generally avoided baptizing in person, and relegated 
 the duty to helpers and assistants. See BAPTISM. 
 (6) Ordination.—Every Christian had a charisma 
 (=gift, talent), the nature and degree of which 
 determined his position and duties in the com- 
 munity. But while the charisma in most cases is 
 considered as coming direct from the Hey Ghost 
 to the individual at the time of or after his 
 baptism, without any further human agency, in 
 some instances a charisma was bestowed through 
 the ‘laying on of hands.’ The ‘laying on of hands’ 
 in OT was the symbolic act of conveying a gift (as 
 in blessing Gn 48, appointing to office Nu 27%) or 
 a curse (as the scapegoat Lv 167). In the case of 
 our Lord the ‘laying on of hands’ was es ecially 
 attached to the miracles of healing (e.g. Mt ee 
 Mk 5” etce.), and He left to His disciples the power 
 of healing through the same act (Mk 16%). In the 
 apostolic age it is also found in connexion with 
 healing (Ac 9). 17288), It thus had the significance 
 of a miraculous power. In the passages where it 
 is mentioned as an accompanying or supplementary 
 ceremony to baptism, the miraculous gift of the 
 Holy Ghost attends its employment (cf. Ac 8° did, 
 i.e. the ‘laying on of hands’ is the instrument b 
 which the Holy Ghost was given in this instaness 
 and is contrasted with the ordinary gift of the 
 Holy Ghost through baptism. So, too, when & 
 man was to be ‘set apart’ for a particular work, 
 he receives a special ‘gift’ for its performance 
 through the ‘laying on of hands.’ This is especially 
 mentioned of the Seven (Ac 68), the mission of 
 Barnabas and Saul (Ac 13%), and the work of 
 Timothy at Ephesus (1 Ti 4", 2 Til®), and it appears 
 in the Pastoral Epp. as the regular form of ordain. 
 ing a bishop or deacon (1 Ti 5”). It was accom. 
 
 
 
CHURCH 
 
 Cee by prayer (Ac 6° 13*) and fasting (13%). We 
 d the ‘laying on of hands’ performed by apostles 
 (Ac 6° 87 19°, 2Ti 15), by an ordinary disciple at 
 the command of the Holy Ghost (Ac 9! 17), by the 
 prophets and teachers at Antioch under similar 
 circumstances (ib. 13°), by the presbytery at 
 Ephesus (1 Ti 4). 
 
 (2) The Regular Worship.—We turn now to the 
 regular services of the early Christian Church. 
 At the first the community met for the purpose of 
 worship daily (Ac 1" 2"), and we find no intimation 
 or allusion that any day was marked with more 
 solemnity than the others. But ata later period 
 the ‘first day of the week’ is singled out from the 
 rest and observed with especial honour. The first 
 occasion on which we meet with this is in 1 Co 16? 
 ‘upon the first day of the week let each one of you 
 lay by him in store’ his contribution to the collec- 
 tion. Then Ac 20’ we notice the disciples of Troas 
 patiered bopceet on the first day of the week to 
 
 reak bread. By themselves these two instances 
 could not be pressed. But in Rev 1 there isa 
 mention of ‘the Lord’s day,’ rp xupiaxy juepg, Which 
 appears as xupiax) xvplov in the Didache 14', and as 
 xupiaxh simply in Ignatius (ad Mag. ix. 1). These 
 ait hang together with the fact recorded by all the 
 evangelists that on the first day of the week Christ 
 rose from the dead (Mt 281, Mk 16%, Lk 241, Jn 
 201). The resurrection of Christ was the foundation 
 of Christian hope (1 Co 15!7-), and therefore the 
 day of the resurrection was par excellence the 
 Lord’s day (see Ignatius, Joc. cit., Ep. Barn. 15), 
 and when it became impracticable for the ‘breaking 
 of the bread’ to be celebrated daily, it was cele- 
 brated with careful regularity on this day (Did. 14}; 
 Pliny, gre: x. 96, ‘stato die convenire’). To what 
 
 Poe te this practice goes back in Christian 
 istory we cannot say. St. Paul (Ro 14°) speaks 
 
 of those who esteem one day above another, and 
 those who esteem every day alike, but he is here 
 robably referring to the Jewish Sabbath. The 
 5 ewish Christians themselves observed theSabbath, 
 and some attempted to force its observance upon 
 the Gentiles (Gal 4!, Col 2°), But the Sabbath 
 and method of its observance are especially dis- 
 tinguished from the Lord’s day [cf. Ign. Joc. cit. 
 ‘no longer sabbatizing (caBfarltorres), but living 
 according to the Lord’s day,’ and Ep. Barn. Joc. cit. 
 Sabbaths are not pening to God, ‘ therefore we 
 observe the eighth day for rejoicing’). On the early 
 history of the Christian Sunday, see esp. T. Zahn, 
 Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, cap. vi. 
 
 Of the existence of yearly festivals we have no 
 intimation at all in NT. The Jewish Christians 
 still observed the Jewish feasts (Ac 2! 20!%, 1 Co 
 168). There is no allusion in 1 Co 57° (‘ Our pass- 
 over also hath been sacrificed, even Christ, where- 
 fore let us keep the feast,’ etc.) to the observance 
 of Easter. The context shows that the apostle is 
 not speaking literally. The starting-point of his 
 theme is the comparison of the Church to a ‘new 
 lump’ from which the old leaven has been purged 
 out. ‘We, too,’ he says, ‘as well as the Jews, 
 have a Passover lamb; therefore let us keep the 
 feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity 
 and truth.’ His imagery is borrowed from the 
 distinctively Jewish passover, but the lesson drawn 
 applies to the whole Christian life, not to an 
 special occasion—é¢oprd{wyev is rather ‘ keep festival’ 
 thax ‘keep the feast.’ It is noticeable, however, 
 that in the later Paschal controversy both parties 
 referred to apostolic usage (see Eus. HZ v. 23, 24), 
 in view of which we are not justified in drawing 
 an argument from silence against the apostolic 
 foundation of the Easter festival, and the exact 
 date of its institution must be left an open 
 question. 
 
 Tn 1 Co we find that St. Paul presents to usa 
 
 CHURCH 427 
 picture of two kinds of Christian worship. In en. 
 14 is described a meeting whose chief aim is mutual 
 edification ; in 117-4 one of a very diflerent char- 
 acter and ceremonial, the purpose of which is to 
 feat the Lord’s Supper’ (kupiaxdy Setrvov), In the 
 saine way two kinds of religious observance are 
 distinguished in the account of the primitive Church 
 (Ac 2”), ‘the breaking of bread and the prayers.’ 
 It is not quite certain whether rats rpocevxais here 
 refers to the public prayers in the temple which 
 the Christians attended (e.g. 3), or tu the meetings 
 of the community ; but as the writer is describing 
 the salient elements distinctive of the Christian 
 life, the latter has a slight balance in its favour. 
 In any case there is abundant evidence (e.g. Ac 14 
 24. 46. 47 424% 31 etc.) that the Christians at this time 
 held assemblies for worship distinct from the 
 ‘ breaking of the bread.’ 
 
 This distinctively Christian worship was not 
 held to take the place of the temple services, which 
 were attended with scrupulous regularity (Ac 3}). 
 Neither—and this, of course, refers not only to the 
 first days of Christianity—did it take the place of 
 pera private prayer (cf. Ac 10° 16”, Eph 6}, 
 
 14), 
 
 (a) The public service. —The purpose of this 
 service was before all things edification, and this not 
 only for those who were already believers, but also 
 for unbelievers. It had, then, a missionary aspect, 
 and for this purpose was made as public and open 
 as possible. At Jerus. it took place especially in 
 the temple as long as this was permitted (Ac 2% 34 
 5%), or in some public place (Ac 24, ef.*). Un- 
 believers were welcome to attend and listen (1 Co 
 14), Every Christian had received the Holy 
 Ghost and a ‘gift’ as the ‘manifestation of the 
 Spirit’ within him (see 1 Co 127). Whatever was 
 the gift he | asaen eo he was bound to put it at the 
 service of the community and use it in harmonious 
 working with the whole (ib.%%). But if we look 
 through the lists of gifts in Ro 12%, 1 Co 12°". we 
 see that there are some (e.g. miracles, healings) 
 which would not qualify their possessors to contri- 
 bute to the worship of the community. So we find 
 a distinction drawn in 1 P 4’ between the gifts 
 of speaking and the gifts of ministering (diacovety= 
 contributing by personal help or offerings to the 
 common support). To the former it fell to take 
 part in the public worship. St. Paul mentions 
 (1 Co 14%) as constituent elements of this service ‘a 
 
 salm,’ ‘a teaching,’ ‘a revelation,’ ‘a tongue,’ ‘an 
 interpretation.” The division is not a rigid one: 
 a ‘psalm’ might be also a ‘tongue’ (cf. 1b."°). Nor 
 is the enumeration exhaustive; prayer is not in- 
 eluded, though it formed an integral part of the 
 service (cf. 114). We may then, perhaps, divide as 
 follows : (a) teaching, (8) prayer, (y) praise. 
 
 («) Teaching.—We are only considering here the place 
 occupied by teaching in the services. We must treat later of 
 the wider question of teaching in general. A discourse formed 
 part of the service in the Jewish synagogue where it was con- 
 nected with the reading of an appointed portion of the OT 
 Scriptures (Lk 420f-, Ac 1315; see Vitringa, de Syn. Vet. Bk. m. 
 pt. i. c. 5, pt. ii. c. 12; Schtirer, HJP, § 27). We have several 
 instances of discourses in the Christian services (e.g Ac 207), 
 and there is no doubt the ‘teaching’ in these assemblies took 
 the form of one or more discourses. But the question of public 
 reading is not quite so obvious. It is, however, on @ priori 
 grounds quite probable in itself, and is supported by certain 
 supposed allusions in NT. Thus Timothy is told (1 Ti 418) to 
 ‘give heed to reading, to exhortation, and to teaching’, and the 
 writer of the Apoc. alludes to the arrangements for the public 
 reading of his book (Rev 1%, cf. Col 416). Somewhat later there 
 arose a separate office called that of the ‘reader,’ whose duty it 
 was to read in the public services (see Harnack, Die sog. apost 
 Kirchenordnung, ‘Texte u. Unt.’ Bd. ii. Hft. 5). 
 
 (8) Prayer was made standing (Mk 115) or kneeling (Ac 2034 215) 
 with uplifted hands (1 Ti 28). Even if the words of the prayer 
 were uttered by one person only, the prayer was regarded as 
 that of the whole congregation. Thus in Ac 424-80 the prayer is 
 
 iven verbally, but is ascribed to the whole assembly éuobinater 
 
 pov Gavi» xpos Tov Osov xox) elwor, We must not press this too 
 literally, as if all actually spoke in the words given. It may 
 
 
 
428 CHURCH 
 
 mean that they followed it, and by their ‘amen’ at the end 
 identified themselves with the speaker; or perhaps they 
 repeated his words audibly after him ; cf. Ac 2036 ¢ty waouy abroig 
 wpornigaro. All prayer did not, however, consist of definite 
 1anguage. The indistinguishable ‘glossolalia’ comprised prayer 
 as well as praise (1 Co 1414), and such ‘prayer with the spirit’ 
 was incomprehensible, both to the speaker and to the hearers, 
 unless it were interpreted by one who had the gift of interpret- 
 ing tongues. The object of the prayers would vary with the 
 occasion. The necessity of the moment supplied the Church 
 with the material for its daily supplications (cf. Ac 125). We 
 find, however, in addition to these occasional topics, injunctions 
 to establish certain prayers as a permanent part of the worship. 
 Such were prayers for the advance of the gospel preachin; 
 through the apostle (Ro 150, Eph 618, Col 43, 2 Th 3!, cf. 1 Th 517, 
 He 1318) ; prayers for the civil rulers and all men (1 Ti 2!) ; prayers 
 tor erring members (Ja 516, 1 Jn 616), But no special form of prayer 
 is laid down to be followed. Of a formulated liturgy of prayer we 
 find as yet no signs, but there are expressions in NT which bear 
 the appearance of more or less stereotyped formula. Such are 
 especially (1) the form of salutation, ‘Grace to you (and mercy) 
 and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,’ 
 which occurs with variations in the opening of all the Pauline 
 Epp., and also of 1 P, 2 P, 2 Jn, Jude,and Rev: (2) the bene- 
 dictions, ‘The God of peace be with you’ (Ro 1583), * the grace 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you’ (ib. 1620), or the much 
 fuller form, ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
 God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all’ 
 (2 Co 1314). These occur also in similar form at the close of all 
 the Pauline Epp., He, 1 P, and Rev. The form of these opening 
 and concluding prayers is in all cases so much alike, that it may 
 very well represent the prayers of salutation and benediction 
 with which the services were begun and finished, differing 
 verbally in different churches, but agreeing in the main. Their 
 liturgical aspect in NT is heightened by the frequent addition 
 of ‘amen’ (e.g. Ro 1533, Gal 618), The long prayer with which 
 Clement of Rome concludes his Ep. to the Cor., and the set 
 forms of prayer given in the Didache (chs. 9, 10), have a strong 
 affinity with Jewish prayers, which suggests that the Church 
 may have for some time used forms of public prayer borrowed 
 from these sources. 
 
 It is remarkable that, except in the Gospels, we hear nothing 
 in NT of the Lord’s Prayer. It is not quoted at all, nor can 
 we find instances in NT language which can be said to contain 
 any distinct reminiscences of it. But in the Didache(ch. 8) the 
 Christian is commanded to repeat the Lord’s Prayer three times 
 daily, which proves how universal its use became in the sub- 
 apostolic age. 
 
 (y) Praise, i.e. the giving of thanks (siyapersiy), the act of 
 Pleesig (uonerey) of praising (eivay), or of glorifying (30%«%e:v) 
 God. Like prayer, it could be expressed in ordinary language, 
 or in the ‘tongue’ (1 Co 146). (See Tonauzs.) From its more 
 emotional character, it lent itself more to the latter than was 
 the case with prayer. Examples of praise are to be found in 
 the doxologies which occur with great frequency in the Epistles, 
 eg, Ro 95 1625, Gal 15, Eph 320, Ph 420, 1 Ti 117, 2 Ti 418, He 1321, 
 1 P 411 511, 2 P 318, Rev 158, These, again, are given a litur- 
 gical form by the ‘Amen’ which almost invariably follows, but 
 the language is not so stereotyped as in the case of the saluta- 
 tions and benedictions. We see also in sublime outbursts of 
 praise, such as Ro 11%3ff. or the hymns of the Apoc. (¢.g. Rev 411 
 1117 153 etc.), examples of praise in freer and less stereotyped 
 form than in the doxologies. We perceive in them the most 
 intense religious emotion. Language of so sublime and ecstatic 
 strain easily passed into the form of song. The singing of a 
 ‘psalm’ or ‘hymn’ by a member of the congregation was the 
 form which the giving of praise frequently took (Ac 1625, 1 Co 
 1415. 26, Eph 619, Col 316, Ja 613). Specimens of these extempore 
 hymns are preserved in Lk 1 or in Rey (oe, cit.). Possibly, too, 
 in rhythmic passes such as 1 Ti 316, Rev 155-4 are preserved 
 fragments of hymns sung by the whole conerersucn together. 
 As in the case of prayer, the congregation made the ascription 
 of praise a eee | act by saying ‘Amen’ at the close (1 Co 
 1416, Rev 514 194), 
 
 The forms in which the teaching or prayer or praise might be 
 delivered were three. From the prophet it came as a direct 
 revelation from God, with all the force of a verbally inspired 
 message, expressed in ordinary language, and therefore needing 
 no explanation of its meaning. From the speaker in a tongue 
 also it came as an ‘inspired’ utterance (Ac 24 ‘to speak with 
 other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance’), but the lan- 
 guage was incomprehensible to the hearers, and to the speaker 
 
 imself, unless they possessed a further gift, viz. the power to 
 interpret tongues (see 1Co 14). From the others it did not 
 come as an inspired utterance, but the teacher spoke with 
 greater weight and authority, as one who had received, in a 
 special degree, the ‘gift of teaching’ from the Holy Ghost. 
 The ‘teacher,’ by virtue of his gift, ranked higher than the 
 ‘gpazaker in a tongue.’ He stood next to the apostles and 
 lee in the divinely appointed order of the Ohurch 
 1 Co 1228), 
 
 To the necessity whioh &t. Paul felt of correcting certain 
 abuses in the Oor. services we are indebted for an interesting 
 picture of these meetings (1 Co 14255), In their eagerness to 
 exercise the gifts of which they were conscious, the Cor. Chris- 
 tians had made their services scenes of confusion. Members 
 did not wait for one another to finish speaking. If a prophet 
 received a ‘revelation,’ he stood up at once and delivered it 
 while another was still speaking. Again, both the prophets and 
 the ‘speakers in a tongue’ had allowed their enthusiasm to lead 
 them to excess. The prophet unconsciously added a subjective 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 
 
 element to his message. The ‘speaker in a tongue’ indulged 
 his zeal without troubling whether the others understood what 
 he meant. To prevent this confusion, the apostle lays down 
 the following checks : (1) Not more than one tospeak at a time ; 
 each must wait his turn. (2) The one who is speaking to stop 
 if he perceives another waiting to deliver a ‘revelation.’ (3) The 
 ‘speaker in tongues’ is not allowed tospeak unless an interpreter 
 be present, (4) The ‘revelation’ of the prophet is to be checked 
 by those who possess the gift of ‘discerning spirits’ Qsaxpior 
 mvsvcreyv, Cf. 1210), St. Paul does not mention a president in 
 the meetings, and he addresses himself directly to the congrega- 
 tion, as if everything were to be decided at their discretion. 
 But it is almost impossible to suppose that there was no one to 
 direct and manage the gathering, e.g. to appoint the time of 
 meeting, to declare the opening and closing of the service, etc. 
 There ig no doubt that work of this kind is included in the 
 labour of those ‘presidents’ described in 1 Th 612, though we 
 cannot go the length of saying that iv Kup/@ is a special allusion 
 to these services. 
 
 Women were present at the services, and contributed to the 
 posable (1 Co 11%, cf, Ac 219). St. Paul directs that they shall 
 keep their heads covered during worship, while the man shall 
 
 ray with uncovered head (1 Co 114-5). Both at Corinth 
 1 Co 1434) and at Ephesus (1 Ti 211-12) he forbids women to 
 take an active part in the services, and the general language in 
 which he speaks shows that he enforced the same rule in all his 
 churches, 
 
 (6) The ‘breaking of bread.’—The expression 7 
 kAdots rod dprov in Ac 2” refers to something more 
 than an institution of common meals. It is indeed 
 doubtful, in the light of 6'*, whether a system of 
 universal common meals existed at all. But in 
 any case the double repetition of the article 7 kAdous 
 rod dprov would be strange unless the term were 
 technical, and referred to a special breaking of a 
 special bread. And such we find to be the case in 
 1 Co 1016, where the expression ‘the bread which 
 we break’ refers to a religious act, and in 11”, 
 where the eating of the bread forms part of an act 
 of worship called ‘eating the Lord’s Supper,’ and 
 its significance is to ‘proclaim the Lord’s death 
 till he come’ (id. %). From the action of Christ at 
 the institution of this sacrament, the technical 
 name by which it became known was ‘the break- 
 ing of the bread.’ The expression occurs some- 
 times without the article (e.g. Ac 20’, Didache 
 141), where there can be no doubt as to its technical 
 use. In some places (e.g. Ac 2% 27%) it may refer 
 to an ordinary meal. The only other name which 
 is given to it in NT is the Lord’s Supper, 1 Co 11”, 
 which refers, however, to the whole meal of which 
 the xAdo.s Tod dprov was the central act. As early, 
 however, as the Didache (9°) the word evxapioria is 
 used to express the same thing (cf. also Ign. ad 
 Smyrn. ch. 7). 
 
 By its nature this service was of a much more private char- 
 acter than the other. It was not held in public, with free 
 admission for non-members, but restricted to baptized Chris- 
 tians (Didache 95 ‘ Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist save 
 those who are baptized in the name of the Lord’). It was the 
 secrecy with which the Christians shrouded the Eucharist that 
 gave rise to the absurd accusations which were popularly 
 brought against them. At the same time, it seems, when pos- 
 sible, to have been made the occasion of a general meeting of 
 the whole Church, rich and poor (Ac 207, 1 Co 1118. 22. 33), 
 
 The ‘breaking of bread’ ori ras took place daily (246), In 
 the Didache, however, it is enjoined weekly, on the Lord’s day 
 (cf. also Ac 207, 1 Co 162), It was held in the evening, as on the 
 occasion of its institution eae Ac 207ff. and the word 3d¢irver 
 ( gieicrnt meal) in 1 Co 1120.21), The whole ceremony was 
 a ‘remembrance’ of the last supper which Christ ate with His 
 disciples before His death. It was therefore made a common 
 meal, of which the ‘ breaking of the bread’ and the ‘drinking of 
 the cup’ were a part (cf. 1 Co 1120, Didache 101 sa di ro tu 
 xamoOyves). To this common meal each brought his share. Chry- 
 sostom (Hom, 27 in 1 Co11, § 1) says that in place of the original 
 community of goods the Christians ‘observed common meals on 
 appointed days, and having gathered together after sharing the 
 mysteries, they partook of a common feast, the rich bringing 
 the viands, and the poor, who had nothing, being invited by 
 them, and all feasting together.’ The ect of the meal ag 
 an act of love on the part of the rich is supported by the 
 words zerasoyivers roves 2m Exovras in 1 Co 11%, which mean the 
 poor generally, not those who have not houses. The common 
 meal was called the ‘love-feast’ (&yéam, found in NT only in 
 Judel2, The right reading in 2P 218 is probably éwarai WH, 
 not &yérais). Though at first occurring at the same time ag 
 the ‘breaking of bread,’ which formed part of it, the two were 
 afterwards separated, and the Eucharist held in the early 
 morning, while the Agaps still took place in the evening ; s0 
 first in Pliny, Epp. x. 96. See Lightfoot, Ignatius, ii. 312. 
 
 
 
CHURCH 
 
 St. Paul gives ua a picture of this act of worship as it was 
 celebrated .n Corinth at the time, which we can supplement by 
 other hintsin NT. A discourse preceded it in Ac 207.11, but it 
 is clear that this was not the case in Corinth, for the apostle 
 complains that each one, as he arrived, at once ate up the food 
 he had brought with him, without waiting for the rest (1 Co 
 1121. 83), During the meal came the formal ‘ breaking of bread’ 
 a 1 Co 1016), probably with a prayer of thanks (cf. suxapiorioas 
 
 the accounts of the institution by Christ, and the prayer of 
 thanks in the Did. 92). All present then partook of the bread 
 thus consecrated (1 Co 1126). Then perhaps after the meal (cf. 
 tb. 4 ‘after supper’) a cup containing wine (this is more prob- 
 able than Harnack’s theory that water was used, cf. Mt 2629, 
 Mk 1425, 1 Co 1121) was ‘blessed’ (1 Co 10!6), and all drank from 
 it (11%), The prayers of thanks (siy«pioriax) by which the bread 
 and wine were consecrated probably varied with the occasion. 
 In the Didache (ch. 9) formal prayers are prescribed, but the 
 prophets present are allowed to ‘give thanks’ (s,epirrsiv) in 
 words of their own choice (dc §dover), 108. There is some 
 doubt as to whether the bread or the wine came first in the 
 order of service. In Lk 12174 (WH), 1 Co 1016, Did. 9, the 
 blessing of the cup is placed before that of the bread. In all 
 other places, however, the cup follows the bread, and this has 
 always been the traditional order in the Christian Church. 
 
 LirtratuRR®.—On the early Christian services the following 
 books may be consulted: Rothe, De Primordiis cultus sacri 
 Christianorum, 1851; Abeken, Der Gottesdienst in der alten 
 Kirche, 1853; Harnack, Der christl. Gemeindegottesdienst, 
 1854 ; Volz, ‘Untersuch. dber die Anfiinge des christ]. Gottes- 
 dienstes,’ in SK vol. i, 1872; Jacoby, ‘Die constitutiven 
 Faktoren des apost. Gottesdienstes,’ in J DTh vol. xviii. 1873 ; 
 Weizsicker, ‘Die Versammlungen der iiltesten Christengemein- 
 den,’ in JDTh vol. xxi. 1876; Seyerlen, ‘Der christl. Cultus 
 im ap. Zeitalter,’ in Zeitsch. fiir Prakt. Theol. 1881; H. A. 
 Kostlin, Gesch. des christl. Gotteedienstes, 1887; Jiilicher, Zur 
 Gesch. der Abendimnahisfeier in_der alten Kirche, 1892; F. 
 Spitta, Zur Gesch. u. itt. des Urchristenthums, Die urchristl. 
 Trad. tiber Ursprung und Sinn des Abendmahis, 1893. (For 
 wider literature on Eucharist, see art. Lorp’s Supper.) The 
 histories of the Apost. age usually contain chapters on this sub- 
 ject. For these see general literature at the end. 
 
 ii. The Christian Rule of Conduct. 
 
 (1) The Christian tn his Private Life.—By baptism 
 the Christian died to the world, and so the nega- 
 tive, prohibitive, sphere of law had no longer any 
 meaning for him (Ro 6%, Col 3°-!", cf. Gal 2!° 5%). 
 His life was consecrated to Christ (Ro 12!-?), who is 
 
 its goal (Ro 14°, Ph 1”), its example (Ph 25, 1P 
 271-24), and the source of its spiritual strength (Jn 
 
 6%, 2Co 12%, Eph 45), His body is the sacred 
 temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Co 6"), a member of 
 Christ (ib. °), and therefore personal holiness and 
 purity are his natural condition. The near ex- 
 pectation of the second coming of Christ led to two 
 ractical results: (a) a holy enthusiasm which 
 uoyed him up under every trial with the con- 
 sciousness that the present evils were only transi- 
 tory (Ro 8%, 2Co 1” 546, Eph 14 4%), and would 
 be succeeded by a glorious future (Ro 68, 1 Co 15°, 
 Col 3°*-), Death itself is welcomed as a quicker 
 realization of this (Ph 17). (6) A severe and stern 
 discipline of self. Men waited in hourly expecta- 
 tion of Christ’s appearance (1 Th 5*, 1Jn 28), It 
 was then no time to give oneself up to feasting. 
 Even marriage and family cares are regarded as 
 competitors against the service of the Lord, which 
 should absorb every thought and feeling (1 Co 
 7*. 35) The Christian must be ever on his guard, 
 watchful and vigilant, fasting (cf. Ac 13° 14”, Did. 
 74-8'), ever in arms against temptation (1 Th 5%, 
 Eph 6'!7), and pray without ceasing (1 Th 5"). 
 is mind is set on things above, not on things that 
 are upon the earth (Col 3°). But as he is on the 
 earth he has to perform his human duties and to 
 bring into all his relations with fellow-men prin- 
 ciples in accord with this high and ideal life. 
 
 (2) The Christian and his Fellow-Christians.— 
 The central principle of Christian ethics is love, 
 the practical expression of faith, wlors 6: dydans 
 évepyounévy (Gal 5°). Faith without works is dead, 
 says St. James (2%), and St. Paul is at one with 
 him, for above faith he puts love (1 Co 131, cf. 26.*), 
 and love does not exist apart from works of love 
 (ef. 1 Jn 38). Love is the ‘ end of the charge’ (1 Ti 
 1°), the bond of perfection (Col 34). And this love 
 was chiefly exercised towards the fellow-Christian 
 
 CHURCH 429 
 (Gal 6"), The name of ‘the brethren,’ by which 
 the Christians denoted their fellow-believers, was 
 especially significant. It implies descent from a 
 common ancestor, membership in the same family, 
 and was used among the Jews to denote their 
 fellow-countrymen, the ‘sons of Israel’ (e.. Ex 24, 
 Dt 18", Ac 2%’ 317). So when applied by Christiana 
 to one another it introduced the idea of a tie as 
 strong as that of blood relationship binding them 
 to one another. The love of the brethren (¢:A\a- 
 ded pla, He 137) manifests itself in a spirit of humility, 
 gentleness, and kindness to all (Gal 5% etc.), in 
 obedience and gratitude towards the workers and 
 rulers in the Church (1 Co 16'8, 1 Th 5!2, He 13!”), 
 forbearance of the stronger towards the weaker 
 (Ro 151, 1 Co 10%, 1 Th 5"), charity to the poor (Ro 
 128, 1 Ti 6!8, He 13%, 1 Jn 3!”), compassion and help 
 to the suffering and helpless (He 13%, Ja 1*7), and 
 hospitality to all who need it (Ko 12'8, 1 Ti 5!°, He 
 13, 1 P 4°). By the strength of this Christian love 
 is realized the truth of the gospel, that all out- 
 ward distinctions of rank, nation, and sex are 
 abolished in the common participation of member- 
 ship in Christ (Gal 3%, Col3"). At the same time, 
 it is important to remember that even within the 
 Christian community concrete social reforms were 
 not aimed at, except so far as was demanded by 
 the new morality. In the expectation of the second 
 coming, social and political questions were matters 
 of secondary importance. he general principle 
 of St. Paul was that a man should stay in the 
 position in which the ‘call’ of God was received 
 (1 Co 738), and work truly and honestly in that 
 osition (1 Th 4", 2Th 3!) until the Lord came. 
 so the relations of rich and poor still remain, but 
 are softened by the duty of charity ; slavery is not 
 abolished (Eph 6°*, Col 372-41, 1 T16?, Philem), but 
 its sting withdrawn by the proclamation of a higher 
 equality ; the current view of woman’s position is 
 accepted (1 Co 11379, 1] Ti 24"), but toned down 
 by the same truth (cf. 1 P 37). In regard te 
 marriage, indeed, new principles were introduced 
 which the laxity of heathen and even Jewish views 
 made necessary on moral grounds. St. Paul (1 Co 
 7) in view of the second coming discourages the 
 unmarried from seeking marriage, in accordance 
 with his general principle, ‘let each man wherein 
 he was called, therein abide with God’ (v.¥). But 
 he condemns those who would forbid marriage on 
 ascetic grounds (1 Ti 4°; cf. the same teaching in 
 He 134), and sanctifies the relation of man and 
 wife by comparing it with that of Christ and His 
 Church (Eph 5). The reform which Christianity 
 introduced was the sacred inviolability which: it 
 gave to the marriage bond by forbidding divorce 
 (Mt 19°, 1Co 7). The question of remarriage, 
 after the death of one party, is somewhat doubtful. 
 The injunction as to bishops and deacons (1 Ti 
 32-12, Tit 1%) that they should be the husbands of 
 one wife, and to widows (1 Ti 5°) that they should 
 have had one husband, were interpreted in the 2nd 
 cent. as prohibitions against a second marriage. 
 But this remarriage is recommended in the case of 
 younger widows (1 Ti5™, cf. 1 Co 7°), which leaves 
 the question doubtful. On the other hand, it is 
 very unlikely that the apostle would speak in such 
 Potetate language if he were referring to bigamy. 
 
 The natural result of this nobler conception of 
 marriage was to quicken the sense of natural 
 affection between husband and wife, parent and 
 child (Eph 572-64, Col 318?) ete.), and to establish 
 those beautiful family relations which distinguish 
 the Christian home. 
 
 The chief difficulty in the way of mutual intercourse within 
 the Church was the traditional exclusiveness which the Jewish 
 Christian brought with him into the Church. The exact relation 
 of Jew and Gentile Christians was one of the most perplexing 
 
 roblems of the apostolic age. St. Paul held with regard to 
 is owu relation to tle law that, in the abstract, belief in Christ 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 430 CHURCH 
 
 made him free (e.g. he says of himself, ‘not being myself under 
 {the principle of] law,’ 1 Co 920). But he rated far above this 
 abstract claim to freedom, the love which he owed to his 
 ‘brethren in the flesh,’ and so to the Jew he became as a Jew, 
 and observed the commands of the law (e.g. Ac 1818 2016 2128 
 2817), although he recognized that a man could be saved, not 
 by the works of the law, but only by faith; cf. Gal 216, As 
 regards the Gentile, however, the apostle of the Gentiles fought 
 for the freedom which he thought the Jew should abstain 
 from claiming. His position, that the Gentile should be free 
 from circumcision and the law, was confirmed by the con- 
 ference at Jerus., and at the same time the further question 
 of daily intercourse between Jew and. Gentile was also settled. 
 lt was assumed, as a matter of course, that the two should 
 nix freely and without restraint; but to lessen the offence 
 which this intercourse would give to Jewish instincts, the 
 Gentile was required to abstain from things offered to idols, 
 from blood, and from things strangled. (These prohibitions 
 were possibly conceived as ‘concrete indications of a pure and 
 true religion,’ and only indirectly as concessions to Judaism as 
 they were specially reverenced by Jews. This explains the 
 perplexing addition ‘and from fornication.’ See Hort, Judaistic 
 Christianity, pp. 68-73.) Thus was established a modus vivendi 
 for those communities in which Jew and Gentile converts were 
 to be found together. It is too much to assume from Ja 22 
 that in such communities the Jews had their separate ‘syna- 
 gogue,’ and lived apart. The author is writing from the stand- 
 point of things as they were in his own church, t.e. where the 
 community included only Jews who had formed themselves 
 into a synagogue congregation. The incidents related in Gal 
 211-14 presuppose a close and daily intercourse (especially in 
 the way of meals) between the Jewish and Gentile communities. 
 If 8t. Paul condemned so strongly in this instance a reaction 
 to the exclusiveness from which a break had been made, it is 
 certain that he would not have encouraged the establishment 
 of such a system in any of his own churches. We are therefore 
 confident that in all Pauline churches the Jews, like the apostle, 
 and even St. Peter himself (cf. Ac 1048 113), did not refuse to 
 mix with the Gentiles, even if to some extent the two did fall 
 into separate congregations. And intercourse of any kind im- 
 plied a mutual give-and-take. The Jew resigned his instinctive 
 and traditional hatred of the Gentile and lived as a Gentile (i0vixdg 
 tar, Gal 214). The Gentile had to subordinate his y»acis to the 
 principle of love (1 Co 81), that he might give no cause of 
 stumbling to Jews. And there were grades between the pure 
 Jew and the pure Gentile. The ‘proselyte of the gate’ on 
 becoming a Christian naturally felt an instinctive sense of 
 obligation towards the whole or parts of the law. St. Paul has 
 In his mind, not only Jews, but the class of ce@éueves in Ro 145, 
 And Ro 141-2, 1 Co 81-18 102333 must be understood generally 
 without exclusive reference to Jew or proselyte. 
 
 In the mixture of religions from which Christianity drew 
 converts, there were many scruples, serious enough to those in 
 whom they were ingrained from childhood, but which might 
 draw a smile of contempt from the man of ‘knowledge.’ St. 
 Paul’s line of teaching is that their observance or non-observance 
 is accidental, but that the principle of love, which enjoins 
 cn forbearance towards them, is essential (see Ro 1415-17, 
 1Co 818), 
 
 (3) The Christian and the World.—The earliest 
 ersecutions proceeded, not from the Romans, but 
 rom the Jews, either publicly, where they were 
 allowed a measure of local authority (e.g. Ac 41°” 
 517. 9}. 3, 2 Co 11%), or in the way of private mal- 
 treatment. The Jews succeeded in some instances 
 in raising Gentile mobs against their enemies (e.g. 
 Ac 9% 135 142), On rarer occasions the hatred 
 of the Gentiles was aroused by personal losses 
 occasioned through Christian Geashing (Ac 161% 
 19%4#-), But the Roman government and its re- 
 sponsible representatives neither originated nor 
 supported these persecutions. Its attitude was one 
 of indifference (e.g. Gallio in Ac 181") or active pro- 
 tection (cf. Pilate’s attitude Mt 27!**, the authori- 
 ties at Thessalonica Ac 17°, Ephesus 19% *-, Jerus. 
 2132 2317f-), The Jewish accusation, that the Chris- 
 tians were rebelling against the Romans and setting 
 up another king, was never regarded seriously by 
 the government (cf. Lk 23?, Jn 18%, Ac 177). On 
 occasions of tumult, indeed, Christians were appre- 
 hended as the apparent causes of disturbance, and 
 treated with the rough-and-ready method of Roman 
 provincial justice (Ac 16% 22%); but this was a 
 universal practice, and not confined to Christians. 
 The period of official persecution did not begin till 
 Nero opened it in 64. So the Church looked to the 
 Roman government as a protector rather than a 
 ersecutor (cf. 2Th 2’). Those especially who were 
 ortunate enough to possess the Roman citizenship 
 found it a great safeguard against injustice (Ac 
 167 22% 251-11), These facts prepare us for the 
 
 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 
 
 attitude of favour observed by Chiistian teachera 
 towards the civil authorities, although they do not 
 wholly account for it, since the principles upon 
 which civil obedience is enjoined are independent 
 of personal like or dislike. ‘The powers that be 
 are ordained of God,’ says St. Paul (Ro 13'). The 
 Christians are exhorted to obey and respect them 
 as the te ghaeh of divine justice (Ro 13}, 
 Tit 3!, 1 P 251"), to pray for them (1 Ti 2?), to pay 
 them tribute as their due (Lk 20%, Ro 13% %). 
 
 From Pliny’s letter to Trajan (pp. x. 96) we 
 find that the government regarded the Christian 
 communities as clubs (heteri@), and the Chris- 
 tians acquiesced in this official definition of their 
 position. 
 
 As regards the social and industrial world 
 around them, the Christians did not cut them- 
 selves off from their former ties to a greater 
 extent than was necessary. The regulation of 
 St. Paul was, that each should remain as he was 
 until the Lord came. So the believing husband 
 or wife is not to leave an unbelieving spouse 
 (1 Co 7}, cf. 1 P 31). If the unbeliever depart, 
 the believer is, however, not under bondage to 
 follow. But this applies only to marriages con- 
 tracted before the conversion of the one party. 
 When this is not the case the believer is enjoined 
 not to marry with an unbeliever (1 Co 7* ‘she 
 is free to marry whom she will only in the Lord,’ 
 i.e. a Christian husband, ef. 2 Co 6). On the 
 same grounds the slave is advised not to seek 
 his freedom (1 Co 7%), but to do his duty to an 
 unbelieving master as to a believer. We hear of 
 Christians, too, carrying on their former profes- 
 sions, ¢.g. physician (Col 44), tentmakers (Ac 18%), 
 soldiers (Ac 10}, Ph 11%), public officers (Ac 16®, 
 Ro 16%), purple dyers (Ac 1614), lawyer (Tit 3), 
 and as traders generally (Ja 41%). 
 
 A difficult question was the extent to which a Christian 
 should join in heathen social gatherings. There was a danger 
 in so doing, not only because of the actual immorality con- 
 nected with them (1 P 43-4), but also on the grounds of the 
 ordinances against eating meat sacrificed to idols. St. Paul 
 does not wish to cut his congregations entirely off from their 
 former connexions (¢.g. 1Co 510), He does not forbid them to 
 accept an invitation to dine with a heathen (1 Co 1027), but 
 leaves it to the individual judgment, ‘if ye are disposed.’ In 
 regard to the scruple against sid#Achvta, he recommends the 
 Christian to eat what is given without question ; but if the fact 
 be forced upon him that it is an sdeAchuror, to refuse it for the 
 sake of conscience and example (1 Co 1027-23). We find that 
 some of the advanced liberal party at Corinth even attended the 
 feasts in heathen temples. This St. Paul forbids, not only as 
 ‘sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience 
 wher it is weak’ (1 Co 812), but also on the deeper ground that, 
 in the interpretation put upon it, it is really an act of idolatry 
 (ib. 101517), At a later period it was made a genera) ground of 
 complaint against the Christian that he held aloof from social 
 gatherings (1 P 44), 
 
 In his contact with unbelievers the Christian 
 had to remember that the law of love extends to 
 all men, although it found a greater outlet for 
 its expression in the relation of Christian to 
 Christian (Mt 54-8, Ro 12%, Tit 37). The same 
 principles of honesty and charity were, accord- 
 ingly, to be observed also towards ‘them which 
 are without’ (Ro 1217, Gal 6, Col 4°, Ph 4°, 
 1 Th 3? 412), even towards the persecutor (Ro 12"), 
 that thus the believers, by their life and conduct, 
 might appeal to and teuch the best conscience of 
 the heathen world (1 Ti 37, 1 P 2?*). 
 
 (C) The single Community.—The first centre of 
 the Christian community immediately after the 
 ascension of Christ was the upper room in a 
 house. Hither they returned immediately after 
 
 arting from Christ to wait ‘steadfastly in prayer’ 
 or the coming of the promised Holy Ghost (Ae 
 1-15), Thus the Christian community was in its 
 origin a house-congregation ; and when it outgrew 
 the limits of a single house, it did not form a 
 
 ‘synagogue’ (such as those, ¢e.g., in Ac 6%), but 
 spread as a number of house-congregations (ef. car 
 
 
 
 
 
i ti Mn a ie 
 
 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 
 
 olxor, tb. 2% 54%), 
 
 For their general assemblies and 
 their missionary preaching the disciples were able 
 to meet in the temple or its precincts (51% 2 42), 
 
 but for their private worship they were divided 
 into groups, the centre of each being the house- 
 hold of a convert, who was able and willing to 
 
 rovide the necessary accommodation in his house. 
 Thus the Church presented the aspect of a number 
 of household groups. The same principle of di- 
 vision was established in other places besides Jerus., 
 as Christianity spread farther. It appears, ¢.g., at 
 Thessalonica (Ac 177), Troas (20°), Ephesus (20), 
 Corinth (1 Co 16"), Colosse (Philem *), Laodicea 
 (Col 45), and in Rome (assuming that Ro 16%! is 
 an integral part of the Epistle: see vv.51415 roys 
 odv abrois ddedgpots). These house- congregations 
 also bear the name of éxxAnala (e.g. Ro 16°, 1 Co 
 16, Col 45, Philem*). The condition of the 
 
 household in ancient society favoured this feature. 
 
 The master of the house was its lord, and his 
 conversion was generally followed by that of his 
 family and dependants (e.g. Ac 10% 16% 1838, 
 1 Co 1%), In this way the nucleus was at once 
 formed for a house-congregation, and doubtless 
 isolated converts attached themselves to the 
 church in the house of a wealthier convert. 
 The only passage in NT which seems to imply 
 the existence of a church, #.e. a building set apart 
 for purposes of worship, is Ja 2? ‘if there come 
 into your synagogue,’ etc. In this passage we 
 have a picture of a Christian place of worship, 
 with seats of honour like the mpwroxaGedpla: in 
 Jewish synagogues. Apparently, then, by the 
 time this Ep. was written, the Jewish Christians 
 of Jerus. (for the writer speaks from the stand- 
 
 int of the conditions in his own church) had 
 a themselves into a synagogue and built a 
 
 lace of meeting (cf. Ac 6° 97). The ‘school of 
 
 i annus,’ in which St. Paul taught at Ephesus 
 (Ac 19°), was, however, not of this kind. It did 
 not supersede the house-congregations (20”, 1 Co 
 16), but was used, as the context shows (v.?), 
 for the missionary preaching, which had hitherto 
 taken place in the Jewish synagogues. 
 
 The city-church was composed of a number 
 of these house-churches, and it grew by the addi- 
 tion of new congregations. The first household 
 which had received the apostle generally became 
 the centre of these smaller groups. To its mem- 
 bers, the first-fruits (d7apy7) of the city, a special 
 respect was due (1 Co 16!16), It had been the 
 home of the apostle during his visit, and, in conse- 
 quence, the centre of guidance and direction. In 
 some cases the prominence of some other member 
 caused the centre of the community to shift from 
 the original household; e.g. the house of Mary, 
 the mother of Mark, was at first the centre of 
 church life in Jerus. (Ac 12"), but later (Ac 2118) 
 James’ house appears as the official place of meet- 
 ing. The whole community met together on occa- 
 sions of necessity either at this central house or 
 some other convenient place (e.g. Ac 15% 211%, 
 1Co 54, 1 Th 5%, Col 4%). Thus, apparently, 
 Gaius received the community in his house when 
 they assembled to meet their apostle and founder 
 Ro 162). The same community met on occasions 
 ior common worship (1 Co 14*), though their num- 
 bers do not allow us to suppose that this could 
 always have been the case. For the purpose of 
 worship the house must have been the unit. But 
 for the purpose of direction and administration 
 the unit was not the house- but the city-congrega- 
 tion (cf. Ac 11” 13! 20%). So the apostle directs his 
 letters to the church of the city, e.g. at Corinth 
 (1 Co 1-3), because the city-church and not the 
 house-church was the primary unit in the regula- 
 tion of affairs. ; 
 
 The Organization of the Community.—The writer 
 
 
 
 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 of Ac sums up the distinctive elements of the new 
 Christian life in the words (2%) rpocxaprepoiyres r7 
 bdaxg Tov dmrocrbdwy Kal Ti Kowwrla, TH KAdoE TOL 
 Gprov kal rats mpocevyais (WH), ‘abiding in the 
 teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, in 
 the breaking of the bread and the prayers.’ The 
 words go by pairs, the ‘breaking of the bread’ 
 and ‘the prayers’ making up the common worship 
 of the community, while the ‘teaching’ and the 
 ‘fellowship’ cover the ground of their common 
 life. No community can exist without organiza- 
 tion, least of all a community in which are 
 combined a religion and a common life. But 
 before passing on to ask what was the nature 
 of this organization, we must first see what 
 was the nature of the work to be done, This 
 will be found to group itself under four main 
 heads: (1) The instruction of converts, (2) the 
 collection and administration of the common 
 funds, (3) general administration and direction, 
 (4) discipline. 
 
 (1) Instruction.—When we remember how slowly the disciples 
 assimilated the teaching of their Master, and what patient and 
 careful labour it needed to perfect their faith, we shall realize 
 the work which was involved in the instruction of new converts 
 when the numbers of the Church were counted by thousands. 
 And if this is true with regard to Jews, how much greater must 
 have been the labour when the community included pure 
 Gentiles, who had scarcely any knowledge of Jewish scriptures, 
 and lacked the sound foundation of Jewish monotheism. The 
 labour of ‘watering’ was not less than the toil of ‘planting.’ 
 The instruction cannot have been confined to the discourse of 
 the services, or the teaching of the apostle in person or by letter. 
 Such a knowledge of the OT as St. Paul presupposes in Gentile 
 converts (e.g. Ro 71, 1 Co 616 918 101, Gal 4214.) could only be the 
 fruit of long and systematic instruction. This was the main 
 work of men like Aquila and Apollos. There was a special 
 ‘gift’ of ‘teaching,’ and a special class of men in the Christian 
 Church who were called ‘teachers’ from the exercise of this gift. 
 Of the content of this teaching we can only say on @ priori 
 grounds that it must have embraced the historical facts on which 
 Christianity is based, together with their doctrinal significance, 
 and the practical rule of life directly grounded on the doctrine. 
 A systematic instruction in the OT writings must have been 
 necessary for Gentiles to understand the very frequent allusions 
 to them and interpretations of them which occur in the Pauline 
 Epp. (e.g. Ro 96ff., 1 Co 101-11, 2 Co 37-15, Gal 421-31, cf. also 2 Ti 
 316). This last passage shows how the doctrinal and hortatory 
 elements are inextricably interwoven with instruction in a 
 narrower sense. St. Paul’s Epp. also are a good example of the 
 same. ‘The historical facts of OT and of Christ’s life are regarded 
 as facts of doctrinal significance (e.g. Gal 42/31), and from 
 doctrinal truths practical injunctions are drawn as their con- 
 sequences (cf. the ‘ therefore’ in 1 Co 1558, Eph 417, Col 35. 12), 
 
 The instruction proceeded on the Jewish method of repeated 
 oral teaching (cf. the word xeryyiw, Lk 14, Ac 1825, 1 Co 1419 
 Gal 66). In NT a convert was baptized as soon as he declared 
 his belief in Christ (Ac 241 and often), but later the practice 
 arose of deferring baptism until the convert had been instructed 
 in the rudiments of the faith, and during this period he was 
 called a ‘catechumen’ (xarnyotpsvos). The content of the 
 teaching had for its kernel first and foremost sayings of the 
 Lord which were remembered and treasured up by those who 
 had known Him (cf. 1 Co 710. 12. 25 914 1123 1487, | Th 42, 1 Ti 518), 
 These floating sayings were at an early date collected into a book 
 of the ‘oracles of the Lord’ (Papias ap. Eus. iii. 39), which was 
 one of the main sources of the Gospels of Mt and Lk. ‘To these 
 sayings of Christ were added the divinely inspired teaching of the 
 apostles and prophets. So there arose gradually a fixed body of 
 teaching bearing the stamp of Christ’s authority (1 Ti 63, 2 Jn 9 
 or the apostolic approval (Gal 16-9, 1 Th 41.2, 2 Th 215, 2 Ti 118 
 314, Tit 19). The danger arising from the free activity of the 
 ‘teacher’ was thus lessened by this firm and unalterable 
 foundation of ‘tradition,’ +rapé3eeis, the faith handed on from 
 one to another (2 Th 215 36, Ro 617, 1 Co 153 1123, Lk 12), and 
 guarded by each as a sacred deposit (wapal4xm, 1 Ti 620, 2 Ti 114 
 22). This accredited teaching is also expressed by phrases such 
 as tiwes didayns (RO 611), brorirecis tyimivovtay Adyar (2 Ti 113, cf. 
 22), of Aoyvos tus xicrems (1 Ti 45). The especial frequency of suck 
 expressions in the Pastoral Epp. illustrates the more stereotyped 
 form which this teaching assumed when death and imprison: 
 ment were removing the apostles from personal contact with 
 their churches. The frequent recurrence of isolated dicta with 
 the introduction sserds 4 Adyos (1 Ti 115 31 49, 2 Ti 211, Tit 38), 
 shows that such sayings were highly valued and carefully 
 preserved. Finally, after the death of the apostles we have a 
 specimen of the way in which their teachings were collected, in 
 a work which has been preserved to us under the title ‘The 
 Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles’ (Did. 11). 
 
 (2) The Management of Common Funds.—(a) Sources of the 
 common revenue.—In the early days of enthusiasm nothing but 
 the surrender of all private property would satisfy the eagernesa 
 of the converts (Ac 245 434), Those who had possessions sold 
 Unem and laid the money at the apostles’ feet as a contribution 
 
 
 
 
 
CHURCH 
 
 of Jesus Christ,’ Eph 3° ‘which, z.c. the mystery of 
 Christ . . . hath now been revealed unto his holy 
 apostles and prophets in the Spirit,’ cf. 1 Co 13%). 
 Accordingly, in whatever department of the 
 Church’s government they issue their injunctions, 
 they speak in the Spirit (év mvevpart, t.e. under the 
 power of the Spirit, Eph 3°, Rev 1° 43, cf. Ac 214). 
 
 he Holy Ghost resided in every Christian as a 
 power of supernatural strength ; but He resided in 
 the apostles and prophets as a revealer of God’s 
 will and purpose. The words and actions of 
 apostles and prophets are often spoken of as the 
 words and actions of the Holy Ghost Himself (e.g. 
 Ac 13%, of.* 15% 20%: 8 214, 1 Ti 41, cf. Ignatius, ad 
 Phiiad. %7). They represent, therefore, the pure 
 sneer acy in the same way as the prophets of OT, 
 and in the same way their authority stood above 
 all other as the direct rule of God. In the matter 
 of government they were the only possessors of 
 what we should call a supernatural gift, and there- 
 fore in a pre-eminent degree had the right to rule. 
 (The other supernatural gifts, e.g. tongues, inter- 
 
 retations of tongues, working o miracles, gifts of 
 
 es ing, 1 Co 12°": 2, are not gifts connected with 
 government, and need not be considered here.) In 
 making this division, ‘supernatural’ and ‘natural’ 
 gifts, we are, indeed, guilty of drawing a distinction 
 which was not present to the minds of the first 
 Christians. To them every gift was supernatural, 
 because it was the manifestation of the Holy Ghost 
 in the individual. But it is a distinction which 
 exists in the nature of things; and when the 
 Christians regarded revelation os the paramount 
 source of authority, they were unconsciously draw- 
 ing a distinction between ‘supernatural’ and 
 ‘natural’ government. 
 
 We see, then, that in the apostles and prophets 
 rested an authority which was supreme, because it 
 was based on revelation. Here we have the funda- 
 mental principle of NT church government, viz. 
 direct divine rule of the Holy Ghost as expressing 
 itself through its human mouthpieces the recipients 
 of revelation. But the question we have now to 
 consider is, To what extent was this principle 
 carried out in practice? Did the apostles and 
 
 rophets monopolize ali the direction of the 
 Church? If we look at the early chapters of Ac, 
 we shall see that this was at first the case. Not 
 only the general supervision, but also the executive 
 work in all its details, falls upon the apostles (cf. 
 243 495.87 52), But when the work grew too.large 
 for them, a division of labour became necessary, 
 and this led to the appointment of officers called 
 ‘the Seven,’ whose Sark was to receive the offerings 
 and attend to the ‘daily ministration’ of alms to 
 the needy (6°). Here we see the delegation of a 
 definite department of administration. While re- 
 taining their supremacy, the apostles surrender the 
 actaal daily working of.this department to a new 
 class of officers, who were not necessarily apostles 
 or prophets, but eee by popular election (id. 
 LN IF. e hear nothing further of this office after 
 the persecution by which one of its holders lost his 
 life, and the rest were driven away from Jerus. (8), 
 When the community is reassembled, the ‘pres- 
 hyters’ appear in connexion with the administration 
 ot funds (11%). This class of persons is mentioned 
 without introduction, and indeed government by 
 elders was so familiar to Jews, that it is highly 
 
 robable that from the first the ‘heads of families’ 
 tad held a recognized position of influence. Later 
 we find these same persons torming with the 
 apostles a committee of general management with 
 the widest powers. The great question of Gentile 
 circumcision was first threshed out by tnem (15°; 
 v.42 way 7d 7AjOos does not necessarily imply the 
 whole community), and their decision put before 
 the whole Chareh for approval (v.™), Then’ the 
 
 VOL, I, —28 
 
 CHURCH ' 433 
 
 letter tpn ce this decision is drawn up by the 
 committee of apostles and elders (v.*; the reading 
 mpecBurépous Kat ddédpous is now generally aban- 
 doned). At their next appearance we find them 
 in a similar position of authority (21), The 
 government of the Church at Jerus. appears in the 
 hands of a body of presbyters with James at their 
 head. We cannot avoia secing here an imitation 
 of the synagogal government among the Jews. We 
 find with them also a body of elders who manage 
 the affairs of the synagogue (Lk 7°). We may 
 notice in this connexion that the Jewish Christians 
 call their place of worship a synagogue (Ja 2), 
 Government by elders was a tradition among Jews 
 (Nu 11%, Jg 84, 1S 164) which had not declined, as 
 with the Greeks and Romans, but was still active 
 (cf. Mt 21%, Ac 45 2 612 etc. ; Schiirer, HJP § 27). 
 ‘When we find the term, then, used as the name of 
 the governing body in Jerus., it is almost certain 
 that it had a technical meaning. The ‘elders’ 
 were not merely the ‘old men,’ ‘but those among 
 the old men who were selected to manage the affairs 
 ofthecommunity. How, or on what principle, they 
 were selected at Jerus. we donot know. But we 
 find the presbyteral organization in other Chris- 
 tian communities also,—Paul and Barnabas in- 
 troduced it into the Churches founded on the 
 first missionary journey (Ac 14%),— and in this 
 
 ‘ease they appointed the officers at their own 
 
 discretion.* hether St. Paul continued this 
 ractice in all his Churches is at least doubtful. 
 e speaks of those in the Church at Thessalonica 
 who ‘labour among you, and are over you in the 
 Lord, and admonish you’ (1 Th 5%); but we 
 cannot prove, except by the analogy of other 
 Churches, that these were not prophets. Writing 
 to the Corinthian Church (1 Co 12°), but speaking 
 of the Church as a whole, he mentions ‘helps 
 (avriAfpes) and ‘governments’ (xvBepyices) in a 
 list of gifts and workers. The names are vague, 
 which suggests that he is using general terms to 
 describe officers bearing different titles in different 
 places. But he has already mentioned in his list 
 ‘apostles’ and ‘ prophets,’ so that he is thinking of 
 had distinct from these. This is important, 
 ecause he is here describing a divinely epeonih 
 (€0ero 6 Oeds) arrangement, i.e. one which in its 
 outlines he understood to be universal. In Ro 128 
 he mentions 6 rpotcrduevos, but he is here speaking 
 of ‘ gifts,’ some of them common to all Christians, 
 not of officers, and the same men may have com- 
 bined the gifts, cf. the list of gifts in 1 Co 128", 
 He includes, e.g., ‘giving’ (6 peradidovs), ‘ pitying’ 
 (6 édedv). We find, however, another list of officers 
 
 in Eph 4", where the division is apostles, prep 
 
 evangelists,t shepherds, and teachers. From the 
 Gr. rods 6¢ rotpmévas kal didacKkddovs we see that he is 
 referring to one class of persons only, and the 
 
 *The idea of popular election had become by no means 
 
 an essential element in the meaning of x«porovaiy in later 
 Greek. It is still seen in some instances, e.g. 2 Oo 819, 
 Jos. Ant. vil. xi. 1, but has quite disappeared in many 
 others, ¢.g. Jos. Ant. VI. xiii. 9, rv bxd tol Geod xtxsiporovnpeévor 
 Beowréx. Ibis immaterial to our present purpose whether spsc- 
 Burépovs is here the name of the officers created or of the 
 persons from whom they were chosen, but it would be a 
 singularly abrupt way of speaking to say, ‘They appointed 
 elders for them’ (i.e. to be rulers), xeporovncavris autos rpi- 
 cBurépovs. In a somewhat similar passage, Tit Dive... xara 
 orhons xate xoAsv xpecGvtipous, it’ would be just possible that 
 xptoBuripow, represents the class from which selection is made, 
 because xabioréves (= to set down in a pissy) had & more 
 technical meaning ‘to put into office’; but even here the 
 omission would be strange. With xsiperovéw, which had a vaguer 
 meaning, ‘to appoint,’ the omission would be still more remark- 
 able. 
 + The evangelist was a wandering miesionary working on new 
 ground (Ac 218; Eus. HE ii. 8, iii. 37), and not concerned with 
 the organization of Churches already established. In 2 Ti 48 
 the word is used in a general (=preacher of the gospel) and 
 not in a special sense. The application to the writers of Gospela 
 is much later, 
 
 
 
434 . CHURCH - 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 
 
 general language (rolunv is never used as the name 
 of an officer, but to describe his position and work, 
 ef. Ac 20%, 1 P 5?, Jude !*) shows that he is think- 
 ing of functions which were universal, while the 
 persons performing them perhaps bore different 
 names. We find, however, presbyters at Ephesus 
 (Ac 201"), whom St. Paul calls éricxémovus, ‘ over- 
 seers’ or bishops (v.%). The letter to the Philip- 
 ians, written some years later than the events 
 escribed in Ac 20, is addressed to ‘the saints... 
 at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.’ This 
 is the first certain mention of these officers, for 
 émicxérous in Ac 20% has probably only a general 
 sense ‘ overseers,’ and it is by no means certain 
 that didkovos in Ro 16! is sed technically (ef. id. 
 15® 127), while identifications of the Seven with 
 the deacons, though as early as 2nd cent., are only 
 conjectura] (see DEACON). In the Pastoral Epp. 
 (1 Ti 35) the bishops and deacons appear as the 
 two local officers. (For the relation of presbyters 
 to bishops, see BisHor.) We see from these 
 letters that it was the desire of the writer to 
 establish a uniform organization of bishops and 
 deacons (cf. Tit 15), such as we find as an accom- 
 one ve fact in the next generation (cf. the Ep. of 
 
 lement of Rome to the Cor., esp. chs. 42, 44). 
 Amongst the Jewish Churches we find the presby- 
 teral organization still in force (Ja 5“); so, too, in 
 1P 5'™. We see, then, in the local Churches of 
 the apostolic age various stages of organization, 
 tending towards the end of that period to assume 
 a uniform aspect. In the earlier history we find 
 the greatest contrasts in this respect. In the 
 Church of Jerus. we see a highly developed organi- 
 zation with well-marked distinctions of rulers and 
 ruled. But if we turn to the Corinthian Church 
 of the same time, the state of things there pre- 
 sented to us implies organization of a most rudi- 
 mentary type. In the proud consciousness of ‘know- 
 ledge’ (cf. 1 Co 17 8! 146) the individual member 
 laced too great reliance on his own judgment. 
 
 he result was a forwardness and independence of 
 action on the part of the individual in his private 
 life and in the meetings for public worship (e.g. 8 
 1470-36), which indicates the absence of firm central 
 control and obedience to authority. The apostle 
 has to teach them that love is better than know- 
 ledge or any other gift (8! 13), that gifts are to be 
 exercised for the benefit of the whole, each in its 
 ok and measure (12!2"-), We have not, then, to 
 eal with an iron uniformity of local organization, 
 but with a variety of degrees. We can trace in 
 the Pauline Epp. the following stages in the growth 
 of organization. (a) At the outset the idea of 
 ruling does not appear. Earnest believers come 
 forward and, according as their gifts permit them, 
 volunteer their services in the work of carrying 
 out the necessary arrangements for the community, 
 in the way of teaching, collecting, and distributing 
 the public alms, etc. The incentive is not the 
 desire to rule, for as yet no position of command 
 is attached to the work, but a purely disinter- 
 ested labour of love. They ‘set themselves to 
 minister to the saints,’ els dteaxovlav ros daylos 
 Eratav éavrovs (1 Co 1615, cf. Ac 1615 4° 1825. 26. 28° Ro 
 a ee Ph 2° 42,1 P 41), (6) Those who thus 
 volunteered were accepted by the apostle in the 
 first instance. They worked under him in the 
 task of constructing the new community. What 
 would be, then, more natural than that in depart- 
 ing he should leave them in charge with instruc- 
 tions how to carry on the work? We cannot 
 suppose that he went away without leaving anyone 
 to superintend the affairs of the infant Church. 
 Such persons are those to whom he alludes as 
 presi ing in the Lord,’ rpotcrdueva ev Kridy, } Th 
 5", for whom he claims the respect and gratitude 
 due to those who have laboured for the common 
 
 
 
 ‘ood. 
 Bat recognized by the community and the a 
 Compare the position of Stephanas at Corinth 
 (1 Co 165). (c) This position becomes gradually of 
 a more definite and official character. The work 
 of ruling gravitates more exclusively to these 
 presidents, and the appointment becomes more 
 definitely regarded as an appointment. In the 
 Churches of the first missionary journey such a 
 well-marked and definite official position followed 
 after the lapse of, at most, a few months from the 
 first preaching. At Thessalonica (1 Th 5! }%) such 
 a definite position is perhaps not yet established, 
 but there are persons possessed of a recognized 
 authority to preside and admonish. In Corinth 
 the indefiniteness of authoritative rule, suggested 
 by 1 Co 16%: +6, is quite supported by the condition 
 of things described in the Epistle, of which we 
 have already spoken. Then in the later Epp. 
 (Phil. and ie astoral Epp.) we see the gradual 
 tendency to a uniform organization of presbyter- 
 bishops (cf. Ac 20% at Ephesus also) and deacons 
 establishing itself in all the Pauline Churches. 
 Later, as we know from the earliest Christian 
 writings, outside NT, which have come down to 
 us, this organization of bishops and deacons became 
 more and more universal. Among Jewish Chris- 
 tians, where previous writers had spoken only 
 of presbyters, ¢.g. Ja 514, 1 P 5* (with perhaps a 
 hint at the name bishop in 2%), Rev 4‘, et sepe, 
 we find in the Didache the Pauline system of 
 bishops and deacons in full exercise (Dd. 141*). 
 Among Gentile Churches Clement of Rome Pp 
 ad Cor, 42, 44) supposes it to be universal. The 
 single bishop as the centre of all authority in the 
 community appears first at Antioch and in the 
 Asiatic Charekos of the Ignatian Epistles. * 
 
 Over against the authority of these local officers, 
 which did not extend beyond the single com- 
 munity, stands the universal authority of the 
 apostles and prophets, who constitute the founda- 
 tion of the whole Church (Eph 2”), whose sphere 
 of action is not limited to the single Church (ef. 
 Ac 1177 21%, Did. 11), though they might settle 
 down for some length of time in one place (e.g. 
 Ac 13! 18! 15", Did. 13). What was the practical 
 relation of these two authorities in the actual) 
 working of affairs in the community ? 
 
 It will be useful, first, to compare the two in 
 regard to the method of their appointment. Every 
 Christian possessed one or more ‘ gifts’ of the Holy 
 Ghost (1 Co 77). These gifts were of many kinds, 
 including all the mental, moral, and spiritual en- 
 dowments of the Christian. Thus we find ‘ mercy,’ 
 ‘almsgiving’ (Ro 128), ‘faith’ (Ro 125, 1 Co 12°), 
 ‘wisdom,’ ‘knowledge’(1Co128), They arethemani- 
 festations of the Spirit in the individual (td. 127). 
 Every one possessing a gift is called to exercise 
 it for the benefit of the community. Every one, 
 therefore, is a minister to the community in his 
 branch of service: ‘each one as he has received a 
 gift, ministering it towards one another as good 
 stewards of the manifold grace of God’ (1 P 4%), 
 According, then, to the ideal of the Christian 
 Church, there would have been no appointed 
 officers, but each Christian would have performed 
 his proper part of the work according to the ‘ gift’ 
 or ‘gifts’ granted to him. In the same way as the 
 Christian was ‘called’ by the grace of God to be 
 a believer, so he was ‘called’ by the gift of God to 
 perform certain functions within the community. 
 Among these gifts was that of ‘prophecy.’ He 
 who possessed, then, the gift of ‘ prophecy’ was 
 ‘called’ to be an apostle or prophet. (For distine- 
 
 Here we have a status, unofficial indeed, 
 stle, 
 
 *It is not probable that the ‘angel’ of these Churches ia the 
 
 | Apec. (120 21.€.12.18 31. 7.14) is meant to be a single eplaccess 
 The messages are given (see the language throughout) directly 
 
 to the Churches, not through an intermediate representative. 
 
CHURCH 
 
 
 
 tion of apostle and prophet see separate articles. 
 The apostle’s authority ranked higher because of 
 his personal contact with the Lord.) So St. Paul 
 speaks of himself, ‘Paul, called to be an apostle of 
 
 esus Christ through the will of God’ (1 Co 1). He 
 insists strongly on the direct nature of that call, 
 ‘an apostle, not from men, nor through man, but 
 through Jesus Christ and God the Father’ (Gal 1}, 
 ef. Ac 20%, ‘the ministry which I received from 
 the Lord Jesus’), These facts show that he does 
 not consider the events of Ac 13!*, but those of 
 his conversion, as the occasion of his appointment 
 to the apostolate. The appointment of Matthias 
 is not to be taken as typical. In the first place, 
 the appointment was lor a definite position, i.e. 
 to fill up the number of twelve apostles ; secondly, 
 the descent of the Holy Ghost had not yet taken 
 place, and the method of determining by ‘charisma’ 
 was not yet possible. So the method here adopted 
 (t.e. popular election, followed by the final selection 
 by lot between the two thus chosen) is extra- 
 ordinary. 
 
 Like the apostle, the prophet was a prophet 
 because he possessed the gift of ‘prophecy.’ The 
 Holy Spirit divideth ‘to each one severally even 
 as he will’ (1 Co 12"). It follows, then, cuat the 
 pyre like the apostle, received his appointment 
 
 y a subjective ‘call,’ i.e. he exercised his authority 
 without reference to human appointment or per- 
 mission. St. Paul gives instructions to Timothy 
 about the appointment of bishops and deacons, 
 but says nothing of prophets. The Didache also 
 pues instructions to elect bishops and deacons, 
 
 ut is equally silent as to prophets. Nor is this 
 surprising, for the prophet was not an officer, but 
 the exerciser of a spiritual gift. There could be 
 no more question of electing him than of electing 
 those who should speak with tongues. St. Paul’s 
 language in 1 Co 14 (e.g. * ‘if all prophesy,’ ® ‘ if 
 any thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual,’ 
 8 ‘desire earnestly to prophesy’) would be per- 
 plexing if those only were prophets who were 
 appointed to the office of prophet. It presupposes 
 that the number of prophets is not fixed, but 
 indefinite. But, on the other hand, the ‘gift’ 
 might on occasions be regarded as coming through 
 ‘ordination.’ We find instances in which men 
 were alee to carry out a special work through 
 a prophecy put in the mouth of others, e.g. Paul 
 and Barnabas, Ac 13? (but, as we said above, Paul 
 did not regard this as an appointment to the 
 apostolate); also Timothy (1 Ti 1'8 4"), In the 
 case of the latter the ‘gift’ is described as coming 
 to him ‘through prophecy, with the laying on of 
 hands by the presbytery’ (44), or through the 
 laying on of the apostle’s hands (2 Ti 1°). We 
 have here a solemn transmission of gifts by the 
 ‘laying on of hands’ (cf. Ac 8 198), which illus- 
 trates the absence of strict uniformity so character- 
 istic of the first age of the Church. Absolutely 
 fixed rules did not yet exist in either way; but, 
 speacently like the possessor of any other ‘ gift,’ 
 the prophet, ordinarily, was neither appointed nor 
 ordained to office, but the bearer of a ‘ revelation,’ 
 of which he was subjectively conscious. 
 
 But with the appointment of those who were to manage the 
 daily affairs of the community it was different. The early con- 
 dition of things in which this work was performed by the 
 chance individual in the voluntary exercise of his gift, led (as in 
 Corinth) to disu.der. For the management of everyday adminis- 
 tration, it was necessary, in the nature of things, that definitely 
 recognized persons should undertake the work. The ‘sub- 
 jective’ appointment was found to be impracticable and pro- 
 ductive of confusion, unless confirmed by an objective recogni- 
 tion. And s0, somewhat in the manner described above, the 
 voluntary worker became an officer, since, from the moment that 
 his appointment was determined by the community, or an 
 apostle, or his delegate, organization had begun, and an office 
 was created. The actual machinery of appointment varies con- 
 
 siderably in NT. We find a system of popular election in the 
 appointment of the Seven (Ac 65), of Barnabas and Saul to 
 
 
 
 pS SUES Se a a 
 
 CHURCH 435 
 
 carry alms to Jerusalem (Ac 1130), and of the officers appointed 
 by the Churches of Macedoniaand Corinth to take the collection 
 to Jerusalem (2 Co 819, 1 Co 163), Presbyters (bishops) and 
 deacons are appointed by the apostle (Ac 1423) or his deleyate 
 (1 Ti 31-18 622, Tit 15-9, Clem. Rom. ad Cor, 42).* In the Duluche 
 we find a system of popular election for bishops and deacons. 
 These appointed officers have this in common with the apostles 
 and prophets, that they are appointed because they have already 
 shown themselves qualified for the work, t.e. because they have 
 the necessary ‘gifts,’ and the will to exercise them (cf. 1 Ti 
 36.10, Did. 151), The Seven were especially selected because 
 they were ‘of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.’ 
 Those to whom St. Paul gives a semi-official position by enjoin- 
 ing the community to pay respect to them, had ican’ shown 
 their ability for the position. Clement of Rowe, Ep. ad Cor. 42 
 says the apostle ‘appointed their first-fruits as bishops and 
 deacons after testing them with the Spirit’ (Soxpmceuvres rd 
 wvsyucers) Or, in other words, by first making certain that they 
 really possessed the necessary gifts. When he speaks of the 
 appointment of first converts to be bishops and deacons as a 
 uniform practice of the apostles, his language is more universal 
 than the evidence of NT warrants. This may have been occa- 
 sionally true (e.g. Ro 16°, 1 Oo 1615), but not necessarily universal. 
 
 In the significance of the word ‘office’ we find 
 the keynote of the relation between the prophetic 
 authority and that of the officers in actual practice. 
 Theoretically, the sphere of ‘revelation’ covered 
 every branch of work; in practice, the actual 
 details of the daily management fell upon the 
 ‘officers,’ while the superior authority of revelation 
 appeared in occasional direction on great questions 
 (e.g. Ac 13!™), or negatively in checking an abuse. 
 Another fact is here brought before us. The 
 apostles and prophets were largely an itinerant 
 order. They belshoed to the whole Church, not 
 to any particular Church. Only occasionally did 
 they settle in a particular place for any length 
 of time. It was, then, impossible for them to 
 carry on the daily administration of a Church 
 in all its details. In no case does this come 
 out more clearly than with regard to the collec- 
 tion and distribution of alms. This department 
 was the first to be separated from the original 
 centralization of all work in the hands of the 
 apostles and put into the hands of ‘ officers.’ Later 
 we find it in the hands of ‘presbyters’ at Jeru- 
 salem (Ac 11%), In Galatia (1 Co 16"), Achaia (2., 
 2 Co 8. 9), Macedonia (2 Co 8”), the apostle gives 
 general instructions about the collection for the 
 
 oor brethren of Judea, but the carrying out is 
 eft to local workers. In 1 Ti 3% 8, Tit 17 the 
 qualification for the office of bishops and deacons, 
 that they should not be ‘lovers of money,’ ‘greedy 
 of filthy lucre,’ suggests that dealing with public 
 moneys formed a part of their duties. In Clem. 
 Rom. Ep. ad Cor. 44, they are spoken of as those 
 who ‘offer the gifts,’ rods . . . mpoceveyxdryras Ta 
 dépa. The management of finance constituted in 
 later times also one of the most important of the 
 bishop’s duties.+ In the same way as the manage- 
 
 * We have here a double aspect, according as the person 
 who appointed proceeded on a ‘revelation’ or his own dis- 
 cretion. Thus, on the one hand, St. Paul speaks of the pres- 
 byters of Ephesus as those ‘ whom the Holy Ghost had appointed 
 bishops’; on the other, he gives Timothy and Titus directions 
 as to the character of those whom they are to select for office 
 (1 Ti 31-18, Tit 15-9), and exhorts Timothy not to proceed with 
 too great haste in this matter (1 Ti 522), both of which suggest 
 that he has in view a system of appointment by their human 
 discretion, not one in which the proper perscns were denoted 
 by a revelation, 
 
 t Sohm (Ktrchenrecht, i. 73 ff.) assigns to the prophet this 
 function of collection and distribution on the strength of 
 Did. 133 ‘The first-fruits shall be brought to the prophets.’ 
 But this passage is treating of the support of prophets and 
 teachers by the community, not of financial management. It 
 directs that if there are no prophets in the community, these 
 first-fruits are to be given to the poor. And there is no other 
 passage in which the prophets as such appent undertaking these 
 duties. Occasional injunctions given by the prophet as a 
 ‘revelation’ (eg. Did. 119-12) are different from permanent 
 management. Still less is Sohm’s case proved from Did. 15! 
 
 siporoviicare oby kavtois imsoxémoug xa) Bicxovous a&ioug tod Kupiou, 
 Usbons mpastig xl a&pircpyipoug xa) dsdoxipacuivous’ wus yap 
 Agrroupyedow wal wUTOl THY AuToUpyiay TAY xpodntay xa} diduorxzrov. 
 The yép in this passage is most naturally referred back to 
 &zioug rod Kupiov; this is the main thought which spesis, agirnp 
 yupous, and dsdoxieacpeévovs describe more exactly. But if the 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 436 CHURCH 
 
 
 
 ment of finance, the daily administration of dis- 
 cipline fell upon the local. officers (cf. 1 Th 51”), as 
 well as all those general duties included in presi- 
 dency. 
 
 The exact division of labour between the ‘ pro- 
 phetic’ and the local rulers naturally varied with 
 the strength and efficiency of the local organiza- 
 tion. In Jerus., where the local organization was 
 very strong, the work of the prophet sinks into the 
 background. There were prophets at Jerus. (cf. 
 Ac 11”), and their voice was heard on great occa- 
 sions (¢.g. ib. 15% ‘it seemed good to the Holy 
 Ghost and to us’), but the presbyters are more 
 prominent in the administration of affairs. In 
 Corinth, where the local organization was lax to a 
 degree, St. Paul finds it necessary to issue com- 
 mands on the arrangement of a variety of matters 
 connected with their private life and assemblies 
 for worship, which, in a more organized community, 
 would have been determined by the local officers. 
 Another feature which would affect the relation of 
 apostle and prophet to the local community, is the 
 possibility that, in cases where the prophet was 
 settled in a place, he was also a local ruler, i.e. not 
 qua prophet, but appointed in the regular way ; 
 e.g. Judas and Silas, who were chief men among 
 the brethren (Ac 15”), appear also as prophets 
 (ib. *), In general, the direct rule by revelation 
 appears as initiative in great steps (e.g. Ac 8” 9° 
 10°. 13? 168 ete.). 
 
 Growth of the local Ministry.—The closing days 
 of the apostolic age witnessed a rapid advance in 
 the importance of the local officers. The immense 
 growth of the Church made the personal super- 
 vision of the apostle more and more intermittent, 
 and naturally threw more initiative on the bishops. 
 Again, certain dangers developed themselves in 
 Ba tals to prophecy. There had always been a 
 risk that the prophet should introduce a subjective 
 element into the message as it was revealed to 
 him. But this was not all. There arose false 
 apostles (2 Co 111%) and false prophets (Mt 244, 
 Mk 13”, 1 Jn 4!, Rev 168). Against these dangers 
 there existed a special gift called the discernment 
 of spirits (1 Co 12”). In Thessalonica (1 Th 519-23) 
 and Corinth (1 Co 14”) St. Paul found it necessary 
 to remind the Christians to exercise discrimination 
 in regard to the prophet’s message. He lays down 
 also (1 Co 12%) an objective criterion by which the 
 false prophet may be detected (cf. 1 Jn 4!*, Rev 2? 
 19”), The great rise of false prophets in later 
 days necessarily weakened the authority of the 
 poe and this, again, tended to strengthen the 
 bishops. There are three directions in which this 
 increased authority developed. 
 
 (1) Teaching.—Of course the apostles and pro- 
 phets were also teachers. Teaching was one of 
 their main functions. But, exactly as in the case 
 of other local administration, the daily burden of 
 drilling new converts probably did not fall on 
 them. Their teaching was occasional. On whom, 
 then, fell the duty of regular teaching? The exist- 
 ence of a regular class of persons called ‘teachers’ 
 answers the question for us. These were persons 
 possessing in an eminent degree the ‘gift’ of 
 teaching (Ro 127, 1 Co 128), 7.e. a power of grasping 
 and imparting the truths of the Christian religion. 
 They were not, like the apostles and prophets, 
 guided by direct revelations, but they counted, 
 next to these, as the third order in the Church 
 (1 Co 12%), They appear, too, in the Didache, as 
 wandering ministers, possessing authority in all 
 Churches, and not confined to any one single 
 Church. Again, they were not appointed to an 
 office of teaching, but became teachers by the 
 
 vép refers to &p:A«pytpous, this implies no more with regard to the 
 prophet than is said in ch. 11, viz. that the prophet must not 
 demand monetary payment. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 
 
 
 
 voluntary exercise of their ‘gift’ (cf. Ja 31, 1 Co 
 415), They appear, then, as a middle stage be. 
 tween the prophetic order and the local adminis- 
 trators, connected with the former by their volun- 
 tary exercise of an authority extending over the 
 whole Church, but having, in common with the 
 latter, no claim to a ‘revelation.’ Teachers, in 
 fact, represent (except that they were not confined 
 to the single Church) the position of the local 
 ruler, before it became transformed, by appoint- 
 ment, into an office. Their right to teach lay in 
 their possession of the gift, and submission te them 
 was the result of a voluntary respect. But every 
 Christian was in some degree a teacher, because 
 
 ‘every Christian had the responsibility of edifying 
 
 his brethren (cf. Col 3!%). And the local ruler was, 
 from the very nature of his position, a teacher in 
 a higher degree (cf. 1 Th 5”), With the growth 
 of the tendency, already described, of incor ee 
 the apostolic teaching into an approved body o 
 tradition, the work of handing on this sacred 
 ‘deposit’ became tied: of the bishop’s duty. 
 Timothy is enjoined to select faithful men, and 
 instruct them carefully in this apostolic teaching 
 (2 Ti2?). At the same time, the voluntary teacher, 
 who was teaching on his own lines, became dis- 
 credited, in a similar manner as the prophet, by 
 the rise of false teachers (1 Ti 4! 6° etc.). Every- 
 thing tended, therefore, to throw extra weight 
 upon these accredited teachers, and diminish the 
 authority of the others. But in 1 Ti 3?, Tit 1° St. 
 Paul expresses the desire that the bishops shall be 
 persons who possess, in an eminent degree, the 
 ‘gift’ of teaching: in 1 Ti 5” he crders that elders 
 who ‘labour in the word and in teaching’ (t.e. who 
 are also teachers) shall be especially honoured (ef. 
 Eph 4! rods 6¢ roimévas kai didacKkddovs, te. local 
 Aes of administration and teaching). Finally, 
 he regards these rulers as the special guardians of 
 the faith, the supporters of true and destroyers 
 of false doctrine (Ac 207%, 'Tit 1°", ef. He 131”). 
 Thus, on the one hand, the voluntary teacher was 
 tending to become merged into the official bishop ; 
 and, on the other, the bishop was acquiring an 
 authoritative right to teach. In the Didache the 
 teacher still appears by the side of the prophet, 
 but nothing is said of him separately, which shows 
 that his importance was of the nature of a survival 
 rather than active. The bishops and deacons, 
 however, are spoken of as also performing the 
 service of the prophets and teachers (15'), Thus we 
 see in the Didache that what St. Paul desired had 
 come to pass, viz. the bishops were all teachers. 
 
 (2) Sptritual Functions.—The ‘ruler’ had at first 
 no per iies right within the assemblies for wor- 
 ship except that he presided. The right of the 
 ‘word’ belonged to every one who Pgpicis a gift 
 of speaking, and this was possessed in an eminent 
 degree by the ‘ prophets,’ who were regarded with 
 a higher respect than any other possessors of ¥ 
 of speaking.’ Now, when we turn to the Didache 
 (chs. 9. 10) we find a fixed liturgy prescribed for 
 the Eucharist, with formal prayers for the conse- 
 cration of the cup and the breaking of the bread, 
 and, at the close of the service, the whole is followed 
 by the injunction, ‘But permit the prophets to 
 give thanks as much as they will,’ rots 6¢ rpopyrats 
 émitpémere evxapiorety boa Oédover. The contrast rois 
 5é mpopyrais, x.7.d., implies that the jiwed formula 
 of prayer was uttered, not by a ‘ prophet,’ but by 
 a bishop in his absence, or in addition to the free 
 ‘ giving of thanks.’ This prominence of the bishop 
 in spiritual functions, which he shared with the 
 ‘prophet’ and ‘ teacher,’ is alluded to in the sen- 
 tence already quoted (Did. 151), ‘For they also 
 perform for you the service of the prophets and 
 teachers.’ There were cases in which no ‘ prophet’ 
 or ‘teacher’ was present in the community (Did. 
 
 
 
CHURCH 
 
 13°), and in their absence functions which were 
 mainly entrusted to them fell upon the bishops 
 and deacons. This applies, not only to spiritual, 
 but also to other functions. 
 
 The advance of bishops and deacons to some- 
 thing approaching an exclusive right to certain 
 ministerial arts seems to have arisen somewhat as 
 follows. In certain cases there were actions to be 
 performed on behalf of the community which it 
 was more convenient to carry out by means of a 
 few representatives than by the whole body. This 
 was, ¢€.g., especially the case with the ‘laying on 
 of hands’ at ordination. These acts were then 
 naturally transferred to the acknowledged repre- 
 sentatives of the assembly (the presbytery, 1 Ti 
 44), In the same way James (5") directs that if 
 any one is ill and desires the help of others’ prayers 
 for his physical and spiritual healing, he shall send 
 for the ‘presbyters’ of the Church; not that the 
 presbyters possess any exclusive privilege in this 
 respect, for it is as ‘believers’ and ‘just men’ 
 (vv.'5-17) that their prayers are potent, but because 
 they are the natural representatives of the Church. 
 In the Apoc. it is the elders who lead in the 
 heavenly worship (4! 514 1124 18 194), and present the 
 prayers of the saints on behalf of the Church (5°). 
 
 (3) vet Alaeai the apostles one by one died 
 or were hindered by imprisonment, ete., from 
 personal communication with their Churches, and 
 the position of the prophets and teachers began 
 to decline, it was inevitable that the bishops and 
 deacons, who were absorbing teaching and spiritual 
 functions, should increase their powers of dis- 
 cipline. If we may argue from natural causes and 
 the analogy of the Jewish elders, it will appear 
 extremely probable that the presbyter from the 
 first’ had enjoyed a recognized authority in matters 
 of daily discipline. The maintenance of discipline 
 was indeed part of the duty of every Christian, 
 because every ‘gift’ entitled the possessor to 
 
 admonish and exhort. It belonged to the prophet 
 or teacher in a pia way, because these were 
 
 gifted in a special degree, and to the elder through 
 the respect due to old age. But the Pastoral 
 Epistles mark the appearance of a public discipline 
 to be exercised by the bishops. This is the signifi- 
 cance of the direction that the bishop is to be ‘no 
 striker, but gentle, not contentious’ (1 Ti 3%, ef. 
 Tit 17). We see here a foundation laid for the 
 establishment of public discipline, with its authority 
 residing in the hands of the bishops. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—For further details on the separate officers see 
 the artt. on Aposriz, Bisuor, Deacon, ProrustT, TEACHER. On 
 the question of Church organization the following may be con- 
 sulted :—Rothe, Die Anfdnge d. christl. Kirche, 1837; Baur, 
 Ueber den Urspr. d. Episkopats, 1888; Ritschl, Die Ensteh. d. 
 altkathol. Kirche, 1857; Lightfoot, ‘The Christian Ministry,’ 
 in Comm. on Philipp. 1868 (also in Dissert. on Ap. Age, 1892) ; 
 Be , Die christl. Gemeindeverfassung im Zeitalter des 
 N.T., 1876; Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian 
 Churches, 1880; Kihl, Die Gemeindeordnung in den Pastoral- 
 briefen, 1885; Léning, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristen- 
 thums, 1888; Lefroy, The Christian Ministry, 1890; Sohm, 
 Kirchenrecht, 1ter Band, Die gesch. Grundlagen, 1892 (reviewed 
 by E. Kohler in TAL., No. 24, 1892); Ramsay, The Church in 
 the Roman Empire, 1893; Gore, The Ministry of the Church, 
 1893; Harnack, Die Lehre der zwilf Apostel, 1893: Cramer, 
 Die Fortdauer der Geistesgaben in der alten Kirche; Réville, 
 Les origines de l Episcopat., 1894; Hupfeld, Die apost. Urge- 
 meinde nach der Ap. Gesch, 1894 ; Kahl, Lehrsystem des Kirchen- 
 rechts u. der Kirchenpolitik, 1te Hilfte, 1894; also the Histories 
 of the Apostolic Age given at the end.* 
 
 (D) The whole Church.—Every baptized believer 
 
 _ is a member of the Church. The Church universal 
 
 is therefore the company of all the believers, ‘all 
 that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in every 
 lace’ (1 bo 1?), te. the sum of all the single 
 hurches. Christ prayed for the unity of His 
 
 * While this article is in the press, another very important 
 contribution to the literature of the subject has appeared in 
 Hort’s Christian Ecclesia, 1897. 
 
 CHURCH 437 
 
 future believers (Jn 17-1), that they might be 
 one, cf. Jn 10 ‘Other sheep have I which are not 
 of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall 
 hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one 
 shepherd.’ And under the training of His apostles 
 the local communities, wherever situated, regarded 
 themselves as members of one body. Each was a 
 Church of God (1 Co 17, 1 Th 24, 2’ Th 14) in Jesus 
 Christ (Ro 16!%, Gal 122). All believers are ‘brethren’ 
 and fellow-saints without respect of nation or 
 rank. On this feature of the Christian teaching 
 St. Paul dwells most strongly, both as regards the 
 individual Christians (e.g. 1 Co 12) and the indi- 
 vidual communities (e.g. Eph 270-2 4312.16) What, 
 then, were the grounds on which this consciousness 
 of unity were based ? 
 
 1. Strongest of all was the identity of relation 
 between all believers and the Persons of the Holy 
 Trinity (Eph 44). By baptism all entered into 
 a corporate society (Ac 24, Gal 37"), and that 
 society is the ‘body of Christ’ (1 Co 12%), Faith 
 has cleansed all from their former sins, has recon- 
 ciled all to God, united all to Christ, and procured 
 for each the presence of the Holy Ghost and His 
 gifts within him. Every Christian has been called 
 with the same calling to the same faith, enters by 
 the same baptism into unity with the same Christ, 
 receives the gifts of the same Spirit, owns the same 
 Lord, worships the same God the Father, and is 
 filled with the same hopes (Eph 45), This is far 
 more than a mere unity of belief: it is the conscious- 
 ness of a common spiritual power (Eph 1°) working 
 mightily and manifestly in each one. Hand in 
 hand with it follows its practical result in 
 
 2. Participation of a common Life.—The adoption 
 of Christianity, which snapped so many of the old 
 social ties both for Jew and for heathen, at the 
 same time opened to the convert conditions and 
 precepts of life for the most part new to ancient 
 ideals. The hatred of the Jews and the contempt 
 of the Gentiles, which drove the Christians into one 
 another’s arms, at the same time accentuated the 
 division which separated them from the rest of the 
 world. Common unpopularity made them feel 
 their own unity. This affected primarily the single 
 community, but in a lesser degree the whole 
 Church. Within the community the persecuted 
 Christians found an ideal of conduct which drew 
 them together with the ties of brotherhood 
 (45e\gpol). The first Christian community started 
 with the principles of a family life, and when the 
 practical conditions of these early days died out, 
 the idea of the ‘household of faith > still remained 
 active. It expressed itself in the common worship 
 and in the common daily life which we have 
 described above. The sketch of that life, as we 
 have given it, is in many respects an ideal. It is 
 drawn not only from the statements, but also from 
 the injunctions of NT, and therefore we must not 
 suppose that it was always faithfully carried out. 
 In fact, complaints of coney and even cases of 
 serious wickedness (esp. 1 Co 5'), prove that it 
 was not so. But it was an authoritative ideal, and 
 an ideal the acceptance of which implied a great 
 separation from the heathen world, and was there- 
 fore one of the most potent factors in confirming 
 the consciousness of Christian unity. 
 
 We have described the basis of Christian unity 
 under the two headings of a common belief and 
 a common life. It remains to see how this was 
 strengthened by more personal means. These were 
 (a) acommon government. To its founder a Church 
 naturally looked for guidance in the creation of 
 its first institutions. But beyond its respect to 
 the founder was the universal respect due to the 
 prophet, and above all to the apostle. And the 
 latter stood at the head of the Church government 
 because he had derived his teaching from the Lord 
 
 
 
438 CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 
 
 directly. 
 ment of the Church the rule of a united band 
 which traced its authority back to Christ. In 
 spite of differences due to individual character 
 and scope of work, the apostolic teachiny avreed 
 in its main outlines, so that the Church can be 
 said to have been under the government of one 
 
 We have, then, in the apostolic govern- 
 
 common principle. (b) The intercourse between 
 Churches. There exists no higher proof of the 
 facilities afforded by the Roman government for 
 travel and intercourse, than the evidence to be 
 seen in NT of the close relations which the early 
 Churches kept up with one another. (See esp. on 
 this subject Th. Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der 
 alten Kirche.) This intercourse was kept up 
 mainly by those who were travelling for the Church 
 or on private business. Amongst the first class, 
 of course, the apostles stand out most prominently, 
 but only second to the extent of their journeyings 
 comes that of their helpers and sibesdan es The 
 prophets, too, were great travellers (¢.g. Ac 117 
 etc.). As conspicuous examples of the extent of 
 private travels we may point to the wanderings 
 of Aquila and Priscilla, whom we find first in 
 Italy (Ac 182), then in succession at Corinth (76.), 
 Ephesus (1818, 1 Co 16!*), Rome (?) (Ro 16°), Ephesus 
 (2 Ti 4") ; or those of Onesiphorus (2 Ti 1)”: 8) ; or 
 the journeys involved in the collection and delivery 
 of the Gentile collection for the poor of Judza 
 (e.g. Ac 11°, 1 Co 168, 2Co 8!8 1%), and the carriage 
 of the apostles’ letters. And besides the wander- 
 ings of official or well-known Christians, it must 
 be remembered that there was a constant stream 
 of other Christians moving from place to place on 
 private business, who attached themselves to the 
 community, and found init a welcome and _ hospi- 
 tality until they passed on farther (cf. Did. 12; 
 1 Ti 5”, He 132). Intercourse by letter was also 
 very frequent. A fruitful cause of this corre- 
 spondence was the practice of furnishing travellers 
 with letters of recommendation (cvararixal ém- 
 arodal; cf. Ac 18%”, 2 Co 31). We have instances of 
 other correspondence in the letter of the Jerusalem 
 Church to that of Antioch (Ac 15”), and the letter 
 of the Roman to the Corinthian Church (Clem. 
 Rom. Ep. ad Cor.). 
 
 How far, then, did all this lead to the establish- 
 ment of one organic unity, or of a higher unity of 
 organization than the city-Church? We find, in- 
 deed, in a sense, an organic unity embracing the 
 whole Church in the earliest period. In the Church 
 of Jerus., and esp. in the apostles, is to be seen a 
 centralization of government stretching over all 
 the existing Church, viz. Juda, Samaria, Galilee, 
 and the district around Antioch, i.e. Syria and 
 Cilicia (cf. Ac 84 992 1])-2 22), This condition of 
 things continued nominally until the time of the 
 conference at Jerus. (Ac 157%). But St. Paul’s 
 visit to Jerus. on this occasion (which must be 
 taken as identical with that described in Gal 21-1), 
 beyond establishing the freedom of the Gentiles 
 from circumcision, led to a further very important 
 result. Now that a purely Gentile Church was 
 possible, St. Paul saw that not only the separation 
 of distance, but also in a greater degree the vast 
 difference of life and thought, between the Pal. 
 Jew and the ordinary Greek or Roman, made it 
 impolitic that the centralization of power in the 
 Church of Jerus. should continue. And the ‘pillar’ 
 apostles, after convincing themselves of his 
 authority and ability, resigned to him the care 
 of the Gentiles, while they contented themselves 
 with the management of the Jewish Churches (Gal 
 26°), The partition of authority here described 
 was not regarded by either side as a rigid separa- 
 tion of spheres. The main work of the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles was with Gentiles, while that of the 
 pillar apostles was with Jews. Thus it was the 
 
 practice of St. Paul to preach to the Jews first 
 when breaking up new ground (see Ac 13-end, 
 passim), and he occasionally, though very rarely, 
 addressed himself to Jews in his epistles (e.g. Ro 
 211), Again we find St. Peter active at Antioch (Gal 
 2"), Corinth (?) (1 Co 1%), and Rome. St. James 
 addressed his Epistle to the Jews of the Dispersion, 
 1!; and 1 Pis Sayeed: not only to Jews, but also 
 to Gentiles throughout Asia Minor (cf. } 45) ata 
 time when St. Paul was probably still liv:ng. 
 Nor was the separation accompanied by any bit- 
 terness in the relations between the two parties. 
 The pillar apostles gave to St. Paul and Barnabas 
 the ‘right hand of fellowship.’ These promised 
 in turn to remember the poor of Judza, and we 
 know that the promise was faithfully kept. St. 
 Paul always speaks with deep affection and respect 
 of the Judean Christians (e.g. 1 Th 24, Ro 1577). 
 The momentary break with St. Peter (Gal 2"), and 
 the efforts of some to exaggerate and prolong its 
 etfects (1 Co 1/2 372), did not impede his recognition 
 of the deeper truth, that all differences found their 
 unity in Christ (3). 
 
 Within these two great divisions, each of which 
 had something of an organic unity in its common 
 rule, resulting to a large extent in common prac- 
 tice (e.g. 1Co 146 14%), appear smaller divisions, 
 according to the Roman provinces. Such are the 
 Churches of Judeea (Gal 1”, 1 Th 2"), Galatia (Gal 
 12, 1 Co 16!), Macedonia (2 Co 8'), Achaia (Ro 15%, 
 2Co 1! 9), Asia (1 Co 161°), Syria and Cilicia (Ac 
 15-41). This grouping was also something more 
 than a mere form of speech. The Churches of 
 Galatia (1 Co 16!), Macedonia (2 Co 8%), and Achaia 
 (1 Co 168, 2Co 8-9) each formed a separate whole 
 for the purposes of gathering and. delivering to 
 Jerus. the collection for the poor of Juda. Officers 
 were appointed by each Wess to act for and re- 
 present the province in this respect (1 Co 16%, 2Ce 
 1%. 3), St. Paul particularly notes the close and 
 affectionate relationship which bound together the 
 Macedonian Churches (1 Th 47°), 
 
 These provincial Churches (it is to be noted that 
 éxk\yola is never used of the Church of a province, 
 but always éxxAnola, ‘the Churches’) had their 
 natural centre in the capital city (e.g. Corinth, 2 Co 
 l!; Ephesus, Ac 19!; ef. Rev 2! where it comes 
 first in the list of the seven Churches). At a later 
 period these districts were in some cases temporarily 
 put under the authority of an apostolic delegate, 
 e.g. Timothy in Asia (1 Ti 1’), Titus in Crete (Tit 
 15), At the end of the apostolic age we find the 
 Churches of Asia under the guidance of St. John 
 (Rev 14), 
 
 The extent of the apostolic Church included 
 Palestine, Phoenicia (Ac 15%), Syria (the region 
 around Antioch), Asia Minor (1 P 1H), Macedonia, 
 Achaia, Ulyricum (Ro 15", 2 Ti 4™), Italy (Ac 281), 
 Crete, and Cyprus. Thus much we know from 
 certain evidence in NT. But there were doubtless 
 many other Churches which are not mentioned, and 
 which, nevertheless, were founded before the close 
 of the NT period. It is quite probable that St 
 Paul uimaatt preached in Spain (cf. Ro 15%; 
 Clem. Rom. ad Cor. 5; Murat. Fragment, 1. 38). 
 The Church of Alexandria ascribed its foundation 
 to St. Mark (Eus. HE ii. 16, 24; Epiph. Her. li. 
 6; Jer. de vir. illust. 8; Nicephorus, HZ ii. 43; 
 Acta Barnabe). And without setting any value 
 on the traditions (e.g. in Eus. HZ i. 13, iii. 1) 
 current in the later Ciara we may well refrain 
 from drawing any arguments from the silence of 
 NT in this respect. 
 
 III. THE IDEAL CHURCH.—So far as we have pro- 
 ceeded hitherto, we have considered the word éx- 
 x\nola always in the sense of the Christian body 
 in its actual state of imperfection. We come now 
 to a conception of the Church in which the empirical 
 
 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT 439 
 
 
 
 idea disappears and an ideal Church appears, still 
 capable of pues indeed, in some of the similes 
 under which it is depicted (e.g. Eph 41°), but free 
 from all the negative elements of evil. From one 
 point of view, every Christian can be regarded as 
 perfe t. He was washed by baptism from every 
 stain (cf. 1 Co 64, He 104, 1 Jn 3°), and from hence- 
 forth is holy (dys) The Christians are ‘the 
 saints’ (ol dy). So the distinction of the ideal 
 from the actual body of Christians was a thought 
 which lay near at hand. It is the actual Church to 
 which reproof and blame are addressed ; the ideal 
 which ‘shall judge the world,’ 1Co 62. It is the 
 actual Church upon the foundation of which some 
 build badly and some well (1 Co 3%"), the ‘ great 
 house’ in which some are ‘vessels unto honour’ 
 and some ‘vessels unto dishonour’ (2 Ti 2?) ; it is 
 the ideal which is a ‘holy temple of God’ (vaés= 
 shrine) (1 Co 31”), sanctified and cleansed by ‘the 
 washing of water with the word... a glorious 
 Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such 
 thing holy and without blemish ’ (Eph 5” 27), 
 
 The metaphors under which the ideal Church is 
 
 coc of, and its relation to Christ expressed, are 
 
 of three kinds—(a) the Church as a building, (0) 
 
 ae as a body (cGya), (c) the Church as a 
 ride. 
 
 (1) The Church as a Building.—This very natural comparison 
 is, according to St. Matt., as old as the time of Christ Himself 
 (Mt 1618 ‘On this rock I will build my Church’). St. Paul (1Co 
 310-15) compares the growth of the Corinthian community with 
 that of a building, of which he himself laid the foundation, and 
 upon which othersare building. He then (still referring primarily 
 to the Corinthian community) passes directly in v.16 to the idea of 
 the finished building, ‘ Ye are a temple of God.’ The word used 
 for ‘temple,’ y«é-, means properly an inner shrine or sanctuary, 
 and St. Paul evidently has in his mind the Holy of Holies in the 
 temple at Jerusalem where ‘the Lord sitteth upon the cheru- 
 bims’(2 K 1915), as the Holy Ghost has His shrine in the éxxayoia 
 (cf. 2 Co 616, and for the same thought in regard to the individual 
 believer 1Co 619). Then follows in the Ephesian Ep. the con- 
 ception of the whole Church as a ‘holy temple,’ a ‘habitation of 
 God’ in which the individual Christians or communities are the 
 
 rts, each fitting into his proper place and the whole held 
 fagether by Christ, the chief cornerstone (Eph 220-22), Here, 
 where the thought is that in Christ Jew and Gentile are made 
 one building by the breaking down of the ‘middle wall of 
 partition’ (v.14), Christ is the cornerstone and the apostles and 
 prophets the foundation. But in 1 Co 319, where the thought is 
 the building up of the community, Christ is the foundation, and 
 the apostles, etc., the builders. 
 
 (2) The Church as a Body (cdipe).—The idea of the Christian 
 unity in Christ seems to have suggested the comparison of the 
 society to a human body, in which the individuals are members, 
 each performing, according to his ‘ gift,’ his proper function, and 
 accepting his proper position (Ro 125), Then comes the identi- 
 fication of this Christian body with the body of Christ (1.Co 
 1212. 27, cf. 615, Jn 151ff-), a conception which culminates in the 
 idea of the believers all partaking in the one body of Christ in 
 the Eucharist i Co 1017, Jn 651f.). Not until the later Epp. is the 
 ixxAncia called outright the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph 123 412 523, 
 Col 118. 24 219), In the earlier Epp. it is the vaguer ‘ we,’ ‘ you,’ 
 t.e. primarily the community to which the apostle is writing, 
 although the secondary idea of the whole Church was probably 
 also present to his mind (Ro 125, 1 Co 1213. 27, cf. 615). In this 
 relation Christ is sometimes identified with the whole body 
 (1 Co 1213. 27), but in the later Ee. He is called the Head, as the 
 
 rdian and director (Eph 523.24), as the source of its life, 
 lling it with His fulness (Eph 173), as the centre of its unity 
 and the cause of its growth (Eph 415, Col 219). These last two 
 assages represent the actual Church as growing gradually to 
 Eis ideal perfection. : 
 
 (3) The Church as a Bride.—We have to do here, not only with 
 an ideal conception, but also with the further step of a personi- 
 fication. The comparison of the single community to a virgin is 
 found first in 2Co 112 ‘I espoused you to one husband that I 
 
 ight present you as a pure virgin to Christ.’ Here the idea 
 of Christ as the bridegroom is also present. The expressions 4 
 evvexaixr4 (1 P 513), ¥ ixdczry, ddeagy (2 Jn 18), % ixdcary xupio 
 {tb.1), are also applied to single communities. But the applica- 
 tion of this personification to the whole Church as the Bride of 
 Christ isa step beyond these. We are here, says St. Paul (Eph 
 632), face to face with a great mystery. Man and wife become 
 one flesh, so that a man should love his wife as his own body. 
 The Church is the Bride of Christ ; the two are one body, just 
 as man and wife are one body; and as Christ loved the Church 
 and gave Himself up for it, so the husband should love his 
 wife. -Wesee here how closely connected is this conception 
 with that of the Church as the body of Christ. The union of 
 the two ideas is seen also in the relation of the individual 
 Christian to Christ (1 Co 615f). As man and wife become one 
 flesh, so he who cleaveth to Christ (the expression 6 xorrdpsvos 
 
 7a Kupiw is parallel to 6 zoArdeavos +H xépym) becomes one ‘ spirit‘ 
 (asic) with Him, and belongs to His (spiritual) body,—‘ your 
 bodies are members (én) of Christ.’ The idea of the Church as 
 bride is found also in the imagery of the Apocalypse. The 
 marriage table is spread (Rev 197), the bride is arrayed in fine 
 linen, ‘ which is the righteous acts of the saints’ (ib.8). Inc. 20 
 the powers of evil are bound or destroyed, and the New Jeru- 
 salem comes down out of heaven as a ‘bride adorned for her 
 2 ae ’ (212); ‘she is the Bride, the wife of the Lamb’ (ib.9 
 
 SUMMARY.—Such were the life and teaching 
 of the Church in NT times. If we compare them 
 with that of the succeeding age, two features 
 stand out as specially characteristic of the earlier 
 period. The first is the much more vivid conscious- 
 ness of the power and presence of God in His 
 Church. The apostles, who were daily with them, 
 had all been in close contact with Ne Lord, and 
 most of them during a period of some years. The 
 risen Lord was to them a living memory, and they 
 imparted to the Church the force of that memory 
 in all its freshness. The power of the Holy Ghost 
 also was a fact of which men were more directly 
 conscious in themselves than at any other time. 
 Never have the central truths of Christianity—the 
 position of Christ and the significance of His death 
 —been more powerfully realized, and at no time 
 has the Christian life in its practice been more 
 closely connected with, and Hereel from, that 
 belief. To the fixed apostolic tradition of doctrine 
 and life all succeeding ages have looked as their 
 authority. But in the strongest contrast with this 
 fixedness of doctrine and moral life, stands the 
 freedom from formal conditions in questions out- 
 side these. Thus, if we turn to the organization we 
 notice the informal way in which offices grew up, 
 and the comparative absence (until the close of the 
 period) of a fixed division of labour. It is char- 
 acteristic also of the time, that most of the technical 
 terms are used also in a general sense, e.g. mpeo- 
 Burepos, didxovos (dtaxovla, dtaxovéw) diddoKxados. Or, 
 if we turn to the worship, we are struck by the 
 freedom of speech, the absence of exclusive minis- 
 terial rights, of a formal liturgy and fixed ritual, 
 except in the case of baptism, laying on of hands, 
 and the Eucharist. n the transition period 
 immediately following the apostolic age came the 
 fixing of organization with its clear-cut division 
 of labour, and the stereotyping of liturgies and 
 ritual. And along with these developments came, 
 at once their cause and their effect, the decline 
 of the prophet and prophecy. 
 
 GENERAL LITERATURE ON CHURCH.—The Ohurch Histories of 
 the Apostolic age; esp Neander, Hist. of the Planting and 
 Training of the Christian Church (Eng.), 1861; Thiersch, Hist. 
 of Christian Church in Ap. Age (Eng.}, 1852; Baur, Church 
 Hist. of the First Three Centuries (Eng.), 1879 ; Renan, Origines 
 du Christianisme, 1883 ; Schaff, Hist. of Ap. Age, 1886; Lechler, 
 Ap. Age (Eng.), 1886; Pressensé, Le siécle Gportoligue, 1889 ; 
 Moller, Ch. Hist. (Eng.), 1892; Weizsicker, Ap. Age (Eng.), 
 1895. Further, Kostlin, Das Wesen der Kirche nach Lehre 
 und Gesch. des NT, 1872; Seeberg, Der Begriff der christlichen 
 Kirche, 1887 ; Harnack, Hist. of Dogma (Eng.), 1894. 
 
 S. C. GAYFORD. 
 
 CHURCH GOYERNMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC 
 AGE.—Our knowledge of Church government in 
 the Cares age comes almost entirely from 
 the NT. We can glean something from Clement 
 and the Teaching; but with Ignatius we are 
 already in a new age, and later writers are too 
 full of later ideas to help us much. Besides this, 
 things were in a fluid and transitional state, com- 
 pees on one side by the indefinite authority 
 
 eld in reserve by the apostles, on the other by the 
 ministry of gifts, which was crossed, but not yet 
 displaced, by the local ministry of office. 
 
 The general development is clear, though its 
 later stages may fall outside NT times, The 
 apostles were of necessity the first rulers of the 
 Church; then were added gradually divers local 
 and unlocal rulers; then the unlocal died out, and 
 the local settled down into the three permanent 
 
440 CHURCH GOVERNMENT 
 
 orders of bishops, elders, and deacons. The chief 
 disputed questions are of the origin of the local 
 ministry, of its relation to the other, and of the 
 time and manner in which it settled down. 
 
 Twice over St. Paul gives something like a list of 
 the chief personsof the Church. In1Co1l2*%hecounts 
 up ‘first, apostles; second, prophets ; third, teachers ; 
 then powers; then gifts of healings, helps, govern- 
 ments, kinds of tongues.’ A few years later 
 (Eph 41") his list of gifts for the work of service 
 (duzxovia) is ‘some apostles, some prophets, some 
 evangelists, some pastors and teachers.’ At the 
 head, then, of both lists is the Apostle. The 
 apostles were not limited to the Eleven, or to the 
 number twelve. Whether our Lord ever recognized 
 Matthias or not, Paul and Barnabas (e.g. 1 Co 9°) 
 were certainly apostles, and we may safely add 
 (Gal 1°) James the Lord’s brother. There are 
 traces of others, and the old disciples Andronicus 
 and Junias (Ro 167) even seem to be called ‘ notable’ 
 apostles. On the other hand, Timothy is tacitly 
 (2 Co 1) excluded. The apostle’s qualification was 
 first and foremost to have seen (Ac 1°, 1 Co 9}-?) 
 the risen Lord, and to have been sent out by Him ; 
 secondly, to have wrought (2 Co 1212) ‘the apostle’s 
 signs.’ His work was to bear witness of the things 
 he had seen and heard (e.g. Ac 18)—in short, to 
 preach ;, and this implied the founding and general 
 care of Churches, though not their ordinary ad- 
 ministration. St. Paul interferes only with gross 
 errors or with corporate disorder; and he does not 
 advise the Corinthians on further questions with- 
 out hinting that they might have settled them for 
 themselves, His mission was (1 Co 12”) simply to 
 Pees so that he had no lecal ties, but moved 
 rom city to city, sometimes working for a while 
 from a centre, but more commonly moving about. 
 * Next tothe apostle comes the Prophet. He, too, 
 sustained the Church, and shared with him (Eph 
 2° 3°) the revelation of the mystery. He spoke ‘in 
 the Spirit’ words of warning, of comfort, or it might 
 be of prediction. His work was universal like the 
 apostle’s, but he was not like him an eye-witness of 
 the resurrection, so that he needed not to have 
 ‘seen the Lord.’ Nor did ‘the care of all the 
 Churches’ rest on him. His office, so far as we 
 know, was purely spiritual, and there is nowhere 
 any hint that he took a share in the administration 
 of the Churches. Women, too, might prophesy, like 
 Philip’s daughters (Ac 21%) at Cesarea, or the 
 mystic Jezebel (Rev 2”) at Thyatira. Yet even 
 in the apostolic age we see the beginnings (1 Th 
 5%) of diseredit, and false prophets flourishing 
 (2 P, Jude). After the prophet comes a group of 
 
 reachers, followed in 1 Co 1278 by special ‘ gifts of 
 
 ealings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues.’ 
 
 It will be seen that the lists have to do with a 
 ministry of special gifts, and leave no place for an 
 ordinary local ministry of office, unless it comes in 
 under ‘helps and governments,’ or ‘pastors and 
 teachers.’ Any such ministry must therefore 
 have been subordinate to the other: yet there is 
 ample ee that one existed from a very early 
 time, e have (1) the appointment of the Seven 
 in Ac 6: (2) elders at Jerusalem in 44, in 50, and 
 again in 58; mentioned by’ James and Peter; 
 Br ednited by Paul and Barnabas in every Church 
 about 48; at Ephesus in 58: (3) bishops and 
 deacons at Philippi in 63; Phebe a deaconess at 
 Cenchrex in 58. Also (4) in the Pastoral Epistles, 
 Timothy and Titus are in charge of four distinct 
 orders of bishops (or elders), deacons, deaconesses 
 (1 Ti 3% yuvatkas, not ras yuvatxas, cannot be the 
 wives of deacons), and widows. This great de- 
 velopment, which some think points to a much 
 later date, seems fairly accqynted for by the 
 vigorous growth of Church life and the need of 
 organization which must. have been felt near the 
 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT 
 
 
 
 end of the apostolic age. To complete our state. 
 ment of the evidence, we may add (5) ths vedrepos 
 who carried out Ananias (Ac 5°), though the tacit 
 contrast with mpecBirepo is clearly one of age, not 
 of office, for we note that veayicxo: buried Sapphira ; 
 (6) the prominent position of James at Jerus. in 44 
 (Ac 12"), in 50, and in 58; and (7) of Timothy and 
 Titus at Ephesus and in Crete; (8) the indefinite 
 mpoiorduevo. of 1 Th 5! and the equally indefinite 
 rulers (7yovmeror) of an unknown Church (He 137 !") 
 of Heb. Christians shortly before 70; and (9) the 
 angels of the seven Churches in Asia. 
 
 Our questions may be conveniently grouped 
 round the later orders of bishops, elders, and 
 deacons—taken, however, in reverse order. 
 
 i. DEACONS.— The traditional view, that the 
 choice of the Seven in Ac 6 is the formal institu- 
 tion of a permanent order of deacons, does not 
 seem unassailable. The opinion of Irenzus, 
 Cyprian, and later writers is not decisive on a 
 question of this kind; and the vague word daxorla , 
 (used too in the context of the apostles themselves): 
 is more than balanced by the avoidance of the 
 word deacon in the Ac (e.g. 218 fiAlarmov Tod evay- 
 yeduoTod bvros ex trav éxrd). If we add that the 
 Seven seem to rank next in the Church to the 
 apostles, we may be tempted to see in them (if 
 they are a pe office at all) the elders whom 
 we find at Jerus. in precisely this position from 44 
 onward. In this case we are thown back on the 
 Philippian Church in 63 for the first mention of 
 deacons. As, however, Phoebe (Ro 16!) was 
 deaconess at Cenchreas in 58, there were probabl 
 deacons before this at Corinth, though there is 
 no trace of them in St. Paul’s Epistles to that 
 Church. 
 
 ii. ELDERS.—We first find elders at Jerus. (Ac 
 11%) readvine the offerings from Barnabas and 
 Saul in 44, ey are joined (15°) with the apostles 
 at the Conference in 50, and with James in 58 
 (218), As Paul and Barnabas appoint elders (14) 
 in every city on their first missionary vie $ we 
 may infer that Churches generally had elders, 
 though there is no other express mention of them 
 before 1 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles, unless 
 we adopt an early date for Ja 5“, where, however, 
 it is not certain that the word is official. 
 
 The difference of name between elders and 
 bishops may point to some difference of origin 
 or function; but in NT (and Clement) the terms 
 are more or less equivalent. Thus the elders of 
 Ephesus are reminded (Ac 20%) that they are 
 bishops. So, too, we find sundry bishops in the 
 single Church of Philippi. In the Pastoral Epistles, 
 Timothy appoints bishops and deacons, Titus 
 elders and deacons, though (1 Ti 5”) Timothy 
 also has elders under him. The qualifications also 
 of a bishop as laid down for Timothy are practi- 
 cally those of the elder as described to Titus, and 
 mae point to ministerial duties in contrast to 
 what we call episcopal. Though the elder’s proper 
 duty is to ‘rule’ (1 Ti 5”), he does it subject to 
 Timothy, much as a modern elder rules subject to 
 his bishop. 
 
 iii. BisHops.—Is there any trace of an order of 
 bishops in NT? The name of a bishop, as we have 
 seen, is applied to elders; but are there permanent 
 local officials, each ruling singly the elders of his 
 own city? This is the definition of the ss 
 when he first appears distinct from his elders; an 
 if we find this, we find a bishop, whatever he may 
 be called. The instances commonly given are 
 James the Lord’s brother at Jerus., Timothy and 
 Titus in Ephesus and Crete, and the angels of the 
 seven Churches. The plural rulers (He 137”) of q 
 single Church are hardly worth mention. ow, 
 James was clearly the leading man of the Church 
 at Jerusalem. His strictness of life and his near 
 
 
 

 
 CHURCHES, KOLBERS OF 
 
 CIELED, CIELING 441 
 
 
 
 relation to the Lord (a more important matter with 
 Easterns than with us) must have given him enor- 
 mous influence. But influence is one thing, office 
 is another. No doubt he had very much of a 
 bishop’s position, and his success at Jerus. may 
 have suggested imitation elsewhere; but there is 
 nothing recorded of him which requires us to 
 believe that he held any definite local office. The 
 case of Timothy and Titus is a stronger one, for we 
 know that they appointed and governed elders like 
 a modern bishop. But this is work which must be 
 done in every Church, so that a man who does it is 
 not necessarily a bishop. Neither Timothy nor 
 Titus is a permanent official, and Titus is not con- 
 nected with any particular city. They are rather 
 pemporary vicars-apostolic, sent on special mis- 
 sions to Ephesus and Crete. The letters by which 
 we know them are (2 Ti 49, Tit 3!) letters of recall ; 
 and there is no serious evidence that they ever saw 
 Ephesus and Crete again. Titus is last heard of 
 (2 Ti 4°) in Dalmatia, Timothy from the writer to 
 the Hebrews (13%), a work which there is no reason 
 to connect with Ephesus. There remain the angels 
 of the seven Churches; and it would be very bold 
 to take these for literal bishops. In addition to 
 the general presumption from the symbolic char- 
 acter of the Apoc., there is the particular argument 
 that ‘the woman Jezebel’ at Thyatira (Rev 2°—the 
 reading Thy yuvaikd cov would make her the angel’s 
 wife) can hardly be taken literally. Moreover, 
 these angels are praised and blamed for the doings 
 of their Churches in a way no literal bishop justly 
 can be. It is safer to take them as personifications 
 of the Churches. 
 
 Our general conclusion is, that while we find 
 deacons and elders (or bishops in NT sense) in the 
 apostolic age, there is no clear trace of bishops (in 
 
 e later sense), or of any apostolic ordinance that 
 avery Church was to have its bishop. This conclu- 
 aion is fully confirmed by Clement and Ignatius. 
 If Corinth had had a bishop in Clement’s time, or 
 been remarkable or blameworthy in having no 
 bishop, we should scarcely have failed to hear of it 
 in a letter called forth by the unjust deposition of 
 certain elders. Instead of this, it seems clear that 
 the elders at Corinth had no authority of any sort 
 over them to compose their quarrels. Ignatius 
 certainly uses the most emphatic language in 
 urging obedience to the bishop; but the greater 
 his emphasis the more significant is the absence of 
 any appeal (Trail. 7 is not one) to any institution 
 of an order of bishops by the apostles. The absence 
 of an argument which would have rendered all the 
 rest superfluous, seems nothing less than an ad- 
 mission that he knew of no such institution. 
 
 Nevertheless, his earnestness implies apostolic 
 sanction. Episcopacy must have originated before 
 the apostles had all passed away; and its early 
 strength in Asia cannot well be explained without 
 some encouragement from St. John. But it must 
 have been at first local and partial, and due per- 
 haps to more causes than one. On one side, the 
 need of firmer government after the apostles and 
 prophets died out, would often tend to raise the 
 chairman of the elders into something like a 
 bishop’s position; on the other, vicars - apostolic 
 of the type of Timothy might occasionally be left 
 fe endal by the apostle’s death, and if they re- 
 mained at their pe would settle down into genuine 
 bishops. See also Hort, Christian Ecclesia (1897), 
 
 published too late for use in this article, 
 
 H. M. GwatTKIN. 
 CHURCHES, ROBBERS OF, is the misleading 
 rendering in AV Ac 19 of the word lepbovha 
 (applying the word ‘churches’ in the wider old 
 Eng. sense to pagan temples), while in RV the 
 rendering is ‘robbers of temples’; but both are 
 unsatisfactory. The secretary of the city (ypayuareis 
 
 rms moAews) Of Ephesus points out to the riotous 
 assembly in the theatre that St. Paul and his 
 friends are not guilty of sacrilege, the catego 
 of erime under which it was natural for St. Paul’s 
 aceusers to bring his action, After the word daéSe 
 had been appropriated to translate the Rom. legal 
 term lesa majestas ‘treason,’ lepoovMa was the 
 natural rendering for the Lat. swcrilegium; and here 
 for emphasis the speaker uses the double term odve 
 iepootaAous ore Bac pnuotvras Thy Oedv, which implies 
 ‘ guilty neither in act nor in language of disrespect 
 to the established religion of our city.’ 
 
 In 2 Mae 4” the epithet ‘church-robber’ (AV, 
 ‘author of the sacrilege’ RV) is applied to Lysi- 
 machus, brother of Menelaus the high priest, who 
 perished in a riot (B.C. 170) provoked by the theft 
 of sacred vessels committed by his brother and 
 himself, 
 
 LiTERATURE,—Neumann, Der rom. Staat und die allgemeine 
 Kirche, i. pp. 14, 17; Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp. pp 260, 401. 
 
 W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 CHURCHES, SEVYEN.—See REVELATION. 
 
 CHURL.—‘ The Saxons made three degrees of 
 free-men ; to wit—an earl, a thane, and a churl’— 
 tisdon (1630). And soon ‘churl’ and ‘churlish’ 
 were applied to any boorish person. In this sense 
 churlish is used of Nabal, 1 S 25%, and of Nicanor 
 2 Mac 14%. But ‘churlish” as applied to Nabal 
 being popularly taken in the sense of niggardly, 
 helped to give the meaning of niggard, miser, to 
 ‘ehurl.’ In this sense alone churl occurs, Is 3257, 
 though the Heb. (3, 42) probably means crafty 
 (so RVm) or fraudulent (Vulg.). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CHUSI (Xov’s B, Xovcel A).—Jth 718 mentioned 
 with Ekrebel (‘Akrabeh) is possibly Kvizah, 5 miles 
 S. of Shechem and 5 miles W. of ‘Akrabeh. See 
 SWE vol, ii. sh. xiv. C. Rk. CONDER. 
 
 CHUZA(Xovtas, Amer. RV Chuzas).—The steward 
 (émtirporos) of Herod Antipas. His wife JOANNA 
 (which see) was one of the women who ministered 
 to our Lord and His disciples (Lk 8°). 
 
 CICCAR (123), ‘round.’—A name for the middle 
 broader part of the Jordan Valley (so Buhl, Pal. 
 12 Vet. Driver ont 34°), Gm 1320-23) 19'7- 45.28.29. 
 Dt 343, 2S 18%, 1 K 74, 2Ch 417, Ezk 478. See 
 PALESTINE. The term is also, perhaps, used of the 
 neighbourhood of Jerus. in a later age, Neh 37 12% 
 (AV ‘plain,’ ‘plain country’). 
 
 CIELED, CIELING.—This is the pple of the 
 Camb. ed. of AV of 1629, the ed. of 1611 havin 
 sieled and a in all the passages. Amer. R 
 prefers the mod. ceiled, ceiling. Wright (Bible 
 Word Book, p. 134) identifies the word with seed, 
 to close a hawk’s eyes, and quotes— 
 ‘But when we in our viciousness grow hard, 
 O misery on’t |—the wise gods seel our eyes.’ 
 Shaks. Ant. and Cleop. m1. xiii. 112. 
 ‘Come, seeling night, 
 Scarf up the tender eye of pitiful she 
 Macbeth, m1. fi. 66. 
 
 But Skeat (Htymol. Dict.? s.v,) denies the identi- 
 fication or connexion. Ciel, he holds, is from 
 celum, ‘heaven,’ ‘sky,’ and has no connexion with 
 sill, seal, or seel. Its meaning, therefore, is ‘a 
 canopy’; then, as vb., ‘to canopy’ or ‘cover’; 
 and the only meaning in AV, as in mod. Eng., viz. 
 to cover with timber or plaster, t.e. wainscot, is a 
 later derivation. The Heb. always means ‘to 
 cover.’ In Dt 337 AVm gives ‘cieled’ (text, 
 ‘seated,’ RV ‘reserved,’ the Heb. being sdphan ‘to 
 panel’ [see Driver’s note and Add. in Deut? ad 
 loc.}, tr? ‘ciel’ in Jer 22'4, Hag 14). The ‘cieling’ 
 (only 1 K 6", Ezk 41'™) is any part cieled, walla 
 
442 CILICIA 
 
 
 
 as well as roof, the roof indeed being formerly 
 distinguished as ‘the upper cieling.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CILICIA (Kidcxla), a country in the 8.E. corner 
 of Asia Minor, on the coast, adjoining Syria, 
 always closely connected with Syria in manners, 
 religion, and nationality, and generally more 
 closely united with Syria than with Asia Minor 
 in political and in Byzantine ecclesiastical arrange- 
 ment. It was commonly divided into two terri- 
 tories—(1) on the W. (reaching as far as Pam- 
 phylia), Cilicia Tracheia (Aspera), a land of lofty 
 and rugged mountains, drained by the considerable 
 river Calycadnus; (2) on the E., Cilicia Pedias 
 (Campestris), a low-lying and very fertile plain 
 between the sea and the mountain ranges Taurus 
 and Amanus. The entire double country is 
 summed up as C. in Ac 275, a geographical de- 
 scription of the lands touching the Cyprian Sea. 
 But elsewhere it is clear that only ihe civilized 
 and peaceful C. Pedias (in other words, the part 
 subject to Roman rule) is intended when C. 
 is mentioned in NT, whereas C. Tracheia was 
 inhabited by fierce and dangerous tribes, loosely 
 ruled by king Archelaus ot Cappadocia from B.C. 
 20 to A.D. 17, and by king Antiochus of Com- 
 magene from A.D. 37 to 74. C. Pedias had been 
 Roman territory from B.C. 103; and, after many 
 changing arrangements for its adininistration, it 
 was merged by Augustus in the great joint province 
 Syria-Cilicia-Phenice probably in B.c. 27; and 
 this system probably lasted through the Ist 
 cent. after Christ (though temporary variations 
 may possibly have occurred). Hence Syria and 
 C. are mentioned together in such a way as to 
 imply close connexion in Gal 14, Ac 15%4; 
 the combined Rom. province is there meant, over 
 which the influence of Christianity spread from 
 the two centres, Tarsus in ©. and, above all, 
 Antioch in Syria. The close connexion of C. with 
 Syria arose from two causes—(1) C. communicates 
 with it by a very easy pass, the ‘Syrian Gates’ 
 (Pyle Syrie, Beilan, summit level 1980 ft.), 
 whereas the passes crossing Taurus into Lycaonia 
 and Cappadocia are all difficult, incomparably the 
 best being the ‘Cilician Gates’ (Pyle Cilicia, 
 Gulek Boghaz, summit level 4300 ft.); (2) C. 
 Pedias was long separated from Roman territory 
 on the W. and N. by a great extent of indepen- 
 dent country, while it adjoined Rom. Syria. C. 
 has been identified wrongly with the Tarahiah 
 which is so often mentioned in OT (Gn 104 ete.), 
 by some modern scholars, following Jos. Ant. (I. 
 vi. 1), who says that C. was originally called 
 Oapads. 
 
 That a large Jewish population existed in C. is 
 evident from Ac 6°; and it is rather strange that 
 Cilician Jews are not mentioned in Ac 2°", The 
 existence of Jewish colonists in the Seleucid cities 
 of C. would be in itself highly probable, for they 
 were always the most faithful and trusted adher- 
 ents of the Seleucid kings in their foreign settle- 
 ments; and the Cilieian Jews are alluded to by 
 Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, § 36 (ii. p. 587, Mang.). St. 
 Paul had the rights of a citizen of Tarsus (which 
 see), as he mentions in Ac 21*; these rights must 
 have been inherited, and they imply, beyond 
 doubt, that there was a colony of Jews forming 
 part of the Tarsian State. An interesting memorial 
 of the religious influence exerted by the Jews in 
 C. is attested by the society of Sabbatistai, men- 
 tioned in an inscription, probably dating about the 
 time of Christ, which was found near Elaioussa 
 and Korykos (see Canon Hicks in Journ. of 
 Hellenic Studies, 1891, pp. 234-236); this society 
 was evidently an association of non-Jews in the 
 
 ractice of rites modelled, in part at least, on 
 
 udaistic ceremonial. 
 
 
 
 CIRCUMCISION 
 
 Se aeinet 
 LireraTuRe.—OCilicia is very slightly described in Mommsen, 
 Provinces of Rom. Emp. (Rémische Geschichte, vol. v.) ch. viii. 
 i. pp. 379-8925 
 
 its Governors (1853); Ritter, Kleinasien-(1859), ii. pp. 56-235 5 
 Heberdey and Wilhelm in Denkschriften der Akademie, Wien, 
 
 1896. W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 CINNAMON (j\03p kinndmén, kwvdpwpov, cin- 
 namomum). — The identity of name makes it 
 impossible to mistake the substance intended. 
 It was early known to the Hebrews, as it entered 
 into the composition of the holy anointing oil 
 (Ex 30%). It is represented as being used to 
 perfume a bed (Pr 71”). The Oriental women use 
 musk for a similar purpose. Like other tropical 
 jlants, it seems to have been cultivated in the 
 Pobanteal gardens of Solomon (Ca 4%). It is the 
 product of Cinnamomum Zeylanicum, Nees, a plant 
 of the Laurel family, indigenous in Ceylon and 
 other E. India islands, and in China. The tree 
 attains a height of 30 ft., and has panicled clusters 
 of white blossoms, and ovate, acute leaves. The 
 cinnamon is the inner bark, separated from the 
 outer, and dried in the sun, in the shape of 
 cylindrical rolls. The best oil is obtained by boil- 
 ing the ripe fruit. In Rev 18% it is enumerated 
 among the merchandise of the Great He? fos 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 CIRCLE.—In AV c. means the vault of heaven. 
 It occurs Is 40” ‘It is he that sitteth upon the 
 c. of the earth,’ ¢.e. the c. overarching the earth 
 (an, also in Job 22, AV and RV ‘circuit,? RVm 
 ‘vault’; Pr 827 AV ‘compass,’ RV ‘circle’); and 
 Wis 13? ‘the c. of the stars’ (xéxAos dorpwr, RV 
 ‘circling stars,’ RVm ‘c. of stars’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CIRCUIT occurs 4 times in AV, 1 S 7!6 (a late 
 and doubtful passage acc. to which Samuel went 
 on circuit [239] to various high-places), Job 22 
 (un RVm and Amer. RV ‘vault,’ i.e. the vault of 
 heaven), Ps 198 (753;pn, of the sun’s course in the 
 heavens), Ee 1° (2'20, of the circuits of the wind). 
 Besides retaining these instances, RV substitutes 
 ‘made [make] a circuit’ for AV ‘fetch a compass’ 
 in 2 S 5% (where for MT 37 read with Driver and 
 Budde 35), 2 K 3%, Ac 28)8 (wepeAOdvres, RVm § cast 
 loose,’ following WH epeddvres). See COMPASS. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 CIRCUMCISION (bi Ex 4°, rep:rou} Jn 7” ete.). 
 —The cutting off of the foreskin, an initiation rite 
 or religious ceremony among many races, such as 
 the Jews, Arabians, and Colchians in Asia, the 
 Egyptians, Mandingos, Gallas, Falashas, Abys- 
 sinians, and some Bantu tribes in Africa, the 
 Otaheitans, Tonga Islanders, and some Melanesiana 
 in Polynesia, certain New South Wales tribes in 
 Australia, and the Athabascans, Nahuatl, Aztecs, 
 and certain Amazonian tribes in America. 
 
 In Egypt its practice dates back at least to the 
 14th cent. B.c., and probably much farther. The 
 circumcising of two children is represented on the 
 wall of the temple of Khonsu at Karnak. The 
 record of the invasion of Egypt by Mediterranean 
 tribes in the time of Merenptah states that as the 
 Aquashua (supposed to be Achaians) were circum- 
 cised, their dead were not mutilated by the 
 Eeypuaus, except by cutting off a hand (Lepsius, 
 Denkmi. iii. 19). 
 
 Like other mutilations, such as tattooing, cutting 
 off a finger-joint, filing or eee out of teeth, the 
 operation may be a tribal mark. In all these there 
 is the twofold idea of a sacrifice to the tribal god, 
 and the marking of his followers so that they may 
 be known by him and by each other. The sacrifice 
 is a representative one, a part given for the re- 
 
 
 
eee a...  ##.. 
 
 CIRCUMCISION 
 
 CIRCUMCISION 443 
 
 
 
 demption of the rest. Stade (ZA W, 1886) has col- 
 lected a number of notices from many peoples, from 
 which he infers that circumcision is not so much a 
 mark of membership in atribe as initiation into man- 
 hoodand acquirementof the full rights of citizenship. 
 
 However originated, the rite is said to have been 
 appointed by God as the token of the covenant 
 between Him and Abraham, shortly after A braham’s 
 sojourn in Egypt. It was pedained to be performed 
 on himself, on his descendants and slaves, as well as 
 
 n strangers joining themselves to the Heb. nation 
 Gn 17” ete. Ex 12% both P), to signify their par- 
 Acipation in the benefits of the covenant and their 
 a Gage of its obligations. It was practised 
 by the Jews during their ca arity in Egypt (Jos 
 5° D?), but discontinued in the wilderness. Even 
 Moses neglected to circumcise his son (Ex 4% JE). 
 On this occasion Zipporah recognized the cause of 
 God’s displeasure, and removed the reproach by 
 operating (Ex 4%). She thus showed her acquaint- 
 ance with the ceremony ; and as she called Moses 
 on this account a hathan of blood, which may mean 
 one brought into a family by a blood-rite, it has 
 been conjectured that the Jews received the rite 
 from the Midianites. There is, however, no 
 evidence that this was so, and it is contrary to the 
 whole weight of tradition. As women were not 
 ermitted by the Rabbins to circumcise, the case of 
 ipporah is explained away in the Tosephta on 
 Ex 4 as meaning that she caused Moses to operate. 
 
 The characteristic of Hebrew circumcision is its 
 being performed in infancy. Wellhausen (Hist. 
 340) sees in Ex 4% the substitution of this for the 
 older and more severe operation in youth or man- 
 hood. (See the same writer’s Skizzen, iii. 154, 215; 
 and cf. Nowack, Heb. Archéol. i. 167 ff.; Cheyne, 
 art. ‘Circumcision’ in Encyc. Brit.®) 
 
 On the arrival of the Jews in Canaan the rite 
 was renewed at Gilgal (Jos 5*), the operation being 
 performed at a place named Gib‘ath ha‘drdléth, or 
 ‘the hill of the fore-skins,’ with flint knives, which, 
 according to the Sept. addition to Jos 24*!, were 
 buried with Joshua. Although the ceremony is 
 scarcely again mentioned in the historical part of 
 OT, yet it was probably observed continuously, and 
 there is no read ground for the statement made by 
 the Rabbins ( Ya/kut on Jos), that on the separation 
 of the two kingdoms circumcision was forbidden in 
 Ephraim. The Midrash on La 1° conjectures that 
 the priests were uncircumcised in the days of 
 Zedekiah (see 1 Mac 1"); but this is doubtful. 
 
 Abraham was circumcised at the age of 99, and, 
 according to Pirke R. Eliezer, the anniversary of 
 the ceremony is the great Day of Atonement. 
 Ishmael was circumcised at 13, and among Islamite 
 nations it is performed at some age between 6 and 
 16, as soon as the child can pronounce the religious 
 formule. It is not enjoined in the Koran, but, 
 according to the Arabian tradition, the Prophet 
 declared it to be meritorious, though not an 
 obligatory rite. 
 
 As Isaac was circumcised on the eighth day, so 
 that period was named in the institution (Gn 17), 
 and is observed as the proper date by the Jews to 
 this day. The child is named at the ceremony in 
 memory of the change in Abraham’s name (Lk 2”). 
 At the present day the rite is performed either in 
 the house of the parents or in the synagogue, and 
 either by the father or by a Mohel or circumciser, 
 who is usually a surgeon, and must be a Jew of 
 unblemished character, who is not paid for his 
 services. In former times the Rabbins preferred 
 
 flint or glass knives, but now steel is almost in- 
 variably used. Blood must be shed in the operation, 
 and the inner layer must be torn with the thumb- 
 nail ; this supplemental operation is called péri'ah, 
 and is said to have been introduced by Joshua. 
 The péri‘ah is peculiar to the Jewish mode of 
 
 operating. In former days the flow of blood was 
 encouraged by suction, and the bleeding stopped by 
 wine, with which the Mohel’s mouth is filled ; but 
 these practices, called by the Jews Mézizah, are not 
 now adopted in many places, where the operation 
 is performed with antiseptic precautions. Chloro- 
 form may be used if the Mohel think it necessary. 
 
 The night before the rite the parents keep watch, 
 a survival of the precautions formerly adopted to 
 prevent the child being stolen by Lilith, the devil’s 
 mother; they are visited by their friends; and all 
 the little children of the community are gathered 
 together, and the teacher reads the Shema or verses 
 from Dt 6*° 113?! and Nu 15°74. On the day of 
 the operation the child is carried to the door of the 
 room by a lady, who is called the Baalath Berith, 
 and is taken by a godfather or sandek, called also 
 Baal Berith, who sits in a chair, beside which is a 
 vacant seat dedicated to the prophet Elijah, in 
 memorial of his jealousy for the maintenance of 
 the covenant of whieh this rite is the token. The 
 Mohel sets this chair apart with prayer, asking that 
 the example of Elijah, the messenger of the cove- 
 nant, may sustain him in his task. Prayers, accord- 
 ing to a set form, are recited in Heb. by him, and 
 the child’s name is given, then the father and by- 
 standers join in the recitation of formule. After 
 the operation a blessing is invoked by the Mohel, and 
 the event is celebrated by feasting in the parents’ 
 house. The prayers for the occasion are set forth 
 in the works of Bergson, Asher, Brecher, and Auer- 
 bach. The portion cut off is either burned or buried 
 in accordance with ancient rabbinical directions. 
 
 After the defeat of Haman’s plot, many are said 
 to have been circumcised ‘for fear of the Jews’ 
 (Est 817 LXX). Circumcision was also imposed by 
 Hyrcanus upon the Idumeans (Jos. Ané. XIII. ix. 1). 
 Occasionally Gentiles submitted to it. Elagabalus, 
 Antoninus, and the two sons of Ptolemy Epiphanes 
 (Midrash Bereshith) were circumcised ; but in the 
 Justinian Code the performance of the operation 
 on a Rom. citizen was prohibited on pain of death 
 (i. 9. 10). Antiochus Epiphanes also prohibited 
 the rite, and many Jews were tortured and put 
 to death on this account (1 Mac 1%, 2 Mac 67). 
 Similar prohibitions were issued by Hadrian and 
 Constantius, as well as by the Spanish Inquisition 
 in later years. 
 
 In apostolic times the Judaizing section of the 
 Church wished to enforce circumcision on Gentile 
 converts; and in order to avoid contention, St. 
 Paul circumcised Timothy as he was a Jew by his 
 mother’s side (Ac 16%). He refused to perform the 
 rite on Titus (Gal 2%), and argues in the Ep. to the 
 Rom. (4!°) that Abraham was as yet uncircumcised 
 when God made His covenant with him. On this 
 subject the Council of Jerusalem gave a final 
 decision adverse to the Judaizers (Ac 152), In 
 some of the Ethiopian and Abyssinian Churches, 
 however, the operation was continued, being the 
 persistence of a pre-Christian ethnic practice. In 
 the 12th cent. a short-lived Christian sect of circum- 
 cist arose in Italy (Schrékh, Christl. Kirchengesch. 
 xxix. 655). 
 
 Among the Jewish teachers circumcision was 
 regarded as an operation of purification, and the 
 word foreskin has come to be synonymous with 
 obstinacy and imperfection. The rite was regarded 
 as a token in the flesh of the effect of Divine grace 
 in the heart, hence the phrases used in Dt 30°. 
 Philo speaks of it as a symbolic inculcation of 
 purity of heart, and having the advantage of pro- 
 moting cleanliness, fruitfulness, and avoidance of 
 disease. Jeremiah (97% RV) recognized that the 
 outward rite and the inward grace do not always 
 go together, and he groups together Egypt, Judah, 
 and Edom as races which, though circumcised in 
 the flesh, are uncircumcised in heart. 
 
 
 

 
 444 CISTERN 
 
 
 
 St. Paul also contrasts strongly the circumcision 
 in the flesh and the purification of the spirit (Ro 
 278. +8), and hence in Ph 3? he calls the fleshly cir- 
 cumcision xararou}, or Concision, a paronomasia, 
 probably indicating, as Theophylact suggests, that 
 those who insist on the fleshly circumcision are 
 endeavouring to cut in sunder the Church of Christ. 
 
 LiTERaTURE.—Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 1896, p. 343; 
 Letourneau, Bulletin Soc. Anthrop.,Paris, 1893 ; and Zaborowski, 
 sbid. 1894 ; Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria; Curr, The 
 Australian Race; The Karnak monument is figured by Chabas, 
 Revue Archéol. 1861, p. 298; Autenrieth, Ueber den Ursprung 
 der Beschneidung, Tiibingen, 1829; Collin, Die Beschneidung, 
 Leipzig, 1842; Bergson, Die Beschneidung, Berlin, 1844; 
 Salomon, Die Beschneidung, Brunswick, 1844; Brecher, Die 
 Beschneidung, Vienna, 1845; Steinschneider, Ueber die Beach- 
 neidung der Araber, Vienna, 1845; Asher, 7'he Jewish Rite of 
 Circumcision, London, 1873. For operations for decircumcision 
 see Celsus, de Arte Med. vii. 25, and other authors cited in 
 Groddeck, de Judeis preput. attrah., Leipzig, 1699, and Lossius, 
 de Epispasmo Judaico, Jena, 1665. See also Philo, edit. 
 Mangey, ii. 211; Cohen, Diss. sur la circoncision, Paris, 1816; 
 Terquem, Die Beschneidung, etc., edited by Heymann, Magde- 
 burg, 1844; Meiners, in Commentationes Soc. Reg., Gottingen, 
 xiv. 207. For Circumcision of Elagabalus, etc., see Basnage, 
 Histoire des Juifs, Taylor's transl. p. 632; Jost, Geach. der Isr. 
 fi. 78. A. MACALISTER. 
 
 CISTERN (72, Adxxos, cisterna, lacus).—A tank 
 for the collection and storage of rain-water, or, 
 occasionally, of spring-water brought from a dis- 
 tance by a CONDUIT. It was always covered, and 
 so distinguished from the POOL (A272, KodupBnOpa, 
 piscina), which was a reservoir open to the air. 
 
 Cisterns must always have been necessary in 
 Pal., where there are large areas ill supplied with 
 natural springs, a long dry summer, and a small 
 annual rainfall. They were required not only for 
 domestic purposes, but for ceremonial ablutions, 
 irrigation, the watering of animals, and the con- 
 venience of travellers. The cisterns in Pal. vary in 
 size and character, and may be classified as follows: 
 4. Cisterns wholly excavated in the rock. These are 
 the most ancient, and the oldest form is probably 
 the bottle-shaped tank, with a long neck or shaft, 
 which is common in Jerus., the Hauran, and else- 
 where. Small rectangular tanks, with draw-holes, 
 are found by the wayside and in vineyards. At 
 Jerus. there are some very large cisterns, and in 
 these the roofs are supported by rude rock-pillars. 
 The finest example is the ‘Great Sea’ in the Haram 
 esh-Sherif, which has several rock-pillars, and is 
 estimated to hold 3,000,000 gallons. It derived its 
 supply partly from surface drainage and partly 
 from water brought by a conduit from Solomon’s 
 Pools, near Reihlohene 2. Rock-hewn tanks with 
 vaulted roofs are found in many localities. A few 
 of these may possibly be as old as the 8rd cent. B.C. 
 8. Cisterns of masonry built in the soil are found 
 everywhere. Some of them are of large size, and 
 have vaulted roofs, supported by pillars arranged in 
 parallel rows. They are of all ages, from the Rom. 
 occupation to the present day. Most of the cisterns 
 have their sides and floors coated with cement, 
 which is often very hard and durable. All have 
 one or more openings in their roofs, through which 
 water is drawn to the surface; and many have a 
 flight of steps leading to the floor, partly to facili- 
 tate cleansing operations. The rain-water, which 
 falls op the flat roofs of the houses and the paved 
 court-yards, is conveyed to the cisterns by surface 
 gutters and pipes, and carries with it many im- 
 purities. This renders periodical cleaning neces- 
 sary, as the water would otherwise become foul, 
 full of animal life, and dangerous to health. Much 
 of the fever and sickness so prevalent in Pal. is 
 due to the neglected state of the cisterns. 
 
 Jer 2% alludes to the rock-hewn cisterns of Jerus., 
 and it would appear from 2 K 18* that every house 
 in the city had its own cistern for the collection of 
 rain-water (cf. Pr 5%, Is 36!5). One of the great 
 works of Simon, son of Onias, was to cover the large 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CITIZENSHIP 
 
 
 
 
 
 cistern of the temple with plates of brass Sir 50°). 
 When a cistern was empty it formed a convenient 
 prison. It was into one of the roadside cisterns 
 (AV ‘pit’), which had become dry, that Joseph was 
 cast by his brethren (Gn 37” 74); and it was 
 into a cistern in the court of the guard, near the 
 temple, in which the muddy deposit was still 
 soft, that Jeremiah was let:.down with cords 
 (Jer 38°:), The custom of confining prisoners in 
 an empty cistern is alluded toin Zec 9" ; and it may 
 be noted that the word 73 ‘ cistern’ is used for the 
 dungeon in which Joseph was confined in Egypt 
 (Gn 405 414). In Ec 12° there is an allusion to the 
 wheel used in drawing water from a cistern. Jos, 
 mentions the rock-hewn cisterns at Masada (Ant. 
 XIV. xiv. 6; BJ VII. viii. 3) and at Machzrus (BJ 
 VII. vi. 2), and describes those constructed in the 
 towers of the walls of Jerus. for the collection of 
 rain-water. In the smaller towers the cisterns 
 were above the apartments, but in the tower 
 Hippicus the cistern was on the solid masonry, and 
 the apartments were built above it (BJ V. iv. 3, 4) 
 
 C. W. WILSON. 
 CITHERN.—See Music. 
 
 CITIZENSHIP.—So RV for wodirela, Ac 2¥%, 
 instead of the vague AV rendering ‘freedom.’ Here 
 Claudius Lysias says that he had obtained his ec. 
 by purchase, possibly from the wife or the freedman 
 of the Emperor (laudvan whose name he bore. 
 Cf. Dio Cass. lx. 17, where, however, it is said 
 that the price of the franchise had fallen to a mere 
 trifle. But the interest of civic privileges in NT 
 lies in their importance in the career of St. Paul. 
 Rom. citizenship was one of the special qualifications 
 of the ‘chosen vessel,’ and it is a chief purpose of 
 St. Luke (in Ac) to exhibit the apostle as a citizen 
 who, though a Christian, receives for the most part 
 courtesy and justice from the Rom. officials. His 
 citizenship, however, was double, of Tarsus and of 
 Rome. That the former did not carry with it the 
 latter, we know from independent sources; hence a 
 comparison of Ac 21% with 227’, by which the separ- 
 ateness of Tarsian and Rom. citizenship is made 
 evident, furnishes proof of the accuracy of the 
 narrative. Tarsus was not a ‘colonia’ or ‘muni- 
 cipium,’ but an ‘urbs libera,’ Plin. VA v. 27 (22), that 
 is to say, a city within a Rom. province, yet enjoy- 
 ing self-government (Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverw. 
 i. 349-353). St. Paul’s citizenship of Tarsus was of 
 no substantial advantage outside that city. But his 
 Rom. citizenship availed throughout the Rom. world, 
 including, besides private rights, (1) exemption from 
 all degrading punishments, ¢.g. scourging and 
 crucifixion; (2) right of appeal to the emperor 
 after sentence in all cases ; (3) right to be sent to 
 Rome for trial before the emperor if charged with 
 a capital offence (cf. Plin. Hpp. x. 96; Schiirer, 
 HJP 1. ii. 278). These rights, at least (1) and (3), 
 are illustrated by Ac 16*7 227-29 254, But there is 
 nothing to show whether he possessed the full 
 citizenship, including the public rights of voting 
 and qualification for office. It was by birth that 
 St. Paul had become a ‘Roman.’ The word citizen 
 is not used in describing his status. ‘Pwyaios alone 
 is enough (cf, ‘cive di quella Roma onde Cristo é 
 Romano,’ Dante, Purg. xxxii. 101-2). There were 
 several ways in which St. Paul’s father or ancestor 
 might have obtained citizenship. The most prob- 
 able are by manumission (ef. Philo, Leg. ad G. 
 § 23), or as a reward of merit bestowed by the 
 emperor (cf. case of Jos. Vit. 76), or by purchase, 
 in which case the contrast implied in Ac 22” would 
 have had less force. The large number of Jews in 
 
 Asia Minor who were Rom. citizens appears from 
 the decrees quoted in Jos. Ané. XIV. x. 
 
 Lastly, the metaphorical use of the words citizen 
 This use is closely 
 
 and citizenship requires notice. 
 
 
 

 
 CITY 
 
 CITY 445 
 
 
 
 connected with Plato’s conception of the heavenly 
 city (fep. ix. 592 B), and with later Stoic thought. 
 It eet in Ph 3”, where for ‘conversation’ we 
 should substitute ‘commonwealth’ (RVm), See 
 parallels given by Lightfoot, in duc. Saints on 
 earth are to live as worthy citizens of the heavenly 
 commonwealth (Ph 1% RVin). The conception of 
 the Church, not as a kingdom subjugating the 
 world, but as a commonwealth pradually extend- 
 ing its citizenship to other lands and alien tribes (ef. 
 Eph 2! and Ps 87), and thus making them fellow- 
 citizens with the saints (Eph 2!"), ran parallel 
 with the extension of Rom. citizenship which was 
 going on at the time, and was to culminate in 
 the inclusion of all Rom. subjects by the edict 
 _ of Caracalla (A.D. 212). The preference for ‘ Civi- 
 tas Dei’ over ‘Regnum Dei,’ as the aspect of the 
 Church and of its goal, was, however, also due to 
 OT influence. The picture of the restored Jerus. 
 io Is 60-62 combined easily with the Platonic 
 ‘pattern’ of a heavenly city, and it is this com- 
 bination in varying proportions which we have 
 before us in He 11, 12, and 138, in the ‘Jerusalem 
 which is above’ of Gal 47°, and, perhaps, in Rev 21. 
 
 It is worth noticing that it is only in the writings 
 of St. Luke, thorough Greek as he was, that the 
 word ‘citizen’ occurs, Lk 15 194 (add RV reading 
 in a LXX quotation in He 8"). 
 
 LireRATURE.—For the historical question, in addition to the 
 authorities cited, see Devling, Obss. Sacre, iii. 40, De S. Pauli 
 Romana civitate (very full); Winer, RWB, art. ‘ Burgerrecht’ 
 many reff.); Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 30 (very brief) ; 
 Wendt’s ed. of Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte on Ac 1637, 
 
 E. R. BERNARD, 
 
 CITY (vy, wédcs).—1. Origin.—The Oriental city 
 owed nothing to organized manufacture, and was 
 only in a few instances, such as Arvad, Sidon, Tyre, 
 aeiappe) dependent upon maritime trade. It 
 was a creation of agriculture, which was an out- 
 come of the pastoral life. As the country settled 
 down to the cultivation of the soil, the peasantry 
 found themselves in constant danger from the 
 wandering tribes of the desert, who often sent 
 their flocks among the standing crops, and carried 
 off the cattle and grain. The necessity of pro- 
 tecting life and property from such enemies was 
 the chief factor in the creation of the village, out 
 of which in turn grew the city. These would 
 naturally be found near those who could protect 
 them, or in grain-growing districts, or in positions 
 of natural strength and in possession of a sufficient 
 water-supply. Hence the village or town was 
 often named from the local well (Beer-, En-), the 
 hill on which it was built (Gibeah-), or its sanctity 
 as ‘a high place’ (Baal-), or became distinguished by 
 the name of its ruling family, or of some conspicu- 
 ous house (Beth-). 
 
 2. Development.—The city grew out of the 
 village, as the village owed its origin to the house. 
 The expansion was on the same lines as that of the 
 nation from the tribe, and the tribe from the 
 family. Looking, therefore, to these ultimate 
 factors, we find that each house had its ba’al or 
 lord, and under him the family was an indepen- 
 dent organism, seeking its own livelihood and 
 welfare. An act of hospitality to a stranger gave 
 him the sacred privileges of the family guild, and 
 the sanctity of the guest became the right of later 
 citizenship. The gradual slackening of this bond 
 is given in the Arab. proverb, ‘My brother and I 
 against my cousin, my cousin and I against the 
 stranger.’ 
 
 These two facts of authority and combination 
 made up the aristocratic and democratic elements 
 of the village and city. It might be under the pro- 
 tection of a feudal lord living in a fortress around 
 which the city clustered, or near which it was 
 built; or it might depend entirely upon its own 
 
 wall and the courage and fidelity of its inhabitants. 
 The agricultural life of Palestine knew nothing of 
 separate farmsteads dotting the landscape. The 
 ph apree had to retire for the night to the village, 
 ike the sheep to the fold. It was customary for 
 the smaller villages to recognize the motherhood 
 or superior protection of a large city. Thus the 
 inhabitants of Laish looked to Zidon the Great 
 (Jg 18°), and at the present day every inhabitant 
 of Syria is considered to belong to Esh-Shim 
 (Damascus). Hence the expression ‘cities and 
 their villages,’ ‘ cities and their daughters,’ in Nu 
 21% 32”, Jos 15 and 19. The feudal lords or the 
 superior cities, in return for protection offered 
 against nomad invasions and other dangers, re- 
 ceived payment in service and produce (see 
 TaAxks). The service rendered by the peasant to 
 his superior was originally of the nature of a son’s 
 obedience te the father’s command, and passed 
 eventually into corvée labour. * 
 
 3. Characteristics. —The chief feature of an 
 Oriental city was its wall. This gave it the right to 
 be so named (Lv 25*"-), though in later times the title 
 turned upon the ecclesiastical distinction of having 
 ten men of leisure and suitability for the services of 
 the synagogue. The wall had one or more gates, 
 which were closed from sunset to sunrise ; hence 
 the explanation of their remaining open where 
 there is no night (Rey 21%). All within the wall 
 were of one mind, pledged to obey the laws of the 
 city, and seek the welfare of its inhabitants. The 
 newspaper office and court of tribunal were found 
 at the city gate by which strangers entered and 
 the inhabitants went out to their daily occupation 
 in the fields. Domestic news circulated around 
 the fountain while the women waited their turn to 
 fll the water-jar. The bank was represented by 
 the seat of the money-changer, while our modern 
 factories of organized labour appeared as special 
 streets allocated to special trades. This last 
 arrangement was due to the different artisan guilds, 
 in which the son usually followed the occupation 
 of his father; it was also of fiscal convenience in 
 the collection of taxes through a recognized and 
 responsible head. On occasions of general taxation, 
 each man, wherever he might be living and work- 
 ing, was reckoned as still belonging to the city of 
 his birth. Thus Joseph went up from Nasareth to 
 Bethlehem, the city of his family (Lk 2). 
 
 In an Oriental city each house had its own in- 
 violability, its power to admit and exclude. The 
 passer-by in the narrow street could know no- 
 thing of what was going on within those dead 
 walls, with their windows and balconies all open- 
 ing on the central court. He was as much outside 
 as the dog at his feet. It is probable that the 
 streets of Oriental towns have always by prefer- 
 ence been narrow, sufficient for the foot passenger 
 and baggage-animal, and affording shelter from 
 the sun to the merchants and tradesmen. Such 
 are the streets of Hebron and Zidon; and in 
 Damascus the ‘street called straight’ (Ac 9"), once 
 a broad Roman carriage-way, with a foot-path on 
 each side of the stately eolonaste: now shows a 
 return to the Oriental type. 
 
 Again, each quarter of a large city might have 
 its own homogeneousness. At the present day the 
 distinction is penerally a religious one, as Chris- 
 tian, Jewish, Moslem ; or of race, as Western and 
 Oriental. In Damascus, for example, the ringing 
 of an alarm bell in the Greek church can cause the 
 gates of the Christian quarter to be closed, and the 
 district in a few minutes to assume the character 
 of a fortress. 
 
 * Any payment made from time to time by the Emir or Sheikh 
 was of the undefined nature of a gratuity, the term for which in 
 Arabic, fudl-in-Na amah, is the equivalent of St. Paul’s ‘ exceed 
 ing riches of grace.’ 
 
£46 CITY OF DAVID 
 
 
 
 CLAUDIUS 
 
 
 
 Then, lastly, the entire city, with its massive 
 girdling wall, had the attitude both of friendly 
 enclosure and hostile exclusion. 
 
 ee 
 
 
 
 DAMASOUS CITY-GATE—ENTRANCE TO STRAIGHT STREET. 
 
 The chief meanings of an Oriental city are thus 
 found to be Safety, Society, Service. Thus we>ead 
 in Ps 107’ of ‘a city to dwell in,’ ‘a city of hebita- 
 tions,’ around which men ‘sow fields’ (vv.* 34 87), 
 Abraham, dwelling in his black movable tent, 
 journeyed by faith towards a fair city ‘ which hath 
 foundations’ (He 11°). In Rev 21. 22 these 
 various features appear as borrowed from the green 
 earth in the gloriked vision of the Holy City. 
 There the tabernacle of God is with men; the city 
 has its wall and gates; as an extended family- 
 house it has ‘ foundations’ like the special corner- 
 stone; it is a place of safety into which the 
 nations bring their glory and honour; it has its 
 own fountain-head supply of water, and abundant 
 means of sustaining life; there the servants serve 
 their Lord; and all who are hostile to its order 
 and interests shall in no wise enter into it. (See 
 CITIZENSHIP, ELDER, GOVERNMENT, PALESTINE, 
 REFUGE (CITIES OF), and ef. Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 
 124 ff.) G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 CITY OF DAYID.—See JrnusALEmM. CITY OF 
 SALT.—See SALT City. CITY OF WATERS and 
 CITY ROYAL.—See RABBAH. 
 
 CLASPS.—RV for AV TACHEs (wh. see). 
 
 CLAUDIA (K)avéia).—A Christian lady at Rome, 
 who, with Eubulus, Pudens, and Linus, was on 
 intimate terms of friendship with St. Paul and 
 Timothy at the time of St. Paul’s second imprison- 
 ment (2 Ti 471). The name suggests a connexion 
 with the imperial household, but whether as a 
 member of the gens Clandia or as a slave there is 
 nothing to decide. Tradition treats her as the 
 mother or, less probably, the sister of Linus (A post. 
 Const. vii. 46, Aivos 6 KXavéias); she may also have 
 become wife of Pudens, if they are to be identified 
 with Claudius Pudens and Claudia Quinctilla, 
 whose inscription to the memory of their infant 
 child has been feund between Rome and Ostia 
 (CIL vi. 15,066). Another very ingenious but 
 ere coniecture identifies her with Claudia 
 
 utina, wife of Martial’s friend, Aulus Pudens 
 (Martial, Epiaqr. iv. 13, xi. 53). On this theory she 
 would be of British origin, a lady of high character 
 and cultivation, and the mother of three sons; 
 peehane the daughter of the British king Tiberius 
 
 ‘laudius Cogidubnus, who had taken the name of 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rufina from Pomponia, the wife of Aulus Plautus, 
 the Roman commander in Britain, and had come 
 to Rome in her train (T. Williams, Claudia and 
 Pudens, Liandovery, 1848; E. H. Plumptre in 
 Ellicott, N.7. Comm. ii. is 185; but against the 
 theory, Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, Clem. i. pp. 29 
 and 76-79). W. LOCK. 
 
 CLAUDIUS (K)avéios), the name by which the 
 fourth emperor of Rome is commonly known. 
 Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus was 
 the son of Nero Claudius Drusus and of Antonia, 
 whose mother, Octavia, was a sister of the emperor 
 Augustus. Born at Lyons on Ist August, B.C. 10, 
 he was of weak health and apparently feeble 
 intellect (see the opinion of Augustus as given 
 in Suet. Claud. 4, and the excuse of C. himself 
 in Suet. Claud. 38); consequently he was kept 
 in retirement, without being allowed to hold any 
 but unimportant oftices, until the reign of Gaius, 
 while the honours conferred upon him by the 
 latter would scarcely seem to have been seriously 
 meant. His time was occupied in historical and 
 literary studies, as well as in less creditable 
 occupations (Suet. Claud. 33. 41-42), until the 
 pretorian guards, by a freak which disappointed 
 all previous expectations (cf. Tac. Ann. iii. 18. 
 7), raised him to the principate on 24th Jan. 
 A.D. 4l—a position which he occupied until he 
 was murdered by his wife Agrippina, on 12th 
 Oct. 54. 
 
 Recent inquiry has conclusively shown that the 
 government of the Roman Empire under Claudius 
 compares not unfavourably with that of the other 
 early emperors. It is pointed out that C., although 
 originally appointed through military influence at 
 a time when the restoration of the republic was 
 being seriously discussed, managed to conciliate 
 the Senate and to obtain a permanent reputa- 
 tion as a constitutional ‘princeps’; while, at 
 the same time, considerable advances were made 
 under his rule towards concentrating power more 
 completely in the hands of imperial officers. 
 The views of C. on the citizenship (see the 
 speech quoted in Furneaux, Annals of Tacitus, ii. 
 208) show him to have been very different from the 
 colourless figure to which traditional historians, 
 following exclusively one side of the picture drawn 
 by Tacitus and Suetonius, have reduced him. It 
 might, however, be argued that the present re- 
 action in his favour is going too far. He allowed 
 his wives, Messalina and Agrippina, whether 
 through their influence over him, or even with- 
 out his knuwledge, to interfere with the ‘course of 
 justice, and to do incalculable harm in Rome; he 
 entrusted power to subordinates in a way which 
 (in spite of the just remarks of Bury, Student’s 
 Rom. Emp. 244) shows him to have been but a 
 weak ruler; and it is probable that C. should be 
 considered to have had good intentions in certain 
 respects, but to have been, for most paewuers pur- 
 poses, powerless ; while the effects of his reign, for 
 good or evil, will have to be mainly set down to 
 the credit of his leading freedmen, over whom he 
 had proverbially little control (cf. Seneca, Ludus 
 de morte Claudia, vi. 2). 
 
 For the events mentioned in NT which fall in 
 the reign of Claudius, see CHRONOLOGY OF THE 
 NEw TESTAMENT. 
 
 The emperor is twice mentioned by name :— 
 
 (1) In Ac 11% the prophecy by Agabus of a 
 famine ‘over the whole world’ is said to have been 
 fulfilled ‘in the time of C.’ Meyer and others 
 protest against interpreting these words of any 
 other famine than that to which Josephus refers 
 (Ant. Xx. ii. 5, v. 2) as occurring under Cuspius 
 Fadus and Tiberius Alexander. ieseler (Chron. 
 apost. Zeit. p. 159), though puzzled by the allusion 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CLAUDIUS LYSIAS 
 
 
 
 CLAY 447 
 
 
 
 in Ant. II. xv. 3 to the high priest Ishmael, fixes 
 the date of this famine, with considerable prob- 
 ability, at A.D. 45, adding that it may well have 
 lastec for more than one year. There seems to be 
 no reason to doubt that this famine is the one 
 referred toin Ac 11%. At the same time it must be 
 noted that famines seem to have been unusually 
 
 revalent during the reign of C. (see, for instance, 
 
 io, lx. 11; Eus. Chron. ii. p. 152, ed. Sch. ; Suet. 
 Claud. 18, ‘assidue sterilitates’); the person of C. 
 was in danger from this cause (Tac. Ann. xii. 43), 
 and the emperor became so sensitive on the point 
 as to allow a dream, which was interpreted as 
 foretelling dearth, to bring about the ruin of two 
 Rom. knights (Tac. Ann. xi. 4). The carelessness 
 of Gaius as regards the corn supply (Sen. de Brev. 
 Vit. xviii. 5 ; Dio, lix. 17. 2) caused great difficulties 
 to C. on his accession, and very vigorous measures 
 were at once taken by the latter, and continued 
 throughout his reign (Suet. Claud. xviii. 20; cf. 
 Lehmann, Claudius, p. 135). When it was noticed 
 that, in spite of these special precautions, famines 
 were a characteristic of the time of C., it is not 
 hard to see how the prophecy may have come to 
 be regarded as amply fulfilled, even if taken in 
 the widest sense. 
 
 (2) St. Paul met at Corinth two Jews, Aquila 
 and his wife Priscilla, who had come thither ‘ be- 
 cause C. had commanded all the Jews to depart 
 from Rome’ (Ac 187). Suetonius says (Claud. 25) 
 that C. ‘Judzos impulsore Chresto assidue tumul- 
 tuantes expulit.’ Dio (LX. vi. 6), perhaps correct- 
 ing Suet., asserts that the Jews, whose numbers 
 were so great as to make expulsion difficult, 
 were not indeed expelled, but only forbidden 
 to assemble together. The general policy of C. 
 towards the Jews was favourable, as is shown 
 by the two edicts, one relating to Alexandria, 
 the other to the whole empire (Jos. Ant. XIX. 
 v. 2, 3; cf. the edict of Petronius in XIX. vi. 3), 
 which granted to them religious toleration, exemp- 
 tion from the hated military service, and some 
 measure of self-government. But we are expressly 
 told that he was influenced by his personal feeling 
 towards Herod Agrippa I. (id. ib. Xx. i. 1; ef. XIX. 
 y. 2), to whom the emperor was indebted at the 
 time of his accession (XIX. iv. 5). Not only did 
 Agrippa receive ‘consular honours’ and such ex- 
 tensions of territory as to make his dominions 
 coincide with those of Herod the Great, but his 
 brother was given ‘pretorian rank,’ the rule over 
 Chalcis, and, subsequently, certain other districts, 
 as well as the oversight of the temple (Dio, LX. viii.; 
 Jos. Ant. XX. vii. 1, i. 3), while his son is described 
 as having great influence at court (Jos. Ant. Xx. 
 i. 2; cf. VI. iii.). Anger has accordingly shown that 
 the edict of Ac 18? must be put during the years 
 when Agrippa Il. was absent from Rome. As he 
 remained in the capital till A.p. 50 (Wieseler, 
 p. 67 n., 124), and had returned before the end of 
 52 (Jos. Ant. XX. vi. 3), these limits may be re- 
 
 arded as reasonably certain; but the attempt of 
 
 ieseler (pp. 125-8) to fix the date absolutely by 
 @ comparison with Tac. Ann. xii. 52. 3, thoug 
 interesting and ingenious, is hardly convincing. It 
 i3 no doubt true that the Jews often practised 
 magic (e.g. Ac 8°), and Jews and magicians are 
 often mentioned together, but they are, as Wieseler 
 admits, clearly distinct, and Tacitus does not 
 mention the Jews at all in this connexion. 
 
 LrreratuRE.—Lehmann, Claudius und seine Zeit, Leipzig, 
 1877 (pp. 1-60 give an account of the original authorities) ; 
 Furneaux, The Annals of Tacitus, vol. ii.; Mommsen, Provinces 
 of Rom. Emp. ch. xi. (Eng. tr.); Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. 
 Zeitalt.; Nosgen, Apostelgeschichte (on Ac ll.cc., where re- 
 ferences to modern works are given). 
 
 P. V. M. BENECKE. 
 CLAUDIUS LYSIAS (Kvavédi0s Avolas), the mili- 
 tary tribune of the Roman cohort in Jerus., who is 
 
 
 
 mentioned in Ac 21-23. Hearing that all Jerus. 
 was in confusion, he came down with soldiers and 
 centurions to investigate the cause of the uproar, and 
 bound St. Paul with two chains. As the ‘ sicarii’ 
 had recently become very prominent in Judea 
 (cf. Jos. Ant. XX. viii. 5, 6), and were especially 
 in evidence during the great festivals (id. BJ 11. 
 xiii. 3, 4), he imagined, the season being Pente- 
 cost, that St. Paul was an Egyptian who had 
 recently led out 4000 ‘assassins’ into the wilder- 
 ness (Ac 21%), and who is described by Jos. 
 (BJ MU. xiii. 5) as having had 30,000 associates 
 in all. On discovering his mistake, L. allowed 
 St. Paul to address the people from the castle 
 stairs ; but the mention of the Gentiles renewed the 
 disturbance, so that the tribune was obliged to 
 bring him into the castle, and was only prevented 
 from examining him by scourging through receiy- 
 ing the news that he was a Rom. citizen, and 
 therefore by the Lex Porcia exempt from such 
 treatment. L. next arranged an interview between 
 St. Paul and the Jewish Council, but a dispute be- 
 tween the Sadducees and Pharisees was the only 
 result ; subsequently he learned that a conspiracy 
 had been formed with the object of killing St. 
 Paul, so he sent him to Cesarea by night under an 
 escort of 200 foot-soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 
 ‘spearmen’ (defcohdBor, see Meyer on Ac 23%), 
 The letter given in Ac 237° as written by L. to 
 the procurator Felix on this occasion has been con- 
 sidered by some eminent critics to be an invention 
 by the historian. The letter would almost cer- 
 tainly have been written in Latin, and the word 
 tumos (v.%) would seem to imply that only the 
 general sense is given. But it must be noticed 
 that in v.2” L. represents himself as having rescued 
 St. Paul because he discovered him to be a Roman, 
 a falsification and inconsistency with Ac 237-2” of 
 which the author of Ac, had he been inventing, 
 would not have been guilty (see, on opposite sides, 
 Wendt and Nésgen on Ac 237). The admission of 
 L. that he had gained Rom. citizenship ‘for a 
 large sum’ (implying his incredulity that a native 
 of Tarsus should be a citizen and yet apparently so 
 poor) illustrates the ‘ avarice of the Claudian times,’ 
 and the traffic in honours by Messalina and the 
 imperial freedmen, partly due, no doubt, to a 
 desire to replenish the treasury, partly to even 
 more questionable motives, on which Dio Cassius 
 indignantly comments (Ix. 17. 6). See CITIzEN- 
 SHIP. P. V. M. BENECKE. 
 
 CLAW.—In older Eng. c. was used for an animal’s 
 hoof, and for any of the parts into which a cloven 
 hoof is divided. So in Dt 146 AV we read, ‘ And 
 every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth 
 the cleft into two claws, ... that ye shall eat’ 
 (RV ‘and hath the hoof cloven in two’); and in 
 Zec 1116 ‘he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear 
 their claws in pieces’ (RV ‘hoofs’). The Heb. is 
 parsah, the ordinary word for ‘hoof,’ in_ both 
 passages. Cf. Lovell (1661): ‘With claws like a 
 Cow ; but quadrifide.’ The bird’s ¢. is mentioned 
 only Dn 4% ‘his [Nebuchadrezzar’s] nails like 
 birds’ claws’ (no word in Heb., ‘nails’ [}75»] being 
 understood). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CLAY, (wp, 17m, mdés).—This word is frequently 
 used in the Bible either in a literal or a meta- 
 phorical sense, in which latter it is parallel with 
 ‘dust’ (comp. Gn 27 and Is 648). Clay is widely 
 distributed over the surface of nearly all countries, 
 especially in valleys, and from the earliest times 
 of the human race was used both for the con- 
 struction of buildings and habitations and for 
 the manufacture of pottery and works of art. 
 It is a mixture of decomposed minerals of various 
 kinds, and hence is exceedingly variable in com- 
 
448 CLEAN 
 
 CLEAR, CLEARNESS 
 
 
 
 position. Alumina, silica, and potash are the 
 ager ta constituents ; but along with these may 
 
 e variable quantities of lime, magnesia, and iron, 
 which give variety both to the quality and colour. 
 Hence various kinds of clay are suited for different 
 uses in the arts. 
 
 1. As a building material, clay has been used 
 from the earliest ages. Ancient Babylon, as de- 
 scribed by Herodotus, and verified by modern dis- 
 covery, was built altogether of brick, either baked 
 in kilns or dried in the sun; and amongst the 
 other remains is the great quadrilateral pile of 
 brickwork,—known as Babil, the Gate of God, cor- 
 rupted by the Jews to ‘ Babel,’ *—which might well 
 have been supposed to be the ‘Tower of Babel’ 
 described in en 11", but that the inscriptions 
 found thereon, by Sir Henry Rawlinson, show 
 it to have been the famous Tower of the Seven 
 Planets built by Nebuchadrezzar Il. (B.C. 604-562). 
 Of similar materials was built, in the main, the 
 capital of Assyria, though blocks of limestone, 
 alabaster, and other materials were also employed. 
 The clay used in Nineveh was derived from the 
 alluvia of the Tigris.t The brickmaking in Lower 
 Egypt of the time of the Exodus is still earried on, 
 the clay used being derived from the silt of the 
 Nile; and bricks in the British Museum, inscribed 
 with the names of Tahutmes L., B.c. 1700, and 
 Ramses II., B.C. 1400, show straw mixed with the 
 clay in order to bind it together as deseribed in 
 OT (Ex 1* 5’). Most of the villages both in 
 Lower Egypt and in the Nile Valley are built 
 of sun-dried clay ; bricks of clay were also largely 
 used in the construction of ancient Troy.t 
 
 2. The use of clay for pottery was coeval with 
 its use for building purposes. Remains of jars, 
 vases, bowls, and other vessels are found amongst 
 the most ancient ruins of Assyria, Babylonia, and 
 Egypt. The potter's wheel was commonly em- 
 
 loyed in such works, and is often referred to 
 in the Bible; but of all the purposes for which 
 clay was employed in very ancient times, none 
 was more interesting than its use for imprinting 
 letters of cuneiform characters on tablets which 
 have been discovered in immense numbers amongst 
 the ruins of Assyria and Babylonia ;§ they were 
 either in the form of bricks or cylinders of clay, 
 baked after the inscription had been impressed.|| 
 Amongst the inscriptions is the story of the Crea- 
 tion, the Fall, and the Deluge, deciphered by the 
 late George Smith of the British Museum: of 
 only less interest are the Tel el-Amarna tablets 
 in Egypt, one of which has been discovered by 
 Bliss amongst the ruins at Tell el-Hesy in Southern 
 Palestine (supposed to be Lachish, one of the five 
 Amorite cities, Jos 10°), and dating as far back 
 as B.C. 1480.** E. HULL. 
 
 CLEAN (see also UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNESS).—4. 
 The orig. meaning of the word is clear, free from 
 eget , as applied to glass, gold, and the like, 
 as Wyclif’s tr. of Rev 21" ‘The citee it silf was of 
 cleene gold, lijk to cleene elas.’ Whence it is 
 ‘used of the transparent purity of white garments, 
 Rev 19% ‘fine linen, ¢. and white’ (ka@apés, RV 
 ‘pure’). And then it is applied to anything that 
 is not dirty (its modern use), as Pr 144‘ Where no 
 oxen are, the crib is ec.’ (12); Is 30% ‘c¢. provender’ 
 (yon, salted, RV ‘savoury’); Zec 35% Amer. RV 
 *a c. mitre’ ("im», AV and RV ‘ fair’); Mt 27° ‘a 
 e. linen cloth’ (ka@apés). 
 
 * Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. ii. 521, ed. 1879. 
 
 + Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, passim (1849). 
 
 ¢ Schliemann, T'roja, ch. i. et seq. (1884). 
 
 § Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. i. ch. iv. 
 
 {| Layard, Nineveh, ii. 185 (ed. 1849). 
 
 ¥ Smith, Chaldean account of Genesis. 
 
 ** Sayce, RP, N. Ser. ii. iii. iv. and v.; PH/ St, 1802-92. The 
 fe] el Amarna tablets have been translated by Winckler (1896). 
 
 2. Before passing from its physical uses we 
 may notice an early application in the sense of 
 complete, still retained in such a phrase as ‘a ce. 
 sweep.’ The only example of the adj. is Lv 23” 
 ‘thou shalt not make ec. riddance of the corners of 
 thy field when thou reapest’ (RV ‘shalt not wholly 
 reap the corners of thy field’). But the adv. is 
 more frequent, Jos 3” ‘all the people were passed 
 c. over Jordan’ (*1y) wa were finished crossing), 
 so 4-1, Pg 778 ‘Is his mercy ¢. gone for ever?’ 
 Jl 17 ‘he hath made it ec. bare’; Zee 11!” ‘his arm 
 shall be c. dried up’; Wis 2” ‘he is c. contrary to 
 our doings’ (évayriofra) ; 2 P 218 ‘those that were 
 ce. escaped’ (TR 6értws diropvyévras, edd. drlyws 
 amogpevyovras, RV ‘those who are just escaping’) ; 
 and Ezk 37. RV ‘we are c. cut off’ (AV ‘cut off 
 for our parts’). Cf. Hooker, Zecl. Pol. m1. i. 13 
 ‘Excommunication neither shutteth out from the 
 mystical, nor clean from the visible Church.’ 
 
 3. At a very early period the word passed into 
 the language of religion to designate (1) that which 
 does not ceremonially defile, whether (a) beasts, as 
 Gn 7? ‘of every c. beast thou shalt take to thee by 
 sevens’; Dt 14" ‘Of alle. birds ye shall eat’; or 
 (6) places, as Lv 4!2 6 ‘without the camp unto a 
 Cc. ings! or (c) things, as Is 667° ‘the children of 
 Israel shall bring an offering in a ec. vessel’; Ezk 
 365 ‘I will sprinkle c. water upon you’; Lk 11” 
 ‘all things are ec. unto you’ (where the ethical 
 [see 4] closely approaches); and Ro 14” RV ‘All 
 things indeed are c.’ (xa@apss, AV ‘pure’); (2) 
 persons who are not ceremonially defiled, as Ly 7 
 ‘all that be (RV ‘every one that is’) c. shall eat 
 thereof’; 1S 20° ‘Something hath befallen him, 
 he is not ¢.; surely he is not c.’; Ezk 36% (see 
 above) ‘ye shall be c.’ (passing into 4). 
 
 4, Closely related to this ceremonial use is the 
 ethical, and quite as old. In passages like Ezk 36% 
 Lk 114, and esp. Jn 131.1) 155 we see the one 
 passing into the other; in others the ethically 
 stands out from the ceremonially religious mean- 
 ing. Take first of all some passages where the 
 Heb. is the usual vb. (¢@hér) or adj. (tahér) used 
 for ceremonial cleanness: Ps 19° ‘The fear of the 
 Lorp is ec.’ (that is, the religion of J” is morall 
 undefiled, in contrast to heathen religions; cf. 
 Ps 12° ‘the words of the LORD are pure words,’ 
 where the Heb. is the same, a word freq. applied 
 to ‘pure’ gold); Lv 16% ‘from all your sins shall 
 ye be c.’; Gn 35? ‘ Put away the strange gods that 
 are among you, and be c., and change your 
 garments’; Ps 517 ‘purge me with hyssop, and 
 I shall be e.’; 51° Oats in me a clean heart.’ 
 Next, where the Heb. is bar, that is, ‘clean’ 
 because cleansed, ‘ bright’ because polished (as a 
 p. arrow, Is 49"); Ps 73! ‘such as are of c. heart’; 
 Job 114 ‘I am ec. in thine eyes’; cf. Is 52" ‘be ye 
 c. that bear the vessels of the LORD’ (723). Finally, 
 where the Heb. is 2dkhdh or zakhak, ‘be c.,’ oak 
 ceud slay in a moral sense, Job 15 ‘What is 
 man that he should be e.?’; 9° ‘If I wash myself 
 with snow water, and make my hands never so ¢.’ ; 
 15 ‘the heavens are not c. in his sight’; 23° ‘I 
 am c., without transgression’; Pr 16? ‘all the 
 ways of a man are ¢. in his own eyes.’ 
 
 5. In Ac 188 ‘Your blood be upon your own 
 heads; I am ¢.,’ the sense is guiltless, a very rare 
 meaning for this word. Skene (1609) says, ‘ Gif 
 he be made quit, and cleane: all his gudes salba 
 restored to him.’ See under CLEAR, 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CLEAR, CLEARNESS.—The orig. meanings of 
 these words (from Lat. clarus) are ‘bright,’ 
 ‘brilliant,’ ‘manifest,’ ‘famous.’ But the Bae 
 words early adopted the moral sense of ‘pury,’ 
 ‘guiltless,’ partly through the natural association 
 of these ideas, and partl through confusion with 
 the native words clean, cleanness. 1. Of the orig. 
 
 — ee ee ee a ea ee ee 
 
 
 
 

 
 CLEAVE, CLEFT, CLIFF, CLIFT 
 
 meanings, we find in AV (in add. to the mod. sense 
 of ‘manifest’) (a) Brightness, 2 8 234‘ By c. shining 
 after rain’; Am 8°‘ f will darken the earth in the 
 ce. day’: Zec 148 ‘ the light shall not be c.’ (RV ‘ with 
 brightness’); Is 184 ‘like a c. heat upon herbs’ 
 (ny, RV ‘like c. heat in sunshine’); Rev 22) ‘ce, 
 as crystal’ (Aaumpds, RV ‘bright’); 217 ‘c. as 
 crystal (kpvoraddAlfwr): so with ‘clearness,’ Ex 241° 
 ‘as it were the body of heaven in his ec.’ (RV ‘the 
 very heaven for c.’); 2 Es 2”! ‘let the blind man 
 come into the sight of my c.’ (RV ‘glory’); (0) 
 Brilliance, Job 11” ‘thine age (RV ‘thy life’) 
 shall be clearer than the noonday’ (op, RVm 
 ‘arise above’). Cf. Wyclif’s tr. of Wis 6 ‘ Wisdom 
 is cler’ (Aaumpés, AV ‘glorious,’ RV ‘ radiant’). 
 A thing is bright often because it is unspotted, 
 whence the transition is easy to moral spotlessness. 
 We see the transition taking place in Ca 6" ‘ fair 
 as the moon, ec. as the sun’ (13); and Rev 2138 ‘ths 
 oy. was pure gold, like unto c. glass’ (xa@apés, 
 RV ‘pure’). 2. Purity, innocence, Ps 514 ‘that 
 thou mightest be...c. when thou judgest’ (73)) ; 
 Gn 24° 410 <thou shalt bec. from my oath’ (773) ; 
 Sus“ ‘I am c. from the blood of this woman’ 
 (48Gos) ; 2 Co 7" ‘ye have approved yourselves to 
 be c. in this matter’ (ayvés). In this sense only is 
 the verb used, Ex 347 ‘that will by no means c.’ 
 [the eat 1418; Gn 4416 ‘how shall we c. 
 ourselves?’ (pivsn) ; 2 Co 7! ‘ what clearing of your- 
 selves’ (dodoyla). And in this sense there is a 
 solitary instance of the use of ‘clearly,’ Job 33? 
 ‘my lips shall utter knowledge ec.’ (7773, RV ‘ speak 
 sincerely’), with which cf. Tillotson (1694), ‘ Deal 
 clearly and impartially with yourselves.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CLEAVE, CLEFT, CLIFF, CLIFT.—There are 
 two verbs ‘to cleave’ distinct in origin and mean- 
 ing. (1) Cleave, to split asunder, clave, cloven. 
 (2) Cleave, to adhere, cling, cleaved, cleaved. But 
 the one has affected the other so as to cause some 
 confusion. Thus c.=to split, has also a past ptep. 
 cleft, Mic 14 ‘the valleys shall be cleft’; and c.= 
 to stick, has the quite irregular past tense clave, 
 more common in AV than any other form of either 
 verb. Clift, meaning a fissure or crevice, is a word 
 of distinct origin from either verb. It occurs in 
 AV Ex 33” ‘TI will put thee in a clift of the rock’ ; 
 and Is 57° ‘under the clifts of the rocks.’ In other 
 places where it occurs in mod. edd. of AV it is 
 spelt cleft (and RV so spells it in these passages) 
 through confusion with the verb cleave, ‘ to split.’ 
 Thus Ca 2%, Jer 496, Ob 3, Is 272 (RV ‘caverns’), 
 Am 6". In Dt 14°‘ Every beast that parteth the 
 hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws’ (lit. 
 *cleaveth the cleft of the two hoofs’), the word 
 ‘cleft’ no doubt means the division of the hoof, 
 but it is formed directly from ‘cleave’ in imitation 
 of the Heb. (cf. Lv 11° amp yoy yp’), the division 
 or toe of the hoof being properly represented by 
 ‘claws.’ This word ‘clift’ has been further con- 
 fused with cliff, a steep face of rock ; whence in 
 Job 30° it is spelt ‘cliff’ in mod. edd. of AV (1611 
 ‘clifts,’) RV ‘clefts’). The word ‘cliff’ itself 
 occurs once, 2 Ch 20!6 ‘they come up by the c. of 
 Ziz (nbyp, RV ‘ ascent’). _ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CLEMENT (K)ju7s), a fellow-labourer with St. 
 Paul at ae (Ph 4%). It was commonly held 
 in the early Church that this C. is to be identified 
 with Clemens Romanus, one of the first bishops 
 of Rome, who wrote the well-known Epistle to 
 the Church of Corinth (cf. Orig. In Joan. i. 29; 
 Eus. HE iii. 4). But, though in the absence of 
 fuller information it is impossible to say for cer- 
 tain, there are serious difficulties both as to place 
 and time in accepting this view. Thus we hear of 
 St. Paul’s fellow-labourer in connexion only with 
 Philippi, while the cther C. is ass-ciated with 
 
 VOL. I.—29 
 
 CLOKE 449 
 
 Rome. Nor is it likely that the former can hava 
 lived till A.D. 110, that is, about 50 years after the 
 date of the Philippian Epistle, and before which 
 date we cannot ‘wall place the death of the Rom. 
 bishop. Again, as proving the commonness of 
 the name, it has been pointed out that Tacitus 
 alone mentions five Clements (Ann. i. 23, ii. 39, 
 xv. 73; Hist. i. 86, iv. 68). (See Lightfoot on 
 Ph 4°, and detached note p. 166; and the same 
 writer’s St. Clement of Rome.) G. MILLIGAN. 
 
 CLEOPAS (Knyedras).—Only Lk 2418; whether to 
 be identified with Clopas of Jn 19% and Alphseus 
 of Mt 10? etc., see ALPHAUS and BRETHREN OF 
 THE LORD. 
 
 CLEOPATRA (K)cordrpa, ‘sprung from a famous 
 father’).— A female name of great antiquity 
 (Apollod. ii. 1. 5; 7. ix. 556), and very common in 
 the families of the Ptolemies and Seleucidea. 
 
 4. A daughter of Antiochus the Great. In 
 B.C. 193 she was married to Ptolemy Epiphanes, 
 with the taxes of Coele-Syria and Pal. as her 
 dowry (Jerome ad Dan. 11*"; Jos. Ant. xu. iv. 1; 
 A Syr. 5; Liv. xxxvii. 3; Polyb. xxviii. 17). 
 Aiter her husband’s death she ruled with vigour as 
 regent for her son until her own death, in B.c. 173. 
 
 2, A daughter of Cleopatra and Ptolemy Epi- 
 
 hanes. She married in B.c. 172 her own brother 
 
 tolemy Philometor (Ad. Est 111), and afterwards 
 her second brother Ptolemy Physcon (Liv. xlv. 13; 
 Epit. 59; Justin, xxxviii. 8). She greatly favoured 
 the Jews in Egypt (Jos. c. Apion. ii. 5), and en- 
 couraged Onias IV. in the erection of the temple 
 at Leontopolis (Jos. Ant. XIII. iii. 2). 
 
 3. A daughter of Cleopatra and Ptolemy Philo- 
 metor. In B.C. 150 she was given in marriage by 
 her father to Alexander Balas (1 Mac 10°75; Jos, 
 Ant. XII. iv. 1). When Balas was driven into 
 Arabia she became (B.C. 146) at her father’s 
 bidding the wife of his rival, Demetrius Nikator 
 (1 Mac 11%; Jos. Ant. xu. iv. 7; Liv. Epit. 52). 
 Whilst Demetrius was detained in captivit 
 amongst the Parthians, she married (B.C. 140) his 
 brother, Antiochus Sidetes (Jos. Ant. XIII. vii. 1). 
 Sidetes died in B.C. 128; but when Demetrius, 
 after his restoration, sought help from Cleopatra, 
 she refused to see him, and possibly instigated his 
 murder (Jos. Ant. XIII. ix. 3; Justin, xxxix. 1; 
 App. Syr. 68; Liv. Epit. 60). Her son, Antiochus 
 Grypus, became king through her influence ; but, 
 being detected in treason, she was compelled to 
 take poison in B.C. 120 (Justin, xxxix. 2). 
 
 4. 5 native of Jerus., and wife of Herod the 
 Great (Jos. Ant. XVII. i. 3). She was the mother of 
 Philip, tetrarch of Iturza (Lk 3?). 
 
 R. W. Moss. 
 
 CLOKE, so in both AV and RV instead of mod. 
 cloak (sy mé‘il, abny simlah, etc. ; ludriov, rod, 
 etc., Arab. jubbeh, abda’, etc.).—The cloke was 
 the ordinary upper garment worn over the coat 
 (kéthéneth). The two occur together in Mt 5“, Lk 
 6%. The prominent meanings in these different 
 terms are those of spaciousness, length, ornament, 
 envelopment. Hence they are used to represent 
 clothing in general, and translated ‘apparel,’ 
 ‘garment,’ ‘raiment,’ ‘vesture,’ and metaphori- 
 cally as the cloke of zeal (Is 59”) or the robe of 
 righteousness (Is 612°). In size and material it 
 varied according to age and sex, the class and 
 occupation of the wearer: as shepherd, tradesman, 
 
 riest, prince. In shape it might be sewn up to 
 fave the surplice form of the robe of the ephod (Ex 
 39), or be worn loose and open, like a Geneva 
 gown or Spanish cloak. It was the ‘ garment’ not 
 to be kept as a forfeited pledge (Ex 22%, Dt 24!%), 
 the ‘garment’ of Joseph in Potiphar’s house (Gn 
 392), It is the equivalent of ‘mantle,’ ‘robe,’ as 
 
450 CLOL’AS 
 
 the robe that Jonathan gave to David (1 § 18"), 
 Saul’s cut robe (1 S 244), Samuel’s robe (1 S 2814), 
 the ‘ best robe’ of the parable (Lk 15”). The cloke 
 of 2 Ti 4)8 (pedévys) niay have been a light mantle 
 like a cashmere dust-cloak, in which the books and 
 parchments were wrapped. The use of cloke in 
 1 Th 25 (xpddacts), 1 P 2" (émixddAvyua) is general for 
 covering, excuse. See DRESS, under mé'i. 
 G. M. MACKIE, 
 
 CLOPAS (AV Cleophas) is named only in Jn 
 19” Mapp 9 rob K\wrd. As to his identity see 
 ALPHAUS and BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 
 
 CLOSE in the sense of secret occurs Lk 9° ‘ they 
 kept it c., and told no man’ (éolyyoav, RV ‘the 
 held their peace’). Cf. Pref. to 1611, ‘ How shall 
 they understand that which is kept close in an 
 unknown tongue?’ The ‘close places’ of 2 S 22% 
 =Ps 18" are castles or holds, places shut in with 
 high walls, and so deemed safe. Cf. More (1529), 
 £ Al close religious houses.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 _CLOSET (from Lat. claudere, through Fr. closet, 
 dim. of clos, ‘an enclosed space’).—Any private 
 apartment, as Shaks. Jud. Ces. U1. ii. 134— 
 
 * But here’s a parchment with the seal of Cesar; 
 I found it in his closet, 'tis his will ;’ 
 Hamlet, 1. i. 77— 
 * As I was sewing in my closet. 
 
 The king’s private secretary was called ‘clerk of 
 the closet.’ Closet occurs J] 2'° (naq fr. nen ‘to 
 cover,’ prob. of the bridal tent, used also of the bride- 
 groom’s c., Ps 195); Mt 6°, Lk 123 (RV ‘inner 
 chamber.’ Gr. rayeiov, properly ‘a storeroom,’ as in 
 Lk 12%; ‘store-chambers,’ says Plummer in Joc., 
 ‘are commonly inner-chambers, secret 100ms, esp. 
 in the East, where outer walls are so easily dug 
 through’). See Houses. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CLOTH, CLOTHING.—See Drxss. 
 
 CLOTHED UPON in 2 Co 524 has been chosen 
 to express the force of the éri in érevdvouar (only 
 here in NT), to put on something in addition to 
 what is already on. In Jn 217 Peter ‘girt his coat 
 (érevdtryns) about him,’ without which he was 
 ‘naked,’ that is, had on only the light under- 
 garment, perhaps only the loin cloth. See Dress. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CLOUD (j3)‘dndn ; vépos).—Much of the precious 
 and beautiful thought of the Bible is written on 
 the clouds, and in the sky of Syria this writing of 
 religious symbolism and moral teaching is as read- 
 able to-day as the inscriptions engraved on Assyrian 
 brick or Egyptian granite. Though the Hebrews 
 had various names for clouds, it is probable that 
 their knowledge of the weather, like that of the 
 modern Syrians, was confined to such general and 
 obvious points as the direction of the wind and the 
 deeper flame of the evening sky. This indifierence 
 is partly due to the uniformity of the climate, with 
 its recognized season of rainfall from Oct. to April, 
 and of sunshine from May to Sept. Forecasting 
 the changes of the weather would also be difficult 
 on account of their suddenness in that narrow 
 land of mountains and valleys, with a desert on 
 one side and the sea on the other. Except to the 
 fishermen of Galilee, and the husbandmen at the 
 time of sowing, the interpretation of the signs of 
 the sky was a matter of smallimportance. Further, 
 the Moslems, who generally preserve most of the 
 ancient piety of the land, disapprove of criticising 
 the weather, as savouring of irreverence. Any 
 pointed reference to the weather or inquiry about 
 it usually finds a Syrian surprised and unprepared 
 for ccmment, as it is a matter out of the usual 
 round of his salutations. 
 
 CLOUD 
 
 Such attention to the clouds is in fact not held 
 in high repute: as the Arab proverb says, ‘The 
 ian who will not work becomes an astrologer.’ 
 
 I. CLoUDS AS AN INDICATION OF RAIn.—1. ‘4 
 cloud rising in the West’ (Lk 1254),—The rainy 
 quarters are W. and 8.W. Hence Gehazi was 
 told (1 K 18) to look toward the sea for the first 
 sign of rain. He saw what is still often seen at 
 the end of Sept., when the dry summer season is 
 about to end in the early rain, namely, a small 
 cloud of cool ashy-grey colour rising over the 
 glittering horizon. It is the first token that a 
 strong steady S.W. wind has set in, and will 
 everything before it. In a few hours the sky 
 becomes a course of swiftly moving black clouds, 
 which congregate in dense masses on the mount- 
 ains, and before long the storm breaks with a 
 grand prelude of thunder peals and incessant 
 flashes of lightning. 2. ‘ Clouds of the latter rain’ 
 (Pr 16!5).—Such is the king’s favour. This refers to 
 the light showers in March and April. These do not 
 affect the deep roots of the fruit trees, which depend 
 on the more continuous winter rains, but they re- 
 fresh the ripening fields of barley and wheat, delay- 
 ing the harvest, and es the ears to mature into 
 a heavier crop in May and June. 3. ‘ Clouds of dew 
 in the heat of harvest’ (Is 184), —The season is 
 here the autumn harvest of fruits, when unusual 
 moisture in the sky, or a wandering shower, is an 
 unwelcome phenomenon, causing withering heat in 
 the vineyards and feverish symptoms among the 
 people (see, however, Del. ad doc.). 4. ‘Heat by the 
 shadow of a cloud’ (Is 25°).—This is most likely an 
 allusion to the prostrating wind from the Syrian 
 desert, S. and 8.E., which covers the sky with hot 
 sand-clouds (Sirocco, from Arab. shirk, East). It 
 is this that gives the ‘ sky of brass’ (Dt 28%), and 
 the ‘cloud without water’ (Jude v.?”). 
 
 II. CLoups AS A SYMBOL OF THE TRANSITORY. 
 
 —It is a common phenomenon of the Syrian sky to 
 see a cloud, borne eastward by the sea-breeze, 
 suddenly and mysteriously dissolve as it encounters 
 the hot dry air of the inland district. The cloud 
 is something that melts and leaves no vestige of 
 
 its existence. The artistic appreciation of land- 
 scape did not exist in ancient times: the thought 
 had not been expressed that the floating clouds 
 can lend their state and grace of motion to those 
 who live in communion with them. The eye was 
 occupied with moral issues. Thus the cloud 
 becomes a text on life’s brevity (Job 7°). Such was 
 prosperity (Job 30). In the same way, it repre- 
 sents the deep reality of forgiveness (Is 44”). 
 Such evanescence is the special peculiarity of the 
 morning cloud, which appears at sunrise in the 
 valleys and melts away an hour afterwards. It 
 was the moral emblem and historical epitome of 
 Ephraim and Judah (Hos 64). Its companions 
 were the chaff of the threshing-floor and the smoke 
 of the chimney (Hos 13%). 
 
 III. CLoups'As A COVERING. — In this con- 
 nexion the meaning passes from the screening of 
 the sun’s rays (Ezk 32”), to imply shadow, obscurity, 
 and oblivion. Job prays that a cloud may rest 
 upon the day of his birth (Job 3°). Again (Job 38°) 
 we have the majestic metaphor of the cloud as the 
 swaddling-clothes of the new-born world. The 
 union of power and humility in the king, ‘ when 
 mercy seasons justice,’ is likened to the bright 
 benediction of a morning without clouds in spring: 
 time (2 5 234), 
 
 IV. CLOUDS AS THE DWELLING-PLACE OF THF 
 ETERNAL.—The highest stratum of cloud-imagery 
 was reached when, in addition to what was merely 
 high and wonderful and mysterious in nature, 
 clouds came to be recognized as a means of revela- 
 tion the vesture of the divine presence, and the 
 vehicle of the divine purpose. ‘The bow in the 
 
 
 
CLOUT 
 
 cloud’ (Gn 9'4) was so far in the line of the cld 
 astrology, which saw a divine meaning in the 
 heavens. The cloud (‘@ndn) seems here to mean 
 the whole circle of the sky: hence mé‘énén, sooth- 
 sayer; cf. Arab. faldk ‘sky,’ falaki ‘astrologer.’ 
 Throughout the Bible the cloud often appears as the 
 indication and emblem of God’s precentes power, and 
 protection. He keeps the rain-clouds suspended (Job 
 268), He numbers, balances, commands them, and 
 has a purpose in their mysterious spreadings and 
 motions (Job 3679 37! 3897, Ps 78%). The cloud of 
 His presence settled upon the mount, and left there 
 the light of His commandments. In this form 
 His presence crowned the preparations of the 
 sanctuary, rested upon it when it rested, led its 
 marches in the wilderness, and reappeared in the 
 completed temple (Ex 137! 40%, 1 K 8!). Clouds 
 are the chariot of God (Ps 1048, Is 19', Ezk 104), 
 and the dust of His feet (Nah 13). The same 
 emblem of intercepted light, partial knowledge, and 
 hidden glory appears in NT, where a cloud closés 
 the story of the Incarnation (Ac 1°), and clouds.are 
 the heralds of the Second Advent (Rev 17). See 
 also PILLAR. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 CLOUT.—As subst. Jer 38" 12 ‘So Ebed-melech 
 took thence old cast clouts and old rotten rags, 
 and... said unto Jeremiah, Put now these old 
 cast clouts and rotten rags under thine armholes 
 under the cords.’ As vb. Jos 9° ‘old shoes and 
 clouted upon their feet’ (Amer. RV ‘ patched’), 
 Cf. Shaks. 2 Henry VI, tv. ii. 195— 
 
 ‘Spare none but such as go in clouted shoon ;’ 
 
 and Latimer, Serm. p. 110, ‘Paul yea, and Peter 
 too, had more skill in mending an old net, and in 
 clouting an old tent, than to teach lawyers what 
 diligence they should use in the expedition of 
 matters.’ The word is Celtic, and came in early, 
 but Wyclif, in Jos 9°, has ‘sowid with patchis.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CLUB (Job 41” RV).—The ‘club’ was a common 
 weapon among shepherds. See HAND-STAVES and 
 also under DART (Heb. shebdhet). 
 
 The rod, sceptre, or club of iron (shedhet 
 barzel, Ps 2°) was carried by kings, as seen in the 
 Assyr. reliefs in the Kouyunjik Gallery, B.M., 
 esp. the figure of Assur-nazir-pal. Cf. Is 10° ‘Ho 
 Assyrian, the rod (shebhet) of mine ae 
 
 W. E. BARNES. 
 
 CNIDUS (Kvldos), a city of Caria, a Dorian 
 colony, was situated at the extremity of a narrow 
 peninsula which juts far out towards the W. into 
 the AXgean Sea. In this situation it was the 
 dividing point between the western and southern 
 coast of Asia Minor. Hence a coasting voyage 
 westward along the southern coast of Asia Minor 
 came to an end off C.; and from thence the ship 
 had to begin a new period and method in its course 
 towards Rome (Ac 27’). The city was situated 
 partly on the peninsula, partly on a smal!l island 
 off the peninsula on its south side; the island 
 was connected with the mainland by a causeway 
 in ancient times, and is now joined to it by a sandy 
 isthmus. There were two excellent harbours at 
 C., one of which could be closed by a chain. Like 
 Chios (which see), C. had the rank of a free city. 
 It contained Jewish inhabitants as early as the 
 2nd cent, (1 Mac 15”; see CARIA, DELOS). 
 
 Lirsrature.—Newton, Hist. of Discov. at Halicarnassua, 
 Cnidus, etc., and Travels and Discov, in the Levant, supersedes 
 al! older descriptions. W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 COAL (nba, on2, 7539, we ring ; dvOpak, dvOpaxrd). 
 
 —The variety, esp. in OT, of the words rendered 
 ‘coal’ in AV makes it advisable to consider them 
 separately, first of all. For philological details the 
 lexicons must be consulted. 
 
 COAL 45] 
 
 1. Gaheleth (LXX uniformly dv6pat, Vulg. pruna, 
 carbo, scintilla) is the most frequently used, occur 
 ring seventeen times. It designates glowing fuel, 
 lwe embers, and is sometimes font. in the full 
 expressions ‘ coals of fire,’ or ‘ burning coals of fire.’ 
 Its special meaning is well seen in Pr 267 (RV 
 embers), where it evidently denotes burning, as 
 contrasted with fresh unburnt fuel (see Peham 
 below). In Pr 6%, Is 441° 4714, Ezk 24" it is used 
 of a fire in reference to such ordinary effects as 
 burning, baking, warming, boiling. In 2 S 147 it 
 describes figuratively the life of a family as 
 embodied in the last surviving member of its line 
 (Vulg. scintilla). In 2S 22% 18 and the parallel Ps 
 188-32, and also in Ezk 1 10? ‘coals of fire’ are 
 associated with the manifestation of God, the 
 reference being to lightning, or to the elemental 
 fires from which lightning is supposed to proceed. 
 Gaheleth occurs in Job 41?! in a metaphor (similar 
 to that in Ps 18 above) descriptive of the fiery 
 breath of leviathan. In Ps 120‘ we find ‘coals of 
 broom’ (O75, genista monosperma, not JUNIPER, 
 which see) used to denote either the punishment of 
 the false tongue’s speech, or its devouring character, 
 the embers of the plant in question being known 
 to retain their heat for a specially long time. In 
 Ps 140° ‘ coals of fire’ form one of the punishments 
 of the wicked, as also in the famous figure of 
 retribution by kindness in Pr 25”, repeated in NT 
 Ro 12”. 
 
 2. Peham(LXX éox dpa, dvOpaé; Vulg. carbo, pruna) 
 occurs three, perhaps four, times. In the passage 
 referred to above (Pr 267!) it clearly means unburnt 
 coals put on live embers. In Is 44! 54!6, however, 
 the reference is to the live coals used in smiths’ 
 work. In Ps 11%, if the conjectural reading *pn2 
 (for ons) be correct, we have‘ coals of fire’ (so 
 AVnm) rained on the wicked, along with brimstone, 
 instead of the less congruous ‘snares, fire,’ etc. 
 
 3. Rizpah is found twice, in the phrases ‘a cake 
 baken on the coals’ (1 K 19°), and ‘a live coal... 
 from off the altar’ (Is 65). It is probable that in 
 both cases the word means a hot stone (RVm). In 
 the latter, LX X has dv6paé and Vulg. calculus, while 
 in the former bothVSS are less literal (LXX éyxpuglas 
 drupelrns, Vulg. subcinericitus panis), with a general 
 allusion to the process of BAKING (which see). 
 
 4, Resheph is twice rendered ‘coal’ in AV, Ca 8° 
 (LXX meplrrepov, Vulg. lampas, RV ‘ flash’), Hab 3° 
 (LXX omits the subject in clause 6, Vulg. diabolus, 
 AVm ‘burning diseases,’ RV ‘fiery bal 8’). The 
 word occurs elsewhere in OT (Dt 32%, Job 5’, Ps 
 76° 788), and means ‘a pointed, darting flame.’ In 
 Dt and Hab it seems to denote ‘the fiery bolts by 
 which J” was imagined to produce pestilence or 
 fever’ (Driver). In connexion with this it is 
 suggestive that Resheph appears to have been the 
 name of a Phen. fire-god. ie is referred to as an 
 Asiatic deity in inscriptions found in Egypt and 
 elsewhere, particularly in certain bilingual (Gr. 
 and Phen.) ones in Cyprus, where he is identified 
 with Apollo. (For this point see the note in Driver, 
 Deut. pp. 367, 368, and the authorities there given.) 
 
 5. Shéhor is tr. ‘coal’ in La 4%. The literal 
 meaning of the word is ‘ blackness’ (RVm). 
 
 6. dvOpaké (tr. ‘carbuncle’ To 1314, Sir 32°) means 
 ‘coal’ in Sir 8” (dvOpaxas auaprwdod), Ro 12” (from 
 Pr 25). dv@paxd is found in Sir 118%, 4 Mac 9®, 
 Jn 1838 219, 
 
 ‘Coal’ therefore is, strictly speaking, a correct 
 rendering only of gaheleth and peham and their 
 Gr. equivalents. Gaheleth may denote the glowin 
 embers of any kind of fuel (wood, bones, ete., Ez 
 2411), but by it and peham, apart from their poetic 
 and figurative use, we are generally to understand 
 charcoal, which is a common article of fuel in the 
 E., and in the preparation of which the forests of 
 Pal., as well as those of other districts, are rapidly 
 
 
 
452 COAST 
 
 COCKLE 
 
 
 
 disappearing. The subject of fuel will be more 
 fully dealt with under FIRE. 
 
 True mineral coal has not been found in Pal. 
 roper, where the geological formation as a whole 
 is recent. The rocks of the carboniferous period, if 
 they exist, are not near the surface. Two strata 
 of this age, however, have been recognized. They 
 are those known as the Desert Sandstone and the 
 Wady Nasb limestone, but they are not accom- 
 poe by any coal. Coal of an inferior quality 
 nas been found at Sidon, and coal-mining was also 
 carried on for a time in Lebanon, but was abandoned 
 after some 12,000 tons had been extracted (Conder, 
 Tent Work in Pal. ii. 326. For the geology of Pal. 
 see Hull, Survey of W. Pal, and the literature there 
 mentioned, pp. 5, 6). JAMES PATRICK. 
 
 COAST (Lat. costa, rib, side) is now confined to 
 the sea-shore, but formerly was used of the side of 
 any person, place, or thing, and in AV is freq. 
 used tur the border or neighbourhood of any place, 
 inland or other. Thus Mt 2)* ‘Herod ... sent 
 forth, and slew all the children that were in Beth- 
 lehem, and in all the coasts thereof.’ 
 
 ‘Tt would be unreasonable,’ says Lightfoot (On a Fresh Re- 
 vision2, p. 194), ‘to expect the English reader to understand 
 that when St. Paul passes “‘through the upver coasts” (ré 
 d&varspixe jépy) on his way to Ephesus (Ac 191), he does in fact 
 traverse the high land which lies in the interior of Asia Minor. 
 Again, in the gospels, when he reads of our Lord visiting “‘ the 
 coasts of Tyre and Sidon” (Mt 1521, Mk 781), he naturally thinks 
 of the sea-board, knowing these to be maritime cities, whereas 
 the word in one passage stands for pfom ‘‘ parts,” and in the 
 other for éps« ‘‘ borders,” and the circumstances suggest rather 
 the eastern than the western frontier of the region. and per- 
 haps also his notions of the geography of Pal. may be utterly 
 confused by reading that Oapernaum is situated ‘‘ upon the sca- 
 coast” (Mt 418).’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COAT (njnp kéthéneth, x:rdév), made of cotton, 
 linen, fine wool, and probably silk. The g2rment 
 of home-life and ordinary work, worn under the 
 cloak and over the undershirt, or sheet (71), and 
 sometimes instead of it, drawn tightly round the 
 waist by belt or girdle, in shape like a dressing- 
 
 own or cassock (see DRESS, under kéthéneth). tt 
 is the coat of Joseph (Gn 37%), of the priests (Ex 
 284, Lv 818), of women’s dress (Ca 5°), of Christ (Jn 
 19%), of the disciples (Mt 5, Lk 6”). Coat is 
 translated ‘garment’ in 2 § 131819 Ezr 2°, Neh 
 7”, Jude 4; ‘clothes’ in Mk 14%; ‘robe’ in Is 22”. 
 The coat of 1 § 2'%, the annual present to Samuel, 
 was a woollen cloak (mé‘t/); that of Jn 21’, fisher’s c. 
 (émevdérns), would be a large cloak for covering in 
 public and protection at night, the fisherman 
 merely wearing a large apron or waist-cloth when 
 busy with the net. The coat of Dn 37, RV hosen 
 (9290, Arab. sirwdl), was the skirt-trousers of 
 Persian costume. 
 
 Coat of MailSee BRIGANDINE and BREAST- 
 PLATE. G. M. MAcKIE. 
 
 COCK (4déxrwp, alector, gallus).—The domestic 
 fowl may be the bird mentioned 1 K 4%, a 273 bar- 
 burim, and translated in AV and RV fatted fowls. 
 It is not unlikely that Solomon, who had com- 
 merce with the far E., and imported peacocks and 
 apes from Wigke (1K 10”), might have brought barn- 
 yard fowls from the same direction. The original 
 stock of these fowls is usually supposed to be indigen- 
 ous in farther India and China. Gallus giganteus, 
 of Malacca, seems to be the feral state of some of 
 the larger tame breeds, and G. bankiva, of Java, 
 which is regarded by many as specifically the same 
 as G. ferrugineus, the jungle fowl, is supposed to 
 be the parent of our ordinary poultry. tn India, 
 poultry have been domestiontoal from the earliest 
 times. But no representation of them is found 
 on the Egyptian monuments. Pindar mentions the 
 cock, and Homer names a man’Adéxrwp, the word 
 
 for a cock. Aristophanes calls it a Persian bird. 
 It may have been introduced into Pal. before it came 
 to Greece. Nevertheless, unless in this doubtful 
 passage, it is not mentioned in OT. Commen- 
 tators have tried various other renderings of 
 barburim, as swans, guinea fowls, geese, capons, 
 and fatted fish. But these are Pare conjectures. 
 
 The Romans were very much given to raising 
 fowls, both for food and for cock-fighting. The 
 Mishna states that cocks were not allowed in 
 Jerus., for fear of polluting the holy things. 
 But there is rabbinic evidence that the Jews kept 
 fowls. The Romans and other foreigners also kept 
 them. 
 
 The cock is mentioned in NT in connexion with 
 Peter’s denial of Christ (Mt 26% etc.). Cock- 
 crowing (Mk 13%) refers to the habit of crowing 
 before the dawn. This is the second cock-crowing 
 (Mk 14”), the first being at midnight, but less 
 certain or less heard than the second. Hence the 
 other evangelists speak of the crowing of the cock 
 without specifying that it was to be a second ons 
 (Mt 26%, Lk 22%, Jn 13%), In point of fact, 
 cocks crow somewhat irregularly at intervals ia 
 the night. The hen is alluded to (Lk 13) with 
 reference to her motherly care of her brood, with 
 which the Saviour compares his solicitude for 
 Jerusalem. G. E. Post. 
 
 COCKAYRICE.—See SERPENT. 
 
 COCK-CROWING (d\exropo¢wvla, Mk 13*).—See 
 Cock, TIME. 
 
 COCKER.—Sir 30° ‘C. thy child, and he shall 
 make thee afraid,’ that is ‘pamper’ (Gr. riOnvéw, 
 nurse, suckle). Cf. Shaks. King John V. i. 70— 
 
 ‘Shall a beardless bo: A 
 A cocker’d silken wanton, brave our fields 
 and Hull (1611) ‘No creatures more cocker their 
 young than the Asse and the Ape.’ The word is 
 not found earlier than the 15th cent. Its origin is 
 obscure. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COCKLE (nyx3 bo’shAh, Bdros, spina).—The last 
 word of the second member of a parallelism (Job 
 31”), ‘instead of wheat let thistles grow, and instead 
 of barley, cockle.’ The signification of the parallel 
 word mn héah is general, brier or bramble. There- 
 fore this word should be general. And as the first 
 is harmful, the second should be the same. The 
 root of the word is wxz3=‘stink,’ hence the 
 marginal renderings, AV stinking weeds, RV 
 noisome weeds, suit the case well. There is no 
 want of such in the Holy Land. There are a 
 number of ill-smelling goose weeds, Solanum nig- 
 rum, L., Datura Stramonium, L. (the stink-weed par 
 excellence), D. Metel, L., and several fetid arums, 
 and henbane, and mandrake. Neglected fields are 
 overrun by the host of thorny and unsavoury weeds 
 which afflict the farmer in all parts of Pal. and 
 Syria. Some have thought that bo’shdh means 
 ergot or smut or bunt, and others tares. There is, 
 however, no ground for this. 
 
 A word from the same root, o'vxa b¢dshtm 
 (Is 54), is tr. in AV and RV wild grapes. 
 The context and the etymology are against this 
 rendering. The terrible judgment pronounced 
 against thevineyard (vv.**) might seem unjust if the 
 
 roduct were simply inferior. The contrast must 
 fe as sharp as in v.7—between judgment and 
 oppression, betweeh righteousness and the cry of 
 the oppressed. We should therefore look for some 
 ill-smelling fruit, having some resemblance to a 
 grape, and occurring in vineyards. Such plants 
 are Solanum nigrum, L., and its congeners S. 
 minittum, Berb., and S. villosum, Lam., called in 
 Aral. ‘inab-edh-dhib, wolf’s grapes. They are of 
 
 
 
Lee hve eee Oe 
 
 CODEX 
 
 a heavy narcotic odour, and poisonous, and grow 
 commonly in the vineyards. Celsius supposes 
 aconite; but the latter is not found southof Amanus, 
 and hence would not be known to the readers of 
 Isaiah. It is perhaps better to regard bé’vishim as 
 stinking fruits in general, and bo’shdh as stinking 
 weeds. G. E. Post. 
 
 CODEX.—See &, A, B, C, D; also Text. 
 
 COELE-SYRIA (Koldy Zupla, ‘hollow Syria’) was 
 the name given under the Seleucids to the valley 
 between the Lebanons (Polyb. i. 3; Dionysius, 
 Perieg. 899, 900), and this restricted meaning is 
 retained in 1 Es 4%. The same restriction appears 
 in Am 15, where, however, ‘the valley of Aven’ 
 (which see) cannot be certainly identified with 
 Ceele-Syria. ‘The valley of Lebanon’ (Jos 1127 
 12’) denotes the same district. Strabo (xvi. 2) 
 confines the term to this valley in describing the 
 boundaries of the separate parts of Syria; but he 
 also uses it more widely as covering the whole of 
 py2Toux or ‘Syria of Damascus.’ Theophrastus, 
 too (Hist. plant. ii. 6. 2; see also ii. 6. 8), extends 
 the name to the valley of the Lower Jordan, and 
 in ii. 6. 5 to the neighbourhood of the Red Sea. 
 Under the later Seleucide it almost loses geogr. 
 limitations altogether, and becomes a convenient 
 name for a political division of the empire, the 
 central valley always being included, but the 
 boundaries being extended or contracted with 
 every change in the relative influence of the local 
 
 overnors. For some time Pheenicia and Cele- 
 
 yria include between them the whole of the 
 southern part of the Seleucid kingdom, and the 
 latter term covers the entire district E. and S. of 
 Lebanon. The term is so used in } Es 217-4. 27 629 
 7) 8°7, 2 Mac 35 44 88 10"; and the relaticn between 
 the two provinces is so close that a single governor 
 
 generally suffices for both. In 1 Mac id® the 
 settlement of Jewish affairs is entrusted almost as 
 a matter of course to the governor of Cele-Syria, 
 and in 2 Mac 3°-° Jerus. is expressly represented 
 as within that province. In later times Jos. (Ant. 
 XIV. iv. 5) wrote of the province as stretching from 
 the Euphrates to Egypt; and within it were the 
 
 Phil. coast towns of Raphia (Jos. Wars, Iv. xi. 5; 
 Polyb. v. 80) and Joppa (Diodor. xix. 59). But he 
 ey confines the term to the districts E. of the 
 
 ordan, including Moab and Ammon (Ant. I. xi. 5; 
 Ptol. v. 15), and admitting Scythopolis (Bethshan) 
 because of its connexion with the Decapolis (Ant. 
 XIII. xiii. 2). He mentions also specifically Gadara 
 (Ant. XIII. xiii. 3) as in the province, whilst the 
 evidence of coins places within it also the neigh- 
 bouring towns of Abila and Philadelphia (Rabbah); 
 and Stephen of Byzantium adds Dium, Gerasa, 
 and Philoteria (Polyb. v. 70). Strictly, therefore, 
 the term does ot cover Judea and Samaria, but 
 was made to do so whea it was wished to assert or 
 enforce Syrian claims ¢o those districts. In Jos. 
 Ant. XII. iv. 1-4, in the time of Ptolemy Euergetes, 
 the fiscal system and prob. the entire adminis- 
 tration of C. are distinct from those of Judzea and 
 Samaria. In the civil wars between the sons of 
 Antiochus Grypus (B.C. 95-83), C., with Damascus 
 ae as its capital, was the name of a trans- 
 
 ordanie kingdom, separate from that of Syria 
 proper In B.c. 47 Herod was appointed by Sextus 
 
 esar (Jos. Ant, XIV. ix. 5; Wars, 1. x. 8), and 
 again by Cassius in B.C. 43 (Jos. Ant. XIV. xi. 4; 
 Wars, I. xi. 4), military governor of C.; but on 
 neither of these occasions did his appointment 
 carry the exercise of any authority within Judwa. 
 
 R. W. Moss. 
 
 COFFER occurs only in 1S 68 "- "5, and the Heb. 
 term (19x, LXX 6éua), of which it is the tr", is also 
 found nowhere else. From the fact that in the 
 
 COLLEGE 453 
 
 above passages the word has the article, some have 
 inferred that an ’argdz was an appendage to every 
 cart (‘dghalah), but this is not necessary (Driver, 
 Heb. Text of Sam. p. 43 f.). The ’argdz appears to 
 have been a small chest which contained (?) the 
 golden figures sent by the Philistines as a guilt- 
 otfering. (Cf., however, the LXX, and see Well- 
 hausen and Budde on the text of the passage.) 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 COFFIN.—See BurIAL. 
 
 COGITATION (Dn 77, Wis 121, Sir 175).—Not 
 the action of thinking, but the thought itself. Cf. 
 Hobbes 1628) ‘ Being terrified with the cogitation, 
 that not any of those which had been formerly 
 sent had ever returned.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COIN.—See Money. 
 
 COL-HOZEH (7jn-bs ‘seeing all’).—A Judahite 
 in time of Nehemiah (Neh 3! 115), 
 
 COLIUS (A Kénuos, B KGvos), 1 Es 9%.—See 
 CALITAS, KELAIAH, 
 
 COLLAR.—1. The collars of Jg 8% (nin) are 
 golden ear-drops, RV pendants. 2. The ref. in 
 Job 30% is to the collar-band (75) of the under- 
 garment or coat (kéthdneth). In v.!7 the symptoms 
 of high fever are pierced bones and gnawing pains ; 
 hence in y.!8 the complaint that his large outer- 
 garment or cloak (v3), in which he vainly tried to 
 sleep, had become so completely soaked through 
 with the fever-sweats that it clung around him like 
 the collar of his coat. It is frequently assumed 
 that the reference is to Job’s emaciated condition, 
 which causes his outer garment to cling to him 
 like the neck of the close-fitting inner tunic. 
 Davidson suggests that the idea ney be that 
 through Job’s writhing under his pains his clothes 
 are twisted tightly about him. Dillmann finds a 
 reference to the unnatural swelling of Job’s body 
 by elephantiasis, till his garment becomes tight 
 like a collar. G. M. MACKIE, 
 
 COLLECTION occurs in AV of 2 Ch 24° ® as tr® 
 of nxvo (mas’éth), and in 1Co 16! as tr® of Aoyla 
 (logia, a dm’. dey.) [all]. In OT the reference is to 
 the tax prescribed in Ex 30!?-16(P), and RV more 
 suitably tr® ‘tax.’ The NT reference is to the 
 collection made by St. Paul in the Gentile Churches 
 for the poor at Jerusalem. RV retains the word 
 and also substitutes ‘collections’ in v.* for AV 
 ‘gatherings’ (where the same Gr. word occurs in 
 the plur. Aoyla). See COMMUNION 3, TRIBUTE- 
 MONEY. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 COLLEGE (arin; LXX 2 K 22" pacevd ; 2 Ch 
 3422 paacaval; Zeph 1 dard rijs devrépas; Vulg. 
 in secunda). — This word properly denotes the 
 ‘second quarter’ of the city; RV ‘the second 
 quarter,’ m. ‘Heb. Mishneh’—comp. AVm ‘in 
 the second part’; in 2 Ch 34” AVm. gives also ‘ the 
 school.’ From Zeph 1, where the term occurs 
 again (AV ‘the second’), it appears that this 
 quarter of Jerusalem was not far from the Fish- 
 gate, which lay on the north or north-west of the 
 city (Neh 3° 12°). It was perhaps first enclosed 
 within the walls in the time of Manasseh (2 Ch 
 334), Probably the ‘second quarter’ lay to the 
 west of the temple-mount, in the hollow between 
 this and the northern portion of the western hill, 
 the modern Sion. It would thus occupy the upper 
 end of the Tyropeean Valley (comp. Jos. Ané. XV. 
 X10). 
 
 The Targ. Jonathan on 2 K 22) renders by n'3 
 pbx, i.e. ‘house of instruction.’ This Jewish tradi- 
 tion is clearly the origin of the rendering ‘college’ 
 
 
 
454 COLLOP 
 
 in the AV. It is doubtless due to the influence of 
 the post-biblical Heb. word Mishna, which, mean- 
 ing originally ‘ repetition,’ devrépwors, came to signify 
 the doctrine of the law, and especially the oral 
 law. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 COLLOP.—A collop is a slice of meat, but in 
 Job 1527 ‘he... maketh collops of fat on his flanks,’ 
 it is used in the now obsolete sense (except in 
 dialects) of ‘a thick fold of flesh on the body as 
 evidence of a well-fed condition.’ Cf. Fuller, 
 Worthies, i. 166, ‘Fat folk (whose collops stick to 
 their sides) are generally lazy.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COLONY.—Colony (Kodwvia, a literal transcript 
 of the well-known Latin designation) occurs in 
 NT only at Ac 16, where it is applied to 
 Philippi. The Roman colonies belonged to three 
 periods and classes : (1) those of the earlier republic 
 before 100 B.C.—the burgess and Latin colonies, 
 which served as curb fortresses and influential 
 centres of Roman authority in conquered or 
 annexed territory; (2) those of the Gracchan 
 times — the agrarian colonies, provided as an 
 outlet for the starving and clamorous proletariat 
 of the capital; and (3) those of the Civil wars 
 and the Empire, termed military colonies, intended 
 for the reception and settlement of soldiers dis- 
 banded at the end of their service or at the close 
 ot war. While in the former classes the colony 
 was initiated by a formal law (lex), and carried 
 out by a commission (generally of three), the 
 later, or military colony, was established simply 
 by the 7mperator, in the exercise of his imperium, 
 nominating a legate to give effect to his will. To 
 this latter class Philippi belonged. It had already 
 received (as we learn from Strabo, vii. fr. 41) some- 
 thing of this character after the defeat of Brutus 
 and Cassius in the adjoining plain in the year 
 42 2B.C.; but its full organization as a colony was 
 the work of Augustus, who, having to provide for 
 his soldiers after the battle of Actium (B.0. 31), 
 gifted to them (as we learn from Dio Cassius, li. 4) 
 cities and lands in Italy which had belonged to 
 partisans of Antonius, and transferred most of 
 the inhabitants thereby dispossessed to other 
 quarters, esp. to Dyrrhachium and Philippi. The 
 latter thenceforth bore, in inscriptions and on 
 coins, the name Colonia Aug. Jul. Philippi or 
 Philippensis. The community thus constituted 
 possessed (Dig. 50, tit. 15, sec. 8) the privileged 
 position known to jurists as that of the tus Ztalicum, 
 which apparently carried, in addition to the right 
 of freedom (libertas), and that of exemption from 
 poll-tax and tribute (immunitas), the right of 
 holding the soil in full ownership under the forms 
 of Roman law (ex ture Quiritium). (On the de- 
 velopment of the Roman colonial system, see 
 Marquardt, Handb. iv. 427 ff., on the military 
 colonies, pp. 449-56 ; and on Philippi in particular, 
 Mommsen, CZZ tll. i. p. 120.) 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 
 COLOSSH (Kodoscal) was an ancient city of 
 Phrygia (very important in early history, dwind- 
 ling in the later centuries as Laodicea waxed 
 greater), overhanging the river Lycus (a tributary 
 of the Mzeander) on the upper part of its course. 
 It was distant only about ten miles from Laodicea 
 and thirteen from Hierapolis; and hence the three 
 cities formed a single sphere of missionary labour 
 for Epaphras, an inhabitant of C. (Col 412. 18), 
 Churches were formed in these three cities at a 
 very early period, partly by the work of Epaphras, 
 but also through the work of Timothy, who had 
 evidently come into personal relations with C. 
 (Col 11), and probably of other preachers. In 
 Rev 1! 31! the single Church of Laodicea must be 
 taken as representative of the Churches of the 
 
 x= Copyright, 1898, by Chores Scribner's Sons 
 
 
 
 COLOSSIANS 
 
 
 
 whole Lycus valley. Paul himself had not been 
 at Laodicea or at C. (Col 2!). C., like Laodicea 
 (which see), stood on the most important route of 
 commerce and intercourse in the eastern part of 
 the Rom. Empire; it was therefore a place where 
 new ideas and new thoughts were always likely to 
 be simmering, and the new religion seems to have 
 developed there with feverish rapidity, and not in 
 a direction that satisfied St. Paul. During his - 
 
 first imprisonment in Rome, the report which was 
 
 brought to him by Epaphras-of the rc.igious views 
 
 and practices in C. called forth an Epistle, in which 
 
 he rebuked the tendency of the Colossians to stray 
 
 from the straight path under the influence partly 
 
 of Judaism (observance of Sabbaths, etc., Col 216; 
 circumcision hinted at, 2!1), and partly of a species 
 
 of theosophic speculation, which sought to find 
 
 demonic or angelic powers intermediate between 
 
 the supreme unapproachable God and human 
 beings,—a kind of speculation springing from an 
 
 attempt to express the ideas of Christianity in the 
 
 terms and forms of the philosophic and religious 
 
 thought current in Phrygia and in Asia generally. 
 
 The Judaic elements in this Colossian development 
 
 of Christianity show that Jewish teachers had 
 
 visited it, and that Jewish religion and thought 
 
 had influenced the population; and from the 
 
 position of the city such influence is natural, and 
 
 Jewish traders had probably settled in it for com- 
 
 mercial purposes (especially trade in the beautiful 
 
 wool of the peculiar colour called Colossinus, per- 
 
 haps dark purple). ‘here is, however, no evidence 
 
 that an actual settlement of Jews at C. as colonists 
 
 by any of the Seleucid kings ever occurred (as is 
 
 probable or certain at Laodicea, Tarsus, etc., 
 
 which see); for such a settlement was considered 
 
 as a re-foundation, and was usually accompanied 
 
 by change of name. Again, the semi-Gnostic style’ 
 
 of Colossian speculation revealed to us by the 
 
 Epistle shows that the Lycus valley was the seat 
 
 of some philosophic activity, which had doubtless 
 
 its centre at Laodicea (which see), but extended to 
 
 the other cities. The same kind of speculation 
 
 long clung to the valley, as Theodoret mentions | 
 
 in the 5th century; and in the 9th and 10th ; 
 centuries Michael, the leader of the host of angels, 
 was worshipped as the great saint of C. (and of its 
 later representative Chone), and a legend was told 
 of his appearance to save the city from a great 
 inundation. C. disappeared from history during 
 the 7th or 8th cent., being too much exposed 
 to the terrible raids. of the Saracens; and it was 
 succeeded by Chone (now called Chonas), a fortress 
 about three miles farther south, in a lofty situa- 
 tion, with an impregnable castle upon the steep 
 slope of Mount Cadmus (summit 8013 ft.). In 787 
 Bishop Dositheus took his title from C., but had 
 his actual home in Chonez (érloxoros KoNooo Gy rot 
 XwvSv); but in 870 and 879 Samuel was bishop 
 (afterwards archbishop) of Chone, and C, had been 
 practically forgotten. 
 
 Colosse is a grecized form of a Phrygian word 
 (modified to give an apparent meaning in Greek, as 
 if connected with xodooods); and the native form 
 was more like Kodascal. Hence the ethnic 
 Kodaccaevs occurs in the (not original) title of the 
 Epistle, and in several Byzantine lists of bishops. 
 Kodooonvés is the invariable ethnic on coins. 
 
 : 
 
 ] 
 me 
 “2 
 y 
 a 
 “ 
 - 
 
 Lirerature.—The exact site of C. was first determined by 
 Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, i. p. 508; Arundel and 
 other travellers had previously visited the modern Chonas. 
 and believed it to be C. The situation and history of C. an 
 Chone are very fully described in Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 
 of Phrygia, chs. i. and vi., and Ch, in the Rom. Hmp. ch. xix. 
 
 W. M. RAMSAY. 
 ** COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.—This Epistle 
 forms one of a closely connected group of three. 
 [It is linked on the one hand to the little letter 
 to Philemon by the group of personal salutations 
 
 
 
 
 
COLOSSIANS 
 
 
 
 common to the two, and on the other to the Ep. to 
 ‘the Ephesians’ by a remarkable and intricate 
 community of contents, by the fact that the 
 two letters are entrusted to the same messenger 
 (4', ef. Eph 671), and probably by an express refer- 
 ence in the Colossians to the sister Epistle under 
 the title of ‘the Ep. from Laodicea’ in 4", 
 
 I. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.—The various ques- 
 tions which have been raised during the present 
 cent. with respect to the authorship of this group 
 of Epp., and the particular stage in St. Paul’s 
 first imprisonment (assuming them to have been 
 written by him) to which they may be most suit- 
 ably assigned, can be best dealt with in connexion 
 with the Ep. to the Ephes. (which see). For the 
 present it will be enough to say (1) that the ad- 
 mitted differences in language, style, and, to a 
 certain extent, in doctrine, between this group of 
 Epp. and those of the central period, 1 and 2 Co, 
 Gal, Ro, are by no means sufficient to establish a 
 diversity of authorship; and (2) that two facts, 
 (a) the conversion of Onesimus, who, as far as we 
 know, could hardly have had access to St. Paul in 
 Cresarea, and (b) the remarkable development in 
 the doctrine of the Ecclesia, which marks Eph, 
 make it on the whole most probable that the 
 whole group was written from Rome shortly before 
 the outbreak of the Neronian persecution. 
 
 If, DiesriNATION.—The situation of Colossze 
 and the chief elements in its population have 
 already been described (see COLOSS.Z). It will be 
 enough here to notice that whatever may have 
 been the proportion of resident Jews in the place, 
 St. Paul treats the Church throughout as specific- 
 ally a Gentile Church (127), It is this fact which 
 brings them within his sphere of influence, and 
 explains the tone in which he addresses them. 
 Tne dithicult and obscure references in 2! 7d yexpd- 
 yoapov Tots Sdyuacw Oo Fv Urevavtlov Huty, and in 28 
 to ra oTorxeta TOU kd pou, both of which must refer 
 chiefly, if not exclusively, to the law of Moses, 
 are not really inconsistent with this. Language 
 of fundamentally the same import occurs in Gal 
 333 43, esp. 49 (rrwxa ororxela ols radev dvwHev dov- 
 Aedoat OéXere). Before the coming of Christ the 
 only way by which a Gentile could enjoy the 
 privileges of the covenant people was by accepting 
 circumcision and submitting to all the ordinances 
 of the law. 
 
 St. Paul’s language in the Epistle leaves no 
 doubt that the Church at Colosse had not been 
 directly founded by him, and that he was person- 
 ally unknown to the bulk of its members, though 
 individuals among them, such as Philemon, may 
 have met him during his long stay at Ephesus, 
 and have owed their conversion to him. 
 
 Ramsay’s interpretation of ta avwreptka wépy (Ac 191) would 
 make it probable that St. Paul had not, even on his third 
 missionary journey, traversed the valley of the Lycus. But in 
 any case there is no hint of the existence of a Christian Church 
 in that locality at the time of that journey, and still less of any 
 evangelistic activity of St. Paul’s there, and so, by whatever 
 road St. Paul reached Ephesus, there is nothing in Ac incon- 
 sistent with the obvious meaning of the Epistle. 
 
 III. OBJECT AND CONTENTS.—The object of this 
 Ep. is to bring before the Colossians a true ideal 
 of Christian life and practice, based on a true con- 
 ception of the relation of Christ to the universe 
 and to the Church. It was occasioned by the 
 appearance in Colossz of a form of false teaching, 
 which, under the garb of a ‘philosophy’ (2°), was 
 enticing men back to the trammels of an outward 
 asceticism. The practices to which reference is 
 made (2!éf) are in some cases, perhaps in all, dis- 
 tinctively Jewish. And it is probable that they 
 were put forward as the gateway to a higher state of 
 purification than that which was accessible to the 
 ordinary believer. It is uncertain to what extent 
 these practices were connected with any definitely 
 
 
 
 
 
 COLOSSIANS 455 
 
 
 
 formulated metaphysical or cosmological theories. 
 The term ‘philosophy,’ as Hort has shown (Juda- 
 istic Christianity, p. 120 ff.), does not necessarily 
 imply more than an ethical system. Yet the 
 Colossians were in danger, actual or prospective 
 (28. 4), of doctrinal error respecting the. Person of 
 Christ. And some of St. Paul’s language regard- 
 ing Christ’s relation to ‘the principalities and 
 powers’ (116 21°) would gain in point if we might 
 suppose that a speculative justification of the 
 ‘worship of angels’ had already been put forward, 
 involving expressly ‘either a limitation of His 
 nature to the human sphere, or at most a counting 
 of Him among the angels.’ On the other hand, 
 substantially similar language occurs in Hph 17), 
 where there is no necessity to postulate any 
 polemic reference. And it is hard to believe that 
 St. Panl would have contented himself with this 
 indirect method of attack, if the error had already 
 taken such definite shape. In any case there 
 seems no sufficient ground for postulating a 
 specifically Gnostic or Oriental (non-Jewish) in- 
 fluence on the Church at Colosse. Above all, the 
 later Valentinian usage of rAjpwua throws back no 
 light on the meaning of the term in the cardinal 
 passages in which it occurs in Col 129 29 and Eph 
 123 819 418, 
 
 The key to the positive teaching of the Ep, is 
 certainly to be found in the conception of the 
 Person and the Work of Christ which it unfolds. 
 Over against the false philosophy, and as the 
 assurance of the perfect satisfaction of the genuine 
 human need of assistance in the attainment of 
 
 truth to which that philosophy appealed, St. Paul 
 sets the thought of Christ as the Image of the 
 Invisible God (11), the perfect manifestation in 
 human form of the Eternal Truth, ‘the Mystery 
 of God’ (22), in whom are hid all the treasures of 
 wisdom and knowledge. 
 
 Did men aspire after a 
 new ideal of moral development? ‘Their aspira- 
 tions were not in vain, because the fulness of the 
 divine perfections had found a permanent embodi- 
 ment and home in One who had taken our nature 
 upon Him, and borne and bears a human form 
 (29, cf. 11%). Did they quail befor- the material 
 forces of this world’s potentates thet were arrayed 
 against them, or lose their hold ot the in- 
 herent dignity that belonged to them, as men in 
 the presence of the countless multitudes of the 
 hosts of heaven? There was no power in the 
 universe but from Him. And He had revealed 
 upon the Cross the impotence of all the powers 
 that had set themselves in array to thwart His 
 purposes (2!5). The evil from which they were 
 longing to get free clung so close that it might 
 seem almost an integral part of their being; and 
 they were willing to submit to any discipline that 
 would set them free. In the death of Christ they 
 could attain to the reality of that deliverance from 
 the corruption of their nature which had been 
 foreshadowed by circumcision (2!), as they realized 
 the newness of life which was theirs by union with 
 His resurrection. 
 
 The following analysis may help to bring out 
 the sequence of thought, and to show how this 
 central conception is interwoven with the whole of 
 the Epistle. 
 
 A. The opening section, after the salutation (vy. 1.2), is de- 
 voted to an elaborately expanded thanksgiving (#4), St. Paul 
 singles out for special mention the fruitfulness of the knowledge 
 of the truth among the Colossians as witnessed by their evan- 
 gelist Epaphras (33), and prays for a further development, 
 springing from the same source, to take practical effect in walk- 
 ing worthily of the Lord, as they give thanks to the Father for 
 their deliverance from the power of darkness into the kingdom 
 of the Son of His love (9-16), This reference to the Son leads to 
 a full, though condensed, statement of the office of the Son— 
 
 (a) In relation to the universe as the source and goal, and the 
 present principle of coherence for all creation (45-17), and 
 
 (0) In relation to the Church as being, now in His risen state 
 
 
 
456 COLOSSIANS 
 
 COLOURS 
 
 
 
 not only the permanent home of all the divine perfections, but 
 also the source of an all-embracing reconciliation by His death 
 (18-20) —a reconciliation the power of which the Colossians had 
 already experienced, and which would not fail of its final con- 
 summation if they continued as they had begun, faithful adher- 
 ents of the world-wide gospel, of which St. Paul was in a special 
 sense the minister. 
 
 B. This personal reference forms the starting-point of the 
 second section of the Ep. (12425), in which St. Paul introduces 
 himseif to his correspondents, explaining his unique position in 
 relation to the consummation of the divine revelation, and his 
 efforts to bring the hearts of all men under the full power of its 
 influence (1°4-28), This will help them to understand the interest 
 that he takes in them and in their neighbours, even though 
 they had never met in the flesh, and also the ground for his 
 prayer for their enlightenment (21-8), This section closes with 
 a brief warning against some plausible deceiver, coupled with a 
 renewed assurance of his close sympathy with them, and his 
 joy in their constancy (4.5). 
 
 CO, He passes now to a series of special exhortations and 
 warnings, which occupy two chapters (26-46), and fall into five 
 subdivisions. 
 
 (a) The first of these (26-19) is in its main purpose an exhorta- 
 tion to retain their hold on and to develop into all its practical 
 consequences the personal relation to Christ which the gospel 
 had made known to them. As this was the point on which the 
 Colossians had most to fear from false teachers, the exhortation 
 (6.7) is accompanied by an explicit warning (8), and a careful 
 statement of the grounds on which the Christian who grasps the 
 true conception of the Person of Christ is assured of a complete 
 moral development, and receives, by union in baptism with the 
 death and resurrection of Christ, the reality of that separation 
 from his evil nature which had been foreshadowed by circum- 
 cision (915). In the light of this thought, the attractiveness of 
 outward observances for the attainment of purity and the 
 necessity for angelic mediation disappear (16-19), 
 
 (6) In the second subdivision (229-34) union with the death of 
 Christ is shown to be a deliverance from formal and material 
 restrictions, and union with His resurrection determines the 
 true sphere of Christian thought and life. 
 
 (c) The third subdivision develops the same thought in its 
 present practical application to moral effort, with relation (1) to 
 the appetites and passions (the members on the earth) which 
 need to be done to death, and the evil habits which must be 
 stripped off (35-1); and (2) to the new graces which the Chris- 
 tian must seek to acquire (12-14), and the new principles by which 
 he should regulate his practice (15-17), 
 
 (d@) The fourth subdivision (31°41) applies the new principle 
 to the fundamental relations of family life, husbands and wives, 
 parents and children, masters and servants. 
 
 (e) The last subdivision (42-6) contains an exhortation to per- 
 severance in prayer, and to discretion in their relations with the 
 heathen world. 
 
 D, The letter closes with a commendation of the messengers, 
 Tychicus and Onesimus, by whose hands it was sent (47-9), and 
 a group of personal salutations (10-1), 
 
 IV. INTEGRITY.—Now, if this be a true account 
 of the connexion between the different parts of 
 the letter, there is little room left for questioning 
 the substantial integrity of the document as it 
 has come down to us,—least of all for any such 
 theory as that of Holtzmann, even in the modified 
 form proposed by von Soden, which requires us to 
 believe that its most characteristic christological 
 passages have been added by an interpolator. The 
 letter must clearly be accepted or rejected as a 
 whole. Holtzmann’s theory no doubt deserves all 
 the respect which is due to honest and scholarly 
 workmanship. But it has failed to find support 
 even in the land in which it was produced. And 
 after Sanday’s criticism of it in Smith’s DB? no 
 useful end would be served by a detailed examina- 
 tion of it here. 
 
 There remains, however, the subordinate ques- 
 tion of the integrity of the text. And here it is 
 by no means so easy to speak with confidence. In 
 one or two cases, notably in 218 and 23, it is 
 difficult, if not impossible, to accept any of the 
 attested readings. We are therefore forced to 
 accept Hort’s conclusion (App. p. 127), that ‘this 
 Epistle, and more especially its second chapter, 
 appears to have been ill preserved in ancient 
 times.’ And it may well be, as Sanday has sug- 
 gested, that some of the harshnesses which have 
 led to suspicion of interpolation may be due to 
 primitive corruptions in the transmitted text. 
 
 LireraturE.—Of Eng. Comm. the most complete is that of 
 Lightfoot, whose conclusions should, however, be carefully 
 checked by reference to the sections in Judaistic Christianity, 
 in which Hort examines minutely into the characteristics of the 
 
 —= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 false teaching prevalent at Colosse, Other commentaries :— 
 Barry, J. Ll. Davies, H. C. G. Moule, Alexander Maclaren ; and 
 (German) De Wette, Ewald, Lange, Meyer. See also Pfleiderer, 
 Urchristenthwm, 683; von Soden (in Jahrb. 7. prot. Theol. 
 1895, pp. 320 ff., 497 ff., 672 ff.) ; Holtzmann, Arit. d. Eph. wu. 
 Kolosserbriefe ; Weizsiicker, Apost. Age, i. 218, ii. 240 ff., 388, 
 391, and refer to the Literature at end of Epumsians. 
 
 J. O. F. MURRAY. 
 
 COLOUR is used in the sense of ‘pretence’ or 
 ‘pretext,’ Ac 2799 ‘under c. as though they would 
 have cast anchors’ (“eAddrvTwr éxrelvev), and 2 Mac 
 38 ‘under ac. of visiting the cities’ (rq éuddoe: ds 
 épodevowv). Cf. Greene (1592) ‘You carry your 
 pack but for a coulour, to shadow your other 
 villainies.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COLOURS.—In his Juventus Mundi (p. 540) 
 Gladstone sums up the main conclusions of his 
 investigations into the sense of colour in Homer 
 (cf. Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age, ili, 
 457 ff.) :—‘1. His perceptions of colour, considered 
 as light decomposed, though highly poetical, are 
 also very indeterminate. 2. His perceptions of 
 light not decomposed as varying between light 
 and dark, white and black, are most vivid and 
 effective. 8. Accordingly, his descriptions of colour 
 generally tend a good deal to range themselves in 
 a scale (so to speak) of degrees rather than of 
 kinds of light.? Very much the same may be said 
 of the colour-sense among the Hebrews. Even in 
 Mesopotamia the colours used in the painting and 
 enamelling of walls were only some five or six in 
 number, and were used for effects of brilliance 
 rather than of actual representation of natural 
 coloured objects (Perrot and Chipiez, History of 
 Art in Chaldea and Assyria, vol. ii. p. 295). 
 Among the Hebrews the pictorial arts seem to 
 have been at first unknown, and later were dis- 
 couraged on religious grounds. Dyeing was the 
 only art connected with colours known to them 
 before the time of Ezekiel, and even here the 
 result rather than the process was familiar. Con- 
 sequently, the references to colour in the oldest 
 literature are very simple. In the Song of Deborah 
 (Jg 58°) dyed stuffs and embroideries (of various 
 colours) are mentioned without any further dis- 
 tinction. In the Song of the Bow (28 1”), ‘scarlet’ 
 raiment is the gift of the king. In the ‘Oldest 
 Book of Hebrew Hist.’ (JE), the only colours men- 
 tioned are black (Gn 30#f-), white (Gn 4912), scarlet 
 (Gn 38-80), red (Gn 25°), and grey (Gn 44”). All 
 these are used of natural objects. Later, the dyed 
 wares of Phcenicia were introduced and largely 
 used among the Hebrews, whose acquaintance 
 with colours was thus enlarged, though at no time 
 was it very precise in its nature or extensive in its 
 comprehension. 
 
 In like manner the symbolism of colours in OT 
 and NT is very simple. It may be classed as (a) 
 literary, (b) apocalyptic, (c) ritual. 
 
 (a) Illustrations ‘of the first use will be found 
 under the individual colours. It is to be found in 
 the literature of most nations, especially in poetical 
 language. 
 
 (6) The apocalyptic use of colour as symbol is 
 
 found in a simple form in Zec, in a more developed ~ 
 
 in Dn, and in its most complete form in the 
 Apocalypse. 
 
 (c) In matters pertaining to ritual (esp. in the 
 tabernacle), colours are frequently used, but it has 
 not yet been satisfactorily shown that they were 
 used symbolically, or that they were other than 
 the most brilliant colours procurable when the 
 descriptions were given. They are only thus 
 mentioned in P and Ch. In Alexandria, how- 
 ever, in the Ist cent. they were all interpreted 
 symbolically by Philo, who says (de Vita Mos. 
 iii. 6) that they represent the elements—fine 
 flax (white), the earth; purple, water; hyacinth 
 
 
 
7 
 F 
 7 
 # 
 
 
 
 COLOURS 
 
 
 
 COLOURS 457 
 
 
 
 tee air; scarlet, fire (so also Jos. Ant. Il. 
 vii. 7). 
 
 BLACK is used in OT only of natural objects. 
 (1) w4Y of hair Lv 13%, Ca 5", horses Zec 62°, skin 
 that is burnt with the sun Ca 15, and that peels off 
 in disease Job 30°°. (2) nin is used of sheep only 
 Gn 30%f %, and is rendered in LXX by ¢atds, a 
 word denoting the greyness of twilight, or any 
 mixture of black and white. In v.” it is an inter- 
 
 olation. (3) The verb 77 (originally ‘to be dirty, 
 oul’) is used of the darkened sky Jer 478, 1 K 18%, 
 and from its original meaning comes to signify 
 mourning Jer 87! 147, Ezk 31, Mal 34. It is also 
 used of the dark colour of ice-covered water Job 
 6°. In Pr 7° ‘blackness of night’ is literally as in 
 RVm ‘pupil of eye of night.’ In Ep. Jer (v.”4) faces 
 are blackened (ueyedaywudva) by smoke. In NT 
 pédas is used of hair Mt 5%, of Vieaes Rey 6°, and 
 especially of ink 2 Co 38 etc.; yvddos for the dark- 
 ness of night He 1218 (cf. Dt 4"), and {odos for the 
 darkness of the nether world 2 P 24 (cf. Homer, JJ. 
 xxi. 56). It is used symbolically for affliction and 
 death Zec 67 (‘famine in consequence of a siege,’ 
 ef. Hitzig-Steiner’s Comm.), La 48, and as above 
 for ‘mourning’ generally Mal 3". 
 
 BLUE (nj?2n, LXX vdxwvOos, ddowdpdupos only in 
 Nu 4’, ef. Xen. Cyrop. vil. iii. 13). In NT there 
 is no mention of this colour. In Assyr. the word 
 ta-kil-tu occurs in several inscriptions (Delitzsch, 
 Assyr. Hwb. p. 706). This colour seems to have 
 been a Oe a a as distinguished from ]D37x 
 (see PURPLE), but even in early times there was 
 
 eat indefiniteness in its use (cf. Talm. Bab. 
 
 enachoth 44*, and for use of vdxwOos and hya- 
 cinthus in classical writers see Kitto, Cyclop. o 
 Bibl. Lit.4 i. 40f.). It was obtained from a shell- 
 fish found on the Phen. coast attached to the 
 rocks. The Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Dt 33! 
 ealls it ji17n, and this is usually identified with 
 Helix ianthina. (For other purple-producing shell- 
 fish see PURPLE.) Blue was used often with 
 purple (see below) and scarlet (see SCARLET) in the 
 curtains of the tabernacle (Ex 261), the veil of the 
 ark (26%), the screen of the tent-door (26°), the 
 screen of the gates of the court (27), parts con- 
 nected with the ephod (28), the mitre (25*7), and 
 the girdle (39°) of the priest, also in the coverings 
 of the table of shewbread, the candlesticks, the 
 golden altar, and the vessels of the sanctuary 
 (Nu 4). A cord of blue was to be put on the 
 fringes or tassels of the Israelites’ garments (Nu 
 15%). In the veil, before the holiest place in 
 Solomon’s temple, blue was inwrought wit purple 
 and crimson according to the Chronicler (2 Ch 3"). 
 It was also used in the clothing of idols (Jer 10°). 
 In Ezk it is the colour of the clothing of young 
 Assyr. nobles (23°), and in his description of the 
 luxury of Tyre, awnings of blue and purple were 
 their coverings on ships; and bales of blue and 
 broidered work were among their merchandise 
 (277 4). Hangings of white and blue cloth figure in 
 the palace of Ahasuerus (Est 1°), and royal apparel 
 is Ae blue and white (Est 8%). In Pr 20 the AV 
 ‘blueness of a wound’ is correctly given in RV as 
 ‘stripes that wound.’ 
 
 CRIMSON is identical with scarlet. It occurs in 
 RV only in Is 18 as tr. of ybin (see SCARLET), and 
 in 2 Ch 27 3% for bnn2, which seems to be a 
 
 Persian word, from » »/S ‘a worm,’ and thus equiva- 
 
 lent to ny)in (cf. Ges-Buhl.). See separate art. 
 GREEN (in Heb. various derivatives of the root 
 py, cf. Assyr. ardku, ‘ to be pale’ [Delitzsch, Assyr. 
 Hwb. p. 243). Gr. XAwpbs).— t is used exclusively of 
 vegetation Gn 1° 9°, Mk 6%, Rev 87 94 ete. 
 Greenish, p2?%, that is, inclining to yellow, is used 
 ot the plague of leprosy in skin or garment Ly 13% 
 14%”, The same word is used of gold Ps 68% (RV 
 
 ‘yellow’). In the many other passages where the 
 word ‘green’ occurs in RV, the Heb. equivalent 
 contains no reference to colour. 
 
 GREY is used only of ‘grey hair,’ Heb. 73 
 Gn 44” ete, 
 
 PURPLE (LXX and NT sopdipa, ruppupots, Heb. 
 jerny, Aram. xyx, Assyr. Argamannu, Del. Assy: 
 Hwb, p. 129).—This was a precious dye of a red- 
 purple colour obtained from the shell-fish Murex 
 trunculus, near Tyre, and Murex branduris on the 
 shores of Taranto and the Peloponnesus. The 
 Phoenicians seem to have long monopolized the 
 sale (and perhaps the preparation) of it, not only 
 on their own coasts, but on those of the ‘isles of 
 Elishah’ (ace. to Targ. on Gn 10*=Italy, more 
 probably =Greece, “EdAds ; ef. Smend’s Comm.), Ezk 
 27’, and in the manufactories of Syria (Ezk 271), 
 In later times the dye was sold (and inanu- 
 factured ?) in Asia (Ac 16), and in Pliny’s time in 
 the islands on the N. coast of Africa and Madeira 
 (HN ix. 36, vi. 36; ef. Strabo, 835). For other 
 methods of preparing purple see Vitruvius, vii. 13, 
 14. Purple was used—generally in combination 
 with blue-and scarlet—in the curtains and veils of 
 the tabernacle, in certain parts of the priests’ dress 
 and ornaments, and alone in the cloth spread on 
 the altar (Ex 26-28. 35. 39, Nu 41, cf. Sir 45!"), also 
 in Solomon’s temple (see BLUE). It was especially 
 the colour used in the raiment and trappings of 
 royalty. The kings of Midian wore purple raiment 
 (Jg 8%), so did the royal courtiers of Persia (Est 
 8»), of Babylon (Dn 57-16»), and of Syria (2 Mac 
 488), The fittings of Solomon’s palanquin (Ca 3?) 
 and the cords in the hangings of the palace of 
 Ahasuerus (Est 1°) were of purple; and the abgence 
 of this colour from the dress of the all-powerful 
 Romans was noted with surprise (1 Mac 8"), 
 Purple is thus the sign of royalty and nobility (Pr 
 31”, Rev 174 181716), and hence it is used in the 
 dressing of idols (Jer 10°, Ep. Jer*™). A purple 
 robe was put on our Lord in mockery before his 
 crucifixion (Mk 15!” [ropdipay], Jn 19? [luairiov 
 moppupodv], but Mt 27% reads ‘scarlet’ [xAapuida 
 xoxkivyv]). In Ca 7° the brilliance of the hair is 
 compared with that of purple (see Graetz, Comm..). 
 
 RED (07x and ‘7x; for other words see below, 
 LXX and NT ruppéds, ruppdxns, ruppfwr. In Assyr. 
 the root adm is used for dark-red as of blood 
 [Delitzsch, Assyr. Hwb. p. 26]).—This colour is in 
 most passages used of natural objects, as of pottage 
 Gn 25°”, a heifer Nu 197, water discoloured 2 K 3”, 
 wine Pr 23%! (ef. RVm to Ps 758, Heb. 199), horses 
 Zec 18 67, Rev 64, the face red with weeping Job 
 161 (RVm), and the sky Mt 162% But it was 
 also artificially produced (Flinders Petrie says that 
 red-dyed leather was made in Egypt before B.c. 
 3000). Rams’ skins dyed red were used for the 
 covering of the tent of the tabernacle Ex 255 357 % 
 36! 39% (see TABERNACLE). Garments dyed red 
 are mentioned in Is 63%. In Nah 2° the words 
 ‘made red’ mean dyed red according to Oaf. Heb. 
 Lex. and Siegfried-Stade, but ‘lit up by the sun’ 
 (cf. 1 Mac 6*) according to Hitzig-Steiner’s Comm. 
 In Gn 49” the word translated ‘red’ means ‘ dull’ 
 (cf. Oxf. Hed. Lea. to 425, and Assyr. akdlu), and 
 in Est 18 ‘red’ is either ‘porphyry’ (RVm, cf. 
 Oxf. Heb. Lex. to v2) or malachite (Ryssel’s Com- 
 mentary). In one passage (Wis 13, see VER- 
 MILION) it is the RV rendering of épudju-s. 
 
 A lighter shade of the same colour is expressed 
 by the word reddish (07072x), used of leprous spots 
 on the flesh Lv 13, or on the wall of a house Ly 
 14°, 
 
 SCARLET (ybin, nydin, xy, and very commonly nybia 
 wv, LXX and NT kéxxivos. See also CRIMSON).— 
 y>in denotes the source of the colour, ‘3% the brilliance 
 of it(cf. Pliny, HN xxxiii. 40, ‘Cocci nitor’; Martial, 
 x. 76, ‘cocco mulio fulget’). tis an artificial colour 
 
 
 
458 
 
 COLT 
 
 obtained from the female of an insect (Coccus dicis) 
 which is found attached toa species of oak, and 
 forms a berry-like protuberance about the size of a 
 cherry-stone. It was found chiefly in Palestine, 
 Asia Minor, and South Europe. The poor of Spain 
 at the time of Pliny paid half their tribute by means 
 of this insect (HN xvi. 12). In OT scarlet is used 
 chiefly of thread (Gn 387 %, Jos 21% 21), cloth (Nu 
 48, 25 1%), and wool (He 9'%). In the coverings of 
 the tabernacle it was used sometimes alone Nu 48, 
 oftener with purple and blue Ex 261-8 ete. So 
 also in the dress of the priests Ex 28° ete., cf. Sir 
 454, In ordinary life scarlet clothing was a sign 
 of prosperity 2S 14, Pr 317, La 45. Its brilliance 
 made it a source of attraction Jer 4°, and led to 
 the dyurative use for what was glaring Is 1%, 
 Once only it is used of a natural object, when the 
 lips are compared to a thread of scarlet Ca 4%. 
 
 SORREL (pw) occurs once of horses in Zee 18, 
 where LXX translates by yapés, ‘dappled grey,’ ef. 
 69 (LXX). 
 
 VERMILION (Heb. 1#¥, Gr. wldros [but ev ypadldc 
 in Kzk]).—A pigment used among the Assyrians (for 
 reff. see Smith, DB i. 623). Rooms were painted 
 with it Jer 224, images of the Chaldeans are por- 
 trayed on a wall with it in a description in Ezk 
 2314, and wooden idols are smeared with it in Wis 
 134. The Vulg. translates by stnopide in Jer, 
 coloribus in Ezk, and rubrica in Wis. Virgil (Hcl. 
 x. 26 f.) and Pliny (HN xxxv. 45, ef. xxxiii. 36) 
 describe Roman images of deities thus adorned. 
 
 WHITE.—In OT the most usual word employed 
 is 12), LXX deveés. It is used of such objects as 
 snow Is 18, milk Gn 49!2, manna Ex 16#!, horses 
 Zec 18 6% 6, and leprous hair Lv 13. Lebanon 
 
 seems to have received its name either from the 
 white snow on its summits or the limestone of 
 which it was composed (see Delitzsch, Wo lag das 
 
 Paradies, p. 103). In Ca 5 the word ns ‘ white’ 
 (RV) denotes dazzling, and in Dn 7° a late word 
 17 is used of raiment. The same root is used in 
 the word translated ‘white bread’ Gn 40%. In 
 NT Aevxés is used of natural objects and of linen, 
 Imt chiefly as the symbol of purity or innocence 
 and holiness, as in the Transfiguration, or of angels 
 Jn 20), ete., the saints Rev 6", or the throne of 
 Grod Rev 20", or of victory Rev 6719": 4 (cf. Virgil, 
 Aen. iii. 537 f.). 
 
 YELLOW (a\ny, favOlfovca) is used in OT only of 
 the hair in leprous sores Ly 13% 3235 (but see 
 Greenish). In Est 1° the word 1 tr¢ ‘yellow’ in 
 KV, ‘alabaster’ in RVm, probably means ‘ pearl’ 
 or ‘mother-of-pearl’ (Oxf. Heb. Lex. and Ges-Buhl 
 under 73). 
 
 In addition to the words denoting specific colours, 
 there are a few used in OT to indicate a mixture, 
 generally of black and white. The chief of these 
 are: 1. Speckled 7\p3, literally dotted or spotted, 
 used of sheep and goats, Gn 30. 31. In Jer 12° it 
 is used of birds and is a tr. of way, lit. ‘dyed.’ 2. 
 Spotted wy, i.e. covered with patches, Gn 30. The 
 same Heb. word is used in Ezk 1618 of high places, 
 and is translated in RV ‘decked with divers 
 colours.’ 3. Ringstraked 1\py, marked with rings 
 or bands Gn 30. 31. 4. Grisled 7\12, marked with 
 white spots resembling hail, used of he-goats Gn 
 317° 12, of horses Zec 6°: 8, 
 
 In Jg 5 the word ovyas is tr. ‘of divers colours’ 
 in RV, or ‘dyed garments’ in RVm (cf. also under 
 Speckled). The word “7p is tr. ‘of divers 
 colours’ in 1 Ch 29, of precious stones, similarly in 
 Ezk 178 of feathers. In other places it is gener- 
 ally translated ‘broidered work.’ It is derived 
 from a root which, according to Fleischer, origin- 
 ally meant to make a thing many-coloured by 
 engraving, drawing, writing, or broidering. 
 
 G. W. THATCHER. 
 
 COLT is not applied in the Bible to the young 
 
 COMFORT 
 
 horse, but to the young ass, and once (Gn 32") to 
 the young camel. Outside the Bible it is not 
 applied to the young of any animal but the horse 
 See Ass. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COME.—1. Come about, i.e. ‘come round,’ either 
 lit. 2 Ch 13'8 ‘ Jeroboam caused an ambushment to 
 ce. about behind them?’ (3927); or fig. 1 S 1° ‘when 
 the time was c. about’ (ox7:7 mapnd on the return of 
 the days). 2. Come again, i.e. ‘come back’ (see 
 AGAIN), as Jg 15! ‘when he had drunk, his spirit 
 came a. and he revived’ (31). 38. Come at, (1) 
 ‘come near,’ ‘reach,’ Dn 6% ‘the lions had the 
 mastery of them, and brake all their bones in 
 pieces or ever ney came at the bottom of the den’; 
 
 4k 8 ‘they could not c. at him for the crowd’ ; 
 (2) ‘come near,’ ‘touch,’ Nu 6° ‘he shall c. at 
 no dead body’ (RV ‘c. near to’); (3) so as to have 
 sexual intercourse, Ex 19!5 ‘ce. not at your wives’ 
 (RV ‘ec, not near a woman’). 4, Come by, ‘come 
 near,’ esp. so as to get hold of, Ac 27!6 ‘we had 
 much work toc. by the boat’ (RV, ‘we were able, 
 with difficulty, to secure the boat’): cf. Pref. to 
 AV ‘Translation it is . .. that removeth the 
 cover of the well, that we may ec. by the water’; 
 and Shaks. 7’wo Gent. of Ver. 111. i. 125— 
 ‘Love is like a child, 
 
 That longs for everything that he can come by.’ 
 5. Come in, ‘enter upon,’ ‘begin,’ Ko 11% ‘until 
 the fulness of the Gentiles be ec. in’ (elcépxopat). 
 Cf. Shaks. 2 Henry IV. VY. iii. 52— 
 
 ‘Now comes in the sweet of the night.’ 
 
 For the phrase ‘He that should come’ (6 
 épyduevos, RV ‘he that cometh’) see JESUS CHRIST, 
 and MerssiAH. And for the Second Coming see 
 PAROUSIA. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COMELY, COMELINESS.—These words, nuw 
 slightly archaic in any sense, are quite obsol. in 
 the sense of moral fitness or eee & @ meanin 
 which they have a few times in EV, as Ps 33 
 ‘praise is c. for the upright.’ Dr. Murray (Oaf. 
 Bog. Dict. s.v.) thinks the earliest meaning of 
 ‘comely’ may have been ‘delicately fashioned,’ so 
 that we may compare Jer 6? ‘the ec. and delicate 
 one, the daughter of Zion.’ But the usage of AV 
 (foll. by RV) gives us: (1) Befitting, Ee 5% ‘it is 
 good and c. for one to eat and to drink and to 
 enjoy the good of all his labour’; 1 Co 1118 ‘is it 
 that a woman pray unto God uncovered ?’ (mpéret, 
 RV ‘is it seemly?’). (2) Pleasing to the eye, 
 because betitting, Job 41” ‘his ec. proportion’ 
 (Amer. RV ‘goodly frame’); Ezk 27% ‘they set 
 forth thy comeliness’ (117). Then (3) handsome, 
 beautiful, majestic (the distinction ‘might be 
 rather called comely than beautiful’ being quite 
 modern), Ca 64 ‘Thou art beautiful, O my love, as 
 Tirzah, c. as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with 
 banners’; Is 53? ‘he hath no form nor comeliness.’ 
 
 : J. HASTINGS, 
 
 COMFORT (n73, opin, mapdxdyots *).—The state 
 of relief from trouble, or the means of solace. In 
 OT the evils to which the consolations of God are 
 most characteristically opposed are the calamities of 
 the chosen people, while in NT the divine comfort is 
 mainly represented as enabling the individual Chris- 
 tian to endure, and even to rejoice under, the natural 
 ills of human life and the persecutions to which 
 the faithful are subjected. As the sources of comfort 
 
 *In AV, rapéxanois is tr. ‘consolation’ in Lk 225 624, Ac 436 
 1531 (m. ‘exhortation’), Ro 155, 2 Co 15.6.7 74 77, Ph 21, 2 Th 
 216, Philem7, He 618; ‘comfort’ in Ac 931, Ro 154, 2 Co 13.4 
 7+.13 ; ‘exhortation’ in Ac 1315, Ro 128, 1 Co 148, 2 Co 817, 1 Th 23, 
 1 Ti 413, He 125 1322; and ‘intreaty’ in 2 Co 84. RV changes 
 ‘consolation’ into ‘comfort,’ except in Lk 225 624, Ac 1531, 
 He 6!8 (encouragement), Ac 436 (* exhortation,’ m. ‘ consolation’), 
 and, except in 1Co 148, keeps ‘exhortation’ where AV has it 
 (Ro 128 ‘ exhorting’). 
 
 
 
COMFORTER 
 
 are mentioned the word of God (Ps 119"), the loviny- 
 kindness of God (Ps 11975), the Holy Ghost (Ac 9°), 
 the fellowship and sympathy of Christ (2 Co 1, 
 Ph 2'), God the Father (2 Co 1’). The OT comfort of 
 the individual is, in the main, hope in the eventual 
 manifestation of the retributive justice of God; of 
 the nation, the prophetic promise of the deliverance, 
 purification, and exaltation of Israel. The NT 
 doctrine specially emphasizes as comfort (a) uncer 
 sorrow for sin, that it works repentance (2 Co 7"); 
 (6) under afiliction, that it is a paternal discipline, 
 a token of the divine love, designed to purify the 
 character of the sufferer (He 12), and to qualify 
 for ministration (2 Co 14); while, generally, it con- 
 trasts the present sufferings, as temporary and 
 hight, with the future joys of the redeemed, as 
 eternal and weighty (2 Co 4’), The divine com- 
 forts are strong (He 638), all-embracing (2 Co 1%), 
 and everlasting (2 Th 2'*), See PARACLETE. 
 
 W. P. PATERSON. 
 COMFORTER.—See PARACLETE. 
 
 COMING OF CHRIST.—See PARousiA. 
 
 COMMANDMENT.—The distinction bet. ‘com- 
 mand,’ the order of a secular authority, and 
 ‘commandment,’ a divine charge, is modern. In 
 older Eng. we find, ¢.g., Rogers (1642) saying, ‘As 
 Papists have done with the second Command’ ; 
 and in AV ‘commandment’ is freely used for the 
 orders of a king or other secular power. Thus, 
 Est 27° ‘ Esther did the commandment of Mordecai’ ; 
 Mt 15° ‘teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 of men’ (évrd\uara, RV ‘ precepts’); Ac 25°3 ‘at 
 Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth’ 
 (RV ‘at the command of Festus’). To give com- 
 mandment is an archaic phrase often used for the 
 simple vb. ‘to command,’ and even ‘to give in 
 commandment’ Ex 34° (ny). The vb. to command 
 is itself used in many obsol. constructions. Besides 
 the mod. use to command one to doa thing, or a 
 thing to be done, we find ‘ce. to do’ without the 
 
 erson, Ac 5* ‘Gamaliel . . . c® to put the men 
 orth.’ Sometimes the pers. only is mentioned, as 
 Gn 18 ‘he will c. his children and his household 
 after him’; sometimes the thing only, as Ps 133° 
 ‘there the LorD c% the blessing’; or the pers. and 
 thing without the infin. as 1 § 21° ‘the king hath 
 e*d me a business.’ The subst. ‘command’ occurs 
 once in AV, Job 39” ‘ Doth the eagle mount up at 
 thy c.?’ and only one earlier occurrence is found 
 in Eng. literature, Shaks. Two Gent. Iv. iii. 5— 
 
 ‘One that attends your Ladyship’s command.’ 
 
 For the Ten Commandments see DECALOGUE. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COMMEND, COMMENDATION.—To c. is now to 
 approve of, speak well of, and in this sense it is 
 used in AV, as Gn 12" ‘The princes also of 
 Pharaoh saw her, and c* her before Pharaoh’ (53 
 RV ‘praised’); Pr 12° ‘A man shall be c® ace. to 
 his wisdom’ (5$a); Ec 8% ‘I c% mirth’ (nav); Lk 
 168 ‘the Lord c® the unjust steward’ (éavéw), 
 But in older Eng. ‘c.’ also signified (1) to present a 
 person or thing to another as woe of approval 
 (mod. recommend): thus, Ro 16! ‘1 ¢. unto you 
 Phebe, our sister’ (suvicrnuw.* So 355°, 2 Co 3} 44 5" 
 1012 18bés 1911) ; 1 Co 88 ‘meat c** us not to God’ 
 (waplornu). In this sense is commendation used, 
 2 Co 3% [all], ‘epistles of c.’ (2) To entrust, Lk 
 2346 « Father, into thy hands I c. my spirit,’ and Ac 
 14% 2082 (all rapariénuw). Cf. Shaks. Henry VIL. 
 v. i. 17— 
 
 ‘TI love you ; 
 And durst commend a secret to your ear. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 * On the meanings of this verb see Sanday-Headlam on Ro 3° 
 where, as in 53, the meaning is rather ‘ prove,’ ‘ establish.’ 
 
 COMMON 459 
 
 COMMENTARY.—Thus RV translates midhrash 
 (e772, AV ‘story’) in the only passages in which 
 that word is found, 2 Ch 13** 24°, 
 
 ‘The term Midrash,’ says Driver (LOT 497), ‘is common in 
 post-Bibl. literature. Darash is ‘to search out,” “investigate,” 
 “explore”; as applied to Scripture, to discover or develop a 
 thought not apparent on the surface,—for instance, the hidden 
 meaning of a word, or the particulars implied by an allusion 
 (e.g. what Abraham did in Ur of the Chaldees, what Eldad and 
 Medad said when they prophesied, the circumstances of Moses’ 
 death, etc.). The Midrash may be defined as an imaginative 
 development of a thought or theme suggested by Scripture, 
 especially a didactic or homiletic exposition, or an edifying 
 religious story (Tobit and Susanna are thus Midrashim).’ 
 
 The two Midrashim of OT are (1) ‘The Midrash 
 of the Prophet Iddo’ (2 Ch 13”), and (2) ‘The 
 Midrash of the Book of Kings’ (24*7). They were 
 probably didactic developments of the historical 
 nalratives we possess, making use of these narra- 
 tives to emphasize some religious truth; but 
 nothing is known of them beyond their titles. See 
 under CHRONICLES. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COMMERCE.—See TRADE. 
 
 COMMON.—14. Following the Gr. (xowés), c. is 
 used in NT in two chief senses. 1. That is ‘c.’ 
 which is shared by all, as Ac 2“ 4 ‘they had all 
 things c.’; Tit 14 ‘Titus, mine own son after the 
 c. faith’; Jude® ‘the common salvation.’ 2. That 
 which is common to all is distinguished from that 
 which is peculiar to the few; whence the applica- 
 tion to the religious practices of the heathen in 
 contrast with those of the Jews; or of the ordinary 
 people, ‘the people of the land’ (y7x7 oy), in con- 
 trast with those of the Pharisees—z.e. ceremonially 
 unclean. Thus Ac 1015 ‘But Peter said, Not so, 
 Lord ; for I have never eaten anything that is c. or 
 unclean.* And the voice spake unto him again the 
 second time, What God hath cleansed (éxa6dpce), 
 that call not thou ¢.’ (od wh Kolvov, RV ‘make not 
 thou e.’). In this sense ce. is twice (1S 21* 5) the 
 tr. of Heb. él (never tr4 by xowds however in LXX, 
 but always by Bé8ydos), elsewhere rendered in AV 
 ‘unholy’ (Lv 10°) or ‘profane’ (Ezk 2276 4220 4478 
 48 rally), but by RV always ‘common.’ 
 
 2. In Ly 4” we find the expression ‘ the c. people.’ 
 The Heb. (7737 oy, ‘am A@arez) is lit. ‘the people 
 of the land,’ and is so tr? Gn 237 (where it describes 
 the Hittites), 2 K 113819 16% 91%, Jer 138, Ezk 727. 
 The phrase was chosen by the Pharisees to describe 
 the people dwelling in the Holy Land who were 
 not Haberim. See under PHARISEES, and consult 
 the foll. literature on the subject— 
 
 LirgraturE.—Schtrer, HJP u. ii. 8. 22 ff.; Kuenen, Rel. of 
 Tsr. iii, 251; Graetz, Hist. of Jews ii. 152, 367, iii. 114; Eders- 
 heim, Jesus the Messiah i. 85, 230; Chwolson, Das letzte 
 Passahmahl Christi p. 73 n; Montefiore, Hibb. Lect. 497 ff. ; 
 Friedlander, Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Christenthums, ch, i. 
 
 8. For ‘common hall’ Mt 2777 see PRETORIUM. 
 In Ac 538, ‘the c. prison,’ c. is used in the old sense 
 of public. This is after Wyclif, who tr. Vulg. in 
 custodia publica, ‘in comun kepyng’ (1388 ‘in the 
 comyn warde’). Cf. Eng. Gilds (1467), 391, ‘That 
 no eitezen be putt in cone prisone, but in one of 
 the chambers of the halle benethforth’; Cover- 
 dale’s tr. of Ac 17” ‘Paul stode on the myddes 
 of the comon place’; Latimer’s Serm. p. 326. ‘I 
 told you the diversity of prayer, namely, of the 
 common prayer, and the private’; and ‘the Book 
 of Common Prayer.’ See PRISON. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 *RV gives ‘o. and unclean,’ reading xeivdy xa) a&xcbuproy 
 with edd., instead of TR x. 4 &z Nevertheless xovés and 
 axalepros have the same meaning. The classical passage is Mk 
 72, xowels yspoi, rods’ tori d&virros, ‘with defiled (AVm, RVm 
 * common ae thatis, unwashen, hands.’ With which cf. vv.18. 19, 
 where Jesus says, ‘whatsoever from without goeth into the 
 man, it cannot defile him’ («irév xosvaoos, lit. ‘make him c.’); 
 and St. Mark adds the comment, ‘[this he said), making all 
 meats clean’ (~afapifev), See Page on Ac 1014, 
 
 
 
460 COMMUNE 
 
 COMMUNE. — In its earliest use ‘commune’ 
 (which had the same origin as ‘common’) signified 
 to make common property, to share. This may be 
 either by giving, as Wyclif’s tr. of Ph 444 ‘Ye han 
 don wel, comunynge to my tribulacioun’; or by 
 receiving, as his tr. of 2 Jn™ ‘He that saith to 
 him, Heyl, comuneth with his yuele werkis.’ 
 Being by and by restricted to speech, it meant 
 sometimes simply ‘talk to,’ as Gn 42*4 ‘[Joseph] 
 returned to them again, and communed with them’ 
 (ogdy 1239, RV ‘and spake to them’). But generally 
 the sense of both giving and receiving is present, 
 either with others, as Lk 6" ‘they communed one 
 with another what they might do to Jesus’ 
 (diahadéw) ; or with oneself, as Ps 44 ‘ec. with your 
 own heart upon your bed, and be still’—a meaning 
 which Dr. Murray (Oxf. Eng. Dict. s.v.) describes 
 as ‘now only literary, devotional, and poetic.’ In 
 1S 25° (AV * And David sent and communed with 
 Abigail’) the Heb. (‘2 737) is lit. ‘spake concerning 
 A.,’ and has the special meaning of ‘asked in 
 marriage,’ as in Ca 8°(same Heb.) AV and RV ‘the 
 day when she shall be spoken for.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COMMUNICATE.—Like commune (wh. see), to c. 
 is to make common property, either more particu- 
 larly by giving, as Gal 2? ‘I c® unto them that 
 
 ospel’ (dvarieuac, RV ‘laid before them’); Ro 12% 
 RV cé to the necessities of the saints’ (AV ‘dis- 
 tributing’); He 13° ‘to do good and to ec. forget 
 not’: or by receiving, as Ph 4"4 ‘ye did c. with my 
 affliction’ (RV ‘had fellowship with’). Cf. Fenton 
 (1579) ‘ Cesar the Dictator, of whom you beare the 
 surname, and communicate in his fortunes.’ But 
 generally by giving and receiving equally, as Ph 
 4 “no church c® with me as concerning giving 
 and receiving’ (RV ‘had fellowship with me’). 
 Communication is generally conversation,* as 2 K 
 9 “Ye know the man, and his c¢.’ (RV ‘ what his 
 talk was’); Col 3° ‘filthy ¢c. out of your mouth’ 
 (aloxpodoyla, RV ‘ shameful speaking’). 
 
 In 1 Co 1533 ‘evil c* corrupt good manners,’ RV takes the Gr. 
 (6usAs‘es xexei) in the sense of ‘evil company,’ Amer. RV ‘ evil 
 companionships,’ This is a new tr., Vulg. having ‘colloquia 
 mala’; Wyclif, ‘yuel spechis’; Tindale, ‘ malicious speakinges’; 
 Cranmer, ‘evil wordes’; the Geneva, ‘evil speakinges’; the 
 Rheims and AV ‘evil communications.’ And it is not certain 
 that it is a correct trn. The vb. 64:At@# occurs in NT only in the 
 sense of ‘speak with’ (as in LXX, Jos. and mod. Greek—see 
 Kennedy, Sources of NT’ Greek p, 155), and susAsx, which oveurs 
 only here, may well have the same meaning—a meaning towards 
 which it tends more and more in later Greek. In eccles. usage 
 it is the sermon (homily) of the Christian preacher. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COMMUNION.—The word xowwvla is variously 
 rendered in the English Bible by ‘communion,’ 
 ‘fellowship,’ ‘contribution,’ ‘distribution.’ It is 
 used in relation to the Christian Society to express 
 the idea of the fellowship in which it is united, and 
 the acts of fellowship in which the idea is realized. 
 Its general NT use deserves to be considered as intro- 
 ductory to its specific application to the Eucharist, 
 or Holy Communion (see LORD’s SUPPER). 
 
 The corresponding verb kowwveiy has two senses : 
 (1) ‘to have a share in,’ (2) ‘to give a share to’; 
 so that we are prepared for a twofold meaning of 
 kowwvla: (1) ‘fellowship’ as recognized and en- 
 joyed, (2) ‘fellowship’ as manifested in acts which 
 give it expression. Four passages, or groups of 
 passages, deserve special examination. 
 
 1. 2 Co 134‘ The fellowship of the Holy Spirit’ ; 
 Ph 2! ‘If there be any fellowship of the Spirit.’ 
 The first of these passayes is one of the few in 
 which, as in the Baptismal formula (Mt 281%), 
 the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are brought 
 into emphatic juxtaposition: ‘The grace of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the 
 fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.’ 
 
 *In Mt 587 Lk 2417, Eph 429 the Gr. is simply Adyer, word, 
 
 COMMUNION 
 
 
 
 The order is remarkable. It is explained, how- 
 ever, when we observe that we have here an 
 expansion of the final salutation with which St. 
 Paul regularly closes his epistles. Thus in 2 Th 
 317-18 we read: ‘The greeting of me Paul with 
 mine own hand, which is the token in every 
 epistle: thus I write: The grace of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ be with you all.’ It was his invari- 
 able habit to take the pen from his amanuensis 
 at the close and write a parting salutation as his 
 sign-manual. This was always a prayer that 
 ‘grace’ might be with his readers; the word was 
 characteristic of his teaching, and it always occurs, 
 even in the briefest form of the closing salutation. 
 
 To understand the enlarged form of this saluta- 
 tion in 2 Co, we must recall the circumstances of 
 the Corinthian Church. Party divisions were 
 distracting it: all its manifold troubles St. Paul 
 traces to this root. Unity must be restored: this 
 is the first injunction of the first epistle (1 Co 1”), 
 and the last injunction of the second (2 Co 13%). 
 His remedy for disunion was his doctrine of the 
 One Body, which he brought to bear on their sin 
 of fornication, their difficulty about idol-meats, 
 their jealousy as to spiritual gifts, their profana- 
 tion of the Lord’s Supper. The second epistle 
 opens with an outburst of relief at their return 
 to obedience. Yet at the close he shows that his 
 fearsarestillalive. What will he find when he comes? 
 ‘Strife, jealousy, wraths, factions, backbitings, 
 whisperings, swellings, tumults?’ If so, he warns 
 them that he will not spare. He closes with 
 exhortations to unity and peace, and promises the 
 presence of ‘ the God of love and peace.’ Then his 
 final salutation runs at first in its accustomed 
 form, ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ’; but 
 it is expanded to meet the occasion and its needs: 
 ‘the God of love’ suggests the addition ‘the 
 love of God’; and the true sense of membershi 
 which the One Spirit gives to the One Body is 
 proved for in the words ‘the fellowship of the 
 
 oly Spirit.’ It is clear, then, that the genitive 
 here is subjective and not objective; and this 
 is confirmed by the parallel clauses. ‘The grace’ 
 which is ‘ of the Lord Jesus,’ and ‘the love’ which 
 is ‘of God,’ are parallel with ‘the fellowship’ which 
 is ‘of the Holy Spirit.’ 
 
 The meaning in this place seems to decide the 
 otherwise doubtful sense of Ph 21 ‘if there be any 
 fellowship of the Spirit.’ Here, again, the context 
 speaks of love and unity. So that it is most 
 natural to interpret the phrase in both places of 
 the sense of unity, membership or fellowship, 
 which it is the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit to 
 preserve in the Christian Church. 
 
 2. Ac 2 ‘They continued steadfastly in the 
 teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, the 
 breaking of bread and the prayers.’ This is the 
 first description given us of the newly-baptized 
 converts after Pentecost, when they numbered 
 already about 3000. It is expanded in the next 
 verses, in which two at least of its phrases are 
 almost verbally repeated: ‘the breaking of bread’ 
 is represented by ‘ breaking bread house by house,’ 
 and ‘ the fellowship’ or ‘communion’ (kowwvla) is 
 echoed in the words, ‘all they that believed to- 
 gether held all things common ’ (xovd), 
 
 Thus ‘the fellowship’ seems to refer to the 
 unity of recognized membership, the ‘ community,’ 
 in which the first brethren lived together. The 
 words ‘they held all things common’ are illus- 
 trated by the statement that they sold their goods, 
 and distributed to all ‘according as any had need.’ 
 No systematic plan of relief for the poorer brethren 
 is implied: the wealthier were moved to supply 
 their needs as they occurred, in a way that must 
 have been reckless had they not looked for a 
 speedy return of Christ. The method was incom 
 
 
 
 ~~ eee eo 
 
eS Se 
 
 COMMUNION 
 
 pee with the higher organization of the Body ; 
 ut it was a striking exemplification of the new 
 ies of fellowship, the sense of common interest, 
 the realization of oneness. This oneness is again 
 emphasized in 4%; ‘Of the whole company of 
 them that believed there was one heart and soul: 
 and not one said that any of his possessions was 
 his own; but they held all things common... 
 nor was there any in need among them: for as 
 many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, 
 and brought the prices of the things sold and 
 laid them at the feet of the apostles; and dis- 
 tribution was made to each, according as any had 
 need.” Then follows the account of Barnabas, 
 who thus disposed of his estate ; and of Ananias 
 and his wife, who sold a possession and offered a 
 part of the price as the whole. St. Peter makes it 
 plain that Ananias need not have parted with his 
 property at all. It was his own, and in his own 
 ower. His offence lay, not in niggardliness, but 
 in deceit. This makes it evident that ‘ community 
 of goods’ was not a part of the apostolic teaching ; 
 nor is this the meaning of the term xowwvia. The 
 reference to laying the price at the feet of the apostles 
 shows that indiscriminate almsgiving was quick] 
 ielding place to a central fund for common relief. 
 he events of ch. 6 indicate that a common table 
 for the poorer members was one method of their 
 elief, and so one sign of ‘the fellowship’ which 
 characterized the Body. This ‘daily ministration’ 
 led to difficulties which deaperitien the sense of 
 unity itself, and so necessitated a more developed 
 organization of the Body. 
 
 Turning back to Ac 2“, we now see that the 
 words ‘the breaking of bread and the prayers’ 
 are not to be regarded as an explanatory clause 
 exhausting the meaning of the phrase ‘the fellow- 
 ship,’ which precedes them. We have four phrases, 
 which fall into two groups: (1) ‘the teaching 
 
 of the fo and the fellowship,’ (2) ‘ the break- 
 
 ing of the bread and the prayers.’ The ‘ breaking 
 of bread’ took place in the homes of the brethren ; 
 ‘the prayers’ are perhaps those which they offered 
 in the temple (cf. 2 and 3). The ‘fellowship’ 
 was exemplified, no doubt, in these acts; but it was 
 wider than any of its special manifestations : it 
 was the unity and membership in which the whole 
 Body was constituted and maintained. 
 
 3. The third group of ee needing special 
 investigation is that in which the word xowwyvla is 
 used in the limited sense of the ‘contribution’ 
 or ‘distribution’ of alms. As a general duty this 
 is enforced in Ro 12", He 131, 1 Ti 6'8, in each of 
 which places the radical meaning of the word 
 employed is that of ‘fellowship.’ Each act of 
 Christian almsgiving was a witness to the central 
 pe of fellowship in the Christian Society. 
 
 ost conspicuously is this the case with the great 
 collection for ‘the poor saints at Jerusalem,’ upon 
 which St. Paul expended so much labour and 
 anxiety. He regarded this as of supreme import- 
 ance, as the external pledge of the living fellow- 
 ship of the whole Christian Church. He insisted 
 on carrying it in pee even though he was aware 
 that the visit to Jerusalem endanvcred his liberty 
 end his life. The Gentiles had enjoyed fellowship 
 with the spiritual blessings of the Jews: it was 
 but right that they should offer a return of fellow- 
 ship such as was in their power (xowwvlay rwa 
 rojncacbau, Ro 15%, cf. 2 Co 84 94%), The stress 
 which the apostle lays on this collection is only 
 explained when we regard it as the emblem and 
 the instrument of the corporate fellowship of the 
 locally scattered Christian Society. 
 
 4, We come, lastly, to the passage (1 Co 10!* !7) 
 in which the word is used in connexion with the 
 Holy Eucharist. To understand this passage, the 
 whole section, commencing at 81, ‘Concerning 
 
 COMMUNION 46) 
 
 meats offered to idols,’ needs to be studied con- 
 tinuously. The more immediate context begins 
 with 9%. Just as not all who run receive the 
 victor’s crown, so in the history of the Chosen 
 People not all who had spiritual privileges were 
 saved thereby. These privileges are described in 
 metaphors borrowed from the Christian Sacra- 
 ments. They were all ‘baptized into Moses,’ as 
 when the Cloud overshadowed them, and when 
 they passed through the Sea: ‘spiritual food’ 
 and ‘spiritual drink’ they all partook of, namely, 
 the Manna and the Water from the Rock; the 
 Rock was the Messiah. These words are of 
 importance as showing incidentally that St. Paul, 
 like St. John, thought of the Eucharist as 
 ‘spiritual food and drink,’ although this is not 
 the side of it on which he ordinarily insists. The 
 idolatry into which the Israelites fell in spite of 
 their spiritual privileges is the starting-point of the 
 warning of 10. From two sides the apostle has 
 epprondiod the danger of idolatry—the idolatry 
 of the Gentiles of his own day, the idolatry of 
 Israel in the past. Worship, whether true or 
 false, implies a fellowship. The Christian fellow- 
 ship must be recognized and vindicated from con- 
 tamination. 
 
 ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not 
 kowvwvla of the blood of Christ? the bread which 
 we break, is it not xowwvla of the body of Christ? 
 because one bread, one body, we the many are, 
 for all of us partake (yeréxouev) of the one bread.’ 
 What is the meaning of xowwvla here? The AV 
 renders ‘the communion of’; the RV ‘a com- 
 munion of,’ with the marg. alternative ‘a par- 
 ticipation in.’ In the Greek the word, being a 
 predicate, does not take the article ; but in English 
 the definite article is in such cases usually 
 supplied ; so that in this respect syntax makes 
 no demand for altering the AV. Secondly, as 
 to the word itself. It is no doubt tempting 
 to take it in the simple sense of ‘ partaking 
 of’; but this loses the force of its derivation 
 from xowés, which implies jointness, or com- 
 munity of some kind. In this very place St. 
 Paul expresses mere ‘ partaking’ by peréxev, not 
 xcowwvetv. Fellowship is the ruling idea of the 
 word, and we must not lose sight of it. In 
 regard to the second of the clauses, the apostle 
 himself interprets his meaning to us. The single 
 loaf, broken and distributed and eaten, linked 
 all who partook of it into unity. ‘We are one 
 loaf, one body, many though we be; for of the 
 one loaf we all partake.’ Thus the loaf was 
 nothing less than ‘fellowship with the Body of 
 the Christ.’ 
 
 This interpretation is borne out by the apostle’s 
 next words: You are God’s new Israel — Israel 
 after the Spirit; look at Israel after the flesh : 
 they bring their sacrifices to the temple, they eat 
 of them, and thereby they are in fellowship with 
 the altar. Then, recurring to the Gentile sacri- 
 fices, he points out that to partake of them is to 
 be in Bliawalio with the demons to whom they 
 are offered. He contrasts ‘the cup of the Lord’ 
 and ‘the cup of the demons,’ ‘the table of the 
 Lord’ (i.¢. the Bread) and ‘the table of the demons’ 
 (i.e. the idol-meats). ‘I would not have you to 
 enter into fellowship with the demons (xowwvovs 
 Tov Sapovluy ylvecOa).’ It is in sharp contrast with 
 such a conception as this that St. Paul declares 
 that to partake of the Eucharistic Cup is to be 
 in fellowship with the Blood of Christ, and to 
 partake of the Eucharistic Bread is to be in fellow- 
 ship with the Body of Christ. Thus interpretin 
 St. Paul by himself, we see once more the side o 
 the truth on which he peculiarly insisted : fellow- 
 ship in the New Covenant made by the Death of 
 Christ ; fellowship in the Body of Christ, that 
 
 
 

 
 462 COMPANY 
 
 
 
 COMPEL 
 
 
 
 living corporate unity of which, to his view, Christ 
 is at once the Head and, in a deeper, fuller sense, 
 the Whole (1 Co 127, Eph 47%). 
 
 J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON. 
 
 COMPANY was formerly used with more freedom 
 than now, ‘a great c.’ being loosely employed where 
 we should say ‘a great number,’ or ‘a great crowd.’ 
 Thus 2 Ch 20” ‘this great c. that cometh against 
 us’ (hdmén, crowd); Ac 67 ‘a great c. of the priests 
 were obedient to the faith’ (éxAos ; so Lk 5°? 617 9%8 
 1177 1238, Jn 6°) ; Lk 23°7 ‘there followed him a great 
 c. of people’ (rAj00s, RV ‘multitude’); and He 
 12” ‘an innumerable c. of angels’ (uvpids, RV 
 ‘innum. hosts’). Even when the Heb. isa military 
 term, as mahdneh, camp (Gn 32%%s 21 509, 1 K 5}, 
 1 Ch 9"), hayil, force, army (2 Ch 91), gédhidh, 
 troop (1 S 30%, 2 K 5°), 2dbhd’, host (Ps 68" 
 ‘great was the c. of those that published it,’ RV 
 ‘the women that publish the tidings area great 
 host’), the meaning is quite indefinite. 
 
 In Ps 6830 the word hayydh has been taken by AV in the 
 sense of ‘c.’ (‘Rebuke the c. of spearmen’), after Ibn Ezra, 
 Calvin, etc. ; but there is no absolutely certain instance of this 
 meaning of the word (see Driver, Notes on Sam.,on 18 1818, 2S 
 2318, and Oa. Heb, Lex. 8.v.), and RV returns to the tr. of Vulg. 
 ‘Increpa feras arundinis,’ and Wyclif ‘Blame thou the wielde 
 beestis of the reheed,’ giving ‘Rebuke the wild beast of the 
 reeds,’ the reference then being to the crocodile or hippopotamus 
 of the Nile as symbolical of the power of Egypt. 
 
 Ca 613 AV renders ‘ What will ye see in the Shulamite? As 
 it were the c. of two armies,’ this time following Wyclif (‘ What 
 schalt thou se in the Sunamyte, no but cumpenyes of oostis?’), 
 who takes the ‘nisi choros castrorum’ of Vulg. in that sense, 
 which is the sense given by most of the VSS and Jewish com- 
 mentators. But RV takes the Heb. méhéldh in its invariable 
 meaning of ‘dance’and mahdndyimas a proper name, ‘ Why will 
 ye look upon the Shulammite, as upon the dance of Mahanaim?’ 
 
 The vb. ‘to c. together’ is used in Apocr. (Sus 
 154. 7 %) in the sense of ‘to cohabit.’ In NT ‘toc, 
 with’ is simply to associate with; 1 Co 5° I wrote 
 unto you in an epistle not toc. with fornicators’ 
 (RV ‘to have noc.’); Ac 1! ‘these men which have 
 companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus 
 went in and out among us.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COMPASS (cum together, passus step, hence ‘a 
 route that comes together or joins iteelé ’—Skeat) 
 is used both as subst. andas vb. 4. As subst. c.= 
 (a) a ‘circle,’ ‘sphere,’ the vault of heaven (Is 40”, 
 see CIRCLE), or the horizon, Pr 8" ‘he set ac. upon 
 the face of the depth’ (2:1, RV ‘circle’) ; (6) instru- 
 ment for making a circle, Is 44'% ‘the carpenter 
 .. . marketh it [the image] out with thee.’ (Annn, 
 RV ‘the compasses’); (c) circumference, margin 
 round, Ex 27° 384 (2573), 1 K 7% (2°20); (d) the 
 aes within a circle, range, limit, 1 Es 15° ‘ within 
 the c. of their holy temple’ (repixtixAy, RV ‘round 
 about their holy temple’), 1 Mac 14* ‘ within the ec. 
 of the sanctuary’ (ep!Bodos, RV ‘ precinct’). The 
 phrase fetch a c. is ‘make a circuit’ or ‘go 
 round about,’ Heb. 229, Nu 345, Jos 15°, 2 § 5%, 
 2K 3°; Gr. mepiepxoua, Ac 28% ‘from thence we 
 fetched ac., and came to Rhegium’ (RV ‘made a 
 circuit’). 2. As verb the meaning is either 
 (a) make a cirele round, surround, or (6) make a 
 circuit round, go round. Thus (a) 1S 23% ‘Saul 
 and his men ec*¢ David and his men round about to 
 take them’; Lk 21 ‘When ye shall see Jerus. 
 ce with armies’; 2S 225=Ps 18° ‘the sorrows of 
 hell c% me ‘about’ (239, RV ‘the cords of Sheol 
 were round about me’); Ps 139? ‘Thou ct my 
 pe and my lying down’ (711, RV ‘searchest out’) ; 
 
 er 31” ‘A woman shall c. a man’ (i.e. prob. as 
 protector, ef. Dt 32, Ps 321), And (6) Dt 2! ‘we 
 cd mount Seir many days’; Jos 6" ‘so the ark of 
 the LorD c™ the city, going about it once’; Jer 
 31 ‘the measuring line... shall c. about to 
 Goah’ (320, RV ‘shall turn about unto Goah’) ; 
 Mt 23” ‘ye c. sea and land to make one proselyte.’ 
 
 . HASTINGS. 
 COMPASSION OR PITY.— These words have 
 
 become entirely synonymous, and, with two ex- 
 ceptions, they are soemployedin AV. Butin1 P3* 
 and He 10*, compassion retains its original mean- 
 ing of sympathy, being used to tr. respectively 
 cupradys (see RVm) and cuurabetv. 
 
 With these exceptions the words are used in- 
 differently both in AV and RV of the OT to translate 
 the Heb. verbs boy and om (and adj. and subst. 
 from latter). The second of them is frequently 
 rendered ‘have mercy.’ The plural on (Gr. 
 omhdyxva) is also tr. ‘bowels.’ ‘ Pity’ tr. also oin, 
 139 (usually=‘to be gracious’), 197 (once Job 614), 
 and 73 (once Ps 69% marg. ‘lament’). The 
 equivalents in the LXX are olxrelpew, with the 
 cognates olxripyds, olxripuwy, édreciv, and peldeoOat, 
 used indifferently. In Ezk 247 ‘that which your 
 soul pitieth’ (marg. ‘pity of your soul’) is equiva- 
 lent to ‘object of affection’ (cf. v.2). There is a 
 play upon words in the Hebrew. 
 
 In NT ¢o be moved with c. tr. orhayxvlterOar, while 
 é\eciv is twice represented by have c. (Mt 18%, 
 Ro 9 quoted from Ex 33° LXX). In the former 
 of these passages, on its repetition, éAeciv is rendered 
 have pity. With this exception pity only appears in 
 NT in 1 P 38, where pitiful tr. edowAayxvos, and in 
 Ja 5", where ‘the Lord is very pitiful and of tender 
 mercy’ represents the common Heb. formula o1nj 
 pan) (Ex 34° etc.). 
 
 ©. is in the Bible a Divine as well as a human quality. But 
 its attribution to God has raised certain questions among 
 theologians. 
 
 The relation between pity and grace (éAsop and xépi¢) is one of 
 these. In the Divine mind, it is said, and in the order of our 
 salvation pity Procaies grace, but in the order of the manij- 
 festation of God’s furpesee of salvation the grace must go befcure 
 the pity (Trench, V.7'. Synonymea, p. 205). 
 
 Another point was raised by the Manichwans, who ubyectes that 
 to call God compassionate was to make Him capable of suffering 
 The Latin misericors lent itself to such a perversion ef truth, 
 and Augustine brushes it aside as a mere pretence of logomach 
 (De Civ. Dei, ix. 5; De Div. Quest. ii. 2; Lib. de mor. Ecc 
 Cath. 27). See the question also discussed in Aquinas (Summa 
 Queest. xxi. art. iii.). It is not God, but only Nature, that is 
 pitiless; only the stars that ‘would as soon look down on a 
 Gethsemane as an Eden.’ We may be thankful that the OT 
 exulted in speaking of the compassion of God for human misery 
 and human sin, and that the NT tells how the Divine pity went 
 forth in the fulness of time, incarnate in the Son, to seek and te 
 save that which was lost. 
 
 With their sense of the pity that was in the 
 heart of God, the prophets could not do other than 
 impress on the Hebrews the duty of pity for each 
 other. Religion without kindness was unmeanin 
 (Hos 6°). It became a proverb that he who pitie 
 the poor lent to the Lord (Pr 19"), ‘To him that 
 is afilicted,’ said Job, ‘ pity should be showed from 
 his friend’ (6). The fatherless and widow were 
 to be to man, as they were to God, special objects 
 of compassion (Ps 146°, cf, Ja 1%), 
 
 But in regard to foreigners Heb. morality was 
 that common to all the ancients. There is no 
 trace in OT of compassion towards a beaten foe. 
 The solitary stranger who might be ‘in their gates’ 
 was respected, but for aliens generally pity did not 
 exist. ‘Thine eye shall have no pity on them’ 
 (Dt 7!) was the law of Israel in regard to enemies. 
 It needed the revelation of NT, the parable of the 
 good Samaritan, and the example of Christ’s ‘ com- 
 passion for the multitude’ to create the modern 
 idea of general benevolence. The OT religious 
 and ethical standard on the subject is presented in 
 the verse ‘ Execute true judgment, and show mercy 
 and compassion every man to his brother’ (Zec 7°). 
 
 A. S. AGLEN. 
 
 COMPEL.—This verb was sometimes used with- 
 out any threatening or thought of force, simply in 
 the sense of ‘urge e1cceeshihgs It is doubtful if 
 it is so used now. Hence we may misunderstand 
 1S 28%, where it is said that Saul’s servants, to- 
 gether with the woman of Endor, ‘ce him to eat’ 
 (1a3875:, in 2 § 13% 27 tr4 ‘pressed him’); and esp. 
 Lk 14% ‘e. them to come in, that my house may 
 
 —— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 COMPOUND 
 
 be filled’ (dvayxdtw, RV ‘constrain’); cf. Earl 
 
 Rivers (1477), ‘ Whiche grace . . . hath compelled 
 me to sette a parte alle ingratitude.’ Robertson 
 (Charles V. Wi. xi. 335) says, ‘As they could not 
 persuade they tried to compel men to believe’— 
 and this passage in St. Luke was quoted as their 
 authority ; but neither the Gr. nor the Eng. sanc- 
 tions more than ‘urging’: cf. RV even of Ac 26" 
 *I strove to make them blaspheme,’ where Gr. and 
 AV are the same as in Lk 14”. 
 
 In Mt 541 ‘ Whosoever shall c. thee to go a mile,’ 2732 ‘him 
 they ced to bear his cross,’ and Mk 1521 ‘they c. one Simon a 
 Oyrenian . . . to bear his cross,’ the Gr. vb, (ayyapsiw) has the 
 technical meaning of pressing into the king’s service (RVm 
 always ‘impress’). The word is of Pers. origin, the evyepu 
 being the public couriers of the kings of Persia, who had 
 authority to press into their service in any emergency whatever 
 horses or men they met. The word was adopted also into 
 Tatin angariare, and is used by Vulg. in passages named above. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COMPOUND.—Ex 30” ‘an ointment compound 
 after the art of the apothecary ’=‘ compounded,’ 
 as RV. Compound is the orig. and only accurate 
 form of the ptcp., the verb being componen in 
 middle Eny., from Lat. componere. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COMPREHEND. —C. is used lit. =hold together, 
 contain, in Is 40? ‘and c the dust of the earth in 
 @ measure’; and in the same sense, but fig., in Ro 
 13° ‘it is briefly c*4 in the saying’ (RV ‘summed 
 up in this word’). See APPREHEND. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONANIAH (3733:'2).—1. A Levite who had charge 
 of the tithes and offerings in the time of Hezekiah 
 (2 Ch 31438, AV Goncniah). 2. A chief of the 
 Levites in Josiah’s reign (2 Ch 35°). On the form 
 of the word see Kittel, ad doc. in Haupt. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 CONCEIT.—A c. is something conceived, a 
 thought, as Str 27° ‘ The fruit declareth if the tree 
 have been dressed ; so is the utterance of a ce. in 
 the heart of man’ (évdduqua, RV ‘thought’); 20% 
 AVm ‘pleasant conceits’ (xdpires, AV ‘graces,’ 
 RV ‘ pleasantries’); Pr 184 (RV ‘imagination’) ; 
 Ro 11% 12% ‘wise in your own conceits’ (zap 
 éavrois, TR). Though c. is found very early in the 
 sense of self-conceit, that is not its meaning in any 
 of the foregoing passages. In Ro 11” 12!% ‘con- 
 ceits’ is due to Tindale and Coverdale (‘consaytes’), 
 but they probably meant ay ‘opinions,’ the 
 word Bao in 126 by Tindale, Cranmer, and 
 Geneva. (The plu. ‘conceits’ is used of more than 
 one person). But in Pr 26° }?-36 98" (‘wise in his 
 own c.’; Heb. jy ‘ayin, ‘eye’) the meaning is no 
 doubt the same as in mod. usage. In Wis 8!" c. is 
 used in the obsol. sense of ‘power of conceiving,’ 
 ‘mental capacity,’ ‘Ishall be found of a quick c. 
 in judgment’; cf. Shaks. As You Like It, V. ii. 48, 
 ‘I know you are a gentleman of good conceit’ ; 
 and Lucrece, 701— 
 
 “O deeper sin than bottomless conceis 
 Can comprehend in still imagination.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONCERT.—See Consort. 
 
 CONCISION.—-See CIRCUMCISION. 
 
 CONCLUDE.--1. In the sense of ‘shut up,’ ‘en- 
 tlose,’ mod. include, Ro 11% ‘God hath c* them all 
 in unbelief,’ and Gal 3” ‘the Scripture hath c all 
 under sin’ (RV ‘shut up,’ Gr. cvy«Aelw, used lit. in 
 Lk 58 ‘they inclosed a great multitude of fishes’; and 
 fig. as above from Ps 78° LXX, ‘ He gave his people 
 over unto the sword ’—used with the pregnant sense 
 of giving over so that there can be no escape— 
 Sanday and Headlam). 2.'To come to a conclusion 
 by reasoning, infer, Ro 378 ‘Therefore we c. that a 
 man is justified by faith’ (Aoyféue0a, RV ‘we 
 reckon’); and in RV, Ac 16” ‘ce that God had 
 
 
 
 
 CONDUIT 463 
 
 called us’ (evupiBdtovres, AV ‘assuredly gather- 
 
 ing’). 3. To decide, Ac 21% ‘we have written and 
 ec that they observe no such thing’ (xplyavres, RV 
 ‘giving judgment’); and with direct object= 
 ‘determine upon,’ Jth 2? ‘Nebuch. ... c the 
 afflicting of the whole earth’ (cuverédecev, cf. 1S 207 
 ‘evil is determined by him,’ LXX ouvreré\eorat). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 CONCOURSE.—A c. is a ‘running together’ 
 (concurrere) of people, as Wyclif’s tr. (1382) of Ac 
 242 ‘makinge concurs or rennyng to gidere of the 
 cumpany of peple.’ In this orig. sense ec. cecura 
 in AV, Jth 10° ‘Then was there a c. throughout 
 all the camp’ (cuvdpouy) ; Pr 1%: ‘She crieth in the 
 chief place of ¢.’ (nvan waa, Oxf. Heb. Lex. ‘at the 
 head of bustling streets’); Ac 19% ‘we may give 
 an account of this ¢.’ (cvorpog7). J. HASTINGS, 
 
 CONCUBINE.—See MARRIAGE. 
 
 CONCUPISCENCE.—C. is intense desire (con- 
 cupiscere intensive of concupere), always in a bad 
 sense (so that ‘evil c.’ of Col 3° is a redundancy in 
 English), and nearly always meaning sexual lust. 
 The Gr. is always émifuula, a more general word 
 than the Eng. ‘concupiscence.’ The passages are 
 Wis 4" (RY ‘desire ’), Sir 235 (RV ‘concupiscence’), 
 Ro 78 (RV ‘coveting’), Col 3°(RV ‘desire’), 1 Th 
 45 (RV ‘lust’). J. HASTINGS, 
 
 CONDEMNATION. — See DAMNATION, JUDG- 
 MENT. 
 
 CONDITION.—In the obsol. sense of disposition, 
 condition occurs 2 Mac 15" ‘gentle in c.’ (RV 
 ‘manner’; Gr. tpéd7os, in this sense also He 13° 
 AV ‘conversation,’ RVm ‘turn of mind’) Cf. 
 Chaucer, Knight’s Tale, 1431— 
 
 ‘He was so gentil of condicioun, 
 That thurghout al the court was his renoun.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONDUCT.—1 Es 8°! ‘IT was ashamed to ask the 
 king footmen, and horsemen, and c. for safeguard 
 against our adversaries ’—mod. ‘escort.’ So Shaks. 
 Cymb, Wl. v. 8— 
 
 ‘So, sir, I desire of you 
 A conduct over land to Milford-Haven.’ 
 See ETHICS. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONDUIT (aby, dépaywyss, aqueeductus).— A 
 channel for the conveyance of water from the 
 source whence it was derived to the place where it 
 was delivered. It wound round hills, or passed 
 through them by means of tunnels; and crossed 
 valleys upon arches or upon a substructure of solid 
 masonry. ‘The channel, when not itself a tunnel 
 of varying height, was rectangular in form, and 
 either cut out of the solid rock or constructed of 
 masonry. It was covered by slabs of stone to keep 
 the water pure and cool, and its floor had a slight 
 and fairly uniform fall. 
 
 The remains of ancient conduits constructed for 
 the conveyance of water to towns, or for purposes 
 of irrigation, are common in Pal., but it will onl 
 be necessary here to allude to those connected wit 
 the water supply of Jerusalem. Amongst the oldest 
 of the Jerus. conduits are the rock-hewn channel 
 that entered the temple area from the north, and was 
 cut through when the ditch that separated Bezetha 
 from the Antonia was excavated; one at a low 
 level, beneath ‘Robinson’s Arch,’ which was de. 
 stroyed when Herod built the west peribolos wall 
 of the temple; and the well-known tunnel that 
 conveyed water from the Fountain of the Virgin to 
 the Pool of Siloam. An inscription in Phen. char- 
 acters in the last conduit carries the date of its cou 
 struction back to the 8th cent. B.c. 
 
 Equally interesting and, perhaps, in part of 
 
 
 
464 CONEY 
 
 greater age, is the conduit about 13} miles long 
 which conveyed water from the ‘ Pools of Solomon,’ 
 beyond Bethlehem, to the temple enclosure at 
 Jerus., and is known as the ‘low-level aqueduct.’ 
 Tradition, with great probability, ascribes the con- 
 struction of this conduit to Solomon, who must have 
 found himself obliged to increase the water supply 
 when the temple services were instituted. he 
 channel, which is about 2 ft. deep and 14 ft. wide, 
 passes under Bethlehem by a tunnel. It has been 
 conjectured that this conduit was called ‘Tannin’ 
 by the Jews from its serpentine course, and that 
 the ‘Dragon’s Well’ of Neh 2 was an outflow 
 from it in the Valley of Hinnom. At a later date 
 a pool (piscina) was constructed in the Wddy 
 Arrib to collect the water from springs in that 
 valley, and this was connected with the ‘low-level 
 aqueduct’ by a conduit about 28 miles in length, 
 which, near Tekoa, passed through a long tunnel. 
 This conduit is apparently that alluded to by Jos. 
 (Ant. XVII. iii. 2, BJ II. ix. 4) as having been made 
 by Pontius Pilate with the Corban. 
 
 The most remarkable work, however, is the 
 ‘high-level aqueduct,’ which probably entered 
 Jerus. at the Jaffa Gate. It was apparently con- 
 structed by Herod for the supply of the citadel 
 and palace which he built on the W. hill, and of 
 the fountains and irrigation channels in his palace 
 gardens (BJ Vv. iv. 4); and it displays a very high 
 degree of engineering skill. It derived no portion 
 of its supply from the ‘ Pools of Solomon,’ but had 
 its head in Wddy Bidr, ‘valley of wells,’ where 
 it passed through a tunnel about four miles long, 
 which collected the water from several sma 
 springs, and had numerous shafts leading to the 
 surface. On issuing from the tunnel it entered a 
 piscina, where any sediment contained in the water 
 was deposited, and it afterwards passed through a 
 second tunnel 1700 ft. long, which had nine shafts, 
 —one 115 ft. deep. The conduit crossed the valley 
 in which the ‘Pools of Solomon’ lie, above the 
 pores pool, and at this point its level is 150 ft. 
 above that of the ‘low-level aqueduct.’ One of 
 its most interesting details is the inverted syphon, 
 composed of perforated limestone blocks, cased in 
 rubble masonry, which crosses the valley between 
 Bethlehem and Mar Elias. No details have come 
 down to us of the manner in which the water con- 
 veyed by the numerous conduits was distributed 
 after it reached Jerus. ; but there were probably 
 fountains, supplied by small conduits 4 lead or 
 earthenware, as well as cisterns and pools, to which 
 the public had access. 
 
 Amongst the conduits mentioned in the Bible 
 are: ‘the conduit of the upper pool,’ at the end 
 of which Isaiah was commanded to meet Ahaz 
 (Is 78), and beside which Sennacherib’s messengers 
 stood when they spoke to the people on the wall 
 (2 K 18", Is 36%); that by which the waters of 
 Gihon were brought straight down to the W. side 
 of the city of David (2 Ch 32); and that connected 
 with the pool made by Hezekiah (2 K 20”). The 
 existence of conduits is also implied in Sir 487, 
 Is 229, In Sir 24° there is an allusion to a 
 conduit tade for irrigating a garden. 
 
 C. W. WILSON. 
 
 CONEY (j5¢ shdphdn, xopoyptdd\uos, Sacvqrovs, 
 cherogryllus).—The coney is undoubtedly Hyrazx 
 Syriacus. It is known by the S. Arabs as thufn, 
 evidently the same as shdphdn. In Pal. it is 
 known as wabr, and in Lebanon as tobstin. The 
 Arabs also call it ghanam-Beni-Israil, the sheep of 
 the Children of Israel. It is a perissodactyl, with 
 dentition and feet strongly resembling those of the 
 rhinoceros. It is as large as a rabbit, has short 
 ears and avery short tail. Its colour is greyish- 
 brown on the back and whitish on the belly. Yt is 
 declared unclean by the Mosaic law, because it 
 
 CONFESSION 
 
 chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof (Ly 
 115, Dt 147). It is not a ruminant, but has a 
 motion of the jaws similar to that of the ruminants. 
 Bruce the traveller kept a tame one, and supposed, 
 from the motion of its jaws, that it was a ruminant. 
 Cowper made a similar mistake in regard to hia 
 tame hares, 
 
 The conies are among the four ‘exceeding wise 
 animals (Pr 30*- 5); they are ‘but a feeble folk, 
 yet make they their houses in the rocks.’ ‘The 
 rocks are a re ues for the conies’ (Ps 1048). They 
 do not burrow like rabbits, but live in clefts and 
 holes of the rocks. They are gregarious in habit, 
 and strictly herbivorous. They are very shy, and 
 usually come out of their holes towards evening. 
 When feeding, an old male sits as sentry, and, on 
 the approach of danger, gives a whistle or squeak 
 as a warning to his companions, and they immedi- 
 ately take ‘refuge’ in the rocks, They are found 
 all the way from Ras-Muhammed to Lebanon. 
 The natives esteem their flesh a delicacy. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 CONFECTION, CONFECTIONARY.—Confection 
 occurs in AV only Ex 30" ‘ac. after the art of the 
 apothecary’ (np rékah, RV ‘ perfume’), and Sir 388 
 ‘Of such doth the apothecary make a ¢.’ (ulyua, RV 
 as AV); to which RV adds 1 Ch 9® ‘ thesons of the 
 priests prepared the c. of the spices’ (nanzqeo ‘DR, 
 AV ‘made the ointment’). Thus ‘c.’ is always 
 something made up, a compound, and always of 
 perfume or medicine, never sweetmeats. So con- 
 fectionary is a perfumer; only 188” ‘he will take 
 your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be 
 cooks, and to be bakers’ (ning2, RVm ‘ perfumers’). 
 Cf. Bp. Mountagu (1641), Acts and Mon. 298, ‘ the 
 woman was an excellent Confectionary, very 
 cunning in poisons.’ See MEDICINE, PERFUMES. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. - 
 
 CONFEDERACY in the common sense of league, © 
 alliance, is found Ob’ ‘ All the men of thy c.’ (n73), 
 1 Mac 817-2 22 (cyyuaxta). In Is §!2%* the meaning 
 is ‘conspiracy,’* which is nearly obsol., though 
 D’Israeli (Charles I. 11. ii. 39) has ‘in a perpetual 
 state of confederacy and rebellion.’ Confederate 
 is both adj. and subst. As adj. Gn 14” ‘these were 
 c. with Abram’; Ps 83° ‘they are c. against thee’ 
 (RV ‘against thee do they make a covenant’); 
 Is 7? ‘Syria is c. with Ephraim’ (RVm after Heb. 
 ‘resteth on E.’); 1 Mac 10“. As subst. 1 Mac 8” 
 ‘Your confederates and friends.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONFERENCE is what we should now call con. 
 verse, almost the same as conversation, which is 
 Bacon’s meaning in the passage, Essays ‘Ot 
 Studies’ (p. 205, Gold. Treas. ed.), ‘ Headin 
 maketh a full man; Conference a ready man ; | 
 Writing an exact man.’ C. occurs Wis 818 (éu:Xla, 
 Vulg. Joqguela) and Gal 2° ‘ they who seemed to be 
 somewhat in ce. added nothing to me’ (where the 
 word has no proper equivalent in the Greek, RV 
 ‘they, I say, who were of ee imparted nothin 
 to me’; but in 176 ‘I conferred not’ is the same Gree 
 word as is here tr4 ‘imparted’ (xpocavarlOnu). In 
 the Pref. to AV c. is used in the more prim. sense 
 of ‘comparison’ (con-fero, ‘ bring together’), ‘We 
 cannot be holpen by ce. of places.” J. HASTINGS, 
 
 CONFESSION (i'n, dpodoyety, duoroyla).—Both 
 the Heb. and the Gr. words are capable of the 
 same double application as the English. Te 
 ‘confess’ is to acknowledge by either word or deed 
 the existence and authority of a divine power, or 
 the sins and offences of which one has been guilty. 
 The biblical use of the verb and its derivatives is 
 
 * This is the meaning of the Heb. (wp) also, which Delitzsch 
 in his 4th ed. successfully defends against the substitution of 
 wip ‘holy thing,’ made by Secker, revived by Gratz, and 
 accepted by Cheyne. 
 
 
 

 
 CONFESSION 
 
 about equaily divided between these two—(1) pro- 
 fession or acknowledgment of God as the true God 
 or of Jesu3 as the Christ, (2) confession or open 
 acknowledgment of sin. (For the distinction cf. 
 further Cic. pro Sestio, 51, 109.) 
 
 4. Confession of God as their God, acknowledg- 
 ment of Him as the true God, was required of the 
 members of the Chosen Family before it became a 
 nation. It was rendered by Abraham when he 
 ‘called upon the name of the Lord’ (Gn 134 
 etc.), and by him and his descendants when they 
 claimed the covenant relationship through the rite 
 of circumcision. In process of time this outward 
 confession tended to become conventional, and 
 only external. The consciousness of common 
 nationality superseded that of personal relation to 
 God. In the subsequent reaction of individualism, 
 men of special piety, or in special circumstances, 
 felt constrained to make specific confession of their 
 personal adherence to J” (cf. Ps 63}, Is 44°). The 
 passage in Isaiah shows that this confession was 
 accompanied by an open act of self-dedication, if 
 not, as some think, the cutting of some per- 
 manent mark on the head or forehead. At other 
 times, after a period of national apostasy, the 
 general repentance and return was marked by a 
 solemn renewal of the national confession (cf. 
 1K 8®, 2 Ch 6%), 
 
 Such confession is the natural result of deep con- 
 viction (cf. Jn 4%, Mt 12%), and when Jesus had 
 brought His disciples to the point of recognizing 
 Him as the Christ, He drew from one of them that 
 acknowledgment which is specifically known as St. 
 Peter’s Confession (Mt 16!*-8), He announced that 
 it was on the rock of such conviction and confession 
 that His Church should be built ; and He made 
 this open acknowledgment of Himself, His dignity 
 and anthority, a sine qud non of true discipleship 
 (Lk 12°). 
 
 In the Apostolic Church this confession was 
 insisted upon as a sign of true conversion and a 
 condition of baptism. Its contents were at first 
 very general, varying with the circumstances of the 
 conversion and the experience of the convert, but 
 with a growing tendency to include certain con- 
 stant elements. From the beginning it must have 
 included the recognition of Jesus as ‘the Lord’ 
 (cf. Ro 10°, 1 Co 12°), and an expression of con- 
 fidence and hope in Him (cf. He 3° 10%). Such 
 general acknowledgment of allegiance to Christ is 
 referred to in 1 Ti 6”, He 3!; but even He 4", ‘let 
 us hold fast our confession’ (AV ‘ profession’) does 
 not involve a formulated confession. An acknow- 
 ledgment of the Resurrection doubtless founda place 
 By carly and often (Ro 10°), and prepared the way 
 for a confession including belief of the historical 
 facts of Christianity. Of theological inference there 
 is an early trace in the interpolated confession 
 of the Ethiopian (Ac 8°’), but the early appearance 
 of false teaching and imperfect views of Christ 
 accentuated the necessity of more dogmatic ex- 
 geo Signs of this are found in the Epistles of 
 
 t. John (1 Jn 41, cf. 2% 475, 2 Jn 7), ere we 
 have the necessary antithesis to poe docetism ; 
 the deepened consciousness of the Church corre- 
 > aap to a fuller confession, involving both the 
 
 athsrhood of God and the true Sonship of Jesus. 
 
 2. Both in OT and NT, confession of sin before 
 God is recognized as a condition of forgiveness, 
 peing the guarantee of genuine penitence and 
 purpose of amendment. Thus Joshua exhorted 
 Achan to make confession unto the Lord (Jos 7%); 
 the Psalmist ‘acknowledged his sin’ (Ps 325; cf. 
 514); Pr 28% lays it down as a general principle 
 that ‘ whoso confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall 
 have mercy,’ and Jesus exhibits the prodigal son 
 as moved by a natural impulse to confess to his 
 father. Confession, therefore, as at once an 
 
 VOL. I.—30 
 
 
 
 CONFIRMATION 465 
 
 
 
 instinct of the heart and a principle of God’s king- 
 dom, was consistently recognized and inculeated 
 by the Mosaic ritual. It was required of the indi- 
 vidual whenever he had committed a trespass 
 (Ly 51-5 26%), and its necessity in regard to both 
 individual and national sins was exhibited in the 
 ceremony of the Scapegoat, over whose head the 
 high-priest was to confess all the iniquities of the 
 whole people (Lv 16”). Confession of sin became 
 the natural and regular accompaniment of prayer 
 (cf. Ezr 10!). At the same time representative 
 men felt themselves to be partakers in national sins 
 of unbelief and disobedience, and bound to confess 
 these as well as their own (Dn 9%). The whole 
 prayer in Dn 9 shows the nature and contents of 
 such a confession. 
 
 The connexion between repentance and con- 
 fession was so ingrained in the Jewish conscience 
 that when, under the Baptist’s preaching, many 
 were led to repent, open confession accompanied 
 their baptism (Mk 1°), and doubtless the Apostolic 
 baptism was prefaced by a confession in this sense 
 as well asthe other. Such a confession was under- 
 stood to be made to God, but commonly it would 
 be made in the hearing of men (cf. Ac 174). It is 
 plain also that Christ taught the necessity of 
 acknowledging, and obtaining forgiveness for, 
 offences committed against other men (Mt 5%, 
 Lk 174). As to the mode of confession or the 
 person to receive it, no instruction is given. It is 
 clear, however, from the language of St. John (1 Jn 
 1°) and St. James that it was specific, definite, and 
 mutual. In Ja 5 the reading of WH (rds dpaprlas 
 for TR ra raparrwpara) puts it beyond doubt that 
 reference is made to sins against God; but the 
 interpretation (Chrysostom and others) which 
 infers that the confession was to be made to the 
 Presbyters, involves an inadmissible tautology. 
 *ANAHAS can only refer to the relation of individual 
 believers to one another, so that Cajetan from the 
 Roman standpoint rightly admits ‘nec hic est 
 sermo de confessione sacramentali.’ 
 
 C. A. Scort. 
 
 CONFIRMATION.—The verb ‘confirm’ is used 
 in a very general sense in the AV, serving as a 
 rendering of no fewer than eleven words in the 
 original languages—seven Heb. (ydx, 733, p17, 133, 
 82D, 1Dy, op in their proper conjugations) and four 
 Gr. (BeBardw, émcornplfw, xupdw, peotredw). The OT 
 group of words suggests the idea of establishing and 
 strengthening ; though in some cases the more tech- 
 nical notion of a legal or authoritative confirmation 
 comes in, esp. when the word 077 is used (e.g. Ru 4’, 
 Est 9% 31.32), In the NT BeBardw and émiornpl{w are 
 used in the general sense of strengthening and estab- 
 lishing, while xupdw is used in the sense of giving 
 power or validity (2 Co 2°, Gal 3), and pectredw is 
 employed in its natural meaning of acting as a 
 mediator (He 61”), The substantive ‘confirma- 
 tion’ (BeBalwors) is used in the two senses of making 
 firm, establishing (Ph 17), and giving authoritative 
 validity (He 6%). It is not used in the Bible to 
 describe an ecclesiastical rite. In the Acts refer- 
 ence is made to St. Paul ‘confirming the souls of 
 the disciples’ (14), and ‘ confirming the Churches’ 
 (15) ; and it is stated that ‘ Judas and Silas, being 
 prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren 
 with many words, and confirmed them’ (15%?)— 
 forms of émicrnpl{w being used in each case. There 
 is no indication that any ceremony was performed 
 on these occasions; the narrative would rather 
 suggest the general idea of strengthening and estab. 
 lishing spiritually. But although the laying on 
 of hands (érl@eots rd xetpGv) is not connected with 
 the word confirmation, it appears in association 
 with the gift of the Holy Spirit to disciples by 
 apostles subsequent to baptism (Ac 812-17 19°. 6), 
 and as a rite following baptism, in He 6. This 
 
466 CONFISCATION 
 
 CONGREGATION 
 
 
 
 was after the example of the Jewish method of 
 blessing (e.g. Gn 48?" 4), which was recognized by 
 the mothers who brought their children to Jesus 
 that He might ‘lay his hands on them,’ etc. (Mt 
 1915), According to the Talmud, a father laid his 
 hands on his child, after which the elders also 
 blessed him (Buxtorf., Syn. Jud. 138). As late as 
 Tertullian the laying on of hands was closely 
 associated with baptism as almost part of the same 
 rite (de Bap. c. 8; de Resurr. Carn. c. 8). 
 W. F. ADENEY. 
 
 CONFISCATION. —See CRIMES AND PUNISH- 
 
 MENTS. 
 
 CONFOUND.—This vb. is used in three senses. 
 1. Destroy, shatter, Jer 1" ‘be not dismayed at 
 their faces, lest I c. thee before them.’ The 
 Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have ‘destroy’ here, 
 and it is possible that AV chose a milder word 
 on purpose, as RV has a still milder ‘lest I 
 dismay thee before them’; but the Heb. (anny 7, 
 nop in hiph.) has the meaning of ‘shatter,’ as in 
 Is 9' ‘the yoke of his burden... thou nast 
 broken’ (RV); and the Eng. word has this mean- 
 ing also, as Milton, Par. Lost, ii. 380— 
 
 ‘Whence, 
 
 But from the author of all ill, could spring 
 
 8o deep a malice, to confound the race 
 
 Of Mankind in one root?’ 
 2. Put to shame. This is the most frequent mean- 
 ing. RV often changes ‘cv’ into ‘ashamed,’ but 
 Amer. RV prefers ‘put to shame.’ Earlier ver- 
 sions sometimes had ‘c®4’ where A V has ‘ ashamed,’ 
 as 2S 105 Douay, ‘The men were confounded very 
 fowly, and David commanded them, Tary in 
 Jericho, til your beard be growen.’ 3. Throw into 
 confusion (stronger than mod. confuse, Dr. Murray 
 suggests the colloq. dumfound), as Gn 117-* (see 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF), 2 Mac 1378 14% ‘he 
 was much c® in himself’; Ac 2° 9” (cuyxéw, cf. 
 Ac 19** 21"! ‘was in confusion’ RV). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONFUSED.—Confuse and confusion were much 
 stronger words in Elizabethan than in mod. Eng., 
 Ac 19° ‘the assembly was c4 (RV ‘in confusion’) ; 
 Is 9° ‘with c. noise(RV ‘in the tumult’), See Con- 
 FOUND 3. Confusion: 1. Tumultuous disorder, as 
 Ac 19” ‘the whole city was filled with ¢.’ (o¢yyvars), 
 1 Co 14%, Ja 3!* (dxaracracia), 2 Es 162, Ly 18732012 
 (53m), Is 241° 349 412 (ah). The Oaf. Eng. Dict. 
 quotes Is 34" ‘he shall stretch out upon it the line 
 of c.’ as an example of ¢. in the sense of destruction 
 (see CONFOUND |) ; and that meaning was commen 
 in 1611, as Shaks. IZid. Night’s Dream, 1. i. 149— 
 
 ‘So quick bright things come to confusion.’ 
 
 But the Heb. (which is the word tr. ‘without 
 form,’ RV ‘waste,’ in Gn 1’) makes it probable 
 that in all the passages from Isaiah the meaning is 
 disorder, 2. Shame, disgrace, as Ps 35* 8 * brought 
 to c.’ (199, RV ‘confounded,’ Cheyne ‘abashed’); 
 Job 10 ‘T am full of ¢.’ (52, RV ‘ignominy’); 
 esp. with Heb. bésheth, 1 S 20% >is, Ezr 97, Ps 109”, 
 Jer 7, Dn 97-8 (Except Ps 708, Is 617, Jer 79, 
 Mic 1", Zeph 35-9, bésheth is tr. by alcxvvn in LXX.) 
 See TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONGREGATION is AV rendering of several 
 Heb. terms, esp. y'0, my, and 5zp. It will be 
 necessary to examine minutely the linguistic 
 usage of OT in regard to each of these. 
 
 1. 35D (md'éd). The root-idea contained in this 
 word is that of a fixed appointed meeting or tryst 
 between God and man. Hence it is frequently 
 employed to mean a ‘set time,’ or to designate the 
 sacred seasons (m6'‘ddim) when all the males in 
 Isracl had to present themselves at J’’s sanc- 
 tuary (Ios 9° 12%, Ly 232 4 87 4) Tt is but a step 
 
 from this when we find the word used to designate 
 the assembly that celebrated the festival, or indeed 
 as a designation for any assembly. In Job 30% we 
 have 1-53) ayo ma ‘the place of assembly for all 
 living,’ used of Sheol, while in Is 33” Zion is called 
 iqyio np ‘the city of our assemblies’ (cf. Ps 744, 
 La 14, Ezk 44%). In particular, 1yio occurs ve 
 frequently in the phrase 1yip Sak (’Ohel mé6‘éd) the 
 Tent of Meeting (between J” and Israel). The 
 familiar AV tabernacle of the congregation fails 
 entirely to suggest the true idea conveyed by the 
 hrase as this is explained in Ex 294% (Cf. W. RB. 
 Emith, OTJC?* 246.) The Sept. cxnvh rod papruplor 
 and Vulg. tabernaculum testimoniit, as well as 
 Luther’s Stiftshiitte, have arisen, as Ges. explains, 
 from improperly regarding 7y'> as synonymous with 
 ny (see Nu 9”, where ‘ tabernacle of the testimony * 
 is the correct rendering). yo Sak is used with great 
 frequency by P(131 times)and by the Chronicler(1 Ch 
 6°? 92! 23%, 2 Ch 1% 6 18 55), but it is employed also 
 by E (Ex 337, where its meaning is explained; cf. 
 
 u 117-26 J), and occurs in ables two passages 
 which belong to JE, viz. Nu 11'6 124. The source 
 of Dt 314 is uncertain, and 1S 2% and 1 K 84 can 
 scarcely be taken into consideration, because both 
 contain elements of late date. In Ps 748 $x yio-bg 
 =all the synagogues of God, and in La 2° 1yip is 
 employed as a designation for the temple. 
 
 it may be worth while to remind the reader that 
 in the expression solemn assembly, which is occa- 
 sionally used by AV as a rendering of 1yip, ‘ solemn 
 has its archaic sense of ‘fixed’ or ‘stated,’ Lat. 
 solennis (Driver, Deut. 189). 
 
 In Is 14% moutit of the congregation -probably 
 refers to the assembly of the gods, whose dwelling- 
 place, according to Bab. mythology, was located in 
 the far north, upon the ‘mountain of the world’ 
 (Driver, /saiah? 129n. ; Delitzsch, Isaiah, new ed. 
 i. 310). See BABYLONIA, p. 216%, 
 
 2. my (‘édah) and dap beahal). Before examin- 
 ing the linguistic usage of OT it may be well to 
 refer to a distinction between these two words which 
 has been contended for by some. Vitringa (de 
 Synagoga vetere, 80, 88), with whom Trench (Syn- 
 onyms of NT, 3.) agrees, expresses the difference 
 thus, ‘notat frances universam alicujus popult 
 multitudinem vinculis societatis unitam et rem- 
 publicam quandam constituentem ; cum vocabulum 
 Ty ex indole et vi significationis suze tantum dicat 
 quemcumue hominum cetum et conventum sive 
 Ininorem sive majorem. . . . curaywy} ut et my 
 semper significat cetum conjunctum et congregatum 
 etiamsi nullo forte vinculo pr thee: sed éxxAnola 
 (>9R) designat multitudinem aliquam que populum 
 constituit, per leges et vincula inter se gunctam, 
 etsi sepe fiat ut non sit coacta vel cogi possit.’ 
 This is certainly far more plausible and reasonable 
 than the famous distinction which Augustine 
 sought to establish between cuvaywy} and éxxAnola, 
 or rather between their Latin equivalents, con- 
 gregatio and convocatio, the latter being the nobler 
 term, because used of calling together men, while 
 congregatio designated the gathering together of 
 cattle (grex)! Vitringa’s distinction comes, in fact, 
 pretty near to that of Schiirer, to which we shall 
 advert presently ; but it seems a mistake to en- 
 deavour to carry such a distinction back to OT. 
 It may fairly be questioned whether in a single 
 instance the contention of Vitringa can be estab- 
 lished. Rather are we inclined to see in the choice 
 of the one or the other of these terms :) mark of 
 authorship. It is remarkable that ay finds favour 
 in certain books, while S72 is prevailingly, if not 
 exclusively, employed in others. 
 
 (at) my, from the same root as 7yi6, occurs vari- 
 ously, as Sxqy ny. (Ex 12%), Sxq ya my (Ex 161 2%), 
 ma niy*(Nu 27!7), and absolutely, myya (Lv 4), 
 It belongs, like 1y\o, to the vocabulary of P, never 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 1 
 f 
 

 
 
 
 CONGREGATION 
 
 CONSCIENCE 467 
 
 
 
 occurring in D or JE, and its use in the other 
 historical books is rare, Jg 20!, 21! 13.16] K go 
 (=2 Ch 5°), 12% being the only instances (Driver, 
 LOT 126). 
 
 (6) aR occurs variously, as >xqv: bap (Dt 31%), 
 ma Sap (Nu 16%, 204), ovmdsa Sap (Neh 13%), and 
 ely, Sapo (Ex 168, Lv 418), It is frequently 
 employed in Dt, 1 and 2 Ch, Ezr,and Neh. In the 
 Ps both 7 and 572 are used without any per- 
 ceptible difference of meaning to designate the 
 ‘ congregation’ of Israel. 
 
 In the Sept. cvvaywy7 generally answers to 41y, 
 and éxxdyola to bap. The latter statement holds 
 ie uniformly in Jos, Jg, S, K, Ch, Ezr, and 
 
 eh, also in Dt (with the exception of 58, where 
 bap is rendered cuvaywy7). On the other hand, 977 
 is rendered by ¢vvaywy7 in Ex, Lv, Nu, probably in 
 order to secure uniformity in the Gr., for my in 
 these books is always cuwaywyi. Once in the Ps 
 M2 is rendered cuvaywy7 (40); elsewhere we find 
 éxxAnola, except in 26°, where it is cuvédprov. 
 
 While we cannot admit that the distinction con- 
 tended for by Vitringa is traceable in OT, yet a 
 somewhat similar distinction is discovered by 
 Schiirer in the usage of the terms by later Judaism. 
 cuvaywy) was the term applicable to the empirical 
 reality, the actual congregation existing in any 
 one place, while éx«Ancla designated the edeal, the 
 assembly of those called by God to salvation. It 
 is easy to see how, on this account, éxxAycla dis- 
 
 laced cuvaywy} in Christian circles. In classical 
 
 reek, as is well known, éxxAnola was the name for 
 the body of free citizens summoned by a herald, 
 and in this sense it is used in Ac 19 of the assembly 
 at Ephesus. A statutory meeting was designated 
 xupla or Evvopos (the latter in Ac 19%), one special] 
 summoned was ovyx\nros. It can hardly & aE 
 however, that classical usage throws much light 
 upon the nature of the éxxAyela, or ‘congregation,’ 
 so often spoken of in OT, The word may be used 
 of an assembly summoned for a definite purpose 
 (1 K 8®) or met on a festal occasion (Dt 23'), but 
 far more frequently it has in view the community 
 of Israel collectively regarded as a congregation. 
 
 ellhausen (Comp. d. Hex. 205) finds this last 
 usage distinctive of P, denying that the nation is 
 viewed from such a purely churchly standpoint in 
 JE, or even in D. See ASSEMBLY. 
 
 In OT Apoer. ékxAnola occurs in the sense of a 
 popular assembly (Jth 6" 14%, Sir 15°), more rarely 
 as a designation for the people as a whole 
 (1 Mac 4°). 
 
 In NT éxxdAnata is applied to the congregation of 
 the people of Isr. in the speech of Stephen (Ac 7%), 
 but cuvaywyj came gradually to be employed to 
 distinguish Isr. from other nations. (It 1s charac- 
 teristic of the Ep. of James that in 2? cwaywy% is 
 used of an assembly of Jewish Christians, and of the 
 Ep. to the Hebrews that in 10” émicwaywy7 [the word 
 has a different meaning in 2 Th 2'] is spoken of a 
 Christian community.) Hence, apart from the 
 reason noted above, it was natural that éxxAnola 
 should be chosen as the designation of the Christian 
 Church, owing to the Judaistic associations of 
 cuvaywy. 
 
 While there is little about OT ‘congregation’ 
 to recall the popular assembly of a Gr. community 
 (for the elders, or in post-exilic times at Jerus., the 
 high priest and his counsellors, seem to have gener- 
 ally acted alone), there are one or two examples of 
 an opposite kind. In Nu 35™ (P) it is the ‘con- 
 gregation’ that decides the case of the manslayer 
 who has reached a city of refuge, although even 
 here the decision according to D? rests with the 
 elders (cf. the above passage with Jos 20+ [D?], or 
 the latter with v.® [P]). Similar functions are 
 ascribed to the ‘congregation’ in the late and 
 peculiar narrative of Jg 20, 21, and in Ezr 10, on 
 
 the latter of which Kuenen (Rel. of Israel, ii. 214} 
 remarks, ‘In very weighty matters the decision 
 even rested with the whole community, which was 
 summoned to Jerus. for that purpose.’ (All that 
 concerns the OT congregation as a worshipping 
 body will be dealt with under CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE, 
 and TEMPLE.) 
 
 For the sake of completeness it may be well to 
 note the usage of some other words of kindred 
 import to the three we have discussed. 
 
 _.(@) myy, (dzereth), from a root containing the 
 idea of enclosing or confining, is frequently applied 
 to the ‘congregation’ that celebrates the festivals 
 (J] D4 2%) Am 5?!, 2 K 10, Is 13, in which last 
 passage it is coupled with x79). The nearest Gr. 
 equivalent is ravijyupis (by which it is rendered in 
 the Sept. of Am 5%, and which occurs in the 
 NT once, He 12% ‘the general assembly’). noyy, 
 designates peed such assemblies as were 
 convened on the seventh day of the Feast of Un- 
 leavened Bread (Dt 16°), and the eighth day of the 
 F. of Tabernacles (Lv 23%°, Nu 29%, Neh 838, 2 Ch 79) 
 
 (6) wip xwPe (mikr@ kodesh), which occurs so 
 frequently in the ‘holy convocation’ of AV, is a 
 favourite expression in the priestly sections of Ex, 
 Lv, and Nu, particularly in H (Lv 17-26). The 
 Sept. usually renders it «Aynri dyla (cf. Sanday, 
 Romans, 12 ty, The simple 77> occurs in Nu 10? 
 and Is 1%. It is hard to discover any difference 
 between this term and njyy. 
 
 (c) 10 (séd), originally = friendly conversation 
 (ouAla), then on the one hand = friendliness, 
 friendship, and on the other=a body of friends 
 (cf. Driver on Am 38). It is used of a gathering for 
 familiar converse (Jer 6" 151", in the latter of which 
 the Sept. has cuvédpiov), of a deliberative council 
 (Job 158, Jer 2318, Ps 897, in all these used of the 
 Privy Council of the Almighty), of a secret com- 
 pany of wicked men plotting evil (Ps 8%), or of the 
 select assembly of the upright (Ps 111', where 7o 
 is coupled with 77y, as it is in Gn 49° with bap). 
 
 LiteraTuRE.—Schiirer, HJP Il. ii. 59n.; Driver, LOT 126, 
 Deut. 188, 195, 234; Thayer, N7' Lex. and Creiner, Bib.-Theol. 
 Lex. 8. ixxanci« and cvveyoyy ; Wellhausen, Comp. d. Hex, 205; 
 Hort, Christian Ecclesia (1897), 1-21; Vitringa, de Syn. Vet. 
 "7 £.; Trench, Syn. of NT’, 1f.; Holzinger, ZA W (188%), p. 106 ff. 
 
 . A. SELBIE. 
 CONIAH.—See JEHOIACHIN. 
 
 CONJECTURE. — Only Wis 8° ‘[Wisdom] c* 
 aright what is to come’ (eixdte). RV has ‘divineth 
 the things to come,’ with ‘c+’ in marg. But it is 
 probable that in AV c**=‘ divineth,’ as Scot (1584), 
 ‘ Conjecture unto me by thy familiar spirit.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONSCIENCE.—The word is not found in OT; 
 it occurs in Apocr., Wis 17%‘ wickedness... 
 being pressed with c., always forecasteth grievous 
 things ’ (cuveldnors), Sir 14? ‘ Blessed is he whose ce. 
 hath not condemned him’ (~ux7, RV ‘ soul’), and 
 2 Mac 6" ‘they made a ec. to pe tliemselves’ 
 (edhaBads exe, RV ‘scrupled’; cf. Purchas [1625], 
 Pilgrimes, ii. 1276, ‘They will... make more 
 conscience to breake a Fast, than to commit a 
 Murther’). In NT 32 times (RV 30 times, omit- 
 ting Jn 8°, and reading svv7Gelg 1 Co 87) always for 
 cuveldnots, of which it is the invariable and appro- 
 riate tr. But mod. usage would prefer ‘ conscious- 
 ness’ in 1 Co 87 ‘some with ec. of the idol unto this 
 hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol’ (RV 
 with edd. reads cuvnfela, hence ‘being used until 
 now to the idol’); and in He 10? ‘no more c. of 
 sins.’ Cf. Milton, Par. Lost, viii. 502— 
 
 ‘Her virtue and the conscience of her worth.’ 
 
 See Sanday-Headlam on Ro 2%; P. Ewald, De 
 Vocis Suvedjoews apud Script. NT vi ac potestate 
 (1883) ; and the next article. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
468 CONSCIENCE 
 
 CONSCIENCE 
 
 
 
 CONSCIENCE— 
 
 A. Historical Sketch. 
 B. Christian Doctrine. 
 i. The Nature of Conscience. 
 ii. The Competence of Conscience. 
 iii. The Education of Conscience. 
 1. Social. 
 2. Individual. 
 iv. The Witness of Conscience. 
 
 A. HISTORICAL SKETCH.—When man begins to 
 reflect on his experience as a moral agent, two 
 uestions emerge. (1) What is the highest good 
 or man? What is the ‘chief end’ in attain- 
 ment of which man finds satisfaction? (2) What 
 
 is the source of moral obligation? What power 
 commands and regulates human action? In the 
 
 history of thought, these two questions occur 
 in the order stated; and it is not till the second 
 has been asked that a doctrine of conscience is 
 possible. 
 
 1. Greek philosophy in its prime is mainly con- 
 cerned with the first of these. The ethics of Plato 
 and Aristotle are largely occupied with discussing 
 the nature of the Good; and practically their doc- 
 trine amounts to this, that man finds his highest 
 welfare in the duties of citizenship. Man is 
 regarded as part of the pnysical and social world 
 in which he finds himself; and his welfare lies in 
 playing his due part therein. This doctrine was 
 sufficient as long as the Greek State lasted. When 
 this was broken up, however, and there was no 
 longer a life of free and ennvbling activity open 
 to men, the moral problem assumed the second 
 form. Man is thrust back on himself. His 
 individuality becomes emphasized over against 
 the world, in which he can now no longer realize 
 himself. Turning in upon himself, he seeks within 
 the guidance he has hitherto found in the life which 
 waited for him without. This type of mind, so char- 
 acteristic of thoughtful and earnest men under the 
 Roman Empire, finds expression in the philo- 
 sophical doctrines of the Stoics and Epicureans. 
 These are as intensely subjective as the systems of 
 Plato and Aristotle had been comprehensive and 
 objective. Not, therefore, till man has become 
 aware of himself as an individual, and looks out 
 on life from the standpoint of his subjectivity, 
 does the question of the rule of conduct leary 
 emerge. In discussing this question, the Stoics 
 found the rule in reason, the Epicureans in sense. 
 The Stoics made wide the opposition between 
 reason and sense. Virtue, according to them, is 
 reasonableness, and is exercised in absolute control 
 of sense, utter indifference to material things, and 
 austere rejection of pleasure. Noble things are 
 said by them in praise of virtue, and eloquent 
 testimony is borne against the views of a corrupt 
 age. But by their own admission the leading 
 nas of their thought and action is sublime 
 
 ut powerless. The moral world needed an active 
 principle which should regenerate character and 
 reconstitute society. This power came with 
 Christianity. 
 
 2. In the history of religion as set forth in the 
 Christian Scriptures, we find a similar succession 
 in the order in which the above-mentioned problems 
 emerge. A doctrine of conscience is not found till 
 late in the development of Christian thought, when 
 the consciousness of individuality is strong and 
 full. There are indeed traces of the operations of 
 conscience. Man is always treated as a moral 
 being (so in the prophets, and especially in Ezekiel, 
 whose sense of individual responsibility is new and 
 strong), susceptible of communications from a 
 es God, and amenable to His judgment. 
 
 3ut conscience, or the source of obligation for the 
 individual, is not made a subject of special treat- 
 
 ment in the earlier stages of man’s spiritual history. 
 Broadly speaking, there is no doctrine of conscience 
 in the OT. The heart is the centre of man’s 
 whole spiritual energy, whether intellectual or 
 moral ; and no subtle analysis of mental or moral 
 powers is attempted. The characteristic work of 
 conscience, that of condemning us when we do 
 wrong, is ascribed to the heart, Job 278. The 
 absence of a doctrine of conscience from the OT 
 is to be explained, not by any reference to the 
 alleged disinclination of the Heb. mind for psycho- 
 logical study, but by the fact that the stage 
 of religious development at which the Hebrews 
 were under Mosaism, precluded the question to 
 which the doctrine of conscience is an answer. 
 The law may be compared to the systems of Plato 
 and Aristotle, inasmuch as it answers the first of 
 the moral questions which arise on consideration 
 of man’s life, viz. What is the Good? The Good 
 is the will of God expressed in this body of legis- 
 lation. The question of principle of action, or an 
 organ of moral judgment, cannot emerge till the 
 conception of the Good has been made explicit. 
 The law is the conscience of the Heb. community. 
 Hence, as Oehler points out, the idea of a véyos 
 ypamrds év kapdlas is wholly alien to the OT. This 
 absence of a doctrine of conscience is to be found 
 also in our Lord’s teaching. He never uses the 
 word, and for a similar reason. His teaching is 
 essentially revelation. He is dealing with the 
 highest good for man, stating it in words, exhibit- 
 ing it in life. His teaching and example are 
 addressed to conscience, and are meant to awaken 
 conscience ; and for this very reason He does not 
 and cannot discuss conscience. Many of His say- 
 ings apply to conscience, and cast light on it, e.g. 
 ‘the lamp of the body,’ Mt 6”; but conscience 
 itself does not form part of His express teaching. 
 
 With Christ’s work as Redeemer a new stage of 
 man’s history is entered on. The first question 
 is answered; the first need is met. The Good is 
 revealed as truth; it is accomplished in act; it is 
 present as power. What Greek philosophy sought 
 after in the speculations of Plato and Aristotle, 
 is possessed in the kingdom of God. The parallel 
 is more than fanciful. As the Greek realized the 
 good in the duties of citizenship in the State, the 
 Christian realizes it in the duties and privileges of 
 citizenship in the kingdom of God. e virtue of 
 the Greek, narrowed by the limitations of the Gr. 
 State, is the obligation and possibility of mankind 
 in the wide realm of grace, which no political 
 change can restrict or destroy. 
 
 Now, accordingly, man as an individual gets his 
 tights, and becomes the subject of special study. 
 The NT, apart from the teaching of our Lord, is 
 largely occupied with the consideration of man in 
 relation to the grace of God which has come with 
 Christ. Human nature is studied as it could not 
 be at an earlier stage. It is true that there is no 
 merely speculative treatment, the interest of the 
 NT being practical and not technical. Refer- 
 ences, hewever, to various aspects of man’s moral 
 constitution abound. In particular, the question 
 of man’s relation to the Good as the will of God 
 receives special treatment, and is answered by an 
 explicit doctrine of conscience. Man is confronted 
 by the revealed will of God, revealed not only in a 
 book, but in a Person. How does this will make 
 itself felt in the sphere of man’s individual con- 
 sciousness? How is man guided and impelled 
 towards the fulfilment of this will? The answer 
 of St. Paul, and other writers in the NT, is con- 
 science. Conscience, therefore, at once becomes 
 the object of special practical interest. It is the 
 great aim of a Christian to have a conscience that 
 shall be ‘good,’ ‘void of offence,’ or ‘pure’; and 
 it is of paramount importance that conscience 
 
 
 
eee, ee Oe 
 
 a. oe oe 
 
 ( 
 
 ee 
 
 
 
 CONSCIENCE 
 
 
 
 should be maintained in a condition of enlighten- 
 ment and power adequate to the discharge of its 
 great function as the organ of moral apprehension 
 and moral judgment. 
 
 3. After the varied Christian life of the early 
 centuries of our era had died away, Christian 
 ethic, like Christian theology, fell under the blight 
 of medizval scholasticism. Christian truth was 
 stiffened into a system of dogma. Christian 
 morality was elaborated into a legal system more 
 cumbrous and wearisome than ever the Mosaic 
 code had been. Under this double burden the 
 souls of men groaned in bondage. Yet even in the 
 darkest ages there were not wanting symptoms of 
 revolt. ysticism claimed the power of holding 
 fellowship with God, without the intervention of 
 ecclesiastical machinery ; but it failed to base its 
 protest on a sound conception of human nature, 
 and so never rose beyond the position of a secret 
 in possession of a few unique spirits. Final 
 deliverance came in the epoch of the Reformation. 
 The Reformation was in essence a religious revival. 
 The cumbrous ecclesiastical machinery by which 
 the medizval Church, while professing to unite 
 God and man, had really held them apart, was 
 swept away in a burst of righteous wrath. The 
 relations of God and man came to be re-stated 
 under the inspiration of original Christian ideas. 
 In this process conscience necessarily played an 
 important part. Conscience accentuated the an- 
 tagonism between man and God, and showed man 
 guilty in a degree for which indulgences and 
 priestly absolutions brought no sound relief. Con- 
 science, in like manner, in view of the complete 
 atonement wrought by Christ, testified, to him who 
 rested on Christ alone for salvation, perfect peace 
 with God. Conscience, accordingly, occupies large 
 space in the writings of the Reformers, as it must 
 do in all Christian teaching. It is not made, how- 
 ever, the subject of special theoretical treatment. 
 Speculative interest in the question of the source 
 of moral judgment has not awakened; and the 
 necessity of its discussion is not yet felt. The 
 Reformation, in fact, was not an individualistic 
 movement. It is a misrepresentation to describe 
 it as such, or to quote such phrases as ‘the right 
 of private judgment,’ as embodying its character- 
 istic ideas. Those philosophical writers who most 
 fully express in the domain of pure thought the 
 Protestant spirit—Descartes ead Spinoza—are by 
 no means individualists. At the same time, there 
 can be no doubt that the Reformation contained 
 the possibility of individualism. The external 
 unity of the Church had been broken up. Before 
 a conception of spiritual unity could be formed and 
 wrought out in moral and political life, it was 
 inevitable that an epoch of individualism should 
 supervene, in which man should seek to find the 
 solution of intellectual and moral problems within 
 his own subjectivity. This movement predomin- 
 ated most largely in England, and obtained almost 
 exclusive sway, till within the present century it 
 has met a counter current of thought. Ethical 
 theory during such a period is largely occupied 
 with the question of the source of moral obligation, 
 and the faculty of moral judgment. British 
 moralists may be distinguished and classified 
 mainly by their views on this topic. At the head 
 of the long line stands Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), 
 a writer whose fertile ‘suggestiveness, virile force, 
 and daring paradox, made him a paramount in- 
 fluence in the development of ethical doctrine in 
 Britain. His fundamental position is that man’s 
 natural tendencies are only and altogether ‘self- 
 regarding.’ The good for the individual is punply 
 what he desires for himself. The result of eac 
 individual seeking the gratification of his own 
 desires_is, of course, a state of war, whose miseries 
 
 
 
 CONSCIENCE 469 
 
 
 
 Hobbes depicts to the life. Reason, accordingly, 
 intervenes to stop this intolerable state of matters, 
 and does so by enjoining submission to a strong 
 government. Hobbes thus pushes individualism 
 to an extreme in which it becomes intolerable, and 
 is replaced by an iron system in which the indi- 
 vidual is practically extinguished. In such a 
 system there is no place for conscience, properly 
 speaking. Hobbes uses the word only in con- 
 nexion with the analogous phrase ‘conscious.’ 
 Conscience is no more than opinion shared by 
 various individuals. Any higher sense is mere 
 metaphor. The moral faculty is no other than 
 reason, calculating how best to secure individual 
 advantage, and deciding upon submission to the 
 State as the best means of securing the end aimed 
 at. Such a doctrine was rather the propounding 
 of a problem than its solution. Accordingly, we 
 find that ethical thought in England consists 
 mainly in answers to Hobbes, or rather in answers 
 to the moral problem so acutely stated by him: 
 What is the source of moral obligation? hat is 
 the nature of the moral faculty? These answers 
 follow three distinct lines. 
 
 (1) Appeal is made to reason. Reason is regarded 
 as the power by which universal truths and principles 
 are perceived and proclaimed. This is, in general, 
 the view of Cudworth (1617-1688), whose Treatise 
 concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality, not 
 published till 1731, is directed against the teaching 
 of Hobbes as destructive of the essential dis- 
 tinctions of good and evil; and of Clarke (1675- 
 1729). Both these writers claim for man this 
 faculty of recognizing truths, ideas, or relations of 
 things, prior to and apart from the suggestions of 
 sensation. Here we have areal answer to Hobbes, 
 and a most hopeful line of ethical thought. If man 
 have this power, then we are lifted at once above 
 the degrading view of man as a creature of merely 
 selfish instincts, and have morality based, not on 
 conventions, but on eternal fact. 
 
 The value of such ‘dianoetic ethics,’ to use 
 Martineau’s designation, depends obviously on the 
 view taken of reason ; and in the above-mentioned 
 writers, reason is conceived too much as a mere 
 formal power, limited to the recognition of truths 
 submitted to it. Thus, while phrases in Cudworth, 
 for instance, remind one of Kant, there is no 
 approach to the Kantian doctrine of knowledge, 
 still less to its subsequent idealist development. 
 
 (2) A fuller analysis of human instincts is at- 
 tempted. Hobbes had said man’s primary instincts 
 are self-regarding. It was obviously open to reply 
 that they were not, or that they all were not. ie 
 cordingly, we have such writers as Shaftesbury 
 (1671-1713) and Hutcheson (1694-1747) apotaeay 
 
 roving that man possesses social as well as selfis 
 instincts, and placing virtue in the proper balance 
 of the two. 1e perception of this balance or pro- 
 portion is due to a moral sense, which, like the 
 sense of beauty in things artistic, guides us in 
 things moral. At a first glance it might appear, 
 as no doubt it did to the writers themselves, that 
 they were answering Hobbes, and giving a more 
 dignified conception of human nature. Really, 
 however, they are in substantial agreement with 
 Hobbes, entirely so as to presuppositions, and 
 
 ractically so as to result. They also appeal to 
 instincts as providing motives and impulses. Some 
 of these, indeed, they say are not selfish; but 
 if we press them we find that the special power 
 of unselfish instincts is the superior gratification 
 they afford, t.e. they are at bottom selfish still. 
 Selfishness, or, to give it a more refined but more 
 misleading title, Utility, is the spring and standard 
 of action. The psychological and even the ethical 
 principles of Ho bes are really continued in 
 Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Adam Smith, Hume. 
 
470 CONSCIENCE 
 
 CUNSCIENCE 
 
 
 
 (3) Reference is made to a distinct power of 
 human nature, viz. to Conscience, as supreme 
 arbiter in morals. Butler (1692-1752) is dis- 
 tinguished among British moralists for the em- 
 ee he lays on this faculty. He sees that 
 Shaftesbury’s reply to Hobbes is defective in 
 this respect, that his ‘moral sense’ lacks the 
 quality of supremacy, which is yee to face 
 and quel] the imperiousness of selfish instincts. 
 He labours, therefore, to establish the supremacy 
 of conscience, and to vindicate for it magisterial 
 position and authority. Of the impressiveness 
 and moral strength of Butler's writings it is 
 impossible to speak too highly. As a practical 
 protest against the immorality of his own age, 
 they are deeply interesting ; and as a moral tonic 
 in any age, they are invaluable. As ethical 
 theory, or doctrine of conscience, however, they 
 cannot be said to be final or satisfactory. Butler 
 was, to quote the words of T. H. Green, ‘the 
 victim of the current Poy cho oey To him, as 
 much as to Hobbes, Shaftesbury, Locke, or Hume, 
 feeling was the source of action, as of knowledge. 
 Objects of desire are given. Then conscience, a 
 
 wer whose origin and nature are unexplained and ! 
 
 inexplicable, appears to decide among the com- 
 peting motives. It speaks with authority, but is 
 unable to make its authority felt. Ultimately, 
 Butler is driven to admit practical supremacy to 
 self-love, and takes refuge in the identity of duty 
 and self-interest. A higher principle does indeed 
 appear in Butler, viz. the love of God. But as he 
 never reconsidered his psychology, this rather 
 eontributes additional contusion to his scheme. 
 Human nature remains ‘a cross of unreconciled 
 principles,’ self-love, beievo'ence, conscience, the 
 love of God. Plainly such a view of man cannot 
 provide a sure basis of ethics, The whole moral 
 protlem must be reconsidered. What is implied 
 in moral action’? If it shall appear that the 
 sensationalist psychology is at fault, if feeling 
 cannot present objects of desire, if in the simplest 
 action there is implied the presence of a Self, 
 making itself its own object, then we are led to 
 a view of man asa being who finds his true good 
 in the good of others, and of conscience as not 
 merely authoritative, but also uignity to carry 
 its precepts into effect, being indeed the presence 
 within the individual consciousness of that Reason, 
 Mind, Spirit, or Personality whose revelation is 
 found in all reality and ail good. 
 
 It is not needful to pursue the line of British 
 moralists any further. Whoever they happen 
 to be, Paley, Bentham, James Mill, J. S. Mill, 
 or Bain, whatever their minor differences or 
 their special excellences, they unite in retain- 
 ing the psychology which reigned throughout 
 the eighteenth century. In vain for them did 
 Hume carry the conclusions of that psychology 
 to a scepticism which provoked Kant to a reply, 
 which introduced a new conception of man and 
 the spiritual world. All alike they cling to the 
 conviction that it is possible by dissection to 
 arrive at the living man, and by analyzing his 
 sensations to account for knowledge and paler 
 They may vary in detail, but they are in sub- 
 stantial agreement as to results. The chief end of 
 man is happiness. The moral faculty is a vari- 
 ously described compound of feelings, whose fluid- 
 ity is stiffened by the sanctions and punishments 
 of society. This psychology has more recently 
 allied itself with the hypothesis of organic evolu- 
 tion, and made draughts of illimitable time aid 
 in establishing its conclusions. Prolonged experi- 
 ence of pleasure in connexion with actions, which 
 servo social ends, has resulted in certain physio- 
 
 * The most illuminating critique of Butler with which I am 
 acquainted is contained in Green’s Works, vol. iii. pp. 98-104. 
 
 
 
 logical changes in the brain and nervous system, 
 which render these actions constant. Thus, 
 according to Spencer, is begotten a conscience or 
 faculty, to which he cven gives the name of intui- 
 tion. This sensationalist psychology, thus strength- 
 ened by evolution, has called forth various replies, 
 
 (a) Intuitionism enters its earnest denial. Dr, 
 Martineau’s strictures on evolutionary ethics 
 are powerful, and his general ethical doctrine is 
 most earnest and impressive. His position « losely 
 resembles that of Butler in last century. Like 
 Butler, he gives an account of the springs of moral 
 action. But whereas Butler only mentions two, 
 Self-love and Benevolence, Martineau’s list is most 
 elaborate, containing no fewer than thirteen pas- 
 sions, propensions, sentiments, or affections. Quite 
 as Butler had done, he gives to conscience a 
 judicial function in respect to these springs of 
 action. Distinctive in Martineau, however, is his 
 doctrine that conscience judges, not of the right- 
 ness of acts, but of the rank of motives. On- 
 science he defines to be ‘the critical perception 
 we have of the relative authority of our several 
 principles of action.’ Right and wrong he defines 
 thus: ‘Every action is right which, in presence 
 of a lower principle, follows a higher; every 
 action is wrong which, in presence of a higher 
 principle, follows a lower.’ Hleqaant and powerful 
 as Dr. Martineau’s exposition is, it is open to the 
 cbjection which may be brought against Butler. 
 Whence come these springs of action? Do they 
 simply appear before the judgment-seat of con- 
 science, without any prior determination by self- 
 consciousness? Then we are thrown back, as we 
 were by Butler, upon current sensational psy- 
 chology. And whence comes conscience? Does 
 it simply appear, and seat itself in judicial state, 
 a separate, unique faculty, inexplicable and 
 mysterious, owning no organic relation to self- 
 consciousness ? Then its authority is blind, and, as 
 in Butler’s doctrine, is unsupported hy power. 
 
 (6) A conclusive answer can be reavhed only 
 through 4 consideration of the possibility of 
 experience in general, and of moral experience in 
 particular. Such an answer is to be found in 
 Green’s Prolegomena to Ethics. Press the analysis 
 of sensation as far back as we please, make 
 our list of feelings and instincts as detailed 
 as possible, we never get a mere sensation or 
 instinct, such as we might suppose it to be in the 
 lower animals, but always the sensation as it is to 
 a self, already modified by its relation to self- 
 consciousness. In the simplest sensation, there is 
 implied the operation of a spiritual principle, 
 which is the basis of the possibility at once of 
 knowledge and of morality. The sensationalist 
 psychology is thus deprived of its whole ratson 
 @etre. Tt exists in order to get personality out of 
 sensations. {t can do so, only because personality 
 is therein already implied. 
 
 The hypothesis of evolution is of no use to sensa- 
 tionalism, and does not invalidate the argument of 
 idealism. ‘That countless generations should have 
 passed during which a transmitted organism was 
 progressively modified by reaction on its surround- 
 ings, by struggle for existence or otherwise, till its 
 functions became such that an eternal conscious- 
 ness could realize or reproduce itself through them, 
 —this might add to the wonder with which the 
 consideration of what we do and are must always 
 fill us, but it could not alter the results of that 
 consideration. If such be discovered to be the 
 case, the discovery cannot affect the analysis of 
 knowledge of what is implied in there being q 
 world to be known, and in our knowing it, on 
 which we found our theory of the action of a free 
 or self-conditioned and eternal mind in man’ 
 (Prolegomena, p. 82). Man, therefore, is a self or 
 
 
 
 ! 
 % 
 ] 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 a 
 a 
 A 
 F 
 
a. ——"  s 
 
 —S Te |. | a 
 
 ee ee ae oe Se Oe ee ee Pee 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 CONSCIENCE 
 
 personality, which is not, however, an incident in 
 @ series, but is rooted in an infinite self or per- 
 sonality. Our individual self-consciousness derives 
 from an! is maintained by an infinite, eternal, 
 universal, self-consciousness ; Green would say, is 
 a ‘reproduction’ of it,—a phrase open to miscon- 
 struction. Knowledge, therefore, is the gradual 
 discovery of mind or spirit in things, the exhibi- 
 tion of the world as the self-manifestation of an 
 infinite personality, with whom the finite intelli- 
 gence of man isone. Morality is the progressive 
 accomplishment of an eternal purpose, with which 
 the individual is and ought to be at one, whose 
 oal is the perfection of man. The good for man 
 is self-realization, but it is the realization of an 
 infinite self, and is thus identical with the widest 
 pene range of good for others, and is attained 
 y the profoundest self-surrender. The moral 
 faculty in man, the practical reason or conscience, 
 is no special inexplicable endowment, a vox 
 clamantis in deserto. It is the man himself, con- 
 scious in all action of a good, which he either 
 reaches or fails to reach, which in either case 
 stands above his separate impulses, in the one case 
 approving and beckoning him onward and upward, 
 in the other condemning him and binding on him 
 the penalty due to one who has broken the law of 
 his own being. Conscience, thus conceived, may 
 also with equal truth be described as the revelation 
 of infinite good to man, or the voice of God witness- 
 ing to eternal right within the individual soul. 
 It is the voice of the man’s true self, and his true 
 self is ideally one with God. On such lines alone 
 is the sensationalist attack on absolute right and 
 on conscience successfully met, and room found for 
 Christian ethic, and a Christian doctrine of con- 
 science, 
 
 B. OUTLINE OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 
 
 i. THE NATURE OF CONSCIENCE. — The locus 
 classicus here is Ro 2-6, The connexion of thought 
 is the responsibility of all men for their actions, their 
 condemnation in sin, their acceptance in righteous- 
 ness. This applies to Gentiles as well as Jews. 
 It would not apply had Gentiles no revelation 
 of absolute good made to them, as the Jews had in 
 the Law. Such a revelation, however, the Gentiles 
 have. They (v.14) do by nature, t.e. instinctively, 
 the things which are articulately prescribed in the 
 Law, aad accordingly while they have not the Law 
 as a written code, yet they have it in another sense. 
 In what sense is now explained (v.%). The 
 comparison in the apostle’s mind is between Jew 
 and Gentile, in respect of the delivery to each 
 of God’s Law. To the Jews, this delivery was 
 made at Sinai, and so in speaking of its delivery 
 to the Gentiles he uses Sinaitic imagery. The 
 apostle’s description involves three points. (1) The 
 delivery of the Law in the dictates of natural 
 impulse; ‘the work of the law,’ t.e. a course of 
 conduct conforming to the will of God, being 
 ‘written in their hearts,’ as in the case of the 
 Jews it was written on tables of stone. (2) The 
 recognition of the Law in its binding obligations 
 by a moral faculty, just as the Jews heard with 
 bodily ear the proclamation of the Ten Command- 
 ments; ‘their conscience bearing witness there- 
 with,’ t.¢. along with the heart, when it speaks and 
 prompts to duty. (3) Judgments peed upon actions 
 in the light of the witness of conscience, some 
 being favourable, others (as the emphasis implies, 
 the greater number) being unfavourable; ‘their 
 thoughts one with another, accusing or else excus- 
 ing them.’ 
 
 he doctrine of this passage, borne out by 
 other Scripture usage, therefore, is: (a) That 
 man has received a revelation of good, sufficient 
 to make him morally responsible. This reve- 
 
 
 
 CONSCIENCE 471 
 
 
 
 lation comes in different forms to men differently 
 pees in the providential disposition of affairs. 
 Even those who seem least advantageously situ- 
 ated have the revelation of ‘nature.’ Man is 
 so made that he finds the satisfaction of his true 
 self in moral good only; and towards this the 
 forward impulse of his heart goes forth. The 
 race, charged with the special function of guarding 
 and transmitting the spiritual heritage of human- 
 ity, has appropriately a special revelation of good, 
 explicitly bearing the stamp of superhuman origin. 
 Finally, when ‘the fulness of time’ in the moral 
 discipline of mankind is reached, the good finds 
 complete revelation in a person, the man Christ 
 Jesus. ‘Nature,’ with its few rudimentary facts of 
 moral life, and ‘ Law,’ with its greater articulate- 
 ness, are summed up in ‘Christ,’ in whom moral 
 good is perfectly realized. (8) That man possesses 
 a moral faculty, or is possessed by it, that he has 
 a conscience, which is indeed his self-consciousness 
 in respect of moral action, in virtue of which he 
 recognizes, approves, and binds upon himself the 
 Good, in whatsoever form it is revealed to him, and 
 by the authority of which he pronounces judgment 
 upon himself. This doctrine obviously rests upon 
 the general scriptural doctrine of man as made in 
 the image of God, of man as spirit even as God is 
 spirit or personality, a conception which we have 
 seen to be the suggestion of philosophy in its 
 criticism of uuphilosophical sensationalist psycho- 
 logy. God reveals His will to man, partially in 
 Nature and Law, fully in Christ. Man as a 
 spiritual being is susceptible of this revelation ; his 
 consciousness of it in things moral is conscience. 
 
 This view of conscience greatly simplifies it, and 
 reduces it from the position of an inexplicable 
 faculty, fulminating in impotent majesty above 
 the warring impulses of man’s nature. It is simp! 
 the faculty, if we must use the term, throug 
 which we apprehend the divine will so that it 
 may govern our lives. It is no more a separate 
 faculty than faith, and deserves no more thar 
 faith the credit of its operations. As faith lays 
 hold of Christ, and thus saves and sanctifies; sc 
 conscience lays hold of the divine will, and thus 
 legislates and judges. It is not an independent 
 source of law and judgment. It voices the will 
 of God. 
 
 It is plain, however, that this view, if in one 
 sense it deprives conscience of the proed position 
 which an intuitionist theory would confer upon 
 it, in another confers upon it unique and awful 
 supremacy. When conscience wakes and speaks, 
 it means that man is in spiritual contact with 
 God, that God is making His will felt in the 
 depths of man’s constitution. Thus it is that ‘to 
 him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it net, 
 to him it is sin’; sin, not error or mistake, nor 
 only shortcoming, but trespass against the law of 
 God, which is recognized as the law of our own 
 being, in keeping which our welfare lies. 
 
 The practical result is that conscience claims, 
 and must receive if we are to be true to our 
 very nature, a position of absolute supremacy. 
 Every action must be brought beneath its sway ; 
 in popular phrase, we must make conscience of 
 all we do. Actions laid upon us by outward 
 authority, we are to do, not because the authority 
 is supported by force, but because conscience re- 
 cognizes the good of which this authority is an 
 expression ; and so we obey ‘ for conscience’ sake’ 
 (Ro 135). Actions which seemingly lie outside 
 the moral judgment, REPOS AP arently no relation 
 to moral questions, are to rought before con- 
 science and carefully scrutinized, so that even in 
 such matters as what we are to eat or refrain from 
 eating, we are still to act ‘for conscience’ sake’ 
 (1 Co 10%). The whole domain of life is to 
 

 
 472 CONSCIENCE 
 
 be brought within the sweep of conscience, and 
 every element in it is to be made subject to that 
 great and just arbitrament. 
 
 It may be true that in a society so largely Chris- 
 tianized as ours, the man who acts from conscience 
 will not behave in a manner markedly distinct from 
 the behaviour of those who simply follow the con- 
 ventions of society. There will, however, be very 
 distinct differences on a closer scrutiny. He will dis- 
 cover new meanings in actions prescribed by con- 
 vention, and will perform them the better that he 
 does them with conscience. He will beon the outlook 
 for new duties and new means of realizing the good 
 which he apprehends, not as a code, but as an inner 
 spiritual impulse. Apart from specific differences of 
 action, there is a difference in spring of action, which 
 cannot but tell in the long run. Perceiving the 
 disparity between his own attainments and that 
 good of which conscience is the witness, and to 
 which it summons him, he has within him a divine 
 discontent which drives him to further efforts, and 
 secures for him greater excellences. The morality 
 of a code is rigid, self-satisfied, pharisaic. The 
 morality of conscience is ever aspiring, humble, 
 dissatisfied with self. A conscience thus kept in 
 its supremacy is described as ‘good’ (Ac 23}, 
 1 Ti 1°, He 1318, 1 P 31% 21), not in the sense that 
 he who has it has never sinned, but because he 
 has yielded himself to the will of God, and is 
 living in the spirit and aim of his career for the 
 glory of God, while he never permits unforgiven 
 sin to lie upon his heart: ‘void of offence toward 
 God and toward man’ (Ac 2415), because the pleas- 
 ing of God in all things, and his neighbour in all 
 things for his good unto edification, is the man’s 
 constant aim and exercise: ‘pure’ (1 Ti 3°, 
 2 Ti 1°), because there is no doubleness of mind, 
 or secret alienation from the will of God, but a 
 sincere desire, an unwavering resolution to live so 
 that He may approve. 
 
 It is, of course, always open to man as a free 
 agent to disobey conscience, reject its supremacy, 
 disregard its witness, and defy its authority. On 
 an intuitionist theory, which regards conscience 
 as a part of man, separable from other parts, it 
 would be difficult to vindicate the terrible conse- 
 quences of such conduct. It is because the con- 
 science is the man himself in his consciousness of 
 the divine will, that the consequences are so 
 injurious, penetrate so deeply, and extend so 
 widely. Conscience disobeyed is: (1) Defiled ; 
 and this defilement may be either (a) occasional 
 (1 Co 87), or (8) permanent and pervasive (Tit 1"), 
 (2) Branded or seared (1 Ti 42), where the figure 
 is either the branding of a slave with a stamp, 
 or the extinction of faculty by the use of hot iron, 
 in any case expressing the reduction of conscience 
 to a state of moral incapacity. (3) Perverted 
 (Mt 6%), so that conscience, the light of the 
 soul, gives, not merely no deliverance, but a 
 deliverance on the wrong side, the man being now, 
 not a servant of the good, but of the evil, having 
 sinned against the Holy Spirit. 
 
 That conscience is disobeyed in countless in- 
 ‘stances is patent fact; and these consequences may 
 be traced in the history of individuals. It is more 
 difficult to see the fact and to trace the con- 
 sequence in the records of the race. Yet it is 
 certain that sin is not merely an incident in the 
 career of an individual, but a quality inherent 
 in the conduct of man universally, and that the 
 effects of sin are traceable, to what extent it is 
 impossible to define, in the general conscience of 
 mankind. 
 
 ii. THE COMPETENCE OF CONSCIENCE.—In all that 
 is said of the supremacy of conscience its competence 
 is, of course, presupposed. This, however, is precisely 
 what is denied by those who desire to explain the 
 
 
 
 
 CONSCIENCE 
 
 eee 
 
 phenomena of conscience on the hypothesis of 
 evolution, and facts are urged in disproof of the 
 claim of original authority. It must be remem- 
 bered, however, what it is that is claimed by the 
 Christian doctrine on behalf of conscience. It is 
 not the infallible authority of an independent 
 faculty, but the ability on the part of a being made 
 in God’s image to recognize God’s will as it is pro- 
 gressively revealed to him. 
 
 Much of the sensationalist and evolutionary 
 attack on conscience really applies only to the 
 intuitionist theory of conscience, and does not touch 
 the Christian doctrine or the idealist philosophy, 
 whose criticism of sensationalist psychology we have 
 noticed above. The special difficulties which call 
 for consideration are these— 
 
 1. The diversity of moral judgments, as among 
 different nations now, or at different stages of the 
 world’s history. The heathen conscience enjoins 
 what the Christian conscience condemns, Jewish 
 feeling rejoiced in deeds at which Christian senti- 
 ment shudders. Amid such divergences, is not the 
 supremacy of conscience lost? The answer to this 
 puzzle lies in our general view of man and his con- 
 science of good. If man be a personal being in 
 constant communication with the infinite Person, 
 God, we can understand how his moral history is an 
 education or development, each step in advance 
 being gained through obedience to conscience, which 
 proclaims as absolute the will of God. The stages of 
 the revelation of good are marked by advance up 
 to the full realization of good in Christ. Con- 
 science at each stage is supreme, though its 
 deliverances, compared together, vary according 
 to the stage reached. Combined with this view 
 is the fact of deterioration through disobedience, 
 so that the conscience of a nation or religious 
 community may become perverted, and proclaim 
 as duty a bloody crime or an unnatural offence. 
 Even among races which have formed the most 
 mistaken standard of duty, it is found, es 
 missionary records amply show, that the revela- 
 tion of higher excellence meets with ready 
 response, and conscience, revivified by the light, 
 calls upon man to followit. In order to prove the 
 supremacy of conscience, we do not need to prove 
 uniformity amid the deliverances of conscience, 
 from age to age. The very divergences set its per- 
 sistent authority in more vivid light. i 
 
 2. The alleged conflict of duties, which occasion- 
 ally arises, reducing conscience to perplexity 
 and silence. This certainly would be a fatal 
 objection, not to the supremacy of conscience 
 aan but to morality as a whole. If there arise 
 circumstances, not due to any human crime or 
 error, in which duty confronts duty in absolute 
 contradiction, so that merely to act is to transgress, 
 not only is conscience proved incompetent, but the 
 moral sphere is shown not to include the whole of 
 life, and righteousness by being demonstrated to 
 be impossible is made unnecessary. The question 
 can be met only by analyses of cases. Those cases 
 must, of course, be excluded which are not, baton 
 speaking, cases of conscience. One case only needs 
 to be stated to be dismissed, that in which a verdict 
 of conscience, in itself clear and distinct, is opposed 
 by strong passion or self-interest which clamorousl 
 demands to be obeyed. Here, plainly, there is 
 no question of the competence of conscience, or its 
 claim to be obeyed. Another case is that in 
 which the clear testimony of conscience is con- 
 fronted by some instinct of the soul, itself true and 
 noble. ere also there is, strictly speaking, no 
 perplexity of conscience, and it is admitted 
 that there is no wavering in its demand to be 
 obeyed. Hesitation arises from the strong appeal 
 of feeling. Sir Walter Scott has presented such a 
 situation in the classic instance of Jeanie Deans 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a, ee 
 

 
 ; 
 4 
 . 
 . 
 ‘ 
 E 
 ; 
 ) 
 4 
 
 CONSCIENCE - 
 
 
 
 CONSCIENCE 473 
 
 
 
 tempted to tell a falsehood in order to save her 
 pister’s life. Here the oblivation of truth is con- 
 
 fronted by sisterly affection. The action of 
 Jeanie Deans unquestionably represents the true 
 solution. Conscience is obeyed, while love goes 
 forth in noblest sacrifice on behalf of the beloved. 
 The difficulty of such cases is not speculative, but 
 ractical, and is to be met, not by intellectual 
 iscussion on the occasion when the difficulty 
 arises, for which, indeed, there would be no time, 
 but by the life habit of obedience, begetting an 
 insight into the nature of the highest good for 
 others, even our best beloved, as well as for 
 ourselves, which will be available in the sudden 
 emergency as an intuitive judgment. 
 Cases which do affect conscience and seem to 
 ease it, are those in which there is a ‘ conflict 
 etween different formule for expressing the ideal 
 of good in human conduct, or between different 
 institutions for furthering its realization, which 
 have alike obtained authority over men’s minds 
 without being intrinsically entitled to more than 
 a partial and relative obedience,’ or an ‘incompati- 
 bility of some such formula or institution, on the 
 one side, with some moral impulse of the individual 
 on the other, which is really an impulse towards 
 the attainment of human perfection, but cannot 
 adjust itself to recognized rules and established 
 institutions’ (Prolegomena, p. 342). In such cases 
 ‘the requirements of conscience seem to be in 
 conflict with each other. However disposed to do 
 what his conscience enjoins, the man finds it 
 difficult to decide what its injunction is’ (ibid. 
 p. 351). Such cases may, indeed, become peculiarly 
 complicated, and exceedingly painful. But they 
 do not really constitute a conflict of duties. Right 
 seems to be divided against itself, when in reality 
 it is only rising through contest of opposite one- 
 sided views to a fuller conception, or through the 
 break-up of a system to a higher realization than 
 could be contained within its limits. There is no 
 such thing really as a conflict of duties. ‘A man’s 
 duty under any particular set of circumstances is 
 always one, though the conditions of the case may 
 be so complicated and obscure as to make it difficult 
 to decide what the duty really is’ (ibid. p. 355). 
 Here, in like manner, the ability and claim of 
 conscience are not involved. It is true that there 
 is no extant formula which will serve by its mere 
 uotation to settle the case. Conscience is not so 
 ormal and unnatural a faculty as such a view 
 would imply. Yet it is not incompetent, because 
 it moves slowly and grows in knowledge and 
 power through the discipline of life and the 
 ractice of obedience. With characteristic caution 
 utler states the matter, ‘Let any plain, honest 
 man, before he engages in any course of action, 
 ask himself, Is this I am going about right, or is it 
 wrong? Is it good, or isit evil? Ido notin the 
 least doubt but that this question would be 
 answered agreeably to truth and virtue by almost 
 any fair man in almost any circumstances’ 
 (Sermon III). A recent essayist, to the question, 
 How am I to know what is right? makes answer, 
 ‘By the alodnats of the ppdviuos’ (Bradley’s Ethical 
 Studies, p. 177). ‘If any man willeth to do his 
 will, he shall know of the teaching,’ or system, or in- 
 stitution, or formula, ‘whether it be of God ’(Jn7!”). 
 iii. THE EDUCATION OF CONSCIENCE.—We thus 
 see that objections, which might be valid against a 
 doctrine which made conscience an infallible oracle, 
 are not valid against the view which regards con- 
 science as man’s consciousness of the will of God. 
 It is now to be regarded, not as an inexplicable 
 part of man, but as man himself in relation to the 
 revelation of right. It is the apprehension of God 
 as Righteousness, just as faith is the apprehension 
 of God as Grace ; and Luther, as Dorner points out, 
 
 speaks of faith as the Christian conscience. Con- 
 science, accordingly, is involved in man’s moral 
 history. It suffers in his sin and alienation from 
 God, becoming clouded in its insight, feeble in its 
 testimony, and may even come to be grievously 
 perverted in its judgments. It gains in his restora- 
 tion through grace, its knowledge is clarified, its 
 judgment strengthened. The deepest characteristic 
 of sin is a liberty, which is, in truth, the bondage of 
 man’swill or personality. The deepest characteristic 
 of grace is a service, which is perfect freedom. 
 Man, in yielding himself to God, accepts a law, 
 which is the law of hisown being. He is therefore 
 free, self-determining,and self-realizing; a person as 
 God is a person, realizing the fulness of personal 
 life in harmony with God. Conscience shares in 
 this subjection ‘ which is also emancipation.’ The 
 NT everywhere claims for conscience this inde- 
 endence of action, this immediacy and certainty of 
 its deliverances, undetermined by a formal code or 
 the voice of a spiritual director (Ro 1415-13-83, Co] 
 216, Ja 1°8). Toward this point, therefore, the growth 
 of conscience must be directed under the guidance 
 of special education. This education is twofold. 
 
 1. Social.—The highest good for man always 
 involves the relation of man to man. ‘Through 
 society,’ says Professor Green, ‘is personality 
 actualized.’ Hence it follows ‘that the human 
 spirit can only realize itself, or fulfil its idea, in 
 persons; and that it can only do so through 
 society, since society is the condition of the 
 development of a personality’ (Prolegomena, pp. 
 200, 201). Conscience, therefore, being personality 
 in its relation to right, is also socially conditioned. 
 There is no such thing as a merely individual 
 conscience. Even when seemingly most individual, 
 as when a reformer rises to protest against the 
 injustice of some institution, its testimony is still 
 on behalf of a good for man, which this institution, 
 founded, no doubt, to further it, now fails to express 
 and practically opposes. It is plain, therefore, 
 that ‘no individual can make a conscience for 
 himself. He always needs a society to make it for 
 him’ (Prolegomena, p. 351). Conscience is born 
 and cradled in the home, trained and exercised in 
 the Church, in civil society, and the State. The 
 enormous importance of this social education of 
 conscience is thus evident. The ethical functions 
 of parent, teacher, pastor, employer, statesman, 
 are seen to be the highest and most sacred. Under 
 their influence, the conscience of the individual 
 receives its revelation of duty, and its preparation 
 for the exercise of its legislative and judicial 
 vocation. 
 
 2. Individual.—Man cannot be merely passive 
 in education. All true education is self-education. 
 The education of conscience, in particular, must 
 be the work of the individual, consciously fitting 
 himself for the service in which freedom and life 
 for him lie. The means at his disposal are mainly 
 three. 
 
 (a) The institutions of society, the sacred rights of 
 life, honour, property, reputation, with all the de- 
 tailed obligations to which these give rise. Only 
 through the most careful obedience to these element- 
 ary conditions of moral life can conscience be kept 
 clear and strong. Negligence here, even in name 
 of high spirituality, has always produced a terrible 
 Nemesis, and those who have claimed emancipation 
 in name of religion have sunk beneath the load of 
 that mere morality they affected to despise. Hence 
 the NT ethic is remarkable for its abundance of 
 commonplace, and has the homeliest directions te 
 give to children, servants, citizens, to fulfil the 
 duties of their station, while it frequently recalls 
 those who are thrilling with consciousness of new 
 light and life to the rudiments of morality, truth, 
 honesty, purity, industry, ete. The attempt 
 
474 CONSCIENCE 
 
 to be religious at the expense of morality is very 
 ancient and is still very prevalent, and requires 
 continually the prophetic rebuke (Mic 65°), 
 
 (6) The literature in which the conscience of 
 humanity has given utterance toitselt. The whole 
 field of history, biography, and fiction is opened up 
 for the education of conscience. By diligent study, 
 conscience grows informed, and becomes more sure of 
 itself. Along with such general literature we may 
 class the Bible. It i hoa no @ priori doctrine of 
 inspiration to establish the supremacy of biblical 
 ethic. Here we have a revelation of right, which 
 has never been seriously questioned, and has com- 
 manded the unaffected approval even of unbelievers. 
 The Bible is the touchstone of conscience. Con- 
 science can only be maintained in truth and 
 vigour, according as it is continually refreshed by 
 earnest study of the unveiling of the ideal con- 
 tained in Scripture and principally in the character 
 of Jesus Christ. 
 
 (c) Communion with God. Here we are on the 
 borderland of ethic and religion. The education of 
 books becomes the education of living intercourse. 
 The conscience whose sole sources of information 
 have been natural laws, or the records of literature, 
 fails of the highest light, breaks down in critical 
 instances, and is, besides, gloomy stern and hopeless. 
 The conscience which rises through obedience to 
 moral law and study of ethic into fellowship with 
 Him who is Righteousness and Truth, becomes clear 
 and full in its testimony, a reliable guide in the 
 perplexities of life. Of course this result is not 
 reached by a leap. It implies a process carried on 
 through life. The growth of conscience will have 
 its periods of weakness, onesidedness, acrid fan- 
 aticism, morbid tenderness, all of which must be 
 most patiently borne with, not only by observers, 
 but by the individual himself. Conscience will 
 even pronounce judgments that are needless, foolish, 
 The utmost care must be 
 
 er actually erroneous. 
 taken not to wound conscience at such times. 
 Specially must it not be overborne by those who 
 rejoice in higher light and claim a larger liberty. 
 
 Their higher duty, indeed, may be to deny 
 themselves a liberty which is their right (1 Co 
 87-13 103-83, Ro 1512). The stage of weakness is, 
 however, in itself an effect of sin, and to continue 
 in it is added sin. Strength and truth of 
 conscience are the aim to be consciously striven 
 after (He 54). The testimony of conscience is 
 meant to be part of our assurance toward God 
 (2 Co 12, 1 P 3%). 
 
 iv. THE WITNESS OF CONSCIENCE.—The work of 
 conscience lies, no doubt, within the moral sphere. 
 But in considering the basis of ethics, we are led 
 to see that moral action implies a reference to an 
 infinite Personality as the ground and origin of 
 man’s personal being. Morality presupposes re- 
 ligion as the basis of its possibility, and prepares 
 for religion through its incompleteness. Con- 
 science, accordingly, as the supreme moral faculty, 
 points beyond the merely moral sphere, and be- 
 comes a witness to the truth of religion. The 
 witness of conscience is not to be regarded as 
 logical demonstration. In point of fact, spiritual 
 realities cannot be reached by logical processes. 
 The only valid argument for religious truth is that 
 which proceeds by consideration of the constitution 
 of man, and discerns in that constitution the 
 necessity of the existence of a Divine Being in 
 whose image man has been made. In that argu- 
 ment, the witness of conscience forms an important 
 element. To trace this witness fully belongs to 
 dogmatics. We conclude this article by a bare 
 outline of the direction which this witness takes. 
 
 1. God.—Conscience we have seen to be man’s 
 consciousness in action of right to be done. This 
 is with eaual truth to be described as the revelation 
 
 CONSCIENCE 
 
 of right within us, or the voice of God speakin 
 
 in the soul of man. In moral action we are deal- 
 ing with more than the judgments of our fellow- 
 men, with more even than our own judgment upon 
 ourselves. There is present in the court of con- 
 science an invisible Assessor, who is, indeed, the 
 ultimate source and standard of right by which 
 the judgment proceeds. Individual experience 
 presents this line of proof with an intensity which 
 is best expressed in silence. Biography and his- 
 tory present the demonstration often with tragic 
 articulateness. In conscience, the consciousness 
 of God cannot be got rid of. It haunts the sinner 
 in his revolt as shadow of doom. It accompanies 
 the seeker in his upward movement with ever- 
 growing confirmation. All other arguments for 
 the being of God find their force increased by 
 being combined with this. If the ontological 
 argument leads us to a reason or universal self- 
 consciousness, through man’s relation to which 
 knowledge is possible; if the argument e con- 
 tingentia mundi brings us to an eternal substance 
 in which all things inhere; if the teleological argu- 
 ment requires a purpose fulfilling itself in creation, 
 —the moral argument cnables us to define that 
 reason, substance, purpose, as a Person whose very 
 nature isrighteousness. (See suggestive treatment 
 in Illingworth, Personality, Lect. iv.) 
 
 2. Christ.—The constitution of man requires as its 
 root a Personal God, to whom conscience in man 
 ascribes moral perfection. But Personality is incon- 
 ceivable apart from Self-revelation and Self-com- 
 munication. An Incarnation of God, therefore, is 
 profoundly congruous with thedemand for God which 
 arises out of the constitution of man. Jesus Christ 
 is presented to the mind of man as such an Incar- 
 nation. It will scarcely be denied that He used 
 language regarding Himself which implies such a 
 claim. It is certain that the Church with growing 
 fulness has made it on His behalf. Conscience 
 makes in intensest form the demand for a Per- 
 sonal God. It is fair, therefore, to ask if con- 
 science is satisfied with the claim advanced for 
 Christ. Here there is no hesitation in the answer. 
 The conscience of humanity has recognized in 
 Christ, in His teaching and in His life, the final 
 revelation of Good. Christ is the conscience of 
 humanity. The words of J. S. Mill are often and 
 justly adduced as consenting ‘to this dictum. 
 ‘Even now it would not be easy, even. for an 
 unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule 
 of virtue from the abstract into the concrete than 
 to endeavour so to live that Christ would approve 
 our life.’ Here we have a moral argument, not 
 only for Theism, but for Christianity. Conscience, 
 as Dorner finely says, becomes our ‘ radaywyés 
 (Gal 374), and ie oF us through obedience into 
 knowledge (Jn 7!"). Faith in Christ, accordingly, 
 is no longer an act unrelated to our moral life, 
 but is itself a moral obligation. 
 
 3. Atonement. — Conscience, especially as en- 
 lightened by Christianity, witnesses to infinite 
 perfection. At the same time, it pronounces upon 
 all our actions sentence of failure. Between the 
 absolute good and the individual will there is ever a 
 want of complete harmony. Conscience abates none 
 of its condemnation, when action is largely harmon- 
 ized with social institutions or codes of moral law. 
 The more entirely it wins the mastery, the more 
 stern is its refusal to be satisfied. Its demand is 
 for absolute harmony with infinite good. 
 breach it treats as infinite; and lays upon the 
 heart the burden, not of shortcoming merely, but 
 of guilt. The question of salvation, therefore, is 
 a moral question. It is stated in Hebrews in this 
 form, How can the conscience be cleansed from 
 dead works to serve the living God? (He 9%). 
 How can the incubus of guilt be removed, so that 
 
 
 
. 
 { 
 . 
 
 
 
 | CONSCIENCE 
 
 CONSORT 475 
 
 
 
 the will of man may act in unhindered harmony 
 with the will of God? Two solutions conscience 
 declines. 
 
 First, that of gratuitous forgiveness. God is 
 sometimes represented as saying, in virtue of 
 His bare almighty will, ‘I forgive.’ But mere 
 sovereignty is mere unreason. And if to this be 
 added, ‘at the prompting of His tender heart,’ the 
 reply is still, mere feeling is mere unreason. In 
 either case, the supreme arbiter of life is repre- 
 sented as mere caprice; and in order to save man 
 from consequences of immoral act, we have con- 
 founded the whole moral sphere. To conscience, 
 sin is a moral fact, and not until sin is dealt with 
 can the relations of God and man be adjusted on a 
 permanent, t.e. on a moral, basis. 
 
 Second, that of ritual observance. Action that 
 is good, t.e. in absolute moral quality, can spring 
 only from harmony with absolute good. ence 
 no action of a merely external kind can produce 
 the requisite harmony. The _ historic demon- 
 stration of this incapacity is the Jewish ceremonial 
 law. It did, indeed, cleanse, but the cleansing 
 reached only to the flesh (He 91), and had to be 
 constantly repeated (He 10). The practical 
 
 oint is that the most elahorate scheme ever 
 
 evised—devised, be it observed, by divine wisdom 
 —failed consciously and intentionally to reach the 
 ones of action, etn tae the will, and purge 
 the conscience. Is it likely that any other scheme 
 will succeed, that any morality which human 
 wisdom can devise or individual care execute, will 
 accomplish what the law failed to do? Conscience 
 steadily pronounces against every such attempt, 
 in name, not of arbitrary creed, but of essential 
 righteousness. 
 
 A third solution presents itself. Jesus Christ 
 play reveals God to man, because He is 
 
 imself true and perfect man. Accordingly, He 
 not only unveils to men the Absolute Good, but 
 as man He Himself fulfils this Good. If, then, He 
 who is thus in inmost being one with the Good, 
 that is, God, and perfectly satisfactory to Him, 
 shall in virtue of His humanity take man’s place, 
 and bear as a substitute man’s burden, offering 
 Himself a sacrifice for sin, will not this meet the 
 requirements of conscience? It is now possible, 
 through faith in the Sin-bearer, to enter into that 
 moral union with God which is the condition of 
 
 ood action. Sin no more interposes its barrier. 
 
 t has been recognized and dealt with by One 
 competent to do so. The blood of Christ, who 
 through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without 
 blemish unto God, avails to cleanse the conscience 
 from dead works, and qualifies us to serve the livin 
 God (He 94), In the death of Christ the deman 
 of conscience is satisfied through atonement being 
 made for sin. In union to Christ through faith, 
 the ideal to which conscience witnesses is no longer 
 an impossibility for ever condemning us, but an 
 actual realization upon the basis of which we are 
 justified, and through the power of which we are 
 enabled to fulfil the will of God (Ro 35 5910 615% 
 8°). The witness of conscience, which brings us 
 to God and Christ, directs us also to that which 
 is central in Christianity, atonement made by 
 sacrifice. 
 
 LITERATURE. al treatment of the doctrine of conscience 
 is to be found in the ethical works of Dorner, Rothe, Harless, 
 Wuttke, Hofmann, Martensen, Martineau, T. H. Green, Newman 
 Smyth. The last has the advantage of exhibiting the place of 
 
 ‘conscience in relation to the whole system of Christian ethics. 
 
 The Biblical Psychologies of Beck and Delitzsch also contain 
 discussions of conscience. Monographs upon conscience have 
 been written by RB. H. Hofmann (Die Lehre von dem Gewrssen, 
 Leipzig, 1866), W. Gass (Die Lehre vom Gewissen, Berlin, ak 
 A. Ritsch] (Ueber das Gewissen; Ein Vortrag, Bonn, 1876 
 
 M. Kahler (Das Gewissen, Halle, 1878), F. D. Maurice (The 
 Conscience; Lectures on Casuistry), W. T. Davison (The 
 Christian Conscience ; Fernley Lecture for 1888). An edition of 
 Butler’s Three Sermons has been published by T. & T. Clark 
 
 with Introduction and Notes by T. B. Kilpatrick; and see 
 Gladstone’s ed. of Butler's Works, 1896. 
 
 T. B. KILPATRICK. 
 
 CONSECRATE, CONSECRATION.—In OT several 
 Ileb. words are so tr4: 1. ndzar Nu 6” or nézer Nu 
 67-", better ‘separate,’ ‘separation’; see NAZIRITE. 
 2. kiddash as in Ex 28% 30°, 2 Ch 31%, Ezr 3°, or 
 kédesh Jos 6”, 2 Ch 29%, better ‘sanctify,’ ‘ sancti- 
 fication’ (wh. see). 3. hehérim Mic 4%, better 
 ‘devote’ (see CURSE). 4 mill@ ydd; this is the 
 commonest and only characteristic expression for 
 ‘consecrate’ (with milli#’im for ‘ consecration’): 
 lit. ‘fill the hand,’ The origin of the phrase is 
 
 uite obscure.* The Heb. milld’im being plu., 
 Ay has ‘ consecrations’ (Ex 294, Ly 787 82% 81) with- 
 out difference of meaning; RV sing. always. In 
 Ex 29%4 ‘the flesh of the consecrations,’ the c. is 
 transferred to the offering by which the ¢c. took 
 
 lace; so Lv 8% ‘they [the cake of unleavened 
 read, etc.] were consecrations for a sweet savour.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONSENT.—To ec. is now no more than to ac- 
 quiesce ; in earlier Eng. it often included approval. 
 Hence (1) to approve of a thing, Ac 8! ‘Saul waa 
 cs unto his death’ (cvvevdoxéw, so 229; in Lk 11% 
 tr4 ‘allow ’—‘ ye allow the deeds of your fathers,’ 
 RV ‘consent unto’); Ro 7° ‘I c. unto the law 
 that it is good’ (cvu¢nm). Cf. Shaks. 1 Henry VI. 
 I. v. 34— 
 
 ‘You all consented unto Salisbury’s death, 
 
 For none would strike a stroke in his revenge. 
 Or (2) to be in sympathy with a person, Ps 50% 
 ‘When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst 
 with him’ (7¥q); Ro 1, AVm, RV ‘not only do the 
 same, but also c. with them that practise them’ 
 (cvvevdoxéw, AV ‘have pleasure in them’). Cf. 
 Ford (1633)— 
 
 ‘’T had been pity 
 To sunder hearts so equally consented.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONSIDER.—To e«. is either to look carefully at 
 or think carefully about. The former sense is now 
 obsol. or archaic: Pr 31° ‘She c™" a field and 
 buyeth it’; Lv 13'8 ‘the priest shall c.’ (i.¢. examine 
 the leper, 79, RV ‘look’); Sir 38” ‘The smith 
 also sitting by the anvil, and c'¢ the iron work’; 
 He 137 ‘c™8 the end of their conversation’ (dvadew- 
 potvres); Gal 6! ‘ec. thyself, lest thou also be 
 tempted’ (cxoréw, RV ‘looking to’). So Cover- 
 dale’s tr. of Neh 2° ‘ Then wente I on in the nighte 
 .. . and considered the wall’ (AV ‘ viewed’). 
 ‘Consider of’ is now rare: Jg 19% ‘ec. of it, take 
 advice, and speak’; Ps 649; Pref. to AV ‘Tthey] 
 set them forth openly to be c% of and perused by 
 all.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONSIST.—Col 17 ‘ by him all things c.’ (suvéo- 
 Tyke, RVm ‘hold together’)=mod. ‘subsist.’ This 
 is the oldest meaning of the word and the tr. of the 
 Rhemish NT; Tindale gives ‘have their being,’ 
 and is followed by Cranmer and the Geneva; 
 Wyclif simply ‘ben ’=are. J. HASTINus. 
 
 CONSOLATION.—See CoMFoRT. 
 
 CONSORT.—To c. with is to associate with, cast 
 in one’s lot with (con together, sors, sortem lot); 
 Ac 174 ‘some of them believed, and c® with Paul 
 and Silas’ (a good idiomatic tr. of the Gr. mpooxdn- 
 
 bw, fr. mpds to, xAnpos lot, though the form is pass., 
 fit. ‘were allotted to’). Up to the end of the 18th 
 cent. a concert of music was, by a mistaken associa- 
 
 * It is used of the consecration of the priest only (except Ezk 
 4326 the altar), and the most probable explanation is that the 
 things to be offered vere into the priest’s hands, a symbolio 
 act by which he was installed or consecrated. Some (esp. Vatke, 
 Alttest. Theol. p. 278t., and Wellhausen, Prol.8 p. 130) think 
 that the priest’s hand was filled with money as ‘earnest’ (Scotch 
 arles). See PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 
 
 
 

 
 476 CONSTANT 
 
 CONTENTMENT 
 
 
 
 tion with this word, spelt ‘consort,’ though it 
 comes through Fr. concert, It. concerto from Lat. 
 concertare to contend (or, as Skeat decidedly prefers, 
 conserere to unite). Cf. Rom. and Jul. 111. i. 48— 
 
 ‘ Tybalt.—Mercutio, thou consort’st with Romeo,— 
 Mer.—Oonsort! what! dost thou make us minstrels?’ 
 
 In Sir 325 AV 1611 we have ‘A consort of musick 
 in a banquet of wine’ (c’yxpiya povorxGv), but mod. 
 edd. spell ‘concert.’ See Music. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONSTANT.—1 Ch 287 ‘if he be c. todo m 
 mandments’ (pin;ox=if he be firm). Cf. 
 Jul. Ces. 1. i. 72— 
 
 ‘For I was constant Cimber should be banish’d, 
 
 And constant do remain to keep him so.’ 
 Constantly : Pr 21% ‘the man that heareth speak- 
 eth c., i.e. ‘confidently,’ not ‘frequently’ (ny3, RV 
 ‘unchallenged,’ RVm ‘so as to endure’); Ac 12 
 ‘she c. affirmed that it was even so’ (dticxuplfero, 
 RV ‘confidently affirmed’); Tit 38 ‘these things I 
 will that thou affirm ¢.’ (SiaPeBaotcda, RV ‘ affirm 
 confidently’). Cf. the Collect for St. John Baptist’s 
 Day, ‘After his example c. speak the truth,’ i.e. 
 firmly, consistently. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 com- 
 haks. 
 
 CONSULT.—1. To take counsel, deliberate, used 
 of a single person, as Neh 5’ ‘Then I e@ with my- 
 self’; Lk 148! ‘Or what king, going to make 
 war against another king, sitteth not down 
 first, and c®* whether he be able’ (RV ‘ will not 
 ... takecounsel’). 2. To devise, contrive, with a 
 simple object, as Mic 6° ‘ remember now what Balak 
 king of Moab c@’; Hab 2 ‘Thou hast c shame 
 to thy house’; or with an infin., as Ps 624 ‘ They 
 only c. to cast him down from his excellency.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONSUMPTION.—In Ly 26", Dt 28” the ref. is 
 to the disease (see MEDICINE). But in Is 10” (j\"53) 
 and 10% 28” (272, RV ‘consummation,’ as Dn 9” 
 AV) the meaning is ‘thorough ending.’ So Foxe 
 (Act. and Mon. iii. 56) says, ‘ Christ shall sit... 
 at the right hand of God, till the consumption of 
 the world.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONTAIN.—.1 Co 79 ‘if they cannot c., let them 
 marry ’ (RV ‘if they have not continency,’ éyxpa- 
 revouat, fr. év, kpdros power=‘ have self-control’ ; 
 it is tr’ ‘be temperate’ 9%). Cf. Young, Paraphr. 
 Job (1719), ‘Then Job contained no more; but 
 curs’d his fate’; and for the meaning here, Swift, 
 Letters (1710), ‘No wonder she married when she 
 was so ill at containing.’ Wyclif’s tr. (after the 
 Vulg. si non se continent) is, ‘For if thei con- 
 teynen not hem silf, or ben not chast, weddid be thei.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONTEND.—Generally ‘c. with’ in the mod. 
 sense of ‘ fight with,’ as Is 49% ‘I will c. with him 
 that c** with thee’; or ‘argue with,’ as Ac 11? 
 ‘they that were of the circumcision ec with him, 
 saying.’ But in the latter sense c. is also found 
 without ‘with,’ as Is 5716 ‘TI will not c. for ever’ 
 (prob.=argue with, accuse, condemn); Job 138 
 ‘will ye c. for God?’ (=argue with others for God, 
 be an advocate for God), Am 74 ‘the Lord God 
 called to c. by fire’ (=argue, and so Mic 6! ‘ec. thou 
 before the mountains, and let the hills hear th 
 voice’). In all these passages the Heb. is 29 ribh. 
 In Jude® ‘ye should earnestly c. for the faith’ 
 (éraywvlfouat), the meaning passes out of strife or 
 argument into the wider sphere of earnest endeav- 
 our ; as with the simple dywvltoua:in Lk 13% ‘ Strive 
 to enter in at the strait gate,’ and Col 4! ‘ labour- 
 ing fervently for you in prayers’ (RV ‘always 
 striving for you’), and as Bacon, Essays, ‘Let a man 
 contend, to excell any Competitors of his in Honour.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONTENT.—When Gehazi in his greed begged 
 
 of Naaman a talent of silver, Naaman said (2 K 5%), 
 
 ‘Be content, take two talents.’ Evidently he did 
 not mean ‘ be satisfied,’ but ‘ be pleased, let it be 
 your pleasure.” So also Ex 27, Jos 77, Jg 1711 199, 
 2 K 6°, Job 6% (RV ‘be pleased’) where the Heb. 
 is [>x:] y@’al in hiph. =‘ acquiesce,’ and where the 
 Eng. is obsol. except in the phrase ‘ well c.,’ as 
 Stevenson, Underwoods, 1. xxv. 55 (1887), ‘So sits 
 the while at home the mother well content.’ Cf. 
 the voting formula ‘Content’ or ‘non-Content’ 
 used in the House of Lords. In this sense the vb. 
 content is also used, Wis 16” ‘bread... able te 
 c. every man’s delight’ (RV ‘ having the virtue of 
 every pleasant savour’), with which ef. Bacon, 
 Essays, ‘He that questioneth much, shall learne 
 much, and content much.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONTENTMENT.—This is a peculiarly Christian 
 grace, and the form it assumes in the Bible, and 
 esp. in the NT, differentiates it from the allied 
 pagan virtues. It is quite distinct from Oriental 
 apathy, which is pessimistic, while Christian con- 
 tentment is nearer optimism; and it is almost 
 equally distinct from the calm of Stoicism, because 
 it does not regard external things with absolute 
 indifference, despise pain and pleasure, and rest in ita 
 self-sufficiency. It is more cheerful than Buddhism, 
 more human than Stoicism. While it implies a just 
 appreciation of the good and ill of life, it does not 
 base itself on the balance of fortune, but finds its 
 source and its sustenance in the unseen world. 
 The most elementary form of contentment is 
 extolled in the Book of Proverbs as a certain 
 discreet expediency. Here the secret of domestic 
 content is given in the apothegm, ‘ Better is a 
 dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and 
 hatred therewith’ (Pr 15'”), and the superiority 
 of moral to material grounds of content in the 
 saying, ‘ Better is the poor that walketh in his 
 integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and 
 is a fool’ (Pr 19!). In the Psalms we meet with 
 more indications of the contentment which is 
 derived directly from faith in God. This is seen 
 in two forms. (1) Trust in Providence, which 
 leads to the conviction that the righteous man’s 
 life is rightly ordered so that no evil can befall him 
 (e.g. Ps 23). (2) An appreciation of the supreme 
 blessedness of union with God, which is independ- 
 ent of external fortune, God Himself being the 
 portion of the soul (e.g. Ps 73%). The Been 
 concern themselves largely with public affairs, and 
 in so doing never yee pes injustice and 
 oppression by preaching an ignoble acquiescence in 
 wrong. In them we see the divine discontent 
 which cannot endure the triumph of the rich and 
 strong over their unhappy victims. Still the 
 essence of the higher contentment is also present 
 in the faith which is assured of God’s care for His 
 people and His coming redemption of them, and 
 the promise of the Messianic age, the hope of which 
 should check impatience and prevent despair. 
 
 Our Lord’s teachings carry the higher forms of 
 contentment up to their supreme excellency. He 
 did not come into contact with those ideas of the 
 prophets which concern the more public treatment 
 of social wrongs, because His method was to work 
 from within, and perhaps because the contemporary 
 condition of the ouian world did not admit of a 
 sudden social revolution. Accordingly He did not 
 contradict the preaching of John the Baptist, 
 who discouraged restless agitation (Lk 3"); and 
 He said nothing directly against the institution 
 of slavery. On the other hand, He inculcated 
 principles of justice, charity, and brotherhood, the 
 effect of which must be ts sweep away the wronga 
 which provoke the mest reasonable discontent. 
 In training His dissiples personally He rebuked 
 greed of gain and anxiety about temporal affairs, 
 encouraging contentment, (1) by giving the assur- 
 
 
 
—s.- = 
 
 CONTRARY 
 
 a, 
 ance that our Father knows of our needs, and will 
 provide for tnem, since He provides even for those 
 of birds and flowers ; (2) by directing attention to 
 the true riches, the heavenly treasures, which can 
 alone satisfy the soul of man; and (3) by urging 
 the duty of seeking first the kingdom of God and 
 His righteousness, discontent being a phase of self- 
 seeking, and therefore a sin (Lk 12!%*), St. 
 Paul inculcates the patient endurance of present 
 sufferings on the grounds of hope, these sufferings 
 not being worthy to be compared with the future 
 glory (Ro 8), and even working for that glory 
 (2 Co 417); and of faith, all things working 
 together for good to them that love God (Ro 8”), 
 Towards the end of his life, when a prisoner at 
 Rome, he claims to have learned the secret of 
 contentment, and he implies that this is found in 
 a certain independence of external things—he has 
 learned to be ‘independent’ (adrdpxys), and he has 
 reached this attainment, as also all others to which 
 he has come, because Christ has strengthened him 
 (Ph 4-18), The author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews encourages contentment by reference to 
 God’s fatherly chastisement of His children (12°), 
 St. James rebukes covetousness and contentious- 
 ness, and encourages a humble, restful spirit with 
 especial reference to the efficacy of prayer (Ja 41! 
 57-18), St. Peter inculeates patience by dwelling 
 on the example of Christ (1 P oie), and St. John 
 endurance of the world’s hatred by considering the 
 love of God (1 Jn 3}. }), . F. ADENEY. 
 
 CONTRARY.—41. In the sense of ‘antagonistic,’ 
 c. is now obsol. or dialectic, except in ref. to wind 
 er weather, where the phrase in NT, ‘the wind 
 was c.,’ has kept the meaning alive. This is the 
 meaning of c. in Lv 26, where it is used as tr. of 7) 
 kéri in all its occurrences (267!- 3: 24. 27. 28. 40. 41), < if 
 ze walk c. unto me,’ lit. ‘in an encounter,’ in 
 
 ostile meeting and revolt, inimically, as Kalisch 
 explains. In NT this is the only meaning, whether 
 the Gr. be évavrios, ‘c.’ of wind (Mt 14%, Mk 6%, 
 Ac 274); of Saul’s opposition, Ac 26° ‘I verily 
 thought with myself that I ought to do many 
 things c. to the name of Jesus of Nazareth’ ; of 
 the opponents of Christianity, 1 Th 2" (the Jews), 
 Tit 2° ‘he that is of the c. part’ ; or brevarrios, Col 
 24 ‘the handwriting . . . which was c. to us (6 qv 
 breveytlov juiv describes its active hostility—Light- 
 foot) ; or dmévayrt, Ac 177 ‘these all do c. to the 
 decrees of Cesar,’ a charge of treason; or dvzl- 
 keyuat, Gal 517 ‘ the Spirit and the flesh .. . are c. 
 the one to the other’; 1 Ti 1; or even apd, Ac 
 1813, Ro 11% 16!7, 2. In 2 Es 11%" ¢. is used in the 
 sense of opposite in position or direction, ‘out of 
 her feathers there grew other c. feathers.’ Con- 
 trariwise (a hybrid, fr. Lat. contrarius and Eng. 
 wise, way)=‘on the c.,’ occurs 2 Co 2’, Gal 27,1 P 3°. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 CONTRIBUTION.—See CoMMUNION. 
 
 CONTRITE (Lat. contritus, bruised, crushed) 
 appears early in Eng. in a fig.* sense, ‘ bruised in 
 heart,’ prob. through the influence of the Vulg. 
 and the Eng. versions, and nearly always with the 
 meaning of penitent. Thus Wyclif (1380), Select 
 Works, ii. 400, ‘ To assoile men that ben contrite’ ; 
 Milton, Par. Lost, x. 1091— 
 
 . ‘Pardon beg, with tears 
 Watering the ground, and with our sighs the air 
 Frequenting, sent from hearts contrite.’ 
 This is the meaning of c. in AV and RV. But 
 opular as the tr. has been, it is inaccurate, for the 
 ek (x27 Ps 3418 5117, Is 5715548, 133 Is 667) so tr’ never 
 describes penitence, but always humility, abase- 
 * Contritus is never fig. until under the influence of the Vulg., 
 
 while the Heb. word tré ‘ contrite’ four times out of five in AV is 
 never literal. 
 
 CONVERSATION 477 
 
 ment. Certainly, God will ‘not despise a broken 
 and a penitent heart’; but more than that, He will 
 not despise a broken and a crushed heart: ‘ Blessed 
 are the poor in spirit.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 _ CONVENIENT, now greatly restricted in mean- 
 ing, is freely used in (oan the sense of befitting, 
 becoming, seemly, as Eph 54 ‘ Neither filthiness, nor 
 foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not c.’ (RV 
 ‘belitting’): so Pr 308 (RV ‘that is needful’), Jer 
 40* 5, Wis 13 ‘a c. room,’ not ‘commodious,’ but 
 ‘befitting’ (dfios, RV ‘worthy’), Sir 108 (RV 
 ‘right’), 2 Mac 4° (RV ‘fit’), Ro 13 (RV ‘be- 
 fitting’), Philem ® (RV ‘ befitting’). In Merchant 
 of Venice, II. iv. 52, Portia says, ‘ Bring them, I 
 pray thee, with imagined speed,’ i.e. quick as 
 thought ; to which Balthasar replies, ‘Madam, I 
 go with all convenient speed,’ t.e. speed befitting 
 the urgency. In the sense of ‘morally becoming’ 
 (as Ro 1%, Eph 54, Philem®) the word was once 
 quite common, as Trans. of Agrippa’s Van Artes 
 (1684), ‘She sang and dane’d more exquisitely than 
 was convenient for an honest woman. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONVENT.—Jer 49 AVm, ‘who will c. me in 
 judgment?’ and 50% AVm, ‘who will c. me tc 
 plead ?’—an obsolete vb. =summon (convenire). Cf. 
 
 lsing, Debates House of Lords (1621), ‘The Com- 
 mons have convented Flood, examyned him, and 
 sentenced him.’ . HASTINGS. 
 
 CONYERSATION.— The word never occurs in 
 AV in its modern sense of colloquy, but always 
 in its earlier sense of conduct, behaviour. But as 
 intercourse by speech is a large part of conduct, the 
 word was specialized to its present limited sense at 
 an early date (not much later than the date of AV). 
 See Ozf. Eng. Dict.* ‘Conversation’ in AV is prob- 
 ably due to Vulg. conversatio, conversor. hese 
 usually stand in Vulg. for NT dvacrpopy, dvacrpé- 
 gecbar, though in two cases, Ph 1” and 3”, they 
 represent modirevouat and oAlrevya. On these 
 latter passages see CITIZENSHIP. In one instance 
 where Vulg. renders rodrela by conversatio (Eph 21%), 
 AV departs from the guidance of Vulg. and correctly 
 renders ‘commonwealth.’ In a few other places 
 AV does not render by ‘have our ec.’ but by 
 ‘behave,’ ‘live,’ ‘ pass the time of.’ 
 
 The true equivalent of dvacrpopy in mod. Eng. is 
 ‘conduct’; and itis an unfortunate result of the 
 AV archaism ‘conversation’ that the real_pro- 
 minence of conduct in NT teaching is obscured (see 
 ETHICcs). Indeed, the substantive ‘conduct’ no- 
 where occurs in AV, though RV wisely introduces 
 it in 2 Ti 3” to represent aywy7. 
 
 There are but two passages in OT where c. 
 occurs (Ps 374 and 50%). In both it represents 
 377 ‘way.’ Conduct in OT is thought of under the 
 metaphor of walking, and the words describing itare 
 literally tr‘, hence abstract nouns to express moral 
 conduct do not occur. Hatch (Essays wn Bibl. Gr. 
 p. 9) sees the conditions of Syr. and Gr. life respect- 
 ively mirrored in the metaphors which the two 
 nations severally employed for conduct, viz. mep.- 
 mareiv and dvactpépecbot. ‘ Whereas in Athens and 
 Rome the bustling activity of the streets gave rise 
 to the conception of life as a quick movement to 
 and fro; the constant intercourse on foot between 
 village and village in Syria, and the difficulties of 
 travel on the stony tracks over the hills, gave rise 
 to the metaphors which regard life as a journey.’ 
 But the OT metaphor naturally runs on into the 
 NT, and in Epp. of St. Paul repiwaret is far more 
 frequent than dvacrpépecOa. Christianity is ‘the 
 Way.’ Cf. Hort, ‘Way, Truth, and Life,’ Lect. I. 
 
 * A good example of conversation in the old as 
 
 from the mod. sense, is in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Prog. ‘ Your 
 Conversation gives this your Mouth-profession, the lye.’ 
 
 
 
478 CONVERSION 
 
 
 
 The NT words for converse in its modern sense are 
 outer (Lk 2414. 15 ‘they talked together’), cvvopudety 
 (Ac 10”). EK. R. BERNARD. 
 
 CONYERSION.—The noun (ériarpog%) occurs only 
 once in Scripture, Ac 15° (cf. Sir 497), where it 
 need not denote the definite spiritual change 
 belonging to the word in the verb-form. The verb- 
 form (éricrpégev) is frequently found both in OT 
 and NT, answering in the former to such Heb. 
 terms as 357, 735, aud esp.’ aw. The point to be 
 noted is that it almost invariably denotes an act of 
 man: ‘Turn ye, turn ye (13\v) from your evil ways’ 
 (Ezk 33") ; ‘Except ye turn’ (Mt 18°) ; ‘ When thou 
 hast turned again’ (Lk 22%), ete. It is worth 
 noting also that ‘convert’ is merely a synonym 
 for ‘turn,’ and answers to the same originals. In 
 Ps 197 ‘converting’ is a mistranst. of navn (RV 
 correctly ‘restoring,’ i.e. ‘refreshing,’ ef. Ps 23° 
 and La 1"), In Is 1” ‘her converts’ (AVm, RVm 
 ‘they that return of her’) is too technical a tr™ of 
 may. Whatever the causes lying behind the act of 
 turning, the act itselfis man’s. The idea is esp. pro- 
 minent in OT ; and, while in NT it is often brought 
 into connexion with repentance, in OT the term 
 repent seldom occurs in reference to man. Many 
 times it is used to denote an apparent change of 
 purpose on the part of God (Gn 6° etce.), but very 
 seldom in the same sense of man (1 K 8, Job 42°), 
 It never there becomes a standing term, as in NT. 
 Twice at least in NT, ‘turn’ is associated with 
 ‘repent’ (Ac 3! 26). We find the term also 
 similarly associated with faith: ‘A great number 
 that believe! turned to the Lord’ (Ac 11”). As 
 the very idea of the word implies both a turning 
 from and a turning to something, it seems equall 
 natural to make the former aspect coincide with 
 repentance, which is a turning from evil, and the 
 latter coincide with faith, which is a turning to 
 God. In other words, conversion on its negative 
 side is repentance, and on its positive side is faith. 
 In some cases one element will be emphasized, in 
 some the other; and in some both will be included. 
 This interpretation will, we believe, explain all the 
 passayes of Scripture. ‘Repentance toward God, 
 and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Ac 20”), 
 though the term conversion does not occur, expresses 
 the contents of the idea. 
 
 Nor is the divine ground of these acts of man 
 overlooked: ‘Unto you first, God, having raised 
 up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning 
 away every one of you from your iniquities’ (Ac 
 3%; cf. Jn 6"). The ancient prophet held the same 
 faith: ‘Turn thou me, and I shall be turned’* (Jer 
 31%), Sinful man turns, but the power by which 
 he does so is God’s, given him for Christ’s sake ; 
 just as the stretching out of the withered hand was 
 man’s act, but the power by which it was done was 
 divine. The prophets are addressing, not the 
 good, but the wicked ; the wicked are to turn and 
 live. In like manner the apostolic exhortations are 
 addressed to those who have not yet come to God, 
 
 There is thus little difficulty in fixing both the 
 nature of conversion and its place in the order of sal- 
 vation in biblical teaching. It is man’s first act 
 under the leading of divine grace in the process of 
 salvation, the initial step in the transition from 
 evil to good. A cuiversal resence and operation 
 of grace is a necessary corollary of universal atone- 
 ment; the universal work of the Spirit goes along 
 with the universal work of the Redeemer, always, 
 of course, assuming the necessity of conditions on 
 man’s part. The fulfilment of the conditions, 
 divine grace supplying the power, is biblical con- 
 
 * The Heb. is simply ‘I will turn.’ Of. La 521, where the same 
 passive form is adopted in both AV and RV. This unfortunate 
 mistransl implies a technical dogmatic sense, which is not in the 
 Original. Of. RV of Ps 6113, Mt 1315, Lk 2232, 
 
 CORAL 
 
 _ 
 
 version. Subsequently conversion has been identi. 
 fied with regeneration ; and there is less objection 
 to such use, if the term is so defined and accepted. 
 Scripture recognizes not only divine grace as the 
 efficient cause of conversion, but also human agency 
 in bringing it about. This is the preaching of the 
 truth by prophets and apostles: in other words, the 
 proclamation of God’s truth by men who are 
 themselves witnesses to its power. This is not 
 only implied in the passages already referred to, but 
 is expressly mentioned in other places, e.g. Ac 10# 
 141, The importance of the channel which conveys 
 the water, or of the wire which conveys the force, 
 although secondary, is still great. While recogniz- 
 ing that, as a rule, divine grace works through 
 human means and instruments, we need not doubt 
 that it also can and does often work independently. 
 J. 8. BANKS, 
 CONVERT.—In AV c. is used once intransitively, 
 Is 6° ‘lest they see with their eyes . . . and con- 
 vert and be healed’ (RV ‘turn again’). Cf. 
 Wyclii’s tr. of Jn 1% (1382) ‘Sothli Ihesu convertid 
 and seynge hem suwynge him, seith to hem, What 
 seken ye?’ The most frequent meaning of c. in 
 early Eng. (and in AV) is simply to turn (e.g. Is 
 60°) ; but the mod. use was known, asShaks. Merch. 
 of Ven, II. v. 37: ‘in converting Jews to Christians 
 you raise the price of pork.’ In Ps 23? for AV ‘he 
 restoreth my soul,’ Douay reads ‘he hath conuerted 
 my soule,’ with the remark, ‘which is the first 
 justification.’ See CONVERSION. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CONVINCE.—Certainly in most, probably in all 
 the examples of c. in AV, the meaning is to 
 convict. Job 32)? ‘There was none of you that 
 convinced Job’ (n*zin, ef. Ps 507, Pr 30° where EV 
 have ‘reprove,’ but ‘convict’ would be better) ; 
 Job’s friends did not try to convince him merely, 
 but to convict him, find him in the wrong, and that 
 is probably the meaning both of the Heb. and of 
 the English. In NT the Gr. is either the simple 
 \eyxw Jn 8 Which of you c** me of sin?’; 1 Co 
 14% ‘he is c® of all, he is judged of all’; Tit 1° 
 ‘to c. the gainsayers’ (not merely refute in argu- 
 ment, but convict in conscience) ; Ja 2° ‘ are c® of 
 the law’; Jude! (edd.; TR é&edéyxw) ‘toc. all that 
 are ungodly among them of their baits deeds’; or 
 diaxarehéyxXouat, & compound occurring here only in 
 all Gr. literature, Ac 18 ‘he mightily c*! the Jews’ 
 (RV ‘powerfully confuted’ ; but from the analogy 
 of other passages it is prob. that St. Luke means 
 that the apostle brought home moral blame to 
 them, not merely that he refuted their arguments). 
 Cf. Milton, Par. Reg. iii. 3, ‘Satan stood... 
 confuted, and convine’t’; and Adams, Sem. ii. 38, 
 ‘Whatsoever is written is written either for our 
 instruction or destruction; to convert us if we 
 embrace it, to convince us if we despise it.’ 
 
 . HASTINGS. 
 
 CONYOCATION.—See CONGREGATION. COOK- 
 ING.—See Foop. COPPER.—See Brass. 
 
 COPTIC YERSION.—See EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 
 COR.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, 
 
 CORAL (nimx ) is twice (or thrice, if we include Pr 
 247 where ‘too high’ is tr. of same word) mentioned 
 in OT, Job 288 and Ezk 2718; and as coral is 
 abundant in the waters of the Mediterranean, the 
 reference in the latter to Syria as a ‘merchant in 
 coral’ is peculiarly appropriate (cf. Dillm. Job 2818). 
 
 red coral (Corallium rubrum) is probably meant, 
 as being specially suited for ornament; but from 
 the rareness of ornaments of this material, found 
 amongst those of Egypt and Phoenicia, we may 
 conclude that it was not in much request, at least 
 in OT times; on the other hand, the material 
 may have crumbled away, or been dissolved. 
 
 
 

 
 ‘ae 
 
 — 
 7 
 
 a 21 ok. 
 
 ne. ae ae 
 
 aes 
 
 
 
 COR-ASHAN 
 
 
 
 The polyps, or animals producing coral, belong 
 to those members of the Actinozoa which secrete 
 a hard, generally calcareous, skeleton. They 
 flourish in the warm waters of the Mediterranean 
 and Indian Ocean, where these are clear and free 
 fzom sediment, at various depths down to about 
 80 fathoms or more, The most important fisheries 
 are off the coast of Tunis, Algeria, Naples, Genoa, 
 Sardinia, and Corsica. E. HULL. 
 
 COR-ASHAN (AV Chor-ashan, 1 § 30%) is the 
 present reading (1¥7 >) of MT’, but the orig. 
 text was undoubtedly Bor-ashan ('y71)2), as is 
 evident from the LXX (A Bwpacdy, B BnpodBee). 
 Cf. notes of Budde, Driver, and Wellh. ad loc. The 
 place may be the same as Ashan of Jos 15 197. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 CORBAN (Heb. 1292 Zorban) means (1) an 
 oblation ;* (2) a gift. The word occurs Mk 7} ‘If 
 a man shall say to his father or his mother, That 
 wherewith thou mightest have been profited by 
 me is Corban, that is to say, Given (to God), ye 
 no longer suffer him to do aught for his father 
 or his mother’ (cf. Mt 15° RV). The Talmudic 
 treatise Nedarim (=vows) discloses that the Jews 
 were much addicted to rash vows; and 127, or its 
 equivalent 2? (=£0nas, which according to Levy is 
 a corruption of 9)P, 4onam), was in constant use ; so 
 that it gradually became a mere formula of inter- 
 diction, without any intention of making the thing 
 interdicted ‘a gift to God.’ A man seeing his 
 house on fire says, ‘ My tallith shall be korban, if 
 it is not burnt,’ Ned. iii. 6. In making a vow of 
 abstinence he says, ‘ Konas be the food (vi. 1) or 
 the wine (viii. 1) which I taste.” When a man 
 resolves not to plough a field, he says, ‘ Konas be 
 the field, if I plough it,’ iv. 7. Repudiation of a 
 wife is thus expressed, ‘What my wife might be 
 
 ‘benefited by me is konas C? nD) ‘AX ONP), because 
 
 she has stolen my cup’ or ‘struck my son,’ ii. 2 ; 
 while the precise Heb. formula of our text is 13)? 
 7 743) SY, viii. 11 (Lowe’s Mishna). 
 
 In Nedarim, c. ix., retractation of, and absolu- 
 tion from, vows is considered. The problem was a 
 knotty one. Oblations were needed for the 
 sanctuary, and vows were a fruitful source of 
 income; and besides this, Dt 2378 most rigorously 
 forbade any retractation of vows; and therefore 
 the Rabbis, while they did not encourage vows, 
 ruled that when made they must be kept. Here 
 arises an extreine case. A man in haste or passion 
 has vowed that nothing of his shall ever again go 
 to the maintenance of his parents. Must that vow 
 hold good? ‘Certainly,’ the Rabbissay. ‘1tis hard 
 for the parents, but the law is clear, vows must 
 be kept.’ ‘Thus, as often, did they allow the literal 
 to override the ethical. Jesus revealed a different 
 ‘spirit,’ as He ruled that ‘duty to parents is a far 
 higher law than fulfilment of a rash vow.’ 
 
 R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos (c. A.D. 90), who felt in 
 several ways the influence of Christianity, was 
 apparently the first Rabbi to advocate retracta- 
 tion of vows. I render Nedarim 91 thus: ‘R, 
 Eliezer said thas when rash vows infringe at all on 
 parental obligations, Rabbis should suggest a 
 retractation (Jit. open a door) by appealing to the 
 honour due to parents. The sages dissented. R. 
 Zadok said, instead of appealing to the honour due 
 to parents let them appeal to the honour due to 
 God; then might rash vows cease. The sages at 
 length agreed with R. Eliezer, that if the case be 
 directly between a man and his parents (as in Mt 
 15°), they might suggest retractation by appealing 
 to the honour due to parents.’ 
 
 Lureraturr.—The best elucidation is direct from the Mishna ; 
 
 * In this sen je very frequently in Ly and Nu (all P), elsewhere 
 Rizk 208 404 only. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CORINTH 479 
 
 
 
 next from Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, ¢. xxxi.; 
 
 Mt 155 and Mk 7" are diversely discussed by Wetstein, Grotius, 
 
 Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.), Morison, andin Wiinsche’s Eriaiterung. 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 CORD.—1. 727, Arab. habl, the common name 
 for rope in Syria. It is translated in RV ‘cord’ 
 in Jos 215, Job 368 etc. ; ‘line’ in Mic 25, 2 § 82, 
 Ps 166 785, Am 717, Zec 21; ‘ropes’ in 1 K 208; 
 and ‘tacklings’ in Is 3328, In Syria ropes and 
 cords are made of goat’s or camel’s hair spun into 
 threads, and then plaited or twisted. Sometimes 
 they are made of strips of goat’s skins or cow’s hide 
 twisted together. In modern times ropes of hemp 
 are more commonly used. 2. 122, Arab. rubus, 
 ‘band,’ a binding or fastening. It is so translated 
 in Ezk 3%, Job 391°, Hos 114; but ‘ropes’ in Jg 
 15}8- 14; ‘cords’ in Ps 11827 1294; and ‘cart rope’ 
 in Is 518. The word has the meaning of something 
 interlaced or twisted. See BAND. Besides the 
 common ropes mentioned above, ropes for tempor- 
 ary fastenings are often made from branches of 
 vines interlaced or twisted together, and also from 
 the bark of branches of the mulberry tree. 3. 1>°?, 
 Arab. afnab, tent ropes, trans. ‘cords’ in Ex 3518 
 3894, Is 542, and Jer 102°. Tent ropes, among the 
 Bedawin, are made of goat’s or camel’s hair. 4. 
 win, Arab. khaiz, line, tr. ‘cord’ in Ec 4, 5, 12}, 
 Arab. wittar, catgut. In Jg 167 this word is 
 translated ‘ withes,’ in RVm ‘bowstring,’ which is 
 probably correct. In Job 30! AV ‘my cord’ may 
 mean ‘ bowstring’ or the ‘rein’ of a bridle; in Ps 
 11? ‘bowstring.’ Catgut is often made in the 
 villages of Lebanon. In the NT cyolnov, ropes of 
 rushes, is translated ‘cord’ in Jn 2, and ‘ropes’ 
 in Ac 27%, W. CARSLAW. 
 
 CORIANDER SEED (7 gad, képior, coriandrum). 
 — The fruit of an umbelliferous plant, Coriandrum 
 sativum, L., extensively cultivated in the East. It 
 is an annual, with two kinds of leaves, the lower 
 divided into two to three pairs of ovate-cuneate, 
 dentate segments, the upper much dissected into 
 linear-setaceous lobes. The fruits are ovate- 
 globular, straw-coloured, twice as large as a hemp 
 seed, and striate. They have a warm, aromatic 
 taste, and stomachic, carminative properties. Avi- 
 cenna recites (ii. 198) a long list of virtues attributed 
 to it, in a variety of diseases. The only mention 
 of it in the Bible is in comparison with the size 
 and colour of manna (Ex 1631, Null’). The Arabic 
 name of it is kuzbarah. G. E. Post. 
 
 **CORINTH (Képivf0s) was in many respects the 
 most important city of Greece (i.e. Achaia, accord- 
 ing to the Rom. appellation, cf. Ac 20? with 1921) 
 under the Rom. Empire. Whereas Athens was 
 the educational centre, the seat of the greatest 
 university in the world at that time, and the city 
 to which the memories of Greek freedom and older 
 history clung most persistently, C. was the capital 
 of the Rom. province (see ACHATA), the centre of 
 government and commerce, of actual life and 
 political development in the country; while its 
 situation, again, on the great central route between 
 Rome and the East, made it one of the knots to- 
 wards which converged a number of subordinate 
 roads. In this last respect it was the next stage to 
 Ephesus (wh. see) on this great highway, and must 
 have been in very close and frequent communica- 
 tion with it. The situation of C. qualified it to be 
 the most important centre whence any new move- 
 ment im thought or society might radiate over the 
 entire province of Achaia; and therefore it became 
 one of the small list of cities (along with Syrian 
 Antioch and Ephesus) which were most closely 
 connected with the early spread of Christianity 
 towards the West. 
 
 C. occupied a striking and powerful position. 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
480 CORINTH 
 
 
 
 CORINTH 
 
 
 
 It was situated at the southern extremity of the 
 narrow isthmus which connected the Peloponnesus 
 with the mainland of Greece, on a slightly raised 
 terrace, sloping up from the low-lying plain to a 
 bold rock, the Acrocorinthus, which rises abruptly 
 on the south side of the city to the height of 
 over 1800 ft. above sea-level. Thus the city was 
 easy of access from both east and west, and 
 at the same time possessed of great military im- 
 portance, on account of its powerful citadel. Its 
 strength was increased by its fortifications, which 
 not merely surrounded the city, but also connected 
 it by the ‘Long Walls’ with its harbour Lechzeum 
 on the western sea, about 1} miles (12 stadia) 
 distant. Its situation enabled it to command all 
 land communication between central Greece and 
 the Peloponnesus. Along the southern edge of the 
 isthmus stretches a ridge called Oneion from E, to 
 W.; and the Acrocorinthus, which from the north 
 seems to be an isolated rock, is really a spur of 
 Oneion, though separated from the ridge by a deep 
 cleft or ravine. This ridge makes communication 
 with the Peloponnesus difficult, leaving only three 
 paths—one along the western sea (Corinthian Gulf), 
 commanded by Lechzeum and the Long Walls, one 
 close under the walls of Corinth, and one along the 
 eastern sea (Saronic Gulf), commanded by the 
 other harbour of Corinth named Cenchree (Ac 1838, 
 Ro 161), about 8} miles (70 stadia) distant from the 
 city. ‘The Acrocorinthus commands a wonderful 
 view over both seas, on the KE. the Saronic Gulf, 
 and on the W. the Corinthian,* and over the low 
 lands bordering the two seas. up to the mountains 
 both in the Peloponnesus and m central Greece ; the 
 acropolis of Athens, Mount Parnassus, and many 
 other famous points are clearly visible. 
 
 Through its two harbours C. bestrode the 
 isthmus, with one foot planted on each sea; and 
 hence it is called ‘two-sea’d Corinth’ (bimaris 
 Oorinthi menia, Horace, Od. i. 7) ; and Philip Iv. of 
 Macedon called it one of the ‘fetters of Greece’ ; 
 the other two being Chalcis in Eubcea and Deme- 
 trias in Thessaly. But the territory belonging to 
 the city was confined and unproductive (except the 
 fertile though narrow strip of soil extending along 
 the Corinthian Gulf towards Sicyon); the low 
 ground of the Isthmus was poor and stony; and 
 Oneion was mere rock. Hence the population was 
 at once tempted by two quiet seas, and compelled 
 by the churlish land, to turn to maritime enter- 
 prise ; and there lay the greatness of C. so long as 
 Greece was free. Only when Greece was enslaved 
 did C. become one of the fetters of the country. 
 
 It was customary in ancient times to haul ships 
 across the low and narrow Isthmus by a made route, 
 called Diolkos (dfoAKos), between the W.and the E. 
 sea. Owing to the dread entertained by ancient 
 sailors for the voyage round the southern capes of 
 the Peloponnesus (especially Malea), as well as to 
 the saving of time effected on the voyage from Italy 
 to the Asian coast by the Corinthian route, many 
 smaller ships were thus carried bodily across the 
 Isthmus ; though the larger ships (such as that in 
 which St. Paul sailed, Ac 27 87) could never have 
 been treated in that way. Many travellers along 
 the great route from Italy to the East came to 
 Lechzuw in one ship, and sailed east in another 
 from Cenchree, while the merchandise of large 
 ships must have been transhipped; and thus 
 Corinth was thronged with travellers. Under Nero 
 an attempt was made about A.D. 66-67 to cut a 
 ship-canal across the Isthmus (after several earlier 
 schemes had been frustrated as an impious inter- 
 ference with the divine will); and traces of the 
 works were observable before the present ship- 
 
 * A bold hill, projecting a little distance on the west of the 
 Acrocorinthus, seriously interferes with the view on that side; 
 Leake calls it ‘ the eyesore of Corinth.’ 
 
 
 
 canal was made.* The canal was intended to be 
 some distance north of the two harbours, and 
 
 would have damaged their prosperity. In such a 
 city any new movement of thought originating in 
 the East was certain to become known rapidly, in 
 the frequent intercourse that was maintained be- 
 tween Rome and the East. Moreover, Christians 
 travelling for various reasons were often likely to 
 pass through C.; and hence St. Paul calls Gaius of 
 Corinth ‘my host and of the whole Church’ 
 (Ro 1673), In the end of the 1st cent. Clement, 
 writing to the Church at C., alludes several times 
 (§ 1, § 10, § 35), to the frequent occasion which the 
 people had to show hospitality to travellers. 
 
 In this situation C. had generally been the lead- 
 ing commercial city of Greece. Historical reasons, 
 indeed, occasionally endangered its trading supre- 
 macy for a time; sometimes the energy of the 
 Athenians, or of some other rivals, challenged it ; 
 and at last the Romans destroyed the city in B.C. 
 146. But the favourable situation which had made 
 it the originator in Greek history of great fleets 
 and of commercial enterprise on a large scale, and 
 enabled it to become the mother-city of many 
 colonies in the central and western parts of the 
 Mediterranean, could not allow it to remain a ruin 
 and a mere historical memory. Fora time, indeed, 
 Delos succeeded to its commercial supremacy, and 
 Sicyon to its presidency at the Isthmian Games ; 
 but in B.C. 46 it was refounded by Julius Cesar as 
 a Rom. colony, under the name Colonia Laus Julia 
 Corinthus. Hence a considerable proportion of the 
 small number of names in NT connected with C. 
 are Roman: Crispus, Titius Justus (Ac 187: 8), 
 Lucius, Tertius, Gaius, Quartus (Ro 1621-8), For- 
 tunatus, Achaicus (1 Co 16!"). Since Greece was 
 revived as an independent country in modern 
 times, the claim of C. to be the site of the capital, 
 though mentioned, has been always rejected, partly 
 through the surpassing historical memories that 
 cluster round Athens, and partly through the fact 
 that C. is subject to earthquakes. 
 
 The oration of Dion Chrysostom, delivered in 
 C. in the early part of the 2nd cent. (Or. 37), gives 
 a lively idea of the prosperity of C.; he describes 
 it as the most prominent and the richest city of 
 Greece (vol. ii. p. 120, ed. Reiske), and alludes to 
 its library, but enlarges chiefly on the historical 
 and mythological associations. Half a century 
 later Aelius Aristides in an oration ‘to Poseidon,’ 
 delivered at C. in connexion with the Isthmian 
 Games, also draws a picture of the city, enlarging 
 more on the educated and literary spirit manifested 
 there. About the same period Pausanias de- 
 scribes its history and monuments and public 
 buildings (ii. c. 1-4): the old temple of Aphrodite, 
 on the top of the Acrocorinthus; the sacred 
 fountain Peirene on its side, close under the 
 summit; below this the Sisypheum; in the lower 
 city the Agora, with its temples and statues, and 
 soon. The coinage of the Rom. colony proves, by 
 the numerous types taken from old Corinthian 
 history and mythology, the pride which was felt 
 by the Roman C. in the ancient memories of the 
 city; and at once illustrates and confirms the 
 testimony of Dion and Aristides. This feeling in 
 the colony must be taken into account in estimat- 
 ing its character when St. Paul visited it; and 
 the subject is admirably treated by Imhoof-Blumer 
 and Gardner in their Numismatic Commentary on 
 Pausanias (see Journal of Hellenic Studies, vi. 
 1885, pp. 59-77). It must, however, be remembered 
 that the colonial coins used by them are generally 
 later than the time of St. Paul, and that this feel- 
 
 * These traces, which have been entirely obliterated by the 
 modern canal, are described, and a map given showing the line 
 intended to be followed by Nero’s canal, in Bulletin de Corre 
 spond. Hellénique, viii. (1884) p. 228 f. 
 
 
 

 
 ee ae ieee 
 
 
 
 CORINTH 
 
 
 
 ing grew stronger in the 2nd cent. as the Rom. 
 blood and spirit died out on a foreign and uncon- 
 genial soil. The circumference of the lower city 
 was 40 stadia, and the circumference of the fortifi- 
 cations, including in their circuit the Acrocorinthus, 
 was 85 stadia (about 10 miles), as Pausanias and 
 Strabo agree. Only scanty and unimpressive re- 
 mains of ancient buildings now remain. 
 
 The population of such a colony as C. would 
 consist (1) of the descendants of the Rom. coloni, 
 established there in B.C. 46, who would on the 
 whole constitute a sort of local aristocracy ; (2) of 
 many resident ‘ Romans’ who came for commercial 
 reasons, in addition to a few resident officials of 
 the government; (3) of a large Greek population, 
 who ranked as incole; (4) of many other resident 
 strangers of various nationalities, attracted to C. 
 for various reasons, amid the busy intercourse that 
 characterized the kom. world. ‘The Rom. colonial 
 blood had not yet had time to melt into the Greek 
 stock, as it probably did in the cent. or two follow- 
 ing St. Paul’s visit. Among the resident strangers 
 it is clear that a considerable colony of Jews 
 existed at C., where they had a synagogue (Ac 18+); 
 and in such a commercial centre a Jewish settle- 
 ment was a matter of course. Among the Corin- 
 thian Jews a certain number of converts, including 
 some of the most prominent persons, joined St. 
 Paul (Ac 18%, Ro 1674, 1 Co 97°) ; and this was, 
 doubtless, one of the reasons why the feeling 
 against St. Paul was so strong in the city, leading 
 even to a plot against his life (Ac 20%). It is clear, 
 however, both from Ac and from the two letters of 
 St. Paul to the Corinthians, that the Church con- 
 sisted chiefly of non-Jews (see esp. 1 Co 127). But 
 the presence in the Church of some influential 
 Jews, and probably of a considerable number of 
 Gentiles who had previously been brought under 
 the influence of the synagogue (such as Titus 
 Justus, Ac 187), constituted an element always 
 likely to cause that strong Judaizing tendency 
 which is revealed in St. Paul’s letters. 
 
 St. Paul visited C. at first without any definite 
 intention of making it a great centre of his work 
 (Ac 18'). He was still under the impression that 
 his call to Macedonia (Ac 169-19) was operative ; 
 and he was eager to return to Macedonia, and 
 specially to Thessalonica (1 Th 217-18), but was pre- 
 vented by various circumstances and impediments 
 (which he sums up in the expression ‘Satan hindered 
 us’). It would appear from the narrative of Ac 
 1716, 18°f- that in Athens, and at first in C., St. Paul 
 was still strongly possessed with the Macedonian 
 scheme, and was only delaying his return thither 
 until the difficulties were cleared away. But a 
 special revelation (Ac 18°: 1°) altered his plans, when 
 in a night-vision the Lord directed him to speak 
 freely and boldly in C., ‘for I have much people in 
 this city.’ St. Paul regarded this as releasing him 
 from the Macedonian duty, and now directed his 
 work entirely towards the new sphere, in which he 
 remained altogether for a year and six months. 
 It is not stated what period had elapsed between 
 his arrival and this revelation; but, in all prob- 
 ability, no very long time intervened. It is at 
 least clear that the new governor Junius Gallio 
 arrived after the revelation, and during the second 
 period of work, which was directed towards the 
 new Achaian sphere. But evidently even during 
 the first period St. Paul had been encouraged by 
 considerable success in C. In the Jewish synagogue, 
 indeed, he had met with strong opposition, and 
 had already found himself obliged to break off his 
 connexion definitely with his own nation, and to 
 go unto the Gentiles (Ac 18°) from henceforth (7.e. 
 during the rest of his stay in C.). But even among 
 the Jews, Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, 
 believed, With a his house; while among the 
 
 — 
 
 CORINTH 481 
 
 
 
 general population of C. many were baptized (Ac 
 188). None of the baptisms in C. were performed 
 by St. Paul himself, except those of Crispus and of 
 Gaius, and of the household of Stephanas (1 Co 114: 16), 
 It is not certain whether this abstention from 
 personally baptizing was something peculiar in the 
 special case of C., or was commonly practised by 
 St. Paul; but the other apostles seem to have 
 often left the work of baptizing to ministers and 
 subordinates (Ac 10# 13°); and St. Paul probably 
 did the same. The three exceptions mentioned by 
 him are noteworthy ; the circumstances show why 
 St. Paul was likely to attach special importance 
 to them; Stephanas was ‘the first - fruits of 
 Achaia’ (1 Co 16); Gaius was his host on his 
 later visit (Ro 1673), and therefore probably a 
 specially beloved friend ; Crispus, the ruler of the 
 synagogue, was a convert of uncommon importance. 
 
 About five or six weeks, perhaps, after St. 
 Paul’s arrival at C., he was rejoined by Silas and 
 Timothy, returning from Macedonia. He had left 
 them at Bera, and they had joined him prob- 
 ably in Athens, and been immediately sent away 
 on a mission to Thessalonica (1 Th 31, Ac 1715 18) 
 and probably also to Philippi.* The fact that 
 Timothy alone is quoted as authority for news 
 from Thessalonica (1 Th 3°), and as messenger to 
 Thessalonica, shows that Silas had been sent to 
 some other city of Macedonia (doubtless to Philippi). 
 Immediately on receipt of Timothy’s news St. Paul 
 wrote his First Ep. to the Thess. (1 Th 3) from C. 
 The date of the second is not so clearly fixed ; but 
 it also was probably composed in the early part 
 of the Corinthian work, immediately on receipt 
 of news about the reception of the first letter in 
 Thessalonica. 
 
 During St. Paul’s residence in C., Gallio came to 
 govern Achaia as proconsul of pretorian rank. 
 There is no evidence, except what can be derived 
 from the life of St. Paul, to fix the year in which 
 Gallio administered the province; but he may 
 probably have come during the summer of A.D. 
 52, though some authorities fix the date differently 
 (53, Renan, Lightfoot ; see GALLIO). During his 
 administration, the Jews—angry at the defection of 
 at least one leading compatriot, at the manner in 
 which St. Paul had turned away from them with a 
 very exasperating gesture, and at the institution 
 of a rivai meeting-house next door to the syna- 
 gogue, in the house of Titus Justus, a Roman, and 
 a ‘God-fearing proselyte’ (Ac 18°*) —)pbrought an 
 accusation against St. Paul before the proconsul. : 
 In order that such an accusation might be admitted . 
 for trial, the Jews must have tried to give to it a 
 colouring of offence against Roman law, for the 
 Jews still possessed the right to try among them- 
 selves in their own way any offence against purely 
 Jewish religious observance. But the attempt to 
 give colour to a charge which was essentially 
 religious did not deceive Gallio; he refused to 
 admit the case to trial, and ‘drave them from the 
 judgment-seat.’ His action was highly important ; 
 it amounted to an authoritative decision that St. 
 Paul’s preaching could not be construed as an 
 offence against Rom. law, and that, if there was 
 anything wrong in it, the wrong was only in 
 respect of Jewish law, and therefore should come 
 before a Jewish court, and could not be admitted - 
 before the proconsular court. ‘lhis decision by an 
 official of such rank formed a precedent which 
 might be appealed to in later trials; and it is not 
 too much to say that it had practically the force of 
 a declaration of freedom to preach in the province. 
 According to our view, this incident had a marked 
 effect in directing St. Paul’s attention to the pro- 
 tection which the Roman state might give him 
 
 * We see that Philippi was in frequent communication with 
 St. Paul (Ph 415f-), 
 
CORINTH 
 
 
 
 
 
 CORINTH 
 
 
 
 against the Jews. Hitherto his position had been 
 so humble that his relation to the state had prob- 
 ably not entered consciously into his mind, or 
 formed any part of his calculations ; but the de- 
 cision of the first Roman imperial official before 
 whom he had been accused (combined with the 
 favourable memory of the other high imperial 
 official, Sergius Paulus, with whom he had come 
 in contact), was calculated to make a strong im- 
 pression on his mind. 
 
 When St. Paul ceased to preach in the syna- 
 gogue, he began to use the house of Titus Justus, 
 a ‘God-fearing proselyte’ (evidently Roman from 
 his name), as a centre for teaching. In the follow- 
 ing months he was evidently understood by the 
 Corinthian population to be one of those lecturers 
 on philosophy and morals, so common in the Greek 
 world, who often travelled, and settled in new 
 cities where there seemed a good opening for a 
 teacher ; and scornful remarks were made contrast- 
 ing the high fees charged by teachers of estab- 
 lished reputation with the gratis lectures of this 
 new aspirant, and an impression was common that 
 St. Paul (like other beginners in philosophy) was 
 working to obtain a reputation and position such 
 as would justify him, after a time, in beginning to 
 charge fees, and make a livelihood by his brains 
 instead of by his hands. The effect produced on 
 St. Paul by these remarks is shown in 1 Co. 
 
 As was the case in most other cities, the Greek 
 populace of C. disliked the Jews; and the marked 
 reprimand administered to the latter by Gallio, in 
 refusing to entertain the case against St. Paul, 
 seems to have been popular in the city (Ac 181"). 
 The Greeks took and beat Sosthenes, the ruler of the 
 synagogue (who had apparently succeeded Crispus 
 when the latter became a Christian); * and Gallio 
 took no notice of an act which he may probably 
 have considered as a piece of rough justice, and 
 also as a mark of popular approval (which was 
 always grateful to a Rom. official). At this time 
 there can be no doubt that in the popular mind 
 Christianity was looked on merely as an obscure 
 variety of Judaism. 
 
 In C. at his first arrival St. Paul became 
 acquainted with two persons who played an im- 
 portant part in subsequent events; these were 
 Priscilla and Aquila (to follow the noteworthy 
 order observed by St. Luke, Ac 1818-26,+ and by St. 
 Paul himself, Ro 163, 2 Ti 4%). Aquila, a Jew of 
 the province Pontus, had left Rume in consequence 
 of Claudius’ edict (perhaps issued in the latter part 
 of A.D. 50); and the commercial advantages of C. 
 attracted him thither. St. Paul resided in their 
 house during his long stay in C.; and they accom- 
 panied him to Ephesus, where they were still resid- 
 ing when he came thither after visiting Pal., Syrian 
 Antioch, and the Galatian churches. Priscilla 
 bears a good Rom. name, and was probably a lady 
 of good family (which would explain why she is so 
 often mentioned before her husband); and Aquila 
 doubtless had acquired a wide knowledge of the 
 Rom. world during his life; and they would there- 
 fore be well suited to suggest to St. Paul the 
 central importance of Rome in the development of 
 the Church, and form a medium of communication 
 with the great city. We may fairly associate with 
 this friendship the maturing of St. Paul’s plan 
 for evangelizing Rome and the West, which we 
 find already fully arranged a little later (Ac 191, 
 
 * Soin AV; butin RV it seems to be implied that the Jews 
 beat Sosthenes (implying that he was a Christian, as either he 
 or another Sosthenes afterwards was, 1 Co 14), but it seems in- 
 conceivable that Gallio should have permitted such an act on 
 the part of those whom he had just snubbed so emphatically. 
 
 +Soin RV; but AV has the wrong order in 1576 
 
 * The dates assigned vary. Orosins names 49 as the year; 
 and it has been contended that his dates at this period are all 
 
 uniformly one year too early (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 
 pp. 68, 254), Lightfoot gives the date 52, Renan 51, Lewin 52. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ro 15*4). In this respect, also, the Corinthian 
 residence was an epoch in St. Paul’s conception of 
 the development of the Church in the Rom. world. 
 
 In C, the development of the Church might be 
 expected to move rapidly. East and West met 
 there, where Rom. colonists, Greek residents, and 
 Jewish settlers all dwelt ; and thought progressed 
 in the contact of race with race. But rapid de- 
 velopment always implies dissension and conflict 
 of opinions; and hence we find the existence of 
 warring factions mentioned far more emphatically 
 in C. than in any other Church; some were of 
 Paul (the founder), some of Apollos (Paul’s 
 eloquent successor), some of Cephas (i.e. the 
 Judaizing party), some of -Christ (presumably per- 
 sons who claimed to be above mere apostolic 
 partisanship), as we read in 1 Co 1, Of these 
 parties it is perhaps a permissible conjecture that 
 the Rom. colonists, and the freedmen who natur- 
 ally agreed with them, formed the bulk of the first, 
 while the Greek residents had been more attracted 
 by the Alexandrian philosophy, and perhaps the 
 mysticism of Apollos ; the Jews and some proselytes 
 would comprise the Judaizing adherents of Cephas. 
 St. Paul, when he came to C., seems to have been 
 moved by the want of success that had attended 
 his very philosophic style of address in Athens; 
 and he deliberately adopted a specially simple 
 style of address. As he says (1 Co 21-2, cf. Ac 18°), 
 he came not with oratorical power or philosophic 
 subtlety, expounding the mysterious nature of 
 God; he did not declare to the Corinthians, as he 
 had done to the Athenian audience, ‘the Divine 
 Nature’ (Ac 177-29); he determined not to know 
 anything among his hearers at C. save Jesus 
 Christ and Him crucified. To the Greeks, who 
 sought after philosophy, such preaching must have 
 seemed uneducated and unintellectual (1 Co 1°- 23); 
 and we might conjecture that, as a rule, they 
 would prefer the message as delivered by Apollos. 
 But there is no evidence to confirm this conjecture ; 
 and in the only slight description of Apollos? 
 preaching in Achaia, he is said to have been 
 specially successful among the Jews (Ac 1878). It 
 seems, therefore, not possible to feel any confidence 
 in the details of an hypothesis connecting the 
 parties in the Church with the nationalities that 
 were mingled in the population of C., though we 
 admit the strong probability that the variety of 
 races contributed to cause the variety of parties, 
 and that there would be a tendency for each race 
 to become concentrated in one party. 
 
 The preceding paragraphs show that we are 
 justified in attaching great importance to St. 
 Paul’s stay in C., as constituting an epoch in his 
 preaching, in his plans, and in his conscious 
 attitude towards the Rom. government, and also 
 as resulting in the formation of a new Church in 
 the track of ready communication alike with the 
 East and with Italy. As to the constitution of 
 this new Church, it is evident that a very consider- 
 able congregation had been formed in C. within a 
 few years after St. Paul first entered it, and some 
 of the converts were men of position; on the 
 whole, however, he declares that there were among 
 them not many that were deeply educated in 
 philosophy, not many possessing official dignity 
 and power, not many of aristocratic birth (1 Co 176); 
 the bulk of the Church was humble, but these 
 words (‘not many’) may fairly be taken as imply- 
 ing that there were in it some few members of 
 higher position. 
 
 St. Paul seems to have departed from C. for the 
 purpose of celebrating the feast at Jerus. (Ac 182, 
 where RV omits the words intimating his intention 
 —but probably they are original); we cannot 
 doubt that this was the Passover, which fixes his 
 departure to early spring, and his arrival in C. to 
 
 
 
 
 
 =— one aS. 
 
CORINTH 
 
 autumn, acc. to our view Sept. 5l1—March 53 (52- 
 54 many scholars, 48-50 Harnack). Perhaps his 
 vow, in accordance with which he cut his hair 
 in Cenchree, when on the point of going on board 
 the ship, was completed and discharged at the 
 Passover in Jerusalem. Doubtless, he performed 
 the voyage on a ship whose special purpose was to 
 carry pilgrims to Jerus. for the feast from Achaia 
 and Asia. In 20% he probably again thought of 
 performing the voyage on such a ship, and found 
 that the Jews were too incensed against him to 
 make the voyage safe. 
 
 The subsequent history of the Corinthian Church 
 is lightly passed over by St. Luke. Apollos was 
 sent over from Ephesus with a letter of recom- 
 mendation to the brethren in Achaia (Ac 18”, 
 2 Co 31),* and his influence in C, was powerful (Ac 
 1827 28,1 Co 1). It is generally admitted that St. 
 Paul, during the early part of his stay in Ephesus, 
 sent to C. a letter which has not been preserved 
 (1 Co 5°) ; and it may be regarded as highly prob- 
 able that this is not the only one of his letters 
 that has perished. The view has also been strongly 
 maintained that St. Paul paid a short visit to C. 
 from Ephesus, and returned to Ephesus (2 Co 
 1214 131) ; but, more probably, such a short visit 
 was paid later from Macedonia (see Drescher in 
 SK, 1897, pp. 50 ff.). In the latter part of St. 
 Paul’s stay in Ephesus, however, the report that 
 was brought to him from C. by envoys (1 Co 
 1617-18) drew from him the letter which has been 
 preserved, and is commonly cited as 1 Co. It 
 seems probable that this letter was sent by the 
 hands of Titus: at least it is certain that he was 
 sent by St. Paul on a mission to C. about this 
 time (2 Co 71%: 15); and St. Paul several times refers 
 to the strong interest which Titus took in the 
 Corinthians (2 Co 7} 815), Timothy also was sent 
 on a mission to C. from Ephesus (1 Co4!7), When 
 St. Paul left Ephesus and came to Macedonia, he 
 
 met there Titus on his return from C. (probably at 
 Philippi), after having been disappointed in the 
 
 hope of finding him at Troas. Evidently, Titus 
 returned from C. by the land route or by a coast- 
 ing vessel by way of Macedcnia and Troas. On 
 this report the second letter to C. was now dis- 
 patched; and Titus went on a second mission, 
 accompanied this time by ‘the brother whose 
 praise in the gospel is spread through all the 
 Churches’ (identified by an early tradition, which 
 may probably be correct, as St. Luke). Timothy 
 also returned by the land route from C., and met 
 St. Paul in Macedonia (2 Co 1!). After spending 
 some months in Macedonia, apparently in several 
 cities (Ac 202, 1 Co 16°, Ro 15"), St. Paul entered 
 Greece, where he spent three months, chiefly, 
 no doubt, at C., during the winter of 56-57 
 (or 57-58 acc. to Lightfoot and many others). 
 During the years 55-56 St. Paul had been much 
 occupied with a scheme for a general contribution 
 from his new Churches in the four provinces 
 Achaia, Macedonia, Galatia, and Asia,t which was 
 to be devoted to the benefit of the poor Christians 
 in Jerusalem. To this scheme St. Paul attached the 
 utmost importance, as marking the solidarity of 
 the new foundations with the original Church; 
 and he pays a high compliment to the Corinthians 
 for the readiness with which they had begun to 
 respond to the call (2 Co 92-®). No envoy from C. 
 is named among the delegates sent in charge of 
 
 *In the passage of 2 Co 38, probably other Jews who came 
 with letters of recommendation from Jerus. are referred to, as 
 well as Apollos with his Ephesian recommendation. 
 
 + St. Paul mentions the contribution of Macedonia and 
 Achaia in Ro 1526, 2 Co 88 6 92, of Galatia and Corinth, 1 Co 161. 
 He has no occasion to allude to that of Asia; and he alludes to 
 that of Galatia only perhaps as being the first and supplying 
 the model. The Asian contribution is implied in Ac 204, where 
 the envoys who carried it to Jerus, are mentioned (cf. Ac 2417), 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS 483 
 
 the money to Jerus. (Ac 204); but it seems possible 
 that the Corinthians asked either St. Paul himself 
 or one of the envoys mentioned in 2 Co 818-22 to act 
 as their steward. 
 
 The development of the Church in C. between 
 A.D, 58 and 57, and the kinds of difficulties that 
 beset the early steps of this young congregation, 
 are closely connected with the letters of St. Paul 
 (which form our sole authority), and will be 
 more appropriately treated under the heading of 
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE; but we must 
 here refer to the probable influence of the char- 
 acter of society in the city on the Church. C. had 
 always been a great seat of the worship of 
 Aphrodite ; and that goddess retained in her seat 
 on the Isthmus much of the abominable (and 
 really non-Greek) character of the Asian and esp. 
 Phoenician religion from which she sprang, par- 
 ticularly the system of hierodouloi who lived a life 
 of vice as part of the religious ceremonial of the 
 goddess. Hence the viciousness of C. was pro- 
 verbial through the Roman world; and we can 
 realize how vile was the society out of which the 
 Corinthian congregation arose, how hard it was for 
 them to shake off the influence of early and long 
 association with vicious surroundings, how deep 
 they were likely to sink in case of any lapse from 
 religion. It is no wonder that St. Paul wrote 
 (1 Co 8°) that, if they were to cut themselves off 
 altogether from vicious persons, they ‘must needs 
 go out of the world.’ 
 
 Near C. was the scene of the Isthmian Games, 
 one of the four great athletic contests and festivals 
 of Greece. These games were held at the shrine 
 of Poseidon, a ittle way N.E. of the city, about 
 the narrowest part of the Isthmus, and close to the 
 shore of the Saronic Gulf. They were of the usual 
 Greek style, including foot-races, chariot-races, 
 boxing, etc., and the victor’s prize was a wreath of 
 the foliage of the pine-trees, which grow abund- 
 antly on the coast. It is usual to say that St. 
 Paul borrows his imagery in such passages as 
 1 Co 974-26 from these games ; but games were uni- 
 versal in all Greek or semi-Greek cities; and St. 
 Paul, who had lived long in such cities as Tarsus 
 and Antioch, and had already visited many others, 
 did not require to visit the Isthmian Games in 
 order to write that ‘they which run in a race run 
 all, but one receiveth the prize,’ or that ‘they do 
 it to receive a corruptible crown.’ Such allusions 
 would be as luminous to the inhabitants of every 
 other Greek city in the Mediterranean lands as 
 they were to the Corinthians. 
 
 Litrrature.—Of general works on geography the best are 
 Leake’s Morea, iii. 229-304, and his Peloponnesiaca, 892 ff. ; 
 Curtius, Peloponmesos, ii. 514 ff. ; Clark, Peloponnesus, 42-61. 
 The guide-books, especially Bedeker, are good ; and the articles 
 in works on Greek geography are in general excellent in regard 
 to Greece proper (far superior to those on the cities of Asia). 
 The works on the life of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson, and 
 a host of others, are, as a rule, very good in their treatment of 
 Corinth, On the coinage, besides Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner 
 already quoted, see the works of Mionnet, Eckhel, and cata- 
 
 logues like that of the British Museum. 
 W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE.— 
 
 . Place of the Epistle in Tradition. 
 
 Transmission of the Text. 
 
 . Internal Evidence and Genuineness. 
 
 Recent Criticism. 
 
 St. Paul’s earlier Relations with Corinth. 
 
 The Place of the Epistle in Pauline Chronology. 
 
 . Condition of the Corinthian Church. 
 
 . Immediate Circumstances and Subjects of the Epistle. 
 
 . Analysis of the Epistle. 
 
 . Importance of the Epistle (general). 
 
 . Doctrinal Importance, 
 
 - The Christian Life, individual and corporate, in the 
 Epistle. 
 
 . Select Bibliography. 
 
 1. The two companion Epistles to the Corin- 
 thians have occupied from the first an unchallenged 
 
 SDI Ip G9 pop 
 
 
 
484 IL CORINTHIANS 
 
 lace among the acknowledged writings of St. 
 aul. These writings, as is well known, formed a 
 recognized group, under the name of ‘the Apostle,’ * 
 before the date at which we have evidence of a 
 complete NT CANON. The well-known response + 
 of the Scillitan Martyrs (A.D. 180) at once includes 
 and distinguishes the ‘letters of Paul a just man’ 
 among the ‘books’ carried about by Christians. 
 That a collection of Pauline letters existed at 
 least as early as the reign of Trajan is a strong 
 inference from the now generally accepted date of 
 the Ignatian letters.t| Whether or no the whole 
 thirteen letters, already included in the Muratorian 
 list, were part of this collection from the first 
 cannot be discussed here; but it is of special in- 
 terest for our purpose to note that, although eventu- 
 ally superseded by the modern order, traceable as far 
 back as Origen, a very ancient order of the thir- 
 teen Epp., preserved in Can. Murat. and attested 
 from Sther uarters, places the Epp. to Corinth at 
 the head af the list. Zahn infers that this order 
 is the primitive one, and that the collection of 
 Pauline Epp. was first made at Corinth.§ In any 
 case, the recognition of our Epistle is coeval with 
 the evidence for any collection of the apostle ; 
 in fact it goes back beyond any clear evidence of 
 the kind. The reference in Clement of Rome (xlvii. 
 1) is, unlike most of the early references to NT 
 books, a formal appeal to our letter. Echoes of 
 the Ep. are too numerous to be quoted here (a 
 fairly full collection is in Charteris’ Canonicity, p. 
 222 ff.); they occur in Clement of Rome (seven), 
 Ignatius (nine), Polycarp (three, or with the 
 Martyrdom, four), Justin (at least five) [Hermas, 
 Sim. V. vii. 2, is doubtful, and the same may be said 
 of Didache x. papay dé4], and others. From the 
 citations in Hippolytus we know that the Ophites 
 knew our Ep.; the same is true of Basilides as well 
 as of the later Gnostics. It is unnecessary to set 
 
 out in detail the evidence for an undisputed fact 
 (see below, § 4). 
 
 2. The Epistle has been transmitted in the 
 Peshitta, Old Lat., Copt., and other oldest versions 
 
 of NT as well as in the principal Gr. MSS. 
 
 Of the latter, the Epistle is contained entire in NBADPpaul 
 (1418-22 ‘manu alia antiqua’), E (copy of D), L. FG contain all 
 but 38-16 67-14, © all except 718-96 138-1540, P all except 715-17 
 1223-135 1423-38. Fragments are contained in Fa, H (cf. Robinson, 
 Euthaliana, 50%.), 12, K (considerable), M,Q,8, 3. Of the cursives, 
 it may suffice to refer to 67**, 5, 47, 87 as of special interest. 
 
 The Old Lat. of our Epistle is transmitted in the Lat. VS of the 
 Gr.-Latin MSS DE (de; on f and g see Gregory, Prolegomena, 
 p. 969, and Sanday-Headlam, Romans, pp. Ixvi ff.), and in x,, 
 8 9th cent. MS at Oxford ; fragments only in m and r. 
 
 The Epistle then comes down to us with every 
 
 ossible external attestation of genuineness, and 
 its integrity (see on 2 Co, § 8) is equally free from 
 suspicion. 
 
 3. But external attestation is hardly enough to 
 determine the authorship of a book in the face of 
 internal evidence. What then does the Epistle 
 tell us of its authorship? We may remark 
 generally that no NT writing bears a more con- 
 vincing stamp of originality than this letter; it is 
 ey the reflex of a great and markedly indi- 
 vidual personality. Manifold as are its contents, 
 its several parts hang naturally together, and are 
 strongly homogeneous in treatment and style. 
 Moreover, as we shall see presently, the Ep., read 
 in conjunction with our other sources of know- 
 ledge, yields a definitely realizable historical 
 situation, without a particle of evidence to sug- 
 gest that it stands to those sources in a secondary 
 relation. Until quite modern times, and except 
 
 * Zahn, Gesch. d. NT' Kanons, i. 263, n. 2. 
 
 + Zahn, I. ii. 996, 1. 82. 86 nn. 
 
 ? The question will be found discussed under Oanon, Pavu; 
 cf. Sanday, BL p. 363 ff. 
 
 $1. 835 ff. But see Clemen, Hinheitlichkeit der PB, 11, 178, 
 
 I CORINTHIANS 
 
 within a limited area, this has not been questioned. 
 Our Ep., with 2 Co, Ro, and Gal, have, as is well 
 known, formed the unimpeached and unassailable 
 nucleus of admitted Pauline writings, and have 
 furnished to criticism the standard by which the 
 claims of all other supposed Pauline literature 
 have been estimated. ‘This was conspicuously the 
 case in the period of the Tiibingen school. ith 
 the exception of the free-lance Bruno Bauer, 
 whose isolated attack is recorded rather as a 
 literary curiosity than as a contribution to histori- 
 cal criticism, the four Epp. were allowed on all 
 sides, even by the most radical criticism, to be the 
 genuine work of St. Paul. This was characteristic 
 of the genuine psychological insight which, in 
 spite of admitted extravagances of subjective 
 criticism, marks the work of F. C. Baur and his 
 ablest followers. 
 
 4. Of late years, however, the genuineness of 
 the four ‘ Pauline homologumena’ been called 
 in question by a somewhat more impusing body of 
 opinion.* On the one hand, a somewhat numerous 
 band of Dutch writers (Loman, Quaestiones Paulinae 
 in Th. T. 1882-1886; Pierson and Naber, Veri- 
 similia, 1886; Van Manen in Jahrbb. f. Prot. 
 Theol. 1883-1887, and others) have, by subjective 
 criticism of the wildest kind, endeavoured to dis- 
 solve the personality of St. Paul and of Jesus 
 Christ, and resolve the teaching of the Epp. into 
 the product of vague and arbitrarily-assumed 
 movements of Jewish religious thought. Kuenen, 
 Scholten, and others have thought the arguments 
 by which these views are supported worthy of 
 refutation, but any detailed notice of extrava- 
 gances, tending one to bring rational historical 
 criticism into discredit, would be out of place in an 
 article like the present. The same must be said of 
 a somewhat less fanciful critic, Rudolf Steck, 
 professor at Bern, who published (Berlin, 1888) 
 Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht. 
 His arguments reach our Ep. through that to the 
 Galatians. The latter is condemned, partly on 
 the ground of its discrepancies with Ac (exactly 
 reversing the argument of Baur and his followers, 
 Steck allows Ac a relative superiority as a source), 
 partly on that of its literary dependence upon 
 Ro, and 1 and2Co. Extending the method to the 
 latter, Steck + finds in our Epistles signs of de- 
 pendence on Ro (e.g. the & yéyparra of 1 Co 48 
 refers to Ro 123!), while the latter in turn pre- 
 supposes the Gospels, and such post-Christian 
 Apocr, as 2 Es and the Assumption of Moses. 
 Accordingly, all the ‘ Pauline homologumena’ fall 
 to the ground. Our Ep. in particular is dependent 
 upon the synoptic Gospels, especially on Lk, as 
 appears from the accounts of the Last Supper (1 Co 
 11) and of the post-Resurrection appearances of 
 Christ (1 Co 15). Steck appears to have gained a 
 convert in J. Friedrich (Die Unechtheit des Galater- 
 Briefes, 1891). 
 
 Those who wish to tollow the questions raised by 
 Loman, Steck, and .beir adherents into further 
 detail, may be referred to the works quoted in the 
 previous notes. A general weakness of all the 
 writers in question appears to be a defective 
 appreciation of personality, carrying with it an 
 inability to distinguish the spontaneous from the 
 artificial. In common with the representatives of 
 
 * A careful account of the arguments of the Dutch hyper- 
 critical school, and of Steck, is given by Knowling, The Witness 
 of the Epistles, ch. iii. ; cf, also Schmiedel in Hand-Kommentar, 
 vol. ii.; Zahn, Die Briefe des Paulus seit 50 Jahren im Feuer der 
 Kritik (in ZK W, 1889). The arguments of Vélter (Komposition 
 der paul. H.-Briefe, 1890) reach a similar conclusion by ® super- 
 refined method of analysis. 
 
 + Steck is answered by Gloél, Die jiingste Kritik des Galater- 
 briefes, and Lindemann, Die Echtheit p. Hauptbriefe; tor 
 what specially refers to our Epistle see Knowling, pp. 190-207. 
 
 ine, especially im 
 
 The question has been debated from time to time, 
 the Prof, Kirchen-Zeitung. 
 
 
 
I. CORINTHIANS 
 
 every influential school of criticism, we regard the 
 Pauline authorship of our Ep. as unimpeached and 
 aan 
 
 5. St. Paul first visited Corinth during his first 
 European mission (Ac 18!18), The circumstances 
 have been stated under CORINTH. In modification 
 of the view there taken, it should be noted that at 
 any rate the arrival of Timothy and Silas from 
 Macedonia convinced him that Corinth was to be 
 a great centre of work. He ‘ became engrossed in 
 the word’ (cuvelyero TH Abyw, V.5). The vision of 
 vy.” © had reference rather to alarms arising on 
 the spot (1 Co 2%) than to any remaining doubt as 
 to his mission to the Corinthians. His earliest 
 converts were made by his addresses in the syna- 
 pose, and comprised ‘ Jews and Greeks’ (Ac 18°). 
 
 o the former class belonged Crispus; but the 
 baptism of the household of Stephanas must have 
 been his first conquest (1 Co 16). S. and Gaius 
 were probably proselytes (t.e. ceBdueva), After the 
 arrival of his companions, St. Paul, engrossed in 
 preaching, entrusted the baptism of his converts to 
 them (1 Co 1" 36), St. Paul was the first to preach 
 the gospel at Corinth. Hence he describes himself 
 as the planter (1 Co 3°), the first builder (vv.! 14), 
 the father (415) of the Cor. Church. He laid, as 
 its foundation, ‘Jesus Christ’ (3"), teaching the 
 significance of His death (2, 2 Co 1}° 8°) and resur- 
 rection (1 Co 15!-8), of the Eucharist (10! 113), 
 the fundamental principles of the Christian life 
 (318 615-29) and the hope beyond the grave (15%: #4 
 18, cf. 67). The composition of the Con Church 
 was mainly Gentile, but not without Jews (Ro 16}, 
 1 Co 738 9” 121%); and heathenish antecedents (12? 
 
 6") were the cause of most of the troubles of the 
 community. The Christians of Corinth were of 
 the lower ranks of life (1*-°8 71), though there were 
 marked differences of wealth among them (11*); 
 Gaius and Erastus (Ro 16%) may be added to 
 Crispus and Stephanas (above) as persons of higher 
 
 social position. 
 
 Of the numbers of the Cor. Church we cannot 
 form any safe conjecture. St. Paul preached at 
 first in the house of Titius Justus (Ac 187) while 
 residing with Aquila and Priscilla (v.?). Later 
 (1 Co 16!) we hear of an éx«Ayola at the house of 
 the latter, which probably implies that the 
 Christians were no longer capable of being con- 
 tained in any one house. In any case, the language 
 of 1 Co 3, 4 suggests continued growth under other 
 teachers after the departure of St. Paul himself. 
 Chief among these was APOLLOS (Ac 1877-78), The 
 Acts hints at two lines of his activity at Corinth : 
 edification of the believers (27), and successfu: con- 
 troversy with Jews (*, the yd¢p here cannot fairly be 
 held to restrict the scope of cvveBddero to his success 
 with the Jews). For both partes his Alexandrian 
 training was a high qualification. 
 between his style of preaching and the severe 
 ‘simplicity of St. Paul was laid hold of by frivolous 
 minds as a basis of party spirit (infra, $7). The 
 date of Apollos’ arrival at Corinth is uncertain, 
 except that it precedes St. Paul’s arrival at 
 Ephesus (Ac 191). To Ephesus, at some time 
 during St. Paul’s tpceria there, Apollos returned. 
 The remaining points in the history of the Church 
 of Corinth enter into the situation out of which 
 our Ep. arises. Before dealing with this, it is 
 desi1able to consider the dates. 
 
 6. The chronology of St. Paul’s life has recent] 
 been the subject of renewed investigations, whic 
 have tended to disturb the scheme which, in its 
 broad features, may be described as in possession 
 of the field previous to 1893. Among the most 
 important of recent discussions are those of Clemen 
 Chrondl. d. Paul. Briefe, 1893) and of Ramsay (S¢. 
 Paul the Traveller, 1895, also in Expositor, May 
 1896). A discussion of the questions raised will be 
 
 The contrast. 
 
 I CORINTHIANS 485 
 
 _ 
 
 found in articles CHRONOLOGY Or NT, and FEsTUus. 
 Here it will suffice to state that the prevalent view, 
 as represented (e.g.) by Wieseler, Lewin (Fastz S.), 
 and Lightfoot (on Acts in Smith DB?, and Biblical 
 Essays, p. 223), used the arrival of Festus in Pales- 
 tine as the pivot date for the reconstruction of the 
 period. It was argued, on grounds not to be 
 entered on here (see FESTUS), that this pivot, 
 though not absolutely rigid, yet oscillated only as 
 between the years A.D. 60 and 61, and that of 
 these two, the year 60 was the more probably 
 correct. Subtracting, then, the two years of St. 
 Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea, we obtained 58 as 
 the year of his last journey from Corinth to Jeru- 
 salem. As he left Corinth before the Passover 
 (Ac 20°), the three months spent there carried us 
 back to his arrival at Corinth in Nov. 57 (see 
 CORINTHIANS, SECOND EP. To, § 6). This, cor- 
 responding as it does with the intention of winter- 
 ing at Corinth expressed 1 Co 16°, made the spring 
 of 57 the probable date of 1 Co. 
 
 Moreover, if 37 was the earliest possible date for St. Paul’s 
 escape from Damascus (2 Co 1182, Ac 925, see ARETAS), and 14 
 years elapsed between this and the apostolic conference of Ao 
 15, identified with that of Gal 2, the latter must have occurred 
 about 61. Subtracting, then, from 57, the date of 1 Co, the 
 three years (Ac 2031) of his Ephesian ministry, we had 54 as the 
 date of St. Paul’s arrival at Ephesus (Ac 191), and three years 
 remained for all the events of Ac 16-18, or hardly eighteen months 
 for his movements before and after the year and a half claimed 
 (Ac 1811.18) by his first sojourn at Corinth. And this residual 
 space of time was certainly none too large for the movements of 
 the apostle which had to be fitted into it. Now the argument 
 of Ramsay, from the days of the week which the data of Ac 20°ff. 
 require, in relation to the calendar of the year 57 (Hapos. May 
 1896, ‘A Fixed Date in the Life of St. Paul’), if accepted, pushes 
 back our Epistles by a year. He insists on the absolute loose- 
 ness, amounting to uselessness, of the pivot date referred to 
 above (a question to be discussed under Fxstus), and, identi- 
 fying the conference of Gal 2 with St. Paul’s famine visit 
 (dated by him in 46) to Jerus. (Ac 1180 1225), pushes back 
 St. Paul’s conversion to the year 82 (st. Paul the Traveller, 
 ch, 14 and note), ‘The latter date is too early to satisfy 
 the reference to Arwras in 2 Co 1182; while the objec- 
 tions to Ramsay’s identification of the conference of Gal 2 
 seem overwhelining. But GauaTIANS rather than our Ep. 
 is the battle-ground of this controversy, which after all 
 affects the absolute rather than the relative chronology of the 
 Epp. to the Corinthians. It may suffice for our purpose to 
 remark that Ramsay’s ‘fixed date’ depends on the twofold 
 assumption that St. Paul and his party left Philippi (Ac 205) on 
 the very morning after the last day of unleavened bread,—a mere 
 matter of inference,—and that the night on which St. Paul 
 preached at Troas was, as Meyer, etc., assume, a Sunday night, 
 not (as Hackett, Conybeare and Howson, etc.) a Saturday night, 
 —a very dubious point in view of the Jewish phraseology used to 
 denote the day. We do not think, therefore, that the accepted 
 chronology has been shattered by Ramsay’s assault. That of 
 Clemen proceeds on far more radical lines. Here again the 
 battle-ground is ultimately the Ep. to the GALATIANs. But we 
 may sketch the outlines of Clemen’s construction as bearing on 
 our Epistle. Accepting 60 as the date for Festus, and conse- 
 quently 58 as that of St. Paul’s arrest, he yet brings St. Paul to 
 Jerusalem (Ac 20-2121) in 54, where the conference of Gal 2 is 
 inserted ; between 54 and 58 the apostle is lost to our ken; the 
 rebuke of Cephas at Antioch and the Ep. to the Gal belong to 
 this nebulous interval. The winter of 53-54 was spent at Cor., 
 the previous summer in the evangelization of Ilyricum (Ro 1519), 
 the winter 52-53 at Nicopolis (Tit 312); in the summer of 52 the 
 apostle left Ephesus, where he had been since the beginning of 
 50. This is the period of our Epp. to the Corinthians, which 
 may be conveniently renumbered as follows: A.D. 50, early 
 spring, lst letter (that of 1 Co 59); later spring, 2nd pan Co); 
 51, summer, Titus carries to Corinth the 3rd letter (2 Co 9); 
 then, after a revolt in the Cor. Church, and a painful visit of the 
 apostle to Corinth, comes a 4th (painful) letter (=2 Co 10-1310); 
 lastly, when St. Paul has already reached Macedonia, in the 
 summer of 52, the 5th letter (=2 Co 1-813 1311-end). (On the 
 above details compare art. 2 CORINTHIANS, §§ 4(g), 8.) The vision 
 referred to in 2 Co 122 is that at the conversion, which thus falls 
 14 years before 61, ¢.e. in 37, two years after the crucifixion 
 ‘A.D. 35). 
 : To oe this scheme in detail is out of place here. The 
 present writer, holding that the Pauline chapters of the Acta 
 give a trustworthy consecutive outline of the apostle’s life; that 
 Ac 15 is meant to describe the conference of Gal 2, and that the 
 hiatus left between A.D. 54 and 68, with the dislocation of the 
 sequence of events in Ac 2117-40, amounts to a failure of the 
 entire scheme, is not predisposed in favour of the proposed re- 
 adjustment of the chronology of our Epistles. In particular, 
 that 1 Co comes at the beginning rather than at the end of the 
 Ephesian ministry of St. Paul, is not only contrary to the indi- 
 cations of Ac 191.21 201, a consideration which would weigh 
 lightly with Clemen, but is contrary to the spirit of 1 Oo 419, and 
 
 
 
486 I CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 especially 16. That 168-9 are anything but natural in the 
 closing period of the Ephesian sojourn, is surely a desperate 
 ansument. 
 
 The time has not arrived, then, to abandon the 
 year 57, and the latter end of St. Paul’s three 
 years’ ministry at Ephesus, as the date of 1 Co, 
 unless, indeed, it be held (as Godet and others 
 maintain, but without conclusive reasons) that it 
 must have preceded 2 Co by at least a complete 
 year (see 2 CORINTHIANS, § 6). 
 
 7. The history of the Cor. Church after the 
 departure of Apollos for Ephesus is known to 
 us solely from the two Epp. to the Corinthians. 
 That communications passed from time to time 
 between St. Paul and this Church is only what 
 we might expect from our general knowledge of 
 St. Paul’s life. In one letter, written not very 
 long vefore 1 Co, he had had occasion to warn the 
 Corinthians not to allow themselves to associate 
 (cvvavaplyvucOcu) with fornicators. This warning, 
 in view of the conditions of the plete (CORINTH), 
 does not indicate circumstances of special urgency 
 there. But we gather that there was a tendency 
 in Corinth to treat the apostles command as 
 impracticable in its severity (1 Co 5); the tone 
 of public opinion in the Cor. Church was omin- 
 ously low (cf. 1 Co 6!*); and when a case of 
 exceptional repulsiveness occurred, it was treated 
 by the community with a tolerance amounting 
 almost to levity (518). How St. Paul heard of 
 this, of the litigious recourse to heathen tribunals 
 (6), and of other matters for blame (11!8 151%), 
 we do not know. Speaking broadly, these were 
 all anxieties of a kind likely to occur, in a more 
 or less acute form, in any community whose 
 Christianity was recent, while the heathen in- 
 stincts of its members were bred in the bone 
 and not to be overcome except by time. 
 
 It was somewhat different with the oxlcuara or 
 dissensions which occupy the early chapters of 
 the Epistle. Partly no doubt, and specially as 
 regards the use of the names of St. Paul and 
 Apollos as party watchwords, they are explicable 
 by the frivosous and excitable temper of the 
 
 eople. The Epistle of Clement shows us that 
 orty years later than St. Paul’s time, although 
 the party watchwords of the year 57 have dis- 
 appeared, the tendency to faction is still at work 
 (§§ 1, 47, ete.). In communities of this kind, as 
 Renan observes (St. Paul, p. 373 f.), ‘divisions, 
 parties, are a social necessity ; life would seem dull 
 without them.’ ‘The talent of Apollos turned all 
 their heads.’ The contrast between the Alex- 
 andrian methods of Apollos and the simpler 
 spiritual preaching of St. Paul, would, in fact, 
 furnish this tendency with an irresistible tempta- 
 tion. But in Corinth we are in the presence of 
 a more serious and far-reaching phenomenon. 
 Apart from the question of the personal presence 
 there at any time of one of the older apostles 
 (see below), it is clear from the data of our Ep., 
 combined with those of 2 Co (§ 4 [e] there), that 
 Corinth was the scene of an anti-Pauline mission 
 identical in its source and aims, though naturally 
 differing in tactics, with that which troubled the 
 Churches of Galatia. At Corinth the demand for 
 circumcision would appear to have been dropped 
 or held back ; the point of attack was the apostolic 
 mission of St. Paul (1 Co 9¥f-), whose conduct and 
 position had become the object of suspicious criti- 
 cism (dvaxplvev, 1 Co 4° 9% ete.). The Judaic 
 movement against St. Paul is probably respon- 
 sible for the two watchwords éya 6¢ Kn@a° éya dé 
 Xpisrov. This is clearly the case with the former 
 (cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 96 f.). “Eye 
 6¢ Kn¢a must have been, in the first instance, the 
 utterance of a person who knew St. Peter by his 
 Pal. name. Such persons must have found their 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS 
 
 ' 
 
 way to Corinth, and attached to themselves par- 
 tisans, whether Gentile or Jewish, who were im- 
 pressed by the prior claim of St. Peter to apostolic 
 rank, or perhaps repelled by the lengths to which 
 emancipation from Jewish prejudices had carried 
 some of the Christians at Corinth (1 Co 8'*). It 
 does not follow that, in order to say éya 5¢ Kya, it 
 was necessary to be a personal pupil of St. Peter. 
 The name of Cephas must have become a jiouse- 
 hold word in every Church visited by the Pal. 
 propagandists ; there is nothing in 1 Co 1”, even 
 combined with 9°, to justify us in inferring, as a 
 2nd_cent. bishop of Corinth inferred (Divnys. 
 ap. Euseb. HZ ii, 25), that St. Peter had actualy 
 visited Corinth and shared-with St. Paul the claim 
 to rank as founder of the Church there. St. Paul’s 
 silence would in that case suggest a more painful 
 relation between himself and the partisans of 
 Cephas than we need otherwise assume. He 
 blames the partisans of Cephas indeed, but neither 
 more nor less than he blames those of Apollos and 
 of himself; there is nothing to suggest any special 
 hostility between St. Paul and any one of the 
 three. This would equally apply to the fourth 
 party, whose watchword was éyw 6¢ Xpiorod, had 
 we only our present Ep. to go by. But on them 
 the second Ep. throws a peculiar light, which 
 reduces the other three parties to a comparatively 
 unimportant rank. It is true that the Cephas- 
 party must have been under the influence of the 
 Judaizing propaganda; but the second Ep. shows 
 that it is not among them (cf. 1 Co 3”) that we 
 are to look for its extreme and dangerous par- 
 tisans. 
 
 In considering the ‘ Ch..st-party,’ it will be needless to discuss 
 the endless suggestions that have been made apart from the 
 light derived from 2 Co. That iya 3: Xpirod were the words 
 of St. Paul himself, or of Christians who formed a party against 
 party spirit, etc., are views for which the reader must consult 
 the Commentaries (see also Rabiger, Krit. Urtersuchungen tiber 
 den Inhalt der beiden Briefe an die Kor. Gemeinde, etc., 1886. 
 Ribiger denies the existence of a Christ-party). Quite certainly 
 there were men in Corinth who put forward the name of Christ 
 as a party watchword, as others put forward that of Cephas, 
 Apollos, or St. Paul. It is instructive to note the absolute 
 contrast between the dusis 3: Xpsorod of 323 (cf. 1523 etc.), where 
 the apostle asserts 76 Xpiorod dvas as true of all, and the i7a 33 
 Xpirrod of 112 where he stamps its falsehood (v.13 ‘is Christ 
 portioned off’ to any) as the exclusive claim of some. 
 
 There were, then, those at Corinth who falsely 
 claimed a monopoly of Christ, and the renewed 
 repudiation of this claim in 2 Co 10’ lets in a 
 flood of light upon their position. The claim 
 stands in the closest connexion with the dispar- 
 agement of St. Paul’s apostolic rank. He had 
 not, like the Twelve, known Christ personally ; 
 while his witness of Christ, therefore, was second- 
 hand, theirs was direct; they were, and he was 
 not, appointed to the apostolate by Christ Him- 
 self. This contention was due in the first in- 
 stance, no doubt, to newcomers at Corinth (2 Co 
 1113-23), but appears to have imposed upon some 
 native members of the Church (1 Co 1? éxaoros 
 vudv). This view of the matter is clinched by 
 St. Paul’s depreciation of a knowledge of Christ 
 ‘after the flesh’ (2 Co 5!%), By the time the 
 second Ep. was written, this agitation had grown 
 to far more alarming dimensions than we can 
 trace in our present letter (see CORINTHIANS, 
 SECOND EP. TO THE, § 4 [e]). 
 
 While fully recognizing the nature and import- 
 ance of these cxlouara, we must not exaggerate 
 their intensity by supposing that they constituted 
 ‘schisms’ in the modern sense of the word. They 
 were dissensions within the society, not separately 
 organized bodies. Our Ep. ee through- 
 out a corporate life, impaired indeed, but not 
 destroyed, by these dissensions, and the other 
 burning questions which existed at Corinth seem 
 to have had no party relation to the oxlsuara— 
 
 
 
I. CORINTHIANS 
 
 in some cases they may have mitigated their 
 intensity by causing cross-divisions. ‘The attempt 
 has indeed been made to connect each of the 
 several evils touched upon in 1 Co with one or 
 other of the parties (e.g. in the work of Ribiger 
 mentioned above), but this entirely outruns the 
 evidence, and assigns to the parties a too funda- 
 mental significance in the life of the Cor. Church. 
 That the enlightened persons, who went too far 
 in their emancipation from prejudice about eléw- 
 AS0ura, were not under Judaizing influence is no 
 doubt pretty certain; but that does not connect 
 them without more ado with the ‘party’ of St. 
 Paul or Apollos; that the rwés of 15! embody 
 a Ehorougbly Gr. prejudice does not prove that 
 Apollos was their watchword. Nothing in the 
 morbid exaltation of the gift of tongues (14) be- 
 trays (even in the light of Ac 2 11") the Petrine 
 partisan. 
 
 8. Tidings of the oxlouara reached St. Paul for 
 the first time through some persons described by 
 him as ol Xdéns (1"). These were probably, by 
 the analogy of St. Paul’s language elsewhere, 
 slaves. Whether their mistress was a Christian, 
 and where she lived, are uncertain points (CHLOE). 
 Stephanas, who had a household of his own (178 161°), 
 can hardly have been one of of Xdéns. Stephanas 
 and his companions must have reached St. Paul 
 after Chloe’s people; they to some extent allayed 
 the disquieting impression which the news of the 
 latter had produced (16%). Whether they were 
 the carriers of a letter from Corinth is not quite 
 clear. Such a letter, in any case, reached the 
 apostle about this time. He begins to answer 
 it in 7!; its contents may be inferred to be un- 
 connected with the matters dealt with in 1-6— 
 even, probably, with the misunderstood injunc- 
 tion of the apostle in 5%. The Corinthians con- 
 sulted him about marriage and its problems (7), 
 probably about efdwddAura (8-10), about the veiling 
 of women in public worship (11%), and not im- 
 probably about mvevyarixd ; the Aoyla (16%) was 
 very likely another matter upon which they con- 
 sulted St. Paul—probably in reply to some pre- 
 vious indication of his wish that something should 
 be done for the purpose. Before the receipt of 
 the letter from Corinth, as it would seem, but 
 after the arrival of Chloe’s people, St. Paul had 
 instructed Timothy, whom he was employing for 
 @ mission to Macedonia (Ac 19”), to proceed after- 
 wards to Corinth and endeavour to restore dis- 
 cipline (417 16"), But the task required a strong 
 man, and St. Paul is evidently anxious as to 
 Timothy’s reception. And as an opportunity, 
 probably the Cor. letter and the visit of Stephanas 
 ind his party, offered itself, shortly after Timothy’s 
 departure, for the dispatch of a letter, the apostle 
 penned the Epistle before us. After a preamble of 
 guarded but sincere general commendation (1**), 
 he deals (11-6) with the more urgent matters for 
 blame: the cxlcuara (1-4), the case of incest (5), 
 litigation before heathen courts (61°), and immor- 
 ality generally (6°). He then takes up the Cor. 
 letter, and answers its inquiries about marriage 
 in general (7!-7), the duties of various classes in 
 relation to marriage (°), and specially the duty 
 of the unmarried, or rather of the parents of 
 virgins, as regards the question of marrying (°°). 
 Then follows the difficult question of the e/dwhé- 
 @vr.; which brings out the principle that privilege 
 is to be exercised only subject to considerations of 
 the higher expediency (8-10); to exercise it with- 
 out regard to this, leads men to overstep its lawful 
 limits (10-2), Next follows a series of matters re- 
 lating to public worship (117-14): first, the veiling 
 of women (117%); then the disorders connected 
 with the Eucharist (11'7*4); then (12-14) the mvev- 
 pattxd. The principle which emerges here is closely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS 487 
 
 analogous to that which determines the discussion 
 of the e/dwé@ura. Chapter 13 occupies the same 
 place here as does ch. 9 in the former subject ; only 
 the principle of forbearance from privilege enforced 
 in 9 is here carried to the higher and deeper ground 
 of dydin, itself the greatest of the Spirit’s gifts. 
 We then reach the only properly doctrinal subject 
 dealt with ex professo in the Epistle, that of the 
 Resurrection. Our account of this must be a little 
 more full. The question arises from the denial, 
 on the part of ‘some’ (15), of the future resur- 
 rection of the body. St. Paul’s reply is, that if 
 Christ has risen,—if the truth of His resurrection 
 is part of the gospel common to St. Paul and 
 the Twelve (15!11),then the dead in Christ will 
 rise also. The denial of the t.vés, ‘some,’ extended 
 to the latter or consequent proposition, not to its 
 antecedent. St. Paul’s argument is (2%), that 
 their denial of the consequent truth overthrows 
 the antecedent, viz. the resurrection of Christ. On 
 the other hand (”-%), if the latter is a certain 
 truth of the gospel, the resurrection of the dead 
 in Christ, denied by the rwés, follows as effect 
 from cause. This is supplemented (#-%) by an 
 explanation which puts the resurrection of the 
 dead into context with the return of Christ and 
 the consummation of all things. Two practical 
 and corroboratory arguments (*°-34) complete the 
 refutation. Then follows the answer to the ob- 
 jection, founded on the nature of the resurrection 
 body (#58), issuing in the triumphant vindication 
 of the hope of 3 resurrection as the basis of 
 quiet Christian perseverance, St. Paul now turns 
 to purely epistciz:¥ matters: directions as to the 
 hoyia (16!) lead te a statement of his plans of 
 travel (5°), Then follows a recommendation of 
 Timothy (!%"), a message on behalf of Apollos 
 (2), a brief generai exhortation (1% 14), a commenda- 
 tion of Stephanas and his household, and an ex- 
 pression of thankfulness for his presence, with 
 Fortunatus and Achaicus, at Ephesus (28), Salu- 
 tations (29-4) form the close, the solemn anathema 
 of v.21 comes in abruptly in their midst. That it 
 is directed against the Judaizing agitators (cf. 
 2 Co 11) is not improbable, but can hardly be 
 proved. 
 
 Such is the general plan of the letter. Its con- 
 tents can be ¢xhibited more in detail by the aid 
 of a table. 
 
 9. Analysis of the Epistle. 
 
 I. EpisToLaRy INTRODUCTION (11-9). 
 
 A, Tue Sauuration (13), [«. The writer); 8. the readers 
 (2); vy. the greeting (3).] 
 
 B. PREAMBLE (49). «. The apostle’s thankfulness for the 
 work of grace at Corinth, especially in regard to Aéyos 
 and yraous (45). 
 
 8. The end to which this should tend, and which will 
 
 not fail for lack of anything on God’s part (7-9), 
 
 II. URGENT MATTERS FOR BLAME (110-620), 
 A. Parry Spirit (110-421), 
 a. The facts (110-178), 
 
 1) The facts stated (10-12), 
 
 2) The facts characterized ($178), [Christ degraded to 
 the leadership of some; Paul exalted as if the 
 saviour of any.] 
 
 B. Party spirit forgets the essential nature of the Chris- 
 tian teaching (117b-34), 
 (1) The gospel has no room for segia (in the lower sense, 
 7. Adyou) (117b-25), 
 
 This shown by (a) the facts in general (18-25) ; (b) the 
 history of the growth of the Corinthian Church ; 
 (26-31); and by (c) the way in which the apostle 
 founded it (21-5). 
 
 (2) The gospel is cogi« in the true sense (. Osov) (25-84), 
 
 (a) This wisdom hidden from the world, but revealed 
 to the saints (25-10), 
 
 (d) aoe Bpink of God the vehicle of its revelation 
 
 (c) Hence it is revealed to spiritual (3), but not to 
 unspiritual (1416), nor, except in a rudimentary 
 form, to unripe hearers (31-4). 
 y. Party spirit forgets the essential character of the 
 Christian teacher (35-416), 
 (1) All alike, whatever their ministry, are but secondary 
 to God, who determines the result (5-4). 
 
 
 
 
 
488 I, CORINTHIANS 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 @) This ine way diminishes their several responsibility 
 
 Paul the (planter v.6, father 415) founder, others 
 the after-builders (19, waterers 6, guardians 415), 
 
 The Day will test the work of all alike, 
 (8) The temple of God destroyed by those who practic- 
 ally deny the above truths by ‘glorying in men’ 
 
 yy 
 (4) All teachers, like all that enters into the existence 
 and experience of the Christian, are part of God’s 
 pilt to him, means to the one end, God in Christ 
 
 (5) The Christian teacher to be regarded as an underling 
 (érypérns) of Christ, to whose judgment alone he is 
 ultimately subject (41-5), 
 
 (6) The Corinthians have only too good cause to look 
 down on the apostles from a higher level (46-13) ; 
 ‘by the apostile’s aim is not to crush by sarcasm, 
 
 ut to reclaim them as their father (1416), 
 %. Epilogue on the party spirit. The mission of Timothy, 
 and the coming visit of Paul (17-21), 
 B. THE Morau Scanpat (51-13), 
 
 a. The facts (2). 
 
 B. False attitude of the Corinthians (2, cf. 8), 
 
 y- The proper way to deal with the case (3-5). 
 
 The Paschal metaphor of the leaven (6b-8), 
 2) A repetition, with removal of an objection, of a 
 former injunction on the subject (9-13), 
 
 C Litigation BkFORE THE UNRIaHTEOUS (61-98), This— 
 
 «a. Unworthy of the eternal destiny of Christians A), 
 
 & Speaks ill for the wisdom (5-8), but still worse for the 
 moral tone, of the community (7-8), 
 
 y- The injustice, or unrighteousness, thus shown to exist 
 among them is part of a heathen past (9, trans- 
 itional, working the argument back to B). 
 
 D, Fornication, 
 
 w. Not a legitimate use of the body (2: 18a), but 
 
 8. A denial of the true destiny of the body (23b-20), 
 
 1) This destiny described (13». 14), 
 2) Fornication desecrates the limbs of Christ (5-17), 
 (8) Fornication, beyond any other sin, assails (the 
 eternal destiny of) the body (48-19) in which we are 
 to glorify God (29), 
 III. RepLy To THE CoRINTHIAN LETTRR: MARRIAGE AND ITS 
 PROBLEMS (7). 
 
 A. PREAMBLE (1-7). While the single state is preferable, 
 marriage is meant for some, and its obligations are to 
 be maintained. 
 
 8. Apdvick To DirrERENT CLASSES, 
 
 «. The unmarried (8-9), 
 
 B. Those who ‘have married’ (as Christians) (9. 11), 
 
 y. The rest (i.e. those who have been converted as married 
 persons) (12-24), 
 
 (1) General principle; existing relations to be loyally 
 maintained (12.18, cf, 17. 20. 24) [a reason for this, as 
 regards family life, v.14]. 
 
 (2) This general principle not to enslave a Christian to 
 union with a reluctant heathen partner (15. 16) ; 
 
 but 
 (8) The gengral principle to be observed where possible 
 (4) ae principle is the same as is to govern all relations 
 of life. 
 
 @ Circumcision or uncircumcision (18-20), 
 (b) Slavery (21-23: this does not forbid an opportunity 
 of emancipation being accepted, 21b), 
 3 Virgins (258), 
 (1) St. Paul’s opinion tentative, but he decidedly advises 
 celibacy (25. 26), 
 {2) Reasons for this : 
 (a) The general principle (y. 1) makes this way (27. 28), 
 especially 
 (b) In view of the precariousness of all earthly 
 relations, given the ‘shortness of the time’ 
 | (?8b-35): the unmarried are freer to serve the 
 Lord undividedly. 
 (8) This gpplied to the duty of the parent of a virgin 
 
 (4) The same principle applies to widows (89. 40), 
 
 IV. Foop orrgrEp To IpoLs (8-111). 
 A, GENERAL PRINCIPLES: to act on mere knowledge not 
 right (8). 
 
 a. K: ess i does not guarantee truth of instinct (1-8). 
 
 B. The truth about idols (+6), 
 
 y. This truth not equally grasped by all (7-18), 
 
 (1) Some, influenced by association of ideas, cannot eat 
 without sin (7). 
 (2) No one sins by abstaining (8). 
 (8) The enlightened may by eating injure the weak (9-18), 
 B. Tax erzat Principe that of FORBEARANCE in view of the 
 higher expediency (9). 
 
 a. The Apostolic position Cs) and rights (4128) to main- 
 prea of St. Paul (15.14 a supplementary corrobora- 
 tion). 
 
 8. His forbearance to exercise these rights (12b. 15-18), 
 
 y- His motive in this: (19-232) to save others. 
 
 (230-27) to save himself. 
 C. THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES APPLIED (101-111), 
 
 e. The example of the Israclites warns us of the danger, 
 
 even to ourselves, of presuming on privilege (101-12), 
 
 B. The danger of idolatry, for all their enlightenment, a 
 real one to the Corinthians (13-22), 
 es There is no necessity to yield (1). 
 2) The partaking of a sacrificial feast (cf. 810) is an act 
 of idolatry, as is evident (14- 15) from the parallels of 
 (a) The Christian Eucharist, a partaking of the blood- 
 shedding of Christ (16.17), 
 (6) The Jewish sacrifices, to eat of which is to partake 
 of the altar (18). 
 
 (8) Result; to eat ceremonially of si3#AdOure totally 
 
 forbidden (19-22), 
 vy. Practical rules for other cases. 
 
 (1) Preliminary repesmon of the principle of the higher 
 expediency (23. 24), 
 
 (2) Where the history of the food is not forced on your 
 attention, it may be freely eaten (25. 26), 
 
 (8) Where the history of the food is forced on your 
 attention, better abstain for the sake of others 
 (27-29a), and to avoid exposing yourselves to mis- 
 construction (296. 30. 32), 
 
 (4) Epilogue (41-111). The glory of God and the higher 
 expediency to be your guides, as they are mine. 
 
 V. MATTERS RELATING TO PusLic WorsHIP (112-14), 
 112. General commendatory preamble to this section. 
 A, THE VEILING OF WOMEN (113-16), 
 a. Principle of organic subordination (8). 
 8. The covering or uncovering the heaa @ recognition of 
 this principle (410), 
 y. Women not lowered by this (41.12), 
 from nature (13-15), 
 3. Corroboratory considerations {rom the custom of the 
 Churches o 
 B. DisorDERS CONNECTED WITH THE Evcuarist (1117-84), 
 a. aye trae nt pe of the Church marked by dissensions 
 B. They substitute their own feast for the Lord’s (2. 21), 
 y. Unseemliness of the above Meee 
 (1) In the spirit displayed (#2). 
 the aigaite vce Be 2) of the eucladel 
 the significance (28. 27) of the eu ic 
 (2) In view of acts (which are the central feature of 
 
 the xupiaxdy dsiavov). 
 
 (8) Precautions for worthy, and dangers of unworthy, 
 
 reception (28-32), 
 
 (® Conclusion: the feast not to be used to satisfy 
 hunger; other directions postponed till the 
 apostle’s arrival (33. 34), 
 
 C. Tue Spiriruay Girrs (12-14). 
 a. General principles : The purpose of these gifts forbids 
 
 their use as ends-in-themselves (12). 
 
 (1) A caution necessitated by the reader’s heathen ante- 
 cedents ; the nature of the utterance the criterion 
 of its divine origin (+), 
 
 (2) Diversity of these gifts, but all from one source, and 
 for one aim—the higher expediency (#11 
 
 (3) The organic unity of the body of Christ (1 
 
 ‘to envy those who have gifts which 
 ) Forbids usd , We lack (15-2). 
 (@) For to despise those who lack gifts which 
 we have (21), 
 
 (b) Implies organic interdependence of all (22-27). 
 
 (4) Church organization and functions based on these 
 principles (28-30), . 
 
 (Transition to (8) (31).J 
 8 Charity, the greatest gift of all, the principle de- 
 
 termining the use of all the rest (1231 13), 
 
 (1) No gift, miraculous or moral, of any value without 
 charity (2-3), 
 
 (2) Charity, its nature and pre-eminence (+13), 
 
 (a) Charity described (+7). 
 
 (6) Charity outlasts prophecy, tongues, knowledge, 
 all of which belong to our childhood, ¢.e. our 
 present dim and partial vision of truth (®12), 
 
 (c) Conclusion, of the three lasting gifts, charity the 
 chief (18). 
 
 y Practical application. Spiritual gifts to be valued 
 
 only as means to edification (14). 
 
 (1) Prophecy preferable to tongues (1-25). 
 
 (a) nee edifies all present, tongues the speaker 
 only ‘ 
 
 of musical instruments 
 
 (0) The inutility of tongues} (7-8), 
 
 illustrated by analogy } of Paterin | language 
 
 (e) Consequent practical superiority of worship ‘ with 
 the understanding’ (17-19), 
 (d) Practical application of the above (20-25), ; 
 (2) Concluding directions (a) as to the exercise of rveu 
 ThA 
 (0) as to the silence of women 
 34-36), 
 
 (8) Epilogue : ® Gainsayers rebuked (87. 38), 
 (b) Result (89. 40), 
 VI. THe RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD (15). 
 A, THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST AN ESSENTIAL ARTICLE OF THE 
 Gosrez (1-11), 
 a. The creed originally delivered to the Corinthians (1-4). 
 B. Witnesses to the resurrection of Christ from Cephas ta 
 St. Paul (5-8). 
 
 y. Paul as apostle 9-10) 
 
 | 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
eT 
 
 L CORINTHIANS 
 
 IL CORINTHIANS 489 
 
 
 
 3. This truth common to all the apostles (11), 
 B. Ir Ourist 18 RISEN, THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RIBE (1234), 
 a. To deny the cor overthrows the antecedent (12-19), 
 (1) The denial of a resurrection of the dead by ‘some 
 among you’ (12), 
 (2) What this denial involves: 
 (a) The falsification of apostolic preaching and of 
 Christian faith 3-172), 
 6) The destruction of Christian hope (27b-19), 
 & The resurrection of Christ carries with tt that of those 
 who are Christ's (20-29), 
 (1) Christ leads the way in resurrection as Adam did 
 in death (20-22), 
 (2) The resurrection in relation to the consummation 
 of Christ’s mediatorial reign (23-28), 
 1. Resurrection of Christ. 
 2. Return of Christ and resurrection 
 of His people. 
 8. The end, or re-delivery of the 
 kingdom to God (23. 24a), 
 (@®) Before the end must come the subjugation of all 
 powers, all enemies to Christ, and, last of all, 
 that of death (24»-26), 
 (¢) The end itself, and subjection of the Son to the 
 Father (27. 28), 
 y. Subsidiary arguments: (a) Baptism for the dead (29). 
 b) The motive of the Christian 
 life (30-34), 
 ©. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS : THE Bopy OF THE RISEN (¥0-55), 
 a. One kind of body is sown, another is raised up (3544), 
 (1) The seed differs from the fruit (35-8). 
 (2) Flesh differs from flesh, heavenly bodies from earthly 
 
 (8) The spiritual body differs from the natural’as the 
 second Adam from the first (43-49), 
 
 4. The change from the one to the other, at the coming of 
 
 Christ, will destroy the strength and sting of death 
 
 Gass), 
 y. Epilogue: 3) Sin and the law (5). 
 8 
 
 (@) The order. 
 
 Our victory in Christ (57), 
 Result (6), 
 VII. Ertstonary Concuusion (16). 
 A, Directions for the r»oyvia (1-4), 
 B. Personal pians ot the apostle (5-9), 
 C. Personal notices (20-18), 
 a, The mission of Timothy (0.11), 
 8. Apollos (12), 
 . A closing exhortation interjected (18. 14), 
 y: Stephanas ool 
 } His household (25. 16), 
 2) His mission to Ephesus (17-18), 
 D. Conclusion of the Epistle. 
 «. Salutations (19-21), 
 8. Anathema against false brethren (22). 
 y- Concluding benediction (2. 24), 
 
 1¢@. IMPORTANCE OF THE EPISTLE.—The above 
 synopsis is enough to show the richness and di- 
 versity of the light thrown by our letter upon the 
 spirit and circumstances of the apostolic age. In 
 its fulness of light and shadow it vividly repro- 
 duces the life of a typical Gentile-Christian com- 
 munity, seething with the beginnings of that age- 
 long warfare of the highest and lowest in man, 
 which constitutes the history of the Church of 
 Christ from the time when His fire was kindled on 
 the earth down to this day. To do justice to the 
 manifold lessons of the Fipistle would require a 
 commentary ; but without trespassing beyond the 
 net of this article, a few salient points may be 
 no . 
 
 Pastoral character.—The two Epistles to the Cor- 
 inthians are the most pastoral of the Epistles. For 
 details of pastoral Te and organization, indeed, we 
 
 ‘o to the letters to Timothy and Titus. But for the 
 eep-seated principles, for the essential relations 
 between pastor and people, for the conception of 
 the apostolic office, and the nature of apostolic 
 authority, these Epp. are our primary source. 
 The questions touched upon in our Ep. furnish a 
 fair sample of the difficulties of Church govern- 
 ment; and as each is taken up in turn some deep- 
 lying principle springs naturally to the apostle’s 
 lips, and is brought to bear with all its power upon 
 the matter in hand. The letter is unique as an 
 object-lesson in the bishopric of souls. 
 
 11. Doctrinal importance.—It is impossible within 
 our limits to do more than glance at the main 
 points of interest. (a) The Epistle bears fewer 
 traces than 2 Co of the great controversy of the 
 
 
 
 period to which it belongs. The only express 
 reference to the subject is 15% ‘the strength of sin 
 is the law’ (cf. Ro 77"), But the foundation-stone 
 of his preaching in Corinth, ‘ Jesus Christ, and that 
 crucified’ (27 3!°-11), is the root of the apostle’s 
 whole mind and thought on the subject. (6) The 
 doctrine of the Person of Christ, indissolubly cor- 
 related with that of His work, is touched upon 
 8°, where the 6 05 ra wdvra anticipates Col 1° 
 The redelivery of the kingdom (157-8) by the 
 glorified Christ, and His final ‘subjection’ to His 
 Father, is a thought not elsewhere brought out 
 (but see 1 Co 3% 8%, Ro 11%). With regard to the 
 pre-existence and human nature of Christ, the 
 passage 15-48 is of great importance, and has 
 given rise, from Baur onwards, to startling inter- 
 retations (Pfleiderer, Paulinism, Eng. tr. i. 139 ff.; 
 Schmiedel in loc.). (c) The Holy Spirit (2!" and 
 12) is the vehicle of all true enlightenment and 
 receptivity to revealed truth (2+ 1%), and of all the 
 xaplouara which enable Christians to live their 
 corporate life. The language of 12" involves the 
 personality of the Spirit (see further the art. on 
 2 CORINTHIANS, § 7). The Spirit is assumed to be 
 the active aah in baptism, and to be present in 
 all baptized persons (12 6"); though this is 
 ideally rather than actually true of all (3). 
 (d) ith regard to the sacraments, baptism 
 and its significance are touched upon in the 
 passages just mentioned. It was administered in 
 the name of Christ (1%, cf. Ac 19°). An enig- 
 matical practice of baptizing ‘for the dead’ is 
 referred to (15%) ; the context (irép a’rdv) forbids 
 us to regard this as merely an aspect of ordinary 
 baptism. On the doctrine of the Eucharist a side- 
 light is thrown in 10%!7, The reference is intro- 
 duced to illustrate the principle that to eat the 
 sacrifice is to take part in the sacrificial act. The 
 sacrifice here is that of the cross, offered by Christ ; 
 the Eucharist has a sacrificial character analogous 
 to that of the Jewish or heathen sacrificial meal, 
 and like them has the effect of establishing a com- 
 inunion between the worshipper and hisGod. The 
 reference involves the belief on St. Paul’s part 
 that the body of Christ is eaten (cf. 117-%). In 
 what sense this is so, St. Paul does not define. 
 (e) With reference to the resurrection (see above, 
 § 8), that of Christ is the premise of St. Paul’s argu- 
 ment in 15'*4, In vv.4 we have the germ of a 
 creed. In vv.*7 we have the earliest record of the 
 post-resurrection appearances of the Lord; v.® is 
 of special importance. That He rose with a céua 
 mvevpatixkéy is implied in v.“* ‘The whole argu- 
 ment is addressed, not to the general resurrection 
 of all men, but to that of of Xpicrof, the xexo.- 
 pnyévo., whose rising again is the effect of their 
 being quickened in Christ. From other places we 
 know that St. Paul taught a future life and judg- 
 ment for all, good and bad alike ; but (except in the 
 hypothetical drwdovro of v.'*) this chapter has no 
 word applicable to the latter. (/) Eschatology 
 in general the Ep. touches upon 7° ® 15°!, whence 
 we see that the apostle still expected the early 
 return of Christ, and especially in 15%-%8 (see 
 analysis, § 9). In this latter passage the coming 
 of Christ appears as the last and final act of His 
 reign, immediately ushering in the end. At His 
 coming Christ will, by raising His dead to in- 
 corruption, destroy death (v.°4), and thus complete 
 the subjugation of all inimical powers (*). Then 
 all is ready for the redelivery of the kingdom, that 
 God may be all in all. This seems incompatible 
 with the millennial reign after the resurrection of 
 the just, which some commentators (Godet, ete.) 
 would read into our passage from the Apocalypse. 
 
 12. The Christian life. —The whole Ep. is ‘an 
 inexhaustible mine of Christian thougkt and life.’ 
 Nowhere else in the NT is there a more many-sided 
 
 ee 
 
490 I. CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 embodiment of the imperishable principles and 
 instincts which should inspire each member of the 
 body of Christ for all time. With regard to 
 personal life, it may be noted that the ascetic 
 instinct which has ever asserted itself in the 
 Christian Church finds its first utterance in 7 (} 75 
 ® Gv, voulfw dre iddov, ete.); but coupled with a 
 solemn and lofty insistence (ov« éy® aAAd 6 Kdptos) 
 on the obligations of married life, and founded on 
 the simple ground of the higher expediency. This 
 latter principle (7d cup¢dépov) is the keynote of the 
 ethics of the Epistle. The whole content of life is 
 to the Christian but means to a supreme end ; free 
 in his sole responsibility to God (371 2! 10°), the 
 spiritual man limits his own freedom (6” 9) for 
 the building up of others and the discipline of 
 self (974-7), The corporate life of the Church is 
 reflected in our Epistle as nowhere else in NT (see 
 Weizsiicker, Ap. Zeit. pp. 567-605, Eng. tr. ii. 246 ff., 
 for a careful and interesting discussion, mainly on 
 the data of our Epistle). We note especially the 
 development of discipline, of organization, and of 
 worship. With regard to discipline, the leading 
 passage is 54, where are described, not indeed 
 the actual proceedings against the immoral person, 
 but those which might and ought to have been 
 carried out. St. Paul sees the Corinthian Church 
 assemble ; he himself is with them in spirit; the 
 power of the Lord Jesus is in their midst. In 
 the name of the Lord Jesus they expel the offender, 
 ‘deliver him to Satan for the destruction of his 
 flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of 
 the Lord.’ We lave here the beginning of ecclesi- 
 astical censures, inflicted by the community as a 
 whole, and it is not surprising in the apostolic 
 age (1 Co 11%, Ac 51) to find physical suffering 
 associated with the spiritual penalty. Such an 
 azsembly as St. Paul here pictures could, a fortiori, 
 dispose of such matters of personal rights as should 
 arise (642-5512), The organization of the Cor. 
 Church is evidently in a very early stage. We hear 
 of no bishop, presbyter, or deacon (contrast Ph 1), but 
 of prophets and teachers, as the ranks immediately 
 following the apostles. This isin remarkable con- 
 formity with what we hear of at Antioch (Ac 13'), 
 and its correspondence with the lists given in other 
 Epistles is too close to be accidental. The follow- 
 ing list compares the data of 12" with those of 
 Ro 12°%, Eph 41! ;— 
 1, d&aéororo (Co, Eph). 
 2. xpapiros (Co, Eph, -sie Ro). 
 (sdeyysArorei (Eph) 
 soipeéves (Eph) 
 dicxovice (RO)]. 
 & 3:3écxed0 (Co, Eph, -wy Ro) 
 [wapexeray (Ro) 
 wy cpeEis, Loepeorce (Eph)] 
 ‘ dyridsrpeis (CO) [eradsdovs (Ro)] 
 xuBepyqoes (Co) [x por a evos (Ro)] 
 [iasay (Ro)] 
 yivn yAwoody (Co). 
 
 These lists are evidently not to be regarded as 
 statistical, and their variations are clearly due 
 to the unstudied spontaneity with which each 
 enumeration is made. All the more significant, 
 then, is it that ‘prophets’ everywhere take rank 
 next after the apostles, while ‘teachers,’ who 
 stand high in all these lists, are the only other 
 elass common to all. In our Epistle these three 
 classes alone are expressly assigned an order, 
 ‘first,’ ‘second,’ third.’ To interpret these facts 
 would take us beyond our limits, but it is worth 
 noting that the prophetic gift is not strictly 
 limited to a class, but potentially belongs to all 
 (14°-*), That administrative gifts («vBepyicecs) 
 come so low, perhaps implies that they are still 
 voluntary (cf. the rpocrduevos of Ro). ‘To organize 
 the doyla (16") the presence of Titus was required 
 (2 Co 8°). The érorkodouotyres or radaywyol of 31° 
 45, who, like Apollos (35), carried on the work 
 
 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 begun by St. Paul at Corinth, were therefore prob- 
 ably ‘ prophets and teachers’; but the Ep. makes 
 little reference to them (perhaps 161°, ef. 1 Th 51), 
 Public worship is the subject of a long section of 
 the Epistle (see analysis, § 9). At some éxkxAyolas, 
 l&Grac (possibly unbaptized persons) might be 
 present (14! 2%); this would not be at the xupiaxdy 
 detrvov. ‘The ‘Amen’ is in use as the response to 
 prayer or praise (14%). The discussion 11° would 
 suggest that women might, under certain con- 
 ditions, pray or prophesy in public; but 14%4shows 
 that the apostle was merely holding in reserve a 
 total prohibition, at any rate as regards speaking 
 év éxxAnolg. Otherwise, the liberty of prophesyin 
 belonged to all; the utterances were to be teste 
 (14°), but the test was simply the character of the 
 utterance (12!™), Prayer or praise év yAwooy (see 
 TONGUES) was a marked feature of public worship, 
 but St. Paul insists on its inferiority to prophecy. 
 Sunday is mentioned as a day for Weeee apart 
 alms (167), and was therefore probably a day for 
 common worship ; but this is not expressly stated. 
 To come together for common worship constituted 
 an éx«\yola (118), It is possible that assemblies 
 for propheey and teaching (14%) were distinct from 
 those held els 7d gayety (11%). This was the case 
 apparently in Pliny’s time (see Weizsiicker, Apost. 
 Zeitalter, p. 568f.). The purpose of the latter 
 assembly was to break the bread and bless the 
 cup of the Lord. In 11!** we have the Jocus 
 classicus for the Eucharist of the apostolic age. 
 Two views may be referred to which appear to be 
 erroneous. One, represented, for example, by Beet 
 in his commentary on the passage, is founded on 
 the abuse censured in v.”! (cf.%), that ‘each one 
 taketh before other his own suppez,’ thereby 
 destroying the character of the meal as a ‘ Lord’s 
 Supper.’ If, it is argued, previous consecration of 
 the bread and wine by the mpoecrws, and reception 
 at his hands, had been an essential of the Eucharist 
 then, as we find it to be in the age of Justin | 
 (Apol. i. § 65), the abuse in question could not 
 have occurred ; and St. Paul’s remedy would have 
 been ‘ wait for the consecration,’ not ‘ wait for each 
 other’ (v.%), This argument assumes, firstly, a 
 departure from the procedure of Christ in institut- 
 ing the sacrament, which is quiteincredible. That 
 in carrying out His command, rodro wotetre, the 
 apostohe Churches omitted precisely the actions 
 which accompanied His words, and that the pre- 
 sence of those actions in Justin’s Eucharist is due 
 to a reversion, not to continuous repetition, is im- 
 probable to the last degree. The argument is 
 really due to a second erroneous assumption that 
 ‘the Lord’s Supper’ in v.” ‘can be no other than 
 the bread and the cup of the Lord in y.”.’ This 
 assumption is a reaction from the anachronism of 
 introducing the Agape of later times* to explain the 
 passage. The ‘ Lord’s Supper’ is not the Eucharist 
 proper, still less the Agape, but the entire re- 
 enactment of the Last Supper, with the euchar- 
 istic acts occurring in the course of it, as they do 
 in the paschal meal of the synoptic Gospels. The 
 name ‘ Lord’s Supper’ is not elsewhere used in the 
 NT, but in the Church the ‘Lord’s Supper’ was 
 neither the earliest nor the commonest name for 
 the Eucharist ; it primarily, though not exclus- 
 ively, meant the annual re-enactment of the Last 
 Supper, which survived after the Agape had first 
 been separated from the Eucharist, and then had 
 gradually dropped out of use (see Smith’s Dict. 
 Christ. Antiq. s.v. ‘Lord’s Supper’). In any case, 
 then, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ at Corinth would be 
 already in progress when the bread and cup were 
 blessed; St. Paul’s censure and remedy (vv.=*) 
 *The name Agape is occasionally used for the Eucharist 
 
 itself, but more properly for the meal from which the Eucharist 
 has been entirely separated (Dict. Chriat. Ant. 8.v. ‘ Agape’). 
 
 
 
L CORINTHIANS 
 
 are entirely compatible with the closest adherence 
 
 to the procedure of the Last Supper. Who presided, 
 we do not know, but it may ie taken as certain 
 that someone did. In v.™ we see the first impulse 
 toward the separation of the Eucharist proper 
 from the common meal in which it was embedded 
 (see Weizsicker, p. 601). St. Paul’s account of 
 the words of institution has probably crept into 
 the text of St. Luke’s account of the Last Supper 
 (see Hort’s critical note). But it has recently been 
 argued by Percy Gardner (The Origin of the Lord’s 
 Supper, 1893) that a revelation to St. Paul at 
 Corinth (so he very questionably understands 11%) 
 may have been the sole source of the institution of 
 the Eucharist; and it is suggested further, that 
 this revelation was largely coloured by the neigh- 
 bouring mysteries of Eleusis. The tradition of 
 the institution in the first two Gospels is enough 
 to refute this view. That they have derived it 
 
 ‘from Pauline influence is not to be believed for a 
 
 moment ; nor, in view of its thoroughly Palestinian 
 and Jewish antecedents, can great weight be 
 assigned to the fact that they do not expressly 
 record a command to repeat the ordinance (ctf. 
 Bickell, Messe und Pascha; Anrich, Antike Mys- 
 terienwesen, p. 127). We note the stress laid by 
 the apostle on previous preparation (11%). The 
 solemnity of the rite in St. Paul’s eyes can hardly 
 be exaggerated. 
 
 12. LirzraTURB.—(For complete commentaries on the NT see 
 New TEsTaMENT; for commentaries on the Epp. of St. Paul 
 generally, and Introductions to them, see PauL, Romans; for 
 grammatical works, see LaNGuagE or THE NT.) A very com- 
 ope list of works on the Epp. to the Oor. will be found in 
 
 eyer’s Commentary see tr.), also in Plummer’s articles on 
 Corinthians in Smith DB?, see also Wald. Schmidt in PRE? xi, 
 869 ff., 378; Reuss, Gesch. der H. Schriften NT, § 88ff. Ina 
 select bibliography we must be content with mentioning a few 
 books of special importance without implying in any way that 
 those omitted are without (often great) value. (a) On both 
 Epistles: The historical situation has been specially discussed 
 (among others) by Bleek, SK 1830; Baur, T%ib. Z. 1831 (import- 
 ant for the cyicuarx), Paulus2, pp. 287-343; Rabiger (see 
 above, § 7); Sinks! De eccl. Cor. factionibus turbata, 1838 ; 
 Beyschlag, De eccl. Cor. factione Christiana, 1861, and in SK, 
 1865, 1871; Hilgenfeld ‘in his ZWTh. 1865, 1866, 1871, 1872; 
 Heinrici, das erste SS. des Ap. P. an die Kor. 1880, and in his 
 edd. of Meyer (see below); Klépper (see next article); Krenkel, 
 Beitrige z. Aufhellung d. Geach. u. d. Briefe des P.1890; Eylau, 
 Zur Chron. d. P. Briefe, 1873; Hagge in J. prot. Th. 1876; 
 Weizsicker (as cited above and) in J. Th. 1876; Pfleiderer, 
 Orchristentum, pp. 89-117, 1887; Hausrath, Paulus?, 1865 (see 
 also his Hist. of N.T. Times, Eng. tr. 1895); Lisco, Paulus 
 Antipaulinus (a very novel theory on 1 Co 1-4), 1894; Ekedal, 
 Inter Paul. et Corr. intercesserint rationes usq. ad [1 Cor} 
 
 ndon), 1887 ; Godet, Introd. (Edin.) 1894 ; Clemen (see above, 
 
 6), and Schmiedel in Hand-Kommentar!, 1891, 21892, the most 
 searching and accurate digest of the many complicated ques- 
 tions involved ; Zahn, Hinleit. ind. NT, i.195 ff. Of commentaries 
 on both Epp. the homilies of Chrysostom ‘have ever been con- 
 sidered by devout men as among the most perfect specimens of 
 his mind and teaching’ (see Nicene and P. N. Library, series i. 
 vol. xii.); they were delivered at Antioch, t.e. before 398; 44 are 
 on 1 Go, 30 on 2 Co. On the commentaries of Theodoret, John 
 
 nme, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymius, ‘ Ambrosi- 
 aster,’ Pelagius, Thomas Aquinas, the reader may be referred to 
 the remarks in Sanday-Headlam, Romans, p. xcixff. The 
 * Postils’ of Nic. de Lyra (first in 1471-1472) mark a revival of exe- 
 getical insight upon some points in our Epp. Melanchthon wrote 
 on both EPP. ut 2 Co was not finished. Of more modern 
 writers, Locke’s Paraphrase and Essay on St. Paul (1705-1707) 
 dealt with 1 and 2 Co. For lists of 17th and 18th cent. com- 
 mentators, see the references given above. The list of strictly 
 modern commentaries opens with Pott, 1826; Billroth, 1853; 
 Riickert, 1836. Olshausen, de Wette, Meyer dealt with the 
 Epistles in their poner works on the NT. Meyer remains the 
 nearest approach to a standard commentary ; his latest edd. 
 have been revised by Heinrici, who had previously published a 
 commentary of his own. Osiander, 1847-1858; Neander, 1859; 
 Kling in Lange’s Bibelwerk, 1861 ; Maier (Rom, Cath.), 1857-1865 ; 
 Schnedermann (in Strack-Zéckler), 1887 ; Schmiedel (see above). 
 On both Epistles, in English, the best modern works are those 
 of Hodge {New York), 1857-1860; F. W. Robertson 5 (lectures) ; 
 Stanley, 1187@ J. A. Beet, 31885; Kay, 1887 (scholarly but 
 slight, posthumous) ; Lias(in Camb. Greek Test.), 1886-1892. We 
 may add T. K. Abbott, Short Notes on St. Paul’s Epp. 1892. Several 
 excellent commentaries exist on 1 Coonly. Dean Colet’s (ed. by 
 Lupton), 1874; Heydenreich, 1825-1828 ; Holsten(in Das Hvang. 
 des Paulus), 1880; T. O. Edwards, 1885 (very valuable); Elli- 
 cott, 1887 (possibly the most thorough English commentary) ; 
 Evans '@ Comm.), 1881 (uns sed insight in many 
 passages); Sodet, 1887 (excellent); Bois, Adversaria Critica, 
 
 IL CORINTHIANS 491 
 
 1887; Milligan, The Resurrection of the Dead (on 1 Co 15), 
 1894; Lightfoot’s Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, 1895, contain 
 notes on 1 Co1-7. References to Field’s Otiwm Norvicense, to 
 articles in the Expositor, etc., are given by Plummer in DB?, s.v, 
 land 2 Co; the articles give interesting and valuable details as to 
 style, coincidences with Acts, etc. The art. Paulus in PRH2 by 
 W. Schmidt, contains some useful references ; that in Ersch and 
 Gruber (1886) is by Schmiedel, and represents his earlier views 
 on both Epistles. A. ROBERTSON. 
 
 CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE.— 
 
 1, External Tradition. 
 
 2. Transmission of the Text. 
 
 8. Internal Evidence and Genuineness, 
 
 4, Elements of the Historical Situation, 
 
 (a) Timothy, (0) Titus and the Acy/a, (c) the troubles at 
 Corinth, (d) the Offender, (e) the Judaizers, (f) St. 
 Paul’s plans of travel, (g) letters of St. Paul, (A) 
 visits of St. Paul to Corinth, (7) summary. 
 The Situation reconstructed. 
 Chronological Relation of 1 and 2 Co. 
 7. Purpose of the Hpistle. 
 . Integrity of the Epistle. 
 . Contents and Analysis. 
 
 10. Importance of the Epistle. 
 
 ll. sipeokione: Correspondence of St. Paul and the Corin- 
 
 12. Select Bibliography. 
 
 1. The traces of this Epistle in the post-apostolice 
 age are as slight as those of the first Epistle are 
 exceptionally strong. Clement of Rome does not 
 quote it. Where the Epistle would have fur- 
 nished him with most apposite material (e.g. Clem. 
 ad Cor. v. 6), he makes no use of it. It is not 
 referred to by Ignatius. Polycarp, on the other 
 hand, distinctly quotes 2 Co 44 (Polye. ad Phil. 
 ii. 4, 6 6¢ éyelpas... Kal uds éyepet), and ap- 
 parently 82 (ad Phil. vi. 1, comparing Pr 34). 
 The letter to Diognetus v.§ shows a knowledge 
 of 2 Co 68° 108. The reference of Athenagoras 
 (de Resurr. 18) to v.?° is fairly clear; two refer- 
 ences, at least in Theophilus (ad Autol. i. 2, iii. 4), 
 to 71 11 are quite distinct. The ‘Presbyters’ 
 quoted by Irenzus (Vv. v. 1) refer to 124, ore- 
 over, the Epistle was in the canon of Marcion, 
 and appears to have been used by the Sethites, 
 (ap. Hippol. Philos. v. iii. 19, p. 216, Cruice) and 
 by the Ophites, who quoted 2 Co 1274 (id. p. 166). 
 The above references fairly cover the period prior 
 to the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of 
 Alexandria, and Tertullian, all of which authorities 
 bear full witness to the Epistle. The utmost we 
 can say is that there is no evidence that our Ep. 
 was absent from any list of writings of St. Paul. 
 This would hardly hold good if we were to follow 
 Zahn (Kanon, 2. 833 ff.) in his view that a defini- 
 tive collection of Pauline Epp. had been compiled 
 before the date of Clemens Romanus. For, as we 
 have seen, his knowledge of our Epistle is more 
 than doubtful. 
 
 2. The text of the Epistle has been transmitted by 
 the same versions and MSS as 1 Co (see last art.), 
 with the following exceptions:—A lacks 4% (-voy 
 érlorevoa) -127 cal r.; C lacks all from 108; it is 
 contained entire in FGKL; H contains 42-7, 108-12 18. 
 116 12-122, the first fragment at St. Petersburg, 
 the rest at Mt. Athos; I? contains no part of 
 our Epistle; M contains the first fifteen verses 
 of chapter 1, and 10-125 (Brit. Mus.); O has 
 12092; P lacks only 2-6; Q has no part of the 
 Ep.; R has 119%, For the old Latin, r lacks 2" 
 316 52-79 813_99 ] ]22_1918 13114- 
 
 8. Although inferior in its external attesta- 
 tion to the first Epistle, the internal character of 
 2 Co removes it far above any suspicion as to its 
 authenticity. On whatever ground its integrity 
 may be called in question (see § 8), the several parts 
 of the Epistle are acknowledged as Pauline by 
 all sober criticism (see 1 Cor. § 3). In fact, in its 
 individuality of style, intensity of feeling, inimit- 
 able expression of the writer’s idiosyncrasy, it may 
 be said to stand at the head of all the Pauline 
 Epistles, Galatians not excepted. Moreover, its 
 
 
 
492 II. CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 historical references are so unstudied, so manifold, 
 so intricate, that difficult as it is to reconstruct 
 with any certainty the historical situation (§§ 4, 5), 
 the difficulty is rather analogous to the ‘subtilitas 
 Naturae,’ than such as would result from the 
 inconsistencies of a Heats) fabrication. It is 
 the most personal, least doctrinal, of all the 
 Epistles except Philemon; but at the same time 
 it is saturated with the characteristic theological 
 conceptions of St. Paul. The personal relation 
 of the apostle to the community is viewed in 
 the light of the apostolic office as such, and this 
 in turn in that of the distinctive character of 
 the gospel: the profoundest conceptions of grace, 
 reconciliation, consummation, thus enter into the 
 very fibre of chs. 1-7. This interpenetration of 
 practical detail with first Sed eang of the faith is 
 a characteristic which our Epistle shares with 1 Co. 
 But here it is even more strongly marked. Not 
 only do the relations between the Old and New 
 Covenants (3), the Earthly and the Future Life (4), 
 not only do the doctrines of Redemption and the 
 Incarnation (5. 7. 8) find classical expression, but 
 there is not the smallest matter mentioned in the 
 letter which does not carry us back to the highest 
 and most ultimate laws; the mere organization of 
 the Aoyla is sowing for eternity (9), a carrying out 
 of the principle of the Incarnation (8); ‘from the 
 surface of things he everywhere penetrates to the 
 depths.’ 
 
 ‘The Epistle is a letter of many moods, but all 
 under strong control. ‘Joy and heaviness, anxiety 
 and hope, trust and resentment, anger and love, 
 follow one another, the one as intense as the other. 
 Yet there is no touch of changeableress, nor any 
 contradiction. The circumstances dictate and 
 justify it all, and he is master of it all, the same 
 throughout, and always his whole self. An extra- 
 ordinary susceptibility of feeling and impression, 
 such as only an extraordinary character can hold 
 in control’ (Weizsiicker, Apost. Zitlter, p. 328; 
 cf. the whole section). 
 
 In the discussions (art. 1 CORINTHIANS, § 4) 
 raised by the Dutch hypercritical school, and by 
 Steck, on the genuineness of the ‘ Haupt-briefe,’ 
 our Epistle has played a somewhat subordinate 
 part (see Knowling, whi supra, pp. 192, 174). We 
 may therefore dispense with any discussion on 
 the subject, and postpone the question of Integrity 
 until we have dealt with the difficulties connected 
 with the historical situation. 
 
 4, As we have seen above (on 1 Cor. § 7), the 
 complete elucidation of the circumstances of 1 Co 
 depends on the recovery of the thread of events 
 connected with and ascertainable from the second 
 Epistle. Here we enter upon what the most 
 accurate of explorers has compared to a ‘track- 
 less forest.’ The problem is especially tantalizing, 
 because the abundance of material at once stimul- 
 ates and mocks the attempt at a complete com- 
 bination. 
 
 The broad question, How does the historical 
 situation in 2 Co differ from that in 1 Co? how 
 many letters, how many visits, of St. Paul to 
 Corinth, how many estrangements and _ recon- 
 ciliations, are to be traced or assumed? depends 
 for its solution on our success or failure in un- 
 tavelling several distinct threads. Such are the 
 movements of Timothy, the movements of Titus, 
 the history of the doyla (1 Co 161) at Corinth, the 
 sequel of the case of the offender of 1 Co 5'™, the 
 
 rogress of party spirit and of Ba ad to St. 
 Paul at Corinth, and, lastly, St. Paul’s references 
 to his plans of travel, and to letters and visits of 
 his own. 
 
 We will briefly sketch the position of each of 
 these questions, and then consider the possibilities 
 of a satisfactory reconstruction of the history. 
 
 Il. CORINTHIANS 
 
 — 
 
 (a) As to Timothy, the case is comparatively 
 simple. We have seen (on 1 Cor. § 7) that Timothy ~ 
 left St. Paul at Ephesus for Macedonia, probably 
 not long before the dispatch of 1 Co. e was to 
 reach Corinth eventua (1 Co 417), though St. 
 Paul implies some pes fi (dav 67, 16%) as to 
 the prospect of his doing so. St. Paul expected 
 him to return to Ephesus with the bearers of 
 1 Co (164%) by Pentecost (16%), His return 
 from Corinth would in that case be by sea 
 direct. The expression of Luke (Ac 19% els rhy 
 Max. only) is, however, easily understood if he 
 failed to reach Corinth. Lightfoot (Bibl. Ess. 
 275 ff.), who maintained that he probably did not 
 do so, suggested that Titus might have overtaken 
 him on the way to Corinth, or, if he went thither 
 by sea, have met Timothy on the way back. 
 
 ertainty on this point is not possible; we have 
 to weigh the total silence of St. Paul in 2 Co (in 
 the face of 1 Co 4”) as to any result of Timothy’s 
 mission to Cor., against the absence from 2 Co 
 of any explanation (in face, again, of 1 Co 4!) 
 of the non-arrival of a messenger so impressively 
 announced. The latter ar ent seems to the 
 
 resent writer to be slightly outweighed by the 
 ormer. ‘It is patent that the mission had in 
 some way miscarried’ (Waite) ; but that Timothy 
 had failed painfully at Corinth is hardly to be 
 assumed (as by Jiilicher, Hin/. p. 61) without more 
 proof than we possess. Anyhow, Timothy was 
 with St. Paul when he wrote 2 Co. They may 
 have met either at Ephesus or in Macedonia, 
 
 (6) Of Titus (Gal 2*) we do not hear by name 
 in 1 Co. From 2 Co we learn that he was the 
 bearer of our letter (8% 164), accompanied by two 
 unnamed brethren, one of whom, ‘ whose praise 
 is in the Gospel,’ may or may not have been Luke. 
 
 From 2 Co 12!8 we see that Titus had been to 
 Corinth before, as we should also gather from 8° 
 kabws mpoevipearo, This also follows independently 
 from 7° 2)3, Titus, then, paid at any rate two 
 visits to Corinth; and on one of them, previous 
 to 2 Co, he had been accompanied by a (single, 
 unnamed) brother (2 Co 1238). 
 
 We will come back to Titus after briefly con- 
 sidering the history of the Aoyla at Corinth. The 
 directions given 1 Co 16-4 were Pe, in answer 
 to some inquiry on the part of the Corinthians 
 (supra, 1 Cor. §7). They had offered (2 Co 95 mpo- 
 ernyyeduévnv) to contribute, and, ace. to 8°, Titus 
 had assisted in the preliminary organization of 
 their efforts (8!, cf. v.® mpoevjptaro). To this 
 reference appears to be made 2 Co 12'8 (cf. éme- 
 ovéxtnoev with 95). Why not, then, identify (as 
 Lightfoot, Bibl. Hss. 281) Titus and ‘the brother’ 
 with ‘the brethren’ who carried 1 Co? (supra, 
 1 Cor. § 7). This combination seems free from any 
 objection, and the note of time, did mépvar (8! 9°), 
 pushes back this visit of Titus to a date in any 
 case very near 1 Co (see 1 Cor. §6). Titus visited 
 Corinth, then, in connexion with the doyla on twa 
 occasions; on the second occasion he was one of 
 the bearers of 2 Co; on the first, not improbably 
 he was one of the bearers of 1 Co. 
 
 (c) The person of Titus (ef. infr. §§ 6, 7) forms the 
 link between the Aoyla and the more painful questions 
 between St. Paul and the Church of Corinth. The 
 sues whether Titus paid yet a third visit thither 
 
 epends upon the consideration of the troubles 
 which threatened to estrange St. Paul and the 
 Corinthians. Firstly, the case of incest (1 Co 5'™) 
 was dealt with in 1 Co, and the expulsion there 
 ordered would naturally follow upon the arrival 
 of the letter. Did it? It is the preva.ent view 
 (the grounds for it are stated with admirable 
 conciseness by Holtzmann, LHin/.? p. 255) that 
 2 Co 25-4 (=79-12) records the sequel. Ruke by St. 
 Paul’s summons, the Corinthians, by a majority 
 
 
 
‘IL CORINTHIANS 
 
 (2°), inflict a punishment which St. Paul pronounces 
 suflicient, and, lest the pain of it should drive the 
 offender to desperation, advises the Corinthians 
 to relax. The punishment had been inflicted in 
 the presence and at the summons (7!) of Titus, 
 who reported the contrition, zeal, and loyalty 
 wrought by the letter he had borne. This letter 
 would accordingly be 1 Co, unless we should have, 
 on further consideration, to infer that the in- 
 attention or disaffection with which that letter 
 had been received, or some other cause, had 
 necessitated the dispatch by the hand of Titus 
 of a, sharper summons (see below, g). 
 
 (d) But a closer examination of the passages we 
 are considering makes it doubtful whether they 
 really relate to the offender of 1Co5'. The 
 object in view, in St. Paul’s treatment of the 
 case now in question, had been to prove the 
 loyalty of the Corinthians to himself (7° 2%). 
 To have persisted in withholding pardon would 
 have been to give Satan an advantage over them 
 all, St. Paul included ; i.e. to have intensified the 
 very evil St. Paul was combating. Moreover, St. 
 Paul is specially careful to depreciate the grief 
 inflicted upon himself (2°), which strongly suggests 
 that the ddicnGels of 7 is also none other than 
 himself. The ovx &vexev rod ddixjoavros of the latter 
 verse contradicts the tva of 1 Co 5° even more 
 sharply than the notion of a personal wrong, the 
 prominent thought in 2 Co 2. 7, contrasts with 
 that of a sin against God, such as the mopvela of 
 1Co5. There are, then, weighty grounds for 
 eliminating from these verses any reference to 
 the incestuous offender (who may none the less 
 be glanced at among the mponpaprykéres of 127) 137), 
 pat for referring them to some other individual. 
 Here, again, it is a question of probability ; but the 
 view adopted by very many scholars,* that the 
 offender of 2 Co 2. 7 is a personal opponent of 
 St. Paul, who has grossly slandered him, and has 
 temporarily succeeded in undermining the loyalty of 
 the Corinthians, has much to recommend it. On this 
 view, which is as old as Tertullian, de Pud. xiii. ff., 
 this mission of Titus, and the letter then carried by 
 him, must be quite independent of, and subse- 
 quent to, 1 Co. The ayvods of 2 Co 7'! then har- 
 monizes in sense with 11’, 
 
 (e) The oxlowara of 1 Co 1-4 have undergone 
 a change of aspect in 2 Co. Of the watchwords 
 Paul, oaitog Cephas, we hear no more. It is 
 otherwise with the name of Christ. In the section 
 10-13 a distinct group of opponents are in view 
 who arrogate the distinction Xpiorod elvar (107). 
 The final consideration of this movement must 
 be deferred (see below, § 7). For our present pur- 
 pose it is enough to dwell on the marked change 
 of situation. In 1 Co indeed we trace the ten- 
 dency to arraign (dvaxplvew, 4'*) the apostle, and 
 to question his apostolic rank (9!) But it is 
 disposed of briefly and quietly ; it is not as in 2 Co 
 the subject of a long and passionate indictment. 
 The first (1-7) and a (10-13) sections of the 
 Epistle present somewhat different aspects of the 
 vase. In the former, we have references to ‘the 
 many who traffic in the word of God’ (2; ef. 
 4) ; to ‘certain, who need letters of introcuction’ 
 to the Corinthians (3!) ; to imputations against the 
 apostle of fleshly motives, of duplicity (1'* 17 4? 6). 
 
 ese imputations proceed, it would seem, from 
 dmiro, men blinded by worldliness to the light 
 of the gospel (44), who yet, as we infer from 5", 
 lay great stress on having known Christ after the 
 flesh. The last two points throw light on the 
 
 *It is well put by Dr. Llewelyn Davies in Smith’s DB, s.v. 
 Pauu. It had been maintained by Bleek, Credner, Olshausen, 
 Neander, Ewald; and is also adopted by Wilgenfeld, Weiz- 
 sicker, Jiilicher, Godet, etc. Krenkel and Clemen suppose that 
 
 the slander was directly aimed, not at St. Paul, but at a fellow- 
 worker. See Schmiedel, Hzc. on 2 Co 211. 
 
 
 
 IL CORINTHIANS 493 
 
 purpose of such passages as 1! 217, above all 
 3518 614-41, The Judaizing tendencies faintly trace- 
 able in 1 Co have assumed a doctrinal character. 
 Still, the polemic of these chapters is not direct; 
 St. Paul assumes that his readers are with him; 
 so far as they are concerned (et 71s év Xpicr@, con- 
 trast 13°°) ‘old things are passed away, and new 
 things have come.’ We seem to hear ‘not the 
 threatenings of a coming so much as the rumblings 
 of a departing storm.’ But when We turn to the 
 concluding chapters (10-13!°) the brightness and 
 confidence of tone is gone. The features of the 
 opposition of 1-7 are still there. St. Paul is 
 charged with fleshly motives (107), with lording 
 it over the Church (108 13; cf. 1%), with deceit 
 (11%), His opponents still come armed with 
 letters of introduction (10! 18), they are—not now 
 dmoro but—ministers of Satan, false apostles 
 (118-15) ; they preach another Jesus, another gospel 
 (114) ; they claim to be ministers of Christ, to be 
 *Christ’s’ (112? 107; ef. 1 Co 1!2). All the features 
 of the ah of 1-7 are here, but they are 
 heightened, and the polemic against them is more 
 ey, intense. Their accusations against St. 
 
 aul, too, are more direct and audacious,—em- 
 bezzlement (12!%18), bullying by letters (10°) in 
 contrast with weakness when es to face, reck- 
 less folly (11'S), are imputed to him; if he refuses 
 direct sustentation, it is because he knows he has 
 no right to it, being no true apostle (115 121-18), 
 But, worse than all, St. Paul is conscious that his 
 readers are not with him; their loyalty is under- 
 mined. Their obedience is unfulfilled—‘ Ye look at 
 the outside of things’ (10*7), They are in imminent 
 peril of being oblate in fact they tolerate an- 
 other gospel,—yes, gladly tolerate the yoke of ‘ the 
 fools’ who are tyrannizing over them (11-4: }% 2) ; 
 they accept the invidious construction put upon St. 
 Paul’s conduct, are prepared to doubt his love for 
 them (1174; cf. 1218), They are wavering in 
 faith, Christ can hardly be in them; St. Paul dreads 
 to think of the impenitent state in which he will 
 find them, dreads the humiliation which awaits 
 him at Corinth, dreads the unsparing severity he 
 will have to exercise (12!°-13!°),—his last hope is 
 that the letter may pave the way to better things. 
 Note that St. Paul is addressing the community 
 as @ whole throughout, not the Judaizing rivés, not 
 a minority still under their influence; of this the 
 chapters give no hint. Can the situation still be 
 that of 1-7, or even that of 8.9? There is some 
 plausibility, prima facie, in the severance of 10- 
 13! from the rest of the Epistle. But in any 
 case the situation in these chapters is a new one 
 as compared with that in 1 Co; and from its 
 nature can hardly have been revealed to St. 
 Paul by the arrival of Titus in Macedonia, for 
 he brought news of quite a different kind (71%), 
 
 (f) St. Paul entertained, at different times, two 
 distinct plans of travel. The simpler of the two 
 is that announced in 1 Co 165, and carried out 
 Ac 20', viz. from Ephesus to Macedonia and thence 
 to Corinth. But from 2 Co 116 we learn that 
 he had at one time entertained, but (v.¥ in order 
 to spare the Corinthians) had abandoned, the more 
 complicated plan of proceeding direct from Asia 
 to Corinth, thence to Macedonia, and thence to 
 Corinth again, This plan had been communicated 
 to the Corinthians, at least in the form of a promise 
 of a prompt visit. This is not satisfied by 1 Co 418; 
 for if so, the withdrawal would be announced in 
 1 Co 16°, a passage totally out of correspondence 
 (v.'8) with the situation presupposed in 2 Co 1%, 
 Moreover, in defending his change of plan (2 Co 
 115-3), St. Paul would not have failed to appeal to 
 the clear statement of his intentions in 1 Co 16°, 
 The inference seems irresistible that the change 
 
 | of plan was subsequent to 1Co, and that the 
 
 
 

 
 494 IL CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 II. CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 Complicated Plan was formed in consequence of 
 something that had transpired after 1 Co was 
 dispatched, and that further events caused St. 
 Paul to fall back upon the original Simple Plan. 
 
 (g) We have now to take note of St. Paul’s 
 references to letters written by himself to Corinth. 
 That there were three such is certain, viz. the two 
 canonical letters, and the ‘pie-canonical’ or lost 
 letter referred to in 1 Co 5®. But we have seen 
 that the Complicated Plan of travel was com- 
 municated to the Corinthians after 1 Co; whether 
 this was by letter or not, depends on the inter- 
 pretation of 2 Co 1!**, At any rate the promise 
 of a direct visit was given in the confidence (zre7ol- 
 Onors,v.1°) of happy relations between the apostle and 
 the Corinthians, and the promised visit was looked 
 forward to asa ‘joy’ (xapd). But something occurred 
 to upset this confidence, and to demand that the 
 visit, if paid, should be one of stern judgment. 
 St. Paul decided ‘to spare’ them, and not to 
 return to them in sorrow (2!). And this he had 
 stated in a letter (2°-4), written in affliction and 
 distress of heart and many tears,—a letter calcu- 
 lated to cause pain, and one which he for a time 
 regretted having written (7°*), but which, aided 
 by the presence of Titus (supra, c, d), produced a 
 happy revocution in the temper of the Corinthians. 
 Two questions arise—(1) Did the letter announce 
 the abandonment of the Complicated Plan, or did 
 the latter merely follow tacitly by way of post- 
 ponement? This depends on the sense of rodro 
 airé (2%), which may merely mean ‘for this very 
 cause’ (cf. 2 P 15; Winer, Ill. § xxi. fin.). (2) Can 
 this letter be our 1 Co? Certainly not, if, as we 
 have argued, it arose out of a situation subsequent 
 to that of 1 Co. But, quite independently of this, 
 1 Co is hardly a letter which St. Paul could even 
 temporarily have repented writing. Stern passages 
 it contains, but they are relieved by frequent 
 encouragement, calm discussion, quiet practical 
 advice; its emotionnl tension is not to be com- 
 
 ared with that of 2 Co 10-13, or even 1-7; it 
 oes not correspond to the description 2 Co 23 
 (see Waite, p. 383). This is a vital point, but it 
 seems hardly doubtful. The one strong counter- 
 argument, the supposed identity of reference in 
 2 Co 2! and 1 Co 5, has already been examined 
 (a), and found to be of very dubious validity. 
 
 We must therefore insert a stern and highly 
 painful letter between 1 and 2 Co; and if 2 Co 
 18-15 refers to a letter at all, it is certainly not to 
 1 Co, and still less to the painful letter just men- 
 tioned. St. Paul then, who in any case wrote 
 not fewer than three, can be fairly proved to have 
 written four, and may very probably have written 
 five letters to the Corinthians, including our two 
 canonical Epistles (cf. Clemen, Hinheitl. p. 66; 
 and see below, § 8). 
 
 (h) Lastly, we consider the references to his 
 visits to Corinth. First of all, in 2 Co 12" 13} 
 he says, ldov rplrov rodro éroluws Exw éOetv rpds buds 
 .. . Tpirov Totro éepxouae mpds wuds. Taken by 
 themselves, these words would be held by any- 
 one to establish two previous visits. And the more 
 natural interpretation of 2! ékpuva . . . 7d wh mdduy 
 év Nin Tpds bpwas éOety, connects rddw with ev Avry 
 rather than with éd\@ey. If so, a previous visit 
 év dur is implied; the attempt to explain this 
 by 1 Co 2! éh@ay mpés duds, is unworthy of serious 
 discussion. We are therefore obliged to assume 
 provisionally that, when the painful letter was 
 written, St. Paul had visited Gorinth twice, and 
 the second time ¢v Avrp. Only if this assumption 
 
 proves so improbable as to outweigh the more 
 obvious sense of the passages just quoted, shall 
 we be justified in throwing into the scale against 
 them the devrépa xapd of 1, the ws wapdy 7d dev- 
 repoy of 137. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the assumption 
 
 
 
 
 
 of a visit év Avy does encounter hopeless obstacles, 
 whether we seek to place it before or after 1 Co. 
 
 Let us consider the latter possibility first. St. Paul abandoned 
 his direct visit (i.e. the Complicated Plan) ‘in order to spare’ 
 the Corinthians. This excludes at once from consideration the 
 period between the painful letter and 2Co. Let us suppose 
 then that'St. Paul, on receiving from Corinth unfavourable news 
 (probably connected with the offender of 25 712), after he had 
 
 ispatched 1 Co, proceeded thither in person. If so, St. Paul, 
 unsuccessful (1 at Corinth, returns to Ephesus (still é Avrn); 
 receives better news; announces another immediate visit (1.¢, 
 the Complicated Plan) ‘iv rero0qoss:’ (118); another estrange- 
 ment, connected again with the offender of 25 712, breaks out; 
 St. Paul writes again éy Aérn, and this time with more per- 
 manent success, which he at last learns from Titus in Mace- 
 donia. The improbability of this duplication of events condemns 
 the entire hypothesis, and drives us back on the other alterna- 
 tive, that St. Paul’s visit éy Adm must have preceded 1Co. But 
 here we are encountered by the total ignorance of such a visit 
 which that Epistle betrays. Not-only is there ‘not a single 
 trace’ of it (Weizsicker, pp. 277, 300); we are compelled to asx, 
 and ask in vain, to what, on this assumption, was the Avry due? 
 Not to the cxy/ouerx, of which St. Paul knew only from Chloe’s 
 people. Not to the ropyse« nor to the disorders in their ‘assem- 
 bling together,’ of which he knew only by report (51 1118). Not 
 to the litigiousness (1 Co 6) nor to the denial of the Resurrec- 
 tion, of both of which he speaks with indignant surprise. If 
 the distressing second visit preceded 10o, the Avr, which 
 occasioned it was dead and buried when 1Co was written, it 
 had nothing to do with any of the subjects touched upon in 
 1 Co, and St. Paul’s references to it in 2 Co are inexplicable. 
 
 In fact, the main ground on which Weizsacker, Clemen, and 
 others place it after 1 Co is the inadmissibility of placing it 
 earlier; while Schmiedel follows Neander, Olshausen, Reuss, 
 Wixseler, Meyer, Klépper, and many others in placing it earlier, 
 because the attempt to find room for it later breaks down. He 
 justly observes that in a complicated hypothesis we cannot 
 expect to harmonize all details satisfactorily, but must be con- 
 tent with certainty where possible. But this may justify us in 
 questioning the finality of the inferences drawn at first sight 
 from 2 Co 21 1214 131, 
 
 Against the probability of either of the two 
 hypotheses just discussed, we must weigh that of 
 the interpretation of those verses adopted by Pale 
 (Horae Paul.), Baur, de Wette, Renan, Hilgenfeld, 
 Davidson, Farrar, and others, that by rplrov rofre 
 épxoua: St. Paul means ‘this is the third time I am 
 coming’ (i.e. meaning to come), while 2! simply 
 states his resolve that his new visit (rd\uw édOetv) 
 shall not be év Avy. This interpretation is at 
 first sight of inferior probability to the more 
 obvious sense of the words, but it harmonizes 
 well with 13? (RVm) and with the ov«én of 1% 
 (RV ; AV is against the idiom). 
 
 (i) Summary. — Timothy’s visit, then, hard] 
 enters into our problem; Titus visits Corinth 
 three times, first (possibly as bearer of 1 Co) to 
 organize the Aoyla, the second time to cope with 
 the troubles there, thirdly as bearer of 2 Co, and 
 to complete the doyla. The troubles at Corinth 
 were mainly due to events subsequent to the situa- 
 tion of 1 Co, and the offender of 2 Co 2. 7 was more 
 probably an offender against St. Paul, connected 
 with the Judaizing party, than the incestuous 
 person of 1Co5. The troubles, however, hac 
 taken root and hold in Corinth to a degree faa 
 beyond what is traceable in 1 Co. It is not alto- 
 gether easy to combine the situation presupposed 
 in 2 Co 10-13 with that in 2 Co 1-9; it is quite 
 impossible to identify it with the situation of 1 Co. 
 St. Paul, then, dispatched Titus to cope with new 
 troubles at Corinth, the news of which had reached 
 him after the dispatch of 1 Co, and had induced 
 him to abandon an intended visit to Corinth, and to 
 write a painful letter instead. To insert a visit of 
 St. Paul to Corinth in connexion with this crisis is 
 impossible, while the painful letter, and the aban- 
 donment of the devrépa xapd, are so closely bound 
 up with the visit év \ury, that the three must rest on 
 a single basis of fact. If so, the visit év Nimn was a 
 visit abandoned, not one actually paid. Still less 
 can we find a probable place for a second visit 
 anterior to 1 Co and connected with a painful crisis 
 not dealt with in that Epistle. ieee ag 
 the language of 2 Co is susceptible of a different 
 though perhaps less prepossessing explanation, we 
 
Le) al 
 
 re eS eee ee ae ee 
 
 
 
 IL. CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 remove the intermediate visit from the horizon of 
 either Epistle. 
 
 5. (a) A too simple scheme impossible.—We are 
 now in a position to reconstruct the order of events 
 from the evidence. The simpler such an order, the 
 fewer the events assumed, the better ; but we must 
 not be tempted by this consideration to force the 
 peomena to combine where they do not naturally 
 
 0 80. 
 
 Let us begin by trying the combination suggested 
 in art. CORINTH, which is in substance that of 
 Bishop Lightfoot (Bib/. Essays, p. 282 ff.). The 
 order of events suggested is—l. Paul at Corinth 
 (A.D. 512). 2. Apollos at Corinth (52-532). 3. Paul 
 at Ephesus (53-56). [Here Lightfoot inserts the 
 second visit of Paul to Corinth.] 4. Lost letter of 
 1 Co 5° [‘announcing the plan of 2 Co 12%,’ Light- 
 foot]. 5. (‘ Possible, but not proved’) Second 
 visit of Paul to Cor. 6. Stephanas, etc., to 
 Ephesus (1 Co 167-18), (Letter of the Corinthians.) 
 8. Dispatch by Titus of 1Co[‘with the brother, 
 2 Co 123,’ Lightf.]; or 9. Titus sent close after 
 1Co. 10. Titus returns to Macedonia (2 Co 7°). 
 ll. Titus and the brother (2 Co 12" or 8!8?) sent 
 back, with 2 Co, to Corinth. 
 
 The schemes of Waite (in Speaker's Comm.) 
 and of Weiss (most recently in die Paul. Briefe, 
 1896, pp. 9, 10) are in substantial agreement with 
 the above, but Waite inserts the painful letter 
 after 8. The arguments against the view taken 
 below are best put by Holtzmann, Hinl.? p. 254 f. 
 
 To begin with, we must insert here, before 6, 
 the arrival at Ephesus of of Xdéys (1 Col”). But 
 more important is the need for further links be- 
 tween 8 and 10. It seems, indeed, needless to 
 distinguish 9 from 8. But between the mission of 
 Titus (possibly as one of the bearers of 1 Co) to 
 begin the organization (2 Co 8% )°) of the Noyla, and 
 his mission (v.*) to complete it, t.e. the dispatch of 
 2 Co, many events, as we have seen, demand room. 
 The déixnua of 2 Co 25 7}2, almost certainly ; a visit 
 of Titus in connexion therewith (2 Co 7’), quite cer- 
 tainly ; and a letter, not corresponding in its char- 
 acter (sup. § 4,9) with 1 Co, probably carried by Titus 
 on the same occasion. Titus, then, had returned to 
 Ephesus before that ; and since St. Paul, though he 
 eventually carried out the plan of travel announced 
 1 Co 16°, yet has to defend himself from the charge 
 of fickleness with respect to his plans, we must 
 find room for his adoption of the plan of two 
 visits to Corinth, for the announcement of this, 
 and for its abandonment. If the latter coin- 
 cides, as we have shown to be probable, with the 
 painful letter, we have to insert the first change 
 of plan between 8 and the return of Titus to 
 Ephesus, 
 
 (6) Resultant scheme.—We therefore revise the 
 scheme as follows: 1-8 (as above). 9 or 10. St. Paul 
 determines to pay a double visit to Corinth (Seurépa 
 xapd, 2Col), 11. Painful news from Corinth 
 (possibly brought back by Titus) changes this plan ; 
 the deurépa xapdé given up, the visit—now painful 
 in prospect—abandoned ; and 12. A painfully severe 
 letter sent. 13. Titus at Corinth (2 Co 77), with 
 happy results. 14. Titus meets St. Paul in Mace- 
 donia ; and 15. Returns to Corinth with 2 Co. 
 
 6. The above seems to be the simplest scheme 
 that permits the insertion of all the events implied 
 in 2 Co. (Fora comparison cf the views of different 
 critics, see Schmiedel’s Table in Hand-Kommentar, 
 pp. xii, xiii). It remains to consider the interval of 
 time required between the letters 1 and 2 Co. 
 
 We have to provide time for Titus making one double journey 
 between Ephesus and Corinth, a second journey to Corinth, and 
 a return journey as far as, say, Philippi. And, assuming the 
 correctness of the view taken above (§ 4, b) as to the connexion 
 of the first journey with the Acyiz, we have so to place the 
 
 eys that, in dispatching Titus for the third time (§$ 5: 15), 
 al could speak of his first visit (§ 5 ; 8, 9) as having taken place 
 
 
 
 
 
 IL CORINTHIANS 
 
 495 
 
 ee 
 
 ‘last year’ (&xé répuci, 2 Co 88.10 92). This latter condition ts 
 elastic ; it only implies in strictness that the beginning of a new 
 
 ear had intervened ; and the interval between the two letters 
 is so far left open within somewhat wide limits. The move- 
 ments of Titus, however, require a considerable minimum of 
 time, As 1 Oo was likely to reach Corinth before Timothy, who 
 was on his way through Macedonia, it was probably dispatched 
 (8) by sea direct. This was possible at any time after Mar. 5, when 
 the mare clausum properly ended. ‘The voyage was often accom- 
 plished in three or four days’ (Con. and Howson, ch. xii. p. 
 449 n.; for full details see Schmiedel in HK xvi. 3a); let us 
 allow seven. Titus may, but need not, have returned (11) by 
 Macedonia, This route would require, with rapid travelling, 
 about a month ; let us allow six weeks. Another week will then 
 be claimed by the second journey (12) to Corinth, and four weeks, 
 let us suppose, for Titus at last to meet St. Paul in Macedonia 
 (14). We thus require at most 12 weeks for the actual journeys 
 of Titus; and for his two visits (8, 13) to Corinth, in default of 
 any statement as to their duration, we should allow about four 
 weeks in all asa minimum. Accordingly we require 16 weeks 
 for the movements of Titus, allowing him but little repose. 
 
 But St. Paul (assuming the year to be 57) must have reached 
 Corinth by the end of November (Ac 20%: 8), and this pushes 
 back the dispatch (15) of 2 Co into the month of October. Now 
 the new year, according to the Macedonian calendar, began on 
 Sept. 21, and the civil reckoning of the Jews (1 Tisri) coincided 
 within a few days. St. Paul, therefore, could easily speak of 
 the first mission of Titus (8) as ‘last year.’ From the beginning 
 of October (which we adopt in order to deal liberally with the 
 time) the 20 weeks carry us back to the midsummer solstice, or 
 over three weeks after Pentecost (May 28). These three weeks 
 then are at our disposal as spare time. To these we add the 
 time between Pentecost and the previous (1 Co 1619) dispatch of 
 1 Co (8); to this interval we cannot assign a definite value, un- 
 less (following a possible suggestion from 1 Co 5) we place 1 Co 
 about the paschal season. If so, there is time for Titus to rejoin 
 St. Paul (11) at Eph., even if he returned through Macedonia; 
 but there is no strong reason to suppose that he did not return, 
 as he probably went, by sea (supr. § 4, a, cf. b) 
 
 There is thus no impossibility in the view taken 
 by the majority of critics, that 2 Co was written in 
 the autumn of the Roman year, in the spring of 
 which the apostle had written 1 Co. The separa- 
 tion of the two Epistles by a longer interval is not, 
 indeed, forbidden by their contents; but the neces- 
 sity of finding a place here for an evangelization of 
 Illyricum (Godet, Clemen), in order to satisfy Ro 
 15, is not so apparent as te claim a voice in the 
 settlement of our question. 1 Co 16° is prima facie 
 evidence that St. Paul’s three months at Corinth 
 belong to the winter next following that Epistle ; 
 nor are his changes of plan revealed in 2 Co such 
 as to affect the broad outline. At the same time, 
 the question as to the interval between the two 
 Epistles must be finally decided, if at all, by refer- 
 ence to the general chronology of St. Paul’s Epistles 
 (see on 1 Cor. § 6, and art. CHRONOLOGY oF NT); 
 always recollecting that the two must, by 2 Co 8” 
 97, 1 Co 16% (assuming the integrity of 2 Co 1-9, 
 see below, § 8), fall within two successive calendar 
 years. 
 
 7. The purpose of the Epistle follows from the 
 circumstances of its origin. The effect of 1 Co had 
 been, it would seem, good at first. Titus had 
 begun actively the organization of the Aoyla (2 Co 84 
 9?) in a spirit to the purity of which the apostle 
 appeals as a fact above question (the exact force of 
 2 Co 12}8 is often overlooked, e.g. by Clemen). Titus 
 had needed encouragement (mapexdAeca), and St. Paul 
 had given this in the form of a warm recommenda- 
 tion of the Corinthians (7), which was fully justi- 
 fied only after serious disappointments. Mean- 
 while, apparently, St. Paul was incurring the 
 danger at Ephesus described 18 (cf. Ro 164[?], Ac 
 1972- [??]) of which he characteristically first 
 informs the Corinthians when the worst of the 
 crisis at Corinth is over. St. Paul had formed the 
 plan of visiting Corinth earlier than he had intended 
 (§ 4,7), when the return of Titus with bad news 
 of a quite unlooked-for character convinced him 
 that such a visit would be most painful to both 
 sides. Hence the painful letter, again dispatched 
 by Titus, and the reversion to the Simple Plan of 
 1 Co 165. This was before the apostle’s departure 
 from Ephesus ; and the period immediately succeed. 
 ing, during which St. Paul moved first to Troas(2!2- 
 
 
 
 
 
496 Il. CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 and then on to Macedonia, anxiously awaiting the 
 return of Titus to put an end to his suspense, is 
 the time of intense mental strain of which our 
 Epistle is the outcome. The relief expressed in 
 1-7 finds its outlet along with much of the pent-up 
 indignation and self-vindication (10-13) which fan 
 been all the while accumulating in the apostle’s 
 mind. The main purpose of the Epistle, then, 
 turns upon the new troubles at Corinth, which 
 differentiate our Epistle from 1Co. These have 
 been touched upon above (§ 4, e), but require a 
 little further examination in this connexion. 
 
 The difference between the new troubles at Corinth and those 
 connected with the ‘Christ-party’ of 1 Co is one of degree, not 
 of kind. But the difference of degree is very great, and is prob- 
 ably due to the arrival of a fresh agitator (1010 gneiv) or fresh 
 agitators (1012 114) on the scene. Can we identify them with 
 any closeness? The érspov sayysdsov of 114 links them on to the 
 agitators of Gal 16. At Corinth, this is rather in prospect than 
 actually preached; but 11°2 shows that we have to do with 
 Christians of Jewish birth. Were they personal disciples of 
 Christ? (107, ef. 1128 612). This is matter for conjecture rather 
 than proof, The original Twelve seem to be referred to in the 
 twice-recurring phrase UrepAiay e&aorroda (115 1211); but to 
 suppose that any of the Twelve were personally concerned is out 
 of the question, St. Paul would not in that case have stigma- 
 tized them as Pivderocrora, etc. (1113), But did the agitators 
 claim to represent the Twelve, to whose superior authority they 
 certainly made appeal? In this connexion, the Letters of Intro- 
 duction (31, cf. Ro 161) are of importance. As the && vuay of 
 3l is meant rather to point the contrast with 33 than to posi- 
 tively describe the ris, we must understand that the claims of 
 the latter were backed by these letters. These claims would have 
 lost all their danger and prestige had not the letters come from 
 some well-known names. That the agitators used letters of 
 merely personal commendation for purposes beyond the scope 
 of such letters is, of course, possible (Gal 212, Ac 151-4). At any 
 rate St. Paul ignores any real connexion between the agitators 
 and the Twelve. In loyal conformity to his side of the Jeru- 
 salem agreement (Gal 210) he pushes forward the Asyia (cf. 911-15 
 with Ro 1530!.), in the assurance that his unco:;npromising warfare 
 against the agitators will in no way compromise his relation 
 with the older apostles. Chapters 8, 9 therefore stand in a 
 close relation to the main purpose of the Epistle. The first 
 vcven cnapters, With their suggestive passages on the relation 
 wf the Law to the Gospel, their profound glances into the 
 doctrine of Redemption, also lead up to the same principal 
 purpose (sup. § 3). Whether the &ares "Incovs of 114 (cf. 512 119) 
 r2fers toa lower view of the Person of Christ, cannot be re- 
 garded as certain. Unquestionably, the question of Christology 
 underlies the question of Law and Grace, of Faith and Works; 
 but this fundamental issue is felt rather than perceived in the 
 NT asarule, At any rate it was necessary to throw aside all 
 tnoughts of comproniise, and to endeavour to stamp out from 
 Corinth a movement which bade fair to result in complete 
 apostasy (113). Hence the peculiar transition in the Epistle 
 from thankful reconciliation (1-7) to bitter polemic (10-13), the 
 iiternating tones of endearment and rebuke, first the ae to 
 the higher, then the withering exposure of the lower tendencies 
 at work among the Corinthians. 
 
 8. We must now, accordingly, endeavour to reach 
 a result with regard to the Integrity of the Epistle. 
 We have seen that the canonical Epp. to the Cor- 
 inthians are the remains of a correspondence which 
 comprised other letters now lost (§ 4, g), and that 
 possibly not fewer than three lost letters were ad- 
 dressed by St. Paul to the Corinthians. The tempta- 
 tion to rediscover all or part of these in our extant 
 letters, coupled with undeniable difficulties in their 
 sequence of ideas (cf. § 4, e), has naturally been 
 strong. Clemen (whose Hinheitlichkeit der Paul. 
 Bricfe, 1894, contains the most searching and acute 
 of recent essays in this direction) has redivided 
 our Epistles into five (see 1 CORINTHIANS, § 6), 
 thus providing wholly or in part for each letter of St. 
 Paul to the Corinthians of which we have any trace 
 whatever. As affecting 1 Co, his result consists 
 merely in the relegation to the lost. letter of 1 Co 
 5° of certain passages in chs. 3. 7. 9. 14, where the 
 connexion is difficult, and of the whole of 15 (except 
 the rejected v.%°). We venture to think that a little 
 more patience, or exegetical penetration, might have 
 very greatly reduced the compass of these frag- 
 ments. But with regard to 2Co the difficulties are 
 more serious. They fall into three main heads— 
 (1) The interjected warning (see below, § 9, A 2, 6 8) 
 64-71, The direct continuity of 6! 7? is too obvious 
 to be mistaken; the interjected appeal simply 
 
 Ii CORINTHIANS 
 
 — 
 
 breaks the connexion. Accordingly Clemen, fol- 
 lowing Hilgenfeld and others, refers if to the lost 
 letter of 1 Co 5%, while many other critics (see 
 Hleinrici, Das zweite SS. u.s.w. pp. 329-334) agree 
 that it is out of place here. Jt must be allowed 
 that if this is the case, the insertion was made at 
 a date prior to the first circulation of the Epistle, 
 for textual tradition of any kind is totally silent as 
 to it. Whether this objection is fatal in limine 
 will be considered at the close of this section. Waiv- 
 ing it for the present, the question becomes one 
 (a) of exegesis, which on the whole has hitherto 
 failed to find a clear line of connexion with the 
 context before or after; and (4) of the general 
 analogy of St. Paul’s style, and of this Epistle 
 especially. True, ‘there is no literary work in 
 which the ecross-currents are so violent and so 
 frequent’; but there is no other ‘cross-current’ in 
 the Epistle which cuts with so clean an edge as 
 this. On the whole, if we may assume an inter- 
 polation at all without textual evidence, this is 
 perhaps dignus vindice nodus. Whether, if out of 
 place here, the section is part of the letter of 1 Ca 
 5°, is not so clear; the injunction of 6 does not fit 
 so exactly with 1 Co 5! as to precludeall doubt. To 
 reject the passage as un-Pauline (Holsten, ete.) is 
 quite arbitrary. (See the discussions of Whitelaw, 
 Chase, and Sanday in Class. Review, 1890, pp. 12, 
 150, 248, 317, 359; Schmiedel’s He. in loc.; Clemen,. 
 Linh. 58 f.) 
 
 (2) Chapters 8 and 9.—All allow chapter 8 to 
 remain part of our (the ‘ Fifth’) Epistle, but 
 chapter 9 is thrown back to the ‘Third!’ This 
 divorce, in which Clemen follows Semler and a 
 long series of later critics, is mainly on grounds 
 which are more suitable for discussion in a com- 
 mentary (see Waite im doc.). That chs. 8 and 9, 
 especially in view of 9! (ydp), are impossible in one 
 and the same letter, is an assumption founded, 
 surely, upon a somewhat narrow view of St. Pauls 
 logic. 
 
 (3) The great invective, or ‘ Vierkapitelbrief.’— 
 The main grounds for relegating this to a different 
 Epistle are given above (§ 4, e). If they have any 
 validity they make for its identification with the 
 ‘Fourth’ or Painful Letter (§ 4 g). This is the 
 view of Hausrath (Vierkapitelbrief, 1870) and of 
 Schmiedel (in Ersch and Gruber, and in Hand- 
 Kommentar). Vhe arguments are not easy to meet 
 directly—they are not indeed conclusive; we know 
 less of the circumstances than did St. Paul’s 
 readers (cf. Jiilicher, Hinleit. § 7; Weizsiicker, 
 Apost. Zeitalter, 314-316). The pede is that 
 in 1-9 the Corinthians are reconciled; whereas in 
 10-13 they are still in a state of hostility, or at 
 best of dubious fidelity. That the apostie 1s 
 addressing a section only of the Corinthians is 
 against all the evidence. That after the good 
 news brought by Titus, some worse news again 
 arrived to change the apostle’s tone, is wirproved 
 and improbable. The opening of chapter 10, adrés 
 dé éy Ilaidos, is of importance as bearing on the 
 question. Assuming that the words mark, not 
 the beginning of an interpolated document, but 
 the opening of a new section in the letter, they 
 indicate some change of treatment. Possibly, St. 
 Paul may have sent Timothy (11) away and becun 
 to write, either by his own hand or by a confidential 
 amanuensis, words that had been maturing in his 
 mind (§ 7) in the period of suspense before the 
 arrival of Titus, and which not even the good 
 news brought by Titus could persuade him to leave 
 unwritten. If this view be correct, we can, with 
 Weizsicker and others, regard these chapters as the 
 final assault, prepared for in the whole previous 
 course of the Testers which is decisively to secure 
 for the apostle the allegiance of the Corinthians, 
 and to drive the interlopers (114), who had gained 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IY CORINTHIANS 
 
 a ial hold over them, headlong from the field. 
 The Corinthians are already won ‘in part’ (1), 
 but a leaven of disloyalty exists among them, and 
 the success reported by Titus must be followed up 
 to be lasting, and the disloyal leaven effectually 
 stamped out. Add to this that the identification 
 of these chapters with the Painful Letter (§ 4, g) 
 would seem to demand that they should refer to 
 the (ex hypothest) still unsettled case of the Offender 
 (chs. 2. 7). But no such reference can be traced ; 
 the argument for separating 10-13 from the rest of 
 the Epistle thus loses a very strong positive factor. 
 On the whole, then, as regards internal evidence, we 
 may say that the case for separation is not proved; 
 but it would be going too far to say that it is 
 absolutelydisproved. Whether this is so or not must 
 
 set end on the weight to be attached to the entire 
 inte 
 all t 
 
 of external evidence. Can we suppose that 
 lations so serious as to amount (if we pooere 
 e three hypotheses discussed above) to the 
 formation of an entire Epistle out of heterogeneous 
 ents—or even the interpolation of any one 
 of the passages in question—can have taken place 
 without leaving so much as a ripple upon the 
 stream of textual tradition? Certain , there exist 
 . Be evere corruptions’ of the NT text, i.e. changes 
 which occurred so early that the original text has left 
 no documentary traces of itself. But these are small 
 in number and in scale. ‘We cannot too strongly 
 express our disbelief in the existence of undetected 
 interpolations of any moment’ (Westcott and 
 Hort). The strongest internal evidence might 
 conceivably modify this in an exceptional case; 
 only our witnesses to the text push its history back 
 go very early as to leave very scanty room for the 
 occurrence of such interpolations. But the literary 
 relations of the synoptic Gospels furnish an analogy 
 which warns us against too summary a rejection 
 of any such hypothesis in this case. The question 
 is whether the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 
 assed into general circulation as soon as the first. 
 e latter, formally ch paar to within forty years 
 of its origin, was circulated too early to permit us 
 to assume interpolations in it on any large scale 
 unrefiected in the textual tradition. But Clement 
 appears to know nothing of 2 Co, and its com- 
 atively late appearance in the stream of attesta- 
 fan (see above, § 1) is perhaps compatible with 
 some process of editing on the part of the Cor- 
 inthian Church before it was copied for public 
 reading and imparted to other Churches. This 
 would be easier to suppose, if the autographs were 
 written on leaves or tablets rather than on rolls. 
 (See Sir E. M. Thompson, Handbook of Palao- 
 graphy, p. 20ff., 54-61.) We do not therefore 
 regard the absence of textual evidence in this 
 rticular case as absolutely fatal in dimine to the 
 Py cotheses we have been considering ; but it must 
 be allowed to weigh heavily against them ; and we 
 believe that a patient and circumspect exegesis 
 will gradually ine lve the arguments, at first 
 sight ve: foupting, for the segregation of chs. 
 10-13, and even perhaps of 64-71. 
 
 9. Contents of the Epistle.—The nature of the Letter (§§ 3, 7) 
 makes it far less r y divisible into well-marked sections than 
 the first Epistle. The order of ideas is emotional rather than 
 logical ; a subject is not taken up, dealt with, and disposed of, 
 but, like some strain in a piece of impassioned music, occurs, is lost 
 
 & maze of cro’ onies, and recurs again and again. 
 This is especially the case in chs. 10-18. But certain broad lines 
 of division may be recognized, and we shall exhibit these, with- 
 out pursuing the analysis into ita subtler subdivisions. 
 
 A. AXSWER TO THE WELCOME TIDINGS OF TrTUS (1-7). 
 1, Epistolary Introduction (11-1). 
 2. REVIEW OF RECENT RELATIONS WITH THE CORINTHIANS 
 (12-716), 
 with regard to his promised 
 (a) Seif-vindication, ,, visit Fra ~ fom 
 The great Digression (34-19), 
 e S 
 sh Apostleship (214-610) 
 VOL. 1.—32 
 
 II. CORINTHIANS 
 
 aa. The office of an apostle (214-48), 
 [St. Paul’s self-vindication (214-84). 
 The OLD Ministry AND THE New (35-18), 
 Self-vindication completed (41+), ] 
 88. The sufferings of an apostle (47-51), 
 [In relation to the work of an apostle (47-15), 
 In relation to the Horg oF RESURRECTION (416-65), 
 In relation to life, death, and judgment (5¢-10),) 
 vy. The life of an apostle (611-610), 
 [Its motive (511-15), 
 Its basis in THE REDEEMER and His Work (516-2), 
 Its credentials (63-10), } 
 8. Appeal of the reconcile apostle to his readers (611-78), 
 arrest appeal against heathenish defilements 
 
 (c) The reconciliation completed (75-16), 
 «, Arrival of Titus (75-6), 
 8. The Offender and the Painful Letter (7-13), 
 y- The joy of Titus (13-16), 
 B. Tae Couurcrion ror THE SAINTS (8, 9). 
 8 The example of Macedonia (81-7), 
 6) The example of Christ, and the new mission of Titus and 
 the brethren (88-95), 
 (c) Exhortation to liberality (9615), 
 C. THe GREAT INVECTIVE (101-1310), 
 
 1. St. Paul and his opponents (101-1218), 
 
 a) Self-vindication of St. Paul as an apostle on 
 ® St. Paul and the area of his mission (1018-18), 
 ¢) Reply to opponents (1013-1218), 
 
 a. The question of personal loyalty (111-6). 
 
 8. The question of maintenance (117-15), 
 
 . The apostolic xadynoss (1116-1210), 
 
 5: Completion of the droroyic (1211-18), 
 
 2. Warnings in view of his coming visit (1219-1819), 
 
 D. Frau Sauutations AND BENEDIOTION (1311-13), 
 
 10. IMPORTANCE OF THE EPISTLE.—The Epistle 
 is far less various in its contents than 1 Co, and 
 throws correspondingly less direct light on the 
 theology of St. Paul and on the life of the 
 apostolic Church. All the more important is its 
 contribution to our personal knowledge of St. 
 Paul. The most important biographical materia] 
 is supplied in 11%-*, Some of the details (v.*) are 
 not easy to fit into the otherwise known life of the 
 apostle; but this is only what one would expect 
 from a genuine source. The notice of ARETAS ia 
 exceptionally important for chronological reasons. 
 Whether the same can be said of 12? (see Clemnen’s 
 view, referred to in 1 CORINTHIANS, § 6) may be 
 doubted. The attempts to identify the vision with 
 any point of contact in Ac have been various and 
 precarious. The apostle’s xatyyya (1 Co 9"), of 
 taking no sustenance from the Corinthians, is more 
 fully elucidated 2 Co 11738 12%, Of a more 
 personal kind are the notices of the apostle’s 
 miracles 12; of the much-debated oxddroy 77 capxl 
 (127) (see Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 183 ff. ; Lias, p. 
 xxiv; Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp.? pp. 62-66; St. 
 Paul}, p. 94f.), and the references to St. Paul’s 
 comparative inferiority as a speaker (11° 10!) and 
 lack of commandin Presence (Plummer in DB, p. 
 658°; Ramsay, CRE, p. 30f.). But the interest 
 of such details is far transcended by the Epistle’s 
 revelation of the writer's personahty. To draw 
 out this in detail is superfiuous; let it suffice to 
 say that to this Epistle, more than to any other, 
 we owe our knowledge of the true ‘ pectus Pauli- 
 num,’— our intimacy with the apostle’s inmost 
 self. From this point of view it takes its place 
 side by side with 1 Co as the most pastoral of all 
 Epistles. ‘What an admirable Epistle is the 
 second to the Corinthians! how full of affections ! 
 he joys and he is sorry, he grieves and he glories; 
 never was there such care of a flock expressed, 
 save in the great Shepherd of the Fold, who first 
 shed tears over Jerusalem, and afterwards blood’ 
 (George Herbert; cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 
 44,51). The doctrinal interest of the Epistle must 
 be very briefly indicated. The eschatology of 4!6- 
 58 is difficult, and involves at any rate a less con- 
 fident expectation of living until the return of 
 Christ than is expressed 1 Co 15° (for a very 
 accurate exevesis of the passage see Waite in 
 loc.). The contrast of the spirit and letter (3518) 
 leads to the diflicult passage 317-18, apparently 
 
 
 

 
 498 IL CORINTHIANS 
 
 CORN 
 
 
 
 identi 
 with a long sequel in the history of theology (see 
 Gebharat and Marans on Herm. Sim. v. 2; Swete 
 in Dict. Chr. Biog. iii. 115*; Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. 1. ii. 
 5, 11. ii. 3; Harnack, Dogmengesch.? 494n.; Athan. 
 de Syn. 27 [Anath. 21]); and so to the Christology of 
 St. Paul, which receives striking sidelights from the 
 Epistle. The glory of the exalted Christ is the 
 dominant thought of 34%, a glory which shines 
 upon 3nd transforms (Ac 9*) the Christian, con- 
 stituting in the life of grace a foretaste of the life 
 of glory (v.18, see Ro 6°! gt 21-23 etc.). The 
 doctrine of renovation (5'7) and of the Christian life 
 (47-15) thus rests upon the agency of a living Christ 
 as the sustaining force; but there is presupposed, 
 as the fountainhead of union with Christ, forgive- 
 ness of sin (3°), founded on the reconciling work of 
 the Sinless (57) Christ (5! 18%), The last-men- 
 tioned passage is a most important contribution to 
 St. Paul’s soteriology. In 8° the thought of Ph 25% 
 is anticipated. The concluding verse of the Epistle 
 is not a doctrinal announcement of the doctrine of 
 the Holy Trinity, but may fairly be combined with 
 other passages in which that doctrine is implicit. 
 
 We do not directly know the effect this Epistle 
 
 roduced at Corinth; but from the fact that St. 
 
 aul’s promised visit was carried out, and that our 
 two Epistles were treasured up at Corinth and 
 thence eventually found their way into the Church’s 
 canon, we infer that the Epistle produced the 
 effect of which such a letter was worthy. 
 
 11. APOCRYPHAL CORRESPONDENCE OF ST. PAUL 
 AND THE CORINTHIANS. —A letter of the Corinthian 
 Church to St. Paul, and a reply by the apostle, 
 formed part of the NT of the Syrian Church in the 
 time of Aphraates and Ephraim. From the Syrian 
 Church the letters passed over into the Armenian, 
 which retained them to a late date (they are still 
 quoted by a writer of the 7th cent.). The Cor- 
 inthians ask St. Paul to condemn certain false 
 teachers who have appeared among them, and the 
 apostle duly replies. Ephraim, in his commentary 
 on St. Paul (given in Zahn, Gesch. d. N.T. K. is. 
 595 ff.), already noticed that the false doctrine is 
 that taught by the school of Bardesanes, who lived 
 from A.D. 155 to 223. The letters are accordingly 
 in all probability a product of the 3rd cent., and 
 directed against the school in question. They 
 were first made known in Europe by Usher, 1644, 
 (Sylloge Annotat. p. 29), from an imperfect Arm. 
 MS; then in 1736 Whiston published a Gr. and 
 Lat. transl. from a complete MS. The Arm. text 
 was printed by Zohrab in 1805. The commentary 
 of Ephraim on St. Paul (where our Epp. follow 
 2 Co) was printed from an Arm. MS of A.D. 999 at 
 Venice in 1836. At last, in 1890, Berger discovered 
 at Milan a Latin MS of the Bible (‘saec. x. ut 
 videtur ’) containing our two Epp. (after He), and 
 a second Lat. MS (saec. xiii.) has been discovered at 
 Laon by Bratke, where the Epp. come after the 
 Apoe. and Cath. Epp. The text of the Milan MS 
 is given in TAL, 1892, p. 7 ff., that of the Laon MS 
 in the same volume, p. 586 ff. The existence in a 
 Uatin version of letters known only to Syrian and 
 Armenian tradition, and which have left no trace in 
 Greek Christian literature, is not as yet explained. 
 See Harnack, Gesch. d. altchrist. Lit. i. 37 ff. ; 
 Carritre et Berger, Corresp. Apocr. de S. P. et des 
 Corinthtens, 1891; Vetter, D. apokr. 3 Korinther- 
 brief (Tiib.), 1894 ; alsoin Th, Quartalschrift (1895) 
 iv. ; Zahn (ubi sup , maintains that the correspond- 
 ence comes from the lost Acta Pauli), PRE? xi. 
 378 ; Jiilicher in 7AL. 1889, p. 164. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—For works on both Epistles see previous article, 
 On 2 Co only, Emmerling (Commentary), 1823; Fritzsche, De 
 locis nonnullis, 1824 ; Burger, 1860; Klopper, Untersuchungen, 
 1869, Kommentar, 1874 (important); Waite (in Speaker's 
 Comm.), 1881 pe pie i Denney (in Hxpositor's Bible), 1894 ; 
 Lisco, Hntstehung d. 2 Kor.-briefes, 1896 ; Drescher in SK (1897) 
 
 g the ‘ Lord’ with the ‘Spirit,’ a thought 
 
 
 
 
 
 the body of the above 
 
 pp. 48-111. Other works as quoted in 
 article. A. ROBERTSON. 
 
 CORMORANT is the rendering of AV for two 
 Heb. words, nyp kd’ath (see PELICAN), and 4y 
 shalak, xarapdxrns, mergulus. 
 
 Shalak occurs only in the list of unclean birds 
 (Lv 111’, Dt 14"), with no context to assist in 
 determining its meaning except its association 
 with £d’ath. From its etymology it should be a 
 plunging bird. The difficulty of identifying it is 
 enhanced by the uncertainty of the meaning of 
 the LXX rendering xarapdxrns, which is also a 
 plunging bird. Tristram is inclined to the render- 
 ing of AY, which is also that of RV, saying that 
 the cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo, is common 
 along the coast, coming oo the Kishon, and visit- 
 ing the Sea of Galilee. It is likewise abundant 
 along the Jordan. : G. E. Post. 
 
 CORN.—In Jn 12% ‘a corn of wheat,’ we have 
 a solitary instance of ‘corn’ used for a particle. 
 The AV went back for it to Wyclif, intermediate 
 versions having ‘ the wheat corn,’ except Rheims, 
 ‘the graine of wheat,’ which RV (‘a grain of 
 wheat’) adopts. It is the earliest meaning of 
 the word ‘corn.’ Cf. Jewel, On Thess. (1611), ‘We 
 must understand this authoritie with a corn of salt 
 (cum grano salis), otherwise it may bee vnsauorie’; 
 and Hall (1656), Occas. Med. 11, ‘He, that cannot 
 make one spire of grass, or corn of sand, will yet 
 be framing of worlds.’ The Gr. is kKéKkos, every- 
 where else tr4 ‘ grain.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CORN (}27 ddgdn, otros, fruges).—The generic (?) 
 name for the cereal grains. Those cultivated in 
 Bible lands are: Wheat, myn Aittdh, the same as 
 the Arab. hintah. The Arab., with its usual 
 wealth of names for familiar objects, has also burr 
 and komh for wheat. Barley, my séérdh. The 
 Arab. for this grain is sha‘ir. Vetch, noo2 kusge- 
 meth, called in AV (Ex 9%, Is 28%) rye, (Ezk 4°) 
 jitches. The kirsenneh of the Arab. is a modified 
 form, with n substituted for m, and r inserted 
 This grain is Vicia Ervilia, L. It is extensivel 
 cultivated in the East. Fitches, nsp kezah (1s 
 28-7), the seeds of the nutmeg flower, Nigella 
 sativa, L., which is known in the E. as el-khabbat 
 es-saudd, the black seed, or habbat el-barakat, the 
 seed of blessing. This seed, which has carminative 
 
 roperties, is sprinkled on the top of loaves of 
 breed. Millet, 95 dohan (Ezk 4°), which is the 
 same as the Arab. dukhn, Panicum mtliaceum, L., 
 also Milium Italicum, L. Beans, 1s pél, Arab. 
 fil. Lentils, avy ‘addshim, Arab. ‘adas. Pulse, 
 oy zéro‘tm (Dn 116), seeds, probably refers to 
 edible seeds in general, corresponding to the Arab. 
 kutniyah, plur. katdni, which includes not only the 
 leguminous seeds which we know as pulse, but 
 millet, ete.; but excludes wheat. Rye, as above 
 stated, is an incorrect rendering for vetch, and is 
 not otherwise mentioned in Scripture, nor culti- 
 vated in the Holy Land. Oats, also, are not men- 
 tioned nor cultivated. 
 
 Corn of all kinds is carried in sheaves from the 
 harvest-fields on asses, mules, horses, or camels. It 
 is threshed by the nauraj or mawraj (Heb. mérag), 
 and winnowed, and stored in earthen, barrel-shaped 
 receptacles or oblong bins in the houses (2 § 4°), 
 or in pits under the floor (2 8 17), or in store- 
 houses (2 Ch 328), It is now often stored in 
 underground chambers, with domed roofs, at the 
 top of which is an opening to introduce the corn 
 and remove it. These chambers, contrary te 
 what might be expected, are dry and free from 
 vermin. They are sometimes excavated in the rock, 
 am ober times in a sort of soft marl called huw:- 
 whrah. 
 

 
 ‘ 
 :- 
 
 
 
 CORNELIUS 
 
 
 
 The oorn is liable to mildew, ppv yérdkén (the 
 equivalent of the Arab. yerakdn, which means 
 jaundice), and blasting, }\»3w shiddadphén (1 K 8°), 
 caused by the hot and withering east wind (Hos 
 13", Jon 4°), When the corn was burned by care- 
 lessness, restitution was enjoined (Ex 225), Also 
 if the corn land was made pasture ground for flocks 
 other than those of the owners of the land (Ex 22%). 
 Palestine exported corn in Solomon’s time (2 Ch 
 21015) and in Ezekiel’s (Ezk 27!”). Even now it 
 exports some corn, although its imports of grain 
 exceed its exports. See further under BARLEY, 
 WHEAT, etc, G. E. Post. 
 
 CORNELIUS (Kopv#icos).—A centurion in the 
 garrison of Cesarea (Ac 10'). He was probably 
 an Italian, the Italian Cohort (cf. Blass ad loc.), 
 being so named to distinguish it from companies 
 Sally enrolled, while his name is pure Roman, 
 having been borne by the Scipios and Sulla. In 
 Ac 10 he flits across the line of apostolic history, 
 being brought, in consequence of a series of 
 mutually supplementary visions, into contact with 
 St. Peter, and admitted by baptism into the 
 Church. According toa later tradition he founded 
 a church at Cesarea, while another legend makes 
 him bishop of Scamandros. The baptism of C. 
 has generally been regarded as the first step 
 in the admission of the uncircumcised into the 
 Church; but before this can be definitely main- 
 tained, we should have to assume that the 
 events related in Ac 8-11 are narrated chrono- 
 logically. The eunuch’s baptism by Philip (8%), 
 that of C. by St. Peter (104), and the admission of 
 the Greeks (RV) at Antioch (11%), may all have 
 occurred coincidently, or in any order; the events 
 are dovetailed into each other without any neces- 
 sary implication of historical sequence. There is 
 no evidence that the eunuch was circumcised, 
 though he was probably a proselyte of the wider 
 class (proselytes of the Gate); while the Greeks at 
 Antioch may also have belonged to this class. 
 But C., too, is described as goBovmevos rdv Gedy, the 
 regular phrase in Ac for such proselytes (Ramsay, 
 St. Paul, p. 43), though Renan (The Apostles, 
 ch. xi.) says he was not a proselyte in any degree 
 whatever. Now, if C. was a proselyte, the question 
 regarding the admission of the unmitigated heathen 
 still remained, since the apostles could hardly wish 
 to make the door of the Church narrower than that of 
 the Synagogue. Some have therefore conjectured 
 that St. Peter simply gave C. a standing in the 
 Church similar to that which he had in the Syna- 
 gogue (see Weizsiicker, Apostolic Age, i. 103 f.); 
 others, that his case was passed as an exceptional one 
 (Ramsay). St. Peter, however, according to Ac 11°", 
 uses it as a true precedent, though, had it been 
 accepted as such, what was the purpose of the 
 subsequent Council at Jerusalem (Ac15)? Arguing 
 from this, and from the fact that St. Peter was 
 blamed, not for admitting the Gentiles, but for 
 eating with them, Pfleiderer (Urchristentum, 
 Apostelgeschichte) holds that the case of C. is given 
 to show the cessation of ceremonial exclusiveness 
 from the Jewish standpoint. But if so, it is 
 strange to find St. Peter later on (Gal 2") hesi- 
 tating about this very point. On the whole, it is 
 @ priori unlikely that a terse writer like St. Luke 
 would have bestowed such pains upon anything 
 but a matter of prime importance, which the 
 relaxing of Jewish exclusiveness could hardly have 
 5 Sete to him—a Gentile—to be. We may, 
 therefore, most safely infer that he looked on the 
 baptism of C. as an all-important step in the ad- 
 mission of the Gentiles, while a long advance still 
 remained to be made. A. GRIEVE. 
 
 
 
 CORNER.—-See AGRICULTURE. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CORPSE 499 
 
 
 
 CORNER-STONE (in Job 38° ays jax, Al0os ywrextos, 
 in Jer 51 (Gr. 28) 8 ajad jax, AlOos els ywviav).—The 
 corner-stones of important buildings, such as 
 palaces or temples, were sometimes of an exceed- 
 ingly ornate and costly description, and of extra- 
 ordinary dimensions. With the view of giving 
 greater strength to the two walls which they 
 connected, they were generally arranged length- 
 ways and endways alternately, or a single angular 
 sary might be inserted at the corner (Layard, Nin. 
 ii. 254), 
 
 There are two passages in the OT where corner- 
 stones are spoken of, which are of primary import- 
 ance because of the use made of them in the NT. 
 These are Is 28!6 ‘Behold I lay in Zion,’ etc., and 
 Ps 118” ‘The stone which the builders rejected,’ 
 ete. The first is quoted in 1 P 2° and underlies 
 Eph 2”, in both of which Al@os dxpoywriaios repre- 
 sents 732 12x of Is 286, (On the unusual construc- 
 tion of the latter verse see Davidson’s Heb. Syntaz, 
 
 . 37.) The second is quoted in Mt 21%, Mk 12”, 
 
 k 20", Ac 4", and 1 P 27. Here instead of 
 m3 ]28 we find 735 wn, answering to Kepady ywvlas, 
 ‘head of the corner.’ In Ps 144!’ a different word 
 
 occurs, niyy (Syr. Vaso} ), which in Zec 9" ig 
 
 applied to the corners of the altar. It is doubtful 
 whether in the above psalm corner-stones (accepted 
 by both AV and RV) is the correct rendering. The 
 Sept. has simply xexad\\wmicuévar, Aq. ws émiydina, 
 Symm. os ywvlat xexoounuévar, Vulg. guasi angult. 
 Gesenius understands the word of ‘ corner-colwmns 
 beautifully carved,’ or of Caryatides. Kautzsch, 
 who in all the other OT passages offers the 
 rendering Eckstein, has here Ecksaulen. In all 
 the NT passages Weizsiicker gives Eckstein, 
 rightly treating ‘corner-stone’ and ‘head of the 
 corner’ as synonymous expressions, 
 
 As to Is 28"°, Driver (Isaiah?, p. 52) finds in the 
 prophet’s language an allusion to the pee and 
 costly foundation stones of the temple (1 517), 
 the prominent thought of the passage being that 
 of the permanent element in Zion (the theocracy or 
 the Davidie dynasty). It is easy to understand 
 St. Peter’s application of the words. (Cf. Delitzsch, 
 Isaiah, new ed. vol. ii. p. 9.) Similarly, the expres- 
 sions used of Israel in Bs 118” were readily trans- 
 ferred to Christ. The figure of Eph 2” is well 
 explained by Grimm (Clavis, s. dxpoywvaios). As 
 the corner-stone is inserted at the angle of a 
 building, holding two walls together and support- 
 ing the superstructure, so Christ unites Jew and 
 Gentile, and is the support of the Church. The 
 additional thought of 1 P 28 can be without 
 violence derived from the same figure. As one 
 recklessly turning the corner of a building may 
 stumble over the corner-stone, so, while some find in 
 Christ their support, others stumble at Him and 
 perish. (Cf. Alford and Ellicott on Eph 2”.) For 
 various superstitions and religious rites connected 
 with the corner-stone, comp. Trumbull, Threshold 
 Covenant, 22, 51, 55, and see FOUNDATION. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 CORNET.—See Music. 
 
 CORONATION.—Only 2 Mac 4” ‘the coronation of 
 king Ptolemeus Philometor,’ AVm ‘ enthronizing’ 
 (Rawlinson in Speaker’s Com. ‘inthronization’), 
 RV ‘ enthronement.’ 
 
 The Greek r2 xpwroxdAiove is found only here, and its meaning 
 is doubtful. It has been identified, as by Bissell tn loc., with » 
 xpwroxdicia, the ‘chief seat’ (AV ‘highest room’) at a feast, 
 which occurs Mt 235, Mk 1239, Lk 2046, and Lk 147.8, elsewhere 
 only in eccles, writers. But cod. A (fold by Swete) has xparo- 
 xajoie in our passage, ‘a first assembly,’ whence Luther’s ersten 
 Reichstag. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
 CORPSE, from Lat. corpus, is in earliest Eng. a 
 
500 CORRECT, CORRECTION 
 
 body, living* or dead, and is so found as late as 
 1707. Hence ‘dead ccrpses,’ 2 K 19%=Is 3736, as 
 in Fuller, Holy War, iv. 27, ‘the cruditie of a 
 dead corpse.’ RV retains ‘dead corpses’ because 
 of the Heb. (ap 0739) of which it is a literal 
 translation. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CORRECT, CORRECTION.—Both vb. and subst. 
 are used in the (nearly) obsol. sense of chastise- 
 ment, and it is doubtful if in any other. Thus 
 Jer 10% ‘O LorD, correct me, but with judgment ; 
 not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing’; 
 and Sir 16! ‘As his mercy is great, so is his cor- 
 rection also’ (2\eyxos). In Job 37* the Heb. is ‘a 
 rod’ (3%) as itis triin 21°, The Heb., however, 
 is generally 19D mdsdr (or vb. 10:), a word very 
 characteristic of Pr, in AV most freq. tr‘ ‘instruc- 
 tion,’ but RV _ prefers ‘correction,’ though not 
 consistently. In He 12° raideuris is tr’ by a verb, 
 AV ‘which corrected us,’ RV ‘to chasten us’ (as 
 the vb. wacdew is tr’ in v.!) ; but the same word is 
 rendered in Ro 2” AV ‘an instructor,’ RV ‘a 
 corrector.’ In 2 Ti 3'* Scripture is said to be pro- 
 fitable for ‘correction.’ The Eng. word prob. 
 means ‘ chastening’ (if not ‘ chastisement,’ Wyclif 
 has ‘to chastise’), and this is prob. the meaning of 
 the Gr. éravép@wors, which occurs only here in NT, 
 though in the classics it is common for ‘ amend- 
 ment.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CORRUPT.—In older English ‘corrupt’ (and its 
 derivatives) had the meaning of destroy, consume, 
 and in that sense, not in the sense of taint, it is 
 most freq.in AV. Thus Mt 6! ‘where moth and 
 rust doth corrupt’ (ddavite, ‘causes to disappear,’ 
 RV ‘doth consume’); Lk 12% ‘neither moth 
 corrupteth’ (diapdelpa, RV ‘destroyeth’); Ja 5? 
 ‘Your riches are corrupted’ (cécy7e). Corrupter : 
 Is 1¢ ‘children that are corrupters’ (RV ‘that deal 
 corruptly’), but the Heb. (omy 33) means 
 ‘sons that deal or act corruptly.’ Corrupt as 
 participial adj., Job 17! ‘My breath is ¢.’ (aban, RV 
 ‘my spirit is consumed’); Eph 472 ‘ec. acc. to the 
 deceitful lusts’ (¢0e:psuevov = ‘ morally decaying, on 
 the way to final ruin’—Moule). Corruptible : 
 Wis 197! ‘the flesh of c. living things’ (evp0dprwv 
 fdwv); Ro 1 ‘c. man,’ t.e. liable to decay, mortal 
 (POaprés); 1 Co 9% ‘a c. crown,’ referring to the 
 garland of bay leaves with which the victors in the 
 games were crowned, and which soon went to 
 decay. Corruption: Ps 16 ‘Neither wilt thou 
 suffer thine Holy One to see c.’ (RVm correctly ‘the 
 pit,’ nov’, LXX diagOopd, whence Ac 277 13%); Ro 821 
 ‘the bondage of c.’ (dovdela ris POopas, ‘the state 
 of subjection or thraldom to dissolution and decay’ 
 —Sanday-Headlam, in Joc. 
 
 There is an obsol. meaning of ‘ corrupt ’=adulterate, of which 
 Oxf. Eng. Dict. has found two examples: Act 23 Elizabd. c. 8, 
 § 4 (1581), ‘Everye Person and Persons that shall corrupt the 
 Honny . . . with any deceyptfull myxture, shall forfeyte the 
 Barrell’; and View Penal Laws, 244 (1697), ‘If any... Vintners 
 shall Corrupt or Adulterate any Wine.’ Of this rare usage 
 there is an instance in AV, 2 Oo 217‘ For we are not as many, 
 which corrupt the word of God.’ This tr> is a change from 
 that of the Rhemish Bible ‘adulterating,’ which again re- 
 sembles Wyclif’s ‘for we ben not as many that don avouterie 
 (=adultery) bi the word of god.’ The Gr. verb (xewnaséw from 
 xéandos, ® Vintner, huckster, Is 122, Sir 2629) signifies to make 
 money by trading, esp. by trading basely in anything; and 
 some prefer that more common meaning here; hence Tindale’s 
 trn ‘many ... which choppe and chaunge with the word of 
 God,’ foll4 by Cranmer. But as such hucksters sought to in- 
 crease their gain by adulterating their goods (the reference is 
 esp. to wine) the word came to mean ‘ adulterate,’ and is taken 
 in that sense by most here. 
 
 In 2 K 23% the Mount of Olives is called, on 
 account of the ‘high places’ which Solomon built 
 
 *T. Adams (quoted by Davies, Bible English, p. 161) speaks 
 of those to whom ‘orchards, fishponds, parks, warrens, and 
 whatsoever may yield pleasurable stuffing to the ccrpse, is a 
 very heaven upon earth.’—Sermons (Pur. Divines), i. 276. 
 
 COs 
 
 
 
 there, or, rather, turned to idolatrous uses, ‘tha 
 mount of corruption’ (RVm ‘destruction’; Heb. 
 mover, LXX 7d dpos rol Mosod8, Vulg. mons 
 offensionis, whence the name of a part of Olivet 
 in later Christian writings ‘Mount of Offence.’ See 
 OLIVES, MOUNT OF. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CORRUPTION (usual rendering of nny, d:adBopd, 
 ~0opé) has in OT only a literal and physical mean- 
 ing, though the verb is also emblematical and 
 moral (Gn 6", Jg 2°, Dn 2°). In profane Gr. both 
 POopd and diapOopd bear the physico-moral sense of 
 sensual corruption (Xen. Apol. 19; Plut. 2. 712c) : 
 and éa¢Gopd, the more strictly moral corruption 
 of bribery (Arist. Rhet. i. 12. 8). Both the verbs 
 are used of bribery and also of the degradation 
 of the judgment (Asch. Ag. 932), the prefer- 
 ence being, both in class. Greek and in LXX, for 
 diapOelpw in the moral region. In NT diagopd 
 (six times) denotes only physical decompositior 
 and decay (Ac 2%! 13%-*7), while @@opd4 stands ir 
 2 P 14212 19) Jude , Gal 68, Ro 8, for the natural 
 decay of the world, the unreasoning animals, or 
 the fiesh, as emblematic of the immoral, sin bei 
 behind the decomposition of the natural body an 
 nature generally (2 P 14, Ro 8"; cf. Gn 31-18), 
 fettering free development and keeping the creation 
 in slavery (Ro 8”). Both verbs (with a balance in 
 favour of ¢0elpw) are used morally without any 
 medium of metaphor (1 Ti 65, 1 Co 15*, Rev 19%, 
 Jude”, 2Co 11%). In Gal 6° (of the flesh reap 
 pbopdy . . . of the spirit reap {why aldvov) p0opa 
 is antithetical to eternal life and all that is therein 
 contained. But while ¢é@opé in this connexion in- 
 cludes the moral death, which is the lowest depth 
 of moral deterioration and decay, and the kindred 
 verbs mean not only to make worse, but also to 
 destroy (d:a¢0elpw in NT only in two passages, 
 Rev 8° 118; ¢6elpw perhaps in three, 1 Co 3”, 
 2 P 2, Jude ”), there is nothing in NT usage 
 which involves the substitution of annihilation, 
 literal destruction of spirit, for the continuation of 
 the miserable and penal existence which, accordin 
 to later OT ideas and the more definite Jewis 
 views in NT times, was the destiny of the wicked 
 after the death of the body. (Cf. for the general 
 misery of after existence, Job 14%; penal for the 
 wicked, Ps 9”; the righteous rescued from it, Ps 16%; 
 
 climax for both in resurrection, Dn 12?; Jewish 
 
 idea of Hades in NT times, Lk 16%, Ps-Sol 
 146 151! 162, Enoch 63% ‘In the Talm., Sheol has 
 become synonymous with Gehenna. Weber, L.d. T. 
 3267.’ Charles, Enoch, p. 69.) The corrupted state 
 of the moral functions, brought to a kind of com- 
 pletion (cf. perfect participle dvepOapuévor), may be 
 already reached in this life (1 Ti 6°; cf. 2 Co 11%, 
 2 P 2", Eph 4”), J. MASSIE. 
 
 COS (K@s).—An island off the Carian coast, nearly 
 blocking the entrance to the Ceramic f, ve 
 fertile (producing ointments, wheat, wines, and, 
 above all, silk), famous for its rich and comfortable 
 country life and the beauty and character of its 
 people, with a city of the same name at its eastern 
 end. It was one of the six Dorian colonies. Its 
 famous temple of Alsculapius was the centre of 
 one of the oldest and greatest medical schools in 
 Greece, adorned especially by the genius of Hippo- 
 crates in the 5th century. Amid the busy and 
 frequent trade and intercourse between the Aigean 
 cities and the Syrian and Egyp. coasts, which existed 
 for many centuries after the time of Alexander the 
 Great (336-321), C., which lay on the path of all 
 ships engaged in that trade, 8. of Miletus and 
 Samos, and N. of Rhodes (Ac 21!; Lucan, viii. 
 243 f.; Livy, xxxvii. 16), became a place of great 
 importance and wealth. In the 3rd cent. C. 
 clung closely to the Egyp. kings; but in the 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 COSAM 
 
 2nd cent. it was a good deal under the in- 
 fluence of Rhodes, and like it a staunch ally of 
 Rome. It is uncertain whether C. was incorpor- 
 ated in the Rom. province Asia in B.C. 129 along 
 with the rest of Caria (which see); it had always 
 the dignity of a free city (see CHIOS) as a reward 
 for its faithful alliance; and this perhaps implied 
 a eles of approximate autonomy until the time 
 of Augustus, when C. became definitely a part 
 of the province (after the death or deposition of 
 the tyrant Nicias). It suffered from earthquakes 
 in B.C. 6, under Pius (A.D. 138-161), and in A.D. 
 554 (Agathias, p. 98, gives a vivid description of 
 the latter). There is a famous plane tree of great 
 size and age in the square of the modern city, 
 declared by tradition to be over 2000 years old. 
 From its Syrian and Alexandrian trading con- 
 nexion, C. was one of the great Jewish centres in 
 the Aigean. In B.c. 139-138 the Romans wrote to 
 its government in favour of the Jews (1 Mac 
 15%; see CARIA). The position of C. natur- 
 ally made it one of the great banking and financial 
 centres of the E. commercial world; and the 
 treasure of Cleopatra, which Mithridates seized in 
 B.C, 87, is thought by Rayet to have been deposited 
 with the Jewish bankers of C., as certainly were 
 the 800 talents (£192,000) belonging to Jews of 
 Asia Minor, which Mithridates also seized there 
 (Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2). In B.c. 49, C. Fannius, 
 
 
 
 “governor of the province Asia, wrote to the Coans 
 
 urging them to observe the decree of the Rom. 
 Senate,* and provide for the safe passage of Jewish 
 pilgrims through C. (which lay on their route) 
 to Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. XIv. x. 15). The poet 
 Meleager, who lived in C. in that century, com- 
 
 lains that his mistress deserted him for a Jewish 
 over (Ep. 83, Anthol. Gr. v. 160). Herod the Great 
 was a benefactor of the Coans; and the inscription 
 of a statue to his son Herod the Tetrarch has been 
 found at Cos. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Strabo, p. 657f. The latest and best account is 
 by Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions of Cos; Rayet, Mémoire sur 
 Pile de Kos (eatr. des archives des missions, iii. 3); Dubois, De 
 Co insula; Ross, Reisen nach Kos, u.s.w., and his Reisen auf 
 den griech. Inseln, ii. pp. 86-92, iii. pp. 126-139, are also useful. 
 A list of other works is given, Paton-Hicks, p. ix. 
 
 W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 COSAM (Kwody).—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3%), 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 COSMOGONY.—I. Two cosmogonies or narratives 
 of creation confront us in the opening chapters of 
 the Bible. The first, contained in the first chapter 
 of the Book of Genesis, is a part of the document 
 P, belonging to the early post-exilic period ; while 
 the second, contained in Gn 2*-’, forms the intro- 
 duction to the Jahwistic document (J), redacted in 
 the pre-exilic period, and therefore earlier than 
 the first. 
 
 (A) THE First CREATION NARRATIVE.—The 
 writer+ of the opening chapter of the Book of 
 Genesis (Gn 1!-2*) set before himself the task of 
 
 iving a comprehensive survey of the origins of 
 srael’s history. ‘It was his purpose to show 
 that the theocracy which became historically 
 realized in Israel as hierocracy was the end and 
 aim of the creation of the world’ (Holzinger). 
 To his consciousness Israel and Israel’s sacerdotal 
 institutions stand central to the great movement 
 of history, and he consistently works out this 
 grandiose conception to its ultimate origins. Ac- 
 cordingly, he unfolds the narrative in successive 
 gradations, the scope of which narrows from the 
 
 * The decree is erroneously termed by some modern autho- 
 rities an edict of Julius Czsar. 
 
 + The work of this writer constitutes the fundamental docu- 
 ment of the larger work, P, hence called by Holzinger, Ps (g= 
 Grundschrift), by Wellhausen, Q. A clear and comprehensive 
 statement of the specialities of eye and stvle of this docu- 
 ment may be found in Holzinger’s Hexateuch, pp. 335-354. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 COSMOGONY 501 
 
 
 
 
 
 universal to the particular as it passes from heaven 
 and earth to Adam, from Adam to Noah, from 
 Noah to Abraham, and, lastly, from Abraham to 
 Israel and his descendants. Beginning each sec- 
 tion we find an enumeration of Télédéth or 
 ‘generations.’ First we have the Téléddth of the 
 universe (heaven and earth) of which God is the 
 Creator, then of man (Adam), then of Noah, then 
 of Abraham. We are here concerned only with 
 the first of the series, which deals with the pre- 
 human stages in the drama of the world. 
 
 The following is a brief summary of the First 
 Creation Story. The week of seven days forms a 
 calendar into which the different successive stages 
 of the work of creation are divided. The creation 
 of man forms the climax and conclusion of the 
 work on the sixth day, while the close of the 
 narrative describes the seventh or day of rest, when 
 J” ceased from His creation-work. 
 
 First day (Gn 115), Light created amid the waste and void 
 of the primal chaos. Division of day and night. 
 
 Second day (vy.88). Creation of the firmament, dividing the 
 upper from the lower waters. 
 
 Third day (vv.913), Dry land and seas formed. Vegetation. 
 
 Fourth day (vv.1419), Heavenly bodies created. 
 
 Fifth day (vv.20-23), Waters swarm with living creatures— 
 flying things, monsters of the deep, reptiles and birds created. 
 
 Siath day (vv.2481). Creation of land animals—cattle, rep- 
 tiles, wild beasts. Man fashioned in divine image and placed 
 as head and lord of created things. 
 
 Seventh day (213). Sabbath of divine rest. 
 
 (B) THE SECOND CREATION NARRATIVE is the 
 Jahwistic account contained in Gn 2*>-, and follows 
 immediately upon the preceding. It belongs to 
 an earlier document, composed during the national 
 and pre-exilic period of Hebrew life, before the 
 Jewish nation became merged in an ecclesiastical 
 polity, and at a time when the traditions of patri- 
 archal story, which clustered around certain sacred 
 es were still vivid. Religious conceptions were 
 then simple and concrete, and the representations 
 of God were strongly anthropomorphic. The in- 
 terests of the writer are national and human. 
 Not a priestly system, but a people, is the centre 
 of his universe. Moreover, his thought moves 
 along the lines of prophetic rather than priestly 
 ideas. Accordingly, the creation of man plays a 
 much more important part in the Jahwistic cos- 
 mogony. We hear nothing of moon and stars 
 to regulate festival seasons, but of plants and 
 animals. Nor is man’s position made so distinct 
 from that of animated nature around him (ef. 
 Wellhausen, Prolegg.? p. 323). 
 
 It is exceedingly doubtful whether we have the 
 Jahwistic cosmogony complete, and the abrupt 
 introduction to v.5 9 ny $5) suggests that some- 
 thing between vv.‘ and 5 has been omitted by 
 the redactor, and perhaps also between ° and ‘, 
 either because it repeated or because it was incon- 
 sistent with the preceding creation narrative. The 
 succession of circumstantial clauses in vv.5 and ® 
 certainly presents an interesting parallel to Gn 1*. 
 But what we actually possess of the Jahwistic 
 cosmogony in the biblical record is in striking 
 contrast to the work of P. Vv. and ® in externa 
 form bear a certain resemblance to the ‘New 
 Babylonian version of the creation story,’ dis- 
 covered by Pinches and published in JRAS vol. 
 xxiii. (1891) p. 393 ff. 
 
 ‘The sacred house of the gods had not been 
 
 erected in the Holy Place, 
 No reed had yet budded, no tree had been 
 formed,’ ete. 
 
 The dryness of the earth before the growth of 
 plants, the mention of the ascending mist, the 
 creation of man, and the ople oe of Paradise 
 in which man was placed, as well as the creation 
 of woman, of which a special account is given in 
 gf. stand in remarkable contrast to the preceding 
 post-exilic cosmogony. In language we specially 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
503 COSMOGONY 
 
 COSMOGONY 
 
 
 
 note the use of 1s? (or =yy) in pia of x73 in Gn 1. 
 (See Dillmann’s commentary for a complete list of 
 divergencies in style.) 
 
 II. We shall now proceed to examine in greater 
 detail the first creation account. The narrative 
 in Gn 1!-2“ opens with a reference to a pre- 
 existent dark chaos (t0hu wabdhu). ‘In the be- 
 ginning, when God created the heavens and the 
 earth—now the earth was waste and void, and 
 darkness was over the watery abyss (téhém), and 
 the breath of God was brooding over the waters 
 —then God said: Let there be light.’ This 
 rendering, which is adopted by Ewald, Dillmann, 
 and Schrader (following Rashi), regards v.? as a 
 circumstantial or parenthetic clause. This yields 
 the best construction as well as meaning, and is 
 parallel to the opening of the Jahwistic creation 
 account 2*>- 5-6, and also of the Bab. creation tablet 
 to be presently cited. All these are curiously 
 similar in the form of the opening, which consists 
 of a series of temporal clauses. 
 
 How long the pre-existing waste and emptiness 
 of chaos existed, and how long the darkness pre- 
 vailed over the primal waters before the quicken- 
 ing spirit or breath of God brooded over its surface, 
 we do not know. The remarkable phrase in the 
 first cosmogony, ‘the spirit (or breath) of God was 
 brooding over the waters,’ is probably intended to 
 indicate the ultimate origin of the generating in- 
 fluences that operated during creation as grounded 
 in the divine spiritual activity. That the form, 
 however, in which this conception is conveyed 
 was suggested by ancient Semitic cosmogonies, is 
 @ fact which we shall subsequently have occasien 
 to confirm. 
 
 The immediate cause of light, in the mind of the 
 writer, is clearly indicated as the divine word 
 which went forth as a fiat, and it is this divine 
 word regarded as an agent that ushers in each 
 succeeding act in the divine drama of creation. 
 The creation of light in itself involves a distinction 
 between light and darkness; but the division be- 
 tween light and darkness in v.‘ implies that this 
 was a division, not in space but in time, as the 
 context immediately shows: ‘and God called the 
 light day, and the darkness he called night.’ It 
 was therefore through the creation of light that 
 the first creation-day was constituted. What, then, 
 constituted the night and what the daytime? 
 Was it the primal darkness of chaos that consti- 
 tuted the night, to which day succeeded? If so, 
 we wnat compare the conception of the first day 
 and of the succeeding ones to the ecclesiastical 
 day of Judaism, which begins with the darkness 
 after sunset and continues till the sunset which in- 
 augurates the following day. Some colour is given 
 to this view by the specification of evening before 
 the morning in the concluding forraula in describing 
 each stage of creation ;: ‘and there was evening an 
 there was morning... .’ But the difficulties which 
 stand in the way of accepting this view have been 
 clearly set forth in Dillmann’s Commentary. He 
 emphasizes the fact that the darkness of chaos 
 lay entirely outside the reckoning of day and 
 night (properly, we might add, outside the actual 
 work of divine creation here recorded]. Evening 
 first arises after light has been created. In fact, 
 the word from its very etymology (‘ered, derived from 
 theroot37y, in Assyrian ‘eribu, ‘enter,’ ‘pass under’ *) 
 implies that ‘day’ had preceded. oreover, the 
 fact that we are reading a post-exilic narrative in 
 which the months of the calendar were regulated 
 by the Bab. system, which reckoned from Nisan (a 
 name of Bab. origin), would lead us to the supposi- 
 tion that the Bab. tradition would also affect the 
 reckoning of the day in the creation account. Now, 
 on the testimony of Pliny (Hii. 79, cited by Del.) 
 
 * Thus erib ami in Assyrian means ‘ sunset.’ 
 
 the Babylonians reckoned the day from sunrise ta 
 sunrise. We may therefore infer that the crea- 
 tion-day was also reckoned from sunrise to sunrise, 
 according to the tradition of the Jewish civil day. 
 
 Vv.*® portray the second day’s creation-work, 
 viz. the separation of the upper from the lower 
 waters by the formation of a heavenly firmament 
 (Heb. rakia‘) which divides them. The Hebrew 
 word yp] properly signifies something beaten ot 
 hammered out,* fairly represented by LXX, Aq., 
 Symm. orepéwua, Vulg. Amine That the 
 ancient Greeks conceived of this vault as consisting 
 of burnished metal is shown by the epithets crdyjpeos 
 (Od. xv. 329) and xdAxeos (Id. xvii. 425; Pindar! 
 Pyth, x. 42; Nem. vi. 5) occurring in their earl 
 literature. And these conceptions have their 
 parallels in the language of the OT. Numerous 
 
 assages may be cited to prove that the Heb. 
 pees regarded the sky as a solid vault or arched 
 dome. In Job 37! it is compared to a firm molten 
 mirror, the hue of which in Ex 24! is described as 
 resembling sapphire, while from Am 98, Job 261° 41, 
 Pr 827. 8 we gather the additional details that this 
 solid compacted vault or arched dome was supported 
 on the loftiest mountains as pillars (Job 26"). It 
 was also provided with windows and gates (Gn 7" 
 2817,2 K 7219, Ps 78%). Above this solid rdkia’ 
 flowed the upper or heavenly waters (v.’), which 
 descended in rain through these openings (Ps 104° 
 1484, 2 K 7®), Dillmann, from whose clear exposi- 
 tion of these conceptions we have borrowed, com- 
 pares also the language of the Vedas and of the 
 Avesta, where we likewise meet with this conception 
 of an upper or heavenly sea. Similarly, the ancient 
 Egyptians believed that the sun-god Ra daily 
 traverses the celestial waters in his boat. The 
 Assyrians and Babylonians also had their con- 
 ceptions of a deep which rolled over the firma- 
 ment of heaven. These we shall illustrate in some 
 measure from their creation-epic. Cf. Sayce, Hid. 
 Lect. P. 374; Jensen, Cosmol. der Bab. p. 254. 
 
 Vv.*-8 portray the work of the third creative 
 day, which involves two separate acts : (1) the crea- 
 tion of dry land and the segregation of the waters 
 into seas ; (2) the creation of plants. According to 
 the writer of 2 P 3° land was created from water 
 by divine command. This is not distinctly stated 
 in the biblical narrative, which simply affirms 
 that the waters were gathered together into one 
 place, and that the land thereby appeared. But 
 from subsequent considerations and the parallels 
 from ancient religions which will be cited, it will 
 appear that water was undoubtedly regarded as 
 the primitive element out of which created things, 
 including land, emerged, and there can be no 
 question that this conception underlies the first 
 creation narrative, though it is not clearly ex- 
 pressed. 
 
 Vv.1419 describe the work of the fourth day, the 
 creation of heavenly bodies. Light in a diffused 
 form (x) had been summoned into existence by 
 God’s first creative fiat. How it emerged we are 
 not told, but are left to infer that it was the 
 immediate outflow of divine energy. The heavenly 
 bodies are naturally regarded purely from the 
 terrestrial standpoint. To the naive conceptions 
 of antiquity it was necessary that the creation of 
 a firmament should have preceded that of the 
 luminaries. For these luminaries were placed on 
 or attached to the firmament or solid vault, and 
 their courses prescribed thereon. It should be 
 
 * From the Hebrew root 329 ‘ beat’ or ‘stamp’ (hence extend, 
 or stretch out) we have an interesting derivative }/p7D preserved 
 in the Phen, inscriptions meaning plate or dish. Cf. CIS, Pars 
 Prima, Tom. i. p. 107, No 90— 
 
 wna 9p yn'abp 3p jn’ we pan ypr 
 (the gold plate (or bowl) which king Melechjathon, king of 
 Citium, gave). 
 
 
 
COSMOGONY 
 
 
 
 observed that in Job 384” the underlying tradition 
 respecting the stars is very different. In the 
 iatter the stars, personified as ‘sons of God,’ take 
 their part in the work of creation at the beginning, 
 and ¢ry aloud with exultant strains (cf. Jg 5”). 
 
 Passing over the work of the fifth day (vv.”-%), 
 which includes the creation of the lowest forms of 
 animal life that swarm in the water, as well as of 
 the flying creatures, we come to the sixth da 
 (vv.*4-*1), on which the larger land animals as well 
 as reptiles and sea and river monsters were created. 
 The creation of man in the divine image concludes 
 thenarrative. Thisis notthe place to enter intothe 
 theological aspects of the parallel phrases ‘image’ 
 (zelem) and ‘likeness’ (démith), which misplaced 
 ingenuity has separated by hard-and-fast lines of 
 demarcation.* It is necessary, however, to enter 
 a caveat against the view recently propounded by 
 Gunkel in his stimulating work, Schépfung wu. Chaos, 
 p. 11ff., who, in opposition to the interpretation 
 usually adopted (sustained by Dillmann and Well- 
 hausen), which regards the likeness as internal 
 and spiritual, argues from a comparison of 518 
 and 9°*-, where the same expressions occur, that 
 the resemblance here refers to external form or 
 shape. But such an inference is altogether gratuit- 
 ous. Though it is quite conceivable that in some 
 ancient form of the tradition, or in another con- 
 texion as 5°, such terms as zelem might connote 
 external shape, such a meaning here in relation 
 to God is altogether out. of harmony with the 
 spirit of this post-exilic document. Another point 
 to which we must refer is the much discussed ‘let 
 us make man...’ The plural is here best ex- 
 plained in reference to angels who participate in 
 the work of creation (in J ob called ‘sons of God,’ 
 and identified with stars Job 38*’, cf. Jg 5”, and 
 elsewhere called nix3y, cf. 1 K 22!), Such an in- 
 terpretation is sustained by Gn 117 (J) and Is 68. 
 For ether explanations see Spurrell, ad Joc. 
 
 III. In interpreting this first cosmogony the 
 greatest difficulties encounter us at the earlier 
 stages of the drama as it unfolds to us, and the 
 uy means of dispelling the obscurity is a closer 
 and, moreover, a comparative study of the Heb. 
 Semitic cosmos. An endeavour will therefore be 
 made to throw light on this subject from the data 
 of Phen. as well as Bab. mythology, preserved for 
 us either in Greek writings or upon inscriptions, 
 so as to present as clear and vivid a conception as 
 possible of the ancient Heb. cosmos. 
 
 The Phen., like the Heb. and the Bab. cosmo- 
 gony, starts with the conception of a dark abyss of 
 waters or chaos, called by the Hebrews a2 oinn 
 ‘ great Téhém’ (Gn 7”), or simply oinn, and by the 
 Babylonians Tiamat (Tiémtu). According to the 
 Phen. Sepre Ne cited by Eusebius (Prep. Evang. 
 i. 10) from Philo Byblius, this watery material 
 was generated from desire (7000s) and spirit 
 (xvedua). Here we find a point of contact with 
 the ox nn of Gn 1%, though in the biblical cos- 
 mogony the water is not regarded as a product of 
 the action of spirit, but appears to stand as a 
 coefficient with spirit of the subsequent generative 
 processes. Now the three clauses, 
 
 The earth was waste and void, 
 
 And darkness was upon the face of the deep 
 
 (Téhém), 
 And the breath (spirit) of God was brooding 
 over the waters, 
 conduct us to the conclusion that the writer re- 
 gards waste and vuid (tohu wabohu), deep (Téhém), 
 and waters, as three epithets designating the same 
 thing, viz. the chaotic watery abyss. Accordingly, 
 we may infer that when God entered upon the 
 * On the distinction between image and similitude among 
 
 a Oath. theologians, see Nitzsch, Evang. Dogmatik, p. 
 
 COSMOGONY 
 
 503 
 
 
 
 creative work there was no distinction between 
 (a) day and night, (6) heaven and earth, (c) dry 
 land (earth) and sea, All that existed were (1) 
 darkness ; (2) Téh6m=Tohu wabohu = waters, 1.e, 
 the chaotic watery abyss; (3) the brooding spirit 
 of God materialized as air. (a) The first distine- 
 tion emerges with the creation of light, whereby 
 day is separated from night (v.5). (b) The second 
 distinction arises when the firmament or ‘ heavens’ 
 are formed (v.8). (c) The third distinction was 
 effectuated by the separation of water from land, 
 whereby ‘dry land,’ or ‘earth’ in the narrower 
 sense, was formed. 
 
 The Téhém (73) o172) was no mere figment of the 
 imagination, or the conception of some far distant 
 cosmic condition, to the mind of the ancient Heb- 
 rew. Though it apparently assumed the latter char- 
 acter in cosmogonic narrative, it was also a very 
 present and vivid reality. The accompanying 
 diagram will enable the reader to comprehend the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 = Rahab. 
 
 
 
 Ne 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ee -Tehom— Rabbah 
 
 S=APSU—TIAMAT—— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ordinary conceptions of an ancient Semite (whether 
 Babylonian or Hebrew) respecting the universe in 
 which he lived. The writer of this article sketched 
 this outline from a study of numerous OT passages 
 about twelve years ago, and found in Jensen’s 
 Cosmologie der Bab., published in 1890, a diagram 
 almost identical in character, descriptive of the 
 universe according to Bab. conceptions, and based 
 urely upon the data of the cuneiform inscriptions. 
 n both we have a heavenly upper ocean, and in 
 both the earth was conceived as resting upon & 
 vast water-depth or Téhém (called also in Baby- 
 lonian apsu). The Hebrews thought of the world 
 as a disc (2:n, cf. Is 40%); and to this earthly dise 
 corresponded the heavenly dise (also called sn, cf. 
 Job 22, Pr 877). Beneath the earth rested the 
 unknown and mysterious Téhém Rabbah (cf. the 
 language of Ps 24%), The flood not only descended 
 through the windows of heaven (see above), but also 
 ascended from the see nether qa s, called 
 ‘springs of the great Téhém’ (Gn 7" P8), which 
 were cleft open. These deep springs were accord- 
 ingly called Téhéméth (Pr 3”), and were believed to 
 communicate through the depths of the earth b 
 means of passages with the great Téhém whic 
 lay below. Ina striking passage in Am (7‘) the 
 prophet portrays a judgment in which the fire of 
 J” will devour this great water-depth. Within the 
 earth itself lay the realm of the departed, Sheé/ or 
 Hades. 
 That mythical ideasand personifications clustered 
 round this mysterious chaotic water-depth in the 
 thoughts of the ancient Semites, is abundantly 
 
504 COSMOGONY 
 
 COSMOGONY 
 
 
 
 shown, not only in the legends of the Babylonians, 
 preserved in their inscriptions, to which we shall 
 resently refer, but also in the references to be 
 ound in Heb. literature. The dark water-depth 
 was represented as a dragon or serpent, and was 
 cailed by various names. Images were formed of 
 it* (Ex 20‘). Sometimes it is called Rahab, a 
 dragon which entered into conflict with J” and was 
 destroyed by Him (Is 51°, Job 26%), At other 
 times it is named Leviathant (Job 41, cf. Ps 
 742-4), or again it is simply called the ‘serpent’ 
 (Am 98), 
 
 IV. We shall now proceed to quote from those 
 Sem. cosmogonies, which should be brought into 
 comparison with the Heb. narrative. Since the 
 Hebrews were Semites, and were nurtured from a 
 common stock of ancient Sem. inheritance, both as 
 to beliefs and usages, such a comparison will be 
 fertile of results. 
 
 (A) The Phenicvan cosmogony has come down 
 to us in a very fragmentary and dubious condition. 
 It is contained in the Preparatio Evangelica of 
 Eusebius (I. chs. ix. x. and Iv. ch. xvi.). He obtained 
 his materials from the gowKxy ltoropla of Philo 
 Byblius. According to Eusebius, i. 6, as well as 
 Porphyry, Philo of Byblus translated these frag- 
 ments from a Phen. original by Sanchuniathon. 
 It is not possible for us to enter into the discussion 
 respecting Sanchuniathon. (It will be sufficient to 
 refer the reader to Baudissin’s elaborate essay in 
 his Studien zur Sem. Religiongeschichte, i. pp. 1-46, 
 where references to the literature on this subject 
 are fully given.) We shall content ourselves with 
 citing in summarized form the Phen. cosmogony 
 so far as it can be intelligibly presented from the 
 obscure pages of Eusebius. 
 
 At the beginning of things nothing existed but limitless Chaos - 
 
 and Spirit (wvsju«). A third tactor is introduced in the form of 
 Desire (x00), corresponding to the teas of Greek legend. Desire 
 arose as a blending (xAozz) of the ‘spirit’ with ‘love.’ The ultim- 
 ate issue, obscurely described and difficult tointerpret, was Mér. 
 This name Mer is a feminine abstract form from \3—="D water. 
 This corresponds in all probability to the Téhém of the biblical 
 narrative. ‘Out of this,’ says the account from which we are 
 
 * quoting, ‘sprang all the seed of the Creation.’ All these seeds or 
 germs of things were formed into an egg (and, according to 
 Damascius, broke into two parts, heaven and earth). From Mar 
 gleamed forth sun, moon, and stars; and these became endowed 
 with intelligence, and received the name Zagachuiw, DIDY DS 
 heavenly watchers or guardians. As soon as air, land, and sea 
 were heated by the sun, winds arose as well as clouds and violent 
 downpours of the heavenly waters, thunder and lightning. 
 By these thunderstorms animated shapes, male and female, 
 began to stir in sea and on land. It may be remarked that 
 the conception of the origin of the universe from water is 
 thoroughly Semitic. Berosus, as we shall have occasion 
 to see, interprets the name of the primal matter, ‘Ocpxe or 
 Caravd, by Odruccu, 
 
 Another cosmogony cited by Eusebius makes the 
 two mortals Aiév and IIpwréyovos begotten of 
 Kodrla and his wife Baad. The word KoAzla has 
 been variously interpreted as m5 Sip, voice of J’’s 
 mouth, and as 15 7p voice of breath. Neither of 
 these explanations has much probability, but it is 
 generally held that Baad is the Heb. 373 or chaos. 
 It is not necessary to cite further varieties of the 
 Pheenician cosmogonic legend, as they fail to throw 
 any light on the biblical narrative. 
 
 (B) More important for the biblical student is the 
 Babylonian cosmogony, Not only are its features 
 more significant in their bearing on the first 
 creation narrative, but it has come down to us in 
 a more complete form, and through two distinct 
 sources. It has been handed down to us through 
 
 * Comp. the ref. by Berosus to animal shapes in the temple 
 of Bel (cited below), and Gunkel, Schdpf. p. 28. 
 
 + The diagram clearly exhibits the close connexion between 
 ocean and the water-depth. Leviathan embodies the idea of a 
 serpent, like Oceanus, coiled round the earth. Jensen, Cosmo- 
 logie, p. 251; Sayce, Hibb. Lect. pp. 104, 116; Gunkel, Schépf. 
 p. 46. 
 
 '{ Baudissin, Studien, i. p. 12. Of. Schréder, Phén. Sprache, 
 p. 183. Philo adds the explanation that Mar was explained by 
 some a3 mud and by others as a putrefying watery mixture. 
 
 Greek sources, which have been obscured by trans- 
 mission through a Christian writing, and we also 
 possess it in a series of tablets containing the 
 original cuneiform Bab. creation epic. 
 
 efore the discovery, in 1875, by the late George 
 Smith, of the fragments of the Bab. creation 
 account in the ruined library of Asurbanipal (pub- 
 lished in 7'SBA iv. 1876), this legend was known 
 to us only in the mutilated records of Berosus. 
 Berosus was a priest of Bel in Babylon about 
 B.C. 300. His recital of the Bab. story of creation 
 was handed down by Alexander rie age and it 
 is from this source that Eusebius (in his #hronicon, 
 bk. i.) has borrowed. We shall now give the 
 translation of the more salient passages in the 
 words of Gunkel, who has carefully examined the 
 text. 
 
 ‘Primarily all consisted of darkness and water, and sti 
 creatures of peculiar form arose therein. There were men with 
 two wings, some also with four wings and two faces, and some 
 which had one body but two heads, one male and the other 
 female ... other men with goat’s feet and horns, or with 
 horse’s feet, or like horses behind and like men in front, and 
 therefore in the form of hippocentaurs. . . . Besides these there 
 were fish, creeping things, serpents, and all kinds of strange 
 creatures of varied shapes. The images of them are to be seen 
 in the temple of Bel as dedication . Over them there 
 reigned a woman, Om Orka,* which in Chaldee is Thamte f 
 [Tidmat], in Greek @¢Aaeca. Under this condition of the world 
 Bel came over [t.e. the Marduk of the cuneiform narrative), 
 cleft the woman in twain, and made from one half of her the earth, 
 and from the other the heavens, and destroyed the beasts which 
 belonged to her. 
 
 ‘Now this narrative, as he asserts (i.e. Berosus, for at this 
 point Eusebius interrupts the citation in order to give an alle- 
 
 orical explanation), is intended to be an allegorical representa- 
 
 ion of the processes of nature. The universe was formerly in 
 a state of flux, and the creatures above described arose in it. 
 Bel, however (in Greek Zsv¢), cleft the darkness in the midst, and 
 so divided heaven and earth from one another, and thereby 
 established the order of the universe. The creatures, how- 
 ever, could not endure the power of light, and perished [so far 
 the allegorical interpretation, then follows the remainder of the 
 myth]. 
 
 ¥S0 when Bel saw the earth destitute of inhabitants and fruit, 
 he commanded one of the gods to cut off his [Bel’s] head, and to 
 mix the earth with the blood which flowed from it, and thereby 
 to fashion men and animals that should be capable of enduring 
 the air. Bel also completed the creation of the stars, sun, 
 moon, and five planets.’ 
 
 Unfortunately, the polemical bias of |Eusebiua 
 mars the rational consistency of his quotations. 
 He appears to make his excerpts in order to hold 
 them up to ridicule. Thus Bel creates heavenly 
 bodies after his decapitation. There seems to be 
 a confusion here between Bel and Tidmat, as the 
 cuneiform record ape to show. It is quite 
 possible that some of the confusions in the narra- 
 tive may have existed in the text cf Alexander 
 Polyhistor. 
 
 We shall now proceed to give a summary of the 
 Babylonian creation epic brought to light by the 
 discovery of the original cuneiform texts. 
 
 In the beginning, before heaven and earth existed, when the 
 primal father Apsu (ocean) and the primal mother Tifmat 
 mingled their waters, the gods arose, Laimu, Lahamu, Anshar, 
 Kishar, and Anu. This is the summary of the fragmentary 
 creation account cited by Schrader in COT’ i. on Gn 11, The 
 
 | following translation of the first tablet in the Babylonian creation 
 
 epic we give approximately in the words of Prof. Friedrich 
 Delitzsch,who has recently published a carefully edited text of 
 the entire Oreation Epic Series (Das Babylonische Weltschop- 
 Sungs Epos, Leipzig : Hirzel, 1896)}— 
 ‘When above the heaven was not named { 
 
 Beneath the earth did not record a name, 
 
 The ocean (A psu) the primeval was their ia peed 
 
 The tumult § Tiamat was mother of them all, 
 
 Their waters in one united together 
 
 Fields || were not bounded, marshes were not yet to be seen. 
 
 * Gunkel rightly interprets 'Ouépza as NPpIN ON mother of 
 the depth. See his long and instructive note, p. 18. 
 
 + The texts give @aade#. Robertson Smith, however, corrects 
 to @xpuri, ZA vi. p. 389. 
 
 t To a Semite name connotes existence and power. 
 
 § So Schrader and Jensen (‘Wirrwarr’); Delitzsch renders 
 ‘Getése.’ The meaning of mummu is very doubtful. 
 questions the derivation of the word from the root 015 er 057. 
 
 || Again a doubtful passage. On giparu see Delitzsch, Das 
 Bab. Schépfungsepos, p. 119; Jensen, Cosmol. p 825. 
 
 
 
 —_— 
 
 ee ee ee 
 
 : 
 
: 
 F. 
 
 
 
 COSMOGONY 
 
 COSMOGONY 505 
 
 
 
 At a time when of the gods none had come forth 
 
 No name did they bear, destinations were not [determined] 
 
 Then were the gods born 
 
 Lahmu Lahamu came forth, 
 
 Great periods vanished [of times many passed by] 
 
 Anshar, Kishar were born 
 
 Long days passed by’ [or as Jensen and Zimmern: ‘the days 
 became long’). 
 
 {The rest is fragmentary, and simply contains the names 
 Anu and Anshar]. 
 
 We can only infer from the context what the lost remainder of 
 this tablet contained. Probably, it described how the gods of 
 the upper world and of the depth came into being, and possibly 
 the creation of light. Then must have followed the rebellion 
 of the lower deities, arrayed under Tiamat, against the upper 
 deities. We have a fragment describing a conversation between 
 Apsu and Tifmat, in which the end of their consultation is that 
 they ‘plan evil’ against the gods. Gunkel thinks that the 
 création of light was the cause of their insurrection, but of this 
 we have not sufficient evidence. The legible portion of the 
 tablet then proceeds to describe the conflict between Tiamat 
 and the gods. In their war against Tiamat and the deities 
 ranged under her leadership, the gods are commanded by 
 Anshar, father of Anu. He is supported, not only by Anu, but 
 also by Ea and his son Marduk. lhmu and Lahamu bring up 
 the rear. Anshar at first sends Anu and then Ea to conduct the 
 battle against Tiamat, but as both shrink back in terror, Marduk 
 the son of Ea is eventually commissioned to undertake the 
 struggle with Tiamat. He is armed with a net, bow, javelin, 
 and apparently a trident (mittu), and so advances to the conflict. 
 The goddess of the deep is skilfully caught by Marduk in a net, 
 a hurricane is driven into her open throat, and he smites her 
 body with his javelin. Her allies flee, but are overtaken, and 
 their weapons broken. The body of Tidmat is then divided into 
 two parts, ‘like that of a fish.’ With one part Marduk ‘ made 
 and covered’ the heaven.* Bars are placed, and sentinels, so 
 that the waters may not stream through. The arch of heaven 
 is placed opposite the primal waters. After this Marduk created 
 the heavenly bodies; but the fifth tablet of the creation epic on 
 which this is described is very obscure. The first few lines may 
 be rendered— 
 
 He erected the station for the great gods 
 
 Stars like... 
 
 He appointed the year, divided off sections 
 
 He divided the twelve months [each] by three stars. 
 
 On another doubtful tablet we read that he created three 
 classes of land animals—field-cattle, wild beasts of the field, and 
 creeping thin; The conclusion of the Bab. creation poem is 
 
 nied on the sixth tablet, which contains a hymn to the 
 fe of Marduk. ‘God of pure life, God of kindly breath, 
 of hearing and grace, creator of fulness, maker of abund- 
 ance, God cf the pure crown, raiser of the dead. . . . May one 
 rejoice over the Lord of Gods, Marduk, cause one’s land to 
 abound, himself enjoy peace. Firm abideth His word, His com- 
 mand changeth not. N o god hath caused the utterance of His 
 mouth to fail.’ 
 
 It is impossible to study the features of this 
 epic without noting remarkable parallels to the 
 first biblical cosmogony. What, then, is the actual 
 relation which subsists between them? If the 
 creation account in Gn 1 and this Bab. epic were 
 the only points of contact between Israel and 
 Babylonia, it might be possible to explain the Bab. 
 myth as a development from the simpler and purer 
 tradition contained in the Bible. But such an 
 explanation is untenable in view of the estab- 
 lished results—(1) Of a critical examination of the 
 OT literature, which cannot allow an earlier date 
 for the document P* than the period of the Exile. 
 (2) Of Assyriology. The discovery of the Tel el- 
 Amarna tablets in 1887, and of a cuneiform tablet 
 at Lachish belonging to the same period as those 
 of Tel el-Amarna, rendersit absolutely certain that 
 Bab. influence widely prevailed in Palestine about 
 B.C. 1500-1400. (3) We have many other remark- 
 able parallels, viz. in the Flood story and other 
 elements in the pre-exilian Jahwistic document. 
 (including the account of Paradise and the story of 
 the Malls between the Scripture records and those 
 of the cuneiform tablets. All this renders it 
 extremely probable that the biblical form in which 
 these narrations have been preserved, with their 
 unquestionably Palestinian colouring, is the result 
 of many centuries of growth on Palestinian soil 
 
 * How widespread this conception was of a primeval rending 
 asunder of sky and earth into an upper and lower half may be 
 
 tthered from the New Zealand Maori myth quoted in Tylor, 
 Sin. Culture, i. 322 ff. This feature, we are told, is ‘a far- 
 spread Polynesian legend.’ 
 
 (cf. Schrader, COT i. pp. 43ff., 52-55). This 
 problem of the relation of the Bab. epic to Gn 1 
 has recently been made the subject of a search- 
 ing investigation by Gunkel, Schépf. u. Chaos,* 
 from which quotation has already been made. 
 This writer does full justice to the glaring con- 
 trasts. In the Bab. epic we have wild, grotesque, 
 tumultuous mythology expressed in poetie form. 
 In the biblical account we have serene majestic 
 calm and sober prose. In the one, the gods rise 
 into being in the course of thedrama. In the other, 
 God pre-exists and remains from the first the 
 creative source whose command summons each new 
 order of created things into existence. 
 
 Yet the parallels are as remarkable as the con- 
 trasts. For (1) in both the world at the beginning 
 consists of water and darkness. (2) The Téhém of 
 the 2nd verse is the Babylonian 7idmtwu (Tiamat). 
 (3) God divides the primal waters by means of the 
 firmament into two parts. This feature corre- 
 sponds to the episode in the 4th tablet of the 
 creation epic (lines 137ff. in Fried. Delitzsch’s 
 version)— 
 
 ‘He cleft her (Tidmat) like a fish . . . in two halves, 
 
 From the one half he made and covered the heaven : 
 
 He drew a barrier, placed sentinels, 
 
 Commanded them not to let its waters through.’ 
 (4) In Gn 1 light arises before the creation of the 
 heavenly bodies. Also in the Bab. myth we may 
 suppose that light appeared before the coming of 
 Marduk the youngest of the gods, since light be- 
 longs to the essence of the ‘upper gods.’ (5) The 
 creation of sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day 
 may be placed parallel with the creation of the 
 heavenly bodies by Marduk, recorded in the 5th 
 creation tablet, special mention being made of the 
 moon-god (Nannaru) as ruler of the night (lines 
 12ff. in Fried. Delitzsch’s ed.). (6) God beholds all, 
 and calls it good. Compare the hymn of praise to 
 Marduk (already quoted) at the conclusion of the 
 Bab. epic. (7) Grantion of the beasts of the field, 
 wild animals, and creeping things is also found on 
 a fragment (copied in cuneiform by Delitzsch, 
 Assyr. Lesest.*), but it is not certain whether it 
 belongs to the same Creation Epic Series above 
 
 uoted. (8) Lastly, the seventh day, or Sabbath of 
 ivine rest, is essentially of Bab. origin. See 
 
 Schrader, COT i. p. 18ff.; Sayce, Hapos. Times, 
 March 1896, p. 264. 
 
 It has been forcibly argued by Gunkel that the 
 Bab. creation myth, involving a conflict between 
 Tidmat, the dragon of chaotic darkness, and 
 Marduk, the god of light and order, had influenced 
 Israel long beter the Exile period. It is true that 
 passages Tike Is 51° (where Rahab the dragon is 
 a reminiscence of Tifmat) belong to the Exile 
 pened. and Cheyne thinks ‘ there is sufficient evi- 
 
 ence that there was a great revival of the mytho- 
 logic spirit among the Sars in the Bab. and Pers. 
 periods, and it is very possible that the old myths 
 assumed more definite forms through the direct 
 and indirect influence of Babylonia.’+ On the 
 other hand, it must be remembered that Jer 473-6 
 (ef. 572) is a genuine product of the 7th cent. (cf. 
 Cornill’s ed. in SBOT), and this apparently reflects 
 the same tradition of J"’s conflict with watery 
 chaos (an idea which we also meet in Nah 14), while 
 the reference in Am 9* to the serpent at the bottom 
 of the ocean belongs to the 8th cent., and the 
 brazen sea of Solomon’s temple (1 K 7%-*), with its 
 twelve supporting oxen, carries us back to the 
 10th. This last was evidently based on the apsi 
 or ocean-abysses of the temples of Marduk.t (Cf, 
 Schrader, AJB iii. 1, pp. 13, 143, and footnotes.) 
 
 * See the discriminating review of this work by Prof. Oheyne 
 in Crit. Rev. July 1895. 
 
 + Crit. Rev, ib. p. 260. 
 
 t Cf. Sayce, Hxpos. Times, March 1896, p. 264. 
 
506 COSMOGONY 
 
 These facts, as well as the features in the Jah- 
 wistic narrative above referred to, justify us in 
 seeking a much earlier period than the Exile for 
 the original adoption by primitive Israel of the 
 elements of Bab. tradition. The most probable 
 theory is that these influences found their way into 
 Palestine, together with certain features of Bab. 
 civilization (including measures of weight and 
 money) some time before B.C. 1450 (the age of the 
 Tel el-Amarna inscr.), and along this path passed 
 ultimately into the possession of ancient Israel, 
 and became assimilated into their stock of intel- 
 lectual possessions. It then became, in the course 
 of centuries, gradually modified and stripped of 
 its mythological features. In Gn 1! we have it in 
 the purified Judaic form. There is a complete 
 obliteration of the polytheistic elements of the 
 genesis of the gods, and the titanic struggle be- 
 tween Tidmat and Marduk, which preceded the 
 creative process in the Bab. myth. On the other 
 hand, it contains certain features which clearly 
 reveal a primitive Bab. type. Driver (Guardian, 
 July 29, 1896) accurately states the true relation 
 of the biblical to the Bab. cosmogony when he 
 payee ‘The narrative of Gn 1 comes at the end of 
 a long process of gradual elimination of heathen 
 elements, and of gradual assimilation to the purer 
 teachings of Israelitish theology, carried on under 
 the spiritual influences of the religion of Israel.’ 
 
 VY. According to the biblical narrative, the world 
 was created by a divine command, and every new 
 stage in the creative process is introduced by the 
 formula ‘God said.’ Another noteworthy feature 
 to which attention has already been called, is the 
 phrase ‘let us make man’ (v.*), wherein we have a 
 point et contact with the conception of subordinate 
 angelic powers (‘sons of God’), who co-operated 
 with Got in the work of creation (Job 38*7). Here 
 we observe the germ of that belief in inter- 
 mediate agencies between God and the universe 
 which was destined in later times to become a 
 most important factor in Jewish theolo This 
 conception became developed into the ‘Wisdom’ 
 which was with God in the beginning, before the 
 sreation of the cosmos, and was with God when He 
 3stablished the heavens (Pr 87-81, ef. 319 2°), This 
 ‘ third cosmogony,’ as Cheyne not inaptly calls it,* 
 is the product of that growing belief in the 
 transcendent greatness of God which began with 
 Amos, and received a great impulse from the 
 sublime teachings of the Deutero-Isaiah (cf. esp. 
 Is 40). The influence of Greek philosophy—more 
 
 articularly of Platonism—made itself felt in 
 Tidsianh and in proportion as God came to be re- 
 garded as transcendent and absolute, a Logos 
 doctrine became a necessary factor of thought. 
 Philo became the representative in Judaism of the 
 Alexandrine philosophy. On one side, from eternity 
 we have God as the absolutely active principle; on 
 the other, matter formless and without qualities, 
 the principle of absolute passivity. God produces 
 first the world of ideas, Logos or xécuos voyrés. 
 This Logos becomes the mediating cause, between 
 the absolute and transcendent Deity and the 
 passive formless matter, in the generation of the 
 world. This is not the place to indicate the transi- 
 tion from this position to that occupied by the 
 writer of the Ep. to the Hebrews or the Logos 
 doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, for this subject 
 belongs to Christology. 
 
 In Judaic theology the place of the Logos in the 
 ereation of the world is partly occupied by the 
 doctrine of the pre-existent emanation of the Térah 
 from God, partly by Memra. This principle of 
 the Térah as a mediating element or occasion in 
 the creation of the world is expressed in Béréshith 
 Rabba 1, for the Térah cannot be realized without 
 
 * In his article ‘Cosmogony’ (Hncycl, Brit.). 
 
 COSMOGONY 
 
 ———— 
 
 the creation of man. From the same treatise 
 (c. 9) we learn that a curious inference was drawn 
 from the words, ‘God saw all that he had made, 
 and behold it was very good’ (Gn 1%), viz. that 
 God had previously created worlds, and they did 
 not please Him, so He destroyed them. According 
 to Shemoth Rabba, c. 30, these reverted to the 
 primal Tohu Wabohu until the present world waa 
 created. Moreover, there are undoubted traces in 
 the Talmud of the influence of the old Bab. trasi- 
 tions. For later Jewish writers held that primal 
 matter exercised certain powers of resistance until 
 God’s creative energy coerced them by the limita- 
 tions it imposed. They believed in the existence of 
 pune monstrous animal forms, and in a female 
 eviathan (cf. 7idmat), who wasslaughtered in order 
 to prevent the increase of the monstrous brood. 
 he doctrine respecting the Heavens and the 
 Earth, taught in later Judaism, also possesses its 
 points of contact with ancient Babylonian tradition 
 though founded upon biblical record. To one of 
 these we shall refer presently. Meanwhile it may 
 be observed that while Scripture regards the 
 universe as one, having the earth as its centre, 
 later Judaism did not adhere to this unity. We 
 read of the upper world and the under world, of 
 God’s world and man’s world. In the Targ. 
 Jerusal. 1, Gn 18% Abraham calls J” ‘ Lord of 
 worlds.’ Aboda Zara 3° reckons 18,000 worlds. 
 
 But the most remarkable cosmic doctrine is that 
 of the Seven Heavens. Jewish Rabbis were not 
 gut agreed as to this number. According to 
 
 abbi Jehuda there were only two, but accordi re 
 to the common doctrine there were seven. R. H. 
 Charles has recently contributed two exceedingly 
 instructive papers on this subject to the Hapos 
 Times (Nov. and Dec. 1895), in which he drawa 
 special attention to the Bab. conception of the 
 sevenfold division of the Lower World. (On this 
 point interesting information may be obtained 
 from Jensen’s Cosmologie der Bab. p. 232 ff.) 
 Readers of the Babylonian mythic romance (in the 
 Gilgamish [Izdubar] series), called the ‘ Descent of 
 Ishtar to Hades,’ will remember that she was 
 obliged to pass through seven gateways in order 
 to reach the interior of the infernal city. Though 
 the inscriptions do not expressly state that the 
 heavens were so divided, it is legitimate to surmise 
 either that the Babylonians themselves conceived 
 of a similar division of the heavens, or that this 
 correlative became subsequently developed. The 
 former is more probable, for not only do we find 
 the doctrine of the Seven Heavens among the Jews, 
 but also among the Parsees. We find the same 
 conception in the recently discovered Slavonic 
 Enoch (translated by Morfill), and also in other 
 apocalyptic literature, as the ‘Testament of the 
 Twelve Patriarchs.’ This later cosmic conception, 
 which grew up in connexion with the doctne of 
 God’s absolute transcendence, is of some importance 
 in its bearing upon such passages as 2 Co 127.3, He 
 410.14. In reference to the difficult passage fe 64, 
 Charles most usefully cites from Slavonic Enoch 
 29-5, (Further information respecting the Jewish 
 doctrine may be found in Weber, System der 
 ead ee Palast. Theol. p. 197 ff.) . 
 
 VI. We have now concluded our task of expound- 
 ing the biblical conceptions respecting cosmogony 
 and the cosmos. It is manifestly beyond the true 
 scope of this article to deal with the cosmogonies 
 of Egypt, Persia, and India, though these also 
 exhibit interesting parallels with the Scripture 
 narrative. Undoubtedly there were points of 
 historic contact, and these of no little importance, 
 between Egypt and ancient Israel, but the course 
 of recent investigation has not strengthened the 
 impression that Egypt exercised any deep or 
 lasting influence on Hebrew cosmogony. It is to 
 
 
 
ae 
 
 Babylonia, the land of the highest and most 
 ancient Sem. culture, we must look for the most 
 fruitful clues to ancient Heb. thought and life.— 
 Nor is it necessary to refer to Persian cosmogonies, 
 for Pers. influence entered into the sphere of 
 Jewish life too late to affect the cosmogonic con- 
 ceptions of Genesis. It may here be remarked that 
 no chaos exists in the Persian cosmogony as it is 
 presented in the Bundehesh. A separation is made 
 between the creation of the present world and of 
 the other world. Moreover, in the former we 
 find a distinct creation by the Good and by the 
 Evil deity. But these conceptions have a com- 
 eanee! late origin. Respecting the creation 
 egends of Egypt, Persia, and India, the reader is 
 referred to Dillmann’s introductory remarks to 
 Genesis, ch. i. in his great commentary (6th ed. 
 p- 5-10), and also to Otto Zéckler’s artiste ‘Schép- 
 g’ in Herzog and Plitt, HZ, where a compre- 
 hensive survey is given of these cosmogonies as 
 well as those of savage races. 
 
 Nor have we thought it necessary to describe 
 the various apologetic schemes whereby the state- 
 ments that are contained in Genesis are brought 
 into supposed harmony with the ascertained results 
 of modern science. history of these successive 
 attempts, with a succinct classification of them, 
 will be found in the article by Zéckler to which 
 reference has been made. This eminent evangelical 
 scholar and divine concludes his examination of 
 these varied theories with the significant and just 
 remarks: ‘The Mosaic account postulates a 
 graduated advance of organic life from plants to 
 animals, and among the latter, from water animals 
 to creeping things and birds, and after that to land 
 animals in the proper sense. But geology regards 
 animals and plants as coming into existence 
 together from the first. These considerations 
 plainly reveal that the first chapter of Genesis is 
 not intended to teach us the elements of geology, 
 but to reveal to us the fundamental ideas of all 
 theology, those ideas being religious in their 
 essence. It is out of place, therefore, to insist on 
 carrying out the parallel between the Bible and 
 geology into every detail. We can only hope to 
 exhibit a concordance of both in their large 
 bearings and main outlines.’ A very useful article 
 on the same subject, written in a deeply reverent 
 spirit, will be found in the Hapositor, Jan. 
 1886, by Driver (‘The Cosmogony of Genesis’), in 
 which the results of geological research are care- 
 fully examined and compared with the statements 
 of Scripture. 
 
 Probably, the most fatal objection, however, is 
 the creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth 
 day. The language here clearly shows that in the 
 mind of the writer they had not previously existed. 
 It is obvious, therefore, that day and night were not 
 regarded as standing in any causal connexion with 
 the sun. In fact, the sun is no more regarded as 
 causal than the moon. The sun rules or regulates 
 the day, and the moon regulates the night. 
 
 Much as we value the remarkable harmonies 
 that nevertheless exist between science and Scrip- 
 ture, there is clear proof that biblical apologetic 
 is proceeding on false lines when it seeks to con- 
 strain the biblical narrative into harmony with the 
 results of modern science. The preceding expo- 
 sition shows that that narrative emerged from a 
 divinely guided history and a divinely moulded 
 process of thought not isolated from the currents 
 
 of the world of human life around it, but charged 
 with a great mission to garner out of all the efforts 
 of humanity to spell out the awful enigma of the 
 universe, that which was most vital and precious 
 for the good of man, to purify it fr-m all mytho- 
 logic taint and inform it with the spiritual 
 monotheistic conceptions of Judaism. The supreme 
 
 COSMOGONY COULTER 507 
 
 
 
 value of our biblical cosmogony lies in the fact that 
 it furnishes us with the only key that can solve the 
 dark riddle of life. It sets God above the great com: 
 plex world-process, and yet closely linked with it, 
 as a personal intelligence and will that rules victori- 
 ously and withoutarival. Andasthesupreme object 
 of His creative energy, it sets man, fashioned in His 
 divine likeness, to be the ruler of created things. 
 All else is secondary, and it is for scientific investi- 
 gation to determine the exact details of those 
 intermediate steps in the stupendous ascent 
 whereby God’s work advanced along the vistas of 
 past time to the dawn of human existence. But 
 without that clear and sublime attestation at the 
 threshold of the inspired record of the personal 
 source from which all has flowed, and of the unique 
 worth and dignity of man, and his near kinship 
 with that source, surely human life would have 
 been far darker and more hopeless, and its deepest 
 te would have remained unsolved. Upon this 
 asis, laid broad and clear in Genesis, the revela- 
 tion of the New Covenant of Redemption in Christ 
 Jesus rests. For the mediatorial work of Christ 
 rests on the Fatherhood of the Creator of all things, 
 and on the supreme worth of man, whom Jesus 
 came to save. OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. 
 
 COTE.—2 Ch 32% ‘stalls for all manner of beasts, 
 and cotes (1611 ‘coats’) for flocks’ (RV ‘ flocks in 
 folds’). Cf. Milton, Comus, 344— 
 
 ‘Might we but hear 
 The folded flocks, penned in their wattied cotes ; 
 which Matthew Arnold borrowed in The Scholar 
 Gipsy— 
 ‘Go, shepherd, and untie the wattled cotes.’ 
 
 The word was orig. used of any small house, like 
 the mod. use of cof (which was the same word in 
 Old Eng. in the neuter, cote being fem.) and 
 cottage (which was perhaps a cote and its append- 
 ages—Murray). Thus Langland, Piers Pl. vil. 16— 
 
 * Bothe prynces paleyses and pore mennes cotes.’ 
 
 No doubt the sheep often shared the shepherd’s 
 ‘cote,’ as in the Shep. Calender, Dec. 77, 78— 
 
 * And learned of lighter timber cotes to frame, 
 
 Such as might save my sheep and me fro shame.’ 
 In course of time the word was restricted to a 
 slight building for sheltering small animals in, esp. 
 sheep. ‘Sheepcote’ occurs 1S 24°, 28 78, 1 Ch 177. 
 
 Cottage is used in the sense of Aut in Is 18 (RV 
 
 ‘booth ’) 24 (RV ‘hut’), Zeph 26 (RVm ‘ caves’), 
 Sir 2972 ‘a mean cottage’ (RV ‘a shelter of logs’), 
 much as cote above. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COTTON (0272 karpas).—The word karpas (Est 1°) 
 is rendered by AV, as also by RV, green, but 
 in the marg. of the latter, cotton. It is Beioten 
 either cotton or linen stuff. Karpasis a loan-word. 
 Sansk. karpdsa, ‘cotton’; Persian karpas, ‘fine 
 linen’ (Richardson’s Lex.) ; hence also képragos and 
 carbasus. Passages have been quoted from Arrian 
 and others to prove that it grew and was used for 
 clothing in India. G. E. Post. 
 
 COUCH.—See Bep. As a verb, ‘couch,’ which 
 means ‘to stoop,’ ‘to lie down’ (or transitively ‘to 
 lay down’), and is now used only of beasts, and 
 esp. in the sense of lurking to spring, was formerly 
 used also of persons and things. Thus Shaks. 
 Merry Wives, V. ii. 1: ‘Come, come, we'll couch ? 
 the castle-ditch till we see the light of our fairies.’ 
 So Dt 33" ‘the deep that coucheth beneath,’ where 
 it is possible, however, as Driver suggests, that 
 the subterranean deep is pictured as a gigantic 
 monster (cf. p. 505f. above). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COULTER.—‘ The iron blade fixed in front of 
 the share in a plough; it makes a vertical cut in 
 
 
 

 
 COUNCIL, COUNSEL 
 
 the soil, which is then sliced horizontally by the 
 share.’ The Eng. word occurs 1 8 13”?! as tr® of 
 Heb. ’éth (nx), which is tr’ ‘plowshare,’ Is 24= 
 Mic 4%, J1 3" [all, but Klost. adds 2 K 6° Sparx, 
 taking ny thus for the instrument (=the axe of 
 iron), not as the sign of the accusative). See AGRI- 
 CULTURE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COUNCIL, COUNSEL.—These words are distinct 
 in origin, council from conciliwm (con-calere, to call 
 together) ‘an assembly’; counsel from consiliwm 
 (con-sulere, to consult) ‘consultation,’ ‘advice.’ 
 And they are now kept distinct in spelling and in 
 meaning, their meaning nearly corresponding with 
 the Lat. words from which they come. But from 
 the earliest times they were completely confused 
 in the Eng. lang.; and although efforts were made 
 from the beg. of the 16th cent. to separate them, it 
 took two centuries to effect the separation. In 
 AV of 1611 counsel is once (2S 17%) spelt ‘counsel,’ 
 elsewhere always ‘counsell’ (with a cap., Counsell, 
 in Is 112). The plu. is always ‘counsels,’ except 
 Pr 22” ‘counsailes.’ But cowncil a ears in a 
 great variety of forms: Council, Councill, Councels, 
 councell, Conincall| counsel, counsell, Counsell. 
 Subsequent edd. varied these indefinitely, but for 
 the last century or thereby the spelling has been 
 uniformly ‘ council.’ 
 
 Counoil is the tra of—1. 723) righmah, Ps 6877 only, (RVm 
 ‘company’; see notes in Perowne and Delitzsch; Wellh. says 
 the word is prob. corrupt, and coy unintelligible), 2. evp- 
 Bovrsev, Mt 1214, Ac 2512, In Mt 1214 RV gives (with AVm) ‘took 
 counsel’ (for AV ‘held a council’), which is the tr. of «. where it 
 occurs elsewhere in the Gospels (Mt 2215 271.7 2812, Mk 36 151, 
 ‘held a consultation,’ AV, RV). But in Ac 2512 both AV and RV 
 render ‘council.’ The Lat. consiliwm (of which eumPoirwy is a 
 tro) had this twofold meaning of ‘deliberation’ (mod. ‘ counsel’), 
 and ‘a deliberating body’ (still retained in law as ‘counsel 
 for the defence’). 8. Elsewhere ewido», for which see 
 SANHEDRIN. 
 
 Counsel. —In OT mostly nyy ‘ézah, ‘advice,’ then (as in 
 Ps 11) ‘resolution, bent of will, character,’—Del.; and 7\0, a most 
 interesting word, whose primary meaning is that of ‘con- 
 fidential communion’; whereupon the two meanings already 
 Been in sy~fodAy emerge, viz. (1) those who are in confidential 
 communication, council; and (2) the communication itself, 
 counsel, The most freq. tr. in EV is ‘secret,’ as Ps 2514 ‘ the 
 secret of the Lorp is with them that fear him.’ Where AV has 
 ‘counsel’ RV retains, except Jer 2318.22, RV ‘council.’ In NT 
 either BovAn (which, though it is the usual tr® of ‘ézah in LXX, 
 rarely in NT means advice, almost always will, purpose, as Ac 
 223 ‘the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’) or 
 cvpBedrscy as above. 
 
 Counsellor.—This is the only spelling in mod. 
 edd. of AV. It does not, however, occur in AV of 
 1611, though ‘counsellours’ is found thrice, Ezr 8”, 
 Pr 12” 15; there the spelling is always ‘ coun- 
 seller’ (or ‘Counseller,’ Is 1° 9, Dn 67, 1 Es 84). 
 The Oxf. and Camb. Parallel Bibles restore ‘ coun- 
 seller’ everywhere except Mk 15%, Lk 23° (both 
 Bovdeurjs, used of Joseph of Arimathea as a 
 member of the Sanhedrin, RV ‘councillor’) and 
 Ro 11% (etuBovdos, the LXX word in Is 40%, of 
 which this is a quotation). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COUNTENANCE.—As a subst, frequent, always 
 =face. Asa vb. only Ex 23° ‘Neither shalt thou 
 e. &@ poor man in his cause,’ RV ‘ favour,’ older 
 versions ‘esteem.’ Cf. Brinsley (1612), ‘that the 
 painfull and obedient be... countenanced, in- 
 couraged, and preferred’; and Shaks. 2 Henry IV. 
 v. i. 41, ‘I beseech you, sir, to countenance 
 William Visor of Wincot against Clement Perkes 
 of the hill.’ 
 
 The Heb. vb. is hddhar, ‘honour,’ which is used in a bad 
 sense again in Lv 1915> ‘nor honour the person of the mighty.’ 
 Knobel would make Ex 23% correspond with Ly 1915» by reading 
 bya ‘great,’ for 771) ‘and a poor man.’ But the versions do not 
 support any change (LXX reads xa) xévmrex), and the statement 
 is parallel to Ly 1915 ‘thou shalt not respect the person of the 
 poor.’ As the Bishops’ Bible explains, ‘Trueth of the matter, 
 and not respect of any person is to be esteemed in judgement.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 COURAGE 
 
 COUNTERFEIT.—Only in Apocr. 1. As adj, 
 Wis 15° ‘[the potter] endeavoureth to do like the 
 workers in brass, and counteth it his glory to make 
 ec. things’; Gr. x(Bdnda, things made in imitation 
 of other more valuable things, hence spurious, the 
 mod. meaning of the word. This reference is to 
 earthenware figures made and glazed so as to 
 resemble the precious metals.* 2. As subst. Wis 
 2)6 ‘We are esteemed of him as counterfeits’ (es 
 KlBdnrov; Vulg. tamquam nugaces, the only occur- 
 rence of nugax in Vulg.); 14” ‘they took the ec. of 
 his visage from far’ (riv wéppwhev byw dvarurwod- 
 pevo, RV ‘imagining the likeness from afar’). 
 Here c. is used in the obsol. sense of a representa- 
 tion of any person or thing by painting, sculpture, 
 etc., a likeness, image. Cf. Shaks. Merch. of 
 Venice, II. ii. 115— ; 
 
 © What find I here? 
 
 Fair Portia’s counterfeit ;’ 
 
 and Holland (1606), Sueton. 39, ‘An olde little 
 counterfeit in brasse representing him being a 
 child.’ 3. As vd. Sir 38" ‘They that cut and grave 
 seals. . . give themselves to ¢. imagery’ (duodcae 
 fwypaplay, RV ‘to preserve likeness in his por- 
 traiture’), Cf. Tindale’s Address to the Reader 
 (NT 1525), ‘I had no man to counterfet, nether 
 was poe with englysshe of eny that had inter- 
 preted the same.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COUNTERYAIL.—Est 74 ‘the enemy could not 
 c. the king’s damage’ (RV ‘the adversary could 
 not have compensated for the king’s damage’); 
 and Sir 6 ‘ Nothing doth c. a faithful friend’ (RV 
 ‘there is nothing that can be taken in exchange 
 for a faithful friend’). In Est 74 the meaning is 
 ‘make an equivalent return for’ (Geneva, ‘recom- 
 
 ense’), as Stubbes (1583), Anat, Abus. 63, ‘ though 
 be unable with any benefit to countervail your 
 great pains.’ In Sir 6c. has the older meaning of 
 “equal in value’; cf. More, Utopia (Robinson’s tr. 
 1551), ‘ All the goodes in the worlde are not liable 
 to countervayle man’s life.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COUNTRYMAN.—1. Of the same nation, 2 Co 
 11% ‘in perils by mine own countrymen’ (éx yévous, 
 Wyclif ‘of kyn,’ other VSS ‘mine own nation’). 
 2. Of the same tribe, 1 Th 2" ‘ye also have suffered 
 like things of your own countrymen’ (rdp ldlwy 
 cuugurerov, the Jewish inhabitants of Macedonia). 
 The word is only here in eccles. writers; Wyclif, 
 ‘lynagis’ (=‘lineage,’ Rheims), Tindale ‘kins- 
 men’; Geneva and Bishops’ as AV). 3. Of the 
 same city, 2 Es 107 (cies, AV, RV ‘neighbours,’ 
 RVm ‘townsmen ’). J. HASTINGS, 
 
 COUPLE is now used only of two persons or 
 things having some affinity, or wont to be con- 
 sidered in pairs. But in oliae Eng. the usage was 
 free, as Steele, Spect. No. 8, ‘I shall here com- 
 municate to the world a couple of letters.’ So in 
 AV, 2S 135 ‘make me ae. of cakes.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COURAGE ranks as one of the four cardinal 
 virtues (Wis 8’) acc. to the classification derived 
 from Gr. philosophers. In the early days of Israel’s 
 battles, courage in its simplest sense was naturally 
 rated very highly. Much stress is laid on it in Dt 
 31 and Jos 1; neither of these passages, however, 
 
 * ‘Many [counterfeit gems], in the farm of beads, have been 
 met with in different parts of Egypt, particularly at Thebes ; 
 
 and so far did the Egyptians carry this spirit of imitation, that 
 even small figures, scarabzi, and objects made of ordinary 
 
 _ porcelain, were counterfeited, being composed of still cheaper 
 
 materials. <A figure which was entirely of earthenware, with a 
 glazed exterior, underwent a somewhat more complicated 
 process than when cut out of stone and simply covered with a 
 vitrified coating ; this last could therefore be sold at a low 
 price ; it offered all the brilliancy of the former, and ita weight 
 ene betrayed its inferiority.’ Wilkinson, Ancient gyptians, 
 ii. 148. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COURSE 
 
 COVENANT 509 
 
 
 
 belongs to the earlier parts of the Pentateuch. The 
 courageous feats of Jonathan and David and 
 others are related with admiration (¢.g. 1 S 14. 17). 
 We hear much of ‘men of valour’ (Jg, S, ete., and 
 
 esp. Ch). The faint-hearted are not to be allowed 
 to serve in battle (Jg 7*, Dt 20°, 1 Mac 3°). Be- 
 tween the earlier kings and the Maccabees we 
 hear little or nothing of courage in war. The 
 courage of endurance shown by martyrs is a leading 
 nh in Dn, Mac, and parts of NT, esp. He 11, 
 1 P and Rev. 
 
 The secondary forms of the virtue also have 
 their place in the Bible. Man is not to fear un- 
 Soleege nor the blame of his fellow-men (Is 51’, 
 
 zr 104, Pr 29% etc.). This moral courage is esp. 
 demanded of the prophets (e.g. Ezk 3°, cf. Mk 
 13°48) ; they were therefore encouraged for their 
 work by ge revelations and calls (Ex 41°), Jer 
 18, Ezk 2°). Men must not be daunted by tribu- 
 lation (Ps 274 31%) ; nor give way to any super- 
 stitious fear of false gods (Jos 23%7, 2 Ch 15%, Jer 
 105). Again, David charges Solomon to be of good 
 eourare in peed the temple (1 Ch 22!% 28%). 
 Jehoshaphat bids his judges of assize deal cour- 
 ageously (2 Ch 19"). The spiritual conflict with 
 the hosts of evil demands courage (Eph 61°”), 
 
 The Heb. words for courage and kindred ideas(eé.g. 
 Yek, pip) suggest firmness, strength, power of resist- 
 ance. The man is to be himself, his best self, in 
 spite of all that might unman him. Here the 
 thought is close to that of-dvdpela, manliness (not 
 in NT, but dvdpltopa: occurs 1 Co 161%, and is common 
 in LXX). That which will enable a man to stand 
 firm is faith, which is expressly connected with 
 courage in Ps 56°, Mt 8” etc. (cf. 2510). Faith 
 implies the consciousness of God’s sympathy, which 
 is the secret of all courage that is more than natural 
 spirit and the love of fighting (see Is 50’, Pr 28}, 
 1 Ti 3"). Ina secondary degree the knowledge of 
 man’s sympathy confirms courage (Ac28"5, He 12}-}8), 
 In Rev 21° cowardice is coupled with unbelief, and 
 the two head the list of deadly sins (cf. Sir 2! 38), 
 See also FEAR. W. O. Burrows. 
 
 COURSE (from curswm, running, race).—1. On- 
 ward movement in a particular path, as of a ship, 
 Ac 16" 2117; of the stars, Jg 5° ‘the stars in their 
 courses fought against Sisera’; of the sun, 1 Es 4*4 
 ‘swi t is the sun in his c.’; and fig. of the gospel, 
 2Th 31 ‘that the word of the Lord may have free 
 c.’ (tpéxy, RV ‘mayrun’). 2. The path in which 
 the onward movement is made, of a river, Is 444 
 ‘ willows by the watercourses’ ; fig. of one’s manner 
 of life, Jer 8° 23; and of the manner of the 
 present age, Eph 2? ‘the ec. (alév, RVm ‘age’) of 
 this world.’* 3. The space over which a race ex- 
 tends, as the duration of life (or perhaps rather of 
 special service), Ac 13% 20%, 2 Ti 47 ‘I have finished 
 myc.’ 4. The fixed order of things, Ps 82° ‘the 
 foundations of the earth are out of c.’ (RV ‘are 
 moved’); or regular succession, Ezr 3" ‘they sang 
 together by c.’ (RV ‘one to another’), 1 Co 14” 
 ‘by c.’ (dvd uépos, RV ‘in turn’), and especially 
 the Courses of the Priests and Levites. See 
 PRIESTS AND LEVITES. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COURT.—See TEMPLE. 
 
 COUSIN.—This word was formerly used of any 
 near kinsman or kinswoman, except those of the 
 first deyree. Shakespeare uses it of a nephew 
 King John, Ul. iii, 6), a niece (Twelfth Night, 1. 
 iii. 5), an uncle (I. v. 131), ete. Thus, As You 
 Like It, 1. iii. 44— 
 
 * Rosalind— Me, uncle? 
 Duke Frederick— You, cousin. 
 It is in this older and wider sense that c. is used 
 * For Ja 36 see Mayor in Joc. 
 
 in To 6 72:13, 9 Mac 111%, Lk 1558 (C, is also 
 applied by a sovereign to one whose rank is the 
 same, or is courteously assumed to be the same, 
 In this sense is c. in ] Es 37 4 (‘thou shalt sit next 
 me, and shalt be called my e.’), 1 Mac 11%. The 
 Greek is svyyev7s, Lk 1°58, 1] Es 37 4%, To 4, 1 Mac 
 1151, 2 Mac 11}-*; dveyids, To 72; and ddedgés, 7. 
 The older VSS nearly always have ‘cousin’ as 
 AV; it is only in Rv that the change is made 
 into ‘kinswoman,’ Lk 18°; ‘kinsfolk,’ 15%; ‘kins- 
 man,’ To 6, 1 Mac 11%, 2 Mac 11:8; and 
 ‘brother,’ To 7}2; while ‘cousin’ is retained in 
 1 Es 37 4”, To 7%. On the relationship bet. Elisa- 
 beth and Mary, who are called ‘ cousins’ in AV, see 
 Plummer on Lk 1*, and art. ELISABETH. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COYENANT (nya bérith, LXX 6.a0yxn, in other 
 Gr. versions sometimes ovv6jxyn).—The Eng. word 
 covenant (from Lat. convenire) means a convention, 
 agreement, compact, etc., and may thus embrace 
 a variety of agreements, from a treaty or league 
 between two nations down to a contract between 
 two persons. The Heb. term is used with the 
 same latitude, though properly bérith is employed 
 only of the more important class of conventions, 
 at the forming of which a religious rite was per- 
 formed, by which the Deity was involved as a 
 party to the covenant, or as the guardian of it. 
 Other uses are derived, and are either less strict 
 or metaphorical. 
 
 The term bérith occurs well on to 300 times in 
 OT, and is rendered ‘covenant’ in AV with a few 
 exceptions, e.g. ‘league,’ Jos 9°, 25 3, and 
 some other places; ‘confederacy,’ Ob’, cf. Gn 
 14%, The word is used in a variety of signifi- 
 cations, appearing to mean not only covenant but 
 also appointment, ordinance, law; and opinions 
 differ on the question what its primary meaning 
 is. Some have assumed that the word properly 
 means a bilateral covenant with ponreaa obliga 
 tions or undertakings, and that then being applied 
 to the conditions of the covenant, which were of 
 the nature of binding ordinances, it thus came to 
 have the general sense of ordinance or law. Not 
 very different from this idea is the other, that, 
 seeing among the Shemitic peoples no authority 
 existed from which Jaw could emanate, the only 
 idea they had of a binding law was that of a 
 contract or agreement on the part of those who 
 were to be bound by it. Others have supposed 
 that the original meaning of bérith was ordinance 
 or appointment laid down by a single party, but 
 that, as in all such cases a second party necessarily 
 existed, the term came to have the sense of a 
 reciprocal arrangement. The transition from the 
 primary to the derived sense would on this last 
 
 supposition be much less natural than it is on the 
 
 other. The derivation of the word is uncertain. 
 Ges. assumed a root 773 fo cut, after Arab., suppos- 
 ing the term derived from the primitive rite of 
 cutting victims into pieces, between which the 
 contracting parties passed (Gn 15, Jer 34!8-1%), 
 It is probable that the early phrase to make a 
 covenant, viz. ‘to cut’ (n13) a covenant, was derived 
 from this usage; but it is more natural to suppose 
 that both the idea of bérith and the term itself 
 existed independently of the rites employed at its 
 formation in particular instances (cf. Lat. fedus 
 icere, etc.) More recently it has been suggested 
 that the word may be connected with the Assyr. 
 birtu ‘a fetter,’ beritu a fettering, enclosing. It 
 does not quite appear, however, whether the sup- 
 posed verb from which ‘ fetter’ is derived meant ‘ to 
 enclose’ or ‘to bind’ (Del. Assyr. HWB). Atany 
 rate, the word bond would approximate more 
 nearly towards expressing the various usages of 
 bérith than any other word, for the term is used 
 not only where two parties reciprocally bind them. 
 
T\ 
 
 COVENANT 
 
 COVENANT 
 
 
 
 selves, but where one party imposes a bond upon 
 the other, or where a party assumes a bond upon 
 himself. 
 
 There are two classes of covenants mentioned in 
 OT—those between men and men, and those be- 
 tween God and men. It may be assumed that the 
 ideas associated with the latter class, the divine 
 covenants, are secondary, and transferred from 
 covenants among men. 
 
 i, COVENANTS AMONG MEN.—In Gn 264 men- 
 tion is made of a covenant between Abimelech, 
 Ahuzzath, and Phicol on the one side, and Isaac on 
 the other. (1) The proposal came from Abimelech, 
 ‘Let there now be an oath (or curse, 75x) betwixt 
 us, betwixt us and thee, and let us make a 
 covenant with thee’ (v.*8). (2) The contents or 
 terms of the covenant were that they should 
 onan abstain from hurting one another, or 
 
 ositively do as Abimelech had dome to Isaac, ‘we 
 1ave done unto thee nothing but good, and sent 
 thee away in peace’ (v.”). (3) The covenant was 
 contracted by an oath taken by both parties, ‘ they 
 sware one to another’ (v.*). Tetonsnes is made to 
 a meal or feast provided by Isaac; but as this took 
 pie the night before the covenant was sworn, it 
 ormed no part of the covenant ceremonies. What 
 appears to be another version of the same trans- 
 action is given in Gn 21” in the history of 
 Abraham. If the transaction there be a different 
 one, the passage has probably suffered interpola- 
 tion from 267% (in LXX Ahuzzath as well as 
 Phicol appears). The covenant in these passages 
 was an international treaty between the two 
 peoples, Israel and the Philistines. 
 
 A similar covenant is described in the history of 
 Jacob (Gn 31#*-), The passage is composite,and it 
 is not easy to apportion the verses between the 
 sources J and E. The most important part of the 
 
 assage is v.51 (E). (1) The initiative was taken 
 ey Laban, ‘Come, let us make a covenant, I and 
 thou’ (v.“). (2) A cairn was raised by Laban (or 
 by both) to be a witness, and apparently also a 
 boundary landmark. (3) The terms of the covenant 
 were that neither party should overstep this 
 boundary for harm to the other. (4) Both parties 
 bound themselves by a solemn oath, Laban takin 
 to witness the God of Abraham and Nahor, an 
 Jacob swearing by the Fear of his father Isaac. In 
 v.” (possibly J) an addition or a variation appears, 
 having a more personal character, and referring to 
 Jacob’s treatment of Laban’s daughters. Refer- 
 ence is twice made to a meal (vv.* 54), but in 
 neither case does the meal appear part of the 
 covenant ceremonies; in the second case it was a 
 sacrificial meal, of which Jacob and ‘his brethren,’ 
 that is, the Hebrews, alone partook. It is obvious 
 that the covenant here is again an international 
 treaty between Hebrews and Arameans, to estab- 
 lish Gilead as a boundary-line between the two 
 peoples. 
 
 These two cases may be taken as types. In Gn 
 26°57 mention is made of the ‘curse’ (77x). The 
 word may also mean ‘oath,’ and was used just like 
 ‘oath’ as a general name for covenant (Ezk 17") ; 
 in Dt 29!2:14 and Neh 107? both words, ‘oath’ and 
 ‘curse,’ are used, though the expressions ma 
 merely be cumulative to denote one thing (Kz 
 17!5), It may be supposed, however, that ‘curse’ 
 was originally used in its literalsense. Very prob- 
 ably, the ceremonies originally in use in conclud- 
 ing covenants were in later times abridged or fell 
 into disuse. If the details of the two covenants 
 just referred to were supplemented from the solemn 
 ceremony described in Gn 15 of passing between 
 the pieces of the victim, a ceremony still in use in 
 Jeremiah’s days (3418), we might suppose a covenant 
 concluded with all the rites to have consisted of 
 three things—(1) the agreement on the terms; 
 
 (2) the positive oath (ny:a¥) taken by each ta 
 the other (Gn 26°!) to perform them; and (3) the 
 imprecation or curse (compare ‘cursed,’ 18 14%, 
 Dt 27%") invoked by each party on himself in 
 case of failure, this curse being, at the same time, 
 symbolically expressed by passing between the 
 pieces of the slaughtered animal.* ‘ 
 
 It is evident, first, that the essential thing in 
 the covenant, distinguishing it from ordinary con- 
 tracts or agreements, was the oath under the 
 solemn and terrible rites in use—a covenant is an 
 intensified oath, and in later times the term ‘oath’ 
 is usual as synonym of covenant. And, secondly, 
 as the consequence of these solemnities, that the 
 covenant was an inviolable and immutable deed. 
 Hence a frequent epithet es to covenants is 
 ‘eternal’ (2S 235, Lv 248). The penalty of break- 
 ing the covenant was death through the curse 
 taking effect. And this explains the terrible im- 
 precation of David, 2S 3%. The language is not 
 that of mere passion, though there may be passion 
 in it; it is the invocation on Joab’s head of the 
 ‘curse’ due to his violating the covenant, and the 
 safe-conduct granted to Abner. 
 
 Some other covenants of a similar kind are referred to in OT: 
 a covenant of Israel with the natives of Canaan (Ex 2332 3412. 15, 
 Dt 72, Jg 22). Such covenants would imply mutual commerce 
 and intermarriage, but are forbidden. The covenant between 
 Joshua and the Gibeonites (Jos 9), the conditions of which were 
 that he should spare their lives, and that they should be servanta 
 to Israel. Though Israel found that it had been deceived, the 
 sacredness of the ‘oath’ was such that its terms, at least in the 
 letter, were held binding. The story reposes on the supposition 
 that Israel was putting the native population to the sword. 
 A covenant between the people of Jabesh and king Nahash of 
 Ammon, with similar conditions " S111ff.), A covenant between 
 Jonathan and David (1S 18% 208), the only one mentioned be- 
 tween two persons, though 1 S 2316ff., if it referred to the same 
 thing, might put a different complexion on the covenant. A 
 covenant between David and Abner (28 312), and between David 
 and the elders of Israel (2 S 5%); and some others, e.g. that 
 between Nebuchadrezzar and Zedekiah (Ezk 17), and that 
 between Zedekiah and the people to set free their slaves, in 
 conformity with the law, Ex 212, Dt 1512 (Jer 348); cf. 1 K 542, 
 Am 19, 1 K 1519, 
 
 In all the above cases the covenant appears two- 
 sided, there being two parties incurring mutual 
 obligations. The term dérith is used, however, in 
 some cases where Only one of the parties accepts 
 an obligation, while the other suggests or imposes 
 it. No doubt in these cases the party imposing the 
 obligation or line of conduct is already committed 
 or commits himself to the same course, as, for 
 example, Jehoiada is said to have taken the 
 
 rinces with him into the covenant (2 Ch 231). In 
 
 os 24 Joshua is said to have ‘made a covenant 
 with the pores (v.25). The covenant is not one 
 between the people and God, made by Joshua as 
 mediator, but a solemn bond laid by Joshua on 
 the people, or rather assumed by the people at his 
 suggestion, that they would ‘serve J” their God.’ 
 Joshua had already announced his own resolution 
 to serve J” (v.15), It is added that Joshua set the 
 people a statute and an ordinance in Shechem 
 (v.”) ; but this appears to be something additional 
 to the covenant. An instance of a similar kiud 
 is recorded in 2 K 114, where Jehoiada is said to 
 have made a covenant with the centurions and 
 chiefs of the guard. In explanation it is added 
 that ‘he made them swear,’ and then showed them 
 the young king. Again, in 2 K 23° we read that 
 Josiah ‘stood by the pillar and made a covenant 
 before the Lord, to walk after the Lord and to 
 keep his commandments.’ This covenant was not 
 made with the Lord, but before the Lord ; neither 
 was it made with the Roope although the people 
 afterward also entered into the covenant (v.%). 
 
 * Liv. i. 24, ‘tum illo die, Juppiter, populum Romanum si3 
 ferito, ut ego hunc porcum hic hodie feriam, tantoque i 
 ferito quanto magis potes pollesque.’ The Heb. formula of 
 oath, ‘God do so to me and more also,’ may be connected with 
 such ceremonies. 
 
 
 
COVENANT 
 
 
 
 COVENANT §11 
 
 
 
 The covenant was an engagement or bond assumed 
 by Josiah, and differs little in idea from a vow; 
 and this sense is even clearer when Hezekiah says, 
 ‘It is in mine heart to make a covenant with J” 
 the God of Israel’ (2 Ch 29", cf, Ezr 108). From 
 these passages it appears that dérith is used, not 
 only when the engagement or obligation is mutual, 
 but also when it is imposed on one party by 
 another, or when one assumes it on himself, 
 
 ii. GOD’s COVENANTS WITH MEN.—Some points 
 are common to covenants in general—(l) Every 
 covenant implies two parties, and that the parties 
 are free moral agents, and that, whether the en- 
 gagement be mutual or not, both parties acquiesce. 
 (2) Every covenant is made in bonum; the relation 
 formed is always friendly, and for the benefit at 
 least of one of the parties. (3) A covenant creates 
 a new relation between the parties, not existing 
 previously. (4) A covenant creates also a jus or 
 pee on the side of each party against the other. 
 These general points belong also to divine cove- 
 nants, though the introduction of God as one of 
 the parties may cause some modification. For 
 example, God always initiates the covenant; and 
 the evil conscience of Israel, as reflected in the 
 pope. restrains it from claiming the protection 
 of J” asaright. It does go so far as to plead that 
 it is His people (Is 64°), and for that reason it 
 claims to ‘is treated differently from the nations, 
 and chastened in measure and with restraint of 
 His anger (Jer 10%). But it usually finds its pleas, 
 not in itself, but in God. It beseeches Him to 
 remember His covenant and His grace, and to deal 
 with it for His name’s sake—His name of God 
 alone, already begun to be revealed to the world 
 in the great acts of Israel’s redemptive history. 
 If in later times Israel pleads its ‘ righteousness,’ 
 and invokes God’s righteousness in its behalf, this 
 is not a plea of moral righteousness, but of being in 
 the right as against the world—a plea that it has 
 ee the true religion, and represents the cause of 
 In Gn 15 (cf. 22167 2687) J” makes a covenant 
 with Abram. The passage, though perhaps com- 
 posite, is sufficiently connected, v.'” having refer- 
 ence to the question who should be Abram’s heir, 
 and v.®* to the question what the inheritance 
 should be. The covenant has reference to the in- 
 heritance, the important verses being *!: 1% 18, 
 The passage is strongly anthropomorphic, though 
 what occurred may have been of the nature of a 
 vision. Certain animals were slain and divided 
 into their parts, the corresponding parts being 
 placed opposite each other with a space between. 
 At night-fall there passed between the pieces a 
 smoke as of a furnace and a flaming torch. The 
 smoke and flame was a sym bo] of the Divine Being. 
 The explanation follows: ‘In that day J” made a 
 covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have 
 I given this land’ (cf. 13!°). Now this covenant is 
 @ promise on the part of J”. The promise has the 
 form of an oath or curse symbolized by the act of 
 passing between the pieces of the victims. Among 
 men this would have meant the most solemn invoca- 
 tion of J” as guardian of the covenant, but here it 
 is J” Himself who performs the rite—because He 
 could swear by no greater, He sware by Himself. 
 
 Two other covenants of a similar nature are 
 mentioned—the covenant with David, constituting 
 his seed perpetual rulers of the kingdom of God, 
 and that with Levi, bestowing inalienably the 
 priesthood on that family. In 287 David, be- 
 cause of his purpose to build an house to the Lord, 
 receives through Nathan the promise that J” will 
 build him a house, i.e. establish his dynasty as 
 perpetual rulersin Israel. In 25 23° this promise is 
 spoken of'as ‘a covenant ordered in all things,’ t.e. 
 constituted with all the due and solemn rites, and 
 
 therefore ‘sure’ (cf. Gal 317, He 617-18), In 
 23° it is called ‘eternal’ (cf. 7'*), In later writings 
 this covenant is referred to as an oath (Ps 89% * 
 132"), and spoken of as the ‘sure mercies of David’ 
 (Is 55°). But it appears to be alluded to as early as 
 Is 16°, and the idea of it is what gives meaning to 
 the whole Messianic passage, Is 7!-9’. The setting 
 apart of the tribe of Levi for priestly functions is 
 several times alluded to, Ex 32”, Dt 108 18° (ef. 
 Nu 251-18); and elsewhere this appointment is 
 called a covenant, Dt 33°, Jer 3371, Mal 2, 
 
 These three. covenants bear upon three great 
 facts or institutions in OT religious history—the 
 inalienable right of Israel to the possession of 
 Canaan, the perpetual monarchy in the house of 
 David, and the perpetual priesthood in the family 
 of Levi. In the mind of one standing far down in 
 the history of Israel in the midst of these estab- 
 lished institutions, and conceiving of them as due 
 to covenants made in the distant past by J”, one 
 main conception in covenant must have appeared its 
 immutability. This idea of unchangeableness be- 
 longs so much to the conception of covenant that 
 any established custom, such as the exhibition of 
 the shewbread, is called ‘an everlasting covenant’ 
 (Liv 248), Similarly, the observance of the Sabbath 
 is so called (Ex 31)* 1”), and Jer 33” applies the term 
 covenant to the laws of nature, speaking of J’’s 
 covenant with the day and with the night; and 
 the covenants with David and Levi have the same 
 security as this law of nature. But the conception 
 of J” implied in the idea of such covenants is re- 
 markable. J” is conceived of as a free moral 
 Being, having power to dispose of the world to 
 whom He will (Gn 15), and to select among men 
 whom He wills for His ends (2S 7), standing 
 above men and the world, but entering graciously 
 into their history, and initiating consciously great 
 movements that are to govern all the future. 
 
 Some modern writers on OT religion contend that 
 these conceptions regarding J” implied in the notion 
 of covenant cannot have existed so early as the dates 
 assigned to these various covenants. They argue 
 that such covenants as those with Abram, David, 
 and Levi, not to mention the Sinaitic covenant, the 
 basis of which is the Moral Law, are antedated, they 
 all presuppose an established and permanent con- 
 dition of things, and are merely a religious view 
 taken of existing conditions. The covenant of J” 
 with Abram to give his seed the land of Canaan is 
 just the fact that Israel was now firmly in posses- 
 sion of Canaan brought under the religious idea 
 that all Israel’s blessings were due to their God. 
 And the covenant with David is merely a religious 
 view of the fact that his dynasty, unlike those in 
 the northern kingdom, was established and secure. 
 J” is the author of all Israel’s blessings, He is self- 
 conscious, and foresees the end from the beginning, 
 and therefore that which is seen to be established 
 has been a determination of His from of old, and 
 His determinations He communicates graciously 
 to those who are the subjects of them (Am 3’), 
 But this mode of thinking regarding J”, and this 
 mode of interpreting institutions and facts that 
 have historically arisen, are modes of thinking not 
 quite early in Israel’s religious history. The re- 
 lation of J” to Israel must originally have been 
 similar to that of the gods of the heathen to their 
 particular peoples ; the relation existed, but it was 
 never formed; it was natural, and not the result of 
 a conscious act or a historical transaction. Even 
 admitting that from the earliest times some ethica’ 
 elements entered into the conception of J”, the 
 idea of a covenant with Israel implying, as it did, 
 a conception of a Divine Being entirely free and 
 unconnected with Israel, and entering into volun. 
 tary relation with that people, could not have 
 arisen before the conception of J“ was completely 
 
512 COVENANT 
 
 ethicized and He was recoynized as God over all. 
 And such views of J”, it is contended, are to be ob- 
 served first among the canonical prophets, or at 
 earliest in the sub-prophetic age, the times of 
 Elijah and Elisha.—It is enough to state the 
 question here (its discussion falls under other 
 rubrics, DECALOGUE, GOD, ISRAEL), though a 
 reference to it was necessary in order to indicate 
 what place the idea of covenant holds in the 
 history of OT religion. The question of the 
 covenant runs up into what is the main question 
 of OT religious history, viz., To what date is the 
 conception of J” as an absolutely ethical Being to 
 be assigned ? 
 
 iii, HISTORY OF THE DIVINE CovENANTS.—l. 
 The passage Ex 19-34 (apart from 25!-31"7, assigned 
 to P), giving an account of the transactions at 
 Sinai, is extremely, almost hopelessly, compli- 
 cated (see Exopus). In Ex 34 (assigned to J) 
 mention is made of a covenant which appears to be 
 constituted on the basis of certain laws, partly 
 moral and partly ritual, and differing considerably 
 from the ordinary Decalogue of Ex 20. Several 
 scholars detect under this passage (Ex 34°"), now 
 considerably retouched, the Decalogue as given by 
 J (v.*). The main parts of Ex 19ff. are usually 
 assigned to E. As the passage now stands, no 
 covenant is connected with the simple Decalogue 
 of Ex 20, but Dt (51 9°) affirms that the cove- 
 nant at Horeb was made on the basis of the Deca- 
 logue written on the tables of stone (4% 5%). It 
 also appears to say that no laws were promulgated 
 at Horeb beyond the Decalogue (5); Moses re- 
 ceived ‘judgments’ at Horeb (41: 4 59-61), which 
 he promulgated first in the plains of Moab (4! 
 5} 81 121), In Ex 24 mention is made of a covenant 
 and a Book of the Covenant. This covenant seems 
 made (or renewed) when Moses received the second 
 tables of stone. The Book of the Covenant appears 
 to be Ex 20-23, but the testimony of Dt makes it 
 probable that E.. 21 ff. did not originally stand in 
 connexion with the events at Horeb, but with 
 those in the plains of Moab. When Moses told 
 the people the words of J” they answered with one 
 voice, ‘all the words which J” hath spoken will we 
 do’; and the covenant thus formed was followed 
 by a sacrifice and a ceremony with the blood, half 
 of which was sprinkled on the altar and the other 
 half on the people. This rite has been supposed 
 to be an instance of the ancient way of making a 
 covenant by both parties having communion in the 
 same blood (W. R. Smith, #S 461). This may 
 be; but in the main the sacrifice, being an offering 
 to J”, was piacular, atoning for and consecrating 
 the people on their entering upon their new rela- 
 tion to J” (He 9*%).* The words, ‘I am J” thy 
 God’ (Ex 20?), form no part of the Decalogue, they 
 rather express the one side of the covenant, the 
 Decalogue proper expressing the other side. In 
 brief, the covenant is, ‘I am J” thy God, and thou 
 art my people,’ and the Decalogue (Ex 20%") is the 
 expression or the analysis of what this means. 
 
 2. The prophets.—The idea of the divine cove- 
 nant ap ears very little in the prophets down to 
 Jer and Ezk, two prophets direstly under the influ- 
 ence of Dt. The notion of covenant in general is 
 not unfamiliar to them (Am 1°, Hos 238, Is 2815-18 
 338), but a covenant of God with men is not re- 
 ferred to except Hos 67 81. The former of these 
 Neue on is obscure, and the second is considered 
 
 y some an interpolation, though mainly just be- 
 cause it does refer to the divine covenant.+ It can 
 
 * It is doubtful if Ps 505 refers to this covenant; the ptcp. 
 may have a present sense those that make a covenant, ref. being 
 to the sacrificial worship, which is a continuous making or main- 
 taining of the covenant with J”. Of. § iii. (4) end. 
 
 t For ‘forsaken thy covenant,’1 K 1910 LXX reads forsaken 
 thee, and in v.14‘ thy covenant and’ seems a duplicate of thee in 
 previous clause, and is wanting in A. 
 
 COVENANT 
 
 
 
 hardly be because the idea of a divine covenant 
 was as yet little current that the my prophets 
 avoid the use of the term, for later prophets (Zeph, 
 Nah, Hab, Hag, Jon, Jl, Zee 1-8) also fail to use 
 it ; the reason must rather be that their thoughts 
 moved on different lines, The prophets have to do 
 with an existing people, and their main concep- 
 tions are—(1) that there is a relation between J” 
 and Israel; He is their God and they are His 
 people. (2) This relation of J” and the people was 
 formed by His act of redeeming them from Egypt: 
 ‘I am J” thy God from the land of Egypt’ (Hos 12°). 
 
 -This was the day of Israel’s ‘ birth’ (Hos 2° 111 12% 
 
 134), the time when J” ‘ knew’ her (Am 37). (3) In 
 this as in all His other acts towards Israel the 
 motive of J” was His goodness (Am 2°"), His ‘love’ 
 (Hos 11), cf. [Is 1? 5'™). (4) The nature of this re- 
 lation between J” and the people is perfectly well 
 understood. It is given in the conception of J”, and 
 is purely ethical. “What is required of the people 
 is to seek ‘good’—civil and moral righteousness 
 and the service of J” alone. In demanding this from 
 the people the prophets do not found on a book or 
 on laws, they speak off their own minds. To 
 themselves their principles are axiomatic, and wher- 
 ever these principles were learned they coincide 
 with the Moral Law (Hos 41). Thus the prophets 
 dealing with an existing people have no occasion 
 to go further back than the Exodus, when the 
 people came into existence. It is doubtful if Isaiah 
 goes further up than David and Zion. The ices 
 ges, as at the first’ (1°), are supreme rulers like 
 David; ‘the Lord hath founded Zion’ (14%); ‘ He 
 dwelleth in Mount Zion’ (88). J”, who is universa, 
 Sovereign, has founded His kingdom of righteous. 
 ness in [srael (28)""). Lf Isaiah has any covenant i 
 his mind it is the Davidic, on which his Messianic 
 prophecies repose (7}-97 11). Thus the Ue eee idea 
 differs from the idea of a covenant as real differs from 
 formal; the assurance of redemption reposes, not on 
 the divine promise, but on the divine nature, on God 
 Himself as men have historically found Him in 
 His acts of redemption already done, and as He is 
 known in the heart of man. (5) And the nature 
 of God, as it explains the present, guarantees the 
 future. However Hosea came by his ideas, whether 
 in the course of his domestic trials he discovered 
 in his own heart a love which could not let its 
 object go, however degraded she might become, 
 and rose by inspiration to the intuition that such 
 was God’s love,—however this be, he has the idea 
 of a love which is stronger than custom or law, or 
 even than moral repugnance, a love which nothing 
 can overcome, And this is God’s love to Israel. 
 The relation between J” and Israel, of God and 
 people, is indissoluble, because J” has loved (Hos 
 2°33). 
 
 3. Deuteronomy.—Dt knows of three covenants 
 —that with the fathers, that at Horeb, and that in 
 the plains of Moab. The covenant with the 
 fathers (481 7}%), specifically Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob (18 6°), was a promise to increase their seed 
 (1318) and give them the land of Canaan (618). The 
 covenant is called an ‘ oath’ (78), and is often said 
 to have been sworn. The covenant at Horeb was 
 based on the Decalogue (4! 5# 9°, cf, 473), In 
 addition to these Dt mentions a covenant in the 
 plains of Moab, which is expressly distinguished 
 from the covenant at Horeb (29' [Heb. 28%), cf. 
 29% 12. 14. 21 9617-19), The contents of this covenant 
 are formed by Dt itself (t.e. ch. 12-26, 28), which is 
 called the Book of the Covenant (2 K 23? *!, cf. Jer 
 117°), Dt isin the main an expansion of Ex 21 ff., 
 the place of which it is meant to take. The termy 
 of this covenant are given in 2617-18 ‘Thou hast 
 avouched * J” this day that he shall be thy Guu, 
 
 *The word, occurring only here, is very obscure; LXX 
 ‘chosen,’ so Vulg. and virtually Targ.; Aq. d&vrmAAdio, ea 
 
 
 
— = 
 
 COVENANT 
 
 COVENANT 513, 
 
 
 
 and that thou wilt walk in his ways, and keep his 
 statutes and commandments and judgments, and 
 hearken unto his voice. And J has this day 
 avouched thee that thou shalt be his particular 
 people . . . and that he will make thee high above 
 all nations . . . and that thou shalt be an holy 
 people unto J” thy God.’ It is obvious that the 
 essential thing in the people’s undertaking is that 
 J” shall be their God, and the essential part of His 
 undertaking is that they shall be His peculiar 
 people (cf. Ex 19°); all else is but the exposition 
 or analysis of what these terms poply Like the 
 prophets, Dt greatly insists on the duties of the 
 people, though with ies inwardness it sums 
 ap all duties in love to J” their God (6° 10%). Like 
 the prophets also, it fills up the formal outline of 
 the divine covenant (Gn 15) with contents from the 
 nature of God: J” ‘loved thy fathers’ (4°7), and 
 this love continues to their descendants (78). The 
 ‘covenant and the grace’ (759) are coupled; the 
 covenant was an expression of grace (7!”). Dt also 
 lays great emphasis on the uniformity of the divine 
 mind and the continuity of His operations. It was 
 because He loved the fathers that He ‘ chose’ their 
 seed, the people Israel ; this ‘choice’ meaning, not 
 election beforehand, but the concrete act of separ- 
 ating Israel to Himself from among the nations at 
 the Exodus (4° 77 10%). J” ‘keepeth covenant,’ 
 though this again is explained from His nature 
 — He is the faithful d? (7% 22), All Israel’s 
 blessings, its deliverance from Egypt, entrance to 
 Canaan, and prosperity there, are but the first 
 covenant (Gn 15) unfolding itself—‘ to uphold His 
 covenant which he sware unto thy fathers’ (8% 9° 
 10°), And this first covenant, as it has operated 
 in the past and operates now, will continue opera- 
 tive in the future: Israel may be scattered among 
 the nations, but J” will not forget His covenant, 
 for He is merciful (4%). The term dérith is used in 
 Dt for the terms or contents of the coveuant, e.g. 
 the Decalogue or any of its laws (4% 172-5) ; so Dt 
 speaks of the ‘ tables of the covenant,’ ‘ the ark of 
 the covenant,’ cf. 1 K 87! ‘the ark wherein is the 
 covenant of the Lord.’—The prophets Jer. and Ezk. 
 follow Dt in their use of the term covenant, though 
 they draw no distinction between the covenant at 
 Horeb and that in the plains of Moab (Jer 11% “5 
 3151 722-23, Ezk 168). It is curious that in his 
 ae anterior to the promulgation of Dt (ch. 
 -6) Jer., like other prophets, does not make use 
 of the covenant idea (cf., however, 31%). See § iv. 
 4, The Priests’ Code.—P is a historical account 
 of the rise and completion of Israel’s sacra, its 
 religious institutions and rites. When it was 
 written, these sacred institutions had run through 
 their full development, and could be described in 
 their historical succession, ¢.g. the law in regard 
 to blood (Gn 9), the law of circumcision (Gn 17), 
 the tabernacle as the ar euing pace of God among 
 His people (Ex 25 ff.), and the like. In this history 
 P records two covenants—that with Noah (Gn 9) 
 and that with Abraham (Gn 17). The former was 
 a covenant with man and all creation, consisting 
 of a promise or oath (Is 54°) on God’s side that He 
 feald no more destroy the world with a flood, and 
 laying on men the obligation of abstaining from 
 human bloodshed and the eating of blood. It is 
 very much a question of words whether this 
 covenant was two-sided. Of course being made 
 with mankind and all creation, it was an absolute 
 
 changed, connecting perhaps with "p"n (Jer 241), As v.17 plainly 
 states what the people undertake, and v.18 what J” undertakes, 
 the rendering, ‘thou hast caused J” to say,’ could aay mean 
 that the people by their words or demeanour had caused J” to 
 understand and repeat their pledges in regard to Him, while He 
 had caused or enabled them to repeat His pledges to them—a 
 strangely roundabout form of thought. The e is difficult 
 in other ways, the exact bearing of the subordinate clauses being 
 in some cases obscure. See AVOUCH. 
 VOL, I.—32 
 
 promise on God’s part in regard to the human race 
 and the world; but in regard to individuals the 
 popeisy. of violating it was death (9° 6), and in 
 ater law even a beast that shed human blood was 
 to be slain (Ex 21%), This covenant was a law for 
 mankind (Is 245), and in later times abstinence 
 from blood was imposed on proselytes, and even 
 on Gentiles in the early Church (Ac 15%). The 
 covenant of Noah is not referred to in JE, but 
 Is 54° is proof that knowledge of it was current 
 before the date usually assigned to P. It is 
 ossible that it was the increasing intercourse 
 etween Israel and the heathen, and the fact that 
 many of the latter were accepting the religion of 
 Israel, which induced the sathor of P to preserve a 
 record of this covenant. The Abrahamic covenant 
 (Gn 17) was made with Abraham and his seed. It 
 consisted of a promise of God, called also an oath 
 (Ex 68), to multiply Abraham, to give Canaan to 
 him and his seed, and to be their God (Gn 17* 7: 8) ; 
 and it imposed on him and his seed the obligation 
 of circumcision (v.’°). Circumcision is called the 
 sign of the covenant but also the covenant itself 
 (v.20 11-18) just as the Sabbath is both the covenant 
 and the sign of it (Ex 31361”), As in Noah’s 
 covenant, the promise to Abraham and his seed 
 regarded as a people was absolute (v.7), but in 
 regard to individuals the penalt of neglecting 
 circumcision was death (v."4). he OT idea is 
 hardly that Abraham represented his seed ; his 
 seed are conceived as existing—as they were when 
 the author wrote (cf. Dt 294). The Decalogue 
 does not now stand in P, neither does it speak of 
 any covenant at Sinai, except in the general 
 reference Ly 26% ‘the covenant of their ancestors,’ 
 at the Exodus; the only part of the Decalogue spoken 
 of as a covenant is the Sabbath (Ex 3115).*" The 
 ‘ark of the covenant’ becomes ‘the ark of the 
 testimony’ (ny). P gives an account of the his- 
 torical revelation of the divine names, Elohim, E]- 
 Shaddai, and J”. The covenant with Noah was 
 made by Elohim, that with Abraham by EI- 
 Shaddai, and a covenant made by J” might have 
 been expected. It is wanting; the covenant in 
 Ex 6*8 is the Abrahamic. Thus in P, (1) the only 
 covenant with Israel is the Abrahamic; all Israel’s 
 subsequent history, their multiplication in Egypt 
 and their entrance into Canaan, is but the full ] 
 ment of this covenant (Ex 2% 645, cf. Ps 105%"), 
 In P, as everywhere else, the essence of the cove- 
 nant is, ‘I will be their God’ (Gn 177-8), or more 
 fully, ‘I will take you to me for people, and I 
 will be to you God’ (Ex 6’). In the idea of P 
 this promise was realized by God dwelling among 
 the people on the one hand, and accepting their 
 offerings on the other. Hence the need of the 
 tabernacle, God’s dwelling-place, offerings, and 
 ministrants. These are all divine institutions, 
 creations and gifts of God, the fulfilment in detail 
 of the covenant to be their God. And (2) the 
 covenant is everlasting (Gn 177); it continues valid 
 in the Exile and at ait times, and it will yet prove 
 effectual in the restoration of the people and in 
 their being the people of God in truth (Lv 264-*). 
 Neither in P nor in Ezk are the ritual institutions 
 the means of salvation, they express the state of 
 salvation, which is altogether of God; and their 
 performance merely conserves it. If a different 
 pay - thinking ever came to prevail, it arose long 
 1a) 
 
 * As the history of creation (Gn 11-24) is written mainly to 
 introduce the rest of the Sabbath, in which creation issued, the 
 Sabbath might have been expected to be a covenant with 
 creation and Adam. is is not the case, nor does OT speak of 
 a@ covenant with Adam (Hos 67 is obscure). In Sir 1417 ‘the 
 covenant from the beginning was, thou shalt die the death,’ 
 covenant a pools d Gia vera ordinance ; and death, being 
 universal, regarded as the destiny of man from the be 
 ginning. 
 
514 COVENANT 
 
 iv. THE NEw O)VENANT.—As an idea in the 
 religious history of Israel the new covenant means: 
 first, that Israel’s national existence and all her 
 institutions, civil and sacred, shall be dissolved 
 (Hos 3%); J” shall say of her, ‘She is not my 
 people, neither am I hers’ (Hos 1° 27), And 
 secondly, that this divorce of Israel shall be but 
 temporary—as it is, in fact, merely apparent (Is 40! 
 49148. 501% 5167): the relation between her and 
 J” shall be renewed: ‘I will say unto them which 
 were not my people, Thou art my people; and 
 they shall say, Thou art my God’ (Hos 2% 1), 
 This is the faith and prediction of all the prophets, 
 of Dt and of P (above in §iii.). The Exile was 
 the dissolution of the relation between Israel and 
 J”, the rupture of the old covenant (Jer 31); the 
 Restoration shall be the renewal of the relation, 
 the establishment of a new covenant. But around 
 the renewal of the relation gather all the religious 
 ideals and aspirations of the prophets, the for- 
 
 iveness of sin, righteousness and peace, and ever- 
 asting joy—the relation is renewed amidst the 
 tumultuous jubilation of creation (Is 421° 4471-23), 
 In its visions of the new covenant OT becomes 
 Christian. Jer. is the first to use the word new, 
 but the term adds nothing to what had been already 
 said in the words 8 oken by J” to her who had been 
 cast off: ‘I will betroth thee unto me for ever’ 
 (Hos 2” 31). In terms the new covenant is nothing 
 but the old: ‘I will be their God, and they shall be 
 my people’ (Jer 31%) ; its novelty (apart from the 
 reference to the future) lies in its subjective 
 reality ; its terms are realized in their deepest 
 sense. It is in this view only that its promises are 
 ‘better’ (He 8°). The prophets and Dt insist 
 greatly on the duties of the people, and assume 
 that they are able to perform them. But when 
 Jer. and Ezk. review the people’s history, which 
 has been one long act of unfaithfulness, they de- 
 
 spair of the peops (Jer 13%), ToJeremiah’s expostu- 
 
 lations the reply seems to come back, ‘It is hope- 
 less’ (25), ope is now only in God. J” will 
 make a new covenant with Israel, that is, forgive 
 their sins and write His law on their hearts—the 
 one in His free grace, the other by His creative 
 act ; and thus the covenant idea shall be realized, 
 ‘T will be their God,’ ete. The second part of the 
 promise is developed in Deutero-Is. ‘This is my cove- 
 nant, saith J”, my spirit which is upon thee, and my 
 words which I have put in thy mouth’ (59?!) ; and 
 even more fully in Ezk 36%, cf. 1136 In 20#4f 
 Ezk. describes the act of making the new covenant, 
 which is a repetition of that at the Exodus. This 
 new, everlasting covenant is due to God’s remem- 
 brance of His former covenant (16), Both Jer. 
 and Ezk. Betts the new covenant into connexion 
 with the Davidic or Messianic covenant (Jer 331416 
 20-26) zk 3771-3, cf. 17228-), 
 
 In Deutero-Is. (40 ff.) the assurance of a new 
 covenant reposes on two great conceptions—the 
 universalistic conception of J”as God, and that of the 
 
 invincible power of the knowledge of the true God” 
 
 once implanted in the heart of mankind... J” is God 
 alone, Creator, He that giveth breath untothe people, 
 and in this all is said: He shall yet be acknowledged 
 by all, ‘By myself have I sworn that to me every 
 knee shall bow’ (457 428), And-Israel is His witness 
 (4312), - There is no mention of former covenants with 
 the fathers or Israel. J” called Israel (41° 428 491-6 
 51%), and in the act of calling He planted in Israel the 
 consciousness of its meaning in the moral history 
 of mankind—‘I said unto thee, Thou art my ser- 
 vant’ (418), There is no God but J”, and Israel is 
 His servant, to bring forth judgment to the nations, 
 to be the light of the Gentiles, that the salvation 
 of J” may be to the end of the earth (495). The 
 knowledge of the true God has been given to man- 
 kind once for all in Israel; and this idea of the 
 
 COVENANT 
 
 true knowledge or word of the true God implanted 
 in Israel, incarnated in the seed of Abraham—this 
 idea personified into a Being is the Servant of the 
 Lord. One might not be able anywhere or at any 
 time to lay his finger on this Being, but he was 
 there, had always been there since Israel’s call and 
 the creation of its consciousness (49'-°), And the 
 religious history of mankind was a Process at Law, 
 the conduct of the great Cause of the Servant against 
 the nations, their wrongs and idolatries. In this 
 cause he was righteous, that is, in the right: his 
 cause was that of J”, and though he stood contra 
 mundum he would surely prevail: ‘I know that I 
 shall not be put to shame’ (50*®). So the Servant 
 becomes a covenant of the people, to restore the 
 tribes of Jacob (42° 49°). bere this is too light a 
 thing, he shall also be the light of the nations. 
 The new covenant is oné of peace (541), is ever- 
 lasting (55° 618), and the Gentiles may take hold of 
 it (561-8 445), 
 
 In the above and all late writings bérith is used 
 in a general way, not of the act of agreement, but 
 of its conditions or any one of them, and thus of 
 the religion of Israel as a whole (Is 564, Ps 103%). 
 So it is used of the relation created by the 
 covenant; the new covenant is not thought of as a 
 formal act of agreement, but as the realizing in 
 history of the true covenant idea. The term 
 bérith had a charm and power, and was clung to, 
 partly because it expressed the most solemn and 
 unalterable assurance on God’s part that He would 
 be the people’s salvation, and partly, perhaps, 
 because it suggested that He acted with men after 
 the manner of men, graciously engaging Himself to 
 them, and entering into their life. The covenant 
 thus took form in their heart, awakening hopes 
 and ideals towards which, kindled and elevated 
 the divine fellowship, they might strive. An 
 thus the covenants were not only promises of 
 redemption, but stages in its attainment. For 
 God’s covenants were not isolated and unmotived 
 interpositions, they attached themselves to lofty 
 spiritual conditions of men’s minds,—to the ‘faith’ 
 of Abraham (Gn 15”), to David’s absorbing purpose 
 to prepare an house for J” (28 7, Ps 132), to the 
 ‘zeal’ of Levi and Phinehas, and to the elevated re- 
 ligious mind of Israel in the hour of its redemption. 
 
 By the time of the LXX translation bérith had 
 become a, religious term in the sense of a onesided 
 engagement on the part of God, as in P and late 
 writings ; and to this may be due the use of the 
 word d.adjxy, disposition or appointment, though 
 the term was then somewhat inappropriate. r 
 applied to reciprocal engagements among zten. 
 In the Ep. to the Hebrews the word is used Loth for 
 covenant and testament, the idea of cevenant as a 
 onesided disposition naturally sliding into that of 
 testament when the other ideas of inheritance and 
 death are involved (9-17), The Ep. develops in 
 detail Jer 31%, particularly the promise, ‘1 will 
 remember their sins no more.’ The Day of Atone- 
 ment (Lv 16), in which the piacular rites of OT 
 culminated, is used as a frame into which to insert 
 the work of Christ; and the rites and actions of 
 the high priest on that day, which could never 
 realize the idea they embodied, serve as a foil to 
 the sacrifice and high priesthood of Christ, which 
 ‘for ever perfected the sanctified.’ The other half 
 of the promise, ‘In their hearts I will write my 
 law,’ is not developed in the as (ef. ref. to the 
 Spirit, Is 59%, Ezk 36¥). St. Paul employs the 
 term 6é:a074xn (Gal 35), but in the sense of an en- 
 
 agement on the part of God, which is, as he calls 
 it, a promise. In the main he follows P, e.g. (1) 
 in assuming that there is but one covenant, the 
 
 * Aristoph. Av. 439, is quoted as an ex. of the meaning ‘ con- 
 
 vention,’ mutual engagement. Had this sense established itself 
 in the ‘common’ dialect of the 8rd cent. B.c.? 
 
 
 
_AV for— 
 
 Abrahamic (Gn 17) ; (2) in regarding circumcision 
 as the sign of it ; and (3) in regarding the Sinaitic 
 revelation as subordinate to the covenant and a 
 means of realizing it—though in a different sense 
 from P. The revelation at Sinai was not the 
 making of a covenant, but the giving of a law. 
 With Gn 17, however, he combines Gn 15, and the 
 wider promise that all nations should be blessed 
 in the seed of Abraham. The covenant with 
 Abraham was a purely spiritual deed, and contem- 
 plated only spiritual ends. The promise of heir- 
 ae of the world was given to Abraham and to his 
 seed, which seed is Christ, in whom the promise 
 has been fulfilled. Further, the promise was given 
 to Abraham, the believer, and to his seed, which 
 seed all believers are, who are heirs according to 
 the promise, being, as one with Christ, joint-heirs 
 with Him. In the institution of the Supper the 
 term 6:a04xy is also used, and combined with the 
 sacrificial idea as in Ex 245*-, cf, He 9), 
 
 PHRASEOLOGY.—The usual phrase to make a covenant is ‘to 
 cut’ (M13); in 28 235 ‘to appoint’ (O'y). In P ‘to give’ (jn3 
 Gn 912 172), and ‘to set up a covenant’ (0°77), are common. 
 The latter word often means ‘ to uphold,’ but the sense ‘set up’ 
 or make is undoubted; the determination of ‘covenant’ by 
 pron. occurs also with jn} and n25 (2 8 312). Of both parties it is 
 said, ‘they made a covenant’ (Gn 2127 3144); the superior, or 
 whoever takes the initiative, makes a covenant with (NX, OY) 
 the other (2 8 313, Gn 262%). To make a covenant to or for (5) 
 may mean to ‘submit a covenant to,’ #.e. for acceptance (Jos 
 2425), or to make a covenant or undertake an obligation ‘ for the 
 advantage of’ one (Ex 2332, 2$ 5%). This construction is always 
 used of covenants with the natives of Canaan (Ex 2332 3412. 15, 
 Dt 72, Jg 2%), and becomes very common in later style in con- 
 formity with the extended usage of prep. to. See more fully 
 ae xii. 2 ff., 227 ff. ; Kretzsch. pp. 50 f., 205 ff., 247 ff.; Oa. 
 
 eb, Lea. 8.v. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Art. ‘Bund’ in Schenkel’s and Riehm’s DB. 
 The OT eee: Riehm, p. 68 ff. ; Schultz (Eng. tr.), ii. 1 ff. ; 
 Smend, pp. 24 ff., 294 ff.; Dillmann, pp. 107 ff., 419 ff. H.Guthe, 
 De foederis notione Jeremiana, Leip. 1877; Valeton, ZA W xii. 
 xiii. (1892-93); Candlish, Expository Times, 1892 (Oct., Nov.); 
 Kretzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alt. Test., Marburg, 
 1896. On the Federal Theology see an art. by T. M. Lindsay, 
 Brit. and For. Ev. Rev. July 1879. A. B. DAVIDSON. 
 
 COYER.—41. Following Sa‘adya, Talm., and most 
 Eng. VSS, AV gives ‘covers. . . to cover withal,’ 
 
 as one of the vessels used in the tabernacle, Ex 257 
 
 376, Nu 47. RV (after LXX, Vulg., Syr., Targ., 
 Luther) gives ‘flagons . . . to pour out withal.’ 
 The same word (niyp) is used in 1 Ch 28" of one 
 kind of vessels given by David to Solomon for the 
 temple 3; EV ‘cups.’ 2. In Jg 3%, 1S 24% ‘to cover 
 one’s feet’ is a literal tr. of the Heb. (v9 407) 
 euphemistically used for performing the offices of 
 nature (so LXX, Jg 3% droxevoiy rods rédas, but 
 1S 243) rapacxevdoacbar; Vulg. purgare alowm, 
 and p. ventrem ; Luther in Jg, zw Stuhl gegangen, 
 but in 18, Piisse zu decken). On the scrupulous 
 regard for decency among Orientals, see Ges. Lew. 
 8.0. JDY. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COYVERT.—Scarcely now in use, except for game, 
 and then generally spelt cover, ‘covert’ is used in 
 f ‘A covered place,’ 2 K 168; ‘the c. 
 for the sabbath that they had built in the house’ 
 (Heb. Kth. 307, keré yo, LXX rov Oepérdov rijs 
 xa0édpas, RV ‘the covered way for the sabbath,’ 
 RVm ‘covered place’). 2. Any shelter, as Is 4°‘a 
 c. from storm and from rain’; or hiding place, as 
 Job 38% ‘the young lions. . . abide in the c. to lie 
 in wait’; 1S 25” ‘she [Abigail] came down by the 
 c. of the hill,’ that is, where the hill hid her from 
 view ; cf. 1 Mac 9% ‘hid themselves under the c. of 
 the mountain.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 COYET.—‘ The law had said, Thou shalt not 
 covet’ (Ro 77); ‘Covet earnestly the best gifts’ 
 (1 Co 12%), and ‘covet to prophesy’ (14%). It is 
 not St. Paul that offers this startling contradic- 
 
 CRACKNELS 
 
 tion; he uses two different words, ér:@upéw in Ro, 
 §m\ém in 1 Co; it is AV only. The older Eng. 
 VSS have generally ‘lust’ in quoting the com. 
 mandment, or where they have ‘covet’ they give 
 some other word in I} Co, as 1 Co 12%! Wyclif ‘sue,’ 
 Rheims ‘pursue’; 14°° W. ‘love,’ R. ‘be earnest.’ 
 RV has ‘desire earnestly’ in 1 Co. ‘Covet’ (from 
 Fr. convoiter, Lat. cupere, cupiditare), scarcely 
 used now in a good sense, was at first quite 
 neutral =eagerly desire, as Caxton (1483), ‘She ever 
 coveyted the pees and love of her lord.’ ‘Covet 
 after,’ as 1Ti6”, isobsolete. (The Gr. in this place 
 is épéyw, and RV gives ‘reach after,’ a happy 
 change, épéyw and ‘reach’ being phonetically as 
 well as idiomatically identical.) 5 . HASTINGS. 
 
 COYETOUSNESS.—The verb covet and its parts 
 are used in a wider sense in the Scriptures than the 
 noun covetousness, which has always a reference to 
 property, and is a rendering of the Heb. yy3 and 
 the Gr. wdcovetla. In OT there are found frequent 
 denunciations of this sin, which is brought into 
 close connexion on the one hand with violence (Jer 
 227, Hab 2°), and on the other with fraud (Jer 8"); 
 and this connexion shows that action as well as 
 desire to get another’s goods is meant (Mic 2%). 
 The forms of the sin singled out for rebuke are 
 usury, seizing the land of the weak and _ poor, 
 selling debtors into slavery, and taking bribes to 
 pervert justice. The judges to be chosen by Moses 
 were to be men ‘hating unjust gain’ (Ex 187), 
 Covetousness brought ruin on Achan and his house 
 (Jos 77). Samuel in laying down office asserted his 
 innocence of this sin (1 § 12%). 
 
 Turning to NT, we find that Jesus warned men 
 against covetousness, wherewith His opponents 
 the Pharisees were charged (Lk 16), and enforced 
 His warning with the parable of the Rich Fool (Lk 
 1213-21), St. Paul in several of his letters includes 
 covetousness, which he calls idolatry (Col 35), 
 among the very worst sins (Ro 1”, Eph 5%, 1 Co 6"). 
 He had to defend himself against the charge of 
 covetousness in connexion with the collection for the 
 poor at Jerus. (1 Th 25, 2 Co 8; cf. Ac 20%). There 
 were some teachers in the Church whose aim was 
 worldly gain (2 P 2); and accordingly one of the 
 necessary gee hesnens of a bishop was freedom from 
 the love of money (1 Ti 3°). The remedy for covet- 
 ousness as for the anxiety about food and raiment, 
 which hinders undivided service (Mt 6'9-*), is trust 
 in God’s fatherly care and abiding faithfulness (He 
 13°). Regarding the sense of ‘covet’ in the tenth 
 commandment (Ex 20"), it is held by some that it 
 includes not only the desire to have another’s 
 property, but also the effort to make it one’s own 
 (Schultz, O.T. Theol., Eng. tr. ii. i 52). In Dt 5% 
 with its more inward morality, only the desire may 
 be referred to. InSt. Paul’sreference the inwardness 
 of the law is asserted (Ro 77). He might claim to 
 be blameless in outward acts, but this command- 
 ment convicted him of sinfulness in his wishes, not 
 for gain simply, but also for other unlawful objects. 
 
 A. E. GARVIE. 
 COW.—See CATTLE. 
 
 COZBI (315 ‘deceitful,’ Xacft).—The Midianitess 
 slain by Phinehas (Nu 251° 18 P), 
 
 COZEBA (1 Ch 4”).—See ACHZIB. 
 
 CRACKNELS.—Only 1K 148 ‘take with thee ten 
 loaves and cracknels.’ The Heb. (073) is found 
 elsewhere only Jos 9°, of the ‘ bread’ the Gibeonites 
 carried with them on their pretended long journey. 
 It is supposed to mean bread that crumbles easily, 
 hence the Eng. tr., ‘cracknel’ being a dialectic 
 variety of crackling. See BREAD. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 

 
 516 CRAFT 
 
 
 
 CREED 
 
 
 
 CRAFT.—In the mod. sense of gwile, Dn 8, 
 2 Mac 12%, Mk 14!; for already by 1611 the word 
 had lost its orig. sense of ‘power,’ ‘strength,’ 
 when it could be distinctly set against ‘cunning,’ 
 as Caxton (1474), Chesse, ‘Thou hast vaynquisshed 
 them... by subtilnes.... But I that am a 
 romayn shal vaynquisshe them by craft and 
 strength of armes.’ Elsewhere in AV ‘c.’ means 
 ‘trade,’ an early application of the word (=that 
 to which a man gives his strength). So ‘Crafts- 
 man’=‘ tradesman,’ as Rev 18” ‘no craftsman of 
 whatsoever craft he be.’ In Rich. JJ. 1. iv. 28, 
 Shaks. plays upon the double sense of ‘ craft ’— 
 
 ‘Wooing poor craftsmen with the craft of smiles,’ 
 
 Crafty and Craftiness are always used in the 
 modern degenerated sense. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CRANE.—The word ow gig, or op gts, tr. in 
 AV crane, should be tr. swailow (so RV). 
 The first of these words occurs in Hezekiah’s 
 prayer (Is 384). Here (Ayesx jp way 102) sds is 
 a swallow, and ‘agir possibly an adjective which 
 means twittering. The passage would then be tr. 
 ‘as a twittering swallow I chatter.’ In the second 
 passage (Jer 8’) occurs the second form (73y) 0°D3), 
 and here gs is again a swallow, and ‘agdér the twit- 
 terer(?). If the passage be tr. ‘as a swallow and 
 a twitterer,’ the latter probably refers to another 
 species of swallow, or one of the twittering birds 
 of passage, of which there are many in the Holy 
 Land. In the passage in Jer. the allusion is to 
 the migratory habits of the bird, and its note; in 
 Isaiah to its note alone. Some of the swallows, as 
 the swift or martin, are known to the Arabs by the 
 name sus or s7s, and utter a piercing shriek as they 
 fly, but the allusion here is to the twittering of the 
 birds in nesting time. By nostretch of imagination 
 could the whoop or trumpeting of the crane be called 
 twittering. Some have supposed that the yanshiiph 
 (Lv 11”. Dt 1426), tr. in a cea RV great owl, and 
 yond (Is 34"), tr. in both owl, are the crane. 
 
 ut, in the absence of evidence in its favour, we 
 must drop the crane from the fauna of the Bible. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 CRATES (Kpdrns), a deputy left in charge of the 
 citadel at Jerusalem (here) when the regular 
 governor, Sostratus, was summoned to Antioch by 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, in consequence of a dispute 
 with the high priest Menelaus (2 Mac 4”). Crates 
 is termed the governor of the Cyprians (rdv émi rév 
 Kumptwy, RV ‘who was over the Cyprians’): prob- 
 ably he was sent to Cyprus shortly afterwards, 
 when, in 168 B.c., Antiochus obtained possession 
 of the island. Some MSS read here Ydorparos 
 6é xparjoas tov éml tr. Kum.; 80 Vulg. Sostratus 
 prelatus est Cypriis. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 CREATION.—See CosmoGcony, CRE«aTURE. 
 
 CREATURE is the somewhat loose rendering of 
 nephesh (v>3), breathing being, in Gn and Lv (once 
 in Gn—1”—of sherez (yr), swarming being, or, as 
 it is there put, moving creature), and, in Ezk, of 
 hai (7), living being (rendered, in each case, living 
 creature). In NT, quite accurately, it represents 
 xricya, and shares with creation the representation 
 of xrlows. Neither xrloua nor riots is ever employed 
 by the LXX as a tr. of nephesh, shereg, or hai, the 
 favourite equivalents for these words respectively 
 being yux7}, épreréy, and {Gov. In Gn the verb bard’ 
 (x73, ‘create’) is tr. solely by roetv: «rife represents 
 it first in Dt 4%, and afterwards more usually than 
 moety ; while both stand for it, sometimes side b 
 side, in Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. 45’). Since moety is 
 
 simply to make, while «rife is (classically) to found 
 (a city, a colony), and so to make from the begin- 
 ning, originally, for the first time (not necessarily 
 
 
 
 out of nothing), «rifew is especially fitted to express 
 God’s creative activity not only in the phasis 
 (Ec 12}, Ro 1%), but also in the spiritual sphere 
 (Col 3% For an OT premonition of the spiritual 
 sense, see Ps 51!*, where create, xrifew, and renew, 
 éveauwifew, recall together the xawh xrlow, new 
 creature, of 2 Co 5"). The use of the subst. «rice 
 exactly corresponds. In contradistinction to «ricua, 
 which points to the creative act completed and 
 embodied, it denotes sometimes the creative act in 
 process (Ro 1°), at other times the thing created, 
 regard being paid to the process of its production. 
 It is used (1) physically (a) of the whole creation 
 (so invariably in OT and Apocr.; in NT, Ro 8%), 
 often with special reference to mankind as the 
 creation (Mk 16", Col 1%); (6) of the individual 
 creation, the creature (like the purely physical 
 xricya of the Apocr. and NT), Ro8®; (2) spiritually, 
 of the new creature (2 Co 5", Gal 615), and the new 
 creation (Ro 8”-%3) in Christ Jesus, the original and 
 originator of the new race, and the renovator of 
 nature as a whole. Cf. the rabbinical expressions 
 bériyah hdiddshaéh, ‘new creation,’ of a man con- 
 verted to Judaism; and hiddish ha‘élam, ‘the new 
 age’ (lit. newness of the age) to be ushered in by 
 the Messiah ; also Isaiah’s ‘new heavens and new 
 earth’ (6517), the madyyevecla, regeneration (Mt 
 19%), and the droxardoracts rdvrwy, restitution of all 
 things (Ac 37). The classical sense of xrifgev, to 
 found, occurs only in 1 Es 4°, but is traceable in 
 the meaning of «rlows in 1 P 23, wrdop dvOpwrlvy 
 xrloa, ‘every institution, i.e. ordinance, of man.’ 
 J. MASSIE. 
 CREDIT.—1 Mac 10* ‘ When Jonathan and the 
 people heard these words, they gave no credit 
 unto them’ (ov« érlcrevoay av’rots, RV ‘ credence’). 
 Cf. Introd. to Rhemish NT, ‘The discerning of 
 Canonical from not Canonical, and of their infal. 
 lible truth, and sense, commeth unto us, only by 
 the credite we give unto the Catholike Churche.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 CREDITOR.—See DEBT. 
 
 CREED.—A creed is an authorized statement or 
 definition of religious beliefs. The name is usually 
 limited in its application to the three formulas 
 known as the Apostles’, the Nicene (or Constanti- 
 nopolitan), and the Athanasian. The history of 
 these documents has been the subject of minute 
 and elaborate investigation. The most convenient 
 collection of the materials for study is to be found 
 in Hahn’s Biblioth. d. Symb. u. Glaubensreg. d. alt. 
 Kirche’, 1897. The earliest traces of the ete 
 Creed are investigated in vol. i. pt. 2, of Gebhardt, 
 Harnack, and Zahn’s Patr. Apost. Op.,and Harnack, 
 Anhang to Hahn (ed. 2); and the recent controversy 
 as to its original meaning, and the source of certain 
 clauses, is accessible in Harnack, Apost. Glaubens- 
 bek., and Swete, Apostles’ Creed. As Swainson has 
 observed, it is necessary to remark that until the 
 tenth century the name ‘apostles’’ or ‘apostolic’ 
 was applied to the Nicene as well as to the Western 
 symbol to which it is now appropriated ; both wers 
 regarded as embodying the apostolic teaching, and 
 the epithet ‘apostolic’ does not always entitle us 
 to say that the Latin symbol is the one meant. 
 But the purpose of this article is not to enter cn 
 the origin and history of the creeds, but to indi- 
 cate their biblical suggestions or anticipations. 
 
 Pagan religion was a rite rather than a doctrine ; 
 if the ceremonial were duly performed, the 
 worshipper was at liberty to interpret it, or leave 
 it unexplained, as he pleased. The myths which 
 in a certain sense rationalize ritual do not amount 
 to a doctrine; there is nothing in them binding 
 the reason or faith of the worshipper; and pa 
 religion has no theology or creed. Neither has 
 it a historical basis, which might be exhibited and 
 

 
 guarded by a solemn recital of sacred facts. In 
 both respects it is distinguished from the religion 
 of revelation. This rests upon facts, which have 
 to be perpetually made visible, and upon an inter- 
 pretation of those facts, without which they lose 
 their value and power as a basis for religion. ‘This 
 is true both of OT and NT stages in revelation, but 
 it is in the latter only that we can be said to see 
 the first approaches to the formation of a creed. 
 The Ten Words, with their demand for monolatry, 
 if not their proclamation of monotheism, might be 
 regarded as the ‘symbol’ of the ancient religion: 
 the Shema—Hear, O Israel, J!’ our God is one J//— 
 in Dt 6: is the nearest approach to the enunciation 
 of a doctrine. In NT there are various more 
 distinct indications, sometimes of the existence, 
 sometimes of the contents, of what would now be 
 ealled a creed. ‘The emphasis which Jesus lays 
 upon faith in Himself makes Him, naturally, the 
 principal subject in these. ‘The Christian creed is 
 a confession of faith in Him; there is nothing in 
 it which is not a more or less immediate inference 
 from what He is, or teaches, or does. The early 
 confession of Nathanael (Jn 14), ‘Rabbi, thou art 
 the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel,’ is the 
 germ of a creed. ‘There is probably more, though 
 not everything, in Peter’s confession at Csarea 
 Philippi (Mt 16'°), ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
 the living God.’ The exclamation of Thomas in 
 Jn 2028 goes further still. We may infer from such 
 passages as 1 Co 123 (‘ Jesusis Lord’) and Ro 109 (‘ If 
 thou shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, 
 and believe in thy heart that God raised him from 
 the dead’), that a confession of the exaltation of the 
 crucified Jesus was the earliest form of Christian 
 creed. Cf. Ac 2%. Some such confession seems to 
 have been connected from the beginning with the 
 administration of baptism. This appears from the 
 ancient interpolation in Ac 837 in which the eunuch 
 is made, before his baptism, to say, ‘I believe that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God’; but still more 
 from Mt 2819, The formula, ‘into the name of the 
 Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ 
 which is here prescribed for baptism, is undoubtedly 
 the outline on which both the Western (Apostolic) 
 and the Eastern (Nicene) symbols were moulded ; 
 and candidates for baptism were at a very early 
 date required to profess their faith, sometimes in 
 the very words of those symbols, sometimes in forms 
 virtually equivalent to them. (See BAPTISM.) It 
 has indeed been pointed out that where baptism is 
 mentioned historically in NT, it is ‘into the naine 
 of the Lord Jesus’ (Ac 8'® 19° etc.), not into the 
 triune name of Mt 281%; but the surprise of St. 
 Paul in Ac 193 that any one could have been 
 baptized without hearing of the Holy Spirit, is 
 fair evidence that the Holy Spirit was mentioned 
 whenever Christian baptism was dispensed (observe 
 the force of of» in Ac 193). Expansions of this 
 trinitarian formula constituted what Irenzeus calls 
 ‘the canon of the truth which one receives at 
 baptism’ (Iren. Her. I. x. 1, and the note in 
 Harvey’s ed. vol. i. p. 87 f.). Such expansions, 
 however, are hardly to be found in NT. The brief 
 summaries of Christian fundamentals are usually 
 of a different character. Thus St. Paul mentions, 
 as the elements of his gospel in 1 Co 15%! Christ’s 
 death for sins, His burial, and His resurrection. 
 In 1 Ti 36 there is what is usually considered a 
 liturgical fragment, defining at least for devotioual 
 purposes the contents of ‘the mystery of godliness,’ 
 the open secret of the true religion. There the 
 first emphasis is laid on the Incarnation—He who 
 was manifested in the flesh; and the last on the 
 Ascension—He who was received up in glory. As 
 in the individual confessions mentioned above, 
 Christ is the subject throughout. It is difficult to 
 say whether the summaries of his gospel in which 
 
 
 
 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CREEPING THINGS 517 
 
 
 
 St. Paul delights, sometimes objective as in Ro 18, 
 sometimes subjective as in 2 Th 21f, Tit 8&7, in- 
 
 fluenced the formulation of Christian truth for 
 catechetical purposes, or were themselves due to 
 the need for it; but it is obvious that outlines of 
 gospel teaching, such as the apostles delivered 
 everywhere, must soon have been required and 
 supplied. Such an outline may be referred to in 
 2 Ti 18—brorimwow exe bytarvdyvtwy Noywv—though 
 it may well be the case that something is denoted 
 much more copious than anything we call a creed: 
 a catechist’s manual, for instance, such as might 
 contain the bulk of one of our gospels. It is usual 
 to assume that by rapaé7jxn or mapaxaradynkyn (1 Thi 
 629, 2 Ti 18) is meant ‘the faith once delivered to 
 the saints,’ in the sense of a creed or deposit of 
 doctrine; and though good scholars dispute this, 
 and suppose the ref. to be to Timothy’s vocation as 
 a minister of the gospel, the assumption is probably 
 correct. For in the first passage the rapaéjKy is 
 opposed to ‘profane babblings and oppositions of 
 knowledge falsely so called, which some professing 
 have erred concerning the faith’ ; and in the second, 
 it is evidently parallel to the ‘form’ or ‘outline of 
 sound words.’ There are several passages in which 
 St. Paul uses the word xjpuvyua to denote the con- 
 tents of his gospel (Ro 16%, Tit 18 kijpuvyua 6 
 ériotevOny éyw) in a way which suggests that idea 
 of the gospel which would naturally find embodi- 
 ment ina creed. The rvzos di6ax7s of Ro 6!" is 
 evidently wider than anything we mean by creed. 
 There is one passage in NI (He 61%) in which 
 the elementary doctrines of the Christian religion 
 are enumerated, partly from a subjective point of 
 view (repentance and faith), partly more object- 
 ively (resurrection and judgment). In one place 
 the reality of the Incarnation is expressly asserted 
 as the foundation of the Christian religion, and as 
 a test of all ‘spirits,* in a tone which had immense 
 influence on early Christian dogma (1 Jn 4*f). The 
 creeds of Christendom go back to these small be- 
 ginnings. The tendency to produce them is plainly 
 as old as the work of Christian preaching and 
 teaching ; and their legitimate use, as all these NT 
 passages suggest, is to exhibit and guard the truth 
 as it has been revealed in and by Jesus. If it be 
 true that ‘he dogma of Christianity is the Trinity, 
 and that this is the central content of the creeds, 
 it must be remembered that the trinitarian con- 
 ception of God depends upon the revelation of the 
 Father, and the gift of the Spirit, both of which 
 are dependent on the knowledge of the Son. In 
 other words, it is truth ‘as truth is in Jesus.’ But 
 on this view of the content of the creeds, we 
 should have to refer for the Scripture basis of 
 them to such passages (besides those quoted above) 
 as 1 Co 124, 2 Co 13!4, Eph 218, Jude #°-2!, Jn 14-16. 
 Apart from the authenticity of Mt 2819, these are 
 sufficient to show how instinctive is the combina- 
 tion of Father, Son, and Spirit in the thought of 
 NT writers, and how completely the problem is 
 set in Christian experience to which the Church 
 doctrine of the Trinity, as embodied in the Nicene- 
 Constantinopolitan creed, is an answer. The his- 
 torical, as opposed to theological, statements in the 
 creeds claim to rest on direct Scripture authority. 
 
 Lirerature.—Swainson, Apostolic and Nicene Creeds; 
 Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica ; Caspari, Ungedruckte, etc. ; 
 Quellen z. Ges. d. Tuufsymbols wu. d. Glaubensregel ; Lumby, 
 ITist, of Creeds; Zahn, Apost. Symb. (1892); and the works of 
 Hahn, Harnack, and Swete referred to above. 
 
 J. DENNEY. 
 **CREEPING THINGS.—Much confusion is some- 
 times occasioned by the fact that two distinct 
 Heb. terms are (frequently) represented by this 
 expression in the KV. 
 
 (1) The term which is most correctly so repre- 
 sented is rémes (©2}), from ramas, to glide or creep: 
 
 
 
518 CREEPING THINGS 
 
 CREMATION 
 
 
 
 
 
 under this term ‘creeping things’ are mentioned 
 Gn 1%-25 (as created, together with ‘cattle,’ and 
 ‘beasts of the earth’ [7.e. speaking generally, 
 herbivora and carnivora ], on the sixth day); 1°6 (as 
 given into the dominion of man, together with the 
 ‘fish of the sea,’ the ‘fowl of the air,’ the ‘cattle 
 and ali beasts [Pesh.] of the earth’); 67-20 714.28 
 817.19 (as spared, usually together with ‘cattle’ and 
 ‘fowl,’ on occasion of the Flood) ; in other allusions 
 to the animal kingdom, often by the side of 
 ‘beasts,’ ‘cattle,’ ‘fowl,’ or ‘fishes,’ 1 K 433 (618) 
 ‘He spake also of cattle, and of fowl, and of 
 creeping things, and of fishes,’ Hos 218(2°) ; Hab 11 
 (the Chaldzan makes men to be ‘as the fishes of 
 the sea, as the creeping things, over whom is no 
 ruler’), Ezk 8! (figures of them worshipped by 
 Israelites), 3829, Ps 148! In Gn 93 [RV moving 
 thing], where the term stands by itself, it is used 
 more generally of all gliding or creeping things (cf. 
 the verb in Gn 1% 771 8 [RV moveth, moved]; Ps 
 10420): and in Ps 104% of gliding aquatic crea- 
 tures (cf. the verb in Gn 1?!, Lv 114, Ps 6934(3°) (RV 
 moveth]) ; so also perhaps (note the context, esp. 
 v.45) in Hab 144. The corresponding verb is often 
 found closely joined to it, Gn 1?) 71! 817, Ezk 38”) ; 
 or used synonymously, Gn 1% 78 92 (RV teemeth), 
 Ly 20% (RV id.), Dt 4!8 (by the side of cattle, 
 fowl, and fish), ct. Lv 1144 (RV moveth). These are 
 all the occurrences of either the subst. or the verb. 
 From a survey of the passages in which rémes 
 occurs, especially those (as Gn 178, | K 4%) in which 
 it stands beside beasts, fowls, and fishes, in popular 
 classifications of the animal kingdom, it is evident 
 that it is the most general term denoting reptiles, 
 which, especially in the East, would be tho most 
 conspicuous and characteristic of living species, 
 when beasts, fowls, and fishes had been excluded. 
 Dillm. and Keil (on Gn 12+) both define it as denot- 
 ing creatures moving on the ground ‘either without 
 feet, or with imperceptible feet.’ It is often defined 
 more precisely by the addition of ‘that creepeth 
 upon the earth,’ or (Gn 175 67°, Hos 2!§) ‘upon the 
 ground.’ ‘The term not being a scientific one, it in- 
 cluded also, perhaps, creeping insects, and possibly 
 even very small quadrupeds: but the limitation of 
 rémes to the ‘smaller quadrupeds of the earth’ (to 
 the exclusion of reptiles), which has been devised 
 (Dawson, Modern Science in Bible Lands, 1888, p.28) 
 for the purpose of ‘harmonizing’ Gn 1 with the 
 teachings of paleontology, is arbitrary, and cannot 
 be sustained. 
 
 (2) The other term, also sometimes unfortunately 
 rendered ‘creeping things,’ is shérez (/>¥): this 
 is applied to creatures, whether terrestrial or 
 aquatic, which appear in swarms, and is accord- 
 ingly best represented by swarming things. It 
 occurs (sometimes with the cognate verb) Gn 1” 
 ‘let the water swarm with swarming things,’ cf. 
 v.21 ‘every living soul [see SOUL] that creepeth, 
 wherewith the waters swarmed’; 7?! (beside fowl 
 and cattle and beast) ‘every swarming thing that 
 swarmed upon the earth’; Ly 52 ‘the carcases of 
 unclean swarming things’ ; 11! ‘of all the swarm- 
 ing things of the waters’; v.2? (= Dt 141), vyv.2t 28 
 ‘winged swarming things’? (i.e. flying insects: 
 locusts are instanced) ; v.29 ‘swarming things, that 
 swarm upon the earth’ (the weasel, the mouse, and 
 various kinds of lizards are instanced), cf. v.31 
 ‘among all swarming things’; vv. +1: #-# ‘every 
 swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth? — 
 including (v.42) insects with more than four feet ; 
 v.44 ‘any swarming thing that creepeth upon the 
 earth’; v.46 ‘every living soul that glideth (ef. 
 above, No. 1) in the waters, and every living soul 
 that swarmeth upon the earth’ ; 22° *whoso touch- 
 eth any swarming thing by which he may become 
 unclean.’ The cognate verb shdraz occurs also 
 Ex 83 (728) ‘the river shall swarm with frogs’ (cf. 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 Ps 10589) ; zk 479 ‘ every living soul that swarmeth’ 
 (viz. in a river); and fig., of animals generally, 
 Gn 817 (RV breed abundantly), and of men, 97 (RV 
 id.) Ex 17 (of the Israelites multiplying in Egypt: 
 RV increased abundantly). Shérezg thus denotes 
 creatures that appear in swarms, whether such as 
 teem in the water, or those which swarm on the 
 ground or in the air, te. creeping and flying 
 insects, small reptiles, such as lizards, and small 
 quadrupeds, as the weasel and the mouse. Shérez 
 and rémes are not co-extensive; for, though par- 
 ticular animals, as small reptiles, would no doubt 
 be included under either designation, rémes would 
 not be applied to flying insects, or (at least 
 properly) to aquatic creatures, nor is it certain 
 that it was applied to small quadrupeds, or even to 
 creeping insects; while shérez would not probably 
 be used of large reptiles, or of any, in fact, which 
 did not usually appear in swarms. 
 S. R. DRIVER. 
 
 **CREMATION.—It is sometimes stated that burn- 
 ing was the ordinary mode of disposing of the dead 
 among all ancient nations, except the Egyptians, 
 who embalmed them ; the Chinese, who buried them 
 in the earth; and the Jews, who buried them in 
 the sepulchres. This statement requires a good 
 deal of qualification. Lucian tells us that the 
 Greeks burned their dead while the Persians buried 
 them (De Luctu, xxi.) ; and it is certain that among 
 the Greeks bodies were often buried without being 
 burned (Thuc. i. 184. 6; Plat. Phedo, 115 E; 
 Plut. Lyc. xxvii.). Among the Romans both 
 methods were in use; and Cicero believed that 
 burial was the more ancient (De Legibus, ii. 22. 
 56). So that Persians, Greeks, and Romans must be 
 added as, at any rate, partial exceptions. Whether 
 religious, or sanitary, or practical reasons were 
 uppermost in deciding between the different 
 methods is uncertain. Where fuel was scarce, 
 cremation would be difficult or impossible. 
 
 That the Jews’ preference for sepulchres was 
 determined by a belief in the resurrection of the 
 body is very doubtful. The doctrine itself seems 
 to have been of late development; and modern 
 Jews, who accept the doctrine, do not object to 
 cremation. Nevertheless, their forefathers rarely 
 practised it, and perhaps then only as an alter- 
 native to what would be more distasteful. The 
 bodies of Saul and his sons were burned by the 
 men of Jabesh-gilead (1 S 312%), perhaps to secure 
 them from further insult by the Philistines, and to 
 mike it more easy to conceal the bones. Am 610 
 gives a horrible picture of a whole household 
 having died, and a man’s uncle and a servant 
 being the only survivors left to burn the last body. 
 But we are probably to understand a plague, or 
 something exceptional. That bodies were burned 
 in the valley of Hinnom in times of pestilence is 
 an assertion which lacks support. However large 
 the number of the dead, burial was the manner of 
 disposing of them (Ezk 391-16), The ‘very great 
 burning’ made for Asa at his burial (2 Ch 1614) 
 is not a case of cremation, but of burning spices 
 and furniture in his honour (comp. Jer 34°). 
 ‘When R. Gamaliel the elder died, Onkelos the 
 proselyte burned in his honour the worth of seventy 
 mine of Tyrian money’ (T.B. Aboda Zara 11a). 
 Comp. 2 Ch 2119, Nor is 1 K 13? an allusion to 
 cremation. Bones of men previously buried are to 
 be burned on the altar to pollute it and render it 
 abominable. 
 
 In the NT there is no instance of cremation, 
 whether Jewish, Christian, or heathen; and there 
 is abundant evidence that the early Christians 
 followed the Jewish practice of burial, with or 
 without embalming (Minuc. Felix, Octav. xxxix.; 
 Tert. Apol. xlii.; Aug. De Civ. Det, i. 12, 138), 
 It was to outrage this well-known Christian senti- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CRESCENS 
 
 ment that persecutors sometimes burned the bodies 
 of the martyrs and scattered their ashes in mockery 
 of the resurrection (Kus. H. 7. v. 1. 62, 63; comp. 
 Lact. Inst. vi. 12). The example of the Jews, 
 the fact that Christ was buried, the association of 
 burning with heathen practices, and perhaps rather 
 material views respecting the resurrection, have 
 contributed to make cremation unpopular among 
 Christians. But there is nothing essentially anti- 
 christian in it: and charity requires us to adopt 
 any reverent manner of disposing of the dead 
 which science may prove to be least injurious to 
 the living. A. PLUMMER. 
 
 CRESCENS.—A companion of St. Paul in his 
 final imprisonment, sent by him to Galatia (2 Ti 
 40), tie. either to Asiatic Galatia,—a view sup- 
 ported by St. Paul’s usage elsewhere, and by the 
 context, in which all the other places mentioned 
 lie east of Rome (so Const. Apost. vii. 46; ‘Tille- 
 mont, Mémoires sur St. Paul, Note 81; Smith, 
 DB? s.v.); or possibly to Gaul (so x C, reading 
 TadXlav; Kuseb. H# iii. 4; Epiph. Her. 51. 11; 
 Theodore and Theodoret ad 2 Ti 41°; Lightfoot, 
 Gal. pp.3and 30). A late Western tradition treats 
 him as the founder of the Churches of Vienne and 
 of Mayence (Gams. Series Hpisc.). His memory 
 is honoured in the Roman martyrology on June 
 27, in the Greek Menologion on May 30, and there 
 he is treated as one of the seventy disciples, and 
 a bishop of Chalcedon. [Acta Sanctorum, June 
 27; Menologion, May 30.) The name is Latin, 
 
 and is found among the freedmen of Nero (Tac. 
 Hist. i. 76), the centurions (Ann. xv. 11), and the 
 priests of Phoebus (Jnser. Greece, Sic. et Ital. 
 1020). 
 
 W. LOCK. 
 
 CRESCENTS.—RV tr. of 22°72" Jg 821-25 (AV 
 ‘ornaments’), Is 518 (AV ‘round tires like the 
 moon’). As clearly indicated by its etym. (from 
 Aram. sahr@, ‘moon,’ with On as diminutive ter- 
 mination,—for which see Barth, Nominalbildg. 
 § 212), — the sahdron was a crescent or moon-shaped 
 ornament of gold (Jg 87°), introduced presumably 
 by Syrian traders from Babylonia. In O'T we find 
 these crescents worn by Midianite chiefs (Jg 82°), by 
 the ladies of Jerus. (Is 3!§), and hung by the former 
 on the necks of their camels (Jg 8?!). They were 
 in all probability worn on the breast by a chain 
 round the neck, like the crescents (hila@lat) of a 
 modern Arab. belle (see Del. and Dillm. on Is 3}8; 
 Keil, Bibl. Archeol. Eng. tr. ii. 149; Nowack, Heb. 
 Arch. i. 129; cf. Jg 875», where the crescents seem 
 to be distinguished from the chains by which they 
 were suspended). Others (e.g. Moore, Comm. in 
 loc.) consider the latter to have been ‘necklaces or 
 collars, the elements of which were little golden 
 crescents.’ Originally the crescents were amulets or 
 charms (W. R. Smith in Journ. of Philology, xiv. 
 122-123 ;* Wellh. Skizzen, sili. 144), although by 
 Tsaiah’s time they may have become more purely 
 ornamental. A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 CRETE.—Crete, the modern Candia, is an island 
 in the Mediterranean, 60 miles to the S. of Greece. 
 Its ereatest leneth from E. to W. is 156 miles, while 
 its width varies from 30 to 7 miles. The orig. 
 inhabitants were prob. a kindred race with those 
 of Asia Minor. C. plays a prominent part in the 
 legendary, as well as in the early historical period. 
 Lying as a convenient stepping-stone between the 
 continents of the Old World, the island was prob- 
 ably colonised by the Dorians in the 3rd generation 
 after their conquest of the Peloponnesus. Homer 
 numbers them together with the Achwans and 
 
 * Smith suggests that the sahdrénim may have been of horse- 
 shoe form, ‘so that this is the same kind of amulet which is still 
 often found on stable doors.’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 CRETE 519 
 
 Pelasgians among the inhabitants. Some striking 
 points of resemblance are noticed by Aristotle 
 ( Politics, ii. 10) between the institutions of Sparta 
 and those of C., prominent among them being the 
 military training, and the system of common 
 meals. ‘The mythical king Minos, round whom so 
 many legends cluster, is alluded to as a historical 
 person by Thucyd. (i. 4. 8) and Aristotle. He was 
 the first to gain command of the sea; he insured 
 the payment of tribute by the suppression of piracy, 
 and finally failed in an attempt to conquer Sicily. 
 C. was mountainous, fertile, and thickly populated. 
 Its cities were said to be 100 in number (Hom. JJ. 
 ii. 649; Virg. Aen. iii. 106), and elsewhere 90 (Hom. 
 Od. xix. 174), the most important being Gnossus, 
 Gortyna (1 Mac 158), Cydonia, and Lyctus. The 
 warlike spirit of the inhabitants, due to their 
 position and training, was fostered by their internal 
 disputes and their fondness for service as mercen- 
 aries. Tacitus (Hist. v. 2) says that the Jews were 
 fugitives from C., and connects their name, ’Iovdazor, 
 with the mountain in the island called Ida. This 
 probably arose from a confusion between the Jews 
 and Philistines, the latter of whom are called 
 Caphtorim, from Caphtor (Dt 228, Am. 97), the 
 country from which they migrated to Pal., and 
 mmay possibly be identified with the Cherethites 
 mentioned 1$ 380!, Ezk 2516, In Jer 474 the passage 
 ‘the Philistines, the remnant of the isle of Caphtor,’ 
 has marginal alternative in RV ‘of the sea-coast’ 
 for ‘isle’; and in the LXX (Zeph 2) rdpockos 
 KpnrGy is found and is tr. ‘inhabitants of the sea- 
 coast, the nation of the Cherethites’ (RV), and 
 Kp7tn (Zeph 2°)=‘ the sea-coast.’ Caphtor may 
 have been a part of Crete, possibly Cydonia on the 
 N. coast, which contained a river, Jardanus (cf. 
 Jordan), Hom. Od. iii. 292. In any case C. was 
 prob. a primitive settlement of the Caphtorim, and 
 the Cretan character resembles in some respects 
 what we know that of the Philistines to have been. 
 The capture of Jerus. by Ptolemy Soter, and the 
 forced emigration of the Jews, B.C. 820, drove many 
 doubtless to C. as wellas to Egypt. C. is mentioned 
 in 1 Mac 10%, Demetrius Soter, an enemy of the 
 Jews, had retired to a life of self-indulgence in 
 Antioch, and was defeated and killed by the 
 usurper Balas. The latter was in turn attacked 
 by Demetrius Nikator, the son of Soter, who 
 invaded Cilicia from C., and, though joined by 
 Apollonius, the Rom. governor of Ccele-Syria, 
 was defeated by Jonathan Maccabeus near Azotus, 
 B.O. 148. 
 
 In B.C. 141 Simon Maccabeeus, on the recognition 
 of his authority, renewed the old friendship with 
 the Romans, and obtained from the consul Lucius 
 the promise of protection for the Jews from the 
 inhabitants of Gortyna in C. (1 Mac 158). There 
 is no doubt that, after this date, the number of 
 Jews in the island increased greatly. Internal 
 quarrels among the Cretans led to the invitation to 
 Philip Tv. of Macedon to act as mediator, but the 
 effects of his intervention were not lasting. C. was 
 taken by the Romans under Metellus, B.c. 67, and 
 joined to Cyrene and made a Roman province. 
 Under Augustus, Creta-Cyrene became a senatorial 
 province governed by a propretor and a legatus. 
 
 Cretans are mentioned (Ac 2!) among the 
 strangers present at Jerus. at the Feast of Pentecost. 
 
 St. Paul touched at C. in the course of his dis- 
 astrous voyage to Rome. Starting from Myra in 
 Lycia, in the charge of a centurion, on board a corn 
 ship of Alexandria, since the winds prevented a 
 straight course, he sailed under the lee of C., i.e. 
 S. instead of N. of the island. Skirting the pro- 
 montory of Salmone (Ac 27"), on the E. side, and 
 coasting along the S., the vessel reached an anchor- 
 age called Fair Havens, a little to the E. of Cape 
 Matala. Five miles to the E. some ruins have 
 
 
 
520 CRIB 
 
 been discovered which may be those of Lasea. 
 This harbour was not considered safe for wintering 
 in, though St. Paul recommended keeping to it. 
 It was getting late in the year. The Fast, i.c. the 
 great Day of Atonement, on the 10th day of the 7th 
 month Tisri, about the time of the autumnal 
 equinox, had passed, and the ancients did not 
 usually sail after the setting of the Pleiades, Oct. 20 
 (Hesiod, Works and Days, 619) or the beginning of 
 Nov. The centurion, however, preferred the advice 
 of the master and the owner of the vessel, who 
 wished to reach the shelter of Phoenix on the S. W. 
 of the island. This has usually been identified 
 with Lutro, said to have been called by the ancients 
 Pheenike, the only secure harbour on the S. coast 
 which faced E. (RV). There is no harbour 
 existing at that spot now, but one is marked in 
 some Admiralty shasta of the middle of the last 
 cent., and called Lutro. In order to identify 
 Pheenix (Ac 27!2) with this roadstead, the forced 
 interpretation of the words xard Alfa Kal Kxard 
 x@pov, ‘down the §.W. wind and down the N.W. 
 wind,’ found in the RVm is adopted. It is better, 
 however, to take the words as in AV in their usual 
 sense, ‘lying toward 8. W. and N.W..,’ esp. as there 
 is a harbour opposite Lutro called Phineka in that 
 position. 
 
 On a gentle S. wind springing up, the attempt 
 was made to reach Phenix, and the vessel coasted 
 along the 8. shore of C. There suddenly, however, 
 blew down from the island (xa7’ adrjs) a wind, 
 Euraquilo E.N.E., in the teeth of which it was 
 found impossible to sail, so the ship was allowed to 
 scud before the gale to the lee of Cauda (or Clauda, 
 AV), 20 miles S. of Cape Matala, the southern- 
 most promontory of the island. Fourteen days 
 later the vessel was wrecked on the coast of 
 Melita. 
 
 It is not known who planted Christianity in C. 
 If St. Paul did so, it must have been before his 
 first Pepe aness possibly in the course of a visit 
 while he was staying at Corinth or Ephesus. 
 Perhaps the Church in the island had been founded 
 by Christian converts. St. Paul seems to imply 
 from his words to Titus (Tit 15), ‘ For this cause 
 left I thee in C.,’ that he had been to the island. 
 The fact that Titus was left to supply all omissions 
 and ApLont elders in every city, shows that the 
 Church had been established long enough to admit 
 the presence of irregularities, and had been im- 
 perfectly organised. 
 
 The untrustworthy character of the Cretans 
 (Kpfres, Ac 2" AV Cretes, Tit 112 AV Cretians) was 
 proverbial. St. Paul quotes from one of their own 
 poets, Epimenides (Tit 12), who lived about B.c. 
 600, and is called by Plato ‘a divine man,’ that 
 ‘they were always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.’ 
 Witness to their avarice is also borne by Livy 
 (xliv. 45) and. Plutarch Avmilius (§ 23), ‘the Cretans 
 are as eager for riches as bees for honey’; to their 
 ferocity and fraud by Polybius and Strabo; and to 
 their mendacity by Callimachus, Hymn in Jov. 
 8, who begins a line Kpfres del Yeiora: with the 
 same words as Epimenides. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Bunbury, Hist. of Ancient Geog. ; Weldon’s tr. 
 of Aristotle's Politics; Rawlinson, Herodotus; and the Comm. 
 on Acts, esp. Page, Blass, and Rendall. 
 
 C. H. PRICHARD. 
 
 CRIB (0:3x).—The earliest meaning of the Eng. 
 word (of which the origin is unknown) is ‘a barred 
 receptacle for fodder used in cowsheds and fold- 
 yards ; also in fields, for beasts lying out during 
 the winter.’ And that is precisely the meaning 
 of the Heb. word ’ébhds (fr. oax to feed), which 
 is used Is 1 of a crib for the ass, Pr 144 for the 
 ox, Job 39° for the ‘ unicorn,’ 7.e. wild ox. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 CRICKET.—See Locust. 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 CRIER.—In this form the word is not found in 
 the Bible, but the verb from which it is derived 
 (8p, Bodw) is sometimes used in the sense of . 
 ing aloud, or proclaiming. Of Wisdom it is said 
 that she ‘crieth in the chief place of concourse,’ 
 Pr 17; and in answer to the question of the Jews, 
 ‘Who art thou?’ the Baptist calls himself ‘the 
 voice of one crying in the wilderness,’ Jn 1%. In 
 ancient times, when men were illiterate, and could 
 not read written mandates, public criers proclaimed 
 the orders of the king or men of authority. Inthe 
 Middle Ages heralds, preceded by trumpeters wha 
 announced their mission, made public proclama- 
 tions. This custom is still carried out in the E. 
 In every town and village a public crier, distin- 
 guished for his loud voice, is appointed to give 
 notice on the part of governors or other authorities 
 of some fresh order. Or, going through the streets, 
 or standing on some height, he announces the 
 loss of some article,—sometimes the straying of a 
 young child,—giving a description of the lost 
 object, offering sometimes a reward, and always 
 concluding with a reminder of the divine promise 
 of a ‘reward in heaven.’ Of this class of public 
 criers is the muezzin among Moslems, who at the 
 five appointed times of prayer mounts the minaret, 
 and, after proclaiming the unity and greatness of 
 God, calls men to ‘prayer and eternal happiness.’ 
 In the quiet watches of the night this cry, heard 
 from many a minaret, is often | impressive. 
 
 . ORTABET. 
 
 CRIME.—About 1611 and earlier, ‘crime’ was 
 used, like Lat. crimen, in the sense of charge or 
 accusation ; ba plore (1568), Chron. ii. 92, ae 
 common people raysed a great c e upon the 
 Archbiaen daa Milton, Par. pe 1181— 
 
 ‘But I rue 
 
 That error now, which is become my crime 
 
 And thou th’ accuser.’ 
 In three out of the four occurrences of c. in AV, 
 this is the meaning. In Job 31" (m1) the Heb., 
 and presumably the Eng., is crime in the mod. 
 sense. But in Yale 7% ‘the land is full of bloody 
 crimes,’ the Heb. (0°73 »5yn) is ‘accusation of 
 bloodshed,’ or as RVm, ‘judgment of blood.’ In 
 Ac 25'® ‘the c. (RV ‘matter’) laid against him,’ 
 the Gr. &yxAnua means an accusation, and is so 
 used distinctly in the only other occurrence in 
 NT, Ac 23% (AV and RV ‘charge’). Lastly, in 
 Ac 25” ‘to signify the crimes laid against hit,’ 
 the Gr. airla certainly means ‘accusation’ (RV 
 ‘charge’) as always in class. Greek. Cf. Ac 25% 
 Geneva, ‘Against whom when the accusers stood 
 up, they brought no crime of such things as I 
 supposed.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS.—A. CRIMES. 
 —The term occurs in the Serip res as a tr. of 
 the foll. words:—vayn, Ezk 77; a, Job 31"; 
 ovx, Gn 26%; ailrla, Ac 2577, changed in RV to 
 ‘charges,’ and ‘fault’ in AV Jn 18% 19%® to 
 ‘crime’; &yxAnua, Ac 25, changed in RV to 
 ‘matter.’ Crime is an act that subjects the doer 
 to legal punishment; a grave offence against the 
 legal order; wickedness; iniquity. In the Bible 
 such an act is regarded as an offence against (1) 
 God or (2) man. The distinction cannot always be 
 maintained, for an injury to the creature is ob- 
 noxious to the Creator. For convenience of refer- 
 ence the list appears in alphabetical order. 
 
 Adultery in general terms was forbidden in the 
 seventh commandment (Ex 20%). It usually de- 
 notes sexual intercourse of a married woman with 
 any other man than her husband, or of a married 
 man with any other than his wife. More specifi- 
 cally in the Isr. as well as Rom. law, the term was 
 confined to illicit intercourse of a married or be- 
 trothed woman with any other man than her 
 
 
 
 TE ————————— 
 
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 521 
 
 
 
 husband. Other unchaste relations were dis- 
 approved, but they were described by different 
 words. It was deemed an outrageous crime, 
 striking at the laws of inheritance and inflicting a 
 spurious offspring on the husband, and was to be 
 punished with death, Ly 20 19-22, Ezk 16% #, by 
 the act of stoning, Jn 8°. It has been seriously 
 doubted whether the extreme penalty was exe- 
 cuted, Lightfoot failing to find the record of a 
 single instance, except of a priest’s daughter who was 
 burnt according to the order, but she was unmarried. 
 A bondmaid was only scourged (Lv 19%). Mauti- 
 lation of nose and ears is mentioned (Ezk 23%), 
 See Mutilation. Divorce became a substitute for 
 severer penalties. The word is used to describe 
 the unfaithfulness of the covenant people who dis- 
 solved their relation with God (Jer 2? 3! 1377 3152, 
 Hos 8°), and those who rejected Christ are described 
 as an ‘adulterous generation’ (Mt 12% 164, Mk 8%), 
 
 Affray.—He who inflicted an injury was required 
 to pay or loss of time and the medical expenses, 
 and an especial consideration for a pregnant woman 
 indirectly injured (Ex 211 1% 20-22), A certain form 
 of vicious attempt was to be summarily and piti- 
 lessly punished (Dt 25": 3%). 
 
 Assassination.—See Murder. 
 
 Assault, resulting in damage, incurred the penalty 
 of retaliation. The ger as well as the home-born 
 was protected (Lv 241*-22), 
 
 Bestiality, treated as a rank and mortal offence 
 (Ex 22", Lv 1820-16), The Talm. gives asa reason 
 for slaughter of the beast, that all memory of the 
 low transaction might be obliterated. The crime 
 was charged on the Canaanites, and was said to 
 exist in Egypt. 
 
 Blasphemy.—An irreverent use of the name of 
 God, accompanied with cursing (Lv 24!*14) ; a pre- 
 sumptuous deed, or, RV, an act done ‘ with a high 
 hand’ (Nu 15”); contempt towards God. See 
 stparate article. 
 
 reach of Covenant.—In this term are included: 
 (1) A failure to observe the Day of Atonement 
 (Ly 23”); work on that day (Lv 23%). (2) The 
 Sacrifice of Children to Molech (Lv 20°). (3) Neglect 
 to Circumcise the holy seed (Gn 174, Ex 4%). (4) 
 An unauthorized manufacture of the holy Oil 
 (Ex 30%), and (5) Anointing a Stranger therewith 
 (Ex 30%). (6) Neglect of the Passover (Nu 91). 
 
 Breach of Ritual.—(1) Eating Blood, whether of 
 fowl or beast (Lv 7” 17%) ; because God has sancti- 
 fied the life to Himself. (2) Eating Fat of the 
 beast of sacrifice (Lv 7%); regarded as insanitary. 
 (3) Eating Leavened Bread during the passover 
 (Ex 124-19), (4) Offering a sacrifice after the ap- 
 pointed time (Lv 19°). See 75-18, (5) Failure to bring 
 an Offering when an animal is slaughtered for food 
 (Lv 17%). "The notion that such was dedicated to a 
 deity existed even in Egypt. (6) Offering a sacri- 
 fice while the worshipper is in an Unclean condi- 
 tion (Ly 7% 2! 293-49), (7) Manufacturing holy 
 Ointment for private use (Ex 30°: 3), Perfume was 
 regarded by the Semites as a holy thing (Pliny, 
 xii. 54; see W. R. Smith, RS p. 433). (8) Using the 
 same for Perfume (Ex 30°), (9) Neglect of Purifi- 
 cation in general (Nu 19*-®). The offender ‘de- 
 fileth the tabernacle of the Lord.’ Cf. 1 Co 31. 
 (10) Slaughtering an animal for food away from the 
 door of the Tabernacle (Lv 17**). The order was 
 designed to enforce religious proprieties in eating, 
 
 and to prevent formal worship elsewhere. Even 
 the gér must comply. (11) Touching holy things 
 (RV the sanctuary) illegally (Nu 435+ 18-%) See 
 25 6’, 2 Ch 26. 
 
 Breach or Betrayal of Trust, including false 
 dealing ‘in a matter of deposit, or of bargain, or 
 of robbery, or oppression,’ and involving the con- 
 cealment of stolen goods, was regarded as a crime 
 to which not only a penalty was attached, but a 
 
 sacrificial service was required for expiation (Lv 
 677), In this may be included breach of contract, 
 which was also severely condemned in the religion 
 of the ancient Persians (Zend. Farg. iv.). The 
 removal of landmarks as set by God is an offence 
 that exposes to the divine curse, Dt 19 27" (Jos. 
 Ant. Iv. viii. 18.). It was wrong to move them 
 when set by the fathers (Pr 2278 231%), 
 
 Bribery in general was forbidden, Ex 238, Dt 
 16°, and condemned, 2 Ch 197, Job 15%, Ps 26%, 
 Pr 6® 17%, Is 1% 33, Ezk 222, It was a vice to 
 which rulers seem to have been addicted (1 S 8? 123 
 Am 51%), 
 
 Burglary.—See Robbery. 
 
 Debt, while it might be a misfortune, could be 
 incurred so as to expose to penalty where the in- 
 solvency was the result of fraud or neglect (Mt 5% 
 18-34), Perhaps punishment was inflicted to deter 
 others, rather than as a vindictive act against the 
 offender. In Egypt he was subjected to the bastin- 
 ado (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, 1854, ii. 211). 
 See separate article. 
 
 Divination.—See MAGIC and sep. art. 
 
 Drunkenness, a vice which, in view of its con- 
 sequences, may be regarded as a crime (Is 28! %7 
 56”, Ezk 23% RV). Religious abstinence from strong 
 drink was viewed in the same light as refraining from 
 unclean meats (W. R. Smith, &S 465). Teetotal- 
 ism was required of a Nazirite, Jg 134, and com- 
 mended, Jer 35%. Inebriety is forbidden in the 
 Koran. See STRONG DRINK and DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 Fornication, a sexual vice that was common 
 before the time of Moses, being grossly prevalent 
 in Egypt, as shown in Gn 397 and the evidence of 
 the monuments; also in Babylonia (Rawlinson, 
 Ancient Monarchies, iii. 30). Prostitution, a hein- 
 ous crime (Jos. Ant. IV. viii. 9), was not tolerated by 
 the Sin. code, being an abomination in the sight of 
 God (Lv 19”, Dt 2317-18), Its price could not: be 
 accepted in the sanctuary, Mic 1’, and death by 
 stoning was the penalty for an unmarried woman 
 who had concealed her crime, Dt 22-21, It would 
 seem from the term ‘strange woman,’ in Pr 25, 
 that harlots were procured from foreigners. By 
 the Koran a courtesan was not allowed to testify, 
 and, according to the Zendavesta, she might be 
 killed without warrant, like a snake. Her vile 
 methods and their terrible effects are severely por- 
 trayed in Pr 2}6-19 58-6 75-27, and as arousing the dis- 
 pleasure of God, Jer 5’, Am 2’ 77. Such excesses 
 were very common among the heathen in the 
 time of the apostles (1 Co 5! * 1 6%, Gal 5", Eph 5°). 
 Terms or this vice are frequently used in a sym- 
 bolical sense, the chosen nation being represented 
 as a harlot or adulteress (Is 17, Jer 2”, Ezk 16, 
 Hos 1? 3'). Idolatry itself is so designated (Jer 
 389, Ezk 16% 2 2397). Fornication is a type of 
 unholy alliances in the Bk. of Rev, especially in 
 chs. 17, 18, and 19. 
 
 Homicide, which consists in taking human life 
 without hatred or thirst of blood, or by mistake or 
 accident, included cases like that of the owner of 
 an ox which gored a man when it was not known to 
 bo vicious (Ex 21*8) ; the slaying of a thief overtaken 
 in the night (Ex 227%); taking life without pre- 
 meditation, or by casting a stone or missile at 
 random (Nu 35%), or by the slipping of an axe- 
 head from its helve (Dt 195). See Dt 22° and art. 
 GOEL. 
 
 Idolatry.—See separate article. 
 
 Incest.—Carnal intercourse is treated as criminal] 
 when between a man and his mother, step-mother, 
 half-sister, grand-daughter, step-sister, aunt, wife 
 of an uncle, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, step- 
 daughter, step-grand-danghter (Lv 18%!8) ; or his 
 mother-in-law (l)t 27%-*). Mention of an own 
 sister is omitted as too gross to consider. 
 
 Infanticide.—See Murder. 
 
 
 
522 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 Kidnapping was a mortal offence (Dt 24"). 
 
 Lying, an attempt to deceive by speaking an un- 
 truth, was forbidden in the Mosaic law (Lv 19"), and 
 included in the category of sinsagainst God. It was 
 a@ common evil among Oriental people, but con- 
 sidered very dis raceful (Wilkinson, Ane. Egyptians, 
 1854, ii. 207). The prophets especially fulminated 
 against the effort to lead the people astra by false 
 teaching (Is 91° 281-17, Jer 1414 2710-14. 15.18) Bizk 
 21”, Mic 14, Zec 13°, and many other passages). 
 Falsehood is severely rebuked in Ps gah 119”, Pr 
 14°. 1959 In NT it is regarded as a sin odious 
 to God (Ac 5*% 4); contrary to the essence of the 
 gospel (1 Jn 16 27-27); and disqualifying the perpe- 
 trator for the new order (Rev 215 * 2215), It is 
 associated with perjury (1 Ti 1°). See OATH, 
 WITNESS, and LYING. 
 
 Malice, that was made apparent in tale-bearing, 
 lying in wait for blood, secret hatred, and bearing 
 a grudge, is condemned (Ly 1918-18), 
 
 Murder, according to the divine word, is a crime 
 against which all nature revolts (Gn 4! 4), The 
 sanctity of human life is founded on the fact that 
 man was made in the image of God (Gn 9). 
 Murder may be instigated by hatred (Nu 35”) ; 
 or by thirst for blood, prompted by hoses Oa 
 design (Dt 19"); or accomplished by deceitful 
 stratagem (Ex 21"), Assassination is an aggra- 
 vated form in which life is destroyed by surprise or 
 unexpected assault and treacherous violence (2 8 
 45-6), and the following instances occur: Eglon, Jg 
 320-22; Tshbosheth, 2 S 45%; Nadab, 1 K 15778; 
 
 Sennacherib, 2 K 19°’, 2 Ch 32”; Gedaliah, Jer 412. 
 In the times of Felix and Festus there appeared a 
 fanatical faction of Jewish patriots known as 
 Sicarii, armed with daggers, sicce, who, flitting 
 about unobserved among the crowds during festival 
 seasons, removed opponents by assassination, and 
 
 then feigned deep sorrow to avert suspicion. See 
 Ac 218 (Jos. Ant. XX. viii. 5, Wars, Il. xiii. 3, 11. 
 XVii. 6, IV. vii. 2, ix. 5, VII. viii. 1, x. 1, xi. 1; Schiirer, 
 AJP I. ii. 178, 185). There is no mention of 
 parricide and infanticide in the Mosaic code, as if 
 these crimes were not known to exist or be possible. 
 In Egypt the parent was doomed to embrace the 
 corpse of the child for three days (Wilkinson, Anc. 
 Egyp. ii. 209); and while the Koran condemned 
 prenatal murder as well, E. H. Palmer states in 
 a note to Koran vi. 137, that female children were 
 buried alive in Arabia. The following cases of 
 suicide appear: Saul and his armour-bearer, 18 
 $145; Ahithophel, 2 8 17%; Zimri, 1 K 16%; 
 Judas Iscariot, Mt 27°; also Ptolemy Macron, 
 2 Mac 10!8, and Razis, 2 Mac 14*-48, Jt could 
 be treated as a crime by the Jews (Jos. Wars, It. 
 viii. 5), but there is no mention of penalty in the 
 Scriptures. Murder in all its forms 1s forbidden in 
 Ex 20%, Dt 5!7. No sanctuary was to be allowed 
 to the criminal (Ex 21?", Lv 2417-21, Nu 351618 Dt 
 19-18, 1 K 28-84), In poetic thought the voice of 
 blood shed cried for vengeance until the murderer 
 was punished (Gn 41°), A woe is pronounced on 
 the city that is regarded as guilty (zk 24°8) ; and 
 when unsuccessful, after the most diligent efforts, in 
 detecting the criminal (Jos. An#. Iv. viii. 16), it 
 must by an elaborate and impressive ceremony 
 exonerate itself (Dt 213°). So sacred was the 
 regard for human life, that the owner of an ox 
 known to be vicious and causing death was held 
 guilty of a capital crime, and the ox was stoned 
 (Ex 21”), In Egypt, he who witnessed a murder 
 without giving information of it was considered 
 particeps crimanis. 
 
 Ivreverence and Unkindness to Parents.—The 
 command to honour father and mother (Ex 20!%), 
 also inculcated in the Koran (xvii. 24. 25), rests on 
 a sacred relation corresponding to that of the 
 divine creation. God’s majesty is violated when 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 poe are dishonoured (Ex 22"). Hence the 
 ollowing are prohibited : (1) Cursing father or 
 mother (Ex 21", Lv 20°), Examples of this offence 
 in practice are condemned in Mt 15**, Mk 7°13, 
 (2) Striking (Ex 21%), This was a capital crime 
 (Dt 21%!), It is possible that insolence to parents 
 was condonable by reformation, and there are 
 evidences that the laws were not invariabl 
 
 executed with extreme rigour. Jos. (Ant. XVI. x1. 
 2) recounts an ineffectual attempt of Herod at 
 Berytus to get rid of his sons on this charge. 
 
 Prophesying Falsely.See PROPHECY. 
 
 Prostitution.—See Yornication. 
 
 Rape, a foul crime that demanded capital punish- 
 meat (Dt 22%), See Seduction. 
 
 Robbery, when the act is accompanied with 
 violence, as burglary, placed the offender beyond 
 
 rotection (Ex 22%). The Egyp. law was similar. 
 arious degrees of the crime were recognized, it 
 being a capital offence to take the ‘devoted thing’ 
 (Jos 7%), or to steal a man (Ex 2136 Dt 247). 
 See Kidnapping. 
 
 Sabbath-Breaking.—See SABBATH. 
 
 Seduction consisted in the enticement of an un- 
 betrothed virgin, for which restitution was to be 
 made by subsequent marriage, unless the father 
 interposed an obstacle, but then the usual dowry 
 was exacted (Ex 2216), 
 a fine of 50 shekels was required, and there is no 
 hint of possible compromise. Selden (Heb. Laws) 
 states that the Sanhedrin added other mulets, 
 because this was*so insignificant: one for the 
 shame and dishonour; one for the loss of virginit: 
 and the vitiating of the body, and still another if 
 force had been used; and some account was taken 
 of the quality and station of the person injured 
 (see W. R. Smith, 2S 276). An offending bond- 
 maid was scourged, and her enticer, besides payin 
 the fine, must make a trespass-offering (Lv 19-4). 
 
 Slander was prohibited, though no punishment is 
 named (Ex 23!) except when a wife’s chastity was 
 falsely impeached (Dt 328-19). See separate article. 
 
 Sodomy was delicately but positively condemned 
 in Gn 13!8 197, and reper 6d as an abomination 
 (Lv 182 20!%), On this crime the Koran and 
 Zendavesta likewise are very severe. The Israelites 
 were not always innocent. It was an evil practised 
 inreligious ceremonies, as appears from the terms W172 
 and ayip (Gn 38" and Hos 44), which snow that 
 both males and females were set apart for such 
 flagitious uses ; but if allowed in heathen temples, 
 it was never to be permitted in the worshi oh dr; 
 Dt 2317, 1 K 14% 15! 224, 2 K 237, Job 364, Hos 
 44 (W. R. Smith, RS 133). 
 
 Speaking Evil of Rulers.—In the theocrac 
 rulers are regarded as standing in the place of God, 
 and so all reproachful words are prohibited. In 
 Ex 22% 38, Jg 58, 1S 2%, Ps 8226 the term ode is 
 used so as to imply that judges or legal officers are 
 divine representatives. 
 
 Swearing Falsely was never excusable even on 
 behalf of the poor (Ex 20!6 231%) ; but when it was 
 directed against the innocent, it was so aggravated 
 a crime as to permit of no reprieve or pity (Dt 
 1916-21), See LYING and OATH. 
 
 Theft involved the culprit, when convicted, im 
 fines of varying grades, and it has been thought, 
 from Pr 6%*1 compared with Ex 22}, that the 
 evil was more prevalent in the later history of the 
 people. Harmer (Observations, ii. 194) shows that 
 it was shameful to steal in a caravanserai (Sir 411), 
 In later times it was not considered a crime to 
 steal from a Samaritan or another thief. 
 
 Uncleanness as the result of incontinence, lack 
 of restraint, or self-abuse, was forbidden directly 
 (Ly 181° 2018) ; marked with the divine displeasure 
 (Gn 38) ; and indirectly disapproved (Lv 151-1), 
 The Zendavesta pronounces a similar condemnation, 
 
 
 
 In Dt 2278 it is stated that — 
 
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 523 
 
 
 
 and allows of no atonement for the last-named. 
 separate article. 
 
 Usury might not be taken from Isr. brethren, 
 
 although the toreigner (nokhri) was expressly ex- 
 
 cluded from this and similar privileges (Ex 22”, Dt 
 23”- 21), The practice was forbidden by Egyp. laws, 
 and is reproved in the Koran (xxx. 38). eh 
 passages those who abstain from the evil are com- 
 mended (Dt 157" 2438, Ps 155 372-26 1125, Pr 1917, 
 Ezk 18!"), Extortionate and oppressive dealing is 
 condemned (Job 22° 24%-7), See sep. article. 
 
 B. PUNISHMENTS.—Punishment is defined as 
 ‘pain or any other pouty on a person for a crime 
 or offence by an authority to which the offender is 
 subject ; any pain or detriment suffered in con- 
 sequence of wrong-doing’ (Standard Dict.), This 
 article will describe some forms of eres in- 
 flicted on victims who might not be guilty of legal 
 offences. Various words in OT are tr. by ‘ punish- 
 ment,’ but the Heb. word that most frequently 
 Soren the idea, is 775, in the sense of ‘visit.’ In 
 NT the word is pers genefally as a tr. of xé\acts 
 and rizwplia; also of dix4 (2 Th 1°), émirepla (2 Co 
 28), éxdlknors (1 P 2'4), Its purpose is not so much 
 to execute vengeance as to deter from further 
 violations, so that the offender ‘will hear and fear 
 and do no more presumptuously’ (Dt 17% 19”). It 
 was the belief of the Israelites that crimes were en- 
 couraged by indulgence (Jos. Ant. VI. vii. 4). The 
 ancient Parsees taught that crime was punished in 
 the next as well as in this world (Darmesteter, Sac. 
 Bks. HE. p. xcvi). The term is properly restricted to 
 prey or violation of law; but suffering has often 
 
 en imposed on the innocent and weak, as if these 
 had transgressed order, when it meant no more than 
 the arbitrary will of one in satan authority. 
 Punishment may extend to the forfeiture of life, 
 and is then known in common law as Capital. In 
 the Bible one thus liable is described as having 
 committed a sin of death (Dt 2275); a sin worthy 
 of death (Dt 21), Such as he are said to be ‘sons 
 of death’ (1 S 20%! 2616, 2S 125), or ‘men of death’ 
 (19%), ‘He shall be put to death for his own sin’ 
 (Dt 2416 2 K 148), See also Jn 87-%; ‘Ye shall 
 die in your sin.’ Varicus modes of inflicting the 
 penalty are mentioned, some of them as legally 
 authorized among the chosen people, and others as 
 administered by other nations or without regular 
 watrant. The larger class of penalties was of 
 
 : cea grade, and various means were devised 
 
 “made by Sargon, king of Assyria (2 K 18). 
 
 to punish the offender and deter others from 
 repeating the crime. 
 
 he following are either alluded to or mentioned 
 in the Bible and the historical or literary works of 
 the people of Israel :— 
 
 Anathema (dvd@eu0).—See sep. art. CURSE. 
 
 Banishment.—There was no provision in the 
 Mosaic code for exile, unless it is to be understood 
 that in some instances he who was cut off from the 
 26 Baer was expelled from his country as well 
 as from his people. Temporary exclusion was 
 ordered in the case of Miriam (Nu 12). In the 
 Pers. period it appears as a possible penalty, Ezr 
 7% (Rawlinson, Anc. Mon, iii. 194). The Rom. 
 authority resorted to this measure in the case of 
 John, the author of the Apoe. (1%), and it was much 
 dreaded by the Jews (Jos. Ant. xvI. i. 1). A 
 wholesale deportation, as a military measure, bbe 
 
 € 
 flight of Absalom to Geshur to escape his father’s 
 displeasure after Amnon’s assassination (2 S 13% 
 148-14), and of Jeroboam to Egypt to avoid king 
 Solomon (1 K 11), are cases of voluntary exile, but 
 not formal punishment. 
 
 Beating (rummavopuds, He 11%).—The bastinado 
 ‘was in common use among the Egyptians for thefts, 
 petty frauds, and breach of trust. With it the 
 male adulterer was punished. In minor offences a 
 
 stick was used. A debtor was often beaten (Wilkin- 
 son, Anc. Egyp. ii. 210ff.). In Assyria a mace 
 was used to crush the skull (Layard, Nin. and Bab. 
 458). Though designed as a chastisement for 
 slaves by the Greeks, a criminal might be beaten to 
 death (2 Mac 6% %-®), See Braying. 
 
 Beheading.—A capital punishment not sanc- 
 tioned in Mosaic law, but frequently practised 
 among the Assyr., Pers., Gr., Rom., and others. 
 A cut in Rawlinson’s Ancient Monarchies shows 
 the victim standing upright, while the executioner 
 seizes him by a lock of the hair in despatchin 
 him. In this way the chief baker who incurred 
 Pharaoh’s displeasure may have suffered (Gn 40"), 
 the subsequent suspension of the body being an 
 added reproach (see Hanging). It is doubtful 
 whether the seven sons of Gideon were thus slain, 
 Jg 9° (see Slaying with Spear or Sword. Ahab’s 
 seventy sons lost their heads by command of Jehu 
 (2 K 10%*), The head of John the Baptist was 
 severed by order of Herod (Mt 14°, Mk 6%). 
 Thus also suffered James the Apostle (Ac 12). 
 Many of the early martyrs were beheaded (Rev 
 20‘). The head of Ishbosheth was removed after 
 death (2 § 48). Whether Sheba was slain before 
 he was beheaded is not stated (2 S 2072-23), 
 
 Blinding.—The only legal authority for putting 
 out the eyes under the Mosaic dispensation woul 
 be found indirectly in the law of retaliation ‘an 
 eye for an eye’ (Ex 21%, Ly 24”, Dt 19'*-), and 
 therefore the punishment would be seldom inflicted. 
 There is an indistinct reference to something of 
 this sort in boring out the eyes of the spies (Nu 
 1614), As prosuised by foreign nations, the Assyrians 
 and Babylonians sometimes using hot irons for the 
 purpose, it was rather designed to incapacitate the 
 victim from rebellion, revolt, or the power of doing 
 further harm. Thus Samson aatered (Jg 167). 
 Zedekiah lost his eyes partly as a vindictive 
 visitation, but more to effectually unfit him for 
 rulership (2 K 257 and Jer 52"). In Persia it was 
 inflicted for rascality, thieving, and rebellion. 
 Criminals were not permitted to look on the face 
 of the king (Est 7°). Nahash the Ammonite 
 threatened that he would thrust out the right eyes 
 of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead as a reproach 
 on Israel, 15 112 (Rawlinson, dnc. Mon. ; Harmer, 
 Observations). 
 
 Branding and Burning.—It has been surmised 
 that in some cases where burning was inflicted as 
 the punishment for unchastity, it meant branding 
 on the forehead as a mark of shame. If, however, 
 the extreme penalty is intended, it is represented 
 as of pre-Mosaic authority, and was proposed for 
 Tamar (Gn 38%). The Sinaitic law directs that a 
 priest’s daughter shall be burned for fornication 
 (Ly 21°); and that this shall be the form of punish- 
 ment for incest with a wife’s mother (Lv 201). 
 Fire from the Lord supernaturally slew Nadab and 
 Abihu (Lv 10’). Burning alive or scorching was 
 practised by the Phil. (Jg 1415), and associated with a 
 sort of confiscation (12'); also by the Bab. and Chald. 
 (Jer 2972), Esarhaddon burned a king alive (G. 
 Smith, Assyr. Discov.), and burning was attempted 
 on Shadrach and his companions (Dn 3). There is 
 an allusion to the practice in Is 437; see also 2 Mac 
 7>, ‘Tradition states that Nimrod cast Abraham 
 into the fiery furnace for refusing to worship 
 Chald. gods (Layard, Bab. and Nin.; Koran xxi. 
 68, xxxvii. 95). Cf. Gn 11% with Neh 97, where 7x, 
 *ur, may be interpreted as light (of a flame). The 
 pouring of molten lead down the throat (Jahn, Bid. 
 Arch. ) has no other authority than that of Rabbin. 
 statement. Slaves were sometimes branded on the 
 hand (Is 445), but such disfigurement was forbidden 
 by Jewish law (Lv 19%; cf. Gal 6”). Branding 
 accompanied deportation by the Persians (Rawlin 
 
 son. Anc. Mon. ili. 194). 
 
624 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 Braying or Pounding in a Mortar.—This act is 
 mentioned in Pr 27”? as unavailing in the cure of a 
 fool. RV specifies that the victim may be bruised as 
 with a pestle among corn (see Nestle, Cheyne, etc. 
 in Expos. Times, 1897, viil. 287, 335,ete.). ‘Tennant 
 is authority for the statement that it still remains as 
 a Cingalese penalty. The Turks have been charged 
 with such cruelty, and a king of Canday is said to 
 have compelled a wife to pound her infant child 
 to death. There is probable allusion to this form 
 of punishment in He 11*-%, where the faithful 
 are said to have been tortured or beaten (érunwavic- 
 @ncav), and to have had trial of scourgings. It is 
 said that Eleazar was beaten on an instrument 
 like a drum (2 Mac 6), and Jos. (De. Macc. 5, 9) 
 mentions a wheel (7poxés) as an instrument of tor- 
 ture. Hazael put men under sledges with iron 
 spikes (2 K 8! 1082}, with Am 14), to which also 
 the Ammonites were probably subjected (2S 12%, 
 1 Ch 208). The Talm. is quoted by Lightfoot as 
 saying that Nebuzaradan used iron rakes on sume 
 of his captives (Jer 39° 5275-°), 
 
 Confiscation.—An act for which no provision is 
 made in the Mosaic economy, but authorized in a 
 modified form by Pers. rule, so that a residence 
 might be destroyed; but no mention is made of 
 the forfeiture of property for the benefit of the 
 State (Ezr 6", Dn 2°3”). The act described in Ezr 
 7% seems to convey the idea of modern confiscation. 
 
 Crucifixion.—See vor art. CROSS. 
 
 Cutting Asunder.—In carrying out the threat as 
 recorded in Dn 2° and 3”, the body might be cnt 
 in more than two pieces. The verb used in Mt 
 245, Lk iz, is &yoroueiv, which in its etymology 
 signifies severing in two parts. 
 
 Cutting off from the People (1syr, a2y> m9, ’3,* 
 LXX é€odoPpedw). — A term used in Gn 17" as 
 penalty for neglect of circumcision, and in the law 
 to be employed as a punishment for certain 
 breaches (1) in morals, (2) in the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant, and (3) in the Levitical ritual. For immor- 
 ality such as filial irreverence, incest, and unclean 
 connexions, the offender, in at least seven cases, 
 was unquestionably exposed to death (Lv 18” 
 20°21), In like manner he who does aught pre- 
 sumptuously (RV ‘with a high hand’), that is, 
 wilful sin in general, was liable (Nu 15*°-*!). In the 
 breach of the covenant it may be doubted whether 
 the extreme peony of death was invariably 
 inflicted, as in Ex 30%, Lv 232 9, and Nu 93. There 
 are instances where the punishment for offences that 
 were kindred to such as are expressly designated 
 as a breach of ritual, meant death. Such are the 
 cases of (1) Nadab and Abihu (Lv 10' 2) ; (2) Korah, 
 Dathan, and Abiram (Nu 16). These ‘perished 
 from the congregation’ (see Nu 12!%, in which it is 
 stated that Miriam, for leprosy, was ‘as one dead’ 
 in her temporary exclusion). The punishment 
 in general seems so severe that it has been sug- 
 gested that it was possibly voidable either by an 
 elaborate atonement on the offender’s part (Nu 
 1577-81), or by a divine commutation, the penalty 
 being recorded but not executed. In some in- 
 stances it meant, perhaps, only deprivation of 
 cértain civil and social privileges. There are two 
 such cases: (1) when the people ate of the blood in 
 one of Saul’s campaigns (1S 14%); (2) when king 
 Uzziah offered incense (2 Ch 261% 2°), On the other 
 hand, in Ex 31'* the meaning of the penalty as 
 attached to Sabbath-breaking is interpreted as 
 death. + 
 
 * The plural 0°5Y apparently means ‘kinsfolk,’ ‘relatives,’ so 
 that ‘cut off from his (their) people’ is a better rendering 
 than ‘from the people.’ 
 
 + It may be questioned whether, when ‘cut off from his 
 people’ stands alone, anything more is intended than to express 
 strongly the divine disapproval under threat of excommunica- 
 tion. Of. ‘Z will cut off,’ Ly 1710 203. 5.6 (all H], and see Nowack, 
 Heb. Arch, 1. 833 f. and Dillm. on Gn 1714, 
 
 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 ¢€ 
 Divine Visitation.—In the theocratic economy 
 there were certain sins for which the nation at 
 large suffered. The punishment was considered 
 as inflicted by the aiviie hand, the visitation 
 itself being manifestly due to no human in- 
 strumentality, though man was sometimes the 
 executioner of God’s will. Divine condemnation 
 was executed against idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, 
 oppression of the poor, covetousness, and other sing 
 which betokened a rebellious or unholy spirit, or 
 for which an individual could not obtain redress. 
 Human agencies might be employed in the admin- 
 istration of the penalty, but God Himself waa 
 regarded as the avenger of the wrong. He it was 
 who led the people, for their wickedness, into 
 captivity (Ezr 9’, Jer 15?, Am 94), threatened them 
 with the curse (Dt 28%-”, Jer 24°), with consump- 
 tion and fever (Lv 261°), and inflammation and 
 fiery heat (Dt 2872), caused the drought (Dt 11” 
 28° 24, Is 58, Jer 141-7 6095, Hag 111), and famine 
 (Lv 2676, Jer 24° 3417, Rev 68), kindled a consuming 
 fire (Dt 4%, Is 661®, He 12”), showed His indignation 
 by hail and tempest (Is 30°, Hag 21), inflicted 
 pestilence and plague (Ezk 6" 7), exposed to the 
 taunt of proverb and reproach (Dt 28*7, 2 Ch 7”, 
 Jer 24°), smote with scourge (Is 1076 2815-18), and 
 with the sword in the hands of enemies, as shown 
 in so many passages that the reader may consult a 
 concordance for a complete view of these and all 
 other providential punishments named. His dis- 
 pleasure at Korah was shown by the earthquake 
 (Nu 16%), Idolatry was punished by captivity. 
 Delay of justice provoked war. Per] invited 
 wild beasts. Neglect of tithes was attended with 
 drought and famine (Schiirer, H/JP I. ii. 91). 
 Drowning was not distinctively a Jewish punish- 
 ment. It was the penalty in Bebylodin or the 
 wife who repudiated er husband (Encyc. Brit. art. 
 ‘Babylonia’). Jerome, however, says that offenders 
 were thus sometimes put to death among the Jews 
 as well as among the Romans. There is an allusion 
 to this mode of dying in Mt 188, Mk 9*%. Jos. 
 (Ant. XIV. xv. 10) states that some Galileans 
 revolted and drowned the partisans of Herod. 
 Exposure to Wild Beasts. — Daniel and his 
 enemies were cast into a den of lions (Dn 6), and 
 the practice of thus dealing with offenders is said to 
 be still in vogue in Fez and Morocco. In the use of 
 a strong figure in Mic 4° human beings are repre- 
 sented as being gored or trodden by beasts. The 
 lion from whom St. Paul was said to be delivered 
 (2 Ti 417) undoubtedly means Nero. No conclusive 
 exegesis has been given of 1 Co 15°. Many are of 
 the opinion that human foes are described, but 
 there issome plausible argument in favour of the 
 literal view. The inroads of wild animals, as by an 
 act of God, are to be regarded as a punishment of 
 Israel for unfaithfulness (Ly 2672, Dt 32%4, 2 K 17%). 
 The disobedient prophet, named Jadon according 
 to Jos, (Ant. Vill. ix. 1), met death from God by a 
 lion (1 K 13%). Contrariwise, the righteous are 
 protected (Job 5%, Hos 23%), 
 Fines were permitted at the option of the injured 
 pee: as a special privilege to freedmen (slaves 
 ing punished), and in earliest times the money 
 was presented to the priest or at the sanctuary. It 
 was not in accordance with Sem. doctrine to com- 
 pel the aggrieved to accept material compensation 
 (W. R. Smith, BS 329, 378). In the case of a 
 mortal result, the mulet which might be in lieu of 
 corporal fou was called ‘ransom (RV ‘redemp- 
 tion’) of life’ (Ex 21°), but was never allowed for 
 wilful murder (Nu 35* +82), The specific amount 
 was generally left to be determined by the judicial 
 tribunal (Ex 217-8), but the sum for fatal injury 
 by an ox to a servant was fixed at 30 shekels 
 (Ex 21%), for humbling an unbetrothed virgin at 
 | 50 shekels (Dt 22”), and the highest amount named 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 {is for slander against a wife’s chastity, 100 shekels 
 
 (Dt 22°), See Restitution. 
 Flaying is mentioned (fig.) Mic 3%. It wasa 
 practice in Assyria, though the victim may have 
 reviously died (Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. i. 478; 
 Dagar: Nin. and Bab.; Mon. of Nin.). The 
 Persians would flay and then crucify (Rawlinson, 
 iii, 246; also. recognized in the Zendavesta). 
 Herodotus (iv. 64, v. 25) states that Persians and 
 Scythians used the skins so obtained. 
 anging consisted usually in the suspension of 
 the lifeless form asa mark of reproach. By this 
 David showed his disapproval of the slaughter of 
 Ishbosheth (2S 432). The person whose body was 
 so exposed was ‘accursed of God’ (Dt 21%, Gal 38); 
 and for this reason it might not remain in view 
 over night (Jos 8% 10%). This word is used for the 
 act of impaling (dvacxodorl{ew, Ezr 6"), a common 
 custom in Assyria. A sharp-pointed stake in a 
 rpendicular position penetrated the body just 
 ashes the breast-bone (Rawlinson, Anc. Mon, i. 
 477). It was frequent in Persia. Darius impaled 
 3000 Babylonians (Layard, Nin. and Bab. 295 n. ; 
 Herodotus, iii. 159). The Philistines gibbeted (on 
 crosses, Jos. Ant. VI. xiv. 8) the dead bodies of Saul 
 and Jonathan (1S 31, 2S 21}-33), Other Greek 
 words used to represent this act are éfm\idfew and 
 mwapaderyyarttev, for which the Vulg. uses crucifigere 
 (see CROSS); and so St. Paul, according to the 
 accepted exegesis of the time, applied Dt 21” to 
 the ignominy of Jesus. Execution on the gallows 
 was not prescribed for any crime in the Mosaic 
 code. There is a difference of opinion whether the 
 chief baker (Gn 411) lost his life by being hanged b 
 theneck, or whether his body, after being despatched, 
 was exposed to shame (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians, 
 ii. 213). In later history offenders were hanged by 
 the hands (La 5", Targ. 12), and in 1 Mac 1® it is 
 stated that dead children were hanged to the necks 
 af their mothers. Ahithophel (28 17%) and Judas 
 (Mt 275, Ac 118) voluntarily, in chagrin and re- 
 morse, took their lives by hanging. There is an 
 apparent allusion to this form of punishment in 
 1 i 20%). The Gibeonites may have adopted this 
 é of avengement on the sons of Saul (2S 21°), 
 because it was in vogue among the aboriginal 
 nations of the land. Stanley (Hist. Jew. Ch. ii. 37) 
 says the victims were first crucified, then suspended. 
 Under the Persian rule there was resort to the 
 allows (yy, but called ‘tree’ in Gn 40", Dt 21°) 
 & punishing the conspirators against Ahasuerus 
 (Est 2%), Haman (7*?°) and his ten sons (9"*) ; possibly 
 the same as impalement. 
 Imprisonment.—Oflenders were confined by the 
 Israelites as well as other nations. The prison was 
 often used merely for keeping a person in ward until 
 the pleasure of he judicial power should be known. 
 So Joseph by Potiphar (Gn 39-2); the son of 
 Shelomith, for blasphemy (Lv 24!*) ; the man who 
 gathered sticks on the Sabbath (Nu 15%); the 
 apostles after healing the lame man (Ac 4°) ; St. 
 Peter, by order of Herod, till a convenient time 
 for his execution (Ac 12*). Incarceration was often 
 accompanied with other punishments (cf. Samson 
 grinding for the Philistines, Jg 167), or it was re- 
 garded as an alternative (Ezr 7%). Jeremiah was 
 smitten as well as imprisoned (Jer 37”). The 
 murderer and debtor might be delivered both to 
 prison and the tormentors (Mt 18%’), Zedekiah used 
 the prison for the protection of Jeremiah from his 
 enemies (Jer 3774). He was tlien transferred to 
 the princes, who cast him into the dungeon or pit 
 (Jer 38°), For the Eng. word ‘dungeon’ or 
 ‘prison’ in Gn 40 39%, 1 K 22%, 2 K 25%, 2 Ch 
 16, Ps 1427, Ec 4%, Is 249 427, Jer 374 521, 
 there are eight different roots in the Heb. which 
 would imply that detention of those under accusa- 
 tion or in disfavour was regular and quite common, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 525 
 
 
 
 the confinement itself being for the purpose of 
 punishment. Confinement in jail was inflicted as 
 a preliminary punishment by Ahab on Micaiah, 
 accompanied with spare bread and water diet (1 K 
 2277); by Asaon Hanani (2 Ch 16), The motive 
 of Herod in imprisoning John the Baptist is un- 
 certain (Mt 4%), Barabbas was committed for 
 insurrection, and it would appear as if this were 
 intended to be final (Lk 23%). In the prison-house, 
 which might contain cells (Jer 371%), there was 
 sometimes a pit with or without water (Jer 38%, 
 Zec 9"), and the court of the prison is mentioned 
 in Jer 37, 38, 39, and elsewhere. In some prisons 
 there were stocks (Jer 20? 2976, Ac 164). o the 
 Rom. prison there were three parts: communiora, 
 ultertora, where Paul and Silas were kept, and the 
 Tullianum or dungeon, the place of execution 
 (Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, i. 304 n.). 
 There is an allusion to prisoners at labour in Job 
 318, and they might be held in chains (Ps 105!* 107”, 
 Jer 404). 
 
 Indignities.—There was resort to various means 
 of heaping contumely on an offender; such as 
 ignominious or obscure burial for a blasphemer (Jos. 
 Ant, Iv. viii. 6; 1 K 14%, 2 K 9! 9118-26 9 Ch 2425, 
 Jer 22), Some victims were slain and left in the 
 street or cast behind the walls (Ps 798, To 2°), 
 Heads of the slain were removed and carried in 
 triumph (1 S 1757 319). Dead bodies were burned 
 (Jos 7'® >, Lv 204, Am 2}. See Burning) or hanged 
 (2S 433, Gn 40"7-9 [see Hanging], Nu 25+ 8, Dt 2122-3), 
 Stones were thrown on the corpse, as on that of 
 Achan (Jos 7”: 8), the king of Ai (Jos 8”), and on 
 the tomb of Absalom (2S 18!7). Mohammedans still 
 maintain the custom when passing by its supposed 
 site (Thomson, Land and Book, i. 61) ; but Harmer 
 plausibly suggests that the ‘heap of stones’ was 
 erected in honour. Some forms of execution were 
 regarded as more disgraceful than others, as cruci- 
 fixion (Jn 19%), but it was not the design of the Mosaic 
 law to cover a sufferer with perpetual infamy. In 
 Egypt a calumniator of the dead was subject to 
 severe punishment (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp.). 
 
 Mutilation was practised, but not under Abcat sane- 
 tion of the covenant law. The thumbs and great toes 
 of Adonibezek were severed (Jg 1%7). The slayers 
 of Ishbosheth (2 S 41%) lost their hands, but possibly 
 after death. _Nebuchadrezzar threatened to cut in 
 pieces his offending counsellors (Dn 2°), At the 
 command of Antiochus Epiphanes (acc. to 2 Mac 
 7\-#), seven brothers suffered horrible outrages, 
 among others that of tearing out the tongue, a very 
 common cruelty among the Assyrians. In Egypt 
 robbers were sometimes deprived of the right hand 
 for the first offence, the left foot for the second, 
 and the left hand for the third; though the theft 
 of food not quickly perishable was not so severely 
 
 unished (Lane, Mod. Egyp.). To this act our 
 saviour’s statement in Mt 2451, Lk 12%, seems to 
 allude. An Egyptian victor was known to display 
 severed hands as proof of the number of his trophies 
 (see 1S 1877). The town of Rhinocolura was said to 
 be peopled by robbers who had lost their noses. The 
 nose and ears of an adulterer were cut off (Diod. Sic. i. 
 78), and from Ezk 23” it appears that the usage was 
 in vogue among the Babylonians. (On the horrible 
 cruel tiesof Assurbanipal, as recorded on hiscylinder, 
 see FP iii. 39-50.) Rings were put in the lips or 
 noses of captives (2 Ch 33" ‘among the thorns,’ 
 RV ‘in chains,’ Is 37, Ezk 194-9; Rawlinson, Ane. 
 Mon. iii. 7; and see Am 47), 
 
 Plucking off the Hair was a punishment inflicted 
 on Jews who had indulged in mixed marriages 
 (Neh 13%). It may have been intended simply for 
 disfigurement. The prophet in Is 50° alludes to 
 the judicial practice as common in his time. The 
 effort was so vicious as described in 2 Mac 77, that 
 the skin was torn off with the hair; but in scalping, 
 

 
 526 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 as practised by the N. American Indians, a knife 
 was used. As an insult to David’s servants, half 
 of the beard was shaven off (25 104). The head 
 was subjected to other indignities (Job 30”, Mt 
 27, Mk 12%). 
 
 Precipitation.—It is stated in 2 Ch 25 that 
 10,000 Edomites were cast from a rock by the 
 children of Judah. So two Jewish women are said 
 to have suffered (2 Mac 6”). Of the same sort are 
 the acts mentioned in 2 K 8!, Hos 104 1316 On 
 column iv. 100, 101 of Assurbanipal (G. Smith), it 
 is stated that certain persons were thrown on the 
 stone lions and bulls in a quarry, the fall designed 
 to be fatal. Calmet is of opinion, with Jerome 
 as authority, that this was the fate of Oreb and 
 Zeeb (Jg 7”). An attempt after this manner was 
 made on the life of Jesus (Lk 4”). 
 
 Restitution.—There was enacted an elaborate 
 has for compensating an injured party under 
 the sanction of Mosaism. As far as possible the 
 restoration was identical with, or analogous to, the 
 loss of time or power (Ex 2118-*8, Ly 2418-21, Dt 197), 
 He who stole and then slew or sold a live ox had to 
 restore fivefold; if it was a live sheep fourfold. The 
 Pos. was designed in part to be prohibitory, 
 
 ecause sheep were more exposed in the desert, 
 while oxen were necessary and not so easily taken. 
 In later history it appears as if sevenfold might 
 be exacted (Pr 6%. See also the LXX tr. of 2S 
 128, where seven is substituted for four). If theiden- 
 tical animal was restored, another of equal value 
 was all that the law required besides. Burglary 
 doomed the culprit to uniequited death or to 
 slavery. For breach of trust <1 for trespass, twenty 
 
 er cent. additional to thy original sum was 
 
 emanded (Lv 6!5, Nu 5°°), He who was de- 
 tected in the theft of a pledge, ur was found guilty 
 in the matter of trespass while the property was 
 in his hand, must pay double. Pecuniary com- 
 pensation must be furnished for damages by an 
 animal, when not on its own ground (Ex 22°); and 
 when a fatality occurred in the case of a servant, 
 thirty shekels must be paid to the loser (Ex 21°; 
 see Dt 22!%), One case only is mentioned of per- 
 mitted commutation for ballcocae (Ex 2175-82), 
 In case a married woman was killed, the fine was 
 paid to her father’s (instead of her own) family 
 (Lewis, Heb. Ant.). Akin to restoration is 
 redemption, referred to in Ly 2577-8, Ezk 187+ }2, 
 Remuneration was expected for loss by fire, 
 through negligence, of astanding grain field; or for 
 the loss or damage of a pledge (Ex 22% 1 18), 
 Under Rom. law a jailer losing his prisoner was 
 liable to the punishment which was to be inflicted 
 for the crime on which the arrest had been made 
 (Ac {12° 1677). In NT morals it was taught that 
 the guilt of theft could not be compounded by 
 restitution. ‘Let him that stole steal no more’ 
 (Eph 4%); but Zacchzus, on the occasion of his 
 pardon, proposed to restore fourfold (Lk 19%). 
 
 Retaliation was authorized in the code of Ex 
 21%. 2, Jtwasin use among other nations, esp. the 
 Egyptians (cf. the lex talionis of the Romans). It 
 was not unequivocally approved by ancient authors, 
 because it was apt to degenerate into mere revenge 
 and would often be unfair in its operation. The 
 Sages coat of its baneful consequences is shown by 
 
 homson (Land and Book, i. 447, 449). | Diodorus 
 Siculus instances a one-eyed man as suffering more 
 than the victim with two eyes. Favorinus shows 
 the injustice of this principle in operation as con- 
 tained in one of the Twelve Tables, in that the same 
 member may be worth more to one man than to 
 another, as the right hand of ascribe or painter 
 compared with that of a singer. Hence it had to 
 be administered with certain modifications. Thus 
 Heb. law adopted the principle, but lodged the appli- 
 cation with the judge (Ex 21°", Ly 241-22); and an 
 
 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 — 
 
 aggressor, by the payment of a ransom, could com- 
 pound with the aggrieved and be relieved from the 
 full penalty of the law. A false accuser was required 
 to suffer the same penalt that he proposed against 
 the accused (Dt 19). Heb. law was milder in spirit 
 than that of heathen jurisprudence. Moses would 
 not allow parents or children to suffer for the offences 
 of each other (Dt 24"*). This equitable exemption 
 was not regarded by the Chaldeans (Dn 6%), or even 
 by the kings of Israel (1 K 2121, 2 K 9%), 
 
 Sawing Asunder.—In He 11* the term is used to 
 describe an ancient form of punishment, which was 
 possibly a crushing under instruments of iron (Am 
 1’); and it is said, on the authority of Justin 
 Martyr (Dial. with Trypho), to have been practised 
 on Isaiah. There is an allusion to something of 
 this sort in Pr 207 (RV) ‘He bringeth the threshing 
 wheel over them’ (ef. Is 287728), Saws are men- 
 tioned in 28 12, 1 Ch 208; and while it is painful 
 to admit that David may have been guilty of such 
 severity, the literal interpretation is the most 
 plausible and accords with the usages of the times. 
 (See, however, Driver, Heb. Text of Sam. 226 ff.). 
 In Shaw’s Travels a case is described where the 
 victim was placed between two boards and dis 
 severed longitudinally (Smith, DB), and another 
 case is mentioned by Harmer (Observations) as 
 occurring on Stewart’s journey to Mequinez. 
 
 Scourging with Thorns (see also Stripes).—In 
 the marginal reading of Jg 8’, Gideon is repre- 
 sented as threatening to thresh the men of Succoth 
 with thorns and briers, and in the margin to 
 86 it is stated that they were thus punished, as 
 Stanley (Hist. Jew. Ch.) suggests, with the acacia. 
 The scorpions (0°277Y) mentioned in 1 K 12" may 
 have been knotted sticks, or ropes into which wire 
 was plaited, or iron points or nails or cutting pieces 
 of lead were iearal Calmet guesses that David 
 so treated the Moabites (2 8 87). Some attempt to 
 solve the much-mooted difficulties of 2S 12" by a 
 reference to this mode of punishment. 
 
 Slavery.—In Heb. law it was possible for a 
 person to fall into servitude for a limited time. A 
 thief, when unable to make restitution, was sold 
 with wife and children (Ex 22). The misfortune 
 of debt led to the same result (2 K 41, Neh 5°), 
 The statute of limitations mercifully provided 
 against oppressive usage and permanent enslave- 
 ment (Ly 25°-#, Dt 15", Jer 3414). The Rabbins 
 say a woman could not be sold for theft. Joseph 
 proposed, as an Egyptian procedure, to make a slave 
 of the detected et erer of his cup (Gn 441”). See 
 separate article. 
 
 Slaying by Spear or Sword.—This was an ex- 
 peditious method, sometimes adopted in an emer- 
 gency. The spear, javelin, or dart (He 12”) was te 
 be used on trespassers at the foot of Sinai (Ex 197%), 
 Phinehas went so armed in eager and immediate 
 punishment of the man found with a Midianitish 
 woman (Nu 257-8), The sword was taken by the 
 Levites against the worshippers of the golden calf 
 (Ex 3277), and in Dt 13” authority is given for 
 its use in the wholesale slaughter of a city for 
 idolatry. Some cutting instrument was employed 
 by Abimelech in the murder of his brethren Je 
 9°), Samuel hewed Agag to pieces with the swor 
 (1 S 15*), and with the same Doeg massacred the 
 priests in Nob (1 8 22819), According to the lex 
 talionis, the young Amalekite who claimed that he 
 drew the sword to kill Saul was put to death with 
 the same kind of implement (2 8 15), with which or 
 the spear Ishbosheth was assassinated (2 4%”), The 
 sword was used in the summary executions ordered 
 by Solomon (1 K 2?5-29-81.84), By it Elijah slew the 
 prophets of Baal (1 K 19), and it was common in 
 regal and martial proceedings, becoming still more 
 prominent in Tone Bat: times. The sword or axewas 
 employed to carry out the order of Jelia on Ahab’s 
 
 
 
ail ii 
 
 
 
 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 
 
 
 
 CRISPUS 527 
 
 
 
 sons (2 K 10’) (see Beheading). Thus Jehoram 
 murdered his brethren (2 Ch 214), and Jehoiakim 
 despatched Urijah (Jer 26%). The sword as an 
 instrument of punishment is specifically mentioned 
 in Job 19%. See also Divine Visitation. 
 
 The Stocks (nz5nD, gvAdv wevrectpryyov). This 
 machine, though probably of Egyp. origin, is not 
 described in the Mosaic legislation, but init Hanani, 
 the seer, was a by Asa (2 Ch 16”), and Jeremiah 
 was punished (Jer 207). In Jer 27? RV uses 
 ‘bars’ for AV ‘yokes,’ and in Jer 29% changes 
 ‘prison’ to ‘ stocks! and ‘stocks’ to ‘shackles,’ 
 that is, the pillory. It usually contained five holes 
 for the neck, arms, and legs, which sometimes were 
 inserted crosswise. One form (10) was designed for 
 the legs only. The word ‘stocks’ is employed in 
 Job 1377 334 and Pr 7”, and this form of torture 
 was areal in mind when Ps 1058 was written. 
 It was an infliction among the Romans as indicated 
 by Ac 16%, 
 
 Stoning was the ordinary formal and legal mode 
 of inflicting punishment in the earlier history of 
 the children of Israel, and was in vogue before the 
 departure from Egypt (Ex 8%), Even beasts might 
 be the victims, evidently as a spectacular example 
 (Ex 19% 2178- 29.82), Stoning was the penalty for 
 taking ‘ the accursed thing’ (Jos 7”); for adultery 
 and unchastity, the death sentence being pronounced 
 in Ly 20", and the means of carrying it out stated 
 in Dt 227-24, Jn 87; for blasphemy (Lv 241%), 
 and on this specious charge Naboth (1 K 217°) and 
 
 ; evenhen (Ac 75°) suffered, and an effort was made 
 tos 
 
 ow Jesus guilty by a feint to stone Him (Jn 
 10%) ; for divination (Lv 20° 27), idolatry (Dt 13%), 
 dishonour to parents (Dt 217%), har ea falsely 
 (Dt 13°), and Sabbath-breaking (Ex 31" 357, 
 Nu 15: %), Doubtless other capital crimes would 
 thus be punished, and the city of Jerusalem was so 
 threatened as if it were an individual culprit (Ezk 
 16). In an orderly proceeding the witness was to 
 east the first stone (Dt 17’, Jn 8”), and asthe Rabbins 
 say, on the chest ; and if others were rune to 
 roduce death, the bystanders hurled them. Law 
 Le movements are mentioned or suggested, like 
 that to which Moses thought himself exposed (Ex 
 17*), the accomplished acts on Adoram (1 K 12') 
 and Zechariah (2 Ch 24”), in the danger dreaded by 
 the priests on account of their estimate of the 
 Baptist (Lk 205), and the assault on St. Paul in 
 Iconium (Ac 145). Poisoners among the Persians 
 were laid on one stone and crushed by another 
 (Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. iii. 247; see Mt 21“, Lk 
 901 
 
 Strangling was a later form of capital punishment 
 among the Jews (W. R. Smith, RS 398), but there is 
 no scriptural authority for it. The convict was 
 immersed in clay or mud, and a cloth was twisted 
 around the neck and drawn in opposite directions 
 by two lictors, so as to take the breath. During 
 the operation molten lead ae be poured down 
 the throat (Sanhedr. 10. 3). The pes humili- 
 ation of the Syrians before Israel (1 K 20°!) may 
 hint at the practice. See Hanging. 
 
 Stripes.—The Mosaic economy ordained that an 
 offender might be punished with stripes (Lv 19”, 
 Dt 22)%), not exceeding forty (Dt 25°); and this 
 limit was carefully observed, as on St. Paul (2 Co 
 11"), for a single stroke in excess subjected the 
 executioner to punishment. The scourge was com- 
 posed of three thongs, of which 39 was the largest 
 multiple within the limit. It was the most com- 
 mon mode of secondary punishment, and the idea 
 of disgrace did not seem to attach to it (but see 
 Jos. Ant. Iv. viii. 21). No station of life was 
 exempt (see from Pr 17, indicating that the noble 
 may be smitten, and 10% that a rod is proper for 
 the vacant-minded). The bastinado may have been 
 used on Jeremiah (20? 375). Scourging was in- 
 
 
 
 flicted on a bondmaid overtaken in illegal inter- 
 course (Lv 19), on a husband who falsely accused 
 his wife, on a person who used abusive language 
 (Jos. Ant. XIII. x. 6), on ecclesiastical offenders in 
 the synagogue (Mt 10”, Ac 26"), and it might be 
 used on the debtor (Mt 5% 18). As tothe method: 
 the culprit lay on the ground while under casti- 
 gation, in the presence of the judge, who during 
 the infliction proclaimed the words in Dt 28°: 5, 
 and concluded with those in Ps 78%, In later 
 times an adult male was stripped to the waist and 
 in a bending posture lashed to a pillar; a female 
 received the stripes while sitting with head and 
 shoulders bent forward; and a boy was punished 
 with his hands tied behind him. The Mosaic re- 
 gulations were in pleasing contrast with those of 
 the Zendavesta, which authorizes as many as 10,000 
 stripes for the murder of a water dog (Darmesteter, 
 Intro.). The Porcian law forbade the scourging 
 of Rom. citizens (Cic. in Verr. v. 53, Ac 167 225), 
 Nevertheless, it was regarded as a wholesome 
 punishment, and is zealously advocated in Pr 13% 
 2315-14; see also Sir 301-4. It is a symbol of divine 
 correction (Ps 89°), and is regarded as a purifier 
 (Pr 20*°). The Moslems have a proverb that the 
 stick is from heaven, a blessing from God. 
 Suffocation was a recognized Pers. mode of dealing 
 with offenders. A case is described (2 Mac 1348); 
 Menelaus was fastened to a revolving wheel in a 
 standpipe 50 cubits high, filled with ashes, in 
 which fe was repeatedly immersed, until death 
 ensued. Another description attributes a similar 
 method to the Macedonians, the victim being 
 placed on a beam, under which the ashes were 
 constantly stirred until he was overcome with heat 
 and dust (see Rawlinson, Ane. Mon. iii. 246). 
 LitzraturE.—In addition to the authorities cited in the art , 
 the reader may consult Hamburger, RF, art. ‘Lohn u. Strafe’ 
 (pp. 691-703) and ‘Vergeltung’ (pp. 1252-57) ; artt. on the varioua 
 crimes and punishments enumerated above, in Riehm, HWB, 
 Herzog, RE, and Schenkel, Bibellex.; Saalschutz, das Mosaische 
 Recht; the Bib. Archdol. of Keil, Benzinger, and Nowack; 
 Post, Familienrecht, 358 f. ; Hartmann, Enge. Verbind. d. A.T. 
 mit d. N. 197 ff.; Schiirer, HJP n. ii. 90 ff.; W. R Smith, 
 
 OT JC2 340 f., 368 f.; J. W. Haley, Esther (1885), pp. 122-180 ; 
 Dilimann, Com. on the Pent., and Driver, Deut. (passim), 
 
 J. POUCHER. 
 CRIMSON. — Two words are tr. ‘crimson’ in 
 both AV and RV, yb téla‘ (Is 118), LXX kéxxwvos, 
 and $2 karmil (2 Ch 271434). Karmil is a later 
 word used in place of the earlier ‘3¥ shdni. Shani 
 is rendered once (Jer 43° AV) crimson. Inthe same 
 passage in RV, and in all other passages where it 
 occurs in both VSS, it is rendered scarlet. In 
 Is 128 py is rendered scarlet, LXX qowixody, and 
 ybin erimson, LXX xéxxwov. It is probable that the 
 distinction of these two colours was not accurately 
 made at that time, as indeed it has not been pre- 
 served in the VSS. See CoLours; and for the 
 
 insect producing both these colours see SCARLET. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 CRIPPLE.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 CRISPING PINS (oy, Is 37, RV ‘satchels,’ 
 and 2 K 5%, AV and RV ‘bags’; see BAG 3).—To 
 ‘crisp’ is in mod. language to ‘crimp,’ that is, curl 
 in short wavy folds. The word is often used in 
 Shaks., Milton, and others, of the curl a breeze 
 makes on the water, as Par. Lost, iv. 237, ‘the 
 crisped brooks’ ; cf. Byron, Childe Harold, iv. 211, 
 ‘I would not their vile breath should crisp the 
 stream.’ But the earliest ref. is to the hair; and 
 a ‘crisping pin’ is an instrument for crimping 
 the hair. Cf. Pocklington poy ‘Fetch me my 
 Crisping pinnes to curle my lockes.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CRISPUS (Kplozos).—The chief ruler of the 
 Jewish synagogue at Corinth (Ac 18%). Convinced 
 by the reasonings of St. Paul that Jesus was the 
 Messiah, he believed with all his house. The 
 
 
 
528 CROCODILE 
 
 apostle mentions him (1 Co 1") as one of the few 
 persons whom he himself had baptized. Tradition 
 represents him as having afterwards become bishop 
 of gina (Const. Apost. vii. 46). R. M. BoyD. 
 
 CROCODILE (RVm Job 41!).—The crocodile is 
 doubtless meant by leviathan in the above passage 
 and Job 38. In Ps 74!4 leviathan refers to Pharaoh, 
 under the simile of a crocodile. Cf. Ezk 29%, where 
 Pharaoh is called ‘the great dragon (tannim, for the 
 usual tannin) that lieth in the midst of his rivers,’ 
 and 322, where he is compared to a ‘ whale (also 
 tannim AVm, RV text ‘dragon’) in the seas,’ 
 the reference "being to the crocodile of the river 
 (Arab. bahr = sea, the usual Arab. way of speaking 
 of their great river the Nile). See LEVIATHAN, 
 DRAGON. The crocodile is a saurian, sometimes 
 attaining a length of 20 feet. His back and sides 
 are covered with an armour, impenetrable to dpe 
 swords, slingstones, and arrows(Job 417 19-17. 20 28.29 
 not to be injured by clubs (RV for AV ‘darts’ v. 29) 
 or even sphericai bullets. The scales of which this 
 armour is composed are beautifully marked. His 
 jaws are set with numerous sharp-pointed teeth(v.1*), 
 His neck is extremely powerful (v.” His tail is 
 also very muscular, and a blow from it will crush 
 aman. His legs are short. The toes of the fore 
 feet are five, and of the hind feet only four. ‘The 
 inner two toes of the fore feet and the inner one 
 of the hind feet are destitute of claws. The rest 
 have strong claws (v.°°). ‘Che crocodile is well 
 characterized as ‘a king over all the childven of 
 pride’ (v.84). In one other passage (Jer 146) RVm 
 gives ‘crocodile’ for tennim, A\' ‘ dragons.’ 
 
 The Land Crocodile (Lv 11%° RV) is not a croco- 
 dile, but probably the MONITOR (see CHAMELEON). 
 
 GG. BPosT: 
 
 CROOKBACKT (Amer. RV ‘crook-backed’), Ly 
 2120, See MEDICINE. 
 
 **CROSS is the tr. of the Gr. cravpés, the name 
 applied in NT to the instrument upon which Jesus 
 Christ suffered death. Owing to the variety of the 
 methods in which crucifixion might be inflicted, and 
 the indefiniteness of the terms employed, it is im- 
 possibie to determine with certainty the exact 
 nature of the cross used in His case. oravpds means 
 properly a stake, and is the tr. not merely of the 
 Lat. crux (cross), but of palus (stake) as well. As 
 used in NT, however, it refers evidently not to 
 the simple stake used for impaling, of which wide- 
 spread punishment crucifixion was a refinement, but 
 to the more elaborate cross used by the Romans in 
 the time of Christ. Besides the crux simplex, or 
 simple stake, we may exclude from consideration 
 the so-cailed cross of St. Andrew, shaped like an X, 
 the origin of which is much later, and concerning 
 the actual use of which there is much doubt. 
 There remain of the four varieties of cross usually 
 enumerated only two,’ between which the choice 
 must lie—the crux commissa or St. Anthony’s cross, 
 shaped like a 7, and consisting of a single upright 
 post, across the top of which is fastened a hori- 
 zontal cross-bar; and the crux immissa or Lat. 
 cross, in which the top of the upright shaft projects 
 above the cross-bar, as in the form with which we 
 are most familiar. In favour of the latter is not 
 only the testimony of the oldest tradition, which 
 in such a matter is entitled to great weight, but 
 also the statements of the evangelists concerning 
 the title nailed to the cross (Mt 2737, Mk 1526, Lk 
 23°8, Jn 1919-22) 
 
 The upright post to which alone the name 
 properly belongs, was usually a piece of some 
 strong, cheap wood, olive or oak, of such length 
 that when firmly planted in the ground the top 
 was from 7} to 9 ft. high. Most modern illustra- 
 tions err in making the upright much too high. 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner's Sons 
 
 It was erected on some spot outside the city, con- 
 venient for the execution, and remained there as 
 a permanent fixture, only the cross-bar or pat 
 ibulum béing carried to the spot, usually by the 
 person who was to suffer death. This consisted 
 sometimes of a single piece of wood, more often of 
 two parallel bars’ joined at one end, between which 
 the head of the victim passed, and to the ends of 
 which his hands were fastened. ‘The cross which 
 Jesus carried was doubtless simply the cross-bar in 
 one of these two forms. Keim argues in favour of 
 the simpler, partly because Jesus is represented as 
 clothed, which would hardly have been the case 
 had He carried the double patibulum ; partly be- 
 cause of the carrying of it by Simon, which he 
 regards rather as a rude joke of the soldiers than 
 as rendered necessary by the weight of the cross- 
 bar, which could in no case have been very heavy 
 (Jesu von Nazara, ili. 898, Eng. tr. vi. 125). Be- 
 sides the patibulum, the cross was furnished with 
 a support for the body called the sedile. This was 
 a small piece of wood projecting at right angles 
 from the upright, upon which the victim sat as 
 upon a saddle. It was designed to bear part of 
 the weight of the body, which would otherwise 
 have been too great to be supported by the hands 
 alone. Whether there was also a support for the 
 feet, the so-called vzorédé.oy, is still in dispute. 
 
 The origin of crucifixion must be sought in the E., 
 probably among the Phcen., from whom it passed to 
 the Greeks and Romans. The long list of peoples 
 given by Winer (RirB i. 680), and often ccpied, 
 includes many cases which prove no more than 
 impaling (so the Persians, Egyptians, Indians). 
 
 For the practice among the Pheenicians, Cartha- 
 ginians, and Numidians we have good authority. 
 We hear of Alexander on one occasion crucifying 
 
 as many as 2000 Tyrians. Among the Romans 
 this was a very common punishment. At first 
 they confined it to slaves and seditious persons, 
 but gradually extended its use, especially in the 
 provinces, here following Punic examples. In Sicily, 
 Verres crucified even Roman citizens. The same 
 was done by Galba in Spain. But these were rare 
 exceptions, and excited universal indignation. In 
 Judea the punishment was frequently used. Thus 
 Varus crucified 2000 rioters after the death of Herod 
 the Great (Jos. Ant. XVII. x.10). Under Claudius 
 and Nero, various governors, Tiberius Alexander, 
 Quadratus, Felix, Florus, crucified robbers and 
 rioters of political and religious character, includ- 
 ing two sons of Judas Galileus (Ant. XX.v.2; BJ 
 Il. xii. 6, IL. xiii. 2), and even respectable citizens 
 and Roman knights (BJ 11. xiv. 9). Titus cruci- 
 fied so many after the destruction of Jerus. that 
 there was neither wood for the crosses nor place 
 to set them up (BJ y. xi. 1). Especially under 
 Tiberius, who held that simple death was escape, 
 was this method of punishment frequent. 
 
 The Jews did not practise the crucifixion of living 
 persons. The case of Janneus, referred to by Jos. 
 (BJ 1. iv. 6), was an exception which called forth 
 universal reprobation. But the hanging up of dead 
 bodies meets us frequently in OT. See Jos 1076 
 (the five kings), 2 S 4! (the murderers of Ish- 
 bosheth), 1 S 31 (the Philistines and Saul, cf. 
 2S 21!*), Ezr 6" (the decree of Darius), and is 
 distinctly authorized in the law (Dt 21”, cf. Nu 
 254, where J’’ commands this punishment in the 
 case of the men who have led the people away tc 
 Baal-peor). In such cases the dead body became 
 accursed, and must be buried before nightfall, 
 that the land might not suffer pollution (Dt 21%). 
 Those who suffered crucifixion came under this curse, 
 and hence the passage in Dt is applied to Jesus not 
 only in the Talm., but also by NT writers. This 
 explains the frequent reference to the cross in NT 
 as the tree (UNov), that being the LXX tr. of the 
 
 
 
 
 
ee a ee 
 
 CROSS 
 
 
 
 CROWN 
 
 529 
 
 Heb. 72. (Cf. Ac 5% 1099 1329, 1 P 24, and esp. Gal | been particularly emphasized by C. C. Everett in 
 
 318 ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
 having become a curse for us; for it is written, 
 Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’) 
 
 The method of crucifixion is clearly described in 
 NT. After condemnation, the victim was scourged 
 with the flagellum, a punishment so terrible that 
 men often died underit. In Jesus’ case the scourging 
 seems to have taken place before rather than after, 
 possibly to excite pity (Jn 19!). The cross-bar was 
 then bound on the victim’s back, or his head in- 
 serted in the patibulum, and he was led through 
 the city accompanied by the centurion and four 
 soldiers detailed to conduct the execution. The 
 title, a piece of wood covered with white gypsum 
 on which the nature of his offence was set forth in 
 letters of black, was usually carried before the con- 
 demned person, so that all might know the reason 
 for which he was to die. This custom of carrying 
 the cross gave rise to ‘the proverb aitpev or \apu- 
 Bdvew or Bacrdfey tov cravpdy abrod which was wont 
 to be used of those who on behalf of God’s cause 
 do not hesitate cheerfully and manfully to bear 
 persecutions, troubles, distresses, thus recalling 
 the fate of Christ, and the spirit in which He en- 
 countered it’ (Thayer, Lex. p.686). In this sense 
 it is used by Jesus Himself in the well-known 
 saying, ‘If any man would come after me, let him 
 deny himself, and take up his cross and follow 
 me’ (Mt 1674, Mk 83+, Lk 9°83 ; cf. Mt 1088; Lk 1427). 
 Arrived at the place of execution, the prisoner was 
 stripped, his garments falling to the soldiers as 
 their booty. He was then bound to the patibulum, 
 and both were raised on ladders until the cross-bar 
 rested on the notch prepared to receive it. This 
 was the more common custom. In a few cases the 
 cross piece was fastened to the upright lying on 
 the ground, and the whole then raised together. 
 After the patibulum was firmly fastened, the 
 hands were nailed to its extremities, and possibly 
 the feet to the upright, although this was less 
 frequent. Afterwards the title was fastened to the 
 head of the cross, and the victim was left to the 
 slow agonies of a death which might endure many 
 hours, and even days. 
 
 All authorities agree that of all deaths crucifixion 
 was the most abhorred. This was due not only to 
 its pain, which was of the most intense character (see 
 the account of Richter, quoted in Smith, DB), but 
 also to its shame, which in the case of the Roman 
 was due to its servile association, in that of the Jew 
 to its rendering the sufferer accursed. Cicero in his 
 oration against Verres (v. 66) declares that it is 
 impossible to find a fit word to describe such an 
 outrage as the crucifixion of a Roman citizen. 
 ‘ Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum: scelus ver- 
 berari: prope parricidium necari; quid dicam 
 in crucem tolli? Verbo satis digno tam nefaria res 
 appellari nullo modo potest.’ 
 
 The shame of this death is often referred to in 
 NT. So He 12? ‘Jesus, who endured the cross, de- 
 spising shame’; He 131% ‘Let us therefore go forth 
 unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach’ ; 
 ef. He 1176, With more particular reference to its 
 relation to the ceremonial law, Gal 313 ‘Christ 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law, having 
 become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is 
 every one that hangeth on a tree’; 1 Co 123 ‘No 
 man speaking in the Spirit of God saith Jesus is 
 anathema.’ Because of this character, the death 
 of Jesus upon the cross, viewed in the light of 
 His Messianic claims, became not merely foolish- 
 ness to Greeks, but a stumbling-block to Jews (1 Co 
 118-23, ef. Gal 511). It was an outrage to Jewish 
 propriety that He who had become accursed in the 
 sight of the law by His death on the cross should 
 claim to be the Messiah in whom the law was ful- 
 filled. This element of ceremonial defilement has 
 
 VOL. 1.—34 
 
 
 
 The Gospel of Paul (Boston, 1893), as a clue to 
 the understanding of St. Paul’s view of the signi- 
 ficance of Christ’s death. This significance he 
 finds not at all in its penal character, but in its 
 character as ceremonial defilement. Christ by His 
 death on the cross became accursed (anathema). 
 Those Christians who accepted this accursed 
 sufferer as the Messiah of God, shared His curse, 
 and were in like manner cut off by the law. But 
 this cutting off by the law brought with it also 
 freedom from the law, since those who were thus 
 outcast were no longer within its realm. Thus 
 Christ’s death under the law, followed by His 
 resurrection, was God’s way of showing that the 
 Jewish law was done away, and a new method of 
 salvation, even that through faith in Christ, 
 ushered in. 
 
 The use of the word ‘cross’ in a theological sense, as 
 a brief designation of Christ’s saving work, is char- 
 acteristic of St. Paul. The gospel of salvation is 
 ‘the word of the cross’ (1 Co 118), Those who suffer 
 persecution because of their faith in the saving 
 efficacy of Christ’s death, do so ‘for the cross of 
 Christ’ (Gal 6"). They who refuse this gospel 
 are ‘ enemies of the cross of Christ’ (Ph 318), The 
 cross is not only the instrument of the recon- 
 ciliation between God and man (Col 12, Eph 216), 
 through the death of Him who there suffered 
 (Col 17° ‘the blood of the cross’), but also between 
 Jew and Gentile (Col 214 the bond nailed to the 
 cross), since by it the ‘ bond written in ordinances,’ 
 which up to that time had barred the way of the 
 Gentiles to God, is put out of the way. It was 
 through the cross, 7.e. acceptance of the crucified 
 Christ as Saviour, that the world was crucified to 
 Paul, and Paul to the world (Gal 64). Thus eruci- 
 fixion becomes not merely the means of salvation, 
 but the type of that absolute renunciation of the 
 world which characterizes the true Christian life 
 (Gal 52+), 
 
 Literature.—The articles on Cross and Crucifixion in Smith, 
 DB and in Herzog, RH. Monographs by Lipsius, De Cruce, 
 Antwerp, 1595; Nicquetus, Titwlus s. Crweis, Ant., 1670; 
 Ourtius, De Clavis Dominicis, Ant., 1670; Bartolinus, De Cruce, 
 Amsterdam, 1670; and more recently by Ziéckler, Das Areuz 
 Christi, 1875, and Fulda, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, 
 1878. Much information is contained in the Lives of Christ of 
 Keim and Hase. On the theological significance of the cross, 
 cf. besides the Biblical Theologies, Everett, The Gospel of Paul, 
 Boston, 1898. W. ADAMS BROWN. 
 
 CROW occurs once in Apocr. (Bar 65+), where the 
 helplessness of idols is illustrated by the remark 
 that ‘they are * as crows (kopdvar) between heaven 
 and earth.’ In Jer 32 the LXX has écel copy 
 épnuouuéyn for M'T 72722 °27%.2 (‘as an Arabian in 
 the wilderness,’ RV), which implies the punctua- 
 tion 37) (‘raven’) instead of ‘272, (¢ Arabian’). 
 The common LXX equivalent of any is xépaé. See 
 RAVEN. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 CROWN.—In OT (both AV and RV) Crown is 
 used to translate several Heb. words, the particular 
 meanings of which must be distinguished. 4, The 
 golden fillets or mouldings placed around the ark 
 of the covenant (Ex 251! 37%), the table of shew- 
 bread (Ex 2574 371) and its border (Ex 25%5 3712), 
 and the altar of incense (Ex 303-4 3726-27) in the 
 Mosaic tabernacle are called Crowns (RVm ‘rim or 
 moulding’). The Heb. word (7) means a cincture 
 like a wreath, and describes rather the foliated 
 appearance of the band than its position on the 
 object to which it was attached. (LXX tr. it by a 
 phrase meaning ‘ twisted golden wavelets’ [kuudria 
 Xpvod orperra | or ‘twisted golden crown? [orperryv 
 arepavnv xpvoqv]; Pal. Targ. by “2 a wreath; Vulg. 
 by corona, whence Eng. translation. The later 
 Rabbins also describe it as 1)? a crown). The 
 
 * The Syr. VS reads ‘are not.’ 
 
530 CROWN 
 
 CROWN 
 
 
 
 brevity of the description in Ex has occasioned 
 differences of opinion among archeologists as to 
 both its purpose and its position. Some imagine it a 
 tim to prevent objects from falling off. But the 
 border which passed round the table of shewbread, 
 as well as the table itself, had a crown; nor would 
 the ark need a rim for the purpose suggested. The 
 crown therefore was ornamental. As to its position, 
 Bahr (Symbolik, i. 377, 378) regards the crown of 
 the ark as an ornamental design placed round its 
 middle, but his arguments are not conclusive ; and 
 since the crown is said to be ‘upon’ (v>y) the ark, 
 we should doubtless imagine it as placed round 
 the top of the sacred chest as it was round the 
 top of the table of shewbread (see Neumann, Die 
 Stiftshitte, p. 127). Bihr, however, also denies that 
 ‘the border of a handbreadth round about’ the 
 table (Ex 2575) had a crown of its own (Symb. i. 409, 
 citing also the Rabbins Jarchi and Aben-Ezra; so 
 Keil, Archeol. § 19, but not in his Comm.; 
 Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. 60), but the language of 
 Exodus seems clearly to state that it had (Jahn, 
 Archiol. p. 421; Abarbanal cited by Bahr; Neu- 
 mann, p. 96; Bissell, Bibl. Antig. p. 292). The 
 crown of the altar of incense likewise is placed by 
 some round its top (Carpzov, Appar. Crit. p. 273 ; 
 Neumann, p. 120), by others round its middle 
 (Bahr, i. 378, 419). But, whatever their positions, 
 these crowns were evidently golden wreaths in- 
 tended for decoration. Assyr. monuments afford 
 examples of similar ornamentations (Neumann, p. 
 27; Layard, Nineveh, ii. 236, 354). 
 
 2. Another word tr. Crown (713) means conse- 
 cration, and is applied to the symbolic ornament 
 worn ee high priest upon his forehead over the 
 mitre (Ex 29% 39%, Lv 8 2112); and to that worn 
 upon the head by the Heb. monarch (28 1, 2K 
 11?2, 2 Ch 234, Ps 89° 13218, so also Zec 915). It is 
 also used figuratively for dignity or honour (Pr 27%, 
 Nah 3” ‘crowned ones’). The high priest’s crown 
 (LXX 7d réradev, Vulg. lamina) was a narrow plate 
 ) of pure gold, on which was engraved ‘ Holy to 
 
 ". Tradition represents it as about two fingers 
 broad. It was fastened ‘upon the mitre above’ by 
 a piece of blue lace (Ex 28°” 391), The Rabbin. com- 
 mentators suppose three ribbons of lace—two from 
 the ends and one from the top of the front of the 
 crown—all tied together at the back of the head. 
 Jos. (Ant. II. vii. 6) describes the high priest’s 
 crown as of three rows, one above another, upon 
 which were carved cups of gold like the calyx of 
 the plant Hyoscyamus, while the plate with the 
 inscription covered the forehead; but he probably 
 refers to an ornamentation introduced at a late 
 
 eriod. Acc. tol Mac 10” a crown was given to the 
 
 igh priest Jonathan by Alex. Epiphanes. Braunius 
 (De Vestitu Sacerd. Heb. ch. xxii.) admits that Ex 
 gives no SAEpOES to Josephus’ description. The 
 crown was the symbol of the high priest’s special 
 consecration, as the people’s representative, to 
 make atonement for sin (Ex 28°8). The same teria 
 is also applied to the symbolic headtire of the Heb. 
 king, but no description of it is given (LXX 7d 
 Bactrevor, létep, Efep, rd dylacua). It was prob. alight, 
 narrow fillet of silk, perhaps studded with jewels, 
 like the early diadems of E. kings (see DIADEM). 
 It was light enough to be worn in battle (2S 1”). 
 The term indicates that the king, as well as the 
 Priest, was divinely consecrated to his office. 
 
 ence it is attributed to the ideal Davidic King 
 (Ps 89 13216), and His people are called the stones 
 of their Saviour’s Crown (Zec 9"), 
 
 8. The commonest use of Crown in OT (gener- 
 ally as tr. of ™py, LXX orégavos, but in Est of 
 
 132, Gr. xldaps or xlrapis, LXX diddnua) corre- 
 sponds with the use of the word in mod. times. It 
 is applied to crowns worn by oes (28 12%, 1 Ch 202, 
 the crown of the king of Rabbah, 
 
 which weighed a 
 
 
 
 talent of gold; Est 17 2)” 6° 85, the tiaras of the 
 king and queen of Persia, probetly high, jewelled 
 turbans ;: see also Is 62%, Jer 13, Ezk 21%); to 
 wreaths worn at banquets (Ca 34, Is 28)35 Ezk 
 23”); and fig. as an emblem of honour or victory 
 (Job 19° 3158, Pg 85 21° 65" 1034, Pr 49 124 1418 nA) 
 %4 16% 175, La 5's, Ezk 16%). In Is 23° Tyre is calle 
 ‘the crowning city’ because ruling over kingdoms 
 and dispensing crowns. Some have supposed that 
 the kings of Israel had two crowns—the light 
 diadem mentioned above, and a heavier one for 
 state occasions. It has also been inferred from2S 
 12® that the crown taken by David from the king 
 of Rabbah became the state crown, and Jos. (Ant. 
 VII, vii. 5) enlarges the biblical account by stating 
 that ‘this crown David ever after wore on his own 
 head.’ But there is no positive evidence for this, 
 and only the term 7j3 is used in the Bible for the 
 crown of the Heb. kings. In Zec 64-™ a crown 
 (py) is represented as placed on Joshua, the high 
 priest, to indicate the union of the royal and priestly 
 offices ; but the usual word for the kingly crown of 
 Israel is in this instance apparently avoided because 
 it described also, as has been stated, that of the 
 high priest. The crowns used at banquets were 
 doubtless wreaths of flowers (see Is 281, also Wis 2°, 
 3 Mac 4° 716). Heroes were also received with them 
 (Jth 38), and dwellings decorated (1 Mac 4°”), 
 
 4. In 1 Mac 10” 11% 13%9 allusion is made to 
 crowns due from the Jews to the Syrian kings, 
 by which are meant, not coins so named, but 
 money tribute, which represented allegiance as 
 formerly the presentation of a crown had done 
 (1 Mac 13%”, 2 Mac 144; Jos. Ant. XI. iii. 3, ore- 
 gavirns pdpos; see Levy, Gesch. der Jiid. Miinzen; 
 Madden, Jewish Coinage). 
 
 The Heb. has other words synonymous with those 
 mentioned (as 1x3 head-dress; 4°33 turban; n7'px dia- 
 dem; 7 garland), but their consideration does not 
 fall here. The later Jews spoke of three crowns, 
 of the law, the priesthood, and the king, and added 
 ‘the crown of a good name’ as best of all (Carpzov, 
 Appar. Crit. p. 60; Braunius, De Vestitu, p. 634). 
 The word is also used in AV for the top of the head 
 (Gn 49%, Dt 33%, 2 § 14%, Is 3%, Jer 218 494; tr, 
 pate Ps 78, head [RV ‘crown of the head ’] Dt 331%, 
 scalp Ps 687). 
 
 In NT the AV gives ‘Crown’ for two words (aré- 
 gavos and d:ddyua) which RV properly distinguishes. 
 Zrégavos was not applied by the Greeks to a king’s 
 crown. ‘It is the crown of victory in the games, 
 of civic worth, of military valour, of nuptial joy, 
 of festal gladness . . . the wreath in fact, or the 
 
 arland ... but never, any more than corona in 
 
 atin, the emblem and sign of royalty’ (Trench, 
 Syn. of NT, xxiii.; see, too, Lightfoot on Ph 4). 
 Roman law likewise regulated the bestowment of 
 special corone as rewards of military valour and 
 civic service; and while it was customary to use 
 crowns on ceremonial and festive occasions, they 
 never symbolized royalty. The word for the latter 
 was diadema (see DIADEM). This distinction is 
 observed in NT, though not always in the LXX 
 (see 2 § 123, 1 Ch 20%, Ps 21(20)4, Ezk 21°, Zec 
 6-14), In NT a crown is an emblem of victory or 
 reward. It describes the Christian’s final recom- 
 pense (1 Co 9%, Rev 3! 44-1), specifically called a 
 crown of righteousness (2 Ti 48), of life (Ja 1%, Rev 
 2°), of glory (1 P 54). St. Paul applies it to his 
 converts as being his reward (Ph 4', 1 Th 2%). 
 Hence in the Apoc. a crown is represented on the 
 conquering Christ (Rev 6? 1414), on the symbolic 
 locusts (Rev 97), and on the ‘woman’ of ch. 12, 
 as a sign of victory. In 12° 13! 19%, on the other 
 hand, the ‘dragon’ and the ‘ beast’ and the kingly 
 Christ have diadems, the ‘many diadems’ signi- 
 fying Christ’s universal empire (see v.1*), Thus 
 
 rown in NT is the emblem of attainment, the 
 

 
 CROWN OF THORNS 
 
 
 
 CUCUMBER 
 
 
 
 reward of service. Even the ‘crown of thorns’ was 
 probably a mock symbol of victory, suggested to 
 the soldiers by the corone of military or civic 
 service; though Trench remarks that ‘woven of 
 such materials as it was, diddyua could not be 
 applied to it.’ 
 
 ile the use of crowns among the Greeks and 
 Romans seems to have originated with the athletic 
 games,—allusions to which are made by St. Paul 
 in the places cited above,—and while the crown 
 does not appear in Homer as an emblem of victory, 
 later traditions attributed its invention to one or 
 other of the gods. Those traditions are collected 
 by Tertullian in his tract De Corona, in which he 
 ns inveighs against the use of crowns by 
 
 LiTmraToRE.—Paschalius, Coron@; Meursius, De Coronis; 
 Fabricius, Bibliographia Antiquaria; Reland, Antiquitates 
 sacr. veter. Hebr.; Braunius, De Vestitu sacerd. Hebr.; Jahn’s 
 and Keil’s Bib. Arch. ; Bahr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus ; 
 Nowack, Hebr. Archdol. G. T. PURVEs. 
 
 CROWN OF THORNS.—See THorN. CRUCI- 
 FIXION.—See Cross. 
 
 CRUELTY.— The habits and sentiments of 
 
 Gentiles and average Israelites, both in OT and 
 NT, are often tainted with gross cruelty. Even 
 acts of divinely appointed leaders of Israel, utter- 
 ances of the psalmists and prophets, and ordin- 
 ances of the inspired Law, sometimes seem 
 inhuman when judged by the highest standards of 
 modern Christianity. These standards require the 
 righteous man to treat human life as sacred, and 
 to refrain scrupulously from inflicting unnecessary 
 pain. But Christianity has only recently secured 
 ‘any widespread practical recognition of these 
 principles, and even now they prevail only with 
 minorities in a few of the most advanced com- 
 munities. Moreover, civilization has developed a 
 sensitiveness which often renders the punishment 
 of a criminal really as severe as in ancient 
 times; the mitigation of physical cruelty has 
 been compensated for by the refinement of mental 
 torture. The constant tendency of inspired 
 teaching is towards humanity, and ordinances 
 which seem inhuman often mitigate prevailing 
 barbarity. 
 
 The facts are as follows. The extermination of 
 enemies is frequently commanded, Dt 20! etc., 
 and such extermination is described with apparent 
 approval, Jos6# etc. David massacred the Ammon- 
 ites with great barbarity, 2 S 12%), 1 Ch 205, cf. 2K 
 15, Amongst the Israelites themselves the Law 
 ventures to impose only a moderate limitation of 
 blood-revenge. Ex 21 2 (JE) forbids the actual 
 beating to death of a male or female slave, but does 
 not feel it possible to deal with cases in which the 
 victim survives a day or two. Death is to be 
 inflicted for a large number of offences, some of 
 them slight, ¢.g. sabbath-breaking, Ex 35? (P). 
 An incestuous person, Lv 20 (H), and an unchaste 
 woman of the priestly clan, Lv 21° (H), were to be 
 burnt to death. The OT records great cruelty on 
 the part of Gentiles, barbarous outrages on women 
 and children, 2 K 8}, Hos 13!6, Am 13, and cruel 
 mutilation, 2K 25’. These are more than borne out 
 by the sculptures of the Assyrians, who delighted 
 to depict flaying alive and other tortures inflicted 
 upon their enemies, ¢.g. upon the Elamite prisoners 
 on slabs 48-50 in the pat any Gallery of the 
 British Museum. In the NT we meet with the 
 barbarous Roman punishments of scourging and 
 crucifixion. W. H. BENNETT. 
 
 CRUSE.—See Foop. The English word, now 
 archaic though not quite obsolete, is apparently 
 of Scandinavian origin, and means an earthenware 
 
 salt (2 K 2%), 
 
 jar for holding liquids ; less freq. for drinking from, 
 as Skelton (1526), ‘Then he may drink out of a 
 stone cruyse.’ In AV it holds water (1 S 261) 12-16, 
 1 K 19), oil (1 K 17!-1*6), honey (1 K 14°), and 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CRYSTAL.—1. In Job 2817 r3:3) is rendered in 
 AV ‘crystal’ (i.e. rock-crystal); and as it occurs 
 in a passage descriptive of the treasures of mines, 
 this is probably to be accepted as correct. (See, 
 however, Oxf. Heb. Lex. and RV which tr. ‘ glass’). 
 2. In Ezk 1* another word mp is also tr. ‘crystal’ 
 (RVm ‘ ice’), and, in this case, there is no certainty 
 whether rock -crystal or ice is referred to (cf. 
 Davidson, ad loc.); the same remark applies to 
 xptoraNdos in Rey 4° 21" 22!; but this is immaterial 
 in the case of poetic imagery, as the two sub- 
 stances are similar as regards transparency and 
 absence of colour; hence the Greeks applied the 
 same word (xptcraddos) to both. 3. In Job 2818 
 RV substitutes ‘crystal’ for ‘pearls’ of AV as 
 tr. of v3. 
 
 Rock - crystal is pure quartz, crystallizing in 
 hexagonal prisms with pyramidal apices, and is 
 abundant in veins amongst the older rocks in 
 nearly all countries. It was used in ancient times 
 for ornamental purposes, and being softer, could 
 be cut by the diamond or corundum. It is pos- 
 sible that the Heb. word (oom) tr. ‘diamond’ as 
 one of the stones on the breastplate of the high 
 priest was really rock-crystal, as it was engraved 
 with the name of one of the tribes (Ex 287). [See, 
 however, art. STONES (PRECIOUS), and Oxf. Hed. 
 Lex., where the jasper or the onyx are suggested 
 as equivalents of 027:.J E. HULL. 
 
 CUB (2:5, AV Chub), in Ezk 30°, is almost cer- 
 tainly a corruption of 2:9 (i.e. Lybia) as was read 
 LXX. The ‘ ay ae of AV is a mistransla- 
 tion of Put (see RV). Cf. Nah 3°, where Lybians 
 are mentioned along with Cush (Ethiopia), Egypt, 
 and Put, as here; also 2 Ch 12° 16%. Identifica- 
 tions which assume the correctness of the text 
 lead to no satisfactory result, and hardly deserve 
 notice. J. SKINNER. 
 
 CUBIT.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 CUCKOW (An? shahaph, ddpos, larus).—The 
 Heb. word is from a root signil ying leanness. It 
 occurs only in Lv 116 and Dt 14”, in the list of un- 
 clean birds. No scholar now renders it by cuckow 
 (cuckoo). Various slender birds have been proposed, 
 as the stormy petrel, the shearwater, the tern, and 
 the gull or seamew. The RV, following the LXX 
 and the Vulg., has seamew. It is Probably to be 
 understood generically for birds of the Laride, the 
 gull family. G. E. Post. 
 
 CUCUMBER (o'xvp kishshw’tm, olxvor, cucumeres). 
 —Cucumbers are universally cultivated in the E., 
 and are a favourite article of food. ‘Two species or 
 varieties are common, Cucwmis sativus, L., which 
 is the ordinary preen or whitish cucumber, and C. 
 Chate, L., which is originally an Egyptian plant. 
 The former is called in Arab. khiydr. It has a 
 very delicate flavour, and is more wholesome than 
 the European variety. The latter is known by 
 the name kiththé or mikti, which is a modification 
 of the Heb. xvp, and is doubtless the vegetable 
 referred to as one of the good things of Egypt (Nu 
 115). Itis longer and more slender than the com- 
 mon cucumber, being often more than a foot long, 
 and sometimes less than an inch thick, and pointed 
 at both ends. It has a thick, hairy, mottled or 
 striped green rind, with a less juicy pulp than the 
 khiydr, but a similar, though less delicate, flavour. 
 Although originating in Egypt, it is everywhere 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
532 CULTURE 
 
 cultivated in the East. It is esteemed coarser than 
 the khiydr, and sold cheaper. 
 
 A cardinal difference between the kiththa and 
 the khiydr is that the latter cannot be cultivated 
 without constant irrigation. The kiththd, while 
 often cultivated on watered soil, and then attain- 
 ing a large size, grows on perfectly dry soil also, 
 without a drop of water through the hot summer 
 months, during which it flourishes. The word 
 Khiydr is said to be of Persian origin. 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 4 ‘LODGE IN A GARDEN OF CUCUMBERS.’ 
 
 The expression ‘garden of cucumbers’ (Is 15) is 
 ngpn mikshah, a noun of place, meaning the place 
 of kishshu, and is exactly reproduced in the Arab. 
 mikthwat. The lodge is the booth of the man who 
 watches the patch. This booth is made of four 
 upright poles, 6 or 8 ft. high, planted in the ground, 
 and tied by withes of flexible bark to four hori- 
 zontal poles at their tip. Over the frame made 
 by these horizontal pales are laid cross poles, and, 
 over all, branches of trees. Sometimes a floor is 
 made by tying four other horizontal poles at a few 
 inches or feet above the ground, and laying over 
 them a flooring of cross poles. Walls are some- 
 times made of wattled branches, more or less 
 enclosing the frail tenement. Such booths are to 
 be seen in all the cucumber and melon patches, 
 and in vineyards and other cultivated te which 
 requires watching. They are fitting emblems of 
 instability, as the withes with which they are tied 
 together give way before the winds of autumn, the 
 branches are scattered, and the whole structure 
 soon drops into a shapeless heap of poles and 
 wattles, themselves soon to be carried off and used 
 as firewood, or left to rot on the ground. 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 CULTURE.—Only 2 Es 8° AV and RV, ‘give us 
 
 CUNNING 
 
 seed unto our heart, and culture to our under- 
 standing, that there may come fruit of it.’ The 
 Eng. word is a direct and accurate tr. of the Lat. 
 (cultura), and is used in its own earliest sense of 
 the cultivation or tillage of the soil. Coverdale, 
 Matthew, and the Bishops have ‘build,’ Geneva 
 ‘prepare,’ but Douay ‘give tillage to’ the under- 
 standing. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CUMBER (from old Fr. combrer, ‘to hinder,’ 
 which is from low Lat. cumbrus, i.e. cumulus, ‘a 
 heap’; thus c.=‘put a heap in the way’).—1. To 
 harass, worry, Lk 10 ‘Martha was cumbered 
 about much serving.’ Cf. Coverdale’s tr. of 1 K 
 21° ‘What is ye matter that thy sprete is so 
 combred?’ The usual prep. is ‘with’; here 
 ‘about’ is a lit. tr. of the Gr. mepl (repreomaro wept 
 modi Siaxovlay), RVm gives ‘distracted,’ like 
 Ostervald’s distraite, and as 1 Co 7* ‘without dis- 
 traction,’ AV and RV (depiordorws). ‘Cumbered’ 
 is Tindale’s; Wyclif has ‘martha bisied aboute the 
 oft seruyse’; Coverdale, ‘Martha made hir self 
 moch to do to serue him.’ 2. To ‘block up,’ 
 ‘burden,’ Lk 137 ‘Cut it down; why cumbereth 
 it the ground?’ again from Tindale (and scarcely 
 obsolete in this sense); Wyclif ‘ocupieth,’ fr. 
 Vulg. occupat; Geneva, ‘why kepeth it the ground 
 baren?’ a better tr. of the Gr. here (xarapyéw, @ 
 favourite word with St. Paul, elsewhere only in 
 this passage and He 24, AV ‘destroy,’ RV ‘bring 
 to nought’). Cf. Bunyan, Holy War (Clar. Press 
 ed. p. 47), ‘Thou hast been a Cumber-ground long 
 already.” Cumbrance, only Dt 1? ‘your c.’ (n2m 9), 
 and Is 144 RVm ‘your new moons... are ac. 
 unto me’ (nbd ‘by v7, AV and RV ‘trouble’). 
 mod. forms ‘encumber,’ ete., are not yer equi- 
 valent, being too wholly passive. Davies 
 (Bible Eng. p. 211) remarks, Spenser’s ‘cum- 
 brous gnattes (fF. Q. I. i. 23) seems now a singu- 
 larly inappropriate epithet. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CUMI.—See TALITHA. 
 
 CUMMIN (jb2 kammén, xtyvor, cyminum).—The 
 seed of Cuminum cyminum, L., an umbelliferous 
 plant cultivated in Bible lands. It is known in 
 Arab. by the same name as in Heb., kKammin, and 
 is used in cookery as a condiment, esp. in the dishes 
 prepared during the fasts, which, being made with- 
 out meat, require more seasoning to make them 
 palatable. It has also carminative properties, 
 and is used in poultices for the dissipation of 
 swellings. It has a penetrating odour and savour, 
 not over-agreeable to most Europeans. It is 
 twice mentioned in Scripture. Once the reference 
 is to the mode of rete it (Is 2875-27) by a 
 rod instead of the mérag. This is still practised 
 with this and other seeds of plants cultivated in 
 small quantities. It is also mentioned as subject 
 to tithe (Mt 23%), G. E. Post. 
 
 CUN (7:3), 1 Ch 18°.—See BEROTHAL, 
 
 CUNNING.—The Anglo-Saxon cunnan meant 
 both ‘to know’ and ‘to be able,’ whence both 
 can, which Bacon uses as a finite verb, Hssays 
 (Gold Treas. ed. p. 40), ‘In Evill, the best condition 
 is, not to will ; Phe Second, not to Can’; and also © 
 cunning, which is really the pres. sas of the 
 A.-S. cunnan as it appears in its Middle-Eng. form 
 cunnen, to know. ‘Cunning,’ then, up to and 
 after 1611, is generally knowledge, skill. Cf. 
 Purvey’s Preface to the Wycliffite Version of 
 1388, ‘the Holy Syn author of all wisdom and 
 cunnynge and truth’; Bp. Barlowe’s translation 
 of Ja 3% (Dialoge [1531], ed. of 1897, p. 34), ‘Who 
 that among you is wyse endued with connynge’ ; 
 and Shaks. Othello, mi. iii. 50, ‘That errs in 
 
 
 
CUP 
 
 ignorance, and not in cunning.’ In AV the subst. 
 ‘cunning’ occurs only Ps 1375, ‘If I spree thee, 
 O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cun- 
 ning.’* The adj. is common, applied to men who 
 are skilful in some work, or to the work they do 
 skilfully. Thus Ex 35% ‘the c. workman... 
 and ... those that devise c. work.’ Once to 
 women, Jer 9’, in ref. to their skill as hired 
 mourners (on which see Thomson, Land and 
 Book, iii. 403). But in Eph 4" ‘ec. craftiness,’ 2 P 
 1* ‘cunningly devised fables,’ the meaning is 
 probably ‘wily,’ ‘ deceitful.’ Amer. RV prefers 
 ‘skilful’ where cunning has that meaning (except 
 Is 3* ‘ expert’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CUP.—1. In OT the rendering of various words, 
 the precise distinction between which, either as to 
 form or use, is unknown to us. The usual word is 
 din kég (worjpiov, calix), the ordinary drinking- 
 vessel of rich (Gn 40": 1 21) and poor (2S 123) alike, 
 the material of which varied, no doubt, with the 
 rank and wealth of the owner. Numerous illus- 
 trations are found on the reliefs of the Assyrian 
 palaces, such, ¢.g., as the cups in the hands of 
 Assurbanipal and his queen, in a scene often re- 
 produced. With these compare the specimens of 
 tery actually found on Jewish soil, in Bliss, 
 
 ound of Many Cities, Nos. 174, 181, etc., and the 
 illustration cited below. 
 
 Joseph’s divining cup (33 Gn 442%) was of silver, 
 and, we may infer, of elaborate workmanship, since 
 the same word is used for the bowls (AV) or cups 
 (RV), #.¢. the flower-shaped ornamentation, on the 
 candlestick of the tabernacle (which see for details, 
 also BOWL). That the y33 was larger than the kés 
 is clear from Jer 35°. The niyp késdvéth, of 1 Ch 
 28” (Phoen. opp, see Bloch’s Phen. Glossar, sub voce), 
 were more probably flagons, as RV in Ex 25” 3716 
 (but Nu 4’ RV cape). The ’aggan (}38 Is 224) was 
 rather a basin, as Ex 24°, than a cup (EV). 
 
 In NT zorjpiov is the corresponding name of the 
 ordinary drinking-cup (water Mt 10® etc., wine 
 237 etc.). The ‘cup of blessing’ (1 Co 10%) is so 
 named from the apian ois kés habbérdkhah of the 
 Jewish Passover (which see, also LORD’s SUPPER). 
 The cup represented on the obverse of the so-called 
 Maccabeean shekels may be a cup such as was used 
 on this occasion. 
 
 2. The word cup has received an extended 
 figurative application in both OT and NT. (a) As 
 in various other literatures, ‘cup’ stands, esp. in 
 Psalms, for the happy fortune or experience of 
 one’s earthly lot, mankind being thought of as 
 receiving this lot from the hand of God, as the 
 guest the pine-eep from the hand of his host, Ps 
 16° 23° 73! etc. But also conversely for the bitter 
 lot of the wicked, Ps 118 (cf. c, below), and in par- 
 ticular for the sufferings of Jesus Christ, Mt 20 3, 
 Mk 10®- 9 14%, Lk 22%, Jn 18", (6) Another figure 
 is the ‘cup of salvation’ (lit. ‘of deliverances’), 
 Ps 116%, The reference is to the wine of the 
 thank-offerings (0'>:), part of the ritual of which 
 was the festal meal before J” (cf. vv.1 1"), A 
 striking parallel is found in the inscription of ybom 
 
 * The Heb. is simply ‘let my right hand forget’ (*3">) n2y/h), 
 which may be dealt with in three ways. 1. As a passive: 80 
 LXX, iwsane beim 4 38%ie@ ov; Vulg., oblivioni detur dextera mea ; 
 Luth., so werde meiner Rechten vergessen ; Ostervald, que ma 
 droite s’oublie elle-méme ; Coverdale, ‘let my right hande be 
 forgotten.’ But the Heb. as it stands cannot be tr4 passively. 
 2. As acorrupt text. The simplest emendation is proposed by 
 Delitzsch, N3y/A, which gives the pass. at once, and with which 
 oe Sa Jer 234, Other suggested emendations will 
 be ‘ound in Cheyne, Book of Psalms, crit. n. in loc. But Well- 
 hausen (in Haupt) leaves the Heb. untouched and unnoticed. 
 8. Asan sera. Del. as an alternative, ‘let my right hand 
 show itself forgetful’ (cf. Wyclif’s tr. ‘my mgt hond be gouun 
 {given} to forgeting’; Cheyne, ‘let m rig! t hand deny its 
 service’ (but in parchment ed. 1884, ‘let the strength of my 
 
 ht hand dry up’); Geneva, ‘ forget to play’; Bishops’ Bible, 
 AV, and RV ‘forget her cunning.’ 
 
 
 
 CURIOUS 
 
 533 
 
 
 
 
 
 of Gebal (Byblus), who is figured on his stele in 
 the act of Pee erane such a cup of thanksgiving 
 to the local deity (see his inscription in CJS i. 1). 
 (c) By a still bolder figure the punitive wrath of 
 the offended Deity is spoken of as a cup which the 
 guilty, Israelites and heathen alike, must drain to 
 the dregs. So Jer 25° (the wine-cup [of] fury), 
 Ezk 23°, Ts 51177 (‘the cup of trembling’ RY 
 peep ering ), Zee 12? (RV ‘cup of reeling’), Ps 
 75°, Rev 142° 169 188, for all which see the com- 
 mentaries. (d@) Lastly, we have ‘the cup of consola- 
 tion (rorjpior els wapdxdynowv)’ offered to the mourners 
 after the funeral-rites were performed, Jer 167 (cf. 
 Pr 316 and see Commentaries in loc. and Schwally, 
 Das Leben nach d. Tode, § 8). 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 CUPBEARER (pwr).—An officer of considerable 
 importance at Oriental courts, whose duty it was 
 to serve the wine at the table of the king. The 
 first mention of this officer is in the story of 
 Joseph (Gn 40!"), where the term rendered ‘ butler’ 
 (wh. see) in EV is the Heb. word above, ren- 
 dered in other passages cupbearer (Arabic es- 
 sdki). The holder of this office was brought 
 into confidential relations with the king, and must 
 have been thoroughly trustworthy, as part of his 
 duty was to guard against poison in the king’s cup. 
 In some cases he was required to taste the wine 
 before presenting it. The position of Nehemiah as 
 cupbearer to Artaxerxes Longimanus was evidently 
 high. Herodotus (iii. 34) speaks of the office at 
 the court of Cambyses, king of Persia, as ‘an 
 honour of no small account,’ and the uarrative of 
 Neh. shows the high esteem of the king for him, 
 who is so solicitous for his welfare that he asks the 
 cause of his sadness (27). The cupbearers amon 
 the officers of king Solomon’s household (1 K 103) 
 impressed the queen of Sheba, and they are men- 
 tioned among other indications of the grandeur 
 of his court, which was modelled upon courts ot 
 other Oriental kings. The Rabshakeh, who was 
 sent to Hezekiah (2 K 18"), was formerly supposed 
 to have been cupbearer to Sennacherib, but the 
 word (72¥22) means chief of the princes (see Del. 
 on Is 36%, and Sayce, HC p. 441). Among the 
 Assyrians, the cupbearers, like other attendants of 
 the king, were commonly eunuchs, as may be seen 
 from the monuments ; and such was the case gener- 
 ally at Oriental courts. The Persians, however, did 
 not so uniformly employ eunuchs, and probably 
 never so degraded their own people or the Jews 
 who served them. Certainly, Nehemiah was not a 
 eunuch. Herod the Great had a cupbearer who 
 was a eunuch (Jos. Ané. XVI. viii. 1). 
 H. PoRTER. 
 CUPBOARD (kvNlxiov, 1 Mac 15®2).—A sideboard 
 used for the display of gold and silver plate. This 
 is the earliest meaning of cupboard, a board or table 
 for displaying cups and other vessels; cf. Greene 
 (1592), ‘Her mistress ... set all her plate on 
 the cubboorde for shewe.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CURIOUS.—Of the many meanings which once 
 belonged to this word only two now remain, in- 
 uisitive and peculiar. Of these the first is found 
 in Apocr., 2 Es 4% (interrogare) 9" (curiosus esse), 
 Sir 3% (uh mepepydfov, RV ‘Be not over busy’), 
 2 Mac 2” (zroAurparypovetv). In OT curious occurs as 
 a description of ‘the girdle of the ephod’ in Ex 
 28%: 37. 28 95. BOS. 20. a1 8’, for which RV sub- 
 stitutes ‘cunningly woven,’ Amer. RV ‘skilfully 
 woven.’ ‘Curious girdle’ (AV) or ‘cunningl 
 woven band’ (RV) represents one word in Moun 
 avn héshebh, which comes from 1¥n hdshabh, to 
 think, devise, invent ingenious or artistic things; 
 whence also 1¥n Aéshébh, tr4 ‘cunning workman’; 
 and a3~%n2 mahdshdbhah, device, invention, tré 
 ‘curious works,’ Ex 35%? (RV ‘cunning works’). 
 
534 CURSE 
 
 CURSE 
 
 
 
 ‘Crafty,’ ‘cunning,’ and ‘curious’ were all used 
 formerly in the sense of clever, ingenious; cf. 
 Barbour (1375), Bruce, x. 359— 
 
 ‘A crafty man and a curiouss’; 
 
 and as a good parallel to the passages in Ex, 
 Shaks. Cymb. v. v. 361— 
 * He, sir, was lapp’d 
 
 In a most curious mantle, wrought by the hand 
 
 Of his queen mother.’ 
 The same thought is found in Ps 139% ‘I was 
 made in secret, and curiously wrought in the 
 lowest parts of the earth.’ The Heb. here (‘n>p)) 
 means ‘variegated’; ‘the body or the fetus is 
 described as woven together of so many different- 
 coloured threads, like a cunning and beautiful 
 network or tapestry ’"—Perowne. 
 
 The only other occurrence of ‘curious’ is in 
 Ac 19” ‘c. arts,’ meaning ‘magical arts,’ as RVm 
 (Gr. rd weplepya, lit. ‘superfluous things,’ ‘things 
 better left alone’ (Page); cf. Sir 3% above, and 
 see BusyBODY). ‘Curious’ here is due to Wyclif, 
 ‘curiouse thingis,’ a literal tr. of Vulg. curiosa; 
 Tindale, ‘c. crafts’; Geneva, ‘c. artes’(Vulg. marg. 
 curiosas artes), From this place it has passed into 
 English literature, as Bacon, Hssays, 35, ‘the Q. 
 Mother, who was een to Curious Arts, caused 
 the King her Husbands Nativitie, to be Calcu- 
 lated, under a false Name.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 CURSE.—Under this title an account is given of 
 the ideas connected primarily with the Heb. words 
 o7n7 and o1 (hérem), and with the Gr. word 
 dvddepua (anathema), so far as it is representative of 
 the latter. The Heb. words are variously rendered 
 in AV: ‘the accursed thing’ in Jos7! 1° ; ‘every- 
 thing devoted’ in Nu 18; ‘every dedicated’ thing 
 in Ezk 44”; ‘and I will consecrate their spoil’ in 
 Mic 4%, RV has in all these places ‘devote’ or 
 ‘devoted thing’; where the object is personal, it 
 has usually ‘utterly destroy’ (see Driver on Dt 2% 
 7? or Sam. p. 100f.). A thing which is 07n is irre- 
 vocably withdrawn from common use. This may be 
 done in two ways, or at least may have two kinds 
 of result. In the one case, the devoted thing be- 
 comes God’s; it falls irredeemably to Him, or to 
 His sanctuary or His priests. In this sense, as has 
 been pointed out, to ‘devote’ a thing is to make 
 a peculiar kind of vow concerning it. The most 
 instructive passage, in illustration of this sense, is 
 Ly 272. * No devoted thing, that a man shall devote 
 unto the Lord of all that ra hath, whether of man 
 or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be 
 sold or redeemed : every devoted thing is most holy 
 unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be 
 devoted from among men, shall be ransomed ; he 
 shall surely be put to death.’ In the second and 
 third of the posses quoted above (Nu 184, Ezk 
 44”), it is sai expressly that every devoted thing 
 in Israel is the priest's: this might include the 
 spoil of conquered nations, carried into the temple 
 treasury, as ak in Mic 4", or property of an 
 other description which a man irrevocab] shenated: 
 But the last words in Lv 27* (he shall surely be 
 put to death) point to the second, and much the 
 commoner, use of the words onn7 and ow. To 
 ‘devote’ a thing means to put it under the ban, to 
 make and to execute a vow of extermination, so 
 far as that thing is concerned. It is this meaning 
 that has occasioned the Eng. rendering for o77— 
 the accursed thing. Whatever is devoted to utter 
 destruction is regarded as under a curse. Things 
 which are so devoted are in a sense inviolable; in 
 the old, morally neutral sense of holiness, it may 
 be said that a peculiar degree of holiness attaches 
 to them. The thing called o7n is at the same time 
 mn"? ow]? Wp (compare the seemingly opp. mean- 
 (ngs of sacer in Latin, and the idea of ae It 
 
 was common in ancient warfare to ‘devote,’ or put 
 under the ban, the enemy and anything oreverything 
 which*belonged to him. All wars were holy wars; 
 warriors were consecrated (Is 13); and the ban, 
 which seemed natural in the circumstances, might 
 be of greater or less extent. In Dt 2*, which 
 speaks of the conquest of Sihon’s kingdom, we are 
 told that Israel ‘utterly destroyed (devoted) every 
 inhabited city, with the women and the little ones,’ 
 and the same terrible account is given in Dt 3° of 
 Og ana Bashan. In Dt 7? this is even laid down 
 as the law for the conduct of the sacred war against 
 the Canaanites. But it is only human beings that 
 are here put under the ban: ‘The cattle we took 
 for a prey unto ourselves, with the spoil of the 
 cities which we had taken.’ In some cases the 
 ban was more stringent. In Dt 7” it is specially 
 extended to the precious metal on the images of 
 the Canaanites: this is an abomination to J”; and 
 ‘thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy 
 house, and become a devoted thing (079) like it... 
 for it is a devoted thing.’ It was a ban, or curse, 
 of this stringent type which Achan violated at the 
 conquest of Jericho, and Hiel the Bethelite, long 
 afterwards, when he rebuilt the town. He who 
 appropriates what is 077, as Achan did, becomes 
 himself (Dt 7%, Jos 618) on: the ban, or sentence of 
 extermination, is extended to him, and he is ruth- 
 lessly destroyed, with all the persons and propert 
 
 that attach to him. It was a similar ban whic 
 
 Saul violated, or allowed the people to violate, in 
 the war with Amalek ; and his action is represented 
 as equally serious, though not followed on the 
 instant by such tragical results. In point of fact, 
 it was not practicable for the Israelites to ‘devote’ 
 the Canaanites wholesale (1 K 97); and the pro- 
 clamation of ruthless warfare, under the auspices of 
 a god, was no peculiarity of theirs. The same thing 
 is affirmed of the Assyrians in 2 K 19", and of Mesha 
 on the Moabite stone. It is more interesting to 
 note that God Himself is sometimes the subject 
 who proclaims this war, or pronounces this sentence 
 of destruction. Thus in Is 34? ‘The Lord hath 
 indignation against all the nations... He hath 
 devoted them (0997), He hath given them up to 
 
 the slaughter.’ So in v.5 Edom is ‘oyroy the. 
 
 people whom I have devoted. And in Mal 4° God 
 threatens to come and lay the earth under a ban. 
 
 It is usual to point to Ezr 108 as an instance 
 
 marking the transition between the ancient and 
 awful use of 0175, and that post-biblical use in 
 which it is equivalent to Excommunication. We 
 are told here that all the substance of a man 
 who did not answer a certain summons should be 
 forfeited (02n:), and he himself separated (573:) from 
 the congregation. Probably this is the first trace of 
 Jewish ecclesiastical usages, of which hints are to 
 be found in NT in such passages as Mt 18”, Jn 9% 
 12% 162, Lk 6, Though such usages, no doubt, 
 would influence the practice of the Christian 
 Church, it is not likely that they have anything to 
 do with that ‘delivermg’ of offenders ‘to Satan,’ 
 of which we read in 1 Co 5°,1 Ti 1% The sug- 
 ede in both these cases, and especially in the 
 irst, which has been interpreted of a sentence of 
 death, is rather of a severity resembling that of the 
 ancient ‘ban’; but with the significant difference, 
 that in both the purpose of this solemn exclusion 
 from the Christian community is remedial. Both 
 the incestuous person at Corinth, and Hymenzus 
 and Alexander in Asia, are to profit eventually by 
 their discipline. 
 
 The true succession to 77 is represented in NT b 
 those passagesin which dvd0eua (Anathema) is found. 
 This is the usual LX X rendering of the word. Thus 
 in Dt 7* referred to above, theGr. is dvd0epa éoy Horep 
 kal robro: thou shalt be ‘ accursed’ like the accursed 
 thing which thou takest. Cf. Jos 6%, Zec 144, 
 
 
 
 
 
CURSE 
 
 CUSH 535 
 
 een = 
 
 Even the place-name Hormah (Nu 218) is rendered 
 avdfeua; a variant is étodé@pevors. In NT the word 
 is used only by St. Luke and St. Paul (Rev 22% 
 uotes Zec 14", but with the form xard@eua). In 
 ¢ 2312: 14.21 we read of men who ‘ dva@éuart dveJeua- 
 tigapev éavrovs’—bound themselves with impre- 
 cations on their own heads—neither to eat nor to 
 drink till they had killed-Paul. The same verb is 
 used in Mk 147 with éuvivac to describe Peter’s 
 profane denial of Christ: he wished he might be 
 cursed or damned if he knew the man. But the 
 serious passages are in St. Paul. In 1 Co 12° we 
 have, No man speaking in the spirit of God says, 
 Jesus is dvd@eua. This may mean that no man 
 speaking in the spirit of God can do what Paul 
 once tried to get Christians to do—blaspheme 
 Christ, i.e. speak profanely of Him, without defining 
 more precisely how (Ac 26"). Or it may mean 
 that no one speaking in the spirit of God can 
 speak of Christ as an object of hatred to God, as 
 ews with the cross in their minds might do. For 
 illustrations of the prerenee see Edwards, ad loc, 
 (Com. on 1 Cor.), and Harnack’s note on Didache, 
 Xvi. 5 (dm’ adrot rod KaraGéuaros). In Ro 9? St. Paul 
 says he could wish himself to be dvdéeua from 
 Christ for his brethren’s sake. This is exactly the 
 p30 of OT: he could wish to perish that they might 
 be saved—‘a spark from the fire of Christ’s sub- 
 stitutionary love.’ It is only the other side of 
 this passion which is seen in the other passages 
 where the word is used: 1 Co 16%, Gal 1%. ‘If 
 any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him 
 be dvd0eua’: the apostle assents to God’s will that 
 no part in bliss, but only utter perdition, can be 
 his who does not love the Saviour. So again, 
 when he says, and says deliberately and repeatedly, 
 of the man or the angel who preaches another 
 poepel than he has preached, ‘let him be dvdé0eua,’ 
 e expresses in the strongest possible style his 
 assurance that the gospel he preaches is the one 
 way of salvation, that to preach another is to make 
 the grace of God vain, to stultify the death of 
 Christ and to delude men, and that for such sins 
 there can be nothing but a final irremediable 
 jud. ent, to which he assents. The vehemence 
 1s like that with which Christ says, that better than 
 a man should make one of His little ones stumble 
 would it be for that man to have a millstone 
 hanged about his neck, and be cast into the depths of 
 the sea. In both cases the passion of indignation is 
 the passion of sympathy with the love of God, and 
 with the weak, to whom an irreparable injury is 
 being done. 
 
 The word ‘curse’ is also used in the English 
 Bible as the tr. of 7777 and xardpa. The interest 
 of this centres in the passage Gal 3-8, and in the 
 ref. there to Dt 21%. The non-observance of the 
 law, St. Paul teaches, puts men (some limit it to 
 the Jews) under a curse; from this curse Christ 
 redeems them by becoming Himself a curse (xardpa) 
 on their behalf. The proof that Christ did become 
 a curse is given in the form of a reference to the 
 Crucifixion: it is written, ‘cursed is every one 
 that hangeth on a tree’ (Dt 21%). The Heb. is 
 idx nbbp, the LXX xexarnpapévos iwd Geod; and it 
 has been often remarked that St. Paul does not 
 introduce ‘ by God’ into his quotation. Some seem 
 to think that he shrank from doing it, as if it 
 would have been equivalent to saying dvddeya 
 "Incods. But he does not shrink from saying that 
 God made Christ to be sin for us (2 Co 5%), which, 
 in its identification of Christ with, or its substi- 
 tution of Christ for, the sinner, is exactly the 
 same as His becoming a curse in Gal 3%. The 
 important thing is not that St. Paul omits the bd 
 Geov, but that, as Cremer remarks, he avoids the 
 
 rsonal xexarnpayévos of the LXX, and employs 
 
 e abstract xardépa. In His death on the cross He 
 
 was identified under God’s dispensation with the 
 doom of sin: He became curse for us; and it is on 
 this our redemption depends. See Cross. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Besides the comm. on the various 
 quoted, see Merx in Schenkel, Bibel-Lez. s.v. ‘Bann’; Ewald, 
 Ant. of Isr. pp. 78-79 (Eng. tr.); Smend, A.7’,, Religionsgeschichte, 
 § 334; W. R. Smith, RS, p. 434f.; Weber, Die hren des 
 Talmud, 137-139 ; Schiirer, HIP w. i 608, 157. 
 
 J. DENNEY. 
 
 CURTAIN.—1. The ordinary tent of the Semitic 
 nomad, in modern times, is made by sewing to- 
 gether a number of narrow lengths of a water- 
 resisting material, as a rule cloth woven from yarn 
 of goats’ and camels’ hair mixed with sheeps’ 
 wool. And so it must have been in ancient times.* 
 Hence we read of a Heb. country maid being 
 ‘black as the tents of Kedar’ (Ca 15). The name 
 of these lengths of tent-cloth was in the Heb. nippy 
 (AV and RV ‘curtains’). The weaving of them, as 
 well as the preren spinning of the yarn, was and 
 is one of the chief occupations of the women of 
 the tribe (Ex 35%; Palmer, Desert of the 
 Exodus, i. pp. 81, 125; Doughty, see footnote). 
 With a more advanced civilization men also took 
 to weaving as a trade (1 Ch 4#!); indeed this 
 particular branch, the weaving of goats’ hair cloth, 
 is well known to have been one of the staple 
 industries of Tarsus, which has led many scholars 
 to interpret oxnvorods (Ac 18°) as ‘a weaver of tent- 
 cloth’ (see art. ‘ Paulus’ in PRE? xi. 359).+ In OT 
 we find that ten of these yéri‘éth or curtains, of 
 special width and workmanship, were to be 
 ‘coupled together,’ in two sets of five, to form the 
 innermost covering of the tabernacle proper (the 
 Mishkan), as given in detail Ex 26'%-, Above this 
 was @ more ordinary covering, composed of eleven 
 curtains of the usual goats’ hair, and constituting 
 the bak or tent of the tabernacle (Ex 267), For 
 further particulars about these curtains see TABER- 
 NACLE. Yéri'éth is also used in OT of the curtains 
 or tent-cloth of ordinary nomad tents (Jer 49”) and 
 of the gala-tents of king Solomon (Cal), and often 
 stands in poetic parallelism with 77% ‘tent,’ Is 54%, 
 Jer 4° 10%, Hab 37. The sing. ny: is even used of 
 the tent erected by David for the ark on Mt. 
 Zion, 28 7? (LXX év peop ris oxnvijs, but 1 Ch 17} 
 niy’m plur.). 
 
 2. fh AV the portitre (792) which closed the 
 entrance to the Holy Place of the tabernacle, and 
 is elsewhere in AV tr@ ‘hanging,’ is once rendered 
 curtain (Nu 375), The same Heb. word is also 
 applied to the similar curtain at the entrance of the 
 court of the tabernacle. The uniform tr®in RV 
 is ‘screen,’ even when the name is applied to the 
 ‘veil of the screen’ which separated the Holy 
 Place from the Holy of Holies, cf. Ex 26% 351? etc. 
 See further TABERNACLE. 
 
 8. Is 40% the word tr‘ curtain (p54) seems from its 
 etymology to denote some fine material such as 
 gauze (so RVm, Dillm., Duhm). 
 
 4, In the Book of Judith we read of Holofernes 
 possessing a very magnificent xwywretoy (EV 
 ‘canopy, Jth 107 13% 15 161%) ‘of purple and gold 
 and emerald and precious stones inwoven.’ This, 
 as the name and the context of 107 imply, must 
 have been a mosquito-curtain. See CANOPY. 
 
 A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 CUSH (w:3).—1. In the hieroglyphs Kash, Kaish, 
 Kish, Keshi, Kesh, or Kesha, a nation to which 
 frequent reference is made in the Bible. Its 
 
 *‘The tent-stuff is seamed of narrow lengths of the house- 
 wives’ rude worsted weaving; the yarn is their own spinning, 
 of the mingled wool of the sheep and camels’ and goats’ hair 
 together. Thus it is that the cloth is blackish,’ Doughty, 
 Arabia Deserta, i. p. 225. 
 
 + cxnvoroés, loc. cit., is more probably a synonym of sree: 
 one who prepared and put together the lengths supplied 6 
 weavers. See Ramsay and Nestle in Hapos. Times, viii. (1807) 
 109, 153, 286. 
 

 
 536 CUSH 
 
 CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM 
 
 
 
 founder is given in the ethnological tables of Gn 
 (10°) as son of Ham, and brother of Mizraim 
 (Egypt), Put, and Canaan. Though the form Kush is 
 not found in the hieroglyphs, there is no doubt of 
 the identity of the nation ordinarily referred to in 
 the Bible, and located by Ezk 29! S. of Egypt, with 
 the Kesh, whose home was in Ethiopia, but who 
 were known to the Hebrews through the prominent 
 part they pled in Egyp. affairs. This country, 
 ‘embracing the territories 8. of Egypt originally 
 inhabited by negro tribes called Nahs. u’ (Brugsch, 
 Geographie der Nachbarlander Aigyptens, p. 4), 
 and extending S. from the first cataract, though 
 repeatedly invaded by Egyp. kings of the early 
 ee was formally enrolled in Egypt by 
 
 ahutmes I. of the 18th dynasty, and put under a 
 governor called the prince of Kesh (Egyp. seten-si 
 en Kesh, king’s-son of Cush), who from the 18th 
 dynasty regularly figures in the Egyp. records by the 
 side of the king of Egypt. Somey tare about 1000 
 B.C., during the wars Between the high priests of 
 Amon (descendants of Hrihor) and the Tahites, the 
 Upper Nile was lost to Egypt, and it is probable that 
 descendants of Hrihor, escaping to Napata, on Mt. 
 Barkal (according to some authorities, the Heb. 43, 
 which is more probably to be identified with Mem- 
 phis), founded a dynasty. These kings took the same 
 titles as the Egyp. monarchs ; at about B.C. 800, at 
 the end of the reign of Sheshonk I1., they occupied 
 Thebes ; and about 775, under the king Pi‘anchi, 
 they had spread as far 8. as Hermopolis, while all 
 important towns had Eth. garrisons. An attempt 
 made by Tefnaht of Sais (whose name survives in Gr. 
 authors under the form Tvé¢ax0os) to unite the petty 
 ers under whose rule Lower Egypt had now 
 allen, in resisting them, was defeated at Memphis, 
 (the great stele of Pi'anchi, edited by Mariette, 
 Monuments Divers, and tr.by Brugsch, Gesch. Zgyp. 
 §82-707, in which this event is described, is one of 
 the most important of the hierog] phicmonuments), 
 although for reasons not known Pi anchi afterwards 
 made terms with Tefnaht, whose son Bokenranf, or 
 Bocchoris, is represented by Manetho as the founder 
 of the 24th dynasty. During the reign of this 
 king (about B.C. 728), a successor of Pi‘anchi (prob- 
 ably after some intermediate reigns), Shabaka, 
 son of Kashtu, called in the Bible mo So’ (2 K 174, 
 which should rather be read Sava, representing the 
 name without the definite article), himself on the 
 mother’s side a descendant of Osorkon III. of the 
 23rd dynasty, invaded Lower Egypt, defeated Boc- 
 choris, and put him to death; and, unlike his 
 predecessor Pi'anchi, succeeded in obtaining a per- 
 manent hold on the country, whence he and his two 
 successors are regarded as constituting a 25th, or 
 Eth. dynasty. he conspiracy between this king 
 and Hosea of Isr. against the Assyr. led to the defeat 
 of the former at Raphia in 720, and to the captivity 
 of the ten tribes; and the identification of Egypt 
 with Ethiopia at this time is alluded to in Is 7%, 
 where the ‘ fly that is in the uttermost part of the 
 river of Egypt,’ t.e. Ethiopia, is made co-ordinate 
 with Assyria as a first-rate power; and in Is 20*: the 
 names Cush and Mizraim are used assynonyms. (See 
 especially Lenormant, ‘Mémoire sur |’époque Eth.’ 
 Rev. Archéologique, 1870). Under Shabaka’s son 
 Shabataka, or Sebichos (perhaps the Sab¢eca of Gn 
 107), it is probable that anarchy again broke out in 
 the Delta, a state of things reflected in the prophecy 
 of Is19. The king Shabataka, who had acceded in 
 716, was followed in 704 by Taharka (the apa of the 
 Bible, 2 K 19°), who is said to have murdered his 
 predecessor and to have married Shabaka’s widow, 
 acknowledging her son as co-regent. As in 2 K 19° 
 he is officially described as king of Cush only, it is 
 probable that his authority was not at first 
 
 recognized in Egypt. During his reign occurred the 
 famous conspiracy which led to Sennacherib’s 
 
 invasion of Pal., terminating most probably in the 
 defeat of the Egyp. forces at Altaku, although, as 
 the Assyr. were unable to follow up their victory, 
 eace was made between the two powers, givi 
 aharka time to consolidate his authority; unti! ia 
 671 a fresh quarrel with the Assyr. led to the in- 
 vasion of Egypt by Esarhaddon, who conquered the 
 country as far S. as Thebes ; and a fresh attempt of 
 Taharka to turn out the Assyr. at the accession of 
 Assurbanipal in 668 led only to a fresh invasion and 
 renewed disasters in the following year. Taharka’s 
 son and successor Tanuatama, or Urdamani, who 
 acceded in 664, would seem to have made one 
 more attempt to free the country from the Assyr., 
 but without more success than his predecessogs, 
 and in the following year the Eth. rule came 
 finally to anend. Their own country was invaded by 
 Cambyses in B.C. 525, whence in the lists of Darius 
 the Cushiya figure as a subject race. Though the 
 Persians could not permanently occupy the country, 
 they would seem to have destroyed Napata, the 
 chief town after this time being Meroé or Barua, 
 slightly N. of Shendi on the Upper Nile, which 
 Herodotus regards as the chief city, although 
 Napata was long regarded as the sacred city. The 
 ancients tell us about the elective nature of the 
 Eth. monarchy, their statements being, in part, 
 confirmed by the monuments of Napata; and it 
 would seem that the kings were chosen out of 
 certain families by the god, #.e. by the priests, who 
 also had the right to command the king to put an 
 end to his life if they thought fit—a right which 
 was finally abolished by king Erkamon, or Erga- 
 menes, early in the 3rd cent. B.c. This custom, 
 which has been illustrated from the practice of 
 tribes still existing in Africa, may be regarded as 
 specifically Eth., as also the female rule, which at 
 most periods of Eth. history seems to have had 
 theoretical or practical recognition ; in Rom. times 
 they were governed by queens, called always Can- 
 dace (cf. Ac 8”), apparently associated with their 
 sons ; but even in their earlier history the import- 
 ant position given to the kings’ mothers and sisters 
 anticipates this practice. Otherwise, Eth. culture, 
 art, and religion, as well as the official Bay ros 
 would seem to have been directly borrowed from 
 Egypt ; and while the idea that Egyp. culture was 
 Eth. in origin must be distinctly rejected, the 
 theory of Lepsius, that the Cush were the nation 
 who circulated that culture through the ancient 
 world, would seem to rest on no secure foundation. 
 2. The fact that Cush in Gn 10° is represented as 
 the father of Nimrod, probably comes from the 
 confusion of the Kesh with the Cossei, or Kashshu, 
 a tribe who had possession of Babylonia between 
 the 16th and 13th cent. B.c.* 3. For the names of 
 the sons of Cush in Gn 10’, see SEBA, HAVILAH, 
 SABTAH, RAAMAH, and SABTACA. 
 D. 8. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 CUSH (v1, LXX Xovcel).—Mentioned only in the 
 title of Ps 7. The older translators appear to 
 have read 3 (Aq. Symm. Theod. Jer.). ‘As the 
 name of a person, the word is of uncertain mean- 
 ing’ (Delitzsch). Cush is described as a Benjamite, 
 and was probably a follower of Saul who opposed 
 David. The seventh psalm sheds no light on name, 
 person, or character. W. T. DAVISON. 
 
 CUSHAN - RISHATHAIM (o:nyy  jwi2, Kovoapea- 
 6diz, AV Chushan-rishathaim), king of Mesopo- 
 
 * Hommel, however (Expository Times [1897], viii. 878) would 
 regard the tribe mentioned here as one existing in Oentral 
 Arabia, to which he finds further reference in 2 Ch 149, where 
 Zerah the Cushite is said to have invaded Judah in the days of 
 Asa (cf. LXX both here and in 2 Ch 2116, where he finds the 
 Arab, tribe Mecovira:, Mazin, mentioned), The name Zerah es 
 Dirrih) is found as a title of early Sabwan kings. It 
 
 doubted, however, if the LXX readings really preserve either 
 the original text or an ancient tradition respecting its meaning. 
 
 
 
 
 
CUSHI, CUSHITE 
 
 
 
 tamia or Aram-naharaim, was the first of those 
 oppressors into whose hands God delivered Israel 
 for their apostasy in the days of the Judges 
 (Jg 3°"). For eight years they were in bondage 
 to this king, till they were delivered by Caleb’s 
 younger brother Othniel. Of Cushan-rishathaim 
 nothing more is known directly, and his name has 
 not yet been found on the monuments. The 
 country over which he ruled, ‘Aram of the Two 
 Rivers,’ was in all probability the territory lying 
 between the Euphrates and the Chaboras, the last 
 of the tributaries of the Great River. (See Aram- 
 naharaim in art. ARAM, p. 138.) Its two cities 
 mentioned in Scripture are Haran (Gn 28!) and 
 Pethor (Dt 234, Nu 225), It is known as Nahrina on 
 the Egyptian monuments, and Nahrima in the Tel 
 el-Amarna tablets, the native name of its people 
 being Mitanni. Sayce (the soundness of whose 
 argument, however, is denied by Moore and 
 Driver) finds a remarkable correspondence between 
 the notice of Cushan-rishathaim in Jg and the 
 history of the reign of Ramses 11. ‘The eight 
 years, he says, ‘during which the king of Aram- 
 naharaim oppressed Israel would exactly agree 
 with the interval between the beginning of the 
 Libyan attack upon Egypt and the campaign 
 of the Pharaoh against By a. We know from 
 
 the Egyptian records that Mitanni of Aram- 
 naharaim took part in the invasion of Egypt; we 
 also know from them that the king of Mitanni 
 
 was not among those who actually marched into 
 the Delta. He participated in the southward move- 
 ment of the peoples of the north, and nevertheless 
 lingered on the way. What is more probable 
 than that he again sought to secure that dominion 
 in Canaan which’ had belonged to some of his 
 predecessors?’ See further OTHNIEL. 
 
 Lrrsraturs.—Moore, Judges . 84-89; Driver, Contemp. 
 Ree (1804), p. 4202. ; Bayce, HCM, pp. a71-204, fe 
 . NICOL. 
 
 CUSHI, CUSHITE (-¢39, 'y:2n).—The word occurs 
 with the article in Nu 12!, 2S 182; without the 
 article in Jer 36", Zeph 14. 1. With the article it 
 is probably merely an expression of nationality, 
 ‘the Cushite’ (see CusH). That in both instances 
 it was a sufficient designation of the person in 
 
 estion, seems to show that there were but few 
 Gushites among the Israelites. In both, the forei 
 character of the person intended is indicated by 
 the narrative. It was looked upon asa disgrace 
 that Moses should have married a Cushite. In 
 25S 18” the stranger is unacquainted with the 
 short-cut made use of by Ahimaaz. 2. Without the 
 article the word is used merely as a proper name. 
 It is borne by (1) the great-grandfather of Jehudi, 
 the latter one of Jehoiakim’s courtiers (Jer 3614) ; 
 (2) the father of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph 1). 
 
 F. H. Woops. 
 
 CUSTOM (ré\os, Mt 17%, Ro 137, comp. 1 Mac 
 10# 11*), toll, tax upon goods, generally ad valorem, 
 as distinguished from «jyoos and ¢épos, tribute, 
 an annual tax on houses, lands, and persons. 
 Custom ordinarily went into the treasury of the 
 native government. Thus in Palestine the Herods 
 in Galilee and Perza received the custom, whereas 
 in Judea it was paid to the procurator for behoof 
 of the Roman government. The custom (rédos) 
 was collected by the tax-gatherer (reAwv7s). For 
 full details see PUBLICAN and TAXES. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 CUTH, CUTHAH (ams, ma; B Xovvdd, Xové; 
 A Xovd).—One of the cities from which Sargon 
 brought colonists to take the place of the Israelites 
 whom he had deported from Samaria, B.c. 722 
 (2 K 17%), These colonists intermingled with 
 the Israelite inhabitants who were left by Sar- 
 
 m; and their descendants, the Samaritans, were 
 Im consequence termed by the Jews Cuthzans 
 
 CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH 537 
 
 = 
 
 (oma). According to the old Arabic geographers, 
 Cuthah was situated not far from Babylon, and 
 there seem to have been two cities of the same 
 name close to each other (de Sacy, Chrest. Arab. 
 i. 331). This view as to the site of Cuthah is 
 borne out by the Assyrian inscriptions, from which 
 we learn that Kuti (or Kuti) was a city of 
 Middle-Babylonia. It has now been identified 
 with the modern Tell-Jbrahim, N.E. of Babylon, 
 where remains of the temple of Nergal (cf. v.™) 
 have been discovered (see Schrader, COT, i. 270 f.). 
 Cuthah has also been identified as the name 
 of a country near Kurdistan, possibly = Ur 
 Kasdim (Gn 118')—Neubauer, Géogr. p. 379 ; while 
 others consider ‘Cutheans’ to be another form of 
 ‘Cosseans,’ a tribe dwellin 
 vince Jutipa, the modern 
 mouth of ihe Tigris. 
 
 CUTHA (A Kovéd, B om., AV Coutha), 1 Es 5%, 
 —His sons were among the temple servants who 
 returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel. There is 
 no corresponding name in the lists of Ezra and 
 Neh. The name may be taken from the Babylonian 
 town Cuthah or Cuth (2 K 17%), 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH.—i. In the legisla- 
 tion of Dt (D) and in the corpus known as the 
 ‘Law of Holiness’ (H), the Hebrews are for- 
 bidden to ‘cut themselves’ (17!pn X> Dt_14) or 
 to ‘make any cutting’ (lit. an incision pqy Lv 19%, 
 nowy Lv 215, LXX évrouls) in their flesh ‘for the 
 dead.’ The prohibition in question is aimed at 
 one of the most widely-spread tokens of grief at 
 the loss of relatives or friends. To scratch and 
 beat one’s self to the effusion of blood, nay, to 
 gash and hack one’s self of set purpose, may be 
 said to be an all but universal custom among un- 
 civilized and semi-civilized races at the present 
 day. It must suffice to refer to such well-known 
 works as Waitz’s Anthropologie der Naturvolker 
 (passim), and H. Spencer’s Principles of Sociology, 
 3rd_ ed. vol. i. pp. 163ff., 277, 292, etc. (see also 
 authorities named at the close of this art.). The 
 prevalence of the custom is equally attested for 
 nearly all the nations of antiquity, the Egyptians 
 being the most notable exception (Herod. bk. ii. 
 61, 85; Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. [1854] vol. ii. p. 374). 
 Thus Herodotus tells us that the Scythians of his 
 time on the death of their king ‘ cut off their ears, 
 shear their hair, and make incisions all over (repirdu- 
 vovrat) their arms’ (iv. 71). Xenophon gives a 
 similar account of the Armenians and Assyrians 
 (Cyrop. iii. 1. 13). The legislation of Solon, acc. to 
 Plutarch, forbade the women of Athens to beat 
 themselves to the effusion of blood (duvxds xowro- 
 pévwv.. . ddetrev, Sol. 21), and the same is affirmed 
 of the laws of the Twelve Tables (‘mulieres genas 
 ne radunto’—quoted by Cicero, de Leg. ii. 23). 
 Among the ancient Arabs, further, the practice 
 forbidden at Athens and Rome was associated, 
 as it was among the Heb. (see below), with the 
 cutting off of the hair (Kitab al-Aghdnt, xiv. 101, 
 28—this and other reff. in Wellh. Skizzen, iii. 
 160f.). Thus the poet Lebid ‘says to his daughters, 
 When I die, do not scratch your faces or shave oft 
 
 our hair,’ xxi. 4 [ed. Huber and Brockelmann].* 
 
 he earliest reference to this custom of making 
 cuttings in the flesh among the Hebrews is in what 
 appears to be the orig. reading in Hos 7!* (see RVm), 
 where several MSS (see De Rossi, Var. Lectt. 
 Vet. Test. in loc.) have yan, which was also 
 the reading of the Greek translators (xararép- 
 vovrat). It was widely prevalent in the time 
 of Jeremiah, not only among his countrymen of 
 the South (16°) and those of the central highlands 
 
 * Quoted by Driver, Comm. on Deut. 141, p. 156, froma MS 
 note of the late Professor W. R. Smith. 
 
 in the Persian pro- 
 Chuzistan, E. of the 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
588 CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH 
 
 
 
 (415), but also among the neighbouring Philistines 
 (47°), and Moabites ‘upon all the hands shall be 
 cuttings’ ni773 48%, The passages cited, taken along 
 with the abundant evidence for the usually associ- 
 ated practice of shaving the head (Am 8”, Is 3% 
 15722, Mic 118, Jer 48°”, Ezk 718), clearly prove that 
 the customs in question were universally practised 
 by the Hebrews in pre-exilic times. And further, 
 the remarkable phraseology of Is 2213 ‘J” called to 
 weeping and to mourning and to baldness’ (with 
 which cf. Mic 1%), seems to show that the prohibi- 
 tion of D was unknown in the age of Hezekiah. 
 The attitude of this code to both the above-men- 
 tioned practices is very decided : ‘ Ye shall not cut 
 yourselves, nor make any baldness between your 
 eyes for the dead’ (Dt 14'). H, incorporated in 
 the priestly legislation of P, re-states the pro- 
 hibition in more technical language, both for the 
 people generally (Lv 19%) and @ fortiors for the 
 priests in particular (21°). 
 
 ii. When we inquire as to the raison @étre of 
 these prohibitions we find considerable difference 
 of opinion. We may, however, at once set aside 
 as entirely inadequate the view that their purpose 
 was to restrain that exuberance of emotion which 
 the Hebrews shared with other Oriental peoples ; in 
 other words, to prohibit certain extravagant mani- 
 festations of grief as such. To say, for example, 
 that ‘the practices here (Dt 14") named.seem to be 
 forbidden . . . because such excesses of grief would 
 be inconsistent in those who as children of a 
 heavenly Father had prospects beyond this world’ 
 (Speaker’s Comm. on Dt 141), is quite unscientific, 
 inasmuch as considerations are here introduced 
 altogether foreign to this stage of revelation. 
 Nor yet is it sufficient to regard these prohibitions 
 —for we must remember that artificial baldness 
 and tattooing the skin (see below) stand in the 
 same category with the more drastic cuttings in the 
 flesh—as primarily directed against the disfigure- 
 ment of the human body which is God’s handi- 
 work. It cannot be denied that both the explana- 
 tions just adduced have a certain amount of force 
 and truth, but they do not seem to reach the original 
 significance of the prohibitions in question. 
 
 n our search for the real origin of the latter, two 
 points have to be kept in mind: both the cuttings 
 and the baldness are expressly stated to be ‘for 
 the dead,’ and, not less explicitly, to be incom- 
 patible with Israel’s unique relation to J”, a 
 relation at once of sonship (Dt 41’) and of con- 
 secration ("> wip 14%). Now it is admitted on all 
 hands (1) that such mutilations of the body as are 
 here condemned have in almost all countries 
 formed part of the religious rites of heathenism. 
 And, in particular, they must have been familiar 
 enough in the Pal. of those days where such self- 
 inflicted bloodshed formed part of the everyday 
 ritual of the Canaanite Baal (see 1 K 18”, the only 
 passage not already cited where the Heb. word has 
 this signification, and note ‘after their manner’). 
 (2) Both the shedding of the blood and the dedica- 
 tion of the hair are found, as we have seen, in the 
 most intimate connexion with the ritual of heathen 
 burial and the belief in the necessity of propitiat- 
 ing the spirit of the deceased. Thus (to give but 
 a single example) we are told that ‘a Samoan 
 ceremony, on the occasion of a decease, was “ beat- 
 ing the head with stones till the blood runs” ; 
 and this they called ‘‘an offering of blood” for 
 the dead’ (quoted from Turner’s Samoa by Spencer, 
 Princip. of Sociol. P. 166). 
 
 In view of the facts now stated, we are led to 
 the conclusion that both the tokens of grief pro- 
 hibited by the Heb. legislation were so prohibited 
 because they carried with them associations of a 
 character incompatible with the pure religion of J”. 
 Whether we hold with Stade and others that a 
 
 CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH 
 
 developed _ancestor-worship was practised by the 
 primitive Hebrews or not, there can be little doubt 
 that the gashing of the body and the shaving of 
 the head as practised by the Semitic peoples gener- 
 ally must, in the last resort, be traced to the desire 
 to propleyis the manes of the departed, and ‘to 
 make an enduring covenant with the dead’ (W. R. 
 Smith, RS p. 305). But while we are forced by 
 the evidence to this conclusion as to the ultimate 
 origin of the practices in question, we would not 
 have it supposed that any such animistic concep- 
 tion was present to the minds of the contempor- 
 aries of Isaiah and Jeremiah. In nothing is man- 
 kind so conservative as in all that concerns the 
 respect due to the dead, and so, to the spiritually- 
 minded at least, the practices prohibited were but 
 the wonted outward signs of excessive grief. All 
 excesses, then—so we conclude—such as making 
 incisions in the hand (Jer 48%) or other part of the 
 body to the effusion of blood, and shaving the 
 head in whole or in part, were strictly forbidden 
 by the daisies of D and of H, not merely or 
 even chiefly gud excesses, but as being alike in 
 origin and association unworthy of those who had 
 attained to the dignity of the sons of J”. 
 
 ili. Under the head of ‘ cuttings in the flesh’ falls 
 to be considered also the particular practice for- 
 bidden in Ly 19> [Ye shall not] ‘ print any marks 
 (yayp ngnz, LXX ypdupuara ord, Vulg. stigmata) 
 uponyou.’ The expression does not occur elsewhere, 
 but we may be sure that the reference is to the 
 ancient and widely-spread custom of tattooing or 
 branding. Which of these two modes of marking 
 is to be understood here it is impossible to say with 
 absolute certainty, the verbal stem, ypyp, having 
 both meanings in post-biblical Heb., while the same 
 ambiguity attaches to orifw and its derivatives, 
 orlyya, etc. In favour of tattooing, however, the 
 following may be urged : (1) the exegetical tradi- 
 tion; Rashi, for example, explains the marks in 
 question as made with a needle (Comm. in loc.) 
 (2) the probable origin of the custom, as advocat 
 by the acute author of RS. ‘In Lv 19%, where 
 tattooing is condemned as a heathenish practice, it 
 is immediately associated with incisions in the 
 flesh made in mourning or in honour of the dead, 
 and this suggests that in their ultimate origin the 
 stigmata are nothing more than the permanent 
 scars of punctures made to draw blood for a cere- 
 mony of self-dedication to the deity ’ (p. 316, note 1). 
 
 The best-known illustration of the prevalence of 
 the practice of tattooing or making stigmata in 
 Syria is supplied by the priests of ‘the Syrian 
 goddess’ in Lucian’s treatise of that name, who were 
 tattooed on wrist and neck (ch. 59—on which cf. 
 the classical work of John Spencer, below). Philo 
 (De Monarch. i.) refers to the allied practice of 
 branding, familiar to us in the case of slaves and 
 criminals, as practised by certain misguided idol- 
 worshippers in his own time. In 3 Mace, also, 
 Ptolemy Iv. (Philopator) is represented as havin 
 the contumacious Jews. branded with the ivy-leaf, 
 the symbol of Dionysus (2%). These passages, 
 then, show that it was not an unusual practice to 
 have tattooed or branded in one’s flesh the name or 
 symbol of the deity to whom one was specially 
 devoted—a, practice which at once gives us the true 
 explanation of the interesting passage, Is 44° 
 (another shall mark on his hand ‘ Yahweh’s,’ cf. 
 RVm, also Gal 6" orlypara "Inood). Jewish tradi- 
 tion, we may add, has it that the obscure phrase of 
 the Chronicler with regard to Jehoiakim, ‘that 
 which was found in him’ (2 Ch 368), refers to his 
 breach of the command in Lv 19», letters having 
 been discovered tattooed on his flesh, Pichetey ge 
 the name of some heathen deity (Midrash Levit. 
 fabba 19—quoted by Strack, Comm. tm loc.; 
 Jerome, Quest. Heb. in Paralipom. t.c.). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> 
 
 CYAMON 
 
 CYPRUS 539 
 
 
 
 Here, then, we have another heathen custom 
 forbidden to the worshippers of J”; and the un- 
 mistakable evidence of its unworthy associations 
 being the cause of its prohibition—although in 
 itself a thing indifferent (Dillm. Theol. d. A.T. 
 p. 428)— strengthens the view above advanced 
 as to the historical raison d’étre of the ancient 
 custom, here (Ly 9”) forbidden along with it, as 
 ee incompatible with whole-hearted loyalty 
 
 LITERATURE, — Martin Geier, De Hbreorum Luctu (ed. 8, 
 1683), and (esp. for the stigmata) John Spencer, De Leg. Hebr. 
 (ed. 2, 1686) lib. ii. cap. xili. Lea contra carnis incisuram lata 
 and cap. xiv. Lex stigmata prohibens; Knobel-Dillmann, Exodus- 
 
 iticus on Ly 198; Driver, Deut. on 141; Lightfoot, Gal. on 
 617; W. R. Smith, RS, Lect. ix. ; Schwally, Das Leben nach d. 
 Tode, 1892, Kap. i. §§ 3,5; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. § 23; Nowack, 
 Heb. Arch. i. § 33. See also the works of Waitz and H. Spencer 
 (mentioned above), and Tylor’s Primitive Culture for the customs 
 
 of savage tribes. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 CYAMON (Kvapdy), Jth 7*.—The same as JOK- 
 NEAM, which see. 
 
 CYMBAL.—See Mosic. 
 
 CYPRESS (Ama tirzdh, tlex).—As in the case of 
 the box tree (téashshir), there is nothing in the 
 philology to indicate what tree is signified. The 
 root, which is obsolete in Heb., signifies in Arab. 
 to be strong or hard. The tree is mentioned (Is 
 4414) in connexion with the cedar and the oak. It 
 might be any of the numerous coniferous or cupu- 
 liferous trees of Bible lands, but there is no means 
 of telling which. The LXX gives us no hep the 
 sentence being confused, and not atr. of the Hebrew. 
 The cypress, Cupressus sempervirens, L., is abund- 
 ant, and suitable as to hardness, but we have no 
 certainty that it is intended. Furthermore, it is 
 
 robable that Cupressus sempervirens is the fir. 
 ee Fir. Under iiitas circumstances, the best way 
 would be to transliterate, as in the case of the 
 algum and almug, and call the tree tirzah. 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 CYPRUS lies in the N.E. corner of the Levant 
 (34° 33’—35° 41’ N.. lat., 32° 17’—34° 36’ E. long.), 
 between the convergent coasts of Cilicia and Syria. 
 On its N. coast Cape Kormakiti is only 46 Eng. miles 
 from Cape Anamur, in Cilicia, and its E. extremity, 
 Cape Andrea, only 60 (miles) from Latakia on the 
 Syrian coast. Consequently, the whole line of the 
 Cttician coast is easily visible from the sea-level in 
 
 -» and vice versa, while the Lebanon can be seen 
 at sunrise even from Stavrovini near Larnaka 
 (2260 ft.).* Its greatest breadth, from Cape Gata 
 to Cape Kormakiti, is 60 Eng. miles, and its ex- 
 treme length, from Cape tees to Cape Andrea, 
 is 145; but the latter includes the Karpass pro- 
 montory, which, though 45 miles long, is nowhere 
 more than 10 miles across. The nearly straight 
 N. coast from Cape Kormakiti to Cape Andrea 
 measures about 100 miles. The area of C. is 3707 
 square miles, or about equal to that of Norfolk and 
 Suffolk; it is larger than Corsica or Crete, but 
 smaller than Sicily or Sardinia. 
 
 C. consists of two mountain masses, separated by 
 a broad pane lain: (1) The S.W. half of the 
 island is occupie by a range composed of crystal- 
 line and metalliferous rocks, which in its western 
 and highest section is called Tréodos (6406 ft.), and 
 is continued through Madhari (5305 ft.), Paputsa 
 (5124 ft.), and the Makhaera range (4674 ft.) to the 
 almost isolated Stavrovuni (2260 ft.), about 12 
 mniles from Larnaka. The same rocks reappear in 
 the plateau of limestone and gypsum beds between 
 Larnaka and Famagusta, but never rise to more 
 than 300 ft. (2) The Messaoria or ‘midland’ 
 
 * Of. Is 231, where the homeward-bound merchantmen first 
 see the smoke of burning Tyre from their last anchorage at 
 Kition ; ‘from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them.’ 
 
 lain extends along the N. and N.E. side of 
 
 d4khaera from the Bay of Mérphu to that of 
 Famagusta. A very low watershed divides the 
 basin of the Serakhis, flowing towards Mérphu, 
 from that of the Pedias (Hed:aios) and Yalias, which 
 rise from the N. side of Makhaera and reach the 
 sea at Salamis through extensive marshes. (3) The 
 N. range is a straight, narrow, and abrupt ridge 
 of the Anatolian limestone, and extends 100 miles 
 from Cape Kormakitito Cape Andrea. Its highest 
 peak is Buffavénto (3135 ft.), crowned by a Byzan- 
 tine fortress. H. Elias or Kérnos (3106 ft.) and 
 Tr¥pa Vund (3085 ft.) are conspicuous peaks in the 
 West. Penteddktylo, father rises to 2405 ft., 
 and Olymbos to 2431 ft,; but in the Karpass nothing 
 is higher than Sina Oros (2380 ft.), close to the 
 fortress of Kantara (161 ft.). Pambulos, near 
 Rhizokarpaso, reaches only 1194 ft. The northern 
 coastland E. and W. of Kerynia is narrow, but 
 well watered and very fertile. 
 
 The only accurate map of C. is the Government 
 Trigonometrical Survey (Stanford, 1885), incorpor- 
 ated in the subsequent editions of the Admiralty 
 Chart of Cyprus (No. 2074). 
 
 The principal resources of C. in ancient and 
 medizval times were copper and timber. The 
 former, which in fact derives its name from that of 
 the island, was worked in great abundance on the 
 N. side of Tréodos and Mikhaera, from Limni near 
 the Bay of Khrysokhu, to Frangissa (Tamassds) 
 and Lithrodénda; and in less quantity near Tremi- 
 thusha (Tremithus), The principal centres of 
 export were Soloi (Karavostdsi) and Marion (Péli 
 dis Khr¥sokhu). The supply was finally exhausted 
 some time in the Middle Ages. Iron was worked 
 from the 9th cent. B.C. onwards in the country 
 about Makhaera, though it never rivalled copper 
 in commercial importance. Pliny (xxxiv. 2) says 
 that only inferior qualities were worked in his 
 time. uch glass was made in Roman times at 
 Tamassos and elsewhere (Pliny, xxxvi. 193). 
 
 The forests of C. had not wholly disappeared 
 even in imperial times, though they were already 
 very much reduced in area by the continuous 
 export of timber (Strabo, xiv. 5). The cypress(AV 
 ‘fir’) or Karamanian pine is the principal forest 
 tree; and the juniper (?, the ‘cypress’ [tirzah] 
 of Is44") probably formerly attained great size 
 in C., and still grows freely between Larnaka and 
 Famagista. Besides these, C. has always pro- 
 duced much wine and oil; and carobs, anise, and 
 madder are considerable crops. It grew enough 
 corn for 1ts own population in the time of Augustus 
 (Strabo, xiv. 5), and exports it now. Ladanum 
 and resin were exported under the Roman Empire 
 (Pliny, xii. 74, xiv. 123, xxiv. 34). Both Pliny 
 (xxvil. 23. 58. 121, etc.) and Strabo (iii. 15) record 
 the occurrence of precious stones; and the former, 
 mines of alum and gypsum (xxxvi. 183). Salt is 
 made in lagoons near Larnaka (Kition), and Pliny 
 records the manufacture here (xxxi. 75) and at 
 Salamis (xxxi. 84). 
 
 History.—The copper and the timber of C., so 
 long as the supply lasted, gave the island an im- 
 portance in commerce and civilization out of all 
 
 roportion to its size. From the earlier part of the 
 en Age Cyprus maintained a large population 
 and an art and culture distinct and in many respects 
 highly developed, and exported copper to Syria, 
 Cilicia, and probably to Egypt, to the farther parts 
 of Asia Minor, and even to Central Europe. The 
 
 influence also of Cypriote pottery was felt in Syria, 
 and widely in Asia Minor; some of the finer 
 varieties have been found in Egypt, South Pales- 
 tine, Thera, Athens, and the Troad. 
 
 C. was invaded by Tahutmes iI. of the 18th 
 pt (B.C. 1503-1449), and appears to 
 tributary to Egypt for some time. 
 
 dynasty of E 
 have remain 
 
 
 
540 CYPRUS 
 
 It has been suggested by Maspero and others that 
 the Keftiu (cf. OT ‘Caphtor’) include the in- 
 habitants of C.; but the usual p. name for C. 
 is Asi (Flinders Petrie, Hist. Hg. ii. 118. 124). 
 
 The next period of Cypriote art and civilization 
 is of great importance, but very obscure. Myce- 
 nan settlements have been found on a number of 
 sites, and the contact with their higher art and 
 culture brought about a profound change in that of 
 
 rus. Aboutthesametimethe abundant deposits 
 
 of iron began to be worked, at first for ornaments, 
 but very soon for weapons and tools. Greek tradi- 
 tion asserted a ay early colonization of C., and 
 esp. of Kurion and Salamis, both of which are now 
 known to have been Mycenzan centres; and tradi- 
 tion is confirmed by the primitive ‘ Holic’ dialect 
 of Greek which was spoken, and the peculiar 
 beni script, which was not displaced by the 
 reek alphabet until the 4th cent. On the other 
 hand, Phoen. inscriptions have been found in C. of 
 the 9th cent. and onwards, and there are indica- 
 tions that the culture of the Syrian coast had 
 influence in C. even earlier. The natural centre of 
 Pheen. influence was Kition (mod. Larnaka), but 
 Phenicians and Greeks seem to have settled side 
 a side all over the island. Kition (and perhaps 
 
 1 C.) appears to have been irregularly tributary 
 to Tyre in the 10th to 8th cent. (Jos. c. Ap. I. 18; 
 Ant. Vill. v. 3, X. xiv.). Consequently, C. was 
 involved in the conquest of Phenicia in 709 by 
 Sargon, an important inscription of whom has been 
 found at Kition (Berlin Museum). Later, Esar- 
 haddon and Assurbanipal record tribute received 
 from twelve kings of C., some of whom appear to 
 bear Greek names, while the island itself appears 
 as Javnan (‘Ionian’). 
 
 About 560 C. was conquered and attached to 
 Egypt by Amasis (Hd. ii. 182), and on his fall in 
 525 passed, with Egypt, to Cambyses of Persia 
 (td. ili. 19. 21). In 501 the Greeks of C., in sym- 
 pathy with those of Ionia, rebelled against Persia (id. 
 v. 105f.), but in so mixed a population united effort 
 was impracticable; the revolt was soon put down, 
 and in 480 C. furnished 150 ships to the fleet of 
 Xerxes (id. vii. 90). During the 5th cent. C. re- 
 mained under Persia, in spite of Cimon’s repeated 
 attempts to attach it to the Athenian League; but 
 a brisk copper trade was maintained with Athens, 
 which sent fine pottery and bronze work in return. 
 Early in the 4th cent. Evagoras succeeded in 
 making Salamis the leading state in C., and in 387 
 openly revolted from Persia. But the Phenician 
 interest was wholly against him; the Greeks, as 
 usual, were divided, and the attempt failed. Alex- 
 ander the Great, however, received the voluntary 
 submission of all the states of C. after the battle 
 of Issus, and efficient help at the siege of Tyre 
 from their fleets, and supplies of timber. At his 
 death (323) C. fell, with Egypt, to the share of 
 Ptolemy, but was seized by Demetrius Poliorcetes, 
 after a desperate sea-fight (Diod. Sic. xx. 759-761) 
 and vigorous siege of Salamis. In 295, however, 
 Ptolemy reconquered the island, which long re- 
 mained closely attached to E sypt It is under 
 this régime that we first hear of Jewish settlers in 
 C. (1 Mac 15%). It was for a few years (B.C. 107- 
 89) a separate but dependent kingdom under 
 Ptolemy Lathyrus, but in B.C. 58 was annexed by 
 Rome, as security for financial loans to the bank- 
 rupt Ptolemy Auletes. After reorganization by 
 M. Cato it was first attached to the province of 
 Cilicia, but was made a separate province by 
 Augustus after Actium. As long as serious danger 
 was to be apprehended in the East, the new pro- 
 vince, with its neighbours, remained imperial, and 
 was governed by a propretor (Dio. Cass. lili. 12; 
 Strabo, xiv. 683 [kal vdv]). No monuments remain of 
 this period. But very soon afterwards C. was 
 
 CYRENE 
 
 transferred to the Senate (Dio. Cass. liii. 12, liv. 4); 
 consequently, Ac 137 is strictly accurate in describ 
 ing Sergius Paulus as proconsul (dv@vraros) in A.D 
 46. Of this Sergius Paulus no coins are known, 
 but an inscription exists at Karavostasi, which is 
 dated éxt Iavnovu [avOu] rdrov (Hogarth, Devia Cypria 
 
 . 114). Several other names of proconsuls are 
 
 nown, ¢.g. Julius Cordus, CJG 2631, L. Annius 
 Bassus, his successor, A.D. 52, C/G 2632 (quoted 
 Conybeare and Howson, i. p. 187). See Hogarth, 
 Devia Cypria, Appx., for a complete list. 
 
 The seat of government was at Paphos (wh. see), 
 which had been the capital of the Ptolemaic priest- 
 king, deposed in B.C. 58, and was most easily 
 accessible from the west, though Salamis (wh. see) 
 was by far the largest and most important town in 
 the island, owing to its proximity to the Syrian 
 coast. Paphos was connected with Salamis by two 
 roads—one inland and north of Tréodos, vid Soloi, 
 Tamassos, and Tremithus, about four days’ journey ; 
 the other easier, and along the south coast, wid 
 Kurion, Amathus, and Kition, about three days.* 
 Neither of these was a Roman military road, but 
 both followed well-worn native tracks. 
 
 Jews appear to have settled in C. in large numbers 
 under the Ptolemaic régime, and probably more 
 were attracted thither under the early Empire by 
 the fact that Herod the Great farmed the Cypriote 
 copper mines (Jos. Ant. XVI. iv. 5, cf. xix. 3, 28). 
 They seem to have had more than one synagogue 
 in Salamis (Ac 13°). 
 
 The dispersion after the death of Stephen carried 
 Christians as far as Cyprus (Ac 11”), and erie: 
 afterwards C eno were preaching in Antioc 
 (Ac 11”). Of Cypriote Christians, two are known 
 by name: Mnason, ‘an original convert’ (dpyaios 
 pabnrys, Ac 211%), and Joseph the Levite, surnamed 
 Barnabas, the friend and companion of St. Paul 
 (Ac 4%), 
 
 In A.D. 117 the Jews of C. revolted, massacred 
 240,000 pagans, and destroyed a large part of 
 Salamis. Hadrian, afterwards emperor, suppressed 
 the disorder, and expelled all Jews from Ceprae 
 (Milman, iii. 111, 112). 
 
 The Christian Church of C. was divided into thir- 
 teen bishoprics; in the 4th cent., in consequence 
 of the supposed discovery at Salamis (wh. see) 
 of St. Matthew’s Gospel in the tomb of Barnabas, it 
 was made autonomous, and the Patriarch has ever 
 since enjoyed the right to sign his name in red ink. 
 The Council of C. in 401 was summoned, on the 
 suggestion of Theophilus of Alexandria, to pro- 
 hibit the reading of the works of Origen. 
 
 The word ‘ Cyprus’ does not occur in OT, but the 
 island and the town Kition are Phang! alluded 
 to as ‘ Kittim,’ which is identified with Cyprus by 
 Jos. (Ant. I. vi. 1), Xé0ua . . . Kéwpos atrn vir 
 xaetrat (cf. Epiph. Her. xxx. 25). See KITTIM. 
 
 LITERATURE.—(A) MiscELLANEOUS : Cobham, An Attempt at a 
 Bibliography of Cy: , Nicosia (8rd ed.), 1894 (exhaustive) ; 
 Engel, X. Ft Berlin, 1841, 8 vols. ; Ungeru. Kotschy, Die Ins 
 Cypern, Vienna, 1865-66; Oberhummer, Aus Cypern, Berlin, 
 1890-92, Studien zur alten Geographie von Cypern, Munich, 1891; 
 A. Sakellarios, Ta Kuwpaxe, Athens, 1890-91, 2 vols. (. 
 ANTIQUITIES: Perrot and Chipiez, Hist. de? Art dans l’Antiqui 
 (vol. iii. Phenicia and Cyprus), Paris, 1885 (E.T. London, 1885) ; 
 Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, Berlin, 1892, 4to, 2 vols. (many 
 pee and the pees of de Mas Latrie, L. Ross, R. H. Lang, 
 
 . P, and A. P. di Cesnola, and G. Colonna Ceccaldi ; cf. historical 
 sketch in Heuzey, Les Figurines de Terre Cuite du Louvre, 
 Paris, 1891; Myres and O.-Richter, Cyprus Museum Catalogue, 
 Oxford, 1897. J. L. MYREs. 
 
 CYRENE (Kup#y7), the chief city in Libya in N. 
 Africa, about half-way between Carthage and 
 
 (c) Paphos—xi—Palephate 
 (Palwpaphos) — xxii— Curio — xvi— Amathus — xxilii — Cito — 
 [xxiii}_Salamina : (xcvi in all). (6) Paphos—xxiii—Solow— 
 xxix—Tamiso—xxiiil — Thremitus —xviii— Cito — [xxiii] Sala 
 mina ; (cxvi in all). 
 
 “The Peutinger Gait gives 
 
 
 
CYRENIUS 
 
 CYRUS 541 
 
 
 
 rovince 
 
 Alexandria, was the capital of a small 
 corresponding to the modern Tripoli. Although 
 in ca, it was a Greek city, dating from B.C. 631. 
 It was famous for its beaut 
 
 of situation, its 
 commerce, and its culture. Alexander the Great 
 granted the rights of citizenship in it to Jews 
 on equal terms with Greeks, and it became an 
 important centre of the Jews of the Dispersion, the 
 fourth of the population being Jewish according 
 to Josephus. In the reign of Manasseh, Psam- 
 mitichus, king of Egypt, carried off many Jews 
 and settled them in ae parts of Libya about C., 
 while one of the Ptolemies transported 100,000 
 Jews to Pentapolis in the same district. Like 
 other communities of the Hel. Jews, the Cyrenians 
 had a synagogue of their own in Jerus., and seem 
 to have been more Jewish than the Jews them- 
 selves (Ac 6°). There were Cyrenians among the 
 first preachers of the gospel, and they were associ- 
 ated with the great forward movement of preach- 
 ing it for the first time to the Gentiles (Ac 1119-4), 
 T ceias of C. (Ac 13?) is said by tradition to have 
 been the first bishop of his native district. Tradi- 
 tion also connects St. Mark with the first estab- 
 lishment of Christianity in this part of Africa. 
 An interesting speculation gathers round the name 
 of Simon of C. (Mt 27): eis referred to as the 
 father of Alexander and Rufus, evidently well 
 known to Mark’s readers (Mk 15!) ; while St. Paul 
 in his Epistle to the Romans refers to one Rufus as 
 holding an honourable position among the brethren 
 there, ‘Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his 
 mother and mine’ (Ro 16%). From this it has been 
 conjectured that while St. Paul was studying at 
 Jerus. he enjoyed the motherly care of Simon’s wife. 
 er Alexander’s death, the district of which 
 
 C was capital became a dependency. of Egypt. 
 
 Under the Rom. rule it was called Cyrenaica, and 
 was politically connected with Crete. In the 4th 
 cent. the city was destroyed by the Saracens, and 
 is now desolate. 
 
 Cyrenian (Kupyvaios).—Two Cyrenians are men- 
 tioned in Scripture: Simon who bore our Lord’s cross 
 (Mt 27%), and Lucius a Christian teacher (Ac 13?). 
 
 W. Muir. 
 CYRENIUS.—See QuiRINIvs. 
 
 CYRUS (e'2, Kipos).\—The name of 
 written Kuras in Bab. cuneiform, Kurush in Old 
 Persian. Ctesias stated on the authority of Pary- 
 satis, the wife of the Persian king Ochus, that 
 her younger son was named Cyrus from the sun, 
 as ‘the Persians call the sun Kdpos’ (Zpit. Phot. 
 80; Plut. Artaz. 1). In Zend, however, the ‘sun’ 
 is Aware, which could not take the form Kdpos in 
 Old Persian, though in modern Persian it is khur, 
 and in certain Aram. dialects of the Pamir it is 
 khir and kher. According to Strabo (xv. 3), the 
 original name of Cyrus was Agradates, his later 
 name being adopted from that of the river Cyrus. 
 But this is contrary to the fact that his grand- 
 father’s name was also C 
 The classical writers have given contradictory 
 accounts of his birth and rise to power. Herodotus 
 (i. 95) says that he knew of three accounts different 
 from the one he himself adopted, which was that 
 s was the son of a Persian nobleman named 
 Cambyses and Mandané, a daughter of the Median 
 king Astyages, who had caused her to marry 
 beneath her station in consequence of a dream 
 which the magi interpreted as predicting danger to 
 himself from her son. A second dream induced 
 him to order his relative Harpagus to kill the child. 
 Harpagus gave it to the herdsman Mithridates to 
 expose, but he and his wife Spako brought it oF as 
 theirown. Subsequently Cyrus was recognized by 
 Astyages, who, in consequence of the advice of the 
 magi, sent him back to his parents, but punished 
 
 Harpagus by giving him the mutilated limbs of his 
 own son to eat. Harpagus therefore persuaded 
 Cyrus to lead the Persians into revolt ; after which 
 the infatuated Astyages appointed him the general 
 of the Median army. The result was an easy 
 victory on the part of Cyrus; Astyages, however, 
 impaled the magi who had advised him to let kis 
 adversary go, raised another army, and himself led 
 it into the field. But he was defeated and captured, 
 though his life was spared, and Cyrus became king 
 of Media as well as of Persia. 
 
 Xenophon, in the romance of the Cyropedia, 
 
 ives a wholly different account. e makes 
 
 ambyses, the father of Cyrus, king of Persia. 
 Cyrus is educated first in Persia and then by his 
 grandfather Astyages; and when the latter is suc- 
 ceeded by his son Cyaxares, Cyrus acts as his 
 general, subduing the Lydians, Babylonians, and 
 other nations, and finally succeeding him in the 
 natural course of things. His first victory over the 
 Babylonians was when he was sixteen years old, 
 when Evil-Merodach wantonly invaded Media; the 
 second when he was forty, when Neriglissar, the ally 
 of Croesus of Lydia, attacked Cyaxares. His final 
 conquest of Babylonia took place before the death 
 of the king of Media. 
 
 Nicolaus of Damascus (vii. fr. 66) asserts that 
 Cyrus was the son of a Mardian bandit named 
 Atradates, whose wife Argosté tended goats. He 
 began his career as a servant in the palace of 
 Astyages. Here he was adopted by Artembares, 
 the cupbearer, and recommended to Astyages, 
 who raised him to power and wealth. Cyrus now 
 made his father Atradates satrap of Persia, and 
 urged by a ‘Chaldean’ began to plot against 
 Astyages, with the help of (bares a Persian. 
 Eventually, after obtaining leave to visit Persia, 
 where eviheer had been prepared for a revolt, 
 he defeated at Hyrba the troops which had been 
 sent against him. In a battle before Pasargada, 
 however, he and his general (bares were tages 
 within the walls, and his father was captured and 
 soon afterwards died. The Persians now fled to the 
 precipitous mountain-peak where Cyrus had been 
 reared, and there, excited by the taunts of their 
 wives, they utterly overthrew their Median assail- 
 ants and desttore the kingdom of Astyages. 
 
 Ctesias calls Astyages Astyigas, and states that 
 after his defeat by Cyrus he fled to Ecbatana, where 
 he was concealed in the palace by his daughter 
 Amytis and her husband Boitamas, whom s 
 ordered to be tortured, along with their children 
 Spitakes and Megabernes, to make them confess 
 whare he was. Ve ages was put into fetters by 
 (Kbares, but released by Cyrus, who married Amytis 
 after putting her husband to death. 
 
 All these versions have been shown to be unhis- 
 torical by contemporaneous cuneiform inscriptions. 
 The most important of these are—(1) a cylinder 
 inscription of Nabonidus, the last king of the Bab. 
 empire, from Abu Habba topars) (2) an annal- 
 istic tablet written shortly after the conquest of 
 Babylonia by Cyrus; (3) a proclamation of Cyrus of 
 the same date. 
 
 The inscription of Nabonidus was composed soon 
 after the conquest of Astyages by Cyrus in B.C. 549. 
 Nabonidus calls Astyages (Istuvigu) king of the 
 Manda or ‘Nomads,’ whom the Assyr. texts identify 
 with the Gimirraé or Cimmerians. He states that 
 the temple of the moon-god at Harran had been 
 destroyed by the Manda, but that Merodach had 
 ordered him in a dream to restore it, assuring him 
 that within three years ‘Cyrus the king of Anzan, 
 their little servant, with his small army, shall 
 overthrow the widespread people of the Manda; 
 Istuvigu, the king of the people of the Manda, he 
 shall capture, and bring him a prisoner to his own 
 country.’ 
 
542 CYRUS 
 
 CYRUS 
 
 
 
 The annalistic tablet, which, when complete, 
 began with the first year of the reign of Nabonidus, 
 tells us that in the seventh year of the latter's 
 reign (B.C. 549) Astyages had marched against 
 ‘Cyrus, king of Ansan,’ but that his army revolted 
 against him and delivered him to Cyrus, who then 
 marched to Ecbatana, captured it, and carried its 
 spoil to Ansan. Three years later (B.C. 546), Cyrus 
 bears for the first time the title of ‘ king of Persia,’ 
 so that he must have gained possession of Persia 
 between B.C. 549 and 546. In the latter year he 
 crossed the Tigris below Arbela and conquered 
 northern Mesopotamia as well as Armenia. 
 
 In B.C. 538, aided by a revolt in southern Baby- 
 lonia, he attacked Nabonidus from the north. A 
 battle was fought at Opis, which resulted in the 
 defeat of the Bab. army; and a few days later, on 
 the 14th of Tammuz (June), ‘Sippara was taken 
 without fighting.’ Nabonidus fled and concealed 
 himself in Babylon, followed by Gobryas, the 
 governor of Kurdistan, with the army of Cyrus. 
 On the 16th, Gobryas entered Babylon without 
 resistance, and Nabonidus was captured. The 
 daily services went on as usual in the temples of 
 the city, and the contract-tablets show that there 
 was no disturbance of trade. On the 3rd of 
 Marcheshvan (October), Cyrus came to Babylon, and 
 henceforth bore the title of ‘king of Babylonia.’ 
 ‘Peace to the city did ee establish; peace to 
 all the province of Babylon did Gobryas his 
 governor proclaim. Governors in Babylon he 
 appointed.’ On the 11th of the month the wife* 
 sf Nabonidus died, and for six days there was 
 mourning for her. On the 4th of Nisan, Cambyses 
 conducted her funeral in the temple of Nebo. 
 After this, offerings to ten times the usual amount 
 were made to the Bab. deities. 
 
 The proclamation of Cyrus justifies his seizure of 
 the Bab. crown, and declares that he had been 
 called to it by Bel-Merodach, who was angry with 
 Nabonidus. He describes himself as ‘king of the 
 city of Ansan,’ the son of Cambyses, king of Ansan, 
 grandson of Cyrus, king of Ansan, and great-grand- 
 son of Teispes, king of Ansan, and says that he 
 had restored to their homes the exiles who were in 
 Babylonia as well as their gods. He concludes by 
 
 raying that the deities he has thus restored may 
 daily intercede for him before Bel-Merodach and 
 Nebo, whose ‘ worshipper’ Cyrus professes himself 
 to be. 
 
 It is clear that the Greek writers have con- 
 founded the Manda or nomad Scyths and Cim- 
 merians with the Mad4 or Medes. Cyrus, moreover, 
 like his ancestors, was not king of Persia, but of 
 Ansan or Anzan, one of the most important divi- 
 sions of Elam, which is stated in a cuneiform 
 tablet to be the equivalent of Elam, and of which 
 the native kings of Susa called themselves rulers. 
 Teispes, the son of the Persian Achzemenes, seems 
 to have conquered it at the time of the fall of the 
 Assyr. empire. The fact explains Is 21, as well 
 as the use of Susian as one of the three official 
 languages of the Persian empire. At Behistun, 
 Darius states that eight of his ancestors had been 
 kings ‘in a double line.’ As Teispes was the father 
 of his great-grandfather Ariaramnes, we should 
 have exactly the eight kings, if we suppose that 
 while the line of Cyrus was ruling in Anzan, that of 
 Darius was reigning in Persia. 
 
 Another fact which is due to the cuneiform 
 texts is, that the account of the siege of Babylon 
 
 y Cyrus, given by Herodotus, is a fiction, derived 
 probably from one of the sieges of the city by 
 
 * Or, according to the reading of Pinches, the son. 
 
 Darius Hystaspis. The date of the conquest of 
 Astyages is also fixed. The conquest of Croesus 
 and the Lydian empire probably took place before 
 that of Babylon, as well as the reduction of the 
 Greek cities in Asia Minor by the Medes, Mazares 
 and Harpagus. 
 
 Before his death the empire of Cyrus extended 
 from the Mediterranean to Bactria, and was thus 
 larger than that of the Assyrians. Different stories 
 are told of hisdeath. Herodotus, who knew of more 
 than one, says that he was slain when invadin 
 the Massagetz. According to Ctesias, ne ha 
 invaded the Derbikes, and after gaining a victory 
 over them by stratagem, and capturing the son of 
 their queen, Tomyris, was killed in a second 
 engagement in which his troops were defeated. 
 Diodorus asserts that he was taken prisoner by 
 Tomyris, who crucified him; while Xenophon © 
 makes him die peacefully, and be buried at Pasar- 
 gada, seven years after the death of Cyaxares. 
 
 he Bab. contract-tablets, on the contrary, prove 
 that he reigned nine years over Babylon and ‘the 
 empire,’ dying in July B.c. 529. A year before his 
 death he had made his son, Cambyses, king of 
 Babylon. According to Herodotus, Cambyses was 
 the son of Cassandana, the daughter of Pharnaspés. 
 The supposed tomb of Cyrus at Murghab can hardly 
 belong to the great conqueror: it is difficult to 
 reconcile its character and position with the 
 account given by Arrian (vi. 9), and the figure 
 on a neighbouring column, above whose head is 
 the inscription, ‘1 am Cyrus, the king, the Akhe- 
 menian,’ is that of a winged demi-god who wears 
 an Egyptian head-dress. It can hardly, therefore, 
 have been sculptured before the conquest of Egypt 
 by Cambyses. The most probable view is that it 
 represents Cyrus the pia 
 
 he proclamation of Cyrus shows that he was not 
 a Zoroastrian like Darius and Xerxes, but that as 
 he claimed to be the successor of the Bab. kings, 
 so also he acknowledged the supremacy of Bel- 
 Merodach the supreme Babylonian god. Hence the 
 restoration of the Jewish exiles was not due to 
 any sympathy with monotheism, but was part of 
 a general policy. Experience had taught him the 
 danger of allowing a disaffected population to exist 
 in a country which might be invaded by an enemy; 
 his own conquest of Babylonia had been assisted 
 by the revolt of a part of its population; and he 
 therefore reversed the policy of deportation and 
 denationalization which ted been attempted by the 
 Assyr. and Bab. kings. The exiles and the images of 
 their gods were sent back to their old homes; only 
 in the case of the Jews, who had no images, it was 
 the sacred vessels of the temple which were restored 
 (Ezr 1™), See RP, New Series, v. pp. 148 ff. 
 
 LiTgraTurRE,—Herodotus i. 95, 108-130, 177-214; Xen. Cyrop.; 
 Otesias, Persika, ed. Gilmore, vii.—xi.; Nicolaus Damascenus, 
 frg. 66-68 (Miller's Fragm. iii. pp, 406 ff.); Diodorus Siculus, 
 wad. 19, Haze. pp. 239f.; RP new ser. v. pp. 143-175 (where 
 references are given to the various editions of the cuneiform 
 texts); Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, i. ii.; Rawlinson, Ancient 
 Monarchies, iv. ch. vii.; Duncker, Hist, of Antiquity, Eng. ed. 
 v.; Biidinger in the Sitzungsberichte of the Academy of Vienna, 
 xcvii. 711 (1880); Halévy in Rev, des Etudes Juives i. (1880); 
 Floigl, Cyrus and Herodot peda Bauer, Die Kyrossage und 
 Verwandtes (1882); Keiper, Die neuent en Inschriften tiber 
 Cyrus (1882); Sayce, Le Muséon ey PP. 648, 596, Herodotus 
 i-iii. pp. 386f., 438 ff.; Evers, Hmporkommen der sischen 
 Macht unter Kyros (1884); Justi, Gesch. der orient. Volker im 
 Altertum, pp. 371 ff. (1884); Tiele, Bab. - Assyr. Gesch. iv. 35 
 1886); Winckler, Untersuch. zur altorient. Gesch. i. pp. 109-132; 
 ayce, HCM ch. xi. (1898); PraSek, Medien und das Hause des 
 Kyaaares (1890), Kambyses und die Ueberlieferung des Alter- 
 thums (1897); Tiele, ‘Cyrus de Groote en de godsdienst van Babel,’ 
 in Mélanges Charles de Harlez (1896). The latest ed. of Cyrus’ 
 Annalistic Tablet is by Hager in Delitzsch and Haupt’s Beitrdge 
 zur Assyr. ii. (1891), 216 ff. H. SAYCE. 
 
 
 

 
 DAGGER 543 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 D.—In critical notes on the text of the Gospels 
 and Acts this symbol is used to indicate the readings 
 of Codex Beze, a Greco-Latin MS of the 6th cent. 
 se ddey in the Cambridge University Library. 
 
 he text, both Greek and Latin, is written sticho- 
 metrically, 2.e. in lines of unequal length, divided 
 according to the sense—the Greek on the left, the 
 Latin on the right hand page of each opening. 
 
 The Gospels are arranged in the order, Mt, Jn, 
 Lk, Mk—an order found also in many old Latin 
 MSS, the Gothic version, and in Const. A post. ii. 57. 
 
 Between Mk and Ac there is a gap which, 
 according to the original numbering of the quires, 
 must have contained 67 leaves (8 quires and 3 
 leaves). It closes with a fragment of a Latin 
 version of 3 Jn™-%, Clearly, therefore, the Epp. 
 of Jn occupied part of the vacant space (14 or 15 
 leaves). hat else the missing leaves contained 
 itis impossible to say. The other Catholic Epistles, 
 if they were all present, would require about 36 
 leaves. This would leave 16 leaves (=2 quires) 
 unaccounted for; and it is possible, though not 
 yey likely, that, as Scrivener suggests, the scribe 
 had made a mistake of 2 in numbering his quires 
 at this point in the MS. 
 
 About 37 leaves are missing in other parts of the 
 MS, and 12 are more or less mutilated. It is also 
 mutilated at the end. The following passages are 
 in consequence wanting in the Greek Text—Mt 
 1)-® [37-16] 67092 972-12, Jn 116-326 [13142012], [Mk 
 1615-2), Ac 87-1014 2115-18 9910-20 9929 end. The gaps 
 in the Latin are Mt 1!" 68-877 26%_271, Jn 1}-316 
 
 187-201], [Mk 16%}. The passages in square 
 rackets have been supplied by a 9th cent. hand. 
 
 The MS was written in all probability in Gaul, 
 and Rendel Harris has given good reason for 
 believing that it did not travel far from its birth- 
 ees for the first 1000 years of its existence. 
 
 ring this period it was corrected at various 
 times by eight or nine different hands. 
 
 Its modern history begins with the Council of 
 Trent, whither apparently it was taken in 1546 by 
 the Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne. Stephens, in 
 his 1550 edition, published readings from it derived 
 from collations made for him by his friends in 
 Italy—perhaps during this visit to the Council. 
 When Bara presented the MS to the University of 
 Cambridge in 1581, he stated that it had been 
 taken from the Abbey of St. Irenzeus in Lyons at 
 the sack of that city in 1562. It is for the most 
 part the only witness among Greek MSS to a type 
 of text which we know from the evidence of 
 
 atristic quotations and the earliest versions to 
 cava been widely current as early as the 2nd cent. 
 It has in consequence, especially in recent years, 
 received a great deal of attention, notably in a 
 most ingenious work by J. Rendel Harris, A Study 
 of Codex Beze (‘Texts and Studies’), 1891, and 
 In two careful but not altogether convincing 
 volumes, The Old Syriac Element in Codex Beze, 
 1893, and The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, by 
 F. H. Chase, 1895. The problems raised by these 
 writers will require fuller treatment in connexion 
 with the whole subject of the Textual Criticism 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 An excellent edition of the MS, including a com- 
 plete transcription of the text and a full introduc- 
 tion, was published by Scrivener in 1864, and this 
 year (1897) the University of Cambridge has 
 undertaken to bring out an edition in photographic 
 facsimile. 
 
 D,.—In the Epistles of St. Paul the same symbol 
 —written more properly D, to avoid confusion—is 
 used to denote the readings of the MS in the 
 National Library at Paris, the Codex Claro- 
 montanus. This is also a Greeco-Latin MS of the 
 6th cent. written stichometrically. It seems clear 
 that it was the work of a Greek scribe, and that it 
 remained for some time in scholarly Greek hands ; 
 but there seems no decisive evidence to fix either 
 the place where it was written or its first home. 
 The remarkable list of the canonical books of OT 
 and NT inserted between Philemon and Hebrews 
 —known as the Claromontane stichometry—points 
 on the whole to a Western origin,—Carthage, 
 Rome, or Gaul. The Latin version is of great 
 importance throughout. In Hebrews it is the 
 main representative of the old Latin version of the 
 epistle. 
 
 It contains all the Pauline epistles virtually com- 
 fee ene Hebrews. It has been most care- 
 ully collated both by Tischendorf and Tregelles, 
 and sumptuously edited by Tischendorf, 1852. 
 
 J. O. F. Murray. 
 
 D.—The symbol ordinarily used in criticism of 
 Hex. to signify the work of the Deuteronomist ; 
 often so as to include also his school, although 
 this creates confusion, which may be avoided by 
 using for this sense D?, D®, and similar symbols. 
 See HEXATEUCH. F. H. Woops. 
 
 DABBESHETH (nv33), Jos 19.—A place on the 
 borders of Zebulun. The line is difficult to follow, 
 but the extreme limits on N. and S. seem to be 
 defined by the names Dabbesheth and Jokneam. 
 In this case the ruin Dabsheh, on the hills E. of 
 Acco, may be intended, the only place where this 
 hame (meaning ‘hump,’ cf. Is 30°) occurs. See 
 SWP, vol. i. sheet iii. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 DABERATH (ni277), Jos 192 21%, 1 Ch 672,—A 
 city of Zebulun given to the Levites, noticed as 
 the extreme point on the 8.E. border; now the 
 village Debtrieh at the foot of Tabor on the W. 
 In the record of the conquests of Ramses I. 
 (Brugsch, Hist. ii. p. 64) we learn that, about 1325 
 B.C., he attacked places in the Amorite country, 
 named Dapur, Shalama(Shunem), Maroma(Meirfin), 
 Ain Anamim, Kalopu (perhaps Shalabfin), and 
 Beitha Antha (Beth Anath); and of these places 
 Shunem was in Lower Galilee, and Beth ath 
 and Meirfin in Upper Galilee. Dapur is thought 
 to be Tabor or Daberath, and is represented as a 
 walled town. But in Egyptian the letters L and 
 R are not distinguished, and the name may have 
 been Dapul. In the latter case Dib/ in Upper 
 Galilee would be the site. See DIBLAH. he 
 site of Daberath on Tabor was known in the 4th 
 cent. A.D. (Onomasticon, s.v. Dabira), but wrongly 
 identified with Debir. See SWPP vol. i. sheet vi. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 DABRIA.—One of the five scribes who wrote to 
 
 the dictation of Ezra (2 Es 14”). 
 
 DACUBI (A Aaxovst, B om., AV Dacobi) = AKKUB, 
 Ezr 2“2, Neh 7*. 
 
 DAGGER (Jg 3° AV, ‘sword’ RV, Heb. 277 
 herebh). —The Heb. word means in most cases 
 a short weapon used for stabbing (cf. 2 S 20% 1), 
 The Arab ‘zhanjar,’ still in use E. of Jordan, has 
 ® curved blade, and inflicts by a downward stab 
 

 
 
 
 544 
 
 DAGON 
 
 
 
 ‘ust such a horrible wound as is described in 
 § 20% See Sworn. W. E. BARNES. 
 
 DAGON (jim, Aayér).—The principal deity of the 
 Philistines, whose worship, however, seems to have 
 extended beyond the Phil. country, as is proved 
 by the geographical name Beth-dagon (which see), 
 and perhaps fb the later name Dagon (Jos. Ant. 
 XIU. viii. 1; Wars, 1. ii. 3). 
 
 It has commonly been held by scholars that the 
 name is a diminutive, and so a term of endearment, 
 from dag, which signifies fish, and hence that D. 
 was worshipped under the form of a fish. He has 
 been generally identified with a Bab. god who is 
 represented on seals and elsewhere as having in 
 part that form. And though there is nothing in 
 the biblical account to confirm this view, there is 
 also nothing to contradict it. D. had face and 
 hands, and, according to the Sept., feet also (1S 
 5‘); but this is not inconsistent with his having in 
 
 art the shape of a fish. The pictures of the Bab. 
 Rat god show face and hands, and in some instances 
 feet. Indeed, one is strongly tempted to find in 
 the phrase ‘only D. remained,’ the meaning ‘onl 
 little fish remained,’ the point being that, after the 
 head and hands of D. were cut off, nothing was left 
 of him save the fish-shaped part. Nevertheless, 
 Sayce and others now insist that D. was not a fish- 
 god, and that the resemblance of name is a mere 
 coincidence. The Bab. fish-god was Ea, the patron 
 god of the city of Eridu, the god of. the ocean, of 
 water, of wisdom. In some sense Ea was god of 
 the sea, Anu of the sky, and Bel (Baal) of the 
 earth and the nedanvesl Bel is closely associated 
 with Anu, but not with Ea. And D. appears in 
 the inscriptions as one of the names or one of the 
 forms of Bel. 
 
 The name and worship of D. were upon either 
 theory imported into Pal. from Babylonia. The 
 name is held to have been originally Sumerian, 
 but a Semitic derivation was found for it in con- 
 nexion with its use to designate the god of agri- 
 culture. D. was identified with dagan, the Heb. 
 word for corn, when corn is thought of as an 
 agricultural product. 
 
 Presumably, D. was worshipped in Pheenicia as 
 well as in Philistia. There is a Pheen. cylindrical 
 seal of crystal now in the Ashmolean Museum at 
 Oxford, on which, according to Sayce, the name 
 Baal-dagon is written in Phe! letters, with an 
 ear of corn engraved near it, and other symbols, 
 such as the winged solar disc, a gazelle, and 
 several stars, but no figure of a fish. Eusebius 
 (Prep. Evang. i. 6) quotes Philo Byblius of the 
 2nd cent. A.D. as citing the ancient Phen. legends 
 that go under the name of Sanchoniathon, to the 
 effect that Ouranos (Anu) married his sister the 
 earth, ‘and by her had four sons, Ilus (El), who is 
 called Kronos, and Betylus, and D., which signifies 
 “‘corn,” and Atlas.’ ‘D., after he had discovered 
 bread-corn and the plough, was called Zeus 
 Arotrios.’ 
 
 The Pheen. Dagon, then, like the Bab., is properly 
 
 Zeus of the plough.’ With this agree all the 
 notices found in OT in regard to the Phil. Dagon. 
 He had temples in Gaza and Ashdod (Jg 167,158 
 5-2), and presumably in the other Phil. cities. 
 His worship among the Philistines was national, 
 and not merely local (1 Ch 10, 1 S 58-618). His 
 worship did not exclude that of other Baals (2 K 
 12-8), The Philistines regarded him as giving 
 them victory over their enemies, rejoicing before 
 him when Samson was in their power, and placing 
 Saul’s head in his temple (Jg 16%, 1 Ch 10”). But 
 he was eminently the god of agriculture; they 
 acknowledged J”’s Manca over him through the 
 mice that marred their fields, and offered golden 
 mice in token of the acknowledgment (1 S 6*°), 
 
 
 
 
 
 DALMATIA 
 
 
 
 Apparently, the worship of D. among the Philis- 
 tines was conducted with a highly developed and 
 technical ritual. We may infer this from the 
 elaborate discussions and arrangements for return- 
 ing the ark, as described in 18 5. 6, the golden 
 mice and golden tumours as a guilt-offering, the 
 new cart, the new milch kine with their calves 
 shut up at home. The worship of D. at Gaza con- 
 tinued to a late period. During the Maccabzan 
 wars Jonathan destroyed the temple of D. there 
 (1 Mac 10%: 114; Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 4, 5). 
 LITERATURE.—Sayce, HCM 825-327 ; Sayce in SS Times, May 
 27,1893; Smith, HGHL 164; Moore, Judges, 358f.; Wellh. and 
 Driver on 1 8 54; Oa. Hebd. 8.0. . Jd. BEECHER. 
 
 DAISAN (B Aad», A Aeo-), 1 Es 5*.—Called 
 REzIN, Ezr 2, Neh 7, The form in 1 Es is due 
 to confusion of 5 and 5. 
 
 DALAN (A Aad», B’Acdr, AV Ladan), 1 Es 5” 
 = DELAIAg, Ezr 2, 
 
 DALE.—See K1n@’s DALE. 
 
 DALETH (*).—Fourth letter of Heb. alphabet, 
 and as such used in the 119th Psalm to designate 
 er 4th part, each verse of which begins with this 
 etter. 
 
 DALLY.—Only Wis 12” ‘correction, wherein he 
 dallied with them.’ By a bold anthropomorphism 
 God is described as only sporting with the 
 Egyptians in the lighter plagues that fell on them. 
 The Gr. is raryvlous émeripjoews, lit. ‘ play- es of 
 correction’; Vulg. ludibriis et increpationibus, Cov. 
 ‘scornes and rebukes,’ Geneva ‘scornful rebukes,’ 
 RV ‘a mocking correction as of children.’ ‘Dally’ 
 has now chiefly the sense of ‘delay,’ which easily 
 arose from the older sense of ‘sport,’ as in Milton, 
 Of Reformation (Prose Works, li. 410), ‘Let us not 
 dally with God when he offers us a full blessing’ ; 
 and Bunyan, Heavenly Footman (Clar. Press ed. 
 p. 270), ‘it is not good dallying with things of so 
 great concernment, as the Salvation or Damnation 
 of thy Soul.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DALMANUTHA (Aa)yavov@d) is mentioned onl 
 in Mk 8% The corresponding statement of Mt 
 (15°° RV) gives Magadan. In Tatian, Diatessaron 
 (Hill’s ed. g 134), it is Magheda. Rendel Harris 
 (Study of Codea Beze, p. 178) suggests that Dal- 
 manutha may be simp 3 
 Syriac; but see Chase, Bezan Teat of the Acts, p. 
 145 n%, On the variants in Mk see Chase, Syro- 
 Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 97f. The common 
 reading Magdala is probably a substitution of a 
 better for a less known place. Ewald suggested 
 that Magadan stands here for Megidon= Megiddo ; 
 but Eusebius says this Magadan was near Gerasa. 
 Thomson places Dalmanutha at Ed-Delemiyeh, one 
 mile N. of the Jarmfik, at the S.E. corner of the 
 Sea of Galilee. As the scene of the second Feeding 
 of the Multitude is uncertain, and as there is 
 nothing said to indicate in what direction the 
 boat into which our Lord went was steered, the 
 site of Dalmanutha cannot be determined with 
 certainty. Tristram suggests a site 14 mile from 
 Migdel (Magdala), and Sir C. Wilson thinks it was 
 not far from that. 
 
 LivgraTuRE.—Besides the works mentioned above, consult 
 Keim, Jesus i Nazara (Eng. Tr.), iv. 238n.; Edersheim, Jesus 
 
 a corruption from the 
 
 the Messiah? (1887), ii. 67ff.; Andrews, Life of our Lord, ed 
 
 1892, p. 388; Herz and Nestle in Expos. Times, viii. 563, ix. 45, 95. 
 A. HENDERSON. 
 
 DALMATIA (Aadyaria) in apostolic times was an 
 
 ill-defined mountainous district on the E. coast of 
 
 the Adriatic, stretching towards Macedonia. In 
 
 its more exact use, the name, which is not known 
 
 
 
| 
 j 
 
 
 
 DALPHON 
 
 
 
 to the earlier Greek writers, was used of the 8. 
 portion of the Rom. province Ilyricum, between 
 the Drinus and the sea. In its more indefinite use 
 it was eee ely another name for Illyricum. 
 St. Paul preached the gospel in the district, or, 
 at any rate, in its neighbourhood (Ro 15'%), and 
 during his last imprisonment in Rome it was 
 visited by Titus (2 Ti 4%). In our ignorance of the 
 lace where the apostle was arrested, we cannot 
 etermine either the exact time when Titus was 
 sent to D. or the reason why he was sent; but it 
 has been conjectured that, having failed to find 
 St. Paul at Nicopolis as he expected (Ti 3), he 
 went on to Dalmatia, W. Moir. 
 
 DALPHON (j\s}:, Est 9’), the second son of 
 Haman, put to death by the Jews. In the LXX 
 Aedropur. 
 
 DAMARIS (Adpapis). —The name of a woman 
 who, with Dionysius the Areopagite and certain 
 others, is mentioned as having been converted by 
 St, Paul at Athens (Ac 17%). Ramsay (S¢. Paul 
 the Trav. p. 252) points out that it is not stated 
 that she was of good birth (in contrast with 171 
 and 13”); that this arose from the fact that 
 women of social position in Athens would cer- 
 tainly not have the opportunity of hearing St. 
 Paul; and that her name suggests that she was a 
 foreigner, perhaps ‘one of the class of educated 
 Hetairai.’ This suggestion seems to go rather 
 beyond the evidence. The name is said to be 
 a corruption of ddyadis, a heifer, which is the 
 reading of one Lat. MS (et mulier nomine Damalis, 
 Flor.). Chrys. (ad loc.) suggests quite erroneously 
 that she was the wife of Dionysius; this could 
 not be the tr. of cal yuvh dvéuare A. These words 
 and all mention of this woman are omitted by 
 Codex Bezw. Ramsay (Church in Rom. Emp. 
 
 . 161) quotes this in proof of his assertion that 
 the reviser to whom we owe the Western text was 
 « Catholic who objected to the prominent posi- 
 tion assigned to women in the Acts; ‘this was, 
 firstly, pagan rather than Christian ; and, secondly, 
 heretical rather than Catholic.’ (See also 17}? and 
 the variation there.) A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 DAMASCUS (pyz2, Aapacxés), 
 
 This city is the Sep erkesd of all history. Ite origin is 
 lost in antiquity. Jos, ¢ nt. 1. vi. 4) says it was founded b. 
 t is first mentioned in connexion wit 
 
 e Chaldee and the Syr. have ‘Eliezer the Damascene.’ 
 It occurs in 28 8%as pyp7 Ox, Aram Dammesek, which suggests 
 comparison with the modern Arabic name, Dimashk esh-Sham. 
 As it was the capital of Aram, so it is the chief city of esh-Sham, 
 the modern Syria. Esh-Shdm=‘ the left,’ i.6. the country on 
 the left; as e/-Yemen, Arabia Felix, is on the right of the 
 Arabian looking northward. A Moslem tradition makes 
 Eliezer the founder of the city, and Abraham king for some 
 ears before he went south to Palestine. So also Nicolaus of 
 db. uoted by Jos. (Ant. 1. vii. 2). He mentions a village 
 cated *the Habitation of Abraham,’ which may be identical 
 with el-Burzeh, 3 miles N. of the city, where there is a wely 
 sacred to the patriarch. 
 
 i. History.—The history of D. really begins 
 for us with its capture by David. Coming to suc- 
 cour Hadadezer, king of Zobah, the Damascenes 
 were themselves overthrown. David smote of the 
 Syrians 22,000 men, took and garrisoned the city, 
 and ‘the Syrians became servants to David, and 
 brought presents’ (2S 8°). Nicolaus of Damascus 
 says the battle was fought on the Euphrates. 
 Rezon, son of Eliada, a follower of Ha adezer, 
 escaped, gathered:a company around him, possibly 
 fugitives like himself, and obtained possession of 
 Damascus. ‘He was an adversary to Israel all the 
 daysofSolomon.’ His experience on the Euphrates 
 possibly led him to abhor Israel (1 K 11%-*). But 
 soon again the sceptre passed to the family of 
 
 VOL, I.—25 
 
 DAMASCUS 545 
 
 
 
 Hadad. Syria and Israel were in league against 
 Judah. Hard pressed by the king of Israel, Asa 
 bought the friendship of Benhadad with costly 
 presents, and tedused: him to break with Baasha 
 and invade his territory. A successful raid into 
 the northern dominions of Israel called off Baasha 
 and relieved Judah (1 K 151*-!), Benhadad seems 
 to have followed up his advantage in the reign of 
 Omri. Retaining the captured cities, he held the 
 tight to ‘make streets’ in the new capital, 
 Samaria (1 K 20%). ‘Streets’ may have meant 
 quarters for a permanent embassy, or simply 
 accommodation for Syrian merchants, who, like 
 the Tyrians in Memphis, would congregate in one 
 quarter. It was a concession to a power which 
 could enforce it if necessary. Benhadad, son of 
 this monarch, led a great sd oan against 
 Samaria. There were with him thirty-two subject 
 kings, with horses and chariots. Conducting the 
 siege with a contemptuous carelessness, born of a 
 sense of absolute superiority, he was surprised b 
 
 a sudden attack, and his army routed, he himse 
 
 escaping with difficulty on horseback. Meeting 
 Israel again at Aphek, he was defeated and his 
 army destroyed. Taken by Ahab, his freedom 
 was granted on most humiliating terms (1 K 20). 
 In about three years’ time we find them again at 
 war, fighting for possession of Ramoth-gilead ; and 
 there Ahab was slain (1 K 22). From D. came 
 Naaman, to be healed of leprosy (2 K 5). Again 
 the Syrians invaded Israel, and a company sent to 
 arrest Elisha at Dothan was led by him, blinded, 
 into Samaria (2 K 6%%), Unaffected by their 
 chivalrous treatment, we find Benhadad directl 
 
 again besieging Samaria. The city was reduce 
 
 to the most appalling straits by famine, when, by 
 a miraculous discomfiture of the Syrians, it was 
 delivered, and plentiful supplies provided (2 K 6% 
 7), From the cuneiform inscriptions we learn that 
 the Assyrians also harassed Benhadad, and were 
 too strong for him and his allies. His reputation 
 suffered heavily from these disasters, making it 
 easier for a strong man to usurp his place. Falling 
 sick, he sent a messenger laden with gifts to con- 
 sult Elisha. To this man, Hazael, the prophet 
 promised the kingdom. On his return he secured 
 the swift fulfilment of the se by the murder 
 of his master (2 K 8). In his encounters with 
 the great Assyr. power, the new king was not more 
 fortunate than his de at 3; but elsewhere 
 success waited upon his standards. Jehoram of 
 Israel and Ahaziah of Judah attacked Ramoth- 
 gilead. Hazael repulsed them, the former bein 
 
 seriously wounded (2 K 8%), He then lai 
 
 waste the whole country east of the Jordan (2 K 
 10*2-83), He captured Gath (id. 12)), and threat- 
 ened Jerusalem. Jehoash purchased immunity 
 from attack, stripping the temple and the palace 
 of all valuables for this purpose (ib. 12'8). Hazael 
 also prevailed against Israel, and superiority was 
 maintained by his son Benhadad (id. 13%). Ulti- 
 mately Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz, asserted his 
 independence, and recovered the cities Hazael had 
 taken (ib. 13%). Jeroboam U., son of Jehoash, 
 the great warrior-king of the northern monarchy, 
 extended the borders of Israel, recovering D. 
 and Hamath, bac making their kings tribu- 
 tary to Israel (ib. 14°). D. and Samaria next 
 appear in league against Jerusalem (2 K 15*7 165), 
 Rezin of D. reconquered Elath, driving out ‘the 
 Jews.’ Meantime the Assyrians, under Tiglath- 
 pileser 111., whose Bab. name was Pul or Pulu 
 (2 K 15”), were rapidly extending their sway, 
 threatening the independence of D. and Samaria 
 alike. To consolidate their power poets Assyria, 
 Rezin and Pekah sought to attach Judah to thelz 
 cause by dethronin az, and setting up ‘a king 
 in the midst of it, the son of Tabeel’ (Is 75 The 
 

 
 
 
 546 DAMASCUS 
 
 attempt not only failed: it hastened the disaster 
 they wished to avert. Ahaz appealed to Tiglath- 
 
 pileser, who at once ‘went up against D. and 
 tvok it, and carried the people of it captive to 
 Kir,’ Rezin himself being slain (2 K 16°); and 
 Assyr. colonists were placed init (Jos. Ant. IX. xii. 3). 
 This was the heaviest blow the city had yet re- 
 ceived, and for a time she seems to have been 
 crushed by it. To this period probably refer the 
 prophecies of Isaiah and Amos, ‘The riches of 
 D. ... shall be carried away before the king 
 of Assyria’ (Is 8*), ‘ Behold, D. is taken aay from 
 being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap’ (Is 17"), 
 ‘T will send a fire into the house of Hazael, and it 
 shall devour the palaces of Benhadad... and 
 the pore of Syria shall go into captivity to Kir, 
 saith the Lord’ (Am 1*°; see also Jer 4973-27), 
 Ahaz came to D. to do homage to Tiglath- 
 
 ileser. Here he saw the great altar, of which, at 
 
 is order, a duplicate was made by Urijah the 
 pt and put in the temple to supplant the 
 
 razen altar (2 K 161-16), For the important issues 
 of this act see W. R. Smith, OTJC? 265, 443, RS 
 359, 466 ff. 
 
 A city occupying the position of D. could not 
 be permanently overwhelmed. During the Persian 
 period she displayed afresh her perennial vigour, 
 playing a distinguished part (Strabo, xvi. 2. 9). 
 
 en Darius advanced against Alexander at 
 Issus, he sent his harem and treasures to D. 
 for safety. After his defeat and inglorious flight, 
 the city was treacherously surrendered to Alex- 
 ander’s general, Parmenio (Arrian, Haped. Al. 
 ii. 11). During the Greek occupation D. yielded 
 to Antioch on the Orontes the rank of first city in 
 Syria. In the course of the wars with Egypt, D., 
 with Palestine and Celesyria, fell at times into 
 the hands of the Ptolemies. On the division of 
 Syria (B.c. 111) between Antiochus Grypus and 
 Antiochus Cyzicenus, D. fell to the latter. 
 Against this prince Hyrcanus made a successful 
 stand (Jos. Ant, XIII. x. 1-3). The next king 
 was Demetrius Euczrus, who, assisted by Ptolemy 
 Lathyrus, established himself in D., and divided 
 the rule of Syria with his brother Philip (Ant. 
 XIII. xiii. 4). Invited by discontented Jews, he 
 marched against Alexander Jannzus, and defeated 
 that prince near Shechem, returning immediately 
 to war with Philip. The latter, assisted by Arabs 
 and Parthians, was victorious. Demetrius was 
 sent to Mithridates, king of Parthia, and remained 
 with him till his death. A younger brother, 
 Antiochus Dionysus, now seized the throne of 
 Damascus. He fell in an encounter with Aretas, 
 king of Arabia; and this monarch, invited by the 
 inhabitants, entered D. and assumed the reins of 
 government. Against Ptolemy Menneus, ‘who 
 was such a bad neighbour to the city,’ Alexandra, 
 widow of Jannzus, sent an expedition to D., 
 under her son Aristobulus, which achieved nothing 
 (Ant. XIII. xvi. 3). Tigranes, king’ of Armenia, 
 obtained temporary possession. The Romans 
 under Metellus took the city, and here, B.c. 64, 
 Pompey received ambassadors from the neighbour- 
 ing kings, who brought him presents; among 
 others, a golden vine from Aristobulus, valued at 
 600 talents. In B.c. 63 the whole of Syria became 
 a Roman aay and, while the proconsul 
 usually resided in Antioch, D. began to assume 
 her old ascendency. Herod, while still a young 
 man, escaping judgment from the Sanhedrin, came 
 here to visit Sextus Czesar, and was made by him 
 poneres of the army of Ceelesyria (Ant. XIV. ix. 5). 
 ater, according to Jos. (BJ I. xxi. 11), he showed 
 his magnanimity by adorning many cities, not 
 only within but also beyond his own dominions. 
 To D. he added the attractions of a gymnasium 
 and a theatre. It was on the way to D. that the 
 
 
 
 
 
 DAMASCUS 
 
 
 
 miraculous event occurred through which Saul 
 of Tarsus was converted to Christianity ; and in 
 this city he first testified for Christ (Ac 977). It 
 was then under the Arabian Aretas, and governed 
 by an ethnarch, whose vigilance Paul escaped, being 
 let down over the wall in a basket (2 Co 1153), 
 Hither the apostle returned, after his sojourn in 
 Arabia (Gall’). It wasreckoned to the Decapolis 
 (Pliny, HN v.16). Josephus curiously remarks 
 that Scythopolis was the greatest of these cities 
 After Herod’s time he says little of D.; but there 
 must have been a strong Jewish colony there: 
 at one time some 10,000 of these were slain by 
 the populace (BJ 1. xx. 2). Under Trajan, D. 
 attained the rank of a Roman provincial city. 
 Since that time, although she has often changed 
 hands, her career of prosperity has hardly been 
 interrupted, save perhaps when she fell before the 
 ferocious Tamerlane (1399). D. is still the chief city 
 in Syria, with a population of not less than 150,000. 
 Christians have always been fairly numerous 
 in the city. Theodosius transformed the great 
 temple into a Christian church. On the advent of 
 Islam it was changed into a Moslem mosque. D. 
 was originally subordinate to Antioch, which was 
 the seat of the patriarch; but this official, still 
 taking his title from Antioch, now resides in 
 Damascus. The darkest blot on the history of the 
 city is the massacre of some 6000 Christians in 
 the summer of 1860. 
 
 ii. GEOGRAPHY.—One of the most beautiful and 
 fertile plains in the world is that which lies to the 
 east of the Anti-Lebanon range, at an elevation of 
 about 2200 ft. above sea-level. Great Hermon, 
 Jebel esh-Sheikh, a vast snowy bank filling all the 
 horizon, forms the western boundary. A chain of 
 hills, thrown off to eastward from Anti-Libanus, 
 runs along the northernedge. Jebel el-Aswad and 
 Jebel MAni‘ shut it inon the south. Three marshy 
 lakes mark the eastern frontier of fertility ; and 
 away beyond them rises a range of low hills, 
 which definitely cuts off this district from the 
 sandy wastes of the Arabian desert. These sur- 
 rounding hills, all bare and forbidding, save in 
 the deeper and shadier wadies, enclose within 
 their rocky arms a broad expanse of rich waving 
 
 een. 
 
 This plain owes its fertility almost entirely to the 
 river e/-Barada, ‘the cool,’ which bursts through 
 the limestone ramparts on the north, to fling itself 
 in many a refreshing stream over its surface; and 
 to the waters of e/-A‘waj, ‘the crooked,’ which, 
 coming down from the eastern slopes of Gt. Her- 
 mon, flows through the southern meadows. Some- 
 thing is also due to the protection of the desert 
 hills in the east, which in a measure bar the way 
 against the drifting sand-storms from the wilder- 
 ness. In the plain the natives distinguish five 
 districts. The western portion, extending about 
 two hours east of the gorge of the Barada, ia 
 divided by that river into the northern and southern 
 Ghautah. To the east is the Merj, also divided by 
 the Barada into north and south; while all dying 
 between these districts and Jebel el-Aswad an 
 the valley of eJ-A‘waj, is known as Wady el-Ajam. 
 Scattered over this tract are some 140 villages. A 
 population of about 50,000 are engaged almost ex- 
 clusively in agricultural pursuits. Clumps of 
 olives, and many varieties of fruit trees pleasantly 
 diversify the landscape, while between them, in 
 season, far and wide, wave seas of golden grain. 
 On the edge of the plain, east of e/-Barada, just 
 under Jebel Kasiiéin, which rises some 1700 ft., lie 
 the famous orchards, some 30 miles in circum- 
 ference, which encircle with luxuriant foliage the 
 ancient city of Damascus. From afar are seen the 
 white roofs, domes, and minarets, in striking relief 
 against the green. The scene of rich beauty here 
 
DAMASCUS 
 
 presented, with the shade of fruitful trees, and on 
 every hand the music of running water, has ever 
 {nspired the Arab with admiration; and when he 
 dreamed of Paradise—‘the garden’ par excellence— 
 his imagery was drawn from the gardens and streams 
 of Damascus. Nor need we wonder if, coming 
 from the ae. monotony of the burning desert, 
 the Bedawi, fascinated by its delights, thinks 
 himself in the midst of an earthly Paradise. Even 
 for the eye accustomed to the fresh beauty and 
 fruitfulness of the West, it possesses many a charm, 
 although the descriptive language of the Arab 
 may appear somewhat exaggerated. There are 
 few places where so rich a variety of fruits is 
 brought to maturity within a similar area. In 
 the vicinity of the city are large vegetable gardens; 
 and in the fields beyond different kinds of grain, 
 tobacco, cotton, flax, hemp, madder-roots, and 
 vicinus are grown. The olive is plentiful, and 
 much of the oil used in the city is made in the 
 neighbourhood. Tall, graceful poplars line the 
 banks of the ercoras, yieldin excellent timber for 
 building purposes. Firewood is mostly made of 
 the olive and the apricot. There are also the 
 cypress, the plane tree, and the stately palm. 
 ut the charm of D. is felt chiefly in her 
 dens, and under the shadow of her far-stretch- 
 ing thickets of fruit trees. There, in generous 
 rivalry, are found the orange, the lemon, and the 
 citron; the apple, the pear, and the quince; 
 plums and prunes, grapes and figs, pomegranate 
 and mulberry, almonds and walnuts, hazel-nuts 
 and pistachios. 
 
 D. is situated about 60 miles from the coast. 
 Its exact position is 33° 30’ N. lat., 36° 18’ E. long. 
 It is now most easily approached by the magnifi- 
 cent French diligence road from Beirfit, which 
 scales Mount Lebanon, crosses e/-Beka‘, and then 
 follows the easy passes through Anti-Lebanon to 
 the plain of Damascus. The routes by which of old 
 she communicated with the seaboard varied with 
 
 litical conditions. The way to Tripoli lay past 
 
 a‘albek and Bésherreh. That to Beirfiit followed 
 closely the line of the present road ; while the 
 aa eight of the two Lebanons lay also between 
 
 . and e and Sidon. When the way was 
 
 clear, she found the most convenient outlet at 
 
 Acre. This road led to the south-west 
 and Kuneiterah over the Jedir uplands, crossed 
 the Jordan below lake Hileh by Jisr Bendt Ya'kib, 
 traversed the rolling downs of the upper Jordan 
 valley, and splitting towards the west, one arm 
 took the difficult but direct route by way of Safed ; 
 the other swept southward past Khan Jubb Yusi 
 to the plain of Gennesaret at Khdn Minyeh, and, 
 following an easy line by the wadies to the north- 
 west, joined the Safed road at Er-Rdmeh. From 
 Gennesaret a branch of this highway ascended the 
 uplands west of the Sea of Galilee to Khdn et- 
 ujadr, and, passing round the base of Tabor, 
 crossed the plain of Esdraelon to Megiddo, and 
 thence to the Philistine plain and Egypt. Another 
 branch kept the valley along the shore of the 
 lake, and southward past Bethshan to Jericho. 
 This was crossed by a road, which, leaving D. 
 in a more southerly direction, traversed the Pas 
 reaches of the Haurdn, came down into the valley 
 from the Jauldn highlands east of the sea, by way 
 of Aphek, and here dividing, one limb crossed the 
 Jordan below the lake, climbed the hills to west- 
 ward, and reached Acre by way of Kefr Kennah ; 
 the other passed up the vale of Jezreel, and again 
 bifurcating, one branch went straight to the sea 
 over Esdraelon: the other, bending to the south- 
 west, is identified with the ancient caravan road 
 from Gilead, which passes by Dothan, and comes 
 down upon the plain of Sharon. The old gold and 
 kincense caravan road from Arabia the Happy 
 
 ast Sa‘sa' 
 
 DAMASCUS 547 
 
 has frequently changed its course in the northern 
 reaches. The traffic has long been confined to the 
 Poona of the Haj, the Moslem pilgrimage to and 
 rom Ll-Haramein, El-Medinah, and Mecca. The 
 great road from Aleppo in the north is split as 
 with a wedge at Emesa by the Anti-Lebanon ridge. 
 It throws an arm round either side of the moun- 
 tain, that on the west traversing the valley of 
 Ceelesyria by way of Ba‘albek, and unites again at 
 Damascus. Eastward lay the highways across the 
 desert to Palmyra and Baghdad. Thus the great 
 avenues of communication between north and 
 south, east and west, along which flowed the com- 
 merce and marched the armies of the ancient 
 world, lay through the heart of the city. Resting 
 in the midst of a beautiful oasis on the edge of the 
 changeless desert, surrounded by desert hills, she 
 formed the natural harbour whither steered the 
 argosies from the sea of sand, bearing the treasures 
 of the East: whence again the sombre mariners set 
 forth upon their dreary voyage homeward. Herein 
 we have the secret of her perennial greatness. A 
 strong position she never was, and often has she 
 bowed beneath the stroke of the conqueror, be- 
 coming ‘a servant to task work.’ But, ever as the 
 tides of war rolled back, she has arisen again, fresh 
 and vigorous as of yore. She has been the meeting 
 place and mart of the nations ; and as she has been 
 of use to all, to the desert nomad and to the more 
 civilized and settled peoples alike, so the necessities 
 of all have conspired to perpetuate her prosperity. 
 
 iii, TRADE.—It seems probable that the chief 
 source of income to the people of D. would be 
 the constantly passing caravans. But that the 
 also traded on their own account is shown in Ez 
 27'8, the ‘handyworks’ of Tyre being exchanged 
 for ‘the wine of Helbon and white wool.’ Halbién, 
 a village about 12 miles north of D., is still 
 famous for its vine ear and the mountain 
 shepherds of Anti-Lebanon would always have a 
 supply of white wool for the D. merchants. 
 From Am 3!2 (RV) we may gather that the city 
 was already known for silken manufactures. Our 
 word ‘ Damask’ is derived from a product of the 
 looms of Damascus. Ata later time her armourers 
 also achieved wide fame, and the ‘ Damascus blade’ 
 was highly prized. They were carried off en masse 
 by Tamerlane, and settled in Samarkand. 
 
 iv. ANTIQUITIES.—The main stream of E£I-Bar- 
 ada, the true creator of the city, enters from 
 the N.W., and, passing under the great square, 
 part escapes to water the gardens on the north, 
 while the rest is carried off through multitudinous 
 conduits to supply the houses of the inhabitants. 
 The distribution of the water has always been a 
 matter requiring the exercise of both care and 
 tact among these excitable people: so it has come 
 to be a common saying, that ‘every drop of the 
 water of E/-Barada has to run according to 
 law.’ The ancient city was built on the southern 
 bank of the stream. Much more ground is now 
 covered to the north, and especially to the S. 
 and §.W., while the long limb of Hl-Méddn, ter- 
 minating in the ‘Gate of God,’ Bawwabet Ullah, 
 whence issue the pilgrims for Mecca, stretches 
 far to the S. The old walls may be traced, how- 
 ever, along the edge of the stream, and through the 
 centre of the modern city, in circumference about 
 4 miles. For a city of such extraordinary age, 
 D. is not rich in antiquities. The castle, a rect- 
 angular building of great extent, standing at the 
 N.W. corner of the old wall, probably dates only 
 from the Middle Ages, although the substructures 
 are ancient. To the S. of the eastern gate part 
 of the wall is very old. The gate itself dates from 
 Roman times; and the line of the Via Recta, ‘the 
 street called straight,’ may be traced from this te 
 the western gate. It is still called Derd el-Mus. 
 
 
 
548 DAMN, DAMNABLE, DAMNATION 
 
 DAN 
 
 
 
 takim, straight street, by the natives (Derb es- 
 Sulidny, ‘the king’s highway,’ is the name given 
 
 every important road in the country). This is 
 the straight street common to all Syro-Greek and 
 Syro-Roman cities, of which fine examples are still 
 to be seen at Bosrah and Shuhbah. The great 
 mosque esis Ms the site of the temple 
 of Rimmon (2 58), It is in accordance with 
 the conservatism of the Orient, that the spot 
 has preserved its religious character under the 
 dominion of successive faiths. It was a spacious 
 Greek temple, then a Christian church, and finally 
 it became a Moslem mosque; the only remaining 
 evidence of Christian use being the Greek inscrip- 
 tion over the southern gateway, ‘Thy kingdom, O 
 Christ, is an everlasting kingdom, and Thy dom- 
 inion endureth for all generations.’ The Moslems 
 say that the head of John the Baptist was buried 
 here; but Christian tradition has it that the 
 church was dedicated to John Damascenus, whose 
 tomb was within it ; and there his body was mir- 
 aculously retained, when an effort was made to 
 remove it. Of this mosque, which for centuries 
 had been the pride of the Moslem world, a large 
 part was destroyed by fire in October 1893. 
 
 The traditions associating certain spots with 
 Abraham, Naaman, and Elisha are of the most 
 shadowy character. Hardly more reliable are 
 those relating to the experiences of St. Paul. A 
 spot about half a mile E. of the city is shown as the 
 scene of his conversion. It is now the Christian 
 burying-ground. But tradition has several times 
 contradicted itself as to the scene of this miracle : 
 in any case it could not be here, as the traveller 
 from the 8. would not enter the city from the 
 E. Between this and the gate is the grave of 
 8t. George, the pe porter who connived at St. 
 Paul’s escape, and suffered martyrdom. The spot 
 where the apostle was let down over the wall ina 
 basket, ‘the house of Judas’ in Straight street, 
 and also the house of Ananias, are pointed out; 
 but considerable uncertainty attaches to them 
 all, W. Ewina. 
 
 DAMN, DAMNABLE, DAMNATION. — These 
 words have in the course of time suffered a process 
 of degeneration, for which, says Bishop Sanderson, 
 ‘we are not so much beholden to good acts as 
 to bad manners.’ The Lat. dammnare signified 
 ‘to inflict loss on one,’ ‘to condemn.’ But, under 
 the influence of theology, the Eng. words thence 
 derived soon acquired the sense of ‘condemnation 
 to eternal punishment’; and this special appli- 
 cation ran alongside the orig. meaning from the 
 14th cent. to the 18th. In the 1619 ed. of the 
 Bishops’ NT, the translation of 1 Ti 5! is ‘having 
 damnation, because they have cast away their first 
 faith’; and there is added this note: ‘S. Paul doth 
 not here speake of the everlasting damnation, but 
 by this word damnation, doeth rather understand 
 the shame that those wanton widowes shall have 
 in the world for breaking their promise.’ Thus 
 even then the sense to which the words are now 
 wholly confined was the most familiar. But in 
 earlier English it was not so. To Wyclif’s ear the 
 words must have had a very different suggestion, 
 for he not only uses ‘damn’ freely in the sense of 
 ‘condemn,’ as in his tr. of Job 9” ‘If I wole make 
 me iust, my mouth shall dampne me,’ but even 
 uses it of our Lord Himself, as in Mk 10* ‘ For lo! 
 we stien to Jerusalem, and mannus sone schal be 
 bitraied to the princis of prestis, and to scribis, 
 and to the eldre men; and thei schulen dampne 
 hym bi deth.’ 
 
 In AV ‘damned’ occurs as tr. of xeraxpivw Mk 1616, Ro 14% 
 (RV ‘condemned’), of xpivw 2 Th 212(RV ‘ Pape *), *Damnable’ 
 1s found only 2 P #1 ‘damnable heresies,’ Gr. wipious &xwrsins, R 
 ‘destructive heresies,’ RVm ‘sects of perdition.’ ‘Damnation’ 
 
 is the tr. of xeradi«ey Wis 1227 (RV ‘condemnation”); of é*éAua 
 2 P 28 (RV ‘ destruction’); of xpioi Mt 2333, Jn 529 (RV ‘ judg- 
 ment’), Mk 329 (RV ‘sin,’ reading éuépryue); and of xpiua Mk 
 1240, Lk 2047, Ro 38, 1 Ti 512 (RV ‘ condonmaliaaty Ro 130, 1 Co 
 1129 (RV ‘judgment’), while Mt 2314 is omitted from RV. Thus 
 the words are never used in AV in the sense now attaching to 
 them, and they are completely banished from RV. See more 
 fully Roberts in Expos. Times, iii. 549 ff., and the art. JUDGMENT, 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DAMSEL, now archaic or poetical, is freely used 
 in AV; and it is retained in RV, except where the 
 Gr. is madlov (Mk 5% 40 dé. 41 “child’) or wadloxn 
 (Mt 26, Jn 1817, Ac 12!3 1616 ‘maid’).* In Gn 34? 
 one word (4273 na'‘drdh) is twice tr4 in AV ‘d.,’ in 
 v.4 another (739: yaldah) ; and again in Mk 58% #0 dts. 41 
 we have one word (madlov), in vv.*+42 another 
 (xopdotov), RV preserves the distinction in St. 
 
 ark. J. HASTINGS, 
 
 DAN (fi ‘judge,’ Adv).—The elder of the two sons 
 borne to Jacob by Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid. The 
 origin of the name, given in Gn 30°(E), is that, after 
 her long barrenness, God had judged Rachel and 
 had given her a son, the son of her handmaid 
 counting as her own. No details of his history 
 are given in the patriarchal narratives. Modern 
 critics usually regard him as, like the other sons 
 of Jacob, the eponymous ancestor of the tribe of 
 Dan. These tribes are divided into two main 
 branches, the Leah tribes and the Rachel tribes. 
 Dan belongs to the latter; but the representation 
 of Dan and Naphtali as sons of Bilhah implies 
 
 that they were inferior members of the Rachel 
 group. hat the tribe was quite small appears 
 Tom various indications. 
 
 On yon. son is men- 
 tioned in Gn 46% Hushim (in Nu 26“ Shuham), 
 that is, the tribe consisted of a single clan. It 
 is referred to as a ‘family’ in the important 
 narrative of its migration to Laish, Jg 18*1-, 
 The fighting men on this expedition are only 600, 
 and they seem to have been the majority of the tribe. 
 It is unnecessary to attach much importance to 
 the characteristic statement of P, which places 
 the fighting men of Dan, during the wilderness 
 wandering, at more than 60,000 (Nu 1* 26%), 
 
 After the settlement in Canaan, the clan seems 
 to have broken off from the main Joseph grou 
 in order to secure a district for itself. In this it 
 was only partially successful. Its territory lay 
 to the S.W. of Ephraim, and joined that of Ben- 
 jamin and Judah. It seems to have stretched 
 forward towards the fertile lowlands, but whether 
 it ever occupied any portion of them or not is 
 uncertain. The reference in the Song of Deborah 
 (Jg 5!) is itself very obscure, and the chronolo 
 of the period so uncertain, that we learn little 
 from it. We do not know whether it refers to the 
 northern or the southern settlements. The most 
 obvious sense of the wordg is that Dan had pushed 
 forward to the sea. But we have no other evidence 
 that it ever reached the coast. Nor is it certain 
 that the words require this interpretation. Moore 
 translates: ‘Dap, why does he live neighbour to 
 ships?’ and explains—Why does he live as a de- 
 endent under the protection of Phenician sea- 
 arers? He thinks the northern Danites are 
 meant. G. A. Smith thinks Deborah may speak 
 ‘in scorn of futile ambitions westward, which 
 were stirred in Dan by the sight of the sea from 
 the Shephelah,’ but admits that Dan may have 
 reached the coast at some time (Hist. Geog. P: 220). 
 RV, ‘Dan, why did he remain in ships?’ is not 
 satisfactory. It is most probable that the tribe 
 never reached the sea; but even if it did so, it 
 
 * The spelling of AV 1611 is never ‘damsel’ ; ‘damsell’ occurs 
 in Gn 24, 34, and Damsell Mt 1411, while ‘damsels’ is found Gn 
 2461, Jg 199. Elsewhere it is either ‘damosel’ or (most freq) 
 ‘damosell,’ with ‘damosels’ for plural and possessive. This 
 nearer the Lat. dominicella, dim. of domina, ‘ ” and 
 the Fr. demoiselle. 
 
 
 
DAN 
 
 must have been soon compelled to retreat. Not 
 only so, but we learn that it was forced back even 
 from the lowlands by the Amorites (Jg 1%), 
 Wellhausen thinks that it was really the Philis- 
 tines who drove them back into the hill country. 
 But it seems safer to accept the statement of the 
 vext, though possibly the Philistines forced back 
 the Amorites, who, in turn, pushed Dan back. 
 We find the tribe after this living in the vales 
 of Aijalon and Sorek, in and about the towns of 
 Zorah and Eshtaol (Jg 18, cf. 13). The lot of 
 the tribe as given in Jos 19" includes very much 
 more. But it cannot be taken as proving that 
 Dan’s territory ever included, even in idea, during 
 its actual history, all the towns mentioned. It is 
 the work of the Priestly Writer, and therefore 
 very late. Not only so, but the general account 
 of the territories of the tribes makes it clear that 
 the whole land of Palestine was regarded as occu- 
 pied by the Hebrews, though the actual history 
 was very different. In this case the method of 
 the writer has been to specify places actually 
 oes by Dan (Zorah, Eshtaol, Shaalabbin, 
 Aijalon), and to add all the adjacent places which 
 were not assigned to other tribes, though strangely 
 Eshtaol and Zorah are assigned to Judah as border 
 towns (15*). 
 
 Although the tribe still retained this small 
 district, it was so cramped in it that it became 
 necessary to seek a new home. We have a most 
 valuable account of this expedition in Jg 18. The 
 narrative in this chapter and the Praediig; of 
 which it is a continuation, is probably composite. 
 Budde prints his analysis (which has been fol- 
 lowed in the main both by Kittel and by Moore) 
 in his Richter und Samuel. It is not, however, 
 important for our a ose to follow the sues, 
 as the outlines of the story are quite clear. 
 A small party of spies was sent northward, and 
 found in Laish (Leshem, Jos 1947, which Well- 
 hausen thinks was originally Lesham), a city 
 which from the fertility of the district was ve 
 inviting, and from its isolation, and the peaceful, 
 eal aar character of the inhabitants, was 
 likely to fall an easy prey. Six hundred armed 
 men with their families and goods set out for 
 Laish. On their way they plundered the sanctua 
 of Micah, an Ephraimite, of its images, and too 
 his priest with them. He pursued them with a 
 few neighbours; but his remonstrance was met 
 with a grimly humorous warning that unless he 
 was silent he might irritate them into killing him 
 and his family, a hint which Micah discreetl 
 took. The Danites then moved on to Laish, whic 
 they captured and burnt, while they butchered 
 the inhabitants. They built a new city and called 
 it Dan. Probably only a small remnant was left 
 behind in the south, but at least a remnant, with 
 its home between Zorah and Eshtaol in the camp 
 of Dan (Jg 13%, in Jg 18? Mahaneh-dan is said to 
 be in Kiriath-jearim, but this is less likely). That 
 ® remnant was left is made probable by the story 
 of Samson, who belonged to this tribe. That it 
 was small seems clear from the subsequent eatory 
 It plays no part in the later history of Israel. It 
 is omitted from the tribes in the genealogies of 
 Chronicles and in the list of the Apocalypse. 
 
 The character of the tribe is sketched in the 
 blessings of Jacob and Moses. In the former we 
 
 * Dan shall judge his people, 
 As one of the tribes of Israel. 
 Dan shall be a serpent in the way, 
 An adder in the path, 
 That biteth the horse’s heels, 
 So that his rider falleth backward. 
 I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord’ (Gn 4916-18), 
 
 The first sentence has been variously understood, 
 but probably the meaning is that Dan shall take 
 
 DANCING 549 
 
 his part with the other tribes in defending Israel. 
 The writer probably has Samson in mind. The 
 comparison in v.!” is to the stealthy tactics adopted 
 by Dan in war or on marauding expeditions, by 
 which, weak tribe though it was, it secured a 
 victory over foes of superior strength. The attack 
 on Laish is a good example. In the Blessing of 
 Moses we read— 
 ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp, 
 That leapeth forth from Bashan’ (Dt 8323), 
 
 Here, too, the point of the metaphor is the 
 suddenness with which the tribe would attack. 
 The reference is not so much to war, probably, 
 as to attacks on caravans, for which it would lie 
 in wait. Although the second line refers to the 
 ‘lion’s whelp,’ yet the mention of Bashan makes 
 it probable that the northern portion of the tribe 
 is in the author’s mind. From 25 20! where we 
 should probably read ‘in Abel and in Dan,’ it 
 seems that Dan was regarded as a tribe that held 
 fast to the good old Israelite customs. 
 
 The gentilic name Danites (377) occurs Jg 13? 
 184, ] Ch 12. A. 8S. PEAKE. 
 
 DAN (jn, Adv).—A city which marked the most 
 N. point of Pal., and naturally became linked with 
 Beersheba, the boundary town in the south. The 
 phrase ‘from Dan to Beersheba’ was at once pictur- 
 esque and suggestive of dimension, and in times of 
 national crisis emphasized the fact that amid all 
 tribal distinctions there was a common inheritance 
 —the whole land of Israel (Jg 20, 1 S 3, 28 3%). 
 The chief independent notice is the account of the 
 Danite invasion given in Jg 18, where the change 
 of name from Laish or Leshem is accounted for. 
 In all likelihood it is the same place that is referred 
 to in the census-journey of Joab as Danjaan, 2S 
 24°, If the peas jaar instead of ja'an be 
 accepted, it would indicate the first point of 
 contact with the rocky ground and oak scrub of 
 Lebanon, which the Arabs call wa‘ar. 
 
 At Dan Jeroboam set up one of the calves of gold 
 (1 K 12%), Dan disappears from Scripture after 
 the invasion of Benhadad (1 K 15”, 2 Ch 164). It 
 is referred to by Josephus, Eusebius, and Jerome in 
 terms that identify it with the present Tell el-Kadi 
 (although G. A. Smith prefers to locate Dan at 
 Banias). The mound rises out of a close jungle of 
 tall bushes and rank reeds, with larger trees on the 
 higher slopes, until an irregular oblong plateau is 
 reached, about 40 ft. high on the N. side and 80 ft. 
 on the S., and resting upon one of the broad fringe- 
 like terraces with which the skirts of Hermon sweep 
 down towards the plain of Huleh (L. Merom). On 
 the W. side, amid the rough boulders and blocks 
 of ancient masonry that cover the ground, there 
 
 ushes out the immense fountain (Leddan) that 
 orms by far the largest source of the Jordan 
 current, where 5 miles down it meets the waters 
 from the upper springs of Hasbeya and Banias. 
 
 LiTzRATURE.—Robinson, BRP; Thomson, Land and Book ; 
 Smith, HGHL 473, 480f.; Moore, Judges, 390; see also art. 
 Oar (Gowen). G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 DANCING is, in its origin, an expression of the 
 feelings by movements of the body more or less 
 
 controlled by asense of rhythm. It was practised, 
 therefore, long before it was raised to the dignity 
 of an art, being simply a natural development of 
 the tendency to employ gesture, either as an 
 accompaniment to, or a substitute for, speech. 
 We may distinguish three stages in the early his- 
 tory of dancing, as exemplified in the practice of 
 ancient nations: (1) Its rudest and most unstudied 
 form, the outward expression of exuberant feel- 
 ing; (2) the pantomimic dance, in which, ¢.g., the 
 movements of hostile armies were represented ; 
 (3) the dance pure and simple, the ibition of 
 
 
 
550 DANCING 
 
 DANCING 
 
 
 
 the poetry of motion, of all the grace of attitude 
 and all the flexibility of which the body is capable. 
 Social dancing, as we now understand it, was 
 almost, if not altogether, unknown in ancient 
 times. 
 
 Whatever view we may hold of the presence or 
 position of Israel in Egypt, we have no evidence to 
 show that the Hebrews borrowed thence their love 
 or their methods of dancing. They never seem, 
 in ancient times, to have reached the third of the 
 stages which we have enumerated. We hear 
 nothing of performances by professional artists, 
 similar to ‘howe represented on the Egyp. monu- 
 ments, and supposed by Lane to have been the 
 direct ancestors of the modern Ghawazee. There 
 is no mention of solo or figure dancing, of contra- 
 dances (unless we attach this meaning to the nbinp 
 oynen, Ca 6!), or of anything approaching in 
 elaboration the performances associated with the 
 Feast of Eternity. Still less can we expect a 
 reasoned appreciation of the exercise as a means 
 of developing the mind and body, such as we have 
 in Plato’s Laws. All the allusions point to spon- 
 taneous movements; in processions these would 
 be impromptu on the part of the leaders, and more 
 or less closely imitated by the others. Three ideas 
 are represented in the vocabulary : leaping, cire- 
 ling, and making merry. Thus 77), 797 (Ee 34, 
 1 ch 15”), to leap ; 7272, to circle (2 S 6" 16) ; Sbin 
 (Jg 21%, Ps 877), to twist oneself ; pny, pry (Jg 1675, 
 1 § 187, 1 Ch 15”), Zié. tolaugh. It is self-evident 
 that these words might be used in a looser and in 
 a more technical sense. They were applied to the 
 artless play of the children (Job 21"), as well as 
 to the dancing of the adults. 
 
 Few as are the references in the Bible, they show 
 that almost any occurrence might be associated 
 with dancing: the return of the prodigal, the 
 commemoration of an hist. event, the welcoming 
 of a hero on his return from battle, the ingather- 
 tng of the vintage, —whatever called for an expres- 
 sion of joy or excited the heart to gladness. Of 
 dancing for its own sake, of its practice as an art, 
 there is no trace. lLeyrer sees a possible exception 
 to this in Ca 6%, but the passage is too obscure 
 to admit positively of such an explanation. 
 Whether we should look on Mahanaim as the 
 name of a place, or as descriptive of a dancing 
 in which two rows of performers took part, or 
 whether, with Delitzsch, we should understand 
 an allusion to the angels, must remain a matter 
 of doubt. The only unmistakable instance of 
 artistic dancing is that mentioned in Mt 14, the 
 performance of Herodias’ daughter ‘in the midst’ 
 of the guests assembled on Herod’s birthday. 
 This was due, however, to the introduction of 
 Greek fashions, through contact with the Romans, 
 who had adopted them, and hardly belongs to our 
 subject. 
 
 It is with dancing in connexion with the religious 
 rites and ceremonies of the Hebrews that we are 
 mainly concerned in this article. Their religion 
 was, esp. in pre-exilic times, predominantly social 
 and joyful. It found its proper esthetic expres- 
 sion in a merry sacrificial feast, which was the 
 public veremony of a township or clan. Then the 
 crowds streamed into the sanctuary from all sides, 
 dressed in their gayest attire, marching joyfully 
 to the sound of music. Universal hilarity pre- 
 vailed ; men ate and drank and made merry to- 
 
 ether, rejoicing before their god (W. R. Smith, 
 
 ‘S 236 ff.). To such a religion dancing would be a 
 natural adjunct. The cultus was not a system of 
 rites, artificially contrived to express and maintain 
 theological doctrines, but the free outcome of the 
 religious feelings, which found vent in the wa 
 suggested by, and in harmony with, the disposi- 
 tion and genius of the people. It is not surprising, 
 
 however, that we find comparatively few references 
 to this part of the cultus in OT, or that no pro- 
 vision is made for it in the regulations contained 
 in the recognized standards of the priests. There 
 is no trace of the existence among the Hebrews 
 of any class of priests corresponding to the Salii 
 of ancient Rome, and their vintage and other 
 festivals are far from possessing the significance of 
 the great carnivals of the pagan world. The fact 
 seems to be that the priestly historians and legis- 
 lators resolutely excluded, as far as possible, every- 
 thing that eould infer any similarity between the 
 worship of J” and that of heathen deities. Never- 
 theless, enough remains to show that dancing 
 was practised and acknowledged as part of the 
 Heb. ritual. The dancing of Miriam and the 
 women of Israel (Ex 157t-) may have been due to 
 an ancient ceremony connected with the Passover. 
 In any view of it, the dance formed an essential part 
 of an act of worship (cf. Is 30”). At the annual 
 vintage festival at Shiloh— a feast of the Lord ’— 
 the maidens came out and joined in dances in the 
 vineyards (Jg 2121), When David took part in 
 the procession at the removal of the ark, he did 
 so in a priestly capacity : he wore the linen ephod, 
 the official dress of the priests (2S 674). hese 
 assages exhaust the list of religious dances in OT. 
 ut the allusions in the Psalms and Prophets, and 
 the references to the rites in honour of idols, point in 
 the same direction ; e.g. the dance round the golden 
 calf (Ex 32!*), and at the altar of Baal (1 K 18%), 
 The people retained in later times their fondness 
 for dancing in connexion with religious rites, as 
 is shown by the ceremonies connected with the 
 Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement. 
 On the latter day, and on the 15th Abib, the maidens 
 of Jerus. are said to have gone in white garments, 
 specially lent them for the purpose so that rich 
 and poor might be on an equality, into the vine- 
 yards close to the city, where they danced and 
 sang. The following fragment of one of their 
 songs has been preserved, and is thus given by 
 Edersheim— 
 * Around in circle gay, the Hebrew maidens see; 
 From them our happy youths their partners choose. 
 Remember! Beauty soon its charm must lose— 
 And seek to win a maid of fair degree. 
 When fading grace and beauty low are laid, 
 Then praise shall her who fears the Lord await; 
 
 God does bless her handiwork—and, in the gate, 
 ““Her works do follow her,” it shall be said.’ 
 
 The other dance festival was held on the day 
 receding the Feast of Tabernacles, and is said tc 
 ave been instituted by Judas Maccabeus. At 
 the appointed time everyone went to the ‘ house 
 of the Sho’¢bah,’ carrying branches with lemons 
 attached, for the procession round the altar. In 
 the court were large candelabra, each with four 
 arms; four priests, or youths of priestly descent, 
 climbed ladders, filled the vessels with oil, and lit 
 the wicks, which were made of cast-off belts of the 
 riests. All Jerus. was lighted from the fires. 
 ‘he whole multitude joined in the laudations that 
 followed. Men famous for their piety and good 
 works danced with lighted torches, and great 
 scholars like Hillel were not above exhibiting 
 their dexterity and agility to the admiring crowd. 
 Meanwhile the Levites, standing on the steps that 
 led from the court of the men to that of the 
 women, accompanied the performance with psalms 
 and canticles, and the sound of the kinndérs and 
 cymbals was heard, with trumpets and other 
 musical instruments. The whole festival is proof 
 of that irrepressible love of display and hilarity 
 which revealed itself in the popular religion of 
 Judaism, 
 
 LrreraTurR.—Spencer, De Leg. Rit. iv. 4; Voss, Gesch. der 
 Tanzkunst ; Grove (etc.), Dancing, in ‘Badminton Library’; 
 Leyrer, PRE? xv. pp. 206-208; Wetstein, Zeitschr. fiir Eth 
 
 
 
=~ _—_— =. |= 
 aaa 
 
 
 
 DANDLE 
 
 DANIEL 551 
 
 
 
 nologie, 1873, p. 285 ff.; Smith, RS? p. 482; Tristram, Hastern 
 Customs, pp. 207-210; Delitzsch, Iris, pp. 189-206; Conder, 
 Tent Work, pp. 306, 826, 346. J. MILLAR. 
 
 DANDLE (prob. from It. dandola or dondola, a 
 doll), to ‘toss gently,’ is found Is 66! ‘ be dandled 
 upon her knees.’ Cf. Palsgrave (1530), ‘I dandyll, 
 as a mother or nourryce doth a childe upon her 
 pers and Rp. Hall (1614), ‘If our Church, on 
 whose lappe the vilest miscreants are dandled.’ 
 It is doubtful, however, if this tr. is accurate 
 enough, though RV retains it. The Heb. (yyy) is 
 to stroke or caress, rather than to toss or dandle. 
 The older versions have ‘be joyful upon her 
 knees’; except Wyc. 1380, ‘daunte you,’ 1388, 
 ‘speke plesauntly to you,’ and Douay, ‘speake 
 you fayre.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DANGER.—In Apocr. (Ad. Est 144, Sir 376 2917 
 3413 43%, 2 Mac 15!) and in Ac 197’-® ‘danger’ has 
 its modern meaning; and so the adj. ‘dangerous,’ 
 Sir 918, Ac 27°. But in the other passages in which 
 ‘danger’ occurs (Mt 57-2r, Mk 3) it is used in 
 the obsol. sense of ‘power,’ ‘control’; Gr. &voxos, 
 fr. év-€xw, held in the power of some person or thing, 
 hence (1) ‘ guilty of,’ as Ja 2, 1 Co 117; (2) ‘liable 
 to,’as here. RV retains ‘in danger of,’ except Mk 
 3” ‘guilty of an eternal sin,’ for AV ‘in danger of 
 eternal damnation,’ reading éuaprjuaros for xpicews. 
 
 The Lat. dominus ‘lord,’ was contracted in old French in 
 various ways, of which one was dans, and was thence adopted 
 into Eng. in the form dan. Spenser, F. Q. IV. ii. 32, has— 
 
 ‘Dan Chaucer, well of English undefyld.’ 
 Chaucer himself uses ‘dan’ freely as a title of respect=sir. 
 From this word was formed danger (first in late Lat. or Fr., and 
 then adopted into Eng.) by adding the term. gev, seen in 
 Passenger, messenger. This ‘danger’ became a great legal 
 word in mediwval Eng., signifying a lord’s rights or sway, the 
 
 extent of his jurisdiction. Hence ‘ power,’ ‘ control,’ as Chaucer, 
 Prot. 663 (Oxf. ed.)— 
 ‘In daunger hadde he at his owne gyse 
 The yonge girles of the diocyse.’ 
 
 Cf. More, Utapia, p. 116, 1. 5 (Lumby), ‘so disdaining to be in 
 her daunger, that he renounceth and refuseth all her benefites’ ; 
 and Shaks. Mer. of Ven. tv. i. 180— 
 
 ‘You stand within his danger, do you not?’ 
 Thus ‘to be in one’s danger’ passed easily into the meaning of 
 ‘be liable to’ punishment or the like, and then ‘be exposed to’ 
 any harm, the mod. meaning. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DANIEL, 5x33 (in Ezk 14% 2 288 bun, Leré Ses), 
 meaning ‘God is my judge,’ occurs in OT as the 
 name of three (or four) persons. 
 
 4. David’s second son, ‘born unto him in Heb- 
 ron’ ‘of Abigail the Carmelitess’ (1 Ch 3!). In 
 the parallel passage, 2S 3°, the name is Chileab 
 (ax53) ; and since this is the evident source of the 
 chronicler’s list, the name D. probably arose from 
 a corruption of the text. This apparently can be 
 traced through the LXX, which in each passage 
 has Aadoud (B Auer in 1 Ch 33) (anda, ards, des) 
 (Kittel on 1 Ch 3! in Haupt’s O7). 
 
 2. A priest of the line of Ithamar who returned 
 in the time of Artaxerxes with Ezra to Judea 
 (Ezr 82), and sealed the covenant drawn up by 
 Nehemiah (Neh 10%), unless two distinct persons 
 are mentioned. 
 
 3. The hero and traditional author of the Bk. of 
 Daniel. According to this book, D. was a youth 
 of noble descent and high physical and intellectual 
 endowments, carried b ie bichatnareas in the 
 third year of Jehoiakim from Jerus. to Babylon, and 
 with other Jewish youths, esp. three companions, 
 Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, assigned for 
 education at the: king’s court (Dn 1)7). D. and 
 his companions refused to defile themselves with 
 the royal food, and for their fidelity were rewarded 
 by being fairer in appearance ‘than all the youths 
 which did eat of the king’s meat,’ and in their 
 final examination before the king by being superior 
 
 in understanding and wisdom to all the magicians 
 and enchanters of the realm (Dr 18”), In the 
 second year of Nebuchadnezzar, D. revealed and in- 
 terpreted, on the failure of all the other wise men, 
 the king’s dream of the composite image, and was 
 made ruler over the whole province of Babylon 
 and chief ruler over all the wise men (Dn 2). He 
 also interpreted the king’s dream of the tree 
 (Dn 4). After the death of Nebuch. he seems to 
 have lost his high office and gone into retirement ; 
 but when the handwriting appeared on the wall of 
 the palace during Belshazzar’s feast (Dn 51-5), again 
 D. was, on the failure of the other magicians, sum- 
 moned at the instigation of the queen (vv.!!2), He 
 interpreted the writing, and was then clothed with 
 purple, decked with a chain, and proclaimed the 
 third ruler in the kingdom (v.”). Under Darius the 
 Mede, D. was appointed one of three presidents 
 over 120 satraps, and was distinguished above all 
 the others; ‘and the king thought to set him over 
 the whole realm’ (Dn 6°). Through this favour he 
 incurred the enmity of his fellow-officers, who, find- 
 ing no occasion of accusing him, persuaded Darius 
 to pass a decree that for 30 days no one should 
 aeer a petition unto any god or man except 
 himself on pain of being cast into a den of lions. 
 As they expected, D. faithfully continued his 
 custom of praying unto his God three times a day. 
 Thus an accusation was brought against D.; and 
 although the king tried to rescue him, yet he was 
 cast into the den of lions (vv.}2")5), but was miracu- 
 lously saved (v.%). D.’s accusers were then cast 
 into the den and quickly devoured, and the king 
 decreed that all men should fear and tremble before 
 the God of D. (vv.*4-?7). ‘So this D. prospered 
 in the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the 
 Persian’ (v.78). This is the story of D. in Dn 1-6. 
 In chs. 7-12 he appears as the recipient of a series 
 of divine apocalyptic revelations respecting the 
 future of Israel, for whose welfare he is extremely 
 concerned. Two additional stories, that of Bel 
 and the Dragon and that of Susanna, are also 
 related concerning him in the Apocrypha. 
 
 This narrative of D. is evidently an example of 
 Jewish Haggadoth (see next art.). Whether D. 
 represents in any way a real hist. character cannot 
 be absolutely determined. In Ezk 14% a D. is 
 mentioned with Noah and Job as a pre-eminently 
 righteous character, and in Ezk 28° as an example 
 of the highest wisdom. This association and 
 allusion imply that the D. in the mind of the 
 
 rophet was an ancient worthy in the traditions of 
 fee (We can with difficulty conceive of Ezekiel 
 speaking thus of a younger contemporary. See 
 Cheyne in Eapositor, July 1897, p. 25.) Of this 
 D. of Jewish tradition we are entirely ignorant; 
 Ak proneely he was the prototype of the D. of the 
 
 xile, and many features of this ancient character 
 probably reappear in the laterone. Ewald maples 
 that the D. of Ezk was a Jewish exile of the ten 
 tribes who lived at the court of Nineveh and had 
 acquired there a reputation for wisdom and right- 
 eousness, and whom later Jewish tradition trans- 
 ferred to Babylon. Or it is possible that there 
 was such a distinguished Jew at Babylon, who 
 enjoyed the favour first of Nebuch. and then of the 
 Persian conquerors, who was actually named D., or 
 owing to his wisdom and righteousness was so called 
 by his countrymen after the ancient worthy alluded 
 to by Ezk, and thus a real historical character may 
 have been the basis of the hero of the Bk. of Daniel.* 
 
 The story of D. appears to have been written 
 in imitation of that o ed pereearaty however, 
 often repeats itself ; yet, if the story is historical, it 
 is strange that no reference is made to D. in the 
 
 * Cheyne suggests a connexion between D. and Zoroaster, the 
 
 name having been coined out of the Zend ddnu, ‘wise’ os 
 ‘wisdom’ (Bamp. Lect. on Psalter, 106 ff.). 
 
 
 
552 
 
 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 OT narrative of the restoration ; that no post-exilic 
 writer before the Maccabzean age knows anything 
 about him ; that no one else shared his expectations ; 
 and that he, with all his patriotism, did not avail 
 himself of the opportunity of returning to Pal. ; 
 and that Benigiene writing about B.c. 170, should 
 entirely omit him from the worthies of Israel, and 
 also write (Sir 49"5), ‘ Neither was there a man born 
 like unto J oseph, a governor of his brethren, a stay 
 of the people. E. L. CuRTIS. 
 
 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF, in the Heb. Canon, 
 is Ne among the Ha pereD es between Est 
 and Ezr, but in the LXX, ulg., and Eng. Bible 
 as one of the four great prophets, immediately after 
 Ezexiel. It falls into two divisions: chs. 1-6, the 
 history of Daniel; chs. 7-12, visions and revela- 
 tions given to Daniel. In the original, 2‘°-7% is 
 written in Aramaic instead of Hebrew. In literary 
 character the Bk. of Dn is mainly an apocalypse, 
 representing in visions under symbolical torms 
 various historical epochs. The beginning of this 
 kind of writing appears in Ezk and Zec; but Dn 
 is far more complete and elaborate, and exercised 
 a great influence upon subsequent Jewish and 
 Christian literature. 
 
 i. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.—The visions (chs. 
 7-12) are represented as given in the words of 
 Dn (7? 8! 9? 102), hence the inference that he wrote 
 the entire book. This was the ancient Jewish 
 opinion,* and the prevailing Christian one, until 
 within recent years.t Now, however, it has gene- 
 rally been abandoned, and in its place are quitea 
 variety of views all agreeing in this, that the book 
 tn its present form must be assigned to the age of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 175-163); and there is 
 & growing consensus of opinion that the book as 
 a whole belongs to that period, for the following 
 reasons :— 
 
 1. Acquaintance with Ant. Epiphanes.—Ch. 11 
 shows a clear acquaintance with minor events in his 
 reign and in those of his predecessors. In the 
 veiled form of a revelation of the future it gives 
 an outline of history from the time of Cyrus to 
 near the death of Antiochus.t There are sketched 
 the Persian pene (v.2), the rise and conquest of 
 Alexander the Great (v.*), the dismemberment of 
 his empire (v.‘), and then principally the varying 
 relations of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties 
 to each other and of the latter to the Jews (vv.>-*). 
 Attention is called in succession to Ptolemy I. and 
 Seleucus Nikator (v.5), Ptolemy Philadelphus and 
 Antiochus 1. (v.°), Ptolemy Euergetes (vv.7), 
 Antiochus the Great (vv.!°-!¥), Seleucus Philopator 
 (v.”), and Antiochus Epiphanes (vv.7**). While, 
 from the obscurity of the history and the difficulty 
 of determining the meaning of the Heb. text, some 
 references are not perfectly plain, yet it is easy 
 to point out definitely the accessions of these 
 sovereigns, their alliances, intrigues, campaigns, 
 victories, defeats, bestowment of gifts, treacheries, 
 acts of violence, and frequently untimely deaths, 
 The older commentators regarded these details as 
 signal examples of divine prediction; but since 
 
 * The Talm. statement (Baba bathra 15), that the men of the 
 Great Synagogue ‘wrote’ Dn, does not necessarily imply the 
 contrary or express the idea of a later editing : it may simply 
 mean a ‘recording’ of the book. 
 
 + Porphyry, the Neo-Platonist (+ 803), wrote a treatise denying 
 the genuineness of Daniel’s prophecy. His views are known 
 from the Commentary of Jerome, who refutedthem. Porphyry 
 had no followers in the Christian Church. The first systematic 
 modern rejection of Daniel’s authorship was by Corrodi in 1783 
 and 1792. He was followed by Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Gesenius, 
 Bleek, De Wette, Ewald, et al.; while the genuineness was 
 stoutly defended by Hengstenberg, Havernick, Auberlen, Keil, 
 Pusey, etal. Of. for history of the criticism, Bleek’s Hinlettung; 
 Zéckler’s Comm. in the Lange Series, and Hengstenberg on 
 Genuineness of Daniel. 
 
 t Vv.40-45 are perhaps an ideal description of events which the 
 writer expected. 
 
 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 such a revelation of the future is without analogy 
 elsewhere in Scripture, and without any apparent 
 moral or spiritual import, this chapter or insertions 
 in it are now allowed, even by those who regard 
 Daniel as the author of his visions or the rest of the 
 book, to belong to the period of Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes.* Similar references elsewhere, however, 
 seem to require these to be taken with their natural 
 force, indicating the true date of the entire book, and 
 not as later additions. In ch. 8 isa clear descrip- 
 tion of the conquests of Alexander (vv.5*%) and 
 the division of his e pire (vv.® 22), and of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes (vv.®!* 4-45), ‘These appear again, acc, 
 to the most probable interpretation (see below), in 
 ch. 7, the fourth beast representing Alexander’s 
 kingdom and its succession in the Seleucid dynasty 
 (with which alone the writer here is concerned), 
 culminating in Antiochus Epiphanes (vv.® *-), 
 The descriptions are very exact. While the 
 numbers of the kings, ten and three (v.™), might be 
 taken relatively or symbolically, yet the corre- 
 spondence to the Seleucida is so precise that these 
 kings seem evidently meant.t The eleventh 
 corresponds exactly to Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 Another clear reference to this sovereign seems 
 also to appear in 9%.¢ Thus throughout all these 
 
 * Zockler in Lange’s Bibelwerk, 1869; O. H. H. Wright, Introd. 
 to OT, 1890; Kohler, Lehrbuch der Biblischen Gesch. vol. ii. 
 p. 545, 1893. 
 
 t We do not know, of course, just how the author reckoned 
 these eer Two main schemes have been suspere rt (Hitzig, 
 Kuenen, Cornill, Bevan, et a.), (1) Alexander, (2) Seleucus 1. 
 Nikator, (3) Antiochus 1. Soter, (4) Antiochus m. Theos, (5) 
 Seleucus 11. Callinicus, (6) Seleucus 111. Oeraunus, (7) Antiochus 
 the Great, (8) Seleucus tv. Philopator, (9) Heliodorus, (10) De- 
 metrius 1. Soter, or an unknown elder brother ; (b) (Bert oldt 
 Von Lengerke, Delitzsch, Meinhold, et ai.), (1) Seleucus L 
 Nikator, (2)-(9)=(3)-(10) of (a) (10) Ptolemaus vi. Philometor. 
 (8) (9) (10) of either AO) or (6) fulfil the conditions of the three 
 kings put down (v.%), Seleucus rv. Philopator was assassinated 
 (the Jews may have thought by the connivance of Ant. Epi- 
 phanes). Heliodorus, who seized the government, was over- 
 thrown by Antiochus; Demetrius, the rightful heir, was thrust 
 aside, and Ptolemy, who laid claim to it, was bitterly humbled. 
 For Demetrius, who never became king, Kuenen, after Von 
 Gutschmidt (Kleine Schriften, vol. ii. pp. 175-179), was inclined to 
 place an elder brother who acc, to a fragment of John of Antioch 
 was put to death by Antiochus. 
 
 } Antiochus Epiphanes, to the Jewish mind, was the incarna- 
 tion of wickedness, arrogance, and blasphemy (cf. 1 Mac 110. 21 
 262, 2 Mac 97-10. 28), and every term mentioned in the above 
 references in Dn is most epprorier to describe him and his 
 career. The eyes (78-20) and ‘understanding dark sentences’ (828) 
 indicate his vigilance and cunning ; ‘ the look more stout than his 
 fellows’ and ‘ the fierce countenance’ (720 823), the terror he in- 
 spired, and his cruelty; ‘the mouth speaking great things’. 
 (78. 20 1136), his boastful arrogance, seen in the assumption of the 
 title Epiphanes, ‘the illustrious’—changed to Epimanes ‘tLe 
 mad’ by his subjects,—and the title Theos, ‘ the god,’ on some of 
 his coins. His fearful persecution of the Jews and his suppres- 
 sion of their laws and sacred days are clearly indicated in 725 
 8%, The following outline (abridged from LOT p. 4611.) gives 
 ee leading events of his reign and the references to them in 
 
 Di 
 B.O, 
 
 176. Accession (1 Mac 119), Dn 78. 11. 20 99. 28 11 
 
 175. Jason intriguing against Onias m. procures from Antiochus 
 the high priesthood. Rise of Hellenizing party in Jerus. 
 (1 Mac 111-15, 2 Mac 47-22), 
 
 172 [171]. Onias m. murdered (2 Mac 432-85), Dn 926a 112%b, 
 
 171, aa expeaieen of Antiochus against Egypt (1 Mac 11619), 
 
 n 4 
 
 170, 2nd expedition against Egypt (1 Mac 12), Dn 112527, 
 Antiochus on his return plunders the temple and 
 massacres many Jews (1 Mac 121-28, 2 Mac 511-21, Dn 
 89b-10, 1128), 
 
 169. 8rd expedition against Egypt. Rom. legate Popilius 
 Lanas obliges Antiochus to retire, Polyb. xxix.1; Livy, 
 xliv. 19, xlv. 12; Dn 1129-30a, 
 
 169-8. Fresh measures against Jerusalem. City surprised on 
 Sabbathday. Many inhabitants slain or cap and sold 
 as slaves. Syrian garrison placed in citadel. God-fearin, 
 Jews flee. All practices of Jewish religion prohibited. 
 Temple worship suspended, and, on 15 Chislev, B.c. 168, 
 ‘the abomination of desolation’ (a small heathen altar 
 erected on the altar of burnt-offering). Books of the law 
 burnt, and women who had their children circum :ised 
 pat to death (1 Mac 129-64, 2 Mac 6-7, Dn 721. 24b. 25 guir 
 
 3b, 24, 25 Q26b. 27a 1130b-32a (renegade Jews) %2b-85 (the 
 faithful) 36-39 121.7. 11), 
 
 167. Revolt of the Maccabees (1 Mac 2), Dn re little help) 
 
 165. After victories by the Maccabees (1 Mac 428-35), temple puri 
 
 
 

 
 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 TT 
 
 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 553 
 
 
 
 chapters there are indications of the same kind of 
 knowledge of Antiochus and of previous history 
 asin ch. 11, Antiochus and his persecution of the 
 Jews and defilement of their sanctuary seem ever 
 cot before the writer (cf. 1 Mac 1). When, 
 
 owever, he touches upon a subsequent period he 
 gives nothing which need be interpreted as refer- 
 ring to specific historical events, but only symbolizes 
 the general Messianic hope of Israel (2‘* 727 121#-), 
 Hence the conclusion that chs. 7-12 belong to the age 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes appears warranted, and 
 then also chs. 1-6 if by the same author. 
 
 Unity of Authorship has been the prevailing 
 view among scholars of all schools.* That chs. 
 1-6 belong to one author is evident. Ch. 1 is a 
 necessary introduction to the others. Without it 
 2'4f. and 2 would be unintelligible, and 3! requires 
 2; and 5! require chs. 2and 4. Ch. 6 is closely 
 connected with the preceding ones. The visions 
 (chs. 7-12) require an account of D.’s personality 
 and life, and the unity of the two sections is seen 
 from the fact that the substance of the dream of 
 the composite image (ch. 2) is repeated in the 
 vision of the four beasts (ch. 7), and that ‘they 
 shall mingle themselves with the seed of men’ (2%) 
 is evident. . a reference to the unhappy marriages 
 of the Ptolemies and Seleucidew (11% 1”), The homi- 
 letical or didactic purpose of each section is also 
 the same.t 
 
 2. Historical Statements. Daniel, according to 1’, 
 began his career as a youthful student at the Bab. 
 court in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, and lived at 
 least until the 3rd year of Cyrus, i.e. from 606 or 
 605 to 536 or 535 8B.Cc. Within this period are men- 
 tioned as kings of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar (2'), 
 Belshazzar (5! ®), Darius the Mede (5%! 6% 28), and 
 Cyrus (6%). Events are dated by the years of 
 these kings (2! 71 8! 91 101), showing that the writer 
 must have regarded all of them as reigning sove- 
 reigns, and not in any way as subordinate rulers. 
 Belshazzar is further described as the son of 
 Nebuchadnezzar (54-18) and king of Babylon at its 
 capture by the Medes and Persians, when (acc. to 
 58) he was slain and Darius received the king- 
 dom. But history knows nothing of a Babylonian 
 king Darius the Mede preceding Cyrus. The 
 reigning monarchs within this period were Nebuch- 
 adnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabunahid, 
 and Cyrus. No Darius reigned in Babylon until a 
 score of years later. The person whom Belshazzar 
 represents was undoubtedly Bil-sar-usur, son of 
 Nabunahid and commander of the Babylonian army 
 during the last aoe of his father’s reign (COT 
 fi. p. 130f.). eing more active and energetic 
 
 fied and public worship re-established just three years 
 after its desecration (1 Mac 436-61), Dn 814b., 
 
 164 [163]. Antiochus dies somewhat suddenly in Persia (1 Mac 
 61-16, but see also Polyb. xxxi. 11), Dn 711.26 gi4b. 25 end 
 928b. 2b 1145, * 
 
 (The explanation of 112224 is uncertain, for we do not know 
 whether they refer to an Egyp. campaign or to conduct in 
 Assyria. On Antiochus the student should consult J. F. Hoff- 
 mann, Ant. Hpiph., Leipzig, 1873.) 
 
 * That of Gesenius, De Wette, Bleek, Cornill, Kuenen, Driver, 
 KGnig, et al., as well as Havernick, Hengstenberg, Keil, Pusey, 
 Fuller, et al, Diversity of authorship has, however, been held, 
 both by those holding the late authorship and by those regarding 
 ‘chs. 7-12as genuine. Of the former, Bertholdt thought the book 
 to have been written by nine authors. Strack and Meinhold 
 regard 24>-6 as by an earlier writer, about B.c. 300. Of the latter, 
 Sir Isaac Newton thought Daniel wrote only chs. 6-12. Kohler 
 (Lehrbuch der biblischen Geschichte, ii. p. 537, 1893) holds that 
 chs. 1-6 were written some time after the reign of Oyrus by the 
 editor of chs. 7-12. 
 
 + No reason is clearly perceptible why the book is partly 
 written in Heb. and partly in Aramaic. The tollowing have been 
 suggested: (1) Diversity of origin (Strack, Mvinhold, see fn. above); 
 (2) portion of the original Heb. lost and rej laced by the Aram. 
 translation (Lenormant, Bevan, Haupt); (3) the Aram. language 
 a secret sign that the Chaldwans represented the Syrians, 7.e. 
 Antiochus and his followers (mentioned by Konig, Hintett. p. 
 882) ; (4) author preferred to give the speeches of the heathen 
 In Aram. rather than in the sacred Heb., and being more at 
 home in that language continued to use it (Behrmanr’\ 
 
 than his father, he seems to have supplanted him in 
 tradition as sovereign. In reality, however, he 
 was never king. This is proved by the long series 
 of contract tablets, ‘ sion dated month by month 
 and almost day by day from the reign of Nebuch. 
 adnezzar to that of Xerxes,’ make no mention of an 
 intermediate ruler between Nabunahid and Cyrus 
 (Sayce, HC p. 528). Belshazzar also was not a son 
 of Nebuchadnezzar even by descent, for his father, 
 Nabunahid, belonged to a different family.* In 
 introducing Darius the Mede the writer shows the 
 same confused idea of the order of events as the 
 Greek writers.t Cyrus, we now know from the 
 cuneiform inscriptions, obtained possession of 
 Babylon patent . During the reign of Darius 
 (B.C. 521-486) Babylon rebelled, and Darius was 
 obliged to besiege the city, and took it by strata- 
 gem. In the tradition followed by Herodotus this 
 siege is transferred to Cyrus (Her. i. 191). In Dn 
 both the king and the siege seem to have been trans- 
 ferred to the earlier period.t 
 
 A further confusion about Darius appears in 9', 
 where he is called the son of Ahasuerus or Xerxes. 
 Darius I. was the father of Xerxes. 
 
 Another apparently inaccurate statement is that 
 of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege and capture of Jerus. in 
 the 8rd year of Jehoiakim, B.c. 605 (Dn 1!). ‘he 
 historical books relate no such event, and that it did 
 not happen seems implied in Jer 25), and necessary 
 from the movements of Nebuchadnezzar. Shortly 
 after the battle of Carchemish (605) he returned to 
 Babylon to secure his accession to the throne. The 
 conquest of the West occupied four years more, 
 since not until 601 or 600 did Jehoiakim begin to pay 
 tribute (Tiele, Bab. und Assyr. Gesch. p. 425 £.).§ 
 
 A class of wise men or magicians are called 
 Chaldwans (274° 4757), ‘This signification is 
 foreign to Assyrian and Babylonian usage, and did 
 not arise till after the fall of the Babylonian 
 empire’ (COT ii. p. 125). These Chaldeans are 
 also represented as addressing Nebuchadnezzar in 
 Aramaic (2*), which probably was not spoken then 
 at the Bab. court, and, in no case, in the western 
 Aramaic dialect which the writer gives.|| 
 
 In 9? D. is said to have ‘understood by the books 
 the number of the years whereof the word of the 
 Lord came toJeremiah the prophet.’ Thisexpression 
 
 * The remote possibility that B. was a grandson of N. on his 
 mother’s side has been urged as an explanation of the author’s 
 statements. This, however, is highly improbable, and an un- 
 natural interpretation (cf. Bar 111f.), 
 
 + They have given four different accounts of the origin of 
 Cyrus and his relation to the last king of Media, no one of which 
 is entirely correct (art. ‘Cyrus,’ Ency. Brit. 9th ed,). 
 
 t Ch. 5 implies no peaceable surrender of Babylon, but its 
 capture by assault or stratagem. That Darius should be called 
 a Mede may have arisen from Is 1317, Jer 5111.28, where it is 
 predicted that the Medes will conquer Babylon. The Medes 
 also were allies of Cyrus, and Gebryas, to whom the city sur- 
 rendered, and whom Cyrus placed in command, was governor of 
 * Gutium,’ a Median province (Bettrdge z. Assyriologie, Delitzsch 
 and Haupt, vol. ii. p. 223). The older commentators generally 
 saw in Darius, Cyaxares it. of Xenophon’s Cyropedia. This prob- 
 ably was the view of Jos. (Ant, x. xi. 4). But the Cyropedia 
 is a romance, and modern hist. investigation has failed to find a 
 place for this king. The story of festivities at the time of the 
 fall of Babylon is given in Herodotus, i. 193. The cuneiform 
 tablets mention a religious festival in connexion with the ac- 
 count of the capture of Babylon, but earlier than the entrance 
 of Cyrus or Gobryas into the city. 
 
 § The writer perhaps drew his statement from a combination 
 of 2 K 241f and 2 Ch 366, misunderstanding the three years in 
 Kings and reckoning them from the beginning of Jehoiakim’s 
 reign. Or by reckoning backward he may have regarded the 3rd 
 year of Jehoiakim as the beginning of the 70 years of captivity. 
 That the author of Dn, both here and elsewhere, does not seem 
 to have rightly apprehended or presented recorded facts of OT 
 history; is no more surprising than the similar variations between 
 the statements of Kings and Ch, and esp. the departures in NT 
 from the Heb. text. Cf. Gn 1181 121.4 (Haran) with Ac 72 (Ur), 
 in 1u22 (70 souls) with Ae 714 (75), Gn 23 (Ephron in Hebron) 
 with Ac 715 (Ilamor in Shechem), Ex 124’ (430 years in Egypt) 
 with Gal 319 (430 years in Canaan and Ey pt). 
 
 || The word no 1N=‘in Aramaic’ (v.4 RVm), may be a gloss 
 So Lenormant, Bevan, Kautzsch-Marti, P. Haupt (Bk. of Dn 
 Crit. Heb. Text, p. 16), et al 
 
 
 
DANIEL, THE BOOK O# 
 
 554 
 
 implies that the prophecies of Jer. belonged to a 
 well-known collection of sacred books, and sug- 
 gests (this is the prevailing interpretation) the 
 second division of the Heb. Canon, which was 
 formed a century or more after the Exile. See 
 art. CANON. 
 
 Thus the Bk. of Dn contains a series of historical 
 statements which imply a misconception of the 
 exilic period, and that their author lived consider- 
 ably later, and may well have written during the 
 reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 
 3. The Language of Dn points likewise in the 
 same direction.* The Heb. is distinguished from 
 that of the exilic Ezk and the immediately 
 following Hag and Zec, and resembles more nearly 
 that of 1 and 2 Ch written about B.c. 300, and 
 certainly does not belong to an earlier period. The 
 Aram. also, as far as can be determined, is of the 
 same late date. Persian words appear in both 
 sections, some in connexion with the description of 
 Bab. institutions before the conquest of Cyrus (see 
 list, LOT p.469). This indicates a period long enough 
 after that conquest for Persian words to have become 
 a part of the Jewish language. Three Gr. words, 
 the names of musical instruments (o7n'p, «(@apis, 
 flute; ponion, Yadrrhpiov, psaltery; and 35D0, 
 ocunpovla, dulcimer or bagpipe, 3° 71°15), also occur. 
 One of these, cun¢wvla, as the name of a musical 
 instrument, is peculiar to late Gr., and according to 
 Polybius was a favourite instrument with Antiochus 
 Epiphanes (Bevan, p. 41). This evidence brings 
 the composition of Dn to a date at least later than 
 the conquest of Alexander, unless the supposition 
 be made that the Gr. musical instruments had at 
 an earlier period through channels of trade found 
 their way into the East, and their names become 
 domesticated in the Aram. language. This, how- 
 ever, is unlikely.t 
 
 4. The Doctrines of Dn with respect to angels and 
 the resurrection are the most developed in the OT. 
 Angels have special personal names (816 9?! 103. 21 
 121), special ranks (1018 12'), and the guardian- 
 ship of different countries (10% *-1), These repre- 
 sentations go far beyond those of Ezk and Zec, and 
 are relatively identical with those of Tobit and 
 other Jewish writings of the Ist cent. B.c. Dn 
 plainly teaches a personal resurrection both of the 
 righteous and the wicked (127). This also is a 
 decided advance upon the doctrine elsewhere in OT, 
 and is mentioned by later Jewish tradition in con- 
 nexion with the Maccabees (cf. 2 Mac 12), 
 Thus, while the determination of the date of an OT 
 writing from its religious doctrines is always a 
 delicate procedure, yet, as far as a doctrinal de- 
 velopment can be found in OT, the Bk. of Dn 
 comes after all the other OT writings, and approxi- 
 mates most closely to the Jewish literature of the 
 Ist cent. B.C. 
 
 5. The Homiletical Purpose of the Bk. of Dn is 
 most agreeable to the Antiochian period. The 
 narratives in chs. 1. 3. 6 are exhortations to keep 
 the Jewish law and to remain faithful to the 
 worship of J”. While such teaching might be 
 appropriate at all times, it was esp. so then in its 
 peculiar form. The question of eating meat was at 
 that time a test of faith. Then pious Jews ‘chose 
 to die that they might not be defiled with food, and 
 that they might not profane the covenant’ (1 Mac 
 1S) he lessons of the ‘ fiery furnace’ and the 
 ‘lions’ den,’ chs. 3 and 6, never could have been more 
 fitly presented than when ‘came there forth out 
 
 * Delitzsch, art. ‘ Daniel,’ PR# (1878), Driver, LOT pp. 469-476 
 (1891); Konig, Einleit. § 80 (1893); Bevan, Com. pp. 26-42 
 (1892); Behrmann, Komm. pp. i-x (1894). 
 
 + Additional evidence in language appears also in the proper 
 names Nebuchadnezzar 11, Belteshazzar 17, and Abed-Nego 17, 
 since their spelling and formation show a lack of acquaintance 
 with the angusee and gods of Babylon during the Exile (COT 
 ii, 124ff.; Sayce, HCH p. 532) 
 
 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 — 
 
 of Isr. transgressors of the law, and persuaded many, 
 saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the 
 nations that are round about us’ (1 Mac 14), and 
 when Antiochus commanded the worship of foreign 
 deities on pain of death (1 Mae 14°), The stories 
 of the humbling of Nebuch. (ch. 4) and the fall of 
 Belshazzar (ch. 5) would also be fraught with par- 
 ticular consolation when Israel was oppressed by the 
 heathen. The visions (chs. 7-12), whatever view is 
 taken of their date, are universally acknowledged 
 to have been primarily designed for consolation 
 during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 
 6. The External History of the Bk. of Dn likewise 
 favours its composition at the time of Antiochus. 
 There is no evidence in any OT or Apocr, writing 
 of its earlier existence. The testimony of Josephus, 
 written near the close of the Ist cent. A.D., that 
 the book was shown to Alexander the Great (Ant. 
 XI. vili.5), prob. represents only a Jewish legend, and 
 historically is of no decisive value. The earliest 
 possible reference is in the Sibylline Verses, iii. 
 388 ff. (about-B.c. 140), where there may be an 
 allusion to Antiochus Epiphanes and the ten horns 
 (Dn 77-4; Schiirer, HJP div. ii. vol. iii. p. 280). 
 The next reference is 1 Mac 2° where Matthias is 
 reported in his dying exhortation to have said 
 ‘that Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and 
 were saved out of the flame. Daniel for his 
 innocency was delivered from the mouth of lions.’ 
 While this might simply indicate a knowledge of 
 these stories, it is probable that the author of 
 1 Mac (about B.c. 100), who evidently composed 
 the speech of Matthias, was acquainted with our 
 book. Krom this period on there are abundant 
 evidences of its being well known. Its influence is 
 very appreciable in NT, esp. in Rev, but it is only 
 once directly mentioned (Mt 241),* 
 
 The place of the Bk. of Dn among the Hagio- 
 grapha favours also its late composition. If it had 
 been written during the Exile, notwithstanding its 
 apocalyptic character, it naturally would have 
 been placed among the Prophets. 
 
 The Conclusion, then, in favour of the Maccabean 
 date, in view of this accumulation of concurrent 
 facts, seems abundantly warranted. The exact 
 date of composition is usually placed within the 
 year B.C. 165. The ‘abomination of desolation,’ 
 168, is clearly before the writer, and also the 
 Maccabzean uprising in 167, but not the r--dedica- 
 tion of the temple in Dec. 165, and the ueath of 
 Antiochus in 163. 
 
 The great difficulty, of course, in assigning the 
 Bk. of Dn to the late date is the fact that chs. 
 7-12 are represented as revelations of the future 
 given to Daniel during the Exile. But this difficulty 
 vanishes the moment one considers how prevailing 
 in OT and among Jewish writers was the custom 
 of representing present messages as given in the 
 
 ast through ancient worthies. . Thus the law of 
 
 eut. is given as though spoken by Moses in the 
 land of Moab, and the legislation of P as though 
 revealed to Moses in the wilderness. The Bk. of 
 Eccles. is written as the experience of Solomon. 
 While in 2 Es, Bar, the Bk. of Enoch, and the 
 Jewish Apocalypses generally, this method of com- 
 position is abundantly illustrated, and was evi- 
 
 ently a favourite one with the devout and pious 
 of the centuries immediately preceding and fol- 
 lowing Christ. ; 
 
 Assigning the entire book to the Maccabean 
 period, destroys, it is true, the hist. reliability of chs. 
 1-6. These chapters must be regarded as a species 
 
 * This passage, like other similar NT ones, reflects the Jewish 
 opinion of the Ist cent. a.p., but has no further weight in 
 deciding the question of authorship. Christ or the writer of the 
 Gospel naturally expressed himself according to this opinion 
 for we have no reason to believe that the Divine Spirit ever led 
 either of them to instruct or correct their contemporaries om 
 questions of literary and historical criticism. 
 
 
 
DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 of the later Jewish Haggada, or method of incul- 
 cating moral and spiritual lessons by tales of the 
 imagination. Here, again, we meet with striking 
 parallels in the OT Bk. of Jonah and in the Apocr. 
 stories of Tobit and Judith. A quasi defence of chs. 
 1-6 is frequently made on the ground that the 
 writer used authentic written material of the Exile 
 which he revised. This, of course, is possible, but 
 it is a mere hypothesis, and it is more probable 
 that his material was only traditions or tales.* 
 
 The view which has been presented of the Bk. of 
 Dn doubtless will appear to some to destroy its 
 religious value and render it unworthy of a place 
 within the sacred Canon. No one, however, under 
 the modern view can read the book without being 
 taught lessons of sublime faith, and having a 
 firmer assurance of the ultimate triumph of the 
 kixgdom of God. The book has in the past been 
 »lessed as an instrument of the Holy Spirit for the 
 strengthening of the Church, and, interpreted in the 
 light of its real origin, this will continue and be 
 enhanced. Great difficulties in receiving its lessons 
 will be removed, and the Church will be spared 
 endless profitless discussion and exegesis necessi- 
 tated by the old view.+ 
 
 ii. THE INTERPRETATION.—The Bk. of Dn con- 
 tains three representations of the world’s history 
 more or less closely related to each other, which, 
 nips their interpretations, may be outlined as 
 follows :— 
 
 Ch. 2 Ch. 7 
 4.Golden=The lion 
 head 
 
 Silver =The bear 
 breast 
 Dad dated ANd gad 
 
 8 
 = Babylonian Empire. 
 =The ram 
 = The he-goat= Grecian ” 
 
 =Medo-Persian ,, 
 
 g 
 Iron legs=The fourth 
 beast 
 
 and iron = Roman 
 and clay 
 
 * An argument often repeated reste on the assertion that the 
 whole colouring and character of the book are Oriental and esp. 
 Babylonian, impossible to an age so unfamiliar with them as 
 the Maccabwxan, and reference is made to the colossal image, 
 the fiery furnace, the martyr-like boldness of the three con- 
 fessors, the decree of Darius, the lions’ den, the dreams of 
 Nebuch., and his demands of the Chaldwans, etc. (Fuller, art. 
 ‘Daniel,’ Smith, DB2). Such a view had the countenance and 
 authority of Lenormant (La Divination, pp. 169-267). The 
 truth is, however, that the Bk. of Dn contains no allusions to 
 Bab. customs which might not have been known toa Jewish 
 writer of the 2nd cent. B.c. (who even might have visited 
 Babylon), or have been preserved in the tales from which he 
 drew his material; while, on the other hand, there are the 
 statements already given which seem to prove the author’s real 
 lack of acquaintance with Babylon during the Exile. In addition 
 to these may be mentioned the statement of Daniel's appoint- 
 ment as ‘chief governor over all the wise men of Babylon’ (248). 
 This, owing to the exclusiveness of Bab. sacred caste, even 
 Lenormant regarded as impossible, and hence held the words 
 “all the wise men’ to be an interpolation. Indeed, Lenormant’s 
 or any similar theory of the composition of the book (t.e. an early 
 work thoroughly revised in the Greek period) is worthless for 
 a defence either of the truth of its narrative or of its genuineness, 
 because the line of separation between the carly and late contents 
 cannot be determined. The account of Nebuchadnezzar’s in- 
 sanity (ch. 4) has been thought to receive confirmation by a 
 rege Ap in a fragment of the historian Abydenus (preserved 
 in bius, Prep. Evang. ix. 41). The story relates that 
 Nebuch. on the roof of his palace was inspired by some god 
 or other, and announced the future calamities of Babylon and 
 then suddenly vanished. In this announcement there is a wish 
 that the author of these calamities might be driven into the 
 desert where the wild beasts seek their food, and wander among 
 the mountains and rocks alone. The similarity between this 
 and the biblical narrative is not very great, and yet enough 
 or to show that the same story originally was the basis 
 of each (Bevan, p. 87 ff. ; Schrader, J PT’, 1881, pp. 618-629). 
 
 + The following from Farrar is worthy of quotation in this 
 connexion; ‘ Though I am compelled to regard the Bk. of Dn as 
 a work which in its present form first saw the Hens in the days 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes, and though I believe that its six mag- 
 nificent opening chapters were never meant to be regarded in 
 any other light than that of moral and religious Haggadoth, 
 
 et no words of mine can exaggerate the value which I attach 
 os this part of our Canonical Scriptures. The book, as we shall 
 see, has exe: ® powerful influence over Christian conduct 
 and Christian thought. Its right to a place in the Canon is 
 
 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 Ch. 2 Oh. 7 
 B. eee on 
 
 555 
 
 Oh. 8 
 = BabylonianEmpire 
 =Medo-Persian ,, 
 
 = The he-goat= Macedonian ,, 
 
 = The ram 
 
 B razen=The leopard 
 belly and 
 
 thighs 
 
 Iron legs=The fourth 
 and iron beast 
 
 and clay 
 
 feet 
 
 . Golden=The lion 
 
 head 
 
 Silver =The bear 
 
 AS ds Tent 
 
 razen= = 
 belly and se 
 thighs 
 
 Iron legs=The fourth 
 
 and iron 
 
 and clay 
 
 feet 
 
 The parallelism between the composite image (ch. 
 2) and the four beasts (ch. 7) shows that they were 
 designed to represent the same world-powers. In 
 this interpreters are generally agreed. The historic 
 fact that after the fall of the Bab. kingdom there 
 was no distinct Median kingdom, but Media was 
 united to Persia, naturally gave the interpretation 
 of Medo-Persian to the silver breast and the bear, 
 and such a united kingdom appeared in the two- 
 horned ram of ch. 8. The brazen belly and thighs 
 and the leopard then well symbolized the Grecian 
 kingdom of Alexander and his successors, who ace. 
 to ch. 8 were represented by the he-goat. While the 
 legs of iron and feet of iron and clay and the fourth 
 beast with the ten horns, in connexion with which 
 appeared the final everlasting kingdom (2“ 7%"), 
 would represent the Roman Empire in whose days 
 the Christ appeared. Elsewhere, both in OT and 
 NT, there were indications of great wars and dis- 
 tress, and even an Antichrist to precede the final 
 consummation of the kingdom of J”. Hence the 
 interpretation A was most plausible, and became 
 almost universal in the early Jewish and the 
 Christian Church.* 
 
 The prevailing modern interpretation is C (B has 
 had few advocates). _The reasons for the adoption 
 of C are as follows: Whatever may have been the 
 facts of history, the author does distinguish between 
 the Median and Persian kingdoms. After the 
 Babylonian he places the Median represented in the 
 reign of Darius (5° 6! 91), who has the position of 
 an independent and absolute sovereign, and then 
 follows the reign of Cyrus the Persian (6% 10!), A 
 Medo-Persian kingdom could scarcely have been 
 designated by the writer as inferior to Nebuchad- 
 nezzar or the Babylonian (2%), while this would 
 aptly describe the short-lived Median of his 
 scheme. This kingdom seems also well represented 
 in the bear (75). The kingdom of brass which 
 shall rule over all the earth (2**), or the leopard to 
 which dominion was given (7°), with its four wings 
 
 = Syrian 
 
 = Babylonian Empire. 
 = Median Ve 
 = Persian » 
 
 = The he-goat= Grecian 
 
 undisputed and indisputable, and there is scarcely a single book 
 of the OT which can be more richly profitable for teaching, 
 for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that 
 the man of God may be complete, completely furnished to every 
 ood work. Such religious lessons . . are not in the slightest 
 Aseece impaired by those results of archwological discovery and 
 criticism which are almost universally accepted by the scholars 
 of the Continent and many of our chief English critics. Finally 
 unfavourable to authenticity, they are yet in no way derogatory 
 to the preciousness of this OT Apocalypse’ (Bk. of Dan. p. 3 f.). 
 * Indeed it is difficult to see how a different interpretation 
 could have been given according to the prevailing exegesis which 
 ignored the original historical situation and meaning of OT 
 prophecies, and sought some fulfilment agreeable to the actual 
 history or expected future of the Church. Christ had applied 
 to His second coming the words of Dn 713 (Mk 1326 1462), hence 
 His parousia was regarded as preceded by the little horn of v.8 
 which thus became the Antichrist. Many commentators sought 
 hist. kingdoms to represent the 10 horns, and since the Refor- 
 mation the papal power has very often been regarded as the 
 Antichrist. The numbers three, four, and ten have also been 
 freq. interpreted symbolically (so Briggs, Mess. Proph. § 105). 
 
 
 
556 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 representing rapid and successive conquests, and 
 with its four heads (corresponding to the four kings 
 of 117), symbolizes particularly well the Persian 
 kingdom which advanced so widely and rapidly 
 under Cyrus and Cambyses, and weed dominion 
 was so great under Darius 1. and his successors. 
 It must also be noted that the two horns of 8°, one 
 of which comes up last, which are interpreted as 
 the kings of Media and Persia (8), can as well 
 represent two successive kingdoms, the power of 
 one of which entered into the other, as one consoli- 
 dated empire. The fourth kingdom of the image, 
 which shall be strong as iron and break in pieces 
 and crush (2), and the beast terrible and powerful 
 with great iron teeth, that devoured and brake in 
 pieces and stamped the residue with his feet (77), 
 seem identical with the he-goat of furious power 
 (8°-7) interpreted as Alexander (871). The feet, part 
 of clay and part of iron (2), represent well the 
 successors of Alexander, often ‘externally allied 
 but inwardly disunited’ ; and the ten toes (2) seem 
 to be reproduced in the ten horns, which fitly 
 represent the Seleucid (see footnote, p. 552). The 
 mingling of the seed seems to refer to the futile 
 endeavours of the Ptolemies and Seleucidee to form 
 stable alliances by marriages (cf. 1117"), But the 
 clear description of Antiochus Epiphanes in the 
 little horn ('7® 2° 4.) is decisive for the modern inter- 
 ehaoehest The introduction of the Messianic 
 
 ingdom immediately in connexion with or follow- 
 ing events of the author’s own time, is fully in 
 accord with other OT representations. Isaiah places 
 the advent of the Messianic king in immediate con- 
 nexion with a deliverance from Assyr. op ression 
 (Is 86-97 10-11), likewise Micah (5*°); and 
 Deutero-Isaiah blends in one picture the release 
 and restoration from Bab. captivity, and the final 
 consummation of the divine peiren for Israel. 
 The same principle is illustrated in Christ’s eschato- 
 logical discourse in Mt 24, 
 
 Corresponding with the interpretations of the 
 four beasts are those of ‘one like unto a son of 
 man’ (71), The prevailing Christian and Jewish 
 interpretation has referred these words to the 
 Messiah. In favour of this view is their application 
 by Christ to Himself (Mt 26%, Mk 14, Lk 22%, cf. 
 
 k 13%, Lk 2177, Mt 167, Lk 12” 188, Rev 14% et 
 al.), and the repeated designation of Christ in NT 
 by the term ‘the Son of Man.’ The Bk. of Enoch 
 applies the same expression to the Messiah (46'¢ 
 481-8 625-9 6978-29), * aad this is the general exposition 
 of our passage by the Jewish Rabbins, also in the 
 Talm. (Sanh. p. 98, col. 1). A growing modern 
 view, however, finds in 7!* a symbolization of the 
 kingdom of Israel, and this probably was the in- 
 tention of the writer. The expression ‘son of man’ 
 (Aram, #}x 13= Heb. 07x73) ace. to a common Heb. 
 idiom is synonymous for man or one of mankind 
 (cf. Ps 84, Ezk 2} 31-410 17 e¢ qJ.), and stands here 
 evidently for one in human form representing Israel, 
 in contrast with the beasts symbolizing the heathen 
 powers. A striking paralle occurs in Ps 80, where 
 in v.7 ‘son of man’ symbolizes Israel, and ‘the 
 boar’ v.43 the heathen. The interpretation in v.” 
 seems also decisive for this view. a he kingdom is 
 
 iven to ‘ the people of the saints of the Most High ; 
 
 is (the people's) kingdom isan everlasting kingdom, 
 and all dominions shall serve and obey him (the 
 people).’ Again, no other possible similar Messi- 
 anic allusion appears elsewhere in Daniel. The 
 ‘coming with the clouds of the heaven’ is in 
 evident contrast to the heathen kingdoms ‘rising 
 out of the sea’ (7%). The latter appearance is fig., 
 indicating earthly origin ; the former indicates then, 
 by parallelism, a source in the special power of 
 
 “The references given from the Bk. of Enoch are by some 
 
 regarded as belonging to a Christian addition to the original 
 Jewish work (see art. ENocH, Book oF). 
 
 
 
 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 —_— 
 
 God, just as the stone cut out of the mountain 
 without hands (2% 45) stands in contrast to the 
 image, an evidently human or earthly product. 
 That later writers, esp. those of the NT, should find 
 in this passage a direct allusion to the Messiah, is 
 in exact accord with their interpretation of other 
 OT figures which primarily denote mankind or 
 Israel (cf. Ps 8** and He 2%, Hos 11! and Mt 235, 
 Gn 127 and Gal 3" e al.). 
 
 iii. THE ‘TIMES’ OF DANIEL (7% 814 924-27 1911. 12) 
 are difficult of interpretation. They are mainly 
 an endeavour under the Antiochian persecution to 
 answer the anxious thought and piercing cry, 
 ‘Lord, how long? When wilt Thou restore the 
 kingdom to Israel? When will the Messianic 
 hope be realized?’ They express the thought that 
 the time of the fulfilment of the divine promise is 
 very near at hand. The glorious assurances of Ia 
 40-66 had never been realized. The Jews, in their 
 pitiful poverty and national smallness, and above 
 all in this hour of persecution, seemed still in their 
 captivity, still within the period of the seventy 
 years mentioned by Jeremiah (Jer 29"), and an 
 explanation of their duration and the announce- 
 ment of their end is the evident endeavour of our 
 author in 974-27, 
 
 Of the weeks subdivided into 7 + 62 + 1 (97-97), asin 
 the case of the image (ch. 2), and the four beasts 
 (ch. 7), there are two main interpretations differin, 
 generally according to the view taken of the Bk. o 
 Dn as a whole, or esp. according to the historical 
 and prophetic references in (a) ‘the anointed one, 
 the prince’ (5), (b) ‘the anointed one cut off’ 
 (788), (c) the destruction (7%), (d) the maker of the 
 covenant (7), (e) the desolation (7). The pre- 
 vailing view in the past in the Christian Church 
 has seen in (a) (6) and (d) the Messiah, and in (c) 
 and (e) the destruction of Jerus. by Titus, 70 A.D. 
 The view received at present, agreeably to the 
 Maccabzean date of Dn, refers (a) to Cyrus (cf. Ie 
 451), (6) to Onias m1. (2 Mac 4%), (d@) to Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, (c) and (e) to the havoc and desolation 
 wrought by Antiochus at Jerusalem. In the case of 
 both interpretations a week has usually been held 
 to represent seven years, but a difficulty has always 
 been experienced in fixing the termini, and the 
 various solutions pre for adjusting the 49+ 
 434+7 years have been almost endless. The more 
 prevailing one, in the old view, places the advent 
 of Christ at the end of 69 weeks (v.2 AV and 
 RVm), and refers the commandment to the decree 
 of the 7th year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 457 or 458 (cf. 
 Ezr 755), and then 483 yrs. later is A.D. 25 or 26, 
 the date usually assigned for Christ’s baptism, 
 which, from His anointing with the Holy Spirit, 
 might represent His proper Messianic advent 
 (Pusey, Lect. IV.). This view and other 
 similar ones presented by those holding the genu- 
 ineness of the Bk. of Dn contain their own refu- 
 tation, for the termini a quo must be later than 
 the period of the prophet, who would have died 
 many years at the latest before the commencement 
 of the 490 years or the 70 weeks B.C., and such a 
 date could not have been taken as the basis of his 
 reckoning, unless the history of Israel after his 
 death had been revealed to him in detail. 
 
 Under the other view the natural interpretation 
 would be as follows: To the decree of Cyrus seven 
 weeks (v.*), 3.c. 586-49=537. From this decree 
 the he stands rebuilt during 62 weeks of 434 
 years, but after this period (v.%) the anointed 
 priest Onias III. shall be cut offin B.C. 171 (¢.e. 537 — 
 434=103. This should be 171; see below). During 
 the next seven years, the last week (v.%*), occur 
 the havoc and ruin wrought by Antiochus. The 
 sacrifice ceased, and the heathen altar was set up 
 in the sanctuary. The latter event was in Dec. 
 168 (1 Mac 1%); but the former, with the terrible 
 
 
 
DANIEL, THE BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 ruin and slaughter (1 Mac 1%-), occurred probabl 
 some monthsearlier. The temple was re-dedicate 
 in Dec. 165 (1 Mac 452), These three years and 
 some months represent the half week of the ceasin 
 of the oblation, mentioned in the time, times, an 
 half a time (7%), in the 2300 evenings and mornings 
 (814), t.e. 1150 days, and in the 1290 days (12!) and 
 the 1835 days (122). The representations, of course, 
 are not exact, i.e. the number of days exceed in 
 each instance 34 years, or half a week. Did we 
 know all the circumstances of the times, we might 
 see a clear solution, or possibly the author designed 
 an enigmatic surplus or remainder to be inter- 
 preted only through the future course of events, even 
 as he had endeavoured to interpret the 70 weeks. 
 
 In the above interpretation the actual period 
 between the decree of Cyrus and the death of 
 Onias is shorter than the 62 weeks, t.e. 366 years 
 instead of 434. This probably has arisen from the 
 defective chronology of the writer. He placed the 
 reign of Cyrus too early * (Bevan, Cornill, Schiirer). 
 Owing to the great difficulty of aes Sat con- 
 sistent explanation of the ‘times’ of Dn, many 
 writers have regarded the numbers as entirely 
 symbolical. 
 
 iv. VERSIONS.—The LXX text of Dn has been 
 preserved only in one MS, Codex Chisianus, which 
 cannot be older than the 9th cent., and is jeter 8 
 much later (Bevan). In place of the LXX the 
 Greek VS of Theodotion was used (even by Irenzus, 
 +202). There is no Targ. on Daniel. The follow- 
 ing diagram (from Behrmann, a xxx) shows ten- 
 tatively the relation of the S to the original 
 text and to each other :— 
 
 Original Text (164 B.0.) 
 
 Text with glosses. 
 en. (a 100 2.0). 
 
 Heb. Archetype 
 (e. 185 ray 
 
 A 
 
 Jerome. 
 
 Theodotion 
 (c. 150 a.D.). 
 
 Tetraplar Text (0. 220 a.p.). 
 
 Massoretic Text 
 
 8 
 (700-800 A.p.). oA 
 
 . Trans. 
 Paul v. Tella 
 (617 A.D.). 
 
 Codex Chisianus 
 (11th cent.). 
 
 vy. ADDITIONS.—Thereare three Apocr. additions 
 
 to Dn: (1) The Song of the Three Children, pre- 
 
 eeded by the Sag ts of Azarias, in LXX and Vulg. 
 
 at 3%; (2) The Story of Susanna, in Vulg. ch. 13, 
 
 in LXX a separate book (?); (3) The Story of Bel 
 
 and the Dragon, in Vulg. ch. 14, in LXX a separ- 
 ate book (?). (See sep. artt.) 
 
  ‘Lrrerarurm.—The literature on Daniel is exceedingly 
 
 voiuminous. ‘On no other book’ (says O. H. H. Wright) ‘has 
 
 so much worthless matter been written in the shape of exegesis.’ 
 
 The most poem Commentaries are those of Bertholdt, 
 1806-8; Von Lengerke, 1835; Hivernick, 1832; Hitzig (Kg/. 
 
 * Josephus fell into a similar error, aleo the Jewish Hellenist, 
 Demetrius (Schiirer, HJP u. vol. iii. p. 53 f.). 
 
 
 
 
 
 557 
 
 DARDA 
 
 Hndb.), 1850; Stuart, 1850; Ewald (Proph. d. AB), 1867, Eng. 
 tr., 1881; Keil, 1869, Eng. tr., 1872; Zéckler (Lange’s Bibel 
 werk), 1870, Eng. tr. and add. by Strong, 1876 ; Fuller (Speaker's 
 Com.), 1876 ; Meinhold (Kgf. Kom.), 1889; Bevan, 1892; Behr- 
 mann (Hand-Kom.), 1894 ; Farrar (Wapositor’s Bible), 1896. 
 
 Special Treatises and Articles. —Hengstenberg, Beitrdge, 
 1831, Eng. tr., 1848; Tregelles, Defence of Authenticity, 1852; 
 Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel und Offenbarung Johannes 
 1854-57, Eng. tr., 1857; Pusey, Dan. the Prophet, 1864, 3rd 
 ed, 1869; Fuller, Hssay on the Authenticit Daniel, 1864 ; 
 Lenormant, La Divination chez les Chald. (pp. 169-236), 1875 ; 
 Cornill, ‘Die Siebzig Jahrwochen Daniels,’ in Theol. Stud. u. 
 Skizzen, 1889; Schrader, ‘Die Sage vom Wahnsinn Nebuch.’ 
 J PT, 1881; Kamphausen, ‘ Das Buch Daniel,’ in Neu. Geschichts- 
 Sorschung, 1893; Margoliouth in Kawpos. Apr. 1890; Fuller in 
 Expos. 8rd series, vols. i, and ii.; Sayce, HC. (Pp. 495-537), 1893 ; 
 saat Proph. of Dan. Expounded, 1893; O. Bruston, tudes 
 sur Dan. et  Apoc. 1896. 
 
 In add. to these works, the student will find valuable material 
 on Dn in Kamphausen’s Daniel in Haupt’s OT, in the O7' Intro- 
 ductions of Cornill, Driver, Konig, Strack, et al., and the OT 
 Theologies of Dillmann, Schultz, Smend, et al., and the Messianic 
 or OT Prophecies of Briggs, Delitzsch, Hofmann (Weissagung 
 u. Erfillung), Orelli, Riehm, et a/., andin the Histories of Israel 
 or the Jews of Ewald, Gratz, Kohler, Kittel, Stade, Schiirer, 
 et al. See also art. APOORYPHA. E, L. CurtIs. 
 
 DAN-JAAN.—Joab and his officers in taking the 
 census came ‘to Dan-jaan and round about to 
 Zidon’ (sv ¥-ON 3°39) Jw! 733), 2S 24%. No such place 
 is mentioned anywhere else in OT, and it is 
 pears. assumed that the text is corrupt. It 
 
 as indeed been proposed to locate Dan-jaan at a 
 ruin N. of’ ckab w ich is said to bear the name 
 Khan Dénidn; but this identification, although 
 accepted by Conder, has not made headway. The 
 reference is more probably to the city of Dan 
 which appears so frequently as the northern limit 
 of the kingdom. Three leading emendations of 
 the text have been proposed. (1) Wellhausen 
 (Sam. ad loc.) instead of the MT 2°39) ;y: would read 
 31229 q79) (‘They came to Dan) and from Dan they 
 went about.’ This is accepted by Driver (Sam. ad 
 loc., cf. Deut. p. 421), Budde (in Haupt’s O7), 
 Kittel (in Kautzsch’s AT). (2) Klostermann would 
 read 127) fy)... ‘and to Ijon and they went 
 about.’ Ijon and Dan are associated in 1 K 15” 
 (cf. 2 K 159), (8) Gesenius would change jy: into 
 a... ‘to Danin the wood’ (cf. Vulg. stlvestria). 
 After els Adv LXX reads, B Eldav cal Ovddv, A 
 "Tapav xat’Iovddy. This does not help us much, but 
 Wellh. points out that it indicates at least that 
 the translators found }7 twice in their text and had 
 a verb in place of 3°20. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 DANNAH (-77), Jos 15%.—A town of Judah 
 mentioned next to Debir and Socoh. It was clearly 
 in the mountains S.W. of Hebron, probably the 
 present Jdhnah. This place is noticed in the 4th 
 cent. A.D. (Onomasticon, s.v. Jedna) as six Roman 
 miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin). It is now 
 a small village on the W. slopes. See SWP, vol. 
 iii. sheet xxi. LXX has Pevyd. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 DAPHNE (Ad¢vn).—A place mentioned in 2 Mac 
 43 to which Onias withdrew for refuge, but from 
 which he was decoyed by Andronicus and treacher- 
 ously slain. Its site, which has been identified 
 with the mod. Beit el-M4, or House of Waters, is 
 
 laced by Strabo and the Jerus. Itinerary at a 
 a eatahioe of 40 stadia, or about 5 miles, from 
 Antioch. This grove, which owed its establish- 
 ment to Seleucus Nikator, was famous for ita 
 fountains, its temple in honour of Apollo and 
 Diana, its oracle, and its right of asylum. (See 
 Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xxiii.) 
 
 R. M. Boyp. 
 
 DARA, 3731 Ch 28, Adpa AB; but codd. Heb., 
 Luc. Aapadé, Pesh., Targ. presuppose y77] DARDA 
 (which see). 
 
 DARDA (ym3, Aapadd B, Aapad A, Aapdaé Luc. )— 
 Mentioned with Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, and 
 Calcol as a son of Mahol, and a proverbial type of 
 
 
 
 
 
— 
 
 558 DARIC 
 
 
 
 wisdom, but yet surpassed by Solomon (1 K 4#!). 
 In 1 Ch 2) apparently the same four (Dara is prob- 
 ably an error for Darda. See DARA) are men- 
 tioned with Zimri as sons of Zerah, the son of 
 Judah by Tamar (Gn 38%). So Targ. in 1 K 43! 
 interprets ‘the Ezrahite’ as nv 12 ‘the son of 
 Zerah.’? This statement of Ch need not conflict 
 with that of K, ‘sons of Mahol,’ since Zerah, as is 
 suggested by the title ‘the Ezrahite,’ may have 
 been the remoter ancestor, Mahol the immediate 
 father, See MAHOL. C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 DARIC.—See MONEY. 
 
 *“DARIUS (71, Aapefos).—1. Darius, the son of 
 Hystaspes (Vistashpa), written Darayavaush in 
 Old Persian, was the true founder of the Persian 
 empire. The usurpation of the crown by the 
 Magian Gaumdata, who pretended to be Smerdis 
 the brother of Cambyses, had thoroughly shaken 
 the empire of Cyrus, and the murder of the usurper 
 by Darius and six others (B.C. 521) caused it to 
 break up. The nations of which it was composed 
 revolted under different pretenders, and had to 
 be reconquered and reorganized by Darius. The 
 history of all this is given in the trilingual inscrip- 
 tion he caused to be engraved on the rock of 
 Behistun (Bagistana). First Susiana rebelled 
 under Atrina, then Babylon under Nidinta-Bel, 
 who pretended to be Nebuchadrezzar, son of Nabo- 
 nidus. Contract-tablets show that the latter pre- 
 tender reigned from October B.c. 521 to August 
 B.C, 520, when Babylon was taken and Nidinta-Bel 
 himself put to death. Next came the revolts of 
 Martiya in Susiana; of Phraortes in Media, who 
 ealled himself Khshathrita, descendant of Uvakh- 
 shatara; of the Armenians; of Chitrantakhma in 
 Sagartia, who said he was a descendant of Uvakh- 
 shatara; of Phraortes in Parthia and Hyrcania, 
 where Hystaspes was satrap ; of Frada in Margiana ; 
 of a second false Smerdis in Persia itself; and of 
 the Armenian Arakha, son of Khaldita, in Babylon, 
 who professed to be Nebuchadrezzar, the son of 
 Nabonidus. But the revolts were all suppressed 
 and the leaders impaled, though many months of 
 hard fighting were needed for the work. D. ascribes 
 all his successes to the help of Ahuramazda 
 (Ormazd), the supreme god of the Zoroastrian faith. 
 
 He now set about the organization of the empire, 
 which he placed under a bureaucracy centralized 
 in himself. The provinces were governed by satraps 
 appointed by the king, and each province was 
 required to furnish the royal treasury with a fixed 
 amount of annual tribute. Justice was adminis- 
 tered by royal judges who went on circuit. 
 
 The second revolt of Babylon probably took 
 place in B.C. 514, as no Bab. contract-tablets have 
 been found dated in the seventh year of Darius, and 
 after its suppression a part of the walls of the city 
 were pulled down. Soon afterwards Darius over- 
 came Iskunka the Sakian or Scyth, and hencefor- 
 ward the Sakians formed part of the Persian army. 
 The expedition against the Scyths.of Europe was still 
 later. Darius crossed the Danube near Ismail by a 
 bridge constructed by the Ionians, who had already 
 performed the same service in the case of the 
 Bosphorus, and, leaving it in charge of the Ionian 
 ‘tyrants,’ he marched eastward to the Don. Fight 
 fortresses were built on the banks of the Oarus 
 (probably the Volga), and Darius then returned 
 through a desert country to the Danube, harassed 
 by the Scyths. Histizus of Miletus saved his 
 army by dissuading the Greeks from destroying 
 the bridge. Histiveus was afterwards the indirect 
 cause of the Ionian revolt, which led to the burning 
 of Sardis by the Athenians, and the determination 
 of Darius to punish Athens and annex Greece. 
 Thrace and Macedonia had already submitted. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DARIUS 
 
 
 
 Mardonius, the son of Gobryas, was sent against 
 Attica; but his ships were wrecked off Mount 
 Athos, and he was compelled to return. Another 
 army was despatched accordingly the following 
 year. Eretria was pillaged; but the Persian host 
 was utterly defeated by the Athenians at Marathon 
 (B.C. 491), and compelled to retreat. Darius now 
 fitted out another.expedition on a larger scale, but 
 just as it was ready to start Egypt revolted. 
 
 D. had already explored the Indian Ocean. 
 Skylax of Karyandria sailed down the Indus, and, 
 after a voyage of thirty months, reached Suez. 
 One of the results of the expedition was the sub- 
 jugation of the Indians. 
 
 The Egyptian revolt was followed by the death 
 of the king, B.c. 486. He had married the daughter 
 of Gobryas in early life, and Artobarzanes, his eldest 
 son by her, was not allowed to succeed him, as he 
 had been born while Darius was still a private 
 citizen. After his accession he married Atossa, 
 the daughter of Cyrus and wife of Cambyses and 
 of the pseudo-Smerdis, as well as Parmys the 
 daughter of Smerdis, and Phedyma the daughter 
 of Otanes. Xerxes, his son by Atossa, was his 
 successor to the crown. 
 
 It was in the reign of Darius that the second 
 temple of Jerusalem was finished. The work had 
 languished till the second year of his reign, when 
 Haggai and Zechariah excited Zerubbabel, ‘the 
 governor of Judah,’ and the high priest Joshua to 
 undertake it afresh (Ezr5!f). This made Tattenai, 
 the Persian governor of Syria, inquire by what 
 authority they acted (v.3#-). On being told that it 
 was a decree of Cyrus, he wrote to Darius, who had 
 search made for the decree, which was found in the 
 palace of Ecbatana. Darius caused it to be pub- 
 lished, and added that money for the building should 
 be given out of the revenue of the province, as well 
 as cattle and other things for the temple services, 
 ‘that they may offer sacrifice ... and pray for 
 the life of the king and of his sons.’ Accordingly, 
 the temple was completed on the 8rd of Adar. in 
 the sixth year of Darius (61), 
 
 According to Josephus (Ant. XI. 1. 3), whose narra- 
 tive rests on chs. 2 and 3 of 1 Es, the goodwill of 
 Darius towards the Jews went back to the time when 
 he was a private individual, and had vowed that if 
 he became king he would restore the sacred vessels 
 to the temple of Jerusalem. He and Zerubbabel 
 were old friends, and, after the return of the Jewish 
 prince from Jerusalem, Darius made him one of 
 his bodyguard. In this capacity Zerubbabel was 
 called on to amuse the king one night when he 
 was sleepless, in the first year of his reign, by 
 determining the relative strength of ‘wine, kings, 
 women, and truth.’ His explanation that truth 
 was the strongest pleased Darius, who promised 
 to grant whatever he asked. He therefore re- 
 minded the king of his promise to build Jerusalem 
 and its temple, and Darius thereupon did all he 
 could to further the work, giving fifty talents 
 towards it, and relieving the Jews of all taxation. 
 
 2. DARIUS the Persian (Neh 1222). Which king 
 of Persia is meant is uncertain. Some commen- 
 tators have supposed it to be Darius If. (Nothus) 
 B.C. 423-404, but it was more probably Darius 
 Ill, (Codomannus), the last king of Persia} and 
 the contemporary of the high priest Jaddua, 
 who is mentioned in the same verse. Darius 
 Ifl. reigned from B.C. 386 to 330, when he was — 
 overthrown by Alexander of Macedon in the © 
 decisive battle of Arbela, and the Persian empire 
 destroyed. 
 
 8. DAkius in 1 Mae 127 AV is a false reading 
 for the Lacedemonian Areus. See ARIUS. 
 
 4 DAk1lUs the Mede.—See next article. 
 
 Lrrpraturs.—Spiegel, Die altpersischen Keilinschriften 
 (8st). A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner's Sons 
 
 
 
 
 
DARIUS THE MEDE 
 
 
 
 DARKNESS 
 
 
 
 DARIUS THE MEDE (20 e132 Dn 111, Aram. 
 wryp ‘3 (Kethibh), msyp ‘1 (Keré) 6! (Eng. 5%), the 
 son of Ahasuerus (= Xerxes), ‘of the seed of the 
 Medes’ (9'), is said (5%!) to have succeeded to the 
 Bab. ean after Belshazzar’s violent death, and 
 to have been 62 years old when he ‘received the 
 eee His first year only is mentioned (5°! 
 
 11). 
 
 Who this D. was, is difficult to ascertain with 
 certainty. Besides other ailneed D. the Mede 
 has been identified with (1) Cyaxares II., the son 
 and successor of Astyages (Jos. Ant. X. xi. 4), but 
 no proof is given to support this theory ; (2) Darius 
 Hystaspis; (3) Astyages himself; but all these 
 identifications seem quite untenable. It is true 
 that D. Hystaspis conquered Babylon, but that 
 was some thirty years later. Besides this, he was a 
 Persian, not a Mede; and he was about thirty-six 
 years old, not sixty-two, when he began to core 
 
 The passage in Dn 5* where he is described as 
 having received the kingdom (RV) leads one to 
 ask whether, in spite of the title of king which is 
 given to him (6%7 etc.), he may not have been 
 really governor only. In the Gr. historians and 
 in the as. Chronicle the name of D. the Mede 
 does not occur, he who preceded Cyrus to Babylon, 
 on the occasion of the siege and capture of that 
 city, being Gobryas, who may thus be regarded as 
 having ‘received the kingdom for him.’* Gobryas, 
 like Darius the Mede (6'), appointed governors in 
 Babylon, and seems also to have been in the 
 attack which resulted in Belshazzar’s death (Bab. 
 Chronicle, Rev. col. i. 1. 22). It will thus be seen 
 that Cyrus gave great power to Gobryas, who was, 
 in fact, his viceroy.t Apparently, therefore, the 
 later Jewish writers looked’ upon Bes as hay- 
 ing as much authority as Belshazzar, whom they 
 regarded likewise as king, though he does not 
 appear ever to have reigned. The confusion of 
 the names of D. the Mede and Gobryas of Gutium 
 (he being governor of that place, which is regarded 
 as having included a part of Media), may have 
 been due to the scribes, who, being more familiar 
 with the Gr. form of the name of D. (the end of 
 which, when carelessly pronounced, bears a certain 
 resemblance to that of Gobryas in that language) 
 than with the Heb. form Daryawesh, wrote one 
 name for the other; and there is also the possi- 
 bility that one of Gobryas’ names was Darius,t 
 which would account for the mistake. Under 
 these circumstances we must accept, until further 
 proof, the explanation, that D. the Mede was no 
 other than Gobryas of Gutium, who, being practi- 
 cally viceroy, may have been regarded as kin 
 during the absence of Cyrus from Babylon, an 
 who, under the name of D. the Mede, by which he 
 was known to the Hebrews later on, conquered 
 and entered Babylon on the 16th Tammuz, called 
 Daniel to the very high dignity of ‘one of the 
 three presidents who were placed over the hundred 
 and twenty satraps,’ and issued a decree, after 
 Daniel’s miraculous deliverance, enjoining ‘ rever- 
 ence for the God of Daniel’ throughout his 
 dominions. Josephus gets rid of all difficulties 
 Booeee) by the title of -‘ xing which is given to 
 
 . the Mede in Daniel, by explaining that he took 
 Daniel the prophet with him into Media, and that 
 it was there that he appointed him one of the 
 three presidents whom he set over his ‘three 
 hundred and sixty’ provinces. According to this 
 
 *He brought the army of Oyrus to Babylon on the 16th 
 Tammuz, Oyrus arriving nearly four months later, on the 3rd 
 Marcheshvan. 
 
 + It is noteworthy that Xenophon (Cyrop. N. 6) says that 
 Gobryas was ‘a man in years.’ 
 
 ¢ Jos. (Ant. x. xi. 4, says that Darius (the Mede), whom he 
 represents as the kinsman of Cyrus, ‘had another name among 
 the Greeks,’ Apparently, the name of Gobryas was present to 
 his mind when he wrote this. 
 
 authority, therefore, D. the Mede was in fact 
 never ruler of Babylonia.* I. A. PINCHES. 
 
 DARKNESS (Heb. qh and 55k [and their cog- 
 nates], n'y, 22qy, Gr. oxéros, cxorla, fddos), Besiles 
 its literal meaning, darkness is frequently used in 
 Scrip. metaphorically. Since God is light, because 
 the perfect embodiment of rational and moral 
 truth, and since the knowledge of Him is man’s 
 light, darkness is the natural antithesis of these 
 ideas. Hencein OT it is emblematic of nothingness 
 (Job 3* 5-6) ; more freq. it is equivalent to death (Job 
 107}. 22 1525 1712-13, 1] § 29, Ec 118 etc.), and to the un- 
 known or undiscovered (Job 1272 28%, Is 45% etc.). 
 So, too, it is the emblem of mysterious affliction, 
 and of the ignorance and frailty of human life 
 (2S 22) Job 19° 23", Ps 1878 107!% 14 Is 92 99}8 
 427. 16 etc.) ; of moral depravity (Is 5” 60?, Pr 21%), 
 and of confusion and destruction visited on the 
 wicked (Job 5! 15% 2076, Ps 825, Pr 419 20”, Is 822 
 59°, Ee 24, Jer 2° ete.). It is also the symbol of 
 that which causes terror and distress (Gn 15}, 
 Is 58 475, La 32, Ezk 328 etc.). ‘Since, moreover, 
 God is incomprehensible, His ways mysterious, 
 and His quagments severe, darkness is sometimes 
 associated with His operations in providence (Ps 
 18°. 1), in punishing (Am 518, Zeph 175), and in His 
 self-manifestations generally (Ps 973, 1 K 81, 
 2 Ch 6!), even as the guiding ‘pillar’ was light to 
 Israel but darkness to the Egyptians (Ex 14”), 
 and Sinai was covered with dark clouds when 
 J” descended on it (Ex 207, Dt 41 5%, Heb 12%). 
 In NT darkness is prevailingly the emblem of 
 sin as a state of spiritual ignorance and moral 
 depravity (Mt 41° 6%, Lk 17 11% 2253, Jn 15 319 8! 
 eae ve 263 Ro 2!7134) 1 Cor45) 2'Co 6", Eph 
 5® 1 612, Col 23,1 Th 54 5,1 P 291 Jn 15 6 28-% 1), 
 but also of the desolation of divine punishment 
 (Mt 81? 2218 2530, 2 P 214.17, Jude ® 13), 
 
 Two instances of special darkness, recorded in the 
 Bible, call for notice. (1) The ninth of the plagues 
 sent by God upon the Egyptians was a plague of 
 darkness (Ex 1071-3). Many commentators explain 
 this as due to a storm of fine dust and sand driven 
 from the desert by the S. wind, the Hamsin, noted 
 for such effects in the spring. The LXX seems to 
 have taken such a view, describing it as ‘darkness, 
 thick cloud (yvddos), storm (@veA\a).? Some have 
 regarded it as wholly miraculous; but the other 
 plagues seem due to God’s use of natural agencies. 
 (2) The darkness at the crucifixion from the sixth 
 to the ninth hour (Mt 27%, Mk 15%, Lk 234+ 4), 
 This the evangelists seem plainly to represent as 
 supernatural. The true text of Lk 23” (rod #Alov 
 éxXelrovros Or éxdurovros, ‘the sun failing’ or ‘ hav- 
 ing failed’; RV ‘the sun’s light falling") has 
 jatocd been thought to describe it as an eclipse. 
 This reading and interpretation were noted by 
 Origen, from whose remarks it appears that 
 objectors to Christianity had so explained it. 
 Origen rejected the reading, attributing it either 
 to a scribe’s wish to provide an explanation or to 
 an enemy’s wish to pervert the evangelical account 
 (see WH, Notes on selected readings). Origen also 
 rejected the view itself that an eclipse, natural or 
 miraculous (for so some explained it), was intended 
 by Luke, though his language elsewhere seems to 
 imply the true text. The charge that it was a 
 natural eclipse is put into the mouth of the Jews 
 in the Acts of Pilate, contained in the pseudo- 
 
 * Driver, who in LOT! pp. 469, 479n. maintained a cautious 
 reserve, admitting the possibility that D. the Mede might prove 
 to be a historical character, agrees in his later editions with 
 Sayce, that the existence of such a ruler is completely excluded 
 by the monuments (cf. Sayce, HCM 528ff.). The latter, as 
 well as P. Haupt (note on Dn 6! in Haupt’s OT), and a host of 
 modern scholars, argue that ‘D. the Mede’ is due to confusion 
 with D. Hystaspis, who conquered Babylon (B.0. 620). On the 
 
 theory of the Maccabasan date of Daniel, such a confusion is held 
 to be quite explicable. 
 
 559 
 
 
 
 
 
560 DARKON 
 
 
 
 Gospel of Nicodemus. 
 
 Eusebius (Chronicon) and 
 later Fathers appealed also to the statement of 
 Phlegon of Tralles (of the 2nd cent.) that in the 
 202nd Olympiad (July A.D. 29 to 33) there was 
 the greatest eclipse of the sun ever known, that it 
 became night at the sixth hour of the day, so that 
 stars appeared, and that there was a great earth- 
 
 quake in Bithynia. These writers differ as to the 
 year of the Olympiad, but Wurm and Ideler place 
 it on Nov. 24, A.D. 29 (Wieseler, Synopsis of Four 
 Gospels, p. 354; see, on the other hand, Whiston, 
 Testimony of Phlegon Vindicated, Lond. 1782). 
 The insuperable objections to its identification with 
 the darkness at the crucifixion are, even apart from 
 the above date, that at passover the moon was full, 
 and the darkness lasted three hours. Seyffarth’s 
 view (Chron. Sacr. pp. 58, 59), that the Jewish 
 calendar was so deflected that the passover actually 
 fell at a new moon, has found no advocates, and 
 is wholly improbable, since the Jewish calendar 
 depended on observations of the moon. ‘There is, 
 however, no need to interpret Luke of an eclipse in 
 the astronomical sense (WH, Notes on selected 
 readings). Itis simply a statement that the sun’s 
 light failed. See also LIGHT, PLAGUES. 
 G. T. PURVES. 
 
 DARKON (1'P71).—‘ Children of D.’ were among 
 those who returned with Zerubbabel (Hzr 2°°, 
 Neh 7°8). D. is called in 1 Es 533 Lozon. See 
 GENEALOGY. 
 
 DARK SAYING.—This is the tr of Heb. 779 
 hidhah, in Ps 494 782, Pr 16. Elsewhere Aidhah is 
 trd ‘dark speech’ Nu 128; ‘dark sentence’ Dn 8? ; 
 ‘hard question’ 1 K 101, 2 Ch 91; ‘riddle’ Jg 
 1412. 13. 4. 15. 16. 17. 18.19 Ezk 172; and ‘proverb’ 
 Hab 26. See RIDDLE. In Wis 88 we find ‘dark 
 sayings,’ and in first Prologue to Sir ‘d. sentences’ 
 (aiviywara. This Gr. word is the LXX tr. of 
 hidhah in Nu 128, 1 K 101, 2 Ch 91, Pr 16; it is 
 found in NT only 1 Co 138!2.éy aiviyuwari, ‘darkly,’ 
 marg. ‘in ariddle’). In Jn 162-29 Amer. RV has 
 ‘dark saying’ for AV and RV ‘proverb’ (rapoiula). 
 Cf. Coverdale, Letter to Cromwell of Dec. 13, 1538, 
 ‘Pitie it were that the darck places of the text 
 (upon the which I have alwaye set a hande) shulde 
 so passe undeclared.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DARLING.—This is the tr" of Heb. '7) yaA7dh, in 
 Ps 2229‘ Deliver . . . my d. from the power of the 
 dog,’ and 35!” ‘rescue . . . my d. from the lions’ 
 
 »(marg. ‘my only one’). ‘My darlings’ is also 
 found in Bar 422 AVm (AV and RV ‘my delicate 
 ones,’ Gr. of tpvdepol wou). Cf. Ro 17 Wyclif, ‘to 
 alle that ben at rome, derlyngis of god and clepid 
 holy’; and Latimer (Works, ii. 438), ‘Christ 
 Jesus, the dear darling and only begotten and 
 beloved son of God.’ ‘The word, now too familiar 
 for such usage, is formed from dear with suffix 
 -ing, which became -ling through its freq. addition 
 to words ending in 7; so nestling, seedling, etc. 
 The Heb. y@/idh is used for an only son, but in 
 Ps 222) 3517 it is poetically transferred to the 
 psalmist’s own life ‘as the one unique and price- 
 less possession which can never be replaced ’— Oxf. 
 Heb. Lex. Forthe Eng. use compare Shaks. Othello, 
 ll. iv. 70— 
 
 ‘ Make it a darling like your precious eye.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DART.—Joab is said to have thrust three ‘ darts’ 
 (262 shébhasim, LXX Bédn) into the heart of 
 Absalom (2 § 18!4). Shebhe¢ is, however, rather 
 a shepherd’s rod, which might be used as a club if 
 one end were heavy and studded with nails (cf. 
 Cheyne on Ps 284), or as a rough spear if one end 
 were pointed. Hezekiah (2 Ch 325) made darts, 
 n2Y shelak, in abundance for the defence of Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 DAVID 
 
 
 
 In Job 4122 AV and RV give ‘dart’ for ¥22 
 massa’, a drat Neyduevoy of uncertain meaning. 
 
 In 1 Mac 65! two kinds of darts are referred to 
 as employed at a siege, and cast by engines—(q@) 
 ordinary bolts or large arrows; (0) darts wrapped 
 in some burning material. Ancient defences, being 
 built largely of wood, were easily set on fire. 
 
 In Eph 6! the suggestions of the evil one are 
 called BéAn rervpwuéva, with an obvious allusion to 
 the practice mentioned above. St. Paul opposes 
 Faith to the suggestions, as the soldier would 
 oppose the great shield (@vpeds) to the darts. 
 
 W. HE. BARNES. 
 
 DATHAN.—See KORAH. 
 
 DATHEMA (Adéeua), 1 Mac 5°.—A fortress in 
 Bashan. It may perhaps be the modern Dameh 
 on the 8. border of the Lejjah district, N. of Ash- 
 teroth-karnaim. The Peshitta reads Rametha 
 (Ramoth-gilead ?). See G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 
 588 f. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 DAUB.—To daub, from Lat. dealbare (de down, 
 albus white), is properly to rub down a wall with 
 whitewash. But in English the word has always 
 been used for washing or plastering with any avail- 
 able substance. It is now used, even in its 
 literal sense, contemptuously. It has always been 
 used to describe bad writing, as Marprel. Ep. 
 (1589), ‘When men have a gift in writing, howe 
 easie it is for them to daube paper’; or painting, 
 as Foote (1752), Works, i. 9, ‘ How high did your 
 genius soar? ‘To the daubing diabolical angels for 
 ale-houses’; or besmearing of any kind, but esp. 
 with flattery, as South (1716), ‘Let every one 
 therefore attend the sentence of his conscience; 
 for, he may be sure, it will not daub, nor flatter’ ; 
 or to hide deformity. In AV daub occurs once 
 literally, Ex 23 ‘she took for him an ark of bul- 
 rushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch’ 
 (77290), from 29, mortar, clay). Elsewhere only 
 in Ezk (1310. 12. 14. 15 di 2328) fio, of whitewashing 
 Jerus. to hide its corruption, Heb. [7°], which 
 is also found in Lv 14%: 43. 4 (EV ‘plaister’), 1 Ch 
 29! (EV ‘overlay’), Is 4418 (EV ‘shut,’ margins 
 ‘daubed’). The subst. daubing occurs only Ezk 
 13 + where is the d. wherewith ye have daubed 
 it?’ (0) for the plaster itself, a tr® which has 
 come from Wyclif. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DAUGHTER.—See FAMILY. 
 
 **DAVID (11), but M7 1 K 314 114 8, Ezk 3423, Hos, 
 Am, Zec, Ca, Ezr, Neh, Ch [except 1 Ch 18°]; 
 LXX, NT, Aaveié, but TR AafBis).—The name, 
 which in the Bible is given to no one except the 
 great king of Israel, is perhaps a shortened form 
 of Dodavahu (17) 2 Ch 2087), ‘beloved of J’, or 
 Dodo (1117 2 § 2374, 117 2 § 239, Kethibh), ‘ beloved 
 of him’; but, according to Sayce, was originally 
 Dodo, a title of the sun-god (cf. na on Moabite 
 Stone, 1. 12). In the Tel el-Amarna tablets of the 
 15th cent. B.c. the form Didu is found. Our 
 authorities for the life of David are derived entirely 
 from the OT. The extra-biblical narratives, of 
 which the earliest are the fragments of Eupolemus 
 in Eusebius, Prep. Evang. ix. 30, and of Nicolas 
 of Damascus in Josephus, Ant. VII. v. 2, are either 
 dependent upon the OT, or are entirely legendary 
 (ef. Stanley, art. ‘David’ in Smith’s DB). The 
 reign of D., according to the traditional chronology, 
 is dated B.C. 1055-1015 ; but from Assyr. inscriptions 
 it appears that Jehu is placed about 40 years too 
 early in Ussher’s chronology, and we must accord- 
 ingly bring down the reign of D. by a period of 
 from 30 to 50 years. 
 
 The biblical account of D. is to be found (i.) in 
 the narrative of 15 16-1 K 2; (ii.) in 1 Ch 2,3. 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, by Charles Scribner’s Sons 
 
 
 

 
 DAVID 
 
 DAVID 561]. 
 
 
 
 10-29 ; see also Ru 4!8-22; and (iii.) in the titles of 
 
 many psalms. Of these three sources the first is 
 alike the oldest and the primary authority; in- 
 formation derived from the other two can be used 
 only sparingly. 
 
 A considerable portion of the history in 1 Ch 
 is derived directly or ultimately from the Books of 
 Samuel, and cannot be cited as an independent 
 narrative, though it is often valuable for the 
 restoration of the text. The fresh information 
 given by the Chronicler consists mainly of lists of 
 names and statistical details. In many cases the 
 numbers given condemn themselves; where we 
 have to deal with series of names, there is no 
 absolute criterion to guide us; but it is to be 
 noticed that the new narratives are nearly always 
 marked by their late Heb. style, and by the char- 
 acteristic language of the Chronicler, while the 
 statements made are often more or less at variance 
 with the older account inSamuel. It is rarely clear 
 that the author had access to ancient documents 
 other than the Books of Samuel, and his unverified 
 statements must therefore be received with caution. 
 The picture of D. presented by him differs in 
 important respects from the earlier portrait; it is 
 indeed the picture of an idealized David, such as 
 was present to the minds of devout Jews of the 
 8rd cent. B.C,, when the true founder of the Isr. 
 monarchy was regarded as a model of piety ; and 
 the recognition of the full Priestly Code in the 
 time of D. was a fact never questioned (see 
 CHRONICLES). 
 
 Seventy-three psalms bear the title ‘to David,’ 
 and in many cases, especially in Book II., there 
 is a fuller inscription connecting the psalm with 
 some particular event in D.’s life. Many of these 
 titles recall the language of the Books of Sam., from 
 which indeed they may be derived. ‘The picture 
 of D. which they suggest is not unlike that of 
 Chronicles. On closer examination, however, 
 it is seen that the contents of the psalm are often 
 not suitable to the alleged occasion; and so fre- 
 quently is this the case, that it becomes unsafe to 
 accept the superscriptions, or even the Davidic 
 authorship of ‘Davidic’ psalms, unless the titles 
 are directly supported by internal evidence. But, 
 without entering upon the wide question of the 
 date and authorship of the Psalter (see PSALMS), 
 it may be said that in a large number of cases 
 the thoughts and language even of ‘ Davidic’ 
 psalms remind us of the teaching of the great 
 prophets, and seem to be largely dependent on it; 
 the circumstances of the psalmists are often those 
 of the post-exilic Jews; and the religious ideas 
 and spiritual tone of the Psalter as a whole differ 
 widely from those which the most trustworthy 
 authorities ascribe to D. himself, or to the period 
 of the early monarchy. The tendency among the 
 best scholars of the present day is to 1duce the 
 directly Davidic element in the Psalter to the 
 narrowest limits. Hence it does not seem advisable 
 to illustrate the history or character of D. by 
 quotations from the Psalms. 
 
 For the history of D. we are thus practically 
 reduced to the Books of Samuel (with 1 K 1. 2); but 
 even this work contains elements of unequal his- 
 torical value, and it is necessary to consider briefly 
 the structure of the book, and to form a critical 
 estimate of its contents. 
 
 One noticeable feature of the D. narratives contained in 1S 
 16-31 is the existence of a number of ‘doublets,’ ¢.e. accounts 
 of very similar events, or divergent accounts of the same event. 
 These may be here enumerated. (1) The introduction of D. to 
 Saul, 1 S 161+23 and 171-18°; (2) the slaying of Goliath of Gath, 
 18 171-185 and 28 2119; (8) Saul casts his spear at D., 18 
 1819. 11 and 199.10; (4) Jonathan’s intercession for D., 191-7 and 
 20; (5) the coyenant between D, and Jonathan, 2012-23. 42 and 
 2316-18 ; (6) the origin of the proverb, ‘Is Saul also among the 
 
 rophets ?’ 19754. and 10-13; (7) D. at the court of Achish, 
 piio-s and 27-28? 29; (8) D. spares Saul’s life, 24 and 26; (9) 
 
 VOL. I1.—26 
 
 
 
 the death of Saul, 18 81 and 28 11-16, These parallels are not 
 all equally convincing ; in certain cases the divergent narratives 
 may be harmonized more or less satisfactorily ; in others it is 
 possible that an event occurred more than once in D,’s life, 
 though it would be strange that with reference, ¢.g., to D.’s 
 flight to Gath, or his sparing Saul’s life, no allusion should be 
 made in the narrative to a previous similar occurrence. We 
 cannot, however, separate these peculiarities in the history of 
 D. from similar phenomena in the history of Saul, where we find 
 two accounts of his appointment as king, and of his rejection. 
 We are therefore obliged to recognize the existence of two 
 parallel narratives in the present 18, and these must be separ- 
 ated as far as possible, and compared, if we would gain a clear 
 idea of D.’s earlier life. In 28 the case is somewhat different. 
 Of a double narrative there we have hardly any traces. On the 
 other hand, we have a detailed and continuous narrative (ch 
 9-20 with 1 K 1. 2), the work of a single writer, which describes 
 the history of D.’s family and court at Jerus., and is a document 
 of the highest importance. The earlier chapters (1-8) and 
 the appendix (21-24) are of composite origin; there are indi- 
 cations that their contents have been partially rearranged ; and 
 later editors or redactors haye left their mark on these chapters. 
 The following analysis, taken mainly from Budde (Richter wnd 
 Samuel), will be found useful. Some comments upon it will be 
 found in the course of this article; for fuller particulars see 
 SAMUEL, Books or, 
 
 A, (Budde, J) 18 1614-28 185. 20-30 (6-8) 9-11 9() 99. 231-140. 192995244 
 24, 27. 281.229, 380. 28425 31, 2 § 11-4. 17-27 2. 31.6-39 4, 51-3, 17-25 
 (? Q115-22 288-39) 6-12 6, 82-5 §18-16 §16-18 — 9()23-26 9-20), WEA" 
 
 B. (Budde, E)1 § 17, 1514 (6-8) 12-19 191-17 911-9 2314b-18b? 96, 
 28 1516, 
 
 Detached narratives of various dates: —2 8 211-1424, 1§ 161-18 
 1918-24 2110-1 28 7. 22. 281-7, 
 
 Editorial additions, based in part on older material : —2 8 81-15, 
 1K 2(2-22), 
 
 No account is taken here of minor interpolations and editorial 
 additions. 
 
 Of these different authorities the oldest and most valuable is 
 the family history of D. referred to above (28 9-20, 1 K 1. 2); 
 its detailed descriptions and graphic touches do not indeed 
 prove the writer to have been a contemporary of the events, 
 but he clearly possessed trustworthy sources of information, and 
 must be placed not very long after D.’s time. The remaining 
 portions of A are not so detailed, and are apparently of some- 
 what later date. 5B is still later, and in several points less 
 reliable than A; while of the shorter sections some are shown 
 by their contents, and by the ideas there expressed, to be of 
 high antiquity (2 8 21. 24), others are certainly later than B, 
 and in part dependent on B. All, however, are earlier than the 
 time of Josiah; and only in 2 8 7 (pre-exilic), in the Songs 
 (2 $ 22, 231-7) and the editorial additions, can we trace the 
 influence of Deuteronomy. 
 
 David was the youngest son of Jesse, a Judzan 
 of Bethlehem, who seems to have belonged to one 
 of the principal families of his native town (yet cf. 
 1S 18!8), No particulars as to the ancestry of 
 Jesse are given in 1 Sam. (contrast the case of Saul, 
 1S 9!); but in the (later) genealogy in Ruth he is 
 called the son of Obed, and grandson of Boaz, and 
 his descent is traced back to the family of Perez 
 (Ru 41822; see also 1 Ch 23-17), The name of D.’s 
 mother is nowhere given; his three elder brothers 
 were called Eliab (? Elihu, 1 Ch 2718), Abinadab, 
 and Shammah (Shimeah, 2S 133; Shimei, 2S 212), 
 see 1S 1659 1738, 158 161% and 17! speak of eight 
 sons of Jesse, and in 1 Ch 2!416 three more names 
 are given, Nethanel the 4th, Raddai the 5th, and 
 Ozem the 6th, D. being there termed the 7th. The 
 sisters of D., Zeruiah (the mother of Joab, Abishai, 
 and Asahel) and Abigail (the mother of Amasa), 
 were probably half-sisters, for in 2 S 172° Abigail is 
 called daughter of Nahash and sister to Zeruiah ; 
 cf. 1 Ch 216 17), 
 
 We first hear of D. when he was introduced 
 to the court of Saul. The king had been attacked 
 with morbid melancholy, called by the historian 
 ‘an evil spirit from J'’.2 His servants suggested 
 that a skilful player upon the harp should be 
 brought to soothe the king with his music, and 
 I)., the son of Jesse, was chosen for this office. 
 The narrative (1 8 16!*%3) is probably to be con- 
 nected with the statement of 1452, that Saul 
 gathered round him every valiant warrior in 
 Israel; and in like manner D., who is described 
 as ‘a mighty man of valour and a man of war,’ 
 Was summoned to the court. In addition to being 
 a skilful musician, he was prudent in speech (or 
 business), a comely person, and one who enjoyed 
 the favour of J/’. The young minstrel won the 
 
562 DAVID 
 
 favour of the king, who made him his armour- 
 bearer (cf. 1 S 141f- 3146, 2 § 1815 2587), and kept 
 him in attendance upon his person. 
 
 From another source, however, we have a dif- 
 ferent account of OD.’s first introduction to 
 Saul, in the beautiful and familiar story of the 
 encounter with Goliath (ch, 171-18*). Here David 
 is represented as a mere lad, a goodly youth of 
 fair countenance, inexperienced in war (17%. 42), 
 who used to tend his father’s sheep. During a 
 war with the Philistines, D. was sent by his father 
 with a present to his three brothers, who were 
 serving in Saul’s army in the Valley of Elah. On 
 reaching the camp he heard the defiant words of 
 the giant, Goliath of Gath, and, undeterred by his 
 eldest brother’s reproaches, he inquired among 
 the soldiers concerning the king’s reward promised 
 to any man who would overcome the Philistine 
 champion. When brought before the king, the 
 youth at once offered to go out against the Philis- 
 tine, relating how he had protected his father’s 
 sheep from the lions and bears which had attacked 
 them (tenses in 17% frequentative, see Driver, 
 Text of Sam.). Putting aside the armour offered 
 by the king, he advanced to meet the giant. He 
 brought his opponent to the ground by a stone 
 slung against his forehead, and then cut off his 
 head with his own sword. The fall of their 
 champion was followed by the rout of the Philis- 
 tine army. So far was D. at this time unknown 
 to Saul, that the king instructed his chief com- 
 mander, Abner, to inquire concerning the ‘strip- 
 ling’s’ parentage, — a question which D. answered 
 for himself as he returned from the fray with the 
 giant’s head in his hand. From this time forward 
 D. was kept at the court of Saul, while a close 
 friendship sprang up at once between him and the 
 king’s son Jonathan. 
 
 Many attempts have been made to harmonize 
 the two narratives. It is suggested that D. had 
 returned home from his position as minstrel, and 
 had since grown out of recognition ; or that Saul’s 
 question to Abner related to D.’s family, but that 
 he personally was known to Saul. Neither of 
 these explanations can be regarded as satisfactory, 
 nor do they account for the discrepancy between 
 the skilled warrior of 16!8 and the shepherd lad of 
 1738.42, The difficulty attracted attention at an 
 early period. 17!® seems to be a harmonistic addi- 
 tion by some later editor, and represents D. as 
 going backwards and forwards between his home 
 and the court. Similarly, 1619 ‘which is with the 
 sheep,’ a clause which does not agree with v.18, 
 must be regarded as a later gloss. The LXX (cod. 
 B) offers a more violent solution of the problem, 
 omitting 1712-31. 41. 50. 55_185 ; it thus gets rid of the 
 description of D. as sent to the camp by his father, 
 and of Saul’s question concerning the young hero, 
 D. being represented (vy. 2) as already in attend- 
 ance upon Saul. The LXX text has been accepted 
 as original by competent scholars (W. R. Smith, 
 Stade, Cornill) ; but others with good reason adhere 
 to the MT, and regard the omissions of the LXX 
 as due to an attempt to reconcile chs. 16 and 17 
 (Driver, Cheyne, Wellhausen [ Composition], Kue- 
 nen, Budde, etc.). Even in the LXX text D. is 
 a shepherd lad (vv. °- 42), not the warrior of 1618- 21; 
 in language and style the omitted paragraphs do 
 not differ from the rest of the chapter, while cer- 
 tain expressions which suggest a later hand (e.g. 
 assembly v.47, Jerusalem °*) are found also in the 
 LXX; and the original covenant. between D. and 
 Jonathan, to which allusion is made more than 
 once subsequently, is related only in 18'+. In facet 
 
 all these attempts to reconcile the two accounts of 
 the first meeting of D. and Saul are unsuccessful ; 
 we can only recognize them as two versions of the 
 history, and choose between them. And here we 
 
 
 
 DAVID 
 
 see the importance of the statement of 2 § 2119 
 that ‘ Elhanan the son of Jair (cf. Driver, Text of 
 Sam.) the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, 
 the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam’ 
 (cf. 1 § 177). The Chronicler indeed states that 
 ‘Elhanan slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath’ 
 (1 Ch 205), but the ‘harder’ reading of 2 Sam. is 
 certainly to be preferred. It has been suggested 
 that Elhanan was the original name of David 
 (Boéttcher, Sayce), — but of this there is no hint in 
 either passage, and the father of Elhanan is Jair 
 (or Jatir), not Jesse ;— or that the name of Goliath 
 has been wrongly transferred to D.’s enemy, who, 
 in 1 S$ 17, is usually termed simply ‘ the Philistine.’ 
 On the whole, however, it seems more probable 
 that Goliath of Gath was slain at a later period by 
 one of D.’s warriors, also a native of Bethlehem ; 
 and subsequently the victory was by tradition as- 
 cribed to D. himself, and put back to the period of 
 his boyhood. In this case we must accept 1 S 
 1614-23 as giving the true narrative of D.’s first 
 introduction to Saul; but the popular tradition 
 has left its mark on other parts of the history of 
 David. 
 
 A story of D.’s earliest life is given in 1 § 161-8, 
 where we read how, after Saul’s rejection, Samuel 
 was sent in accordance with J/’s instructions to 
 Bethlehem. There he invited Jesse to a sacrifice, 
 and, after sending a special summons to the young 
 David, who was tending the sheep, anointed him in 
 the midst of his brothers. This narrative now 
 forms the introduction to the history of D. ; it is 
 the counterpart to 1S 10'#- (the anointing of Saul 
 by Samuel), and explains the coming of the Spirit 
 of God upon D., and its departure from Saul; but, 
 as it stands, the account can hardly be accepted as 
 historical. Independently of any difficulties raised 
 by the character and position here assigned to 
 Samuel, which resemble what we find in the later 
 narrative of the choice of Saul, the fact that D.’s 
 anointing attracted so little attention has more 
 than once been remarked as strange. His own 
 brother Eliab seems unaware of it (178), while 
 D. himself appears unconscious of his destiny (1818), 
 and always regards Saul as the Anointed of J’ (1S 
 246 269,2 S$ 114). The explanation that this anoint- 
 ing was only a mark of favour bestowed on the 
 most honoured guest, and that D. was here given 
 a place like that assigned to Saul at Ramah (922, so 
 Klostermann, Ewald, W. R. Smith), does not do 
 justice to the narrative, and anointing in the OT 
 implies the conferring of some office. 
 
 Our authorities do not enable us to say how long 
 D. continued in the position of Saul’s minstrel and 
 armour-bearer. His success in war against the 
 Philistines ; his popularity among the soldiers; the 
 love of Michal and her marriage with D.; the 
 strong friendship between D. and Jonathan, who 
 entered into a covenant of brotherhood, — these 
 facts are all attested by more than one passage in 
 both the main narratives. But it is not quite easy 
 to trace and explain the beginning of the distrust 
 which Saul conceived for his young favourite, who 
 had been promoted to the position of captain of the 
 bodyguard (1 S 22'* LXX). It is only natural that 
 there should be some want of definiteness in the 
 narratives. The facts could be known only to 
 those belonging to the innermost circle of the 
 court, and all our records are written from the 
 point of view of friends of David. If any ill- 
 advised action on his part contributed to excite 
 Saul’s ill-will, we are told nothing about it. The 
 main reason alleged for Saul’s enmity is his 
 jealousy of D.’s popularity and success in war, 
 which is said to have been excited by the song of 
 the women, who met the victorious warriors with 
 the words, ‘Saul hath slain his thousands, and D. 
 his ten thousands.’ But besides this there are hints 
 
 
 
EE ———— es 
 
 DAVID 
 
 of a suspicion that D. had conspired with Jonathan 
 to dethrone him (cf. 1 S 203°f 2218), Everything 
 that we are told of Jonathan goes to prove the 
 baselessness of such a suspicion, and his continued 
 affection for D. is evidence of D.’s innocence; but 
 we can well imagine that the melancholy from 
 which Saul suffered served to increase any jealousy 
 or distrust when once aroused, and it is possible 
 that he feared that his subjects might regard him, 
 owing to his occasional attacks of madness, as no 
 longer a fit ruler of the nation. 
 
 The chapter which describes the growth of the 
 estrangement between Saul and D. lies before us 
 in two forms. Here again the LXX has a shorter 
 text, omitting from ch. 18 vv.%1l- 12b. 17-19, 21b. 29b. 3), 
 Thus the account of Saul’s casting his spear at D. 
 is omitted, and the promise of marriage with the 
 elder daughter Merab ; the gradual growth of Saul’s 
 jealousy is described, and each stage is appropri- 
 ately emphasized with the words ‘Saul was afraid 
 of D.’ (v.22), ‘Stood in awe of him’ (v.1%), ‘was 
 yet more afraid’ (v.29) ; and on account of the clear 
 and consistent picture given in this version, many 
 scholars accept the LXX text as original (so Wellh., 
 Kuenen, Stade, Driver, W. R. Smith, Kirkpatrick). 
 But Cornill allows that the promise of Merab is 
 the proper fulfilment of the king’s promise to the 
 slayer of Goliath (17) ; and Budde urges the in- 
 consistency of adopting the LXX recension in 
 ch. 18, and rejecting it (as Wellh., Kuenen, Driver 
 do) in ch. 17. He accounts for the difficulties pre- 
 sented by the MT by analysing the chapter into 
 sections derived from the two principal documents 
 (so also Cheyne) ; and this seems to be the most 
 satisfactory solution of the problem. Comparing 
 the parallel narratives, we gather that D. was 
 placed by Saul at the head of an armed force, 
 either as amark of favour (185 A), or because of his 
 growing distrust (v.B) ; that Saul’s jealousy was 
 excited on some occasion when D. returned from 
 a victory over the Philistines (vv.°°, probably A 
 and B,—note the double introduction to v.®) ; that 
 this did not prevent the marriage of D. to Saul’s 
 younger daughter Michal (vv.?)-8) A, cf.!"-!9B).  In- 
 deed it is not improbable that the estrangement is 
 placed too early, and that Saul gave his daughter 
 to the popular and successful officer in order to 
 bind him to his interests, rather than that he al- 
 ready desired to compass D.’s death. Jonathan’s 
 intercession for his friend failed to effect a real re- 
 conciliation (19!7 B, 20 A); and when Saul, in a 
 fit of madness, hurled his spear at D. while he 
 played the harp before the king, D. felt that his 
 life was in danger, and that he must flee from 
 the court (19% 2 B, 18!’- 11 A, probably removed 
 from its original position when A and B were 
 combined). 
 
 The details given by the two narratives differ. According to 
 A, Saul offered his daughter to D. as a mere snare, hoping that 
 he might fallin battle, as the dowry was fixed at 100 foreskins 
 of the Philistines; but D., without loss of time, procured twice 
 the required number (1827 200, MT; 100, LXX), and won his 
 bride. After this (vy.%"), Saul ina frenzy attempted the life of 
 his son-in-law, and, when D. complained to Jonathan, the latter 
 repudiated the idea that his father had any real intention of 
 harming him. To determine the king’s true feelings, it was 
 then agreed that D. should stay in hiding during the new-moon 
 festival, while Jonathan was to excuse his friend’s absence from 
 the royal table on the pretext that he had been summoned to a 
 family feast at Bethlehem. On the first day of D.’s absence 
 nothing was said; on the next day, in answer to Saul’s inquiries, 
 Jonathan made the excuse agreed upon, whereat the king burst 
 forth into furious reproaches against D. and his son, and hurled 
 his spear at Jonathan, who attempted to intercede for his friend. 
 In anger Jonathan left the table, and next morning went to the 
 appointed place in the field. Under pretence of shooting at a 
 mark, he sent an arrow beyond the stone where D. lay concealed ; 
 and while the boy carried back his master’s weapons, the two 
 friends took an affectionate farewell. On ch. 20, which has per- 
 haps not reached us quite in its original form, it may be remarked 
 that Jonathan's denial of any wish on the part of Saul to harm 
 D. (.02) is hardly appropriate after 191-7. 11-17; and that while a 
 mere act of frenzy (18! 19%f-) might leave D. uncertain as to 
 Saul’s intentions, he could not have any doubt after Saul had 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DAVID 563 
 
 
 
 deliberately sent messengers to kill him (1911-17), or be expected 
 to appear at the king’s table (205. 6. 27). 
 
 According to the second narrative (B), it was owing to Saul’s 
 jealousy that D. was removed from the position of armour- 
 bearer to that of captain of a thousand (181%), and when the time 
 came for his promised marriage (cf. 1725), Merab the elder 
 daughter was given to Adriel of Meholah. Our account of D.’s 
 marriage with Michal seems to be derived from the other source, 
 but the obscure words at the end of v.21 are perhaps a fragment 
 of the second narrative. Saul’s ill-will towards his former 
 favourite increased so greatly that he purposed to put him to 
 death. Jonathan, however, pleaded to his father D.’s good 
 deeds, and especially his victory over the Philistine (Goliath) ; 
 and on Saul’s relenting he brought D. out of his hiding-place in 
 the field, and presented him to his father (191-7). The recon- 
 ciliation, however, was of no long duration, for, shortly after 
 Jonathan’s appeal, Saul, in a fit of madness, cast his spear at D. 
 as he played on the harp before him. D. fled to his house, but 
 that night (1914 LX)X Saul sent messengers to watch the house, 
 and, while respecting his sleeping enemy in accordance with 
 Oriental custom, he ordered them to kill him in the morning. 
 D. was saved by the faithful Michal, who lowered him through 
 the window, while she placed in his bed the teraphim or house- 
 hold image, and covered it with the bed-clothes. Next morning 
 the messengers brought word that D. was ill; but, when charged 
 to bring him in the bed, the fraud was discovered, and Michal 
 had to plead in self-defence that D. had threatened her life if she 
 hindered his escape. With regard to this series of narratives it 
 may be pointed out that the similarities between portions of 
 191-7 and ch. 20 suggest, though they do not prove, that we have 
 before us two different versions of the same event, while the 
 reference to the victory over Goliath connects the former pas- 
 sage with ch. 17. Further, the difference of phraseology in 181°- 
 19%f- (ef. also 2033) favours the view that these verses are the 
 work of independent writers, rather than that the former pas- 
 sage has merely been borrowed from the latter after the time of 
 the LXX. 
 
 For the rest of Saul’s reign D. was an exile from 
 his home, and an outlaw (1 S 21-31). Some inci- 
 dents during this period of his life are described 
 with minute and graphic touches, which bear the 
 evident stamp of genuineness; in other cases the 
 accuracy of the narrative is more doubtful. ‘The 
 analysis of these chapters does not present many 
 difficulties, and more than once the existence of 
 double versions of the same story can hardly be 
 doubted. It is only natural that many stories of 
 D.’s adventures should have been current among 
 the people long before they were written down ; 
 and many a place in the wilds of Judah would 
 doubtless claim to be the site of some memorable 
 event in the outlaw life of the great national hero ; 
 while from ch. 30?-81 it is clear that we possess but 
 a fragmentary account of his many wanderings. 
 According to the present Book of Samuel, D., 
 after escaping from Saul’s messengers, fled first to 
 Ramah, where he took refuge with Samuel at a 
 prophetic school. Thrice Saul sent messengers to 
 capture him (cf. 2 K 1), but each time the men 
 were overcome by the sacred minstrelsy of the 
 prophets ; and when Saul came in person, he too 
 was filled with prophetic frenzy, and stripping off 
 his clothes lay naked all the night (19'*!). Grave 
 doubts, however, have been raised against this 
 narrative. For a Judean like D., flight south- 
 wards was more natural from Gibeah than north- 
 wards to Ramah; the connexion between Samuel 
 and the prophets is not that presented by the 
 older history of Saul and Samuel, where indeed 
 there is another explanation given of the proverb 
 ‘Is Saul also among the prophets ?’? (101!f-) ; while 
 the present narrative can hardly be by the author 
 of ch. 15, who implies (v.%*) that Saul and Samuel 
 did not meet again. The conception of the pro- 
 phetic school as here described is probably later 
 than the time of D.; and we must regard it as at 
 
 least doubtful whether D. had any dealings with 
 
 Samuel. 
 
 If we reject this narrative as of later origin, the 
 first place visited by D. in his flight will be the 
 priestly city of Nob, which lay south of Gibeah 
 and due north of Jerusalem. To Ahimelech, the 
 head of the priests of Eli’s family, he alleged that 
 he was bound on urgent business for the king, and 
 accordingly obtained through him, as on previous 
 occasions (221), an answer from the oracle. The 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 DAVID 
 
 
 
 564 
 
 only provisions which the priest could offer was 
 the sacred shewbread, removed that day from the 
 sanctuary ; and this David accepted, stating that 
 he and his companions were ceremonially clean. 
 Ahimelech is said also to have given to D. the 
 sword of Goliath, which was kept wrapped in a 
 cloth behind the EPHoD. This visit to Nob was 
 followed by important consequences. Shortly 
 afterwards, while Saul was holding court under 
 the tamarisk in Gibeah, he complained to his Ben- 
 jamite followers of their ingratitude in taking part 
 against him with his own son and David. Here- 
 upon the Edomite Doeg, the chief herdman of Saul, 
 or rather ‘the mightiest of his runners’ (21, so 
 Gratz, Driver), declared that he had seen D. at 
 Nob, where Ahimelech had consulted the oracle on 
 his behalf, and supplied him with food and weapons. 
 Saul at once suspected that the priest also was 
 party to a conspiracy against him, and perhaps 
 that he had been consulting the oracle as to its 
 success. He summoned to his presence Ahime- 
 lech and the priests of his family, and, refusing to 
 accept their denial of any knowledge of a con- 
 spiracy, ordered his guards to put them to death. 
 The guards hesitated, but Doeg carried out the 
 king’s orders. Eighty-five priests were slain, and 
 the city of Nob completely destroyed. Only one 
 member of Eli’s family escaped the massacre, Abi- 
 athar, a son of Ahimelech, who fled to D., probably 
 to Adullam ; and the latter, feeling that the disaster 
 was in some measure due to himself, promised the 
 fugitive his protection. According to Budde, we 
 have underlying 1 S 211° 225-28 two versions of D.’s 
 visit to Nob, and the denunciation of Doeg: notice 
 that 221)-15 imply that Ahimelech consulted the 
 oracle for David, whereas nothing is said of this in 
 211°, Budde connects the earlier passage with B, 
 the second with A, and regards the allusions to 
 Goliath’s sword in 221-18 as added to connect the 
 two narratives. Others (Wellb., Kuenen, Stade) 
 ascribe both chapters to the same writer, and 
 reject 218 9 (Heb. % 1°) 221% as later glosses. In 
 any case, these verses presupposed the account of 
 D. and Goliath in ch. 17. 
 
 Our present narrative represents D. as fleeing 
 from Nob to Gath. Here, it is said, at the court of 
 Achish, he was recognized as the Isr. warrior, and 
 ‘king of the land’ ; in consequence he feigned mad- 
 ness, drumming (v.13 LX X) on the doors, and letting 
 the spittle fall on his beard, so that at the com- 
 mand of Achish he was driven away (211-5). It 
 is doubtful, however, whether D. would really have 
 taken refuge among the Philistines at such an 
 early period of his wanderings ; and when he ap- 
 pears at Gath at a later time, no hint is given of 
 this earlier visit. Probably we have here again a 
 ‘doublet,’ and our narrative represents a popular 
 legend, the product of a desire to represent in a 
 more patriotic light D.’s residence among the 
 Philistines. Far more reliable is the account in 
 221. according to which D. fled (from Nob) to the 
 cave, or stronghold (so Wellh., Stade, Budde ; cf. 
 v.4), of Adullam. ‘This place must be looked for, 
 not, according to a tradition dating from the 12th 
 cent. A.D., on the south of Bethlehem in the Wady 
 Khareitun, but in the Shephélah west of Hebron 
 (cf. Gn 381, Jos 15°; and see G. A. Smith, Hist. 
 Geog. p. 229f.). Here the wild character of the 
 country afforded him a hiding-place ; he was among 
 his own tribesmen, and on the extremity of Judah 
 Saul’s authority was weakest. The brothers and 
 kinsmen of D., who had to fear Saul’s vengeance, 
 gathered round him, together with distressed 
 debtors and discontented men of every class, so 
 that D. soon found himself the leader of a band of 
 some 400 men. Of these, several doubtless were 
 not of Israelitish origin (cf. 1 S 26° and perhaps 
 2 S 2387-89) ; according to 1 Ch 12°18 certain valiant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DAVID 
 
 Gadites and men of Judah and Benjamin joined 
 him here, and not long afterwards (1S 2318) D.’s 
 followers are reckoned at 600. His parents he 
 placed under the protection of the king of Moab, a 
 step which may perhaps be explained by reference 
 to the Book of Ruth, where D.’s descent is traced 
 from Ruth the Moabitess. According to 22°, a 
 verse of which the connexion is somewhat obscure, 
 D., at the advice of the prophet Gad, removed from 
 his stronghold to the forest of Hareth; but he is 
 certainly again in the Shephélah when we next 
 hear of him. News came to D. that the Philistines 
 were raiding Keilah, doubtless a frontier town west 
 of Hebron, and perhaps south of Adullam. An 
 opportunity now offered itself to him of at once 
 assisting his countrymen and making a fresh name 
 as a warrior. Having inquired of the priestly 
 ephod, which Abiathar had brought from Nob, and 
 received a favourable answer, D. marched down 
 with his band, and drove away the Philistines from 
 Keilah, To Saul it seemed that the time for cap- 
 turing his enemy had now come. He summoned 
 his army in order to besiege Keilah ; but D., learn- 
 ing from the oracle that the inhabitants would save 
 themselves by delivering over him and his men to 
 Saul, escaped betimes, and Saul abandoned his 
 expedition. 
 
 D. is next found in the wild and partially desert 
 country to the south of Judah, or in the neighbour- 
 hood of the Dead Sea. The wilderness of Ziph and 
 of Maon are especially connected with his wander- 
 ings. Here doubtless D. was welcome, and prob- 
 ably he was able to protect the inhabitants from 
 the inroads of wild nomad tribes living farther to 
 the south and east. 
 
 At this point the double narrative reappears, as is specially 
 noticeable in the case of the two accounts of D. sparing Saul’s 
 life. That ch. 26 refers to a second occasion, although no refer- 
 ence is there made to a former proof of D.’s generosity, seems 
 antecedently improbable; and this impression is confirmed on 
 comparing the two narratives. Each is introduced by an offer 
 of the Ziphites to betray D.’s hiding-place to Saul (2819 261) ; 
 each ends with a confession of D.’s noble conduct placed in the 
 mouth of Saul; and a careful comparison of the language (see 
 Kuenen, Budde) shows either literary dependence of one upon 
 the other, or the dependence of both on some common tradition. 
 Owing to the occurrence in ch. 26 of certain antique conceptions 
 (esp. v.19), it has commonly been supposed that this is the earlier 
 chapter (so Kuenen, Wellh., Stade, Driver); Budde, on the other 
 hand (so Cheyne), shows good reason for connecting ch. 24 with 
 the A narratives, in which case it belongs to the earlier document, 
 while the archaic colouring of ch. 26 may be due to the fact that 
 it has undergone less editorial revision than the earlier chapter 
 (see esp. 242°f-). Budde further argues from the scene of ch, 25 
 (Maon v.2 LX X14, cf. 25248) that this chapter came originally 
 between chs. 23 and 24, probably having been transposed in order 
 to separate the doublets, chs. 24 and 26. There are other traces 
 of editorial revision in ch. 23, especially in the somewhat exag- 
 gerated language of v.14f-, and the redundant description of D.’s 
 haunts (2b.) is probably the result of conflation. Many regard 
 the covenant of the two friends (vv.118) as a mere doublet of 
 2041-88 ; like that passage, the verses suggest the objection that 
 Jonathan could hardly have thus definitely regarded D. as his 
 father’s successor. However this may be, the narrative proceeds 
 smoothly after the account of Jonathan’s visit, when the trans- 
 position aboye mentioned has been made. 
 
 While D. was hiding in the hill of Hachilah and 
 the neighbouring desert, the Ziphites sent word of 
 his haunts to Saul, and at the king’s request began 
 to watch his movements, while an army was being 
 collected. D. meanwhile withdrew southwards 
 to the wilderness of Maon, on the edge of the 
 Arabah, whither he was pursued by Saul. At one 
 time, we are told, a single rocky ridge separated 
 the two forces; but while D. was endeavouring to 
 make good his escape before his band was com- 
 pletely surrounded, Saul was unexpectedly recalled 
 to repel a sudden raid of the Philistines. Popular 
 tradition pointed out the cliff known as Sela- 
 hammahlékoth (i.e. prob. ‘Rock of Divisions’) as 
 the scene of this narrow escape (231°), 
 
 One of the most detailed and most reliable ac- 
 counts which we possess of the whole period of 
 D.’s wanderings relates to the time when he was 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 still in the region of Maon. 
 landowner named Nabal, belonging to the Caleb- 
 ites, a tribe closely connected with that of Judah, 
 
 Here dwelt a wealthy 
 
 though originally distinct from it. His large 
 flocks were pastured on Carmel, S.E. of Hebron ; 
 and not only were they unmolested by D.’s men, 
 but the latter had served to protect them from the 
 attacks of nomad tribes. Hearing that Nabal was 
 shearing his sheep, D. sent ten men with a court- 
 eous request for a present for his band, but was met 
 with a churlish refusal. In wrath D. at once com- 
 manded his men to arm; and while a third of the 
 company was left in charge of the baggage, he 
 marched with the rest to avenge the insult re- 
 ceived from Nabal. Fortunately, Abigail, Nabal’s 
 beautiful and prudent wife, had been warned by a 
 servant of her husband’s unseemly conduct. She 
 immediately caused a large supply of provisions to 
 be prepared, and without informing her husband 
 rode to meet D. with her present. She met the 
 armed band coming down the mountain side, and 
 throwing herself at D.’s feet begged him to accept 
 the gift, and to pay no heed to her husband’s in- 
 sults, while she expressed a hope that in time to 
 come no remembrance of blood needlessly shed 
 might rise up to trouble his mind. Her discretion 
 and her pleadings were not lost on D.; he accepted 
 the present from her hand, and abandoned his pur- 
 pose of vengeance and bloodshed. When Abigail 
 returned home, she found her husband drunk at a 
 shearing feast, but next morning she told him of 
 the danger which he had just escaped. Fear and 
 vexation caused a shock, of which he died ten days 
 later; and D., who now felt that J/’ had indeed 
 defended his cause, took Abigail to wife. He thus 
 established a powerful family connexion with the 
 south of Judah, and he further increased his influ- 
 ence by marriage with Ahinoam of the southern 
 Jezreel (cf. Jos 15%). At the same time his first 
 wife, Michal, was given by Saul to Paltiel, the son 
 of Laish, of Gallim (1 5 25). 
 
 It seems to have been after this, according to the 
 original history of A, that David removed to the 
 desert tract west of the Dead Sea, and made his 
 abode in Engedi, whither he was followed by Saul, 
 after the retreat of the Philistines. We are told 
 that on one occasion Saul entered a large cave for 
 a necessary purpose, at a time when D. and his 
 men were hidden in the recesses of the cave. 
 Though urged by his followers to slay his pursuer, 
 D. refused to harm the ‘ Anointed of J!’,’ and con- 
 tented himself with cutting off a corner of the long 
 robe which lay spread out before and behind the 
 owner. JD. followed Saul as he left the cave, and, 
 holding out the portion of his robe, showed the king 
 how he had been at the mercy of the man whom 
 he was so relentlessly pursuing; and he begged 
 him no longer to listen to those who charged D. 
 with conspiring against him. Saul was touched at 
 this generosity; and in language which clearly 
 reflects the thoughts of a historian of a later time, 
 he is made to openly acknowledge his rival’s 
 superiority, and to recognize him as the future 
 king of Israel (1S 24). The other version of this 
 story (ch. 26), which, though coming from a later 
 document, has preserved many original features 
 lost in ch, 24, places D. in the hill of Hachilah, and 
 attributes his pursuit hither by Saul to the 
 information of the Ziphites. One night Saul 
 encamped in a deep valley surrounded by steep 
 cliffs; but the place being discovered by D.’s 
 spies, D., accompanied by Abishai, descended 
 from the hills, and entered unobserved into the 
 laager where Saul lay sleeping. Refusing to 
 allow Abishai to smite a sleeping enemy, he bade 
 him carry away Saul’s spear and water-cruse ; and 
 when they had again climbed the hill above the 
 camp, D. shouted aloud, and thus aroused first 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Abner, whom he blamed severely for his careless 
 watch, and then Saul himself. To Saul, who 
 recognized his voice, D. made a passionate appeal: 
 ‘Why did the king continually pursue him ? if J! 
 had stirred him up to do so, might he be propitiated 
 with an offering: or were men seeking to drive D. 
 out of J/’s land?’ ‘The king confessed that he had 
 sinned, and promised to do D). no more harm, and 
 the two parted their several ways. 
 
 Whatever be the exact details of this meeting, it 
 is clear that D. felt himself no longer safe in 
 Judah, and as a last resort he passed over to the 
 national enemy, and took refuge with his family 
 and his followers at the court of Achish, son of 
 Maoch, king of Gath. A tried warrior at the head of 
 600 men, he was readily welcomed ; but, not liking 
 to dwell in the capital, he asked for a settlement of 
 his own, and received the southern town of Ziklag, 
 where he established himself as the vassal of his 
 protector. It was now necessary for David to 
 devise some means of ensuring the confidence of 
 his master without injuring or estranging his own 
 people. Accordingly, he made asuccession of raids 
 upon the Amalekites, Girzites, and other desert 
 tribes living between Egypt and the south of 
 Palestine. By putting to death all who fell into 
 his hands, D. was able to represent to Achish that 
 his frays were directed against Judah, and against 
 the allied tribes of the Kenites and Jerahmeelites 
 (1 S 27). He had been living at Ziklag some 16 
 months (y.’), when the Philistines prepared for a 
 decisive struggle against Israel. Achish called 
 upon his vassal to accompany him to the war, and 
 DD. with professions of fidelity responded to the 
 eall. He had now placed himself in a false and 
 dangerous position. Even if he were willing to aid 
 the Philistines against his fellow-countrymen, 
 success in the war would have effectually prevented 
 him from becoming the accepted leader of Israel. 
 Fortunately, the other Phil. leaders were less ready 
 than Achish to trust him. When D. and his troops 
 appeared in the rearguard with Achish at Aphek, 
 as the Philistine hosts were mustering, the 
 princes protested against the presence of the famed 
 Israelitish leader, and urged that treachery to them 
 in battle would be the surest way to a reconciliation 
 with the king of Israel. Achish was therefore 
 reluctantly compelled to bid D. depart, and next 
 morning he turned homewards with his men (chs. 
 281f- 290). Two days later they reached Ziklag, to 
 find that a sudden raid of the Amalekites had laid 
 the town in ruins and carried the inhabitants cap- 
 tive. D. was the first to recover his composure, 
 and, encouraged by an answer from J” given 
 through the ephod of Abiathar, he started to pur- 
 sue the foe. At the brook Besor, probably the 
 Wady Esheria south of Gaza, 200 of his men were 
 compelled to remain, overcome by fatigue. The 
 pursuit, however, was continued, and an Egyp. 
 slave, who was found half dead in the way, offered 
 in return for a promise of life and liberty to guide 
 D. to the enemy’s encampment. The Amalekites 
 were surprised at dusk while feasting, and few of 
 the men escaped. All the captives were recovered, 
 and a large booty was taken. On the return to the 
 brook Besor, a dispute arose as to the right of the 
 men who had been left there to share in the spoil. 
 D., however, decided in their favour, and thus 
 established the principle that those who fought 
 and those who guarded the baggage should share 
 alike. Of the rich spoil D. had a further use to 
 make, for he sent costly presents to the elders of 
 Hebron and other towns in the south of Judah, 
 where he had been accustomed to find shelter 
 during his earlier outlaw life (ch. 30). In this way 
 he secured friends whose assistance was soon to be 
 of the highest importance to him. It would seem, 
 indeed, that these presents were sent after the 
 
566 DAVID 
 
 
 
 battle of Gilboa, for it was only two days after his 
 return to Ziklag that D. heard of the defeat 
 of Israel] and the death of Saul and his three eldest 
 sons. ‘The tidings were brought by a young 
 Amalekite, who is said to have presented to D. 
 the royal crown and bracelet; but the account 
 given by him of the death of Saul (2 11!) cannot 
 be reconciled with the more reliable narrative in 
 18381. The messenger was rewarded for his tid- 
 ings by being at once put to death (2 S 11816, ef, 
 41) ; the defeat of Israel was commemorated with 
 mourning and fasting, while D. himself expressed 
 in a beautiful ode his grief for Saul and Jonathan, 
 Of both he speaks in tones of warmest respect and 
 affection ; his love for Jonathan is expressed in a 
 burst of passionate feeling; but it is noticeable 
 that no religious thoughts are contained in the 
 poem. Its genuineness is not unquestioned, but 
 its Davidic authorship is accepted by Kuenen, 
 Wellh., Stade, Budde, Cheyue, Driver, and others. 
 
 The opportunity had at last arrived for D. to 
 return to his native country. After inquiring of 
 J'’, he removed to Hebron, the ancient sacred city 
 of Judah, accompanied by his family and his 
 followers with their households. His presents had 
 already gained him the goodwill of the Judean 
 elders ; a renowned warrior of their own tribe was 
 more likely to defend their interests than a younger 
 descendant of the house of Saul; and D. was 
 forthwith anointed king in Hebron (2S 21+), We 
 hear of no opposition on the part of the Philistines. 
 ]), still retained Ziklag (1 S 27°), and doubtless 
 continued to be a Philistine vassal. A division of 
 the Isr. kingdom was conducive to the Philistine 
 supremacy. According to the Chronicler, he had 
 received accessions to his forces, outside his own 
 tribe, while still at Ziklag; twenty-two men are 
 named of Saul’s tribe (1 Ch 12!-‘), while of the tribe 
 of Manasseh several chiefs are said to have deserted 
 to D., when he came with the Phil. army against 
 Saul, and to have assisted him against the 
 Amalekites (ib. vv. 22). The Chronicler, indeed, 
 makes no direct mention of the reign of Eshbaal 
 (Ishbosheth), or of the division of the kingdom, but 
 in reality there were still several years of fighting 
 and waiting before D. was recognized as king over 
 all Israel. 
 
 D.’s first public act was at once generous and 
 politic. He sent messengers to the men of Jabesh- 
 gilead, and thanked them for their loyal and 
 courageous conduct in rescuing the bodies of Saul 
 and his sons. But the adherents of the house of 
 Saul still remained true to the family. ‘The 
 natural heir to the throne was the only surviving 
 legitimate son of the late king, Ishbosheth, or 
 rather Eshbaal (1 Ch 8%8), who was perhaps still 
 under age; for the later gloss in 2S 219 is certainly 
 incorrect. His kinsman Abner, Saul’s powerful 
 general, retired with him across the Jordan to the 
 ancient city of Mahanaim, and there made Eshbaal 
 king. His dominions extended over Gilead and 
 Geshur (Vulg. and Syr.), and on the west of 
 Jordan over Jezreel, Ephraim, and Benjamin ; but 
 Abner was the real ruler and the support of the 
 dynasty, and perhaps he, too, was compelled to 
 recognize the over-lordship of the Philistines (so 
 Kamphausen). Regarding the seven years during 
 which DPD. reigned at Hebron we have but the 
 scantiest information. He seems to have acted on 
 the defensive, and probably felt that his cause 
 would gain by waiting. Possibly, it was only by 
 degrees that Abner extended his authority, so that 
 some time elapsed before the rival forces were 
 brought into collision. Only of one engagement is 
 any account given; Joab’s followers were vic- 
 torious, but in the flight Abner killed Asahel, 
 Joab’s youngest brother. The cause of Eshbaal 
 was declining even before he alienated his pro- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DAVID 
 
 tector Abner, whom he reproached for taking one 
 of his father’s concubines. In anger Abner entered 
 into communication with D., offering to bring over 
 the whole kingdom into his hands. ‘The only con- 
 dition made by D. was the restoration of his wife 
 Michal, through whom he doubtless hoped to sup- 
 port his claim as Saul’s successor. Michal was sent 
 back by Eshbaal’s orders, and Abner conferred with 
 the elders of the various tribes, who had already 
 begun to recognize the inability of the house of 
 Saul to defend them against their foes, and to look 
 to D. as the one hope of the nation. Abner then 
 visited Hebron, where he was entertained by D.; 
 but on his departure he was murdered by Joab, in 
 revenge for his brother Asahel. D. already began 
 to find his loyal but unscrupulous nephew too 
 strong for him. He could only express his abhor- 
 rence of the murder, which was indeed likely to 
 alienate the supporters of Saul’s house, and cause 
 Abner to be honourably buried in Hebron, while 
 he himself composed the funeral dirge—conduct 
 which further increased the king’s popularity 
 (283). The death of Abner could not long delay 
 the fall of Eshbaal; two Benjamite captains 
 shortly afterwards murdered him during his mid- 
 day sleep, and brought his head to D. in Hebron, 
 The king commanded the instant execution of the 
 murderers, while Eshbaal’s head was buried in the 
 tomb of Abner (ch. 4). D., who had formerly led 
 Israel to victory against the Philistines, was now 
 recognized as the natural leader of the people; 
 the elders of the nation assembled at Hebron, a 
 solemn league was made, and J). anointed king 
 over the whole of Israel. He is said to have been 
 at this time 37 years of age (2 § 5! 5), The 
 Chronicler gives an account of the bodies of men 
 sent by the different tribes to make D. king, and 
 of the three days’ feast which they kept at Hebron 
 (1 Ch 1278-40) ; but the language used is that of a 
 later time, the numbers given are in most cases 
 certainly too large, while the position assigned to 
 the contingent of priests and Levites does not 
 increase our confidence in the narrative. 
 
 Except for the important record of events in D.’s 
 family, our accounts of his reign are fragmentary 
 and incomplete ; our history is not arranged in a 
 strictly chronological manner, and the time and 
 order of events must be to some extent a matter 
 of conjecture. In spite of the present arrangement 
 of 2 S 5, there can be little doubt that the Phil. 
 wars were the first important events after D.’s 
 recognition by the whole nation. The task im- 
 posed upon him by his election as king was that 
 of freeing his country from Phil. domination. It 
 was no longer possible for him to continue a vassal 
 to a foreign power, nor were the Philistines likely 
 to acquiesce, when without their consent he assumed 
 sovereignty over all Israel. When, therefore, ‘the 
 Phil. heard that they had anointed D. king over 
 Israel’ (2S 51”), they at once invaded the country. 
 D. seems to have been unprepared, and was com- 
 pelled ‘to go down to the hold,’ z.e. probably the old 
 stronghold of Adullam, of such importance during 
 his outlaw life, while the Philistines penetrated 
 to the heart of the country and occupied Bethle- 
 hem and the Valley of Rephaim, probably between 
 Bethlehem and Jerusalem (2 § 23!3f ; so Stade, and 
 Kittel who places the valley of Rephaim north 
 of Jerusalem). Of the duration and progress of the 
 war we have no certain information, but some 
 detached notices of it have been preserved. It 
 was while the Philistines had a garrison in Beth- 
 lehem that the three ‘mighty men’ forced their 
 way to the well by the gate, to bring D. a draught 
 of water for which he had expressed a wish; but 
 the gift obtained at such a risk was too precious 
 to drink, and D. poured out the water as an 
 offering to J!’ (2 § 281817), Other incidents of the 
 
 
 
DAVID 
 
 DAVID 567 
 
 war are recorded in 2 § 211522, At Gob D. was | the succession would have been avoided. On re- 
 
 nearly slain in combat with a giant, but rescued by 
 Abishai, and in consequence D.’s men declared 
 that he should no longer risk his life in battle. 
 On another occasion Elhanan of Bethlehem slew 
 Goliath of Gath, and other feats of D.’s heroes are 
 recorded (2 § 238-12), <A decisive battle was fought 
 at Baal-perazim, where D., encouraged by an oracle, 
 attacked his enemies, and dispersed them ‘like a 
 breach of waters,’ and the images of the enemy 
 were carried off as booty (2 § 5!8#1, cf. Is 282). 
 Another decisive engagement took place in the 
 valley of Rephaim. D. on inquiring of J!’ was 
 bidden not to make a direct attack, i.e. from the 
 south, but to take the enemy in the rear, and attack 
 them when a rustling noise was heard in the Baca 
 trees. He was again completely successful, and 
 the Philistines were defeated from Gibeon to Gezer 
 (1 Ch 141847, 2S 522-25),. Following up his victories, 
 D. destroyed the Philistine supremacy, taking from 
 them, as is said, ‘the bridle of the mother city’ 
 (28 8!). The importance of these victories must 
 have been far greater than the scanty notices of 
 them would at first suggest. 
 
 The nation was now freed from external oppres- 
 sion: the next task was to weld it into one whole. 
 A great step towards this end was the capture of 
 Jebus, and the creation of a new capital. A Can. 
 tribe still unsubdued occupied the district between 
 Judah and Benjamin, settled round the city of 
 Jebus, from which they derived their name. The 
 strong fortress of Zion, standing on the eastern 
 ridge between the Kidron and the so-called Tyro- 
 pean valley, protected their city (see JERUSALEM). 
 Situated as it was in the centre of the land, and 
 commanding the principal lines of communication 
 between north and south, and between east and west, 
 it was admirably suited for a capital; and here D. 
 marched with his forces. The inhabitants, trust- 
 ing in their strong walls, derisively declared that 
 ‘the blind and lame’ would be sufficient to defend 
 them. Nevertheless, the place was taken by storm 
 (2 8 5*!), According to 1 Ch 11° Joab was the 
 first to scale the walls, and received in reward 
 the post of commander-in-chief. The city was 
 newly fortified, and here D. removed with his 
 family and court. The importance of this step 
 can hardly be overestimated. Gibeah of Saul and 
 Hebron were merely tribal capitals; Jerus. stood 
 on neutral ground, and was the capital of the 
 whole nation, while, bordering alike on Judah and 
 Benjamin, it would be regarded with favour by 
 the king’s own tribe and by that of his predecessor. 
 The choice of the site is a signal proof of D.’s 
 genius and statesmanship. Here gathered now 
 inhabitants from all Israel, but mainly, no doubt, 
 from Judah and Benjamin, while, to judge from 
 the case of Araunah (2 S 241825), the original 
 Jebusite population was allowed to retain its 
 former possessions. The effects of the capture of 
 Jerus. were felt beyond the borders of Israel. 
 Hiram, king of Tyre, entered into friendly relations 
 with D., and supplied him with builders and 
 material for a palace in his new capital. In true 
 Oriental fashion D. marked the fresh increase of 
 his power by increasing his harem. While still in 
 Hebron he had married four more wives, and had 
 already six sons: Amnon the firstborn, the son of 
 Ahinoam of Jezreel; Chileab the son of the 
 prudent Abigail; Absalom the son of Maacah, 
 daughter of Talmai, the Aramzan king of Geshur ; 
 Adonijah the son of Haggith; Shephatiah the son 
 of Abital; and Ithream the son of Eglah (2 8 37°; 
 ef. 1 Ch 3!°, where Daniel is put for Chileab). 
 Michal, who had been restored to David, unfortun- 
 ately bore no children ; otherwise the grandson of 
 Saul would have been the natural heir to the 
 throne, and the subsequent disputes with regard to 
 
 
 
 moving to Jerusalem D. took fresh wives and concu- 
 bines from this place, and the names of several 
 more sons are recorded (2S 512-16, 1 Ch 359 1437; on 
 variations in the three lists, ef. Driver, Text of 
 Sam.). We must not judge D. herein from a 
 modern Western standpoint. In the East a man’s 
 wealth and power are to a great extent measured 
 by. the number of his wives and the size of his 
 family ; and by politic alliances, as, for example, 
 with the daughter of the king of Geshur, D. in- 
 creased his influence at home and abroad. At the 
 same time he introduced into his capital the source 
 of many of the dangers and corruptions of an 
 Oriental court, and the evil was increased by the 
 weak affection with which D. treated his favourite 
 sons. 
 
 The next measure was to make the political 
 capital also the religious centre of the nation; and 
 for this purpose D. resolved to bring up to Jerus. 
 the old sacred ark, which had for many years been 
 left at Kiriath-jearim (1 S 7}, or Baal-judah (2 S 
 62; cf. Jos 159-69, 1 Ch 13°), Thither D. went with 
 a large number of Israelites; the ark was drawn in 
 a new cart, accompanied by two of its attendants, 
 Uzzah and Ahio; while PD. and his subjects 
 marched behind to the strains of festal music. 
 But at Nacon’s threshing-floor, probably not far 
 from Jerus., Uzzah, while attempting to steady the 
 ark, suddenly fell dead. Dismayed at this occur- 
 rence, D. was afraid to have so dangerous a symbol 
 near him, and the ark was placed in the house of 
 Obed-edom the Gittite, probably one of David’s 
 Philistine mercenaries. ‘Three months later, how- 
 ever, on hearing that the ark had brought blessing 
 upon this house, D. took courage to carry out his 
 original design. ‘This time the ark was safely 
 carried in triumph into the ‘city of David,’ while 
 the king himself, wearing a priestly linen ephod, 
 danced in the procession before it. A tent had 
 already been prepared for its reception in the 
 citadel; here solemn sacrifices were offered, after 
 which the people were dismissed with the king’s 
 blessing and gifts of food. When 1). returned to 
 his house, he had to meet the scoffs of Michal, 
 who taunted him with his undignified appearance 
 in the procession that day ; but the king with true 
 dignity expressed his readiness to dance before J’, 
 who had chosen him above the house of Saul. To 
 this irreverence of Michal’s was attributed the fact 
 that she remained childless: but she had at this 
 time been married some fifteen or twenty years. 
 
 It is instructive to compare with the narrative of 2 8 6 the 
 account given by the Chronicler of the bringing of the ark to 
 Jerus. (1 Ch 18. 15. 16). The old history is largely rewritten to 
 bring it into accordance with later ideas and institutions. An 
 important place in the ceremonial is assigned to the priests 
 and Levites, who in the older version are conspicuous by their 
 absence: Obed-edom of Gath becomes a Levitical musician and 
 doorkeeper. 
 
 The contrast between the simple tent for the ark 
 and his own palace suggested to D. the need of 
 building some “more permanent temple; but the 
 king’s adviser, the prophet Nathan, who had at 
 first approved of the design, subsequently induced 
 D. to abandon it. Possibly, both prophet and 
 people feared the effects of innovations in religious 
 matters. Nathan’s message to D. is contained in 
 2S 7, a chapter which in its present form shows 
 the influence of Deut., but is in the main of some- 
 what earlier date (see Budde). ‘There we are told 
 how Nathan, the night after his approval of D.’s 
 design, received from God a message for the king : 
 Never yet had J’ required a temple of the judges 
 of His people; tent and tabernacle had_ been 
 sufficient hitherto. D. should not build a house 
 for Him; He would build a house (i.e. a line of 
 descendants) for D. ; and though D.’s seed might 
 need to be chastised, God’s mercy should not depart 
 
568 DAVID 
 
 
 
 
 
 DAVID 
 
 
 
 from them, (v.!8, which speaks of D.’s successor, who 
 was to build a temple for J’’, seems not to belong 
 to the original form of the chapter; it weakens 
 the antithesis of vv.!2 and 4). This message is 
 followed by «a beautiful prayer, in which D. 
 thanks God for all His goodness to himself and his 
 people. 
 
 It was probably soon after his settlement in 
 Jerus. that D., in remembrance of his covenant 
 with Jonathan, inquired whether there remained 
 yet any survivors of Saul’s house, whom he might 
 benefit for the sake of his friend. He was told 
 that there was still a son of Jonathan, and at D.’s 
 orders Mephibosheth or Meribaal (1 Ch 84 9°) was 
 brought from the house of Machir at Lo-debar ; 
 the property of Saul, apparently confiscated, was 
 restored to him, and given to Ziba, a former 
 servant of Saul’s family, who was to till the ground 
 for his master, while Meribaal dwelt at Jerus., 
 where his conduct would be under the royal super- 
 vision, and ate at the king’s table. Meribaal 
 was lame, having been dropped by his nurse as 
 she fled on hearing of the Israelite defeat at Mt. 
 Gilboa. He was then five years old; now he is 
 described as having a young son, an indication 
 that these events took place some ten years after 
 PD. became king over all Israel. With other 
 descendants of Saul, however, D. was compelled 
 shortly afterwards to deal in a different manner. 
 The land was afflicted with drought, and con- 
 sequent famine, for three years, and D., on inquir- 
 ing of the sacred oracle, was told that a curse of 
 blood rested upon the land, because of an attempt 
 made by Saul to exterminate the Gibeonites, an 
 Amorite tribe bound by a covenant to Israel. The 
 only compensation which the Gibeonites would 
 accept was that seven of Saul’s sons should be put 
 to death; and D. delivered to them the two sons 
 of Saul’s coneubine Rizpah, and five sons of his 
 daughter Merab (MT wrongly Michal). These 
 were accordingly hanged to J/’ in the sacred hill 
 of Gibeon (ct. Driver, Text of Sam.), while the 
 corpses were lovingly watched by the devoted 
 Rizpah, till the first rains showed that the atone- 
 meit was accepted. Then D., in recognition of 
 the mother’s devotion, gave orders for the burial of 
 the corpses ; and the bones, as well as those of Saul 
 and Jonathan, were interred in the ancestral 
 sepulchre of Kish (2 S 2114), This occurrence 
 must be placed after the recognition of Meribaal 
 (v.7), but before the rebellion of Absalom (28 168). 
 We have no right to blame D.’s action in this 
 matter; he acted in accordance with the religious 
 beliefs of his time, and with what he conceived to 
 be the best interests of the nation ; and, in spite of 
 Shimei’s reproaches, we may believe that D.’s con- 
 temporaries regarded the matter in the same light 
 as himself. 
 
 Under PD. the kingdom was more completely 
 organized than it had been under his predecessor, 
 and the administration was intrusted to royal 
 officers (2 S 81-18, 2028-2), Foremost of these was 
 Joab the son of Zeruiah, D.’s nephew, who was 
 commander-in-chief of the whole army ; the scribe 
 or chancellor, to whom belonged the control of all 
 ofticial documents, was Shisha (1 K 4%; corrupt 
 readings in 2 S 817 20%, 1 Ch 1816) ; the state his- 
 torian or chronicler (mazktr, t.e. remembrancer), 
 Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud; Adoram controlled 
 the levy, z.e. the forced service exacted by the king 
 from his subjects; at the head of the priesthood, 
 beside Abiathar, the representative of the house of 
 Eli, stood Zadok, the ancestor of the later priestly 
 house, but of his origin or appointment no 
 authentic information is preserved ; Iva, a Manass- 
 ite of the family of Jair, was another priest, and 
 D.’s sons also performed priestly duties. Traces 
 
 of a royal council are to be found in allusions to 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ahithophel, D.’s counsellor (2 S 15!%), and to 
 Hushai, D.’s friend (7b. v.8’, cf. 1 K 45). A very 
 important institution was that of the royal body- 
 guard, taking the place of the ‘runners’ of Saul 
 (18 2217), The nucleus of it was doubtless David’s 
 old band, which had accompanied him during his 
 wanderings and his residence at Ziklag. The 
 technical name of this force was the Gibborim, 
 heroes or mighty men; and their numbers were 
 probably kept at the traditional 600. They were 
 now largely recruited from foreigners, especially 
 Philistines and Cherethites, a people of the south of 
 Palestine (1S 304, Zeph 2°), perhaps originally con- 
 nected with Crete; hence the guards were commonly 
 called the Cherethites and Pelethites (wh. see). 
 That these were the same body as the Gibborim 
 appears from 1 K 18- 10.88; the text of 2S 1518 is too 
 uncertain to form an argument to the contrary. 
 The whole corps was under the command of 
 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. Included in or 
 distinct from this guard, was a select body of 
 Thirty distinguished for special valour, over whom 
 was Abishai, the brother of Joab; while Three 
 warriors are named as ranking even higher than 
 Abishai and Benaiah (2 § 23889, and ef. Driver, 
 adloc.). This guard of experienced soldiers formed 
 the only standing army in the kingdom; and being 
 stationed in the capital (cf. 2S 118, Neh 316) they 
 became a powerful support to the king’s authority, 
 and ensured the discharge of his orders. As will 
 appear later, they played an important part at the 
 accession of Solomon. 
 
 For war on a large scale the army still consisted 
 of the whole male population of military age, who 
 were summoned to arms in time of danger. The 
 force seems to have consisted wholly of infantry, 
 except for a few chariots and horses retained after 
 the defeat of Hadadezer (258 8). But when D.’s 
 wars of foreign conquest began to involve pro- 
 tracted campaigns, and long absence from home, 
 some new system became desirable. It was per- 
 haps partly to meet these requirements that D. 
 instituted the census, which was carried out evi- 
 dently after the completion of the Syrian wars, 
 for his officers travelled as far north as the Hittite 
 city of Kadesh (2S 24', LXX. Luc.). The military 
 aspect of this measure is clear from its being 
 intrusted to Joab and the captains of the host 
 (v.4, 1 Ch 21%) ; but the census may have been also 
 intended as a basis for a regular system of fixed 
 taxation, to meet the needs of an organized 
 government. The measure was regarded with 
 suspicion, perhaps as involving an undue increase 
 of royal authority, and even Joab protested against 
 it; nevertheless, he carried out his task in 9 
 months and 20 days. <A severe pestilence, which 
 visited the land immediately afterwards, was re- 
 garded by D. and the people as a sign of the 
 divine displeasure. We are told that the prophet 
 Gad offered D. the choice of three punishments— 
 three years’ famine (LXX, 1 Ch),three months’ flight 
 before his enemies, or three days’ pestilence; and 
 that the king chose the last, preferring to fall into 
 the hand of God rather than of man. But when 
 the destroying angel reached Jerus., he was bidden, 
 in consequence of D.’s penitence, to stay his hand ; 
 and D., at Gad’s bidding, bought the threshing- 
 floor of Araunah or Ornan (Ch) the Jebusite, and 
 offered there a sacrifice, whereby he obtained from 
 God mercy for the land (2 § 24). The place of 
 sacrifice became afterwards the site of Solomon’s 
 temple (2 Ch 3!), ‘The narrative shows that we 
 must not expect to find for D.’s reign careful 
 records of the numbers and divisions of the people. 
 Yet such statistics are presupposed by the Chron- 
 icler, who in his account of David’s armies and 
 officers (1 Ch 23-27) describes a far more numerous 
 and elaborately organized body of religious and 
 
 <i 
 
 
 

 
 DAVID 
 
 DAVID 
 
 
 
 civil and military officials than is likely to have 
 existed in the time of David. Fragments of old 
 records may be incorporated in his work (e.g. 1 Ch 
 272-31) ; but the older history shows no trace of the 
 thousands of Levites, or of the bodies of 24,000 
 men continually under arms (1 Ch 27!) of which 
 the later historian speaks. 
 
 Of most of D.’s wars we possess but a short summary in 28 8; 
 the Ammonite war, on account of its connexion with Bath- 
 sheba’s history, is related at length. The complete victory over 
 the Philistines (81) has been already named. For some un- 
 explained reason D. made war on Moab, where his parents had 
 formerly taken refuge, and, on conquering the country, treated 
 it with great severity, putting to death two-thirds of the 
 prisoners. The exploits of Benaiah (2 8 252°) may be referred to 
 this campaign. Moab now became tributary. The next war 
 was provoked by the neighbouring Ammonites. Their king, 
 Nahash, Saul’s enemy (1 8 11), had shown himself friendly to 
 D., and on his death D. sent an embassy of condolence to his 
 successor Hanun. But Hanun, suspicious of D.’s intentions, 
 and perhaps alarmed by the subjugation of Moab, dismissed the 
 messengers with gross insults. The Ammonites knew that they 
 must now prepare for war, and sought for alliances among the 
 small Aramean kingdoms of Zobah, Beth-rehob, Maacah, and 
 Tob, which were united in a common interest to check the 
 rising power of Israel. Joab, with the Isr. army, marched out 
 to Rabbah, the Ammonite capital, and, finding an enemy 
 opposing him on both sides, divided his forces. With the 
 picked troops he prepared to meet the Aramiean allies, 33,000 
 strong, while the rest of the army he placed under the com- 
 mand of his brether Abishai, to confront the Ammonites. The 
 rout of the Syrians by Joab was the signal for the flight of the 
 Ammonites within the walls of their capital, and thus ended 
 the first campaign. The next year Hadadezer, king of Zobah, 
 summoned to his assistance allies from beyond the Euphrates. 
 The whole Aramzeean force, under his general Shobach, was 
 encamped at Helam, where D. himself, having crossed the 
 Jordan at the head of the whole Isr, army, attacked them, and 
 defeated them with great slaughter, Shobach being among the 
 slain. All the chariot-horses which were captured were dis- 
 abled, with the exception of sufficient for a hundred chariots. 
 The summary (8°) seems to speak of another great victory won 
 by D., when the Syrians of Damascus came to the assistance of 
 Hadadezer. Zobah now made peace with Israel; prefects were 
 appointed in Damascus and elsewhere, and, in addition to 
 numerous presents, D. brought back to Jerus. the golden shields 
 of Hadadezer’s guard, and large quantities of brass from two of 
 his treasure cities. An alliance was made between D. and Tou 
 (y.%- LX X, 1 Ch 18*-), king of Hamath, and Hadoram (1 Ch 181°) 
 the son of Tou was sent with presents and greetings to David. 
 These and other treasures, including spoil taken from the 
 Amalekites, D. is said to have dedicated to J’ (2.8 81°), Ammon 
 remained unsubdued, but in a third campaign Joab besieged 
 Rabbah, and at last succeeded in capturing the part known as 
 ‘the city of waters.’ As the fall of the whole city was now 
 assured, Joab summoned D. from Jerus., that the king himself 
 might have the glory of the conquest. D. advanced with a 
 fresh army, and completed the capture of Rabbah. A large 
 amount of spoil fell into his hands, including the costly gold 
 crown of the idol Milcom (RVm, see2 8 1226-31). The prisoners, 
 according to the ordinary translation of 1251, were tortured and 
 treated with great cruelty. There are, however, difficulties 
 about the rendering of the verse; a slight change of read- 
 ing (W3y) for 113Y), see RVm) would give the meaning that 
 the people were reduced to servitude (so Hoffmann, Kautzsch, 
 Driver faouberuly ; Stade regards the verse as corrupt). The 
 last of D.’s foreign conquests was that of Edom, but we have 
 only a few disconnected allusions to the war, It appears 
 that D. gained a great victory in the Valley of Salt after his 
 Syrian campaign (2 8 815f- LX X,1Ch 18"f-, Ps 60 title). By this 
 Ue le he obtained command of the ports on the Red Sea. 
 Prefects were appointed throughout the country, and for six 
 months Joab remained in Edom, to destroy the male population 
 (1 K 1128¢-), 
 
 It now remains to relate certain events in D.’s 
 own family which troubled the later years of 
 his reign. During the Ammonite war, D., who 
 had remained in Jerus., committed adultery with 
 Bathsheba, the wife of one of his officers then 
 serving before Rabbah. In hopes of concealing his 
 guilt he sent for Uriah; but the latter, who had 
 perhaps heard rumours of what had taken place, 
 refused, on the plea of military duty, to see his 
 wife. Thereupon D: sent orders to Joab to place 
 Uriah in a post of danger, and ensure his death. 
 When the husband was dead, and the time of 
 mourning past, Bathsheba was taken into the 
 royal harem. The story was doubtless not un- 
 known in Jerus.; the moral sense of the people 
 found expression through Nathan the prophet, who 
 by means of a parable boldly rebuked David; and 
 though on the king’s confessing his guilt the 
 
 
 
 prophet assured him of forgiveness, he predicted 
 
 the death of Bathsheba’s newly-born child. (28 
 1210-12 are perhaps a later edition, a true comment 
 on the subsequent history ; for it has been pointed 
 out that with the old Heb. ideas of guilt and 
 penalty it is hardly consistent to regard the sin as 
 forgiven [v.13] while the curse remains. So Kuenen, 
 Wellh., Stade.) In spite of all D.’s prayers and 
 fastings, the child died ; but in due time a second 
 son was born to Bathsheba, the future king 
 Solomon (2 § 11, 121%), 
 
 It was probably not long afterwards that the 
 fruit of D.’s evil example appeared. His eldest 
 son Amnon outraged his half-sister Tamar, and 
 when D., though greatly displeased, yet partly 
 from partiality for his, firstborn (1321 LXX), partly 
 perhaps from the remembrance of his own guilt, 
 failed to punish the offender, the duty of avenging 
 the maiden’s wrong fell to her own brother 
 Absalom. He waited his opportunity for two 
 years, and then caused Amnon to be murdered at a 
 sheep-shearing feast, to which all the king’s sons 
 had been invited. Absalom fled to the court of 
 his grandfather, the king of Geshur. D. mourned 
 long for his firstborn, then his longings turned to 
 the son in exile; but out of season he could show 
 severity. For three years Absalom remained in 
 banishment ; then Joab, divining the king’s secret 
 feelings, by the instrumentality of the woman of 
 Tekoa procured his recall. For two years longer 
 Absalom was excluded from the court, until he 
 compelled Joab to intercede for him; then he was 
 brought to the king, and received a kiss of recon- 
 ciliation (28 138.14). After the death of Amnon, 
 and probably also of Chileab, Absalom was the 
 natural heir to the throne. He was now com- 
 pletely estranged from his father, and soon began 
 to endeavour to supplant him. ‘To impress the 
 people, he assumed royal state; to gain their 
 favour, he would stand by the gate to meet all who 
 came to the king with their suits, and lament that 
 he was not king to do them justice. Thus he 
 ‘stole the hearts of the men of Israel.’ There is 
 no evidence that D., who used to ‘execute judg- 
 ments and justice to all his people’ (2 S 85), now 
 neglected to do so. The stories of Nathan and 
 the woman of Tekoa imply the contrary, but with 
 the extension of the borders of Israel the number 
 of suits may well have increased beyond the king’s 
 power to deal with them. We cannot say whether 
 the crimes in the royal household had shaken the 
 loyalty of the people,—in certain matters the 
 nation at large did not show itself very sensitive to 
 moral irregularities (2 S 167!-28),—but it is probable 
 that at Hebron the removal of the capital to Jerus. 
 was still a grievance, and the tribesmen of Judah 
 seem to have considered themselves not sufficiently 
 favoured by the king. Absalom made prepara- 
 tions for four years (157 LXX, Luc.), then under 
 pretence of a vow he visited the old sacred city of 
 Hebron. Here he was joined by D.’s counsellor, 
 Ahithophel of Giloh, perhaps the grandfather of 
 Bathsheba (cf. 2 S 118 2384), and Absalom’s rebel- 
 lion was proclaimed by messengers throughout the 
 country. D. was taken entirely by surprise, and 
 resolved to withdraw at once from Jerusalem. If 
 he escaped the first attack of the conspirators, he 
 possessed better troops than were to be found on 
 the other side. Delay would increase the difficul- 
 ties of his opponents, and give his supporters time 
 to rally. Leaving the palace in charge of ten 
 concubines, he crossed the Kidron, accompanied 
 by his household and bodyguard, amid the weep- 
 ing of the whole land, and took the road by Olivet 
 to Jordan. Many traits of D.’s character are 
 brought out during this flight,—the devotion which 
 he inspired in his followers, when Ittai of Gath, 
 though but a short time in his service, refused to 
 
570 DAVID 
 
 
 
 leave him; his piety and confidence, when he 
 commanded the priests to carry back the ark, 
 trusting to J’, without any outward symbol of His 
 presence; his craft and dissimulation, when he 
 bade Hushai ingratiate himself with Absalom, and 
 try to frustrate his plans; bis prudence, in estab- 
 lishing communications between himself and the 
 capital by means of Ahimaaz and Jonathan; his 
 impetuous hastiness in judgment, when he promised 
 Ziba the lands of Meribaal; and at the same 
 time his submission and forbearance, when he 
 endured the curses of Shimei because J" had 
 bidden him, and urged that a Benjamite had more 
 right than his own son to seek his life @ § 16. 
 16-4), 
 
 D.’s plan of meeting treachery by treachery was 
 successtul. By Ahithophel’s advice, Absalom did 
 take over his father’s concubines as a token of 
 succession to his throne; but, instead of pursuing 
 D. at once, he accepted the counsel of Hushai, to 
 wait till he could muster troops from the whole 
 country. Ahithophel, who realized the artificial 
 nature of the enthusiasm for Absalom, foresaw 
 that this delay was fatal to the rebellion, and 
 forthwith hanged himself. Warned by the two 
 priests’ sons, Ahimaaz and Jonathan, of the need 
 of haste, D. and his followers crossed the Jordan 
 in safety before daybreak. He took up his head- 
 quarters at Mahanaim, the former capital of 
 Eshbaal, and there received support from Shobi, 
 the son of his old protector the king of Ammon, 
 who may now have been a vassal prince; from 
 Machir, the guardian of Meribaal, and from a 
 wealthy Gileadite named Barzillai (1619-17). Ab- 
 salom was the first to act on the offensive, and 
 crossed the Jordan with his army. JD. was pre- 
 vented from going into battle by the entreaty of 
 the people, who urged that he was worth 10,000 of 
 them; but he publicly charged his generals, Joab, 
 Abishai, and Ittai, to deal gently with Absalom. 
 Joab knew that he was strong enough to disobey, 
 and that the death of the leader would put an end 
 to the rebellion. D.’s soldiers were victorious, 
 and Joab himself slew Absalom as he hung in the 
 branches of a large terebinth. D. by the gate of 
 Mahanaim awaited anxiously the issue of the 
 day; then he forgot all else in his passionate 
 grief for his ungrateful son. Joab, however, 
 roused him to put his duty as a king above his 
 private feelings as a father, and D. returned to the 
 gate to receive the greetings of his servants who 
 had risked their lives for him (18-198). 
 
 Only tact and diplomacy were now required to 
 bring about the king’s return. Among the tribes 
 of Israel a speedy revulsion of feeling took place, 
 and they repentcd of their ingratitude to the king 
 who had saved them from their enemies. But 
 Judah still stood aloof; D. therefore sent to Zadok 
 and Abiathar, to influence in his behalf the elders of 
 his own tribe, and to urge them not to be behind the 
 rest of Israel in bringing back their king. At the 
 same time he sent a special message to Amasa, the 
 son of his sister Abigail, whom Absalom had made 
 commander-in-chief, and swore to give him the 
 office now held by the self-willed Joab. The men 
 ot Judah were soon won over; and when, in re- 
 sponse to their invitation, the king returned 
 homewards, the tribe assembled at Gilgal on the 
 Jordan to welcome him. Shimei came with them 
 at the head of a thousand Benjamites, and im- 
 plored D.’s pardon, which was freely granted. In 
 spite of Abishai’s remonstrance, D. would not have 
 the day of his triumph marred by putting any 
 man to death. To Meribaal, however, who also 
 came to meet the king, D. gave less than justice. 
 Meribaal charged Ziba with slandering him, and 
 ‘failing to provide him with an ass to follow D. in 
 his flight ; Ziba had said that his master was wait- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DAVID 
 
 ing in Jerus. in hopes of recevering his grandfather’s 
 throne. It was not easy to decide where the truth 
 lay, and D. hastily dismissed the matter by bid- 
 ding the two divide the land. The king appears 
 in a more favourable light when he turns to 
 reward his benefactors. He pressed the aged Bar- 
 zillai, who accompanied him to Jordan, to come 
 and live with him in Jerus. ; and when Barzillai 
 pleaded to be excused, on the ground of his great 
 age, his son Chimham was allowed to take his place 
 and be the recipient of the royal favours. But 
 even before the king reached Jerus. it appeared 
 that he had not succeeded in conciliating Judah 
 without exciting the jealousy of the other tribes. 
 While he had sent special messengers to his own 
 tribesmen, he had taken no notice of the half- 
 expressed goodwill of the rest of Israel. When 
 therefore, at Gilgal, half the host of Israel came to 
 escort D. home, they complained that the men of 
 Judah had stolen him away; they had been 
 slighted, although they had ten parts in the king, 
 and the rights of the firstborn (28 194 LXX). A 
 sharp dispute arose between the two sections of 
 the nation, and a Benjamite, Sheba the son of 
 Bichri, gave the signal for a fresh revolt. The men 
 of Israel followed him, renouncing all part in the son 
 of Jesse, while the men of Judah accompanied D, 
 to Jerusalem. It was necessary to take immediate 
 steps against the rebels. I). therefore bade Amasa 
 assemble the forces of Judah within three days, 
 thus tacitly depriving Joab of the supreme com- 
 mand. Amasa delayed beyond the appointed time, 
 and D. was compelled to have recourse again to his 
 old tried general. Joab (20° Pesh., MT Abishai) 
 was bidden to take the royal bodyguard, ‘the 
 mighty men,’ and pursue after Sheba. At Gibeon 
 Amasa met him. It might have been expected 
 how Joab would treat his rival; he took his oppor- 
 tunity to murder him, and then, with his troops, 
 hastened to Abel-beth-maacah, a town in the far 
 north of the country, where Sheba had taken 
 refuge. To save the town the inhabitants delivered 
 up Sheba’s head, and the rebellion was at an end 
 (198-2022), From 2 § 24!8 we may perhaps infer 
 with Ewald that Absalom’s rebellion lasted for 
 three months. 
 
 Some years must have elapsed before the closing 
 scene of D.’s life. The old warrior, who at the 
 time of Absalom’s rebellion was never without 
 resource, and had to be kept back by his soldiers 
 from the battle, is now seen in the feebleness of 
 extreme old age, kept within the palace, where no 
 clothing will supply warmth to his bodily frame, 
 and he is nursed by a fair young damsel of Shunem, 
 named Abishag. He had neglected to make any 
 definite arrangements with regard to the succession 
 to the throne, but his eldest surviving son was 
 generally regarded as the heir. This was Adonijah, 
 a young man of great beauty, who had always 
 been indulged by his fond father. Like Absalom 
 before him, he assumed the state appropriate to the 
 heir-apparent. On his side were most of D.’s older 
 supporters, including Joab and Abiathar, but 
 another party in the palace favoured Solomon, the 
 son of D.’s favourite wife, Bathsheba. To the 
 latter belonged the prophet Nathan, who perhaps 
 felt that Adonijah was not the fittest man to rule, 
 Zadok, the younger and probably rival priest, and 
 Benaiah the captain of the bodyguard. An obyious 
 danger awaited the unsuccessful aspirant to the 
 throne after D.’s death (cf. 1 K 12!), and Adonijah 
 resolved to make in good time a public declaration 
 of his claims. He invited his supporters, including 
 the king’s sons and the royal officers of the tribe 
 of Judah, to a feast at the sacred stone of Zoheleth, 
 at the lower end of the Kidron Valley, and here the 
 guests are said to have greeted Adonijah as already 
 king. But tidings of this step were brought by 
 
 
 
DAVID 
 
 DAVID 571 
 
 
 
 Nathan to Bathsheba, and at the prophet’s advice 
 she informed the king, and reminded him of a 
 promise that her son should reign. By agreement 
 Nathan came in and confirmed her words, where- 
 upon D. repeated with an oath to Bathsheba the 
 promise that Solomon should succeed. ‘Then, 
 rousing himself to act, the old king commanded 
 Nathan, Zadok, and Benaiah to place Solomon on 
 the royal mule, conduct him to the spring of 
 Gihon, and solemnly proclaim him king. The 
 support of Benaiah and the troops would make 
 opposition useless. D.’s orders were carried out, 
 Solomon was anointed, and a rejoicing crowd 
 escorted the young king back to the city to set 
 hin on the royal throne. ‘The shouts from Gihon, 
 half-way up the Kidron Valley, had reached 
 Adonijah at his feast, when Jonathan the son of 
 Abiathar came in with news of Solomon’s corona- 
 tion. The guests fled, and Adonijah took sanctuary 
 at the altar, but received from Solomon a promise 
 of his life on condition of good conduct (1 K 1). 
 
 Our narrative in 1 K 2!-!2 gives us an unpleasing 
 picture of D.’s last days. He is represented as 
 counselling Solomon to do good to Barzillai, but 
 not to let Joab or Shimei die in peace. The 
 genuineness of the narrative is much disputed. 
 Vv.2+ are doubtless a later edition by a Deutero- 
 nomic editor; Wellh.. Stade, Kautzsch reject the 
 whole of vv.t%; but it seems more probable that 
 vv.° formed part of the original document (so 
 Kuenen, Budde, Kittel, Cheyne). Their historical 
 character is another question, which can only be 
 judged on subjective grounds. It is argued, with 
 considerable exaggeration, that D. was too infirm 
 to trouble about public matters, or to counsel his 
 successor; and that another tradition gives us a 
 religious song under the title of D.’s ‘ Last Words’ 
 (2S 23'7). We must not measure the advice 
 ascribed to D. by our own standard. A young and 
 untried ruler like Solomon might be endangered 
 by opponents whom D. was strong enough to spare ; 
 and the king, who had delivered up to death Saul’s 
 seven sons to atone for their father’s guilt, may 
 have feared that the curse of Shimei, or the 
 murders of Joab, unless avenged, would bring 
 down punishment on some other man. To us the 
 words put into D.’s mouth do not appear seemly 
 for a dying man, or in accordance with the noblest 
 traits of D.’s character ; it cannot be said they are 
 impossible. Many would be glad to think that 
 they are only due to the historian, who represented 
 DD. as the real author of some of Solomon’s earliest 
 acts, hoping to glorify the aged king, or else to 
 clear the memory of the builder of the temple. It 
 is easy to understand why a later historian pre- 
 ferred to ascribe to D. far nobler sentiments when 
 he recorded the king’s last words and his final 
 charge to Solomon (1 Ch 28. 29). 
 
 D. is recorded to have reigned 7 years and 6 
 months in Hebron, and 33 years in Jerus. (2 § 21 
 54f, 11K 2"). Forty years is a conventional round 
 number in Heb. chronology, but the figure is 
 approximately correct. Absalom, who was born 
 in Hebron (2 § 32), was grown up at the time of 
 Amnon’s outrage; his rebellion took place some 
 10 or 11 years later (1328. 38 1428 157), and, as was 
 remarked above, several years must have intervened 
 between this and D.’s death. Again, the Philis- 
 tines and Moabites had been subdued before the 
 Ammonite war; the marriage of Bathsheba took 
 place in the third campaign against Ammon; and 
 Solomon, her second son by D., was of full age 
 when he came to the throne. Since D., when he 
 first appears before Saul, is a tried warrior, he 
 must have died at an advanced age. According 
 to 2S 54f he reached 70 years. He was buried in 
 
 the capital, which received from him the name of 
 the ‘city of David’; and after the return from exile 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 the sepulchres of D. were still pointed out between 
 Siloam and the ‘house of the mighty men’ (Neh 
 Seer eh. Ac 229), 
 
 Later biblical writers and editors describe D. as he appeared 
 to the Jews of their own age. To the compiler of the Books of 
 Kings D. is a standard of piety, with whom his successors are 
 compared ; he is the king whose ‘heart was perfect with J‘'’ 
 (1 K 114 ete.), ‘who turned not aside save in the matter of 
 Uriah the Hittite’ (¢b. 155). The Chronicler, from feelings easily 
 understood, passes entirely over the darker side of D.’s life, and 
 the troubles in his family (see esp. 1 Ch 20). He represents the 
 pious king in his later years as absorbed in pre itions for the 
 temple; for this he has accumulated vast treasures, and he 
 exhorts the people to give freely for the same purpose (1 Ch 22, 
 29). He arranges for the services of the future sanctuary, 
 organizing the sacred choirs, and determining the courses of 
 priests and Levites, porters and treasurers (chs, 22-26). Finally, 
 he hands to Solomon the pattern of the temple, which has been 
 revealed to him by God (2s1!!-!%), and admonishes his son on the 
 greatness of the sacred duty which has been laid upon him 
 (226-19 981-10, 20f.), The figures given in these chapters, as in 
 many parts of Chronicles, are incredibly large ; the arrangements 
 described for the sacred ministers and services are those of 
 Zerubbabel’s temple, though on a grander scale. In the older 
 records the only direct connexion between D, and the temple is 
 that implied in his sacrifice at Araunah’s threshing-floor (2 8 
 2418-26), and possibly in his dedication of his spoils (é). 8Uf:), 
 Older material may well underlie the narrative of the Chronicler 
 or his authority; but for our general estimate of D. and his 
 times we must rely entirely on the Books of Samuel, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Allusion has been made earlier in this article to 
 D.’s connexion with the Psalter. Minuter study 
 makes it more and more difficult to conceive of 
 him as the author of some of the most spiritual 
 products of the OT religion. This is not merely 
 on account of D.’s sins, acknowledged and repented 
 of, but because of his crude ideas on religious 
 matters which appear from time to time in the old 
 records, and because the historians attribute to 
 him, apparently without blame, both words and 
 acts, which from the standard of a higher religion 
 must be emphatically condemned. J. was first 
 introduced to Saul as a minstrel; as a deviser of 
 musical instruments he is named in Am 65, The 
 Lament over Saul and Jonathan, a secular song, 
 reveals to us D.’s poetic power; as a composer of 
 sacred poems he appears in the appendix to Samuel 
 (2.§ 22. 231-7) and in Chronicles (esp. 1 Ch 167-36), 
 How much older this representation may be is hard 
 to say; but it points to a tradition that D. was 
 the father of Heb. psalmody, and it would be rash 
 to deny the possibility that some psalms or portions 
 of psalms of Davidic authorship are to be found in 
 the Psalter. If such there be, we may expect to 
 find them in the group of psalms which Ewald 
 selected as being genuinely Davidic, viz. Ps 3. 4. 7. 
 8. 11. 15. 18. 191-6 241-6. 1029, 32. 101, and the frag- 
 ments 6089 6818-18 14412-14; but probably this list 
 requires to be considerably reduced. By the titles 
 73 psalms are assigned to D., the principal groups 
 being Ps 3-41 (omitting 10. 33) and 51-70 (omitting 
 66. 67). In the LXX the number is somewhat 
 larger, the title ‘to David’ being added to 14 more 
 (including 93-99 Heb.), but omitted in some MSS 
 from 38 or 4 others. The following special occasions 
 are named in the Heb. titles :—3, when he fled from 
 Absalom; 7, concerning the words of Cush, a 
 Benjamite; 18, when J’ delivered him from his 
 enemies and from Saul; 80, at the dedication of 
 the House; 34, when he changed his behaviour 
 before Abimelech ; 51, after his rebuke by Nathan ; 
 52, when Doeg denounced him to Saul; 54, when 
 the Ziphites betrayed his hiding-place; 56, when 
 the Philistines took him in Gath; 57. when he fled 
 from Saul, in the cave ; 59, when Saul’s messengers 
 watched the house to kill him; 60, after the defeat 
 of Edom in the Valley of Salt; 638, in the wilder- 
 ness of Jucah ; 142, when he was in the cave. 
 
 The character of D. has been very variously 
 estimated, exaggerated praise naturally producing 
 a revulsion to the opposite extreme. Undue weight 
 has often been attached to the description of D. as 
 ‘the man after God’s own heart’; but the phrase, 
 
 
 
572 DAVID 
 
 
 
 which occurs only in 1 § 1514 (quoted thence in Ac 
 1322), may be seen in the original context to denote 
 one according to God’s mind or purpose, one who 
 possesses the necessary qualities for a ruler of 
 God’s people (cf. Jer 3!5). It has been more difficult 
 to do justice to D. on account of the different 
 representations, found together in the Bible, but 
 belonging to very different dates. The picture in 
 Chron. of a Jewish saint has led many to censure 
 unfairly the warrior king of a rude age. But if a 
 critical examination of our authorities compels us 
 to reject as unhistorical some pious deeds or noble 
 words attributed to D., on the other hand it affords 
 a more trustworthy standard by which to measure 
 D.’s position among his contemporaries, and removes 
 many of the glaring inconsistencies which have 
 occasioned difficulties to students and historians. 
 
 We may first look at the darker side of his 
 character and its numerous limitations, which show 
 that he did not rise entirely above the level of the 
 barbarous age in which he lived. His foreign wars 
 are sometimes marked by very great cruelty. 
 ‘ Even if the Ammonites were not tortured, yet in 
 his desert raids no life was spared (1 S 27°), and 
 the victories over Moab and Edom were followed 
 by massacres. The story of the patriarch Jacob 
 suggests that deception and cunning were part of 
 the Isr. character; certainly they often appear in 
 1D.’s history. The deceit practised at Nob may be 
 excused by his circumstances; his professions of 
 loyalty to Achish (1 S 28? 298) may have been 
 cautious words used to one who has power to 
 compel; but the continued fraud practised at 
 Ziklag points to a man who was used to crooked 
 dealing; he could induce Hushai to counteract 
 Ahithophel’s advice by mean and treacherous ways ; 
 and after his sin with Bathsheba he stooped to 
 base and cowardly means to conceal his guilt and 
 remove Uriah from his path. Moreover, D.’s 
 religious beliefs fell far short of the teaching of 
 the great prophets. If he did not himself worship 
 idols, he at least allowed Michal to keep the 
 teraphim in his house; and to determine the will 
 of God he had constant recourse to the sacred 
 ephod. He associated the worship of J!’ with His 
 presence in the land of Israel, could think that J!’ 
 had stirred up Saul to pursue him, and that His 
 displeasure might be removed by the fragrance of 
 a sacrifice (1 S 26); and he put to death seven 
 innocent men to procure J/'’s favour for the land 
 (28 2114), And there are other blemishes in D.’s 
 character. He can judge a case on the impulse of 
 a moment (2 § 164), or dismiss one but half heard 
 (19°) ; and breaks out against Nabal into a pas- 
 sionate desire for vengeance. The great sins of 
 his life, his adultery with Bathsheba and murder 
 of Uriah, are perhaps but the common crimes of an 
 Oriental despot; but, so far as we can judge, they 
 were not common to Israel, and D. as well as 
 his subjects knew of a higher moral standard. 
 Lastly, his weakness in dealing with his own 
 family is little to his credit. The imperious Joab 
 is ‘too hard’ for him; Amnon and Adonijah are 
 indulged and spoiled, and even the outrageous 
 conduct of the former meets with no punishment ; 
 Absalom and Adonijah are allowed to declare their 
 pretensions to the crown, while D. neglects to take 
 proper measures to determine the succession to 
 the throne. But in justice to D. it must be remem- 
 bered that his family difficulties were in part the 
 natural outcome of polygamy, and partly due to 
 the state of culture of his time. In the East the 
 same unwise and selfish love is still often mani- 
 fested by a brave father to his children. The last 
 charge to Solomon (1 K 2?*) has been already 
 sufficiently discussed. 
 
 It is now necessary to turn to the other side of 
 the picture, remembering that we must not expect 
 
 
 
 
 
 DAVID 
 
 
 
 
 
 to find a saint, but a king, a hero, anda man. No 
 testimony to D. could be more eloquent than that 
 of the charm he exerted on all who had to do with 
 him. Everywhere he inspires love and devotion. 
 Jonathan is his closest friend; Saul, Michal, all 
 Israel love him. It is the same in later years. 
 Achish pronounces him blameless (1 29° 9) ; what- 
 ever D. does pleases the people (2 S 33°) ; the three 
 mighty men risk their life to bring him a draught 
 of water ; his soldiers call him the ‘ lamp of Israel,’ 
 and will not let him endanger himself in battle 
 (2 8 2117 188) ; Ittai of Gath will follow him in life | 
 or death (ib. 1574). Nor was this devotion and 
 admiration undeserved. A brave and successful 
 warrior, who had fought many a cainpaign against 
 his country’s foes, he safely led and ruled the 
 rough men who gathered round him as an outlaw. 
 His justice was experienced alike by Nabal’s shep- 
 herds and his own followers (1 S 257+ lf 3028-20) ; 
 his concern for his followers’ lives is seen when he 
 cannot drink the water from the well of Bethlehem. 
 Hasty and passionate he could be, even in his zeal 
 for justice (2 § 4912 125f) ; but far more marked is 
 his signal generosity. He spares Saul’s life when 
 he is in his power (1 8 24. 26). and laments for his 
 death in a noble song (2S 1); the messenger from 
 Mt. Gilboa and the murderers of Eshbaal are put 
 to death, when they think that they are bringing 
 D. good tidings. He can bear with Shimei’s curses 
 during his flight, and forgive him freely on his 
 return. For the sake of Jonathan he spares and 
 shows favour to his son, and in the person of 
 Chimham he repays the kindness of Bayrzillai. 
 The warmth and‘ tenderness of D.’s affection is 
 revealed in his lamentation for his ‘brother’ 
 Jonathan ; and still more in his own family, as in 
 his distress at the illness of Bathsheba’s child, or 
 at the death of Amnon and Absalom. Nor are 
 higher elements wanting in D.’s religion; as may 
 be seen from his simple but pious faith, when he 
 dances before the ark, and is ready to abase 
 himself before J'’ who has exalted him (2 § 671) ; 
 or still more when he prepares to leave Jerus. 
 without the protection of the ark. He accepts his 
 misfortunes with resignation, and acknowledges 
 them as the consequence of his sins; while he 
 retains his trust in God’s goodness (2 S 1222f 1526f 
 161-12 2414.17), And even in the record of his sin 
 his better qualities come out; for not many rulers 
 would have accepted such a plain rebuke, or mani- 
 fested such sincere repentance. When compared 
 with a Joab or a Gideon, we recognize the great- 
 ness of David’s character. 
 
 But it is especially as a ruler that D. left his 
 mark on his own generation and on posterity. He 
 set himself to free his country from its enemies, to 
 secure it against invasion, and to make the people 
 one. Jerus. was virtually his creation ; he strove 
 to make it the religious and political centre of his 
 kingdom ; and the discontent of Judah bears witness 
 to the zeal with which he laboured for the whole 
 nation, and not only for his own tribe. His 
 efforts were the more successful, because with re- 
 markable penetration (cf. 2 S 141°) he always knew 
 the right measures to adopt. He wins the Judean 
 elders by judicious presents, but can wait at Hebron 
 for Eshbaal’s fall ; he thanks the men of Jabesh- 
 gilead, disavows all part in Abner’s murder, retires 
 from the first attack of Absalom, but keeps up 
 communication with the capital. In all the varied 
 difficulties of his eventful life he is never without 
 resource. Nor was he negligent of the administra- 
 tion of his kingdom. It is said that he ‘executed 
 judgment and justice to all his people’ (2 S 81%) ; 
 and this statement is borne out by the readiness 
 with which he listened to Nathan or the woman 
 of Tekoa. Doubtless he once forced a census on 
 an unwilling people, but except in one instance 
 
 
 
DAY 
 
 
 
 we never hear of him using his power for selfish 
 ends. 
 In two respects the reign of D. became an ideal 
 
 for later times. He was remembered as a just and 
 patriotic ruler; and when oppression and injustice 
 became only too common in Israel, the great 
 prophets looked forward to a time when again a 
 righteous king should sit on his throne (Jer 23°, 
 ef. Is 16°) ; and the name of D. became the symbol 
 of the ideal ruler of his line, who they believed 
 must come (Jer 30°, Ezk 3423f 372), and who was 
 afterwards termed the Messiah. Again, it was 
 through D. that the group of Isr. tribes became a 
 powerful nation, and extended its sway over the 
 neighbouring peoples. ‘Thus Israel began to feel 
 that it had a mission in the world; and though 
 D.’s empire began to melt away even before his suc- 
 cessor’s death, this conviction never died, even in 
 the darkest hour. Still the people believed that in 
 God’s own time they would be called upon once 
 more to subdue the surrounding nations (cf. Am 
 912), or like a second D. to proclaim to heathen 
 races J's great and holy name (cf. Is 55°), 
 
 Literature.—For the analysis of Samuel see esp, Wellhausen, 
 Composition (1889), pp. 245-266; Kuenen, Onderzoek (1857), i. 
 886 ff., or Hist. Krit. ees iathuns (1890), 1. ii. 37-62, 72 ; Budde, 
 Richter wna Samuel (1890), pp. 210- 276. For the text, Driver, 
 Heb. Text of Sam. (1890) ; Wellhausen, Teat d@. Bitcher Sam. 
 (1871). For the criticism of Chronicles, ib. Prolegomena, Eng. 
 tr. (1885), p. 171ff. See, further, W. R. Smith, ‘ David,’ in 
 fineyel. Brit.9; Dillmann in Schenkel’s Bibel- Lexicon; Kamp- 
 hausen, ‘ Philister und Hebriier,’ ZA TW, 1886, pp. 43-97 : Ewald, 
 History, Eng. tr. iii. 54-203 ; Stade, Geachichte(13s9), i, 224-299 ; 
 Kittel, Hist. of the Hebreavs, Eng. tr. (1596), ii. 835-49, 119- 182: 
 Cheyne, Devout Study of Oriticism (1892). 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 DAY (0%, #uépa).—In Hebrew the word ‘day’ is 
 frequently used in phrases such as ‘ day of distress,’ 
 ‘of evil,’ ‘of calamity,’ ‘of death’ (cf. ‘day of 
 salvation,’ Is 498), which for the most part explain 
 themselves. It is also used more widely of time 
 in general, esp. when some event is described 
 vividly as that of a single day, e.g. Dt 163, Jg 18), 
 Mal 3? (33 with infin. or perf., but not ws a3) 
 which refers to some particular day, 25 1919 (Heb. si 
 Est 91). With a personal genitive we find the 
 singular used to express (1) the birthday, or festal 
 day, Job 3!, Hos 75; and (2) the time of calamity 
 or death, Jer 5031, Ezk 212°, 1 S 261°, Ps 3718, Job 
 1829, The plural ‘days,’ according to a very com- 
 mon usage, denotes the lifetime, reign, or period of 
 activity of any one, Gn 26!, Jg 58, 1 K 1071, Is 11 
 etc. Hence the repeated 0227 7221 of K and 
 Ch = Annals. With a local proper name_ the 
 ‘day’ implies some notable battle, a signal judg- 
 ment or disaster, e.g. Is 9* the day of the defeat of 
 Midian ; Ps 1377 the day of the fall of Jerus. ; Ezk 
 30° the day of Egypt; Hos 11! the day of Jezreel. 
 With the prophets ‘in that day’ is a common 
 formula in describing what is to come at some 
 future period of blessing or retribution, Is 211, 
 Jer 4°, Am 216 etc. etc. Cf. also the phrases ‘ Lo, 
 days are coming’ (esp. in Jer and Am), and ‘in 
 the latter end of the days’ (2°2}7 1.7083), 7.e. at the 
 end of the period to which the prophet’s vision 
 extends, e.g. Gn 49! (the time of the settlement in 
 Caanan), Dt 4% (Israel’s repentance in exile), 
 Hos 3°, Mic 4! (the Messianic period). 
 
 Many of these expressions have passed into the 
 language of NT, e.g. ‘in the days of Herod,’ Mt 2!, 
 Lk 1°; ‘in these pas) days,’ Lk 139 21, Ac 324 ‘in 
 the last days,’ 2'1i3!, Ja 53; also ‘my day, the day 
 when Christ appeared among men,Jn8* ; ‘ the day of 
 salvation,’ the time during which salvation is offered 
 to mankind, 2 Co 62; ‘the evil day’ of trial and 
 temptation, Eph 6!8; ‘in that day,’ e.g. when Christ 
 reveals Himself more fully to His disciples, Jn 1429 
 163-25, Jn particular, the last day of the present 
 dispensation, when Christ shall return to earth for 
 the final judgment, is described in various phrases : 
 
 
 
 
 
 DAYSPRING 573 
 
 ‘the day,’ He 102°; ‘that day,’ Mt 722, 2 Th 110; 
 ‘the last day,’ Jn 69° 1124; ‘the day of judgment, ; 
 Mt 117, 1 Jn 417; ‘the ‘day of Christ? Phy 12%; 
 ‘the day of the Lord, eh 245 eL. balk 178, Ro 216° 
 2 Co 14, Rev 617 etc. ; ‘the day of God,’ 2 P 312, 
 
 Prob. it is with allusion to the ‘day of the Lord’ 
 or ‘the day of judgment’ that St. Paul uses the 
 phrase ‘of man’s day’ (bd dvOpwrlyns juépas) to 
 denote mere human judgment (1 Co 4°), 
 
 The contrast between day and night gives rise 
 to certain metaphorical expressions. ‘Thus ‘day’ 
 is the period of life during which there is oppor- 
 tunity for working (Jn 9*, cf. 119). Christians are 
 said to belong to the day, since they should abstain 
 from evil deeds, which are usually done under the 
 cover of darkness, 1 Th 5°: 8, cf. Ro 1313. On the 
 other hand, this life, with its ignorance, trials, and 
 difficulties, is contrasted with the future day of 
 fuller knowledge (2 P 11°) and of completed salva- 
 tion (Ro 15). See also TIME; for the Creative 
 ‘Day’ see COSMOGONY ; and for Day of the Lord 
 see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 DAY OF ATONEMENT.—See ATONEMENT, DAY 
 OF. 
 
 DAY’S JOURNEY (Gn 30% 5 993, Jon 340 qban, 
 Lk 24+ juépas 65és).— When the making of a day’s 
 journey is predicated of any one, we are not to 
 understand merely that the person travelled for a 
 day or for so many hours thereof. ‘ Day’s journey’ 
 is no mere indication of time, but a real though 
 very indefinite measure of space. Its length would 
 vary according to the nature of the ground tra- 
 versed; on a level plain it would be longer than 
 over a country broken by hills or water-courses. 
 Its distance would, again, be conditioned by the 
 circumstances or capabilities of the traveller; a 
 messenger on a hasty errand (cf. Gn 3128) would 
 achieve better results than a caravan, the rate of 
 which would be regulated by the slowest beast of 
 burden. A sturdy courier, without undue exertion, 
 might put 25 to 30 miles behind him in a day; 
 while a caravan, with its encumbrances, would not 
 be able to overtake more than about 20 miles at the 
 most. The camel usually proceeds at a rate of 
 about 24 miles an hour, and as 6 to 8 hours would 
 be sufficient for a day, a caravan (probably im- 
 plied Lk 2#) might accomplish 15 to 20 miles ; with 
 much impedimenta, as recorded in the travels of 
 the patriarchs Gn 308°, or of the Israelites Nu 103, 
 the day’s journey would necessarily be much less. 
 In the present-day pilgrimages to Mecca, 224 
 miles is said to be a common day’s journey for a 
 caravan. Wemay perhaps safely figure to ourselves 
 in connexion with the expression ‘day’s journey’ 
 an ayerage distance of 20 to 25 miles. See further 
 SABBATH DAY’S JOURNEY. A. GRIEVE. 
 
 DAYSMAN.—In 1 Co 43 ‘man’s judgment’ is lit. 
 ‘man’s day’ (dvépwrlyy nuépa), and is so tr¢ in 
 Wyclif, Tind., Cov., and Rheims; for the word 
 ‘day,’ or its equivalent, has been used in many 
 languages in the special sense of a day for hearing 
 causes and giving judgment. (See DAY.) From 
 ‘day’ in this sense was formed the word ‘ days- 
 man,’ after the example of craftsman, herdsman, 
 and the like, to signify a judge, umpire, or arbiter. 
 The oldest instance given in Oaf. Eng. Dict. is 
 Plumpton Oorresp. (1489) p. 82, ‘Sir, the dayes- 
 men cannot agre us’; the next, Coverdale’s tr. of 
 Job 938 & Nether is there eny dayes man to reprove 
 both the partes, or to laye his honde betwixte us,’ 
 from whom it has been retained in AV and RV. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DAYSPRING.—Job 38” ‘Hast thou . . . caused 
 the dayspring to know his place?’ (19%) ; Wis 1678 
 

 
 
 
 DAY-STAR 
 
 
 
 
 DEACON 
 
 
 
 ‘at the dayspring pray unto thee’ (zpds dvarohhy 
 guwrbs, RV ‘at the dawning of the day’); and 
 Lk 178‘ the d. from on high hath visited us’ (dvaro\} 
 é Uyous). The word is of freq. occurrence for the 
 dawn of day, as Eden, Decades (1555), p. 264, ‘ The 
 day sprynge or dawnynge of the daye gyveth a 
 certeyne lyght before the rysinge of the soonne.’ 
 Davies (Bible Eng. p. 249) points out that virtually 
 the same expression occurs in Jg 19” ‘ when the day 
 began to spring, they let her go,’ and 1S 975 ‘it came 
 to pass about the spring of the day.’ In Gn 32™ the 
 marg. has ‘ascending of the morning’ for ‘breakin 
 of the day’; and in Ps 65% east and west are calle 
 ‘the outgoings of the morning and evening.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DAY-STAR.—This is Wyclif’s transl. of the Gr. 
 gwodpbpos in 2 P 1)®, and he has been followed b 
 all subsequent translators. The Eng. word (in all 
 VSS till RV there are two sep. words, ‘day star,’ 
 RV ‘day-star’) was used in two senses. (1) It 
 signified the planet Venus (Lat. Lucifer), that 
 star which preceded or accompanied the rising 
 of the sun, the morning star, as in Lydgate, 
 Temple of Glas (1355), ‘ Fairest of sterres . O 
 Venus. . . O mighti goddes, daister after nyght’ ; 
 and Holland’s Pliny, ii. 8, ‘For all the while that 
 shee [the planet Venus] preventeth the morning, 
 and riseth Orientall before, she taketh the name of 
 Lucifer (or Day Starre) as a second sun hastening 
 the day.’ (2) It was applied poetically to the sun, 
 especially by Milton, as Lycidas, 168— 
 
 ‘So sinks the day-star in the ocean bed, 
 And yet anon repairs his drooping head, 
 And tricks his beams.’ 
 
 In 2 P the word is used in the first sense, the 
 morning star. The passage is therefore parallel to 
 Rev 2% ‘the morning star,’ and 22% ‘the bright, 
 the morning star.’ These passages, Plumptre 
 thinks, are evidence that this had come to be 
 recognized among the apostolic Christians as a 
 symbolic name of the Lord Jesus as manifested to 
 the souls of His people. 
 
 Wyclif has ‘day-star’ in Job 38% ‘Whether 
 thou bryngist forth Lucifer, that is, dai-sterre, in 
 his tyme’; and it is found in Is 14% AVm and RV 
 *O day star,’ AV text ‘O Lucifer.’ See LUCIFER. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEACON.—The words didkovos (-civ-la) refer to 
 service rendered without regard to the quality of 
 the person rendering it. Thus the didxova at a 
 feast may be either bond or free; and any one 
 doing such service is a did«. for the time being. 
 Thus, in NT they are used—(1) of service gener- 
 ally (Ac 1275, Ro 15%, 1 Co 16%); (2) of our Lord’s 
 work in particular (Mt 20); (3) of the temporal 
 ruler (Ro 13*) as Ocod didx. ; (4) of the work of the 
 apostles (e.g. Ac 17 6°, 1 Co 3°, 1 Ti 1”): but in 
 none of these places is there any trace of didkovos 
 as an Official title. The transition is found Ro 
 127, where the diaxovla in contrast with mpognrela, 
 didackarla, mapdxdyots, seems to indicate specific 
 services, though the didcovos himself is not men- 
 tioned. (Cf. Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 198 f.). 
 
 Where do we first find official didxovo.? In Ac 
 5° ol vewrepo are of course tacitly contrasted (as 
 Lk 2276) with ol mpecBirepx; but the parallel 
 veavicxo. in 5!° seems to show that the contrast is 
 only of age, not of office. Coming to Ac 6, were 
 ‘the seven’ deacons? Permanent officials of some 
 sort they probably were; if we take account of 
 St. Luke’s way of recording ‘beginnings’ of 
 movements. 
 
 For the common identification of them with the 
 later deacons, we have (1) The general corre- 
 spondence of their duties. (2) The word d.axoveiy 
 rparéfas used of them, though this is balanced by 
 diaxovla rod Adbyouv of the apostles themselves in 
 the next verse. (3) Common opinion from Irenzeus 
 
 
 
 (Heer. iii. 12. 10, iv. 15. 1 ‘Stephanus primus diac.’) 
 onward. (4) The number of deacons limited to 
 seven at Rome (Cornelius ap. Eus. HE vi. 43: 
 also Soz. H# vii. 19, referring to Ac 6), and b 
 Conc. Neoces. Can. 15, also referring to Ac 6, 
 though Cone. Trull. Can. 16 rejects it. 
 
 Against it, (1) They are nowhere in NT called 
 didxovo, and Philip in Ac 21° is simply ‘one of ths 
 Seven.’ So neither is their work called dtaxovla. 
 (2) The qualifications laid down Ac 6* for the 
 seven are higher than those required by St. Paul, 
 1 Ti 3%, for deacons. (3) Of the Seven, Stephen 
 was largely a preacher, and Philip in Ac 21° (some 
 twenty-five years later) holds the much higher 
 rank of an evangelist. (4) The Seven evidently 
 rank next to the apostles, and have much the 
 same position at Jerusalem as the presbyters we 
 find a little later. The arguments are not very 
 strong either way; but, upon the whole, the 
 adverse one seems the stronger, for this is a ques- 
 tion on which tradition (150 years to Irenzus) 
 would seem specially liable to slip. The Seven, 
 then, would seem to vane been neither (a) deacons, 
 nor (6) temporary officers (Weizsicker), and con- 
 cern us no further if they were (c) almoners pure 
 and simple (Cone. Trull. supra), or (d) presbyters 
 (Ritschl), though they may have been (e) the 
 original from which both the two later orders 
 diverged, of deacons and presbyters (Lange). 
 
 In any case, the first explicit mention of deacons 
 (Ph L}) is at Philippi, about A.D. 63; and again 
 (1 Ti 38) at Ephesus a few years later. They are 
 not mentioned with Titus in Crete, but afterwards 
 every church seems to have had its deacons. 
 
 Concerning Jewish parallels to the office. The 
 deacon has no likeness to the Levite, who 
 was rather a porter of the temple, who looked 
 after the beasts, and sang in the choir. Neither 
 do the deacons resemble the single 3 (Lk 4”, 
 Urnpérys) of the synagogue, who was more like ouz 
 verger, opening and shutting the doors, cleaning 
 the building, handing the roll of the Law to the 
 reader, etc. Thenearest Jewish parallel is the ‘x33 
 apis or collectors of the alms. This phrase, how- 
 ever, rather suggests the tax-gatherer (xn’22D xDD 
 xyint xpy by, 2 K 23°3 Targ., with which compare 
 Clement, Hp. 42, misquoting Is 60”), than the 
 deacon whose duties lay so much among the poor. 
 Upon the whole, the office was substantially new. 
 
 Qualifications are laid down by St. Paul (1 Ti 3) 
 first for the bishop, then for the deacon. Generi- 
 cally they are alike, but with clear specific differ- 
 ences. Each must be grave, temperate, and free 
 from greed of money, the husband of one wife, 
 and a good ruler of his own house. But while the 
 deacon may serve, if there is no actual charge 
 against him, the bishop must be dvertAnumros—one 
 against whom no just charge can be made. The 
 deacon’s temperance and gravity are emphasized 
 for the bishop, who is further reminded that if he 
 cannot rule his own house well, he cannot be 
 trusted to rule the house of God. The deacon is 
 specially told not to be double-tongued or a lover 
 of dirty gain, whereas it is enough to say generally 
 that the bishop is not to be a lover of money. 
 Then the bishop must have sundry qualifications 
 for dealing with other men. He must be apt to 
 teach others, whereas it is enough for the deacon 
 to hold the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 
 He must also be a lover of hospitality, and a 
 moderate and peaceable man, with some experience, 
 and a good character even among the heathen. 
 
 Different qualifications point to different duties. 
 The deacon’s work evidently consists very much 
 in visiting and relieving the poor, where his 
 special temptations would be in one direction to 
 gossip and slander, in the other to picking and 
 stealing from the alms. If he uses his office well, 
 
 
 
 
 
 oe ee 
 
 
 
 ~~ sa 
 
DEACONESS 
 
 
 
 he may look forward to a good footing towards 
 
 » and much boldness towards men. On the 
 other hand, the teaching, the hospitality, and the 
 general intercourse with Christians and heathens, 
 which are so conspicuous in the bishop’s work, 
 seem no regular part of the deacon’s. 
 
 Of the appointment of deacons we are told very 
 little. In the case of the Seven (Ac 6), first the 
 oe lay down the qualifications required, then 
 the Church elects seven, then the apostles approve 
 and admit them. In the Pastoral Epistles St. 
 Paul does not get beyond the first stage of laying 
 down qualifications, though Timothy is plainly 
 intended to Epps the candidates, and eve is 
 no hint given that the Church did not elect them. 
 The process would most likely be the same as for 
 the bishops or elders. H. M. GwATKIN. 
 
 DEACONESS.—See WomMAN. 
 
 DEADLY has now only an active meaning, 
 ‘causing death’; but formerly was passive also, 
 ‘subject to death.’ Thus Wyclif’s tr. of 1 Co 15° 
 is, ‘ For it byhoueth this corruptible thing to clothe 
 vncorrupcioun, and this deedli thing to putte awei 
 vndeedlinesse.’ Wyclif has ‘deadly’ in all passages 
 in which AV has ‘mortal’ (except that in Job 4” 
 he omits the adj.), as well as often elsewhere, as 
 He 7 ‘heere deedi men taken tithis,’ Ja 5” ‘Elye 
 was a deedli man lijk vs.’ In AV d. occurs in 
 this sense Rev 13% 4 ‘his d. wound was healed’ 
 (xAnyh Tod Oavdrov, RV ‘death-stroke’); and as an 
 adv. Ezk 30 ‘a d. wounded man’ (5$z). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEAD SEA (Arab. Bahr Lut, or ‘Sea of 
 Lot’).—This remarkable inland lake lies in the 
 deepest part of the depression of the earth’s surface 
 which stretches from the Gulf of Akabah north- 
 wards into the Jordan Valley (see ARABAH). ‘The 
 name ‘Dead Sea’ is not found in the Bible, and 
 appears first to have been used in Gr. (@4Aacca vexpd) 
 by Pausanias and Galen, and in Lat. by Justin. In 
 OT it is known as the Salt Sea (Gn 14°, Dt 3”) and 
 as the Sea of the Arabah (Jos 31%), Both these 
 names are appropriate and expressive of its physical 
 conditions. ith reference to its geograph. situa- 
 tion, it is called the East Sea (Ezk 471", J}2”). The 
 name ‘Asphaltites’ given to it by Josephus (Ant. I. 
 ix.) is derived from the deposits of bitumen which 
 are found in some of the valleys entering the W. 
 shore; and, lastly, the name Dead Sea (Mare 
 mortuum) is used to indicate the absence of animal 
 life in its waters. This is owing, not so much to 
 the high salinity of the waters, as to the large pro- 
 portion of bromide of magnesium which they con- 
 tain. In the streams, often of a high temperature, 
 which enter the lake to the S. of the promontory 
 of El-Lisfn, some living forms are exceedingly 
 abundant, especially those of small fishes of the 
 genus Cyprinodon. The naine ‘Bahr Lft,’ by 
 which the Dead Sea is known amongst the Arabs, 
 is a remarkable instance of the persistence of 
 traditionary names amongst these E. tribes, if, 
 as is believed by not a few, it comes down to us 
 through a period of nearly 4000 years, and has 
 been preserved by the descendants of the patriarch 
 Lot, who took possession of the territory of Moab 
 and Ammon on the borders of the Arabian desert 
 overlooking the Dead Sea basin, and who naturally 
 associated this inland lake with the name of their 
 progenitor who had lived on its shores (Gn 13). 
 
 Physical Features.—The Dead Sea lies nearly 
 N.-S. along a line corresponding to that of the 
 Jordan Valley; its length is 47 miles, and its 
 greatest breadth about 10 miles. It receives the 
 waters of the Jordan from the N.; those of El- 
 Hessi, El-Jeib, and El]-Fikreh from the S.; those 
 of the Kerak, Arnon (Mojib), Zerka Main from the 
 
 Palestine 
 ee 
 
 
 
 DEAD BEA 
 
 578 
 
 
 
 
 
 E., and the Kidron (En-Nar) and several lesser 
 streams from the W.; and as the Dead Sea, like 
 all salt lakes, has no outlet, the consequence is that 
 the waters which enter it pass off in the form of 
 vapour into the atmosphere. The quantity of water 
 poured into the Dead Sea basin must be very 
 reat, especially during the months of April and 
 ay, when the Jordan is swollen by the melting of 
 the snow in the Lebanon range; but such is the 
 dryness of the air and the heat of the sun’s rays in 
 the Ghor that this increased supply fails per- 
 manently to raise the level of the surface, which 
 seems a to rise and fall within the limits of 10 
 to 15 ft., between the months of October and May, 
 as estimated by Dr. Robinson from the position of 
 the driftwood along the shore. 
 w E 
 
 Western Moabite 
 Plateau 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Usdum 
 
 
 
 Terrace 
 
 Eil-Lisin.—The Dead Sea is divided into two 
 unequal portions by a remarkable promontory 
 known as ‘E]-Lisfn’ (the tongue), which projects 
 outwards from the E. shore for a distance of 
 half the breadth of the lake. This promontory 
 seems to be referred to in the passage describing 
 the boundary of the lot of the tribe of Judah (Jos 
 15%, marg. ‘tongue’). El-Lisfn is composed, 
 according to Lartet, of white calcareous marl with 
 beds of salt and gypsum. It breaks off in a cliff 
 facing the W., 300 ft. high and 9 miles long, 
 terminating northwards at Point Costigan, and is 
 connected with the Moabite coast by a narrow neck 
 of marshy land. The terraced form, as well as the 
 composition, of El-Lis4n show that it was once part 
 of the bed of the lake when its waters rose several 
 hundred feet higher than at present; and it corre 
 sponds in character and composition to the terraced 
 ridge of Khashm Usdum now to be described. 
 
 Khashm Usdum (or Salt-mountain).—This re- 
 markable ridge follows the W. shore of the 
 lake from Umm Zoghal southwards to the banks 
 of Wady el-Fikreh at the S. margin of the 
 Ghor, a distance of 7 miles. Its upper surface is 
 about 600 ft. above the lake, and seen from a 
 distance appears flat; but it is deeply furrowed 
 and Bea by streamlets, which have penetrated 
 into the mass below. The upper part of Khashm 
 Usdum is formed of strata of white saliferous and 
 gypseous marl, the lower of solid salt-rock; and 
 these materials are laid open to view in the nearly 
 vertical cliff along which the ridge breaks off on 
 the E. side. There can be no doubt that this 
 terrace, like that of El-Lis4n, and others to be found 
 at intervals on both sides of the lake, were parts of 
 the bed of the lake itself when its waters stood at a 
 much higher level than at present. It is separated 
 from the base of the limestone table-land by a 
 valley of broken ground, strewn with blocks of 
 rock, about half a mile in width, and eroded by 
 torrential action. 
 
 The Ascent of Akrabbim (‘scorpions’).—From the 
 S. shore of the lake an extensive tract, composed 
 partly of slime, partly of woods and pastures, 
 extends as far as the semicircular terrace which 
 bounds the Ghor in that direction. This marsh is 
 liable to floods, and its surface is strewn with 
 trunks of trees brought down by the torrents. The 
 terrace by which it is bounded is 500 ft. high, and 
 is formed of marls overlaid by beds of sand, gravel, 
 and loam, which extend southwards into the 
 Arabah. They are deposits formed over the old 
 bed of the lake when its waters were 500-600 ft. 
 above their present level. The terrace seems te 
 
576 DEAD SEA 
 
 
 
 DEAD SEA 
 
 
 
 answer to the ‘ Ascent of Akrabbim’ referred to in 
 Jos 15° in connexion with the boundary of Judah. 
 Robinson regards the edge of the terrace as marking 
 the limits of the Ghor and the Arabah respectively : 
 a view in which the present writer concurs. 
 
 Level of the Surface.—The Dead Sea was sounded 
 in 1848 by Lieut. Lynch, who found that it de- 
 scended to a depth of 1278 ft. at a point about 5 
 miles N. of Costigan. It is now known that the 
 surface itself descends to a greater depth below that 
 of the ocean than any sheet of water on the globe. 
 This fact remained unrecognized until 1836-7, when 
 H. von Schubert and Prof. Roth visited Palestine, 
 and made barometric observations in the Jordanic 
 basin. These were followed and confirmed by Col. 
 Wilson (now Gen. Sir C. W. Wilson) and the 
 officers of the Ordnance Survey of Palestine by 
 actual levelling from the shore of the Mediterranean 
 to that of the Dead Sea itself, and have established 
 the fact that the surface of the latter falls to a 
 depth of 1292 ft. below that of the former. Nor 
 is it surprising that this result was not detected 
 before the barometer and the level were brought to 
 bear on its determination ; for there is nothing in the 
 atmosphere around the lake which suggests to the 
 traveller, by his sensations alone, that he sustains 
 a more than ordinary atmospheric pressure ; and the 
 two seas being shut off from each other by a high 
 table-land 50 miles across, comparison of levels by 
 means of the eye is impossible. With the increase 
 of barometric pressure there is a corresponding 
 increase of temperature. Hence, while in winter 
 snow frequently lies on the plateaux of Judea and 
 of Moab, it is unknown on the shores of the Dead 
 Sea; and the Arab tribes go down to the Ghir 
 with their flocks of sheep and goats, and camp over 
 the plain during the winter months. Thus when, 
 in December 1893, the writer found himself standing 
 on the edge of the terrace overlooking the Ghar, he 
 beheld at his feet a wide plain stretching away 
 northwards towards the margin of the Dead Sea, 
 and to a large extent green with vegetation and 
 thickets of small trees. To the right in an open 
 space were seen several large Bed4awin camps, from 
 which the shouts of wild men, the barking of dogs, 
 and the bellowing of camels ascended. Numerous 
 flocks of black goats and white sheep were being 
 tended by women in long blue cloaks; and on the 
 pee of travellers being observed, groups of merry 
 children came tripping up towards the path accom- 
 panied by a few of the elders, and, ranging them- 
 selves in a line, courteously returned salutations, 
 Here the Arabs remain enjoying the warmth of the 
 plain will the increasing heat of the summer’s sun 
 calls them away to their high pasture grounds on 
 the table-land of Edom and Moab. At a short 
 distance farther towards the shore of the lake is 
 the village of Es-Safieh, inhabited by a tribe of 
 fellahin called the Ghawarneh, who by means of 
 irrigation from the Wady el-Hessi cultivate with 
 success fields of wheat, maize, dhurah, indigo, and 
 cotton, while they rear herds of camels and flocks 
 of sheep and goats. On the produce of these fields 
 the Arabs largely depend for their ae tate of food 
 and raiment, which they obtain by a kind of rude, 
 often compulsory, barter. 
 
 Boundaries of the Ghor.—The Dead Sea basin 
 and its ancient deposits are bounded along the E, 
 by the high plateau of Moab, and on the W. by 
 the nearly equally high table-land of Judxa. The 
 
 lain of El-Ammaya in Moab reaches a level of 
 
 100 ft. above the Mediterranean, and, con- 
 sequently, of about 4400 ft. above the Dead Sea. 
 The slopes of the escarpment along which the 
 plateau breaks off are sometimes terraced, some- 
 times precipitous, and are eroded by numerous 
 streams with thermal springs, of which that of the 
 Zerka Main (or Callirhoé) is the most celebrated. 
 
 
 
 The W. slopes of the Ghoér are equally seamed 
 by river courses which cut deep into the limestone 
 strata, and have their sources in springs near the 
 summit of the table-land. The cliffs of Mersed, 
 Engedi, and Masada,* the latter crowned by tha 
 ruined fortress, are prominent features of the 
 W. shore; while the walled city of Kerak, the 
 capital of Moab, crowns the heights on the E 
 side. 
 
 Geology.—Investigations by geologists in recent 
 times have dispelled some of the old ideas regarding 
 the origin of this mysterious inland lake. It is 
 now known not to be the crater of a volcano, and it 
 is almost equally certain that Sodom and Gomorrah 
 were not overwhelmed in its waters. These re- 
 searches have also resulted in showing that the 
 area of the Dead Sea waters is not very different 
 from what it was in the days of Abraham and Lot. 
 It is now known, through the observations of 
 Tristram, Lartet, Hull, and others, that the Dead 
 Sea occupies a part of the trough, or depression in 
 the crust, produced by subsidence along the line of 
 a ‘fault’ or system of ‘faults’ (fractures accom- 
 ey’ by displacement of the strata) which has 
 
 een traced from the G. of Akabah along the 
 line of the Jordan-Arabah Valley to the base of 
 Hermon (see ARABAH). This fracture was produced 
 owing to the terrestrial movements which resulted 
 in the whole region being elevated out of the sea 
 after the close of the Eocene period. In con- 
 sequence of this faulting and dienlaseriee the 
 formations on the opposite sides of the Ghor do 
 not correspond with each other; those on the E., 
 
 or Moabite, side being more ancient than those on — 
 
 the W. side at similar levels. Thus, while 
 the whole W. side of the Ghoér is formed of 
 Cretaceous limestones, the flanks of the Moabite 
 escarpment are composed of very ancient volcanic 
 rocks at the base; overlain successively by Car- 
 boniferous and older Cretaceous beds, and only 
 surmounted at a level of about 3000-4000 ft. 
 above the lake by the Cretaceous limestones 
 which come down to the water’s edge along the 
 W. shore. 
 
 The fundamental rocks laid open on the flanks of 
 Jebel Shomar, a massive and precipitous mountain 
 which rises behind Es-Safieh, and runs along the 
 E. side of the Ghor for several miles, are 
 composed of great beds of volcanic materials 
 (agglomerates, tuffs, and sheets of porphyry, pene- 
 trated by numerous dykes). They have a slight 
 dip northwards, and are overlain by red and purple 
 sandstones and conglomerates of Carboniferous age 
 (‘Desert sandstone’), then by Carboniferous lime- 
 stone forming the terrace of Lebrusch, and this by 
 the red and variegated sandstones of Lower 
 Cretaceous age (‘Nubian sandstone’) which form 
 the greater part of the mountain flanks, and are 
 ultimately overlain by the Cretaceous limestones 
 composing the crest of the Moabite and Edomite 
 escarpment. 
 
 Such is the general geological structure as far as 
 regards the more ancient formations. The form 
 and features of the Ghér were considerably modified 
 by rain and river action in Pliocene and Pleistocene 
 times. At the latter stage, corresponding to the 
 close of the Glacial epoch, the waters of the Jordanic 
 Valley appear to have risen to such a degree as to 
 have formed a lake whose area included those of 
 Merom, Galilee, and the Dead Sea, and whose 
 S. margin extended into the Arabah as far 
 as the ‘Ain Abu Werideh; thus producing a lake 
 which had a length from N. to S. of 200 miles, 
 and whose surface rose to the level of the Mediter- 
 
 * The fortress of Masada was the-.last refuge of the band of 
 Zealots of the Jews who defended themselves against Silva, the 
 Roman general (a.p. 71), and at last destroyed themselves te 
 escape capture (Jos. Ware, vil. viii. ix.). 
 
 
 
a ee SS Se 
 
 DEAFNESS 
 
 DEBIR 577 
 
 
 
 ranean. The evidence for this conclusion is to be |, 
 found in the occurrence of terraces of lacustrine 
 materials at intervals down the Arabah from ‘Ain 
 Abu Werideh, a locality nearly 40 miles S. of 
 the margin of the Ghor. These terraces contain 
 numerous semi-fossil shells of the genera Melania 
 and SERGE aie It is easy to understand that 
 during the Glacial epoch the large rainfall and the 
 melting of the snows of the Lebanon, accompanied 
 by a climate less tropical than that which now 
 prevails, may have added enormously to the supplies 
 of water poured into the Jordanic basin, thus rais- 
 ing the surface to the level indicated. With 
 the subsequent diminishing rainfall, and the recur- 
 rence of sub-tropical conditions of climate, evapora- 
 tion would ually gain upon precipitation ; and 
 the surface of the waters, contracting stage by stage, 
 would ree fall to their present limits, where 
 evaporation and supply have nearly balanced each 
 other. It was during such successive stages of 
 diminution in volume, and lowering of the surface, 
 that the terraces of lacustrine materials were 
 formed, and converted into land surfaces; these 
 commence at their highest limit with those of Abu 
 Werideh, and are succeeded by others at lower and 
 lower levels till the present margin of the Dead Sea 
 shore is reached. The salinification of the waters 
 necessaril Sec enpenied this process; because the 
 salts dissolved in the waters remained behind durin 
 the process of evaporation, and consequently tende 
 to augment till saturation was reached. e Dead 
 Sea waters, therefore, resemble those of all closed 
 lakes which are more or less saline owing to similar 
 causes. t 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Conder, Tent Work, 1880; Huli, ‘ Arabia Petrea 
 and Palestine,’ in Mem. PEF, 1886; Lartet, Voyage d’Explora- 
 tion de la Mer Morte, 1880; Lynch, Report of U.S. Expedition to 
 the Jordan and Dead Sea, 1852; Robinson, BR, 1865; De Saulcy, 
 Voyage dans la Syrie, 1853 ; Schubert, Reise in den Morgenland, 
 1887; Tristram, Land of Israel, 2nd ed. 1872, Land of Moab, 
 1878, ‘ Fauna and Flora of Palestine,’ in fem. PEF, 1824; G. A. 
 Smith, Hist. Geog. 499 ff. E. HULL. 
 
 DEAFNESS.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 DEAL.—A ‘deal’ is a part or share (A.-S. dael, 
 Ger. theil), and it may be a large or small part. 
 In mod. Eng. we are allowed to say only ‘he gave 
 a great deal, or a pod deal, of trouble,’ peorrel 
 ‘he gave a deal of trouble,’ and never ‘a sma 
 deal.’ In older Eng. Chaucer could say (House of 
 Fame, i. 331)— 
 
 *O, have ye men swich goodliheed 
 
 In speche, and never a deel of trouthe?’ 
 And Latimer could represent philosophers saying 
 that ‘God walked up and down in Heaven, an 
 thinketh never a deal of our affairs.’ In AV deal 
 is used in the phrase ‘tenth deal’ or ‘tenth deals,’ 
 for Heb. jy ‘tssdrén, wherever that word occurs 
 (RV ‘tenth part’ or ‘tenth parts’). See WEIGHTS 
 AND MEASURES. 
 
 To ‘deal’ is to divide or distribute (A.-8. daelan), as in 2 8 619 
 ‘he dealt agi all the people... to every one a cake’; 
 1 Ob 163, Is 587 ‘d. thy bread to the hungry’; and Ro 128 
 ‘according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of 
 faith.’ Cf. Wyclif, Lk 916 ‘ And whanne he hadde take the fyue 
 looves and twei fischis, he biheeld in to heuene, and blesside 
 hem, and brak and delide to hise disciplis, that thei schulden 
 sette forth bifor the Cane and Ooverdale, Dn 523 ‘ Thy 
 kyngdome is delt in partes.’ From this the verb ed into 
 the sense of (lealing well or ill with a person, and then having 
 any transaction with,—meanings that are freely found in AV 
 as in mod. use, Ac 25% ‘this man, about whom all the multitude 
 of the Jews have dealt with me’ (ivirvysy wor, RV ‘made suit 
 to me’). : J. HASTINGS. 
 
 * Mount Seir, p. 99; Phys. Geol. Arabta Petrawa, etc. pp. 15-79. 
 
 ¢ The waters of the Dead Sea yield 24°57 Ibs. of salt in 100 lbs, 
 of water, those of the Atlantic yielding only 6 lbs. of salt in 
 the same quantity; the former consist of chlorides of lime, 
 magnesia, sodium, and potassium, and in smaller proportions of 
 sulphates and bromides of the same substances, The large 
 quantity of bromine (occurring as bromide of magnesium) has 
 attracted the attention of naturalists, and is supposed to be a 
 volcanic emanation. 
 
 VOL, I.—37 
 
 DEAR, DEARTH.—Dear is used in AV in two 
 senses: (1) Beloved, as Eph 5! ‘Be ye therefore 
 followers of God as dear children’ (dyarnrés, RV 
 ‘beloved’). In this sense is Col 1? ‘the kingdom 
 of his d. Son,’ which AV, along with Cov., Cran., 
 Gen., and Bishops’, retained from Tindale, though 
 Wyclif’s ‘the sone of his louynge’ was nearer the 
 Greek (6 ulds r7s dydans atrod; Rea RV, ‘the Son 
 of his love’). See BELOVED. (2) Precious, Ac 20% 
 ‘neither count I my life d. unto myself” (rlsos). 
 Cf. Ps 724 Coy. ‘deare shal their bloude be in his 
 sight,’ and 116% ‘right deare in the sight of the 
 Lorde is the death of his sayntes,’ both preserved in 
 Pr. Bk. version, the meaning being that he counts 
 it too precious to leave it unavenged. 
 
 Dearth.—That which is precious is rare, as 1 8 81 Cov. ‘The 
 worde of y® Lorde was deare at the same tyme’; and from 
 ‘dear’ in this sense was formed ‘dearth’=scarcity, famine. 
 Dearth occurs in AV Gn 4154bis, 2 K 438, 2 Ch 628, Neh 63 (all 
 3y7, RV ‘famine’ in Gn, 2 Ch, keeping ‘dearth’ in 2 K, Neh); 
 Jer 141 (nqy3, RV ‘drought’); Ac 711 1128 (a,uzés, RV ‘ famine’); 
 and RV adds Job 522 (753, AV ‘famine’), though it retains 
 ‘famine’ for the same Heb. in 803. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEATH.—See EscHATOLOGY, LIFE. 
 
 DEBATE.—To debate (fr. old Fr. debatre, Lat. 
 de down, batuere beat) now means to discuss, and a 
 ‘d.’ is a discussion, which is expected to be amic- 
 able. But in earlier Eng. ‘to debate’ was to fight 
 or wrangle, and ‘debate’ was strife, quarrelling. 
 Thus Gn 137 Geneva ‘there was debate betweene the 
 heardmen of Abrams cattell, and the heardmen of 
 Lots cattell’; and Lk 125! Cov. ‘Thynke ye that 
 I am come to brynge peace upon earth—I tell you 
 nay, but rather debate.’ In this sense only is 
 debate used in AV, whether as vb. or subst. As 
 vb. Pr 25° ‘ Debate thy cause with thy neighbour’ 
 (so RV), and Is 278 (RV ‘contend’; both a74= 
 ‘strive,’ ‘go to law’). As subst. Is 584 (nyo, RV 
 ‘contention’); Sir 28°‘A sinful man disquieteth 
 friends, and maketh d. among them that be at 
 peace’ (ékBddret SiaBoryy ; cf. 2 Ti 3° AVm, Tit 2° 
 AVm, and see MAKEBATE); Ro 1”, 2 Co 12” (épis, 
 RV (‘strife’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEBIR (¥37).—The king of Eglon, who acc. to 
 Jos 10? joined other four kings against Joshua, but 
 was deloated and put to death along with his 
 allies at Makkedah. 
 
 DEBIR (733, oat Dabir).—1. The name is 
 enerally supposed to mean ‘back’; hence= 
 hindi chamber, innermost room of a temple, 
 and so it is used in 1 K 6° to denote the Holy of 
 Holies. The city must have been a sacred one, 
 with a well-known temple. This is borne out 
 by its two other names, Kiriath-sepher or ‘ Book- 
 town’ (Jos 15!5, Sept. mods ypayydrwv), and Kir- 
 iath-sannah, ‘city of instruction’(?) (Jos 15%); 
 and W. Max Miiller (Asien und Europa, 1894) has 
 shown that in an Egyptian papyrus, known as the 
 ‘Travels of the Mohar,’ which was written in the 
 time of Ramses II. (B.0. 1300), and is a sarcastic 
 account of an Egyptian traveller's misadventures 
 in Canaan, reference is made tothe town. The 
 writer remarks; ‘Thou hast not seen Kiriath-anab 
 near Beth-thupar, nor dost thou know Adullam 
 and Zidiputa.’ We learn from the geographical list 
 of Shishak that the last-named place was in the 
 south of Judah, and the Egyptian Thupar, which 
 is followed by the determinative of ‘writing,’ 
 would represent a Hebrew Sépher or ‘scribe.’ 
 Anab is associated with Kiriath-sepher in Jos 11% 
 15, we must conclude that the Egyptian writer 
 has interchanged the equivalent terms Kiriath 
 and Beth, and that the Massoretes have wrongly 
 vocalised the second element in the name of the 
 
578 DEBORAH 
 
 city, which should be sdpher, ‘scribe,’ instead of 
 sépher, ‘book.’ It was a ‘city of scribes,’ where a 
 library must have existed, filled with clay books 
 inscribed with cuneiform characters similar to 
 those found at Tel el-Amarna, and in the libraries 
 of Assyria and Babylonia. The latter were usually 
 established in the chamber of a temple. * 
 
 It is possible that the name of crivinthannbah 
 may be found in one of the Tel el-Amarna tablets 
 (Mutthetlungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen, 
 iii, No. 199), where we read: ‘The country of 
 Gath-carmel has fallen away to Tagi, and the 
 men of the city of Gath; he is in Beth-sani.’ 
 This would locate the city in the neighbourhood of 
 
 Gath. 
 
 In the OT Debir is described as in the moun- 
 tains of Judah, like Socoh and Eshtemoh (Jos 15 
 4-50), and not far from Hebron, from whence Caleb 
 ‘went up’ toit (v.15). It was in ‘the Negeb’ of 
 Judah, and near it were ‘the upper springs and 
 the nether springs’ of water. After leaving Lach- 
 ish (Zell ee and Eglon (Zell en-Nejileh 2), 
 Joshua marched to Hebron, and then ‘returned’ 
 to Debir (Jos 10®). Unfortunately, these passages 
 do not enable us to fix the exact position of the 
 city, though the expression ‘went up’ may imply 
 that it lay to the north. This would certainly 
 have been the case if it is the same as the Beth- 
 sani of the Tel el-Amarna tablet. The identifica- 
 tion with the modern Dh4&heriyeh (from Arab. 
 dhahr, ‘back’) rests upon a mistaken interpreta- 
 tion of the name of Debir: Petrie found there 
 no traces of anything older than the Roman 
 period. 
 
 Debir was taken by Othniel the Kenizzite, in 
 return for which Caleb gave him his daughter 
 Achsah in marriage (Jos 1515, Jg 111-5), There 
 
 must consequently be some error in the text of 
 
 Jos 10:39, where it is said that Joshua had 
 
 already taken Debir, and destroyed all its inhabit- 
 
 ants. Moreover, the city of Debir is not men- 
 
 tioned among the confederates in vv.*5, where, 
 
 om as contrary, Debir is stated to be the king of 
 glon. 
 
 2. DEBIR (Jos 13%). The border of Debir 
 (or Lidebir) is stated to have formed part of the 
 frontiers of Gad, not far from Mahanaim. If the 
 reading Lidebir is accepted, the place may perhaps 
 be identified with Lodebar of 2 gos 
 
 8. DEBIR in Jos 15’ is described as in the 
 direction of the north-eastern corner of Judah, 
 towards the valley of Achor and Gilgal. The 
 Sept. however, reads éml 7d réraprov rijs pdparyyos 
 "Axwp, and the Vulg. has Debera. Acc. to Hupfeld 
 (Ps 28?) and Wellh. (Sam. 145n.) a737 here= 
 westward. A. H. Sayce. 
 
 DEBORAH (i733 ‘a bee’).—1. The nurse of 
 Rebekah, died on Jacob’s return to Can., and was 
 buried under the terebinth (‘ Allon-bacuth’) below 
 Bethel (Gn 35° E). 2. The heroine of the great 
 battle by the Kishon in which Sisera and his allies 
 were defeated (Jg 4 and 5). After a period of 
 oppression and insecurity, which had lasted since 
 the days of Shamgar (Jg 5°), and had fallen heavil 
 upon the tribes bordering on the plain of Jezreel, 
 D., a woman of martial and determined spirit, 
 together with Barak, resolved to free their people 
 from the aggressions of the Canaanites. Issachar, 
 their tribe (Jg 5"), had been the principal sufferer, 
 but could not cope with the enemy unaided. 
 Accordingly, the summons was sent round to all 
 
 ®A full discussion of the meaning of the name is given by 
 Moore (Judges, p. 25 ff.), who formerly connected 75D in 15D ‘p 
 with Aramaic 19D ‘border, frontier.’ Kiriath-sepher would on 
 this etymology be ‘ Frontier-town,’ a suitable enough meaning. 
 But for phonetic difficulties that stand in the way Moore has 
 gow abandoned this derivation. 
 
 DEBORAH 
 
 ———— 
 the tribes,* claiming their assistance in the cause 
 of J” the national God. Ephraim, Benjamin, 
 West Manasseh, Zebulun, Naphtali, with their 
 chiefs, rallied round Issachar ; Renken Gilead (= 
 Gad), Dan, and Asher refused to respond (Jg 5!2-48), 
 For the first time after the settlement in Ca 
 the tribes of Isr. acted in something like a national 
 capacity ; it was the genius and courage of D. that 
 instigated this united action. To meet the Isr. 
 confederation, the kings of Canaan, under the leader- 
 ship of Sisera, marched to the attack; the battle 
 too yen in the neighbourhood of Taanach and 
 Megiddo, along the right bank of the Kishon 
 (Jg 5). A great storm came on, and the swollen 
 torrent worked havoc among the Can. forces, so 
 that it seemed as if the powers of nature were 
 fighting against them (Jg 5%); Sisera had to 
 seek safety in flight. A woman had successfully 
 initiated the war, and a woman brought it to a 
 victorious conclusion. Jael, by a bold stratagem, 
 slew Sisera with a shattering blow from a tent- 
 mallet as he stood drinking in her tent (Jg 5-7). 
 
 Such is the history of the event which has made 
 D. famous among the women of the Bible, as it 
 may be pitheied from the song in Jg 5. This 
 splenkt ode was prob. not written by D. herself ; 
 the verbs in v.” are to be rendered by the 2nd pers. 
 rather than by the lst; cf. v.14. V.1 merely says, 
 ‘then sang D. and Barak,’ a remark due to the 
 later editor. But the song may well be the work 
 of a contemporary, as its style and contents 
 suggest ; it may claim, therefore, to be the highest 
 authority for the events which it records, 
 
 Another account, a prose version, is contained in 
 chapter 4. The two accounts agree in the main 
 features, but exhibit considerable differences in 
 detail. In 4+? D. is styled both prophetess and 
 judge, while her seat is ‘ under the palm-tree of D., 
 
 etween Ramah and Bethel, in the hill country of 
 Ephraim,’ whither the children of Israel resorted 
 for judgment. 
 
 It is here implied that her authority had been 
 long established and that it extended over Israel 
 (‘she was judging Israel at that time,’ 44). This 
 generalization of her position reflects the theory of 
 the compiler of Judges—a late writer.t Further, 
 her seat is placed in the S., in the territory of 
 Benjamin, far from the area of the troubles. This 
 necessitates distant negotiations with Barak, and 
 introduces serious difficulties into the narrative. 
 It is possible that D.’s connexion with Ramah and 
 Bethel may be due to a confusion based on Gn 358, 
 for which, again, the compiler may be responsible. 
 We may conclude from 4** that her home was 
 somewhere near Kadesh, the city of Barak ;+ thus 
 both would belong to Issachar (as 5"), the chief 
 sufferer under the oppression. See BARAK. 
 
 In the prose version (44%? in the main) she is 
 styled a prophetess. Thus, in the manner of pro- 
 phecy, she announces the plan of the attack (4%), 
 promises success (v.7>), and declares who shall 
 off the honours of the victory (vi®). All these are 
 features not found in ch. 5, and as coming from ch. 
 4 must be pronounced of inferior historical value. 
 
 For the other divergences connected with the 
 mention of Jabin, the position of the battle, the 
 deed of Jael, the authorities must be consulted. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Hilliger, Das Deborah-Lied tibersetzt u. erklart, 
 1867; A. Miiller, Das Lied der Deborah, 1887 (Kénigsberger 
 Studien, i.); Budde, Richt. u. Sam. 66-72, 101-107 ; M. Vernes 
 
 * Except Simeon and Levi. Judah is not mentioned; it had 
 not entered into any close connexion with the other tri 
 and was cut off from them by a line of Canaanite strongholds 
 (Jg 129. 35, Jos 917), 
 
 ¢ 41-8. 23. 24 51. 81b belong: to the Deuteronomic compiler of 
 Judges ; his hand may also be traced in 44> 938 14a, 
 
 t Barak=lightning, Lappidoth=jlames (44) ; hence some think 
 that both are names of the same person, and that Barak was 
 Deborah’s husband, This is merely a fancy 
 
 
 
DEBT, DEBTOR 
 
 DEBT, DEBTOR 579 
 
 ———$—$———— 
 
 in Revue des Btudes Juives, xxiv. 1802; G. A.’Cooke, Hist. and 
 Song of Deb. 1892; O. Niebuhr, Versuch einer Reconst. des 
 Deboratiedes, 1894; G. F. Moore, Judges (1895), 127-173. 
 
 8. Deborah (AV Debora), the grandmother of 
 Tobit, To 1°. G. A. COOKE. 
 
 DEBT, DEBTOR.—4. Ix OT.—i, Terma.—mb in Qal, EV 
 borrow, ptep. borrower, LXX davsilecbes, Vulg. fenus accipio, 
 mutuo sumo pecunias, mutuor, mutuum accipio; in Hiph. EV 
 tend (i.e. cause to borrow), ptcp. lender, LXX davilw, ixdaviSoo, 
 sixpniss, Vulg. pecuniam mutuam do, faneror. mb is also 
 used in the sense of join, and the sense of borrow may be 
 derived from the dependence of the borrower on the lender; 
 but mb join, and mb borrow, may be independent roots of 
 different origin (so Fuerst). »b Levi, Levite, is not necessarily 
 connected with either. 
 
 #3 (also in form pw) Qal and Hiph., EV lend on usury, 
 take usury, exact (usury); Qal ptcp. creditor, extortioner, also 
 given in Dt 152 for 9: mip Sy3 ‘possessor of a loan of his 
 hand,’ in Dt 2411 thy debtor is $2 Aya ANY WY WNT, te. ‘the 
 man to whom thou are lending,’ or ‘a creditor.’ So Is 242 
 \a xv Wr, cf. 1 8 222 ‘he to whom anyone is a usurer,’ i.e. 
 
 one who borrows on usury,’ EV the giver of usury to him. 
 LXX dwairsiv, paraphrases with égs/Auy (owe), and (for ptcp.) 
 Savuerhs, and in Is 501 dx ypews (debtor). Vulg. commodo, exigo, 
 usuras ewigo, and for ptep. creditor, fenerator, y}2 K 47 EV 
 debt, LXX réxous, Vulg. creditori (reading the ptcp.). Ayn, 
 EV debt, loan, LXX é¢siAnun, Vulg. debitum. 
 
 yp, EV usury, exaction, LXX deuirnois, Vulg. ces alienum, 
 exactio. This root has been connected with 7w3 bite, cf. 
 3Y) in ref. to the nature and effects of usury; or with Aw) 
 rage because payment of a debt is remitted for a time (Ges. 
 
 39} (WW1= bite) EV usury, LXX réx0s, Vulg. usura. In Dt 
 2320. 21 (Eng.19. 20) the Hiph. of 13 is used for ‘lend on usury,’ 
 and the Qal for ‘borrow on usury.’ LXX Hiph. ixroxisis, Qal 
 ixdavions ; Vulg. Hiph. fenero, commodo. 
 
 m’D7B, NR (717 become great), EV increase (and in AV of 
 Pr unjust gain), LXX wrrwvarpuss, iwi «A401, Vulg. super- 
 abundantia, fenus, amplius. 3} and n‘p77 are often coupled 
 together, Lv 2536, Ezk 18817 etc.; Nowack, Heb. Arch. i. 354, 
 takes 4v) as interest on a loan of money, and n’37n as interest 
 or a loan of corn, eta etc., but in Dt 2320 (Eng. 19) we have 57/3 ‘of 
 money ... of food... of anything.’ 
 
 ain, Ezk 187, EV debtor, Oxf. Heb. Lex. debt, LXX dosiaovres, 
 Vulg. debitori. 
 
 bay Qal, borrow on pledge, EV borrow, LXX danowos, Vulg. 
 accipio mutuum ; Hiph. lend on pledge, EV lend, LXX davsiZm, 
 Vulg. fenero, mutuum do. olay, anything given as security for 
 the payment of a loan or the fulfilment of any obligation, EV 
 tae LXX ivigupor, Vulg. pignus. In Dt 2419a Qal denom. occurs 
 =secure (the security). p'nay Hab 26, RV pledge=nhy; AV 
 thick clay, Vulg. densum lutum, is due to a mistaken etymology. 
 In J1 27 Piel of nay=twist, bind ; so the root=‘ borrow,’ because 
 the borrower was bound to the lender; but Wellhausen regards 
 bay asan Aram. loan word, and Driver proposes to connect with 
 pas ‘hold firmly.’ 
 
 ban Qal (it. bind, cf. way), EV take or lay a pledge, LXX 
 insyvpétw, Vuig. phrases with pignus; bun, nbsp, EV pledge, 
 LXX intybparua, -uss, Valg. pignus. 
 
 aw Qal, Hithpa., BY be surety, give pledges, mortgage, make 
 @ wager, LXX duyyiuy, Jalg. spondo, fidem facio, jidejussor 
 ersto, vadem me offero. pay, EV pledge, LXX apjaBdy, Vulg. 
 arrhabo, pignus. 137% any (Pr 1718), EV becometh surety, 
 LXX iqgudipecvoy iyyvardas, Vulg. spondo. 
 
 byw (ask) obtains from the context the sense of borrow in 
 Ex 2214, 2 K 48 EV, and similarly the Hiph. may=lend in 
 181% RVm. 
 
 li. In History.—1l. Causes of Debt.—There is no 
 trace in OT of any system of commercial credit. 
 Loans of money or large purchases on credit do not 
 occur as ordinary and natural incidents of trade. 
 Debt (except of the most temporary character, see 
 below on Pledges, ‘and on Gn 3818; and cf. Ex 2214) 
 is an exceptional misfortune ; it is always the poor 
 man who borrows, Ex 22%. The existence of a 
 developed credit system in Babylonia is no proof of 
 the existence of any similar system in Israel. In 
 such, as in many other matters, it is as precarious to 
 argue from Babylon to Israel as it would be now from 
 England to Afghanistan. This absence of com- 
 
 mercial credit naturally resulted from the fact that 
 the Israelites of the monarchy were not a commercial 
 pou and that their trade was mostly in the 
 ands of the Phen. and other foreigners. The 
 other ordinary causes of debt must have operated 
 in Israel. Passing exigencies would create debts 
 speedily paid (Gn 381%); misfortune, extravagance, 
 and suretyship gave rise to more serious indebted- 
 ness. Such misfortunes specially arose from failure 
 of crops (Neh 5%), foreign raids, pressure of taxa- 
 tion for the home government or for the payment 
 of foreign tribute (Neh 5‘). Though debt cannot be 
 said to have been uncommon in Israel,—Is 24? 
 mentions the borrower and the lender as social 
 types,—yet it seems to have been comparatively 
 rare, so that it was never accepted as natural and 
 legitimate. This appears from the paucity of refer- 
 ences to debt, and of terms connected with debt, 
 and also from the primitive character of these terms, 
 e.g. ‘he who has a creditor’ for ‘debtor’ (1 S 22%). 
 
 2. Leading Cases.—In Gn 38% Judah promises 
 Tamar a kid, and gives her his signet, etc., as a 
 pledge that he will discharge the debt thus created. 
 He forthwith sends her the kid. In 2 K 417 a 
 widow’s late husband had incurred a moderate debt, 
 —it could be paid by selling a quantity of oil,—his 
 family were still liable for the debt. ‘The creditors 
 were expected to recoup themselves by selling her 
 two sons for slaves. Elisha accepts this as a 
 matter of course, and can only relieve his friend by 
 a miracle. In Neh 5 the farmers are in distress 
 through drought and taxes, they have borrowed 
 money at 1 p. c. per month on theirland. (Nowack, 
 i. 354, proposes to read nxwp for nxp.) The debtors 
 had defaulted, their lands had been seized, and 
 some had been compelled to sell their children. 
 In response to a solemn appeal from Nehemiah 
 (he and his suite being among the lenders) the 
 lands and interest were restored, possibly tl:e debts 
 were wholly or partially cancelled. The only 
 other mention of actual debt is 1S 223, where 
 debtors resort to David in his exile. 
 
 iii. In the Law, Prophets, etc.—The necessity of 
 borrowing is regarded as a misfortune, sometimes 
 a punishment for sin (Dt 15° 28! “), oftener un- 
 deserved, and therefore entitling the borrower to 
 assistance. His richer brethren should assist him 
 with loans (Dt 157"), even in view of the approach- 
 ing year of release (Ps 3776 112°, Pr 1917); with- 
 out interest (Ex 22% [JE], Dt 237-1 [Eng. 1 2°], Lv 
 25% 37H}, Ps 15°, Pr 288, Ezk 18817 2918 Neh 5). 
 Nowack, i. 354, and Benzinger, 350, understand 
 that Ex 22” only forbids excessive usury (B. takes 
 2b as gloss), so that the absolute prohibition of 
 interest first appears in Dt. Such prohibitions 
 do not extend to loans to foreigners. No provision 
 is made in the law. for the recovery of debt, but non- 
 payment of debt is condemned in Ps 377. Both 
 the law and the prophets are chiefly concerned to 
 protect the debtor. The law restricts the exaction 
 of pledges: a widow’s clothing (Dt 242”), the nether 
 or upper millstone (Dt 24°), the widow’s ox (Job 
 245), ehould not be taken in pledge. The creditor 
 (Dt 241-13) may not go into the debtor's house to 
 fetch a pledge, but must wait outside till the 
 debtor brings him a pledge of the debtor’s choosing 
 (Dillm., Benz.). This pledge would often consist 
 of clothing (Am 28, Pr 20° 2715, Job 22%); and might 
 not be kept overnight (Ex 22% [JE], Dt 24%), 
 Pledges are rather tolerated than approved of; 2 
 pious Israelite would not require a pledge (Job 22° 
 24°), or, at any rate, would promptly restore it 
 (Ezk 187-16 335)—whether with or without pee 
 is not obvious. The law also limits claims on 
 debtors by the laws of Jubilee and of the Seventh 
 Year. In Ex 231 1 (JE) the land is to be 
 released (njypo¥n ‘thou shalt release it’), i.e left 
 fallow, every seventh year; cf. Lv 25)" (H). This 
 
 
 

 
 580 DECALOGUE 
 
 
 
 DECALOGUE 
 
 
 
 provision does not occur in Dt, but Dt 15!* appoints 
 
 a release, 7»>y, of debt every seventh year. This 
 nvny has been understood (a) as a cancelling of 
 interest during the seventh year, which is im- 
 
 ssible in view of the abactate prohibition of 
 interest in the immediate context; (6) as mora- 
 toriwm, the creditor being forbidden to demand 
 payment during the seventh year, but bein 
 allowed to do so at its close; (c) as an absolute an 
 final cancelling of debt, as in Solon’s xpeav droxomy. 
 In any case, some relief in the matter of debt 
 would be specially welcome for the year during 
 which the land lay fallow. The mypy did not 
 extend to foreigners. 
 
 As the debtor or his family might be sold to pay 
 debt (cf. above and Ly 25% 4’, Is 501), the provisions 
 for the humane treatment of Heb. slaves, for their 
 release in the seventh year (Ex 21%), or (with the 
 land) at the Jubilee (Lv 25°) are a further 
 limitation of the rights of creditors. 
 
 iv. Actual Practice.—Apart from Neh 5 and the 
 vague engagement in Neh 10%! we do not read of 
 these benevolent laws being observed. Probably, 
 they were never consistently enforced as public 
 law for any long period. When the Jews con- 
 ceived themselves bound by the letter of the law, 
 they at once devised a means of systematically 
 evading the Deuteronomic a»>y¥. This and other 
 laws represent a standard favoured by public opinion 
 and sometimes observed by generous and pious 
 Israelites (Ezk 187). Creditors generally took 
 pledges, required sureties, exacted interest, and 
 seized the land, family, and person of their debtors. 
 Is 24? mentions the giver and taker of usury as 
 social types. The warnings against suretyship 
 (Pr 6! 1145 2016 2976 9718) indicate severe treatment 
 of debtors; according to Pr 22’ the borrower is the 
 slave of the lender, and Jer 15’ indicates a bitter 
 feeling between borrower and lender quite at 
 variance with the ideal of charitable loans. 
 
 B. Apocr. AND NT.—No actual case of debt 
 occurs in either. Both, like OT, inculcate duty of 
 lending and paying (Sir 29, Lk 6% 8, Ro 138), 
 Mt 6” suggests a generous treatment of debtors. 
 Sir 18% ope out the danger of borrowing. 
 
 In NT debt occurs chiefly in the parables, The 
 Two Debtors (Lk 7: *), the Two Creditors (Mt 
 187-8), In the latter we find that, as in Greece 
 and Rome, the slave could have property of his 
 own, and thus become a debtor to his master. 
 The treatment of a defaulter is entirely at his 
 master’s disposal. Here too, however, the person 
 of the ordinary debtor may be seized for debt. In 
 the parables of the Talents (Mt 25'4-8°) and Pounds 
 (Lk 19"-*’), and the narratives of the Cleansing of 
 the Temple (Mt 21, Mk 11518, Lk 1945-48, Jp 212-17), 
 we come upon the advanced commercial system of 
 the Rom. Empire, with money-changers, bankers, 
 and commercial usury, which Christ mentions with- 
 out condemning. In the parable of the Unjust 
 Steward (Lk 16!-!*) we trace a credit system in con- 
 nexion with agriculture. Interest is not con- 
 demned in NT. 
 
 LITERATURE.—See commentaries on passages cited, esp. 
 Driver on Dt 151-8, and sections on debt in Heb. Arch. of 
 Benzinger and of Nowack. W. H. BENNETT. 
 
 DECALOGUE.—The law of the Ten Words, 
 virtually a translation of the original Heb. name 
 ena myy Dt 4% 104, cf. Ex 34%) is the most 
 suitable title of the ethical code prefixed to the 
 Sinaitie legislation. The name ‘Ten Command- 
 ments’ is a less accurate rendering, and it pre- 
 judges the disputed question as to whether all of 
 the ten words are of the nature of commandments. 
 It is also called the Testimony (nny Ex 257), and 
 the Covenant (na, Dt 9°). 
 
 The accounts of the first publication of the D. 
 
 
 
 contain a variety of extraordinary particulars in 
 attestation of its immediate divine origin and of 
 its sovereign authority. The nation gathered at 
 the foot of Sinai to receive a revelation (Ex 191”). 
 Amid thunder and lightning, and with the sound 
 of a trumpet, the Lord descended upon the smoking 
 mount (1916), and from thence proclaimed the 
 words of the law in articulate tones in the ears of 
 the terrified peeve (2018, Dt 4!2). The words thus 
 uttered by the very voice were thereafter graven 
 by the very finger of God on two tables of stone 
 (Ex 3138, Dt 4%). These tables, which were 
 broken by Moses on witnessing the temporary 
 apostasy of the people (Ex 32!), were replaced by 
 another pair on which God had promised to rewrite 
 the former words (Ex 34), and which were there- 
 after deposited in the ark with a view to their 
 safe-keeping and in token of their paramount 
 importance (Dt 10°).* 
 
 n consideration of these details, in which so 
 much stress is laid on the authority of the D. and 
 on the precautions taken for preserving it in its 
 purity, it is remarkable that the Pent. contains 
 two versions of it which exhibit not a few, or 
 altogether unimportant, variations—the classic 
 version, as it may be called, of Ex 20”, and the 
 less-regarded version of Dt 5°. The principal 
 divergences occur in the reasons annexed to the 
 fourth and fifth commandments. Under the fourth 
 Dt founds the duty of Sabbath observance, not 
 upon the example of the God of Creation who 
 rested from His works on the seventh day (Ex 201), 
 but upon the dictates of humanity and of gratitude. 
 ‘ Observe the Sabbath-day to keep it holy .. . that 
 thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as 
 well as thou. And thou shalt remember that thou 
 wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and J” thy 
 God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and 
 by a stretched out arm: therefore J” thy God com- 
 manded thee to keep the Sabbath-day ° (Dt 5’), 
 The fifth commandment, in the Deuteronomic text, 
 sanctions filial conduct with the promise of pros- 
 perity as well as of long life (5'6). In the tenth, it 
 may be added, Dt has a different order from Ex— 
 the wife being pleted at the head of the series, while 
 the coveting of the neighbour’s field, which would 
 count for much with a peasant people, is expressly 
 prohibited (571).+ 
 
 That the Exodus version of the D. is on the whole 
 superior to, i.e. older and purer than, the text of Dt, 
 is the opinion of the es majority of modern 
 scholars, res Delitzsch, Dillmann, W. R. 
 Smith, Driver.t For this opinion the ee 
 ground is that the variations in Dt are obviously 
 a personal contribution from this author, some 
 being mere amplifications in his wonted style, 
 others instances of the intrusion of his character- 
 istic ideas or expressions (cf. Dillmann, Ezod. 
 p. 200; Driver, LOT p. 31). 
 
 * The account in Ex of the Sinaitic revelation is highly com- 
 posite, and many details of the critical analysis are still unsettled. 
 The Decalogue is imbedded in E, which furnishes most of the 
 matter in Ex 19-24; but this is not decisive as to its date— 
 one section regarding it as derived by E from pre-existing 
 sources (Driver, LO7’ p. 30), while another assumes its intrusion 
 into the E stratum after the formulation of the Decalogue 
 of Dt (Meisner, Der Dekalog p. 11). The J narrative is more 
 prominent in Ex 82-34, and has often been alleged to set 
 forth an older summary as the kernel of the legislation (see 
 infra). This latter inference, apart from other grounds, is 
 rendered very precarious by the fact that a great part of the 
 original contents of J is no longer before us. ¢ final redaction 
 does not determine whether the words were rewritten by God 
 (Ex 341) or by Moses (Ex 3428), 
 
 + Other Dt variations are multiplication of ponnecis eat 
 ticles, and of details (the ox and the ass entitled to Sabbath 
 rest), verbal changes (‘ observe’ for ‘remember’ in c. 4, ‘desire’ 
 for ‘covet’ in the main body of c. 10), and allusive phrases (‘ As 
 the Lord thy God commanded thee’ in cs. 4 and 5). 
 
 t Wellhausen, however, ‘protests against the @ 
 consistent preference of the Exod. text,’ Comp. d. 
 
 and 
 ‘ez.; and 
 
 evidence that his view is spreading is furnished by the argu- 
 ment of Meisner’s painstaking monograph (Der Dekalog). 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 DECALOGUE 
 
 — 
 
 In opposition to the traditional conception of the 
 D. as strictly Mosaic, three theories are widely 
 represented in modern criticism—(1) that it is a 
 prophetic compendium or manifesto belonging at 
 the earliest to the 8th cent. B.c.; (2) that it is in 
 substance Mosaic, but that it was enlarged at a later 
 period by the addition of one or more command- 
 ments, or at least (3) of amplifications and sanctions 
 of the original ‘ words.’ 
 
 (1) Against the Mosaic origin it is argued that 
 the tradition does not consistently maintain its 
 claim, but alternatively exhibits a summary of a 
 poy different character (Ex 3414) as the Mosaic 
 D. (Wellhausen, Comp. d. Hea. p. 331 ff.)* ; that 
 the ancient ‘Book of the Covenant’ shows no 
 acquaintance with its content (Baentsch, Das 
 Bundesbuch, p. 92 ff.), and especially that both in 
 general spirit and in detail it is out of harmony 
 with the essentially ritualistic religion of pre- 
 ees times (following Wellhausen, Kayser, 
 
 mend, Baentsch, op. cit. 98). Upon this it is 
 sufficient here to observe that the cardinal assump- 
 tion of this group of scholars, viz. that the D. was 
 impossible before the prophetical teaching of the 
 8th cent., exaggerates the part played by the 
 prophets in fixing the character of the OT religion. 
 Assuredly, the prophets did not first enunciate, but 
 inherited, the doctrine that true religion utters 
 itself in morality ; and it is an obvious inference 
 from the broad facts of the tradition that this 
 fundamental idea was affirmed by and descended 
 from Moses. That as the founder or reformer of a 
 religion he should have embodied its leading prin- 
 ciples in ‘terse’ sentences is not only possible but 
 i bones and the testimony to the fact that in the 
 
 . We possess such a summary is too strong to be 
 set aside in the interests of a historical theory.t+ 
 
 (2) A second group of critics, while holding that 
 ‘ Moses in the name of J” prescribed to the I[srael- 
 ites such a law as is contained in the ten words’ 
 (Kuenen, Rel. Isr., Eng. tr. i. p. 285), support the 
 contention of the first group, that one or more of 
 the commandments are post-Mosaic. The main 
 objection to the Mosaic authorship of ¢. 4—that it 
 presupposes conditions of agricultural life unlike 
 those under which Moses could have conceived and 
 T omnlented it (Montefiore, Hib. Lect. p. 554; cf. 
 
 mend, Religionsgesch. p. 139)—is at the most valid 
 against certain of the amplifications. More serious 
 is the case against the Mosaic origin of c. 2, founded 
 on the facts that its prohibition of graven images 
 was disregarded in the time of the judges and of the 
 early monarchy, that the prophets of the Northern 
 Kingdom offered no opposition to the cult of the 
 
 * The so-called Jahwistic D., first indicated by Goethe, has 
 27 pond reconstructed by Wellhausen as follows (Isr. Gesch. 
 La 1. Thou shalt not worship any strange god, 
 
 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee molten gods. 
 
 8. Thou shalt keep the feast of Unleavened Bread, 
 
 4, All the first-born are mine. 
 
 5. Thou shalt keep the feast of Weeks. 
 
 6. Thou shalt keep the feast of Ingathering in the fall of the 
 
 year. 
 
 res shalt not mingle leavened bread with the blood of my 
 sacrifice. 
 ; 8. Thou shalt not retain until the morning the fat of my 
 
 9. Thou shalt bring the best of the first-fruits of thy field to 
 the house of J” thy God. 
 
 10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk, 
 
 In Ex the code really contains 12 precepts, hence there is no 
 agreement as to the selection to bemade. It may be noted that 
 st is not claimed that itis Mosaic, but only that it is older than 
 the D, of Ex 20 (cf. Smend, Religionsgesch. p. 47). 
 
 t Of this evidence an important element is the tradition that 
 two tables of stone containing the D. were placed by Moses in 
 the ark (Ex 4020, Dt 105). The arguments used to discredit the 
 tradition are set forth fully by Stade, Gesch. d. V. Isr. i. 
 
 . 457 ff., where its existence is explained by the supposition 
 tt the ark originally contained sacred stones associated with 
 the presence of J”. But surely Mosaism cannot have bequeathed 
 
 to posterity as its most precious legacy a stone-fetish (see ARK 
 OF THE COVENANT). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DECALOGUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 581 
 
 
 
 golden calves, and that the prophetic conscience 
 appears first to have revolted against them in the 
 8th cent. in Judah (Kuenen, Rel. Jsr., Eng. tr. i. 
 
 283 ff.). To this it is replied, in general, that the 
 non-observance of a religious law is no proof of its 
 non-existence ; and, in particalar, that as the central 
 sanctuaries possessed no image in the times of Eli, 
 David, and Solomon, the prohibition must have 
 been early operative as a recognized part of the 
 pure Mosaic system (cf. Kittel, Hist. Heb., Eng. tr. 
 1. pp. 248, 249). It may be added that contact with 
 Egyptian idolatry is likely to have made Moses 
 recoil from image-worship. It must, however, be 
 granted that the historical facts are perplexing; and 
 it is at least possible that ¢. 2 is a development by 
 the prophetical school of a consequence originally 
 only latent in the Mosaic prohibition of the worship 
 of other gods. 
 
 (3) A third view leaves undisturbed the tradition 
 that Moses was the author of an essentially 
 spiritual and ethical code of ten precepts, but 
 alleges the probability of this having originally 
 existed in a briefer form, to which from time to 
 time various reflexions and promises were added 
 which strengthened their appeal to the mind and 
 will. On this theory, widely held by scholars 
 since Ewald (Gesch. Isr.8 ii. 231), command- 
 ments 2, 3, 4, 5 originally wanted the ‘reasons 
 annexed,’ while 10 may have stopped at ‘house.’ 
 It is strongly supported by the variations of the 
 two texts, and seems irresistible in consideration 
 of the fact that c. 4 presupposes acquaintance with 
 Gn 11-28, It may be added that the terser version 
 gives a better balance to the two tables, and 
 was more suited to the capacity of the popular 
 memory: and in particular that it represents 
 material common to. and thus attested by, the 
 joint testimony of the two divergent recensions.* 
 
 The division of the D. into its ten constituent parts has 
 occasioned considerable difficulty. The three systems, as 
 adopted by different religious communities, may be thus re- 
 presented— 
 
 Greek and R. OC. and ish 
 Reformed, Lutheran, Je 
 God the Deliverer out 
 of Egypt. 3 - Preface Preface o1. 
 Prohibition of poly- 
 theism . : > al c1 c. 2 
 Prohibition of graven ; 
 images : ts. 8. 
 - ue = ~ * ca. 3-9 oe cs. 8-9. 
 Prohibitions of covet- c. 
 ousness . : 6 \ S20 nee 10t \ ¢. 10. 
 
 The second of these divisions, introduced after Jewish precedent 
 by Augustine (ad Exod.) is slightly supported by the fact that 
 cs. 1 and 2 have a joint sanction, and also by the Dt text of c. 10, 
 but is equally unhappy in combining the two distinct prohibitions 
 of polytheism and idolatry, and in separating the particulars, 
 possibly not original, of the precept against covetousness. The 
 Talmudic division, which treats the preface as the first word, 
 is liable to the objection, not only that it affects the unity of the 
 code, but that the same formula appears elsewhere as introduc- 
 tion or conclusion (Ly 18? 1936), In view of these objections the 
 Greek-Reformed division, represented in antiquity by Philo, 
 Josephus, and many Fathers (Origen, In Ex. Homilia, 12), is 
 favoured by the majority of modern critics (Oehler, Ewald, 
 Delitzsch, Dillmann). See also Nestle in Hap. Tvmes, June 1897. 
 
 The original sequence of the ‘words’ is disturbed in LXX, 
 where the two commandments which bear upon the life of the 
 family (5 and 7) are brought together, and the sixth becomes the 
 eighth. In NT the order is variable, but usually the seventh 
 precedes the sixth (Mk 1019, Ro 139), 
 
 The classification of the commandments is suggested by their 
 distribution between two tables. Obviously, they fall into two 
 groups — (1) the religious (1-4), which define certain duties 
 which man owes to God ; and (2) the ethical (5-10), which define 
 certain duties which he owes to his brother man. It has, how- 
 ever, been frequently pointed out that, in the antique mode of 
 thought, filial duty was more closely allied to the religious than 
 
 
 
 * The view that the ‘torso’ was the original D. is assailed by 
 Meisner on the ground that the irreducible minimum of the 
 words of the first table has been ‘inundated’ by Dt (Dek. p. 10), 
 but it is at least as probable that the vocabulary of Dt was 
 enriched by the original D. 
 
 + While the R.O. and Luth. Churches agree in subdividing the 
 prohibitions of covetousness, the former makes c 9 protect the 
 neighbour's wife, the latter his house. 
 
 
 
582 DECALOGUE 
 
 DECALOGUE 
 
 
 
 to the ethical obligation, and that the first five commandments 
 may accordingly be suitably grouped as precepts of piety, the 
 last five as laws of probity. 
 
 The precepts of piety, which may fairly be assigned to the 
 first table, are on the whole clear. The first, while not un- 
 ambiguously sounding the monotheistic note, at least excludes 
 
 iythalam from Israel. The second prohibits the worship of 
 
 he true God under a visible form—idolatry. That the third 
 had an aqually definite aim is probable, and it is a plausible 
 suggestion that its point was directed against the use of God's 
 name in spiritualistic and other magical rites (Smend), though 
 most exegetes make it include various abuses of God’s name—as 
 perjury, lying, cursing, and other forms of profanity. In the 
 reasons annexed to the words of this table may be noticed the 
 two remarkable features of c. 2, the profound insight into the 
 law of heredity, and the intimation that the soul of religion is 
 the love of God; the Deut. grounding of c. 4, which breathes 
 compassion towards man and beast ; and the confident assertion 
 {n c. 5 of the doctrine of temporal retribution. 
 
 The laws of probity take under their protection human life 
 (c. 6), the institution of marriage (c. 7), property (c. 8), and 
 character or reputation (c. 9); while c. 10 strikes at the roots of 
 wrong-doing by proscribing the lawless desire. They may be 
 further classified according as they condemn criminality in act 
 (cs. 6-8), in word (c. 9), and in thought (c. 10). 
 
 From this brief sketch of the contents of the D. we 
 may obtain an impression both of its greatness and 
 its limitations. Its first distinction is that within 
 the brief compass of the ten words it lays down 
 the fundamental articles of religion (sovereignty 
 and spirituality of God), and asserts the claims of 
 morality in the chief spheres of human relationship 
 (home, calling, society). Its ethical precepts are 
 the most far-reaching and the most indispensable. 
 It is, again, a further testimony to the moral value 
 of the code that it provided forms capable of re- 
 ceiving a richer and fuller content than that which 
 they originally held. But the sovereign distinc- 
 tion of the D. lies less in its exhibition of the 
 foundations of religion and of the landmarks of 
 morality, than in its representation of religion and 
 morality as knit together by a vital and indis- 
 soluble bond. The D. is, in brief, the charter 
 of ethical piety, or, in other words, the great 
 Pe advocate for righteousness as the 
 
 ighest form of ritual. In an age of the world’s 
 history when popular religion found satisfaction 
 in an ethically indifferent ceremonialism, in a 
 country where Mosaic sanction was claimed for an 
 elaborate system of sacrifices and festivals, the D. 
 excluded from the summary of duty almost every 
 reference to this class of obligations, and made it 
 clear that what God above all required was justice 
 and mercy. Consistently with this, the one re- 
 ligious duty, narrowly so called, which finds a 
 place in the code, is Sabbath observance ; for this 
 commandment not only had in view the provision 
 of an opportunity for meditation and worship, but 
 was equally conceived, if we may follow Dt, as a 
 beneficent institution founded in compassion toward 
 the weary and heavy laden. 
 
 The limitations of the D. lie on the surface. Its 
 brevity forbids us to expect exhaustiveness, and, 
 as a fact, its ethical requirements may almost all 
 be connected with the single virtue of justice. 
 Wisdom and fortitude, which figure prominentl 
 in the Greek scheme of virtue, are not recognized, 
 and even in the prohibitions of adultery and 
 covetousness it is less temperance or self-control 
 than justice that appears to interpose to forbid 
 the sin. Again, it followed from the undisciplined 
 character of the people to whom it was first given, 
 that the D. should be elementary in its teaching. 
 They were children who had need to be taught the 
 first principles of the oracles of God. The demands 
 accordingly are not very high-pitched: with the 
 exception of the tenth, the moral precepts belong 
 exclusively to the region of conduct where actions 
 condemned by the conscience as sins are also 
 punished by the state as crimes. Further, of the 
 ten, eight are prohibitions, two only are positive 
 {njunctions. And herein lies the principal limita- 
 tion of the D. In the main a condemnation of 
 
 superstition and crime, and as such of the highest 
 value in the training of a primitive people, it does 
 not meet the demand of the enlightened conscience 
 for a positive moral ideal. For this we must ad- 
 vance to Christ’s interpretation or revision of 
 the Decalogue. 
 
 The frequent references of Christ to the D. are 
 marked by two main features—(l) a hearty re- 
 cognition of its divine authority (Mt 5"); (2) a 
 purpose of so interpreting its precepts as to widen 
 their range and exalt their demands. Its inade- 
 quacy as an ideal, due to its preponderantly 
 negative character, He rectified by condensing the 
 law into the two positive commandments to love 
 God with all our heart, and our neighbour as our- 
 selves (Mt 22°84), Indeed, so closely did the teaching 
 of Jesus lean on the Mosaic form that it is possible 
 to construct with scarcely a gap the D. according 
 to Christ. The following are the principal addi- 
 tions: C. 1. Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy 
 heart (Mt 22°). C. 2. They that worship, worshi 
 in spirit and truth (Jn 4%). C. 3, Swear not at 
 (Mt 5%). C. 4. The Sabbath was made for man 
 (Mk 277). ©. 5. Duty to parents paramount over 
 other religious obligation (Mt 15). C. 6. Murder 
 includes anger (Mt 5%). C. 7. Adultery includes 
 lust (5%). Ofc. 8 we have not Christ’s exposition, 
 but the absence is readily explained by the fact 
 that c. 10 had already aitended the prohibition of 
 theft in the spirit of the teaching of Jesus. Simi- 
 larly, the false witness of c. 9 is referred to a foul 
 heart (Mt 12%), while the idle is included in con- 
 demnation with the calumnious word (12%), Of 
 Christ’s definite consciousness of a mission to handle 
 the D. in the light of the final revelation there is 
 further evidence in His announcement of the new 
 commandment of brotherly love (Jn 13%), by which 
 He re-emphasizes the nature of the positive ideal 
 substituted for the warnings of the second table.* 
 
 Of the apostolic references to the D. those of St. 
 Paul are most noteworthy. Like Jesus, he employs 
 it as a standard to test conduct and measure 
 wickedness. He supposes the law to have been 
 communicated to Moses through angelic mediation 
 (Gal 319, cf. He 27). What St. Paul held as to the 
 place of the D. in the Christian dispensation is a 
 question of some difficulty. He nowhere draws 
 a distinction between the ceremonial and the moral 
 elements of the Mosaic law, and declares that, 
 while the former are repealed, the latter remain 
 binding: his general thesis is that the law as such has 
 no longer dominion over the Christian (Ro 74). 
 But as certainly it follows for St. Paul that the 
 Christian, while placed in a new attitude to the 
 law, voluntarily and joyfully re-subjects himself to 
 and obeys its ethical commandments. Filled by the 
 Spirit and animated with gratitude, he exhibits 
 towards his fellow-men a measure of love to which 
 it is a small thing to forbear from injustice, as re- 
 quired in the second table of the ancient law 
 (Ro 13%). 
 
 In Christian theology the D. is commonly re- 
 garded as a revelation, or as a republication, of 
 the fundamentals of religion and morality. It 
 is the most important part of the OT or legal 
 economy, and as such was designed to show the 
 path of duty, to deepen the sense of guilt, and 
 to awaken a profound sense of human inability. 
 The question of its continued validity for the Chris- 
 tian, while capable of being diversely grounded, 
 possesses practical importance only in the case of ec. 
 4, where the issue is whether the Sabbath is to ba 
 
 * The perfection of the D. was a favourite thesis of 17th cent. 
 orthodoxy as against the Socinians and Arminians, who declared 
 that Christian ethics added three principles—abnegatio nostri, 
 tolerantia crucis propter Christum, imitatio Christi. The 
 orthodox view was that it did not require to be supplemented 
 or corrected, but only properly peg ee) to furnish the full 
 Christian ideal (see Turretin, 7'heol. Hlenc. Inst. Locus 11). 
 
 
 

 
 DECAPOLIS 
 
 
 
 
 DECISION 
 
 
 
 kept as a divine command or as a measure of 
 Christian expediency and a dictate of Christian feel- 
 ing (see SABBATH). The latter view, energetically 
 maintained by Luther, and favoured in the Federal 
 School of Reformed theology, is most in harmony 
 with the Pauline doctrines of law and Christian 
 liberty. See Law. ; 
 
 LirgratTurR.—Ewald, Hist. of Israel; Kuenen, Religion of 
 Terael; Oehler’s OT Theology; W. R. Smith, art. ‘Decalogue’ 
 in Encycl. Brit.9; Wellhausen, Composition des Hex.; Driver, 
 LOT; H. Schultz, OZ Theology; Smend, Lehrbuch der AT' 
 Religionsgeschichte; Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch; Meisner, 
 Der Dekalog ; Stade, Gesch. Israel's; Kittel, Hist. of Israel; 
 Dillmann, Hwod.; Driver, Deut.; Montefiore, Hibbert Lect. ; 
 Harper, Deut. For the treatment of the D. in the old polemica’ 
 divinity, reference may be made to F. Turretin, lnstitutio 
 
 heologue Hlenctice; H. Grotius, Hzplicatio Decalogi, and 
 OCocceius, De Sabbato; for homiletical treatment, to R. W. Dale, 
 
 Ten Commandments. W. P. PATERSON. 
 
 DECAPOLIS (AexdoXis), ‘ten cities,’ Mt 4%, 
 Mk 5” 751,_A region of allied cities (see PALES- 
 TINE) E. of Jordan in Bashan, but including Beth- 
 shean W. of the river. Such leagues existed in 
 other parts of the Roman Empire for purposes of 
 trade and of defence. The mention of swine kept 
 by the people of Decapolis suggests the presence 
 of a Gr. colony ; and the region had a Gr.-speaking 
 population, mingled with natives, as early as the 
 time of Herod the Great. The cities of Decapolis, 
 according 1e Pliny (HN v. 18), were Scythopolis 
 (Beisin), Hippos (Susieh), Gadara (Umm Keis), 
 Pella (Fahil), Philadelphia (‘Ammédn), Gerasa 
 (Jerdsh), Dion (Adin), Catach (Kanawdt), Dam- 
 ascus, and Raphana. ‘The region thus included 
 all Bashan and Gilead. In the Onomasticon (s.#.) 
 it is defined as the region round Hippos, Pella, 
 and Gadara. (Cf. further, Schiirer, AJP 1. i. 
 94ff.; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 593 ff.) 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 DECEASE.—_In OT Is 26 only, ‘they are 
 deceased.’ The Heb. is réphd’tm (n'x59), ‘shades,’ 
 which RV translates ‘they that are deceased’ in 
 Job 26°, Ps 88% See REPHAIM. In NT ‘decease’ is 
 used as am intrans. vb. in Mt 22% ‘the first, when 
 he had married a wife, deceased’ (reAevrddw, ‘come 
 to an end,’ used with daydrw, Mt 154). Cf. Fuller, 
 Holy War (1639), m1. x. 132, ‘Queen Sibyll who 
 deceased of the plague.’ The subst. is found 
 Lk 9°! ‘his decease which he should accomplish 
 at Jerusalem,’ and 2P 1 (both é€odos, exodus, 
 ‘outgoing’; used of death also Wis 3? 7°, Sir 
 38%; cf. elcodos=‘entering into’ the world, Ac 
 13%). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DECEIT.—The misleading of another by word or 
 deed, in which case it is equivalent to falsehood 
 (Pr 14%, Hos 127); or the overreaching of another, 
 as when a false balance is used. Every kind of 
 wickedness, as a rule, involves deceit, since the 
 just and holy must be assumed as a mask, in order 
 to gain credit with men, and make the accomplish- 
 ment of the evil design possible (Pr 12” and 26%). 
 D. shows itself not merely in isolated acts, but also 
 as a settled habit. of eee (Jer 2376), It is so char- 
 acteristic an element of evil that it is frequently 
 used in Scripture as synonymous with it (Ps 119", 
 Jer 75), W. MorGAN. 
 
 DECEIYABLENESS.—Only in 2 Th 2” ‘With 
 all d. of unrighteousness’ (RY ‘deceit’). The adj. 
 ‘deceivable’ also occurs only once, Sir 10” ‘a d. 
 seed.’ The meaning is ‘able to deceive,’ ‘deceitful’; 
 and that is the usual meaning of the words, as 
 2P 1% Tind. ‘we followed not deceivable fables,’ 
 and Gouge (1653) on He 3*4 ‘Sin prevails the more 
 by the deceiveablenesse thereof.’ But Milton uses 
 the adj. in the sense of ‘liable to be deceived’ in 
 Samson Agonistes, 942, ‘blind, and thereby deceiv- 
 able.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DECENTLY. — ‘Decent’ and ‘decently’ have 
 deteriorated with use. From Lat. decens, they 
 expressed originally that which is becoming, as 
 Latimer, Ist Serm. bef. Edw. VI. (1547) ‘God 
 teacheth what honoure is decente for the kynge’ ; 
 and generally that which, by being seemly, adds 
 lustre, hence comely, handsome (cf. Lat. decus), 
 as Pref. to Pr. Bk. (1549) ‘this godly and decent 
 Order of the ancient Fathers’; Bacon, Essays, 
 p. 177, ‘the Principall part of Beauty is in decent 
 motion’; Milton, // Pens. 36— 
 
 * And sable stole of cypress lawn 
 
 Over thy decent shoulders drawn.’ 
 Now, the meaning is no more than ‘fair,’ ‘passable, 
 as Darwin, Life, i. 151, ‘If I keep decently well.’ In 
 AV ‘decent’ does not occur, and ‘decently’ only 
 1 Co 14” ‘Let all things be done d. and in order,’ 
 for which all previous VSS have ‘honestly,’ after 
 Vulg. honeste, Luther ehrlich (Gr. ebaxnudvws, which 
 occurs also Ro 13, 1 Th 412, where all Eng. VSS 
 have ‘honestly,’ with ‘decently’ in AVm of 
 Ro 13%). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DECISION.—1. The decision of questions of right 
 between man and man necessarily depends on the 
 form of authority recognized in each successive 
 stage of society. In the nomadic condition a 
 patriarchal government is tempered by custom 
 and the counsels of tribal headsmen. It can 
 scarcely be altogether as a reflection from later 
 times, that Moses continually appears in the 
 Pentateuch accompanied by elders. The appoint- 
 ment of the 70 is distinctly described as designed 
 to afford relief to the leader in the decision of cases of 
 dispute between Israelites (Nu 11°”), The judges 
 appear as dictators, who would necessarily add to 
 their military rule the administrative and judicial 
 functions that accompany supreme power, though 
 the local influence of heads and families must 
 always have tempered their authority. It is as 
 judge to settle disputes that Samuel is represented 
 as making his annual visitation of Bethel, Gilgal, 
 and Mizpah (1S 738, which is of late origin). ‘The 
 kings of Judah and Israel were supreme judges. 
 A judicial decision is the t te instance of 
 Solomon’s wisdom (1 K 3'8-%3), ter the Captivity, 
 since the Jews were now a subject race, the 
 supreme authority for the decision of important 
 cases rested with an alien government; but the 
 transformation of the nation into a Church led to 
 the private settlement of internal affairs on the 
 advice of the scribes. The development of the syna- 
 
 ogue may have given shape to this method, the 
 foal court of elders settling minor cases. The 
 formation of the Sanhedrin at Jerus. as both a civil 
 and an ecclesiastical court led to the decision there 
 of cases affecting Judea, though with various 
 powers at different times, the Romans recognizing 
 the legal authority of this court, but. requiring 
 cases of life and death to be referred to the procur- 
 ator (Jn 18%). Our Lord instructed His disciples to 
 avoid litigation and to settle disputes with their 
 brethren privately, or, if that were impossible, ip) 
 reference to the Church as a court of judgment (Mt 
 1817). St. Paul expostulated with the Corinthians 
 for resorting to the heathen law courts on account 
 of quarrels among themselves, directing them to ap- 
 point their own judges within the Church (1 Co 6?). 
 
 2. The decision of questions of perplexity in 
 early times was determined by casting lots, with 
 the conviction that what seemed to be chance with 
 man was really directed by God (Pr 16%). This 
 method was employed in the division of the land 
 (Jos 14?, P), and in the cases of Achan (Jos 74), Saul 
 (1S 102), Saul and Jonathan (14”). The Urim 
 and Thummim and the ephod seem to have been used 
 for casting lots (Ex 28°, Nu 27”, 18 288). This 
 method of decision was missed at the restoration 
 
 
 
but its recovery anticipated (Ezr 2%, Neh 7®). The 
 prophets, however, did not encourage it. Under 
 the influence of the inspiration they enjoyed, the 
 oracle was obtained more directly. Thus, unlike 
 the choice of Saul, the choice of David was made b 
 means of the prophetic spirit in Samuel (1S 16}-¥), 
 Kings would resort to prophets for advice on 
 uestions of going into battle, etc., e.g. the case of 
 hab and Jehoshaphat, in which the contrast 
 between the lying spirit of the false prophet and 
 the true spirit of the genuine prophet of J” is 
 illustrated (1 K 22!-*8), The decision of the prophet 
 is clearly distinguished from divination, witchcraft, 
 dealings with familiar spirits, and attempts to 
 consult the dead—dark practices which are severely 
 condemned (Dt 18%2). In NT the lot reappears, 
 not only in the case of the division of the garments 
 of Jesus among the Rom. soldiers (Mk 15%, Lk 2354, 
 Jn 19%), but also in a solemn decision of the 
 Christians as a means of obtaining a successor to 
 Judas. In this case, however, it only decides be- 
 tween two men, each of whom has been chosen after 
 careful investigation has proved him to possess the 
 qualities essential to apostleship, and then with 
 antes for divine guidance (Ac 12-26), Doubts have 
 een thrown on the wisdom of this course. It is 
 ignificant fact that it never seems to have been 
 followed in subsequent elections of church officers 
 in the apostolic Churches. 
 For Yalley of Decision see JEHOSHAPHAT 
 (VALLEY). W. F. ADENEY. 
 
 DECK.—To deck (=Lat. tegere, Ger. decken, 
 Eng. thatch) is simply ‘to cover,’ hence the ‘deck’ 
 of aship. Thus Cov. has (Hag 16) ‘Ye decke youre 
 selves, but ye are not warme’ (Gen., AV, and RV 
 ‘Ye clothe you’). In this sense possibly is Pr 71% 
 ‘I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry’ 
 (7132, LXX réraxa, Vulg. intexui). But Luther has 
 ‘Ich habe mein Bette schén geschmiicket, Wyc. ‘1 
 have arayed,’ and it is certain that by 1611 ‘deck’ 
 had taken on the sense of decorate, no doubt through 
 confusion with that word, with which it has no 
 
 roper connexion. Thus Pr. Bk. (1552) Com. 
 Berrios (Keeling, p. 191), ‘when a man hath pre- 
 pared a rich feast, decked his table with all kind 
 of provision, so that there lacketh nothing but the 
 guests to sit down.’ In this sense ‘deck’ is used 
 elsewhere in AV. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DECLARE, DECLARATION.—The oldest mean- 
 ing of the vb. ‘ declare’ is to make clear (de-clarus), 
 explain, expound, as in the Title of Tylle’s ed. of 
 Tindale’s NT, ‘declaryng many harde places con- 
 teyned in the texte.’ So perhaps Dt 15 (see Driver). 
 Elsewhere in AV ‘declare’ is the tr. of a great 
 number of different Heb. and Gr. words, but its 
 meaning is probably never more precise than ‘make 
 known,’ as Ps 50° ‘the heavens shall d. his right- 
 eousness,’ Ac 17% ‘Whom therefore ye ignorantly 
 worship, him d. I unto you’ (RV ‘set forth’), Ro 14 
 ‘declared to be the Son of God with power... 
 by the resurrection from the dead.’ And this is 
 the meaning of declaration in its few occurrences, 
 Job 131’, Est 10?(RV ‘full account ’), Sir 43°, Lk 1? 
 (RV ‘ narrative’), 2 Co 8 (RV ‘to shew’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DECLINE.—In AV to ‘decline’ is always (except 
 Ps 102" 109?) used in the original but now obsolete 
 sense of ‘turn aside.” Thus, Job 234 ‘His way 
 have I kept, and not declined’ (RV ‘turned not 
 aside’) ; Ps 119% ‘yet have I not declined from 
 thy law’ (RV ‘swerved’; so 119%”); Pr 7% ‘ Let 
 not thine heart decline to her ways’ (so RV). In 
 Ps 1024 ‘My days are like a shadow that de- 
 clineth,’ and 109%, the image is of the shadow 
 which lengthens as the sun goes down, till at last 
 it vanishes into night. RV adds Jg 198 ‘until 
 
 the day declineth’ (see AVm), 2 K 20 ‘It is a 
 light thing for the shadow to decline ten steps’ 
 (AV ‘go down’), and Jer 64 ‘the day declineth 
 (AV ‘goeth away’). Tennyson combines both 
 
 meanings (Locksley Hall, 1. 43)— 
 
 ‘Ha known me, to decline 
 On a range of lower feelings an 
 
 @ narrower heart than mine.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEDAN, }1), LXX Aaddv, Acddv (in Is, Jer, 
 Ezk, Aaddv), according to Gn 10’, a son of 
 Raamah, one of the sons of Cush. In Gn 25° he 
 is named along with Sheba, as in Gn 10’, but is 
 represented, not as a Cushite, but as a Keturean. 
 Dedan is in this latter passage a son of Jokshan, 
 son of Abraham by Keturah; but according to 
 Josephus (Ant. I. xv. 1) he was the son of Shuah 
 (or Sous), another of Keturah’s sons. The Shuhites 
 were neighbours of the Temanites (Job 2) in 
 North-Western Arabia. There are traces still of 
 the ruins of a city Daidan in that region, and the 
 Sabzean inscriptions mention the Dedanites as a 
 tribe in that neighbourhood. 
 
 The Dedanites are represented as an important 
 commercial people, carrying on an extensive cara- 
 van trade with Damascus and Tyre. They fre- 
 
 uented the highway that ran through the Arabian ~ 
 
 esert as they journeyed northward with their 
 wares, and when driven back by a hostile force 
 they were thrown upon the charity of their 
 southern neighbours of Tema (Is 21%). Accord- 
 ine to Jeremiah (25°) they formed an Arabian 
 tribe alongside of Tema and Buz, and were 
 accustomed on their business journeys to 
 through the land of Edom. The Dedanites share 
 in the judgments which fall upon the Edomites 
 and upon the kings of Arabia. In all these pro- 
 phetic passages, as in the OT generally, Arabia 
 designates, not the whole of the peninsula now 
 known by that name, but merely the northern 
 
 art, colonized by the Ishmaelite and Keturean 
 
 escendants of Abraham. In Jer 25% the refer- 
 ence to Dedan follows immediately upon the men- 
 tion of the kings of Tyre and Sidon, and the coast 
 beyond the sea. This does not seem to require the 
 locating of Dedan by the sea-coast. The connexion 
 with Tyre is quite sufficient to justify such an 
 arrangement. Besides, the order in which the 
 countries and peoples are named in vv.7-% is 
 evidently in a broad way from west to east, with 
 an excursion midway northward and then south- 
 ward, from Edom to Tyre and back again to 
 Arabia. In Ezk 25 Dedan is described as form- — 
 ing the extreme south of Edom, as Teman repre- 
 sents the farthest north. This may only mean 
 that the country of the Dedanites constituted the 
 southern frontier of Edom. The destruction of all 
 Edom is described as a desolation extending from 
 Teman to Dedan. In Ezk 27% Dedan is spoken 
 of as carrying to the market of the wealthy and 
 luxurious Tyre precious cloths for chariots or 
 saddle cloths for riding. From the place which it 
 occupies in this passage, it is evidently to be 
 regarded as a country of Northern Arabia. If we 
 accept the correction of some of the ablest modern 
 critics in the reading of v.'%, we find the mention 
 of Dedan preceded by a reference to Southern 
 Arabia; while v.24 names Arabia, in the narrower 
 acceptation of Northern Arabia, and the princes 
 of Kedar. This precisely suits the locality assigned 
 in other passages to the Keturzean Dedanites. 
 
 Considerable difficulty has arisen over the only 
 other allusion to Dedan in the OT, to which we 
 have not yet referred. In Ezk 27% we read: 
 ‘The men of Dedan were thy traffickers; many 
 isles were the mart of thine hand: they brought 
 thee in exchange horns of ivory and ebony.’ The 
 ivory and ebony are represented as tribute due to 
 the supreme importance of Tyre as mistress of the 
 
 
 

 
 DEDICATION 
 
 
 
 DEEM 585 
 
 
 
 commercial world. There is no reason why the 
 Dedanites of Northern Arabia should not have acted 
 as intermediaries in transporting to the western 
 markets the products of the far East. But the men- 
 tion of the isles is supposed to make the assumption 
 of a Dedanite people on the sea necessary. The 
 LXX reads Rhodians, R (1) and D (1) in the writing 
 of Heb. being easily mistaken for one another. In 
 this case, however, it has all the appearance of a 
 correction made by the Gr. translators, so as to 
 make the whole verse refer to islands and islanders. 
 But the order in which the names are given in 
 this sirsiag a seems unfavourable to such a view. 
 The list of those who brought their goods to the 
 market of Tyre begins with Tarshish in the far 
 West, passing on to Javan, Tubal, Meshech (Asia 
 Minor and the coasts of the Black Sea), Togarmah 
 (Armenia). With Dedan there is clearly a fresh 
 start made, whether we understand it of Rhodes 
 or of a part of North-Western Arabia. But if 
 in v.65 we read Edom instead of Aram (Syria), 
 where again only the interchange of R and D is 
 required, we have in vv.!*18 the order from south 
 to north (Edom, Judah, Damascus). Seeing, then, 
 that Dedan lay south of Edom, it would form the 
 appropriate starting-point for this second list. 
 hus in all the prophetic passages the only 
 theory that easily a naturally fits into the text 
 is that which places Dedan on the south border of 
 Edom, and regards the Dedanites as a Keturzean 
 tribe, occupying a position alongside of other allied 
 tribes in the north-west of Arabia. The only 
 trace, therefore, that we have of a Cushite Dedan 
 isin Gn 10’. It is quite impossible to conjecture 
 with any vonfidence how it came about that both 
 Shehka and Dedan should be names securring in 
 two families so far removed from one another as 
 that of the Cushite Raamah and that of the 
 Keturean Jokshan. Possibly, a branch of the 
 Keturean Dedanites may have settled among 
 Cushites near the Persian Gulf, and, while retain- 
 ing their ancestral name, may have been included 
 in the genealogy with their Cushite neighbours. 
 It is, however, difficult to assume that the same 
 had happened with respect to the sons of Sheba. 
 The Peden of the Edomite border is, placed by 
 Eusebius in the neighbourhood of Phana on the 
 east of Mount Seir, between Petra and Zoar, the 
 ancient Punon or Phunon, at which the Israelites 
 encamped during their wanderings (Nu 33%). 
 
 LitrraTuRE.—Besides Dillmann and Delitzsch on Gn and 
 Is, and Davidson on Ezk, see Winer, Realwérterbuch,3 263 f., 
 whose article is much more satisfactory than those of Steiner 
 (Schenkel, Bibellexicon, i. 595f.) and Kautzsch (Riehm, Hand- 
 worterbuch, 266). See also Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad. 239 f. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 DEDICATION.—The idea of withdrawing (per- 
 sons, places, things) from a common and setting 
 apart to a sacred use, which seems to be the 
 original connotation of the important Sem. root 
 wp, is embodied in various expressions of EV, 
 such as consecrate, dedicate, devote, hallow (holy, 
 etc.), sanctify. Of the first two we may say that 
 the general usage is to apply ‘consecrate’ and ‘con- 
 secration’ to the setting apart of persons, and 
 ‘dedicate’ and ‘dedication’ to the setting apart of 
 things. Accordingly, we read of silver being 
 ‘dedicated unto J”’ (Jg 175), so that it could no 
 longer be used for other than sacred purposes, of 
 ‘vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels 
 of brass (nvin})’ so dedicated or set apart by David 
 (2S 8-2=] Ch 18-1, 1 K 751=2 Ch 5), just as we 
 read of the dedication of a bow] ‘of the first (quality) 
 of copper (nyn3)’ to Baal-Lebanon (CJS, Tab. iv.; 
 ef. Mesha’s inscription, lines 17, 18, m7 %b5 vessels 
 of J” dedicated to Chemosh). The same Heb. word 
 is used of the dedication of the ‘tent of meeting’ 
 (Ex 29#, EV ‘sanctify’), of the altar of burnt- 
 
 offering (Ex 29%), and of other parts of the fur- 
 niture (Ex 401°), all as described in Lv 8. In 
 another ref. to this dedication (so EV, but RVm 
 dedication-gift, Nu 78-8) we first meet with the 
 apn Hanukkah (for wh. see Dillmann in loco, Jo. 
 Selden, De Synedriis, 1679, bk. iii. p. 148 ff., and 
 the next art.). Other dedication ceremonies in OT 
 are the dedication of Solomon’s temple, related in 
 detail, 1K 8 (where note v.® 335, évexalvicev, EV dedi- 
 cate, but v.© wap, yylacev, EV hallow), the dedication 
 of the second temple (Ezr 6!* 1”)* and of the wall 
 of Jerusalem (Neh 12”). The last passage is of in- 
 terest, moreover, as showing that the completion 
 of buildings of a more secular character was also 
 the occasion of a dedicatory service. That this 
 holds good, even of a private house, is to be in- 
 ferred from Dt 205. For much curious information 
 on this practice among other ancient peoples, and 
 on its continuation in later times, see Selden, 
 op. cit. (cf. CONSECRATION). 
 A. R. 8S. KENNEDY. 
 
 DEDICATION, THE FEAST OF THE (ra éyxalvia Jn 
 10”, 6 éyxatvicpds Tot Ovocacrnpiov 1 Mac 4°), was 
 instituted by Judas Maccabzeus (B.C. 164) in com- 
 memoration of the purification of the temple and 
 altar after they haa been polluted by Antiochus 
 Epiphanes (1 Mac 4°). It was to be ‘kept from 
 year to year by the space of eight days from the 
 five and twentieth day of the month Chislev’ 
 (about the time of the winter solstice). The Feast 
 of the Ded. is only once mentioned in NT (Jn 10”), 
 and in this passage there is an incidental reference 
 to the season of the year, apparently to explain 
 why it was that Jesus was walking under cover 
 instead of in the open air. This is one of the 
 numerous instances in which the author of the 
 Fourth Gospel shows a close acquaintance with 
 Jewish customs. Westcott thinks that the title 
 chosen by our Lord in Jn 9° may refer to the 
 lighting of lamps at this feast, no less than to the 
 ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles. This illumi- 
 nation was so prominent a feature in the Feast of 
 the Ded. that it was sometimes called the Feast of 
 Lights (Jos. Ant. XI. vii. 7). Josephus, however, 
 does not mention the illumination in private houses, 
 which has been a marked feature of the feast from 
 the end of the Ist cent. to the present time. 
 According to Maimonides, every house should set 
 up at least one light. Those who did honour to the 
 command should set up a light for each person in 
 the house, and those who did more honour still 
 should begin with one light for each person, and 
 double the number each night (Lightfoot, Hor. 
 Heb. in loc.). Another school directed that eight 
 lights should be used on the first night, and the 
 number diminished by one each night. The 
 feast lasted eight days. The reference in 2 Mac 
 10° seems to show that the points of resemblance 
 between some of the ordinances of this feast 
 and the Feast of Tabernacles were not accidental, 
 but were designed from the first. The Feast ot 
 Dedication, however, was unlike the great feasts, 
 in that it could be celebrated anywhere and 
 did not require the worshipper to go up to 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 The words of the Jews in Jn 10% would natur- 
 ally be suggested by the direction which this feast 
 would give to men’s thoughts. The hymn which 
 is at present used in Jewish synagogues during 
 its continuance records the successive deliver- 
 ances of Israel, and contains a prayer for yet 
 another. J. H. KENNEDY, 
 
 DEEM was once in freq. use, but is now almost 
 extinct. Even in AV it occurs but twice, Wis 13? 
 ‘deemed either fire or wind or the swift air, or the 
 
 *The title of Ps 30 most probably refers to the dedication by 
 Judas Maccabsus (see Baethgen tn doco, and next art.). 
 
 
 
586 DEEP 
 
 DEGREE 
 
 
 
 circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the 
 lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the 
 world’ (évéuicav, RV ‘ thought’), and Ac 2777 ‘the 
 shipmen deemed (imevdouy) that they drew near to 
 some country,’ though Wyclif has the word and 
 its cognates often, and uses it with fine effect. 
 Thus 1 Co 11 *1-82 ‘for he that etith and drynkith 
 unworthili etith and drinkith dome to hym, not 
 wiseli demynge the bodi of the Lord. And if we 
 demeden wiseli us silf we schulden not be demed, 
 but while we ben demed of the Lord we ben chas- 
 tisid, that we be not dampned with this world.’ 
 RV gives ‘surmised’ for ‘deemed’ in Ac 27”, 
 but ‘deemed’ for ‘as’ in Ezr 2%, Neh 7% 
 ‘therefore were they deemed polluted and put 
 from the priesthood’ (Heb. simply ‘and were 
 polluted from the priesthood’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEEP.—The adj. is used fig. in the sense of 
 ‘profound’ without any thought of malevolence, 
 as Ps 925 ‘Thy thoughts are very deep’; Ec 7% 
 ‘that which is far off, and exceeding deep’ (poy 
 poy ‘deep, deep’); Is 29 ‘woe unto them that 
 seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord’ 
 (apnea); Dn 2?‘ He revealeth the deep and secret 
 things’; 1 Co 2” ‘the deep things of God’ 
 (Wyclif’s tr.; Tind. ‘the bottome of Goddes 
 secretes,’ so Cranmer, Geneva (1557); but Gen. 
 1560 restored ‘the deepe things of God,’ and so 
 Bishops’ ; Rhem. ‘the profoundities of God’). Cf. 
 Bacon, Essays, ‘the more deepe and sober sort of 
 Politique persons.’ 
 
 ‘Deep’ is a common subst. in Shaks. and others 
 of that day, and is often used figuratively, as Jud. 
 Ces. IV. iii. 226— 
 
 ‘The deep of night is crept upon our talk.’ 
 
 But in AV where ‘the deep’ is not the sea, it 
 refers to the waste of waters (the primitive ¢éhém), 
 or to the bottomless pit. The Heb. words are olan 
 téhém, as Gn 1? ‘ darkness was upon the face of the 
 deep’ (see COSMOGONY) ; nbyy zdlah, Is 4477, and nbywn 
 mézilah, Job 41*!, Ps 695 107%, or adisp mézdlah (in 
 the plu. ‘deeps’), Neh 94, Ps 88°. The Gr. words 
 are dBvocos (see ABYSS), BdOos, Lk 54, 2Co 8?; and 
 Bv06s, 2 Co 11%, 
 
 Deepness, new almost replaced by ‘depth,’ is 
 retained from Wye. in Mt 13° ‘ they had no deep- 
 ness of earth’ (RV retains, and restores ‘ deepness’ 
 to the par. passage Mk 4°, which Wye. had also ; 
 Tind. has ‘ depth’ in both places). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEER.—See FALLOWDEER. 
 
 DEFECTIVE.—Sir 49* only, and the meaning 
 is ‘guilty of wrongdoing,’ ‘ All, except David an 
 Ezechias and Josias, were defective: for they for- 
 sook the law of the Most High’ ( mAnuperelav 
 érdnupérnoay, lit. ‘erred an error,’ t.e. acc. to the 
 Heb. idiom ‘erred greatly,’ RV ‘committed 
 trespass.’ The same Gr. is found in LXX Ly 5”, 
 Jos 7! 2230.81), Bissell (in loc.) says ‘were de- 
 fective’ is not strong enough. Nor is it now, but 
 in older Eng. it was used for positive transgres- 
 sion or wrongdoing, as Act 10 Henry VILI. 1518, 
 ‘Persons . . . so founden defective or trespassing 
 in any of the said statutes.’ ‘Defect’ in the mod, 
 sense of a shortcoming is given by RV in 1 Co 6? 
 (j7r7nua, AV after Wye. Fault,’ Cen. ‘impatience,’ 
 RVim ‘loss’: see Sanday-Headlam on Ro 11), 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEFENCED is used in AV (only of cities) where 
 we should now say ‘fortified,’ the Heb. being 
 either the vb. [os2] bdzgar (Is 257 27! 36! 3775, 
 Ezk 21”) ‘to cut off, render inaccessible,’ or the 
 subst. 1y29 mibhzdr (Jer 18 4° 814 347, always with 
 vy ‘tr, city), ‘a place cut off.’ RV gives ‘fenced’ 
 in Is 36! 37% and in Jer 45 347; Amer. RV has 
 ‘fortified ' in all the passages. ¢, HASTINGS. 
 
 DEFER.—From dis apart, and ferre to carry, te 
 defer is properly ‘to put aside,’ and this meaning 
 is found in early English. The mod. meaning is 
 ‘to: put off to another occasion,’ ‘to postpone’; 
 but in older Eng. the word was loosely used in the 
 general sense of ‘ put of,’ ‘delay,’ as Dn 9” ‘defer 
 not, for thine own sake, O my God’ (anxm-by ‘delay 
 not,’ ‘ tarry not,’ the vb. is never used in the sense 
 of putting off to another occasion; so Gn 34!%, 
 Ee 5+); Pr 132 ‘ Hope deferred maketh the heart: 
 sick’ (n2¥n0 ‘drawn out,’ ‘ protracted,’ ef. Is 18% 7 
 where same part of vb. is tr. ‘tall’ in RV); Is 48° 
 ‘For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger’ 
 (7788, not postpone to another occasion, but delay 
 so as not to vent it at all if possible, so Pr 19). 
 Delay is the meaning also in Apoer., Jth 2" (uax- 
 pivw), Sir 48 (mwapéAxw), 1872 (uelyw), But in NT 
 (Ac 24” only) the eae is postpone to another 
 occasion, viz. to a fuller hearing; the obsol. con- 
 struction is, however, employed of having a person 
 as the object, ‘Felix .. . deferred them’ (dveBdero 
 avrovs). Cf. Rogers (1642), Naaman, 137, ‘If it 
 seem goode to thy wisdome to deferre me.’ RV 
 gives ‘deferred’ for ‘ prolonged’ Ezk 12-8 (qv). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEFILEMENT.—See UNCLEANNESS. 
 
 DEFY.— When Goliath ‘defied’ the armies of 
 Israel, it is probable that the translators of AV 
 understood him to challenge them to combat, 
 thouvh the Heb. (429) means to tawnt or scorn (so 
 LS [71 25+ 26. 86.45) O'S 212! 939" 1 Ch 207). But when 
 Balaam is summoned to Balak’s camp with the 
 words (Nu 237: 8), 
 
 ‘Come, curse me Jacob, 
 And come, defy Israel,’ 
 it is manifest that ‘defy’ is used in some other 
 and now obsol. sense. The Het. (DY) means to be 
 indignant, then express indiguation against one, 
 denounce, curse; and that is the meaning the 
 parallelism would require (LXX érixardpacat, Vale) 
 detestare, Luth. schelten). Now ‘defy’ (from late 
 Lat. dis -jfidare, dis- trust) primarily means to 
 renounce allegiance or affiance, to pronounce 
 bonds of faith and fellowship dissolved (whence 
 war would generally follow, and so the modern 
 sense of the word), Thus Tindale’s tr. of 1 Co 
 12° ‘no man speakynge in the sprete of God de- 
 fieth Jesus.’ This is probably the sense in which 
 ‘defy’ should be taken in Nu, since it is Tindale’s 
 word; though there is a meaning of the word that 
 is closer to the Greek, viz. ‘despise,’ ‘set at 
 nought,’ as Olde (1549), Hrasm. Par. Thess. 4, ‘1 
 defie all thinges in comparison of the gospel of 
 Christ’; and a rare use nearer still, viz. ‘curse,’ 
 as Hall (1548), Chron. 526, ‘The faire damoselles 
 defied that daie [at Agincourt] in the whiche thei 
 had lost their paramors.’ Geneva and Douay have 
 ‘detest’ in its old sense of ‘denounce.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEGREE.—Late Lat. degradus (de down, gradus 
 a step) gave Fr. degré, whence Eng. ‘degree.’ So 
 a ‘degree’ is simply a step, whether up or down, 
 and esp. one of a flight of steps, or the rung of a 
 ladder. Thus Chaucer, Romaunt of Rose, 485— 
 
 ‘Into that gardyn, wel y-wrought, 
 Who-so that me coude have brought, 
 
 By laddre, or elles by degree, 
 It wolde wel have lyked me.’ 
 
 And Shaks. Jul. Cesar, I. i. 26— 
 
 ‘But when he once attains the upmost round, 
 
 He then unto the ladder turns his back 
 
 Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees 
 
 By which he did ascend,’ 
 This is the meaning of ‘degree’ in AV wherever 
 it occurs in the plur.: the ref. being either to the 
 degrees of Ahaz’s dial (2 K 209>#. 10 dis.11, Ts 388 ter, 
 see DIAL) or to the Songs of Degrees (Ps 120-134 
 titles, see PSALMS) and the Heb. nbyp ma alah, 
 
 
 

 
 DEGREES, SONGS OF 
 
 DELICACY 587 
 
 
 
 But from signifying a step literally, ‘degree’ soon 
 passed to express also a step in rank, whence 1 Ch 
 158 ‘their brethren of the second d.’ (o3¥9n, lit. 
 ‘the seconds’); 17!7 ‘a man of high degree (o7x7 
 nbyen), Ps 629 ‘men of high d.’ (w7"33) ; 62° ‘men of 
 low d.’ (017x732), Sir 111 ‘ wisdom lifteth up the head 
 of him that is of low d.’ (razewds: so Lk 1, Ja 1°); 
 1 Ti 3% ‘ they that have used the office of a deacon 
 will purchase to themselves a good d.’ (faéyJs, 
 lit. ‘step,’ RV ‘standing’). 
 
 In the last panene the meaning is quite exceptional in the 
 Eng. asin the Greek. The Eng. word is Wyclif’s, who has been 
 followed by all the versions except RV. It is simply a literal 
 tr. of the Vulg. gradus, itself a literal tr. of the Greek. The Gr. 
 word occurs here only in NT. In the LXX it is used either as 
 tr. of ma'dldh (2 K 209 dis. 10 bis. Ww) or of miphtdn (1 8 55), the 
 former being the ‘steps’ or ‘degrees’ of Ahaz’s dial, the 
 latter the ‘threshold’ of Dagon’s temple: it is also found once 
 in Apocr. (Sir 686) for the ‘steps’ of the wise man’s door. See 
 further Humphrey’s note im loc. (Camb. Bible), and Hort, 
 Ecclesia (1897), p. 202. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEGREES, SONGS OF.—See PsALMs. 
 
 DEHAITES (AV Dehavites, »m, Kéré wm, 
 Ezr 4°).—The Dehaites were among the peoples 
 settled in Samaria by ee t.e. probably the 
 Assyr. king Assurbanipal. They joined with their 
 fellow-colonists in sending the letter written by 
 Rehum and Shimshai to king Artaxerxes, to com- 
 plain of the attempt made by the Jews to rebuild 
 the walls.of Jerusalem (probably about 447 B.C.). 
 The name has been connected with that of a 
 nomadic Persian tribe, the Ado, mentioned in 
 Herod. i. 125 (Rawlinson), or with the name of the 
 city Du’-fia, mentioned on Assyrian contract- 
 tablets (Fried. Delitzsch); but according to 
 Schrader these identifications are very doubtful. 
 The LXX reads Aavaio: (A), but in B the text runs 
 Lovovvaxaton. of elolv “HAapyaioe (for ‘the Shushan- 
 chites, the Dehaites, the Elamites’; cf. Meyer, 
 Judenthum, 36). H. A. WHITE. 
 
 DEHORT.—Only 1 Mac 9° ‘they dehorted him, 
 saying, We shall never be able’ (dmocrpé¢w); and in 
 the headings of some chapters. ‘ Dehort’ (fr. Lat. 
 dehortari) is the opposite of ‘exhort.’ ‘‘‘Exhort” 
 continues, but ‘‘dehort,” a word whose place ‘“‘ dis- 
 suade” does not exactly supply, has escaped us’ *— 
 Trench, Eng. Past and Pres.’179. Ussher (1656) 
 in Ann. iv. 24 has ‘Exhorting them to observe 
 the law of God... and es them the 
 breach of that law.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DELAIAH (m5, a awe One of the sons of 
 Elioenai, a descendant of David (1 Ch 3%, AV 
 Dalaiah). 2. A priest and leader of the 23d course 
 of priests in the time of David (1 Ch 24"), 3. The 
 son of Shemaiah, one of the ‘princes’ or officers 
 of state at the court of Jehoiakim (Jer 36%), 
 4. The son of Mehetabel, and father of Shema- 
 iah, who was associated with Neh. in the rebuild- 
 ing of Jerus. (Neh 6). 5. The head of the children 
 of D., who returned with Zerub. from Babylon 
 (Ezr 2®=Neh 7%). The name in 1 Es 5” is 
 Dalan. P R. M. Boyp. 
 
 DELECTABLE.—Is 44° only, ‘Their d. things 
 shall not profit.’ AV and RV retain the word from 
 Geneva Bible, which explains, ‘Whatsoever they 
 bestow upon their idoles to make them to seeme 
 glorious.’ But it is the idols themselves that are 
 called ‘the d. things’ (oq &dmidhim), which 
 the Bishops’ expressed by the (too) free tr. ‘the 
 carved image that they love can doe no good.’ 
 ‘Delectable,’ from Lat. delectabilis, came in 
 through old Fr., whence came also the form 
 
 quotes from Cheyne, Isaiah (1882), 
 good reason... to dehort the Jews from 
 
 ‘delitable,’ which was afterwards spelt ‘delight- 
 able’ by a mistaken association with light; later 
 forms are ‘delightsome’ and ‘delightful.’ Only 
 the last has held its ground; but ‘delectable’ ia 
 remembered by Bunyan’s ‘delectable Mountains’ 
 (Pil. Prog. p. 52); cf. Shaks. Rich. IT. 11. iii. 7— 
 
 ‘ And yet your fair discourse hath been as sugar, 
 Making the hard way sweet and delectable.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DELICACY.—Trench (Select Glossary, p. 52 f.) 
 says, ‘In the same way as self-indulgence creeps 
 over us by unmarked degrees, so there creeps over 
 the words that designate it a subtle change; they 
 come to contain less and less of rebuke and blame; 
 the thing itself being tolerated, nay allowed, it 
 must needs be that the words which express it 
 should be received into favour too. It has been 
 thus with Juxury ; it has been thus also with this 
 whole group of words.’ The words are ‘delicacy,’ 
 ‘delicate ’ (adj. and subst.), ‘ delicately,’ ‘ delicate- 
 ness,’ ‘ delicious,’ ‘ deliciously,’ all of which except 
 ‘delicious’ are found in AY. 
 
 Delicacy.—Rev 18* ‘the merchants of the earth 
 are waxed rich through the abundance of her 
 delicacies’ (c7pjvos sing., RV ‘wantonness,’ RVm 
 ‘luxury’). ‘ Delicacies’ is Rhemish tr., after Vulg. 
 delicie, so Wyclif; but Tind. and others ‘pleasures.’ 
 Voluptuousness is the oldest meaning of ‘ delicacy’; 
 see Delicate, and cf. Chaucer, Former Age, 58— 
 
 ‘ Jupiter the likerous, [=lecherous] 
 That first was fader of delicacye.’ 
 
 Delicate.—The adj. has two meanings in AV. 
 1. Softly nurtured, as Sus * ‘Now Susanna was a 
 very d. woman, and beauteous to behold’ (rpugepés); 
 Bar 476 ‘my d. ones’ (ol rpudepol ov) ; and probably 
 Dt 2854 56, Is 47} (all ay, LXX rpudepés), bee 67 ‘a 
 comely and d. woman’ (a2ysn, LXX different read- 
 ing), and Mic 178 (aaya, LXX rpudepss). 2. Luxuri- 
 ous, as Wis 19" ‘they asked d. meats’. (édécuara 
 tpy¢js, RV ‘luxurious dainties’); Sir 29% 
 ‘ Better is the life of a poor man in a mean cottage, 
 than d. fare in Raother man’s house’ (édécpara 
 Aaysrpd, RV ‘sumptuous fare’); and Pr 19° RV 
 ‘delicate living’ (aya, AV ‘delight’). As a subst. 
 delicates occurs Jer 51*4 ‘he hath filled his belly 
 with my d.’ (o'y7y, Amer. RV ‘ delicacies’) ; Sir 30% 
 (dya0d, RV ‘good things’), 31° (rpydjpara, RV 
 i peed things’). Cf. Ps 1414 Gen. ‘let mee not eate 
 of their delicates’ (AV ‘dainties’); W. Brough 
 (1650), ‘ Hunger cooks all meats to delicates,’ which 
 Herrick seems to copy (Country Life), ‘Hunger 
 makes coarse meats delicates.’ Delicately means 
 ‘luxuriously’ in the foll. passages in AV, La 45 
 (yw2), Pr 297 ‘he that d. bringeth up his servant 
 from a child, shall have him become son at the 
 length’ (p3»=‘fordle,’ ‘indulge’; ‘delicately’ is 
 Wyclif’s tr., who, following Vulg., renders ‘ who 
 delicatli fro childhed nurshith his seruaunt, after- 
 ward shal feelen hym vnobeisaunt,’ V. contumacem) ; 
 Lk 7 ‘ they which are gorgeously apparelled, and 
 live delicately, are in kings’ courts’ (rpvg¢7, as LXX 
 La 4°, and at 2 P 2% where AV ‘riot,’ RV ‘revel’); 
 1 Ti 5° AVm ‘she that liveth delicately (text ‘in 
 
 leasure,’ Gr. 7 omwaradwoa), is dead while she 
 iveth’; and add 2S 1% Ja 5° RV. But in Ad. 
 Est 15°(AVm and RV ‘carrying herself d.,’ AV 
 ‘daintily,’ Gr. tpupepedouar) the meaning is ‘as 
 one that was tender’ (Cov.), that is, weak; and 
 so perhaps 1S 15% ‘Agag came unto him delicately.’ 
 
 The last is the only doubtful passage. AV took ‘delicately’ 
 from the Bishops’ Bible; Cov. ‘tenderly,’ Gen. ‘pleasantly.’ 
 The Bishops’ marg. is ‘in bondes,’ and RVm ‘cheerfully.’ The 
 LXX gives rpizev; Vulg. pinguissimus, et tremens, whence 
 Douay ‘very fatte, trembling’; Luther, getrost come: 
 Ostervald, gaiement. The possible ways of taking the Heb. 
 (nsiyp) are given by Driver (Notes on Sam. p. 99), who decides 
 that it is safest, on the whole, to acquiesce in ‘delicately,’ 
 ‘yoluptuously.’ And, undoubtedly, voluptuously or luxurio 
 
 is the most natural meaning of the Heb. (for which see La 
 
588 DELIGHTSOME 
 
 
 
 but its use in this place is not very apparent. The Eng. 
 expression ‘ delicately’ is probably meant to express weakness 
 and fear (as Ad. Est 153) rather than pride or voluptuousness. 
 
 Delicateness.—Only Dt 28° ‘the tender and 
 delicate woman . . . which would not adventure 
 to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for d. 
 (aayn7>) and tenderness,’ 7.e. not ‘weakness,’ but 
 ‘fineness.’ Deliciously = luxuriously, Rev 187-9 ‘lived 
 deliciously ’ (tpyrvidw, RV ‘lived wantonly’). Cf. 
 Latimer, 1i. 412, ‘I am more inclined to feed many 
 grossly and Mrcran t than a few deliciously and 
 voluptuously’ ; and Lk 16” Tind. ‘a certaine rich 
 man, which . . . fared deliciously every daye.’ 
 
 J. Hastings, 
 
 DELIGHTSOME, now only poet. for ‘delightful,’ 
 was once good prose, and occurs in Mal 3” ‘ye shall 
 be ad. land’ (75a yyy). Davies (Bible Eng. p. 236) 
 
 uotes appositely from T. Adams, Works, i. 273, ‘If 
 this gentle physic make thee madder, He hath a dark 
 chamber to put thee in—a dungeon is more light- 
 some and delightsome—the grave.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DELILAH (adrda, Aadevdd).—The woman who be- 
 trayed Samson into the hands of the Philistines, 
 The account as given in Jg 16 does not say whether 
 she was an Israelite or a Philistine; but she was 
 doubtless the latter, and Sorek, her place of resid- 
 ence, was then within the Philistine territory. 
 Samson often sought her society, and allowed her 
 to gain a great influence over him. That she was 
 his wife is very improbable, notwithstanding that 
 that is the opinion of Chrysostom and other patris- 
 tic writers. See SAMSON, W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 
 
 DELOS (A#)os), a famous island in the Augean Sea, 
 has played a part in history quite out of proportion 
 to its tiny size and rocky unproductive character. 
 It was considered to have been anchored by Zeus to 
 the bottom of the sea, and therefore not to be ex- 
 posed to ordinary earthquakes.* It was the seat of a 
 very ancient and widely-spread worship of Apollo, 
 who, with his twin sister Artemis, was said to have 
 been born there; and the Gr. peoples flocked from 
 a great distance to the annual festival on the 
 island, which is celebrated in the Homeric hymn 
 to the Delian Apollo. The festival of the Virgin 
 on the neighbouring island of Tenos is the modern 
 representative of the ancient feast of Apollo. D., 
 in B.C. 478, was selected as the meeting-place of 
 the great confederacy of Gr. states on the Aigean 
 coasts and islands for defence against the Persians; 
 but after a time Athens, the presiding city of the 
 confederacy, became alsoits centre. The Athenians 
 treated D. as a rival to their own interests. As 
 Athens became great, D. lost its importance ; but 
 when Athens grew weak, D. recovered. During 
 the 2nd and Ist cent. B.C. it became one of the 
 greatest harbours of the A‘gean Sea, playing the 
 same part in ancient trade that the island of Syra 
 has played in modern commerce, and being favoured 
 by the Romans after B.c. 190 as a rival to the 
 maritime power of Rhodes. It was a nominally 
 independent state under Rom. protection from B.C. 
 197 to 167. Then it was punished, for coquetting 
 with Macedonia, with the ee of freedom ; it was 
 given to Athens, and its natives fled and settled in 
 Achaia; and the Delian archons came to an end. 
 The island was repeopled by Athenian colonists 
 (kAnpodxor), along with many Roman settlers; and 
 henceforth its inscriptions are dated by the Athenian 
 archons; and it was always considered to be part 
 of the Roman province Achaia (which see). The 
 earliest trace of a Roman settler in D. is contained 
 in an inscription of B.c. 250. During the 2nd cent. 
 it became the largest settlement of Roman (or 
 
 * An earthquake at D. was considered a specially grave ex- 
 
 ression of the will and power of the god; see Herod. vi. 98; 
 ucyd, ii. 8. 
 
 DEMAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 Italian) merchants and traders in the Mediter. 
 lands; mainly through their efforts and wealth ita 
 rather poor harbour was greatly improved ; in theiz 
 interest it was declared a free port by the Roman 
 state in B.C. 166 in order to strike a blow at their 
 commercial rivals, the merchants of Rhodes; and 
 to satisfy them their other commercial rival 
 Corinth (which see) was destroyed utterly by the 
 Romans in B.C. 146. 
 
 Owing to its great importance in the E. Mediter- 
 ranean trade, D. is mentioned in the list of states 
 to which the Roman government addressed letters 
 in favour of the Jews in B.C. 138-137, 1 Mac 1518-33; 
 and the inscriptions of D. form the best commea- 
 tary on that important historical document. D. 
 was the great exchange where the products and 
 the slaves of all the states of the E. were bought 
 for the Italian market, and most of the names 
 mentioned in the passage of 1 Mac occur in the 
 Delian documents, The strange omission of the 
 kingdoms of Pontus and Bithynia in 1 Mae 
 becomes all the more remarkable by comparison 
 with the frequent mention of them at Delos. As 
 Homolle says, ‘Among the Orientals who fre- 
 quented D., the Jews doubtless held a considerable 
 pee (Bulletin de Corresp. Hellén. viii. 1884, p. 98) ; 
 
 ut, as the inscriptions are to a large extent con- 
 cerned with religious purposes, it is not easy to find 
 the traces of their presence. A decree of the Delians 
 confirming the immunity of the Jews from military 
 service is quoted in full by Jos. (Ant. XIV. x. 14). 
 
 A frightful calamity brought the prosperity of 
 D., and especially of the Roman settlers, to an end. 
 In the Mithridatic war Athens took part with the 
 king, while D., where the Roman settlers were so 
 numerous, naturally remained true to the Roman 
 interest. After maintaining itself for a short time, 
 D. was captured in B.C. 87 by the enemy ; 20,000 
 Italians were massacred there and in the neigh- 
 bouring Cyclades; and, when the Romans re- 
 covered it in the course of the war, they found it, 
 as Strabo says, deserted. It recovered to a certain 
 extent in the following years; but direct trade 
 between Italy and the oh harbours now became 
 more common ; Ostia and Puteoli took the place 
 of D. as the great emporia for the purchase of E. 
 aerice required in Italy, and under the Roman 
 
 mpire D. became utterly insignificant. 
 
 LITERATURE.—The excavations conducted at Delos for many 
 years by the French School of Athens have thrown a flood of 
 light on the history of the island. An excellent summary and 
 estimate of their earlier results, as published in many scattered 
 works, is given by Jebb in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1880, 
 pp. 7-62. Since then numerous articles in the Bulletin de 
 Corresp. Hellén., by Homolle, S. Reinach, and others, have added 
 much information, especially vi. pp. 1-167, vii. pp. 103-125, 
 329-373, viii. pp. 75-158, xiv. pp. 389-511, xv. pp. 113-168. 
 See also Homolle, Archives de ?Intendance Sacrée a Delos; 
 Scheffer, de Deli Insule rebus. W. M. RAMSAY. 
 
 DELUGE.—See FLoop. 
 
 DEMAND.—Throughout AV ‘demand’ is simply 
 to ask, as Fr. demander, without the sense of 
 authority. This is manifest from the Heb. and 
 Gr. words so tr’, which have all this simple meaning. 
 In Introd. to Gen. Bible we read, ‘ The Catechisme, 
 or maner to teache children the Christian religion, 
 wherein the minister demandeth the question, and 
 the childe maketh answer.’ See Field, O.N iii. on 
 Mt 24. Asa subst. d. occurs only Dn 4” with the 
 same simple meaning. Cf. Chaucer, Troilus, v. 
 859— ‘ 
 
 * And of th’ assege (siege) he gan hir eek bysechs, 
 To telle him what was hir opinioun. 
 Fro that demaunde he so descendeth doun 
 
 To asken hir, if that hir straunge thoughte 
 The Grekes gyse, and werkes that they wroughte.’ 
 
 Once RV introduces d. in mod. sense (Neh 58) for 
 AV ‘require’ (see Ryle’s note). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
DEMAS 
 
 DEMAS (A7yas, possibly an abbrev. of Demetrius) 
 is described by the Apostle Paul as a fellow- 
 labourer, and unites with him in sending salutations 
 from Rome to the Colossians and to Philemon 
 (Col 44, Philem v.%). In the 2nd Ep. to Timothy 
 (4°) he is described as having forsaken the apostle 
 when he was awaiting his trial before Nero, 
 because he ‘loved this present world.’ Whether 
 he was discouraged by the hardships of the 
 Christian life, or allured by the hope of some 
 earthly advantage, and bether his apostasy was 
 a a or final, we have no means of knowing. 
 Tradition leans to the darker view of his character, 
 and classes him among the apostates from the faith 
 {Epiph. Her. 51). R. M. Boyp. 
 
 DEMETRIUS I., surnamed Zwr%p, ‘Saviour,’ by 
 the Babylonians in gratitude for the removal of 
 their satrap Heraclides, was the son of Seleucus 
 Philopator. In his boyhood he was sent (B.C. 175) 
 to Rome as a hostage, and remained there during 
 the reign of his uncle, Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 When the Senate several times refused his request 
 to be recognized as the king of Syria, he fled from 
 Rome, with the assistance chiefly of the historian 
 Polybius(Polyb. xxxi.; Justin, xxxiv. 3). Landing 
 at Tripolis, he was joined by large bodies of the 
 people, and even by the bodyguard of his cousin, 
 Antiochus Eupator. Eupator was soon defeated 
 and put to death, and in B.c. 162 D. was pro- 
 claimed king (1 Mac 7!*, 2 Mac 141-2; Jos. Ant. 
 xu. x. 1; Liv. Epit. xlvi.). He conciliated Rome 
 by valuable presents (Polyb. xxxi. 23), and, after 
 interfering in the affairs ot Babylon (App. Syr. 47; 
 Polyb. xxxii. 4), turned his attention to 5 udeea. 
 Alcimus (wh. see) was established in the high 
 priesthood, and the Syrian lordship was for a time 
 completely renewed. In the seven years that 
 followed, D. again offended the Romans by putting 
 a supporter of his own in the place of Ariarathes on 
 the throne of rf area (Polyb. xxxii. 20; Liv. 
 Epit. xivii.), whilst his tyranny and excesses 
 alienated his own people. Alexander Balas (wh. 
 see) was set up as a claimant to the crown of Syria 
 (B.C. 153); and he and D. competed for the support of 
 Jonathan (1 Mac 10!-2! ; Jos. Ant. x11. ii. 1-3). The 
 former, offering princely rank and the high priest- 
 hood, won at the first bid; and when the latter 
 made a further promise of exemption from taxa- 
 tion and investment with privilege (1 Mac 105-*), 
 the people ‘ gave no credence’ to his words, which 
 are very important for the mee they cast upon the 
 nature of the imposts exacted by the Syrian kings. 
 The salt tax, the king’s share of the crops and 
 fruits, the poe, the pressed service, with a 
 variety of other burdens, were to be remitted, and 
 the expenses of the temple to be met from the 
 royal revenue (see Mahaffy, Emp. of Ptolemies, 
 § 117). With the help of the Jews, Balas was able 
 to recover from the reverses he suffered during the 
 two years’ war that followed; and in B.c. 150 a 
 decisive engagement took place, in which D. dis- 
 
 layed the utmost personal bravery, but was 
 Fefuated and slain (1 Mac 10°; Jos. Ant. XIII. 
 
 ii. 4; App. Syr. 67; Polyb. iii. 5; Justin, xxxv. 1; 
 Euseb. the 
 
 on. ed. Schoene, i. 263 eq). 
 . W. Moss. 
 
 DEMETRIUS II., surnamed Nixdrwp, ‘Con- 
 queror,’ was sent by his father, D. Soter, for safety 
 to Cnidus after the success of Balas seemed prob- 
 able (Justin, xxxv. 2). For several years he re- 
 mained in exile; but as soon as the unpopularity 
 of Balas gave him an opportunity, he landed (B.C. 
 147) with an army of Peatea Mercenaries on the 
 Cilician coast. The entire country rallied to him 
 except Judea, where Jonathan still supported 
 Balas. But Ptolemy Philometor declared in his 
 favour, and their combined forces inflicted a fatal 
 
 DEMETRIUS IIL 589 
 
 defeat upon Balas (B.C. 145) on the banks of the 
 (Enoparas, from which event D. derived his 
 surname (1 Mac 11"; Jos, Ant. XII. iv. 8; App. 
 Syr. 67; Liv. Zpit. lii.). Jonathan now set him- 
 self to separate Judea from the Syrian Empire, 
 and besieged the citadel in Jerus.; but D. per- 
 suaded him to raise the siege on the addition of 
 three Samaritan provinces to Judea, and the 
 exemption of the country thus enlarged from 
 tribute (1 Mac 11-87; Jos. Ané. XIII. iv. 9). When 
 the excesses of D. had estranged his subjects, 
 piypnen (Diodotus), a former general of Balas, set 
 up the latter’s son as a pretender to the throne; 
 but D. obtained the help of Jonathan by promising 
 the removal of the Syrian garrisons from Judza, 
 and put down the revolt (1 Mac 114-8; Jos. Ant. 
 XIII. v. 2, 3). On Jonathan’s return to Judea the 
 revolt broke out again, and Tryphon made himself 
 master of Antioch. As D. failed to keep hia 
 pone to the Jews, they now took the side of 
 Typhon, and drove the royal forces out of Cele- 
 Syria (1 Mac 1153-4; Jos. Ant. xu. v. 5-11). D. 
 withdrew from the S. part of his kingdom; but 
 when Tryphon, who had secured the Syrian crown 
 for himself, attempted to reduce Judea, Jonathan’s 
 brother Simon attached himself to D., and ex- 
 tracted from him a formal recognition of independ- 
 ence (1 Mac 13%-; Jos. Ant. XIII. vi. 7). Soon 
 after D. invaded the dominions of the king of 
 Parthia, by whom, in B.c. 138, he was taken 
 ahaa’ (1 Mac 14!*; though Jos. Anté. xu. v. 11, 
 ustin, xxxvi. 1, and App. Syr. 67, 68, arrange the 
 events in a different order, and support B.C. 140 as 
 the date of the disaster). The imprisonment lasted 
 for ten years, at the close of which D. was liberated 
 by the Parthian king, who was engaged in war 
 with Antiochus Sidetes, brother of D. (Jos. Ant. 
 XII. viii. 4; Eus. Chron. ed. Schoene, i. 255). D. 
 recovered the kingdom (B.C. 128), and at once 
 undertook a war against Ptolemy Physkon of 
 Egypt. Ptolemy thereupon claimed the Syrian 
 crown for Alexander Zabinas, who was announced 
 to be the son of Balas (Eus. Chron. i. 257), or of 
 Sidetes (Justin, xxxix. 1). D. was conquered by 
 Zabinas at Damascus, and fled to Ptolemais, and 
 thence to Tyre, where in B.C. 125 he was murdered 
 (Jos. Ant. XIII. ix. 3), possibly at the instigation of 
 his wife Cleopatra (App. Syr. 68; Liv. Hpit. 1x.). 
 R. Ww. Moss. 
 DEMETRIUS III. (surnamed Evxaipos, ‘ Pros- 
 perous,’ and on coins Theos, Soter, Philometor, 
 etc.) was a son of Antiochus Grypus, and grand- 
 son of D. Nikator. On the death of his father civil 
 wars ensued, in the course of which two of his 
 elder brothers lost their lives, whilst Philip, the 
 third, secured a part of Syria, and D. established 
 himself in Cele-Syria, with Damascus as his 
 capital, by the aid of Ptolemy Lathyrus, king of 
 Cyprus (Jos. Ant. XIII. xiii. 4). In Judea, too, 
 civil war broke out between Alexander Jannzeus 
 and his Pharisee subjects. The latter invited 
 the assistance of D. (Jos. Ant. XIU. xiii. 5; Wars, 
 I. iv. 4), who possibly regarded it as a good 
 opportunity to extend his kingdom to its ancient 
 limits on the West and the South. He entered the 
 country with a large army, was joined by the 
 insurgent Jews, and defeated Janneus in a pitched 
 battle near Shechem (Jos. Ané. XII. xiv. 1; Wars, 
 I. iv. 5). But the desertion of the Jews, who either 
 pitied the plight of Jannzus (Jos. Wars, 1b.) or 
 more probably feared the re-establishment of 
 Syrian supremacy, made it impossible for D. to 
 follow up the victory, and he withdrew to Berea 
 (Aleppo). The town was occupied by Philip, who, 
 when besieged by his brother, called the Parthians 
 to his aid. D. was in turn shut up closely within 
 his encampment and starved into surrender. He 
 was sent as a prisoner to Arsaces Ix., by whom he 
 
 
 

 
 590 DEMETRIUS 
 
 
 
 was detained in captivity until his death (Jos. 
 Ant. XIII. xiv. 3). The dates of the reign of D. 
 cannot be fixed with precision ; but coins of his are 
 known, dated from the Seleucid year 217 to 224, 
 i.e. approximately from B.C. 95 to 88 (Eckhel, iii. 
 245; Gardner, Catalogue of Gr. Coins in the Brit. 
 Mus. 101). R. W. Moss. 
 
 DEMETRIUS (Anuijrpios).—Two persons of the 
 name are mentioned in NT—the ringleader in 
 the riot at Ephesus (Ac 19%), and a disciple 
 commended by St. John (3 Jn v.12), Both of 
 these dwelt either in Ephesus or its vicinity,— 
 the very name is redolent of Ephesian surround- 
 ings, and there is nothing impossible in the sugges- 
 tion that the agitator had become the disciple of 
 good report, and that, therefore, both 1eferences 
 are tothe same man. In its contracted form of 
 Demas this is also the name of one who has an 
 unhappy notoriety as a recreant, ‘Demas hath 
 forsaken me’ (2 Ti 4), He is also mentioned in 
 Col 44 and Philem v.™, and it is not certain that 
 St. Paul meant to imply anything like utter 
 apostasy. W. Murr. 
 
 DEMON, DEVIL, Gr. daluwv, or datudviov (more 
 
 0. = 
 frequently), Heb. 1, Syr. \oLs, Aram. stv (ef. 
 Assyr. Sidu). The supposed Heb. root is [72] ‘to 
 
 be mighty,’ hence ‘to rule,’ Arab. Oks (cf. 119 ‘to 
 treat violently, to destroy’). Demoniac, da:pov- 
 fSuevos. For ‘devil’ (properly didBodos, see SATAN) 
 RV rightly substitutes ‘demon’ wherever the 
 Greek text has dayéviov. 
 
 Both physical and moral evil may be regarded 
 from two standpoints—(1) As existing in man 
 physically in the form of bodily disease, or spiritu- 
 ally as moral evil; (2) as having a source outside 
 man. It is with physical and moral evil in the 
 latter aspect that we are now dealing. Among the 
 Hebrews, both in pre-exilic and post-exilic times 
 down toa comparatively late ariod of the Christian 
 era, both moral and physical evil were attributed 
 to iD bacon agencies. ‘This conception of personal 
 evil agencies, that affected man’s body and soul, 
 exercised a pees and enduring influence over 
 the minds of Christ and the apostles, and played a 
 very considerable part in the writings of the 
 Church Fathers. 
 
 In tracing this conception of evil spirits influenc- 
 ing man to its primitive sources, we shall find that 
 it has its springs in early Semitic ideas which 
 surrounded the Israelite people in the dawn of 
 their histo Baudissin hes clearly shown how 
 the demonology of the Greco-Roman period of 
 Judaism emerged out of the earlier polytheism. 
 On this we shall have more to say later on. But 
 it should be noted that that polytheism was itself 
 the outcome of the principle called by Tylor, in his 
 well-known work Dronitve Culture, by the name 
 ‘animism.’ Even early mankind instinctively 
 sought for causes, and interpreted the forces and 
 other manifestations of nature as personal, i.e. as 
 emanating from beings analogous to himself (cf. 
 Risbedkir dokebac. Religionsphilosophie, p. 58 {f.). 
 Thus primitive man dwelt in a cosmic society of 
 superhuman agencies, some of which ministered to 
 his well-being and others to his injury. At the 
 dawn of human consciousness man found himself 
 confronted by forces which he was unable to 
 control, and which exercised a baleful or destructive 
 influence. Hurricane, lightning, sunstroke, plague, 
 flood, and earthquake were ascribed to wrathful 
 personal agencies, whose malignity man would en- 
 deavour to avert or appease. 
 
 The nomadic Arabs of the time of Mohammed 
 believed in the existence of hostile powers or 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ DEMON, DEVIL 
 
 Jinns, who were held to be the inhabitants of 
 lonely spots, and Mohammed himself recognized 
 their existence just as fully as his heathen con- 
 temporaries did. Various names were given to 
 them, viz. GAdl, ‘Ifrit, Sv'ld, ‘Aldk; and we have 
 likewise feminine names. The word ‘[frit, which 
 occurs so frequently in the ‘One thousand and one 
 nights,’ is also found in the Korn (Sur. 27. 39), 
 and according to Wellhausen means, like the Heb. 
 yyy, ‘hairy.’* ‘The desert is full of these spectral 
 shapes. Whoeves spends his time there as a 
 traveller must steel his heart against them. A 
 child of the desert must be on friendly terms with 
 the wolf and on terms of intimacy with the ghil.’ 
 On this subject consult W. R. Smith, #S?, p. 119 f. 
 
 A, THE DEMONOLOGY OF THE OT.—The paral- 
 lels which we find in OT to the Jinn of ancient as 
 well as modern Arabia may now benoted. Isaiah, 
 in an oracle describing the doom of Edom, por- 
 trays a scene among Edom’s ruined fortresses, 
 when ‘one vyy (hairy satyr) shall call out to an- 
 other, and Lilith (the night hag) shall take up her 
 abode’ (Is 344), This Lilith is a demon of feminine 
 sex. The same mythical creature meets us in the 
 cuneiform inscriptions (see Schrader, COT ii. p. 311). 
 In one of the magical texts cited by Hommel 
 (Semiten, p. 367) occurs the line (iv. Rawl. 29, Ne 1, 
 Rev. 23)— 
 
 ‘The lilu, the lilat, the handmaid of Llu.’ 
 
 The Babylonian dildtu or lilitu is placed in tnis 
 incantation in close connexion with the plague- 
 demon Namtar. There can be little doubt that 
 this plague-demon was connected in the popular 
 imagination with the Semitic- Babylonian word 
 lildtu, which means ‘night,’ and se became a 
 word of terror, denoting the night-demon, who 
 sucked the blood of her sleeping victims. This 
 
 im feminine personality became a subject for 
 ater Jewish legends (see Sayce, Hibbert Lect. p. 
 146), which multiplied these night-demons (lilin). 
 
 * Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, iii. (‘Reste des Arabischen Heiden- 
 thums’), p. 135 ad jin. But this view appears to me somewhat 
 
 s “ Se’ 
 
 
 
 doubtful, and the connexion of +! phe with pe (75y) 
 
 ‘dust,’ seems more probable. When we bear in mind the close 
 connexion between the Jinn and the serpent according to 
 Arabic belief (see Néldeke, Zeitschr. fiir Vélkerpsychologie u. 
 Sprachwissenschaft, vol. i. 1860, p. 412 ff.; and Baudissin, Stud. 
 zur Semit, Religiongesch. i, 279 ff.), we might connect with this 
 the curse pronounced on the serpent in Gn 314 ‘ Dust thou shalt 
 eat’... Winckler, it is true, regards thisas simply an expres- 
 sion of dishonour or disgrace, and compares the phrase tikalu 
 ipra in one of the Tel el-Amarna letters (Altorient. Forsch. 
 iii. 271). But a hint which we obtain from Doughty’s Arabia 
 Deserta (i. p. 136) places us on the right track both for the 
 explanation of the word ‘Jfrit and of Gn 314 ‘ Malignity of the 
 soil is ascribed to jan, ground demons, ahi el-ard, or earth-folk.’ 
 Malignant demons are believed to inhabit the seven stages of 
 the under-world (ib. p. 259). I should therefore prefer to cite, 
 as an Assyrian illustration of Gn 314, the 8th line in the Descent 
 of [Star to Hades, asar ipru madu bubussunu akalsunu titu, ‘a 
 place where much dust is their sustenance, mire their food.’ Mr, 
 Buchanan Gray of Mansfield College, Oxford, in a letter which 
 he kindly sent to me on this subject, says, ‘I have looked through 
 
 the article in the Lisdn el‘ Arab on 1 aE, and can find nothing 
 that necessitates giving to ‘Ifreet the sense “‘hairy.” I daresay 
 you have noticed that some of the derivatives of the root 
 \ ac, us he (in plu.) denote the feathers of the neck 
 or the mane, or the front hairs of a horse. In the line 
 
 cited by Wellh. from Hudh. 22710 —¢ s slic (plu. of L¢ Re) is 
 used of the hair of women. The feminine of _¢ 5 ae is dy ) yes 
 
 whence, according to Arabic lexicographers, Ley fe (rit), 
 through quiescence of the yd, and subsequent change of the 
 
 § into CL°, This is all the connexion with hair which I have 
 yet been able to find, and thus there seems less in favour of 
 connecting ‘Ifreet with hairiness, than of your attractive 
 alternative view of connecting it with dust.’ In the new ed 
 (1897) of Wellhauser’s Reste, see pp. 151ff., and footnote 1 
 p. 152, 
 

 
 DEMON, DEVIL 
 
 
 
 See Weber, Syst. der altsynagog. Palistin. T heol. p. 
 246; Kisenmenger, Lntdecktes Judenth. ii p. 413 ff. 
 Even conservative critics like Dillmann and Konig 
 assign Is 34 (together with 35) to a period not 
 earlier than the end of the exile; Cheyne, indeed, 
 would regard it as post-exilic (Introd. to Isaiah, 
 . 205 ff.). In the case of this chapter, as well as 
 37-14%, it is impossible to deny the existence of 
 clear traces of direct Babylonian influence. But 
 the date of authorship of these passages does not 
 determine the question when the belief in demonic 
 personalities embodied in animal shapes first be- 
 came prevalent in Israel. From the mention of 
 jackals, ostriches, wild cats, and hyzenas in con- 
 nexion with the oyy ‘satyrs,’ both in 34% and 
 its parallel 132%, we are led to infer that demons 
 were held to reside more or less in all these animal 
 denizens of the ruined solitude. From Lv 177 we also 
 learn that in post-ex. times sacrifices were offered 
 to o"'yy—a practice which is expressly forbidden. 
 On the other hand, the curious rite respecting 
 ‘AzAzel (ue), detailed in Lv 168*, formed an in- 
 tegral part of the ceremonies on the great Day of 
 Atonement, and clearly shows how firmly embedded 
 in popular imagination was this belief in evil 
 powers of the solitude. ‘Az4zel is here an evil 
 spirit, and stands opposed to J”.* See AZAZEL. 
 The belief that certain animals were endowed 
 with demonic powers, somewhat like the Arabic 
 Jinn, must have existed in comparatively early 
 pre-ex. times, since Gn 3!"”, containing the tempta- 
 tion of Eve by the serpent, belongs to the earlier 
 stratum of J. We might compare with this Nu 
 227-4, coming from the same documentary source. 
 But in the narrative of the temptation of Eve by 
 the serpent there is no hint that an evil spirit 
 resided in the serpent. The serpent is identified 
 with it, and we have no suggestion that a demon 
 was able to detach itself from the animal and pass 
 into something else. This was a later develop- 
 ment. The animal was itself the demonic power, 
 and the latter is not abstracted or treated as a 
 separable personality. 
 he Jewish exile, covering the larger part of the 
 6th cent. B.c. and the close of the 7th, wrought a 
 great change. It is probably to this period that 
 we owe the Heb. word 1. This word, occurring 
 in the plural form oy” in Dt 32", like the Aram. 
 x1v, is probably a loan-word, taken from the 
 Assyro- Babylonian (s(du). The word Sdu in 
 Assyr. means good or evil genius, represented in 
 the monuments in the form of acolossal bull. The 
 word occurs only twice in OT (Dt 32” and Ps 106°). 
 The Song of Moses (Dt 32) in its present form can 
 hardly be earlier than the time of Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel (Kuenen). Indeed, its retrospective and 
 didactic character, as well as the references to 
 Israel’s past sins of idolatry, would point quite as 
 well to the 6th cent. as to the 7th for the date of 
 its composition. In other words, it may be held, 
 with considerable probability, to reflect the feel- 
 ings of pious Jews in the exile period. 
 ow, magic played a very considerable part in 
 Babylonian religion. Magic rests on the basis of 
 a belief in evil and destructive spirits, to whose 
 baleful influences man is daily exposed, and which 
 can be counteracted by certain incantations, 
 whereby the countervailing name and power of the 
 higher beneficent gods are invoked. As Sayce has 
 clearly shown (Hibbert Lect. p. 317), magic was 
 closely bound up with medicine, since ‘all sickness 
 was ascribed to demoniacal possession; the demon 
 had been eaten with the food and drunk with the 
 
 * See Schultz, Alttest. Theologie 4(1888), p. 368; and also Cheyne 
 in ZATW, 1895, Heft i. p. 185ff. The curious rite of sending 
 forth the goat for ‘AzAzel into the wilderness (Lv 1641. 23) should 
 be compared with the despatch of the bird into the field ix the 
 ceremony respecting leprosy (1459). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DEMON, DEVIL 
 
 water, or breathed in with the air, and until he 
 
 could be expelled there was no chance of recovery ' 
 (p. 310). Specimens of these magical texts may 
 be seen in the translations given in Appendix 3 of 
 Sayce’s Hibbert Lectures. We subjoin the follow- 
 ing specimen :— 
 
 ‘The plague (namtar), the fever which will carry the people 
 
 away, 
 The ie. the consumption which will trouble mankind, 
 Harmful to the flesh, injurious to the body, 
 The evil incubus, the evil alu, the evil maskum, 
 The evil man, the evil eye, the evil mouth, theeviltongue . 
 Against my body never may they come, 
 My eye never may they injure... 
 Into my house never may they enter, 
 
 - Ospirit of heaven conjure, O spirit of earth conjure.’ * 
 
 A comparison of this vast system of belief in 
 evil spirits and in incantations, which prevailed in 
 Baby:onia, with the later Jewish traditions of 
 demonology, at once reveals the close connexion 
 between the two. During the exile these Baby- 
 lonian traditions effected an entrance into the 
 Jewish world of ideas, and there became per- 
 manently domiciled. 
 
 But while 1y is obviously borrowed from the 
 Bab. Sdu, its signification was by no means the 
 same. For ow is used in the sense of deities of 
 the heathen, onpx ody. Now, the attitude of 
 ancient Israel towards foreign deities varied con- 
 siderably in different periods of the nation’s history. 
 The continued declension of the people towards 
 idolatry in the pre-exilic times clearly shows that, in 
 the popular mind, belief in the power as well as 
 existence of foreign deities was firmly rooted. 
 Many OT passages clearly indicate this, Jg 6%! 9%, 
 Nu 21 (cf. Jer 48% 491), 1S 26, Ru 125 2)? (see 
 Baudissin, Stud. zur Semit. Religionsgesch. Hefti.). 
 In other words, the religion of Israel in early 
 times was henotheism rather than monotheism. 
 In fact, monotheism came very slowly to displace 
 the ‘monarchic polytheistic’ belief of primitive 
 Israel. It is true that, from the 8th cent. B.C. 
 downwards, the ‘other gods’ are called ‘no gods,’ 
 ‘emptiness,’ ‘wind,’ ‘vanity’ (or ‘ breath’), 
 ‘corpses,’ and ‘dead’; but these are terms which 
 are rather selected to express the utter powerless- 
 ness and insufliciency of foreign deities in com- 
 pereon with the supreme might of J”, the true 
 iving God of Israel, than to assert their absolute 
 non-existence. + 
 
 Accordingly, in the two passages Dt 32! and 
 Ps 106’, the word nw ‘demons’ is used to describe 
 the subordinate position, as compared with J”, of 
 the Moabite deities, to whom the Hebrews sacri- 
 ficed in the time of Moses. Baudissin rightly 
 observes in reference to Dt 32 ‘when in the Song 
 of Moses it is said that J” alone has led Israel, 
 and no strange god (133 5x) was with Him, we 
 must merely understand that the active influence 
 of strange gods over Israel is excluded, but 
 that their existence was rather recognized than 
 denied.’ 
 
 The use of oY in these two passages may, in 
 fact, be regarded as the first step taken by Israel 
 in the direction of demonology, under Babylonian 
 
 *See Tiele, Babylon-Assyr. Gesch. p. 548 ff. ; Hommel, Gesch. 
 Babyl. Assyr. p. 888 ff. The subject was first comprehensively 
 dealt with in Lenormant’s Chaldwan Magic, about twenty years 
 ago. The latest work is L. W. King’s Bab. Magic and Sorcery, 
 Cuneiform Texts from the Kouyunjik Collections in B.M. 
 
 + Baudissin (%. p. 72) in our opinion errs in holding that, in 
 all passages which describe the victorious conflict in which J” 
 engages with the gods of the heathen, we have merely poetic 
 personification of the latter, e.g. Is 191, Jer 46, The language 
 of Ex 154. ‘Who is like unto thee, O J”, among the g 
 (ody, ef. Ps 7714 1053 964, in which comparison is made be 
 tween God and the deities of other nations), clearly indicates 
 that some kind of existence and power, however slight, is 
 assigned to the latter. That the terms ovdx, an, apy, ab 
 oabe, etc., cannot be pressed into signifying the absolute 
 denial of existence, is recognized by Be idissin himself (id 
 p. 101 ad fin.). 
 
 
 
592 DEMON, DEVIL 
 
 influence, the deities of foreign nations being 
 relegated to this subordinate rank, and desig- 
 nated by this term. Elsewhere in OT and in the 
 literature of a later period, we find the deities of 
 the heathen identified with the host of stars. Of 
 this we have an example in the apocalyptic section 
 in Isaiah (24-26), which is placed by many critics, 
 with good reason, in the Greek period, not much 
 earlier than the Maccabean book of Daniel. In 
 Is 2431 we read ‘ And it shall come to pass in that 
 day, that J” will visit the host of the height in the 
 height, and the kings of the earth upon the earth, 
 and they shall be carried away captive to the pit, 
 and shut up in the prison, and the moon shall 
 grow pale,’ etc. This is a fresh development of 
 the ok pre-exilic Heb. conception of the heavenly 
 host of attendant personal powers or angels, repre- 
 sented as stars. This belief is reflected in Micaiah’s 
 vision (1 K 22!%), Deborah’s song (Jg 5“), and 
 embodied in the name nix3x mn’, which frequently 
 recurs in prophetic literature (Am 5”, Is 1° 6° etc.),* 
 and thence passed into post-exilic psalm liturgy 
 (Ps 10371 1487), In the apocalyptic passage Is 2474, 
 the host of the height are Ae heathen deities 
 identified with fallen angels. Here, again, the 
 roots of the conception of fallen national deities 
 may be found in the influences of the exile (cf. 
 Is 46). It isimpossible to mistake the significance 
 of the passage Is 142% 
 
 ‘Oh! how art thou fallen from heaven Lucifer bon) son of 
 the dawn! 
 
 How art thou hewn down to earth who didst lay peoples low! 
 
 And thou saidst in thy heart: To the heavens will I mount up, 
 
 Above the stars of God will I set my throne on high’... 
 
 B. THE DEMONOLOGY OF LATER JUDAISM.— 
 During the Greek period the conception of the 
 
 ods of the heathen as demons became firmly estab- 
 ished, and its development was no doubt largely 
 helped by a growing tendency to assume an inter- 
 mieuiate realm of dalywoves (later dayuévia). Its 
 beginnings may be traced even in Hesiod, who 
 made a distinction between @eol and daluoves—the 
 latter being good, and the survivors of the happ 
 olden race whom the Olympic gods first made. 
 But in the 5th cent. B.c. Empedocles widened the 
 gap between gods and demons. The gods were 
 powerful and good, without appetite or passion ; 
 the demons, on the other hand, held a middle 
 position between men and gods, and were the 
 ministers from the latter to the former. These 
 dalwoves lived long, but were not immortal like the 
 gods. They had passions like men, and there 
 existed varying grades among them, some being 
 beneficent and others malignant. It was the 
 demons who communicated dreams and oracles to 
 men, and inspired them towards good and evil 
 (Grote, Hist. of Greece, i. pp. 66, 409ff.), Stoic 
 theology subsequently adopted into its system this 
 conception of an intermediate realm of dada, 
 in order that polytheism, as a moral power, might 
 be rehabilitated. This finds full expression in 
 the 2nd cent. A.D. in such writers as Plutarch, 
 Apuleius, and Maximus of Tyre. The demons 
 stand between men and gods, and all the elements 
 of mythology that were derogatory to the char- 
 acter of the national deities were referred to the 
 demons. 
 
 Greek influence, therefore, stimulated the growth 
 of Hebrew angelology and demonology. Inter- 
 mediate personal agencies became interpolated 
 between the absolute transcendent God and the 
 
 henomenal world. As God in His transcendence 
 ecame removed from participation in the material 
 
 * I disagree, however, with Smend in his conclusion that this 
 name was a speciality of prophetic literature, borrowed, as 
 Wellhausen suggests, from Amos (Lehrbuch d. Alttest. Religions- 
 gesch. p. 185ff.). The origin of the phrase was undoubtedly 
 much more primitive. 
 
 DEMON, DEVIL 
 
 world, these mediating personalities became a quasi- 
 intellectual necessity. Accordingly, the LXX 
 renders ox in Ps 95 [Heb. 96]® by dauéma, and sa 
 also ony in Dt 32”, Ps 105 [Heb. 106], 13 in Ia 
 654, and oy in Is 3414. Similarly, in the Bk. of 
 Baruch heathen deities are called da:uéva or evil 
 spirits. The Ethiopic Bk. of Enoch designates the 
 gods Aganent, ‘demons,’ while in the préem to the 
 Sibylline books the gods of the heathen are called 
 Saluoves ol év diy. It should be noted, moreover, 
 that both in the Sibylline books and in the Bk. 
 of Enoch the deities are regarded as evil spirits. 
 Philo, on the other hand, who came more directly 
 and completely under Greek influence, occupied an 
 exceptional position. He treats the gods of the 
 heathen as good heavenly powers, identified with 
 stars, in opposition to the prevalent Jewish-Alex- 
 andrine conception.* We notice again in Po 645% 
 the evil spirit Asmodeus is called simply dacudnor, 
 and in 3°17 rovnpdv Sayudviov. Similarly, in Josephus 
 daudmoy is used of the ghostly evil spirit. 
 
 The subject of Jewish demonology is too vast to 
 te into the compass of this article. We 
 shall therefore cite a few only among the salient 
 features which may be gathered from Weber's 
 System der altsynagog. Palast. Theol. § 54. 
 
 The ordinary word for ‘devil’ in later Heb. is 
 
 9 x 
 
 7y. Similarly, in the Peshitta })Le is the render- 
 ing of the daiuédnov of NT.t Another term em- 
 ployed by the Jews was }’p"72, meaning ‘destructive’ 
 or ‘injurious ones’ (cf. Pael p33 ‘injure’). Thus 
 the Targ. renders oY in Ps 106% «pp. In 
 fact, the rvetuara dxd@apra (movnpd) of NT is merely 
 a rendering of ;y°2 77 or AND ‘9m; and just as 
 ym is sometimes used by itself to express this, so 
 also in NT with rvevyara. 
 
 According to Jewish conceptions, Satan stands 
 at the head of the demons. From Berachéth 5la 
 we learn that they form societies or bands which 
 lie in wait for men. The sick, women in men- 
 struation, bridegrooms and brides, those in sorrow, 
 and even disciples (0°39 197A), are liable to their 
 assaulta. According to Pesachim 1126 the nightly 
 wanderer is specially open to danger, for the night 
 season until cock-crow is the time when demons 
 walk abroad. They surround the house, and 
 injure those who fall inte their hands. More 
 particularly, they destroy children who during the 
 night pass outside the house. As soon as the 
 cock crows this power ceases, and the demons 
 return to their place of abode. Also there are 
 special animals which, according to Jewish belief, 
 are united with demons, viz. serpents, asses, bulls, 
 mosquitos, etc. We are here again reminded of 
 the Jinn of the desert in primitive as well as 
 modern Arabian belief.t ‘Don’t remain standing,’ 
 is the warning of Pesachim 1126, ‘when the bull 
 comes from the meadow, for Satan dances between 
 his horns.’ God alone has power to quell the 
 demons. His protection is always bestowed on 
 the congregation when the priest recites the 77y! 
 of Nu 6%, an expression which, according to Stfre 
 12a, bears special reference to evil thoughts and 
 demons. The protection is afforded by means of 
 the guardian angels whom God assigns to His pious 
 followers. Berachéth 40a gives the advice that 
 covenant salt (Lv 24%, Nu 18%) should be eaten and 
 drunk at every meal as a protection against 
 demons. Certain formule or passages from Holy 
 
 * Philo also identifies the heroes and demons of Greek specu: 
 lation with the angels of Moses. His tendency was to rationalize 
 myth, ‘In souls and demons and angels we have, it is true, 
 different names, but, in conceiving the thing represented by 
 them all to be one and the same, you will set aside a heavy 
 burden, viz. superstition’ (Conybeare in JQR, Oct. 1896, p. 79). 
 
 + This is the Syr. equivalent of 3e/za” in Lk 8%, and da«jcéviov 
 (Mt 1718 etc.), and yy (Lv 177, Is 1331 8414), 
 
 t Of. Mik 118 fy parc cay Onpior. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 DEMON, DEVIL 
 
 DEMON, DEVIL 593 
 
 
 
 Writ were considered specially potent against 
 demons. Berach, 51a 1ecommends the passage from 
 Zec 3? ‘The Lord rebuke thee, Satan,’ as specially 
 effective agents the Angelof Death. Aboda Zara 
 126, Pesachim 1126, warn the reader against drink- 
 ing water in the night, for he runs the risk of death, 
 or of the demon Shabriri, who can make men 
 blind. The remedy is to strike the water-jug with 
 the lid, and say to oneself, ‘Thou N., son of N., 
 thy mother hath warned thee, and said, Guard 
 thyself from the Shabriri, beriri riri, iri, ri,’ the 
 pronunciation of the name with a syllable short each 
 time being a potent spell to drive the demon away. 
 
 We shall now cite an interesting illustrative 
 passage from Josephus (Ané. VII. ii. 5), which is 
 poe poate because it shows how profoundly the 
 belief in demonology atiected even the most culti- 
 vated and cosmopolitan of Jews. In his account 
 of Solomon’s wisdom * we are informed that ‘God 
 enabled him to learn that skill which expels 
 demons,’ and that Solomon composed such in- 
 cantations as alleviate distempers. ‘And he left 
 behind him the mode of using exorcism by which 
 ey drive away demons so that they never return. 
 And this method is prevalent unto this day, for I 
 have seen a certain man of my own country, whose 
 name was Eleazar, releasing people that were de- 
 moniacal in the presence of Vespasian. . . . The 
 manner of the cure was as follows :—He put a ring 
 that had a root, of one of those sorts mentioned 
 by Solomon, to the nostrils of the demoniac, after 
 which he drew the demon out through his nostrils ; 
 and when the man fell down at once, he adjured 
 him (the demon) to return unto him no more, 
 making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the 
 incantations which he composed.’ Another passage 
 shows that Josephus considered demons to be the 
 spirits of departed wicked men (BJ VII. vi. 3). 
 
 Passing tor a few moments to the Jewish 
 apocryphal literature of the age preceding the 
 birth of Jesus, we observe that according to the 
 Book of Enoch the demons are lost angels. They 
 assail men’s bodies, cause convulsions, and in other 
 Ways vex and oppress mankind (ch. 15); and this 
 war of the demons on men will continue until the 
 day of consummation—the great judgment (16), 
 when they will receive dire chastisement.t In 19! 
 we learn that evil spirits in various shapes shall 
 corrupt men, and lead them astray to sacrifice to 
 demons as if to gods until the great judgment day. 
 In 535 we read of the iron chains prepared for the 
 angelic hosts who are hurled down into the abyss 
 of condemnation (cf. 2 P 24, Rev 20 8), 
 
 In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (test. 
 Reuben) we are informed that there are seven evil 
 eles sent out from Beliar against mankind, viz. 
 those of life, seeing, hearing, smell, talking, taste, 
 and the procreative impulses. Another group of 
 seven is mentioned, viz. of fornication, gluttony, 
 combativeness, flattery, pride, falsehood, injustice. 
 
 C. THE DEMONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 —This is in all its broad characteristics the demon- 
 ology of the contemporary Judaism stripped of its 
 eruder and exaggerated features. Evil detnonis or 
 anclean demons, daiudvea (OY), mvevuara dxddapra or 
 sovnpé (j'¥'2 7), hover about the world, and these 
 are unier subjection to Satan (dpyxwy r&v dapovlwr), 
 
 * Respecting Solomon as a nucleus of later legend, see Stade, 
 Gesch. p. 309ff., and the Arabic story of Bilkis (given in the 
 Ohrestomathy of Socin’s Arabic Grammar), 
 
 ¢t Conybeare, in quoting this, appositely cites the cry of the 
 daemons to Jesus, ‘Art thou come hither to torment us before 
 our time?’ 1 desire here to express my obligations to this 
 writer, whose interesting articles on the ‘Demonology of the 
 New Testament’ (JQR, July and October 1896) contain much 
 valuable information. They are occasionally marked, however, 
 Le a certain tendency to accentuate unduly some of the details 
 of the NT narrative. Note, for example, his rendering of 
 iwizscs as ‘fell bodily’ in Ac 104, whereas it has no more 
 | ebpsiee significance than in Eurip. Androm. 1042, ool wove 
 
 br ppovas imtwsroy Adres, 
 VOL. I.—38 
 
 Mt 9% 12%, Mk 322, Lk 11. The demon was said 
 to enter (elcépxecOa) into a man somewhat as 
 though it were a physical entity, and similarly waa 
 said to pass out (¢éépxeoGar), or was forcibly expelled 
 by some superior power who had authority to cast 
 out (éxBd\deav) demons. The demons may pass into 
 other animals, e.g. into the Gadarene swine. 
 man possessed with a devil was said to have or 
 hold a demon (éxe dacudviov), or to be a demoniac 
 (Satmovigouevos, cf. the Arabic mejniin, said of a 
 man possessed by a Jinn, Doughty, i. p. 259). 
 Mt (4% 1735) also op oye the verb cernuidterba, ‘ to 
 be a lunatic,’ as though it expressed something 
 distinct from dapovltecOa (44). In Mk 1” 5° the 
 phrase used is (4v@pwia) ev mvevpare dxabdpry, where 
 the preposition ¢v means ‘in the power or under the 
 influence of’; cf. Winer, § xlviii. (Eng. ed. p. 483), 
 Luke also uses ¢voxAeic#ac of demon possession (618). 
 The manifestations of demoniac possession are 
 very varied in NT. In the case of the Gadarene 
 he 1s compelled to dwell among the tombs, which 
 are associated with solitude and uncleanness. As 
 water is connected with purity and cleansing, 
 the demons have a preference for waterless spots. 
 Demons are, however, chiefly associated with 
 abnormal forms of human life, especially disease. 
 Dumbness (Lk 9, Mk 97), deafness and dumbness 
 (Mk 9%), blindness and deafness combined (Mt 127%), 
 and epilepsy (Mk 1% 9”, Lk 9%), are the mani- 
 festations of demoniac influence. Of all the 
 synoptic evangelists, Luke is the most power- 
 fully impressed with this conception. Even high 
 fever is attributed to demoniac agency, as we can 
 clearly infer from the fact that, in the case of 
 Peter’s mother-in-law, Jesus stood over her and 
 rebuked the fever which possessed her (Lk 4**- *, 
 cf. 131%), It is to be noted, however, that in this 
 Gospel a saying of our Lord is reported whick 
 expressly distinguishes between ordinary cures and 
 expulsion of demons, éxBdAd\w daiwdvia cat ldoes 
 dmoreA@ (Lk 1352), The demons, moreover, were 
 able to speak, and exercised mastery over the vocal 
 organs of the human subject. Thus in one case, 
 as the demon came forth, it cried with a loud voice 
 (Mk 1%). It was possible for many demons to possess 
 a human being at the same time. Sevendemons were 
 cast out from Mary Magdalene by Jesus(Lk8*), while 
 the Gadarene demoniac was possessed by a legion. 
 As regards the method of procedure adopted by 
 Jesus, we observe the stress which is laid upon His 
 own personality. The power which He wielded in 
 His person is placed in direct opposition to the 
 ee of moral and physical anarchy. Faith 
 was necessary in order that the exorcist should 
 accomplish his task (Mt 17} *°), and this was aided 
 by prayer (Mk 9”). Faith was sometimes required 
 on the part of near relatives, as in the case of the 
 father of the epileptic patient (Mk 9%-*4), in order 
 that the cure might be effected. In these cireum- 
 stances Jesus relied upon a simple direct command 
 addressed to the demon, ‘Thou dumb and deaf 
 spirit, I charge thee come out of him’ (Mk 9”), or 
 the muzzled and depart’ (Mk 15). ‘He cast out 
 spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.’ 
 e Himself declared that He did this by. the 
 finger or spirit of God (Lk 11”, Mt 12%). There 
 was no use of magic formule. In the case of the 
 woman who had been bound by Satan for eighteen 
 ears, He merely laid His hand upon her (Lk 13"). 
 tn Mt 12?” He appears to place His own expulsions 
 of demons on a footing of equality. with those 
 worked by Jewish exorcists; but here it is im- 
 possible to deny that there is irony latent in the 
 question, ‘By whom do your sons cast them out?’ 
 It is asked by way of argument rather than direct 
 statement, and is intended to apply to the special 
 belief and standpoint held by His Jewish opponents. 
 This power of delivering men from unclean 
 
DEMON, DEVIL 
 
 spirits Jesus bequeathed to His disciples (Mt 10). 
 
 hey effected their cures simply by naming the 
 name of Jesus (Mk 16!", Ac 3°). This belief in the 
 poner efficacy of the name comes from a hoary 
 
 emitic past (see Sayce’s Hibbert Lect. pp. 302-307). 
 It Bacall be remchibered that name meant to an 
 ancient Semite personal power and existence, and 
 hence involved to those who invoked the name of 
 Jesus belief in the actual presence and might of 
 the divine Saviour of mankind. 
 
 Before passing from the subject of the Gospel 
 narratives in their relation to demonology, it 
 should not be forgotten (1) that we are dealing 
 with the reports of chroniclers whose minds were 
 necessarily coloured by the prevailing beliefs of the 
 age, psychic and cosmic; (2) that the properly 
 demoniac element is almost wholly absent from the 
 Fourth Gospel. In 8# 10” the language employed 
 by the Jews is quoted, while in 6” Judas is called 
 didBoros and not dausvror. 
 
 St. Paul, however, shared the conceptions of his 
 contemporaries respecting devils. Several passages 
 may be cited in illustration. In the first place, 
 the much disputed passage 1 Co 10!” points, in 
 our opinion, to the conclusion adopted by Baudissin, 
 and more recently by Everling (Die Paulinische 
 Angelologie u. Démonologie, p. 27 ff.), that St. Paul 
 had borrowed from Alexandrian Judaism the belief 
 that the offerings to heathen deities were offerings 
 to demons (cf. above the demonology of the Bk. 
 of Enoch and the Sibylline books). In 1 Co 10” 
 Paul argues, ‘But I say, that the things which the 
 Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not 
 to God: and I would not that ye should have 
 communion with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup 
 of the Lord and the cup of devils.’ He is pleading 
 that it is not permissible to partake of the heathen 
 sacrificial offerings. He quotes the two examples 
 
 of the Christian Lord’s Supper and the Jewish 
 
 sacrifice. In both cases there is a real com- 
 munion between the participator and the object of 
 worship. The statement in 84 ‘We know that 
 no idol is anything in the world,’ does not involve 
 any inconsistency. For St. Paul the gods as such 
 are creatures of the imagination ; yet he does not 
 hold that nothing at all exists behind the image- 
 worship of the heathen, but that demons lurk 
 there and the kingdom of Satan, and that partici- 
 pators in heathen feasts are drawn into the circle 
 of their evil influence (so Holsten).* Moreover, 
 Everling (ib. p. 33 ff.) has shown with considerable 
 probability that the reference in the obscure 
 phrase 1 Co 11° ‘for this cause ought the woman 
 to have power over her head on account of the 
 angels’ is to be found in the legend of the inter- 
 course of the fallen angels with the daughters of 
 men. Book of Enoch (ch. 6) and other citations 
 from the Book of Jubilees, Apocalypse of Baruch 
 564 in Charles’ ed., and the Testaments of the 
 Twelve Patriarchs (test. Reuben 5), show the im- 
 portant place held by this tradition in the litera- 
 ture that preceded the time of St. Paul. 
 
 It would lie beyond the scope of this article to 
 trace the development of demonology in post- 
 apostolic Christian writers. The elaborate demon- 
 ology of Origen is portrayed in Conybeare’s inter- 
 esting article (JQR, Oct. 1896), to which the reader 
 is referred. The enormous range of this belief in 
 all its varieties, and the extent to which it pene- 
 trated into popular belief and practice from the 
 hoary antiquity of Babylonian and Egyptian 
 magic down to the time of the Reformation and 
 beyond, is a fact of which this modern age of 
 
 * The opposite view is taken by Beyschlag in his Programme, 
 * Did the Apostle Paul regard the gods of the heathen as demons?’ 
 and he is followed by Marcus Dods (Expositor, March 1895, 
 
 Sel ff.). But on the subject of Demonology in the NT, and 
 e belief of Jesus in a personal devil, Beyschlag is an unsafe 
 
 guide, as I shall attempt to show in my article Saran. 
 
 scientific discovery is but dimly conscious. Readers 
 of Doughty’s Arabia Deserta, however, soon become 
 aware how fervently the modern Arab of the desert 
 believes in the Jd@n (see especially vol. ii. p. 188 ff.). 
 Monumental evidence presents a vast array of 
 examples. A considerable mass of Aramaic in- 
 scriptions could be cited, if space permitted, con- 
 sisting of nothing else than conjurations, charms, 
 or spells. See, for example, the transcription and 
 translation by Jos. Wohlstein, in Zettschr. fiir 
 Assyriologie, April 1894, of Aramaic inscriptions 
 on clay vessels preserved in the Royal Museum at 
 Berlin, No. 2416 (consisting of nearly 100 lines) ; 
 also in Dec. 1893, No. 2422 (of 44 lines). See also 
 the interesting Greek form in Deissmann, Bibel- 
 studien, p. 26 ff., and cf. art. EXORCISM. Respect- 
 ing modern examples of demoniacal possession and 
 exorcism it is difficult to speak with certainty, 
 though some examples appear well authenticated. 
 One of the most striking is to be found in the 
 account given by the missionary Waldmeier cf his 
 ten years’ labour in Abyssinia, Autobiography of 
 Thomas Waldmeier, pp.64-66. Though the ahadoue 
 of such beliefs have been slowly passing away from 
 Western Europe, the gloom still invests a large 
 portion of the world, and fills the hearts of many 
 millions of our fellow-men with anguish and terror. 
 Like our first parents, we behold 
 ‘all the eastern side 
 With dreadful faces thronged and fiery arms.’ 
 OweEN C. WHITEHOUSE. 
 
 DEMOPHON (A7podav, 2 Mac 12”), a Syrian com- 
 mandant in Palestine under Antiochus Eupator. 
 According to the author of 2 Mac, after terms of 
 
 eace had been agreed upon for the first time 
 bbetwean Judas Maccabeeus and Lysias (see ABSA- 
 LOM IN APOcR.), some of the provincial com- 
 mandants, and Demophon among them, continued 
 to act in a hostile manner towards the Jews. 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 DEN (27s the lurking-place of wild beasts, Job 
 378; my a cave where robbers hide, Jer 74; 7739 
 in Jg 6? is perhaps [but see Moore, ad loc.] a deep 
 valley or water-course. In NT omjdaov).—The 
 lions’ den into which Daniel was cast (Dn 67 etc.) 
 was doubtless that in which the king’s lions were 
 kept, in accordance with a custom known to prevail 
 at Oriental courts. Layard (Nin. and Bab.) shows 
 that these beasts were used for purposes ef sport 
 by the kings of Assyria. A royal lion hunt is 
 depicted in a bas-relief of the palace of Assur- 
 nazir-pal (B.c. 885-860) discovered at Nimroud, 
 now in the British Museum. A seal of Darius has 
 also been found, on which the king is represented 
 in the act of shooting an arrow at a lion rampant. 
 
 G. WALKER. 
 DENARIUS.—See Monry. 
 
 DENOUNCE.—In AV Dt 30’ only, ‘I d. unto 
 you this day, that ye shall surely perish’ (*n7a7, tr? 
 ‘I profess’ 26%). This is the orig. meaning of the 
 word (fr. Lat. denwntiare, ‘to give official inti- 
 mation’). So Peacock (1449), ‘The Euangelie of 
 God... which to alle men oughte be denouncid’ ; 
 and 2 Th 3” Wye. (1380) ‘we denounceden this 
 thing to you, that if ony man wole not worche: 
 nether ete he’ (after Vulg. hoc denunciabamus 
 vobis). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DENY.—In the sense of ‘refuse,’ deny (Lat. 
 de-negare, ‘say no,’ ‘refuse’) is not yet obsolete. 
 Examples in AV are 1 K 2" ‘IT ask one petition of 
 thee, deny me not’ (yeny ‘3vrby ‘turn not away 
 my face’; in v. the same phrase is twice tr4 in 
 AV ‘say not nay,’ RV ‘deny not’; ef. Lk 12”); 1K 
 207, Pr 307 ‘Two things have I required (RV 
 ‘asked’) of thee ; deny me them not before I die’ 
 (both y3p). But we cannot now say ‘deny to do’ 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ee ee a ee | ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DEPART 
 
 
 
 
 
 a thing, as Wis 12” ‘the true God, whom before 
 they denied to know’ (jpvobvro eldéva, Vulg. negabant 
 ge nosse, RV ‘refused to know,’ RVm ‘denied that 
 they knew’); so 16° ‘the ungodly that denied to 
 know thee’; and 1 Mac 5 «ing ‘He destroyeth 
 Ephron for denying him to pass through it.’ Cf. 
 Shaks. Winter’s Tale, v. ii. 128: ‘You denied to 
 fight with me this other day, because I was no 
 entleman born’; and Knox, Historie, 88, ‘the 
 rd Gray ... plainely denyed to charge again.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 DEPART.—The earliest meaning of ‘depart’ is 
 ‘divide into parts’ (dis-partire), as Maundeville, xi. 
 43: ‘The woe of Moyses, with the whilk he de- 
 partid the Reed See.’ Then to ‘distribute,’ as Jn 
 19% Gen. ‘They departed my rayment among 
 them.’ Next came ‘separate,’ which occurs once 
 (intrans.) in AV, Ac 15 ‘they departed asunder 
 one from the other’ (droxwpifoua, RV ‘ parted 
 asunder’). -This is the meaning (but trans.) of 
 ‘depart’ in the Pr. Bk., ‘till death us depart,’ 
 which was retained from 1549 till 1662, when 
 ‘depart’ was changed into ‘do part.’ Cf. Ru 1” 
 Cov. ‘ death onely shal departe us.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 DEPUTY, the rendering once (1 K 227) of 243, 
 elsewhere in OT of ans. The latter was a gover- 
 nor subordinate to the satrap (which see), and is 
 mentioned under both the Assyr. and the Chald. 
 governments (2 K 18%, Ezk 23°), although the 
 office seems to have been better defined under the 
 Persian rule (Est 8° 9°, cf. Behist. Inscr. col. iii. 
 par. 3, § 4; par. 9,§ 2). The deputies who were 
 set over the lesser districts and cities within the 
 satrap’s province occupied a position of con- 
 siderable dignity and authority (Rawlinson, Anc. 
 Mon. iv. 416; cf. Xen. Hell. iii. 1. § 10-12; iv. 1. 
 § 1). 
 In NT ‘deputy’ is AV tr. in Ac 137 18! 19% of 
 4960naros, which is more accurately rendered in 
 RV ‘ proconsul’ (which see). . WALKER. 
 
 DERBE (Aép8n, ethnic Aepfaios, Ac 204, but 
 AepSirns in Strabo, P 569, and Cicero, ad Fam. 
 xili. 73) was a city of Lycaonia, on the main road 
 from Iconium (or Lystra), 8.E. to Laranda. Ofits 
 early history nothing is recorded. It was in the 
 part of Lycaonia that was added to Cappadocia as 
 an ‘eleventh Strategia’ by the Romans (prob. in 
 B.C. 65); but, under the weak rule of the Cappadocian 
 kings, it was seized by a native ruler, Antipater 
 (called ‘the robber’ by Strabo, p. 569, which merely 
 shows that he opposed the Rom. policy ; he was a 
 friend of Cicero, ad Fam. xiii. 73). Amyntas, king 
 of Galatia, conquered Derbe and Laranda, and at 
 his death in B.C. 25 they passed with his kingdom 
 to the Romans, were incorporated in the province 
 Galatia, and supplied soldiers to the Rom. legions 
 (CIZ iii. 2709, 2818). In A.D. 37 or 41 Laranda 
 was probably transferred to the kingdom of 
 Antiochus, and the coins of king Antiochus 
 mentioning the Lycaones must have been struck 
 there ; hence from 41 to 72 Derbe became the fron- 
 tier city of the Rom. province, and was honoured 
 with the title Claudio-Derbe. Soon after, it 
 was visited by St. Paul (Ac 14°), who, having here 
 reached the extremity of Rom. territory, now 
 turned back and retraced his former steps to 
 Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and Perga. Nothing 
 is said in Ac about any sufferings of St. Paul at 
 D., nor is it mentioned among the places (like 
 Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra) where he had 
 suffered (2 Ti 3%). On his second journey, coming 
 from Cilicia (doubtless through the ‘Cilician 
 Gates’), St. Paul passed through D. to Lystra, ete., 
 and on his third journey he took the same route 
 (ace. to those who maintain the ‘S. Galatian’ 
 view, though most scholars consider that on this 
 
 DESCRY 595 
 occasion he wert northward from the ‘Gates’ 
 through Cappadocia towards N. Galatia). Gaius 
 
 of D. was one of the delegation which accom. 
 panied St. Paul to Jerusalem in charge of the 
 contributions of the Pauline Churches for the 
 benefit of the poor in Jerus. (Ac 204). According 
 to the text of Codex Beze, Gaius is styled AovBpios; 
 this is the ethnic derived from Doubra, doubtless 
 a local pronunciation of the name (which may be 
 compared with Seiblia or Silbion or Soublaion). A 
 third form, Aé\feu, is mentioned by Stephanus 
 Byzant. as meaning ‘juniper’ in the Lycaonian 
 tongue (cf. Ac 1414). ery little is recorded of D. 
 in NT; it is rarely mentioned in general history ; 
 and in Christian history it hardly reappears until 
 A.D. 381, when its bishop, Daphnus, was present at 
 the Council of Constantinople. 
 
 The site of D., after many diverse conjectures, 
 was placed by Prof. Sterrett at Zosta or Losta ; 
 thongh the evidence is still not perfect, yet general 
 considerations point conclusively to this neighbour- 
 hood, and especially to a large mound called 
 Gudelissin, evidently in great part artificial, from 
 which protrude numerous remains of a city, about 
 three miles N.W. of Zosta. The buildings that 
 remain above ground at Gudelissin are all of the 
 Byzantine period ; but the mound has the appear- 
 ance of great antiquity, as one of those sites where 
 city has been built over city, until a hillis formed 
 (like the ‘mounds of Semiramis’ at Tyana and 
 Zela, Strab. pp. 537, 559). The statement of 
 Stephanus Byzant., that Derbe was a fortress 
 and harbour (Acxuwjv) of Isauria is erroneous; and 
 the proposed change of text (Aluyn) has no 
 authority. 
 
 LITERATURE about Derbe begins with Sterrett, Wolfe Expe- 
 dition in Asia Minor, pp. 22-30; Losta was visited by MM. 
 Radet and Paris, who, however, wrongly identified it with 
 Lystra, Bulletin de Correspond. Hellénique, 1886, pp. 509-512. 
 The reasons for the identification of D. with Zosta are stated 
 by Ramsay, Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor, p. 336 f., and more 
 definitely (after a visit to the place) in Church in Rom. Emp. 
 pp. 54-58; St. Paul the Trav. pp. 110 ff., 178 ff. See Ganaria. 
 
 W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 DERISION.—With one exception, all instances 
 of the phrase ‘ have in derision ’ represent a simple 
 verb: either 1y) Jd‘agh, ‘mock,’ Ps 2 598, Ezk 
 238; pny sdhak ‘laugh at,’ Job 30!; wba héliz, 
 ‘deride’; or puxrnpifw, 1 Es 15 (RV ‘ mocked’). 
 The exception is Wis 5° ‘This was he whom we 
 had sometimes in derision’ (év &cxo0puév ore els 
 yédwra, Vulg. habuimus in derisum). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DESCRIBE.—In Jos 18-6 8 d#.9 “to describe’ is 
 to map out, or divide into lots, as Jos 18° ‘ Ye shall 
 therefore describe the land into seven parts, and 
 bring the description hither to me, that I may 
 east lots for you here before the Lord our God.’ 
 This is Coverdale’s tr., from Vulg. describere (in 
 Jos 18* & 8 bis, in © diviserunt, scribentes). In Jg 8"4 
 the same Heb. (102 ‘ write’) is again tr. ‘ describe’ 
 (Vulg. describere), but the meaning is ‘ write a list 
 of.’ In this passage the LXX gives ypd¢w, the word 
 used in Ro 10° ‘ Moses describeth the righteousness 
 which is of the law’ (RV ‘writeth that,’ etc.) ; 
 while in 4® ‘describeth the blessedness’ the vb. is 
 déyw (RV ‘ pronounceth blessing upon ’). : 
 
 Besides Jos 18° (above), where there is no corresp. 
 Heb., description occurs only 1 Es 5 with the 
 meaning of ‘list’ : the description of ‘the kindred’ 
 (rijs yerixfs ypad7s, t.e. the genealogy). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DESCRY.—‘ Describe’ and ‘descry’ are both from 
 Lat. describere, the former immediately, the latter 
 through the old Fr. descrire. And in earlier Eng. 
 their meanings were often very close, to ‘ descry 
 being to ‘reveal,’even as late as Milton, Comus,141— 
 
 And to the tell-tale Sun descry 
 Our concealed solemnity.’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
. 
 
 596 DESERT 
 
 But Milton uses the word also in the sense of re- 
 connoitre, as Par. Lost, vi. 530— 
 ‘ And scouts each coast light-armed scour, 
 Each quarter, to descry the distant foe.’ 
 This is the meaning of ‘descry’ in AV, where it 
 occurs only Jg 1% ‘And the house of Joseph sent 
 to descry Bethel’ (71m, RV ‘sent to spy out’). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 DESERT.—See WILDERNESS. 
 
 DESIRE.—‘ To desire,’ says Trench (Sel. Gloss. 
 66), ‘is only to look forward with longing now: 
 the word has lost the sense of regret or tee 
 back upon the lost but still loved. This it once 
 er in common with desideriumand desiderare, 
 Tom which more remotely, and désirer, from which 
 more immediately, we derive it.’ And he quotes as 
 an example 2 Ch 21” ‘and [Jehoram] departed 
 without being desired.’ Now this sense of ‘ desire’ 
 is certainly found, as Berners (1533), ‘ Of the death 
 of suche an entierly desyred husbande’; Jer. 
 Taylor, ‘she shall be pleasant while she lives, and 
 desired when che dies.’ But it is not so certain that 
 2Ch 21” isan example. The Heb. is lit. ‘he went 
 {or walked] without desire’ (77997 Xba 3d; LXX cal 
 éropetOn ovx év éralyy; Vulg. Ambulavitque non 
 recte, whence Cov. ‘and walked not well’), and the 
 tr. of AV is taken from Gen. Bible, which has ‘and 
 lived without being desired,’ with the gloss ‘ he was 
 not regarded, but deposed for his wickedness.’* 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DESOLATE.—An example of the primary mean- 
 ing (de-solus, alone) ‘left alone,’ ‘solitary,’ is Ad. 
 Est 14° ‘help me, d. woman, which have no helper 
 but thee’; and an example of the obsolete constr. 
 with ‘of,’ is Bar 2% ‘the whole land shall be d. of 
 inhabitants’ (RV ‘d. without inh.’). So 1 Ti 5° 
 Wye. ‘sche that is a widewe verili, and desolate’ ; 
 AS Ru Lb Cov. ‘the woman remayned desolate of 
 both hir sonnes and hir huszbande.’ For Desolation 
 see ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DESPITE is now only a prep., though as a 
 subst. it is still used in poetry. The subst. 
 (=‘contempt’ actively shown, ‘dishonour,’ from 
 Lat. dspicere, to look down on) occurs Ezk 
 256 ‘rejoiced in heart with all thy despite against 
 the land of Israel’ (v>32 awxy-b2a, RV ‘with all the 
 d. of thy soul’); and He 10” ‘hath done despite 
 unto the Spirit of grace’ (évuBpicas ; ‘doith dispit’ 
 is Wyclif’s word; Tin., Cov., Cran., Gen, ‘doth 
 dishonour’; Rhem. ‘hath done contumelie’). Cf. 
 Jer. Taylor, ‘ Liberality . . . consists in the de- 
 spite and neglect of money.’ Asa vb. ‘d.’ occurs 
 in Pref. to AV, ‘The Romanists ... did no 
 lesse then despite the spirit of grace,’ that is, 
 ‘treated with contempt.’ Despiteful is found Ezk 
 255 ‘a d. heart,’ 36° ‘d. minds’; Sir 315! ‘give 
 him no d. words’ (Aéyor évecdiauo0, RV ‘a word of 
 reproach’); and Ro 1” (iSpicral, RV ‘ insolent’). 
 Despitefully, 1 Mac 9% ‘used them d.’ (évéractov 
 avrots); Mt 54, Lk 6% ‘which d. use you’ (éry- 
 pedtw) ; Ac 14° ‘to use them d.’ (v8ploa adro’s, RV 
 ‘to entreat them shamefully’). Despitefulness, 
 Wis 2! ‘Let us examine him with d. and torture’ 
 (WBpe, Vulg. contumelia, RV ‘outrage’). Here, 
 and in the passages where ‘despitefully’ occurs, 
 the idea is cruelty more than contempt; but the 
 meaning of ‘spite,’ ‘spitefulness,’ is never present 
 in these words. In Est 1}8 Cov., ‘thus shall there 
 aryse despytefulness and wrath ynough,’ d.=con- 
 tempt, as AV and RY. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DESTRUCTION (j13x).—See ABADDON. 
 DETERMINATE.—Only Ac 2* ‘the d. counsel 
 
 * This is the sense in which the passage is taken by Oay. Heb. 
 Lez. (8.0. 79DN), ‘he lived as no one desired.’ 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 and foreknowledge of God’ (d&picpévos, fr. dpltw, to 
 mark a boundary, fix, appoint. The closest 
 parallel is Lk 22" ‘the Son of man indeed goeth, 
 as it hath been determined’ RV, Gr. xara 1d 
 wpicpévov). ‘ Deteriminate’ is Tindale’s word, whom 
 all the VSS follow ; but Wyclif has the form we 
 should now employ ‘determyned.’ Chaucer has 
 ‘determinat’ in the same sense, as Astrolabe, 1. 
 xxi. 7: ‘sterres fixes, with hir longitudes and lati- 
 tudes determinat’; and cf. Shaks. Twelfth Night, 
 Il. i. 10: ‘My determinate voyage is mere extrava- 
 gancy.’ Determination, Zeph 3° ‘my d. is to 
 gather the nations’ (p97p, lit. ‘judgement,’ as 
 RVm); 2 Es 10" ‘if thou shalt acknowledge the 
 d. of God to be just’ (terminus, lit. ‘end,’ RV 
 ‘decree’; cf. Ja 5" ‘ye have seen the end of the 
 Lord,’ réXos). Determine was common about 1611 
 in the sense of ‘end,’ ‘ terminate’; but in AV only 
 the derived meanings are found, fix, decide, resolve. 
 In AV Pref. the obsolete construction with ‘ of’ is 
 used: ‘ For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt 
 of those things that are evident ; so to determine 
 of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even 
 in the padecnieye of the judicious) questionable, can 
 be no less than presumption.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DETESTABLE THINGS.—The tr® in AV and 
 RV of oyipy in Jer 168, Ezk 5! 720 1118 21 3723, the 
 reference being either to actual idols or to objects 
 connected with idolatry. Elsewhere the word is 
 tr? ABOMINATION (see the references above, p. 12, 
 —adding Nah 3°[AV, RV ‘abominable filth’), Dn 
 977 1181 12" 2 Ch 158), which usually represents 
 nmayin (see p. 11); but as in the first five passages 
 cited both Heb. words occur together, ‘ detestable 
 things’ is adopted for oy:py for the sake of dis 
 tinction. It would have conduced to accuracy and 
 clearness, had it been adopted uniformly. The 
 cognate verb ppv, to treat as detestable, is rendered 
 ‘to detest’ in Dt 7%, but unfortunately ‘to have in 
 abomination’ in Ly 112!+5, and ‘to make abomin- 
 able’ (for ‘make detestable’) in Lv 11% 207 (in 
 these four passages, in connexion with yay, the 
 technical term for the flesh of prohibited animals, 
 See ABOMINATION, No. 3). 
 
 In 2 Mac 5% ‘that detestable ringleader’ 
 (Apollonius) stands for rév puodpxnv; RV ‘lord of 
 pollutions,’ with marg. ‘Gr. Mysarch, which may 
 also mean ruler of the Mysians.’ The tr® of the 
 text is, no doubt, correct (similarly Grimm, Rawl., 
 Zéckler; Pesh. ‘ruler of all the unclean’); the 
 term is evidently one of disparagement, framed on 
 the model of titles such as €0vdpxns, srparomeddpxys, 
 ete. S. R. DRIVER. 
 
 DEUEL (5x:y7 ‘ knowledge of God,’ ‘Payouy\).— 
 Father of Eliasaph, prince of Gad (Nu 114 7*:- 47 10?) 
 =Reuel, Nu 24 (perhaps the original name, see 
 LXX, 7 being put tee 5) p. G. H. BATTERSBY. 
 
 DEUTERONOMY.—i. THe NAME OF THE Book. 
 —The name Deuteronomy is taken from the Lat. 
 ‘Deuteronomium,’ which transliterated the Gr. 
 word Aevrepovduiov. This Gr. word appears in the 
 LXX of Dt 17'8, where the words ‘a copy of this 
 law’ (nig ay\AD 73D) are incorrectly tr? 7d Aeurepo- 
 voucov rodro, as if the Heb. had been ‘this copy 
 of the law’ (ma a7hAp 43%). The word also occurs, 
 with the same error of tr®, in Jos 9° [Heb. 8%}. 
 Though the word was a mistranslation, it fur- 
 nished an appropriate title to a book which in 
 a large measure ‘reformulated’ previous laws. 
 The book is referred to by this name in the 
 writings of Philo (Leg. Allegor. iii..§ 61, i. 121, 
 Quod Deus immutab. § 10, i. 280), although that 
 writer also quotes it by the name of ‘The Appen. 
 dix to the Laws,’ 7 "Emvouls (Quis rer. dives hoe 
 § 33, i. 495). 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 In Heb. literature the book was known by a title taken from 
 its opening words, ‘These are the words’ (97370 nby), or, 
 simply, ‘words’ (0°37). In Rabbinic writing it is sometimes 
 cited as ‘The book of Threatenings’ (MiNDiA 150); but in such 
 cases the reference is to the latter portion of the book, which 
 also appears to have been known to Philo as ‘ The Curses’ (ai 
 "Apai). See Leg. Allegor. iii. § 35, i. 109, quoting Dt 2717; De 
 Posterit. Caini, § 8, i. 280, quoting Dt 2885, (Ryle’s Philo and 
 Holy Scripture, Introd. p. xxiii) 
 
 ii. THE CONTENTS OF THE Book.—The book 
 eee to contain the last utterances of Moses, 
 
 elivered in the plains of Moab just before his 
 death. The historical position is defined by the 
 brief Introduction (11-5) and by the Epilogue (34), 
 which narrates the death of Moses. The utter- 
 ances of Moses comprise ¢Aree main discourses: 
 (1) The first is chiefly historical, reviewing the 
 life of Israel in the wilderness, 1°4, (2) The 
 second, which has a brief historical preface (4-4), 
 is, at first, hortatory (5-11), but is chiefly taken 
 ap with the legislation (12-26), i.e. the code of 
 laws which constitutes the nucleus of the whole 
 work. To this is appended the description of a 
 ceremony which was to symbolize the popular 
 ratification of the laws in the land of Canaan 
 (27), and a rehearsal of warnings and blessings 
 that should ensue upon the neglect and observ- 
 ance of these laws (20). (3) The third address is 
 an additional exhortation urging the people to 
 keep the covenant with J”, promising restoration 
 even after relapse into idolatry, and offering the 
 alternatives of obedience or disloyalty to J” (29. 
 
 ). 
 These three addresses to the poops are followed 
 by a collection of more miscellaneous materials, 
 such as Moses’ farewell, his deliverance of the 
 Deut. law to the priests, his commission to Joshua, 
 the Song of Moses, the Blessing of Moses (31-33). 
 The whole is concluded by an account of the 
 Death of Moses (34). 
 
 Although it is true to say that the legislation 
 constitutes the nucleus of the book, the character 
 of the writing is very far from being that of a 
 legal work. The tone of exhortation which runs 
 through the earlier and later addresses, pervades 
 also the legislative portion. The laws are not 
 systematically and technically stated. They are 
 ethically expounded in order to set forth their 
 relation to the theocratic principles laid down 
 in chs. 5-11. The purpose of the book is thus, 
 practically, wholly ‘hortatory,’ or, as it has been 
 termed, ‘parenetic’; and its ‘parenetic’ aim ac- 
 counts for the diffuse and somewhat discursive 
 treatment which is found in the historical and 
 legislative, no less than in the directly homiletical 
 
 assages. A very cursory perusal enables us to 
 see that the writer is neither historian nor jurist, 
 but a religious teacher. 
 
 When we investigate Dt in relation to the 
 books which immediately precede and follow it 
 in the Hex., we cannot fail to be struck by the 
 general vnity of its composition, and by the dis- 
 tinctiveness of its character and style. 
 
 In Nu 27! it has already been said, ‘And the 
 LorD said unto Moses, Get thee up into this 
 mountain of Abarim, and behold the en which 
 I have given unto the children of {srael. And 
 when thou hast seen it, thou also shalt be gathered 
 unto thy people, as Aaron thy brother was 
 gathered.’ Again, in Nu 27" we find the 
 commission to Joshua thus described, ‘And the 
 LoRD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the 
 son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and 
 lay thine hand upon him, etc. And Moses did 
 
 as the LORD commanded him; and he took Joshua 
 and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before 
 all the congregation ; and he laid his hands upon 
 him, and gave him a charge, as the LORD spake, 
 by the hand of Moses.’ 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 597 
 
 
 
 Now, at the close of Dt we find in 3248-59 * And 
 the LoRD spake unto Moses that self-same day, 
 saying, Get thee up into this mountain of Abarim 
 
 . and behold the land of Canaan, which I give 
 unto the children of Israel for a possession; and 
 die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be 
 gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother 
 died in Mount Hor, and was gathered unto his 
 people.’ Again, we find in 31/4 the charge given 
 to Joshua, ‘And the LorD said unto Moses, Be- 
 hold, thy days approach that thou must die; call 
 Joshua, and present yourselves in the tent of 
 meeting, etc. And he gave Joshua the son of 
 Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good 
 courage.’ Dt thus practically repeats the in- 
 cidents which have already been recorded in Nu 
 27; and the whole work, which intervenes between 
 the two commands to Moses to prepare for death, 
 presents the appearance of a great parenthesis, 
 interrupting the main thread of the narrative. 
 The command to go up to the heights of Abarim, 
 in Dt 32, is followed almost immediately by the 
 narrative, in Dt 34, of the death of Moses. The 
 same command has occurred in Nu 27; but be- 
 tween the two commands is interposed the series 
 of three addresses which were given, according to 
 Dt 1°, on the first day of the eleventh month of 
 the fortieth year. 
 
 Not only, however, has the Book of Dt all the 
 appearance of a parenthesis, but it is rendered dis- 
 tinct from the other books of the Pent. by its very 
 clearly marked characteristics of style and diction. 
 These will require fuller consideration later on. 
 But they are so distinct and so obvious to the 
 reader, whether of the original or of a translation, 
 that they inevitably contribute very largely to 
 the general impression that Dt represents a work 
 in some way separate from the rest of the Penta- 
 teuch. 
 
 The same general impression is produced by a 
 comparison of the laws in Dt with the three 
 gat groups of laws contained in Ex, Ly, and 
 
 u. The Deut. legislation ‘stands in a different 
 relation to each of the three codes referred to; 
 it is an expansion of that in Ex 20-23; it is, in 
 several features, parallel to that in Lv 17-26; it 
 contains allusions to laws such as those codified 
 in the rest of Lv-Nu’ (Driver, s.v. ‘ Deuteronomy’ 
 in Smith’s DB*), The legislative section of Dt 
 is distinct in contents and treatment from the 
 parallel sections in Ex—Nu. 
 
 The principal historical allusions in Dt (as pre- 
 sented by Driver) are the following :— 
 
 18 fond frequently) the oath to the patri- Gn 1516 2216f. 247 268, 
 arcns 
 
 43 (Ba‘al-pe'or) Nu 25155, 
 
 410i. 52M. 1816 delivery of Decalogue, etc. Ex 193-2021, 
 
 616 (Massah) Ex 177. 
 
 as = elsewhere (deliverance from Ex 1314 1480, 
 
 88. 18 (the manna) Ex 164.5, 
 
 815 (fiery serpents; and rock (")x) of Nu 216 and Ex 176, 
 
 flint) LV.B. In Nu 208-11 (P) 
 
 the term for ‘rock’ 
 is ybo, not Ws.) 
 922 Tab'érah, Massah, Kibroth-hatta’’- Nu 1113, Ex 177, 
 
 vah) Nu 1134, 
 11 (passage of the Red Sea) Ex 1427, 
 116 (Dathan and Abiram) Nu 161». 27b. 80, 32a, 
 236f. (4f.) Bala’am) Nu 222-242, 
 249 (Miriam’s leprosy) Nu 1210, 
 2517-19 (opposition of ‘Amalek) Ex 17816, 
 
 266-8 (affliction and deliverance from Ex 19-12 37.9 ete. 
 Egypt) 
 
 2922 (a) overthrow of Sodom and Go- Gn 1924f. 
 
 morr: 
 
 An investigation of the historical allusions in 
 Dt confirms the impression produced by the legis- 
 lative portion. The references are, almost with- 
 out exception, made to events recorded in those 
 portions of Ex and Nu which scholars assign to 
 JE, or the ‘prophetic’ group of narrctives incor- 
 
 
 
598 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 
 
 porated in the Pentateuch. The other main group 
 of narratives in the Pent., denominated P from 
 its generally Spake fs characteristics, does not 
 appear to have supplied the foundation for the 
 treatment of the history in D. Thus in 1° the 
 reader notices that Caleb alone is mentioned as 
 the recipient of especial favour; there is no men- 
 tion made of Joshua. In the Book of Nu the 
 passage which records the favour granted to Caleb 
 alone (Nu 14%) belongs to JE, the passage which 
 associates Joshua with Caleb (Nu 14%) belongs 
 to P. Similarly, in 11° we find mention of Dathan 
 and Abiram, but not of Korah, who figures so 
 conspicuously in Nu 16. But in Nu 16 the Korah 
 passages are assigned by scholars to P; the JE 
 portion of the narrative speaks only of Dathan 
 and Abiram. 
 
 There are only three incidents in the historical 
 references of Dt which are to be found in the P 
 and not in the JE narrative of the Pentateuch. 
 These are (1) the mention of the number ‘twelve,’ 
 of the spies, Dt 1%, cf. Nu 137%; (2) the mention 
 of the number ‘seventy,’ of the family of Jacob, 
 Dt 107, cf. Gn 46”, Ex 15; (3) the mention of 
 acacia-wood as the material of which the ark was 
 made, Dt 10%, ef. Ex 25% But it is to be remem- 
 bered that these facts may have been recorded in 
 JE, but have been preserved to us only in the 
 excerpts from the P narrative. . 
 
 Assuming the correctness of the general pro- 
 position, which is universally admitted by modern 
 scholars, that the Pent. is of composite origin, we 
 are brought, by a consideration of the distinctive- 
 ness ia D’s treatment and style, to the opinion 
 that D must take rank with JE and P as one 
 of the component elements of the Pentateuch. 
 Not, of course, that D should necessarily be 
 assigned any more than J, or E, or P, to any 
 one writer or author, but only that in style and 
 treatment it may be attributed to a literary 
 source, representing the influence of a particular 
 period, or of particular circumstances, upon a 
 writer, or a school, or a succession of writers. 
 
 iii, THE UNITY oF THE Boox.—Though we 
 have hitherto spoken of Dt as if it were a unity in 
 itself, it would be a mistake to suppose that it 
 presents an unbroken homogeneous piece of litera- 
 ture written by a single person. There is good 
 reason to suppose that the same kind of literary 
 history is to be attributed to D as to JE and P. 
 The original nucleus of writing has been revised, 
 at Pear and modified. It is not difficult to 
 indicate portions which could hardly have worn 
 their present appearance if from the first they had 
 been part of a consecutive piece of writing. 
 
 It appears the most probable view that Dt 5-26 
 (27° 1°), 28 represent the original work, either in 
 
 art or in its entirety. Im this work chs. 5-11 
 
 ormed the introduction ; ch. 28 the peroration. 
 
 Wellhausen, indeed, limits the original work of Dt to chs. 
 12-26. But there seems no sufficient ground for separating 5-11 
 from 12-26. The style and diction are in marked agreement; 
 and the differences which have been detected in the two sections 
 are only those which might be expected to arise from the differ- 
 ence of subject-matter. 
 
 With regard to chs. 1-4 doubts have been more generally 
 expressed. It has seemed to many improbable that the intro- 
 duction, consisting of 6-11, should have been preceded by a long 
 prefatory section. It is objected that the arrangement is too 
 cumbrous to be the original one; that the awkwardness of the 
 present arrangement is cmphesieet by the presence of two 
 formal headings, 11-5 and 44449, Moreover, the absence in the 
 hortatory passage 41-40 of any allusion to the preceding historical 
 summary has suggested a doubt whether ch. 4 could be homo- 
 
 ‘eneous with chs. 1-3. On the other hand, the style is admittedly 
 
 euteronomic; and it is difficult to believe that 1-4 did not 
 come in some form or another from the same writer or school as 
 the contents of 5-26. 28. 
 
 Dillmann has made the suggestion that 1-3 formed originally 
 she hist. introduction, which was written in the third person, 
 and that this was altered in character from narrative into a 
 ae by the redactor of the Pent., who incorporated Dt into 
 
 main work, Dillm. also considered that 41-40 originally 
 
 belonged to the conclusion of the book, and that it was trans: 
 ferred from that position by the redactor: for confirmation od 
 this view, he appealed to the disordered and inconsecutive con- 
 dition of chs. 29. 30, and to the use of the past tense in 45, which 
 seemed to imply that the legislative portion had already been 
 recorded, and was present to the reader’s mind. 
 
 lt may, however, be doubted whether there is not a danger of 
 too great ingenuity in the hypothetical rearrangement of the 
 original materials. Taking into consideration (1) the very close 
 resemblance of style, and (2) the absence of any serious con- 
 tradiction in statement between the different portions, there is 
 not room for any confident theory of different authorship for 
 1-4, though it may have been composed at a later time than the 
 rest, and prefixed afterwards. 
 
 When, however, we come to consider the 
 question of chs. 29-34, it is impossible not to admit 
 that we have there to deal with materials widely 
 differing in origin. 
 
 One passage in particular, 30'™, obviously has 
 no direct connexion with the section 30"-”, which 
 immediately follows; 31!%-*? interrupts the thread 
 of the narrative; while 32) and 33, two lyrical 
 pieces, have evidently been derived from some 
 independent collection of early Heb. songs. A 
 few portions of 32 and 34 (32*-52 and 3414 5b.7-9) 
 are, on literary grounds, assigned with great 
 probability to P as their original source. 
 
 The most reasonable explanation of the history of the structure 
 of the book is excellently summarised in Driver’s Deuteronomy 
 (p. Ixxvii). ‘Some little time after the kernel [chs. 5-26. 28] of 
 Dt was composed, it was enlarged by a second Deuteronomic 
 writer (or writers), D2, who (1) supplemented the work of D b 
 adding the passages indicated ; (2) incorporated, with additions 
 of his (or their) own, the excerpts from JE, and (taking it 
 probably from a separate source) the Song 321-43, with the his- 
 torical notices belonging to it, 3116-22 3244, Finally, at a still 
 later date, the whole thus constituted was brought formally into 
 relation with the literary framework of the Hexateuch as a 
 whole by the addition of the extracts from P.’ 
 
 iv. THE Reviaious TEACHING OF DEUTER- 
 onomy. — The characteristics of the religious 
 thought of this book are very marked. They 
 exercised a profound influence upon the religious 
 development of the people. 
 
 The great lessons of the spirituality of the 
 Godhead (4'*), and the uniqueness of J”, and His 
 absolute unity (4° %9 6479 107), are strongly and 
 impressively taught. We pass from the older 
 conception of ‘monolatry’ into the fuller and 
 deeper thought of ‘monotheism.’ The relation in 
 which the God of the people stands to the people 
 is represented primarily as one of love rather than 
 of law. The thought of the love of Israel towards 
 her God, which is indeed laid down in the words of 
 the Decalogue (Ex 20°, Dt 5°), is not required else- 
 where in the Pent., but in Dt it is earnestly in- 
 sisted on as the basis of faithful service on the 
 part of the creature to the Creator and of the 
 redeemed to the Deliverer (cf. 10!2 12} 18- 22 133 199 
 305 16-20), Appeals made to Israel to keep the com- 
 mandments are, it is true, often based on the recol- 
 lection of God’s might and of His terrible visitation, 
 on motives of awe and fear; but the highest 
 appeal is made to the consciousness of J”s love, in 
 that He had chosen Israel, not for Israel’s greatness 
 or goodness, but out of His own free love (Dt 77-8 
 817 94-6), The love and affection of Ged towards 
 the nation, as distinguished from His love towards 
 individuals, constitutes an especial feature in Dt 
 (4°7 7'8 238 33%) ; and Dt shares with Hosea (3! 11? 
 14*) the distinction of first familiarizing Israel with 
 the thought and teaching that underlie so much 
 of NT theology (cf. 1 K 10%, 2 Ch 2" 98, Mal 1). 
 Again, love as indicating the people’s affection and 
 devotion to J” is again and again insisted on as 
 the true spring of all human action (cf. 5! 6° 78 
 1032 15 ]] 1. 18-22 138" 1.99) 3051920) TD nts Cenc in anor 
 the reciprocal relation of love between J” and 
 Israel has left the mark of Dt deeply impressed 
 upon OT theology. It is this which leads more 
 directly than any other line of OT teaching to the 
 revelation ultimately contained in the words, 
 ‘God so loved the world,’ etc. (Jn 31), 
 
 
 
DEUTERONOMY 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 599 
 
 
 
 As the outcome of the thought of the divine 
 love which Israel has enjoyed, there also comes 
 into view the consideration of Israel as ‘the son’ 
 and of J” as the people’s Father. The loving God 
 had given Israel life by redemption from Egypt; 
 He had brought Israel up and educated him in the 
 wilderness (see Dt 14? and 8” 8-16), 
 
 The intimacy of the relation between J” and Isr. 
 emphasizes the demand that Israel should also 
 ‘cleave’ to J” (117 134), and not follow ‘ other gods’ 
 (614. 15 74 819. 20 ] 116. 17. 20 3017. 18), Tdolatry is the great 
 peril; its temptations must be resisted with ruthless 
 severity (137 17°) ; no compromise is to be allowed 
 nor alliance struck with the idolater (7? 2018), 
 
 The inducements to yield to superstitious 
 ae are pictured as strong and numerous; 
 
 ut to yield is fatal. J”s wrath and His just 
 
 unishment are the nation’s penalty, and will be 
 its extermination (61-15 811-20 ]]16.17 3]29)| The 
 alternative between obedience and disobedience, 
 between the service of J” and the service of ‘ other 
 gods,’ constitutes the theme of the great passage 
 ed Rone and denunciation which is presented in 
 ch. 28. 
 
 The holiness of the people is another chief 
 thought, the prominence of which is a marked 
 feature in this book, resulting from the conception 
 of the close relationship between Israel and J” the 
 Holy One., The people are holy to J’, and cannot 
 therefore join themselves to ‘other gods’ (7%), It 
 is this ‘holiness’ which should prevent them from 
 bodily mutilation as a sign of mourning ; for such 
 behaviour was the mark of a nation serving ‘ other 
 gods’ (142). This ‘holiness’ is the reason for 
 which the people must refrain from food that 
 would render unclean those who were J”’s pos- 
 session (147). God has chosen His people, not 
 only to make them ‘high above all nations which 
 he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in 
 honour’; but also that they may be ‘an holy 
 people’ unto J”’ (26%). The ‘holiness’ of the 
 people depends upon its obedience (28°). The 
 spirit of ‘holiness’ to J” is ethically to be ex- 
 pressed by the observance of love towards the 
 neighbour, and by kindness and charity towards 
 the poor, the widow, the orphan, the Levite, and 
 the stranger (1018 2417-21)) The millstone was 
 never to be taken in pledge; the garment taken 
 in pledge was to be returned before nightfall 
 (248- 10-18), Jeelings of humanity were to be ex- 
 tended towards the animals; the ox treading out 
 the corn was not to be muzzled (254) ; and thought 
 was even given to the bird and its young ones 
 (227). 
 
 In outward worship the ‘holiness’ of the people 
 can be adequately safeguarded only by worship at 
 the central sanctuary chosen by J”. This regu- 
 lation, which is laid down in ch. 12, is repeated 
 in connexion with the laws of tithe (14% etc.), the 
 firstborn (15), the festivals (167. ®- 14), the firstlings 
 (26), the judges (17% 1°). So long as worship was 
 carried on at local shrines, on the high-places, 
 and under trees (127), it was inevitably tainted 
 with heathenism ; the hearts of the people would 
 be alienated from the service of J” ; and the moral 
 purity of the nation would be corrupted by the 
 assimilation of idolatrous practices. 
 
 Thus the relationship of Israel to J” is asserted 
 as the spiritual principle which must animate the 
 people’s whole existence. The laws which are 
 mentioned illustrate how the high mission of Israel 
 is to be interpreted in daily life. These laws are 
 no formal code. The blessing for obedience is 
 promised as a reward for pee acts, and for 
 the whole regulation of life; and the blessing 
 promised is expressed in terms which Israel could 
 understand and appreciate,—outward prosperity 
 and length of life (127-78 1318 14 15118 16% 1938 
 
 2371 241° 2515), It is to preserve unimpaired the 
 recollection of their spiritual relation to J” that so 
 much stress is laid upon the training of the 
 children (4° 67-%-25 1119); while provision is also 
 made, that even in the dress and the dwellings of 
 individuals (6% 1112 2212) the people should be 
 reminded of their spiritual duties. 
 
 v. LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF DEUTERONOMY. 
 —The style in which the book is written has very 
 clearly marked characteristics of its own. It is 
 quite distinct, and easily recognizable. It bears 
 no resemblance to the style of P, nor does it show 
 any likeness to the narrative style of JE. In 
 certain hortatory passages of JE there may be 
 noticed ‘an approximation to the stvie of Dt; and 
 these sections (Gn 265, Ex 135-16 15% 193-6, parts of 
 202-17 2370-83 3410-26] appear to have been the source 
 from which the author of Dt adopted some of the 
 expressions currently used by him’ (Driver). 
 
 he style of Dt is remarkable for its command 
 of rich and effective periods, in which the sen- 
 tences are framed with great oratorical skill. 
 They are rhythmical without. being tedious ; and 
 copious without being shallow and rhetorical. 
 Some of the writing of Jeremiah approaches most 
 closely in style to Dt; and the influence of Dt 
 upon subsequent Heb. literature was very marked. 
 The Deut. style was imitated and adopted by a 
 aeee or succession of writers in and after the 
 ays of the exile. The Deut. passages in Jos, Jg, 
 and K are easily distinguishable ; they are gener- 
 ally of a hortatory character, and represent a 
 particular attitude of fervent patriotism and 
 religious thought, expressed with considerable 
 redundancy of language, and with the use of 
 certain characteristic phrases. 
 
 Very full and complete lists of the characteristic Deut. words 
 and phrases have been drawn up by Driver (Deut. Introd. 
 p. lxxviii ff.) and Holzinger (Hinleit. in d. Hez.). The followin 
 are instances of words perfectly simple in themselves, but us: 
 with great frequency or with marked effect in Dt, though else- 
 where not found, or only used with great rareness, in the 
 Hexateuch :— 
 
 Thy (your) gates (=cities). 
 
 A mighty hand and a stretched out arm. 
 
 The land whither thow goest in to possess it. 
 
 Statutes and judgments ; commandments and statutes, 
 
 With all your heart and with all your soul. 
 
 the priests the Levites. 
 
 observe to do. 
 
 that it may be well for thee. 
 
 a peculiar people, 
 
 to make his name to dwell there. 
 
 to do that which is right (good or evil) in the eyes of J” 
 
 as J” hath spoken. 
 
 to walk in the ways of J”. 
 
 to hearken to the voice. 
 
 Under this head should be noticed the use of 
 (a) with God as obj. ; (b) of God’s love to His people, 
 D OY OWN other gods. 
 W717 to prolong (of days). 
 wa to dispossesa. 
 "3 to choose, 
 } P27 to cleave to. 
 209 thoroughly. 
 mb 1D} to deliver up before. 
 1]? to ransom. 
 a7; nbyp that to which thou puttest thine hand, 
 vown to destroy. 
 mar ngyin the abomination of J” (of idolatry) 
 I 7VYB to root out the evil. 
 mp Dv) as at this day. 
 pr>2 continually. 
 Wiig oY a holy people 
 
 Other characteristics of his style are— 
 
 (1) The preference for ‘33x (56 times) above *3p (1299 295); the 
 use of "ji in the Song 3221. 39 and 3249. 53 is not from the 
 same hand as D. 
 
 (2) The preference for ab (47 times) above ab (411 2865 998. 18), 
 
 (3) The use of the emphatic j¥ in the 2nd and 8rd per. plur. 
 of the impf. 
 
 to love 
 
600 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 
 
 4) The frequent employment of the reflexive dative. 
 t The collocation of words without the conjunction 
 (asyndeta). 
 (6) The fem, form of the infin. AN7!, TAI, TWiy. 
 The following words or phrases are found in Dt only (see 
 Driver, Dewt. p. 1xxxiv). 
 Ty 2314, 5w3 195 2840, 
 VDNT 2617. 18, FAIDDD 89. 
 owiaD 251, nD 279, 
 AWID 2820, DIY 156-8 2410. 13, 
 i338} 2385, “ag7 miovoy g214.17, 
 
 M7 715 2960, DYN 2114 247, 
 APPT 2822, pryn 1544, 
 png 14, MAMI 228, 
 bon 2888, niAYY 718 gg4. 18. 51 
 @D17 169 2326, Q7 nyqy 2314 241, 
 ww 2822, IND 2420, 
 D1 2877, bydy¥ 2842, 
 bein 2518, Wp 927, 
 wy 262 4 286.17, 137 2885, 
 nb 2332, RYPON Ty 713 284 18. 61, 
 no 847, ; mo 2857, 
 nbsbr 2328 (EV 251 Mypy 151.2 2 8110, 
 
 nod 1610, 130 67. 
 ornp ay 234 36 (cf. Jg 2048), 
 
 ‘The following expressions, occurring mostly only once in Dt, 
 are more or less frequent in subsequent writers, esp. those of 
 the Deuteronomic school :— 
 
 prada and oryipy 2916 17 s my) 28%; ora to vex (esp. by 
 idolatry), 425 918 3129 3216 (cf. py v.21); 517 to expel (from 
 Canaan), 301, cf. v.4; the name to be called over, 2819 ; abby: pw 
 2820 5 mW, 13°3y 2887; mia7W 291819 ; wi 2927.’ (Driver id.) 
 
 vi. THE LEGISLATION OF DEUTERONOMY.— 
 Turning to the subject of the laws contained in 
 Dt, we have only space to make the following 
 general observations :— 
 
 (1) The laws are arranged upon a rough general 
 plan, in which the order observed is that of 
 (a) religious duties, chs. 12-16; (6) civil ordin- 
 ances, chs. 17-20; (c) rules for social and domestic 
 life, chs. 21-25. But the reader will notice that 
 there is no strict adherence to orderly arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 (2) The language in which the laws recorded in 
 12-20 are written is, as a rule, somewhat diffuse 
 and hortatory ; but in 21-25 there are many pas- 
 sages having a close resemblance to the style of 
 Ex 21-23, terse, and evidently often reproducing 
 the precise terms of the ancient codes. 
 
 (3) The laws make no claim to be a new code. 
 So far as they are peculiar to D, they ‘have, with 
 very few exceptions, the appearance either of 
 being taken directly, with unessential mcdifica- 
 tions of form, from older law-books (especially 
 many of those in 21'-25'), or else of being 
 accepted applications of long-established prin- 
 ciples (as 17°18 191621), or the formulation of 
 ancient customs (as 21)-® 2218-21 955-10) expressed in 
 Deuteronomic phraseology. And such laws as are 
 really new in Dt are but the logical and consistent 
 development of Mosaic principles’ (Driver, Deutero- 
 nomy, Introd. p. lvi). 
 
 The following outline will serve as a rough 
 analysis of the principal laws :— 
 
 A. Nationat Revicious Lire. 
 
 1, Public Worship. 
 
 (a) Law of single sanctuary, 121-28, 
 
 4 Law against idolatry, 1229-1319, 
 2. Religious Duties. 
 
 (a) Personal purity, 141-21, 
 
 b) Charity, 1422-1518, 
 8. Religious Observances, 
 
 Offering and festivals, 1519-1617, 
 B NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION. 
 1. Civil Oficers. 
 (a) Judseg, 1618-20 178-18 
 b) King, 171420, 
 2, Religious. 
 a) Priests, 181-8 
 8 Prophets, 189-22, 
 
 eee | 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 
 
 C. CriminaL Law. 
 a) Murder and homicide, 191-18 211-0, 
 6) Property, 1914. 
 c) Witness, 1915-21, 
 (d) War, 20. 2110-14, 
 D. Misceuuantous Laws, ¢g. primogeniture, seduction, 
 
 divorce, 2115-21 2213-30 241-5 255-11, interest and loans, 
 2320. 21 946. 10-13, 
 
 Synopsis OF Laws IN DEUTERONOMY 
 (taken from Driver’s Commentary, pp. iv-vil). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JE. DEUTERONOMY. P (tnctupine H). 
 Ex 20217 66-18 (21) (the Decalogue). 
 2074, * 121-28 (place of sacrifice). Ly 171-9.* 
 ef. 2324, 1229-31 (not to imitate Canaanite | Nu 3352, 
 8412-16f. rites). 
 cf. 2219 (20). |ch. 13 (cases of seduction to 
 idolatry). 
 141-2 Mac e U in mourn-| Ly 1928, 
 ing). 
 143-20 ree and unclean ani-| ,, 11223 2038, 
 mals). 
 2230 (31), 142la (food improperly killed). yy 1715 1140, 
 2319b 3428b, | 1421b (kid in mother’s milk). 
 1422-29 (tithes), »» 2730385 Nu 
 1g21-83,* 
 2310f.,* 151-11 (year of release), yy BOLT, 
 212-11,” 1512-18 (Hebrew slaves). ») 2539-46, * 
 2229 (30) 1312} 1519-23 (firstlings of ox and sheep: | Nu 1817f.* (cf. Ex 
 9, cf, 126.17. 18 1423), igif.; Ly 
 2) ;Nusla 
 2314-17 3418-20 | 161-17 (the three annual pilgrim-| Ly 23*; Nu 28- 
 end, 22-24, ages). . 
 
 1618 (appointment of judges). 
 
 1619-20 (just judgment). 
 
 1621-22 (Ashérahs and ‘pillars’ 
 prohibited). 
 
 171 (sacrifices to be without 
 blemish ; cf, 1524). 
 
 1727 (worship of ‘other gods,’ 
 or of the host of heaven). 
 
 17813 (supreme tribunal). 
 
 1714-20 (law of the king). 
 
 181-8 (rights and revenues of the 
 tribe of Levi). 
 
 189-22 (law of the prophet), 
 
 1810a (Molech-worship ; cf. 1281 
 
 1810b. 11 (different kinds of divi- 
 nation and magic). 
 
 231-8. 6-8, 
 
 2219 (20) 208 
 2318 3414, 
 
 2217 (18) (sor- 
 ceress 
 alone). 
 
 2112.14, * 19113 (asylum for manslayer : 
 
 murder). 
 
 1914 (the landmark). 
 
 1915-21 (law of witness). 
 
 ch. 20 (nilitary service and war ; 
 
 ef, 245), 
 211-9 (expiation of an untraced 
 
 murder). 
 
 2110-14 (treatment of female cap- 
 tives). 
 
 2115-17 (primogeniture). 
 
 2118-21 (undutiful son), 
 
 2122. 23 (body of malefactor). 
 
 221-4 (animal straying or fallen ; 
 lost property 
 
 225 (sexes not to interchange 
 garments). 
 
 226.7 (bird’s nest). 
 
 228 (battlement). 
 
 229-1] (against non-natural mix- 
 tures). 
 
 2212 (law of ‘ tassels’). 
 
 2213-21 (slander against a newly- 
 married maiden). 
 
 2222-27 (adultery). 
 
 2228f. (seduction). 
 
 231 (2230) (incest with step- 
 mother). 
 
 2329 (1-8) (conditions of admit- 
 tance into the theocratic 
 community). 
 
 2310-15 (9-14) (cleanliness in the 
 
 cmp) 
 2316 (15) f. (humanity to escaped 
 - slave). 
 
 2318 (17) f. (against religious pro- 
 stitution). 
 
 2320 (19) & (usury). 
 
 2322-24 (21-23) (vows). 
 
 2325 (24) f. (regard for neighbour's 
 crops). 
 
 241-4 (divorce). 
 
 246. 10-13 (pledges). 
 
 247 (man-stealing). 
 
 248f. (leprosy). 
 
 231, 
 
 ct. 2115-17, ct. Lv 208, 
 
 234 6, 
 
 Ly 1919, 
 Nu 1587-41, 
 
 2014, 
 
 Ly 180 2ott, 
 2215 (16) £. 
 
 » 198201, 
 
 Nu 514,* 
 
 2224 (25), Ly 2586-37 
 
 Nu 303, 
 
 2225 (26) f., 
 2116, 
 
 | Ly 18-18 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 601 
 
 (5) dxa for nbyz. This form occurs 8 times in 
 the Pent., 4 times in Dt 4” 722 9", once in 1 Ch 20! 
 x. As the usual ‘dissyllabic’ form occurs in the 
 Pent. some 260 times, and in the cognate dialects 
 the dissyllabic form was usual, the monosyllable 
 is almost certainly an orthographical anomaly, 
 and should have a second vowel, bx, bya; cf. nx. 
 
 (c) 13; (1618 20!5), as in Ex 237 3488 instead of 
 The 
 use of 2} for 17} goes back to the old law of 
 
 In 
 Jos it is spelt in; 28 times, and we have ‘nm in 
 The suggestion has been 
 offered that ‘Israel picked up a new pronunciation 
 after they came to the place,’ in other words, that 
 until the death of Moses the Israelites called the 
 place ‘Yéréch6’ incorrectly, and that this was 
 embodied in the Pent., but that the local pvro- 
 It might have 
 been supposed that the writer of the account of 
 the death of Moses (Dt 341%) would have had as 
 good opportunities for ‘picking up a new pro- 
 But the pro- 
 nunciation followed in the Pent. is found also in 
 K, Ezr-Neh, and Ch; so that no argument can 
 
 (d) \nr; (82% 341-8), as elsewhere in Pent. 
 
 Other supposed archaisms seem to arise from 
 the mannerism of the author rather than from 
 
 he use of 1y3, equally for masc. or fem., appears 
 indeed to be a genuine archaism; but the fact 
 that 73 appears as the fem. of 1y; elsewhere in 
 the Heb. Scriptures except in the Pent., is merely 
 an indication that the text of the Pent. had be- 
 come regarded as too sacred to modify, at an 
 earlier date than the other books subsequently 
 
 Finally, the presence of an archaism is no more 
 proof of a very early date than the presence of 
 an Aramaism would be proof of a very late date. 
 We have to account for the one as well as for 
 
 6. The evidence derived from the language is 
 corroborated by that which the religious teaching 
 
 (1) It has already been noticed that the emphasis 
 laid upon the Jove of God is a feature almost 
 
 DEUTERONOMY DEUTERONOMY 
 JE. DEUTERONOMY. P (inctupine H). 
 2414f. (wages of hired servant | Lv 1913, 
 not to be detained). 
 2416 (the family of a criminal 
 not to suffer with him). 
 Kx 2220-38 | 2417f. (justice towards stranger,| ,, 1983, 
 
 (21-24) 239, widow, and orphan). a} 4 . p 
 2419-22 (gleanings). oy 1982 2822, "31, which is used over 50 times in the Pent. 
 aeration = infliction of 
 
 e bastinado). 
 254 (threshing ox not to be Ex 23”. 
 muzzled), 
 ae perirate marriage). 
 mis Gut eee |, some, 2S 105, Jer 39° 52°, 
 1714, 2517-19 ( Amalek). 
 Gf. 22%8e (29s) | 261-11 (thanksgiving at the offer- | cf. Nu 18122, 
 23190 3426a, ing of first-fruits). 
 2612-15 (thanksgiving at the pay- 
 ment of the triennial tithe). 
 2920-38, 28 (peroration, presenting | Lv 26845, 
 of the Oode) observance nunciation was given by Joshua. 
 204.23 9417, | 416-18. 23 725 (against images). Ly 194 961, nunciation’ as the writer of Jos 2}. 
 2312, 6l4b (philanthropic object of 
 yo. on bath). 
 a aa ie Gu di Onston etn pods"), » 1949, be based upon the variety of the spelling. 
 1814, 6% (instruction to children). 
 2324e. 82f. 724. 16 (no compact with Canaan- | Nu 8355, 
 $412 16f. ites). Vahtiauitv in their for 
 2324b 3418, 75 193 (Canaanite altars, ‘pil-| ,, 8352, an Teai antiquity in eir torm. 
 lars,’ etc. to be Hestroyed), 
 196 2229 (80), | 76 142 21 2619 289 (Israel a‘holy|Lv 1144f. 192 
 pone ». 207.23; Nu 
 En ifferent connexions). 1540, 
 2220 (21) 289, | 1019 (to love the ‘ stranger’). »» 1934, 
 1216.23 1523 (blood not to be| ,, 1710-14 1926 
 eaten). (cf. 317 7288; 
 18a 9435a, | 1680 ed bread to be exe 
 23) . leaven r not 5 2 4 
 bros with Passover). admitted into the Heb. Canon. 
 136f. 2315 1685428 (unleavened cakes for! ,, 1215. 1820, Ly 
 3418, seven days afterwards). 238, 
 %Bl8b 3425b, | 164b (flesh of Passover not to| ,, 1210, Nu 912, 
 remain till morning). 
 aR Kise of ‘booths,’ ‘seven | Ly 2354 39. 41-43, 
 ays’ 
 176 1915 (‘two or three wit-| Nu 3530, the other. 
 nesses’), 
 21S, 1921 ae eae : : Ly 2419f., ' 
 ut ina erent applica- i 
 tion in each case). as al Ae 
 2035, 275.6 (altars of unhewn stones). 
 oe instances in which the divergence is most marked are 
 indicated by an asterisk *.] 
 
 vii. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. —The date to 
 which the composition of Dt should be assigned 
 cannot be determined with any degree of cer- 
 tainty. But it is clear, from.what has been 
 already said, that it cannot reasonably be attri- 
 buted to any very early period in the history of 
 Heb. literature. 
 
 a. The testimony of the style and language 
 connects it with the period preceding the age in 
 which the imitators of the Deut. style wrote and 
 flourished. Certainly, the rich and fluent oratori- 
 cal periods of Dt belong to a period of ripe literary 
 development, and not to the rough beginnings of 
 & national literature. 
 
 It has been asserted that this is contradicted 
 by the presence of certain archaisms. But, even 
 iP there were a few archaisms, their presence would 
 not affect the general impression produced by the 
 character of the Deut. style. The alleged ‘archa- 
 isms,’ however, are not of a kind to furnish any 
 proof of the antiquity of the book. 
 
 (a) wm. The ‘epicene’ use of the pronoun throws 
 more light upon the history of the text than upon 
 the antiquity of the book. 
 
 The vowels in #37 and x’7 were in all probability 
 absent from the original autographs. 
 
 The fem. form fz seems to have existed in the 
 earliest periods of the language. 
 
 unique (except for Ex 20); and it is generally 
 believed that the prophet Hosea is the first ex- 
 ponent of this teaching. Dt ‘builds upon the 
 foundation of the prophets’ (Driver). 
 
 (2) The ‘monotheism’ of Dt is an expansion of 
 the ‘monolatry’ of early Israel ; and the command 
 to worship at a single sanctuary expresses in a con- 
 crete form the conception of a monotheistic religion. 
 Weare confronted with a stage of religious thought 
 which has been reached only after a long prepara- 
 tory period of discipline and teaching. 
 
 c. A comparison of the laws with those in 
 Ex 20-23 shows that whereas the Deut. legis. 
 lation is founded upon the laws of ‘the Covenant,’ 
 and often repeats them almost verbatim, e.g. 14% 
 = Ex 23! 34%, 79=Ex 341%, and, as a rule, merely 
 expands them with hortatory phrase, in other 
 cases Dt presents us with a modification of the 
 earlier law, showing a more advanced and humane 
 civilization. Thus comparing the law of release 
 for bondservants in Dt 15-17 with the parallel 
 law in Ex 212, we notice (1) that female slaves 
 are included in the law of release, (2) that pro- 
 vision is granted to the released slave so that he 
 should not starve, (3) that the old custom of 
 boring the ear is not required to be done publicly. 
 Similarly, in Dt 5 the institution of the sabbatic . 
 year is put in force to restrain the exactions of 
 the usurer, whereas in Ex 23” it had only an 
 agricultural significance. 
 

 
 602 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 d. Yhe laws in Dt regulating national worship 
 represent a later stage of Isr. history than those 
 in Ex 20-23. This is conspicuously shown in 
 regard to the place of sacrifice. In Ex 20% an 
 Israelite may erect local altars: ‘in every place 
 where I record my name, I will come unto thee 
 and bless thee.’ The practice of sacrificing at 
 local altars and shrines was apparently universal 
 from the time of Joshua (Jos 241-78, 1§ 7% 913-14 
 108 1135 1495 208, 2S 151-82) until the days of 
 Hezekiah, who endeavoured to centralize all wor- 
 ship at Jerus. as the one national sanctuary (2 K 
 18* #2), The law of Dt imsists (12438 etc.) upon 
 the necessity of sacrificing at one place which J” 
 shall have chosen ‘to set his name there.’ It 
 expresses in the terms of direct injunction the 
 change for which Hezekiah contended and which 
 Josiah finally carried into execution. 
 
 e. It may be granted that the laws of worship 
 in Dt are quite too incomplete to be regarded as 
 containing any exhaustive account. Thus the 
 
 recise dates lor the Festivals of Passover and 
 
 abernacles are not given. In the former case 
 the month is given, but not the day ; in the latter 
 case, neither month nor day. In the description 
 of the Passover no direction is given that every- 
 one should partake of it; while the command to 
 observe the 7th day of Passover as ‘a solemn 
 assembly’ and a day of rest is not applied to 
 the other two feasts. 
 
 But, making all allowance for the general and 
 fia Sone a character of the religious legislation 
 in Dt, we cannot pretend to be able to reconcile 
 the discrepancies between the law of Dt and that 
 of the (so-called) Priestly Code. The most notable 
 discrepancy is in reference to the status of the 
 Levite, and the provision for his maintenance. 
 In Dt the regular expression ‘the priests, the 
 Levites ’ (17% 18 181 24° 27%), does not seem to recog- 
 nize the distincticn between ‘the sons of Aaron’ 
 and ‘the Levites,’ which is found in the priestly 
 laws. The Levites are pictured as wanderers and 
 objects of Israelite charity, for which special regula- 
 tions are laid down (1212-19 1427. 29 1611: 14 1.86 961. 12) ; 
 there is no reference to the provision in Nu 18 for 
 the maintenance of priests and Levites, and in 
 Nu 35 for the reservation of 48 cities for their 
 place of residence. 
 
 A complete difference is also expressed in the 
 laws relating to jirstlings and to tithes. In Dt 
 128. 17f- 1519 the firstlings are to be presented at 
 the central sanctuary, and there eaten by the 
 owner. In Nu 18% the firstlings are pronounced 
 to belong to Aaron, ‘ And the flesh of them shall 
 be thine; as the wave-breast and as the right 
 thigh it shall be thine.’ In Dt (12!#- 14%2) it is 
 enjoined that a tithe of the vegetable produce 
 is to be set aside, and to be consumed by the 
 offerer at the central sanctuary; while, in every 
 third year, the tithe is to be devoted to the poor 
 or the destitute and the Levite. In this there is 
 no resemblance to the tithe law of Nu 18?!-28 and 
 Ly 27%: 82, according to which the tithe was to be 
 paid of animal as well as of vegetable produce; 
 it was to be paid to the Levites, who, in their 
 turn, were enjoined to render a tenth to the 
 priests. 
 
 Another instance of ritual discrepancy is found 
 in the description of the priestly dues. In Dt 18%-5 
 the sacrificing priest received as his share ‘the 
 shoulder, two cheeks, and maw’; in Ly 73!-* ‘the 
 wave-breast’ and ‘heave-thigh’ or shoulder are 
 assigned to the priest. 
 
 Added to this, there is the argument from silence, 
 in that Dt makes no mention of the year of jubilee, 
 the great Day of Atonement, the Levitical cities, 
 
 uhe meal-offering, guilt-offering, or sin-offering, nor 
 even of the tent of meeting (Dt 3114 is from JE). 
 
 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 
 
 And it is incredible to suppose that the Levitica] 
 system, if formulated as we have it in P, should 
 have been so wholly overlooked in an address te 
 the people. 
 
 It is impossible to resist the impression that the 
 law of Dt represents an expansion and develop- 
 ment of the ancient code contained in Ex 20-23, 
 and precedes the final formulation of the priestly 
 ritual, which only received its ultimate form in 
 the last period of revising the structure of the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 In order to approach more nearly the limits of 
 time within wink it is reasonable to suppose that 
 Dt was composed, we may take into consideration 
 the further possible indications of time, and judge 
 of them not as individually convincing items of 
 evidence, but as collectively carrying considerable 
 weight. 
 
 (a) It was written on the W. side of the Jordan ; 
 ef. the use of ‘beyond Jordan’ in Dt 1%5 38 
 441. 46. 47.49, as in Jos 2" 77 etc. See BEYOND. 
 
 (6) The law of the kingdom, 17}*”, is expressed 
 in language indicating acquaintance with the evils 
 of Solomon’s reign. 
 
 (c) The law of the judicial tribunal in 178-4 does 
 not ordain a new institution, but describes a court 
 already existing, and having a close resemblance 
 to the one described in 2 Ch 19%” as appointed 
 by Jehoshaphat. 
 
 (d) Isaiah, who speaks of the erection of an 
 ‘obelisk’ (mazzébdh) for a sacred purpose in con- 
 nexion with the worship of J” in Egypt, could 
 hardly have been acquainted with the law of 
 Dt 16% ‘Thou shalt not set thee up ‘an obelisk, 
 which J” thy God hateth.’ 
 
 (e) Dt refers to the worship of ‘the host of 
 heaven’ as a dangerous form of idolatry (4% 17°). 
 We do not find in the historical books any men- 
 tion of this superstition being a source of reli- 
 gious temptation until the days of Ahaz; see 2K 
 2312, 
 
 (f) The style of Jeremiah’s writing shows abund- 
 ant traces of the influence of Dt. 
 
 If we may take these hints together, we arrive 
 at the probability of Dt having been composed 
 during the period which intervenes between the 
 accession of Ahaz and the literary activity of 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 A terminus ad quem for the composition of Dt 
 is supplied by the discovery of ‘the book of the 
 law’ in the 18th year of the reign of Josiah 
 (B.C. 621). There can be no manner of doubt 
 that this book corresponded to a work practicall 
 identical with the main portion of Dt (5-26. 28). 
 This work contained denunciations and curses, 
 such as are found in Dt 28 (ef. 2 K 221-1319); it 
 contained mention of the covenant with J”, with 
 clear reference to Dt 28% (cf. 2K 237-21), The 
 reforms instituted by Josiah are such as would 
 be required by conformity with the law of Dt, 
 especially in regard to the centralization of wor- 
 ship, 2K 23°; the prohibition of the worship of 
 the heavenly bodies, 2 K 2345; the prohibition 
 of the high-places, obelisks, Ashérim, ete., 2 K 
 234. 5-14.15; the prohibition of religious prostitutes, 
 2K 237; the maintenance of the ere ejected 
 from the local shrines, 2 K 23%°; the prohibition 
 of Molech worship, 2 K 23; the celebration of 
 the Passover in Jerusalem ‘as it is written in this 
 book of the covenant,’ 2 K 237-8; the ejection 
 of diviners and consulters with familiar spirits, 
 Ka 
 
 The finding of this ‘book of the law’ in the 
 temple is described as a fortuitous occurrence. 
 There is no foundation for the suggestion that 
 Hilkiah himself had written the book, and that 
 the story of its finding was a fabrication. The 
 account is straightforward and natural. It is 
 
[ —pevreronomy ==s—=*=~C~*~S*«éSiS TIONS 
 
 
 
 generally agreed that the book may have been 
 written in the reign of Manasseh, or in the early 
 part of the reign of Josiah. Hezekiah, who had 
 commanded all Isr. worship to be offered at the 
 sanctuary in Jerus. (2 K 18+ *2 215), commenced the 
 policy of removing the high-places. Manasseh’s 
 reign reversed all that Hezekiah had done. It is 
 thought probable that the composition of Dt was 
 intended, in the days of Manasseh, to protest 
 against the religious evils of that time, against 
 the forms of superstition that had begun to find 
 their way into Judah from Babylonia, as well as 
 against the corruptions and disorders at the high- 
 places which presented a form of J” worship wholly 
 alien to the teaching and spirit of the prophets 
 of Israel. 
 
 Such a work, written in the troublous reign of 
 Manasseh, may well have been deposited for safety 
 within the precincts of the temple. The descrip- 
 tion of its discovery leads the reader to suppose 
 that the book was one that had been written some 
 considerable time before the 18th year of Josiah’s 
 reign. The character of Dt agrees exactly with 
 the spirit of Huldah’s warning in 2 K 2215-2, where 
 she speaks of the people of Judah having forsaken 
 J”, and burned incense to other gods, etc. 
 
 The traditional view, that the work in its present 
 form was written by Moses, is now generally 
 recognized by critical scholarship as impossible. 
 The fact that Moses is described in Dt 31° as 
 having committed the Deut. legislation to writ- 
 ing, was, in former times, regarded as sufficient 
 Bae that the whole work came from his hand. 
 
 he writer (Dt 31°) narrates the fact that Moses 
 ‘wrote this law’; he also narrates the fact that 
 Moses delivered farewell discourses to the people. 
 There is no appearance of autobiography in Dt. 
 There is no Raia to Mosaic authorship for the 
 whole work. A copy of the Deut. law is stated 
 (Dt 31°6) to have been committed by Moses to the 
 keeping of the priests ‘by the side of the ark.’ 
 
 Heb. laws went back to the founding of the 
 nation under Moses. The name of Moses embraced 
 the whole legislation, both in its earlier forms and 
 in their later expansion and modification. The 
 writer of Dt employed the nucleus of ancient law 
 as the means of conveying the teaching needed by 
 his time. The authority of Moses is invoked as 
 impersonating the spirit of Isr. law in its later 
 application, no less than in its original framing. 
 
 oses is made to plead with his people, and to 
 show the abiding principles of the worship of J”. 
 
 The work is that of a prophet, a religious teacher, 
 not of a jurist or a statesman. In language, in 
 thought, and in character, it is most easily under- 
 stood as the composition of one who lived in the 
 7th cent., and who sought, by a ‘ dramatic’ use of 
 the last words of Moses, to recall his countrymen 
 to a holier life, and a purer service of J”. It has 
 been objected that the allusions to the dwellers 
 in Canaan, and to the Amalekites (7! 201%), 
 would be unintelligible and unnecessary at so late 
 a period as the 7th cent. B.c. But the writer’s 
 purpose is to transfer himself to the age of Moses, 
 and from that historic standpoint to appeal to the 
 nation’s conscience. If Moses were represented as 
 speaking in the plains of Moab, it would be natural 
 for the writer to make him refer to the Canaan- 
 ites, and to introduce suitable local allusions. 
 And the writer’s argument was perfectly intelli- 
 gible. If severity of the sternest kind was tradition- 
 ally said to have been inculcated by Moses against 
 the idolatrous inhabitants of the ae how much 
 
 more was it required in dealing with those who, in 
 Israel itself, had proved so faithless to J”, in spite 
 of the warnings of the prophets ! 
 
 It has been objected that the substance of Deut. 
 laws is alluded to in writings earlier than the 7th 
 
 DEVOTION 
 
 cent. B.C. Thus 1 S 28? has been compared with 
 Dt 184, Hos 44 with Dt 2338, Hos 5! with Dt 19%, 
 Am 8 with Dt 254, Neh 2! with Dt 1, while 
 2 K 148 refers to the law contained in Dt 2418. 
 But this line of objection assumes that the existence 
 of the laws is contemporaneous with the composi- 
 tion of Dt, and it ignores the fact, which criticisn 
 has clearly revealed and strenuously reiterated, 
 that Dt contains and expands laws of very much 
 greater antiquity than its own composition. 
 
 In the following passages, in which the words of 
 the prophetical writers have been regarded as 
 referring to Dt, it is obvious that Dt, as well as 
 the prophets, refers back to the older law of 
 Ex 20-23 :— 
 
 Ie 117.23 102=Ex 2221, Dt 2417, 
 
 ry REP eay BEED TT aie 
 Am 28 =}, 2995 7 9419, 
 >» 512 =,, 238 ,, 1610, 
 
 There are, of course, in Dt abundant allusions 
 to offerings (e.g. ch. 12), tithes (1422-9), distinctions 
 of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ (12"-22 145-20), the 
 ‘solemn assembly’ (16%), law of leprosy (24°), and 
 kindred topics, which show the familiarity of Dt 
 with the national religious observances; they do 
 not exhibit acquaintance with the distinctive 
 ordinances of P, although reference to them is 
 necessarily made with technical terms. 
 
 Certain words and phrases have also been 
 adduced from the prophetical writers, which it is 
 alleged must have been taken from Dt, e.g. Hos 5" 
 oppressed from Dt 28%; 81 they shall return to 
 Egypt from Dt 28%; 118 Admah and Zeboim from 
 Dt 29%; Am 4° blasting and mildew from Dt 28”; 
 41 overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah from Dt 29% ; 
 5’ wormwood from Dt 29" ete. But the occurrence 
 of such words and phrases is not sufficient te 
 justify the claim for direct citation. They are 
 expressions, most of them, which would quite 
 naturally occur independently to the writers. 
 Nor is there any means of showing that there is 
 more probability of these writers having borrowed 
 a phrase from Dt than of Dt having borrowed a 
 phrase from them. Considering the resemblance of 
 Dt’s style to the writing in Jer and Kings, it would 
 be more natural to expect Dt to have borrowed 
 from Hosea or Amos than for Hosea or Amos to have 
 borrowed from Dt. The Deuteronomie style in 
 Jer, Jos, Jg, Kings, shows at once the influence 
 of Dt; but there is no clear proof of the earlier 
 prophets having been acquainted with Dt. 
 
 LrrrraTorE.—For a fuller discussion of the subject the reader 
 is referred to the admirable treatment of it by Driver, in hi 
 commentary on ‘Deuteronomy’ (/nternational Critical Com- 
 mentary, T. & T. Clark, Eieboreh), in his ZOT, and in his 
 art. ‘Deuteronomy’ in Smith’s DB2; to all of which the writer 
 of the present article is largely indebted. Other works dealing 
 with the same subject, to which reference may be made, are the 
 commentaries of Oettli and Harper, and Hinleitungen of Riehm, 
 Cornill, Kénig, Strack, Kuenen, Holzinger; Cheyne, Jeremiah 
 (‘Men of the Bible’ series); W. R. Smith, OTJC2; Ryle, Canon 
 of the OT'; Montefiore, Religion of the Ancient Hebrews; 
 Wildeboer, Lt. d. A.7.; Picpenbring, ‘La Reforme et le Codede 
 Josias,’ in Revue d. P Histoire des Religions, t. xxix. 1894. 
 
 H. E. RYLE. 
 
 DEVIL.— See Demon, SATAN. DEYOTED 
 THINGS.—See ACCURSED, CURSE. 
 
 DEVOTION. — RV gives ‘devotion’ for AV 
 ‘prayer’ in Job 154 (av). In AV the word is 
 found only Ac 17% ‘as I passed by, and beheld 
 your devotions,’ Gr. ra ceBdopara dpar, RV ‘the 
 objects of your worship.’ 
 
 That RV gives the meaning of the Greek there is no doubt. 
 The same Gr. word occurs Wis 1420 (Vulg. deus, AV ‘a god,’ 
 RV ‘object of devotion’), 1517 (Vulg. quos colit, AV ‘the things 
 which he worshippeth,’ RV ‘object of his worship’); Bel 27 
 (EV ‘the gods ye worship’); and 2Th 24 (EV ‘that is 
 worshipped,’ RVm ‘an object of worship’). Did the AV trans- 
 lators understand ‘devotions’ in the sense of ‘objects of wor- 
 ship,’ then? Aldis Wright (Bible Word-Book,? p. 198 f.), after @ 
 
 
 
604 DEW 
 
 a 
 
 full discussion, concludes that they did not. He quotes, how- 
 ever, from Sidney, Arcadia (ed. 1598, p. 282 [ed. 1622, p. 277), 
 as follows: ‘Dametas began to speake his lowd voyce, to looke 
 big, to march up and downe, and in his march to lift his legges 
 higher than he was wont, swearing by no meane devotions, that 
 the walls should not keepe the coward from him.’ The Oaf. 
 Eng. Dict. gives ‘an object of religious worship’ as one of the 
 meanings of ‘devotion,’ quoting the above from Sidney, Ac 172, 
 and a passage from Fletcher (1625), Double Marriage, Iv. iv.: 
 ‘Churches and altars, priests and all devotions, Tumbled to- 
 gether into one rude chaos’; but says, ‘this sense is not very 
 certain, the meaning of the quotations being in every case 
 doubtful.’ As Wright points out, AV took the word from Gen. 
 Bible of 1560; Wyclif (1380) having ‘mawmetis’ ; Tind. ‘the maner 
 how ye worship your goddes,’ so Cran., Gen. of 1557 (Whitting- 
 ham), Bishops’; Cov. ‘youre gods seruyce’ (from Zurich Bible, 
 euwre Gottsdienst); Rhem. ‘your Idols.’ But it has not been 
 observed that Tomson’s NT of 1576, which from 1587 onwards 
 supplanted the NT of 1560 in most copies of the Gen. Bible, has 
 
 the marg. note: ‘Whatsoever men worship for ys de sake, 
 that we call devotion.’ That note, which removes all doubt of 
 this meaning from the word, was before the translators of AV, 
 and they would have no hesitation in using an abstract word in 
 this concrete sense: cf. Ac 1415 Gr. ca péraia, AV ‘vanities,’ 
 RV ‘vain things.’ Coverdale has ‘devotion’ in Ja 126 for AV 
 and RV ‘ religion.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DEW (bn, éal).—i. The atmosphere is capable of 
 holding in suspension a certain amount of aqueous 
 vapour proportionate to its temperature under a 
 cia pressure. The greatest amount is taken up 
 
 uring the daytime; but on the approach of 
 sunset, when the temperature is lowered, part of 
 the vapour is precipitated in the form of dew, till 
 the dew-point 1s reached. 
 
 This process is enhanced in Eastern countries 
 like Palestine, where the surface of the ground and 
 the air in contact therewith are highly heated 
 during the daytime, but where at night, and par- 
 ticularly under a cloudless sky, the heat of the 
 ground is radiated into space and the air becomes 
 rapidly cooled down. e excess of moisture in 
 the air then gently ‘falls as dew on the tender 
 herb,’ and sometimes so sopionty as to sustain the 
 life of many plants which would otherwise perish 
 during the rainless season; or even, as in the case 
 of Gideon, to saturate a fleece of wool (Jg 6%). 
 When the sky is clouded, radiation is retarded, and 
 rain may fall. Thus rain and dew alternately 
 benefit the vegetation; and to the latter agent 
 may possibly be ascribed the presence of a 
 beauteous, though dwarfed, flora amongst the 
 waterless valleys of the Sinaitic Peninsula, which 
 in the early morn sparkles in the sunshine, owing 
 to the multitudes of dewdrops which have settled 
 on the leaves and stems of the plants during the 
 cool hours of the night. 
 
 ii. Thus deprivation of dew, as well as of rain, 
 becomes a terrible calamity in the East. On this 
 account ‘dew and rain’ are associated in the 
 aoe ae called down by David on the mountains 
 of Gilboa in his distress at the tidings of the death 
 of Saul and Jonathan (28S 1"); and in the curse 
 pronounced on Ahab and his kingdom by Elijah 
 (1 K 17!); as also by the prophet Haggai on the 
 Jews after the Restoration (Hag 1!°) owing to their 
 unwillingness to rebuild the temple. 
 
 iii. In the Book of Job the formation of dew is 
 
 ointed to as one of the mysteries of nature 
 insoluble by man (Job 38%) ; but in Pr it is ascribed 
 to the omniscience and power of the Lord (Pr 3”). 
 
 iv. Dew is a favourite emblem in Scripture ; the 
 following are examples: (a) Richness and F ertility, 
 *God give thee of the dew of heaven (Gn 27%, 
 Dt 33%). (6) Refreshing and Vivifying effects, 
 ‘My speech shall distil as the dew’ (Dt 327); 
 ‘Like a cloud of dew in the heat of summer’ (Is 
 184). (c) Stealth, ‘ We will light upon him as the 
 dew falleth on the ground’ (2817). (d) Incon- 
 stancy; the goodness of Judah is ‘as the earl 
 dew, it goeth away’ (Hos 6’); Ephraim... shall 
 be ‘as the early dew that passeth away’ (ch. 13%). 
 (e) The young warriors of the Messianic king, 
 
 DIAL 
 
 —— 
 
 with flashing weapons like dewdrops, ‘ Thou 
 hast the dew of thy youth’ (Ps 110°). 
 E. HULL. 
 
 DIADEM.—This term (d:d5nua) was applied by 
 the Greeks to the emblem of royalty worn on the 
 head by Pers. monarchs (Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 13). It 
 consisted of a silken fillet, 2 inches broad, of blue 
 or purple, mixed with white, tied at the back of 
 the head. Originally intended to confine the hair, 
 and worn by all Persians, it became an ornamental 
 head-dress, the king’s being distinguished by its 
 colour, and perhaps by jewels studding it. It was 
 tied round the lower part of the khshatram (Heb. 
 sanz, Gr. «ldapes or xlrapis; see Rawlinson, Anc. 
 Mon. iii. 204 note), a tall, stiff cap, probably of 
 felt, and of bright colours, which formed the tiara 
 or turban of the king (Q. Curt. iii. 3. 18, 19; see 
 head from Persepolis in Rawlinson, iii. 166). The 
 head-dress of soldiers other than the king was soft, 
 and fell back on the head (Suidas, Lexicon, ridpa. 
 See also the Pompeian mosaic of the battle of Issus, 
 given in Ainé, Herculaneum and Pompeii). Later, 
 the fillet was enlarged by broad pendants fallin 
 on the shoulders. The Persian diadem was slanted 
 by Alexander and his successors (1 Mac 1°; 
 Harstad: i. 3.7). To the Greeks and Romans it 
 was the distinctive badge of royalty, unlike the 
 wreath, and is commonly described as white (Tac. 
 Annales, vi. 37). Its presentation to Julius Cesar 
 was therefore specially offensive (Cic. Phil. ii. 34 ; 
 Sueton. Jul. 79). Phi vy, (NA vii. 57) attributes 
 its invention to Father Liber (the supposed Latin 
 Dionysus), and it was long confined in art to him; 
 but later artists placed it on the head of other 
 deities. Diocletian was the first Rom. emperor 
 to wear it permanently and pee Out of it- 
 in combination with the ‘corona,’ the later royal 
 crowns were developed. 
 
 In LXX ddéqyua is used loosely to translate not 
 oy ‘crown rove (mabp app Est 1" 217) but 
 ‘pallium’ (qapa Kst 8 duddnua Bioowor roppupoiv) 
 and ‘tiara’ (733 Is 625, But not so in Job 29%, 
 Is 3%; in Zec 3° 733 is tr. xldaps, a rendering also 
 
 iven to the high priest’s turban in Ezk 21*! (5) 284, 
 
 v 16‘). In 1 Mac 1° 13° it describes the strictly 
 royal insignia for the head adopted by the Greeks 
 from the Persians (d:ddyyua rs ’Aclas). In AV of OT, 
 diadem is again used loosely for the high priest’s 
 turban (Ezk 215 n53s0), a royal tiara (Job 29%, 
 Is 62? 43) and a crown (Is 28° aypx). RV more 
 properly confines diadem to the last three passages, 
 using ‘mitre’ in Ezk 21", and also ‘turban’ in the 
 marg. of Job 294. But though thus the royal 
 head-dress of the kings of Israel is not described as 
 a diadem, there can be but little doubt that it was 
 such (see CROWN). In NT the distinction between 
 crown and diadem is accurately observed in the 
 Gr. and in RV, but not in AV. Diadem should be 
 read in Rev 12? 13! 19!2, where it symbolizes respect- 
 ively the empire of ‘the dragon,’ ‘the beast,’ and 
 of the royal Christ. The phrase ‘on his head 
 were many diadems,’ describes Christ’s universal 
 dominion (see CROWN ; also for bina ee 
 
 G. T. PURVES. 
 
 DIAL (n\oyn, dvaBaduol, horologiwm), RVm ‘ Heb. 
 steps, 2K 204, Is 388.—The Heb. word commonly 
 denotes ‘steps’ (see Ex 20”, 1 K 10), and isso ren- 
 dered elsewhere in this narrative (2 K 20%, Is 38°; 
 
 AV degrees). The ‘steps’ referred to are doubt- 
 less not simply the steps of the palace (so LXX, 
 Jos. Ant. X. ii. 1), but formed part of some kind 
 of sun-clock (so Targ., Vulg., Jerome on Is 38°, and 
 most commentators). According to Herod. ii. 109, 
 the Babylonians were the inventors of the odds 
 or concave dial, the yvwszwv, and the division of 
 the day into 12 hours. The introduction by Ahaz 
 of a device for measuring the time may be re- 
 garded as a result of his intercourse with the 
 
 
 

 
 — a a a ee a 
 
 . 
 
 DIAMOND 
 
 ssytians (2 K 16!#-), but it is uncertain what 
 kind of clock is intended. Some have supposed 
 that it was in the form of a dial with concentric 
 circles, and a central gnomon (Ges., Hitz., Keil, 
 etc.) ; but it is doubtful whether my can denote 
 ‘degrees.’ Hence it seems simpler to think of 
 actual ‘steps’ arranged round a pillar or obelisk, 
 the time of day being then indicated by the posi- 
 tion of the shadow on the steps. Since in 2K J.c. 
 it is regarded as possible for the shadow to go 
 down or to return 10 steps, it is clear that these 
 steps did not each mark an hour of the day, but 
 some smaller period of time. In biblical Heb., 
 indeed, no word denoting an hour is found ; 7yy 
 first appears in the Aram. of Dn 4!® (Env. ?9) 5°. 
 Our ignorance of the real form of the ‘dial’ of Ahaz 
 renders precarious all attempts at explaining the 
 
 henomenon of the recession of the sun’s shadow. 
 
 oreover, a discussion of the probe requires a 
 critical comparison of the parallel accounts in Is 
 and 2K; and it must be recognized as probable on 
 independent grounds, that our narrative is con- 
 siderably later than the time of Hezekiah. Cf. esp. 
 Dillmann and Cheyne on Is 38}, 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 DIAMOND.—See STONES (PRECIOUS). 
 
 DIANA OF THE EPHESIANS is the Latinized 
 rendering of the name Artemis ("Aprems rév 
 "E¢ectwv), by which the Greeks designated a 
 Eide whose sanctuary was situated close to 
 
 phesus. The situation and splendour of the 
 temple, and the part that the sanctuary and 
 its priests played in the history of the city, through 
 the influence of the conservative anti-Greek party, 
 which favoured the interests of the temple and 
 the power of the Hiseee are described under 
 EpHEsus. The goddess, who had her seat in the 
 rich valley near the mouth of the Cayster long 
 before Gr. colonists had set foot on the Asian 
 coast, had little in common with the chaste virgin 
 oddess Artemis of Greek poetry and mythology. 
 She was the impersonation of the vitality and 
 
 wer of nature, of the reproductive power which 
 eeps up the race of man and animals in an un- 
 broken series of offspring, and of the nourishing 
 power by which the earth tenders to the use of 
 man and animals all that they require to keep 
 them in life. She was worshipped, with almost 
 complete identity of character and image, over 
 the whole of Lydia; and the Lydian Artemis 
 resents such close analogies with the Phrygian 
 Ttels; and with other feminine envisagements of 
 the divine power in Asiatic countries, like the 
 Cappadocian Ma, the Phenician Astarte or Ash- 
 taroth, the Syrian Atargatis and Mylitta, as to 
 suggest that these are all mere varieties of one 
 ultimate religious conception, presenting in different 
 countries certain differences, due to varying develop- 
 ment according to local circumstances and national 
 
 character. The old hypothesis that this wide- 
 
 spread similarity was due to Pheen. colonists, who 
 carried their own goddess with them to new lands, 
 is now discredited: there is no evidence that 
 Pheenicians ever sc ttled in the Cayster Valley, still 
 less in other parts »f Lydia. 
 
 The Ephesian goddess was represented by a rude 
 idol, which was said to have fallen from heaven 
 (Ac 19%*)—a tradition which attached to many 
 sacred and rude old statues, such as that of 
 Cybele at Pessinus (said to be merely a shapeless 
 stone), Athena Polias on the Athenian Acropolis, 
 etc. In the representation which is familiar to 
 
 * In this place the rendering ‘ which fell down from Jupiter’ 
 rast and RV) gives a wrong impression : the word dsortrovs merely 
 tes that the naps was believed to have fallen from the 
 
 clear sky. In Eurip. 0 
 
 ph. T. 977, 1384, evpavod rionue is given 
 
 
 
 
 
 DIANA OF THE EPHESIANS 605 
 
 
 
 us from coins, statues, and statuettes, the goddess 
 appears as a standing idol, in shape partly 
 human ; the upper part of the body in front is 
 covered with rows of breasts (symbolizing her 
 function as the nourishing mother of all life); the 
 lower part is merely an upright block, without 
 distinction of legs or feet, covered with symbols 
 and figures of animals; the arms from below the 
 elbows are extended on each side, and the hands 
 are supported by props; the head is surmounted 
 either by a lofty ornament, polos, or by a mural 
 crown, and something like a heavy veil hangs on 
 each side of the face down to the shoulders; the 
 figure stands on a peculiarly shaped pedestal, gener- 
 ally low on coins, but sometimes high; frequently 
 stags accompany the goddess, one on each side. 
 A similar representation of the native goddess is 
 found very widely both in Lydia and in Phrygia. 
 The Gr. colonists in Ephesus identified this Oriental 
 deity with their own Artemis, on account of 
 certain analogies between them ; they represented 
 her on their coins in the Gr. character, and intro- 
 duced some of the Gr. mythology of the twins 
 Artemis and Apollo; but they never succeeded in 
 really affecting the cultus, which remained always 
 purely Asian and non-Greek. The chief priest bore 
 the Persian title Megabyzos, and in earlier time he 
 had to be a eunuch; but Strabo seems perhaps to 
 imply that this condition was no longer required, 
 when he was writing (about A.D. 19). Some 
 authorities think that there was a body of Mega- 
 byzoi in the ritual ; but Canon Hicks seems rightly 
 to argue that the title was appropriated to the 
 single chief priest, who represented the divine 
 associate of the goddess, Attis or Atys, whom she 
 herself mutilated. A large body of priestesses 
 were under his authority, divided into three 
 classes (Plutarch, An seni sit per. resp. p. 795, § 24), 
 called Mellierai, Hierai, and Parierai; and accord- 
 ing to Strabo they Suey. had to be virgins. 
 Some authorities seem to apply the name Melissai, 
 ‘Bees,’ to them; and the bee is the most charac- 
 teristic type on earlier Gr. coins of Ephesus. A 
 single priestess (lépeca) is mentioned in inscriptions, 
 who was probabl the head of the cultus and 
 representative of the goddess. 
 here was also a body of priests (some wrongly 
 say a single high priest), to whom was given the 
 title Hssenes. The Essenes were appointed for a 
 ear only (Paus. vili. 13. 1); and they seem to have 
 teen officials at once of the city and of the sanctu- 
 ary, for they allotted new citizens to their proper 
 tribe and division, sacrificed to the goddess on 
 behalf of the city, and seem in general to have 
 guarded the relations between the State and the 
 goddess. Various other bodies of ministers at- 
 tended the sanctuary, such as the Kouretes, the 
 Akrobatai, the Hieroi, whose nature and duties 
 are obscure (the first two, perhaps, colleges similar 
 to the modern dervishes, the last a Greek form of 
 hierodouloi). There can beno doubt that the ritual 
 was of an orgiastic type, and accompanied with 
 ceremonial prostitution and other abominations: 
 traces of the ritual and its accompaniments are 
 collected in the works on Ephesus (which see) ; the 
 Lydian ritual of the Mysteries, which are mentioned 
 at Ephesus in inscriptions (Hicks, p. 147, CJG 3002 ; 
 Strabo, p. 640), as well as in many other cities, 
 is described in Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia 
 (Ramsay), i. p. 91 tf., and the general character of 
 the religion in Lyd. et le Monde Grec, (Radet), p. 
 261 ft. 
 
 The epithets ‘Queen of Ephesus’ and ‘great’ or akg U 
 seem to have been specially appropriated to Artemis in Asia: 
 so C/G 2963 c. ris pweyedrns Jews “A., 6797, "Eqicoy &verrn; 
 Xen. Eph. i. 11. p. 15, ray petyaany 'Egecioy "A.; Achilles, 
 Tat. viii. 9. p. 501, “A. % wtyedAn Os0¢ ; Hicks, No. 481, I. 278, 
 vis sylorns Oss “A. Further, the expression pwsyaan ” Aprepus 
 
 seems to have been @ formuls of sn invocatory character: see 
 
 
 
 
 
606 DIBLAH 
 
 DIKLAH 
 
 
 
 the inscriptions given in Bulletin de Corresp. Hellénique, 1880, 
 
 . 430, from Lesbos; and in Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of As. 
 Trin. p. 410, from Pisidia (cf. wéivas ’ArédArwy, td. Cities and 
 Bishoprics of Phrygia, p. 151, No. 49, wsyean “Avouris; Mous. 
 et Bibliotheca Smyrn, No. va%). It is therefore probable 
 that the shouts of the excited crowd in the Ephesian theatre 
 (Ac 1984) were really invocations to the goddess, as her wor- 
 shippers repeated a formula familiar in her ritual (see Ramsay, 
 Church in Rom. Emp. p. 138 f.). 
 
 The Naoi or Shrines of Artemis, which were made in silver 
 by artisans such as Demetrius, and in other less expensive 
 materials (esp. marble and terra-cotta) by ‘the workmen of 
 like occupation’ (robs rsp) tx rosmtira ipyerus, Ac 1925), were first 
 correctly explained by Prof. E. Curtius (Athen. Mittheil. d. 
 Instituts, ii. p. 49f.). They were not mere statuettes of the 
 Ephesian Diana,* for such could not be called ‘shrines.’ The 
 worshippers of the goddess dedicated to her representations of 
 herself in her shrine : ‘a great city erected a great temple with 
 a colossal statue of the goddess ; private individuals propitiated 
 her with miniature shrines containing embodiments of her 
 living presence. The vast temple and the tiny terra-cotta shrine 
 were equally acceptable to Artemis; she accepted from her 
 votaries offerings according to their means; she dwelt neither 
 in the temple nor in the terra-cotta shrine; she lived in the 
 life of nature ; mother of all, and nurse of all, she was most 
 really present wherever the unrestrained life of nature was most 
 freely manifested : in the woods, on the mountains, among the 
 wild beasts. Her worshippers expressed their devotion, and 
 their belief in her omnipresence, by offering shrines to her, 
 and doubtless by keeping shrines of the same kind in their own 
 homes, certainly also by placing such shrines in graves beside the 
 corpse, asa sign that the dead had gone back to the mother 
 who bore them’ (Church in Rom. Emp. p. 125f.). These 
 small dedicatory shrines were not modelled after the splendid 
 Gr. temple of Artemis ; for the creations of Gr. art in sculpture 
 and architecture, beautiful as they were, were never so holy in 
 the estimation of devotees as the simple and rude types of 
 primitive art and religion. The type most familiar to us from 
 extant remains shows the goddess seated in a niche or naiskos, 
 sometimes alone, sometimes accompanied by one or two figures 
 (among them her favourite Atys). In the ruder examples, she sits 
 in stiff fashion, holding in one hand the tambourine (rozecyor), 
 in the other a cup (q«An). Beside her are one or two lions. In 
 some more artistic examples, she has laid aside the stiff symbols, 
 and sometimes caresses with one hand the lion which climbs to 
 her knee or lies in her lap. Sometimes the lion serves her as a 
 footstool ; in other cases two sit in stiff symmetry, one on each 
 side of her throne. Works of this class are found very widely both 
 at Ephesus and elsewhere, in marble and in terra-cotta; the 
 examples in marble are usually marked by inscriptions as dedi- 
 catory ; no examples in silver have been preserved, but naturally 
 their intrinsic value led to their being melted down. The pre- 
 cise relation between this type and the Lydian type already 
 described (commonly designated, wherever found, as the Eph. 
 Artemis) has not yet been determined. It is highly probable 
 that the whole class of sacred dedicatory objects fabricated by 
 the artisans for use in the cultus of Artemis were designated 
 by the generic term navi, taken from the most common and 
 characteristic type. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—See under EPHEsus. 
 
 W. M. Ramsay. 
 DIBLAH (aba), Ezk 64.—Four MSS read Riblah 
 (which is eceepios by Cheyne, Davidson, Hitzig, 
 Smend, Cornill, Siegfried-Stade, and Oxf. Hed. 
 Lex.). It was near a wilderness, and this would 
 suit for Riblah. It has also been supposed to 
 be Beth-Diblathaim. There is a village in 
 Upper Galilee called Dibl. See SWP vol. i. sh. iii. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 DIBLAIM (oda3, AtBnralu), the father of Gomer, 
 Hosea’s wife. See GOMER, HosEA. 
 
 DIBON.—4. (j!27 in MT, but the spelling j2"5 of 
 the Moabite Stone and Aa@év of LXX indicate 
 that the * had a consonantal value; see Driver, 
 Notes on Heb. Text of Samuel, |xxxix.). A city east 
 of the Dead Sea and north of the Arnon in the land 
 which, before the coming of the Israelites, Sihon, 
 king of the Amorites, had taken from a former 
 king of Moab (Nu 21*% %), The Israelites dispos- 
 sessed Sihon, and the territory was assigne to 
 Reuben (Jos 13°27), but the city Dibon is men- 
 tioned among those built (or rebuilt) by Gad (Nu 
 323. #4), hence the name Dibon-gad by which it is 
 once called (Nu 33%). The children of Israel were 
 not able to retain possession of the land, and in 
 the time of Isaiah Dibon is reckoned among the 
 cities of Moab (Is 15). In Is 15° Dimon is supposed 
 to be a modified form of Dibon, adopted in order 
 
 *Canon Hicks, Eapositer, June 1890, p. 403 ff., takes a 
 different view. 
 
 to resemble more closely the Hebrew word for 
 blood (Dam), and support the play on words in 
 that verse. 
 
 The modern name of the town is Dhiban, about 
 half an hour N. of ‘Ara‘ir, which is on the edge of 
 the Arnon Valley. It is a dreary and featureless 
 ruin on two adjacent knolls, but has acquired 
 notoriety in consequence of the discovery there of 
 the Moabite Stone. See Tristram, Land of Moab, 
 p. 182 £., Seetzen, Reisen, i. 400, and ef. MOAB. 
 
 2. A town in Judah inhabited in Nehemiah’s 
 time by some of the children of Judah (Neh 11”), 
 Perhaps it is the same as Dimonah (Jos 15") among 
 the southernmost cities of Judah. If this identi- 
 fication be correct, it illustrates the passage Is 15° 
 referred to in (1). 
 
 Dibon-gad (Nu 33* only); see above. 
 
 A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 DIBRI (727).—A Danite, grandfather of the 
 blasphemer who was stoned to death, Ly 244. 
 
 DIDRACHMA.—See Money. 
 -DIDYMUS.—See THOMAS. 
 
 DIE.—To die by a specified form of death is a 
 common expression ; as Caxton (1477), Jason, 42: 
 ‘Tf I dye not of bodily deth I shal dye of spirituet 
 deth’ ; and so Caxton, G. de la Tour, Gv v.: ‘ Your 
 sone deyd this nyght of a good dethe.’ Similar is 
 the phrase Nu 16” ‘If these men die the common 
 death of all men’; and 23! ‘Let me die the death 
 of the righteous,’ and other examples in which the 
 Broke is omitted. But the expression ‘die the 
 
 eath’ is un-English, and is prob. everywhere due 
 to a literal rendering of the Heb. idiom. It occurs 
 Sir 1417 ‘the covenant from the beginning is, Thou 
 shalt die the death’ (Gr. @avdrw drofarg, from 
 Gn 2!7 ‘thou shalt surely die,’ Heb. nipp nin, lit. 
 ‘dying thou shalt die,’ LXX @avdry droaveicbe) ; 
 and Mt 154 ‘He that curseth father or mother, let 
 him die the death’ (Gr. Oavadrw redevrdrw, lit. ‘let 
 him end by death,’ Vulg. morte moriatur, Cov. 
 ‘shal dye the death,’ after whom Cran., Gen., 
 Bish., AV, RV; but Rhem. ‘dying let him dye’). 
 The phrase ‘die the death’ is not uncominon in 
 Shaks., and is generally interpreted as meaning 
 ‘die the death appointed for the particular offence’; 
 but it is probate a reminiscence of the phrase in 
 Mt,* and means ‘let him assuredly die.’ Thus 
 Mids. Night’s Dream, I. i. 65— 
 
 ‘Hither to die the death, or to abjure 
 For ever the society of men.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DIET (fr. Gr. dtarra, mode of life, through late 
 Lat. dicta) is used in AV in the obsol. sense of ‘an 
 allowance of food,’ Jer 52%4 ‘And for his [Jehoia- 
 chin’s] diet, there was a continual diet given him’ 
 (WoR now ingq, RV ‘allowance,’ as AV in par. 
 passage 2 K 25%, In Pr 15” the same Heb. is tr. 
 ‘dinner,’ with ‘portion’ in RVm; in Jer 40° 
 ‘victuals,’ RVm ‘an allowance’). The Eng. word 
 is rare in this sense, and is not used in any previous 
 version here. In the more usual sense it occurs Sir 
 30° ‘A cheerful and good heart will have a care of 
 his meat and diet’; ef. Chaucer (Prol. 435)— 
 
 ‘Of his diet measurable was he, 
 For it was of no superfluitee, 
 But of greet norissing and digestible.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DIKLAH (abp3, AexAd).—The name of a son of 
 Joktan (Gn 10”, 1 Ch 1”), probably representing 
 a nation or community. The Aramaic name for 
 the river Tigris (Diklath) is practically identical 
 with this form, and hence the conjecture of 
 Michaelis, that Diklah signified the dwellers on 
 
 * Of. Macbeth, rv. iii. 111: ‘Died every day she lived,’ a reco} 
 lection, no doubt, of 1Co 1531 ‘I die daily.’ 
 
 
 
 
 
DILAN 
 
 
 
 DIONYSIA 607 
 
 
 
 that river, is not wholly improbable; we know, 
 however, of no community so called, and the home 
 of such of the Joktanidz as can be identified with 
 certainty is in Arabia. The word dakal (in Syr. 
 dekla’, ‘palm’) is well known in Arabic, and 
 signifies dry dates of bad quality ; as they possess 
 no cohesive power, to ‘scatter like dakal’ is a 
 proverbial phrase. The geographer Yakit knows 
 of a place in Yemamah called Dakalah, ‘where 
 there were palm trees,’ of too little importance to 
 be connected with the son of Joktan; moreover, 
 the corresponding form in Hebrew should be 
 Dékalah rather than Diklah. The names imme- 
 diately preceding and following Diklah give no 
 clue to its identification. D.S. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 
 DILAN (jybx), Jos 15°%.—A town of Judah in 
 the same group with Lachish and Eglon. The 
 site is unknown. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 DILIGENCE. — ‘Derived from diligo, to love, 
 ‘‘ diligence ” reminds us that the secret of true in- 
 dustry in our work is love of that work’ (Trench, 
 Study of Words, p. 314). But as diligence has 
 
 adually forgotten the rock whence it was hewn, 
 t has also lost some of its proper meaning. It is 
 @ synonym now for ‘industry’; but formerly it 
 was also a syn. for ‘carefulness,’ since our love of 
 a@ work may express itself as readily in care or 
 caution as in perseverance. Hence Wyclif’s tr. of 
 1 Ti 3° ‘If ony man kan not gouerne his hous, how 
 schal he haue diligence of the chirche of God’ ; and 
 Coverdale’s tr. of Pr 4% ‘Kepe thine hert with all 
 diligence,’ which is retained in AV and RV. Cf. 
 Knox, Historie, 15: ‘He declared what diligence 
 the ancients took to try true miracles from false.’ 
 Diligent and eeeent y had the same range of 
 meaning. Thus Job 42° Cov. ‘I have geuen dili- 
 gent eare unto the’ (Gen., AV ‘I have heard of 
 thee by the hearing of the ear,’ RV ‘I had heard,’ 
 etc.—thus reversing Coverdale’s meaning); AV 
 1611 Title, ‘with the former Translations dili- 
 gently compared and revised’; Shaks. Tempest, 
 Il. i. 42— 
 
 ‘The harmony of their tongues hath into bondage 
 Brought my too diligent ear.’ 
 
 DILL.—See ANISE. 
 
 DIMINISH.—To diminish is to make less, and 
 that primary meaning is alone in use now. We 
 do not even use the word figuratively, ‘to lessen 
 the influence of,’ ‘belittle,’ as Ezk 5" ‘ therefore will 
 Talsod. thee’; 29% ‘I will d. them, that they shall 
 no more rule over the nations’; Is21!" ‘the mighty 
 men... shall be diminished’ (RV ‘shall be few’) ; 
 Ro 11 ‘if... the diminishing of them [be] the 
 riches of the Gentiles’ (7d #rrnua atrév, RV ‘ their 
 loss,’ Sanday-Headlam ‘their defeat’). Cf. Argu- 
 ment of Ep. to Heb. in Gen. NT: ‘For seing the 
 Spirit of God is the autor thereof, it diminisheth 
 nothing the autoritie, althogh we knowe not with 
 what penne he wrote it.’ Still less can we speak of 
 diminishing one thing from another, #.e. withdraw- 
 ing or withholding, so as to cause diminution, as 
 Dt 4? ‘Ye shall not add unto the word which I 
 command you, neither shall ye d. ought from it’ ; 
 Jer 26? ‘d. not a word’ (RV ‘keep not back’). So 
 in Atkinson’s tr. (1504) of De Imitatione, Iv. ix. : 
 ‘Take from our hertis ... all that may... 
 dimynyshe vs from thy eternall loue.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DIMNAH (7303).—A Levitical city in Zebulun, 
 Jos 21%. Dillmann, followed by Bennett in 
 Haupt’s OT, emends to 7327, Rimmon (cf. 1 Ch 6”, 
 Jos 19). J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 DIMON, DIMONAH.—See Dizon. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DINAH (73°3).—The daughter of Jacob by Leah 
 (Gn 30"). The composite and very obscure narra- 
 tive of Gn 34 relates how, when Jacob was en- 
 camped at Shechem, after his return from Meso- 
 
 otamia, she was seduced by Shechem the son of 
 
 amor, a Hivite prince. This outrage was bitterly 
 resented by her full brothers, Simeon and Levi. 
 Shechem was ready to prove his attachment by 
 marrying the maiden, and offered to pay any 
 marriage price or dowry that might be fixed by her 
 family. ‘To this her brothers consented, but only 
 on condition that all the men of Shechem should 
 be circumcised. This being conceded, her brothers 
 made it the means of inflicting a barbarous revenge 
 for their sister’s dishonour, by killing all the men 
 of the place on the third day, when the effects of 
 the circumcision made them incapable of self- 
 defence. Both at the time and on his death-bed, 
 their father Jacob (according to J) spoke of this 
 act with indignation and abhorrence (Gn 34” 495-7), 
 It was, however, approved by later Jewish fanatics 
 (Jth 97). (For the tribal significance of Dinah and 
 the historical incidents which may underlie the 
 above narrative, see SIMEON). . M. Boyp. 
 
 DINAITES (x37, LXX Aewato, Ezr 4°), a 
 people settled in Samaria by Osnappar (i.e. prob- 
 ably Assurbanipal). They joined with the 
 other Samaritans in denouncing the Jews to 
 Artaxerxes. The Dinaites have been variously 
 identified with the Da-ja-éni, a tribe of western 
 Armenia, mentioned in inscriptions of Tiglath- 
 pices I. (Schrader) ; and with the inhabitants of 
 
 einaver, a Median city (Ewald), or of Din-Sharru 
 near Susa (Fried. Delitzsch). On account of the 
 other peoples named in the same verse, the last 
 view seems the most probable. See further Meyer, 
 Judenthum, 39 f. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 DINHABAH(aan3).—The capital city of king Bela 
 in Edom (Gn 36%7=1 Ch 1%). There is some doubt 
 as toitsidentification. The name, which is accented 
 so as to mean ‘Give judgment’ (Ball, Genesis, ad 
 loc.), occurs in Palmyrene as Danaba or Dahbdna 
 (x21); ef. AavdBy in Babylonia, and see Dillm. 
 and Del. on Gn 36. It has been proposed by 
 Neubauer (Academy, 1891, p. 260) to identify 
 Dinhabah with TYennib. This is accepted b 
 Tomkins (2). p. 284), who further identifies Tenni 
 with Thenib, E.N.E. from Heshbon, described in 
 Tristram’s Moab, p. 222. See further Hommel, 
 Anc. Heb. Tradition, 223 n. J. A. SELLIE. 
 
 DINNER.—See Foon. 
 
 DIONYSIA (Avovicia, Bacchanalia, EV ‘Feast of 
 Bacchus’), 2 Mac 67.—A festival in honour of 
 Dionysus. Dionysus is usually regarded as the god 
 of the vine, but, as Frazer shows in the Golden 
 Bough, hewas a god of trees in general. Ashe comes 
 before us in Greek worship, he is quite clearly a 
 vegetation deity ; but Jevons may be right in think- 
 ing that two cults have been combined,—that of 
 the vegetation spirit and that of the wine-god 
 Dionysus, the latter lending its name to the former, 
 which at first was naturally nameless. The char- 
 acter of the god is to be determined, not from the 
 myths told about him, which are tales invented 
 to explain the ritual, but from the ritual itself, 
 interpreted through comparison with parallel rites 
 among other peoples. The festival was intended 
 to celebrate the revival of vegetation in spring 
 after the long sleep of winter. Not only to cele- 
 brate it, however, but by sympathetic magic to 
 secure the fertility of the fields. This imitation 
 of the processes of nature was associated with the 
 wildest orgies and excesses, stimulated no doubt, 
 in this instance, by the connexion of Dionysus 
 

 
 
 
 608 DIONYSIUS 
 
 with the vine. Jevons gives a reconstruction 
 of the festival as it was held at Thebes and other 
 places. A branch, or something else representing 
 the vegetation spirit, was carried round the cul- 
 tivated fields, to secure his blessing on the crops. 
 A human figure, also representing this spirit, was 
 fastened to the top of a tree trunk, which had 
 been felled and prepared for the purpose. This 
 was hoisted up and then pelted till it fell. The 
 women then tore it in pieces, and the woman who 
 got the head raced with it to the temple or chief 
 house and nailed it to the door. But in many 
 cases the rites were much more savage, and bulls 
 or goats, which represented the god himself, were 
 torn to pieces by the worshippers in a mad scram- 
 ble to possess themselves of portions of the flesh, 
 and even human beings suffered at times in this 
 way. The flesh was taken home and some of it 
 buried in the fields. (For parallels to this custom 
 of killing the god the Golden Bough should be 
 ponsaltet: It secured a certain communion with 
 the deity, the preservation of his vigour through 
 the death of his temporary representative and his 
 re-incarnation in a fresh life, and the fertility of 
 the land in which the flesh was buried). The most 
 famous festivals of Dionysus were held in Attica. 
 Besides the Anthesteria and Lenwa there were 
 two, known as the Lesser and the Greater Dion- 
 sia. The former was held in country districts in 
 ecember, and was a vintage festival, accompanied 
 by dancing, songs, improvised dramatic suteg 
 ances, and a procession, in which the phallus was 
 borne. The utmost licence of speech and conduct 
 characterized it. The Greater Dionysia were held 
 in the city, and were chiefly important from the 
 fact that at them the great dramas of the tragic 
 and comic poets were produced. Before the dra- 
 matic performances there was a great public pro- 
 cession of worshippers, wearing masks and singing 
 the dithyramb, in which an image of Dionysus 
 was carried from one temple to another. This 
 was followed by a chorus of boys. According to 
 2Mac 6’ Antiochus compelled the Jews, when the 
 feast of Dionysia (RVm) came, to go in procession 
 in honour of Dionysus, wearing wreaths of ivy. 
 The ivy was specially sacred to the god. See 
 further under DIONYSUS. A. 8S. PEAKE. 
 
 DIONYSIUS.—Dionysius, designated the Areo- 
 
 agite (6’Apeoraylrns), is mentioned as one of the 
 ee converts made by St. Paul at Athens (Ac 17*). 
 He is probably thus specially named as having been 
 a member of the Council of Areopagus (see AREO- 
 paGcus). Nothing further is known of him. It 
 has been suggested that St. Luke, who apparently 
 was not at Athens, may have owed to Dionysius 
 his report of the speech on Mars’ hill. According 
 to Dionysius of Corinth (in Euseb. HE iii. 4) 
 he became the first bishop of the church at 
 Athens; according to one account (Niceph. HE 
 iii. 11) he suffered martyrdom at Athens under 
 Domitian ; according to another (Martyr. Rom.), 
 having come to Rome, he was sent by Clemens I. 
 (about 95) to Paris, and there beheaded on the 
 Martyrs’ Mount (Montmartre); and no small con- 
 troversy has arisen in France over his title to be 
 regarded as St. Denys, the patron saint of France. 
 Various mystical writings, circulated in the Middle 
 Ages under his name, are still extant; but they have 
 long been regarded as non-genuine, and are now 
 generally supposed to have been put into circulation 
 about the 5th century. WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 
 DIONYSUS (Bacchus).—A Greek god, in whose 
 worship there are three distinct strata. The first 
 consists of those rites with which spirits of vegeta- 
 tion (originally probably plant-totems) are wor- 
 shipped by all primitive peoples, in the new world 
 
 DIOSCURI 
 
 as well as the old, who possess any cultivated 
 plants. This stratum is probably not older than 
 the separation of the European from the other mem- 
 bers of the Aryan family, for it was only after 
 that separation that the Aryans began to domesti- 
 cate plants. The next consists in the worship 
 associated with the cultivation of the vine: this 
 originated where, according to the most recent 
 researches, the vine was first cultivated by the 
 European branch of the mys dem viz. in Thrace. 
 The process of syncretism by which these rites 
 were amalgamated with those of the vegetation- 
 spirit was not completed, if indeed it had begun, 
 in the time of Homer; for in the Homeric poems 
 D. occurs as a god, but is not associated with the 
 vine, except in passages generally admitted to 
 be comparatively late interpolations. The third 
 stratum belongs to the 7th cent. B.c., the period 
 in which, among the E. nations conquered by the 
 Assyrians and Babylonians, national calamity led 
 men to look for assistance to a ritual more potent 
 than that in daily use. This more potent ritual 
 was found in the older and more awful forms of 
 sacrifice which lingered on in connexion with out- 
 of-the-way altars. To the form of worship thus 
 revived, only those were admitted who were 
 formally initiated into these ‘mysteries.’ From 
 the East the institution of ‘mysteries’ spread to 
 Greece; and the reason why it attached itself 
 cobapepnpe! to the worship of such deities as 
 emeter and Dionysus was that that worship was 
 an evolved form of the rites (common to man 
 Aryan and Semitic and bap pee with whith 
 vegetation-spirits were originally worshipped. The 
 resemblances which thus made possible the spread 
 of ‘mysteries’ from the East to the West also 
 facilitated that dissemination of the worship of 
 baie over the E., for which mytholcgists 
 (e.g. Nonnus) accounted by the hypothesis of an E. 
 campaign on the part of the god. It is in the 
 readiness with which the worship of D. was re- 
 ceived in many parts of Syria and Pal. that we 
 find the explanation of the attempts or threats to 
 establish the worship of D. amongst the Jews: 
 it was presumed, e.g. by Nicanor (2 Mac 14") aud 
 Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mac 67), that it would be 
 acceptable to them as to other peoples, while 
 Ptolemy Philopator, who branded the Jews with 
 the ivy-leaf of Dionysus (3 Mac 2”), had an 
 additional motive, in the fact that D. was the 
 family God of the Ptolemies, for forcing his worship 
 on them by a means analogous to that which many 
 Hindoo sects adopt to symbolize their devotion to 
 their Ag? god, and which has a further 
 parallel in the common barbaric custom of tattoo- 
 ing the worshipper’s body with the symbol of the 
 od under whose protection and power he is. See 
 Earther under DIONYSIA. F. B. JEVONS, 
 
 DIOSCORINTHIUS (Acés Kopiw6lov [rerpdd: xad 
 elxdét], Dioscorus, 2 Mac 117). See TIME. 
 
 DIOSCURI (Acécxovpor, RVm at Ac 28" ; text, The 
 Twin Brothers; AV, Castor and Pollux) are men- 
 tioned as giving their name to the ship in which 
 St. Paul sailed from Melita to Puteoli, on his way 
 to Rome. The D. in mythology were the sons of 
 Zeus and Leda, and brothers of Helen, Castor was 
 the horse-tamer, and Pollux the prince of boxers. 
 For their brotherly affection they were placed in 
 the sky as the constellation of the Twins (Gemini). 
 They were worshipped from early times in Greece, 
 (‘Greecia Castoris memor’ Hor. Od. iv. 5. 35), in 
 ope in Africa (Pind. Pyth. v.), not far from 
 Alexandria, in Southern Italy, and enjoyed especies 
 honour at Rome on account of their supernatural 
 appearance at the battle of Lake Regillus. Their 
 image was printed on the reverse of the earliest 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 DIOTREPHES 
 
 
 
 silver coins of the Romans (denarii) as that of two 
 youths on horseback. They were, however, best 
 known as the tutelary gods of sailors, who identi- 
 fied their presence with the pale blue flame or 
 light seen in thundery weather at the mast-head. 
 They are thus mentioned Hor. Od. i. 3. 2: ‘Sic 
 fratres Helenz lucida sidera’; also Od. iii. 29. 64: 
 ‘tutum feret geminus Pollux’; also Catull. iv. 27 
 and Ixviii. 65; and Eurip. Helen. 1663-65. It was 
 a common practice to put, as a rapdonuoy (Ac 28") 
 or insigne, some device for a figure-head to a ship, 
 in imitation of the person or object (not always 
 complimentary, Virg. 4/n. x. 188) after which the 
 vessel was named. See Virg. din. v. 116, ‘Mnes- 
 theus agit Pristin’; in. x. 166, 195, 209, ‘Hune 
 vehit immanis Triton,’ etc. This figure-head was 
 to be distinguished from the tutela (Ov. Trist. i. 
 10. 1), ‘tutela Minerve,’ or image of the protecting 
 genius, under which the ship sailed, placed gener- 
 ally in the stern of the vessel. In later times the 
 distinction appears to have been effaced, and, in 
 the vessel which carried St. Paul, the Dioscuri 
 were probably intended for the ‘tutela’ as well as 
 the ‘insigne,’ and their heads were probably 
 fastened, one on each side, in front. 
 LITERATURE.—Seyffart, Dict. of Class. Antiq. by Nettleship 
 and Sandys; Rich, Dict. of Antig.; Page, Acts of the Apostles, 
 tn loc. C. H. PRICHARD. 
 
 DIOTREPHES (Acorpegjs, WH-é¢ns).—A person, 
 otherwise unknown, who is introduced in 3 John 
 (vv.* 2°) as ambitious, resisting the writer’s author- 
 ity, and standing in the way of the hospitable recep- 
 tion of brethren who visited the Ot ch techably 
 travelling evangelists, such as are mentioned in 
 the Didaché. It has been inferred by some that he 
 was a presbyter or a deacon in the Church. It 
 has also been supposed that he was in conflict with 
 the Jewish-Christian party ; or, on the other hand, 
 that he was a teacher of false doctrine, Judaistic 
 or Gnostic. But all is matter of conjecture. 
 Others think that his action indicates an ‘egitim: 
 ate assumption of authority over the Church, con- 
 nected with the tendency to the establishment of a 
 monarchical episcopate, which may have begun 
 during the lifetime of St. John. 
 
 S. D. F. SALMOND. 
 
 DIPHATH (np) occurs in RV and AVm of 1 Ch 
 18, but it is practically certain that AV Riphath is 
 the correct reading. By an easily explicable scribal 
 error n5"7 has arisen from np", the reading of MT in 
 the parallel passage Gn 10°. See RIPHATH. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 DISALLOW. — ‘Allow’ is in AV either to 
 ‘approve’ or ‘accept’ (see ALLOW); ‘disallow’ is 
 always distinctly to ‘reject.’ So Nu 3052-8 12 
 (x39 refuse, reject ; see Ps 1415 RV); and 1 P 247 
 (dwodoxpdfw, RV ‘reject’). So Latimer (Serm. 
 and Rem., 11), ‘I must not suffer the devil to have 
 the victory over me. I must disallow his in- 
 structions and suggestions.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISANNUL, which scarcely differs in meaning 
 from ‘annul,’ the prefix being only intensive, is 
 now goin out of use. RV removes it only from 
 Gal 3", giving ‘make void’ instead (Gr. dOeréw, of 
 which the subst. d@éryos is tr? ‘disannulling’ 
 He 778 and retained by RV). Amer. RV prefers 
 ‘annul’ in Job 408, Is 1477288 The use of the 
 word in biblical English may be illustrated by 
 Coverdale’s tr™ of Is 147 ‘For yf the LoRbE of 
 hoostes determe a thing, who wyl dysanulle it?’ ; 
 and Tindale’s tr® of He 8 ‘In that he sayth a 
 new testament he hath abrogat (aeradalwxev) the 
 olde. Now that which is disanulled (aacotjsevov) 
 and wexed olde, is redy to vannysche awaye.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISAPPOINT has a stronger meaning in AV 
 
 VOL. I.—39 : 
 
 DISCIPLE 609 
 
 than in mod. English, Job 5" ‘He disappointeth 
 the devices of the crafty’ (197, RV ‘ frustrateth,’ 
 as Is 44% AV, RV; so Pr 15%); Ps 178 Arise, O 
 Lord, d. him’ (135 apap, RV ‘confront him,’ RVm 
 ‘forestall him,’ Cheyne ‘intercept him’); Jth 16¢ 
 ‘the Almighty Lord hath disappointed them by 
 the hand of a woman’ (79érycev avrots, RV ‘ brought 
 them to nought’: see under DISANNUL). Cf. Hall, 
 Hard Texts (1633), 311: ‘All those curious and 
 wealthy Trades... shall be utterly undone and 
 disappointed.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISCERN.—To discern (Lat. dis apart, cernera 
 separate) is to separate things so as to distinguish 
 them, as Coverdale, Hrasm. Par.1 Jn, p. 48: ‘It ia 
 not the sacramentes that discerne the children of 
 God from the children of the devyll; but the 
 puritie of lyfe and charitie.’ So Ezr3'* ‘the people 
 could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from 
 the noise of the weeping.’ 
 
 To discern a person or thing is therefore, in biblical lang., to 
 separate out from others, so as to recognize, as Gn 2723 ‘he dis- 
 cerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother 
 Esau’s hands’; He 412 ‘the word of God... . is a discerner of 
 the thoughts and intents of the heart’ gael RV ‘quick to 
 discern’); 1 Co 1129 ‘not discerning the Lord’s body’ (ud dia- 
 xplvon £6 eee roi Kupiov; Vulg. non dijudicans corpus Domini ; 
 Calvin, non discernens ; Wyc. ‘not wiseli demynge’; Luther, 
 dass er nicht unterscheidet ; Tind. ‘ because he maketh no differ- 
 ence of’; so Cov., Cran., Gen. 1557; but Gen. 1560, ‘ because he 
 discerneth not,’ with oon note, ‘But as thogh these holie 
 mysteries of the Lordes bodie and blood were commune meate, 
 so without reverence he commeth unto them’; so Tomson; 
 Bish. ‘making no difference of’; Rhem. ‘not discerning the 
 body of our Lord’; whence AV; but RV ‘If he discern not the 
 body ’—omitting re} Kupiov with edd. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISCIPLE.—This word—in Greek pa6nris; fem. 
 pabjrpa (occurring only Ac 9%); verb, pabyretw 
 (occurring four times)—is in sacred literature con- 
 fined to the Gospels and the Acts, though it often 
 appears in Attic Greek (esp. Plato) as denoting the 
 pupil of a philosopher or rhetorician, in contra- 
 distinction to the master, d:ddcxanos (just as in NT, 
 Mt 10%), or to the discoverer, eiperijs. We havea 
 similar contrast in OT, e.g. 1 Ch 25° redelwv xat 
 pavbavivtwy, the perfect and the learning (AV and 
 RV, the teacher and the scholar), referring to the 
 senior and fice members of David’s trained 
 musical guilds. Likewise, in the case of the 
 
 rophetic guilds superintended by Samuel and more 
 
 ully organized by Elijah and Elisha, in order that 
 by spiritual force they might cherish the theocratic 
 spirit among the people, and check the tendenc 
 to apostasy, the general ‘company’ is contraste 
 with him who ‘stood as head over them’ (1S 19”), 
 and the ‘sons,’ 2 K 27 (i.e. pupils; cf. Pr 4%}, and 
 passim) with him ‘ before’ whom they ‘sat,’ 2 K 4°, 
 their master (xUptos), 2K 6°. [Teacher, d:ddcxKanos, 
 however, occurs in LXX only in connexion with 
 heathen monarchs, and then but twice: Est 6! (the 
 teacher of Ahasuerus) and 2 Mac 1” (the teacher of 
 Ptolemy) ; and the phrase ‘ schools of the prophets’ 
 (however truly it may represent facts) is ‘a pure 
 invention of the commentators’ (Smith, Perey 
 Israel, 85).| In Talmudic literature talmidé hakha- 
 mim, pupils of the learned (i.e. the scribes), is a 
 founeny recurring phrase, and of these St. Paul 
 was one when he was ‘brought up at the feet of 
 Gamaliel,’ sitting, t.e. with the rest of the pupils 
 on the lower benches in front of him (Ac 228 
 cf. Mt 5%). : 
 
 The usage of the word in NT is very simple. 
 We read of the disciples of John the Baptist 
 (Mk 218), of the Pharisees (same place), of Moses, 
 Jn 9% (only by way of contrast to Jesus), but 
 most of all of Jesus, to whose disciples, in fact, 
 the subst. is almost entirely, and the verb entirely, 
 limited. The word maintains its classical connota- 
 tion of compliance with the instruction given: the 
 

 
 
 
 610 DISCIPLINE 
 
 
 
 pabynr}s is not only a pupil, but an adherent (see 
 Cremer, Bib. Theol. Lex.; cf. Xen. Mem. i. 6.3, where 
 uadnral are called the pipnral, imitators, of their 
 diddoxados ; so Jn 81, ‘ If ye abide in my word, then 
 are ye truly my disciples,’ cf. 15°). Hence it is 
 applied most esp. to the Twelve in all four Gospels, 
 
 sometimes with déd5exa and sometimes without ; 
 they are ‘the disciples,’ Mt 10! 121, Mk 8”, Lk 8°, 
 Jn 3%, Mt seems, indeed, to confine the plural to 
 them (Weiss), unless 8% and 5! be exceptions. 
 When it denotes the wider circle, as in Lk (par- 
 ticularly 6% 7"), it has the same sense of adherence. 
 Hence it stands, occasionally in Gospels (Mt 10%, 
 taken with 185) and invariably in Ac, as a syno- 
 nym for ricredwy, a believer (cf. Aristot. Hept cop. 
 édeyx. 161° 3—8e? xiorevey roy pavOdvorra, the learner 
 is bound to have thet even where, as in Ac 19} 4, 
 the word is applied to half-instructed believers, 
 who, while believing apparently in Jesus as greater 
 than John the Baptist, were still (as it seems) not 
 sure that Jesus was absolutely the Messiah, and 
 that they had not to ‘look for another’ (Mt 11)). 
 So also, quite distinctly, with the verb padyretw 
 (three times in Mt, once in Ac), which is once 
 intrans. (Mt 2757), twice trans. (Mt 2819, Ac 147), 
 and once deponent (?) (Mt 13°, where, in accordance 
 with the usual dative construction, the phrase 
 signifies a disciple of the kingdom of heaven 
 personified). (See Meyer and Meyer- Weiss). 
 J. MASSIE, 
 
 DISCIPLINE.—‘ Discipline’ is properly instruc- 
 tion, that which belongs to the dtscypulus or 
 scholar, and is distinguished from ‘doctrine,’ 
 which pertains to the doctor or teacher. In this 
 sense Wyclif (1382) gives Pr 3¢ ‘Thou shalt finde 
 grace and good discipline (1388 ‘teching’) befor 
 God and men’; and Chaucer (Skeat’s Student’s 
 ed. p. 716), ‘Thanne shaltow anderstonde, that 
 bodily peyne stant in disciplyne or techinge, by 
 word or by wrytinge, or in ensample.’ But under 
 the influence of the Vulg. and the Church, ‘dis- 
 cipline’ came early to be used for ‘chastisement.’ 
 In Pr 3" Wyc. has ‘the discipline of the Lord, my 
 sone, ne caste thou awey.’ See CHASTISEMENT. 
 
 In AV whether ‘discipline’ means instruction or chastise- 
 ment it is not easy always to decide. It occurs Job 3610 ‘He 
 openeth also their ear to d.’ (magdr, RV ‘instruction,’ which 
 the sense seems to demand ; but the Heb. has nowhere else this 
 meaning, and the whole passage is of chastening or moral dis- 
 eipline); Wis 15 617 bts, Sir 417 [-f2] 1718 1814 232. 7 3214 4114, Bar 413 
 (all reideie, which in class. Greek means ‘ education’ or its result, 
 ‘mental culture,’ never ‘chastisement,’ but is used in LXX as the 
 regular tr. of masdr, hence=chastisement there, and so in NT 
 thrice, He 125.6.8; see Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 101). 
 
 J. HASTINGS, 
 
 DISCOMFIT, DISCOMFITURE.— From dis apart, 
 and conficere to poe together, to ‘discomfit’ is to 
 undo, destroy. oth words, now archaic if not 
 obsolete, are always used in AV of defeat in battle, 
 Is 318 being a mistrans. for ‘become liable to 
 forced service.’ Cf. More, Utopia (Rob. tr.), p. 
 140: ‘if al their whole armie be discumfeted and 
 overcum’; and Chaucer, Knight’s Tale, 150— 
 
 ‘ After the bataille and disconfiture.’ 
 
 RV introduces ‘discomfit’ for ‘destroy,’ Ex 23”, 
 Ps 1446 (op7), Dt 728 (nxn); for ‘trouble,’ Ex 14% 
 (o99); and ‘discomfiture,’ Dt 72,18 5°(AV ‘de- 
 struction’), Dt 28% (AV ‘vexation’), Is 225 (AV 
 ‘ trouble’), the Heb. being always apino méhiimah. 
 ’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISCOVER.—In mod. Eng. ‘to discover’ is ‘to 
 detect,’ ‘ find out,’ which is a late use of the word. 
 The meanings in AV are: 1. Uncover, lay bare 
 (the primary sense, lit. ‘to take off the cover,’ Fr. 
 deueri te 29° ‘The voice of the Lord .. . dis- 
 covereth the forests’ (qvn, RV ‘ strippeth bare’: ‘I 
 do not understand this of stripping the foliage 
 merely, but rather of the breaches and openings 
 made by the lightning and the wind in the heart 
 
 
 
 
 
 DISHON 
 
 of the wood ’—Earle, Psalter of 1539, p. 271); Ezk 
 1657 ‘Before thy wickedness was discovered’; 
 Hos 2° ‘now will I d. her lewdness in the sight of 
 her lovers’; 7! ‘the iniquity of Ephraim was dis- 
 covered’; Sir 1” ‘ Exalt not thyself, lest thou fall 
 . .. and so God d. thy secrets’ (RV ‘reveal’); 
 1177 ‘his deeds shall be discovered’ (RV ‘the 
 revelation of his deeds’). Cf. Knox, Hist. p. 182, 
 ‘Which God of his infinite goodness hath now 
 discovered to the eyes of all that list to behold’; 
 and p. 250, ‘ who rashly discovering himself in the 
 Trenches, was shot in the head.’ 2. Withdraw 
 (spoken of the cover itself, so as to uncover), 
 Job 418 ‘who can d. the face of his garment?’ 
 (RV ‘strip off his outer garment’—see Davidson 
 in loc.); te 228 ‘he discovered the covering of 
 Judah’ (RV ‘took away’); Jer 13° (=Nah 3°) ‘I 
 will d. thy skirts upon thy face.’ So Bacon, New 
 Atlantis, 129: ‘At the beg he discovered 
 the face of the deep, and brought forth dry land’; 
 Chapman, Hesiod, i. 161— 
 
 ‘When the woman the unwieldy lid 
 
 Had once discover’d, all the miseries hid 
 
 . . . dispersed and flew 
 
 About the world.’ 
 8. Disclose or reveal, 1 S 148 ‘ we will d. ourselves 
 unto them’; 22° ‘when Saul heard that David 
 was discovered’ (y1\3 ‘made known,’ ‘ revealed’); 
 Job 12” ‘ He discovereth deep things out of dark- 
 ness’; Pr 259 ‘d. not a secret to another’ (RV 
 ‘disclose not the secret of another’); Sir 6° 27%, 
 1 Mac 7! ‘when he saw that his counsel was dis- 
 covered’ (drexahidOy, ‘made known,’ ‘revealed,’ 
 not ‘found out’); 2 Mac 6" ‘ others, that had run 
 together into caves near by, to keep the Sabbath 
 secretly, being discovered to Philip, were all burnt 
 together ’ (RV ‘betrayed’). Cf. Bacon, Essays, 
 
 . 17: ‘For Prosperity doth best discover Vice ; 
 ut Adversity doth best discover Vertue’; and 
 
 Shaks. Merry Wives, U1. ii. 190— 
 
 *] shall discover a thing to you.’ 
 
 4, Exhibit, display, as Blount (1600): ‘The more 
 he mounted, the more he discovered his incapacitie.’ 
 In AV Pr 18?‘A fool hath no delight in under- 
 standing, but that his heart may d. itself’ (RV 
 ‘reveal’). 5. Descry, sight, Ac 21° ‘When we had 
 discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand’ 
 (dvapalyw, RV ‘come in sight of’). 6. Notice, 
 Ac 27% ‘they discovered a certain creek ’ (xarevéouy, 
 RV ‘ perceived’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISCUS.—See GAMES. DISEASE.—See MEDI- 
 CINE. DISH.—See Foon. 
 
 DISHAN (jy3).—A son of Seir, Gn 367-2 %2— 
 1 Ch 1%-#, In Gn 36% the reading j~ of MT 
 should be emended to ji#y, after 1Ch1“. See 
 following article. 
 
 DISHON.—1. A son of Seir, vy Gn 367=]e4 
 1 Ch 13, 2, A son of Anah and grandson of Seir, 
 #1 Gn 36%, cf. v.2=jev 1 Ch 1“, which should 
 also be read for MT j7¥ in Gn 36%, Dishan (see 
 art. above) and Dishon are, of course, not indi- 
 vidual names, but the eponyms of Horite clans, 
 Their exact location is a matter of uncertainty. 
 j#-3 occurs in Dt 14° (only) as the name of a clean 
 animal (LXX réyapyos, AV and RV ‘pygarg’), 
 which is generally taken to be some species of 
 gazelle or antelope. Tristram (Nat. Hist. of Bible, 
 127) identifies it with the Antilope addax; but 
 Hommel (Namen der Sdugethiere, 391), deriving 
 the word from a root w=spring, leap (cf. Assyr. 
 dagsu), thinks of the mountain-goat. So also 
 Delitzsch (Assyr. Stud. i. 54). The existence of 
 such animal names amongst the Horites has been 
 used by W. R. Smith as an argument in faveur of 
 
 
 
ee a i i ee 
 
 DISHONESTY 
 
 DIVINATION 611 
 
 
 
 totemism. See Journal of Philology, ix. 75ff., 
 Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, and RS 
 iad ; and for the contrary opinion, Néldeke in 
 DMG (1886), 148-187. Cf. also Jacobs, Studies 
 in Bib. Archeol. (1894), and Gray, Heb. Prop. 
 Names (1896), p. 86 ff. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 DISHONESTY in 2 Co 4? is used in the obsolete 
 sense of ‘disgrace’ (alcx’vn, RV ‘shame,’ after 
 Wyc., Gen. ; AV followed Rhemish NT; Tindale 
 has ‘urhonesty’). Cf. Coverdale’s tr. of Ru 2" ‘ Let 
 her gather betwene the sheues also, and do her no 
 dishonestye’ ; and of Sir 3!! ‘Where the father is 
 without honoure, it is the dishonesty of the sonne.’ 
 ‘Dishonest’ Sir 2674, and ‘dishonestly’ 22‘, are 
 used in the same sense. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISPATCH.—To ‘dispatch business’ is still in 
 use, as in To 78 ‘let this business be dispatched,’ 
 2 Mac 12! ‘ before he had d. anything he departed.’ 
 But to ‘d. a journey, ’i.e. ‘expedite,’ is out of use ; 
 nor is any example given in Oxf. Eng. Dict., 
 2 Mac 9% being missed : ‘Therefore commanded he 
 his chariotman to drive without ceasing, and to 
 dispatch the journey.’ 
 
 To ‘dispatch,’ t.e. ‘get rid of quickly’ by death, is found 
 Wis 1119, and in Ezk 2347, where RV gives ‘despatch,’ a spelling 
 which is incorrect, and which was unknown till the beg. of the 
 19th cent. It seems to have arisen from Johnson having 
 accidentally entered the word so in his Dict., though he himself 
 always it ‘dispatch.’ See Ozf. Eng. Dict. s.v. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 DISPERSION.—See ISRAEL. 
 
 DISPOSITION.—Ac 78 ‘ Who have received the 
 law by the d. of angels’ (Gr. els diarayas dyyéAwy ; 
 RV ‘as it was ordained by angels’; RVm ‘unto 
 ordinances of angels,’ cf. Ro 13? rod Geod diaray%, 
 AV and RV ‘the ordinance of God’). ‘Disposition 2 
 is the Rhemish word here (Wyc., Tind., Gen. have 
 ‘ordinance’; Cov., Cran. ‘ ministration’), and it is 
 used in the archaic sense of administration. In 
 the same sense ‘ disposer ’ is used by Tind. in 1 Co 4! 
 ‘Let men this wise esteeme us, even as the 
 ministers of Christ, and disposers of the secretes 
 of God’ (EV ‘stewards,’ Gr. olxovduo); and by 
 Gen. (1560) in 1 P 4! ‘Let euerie man as he hathe 
 received the gifte, minister the same one to 
 another, as good disposers of the manifolde grace 
 of God’ (EV ‘stewards’). ‘ Disposing’ in Pr 16® 
 ‘The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole 
 Sel Sa thereof is of the Lord,’ is used in the 
 earlier sense of control, disposal; while the vb. 
 ‘dispose’ in Job 3418 375, 2 Hs 5 84, Sir 16% has the 
 still earlier and primary meaning of ‘arrange in 
 proper order.’ This primary meaning (as Lat. dis- 
 ponere) seems to be intended by ‘disposition’ in 
 2 Es 8* (plasma) 8” ( figmentum), the Lat. words so 
 tr. having ref. to the creation of man ; but in Jth 8”, 
 Ad, Est 16°, Sir 20%, the word is used in the familiar 
 sense of ‘ bent of mind,’ ‘ character,’ a sense which is 
 found as early as 1387: Trevisa, Higden, iii. 113: 
 ‘Nought by chaungynge of body, but by chaung- 
 ynge of disposicioun of wit and of semynge.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISPUTE, DISPUTATION.—As ‘debate’ has 
 lost the meaning of wrangling, so ‘dispute’ has 
 acquired it. In older Eng. to ‘dispute’ was to 
 discuss or argue, without strife. Thus Bp. 
 Carleton (1610), Jurisd. Pref., ‘I have disputed 
 the Kings right with a good conscience, from the 
 rules of Gods word,’ t.e. I have discussed it, argued 
 for it: cf. Sir T. More, Utopia, p. 53, ‘that they 
 maye in everye matter despute and reason for the 
 kynges right’; Knox, Hist. p. 25, ‘after that Sir 
 James Hamilton was beheaded (justly or unjustly 
 we dispute not),’? and p. 215 ‘He [Knox] did 
 gravely dispute upon the nature of the blinde 
 world.’ So in AV, Job 237 ‘There the righteous 
 
 might dispute with him’ (ni, RV ‘reason’); 
 Mk 9% ‘What was it that ye disputed among 
 yourselves by the way?’ (d:adroylfoua, RV ‘were 
 ye reasoning,’ as 2*8 AV); 934 ‘for by the way 
 they had disputed among themselves who should 
 be the greatest’ (d:akéyouat): RV keeps ‘dispute’ 
 here, but the disciples’ shame was not that the 
 had wrangled, but that they had discussed suc 
 a question at all. The same Greek is similar] 
 tr? in AV of Ac 177 (RV ‘reasoned’), 198° (R 
 ‘reasoning’), 241%, Jude® (so RV). The subst. 
 diaoyiouds is once tr. ‘disputing,’ Ph 24 AV, RV, 
 ‘Do all things without murmurings and disput- 
 ings’; but even here Thayer prefers ‘ hesitation,’ 
 ‘doubting,’ Lightfoot never: questionings.’ In 
 Ac 6° 9” (cutnréw) the eens is ja ‘discuss,’ 
 ‘argue’; so 157 (cugjrynots) and 1 Co 1” (cugyrnris). 
 The only passage in which ‘dispute’ seems to have 
 the meaning of ‘wrangle’ is 1 Ti 6° ‘ Perverse dis- 
 putings of men of corrupt minds’ (TR zapadia- 
 TpiBal, edd. d.araparpBal, RV ‘wranglings’). Here 
 Wyc. has ‘fightyngis’ and Rhem. ‘conflictes’ 
 after Vulg. con/lictationes, but Tind. and the rest 
 ‘ disputations,’ a word which never seems to signify 
 ‘altercation,’ ‘wrangling.’ The Gr. word is found 
 nowhere else. 
 
 ‘Disputation’ occurs in AV, Ac 15? (TR cufyrnois, 
 edd. {%rnows, RV ‘ questioning’), and Ro 14! ‘ Him 
 that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to 
 doubtful disputations’ (els Suaxploes diahoyiouar ; 
 lit. ‘unto discussions of doubts’; RVm ‘for de- 
 cisions of doubts’; see Sanday-Headlam in Joc.). 
 Bp. Bonner’s injunction for the reading of the 
 Bible (1541) ends thus: ‘he is not to expound, nor 
 to reade with a lowde voyce, and without dis- 
 putacion,’ where, as elsewhere, d. means ‘ discus- 
 sion’: the reader is neither to expound the mean- 
 ing himself, nor to discuss it with others. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DISTAFF (355).—This term occurs in AV only 
 in Pr 31°, The Hebrew word is found repeatedly 
 in Neh 3, where it means ‘part’ or ‘district’ of 
 the city, something ‘cut off’ or ‘divided’ from 
 the rest. It is found also in 2S 3”, where it is 
 rendered ‘staff,’ but prob.=distaff (see Driver's 
 note). RV renders the word in Pr 3179 ‘spindle,’ for 
 which it may no doubt be used; but if we may 
 judge from the cognate Arab. word ( falkat),it means 
 the whorl of the spindle, a piece of wood or other 
 material, of hemispherical form, through which 
 the spindle-pin passes, and above which is the 
 hook balding the thread. The design of this piece 
 is to give steadiness to the circular motion of the 
 spindle. This form of spindle is in common use 
 among the women of Syria to-day. 
 
 H. PorTER. 
 
 DIVERS, DIVERSE.—‘ Divers’ has now dropped 
 out of use, or, if used archaically, is restricted to 
 the sense of ‘several.’ But formerly ‘divers’ and 
 ‘diverse’ were indifferent spellings of the same 
 adj., which expressed either ‘varied,’ ‘different’ 
 (Lat. diversus); or ‘various,’ ‘several.’ Thus 
 Ridley, A Brefe Declaration (Moule’s ed. p. 106): 
 ‘in the matter of thys Sacrament ther be diverse 
 [=several] poyntes, wherein menne (counted tc be 
 learned) can not agree’; Grindal, Letter to Q. Eliz. 
 (1577): ‘divers [=different] men make divers 
 senses of one sentence of Scripture.’ In AV 1611 
 ‘diverse’ occurs Lv 191°, Est 3°, Dn 719 3-34, Mt 4%; 
 elsewhere ‘divers.’ The conjunction of ‘divers’ 
 with ‘sundry,’ as in He 1’, is common in old 
 Eng., as in the Act authorizing Matthew’s Bible 
 (Hen. vill. 1543): ‘divers and sundrye his subjects 
 of this his realme.’ . HASTINGS. 
 
 DIVES.—See LAZARUS. 
 DIVINATION has many different mudes amongst 
 
612 DIVINATION 
 
 DIVINATION 
 
 
 
 the different peoples of the earth, but all are in their 
 orivin either natural or supernatural. Methods 
 which originally were supernatural may come to 
 lose their supernatural character; methods which 
 were at first natural may come to be regarded as 
 supernatural; and, from lack of evidence, it may 
 be difficult or impossible to say with regard to any 
 given method whether in its origin it was a natural 
 or a supernatural method. 
 
 We shall begin with the supernatural methods 
 as being those first suggested by the word ‘ divina- 
 tion,’ and we shall define them as those by which 
 man gains foreknowledge ef the future from a 
 supernatural source, ¢.g. by inspiration, posses- 
 sion, or direct interrogation of the divine will. 
 These methods, the supernatural, again fall into 
 two classes, the licit and the illicit, according as 
 the supernatural source is or is not a god of the 
 Sonny We may think what we will of the 
 honesty of the priests of Apollo, and entertain what 
 idea we like as to the way in which the oracle of 
 Delphi or of Baal-zebub (2 K 1?*) was worked, but 
 the worshipper of Apollo who consulted the oracle 
 was doing what was approved of by the religious 
 consciousness of his age and race (however low we 
 rank it in the scale of religion): his action was 
 licit. On the other hand, we may pity both the 
 witch and the witch-finder of the time of James I. 
 of England, but we cannot deny that witchcraft 
 was considered, both by those who practised and 
 those who persecuted it, to be irreligious: it was 
 illicit. And the same distinction has prevailed 
 over the world: savages, however low, distinguish 
 in their way between the worship of their tribal 
 gods and commerce with supernatural spirits who 
 are no gods of theirs. 
 
 But before proceeding to inquire more closel 
 into the licit modes of divination, t.e. those aah 
 are religious, we must notice that these, again, fall 
 into two classes, viz. those which are objectively 
 religious and those which are only subjectively 
 religious. That is objectively right, true, or 
 religious which is so, whether a man thinks it so 
 or not; that is subjectively right, true, or religi- 
 ous which is honestly believed to be so, whether it 
 really is so or not. All peoples of the earth have 
 honestly believed that their gods communicated 
 supernatural foresight to certain favoured men, 
 and so divine inspiration or possession is a sub- 
 jectively religious method of divination. When 
 and where the belief is not merely subjectively 
 but also objectively true, the divine inspiration 
 takes the form, not of ‘divination,’ but of PRo- 
 PHECY (which see). In this article the only side 
 of inspiration we have to deal with is the sub- 
 jectively religious — without pre to the 
 question whether any given example is or is not, 
 as it is honestly believed to be, really divine. 
 
 Amongst this class of diyiners we must place 
 the sacred scribes of Gn.41° and the ‘ magicians’ of 
 Ex 74, as also the Sibyl of Virgil or the Pythia of 
 Delphi, and the inspired priests or ‘divine kings’ 
 of savages all over the world. All are believed by 
 themselves and their fellow-worshippers to be in- 
 spired by one of their respective national or tribal 
 gods ; and in all cases possession or inspiration is 
 conditioned by some kind of sacrament or com- 
 munien. That communion may take the form 
 either of a sacramental meal or of a sacramental 
 investiture. The worshipper may partake of the 
 substance of the animal or plant in the shape of 
 which his deity habitually manifests himself, and 
 which is sacrificed to the deity : thus the priestess of 
 Apollo Diradiotes at Argos and the priestess of 
 Earth at Aegira became inspired by drinking the 
 blood of the animals offered to those deities re- 
 spectively ; the Bacchz of Dionysus obtained in- 
 spiration by tasting the blood of the grape, sacred 
 
 to that god; the Pythia, by eating the leaves of 
 
 Apollo’s sacred plant, the laurel. Or the wor- 
 shipper may be (like the idol of the god) clad in 
 the skin or smeared with the blood or fat of the 
 animal, or the juice or oil of the plant, which is 
 the corporate manifestation of the deity, or be 
 robed in the insignia of the god, and so be ‘in- 
 vested’ by the power of the divinity. Possession, 
 then (whether by means of the sacred meal or of 
 sacramental investiture), is one of the licit and 
 subjectively religious ways in which foreknow- 
 ledge of the future may be dérived from a super- 
 natural source. It is the way peculiarly appropriate 
 to gods which manifest themselves in animal or 
 vegetable form. But it isnot the only way: there 
 are deities of earth, air, fire, and water, who may 
 or must be interrogated in another way. In one 
 cult a draught of a sacred stream may have the 
 same effect as a draught of sacred blood in pro- 
 ducing inspiration ; but in another cult the deity 
 of the stream may be consulted by casting offerings 
 into the sacred waters, and inferring that the 
 prayer made at the time will or will not fe granted, 
 according as the offering is or is not accepted by the 
 sacred waters. And the ordeal by fire is based on 
 the same principle as this ordeal by water. Divi- 
 nation by a bowl or cup of sacred water (Gn 44°), 
 again, has the same origin. The leaves of a sacred 
 tree may be eaten to produce inspiration, but their 
 voice in the wind may speak directly to the wor- 
 shipper, as did the rustling of the leaves of the 
 sacred oaks of Dodona. Or the branches and twigs 
 themselves, being of the substance of the divinity, 
 my be made to give indications of the divine 
 will: our word ‘lot,’ like the Gr. «Anpos, originally 
 meant simply ‘a twig.’ See Lor. Rhabdomanc 
 
 or ee bate yea (Hos 4%) and belomancy (Ezk 21?') 
 are but forms of divining by the aid of a tree-god. 
 Still more, when a deity habitually manifests him- 
 self in animal form, may the inward disposition of 
 the deity be augured by the sacrificing priest, ac- 
 cording as the entrails of the victim have or have 
 
 not anything extraordinary in their 7 bed ns ; 
 
 (Ezk 217). In the same way and for the same 
 reason the flight of a sacred bird may be ‘auspici- 
 ous’ or ‘inauspicious’ (Ps 585, 2 K 1717 218), 
 
 The illicit or irreligious forms of divination need 
 not detain us long. They are those in which the 
 supernatural Being consulted is one who is not a 
 god of the community, has no bond of loving- 
 kindness with the community, and is accordingly 
 regarded by it, not merely as a strange god, but as 
 a malevolent and evil spirit. No man consults 
 such a spirit except for purposes which the national 
 gods, as being the guardians of the nation’s interests 
 and the national morality, cannot sanction. Com- 
 merce with such a spirit is anti-social as well as 
 anti-religious ; and the man who is guilty of it is 
 a wizard (Lv 19% 205), and has always been punished 
 as @ criminal all over the world by the peoples whe 
 believe in the possibility of such commerce. 
 
 Necromancy, consulting the spirits of the dead 
 (Lv 19%, Is 8! 198), is a way of obtaining fore- 
 knowledge from a supernatural source which was 
 illicit among the Jews (to whom ancestor-worship 
 was forbidden), but licit amongst all other peoples. 
 Consultation of the teraphim (Ezk 21", Zee 10?) 
 seems to have persisted amongst the Jews in spite 
 of the fact that it was, strictly speaking, idola- 
 trous: the teraphim were images (1S 191%), like 
 the altar-stones of the Scandinavians and the cla: 
 or wooden idols of the Balonda and Barotse, whic 
 could be made to prophesy by smearing them with 
 the blood of sacrifice. ‘or oneiromancy see 
 DREAMS. All we need here remark is that it is a 
 form of divination which may be licit (Jg 7'*) or 
 illicit (Dt 1378), according as the source of the 
 dream is a divine or an evil spirit. We have now 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ee ae es 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 DIVINATION 
 
 
 
 DIZAHAB 613 
 
 
 
 finished our account of the supernatural methods 
 of divination, and may sum it up in tabular form 
 as follows :— 
 
 
 
 until he finds out their incorrectness, they are to 
 him just as scientific as the rest of his stock of 
 acquired and inherited knowledge; and conse- 
 
 Supernatural Methods 
 | 
 Lit mileit Variable 
 (WitcHoraFt) 
 Objectively .  Bubjectively 
 religious religious 
 (ProrHecy) 
 Possession Interrogation 
 | | | | 
 Sacramental Sacramental - By fire By water By lot Necromancy Oneiromancy Teraphim 
 meal. investiture 
 
 We have now to consider the natural methods : 
 they are, in a word, exploded science. The modern 
 man of science makes forecasts of the future which 
 are not supernatural, but strictly scientific. So, 
 too, the savage and primitive man make forecasts 
 (e.g. as to the rising and the setting of the sun and 
 stars) which may not be exact but are certainly 
 scientific, and which, even when wholly erroneous, 
 are not supernatural or superstitious. The science 
 of the savant has been evolved by slow and imper- 
 ceptible degrees out of the science of the savage. 
 The difference between them is, not that the 
 savant uses methods of observation and experiment 
 unknown to the savage,—for the savage employs 
 all four of the Inductive Methods,—but that the 
 savage, when he goes wrong (which he does not do 
 always, else he would speedily perish), does so 
 because he has not yet learned the limits within 
 which the method or logical conception is valid. 
 Thus he observes that in many cases the effect 
 resembles the cause: fire causes fire; to make a 
 thing moist, or to make it move, you must impart 
 moisture or movement to it; and he jumps to the 
 conclusion that in all cases ‘like produces like.’ 
 Thus he becomes armed with a very simple and 
 ready means of forecasting the future: the effect 
 of anything which strikingly arrests his attention 
 will resemble the cause—a fiery comet will be fol- 
 lowed by conflagrations, the mention of the name 
 of what is evil will be followed by the appearance 
 of the evil thing, that which moves as the sun 
 moves (1.e. E., S., W., N., ‘ clock-wise’) will follow 
 the same glorious and beneficent course as the sun, 
 and soon. Inthe same way the savage unduly ex- 
 tends the sphere of the Inductive Method which is 
 known as the Method of Concomitant Variations : 
 according to that method, things which vary to- 
 gether are causally related to one another. Thus 
 the movement of the great tidal wave varies with 
 the movement of the moon round the earth, and 
 it is therefore inferred that the motion of the 
 moon causes the movement of the tides. But the 
 savage jumps to the conclusion that all things 
 which are related together (according to his notion 
 of relation) vary together and are cause and eflect, 
 the one of the other. A footprint and the foot 
 which makes it vary together, and what affects the 
 one affects the other, and therefore a knife stuck 
 in a footprint will cause a wound in the foot. 
 And so, if you can observe one of two things 
 which are thus reluted to each other, you can, by 
 watching the changes in it, tell what changes are 
 going on in the other: a lock of a person’s hair 
 will inform you by the changes in its condition of 
 the changes in the fortunes of the person from 
 whose head it was cut. In making these and 
 similar primitive forecasts the savage is but acting 
 on the same theory of causation, and employing 
 the same methods of induction, as he uses, e.g., 
 in judging as to the probable behaviour of the 
 animal he is hunting. In a word, at first, and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 quently it would be as erroneous to call them 
 ‘divination’ as it would be to apply that term to 
 the predictions in the Nautical Almanac. But as 
 these primitive modes of forecasting the future 
 come to be discarded, with the advance of know- 
 ledge, as erroneous and unscientific, their char- 
 acter also changes. ‘They still continue to be 
 practised in holes and corners not yet illumined by 
 the rising sun of science; they are known to be 
 wholly unscientific, and yet the ignorant to whom 
 they have descended believe in them more sin- 
 cerely than in the science which they do not com- 
 pe The exploded science of primitive times 
 
 ecomes the divination of a later age. It is then 
 literally a ‘ superstition,’ something which ‘stands 
 over’ and survives into a period and environment 
 with which it is wholly incongruous. Finally, a 
 deeper shade than that cast by mere ignorance is 
 frequently imparted to the character of this anti- 
 quated science because it is practised by the same 
 persons who give themselves up to the illicit and 
 ureligious forms of divination described above. 
 See also Exorcism, MAGIC, SOOTHSAYING. 
 
 LITERATURE.—A. Bouché Leclerg, Histoire de la divination 
 dans Vantiquité; W. R. Smith, LS, 246, 407, 427; F. B. Jevons, 
 Introd. to Hist. of Religion ; Driver on Dt 1810f., 
 
 F. B. JEVONS. 
 DIYORCE.—See MARRIAGE. 
 
 DIZAHAB (1711; Karaxyptcea; ubi awri est 
 plurimum).—The name of a place mentioned in the 
 obscure topographical notice Dt 1, which is in- 
 tended apparently to define the locality in the 
 ‘steppes of Moab,’ in which the Deuteronomic 
 discourses were delivered, but several of the names 
 in which resemble those of places passed by the 
 Israelites in the previous stages of their wander- 
 ings. If it be the name of a place in the ‘steppes 
 of Moab,’ the situation is unknown. Upon the 
 supposition that it is the name of some previous 
 camping-place of the Israelites, it has been identi- 
 fied by Burckhardt, Syria (1822), p. 523, Knobel, 
 and others, with Mina edh-Dhahab, the third of 
 seven boat-harbours between the Ras Muhammad 
 and ‘Akaba, nearly due E. of Jebel Misa. Keil 
 objects that this is too inaccessible on the side of 
 Sinai for the Israelites to have made it one of their 
 halting-places, and considers it to be the name of 
 a place otherwise unknown in the desert of the 
 wanderings. The same view is taken by Dillm. 
 (who supposes the verse to have originally formed 
 part of an itinerary of the Israelites). he form 
 of the name is curious; the | suggests naturally 
 
 the oblique case of ro possessor of (often in names 
 of places); but it is not apparent how an Arabic 
 gd 40 would become in Hebrew aa1-~, the . 
 
 being represented differently in the two parts of 
 the name. Jerome, in rendering ‘ubi auri est 
 plurimum, probably thought of “1, constr. of 4 
 enough. 8. R. DRIVER. 
 
 
 
614 DO 
 
 DOCTRINE 
 
 
 
 DO.—Most of the forms and uses are familiar. 
 But as to form, notice ‘doeth’ in the plu. Sir 35% 
 (AV 1611) ‘Doeth not the teares run downe the 
 
 widowes cheeks?’ (mod. edd. ‘do’). Cf. Pr. Bk. 
 (1549) Com. Ser.: ‘And whosoever willingly upon 
 no just cause, doth absent themselves: or doth 
 ungodly in the Parish church occupy themselves: 
 .. . to be excommunicate’; and in the imperat. 
 Piers Plowman, v. 44— 
 
 ‘That ye prechen to the peple * preue it on yowre-seluen, 
 
 And doth it in dede - it shal drawe yow to good.’ 
 
 As to usage, notice that ‘do’ is steadily losing its 
 active and independent power. 1. We now prefer 
 a stronger word like ‘ perform’ in such phrases as 
 ‘do sacrifice,’ Is 19% ‘the Evyptians. . . shall do 
 sacrifice * and oblation’ Ry! shall worship with 
 sac. and obl.’); or ‘do a trespass’ Nu 5°; or ‘do 
 goodness’ Nu 10 (RV ‘do good’); or ‘do service’ 
 (Heb. m1Sy-ny aay, lit. ‘to serve the service’), a 
 ays phrase in Nu; cf. also Jn 16? ‘whosoever 
 killeth you will think that he doeth God service’ 
 (Aatpelay poo pepery, RV ‘offereth service unto 
 God’). 2. ‘Do’ meaning to act is still in use, but 
 scarcely as Ac 177 ‘these all do contrary to the 
 decrees of Cesar’ (TR zpdrrovo1, edd. rpdccovar) ; 
 Ph 2% ‘it is God which worketh in you both to 
 will and to do of his good pleasure’ (7d évepyeiv, 
 RV ‘to work’). 3. But ‘do well’ is good Eng. 
 still, as Jn 11'? ‘if he sleep, he shall do well’ 
 (cwOjoerat, Tindale ‘he shall do well ynough,’ and 
 s0 Cov., Cran., Gen. 1557; but Wyc. ‘he schal be 
 saaf,’ and so Gen. 1560, Tomsoz, Rheims; RV 
 ‘he will recover,’ RVm ‘be saved’). 4. To ‘do,’ 
 meaning to ‘fare,’ is in use in the phrase ‘how 
 d’ye do?’ but not as 2S 117‘ David demanded of 
 him how Joab did and how the people did’ (ot$y5 
 oyz otoyid) air, lit. ‘for the health of Joab and for 
 the health of the people,’ RV ‘how Joab did and 
 how the people fared’), so Est 2"; Ac 15° ‘ Let us 
 go again and visit our brethren . . . and see how 
 they do’ (x@s Exovar, RV ‘how they fare’); Eph 67 
 ‘that ye also may know my aflairs and how I 
 do’ (ri mpdcow). 5. The phrase ‘to have to do 
 with’ is still good idiomatic Eng., but notice the 
 Greek Mt 8% ‘what have we to do with thee?’ (r/ 
 new cat col; lit. ‘what to us and to thee?’ as Wye. 
 has it, after Vulg. quid nobis et tibi? the idiom of 
 AV being Tindale’s) ; He 4 ‘all things are naked 
 and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we 
 have to do’ (zpos dy jut 6 Abyos, lit. as Wye. ‘to 
 whom a word to us,’ Vulg. ad quem nubis sermo, 
 Tind. ‘of whom we speake,’ Gen. 1557 ‘with 
 whome we have to do’). 6. As an auxiliary, ‘do’ 
 is noted by the grammarians as (1) the vicegerent 
 for any antecedent verb, Ac 7% ‘Wilt thou kill 
 me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday ?’ (in 
 Gr. the vb. is repeated, dvedetv . . . dv rpbrrov avetdes, 
 hence RV ‘as thou killedst); (2) to express the 
 tense, now used in negative sentences, as ‘I do 
 not know’ and interrog. ‘do you know?’ but 
 formerly in affirm. also, as Gn 22! ‘God did tempt 
 Abraham.’ This is a peculiarly Eng. idiom; but 
 closely akin to it is another, which is older, and is 
 common to French, but now quite obsolete. As 
 Fr. has faire savoir ‘cause to know,’ so Eng. had 
 ‘T do you to know’ with the same meaning. Thus 
 North, Plutarch, p. 561: ‘1 do thee to understand 
 that I had rather excell others in excellency of 
 knowledge than in greatness of power’; Chaucer, 
 Troilus, 11. 1022— 
 
 ‘ And we shal speke of thee somwhat, I trowe, 
 When thou art goon, to do thine eres glowe!’ 
 
 {n Malory’s King Arthur we read: ‘ And so they 
 looked upon him and felt his pulse, to wit 
 (i.e. to know) whether there were any life in him. 
 In the name of God, said an old man. For I do 
 
 * Cf. Shaks. Jul, Cas. u.ii.5; ‘Go bid the priests do present 
 ice.” 
 
 you verily to wit he is not dead.’ Thatis, ‘I causa 
 ou to know,’ mod. Eng. ‘I would have you 
 snow.’ This phrase is found in AV, 2 Co 8! ‘we do 
 you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the 
 churches of Macedonia’ (yrwplfouev duiv, RV ‘we 
 make known to you,’ which was Wyclif’s tr.; ‘do 
 you to wit’ came from Tindale; Rheims has ‘we 
 doe you to understand’). The Eng. auxiliary and 
 this form are sometimes found together; an in- 
 teresting example being in Caxton’s Game of the 
 Chesse (1474), Pref.: ‘I delybered in myself te trans- 
 late it in to our maternal tonge. And whan I se 
 had achyeued [achieved] the sayd translacion, 1 
 dyde doo set in enprynte [I caused to be printed] a 
 certyn nombre of theym, Which anone were de- 
 pesshed and solde.’ 7%. Lastly, notice the phrase 
 ‘do away,’ Nu 274 ‘Why should the name of our 
 father be done away ise among his family, 
 because he hath no son?’ (32x, RV ‘be taken 
 away’); 1 Ch 218 ‘I beseech thee, do away the 
 iniquity of thy servant’ (xr1g70, RV ‘put away’); 
 1 Co 13”, 2 Co 374-14 (all karapyéw=‘ render in- 
 operative,’ a peculiarly Pauline word; St. Paul 
 uses it 25 times, elsewhere in NT Lk 137, He 2™ 
 only ; RV in 2Co37-" ‘pass away’). Cf. Wyclif’s 
 tr. of He 10° ‘he doith awei thi first, that he make 
 stidfast the secunde,’ and of 12! ‘do we aweie al 
 charge and synne.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DOCTOR, DOCTRINE.—Doctor is used in the old 
 Eng. sense of ‘ teacher’ in Lk 2“ (d:ddoxados) ; and 
 ‘doctor of the law’ for ‘teacher of the law’ in Lk 
 517, Ac 5* (vouodiddoxados), Cf. Melvill’s Dia 
 (Wodrow, p. 95), ‘to the Doctor is giffen the wor 
 of knawlage, to open upe, be simple doctrine, the 
 mysteries of fathe.’ So Bacon (Essays, p. 9) calls 
 St. Paul ‘the Doctor of the Gentiles,’ and Latimer 
 (Works, i. 430) calls the devil ‘that old Doctor,’ 
 and this is the use in Pope’s lines— 
 
 * Who shall decide, when doctors disagree, 
 And soundest casuists doubt, like you and me ?* 
 Ep. to Ld. Bathurst, . L 
 See under Scribe. Doctrine (see next art.) is 
 similarly used for ‘teaching’ in Dt 32?, Job 114 
 Pr 4°, Is 29% (all npp, lit. ‘something received,’ 
 elsewhere only Pr 1° 4? 9° 167%); Is 28% (Aysoy, 
 lit. ‘something heard,’ RV ‘message,’ RVm 
 ‘report’); Jer 108 (190, really ‘discipline,’ RV 
 ‘instruction’); 1 Es 5% (dems), Sir 16% 2437 82 
 (radela), 248 (dudacxadla); and freq. in NT for Gr. 
 didacxadla. Still more freq. for ‘the process of 
 teaching,’ ‘instruction’ (ddax7), as Ac 2” ‘they 
 continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and 
 fellowship.’ Cf. Chaucer, Non. Preest. Tale, 622— 
 * For seint Paul seith, that al that writen is, 
 To our doctryne it is y-write, y-wis.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DOCTRINE, etymologically regarded, signifies the 
 work of a doctur or teacher, from doceo, to teach; 
 hence it denotes sometimes the act of teaching, 
 sometimes the substance or matter of that which 
 is taught. It may also be theoretical or practical, 
 refer, that is, to either truth or duty—tket which 
 is to be believed, or that which is to te done. 
 
 On the theoretical side, doctrine may be com 
 pared with, and distinguished from, dogma or 
 tenet. Dovma and doctrine, especially in the 
 plural, are often identified, but the latter is really 
 a wider conception than the former. It differs 
 from it in two respects—a doctrine is less formal, 
 less of a scientific construction than a dogma, and 
 there is implied in the latter a reference to some 
 religious community on whose authority it is main- 
 tained. By some the distinction is thus stated : 
 ‘Doctrine summarizes the statements of Scripture 
 on a particular point, adding and diminishin 
 nothing ; dogma formulates che principles an 
 relations involved in the doctrine, and the infer- 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 st 
 
DODAI 
 
 
 
 —— 
 
 
 
 ences following from it. Every dogma, therefore, 
 is of the nature of a theory, yviving the rwtionale of 
 the facts.’ The word dogma does not occur in EV 
 nor in the original, except in the sense of a ‘decree’ 
 or ‘ordinance’ (Lk 2!, Ac 164 177, Eph 2", Col 2%, 
 He 11 [Lachm. déyua, but TR and WH didraypua)). 
 The modern meaning of the word is foreign to the 
 sacred book. On its practical side, doctrine is 
 almost synonymous with precept or principle. 
 
 In OT, doctrine occurs chiefly as tr. of nb (mostly 
 in Wisdom literature) ‘that which is received’ (Dt 
 323, Job 114, Pr 42, Is 294) ; it appears once only in 
 each case as tr™ of 19:0 ‘discipline’ (Jer 108), and ay:0¥% 
 ‘that which is heard’ (Is 28°, RV ‘message’). In 
 Apocr. there are several occurrences of the word. It 
 appears in Sir as tr.of raidela, as when 16% the writer 
 says: ‘I will show forth doctrine in weight’ (RV 
 ‘instruction by weight’), that is, as is made apparent 
 by the parallel clause, ‘with exactness.’ In 1 Es 5” 
 ‘doctrine and truth’ appear for the Gr. d4Awors Kal 
 é)\7Gea, which in their turn represent the ox 
 oon, Urim and Thummim—‘ Lights and Per- 
 fections (?)’ of the parallel passage Neh 7°. In 
 NT, with one exception (He 6!, where for AV 
 ‘the principles of the doctrine of Christ’ RV 
 reads ‘the first principles of Christ’), doctrine 
 is employed to represent either didax4 or didac- 
 xadla, both of which words are used in active 
 and passive sense, the active being predominant 
 in the case of didacxadla, the passive in that of 
 5.dax4. ‘The latter emphasizes the authority, the 
 former the act’ (Cremer; but see Hort, Chr. 
 Ecclesia, 191). Both words are employed in an 
 absolute way for ‘the teaching’ (d:dax7 in Tit 1%, 
 2Jn® RV; diéackanla in 1 Ti 416 6}, Tit 27). It is 
 worth noting that out of 21 occurrences of d:dac- 
 xaNla in NT, no fewer than 15 are in the Pastoral 
 Epistles. RV has almost uniformly substituted 
 ‘teaching’ for doctrine as tr. of didax7, but has 
 only occasionally made the same substitution in 
 the case of didackadla. In only one instance has it 
 introduced the word doctrine when it does not 
 appear in AY, viz. in 1 Ti 6* where it reads ‘If any 
 man teacheth a different doctrine,’ for AV ‘If any 
 man teach otherwise.’ 
 
 The intimate relation between doctrine and 
 practice, between right thoughts and right action, 
 is fully and constantly recognized in Scripture. 
 The warnings against false doctrine and its evil 
 effects are numerous (1 Ti 1! 4!, Tit 2', He 139, 
 2Jn° etce.). Christ’s hearers were astonished at 
 His doctrine (Mk 1%) not less than at His wonder- 
 ful works ; while, on the other hand, He Himself 
 indicated that His doctrine is only to be truly 
 known through obedience (Jn 77). The forms of 
 teaching characteristic of the Bible as a whole, as 
 well as of its individual writers, will fall to be 
 considered in the article THEOLOGY. 
 
 A. STEWART. 
 DODAI.—_See D_ . 
 
 DODANIM (oy75, LXX ‘Pédi0n, Gn 104).—Fourth 
 son of Javan (Ionians, Greeks), and therefore 
 andoubtedly intended to designate a Gr. tribe or 
 eolony. There can be no connexion, beyond an 
 accidental similarity in sound, with the inland 
 tewn of Dodona in Epirus. Nor can it mean 
 Dardanians, as Delitzsch still maintains, for the 
 Trojan province of Dardania was never of such 
 consequence as to give its name toa leading family 
 in the genealogy of mankind. Dillmann and 
 others are inclined to accept the reading of the 
 LXX (which is also that of the Samaritan trans- 
 lation of the Pent. and of Jerome, as well as the 
 MT of 1 Ch 1”), and identify the Dodanim with 
 the Rhodians or the inhabitants of the islands of 
 the A’gean Sea. If Elishah be Southern Italy and 
 Sicily, the two pairs of sons of Javan will be 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 DOG 615 
 
 
 
 named from east to west: Elishah and Tarshish; 
 Kittim (Cyprus) and Dodanim (Rhodes). The 
 inhabitants of Rhodes from B.c. 800 onward were 
 [onian Greeks, sons of Javan, who took the place of 
 the earlier Phonician population. The Rhodians 
 are certainly in their proper place alongside of the 
 Kittim. They were hoe even to Homer, and 
 were visited from a very early period by all the 
 trading peoples of the Mediterranean coasts. 
 Bochart’s idea that they might be identified with 
 the Gr. colonists on the banks of the Rhone 
 (Khodanus) has not commended itself to anyone. 
 
 LiTeRaTURE.—Baudissin in Herzog?, iii. 634, under ‘ Dodanim,’ 
 treats ably of the four sons of Javan. See also Winer, Schenkel, 
 Riehm ; and Bertheau on 1 Ch 17 in his Commentary. 
 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 
 DODAYVAHU (3m17 ‘beloved of J’,? AV Doda- 
 vah).—Father of Eliezer of Mareshah, the prophet 
 who censured Jehoshaphat for entering into 
 alliance with Ahaziah (2 Ch 20%). Gray (Heb. 
 Prop. Names, 62, 232) contends that the correct 
 Heb. text is amin. So also Kittel in SBOT (ef. 
 Nestle, Higennamen, 70). J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 DODO (so the Keré ‘11, Kethibh Dodai (1), or 
 ossibly Dodi (*7\7) ; LXX combines the two, trans- 
 ating, vlds marpadéApov atrod vids Loveet).—1. The 
 father of Eleazar, the second of the three captains 
 who were over ‘the thirty’ (2 S 23%). In the 
 parallel list (1 Ch 1122) the name is given as Dodo 
 (iin, LXX Awédat), and also ‘the Ahohite’ for the 
 erroneous ‘son of Ahohi.’ In the third list (1 Ch 274) 
 Dodai ("i7, LXX Awéed) is described as general of 
 the second division of the army, but the words 
 ‘Eleazar theson of’ appear to have been accidentally 
 omitted. Bertheau considers that Dodai is the 
 more correct form, and appeals to the LXX and 
 Jos. (Awéelov) ; he accordingly restores this form in 
 2 S 23° and 1 Ch 11%, 
 
 The traditional spelling (Dodo), however, is most 
 probably right: the name Dudu has been found 
 on the Tel el-Amarna tablets, apparently as that 
 of an Amorite official at the Egyp. court. In the 
 Inscription of Mesha (1. 12) we also find nm (prob- 
 ably a\3= Dodo); it appears to be the name of 
 some deity. 2. A Bethlehemite, father of Elhanan, 
 one of ‘the thirty’ (2 S 23%, 1 Ch 11% 9), 3. 
 A man of Issachar, the forefather of Tola the 
 judge (Jg 10'). LXX and Vulg. tr. mrarpadéAgov 
 avrod; patrui Abimelech. . F. STENNING. 
 
 DOE.—RV (Pr 5%), AV ‘roe,’ is in Heb, aby: 
 ya'dlah, the female ibex. See GOAT, under ovdy:, 
 
 DOEG (x5, sx), 231 *).—An Edomite, and chief of 
 the herdmen [or better, ‘runners,’ reading with Gratz 
 o'yqa for o'y47] of king Saul. When David fled to Nob, 
 to Ahimelech (or Ahijah) the priest, D. was there 
 ‘detained before the Lord.’ aving witnessed the 
 aid given to the fugitive, he reported what he had 
 seen to the king, who summoned Ahimelech before 
 him, and accused him of treason. Regardless of 
 his protestations of innocence, Saul ordered him to 
 be slain. The king’s guard shrank from laying 
 hands upon the sacred person of a priest, and the 
 order was then given to D., who not only slew all 
 the priests, but perpetrated a general massacre of 
 all the inhabitants of Nob, destroying even the 
 cattle (1 S 217 22%), D. is mentioned in the title 
 of Ps 52. R. M. Boyp. 
 
 DOG (ada keleb, xuav, Kuvdpwov, canis).—The dog 
 is mentioned in many places in the Bible, and (with 
 the somewhat uncertain exception of the grey- 
 hound, Pr 3071, where the Heb. signifies Blake 
 in the loins, and is rendered in the marg. horse, 
 RVm war-horse) always with contempt. The dog 
 
 * On this form see Driver on 1 § 2218, 
 
 
 
 
616 DOGMA 
 
 retecred to is doubtless the pariah animal so 
 common in the streets of all villages and cities 
 in Bible lands. The original of this degenerate 
 race of dogs is probably the shepherd dog (Job 301), 
 which differs fron the town animal chiefly in his 
 long fur and bushy tail, and his far greater 
 strength, courage, and ferocity. All of these 
 qualities are the natural result of the hardships 
 of his life. Compelled to go long distances, 
 to guard the flocks from the wolves and other 
 savage beasts, to face the cold winds of winter, and 
 its pelting rains or sleet or snow, he needs all the 
 endowments which he possesses over those of his idle, 
 cowardly relative, who spends most of the time, 
 when not in search of his carrion food, in sleeping 
 under the shelter of walls or vaulted passages, or 
 sprawling in the soft mud or dust of the streets. 
 
 The street dog is 2 to 3 ft. long, exclusive 
 of his tail, and from 18 inches to 2 ft. high, 
 usually tawny in colour, but often cream-coloured, 
 white, or black, with short, stiff fur, small eyes, 
 and usually with little or no bushiness to the 
 tail. These dogs usually occupy defined quar- 
 ters of the towns, and any dog intruding into 
 a oe? not his own is certain to be set upon 
 and very severely bitten. They act as public 
 scavengers (1 K 14! 164 211% 23 2988) 2 K 90. 36, 
 Jer 15°). They wander from pee to place, especi- 
 ally in the neighbourhood of the city walls, and 
 make the night hideous with their barking (Ps 
 59% 14), They not infrequently attack passers in 
 lonely places, especially in the neighbourhood of 
 Arab encampments. Violent men are compared to 
 them (Ps 22!°-2), They are used to watch houses 
 and tents (Is 56%). The name dog: is a term of 
 reproach (1S 244, 2 § 38 98 169, 2 K 8%, Is 66%, Ph 3?, 
 Rev 22'5). ‘The price of a dog’ (Dt 2318) pie a 
 refers to the practices of the male kédéshim (see 
 Driver ad loc. and Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad. 114). 
 In a word, the Eastern street dog is a type of all 
 that is cowardly, lazy, filthy, treacherous, and con- 
 temptible. They seem to Wee been omnipresent 
 in the time of Chirist (Mt 1578, Mk 777, Lk 1671), as 
 the former citations prove them to have been in 
 more ancient times. 
 
 With the doubtful exception before given (Pr 
 307), there is no allusion to hunting dogs in 
 Scripture. As the friend of man, endowed with 
 Goble intelligence, the dog had no place in Heb. life. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 DOGMA, properly an opinion or judgment ; then, 
 as a decision of one in authority, a decree—of 
 rulers (Lk 2', Ac 17’, He 11°), of Moses (Eph 2", 
 Col 2'*), of apostles (Ac 164). The same word in 
 its verbal form is used of the decisions of the 
 elders (Ac 1572-25-38) Hatch (Hib. Lect. 1888, 
 pp. 119-120) has very well shown how, from this 
 original meaning of ‘personal opinion,’ the word 
 came to signify ‘decrees’ in the case of rulers, and 
 ‘doctrines’ in the case of teachers.. By far the 
 most important NT use of the term is in Eph 
 and Col. All the early Gr. commentators under- 
 stand by ‘dogmas’ in both passages the doctrines 
 or precepts of the gospel. Lightfoot correctl 
 insists upon renderi: g the word, as in all other N 
 passages, decree, ordinance; in Eph it is restricted 
 to Mosaic ordinances, but in Col it is applied more 
 generally to all decrees in which moral principles 
 and religious precepts are set forth. The re- 
 striction in the one case, however, is not in the 
 word, but only in the context. In Eph the 
 déyua7Ta as ‘ authoritative decrees’ are distinguished 
 from évro\al as separate precepts, by both of which 
 terms the Mosaic law is characterized from differ- 
 ent points of view. By styling these precepts 
 ‘dogmas’ the apostle emphasizes the point that 
 they were imposed by external authority. This is 
 in keeping with the ecclesiastical use of the word 
 
 DUMINION 
 
 to indicate doctrines which are enunciated authori- 
 tatively by the Church. See DOCTRINE. 
 J. MACPHERSON. 
 DOK (Adx).—A fortress near Jericho, where 
 Simon the Maccabee, along with two of his sons, 
 was murdered by his son-in-law Ptolemy, 1 Mac 
 16%. The name survives in the modern ‘Ain Dak, 
 4 miles N.W. of Jericho (Robinson, BRP ii. 309; 
 Ritter, Hrdkunde, xv. i. 460; SWP iii. 173, 191, 
 209). In Jos. (Ant. XII. viii. 1; Wars, 1. ii. 3) it 
 appears as Dagon (cf. G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 250). 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 DOLEFUL.—Is 13?! ‘ their houses shall be full of 
 doleful creatures’ (Heb. on ’Ghim); and Mic 24 
 ‘and lament with a doleful lamentation’ (*7} 77} 
 aa3, AVm ‘lament with a lamentation of lamenta- 
 tions,’ RVm ‘lament with the lamentation, It is 
 done,’ after Ewald, Cheyne, and others, taking 
 the last word as Niph. of 77, instead of a subst. 
 from 773 to wail). There is a general agreement 
 that the ’6him of Is 1371 are jackals, as there is the 
 Assyr. ahd used in the bilingual texts for Bab. /ik- 
 barra, lit. ‘evil-dog.’ The older Eng. VSS mostly 
 ive ‘great owls,’ the Geneva keeping the Heb. 
 him, with a note suggesting the possibility that 
 they and the Ziim (AV ‘ wild beasts’) are ‘ wicked 
 spirits whereby Satan deluded man, as by the 
 fairies, gobblins, and suche like fantasies,’ which 
 probably suggested the ‘doleful creatures’ of AV 
 (cf. Wyc., Douay, ‘dragons’). The Heb. is probably 
 onomatopoetic, from [nnx] to howl ; but ‘doleful’ is 
 mournful (fr. Lat. dolere), as in Shaks. Pass, Pil. 
 xxi.— 
 * She, poor bird, as all forlorn, 
 Lean’d her breast up till a thorn, 
 And there sang the dolefull’st ditty.’ 
 Shaks. uses ‘dole’ in the same sense, as Hamlet, 1. 
 ii. 13— 
 * In equal scale weighing delight and dole.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DOLPHIN.—See BADGER. 
 
 DOMINION, used in the ordinary sense, is ths 
 tr. of various words in OT and NT, and only note- 
 worthy as the rendering of xupiérys in Eph 1”, 
 Col 1 (pl.), and, perhaps, 2 P 2” and Jude* 
 (sing.). Associated as it is in Col 1° with dpxal 
 and efovola, and in Fph 1# with these and dvvaus 
 (all sing.),—words used elsewhere (e.g. Eph 6”, 
 Col 215, Ro 8%, 1 Co 15%) primarily, at any rate, of 
 the angelic powers, good or bad or both,—it stands, 
 without doubt, in Eph (ascensively) and Col (de- 
 scensively) for a grade in the angelic hierarchy ; 
 probably, along with @péva (Col), the highest 
 grade (as Lightfoot concludes from the earliest 
 lists; see his note on Col 1%), being at the same 
 time second in that grade, while dpxyal and éfovcla 
 belong to the next grade below; just as kingship, 
 suggested in Opévos, is naturally superior to lord- 
 ship (xupi6rys), (compare the @eol and xkvtpix of 
 1 Eo 85), and both are superior to the ordinary 
 
 rule and authority. Opédvos, kupidrns, apxy, éEovala, 
 and dvvayis, or their linguistic equivalents, are 
 
 found among the orders of angels in Jewish or 
 Jewish-Chr. books ranging over the NT period or 
 its immediate neighbourhood. Thus in Jubilees, 
 § 15: ‘Over all [the Gentile nations] hath [God] 
 set spirits as dords’ (cf. Sir 17"); in Test. XJ. 
 Patr. Levi 3, ‘In the heaven next to God are 
 thrones (6p4vo), powers (efovela:),’ angels being, in 
 the same passage, assigned to each of the first six 
 out of the seven heavens, in descending order; in 
 Enoch 6, ‘The host of the heavens and all the 
 holy ones above, and the host of God. . . all the 
 angels of power, and all the angels of principalities,’ 
 etc. Christian Fathers, such as Origen, Ephrem 
 Syrus, Pseudo-Dionysius, accept similar though 
 varying gradations (see Lightfoot, Col 1%). The 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 DOOM 
 
 
 
 DORCAS 617 
 
 
 
 belief in such gradations may be traced to the OT, 
 with its Elohim and sons of: Elohim (Pss 58 and 82), 
 the mighty beings of the same class as God, yet 
 ruled by Him (Ps 103™:), His host, led by His 
 captain (Jos 51° dpx.orpdriyos Suvduews xuplov, cf. 
 dpxdyyedos, 1 Th 41%), Being originally, in all 
 probability, the nature-spirits of Semitic heathen- 
 ism, they were physical rather than ethical (Gn 
 618), and are sometimes connected or identified 
 with the stars of heaven (Job 38’, Is 45%; cf. 
 Enoch 18-6, and see article ELEMENT). As 
 the knowledge of God advanced, these ‘gods’ 
 ceased to have any religious importance, and 
 receded more and more into the position of com- 
 parative nonentities (Ps 89°), but were still re- 
 arded as superintending the nations under Him 
 (Dn 10%, Is 2471), though in some special sense God 
 reserved Jsrael for Himself (Dt 32% LXX), making 
 Michael, the chief archangel (Dn 12!), their prince. 
 Being thus distinguished from God, and not irre- 
 vocably bound by the moral law, they could come 
 into opposition to Him, not merely relative but 
 actual, either by blameworthy conduct of the 
 charges committed to them (Is 247, Job 438, cf. 
 Baek 184-16; also the ‘angels’ in Rev 2, 3), or by 
 diametrical contravention of God’s purposes (Dn 
 10%, 2 Co 44, Eph 64-6; and see ANGEL, DEMON, 
 and SATAN). 
 
 The oe ata of xupiérns in Jude ® and its 
 parallel 2 P 2! is perplexing, and is much dis- 
 feet A reference to angelic powers—unseen 
 
 ignities worthy of reverence (cf. 1 Co 11?°)—is 
 supported by the contiguous 6é£a (‘ beings in light 
 like God’), and by the example of the sin of the 
 Sodomites (Gn 19); while a reference to the 
 lordship of Christ or God is suggested by Jude 4, 
 ani 2 P 2° (angels that sinned, 7.e. against God). 
 See Spitta on the two passages, and Harnack, 
 Teste, ii. 14. 
 
 LiTgRATURE.—Schultz, Old Test. Theology (Eng. tr.), i. 215 ff. ; 
 Apa, Fated Paulinische Angelologie und Damonologie, pp. 38, 
 122 ff. ; Lightfoot, Colossians. J. MASSIE. 
 
 DOOM.—In AV, 2 Es 7* only, ‘the day of doom 
 shall be the end of this time’ (dies judicii, RV 
 ‘the day of judgment’) ; to which RV adds Ezk 7” 
 ‘Thy doom is come unto thee, O inhabitant of the 
 land,’ v.!° ‘thy doom is gone forth’ (ayax¥0, AV 
 ‘the morning,’ RVm ‘the turn’ or ‘the crowning 
 time ’—see Davidson), and the vb. 1Co 49 ‘God 
 hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men 
 doomed to death’ (ws émi@avarlovs) AV 1611 
 ‘approved to death,’ mod. editions ‘ appointed,’ of 
 which Scrivener (Camb. Parag. Bible, p. xevii) says : 
 ‘A deliberate but needless correction [in 1616] 
 derived from Tind., Cov., the Great and the 
 Bishops’ Bibles. The Gen. (1557) has ‘‘destinate to 
 death.”’ 
 
 For ‘doom’ in the sense of ‘judgment,’ cf. Wyclif’s tr. of 
 Ps 98 ‘He made redi his trone in dome,’ and of Rev 192 ‘ trewe 
 and iust ben the domes of hym.’ Shaks. (Macbeth, u. iii. 59) 
 
 os of ‘the great doom,’ t.¢. the day of judgment; and in 
 ul, Coes. m1. i. 98— . : 
 “Men, wives, and children stare, cry out, and run 
 As it were doomsday.’ 
 
 The word is connected with ‘deem’ to Judge, whence the ‘Deem- 
 sters’ of Isle of Man and Jersey, and philologically with Gr. Jésus 
 law, fr. */@ms place, whence ‘ something laid down, ‘a decision.’ 
 Bee Oraik’s an . of Shaks, p. 226; Verity, Shaks. Jul. Cox. p. 
 
 158f.; and art. DEEM. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DOOR, DOORKEEPER, DOORPOST.—See House. 
 
 DOPHKAH (5753).—A station in the itinerary of 
 the children of Israel (Nu 33). This station and 
 the next one, Alush, which lie between the 
 ‘encampment by the sea’ and Rephidim, have not 
 been identified, and they are not alluded to in 
 Exodus. As, however, the itinerary in Nu has 
 
 every appearance of being taken from a regular 
 pilgrim book, we should say that, on the hypothesis 
 that Mount Sinai and Rephidim [=Feiran] have 
 been correctly located, the position of Dophkah 
 cannot be far from the entrance to the Wady 
 Maghara; this wady contains the oldest Egyptian 
 mines, and as the blue-stone which the Egyptians 
 quarried is known by the name of Mafkat, and 
 gave its name to the district of Mafkat, it is a 
 tempting suggestion to identify Dophkah as an 
 erroneous transcription of Mafkah. Alush would 
 then lie half-way between this and Feiran; it 
 does not appear that any more exact location can 
 be suggested. The identification suggested for 
 Dophkah was made, in the first instance, by 
 Ebers; I arrived at it independently. 
 J. RENDEL HARRIS. 
 
 DOR (73, wa), Jos 11? 1277171, Jg 17, 1 K 4", 
 1 Ch 7*.—A Can. city in Galilee, in the ‘uplands’ 
 (nb), RVm Naphath-[or Naphoth-]dor) towards the 
 W. Itsking is noticed between Jokneam and Gilal 
 of the Goiim—which was in Sharon. It seems tu 
 have been in Issachar or in Asher, and is noticed 
 as attacked by Manasseh with Taanach. The 
 ‘uplands’ of Dor formed that part of Solomon’s king- 
 dom, which seems to correspond with Zebulun, the 
 next province to Issachar ; but, according to the last 
 cited passage, Dor belonged to Manasseh, though 
 noticed with towns of Issachar. These indications 
 do not suffice to fix the site. Jos. makes it a sea- 
 side town (Ant. V. i. 22, VIII. ii. 3) near Carmel 
 (Contra Apion., ii. 10). It was at Dor that 
 Tryphon (c. B.C. 139) was besieged by Antiochus 
 Sidetes, 1 Mac 15"*, In the 4th cent. A.D. 
 (Onomasticon, s.v. Dornapheth) it is identified 
 with Tantirah on the sea-coast, 9 Roman miles 
 from Cesarea Palestina on the way to Tyre; but 
 the names have no connexion, and the site is not 
 on the uplands. The low hills 8. of Carmel may 
 be intended, but the name has not been recovered. 
 
 C. R. Conver. 
 
 DORCAS.—‘ Tabitha, which is by interpretation 
 called Dorcas’ (Ac 9°) ; xnav is Aram. for Heb. 
 ‘2s, by regular interchange of » for xs (see Driver, 
 Hebrew Tenses*, p. 225f.). When occurring as the 
 name of an animal, it is tr? in AV ‘roebuck’ 
 or ‘roe,’ in RV ‘gazelle.’ Aopxds is the Gr. 
 equivalent, used in LXX. Both the Aramaic and 
 the Greek were, also, not uncommon names for 
 women: the former denoting ‘ beauty,’ the latter 
 the animal’s gaze (fr. dépxoua:). For instances see 
 Wetstein’s Comm. on Ac 9° ; Jos. BJ Iv. iii. 5 may 
 be mentioned as one. 
 
 The raising of Dorcas of Joppa is the second of three narra- 
 tives (Ac 982-85. 3643 10-1118) connected with St. Peter’s visit 
 to the towns of the Maritime Plain on the W. coast of Pal., 
 whither he came in the course of a journey undertaken by 
 him after the Church at Jerus. was scattered through ‘the 
 persecution which arose about Stephen.’ The first of these 
 narratives, like the second, relates a miracle; they are told 
 to illustrate the supernatural powers granted to St. Peter, 
 whose miracles in Jerus, have already been described Ac 31-11 
 §1-11.15, The Churches in Lydda and Joppa were not founded 
 by St. Peter (Ac 982.38), but on this occasion his presence and 
 his miracles served to strengthen and extend them. He does 
 not seem to have visited Joppa till the Church there, in its 
 distress on account of Dorcas’ death, sent to fetch him from 
 Lydda (938), 
 
 Dorcas was a ‘disciple’ (uaé4rpia, this fem. form 
 occurs in NT only here). She must have been a 
 yerson of some worldly substance so as to have had 
 hear for the ‘good works’ and means for the ‘alms. 
 deeds’ of which she was ‘full.’ The former term is 
 more comprehensive than the latter. Nevertheless, 
 by it also in all probability, according to Jewish 
 associations, works of charity are more especially 
 denoted (cf. the Talm. expression o’2» pDwyn, and 
 see on it Weber, Theol. d. Synagoge, § 61; see 
 also ra dyad pov at Sir 201% and cf. 16. 18% and 
 To 12%). Dorcas’ labours for the good of others 
 were instances. We may note that they were the 
 
 
 
618 DORYMENES 
 
 
 
 more creditable in one who was able to give alms, 
 and might have contented herself with doing this. 
 The garments which the widows showed to St. 
 Peter may most naturally be supposed to be those 
 which she had previously given to them. The 
 widows are thus seen here, as in 6!, to form a recog- 
 nized class, dependent upon bounty. ‘The account 
 of the actual raising of Dorcas (vv.* 4!) bears a 
 close resemblance to that of the raising of Jairus’ 
 daughter (Mt 925, Mk 54). 41, Lk 8°), 
 V. H. STANTON. 
 
 DORYMENES (Aopuperns), the father of Ptolemy 
 Macron, who was a trusted friend of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes (2 Mac 4*), and was chosen by Lysias 
 to command the Syrian army in Pal. in conjunction 
 with Nicanor and Gorgias (1 Mac 3%8). Ptolemy 
 had formerly been in the service of the Egyp. king 
 Ptolemy VI. Philometor (2 Mac 10); and his 
 father, Dorymenes, may perhaps be identified with 
 the Atolian Dorymenes who fought for Ptolemy Ly. 
 against Antiochus the Great (Polybius, v. 61). 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 DOSITHEUS (Aocl6eos).—1. The priest who, ac- 
 cording to a note in one of the Greek recensions of 
 Esther, brought the book to Alexandria in the 4th 
 year of Ptolemy Philometor (?) and Cleopatra, c. 
 B.C. 178 (Ad. Est 111). 2. A soldier of Judas Mac- 
 cabzeus, who (2 Mac 12%) laid hold, in the heat of 
 battle, of Gorgias the general of the enemy, and 
 sought to take him alive. The attempt was frus- 
 trated by a Thracian horseman, who cut off the arm 
 of Dositheus. 3. A renegade Jew who frustrated 
 the plot of Theodotus to assassinate king Ptolemy 
 Philopator (8 Mac 1%). 4 An officer of Judas 
 Maccabeeus (2 Mac 1219. 24), J. A. SELBIE, 
 
 DOTAA (Awraia).—Another form of DOTHAN 
 (which see). AV has incorrectly Judea. 
 
 DOTE.—The orig. meaning of to ‘dote’ is to be 
 foolish (cf. ‘dotage,’ and Scotch ‘doited’), as in 
 Chaucer, Legend of Good Women, 261— 
 
 ‘Wel wot I ther-by thou beginnest dote 
 As olde foles, whan hir spirit fayleth’ ; 
 and Piers Plowman, i. 188— 
 ‘Thow doted daffe, quod she, dull arne thi wittes. 
 
 In this sense occurs ‘ dote’ in Jer 5035 ‘A sword is 
 upon the liars, and they shall dote’ (Coy. ‘ they 
 shall become fooles,’ Heb. si, the vb. [9x] is only 
 found in Niph., and always=be foolish, or act 
 foolishly, whether innocently as Jer 5, or not as Is 
 1918); Sir 26? ‘an old adulterer that doteth’ (édar- 
 Tovuevoy cuvéce, RV ‘lacking understanding’) ; and 
 1 Ti 64 ‘ doting about questions and strifes of words’ 
 (AVm ‘a fool,’ RVm ‘sick,’ Gr. voodv, only here 
 in NT, and véonyua only Jn 54 TR; but the sense is 
 clearly ‘unsound,’ ‘mad,’ a common meaning of 
 the word ; Tind. tr. freely ‘wasteth his braynes’ ; 
 ‘doteth’ is the Geneva word of 1560). Elsewhere 
 ‘dote’ occurs only in the sense of ‘be (foolishly) 
 Fond, Wzks2s>eile 942-180 2B yy J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DOTHAN (12% and 197, Awédem), Gn 38717 
 (Dothaim, in Jth 4° etc.), now Tell Dothan, was 
 an ancient town situated 10 miles N. of Samaria. 
 Thither Joseph followed his brethren from Shechem 
 (Gn 3745). The pasturage about it is still the best 
 and freshest in a time of drought (Thomson, Land 
 and Book, p. 466). The site of Dothan, known in 
 earlier times by Eusebius, who placed it 12 miles 
 N. of Samaria, had for some centuries been lost. till 
 recovered by Van de Velde (vol. i. p. 364 ff.). It 
 lay on an ancient (Jewish ?) road, of which Van de 
 Velde found the remains, crossing from the plain 
 of Esdraelon into the plain of Sharon, and must 
 have always been an important military post. It 
 
 ** Copyright, 1898, 6Y Charles Scribner's Sons 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DOUBT 
 
 stood on the top of a mound, as the language of 
 2 K 614-1" would suggest. There are still two large 
 ancient cisterns, into one of which possibly Joseph 
 was cast. There are two wells, as the name implies, 
 but only one of them seems ancient. It bursts 
 from the foot of the hill (Sur. Mem. ii. 169, 215). 
 Most probably, Joseph’s brethren were gathered 
 watering their flocks when he approached. Dothan 
 was the residence of Elisha when the incident of 
 2 K 6" occurred. It is several times mentioned in 
 the account of the siege of Bethulia (Jth 4° 7% 18 88), 
 A. HENDERSON. 
 
 DOUBT.—See next article. The middle Eng. 
 douten most freq. meant to fear, after dubitare in 
 late Lat. And this meaning is still very common 
 for ‘ doubt’ in Shaks., as Macbeth, Iv. ii. 66— 
 
 ‘I doubt some danger does approach you nearly.* 
 
 In AV this meaning is evident in Sir 918 ‘ Keep thee 
 far from the man that hath power to kill; so shalt 
 thou not doubt the fear of death’ (od wh bromretogs 
 pbBov Oavdrov, RV ‘thou shalt have no suspicion of 
 the fear of death’). But in NT also it is often 
 more than ‘hesitate’ or ‘ mistrust,’ esp. where the 
 Gr. is diropéoua, ‘to be at a loss’ (Jn 13, Ac 2529, 
 Gal 4°), or the stronger diaropéw, ‘to be utterly at 
 a loss’ (Ac 2!2 574 1017), In like manner doubtful 
 means ‘ perplexing’ or ‘ perplexed,’ Sir 187 (dzropéopat, 
 RV ‘in perplexity’) ; Lk 1229 ‘neither be ye of 
 doubtful mind’? (uh perewplfecde, a word of disputed 
 meaning here, see Plummer, ad loc.) ; Ro 14! ‘d. 
 disputations’ (see under DISPUTE). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 **DOUBT.—The Heb. of OT seems to lack an exact 
 equivalent to our term ‘doubt,’ when used in a 
 religious reference. Some have, indeed, under- 
 stood ‘doubters,’ ‘ sceptics’ to be meant when the 
 Psalmist, who loves God’s law and hopes in His 
 word and delights in keeping His commandments, 
 declares that he ‘hates them that are of a double 
 mind’ (Ps 119118 0220), Apparently, however, it 
 is rather hypocrites, what we should call ‘ double- 
 faced men,’ who are meant; and it seems to be 
 hypocrisy, rather than doubt, which is in mind 
 also in 1 K 18#!, where the kindred term 572'0 
 occurs, and in 1 Ch 1238, Ps 122, where the simi- 
 lar phrase ‘ double heart’ (22) 32) appears, as well 
 as in Hos 102, where the comm. differ as to whether 
 the words 92° P50 are to be tra ‘ their heart is di- 
 vided,’ or, perhaps better, ‘their heart is smooth,’ 
 i.e. deceitful. 
 
 In NT, on the other hand, we meet with a series 
 of terms which run through the shades of meaning 
 expressed by our words, perplexity, suspense, dis- 
 traction, hesitation, questioning, scepticism, shad- 
 ing down into unbelief. 
 
 Perplexity is expressed by the verb dopéw 
 (Mk 6%, Lk 24%, Jn 1322, Ac 2529, 2 Co 4°, Gal 
 490), with its strengthened compound, dramopéw 
 (Lk 97, Ac 2!2 524 1017), expressing thorough per- 
 plexity, when one is utterly at a loss, and the 
 still stronger compound ééamopéw (2 Co 18 48), in 
 which perplexity has passed into despair. This 
 perplexity is never assigned in NT to the sphere 
 of religion. Even in such instances as Lk 24+, 
 where we are told that the women, finding the 
 Lord’s tomb empty, ‘ were perplexed thereabout ; ’ 
 Mk 62, Lk 95, where Herod’s perplexity over 
 John’s preaching and the subsequent preaching 
 of Jesus and His followers is spoken of; and 
 Ac 22, where the extreme perplexity of those who 
 witnessed the wonders of the Day of Pentecost 
 is adverted to, it is not a state of religious doubt 
 but of pure mental bewilderment which is de- 
 scribed. The women merely had no explanation 
 of the empty tomb ready, they were at a loss how 
 to account for it; Herod simply found John’s 
 preaching and the reports concerning the preach- 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 ing and work of Jesus and His disciples inexpli- 
 cable, he had no theory ready for their explana- 
 
 tion; the marvels of Pentecost, before Peter’s 
 explanation of them, were wholly without mean- 
 ing to their witnesses; and, similarly, in Ac 10", 
 Peter was just at a complete loss to understand 
 what the vision he had received could mean, and 
 required a revelation to make it significant to him. 
 It was this state of mind, a state of what we may 
 call objective suspense due to lack of light, which 
 the Jews claimed for themselves when in Jn 1074 
 they demanded of Jesus: ‘ How long dost thou 
 lift up our soul (ry Puxhy judy atpes)? If thou 
 art the Christ, tell us plainly.’ They would sug- 
 gest that they were in a state of strained expec- 
 tation regarding His claims, and that the lagging 
 of their decision was due, not to subjective causes 
 rooted in an evil heart of unbelief, but to a lack of 
 bold frankness on His part. Jesus, in His reply, 
 repels this insinuation and ascribes the fault to 
 their own unbelief. They were not eager seekers 
 after truth, held in suspense by His ambiguous 
 speech: they were men in possession of full evi- 
 dence, who would not follow it to a conclusion 
 opposing their wishes; they were therefore not 
 perplexed, but unbelieving. 
 
 For the doubt of the distracted mind the NT 
 appears to have two expressions, perewpltecOar (Lk 
 12%) and dicrdfev (Mt 14%! 281’). This state of 
 mind is superinduced on faith, and is a witness 
 to the faith which lies behind it; only those who 
 have faith can waver or be distracted from it. But 
 the faith to which it witnesses is equally neces- 
 sarily an incomplete and imperfect faith; only an 
 imperfect faith can waver or be distracted from 
 ics firm assurance. ‘The exhortation, ‘Be ye not 
 of a wavering mind,’ is appropriately given, there- 
 fore, in Lk 1229, to those who are addressed as 
 ‘of little faith’ (édvydriror), of whom it is the 
 specific characteristic. It is to trust in God’s provi- 
 dential care without carking anxiety as to our 
 food and drink and clothing that the Saviour is 
 exhorting His hearers in this context—to fulness 
 of faith, which, according to its definition in He 
 111, is absorbed in the unseen and future in con- 
 trast with the seen and present. ‘Those who have 
 full faith will have their whole life hid with God ; 
 and in proportion as care for earthly things enters, 
 in that proportion do we fall away from the heights 
 of faith and exhibit a wavering mind. It was a 
 similar weakness which attacked Peter, when, 
 walking, by virtue of faith, upon the water to 
 come to Jesus, he saw the wind and was afraid 
 (Mt 1481) ; and, accordingly, our Saviour addressed 
 him similarly, ‘O thou of little faith, wherefore 
 didst thou doubt (édicracas) ?’ Here, again, is 
 real faith though weak, but a faith that is dis- 
 tracted by the entrance of fear. The same term, 
 and surely with similar implications, is used again 
 and on an even more interesting occasion. When 
 the disciples of Jesus came to the mountain where 
 He had appointed them and there saw their risen 
 Lord, we are told (Mt 28!"), ‘They worshipped : 
 but some doubted (édloracav).’ It is this same 
 doubt of imperfect and distracted faith, and not 
 the sceptical doubt of unbelief, that is intended. 
 All worshipped Him, though some not without that 
 doubt of the distracted mind which is no more 
 ‘psychologically absurd’ here than in Lk 1229 and 
 Mt 1431. Whence the distraction arose, whether 
 possibly from joy itself, as in Lk 24#!, or from a 
 less noble emotion, as possibly in Jn 205, we do not 
 know. But the quality of doubt resulting from it, 
 although manifesting the incompleteness of the dis- 
 ciples’ faith, was not inconsistent with its reality ; 
 and the record of it is valuable to us as showing, 
 along with such passages as Lk 2437-41, Jn 20%, 
 that the apostles’ testimony to the resurrection 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DOVE 619 
 
 was that of convinced rather than of credulous 
 witnesses. 
 
 A kindred product of weak faith, the doubt of 
 questioning hesitation, is expressed in NT by the 
 term diadoyiopds (Lk 24%, Ro 141, Ph 214, 1 Ti 28), 
 It is the Nemesis of weakness of faith that it 
 is pursued by anxious questionings and mental 
 doubts. Thus, when Christ appeared to His dis- 
 ciples in Jerus., ‘ they were terrified and affrighted, 
 and supposed that they had beheld a spirit’ (Lk 
 24%), provoking their Master’s rebuke, ‘ Where- 
 fore do questionings arise in your heart ?? And in 
 St. Paul’s Epistles, the timid outlook of the weak 
 in faith is recognized as their chief characteristic. 
 This seems to be the meaning of Ro 141, where 
 ‘he that is weak in faith’ is to be received into 
 full Christian brotherhood, but not ‘for the ad- 
 judication of questionings’ (cf. the k«pivérw of v.3 
 and the xcplywy of v.4): here is a man whose mind 
 is crowded with scruples and doubts,—he is to 
 be received, of course, but not as if his agitated 
 conscience were to be law to the community; he 
 is to be borne with, not to be obeyed. ‘The same 
 implication underlies Ph 21%, where the contrast 
 between ‘murmurings and disputings’ seems to 
 be not so much between moral and _ intellectual 
 rebellion, as between violent and timid obstacles 
 in the Christian pathway,—a contrast which ap- 
 pears also in 1 Ti 2°. It would seem that those 
 who are troubled with questionings are every- 
 where recognized as men who possess faith, but 
 who are deterred from a proper entrance into their 
 privileges and a proper performance of their 
 Christian duties by a settled habit of hesitant 
 casuistry, which argues lack of robustness in their 
 faith. 
 
 The NT term which expresses that deeper doubt 
 which argues not merely the weakness but the 
 lack of faith is the verb d.axplyerOac (Mt 2121, 
 Mk 1123, Ro 429, 1423, Ja 1%, Jude 22). Wherever 
 this critical attitude towards divine things is found, 
 there faith is absent. The term may be used in 
 contrast to that faith by which miracles are wrought, 
 or in which God is approached in prayer (Mt 212', 
 Mk 1128, Ja 16s); in either case it implies the 
 absence of the faith in question and the conse- 
 quent failure of the result,—he that ‘doubteth’ 
 in this sense cannot expect to receive anything 
 of the Lord. It may be used of a frame of 
 mind in which one lives his life out in the Chris- 
 tian profession (Ro 14?) ; in this case, the intru- 
 sion of this critical spirit vitiates the whole course 
 of his activities,—because they are no longer of 
 faith, and ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’ Or 
 it may be used as the extreme contrast to that 
 fulness of faith which Abraham exhibited in his 
 typical act of faith; and then it is represented as 
 the outgrowth of unbelief (Ro 42’). From the 
 full description of its opposite here, and the equally 
 full description of it itself in Ja 1° (see Mayor’s 
 note), we may attain a tolerably complete concep- 
 tion of its nature as the critical, self-debating habit 
 of the typical sceptic, which casts him upon life 
 like a derelict ship upon the sea, and makes him 
 in all things ‘double-minded’ and‘ unstable.’ Such 
 a habit of mind is the extreme contradiction of 
 faith, and cannot coexist with it; and it is there- 
 fore treated everywhere with condemnation—unless 
 Jude #2 be an exception, and there the reading is 
 too uncertain to justify its citation as such. See 
 further, FAITH. 
 
 B. B. WARFIELD. 
 
 DOVE (" yonah, wepiorepd, columba).—There 
 are several species of wild doves in Bible lands, 
 which all go by the name of am@m in Arabic. (1) 
 The ring doye or wood pigeon ( Columba Palumbus, 
 L.), which appears twice a year, at the spring and 
 autumn migration, in all the wooded districts of 
 
620 DOVE 
 
 DRAGON 
 
 
 
 Palestine. Itistaken by means of a decoy bird, tied 
 to a perch, with its eyelids sewn up. consider- 
 able number remain through the winter. (2) The 
 stock dove (Columba enas, L.), which is common in 
 Gilead and Bashan, and in the Jordan Valley. (3) 
 The rock dove (Columba livia, Bonnat), which is 
 found along the coast, and in the highlands W. of 
 the Jordan and in Lebanon. (4) The ash-rumped 
 rock dove (Columba Schimper, Bp.), which is found 
 in the interior of Pal., and makes its nests in the 
 caves and fissures of the chalk precipices. The 
 name hamdm is associated with a number of 
 wadis and other natural features of the country. 
 
 Tame doves are found in every city and village, 
 often in immense numbers. They have been kept 
 from most ancient times. The writer discovered 
 in Wady Sir, in Gilead, a rock-hewn dove-cot of 
 large size. It is described and figured in PHFSt, 
 Oct. 1886. It is a favourite amusement of boys 
 and young men, especially in the interior cities, as 
 Damascus, Hems, Hasiae , etc., to spend the later 
 afternoon hours in superintending the flight of 
 
 igeons. They train them to wheel about over the 
 
 ouses, making their own home a centre, and to 
 come back and alight on their owner’s hand, 
 and, with a shrill whistle, to be tossed off into 
 the air again for a short whirl. It is one of the 
 earliest mentioned birds in the Bible (Gn 8°!?). It 
 is a bird capable of distant flight (Ps 55°). A 
 domesticated variety has yellow plumage (Ps 681). 
 The wild doves make their nests in the cliffs over- 
 hanging the wadis (Ca 2'4, Jer 48", Ezk 7'%). The 
 mournful cooing of the dove is well known, and 
 often alluded to in Scripture (Is 38! 59!!, Nah 27). 
 Its harmlessness is proverbial (Mt 10%). Its foolish- 
 ness is used to illustrate the stupidity of Ephraim 
 (Hos 7"). Its lovable qualities are also proverbial 
 (Ca 15 ete.) Young pigeons were used in sacrifice 
 (Gn 15°). 
 
 Dove’s Dung accumulates in immense quantities 
 around the dove-cots, and is an invaluable manure, 
 especially for cantelopes. It is owing to the use 
 of this fertilizer that the melons of Versia are so 
 renowned for their excellence. The talus in front 
 of the cliffs where wild doves nest in large numbers 
 is covered with thick deposits of tlieir excrement, 
 which is almost as powerful a fertilizer as guano.” 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 * There seems to be no doubt of the etymological significance 
 of the word oyi~90 Aart yontm (2 K 6%), Last means liter- 
 ally dung. The Arab. preserves the word exactly, heri, with 
 the same signification. It is, however, now regarded as obscene, 
 and constantly so used by low-lived people in the East. What 
 was the substance which was sold at the rate of five pieces ot 
 silver the quarter cab, that is, 6s. 4d. the pint? Many efforts 
 have been made to find some plant which might have been 
 called by this name, Avicenna says (ii. 141) that the best quality 
 of ushndn, a name for several species of Salsolacece, is called 
 heri el-‘asdfir, that is, sparrow's dung. There are numerous 
 instances of a similar nomenclature. Nevertheless, no one has 
 as yet found a plant that bears the name of dove’s duny, or 
 which can be identified with the material which was sold so 
 dear ; and nothing is gained for science by mere conjecture. It 
 is better to accept the literal interpretation, and conclude that, 
 in the last resort, the dove-cots were drawn upon to satisfy the 
 cravings of starving men. The ordure and urine of almost all 
 kinds of animals and birds, domestic and wild, were adminis- 
 tered by the ancients as medicine—among them dove’s dung. 
 There are long unsavoury articles in the ancient medical 
 treatises of Avicenna and others on their virtues. They were 
 and are still used as collyria in the treatment of ophthalmia. 
 Houghton cites a statement from a Spanish author, who says 
 that in the year 1316 so great a famine distressed the English 
 that ‘men ate their own children, doys, mice, and piyeons’ 
 dung.’ With this statement compare Rabshakeh’s threat (2 K 
 1827, Is 3612), It is well known that pigeons and other birds 
 often pass seeds unchanged through their alimentary canal. 
 When the Dutch tried to enhance the price of nutmegs in their 
 E, Indian possessions by limiting the growth of the trees, the 
 large wild pigeons of those regions thwarted their purpose by 
 carrying the nutmegs in their crops, and depositing them in 
 their excrement at points far removed from the Dutch posses- 
 sions. The seeds took root, and produced nutineg trees. Birds 
 are a recognized factor in the propagation of plants in this 
 manner. The flora of the coral islands is largely indebted to 
 them for species thus introduced. The existence of such un- 
 
 
 
 DOYE’S DUNG.—See DovE and Foon. 
 DOWRY.—See MARRIAGE. 
 
 DOXOLOGY, which is not a biblical word, is the 
 name which has been applied to any formal ascrip- 
 tion of praise or glory to God (dofo\oyla, glorificatio). 
 Such are the closing sentences of several apostolic 
 prayers, ¢.g. Ro 16%, Jude*, Eph 3% In par- 
 ticular, the name is given to the last sentence of 
 the Lord’s Prayer as it stands in TR and our AV 
 of Matthew (ct. 1 Ch 29"). This verse, however, 
 is omitted in the parallel passage of St. Luke, 
 neither is it found in the earlier Uncials or the 
 Vulg., but first in the Teaching of the Twelve 
 Apostles and Chrysostom. Hence it has been 
 omitted from the text of WH and RV (text, not 
 margin). See Chase, Lord’s Prayer, 168 ff. 
 
 The ‘angels’ hymn’ (Lk 2"), Gloria in Eacelsis, 
 etc., has been made the foundation of another 
 doxology by the addition of several non-biblical 
 sentences. This, which is known liturgically as 
 the ‘greater doxology,’ occurs in one of its forms 
 in the Psalter of Codex A (LXX), while the ‘lesser’ 
 (Gloria Patri, ete.) is wholly extra-biblical. 
 
 C. A. ScorT. 
 
 DRACHMA.—See Monty. DRAG.—See NET. 
 
 DRAGON.—Four Heb. words are rendered in 
 AV by this fabulous name. 1.0% tannim, 
 dragons, the plural of ja tan, which latter is not used 
 in Scripture. This word signifies a howler, and 
 refers to a beast inhabiting the desert. RV tr. it 
 in every instance by jackals. But in Is 1372 3418-14 
 it is found associated with ox ’iyyim (which would 
 seem to be the same as ibn-dwa in Arab., vulgo 
 wdwi). This animal is undoubtedly the jackal. It 
 is clear that the same animal would not be men- 
 tioned twice in a short list of animals, and by two 
 totally different names. We must therefore seek 
 for another desert howler, than which none could 
 fulfil the conditions better than the wolf. The 
 Arab. word ¢indn is one of the names of the wolf. 
 The LXX renders tannim variously. Thus Job 
 30%, Is 3418 43°° cecpqves, Ps 44° kdxwots, Is 1378 
 éxivot, Jer 10% 49% orpovdol, Jer 94 14° 5157, Mic 
 1° dpdxovres. 2 on tannim, a singular form, 
 which is probably a clerical slip for }3a tannin 
 (Ezk 29° 327), as the latter is the reading in several 
 MSs. This is properly rendered dragon in both 
 AV and RV of the first passage, and in RV of the 
 second, where AV has whale in text and dragon in 
 marg., the reference being to the erocodile, and 
 applied to Pharaoh. 8. nism tannéth (Mal 1), a 
 fem. plural of tan, rendered by RV jackals, but 
 preferably, for the reason given above (1), female 
 wolves. 4 [in tannin, pl. o'y3n tanninim. This 
 word is the exact equivalent of the Arab. tannin, 
 pl. éandnin, which signifies ‘a great serpent,’ or ‘a 
 dragon,’ or some mythical sea monster, of which it 
 is said that it was two leagues in length, of a colour 
 like that of a leopard, with scales like those of a 
 fish, two great fins, a head of the size of a hill, but 
 in shape like a man’s, two great ears, and two 
 round eyes, and from its neck branched six other 
 necks, every one nearly 20 cubits long, and 
 every one with a head like a serpent. The LXX 
 translates this dpd«wy, dragon, in every case except 
 Gn 121, where it is kjros, AV whales, RV sea 
 
 digested seeds would account for the alimentary value (slight 
 though it might be) of dove’s dung. Furthermore, doves 
 convey nourishment to their squabs by disgorging some of the 
 partially digested food from theircrops. Some of the grains would 
 
 - occasionally be spilled. In addition, the dung contains feathers, 
 
 scales of epidermis, and other organic débris. When itis remem- 
 bered that such substances as tanned leather, glue, ground 
 wood, and all manner of tainted garbage are greedily devoured 
 by starving men, it is not strange, or beyond belief, that dove'r 
 dung was eaten in Samaria in the last agony of despair. 
 
 
 
’ 
 : 
 5 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DRAGON’S WELL 
 
 monsters. In AV (Job 7}%) it is rendered whale, 
 and in sea monster. It is applied to sea 
 monsters under the name dragons, in AV and RV 
 (Ps 74" 1487, Is 27'); and to land serpents, even of 
 the smaller sort (Ex 7% 1-12, where it ia tr. serpents 
 {[RVm ‘Heb. tannin, any large reptile,’] Dt 32°, 
 Ps 91, where it is tr. in AV dragon, and in RV 
 serpent). In every case it might have been trans- 
 lated ‘dragon’ as in LXX (see SERPENT, 2). It 
 is applied metaphorically to Pharaoh (Ps 7433, Is 
 51°; cf. o3n (2) above). In the comparison of 
 Nebuchadnezzar with a dragon (Jer 51%), we may 
 still imagine the reference to be to a crocodile, 
 which may well have existed in the Euphrates 
 at that time. 
 
 The word }3" tannin (La 4°) is either the Aram. 
 form of 0'33 tannim or a textual error for it (Siegf.- 
 Stade), or a defective scription for oy (Lohr). 
 It is rendered in sea monsters, and in RV 
 jackals. The reference is prob. to some fierce desert 
 mammalian. The same objection obtains to the 
 jackal as that stated in the case of o'%8 tannim (1). 
 
 he word is preferably rendered wolves. It might, 
 as in AV, refer to some cetacean sea monster were 
 it not for the comparison with the ostrich, which 
 would seem to imply that it was a land animal. 
 
 In NT the word dragon (Rev 12'*-) clearly 
 refers to a symbolical, serpent-like monster. 
 Modifications of this ideal have obtained credence 
 in the legends of almost all civilized nations. 
 Dragons of all shapes and sizes have been described 
 and figured, and their lairs are still pointed out in 
 every land. Representations of them are found on 
 coins, in pictures, sculptures, and even on the 
 banners of nations, as on that of China to-day. 
 Dragon worship has prevailed in many lands. The 
 serpent of Gn 3 was transformed ultimately into 
 the ‘old serpent called the Devil and Satan’ (Rev 
 207), Apollo slew the Python. The story of Bel 
 and the Dragon shows how the idea of this monster 
 was lodged in the Hebrew mind. 
 
 DRAGON’S WELL.—See JERUSALEM and WELL. 
 DRAM.—See Money, 
 
 DRAUGHT, DRAUGHT HOUSE.—The ‘draught’ 
 (dpedpov) of Mt 15”, Mk 7" isa pt , as in Burton, 
 Anat. of Mel. 165: ‘Muck hills, draughts, sinks, 
 where any carcasses or carrion lies.” And the 
 ‘d, house’ (ax7N2) of 2 K 10?’ is the same (lit. ‘ place 
 of hari,’ see p. 620n.); Cov. ‘prevy house.’ In 
 earlier writers this and other words in ugh are 
 generally spelt with f (see Earle, Philology, § 153) ; 
 thus Wyecli?’s tr. of Ps 40° ‘he ledde out me fro the 
 lake of wretchidnesse, and fro the filthe of draft.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DRAW.—In mod. usage ‘draw’ is too mild a 
 word for the action expressed by 200 sdhabA, in Jer 
 49 50% (RV ‘draw out’); or by ct’pw in Ac 141° 
 ‘having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city’ 
 (RV ‘ dragged’), 175 ‘they drew Jason and certain 
 men unto the rulers of the city’ (RV ‘ dragged’) ; 
 Rev 12 ‘his tail drew the third part of the stars of 
 heaven, and did cast them to the earth’ (RV 
 ‘draweth’): or by cw in Ac 16 ‘they caught 
 Paul and Silas, and drew them into the market- 
 
 lace ’ (RV ‘dragged ’) ; 21° ‘they took Paul and 
 ae him out of the temple’ (RV ‘dragged’). In 
 older Eng. ‘draw’ had a stronger sense than now; the 
 verb to ‘drag,’ which sprang from the same Anglo- 
 Saxon dragan, having in course of time carried off 
 soine of its strength. Cf. Spenser, F.Q. I. v. 23— 
 * Tho gan that villein wex so fiers and strong, 
 That nothing might sustaine his furious forse ; 
 He cast him downe to ground, and all along 
 Drew him through durt and myre without remorse, 
 And fowly battered his comely corse.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 
 
 
 
 DREAD, DREADFUL 62] 
 
 DRAWER OF WATER (o:p sx¥).—According to 
 Jos 97! 3-27 the humiliating drudgery of bringing 
 water for the service of the sanctuary, coupled with 
 the task of providing wood, was the price paid b 
 the Gibeonites for being allowed to live (cf. Dt 294 
 and Driver’s note there). The business of carrying 
 water to the different houses in a town or village is 
 one of the humblest and most poorly paid in 
 Oriental life. It requires little skill or capital. 
 The water is carried in a goat-skin, slung on the 
 back; or two skins are loaded, one on each side of 
 a small donkey, usually driven along by an infirm 
 oldman. His clothes are splashed and soiled; the 
 fountain is often some distance away, and on 
 account of the number of women impatiently 
 waiting to fill each one her jar in turn, he has 
 often to bring some of the water at night or very 
 early in the morning. He is engaged continually 
 in what the Samaritan woman found irksome even 
 as an occasional duty (Jn 4"), 
 
 
 
 CARRIER AND WINE-SKIN. 
 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 DREAD, DREADFUL.—1. These words have 
 gained in peek during their history. Hie 
 Fisher says: ‘I wel perceived it in myself, but all 
 too late, | dread me’; and it once was possible to 
 say ‘without dread’ for ‘without doubt,’ as in 
 Chaucer (?) Rom. of Rose, B. 2199— 
 
 ‘ For certeynly, withouten drede, 
 A cherle is deemed by his dede.’ 
 
 By 1611 the word had gained somewhat of its pres- 
 ent strength, so that ‘fear’ is used in AV where 
 ‘dread’ was used by Wyclif, as Mt 2™ ‘he hirde 
 that Archilaus regnede in Judee for Eroude, his 
 fadir, and dredde to go thidir’; 145 21 ‘thei 
 dredden the ye >; Lk 2° ‘thei dredden with 
 great drede’ (AV ‘they were sore afraid’). But 
 even in AV dread is used with scarce more intensity 
 than modern ‘ fear,’ as 1 Ch 22! ‘dread not, nor be 
 dismayed’ (axyr>x, RV ‘fear not’). 2. But the 
 change is not in intensity only; there is also a 
 change in quality. We may still say that we fear 
 God, but we must not say that we dread Him, or 
 that He is our dread, as in Is 8% ‘let him be your 
 fear, and let him be your dread’ (x7) o2N7!10 NIT 
 p23»), for ‘dread’ has lost the sense of ‘awe’ or 
 ‘reverential fear’ it once possessed, and signifies 
 that which shocks or terrifies. Jacob’s excla- 
 mation, Gn 28!7 ‘how dreadful is this place,’ conveys 
 a wrong impression to our ears ; ‘ awful’ would 
 
 a nearer word now. So in Dn 9 ‘the great and 
 dreadful God.’ Dreadful in AV is simply that which 
 may be feared, as Wis 1016 ‘d. kings” (go8epds, RV 
 ‘terrible’); 17° ‘a fire kindled by itself, very a (atro- 
 pdrn wupd pbBov mrijpns, RV ‘full of fear’). Cf. Act. 
 Hen TIT, (1543) ‘by lawes dredful and penall, 
 to take awaye, purg, and clense this his highnes 
 realme.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 

 
 622 DREAMS 
 
 
 
 DREAMS are regarded by men in the lowest stage 
 of culture as objective realities, and all dreams are 
 to them equally true: in the case of every dream 
 the savage believes that he really visits the places 
 he dreams of, or is visited by the persons of whom 
 he dreams. Hence those savages whose gods are, 
 for instance, animal-totems, believe that when they 
 dream of the animal they have been visited by the 
 god: thus the young Red Indian adopts as his 
 manitou the animal of which he dreams during his 
 ROD ee A person who is visited by frequent 
 
 reams is regarded as a chosen medium between men 
 and gods: the Zulus term a person thus chosen ‘a 
 house of dreams.’ For the purpose of obtaining 
 supernatural communications of this kind, dreams 
 are induced by artificial means, e.g. by fasting or 
 the use of drugs. Then dreams come to be con- 
 sidered less as objective experiences than as visions, 
 warnings, revelations of the future sent by the gods. 
 Such revelations may be sought, e.g. as by those 
 who visited and slept in the cave of Trophonius for 
 the express purpose of obtaining supernatural com- 
 munications, or they may come unsought, as, ¢.g., the 
 dream sent by Zeus to Agamemnon in the Iliad 
 (ii. 1-34), or that of Xerxes described by Herodotus 
 (vii. 12). To Homer and Herodotus it seems quite 
 natural that the gods should, to accomplish their 
 larger ends, send dreams to the individual which 
 are intended to deceive him, and the dreams of 
 Agamemnon and Xerxes are deceptive dreams of 
 this kind. But to the deeper spiritual insight of 
 Plato it appears a manifest impossibility, a viola- 
 tion, so to speak, of the laws of religious thought, 
 that a god should deceive men in any way (fep. 
 382 E), whether by waking visions or by dreams 
 in the night; while at the same time he does not 
 deny itiat dreams may come from the gods, and 
 elsewhere (Tim. cc. 46 and 47) he assigns a 
 prophetic character to some dreams. But side by 
 side with this, the religious view of dreams, there 
 existed and exists the superstitious view: the re- 
 ligious view discriminates between dreams (which 
 are sub-conscious states) just as it discriminates 
 between our waking states of full consciousness, 
 and marks off some of them as moments in which 
 the spirit of man is in direct communication with his 
 ie ; the superstitious view, however, makes no such 
 
 iscrimination, it regards all dreams as omens, 
 none as having a religious import. Its object is 
 not to know the will of God, but to forecast the 
 future; and its method of doing so is neither 
 religious nor scientific ;—not religious, for it makes 
 no attempt humbly to approach the throne of 
 heavenly grace ; and not scientific, because for the 
 patient study of the laws by which God rules the 
 universe it substitutes a system of jumping at con- 
 clusions. It applies to dreams the same mode of in- 
 terpretation as to other omens: it blindly assumes 
 that things casually connected in thought are 
 causally connected in fact, and draws its erroneous 
 conclusions accordingly. These illogical processes 
 frequently become developed into regular codes of 
 interpretation (as, for instance, among the Arabs, 
 the Persians, and in the Oneirocritica of Artemi- 
 dorus) by means of which anyone can interpret 
 his own dreams, and thus the uneducated classes 
 in a civilized people relapse into a stage of thought 
 as low as that of the savage. 
 
 Assuming it, for the moment, to be true that 
 the state of partial consciousness which we call 
 dreaming may, in exceptional cases, be chosen as 
 the moment for divine communications to man, 
 we see from the above sketch that the human race 
 generally has reached the truth only after, and 
 in consequence of, making many mistakes, just as 
 Kepler invented and rejected fourteen theories to 
 account for the apparent position of Mars before 
 he hit upon the right one, and just as the path of 
 
 
 
 
 
 DREAMS 
 
 every science is strewed with the ruins of aban- 
 doned hypotheses. The question then arises 
 whether the Jews also struggled through error into 
 truth. In the first place, dreams are recorded 
 both in NT (Mt 1” 2": °) and in OT (Dn 2%) which 
 are expressly said to be communications from God ; 
 though it is only in OT, and there only in Gn 
 (282, Jacob’s ladder), that God is said to appear 
 Himself. In the next place there are dreams 
 recorded (e.g. those of the chief butler and baker 
 and of Pharaoh, Gn 40 and 41) which, though 
 
 rophetic, are not expressly said to come from 
 bod indeed, from Gn 408 it appears that in the 
 case of such dreams it is rather the ‘interpreta- 
 tions’ that ‘belong to God.’ Third, all the dreams 
 actually mentioned in the Bible are dreams which 
 came unsought, but the words of Saul (1 S 28% 
 ‘God ig departed from me and answereth me 
 no more, neither by prophets nor by dreams’) 
 seem to indicate the existence of the practice 
 (whether approved or disapproved of by the higher 
 religious consciousness of the community) of de- 
 liberately seeking supernatural dreams, as they 
 were sought in the cave of Trophonius. Fourth, 
 it would appear from Jer 27° that there was amongst 
 the Israelites a tendency, which the prophets 
 opposed, to regard the mere dreaming of dreams as 
 itself an indication that the dreamer was a chosen 
 medium of divine communications, as the Zulus 
 regard a ‘house of dreams’ as a chosen medium also. 
 On the other hand, we do not find in the Bible any 
 traces of the superstitious interpretation of dreams 
 such as was known to the Arabs; on the contrary, 
 Joseph declares (Gn 408) with emphasis that ‘inter- 
 retations belong to God’; and we do not find that 
 Areas when sought, were induced by artificial 
 means. Thus, to sum up, on the one hand thie 
 Scriptures start from a spiritual height to which 
 the religious consciousness of the heathen world 
 attained only after a long course of evolution, and 
 then only in the case of an isolated genius like 
 Plato; on the other hand, there are indications 
 that the Israelites passed through several of the 
 same stages of error as the rest of mankind. 
 
 Thus far we have said nothing of the psycho- 
 logical and physiological laws of dreams. The 
 connexion between bodily states and dreams is 
 recognized in practice if not in theory by the savage 
 who induces dreams by fasting or the use of drugs. 
 Civilized man, even in the prescientific period, 
 further recognizes that the experiences of the day 
 furnish most of the material for our fancies of 
 the night: dreams, says Lily, ‘come either by 
 things we see in the day or meates that we 
 eat’; Herodotus makes Artabanus explain Xerxes’ 
 dream as due to his anxiety about his projected 
 invasion of Greece; and the dream of Pharaoh 
 ney similarly have been due to the anxiety which 
 a ‘low Nile’ must cause in any one responsible for 
 the government of Egypt. Hippocrates discovered 
 that certain diseases announce their approach by 
 disturbing dreams, and modern medical science con- 
 firms the discovery. Without going further into the 
 physiological theory of dreams, we may note that 
 the ordinary concomitant of dreaming is probabl 
 an excessive or a deficient supply of blood to the 
 brain. Now, the recognition o the fact that dream- 
 ing has its laws, combined with the belief that some 
 dreams are supernatural communications, some- 
 times leads to the statement that some dreams are 
 sent by God, some (most) not; and this statement 
 conveys a truth in a form open to serious misappre- 
 hension. It may be taken to imply two things, both 
 false, viz. (1) that dreams whic 1 pen accordin 
 to natural laws are not part of God’s will an 
 design; (2) that dreams which are divine are 
 irreconcilable with the laws by which He governs 
 the universe. A less misleading way of stating 
 
DRESS 
 
 DRESS 
 
 
 
 
 
 the facts would seem to be to say that His laws 
 act in such a way that we find ourselves at some 
 times in closer communion with Him than at 
 others. All our states of consciousness (whether 
 of complete or of partial consciousness) have their 
 psychological laws and also their physical counter- 
 parts in the chemical processes of the brain and 
 nervous tissue ; the mental processes which issued 
 in the production of the Iliad or Hamlet were all 
 im accordance with psychological laws, and all had 
 their physiological counterparts. So, too, every 
 process of reasoning has its psychological and 
 physiological laws, but we do not consider that 
 this fact impedes us in any way from distinguish- 
 ing good reasoning from bad, or that it prevents 
 us from recognizing the truth when it is presented 
 to us, or that any study of either of those sciences 
 
 ill enable us to dispense with logic or supply us 
 with a better means of distinguishing, say, be- 
 tween a correct syllogistic inference and an illicit 
 ee of the minor than logic already affords us. 
 
 0, too, the fact that our states of partial con- 
 sciousness are all under law — physiological and 
 psychological—does not constitute Ca impediment 
 to our distinguishing those states which do from 
 those states which do not possess the charac- 
 teristics of divine revelations; nor can it impeach 
 the validity of the distinction thus drawn by the 
 religious consciousness of mankind, Christian, Jew, 
 and Gentile, any more than it can impeach the 
 validity drawn by logic between correct and in- 
 correct inferences. The question is one of fact. 
 Do sub-conscious states, possessing the charac- 
 teristics in question, occur? And to recognize those 
 characteristics is the prerogative of the religious 
 consciousness. If it be said that in the waking 
 state such recognition is possible, but not in a 
 state of partial consciousness, we must inquire on 
 what grounds the statement is made. If on the 
 ground that our sub-conscious states are under 
 physiological laws, then our reply is that so also 
 are states of complete consciousness. If on the 
 ground that in a state of partial consciousness the 
 very faculty whose function is recognition of the 
 kind in question may be dormant, to this our reply 
 is that in the vast number of cases it undoubtedly 
 is dormant; but just as Condorcet, in an excep- 
 tional abnormal condition, could, in sub-conscious 
 sleep, work out a mathematical problem which 
 awake he could not solve, and just as Coleridge 
 could compose in sleep the poem of Kubla Khan, 
 so in abnormal cases the power of spiritual per- 
 ception, relieved from the pressure of external 
 sensations, may conceivably be heightened to a 
 pitch of exaltation as far above its ordinary degree 
 of activity and receptivity as the imagination of 
 Coleridge or the mathematical reason of Condorcet 
 was in the cases alluded to. ‘The fact that all or 
 most men suppose some significance in dreams con- 
 stitutes a ground for believing that the supposition 
 is based on experience’ (Aristotle, Div. per Somn. i.). 
 
 ee Mental Physiology; Clodd, Myths 
 and Dreams; Ladd, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture (1883), ii. 
 429-436; Reynolds (J. W.), Natural History of Immortality 
 (1391), 124-139; Driver on Dt. 132, F. B. JEVoNs. 
 
 DRESS.-—-To ‘dress’ (fr. Lat. directus, through 
 old Fr. dresser) is in meaning as in deriv. the same 
 es ‘direct.’ Thus Wyclif translates Ps 5° ‘ dresse 
 thou my weie in thi sight,’ 40? ‘he dresside my 
 goyngis’; Lk 1” ‘ to dresse oure feet in to the weie 
 of pees.’ (Cf. the use still of ‘dress’ as a military 
 technical term.) In AV the word is used in the 
 general sense of ‘ put right,’ much as we now use 
 ‘do.’ Indeed the Heb. most freq. translated ‘dress’ 
 is the ordinary verb ‘to do’ (ayy ‘dsdh), Gn 187-8 
 a calt for food; Lv 79 meat-offering, ‘dressed in the 
 frying-pan,’ 1 S 25"® sheep for food, 2S 124% a lamb 
 
 
 
 for food, 13°-7 meat, 1974 the feet= wash, 1 K 17" 4 
 cake, 18%: %+26 4 bullock for sacrifice. The other 
 words are 12y ‘bhadh, to ‘ work,’ Gn 2 the garden 
 of Eden (in 2’ tr. ‘ till’), Dt 28% vineyards ; cf. Lk 
 137 dumedoupyés, AV ‘ dresser of his vineyard,’ RV 
 ‘vinedresser’ ; yedpy.ov Ev\ov, Sir 278, AV ‘if the 
 tree have been dressed,’ RV ‘the husbandry,’ as in 
 1 Co 3°; yewpyéw He 6’, AV ‘dress,’ RV ‘till’; 
 a hétibh, ‘prepare’ (lit. ‘do good to’), Ex 30? 
 lamps. Cf. Tidal, Works, p. 453: ‘The lampe must 
 be dressed and snuffed dayly.’ RV gives ‘dresser’ 
 for AV ‘gatherer’ Am 7! (5413, see Driver’s note). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DRESS. -— The study of Oriental dress serves 
 to explain particular allusions to clothing in the 
 Bible; it imparts a fresh interest to the narrative 
 by presenting to the eye a picture of those written 
 about; and through a knowledge of the various 
 articles of costume and of Oriental usage and 
 sentiment connected with them, it enables us to 
 follow the sacred writers into the figurative mean- 
 ings they sought to convey when common facts 
 about the outward garments were applied to the 
 clothing of the inner man. Special attention is 
 rendered necessary by the fact that while the 
 general character of Oriental dress is recognized 
 by all, it is often difficult to pronounce upon 
 
 articular articles as to origin, material, and usage. 
 n this respect the subject resembles that of lal. 
 architecture, inasmuch as an ancient wall may 
 have stones of Phcenician, Jewish, Greek, Roman, 
 Saracenic, and Crusading styles, and yet the ex- 
 perienced archeologist may have much difficulty 
 in naming the builder and assigning the date 
 of actual construction. So with regard to dress, 
 amid certain features that were characteristic of 
 Israel, the separated people copied largely from the 
 customs of Canaan, Egypt, Babylon, Greece, and 
 Rome. The chief points of inquiry are those that 
 deal with 1. Materials of Dress; 2. Articles of 
 Dress; 3. Oriental Custom and thought about Dress. 
 
 I. MATERIALS OF DRESS.—These were(1) wool and 
 hair; (2) linen and cotton; (3) silk. 1. Wool (72), 
 Hair (yy). One of the earliest forms of clothing 
 in the East would be that of a sheepskin worn as a 
 vest or jacket, or in the larger form of a cloak 
 made of several sewn together, with the wool left 
 on. These are still in use with the wool either 
 inside or outside. The next stage was the removal 
 of the wool and the art of weaving (which see). 
 Sheep-shearing is mentioned in Gn 31” 38", 1S 
 252%, 2S 1374 ete. The hair of the goat has also 
 been used from time immemorial, especially for 
 material that had to bear much exposure and 
 strain. The shepherds’ tents are made of it, also 
 bags for holding grain and flour. Hence it is called 
 eaerlcee (pv). The hair of the camel was also 
 manufactured into cloth, rougher than that made 
 from wool, but softer than sackcloth. At present 
 it is largely employed for cloaks and rugs, and 
 naturally for camel-harness. The term nyix (1 K 
 1933-19 2 K 238, Jos 721-24, Jon 3°) may either indicate 
 that the cloak was originally taken from a skin, or 
 may be simply descriptive of its size. The com- 
 bination yy nyax occurs Gn 25”, Zec 134. 
 
 2. Cotton, Linen, #% (Arab. shash), ons; 72, 
 ya (Arab. bazz), Buooos ; n3np (Arab. kitan), 605n0v, 
 Alveos. The warmth of the Oriental climate and 
 the advance of civilization bringing more of indoor- 
 life and social gradation, tended to create a wide- 
 spread demand for this manufacture. Egypt and 
 Syria sent their merchandise of linen and broidered 
 goods to Tyre, Ezk 2778, The Indian source of 
 supply is preserved in the Arab. name Shesh- Hindi 
 (Indian cambric), The word karpas (of Pervian 
 
 
 
 origin) should also be translated ‘cotton’ in Est 1°. 
 See Corron. Cotton and linen were not carefully 
 At the present day the Indian 
 
 distinguished. 
 
 
 
 
 
624 DRESS 
 
 
 
 cotton cloth with stamped bright patterns, used for 
 hangings and dados, is very like the linen of the 
 Egyptian mummy-cloths. For the Israelites it was 
 enough to know that. those stuffs were both of 
 vegetable fibre, and not of wool. The mixture of 
 wool and linen was called 1yyv (Dt 22", Ly 19” 
 only), a word of uncertain (perhaps Egyptian) 
 origin (see Driver, ad Joc.). Garments made of it 
 were forbidden to the Israelites. 
 
 8. Silk. wo* Ezk 161-8, onpixdy, Rev 18" (from 
 Zijpes, the name of an Indian people from whom, ace. 
 to Strabo [516, 701], the ancients got the first silk), 
 A common name for silk in Arabic is hartr, a word 
 whose derivation is most uncertain (see Frinkel, 
 Aram. Fremdwérter, 39. In Pr 31” AV incorrectly 
 gives ‘silk’ as tr® of Jy (RV correctly ‘fine linen’). 
 
 II. ARTICLES OF DrREsS.—1. Shirt, Sheet, Linen 
 Garment (117 sddin, cwddy, Jg 14-™, Pr 31%, Is 3%, 
 1 Mac 10", Mk 14°). This was worn next to the 
 body, and was nearest in purpose to the first cover- 
 ings mentioned in Gn 37”), en it appears as the 
 only garment, it is a cotton or linen wrapper of 
 various sizes. Once representing all, it continued 
 to give something of its character to all the other 
 articles of Oriental dress. It would be the waist- 
 cloth of the Israelites in the brick-fields of Egypt as 
 shown in the monuments, a towel, white or coloured, 
 wrapped tightly round the loins or reaching down 
 towards the knees. Of similar material and shape, 
 though somewhat larger, it was worn in Palestine 
 by boatmen, fishermen, wood-sawyers, and drawers 
 of water. It was also found asa simple large sheet 
 thrown round the body (Mk 14"), with an end flung 
 over the shoulaer, with or without a girdle. 
 
 When worn with other garments it took the form 
 of a night shirt, of white cotton or linen, or coarse 
 silk, reaching below the knees. It was made by 
 
 DRESS 
 
 town under conditions of trade and agriculture. 
 The alterations consisted in having the entire 
 front cut open, long sleeves attached, and the 
 
 shape more adapted to the figure. The two fronts 
 were drawn tightly round the body overlapping 
 each other, and the waist was firmly beund with a 
 
 
 
 coat (Kéthéneth). 
 
 belt or sash. It thus resembled a cagsock or 
 dressing-gown. [rom the fact of its covering and 
 supplementing the shirt, and béing like it in form, 
 it was obviously meant to be superior to it in 
 material and appearance. It was most frequently 
 
 
 
 
 
 EGYPTIAN LOIN-CLOTH AND SYRIAN SHIRT, 
 
 taking a long pisee of the material and folding it 
 
 into two equal lengths, with the sides sewn up, 
 and holes at the top corners for the arms, or with 
 sleeves inserted. At the present day it is usually 
 sold without any opening for the head. This is 
 the proof that it is new, and allows the purchaser 
 to please himself as to whether the opening is to be 
 smallorlarge, plainorornamental. It is the same for 
 menand women, thelatterrequiring a largeropening 
 for convenience in nursing. Anyone wearing only 
 the shirt is called naked (Jn 217). It is undress. 
 2. Coat (njhp kéthéneth, xurdv, tunica). The shirt 
 passed by easy transition to the tunic-coat or second 
 arment. It completed the indoor costume for 
 amily life, the shop, and familiar outdoor sur- 
 roundings. It was not needed in the simple 
 privacy of pastoral or Bedawi life, and its presence 
 marked the change to the life of the village and 
 * ‘Bilk’ is accepted by Siegfried-Stade as the meaning of YD, 
 but A. B. Davidson (Comm. ad loc.) doubts if silk was worn as 
 early as the time of Ezekiel. ‘The LXX (cp/yarros) and ancients 
 thought of some very thin and delicate material. The kind of 
 
 garment was probab! ly some large wrapper or veil covering the 
 whole person. 
 
 
 
 made of striped and bright-coloured cotton or 
 linen, and sometimes of woollen cloth. ‘he over- 
 lapping front confined by the girdle tormed a 
 recess for carrying any small parcel, such as bread 
 for the journey. A slit was made on each side of 
 the skirt, about a foot long, so as to allow greater 
 freedom in walking. See Coat. 
 
 3. Cloak (yn mé-%l, ayn simldh, 12 beged, tudrtor ; 
 Arab. jubbeh, meshiah, abda’).— The outermost 
 garment was distinguished by its greater size, and 
 the absence of the girdle. There was much variety 
 in shape, quality, and material caused by the 
 social position of the wearer and the style of Baby- 
 lonia, Egypt, or Syria, which it most resembled. 
 It was called 1, rodijpys, from its length; wis), 
 mp2, n'y, érevdrns, wepiBdraor, from its enveloping 
 fulness. Hence it represents clothing generally, 
 and is translated ‘apparel,’ ‘raiment,’ ‘ vesture,’ 
 ‘attire,’ ete. To it especially refer the expressions 
 ‘changes of raiment,’ ‘suits of apparel.’ Two 
 
 varieties may be distinguished. (a) 9p, orod}. 
 This was a long loose robe with very wide sleeves 
 
 worn over the belted coat and shirt. It was a dress 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 inet 
 
 es) ee oe 
 

 
 
 
 DRESS 
 
 
 
 that expressed dignity, culture, and distinction, 
 and was expressly the mark of the priestly, 
 educated, wealthy, and official classes. It resembled 
 (2) in length, and was as much superior to it as it 
 was to the shirt. Whilea public dress, it was of 
 lighter and more ornamental material than the 
 square simldh, which was pre-eminently the out- 
 door cloak. It was the characteristic robe of the 
 professions (1 Ch 15°”, 1 S 2! 157), the mark of high 
 rank and station (1 8 18424°), the ay$n mahaldzdh, 
 suit of exchange of the Hebrews (Is 3”, Zec 34), the 
 thaub or baddleh of the Arabs. In Egypt it is 
 sometimes worn as a long black surplice, but 
 usually it is open and unconfined. Such was the 
 robe of the Ephod with its fringes and bells sway- 
 ing with the motion of the figure., The Jewish 
 tallith and the Arabie burnous resemble it in 
 ornamental lightness, but the stripes of the one 
 and the form of the other point rather to the 
 simlah, It was worn by Saul (18 244), was given 
 by Jonathan to David (1 S 184), was the long robe 
 of the Pharisees (Lk 20%), and of those ‘arrayed in 
 white robes’ (Rev 7"). It was always emblematic 
 of social intercourse and high rank. It was the 
 
 
 
 CLOAK OR ROBE (Mé-'il, croAn). 
 
 full dress of ancient times. At present in Syria it 
 is almost confined to the Oriental clergy, and to 
 Moslems of the official and merchant classes, tlie 
 latter often having it faced and partly lined with 
 soft fur. Joseph’s coat (n°=3 nina) was most likely 
 an open long mé-i. It was an unusual article of 
 pastoral or Bedawidress, which generally comprises 
 the shirt with belt, and the square cloak or simléh 
 of wool or haircloth, with frequently a sheepskin 
 vest between. Such a special garment worn by 
 Joseph would be a mark of favour and an occasion 
 of jealous comparison. The coat (RV ‘robe’), 
 182”, annually brought to Samuel would also be 
 of this sort. 
 
 (b) non simldh, tudriov. This was the largest 
 and heaviest article of Oriental dress, being the 
 dress of travel, of the shepherd, worn for protection 
 against cold and rain, and used as a covering 
 during sleep (Ex 22*5), It consisted of a piece of 
 cloth about 7 ft. from right to left, and 4} from 
 top to bottom. A width of 14 ft. was folded in at 
 each side, and sewn along the top, with a slit at 
 each top-corner through which the hand and wrist 
 could pass. The garment thus losing about 14 ft. 
 on each side became asquare. Usually, two pieces, 
 each 7 ft. long and 2 ft. wide, were sewn together 
 to make the block material, and the over-edged 
 joining is seen running across the back. The 
 
 VOL. I.—40 
 
 
 
 DRESS 625 
 
 $< 
 
 finest kind, however, is made of one entire piece. 
 Such, most likely, was Christ’s ‘garment without 
 seam’ (Jn 19%), The ‘hairy garment’ (nqqx), Gn 25%, 
 may have been a camel-hair simldh. ‘The Arabs 
 
 
 
 CLOAK (Simldh, iwérsoy). SIMLAH AS WORN. 
 
 call their black tents houses of hair, and the term 
 usually distinguishes cloth of camel or goat hair 
 from that made of sheep's wool. Cloaks of camel 
 hair are common at the present day, those made in 
 the neighbourhood of ancient Cilicia having a 
 rough surface like that of Scotch shooting tweed, 
 but much firmer and heavier in the make. They 
 are often of a coppery-brown colour, and the com- 
 parison in Gn 25% would be easily suggested. 
 They are also made of wool and of goats’ hair. Orna- 
 mentation of coloured silk or red wool is frequently 
 sewn upon the neck, front, and back. The general 
 surface is often further relieved by its being woven 
 in broad stripes of darker and lighter, or black and 
 white colours. In the ordinary simldh of the 
 Syrian shepherd and farmer this is the most 
 characteristic feature. Elijah’s mantle and John 
 the Baptist’s raiment were of the square cloak 
 pattern. The Bab. garment in Jericho was an 
 ornamental one, possibly of crimson colour, like 
 those described in Ezk 23%, The large outer 
 
 
 
 SHEEPSKIN COAT. 
 
 garments of shepherds on the hills and inward 
 plains is often made of sheep skins with the fleece 
 left on; but as frequently this is a vest, and the 
 ordinary cloak is worn over it. See CLOKE. 
 
 4. Breeches of linen (12 ‘732m mikhnésé bad, Ex 
 28"; pbarp sarbdlin, Dn 32; RV hosen; Ges. Thes. 
 ‘vel feminalia vel pallia’). The first word indi- 
 cates that which is drawn together, that is, by the 
 waist-cord passing inside the hem of the gathers. 
 The second means most likely the Persian divided 
 skirt or leose trousers, Arab. sirwdl, as the 
 principal article of the common dress when such 
 trousers are worn. In modern Arab. it is called 
 
626 - DRESS 
 
 DRESS 
 
 
 
 libds =‘ clothing,’ for the same reason. It was evi- 
 dently a modification of the long shirt or tunic- 
 coat, dividing it into two parts at the belt, the 
 upper part being ashort Zouave jacket, often highly 
 ornamented, and the lower part being the sarbdlin, 
 Shosen.’ A long piece of cloth was made into a wide 
 
 
 
 ee phy BRINE : 
 TRANSITION FROM ‘ KiTHONETH’ TO ‘SARBALIN.’ 
 
 open bag by sewing up the bottom, except a hole 
 at each corner for the feet to pass through. The 
 upper edge was hemmed, and drawn together by a 
 cord or sash within the hem. A mass of plaited 
 cloth thus hung down between the knees, and even 
 trailed between the feet, as a sign of leisure and 
 luxury. During active exercise, such as hoeing, 
 walking, running, these folds were tucked up under 
 the belt in front or behind or at the sides. This 
 was to have the loins girt. 
 
 5. Girdle. 1. 33715184. 2. vray ’adnét, only of 
 high priest or a high official, Ex 284, Is 227, prob. 
 a sash wound round the waist several times and 
 falling to the feet; cf. Stade, 7/L (1894), p. 236 ; 
 Jos. Ant. Ill. vii. 2. 3. 18 ‘waistband,’ see W. 
 R. Smith as quoted in Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v., also 
 Expos. Times, iii. (1893), 243, 256. The girdle 
 was worn over (1) and (2), and was sometimes a 
 cord, often a leather belt as now worn by Eastern 
 monks, For the purse arrangement in it, see BAG. 
 The girdle braced the hip-joints for prolonged 
 exertion, and under it the hanging skirts were 
 drawnup. It served to hold the ink-horn of the 
 scribe, with its box of atramentum or black fluid, 
 soaked up into sponge or pith, and its case for 
 holding reed pens. ‘The sash was the order of the 
 garter in Oriental costume, the ends being richly 
 ornamented with needlework in silk and gold (see 
 
 MALE HEAD-DRESS (1. PASTORAL, 
 
 EMBROIDERY). 
 a baldrick, often set with gems. 
 not used to bind up the loose outer garment for pur- 
 
 The military girdle (2S 20°) was 
 The girdle was 
 
 poses of activity, although the Bedawin occasion- 
 The simldh, cloak, 
 
 ally apply it to this purpose. 
 
 
 
 1. LOINS GIRT. 2. GIRDLE WITH INKHORN, 
 
 was then rather folded over the arm, or thrown 
 over the shoulder, or laid aside, as at the stoning 
 of Stephen. But when a large bundle had to be 
 carried a considerable distance, the cloak was 
 drawn up somewhat, and the belt fastened tightly 
 around it over the waist, thus forming ay 
 pouch or sack behind. This was prob. the way in 
 which the Israelites carried their kneading-troughs 
 (Ex 12°). 
 
 6. Head-dress ; AV Bonnet, RV Head-tire (nyzip 
 migbi'dh (see BONNET); we pé&ér, Is 3%; Any 
 zdniph, Is 3“). The head-dress of the Israelites in 
 early pastoral times would be the same as that 
 which is worn by their successors the Bedawin. 
 It is a piece of cotton or linen, white, blue, or 
 black, or of brightly coloured silk, about a yard 
 square, folded diagonally, and laid on the head so 
 as to screen the eyes, protect the cheek-bones and 
 the back of the neck. It is held in its place by a 
 cord (9°79 Gn 3838) of soft elastic wool, usually dark 
 brown or black, or of twisted cotton whipped with 
 threads of silk and gold, coiled in several rings 
 tightly round the head, making a covering at once 
 picturesque, comfortable, and protective. The rich 
 colours of the Bab. head-dress are described as 
 ‘dyed attire,’ obay (Ezk 23"), The article is now 
 called kufiych (from the town of Kufah), After- 
 wards a skull-cap came to be worn, with a napkin 
 usually white, or white with gold thread, folded 
 into a long band and wound round it. In 1 K 30%* 41 
 the head-band is drawn over the face to conceal 
 the features, after the manner of Bedawin robbers. 
 The pees of Dn 3% (RV tunics, RVm turbans, 
 
 2, PERSIAN. 3, SYRIAN PEASANT). 
 
 see Bevan, ad loc.) may have been the Persian 
 fez, named from the mould in which the felt was 
 pressed. In the case of the royal crown the cord 
 
 
 
ri 
 
 of the original head-dress was represented by the 
 
 Id circlet, and the scarf by the cap of cloth and 
 the coronation veil. For military head-dress see 
 HELMET. 
 
 J. Border, Hem, Skirt (us ede 18 244; bw 
 shill, Ex 394; xpdoredov, Mt 9”). The outer gar- 
 ment had four cords with tassels (ny'y zézith, 
 Nu 15%, ovb13 Dt 222, see Driver’s note) at the 
 corners. To make the border and fringes large 
 and conspicuous was part of the Pharisaic form 
 (Mt 23°). The corner fringes are seen on the large 
 tallith of synagogue worship, and on the small one 
 
 
 
 FRINGES. 
 
 of white cotton worn like an unseen ephod next to 
 theshirt. In the large fallith, about 2 yds. sq., of 
 white cotton or wool with black border or stripes, 
 a sq. inch of coloured silk is sown on each corner 
 inside, and through a hole made precisely in the 
 middle of the patch, so as to make the opening a 
 mathematical corner, there is passed a cord com- 
 posed of eight threads and five knots. This, with 
 the numerical value of n'y'y, 600, makes up 613, 
 the rabbinical number of commandments in the 
 Law. During worship the tassel is taken in the 
 hand and raised to the lips. The histo y and sig- 
 nificance of the Fringes will be found fully dis- 
 cussed under the art. FRINGES, vol. ii. p. 68°; see 
 also the literature cited there. 
 
 8. Napkin (covddpiv, Lk 19%, Jn 207, Ac 1913), 
 In a climate like that of Palestine the need of a 
 napkin was occasioned not by cold so much as by 
 dust and heat, asits name implies. At the present 
 day it is used to wipe the face and the back of the 
 hands, and is often partly folded in around the 
 neck to protect the collar of the coat from per- 
 spiration and to give coolness. The same name is 
 given by the Arabs to the small cotton cap which 
 they wear under the woollen fez, and call an arkiyeh 
 (sweat-cloth). 
 
 9. Sandals (orby3, oy, nidy3, cavdddca, Mk 6%, 
 Ac 128), The primitive shoe or sandal was a flat 
 sole of leather, wood, or matted grass with loops 
 attached, through which the shoe-latchet, a leather 
 thong, passed and strapped in the foot. The 
 Arab. na‘al means the sole of the shoe, as bein 
 the principal part, thus pointing to the sanda 
 origin. ven with the shoes or slippers of red, 
 black, and yellow leather in common usage, the 
 ancient habits survive, as the natives like to bend 
 down the leather behind the heel, and make it 
 
 
 
 more like a sandal. The wooden sandal in very 
 common use has a strap nailed on to hold the foot 
 across the toes, showing the beginning of the upper. 
 Those worn by brides at the marriage feast are 
 made 7 or 8 inches high to give the dignity of the 
 cothurnus. Sandals are removed when entering a 
 house or church, or any place where prayer is 
 offered. The shoe being associated with outside 
 defilement, and being the lowest article of dress, 
 is used as an epithet of contempt and vituperation, 
 and as an implement of beating. Socks are seldom 
 worn, and in walking the shoe is often removed, or 
 the foot with the shoe on is held up to shake out 
 the dust. 
 
 10. Female Dress. This so far resembled male 
 attire as to make interchange possible and pro- 
 hibited, Dt 225. There was the sddin. or shirt- 
 dress, 133%; over it a kéthéneth or tunic-robe, Ca 5%, 
 bound with a girdle, Is 3%. Over this, ladies of 
 nobility wore an ungirded mé-‘tl or robe after the 
 pattern of Joseph’s ‘coat,’ 2 S 13% Social life 
 made it possible also for women to have festival 
 robes (AV ‘changeable suits of apparel,’ Is 3%). 
 There is mention of turbans, ornamental bands of 
 silk, or embroidered linen, Is 3%, probably rather 
 deeper than those commonly worn by men. 
 Another ornamental head-dress is described by the 
 term used for the priestly head-dress, 12. These 
 must have been very elaborate, judging from those 
 
 
 
 ELEVATED HORN. 
 
 of the Egyptian monuments, and the tardiness with 
 which the metal head-bow] and horn (Arab. tantur) 
 were given up by the women of Syria in modern 
 times. The horn was worn erect, day and night, 
 the veil of a widow being black, others white. 
 
 The chief articles of specially fem. attire were 
 the veils and mantles. ere were mufflers (nby), 
 Is 3!°, thin face-veils like gauze-muslin and nun’s- 
 veiling, the former brightly coloured with floral 
 designs, used for the face and breast (Arab. 
 barka‘a, mandil). 
 
 It is impossible to say precisely what sort of 
 mantle-robe the nayyn mantle, Is 3%, may have 
 been, The ninsep shawls (AV wimples), Is 3%, 
 were large veils of white lace, or tough muslin 
 (white or indigo at present), worn over the head 
 and falling down the back. Those worn by Bedawi 
 and peasant women are often used for carrying 
 grass, vegetables, or various parcels, Ru 3%, 
 
 The veils (n° Is 3%) were the largest envelop- 
 ing veils, now called by the Arabs izars, made of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 DRESS 
 
 DRESS 
 
 white cotton, black twilled silk, or rich silk stuffs | for women, and the love of respectful attention 
 of the brightest colours and of highly ornamental | and dignity makes the third equally so for men. 
 
 
 
 FACE VEILS (1. SYRIAN MOSLEM. 2, EGYPTIAN, 
 
 patterns. This veil is one of the most familiar 
 objects in the streets of Eastern towns. About 
 
 
 
 HEAD AND BACK VEIL (Mitpahath). 
 
 the caul (RVm ‘networks,’ p'p’av Ts 318) there is no 
 certainty ; possibly it was a light netted veil covering 
 
 
 
 LARGE VEIL (Rddid). 
 
 the hair and falling over the shoulders, set with 
 tiny discs of silver and gold and other pendants, 
 something like whatis still worn. So with regard to 
 stomacher (>yn2), Is 34; as the antithesis suggests 
 some sort of girdle, highly or even fantastically 
 ornamental in contrast with sackcloth, it may 
 have been the loose apron-sash with dangling rib- 
 bons and attachments worn by dancing girls. 
 
 III. ORIENTAL CUSTOM AND THOUGHT CON- 
 CERNING Dress.—Food and clothing are the two 
 great requisites of the natural life, 1 Ti 68. Cloth- 
 ing is the second necessity. Of its three services, 
 protection, decency, and ornament, the warmth of 
 the climate of Palestine causes the first to be less 
 important than it is in colder countries, while the 
 domestic customs make the second very important 
 
 3, LEBANON DRUZE). 
 
 Clothing distinguishes man from the beast. ‘To be 
 unclothed’is not merely to suffer cold, but ‘ to be 
 found naked’ (2 Co 5°). The phrase ‘naked, and 
 ye clothed me’ (Mt 25%), over and above personal 
 comfort to the individual, means restoration to 
 human society and human dignity. ‘Clothed and 
 in his right mind’ (Mk 5") were two equal indica- 
 tions that Legion was no longer an outcast. So 
 to have fine apparel was apt to carry the assump- 
 tion of all inward graces (Ja 2°). 
 
 Eastern clothing is throughout an adaptation 
 not only to climate but to character. Clothes are 
 flung off and on with the same rapidity as that 
 with which heat changes to cold and sunshine to 
 starlight ; so it is with the quickly se moods 
 of the people. Oriental clothes appear to the 
 European to be cumbersome and prohibitive of 
 exercise. This to the ordinary Oriental mind 
 carries a subtle recommendation, implying that 
 the wearer does not need to work. A common 
 Arab proverb says, ‘There is a blessing in being 
 busy,’ but it is usually the spectator that quotes 
 it. The loose and ornamental style of Oriental 
 dress emphasizes the thought that the chief good 
 of life is not in active achievement, but in rest and 
 the privilege of rest. Among the trades a work 
 loses in public respect in proportion as the worker 
 has to take off clothing when engaged init. All 
 clothing above the undermost easily takes on 
 meanings of office, investiture, and precedence. 
 Brightness and colour are synonymous with 
 happiness and prosperity, and grief of soul is 
 expressed by the darkest object seen in nature, 
 the intense black of goat hair(Rev 6"). Orientals 
 always travel in their best clothes ; it was scarcely 
 necessary for the Gibeonites to assure Joshua that 
 their raiment had been new when they started, 
 except as indicating the length of their journey. 
 In public worship Orientals are impressed and 
 apparently satisfied by changed vestments and 
 spectacular ritual to a degree that always puzzles 
 the more ethical and introspective mind of the 
 West. 
 
 In the Bible there are numberless instances of 
 the employment of facts concerning dress for the ex- 
 pression of spiritual truth. The metaphorical 
 application is carried out in much detail, showing 
 that the subject was at once familiar and of 
 extreme interest. _We have such phrases as 
 ‘clothed with humility’ (1 P 5°), ‘the garment of 
 salvation, the robe of righteousness’ (Is 611°), into 
 which is meant to be borne all that Oriental 
 dress means with regard to completeness of cover- 
 ing and dignified grace. The girdle, head-dress, 
 and sandals are especially rich in similitudes of 
 streneth, honour, and defilement. Thus with ref. 
 to the girdle, there is the significance of its cleaving 
 to the loins(Jer 13") ; of its being loosened (Is 5") 5 
 its strengthening value (Is 2271, 1 P 1°, Eph 61) ; 
 
 
 
—" 
 
 DRINK 
 
 there is the sree of being compulsorily girded 
 (Jn 21"); and the mystery of invisible support 
 (Is 455). 
 
 Lirzrarunn.—Keil, Benzinger, and Nowack, Heb. Arch.; 
 Schirer, HJP (see ‘Olothing’ in Index); Conder, Handbook to 
 the Bible; Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah 4 (1887), i. 621-626; 
 Thomson, Land and Book, 8 vols. 1881-1886 (see ‘Garments’ 
 under ‘ Manners and Oustoms’ in Index to each vol.); Tristram, 
 Eastern Customs in Bible Lands (1894), pp. 155-176 ; Maspero, 
 
 Dawn Civilization (1896), p. 718f.; Lagarde Gesammelte 
 et (1868), p. 209 ff. "GM. MacKIE. 
 
 DRINK.—See Foop. DRINK-OFFERING.—See 
 SACRIFICE. 
 
 DROMEDARY.—Besides the word (173) rendered 
 dromedary, but which ought to have been tr‘. 
 young camel (see CAMEL), there are two words, #29 
 rekesh (rendered in 1 K 4* dromedaries, and in 
 Est 81-14 mules, and in Mic 1” swift beasts), and 
 721 rammaék (Est 8 AV young dromedaries). 
 Kekesh (a rare synonym of 0:b) probably denoted a 
 species of horse noted for some choice quality. 
 
 hat this quality was here is quite uncertain. 
 Rammak is Pers, ramah, ‘flock’ or ‘herd’ (see 
 Ges. Thes.). In Est 8 ’s +a, lit. ‘sons of the herd,’ 
 is tr’ in RV ‘bred of the stud.’ To all appearance, 
 then, we must drop the dromedary from the list of 
 Bible animals. G. E. Post. 
 
 DROPSY.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 DROSS (rp, Kethibh xo, sing. only in Ezk 22), 
 elsewhere always plur. op, 0°30, 0°10).—For the 
 process whereby dross was separated from the pure 
 metal, see FURNACE, REFINER. The word is 
 several times used in the OT metaphorically for 
 what is base and worthless, e.g. Ps 11949 (of the 
 wicked), Is 17-25, Ezk 228-19 (of degenerate Israel). 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 DROUGHT.—See CrimEs AND PUNISHMENTS, 
 
 also FAMINE. 
 
 DROYE.—This word is the equivalent in AV of 
 two Heb. words. 4. 71 ‘éder (Gn 32" 1), ‘Fider is 
 elsewhere rendered flock (see FLOCK), except in one 
 place (J1 128), where it occurs twice in the construct 
 state, 22-"11y, which is tr? ‘herds of cattle,’ and 
 Wyn 1 ‘flocks of sheep.’ 2. m0> mahdneh. This 
 word, although rendered in Gn 338 AV drove, is 
 rendered once in the same connexion (327) bands, 
 and twice (328) company. This last, which is the 
 correct tr., is adopted by RV (cf. Gn 50%). See 
 HERD, G. E. Post, 
 
 DROWNING.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 DRUNKENNESS.—The spectacle of men beside 
 themselves through alcoholic drink has been 
 familiar from the beginning of history, and all 
 languages have terms in which to describe it. It 
 is a subject that appears in the Bible, as in other 
 ancient writings. 
 
 1. Some of the terms used in the Scriptures in 
 connexion with drunkenness.—The Heb. has no 
 word that describes this vice, like the Eng. words 
 ‘drunken,’ ‘drunkard,’ ‘ drunkenness,’ ‘ inebriate,’ 
 in terms derived from the physical act of drinking. 
 It has two stems in common use ([shdkdh] and 
 shathah, np? and apy) referring to the act of drink- 
 ing; and each denotes indifferently the drinking 
 of water or wine or other liquids, drinking by men 
 or by animals or by the ground. From one of 
 these stems comes the word mashkeh, not often 
 used, denoting a butler or cupbearer, one who 
 serves wine at table (Neh 1", Gn 40! etc.). From 
 
 the other comes the word mishteh, much used, 
 denoting a formal feast, a banquet. This is often 
 tr? by the Gr. wéros, and once (Est 77) by cuyrdccor. 
 
 
 
 DRUNKENNESS 629 
 
 
 
 Like the Gr. word, it has in it the idea of a social 
 feast as a gathering where men drink together. 
 This shows that the idea of social drinking is 
 older than the differentiation of the Heb. language. 
 Hence it is the more remarkable that the words of 
 these Heb. stems never, of themselves, denote 
 either vicious carousal or intoxication. They are 
 sometimes used in connexion with carousal or 
 intoxication, but in such cases the author always 
 adds other words to indicate the vicious meaning. 
 Even Ec 10” is not an exoeption to this. See 
 BANQUET. 
 
 A different stem is rdwdh (m2), occurring 14 
 times as a verb, and 6 times in all in the form of 
 three different nouns. The idea is that of being 
 brimful, or saturated, or soaked (Ps 23°, Job 374, 
 Is 58" 16° 34°7 etc.). It is possible to tr. the 
 Heb., in every passage where these words occur, 
 without recognizing an allusion to drunkenness. 
 But LXX commonly tr. them by derivatives of 
 HeOiw or wlyw, and they are no doubt to be re- 
 garded as denoting drunkenness. It is as when 
 we speak of a habitually drunken man as a soaker, 
 or as sodden with drink (Jer 46'°, La 3%), 
 
 Another stem, s@bhd (x30), is used in all 8 or 9 
 times. Its meaning is nearly that of our Eng. ‘to 
 guzzle,’ that is, to Sink intoxicants greedily, with 
 stupefying effect. The active participle denotes 
 the guzzler as in the act, the passive participle 
 describes him as affected by the liquor, the noun 
 denotes either the liquor or tne act of guzzling (Is 
 56", Dt 21%, Pr 23-21, Nah 1, Is 12, Hos 418), 
 
 More important than all these is the stem 
 shikhar (12%). The verb means to become in- 
 toxicated, and in common use are the nouns 
 shékhar, ‘intoxicating liquor’ (see STRONG DRINK); 
 shikkor, ‘drunkard,’ and shikka@rén, ‘drunkenness.’ 
 Many hold that the word is the same with our 
 sugar, and that group of words in the Western 
 languages. Ifso, the Heb. word and the Western 
 word start together with the fact that sugar is 
 present at the formation of alcohol, but follow 
 entirely different lines of meaning. The usage of 
 the Heb. stem is abundant and clear, leaving no 
 doubt as to its meaning. Hebrew-speaking people 
 were familiar with the spectacle of men overcome 
 by alcohol, and they used the words of this stem 
 to express this familiar fact. 
 
 In NT, and in Gr. VSS of OT, quite a variety 
 of terms are used, but we need mention only one 
 group: “é0y, ‘habitual intoxication’; peiw, ‘to 
 be intoxicated’; pwedicxw, ‘to make intoxicated’ ; 
 peOiocua, ‘an intoxicant’; péOvcos, ‘intoxicated.’ 
 In their meaning and use (both literal and meta- 
 phorical) the words of this group are similar to 
 those of the Heb. group last mentioned. 
 
 2. Particulars given im the Bible concerning 
 drunkenness. —The OT and NT passages that 
 give these particulars, though numerous, are too 
 familiar to need direct citation. If one needs to 
 refer to them, they are easily found by the hele 
 of a concordance. Of apocr. passages one will 
 easily recall the contest concerning wine, kings, 
 women, and truth, in 1 Es 3**; the drunkenness 
 of Holofernes, as described in Jth 127° 137; the 
 many references to drinking usages in Sir; and 
 other like passages. 
 
 These various canon. or apocr. passages mention 
 abundantly many of the familiar physical effects 
 of drunkenness: staggering, reeling, dizziness, 
 incoherent speech, redness of eyes, vomiting, stupid 
 sleep, insensibility to blows, insatiable appetite 
 for more stimulant. They speak of its mental 
 effects: exhilaration, jollity, loss of good judg- 
 ment, inconsequence of thonght and purpose, 
 inability to keep secrets, quarrelsomeness, shame- 
 lessness, failure to remember afterwards what 
 occurred while one was drunk, the purposed for- 
 
 
 
630 DRUNKENNESS 
 
 DUMAH 
 
 
 
 getting of one’s misery, such facts as the naked- 
 ness of Noah, the helplessness of Amnon, the 
 sodden condition of Nabal. They speak of festal 
 drinking, of usages compelling one to drink, or 
 exempting him from compulsion (Est 18), of 
 carousals, en excess, riot, of the Syrian 
 king drinking himself drunk in his tent in the 
 face of the enemy, many times of the high-born 
 people of both Israel and Judah as wasting their 
 property and energies in costly drinking feasts, 
 of the connexion of drunkenness with licentious- 
 ness and gambling, of orgies in which the three 
 were mingled (J13*). They speak of the permanent 
 effects of these things on one’s condition of life, of 
 the guzzler and the glutton who bring themselves 
 to poverty, to loss of energy, to rags. They speak 
 of sociological effects, of men who by reason of 
 private dissipations neglect public duty, of men 
 who ought to be ambitious to serve God and their 
 country, but whose actual ambitions run in the 
 line of compounding or drinking intoxicating 
 pereragss (e.g. Is 54 4-22), of consequent incapaci- 
 tation for leadership, and resulting oppression and 
 injustice at home, and boundless defeat and 
 slaughter by foreign invaders. 
 
 In these and other particulars no one can fail 
 to recognize the widespread prevalence of drunken- 
 ness and its evils in the biblical times, and their 
 identity with the same evils as now existing. 
 Especial importance attaches, therefore, to any- 
 thing the Bible has to say in regard to the remedy. 
 
 The author of Sir says: ‘ Wine drunk in season 
 and to satisfy is joy of heart and gladness of soul ; 
 wine drunk largely is bitterness of soul, with 
 provocation and conflict’ (31%-). Similar passages 
 abound in ancient literature. They commend the 
 moderate use of intoxicants, and condemn the 
 excessive use; generally drawing the line, how- 
 ever, not between exhilaration and drunkenness, 
 but between drunkenness that is regarded as occa- 
 sional and seasonable and drunkenness that is 
 habitual and unseasonable. In view of this, it is 
 worth noting that our canonical books contain no 
 such passage. On the other hand, they unquali- 
 fiedly condemn drunkenness. They lay down the 
 proposition, ‘ Look not on the wine when it is red’ 
 (Pr 23%), In such cases as those of the priests (Lv 
 10°), of Daniel, of the Rechabites, of the Nazirites, 
 oy teach that even total abstinence is sometimes 
 a duty. 
 
 An account of the intoxicating liquors mentioned 
 in the Bible will be found under the titles STRONG 
 DRINK and WINE. See also Foon. 
 
 3. The dy eroiee between the ancient and the 
 modern problem.—With all their many points of 
 identity, there is a large and important group of 
 differences. Any one who will carefully study all 
 the passages in the Bible which speak of this 
 matter will note that, in a large majority of them, 
 drunkenness is explicitly spoken of as the vice of 
 the wealthy. Parke 8 there is not an instance in 
 which habitual drunkenness is attributed to any 
 who are not wealthy. In modern times, on the 
 contrary, drunkenness is supposed to be much 
 more prevalent among the poor than among the 
 well-to-do. This difference is not an accident. It 
 is mainly the result of the cheapening of intoxi- 
 cants, through improved processes of distilling and 
 brewing, introduced within the past two or three 
 centuries. When the price of enough wine or 
 beer to make a man drunk was equal to half a 
 month’s wages, and no other intoxicants were to 
 be had, it was impossible for most men to become 
 sodden drunkards. The case is different when an 
 hour’s labour will pay for an intoxicating quantity 
 of cheap liquor. ie the older time, habiegal 
 drunkenness was possible for thousands where it 
 is now possible for hundreds of thousands. This 
 
 vast modern extension of the domain of intemper- 
 ance should not be forgotten when we study the 
 Bible for practical light on the subject. To this 
 might be added a large number of important 
 difierences of detail between ancient life and 
 modern life that have bearings on the question in 
 hand. The outcome of such a comparison is that 
 drunkenness and its attendant evils, inexcusable, 
 widespread, harmful, and dangerous as they were 
 in the civilizations in which the Scriptures were 
 written, are immeasurably more so in our existing 
 civilization, and we ought to deal with the problem 
 accordingly. W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 DRUSILLA (Apotoidda).—_See HEROD. 
 
 DUKE.—This word being applied in AV with 
 two exceptions * to the chiefs of Edom, the im- 
 pression is formed that in the family of Esau this 
 was 4 hereditary title, as it is in Britain now. 
 It is, however, never a title in AV, but a general 
 expression for ‘ chief,’ being formed from Lat. dux 
 (the word in the Vulg.), and the tr. of a word (48 
 or af *alliph) which is also applied to the princes 
 of Judah (Zec 97 125-5, See CHIEF, ii. 3). 
 
 The Heb. word is probably more specific than its Eng. equiva- 
 lent, being held by Dillmann (on Gn 3615) to be derived from 7x 
 *eleph, a thousand ; so properly ‘a chiliarch,’ and understood by 
 Driver (Expos. ui. ii. 9) ‘to denote proves leader of @ 
 clan,’ and as ‘ probably the indigenous name borne in Edom by 
 the chiefs of the several gva«/ or clans’ ; while in Eng. ‘duke ’ wag 
 freely applied to any leader or chief of any rank and nation. Thus 
 * Annibal, duke of Carthaginensis ’—Sir T, hen The Governour, 
 ii. 233: ‘Ther was a duk that highte eseus ’—Ohaucer, 
 Knight's Tale, 2; after whom Shaks. Mids. Night’s Dream, 1. L 
 20: ‘Happy be Theseus, our renowned duke !’; Latimer (Works, 
 i. 31) calls Gideon ‘a duke’; and Wyclif uses the word of the 
 Messiah, Mt 28 ‘And thou, Bethleem, the lond of Juda, art not 
 the leest among the prynces of Juda; for of thee a duyk schal 
 
 o out, that schal gouerne my puple of Israel’; and Select 
 
 Vorks, iii. 137, ‘ Jesus Christ, duke of oure batel, taght us lawe 
 
 of pacience, and not to feght bodily.’ Between 1572 and 1679 
 (that is, when AV was made) the title was extinct in England 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DULCIMER.—See Music. 
 
 DUMAH (77).—1. Son of Ishmael (Gn 25'*, 1 Ch 
 1”), representing some Arabian tribe or locality. 
 There are many places of this name mentioned by 
 the Arabian geographers, its signification in Arabic 
 (daumun, nom. unit. dawmatun) being the branched 
 wild nut, common in Arabia Deserta (Doughty, 
 Travels in A. D., Index). The most important of 
 the places called after it, Dumat al-Jandal (also 
 written Daumat and Dawmda’) was identified by the 
 earlier Mohammedan archeologists with the place 
 mentioned in Gn (Yakut, s.v.); and it is probable 
 that the same place is referred to by Pliny (AN vi. 
 32), who is acquainted with a Domatha in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the Thamudeni (as well as a Thumati), 
 and Ptolemy, who mentions a city Aovyedd or 
 Aovyaéd in Arabia Deserta (v. 19, 7), as well as a 
 city of importance of the same name in Arabia 
 Felix (viii. 22, 3). Stephanus Byz. s.v. quotes 
 Glaucus in the second book of his Arabian Anti- 
 quities as mentioning a city of the name, and 
 Porphyry, De Abstinent. ii. 56, asserts that an 
 Arabian tribe named Dumathii sacrificed a boy 
 every year, and buried him under the altar which 
 they used as an idol, probably with reference to 
 the same place. Its site is fixed by the geographer 
 Al-Bekri (i. 353) as ‘ten days’ journey from 
 Medina, ten from Cufa, eight from Damascus, and 
 twelve from Misr’; but by Mas'‘udi (Bibl. Geog. 
 Arab. vii. 248) as ‘five from Medina, and fifteen 
 or thirteen from Damascus,’ the latter numbers 
 being probably more correct. The ‘sik Dima,’ 
 
 *The one exception Is Joe 18% ‘dukes of Sihon’ (0°9'D}, 
 RV ‘princes’), and the other 1 Mac 108, where Jonathan Mao 
 cabwus is said to have been made a ‘duke’ by king Alexander 
 (crparnyos, RV ‘ captain’). 
 
 
 

 
 DUMB 
 
 DYEING 631 
 
 
 
 discovered by Burckhardt in the Jauf (Travels in 
 Syria, 662), has been identified with it partly on 
 the ground of the correspondence of the names of 
 the surrounding villages with those mentioned by 
 the geographers (cf. Ritter, Erdkunde von Arabien, 
 ii. 360-388). The only further reference to it in 
 the Bible is perhaps to be found in the heading of 
 Is 21%, where an obscure oracle in a strange 
 dialect is introduced with the words ‘the massa’ 
 of Dumah’; for this the LXX substitutes Idumeza, 
 and many modern critics are inclined to interpret 
 the name Dumah (in Heb. ‘ silence’) allegorically. 
 It is probable that more accurate knowledge of 
 the eS ishe of the oracle would show the geo- 
 graphical interpretation to be right. 2. Name of 
 one of the mountain cities of Judah (Jos 15°) 
 according to the reading of most of the editions; 
 but in that of Ginsburg, Rumah (915) is substituted, 
 and this reading is supported by the LXX (‘Peuvrd 
 or ‘Pouzd) and the Vulg. It is probable, however, 
 that the ordinary reading Dumah is correct. In 
 the Onomast. Aovyd is given as the name of a large 
 village in the Daroma, seventeen miles from 
 Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin) ; and it was identified 
 by Robinson with Khirbet Daumah, in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Beit Jibrin, where are to be seen the 
 ruins of a village situated on two hills separated 
 by a valley, with remains of many cisterns and 
 caves excavated in the rock, belonging to: the 
 Canaanite or Jewish epoch, as well as vestiges of 
 Christian buildings. The ‘seventeen miles’ of 
 the Onomast. is an overstatement, due to the tor- 
 tuous routes followed in the mountain country 
 (Guérin, Judée, iii. 359-361). 
 D. S. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 DUMB.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 DUNG.—1. Used in the East as manure (Lk 13°) 
 and for fuel ; especially that of cattle, where wood 
 and charcoal are scarce or unattainable. In Eastern 
 cities there is usually a receptacle for the offal of 
 cattle, whence it is carried out and either burnt or 
 used asmanure. Directions for personal cleanliness 
 are given in Dt 23-4; and in the case of sacrifices 
 the dung of the animals was burnt outside the 
 camp (Ex 2914, Ly 441-12 817, Nu 19°). 
 
 2. The word is used (a) to express contempt and 
 abhorrence, as in the case of the carcase of Jezebel 
 (2 K 9°); and in that of the Jews (Jer 9”, Zeph 1”). 
 (6) To spread dung upon the face was a sign of 
 humiliation (Mal 2°), (c) As representing worth- 
 lessness, St. Paul counted all things but dung that 
 he might win Christ (Ph 3°). E. HULL. 
 
 DUNG GATE.—See JERUSALEM. 
 
 DURA (xy Dn 3}, « plain ‘in the province of 
 Babylon’). Etym. uncertain. The word may be 
 connected with the Bab. duru, a strong wall or 
 fortification, possibly also with Dor (Jg 1”) and 
 with 1x. Ammianus Marcellinus (xxv. 6) mentions 
 it as situated E. of the Tigris. The distance of 
 such a locality from Babylon seems to preclude the 
 
 ssibility of its being the same as that alluded to 
 in Daniel. The validity of this objection depends 
 upon the extent of territory which may be re- 
 garded as included in the expression $33 nj192. The 
 same objection of distance applies to the place of 
 this name which occurs in Polybius (v. 48), which 
 was on the Euphrates near the mouth of the 
 Chaboras, more than 200 miles N. W. of Babylon. 
 
 A third (and the most probable) locality sug- 
 gested is to the E. of Babylon, where Oppert found 
 what sa ge to be the base of a great statue, near 
 a mound known as Duair. G. WALKER. 
 
 DURE.—The simple vb. ‘dure’ (fr. Lat. durare, 
 be hard,’ ‘last’) is now obsol., its place being filled 
 
 by ‘endure.’ It occurs in AV Mt 137 only: ‘ Yet 
 hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a 
 while’ (RV ‘endureth for a while,’ Gr. mpdcxacpos 
 éort, lit. ‘is temporary’; Wyc. ‘is temperal,’ 
 Rhem. ‘is for a time’; ‘dureth’ is Tindale’s word, 
 who translates the same expression in Mk 4!7 b 
 ‘endure,’ and is followed by AV). ‘ During,’ still 
 in use, is the pres. ptep. of this verb; cf. Tindale, 
 Works, p. 476: ‘when the disciples were come 
 together vnto the breakyng of the bread, Paule 
 made a sermon duryng to mydnight.’ Not in AV, 
 ‘during’ is introduced by RV into Mt 26°, Jn 2” 
 132, Rey 118. Durable is still in use, and applicable 
 to clothing, as Is 23**, but scarcely now to riches, as 
 in Pr 8%, Cf. Purchas, Pil. p. 28: ‘They might 
 take up their Crosse, and follow the second Adam 
 unto a durable happinesse.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DUTY is that which isdue. In mod. Eng. it is 
 only that which is due by one, but formerly expressed 
 also that which is due ¢o one. This is the meaning 
 of Ex 21, AV ‘If he take him another wife ; her 
 food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall 
 he not diminish’ (so RV). Cf. Tindale’s tr. of Mt 
 20" ‘Take that which is thy duty, and go thy 
 waye,’ and of Lk 12" ‘to geve them their deutie 
 of meate at due season’; and Knox, Hist. p. 117: 
 ‘I will serve my Prince with body, heart, goods, 
 strength, and all that is in my power, except that 
 which is God’s duty, which | will reserve to him 
 alone.’ Shaks. uses the word in both senses, Tam. 
 o Shrew, Iv. i. 40: ‘Do thy duty, and have thy 
 
 uty.’ For the biblical conception of Duty, see 
 ETHICs. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 DWARF is the rendering in AV and RV of 73, 
 a word (Ly 21”) denoting one of the physical 
 disqualifications by which a priest was unfitted for 
 service. The word means thin, lean, small. It is 
 applied to Pharaoh’s lean kine (Gn 41° ete.), to 
 the minute grains of manna (Ex 1614), to the still, 
 small voice (1 K 19!), and in other like instances. 
 The conjecture that it here meansa dwarf is plaus- 
 ible. But others regard it as meaning an unnatur- 
 ally thin man—a consumptive, perhaps. The Sept. 
 (@pdos) and Vulg. connect this specification with 
 the one that follows, as indicating defective eyes. 
 So the meaning must be regarded as uncertain. 
 
 W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 DYEING.—The art of dyeing is not mentioned 
 in Scripture, but dyed stuffs are referred to in 
 various passages, and hence it is altogether 
 
 robable that dyeing was known to the Israelites. 
 
 he coloured stuffs mentioned are blue, rple, 
 and scarlet; these all occurring together in 
 the description of the hangings of the tabernacle 
 (Ex 26%), It would seem that the yarn was dyed 
 before weaving (cf. Ex 35%), as we know was the 
 custom of the Egyptians (cf. Wilk. Anc. Eg. ii. 
 p. 166, ed. 1878), from whom the Israelitish women 
 may have acquired the art. The Egyptians were 
 certainly acquainted with the art of dyeing by the 
 use of chemicals, though they may not have under- 
 stood the chemical properties of the materials em- 
 ployed (cf. Pliny, xxxv. 11, and Wilk. ii. 168, 169), 
 ate the Hebrews no doubt knew something of it at 
 the time of the Exodus. Ata later period they may 
 have learned from the Phenicians the process of 
 making the Tyrian purple, so renowned among the 
 ancients; butit isnot probable that they produced 
 it, as they could not readily procure the shell-fish 
 used in its manufacture. The purple of the taber- 
 nacle, if made by the Hebrews, must have been 
 obtained from other sources and by other methods. 
 Purple occurs in Pr 31” as the clothing of the 
 virtuous woman ; and as it stands in a long list of 
 items of her handiwork, it may indicate that she 
 knew how to make it. Scarlet was obtained by a 
 
632 E 
 
 
 
 EAR 
 
 
 
 process similar to that of purple, as we learn 
 from Kenrick, Phen. ch. viii., and Rawlinson, 
 Phen. ch. viii. Blue was doubtless obtained from 
 indigo, which was known to the Egyptians from 
 their commerce with India (Wilk. i. 164). See 
 CoLouRs. 
 
 Rams’ skins ‘dyed’ red (o°73yp ob mdy) are 
 
 | mentioned in Ex 25°. This process the Hebrews 
 could have learned also from the Egyptians (cf. 
 Wilk. ii. 185). The art is still carried on in Syria, 
 and large quantities of skins are tanned red for the 
 native shoes and saddles. H. PORTER. 
 
 | DYSENTERY.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 1 
 
 E.—The symbol ordinarily used in criticism of 
 Hex. to signify the work of the [second] Elohist. 
 See HEXATEUCH. 
 
 EAGLE (wW} nesher, derés, aquila).—The Arab. 
 retains the same name, in a modified form, nisr, 
 substituting sin for shin. This term is used by 
 the Arabs for the vultures, of which there are four 
 species in the Holy Land. (1) Gypetus barbatus, 
 
 uv., the lammergeier, the 035 peres of the Hebrews, 
 AV ossifrage, Arab. ‘antik. (2) Gyps fulvus, Sav., 
 the griffon. (3) Neophron percnopterus, L., the 
 Egyptian vulture, called in Arab. raham or dejdj- 
 Fir'aun, Pharaoh’s hen. It is the gier eagle of 
 AV, notof RV. (4) Vultur monachus, L. 
 
 It is also used for the true eagles, of which there 
 are eight species in the Holy Land. (1) Aquila 
 aie ieee ., the ospray of AV, which is the golden 
 eagle, ayy ‘ozntyydh. (2) A. heliaca, Sar., the 
 imperial eagle. (3) A. clanga, Pall., the greater 
 spotted eagle, and perhaps 4. pomarina, Brehm, the 
 lesser spotted eagle, of which, however, only one 
 a geeee has been noted. (4) A. rapax, Temm., 
 the tawny eagle. (5) A. pennata, Gmel. (6) A. 
 Nipalensis, Hodges, the steppe eagle. (7) A. 
 bonelli, Temm. (8) Circetus Gallicus, Gmel., the 
 short-toed eagle. The last is easily recognized by 
 its large flat head, its huge golden eyes, and 
 brightly spotted breast. Its short toes and tarsi 
 are covered with tesselated scales to protect it 
 from the serpents on which it preys. It is the 
 most abundant of the eagle tribe in Palestine. All 
 the above birds are included by the Arabs under 
 the generic term nisr=nesher, even those which 
 have also specific names, as the ossifrage, the 
 ospray, and the Egyptian vulture. They agree in 
 swiftness of flight (Dt 28” ete), in soaring high 
 into the air (Pr 23° 30", Is 40%!), in making their 
 nests in high trees or inaccessible rocks (Job 3977-, 
 Jer 4915), and in keenness of vision (Job 39”). 
 
 The expression ‘enlarge thy baldness as the 
 eagle’ (Mic 12°), refers to the griffon, which has its 
 head and neck free from feathers. The references 
 to feeding on the slain (Job 39, Mt 24) are not to 
 be understood of vultures alone, as eagles also will 
 feed on dead animals if they find them. But it is 
 especially applicable to the griffon and Pharaoh’s 
 hen. Therefore in such passages (cf. Pr 30”, 
 Mt 24%) the allusion is generic. The ‘ravenous 
 bird from the East’ (Is 46") describes Cyrus, prob- 
 ably in allusion to the fact that the griffon was 
 the emblem of Persia, and embroidered on its 
 standard. This emblem in various forms has been 
 copied by the Romans, Russians, Austrians, Ger- 
 mans, and by the United States. 
 
 The renewal of the youth of the eagle (Ps 1035) 
 is an allusion to its longevity, whisk sometimes 
 reaches a hundred years. The eagle is one of the 
 ‘living creatures’ of Ezk 1, Rev 47, It has been 
 hl pes as an emblem of St. John (in Irenzus of 
 8t. Mark), owing to his insight into the divine char- 
 acter, and his power of looking at the divine glory. 
 
 
 
 The ‘ bearing on eagles’ wings’ (Ex 19*) is clearly 
 metaphorical, and does not refer to any habit of 
 the eagle. The passage in Dt 324 ‘As an eagle 
 stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, 
 spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, bearet! 
 en on her wings,’ is explained by the pee 
 verse, which reads, ‘ He found him 1m a desert land, 
 and in the waste, howling wilderness; he led him 
 about, he instructed him, he kept him as the 9 
 of his eye’; and in the following verse, ‘So the 
 Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange 
 god with him.’ The allusion is to the fostering 
 care of the eagles for their young, and the pains 
 they take to lure them from the nest and h 
 them to fly. These are well-known facts. It 
 would be no wise difficult for an observer to fancy, 
 in their evolutions, that the old birds actually bore 
 up the younger ones in the air, as well as fluttered 
 over them. G. E. Post. 
 
 EAR (1k, ’6zen, ofs).—Hearing is associated with 
 obedience as seeing is with conviction. In the 
 East when an order is given, the responsive gesture 
 is to lift the hand to the head and breast, implyin; 
 that the order is understood and will be carrie 
 out. Thus also in the Arabian Nights, after a 
 command by a superior, the invariable reply is, 
 ‘ Hearing and obeying !’ 
 
 Eye, ear, and heart are concrete terms for 
 understanding, will, and affection, and the gospel 
 is declared to be something beyond human 
 thoughts, desires, and passions. Men had at all 
 times offered sacrifices to influence the will of the 
 gods appealed to, but here God made the sacrifice 
 to lead captive the will of man. ‘Ear hath not 
 heard’ (1 Go 2°). Its limit is in man’s willingness 
 to listen (Mt 13°, Rev 274-17, ete.). Assurance 
 concerning God's ability to hear is drawn from 
 the fact that He planted the ear (Ps 94°). The alien- 
 ated heart is called an uncircumcised ear (Jer 6”), 
 
 The boring of a slave’s ear by his consent was 
 the token of life-long surrender and ownership 
 (Ex 21%; but not Ps 405, see Kirkpatrick, ad loc.) ; 
 the tip of the ear was touched with blood in 
 the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lv 8*) 
 and in the cleansing of a leper (1414: 17-8); the 
 cutting off of the ears is mentioned as one of the 
 atrocities perpetrated by an enemy (Ezk 23%); to 
 incline the ear is a frequent expression for to give 
 attention (Ps 45", Pr 22" ete.); the ears nae 
 (Sb) at dreadful news (18 3", 2 K 2122, Jer 193); 
 to open one’s ear (Jk 773) is a common ox pres 
 sion for to reveal a secret to one (1 S 94 20% 12 13, 
 28 777, 1 Ch 17% ete.). G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 EAR.—To ‘ear’ is te plough (Old Eng. erian, 
 connected with dpédev cad arare), as ‘ After that 
 he tempereth it with dong, then eareth it, soweth 
 it, and haroweth it’ (Pilgr. Perf. 1526, p. 23); 
 ‘A silver saucer ... was eared up by a plough’ 
 (Harrison, England, i. 361). In AV, Dt 214 ‘A 
 
 rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown’ 
 
EARNEST 
 
 
 
 EARTH 633 
 
 
 
 (RV ‘plowed’; so at Gn 45°, Ex 347, 1S 812); 
 Is 30% ‘the young asses that ear the ground’ (RV 
 ‘till,’ Heb. 13y ‘ work,’ as in Dt 214). 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 EARNEST.—There are three well-known NT 
 passages in which this word occurs; Eph 1 ‘The 
 earnest of our inheritance’; 2 Co 122 and 2 Co 5° 
 ‘The earnest of the Spirit.’ In all three instances 
 the Greek word (introduced perhaps by Pheenician 
 traders) is the same, dfpafsv. Its Lat. equivalent 
 is arrha or arrhabo (not pignus), and its Eng. 
 arles, now obsolete except in Scotland. The corre- 
 sponding word in Heb. eke (Gn 3817. 18. 2°) means a 
 pledge or token, something to be returned when 
 the terms of the contract have been observed ; 
 but by dfpafév, arrhabo, arles, we are to under- 
 stand a first ins ent, given as a sure and 
 binding BtEagomeut that the rest shall follow 
 in due time. The earnest is a pledge, but it is a 
 pitas consisting of part of the possession, or 
 mefit, or blessing with which the contracting 
 parties are concerned. Thearles given to aservant 
 signifies that a contract has been entered into, and 
 it is a binding promise that the wages agreed 
 upon will be forthcoming when the term of engage- 
 ment has expired. It is really a part of the wages, 
 and it is the same in kind as the money payment 
 to be afterwards made. In very olden times a 
 similar formality used to obtain in connexion with 
 the oped? keg of land, or houses, or mills. In 
 buying a field, the purchaser had given him a clod 
 of earth as an earnest that, at the appoinied time, 
 he should enter upon complete possession. When 
 houses were transferred from one owner to another, 
 the purchaser or receiver had handed him some of 
 the thatch as arles or earnest that by and by the 
 whole property should pass over into his posses- 
 sion. the case of a mill, some small piece of the 
 machinery was passed from hand to hand, These 
 simple ceremonies were as binding as an agree- 
 ment written upon parchment and made valid by 
 the impression of a Government stamp. The idea 
 underlying them all appears in various forms in 
 Scripture history. Abraham’s sojourn in Canaan 
 was a kind of earnest to a wanderer like him that 
 his seed should by and by possess the land. When 
 Abraham’s servant, having gone to Mesopotamia 
 to fetch a wife for Isaac, gave Rebekah a nose-ring 
 and bracelets and jewels of gold and silver, these 
 were to her an earnest of Isaac’s wealth, and the 
 evidence of a comfortable homein Canaan. Using 
 the word in the sense above explained and illus- 
 trated, the apostle tells us that the work of the 
 Holy Spirit in our hearts is an earnest of our 
 heavenly inheritance. Christian knowledge, holi- 
 ness, and happiness are not only a pledge, but also 
 a foretaste of heaven’s bliss, See Eadie, Eph. p. 68f. 
 G. M. Puttrs. 
 EAR-RING.—}} nezem, orig. nose-ring (0}33 o'yx) 
 redy Gn 24%, axa ‘pp Is 32, cf. Ezk 16%, where 
 first clause should read as in RV ‘I put a ring 
 upon thy nose’), oe ae equiv. to nj in Ex 35” 
 (AV bracelet, RV brooch); also applied to ear- 
 ring, OF '1NZ Wy ODD, Gn 354. In RV it is tr. ring, 
 where the text makes no special reference to nose or 
 ear. For the nose the nezem was a plain ring of 
 gold worn either in the wing or central cartilage 
 of the nose. For the ear the circular form (5*3y 
 Ezk 16%) was the most common, but usuall 
 ornamented wit’: some sacred or talismanic symbol, 
 or having one 4. more balls attached, hence called 
 nioy3 Is 3% (AV chains, RV pendants). In Is 3” 
 for ond AV ‘ear-rings,’ RV gives ‘amulets’ (see 
 AMULET). Such rings formed an important part 
 of the bride’s ornaments (Gn 24”). At the present 
 day in Syria, when a jibes peasant woman comes 
 into town with her friends to buy the marriage 
 outfit, the first purchase is usually that of the ear- 
 
 rings. Ear-rings are now confined to women, 
 being regarded as barbaric and effeminate wher 
 worn by men. Among the Bedawin, in the case 
 of an only son, the ear-ring is sometimes worn as 
 
 
 
 SYRIAN EAR-RINGS, 
 
 an amulet in the form of a large silver ring sus- 
 pended round the outer ear, with discs or balls 
 attached to the lower half of the ring, hanging 
 visible below the lobe of the ear. Rings for nose 
 and ear formed the material of the golden calf (Ex 
 322), of Gideon's image (Jg 8%), and were offered 
 for the furnishing of the tabernacle (Ex 35”), 
 
 LITERATURB.—Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 107; Lane, Modern 
 Egyptians (Append. A. ‘Female Ornaments’); Wilkinson, Ane, 
 Egyp. ii. 336ff.; Hartmann, Hebrderin, ili. 205; Wellsted, 
 Travels, i. 821; Harmer, Oba. iv. 811, 814; Moore on Jg $44, 
 
 G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 EARTH is the tr. of various Heb. and Gr. terms, 
 the most notable of which are— 
 
 4. noqx (deriv. uncertain, perhaps from a root 
 containing notion of being ¢ézlled, or of smoothly 
 covering and closely fitting. See Oxf. Heb. Lex. 
 s.v.), which with its LXX and NT equivalent 77 is 
 used (1) of the earth as tilled, Gn 2°3!” ete. Hence 
 nDing &xy=a husbandman, Gn 9”. (2) Of earth asa 
 material substance, from which were fashioned 
 man Gn 2’, animals v.¥, vessels Is 45° (see 
 POTTERY), of which at times altars were made 
 Ex 20%, cf. 2 K 57, and which was put upon the 
 head as a token of woe or of contrition 1S 4%, 
 2813, Neh 9}. In this last reference the term more 
 frequently employed is »»y=dust, which is rendered 
 earth in such passages as Gn 26), Job 8! 19% 282 
 30° 413, Is 2 Dn 12%, (3) Of earth as the visible 
 surface of the globe, in such phrases as ‘ every- 
 thing that creepeth upon the face of the earth’ (R 
 ‘ ground’) Gn 1” 6° ete. (4) Of earth as=land or 
 country Gn 47}, Is 197, esp. of the Holy Land 
 Zec 2'*, (5) Of earth as=whole earth Gn 12° 2814, 
 This last usage is rare, and, like the preceding, 
 belongs rather to— 
 
 2. yx (in Aram. portions of Ezr and Dn snx, 
 Syr. ‘ar‘d’), which is used (1) of earth as opposed to 
 heaven Gn 1}, cf. Mt 28}8; (2) of earth as opposed 
 to sea Gn 1”, cf. Mk 4! 647; (3) of the whole earth 
 Gn 1818, or its inhabitants Gn 1%, cf. Lk 188 21%; 
 (4)=land, country, district Gn 10! 19%, cf. Mt 2” 
 44, (5) as synonymous with mpjg=soil Gn 121-13, 
 cf. Mt 135. See GROUND. 
 
 3. A poetic synon. of yx is baz (perhaps fr. a root 
 =productive ; according to Hommel, Expos. Times, 
 1897, viii. 472, it had gues a mythological 
 sense), 18 28, Is 142 etc. Both pry and ban are 
 reproduced in the LXX by 74 and olxouyévn, the 
 
634 
 latter of which occurs a good many times also 
 in NT, e.g. Lk 4°, Ro 108, Rev 16%, 
 
 See further CosMOoGONY, WORLD. 
 
 J. A, SELBIE. 
 
 EARTHQUAKE.—Palestine has from time imme- 
 morial been a country subject to earthquakes, and 
 it is aerefore not surprising that several references 
 to these phenomena should be found in Holy Writ. 
 Nor is it improbable that during prehistoric times, 
 especially during the Miocene ane Pliocene epochs, 
 it was even more liable to seismic shocks than 
 in the former period, when we consider that the 
 regions beyond the Jordan witnessed volcanic 
 eruptions on a vast scale from craters and foci 
 which are now altogether dormant.* 
 
 The references in this article will be restricted 
 to the region of Pal. and the adjoining territories 
 of Syria, Asia Minor, and Arabia Petrzea, and the 
 subject will be treated under the foll. heads :— 
 
 1. Historical. 2. Prophetic. 3. Earthquakes 
 of the Christian Era. 4. Origin of Earthquake 
 Phenomena. 5. Literature. 
 
 1. HIsTORICAL.—(a) Earthquake at Mount Sinai 
 on the giving of the Law: ‘the whole mount 
 quaked greatly’ (Ex 1918). 
 
 (6) Earthquake accompanied by fissures and 
 sinking of the ground, by which Korah and his 
 companions were destroyed (Nu 16%!; also Jos. 
 Ant. IV. iii. 3). 
 
 (c) Earthquake in the days of Saul (1 S 14). 
 
 (@ ) Elijah, fleeing from the wrath of Jezebel, finds 
 a refuge on the solitary heights of Horeb (Mount 
 Sinai) in Arabia Petrea (1 K 19"). Assuming 
 Jebel Musa to be actually the mount in question, 
 tradition has handed down to us the name of the 
 cave from which the prophet witnessed the effects 
 of the earthquake. At about 200 feet below the 
 suminit of this mountain there lies in a recess a 
 circular pool surrounded by rocks of granite and 
 
 EARTHQUAKE 
 
 porphyry penetrated at one spot by a cave, prob- 
 ably of artificial origin, known amongst the Arabs 
 
 and the monks of St. Catherine as ‘ Elijah’s cave.’ 
 
 The position and surroundings fit in so well with 
 
 the narrative that it would be useless to call in 
 
 question the truth of this identification.t The 
 
 solitude of the place would have aftorded the 
 
 . prophet protection; the cave, shelter; and the 
 pool, water to quench his thirst. 
 
 (e) Earthquake in the reign of Uzziah. This 
 earthquake must have been one of extraordinary 
 severity, a8 it is twice referred to, Am 1! and Zec 
 14°; and from the latter passage we may infer that 
 it caused a precipitate flight of the inhabitants of 
 Jerus., and may have been accompanied by fissur- 
 ing of the earth at the Mount of Olives. The 
 exact date cannot be determined, as Uzziah’s reign 
 was long, extending from c. B.C. 790-740. 
 
 (f) B.c. 31, Sept. 2. In the reign of Herod an 
 earthquake occurred in Judea, ‘such as had not 
 happened at any other time,’ destructive to men 
 an animals (Jos. Ant. XV. v. 2). 
 
 (g) Earthquake at the Crucifixion. In this 
 case the earthquake described in Mt 27° was one 
 of the miraculous manifestations of divine power 
 which accompanied the death of our Lord on the 
 cross, and was followed by rending of the rocks 
 and of the veil of the temple, and opening of the 
 tombs, A.D. 29. 
 
 (A) Earthquake at Philippi. This has often been 
 considered a miraculous manifestation of divine 
 
 ower, called forth for the release from prison of 
 
 t. Paul and Silas, A.D. 51. 
 
 *In Keith Johnston’s Physical Atlas, as also in Prestwich’s 
 Map of Active and Hxtinet Volcanoes (Geology, vol. i.), the 
 region of Pal. and Syria is shown as one greatly subject to 
 earthquake shocks. 
 
 t The only other rival is that of Serbal; but the claims of 
 
 J. Mus to be Horeb far outweigh those of Serbal. See Stanley, 
 Sinai and Pal., ed. 1860, p. 49; Picturesque Pail., p. 118. 
 
 EARTHQUAKE 
 
 
 
 2. PROPHETIC. — Earthquakes being pach 
 the most terrible and impressive of natural phe- 
 nomena, are made use of in the Bible for prophetic 
 imagery connected with future calamitous events ; 
 thus—(a) ‘she (Ariel or Mount Zion) shall be 
 visited of the Lord of hosts with thunder and 
 with earthquake’ (Is 29°, RV). (6) ‘And there 
 shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places’ 
 (Mt 247). (c) ‘And I saw when he opened the 
 sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake’ 
 (Rev 6!2). (d) ‘And he (the angel) taketh the 
 censer, and he filled it with the fire of the altar, 
 and cast it upon the earth; and there followed 
 thunders, and voices, and lightnings, and an 
 earthquake’ (Rev 8°). (e) ‘ And there were killed 
 in the earthquake seven thousand persons’ (Rev 
 11%), (f) ‘And there was a great earthquake, 
 such as was not since there were men upon the 
 earth’ (Rev 1674). 
 
 3. EARTHQUAKES OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA.— 
 Out of the large number of recorded earthquakes, 
 of greater or Alas intensity, from which Pal. and 
 the neighbouring countries have suffered, only a 
 few of special importance can be noticed here. 
 
 (1) a.p. 494. Syria and Asia Minor; the cities of Laodicea, 
 Hierapolis, Tripolis, and Agathicum were ove! 
 (Mar. Comes, p. 46, quot. by Mallet). 
 
 (2) A.D. 551. Felt over Pal., Arabia, and Syria (Theophanes, 
 
 p. 192). 
 
 (3) a.D. 658. Month of June; very destructive in Pal. and 
 Syria (Theoph. p. 282). 
 
 (4) creche : J arn a surrounding regions suffered greatly 
 
 eoph. p. . 
 
 (5) a.D. 755. A severe shock of earthquake occurred at 
 Jerus., whereby the Haram es-Sherif (‘Mosque of 
 Omar’) was much injured (Besant and Palmer, Hist. 
 Jerusalem, ed. 1888, p. 97). 
 
 (6) a.D. 859. Earthquake throughout 8: ; in Antioch 
 1500 houses were thrown down (Abulfaraj, p. 166, 
 quot. by Mallet). 
 
 (7) a.D. 1036. Earthquake by which Jerus. was much 
 injured (Cedrenus, p. 737). 
 
 (8) 4.D. 1170. Succession of earthquakes passed through 
 Pal., which, by their violence and frequency, filled all 
 men’s hearts with fear; hundreds perished in the ruins 
 of their houses; grief and consternation spread around 
 (Hist. Jerusalem, p. 352). 
 
 (9) a.p. 1202 (or 1204), An earthquake shook Pal. from end 
 to end; Damascus, Tyre, and Nablfis were reduced to 
 heaps of ruins; the walls of Acre and Tripoli fell; 
 Jerus. alone seemed spared, and there Christian an 
 Mohammedan met together to thank God for their 
 safety (Hist. Jerusalem, p. 492; Abulfeda, Ann. iv. 
 
 p. 211). 
 
 (10) a.p. 1402. Coast of Syria affected ; sea retired and then 
 invaded nM land ; several towns ruined (Muratori, t. 
 xviii. p. 974). 
 
 (11) 4.p. 1759, An earthquake protracted through a period 
 of three months, in which Acco, Saphat, Baalbek, 
 Damascus, Sidon, etc., were severely injured (Volcanoes, 
 Past and Present, p. 219). 
 
 (12) a.p. 1822, On Aug. 13 an earthquake occurred at 
 Aleppo, lasting only ten or twelve seconds, by which 
 this town, together with several others in §; were 
 converted into a heap of ruins, and 20,000 human beings 
 were destroyed (Chesney, Survey of the Euphrates and 
 
 Tigris). 
 
 (18) a.p, 1837, 1st Jan. Great earthquake in Pal. by which 
 the town of Safed was barge be with many of the 
 inhabitants (Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 581). 
 
 4. ORIGIN OF EARTHQUAKE PHENOMENA.— 
 From the observations made by Hopkins, Lyell, 
 and others regarding the cause and nature of 
 earthquakes, it seems clearly established that they 
 have their origin in some sudden impact of gas, 
 steam, or molten matter, impelled by gas or steam 
 under high pressure, beneath the solid crust. The 
 effect of such impact is to originate a wave of 
 translation through the crust, travelling outwards 
 from a focus, and causing a movement of the 
 surface to greater or less distances. These waves 
 of translation can in some cases be represented on 
 a map by curved lines; each line representing 
 approximately an equal degree of seismal intensity. 
 
 hat there is. an intimate connexion between 
 earthquake shocks and voleanic action is proved 
 by the fact that eruptions from volcanic cratere 
 
 
 

 
 EASE 
 
 EBAL 635 
 
 
 
 are generally preceded by earthquake shocks, and 
 these latter are more frequent in those regions 
 where volcanoes, either active or extinct, abound. 
 At the same time, the most destructive earth- 
 quakes are not necessarily in the neighbourhood 
 of volcanoes, many of the most disastrous having 
 occurred in places far removed from centres of 
 gear ; as, for example, those of Lisbon in 1755, 
 and of Charleston in K. America in 1886. Such 
 cases as these have given rise to the view that 
 active volcanoes act as safety-valves for the ares 
 of the elastic gases and vapour underlying the 
 crust.* 
 
 LrreraturEe.—Hopkins, ‘ Theory of Earthquakes,’ in Rep. Brit. 
 Assoc. 1847, p. 83; Mallet, Harthquake Catalogue, ibid. 1868 ; 
 Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. ii.; Prestwich, Geology, vol. i. 
 
 . 13, with map of earthquake areas; Judd, Volcanoes, ed. 
 1888, p. 843; Hull, Volcanoes, Past and Present, Contemp. 
 Science Ser. p. 217 (1892): for the earthquakes referred to in 
 Bible, Plumptre, Biblical Studies, 136; Andrews, Life of Our 
 Lord, 661, 575; Schiirer, HJP, i i. 403, 426; Pusey on Am 41], 
 
 E. HULL. 
 
 EASE.—The subst. is found chiefly in the 
 phrase ‘at ease,’ which has both a good and a bad 
 meaning: Ps 25% ‘His soul shall dwell at ease; 
 and his seed shall inherit the earth’ (ai»a ‘in 
 good’); but Am 6! ‘ Woe to them that are at ease 
 in Zion’ (o%3;xvn), so Job 12°, Ps 1234, Is 32%", 
 Zec 1 with same Hebrew. Once ‘ease’ means 
 ‘relief,’ Sir 3814 ‘ that which they give for ease and 
 remedy to prolong life’ (avdmavois, RV ‘ relief’). 
 Elsewhere ‘rest’ or ‘enjoyment,’ as Dt 28% 
 ‘geaneg § these nations shalt thou find no ease’ 
 (w'37n «28>); Jth 1° ‘there he took his ease, and 
 banqueted’ (fv éxet paduudr) ; Lk 12! ‘ take thine 
 ease, eat, drink, and be merry’ (dvaravov), But in 
 Apocr. the word occurs as the opposite of diffi- 
 culty, as 2 Mac 2® ‘that they that are desirous to 
 commit to memory might have ease’ (evxorla), 2”7 
 ‘it is no ease’ (ovx evxepés). In these places we 
 should now use the adverb ‘easily.’ But we still 
 have ‘ with ease,’ asin Jg 20% ‘they .. . chased 
 them, and trod them down with ease’ (n9u7, RV 
 ‘at their resting place’). 
 
 But the meaning of this p: 6 is uncertain ; Moore thinks 
 the Heb. is corrupt. The word ahah means ‘a resting place,’ 
 as Nu 1033, and is often translated ‘rest’ (see Cox on Ru 19); 
 but it may be a place-name here, as AVm ‘from Menuchah,’ 
 RVm ‘at Men ’; there is, however, no prep. in the Heb. 
 
 The older versions are at a loss. The AV rendering is from the 
 Geneva Bible ‘chased th drove them 
 
 The verb has always the meaning of ‘give 
 relief’; but that may be either by lightening a 
 burden, as 2Ch 104 ‘ease thou somewhat the 
 
 ievous servitude of thy father’; or by removing 
 it altogether, as Is 1% ‘I will ease me of mine 
 adversaries’ (053x), 2 Es 78 ‘if he did not so of 
 his goodness, that they which have committed 
 iniquities might be eased of them, the ten cthou- 
 sandth part of men should not remain living’ (ut 
 alleventur). Cf. Jer. Taylor (1630), Works, iii. 90, 
 ‘I am no sooner eased of him, but Gregory 
 Gandergoose . . . catches me by the goll’; and 
 Pope, Diyas: xxi. 342, ‘Hase your bosoms of a 
 fear so vain.’ Tindale meant to express the 
 removal of the burden when he tr? Mt 11% ‘Come 
 unto me all ye that laboure and are laden, and I 
 will ease you’; and so Hos 117 Cov. ‘their pro- 
 
 *The theory of Mr. R. Mallet differs somewhat from the 
 above; briefly stated, he considers that earthquakes originate 
 
 in shocks caused by the strain overcoming the resistance along” 
 
 lines of fracture traversing the earth’s crust; this strain being 
 due to the secular cooling of the crust and consequent con- 
 traction (Trans. Roy. Irish Acad. vol. xxi.) 
 
 phetes laye the yocke vpon them, but they ease 
 them not of their burthen.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EAST, CHILDREN OF THE (037-33, vla 
 dvarohGv).—A general name for the inhabitants of 
 the country east of Palestine, especially the 
 Ue desert, but also including what was known 
 of Arabia; in Jg 6° 72 and 8, the Children of 
 the East are coupled with Midian and Amalek ; 
 in Jer 49% with Kedar. The mention of their 
 nivy, or Bedawin encampments (Ezk 254 1), which 
 they are to erect on the lands of Moab and 
 Ammon, identifies them with the Ishmaelites, of 
 whom the same technical term is used. To their 
 
 roverbial wisdom reference is made in 1 K 5 and 
 
 s 194, and it is probably the reason why the author 
 of the Book of Job made his hero one of them (Job 
 1’). In Gn 29! ‘ the land of the children of the E.’ 
 might seem to be Mesopotamia; but it is more 
 
 robable that different views of the habitation of 
 
 aban are conflated in that chapter. 
 
 D. S. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 EAST SEA, EASTERN SEA.—See DEAD SEa. 
 
 EASTER, used in AV as the tr. of 7d wdoxa in 
 Ac 124 ‘intending after E. to bring him forth to 
 the people.’ RV has substituted correctly ‘ the 
 
 Passover.’ The anachronism of AV was inherited 
 from older Vss which avoided, as far as possible, 
 expressions which could not be understood by the 
 
 people. A. C. HEADLAM. 
 EBAL or. OBAL.—-1. Name of a son of Joktan 
 (Sziy Gn 10% MT, bay ib. Sam., TaBdd Luc., 1 Ch 
 1*), probably representing a place or tribe in 
 Arabia. There are several places in S. Arabia 
 with names approximating to the Hebrew forms, 
 e.g. ‘Atban, a mountain near San‘a frequently 
 mentioned by Hamdani; ‘Odal, a place in the 
 
 neighbourhood of Hujailah visited by Glaser 
 (Skizze, ii. 427); ‘Abil, mentioned by Halévy ; but 
 
 till more is known of the source of the ethnological 
 tables in Gn, it is impossible to assign any proba- 
 bility to such identifications. Derivatives from 
 the root ‘abl occur as tribal names at the com- 
 mencement of Islam (7a al-‘ariis, viii. 4), and it is 
 likely that the author had in mind some tribe, 
 otherwise unknown, bearing such an appellation. 
 2. Name of a son of Shobal son of Seir (S3y Gn 
 367, 1 Ch 1), D. S. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 
 EBAL (53'y, Arab. el -Islamtyeh). —Ebal and 
 Gerizim, the mounts of Cursing and Blessing, form 
 the most conspicuous and important summits of 
 the hills of Samaria. This distinction is due partly 
 to their superior height and to their central posi- 
 tion in the whole land, but chiefly to the deep cleft 
 between them which breaks the outline of the lon 
 mountain ridge running N. and S. This natura 
 pass between E. and W., led up to by wheat- 
 growing plains on each side, became inevitably a 
 place of importance both for purposes of commerce 
 and in times of war. The existence of a branch of 
 the main road from N. to §. leading through the 
 harrow opening between Ebal and Gerizim, would 
 still further tend to make the locality familiar and 
 important. It needed only the additional cireum- 
 stance of numerous fountains in the fertile hollow 
 where the bases met, to create an Oriental town 
 where the traveller might rest in safety and the 
 inhabitants would possess all that was necessary 
 for man and beast. Such a town was the ancient 
 
 Shechem (Gr. Neapolis, Arab. Nablds), occupying 
 the defile where it 1s only 150 yds. wide. 
 
 This attractiveness and convenience of the place 
 is exemplified in the lives of Abraham and Jacob; 
 the former arriving here on his first entry into the 
 land of Canaan (Gn 12*7), and Jacob resting at 
 
 
 
636 EBAL 
 
 EBER 
 
 
 
 the same spot on his return from Paddan-aram 
 (Gn 331*-), 
 
 Ebal and Gerizim face N. and S., the latter 
 being the more celebrated in religious history, but 
 the f. summit (3077 ft.) being 200 ft. higher, and 
 commanding a more free and extensive prospect. 
 
 1. View of the Land from Ebal.—The beginning 
 of the ascent from Nablis is over grass of intensest 
 green and enamelled lustre, through irrigateu 
 vegetable gardens of rank luxuriance, and under 
 foliage of amey, transparency sparkling in the sun- 
 light—one of the most fertile and picturesque spots 
 in Palestine. 
 
 Above this, one enters immediately upon the 
 silvery grey of the olive trees, which rapidly 
 become scanty and irregular as the path opens in 
 earnest upon the mountain climb. Then stony 
 terraces and rocky face, with thistles and thorny 
 shrubs, until the traveller reaches the broad, bare 
 summit, and stands upon the central height of the 
 whole land. Looking N., one sees Mt. Hermon 
 towering aloft in the distance, glimmering with 
 snow-streaked crests beyond the boundary plain in 
 which lay Abel (Ibl), Baal-gad (Cesarea Philippi, 
 Banias), and Dan (Tell el-Kadi). On the E., rising 
 steeply from the Jordan bed, is seen the long, 
 slumbrous, uniform ridge of Gilead and Moab. To 
 the S., conspicuous summits can be identified in 
 the neighbourhood of Jerus.; and to the W., 
 beyond the lower hills and patchwork of broad 
 
 lain, the yellow coast-line sweeps from Jafia to 
 armel. 
 
 Such a commanding view from such a central 
 ae. emphasizes at once the limitations of the 
 and and the grandeur of the events that have 
 given it immortality. 
 
 2. Religious Connexion.—One of the most im- 
 portant of those events was the arrival at this 
 spot of Abraham in his journey of faith to the 
 land of Canaan, and his receiving by the terebinth 
 of Moreh a promise from the Lord, ‘unto thy seed 
 will I give this land’ (Gn 127), It was fitting that 
 the fulfilment of the promise, after more than 400 
 years of waiting and preparation, should receive 
 its great public announcement at the very place 
 where it had been given. It was also deeply 
 appropriate that in a land where customs and 
 occupations, scenery and social life, were to bea 
 storehouse of parable and moral teaching to the 
 world, its central heights of Ebal and Gerizim 
 should be baptized into this service and be known 
 as the mountains of Cursing and Blessing. It 
 was accordingly here that Joshua (Jos 8-8) 
 assembled the congregation, and erected the 
 memorial altar according to the command and 
 detailed instructions of Moses (Dt 117% and 27. 
 28). In addition to the duty of formal compliance 
 with such a command, there was an inner urgency 
 of the hour that called for such an act of declara- 
 tion and decision. During the past 40 years the 
 Isr. had received the discipline of adversity : they 
 were now to face the greater temptation of success. 
 The emergency was a suitable one for setting forth 
 the moral regalia of the kingdom, and the re- 
 sponsibilities of its service. The recent experience 
 at Jericho and Ai had emphasized the plain condi- 
 tions of triumph and failure. Still further the 
 incident of the Gibeonites, and the rumour of 
 confederated opposition, set before them the 
 dangers and difficulties of the work. And so on 
 that memorable day, in the defile between Ebal 
 and Gerizim, the Isr. entered upon the inheritance 
 of the promises in the only way that it can be 
 entered—through the door of complete and con- 
 scious surrender to the will of God. They were to 
 possess the land, but not for themselves. The 
 assemblage was on a scale of vastness suitable to 
 the moral elevation of the thought. In the central 
 
 
 
 hollow of the hills rested the sacred ark that had 
 so unerringly guided them in their journeyings 
 and was now pointing to the final resting-place ol 
 secure possession. Up the opposing sides of Ebal 
 and Gerizim, six tribes to each, rising with the 
 mountain slopes and terraces in solid masses where 
 the ground was level, with fluttering groups and 
 sprinklings on points of advantage, all bright 
 colours mingling with the predominant white, the 
 whole congregation of Israel was drawn up—an 
 army in array for the battle of life. It was the 
 Coronation Day of the Moral Law. God could 
 not do more for His people, and, to invert the 
 familiar phrase, His extremity became muin’s 
 opportunity. If righteousness could come by 
 law, it might have come then and continued. As 
 the solemn entail of forfeiture was proclaimed from 
 Ebal, and the bright succession of blessings from 
 Gerizim, the announcement was received with an 
 acclamation of amens. It was a mingling of the 
 two voices of Dee, and Disposition, of Divine 
 purpose and human choice. 
 
 LITERATURE. — Robinson, BRP; Stanley, Sinai and Pal.; 
 Thomson, Land and Book ; Smith, Hist. Geog.; Murray's and 
 Badeker’s Guide Books. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 EBED (73y).—1. The father of Gaal, who headed 
 the rebellion against Abimelech (Jg 97-*), 2, One 
 of those who returned from Babylon with Ezra 
 (Ezr 8°), called in 1 Es 8% Obeth. 
 
 EBED-MELECH (3bp73y).—An Ethiop. eunuch, 
 at whose intercession and by whose personal 
 exertions Jeremiah was released from the pit- 
 prison of Malchiah. For this kindly service E. was 
 promised immunity from the fate of his companions 
 at the capture of Jerus, (Jer 387% 39%), It is pos- 
 sible that the name E., which means ‘servant of 
 [the] king,’ may have been an official title. A ve 
 ancient seal (see fig. on p. 258 of Benzinger’s Hed. 
 Arch.) is inscribed ‘Obadiah servant of the king’ 
 (Obadjahu ‘ebhed hammelekh). More probable, 
 however, is the view of Gray (Heb. Prop. Names, 
 117, 147), who takes Melech as a divine name. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EBENEZER (yn jax or jaxa ‘Stone of help’). 
 —Mentioned three times in 18. According to 4! 
 5! it is the scene of a great defeat of the Isr. at the 
 hands of the Phil. in the time of Eli, while in 77? it 
 is the name of a stone set up by Samuel to com- 
 memorate a great victory over the Philistines ; it is 
 further noticeable that in 71? the name is appar- 
 ently given for the first time, though the victory 
 there described happened some twenty years after 
 the events of ch. 4151. In 7!, which belongs to a 
 somewhat later document, E. is placed under 
 Beth-car, and between Mizpah and Hasshen (‘the 
 tooth’); but we must here follow the LXX (ris 
 wadacds), and read ‘ between Mizpah and Jashan (or 
 Jeshanah )’ ; the latter (cf. 2 Ch 131%) is probably the 
 modern ‘Ain Sinia, to the N. of Bethel. On this 
 view, E. would lie somewhere at the head of the 
 valley of Aijalon; this site is further favoured by 
 the notice in 4%, The more generally accepted 
 theory, however, places E. more to the south, at the 
 head of the vale of Sorek, and either identifies the 
 stone set up by Samuel with the great stone at 
 Bahshaiiesh (6'8) or places it in the immediate 
 neighbourhood. But this identification does not 
 suit 72, and is hardly compatible with the narra- 
 tive of 471, See G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr. 
 p. 223f. ~ J. F. STENNING. 
 
 EBER (13y).—1. The eponymous ancestor of the 
 HEBREWS (which see), great-grandson of Shem, 
 son of Shelah, and father of Peleg and Joktan 
 (Gn 10%t 1114, 1] Ch 178: 19-25), perhaps used poetic: 
 ally for Israel in Nu 24% (but see Dillm. a 
 
 loc.), 
 
EBEZ 
 
 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 637 
 
 
 
 8. The representative of the priestly family of 
 Amok in the days of Joiakim, Neh 12% 3. A 
 Gadite family name, 1 Ch 5%. 4.5. The name of 
 two Benjamite families, 1 Ch 8%™, See GENE- 
 ALOGY. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EBEZ (73x), ‘white.’—A city of Issachar (Jos 
 19”). The site is uncertain. Probably the ruin 
 El-Beidhah, ‘the white,’ east of Carmel. SWP 
 vol. i. sheet v. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 EBIASAPH.—See ABIASAPH. 
 
 EBONY (07339 hobnim).—The Arab. name for 
 this wood is very near the Heb., being ebnis. 
 There can be no reasonable doubt of the identit 
 of the wood intended in the single passage in whic 
 it is mentioned (Ezk 27"). It was brought to Tyre 
 by merchants from Dedan, on the Pers. Gulf. It 
 is the black heart-wood of Diospyros Ebenwm, L., 
 and several other species of the same genus, trees 
 
 owing to a large size in Ceylon and S. India. 
 
 . Ebenum, however, furnishes the best wood. It 
 resembles the common and the Japanese persimmon 
 in its mode of growth and inflorescence, and in 
 bearing an edible fruit, between a pome and a 
 berry. The sap-wood is white and valueless, but 
 the heart often yields a log 2 ft. in diameter, and 
 10 to 15 ft. long. G. E. Post. 
 
 EBRON (}52y).—A town in the territory assigned 
 to Asher (Jos 192 RV ; wrongly written Hebron in 
 AV, as if from 1737, the name of the famous Judean 
 city). It is just possible that we should read 
 ‘Ebdon, for ‘Ebron, the latter form having arisen 
 from the substitution, not uncommon, of 5 for 7. 
 It is noteworthy that this name, ‘Ebron, occurs 
 but once, while in the other name-lists for Asher 
 (Jos 21", 1 Ch 64) we have an ‘Ebdon or ‘Abdon, 
 which is absent here. This supposition has the 
 support of twenty MSS (Gesenius). It is, how- 
 ever, in conflict with the ancient versions, all of 
 which give ‘Ebron, with the single exception of B, 
 which unaccountably has ’E\Sav. From the order 
 in which the towns are mentioned, we should seek 
 for E. somewhere north of Cabal, and south of 
 Rehob, Hammén, and Kanah. No certain identi- 
 fication has yet been made: in position the ruin 
 of ‘Abdeh answers well enough the condition 
 indicated. Twelve miles north of Cabfl, about 
 10 miles N.N.E. of Acre, and 3 miles east of 
 Achzib,—the modern Ez-Zib,—it occupies a slight 
 eminence on the northern edge of the Plain of 
 Acre, the mountains rising like grim guardians 
 behind. If we accept the identification of ‘Ebron 
 with ‘Abdon, this seems to be the most probable 
 site. W. Ewina. 
 
 ECBATANA.—See ACHMETHA. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES (nbnp Koheleth, LXX "Exxdno- 
 aorhs, Aq. Kwdé0).—1. The TITLE.—This presents 
 some difficulties, which have scarcely as yet been 
 satisfactorily explained. The word is a fem. part. 
 of the Qal conj. The verb is not found elsewhere in 
 this conj. In the Hiph. the word means ‘to call 
 an assembly together.’ It is commonly held that 
 here the Qal is used with the force of the Hiph., 
 and that Koheleth means ‘one who convenes an 
 assembly.’ There have been other interpretations, 
 such as ‘a collector of sayings,’ or ‘one who 
 gathers wisdom from various quarters.’ But since 
 the verb is always used with ref. to persons and 
 never with ref. to things, these are untenable. 
 Tyler urges that the causative force cannot be put 
 into the word, and he explains it to mean ‘ one who 
 ts an assembly.’ Koheleth would thus be a personi- 
 fication of ‘an ideal assembly of those Jewish 
 
 philosophers, Stoic, Epicurean, and others, whose 
 opinions were influential at the time when the book 
 was composed’ (Tyler, Zc. 59). But this is too 
 artificial to be probable, and it seems best to fall 
 back on the common view, that K. means ‘the 
 convener of an assembly.’ A greater difficulty is 
 caused by the fem. form. This has been explained 
 on the hypothesis that the speaker is Wisdom, 
 impersonated in Solomon, and &. is fem. as agree- 
 ing with the fem. word for Wisdom. This view has 
 been taken by Ewald, Hitzig, Ginsburg, and others. 
 Against this, however, serious objections may be 
 urged. It is strange that Wisdom should be no- 
 where mentioned as the speaker. Further, it ia 
 barely conceivable that Wisdom should have used 
 some of the language put into the mouth of K. 
 (117-18 723 ete.), or that Solomon should be regarded 
 as her impersonation, considering the experiences 
 through which the speaker says that he has passed. 
 Again, the tone of the discourses is so different 
 from what we find in those passages where Wisdom 
 is actually represented as speaking, that if the 
 writer had intended to make Solomon the spokes- 
 man of Wisdom he would have felt it necessary, 
 in view of this striking difference, to say so 
 explicitly. It is also to be observed that the verb 
 used with K. is masc., and on the view we are 
 discussing it is Stage by the theory that the 
 fem. Wisdom speaks through the masc. Solomon. 
 The objections already urged against the identifi- 
 cation of K. with Wisdom have led to the view 
 that we are to find in the fem. form, not a 
 distinction of sex, but a variation in meaning. 
 In other words, the Preacher is a male, but the 
 fem. termination conveys a special shade of mean- 
 ing. This gives a better account of the use of 
 the masc. verb. The word may then mean ‘one 
 who holds the office of a teacher or preacher’ 
 (Delitzsch, Nowack, Cheyne), or, if the fem. has an 
 intensive force, ‘the great orator’ (W. Wright, 
 RVm). Kuenen feels himself unable to decide 
 between the view that K. is Wisdom and that the 
 fem. does not express distinction of sex. The 
 arguments for the latter view seem to be stronger, 
 and we should probably interpret K. to mean ‘one 
 who holds the office of teacher.’ The title Zcclesi- 
 astes comes from the LXX. 
 
 That by K. the author means Solomon has been 
 subject to dispute, but should admit of none. He 
 is identified with ‘the son of David, king in Jerus.’ 
 (11), and says of himself, ‘I, K., was king over 
 Israel in Jerusalem.’ The son of David who was 
 king is best explained strictly and not loosely to 
 mean descendant. After the division of the king- 
 dom a king could not have spoken of himself as 
 reigning over Israel in Jerusalem. It is also clear 
 that Solomon is the king whose varied experiences 
 of pike? and luxury are referred to in chs. 1 
 and 2. 
 
 2. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.—The book was, till 
 the period of critical investigation, almost univers- 
 ally ascribed toSolomon. Some writers still support 
 this view, though it is abandoned by all critics of 
 eminence. The main reason is that Koheleth 
 speaks in the first person, and therefore if the 
 author was not Solomon he would be deceiving his 
 readers. This does not follow. The author of Job 
 uses the literary vehicle of a debate to reach the 
 solution of his problem. Here the writer has 
 chosen an autobiographical sketch of Solomon as 
 his literary vehicle. And he has done so for 
 reasons which are quite obvious. Solomon was the 
 typical representative of Wisdom, and the author 
 wished to set forth his conclusions as those of a 
 man who had brought the deepest and sanest 
 reflection to bear upon life. But it was also im- 
 
 portant that his experience should be wide, and his 
 opportunities of testing the value of life in ita 
 
 
 
 
 
ECCLESIASTES 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 
 
 various forms of the fullest. Here Solomon admir- 
 ably served his purpose. Not only was he the wise 
 man, but he was a king whose magnificence has 
 passed into a proverb, and who was able to gratify 
 every wish. He was thus able to wring the most 
 out of life, and from him the sentence ‘ All is 
 vanity ’ would come with greater force than from 
 any other. This is no proof that he is not the 
 author, but it removes any antecedent prejudice 
 against the denial of the Solomonic authorship, 
 based on the statements of the book. 
 
 The objections to the Solomonic authorship are 
 overwhelming. The very language quoted to prove 
 it is seen on examination to be unfavourable to it. 
 Solomon can hardly have said ‘I was king,’ as if he 
 had ceased to be so, for he reigned till his death. 
 The words ‘over Israel in Jerus.’ are most naturally 
 explained by the writer’s knowledge of kings of 
 Israel who did not reign in Jerusalem, And since it 
 was his own father who had made Jerus. the royal 
 city, and Solomon had not been preceded by a long 
 line of kings, he could scarcely have spoken of ‘ all 
 that were before me in Jerus.’ (12° 27°), There are 
 also many passages which do not suit the Solomon 
 of history. The writer speaks with bitterness of the 
 oppression of the weak and the perversion of 
 judgment. Solomon would not have tolerated such 
 abuses if he had felt them so keenly as the author. 
 Certainly, so far from feeling any keen distress at 
 oppression, his government was systematically 
 oppressive. The words of the author do not impress 
 us as those of a king who stands above his subjects, 
 but as those of a subject sympathizing with the 
 misery of his fellow-subjects. Instead of judgment 
 and righteousness he sees wickedness, and bids his 
 readers not to wonder at oppression and violence. 
 The State is not well-ordered and prosperous asin the 
 time of Solomon. ‘ Folly is set in great dignity, 
 and the rich sit in lowplaces.’ Thisis an error which 
 proceeds from the ruler. Servants ride on horses, 
 and princes walk on the earth. Nor can the 
 reference to the king’s system of spies, and the 
 writer's bitter advice based upon it, be seriously 
 regarded as from a king (10). Other references 
 to kings (418-16 101617) are equally inconceivable in 
 Solomon’s mouth. Nor has the popular view, that 
 Solomon wrote the book in his old age after 
 repenting of his idolatry, any support in the book 
 itself. From beginning to end there is no con- 
 fession of wrong-doing, no ref. to idolatry, no hint 
 of repentance. It dwells on the unsatisfying nature 
 of life, but penitent confession is quite alien to its 
 whole spirit and purpose. The author is certainly 
 not a satisfactory or edifying penitent. 
 
 But the same conclusion that Solomon cannot 
 be the author is shown by the language. The 
 linguistic evidence is so decisive that Delitzsch has 
 said, in words that have been quoted with approval 
 by many critics since: ‘If the Book of K. be of old- 
 Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the 
 Heb. language.’ And Driver, whose opinion on 
 such a matter is of exceptional value, says: ‘ Lin- 
 guistically, K. stands by itself in OT. The Heb. 
 in which it is written has numerous features in 
 common with the latest parts of OT, Ezr, Neh, Ch, 
 Est, but it has in addition many not met with in 
 these books, but found first in the fragments of 
 Ben-Sira (c. B.C. 200) or in the Mishnah (c. A.D. 200). 
 The characteristic of the Hebrew in which these 
 latest parts of OT are written is, that while many 
 of the old classical words and expressions still con- 
 tinue in use, and, in fact, still preponderate, the 
 syntax is deteriorated, the structure of sentences is 
 cumbrous and inelegant, and there is a very 
 decided admixture of words and idioms not feund 
 before, having usually affinities with the Aramaic, 
 or being such as are in constant and regular use in 
 the Heb. of post-Christian times (the Mishnah, etc. ). 
 
 And this latter element is decidedly larger and 
 more prominent in Ee than in either Est or 
 Ezr- Neh-Ch’ (LOT, 444). The phenomena, in f 
 are consistent only with the post-exilic date, an 
 the Solomonic authorship is therefore out of the 
 
 question. The detailed evidence may be found 
 in Delitzsch’s Com. (Germ. ed.), or in Wright’s 
 Ecclesiastes, Execursus iv. (see also Driver, LOT 
 as above). 
 
 Critics who deny the Solomonic authorship, t.e. 
 all critics who need be taken into account, are 
 unanimous in assigning the book to the post-ex. 
 
 eriod, There are two main theories—one that it 
 
 elongs to the later years of the Pers. period, which 
 came to a close B.C. 332; the other, that it comes 
 from the Gr. period, and should be dated about B.c. 
 200. The former is the view of Ewald, Delitzsch, 
 Ginsburg, and Cheyne in his Job and Solomon. Ib 
 favour of the latter are Néldeke, Kuenen, Hitzig, 
 Tyler, Plumptre, Cornill, and Toy ; while Cheyne 
 in his Founders thinks it is probably correct. 
 Nowack and Driver think the language points to 
 the later date, but is not decisive; and so much is 
 undoubtedly correct, if we ought not to accept the 
 later date on the ground of the linguistic evidence 
 alone. There are. other criteria of importance. 
 The political conditions implied yield valuable 
 data. Cornill says: ‘The general picture of the 
 circumstances makes us fix on a period of complete 
 anarchy, in which well-ordered political life cannot 
 be spoken of, worthless revolutionaries seize the 
 government and exhaust the country, and political 
 wisdom is recognized to consist in a dull, listless 
 submission to despotism and tyranny’ (Hinlett. 
 251). The justice of this description is clear from 
 these passages, 41-8 5° 1057”, This compels us to 
 pee it at the earliest in the later years of the 
 
 ers. I pears” and precludes a date in the earlier 
 part of that period. But it will suit equally well 
 the date in the Gr. period, about B.c. 200. Hitzig 
 thinks on account of 10'® that its date is B.c. 204, 
 when Ptolemy Epiphanes ascended the throne at 
 the age of five. He takes 9'** to be an allusion to 
 the siege of Dora in B.c. 218. But this did not 
 succeed owing to the strength of the place, not 
 because a poor wise man delivered it. He explains 
 413-16 of the high priest Onias (‘the old and foolish 
 king’) and his nephew Joseph (‘the poor and wise 
 youth’), but the statements of the passage are not 
 true of them. The political cireumstances admit of 
 either date. Kuenen thinks that the cosmopolitan 
 tone of the book speaks for its origin in the Gr. 
 
 eriod ; but, as Nowack points out, this is character- 
 istic of Heb. Wisdom generally. In its attitude 
 to the doctrine of a future life Kuenen regards it 
 as a forerunner of Sadduceeism. The writer’s views, 
 it is true, are those of the older Heb. theology, but 
 they are put forth in opposition to the newer 
 doctrine. Nowack thinks that these arguments 
 would tell rather in favour of a Maccabzean date, 
 when the two tendencies of Pharisaism and Saddu- 
 ceeism became explicit. This does not follow, since, 
 as Kuenen points out, while he is a forerunner of 
 the Sadducees, he is so little a Sadducee that 
 Graetz could regard him as a disciple of Hillel. 
 This is most naturally explained by the view that 
 he wrote before the rise of these distinct parties. 
 
 The most plausible argument in favour of the later date ia 
 derived from the supposed influence of Gr. philosophy. Tyler 
 was the first to work out in detail the supposed influences of 
 post-Aristotelian philosophy, and he was followed by Plumptre 
 inhisCommentary. A fulland a) Logs conclusive refutation 
 may be found in Cheyne’s Job and Sol. (see also powers Tyler's 
 view is that the signs of acquaintance with Stoicism and Epicure- 
 anism are unmistakable. The author, however, he takes to be 
 neither Stoic nor Epicurean. but one who leaves the doctrines of 
 the two schools side by side in order to warn his readers against 
 studies which could conduct to no certain goal, but led to 
 opinions so opposed. The following points of contact with 
 Stoicism are adduced. The doctrine that man should live 
 
 
 

 
 +) a 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 639 
 
 
 
 according to nature is set forth in the catalogue of Times and 
 Seasons (31-8). The doctrine of cycles, according to which 
 history presents no progress, but only movement in a circle, is 
 found in the description of the endless round in which the affairs 
 of men move, so that all effort secures no progress but only 
 return to a former condition (1219). Fatalism is present in both ; 
 both regard the weaknesses of men asa kind of insanity, and 
 both dwell on the nothingness of life. But no weight can be 
 attached to these. The dreary repetition which character- 
 izes life is not put forward as a philosophical doctrine, but as 
 something taught by observation and experience. The sense of 
 the emptiness of life is due to disillusion, and was not learnt 
 in a school of philosophy, but in the hard school of life. Fatalism 
 is only a coincidence, the Semite has a natural tendency to it. 
 The view that the weaknesses of men are a kind of insanity is a 
 genuine idea of Heb. Wisdom, which treats wisdom and folly as 
 moral rather than intellectual. And the catalogue of Times and 
 Seasons contains in its main idea nothing that cannot be well 
 derived from Heb. thought. The traces of Epicureanism are 
 equally unsatisfactory. Men are as beasts, coming from the dust 
 and returning to it; pleasure is the highest, good, esp. in the 
 form of undisturbed tranquillity. The rivers run into the sea, 
 Ae the sea does not fill, the body is dissolved into its elements. 
 e parallels are commonplace, and no distinctively Epicurean 
 doctrine is to be found. It needed no acquaintance with Gr. 
 Leng to learn that man returned to dust, or that the sea 
 was not filled by the rivers that fed it, or that pleasure was good 
 if enjoyed in moderation. The comparison of man to the beasts 
 that perish might occur to a Hebrew who did not accept the 
 newer view of the future life. For traces of either Epicureanism 
 or Stoicism the appeal is often to late authorities. And the 
 coincidences are either unreal or insignificant, or readily ex- 
 ed from Heb. as well as Gr. ideas. We can therefore 
 ly rely on this alleged influence of Gr. philosophy as a 
 criterion of date. Kuenen thinks that the proofs break down, 
 and that the philosophical element in the stricter sense is 
 absent. But a general influence, he thinks, may be detected. 
 And if the date in the Gr. period is accepted, we may believe 
 that the writer was susceptible to the influence of the atmo- 
 sphere of Gr. thought, rather than of any special view. 
 
 So far, then, as the arguments for the two dates 
 go, they cannot be said to be decisive. The lin- 
 guistic argument pleads strongly for the later date, 
 and there is no argument to set against it on the 
 other side. The balance of Pe therefore, 
 dips towards a date c. B.C. 200, though the book may 
 possibly belong to the Persian period. Renan has 
 
 ut forward the view that the date is B.c. 125. 
 ut it was probably quoted as scripture shortly 
 afterwards, which implies a longer previous history 
 than Renan assigns to it. And after the Macca- 
 bean struggle we should expect greater religious 
 fervour. Grraxte view, that it belongs to the reign 
 of Herod the Great (whom he identifies with £.), is 
 robably excluded by the fact that it seems to have 
 uoted as scripture before that time; and 
 
 apart from this it is questionable if the history 
 i cies Canon will permit of its composition so 
 3. THE INTEGRITY OF THE BooK.—Certain pas- 
 sages have been suspected by several critics as later 
 interpolations. The Epilogue (12% 4) was the first 
 to be suspected, but later the authenticity of the 
 following has also been denied, 317 75 812-18 1% 
 12!-7>, The whole of 12%"4, however, does not 
 stand or fall together, since vv.°" are denied on 
 other grounds than vy.-14, It will be most con- 
 venient to take 12° first. The substance of the 
 book evidently ends at 128. K. ends on the same 
 note as that on which he began, ‘Vanity of 
 vanities, all is vanity.’ In itself, however, this 
 does not mark these verses as due to another hand. 
 To the end of 128Solomon is represented as speaking, 
 and in 12° the real author may be regarded as 
 speaking in his own person, and commending the 
 book as the work of one of ‘the wise.’ Nor is it 
 any serious argument against this that the author 
 is represented in the body of the book as a king, 
 but here as a wise man, for Solomon was the chief 
 representative of ‘the wise.’ It is true that there 
 are difficulties in the passage, and some uncommon 
 expressions, but in themselves they do not warrant 
 the view that the verses are the work of another 
 writer. Those who think so regard them as a 
 recommendation affixed to the work by a later 
 hand. But the writer speaks of the author as if he 
 
 were another than himself, in order to keep up the 
 assumption of Solomonic authorship. 
 The other alleged interpolations raise a much 
 more difficult question. 12 are suspected 
 artly on account of their general tenor, partly 
 rom their reference to the judgment. It seems 
 strange to announce as the conclusion of the 
 matter, that the teaching of the book may be 
 summed up in the injunctions to ‘fear God and 
 keep his commandments.’ Its teaching is rather 
 that ‘all is vanity and striving after wind,’ and 
 that man’s wisest course is to recognize this and 
 extract as much pleasure from life as he can. It is 
 not denied that the fear of God is advised in the 
 book, but that it is its main theme, or the chief 
 lesson to be drawn from it. Kuenen, who gives 
 a very long and elaborate defence of the authen- 
 ticity of the entire Epilogue, admits that if this 
 were interpreted in the highest sense as the one 
 thing about which man had to concern himself, we 
 should be compelled to deny 12-4 to the author 
 of the rest of the book. He argues, however, that 
 the writer simply means that the fear of God and 
 keeping of His commandments is the indispensable 
 pohisbon of enjoying life. But it is questionable 
 whether the explicit words, ‘for this is the whole 
 duty of man,’ do not compel us to interpret the 
 command in the larger sense whith Kuenen denies. 
 This passage has been also suspected because of 
 its ref. toa judgment. And the same objection lies 
 against 3!7 and 11°¢ (‘ but know thou that for all these 
 things God will bring thee into judgment’), If 
 the reference is to a judgment after death, it seems 
 improbable that they can be harmonized with other 
 passages in the book (cf. 3'9-#1 95-619), But it is 
 pores that a judgment in this life is referred to. 
 his requires a change of reading in 3!’, when 
 instead of ‘there’ (oy¥ sham), ‘he hath appointed’ 
 (Dy sam) would be read. It is not clear, however, 
 that this yields so good a sense, and it is not iza- 
 robable that in all the passages a judgment after 
 eath is spoken of. In 12” the difficulty arises 
 partly from the idea, which is thought to be alien 
 to the general tenor of the book, partly from its 
 incongruity with the context. The counsel, ‘ Re- 
 member thy Creator in the days of thy youth,’ is 
 not what we expect from the author of such a 
 book. Nor do the preceding counsels lead up to 
 this. The young man is bidden to rejoice in all 
 the days of his Yifo, esp. in the days of his youth, 
 remembering the dark days that await him in 
 Sheol. But remembering not only these, but all 
 the failure of manly vigour and his physical powers, 
 and of the zest for pleasure that will come upon 
 him with old age, he would do well to make the 
 most of his prime of life. This gives a connected 
 sense, and one in harmony with the rest of the 
 book, and we obtain it by deleting 12 and con- 
 necting 12!» with 11% The meaning in that case 
 will be—make the best of your youth in the en- 
 joyment of pleasures before the evil days of old 
 age come, when you will say, I have no delight in 
 them. It is true that the connexion of 12! with 
 11” is a little awkward if 12! is omitted, but the 
 connexion in the text is even more awkward. 
 Graetz proposes to retain the words with a slight 
 alteration of the Hebrew, and to read, ‘ Remember 
 also thy fountain (i.e. thy wife) in the days of thy 
 youth.’ This is not grotesque, though it has been 
 criticized as such ; nor even unworthy, for it is an 
 exhortation to a life of conjugal purity (in opposi- 
 tion to illicit amours), such as we have also in 9°. 
 But it is scarcely a happy suggestion. Bickell 
 not only adopts the correction of the text, but 
 attempts to improve the connexion by transposition. 
 127 (‘and the spirit return unto God who gave 
 it’) may be retained on the ground that it simply 
 implies the dissolution of the personality into its 
 

 
 640 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 
 
 original sources, the body will return to dust, the 
 spirit toGod. The ‘spirit’ probably means nothing 
 more than the breath of life (cf. Ps 104%). No 
 very. serious objection need be felt to 75 or 8% 13, 
 hile Kuenen retains these passages (except 12), 
 which he regards as altered on dogmatic grounds) 
 by denying that they contain anything of a higher 
 point of view than we generally find in the book, 
 several critics defend the genuineness of the whole, 
 with the obvious interpretation. Sanday in his 
 Bampton Lectures argues that they must have 
 been included, for otherwise a scribe would have 
 passed it by, and it would have been simply left 
 out of the Canon. This, however, is questionable. 
 A book professing Solomonic authorship would not 
 be lightly rejected ; it would be assumed that it must 
 really teach true religion, and a few interpolations 
 would bring this out more clearly. He also urges 
 that it is psychologically more probable that an 
 Isr. would ‘ have this reserve in the bottom of his 
 soul, than that he should give way to blank and 
 unrelieved pessimism.’ It is more remarkable to 
 find so radical a critic as Cornill defending their 
 authenticity. He maintains that the same thoughts 
 run throu P the whole book; the fear of God and 
 God the Judge are cardinal conceptions. In his 
 very den passage on the contents of the book 
 he says: ‘OT piety has never achieved a greater 
 triumph than in the Bk of K.’ (Zinleit. 251). While 
 the author sees the misery of the world as clearly 
 as our modern pessimists, he is so penetrated by 
 the piety of OT that he does not hit on the simplest 
 and most obvious solution, that the world is the 
 laything of blind chance. He returns to the 
 aith of his childhood in a personal God and a 
 moral order of the world. 
 
 These views, and they are shared by other critics, 
 are of weight. Yet it is doubtful if they do justice 
 to the phenomena on the other side. It 1s very 
 significant that the author’s meditations end as 
 they began—‘ Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.’ 
 Would this have been so if he had really fought his 
 way back to the faith of his childhood? Cornill 
 seems to overstate the case when he says that similar 
 
 assages run through the book, and that the fear of 
 Bod and God the Judge are cardinal conceptions. 
 The theism of the book is not very pronounced. 
 Cheyne says with justice: ‘To me, K. is not a 
 theist in any vital sense in his philosophic medita- 
 tions. . . . He certainly never lost his theism, 
 though pale and cheerless it was indeed, and utterly 
 aoatla to stand against the assaults of doubt and 
 despondency.’ Looking at his speculations from a 
 somewhat different viewpoint, it might even be 
 alleged that K.’s theism is the source of all his per- 
 plexities. To every Hebrew, God and Providence 
 were convertible notions, and this God, which to Job 
 was an immorality, might be to K. a puzzle. Upon 
 this theory it may, of course, be urged that rigid con- 
 sistency is not to be expected in a man of the writer’s 
 temperament, who would eeree according to his 
 mood. Yet we may surely think that a man of his 
 intellectual power and close observation of life 
 would have some fixed principles; and we find 
 them running through most of his meditations. 
 When we find a few sayings that seem to run 
 contrary to these, we may either try to explain 
 them in harmony with the general view of the 
 author, or regard them as interpolations due to a 
 working over in the interests of orthodoxy. Hither 
 course seems preferable to that of leaving them as 
 unreconciled contradictions. It seems on the whole 
 most probable that at least 12'*1%14 are later 
 interpolations (assuming that ‘thy Creator’ is 
 correctly read in 12!5), and possibly also 37 and 
 11%, n the other hand, 127 can be explained so 
 
 as to avoid any conflict with the author’s views. 
 Th» view of Krochmal with reference to the Epilogue must 
 
 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 
 
 not be passed over in silence. He regarded 1211.12 or 1911-14 (iq 
 is not clear which) as appended to the whole of the third 
 division of the Oanon (the Kethubim or Hagiographa), and not 
 simply to Ec. QGraetz adopted the view that 1211-14 was added 
 as the conclusion of the Kethubim, but thought also that the 
 collectors of the third Canon added 129. 10 ag an apology for Ec. 
 Renan accepts 129.10 as by the author of and agrees with 
 Krochmal as to 1211.12, and also considers 1213-14 as unauthen- 
 tic. It is unnecessary to discuss this view, which rests on pure 
 hypothesis, and has been almost universally rejected. 
 
 Before leaving this part of the subject, it remains only to 
 speak of the bold and original theory of Bickell. Eng. readers 
 may find it presented in Dillon’s Sceptics of O7', with a tr. of 
 the book as rearranged, and in Cheyne’s Job and Solomon 
 (p. 273 ff.), where it is criticized. It is that the Heb. MS. from 
 which our text is descended met with an accident. The sheets 
 became disconnected, and, in replacing them, owing to a turning 
 of the 2nd and 8rd sheets inside out, the text was completel: 
 dislocated, and passages were brought into juxtaposition whi 
 had originally no connexion with each other. Two sets of 
 interpolations were then made. One series was designed to 
 connect the verses which had been thus brought together. The 
 other interpolations were intended to give the book an orthodox 
 tone. The detailed working-out, which is very brilliant and 
 ingenious, cannot be exhibited here. We may, however, give 
 his results as to the original book and its order. He makes 
 the orig. K. to consist of the following passages in the order 
 given:—12-212 59-67 39-48 212-8 96-93 815 911-101 68-722. 20 4958 
 1016-116. 5 723_g5a 102-15. 14b 93-10 117-128, The theory is a to 
 very serious objections. It is questionable whether it will 
 stand the test of exegesis; and to quote Cheyne’s words: ‘ Apart 
 from other difficulties in the way of the theory, the number 
 and arbitrariness of the transpositions, additions, and alterations 
 are reason enough to make one hesitate to accept it.’ Kuenen 
 also says that it is as good as unthinkable that all the accidenta 
 assumed should have taken place together, and combined to 
 produce our Bk of Ec, Euringer has urged an objection, which 
 if valid is fatal to the supposition that such an accident could 
 have occurred. It is that, at so early a period, the codex form 
 would not be used, but the roll form, and therefore there 
 would be no sheets to be dislocated by such accidents as are 
 postulated by the theory. 
 
 4, CONTENTS AND THOUGHT.—It is very difficult 
 to give an account of the contents of Ee which 
 shall be at once clear, brief, and adequate. There 
 
 is very little strict development of the thought, 
 and the endless repetition which the writer sees in 
 nature and life has its partial counterpart in his 
 book. The difficulty is increased by the uncer- 
 tainty as to interpolations and the exegesis of 
 particular passages. The following outline may be 
 given. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. No profit 
 comes to man from all his toil. Nature and man 
 go ceaselessly round and round in the same course 
 with utterly wearisome monotony, and there is no 
 new thing under the sun (17). K. pret: Laps j over 
 Jerus. uses his wisdom to understand the life of men, 
 and finds that all is vanity (1125). He finds, too, 
 that the search to know wisdom and folly is vanity, 
 and that wisdom brings sorrow (1!*5), He tries 
 to find happiness in pleasure, and exhausts every 
 source of enjoyment, but finds it is all ea 
 (21-1), Wisdom far excels folly, yet wise and foo 
 erish and are forgotten alike (2!2-”), The accumu- 
 ation of wealth is vanity, for the man who has 
 gathered it by toil and wisdom must die and leave 
 it to another, it may be to a fool (2'*-). The best 
 thing in life is to eat and drink, as God permits. 
 Yet even this is vanity (2%), A time is allotted 
 for everything. This is the doing of God, who has 
 set the world [or eternity] in man’s heart, yet so 
 that His plan cannot be understood, Since man 
 cannot understand the plan by which the season 
 for everything is appointed, he will do well to 
 enjoy life as much as he can. All is fixed unalter- 
 ably by God, that men should fear Him (31%). The 
 sight of oppression makes him think that God will 
 judge the righteous and the wicked. But man dies 
 ike the beasts, and should enjoy life while he may, 
 for he cannot return to it after he is dead (31%-*%), 
 The oppression of the helpless convinces him that 
 the dead are in better case than the living, and 
 best of all is not to have been born at all (41°), 
 Successful labour is vanity, for it only causes a man 
 to be envied (448), The efforts of the lonely man 
 to attain wealth are vanity; and there is safet; 
 and comfort in the possession of a friend (47-14), 
 
ECCLESIASTES 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 641 
 
 
 
 poor wise youth succeeded an old and foolish king, 
 yes the bright expectations of his rejoicing subjects 
 were Be peotates (418-16), Be very circumspect in 
 ro service of God and the vows you make to 
 
 im, or it will be worse for you (5'-7). Do not be 
 surprised at oppression, for the oppressors them- 
 selves are under tyranny. Far better the state 
 which depends for prosperity on the pursuit of 
 agriculture [or men are much more on a level than 
 they seem ; the king himself depends like all his 
 subjects on the products of the earth] (5*®). 
 Accumulation of wealth is vanity, for it brings 
 little pleasure and much anxiety (5-1), Some- 
 times wealth is accumulated by labour and lost by 
 misfortune, so that the possessor has no enjoyment 
 out of it (517), It is best to eat and drink and 
 enjoy life, so far as God gives one the power, and 
 thus make life pass without too much reflexion 
 (5'8-), God sometimes gives the means of en- 
 joying life, but withholds the power of enjoyment 
 (6'*). Toil is for the appetite which is insatiable, 
 the wise is no better off than the fool ; possession 
 is better than inordinate desire, but this too is 
 vanity (67°). The destiny of man has been deter- 
 mined for him, he cannot eragele against it, nor 
 does he know what is good for him (6-2), A 
 
 ood name is better than ointment, death than 
 
 irth, sorrow than mirth (7}"*). The end is better 
 than the Ee ea patience than vexation, wisdom 
 than property. hether prosperity or adversity 
 be your lot, consider that both come from God, and 
 cannot be altered (77-4). Do not go to extremes in 
 virtue or vice, in wisdom or folly (758). Yet wisdom 
 is strength, since all sin and may need it. Gossip 
 should not be listened to, for a man is sure to hear 
 something unpleasant about himself (7). K. 
 sought wisdom, but could not fully attain it. But 
 he found this, that woman was more bitter than 
 death, and only the man who pleased God would 
 escape her snares. A good man was as one in a 
 thousand, but a good woman he had not found at 
 all. ‘This was not the fault of God, but of man, who 
 had sought out many inventions (7%-”), Wisdom 
 is the best. Be obedient to the king, and in time of 
 oppression do not be tempted to rebel, for judgment 
 will come on the tyrant (8!°). The wicked some- 
 times fare as the righteous, and the righteous as 
 the wicked, yet it is better with the righteous than 
 with the wicked ; but since all is vanity, it is best 
 to eat, drink, and be merry, for that, at any rate, 
 will last as long as life (8!°!5). However wise a 
 man may be, he cannot understand the work of God. 
 All men are in His hand, and cannot escape the 
 universal lot. Life is bad, but it has hope ; death 
 comes to all, and with it the loss of consciousness, 
 feeling, and activity (8'°-9°). Enjoy life to the full, 
 unvexed by scruple as to the approval of God(?); get 
 the most out of this life, for there is nothing to be 
 looked for beyond it (97°). In the conflict of life 
 merit does not ensure success, but it is matter of 
 chance and circumstance. Men are snared by 
 misfortune as fish are caught in a net. Wisdom is 
 better than strength, yet, as in the case of the poor 
 man who delivered the city, it meets with ingrati- 
 tude and forgetfulness (9"-!6), Wisdom is far better 
 than folly, it will guide man aright in his relations 
 with princes, save him from danger by putting him 
 on his guard, and guide him in practicallife. Yet 
 @ capricious ruler may exalt folly (9'7-104). A 
 fool’s talk is worthless, and his labour wearisome 
 y10!2-45), Unhappy is the land whose king is a 
 child and whose princes are slothful and glutton- 
 ous; while that country is blessed whose king is of 
 noble character and whose princes are temperate. 
 But if the king be bad, it is prudent not to curse him 
 even in secrecy, for his spies are everywhere, and 
 will tell him of it (10), Be benevolent [or 
 prudent], so that you may be safe in time of 
 
 VOL. I-—4I 
 
 calamity. Do the work you have to do without 
 waiting for the exact circumstances you would like. 
 The laws of nature are above you, and the attempt 
 to attain too close conformity with them is likely 
 to paralyze industry (11), Life is sweet, but let 
 man remember also the days of darkness that 
 await him after death. And, remembering these, 
 let him enjoy life to the full in his youth, before 
 the evil days of old age come on him, when all his 
 physical powers will fail, and all appetite for 
 peers be gone; before his life be shattered, and 
 
 e pass away. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity 
 (117-12%). 
 
 So end the meditations of K.; for the Epilogue, 
 whether in whole or part authentic or not, lies 
 outside the work itself. There can be little 
 question as to the fundamental thought of the 
 book. All is vanity, life yields no real satisfaction. 
 If we had unlimited means at our disposal to 
 secure happiness, it is quite unattainable. The best 
 thing is to seek for enjoyment, to eat, drink, and 
 bemerry. Yet we zhould do the author an injustice 
 if we regarded him as a mere sensualist. From 
 
 oss indulgence he would have turned with disgust. 
 
 t was madness, and no man who valued his peace of 
 mind would be enticed by it (cf. his words on ‘the 
 woman whose heart issnares and nets,’7*), Heurges 
 rather a moderate enjoyment of the good things of 
 life: ‘ Eat thy bread with 1°; and drink thy wine 
 with a merry heart; ... Let thy garments always 
 be white; and let not thy head lack ointment. 
 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all 
 the days of the life of thy vanity.’ Life is a bad 
 business at the best, but it lies within our power 
 to palliate its misery by prudence and the dus 
 enjoyment of what little pleasure we can get. And 
 we should be all the more eager to make the most 
 of our opportunities for pleasure that in the drea: 
 darkness of Sheol no possibility of enjoyment will 
 be found. His motto is Carpe diem; and if in the 
 abstract it be not a high motto, we must remember 
 the misery of his time, and the absence of any 
 hope of improvement in this world or immortality 
 in the next. If we ask the cause of this misery, 
 and of the general vanity of life and uselessness of 
 all endeavour, it lies in the conditions of human 
 life. God has a plan of the world, everything has 
 its time and season. But man cannot find out 
 what this plan is, and hence rarely orders his life 
 in accordance with it. He may think that a 
 certain line of conduct will produce a certain 
 result ; but it may be quite different, so that life 
 may seem ruled by chance, not by law. And he is 
 not master of his own fate. God has ordained this, 
 and he Lhapee | struggles against it. He is 
 caught in an evil snare and cannot escape. But 
 when K. speaks of God, we may easily read more 
 into his language than he meant. J”, the national 
 name of the God of Israel, nowhere occurs. K. is 
 certainly a theist, and the name of God frequently 
 occurs. But God is withdrawn from the life of men 
 (‘God is in heaven, and thou upon earth,’ 57). God 
 is to be regarded with fear, and man must be very 
 circumspect in his approaches to Him (5'?). Man 
 should be very careful in his utterances, and especi- 
 ally avoid a hasty vow. If he vows he should not 
 delee to pay, for God ‘hath no pleasure in fools,’ 
 and if provoked to anger may destroy the work of 
 his hands (57%). K.’s conception of God has nothing 
 attractive or winning, He is rather set before us as 
 the omnipotent Ruler who has ordained all the 
 course of history, which man vainly seeks to com- 
 prehend, and as the austere Deity on whose favour 
 or forbearance none may venture to ee Such 
 enjoyment as may be gained from life in harmony 
 with His laws is legitimate, hence the gratification 
 of appetite in a legitimate manner has His 
 approval, it is His gift (24 318 51% 1 97 ete.)_ 
 

 
 
 
 642 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 
 
 His view of the future is equally gloomy, but in 
 this he stands upon the old ways of thought. 
 Men are beasts. ‘For that which befalleth the 
 sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing be- 
 falleth them : as the one dieth, so dieth the other; 
 yea they have all one spirit; and man hath no 
 pre-eminence above the beasts: for all is vanity. 
 All go unto one place ; all are of the dust, and all 
 turn to dust again’ (3%), On this follows the 
 question: ‘Who knoweth the spirit of man whether 
 it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast whether 
 it goeth downward to the earth?’ (37). This has 
 been interpreted as if the writer meant to say that 
 such a distinction really existed. But in face of 
 the plain statements just quoted, it is hard to see 
 how such a view can be maintained. The state of 
 the dead is described in the most cheerless lan- 
 guage. ‘The dead know not anything, neither 
 
 ave they any more a reward ; for the memory of 
 them is forgotten. 
 hatred and envy is now perished; neither have 
 they any more a portion for ever in anything that 
 is done under the sun’ (9*8), ‘There is no work, 
 nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in Sheol, 
 whither thou goest’ (9%), ‘Let him remember 
 the days of darkness, for they shall be many’ (11°). 
 Sometimes he speaks as though life were worse 
 than death, and as if it had been best never to 
 have been born at all (4%® 71); sometimes as if 
 death were worse than life (9*-5), though for the 
 The reason that ‘ the living know that they shall 
 
 ie ; but the dead know not anything.’ There is 
 no fundamental inconsistency ; both life and death 
 were so evil, that there was little to choose between 
 them, and now one, now the other, might according 
 to his mood be esteemed the worse. It would be 
 different if we could assume, as some do, that he 
 reached a higher point of view. Some of the 
 assages already discussed under the head of the 
 ntegrity of the Book might be so interpreted. But 
 it seems quite decisive against this that he ends his 
 work with the words, ‘Vanity of vanities, saith K., 
 all is vanity.’ Another passage which has been 
 variously interpreted, is 34 ‘ Also He hath set the 
 world [or eternity] in their heart.’ The word tz 
 ‘ world’ is obiy, and it is found in this sense in later 
 Heb., but nowhere else in OT. It is true that this 
 leads for the sense ‘eternity’ adopted by 
 elitzsch, Wright, and others. And this would 
 pe to belief in a future life in the higher sense. 
 an has the longing for immortality placed in his 
 heart by God. But the context speaks rather for 
 the other rendering. God has a plan for the course 
 of history, and has given men their labour in which 
 they toil. He has set the world in their heart ; in 
 other words, He has implanted in men the instinct 
 which causes them to busy themselves with the 
 things of the world. 
 
 & CANONICITY OF THE Boox.—It does not fall 
 within the province of this article to discuss 
 whether Ec is or is not rightly included in the 
 Canon. But the question of its canonicity is of con- 
 siderable historical interest. It is well known that 
 in the 2nd cent. A.D. there was dispute about it in 
 the Jewish schools. The evidence may be con- 
 veniently seen in Wildeboer’s Origin of Can. of OT. 
 The question which is disputed by scholars is 
 whether it was regarded as canonical in the Ist 
 cent. B.C., and whether the later discussions con- 
 cerned the question of its right to retain the 
 peau it had already attained, or whether it was 
 
 rst admitted into the Canon in consequence of 
 these discussions. The question hardly admits of 
 examination in our space, but the evidence seems 
 to us to favour the latter view. The reader may 
 consult the art. OLD TESTAMENT CANON, and the 
 eb of Ryle, Buh], and Wildeboer, especially the 
 
 t. 
 
 
 
 As well their love as their. 
 
 
 
 EDEN 
 
 
 
 LITERATURE.—The Comm. of Ewald, Hitzig, Ginsburg, Graetz, 
 
 Delitzsch, Tyler, Nowack, Plumptre, OC. H. H. Wright. The 
 Introductions to OT' by Kuenen, Driver, Cornill, Wildeboer ; 
 A. B. Davidson in Book by Book; W. T. Davison, Wis; Lit. 
 
 OT ; Cheyne, Job and Sol. ; Renan, L’ecclésiaste trad. de Uhéb. 
 etc. ; Bickell, Der Prediger tiber d. Wert d. Daseins’ (1884), and 
 Koheleth Untersuch. tiber d. Wert d. Daseins (1886); Dillon, 
 Sceptics of OT ; O. Taylor, Dirge of Koh. in Ec. 12 ; Salmond, 
 Christ. Doct. of Immortality, 165 ff., 267 ff. ; and the literature 
 in Strong, Student's Comm. pp. 31-38. A. S. PEAKE. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICUS.—See SrRAcH. 
 ECLIPSE.—See ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY. 
 
 ED.—In the Hebrew (and also in the Greek) 
 text of Jos 22%4 the name given by the two and a 
 half tribes to the altar erected by them on the east 
 bank* of the Jordan has dropped out. Our English 
 translators have filled the gap by inserting Hd as 
 the name of the altar in question. For this they 
 have the authority of a few MSS (see de Rossi, 
 Varie Lectiones Vet. Test., in loe ). 
 
 The Syriac (Peshitta) reads smn «a9 ‘altar 
 of witness.’ The suggestion of Dillmninn in his 
 commentary, Die Bucher Num. Deut. u. Josua 
 (1886), that the original text had ryba Gal'ed (as 
 Gn 3147, EV Galeed), ‘ Mound of witnesi:,’ has been 
 very favourably received (Oettli,Kautzsch, Bennett, 
 See footnote). This name was probe ty aoe by 
 some later copyist or editor who detecsed therein 
 a possible inconsistency with the earlier narrative 
 in Gn 31. The MT in its present form can onl 
 mean that the name of the altar was the whole 
 sentence: It-is-a-witness- between -us-that-J”-is- 
 God ! A. R. 8S. Kunnepy. 
 
 EDDINUS (’Eddewods B, ’Eddi:vots A), one of the 
 ‘holy singers’ at Josiah’s passover, 1 Tis 1%. In 
 the parallel passage 2 Ch 35 the corresponding 
 name is Jeduthun, which is read also, contrary 
 to MS authority, by AV in 1 Es. The text of 
 the latter is probably corrupt. “Hédewvofs may have 
 arisen from one or other of the numerous Gr. 
 equivalents (perhaps "HéeGodv) of the narae Jedu- 
 thun, but a more difficult question is vhe sub- 
 stitution in the same verse of Zacharias (wh. see) 
 for Heman. J. A. SELBIE, 
 
 EDEN (j3y).—A Levite in the time of Hezekiah 
 (2 Ch 29% 3135), 
 
 EDEN (jy).—1. ‘The children of E. which are 
 (not were as in EV) in Telassar’ are enumerated 
 in 2K 19” (=Is 372) amongst the peoples con- 
 quered by Sennacherib’s predecesscrs. Telassar, 
 if Schrader is right in identifying it with Til- 
 Afurri of the inscriptions, lay on the east of the 
 Tigris, and must have been the district to which 
 the conquered had been jaiekat in accordance 
 with the custom introduced by Tiglath-pileser M1. 
 From their being mentioned along with Gozan, 
 Haran, and Rezeph, we naturally seek for the 
 original home of the Béné-Eden in Mesopotamia. 
 They are doubtless the Bit-Adini of the inscrip- 
 tions, an Aramean principality in the far west 
 of Mesopotamia, some 200 miles N.N.E. of 
 Damascus, which we know to have offered a 
 stubborn resistance to Assur-nazir-pal, and to 
 have been conquered by Shalmaneser II., B.C. 856 
 (see ASSYRIA, pp. 183%, 184), In Ezk 27% Eden 
 is mentioned amongst the traders with Tyre. The 
 name here also occurs in connexion wit Haran, 
 and is therefore probably Bit-Adini, although the 
 
 * This location is required by the whole tenor of the narrative. 
 The west bank is suggested by v.10 in its present form, and 
 maintained also by RV in v.1, by a translation of doubtful 
 admissibility, ‘in the forefront of the land of Canaan, on the side 
 that pertaineth to the children of Israel.’ See further the 
 Comm. in loc., and Bennett’s edition of Joshua in Haupt’s 
 polychrome OT. 
 
 
 
EDEN 
 
 conjecture of Margoliouth (see ARABIA, p. 181°), 
 that it may be the modern Aden in S. Arabia, is 
 not without plausibility. 
 
 LiTgRATURE.—Schrader, KAT, 827; Delitzsch on Is 8712; 
 Davidson on Ezk 2723; Frd. Delitzsch, Paradies, 4, 98, 184. 
 
 2. ‘The house of Eden’ (AVm and RVm Beth- 
 eden) is mentioned in Am 1°, The context has led 
 to the inference that it was in the neighbourhood 
 of Damascus, ‘some royal paradise in that region 
 which is still the Paradise of the Arab world’ 
 (G. A. Smith, Twelve Proph. 125). Ewald (Pro- 
 phets, i. 159, Eng. tr.) identifies it with the Para- 
 dise of Strabo, xvi. 2-19; and Farrar (Minor 
 Prophets, 53) thinks it may be Beit el -janne 
 *House of Paradise’ (see, however, Driver’s note 
 on Am 1°), about eight miles from Damascus, 
 referring in support of this view to Porter (Five 
 Years in Damascus, i. 313). Driver considers the 
 most probable identifications to be (1) the modern 
 Ehden, 20 miles N.W. of Baalbek; or (2) Bit- 
 ‘Adini, described above. Wellhausen (KU. Proph. 
 68) considers it improbable that Beth-eden is to be 
 sought near Damascus, and is sceptical also about 
 identifying Aven of the same passage with Baalbek. 
 (See, further, G. Hoffmann in ZA JV, 1883, p. 97; 
 Schrader, KAT? Pe 442; and esp. Driver, Joel and 
 Amos, 132f., 228.) J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EDEN (}1y, “Edex).—We read that ‘the Lorp God 
 planted a garden in Eden, eastward, and there put 
 the man whom he had formed’ (Gn 2°). CAnd a 
 river went out of Eden to water the garden; and 
 from thence it was parted, and became four heads’ 
 (v.2°). Two of these were the Tigris and Euphrates ; 
 a third was the Pison, which compassed the land of 
 Havilah; the fourth being the Gihon, which com- 
 passed Cush. After Adam had been expelled from 
 the Paradise, his firstborn, Cain, ‘dwelt in the 
 land of Nod, on the east of Eden,’ and there built 
 the city of Enoch (Gn 4"), 
 
 Eden means ‘delight’ in Hebrew, and the posi- 
 tion of its garden has been assigned to various 
 parts of the world. Even the North Pole and 
 Australia have found advocates. Josephus (Ant. 
 I. i. 3), the Book of Enoch (xxxii.), and Cosmas 
 Indicopleustes place it in the extreme north-east, 
 towards the Altai mountains of Mongolia. San- 
 son, Reland, Calmet, Bunsen, Keil, and von Raumer 
 locate it in Armenia, between the sources of the 
 Tigris and Euphrates, the Araxes and the Phasis. 
 Colvin, Bochart, Huet, Rask, and the modern 
 Le Clercq 
 
 Assyriologists assign it to Chaldea. 
 places it in the neighbourhood of Damascus, be- 
 tween the Chrysorrhoas and the Orontes; while 
 peenet seeks for it in Palestine, near the sources 
 
 of the Jordan; and Hardouin and Halévy in southern 
 Arabia. Renan identifies Eden with Udy4na, ‘the 
 arden,’ near Kashmir; Bertheau, Lassen, Obry, 
 iegel, and Lenormant, with the Meru of the 
 Hin u Puranas, and the Airyana-Vaéja and Har4- 
 Berezaiti of the Zoroastrian VendidAd and Avesta. 
 Meru seems primarily to have denoted the moun- 
 tains above the Pamir, Airyana-Vaéja being the 
 country between the sources of the Oxus and 
 Jaxartes, and Haré-Berezaiti the Belur-dagh. 
 Ezk 28'4 is appealed to in behalf of the theo 
 that the garden of Eden was on a mountain, thoug 
 the text may be differently explained. 
 The rivers Pison and Gihon have been the sub- 
 ject of asimilar variety of identifications. Josephus, 
 usebius, Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome make 
 the Pison the Ganges, Cosmas Indicopleustes identi- 
 fies it with the Indus, while the Jewish commen- 
 tators, Saadya and Rashi, as well as the Samaritans, 
 declare it to be the Nile. The Nile, on the other 
 hand, is identified with the Gihon by Josephus 
 (Ant. 1. i. 3), most of the Fathers, Kalisch, 
 
 EDEN 643 
 
 Gesenius, Lengerke, and Bertheau, as well as in 
 Sir 24% The Sept. also, in Jer 28, substitutes 
 Gihon (Inv) for Sihor, the Nile. Cosmas makes 
 Gihon the Ganges; the Samaritan version calls it 
 the Asképh, which seems to be the Cho-aspes. 
 Mohammedan writers identified the Gihon and 
 Pison with the Oxus and Jaxartes, whence their 
 modern names of Jihfin and Sihfin, which were 
 transferred by the Seljuk Turks to the Pyramus 
 and Sarus in Cilicia. St. Martin identifies the 
 Pison with the waterless Wady er-Ruma in Arabia. 
 
 The cuneiform inscriptions have, however, cleared 
 up the geography of the garden of Eden. The 
 Sumerian name of the ‘plain’ of Babylonia was 
 Edin, which was adopted by the Semites under 
 the form of Edinu. Its Assyr. equivalent was 
 Zeru, corresponding to the Arab, Zor, the name still 
 applied to the ‘depression’ between the Tigris and 
 Euphrates. These rivers formerly flowed immedi- 
 ately into the Persian Gulf, though, owing to the 
 silt annually deposited by them, theirancient mouths 
 are now more than eighty miles distant from the 
 sea. The seaport of primitive Chaldxa was Eridu, 
 ‘the good city,’ now Abu-Shahrein, which stood 
 near the mouth of the Euphrates. In its neigh- 
 bourhood was a garden, ‘a holy place,’ wherein 
 grew the sacred palm-tree—the tree of life—whose 
 roots of bright lapis lazuli were planted in the cos- 
 mic abyss, whose position marked the centre of the 
 world, and whose foliage was the couch of the 
 goddess Bahu, while the god Tammuz dwelt in 
 the shrine under the shadow of its branches, within 
 which no mortal had ever entered. An oracle was 
 attached to ‘the holy tree of Eridu,’ and Eri-Aku 
 (Arioch) calls himself its ‘executor.’ This tree 
 of life is frequently represented in the Assyr. 
 sculptures, where it is depicted with two guardian 
 spirits or cherubs, kneeling or standing on either 
 side of it. They are winged, with the heads 
 sometimes of eagles, sometimes of men. Lenor- 
 mant states that on an Assyrian talisman in the 
 collection of M. de Clereq he found the word 
 Kirubu in place of the ordinary sedu or ‘ protecting 
 eae (Les Origines de Histoire, i. p. 118). The 
 
 aming sword of the cherubim has its counterpart 
 in the sword of Merodach ‘ with fifty heads,’ ‘ whose 
 light gleams forth like the day’; and Sumerian 
 texts speak of ‘the wicked serpent,’ ‘the serpent 
 of darkness,’ See further, art. CHERUBIM. 
 
 The statement of Genesis, that the river which 
 went out of Eden was parted into four heads, is 
 explained by the fact that the Persian Gulf was 
 held to be a river by the Babylonians, and was 
 accordingly called by them nar marratum, ‘the 
 bitter river.’ In the second millenniumB.c., notonly 
 the Tigris and Euphrates, but other rivers besides 
 flowed into it; but the tide, which carried the salt 
 water a long way up their channels, made it possible 
 to speak of their mouths as ‘heads.’ The Tigris 
 was called Idigla and Idigna, ‘the encircling,’ in 
 Sumerian, and id signified ‘a river.’ The Pison 
 and Gihon were identified by Sir Henry Rawlinson 
 with the Uknu and Surappu, which Tiglath- 
 
 ileser 111. couples with the Tigris in southern 
 
 abylonia (Report of Fortieth Meeting of British 
 Assoc. p. 173). Subsequently he held the Pison to 
 be the Arakhtu or canal on which Babylon was 
 built; and the Gihon the modern Jfikh&, which 
 flows westward from the Euphrates towards Abu- 
 Shahrein. Friedrich Delitzsch also identifies the 
 Gihon with the Arakhtu, which he believes to be 
 the Shatt-en-Nil of to-day ; but the Pison with the 
 Pallukat, the Pallacopas of classical geography. 
 
 The names of the two rivers are, however, still 
 unidentified in the inscriptions. But the land of 
 Havilah encompassed by the Pison was the ‘sandy’ 
 region of northern Arabia, which extended west- 
 ward towards the frontier of Egypt (Gn 25%, 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 644 
 
 1§ 15’). The ‘bdellium’ that came from it may 
 be the budilkhati of the cuneiform inscriptions, 
 which is preceded by the determinative of vegetable; 
 the ‘onyx-stone’ or shoham is the Assyr. sdmtu, 
 which we are told was brought from the desert 
 which lay to the east of Egypt. 
 
 The Gihon is perhaps the Kerkha, which rises 
 east of the Tigris among the mountains of Luristan, 
 formerly inhabited by the Kosszans, called Kassi 
 in the cuneiform texts. The whole of Susiana was 
 termed Kissia or Kyssia by the classical writers, 
 and its two chief rivers were the Eulzeus or Choaspes, 
 the modern Kerkha, and the Pasi-ticris, the modern 
 Karan. In a cuneiform text the Ulai or Euleus 
 is described as entering ‘the sea.’ The land of 
 Nod or the ‘ Nomads,’ to the east of Edom, would 
 correspond with the country of the nomad Sute and 
 Manda in the Babylonian inscriptions. 
 
 Pinches has found the name of Pardésu or ‘ Para- 
 dise’ as that of a country, apparently mythological, 
 in some Babylonian cuneiform tablets (PSBA, 
 Dec. 1896). It is coupled with the ‘land of Bit- 
 Napsanu,’ and in one passage, by a punning ety- 
 mology, is derived from the name of ‘the god Esu.’ 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Friedr. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies ? (1881) ; 
 Sayce, HC'M 95 ff.; Hommel, Ane. Heb. Tradition, p. 314. 
 
 A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 EDER (7y).—4. Gn 35% ‘ And Israel journeyed, 
 and spread his tent beyond the tower of Eder’ (AV 
 Edar). ‘Eder means ‘a flock’; and the phrase 
 Migdal-eder (‘flock-tower,’ cf. Mic 48) would have 
 been the appellation given to a tower occupied by 
 shepherds for the protection of their flocks against 
 robbers (cf. 2 K 188, 2 Ch 26). The tower here 
 mentioned lay between Bethlehem and Hebron 
 cf. vv. 27), Jerome mentions a Jewish tradition 
 that this Eder was the site of the temple, ‘hunc 
 lecum Hebrei esse volunt, ubi postea templum 
 edificatum est: et turrim Ader, turrim gregis 
 significare, hoc est, congregationis et coctus: quod 
 et Micheas Propheta testatur, dicens; Et tu turris 
 gregis nebulosa, filia Sion.’ Jerome himself, how- 
 ever, prefers to think that it was the spot on which 
 the shepherds received the angels’ message, ‘ pasto- 
 rum juxta Bethleem locus est, ubi vel Angelorum 
 rex in ortu Domini cecinit’ (Qucest. in Gen.). The 
 tradition that the locality was near Jerusalem 
 probably accounts for the verse (21) appearing in 
 the LXX before y.6, This transposition would 
 favour any identification which placed ‘ Migdal- 
 Eder’ between Bethel and Bethlehem. The LXX 
 transliterates 1y as Tdédep. 2. Jos 15%, The name 
 of one of the towns of Judah ‘in the south,’ close 
 to the Edomite frontier. For Eder, the LXX (B) 
 
 ives “Apa; and (A) ’Edpal. Conder (PEF Mem. 
 lil. 236) identifies with Kh. el-‘Adar, 5 miles S. of 
 Gaza. 3.1 Ch 23% 249, The name of one of the 
 Levites in the days of David, of the house of 
 Merari, and the son of Muhi. For Eder we find 
 in the LXX (B) of 1 Ch 23% AtSa, and of 1 Ch 249 
 "HAd, where (A) has”Eéep in both instances. 4% A 
 Benjamite, 1 Ch 8% (AV Ader), where LXX (B) 
 gives”Q676 and (A)Qéep. H. E. RYE. 
 
 EDIFICATION, EDIFY, EDIFYING. — These 
 words are always used in AV in the sense of build- 
 ing up. spiritually, either (a) the Church, or (2) the 
 individual Christian. 
 
 The Gr. vb. cixedouéw and subst. of~odex4 are used in NT, as in 
 class. Greek and in the LXX, in the lit. sense of building—a 
 house (Ac 747), tombs (Mt 2329), ete. But our Lord having 
 employed the figure of building His Church, which is expressed 
 in St. Matthew's report (Mt 1618) by the verb olzodouém, the 
 metaphor was taken up, and gradually both verb and subst. 
 were used with more and more freedom in this spiritual sense, 
 esp. by St. Paul, to whom the metaphor may almost be said 
 to belong. The Vulg. renders oizodousiv by cedificare, and 
 ix odope4, edificatio; and Wyclif, and all VSS following, 
 render vficare by ‘edify,’ cwdificatio by ‘edification,’ or 
 ‘edifying.’ See Hece Homo, ch. xviii. 
 
 EDER 
 
 
 
 EDOM, EDOMITES 
 
 
 
 The word ‘edification’ seems to have been introduced inte 
 Eng. direct from the Lat. edijicatio, but ‘edify’ more probably 
 through the Fr. édijier. They were used early, and probably 
 first of all in a literal sense. Thus Paston, Lett. (1462), ‘A plase 
 late be the said Sir John edified at Caster’; Thomas, Hist. Ital. 
 (1549), ‘About 700 yeres after the edification of Rome,’ The 
 spiritual sense was due perhaps entirely to the influence of the 
 Vulg., which sometimes was the cause of the litera] use, as 
 Wyclif’s tr. of Gn 222 ‘and the Lord God edified the rib, the 
 whiche he toke of Adam, into a woman,’ after Vulg. ‘ edificavit.’ 
 Trench (Hing. Past and Pres. p. 161) states that the mod. use 
 of ‘edify’ and ‘edification’ began with the Puritans; it is more 
 correct to say that by them the words were first used freely and 
 extensively in the spiritual sense, whence Oldham’s complaint— 
 
 ‘The graver sort dislike all poetry, 
 Which does not, as they call it, edify.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 EDNA ("Eiva=any ‘delight,’ but Fagius any) 
 was wife of Raguel of Ecbatana, and mother of 
 Sarah, who became wife of Tobias. She gave 
 a cordial welcome to Tobias and his attendant 
 Raphael in disguise, and questioned them as to 
 their kindred (‘To 7°), weeping over the recital of 
 Tobit’s adversities (7°). She prepared once more 
 the ill-fated bridal chamber (7!*), and led Sarah 
 thither. Her maternal blessing (om. in Vulg.) was 
 given on the departure of the bridal pair (10%); and 
 (B only) she received the blessing of Tobias in 
 return (111), Vulg. and Itala call her Anna. 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 EDOM, EDOMITES (0%%, Eddy, Idumea).—Edom, 
 the ‘Red’ Land, so called from the red colour of 
 its sandstone cliffs, embraced the ranges of Mount 
 Seir on either side of the ‘Arabah, or depression 
 which runs southward from the Dead Sea to the 
 head of the Gulf of Akabah. The name corresponds 
 with that of Deser or ‘Red,’ applied by the 
 Egyptians to the desert to the east of their coun 
 which was inhabited by the Shasu or Bedawin, an 
 included Mount Seir. In the time of the Twelfth 
 Dynasty, as we learn from the story of Sinuhit, 
 the country in which Edom was situated went by 
 the name of Tonu (or Tennu), the portion to the 
 north-east of it being called Kadfiim4, the Kedem 
 of the OT, whence the Kadmonites of Gn 
 15 (see also 1 K 4°), Sinuhit received in it 
 the district of Aia. In one of the Tel el-Amarna 
 tablets (The Tel el-Amarna Tablets in the British 
 Museum, No. 64) the city of Udumu or Edom is 
 mentioned as hostile to the Egyptian king, and as 
 being in a foreign land, together with the cities of 
 Aduri (Addar), Magdalim (Migdol), and Khini-a- 
 nabi (En-ha(n)-nabi). Udumu is sometimes called 
 a ‘city ’in the later Assyr. inscriptions, though it 
 is also spoken of in them as a ‘country.’? We may 
 conclude, therefore, that the country took its name 
 from its capital. In the Leyden Pap (i. 343, 7) 
 the wife of the Semitic fire-god Reshpu is said to 
 be ‘ Edom’ (Ztum), and at Karnak both Amenophis 
 11. and Thothmes II. mention the city of Shemesh- 
 Edom (Shemshu-Edum), which is coupled with 
 Anukhertu, the Anaharath in Issachar of Jos 
 19%  Rethpana, the Egyptian name of the 
 Dead Sea, may be a derivative from Reshpu (ef. 
 Job 5’, where ‘sparks’ are called ‘the sons of 
 Resheph’). The name QObed-edom, ‘servant of 
 Edom,’ occurs in the OT (2S 6). Edom, there- 
 fore, was probably (but not certainly [see Driver, 
 Text of Sam. 205]) the name of a deity; and since 
 both Udum and Etum correspond to the same 
 Hebrew word, it would seem that the local and 
 divine names were connected with one another. 
 The original inhabitants of Mount Seir were 
 Horites (which see), who were ‘destroyed’ by the 
 children .of Esau (Dt 2”). The genealogies in 
 Gn 36, however, show that the destruction was not 
 complete, and that the two races intermarried. 
 Esau himself married a descendant of ‘Seir the 
 Horite’ (36%, where 367-21 show that we must read 
 ‘Horite’ for ‘Hivite’). When the campaign of 
 
 Chedorlaomer and his Babylonian allies took place 
 
 
 
 
 
=. v=” -' 
 
 EDOM, EDOMITES 
 
 the Horites had not yet been dispossessed (Gn 14°). 
 The Horites were governed by ’alliiphim or ‘ dukes,’ 
 and both the office and name were handed on to their 
 Edomite successors (Gn 36”: 49-48), As the ‘’alldiphim 
 of Edom’ are alone referred to in the song of Moses 
 (Ex 15) after the overthrow of the Egyptians, 
 we may Panay infer that at the time of the 
 Exodus a king had not been established in Edom ; 
 at any rate the reference is an indication of the 
 eviignity of the passage in which it occurs. Before 
 the Israelites had quitted the desert, however, there 
 
 was a king in Edom. Moses sent messengers from 
 
 Kadesh-barnea to the king of Edom asking him to 
 permit his ‘brother Israel’ to pass through his 
 territories, promising that they would march along 
 the highway and do no injury to the country. But 
 the Edomites refused permission, and came out 
 with an army, so that the Israelites were obliged 
 to ‘compass the land of Edom’ (Nu 204-7! 21%). 
 
 The kings of Edom who reigned ‘before there 
 reigned any king over the children of Israel’ are 
 enumerated in Gn 36*!-89, The first, Bela the son 
 of Beor, seems to be identical with Balaam the son 
 of Beor, the seer of Pethor. If so, this would 
 account for his having been slain in the war with 
 the Midianites (Nu 315). ‘Rehoboth by the river,’ 
 from which Shaul came (Gn 36%’), must have 
 stood on the Euphrates, as that is ‘the river’ of 
 the OT; consequently it cannot be the Rehoboth 
 or ‘Suburbs’ of Nineveh (Assyr. Ribit), which were 
 on the Tigris. The list of Edomite kings must 
 have been extracted from the royal annals, and, as 
 it breaks off in the reign of Hadar (Gn 36%) 
 (or Hadad, 1 Ch 1), may have been composed 
 at that time. It will be noticed that the monarchy 
 was elective, not hereditary. 
 
 The children of Israel were ordered not to 
 * contend’ with their ‘ brethren the children of Esau, 
 which dwell in Seir,’ for God had ‘given Mount 
 Seir unto Esau for a possession’; and accordingly 
 they turned eastward after passing the Edomite 
 
 rts of Elath and Eziongeber (now ‘Akabah and 
 Kala’nt el-Akabah), at the head of the Gulf of 
 
 kabah, and made their way to Moab along the 
 eastern edge of Mount Seir (Dt 2**). Similarly, 
 the Edomite, like the Egyptian, was allowed to 
 ‘enter into the congregation of the Lord in the 
 third generation’ (Dt 237°), in contrast to the 
 Ammonite and Moabite, who could not do so till 
 the tenth generation. 
 
 Ramses Il. of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, 
 after defeating the northern hordes who had 
 attacked Egypt, and overrunning the south of 
 Palestine, ‘smote the people of Seir who belong to 
 the Shasu (Bedawin), and plundered their tents.’ 
 Among the pictures of his prisoners at Medinet 
 Habu is that of the Edomite ‘chief,’ who, it must 
 be observed, is not called ‘king.’ So far as we 
 know, it was the only campaign ever undertaken 
 by a Pharaoh against Mount Seir. Its date was 
 about B.C. 1230-1200, some thirty years after the 
 Exodus, so that the Israelites might have been in 
 the neighbourhood of Edom at the time (cf, Nu 21"). 
 
 Edomite tribes settled in the south of Judah, 
 and even Othniel the brother of Caleb, and the 
 first judge, was a Kenizzite (Nu 32%, Jos 15”, 
 Gn 36-15), Saul warred with Edom (158 14%); 
 and David conquered the country, putting garrisons 
 throughout it, and occupying its ports in the Gulf 
 of Akabah (2 S 88:14, where we must read ‘ Edom’ 
 for ‘Aram,’ AV ‘Syrians’). It was in these ports 
 that Solomon with the help of the Tyrians con- 
 structed the merchant vessels which traded to 
 Ophir for gold (1 K 96%). Throughout his reign, 
 however, Edom was in a state of revolt under 
 
 Hadad, ‘of the king’s seed,’ who had escaped to 
 Midian when Joab was for six months cutting ‘ off 
 every male in Edom’ after David’s conquest of the 
 
 EDOM, EDOMITES 645 
 
 
 
 country. From Midian he and his companions 
 went to Paran, and from thence to the court ot 
 Egypt, where the Pharaoh gave him his sister-in- 
 law as a wife, and his son Genubath was brought 
 up as an Egyptian prince. But on the death of 
 David and J cAG Hadad obtained leave to return to 
 Edom, and became ‘an adversary unto Solomon’ 
 (1 K 11+), He does not seem to have succeeded 
 in making himself independent, however, as we 
 find Edom still subject to Judah after the revolt of 
 the Ten Tribes. Jehoshaphat still held Ezion- 
 seber, where he built ships to trade to Ophir; and 
 it is stated that ‘there was then no king in Edom: 
 a deputy was king’ (1 K 22"), This means that 
 there was no Bedepentient king there, since, in the 
 war against Moab, when Edom had to follow its 
 suzerain, its ruler is called ‘king’ (2 K 39 10 12. 26), 
 In the reign of Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s successor, 
 Edom revolted, ‘and made a king over themselves.’ 
 The revolt spread to the south of Judah, where 
 Libnah was the centre of disaffection; and though 
 Jehoram defeated the Edomites at Zair, he was 
 unable to reduce them to obedience (2 K 8-22), 
 About fifty years later Amaziah invaded Edom, 
 slaying 10,000 of the enemy in the Valley of Salt, 
 and taking Sela (or Petra), which he named 
 Joktheel (2 K 147), Edom seems to have been 
 crushed by this defeat, as Amaziah’s successor, 
 Uzziah, ‘restored’ Elath to Judah, and rebuilt it 
 (2 K 14”). It remained in Jewish hands till it was 
 captured by Rezin of Damascus, who colonized it 
 with Syrians * (2 K 16°), This was in the reign of 
 Ahaz, when ‘the Edomites had come and smitten 
 Judah, and carried away captives’ (2 Ch 281”). 
 Rezin, however, was conquered and put to death 
 in B.C. 732 by Tiglath-pileser 11. of Assyria, who 
 thereupon held a court at Damascus, where he 
 received the homage and tribute of numerous 
 princes, among them being ‘Jehoahaz (Ahaz) of 
 the land of the Jews,’ and ‘Kaus-malaka (Kaus- 
 melech) of the land of the Edomites.’ Schrader 
 has pointed out that Kaus is the name of a god 
 which appears as Kos in Greek ieee one: with 
 which Paley compares the name of the early 
 Arab. deity Kais (Heb. Kish, Kishon). In B.c. 
 711, Edom joined the league against Sargon along 
 with Judah, Philistia, Moab, Egypt, and Merodach- 
 baladan of Babylon; but Ashdod, the Syrian 
 centre of the league, was taken by the Assyrians, 
 and Edom, like Moab and Judah, paid tribute to the 
 conqueror. Edom again joined the revolt against 
 Assyria in B.C. 701, of which Hezekiah was the 
 head ; but when Sennacherib marched into Pales- 
 tine, A-rammu of Edom submitted like the kings of 
 Moab and Ammon. Esar-haddon caused Kaus- 
 gabri, ‘ king of the city of Edom,’ together with the 
 other vassal kings of the west, including Manasseh 
 of ‘the city of Judah’ and the king of ‘the city of 
 Moab,’ to convey to Nineveh timber from Lebanon 
 and various stones for the construction of his 
 alace. When Jerusalem was destroyed by 
 ebuchadrezzar, the Edomites took part with the 
 enemy, and rejoiced over the calamities of Judah,— 
 conduct which aroused bitter feelings against them 
 on the part of the Jews (La 4°”, Ezk 35°19, 
 Ob?0-6), These feelings were not diminished by 
 their occupation of southern Judah, with Hebron 
 as their capital, and their attacks upon the Jews 
 during the Maccabwan war. Judas Maccabzeus, 
 however, drove them from the south of Judah (B.c. 
 164); and John Hyrcanus, in B.c. 109, conquered 
 their country, and compelled them to adopt 
 Judaism. ount Seir, as far north as Petra, had 
 already fallen into the hands of the Nabateans, 
 who spoke an Aramaic dialect. Hyreanus 1 , the 
 *So the Kethibh o’DI08. The Keré, however, reads 0D} 
 
 (Edomites) ; and this, which has the support of the L 
 doupeios, is adopted by Siegfried-Stade and Oa, Heb. Lexicon. 
 
 
 
 
 
546 EDOS 
 
 randson of John Hyrcanus, on being driven out of 
 D crate lees was induced by the Idumzxan Antipater 
 to seek the help of Aretas, the king of Petra. 
 Pompey, however, intervened, and after sacking 
 Jerusalem, made Hyreanus high priest (B.C. 63), 
 while Antipater was subsequently (B.c. 47) 
 appointed by Julius Cxsar procurator of Judea, 
 Samaria, and Galilee on account of his services 
 against Pompey. His son was Herod the Great. 
 Edomite proper names show that the language 
 of Edom was practically identical with Hebrew. 
 Of Edomite deities we know only the names of 
 Hadad (also Dad), Kaus, Kozé, Edom, and A. The 
 name of Esauw’s son Jeush (Gn 36°), however, corre- 
 ochre phonetically with that of Yaghfith, a pre- 
 ohammedan deity of Arabia. 
 
 LiITERATURE.—Baxthgen, Beitrdge zur semitischen Religions- 
 gerne 10 ff. ; Reland, Pal. 230 ff. ; Robinson, BAP ii. 117 ff., 
 
 68 ff.; Baedeker, Pal. 183ff.; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 
 429ff.; Hull, Mount Seir, 85ff.; Trumbull, Kadesh-Barnea; 
 Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 263 f. 
 
 A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 EDOS (B ’Héés, A’Héals, AV Edes), 1 Es 95= 
 Ippo, Ezr 10%, 
 
 EDREI (‘y7x, "Edpdew, Edrai).—i1. Edrei was a 
 city of Bashan (now the Haur4n, eastward of Lake 
 Tiberias), where the Amorite king Og was defeated 
 and slain by the Israelites (Nu 21, Dt 31, Jos 
 13”). It was then given to Machir, the son of 
 Manasseh (Jos 13%, see Jg 54), the district in 
 which it was situated being known as Gilead (Nu 
 32), The Amorites do not seem to have been long 
 in possession of it, as one of the letters of Tel el- 
 Amarna, about a century and a half before the 
 Exodus, is from Artama-Samas,* the governor of 
 Ziri-Basana, ‘the field of Bashan.’ Edrei is the 
 
 Adraha of classical geography, and in Christian 
 times was the seat of a bishop. 
 
 It has been 
 identified with the modern Der‘dt or Der‘a, where 
 there is a large reservoir, as well as an aqueduct 
 and mausoleum. About 10 miles to the north of it 
 is Tell ‘Ashtera, the supposed site of Ashtaroth, 
 which is associated with Edrei, and in the time of 
 Abraham was inhabited by the Rephaim (Gn 14°), 
 In one of the Tel el-Amarna letters (B. M. 43. 10) 
 it is called Astartu, and the writer of the despatch 
 accuses a certain Biridasyi of taking the chariots 
 out of it and giving them to the Bedawin. The 
 neighbouring city of Buzruna (Bostra) was at the 
 time under a king of its own. W. Max Miiller 
 identifies the city of Autara in the Karnak List of 
 Thothmes m1. (No. 91) with Edrei. Philologically 
 the names would correspond, but the identifica- 
 tion is impossible, as Autar4 is enumerated among 
 the towns of southern Palestine. Astartu or 
 Ashtaroth is in an earlier part of the list (No. 28). 
 
 2. EDREI is mentioned in Jos 197 between 
 Kadesh and En-hazor, in the tribe of Naphtali. 
 The site of it is unknown. 
 
 LitrraTuRE.—Tomkins in Records of the Past, New Series, v. 
 p. 43ff.; Wetzstein, Retsebericht wb. Hauran, etc., 47, 77, 
 123; Porter, Giant Cities of Bashan, 93 ff. ; Baedeker, Pal. 201 ; 
 Schumacher, Across the Jordan, 121-147; Dillmann on Nu 2133 
 
 and Dt 310; Driver on Dt 14 81 310, and his art. ASHTAROTH in 
 present vol. ; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 528n., 576. 
 
 A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 EDUCATION.—Every student of the history of 
 education will endorse the judgment of the Alex- 
 andrian scholar (Prol. to Sirach), that Israel must 
 needs be commended for its zeal in the cause of 
 moral and intellectual culture (raidela cal codia), 
 since the canonical Books of Deuteronomy and 
 Proverbs, the deutero-canonical Wisdom of Jesus 
 ben-Sira, and the Mishna treatise commonly called 
 the Sayings of the Fathers (niax *775 Pirké’ Abéth), 
 provide a catena of pedagogic principles without a 
 parallel in ancient literature. Two sentences only 
 
 * Now read Artama-Ya or Artama-anya by Winckler, 
 
 EDUCATION 
 
 may be selected for quotation at this stage. The 
 one is the motto prefixed to the Book of Proverbs : 
 ‘ The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ 
 (Pr 17, cf. 91°); the other is attributed to Simeon, 
 the son of the famous Gamaliel: ‘ Not learning but 
 doing is the chief thing’ (Ad. i. 17).* In these 
 maxims we find the two distinguishing notes of 
 Hebrew education, which from first to last was at 
 once religious and practical—an education which 
 sought to combine instruction in the positive truths 
 of the ancestral faith+ with preparation for the prac- 
 tical duties of life. It was this successful com- 
 bination which led J alter in his treatise Against 
 Apion to contrast the education of his countrymen 
 with that of the Lacedemonians and Cretans on 
 the one hand, and with that of the Athenians on 
 the other—the former being too severely practical, 
 the latter too exclusively theoretical. ‘But our 
 lawgiver with great care combined these two 
 methods, for he neither left the practice of right 
 habits without oral instruction (lit. ‘dumb,’ cwPjv), 
 nor did he pee: the rules thus taught to remain 
 unpractised.’ 
 
 e propose here to study the educational 
 methods of the Israelites historically. For this 
 purpose it will be convenient to group the material 
 at our disposal under three historical periods, as 
 follows :— 
 
 i, HEBREW EDUCATION FROM THE CONQUEST TO 
 THE EXILE.—When the Hebrews came to settle in 
 the valleys west of the Jordan, they found them- 
 selves among a race or races immensely their 
 superiors in all the arts of civilization and culture. 
 Of this there can be no reasonable doubt, though 
 we may doubt whether the country was so thickly 
 studded with schools, teachers, and libraries as 
 has recently been maintained.t In any case the 
 troublous times of the conquest were not the most 
 suitable for assimilating the higher civilization of 
 the Canaanites. Reading and still more writing 
 (Jg 84) must rather have ‘been the accomplishment 
 of the few than the custom of the many, How- 
 ever that may be, one fact of Hebrew historw 
 remains indisputable, namely, that throughout 
 the long period closing with the exile, education 
 was exclusively domestic and private. It is true 
 that the late Jewish writings, Talmud, Targum, 
 and Midrash —those storehouses of magnificent 
 anachronisms—represent even the patriarchs as 
 attending school and college, but such statements 
 are merely harmless flights of fancy. In the 
 whole range of pre-exilie literature there is no 
 trace of any provision by public authority for 
 either elementary or higher education. The word 
 ‘school’ occurs neither in the OT nor in the 
 Apocrypha, and in the NT only of the lecture- 
 room of a Greek rhetorician at Ephesus (Ac 19°). 
 The explanation is that the home was the school, and 
 the parents, in all but the highest ranks of society, 
 were the only teachers. The duty of reverence 
 for and obedience to parents imposed on children 
 by the oldest legislation (Ex 20%”), had its counter- 
 part in the duty incumbent on the parents (and in 
 particular on the father) to instruct their children 
 in religion and morals. This aspect of parental 
 responsibility is repeatedly emphasized in the Book 
 of Deuteronomy (4° 67), ‘Thou shalt teach them 
 diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of 
 them when thou sittest in thine house, and when 
 
 * Quotations from Aboth will be made from ‘The Authorized 
 Daily Prayer-Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the 
 British Empire’ (ed. Singer), as providing the most easily 
 accessible text and translation. References to other treatises 
 of the Mishna are given acc. to the sections of Jost’s edition. 
 
 + Contrast this with the statement of Iwan Miiller: ‘ Special 
 instruction in religion was not known to either the Greeks or the 
 Homans of se ’(Handb. d. klass. Alterthumswissenschaft, 
 
 4'isp. by Sayce in Patriarchal Palestine (passim), and else 
 where, 
 
 
 

 
 EDUCATION 
 
 EDUCATION 647 
 
 
 
 thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest 
 down, and when thou risest up’ (GRO? OED Bye9). 
 The special provision of Dt 311-18, requiring the 
 presence of the children at the reading of the law 
 in ‘the year of release,’ ¢.e. every seventh year, can 
 have had only a peas application before the 
 great calamity of the exile (cf. Dt 31! with Neh 
 8!’). In the families of the aristocracy the place of 
 the parents, the child’s natural teachers, was taken 
 by tutors (ok 2 K 10-5), The infant Solomon, 
 according to the simplest rendering of 25 12”, 
 was entrusted to the care of the prophet Nathan. 
 
 It is now impossible to form an exact estimate 
 of the extent to which education, as tested by the 
 ability to read and write, was common among the 
 uae The standard of learning would naturally 
 
 igher in the cities than in the country dis- 
 tricts, highest of all in the neighbourhood of the 
 court. Yet such facts as that Amos and Micah 
 among the literary prophets belonged to the ranks 
 of the people; that Mesha, king of Moab, could 
 count on readers for the stele commemorating his 
 victories; that the workmen who excavated the 
 tunnel from the Virgin’s spring to the pool of 
 Siloam carved in the rock the manner of their 
 work,—these facts, taken along with more than one 
 possae of Isaiah (8! 109 ‘a child may write them’ ; 
 cf. 291-2 the distinction between the literate and 
 the illiterate), should make us pause before drawing 
 the line of illiteracy too high in the social scale. 
 
 A single word must suffice for the schools of 
 the prophets (an expression with no scriptural 
 authority), of which so much was made by scholars 
 of former days, All that the Scripture narrative 
 warrants us in holding is that in a few centres, 
 such as Bethel (2 K 2%), Jericho (2°), and Gilgal 
 (4°5), men of prophetic spirit formed associations 
 or estherhoods (hence the name ‘sons of the pro- 
 phets’) for the purpose of stimulating their devo- 
 tion to J” through the common life of the brother- 
 hood. Edification, not education, was the main 
 purpose of these so-called ‘schools.’ 
 
 ii. FRoM THE EXILE TO SIMON BEN-SHETACH, 
 c. B.C. 75.—The arrival in Jerusalem of Ezra the 
 ‘ready scribe’ (155) in the law of Moses (Ezr 7°) was 
 an event of epoch-making importance in the educa- 
 tional not less than in the religious history of the 
 Jews. For Ezra had set his heart to study (v7) 
 the law (Torah) of J” and to do it, and to teach 
 (1295) in Israel statutes and judgments (Ezr 7), 
 The story of Ezra’s activity belongs to the 
 general history of the period. For our present 
 purpose it is enough to recall the fact that the 
 culmination of that activity was the acceptance by 
 the Jewish community of the Torah, in its written 
 form, as the regulating norm in every relation of 
 life. From this time onwards the Jews were pre- 
 eminently ‘the people of the book.’ But in order 
 that the moral precepts of a book may be obeyed, 
 and its ritual requirements duly observed, the 
 book must be pelatea, must be read and studied. 
 The first step in this direction was the great 
 assembly of which we read in Neh 8 ff. The centre 
 of interest throughout is not the living word 
 of a prophet, but the book of the law and the ex- 
 position of its contents by accredited teachers 
 (note Neh 87 ® oan, the same word as is rendered 
 ‘teacher’ in 1 Ch 258 and in Ezr 8!® RV). Wewould 
 gladly know what measures were taken by Ezra 
 and his associates for the continuance of the public 
 instruction so auspiciously begun. Unfortunately, 
 we have no information on this point from con- 
 temporary records, and what a late age has to tell 
 of the work of the so-called ‘Great Synagogue’ 
 belongs to the world of fable.* There can be little 
 
 * See esp. Kuenen’s classical essay, ‘On the Men of the Great 
 Eynagogue,’ now accessible in German in Budde’s Gesammelte 
 bhandlungen, etc., von Dr, A. Kuenen (1894). 
 
 
 
 doubt, however, that one of the oldest institutions 
 of Judaism, the synagogue, goes back to the time 
 of fizra, if not indeed to the days of the exile. 
 The synagogue, it is important to remember, was 
 not originally a place of worship but a place of re- 
 ligious instruction, and indeed it is so named by a 
 writer so late as Philo of Alexandria (Vita Mosis, 
 ili, 27, r& mpocevxrjpia th érepov éorw A didacKkanreta, 
 x.7.A.). With this agrees the fact that in NT times 
 dddoxew, to teach, is still used to express the 
 function of the preacher in the synagogue (Mt 4%, 
 Mk 17, Lk 4 cou often).* But whether we regard 
 Ezra as the immediate founder of the synagogue or 
 not, there can be no doubt of the fact that, by 
 securing the recognition by the public authorities 
 of the need of organized religious instruction, he 
 accomplished a work of supreme importance in the 
 educational history of the Jews. ‘The Bible 
 became the spelling-book, the community a school, 
 religion an affair of teaching and learning. Piety 
 and education were inseparable; whoever could 
 not read was no true Jew. We may say that in 
 this way were created the beginnings of popular 
 education. In what way this took place is, it is 
 true, wrapped in mystery; in the synagogue 
 men did not learn to write and read, and the 
 scribes were not elementary teachers. But the 
 ideal of education for religion’s sake was set up 
 and awoke emulation, even though the goal was 
 not reached all at once’ (Wellhausen, Jsr. u. jiid. 
 Gesch.1 p. 159). 
 
 During the whole of the period under review the 
 early education of the Jewish child continued, even 
 more than before, to be the business of his parents. 
 Elementary schools were still unknown. Now, as 
 in much later times, it was ‘the duty of the father 
 to instruct his son in the Torah (Kiddushin, 29a),’ 
 a duty in which the mother took her share (Pr 6” 
 31}, Sus’). The obligation extended even to ‘child- 
 ren’s children’ (Dt 4°). A noteworthy feature of 
 the pentateuchal precepts, from the view-point of 
 pedagogic method, is the extent to which certain 
 religious rites are to be used as object-lessons to 
 the children [Ex 12” 13° (passover) 13+4 (first-fruits), 
 cf. Jos 4°]. Their interest and attention are first to 
 be aroused, and only after question asked is the ex- 
 planation of the rite to be given. In the case of 
 the passover the question, ‘ What mean ye by this 
 service?’ (Ex 12?5)—now expanded to four—has re- 
 mained as part of the eremony. to the present day. 
 
 The leading feature of the educational history of 
 this period is the rise of a body of men as pro- 
 fessional teachers. These are the Sophérim (0755, 
 literally ‘book men’), or scribes. For the circum- 
 stances which led during the exile to a species of 
 literary renaissance, or rather to a new interest in 
 the literature of the past, and thereby to the 
 growth of a body of literati (-ypapparets),—students, 
 copyists, and teachers,—we must refer to the article 
 ScripEs. We have seen, however, under what 
 circumstances the study and the exposition of the 
 Torah, in particular, were begun among ‘the 
 children of the captivity’ in the new community at 
 Jerusalem. From that time to the end of the 
 Jewish state and beyond it, the office of the scribe 
 was one of ever-increasing importance. But to 
 identify, as is too often done, the scribes of the 
 Persian and early Greek period with those whose 
 character and aims are familiar to us from the 
 Gospels, is to do the former great injustice. For 
 these ancient scribes have shared in the rehabili- 
 tation of the late Persian and early Greek periods 
 of Jewish history, which is so remarkable a feature 
 of the critical scholarship of the day.t Here we 
 
 * For further testimony by Philo and Josephus to the teaching 
 HJP wi. ii. p. 54. 
 leche Ges- 
 
 function of the synagogue, see Schiirer, H. 
 + See, inter alios, Wellhauaen, Israelitische w. ziid 
 
 chichtel, p. 154. 
 
 
 
EDUCATION 
 
 are concerned with them only in sv far as they 
 continued the work of instruction committed to 
 them by Ezra. Unfortunately, from the lack of 
 historical material, it is now impossible to trace the 
 development of education under their guidance. 
 We know, however, that by the time of the 
 Chronicler (1 Ch 255) they had been ‘organized in 
 regular ‘‘ families,” or as we should now sa 
 ‘‘ guilds,” an institution quite in accordance with 
 the whole spirit of the East, which forms a guild 
 or trades-union of every class possessing special 
 technical knowledge’ (W. R. Smith, OT JC? p. 44). 
 From the proverbial form of 1 Ch 25°*—‘as well 
 the small as the great, the teacher as the scholar’ 
 —we may further infer that the relation of master 
 and pupil was by this time (c. B.c. 300) a familiar 
 one; which, of course, implies facilities for education 
 other than the Levitical music schools to which the 
 proverb is here applied. 
 
 Here we are met by one of the most interesting 
 but difficult problems in the history of Hebrew 
 education. Not the least important of the critical 
 results above referred to, is the bringing down of 
 the compilation of our present Book of Proverbs, 
 and so of the Golden Age of the Wisdom Litera- 
 ture, to the Persian period. In this case, who are 
 the ‘ Wise’ (0.»3n), the sages of whom this depart- 
 ment of Hebrew literature is the characteristic and 
 enduring memorial? May we identify them with 
 the older race of Sopherim, the book-men or Jiéerati 
 of the period?* The temptation is great. Thus 
 the scribes were the accredited teachers of the 
 people (see above), and the most venerable of the 
 traditions preserved by the fraternity from the 
 ‘men of the Great Synagogue’ was the obligation 
 to ‘raise up many disciples’ (Ab. i. 1). But the 
 sages were also teachers (o in, 0259 Pr 5'3), who 
 address a pupil as ‘ my son,’ and whose teaching is 
 known as ‘ the words of the wise’ (Pr 1° 221’, Ec 9!” 
 124; see also the Oxf. Heb. Lex. sub osn). Again, 
 
 the scribes formed, as we have seen, a guild or 
 
 corporation. But we have abundant evidence that 
 the sages are also to be regarded as forming a 
 distinct fraternity (Pr 1° 13! 2217 243, Ke 12". Cf. 
 Cheyne, Job and Solomon,p. 123 and passim; Riehm, 
 Handwért. d. Bibl. Alt.2 sub ‘ Weise’ + ; Kautzsch, 
 Abriss d. Gesch. d. AT Schriftiwms?, 1897, p. 
 135 ff.). Wellhausen in his recent history, while 
 maintaining their original independence, admits 
 that by the time of Jesus ben-Sira (B.c. 200-180) 
 the scribes ‘ were scarcely any longer to be distin- 
 guished from the sages’ (Conk p. 154, notel). This 
 admission is due to the fact—and here perhaps we 
 have the strongest argument for the identity of the 
 two classes—that Ben-Sira, the last of the sages, 
 was himself a scribe. Of this there can be no 
 doubt ; one has but to read his glowing panegyric 
 on ‘the wisdom of the scribe,’ and the glory of his 
 calling (Sir 38%-39"). It is therefore but natural 
 that ‘the best, and almost the only data regarding 
 the earlier scribes, are to be found in the Book of 
 Pee pene G88. Ql4f. 1 420%. Zgrf.” (Wellhausen, 
 0s. cit.) 
 
 For our present purpose the final answer to our 
 query regarding the personnel of the sages is 
 immaterial; for whether we hold that they are 
 identical with the Sopherim or book-men, or regard 
 them as forming a distinct but allied class in the 
 pre-Maccabean community, the fact remains that 
 the sages represent a great educational force in the 
 period under review. The Book of Proverbs is the 
 
 * This identification was first proposed by A. T. Hartmann (Die 
 enge Verbindung d. AT. mit d. Neuem, 1831), and more recently 
 and independently by Smend in his Alttest. Religionsgeschichte, 
 1893, p. 512 ff. Cf. Montefiore, Hibb. Lect. 396f. x 
 
 t ‘They (the sages) occupy in the everyday life of ancient 
 {srael a position precisely similar to that of the scribes in later 
 Judaism.’ Riehm is, of course, assuming the pre-exilic date of 
 
 Proverbs. I Se 
 
 EDUCATION 
 
 repository of their pedagogic experience (see esp. 
 12-6), and so the oldest handbook of education. Life 
 is here conceived as a discipline (19D, a word 
 occurring 30 times in the book acc. to Driver, LOT? 
 380). This is its central thought. ‘The whole of 
 life is considered from the view-point of a pedagogic 
 institution. God educates men, and men educate 
 each other’ (O. Holtzmann in Stade’s GV/J? ii. 
 296-97). Father and mother are the child’s natural 
 instructors (18 41-4 6° 13! 30!”) ; from them he shall 
 first learn that ‘fear of the Lord which is the 
 beginning—or it may be the chief part—of wisdom’ 
 (9%). Their duty in this respect is emphasized ; 
 they are to study their child, since his character is 
 known by his conduct (204). To them is addressed 
 the golden maxim, ‘train up a child in the way he 
 should go, and even when he is old he will not de- 
 art from it’ (22° RV). The child is by nature 
 oolish, and needs the ‘rod of correction’ (225), 
 Corporal punishment is repeatedly advocated (‘he 
 that spareth his rod hateth his son,’ 13%, ef. 1918 
 23% 14 9915.17, also La 3%), yet with the intelligent 
 child reproof is better than ‘a hundred stripes’ 
 (17°). From the parents’ care the child—of the 
 upper classes only, in all probability, cf. 17}6 47 
 (RV) with Sir 51%—if he would attain to ‘wisdom.’ 
 passes into the hands of professional teachers (57), 
 the sages, whose words ‘ spoken in quiet’ (Ee 9” 
 RV) ‘are as goads’ (Ec 12"), and whose direction 
 (7m) is ‘a fountain of life’ (Pr 134), The pupil’s 
 progress in religion and morality is the teacher’s 
 ighest joy (23! 18), but not all are capable of 
 receiving this higher instruction (27%). Prudence 
 and forethought (24”7), temperance (2117 23%. 21. 29-8 
 and chastity (75 29° and oft.), diligence (6°) and 
 truthfulness (177), consideration for the poor (147! 
 1917 22%), and a truly noble charity towards 
 enemies (257): 2 = Ro 12”), the value of trae 
 friendship (1717 18% 27°), and the dignity of woman- 
 hood (311°-8!),__these are some of the moral lessons 
 to be learned in ‘the house of discipline’ (otky 
 racdelas, Sir 51°’) from ‘the lips of the wise’ (Pr 
 157).* 
 
 The founding of Alexandria was an event the 
 importance of which for the history of Jewish life and 
 thought even in Palestine it is impossible to over- 
 estimate. What would we not give to be able to 
 trace the working of the subtle influences on the 
 religious thought of the time, in particular, of those 
 forces of Hellenism by which the little Jewish state 
 was girt about on every side (cf. 1 Mac 1")! For 
 something like a century Alexandria, with its great 
 library and university, its brilliant array of scholars 
 and littérateurs, was the capital of Southern Syria 
 as well as of Egypt. How was popular education 
 affected by this close connexion of Alexandria and 
 Jerusalem? A solitary notice, so far as we have 
 been able to discover, from the period in question, 
 almost warrants us in believing that the Greek 
 educational methods had penetrated to Jerusaiem. 
 The infamous tax-farmer Joseph (c. B.C. 220),+ 
 we are told, sent his sons ‘severally to those 
 that had the best reputation for instructing youth’ 
 (Josephus, Ant. xt. iv. 6). The education re- 
 quired was certainly of the Greek type, and this 
 fact, taken in connexion with the rapid progress 
 of Hellenism at this particular epoch, even under 
 the shadow of the temple (see 1Macl, 2 Mac 
 2-4), makes it very probable that schools on the 
 Greek model were then established in Jerusalem. 
 When the author of Ps 119 says, ‘I have more 
 understanding than all my teachers,’ ete. (vv.%: 1), 
 there is good reason for thinking that he wishes 
 
 * How much, one wonders, of what is best in our Scottish char- 
 acter to-day is due to the use till almost the other day of this 
 great peak (4 raveépstos copia) as the reading-book of our parish 
 schools 
 
 + For this corrected date see Wellhausen, op. cit. pp. 197-98. 
 
 
 

 
 EDUCATION 
 
 
 
 EDUCATION 649 
 
 
 
 to exalt the study of Holy Scripture above the 
 secular learning of the Greek schools. However 
 this may be, Ben-Sira was still true to Jewish 
 traditions and uninfluenced by Hellenistic culture. 
 He had travelled in other countries, and studied 
 perhaps in other literatures, but he remained ‘a 
 true ‘‘scribe,” and gloried in the name’ (38%). 
 The object his translator had in view, as we learn 
 from his preface to his grandfather’s work, ‘was to 
 correct the inequalities of moral and religious 
 culture (ra:dela2) among the Jews of Egypt b 
 setting before them a standard and a lesson boo 
 of true religious wisdom’ (Cheyne, Job and 
 Solomon). ‘The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach,’ 
 or ‘ Ecclesiasticus,’ is therefore avowedly a manual 
 of ethics, and as such deserves more space than we 
 can give it in this review of Jewish educational 
 history. ‘Draw near unto me, ye unlearned,’ we 
 read in the epilogue, ‘and lodge in the house of 
 instruction. Say, wherefore are ye lacking in 
 these things, and your souls are very thirsty ?’ (Sir 
 51*#.), His religious standpoint is essentially that 
 of the Book of Proverbs, on which his own is 
 modelled. Thus the fear of the Lord is not only 
 ‘the beginning of wisdom’ (114), but also wisdom’s 
 fulness (1!*) and crown (138), Yet the author’s 
 ethical tone is distinctly lower than that of his 
 model. As a disciplinarian he is severe even to 
 excess (30! 7*-%). The principles of humane 
 conduct are exhibited in many lights, including 
 even the ‘manners’ of the dinner table (31)%1), 
 The notable passage (3874-39) in which he sketches 
 his ideal of the scribe has been already adverted to. 
 One point, however, must be further emphasized, 
 viz. the assertion that learning is the monopoly of 
 the wealthy: ‘The wisdom of the scribe cometh 
 by opportunity of leisure. How shall he become 
 wise that holdeth the a Las ete. ? (384%) Educa- 
 tion is costly (51%), but he himself offers the means of 
 culture ‘without money and without price’ (cf. 51”). 
 Many questions regarding the practical aspects 
 of education in this period suggest themselves, to 
 wnich only tentative answers can be given. 
 Where, for example, did the teachers of whom we 
 read (Pr 5', Ps 119, perhaps Dn 12?)—be they 
 sages or scribes—meet their pupils? What were 
 their methods of instruction? The synagogues 
 first occur to one as the scene of those expositions 
 of Scripture to which the name of Midrash was 
 already applied (2 Ch 13” 24”), There the people 
 were instructed on Sabbaths and feast-days by 
 competent expounders of the Scriptures, as a rule, 
 no doubt, by the scribes, although these never 
 had a micnepory of the synagogue teaching. As 
 early as the beginning of the Srd cent. the scribes 
 had apparently facilities for teaching within the 
 temple precincts: such, at least, seems the legiti- 
 mate inference from their description as ‘scribes 
 of the temple’ in the edict of Antiochus m1. (Jos. 
 Ant. XIl. ili. 3). ‘Within the massive city gates 
 or in the adjacent squares or “broad places” on 
 which the streets converged (Pr 1-21, cf. Job 297) 
 the ‘‘ wise men” awaited their disciples’ (Cheyne, 
 op. cit. p. 124). Most of the instruction, however, 
 was doubtless given by sage and scribe alike in 
 private houses, their own or those of wealthy dis- 
 ciples. ‘My son,’ says Ben-Sira, ‘if thou seest a 
 man of understanding, get thee betimes unto him, 
 and let thy foot wear out the steps of his house’ 
 (Sir 6° RV). With this advice we compare that 
 of José ben-Joezer of Zeredah, in the early Macca- 
 bean days: ‘Let thy house be a meeting-place 
 (141 m2) for the wise; sit amidst the dust of their 
 feet, and drink their words with thirst’ (Ad. i. 4).* 
 * The mbdiayix which, according to Sota, ix. 9, ceased since 
 José’s time, cannot, as some have thought, mean schools («x 0A% 
 
 —in late Heb. *inpy); see Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palestine, 
 p. 456 ff. 
 
 Here was found the opportunity for those ‘ words 
 (eae in quiet’ that were ‘like nails fastened by 
 the masters of assemblies’ (Ec 1214), 
 
 As to methods, we have still less information 
 To judge from the practice of a later age, the 
 pupils would learn by frequent repetition the pro- 
 verbs of the wise (cf. Cheyne, toc. ctt.). The 
 alphabet was already used in ways cattulated to 
 assist the memory, as in the 119th Wsaln. To 
 this period may be assigned the invention of the 
 mnemonic device known as Athbash (wanx), of 
 which the present text of Jer 25° 51! atiords the 
 classical examples (see Giesebrecht’s Comm. in loc.), 
 as also the introduction of the ‘numerical’ pro- 
 verbs, so much in vogue in later times (cf. Pr 30!» 
 with A both, v.). 
 
 Finally, we may assume that, at least from the 
 beginning of the Greek period, a fairly high 
 standard of general culture prevailed. It was now 
 that the editor, if not the author, of Ecclesiastes 
 could write: ‘Of making many books there is no 
 end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh’ 
 (Ec 12"). At the beginning of the Maccabwan 
 revolt, also, the possession of copies of the ‘ book 
 of the covenant’ was certainly not the exclusive 
 privilege of priest and scribe (1 Mac 1°”), 
 
 III. FROM SIMON BEN-SHETACH (c. B.C. 75) TO 
 THE END OF THE JEWISH STATE (A.D. 70).—Just 
 as the synagogue was the novel feature of the 
 preceding period from the educational point of 
 view, so is the elementary school the feature of 
 this third period. Such, at least, is the tradition 
 preserved in the so-called Talmud of Jerusalem. 
 In a passage commemorating the merits of the 
 famous scribe and leader of the Pharisees, Simon 
 ben-Shetach (or Shatach),* brother of queen Alex- 
 andra, we read that three additions were made 
 by him to the statute-book, so to say, the second 
 ob which runs thus— 
 
 appa may pada mpyxnn vad ‘that the children 
 shall attend the elementary school’ (Talm. Jer. 
 Kethuboth, viii. 11, p. 326; see the whole passage 
 in Derenbourg, op. cit. p. 108). The words quoted, 
 it will be seen, are not altogether free from am- 
 biguity. They may also be interpreted to mean 
 that attendance on schools already existing was 
 henceforth to be compulsory. In view of what 
 was said above regarding the spread of Greek 
 ideas in pre-Maccabeean days, it is difficult to 
 believe that schools preparatory to the more ad- 
 vanced instruction in the scribal college (see 
 below) were not to be found—at least in Jerusalem. 
 One can hardly escape the conviction that the 
 erection of the Greek gymnasium at Jerusalem 
 (1 Mae 174, ef. 2 Mac 4%*-) was not the first step, but 
 the last, in the assimilation of Jewish and Greek 
 education. Be this as it may, there is no good 
 reason for rejecting the tradition regarding Simon 
 ben-Shetach’s efforts on behalf of popular educa- 
 tion. All that we know regarding the predomi- 
 nant influence of the scribes in the reign of Alex- 
 andra (B.C. 78-69) prepares us for more aggressive 
 measures for the extension of their principles 
 among the people. According to unanimous tra- 
 dition, the elementary school (1957 na ‘house of 
 the book,’ see below) was always in intimate con- 
 nexion with the synagogue. Either the synagogue 
 proper—in this period to be found in every con- 
 siderable village in the land—was used for this 
 purpose (Léw, Die Lebensalter in jiid. Literatur, p. 
 287, where the reff. are to Berachoth, 17a, Taanith, 
 23b, Kiddushin, 30a), or a room in the same build- 
 ing. The school might also be held in the teacher’s 
 house (Hamburger). 
 
 3y all writers on Jewish education it is stated 
 
 * See Schtrer, HJP, index; Derenbourg, Lssai sur histoire 
 de la Palestine, pp. 96-111, and the Jewish historians Gratz, 
 Herzfeld, etc. 
 
 
 
650 EDUCATION 
 
 that the synagogue officer (no3p0 733)—the minister 
 (smnpérns) of Lk 4%—was the teacher of the 
 synagogue school. This uniform tradition seems 
 founded on a precept regarding Sabbath observ- 
 ance in the Mishna treatise of that name, where, 
 even on the sacred day, ‘the pin (Hazzdn) is 
 allowed to look on where the children are reading, 
 but he may not read himself’ (Shabdath, i. 3). 
 Now it will be observed that the proper title of 
 the synagogue official, as given above, is not found 
 here—a fact hitherto overlooked. For }3n is a word 
 of general application, meaning ‘overseer,’ ‘in- 
 spector,’ or the like, and its exact significance has 
 to be decided by the context (see the Lexx. of 
 Buxtorf, Levy, and Jastrow). In the passage 
 quoted the context requires us to render ‘over- 
 seer’ or ‘master (of the school).’ This rendering 
 is supported by 4 passage in the treatise Sota (ix. 
 15), where R. Miieser says: ‘Since the destruction 
 of the temple the sage (x’n'2n) has become like the 
 scribe (x55), and the scribe like the Hazzdn (x31n), 
 and the Hazzdn like the uneducated man.’ Here 
 we have evidently the hierarchy of the teaching 
 profession, and it may fairly be assumed that they 
 all belong to the ranks of those who, in the NT, 
 - are known as vowodiddoxado, ‘doctors of the law’ 
 (Lk 51”), i.e. the scribes. Now this passage of St. 
 Luke (cf. Mt 9%) is of the utmost importance, as 
 showing that these doctors or teachers were to be 
 found in ‘every village (xéun) of Galilee and 
 Judea.’ It is absurd to suppose—even granting 
 the hyperbolic nature of the evangelist’s state- 
 ment—that the higher colleges, where alone the 
 scribes are usually supposed to have taught, were 
 to be found in ach numbers throughout the 
 country. But there would, at this time, be an 
 elementary school wherever there was a synagogue. 
 We conclude, therefore, that teachers of all grades 
 were members of the powerful guild of the scribes 
 (ol ypayparets, cf. ypapparior}s, ‘a schoolmaster’). 
 In the Aramaic of the period 8750 no doubt already 
 meant ‘teacher’ in general, since we find s7150 n’3 
 =‘school’ (see the Leax., and ef. Targum on 1 Ch 
 258, where ‘ the teacher as the scholar’ is rendered 
 xtoon oy xp). It follows, therefore, that the 
 Hazzaén or master, who conducted the elementary 
 school, was an official of a higher social grade than 
 the ‘ Hazzdn of the synagogue,’ who had to perform 
 such menial offices as the whipping of criminals 
 (Makkoth, iii. 12). 
 
 The most usual form of address to a teacher was 
 Rabbi (‘22 ‘my master,’ lit. ‘my great one’), but it 
 ‘does not seem to have been used as a title [e.g. 
 Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiba, etc.]} till after the 
 time of Christ’ (Schiirer). In the NT our Lord is 
 addressed by His disciples as paBBel (paBBouvel), cipre, 
 dddoxadre, and—in Lk only—as émordra. 
 
 The opinion just stated, that in the time of our 
 Saviour every place of any size in the country was 
 provided with an elementary school, does not 
 quite coincide with that of the Jewish doctors of 
 a later day, unless we suppose (as is not unreason- 
 able) that the political and religious troubles of 
 the period injuriously affected the provincial 
 schools. We refer to the oft-quoted eulogium on 
 Joshua ben-Gamala (Gamaliel), who was high 
 priest about A.D. 63-65 : 
 
 ‘Verily let it be remembered to that man for 
 good, R. Joshua ben-Gamala is his name, for had 
 he not been, the Law would have been forgotten in 
 Israel. At first every one that had a father (alive) 
 received from him instruction in the Law, but he 
 that had no father (alive) learned not the Law. . . 
 Thereafter teachers for the children were appointed 
 in Jerusalem. . . . But even this measure sufficed 
 not, for he that had a father was brought by him 
 to school, and was taught there, but he that had 
 ao father was not brought to be taught there. In 
 
 EDUCATION 
 a 
 consequence of this, it was ordained that teachers 
 should be appointed in every district. To them 
 the children were sent when they were 16-17 
 years of age. When a teacher became angry with 
 a scholar, the latter stamped his feet and ran 
 away. In this condition education remained until 
 the time of Joshua ben-Gamala, who ordained that 
 in every province and in every town there should 
 be teachers appointed, to whom children should be 
 brought at the age of six or seven years’ (Baba 
 bathra, 21a).* : 2 
 
 It is not now possible to speak with certainty 
 regarding the condition of the elementary school 
 at the period of which one would most like to 
 know, dis period of the childhood of our blessed 
 Lord. The Mishna, almost our only authority, is 
 not, as a whole, older than A.D. 200. Accordingly, 
 we must be content to infer—and always with 
 caution—that some, at least, of the methods ‘ere 
 referred to as of long standing may have been 
 operative in the Ist cent. But before attempting 
 even such hesitating results, it will be convenient 
 to give at this point what requires to be said of 
 the education to be got beyond the synagogue 
 schools. For the great mass of the boys—for the 
 girls no public provision was made (see below)— 
 these schools sufficed. Only those destined for the 
 study of the Law were sent to the Beth ham-Midrash 
 (¥q750 m2) or Shouse of study,’ as the colleges of 
 the scribes were called. These colleges were prob- 
 ably a development of this period. They were, 
 naturally, most numerous in Jerusalem, where the 
 most famous scribes seem to have had each his 
 ‘house of study.’ Josephus mentions two by name 
 (Wars, 1. xxxiii. 2; Ant. XVIII. x. 5) who drew 
 crowds of students in the last days of Herod the 
 Great. But by far the most famous of these 
 ‘doctors of the law’ were the two heads of the 
 rival schools, Hillel and Shammai, although for 
 Christian students a greater interest attaches to 
 Hillel’s grandson, himself the most respected 
 teacher of his day, Gamaliel I., who numbered 
 the young Saul of Tarsus among his pupils (Ac 22%). 
 At these colleges the scribe-aspirant received a 
 professional rather than a general education, for 
 which reason the further discussion of their sub- 
 jects and methods of study belongs rather to the 
 article SCRIBE. 
 
 Returning now to the elementary school, we 
 propose to touch briefly on such of the outstanding 
 features of the school system as we have reason to 
 believe existed in the century preceding the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. As regar‘s the age of 
 the pupils on admission, our authority, though 
 often quoted, is unfortunately too late to be of 
 value for the period in question. ‘ At five years the 
 age is reached for the study of the Scripture 
 (x77), at ten for the study of the Mishna, at 
 thirteen for the fulfilment of the Commandments, 
 at fifteen for the study of the Talmud, at eighteen 
 for marriage,’ etc. (Ab. v. 24). There is a con- 
 sensus of opinion, on the other hand, in the Tal- 
 mudic winnie that six was the earliest age at 
 which school life should begin.t The child had 
 already learned from his parent to repeat the 
 Shema (see Driver on Dt 64), selected proverbs, 
 and verses from the Psalms. He had also had the 
 historical significance of various rites and cere- 
 monies explained to him (see p. 647> above). 
 
 It is extremely unlikely that the subjects of 
 instruction included more than reading, writing, 
 and, perhaps, the elements of arithmetic. The 
 first of these was by far the most important, and 
 
 * The above is Wiinsche’s translation in Der babyl. Talmud, 
 
 c. 
 
 t For the curious ceremonies observed at a later period on the 
 child’s first appearance at school, see Schechter, Studies in 
 Judaism, p. 368. 
 
 
 
EDUCATION 
 
 the fact that the much esteemed privilege of read- 
 _ ing, and even of expounding, the law in the syna- 
 gogue was open to all, must have acted as an incen- 
 tive to diligent study. The only text-book was the 
 Scriptures—hence the most usual name for the 
 elementary school 1557 n'3 the ‘house of the Book’ 
 —mostly but not exclusively the Pentateuch. 
 ‘Turn it (the Torah), and turn it over again, for 
 everything is in it’ (Ab. v. 25), well expresses the 
 attitude of the orthodox Judaism of the time to 
 secular literature. Even so early as the beginning 
 of our era, it was probably usual to begin with the 
 Book of Leviticus, as the book whose contents it 
 was necessary for every Jewto know. Care would 
 be taken that the words of the sacred tongue (for 
 only Hebrew was allowed in school) should be cor- 
 rectly pronounced * and reverently read. Foreign 
 languages were no part of an ordinary Jewish 
 education, as Josephus expressly informs us (Ant. 
 XX. xii. 1); yet few lads can have grown up in the 
 busy cities of Palestine without learning to speak 
 both Aramaic and Greek, and at least to read 
 Hebrew. Tradition has it that a knowledge of 
 Greek was an essential qualification for member- 
 ship of the Sanhedrin (Sanhed. 17a). + 
 
 he Latin maxim, ‘repetitio mater studiorum,’ 
 may be taken as the keynote of Jewish educational 
 method. So great was the importance attached to 
 constant repetition, that the verb 79 ‘to repeat’ 
 came ultimately to mean both ‘to learn’ and ‘to 
 teach.’t After the letters were mastered § the 
 teacher copied a verse which the child had already 
 learned by heart, and taught him to identify the 
 individual words. The absence of vowel signs in 
 Hebrew, as then written, prevented the child from 
 learning to read syllables as he does in the ‘ Talmud 
 Torah’ schools of the Jewish communities in the 
 
 East at the present day. In one point, however, 
 
 the schools of 1900 years ago resembled those 
 schools of to-day, namely, the babel of childish 
 voices that rose from every corner of the school- 
 room, for ‘audible study and distinct pronuncia- 
 tion’ (Ab. vi. 6) were the first of numerous re- 
 ues for the proper study of the Torah. Was 
 there not once a pupil who learned his tasks with- 
 out repeating the words aloud, and who, in con- 
 sequence, forgot all he had learned in three years? 
 (Erubin, 54a). The ideal schoolboy of the period 
 was R. Eliezer, whom his teachers likened to ‘a 
 cemented cistern which loses not a drop’ (Aé. ii. 11). 
 
 The scholar sat on the ground facing the teacher 
 (cf. Ac 22, Ab. i. 4), who sat slightly raised above 
 his pupils. Benches were a later invention. The 
 old conception of education as above all a dis- 
 cipline was not forgotten, and probably never 
 before was education so exclusively religious and 
 scriptural, with so little reference to the teachings 
 of nature and history. The teacher’s function, as 
 then conceived, was not to inform the mind or to 
 impart knowledge for its own sake, but to train up 
 his pupils in the fear of the Lord, and so to prepare 
 them for the ceremonial and moral duties incum- 
 bent on them as the true sons of the covenant of 
 Abraham. 
 
 It has become a commonplace that the scribes 
 taught gratuitously. This may have been true of 
 the great doctors of the capital,—although even 
 
 * On the defects of the Galilean pronunciation (Mt 2673), see 
 Buxtort sub $a, and Lightfoot’s dissertation in Hor. Hebr. 
 (ed. Gandell) i. 170 ff. 
 
 + See also Sota, ix. 14, for a statement that the study of Greek 
 had only been stopped since the ‘war of Titus’—for which read 
 ‘war of Quietus,’ with most modern scholars. 
 
 $ Cf. the interesting quotation from St. Jerome in Schiirer, 
 op. cit. m1. i. 824. 
 
 § On the later method of teaching the alphabet on the ‘ A-was- 
 an-Archer’ principle see Shabbath, 104a, given in full in 
 Wiinsche’s Babylon, Talmud, etc., i. pp. 155-57, cf. Lewit 
 {title below), p. 47. 
 
 EDUCATION 
 
 then, perhaps, only as regards judicial work 
 (Schiirer),—but scarcely of the elementary teachers 
 in the provinces. It has been suggested that the 
 honorarium was paid under some pretext, such 
 as compensation for loss of time, ete. (Lewit, 
 p. 26). This is quite in the spirit of the casuistry 
 of the time. Still, as is well known, the scholars 
 of the day had a much worthier conception of the 
 dignity of work than had Jesus the son of Sirach 
 (Sir 38%), and taught that the study of the Law 
 should be combined with the exercise of a trade 
 (Ab. ii. 2). 
 
 We must not aed that the educational system 
 here outlined was the only system then to be found 
 in Palestine. It was the system adopted by the 
 strict Jews, it is true, but there were other schools 
 of the Greek type, not only in the many Hellenistic 
 centres,—whence came some of the most famous 
 
 oets, philosophers, and orators of that age (see 
 chiirer, II, i. 28),—but even in Jerusalem itself. 
 Such a school was that which the youthful Herod 
 attended (Josephus, Ané. xv. x. 5). In nothing, 
 however, did the Jewish educational ideal (for 
 which cf. Josephus, Ant. xx. xii. 1, povors 5é 
 coplay paprupovor rots Td vouima capds émiorapévas, 
 k.7.A.) differ so widely from the Greek as in the value 
 attached to physical training. For the ordinary 
 forms of gymnastic exercise the Jew apparently 
 had little inclination, unless, perhaps, for swim- 
 ming (Kiddushin, 29a), while wrestling in public 
 was peculiarly abhorrent to his sense both of 
 dignity and decency (1 Mac 114, 2 Mac 419%), 
 
 We have said nothing hitherto of the education 
 of Jewish girls. These were from their birth to 
 their marriage their mother’s special care, by 
 whom they were taught, like their brothers, ‘to 
 fear God and keep his commandments.’ By her, 
 too, they were taught to read, and perhaps to 
 write, as boys in former days were taught by their 
 father, and thereafter instructed in the domestic 
 arts corresponding to their station. The deeper 
 wiene of the Torah, and still more the higher 
 secular learning, were discouraged. The ideal to 
 which every Jewish daughter was—and we may 
 add, is—taught to aspire is that of the ‘ virtuous 
 woman’ who ‘looketh well to the ways of her 
 household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 
 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her 
 husband also, and he praiseth her, saying: Many 
 daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest 
 them all’ (Pr 31*%-”), Truly a noble ideal of 
 womanhood ! 
 
 Lrrgraturg.—A critical history of Hebrew education is still a 
 desideratum. The standard works of the historians, Jewish 
 and Christian, contain only incidental references. Professor 
 Laurie’s Historical Survey of Pre-Christian Education, 1895, 
 pp. 69-105, gives a good account of the subject from the con- 
 servative standpoint. Quite a number of Jewish writers have 
 dealt with it in recent years, mainly, however, as organized by 
 the Jewish authorities from the 2nd cent. a.D. onwards. The 
 following are the best of these special works (only those with 
 the number of pages added have been consulted): M. Duschak, 
 Schulgesetzgebung und Methodik d. alten Israeliten, 1872; E. 
 yan Gelder, Die Volksschule d. pid, Alterthums, 1892, 31 pp. ; 
 Seidel, Ueber die Padagogik d. Proverbien, 1875; 8. Marcus, 
 Die Peedagogik des Israel. Volkes, 1877 ; J. Simon, L’ Education 
 et Vinstruction des Enfants chez les anciens Jwifs?, 1879, 63 pp.; 
 A. Astruc, L’Enseignment chez les anciens Jutfs, 1881 ; B. Spiers, 
 The School System of the Talmud, 1882, 27 pp.; B. Strassburger, 
 Geschichte d. Erziehung und d. Unterrichts bet d. Israeliten, 
 etc., 1885, 310 pp. (Pre-Talmudic period, pp. 1-24 ; Leash Sie 
 of Jewish pedagogics, pp. 273-77); J. Lewit, Darstellung d. 
 theoretischen u. praktischen Pddagogik in jud. Altertume, 1896, 
 80 pp.; Oehler’s ‘ Pidagogik d. Alten Test.’ in Schmid’s Zncyclo- 
 
 iidie d. gesammten Hrziehungs und Unterrichtswesen, vol. v. 
 1866, pp. 653-695 (1883, pp. 637-578), is full and suggestive, but 
 in great part antiquated; Gustav Baur in Schmid’s Gesch. d. 
 Erziehung, 1892, pp. 554-570 (not seen). Hamburger’s Real- 
 encyclopidie d. Judenthums, 1883 (vol. i. art. ‘Erziehung’; 
 ii. ‘Lehrer,’ ‘Schule,’ ‘ Unterricht, etc.), is a mine of informa. 
 tion for the later period; see also Schiirer’s HJP um. i. 25, 
 ‘Scribism,’ vol. ii. 27, ‘School and Synagogue’ (older literature 
 of the subject, p. 46); Ginsburg in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclo- 
 pedia’, art. ‘Education’ ; Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social 
 
 
 
652 EFFECT 
 
 
 
 Life the Days of Christ (esp. chs. vii. viii.), and Life and 
 Times of Jesus the Messiah; L. Léw, Die Lebensalter in d. 
 jiuid. Interatur, 1875, passim (esp. p. 180 ff. : ‘Education in 
 ible Times,’ and relative notes); 8. Schechter, Studies in 
 Judaism, 1896 (p. 343 ff.; ‘The Child in Jewish Literature’). 
 The standard authorities for Jewish education in the Middle 
 Ages (which may be added for coinpleteness’ sake) are the works 
 of M, Giidemann, Geschichte d. Erziehungswesen u. d. Kultur 
 d. Juden, etc., France and Germany, 1880; Italy, 1884; Spain, 
 1888. See also I. Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, 
 1896 (esp. chs, xix. xx.). A. R. S. KENNEDY. 
 
 EFFECT.—In 2 Es 9 ‘effect’ is used in the 
 obsolete sense of ‘deed,’ ‘the times also of the 
 Highest have . . . endings in effects and signs’ 
 (consummatio in actu et in signis); cf. Shaks. 
 Lear, i. iv. 182— 
 
 ‘Thou better know’st 
 The offices of nature, bond of childhood, 
 Effects of courtesy, dues of gratitude.’ 
 
 In Ezk 12% the sense is purport, significance. 
 ‘The days are at hand, and the effect of ever 
 vision’ (133 ‘word,’ as RVm). So Chaucer, Merch. 
 Tale, 153— 
 
 * And for his freendes on a day he sente, 
 To tellen hem th’ effect of his entente.’ 
 
 With those exceptions, the use of ‘effect’ is much as in mod. 
 English, though the phrase in Ro 96 may be noticed, ‘as though 
 the word of God hath taken none effect’ (ixatarwxey, lit. ‘has 
 fallen out,’ RV ‘hath come to nought’). The usual phrase is ‘to 
 make of none effect,’ always a single vb. in the original, of 
 which the most interesting is zarapyiw (Ro 414, Gal 317; trad 
 ‘make without effect’ Ro 33), a characteristically Pauline word. 
 Its opposite is évepyéw, a word always in NT of some ponciple or 
 power at work, esp. in the soul (see Mayor on Ja 516), Wher- 
 ever ‘effectual’ and ‘effectually’ occur in NT they translate 
 either ivspysiv, as Gal 28, 1 Th 213 ‘ work effectually’; 2Co 16 
 ‘be effectual’; Ja 516 ‘the effectual fervent prayer of a right- 
 eous man availeth much’ (RV ‘the supplication of a righteous 
 man availeth much in its working,’ Rendel Harris, ‘the 
 energized prayer of a righteous man is of great force’*); its 
 adj. ivepyns, a8 1 Co 169, Philem 8; or its subst. tvépyssoe, whence 
 Eng. ‘ energy,’ as Eph 37 416 ‘ effectual working,’ RV ‘ working.’ 
 In all these places we should now use ‘ effective,’ ‘ effectively.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 EGGS.—See Fow.L. 
 
 EGLAH (nb.y ‘a heifer’).—One of the wives of 
 David, and mother of Ithream (2 S 35). Both here 
 and in 1 Ch 3° she is distinguished by the title 
 ‘David’s wife.’ Jewish tradition (cf. Jer. Quest. 
 Heb. im libros Regum) identified E. with Michal, 
 since the latter was his first and best-loved wife. 
 More probably the name of E.’s first husband is con- 
 cealed in the word ‘ David.’ J. F. STENNING. 
 
 EGLAIM (o::x), Is 15%. — Noticed with Moab. 
 The name has not been recovered. In the Ono- 
 masticon (3.v. Agallim) it is placed 8 Roman miles 
 south of Areopolis. C. R. ConpDER. 
 
 EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH (avy nbiy) occurs in 
 an ancient oracle against Moab, which is quoted 
 in Is 15° and Jer 48%. In both these passages RV 
 takes the word to be a proper name, giving in 
 margin the alternative tr™ ‘[as] an heifer of three 
 
 ears old,’ which is AV in Jer 48% and AVm in 
 
 s 15°. Inthe latter passage, AV text omits ‘[as].’ 
 It is still somewhat uncertain whether the word 
 is an appellative or a proper name, although the 
 latter view has commended itself to the majority 
 of modern scholars (Ewald, Reuss, Graf, Rothstein 
 in Kautzsch’s A.7. ete.). Delitzsch (Isaiah, ad 
 loc.) defends the rendering of AV and Luther, 
 laying stress upon the fact that both in Is and 
 Jer 9 '3y occurs asyndetically. He points out 
 that it might be an appellative of Moab (cf. 
 
 * Having given ‘earnest’ as one meaning of ‘effectual’ when 
 used of prayers, the Of. Hng. Dict. (8.v.) adds: ‘Cf. Anglo- 
 Lat. effectuose supplicantes ‘‘ earnestly entreating,” a.p. 1229 in 
 Rymer, 1. 308. Perhaps this use was originally due to confusion 
 with affectual ; but the translators of AV ingeniously availed 
 themselves of it in Ja 516 to render Gr. ivipyouévm.’ It is to be 
 observed, however, that AV uses two words, ‘ effectual fervent,’ 
 for this one Gr. word. Tindale’s tr. is ‘if it be fervent.’ 
 
 EGLON 
 
 
 
 Jer 46” 507, Hos 46104, in all of which ‘heifer 
 is similarly used), but thinks it more probable 
 that the reference is to Zoar (Is) or Horonaim 
 (Jer) as beautiful, strong, and hitherto unsubdued 
 cities. In Is 15° after Zfywp (Zoar) LXX has 
 dduakts ydp éorw tperjs, referring to Moab. In 
 Jer 48 (Gr. 31]* the MSS show a perplexing variety 
 of readings (see Swete). B has, after Horonaim, 
 kal dyyeNlav Zahaced. Aq. and Symm., however, 
 had ddpuadis rpierjs (see Field). 
 
 LITERATURE.—Comm. on Is and Jer; Baudissin in SK, 1888, 
 p. 509 ff.; Dietrich in Merx’ Archiv, i. 342 ff. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EGLON (}\91y).—A king of Moab who, upon the 
 relapse of the children of Israel into idolatry after 
 the death of Othniel, was the divine instrument 
 for punishing them. He is represented as formin 
 a confederation with Amalek and Ammon,* an 
 in conjunction with them taking arnt) of 
 Jericho (‘the city of palm trees, 33).¢ For 
 eighteen years he ruled over them, till a deliverer 
 arose in the person of Ehud, of the clan of Gera, 
 of the tribe of Benjamin. With the excuse ot 
 taking Eglon his tribute (or, perhaps, a present), 
 Ehud with a retinue of servants went to the 
 king’s court. The king, we are told, in order 
 that we inay understand what is coming, was a 
 very fat man. The present was offered, and the 
 whole party started on their way home again. 
 When they reached the graven images (LXX, 
 Vulg. AVm, RVm), or perhaps graven stones (by 
 some connected with the twelve stones of Jos 4”), 
 or the quarries (AV, RV, following Targ. Syr.),t 
 Ehud went back to the king by hineele and, by 
 giving him to believe that he had a secret to com- 
 municate to him, obtained an interview with him 
 by himself alone. He was sitting in his cool 
 upper-chamber. Now that he has the king by 
 himself, Ehud claims that his message for the 
 king is from God, upon which Eglon rises out of 
 respect to the source of the message. Ehud then 
 draws his two-edged dagger, taking advantage of 
 his left-handedness, which would enable him to 
 do so without much notice being taken of his act, 
 and stabs E. with such force that the dagger, haft 
 and all, goes into him, while the fat closes upon 
 the blade.§ It is some little time before the 
 murder of E. is discovered, and meanwhile Ehud 
 has escaped and summoned his countrymen to the 
 destruction of the Moabites on the W. of Jordan 
 with such success, that ‘ the land had rest fourscore 
 
 ears.” 
 ! Jos. (Ant. Vv. iv.) makes several additions to, and 
 variations in, the story told in the Book of Judges; 
 that E. built a palace at Jericho; that Ehud also 
 dwelt there, and became familiar with E. by means 
 of his presents, and was beloved by E.’s courtiers. 
 Ehud gathers the Israelites together to destroy 
 Moab dimnost before his murder of E. is known. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—For the latest description of the history of 
 Eglon, see Moore, Judges, 89 ff. H. A. REDPATH. 
 
 EGLON ()52y).—An ancient town in the She- 
 phelah, close to Lachish. Its king, Debir, joined in 
 the alliance formed by the king of Jerus. ayainst 
 the Isr. under Joshua, and after the battle of Aijalon 
 it was captured and destroyed (Jos 101-8712"). It 
 is not again named in Scripture, so that it was prob. 
 utterly destroyed. In LXX, cf. Jos 10, Adullam 
 takes its place by some (prob.) early mistake, they 
 
 * This is held to be an exaggeration of D by those who dis- 
 tinguish various hands in this book; see, however, Ps 836.7, 
 which seems to refer to the period of the Judges. 
 
 t The fortifications, at any rate, of Jericho must have bees 
 in ruins (cf. Jos 626 with 1 K 1634), but we are never told that 
 the ruins left from the burning of Jericho were pulled down. 
 
 { The notion that they were boundary stones or images 
 scarcely deserves mention. 
 
 § For the meaning of the last clause of verse % see Mocra 
 pp. 97, 98. 
 
 
 
EGYPT 
 
 are in consequence identified in the Onomasticon. 
 The name remains in ‘Ajlfn, some 15 miles N.E. 
 from Gaza and 2 miles N. of Tell Hesy, now con- 
 elusively identified with the ancient Lachish. 
 But Flinders Petrie (PEFSt, 1890, pp. 161-163) 
 
 oints out Tell Nejileh as probably the true site. 
 
 hiirbet ‘Ajladn his practised eye pronounced un- 
 likely to be the site of an ancient town. On the 
 other hand, ‘it is certain,’ he says, ‘that Tell 
 Hesy and subordinately Tell Nejileh must have 
 been positions of first-rate importance from the 
 time of the earliest settlements; they would then 
 agree to the character of Lachish and Eglon. The 
 history of Tel? Hesy begins about B.c. 1500, and 
 ends about B.c. 500; while Tell Nejileh, as far as 
 can be seen on the surface, is of the same age, or 
 ruined even earlier.’ ‘There are no sites in the 
 country around so suited to the importance of 
 Lachish and Eglon as these two Tells.’ To this may 
 be added, that the course of Joshua (ch. 10) brought 
 him first to Lachish—Eglon lying between Lachish 
 and Hebron; and the position of Tell Nejileh suits 
 this account better than that of ‘Ajlin. See 
 LACHISH. 
 
 Lirgraturs.—Robinson, BRP ii. 49; Porter, Gtant Cities of 
 Bashan, 209; PEF St (1895), 165; Bliss, A Mound of Many 
 Cities (1804), 142, A. 
 
 HENDERSON. 
 
 EGYPT.— 
 1. Name. 
 fi. Physical character, 
 fii, Fauna. 
 iv. Flora. 
 vy. Ethnology. 
 vi. Language. 
 vii. Chronology. 
 viii. History. 
 ix. Relations with Asia. 
 x. Religion. 
 
 {. NAME.—The name by which the Egyptians 
 at all times designated their country was Kimez 
 (Copt. KHMé€, xHM ), @ word of which the probable 
 etymology—root km ‘black’—would confirm the 
 statements of Herodotus and Plutarch, who con- 
 nect it with the dark colour of the soil. The 
 contrasting redness of the neighbouring desert 
 sand gave to that the name of ‘the Red Land.’ 
 It is phonetically impossible to connect Kimet 
 with the name ree (on). To the Semites the 
 country was known as Mizraim (0:5, seldom 1x9, 
 Meorpalu, Meoapalu), the termination here being no 
 doubt locative and not a dual. The older cunei- 
 form texts vocalize Musr, the later Misr; the 
 Amarna letters have generally Misri, pl.* For 
 this word a favourite though undemonstrable 
 derivation is that from 7x» ‘fort.’ The Greek name 
 Atyurros (Arab. Kibt, Eth. Gebs, and European 
 Copt) is of equally obscure origin. It cannot be 
 satisfactorily derived from any pt ear or Semitic 
 word or combination of words. the earliest 
 Greek writers (Odyssey oohapr tl it is the name 
 of the river, for which Ne?dos (cf. 973, 773?) is first 
 found in Hesiod. In the later epochs and in 
 
 tical texts we meet with many other names for 
 Fen t. Of such @ mri is among the most frequent, 
 and seems connected specially with Lower Egypt 
 and the inundation. ‘The Land of the Sycamore,’ 
 ‘of the Olive,’ ‘of the Sacred Eye,’ are names which 
 require for their explanation a greater knowledge 
 of the geographical myths than we possess. 
 
 ii. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.—The geological con- 
 
 * According to W. Max Miiller (Z. Ass. viii. 209), Musru, 
 whence Shalmaneser 1. received presents, was Egypt, not a 
 N. Syrian or Armenian district (Winckler, Hommel, etc.). 
 Winckler has suggested (Alt. For. 24 ff.) that another Mugri, 
 which he locates in Edom or Sinai, may have been the real 
 origin of the Exodus tradition, reminiscences of wanderings in 
 that district having got confused with the name of Egypt. In 
 8. Arabian inscriptions this Musri and Egypt are distinguished 
 as [13D and sD (Hommel in Festschrift f. Ebers, 27). 
 
 EGYPT 653 
 
 stitution of Egypt is simple; its elenents 
 are three—the bed of rock (limestone for the 
 most part, with sandstone and granite in the 
 S.), which stretches across the N.E. corner of 
 Africa; then the sand which lies upon this, and 
 extends from the Arabian desert hills on the E. to 
 the Libyan range on the W.; lastly, the black 
 Nile mud, resting upon the sand in the centre of 
 the valley, and forming the highroad for the great 
 stream on which the prosperity of the country 
 depends. The number and dimensions of the 
 buildings erected at all periods gave a high import- 
 ance to the geological elements of the country. 
 The limestone obtained near Memphis (Turrah) 
 furnished the material for the principal works of 
 the early periods. The great temples higher up 
 the valley, especially those of Thebes, are built of 
 sandstone, conveniently obtainable at Silsileh. Red 
 granite for statues, sarcophagi, etc., was worked 
 at the first Cataract (Asw4n); black granite and 
 diorite for similar purposes came from the eastern 
 desert (Hammfmat). Alabaster, a favourite 
 material, usually for smaller objects, was quarried 
 opposite Dahshfr, or (a better quality) at Hind, near 
 Beni-Hasan, whence it was extracted under the 
 earliest Dynasties. In metals the Nile valley itself 
 is poor; those most valued come from abroad,—gold 
 in plenty from Nubia or the eastern desert ; silver, 
 which was rarer, probably from Cilicia; copper 
 from Sinai, later also from Cyprus; malachite and 
 lapis lazuli from Sinai and Mesopotamia. Bronze, 
 familiar during all later epochs, was made with tin, 
 the provenance of which is uncertain, but which 
 was already used under the 6th Dynasty. Nor can 
 we tell whence iron, well known at any rate from 
 about 800 B.c., was obtained, though a limited 
 amount could be got from the western desert. 
 
 The course of the Nile through Nubia is hindered 
 by a succession of rocky barriers, the last or 
 northernmost of which—the first Cataract—has 
 often been the political as it is the natural frontier 
 of Egypt. Between the Cataracts and the Delta 
 the country is of a very uniform character. The 
 valley is extensive or narrow as the two hill-ranges 
 recede from or approach the stream. Its breadth 
 varies from about nine to four miles. As the river 
 progresses northward, the hills gradually fall back 
 and the valley expands into the plain of the Delta, 
 across which the river makes its way by various 
 channels to the Mediterranean. though the 
 surface-denudation recognizable at certain points 
 of the river’s course and the petrified forests still 
 extant testify to very different climatic condi- 
 tions at a remote geological period, it is unlikely 
 that during the five or six thousand years of 
 historic Egypt there has been much change in the 
 aspect of the country. By the opening of that 
 period the valley had been dried, the river-bed 
 raised, and the stream’s course fixed practically to 
 its actual extent, though the number of its mouths 
 was greater than it is to-day. 
 
 History is concerned during the earlier periods 
 almost exclusively with the upper valley; the 
 Delta was evidently still but partially reclaimed, 
 though certain towns there are already met with 
 in the myths and in the earliest history. Physical 
 contrasts are coincident with that division into 
 Upper and Lower Egypt which we find an estab- 
 lished fact of the remotest historic times; already 
 the two kingdoms—for such undoubtedly they 
 once had been—are united, each, however, retain- 
 ing its own tutelary deity, and its independent 
 eapital, Vib (El-Kab) and Buto. 
 
 eyond this twofold partition, Egypt appears 
 from the earliest times subdivided into a number 
 (about 22 in south and north respectively) of 
 smaller districts (nomes, from voués), which become 
 later the basis of an administrative system, but 
 
 
 

 
 654 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 A - 
 
 which originated probably in the vaguely defined 
 settlements of different tribes. ‘The lists of the 
 nomes are our chief source of topographical know- 
 ledge; but no full lists are preserved from early 
 periods, although several most ancient documents 
 (tomb of Min, Pyramid texts) mention a few of 
 the nomes. In the later lists each nome is per- 
 sonified by its guardian deity, fetish, or emblem, 
 which serves as a kind of coat-of-arms. A nome 
 was held to be composed of four elements: (1) the 
 metropolis, the seat of the tribal religion and 
 residence of the chief; (2) the cultivated land; 
 (3) the canals by which the fields were fed with 
 river-water; (4) the marshes which, rarely cul- 
 tivable, served as a hunting-ground for the local 
 nobles. The hieroglyphic --—-, which expressed 
 one of the words for ‘nome,’ is a testimony to 
 some primitive irrigation system, representing as 
 it does a canal-divided field, and the founder of 
 the Ist Dynasty is credited with the construction 
 of the great dyke which still protects the province 
 of Gizeh from a too extensive inundation, while 
 his successors had all to occupy themselves with 
 the regulation of the water, the cutting of canals, 
 and the satisfaction of local claims upon the 
 benefits of proximity to the river itself. Varia- 
 tions in the annual height of the inundation were 
 no doubt carefully observed in the remotest ages ; 
 we know that they were recorded in the Cataract 
 district by the kings of the 12th Dynasty, and 
 at Karnak in later times. 
 
 The Nile is not only the great fertilizer ; it is also, 
 now as formerly, the main highway. We hear 
 relatively little of journeys by road ; locomotion 
 was normally by water, either upon the river or 
 upon the subsidiary canals. The commonest words 
 for journeying implied the idea of sailing up or 
 down stream. The dead were drawn to their 
 rock-cut tombs on boat-formed cars; the solar 
 gods were thought to traverse the sky in a divine 
 bark. Such roads as we do hear of are chiefly 
 those leading from the Nile across the desert— 
 eastwards (from Coptos) to the Red Sea, west- 
 wards to the Natron Lakes, or southwards into 
 the Soudan. 
 
 iii. FAUNA.—The bones of sacrificial animals 
 from various periods, and countless animal mum- 
 mies from the base epochs, might, if carefully 
 preserved and located, teach much as to the 
 ultimate homes of several species, while an exten- 
 sive knowledge of both the domesticated and wild 
 animals might be had from the frescoes of the 
 tombs—especially those of the Middle Kingdom. 
 Each animal is there accompanied by its name, 
 though it is often difficult to find for these their 
 modern equivalents. For the earliest times the 
 hieroglyphic signs themselves would supply a 
 considerable list, giving evidence that the species 
 then known have since changed little. The lion is 
 frequently depicted, though probably seldom met 
 with until the desert had been reached. The lion 
 hunts recorded in the New Kingdom refer mainly to 
 Syria or Nubia, though Thutmosis Iv. hunted lions 
 in the neighbourhood of Memphis. Leopards (or 
 panthers?) seem to have been seen in the south; 
 elephants and giraffes were not unknown to those 
 who traded on the Upper Nile; jackals, then as 
 now, were very familiar ; desert wolves and hyenas 
 somewhat less so; many kinds of antelopes were 
 well known. The hippopotamus, once commonly 
 met in the river and hunted in the swamps, has by 
 now been driven far up the Nile. Of oxen various 
 breeds were kept; the familiar long-horned species 
 existed until the plague in the middle of the 
 present century. Oxen are often represented 
 ploughing or threshing. Certain varieties, or 
 
 rather individual members of certain varieties, 
 distinguished by peculiar, carefully sought mark- 
 
 ings, were held sacred from the earliest times— 
 Apis at Memphis, Mnevis at Heliopolis, Bacis at 
 Hermonthis. Sheep were no doubt kept, but 
 occur rarely on the monuments. Varieties of the 
 long- and the spiral-horned ram were sacred. The 
 ass was the usual beast of burden, and was not 
 rivalled by the camel till a very late date. It wil! 
 be remembered that in Gn 12% (Abraham and 
 Pharaoh) and Ex 9° (Moses) camels are neverthe- 
 less mentioned—both by J—as if known in Egypt. 
 The horse is likewise unknown in the older epee A 
 as it appears first after the Hyksos period, it is 
 assumed to have been introduced by those in- 
 vaders. The reference to Egyptian horse-breeding 
 in 1K 10% should more probably be applied to 
 some Asiatic country (Winckler, Altt. Unt. 173 A). 
 The Egyptian name for the horse meant properly 
 ‘a pair,’ and was due probably to its first employ- 
 ment in the war-chariot. Foreign names, among 
 them Semit. 01», once borrowed, became even more 
 usual, The horse appears to have been seldom 
 ridden, Several breeds of dogs were known; 
 some were valued for the chase. The names of 
 some breeds are preserved, and show that certain 
 Libyan (or Nubian?) varieties were popular. The 
 cat, sacred to the goddess B’stt, was larger in 
 ancient than in modern Egypt. It figures in a very 
 ancient solar myth (Book at the Dead, ch. 17). The 
 pig, except for its mention in the sacred books, is 
 not met with until late times. Of birds a great 
 number are depicted—geese, ducks, herons of many 
 sorts; migratory birds, e.g. swallows, plovers, 
 quails. Eagle, vulture, hawk, and owl are among 
 the most constantly recurring hieroglyphics, while 
 the vulture, hawk, and ibis were sacred to pro- 
 minent divinities, and were embalmed in numbers 
 (in the base epochs) in the localities of which those 
 divinities were the patrons. It is remarkable that, 
 though hen-breeding is universal in Egypt to-day, 
 that bird was apparently unknown to the ancients. 
 Of the larger reptiles the most important was the 
 crocodile, now no longer to be met with below the 
 Cataracts. There is a vena of snakes, the best 
 known being the ureus, emblem of the patron- 
 goddess of Lower Egypt and hence of the king, 
 and the horned viper. From the importance and 
 frequency in the earliest religious literature of 
 charms against large snakes, it may be inferred 
 that their numbers and dimensions were once 
 greater than they are at present. 
 
 The texts show us several insects, notably the 
 scarabeus-beetle, regarded, especially in later 
 times, as a symbol of eternity and of the sun-god, 
 and the bee, associated in writing from the remot- 
 est times with royalty in Lower Egypt. 
 
 Fish are often represented. The most peculiar 
 is the oryrrhynchus, the badge of the 19th nome 
 of Upper Egypt. Fish were much eaten ; some of 
 the dos frescoes depict them speared in the 
 marshes, landed in drag-nets, and then split for 
 drying ; while texts equally ancient tell of the 
 construction of fish-powded 
 
 iv. FLoRA.—Egypt is remarkably poor in variety 
 of vegetation. Many of the cultivated plants most 
 common now—cotton, sugar, rice—are modern im- 
 portations. 
 
 In prehistoric ages the valley was no doubt con- 
 siderably wooded ; but to-day, with the exception 
 of the various palm species, trees occur only singly 
 or in small groups. The representations of the 
 flora—of trees especially—in the frescoes, carv- 
 ings, or hieroglyphies are generally too far conven- 
 tionalized to be instructive. More can be learned 
 from extant remains of edible grains or funerary 
 floral wreaths (from the New Kingdom onwards), 
 or of woodwork (from all periods). From these it 
 is clear that the native vegetation has altered very 
 little during the course of history. The Egyptians 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 655 
 
 
 
 were at all times ill off for workable woods, and 
 were compelled—where the stalks of river plants 
 would not serve—to make the best of their own 
 
 comore or acacia (the latter especially in the 
 older epochs), or to Bar yew from Cilicia (?) and 
 ebony from Nubia. ore than one Pharaoh of 
 the New Kingdom brought specimens of trees and 
 vegetables from Syria or the Red Sea coasts, either 
 as curiosities or with a view to their propagation. 
 From the nature of the soil, agriculture must 
 aprey® have been the main occupation of the 
 population, and we learn from the monuments the 
 names of several cereals, of which wheat and bar- 
 ley were the commonest, dhurah being well known 
 since the New Kingdom. Gardens were laid out, 
 and much interest was shown in them since the 
 4th Dynasty. Many vegetables are represented 
 in the frescoes and as hieroglyphic signs, especially 
 the bulbous sorts—onions, leeks, ete. (cf. Nu xi. 5). 
 The vine was always largely cultivated, and from 
 the Delta came several famous wines of Greek and 
 Roman times. The fig, too, is early represented. 
 Many plants were valued medicinally, as can be 
 shown from the numbers occurring in the medical 
 works, notably in the Papyrus Ebers; others were 
 used for dyeing. The most important of all plants 
 to the Egyptians was the papyrus, which, unknown 
 now in the Delta, grew there once in vast thickets 
 where the nobles hunted, and whence was obtained 
 the material, not only for writing, but also for 
 numerous other purposes, decorative and useful. 
 As the papyrus became one of the pictorial 
 emblems of Lower Egypt, so the lotus was often 
 that of the southern country, although a sort 
 of water-reed seems also to have been so employed. 
 
 v. ETHNOLOGY.—The problem of the origin and 
 relationships of the Egyptian race is still unsolved. 
 Its solution is to be sought in the evidence of (1) 
 philology ; (2) miyebolory 3 (8) physical anthro- 
 
 logy ; and (4) material culture. Investigations 
 in these various fields have hitherto given results 
 partially discordant. (1) The most ancient lin- 
 guistic documents point to an undeniable though 
 already very remote relationship with the Semitic 
 languages (see below). (2) The divinities and myths 
 familiar to the earliest texts were, until recently, 
 accepted as growths of the Egyptian soil, the 
 inclination beng to recognize in extraneous ele- 
 ments, if any, the influence of neighbouring A fri- 
 can races. Hommel indeed invites us to take 
 other considerations into account by pointing 
 out certain coincidences between the ancient 
 religions of Egypt and Babylonia. (3) Racial 
 
 types, as depicted on the monuments, and the 
 
 measurements, etc., of mummies, have led to no 
 uniform results. Formerly, anthropologists saw 
 in the sculptures and paintings one race, identical 
 with the Conta of to-day ; now they generally 
 discern various types among the most ancient 
 portraits, and seek on such evidence to distinguish 
 at least two races. Few mummies remain from 
 the oldest epochs—one of the most ancient is that 
 from Medtim, at present in the Royal College of 
 Surgeons, London,—and those from later times 
 
 point apparently to a short-skulled, while the 
 modern ey. tian is of a long-skulled type. Prob- 
 ably the o dost group of remains (from Abydos, 
 
 1895-96) seems to point toa long-skulled, orthogna- 
 thous, smooth-haired race; but the type there is 
 not homogeneous, neither is that of the Medfim 
 mummies, and their relationship to the race of 
 historic Egypt is not yet clear. (4) There is cer- 
 tainly evidence of African elements, whether due 
 to primitive kinship or to mere proximity, in some 
 branches of the material civilization, such as dress, 
 weapons, possibly circumcision. On the other 
 hand, Hommel seeks to show that a very early 
 form of religious or sepulchral architecture (pyra- 
 
 mid) is derived from Babylonia. It must be owned 
 that the oldest remains of Mesopotamian civiliza- 
 tion appear to exceed in antiquity any hitherto 
 brought to light in Egypt. 
 
 Most are agreed that, whatever be the case with 
 their forerunners, the Egyptians from the 3rd or 
 4th Dynasty onwards were not a negroid race; 
 that they came, on the contrary, from Asia. But 
 the questions of their previous home there and the 
 route by which they reached the Nile,—whether by 
 Bab el-Mandeb and Abyssinia or the Wady Ham- 
 mamat and Coptos, or by the Syrian desert and the 
 Isthmus,—are as yet unanswered. The route S. 
 Arabia-Hamm4imat-Coptos has for it the evidence 
 (a) of prehistoric remains at Coptos, pointing to a 
 people coming direct from the Red Sea; (6) of 
 certain facts—physical resemblance, peaceful rela- 
 tions, and the apparently Pena attitude of 
 the Egyptians—which have been held to point to 
 Pwnt, i.e. the country about the southern end of 
 the Red Sea, as a former home of the race. To 
 this may be added the tradition that the founders 
 of the monarchy came from Thinis, a town 
 not far distant from Coptos—a tradition which 
 has been confirmed by the recent discovery 
 of the First Dynasty tombs in the same neigh- 
 bourhood (Abydos). No reminiscence has been 
 discerned in the literature of a prehistoric 
 immigration. The people apparently considered 
 themselves aborigenes, and called themselves 
 merely Léme(t), ‘men’ par excellence. Traces 
 of a stone age, undeniable though compli- 
 cated by the long historic survival of flint-work- 
 ing, show that the country has been inhabited 
 since the Pliocene period. Paleolithic remains 
 are rare, but some half-dozen stations are said 
 to have been recognized. Considerable evidence 
 has been adduced (though contested) to demon- 
 strate a New Stone age. That a Hebrew writer 
 of the 6th or 7th cent. speaks (Gn 10%) of 
 Mizraim as related to Cush (Ethiopia), Put 
 (S. Arabia, Pwnt), and Canaan, is not a fact of 
 much ethnological importance. By the earlier 
 annalist (0.4) eight names—mostly unidentifiable 
 —are given which may preserve a then current 
 Hebrew view of Egypt’s ethnological relationships. 
 
 vi. LANGUAGE.—The relative position of the 
 Egyptian language among its neighbours is a 
 question closely associated with that as to the 
 racial connexions of the people. Our means of 
 comparison with the surrounding idioms are not 
 of equal value. For the Semitic languages—for 
 the A Mlebopotaniian dialects at least —we have 
 documents perhaps as ancient as any from Egypt. 
 For the Berber and Cushite languages of Africa 
 we can but infer from quite modern evidence the 
 linguistic conditions of earlier ages; and im this 
 important field, therefore, little has as yet been 
 attempted. 
 
 The Egyptian language, together with certain 
 languages of Barbary, Nubia, and Abyssinia, used 
 to be regarded.as forming one of the distinct main 
 divisions of human speech; now it is clear that 
 this isolating classification cannot be justified. 
 The group is not independent. Since Benfey’s 
 attempt to demonstrate the affinity of the Egyp- 
 tian and Semitic languages, his main contention 
 has received increasing confirmation, until it is no 
 longer possible to deny an originally very close 
 relationship—collateral rather than filial—between 
 the proto-Hamitic and proto-Semitic groups. The 
 affinity is specially prominent in grammatical 
 features common to both. Of these the principal 
 are—(1) the same gender-endings, masc. w, fem. ¢; 
 (2) an all but identical series of pronominal suffixes ; 
 (3) the use in both of a peculiar adjectival termina- 
 tion, ‘nisbeh’; (4) identity in four or five ¢f the 
 numerals; (5) analogous treatment of the weak 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 656 
 
 verb and derivatives; (6) the identity of an old 
 form of Egyp. verbal flection and the Sem. perfect ; 
 (7) verbal nouns with prefixed m ; (8) the import- 
 ance of a single accent-vowel in each word or 
 syntactical group, and the resultant ‘construct’ 
 state of the remaining vowels. There is, more- 
 over, to be noted the correspondence between the 
 Sem. and Egyp. consonants, extending to some 
 fifteen undoubted equations (which embrace the 
 important series x, }, ', y); also two or three more 
 which are almost certain.* Further, the same lack 
 of any written representatives of the vowels. In 
 the vocabulary the case for Sem. affinity is less 
 strong. The number of Egyp. roots for which 
 correspondents can reasonably be claimed in any 
 Sem. dialect is small; the large Sem. element in 
 the language of the New Kingdom owes its pre- 
 sence, not to any primitive relationship, but merel 
 to the political circumstances of the time. The balk 
 of Egyp. roots is of a decidedly non-Sem. type. 
 One of the most distinctive features of the Sem. 
 languages—the preponderance of triliteral roots— 
 is, at any rate, not paralleled, even in the oldest 
 Egyptian documents, though it has been sug- 
 gested that the divergence here is due to early 
 phonetic degeneration. Hommel offers another 
 explanation of the facts. By the aid of certain 
 very potent phonetic laws he institutes com- 
 parisons between a number of Egyp. and Sumerian 
 words, the latter being, in his view, an import 
 dating from the prehistoric (Semitic) immigration 
 from Mesopotamia. It is a question of at least 
 equal difficulty how large a proportion of the roots 
 should be regarded as of African, ¢.e. negroid, 
 origin, and so as vestiges of a still remoter, pre- 
 Semitic period, during which the valley was 
 peopled by an African race, part of whose lin- 
 guistic stock was subsequently amalgamated with 
 that of the invading Asiatics. 
 
 If it were possible to trace with certainty the 
 genealogy of the hieroglyphic script, we might 
 expect to find ourselves nearer the birthplace of 
 the language. Hommel’s theories do not ignore 
 this prebiens ; the hieroglyphics came, he holds, 
 like the rest of the intellectual e uipment of the 
 Egyptians, from Mesopotamia. If this were true 
 of the script as a whole, it would nevertheless be 
 obvious that many of the signs had their origin in 
 Africa ; they represent natural objects, to be met 
 with only there. Be this as it may, it is evident 
 that the Babylonian and Egyptian systems had, 
 for ages before we first meet with them, followed 
 widely divergent lines of development. The former, 
 influenced by the nature of its writing materials, had 
 lost almost entirely the pictorial character which the 
 latter, on the contrary, retained from the beginning 
 to the end of historic times. A conventionalizing, 
 abbreviating tendency was, of course, inevitable if 
 a script so ponderous was to be put to any but 
 occasional decorative uses. But the abbreviated 
 forms — first the ‘hieratic,’ later the ‘demotic’ 
 script—grew and found employment side by side 
 with their prototypes, the hieroglyphics, which 
 to the end were alone held suitable for sacred 
 literature or ornamental inscriptions. 
 
 The signs in general employment during the 
 classical period —the Middle and earlier New 
 Kingdoms — are estimated at about 500; some 
 
 * The following are the conventional transcriptions used in 
 this article (see 4g. Zeitschr. xxxiv. 61 and ZDMG xlvi. 727). 
 
 1. Ascertained equations: rx’, 3b, nh, w,nbh eb, +4, 9k, 
 52,99, Dm, 39,9", Bp, pF, At; 2 doubtful: 2 E Hh Bd, 
 
 04%, b d, @ e(the values of the sibilants, of course, particu- 
 larly uncertain). The Egyp. / and a form of § are without 
 Semitic equivalents. Y and é represent secondary forms of ° ¢. 
 
 
 
 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 from the older cp oeee had then fallen into disuse, 
 many employed later had not yet appeared. 
 
 The signs are pictures of material objecte— 
 natural and artificial,—or of parts of such objeets. 
 Primarily, each sign must have had for its phonetic 
 value merely the name of the object depicted. But 
 since no provision was thus made for expressing 
 abstract ideas or the grammatical needs of the 
 language, a secondary use of the signs had been 
 developed, and abstractions were expressed by the 
 same signs as those material objects of which the 
 names contained the identical consonants. For 
 example, -o~ is the picture of a ‘rib,’ written by 
 the consonants spr; the verb ‘ reach’ is also spelt 
 spr; it, too, is therefore written with the sign 7x. 
 Hocided such signs as these, capable unassisted of 
 et eric complete words, there are many with 
 only the value of single syllables (7.e. consonant +- 
 vowel + consonant). These are, no doubt, primitive 
 word-signs which have lost their original function, 
 and so become available as pure phonetics for the 
 writing of longer words. A still remoter stage of the 
 language is recalled by the 24 signs called by us 
 the ‘alphabet,’ and reduced from the representation 
 of 24 monosyllabic words (? consonant -++ vowel) to 
 that of 24 consonants, the initials of those forgotten 
 words. To these three phonetic elements is to be 
 added one purely ideographic and complementary. 
 To avoid ambiguities certain signs, ‘determina- 
 tives,’ are added, as in Babylonian and Chinese, 
 to phonetically written words in order to indi- 
 cate the class of ideas to which such words 
 refer. Thus, dignity or age would be followed 
 by the figure of an old man, strength or power 
 by that of an armed hand, literature or learn- 
 ing by that of a papyrus roll. The absence of 
 written vowels leaves us ignorant of the correct 
 pronunciation of Egyptian words; our only 
 guides are the transcriptions in vocalized forei 
 languages—cuneiform or Greek,—or in Coptic, 
 which is but the youngest stage of Egyptian, 
 expiared in the Greek alphabet. Yet by these 
 aids we merely approximate to the vocalization 
 of the later epochs ; for that of the Old Kingdom 
 we have no guide. The Egyptians themselves 
 did indeed, during the period of their intimacy 
 with Asia (18th and following Dynasties), feel the 
 need of some system of vowel-transcription, and 
 they naturally took as their model the cuneiform 
 syllabary, already in common use in Syria. The 
 vowels which under this influence they aimed at 
 representing were a, t, and w, and for their hiero- 
 glyphic representation the signs for three aah 
 mate weak consonants were selected. Similar 
 necessities were met at later periods (the Persian, 
 Ptolemaic, and Roman supremacies) .by similar 
 means, though during these the elements of the 
 ancient hieroglyphic system were speedily losing 
 their original values, and complete irregularity 
 already reigned in the transcription of foreign 
 consonants as well as vowels. 
 
 vii. CHRONOLOGY.—Many of the problems in- 
 volved in this subject still await satisfactory 
 solution. Astronomical calculations combined 
 with the monumental evidence have doubtless 
 done much already to fix the dates of later epochs; 
 but beyond the age of the New Kingdom it seems 
 impossible to find unanimous acceptance for more 
 than approximate dates. Much obscurity still 
 prevails as to the eras and methods employed by 
 the Egyptians in their calculations. 
 
 A. The-available Egyptian documents are—(1) 
 The lists of kings inscribed in temples or private 
 tombs. The three most important (at Abydos, Kar- 
 nak, Sakkara) date from Dynasties 18 and 19, and 
 give the names of 76, 61, and 47 kings respectively. 
 Tombs and MSS of the same period have preserved 
 shorter lists. In such lists the sequence of names 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_. + = 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 is not always correct, nor is more than a selection 
 ‘delgoe or ritualistic?) from the full series of past 
 
 ngs given. They supply no data as to length of 
 reign. (2) The lists in a dilapidated papyrus of 
 the Ramesside period at Turin, which probably 
 enumerated when complete all kings from the Ist 
 to the Hyksos Dynasty. (3) Dates are found in, 
 or can be reckoned from, the annals inscribed in 
 the temples by certain kings, or incidentally in 
 the tombs of private persons. This is the most 
 reliable class of document, and the records in 
 ee tombs are the sole contemporary source 
 
 ora See of the py Dynasties. 
 
 B. Of Greek writers, by far the most important 
 is Manetho, a native priest, c. B.C. 250, whose 
 works are known only by the excerpts preserved 
 by Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius, or by the 
 medium of still later chronologists. We are 
 ignorant of the sources upon which his Alyurriaxd 
 was based; presumably, he had at his disposal 
 documents far fuller and more reliable than any 
 now available, though his chronology of the remoter 
 periods can be proved much at fault. Nor can we 
 judge how far he manipulated his authorities to 
 suit his own views; and it is, moreover, probable 
 that his Jewish and Christian abbreviators had 
 their own systems to harmonize with his state- 
 ments. The misfortunes inevitable in the long 
 transmission of such writings must also be con- 
 sidered in aerating their present value. The 
 lists appended to Manetho’s history divided the 
 Egyptian kings into 31 Dynasties. The grounds 
 for such divisions are often difficult to appreciate ; 
 they do not always coincide with the divisions in 
 the Turin papyrus. The lists compiled by Eratos- 
 thenes, B.C. 275-194, in which pretended Greek 
 interpretations of the royal names are given, con- 
 tain in reality many words which are but inaccurate 
 ae Apne of titles, formule, etc., which accom- 
 panied the names. 
 
 Many scholars have occupied themselves with 
 these Greek chronologists. Béckh sought to 
 demonstrate an astronomical era as the basis of 
 Manetho’s calculations. Lepsius appealed to the 
 *Sothis’ book, —a Christian forgery, — which 
 ascribed 3555 years as total duration to the 
 Egyptian monarchy ; while, according to Unger, 
 
 anetho’s system gave 5613 as the date of its 
 foundation. Brugsch has attempted reckoning 
 from the basis of average length of generations 
 and reigns, and thus arrives at 4400 for the same 
 event. Ed. Meyer lays stress chiefly on data as to 
 length of reigns actually recorded on the monu- 
 ments, and has thus constructed a series of ‘ mini- 
 mum dates,’ t.e. dates below which, at any rate, 
 the various periods could not be brought down; 
 but C. Torr has since re-examined the monuments 
 with the result of a possible further reduction of 
 Meyer’s figures. 
 
 he most important assistance towards the estab- 
 lishment of indisputable dates is derived from 
 astronomical calculations, based on the following 
 ascertained facts as to the Egyptian calendar. The 
 Egyptians did not use a leap year. Consequently 
 in every four years a day was lost, and in 1460 years 
 these losses had resulted in a complete shift of all 
 the nominal months throughout the seasonal year. 
 An absolute method of reckoning could, however, 
 be obtained by observing the variation in the sun’s 
 sition, This variation was gauged by the first 
 visible (heliacal) rising of Sothis (Sirius), an event 
 which coincided with the beginning of the Inunda- 
 tion. When the ‘natural’ years, reckoned from 
 this point, amount to 1460, that total is therefore 
 called a Sothis period. The natural or Sothic year 
 was probably of importance to the Egyptians only 
 
 for agricultural and ritualistic calculations ; but to 
 us itis of great value. For the known fact that a 
 
 VOL. I.—42 
 
 
 
 EGYPT 657 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sothis period began in A.D. 139 enables us to fix tts 
 revious occurrences in B.C. 1322, 2784, 4242, ete. 
 Vith these points for a basis, and taking into con- 
 
 sideration the recorded Sothis risings under kings 
 
 Mrnpth (Merenptah) and AmenophisI., Ed. Mahler 
 
 fixes the reign of Thutmosis mI. at 1503-1449. 
 
 He has, indeed, also calculated exact dates for the 
 
 remainder of the 18th and 19th Dynasties; but 
 
 results drawn from documents still often disputable 
 cannot be relied on. To such astronomical dates 
 
 Flinders Petrie has contributed 3410 as the probable 
 
 commencement of the 6th Dynasty. The followin 
 
 are selected dates, from those provisionally ado ved 
 by Petrie,* Ed. Meyer, Mahler, and Steindorff (in 
 
 * Baedeker,’ 1897) :— 
 
 Petrie. Meyer. 
 Dynasty. B.C. B.O. 
 I. 4777 3180 
 Iv. 3998 2830 
 VI. 3410 2530 
 XI. 2985 
 XII. 2778 2130 
 XII. 2565 1930 Mahler. 
 XVIII. 1587 1530 1575 
 XIX. 1327 1320 
 XX. 1240 
 XXI. 1089 1060 
 XXII. 930 
 XXV. 728 
 XXVI. 663 
 XXVII. 625 Steindorff. 
 xxx. 382 
 Macedonians, 332 
 Romans, 30 
 
 viii. History.—Modern historians conveniently 
 pee Manetho’s series of 31 Dynasties into the 
 ollowing groups: (a) the Old Kingdom, Dyns. 
 i.-vi. ; G) the Middle Kingdom, Dyns. xi.-xiii. ; 
 (c) the New Kingdom, Dyns. xviii.-xx.; (d) the 
 Foreign Dominion, Dyns. xxii.-xxv.; (e) the Res- 
 toration, Dyn. xxvi.; (f) the Persian Supremacy, 
 Dyn. xxxi. Between these lie obscure, disturbed 
 
 eriods, not assignable to any of the more distinctly 
 
 seined pone 
 
 (a) The Old Kingdom. — Although nothing is 
 known of the history of the earliest Pharaohs, 
 the tombs of the Ist and 2nd Dynasties have 
 lately been discovered at Abydos (Om el-Ga‘ab), 
 the lecendary cradle, it will be remembered, of 
 the monarchy. Unfamiliar royal names of the 
 same remote age have come to light somewhat 
 farther south egadeh);+ while the so-called 
 ‘New Race’ cemetery—the remains of a very rude 
 stage of culture—in the latter locality, is regarded 
 as dating from at least as distant a period. In 
 Greek times legends could still be collected, attri- 
 buting to some of these early kings notable 
 achievements, such as the first damming of the 
 river, the establishment of a certain divine cult, 
 or the regulation of succession to the throne; to 
 others, some memorable experience—a devastating 
 plague, or an earthquake. 
 
 It is to be remembered that, while the first 
 historic Dynasty and that of demigods which pre- 
 ceded it are said to be native to Upper Egypt, the 
 legends of the still remoter Dynasty of gods are 
 localized in the North; the great gods were at 
 home first in Heliopolis and the Delta. This may 
 point, it is said, to a racial contrast which, now- 
 ever strong at first, was early obliterated. One oi 
 
 * So far as yet published ; see History, vols. L M.; Meyer’s are 
 the minimum dates referred to above. 
 
 t See 4g. Zeitschr. xxxv. 1 ff. 
 
658 EGYPT 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 the prehistoric races had occupied districts about 
 the river’s mouth ; another—that, perhaps, to which 
 the rude monuments at Coptos are due —had 
 arrived in the upper valley, and one of its chiefs, 
 attaining, we may suppose, at Abydos, or more 
 
 roperly Thinis, to a position of supremacy, had 
 Fast able to extend thence his power down the 
 river, settling near the later Memphis, subduing 
 or absorbing the Delta tribes, and finally identi- 
 
 fying himself with the religion of the district 
 which became thenceforth the state religion of 
 tne nation. Relics of a possibly pre- dynastic 
 
 monarchy can be traced in archaic survivals in the 
 titles, functions, dress, etc., of the later kings; but 
 of the people ruled by these primitive Pharaohs, 
 or of the limits of their domains, little can as yet 
 be said. Interments, flints, pottery, regarded by 
 some as prehistoric, are by others assigned to far 
 later ages. 
 
 History properly so called opens with Dyn. 3. 
 Yet here still we have knowledge of only one or 
 two out of half a dozen kings. Some fragments 
 on which the name of Ndk’ (Nebka) occurs are 
 held to belong to his time; Dsr (Zezer), his suc- 
 cessor, in all probability built (possibly usurped) 
 the step-pyramid of Sakkara. He was a monarch 
 of some power, for he extended his activity to 
 the mines of Sinai, where his name is found, and 
 his cult was revived at quite a late epoch. The 
 Dynasty closes (or the next begins) with a better 
 known king, Snfrw-Soris, whose name survives on 
 numerous monuments, the most important bein 
 his pyramid-tomb at Medim. He, too, exploited 
 the Sinaitic copper, not, however, as his inscrip- 
 tions there show, until he had crushed the hostile 
 nomads of the neighbourhood. The tombs of 
 several of his nobles are extant in the cemeteries 
 of Abusir, Dahshur, and Medim. The 4th Dynasty 
 has left a memorial more indelible than that of 
 any that followed it; for the successors of Soris 
 built as their tombs the three great pyramids of 
 Gizeh. Their relationships to Soris and to one 
 another are uncertain. Some close blood connexion 
 can be argued from genealogies in contemporary 
 tombs and from later tradition. Hwfw-Cheops, 
 Hfr'-Chephren, and Mnk’wr'-Mykerinus appear 
 to have spent their energies chiefly on the con- 
 struction of their pyramids. With this object 
 they brought granite from Asw4n and alabaster 
 from quarries near Tel el-Amarna. Cheops, how- 
 ever, continued the work in Sinai, and built in the 
 Delta (Tideh and Bubastis). Indeed we learn from 
 the inscriptions of Min (Methen), a magnate of the 
 time, that the Delta was already, at any rate in 
 rere reclaimed and worked for the crown by great 
 
 ctionaries. Of the remaining three or four 
 kings of the Dynasty, one at least is known to 
 have built a pyramid. The great Sphinx is usually 
 attributed to this period, though it possibly belongs 
 to a considerably later age. The relative scarcity 
 of remains of the 4th Dynasty probably points to 
 the small development of the custom of building 
 monumental tomabe. 
 
 Tradition regarded the 5th Dynasty as a new 
 family, possibly as one of usurpers. One legend— 
 probably not without interested motives—ascribes 
 to it an origin half-priestly, half-divine, and places 
 its home in the neighbourhood of Heliopolis; else- 
 whereitiscallednativetoHlephantine. The Dynasty 
 consisted of some nine kings, mostly little more 
 now than names; for we know of no achievements 
 more remarkable than work in the mines of Sinai 
 or Hammfm§t and a trading expedition down the 
 coasts of the Red Sea. The pyramids of all but 
 
 one of the kings are identified—mostly at Abusir. 
 That of Wnis-Onnos, the last of the Dynasty, is at 
 Sakkara, and, though smaller than most tombs of 
 its class, is to us of much greater importance than 
 
 
 
 the gigantic but barren erections of earlier plpne 
 for in it are inscribed the most azcient texts o all 
 Egyptian literature (see below). 
 
 ‘thie 6th Dynasty, in its widespread activity 
 abroad and at home, is a strong contrast to its 
 forerunner. Inscriptions of its kings meet us in 
 all parts of Upper and Lower Egypt, as well as in 
 Sinai and the desert quarries. nd now, more- 
 over, we may read in the earliest of narrative in- 
 scriptions—those of Wni (Una) and Hrhof (Herk- 
 huf), the generals and ambassadors of kings Ppy 
 (Pepy) 1. and Mrnr‘ (Merenera)—of expeditions 
 against both the Syrian and Nubian barbarians. 
 These resulted, indeed, in little but booty and 
 conciliatory presents from the tribes over whom 
 a temporary victory could probably be achieved 
 with little trouble, by the (at least partially) dis- 
 oe troops of Egypt. One of the latter kings 
 of this Dynasty, Ppy 1., sat longer on the throne 
 than any monarch in the world’s history; native 
 and Greek documents assign him a reign of over 
 90 years. 
 
 e know not under what circumstances the 6th 
 Dynasty had reached the throne,—whether through 
 some blood claim or by violence,—nor do we know 
 amidst what events its rule closed. Evidently, 
 however, it had no peaceful end. The last of its 
 kings are but empty names, and indeed in the 
 latter years of Ppy UW. complete phn sur- 
 rounds the political and social existence of Egypt. 
 When, some two or three centuries later, that 
 obscurity is dissipated, the country has assumed a 
 new face, the capital is no longer at Memphis, the 
 oon of gravity is several hundred miles farther 
 south. ; 
 
 The outward characteristics of the Hey pean 
 polity show little change under the 3rd, 4th, and 
 5th Dynasties. The southern and northern king- 
 doms, bound together, it has been said, in a sort 
 of personal union, each retains to some extent its 
 separate organization, although important offices, 
 once proper to one or other of them, are often 
 found united in the hands of a single functionary, 
 just as the official nomenclature of the Pharaoh 
 combined the royal titles of both South and North. 
 The king is omnipotent; his ministers—a mere 
 bureaucracy—are members of the royal house or of 
 the great territorial families. The ancient division 
 of the country into nomes forms the basis of an 
 elaborate financial and judicial administration, yet 
 controlled by the court through officials dependent 
 on the central government, by whom the abr] 
 dues are collected and legal questions settled 
 independently of the local authorities. But as 
 time goes on, and (as we may infer) weak rulers 
 succeed the strong, the old provincial independence 
 reasserts itself, and the nomarchs begin to move 
 beneath the weight of central despotism. One of 
 the first signs of this decentralizing tendency is 
 the growth of the custom of burial, now no longer 
 at Memphis, beside the king, but at home, in the 
 cemeteries of the provincial capitals, at Akhmim, 
 Abydos, Thebes, Elephantine, and elsewhere. 
 The court of the nomarch was modelled upon that 
 of the king; its officials grew in number, its 
 militia in strength. The kings of the 6th Dynasty 
 are left surrounded only by courtiers and placemen ; 
 the magnates seem to have withdrawn, and to be 
 ready, when opportunity offers, to reassert the 
 primitive independence of their position. 
 
 The period between the6th and the 11th Dynasties 
 is one of the most obscure in Egypt’s history ; yet 
 the complete dearth of monuments can scarcely be 
 fortuitous. _Manetho localizes the 7th and 8th 
 Dynasties still at Memphis, and we may indeed 
 suppose that there was no sudden break with the 
 past. The provincial nobles could only graduall 
 assert their strength, and the Pharaohs sti 
 

 
 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 —— 
 
 reigned, at least nominally, in their ancient capital. 
 But of these kings we know nothing, scarcely 
 their names. Possibly they were, in later times, 
 regarded as usurpers. Genealogies in certain 
 
 _ tombs (El-Bersheh) appear to reach back to their 
 
 times, and show how the nomarchs already 
 flourished. The succeeding Dynasties, the 9th and 
 10th, would be equally unknown were it not for 
 the inscriptions of Siut, whose princes record their 
 participation in the struggle of the petty Dynasty 
 of gree ee (Ahnas) against ‘the South” 
 The 9th and 10th Dynasties are indeed currently 
 ascribed to Heracleopolis, while subsequent events 
 make it evident that by ‘the South’ is here meant 
 the principality of Thebes. That town had been 
 the seat of a noble family under the 6th Dynasty ; 
 and while the royal power had grown weak, the 
 Theban nomarchs had nursed their strength, till 
 at length, having overcome the Heracleopolites, 
 awd by degrees re-established unity and order. 
 
 (6) The iddie Kingdom.—The claims of these 
 first Theban Pharaohs—the 11th Dynasty—to be 
 the legitimate successors of the Memphite kings 
 were recognized in their own and future genera- 
 tions. Their number and sequence isnotclear. They 
 bear alternately the names Mntwhtp (Mentuhotep) 
 
 _and Intf (Intef), though it is pretty certain this does 
 
 not imply the undisturbed succession of one family. 
 The royal honours were not attained by the first 
 member of the series, who bears merely the title 
 of nomarch ; the kingly titles are assumed by his 
 successors. One at least of them—Mntwhtp 111.— 
 had a long reign, and left evidence of his power 
 from the Cataracts to the Delta. Another records 
 a trading expedition on the Red Sea as well as 
 uarrying work in the eastern desert. 
 
 Whether the 12th Dynasty succeeded the 11th 
 without disturbance is not certain. It gave to 
 Egypt seven of the most active, powerful, and 
 long-lived of her kings, and seems in every sense 
 to have been worthy of the admiration bestowed 
 on it in after ages. To Jmnmh'‘t-Amenemes I. 
 fell the task of completing the work of union and 
 pacification initiated by his predecessors. The 
 magnates of Middle Egypt (Beni-Hasan) have 
 recorded his intervention to settle local disputes 
 as to territory on the basis of former arrangements, 
 and to confirm his faithful vassals in their pos- 
 sessions. Elsewhere we read of revolts suppressed 
 and of conquests abroad. Indeed, Egypt had now 
 for the first time a royal house whose aspiration it 
 was to extend the frontiers of their dominions. 
 It is true that booty or tribute were still the chief 
 inducements to war; but the campaigns were now 
 upon a larger scale, the enemies attacked more 
 distant, and the results of victory more lasting. 
 The energies of the kings were turned chiefly 
 southward, towards the gold mines of Nubia. That 
 country, once subdued,—mainly by the exertions of 
 Wsrtsn (Usertesen) I1I.,—was to be held by means of 
 fortresses, of which two can still be traced beyond 
 the second Cataract. All Egypt contains scattered 
 remains of the building activity of the 12th Dynasty, 
 whose kings resided in various capitals—the earlier 
 in Thebes, where the nucleus of the Amon temple 
 dates from their time, and possibly at Memphis; 
 the later, in the Fayyfim, where Amenemes III. 
 built the most colossal of Egyptian funerary 
 temples, known in later ages as the Labyrinth, 
 and where he utilized an extensive natural lake 
 (L. Moeris) to fertilize the whole district. The 
 custom of burial in pyramids, maintained on a 
 modest scale by the 11th Dynasty at Thebes, was 
 carried on by their successors, who built large 
 tombs of this class near ag Ti (Lisht, Turrah, 
 Dahshur) or in the Fayyfiim (Mlahun, Hawarah). 
 There are grounds for supposing the later kings of 
 the Dynasty to have Pay foreign blood in their 
 
 
 
 
 
 EGYPT 659 
 
 
 
 veins; their portraits show features singularly 
 different from the accustomed type of the age. 
 The internal history of the middle kingdom is the 
 history of the development of the decentralizing 
 tendencies which had their rise in the conditions 
 of the 6th Dynasty. The development can be 
 traced in the inscribed tombs of the noble families 
 buried at Beni-Hasan, El-Bersheh, Siut, and 
 Aswan. The nomes of Middle and Upper Egypt 
 are the centres of interest, each of ea in the 
 hands of a family of which the genealogy can, in 
 some cases, be traced back to the Old Rinzdom! 
 The nomarchs were still, however, under certain 
 obligations to the central power. But the crown 
 was no longer in the position of irresponsible 
 despotism which it had enjoyed in former times, 
 Its powers were restricted on all sides by the 
 growth of the provincial resources. The nomarchs, 
 some of whom by judicious marriages had become 
 lords of several provinces at once, had their own 
 courts, officials, and levies, though the latter were 
 apparently at the king’s disposal for external wars. 
 So far, however, as we can judge, the country 
 suffered little as yet from these conditions. The 
 age of the Middle Kingdom, though differing rather 
 in degree than in kind from that of the Memphite 
 Dynasties, was one of probably greater material, 
 artistic, and literary wealth, and appeared, not 
 undeservedly, to succeeding generations as a 
 golden age. 
 
 The obscurity which gradually follows the ex- 
 tinction of the 12th Dynasty is no less impenetrable 
 than that which follows on the Dynasties of the 
 Old Kingdom. On some sides, indeed, the decline 
 is scarcely perceptible; the outward aspect of the 
 kingdom is little changed ; the southern conquests 
 are maintained, commerce on the Red Sea con- 
 tinues, and the art of the period does not fall far 
 short of the high standard lately set. But of the 
 individual Pharaohs of the 13th Dynasty we know 
 scarcely anything ; of those of the 14th, absolutely 
 nothing. he former series, with the names 
 (among others) of Sbkhtp (Sebekhotep) and Sdkms’f 
 (Sebekemsef), is localized in Thebes; the latter in 
 Chois, an obscure Delta town, though it is quite 
 
 ossible that the Theban tradition was being upheld 
 
 y a contemporary Dynasty in the south. The 
 
 whole interval, indeed, between the 12th and 17th 
 
 nasties may have been occupied by the struggles 
 
 of rival houses, each claiming legitimate rights to 
 
 the throne, yet none strong enough to vindicate its 
 claims permanently. 
 
 We do not know at what point in this dark 
 period of some 150 years the internal troubles 
 were first complicated by foreign invasion. The 
 name of one of the kings assigned to this time is 
 regarded as evidence for an Ethiopic supremacy ; 
 on the other hand, there is perhaps ground for 
 placing here one of the frequent Libyan invasions. 
 Of trustworthy contemporary documents there is 
 a complete dearth; the Turin papyrus and the 
 Manethonian fragments are our sole authorities. 
 In Manetho’s arrangement these two obscure 
 Dynasties are followed by two more of which still 
 less is known; yet they are of greater interest, for 
 they are drawn from those foreign invaders who by 
 this time had subdued at least a part of northern 
 Egypt, and whom Manetho names Hyksos (‘Tkows, 
 2pl. ‘Yxovecds). The racial position of this people 
 is still unknown. Their Greek (=Egyptian) name 
 means merely ‘Sheikhs of the (south Syrian) Be- 
 dawin,’ * and it has been supposed that they con- 
 sisted of mixed hordes, partly Semite, i of 
 some other race. Another hypothesis, based on 
 
 the fact that the worship of Swt} (Set) was common 
 to Hyksos and Hittites, and on the occurrence in 
 
 * The gloss ‘shepherd’ for ¥sw is demonstra)le only at a far 
 later period of the language. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 660 EGYPT 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 cuneiform documents of Hy’n (Khyan) as a Hittite 
 king’s name, while his namesake in Egypt is re- 
 garded as a Hyksos king, would make of Hyksos 
 and Hittites one race. From the language we 
 ean draw no arguments, for we know nothing of 
 it save a few Greek transcriptions of the royal 
 names. Nor can we appeal to the portraits of the 
 kings; for the Sphinxes, etc., formerly regarded 
 as such, are now held by many to belong rather 
 to the latter kings of the 12th Dynasty. 
 
 Asiatics had undoubtedly been crossing the 
 frontier for ages past; but only in small numbers. 
 Now they appear to have made a much more 
 formidable onslaught upon the eastern Delta, and, 
 after slaying, plundering, and burning, to have 
 established themselves there in a dominant posi- 
 tion. The events which had produced this south- 
 ward migration from Asia are quite unknown; 
 peer: the contemporary attack of Elam on 
 
 esopotamia gave the immediate impetus. 
 
 Egypt Was weak, and the earlier at least of the 
 Hyksos princes were strong rulers; and though 
 resistance was persistent farther south, northern 
 Egypt remained in their hands for two or three 
 centuries, possibly longer. They resided in the 
 eastern Delta, in the fortress of Htw'rt-Avaris or 
 at D'nt-Tanis (Zoan), where they soon so far 
 assimilated Egyptian civilization that the remains 
 of their work is indistinguishable from that of 
 the native kings. 
 
 (c) The New Kingdom.—Just as the disorders of 
 a former period had been ended by the energy or 
 fortunate position of the Theban nomarchs, so 
 now resistance to the Hyksos oppression centred 
 at Thebes, which may even itself have suffered at 
 their hands, since traces of them have come to 
 light still farther south. Their expulsion neces- 
 sitated a long struggle, and they probably only 
 finally eg the Delta many years after being 
 driven from Upper Egypt. he 17th Dynasty, 
 which began the war oft eration, seems for some 
 time to have been contemporary with the Hyksos 
 kings. It is, however, only of its later members 
 that we have any knowledge. There is preserved 
 from this period the autobiography of an Egyptian 
 officer, J‘ims-Amosis, who took part in the war, 
 and from it we learn that, Avaris having been 
 captured, the foreigners were not merely expelled 
 from Egypt, but pursued into 8. Palestine and 
 their stronghold (or, perhaps, place of temporary 
 retreat) Sharuhen (Jos 19°) taken. 
 
 The military expeditions here described are the 
 first-fruits of a new tendency in the history of the 
 nation. The art, language, and social organization 
 of the early period of the New Kingdom bear a 
 close resemblance to those of the age that had 
 sunk in the obscurity of the Hyksos invasion. 
 Indeed, that the change had been so slight may 
 be an argument for the relatively short duration 
 of the foreign occupation. But the political his- 
 tory of Egypt, with the rise of the new Theban 
 Dynasty, begins to follow a new course. Instead 
 of : a nation content with victories over the wild 
 tribes of Nubia and the Soudan, both kings and 
 people appear now to be eager for conquest among 
 races of quite other attainments, in the arts both 
 of peace and war. The nations of Syria had not, 
 so far as we know, seen an Egyptian invasion 
 since that conducted by Wni (6th Dynasty), The 
 Pharaohs of the New Kingdom, however, initiated 
 into Asiatic warfare by the circumstances of the 
 Hyksos expulsion, soon came to regard such cam- 
 paigns—agegressive now—as their most important 
 occupation. But first they set about the recon- 
 
 quest of Nubia, and before long carried their 
 southern frontier as far as Dongola- 
 
 The decisive strokes in the war of liberation 
 were fought under the first king of the 18th 
 
 Dynasty, I’ms-Amosis, who seems to have been 
 the lineal descendant of his predecessors. The 
 relationships and sequence of the kings and queens 
 —the latter, heiresses in their own right—who 
 followed him are much disputed. His son and 
 successor, Jmnhtp-Amenophis I., was a king of no 
 great political importance, though Lpiteaey A Te- 
 vered, as we see from his special deification in 
 later times. His chief occupation was the re- 
 organization of the Nubian dependencies. He was 
 followed by his son, DAwtims-Thutmosis I., ti co 
 this prince’s succession was only legitimized by 
 marriage with a half-sister, the direct heiress, 
 Whether he was the father of his three successors 
 Th. u., Th. 11., and queen HtSpswt (Hatasu) 
 or only of Th. 1. and the queen, Th. WI. being 
 a generation farther off, it is difficult to decide. 
 The queen, though certainly daughter and heiress 
 to Th. 1. and wife of her brother Th. I., may 
 have been either half-sister or aunt (and step- 
 
 mother) to Th. 11. She was, at any rate, a 
 pe of strong character, and a very important 
 
 actor in the politics of the time, acting at least 
 once as co-regent and, during the minority of 
 Th. 11., ruling on his behalf. e have evidence 
 however, in the successive erasure of these royal 
 names upon the monuments, that, whatever was 
 the sequence of the changes of rule among them, 
 such changes were not made in any spirit of friendly 
 acquiescence. Queen A'tspswt never really reigned 
 alone, though for years, whether owing to the 
 insignificance or youth of the king, the fortunes of 
 the country were in her hands. Beyond the proofs 
 of her activity recorded at Deir el-Bahri (Thebes), 
 we know little of the direction her energies took. 
 The Hyksos were no doubt not yet completely 
 expelled, and there is again mention of a Nubian 
 campaign. The event of which we know most, 
 however, is her expedition to Pwnt, t.e. the Somali 
 coast. Her fleet had, like its predecessors from the 
 6th Dynasty onwards, solely a commercial object. 
 Pwnt (Punt), the ‘Land of the Gods,’ the home of 
 the ‘bearded’ people,* was rich in frankincense, 
 and a market for ebony, ivory, and panther skins. 
 Beyond the vast temple, on whose walls the ex- 
 pedition is depicted, the queen found opportunity 
 to build also in other quarters of Thebes, and 
 erected at Karnak the loftiest (with one exception) 
 of extant Egyptian obelisks. 
 
 Left free nha the death or final retirement of 
 H'tspswt, Thutmosis WI., who had already reached 
 the age of thirty, at once set about a campaign 
 in Syria which culminated in a great defeat at 
 Megiddo of the confederated Syrian princes, who 
 forthwith recognized the Pharaoh as overlord, and 
 professed themselves, with more or less sincerity, 
 the vassals of Egypt. Not, however, that one 
 campaign sufficed to ensure this condition of things. 
 During twenty years Thutmosis 11. himself led 
 some fifteen expeditions into Syria, where the 
 withdrawal of his armies was repeatedly the signal 
 for a rising among the subjugated states. His 
 most distant vassals at the time of his death were 
 in the neighbourhood of Mt. Amanus and the 
 upper Euphrates; he was suzerain of the Canaanite 
 pina and coasts and of the Amorite hill-country, 
 while Egypt’s ‘sphere of influence’ embraced, more- 
 over, ‘the isles of the Great Sea,’ t.e. the Augean 
 islands, as well as Cyprus, the nearer parts of 
 Asia Minor, and the Hittite territory around 
 Kadesh (on the Orontes). ‘Tribute’ is recorded 
 from Assyria, though here, as often elsewhere, the 
 annalist probably refers but to propitiatory gifts, 
 which indicated a desire to stand well with the 
 powerful invader. The Nubian dependencies were 
 * So W. Max Miiller, Z. Ass. xi, 82, and not por ee Abys 
 
 sinians, 
 
also extended in this reign as far south as Gebel 
 Barkal and probably far across the Soudan, while 
 we hear, too, of campaigns against the Libyan 
 
 nomads. Thutmosis II. was not less active as a 
 builder than as a warrior; his architecture meets 
 us on all hands. In every considerable town he 
 built or enlarged a temple, as at Thebes, where 
 he surrounded the central shrine of Amon with 
 extensive halls and corridors. His name, engraved 
 on scarabs, etc., is more frequent than that of any 
 other king, and seems, in later ages, to have been 
 regarded as a talisman. 
 
 e was succeeded peacefully by his son, Amen- 
 ophis I1., whose long reign is not remarkable. His 
 father’s energy had secured, for the time, the Syrian 
 conquests. Nubia seems to have occupied him 
 somewhat more, and from his reign date the most 
 southerly of Egyptian monuments (Ben - Naga). 
 The reign of the next king, Thutmosis Iv., was 
 short and still less remarkable. There were occa- 
 sional demonstrations of supremacy to be made in 
 Syria and Nubia, and tributes of respect to be paid 
 to the gods by some additions to their temples. 
 That the contact with Asia was already of influ- 
 ence is shown by this king’s marriage with a 
  Sinoey of Mtn-Mitanni, the then leading power 
 
 yond the Euphrates. 
 
 Amenophis II. sat for thirty-five years on his 
 father’s throne. He seems to have been still able 
 without much exertion to maintain abroad the 
 position he inherited, for we hear nothing of Asiatic 
 and but once of Nubian campaigns. Extensive 
 building and much observance of religious cere- 
 monies are—for us, at least—the characteristics 
 of the reign. At this period of the 18th Dynasty 
 the royal marriages are among the most significant 
 and influential in Egyptian history. Amenophis 
 11., himself possibly the son of his father’s foreign 
 wife, took into his harem Kirgip’ (cuneif. Gilu- 
 hipa), another daughter of the house of Mitanni, 
 while we know that among his wives was also a 
 Babylonian princess. He had, moreover, already 
 married a lady named 7yi, who may or may not 
 have been of foreign parentage, but who, at any 
 rate, took a prominent share in the public life 
 both of her husband and son. It is thought, in- 
 deed, that Amenophis Iv. was influenced by his 
 mother towards those reforms in the state religion, 
 initiated a few years after his accession, which 
 have left to his name a peculiar interest. (See 
 below.) 
 
 The marriages, domestic relations, and foreign 
 history of this period can be followed in excep- 
 tional detail owing to the records deposited at 
 el-Amarna, where a portion of the correspondence 
 between the Egyptian court and its allies, envoys, 
 and vassals in Syria lay stored until its discovery 
 in 1887. The correspondence was almost wholly 
 in the a ga language,—clearly the diplomatic 
 medium of the age,—though the writers were not, 
 with one or two exceptions, Babylonians. Some 
 of the letters are from the kings of Mitanni, but 
 most are from the Syrians entrusted with the 
 leas of the subjugated provinces. Those 
 etters which belong to the reign of Amenophis 
 UI. show a condition still of peaceful allegiance to 
 Egypt and respect for its king. Those, however, 
 dating from his son’s reign bear witness to the 
 defection of the vassals and speedy loss of the 
 Asiatic empire, which resulted from the neglect 
 and incapacity of the suzerain power. Amenophis 
 IV. was tuo fully engrossed at home to spend time 
 or money upon external affairs. 
 
 Although this king reigned for some seventeen 
 years, there is nothing recorded of him beyond his 
 religious activity. The religious revolution was 
 
 accompanied by an ephemeral, though for the 
 time complete, revolution in art, traceable through- 
 
 
 
 out the remains of the great palace and temple 
 which Amenophis, no longer content to reside at 
 Thebes, had built at el-Amarna in Middle Egypt. 
 Place and personal names were changed, in ac- 
 cordance with the reformed cult; the new residence 
 was called ‘Horizon of the Sun,’ the king took 
 the name J/mitn (Khuenaten), ‘Spirit of the Sun,’ 
 the names of his wife—another princess of Mitanni 
 and his own cousin—and daughters being likewise 
 altered. There has been much speculation as to 
 the king’s personality, owing to the wide diverg- 
 ence between his youthful and mature portraits. 
 The peculiar, almost deformed, type of the latter 
 has been thought in some way connected with the 
 religious change. It is scarcely likely that the 
 very similar portraits of his courtiers are due to 
 more than imitative flattery. 
 
 On the death of the reformer-king, he was pre- 
 sumably interred in the great tomb hewn for him 
 at el-Amarna. His courtiers had planned to lie 
 around him there; but only some of them were 
 destined to complete their tombs. For in a short 
 time it was clear that the schism had depended 
 on the energies of its originator ; with him dead, 
 the ancient religion quickly reasserted itself. His 
 two sons-in-law, who succeeded him, were not the 
 men to resist the reaction which, within twent: 
 years of Amenophis’ death, was complete, and lett 
 the 18th Dynasty to end its course where it had 
 begun it, at Thebes. 
 
 The most conspicuous results of the intercourse 
 with Asia of which the 18th Dynasty had wit- 
 nessed the growth, are eels seen in the 
 military character of the age, the new basis on 
 which the army was levied,—dependent no longer 
 on the feudal nomarchs, but immediately on the 
 king,—and the new methods of warfare taught by 
 the introduction of the hitherto unknown horse 
 and chariot into Egypt. The gradual extinction 
 of the nomarchs—an effect perhaps of civil war— 
 implied a corresponding exaltation of the crown; 
 their lands seem mostly to have passed into the 
 king’s hands. Conquest gave to the new mon- 
 archy a prestige and resources (treasure and slave- 
 labour) which placed it in a position of hitherto 
 unattained magnificence. The country became, as 
 under the early Dynasties, filled with royal officials 
 and favourites, who soon rose to form a new no- 
 bility ; a royal tax was levied upon all land, and 
 ae justice administered by mixed courts of 
 officials and priests. The Asiatic vassal-provinces 
 were governed chiefly by native viceroys, whom 
 the Egyptian court controlled by means of envoys. 
 Nubia and part of S. Egypt were entrusted to 
 an official known as the ‘Prince of Kush.’ The 
 evils of the irresponsible security attained by the 
 capacity and fortune of the earlier Pharaohs of 
 the New Kingdom and those resulting from their 
 close alliance with the all-powerful priesthood, 
 become visible first under the following Dynasty. 
 
 Whether Hrmhb-Armais be reckoned the last 
 king of the 18th or the first of the 19th Dynasty, 
 it is he who really initiates the new epoch. The 
 disturbance for which Amenophis Iv. had been 
 responsible could not be quieted without vigorous 
 reorganization, and this was the main work of 
 Armais, a strong ruler, and probably already acting 
 regent when called by his patrons, the priests of 
 Thebes, to the throne. Beyond reconstructive 
 work at home, we hear of one Asiatic war in 
 which the principal enemy is the Hittite power, 
 now advanced southward (probably from the 
 Armenian highlands) and making havoe among 
 Egypt’s allies and vassals in N. Syria. It is 
 uncertain whether this reign saw a treaty between 
 them and Egypt. Armais was followed by the 
 first of the famous Ramesside Pharaohs who ruled 
 Egypt during the following 200 years. But 
 
 
 
662 EGYPT 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 Ramses I. died after a short and uneventful reign, 
 and his son Sty-Sethés was the first whose hands 
 were free enough at home to allow of any real 
 
 attempt to regain abroad the ground of late lost. 
 Yet now even Sethés was unable to do more than 
 assure his hold upon such districts as the Hittites 
 had not already annexed. A march through 
 Palestine to the Orontes and back by the Pheni- 
 cian coast overawed Bedawins and Canaanites ; 
 but he made no fresh conquests, and finally came 
 to terms with the Hittite king, who was to be 
 suzerain from the Lebanon northwards, while 
 Palestine remained in allegiance to Egypt. Nubia, 
 Libya, and, with the last, the editerranean 
 pirate hordes who now begin to appear on the N. 
 and W. for the first time, were likewise chastised 
 or repelled ; but most of the reign must have been 
 spent peacefully, as the king’s colossal monuments 
 at Thebes and Abydos testify. 
 
 His son, Ramses 11.—the best known of Egyptian 
 Pharaohs, because the most industrious in record- 
 ing his own glory,—succeeded young, and reigned 
 for 67 years. .Ot these the first score were occupied 
 in the war with the Hittites, till it became evident 
 that a peace, similar to that of the last reign, 
 could alone end a struggle in which neither side 
 was strong enough to retain the mastery. 
 alliance, offensive and defensive, was at the same 
 time concluded and cemented, some years later, by 
 a marriage. The war had been signalized by at 
 least one great battle—that at Kadesh,—in which 
 prodigies of valour are ascribed to the king. But 
 the position of Egypt in Asia, as defined by the 
 peace of the king’s 21st year, was far inferior to 
 that attained two centuries earlier by Thutmosis 
 1. Instead of the frontier at the Euphrates and 
 Mt. Amanus, Ramses 1. had to be content with 
 one which crossed the Lebanon about Beirfit. As 
 a means of controlling Phoenicia and Palestine, he 
 erected a series of forts across the desert, while 
 strengthening various Delta towns (cf. the Hebrew 
 tradition of ‘Pithom and Raamses,’ Ex 1"), and 
 choosing for his favourite residence Tanis (Zoan), 
 a much more apt centre than Thebes for the 
 direction of operations in Syria. 
 
 After the Hittite eace, Ramses II. appears to 
 have devoted himself principally to architecture. 
 Not only did he build endless temples to the gods 
 (and some even to himself) throughout the country, 
 but he did not scruple, while restoring, to appro- 
 poste the work of his predecessors, whose names 
 
 e frequently replaced on their buildings and 
 statues by his own. He had more than 150 
 children. His successor was his fourteenth son, 
 Mrnpth (Merenptah), whose reign is as yet the only 
 one in which reference has been found to the 
 Israelites (see below). As well as his famous Libyan 
 war, Mrnpth boasts of a campaign in Syria, where 
 he still claimed the allegiance of the southern half 
 of the country. The great Libyan host, defeated 
 in his 5th year, had come allied again with those 
 pirate hordes which had appeared in the Delta 
 under Sethés, and whose homes it is impossible to 
 localize, owing to the difficulty in exactly identify- 
 ing their names. They came, at any rate, from 
 the Mediterranean coasts; but whether Asia Minor, 
 the Aigean islands, and the Italic countries all 
 sent contingents, cannot be decided. The name 
 ef Mrnpth is found on numerous monuments, but 
 we know little of his doings. 
 
 The long reign of Ramses U., and perhaps 
 apathy and self-indulgence in his iatter years, had 
 enfeebled the royal power, and by the time of 
 Mrnpth’s death the country was ready for revolu- 
 tion. Power fell into the hands of the magnates 
 and great officials, and only after half a century of 
 disturbance did Stnht succeed in re-establishing 
 order. This prince, who presumably had claimed 
 
 legitimate Ramesside descent, left the throne to his 
 son, Ramses II., whose reign lasted over 30 years. 
 During its first decade, three formidable attacka 
 from without had to be repelled—two by Libyan 
 coalitions, and one by a hest of the northern mari- 
 time invaders, whom the wealth of Egypt had 
 more than once attracted under former kings. 
 This time, however, they approached the eastern 
 Delta by land through Syria as well as by sea, and 
 it was only after a destructive battle at the frontier 
 fortress of Magdolos that they were repulsed. 
 The hold of each successive Pherae upon the 
 Asiatic provinces was growing weaker, and it is 
 doubtful how far the authority of Ramses II. was 
 effective there, even though the Hittite empire 
 had long been dissipated. At home the king’s tran- 
 quillity was broken by a widespread and mysterious 
 conspiracy, originating in the palace, and sup- 
 pressed with great severity. Otherwise, the reign 
 appears to have been peaceful. The king’s chief 
 ambition was the imitation in all points of his 
 ancestor, Ramses Il. The wealth of the count 
 was enormous. The king lived the life of a selt- 
 indulgent despot, while the real power was with 
 the Theban priests and the foreign mercenaries— 
 mainly Libyans and S’rdin’, i.e. Sardinians, of 
 whom the latter had already served the Pharaohs 
 of the preceding Dynasty. 
 
 Ramses Il. was followed by a series of his sons 
 and grandsons, who each bore the name of Ramses. 
 Under their weak rule Egypt finally lost her 
 Syrian dependencies, and left them open to the 
 conquests of Assyria. Each king seems to have 
 been principally occupied with the preparation of 
 a vast rock-tomb (Bibin el-Mulfik), and meanwhile 
 the ascendency of the priests of Amon grew always 
 greater, until Hrhr (Herhor), who had already 
 added to the office of chief priest the principa: 
 political and military titles, felt strong enough te 
 mount the throne and thus put an end to the 
 Ramesside rule. The Ramesside Pharaohs had, 
 with even greater resources at theircommand, rarely 
 displayed the eee or vigour of the 18th Dyn- 
 asty, and the nation had readily relapsed into the 
 unwarlike apathy and distaste for foreign inter- 
 course which had marked its earlier history. Mer- 
 cenary troops became therefore the only means of 
 retaining a hold on the foreign provinces, and the 
 king grew more and more completely the tool of the 
 BRAT. leaders. On the other hand, the recent 
 triumph of orthodoxy had further strengthened 
 the position of the priesthood, on whom royal piety 
 heaped untold quantities of treasure, the product 
 of the foreign tributaries, The great offices of state 
 in the hands of a mere bureaucracy were effective 
 only in filling the royal treasury, while the popu- 
 lation at large was starving and discontented. 
 
 (a) The Foreign Dominion.—But the 21st Dynasty 
 does not, according to Manetho, consist of the 
 poetly successors of Hrir. The legitimate 
 
 haraohs he held to be the Tanite princes (S’mntw- 
 Smendes, P’sbh'‘nnt-Psousennes, etc.) who rebelled 
 against this usurpation, and were acknowledged 
 first in the North, then also in the Thebaid. Be- 
 fore long the rival families intermarried and so 
 restored unity; but their celine and sequence 
 are not clearly ascertained. On the monuments 
 little more than their names occur, though mum- 
 mies (of the priestly family) and much genea- 
 logical evidence were found in the famous cachette 
 at Deir el-Bahri. 
 
 The next Dynasty, the 22nd, owed its rise to the 
 political conditions of the period. The captains of 
 the Libyan mercenaries had by this time attained 
 a position, territorial as well as military, which 
 made usurpation easy, and, when the opportunity 
 offered, their chief S’s’nk-Sousakim-ShishaX wag 
 able without serious opposition to assume the royal 
 
 
 
hs cs. 
 "a 
 
 ae 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 EGYPT 663 
 
 
 
 titles. He was ambitious, and had pretensions to a 
 reconquest of Syria. His inscription records a raid 
 against both the Hebrew kingdoms—not against 
 Judah only (1 K 14%). The Dynasty resided at 
 Bubastis, and built extensively upon the ancient 
 temple of the goddess B’stt (Bast); but we know 
 little of its kings beyond their names, S$’s’nk, 
 W’s’rkn-Osorkon, Tkr¢-Takelothis. The Dynasty 
 by which they were (presumably) overthrown shows 
 likewise Libyan names, but ruled from Tanis. 
 The times may well have been too disturbed by 
 dynastic rivalries to leave leisure for building; at 
 any rate, the history of the 23rd Dynasty is as yet 
 totally obscure. 
 
 During the period of weakness and dissension 
 through which Egypt had been passing, the Nubian 
 princes of Napata (Gebel Barkal) had pas growing 
 in strength, and were able now to shake off the 
 Pharaoh’s sovereignty, and even to contemplate the 
 invasion of Egypt. This adventure was not diffi- 
 cult to carry out in the southern country, where 
 there was no leader to withstand them; but as 
 they advanced northward, the Ethiopians found 
 an obstinate opponent in 7/n}t-Tnephachthos, the 
 powerful prince of Sais (W. Delta), whose suprem- 
 acy was recognized as far south as Hermopolis 
 (Eshmunein). To this town the Ethiopian king, 
 P'nhy (Piankhi) (775) laid siege. The Saites capitu- 
 lated, and Tnephachthos fled, while the victors 
 advanced to Memphis. A treaty was, however, 
 soon arranged, neither pany, being strong enough 
 to suppress the other. The Ethiopians retired up 
 the river, nominally in possession of the whole 
 valley ; but the Delta remained in the hands of 
 Tnephachthos and his son Bknrnf-Bocchoris, who 
 seems to have finally extinguished the old legitim- 
 ist families, extended his authority up to Thebes, 
 and reigned for some time in comparative tran- 
 oe The Ethiopians, however, had not aban- 
 
 oned their ambitions, and, strengthened by a 
 marriage with a Tanite princess, and favoured by 
 the still powerful Theban priesthood, they again 
 marched northward and put an end to the rule of 
 Bocchoris. This time their conquest was more 
 complete. Their family, whose relationships and 
 history are as yet far from clear, constitutes 
 Manetho’s 25th Dynasty, and its most conspicuous 
 member is its first king, §’b’k’-Sabakon (707-695). 
 His successors were not, however, strong enough, 
 at such a distance from home, to maintain a 
 dominant position in the North, though the petty 
 princes of, the Delta towns accepted for the 
 moment the Ethiopian suzerainty. One of the 
 latter—and probably not Sabakon himself, as was 
 formerly assumed—was the So (mo=Sewe™*) of 
 2 K 174, who ventured, in alliance with Gaza and 
 Israel, to withstand the threatening growth of the 
 Assyrian power in Palestine. Sargon, however, 
 defeated the coalition at Raphia, though he seems 
 afterwards to have made a treaty with Egypt. 
 
 Throughout this oats the hopes of the small 
 Syrian states were placed on Egypt, whence, how- 
 ever, in the confusion of party strife, no effectual 
 help could come. Yet it was toward Syria that the 
 ambitions of Sabakon’s son, T’Ark-Tharaka-Tir- 
 hakah (690-664), were directed. He was there 
 brought, however, into speedy collision with Sar- 
 
 on’s successor, Sennacherib, who, at Eltekeh, 
 
 efeated the combined troops of several Egyptian 
 princes. Attempts at interference in Asia were 
 thus for a time checked, and Tirhakah had leisure 
 for considerable building, both at Napata and at 
 Thebes. But the Syrians still counted on an 
 Egyptian alliance, and it was clear that, if the 
 Assyrian rule was ever to be peacefully accepted 
 by them, Egypt must once and for all be rendered 
 
 * Greek Inydp, Lhe, The Lucianic text has the inexplicable 
 variant ’Adapuirsy. 
 
 powerless. An Assyrian army proceeded therefore 
 southwards, and, while Tirhakah fled to Ethiopia 
 and the minor princes submitted, Esarhaddon 
 advanced as far as Thebes and subsequently organ: 
 ized a government under twenty local regents, of 
 whom the most notable was Nk’w-Necho of Sais. 
 Yet still Tirhakah had hopes, and his advances 
 from the south, abetted by some of the local 
 princes on whom Assyria relied, resulted at length 
 in the expulsion of the invaders from Memphis. 
 Assurbanipal, the son of Esarhaddon, thereupon 
 hastened to Egypt, and, with small trouble, re- 
 established the Assyrian supremacy, while Necho, 
 who had joined Tirhakah, became a temporar 
 captive in Nineveh. At length Tirhakah died, 
 and his successor, Tnwtimn (cuneif. Tandamanie), 
 having failed to recover the lost position, the Ethi- 
 opians finally retired homeward, while Assurbanipal 
 requited the sympathy his opponent had received 
 in Upper Egypt by devastating Thebes. For 
 two or three years Assurbanipal was undisputed 
 master of Egypt. Then came an Elamite war 
 and simultaneous revolts in Babylon, Arabia, 
 and Lydia. 
 
 (e) Lhe Restoration.—Incited by Gyges, king 
 of the last country, Psmtk-Psammitichus of Sais 
 (663-610), son of Necho, whom the Assyrians had 
 reinstated, seized this opportunity to raise a fresh 
 insurrection. He was himself of either Libyan or 
 Nubian descent, and the success of his policy 
 depended wholly on the foreign troops he em- 
 be With the help of Lydia and of Ionian 
 and Carian mercenaries (the xddxeot dvdpes of the 
 prophecy, Herod. ii. 152), Psammitichus overthrew 
 the Dodecarchy, t.e. the Assyrian regents, and, by 
 marriage with a niece of Sabakon’s, gained the 
 approval of the Theban priests and so of Upper 
 Egypt. He pursued the Assyrians into Palestine, 
 eal captured after a long siege the town of Ashdod. 
 The misfortunes of Assyria favoured the attempts 
 of the Saite Pharaohs to re-establish their domin- 
 ance in Asia, and during this and the following 
 reign (Necho Il.) Syria was again brought under 
 Egypt's sovereignty. But the rise of Babylon 
 under Nebuchadrezzar put a check on this revival, 
 and Necho It. (610-594), after defeating Josiah 
 of Judah at Megiddo,* was himself routed by 
 Nebuchadrezzar at Carchemish, and expelled from 
 Syria. 
 
 *The energivis of the 26th Dynasty were directed 
 before all things to taking advantage of Egypt’s 
 geographical situation and bringing her, by the 
 help of hired Pheenician ships, within the sphere 
 of Mediterrunean commerce. Relations were 
 opened with Periander of Corinth and with other 
 Greek states. Greek traders were assigned special 
 quarters in Memphis, where a he colony had 
 already been settled; indeed, [‘ims-Amasis, a 
 later king of the ot fear th allowed them to found a 
 separate toww on the Greek model—Naucratis in 
 the W. Delts—to which their operations were to 
 be restricted, and which only waned in importance 
 before the rise of Alexandria. Amasis had been 
 the general vf Whibr'-Apries-Hophra (588-569), 
 whom the troops had driven from the throne in 
 his favour. bout this time Nebuchadrezzar 
 appears to have invaded Egypt, though the history 
 of the campaign is not known. His object was 
 
 resumably vengeance for the part which Apries 
 
 ad recently played in Syria, where Judah, again 
 trusting to pyptien support, had begun the 
 hostilities which ended in the fall of Jerusalem 
 (586) and the flight of many of the inhabitants— 
 among them Jeremiah—to Egynt, where they 
 were settled in Tahpanhes (Tell Defeneh), a 
 frontier fort in the E. Delta. 
 
 * Presumably S. of Carmel, though this identification ia 
 disputed, 
 
664 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 The characteristics of the Saite period are, in all 
 but commercial aspects, those of an archaizing 
 renaissance. To judge by art, literature, names, 
 titles, etc., we might imagine ourselves again in 
 the age of the Pyramid builders, though on closer 
 inspection the resemblance is seen to be but 
 superficial, 
 
 (f) The Persian Supremacy.—This prosperous 
 and uneventful period was suddenly terminated by 
 an invasion by the great power which was now 
 overturning the political balance of W. Asia. 
 Cyrus had seen the formation of a hostile league 
 between Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt; but his 
 death had delayed chastisement, and the expedi- 
 tion against Egypt was left for his son, Cambyses 
 (525), who appears not to have acted with the 
 customary clemency of Persian conquerors; for 
 his memory was execrated throughout Egypt. 
 The'Saites had grown weak, and the country fey 
 
 m-easy prey to the invaders. The conquest was 
 turned to full advantage by his successor Darius 
 (521-486), who set about the reorganization of the 
 country on its former lines, and won the acqui- 
 escence of priests and people by assuming the 
 ancient titles and functions of the native eevee 
 The check suffered by the Persians at Marathon, 
 however, gave courage to the patriotic party in 
 Egypt, and under the leadership of a Libyan, {bd 
 (Chabash), the Persians were for a time expelled. 
 But a fresh expedition was undertaken by Xerxes 
 (486-465), and the insurrection suppressed with 
 severity, Egypt being constituted a satrapy under 
 the king’s brother Achemenes. Some years of 
 
 uiet followed, and then, in the W. Delta, came a 
 resh revolt led by Inaros—possibly a Saite prince 
 —and aided by the Athenians (463). This in turn 
 was suppressed by Megabyzus, the general of 
 Artaxerxes, while the leadership of the party fell 
 to Amyrteus, for whose support Cimon, on his 
 Cyprian expedition, sent a fleet (449). 
 
 The history of this period is fragmentary and 
 obscure; of native records we have none. The 
 chronology of events cannot be accurately settled. 
 We gather that, throughout the time of Persia’s 
 decline, various revolts of the national party took 
 plats in northern Egypt—the upper valley plays 
 
 y this time no historical part. Manetho intro- 
 duces, in the midst of the Persian supremacy, two 
 more native Dynasties, the 28th and 29th, of which 
 we know very little, and then another, the 30th, 
 to which belong two kings, NAthrhbt-Nektanebes 
 (382-364) and Nhitnbf-Nektanebo (361-343), the 
 former of whom succeeded in suppressing his 
 rivals, while the latter, during a long reign, was 
 active as a builder throughout the country (Phil, 
 Edfu, Thebes, Heliopolis, the Delta). Persia, 
 however, by a final effort, was able to reinstate 
 herself (343), and Nektanebo, the last of the 
 Pharaohs, abandoned his Greek allies and fled to 
 Ethiopia. 
 
 But the Persian domination, too, was at an end. 
 In a few years Alexander of Macedon had dis- 
 membered the empire of the Achemenides, and in 
 332 he led his armies into Egypt, which submitted 
 without resistance. 
 
 The Macedonians.—The rule of Alexander’s suc- 
 cessors, the Ptolemies, brought Egypt again into the 
 advantageous position attained for her in some 
 degree by the 26th Dynasty. Now, however, the 
 Greek element became the dominant factor in her 
 ee ; the ancient native culture gradually 
 aded and retreated from the North, where Alex- 
 andria, the new capital, had become the centre of 
 the Hellenic world. But the wide dominions of 
 the Ptolemies were not to be retained by a series 
 of rulers so degenerate as those of the house of 
 Lagus soon became. After a century of good 
 government and unequalled prosperity (323-222), 
 
 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 the political fortunes of Egypt began again to 
 decline and anarchy to spread throughout the 
 country. Insurrections followed each other in 
 constant succession, while treachery and murder 
 shortened the reigns of many of the kings. At 
 length the Romans, under whose toleration the 
 Lagides had for a century and a half existed, were 
 able, by the victory of Octavius over Anthony 
 and Cleopatra (30), to assume the actual govern- 
 ment of the country, which remained thenceforth 
 a part of the empire, either of Rome or of Byzan. 
 tium, until conquered by the Saracens A.D. 642. 
 
 ix. E¢ypr’s RELATIONS WITH ASIA.—Our sources 
 of knowledge are (1) for the primitive periods, 
 chiefly inferences from the foreign words already 
 in use in the ancient (religious) texts, especially 
 the names of cereals, woods, oils, etc., known to 
 have been not native; (2) under the Dynasties of 
 the Old Kingdom we have early evidence from the 
 mines of Sinai,* where the troublesome nomad 
 tribes were known as Ss (cf. ? 0y), from a 5th (?) 
 Dynasty fresco depicting the capture of a Syrian 
 fortress, and from at least one biographical narra- 
 tive—that of Wni, Dyn. 6—recounting several mili- 
 tary and commercial expeditions to Syria, the land 
 of the ‘’mw (root probably ‘’m, ‘boomerang,’ not 
 oy). Wehere read of the fruitfulness of the land 
 through which the Egyptian army marched, and it 
 is evident the description is that of S. Palestine. 
 The same text tells, too, of a journey by sea to the 
 Pheenician coast ; (3) under the Middle Kingdom 
 Dynasties we can see that a considerable intercourse 
 is arising. Embassies come with presents from 
 Semitic chiefs and are received by the king or the 
 nobles (Beni-Hasan), and no doubt many groups of 
 nomads had by this time crossed the frontier and 
 got leave, as they did later (4g. Zeitschr. xxvii. 
 125), to settle in the Delta. Journeys into Pales- 
 tine became so frequent that they formed the sub- 
 ject for a story—founded, no doubt, upon fact, and 
 popular for many centuries—whence many details 
 of Syrian desert life at the time may be learned 
 (S’nht). The tribes among which the hero of this 
 story passes many years are called by the general 
 term sti, ‘archers’ (cf. Babyl. swtz). Egyptian 
 traders visited them, and the conditions of life 
 appear very similar to those of the modern Beda- 
 win. (4) But the relations of Egypt with her 
 northern neighbours were revolutionized by the 
 Hyksos invasion and the long series of military 
 expeditions which followed. The language receives 
 a very strong admixture of foreign (not exclusively 
 Semitic) loan-words, and is forced even to evolve 
 a new system of orthography for their reproduc- 
 tion. Syrian slaves—females, at least, ‘’mé—met 
 with in the households of the Middle Kingdom, 
 are now employed in great numbers. Asiatic 
 textile work, weapons, vases (pottery and metal), 
 musical instruments, besides various wines, beers, 
 oils, breads, etc., are imported from Syria, Asia 
 Minor, and possibly even lands farther west, and 
 preferred to the native products. The native 
 names even of many objects are discarded and 
 replaced by corresponding foreign terms. Syrian 
 deities—Baal, Astarte, Anat, Resheph—are gradu- 
 ally admitted to places beside the Reyes gods, 
 and the Pharaohs appear now and then under 
 their special protection. 
 
 The countries whence these new influences 
 emanate, bear in the Egyptian texts of different 
 epochs different names, many of which are confus- 
 ing and elude exact definition. All Syria, as far 
 
 as the Euphrates, is divided into the countries of 
 
 Upper (Southern) and Lower (Northern) Rénzw (cf. 
 
 the more ancient Znw and the cuneif. Tidnu), 
 
 Palestine proper bears also the name H’rw, origin 
 
 ally only the designation of the southern (later 
 * See dig. Zeitschr. xxxv. 7 ff, 
 
 
 

 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 EGYPT 665 
 
 
 
 Philistine) coast. Phcenicia, on the other hand, 
 was known by the name D’/i, and, together with 
 the still more northerly coast, by the vaguer term 
 Kdi, ‘the Circular (land),’ perhaps from the form 
 of the Gulf of Issus. Aft was the name, perhaps, 
 of Cilicia, perhaps of the N. Syrian coasts. Certain 
 peoples whom we find, under the 19th Dynasty, 
 among the allies of the Hittites, have been local- 
 ized in W Asia Minor; the Rw’ Lycians, D’rdny 
 Dardanians, Ywnn’ Ionians, [k’yw’s Achseans,* 
 and others. The difficult designation H’wnbw, 
 found in the oldest literature, appears to embrace 
 the peoples of the North in the vaguest way ; only 
 in late epochs was it used for the Hellenic race. 
 Cyprus, whence much copper was imported, is ’sy, 
 a part of it Jrs’-Alasia. Mesopotamia was, until 
 the New Kingdon, practically unknown to Egypt; 
 then we begin to read of presents passing between 
 the court of Egypt and those of Bér-Babylon, called 
 in the Amarna letters Shankhar (S’ng‘r 7y3) or 
 Karduniash, and Jsswr-Assyria. Asia east of these 
 was always unknown to Egypt. 
 
 The votive inscriptions, in which the 18th and 
 19th Dynasties recorded their conquests, have pre- 
 served the names of many towns, etc., in Syria, of 
 which, however, the majority are still unidentified. 
 The campaigns of Thutmosis 111. furnish the best of 
 such material; the lists of his successors are often 
 mere copies of his, and of relatively small value. 
 The Amarna tablets show several of these same 
 names in a cuneiform transcription. Of the 
 localities identified the following are among the 
 best known: Aleppo, Carchemish, Kadesh (on 
 Orontes), Damascus, Hamath, Byblos, Simyra, 
 Beirat, Sidon, Tyre, Megiddo, Akko, Joppa, Gaza, 
 Ashkelon, Janoah, Taanak. In one group of the 
 Amarna letters Jerusalem is often mentioned, but 
 in hieroglyphic texts it has not been found. Certain 
 names, though not yet identified, are compounded 
 of interesting elements: for example, A’rir $snn, 
 Bty wna, in which the divine names appear—the 
 second already (Dyn. 18) abbreviated ; or Y‘kbi’r, 
 Y§pir, in which have been recognized the names 
 apy: and Ay combined with 5x (as in Israel, Ishmael). 
 These much-discussed names are more likely to 
 have then had local than ethnic significance.t 
 A connexion between them and the names of the 
 patriarchs, Jacob and Joseph, cannot of course be 
 proved ; indeed the equation Y#p=-py has consider- 
 able phonetic difficulties. It may here be noted 
 that certain scarabs, probably of the Hyksos period, 
 appear to bear royal (?) names compounded of 
 
 ‘kb and Ar (? 5x), which might point, at any 
 rate, to the Semitic name Jacob at an unex- 
 
 ectedly early period. The whole tradition of 
 Teenel’s early connexion with Egypt—the sojourn 
 there of the patriarchs and the exodus of their 
 descendants —is still obscure, and the recent 
 discovery for the first time of ‘Israel’ in a hiero- 
 glyphic text seems but further to complicate the 
 problem. 
 
 The facts as to this document are the following : 
 In 1896 an immense stele was discovered, one text 
 of which commemorates the victory of Mrnpth, 
 son and successor of Ramses Il., over the Libyans 
 in his 5th year.t In the latter part of the text 
 where other triumphs are enumerated, the locali- 
 ties subjugated occur in the following order: the 
 Hittite land, Canaan (? land or town), Ashkelon, 
 Gezer, Janoah (?), Ysiri’r-Israel, S. Palestine, ‘all 
 lands.’ There is no corroborative evidence for an 
 Asiatic campaign of Mrnpth; possibly, in the 
 fashion of the age, he is here merely assuming to 
 himself the conquests of his predecessors. The 
 
 * See Streitberg in Indoger. For. vi. 184. ’ 
 
 + The former, which occurs twice, can be localized in the 
 district Ephraim-Dan (see W. M. Miiller, Asien, 164). 
 
 t His reign began, according to Mahler, in 1280. 
 
 name Israel is written so as unmistakably to 
 indicate a people, not, like the other names, a 
 locality. Further, the words used of its condition 
 imply devastation and the destruction of crops. 
 The obvious and only safe conclusions to be drawn 
 from these facts are that Israel, or a part of that 
 people, was already in some part of Syria, and had 
 
 een in hostile contact with Egypt. On the 
 assumption that ‘Pithom and Raamses’ were built 
 for Ramses I1., whose long reign answered the 
 requirements of Ex ii. 23, the Pharaoh of the 
 Exodus has been identified as Mrnpth ;° though, 
 owing to the supposed more appropriate political 
 conditions, others would place the Exodus 30 or 40 
 years later, about the time of Stnht. 
 
 If we assume that by the reign of Mrnpth the 
 Exodus had already been accomplished, —the name 
 Isrw is found in the previous reigns in the territory 
 of the tribe of Asher,—we have an argument for 
 the proposed identification of the Hebrews with 
 the Khabiri, of whose invasion of Palestine, some 
 150 years earlier, the Amarna letters say so much, 
 and whom it is proposed to identify with the S’sw 
 chastised by Sethos 1.t The story of the priest 
 Osarsiph (?=Osiris+a) and the impious lepers, 
 whose revolt he led, converted b Josephus into 
 a history of Moses and the Hebrew struggle 
 for freedom, has been with some probability re- 
 ferred rather to a reminiscence of the expulsion of 
 the heretics of AmenophisIv.t The name Hebrews 
 has not been met with in Egyptian texts. That 
 of the foreign tribe of ‘prw, found variously 
 employed throughout the 19th Dynasty, is rarely 
 now held to represent it, and may be merely a 
 form of a familiar Egyptian term for ‘ workmen.’ 
 The Egyptian names given to Joseph, his wife, 
 and father-in-law in Gn xli. 45 have received 
 various inadmissible interpretations. The only 
 transcriptions which conform to Egyptian gram- 
 mar and usage are (1) Jephnoute’fénch, ‘God speaks 
 (and) he lives’; (2) [N]Jasneith, ‘devoted to (the 
 goddess) Neith’ ; (3) Pedephré, ‘he whom the sun- 
 god gives.’ All three names are cast in forms 
 increasingly frequent from the time of the 22nd 
 Dynasty onwards, but practically unknown earlier 
 —except, indeed, the second; and this fact agrees 
 with ‘he date (8th cent.) to which the document 
 E is assigned.§ For a difficult word used in the 
 story of Joseph, 7728 Gn xli. 43, a parallel ex- 
 
 ression has been noticed in a text of the 2lst 
 
 ynasty, where the words ib rk seem to form an 
 interjection, ‘Give heed!’ or the like.|| 
 
 x. RELIGION. — Our sources of information on 
 this subject are very numerous, but at the same 
 time very inadequate. Egyptian texts not bear- 
 ing, even indirectly, upon some aspect of the 
 religion are in an extremely small minority ; yet 
 some primary questions remain unsolved for lack 
 of explanatory documents. Since it is wholly 
 owing to the supreme importance attached to 
 the preparation for a future life that Egyptian 
 antiquity has come again within our reach, it is 
 natural that the side of religious life upon which 
 we are best informed should be that dealing with 
 the dead. Of the everyday religion of the people 
 we know practically nothing. We have the 
 names of many deities, and can enumerate their 
 functions, attributes, and temples; but we are 
 quite ignorant as to the way in which they were 
 worshipped. It has been mentioned that Hommel 
 
 * On the still less demonstrable assumption that the Hebrew 
 immigration had been a part of the Hyksos invasion, Mahler 
 bases calculations which give 1335 (%.e. Ramses II.) as the year, 
 and, with the help of Rabbinical tradition, March 27 as the day 
 of the Exodus (Der Pharao des Exodus, 1896). 
 
 t See Ed. Meyer in Festschr. f. Hbers, 75. 
 } Ed. Meyer, Gesch. 4g. 276; Wilcken in Festschr, f. Hbers 
 46. 
 
 § See Steindorff, lg. Zeitschr. xxvii. 41. 
 || See Spiegelberg in Not. et Extr. xxxiv. 261. 
 

 
 
 
 666 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 EGYPT 
 
 
 
 is eager to demonstrate a Babylonian origin for 
 the civilization of Egypt. One of his chief conten- 
 tions is that some of the principal Egyptian deities 
 can be proved identical with those of Babylon, 
 from the identity of their attributes, distinctive 
 animals, legends, etc. It is, however, as yet in 
 many cases impossible to recognize what were the 
 original réles and functions of the Egyptian gods, 
 and it seems more probable that, should a pre- 
 historis immigration from Mesopotamia ever be 
 demonstrated, the invaders will be found to have 
 at most adopted certain of the native divinities 
 and combined them with corresponding figures 
 from their own Pantheon. 
 
 No religious document of the earlier ages com- 
 pares in importance with the great body of texts 
 —some 4000 lines—collected and copied on the 
 interiors of the 5th and 6th Dynasty Pyramids, but 
 in partial use, too, in all succeeding ages. Some of 
 the documents thus brought together belong un- 
 doubtedly to a far earlier period, and give evidence 
 that the official religion was even then completely 
 developed, many of the gods having already the 
 réles by which they are characterized throughout 
 history, and several of the most popular myths— 
 notably that of Osiris—being referred to as 
 already current. Certain of the gods are con- 
 spicuously absent from the Pyramid texts ; Amon, 
 for example, who being originally but the local 
 god of Thebes, remained obscure until his city 
 rose (Dyn. 11) to political importance. 
 
 Indeed the local divinities as such play a remark- 
 ably small part in these texts. Yet the local cults 
 were the real basis of the popular religion, which 
 did not, so far as we can see, recognize any single 
 unifying element before the various tribal districts 
 had been united under the first historic Dynasties. 
 The nomes (see above) corresponded to independent 
 cults, each centred in the shrine of the local god, 
 who revealed himself to his worshippers in an 
 animal, tree, or other material object — perhaps 
 once the tribal totem. One aspect of the advance 
 from this primitive stage of fetish worship can be 
 seen in the semi-human and finally completely 
 human representations of certain of the gods in 
 art. Yet the sacred animal was revered side by 
 side with the anthropomorphic god, receiving, as 
 we know, much honour even in Greek and Roman 
 times. 
 
 Beyond the famous story of Osiris and many 
 otherwise unknown legends, the Pyramids contain 
 countless allusions to that cycle of myths which 
 Atop weve pera’ the doctrines of the other 
 great school of theology. For as Abydos appears 
 very early—though probably not pps (GES: 
 the home of the Osirian legend and of the all- 
 important views of future life and retribution 
 attached to it, so does Heliopolis ("{2v, }ix) become 
 the centre of the solar theology represented by the 
 myth of Re’, the sun-god, and his daily contest with 
 the dragon of darkness. : 
 
 A number of the gods—many merely local deities 
 once—had been gradually drawn within the cycles 
 of Osiris or of Re’. The chief actors in the former 
 story are, besides Osiris himself (whose original 
 locality and character are very obscure), his brother 
 Sét-Typhon, regarded now as the impersonation of 
 darkness (when Osiris is a solar god), now as the god 
 of the barren desert (when Osiris is the fruitful 
 river-valley) ; Isis, wife of Osiris, a goddess (from 
 the Delta or Phils) of merely mythological im- 
 portance until the base epochs ; Horus, his son and 
 avenger, a puzzling figure owing to the variety of 
 his local forms ; and Thouth, the god of Hermopolis, 
 the ally of Horus. 
 
 The myths of the sun-god are concerned either 
 with the phases of the sun’s daily and also supposed 
 nightly, invisible journeys, or with cosmic pheno- 
 
 mena. In the former, Horus again plays a part, 
 now as the son of Re’; in the latter, adcal divinities 
 such as Jtm (Tum) of Heliopolis, or elemental 
 
 ods, as Kb, Nwt, Sw, Tfnwt, are introduced. 
 Posts speculations produced a variety of myths. 
 In one heaven and earth are female and male; in 
 another the sky is a cow with spotted hide (the 
 stars); another held the earth to be a box, 
 with the sky for its raised lid, supported on the 
 encircling hills or on four tree-stems. The gods 
 and goddesses associated with Re‘ are 9 in number 
 (Ennead), and are regarded as a related family, 
 just as later theology grouped several of the local 
 deities into family ‘ triads.’ 
 
 Not all cosmic doctrines, however, were con- 
 cerned with the Heliopolitan gods; various local 
 gods had once been regarded as creators, ¢.g. 
 fnmw-Chnoubis who, in the clay districts near 
 the Cataracts, had formed the world upon a potter’s 
 whee! ; and Ptah of Memphis was a similar artisan 
 god. 
 Other and very ancient divinities were the local 
 earth and harvest gods, e.g. Min of Coptos and 
 (perhaps) Amon of Thebes. Others, again, were 
 water deities, e.g. Sbk-Souchos of the Fayyim 
 and Ombos—for the same god is frequently met 
 with in several localities, though originally proper, 
 no doubt, to but one of them. Several were 
 guardians of the local cemeteries, e.g. Sokaris at 
 Memphis, Anubis at Siut, ‘The Lord of those in 
 the West’ at Abydos. 
 
 The doctrines and practices of which the Osirian 
 legend was at once the pattern and consequence 
 are chiefly to be studied—beyond very numerous 
 parenges in the Pyramid texts—in the great 
 1eterogeneous collection of incantations known to 
 us as the ‘ Book of the Dead,’ but to the Egyptians 
 
 robably as (‘the Book of) coming out from (i.e. 
 Sepa tine from) the Day and from the Necropolis.’ 
 The work is composed of texts (‘ chapters’), some 
 as ancient as those of the Pyramids, others much 
 later, and was intended as a guide through the 
 various difficulties, and a magical protection against 
 the enemies to be encountered by the dead, with 
 whom a copy of it was buried. Some of the texts 
 seem to be remnants of primitive rituals, but all 
 had been by the time of their definite collection 
 (beginning of the New Kingdom) edited for the 
 use of the dead himself. It is this more than once 
 repeated editing which has rendered the Book for 
 the most part unintelligible to us. It may be 
 asserted that none of the older chapters are now 
 available in their first simplicity. The oldest MSS ~ 
 (Dyn. 12, 13) already show the glosses of more than 
 one redactor, and each successive gloss seems but 
 to obscure the original text. 
 
 Several totally divergent views, Solar and Osirian, 
 as to the future life are represented in the work. 
 The soul is, according to some chapters, to take 
 the form of a bird and quit the tomb, and may 
 accompany the sun bark on its heavenly journey ; 
 elsewhere it is regarded as orreae before Osiris, 
 and, after the famous ‘negative confession,’ recetv- 
 ing merited justice. If judged ‘of true voice,’ te, 
 correctly pronouncin, the potent magic formula, 
 the deceased proceeds to the ‘Fields of J’rw,’ 
 and spends eternity in a very materialistic 
 pedis, conceived upon the model of rural life 
 in Egypt. 
 
 The: lt, in man which survived death were 
 four: 6’ soul, ihw spirit (2), h’ ydt shadow, and ? 
 double. What were intended by the first three of 
 these it is difficult to say; the fourth is that of 
 which*we hear most; for its maintenance was the 
 object of all the: funerary rites which from the 
 earliest times occupied so much attention among 
 all classes. The double, in appearance the exact 
 counterpart of the man, after accompanying him 
 
EGYPT 
 
 EGYPTIAN, THE 
 
 
 
 through life, lived on in the tomb so long as the 
 corpse remained intact, and the piety of the 
 survivors provided sufficient nourishment. Hence 
 the processes of mummification, the inscriptions 
 whose magic could, if supplies failed, call up food, 
 the portrait-statues into which the double could 
 enter. 
 
 Certain of the Pyramid texts and recent ex- 
 cayations do indeed recall an age in which funer- 
 ary practices differed much from those of his- 
 toric times—an age in which cannibalism and 
 human sacrifice were not extinct, and in which 
 all but the most rudimentary embalmment was 
 unknown. 
 
 Confusion of doctrines is not characteristic of 
 the funerary literature alone; it is common to all 
 aspects of the Egyptian religion. The priestly 
 tendency, discernible from the first Theban supre- 
 macy onwards, to assimilate all secondary deities 
 to those at the head of the Pantheon, and, finally, 
 to teach that all were but manifestations of the 
 supreme deity (t.e. the sun-god), introduced, indeed, 
 a kind of order, though for us the course of the 
 foregoing development is thereby but obscured. 
 The supremacy of the Theban Amon, assimilated 
 in the first place to the sun-god, led to his identi- 
 fication with such a host of other deities, while the 
 wealth and power of his priests became so threaten- 
 ing a danger to the state, that Amenophis Iv., urged 
 perhaps by the ancient hierarchy of Heliopolis, was 
 tempted to a reform which should replace as the 
 state religion the worship of Amon and his asso- 
 ciated divinities by that of the sun’s orb, ttn, alone. 
 This is the only conscious movement towards 
 monotheism recorded in the religious history of 
 Egypt. It is not necessary to seek in it the 
 reflexion of some of the foreign influences of the 
 time ; the itn was a recognized aspect of the sun- 
 god in Egypt in previous periods. The reformed 
 
 octrine contained conceptions far more lofty 
 and enlightened than those of the ancient 
 religion ; yet it had but an ephemeral success, 
 and became extinct shortly after the reforming 
 king’s death. 
 
 LITERATURE.—(A) Grnzrat :—Descript. de UEgypte, a 
 colossal publication, the result of the Napoleonic expedition, con- 
 taining monographs upon many branches of Egyptology, ancient 
 and modern (1809 and 1817); Wilkinson, Mann. and Cust., ed. 
 Birch (1878); Erman, d/gypten u. Algypt. Leben (1885 ff.), super- 
 sedes in most respects the foregoing work; Ebers, Cicerone (1886) ; 
 Baedeker, by Steindorff (1897). (B) Lanp :—On Geology, Zittel, 
 in Baedeker, Untertgypten? by Ebers (1885); first part of De 
 Morgan, Rechs. 8, les Origines de U Hy. (1896); chaps. in Fl. 
 Petrie, Ten Years’ Digging, History I. and in Ninth Or. Congr. 
 (1893). On Metals, Lepsius, Die Metalle (1872), and articles by 
 Montelius, M. Berthelot, etc. (C) Fauna ann Fora :—The 
 respective chapters in Baedeker (1885 and 1897); articles by 
 Y. Loret in Rec, de Trav. (Paris); chapters of the works under 
 A (above).—(D) EtHNoLoey:—J. de Morgan, Rechs. 8. les Oxigines 
 (1896) ; Sergi, Anthrop. de la Stirpe Camitica (1897); R. Hart- 
 mann, Volker A frikas (1879); Amélineau, Nouv. fouil. d’ Abydos 
 
 1896); articles by Virchow; chapters by Schweinfurth in 
 
 aedeker; chapters in the works of Erman, Maspero, Ed. 
 Meyer, Petrie. (#) Lanavace :—Erman, Agypt. Gram. (1894), 
 esp. for classical periods ; do. Neudg. Gram. (1880), for the New 
 Kingdom ; Brugsch, Gram. démotique (1855), works and articles 
 by Reyvillout, Krall, W. Max Miiller, J. J. Hess, for language of 
 Saite and following epochs; G. Steindorff, Kopt. Gram. (1894), 
 for language of Christian epoch; Dictionary, Brugsch, Dict. 
 hiérogi. (1867 ff.). For Semitic affinities, Erman in ZDMG 
 xlvi.; Bondi, Dem Hebr. Sprachzw. angeh. Lehnwérter (1886) ; 
 Hommel in Beitr. z, Assyr, ii., and in Ninth Or. Congr. (1893, 
 ef. Briinnow in Z. Ass. viii.). For African affinities, Pretorius 
 Beitr. z, Assyr. ii. (F') PROFANE LirzRaTurE :—Chapters in the 
 works of Erman, Maspero; Maspero, Contes pops. (1889) ; Petrie, 
 Egyp. Tales (1895); Amélineau, Contes de l Ey. chrét. (1888). 
 (@) CuronoLoey :—Lepsius, Kénigsbuch (1858); Brugsch-Bouri- 
 ant, Livre des Rois (1887); Wislicenus, Astron. Chronol. (1895) ; 
 articles by Mahler in 4g. Z, xxvii. xxviii. xxxii., and Der 
 Pharao d. Exod. (1896); articles by Petrie and chapters in his 
 History; O. Torr, Memphis and Mycene (1896, cf. Myres in 
 Class. Rev. 1897); for Manetho, Unger, Chronol. d. Man. (1867). 
 
 (4) History :—Maspero, Hist. ane. d. pewp. de VOr. class. (2 
 vols. 1895-96, transl. SPCK); Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Altert. i. ii. 
 (1884, 1893); do. Geach. d. Alt. dZg. (1887); Erman, dgypten 
 
 7m); Petrie, Hist. of Hg. i. ii. (1894, 1896); Wiedemann, 
 ch. v. Altdg. (1891), with special 
 
 qypt. Gesch. (1884 ff.) ; do. 
 
 ref. to OT; Mahaffy, Emp. of Ptols. (1805). For Herodotus, 
 Wiedemann, Herod.’s 2. Buch (1890). Hist. Geography, Diim- 
 ichen, Geogr. d, Alt. lg. (1878). (J) RELATIONS witH ASIA :— 
 W. Max Miller, Asien u. Huropa (1893, cf. Jensen in Z. Ass. x.). 
 For relations with OT, Ebers, 4g. u. Biich. Mose’s (1868); do. 
 Durch Gosen z, Sinai (1872); O. Niebuhr, Gesch. d. Ebr. Zeit. 
 alters (1894); Sayce, Patr. Palestine (1895); Ed. Meyer in 
 Festschr. f. Hbers (1897). (K) Ruxicion ;—Erman’s Algypten; 
 Maspero’s and Meyer’s Histories (passim); Maspero, Ets. 
 de Mythol. (1893), the most important work on the subject; 
 do. Pyramides de Saqqarah (1894= Ree. de Trav, iii.-xiv.), with 
 transl. ; Le P. Renouf, The Book of the Dead, transl. (PSBA 
 xiv. ff.) ; peg in C. de la Saussaye, Lehrb.2 (1897), an excellent 
 summary. (4) ArT :—Perrot-Chipiez, Hist. de Art, i. (1882); 
 Maspero, L’Archéologie é9. (1887) ; chapters in Erman’s Aigypten, 
 Maspero’s Histoire. (M) PusiisHep Monuments, Ero. :— The 
 chief collections are those of Champollion, Rosellini, Lepsius, 
 Sharpe, Prisse, de Rougé, Mariette, the Mission franc. au 
 Caire, Hg. Explor. Fund, the Leyden Museum. Catalogues of 
 the museums of Gizeh-Boulak (Maspero), Berlin (Erman), Louvre 
 (de Rougé, Pierret, Devéria), Florence (Schiaparelli), Turin 
 (Rossi, Lanzone), St. Petersburg (Golénischeff), Further, the 
 works of Fl. Petrie; de Morgan, etc., Catal. de Mons. et Insers. 
 1894 ff.); do. Dahshour (1895); Translations in Records of the 
 
 ‘ast (first and second series), (NV) PuRIODICALS :—Zeitschr, f. 
 
 dg. Spr. eo itec. de trav. rel. a la phil. ég. et ass. (Paris); 
 PSBA (Lond.); Sphina (Upsala, Leipz.). . KE. CRUM. 
 
 EGYPT, RIYER OF, occurs repeatedly in AV 
 (Nu 345, Jos 154, 1K 8%, 2K 247, 2Ch 78, 
 Ts 2712) as tr® of aryp bn3 (worapds Alyérrov, Jth 19), 
 The term is used to designate not the Nile, whose 
 common title is 7k:7, and which cd. never be called 
 $n3, the latter word being the exact equivalent of 
 the modern wady. (See BRooK.) In all the above 
 OT passages (cf. also Ezk 47! 4878) RV substitutes 
 ‘brook’ for ‘river,’ but inconsistently retains 
 ‘river’ in Jth 1°. The stream referred to is the 
 Wady el- Arish, which flows through the northern 
 portion of the Sinaitic peninsula, draining into 
 itself the waters of many other wadies, and flows 
 into the Mediterranean midway between Pelusium 
 and Gaza (Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, 348). 
 It derives its name from the village el-‘Arish (the 
 ancient hinocolura, Diodor. i. 60), situated near 
 its mouth. The ‘river of Egypt’ is repeatedly 
 specified in OT as the 8S. W. boundary of Canaan. 
 The same stream is called nahal Muzur by the 
 Assyrian king Esarhaddon, who apparently means 
 to distinguish it from the Nile by adding ashar 
 naru la ishu, ‘ where no river is,’ 7.e. no continuous 
 stream (Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad. 257). 
 
 Once in OT (Gn 1518) the ‘river of Egypt’ (70; 
 ‘sp, not 53) means the Nile if MT is correct, but 
 we shd. probably emend to 5n3 (so Lagarde, fol- 
 lowed by Ball in Haupt’s OT). Shihér, which 
 elsewhere (Is 23°, Jer 2!) is applied to the Nile, 
 appears to be a designation of the Wady el-‘Arish 
 in Jos 13°, ‘Shihor (RV ‘the Shihor’) which is 
 before Egypt,’ and 1 Ch 13° (cf. 1K 8%), ‘from 
 Shihor of Egypt (RV ‘Shihor the brook of Egypt’) 
 even unto the entering in of Hamath.’ (So Del. 
 on Gn 158 and Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad. 242f., 
 although Frd. Delitzsch and Dillmann prefer te 
 understand it of the most easterly arm of the Nile.) 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EGYPTIAN, THE (6 Alytmrios)) —In Ac 21% 
 Claudius Lysias the chief captain (Chiliarch) is 
 represented as saying to St. Paul, ‘Art thou not 
 then the Egyptian, which before these days stirred 
 up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the 
 four thousand men of the Assassins?’ 
 
 This E. is mentioned by Josephus in both his 
 works. While describing the procuratorship of 
 Felix, he mentions the Sicarii or ASSASSINS, then 
 in distinction to these the religious impostors, then 
 a certain Egyptian. The latter professed to be a 
 prophet, and collected together a body of 30,000 
 
 ersons, whom he led to the Mount of Olives, assert- 
 ing that the wall of Jerus. would fall down before 
 him, and that he could capture the city. Felix 
 attacked him with a considerable force, and dis- 
 persed his followers, slaying 400, and taking 
 prisoner 200. The Egyptian himself escaped. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 668 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 Krenkel, following Holtzmann, Hausrath, Keim, 
 and the author of Supernatural Religion, attempts 
 to show that the author of the Acts is indebted to 
 Josephus for his knowledge of this event. He 
 is quite unsuccessful. There are no signs of 
 literary obligation, and very definite discrepancies. 
 Josephus gives different numbers; he does not 
 definitely connect the Egyptian with the Sicarii, but 
 rather contrasts him ; and he does not represent the 
 wilderness as the place to which the people were 
 led, but the Mount of Olives. It may be quite 
 possible to explain these discrepancies so as to save 
 the historical accuracy of both writers, but they 
 are fatal to our regarding Josephus as the source 
 of information. The only reasonable opinion that 
 can be held is that we have two independent 
 and contemporary accounts of the same event, 
 and that the resemblances arise from this fact. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Jos. Ant. xx. viii. 6; BJ m1. xiii. 6; Schiirer, 
 HJP i. ii. 180; Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, p. 240. 
 
 A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 EGYPTIAN YERSIONS.—The various Egyptian 
 dialects and the Versions contained in them are a 
 subject of so much confusion that it will be well 
 for the sake of distinctness to deal in this article 
 first with the Dialects and their proximate dates, 
 and then with the extant remains of the Versions 
 and their proximate dates. We will conclude 
 with a short study of the Greek Text implied by 
 ie Versions, anal the history of the criticism of 
 them. 
 
 1. DIALECTS OF CopTic.—The latest stage of 
 the Egyptian language, and that which was spoken 
 in Christian times, is now known by the name of 
 Coptic. The word itself comes from a corruption 
 of the Greek Atyurros. Coptic was written in 
 Greek characters, with the addition of some extra 
 letters representing sounds which could only im- 
 
 pricey, be expressed by the Greek alphabet. 
 
 hese letters were modifications of characters 
 found in Demotic—the popular form of the old 
 Egyptian language spoken in the centuries im- 
 mediately before the Christian era. Although it 
 is still used in the services of the Church, Coptic is 
 now practically a dead language. Our knowledge, 
 therefore, of it must be derived from manuscripts 
 and inscriptions. When these began to be studied 
 by European scholars, it soon became evident that 
 the language as spoken in different parts of the 
 country presented certain dialectical peculiarities. 
 Not only was it early recognized that the dialect 
 used in the North differed considerably from that 
 used in the South, but a third dialect was also 
 detected, which, as a general rule, resembled the 
 southern: it had, however, many northern forms, 
 and sometimes showed peculiarities of its own. 
 A long controversy, lasting for more than a cen- 
 tury, was waged over the district to which this 
 third dialect was to be assigned. The attention of 
 Coptic scholars was early directed to a noteworthy 
 pane from Athanasius, a bishop of Kos in the 
 
 hebaid, who flourished in the llth century. 
 In his Arabic-Coptic Grammar, Athanasius says: 
 ‘Know that the Coptic language is divided into 
 three branches. One of them is the Coptic of Misr, 
 which is the Sahidic; and another is the Bohairic 
 Coptic, which gets its name from El-Bohaira;a 
 and the other is the Bushmuric Coptic, which is 
 used in the country of El-Bushmur, as thou know- 
 est. But those now in use are only the Bohairic 
 Coptic and the Sahidic. And the origin of them 
 is one language.’8 Here we have a mention of 
 three dialects — Sahidic, Bohairic, and Bush- 
 muric. The first two are, as Quatremére pointed 
 
 e I.e, the district south of Alexandria. 
 
 & The original of the passage is given in Quatremére, Re- 
 cherches sur la Langue et la Littérature de l’Egypte (Paris, 
 1808), p. 21. 
 
 
 
 
 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 
 
 out,a clearly the same as those sometimes called © 
 
 Thebaic and Memphitic. But what was the last? 
 Was it to be identified with the third dialect known 
 to us? Or was it the name of a still unknown 
 dialect? Before this question could be answered, 
 the position of Bushmur had to be determined. 
 Quatremére proved that it could not be placed in 
 the South of Egypt, nor in the Oasis and neigh- 
 bouring deserts, but that it must be situated in 
 the North.g It is the country in the east of the 
 Delta bordering on the sea.y Quatremére was 
 of opinion that our third dialect had no con 
 nexion with Bushmuric, of which we had only a 
 single word preserved to us.6 But if it was not 
 Bushmuric, how came it not to be mentioned 
 by Athanasius? Quatremére answered the ques- 
 tion by supposing that it was in use not ex- 
 actly in Egypt, but in a country close by— 
 the great ie little Oases, ‘which, situated at 
 a little distance from Egypt, stretch from north 
 to south, from the paralle of Assouan as far as 
 the frontier of the Fayfim.’e Since Quatremére’s 
 time a large number of fragments have come to 
 light which prove that he was right in refusing 
 to call the dialect Bushmuric. Whether or not 
 it was spoken in the southern Oasis, we now 
 know for certain that it was used in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the Fayfm and Memphis; and a 
 study of Middle Egyptian shows us that the 
 reason why Athanasius did not mention it may 
 have been that he did not regard it as a separate 
 dialect. This third dialect, lying as it does geo- 
 graphically and linguistically between Sahidic and 
 Bohairic,{ may conveniently be termed Middle 
 Egyptian. When we come to examine it more 
 carefully, we are confronted with fresh difficulties. 
 Whilst Sahidic and -Bohairic are for the most part 
 clearly defined and regular dialects, Middle Egyp- 
 tian presents us with an almost bewildering number 
 of alternative forms. When spoken in the Nile 
 Valley the dialect is a kind of mixture between 
 Sahidic and Bohairic. 
 ments which come from the Fayim—a district 
 some distance to the west—the dialect has de- 
 veloped more decided peculiarities of its own. 
 It is dangerous, however, to draw rat hard-and- 
 fast distinction between the forms of the language 
 current in the two places; for at a later date the 
 dialect used in the Fayfim bore a considerable 
 resemblance to that used at one time in Memphis.y 
 Many of the other varieties are no doubt due to 
 ignorance or indifference on the part of scribes, 
 some of whom in the Fayfim belonged to the 
 asant and artisan class.@ Such an explanation 
 oes not, however, cover the case of some frag- 
 ments recently found in Akhmim and in the 
 Fayfim, which present further dialectical peculiari- 
 ties unknown to us before. Stern has carefully 
 examined the dialect of these fragments, and has 
 shown good reason to believe that it presents us 
 with an earlier form of Middle Egyptian, closely 
 allied to the dialect found in fragments written 
 at Memphis.« 
 We may sum up these results as follows :— 
 Sahidic = Dialect of Southern (or Upper) Egypt: 
 sometimes called ‘ Thebaic.’ 
 
 a Quatremére, op. cit. p. 22. 
 
 B Ib. p, 147 ff. 
 
 Gates ileal i. 634, ey 
 
 juatremére, op. cit. p. i 
 o1b. p. 217. - e ® 
 
 = Sometimes it very closely resembles Bohairic. See the 
 dialect of the prog meet of the Song of Moses given by Crum, 
 Coptic USS brought from the Fayyum, p. 12 ff. 
 
 » Cf. the dialect of the Fayfim fragment published by Quatre- 
 mére, op. cit. p. 248 ff., with the dialect of those edited by 
 Revillout, Papyrus Coptes (Paris, 1876), p. 101 ff. 
 
 @See Krall, Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrwa 
 Erzherzog Rainer (Vienna, 1887), i. p. 65. 
 
 i Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache, 1886, p. 120 ff. 
 
 
 
 
 But in some of the frag- © 
 
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 
 
 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 66S 
 
 
 
 Middle Egyptian=Dialect of (a) Memphis and 
 neighbourhood, and (5) the Fayam. 
 
 Bohairic= Dialect of district south of Alexandria: 
 sometimes called ‘Memphitic’ (or ‘ Coptic’). 
 
 2. RELATIVE DATES OF DIALECTS.—The Arabic 
 historian Macrizi, who flourished at the beginning 
 of the 15th century, speaks of Sahidie as ‘the 
 
 rimitive source of the Coptic language, and that 
 rom which is derived the Bohairic dialect.’a Such 
 evidence as there is confirms his statement as to 
 the late date of Bohairic. Bohairic (which was 
 originally confined to the district south of Alex- 
 andria) is the most literary and artificial of Coptic 
 dialects. The form of many of its words, when 
 compared with the corresponding Sahidic, points to 
 a later stage of development. Its frequent use of 
 connecting particles, reminding us of Greek rather 
 than Egyptian, seems also to point in the same 
 direction. It was most probably developed from 
 Middle Egyptian, which at one time may possibly 
 have been spoken in the neighbourhood of Alex- 
 andria itself.8 To what extent it was used for 
 other than ecclesiastical purposes we have at 
 present no means of ascertaining.y But if it was 
 in the main a literary rather than a popular 
 language, this fact would explain why it died out, 
 except for ecclesiastical purposes, earlier than 
 Middle Egyptian and Sahidic.6 There is, on the 
 contrary, no doubt that the last-named dialects 
 were the language of the people. We have 
 numerous fragments of letters in Middle Egyptian 
 and remains of school-books in Sahidic.e The line 
 of demarcation between the two dialects was not 
 sharp, and sometimes pieces of writing are found 
 in which single sentences are almost entirely 
 written in Sahidic, whilst others are almost 
 entirely in Middle Egyptian. Thus, whilst we 
 find Sahidic forms in use in documents written 
 in the neighbourhood of Hermopolis Magna and 
 Antinoe,y we have evidence that as far south as 
 Thebes pure Sahidic was not always written.@ 
 When Middle Egyptian and Sahidic began to be 
 written we do not know. As far as the evidence 
 
 « Steep hear op. cit. p. 42. 
 
 B the interesting fragment Say by Krall, at the end 
 of an art. “‘iiber die Anfange der Koptischen Schrift,” op. cit. i. 
 
 . 112, where an Alexandrian in signing his name makes use of 
 Phe FayQdmic dialect. Too much stress, however, must not be 
 laid on this p: ; for, as Mommsen points out, ‘ the belonging 
 to’ an Egyptian district ‘ was independent of dwelling-place, and 
 hereditary. The Egyptian from the Chemmitic nome belonged 
 to it with his dependents, just as much when he had his 
 abode in Alexandria as the Alexandrian dwelling in Chemmis 
 belonged to the burgess-body of Alexandria’ (Mommsen, The 
 Provinces 0) the Roman Empire, c. xii. Eng. trans. p. 235). The 
 arguments put forward in that article in favour of an early date 
 for the Bohairic dialect (see also Headlam in Scrivener’s Intro- 
 duction to NT4, ii. 126f., and Hyvernat, Revue Biblique, 1897, 
 No. 1, p. 67) are valueless. (1) The abbreviations found in 
 Coptic MSS for ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ need not have originated 
 in Bohairic, If they occurred (and they never do, as far as I 
 know) in MSS written in one Sahidic, they might as easily 
 have been taken from M.E. as from Bohairic. Indeed an 
 abbreviation of ‘ Lord,’ which is almost exactly the same as the 
 one in common use in Bohairic, is found in a M.E. MS, which 
 ‘in its writing,’ says Krall @ 110f.), ‘reminds us of the Codex 
 Sinaiticus.’ (2) Even if Krall’s hypothesis of the origin of the 
 last letter of the Coptic alphabet were satisfactory, it does not 
 prove his point. The contraction might have arisen in M.E. 
 as easily as in Bohairic. But most probably his hypothesis is 
 wrong, and the letter is derived from Demotic (see Steindorff, 
 Koptische Grammatik, § 4). 
 
 v Attempts to use Bohairic for letter-writing, using through- 
 out Greek characters, are given by Krall, op, cit. ii.-iii. p. 56, v. 
 41; Crum, op. cit. p. 59f. Unfortunately, as Krall says, ‘ the 
 geographical and climatic conditions of the Delta are not favour- 
 able to the preservation of papyrus.’ We cannot therefore be 
 certain of the exact dialect which the hermits near Lake Men- 
 zaleh spoke, when Cassian visited them at the end of the 4th 
 century. It may have been a form of M.E. or Bohairic. We 
 gather from Cassian (Coll. xi. 3, xvi. 1; Migne, P.Z. xlix. 850, 
 1011) that some of them did not know Greek. 
 
 3 Quatremére, op. cit. p. 41 f. 
 
 ‘ 1, op. cit, ii.-iii. 43 ff., iv. 128 ff. 
 
 = Krall, op. cit. i. 64. 
 Krall, op. cit. i. 64, ii. 63 £. 
 8 ZAS, 1884, p. 140 f. 
 
 of documents is concerned, we have fragments in 
 Middle Egyptian (earlier and later) and Sahidie, 
 some of which take us back to the 4th or 5th 
 centuries.a But as early as the 2nd century efforts 
 were made to write Egyptian in characters not 
 unlike our present Coptic ones.f 
 
 3. EXTANT REMAINS OF VERSIONS.—We have 
 remains of biblical versions in all three dialects ; 
 but a considerable portion of the Sahidic has dis- 
 appeared, whilst only very short fragments of the 
 Middle Egyptian areextant. A useful list of MSS 
 containing Pape of the Coptic Bible has been 
 given by M. Hyvernat in the Revue Biblique 
 Internationale for 1896, No. 4, p. 540ff. e 
 shall here confine ourselves to editions of the 
 versions. 
 
 (a) Sahidic.—The fullest collections of extant 
 fragments of the version of the NT are those pub- 
 lished by Woidey and Amélineau.s Some frag- 
 ments of the Apocalypse have recently been brought 
 together by Goussen.e A complete collection, 
 together with a translation, is urgently needed. 
 The best collections of the remains of the OT have 
 been made by Ciasca,¢ Maspero,n and Lagarde.@ 
 Quotations from the Sahidie Bible are found in 
 the ‘ Pistis Sophia,’« and other Sahidic books. The 
 Psalms quoted in the former work resemble the 
 Sahidic version. In fact, asa general rule citations 
 in either the Bohairic or Sahidic dialect agree with 
 the version of the Bible current in that dialect.« 
 Other collections of fragments of the Sahidic Bible 
 are described in the Revue Biblique Internationale, 
 1897, No. 1, pp. 55-62. 
 
 (6) Middle Egyptian.—That there was a sepa- 
 rate Middle Egyptian recension of part, at least, of 
 the Bible is proved by the text of some of the NT 
 fragments published by ZoegadX and Maspero.u 
 These are written in the dialect as spoken in the 
 Faytm, and sometimes in text and translation differ 
 considerably from the corresponding Sahidie and 
 Bohairic. How far all the biblical fragments 
 extant in Middle Egyptian really constitute a 
 separate version, we shall be able to judge with 
 greater certainty when more fragments have been 
 discovered, and when the Sahidic NT has been 
 edited. Meanwhile, it is unsafe to conclude that 
 a fragment written in this dialect necessaril 
 presents a distinct recension. It may give, with 
 merely dialectical changes, exactly the same version 
 as the Sahidic.y We shall here te state where 
 specimens of the Bible written in Middle Egyptian 
 may be found, without venturing to determine 
 whether they are parts of a single version. Besides 
 the fragments already alluded to,é Bouriant has 
 published two Gospel fragments, together with a 
 
 « Orum, op. cit. plate i. No.2; Kenyon, Our Bible and the 
 Ancient MSS, p. 163 (plate xvii.); Krall, op. cit. i. 110; 
 Fiihrer durch dve Ausstellung (Vienna, 1892), p. 33, Tafel iii. ; 
 Stern, 74S, 1886, p. 135. 
 
 B Steindorff, Koptische Grammatik, § 2. 
 y Appendia ad editionem Novi Testamenti Greci (Oxford, 
 
 1799). 
 
 3 ZAS, 1886-1888. 
 
 s Apocalypsis S. Johannis A postoli (Leipzig, 1895), 
 
 % Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei 
 Borgiani, Rome, vol. i., 1885; vol. ii., 1889. 
 
 » Mémoires publiées par les Membres de la Miesion Archéo- 
 
 ique Francaise au Caire (Paris, 1892), vol. vi. 
 
 6 Agyptiaca (Gottingen, 1883), p. 65 ff. 
 
 4 Cf. Harnack, Texte u. Unters. vii. 2. 2 ff. 
 
 x See eg. F. Robinson, Teate and Studies, vol. iv. No. 2, 
 
 . xix. 
 Pe Catalogus Codicum Copticorum (Rome, 1810), p. 149 ff. : 
 cf. Engelbreth, Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi 
 Testamenti (Copenhagen, 1811), p. 20ff. 
 
 pw Recueil de Travaua relatifs ala Phil. et & ? Arch. Egypt. 
 et Assyr. (1889), xi. p. 116. 
 
 »Cf. the translation in old M.E. of Jude 1719 with the 
 corresponding Sahidic. See Crum, op. cit. p. 4. 
 
 & Zoega publishes the first half of 1 Th and part of the follow: 
 ing chapters: Is 1.5, Jn 4, 1006-9. 14.15, Eph 6, Ph 1. 2 
 He 5-10 (Engelbreth gives the same). 10Co 9. 10-15 had 
 already been edited by Giorgi (Fragmentum Evangelit S. 
 Johannis, etc., Rome, 1789, p. 55 ff.), and Minter (Commentatie 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
—— 
 
 670 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 
 
 small portion of Isaiah, the end of 2 Co and the 
 beginning of Hebrews.a A single verse from Jon 2 
 will be found in Tuki;f the last part of La and 
 most of the Epistle of Jer. (with Latin translations) 
 in Quatremére.y Crum has given a few verses 
 from Mt ll. 12,6 and Krall some verses of Ro 
 1l. 12.e Besides these, Von Lemm has made 
 another short collection of fragments in this 
 dialect.¢ To this list must be added some inter- 
 esting biblical remains written in Old Middle 
 Egyptian.» Small portions of Exodus, Sirach, 
 eal 2 Mac are published by Bouriant.6 We 
 have an incomplete MS of the Minor Prophets, 
 from which Krall has published specimen verses,« 
 briefly enumerating the contents of the rest, 
 which he will shortly publish.« Part of the same 
 MS has recently been edited by Bouriant.’ The 
 NT fragments published by Crumyz are unfortu- 
 nately very minute. Jude -” and part of Ja 4! 8 
 alone survive. 
 
 (c) Bohairic.—The best edition of the Gospels is 
 that of Schwartze,y and of the Acts and Epistles, 
 that of Lagarde.é The NT as a whole has never 
 been satisfactorily edited. A serviceable edition 
 was made by Wilkins, but the Latin translation 
 which it contains is unsatisfactory A new 
 edition of the Gospels is being prepared for the 
 Clarendon PressbyG. Horner. The Pentateuch was 
 first published by Wilkins (with a translation),r 
 and then more carefully by Lagarde.p Tattam 
 has edited and translated (but uncritically) the 
 Major and Minor Prophets and the Book of 
 Job.o The best editions of the Psalms have been 
 made by Schwartzer and Lagarde,v the latter 
 edition being unfortunately printed in Latin 
 characters. F. Rossi has lately edited a MS 
 containing part of the Psalter.6 Only small 
 
 ortions of the rest of the OT have been printed. 
 or a list of these portions and of editions not 
 mentioned here, see Hyvernat, op. cit. 1897, No 1, 
 
 . 48 ff. 
 
 : 4, DATE OF VERSIONS.—The earliest evidence 
 for the existence of a Coptic version is usually 
 said to be afforded by the Life of St. Antony, com- 
 monly attributed to St. Athanasius. Weare there 
 de Indole Versionizs Novi Testamenti Sahidice, Copenhagen, 
 1789, p. 78 ff.), Maspero has published Mt 546-619, 
 
 « Bouriant, Mémoires de l'Institut égyptien, vol. ii. (Cairo, 
 1889), p. 567 ff. The Gospel fragments are parts of Mt 13, 14, 
 _and of Mk 8.9. The difficulty of drawing a sharp line of dis- 
 tinction between the various forms of the M.E. dialect is 
 shown by the fact that Headlam is inclined to regard two parts 
 of one MS of the Gospels as belonging to separate versions and 
 dialects (see Headlam, op. cit. ii. p. 141f.; cf. Hyvernat, op. 
 cit. 1896, No. 4, p. 565 ff.). 
 
 ome, 1778), p. 446. 
 
 B Rudimenta Lingue Copte 
 
 y Quatremére, op. cit. p. 228 fi. 
 
 3 Crum, op. cit. p.1f. Cf. also the fragments of the Song of 
 Moses and the Song of the Three Children on p. 12 ff. 
 
 s Op. cit. ii.-iii. p. 69ff. In i. p. 69 he gives quotations in 
 this dialect from Mt 1127, Ps 1484, 
 
 § Mittelaegyptische nd paddy peda Etudes Archéologiques 
 Linguistiques et Historiques dédiées @ M. le Dr. C. Leemans, 
 Leyden, 1885. 
 
 Old M.E. is often called Akhmimic, because most of the 
 fragments of it come from Akmim. 
 
 6 Mémoires Miss. Arch. i. p. 246 ff. 
 
 + Krall, op. ctt. ii.-iii. (1887) p. 265 ff. _A list of the verses will 
 be found in Hyvernat, op. cw. (1896), No. 4, p. 568, under the 
 title ‘ Version Akhmimienne.’ 
 
 o Nov. Test. Aigyptium vulgo Copticum (Oxford, 1716). 
 « Quingue libri Moysis Prophetce (London, 1781). 
 
 p Der Pentateuch Koptisch (Leipzig, 1867). 
 
 o Prophetce Majores (Oxford, 1852); Duod. Proph. Min. Libr. 
 (Oxford, 1836); The Ancient Coptic Version of the Book of Job 
 (London, 1846). 
 
 ; ap ose tae tn Dialectum Memph. translatum (Leipzig, 
 
 v Psalterrd Versto Memphitica (Gottingen, 1875). 
 
 ¢ Di Aleunt Manuscritti Copti (Turin, 1893). 
 
 told that he was an Egyptian, that his parents 
 were Christians, and that as a child he went with 
 them to church, and ‘ gave attendance to the read. 
 ings’ (t.e. from the Scriptures).2 When about 20 
 
 ears of age ‘he went into the church, and it 
 happened that the Gospel was then being read.’ A 
 He heard a text which influenced him profoundly. 
 On other occasions, also, he heard passages read, 
 and ‘he gave such attendance to the reading that 
 none of those things which were written fell from 
 him to the ground, but he retained all, and 
 thereafter his memory served him for books.’ 
 From these passages it has been argued that, 
 since we further know that St. Antony as a boy 
 refused to learn letters,é and was unable through- 
 out life to speak Greek,e there must have been 
 in his boyhood a translation of the Scriptures in 
 the Egyptian tongue. This, it is maintained, is 
 confirmed by other passages in his Life, especially 
 by the discourse which begins at c. xvi. e are 
 there told that he spoke to the monks in’ the 
 Egyptian tongue, saying, ‘The Scriptures are 
 sufficient for teaching; but it is good for us to 
 exhort one another in the faith, and encourage 
 with words.’¢ In the discourse which follows 
 there are quotations from, or allusions to, texts 
 from various parts of the Bible. Since Antony, 
 shortly before his death in A.D. 356, said, ‘I am well- 
 nigh one hundred and five years old,’7 he must 
 have been born about A.D. 250. Thereforethere must 
 have been a translation of the Bible into Egyptian 
 about the middle of the 3rd century. But such 
 reasoning is not conclusive. This Life never speaks 
 of Antony as reading the Bible. He only hears it 
 read. he Coptic translation which he heard 
 might well have been made at the time by an 
 interpreter. The need of a written translation in 
 the services of the Church would not at once be 
 felt.@ The Gospel would first be read in Greek, 
 and then the Greek would be rendered into Coptic,¢ 
 as at a later date the Coptic was rendered into 
 Arabic by ‘anyone who had the gift of speaking, 
 so that he could interpret aright.’« In so far as 
 Antony was in the habit of repeating texts in his 
 discourses, he was enabled to do so by his remark- 
 able memory. For we have no reason to suppose 
 that he hed. a Bible of his own. But the speeches 
 put into the mouth of the hermit cannot be used 
 as evidence in such a case. For, even if we admit 
 the historical character of the biography, it does 
 not in the least follow that the discourses are 
 verbatim reports.A On the authority, therefore, of 
 this Life alone it is unsafe to base any conclusion as 
 to the existence of a Coptic version of the Bible in 
 the 3rd century. 
 
 There is, however, good ground for believing that 
 a version existed in the 4th cent. It was at the 
 beginning of this century that St. Pachomius first 
 gathered solitary ascetics together in the south of 
 Egypt under a common rule. If we may trust the 
 
 a Athan. Vit Ant. 1(Migne, PG, xxvi. 840f.). 
 
 8 Ib. 2. The Syriac version of the Life has: ‘There was the 
 reading in the church; and at the end_of all the Scriptures 
 the Gospel was read’ (see Schulthess, Probe einer Syrischen 
 Verston der Vita St. Antonié (Leipzig, 1894), Syriac text, p. 6, 
 lines 12 f. 
 
 Cy ae 8. 
 
 sJb. 74; Hier. Vit. H@. 80 (Vall. il. 31); Pallad. Hist. Laus. 
 26 (PG, xxxiv. 1076). 
 
 = Vit. Ant. 16. 
 
 n Ib. 89. 
 
 6See Renaudot, Liturgiarum Orientaliwm Collectio (Paris, 
 1716), vol. 1, p. 203 ff. 
 
 + 1b, pp. exxiii, 207. 
 
 x Ib. p. 204, 
 
 a E.g. the discourse in chapter 74. Robertson, who believes in 
 the genuineness of the Life, admits that ‘even an Athanasius 
 would not so entirely rise out of the biographical habits of 
 his day as to mingle nothing of his own with the speeches 
 of his hero’ (‘ Athanasius’ in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 
 p. 191). 
 
 ae ee 
 
 
 
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 
 
 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 671 
 
 
 
 accounts given in his Life, he himself spoke 
 Egyptian, and only acquired Greek in later years.a 
 His monks as a rule were common Egyptian 
 asa who knew no language but their own. 
 
 he Greeks and Romans of his settlement were in 
 @ separate house, presided over by Theodore of 
 Alexandria.8 Yet throughout his Life great stress 
 is laid on the study of the Bible, and there are 
 frequent allusions to learning passages by heart. 
 Pachomius himself was in the habit of speaking 
 from the Scriptures to his monks. hen a 
 novice first came, according to the rules of the 
 monastery extant in Greek, he began by receiving 
 ‘the Prayer of the Gospel’ (ri etxyiv rod evayye- 
 Mov) and learning certain Psalms.e Unless our 
 accounts of Pachomius’ life and work are most 
 misleading, we can scarcely doubt that there was, 
 early in the 4th cent., a Coptic version of the 
 Bible. The attempt to trace the translation 
 paxtiee Ree is beset es jen aaa We ene 
 v ittle concerning Christianity in er Egypt 
 beiate the time of Pachomius. qT eissbiua tidoea 
 tells us that in the persecution under Severus (A.D. 
 202), which was especially felt at Alexandria, 
 martyrs were brought to that city from ‘Egypt and 
 all the Thebaid.’¢ But no such tradition survives 
 in Coptic literature. We have no eviconce that in 
 early days the Alexandrian Church seriously 
 attempted missionary work. If the Aiexandrians 
 had wished to do so, it would have been no easy 
 task. For they were regarded as foreigners by the 
 rest of Egypt ; 7 and their position was not unlike 
 that which Englishmen occupy in India to-day. 
 Besides the difficulty of the language, they found 
 it, as Origen says, no easy task to persuade an 
 Egyptian to give up idolatry and ‘despise those 
 things which iv had received from his fathers.’ x 
 Heathen worship down to a late time ‘ retained its 
 firmest stronghold in the pious land of Egypt.’d 
 The increase of the Episcopate under Demetrius 
 (c. 189-232 A.D.), and more especially under his 
 successor Heraclas (c. 233-248 A.D.), must indeed be 
 regarded as an indication of missionary activity.u 
 If Christianity in the time of Demetrius had spread 
 as far south as Antinoe,v the Church was evidently 
 becoming too large for the personal supervision of 
 a single bishop at Alexandria. 
 
 The bishop who succeeded Heraclas—Dionysius 
 
 « Of. Amélineau, Annales du Musée Guimet, xvii. pp. 147, 629; 
 Acta SS. Mai. xiv. Vit. Pach. 60; Paral. de SS. Pach. et 
 Theodor. 27. 
 
 8 Amél. op. cit. pp. 147, 150. 
 
 y See e.g. Amél. op. cit. pp. 12, 18, 22, 37, 41f., 50f., 78f., 92, 
 
 3 1b. p. 141; Mission Arch. Mémoires, iv. p. 553, 
 
 «Migne, PG, xl., 949. For the corresponding Ethiopic see 
 Basset, Les Apoc. Ethiopiens, viii. (1896) p. 31. The Latin form 
 is found in Hieron. Vail. ii. 62. 
 
 = Eusebius, HZ, vi. 1. 
 
 In the Life of Theodore we hear of brethren ‘ who inter- 
 
 reted his words in Greek to those who did not know 
 
 tian, because they were strangers (Zswxo/) and Alex- 
 
 andrians.’ See Zoega, op. cit. p. 371; Amél. Annales du MG, 
 xvii. p. 302. 
 
 (7) Ot. Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire (Dickson’s 
 Eng. trans.), ii. p. 262. 
 
 ites the account of Macarius, bishop of Antaeopolis, in 
 Amél. Mission Arch. Mémoires, iv. pp. 93, 95f. ; Zoega, op. cit. 
 
 . 99. 
 
 . x Origen, Contra Cels. i. 52 (Lomm, xviii. p. 97). 
 
 A Mommsen, op. cit. ii. p. 266. See also Amél. Les Actes des 
 Martyrs de Uéglise copte (Paris, 1890), p. 7, note 2; Erman, 
 ZAS, 1895, p. 43 ff. ; 
 
 w# Eutychius, Annales (Pococke, Oxford, 1656), i. p. 332 (see 
 Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 231f.). The fact that before the 
 tims of Demetrius there was no Egyptian bishop outside of 
 Alexandria need not suggest that ‘the progress of Christianity 
 was for a long time confined within the limits of a single city’ 
 (see Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, c. 
 xv. Bury’s ed. ii. p. 60). For the Alexandrian diocese might 
 have been, like fhe early dioceses of Gaul and N. Italy 
 (Duchesne, Fastes épiscopauaz de Vancienne Gaule, i. p. 33 ff.), 
 of very considerable extent. See Pearson, Vindicie Hpist. 
 S. Ti ii (Cambridge, 1672) i. p. 170. 
 
 » Between the years c. 212-216 A.D. we find Alexander, bishop 
 ef Jerusalem, writing to the Antinoites and exhorting them to 
 
 the Great—has given in his letters a vivid picture 
 of the Alexandrian Church of his time, but has 
 told us little of the rest of Egypt. In his day no 
 fees was needed to start a persecution 
 of Christians (A.D. 249). A large part of the popula- 
 tion of Alexandria was still pagan, and only needed 
 a leader to revive ‘their native superstition’ (rh 
 emixwprov derordaipovlav). When the Decian persecu- 
 tion (A.D. 250) broke out, he specially mentions 
 four ‘Egyptians’ as among the sufferers.a The 
 persecution was not confined to Alexandria, but 
 many others ‘ in cities and villages’ were martyred, 
 and the bishop of Nilus (in Middle Egypt) fled 
 from his see.8 Coptic traditions of this persecu- 
 tion are scanty,y and we. do not precisely know 
 how far it extended. We find the same bishop 
 writing letters to the brethren in Egypt é and to 
 Egyptian bishops.e He also went to the Fayftm 
 district. Here the teaching of Nepos, an Egyp- 
 tian bishop (érlcxoros rév kar’ Alyvmrov), had for a 
 long time prevailed, so that ‘schisms and defec- 
 tions of whole churches had taken place.’ Diony- 
 sius therefore called together ‘the presbyters and 
 teachers of the brethren in the villa es,’ and 
 discussed their difficulties with them for three 
 successive days.{ We cannot gather, from any 
 letters of his which have come down to us, in- 
 formation regarding Christianity farther south, 
 We have to wait for such information till the 
 beginning of the next cent. In the latter part of 
 the Diocletian persecution Eusebius in person 
 visited the Thebaid. He was an eye-witness of 
 the massacres, and of the fanatical enthusiasm of 
 many of the martyrs. The persecution continued, 
 ‘not for a few days or for a short time, but for 
 a long period of whole A eedat (ért paxpdy 8d\wv érdv 
 dudornua). Most of the sufferers apparently be- 
 longed to the lower classes of society, but there 
 were some of high birth and distinction.» Many 
 bishops suffered for the faith, @ but Eusebius does 
 not say whether any of them came from the south. 
 He has described the sufferings of the rest of the 
 Beyoyen Church in Egypt itself: and elsewhere ; « 
 and has preserved an account by an eye-witness of 
 the persecution in Alexandria.A But when we 
 bring together all the historian’s statements, it is 
 singularly difficult to determine how far they 
 imply the existence of a widespread native Chris- 
 tianity. We can only conjecture that amongst 
 the numerous martyrs some of those in a lower 
 station of life were natives. A century had passed 
 since the bishop of Jerusalem wrote to the Greek- 
 speaking population of the capital of the Thebaid.u 
 In the meantime the Christians in that town may 
 have done good work amongst the ‘ barbarians,’ 
 even if they had not attempted such work at first. 
 be of one mind (épcogpovijras), See Eus. HH, vi. 11, In the next 
 century a bishop of Antinoe was present at the Council of 
 Nicwa (Zoega, op. cit. p. 244). 
 
 a Dion. ap. Eus. HE, vi. 41. Their names were Heron, Ater, 
 Isidore, and Nemesion. Dionysius seems to imply that most of 
 the others at Alexandria were Greeks. Arguments cannot be 
 safely based on the absence of Egyptian names. Thus we have 
 in the Fayim a son of Satabus bearing a Latin and Greek 
 name ‘ Aurelius Diogenes.’ See Benson, Cyprian, Appendix B, 
 
 . 542. 
 
 » 6 Dion. ap. Eus, H#, vi. 42. 
 
 y See Amél. Actes des M. pp. 14-17. ‘Matra’ (p. 15) is prob- 
 ably the same as ‘ Metras,’ who suffered the year before the 
 Decian persecution (Eus. HE, vi.41). See also Malan, Calendar 
 of the Coptic Church, p. 10. 
 
 3 Eus. H2#, vi. 46, vii. 22. 
 
 «The bishop of Hermopolis (vi. 46), Hierax, an Egyptian 
 bishop (vii. 21), 
 
 z Hh? E, vii. 24. 
 
 n HE, viii. 9. 
 
 0 HE, viii. 9, 18, ix. 6; De Mart. Pal. 18. We gather from 
 Epiphanius, Her, ixviii. 8 (PG, xlii. 197), that Potamo of Her- 
 aclea lost an eye in the persecution. 
 
 + HE, viii. 6, 8, 13, ix. 11; De Mart. Pal. 8, 13. 
 
 x HE, viii. 6f.; De Mart. Pal. 8,10, 18. 
 
 A Phileas, ap. Kus. HE, viii, 10. The account of Phileas’ own 
 trial is given by Ruinart, Act. Sinc. 2nd ed. p. 494 ff. 
 
 p» Eus. HE, vi. 11. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 672 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 
 
 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 
 
 The Coptic accounts of this persecution were 
 written at a later date, and are disfigured by 
 legendary additions. Yet the traditions of mar- 
 tyrdoms having taken place in the towns lying 
 between Antinoe and Latopolisa must have some 
 historical foundation. They point to the fact 
 that the persecution was particularly severe in 
 the south. Many of the martyrs bear Greek 
 names, and are connected with the army.8 Com- 
 paratively few bishops are mentioned.y Diocle- 
 tian is hated with a wild, unreasoning hatred, due 
 no doubt in pa to political considerations, A 
 religion must have gained in popularity among the 
 fanatical, disorderly natives of Upper Egypt, 
 simply because Diocletian and the Government 
 were opposed to it. In fact we find, as we study 
 these Coptic traditions, that however much the 
 new religion had already appealed to the natives, 
 a fresh era began wit locletian,é and Chris- 
 tianity became, in a fuller sense than ever 
 before, the religion of the people. Hatred of Dio- 
 cletian, the faith of the martyrs, the sufferings 
 which they endured, all contributed to this result. 
 The consequence was that, when the persecution 
 was over, ‘the repentance of the heathen (ray 
 é6vSv) was multiplied in the Church, the bishops 
 leading the way unto God, according to the 
 teaching of the apostles.’ e 
 
 It will be evident from this brief study of the 
 subject, that but little is known of Egyptian 
 Christianity outside of Alexandria before the 
 time of Pachomius. The state of the Church in 
 his time—the history and legends of the Diocletian 
 persecution—the increase of the Egyptian epis- 
 copate under Demetrius and Heraclas—suggest, 
 but do not prove, that some time before the end 
 of the 3rd:cent. there was a considerable number 
 of native Christians. They would soon feel the 
 aeed of a translation of the Bible. Historical 
 evidence, then, on the whole, points to the 3rd 
 cent. as the period when the first Coptic transla- 
 tion was made.f But this view can only be 
 regarded as tentative. In the light of future 
 discoveries it may have to be modified. This 
 translation was most {probably made, not in the 
 neighbourhood of Alexandria, but in Middle or 
 Upper Egypt. Here the native element was 
 stronger than in the north; and, as Greek was 
 less spoken, the need for a translation would 
 be more keenly felt. All the evidence that we 
 ossess at present goes to prove that Coptic 
 iterature, whether orthodox or heretical, took 
 its rise in the south; its development being 
 assisted by the hatred felt towards Ake foreign or 
 Greek element.7 
 
 a Amél. Actes des M. p. 80 ff. 
 
 8 1b. pp. 26, 30, 103, 219. 
 
 y Zoega (Cat. pp. 237, 239) and Amélineau (op. eft. pp. 89, 
 53 f.) speak of the martyrdom of the bishops of Ptolemais and 
 Hermopolis Magna. Amélineau (op. cit. p. 47 ff.) tells of the 
 inartyrdom of the bishop of Latopolis. Pisura and three other 
 bishops (Zoega, Cat. p. 52; Hyvernat, Actes des M. i. p. 
 114 ff.), and the bishop of Prosopis in Lower Egypt (Zoega, Cat. 
 pp. 62, 183; Hyvernat, Actes des M. i. p. 225ff.), were also 
 martyred. The bishop of Akmim fled (asoblinea, Actes des M. 
 p. 82). The bishop of Lycopolis used the persecution as a means 
 of self-aggrandisement (Hyvernat, Actes des M. i. 260), and, 
 according to Athanasius (Apol. c. Artanos, 59) and Socrates 
 (HE, i. 6), actually sacrificed. 
 
 3 The era of the martyrs, on which Coptic chronology is 
 usually based, begins with a.p. 284, the year of the accession of 
 Diocletian. 
 
 «See Amédl. Vie de Pakhéme, Annales du MG, xvii. BP. 2, 839; 
 Acta SS. Mai. xiv. Vit. Pach. Prolog.; cf. also Migne, PL, lxxiii. 
 
 231. 
 
 = The evidence of MSS does not help us much. Our oldest 
 MSS are fragmentary, and their date a matter of uncertainty. 
 But a Sahidic MS of part of 2 Th 3 (Kenyon, op. cit. plate xviii), 
 and fragments in Old Middle Egyptian of Jude (Crum, op. cit. 
 pee 1, No. 2), and of the Minor Prophets (Krall, Fuhrer, p. 33, 
 
 ‘afel iii.) take us back to the 4th or 5th cents. Cf. also Stern, 
 ZAS, 1886, Le 135. 
 
 » Of. Guidi, Nachrichten von der K. G. d. W. zu Gittingen, 
 1889, No. 8, p. 50f. 
 
 5. GREEK TEXT IMPLIED BY VERSIONS.—AIl 
 three versions of the NT must be more carefully 
 edited before we can determine with certainty the 
 underlying Greek text. The Sahidic NT contains 
 some remarkable interpolations, usually classed as 
 Western. Two striking ones are found in Lk. 
 The parable of Dives and Lazarus begins thus in 
 the Sahidie Bible: ‘Now there was a certain rich 
 man, whose name was (lit. is) Nineveh’ (16'%).a 
 When Joseph had laid the body of Jesus in the 
 tomb (23°), the Sahidic adds: ‘ Now when he had 
 laid him, he placed (or laid) a stone at the door of 
 the sepulchre, which twenty men could not have 
 rolled’f (cf. De). Several interesting ‘ Western’ 
 interpolations are found in the Acts. Three ex- 
 amples may be quoted.y After the words ‘ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
 days hence,’ the Sahidic has a strange gloss, ‘ but 
 (4Ad) until Pentecost’ (15, cf. D). ‘The negative 
 form of the ‘Golden Rule’ is placed at the end of 
 the apostolic injunctions to Gentile converts 
 (15-29, ef, D). After the vision of the man of 
 Macedonia to St. Paul, the tenth verse of Ac 16 
 runs thus: ‘And when he had risen, he told us 
 the vision. Straightway we sought to go forth 
 into Macedonia, telling (07 showing) them that the 
 
 Lord had called us for to preach unto them’ (cf. D). - 
 
 On the other hand, several ‘Western’ interpola- 
 tions, which we might have expected to find, are 
 absent from the Sahidic. 
 
 The text of the Bohairie version, as is well 
 known, corresponds in general with that of Codex 
 Vaticanus. hether it is yet more closely allied 
 to the text used by Cyril of Alexandria is a matter 
 which still remains to be determined. There can be 
 but little doubt that in their original form both the 
 Bohairie and Sahidic were free from ‘ Antiochian’ 
 interpolations. A collation of the versions in 
 those parts of the NT, where all three are extant 
 together, proves that the Middle Egyptian is often 
 closely related to the Sahidic. This is most clearly 
 seen in the Pauline Epistles. Thus an examina- 
 tion of the three versions in 1 Co proves that the 
 Sahidic and Middle Egyptian are not entirely 
 independent translations. Sometimes they are 
 based on a different Greek text from that which 
 underlies the Bohairic. But, even when they are 
 translating the same original, their rendering is 
 often strikingly different from that of the Northern 
 version. We may take 1 Co 15!“ as an example. 
 Here the Sah. and M.E. translations are practically 
 identical: ‘But if Christ is preached that he rose 
 from the dead, in what manner do some amon 
 you say that the dead do not rise? If the de 
 do not rise, then Christ did not rise. If Christ 
 did not rise, then is our preaching vain, and vain 
 is oure faith also.’¢ The Boh. translation is not so 
 free: ‘But if Christ is preached that he was raised 
 from the dead, how (més) do some among you sa) 
 that there is no resurrection (4vdcracis) of the dead? 
 But if there is no resurrection (dvdcracts) of the 
 dead, then not even (ovéé) was Christ raised. 
 But if Christ was not raised, then (dpa) vain is 
 our preaching, vain also is your faith.’y This 
 instance—and it is one among many—shows us that 
 the Sah. and M.E. must in some way be related 
 to one another. A cursory examination might 
 suggest that they are practically the same version, 
 
 « Of. Harnack, Teate u. Unters. xiii. 1, 75 ff. 
 
 B In the bilingual MS described by Amélineau (Notice des MSS 
 Coptes de la Bibl. Nationale, Paris, 1895) the Gr. runs thus : xa 
 Osvroe avrou sxelnxcy tw pvyeio Aidov peeve ov Lovie Sixees avdoIa 
 sxvdsov. The corresponding Sahidic is not published. 
 
 y Other interpolations will be found in Ac 12 233 §%8 535 68 @A 
 940 127 1410 151. 23. 34 1812. 19 196. 25 2024 211, 
 
 3 M.E. omits ‘but.’ 
 
 s So Engelbreth’s Sah. Amélineau has ‘ your.’ 
 
 & Sah. omits ‘also.’ 
 
 » A Coptic word for ‘faith’ is used. 3B, and M.E. employ the 
 Greek sicvis, 
 
 
 
 i, — a on 
 

 
 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 
 
 EITHER 673 
 
 
 
 and that the differences between them are purely 
 dialectical. But when we inquire more aigaele 
 into the passages where all three are extant, we 
 find that such an explanation is not satisfactory. 
 Sometimes each version is apparently an independ- 
 ent translation. Geesaouily the Sahidic and 
 Bohairic agree in rendering or in underlying text 
 as against the Middle Egyptian. In other places— 
 and this is especially the case in the Gospels a—the 
 Bohairic and Middle Egyptian are opposed to the 
 Sahidic. Thus, in St. Matthew’s account of the 
 Lord’s Prayer the difficult word éovcros is repre- 
 sented in Sahidie by chat which ts coming, in the 
 other two versions by of to-morrow.8 When we 
 have recovered a larger portion of the Middle 
 Egyptian version, and when the fragments already 
 known have been collected and edited, we shall be 
 able to speak with greater security. Meanwhile 
 we may provisionally state our view as follows. 
 The New Testament was first translated into 
 Sahidic from a text containing a considerable 
 *Western’element. The translation was idiomatic 
 and in some casesinexact. The Middle Hgyptian,y 
 robably made very soon afterwards, was largely 
 influenced by the Sahidic. The Bohairic, made 
 last of all, though in places influenced by the two 
 wees translations, represented an effort to 
 ranslate with more literal exactness what was 
 felt to be a superior Greek text. 
 
 The Coptic versions of the Old Testament are 
 based upon the LXX. The study of them is of 
 great interest, because it may help us to recon- 
 struct the edition of the LXX made by Hesychius, 
 which, as we learn from Jerome, was well known 
 in Alexandria and E ed Whether any of the 
 versions of the Coptic 0. d Testament are free from 
 the influence of Origen’s revision is doubtful. 
 Some Sahidic MSS give the Book of Job in a 
 shortened form. The claim has been put forward e 
 that we have in these MSS a witness to the original 
 text of the LXX, before Origen made his copious 
 additions from Theodotion’s version.¢ But the 
 last word on this subject has not been said. (Cf. 
 Burkitt, Texts and Studies, iv. 3, p. 8.) The rela- 
 tion of the Middle Egyp. of OT to the Sah. has 
 yet to be worked out.7 
 
 5. HisTORY OF CRITICISM OF VERSIONS.—A 
 careful study of the Coptic versions of the New 
 Testament is given by Lightfoot in Scrivener’s 
 Introd. to the New Test.6 Lightfoot, as many 
 distinguished scholars before him,: believed that 
 ‘we should probably not be exaggerating, if we 
 
 « An examination of Mt 6515 and Jn 428-80 will prove the 
 truth of this assertion. 
 
 8 This translation in the Bohairic of Mt is probably the 
 result of a deliberate revision. The older rendering (cf. Lat. 
 Vulg.) still remains in Lk, where the Boh. has that which ts 
 coming (M.E. is wanting in Lk 11), At the end of the prayer 
 the Doxology is wanting in Boh, The Sah. has, ‘For thine is 
 the power and the dominion for ever and ever, Amen.’ The 
 MLE. has, ‘ For thine is the power and the glory for ever, Amen’ 
 (cf. Didache viii. 641 cot torsy 4 Sivepess xo} H DdEce sig robs widvag). 
 
 yas fragments of the NT written in Old M.E. are too 
 minute for classification. The little that remains shows the 
 si.me text as the Sahidic. But when we recover more, we may 
 find that it differs only dialectically from the ordinary M.E 
 
 version. 
 iy ag in Par. (Vall. ix. 1405); Apol. adv. Ruyin. ii. 27 (Vall. 
 522). 
 
 «See Ciasca, op. eit. vol. if. p. xviiiff.; Hatch, Hseays in 
 Biblical Greek, p. 216. 
 
 2 Hier. Pra. in Job (Vall. ix. 1097). 
 
 » The translations of Zec 135 in Sah. and Old M.E. cannot 
 be independent. Both add (? cf. Field) zai iu26 ~s—a reading 
 evidently derived from Theodotion, and omitted in Boh. The 
 words d:071 &vO pwros ipyalousvos Thy yay iy sis are found in the 
 Cld M.E., but not in Boh. and Sah. ‘eh 
 
 6 Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the NT, 
 ed. iii. p. 365 ff.; see also Gregory, Prolegomena (1884), 859 ff. 
 For an interesting and concise account of these versions see 
 Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS (1895), p. 75 f. 160 ff. 
 A useful summary of the literature of the subject is given by 
 Nestle, Urteat und Ubersetzungen der Bibel (1897), p. 144 ff. 
 
 +See Quatremére, op ft. p. 9. Of. Schwartze, Hv. in Dial. 
 Memph, p. xviii. 
 
 VOL, 1.—43 
 
 placed one or both of the principal Egyptian 
 versions,’ ¢.¢. the Bohairic and the Sahidic, ‘or at 
 least parts of them, before the close of the 2nd 
 cent.’a This view has been followed by Westcott 
 and Hort, who maintain that ‘the greater part of 
 the’ Bohairic ‘ version cannot well be later than the 
 2nd cent.,’ whilst ‘the Version of Upper Egypt 
 -.. was probably little if at all inferior in 
 antiquity.’ Headlam, who, in the last edition 
 (1894) of Scrivener’s Introduction, has given a 
 summary of the history of the criticism of the 
 Coptic NT from the point where Lightfoot 
 stopped, considers that ‘it has been sufficiently 
 proved that translations into Coptic existed in the 
 8rd cent., very probably in the 2nd.’y Ciasca, in 
 the introd. to his edition of the Sahidic OT (where 
 references will be found to the work of former 
 editors 6), discusses the text and date of the Book 
 of Job.e His examination of the book confirms 
 him in the belief that Lightfoot was right in 
 assigning part at least of the Coptic versions to 
 the 2nd cent.¢ It is with the greatest diffidence 
 that we have ventured to suggest that this earl 
 date (even if it is right) has not been aeoced! 
 Our belief in the historical evidence for such a 
 date was shaken by an article n published by Prof. 
 Guidi, to which reference has already been made; 
 and subsequent study has confirmed us in the 
 view that there is, as yet, no adequate evidence of 
 the existence of a Coptic version at such an early 
 date as is often maintained. 
 5 ForBES ROBINSON. 
 EHI (‘7x).—The eponym of a Benjamite family, 
 Gn 467, where, however, o>) WX) ‘ny must be 
 corrected after Nu 26% to opw) oyny. ‘The cor- 
 ruption was perhaps prior to the adoption of the 
 square character; D and # in the old script being 
 similar and liable to confusion. It may, however, 
 be due to mere transposition of the two letters’ 
 (Ball in Haupt’s Genesis, ad loc.). See further 
 AHIRAM, and cf. Gray, Heb. Prop. Names, 35. 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 EHUD (7x), son of Gera, a left-handed Benjamite, 
 delivered his people by a bold exploit from Eglon, 
 king of Moab, who had captured Jericho and 
 oppressed Israel for eighteen years. This history 
 is given in Jg 3%, The compiler has furnished 
 an introduction and conclusion in his usual manner 
 (vv.22-16a- 80d) the narrative itself (vv.15>-%) is one 
 of the most ancient in the book, and a character- 
 istic specimen of the best style of Heb. story- 
 telling. Doubts have been cast upon the name of 
 the hero, because Ehud and Gera elsewhere are 
 names of Benjamite clans. Gera is a son (Gn 467) 
 or grandson (1 Ch 8°), Ehud is a great-grandson 
 (1 Ch 7"), of Benjamin (Néldeke, Untersuch. p. 
 179f.; Stade, Gesch. i. 68). But E. may wet 
 have been the name of the hero before it was the 
 name of the clan called after him (Budde, Riché. u 
 Sam. 100). Wellhausen (Gott. Nachrichten. 1895, 
 p. 480) suggests that nox may be an abbreviation 
 of 1728 in 1 Ch 8%, G. A. CooKE. 
 
 EITHER.—1. Now alternative, one or the other 
 in older Eng. ‘either’ was comprehensive, each of 
 
 e Scrivener, op. cit. ed. iii 
 
 B Westcott and Hort, The 
 ed. p. 574. : 
 
 Scrivener, op. cit. ed. iv. vol. fi. p. 105 f. 
 
 $ Clases, op. cit. vol. i. p. viii f. 
 
 1s Op. cit. vol. ii. p. xviii ff. 
 
 = Op. cit. vol. ii. p. xxxvi f- 4 
 
 « Nachrichten von der K.G. d. W. zu Géttingen, 1889, No. 8, 
 p. 49ff. Steindorff (op. cit. § 2) suggests the end of the 8rd 
 cent. as the date of the Coptic translation of the Bible. Stern 
 in his Critische Anmerkungen zu der boheirischen et. 
 zung der Proverbia Salomonis (ZAS, 1882, p. 191 ff.) con- 
 jectures that the Boh. Version may be much later than the 
 Sah., which, in part at least, was made in the 8rd cent. (p. 202). 
 He thinks it possible that the Boh, and Sah. Versions may prove 
 to be based on some form of the M.E, (ZS, 1886, p. 185). 
 
 . p. 871. 
 ic T in the Original Greek, smaller 
 

 
 674 EKER 
 
 Thus 
 
 two, like its German equivalent ‘jeder.’ 
 Ly 10! ‘Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took 
 either of them his censer’; 1 K 7°; Jn 19'8 ‘on 
 either side one,’ and Rev 22? ‘on either side of 
 
 the river was there the tree of life.’ Cf. Ridley, 
 Brefe Declaration (1555), p. 102 (Moule’s ed.), ‘as 
 some of them do odiously call either other’— 
 changed in the Oxf. ed. 1688 into ‘each other.’ 
 2. ‘Either’ was formerly used to introduce the 
 second or any later alternative, as well as the first ; 
 so Ja 34% and Ph 34 ‘ Not as though I had already 
 attained, either were already perfect’ (RV ‘or’); 
 and so Lk 6” ‘ Either how canst thou say to thy 
 brother’ (RV ‘Or’). In this sense ‘either else’ is 
 also found, as Stubbes, Anat. Abus. ii. 10, ‘ Hither 
 else they would never be so desirous of revenge.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 EKER (7py).—A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2”). See 
 GENEALOGY. 
 
 EKREBEL (’Expe87d), Jth 71°.—Apparently the 
 town of ‘Akrabeh, E. of Shechem, the capital of 
 Akrabattine (SWPP ii. sh. 12). 
 
 EKRON (j'npy, "Axxapdv), one of the five principal 
 cities of the Philistines, the one farthest to the N. 
 (Jos 13%). It was a centre, having towns and 
 villages dependent upon it (Jos 15“). In the first 
 division oF the land W. of the Jordan it was 
 assigned to Judah, being on the N. boundary of 
 that tribe (Jos 15%: “-1), but in the later division 
 the boundaries were so rectified as to give it to 
 Dan (Jos 19%). It is mentioned as among the 
 cities not captured under Joshua (Jos 13%). After 
 his death it was taken by Judah (Jg 18); but the 
 
 ossession was not permanent, for we afterwards 
 
 nd it in the hands of the Philistines till the time 
 of David. It is prominently mentioned in the 
 history of the time when the ark was in the land 
 of the Philistines (1 S 5. 6), and in connexion with 
 later events (1 S 7/4 1752). Like the rest of the Phil. 
 cities, it became pene independent soon after 
 the disruption. It is mentioned in history in the 
 time of Jehoshaphat (2 K 1% * 618) in the time 
 of Amos (Am 18, Zec 9°7), and in the time of 
 Jeremiah (Jer 25%). The records of Sennacherib, 
 king of Assyria, mention a revolt of E. from the 
 Assyrians to Hezekiah, and the condign punishment 
 inflicted (see, ¢.g., Smith’s aye Disc. pp. 304-306). 
 It is found in the Apocrypha (1 Mac 10%, AV 
 Accaron) as a place given by Alexander Balas to 
 Jonathan Maccabzeus in reward for his services. 
 It is spoken of in connexion with a march of kin 
 Baldwin the crusader, A.D. 1100 (Robinson, BR. 
 ii. 228). It is apparently identified with ‘“Akxir, 
 4 miles E. of Yedna, and is now a station on the 
 railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem. (See PHILISTINES. 
 See also Smith, HGHL 193, 218). Ekronite.—A 
 citizen of Ekron. The word is used in the singular 
 in Jos 13°, where ‘the Ekronite’ is spoken of, 
 meaning the people of Ekron collectively, and in 
 the plural in 1 S 5”, where the citizens are spoken 
 
 of individually. W. J. BEECHER. 
 EL.—See Gop. 
 ELA (Hd). 4.1 Es 97=ELAm, Ezr 10%, 2, 
 
 (1 K 498 xbx, AV Elah) Father of Shimei, who was 
 Solomon’s commissariat officer in Benjamin. 
 
 ELAH (ax ‘ terebinth’).—1. (Gn 364, 1 Ch 1°) 
 The fifth ‘duke of Edom.’ These names prob. 
 ‘cticate districts called after certain chieftains. 
 «sip. the use of Mamre, Caleb, ete. 2. (1 K 16514) 
 King of Israel, son of Baasha. His reign can 
 scarcely have lasted two years, since he came to 
 the throne in the 26th year of Asa, and was killed 
 in the 27th. The story of Elah’s death suggests 
 
 
 
 
 
 ELAM, ELAMITES 
 
 that he was a worthless sot (‘ drinking himself 
 drunk in the house of Arza his steward,’ 1 K 16%), 
 Jos. (Ant. VII. xii. 4) says that Zimri took advan- 
 tage of the absence of the army at Gibbethon (1K 
 16%) to kill Elah while unprotected. His death was 
 followed by the extirpation of his family, in fulfil- 
 ment of the prophecy of Jehu (1 K 164); but the 
 sacred narrative reminds us that the fact of a man’s 
 being the rod of God’s anger does not exempt him 
 from punishment for the crimes he commits in 
 accomplishing the design of Providence (1 K 16’), 
 cf. Hos 14, Am 14. The office which Arza held was 
 a very high one, see 1 K 4%®, 3, Father of Hoshea, 
 last king of Israel (2 K 15° 17} 1819), 4, (1 Ch 4%) 
 Second son of Caleb. Rawlinson suggests that the 
 last words of the verse should be: ‘and the sons 
 of Elah, Jehallelel and Kenaz.’ (So Keil.) Similar 
 omissions occur in 6% 8? 941, 8, (1 Ch 98) A Ben- 
 jamite who dwelt in Jerus. in the time of Neh. 
 e is not mentioned in the parallel list, Neh 11. 
 N. J. D. WHITE. 
 
 ELAH, THE VALLEY OF (abyn poy; 4 KovAds 
 ’"Hda, A ris Spvds ‘the valley of the terebinth’). 
 —The scene of the defeat of the Phil. champion 
 Goliath at the hands of David (1 S 17: 21°). The 
 valley of E. is probably the modern Wady es- 
 Sunt (=terebinth), the third and most southerly of 
 the valleys which eut through the Shephelah, and 
 so lead up from the Phil. plain into the heart of 
 Judea. ‘An hour’s ride from Tell es-Safi’ (at the 
 entrance to the Phil. plain) ‘up the winding vale of 
 E. brings us through the Shephelah to the spot 
 where the Wady es-Sur turns g towards Hebron, 
 and the narrow Wady el-Jindy strikes up towards 
 Bethlehem. At the junction of the three there is 
 a level plain, a quarter of a mile broad, cut by two 
 streams, which combine to form the stream down 
 Wady es-Sunt. This plain is probably the scene 
 of David’s encounter with Goliath’ (G. A. Smith, 
 Hist. Geogr. p. 227). 
 
 The Philistines had pitched their camp between 
 Socoh and Azekah, i.e. on a ridge separated from 
 the rest of the low hills, and facing the Israelites 
 across the valley. The ‘ gai’ (x13) or ravine, which 
 separated the two armies, is the deep trench formed 
 by the combination of the two streams ; this, in fact, 
 formed a valley within the valley. The Israelites 
 had taken up their position on the farther or eastern 
 side of the vale, somewhere on the slopes of the 
 Wady el-Jindy, thus securing their line of retreat 
 up the Wady. The natural strength of both 
 positions was thus very great, since, if either army 
 
 attacked, they must not only cross the ravine, but - 
 
 also climb the opposite slopes, and so place them- 
 selves at a great disadvantage; the long delay of 
 the two armies, in face of each other, was probably 
 due to this fact. J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ELAM (oby).—4. A son of Shem (Gn 10%=1 Ch 
 11’), the eponymous ancestor of the Elamites (see 
 following article) 2 A Korahite (1 Ch 26%). 
 3. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8%). 4. The eponym of a 
 family of which 1254 returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2", 
 Neh 77%, 1 Es 5”) and 71 with Ezra (Ezr 8’, 1 Es 8°). 
 It was one of the Bené-Elam that urged Ezra to 
 take action against mixed marriages (Ezr 10*), and 
 six of the same family are reported to have put 
 away their foreign wives (Ezr 106). Elam ace. te 
 Neh 10" ‘sealed the covenant.’ 5. In the parallel 
 lists Ezr 2%, Neh 7% ‘the other Elam’ has also 
 1254 descendants who return with Zerubbabel. It 
 appears certain that there is some confusion here 
 (cf. Berth.-Ryssel, ad loc.,and Smend, Listen, p. 19). 
 6. A priest who took part in the dedication of the 
 walls (Neh 12%). J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ELAM, ELAMITES (oy, Edu, Elymais).—The 
 Heb. Elam is the Assyr. Elamtu, ‘the Highlands’ 
 
 ——  —_—et oN 
 
ELAM, ELAMITES 
 
 (a name also applied to the Amorite ‘ Highlands’ 
 in the west), Elamfi, ‘an Elamite.’ Elamtu is the 
 Semitic translation of the Sumerian Numma or 
 Nimma, which has the same signification, and was 
 the name applied by the Proto-chaldzans to the 
 mountainous land to the east of them. Elam 
 possessed two ruling cities, Susa or Shushan, 
 called Susun (‘the old’) in the native texts (now 
 Shuster), on the Ulai or Euleus, and Anzan or 
 Ansan, nearer Babylonia in the south-west. The 
 two cities gave their names to the districts in which 
 they were situated, an inhabitant of Susiana being 
 called Susunka, the ‘Susanchite’ of Ezr 4°. The 
 district of Anzan was more extensive than that of 
 Susa, and at one time was equivalent to ‘the land 
 of Elam’ among the Babylonians (W. A. J. ii. 47. 
 18). Cyrus and his immediate predecessors were 
 kings of Anzan, the country having apparently 
 been conquered by the Persian Teispes during the 
 decline of the Assyr. empire. Sir H. Rawlinson 
 notices that an early Arab. writer, Ibn en-Nadim, 
 states that writing was invented by Jemshid, who 
 lived at Assan, one of the districts of Shuster. 
 The kings of Susa, however, eventually got pos- 
 session of Anzan, and so founded the kingdom of 
 Elam. They call themselves lords ‘of the king- 
 dom of Anzan’; and as this title is found on their 
 bricks at Bushire, the kingdom must have ex- 
 tended as far as the sea. 
 
 To the east is the plain of Mal-Amir, where 
 there are sculptures and cuneiform inscriptions, 
 from which we learn that here was another king- 
 dom called Apirti, the ‘ Apharsites’ of Ezr 4°. In 
 the agglutinative language of the second transcript 
 of the Achemenian texts the name is written 
 Khapirti, and it has there taken the place of 
 Anzan or Susa as the equivalent of the Bab. 
 flamtu. The equivalent in the Persian transcript 
 s Uwaja, whence the modern Khuzistan. 
 
 The dialects of Mal-Amir, of Susa, and of the 
 second Achemenian transcripts differ but slightl 
 from one another. They are agglutinative, and, 
 so far as can be judged, unrelated to any other 
 known language. The statement in Gn 10”, that 
 Elam was the son of Shem, does not imply any 
 racial or linguistic connexion, the object of the 
 chapter being purely geographical. 
 
 Acccrding to Nearchus, as reported by Strabo 
 (xi. 13. 3, 6), ‘four bandit nations’ inhabited the 
 mountainous region east of the Euphrates, the 
 Amardians or Mardians who bordered on the 
 Persians, the Uxians and Elymeans on the frontiers 
 of Persia and Susa, and the Kosseans contiguous 
 to the Medes. The Amardians may be the people 
 of Khapirti, the Uxians belonged to Uwaja, 
 Elymais (1 Mac 6') is Elam, and the Kossans 
 are the Kassi of the Assyr. inscriptions of whose 
 language many words are preserved, which, how- 
 ever, seem to have no connexion with the dialects 
 
 lam. 
 
 ‘Ansan, in the land of Numma’ or Elam, was 
 @onquered by Gudea, an early viceroy of southern 
 ae hare (in B.c. 2700), whose monuments have 
 
 n found at Telloh ; and Mutabil, another early 
 viceroy (of Dur-ilu on the eastern frontier), ‘ broke 
 the head of the armies of Ansan.’ Kudur-Mabug, 
 the prince of Iamutbal, a district of Elam immedi- 
 ately east-vard of Chaldza, was the father of Eri- 
 Aku or Arioch (which see), and ‘father of the land 
 of the Amorites’ or Syria. At the same period 
 Chedorlaomer (Kudur-Lagamar) was suzerain of 
 Babylonia and Palestine (Gn 14"), and the 
 notices in the Bab. astrological tablets which refer 
 to ‘the king of Anzan and Subarti’ or Mesopotamia 
 probably belong to the same date. The defeat of 
 the Elamites by Khammurabi, king of Babylon, 
 enabled him to overcome Eri-Aku, and make 
 Babylonia a united monarchy (B.C. 2330). In B.c. 
 
 ELAM, ELAMITES 
 
 675 
 
 2280 the Elamite king Kudur-Nankhundi made 4 
 raid into Babylonia, and carried away the image 
 of the goddess Nanza (see 2 Mac 178), which Assur- 
 bani-pal recovered 1635 years afterwards. Nearly 
 a thousand years later we find Khurba-tila of Elam 
 going to war with Kuri-galzu 01. of Babylonia (B.c. 
 1340); but his own men revolted from him, and he 
 was defeated and captured at Dur-Dungi by Kuri- 
 galzu. About a century afterwards (c. B.C. 1230) 
 Kidin-Khutru invaded Babylonia, and, after taking 
 Dur-ilu, put an end to the Kassite dynasty at 
 Babylon. A second invasion by the same kine 
 was not so successful. In B.c. 1115(?) Babylonia 
 seems to have been conquered by the Elamites, as 
 a dynasty of two Elamite kings then began to rule 
 it. In B.c. 742 Umman-nigas or Khumba-nigas 
 became king of Elam, and in 721 assisted Merodach- 
 baladan against Sargon of Assyria, whom he 
 repulsed at Dur-ilu. He died in 718, and was 
 succeeded by his sister’s son, Sutruk-Nankhundi, 
 who in 711 again assisted Merodach-baladan, but 
 this time to no purpose. Sargon defeated and 
 captured his general Singusibu, and added the 
 Elamite districts of Iatbur, Lakhiru, and Rasi to 
 Assyria. After a reign of eighteen years Sutruk- 
 Nankhundi was imprisoned by his frother Khal- 
 ludus, who seized the crown. Tle captured Babylon 
 in the rear of Sennacherib, who hed gone by sea to 
 Nagitu, on the Elamite coast, in order to destroy a 
 settlement made there by the fugitive Merodach- 
 baladan, and the Bab. king, who was a son of 
 Sennacherib, was carried captive to Elam. A year 
 and a half afterwards (B.c. 693) the Elamite 
 nominee at Babylon was captured by the Assyrians, 
 and in the following September Khalludus was 
 murdered. Kudur - Nasichundi succeeded him, 
 and Sennacherib ravaged Elam, capturing even 
 Madaktu north of Susa, until driven back by the 
 winter. The following July, Kudur-Nankh. was 
 killed in an insurrection, and Umman-menanu put 
 on the throne. In B.c. 690 came the great battle 
 of Khalulé, when Sennacherib met the combined 
 forces of Elam and Babylonia, and both sides 
 claimed the victory. The king of Elam had under 
 him the troops of Parsuas (Persia), Anzan, 
 Pasiru, and Ellipi (where Ecbatana afterwards 
 stood), besides the Aramzeans and Kaldi or Chal- 
 dans of southern Babylonia. On the 15th of 
 Nisan, B.C. 689, he was paralyzed, and died the 
 following November. Uiinan Khalies L, his 
 successor, reigned eight years, when he was burnt 
 Eo death on the ord of Merl, and Ununau-Khaldis 
 11. ascended the throne. He was murdered in 675 
 by his two brothers, Urtaki and Te-Umman, the 
 he of whom took the crown, and about ten years 
 later made an unprovoked raid into Babylonia. 
 The result was the conquest of Elam by the Assyr. 
 king Assurbanipal, who placed Umman-igas the 
 son of Urtaki on the throne as a tributary prince. 
 He joined the great revolt against Assyria, which 
 was headed by the viceroy of Babylonia; but he 
 had hardly sent his army into that country when 
 his son Tammaritu conspired against him, and, 
 cutting off his head, sent it to Assurbanipal. 
 Tammaritu then joined the Babylonians, and, 
 during his absence, one of his servants, Inda-bigas, 
 usurped the throne. Thereupon Tammaritu sur- 
 rendered to the Assyrians. Shortly afterwards 
 Inda-bigas was murdered by another military ad- 
 venturer, Umman-Khaldas m1., and the Assyr. 
 army again entered Elam, took Madaktu, and 
 restored Tammaritu to the throne. He was soon 
 found to be plotting against his masters; and as 
 Taman nak tae once more possessed himself of 
 the country, the Assyr. general wasted it with fire 
 and sword. Susa and the other cities were levelled 
 with the ground, the temples and palaces destroyed, 
 and the sacred groves cut down. Thirty-two 
 
 
 
676 ELASA 
 
 
 
 
 statues of the kings were carried to Assyria, as 
 well as the images of all the Elamite deities— 
 Susinak, the god who delivered oracles, and whose 
 image was concealed from the sight of the laity, 
 Sumudu, Lagamar, Partikira, Amman-Kasimas, 
 Uduran, Sapak, Ragiba, Sungursara, Karsa and 
 Kirsamas, Sudanu, Apak-sina, Bilala, Panintimri, 
 Silagara, Napsa, Nabritu, and Kindakarbu (to 
 whom we have to add also Laguda, Nakhkhunte 
 or Nankhundi, and Khumba). The kingdom of 
 Elam perished, and a desolated province was added 
 to the Assyr. empire. But the empire was already 
 on the decline, and in a few years Elam ceased to 
 belong to it. In B.C. 606, the year probably of the 
 destruction of Nineveh, Jeremiah refers to ‘the 
 kings of Elam’ (Jer 25”), and eight years later he 
 declares that Elam is about to be consumed by its 
 enemies, its king and princes destroyed, and its 
 people scattered (49-89), This would fit in with 
 the conquest of Anzan by Teispes the Persian, the 
 ancestor of Cyrus (which see). When Elam and 
 Media are called upon to besiege Babylon in Is 
 212, Cyrus, king of Anzan, must be meant, as 
 Anzan was synonymous with Elam among the 
 Babylonians. It would appear from Ac 2° that the 
 old language of Elam was still spoken there in the 
 first century of our era. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Billerbeck, Susa (1898); Dieulafoy, L’ Acropole 
 de Suse (1890); Sayce, ‘The Inscriptions of Mal-Amir,’ in the 
 Transactions of the Leyden Oriental Congress (1885); Loftus, 
 Chaldea and Susiana (1857). H. SAYCE. 
 
 ELASA (’A\acd), 1 Mac 9°.—The site may be at 
 the ruin J/’asa, near Bethhoron (SW iii. sh. 17). 
 
 ELASAH (nyyby ‘God hath made’).—4. One of 
 those who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10”). 
 2. The son of Shaphan, who along with Gemariah, 
 the son of Hilkiah, carried a message from king 
 Zedekiah to Babylon (Jer 29%). For no apparent 
 reason, RV retains the AV spelling Elasah in both 
 the above passages, although both AV and RV 
 give for the same Heb. the form Eleasah (wh. see) 
 elsewhere. ‘J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ELATH or ELOTH (nox, ribvx).—A seaport in the 
 extreme S. of Edom, at the head of the Gulf of 
 Akabah. Itis mentioned in Dt 28in connexion with 
 Ezion-geber, one of the ‘stations’ of the Israelites. 
 Elath, Eloth, and Elim may possibly be various 
 names of one and the same he the ‘ palm-grove’ 
 which was the second halting-place after the 
 pueee of the Red Sea, (See Sayce, HCM p. 268). 
 
 . is probably identical with El-paran of Gn 14° 
 and Elah of Gn 36%. It has also been suggested 
 that it is referred to in 1 Ch 4", where for ‘Iru, 
 Elah’ (ndx, vy) we might read ‘Ir and Elah’ (y 
 n?x}). See further Dillmann on Gn 364. The 
 history of E. wasa chequered one. Coming into the 
 
 ossession of Israel when Edom was subdued by 
 
 avid (2 § 84), it was an important naval station 
 during the reign of Solomon (1 K 96). When the 
 disruption of the kingdom took place, Edom con- 
 tinted to be a vassal of the house of David, until 
 it recovered its independence in the time of 
 Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat (2 K 8”). The 
 ay of E. passed once more into the possession of 
 udah, when Amaziah and Uzziah had inflicted a 
 succession of defeats upon Edom (2 K 14”). It 
 was wrested permanently from Judah during the 
 operations undertaken against Ahaz by Pekah 
 and Rezin (2 K 16%), and egher the Syrians 
 (Kethibh) or the Edomites (Ke) became its pos- 
 sessors. With this event (c. B.c. 734) ends its 
 history as far as OT is concerned. E. is the 
 modern ‘Akabah. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EL-BERITH (Jg 9*).—See BAAL-BERITH, and 
 
 
 
 his way back from Paddan-aram, Gn 357 (P ?). 
 LXX (Ba:6r), Vulg. (Domus Det), Pesh. and Arab. 
 VSS omit ‘ El,’ which Ball (in Haupt’s O7) suggests 
 
 ELDER 
 
 cf. Moore, Judges, 242, 265; W. R. Smith, RS 
 93n.; Baudissin in PR# ii. p. 334. 
 
 EL-BETHEL (5y-nv3 5x). —The name which Jacob 
 is said to have given to the scene of his bs ae ae 
 C) 
 
 may have been corrupted from 79 ‘that,’ which 
 
 would naturally be attached to otp2> (so in Pesh. 
 
 and Vulg.). Ball justly adds that God of Bethel ia 
 an extraordinary name for a place. See, however, 
 the note (*) om p. 278° of the present volume. 
 J. A. SELBIE, 
 ELDAAH (nyzby, perhaps ‘God hath called ’).— 
 A son of Midian (Gn 254, 1 Ch 1%). See GENE- 
 ALOGY. 
 
 ELDAD (75x). — One of the seventy elders 
 appointed to assist Moses in the government of the 
 people. On a memorable occasion in the wilder- 
 ness journey, he and another named Medad were 
 not present with Moses and the rest of the elders 
 at the door of the tabernacle to hear God’s 
 message and receive His spirit. But the spirit of 
 the Lord came upon them where they were, and 
 they prophesied in the camp. Joshua regarded 
 this as an irregularity, and appealed to Moses to 
 forbid them. But he received the reply, ‘Art 
 thou jealous for my sake? would God that all the 
 Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would 
 put his spirit upon them 1’ (Nu 1175-9), 
 
 . M. Boyp. 
 
 ELDAD AND MODAD, BOOK OF. — The fact 
 that the prophecies of these men are unrecorded in 
 Nu 11%-29 furnished an inviting theme for imagina- 
 tion to some unknown seer and author. His book 
 is quoted in Hermas, Vis. ii. 3: ‘Thou shalt say to 
 Maximus. Behold the tribulation cometh... 
 ‘“‘The Lord is near to them that turn to Him,” as 
 it is written in the (book) of Eldad and Modad.’ 
 The Pal. Targums (Jerus, i. and Jerus. ii.) both 
 supply us with the subject of E. and M.’s prophecy, 
 filling in, as is their wont, the supposed hiatus in 
 the Heb. Bible. They agree with Hermas that it 
 had reference to pre-Messianic tribulation, which is 
 described under the coming of Magog against Israel 
 at the end of days. Jerus. ii. says that Gog and 
 Magog shall both fall by the hand of King Messiah. 
 Jerus.i. omitsthis ; butadds, ‘The Lord (see Levy, s.v. 
 op) is near to them that are in the hour of tribula- 
 tion.’ The close resemblance thus pointed out be- 
 
 tween Hermas and the two Targums seems certainly ' 
 
 to indicate that all three authors were acquainted 
 with the same Bk of E. and M.; and renders the 
 hesitancy of Schiirer and Zéckler no longer neces- 
 sary. In 1 Clem. xxiii. 3. 4 and 2 Clem. xi. 2. 3 is 
 a long quotation, called in the one case ypa¢7j, in 
 the other rpopyrixds Adyos, but not in OT, which 
 Lightfoot and Holtzmann conjecture to have been 
 taken from our book. In both eases, as well as in 
 Hermas, the quotation is designed to refute one 
 who is sceptical about the approaching tribulations 
 ‘at the end of the days.’ Our book is found in the 
 Stichometry of Nicephorus (400 orlxo.), and in the 
 Synopsis Athanasii (see ABRAHAM, BOOK OF). 
 
 LITERATURE. — Fabricius, Codex pseudep. V.T. t. 801-804; 
 Schiirer, H./JP 0. iii. 29; Zockler, Apoc. des A.T. 489; Weber, 
 Lehren des Talm, 1886, p. 870 (who, However, mistranslates the 
 Targ. Jerus. i. in the line cited); Holtzman, Hinlettung, 558. 
 
 J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 ELDER (In OT).—Inaneient days the institution 
 of Elders was not peculiar to the Jewish people, 
 and the word elder did not suggest those purely 
 ecclesiastical and religious functions with which it 
 is now associated. The origin of the office is easily 
 traced. Under the primitive conditions of society 
 that prevail in the early history of all nations age 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 ELDER 
 
 ELEAZAR 677 
 
 —— ec. — ee eee 
 
 is an indispensable condition of investment with 
 authority. ([Cf. the yéporvres so frequently men- 
 tioned by Homer (e.g. Zl. xviii. 503), the yepovala 
 of the Dorian states, the Patres and Senatus of 
 the Romans, the zpeofus at Sparta, and the Sheikh, 
 t.e. elder, in Arabia]. Hence from the beginning 
 of Israel’s history downwards we hear of elders 
 (DRI, mpecBvrepo) as an official class. The title, 
 which at first is inseparably associated with the 
 idea of age, came afterwards to designate merely 
 the dignity to which age was formerly the neces- 
 sary passport.” Inthe narratives of the Hex. both 
 J and E are acquainted with the institution of 
 elders (Ex 316 197 241, Nu 1136, ete.), and that not 
 ony in Israel but amongst the Egyptians (Gn 50’) 
 and the Moabites and Midianites (Nu 227). Their 
 sition and functions in early times are thus 
 escribed by Wellhausen (Hist. of Isr. and Jud. 
 15), ‘What there was of permanent official authority 
 lay in the hands of the elders and heads of houses; 
 in time of war they commanded each his own 
 household, and in peace they dispensed justice 
 each within his own circle.’ They are frequently 
 referred to in Deut. as discharging the functions 
 of local authorities (Dt 1912 21? 225 257, cf. also 
 Jos 204, Jg 84, Ru 42), Their number varied with 
 the locality, it must sometimes have been con- 
 siderable ; e.g. the elders of Succoth who came into 
 collision with Gideon (Jg 84) numbered seventy- 
 seven. Ata later period they appear in connexion 
 with the adoption of the kingly form of govern- 
 ment (1 S 84), with the intrigues of David and 
 Abner about the succession to the throne (1 S 30”, 
 2S 33"), while the part they played in the judicial 
 murder of Naboth is well known (1 K 21°). It 
 was from amongst the previously existing body of 
 elders that Moses, according to Nu 11'** (JE), 
 chose an inner circle of seventy ‘to bear with him 
 the burden of the peoples (The important part 
 played by this incident in late Jewish traditions 
 vill be referred to under SANHEDRIN). 
 
 The elders of the city (1y7 *3p1) acted as judges (Dt 
 22}5), just as the village Kadi and his assistants do 
 in an Arab community at the present day (Driver, 
 Deut. 199). It is true that in Dt 16% ‘judges’ 
 (oY) and ‘officers’ (o-wY) appear to te dis- 
 eeaehed from elders; but Schiirer is prob. right 
 in his suggestion, that both these classes were 
 selected from the general body of elders, the ‘judges’ 
 being entrusted with the administration of justice, 
 while the ‘officers’ took charge of the executive 
 department. Elders reappear in the Persian and 
 Greek periods (Ezr 5°-® 67-14 108, Jth 616 7% 8! 108 
 134, 1 Mac 12%, and in the story of Susanna), 
 while the mpecBirepo. rod aod during the Rom. 
 
 eriod are often mentioned by Josephus and NT. 
 
 he authority which the elders of any com- 
 munity possessed as the municipal council in civil 
 affairs extended also to religious matters, particu- 
 larly after the synagogue (see SYNAGOGUE) had 
 become a flourishing institution. ‘In purely 
 Jewish localities the elders of the place would 
 be also the elders of the synagogue’ (Schiirer). As 
 a general rule, at least, they had absolute jurisdic- 
 tion, and had not to take the sense of the con- 
 re or the community. In Nu 35%", Jg 20. 21, 
 
 zr 10, we have rare exceptions to this rule (see 
 CONGREGATION). The right of exercising religious 
 discipline was in their hands, and in particular it 
 lay with them to pass the sentence of exclusion 
 from the synagogue, to which allusion is frequently 
 eaade in NT (e.g. Lk 6%, Jn 9% 12% 162), 
 
 In addition to what is contained on the NT 
 Elder in art. BIsHoP, various details regarding 
 this office, esp. in the later periods of Jewish his- 
 
 * The AV tr. of 0°32] sometimes by ‘elders’ and sometimes by 
 Saari (e.g. Is 314, Jer 191) is unfortunate and misleading. 
 
 CIENT. 
 
 tory, will be found under artt. SANHEDRIN and 
 SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 LirgraTure.—Schiirer, HJP mm. i. 150, 165f., 174f., ii. 58f.; 
 Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Lex., and Thayer, NT Lex., 8. xpsaBirspos ; 
 Driver, Deut. 233; Hartmann, Die enge Verbind. d, AT mit d. 
 N. 168f.; art. ‘ Aelteste,’ in Herzog, RE3, Winer, RW, and 
 
 Schenkel, Bibellexicon ; Vitringa, de Syn. Vet. 595, 613, etc. ; 
 Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 296, 306, 314f., 320, 828f.; Kosters, Het 
 herstel v. Isr. etc, 99 f., 116 f.; Nowack, Heb. Arch. i. 800f., 320f.; 
 Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 153 f. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ELDER IN NT.—See BisHopr. 
 
 ELEAD (1y>x ‘God hath testified’).—An Eph- 
 raimite (1 Ch 74). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ELEADAH (mybxy ‘God hath adorned,’ AV 
 Eladah).—An Ephraimite (1 Ch 7%). See GENE- 
 ALOGY. 
 
 ELEALEH (abyby in Nu 32 x= '), Nu 32%, Is 
 154 16°, Jer 48%4,_A town of the Moabite plateau, 
 conquered by Gad and Reuben, and rebuilt by the 
 latter tribe. The expression (v.*%), ‘their names 
 being changed,’ referring to this and other towns, 
 is rendered by Knobel (following the LXX), ‘en- 
 closing them with wails’; but this is very improb- 
 able (11 ‘wall’ is only poetic). See Dillm. ad Joc. 
 Elealeh is noticed with Heshbon, and in the 4th 
 cent. A.D. was known (Onomasticon, s.v.) as being 
 a Roman mile from Heshbon. It isnow the ruined 
 mound of £/-‘Al, about a mile N. of Heshbon. 
 See SHP vol. i. under the Arab. name. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ELEASAH (nyyby ‘God hath made’),—14. A 
 Judahite (1 Ch 2°), 2, A descendant of Saul 
 (1 Ch 897 9%), See ELASAH. 
 
 ELEAZAR (1y>s ‘God has helped.’—Cf. Azarel, 
 1 Ch 12%, and the Phen. names Eshmunazar= 
 ‘Eshmun has helped,’ CZS'1. i. 3, 1. 1; Baalazar= 
 ‘Baal has helped,’ CJS 1. i. 256, 1. 2). 
 
 Ten or eleven persons bearing this name are 
 mentioned in the canonical and apocryphal books. 
 
 4. The third son of Aaron by Elisheba (Ex 6”, 
 Nu 32), who, with his father and three brothers, 
 was admitted to the priestly office (Ex 281). After 
 the death of Nadab and Abihu by fire, E. and 
 Ithamar were the chief assistants of Aaron 
 (Ly 10!2:16), The former is represented as the chief 
 of the Levites in the time of Moses (Nu 3*2). When 
 Aaron died, E. succeeded him in his functions 
 (Nu 20: 28, Dt 10°). Heis ota of as taking part 
 with Moses in the numbering of the people 
 (Nu 26! 8); and after the death of Moses he 
 aided Joshua in the work of partitioning the newly 
 conquered land of Canaan amongst the twelve 
 tribes (Jos 141 174 195 211). His burial-place is 
 mentioned in Jos 243, From Eleazar and his wife, 
 a daughter of Putiel (Ex 6%), were descended all 
 succeeding high priests down to the Maccabean 
 period ; the only exceptions being the high priests 
 who lived in the period between Eli and Solomon, 
 when, for some unexplained reason, the office was 
 held by members of the family of Ithamar. 2. A 
 son of Abinadab, who was sanctified to take charge 
 of the ark at Kiriath-jearim, after its return from 
 the country of the Philistines (1 S 7’). 3. Son of 
 Dodo, one of David’s three principal mighty men 
 (2 § 23°,1 Ch 1118), The name should probably 
 be inserted in 1 Ch 274. 4. A Levite, son of 
 Mahli, and grandson of Merari (1 Ch 237) 4 248), 
 5. A priest of the time of Ezra (Ezr 8, Neh 12). 
 (There may be here two distinct persons.) 6. One 
 of the family of Parosh, who had married a 
 ‘strange woman, #.¢. one of non-Israelitish descent, 
 in the time of Ezra (Ezr 10). 7. The fourth son of 
 Mattathias, and brother of Judas Maccabzeus, 
 surnamed Avaran (1 Mac 25). He fell in the battle 
 
 
 
 
 
678 ELECTION 
 
 ELECTION 
 
 
 
 fought at Bethzacharias against Antiochus v. 
 Eupator, B.c. 163 (1 Mac 6*-4%). His name occurs 
 also in 2 Mac 8**, 8, ‘ One of the principal scribes’ 
 martyred during the persecution of Antiochus 
 wae anes, B.C. 168 (2 Mac 68-81), 9, The father 
 of that Jason who was sent on an embassy to 
 Rome by Judas Maccabzeus in B.C. 161 (1 Mac 81”). 
 40. An E. is mentioned in the genealogy of our 
 Lord given by St. Matthew (175). 
 W. C. ALLEN. 
 
 ELECTION [éxdoy}. The subst. is rare, not 
 found in LXX (yet Aq. Is 22’, Symm. Th. Is 37%, cf. 
 Ps, -Sol 97 18%). In NT, Ac 9%, Ro 94 1157-28, 1 Th 
 14,2P1% Cf. exAéyouac (in LXX generally for 
 3n3)=to ‘choose,’ implying (see Cremer’s Lez.) 
 (1) a special relation between the chooser and the 
 object of his choice, and (2) the selection of one 
 object out of many: éxdex7ds (in LXX for n3 or 
 153, also fairly often for var. forms of 171, besides 
 being used occasionally, sometimes by a misreading 
 of the Heb. text, for 17 other Heb. roots=‘ chosen’ 
 or ‘choice’ (adj.)]. The word is common in Dt and 
 TI Is. It is not in Hos, Am (but idea in 32), or Is 
 (yet cf. LXX Is 281%, which is the source of 1 P 2°). 
 
 t is used chiefly to describe God’s choice of Israel 
 out of all the nations of the world to be His own 
 people, Dt 4°’7' etc., and of Jerus. to be the covenant 
 
 ome of worship, Dt 12° ete. It is used also of 
 God’s choice of individuals to the chief offices in 
 the nation, e.g. His choice of Aaron and his family 
 for the service of the sanctuary, His choice of 
 the king, and especially of David. It is once 
 used of Abraham; and in Is 40-66 it passes 
 naturally from its use in connexion with Israel 
 to the ‘Servant of the Lord.’ 
 
 It is rare in the Apocrypha ; yet cf. Wis 3°, Sir 
 461 etc. It is constant in Enoch. Cf. Ps-Sol 97 18% 
 
 In NT it is used once of God’s choice of OT 
 israel (Ac 13"), but for the most part it passes 
 over with other theocratic titles to the ‘Israel of 
 God,’ and describes either the Church as a whole, 
 or individual members of it, sometimes merely in 
 virtue of their membership, sometimes as chosen 
 to some special office or work, ¢.g. the Twelve, 
 St. Peter, Bt. Paul. It is twice used as part of the 
 title of our Lord (Lk 9* [var. lect.] 23%, Jn 1%), 
 The word appears constantly in the Apostolic 
 Fathers, especially in 1 Clement and Hermas. 
 
 The thought of ‘election’ has formed so promi- 
 nent a feature in all the most important attempts 
 that have been made in Western Christendom for 
 the last 1500 years to provide a complete and 
 formulated scheme of Christian doctrine, that it 
 is peculiarly hard for us to approach the considera- 
 tion of the original meaning of the term in Holy 
 Scripture without distracting associations. And 
 yet the effort is worth making. The only hope of 
 any further progress in the elucidation of the prob- 
 lem, the only prospect of extricating its discussion 
 from the deadlock at which it has arrived, lies in a 
 careful reconsideration of the scriptural premisses 
 on which the whole argument has been based. 
 
 The questions that require examination fall 
 naturally into three divisions. i. The questions 
 touching the author of election—who chooses the 
 rlect? What can we know of His character? 
 What are the grounds of His choice so far as He 
 has vouchsafed to reveal them? ii. The questions 
 touching the persons of the elect—who are they? 
 and for what end are they chosen? iii. The ques- 
 tion belonging to the eflect of election—what 
 influence does the fact that they have been chosen 
 by God exert over the elect? 
 
 i. On the first part of this 
 difference of ean Every theory of election is 
 based on the fact, constantly emphasized in Hol 
 Scripture, that election is the immediate wor 
 of . It is His act as directly as creation is. 
 
 uestion there is no 
 
 In fact, God’s purpose in creation, His sternal 
 purpose (% mpddears T&v aidvwr, Eph 3"), is revealed 
 in Holy Scripture as working to its end by the 
 
 method of election. It is in St. Paul’s language 
 kar’ éxhoyhy mpdbects, Ro 9". The two thoughts are 
 in reality inseparable. We can understand, there- 
 fore, how it is that St. Paul should say that God 
 chose His elect before the foundation of the world 
 in His Son (Eph 14). He is only expressing the 
 truth that underlies our Lord’s words when He 
 says, ‘To sit on my right hand and on my left 
 hand is not mine to give, but it is for them for 
 whom it hath been prepared of my Father’ (Mt 
 20%), Our first conclusion then, the one fixed point 
 in the whole discussion, is this: God is the author 
 of election. He Himself chooses His own elect. 
 
 When we go on to ask on what grounds His 
 election is based, by what considerations, in accord- 
 ance with what law His choice is determined, we 
 find ourselves at once on debatable ground. To 
 some minds, indeed, the question put in this form 
 seems foolish, not to say irreverent. It involves in 
 their judgment a pitiable blindness in regard to 
 the inexorable limits of human knowledge. In 
 the spirit, sometimes in the very words of Zophar 
 the Naamathite (Job 117), they ask, ‘Canst thou 
 by searching find out God? canst thou find out 
 the Almighty to perfection?’ ‘The main facts 
 of the divine government may, indeed, be known, 
 but the reasons which underlie them, the motives 
 which prompt them, are unfathomable; only 
 an unchastened curiosity can seek to intrude 
 into such secrets.’ To some minds, again, the 
 question involves an assumption inconsistent with 
 one of their primary philosophical or theological 
 postulates. It seems to them inconsistent with 
 the reality of the divine freedom, which in this 
 connexion is only another name for the divine 
 omnipotence, to suppose that God should acknow- 
 ledge any law as regulating His choice. 
 
 If either of these objections is well groundea, 
 further discussion of the question is, of course, 
 precluded. We must therefore begin by detfinin 
 the position we are prepared to take up with 
 regard to them. Let us consider the second objec- 
 tion first. No doubt, if in its ultimate analysis 
 our conception of God resolves itself into a con- 
 ception of abstract omnipotence, or of an absolutely 
 sovereign will, and if omnipotence means the 
 power to do anything, and if no will can be ab- 
 solutely sovereign which is not as free to do wrong 
 as to do right, it is meaningless if not profane to 
 inquire into the laws which regulate the choice of 
 God. An abstract omnipotence must be inscrut- 
 able. We cannot even begin to understand the 
 action of a will in this sense ‘absolute.’ But if 
 goodness, and not power, lies at the heart of our 
 conception of God, then we shall not be ashamed 
 to confess that for us, in Westcott’s magnificers 
 plirase, ‘Truth and justice define omnipotence.’ 
 And we shall not shrink from pressing to the full 
 the human analogy which is present, though latent, 
 every time we use the word ‘will’ in relation to 
 God. We sliall contend that the action of the 
 divine will, like the action of the human will, of 
 which it is the archetype, must be at once deter- 
 mined by, and reveal, the character which lies 
 behind it. We shall maintain the paradox, if 
 Fevedee it be, that the will of God is free, only 
 vecause, by the blessed necessity of His being, Le 
 cannot will anything but that which is perfectly 
 holy and righteous and good. And we shall claim 
 every revelation that He has given us of His 
 character as a revelation of the principles which 
 regulate His choice, the laws of His election. 
 
 And if we are met at this point by the warring, 
 that as men our powers of apprelending and 
 expressing truth are limited, and that there must 
 
 
 
 | 
 q 
 | 
 4 
 | 
 
ELECTION 
 
 
 
 be infinite depths of mystery in the divine nature 
 which we are powerless to fathom, we shall hope 
 to learn humility and patience from the caution. 
 But we shall not desist from pushing our inquiries 
 to the utmost limit of the power that is given to 
 us. We believe that, in spite of all our limitations, 
 we yet were created to know God. And it is a 
 matter of life and death for us that we should be 
 able to bring this revealed method of His working 
 into harmony with the rest of the revelation that 
 He has given us of His character. Nor can we 
 doubt that He will justify us as He justified Job 
 for refusing to be satisfied with any explanation 
 of the facts of the divine government which can- 
 not be reconciled with the sense of justice which 
 He has Himself implanted in us. He has revealed 
 election to us as the method of His working. 
 There can be no presumption in asking whether 
 in making this revelation He has given us any 
 help to enable us to understand His purpose and 
 enter into His plan. 
 
 When in this spirit we approach the examina- 
 tion of the scriptural evidence, the result may 
 well, at first sight, seem disappointing. Great 
 
 ains are taken to negative what we are naturally 
 inclined to regard as the simplest and most obvious 
 solution. The ground of a man’s choice lies not 
 so much in himself as in the object that he chooses. 
 It is, of course, true that his own character deter- 
 mines what qualities in an object will, and what 
 
 ualities will not, prove attractive to him. But, 
 or all that, it is the real or supposed loveliness of 
 the object that rules his choice. It would be 
 natural, therefore, to assume that the choice of 
 God is in like manner determined by the loveliness 
 of its object. But itis just at this point that the 
 analogy of the human will is necessarily imperfect. 
 It is not, indeed, that we are Seaiced. to believe 
 that God can love that which is, in itself, neither 
 lovely nor capable of developing loveliness; but 
 that since the root of all loveliness is in God, and 
 since there can be no goodness apart from Him, 
 we cannot argue as if it were possible for man to 
 ssess or develop any goodness or loveliness in- 
 ependent of, and so constituting a claim on, the 
 choice of God. We ought not, therefore, to be 
 paet when we find Israel expressly warned in 
 Holy Scripture to reject the flattering assumption 
 that they had been chosen on the ground of their 
 own inherent attractiveness. They were not as a 
 nation either more numerous or more amenable to 
 the divine discipline than other nations (Dt 77 9°). 
 We can understand why St. Paul declares that 
 the election of Christians does not depend on the 
 will or the energy of men (Ro 9"). It is not of 
 *vorks but of grace (Ro 115, cf. Jn 1). 
 
 it must therefore be a mistake to try to dis- 
 cover the ultimate ground of God’s choice in any 
 consideration drawn from outside Himself, even 
 though it be in His foreknowledge of the faith and 
 obedience of His chosen; for the goodness in 
 which He takes delight is, after all, from first to 
 last His own creation. The testimony of Scripture 
 is not, however, really limited to this negative 
 result. The choice which is not determined from 
 without is all the more certainly determined from 
 within. And the ground of the choice which we 
 are forbidden to look for in ourselves or in human 
 nature is expressly declared to lie in the love 
 
 _ (Dt 78) and the faithfulness (Dt 95, Ro 11”) and 
 
 the mercy of our God (Ro 9"). 
 ii. We pass on now to consider the second group 
 of questions connected with our subject. Who are 
 
 the elect ? and for what end are they chosen? In 
 OT the term ‘elect’ is most often applied to the 
 nation of Israel, regarded as a whole. They are at 
 all periods of their history taught to regard them- 
 selves as the ‘chosen people.’ 
 
 At the same time 
 
 
 
 ELECTION 679 
 
 — 
 
 special divisions of the nation, e.g. the tribe of 
 Levi and the house of Aaron, are chosen to 
 
 erform certain functions on behalf of the whole 
 
 ody; and certain prominent individuals, e.g. 
 Abraham and David, are regarded as the objects 
 of a special election. In Is 40-66 the term is 
 applied to the nation generally and to the ‘servant 
 of J”’ in all the different connotations of that 
 many-sided title,—so little is the prophet con- 
 scious of any fundamental contradiction between 
 the thought of a national and an individual 
 election. In NT the universal Church takes the 
 pac of Israel as the ‘chosen race,’ and not only 
 1er head and her most prominent ministers, but 
 also all her individual members, sometimes by 
 name, sometimes by an inclusive form of address, 
 which it is impossible to narrow down, are described 
 as ‘elect,’ just as they are described in similar 
 connexions as ‘called’ and ‘holy’ and ‘ faithful’ 
 and ‘beloved.’* It does not seem possible to deter- 
 mine on NT evidence whether the individuals are 
 regarded as owing their membership in the Church 
 to their election, or as becoming elect by virtue of 
 their membership. Three points are clear—(1l} 
 that they were chosen before the foundation of 
 the world ; (2) that they were chosen ‘in Christ’; 
 (3) that membership in the Church is treated as 
 an objective assurance to each individual of his 
 personal interest in this eternal election. 
 
 Such in outline are the different classes described 
 as ‘elect’ in Holy Scripture. We must consider 
 next what can be learnt with regard to the purpose 
 for which they were chosen. We must not, of course, 
 assume that the purpose is the same, or even in all 
 points analogous in the different cases. Still it is 
 not unnatural to suppose that we shall gain some 
 help towards understanding the application of the 
 method in any one case by a careful study of its 
 application to the rest. 
 
 The selection of the family of Aaron and the 
 tribe of Levi need not detain us long. It is a 
 simple case of the choice of certain individuals to fill 
 an office of trust, a position at once of privilege and 
 responsibility on behalf of their fellow-countrymen. 
 
 The choice of Israel presents a more com- 
 plicated problem. The choice in the first instance 
 involved a call to oceupy a special position in rela- 
 tion to J’—to be, and to be acknowledged before 
 the world as, His peculiar people. ‘Ye are m 
 witnesses,’ saith the Lord, ‘my servant whom 
 have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, 
 and understand that I am he’ (Is 43"). And this 
 eee of privilege involved a special responsi- 
 
 ility towards God and towards the rest of man- 
 kind. On the one side, they were the trustees of 
 God’s glory in the world, ‘his witnesses,’ ‘the 
 died which he formed for himself, to show forth 
 
 is praise.’ On the other, they were the heirs of the 
 promise made at the call of the Father of the elect, 
 that ‘in him and in his seed should all the families 
 of the earth be blessed’ (cf. Gn 1819). And this work 
 for others is the characteristic function of the ideal 
 ‘servant of the Lord,’ who embodies in himself all 
 that is most characteristic of the chosen Israel. 
 
 In NT comparatively little is told us of the 
 purpose of election. ‘The poor in this world,’ St. 
 James writes, ‘God chose (to be) rich in faith and 
 heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them 
 that.love him.’ ‘God chose you,’ writes St. Paul 
 to the Thessalonians, ‘from the beginning (or ‘‘as 
 a firstfruit,” drapxjv for am’ dps) unto salvation.’ 
 ‘ He chose us,’ he writes again (Eph 14) ‘in him (i.e. 
 in Christ) that we should be holy and without 
 
 * There is, indeed, one passage in the Gospels, which will call 
 for notice later on, in which a distinction is drawn between the 
 many ‘called’ and the few ‘chosen.’ But the existence of this 
 one passage does not invalidate the statement in the text, which 
 
 merely asserts that there are other passages in which this narrow 
 siguification for ‘elect’ is excluded, ~ 
 
 
 
680 ELECTION 
 
 ELECTION 
 
 
 
 blemish before him in love.’ The Christian, there- 
 fore, stands as the Israelite stood before him in a 
 special relation of intimacy with God, receiving 
 from Him the spiritual gifts and graces, together 
 with the responsibility for appropriating them 
 (Col 3"), which such an intimacy presupposes, and 
 the assurance of eternal salvation, of which that 
 intimacy is at once the foretaste and the pledge. 
 
 The indications of a wider purpose in the election 
 of the Christian are not, indeed, as definite as in 
 the case of OT Israel. It would, however, be a 
 mistake to regard them as altogether wanting. 
 Our Lord (Jn 15) Himself told His apostles that 
 He had chosen them that they might bear much 
 fruit. The chosen race exists, as St. Peter reminds 
 us (1 P 2°), appropriating the words of Is 43, ‘to 
 show forth the excellencies of him who called them 
 out of darkness into his glorious light.’ And St. 
 Paul, in the same sentence (Eph 1**) in which he 
 speaks of our election in Christ ‘to the praise of 
 the glory of his grace,’ reveals as the final goal of 
 the eternal purpose, ‘ the summing up of all things 
 in Christ, the things in heaven and the things 
 upon the earth’; a goal towards the attainment 
 of which our election cannot be regarded as more 
 than a preparatory stage. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that according to the 
 predominant use of the term in nee Scripture, 
 election is an attribute of the visible Church, and 
 finds its true goal, not simply in the salvation of 
 certain elect individuals, but in the evangelization 
 of the race. There is indeed good scriptural 
 analogy for a concurrent use of the term in a 
 narrower sense, to describe as it were an election 
 within the elect. For St. Paul uses it (Ro 117) to 
 describe the inner circle in Israel who accepted the 
 gospel when it came to them—‘the remnant’ to 
 which alone an immediate salvation had been 
 
 romised by Isaiah (Ro 97, Is 10%). And our 
 
 ord again and again warns us in His parables 
 that the members of His Church will be subjected 
 to a searching judgment—as the result of which 
 the unworthy will be cast into the outer darkness. 
 It is in this connexion that He uses the warning 
 words about the many called and the few chosen 
 to which allusion has already been made. But 
 there seems no authority for restricting the use of 
 the term, as some theological systems do to this 
 narrower sense—refusing to recognize as elect in 
 any real sense, either those Israelites who in St. 
 Paul’s day were disobedient to the gospel, or those 
 members of the visible Church who bil to stand 
 in the judgment. Still less justification is there 
 for assuming that the object of the election of this 
 restricted circle has no end beyond the personal 
 salvation of the individuals who compose it. 
 
 iii, We pass on now to the last stage in our 
 inquiry, the consideration of the effect of election. 
 We ask what influence does the fact that they 
 have been chosen by God exert over the elect? 
 May we assume that the divine purpose working 
 through election must of necessity attain its goal ? 
 Can we, granting this assumption, find a place in 
 our system for any self-determining power in the 
 human will? 
 
 The theological systems, which adopt the re- 
 stricted sense of the term election, and limit the 
 scope of its operation to its effect on this limited 
 circle, find no difficulty in supplying a logically 
 coherent set of answers to these questions. It is 
 inconsistent with any real faith in the divine Omni- 
 
 otence to suppose that any deliberate purpose of 
 
 od can finally fail of its accomplishment. The 
 elect, therefore, being chosen for salvation, cannot 
 fail to attain salvation. No power from without 
 or from within can prevent this result. The fact 
 that they have been chosen for this end carries 
 with it the divine determination to provide all the 
 
 means required to ensure its attainment. The 
 elect, therefore, receive first a gift of ‘ irresistible 
 grace’ to raise them out of their naturally depraved 
 state, and then a gift of ‘final perseverance,’ as 
 the result of which they are assured, whatever 
 their intervening lapses may have been, of being 
 found at the moment of death in a state of grace. 
 
 These systems do not seem to find room, at least 
 in the all-important moment of conversion, for any 
 true act of self-determination on the part of the 
 human will. A doctrine of reprobation forms an 
 inevitable, however unwelcome, complement to the 
 doctrine of election so defined. 
 
 It is impossible not to regard with the deepest 
 respect systems which embody the conclusions of 
 the most strenuous thinkers on this subject, from 
 St. Augustine to Calvin and Jonathan Edwards. 
 At the same time it is a remarkable fact that these 
 conclusions have never been able to secure general 
 acceptance. Unasgsailable as they may be in logic, 
 it is felt that somehow they fail to fit the facts of 
 life. There are elements in human experience and 
 elements in the divine revelation for which they 
 fail to account. And the general result is one from 
 which the Christian consciousness seems instinct- 
 ively to shrink in horror. It can only be accepted, 
 if it is accepted at all, as a dark enigma, which our 
 present faculties have no power to solve. 
 
 What, then, we seem forced to ask, are the 
 foundations on which these conclusions rest? Can 
 it be that the results of the argument are vitiated 
 by any unsuspected flaw in the premisses ? 
 
 The premisses are these—(1) God is omnipotent. 
 (2) Because God is pare oe the final goal of 
 creation must correspond at all points to His 
 original purpose. (3) The final goal of creation, 
 as far as it affects the human race, involves the 
 division of mankind at the day of judgment into 
 two sharply defined classes, the saved and the lost. 
 (4) The position of any individual man in one or 
 other of these two classes must be traced back in 
 the last resort to the original purpose of God with 
 regard to him. 
 
 Tt seems impossible to take exception to either 
 of the first two of these premisses. It is part of 
 the idea of God, that He must be able to effect 
 what He purposes. To speak in human language, 
 there may be enormous difficulties to overcome in 
 the tasks to which He sets Himself, We have 
 therefore no right to assume that at any moment 
 before the end all things are as He would have 
 them to be. But the end must be a perfect embodi- 
 ment of His original design. 
 
 Again, if the third of these premisses is sound, 
 the fourth seems to follow from it by an inevitable 
 deduction. Everything, therefore, depends on the 
 validity of the third premiss. Is it, or is it not, a 
 true and complete statement of the end towards 
 which ‘the whole creation moves’? Now, there 
 can be no doubt that it expresses accurately one 
 side of the scriptural teaching on the subject. It 
 is, however, very far from expressing the whole. 
 On this point, as is well known,* the evidence of 
 Holy Scripture seems divided against itself. It 
 speaks of eternal punishment (Mt 25%). It 
 epee also of the divine will that all men 
 should be saved (1 Ti 24). It speaks of those who 
 shall be cast into the outer darkness on their 
 Lord’s return (Mt 24° etc.). It speaks also of an 
 end, when God shall be all in all (1Co 15%). It 
 seems clear that to our apprehension these two 
 sets of statements must be mutually exclusive, 
 unless we may regard the judgment as being not 
 the end, but only a means towards the end. If 
 we reject this solution of the difficulty, we must 
 remain content with an unreconciled antinomy 
 But, in any case, it is important to remember whick 
 
 * Westcott, Historic Faith, p. 50 ff. 
 
 
 
} 
 ' 
 J 
 ; 
 
 
 
 ELECTION 
 
 
 
 EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL 681 
 
 
 
 side of the antinomy was dominant in St. Paul’s 
 mind in the chapters (Ro 9-11) which contain his 
 most explicit teaching on the subject of election. 
 
 These chapters are devoted to a consideration of 
 the problems raised by the failure of Israel to 
 accept the offer of salvation made to them in the 
 gospel. The first line of solution is suggested by 
 the thought, to which attention has already been 
 called, of an election within the chosen people 
 (Ro 9°11"). Such an election has parallels in the 
 history of the patriarchal family (9°"). It is in 
 accordance with express utterances of prophecy 
 (97). Itis therefore no evidence of a final defeat 
 of the divine plan that Israel, as a whole, should 
 for a time be shut out from salvation, and only the 
 election should attain it. St. Paul, however, ex- 
 pressly and indignantly refuses to accept this as a 
 complete solution (11%). It is very far from the 
 perfect triumph, the vision of which has been 
 opened before him. He finds in the salvation of 
 the part a sure pledge of the ultimate deliverance 
 of the whole. ‘If the first-fruit be holy, the lump 
 is holy too’ (112°). However much the nation as a 
 whole had incurred the divine wrath by their 
 opposition to the gospel, they were yet dear to 
 
 od for their fathers’ sake (11%). The power of 
 their original election was by no means exhausted. 
 The gifts and the calling of God are without 
 repentance (112). In the end all Israel shall be 
 saved (11%). And lest we should think that in 
 this respect Israel stands on a different footing from 
 the rest of the world, he adds—‘ God hath shut up 
 all men unto disobedience, that he may have 
 mercy upon all’ (11%). 
 
 In the face of these utterances no scheme of 
 election which assumes the doctrine of everlasting 
 punishment as one of its fundamental postulates, 
 can claim to rest on the authority of St. Paul. 
 
 Leaving, then, on one side the attempt to con- 
 sider the effect of election in its relation to the 
 elect in the narrower sense of the term, what are 
 we to say of its influence in the case of the wider 
 circle? St. Paul’s argument in relation to Israel 
 (1125t-) is sufficient to show that in his view, even 
 in the wider sense, the fact of God’s election carries 
 with it an unalterable declaration of the divine 
 purpose for good towards those to whom His call 
 came. He believed also that the will of each man 
 was in its natural state so utterly enslaved to evil 
 that nothing but the divine power could set it 
 free (Ro 71+). At the same time, the action of 
 the divine will on the human was not to over- 
 whelm it, but to restore its power of action. He 
 exhorts men to work out their own salvation, just 
 because it is God who is working in them both to 
 will and to do of His good pleasure (Ph 2”), The 
 love of Christ is indeed a constraining motive 
 (2 Co 5%). Without faith in that love as its 
 abiding source and spring the Christian life is 
 impossible (Gal 2”, cf. 1Jn 4'%).* And surrender 
 to that love is the last act for which a man could 
 dream of claiming any credit to himself. It is the 
 gift of God (Eph 2°). Yet the refusal to surrender 
 is not due to defect of grace. It is possible to 
 receive the grace of God in vain (2 Co 6'). 
 
 Again, the presence of the divine grace does 
 not supersede the necessity for constant watch- 
 fulness (cf. Mk 13*7 etc.). Even the ‘chosen 
 vessel’ (Ac 918) contemplates the possibility of 
 becoming himself a castaway (1Co 9’). Branches 
 have been cut out of the good olive tree before now 
 —and what has been done once may be done again 
 (Ro 1172), While, however, his language does not 
 leave us room to believe that he regarded himself, 
 at least at this part of his career, as possessing any 
 
 * Of. Council of Orange, A.D. 529, Oanon xxv, Donum Det 
 = fiat Deum, Ipee ut diligeretur dedit qui non dilectus 
 
 - 
 
 inalienable gift of ‘final perseverance,’ or aa 
 absolved from the necessity for strenuous effort 
 on his own part ‘to make his own calling and 
 election sure (2P 1”), it is clear that he had an 
 unfaltering faith in the perseverance of God. He 
 knows whom he has trusted (2 Ti 1”), and is con- 
 vinced that He is able to keep what has been 
 entrusted to Him. He can trust God to bring to 
 perfection any good work in a man when He has 
 once set His hand to it (Ph 1%). Even the human 
 potter, whom the prophet watched at his work 
 (Jer 18*), when the vessel that he made of clay 
 was marred in his hand, made it again another 
 vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 
 
 If anything like this is the truth about the 
 doctrine of election, we need no longer shrink from 
 the contemplation of it as if it were ‘a portion of 
 eternity too great for the eye of man.’ The 
 favoured few are not chosen, while the rest of 
 their race are left to their doom in hopeless misery. 
 The existence of the Church, however much it 
 may, nay must, witness to a coming judgment, 
 has in it a promise of hope, not a message of 
 despair for the world. As Israel of old was chosen 
 to keep alive in the hearts of men the hope of a 
 coming Saviour of the world, so the Church is 
 chosen to bear abroad into all the world the 
 gospel of a universal redemption, forbidden to 
 leave out one single soul from the vast circle of her 
 intercessions and her giving of thanks, because 
 she is called to live in the light of a revelation 
 which bids her believe and act in the belief that God 
 will have all men to be saved and come to the 
 knowledge of the truth (1 Ti 214). We can enter 
 with full hearts into the spirit of the marvellous 
 doxology with which St. Paul concludes his study 
 of the subject, and cry with him in exultant adora- 
 tion, ‘Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the 
 wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable 
 are his judgments and his ways past finding out. 
 ... For of him and through him and to him 
 are all things; to whom be glory for ever.’ 
 
 LITERATURE.—The history of the various controversies con- 
 nected with Election is given in outline in various treatises on 
 the history of Christian Doctrine as a whole, e.g. Hagenbach, 
 Shedd, and G. P. Fisher. The Pelagian controversy is treated at 
 length, in Latin, by G. T. Vossius, 1618; and, in German, by 
 Wiggers, 1821, 1833; Part I. tr. by R. Emerson, Andover, U.S., 
 1840. The Anti-Pelagian Treatises of St. Augustine have been 
 edited for the Oxford University Press by W. Bright, D.D. (1880), 
 and for D. Nutt by Woods and Johnston (1888): cf. J. B. Mozley 
 on The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination (3rd ed. 1883) ; 
 Cassian’s Conferences, tr. by E. O. Gibson in Library of Nicene 
 and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1894. A full collection of documents 
 connected with the Gottschalk controversy in 9th cent. in 
 Mauguin, Paris, 1650, 2 vols. 4to; cf. Archbp. Ussher, Works, 
 vol. iii, The Scholastic Theories are discussed in chs. ix. and x. 
 of J. B. Mozley. Special treatises by St. Anselm, De cone. 
 Preesc, et Proed. etc. (1100), and Thomas of Bradwardine, De 
 causa Dei c. Pelag. etc. 1325. For Reformation and Post- 
 Reformation controversies see esp. the various collections of 
 Confessions and Doctrinal Standards, esp. Winer, Confessions of 
 Christendom ; Niemeyer, Coil. conf. eccl. reform. in Latin; cf. 
 Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, 1521; Luther, De servo arbitrio, 
 with Erasmus’ reply, 1525; Oalvin, Christiane Religionia 
 Institutio, 1536 ; Arminius, Disputationes, xxiv., 1609. For the 
 Jansenist controversy see Molina, Conc. (ib. arb. etc. 1588, and 
 Jansenius, ‘ Augustinus,’ 1640. The most important treatise of 
 18th cent. is J. Edwards on ree Will. In 19th cent. note esp. 
 Whately, Essays on some difficulties in the writings of St. Paul, 
 1828; G. 8. Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Election, 1835; T. 
 Erskine, The Doctrine of Election, 1837 ; T. Chaliners, Five Lect. 
 on Predestination, 1837; W. Channing, The Moral Argument 
 against Calvinism; Miiller, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, 
 1839; M‘Cosh, The Method of the Divine Government, 1850; 
 Copinger, A Treatise on Predestination, Election, and Grace, 
 1889, including a full bibliography, pp. ccxvi. The relevant 
 sections in Martensen’s Christian Dogmatics and Cunningham’s 
 Historical Theology repay careful study; cf. also Sanday- 
 Headlam on Romans ix.-xi. af 0. F. Murray. 
 
 ELECT LADY. —See JouN (EPISTI Es). 
 
 EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL (sy ‘75s 5y).—Upon the 
 ‘parcel of ground’ which he had bought from the 
 Béné-Hamor, Jacob erected a mazzébdh (so Well., 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 682 EL ELYON 
 
 Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Dillm., ete.), and built 
 an altar, giving to the latter the name El-elohe- 
 Israel, ‘El, the god of Israel,’ Gn 33° (E). This 
 appears a strange name for an altar, hence Delitzsch 
 (ad loc.) supposes it to be meant, as it were, of its 
 inscription. The LXX reads érexadécaro rdv Oéov 
 *Iopay\, ‘he called upon the God of Israel’; and it 
 is just possible that this is correct, and that we 
 should emend the MT xy %b xypn to dyb wap. See 
 Gop. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EL ELYON (jy 5x) occurs in RVm of Gn 141 
 19. 20. 22 where RV (text) has ‘God most High,’ and 
 AV ‘the most high God.’ It is probably a proper 
 name, the appellation of a Canaanite deity. In 
 v.” “1 have lift up mine hand unto J”, God most 
 High,’ there can be little doubt that the introduc- 
 tion of the word ‘J”’ and the identification of the 
 latter with El Elyon are due to a redactor (so 
 Ball, Kautzsch-Socin, Hommel, etc.). The word 
 J” is wanting in the LXX (@edr rév tyorov), and the 
 collocation of names reminds one of ‘ Jahweh- 
 Elohim’ of Gn 24-3. See further under Gop. 
 
 It has been proposed by Sayce to identify El 
 Elyon with the ‘mighty king’ referred to in the 
 letters of Ebed-tob (or, as Hommel writes the 
 name, Abdi-khiba) to the Pharaoh Amenéphis 
 (ec. B.C. 1400). This ‘mighty king’ is indeed gener- 
 ally supposed to be the king of Egypt; but Hommel, 
 while agreeing with Driver, against Sayce, that an 
 earthly potentate is meant, argues, from the use of 
 the term in the letter of Rib-Adda of Gebal, that it 
 cannot be intended to designate the Pharaoh, 
 but was more probably the king of the Hittites. 
 He suggests, further, that the title ‘mighty king’ 
 had originally a religious significance. He remarks 
 that the thrice-repeated asseveration of Abdi- 
 khiba, that he owed his exalted position not to 
 his father or his mother, but to the ‘arm of the 
 mighty king,’ sounds like the echo of some ancient 
 sacred formula. ‘To the Pharaoh, of course, the 
 “mighty king” meant nothing more than his rival 
 the king of the Hittites; but in Jerusalem the 
 original significance of the words ‘not my father 
 and not my mother, but the arm of the mighty 
 king” (i.e. of El Elyon), must still have been per- 
 fectly familiar.’ It is well, however, to remember 
 that this is pure conjecture. There is no reason 
 why a title like the ‘ mighty king’ should not have 
 been applied to more monarchs than one. In the 
 letters of Abdi-khiba it may refer to the Hittite 
 king, as elsewhere it may designate the king of 
 Egypt or the king of Babylon, but that it has 
 ever anything to do with E Elyon remains to be 
 proved. 
 
 LivzRATURE.—Dillm. and Del. on Gn 14; Kittel, Hist. of 
 
 Hebrews, i. 179 f.; Hommel, Anc. Heb. Tradition (1897), 151 ff., 
 156 ff., 226; a series of papers in the Expository Times, vols. 
 vii.-vili. (1896-97), om ‘Melchizedek,’ by Sayce, Driver, and 
 Hommel. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ELEMENT.—A word, with its original orovyetov 
 (always in pl.) and its derivative crovyelwois, 
 entirely confined in sacred literature to the Apocr. 
 and NT. AV renders the Greek variously : six 
 times as ‘elements’ (Wis 7!” 19%, Gal 43-9, 
 2P 3.12) twice as ‘rudiments’ (Col 2° 2°), once 
 as ‘principles’ (He 5%), once (crovxelwois) as 
 ‘members’ (2 Mac 7”). RV gives ‘elements’ in 
 Wis, 2 Mac, and 2P; elsewhere (St. Paul and 
 He) ‘rudiments.’ In the untranslated (LXX) 
 Apocr. it occurs once, 4 Mac 1235, plainly meaning 
 elements. In Wis, as in 2 P, it means unmistak- 
 ably the physical elements of which the cosmos is 
 composed ; in 2 and 4 Mac those of which the 
 human body is composed ; in Hebrews its defining 
 genitives show that it stands with them for the 
 elements of Christian knowledge. All these signi- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ELEMENT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fications march with the usage of the word in 
 secular Greek and follow from its original signi- 
 fication—that which stands in a orotxos, ‘row,’ 
 ‘series’; then (1) in pl. the letters of the alphabet, 
 not as written signs, but as the primary elements 
 of words (Plat., Aristot.) ; (2) the primary elements 
 of the universe (from Plat. downwards) ; (3) as 
 suggested by the usage in Xenoph. (Mem. I. i. 1) 
 and Aristot. (see Bonitz, Index Arist. p. 702),— 
 where it occurs as the simplest elements of an 
 argument or demonstration,—but definitely onl 
 in later Greek from Cornutus (Ist cent. A.D.), 
 Plut., Diog. L., downwards, the primary elements, 
 the first principles, of knowledge, almost always 
 with a defining genitive or a guide from the 
 context determining what the knowledge is. 
 
 The passages in St. Paul alone remain, Gal 4*- °, 
 Col 2%, In each of these there is the defining 
 genitive rod xdcuov, except in Gal 4°, where, how- 
 ever, the rod xécuou of v.® clearly fixes the context. 
 The first natural impression, therefore, is that the 
 orotxeta in all these fe should be interpreted in 
 the same way; and the second is that, as roi 
 xécuov is not a branch of instruction, like Aoylwy 
 in He, or dperfs in Plut. (De puer. educ. 16), the 
 basis of the interpretation should be physical, as 
 with the other instances in biblical literature (cf. 
 for the influence of Wis upon St. Paul, Baars 
 Headlam, Romans, p. 51), rather than ethical ; 
 ‘elements of the material world’ (cf. Philo, De 
 Vita Contempl. ii. 472), rather than ‘ elements [of 
 religious knowledge] furnished by the material 
 world’ (Lightfoot), or ‘elements [of religious 
 knowledge] characteristic of the non-Christian 
 world,’ z.e. elements of religious truth belonging 
 to mankind in general (Meyer). The ‘religious 
 knowledge’ and ‘religious truth,’ with their 
 alleged relation to rod xdcu0v, seem to be imported 
 to help interpreters out of a difficulty. 
 
 The impression in favour of the physical inter- 
 pretation (the interpretation of the word in Clem. 
 Hom. x. 9) is confirmed by the context of the 
 passages, In Col 2° what is referred to is not an 
 elementary knowledge from which a moral and 
 spiritual advance could be made, not a circumcision 
 and a ceremonial law with which the heathen 
 cultus would in its ritual have something in 
 common, but a ‘philosophy’ and a ‘deceit,’ a 
 delusive speculation offered as superior to the 
 ordinary belief in Christ, and spoken of later 
 (v.18) as characterized by a false humility and a 
 worship of angels. In Gal 4*® the ‘elements of 
 the world,’ ‘the weak and beggarly elements,’ to ~ 
 whose service Jew and heathen Christians were 
 set on returning, are put parallel to ‘them that 
 by nature are not gods, and such service is 
 exemplified in the keeping of days and months and 
 seasons and years. This context at once suggests 
 the worship of the heavenly bodies, which were 
 called especially croxeia as elements of the 
 universe (Just. Mart. Dial. 23; Polycrates in 
 Euseb. HE iii. 31; Epiphanius, adv. Her. i. in 
 her. Phariseorum, 2), and whose movements 
 regulated the calendar (Just. Mart. Apol. ii. 5; 
 Letter to Diognetus, 4); the Colossian worship of 
 angels finding its explanation in the fact that the 
 heavenly bodies were supposed by Jew and heathen 
 to be animated heavenly beings ; cf. Philo, Mundi 
 op. i. 84; Hnoch 41. 43; Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 5; 
 Orig. on Jn 4”; and, within the Scriptures them- 
 selves, Job 38’ (morning stars=sons of God), 1 Co 
 15* (bodies clothing spirits), Ja 17 (Father of the 
 lights). Cf. also Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol. 52 f., 
 and Meyer-Haupt on Col 2°. 
 
 But a philosophy of astral spirits (which reminds 
 us of modern theosophical speculation) is not quite 
 homogeneous, after all, with the reference to food 
 and drink in Col 26, though, no doubt, food and 
 
ELEMENT 
 
 ELEPHANT 683 
 
 
 
 drink were ‘features of the world’s life,’ which, 
 for its times and seasons, was under the govern- 
 ance of the heavenly croxeta. And, further, 
 xécpuos, a8 predominantly used in biblical Greek, 
 seems to lead us away from rather than towards 
 odpayés, and must, at any rate, emphatically 
 include the world inhabited by men. Hence, 
 apparently, we must seek a consistent interpreta- 
 tion for the Pauline passages in a meaning of 
 oroxeta clearly sanctioned by usage at a later date, 
 and also in harmony with ideas prevalent in St. 
 Paul’s day. It may be called an extension of the 
 meaning we have just been considering, for it 
 maintained that not only the heavenly bodies, 
 but all things, in the heavens and in the earth 
 alike, had their angels, and were under the govern- 
 ance of spirits. This view reveals itself not only in 
 the later Jewish literature, but also in OT and NT. 
 
 In the former region we find, for example, in the 
 Book of Jubilees, a Jewish composition belong- 
 ing to the century immediately preceding the 
 Christian era (see Charles, Hih. Version of the 
 Heb. Book of Jubilees, Oxford, 1895), the following 
 pee (c. 2): ‘On the first day created he the 
 
 eavens which are above and the earth and the 
 waters and all the spirits that serve before him, 
 and the angels of the face (or presence), and the 
 angels that cry “‘holy,” and the angels of the 
 spirit of fire, and the angels of the spirit of wind, 
 and the a bee of the spirit of the clouds of dark- 
 ness and of hail and of hoarfrost, and the angels of 
 the depths and of thunder and of lightning, and the 
 ee of the spirits of cold and of heat, of winter 
 and of spring, of autumn and of summer, and of 
 all the spirits of his works in the heavens and on 
 the earth and in all pepths, and of darkness and 
 of light, and of dawn and of evening, which he has 
 prepared according to the discernment of his 
 un Se 8 Everling (see appended literature) 
 ‘quotes also Hnoch 824 (angels of the stars, 
 with names of leaders), 60"* (angels appointed 
 over the various phenomena of nature); Ascensio 
 Isaie (2nd cent. A.D., according to Harnack) 4'8 
 (angel of the sun, etc.), 2 Es (81-96 A.D., acc. to 
 Schiirer) 8% (army of angels... in wind and 
 fire), and Sibyll. Orac. (2nd cent.) 7-* (angels of 
 fire, rivers, cities, winds). 
 
 The same view is found in the region of OT and 
 NT. In Ps 1044 (according to the LXX, as quoted 
 also in He 1’) angels take the shape of winds and 
 fire; in Rev 7? there are the four angels of the four 
 winds, in 1438 there is an angel of the fire, in 16° an 
 angel of the waters (cf. the angel of the pool of 
 Bethesda in the spurious passage Jn 54). In Dn 
 10-2 we have angels as princes of Persia and 
 Greece, and in 12! Michael as the great prince 
 ‘standing’ for Israel, just as he stands for the 
 Church as a whole (Rev 12’), and as each of the 
 seven Churches has its angel (Rev 2. 3), and perhaps 
 also each individual human being (Mt 18”). Every- 
 thing that happens is wrought by angels: ‘there are 
 no secondary causes.’ Angel powers are the in- 
 visible background of human life and of nature. 
 Such angels are sometimes called ‘gods,’ as in 
 Ps 821-6 being ‘sons of the Most High’ (the 
 Peshitta actually gives angels in both clauses of 
 the first verse), and God Himself is the ‘God of 
 gods’ and ‘Lord of lords’ Dt 10", Ps 1367; cf. 
 Apoc. of Zephaniah. ‘In the fifth heaven... 
 angels called lords,’ quoted by Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 v. xi. 77. Hence St. Paul’s expression 1 Co 8° ‘are 
 called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as 
 there are gods many and lords many,’ yet (Gal 4°) 
 ‘by nature not gods’ like the ‘one God’ and the 
 ‘one Lord’ (1 Co 8°). Thus there was common 
 
 und for heathen nature-worship and for Jewish 
 legalism, for the law had been ‘administered by 
 angels’ Gal 3, He 27, Ac 7-5 (cf. Jos. Ant. XV. v. 
 
 3; Il. i. 3), and was thus on a level lower than the 
 new dispensation ; He 2° ‘ For not to angels did he 
 subject the world to come, whereof we speak.’ 
 Angels were the media of God’s government ; and, 
 having ‘a certain independence in the discharge of 
 their functions, could stand (to use Ritschl’s phrase) 
 in “relative opposition to God,” so that, in some 
 cases, their service was an imperfect representation 
 of God, in other cases an actual misrepresentation 
 of Him, and consequently a veiling rather than an 
 unveiling of Him. In this light we can more 
 easily understand how St. Paul can attribute to 
 angels the imperfect and transitory dispensation 
 of the law; and the perplexing passage Col 2%, 
 where Christ is said to have “stripped off from 
 himself the principalities and the powers, and 
 made a show of them openly, triumphing over 
 them in [his cross],”—or, as it may be otherwise 
 worded, ‘‘exhibited them in their real nature, 
 leading them in his triumphal train,”—may pos- 
 sibly find its elucidation in the idea that these dpxat 
 and éfovola: (cf. éfovclay éml rév Vddrwv Rev 11°) had 
 hidden His personal activity, and even attracted 
 worship to themselves.’ * This relative opposition 
 may become absolute, the relative independence 
 may become absolute insubordination, as in the 
 ease of the Prince of Persia (Dn 10%), and Satan 
 and his angels (2 P 24, Jude *), yet never in the 
 dualistic sense. Accom ney: Christ can speak of 
 ‘the prince of this world’ (Jn 12%), and St. Paul of 
 the ‘ god of this age’ (2 Co 44): both can attribute 
 evils and hindrances to Satan (Lk 131°, Mk 8%, 2 Co 
 127, 1 Th 2}8), and St. Paul can see the dac:uéa in the 
 dark background of idolatry (1 Co 10°). Over all 
 these powers Christ is to trrumph (1 Co 15%), either 
 by crushing insubordination and destroying the 
 insubordinate (Rev 197), or by displaying His 
 real headship, which by the ‘tradition of men’ 
 has been concealed (Ph 2”, Eph 1°, Col 215. 19), 
 and delivering the ‘ heirs’ from the tutelage of the 
 érlrporot, the ‘ governors,’ the croxela Tod Kécpou, 
 under whom they had been enslaved (Gal 4-4) (ef. 
 Everling, Angelologie, 74 n., for Michael as called 
 értrpomos of Israel in later Jewish literature, the 
 word being transliterated into Hebrew). 
 
 The suggestion by St. Paul in his rots pice uh 
 ovat Geots (Gal 48), that by his oroxeia he means 
 angelic powers, is not illustrated by any actual 
 use of the word in this sense in the extant litera- 
 ture of the Ist cent.; but Everling (p. 70) 
 quotes the following passage from the Testament 
 of Solomon (date uncertain, probably not very 
 early ; Harnack, Gesch. Alt. Christ. Lit. i. 2, 858), 
 where the spirits that appear to Solomon say, 
 ‘We are the so-called croxeta, the world rulers of 
 this world.’ 
 
 For the ‘ Stoicheiolatry’ of the modern Greeks 
 and their belief that there is a crovxeiov everywhere 
 to be propitiated, see Kean in Lxpos. Times, viii. 
 (1897) 514. 
 
 LirERATURE.—Klopper, Brief an die Kol. 1882; Spitta, Zweite 
 Brief des Petrus, 1885; Meyer-Haupt, Die Gefangenschafts- 
 briefe, 1897 ; Everling, Die Paulinische Angelologie und Dimon- 
 ologie, 1888; Hincks, Journal of Bib. Lit., Boston, 1896, pp. 
 183-192 ; and Kean, as above quoted. J. MASSIE. 
 
 ELEPH (9bx7), Jos 18% only.—A town of Ben- 
 jamin, probably the present village Lifta W. of 
 Jerus., which has often been wrongly identified 
 with Nephtoah. See SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ELEPHANT (’Edé¢as, elephas).—This animal is 
 mentioned in 1 and 2 Mac as employed in war. 
 It is not found in AV of OT, except in the marg. 
 for behemoth (Job 40), and elephants’ teeth for 
 ivory (1 K 10, 2Ch 92), The word is mani shen- 
 
 * Quoted from an article by the present writer in the Thinker, 
 May 1895, on ‘St. Paul’s view of the Greek gods.’ 
 
684 ELEUTHERUS 
 
 
 
 ELI, ELI 
 
 
 
 habbim. The word shén is the ordinary word for 
 ivory in OT, and habbim seems to be the same as 
 the modern vernacular word for elephant in the 
 languages of Malabar and Ceylon. See Ivory. 
 G. E. Post. 
 ELEUTHERUS (’EAcvOepos), 1 Mac 117 12%.—A 
 river which separated Syria and Pheenicia (Strabo, 
 xvi.), and appears to be the mod. Nahr el-Kebir or 
 ‘Great River,’ which divides the Lebanon in two 
 north of Tripoli. C. R. CoNDER. 
 
 ELHANAN (j3nby).—4. In 2 S 21! we read: ‘and 
 Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite 
 slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear 
 was like a weaver’s heam’; in the parallel passage, 
 1 Ch 205, by a slight change in the Heb. this 
 becomes ‘and Elhanan the son of Jair slew 
 Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, ete.’ 
 The ductus litterarum in each case is so similar 
 that most moderns agree that the two passages 
 represent but one original text. It is evident that 
 the superfluous ‘oregim’ in 2 S has merely crept 
 into the text from the following line (‘’oregim’= 
 weavers); for the rest, it can hardly be disputed 
 that ‘Lahmi the brother of’ (‘ns ‘ondny, 1 Ch) is a 
 corruption or harmonistic correction of ‘the Beth- 
 lehemite’ (nx ‘nba m2, 2S), whilst ‘Jaare’ (-qw:, 2S) 
 is merely a transposition of the letters of ‘Jair’ 
 (vy:, 1 Ch). It is impossible that any one who had 
 a similar text to that of 1 Ch before him, and who 
 knew the story of 1S 17, should have altered it 
 into direct contradiction with the earlier narrative, 
 whilst the correction of 2 S by the Chronicler is 
 clearly due to harmonistic motives. Itis admitted 
 by most modern critics that the story of David and 
 Goliath in 1 § 17-185 embodies a later tradition as 
 to the introduction of David to Saul (as opposed to 
 the earlier account, 16'*%), in which the exploit 
 of the warrior Elhanan was transferred to his royal 
 master. The reading of 1 Ch, then, is merely 
 an attempt to harmonize the two independent 
 narratives. 2. Son of Dodo the Bethlehemite, 
 one of David’s ‘ Thirty’ (2S 234%=1 Ch 11%). See 
 Dopo (2). J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ELI (*by) belonged to the house of Ithamar, the 
 fourth son of Aaron, and was apparently the first 
 high priest of that line; cf. 1 Ch 24°, where Ahi- 
 melech the son of Abiathar (2 S 8!”), who escaped 
 from the massacre at Nob (1S 22%), is expressl 
 stated to be one ‘of the sons of Ithamar.’ It 
 is owing to this fact that neither E. nor his im- 
 mediate successors in the high priestly office, up to 
 and including Abiathar, are mentioned in the 
 genealogy of the high priests from Aaron and 
 Eleazar down to the destruction of the temple 
 (1 Ch 64), The last high priest mentioned before 
 E., Phinehas, belonged to the house of Eleazar 
 (Jg 20%); but no account is given of how or when 
 this change in the priestly succession took place, 
 though it would seem to have had the divine sanc- 
 tion (1 S 2%). The high priesthood returned to the 
 descendants of the house of Eleazar in the reign of 
 Solomon, when Abiathar was deprived of his office 
 and banished from Jerus. because of his participa- 
 tion in the revolt of Adonijah ; his place was filled 
 by Zadok, of the house of Eleazar (1 K 2#-), ‘the 
 faithfu: priest’ of 1 S 2%, 
 
 In the person of E. were united for the first time 
 in the history of Israel the two offices of high priest 
 and judge. He is stated to have judged Tersel 40 
 hepa (1S 48 LXX elxoo. rn); but this chrono- 
 ogical notice, as also the statement of his age (4), 
 is prob. due to a later deuteronomic redactor. We 
 learn little of the life and character of E. from 
 18, the first eight chapters of which are mainly 
 concerned with the history of Samuel. We gather, 
 however, that he was a man of kindly disposition, 
 
 and, setting aside the treatment of his sons, 
 sincere and upright in the performance of his 
 twofold office; while his ready submission to the 
 divine sentence pronounced against his house, 
 roves the reality of his belief in the God of Isruel. 
 hus while officiating, by virtue of his priestly 
 office, at Shiloh, he first reproves Hannah, and 
 then, on discovering his error, gives her his bless- 
 ing; whilst the kindliness of his disposition shows 
 itself in his treatment of the youthful Samuel. It 
 was, however, the kindliness, not of a strong but 
 of a weak character, and as such was destined to 
 come into conflict with the stern dictates of duty. 
 His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, were, in the 
 language of Scripture, ‘men of Belial’ (or worth- 
 lessness) ; they ‘knew not the Lord,’ and profaned 
 their sacred calling by their greed and licentious- 
 ness. Nevertheless, their father shrank from the 
 distasteful task of punishing their conduct in the 
 way that it deserved, and contented himself with 
 administering a mild rebuke. Their punishment, 
 therefore, must be left to a higher tribunal, and on 
 two occasions was the aged priest warned of the 
 fate that would befall his sons in consequence of 
 their neglect of duty. At the first an anonymous 
 rophet is sent to show him his sin in honourin 
 his sons above God, and to announce the downfa. 
 of his house (‘ there shall not be an old man in thy 
 house for ever’). In token of the certainty of this 
 impending doom, E. is given a sign, viz. the 
 death of his two sons in one day (1 § 277-8), The 
 text of this section is apparently in disorder, and 
 would seem to have been expanded by a later 
 deuteronomic author. On the second occasion, 
 the Lord Himself appears to the child Samuel and 
 confirms the sentence which had previously been 
 announced. His faith unshaken, Z. submits with- 
 out a murmur to the divine decree (1 S 3), 
 The end is not far off; the Philistines once more 
 swarm across the Shephelah, and at the first attack 
 defeat the Israelites. In vain is the ark of the 
 covenant brought from Shiloh by Hophni and 
 Phinehas. The Philistines renew the battle, and 
 inflict a further crushing defeat on the Israelites ; 
 the ark is captured, and Eli’s two sons are slain. 
 Overcome by the terrible news, the aged E. fell 
 from his seat by the gate of the city; ‘his neck 
 brake, and he died’ (18 4%). J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI and ELOI, 
 ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI.—Slightly different 
 
 forms of the exclamation uttered by Jesus, accord- . 
 
 ing to the evangelists Matt. (274°) and Mark (15*4) 
 respectively, shortly before his death. ‘Both evan- 
 gelists follow it with the translation, in slightly 
 peryine terms: ‘My God, my God (in Gospel of 
 St. Peter 7 dvvauls wou ‘my power’) why hast thou 
 forsaken me’ (or ‘why didst thou forsake me’)— 
 which shows the cry to be a reminiscence of Ps 22}, 
 But the Heb. of the psalm (*3B2Y, apd vox oby, te, 
 eli, eli, lama azabhtani) agrees with neither form 
 of the saying as given by the evangelists. Indeed 
 the MSS of the Gospels exhibit considerable 
 variety of spelling in the case of nearly every 
 word (see Tischendorf, Nov. Test. Gr. ed. octava 
 crit. maior, ll.cc.). These variations start interest- 
 ing inquiries, which this is not the place to follow 
 out. Suffice it to say, that there is in the words a 
 singular and somewhat perplexing combination of 
 Heb. and Aramaic. ether, for instance, the 
 loi (’EXwl) represents a provincial (Galilean ?) pro- 
 nunciation of the Heb. Eli (#1), or the (poetic) 
 sing. Hloah (even the reading édwelu occurs; ef. 
 too, édwel, Jg 55 Sept.), or is intended for a trans- 
 literation of the Aram. alohi (elahi), has been 
 questioned. Either form, we must suppose, could be 
 so perverted as to serve the mocking pretence that 
 the sufferer was invoking Elijah. For the form 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ELIAB 
 
 lama or lamma (so in Mark the Geneva version of 
 1557, and Rheims), representing the Heb. (?), even 
 fome modern translators ae lema, after the 
 Aramaic. The Aram. shebaktani reappears in cafa- 
 aravel or ca8axdavl (so Lachmann in Matt.) :—the 
 substitution in the majority of texts of x for « 
 being due, perhaps, simply to the ordinary law of 
 Greek euphony ; or, should the spelling with x be 
 equally ancient, it may indicate a variant pro- 
 nunciation ; for the Heb. pis transliterated by x in 
 other words also (as dxeNaudx Tdf. Treg., paxd 
 Tdf.; see Dalman, Gram. d. jiidisch-pal. Aramiiisch, 
 p- 304). The curious readings fapfavel and faBa- 
 p0avel (see Tischendorf, w.s.) show the influence of 
 the Hebrew. ‘This mixture of tongues points, per- 
 haps, to independent traditions; see the ed. of 
 the Vulg. by Wordsworth and White, esp. the 
 note on Matt. /.c. It seems, however, to afford 
 but equivocal support to the theory that an Aram. 
 version was current in our Lord’s day, as the 
 ecclesiastical or popular Bible [cf. Gesenius, Gesch. 
 d. Hebr. Sprache wu. Schrift., Leip. 1815, p. 73; De 
 Wette, Hinl. ins A.T. § 57 ei Schrader, 1869, 
 § 68); E. Bohl, Forsch. nach ein. Volksbibel zur 
 Zeit Jesu, Wien, 1873]. J. H. THAYER. 
 
 ELIAB (295s ‘God is father,’ A ’EXd8, except 
 in 1 Ch 15%, B x! ’EdcaBd, x* ’EXGd, 2 Ch 11% B 
 "Exidy, Jth 8! B ’Bded@, x "Hvdg).—1. According to 
 P, son of Helon, and prince of Zebulun, who repre- 
 sented his tribe at the census and on certain other 
 occasions, Nu 19 27 7%- 29 19!6 (P). 2. A Reubenite, 
 father of Dathan and Abiram, Nu 16! 12 (JE), Dt 
 116. P gives, as further details, Eliab’s father’s 
 name, Pallu, and the name of another son, Nemuel 
 (Nu 26%), The father’s name, Pallu, probably stood 
 in the original text of Nu 16!». See Dillmann, ad 
 loc., and art. KoRAH. 8. Eldest son of Jesse, and 
 brother of David. His appearance led Samuel to 
 
 mec that he must be the chosen of J” to succeed 
 Saul. With his two brothers, Abinadab and 
 Shammah, he joined Saul’s army at the time that 
 Goliath was insulting Israel; during this time 
 David visited his brother in the camp, and was 
 
 addressed by E. in insulting terms. E. had a 
 daughter named Abihail (see art.), 1S 16% 1715-28, 
 1 Ch 24, 2Ch 118: on 1 Ch 27}8 see ELinvU. 4 
 According to the reading of 1 Ch 6” (Heb. 1”) the 
 name of an ancestor of Samuel—an Ephraimite. 
 Variants are Eliel, 1 Ch 6% (Heb. 1°), and Elihu, 
 1S}. See Exiav. 5. One of the Gadite warriors 
 who joined David during his wanderings, 1 Ch 12°. 
 These warriors and their doings are described in 
 1 Ch 12% 14, 6, A Levite who, according to the 
 Chronicler, was a musician appointed in the time 
 of David to play the psaltery (23), in the first 
 instance in connexion with the bringing up of the 
 ark to Jerus., 1 Ch 15°. Perhaps the name was 
 that of a (post-exilic) family of singers. Cf. refer- 
 ences in AMMIEL (No. 3). 7. According to the 
 genealogy in Jth 8', a remote ancestor of Judith, 
 and consequently a Simeonite, cf. 9?; and with 
 *Salamiel, the son of Salasadai’ (8), cf. Nu 16 (Heb. 
 and LXX), G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ELIADA (yrP8 ‘whom God takes notice of,’ or 
 ‘cares for’; Jit. ‘knows.’ For this nuance of the 
 verb, cf. Gn 18%, Ex 2%, Ps 16 RV).—4. "Emdaé, 
 repeated as Baadewuwd0 B, ’Eddaé A, Baad Luc. 
 A son of David (2 S 5%), called yz:bya Beeliada 
 (which see) in 1 Ch 147. 2, (’EX:adaé A, om. B 
 Luc.) Father of Rezon, a Syrian, captain of a 
 marauding band which resisted Solomon’s autho- 
 rity (1K 11%), 38. (‘Ededd B, "EXcada A Luc.) A 
 warrior of Benjamin (2Ch17”), C.F. BURNEY. 
 
 ELIADAS (’Edwéas), 1 Es 9%,—In Ezr 10” 
 €LIOENAI. 
 
 ELIAKIM 685 
 
 ELIAHBA (x2mbx ‘God hideth’), one of David’s 
 ‘Thirty,’ 2S 233, 1 Ch 11%; ‘a>yen ‘the Shaal- 
 bonite* of the Heb. text, should be more correctly 
 pointed »yabyv'n ‘the Shaalabbinnite’ (cf. Jos 19%), 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ELIAKIM (ops ‘whom God sets up’; cf. 
 Sabeean dsxppa, Sxpp’; "Edcarely ?Edaxty x Q* in Is 
 22”)).—4, Son of Hilkiah, and prefect of the palace 
 in succession to Shebna during the latter or middle 
 portion of Hezekiah’s reign (Is 22°", 2 K 1818 —Tg 
 364), This Peete, described as nmza-dy ‘ over 
 the household,’ seems to have embraced the dis- 
 charge of all the domestic affairs of the king, and 
 was a position of the highest rank, being held by 
 Jotham the heir to the throne, after his father 
 king Azariah had been smitten with leprosy (2 K 
 15°). First mention of the office occurs during 
 Solomon’s reign (1 K 4°), and it existed, apparently 
 with similar powers and dignity, in the kingdom of 
 Israel as in Judah (1 K 168 183, 2 K 10°). Delitzsch 
 and others compare the Merovingian office of major 
 domus (maire du palais). The prefect appears to 
 have also been known as }2b sdkén, rendered by RV 
 ‘treasurer,’ m ‘steward.’ This title is connected b 
 Cheyne (Js. ii. 153) with the Assyr. 3akau ‘a hig 
 officer,’ from sakin ‘ to set up, place’; but the fact 
 that the fem. n32b sokéneth is used of Abishag in 
 1 K 1? seems rather to connect the word with the 
 verb }'20n hiskin, ‘deal familiarly with,’ from which 
 was derived the general meaning of caretaker or 
 attendant (see the writer’s note on 1 K 1). The 
 title occurs in a Phen. inscription from Lebanon 
 belonging probably to the 8th cent. B.c.: ‘Sokén 
 of the New City, servant of Hiram, king of the 
 Sidonians’ (CJS I. i. 5). 
 
 E. appears to have been a disciple or political 
 ally of the prophet Isaiah, who predicts in glowing 
 terms his succession to the office of prefect in place 
 of his unworthy predecessor (Is 22%), At his 
 institution he is to be invested with long tunic and 
 girdle, the insignia proper to his office, and is to 
 receive as prime minister the title of ‘ Father’ of 
 the kingdom (v.”!, ef. Gn 458, 1 Mac 1152). In 
 figure, if not literally, as part of the ceremony of 
 institution, the key of the house of David is said 
 to be laid on his back, ¢.e. he is to act with full 
 powers as the king’s vizier or representative (v.”, 
 
 uoted as a Messianic type Rev 37; cf. Mt 161). 
 
 t Sennacherib’s invasion of Judea, B.c. 701, 
 Isaiah's prediction has come to fulfilment, and E. 
 appears as prefect, while Shebna holds merely the 
 lower office of scribe. 
 
 The last two vv. of the prophecy (Is 22%) are 
 involved in considerable obscurity. 
 
 (a) Most obviously ‘the nail that was fastened 
 in a sure place,’ v.%, must refer, as in v.%, to E., 
 whose fall will result from the abuse of his high 
 position by the undue exercise of nepotism (v.™, the 
 vessels large and small denote the various members 
 of his family of greater or less importance. 45 
 723, RV ‘all the glory,’ is rendered by Delitzsch 
 ‘the whole heavy lot’). Such a prediction, however, 
 is scarcely consistent with the enthusiasm of vv, 
 2, supposing the whole prophecy to have been 
 written down by Isaiah at one sitting, either prior 
 to E.’s elevation (Orelli), or ‘after the fate of both 
 dignitaries, revealed to him at two different times, 
 had found its fulfilment’ (Delitzsch). If, therefore, 
 vv.%2 refer to E., we must conclude (Hitzig, 
 Cheyne) that they were penned subsequently to 
 the former part of the peepee whether by Isaiah 
 himself, or by some other hand. 
 
 (6) Gesenius, Ewald, Driver, Dillmann consider 
 the ‘nail’ of v.“ to be different from that of v.%, 
 and to refer back to Shebna, whose fall is to take 
 place ‘in that day,’ te. simultaneously with the 
 rise of E. 
 
 2. The orig. name of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 ELIEZER 
 
 
 
 686 ELIALI 
 which see (2 K 23%=2 Ch 364). 3. A priest who 
 took part in the dedication of the wall of Jerus. 
 
 under Nehemiah (Neh 12%), 
 and in Lk 3-41; 
 GENEALOGY). 
 
 4%. 5. In Mt 1% 
 ancestors of our Lord (see 
 C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 ELIALI (A ’Edarel, B ’EduaXels), 1 Es 9%4.—The 
 name either corresponds to Binnui in Ezr 10* or is 
 unrepresented there. 
 
 ELIAM (oxox ‘God is kinsman’; ’EXid8, BA in 
 2S 113, and B in 2S 23, where A has Ovedad).* 
 —1. Father of Bath-sheba, whose first husband was 
 a Hittite, 1S 113 (=1Ch 3°, where Eliam is called 
 Ammiel; see below). Eliam himself, therefore, 
 may have been a foreigner. 2. Son of Ahithophel 
 the Gilonite, and one of David’s heroes. It is not 
 impossible that this Eliam is the same as the pre- 
 ceding, but there is no evidence that such was the 
 case (2 S 23"). The omission of the name from the 
 parallel list in 1 Ch 11 is probably due to textual 
 corruption. See Driver, Samuel, note on 2 8 23*, 
 
 G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ELIAONIAS (A ’EXawvias, B ’EXtadwvias), 1 Es 
 8%,—A descendant of Phaath-moab, who returned 
 from Babylon with Esdras. In Ezr 84 ELIEHOENAI. 
 
 ELIAS.—See ELIJAH. 
 
 ELIASAPH (neers ‘God has added,’ ’E\cdd).— 
 14. Son of Deuel, and prince of Gad at the first 
 census (Nu 14 2! 742. 47 1020 P), 2. Son of Lael, 
 and prince of the Gershonites (Nu 3™ P). 
 
 ELIASHIB [sxx ‘God will (or, does) bring 
 back (or, restore).’ In LXX the most frequent 
 forms are ’EdeootB (B), ’EdicovB (& A), ’BAccacelB 
 (x B), "Edcacel8 (AB)].—A popular name after the 
 Exile ; perhaps, in spite of 1 Ch 24, it was not in 
 use in pre-exilic times. The persons of this name 
 mentioned in OT are—i. The high priest who 
 was contemporary with Nehemiah. He was son 
 of Joiakim, grandson of Jeshua the son of 
 Jozadak, the contemporary of Zerubbabel (Neh 
 12%, Ezr 31), and father of Joiada (Neh 12" 13%), 
 He assisted in the rebuilding of the walls of Jerus. 
 during Nehemiah’s governorship (Neh 3!). He 
 can have had no sympathy with the exclusive 
 policy of Ezra and Nehemiah, for both he himself 
 and members of his family allied themselves with 
 the leading foreign opponents of Nehemiah (Neh 2). 
 The exact nature of Eliashib’s own alliance with 
 Tobiah the Ammonite is not stated (Neh 134), but 
 a son of his son Joiada, during the period of 
 Nehemiah’s recall to the Pers. court, married a 
 daughter of Sanballat the Horonite, and was in 
 consequence driven away by Nehemiah on his 
 return (Neh 13%). This, combined with the ex- 
 pulsion of Tobiah from the temple-chamber pro- 
 vided for him by E. (Neh 134*-), must have created, 
 even if it had not existed before, an open schism 
 between E. and Nehemiah. Cf. further below 
 (No. 7), and Ryle’s notes on the passages cited 
 above in the Cam. Bible ed. of Ezr-Neh. 2 A 
 singer of the time of Ezra, who had married a 
 foreign wife (Ezr 10%), called in 1 Es 9% Eliasibus. 
 8. An Isr. of the family of Zattu (Ezr 10’, in 1 Es 
 
 * Note on the genuineness of the name.—The name occurs but 
 twice in MT ; in one case (2 § 113) all VSS except the Vulg., and 
 in the other the LXX, show a different name. In spite of this a 
 close comparison of the VSS confirms the correctness of the 
 Massoretic tradition of the rare name Eliam, which certainly 
 occurs in Phan. (CIS 147, oybx, on a Sardinian inscription) as 
 against the commoner names which appearin the VSS. Ammiel 
 (1 Ch 85) may be an actual alternative name of the same 
 man (cf. Jehoiachin and Coniah), or may be the alteration of an 
 offensive, because misunderstood, name (Eliam being regarded 
 as=‘ God of the people’) into a less exceptional form (Ammiel 
 regarded as=‘ People of God’); see further, Gray, Stud. in Heb. 
 Proper Names, p. 45 
 
 9% Eliasimus); and 4 another of the family of 
 Bani (izr 10%), who had married foreign wives. 
 5. A son of Elioenai and descendant of David. 
 From the position of the name in the genealo, 
 
 this E. must have lived after the Exile, and possibly 
 as late as the middle of the 4th cent. (1 Ch 3%), 
 6. According to the Chronicler (1 Ch 24), E. was 
 the name of a priestly house in the time of David. 
 But see the references and the literature cited in 
 AMMIEL 3. 17. Father of Jehohanan, to whose 
 chamber in the temple Ezra resorted (Ezr 105). 
 But the suggestion (see, ¢.g., Ryle on Ezr 10°) that 
 this E, is identical with No. 1 is not improbable. 
 See art. JOHANAN. G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ELIASIB (A ’EdidowBos, B Ndce:Bos), 1 Es 91.—A 
 high priest in the time of Neh. Ezr 10°, ELIASHIB. 
 
 ELIASIBUS (A ’ENdoiBos, B -oeBos, AV 
 Eleazurus, perhaps from the Aldine ’Eddfoudos, p 
 being read for ¢), 1 Es 9%.—One of the ‘holy 
 singers,’ who put away his strange wife. In Ezr 
 10% ELIASHIB. 
 
 ELIASIMUS (A’Edidoiuos, B -et-et-, AV Elisimus), 
 1 Es 9%.—In Ezr 107” ELIASHIB. 
 
 ELIASIS (’EXacels), 1 Es 9%.—This name and 
 Enasibus may be duplicate forms answering to 
 Eliashib in Ezr 10% (Speaker’s Comm.). 
 
 ELIATHAH (apyyy or amdy ‘God hath come’).— 
 A Hemanite, whose family formed the twentieth 
 division of the temple service (1 Ch 25* *7). 
 
 ELIDAD (1y>x ‘God has loved,’ ’EAdé6).— 
 Son of Chislon, and Benjamin’s representative for 
 dividing the’ land, Nu 347 P (perh. = Eldad, one of 
 the elders, Nu 112% E), 
 
 ELIEHOENAI (‘ryimbx ‘to J” are mine eyes’).—4. 
 A Korahite (1 Ch 26, AV Elioenai). 2. The head 
 of a family of exiles that returned (Ezr 84, AV 
 Elihoenai), called in 1 Es 8*! Eliaonias. 
 
 ELIEL (5y5x, prob. ‘ El is God’).—4. A Korahite 
 (1 Ch 6%), prob. = Eliab of v.27 and Elihu of 1 S 11. 
 2. 3. 4. Mighty men in the service of David (1 Ch 
 1146 47 124. 5, A chief of eastern Manasseh (1 Ch 
 5%). 6.7. Two Benjamite chiefs (1 Ch 8%). 8, A 
 Levite mentioned in connexion with the removal 
 of the ark from the house of Obed-edom (1 Ch 
 
 eg 9. A Levite in time of Hezekiah (2 Ch 
 318), 
 ELIENAI (‘yy $x, textual error for ‘sybx 
 
 Elioenai).—A Benjamite (1 Ch 8), 
 ALOGY. 
 
 ELIEZER ("5x ‘God is help’).—See ELEAZAR. 
 4. Abraham’s chief servant, a aah (Gn 15?, 
 AV, RVm). (The construction here is difficult, 
 but the words can hardly be rendered as a double 
 proper name as RV, ‘ Dammesek Eliezer.’ What- 
 ever the exact construction, the words, unless there 
 is a corruption in the text, must be intended to 
 suggest that E. was in some way connected with 
 Damascus. See Delitzsch, New Com. on Gen. 
 ii. 4). This same E. is prob, the servant referred 
 toin Gn 24, 2. A son of Moses by Zipporah ; so 
 named to commemorate the deliverance of Moses 
 from Pharaoh (Ex 184, 1 Ch 23%: 17), 3, The son of 
 Becher a Benjamite (1 Ch 78). 4. The son of 
 Zichri, captain of the tribe of Reuben in David’s 
 reign (1 Ch 2736), 5, The son of Dodavahu of 
 
 See GENE. 
 
 Mareshah, who prophesied the destruction of the 
 fleet of ships which Jehoshaphat built in co- 
 operation with Ahaziah (2 Ch 20°), 
 
 6. An E. is 
 
 ashe eats 
 
 ae a 
 
 
 

 
 ELIHOREPH 
 
 
 
 ELIJAH 
 
 687 
 
 
 
 mentioned among the ‘chief men’ whom Ezra 
 sent from Ahava to Casiphia to find Levites and 
 Nethinim willing to join the expedition to Jeru- 
 salem (Ezr 8%), 7.8.9. A priest, a Levite, and a 
 son of Harim, who had married ‘strange women,’ 
 t.e. wives of non-Israelitish descent, in the time of 
 Ezra (Ezr 101% *- %), 40. One of the priests 
 pe onied to blow with the trumpets before the 
 ark of God when David brought it from the house 
 of Obed-edom to Jerus. (1 Ch 15%), 14, A Levite 
 mentioned in 1 Ch 26%, 12. An E. is mentioned in 
 the genealogy of our Lord given a Luke (3), 
 . C. ALLEN. 
 ELIHOREPH (471"bx, possibly ‘God of autumn,’ or 
 ‘of ripe age’; cf, Job 294 RV. "Edd B, ’Evapéd A, 
 ’ENd8 Luc.).—One of Solomon’s scribes (1 K 43). 
 
 ELIHU (:">x).—4. An ancestor of Samuel, 1S 1', 
 called in 1 Ch 6* Eliel and in 1Ch 6” Fliab (wh. 
 see). 2. A variation in 1 Ch 27!8 for Eliab, David’s 
 eldest son, 18 16% Kittel (in Haupt’s O7) 
 emends the text of Ch to 15x. 3. A Manassite 
 who joined David at Ziklag, 1Ch 12% 4 A 
 Korahite, porter, 1 Ch 267. 5. See next article. 
 6. (’HAeod) an ancestor of Judith, Jth 8}. 
 
 ELIHU (ax, LXX ’EXi0ds, ‘my God is He,’ cf. 
 Elijah, ‘my God is J”’).—Described in Job 32? as 
 ‘son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of 
 Ram’; he would therefore be descended from 
 Nahor, brother of Abraham (Gn 227, J), E. is 
 introduced as an interlocutor in the Book of Job, 
 speaking after the three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, 
 and Zophar have failed to convince Job by their 
 arguments. He is described as younger than the 
 three; he undertakes, however, to act as moderator 
 between the disputants, and speaks at length in 
 chs. 32-37. But the fact that E. is mentioned 
 neither in the prologue nor in the epilogue of the 
 book ; that his arguments do not add substantially 
 to the discussion ; that the transition from ch. 38 to 
 ch. 39 is abrupt and awkward ; together with certain 
 features of style in the speeches assigned to E.,— 
 have led most critics to the conclusion that chs. 
 32-37 represent a later addition to the book. 
 Lightfoot, Rosenmiiller, Derenbourg, and others 
 support the strange conjecture that E. is the name 
 of the author himself (see JoB, Book OF). 
 
 W. T. DAVISON. 
 
 ELIJAH (:725x; bx in 2 K 18% 22, Mal 33 [Eng. 4°] 
 © J” is God’; LXX’HaAeiod; NT Hvclas, AV Elias).— 
 1. The loftiest prophet of the OT, raised up by J” at 
 @ crisis in the Ristory of Israel to save the nation 
 from lapsing into heathenism. His public life is 
 sketched in a few narratives wonderful for their 
 vivid representations and graphic details. His 
 personal history is full of human interest, and 
 presents lessons of the highest ethical and spiritual 
 value. His first appearance is surrounded with an 
 element of mystery which is in keeping with his 
 whole history. There is but a single brief refer- 
 ence (1 K 171) to his origin, and even that is not 
 without ambiguity. The words are tr. by AV, in 
 accordance with the MT, ‘E. the Tishbite, who 
 was of the inhabitants of Gilead.’ If this render- 
 ing is correct, it signifies that a certain place called 
 Tishbeh or Tishbi of Gilead, not named elsewhere, 
 had the distinction of giving birth to the prophet. 
 Some have sought to identify it with Thisbe of 
 Naphtali, mentioned in To 17. They point out that 
 the correct rendering of ‘avAD (on the assumption 
 that it is a common, not a proper name) is not ‘of 
 the inhabitants,’ but ‘of the sojourners’ (so RV), 
 which would imply that E. came from another or 
 
 foreign district. But the LXX makes the dis- 
 uted word a proper name, and reads ‘E. the 
 ishbite from Thesbon of Gilead.’ This reading 
 
 seems to be followed by Josephus (Ant. viu. 
 
 
 
 xiii. 2). It is supported by the fact that, when- 
 ever the word is a common noun, it is written 
 avin, _ There seems therefore little reason to doubt 
 that E. was a native of the wild but beautiful 
 mountain district of Gilead, the highlands of 
 Palestine, on the eastern side of the Jordan, 
 bordering on the great desert. There he had a 
 prophet’s nurture in solitude. He always loved 
 the wild defiles and rushing torrents of his native 
 land. Lonely mountains and bleak deserts were 
 congenial to his spirit. He learned to dwell 
 familiarly on the sterner aspects of religion and 
 morality. He had the austere, ascetic, mono- 
 theistic spirit of the desert. He learned the fear 
 of J” which knew no other fear. 
 
 Nothing is said of his parentage, and the omis- 
 sion is in striking contrast to the wealth of detail 
 with which the descent of some other prophets is 
 stated. E. occupied from the first a unique and 
 exalted position in the goodly fellowship. He 
 seemed to be like Melchizedek ‘ without father, 
 without mother, without genealogy, having neither 
 beginning of days nor end of life.’ Strange tradi- 
 tions arose in later times among the Rabbis, as 
 that he was Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, 
 returned to life, or an angel in human form. 
 
 E.’s whole manner of lifeis meant to be a protest 
 against a corrupt civilisation. He has some of the 
 habits of the ancient Nazirite, and not a few of 
 the characteristics of the modern Bedawin. His 
 unshorn locks streaming down his shoulders and 
 his rough mantle of camel’s hair (2 K 18) alone 
 make him a remarkable figure in Israel. He has 
 the fleet foot of a true son of the desert (1 K 18%), 
 and an iron frame which enables him to endure a 
 forty days’ fast (198). He dwells in the clefts of 
 the Cherith (17%), sleeps under a desert broom (19%), 
 lodges in the cave of Horeb (19°), and haunts the 
 slopes of Carmel. If he enters a city, it is only to 
 deliver the message of J” and be gone. His start- 
 ling appearances, abrupt speeches, and sudden dis- 
 appearances create around his personality a pro- 
 found air of mystery. He is believed to be borne 
 hither and thither by the Spirit of J” (1 K 18, 2 
 K 2'6), He comes down from the hills of Gilead as 
 the champion and prophet of J” in the dark days 
 of Israel’s apostasy. e comes to bear witness to 
 truths which ought never to have been denied in 
 Israel. Like every true reformer, he takes his 
 stand upon old principles. He is the personified 
 conscience of the nation. He comes, a prophet of 
 heroic mould, to witness by deeds rather than by 
 words. 
 
 The spiritual danger which E. was called to 
 avert arose out of a political alliance formed 
 between Israel and Pheenicia, and cemented by 
 the marriage of Ahab and Jezebel, the son and 
 the daughter of the allied kings. A covenant 
 between two Semitic peoples was always supposed 
 to imply a friendship between their gods. Its 
 natural sequel was a syncretism of faith an@ 
 worship. That Ahab did not at first think of 
 denying J” is proved by the names he gave his 
 sons—A haziah (J” holds) and Jehoram (J” is high). 
 But his religious instincts were as dull as his 
 
 olitical instincts were keen. Brave enough in 
 
 attle, and on the whole a successful ruler, he war 
 morally weak, and came completely under the 
 baneful influence of his strong-minded Tyrian 
 wife, a fanatic in her own faith. It was to please 
 her that he not only erected a temple to Baal at 
 Samaria (1 K 16°") and introduced a multitude of 
 foreign priests (181°), but allowed a religious per- 
 secution, in which many of the prophets of J” are 
 said to have been slain (18*1%). The effect of 
 these events on the religious life of Israel could not 
 be small. The people had hitherto been ensnared 
 only by the gods of the hostile tribes of Canaan 
 
 
 
 
 
688 ELVAH 
 
 whom they had subdued. They were now tempted 
 vo adopt the cultus of a great allied nation, and 
 the temptation proved too strong to be resisted. 
 Baal-worship became the court religion, and, if its 
 progress had not been effectually checked, would 
 soon have become the national religion. 
 
 To prevent this disastrous consummation is E.’s 
 life-task. His fiery zeal against the Tyrian cultus 
 springs from moral at least as much as religious 
 considerations. ‘That superstition had such accom- 
 paniments as would soon sap the moral vigour of 
 any nation. <A patriot as well as a prophet, E. 
 comes to save his country. His ruling passion is 
 jealousy for the Lord God of hosts (1 K 19"). He 
 
 nows the God of Israel as a moral and spiritual 
 being, and all his demands on behalf of J” are 
 moral and spiritual. The details of ritual do not 
 trammel a man of his spiritual force. He knows 
 nothing of the Deuteronomic law which condemns 
 local altars (1 K 18%). It is not recorded that 
 he ever visits Jerusalem. But Gilgal, Bethel, 
 Carmel, and other ancient sanctuaries of the 
 true religion, are dear to him. Sinai is, from its 
 associations, the holiest ground. He believes in 
 a covenant in virtue of which J” became the God 
 of Israel, and Israel the people of J”. And the 
 conviction is burned into his mind that there can 
 be no alliance between the God of Israel and any 
 other divinity. His jealousy for J” is the counter- 
 
 art of J’’s jealousy for Israel. It is to E. an 
 intuitive truth that J” can brook no rival in His 
 kingdom, and he is amazed that any can doubt it: 
 his pies blazes with contempt against all ‘ weak- 
 kneed’ persons (1 K 187) who halt between two 
 opinions. 
 
 It is contended by some critics (Wellhausen, 
 Stade, etc.) that E. was not a monotheist, like 
 Amos, Hosea, and the other literary prophets: that 
 he was like the mass of the pecnte of his time in 
 regarding J” as only the God of Israel—a local 
 god—and believing that every other nation had 
 1ts own deity. It is affirmed that E. was a ‘ heno- 
 wneist.? Now, it is sufficiently clear that the faith 
 of many of his contemporaries is of this rudiment- 
 ary order: the contest between J” and Baal is to 
 them a real struggle between rival deities. But 
 E.’s lofty conception of J” virtually excludes all 
 uther objects of worship—makes all the gods idols. 
 It is difficult to believe that the Baal whom he 
 treats with such irony and contempt (1 K 1877) has 
 to his mind any reality. At any rate, it is but a 
 short step from E.’s ‘henotheism’ to absolute 
 monotheism. 
 
 The memoirs of E. seem to be derived from 
 several sources. The narratives in 1 K 17-19. 21, 
 2 K 2, form a unity. They took shape in Northern 
 israel, as is indicated by the remark that Beersheba 
 *belongeth to Judah’ (1 K 19%). They were prob- 
 ably written under the influence of the literary 
 prophase of the Northern Kingdom, about the 
 
 eginning of the 7th cent. B.C. These narratives 
 are composed in the highest style of literary art. 
 Their distinctly popular character is apparent, and 
 it has been cae by W. R. Smith that they read 
 like a transcript of a vivid oral tradition (Prophets 
 of Israel, 116). Like other historical parts of the 
 
 T, they may have lived in the mouths of the 
 people for generations, forming a powerful means 
 of religious education, before they were committed 
 to writing. 
 
 E. comes on the stage of history with the same 
 startling abruptness with which he makes his 
 first appearance before Ahab. He is sent to 
 announce that J” is about to avenge the apos- 
 tasy of Israel by bringing a long drought on the 
 land. This message delivered, he vanishes into 
 solitude. He is guided by the Spirit of J” to the 
 brook Cherith ‘that is before,’ ¢.e. to the east of, 
 
 ELIJAH 
 
 ‘ Jordan’ (1 K 17°), probably in his native Gilead. 
 See CHERITH. ‘There his life is miraculously 
 sustained by ravens, which bring him flesh every 
 morning and evening (vv.**). Prosaic critics have 
 tried to eliminate the marvellous element from the 
 story. They call attention to the fact that the 
 word oa, which is so pointed in the MT as to 
 mean ‘ravens,’ signifies with another set of vowel- 
 
 oints ‘Arabs,’ with another ‘merchants,’ or ‘in- 
 
 abitants of Oreb.’ But, not to emphasize the 
 fact that ravens eat flesh, which Arabs generally 
 avoid, it is to be noted that the marvellous element 
 is quite in keeping with other parts of E.’s story. 
 In the oral tradition the prophet’s friends were 
 doubtless ‘ravens’: the narrative would not have 
 been thought worth preserving but for the 
 miraculous feature, which is reproduced in all the 
 ancient versions. 
 
 When the brook Cherith dries up in the long 
 drought, the prophet goes, under divine direction, 
 to Zarephath, a city of heathen Tyre (178), where 
 he is hospitably received by a poor widow whom 
 the famine has reduced to her last meal (v.), The 
 pope finds a well-spring of kindness in the 
 
 eart of a heathen country. He learns to sym- 
 pathize with one of another race and a strange 
 religion, and his stern nature is in some degree 
 softened by contact with human suffering. He 
 rewards the widow’s charity first by miraculousl 
 increasing her small store of meal and oil, an 
 later by restoring her child to life (vv.**). His 
 experience begins to prepare him for a higher 
 revelation, which he is in due time to receive. 
 
 Meanwhile the king, in his rage against the 
 prophet of evil, sends messengers into all nations 
 (1 i 18°) to search for E., but they report that 
 their quest has been fruitless. For three years 
 there falls no rain or dew in Israel. The famine 
 is so severe that the king and his chamberlain, 
 Obadiah, have to scour the country in search of 
 provender for the royal stables (v.). While they 
 are engaged in this quest, E. suddenly appears 
 before Obadiah and bids him summon his master 
 (v.7-), The meeting of the prophet and the king 
 is very dramatic. Ahab has never been able to 
 stifle the conscience of an Israelite, and cannot 
 withhold his respect from the prophet of J”. He 
 bitterly accuses of of being the troubler of Israel ; 
 but when the prophet flings back the charge, tlie 
 king is silenced (v.?"™), E. challenges, or rail:er 
 commands, him to summon the prophets of Bal to 
 a contest between J” and Baal on Mom Carmel. 
 The worshippers of Baal shall sacrifice to their 
 God; E. himself will sacrifice to J”: the od who 
 answers by fire, he shall be the God. ‘The kin 
 consents (v.%), The narrative of the contest (1 
 187#) is one of the grandest in the O'!. Apart 
 from its historical value, it is precious as an 
 ideal representation of the conflict which is always 
 being waged between true and false religion, and 
 of combatants who are always meeting. On the 
 appointed day the king and the 400 prophets of 
 Baal, E. and ‘all the people,’ assemble on Carmel. 
 The prophets of Baal, having built an altar and 
 laid their sacrifice, pray to their god from morning 
 till evening, and are excited to a frenay by their 
 fruitless efforts and the biting sarcasm of E. Inthe 
 evening E. rebuilds the ancient altar of J’—thrown 
 down in these times of persecution——and utters a 
 few calm words of prayer to J”. The eee 
 falls and consumes not only the sacrifice, but the 
 altar and the water poured into trenches around 
 it. The people fall on their faces, and with loud 
 voices acknowledge that J” is God. Then, in an 
 access of irrepressible zeal, they fall upon the 400 
 prophets who have deceived the nation, and put 
 them all to the sword. E. prays that the drought 
 may cease, and before nightfall there is a tempest 
 
 tn ae 
 
 
 

 
 ELIJAH 
 
 —~ 
 
 of rain, in the midst of which the strange prophet, 
 seized by a sudden impulse, carried away by the 
 emotion of triumph, rolls his mantle together and 
 runs like an avant-courier in front of the royal 
 chariot all the sixteen miles from Carmel to 
 the gates of Jezreel (vv.*?-*), 
 
 E. imagines that the battle for truth has been 
 fought and won, and that his task is virtually 
 accomplished. But his triumph is brief. When 
 he receives a message that Jezebel has sworn to 
 have his life (197), his sanguine hope for the re- 
 storation of the true religion is changed in a 
 moment into blank despair. He feels with a sink- 
 ing heart that he has laboured for naught and in 
 vain. God Himself has contended in vain with 
 human folly. Nothing can be made of a king 
 whom miracles will not convince, but who is 
 turned round the finger of a woman. The apos- 
 tate nation will remain apostate. Seeing all this 
 (the LXX and other ancient versions, instead 
 of ‘and he saw it,’ read ‘and he was afraid,’ 
 19), E. flees for his life to Judea, and, leaving 
 his servant at Beersheba, plunges into the desert, 
 where he is alone with J”. Weary, famished, and 
 heavy of heart, he lies down under a desert broom 
 [so RVm ; see JUNIPER], and is willing to die. He 
 feels that his life has been a failure. He has 
 been worsted in the battle of life, and something 
 tells him that he has deserved to be. He is no 
 
 better than his fathers. He has now nothing more 
 to live for. It is vain to continue the unequal 
 
 struggle. All men have forsaken him. He has 
 no friend but J”, and he prays that He would 
 release him from his fruitless task (vv.* ‘). 
 
 God is very kind to his servant, first satisfying 
 his bodily wants, and then giving him a new 
 revelation such as his soul needs. As the prophet 
 sleeps under the desert bush, he is awakened b 
 the touch of an angel, who sets meat and drin 
 before him, and on the strength of that food he 
 goes a forty days’ journey (forty being, as usual, 
 around number) to Horeb (vv.°-’). It is not diffi- 
 cult to understand what the prophet seeks at 
 that mountain sanctuary. He desires to meet J”. 
 Men have failed him: he wants to make sure 
 of God. He goes to Horeb to stand where Moses 
 stood. His heart cries out for the vindication of 
 the moral law. Finding a cave, he lodges there 
 (v.°). (In the Heb. it is the cave, either as already 
 a place to which pilgrims resorted, or from the fame 
 of this single visit: the traditional cave is in a 
 secluded plain under the highest peak of Jebel 
 Misa; see SINAI.) The narrative which follows 
 (vv.2-18) is spiritually one of the profoundest in the 
 OT. J” represents to E., by a macniticvent acted 
 parable, the contrast between law anil vrace, judg- 
 mentand mercy. As the prophet of J’, k. has been 
 using the weapon of force. He has never con- 
 ceived it possible to defeat the enemies of God by 
 any other weapon. He has magnified Guil’s strict- 
 ness with a zeal He will not own. And he has 
 failed. Force has left men hard and indifferent. 
 J” here makes experiment upon E. with his own 
 weapon. He visits the mountain with a hurri- 
 cane, with an earthquake, and with a fire. The 
 prophet’s wounded spirit is not moved by any of 
 these. ”" is not in them. But in the calm 
 which follows the tumult he hears a still small 
 voice (RVm ‘a sound of gentle stillness’) which 
 thrills his inmost being; he feels that God is 
 there ; self-abased, he wraps his face in his mantle 
 and waits to receive the divine communications, 
 He is thus taught the meaning of his failure. He 
 is shown in a parable ‘a more excellent way.’ In 
 the heart of Sinai he learns the gentleness of God. 
 Others like himself may be won by grace, whom 
 might and wrath have failed to move. The 
 Kingdom of God comes not so much by startling 
 
 VOL. I.—44 
 
 ELIJAH 689 
 
 miracles, but through quiet human agencies and in 
 the slow movements of history. E. is therefore 
 shown that J” has still a great work for him to do- 
 he must shape the destinies of two great nations, 
 and provide for the continuance of the prophetic 
 succession. Three commands are laid upon him: to 
 anoint Hazael to be king over Syria, Jehu to be 
 king over Israel, and Elisha to be his own suc- 
 cessor. And he is comforted with the assurance 
 that the work in which he has been engaged has 
 not been a failure: J” reserves for Himself seven 
 thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal. 
 
 With faith restored E. returns to his task (vv.}*"7!), 
 On his way to Damascus he finds Elisha at the 
 plough, and throws his mantle over him—a symbolic 
 action by which he claims him as his son and invests 
 him with the prophetic office. Elisha leaves all, and 
 ministers unto him. From this time E. is never 
 alone: he has a companion to whom he becomes a 
 true spiritual father (2 K 2'*), winning his filial 
 affection as well as profound veneration. 
 
 Here there is a break in the narrative. It is 
 nowhere stated by what means E. sought to fulfil 
 the other two parts of the commission which he 
 received at Horeb. The account of the actual 
 completion of his task by Elisha in 2 K 9. 10 is 
 apparently by another narrator. Nor is it directly 
 recorded what means E. afterwards used for the 
 advancement of the true religion. But there are 
 deeply interesting hintsin the memoirs. Cheyne’s 
 singular statements (Hallowing of Criticism, p. 143), 
 that E. was weak in spiritual intuition, and that the 
 lesson of Horeb was lost upon him, do not seem to 
 be warranted. On the contrary, there are not 
 wanting indications that from the day on which 
 E. heard the still small voice there was another 
 spirit in him. He does not again attempt to 
 suppress Ahab’s idolatry by force. He leaves the 
 apostate king alone, and waits the course of events. 
 if he does not entirely abandon his lonely desert 
 life, he at least becomes a familiar figure in the 
 schools of the prophets at Gilgal, Bethel, and 
 Jericho (2 K 24). His personality, and probably 
 his teaching, make a profound impression upon the 
 young prophets. He kindles in their minds his 
 own a for J”; he transfuses his spirit into them ; 
 the homage which they pay to Elisha (2 K 2”) is 
 entirely due to the fact that they perceive in him 
 the spirit of the greater prophet. 
 
 When E.’s moral indignation once more flashes 
 out against the house of Ahab (1 K 21),. it is 
 not now for the destruction of idolatry but in 
 the cause of justice and humanity that he opp ars. 
 He has become the champion of the civil and 
 moral rights of the people. Ahab violates the 
 ancient laws of property, which are the charter 
 of the people’s liberties, Py. forcibly alienating the 
 vineyard of Naboth. e deepens his guilt b 
 allowing his wife to compass the innocent man’s 
 ruin by peculiarly nefarious means (1 K 218). 
 This crime is the signal for E.’s reappearance 
 at Jezreel. On the day after Naboth’s murder, 
 the king is proceeding in state to take possession 
 of the coveted gardens, when he is confronted by 
 the prophet, and quails once more before his 
 moral indignation. His enemy has found him 
 (v.). His own sin finds him out. His con- 
 science condemns him. He stands speechless while 
 the propliet’s words of doom smite him like 
 thunderbolts: Ahab’s house shall fall; dogs shall 
 eat the carcase of Jezebel; the king’s whole pos- 
 terity shall perish, and their bodies be given to 
 the dovs of the city or the fowls of the air (so D? 
 in vy.”-28), In the chariot behind Ahab on that 
 memorable day was an officer named Jehu, on 
 whose mind the words of E. left an indelible im- 
 pression (2 K 9); and though the execution of the 
 sentence was deierred in consideration of the 
 
ELIJAH 
 
 
 
 690 ELIJAH 
 
 king’s penitence, this man was the instrument 
 chosen by J” for the overthrow of the house of 
 Ahab. 
 
 The episode of Naboth’s vineyard produced a 
 great change in the popular sentiment. It revealed 
 the true character of the issues in E.’s conflict 
 aeclnet idolatry. It showed the people, that while 
 idolatry went hand in hand with injustice and 
 crime, the religion of J” was the bulwark of right- 
 eousness and liberty. Atthe same time, it opened 
 their eyes to the real grandeur of the prophet in 
 their midst, and doubtless we are to date from 
 this event a great increase in his power as the 
 prophet of J”. 
 
 It is impossible to determine the extent and 
 duration of E.’s subsequent labours. There are two 
 other narratives, one of which brings him into con- 
 tact with Ahaziah, son of Ahab (B.C. c. 853), while 
 the other implies that he lived on till the reign of 
 Jehoram of Judah (c. 849-844). It is difficult to 
 harmonize this chronology with that of 2 K 3, 
 which makes it clear that E.’s career ended and 
 Elisha’s began before the death of Jehoshaphat 
 (c. 874-849). It is possible, however, that Jehoram 
 reigned for a time during the life of his father 
 Jehoshaphat (2 K 8!*; the text is doubtful). 
 
 According to the narrative in 2 K 1, Ahaziah, 
 son of Ahab, having injured himself by falling 
 from a balcony of his palace, sends messengers to 
 the shrine of Baal-zebub, god of Ekron, to inquire 
 if he shall recover. On their way they are inter- 
 cepted by Elijah, who indignantly asks them if 
 there is not a God in Israel of whom they might 
 inquire, and commands them to go back and tell 
 the king that his injuries will certainly prove 
 fatal. hen the messengers describe to the king 
 the person who waylaid them, he immediately 
 recognizes in him the old enemy of his house, and 
 in the true spirit of Jezebel, his mother, sends out 
 a band of fifty men to capture him. They find 
 the prophet seated ‘on the top of the hill’ (name 
 not given: Carmel, say some critics, but it is not 
 on the way to Ekron). At his word, fire comes 
 down from heaven and consumes them all. Another 
 band of the same number meet the same fate. A 
 third company is sent out, but their leader takes 
 warning, adopts a humble tone, and he and his 
 men are spared. E. then goes in person to the 
 king, and repeats the declaration that his doom is 
 sealed. 
 
 This narrative differs widely in language, style, 
 and spirit from those of the preceding group. The 
 prophet’s personal appearance has altered (18) ; his 
 name has changed from 17x to the later form mx; 
 and instead of being directly inspired and guided 
 by J” as hitherto, he receives the word of prophecy 
 from an angel (1* 15), ‘The representation of the 
 prophet assumes gigantic proportions, but at the 
 same time becomes rigid and lifeless: it ceases to 
 be available as a pattern of human action’ (Ewald). 
 The narrator tells the story, without apology, for 
 the glorification of his hero; but no narrative in 
 the OT presents greater moral difficulties. If it 
 is sopeniee as literal history, one’s moral sense is 
 shocked at the destruction of a great number of 
 men whose only fault is obedience to the orders of 
 their captain and their king. One cannot conceive 
 the story to have been penned by the historian 
 who related the parable of the still small voice at 
 Horeb. The best comment on the story was sup- 
 plied by Christ. He condemned with unmistakable 
 plainness the vindictive spirit which His disciples, 
 by citing the example of Elijah, sought to justify 
 (Lk 9°), Others besides the disciples have used 
 the story as an argument for persecution. E. was 
 the patron of the Inquisitors. Even Calvin and 
 Beza argued from this narrative that fire was the 
 proper instrument of punishment for heretics. But 
 
 the story itself can hardly be regarded as history. It 
 is rather one of those imaginative apologues— 
 abundant in the schools of the scribes — which 
 borrowed the names of ancient heroes to lend 
 vividness and concreteness to abstract doctrines. 
 
 The other narrative (2 Ch 21)**-) is given only 
 by the Chronicler, and bears distinct marks of late- 
 ness. Jehoram, king of Judah, son-in-law of Ahab 
 and Jezebel, having fallen under the spell of 
 sensuous Baal-worship, E. is represented as send- 
 ing him a letter warning him that J” will bring a 
 plague upon Judah, by which all the king’s house 
 will be afflicted, and to which the king himself 
 will early fall a victim. This is the only narrative 
 which brings E. into connexion with the kingdom 
 of Judah, and the only one which represents him 
 as carrying on his work by means of writing. 
 The style and language of the letter correspond 
 very closely with those of the Chronicler, 
 
 The narrative of E.’s translation (2 K 2?!) re. 
 turns to the lofty style of the writer of 1 K 17- 
 19. 21. Ewald, indeed, regarded it as the work of 
 the same great narrator ; more recent critics con- 
 sider that from a literary point of view it is more 
 closely connected with the history of Elisha (2 K 
 gun), E.’s end is still more mysterious than his 
 beginning. He alone shares with Enoch the glory 
 of being ‘translated,’ so that he should not taste 
 death (He 115). Of him alone is it recorded, as of 
 Christ (Lk 24°), that he was carried up into 
 heaven. He is residing at the ancient sanctuary 
 of Gilgal (now Jiljilia, between Shechem and 
 Bethel, not the town of the same name on the 
 Jordan), where a prophetic guild is established, 
 when he is warned that the time of his departure 
 is come. His invisible Guide calls him for the 
 last time into solitude. The appointed place is 
 beyond Jordan, not now in the ravines of his 
 native Gilead, but southward in the wild region 
 of Nebo, where his greatest forerunner fell asleep. 
 As he went to Horeb for inspiration in his time 
 of spiritual storm and stress, so he is drawn in 
 the final crisis of his life to the mountain region 
 in which Moses was summoned to die, away 
 from the face of man. But he begins his last 
 journey by visiting the prophetic guilds at Bethel 
 and Jericho, probably for the purpose of confirm- 
 ing the young prophets in the faith. Wishing to 
 spare Elisha the pain of witnessing the last fiery 
 ordeal, he tenderly entreats him to remain at 
 Gilgal. His faithful companion cannot brook the 
 idea of separation: he solemnly vows that he 
 will never leave his master. At Bethel the sons 
 of the prophets, foreboding E.’s coming removal, 
 ask Elisha if he knows that his master is to be 
 taken away from him. He knows it well, but is 
 too straitened in spirit to speak of it, and entreats 
 them to hold their peace. From Bethel E. pro- 
 ceeds to Jericho, where he again endeavours te 
 persuade his disciple to let him go on this journey 
 alone; but Elisha repeats his vow. At Jericho 
 some of the prophetic guild wish to question 
 Elisha about the impending event, but he begs 
 them to be silent. Fifty sons of the prophets 
 ascend the heights above the city to watch the 
 ae as he descends with his disciple to the 
 
 ordan. They see him strike the river with his 
 mantle; the waters part; the two men cross by 
 the bed of the river and pass out of sight. As they 
 approach their destination, E. asks his disciple if 
 he has any last request to make. Elisha seeks ‘a 
 double portion’ of his master’s spirit—not twice 
 E.’s inspiration, but the portion of an eldest son, 
 who received twice as much as the younger sons 
 (Dt 21”). E. replies that it is a hard request. 
 Spiritual gifts are the most difficult of all to trans- 
 mit. Nevertheless, he assures his follower that if 
 
 he prove his fitness for prophetic gifts by remain- 
 
 
 
ELIJAH 
 
 
 
 ing with his master to the end, and looking without 
 fear on the dread messengers of the invisible world, 
 his request will not be denied. They now enter 
 the dark mountains of Moab. Somewhere here 
 J” Himself laid His servant Moses to rest. No man 
 knew the exact place. ‘The whole region is a 
 sepulchre.’ As they still advance and talk to- 
 gether, black clouds gather, a tempest descends, 
 the air is filled with fire, and, ‘behold, there appear 
 chariots of fire and horses of fire, and E. is taken 
 up to heaven in a whirlwind.’ Elisha sees him no 
 more. He rends his clothes, and mourns for his 
 master as one mourns for thedead. He is bereft 
 of the prophet who has been to him a father, and 
 to Israel a eae as great as its chariots and 
 horsemen. But he has stood the severe test im- 
 posed upon him, and receives the reward—the 
 spirit of E. rests upon him. Taking up the mantle 
 which has fallen from his master, he returns from 
 the scene of the translation to the Jordan, and 
 puts his new power to the proof by striking the 
 waters with the mantle and calling upon the God 
 of Elijah. The waters divide as before, and he 
 passes over on dry land. When the sons of the 
 Sy hon at Jericho hear of what has happened, 
 and perceive that the spirit of E. rests upon his 
 disciple, they bow themselves to the earth and 
 acknowledge Elisha as their new master. But the 
 story of the translation awakens their scepticism, 
 and they send out fifty strong men to make search 
 for the missing prophet, Elisha trying in vain to 
 dissuade them. For three days they prosecute 
 the search among the mountains of Moab, expect- 
 ee find E. on some lonely peak or in some dark 
 valley, cast aunt as at other times by the Spirit 
 of J”. When they return and confess that the 
 search has been vain, Elisha gently chides their 
 unbelief (2 K 2!8), 
 
 E. is thus removed from the scene of his labours 
 before the whole task laid upon him (1 K 19") is 
 finished. But Elisha and others enter into his 
 labours, sons of the prophets animated by his 
 spirit are raised up in hundreds, his teaching 
 a aera his spirit penetrates the nation. Then 
 the harvest is reaped. After two short reigns the 
 idolatrous house of Ahab falls (2 K 9). The 
 enemies of J” and of E. perish. Superstition dies 
 hard, but there is never again any question of 
 rivalry between J” and Baal. There is no more 
 danger of Baal-worship becoming the national 
 religion. It sinks into the superstition of a sect, 
 known to later prophets as the remnant of Baal 
 (Zeph 14). 
 
 he eeu by which this reformation was ac- 
 complished were mainly spiritual. It cannot be 
 denied that some of E.’s own actions may have 
 furnished an excuse for certain deeds of violence. 
 It is like a Nemesis that the finishing touch has to 
 be given to the work by a man of blood like Jehu. 
 Yet it was not the fire and sword of Carmel, but 
 the still small voice speaking in the schools of the 
 prophets and the hearts of the faithful that again 
 made Israel a people prepared for J”. 
 
 E.’s moral power lies in the simplicity of his 
 faith. He realizes the belief in J” intensely, and 
 lives a heroic life in the strength of it. ‘J’ tefors 
 whom I stand’ is his favourite formula (1 K 17! 
 185). He stands erect and haughty before kings; 
 but in the presence of J” he wraps his head in his 
 mantle, or crouches to the ground with his face 
 between his knees (1 K 18” 19%), Stern and 
 rugged by nature, a prophet moulded for heroic 
 work in evil days, he is led through an experience 
 which awakens in him the tenderness that is only 
 to be found in union with strength. His personal 
 history, especially the narrative of the breakdown 
 and restoration of his faith, brings him into touch 
 with human beings in all ages. He is so great 
 
 
 
 ELIJAH 691 
 
 
 
 
 
 that readers of his story are not unthankful for 
 his failings. ‘E. was a man of like passions with 
 us’ (Ja BI), 
 
 Critics differ widely in their estimates of the 
 historical importance of E. Wellhausen thinks 
 that his influence is appraised too highly in the 
 biblical narratives. His struggle with Baal cannot 
 have possessed the importance attributed to it 
 from the point of view of a later time. Israel was 
 never torn asunder by such a religious commotion 
 as that described in 1 K 18. It was not Baal that 
 brought about the fall of the house of Ahab, but 
 common treason on the part of Jehu (Proleg. 291). 
 Wellhausen is given to depreciating the part played 
 by prophecy in the history of Israel. ‘In the eyes 
 sf their contemporaries,’ he says, ‘the prophets 
 were completely overshadowed by the kings; only 
 to later times did they become the principal per- 
 sonages.’ E. must hide his diminished head 
 before Ahab. ‘He effected nothing against the 
 king, and quite failed to draw the people over to his 
 side.’ Wellhausen states no convincing reasons 
 for this interesting view. There is probably more 
 truth in the opinion of those who say that the 
 history of Israel is essentially the history of 
 prophecy. And Kuenen’s estimate of E. appears 
 much fairer: ‘The consequences of the struggle 
 with the Syrian Baal and the victory of Jahvism 
 were most important. Had the issue of the con- 
 flict been different, the existence of J’-worship 
 would have been at stake; the averting of this 
 danger was an important result. From this period 
 onward the belief in ‘‘J” the God of Israel” is 
 assailed no longer. The prophets of the eighth 
 century are able to start from it as a universal 
 conviction. For this foundation for their preach- 
 ing they have to thank Elijah and his school’ 
 (Religion of Israel, i. 360). 
 
 No OT hero fills a larger place in Jewish tradi- 
 tion than Elijah. How he impressed the minds of 
 his own people in after-ages is shown by the 
 striking eulogium pronounced upon him a the 
 son of Sirach (Sir 48'*), It became a fixed belief 
 that E. would appear again for the deliverance 
 and restoration of Israel. This is expressed in 
 the very last words of the OT (Mal 4°). Jesus 
 teaches that this expectation was fulfilled by the 
 appearance of John the Baptist (Mt 172+-?). Jesus’ 
 cry on the cross, ‘ Eli, Eli,” was mistaken for a call 
 to Elijah to come for His deliverance (Mt 27%, 
 Mk 15%). No prophet is mentioned so frequently 
 in the NT as Elijah. The priests and Levites 
 (Jn 1%) cannot understand John’s right to baptize, 
 if he is neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor that 
 prophet (like unto Moses, Dt 18") As E. was 
 with Moses in spirit at Sinai and Nebo, so these two 
 prophets appear together conversing with Jesus 
 on the Mount of the Transfiguration (Mt 178, Mk 
 94, Lk 9°). 
 
 It only remains to be said that E. occupies a 
 conspicuous place in the legends and rites of many 
 peoples. Among the Jews he is the expected 
 guest at every passover, for whom a vacant seat 
 is reserved. Among the Greeks he is the patron 
 saint of mountains, and many summits in Greece 
 are now called by his name. In the Roman 
 Catholic Church he is revered as the founder of 
 the Order of the Barefooted Carmelites. By the 
 Mohammedans he is often confounded with tke 
 great and mysterious El-Khudr, the Eternal 
 Wanderer, who having drunk the water of life 
 retains everlasting youth, and pore ever and 
 anon to right the wrongs of men. E. is canonized 
 both in the Greek and the Latin Church, his 
 festival being on the 20th July. 
 
 LiteRATURE.—Driver, LOT 184 ff.; ae Comp. 281 ff., 
 
 Proleg. 290ff., Hist. of Isr. and Judah, 64ff.; Stade, Ges. d. 
 V. Tar. i. 524 ff.; W. B. Smith, OTJC2 26t., Proph. of 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 692 ELIJAH, APOCALYPSE OF 
 
 
 
 ELIPHAZ 
 
 
 
 Isr. 76 ff., 116 ff.; Cornill, Isr. Proph. 12, 15, 
 Kittel, Hist. of Heb, ii, 213, 266 ff., 275, 279; Ewald, HI iv. 63 ff.: 
 Graetz, Hist. of Jews (tr. by B. L6 i 
 
 , 20, 29-36, 157 ; 
 
 jwy), i. 204 ff.; Maurice, Pro- 
 vhets and Kings, p. 126ff.; Schiirer, HJP m. ii. 156f. iii. 
 129 ff.; Kuenen, Rel. of Isr. i. 854 ff.; Renan, Hist. of People of 
 Isr. (Eng. tr.) ii. 229-242; Montefiore, Hibbert Lect. p. 91f.; 
 Liddon, Sermons on OT Subjects, 185, 209; Milligan, Elijah 
 Sees of Bible’); Cheyne, Hallowing of Criticism ; Farrar, 
 
 jooks of Kings, U.cit.; Walker and Paterson in Hupos. Times, 
 lv. 252 ff., 821. 
 
 2. (n:>¥, AV Eliah) A Benjamite chief, 1 Ch 8”. 
 8. 4. A priest and a layman who had married 
 foreign wives, Ezr 10: 26, J. STRACHAN. 
 
 ELIJAH, APOCALYPSE OF.—This is the title 
 of a lost pseudepigr. work which stands eighth in 
 the stichometrical list of Nicephorus and tenth in 
 an anonymous early list. In the first of these it 
 is called ‘HXla mpogpijrov, and said to consist of 
 316 verses. In the other its title is ‘HNlouv droxd- 
 Avyts. The Constitut. Apost. vi. 16 also contain 
 a reference to a writing bearing the name of 
 Elijah. Origen (Comm. Mt 27°) informs us that 
 this work was the source of the quotation in 
 1 Co 2? ‘Things which eye saw not, and ear 
 heard not,’ etc. Similar testimony is borne by 
 Euthalius and others, and it is propabla that the 
 statement is correct, although Jerome (Comm. 
 Is 643, Ep. 57 ad Pamm.) denies it for apologetic 
 reasons. On the other hand, there seems to be 
 less probability in the statement of Epiphanius 
 (Her. ch. 43), that Eph 5% ‘Awake thou that 
 preg ete., was quoted from the same Apoc. 
 of Elijah. Origen makes no mention of this where 
 he might be expected to do so, and Euthalius 
 alleges that the words of Eph 5 are derived 
 from a lost apocryphon which bore the name of 
 Jeremiah. For further information and for the 
 pasion quotations in full,’see Fabricius, Cod. 
 
 seud. V.I. i. 1070-1086; Schiirer, HJP W. iii. 
 129 ff. J. A. SELBIE.. 
 
 ELIKA (75x), the Harodite, one of David’s 
 ‘Thirty’ (2 S 23%5).—The name is omitted in B, 
 and in the parallel passage 1 Ch 11, possibly owing 
 to the repetition of the gentilic ‘the Harodite.’ 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ELIM (0° x).—One of the stations in the wander- 
 ings of the children of Israel (Ex 152’, Nu 33%); 
 apparently the fourth station after the passage of 
 the Red Sea, and the first place where the Israelites 
 met with fresh water. It was also marked by an 
 abundant growth of palm trees (cf. Ex 15”, twelve 
 wells and seventy palms). 
 
 If the traditional site of Mt. Sinai be-correct, the 
 likeliest place for Elim is the Wady Ghurundel, 
 where there is a good deal of vegetation, especially 
 stunted palms, and a number of water-holes in the 
 sand ; but some travellers have pushed the site of 
 Elim farther on, and placed it almost a day’s 
 journey nearer to Sinai, in the Wady Tayibeh, 
 where there are again palm trees and a scanty 
 supply of brackish water. The Greek monks who 
 have located Elim at Tér were probably guided 
 thereto by the luxuriant palms and a special taste 
 for the extravagant in miracle. The biblical 
 account takes the Israelites from Elim to a camp 
 by the sea; and this accords very well with the 
 experience of travellers who go to Mt. Sinai by the 
 southern route, camping one night in the Wady 
 Ghurundel, and the next night by the shore of the 
 Red Sea. 
 
 It should be remembered, however, that grave 
 doubts have been cast upon the popular identifica- 
 tion of Mt. Sinai (see SINAI); and as these doubts 
 turn, in part, upon the identification of Elim and 
 of the encampment by the sea, we must be careful 
 not to fall into a topographical reasoning in a 
 circle, so as to identify Sinai by means of Elim, 
 and then Elim by means of Sinai. 
 
 It has been suggested that the Elim of Ex 15, 
 Nu 33, is only a variant form of the plural name 
 Eloth which we find in 1 K 9%, 2 Ch 8", a place 
 which was certainly situated near the head of the 
 gulf of Akabah, and whose name still survives in 
 the Arabic Aileh (cf. the suggestive doublet of 
 Hazeroth, Nu 11%, and Hazerim, Dt 2%). If this 
 be so, then the camp by the sea is to be sought for 
 in the neighbourhood of Akabah, the position of 
 Mt. Sinai is unknown, and the earlier stages of the 
 journey of the children of Israel are to be sought 
 in the line of the present Haj route from Egypt 
 to Mecca. See Beke, Origines Biblice, 1839; 
 Baker Greene, The Hebrew Migration from Egypt, 
 1879; Sayce, HCM, 1894; and the art. Exopus 
 (ROUTE). J. RENDEL HARRIS, 
 
 ELIMELECH (xbox ‘God is king,’* so the 
 name Malchiel).—The husband of Naomi and 
 father of Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of 
 Beth-lehem-judah (ef. 1817”). He was driven by 
 a famine into the eee | of Moab, where, after a 
 residence of undefined length, he died. He is 
 spoken of as if he were the head of a clan in the 
 tribe of Judah (cf. Ru 28). This would be the 
 Hezronites (1 Ch 2°, ef. Gn 4672). 
 
 H. A. REDPATH. 
 
 ELIOENAI (‘3y\>x ‘to J” are mine eyes’).—1. A 
 Simeonite chief (1 Ch 4%). 2. A Benjamite (1 Ch 
 78). 8. A descendant of David who lived after the 
 Exile (1 Ch 3%-%), 4, A son of Pashhur who had 
 married a foreign wife (Ezr 10”), called in 1 Es 97 
 Elionas. 5. A son of Zattu who had committed 
 the same offence (Ezr 107’), called in 1 Es 9” 
 Eliadas. 6. A priest (Neh 12"), 
 
 ELIONAS.—4. (A ’EXtwvds, B’EXtwrals), 1 Es 973, 
 —In Ezr 10”, ELIOENAI, 2. (A ’EXwvrds, B -das), 
 1 Es 9°?=Ezr 10# ELIEZER. 
 
 ELIPHAL (babs ‘God hath judged’).—One of 
 David’s mighty men (1 Ch 11%), called in 2S 23" 
 Eliphelet (wh. see). 
 
 ELIPHALAT. —1. (A ’Edi¢ddaros, B ’EXecpada, 
 AV Eliphalet), 1 Es 8°°.—In Ezr 8% ELIPHELET. 
 2. (EXepaddr), 1 Es 9°%=Ezr 10° ELIPHELET. 
 
 ELIPHAZ [ip"x, possibly ‘God is fine gold’; but 
 in the absence of analogous meanings this must be 
 considered very doubtful. LXX generally EXid¢ds 
 (so A in Gn) or ’EAed¢ds (so B in Ch and Job, 
 except 2") or ’Eki¢dt (so A in Ch and Job, and D 
 in Gn 36"5)] is the name of two foreigners (Arabs) 
 mentioned in OT. 1. E. appears in the Edomite 
 genealogy of Gn 36 (and hence 1 Ch 1+) as son of 
 Esau by Adah (vv.* 2°), and father of Amalek by 
 his Horite concubine Timnah (vv.!**22), In v." 
 various other sons are mentioned, as ‘the dukes 
 that came of E. in the land of Edom,’ noticeable 
 among them being ‘Duke Teman,’ and another is 
 the well-known tribal name Kenaz. See further, 
 art. Epom. 2. See next article. G. B. GRAY. 
 
 ELIPHAZ (15x, LXX ’Eddds, an Idumean 
 name, transposed =Phasael?).—Described as the 
 first, and apparently the oldest and most important, 
 friend of Job: He is called ‘the Temanite.’ 
 Teman was a son of Eliphaz, the eldest son of 
 Esau (Gn 36115); and jo was a district of 
 Idumea, proverbially known for its wisdom (Jer 
 497), It is mentioned in close connexion with 
 Edom in Jer 49%. E. speaks at greater length 
 than either Bildad or Zophar; his speeches are 
 recorded in Job 4. 5. 15. and 22. He is also more 
 moderate in tone than the others ; his first speech, 
 especially, is gravely tender towards what he holds 
 * Or acc. to others, ‘ My god is Melek’ (the god-king). 
 
 a ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ELIPHELEHU 
 
 
 
 to be Job’s errors. Many of his utterances, taken 
 by themselves, contain important truth; but his 
 orthodox statements and maxims fail to cover the 
 facts of Job’s case. In his later speeches E. speaks 
 more directly and sharply, but he never becomes 
 violent or cruel. For an outline of his arguments, 
 see JOB, BOOK OF. W. T. DAVISON. 
 
 ELIPHELEHU (sbp>x ‘may God distinguish 
 him,’ AV Elipheleh).—A doorkeeper (1 Ch 15%: 24), 
 
 ELIPHELET (nboby ‘God is deliverance’).—4. 
 One of David’s sons (2 S 516 1 Ch 147 (AV 
 Eliphalet), 1 Ch 3%®=Elpelet of 1 Ch 145), The 
 double occurrence of the name in Chronicles, as if 
 David had had two sons named E., is probably due 
 to a scribal error. 2. One of David’s mighty men 
 (28 eae of 1Ch 11%), 3. A descendant of 
 Jonathan (1 Ch 8). 4. One of the sons of Adoni- 
 kam who returned from exile (Ezr 8%=Eliphalat 
 of 1 Es 8). 5. A son of Hashum who had married 
 a foreign wife (Ezr 10%=Eliphalat of 1 Es 9°), 
 
 ELISABETH (’Exicdfer [WH ’Edet.]; Heb. yay 
 ‘God is an oath,’ Ex 6”3).—The wife of Zacharias, and 
 the mother of John the Baptist (Lk 15*-), E. herself 
 belonged to the priestly family of Aaron, and was a 
 kinswoman (cvyyevls) of the Virgin Mary, though we 
 do not know what the actual relationship was. She 
 is described, along with Zacharias, as ‘righteous 
 before God, walking in all the commandments and 
 ordinances of the Lord blameless.’ Upon her, 
 however, had fallen what to a Jewish woman was 
 the heaviest of misfortunes, the reproach of barren- 
 ness. And not till she and her husband were 
 ‘well stricken in years’ was the promise of a son 
 given them. Five months later Elisabeth was 
 visited in her home in the hill-country of Judah 
 by her kinswoman Mary, and the degree of illumi- 
 nation which she had reached is proved by her 
 addressing Mary as ‘the mother of my Tord’ > (Lk 
 1%), See ZACHARIAS, G. MILLIGAN. 
 
 ELISEUS.—See ELIsHA. 
 
 ELISHA (y¢bs ‘ God is salvation’; LX X ’Edewaie ; 
 NT 'Enioaios, AV Eliseus).—The son of Shaphat, of 
 the tribe of Issachar, the disciple and successor of 
 the prophet Elijah. He is first mentioned in the 
 threefold commission with which Elijah is charged 
 by J” at Horeb (1 K 19%). Obeying the divine 
 voice, Elijah goes to Abel-meholah (‘meadow of the 
 dance,’ Ley ‘Ain Helweh) in the N. part of the 
 Jordan Valley, not far from his native Gilead, 
 where he finds E. ploughing with twelve yoke of 
 oxen in one of the rich level fields of his father’s 
 heritage, eleven yoke being with his servants, and 
 he last with the twelfth (19). Leaving the high- 
 way, Elijah passes over to him, and throws his 
 mantle over his shoulders—a symbolic act of 
 double significance: he adopts E. as his son, and 
 invests him with the prophetic office. No word is 
 spoken, but the symbol is understood. Elijah, 
 
 robably resuming his mantle, strides on, leaving 
 Fe amazed at the sudden call, and bewildered by 
 the necessity of making so tremendous a decision. 
 But the young man’s natural shrinking from so 
 high a calling—a hesitation similar to that of 
 Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah—is quickly overcome b 
 the consciousness that this is a call from God. 
 Running after Elijah, he declares his readiness to 
 follow him, only begging permission to return and 
 
 ive the kiss of farewell to his father and mother. 
 
 he mention of domestic ties ee Elijah’s eyes 
 to the greatness of the sacrifice he is calling E. to 
 
 make: perhaps it is too great for the youth; at 
 any rate his choice must be voluntary and de- 
 liberate ; the casting of the mantle over him was 
 
 ELISHA 693 
 
 in itself nothing. There is no accent of rebuke, 
 but tender consideration for E.’s natural feelings, 
 in the austere prophet’s testing words: ‘Go back 
 
 again, for what have I done unto thee?’ E. how- 
 ever, has made his choice. He is ready to leave 
 father and mother, and houses and lands, and 
 
 marks his act of self-renunciation by a sacrifice 
 which has sacramental significance. Unyokin 
 the oxen from his plough, he slays them, an 
 taking the plough, the goad and the yokes for 
 fuel, roasts the flesh of the oxen, and invites his 
 eople to a farewell feast. Then, having kissed 
 nis parents, he follows Elijah, and ministers unto 
 him. One graphic touch indicates his relation to 
 the greater prophet: he is referred to as ‘E. the 
 son of Shaphat, who poured water on the hands of 
 Elijah’ (2K 3"), They seem to have been together 
 some six or seven years (1 K 22},2K 1"). How 
 and where this time was spent is not definitely 
 stated. There is no evidence that Elijah ever 
 called E. to be a dweller in desert solitudes. There 
 are rather indications that during these years they 
 lived in familiar intercourse with the sons of the 
 prophets (2 K 2), The narrative of Elijah’s last 
 journey shows the deep filial affection, as well as 
 reverence, which he had awakened in his disciple. 
 See ELIJAH. From the scene of the translation, 
 Elisha returns bearing Elijah’s mantle, and endued 
 with a ‘double portion’ of his spirit. Thus began 
 a prophetic career in N. Israel which lasted for 
 more than half a century, during the reigns of 
 Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Joash. 
 
 E. is Elijah’s spiritual successor, but he presents 
 in many respects a striking contrast to his teacher. 
 Only metaphorically does he wear Elijah’s mantle : 
 after its first display it appears no more. He 
 wears the common garments (o73a 2 K 2¥), 
 and carries the walking-staff of ‘ordinary grave 
 citizens,’ sometimes using it for working miracles 
 (2 K 4). With his bald head, he does not escape 
 unfavourable comparison with the prophet of the 
 flowing locks (2 K 2%). EE. is no son of the desert. 
 Brought up at a peaceful farm in the Jordan 
 Valley, amid the sweet charities of home (1 K 19”), 
 he always prefers human companionship. He is 
 generally found in cities, sojourning at Jericho 
 among the sons of the prophets, or dwelling in his 
 own house at Samaria or at Dothan (2 K 6'* *), 
 A prophet’s chamber is built for him by a lady of 
 Shunem (4%), Elijah’s power was derived from 
 communion with J” in lonely mountains and 
 valleys; E. is helped by the strains of music— 
 ‘the hand of J”’ is upon him when the minstrel 
 plays (2 K 315). 
 
 Elijah’s short career was memorable for a few 
 grand and impressive scenes, E.’s long career is 
 marked by innumerable deeds of mercy. Both in 
 publie and in private life his activity is incessant. 
 He enters palaces not as an enemy, but as a friend 
 and counsellor. Kings reverently address him as 
 ‘father’ (2K 62134). The kings of Israel, Judah, 
 and Moab come to seek his advice in war (3!~!%), 
 The king of Syria consults him in sickness, and 
 offers him costly presents (878), The king of Israel 
 comes to receive his parting counsels (134*”). Hie 
 influence at court and in the army would immedi 
 ately secure a boon for a friend from the king or 
 the captain of the host (4%). He is expert in 
 camp-life, ambush, and scouting, and more than 
 once is the means of saving the life of the king 
 (6°). Even more than in palaces is he welcome in 
 the homes of the people. He is ‘the holy man of 
 God who passeth f us continually’ (4°). Most of 
 his miracles are deeds of gracious and homely 
 beneficence. Elijah began his career by predict- 
 ing a famine in the land; E. begins his by healing 
 aspring, that there might not be ‘from thence any 
 more death or barren land’ (2”4). 
 
 
 
694 ELISHA 
 
 ELISHA 
 
 
 
 Several of E.’s recorded words and deeds seem to 
 show how much he profited by the chastening 
 experience—and it may be by the direct teaching 
 —of Elijah. He has learned the lesson of tolera- 
 tion: when Naaman inquires if it is possible to 
 reconcile the homage due to Rimmon with loyalty 
 to J”, E. sends him away with a word of peace 
 (5'8). He knows how to temper justice with mercy ; 
 he forgives his own and his country’s fierce enemies 
 when he has them entirely in his hands (6). Yet 
 he has his master’s sternness when it is needed. 
 He refuses to speak to Jehoram king of Israel, that 
 ‘son of a murderer’ (34 6%2). Not in vain was it 
 prophesied at Horeb, ‘him that escapeth from the 
 sword of Jehu shall E. slay.’ It is E. who devises 
 the plot that leads to the overthrow of the house 
 of Ahab (9%). And though he weeps for his 
 country when he foresees the evil which the 
 ferocious Hazael will bring upon Israel, yet he 
 does not shrink from anointing him king of 
 Syria (81 1%), 
 
 As a prophet E. had no new truth to proclaim. 
 But he exercised a wide and lasting Ginses as 
 the head of the prophetic guilds for more than 
 half a century. The sons of the prophets regard 
 him with profound reverence (2!), and obey him 
 implicitly (91). E.’s single aim is to complete the 
 reforms begun by Elijah—to re-establish the 
 ancient truth, and repel heathen superstition. He 
 is a statesman as well as a prophet. Among all 
 the prophets, none intervene in the highest national 
 affairs more boldly than E., and none so success- 
 fully. For many years he eagerly watches every 
 turn of events. When the nation is ripe for 
 revolution, he summons the destined man at an 
 opportune moment, puts an end to the Tyrian 
 domination, and extirpates the base Tyrian super- 
 stition. After the fall of the Omrite dynasty, he 
 is the trusted friend and sagacious adviser of the 
 house of Jehu, and the strength and inspiration of 
 Israel in all its trials. Even to old age his zeal 
 burns unquenchable: in the closing scene of his 
 life the patriot is as evident as the seer; and his 
 bequest to Israelis hope (13). E. has no stormy 
 spiritual experience ike his master, and does not 
 hold such immediate converse with J”, yet he too 
 has visions. He sees Elijah borne away to heaven 
 by chariots and horses of fire; and at Dothan, 
 when the town is surrounded by enemies, and his 
 servant cries out to him in fear, he bids the young 
 man look to the mountains, and see that they are 
 full of chariots and horses of fire round about 
 Elisha (67). 
 
 It is impossible to arrange the events of E.’s life 
 in chronological sequence. While the topography 
 of the narrative is often precise, there is a singular 
 want of definiteness as to personal names and 
 dates. The only indication of time atforded by 
 several of the anecdotes is the mention of the 
 ‘king of Israel’; but as no name is specified, the 
 reader is left to conjecture which of the four kings 
 who were the prophet’s contemporaries may be 
 referred to. It is impossible to say in whose reign 
 the cure of Naaman, or the attempt of the Syrians 
 to copyine E., took place. In some cases occurrences 
 are obviously grouped together, according to the 
 connexion of their contents (2 K 2. 4). In others 
 no principle of arrangement is apparent, and the 
 loose connexion of the narratives becomes very 
 awkward. For instance, the siege of Samaria by the 
 Syrians is described immediately after it has been 
 stated that ‘the bands of Syria came no more into 
 the land of Israel’ (64). Gehazi appears in familiar 
 intercourse with ‘the king of Israel’ after the 
 account of his punishment with leprosy (5% 8°); 
 and the visit of Joash to E. during the prophet’s 
 last illness is related just after the mention of the 
 death of Joash (13). Most of E.’s deeds and 
 
 experiences are set down before the account of 
 Tehuts revolution ; but the prophet lived 45 years 
 after that event, and his influence in the nation 
 was certainly greater, and his deeds of beneficence 
 probably more numerous, after than before the 
 overthrow of his enemies. 
 
 The narratives are for the most part a record of 
 E.’s activity as a seer, diviner, and worker of 
 miracles, rather than as a prophet in the usual 
 sense of the word. The ordinary prophet is a 
 revealer of spiritual truth, and a preacher of 
 righteousness. If he is represented as working 
 miracles at all, they are entirely subsidiary to his 
 teaching functions. But the reminiscences and tra- 
 ditions of E. represent him chiefly as a wonder- 
 worker. He suspends the laws of nature (6°), fore- 
 sees future events (82), divines the secret thoughts 
 of men (5”6 62), and knows what events are happen- 
 ing out of sight or at a distance (6%). 
 
 It will be convenient (A) to group together E.’s 
 deeds in his more private capacity, and afterwards 
 (B) refer to his achievements as the friend and 
 adviser of kings. 
 
 A. (1) Recrossing the Jordan after Elijah’s trans- 
 lation, E. either dwells or sojourns (2%) at Jericho, 
 lately rebuilt (1 KX 16*) in a ‘pleasant situation’ 
 (2 K 2), the fertility of whose groves and gardens 
 was due then, as always, to its perennial springs. 
 At the time of E.’s visit one of these springs has 
 noxious properties, which make it unfit for drink- 
 ing, and injurious to the land (2). The citizens 
 represent the facts to E., who, taking salt in a new 
 vessel, casts it into the spring, and in the name of 
 J” declares the water healed (271). (2) From Jericho 
 E. goes to Bethel, which he had lately visited 
 with Elijah (2%), Passing through the wooded 
 gorge (now called the Wady Suweinit), which 
 leads up to the town, he is met by a noisy troop of 
 boys, who, though they were probably very respect- 
 ful to the great and awful Elijah, stand in no fear 
 of his youthful successor, and rudely greet him 
 with shouts of ‘Go up, thou bald head!’ E. turns 
 and curses them in the name of J”, and two she- 
 bears come out of the wood and rend forty-two of 
 them in pieces. One naturally asks if this narra- 
 tive is literal history. The extreme severity of 
 the punishment is evidently out of all proportion 
 to the offence. The deed is strikingly in contrast to 
 E.’s conduct on other occasions (see especially 2 K 
 67-22), One MS of the Sept. inserts the word 
 édlOatov (‘they pelted him with stones’), the tran- 
 scriber evidently feeling the moral difficulty. Some 
 of the Rabbis say that E. was punished with sick- 
 ness for the deed. The story probably had some 
 basis in fact, but in its present form it reads like a 
 folklore tale, of the kind familiar im all lands, 
 intended for the admonition of rude and naughty 
 children. (3) The widow of one of the sons of tha 
 pieDn ele a name and place are wanting—is in 
 
 ebt, and her sons are about to be taken away by 
 her creditor and sold as slaves. She has nothing 
 left in her house but a pot of oil, but E. causes the 
 oil to multiply till it fills all the vessels she can 
 borrow from her neighbours. Having sold the 
 oil, she pays her debt, and lives with her sons on 
 the surp us (2 K 417), (4) The next reminiscence 
 (2 K 4®*7) gives a charming picture of private life 
 in Israel. As E. chances to pass the village of 
 Shunem (now Sélam, three miles from Jezreel, on 
 the slopes of little Hermon), he is pressed to accept 
 hospitality by a lady of substance. Whenever he 
 eae that way again, he turns in to eat bread. 
 
 he lady is so impressed by the character of the 
 man of God that she persuades her husband to 
 build a chamber on the roof of the house, to which 
 the prophet may have free access at all times. As 
 a recompense for her kindness, E. grants her fondest 
 wish: a child is born to her. After some years— 
 
 
 
ELISHA 
 
 ELISHA 695 
 
 
 
 the narrative goes on without break—her son dies 
 of sunstroke. The lady rides to Carmel, and 
 summons E., who comes and restores the boy to 
 life. (5) E. is next found residing at Gilgal, with 
 the sons of the prophets, during a famine (4°84), 
 People are subsisting on any roots that can be 
 found. One of the young prophets brings home 
 some wild gourds (nyps, Vulg. colocynthidas agri), 
 and shreds them into the caldron. Bat when they 
 begin to eat, the taste reveals the presence of 
 oison, and they cry out, ‘O man of God, there is 
 eath in the pot.’ ‘Bring meal,’ answers the 
 wonder-worker, and forthwith the dish is rendered 
 harmless and wholesome. (6) Apparently during 
 the same famine, while E. is still living at Gilgal, 
 he is visited by a farmer from Baal-shalishah (44), 
 who brings him a present of first-fruits—twenty 
 loaves of new barley and a sack full of fresh ears of 
 corn (Ly 2" 2314), KE. bids his servant set them 
 before a hundred men. The servant hesitates, but 
 the small supply is miraculously rendered sufficient 
 for the whole company. (7) The next narrative 
 (2 K 5) gives an account of the healing of Naaman 
 —the only miracle of E. which is referred to in the 
 NT (Lk 4”), Naaman, commander-in-chief of 
 the army of Syria, being afflicted with the most 
 malignant kind of leprosy (the white variety, v.*), 
 hears of the prophet in Samaria through a Hebrew 
 maid, kidnapped in a border foray and taken into 
 his household. He resolves to visit the great healer. 
 When he arrives at the prophet’s door, attended by 
 his train of horses and chariots, E. sends a servant 
 to direct him to go and bathe seven times in the 
 Jordan. Naaman, who has expected a deferential 
 reception and a striking ceremonial, is enraged by 
 the seeming want of courtesy, and even more by 
 the nature of the prescription. But his servants 
 calm his ruffled eel and when he obeys the 
 propaeys command, his flesh comes again as the 
 esh of a little child. He returns to thank and 
 reward his benefactor, but E. refuses to touch any 
 of the presents which are pressed on his accept- 
 ance. Naaman, made to feel by E.’s self-denial 
 that the glory is due to E.’s God, resolves to be- 
 come a worshipper of J”. He asks permission to 
 take earth from Israel, that he may erect an altar 
 to the God of Israel; his idea being the popular 
 one, that J” was a local deity, and could only be 
 worshipped on his own soil. E. does not seek to 
 correct his mistake. He even gives the proselyte 
 a ae to continue to pay outward homage to 
 immon, the god worshipped by the king of Syria 
 (518-19). Naaman having departed in peace, E.’s 
 servant Gehazi follows him, and by dint of lying 
 obtains the treasure which E. refused. But E. 
 divines his dishonesty, and dooms him and his 
 house to be afflicted with the leprosy of Naaman 
 for ever (5%), (8) The sons of the prophets, who 
 are increasing in numbers, resolve to build a larger 
 dwelling-place by the Jordan, While they are 
 engaged in felling trees, the head of a borrowed axe 
 flies off and falls into the water. It would be vain 
 to search for it in the deep and turbid river. But 
 a cry brings the man of God to the spot. He 
 breaks off a stick and casts it into the stream, and 
 forthwith the iron comes to the surface, and is 
 restored to its possessor. 
 
 B. The remaining narratives exhibit E. in his 
 relation to kings and rulers, and recount some of 
 his services to his country as an inspired seer and 
 wise counsellor. (1) E. is with the confederate 
 armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, in a campaign 
 against Mesha, king of Moab (2 K 3%), His 
 presence is not discovered till the armies are 
 
 erishing for lack of water. When the three kings, 
 in their extremity, come to him for counsel, he 
 refuses to have anything to do with the king of 
 Israel, bidding him go to the prophets of his father 
 
 Ahab and his mother Jezebel. But out of respect 
 for Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, he consents to give 
 his advice. When a minstrel plays before hin 
 and the hand of J” is upon him, he commands that 
 deep trenches be dug, and prophesies that though 
 ey shall see no rain, yet the valley will be filled 
 with water. His orders are obeyed, and next 
 morning, owing to a plentiful fall of rain high 
 among the mountains of Moab, the torrents swell, 
 and all the country is filled with water. (2) The 
 next narrative (2 K 6*°8) presents the prophet in 
 a very pleasing light, fearless though an host 
 encamps against him, confident though war rises 
 against him, and magnanimous in his treatment of 
 his baffled enemies. Marauding bands of Syrians 
 have made numerous incursions into the north 
 country, but all their movements have been 
 mysteriously checkmated. Whenever they have 
 laid an ambush in ‘such and such a place,’ E. has 
 warned the king of Israel to avoid the spot, thereby 
 saving the king’s life ‘not once nor twice.’ Ben- 
 hadad, finding all his designs frustrated, begins to 
 suspect treachery in his camp. When he hears 
 the true explanation, he sends a strong force of 
 horses and chariots to Dothan to capture Elisha. 
 After comforting his alarmed servant with a vision 
 of the spiritual hosts that always surround the 
 dwellings of the just, the prophet goes down to 
 meet the Syrians, and in answer to his prayer 
 they are struck with blindness (0°30, a word found 
 only here and in Gn 19", probably meaning 
 illusion, d8\ey~ia). Then telling them, evidently 
 not without a relish of the ludicrous aspect of the 
 situation, that they have lost their way and come 
 to the wrong city, he offers to conduct them to the 
 person whom they are seeking. He leads them 
 into the heart of Samaria. When their eyes are 
 opened in answer to E.’s prayer, they find them- 
 selves at the mercy of the gnomy. The king 
 would have destroyed them, but KE. enjoins him 
 to set food before them, and send them back to 
 their master. An enemy at once so powerful and 
 so merciful makes such an impression upon the 
 Syrians that their marauding expediticas entirely 
 cease. (3) The next incident (6*:), though intro- 
 duced without remark immediately after the last, 
 evidently occurred at a different time. The king 
 of Syria gathers a great army to besiege Samaria. 
 E. encourages the men of Israel to defend their 
 city to the last. When the besieged are reduced 
 to famine, he still counsels no surrender, and 
 heartens the people with the prophecy of coming 
 deliverance. The king of Israel—who is not 
 named—wishes to capitulate. He vents his help- 
 less rage upon E., and vows to take his life, 
 because the prophet will not swerve from his 
 purpose even when the people of the city are eat- 
 ing the flesh of their own children. While E. is in 
 his house giving counsel to the elders of Israel, he 
 divines that a messenger of the king is on his way 
 to take his life, and that the king is following 
 close behind. When the king enters, the prophet 
 declares that on the morrow there will be abund- 
 ance of food at the gate of the city. One of the 
 king’s officers sneers at the sanguine prediction : 
 ‘Yes, no doubt, J” will open windows in heaven! 
 And yet can this thing be?’ E. retorts that the 
 ofticer will see the abundance, but shall not eat of 
 it. During the night there is a panicin the Syrian 
 host, the camp is deserted, and every part of the 
 prophecy fulfilled. (4) We next find E. at Damascus. 
 Having heard of the mortal sickness of Benhadad, 
 he realizes that the time has come to execute the 
 commission which Elijah received at Sinai, by 
 anointing Hazael to be king of Syria. No sooner 
 does E., whose fame as a prophet has now spread 
 far beyond Israel, enter the city of Damascus, than 
 the tidings are carried to the palace. King Ben- 
 
696 ELISHA 
 
 
 
 ELISHAH 
 
 
 
 hadad immediately sends Hazael, his commander- 
 in-chief, laden with presents, to inquire of the seer 
 if he may recover of his sickness. E.’s reply is un- 
 certain: according to one reading, he bids Hazael 
 return and tell the king that he shall surel 
 recover ; according to another reading (the kéthibh, 
 and therefore probably authentic), Hazael is to 
 reply that Benhadad shall surely die. At any 
 rate, E. leaves Hazael in no doubt that the king is 
 not to recover, and that his successor is none other 
 than Hazael himself. But it isa hard task which 
 J” has laid upon E.—to anoint the man whom he 
 knows as the destined scourge of Israel. E., as he 
 looks steadfastly in the fierce captain’s face and 
 foresees the coming evil, bursts into tears. When 
 Hazael inquires what this weeping means, E. shows 
 him his future. The Syrian, who has no ear for the 
 tale of Israel’s sufferings, and thinks only of the 
 promise of personal distinction, replies ironically 
 that the task is too great for a dog like him. But 
 E. assures him in plain words that J” has chosen 
 him to be king of Syria. (5) The chief business of 
 E.’s life is to avenge the crimes and apostasy of 
 the house of Ahab. The mission to anoint Jehu 
 king over Israel, which Elijah did not live to fulfil, 
 must be carried out by his successor. During a 
 war between Israel and Syria for the possession of 
 Ramoth-gilead, Ahab’s son Jehoram is wounded, 
 and goes home to Samaria to be cured. His 
 ally the king of Judah leaves the army, and goes 
 to visit him (8%). During their absence E. calls 
 one of the sons of the prophets, and sends him to 
 Ramoth-gilead, with instructions to seek out Jehu, 
 and secretly anoint him king. As soon as Jehu 
 divulges the secret to his brother officers, they 
 proclaim him king, and the whole army at once 
 espouses his cause. The nation has long been 
 ready for a change, and the house of Omri falls 
 without being able to strike a blow in self-defence 
 (9'#-), (6) E. lives to extreme old age, and his last 
 thoughts are given to his country. It is sad to 
 reflect that, in spite of all his labours, Israel has 
 become feeble and dependent. During the reigns 
 of the pusillanimous sons of Jehu, the Syrians have 
 done to Israel according to their will, and the 
 nation has more than once been brought to the 
 verge of extinction. But Jehu’s grandson Joash is 
 a youth of great promise, and E. sees in him one 
 - capable of making Israel once more independent 
 and prosperous. The young king comes down to 
 visit the aged Prophet as he lies on his peaceful 
 death-bed (13'*). The king is moved to tears. 
 No words could be more appropriate than those in 
 which he addresses the prophet: ‘My father, my 
 father, the chariots of Israel and the horsemen 
 thereof.’ E. has still the spirit of the master to 
 whom he first applied these words (2 K 2”), To 
 impress on the young king’s mind a sense of his 
 duty, he uses a fine piece of symbolism. The 
 window is opened eastward, toward the country 
 of the enemy, the king’s bow is pointed in that 
 direction, the prophet’s consecrating hand is laid 
 on the king’s right hand, and ‘the arrow of J”s 
 deliverance, of deliverance from Syria,’ is dis- 
 charged. The king is then commanded to take up 
 a sheaf of arrows and smite the ground. Hesmites 
 only three times, and halts. This does not please 
 the zealous old prophet: before closing his eyes he 
 would fain have foreseen that the enemies of 
 the people of J” would be defeated five or six 
 times; as it is, the king has only energy enough to 
 smite them thrice. 
 
 There is one other tradition regarding E., and 
 that the most marvellous of all. His wonder- 
 
 working power does not terminate with his life. In 
 the spring of the year after his decease a burial is 
 taking place in the cemetery which contains his 
 sepulchre, when it chances that a band of maraud- 
 
 ing Moabites comes in sight. The mourners, in 
 their eagerness either to attack or to escape from 
 the invaders, hastily place the corpse in the tomb 
 of Elisha. No sooner does the body touch the 
 bones of the prophet than the dead man revives 
 and stands upon his feet (137) 
 
 The foundation of E.’s character is laid in the 
 strong affections of his home-life (1 K 19%). He 
 learns to call the great ascetic prophet his ‘ father,’ 
 but he never ceases to be attached to his fellow- 
 men. While his career is less impressive than that 
 of Elijah, his achievement is to make a common .‘fe 
 illustrious. It cannot be said that all the narra- 
 tives show him in an equally favourable light, 
 but on the whole he is represented as humane, 
 large-minded, tender-hearted, a prophet called to 
 comfort, heal, and reconcile. nteresting side- 
 lights are thrown on his character. His quick per- 
 ception of the fitness of things is evidenced by his 
 choice of beasts for a burnt-offering and fuel for 
 his sacrifice (1 K 19#!), his sense of humour by his 
 treatment of the Syrian emissaries (2 K 6”), and 
 his tenderness of heart by his tears over Israel’s 
 coming misfortunes (2 K 8"), He is constantly (29 
 times in all) called the man of God, and he proves 
 his love of God by loving men. His religion is to 
 visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction 
 (2 K 41), And amid all the seductions of court 
 favour he retains the true prophetic simplicity of 
 character and contempt for worldly wealth (51%). 
 Like his great master Elijah, he is eulogized by 
 the son of Sirach (Sir 4812-14), 
 
 Some of E.’s miracles—the dividing of the 
 Jordan, the increase of the widow’s oil, the restora- 
 tion of the Shunammite’s son—are almost identical 
 with the recorded miracles of Elijah. The heal- 
 ing of the leper and the multiplying of the barley 
 loaves bring to mind some of the miracles of Jesus. 
 But ‘it has often been remarked that to find 
 parallels to the miracles of the iron axe-head made 
 to swim, the noxious well healed with salt, the 
 
 oisoned pot rendered harmless with meal, and the 
 aead man quickened by the touch of the prophet’s 
 bones, we must go outside the Scriptures. Stanley 
 says that ‘E.’s works stand alone in their likeness 
 to the acts of the medieval saints. There alone in 
 the sacred history tlhe gulf between biblical and 
 ecclesiastical miracles almost disappears.’ And 
 Farrar compares the stories of E. to ‘other Jewish 
 haggadoth, written for edification in the schools of 
 the prophets, but no more intended for perfectl 
 literal acceptance in all their details than the life 
 of St. Anthony or St. Francis.’ 
 
 Elisha is canonized in the Greek Church, his 
 festival being on the 14th of June. 
 
 LireraTuRE.—Driver, LOT 185f.; Wellhausen, Comp. 286 ff. ; 
 W. R. Smith, Proph. of Isr. 86ff., 116, 208f.; Cornill, Zs. 
 Proph. 14f., 33ff.; Kittel, Hist. of Heb. ii. 214f., 268, 278, 
 280 ff., 290, 292f.; Farrar, Bks. of Kings, ll, cit.; Kuenen, Rel. 
 of Isr. i. 360 ff.; Graetz, Hist. of Jews (tr. by B. Lowy), i. 213; 
 Renan, Hist. of People of Isr. (Eng. tr.), ii. 229 ff. ; Montefiore, 
 Hibbert Lect. p. 94f.; Maurice, Prophets and Kings, 142; 
 Liddon, Sermons on OT Subjects, 195-334. 
 
 J. STRACHAN. 
 
 ELISHAH (ayzbx, ’Ediod, ’EXewal, Elisa).—The 
 eldest son of Javan according to Gn 10% In Ezk 
 277 the Tyrians are said to have procured their 
 purple dye from the ‘isles’ or ‘coastlands’ of E., 
 which shows that we must look for the locality in 
 the Greek seas. Josephus (Ant. I. vi. 1) identified 
 E. with the AZolians; phonetically, however, this 
 is impossible; moreover. Greek ethnology made 
 olus the brother, and not the son, of Ion, the 
 Heb. Javan. Many modern writers have seen Elis 
 in E.; but the name of Elis properly began with 
 digamma, and is probably the same as the Lat. 
 vallis. Dillmann proposed to identify E. with 
 Southern Italy, and Movers with Carthage; both 
 identifications, however, are inconsistent with the 
 
 
 
 
 
ELISHAMA 
 
 
 
 ELKOSHITE 697 
 
 
 
 statement that it was the source of the purple dye, 
 and it is difficult to find any name on either the 
 Italian or the African coast which can be com- 
 pared with that of Elishah. 
 
 The Tel el-Amarna tablets have thrown a new 
 light on the question. Several of them are letters 
 to the Pharaoh from ‘the king of Alasia,’ a 
 country which a hieratic docket attached to one 
 of them identifies with the Egyptian Alsa. Alsa, 
 sometimes read Arosa, was overrun by ThothmesIII., 
 and is mentioned in the list of his Syrian conquests 
 engraved on the walls of Karnak (Nos. 213 and 
 236), Maspero (Recueil de Travaux, x. p. 210) 
 makes Alsa or Alasia the northern part of Ceele- 
 Syria. An unpublished hieratic papyrus, however, 
 now in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg, which de- 
 scribes an embassy sent by sea to the king of 
 Gebal in the time of the high priest Hir-Hor, 
 states that the Egyptian envoys were wrecked on 
 the coast of Alsa, where they were. afterwards 
 oe Gade by the queen of the country. 
 Alsa or Alasia therefore must have adjoined the 
 Mediterranean, and Winckler and W. Max Miiller 
 accordingly propose to see in it the island of 
 ee Conder had already suggested that 
 
 asia and E. are one and the same. The two 
 chief objections to the identification with Cyprus 
 are that the ordinary Egyptian name of that 
 island was Asi, and that Thothmes III. includes the 
 country among his Syrian conquests. 
 
 It is tempting to identify E. on the phonetic 
 side, with the Greek Hellas. We might assume 
 that the Egyptian form of the name, Alsa, was 
 taken from the cuneiform Alasia, in which the 
 initial aspirate of the Greek would not be expressed. 
 But the Homeric poems seem to show that the 
 name of Hellas could not have migrated from 
 its original home in northern Greece to the eastern 
 basin of the Mediterranean so early as the age of 
 the Tel el-Amarna tablets. Moreover, as late as 
 the reign of the Assyrian Sargon, Cyprus was still 
 known to the inhabitants of Asia as ‘the country 
 of the Ionians,’ not of the Hellenes, while a Yivana 
 or ‘Ionian’ is mentioned in two of the Tel el- 
 Amarna letters. The termination of Alasia im- 
 plies a Greek adjective in -c.os, and it is poets 
 that Crete, rather than Cyprus, is intended by the 
 name. 
 
 LiraRATURE.—Sayce, HCM 130; Conder, Bible and the East. 
 
 A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 ELISHAMA (eve ‘God has heard’).—41. A 
 prince of the tribe of Ephraim at the census in the 
 wilderness, son of Ammihud, and grandfather of 
 Joshua (Nu 1! 218 1 Ch 7%), 2, One of David’s 
 sons, born in Jerusalem (2 S 516, 1 Ch 3°14”). 3. 
 In 1 Ch 3° by mistake for Elishua (which see) of 2S 
 5, 1Ch145, 4. A descendant of Judah, son of 
 Jekamiah (1 Ch 2“). §&. The father of Nethaniah, 
 and grandfather of Ishmael, ‘of the seed royal,’ 
 who killed Gedaliah at the time of the Exile (2 K 
 25%, Jer 411). Jerome, following Jewish tradition, 
 identifies him with No. 4. See Sayce HCM 380. 
 6. A scribe or secretary to Jehoiakim (Jer 3612. 21), 
 7. A priest sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the law 
 in the cities of Judah (2 Ch 178). R. M. Boyp. 
 
 ELISHAPHAT (n2y"4x ‘God hath judged’).—One 
 of the captains who helped Jehoiada to instal king 
 Joash (2 Ch 23}). 
 
 ELISHEBA (ysy5x ‘God is an oath’), LXX, 
 EdeodBed B, ’EdtcdBer A} (cf. Lk 1"), daughter of 
 Amminadab, sister of Nahshon, a prince of the 
 tribe of Judah, and wife of Aaron. The name 
 occurs only in Ex 6% (P). W. C. ALLEN. 
 
 ELISHUA (yes, 2 S 5%, 1 Ch 14°).—A son of 
 David born at Jerusalem. The variant in 1 Ch 3°, 
 
 yoydy, is due to the similar name occurring in the 
 next line. J. F. STENNING. 
 
 ELIUD (’E):ov5).—An ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1"), 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ELIZAPHAN (jsy>x ‘God has protected’; cf. 
 Pheen. 9y235s, EXevcapdv).—1. Prince of the Kohath- 
 ites, son of Uzziel, Nu 3, 1 Ch 158 (’EXicaddr), 
 2Ch 29% = Elzaphan (a¥dx, ’EAecadpdv), Ex 67, Lv 
 10! P. 2. Zebulun’s representative for dividing the 
 land (Nu 34” P). G. H. BATTERSBY. 
 
 ELIZUR (wbx ‘God is a Rock,’ cf. ZURIEL, 
 *EXecoovp).—Prince of Reuben at the first census (Nu 
 15 210 780. 8 1918 P), A similar name occurs in the 
 Zinjerli inscriptions (8th cent. B.C.), Bir-tsfir, ‘the 
 god Bir is a rock’ (Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad, 
 320), or Bar-tsfir, ‘son of a rock’ (D. H. Miiller). 
 
 G. H. BATTERSBY, 
 
 ELKANAH (mipbx ‘God has possessed ’).—1. The 
 second son of Korah, brother to Assir and Abi- 
 asaph, one of the clans of the Korahites (Ex 6%). 
 We are told that ‘ the children of Korah died not’ 
 in the overthrow of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram 
 (Nu 26), 2. The son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, 
 the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite 
 of Ramathaim-zophim,* of the hill country of 
 Ephraim, the husband of Hannah, his favourite 
 wife, and Peninnah. Hannah felt her childlessness 
 very much, especially as Peninnah mocked her 
 for it; but E. endeavoured to comfort her. At 
 length, after several yearly visits to the temple at 
 Shiloh, Hannah was promised a son. This son was 
 called Samuel, and Hannah and her husband offered 
 him to the Lord when he was but an infant, and 
 left him with Eli on their return to Ramah (18 1! 
 24), 8. The son of Assir, the son of Korah (1 Ch 
 6%), apparently identical with (1), and an ancestor 
 of (2). 4. The father of Zuph or Zophai (1 Ch 
 66-85), §, An ancestor of Berechiah, the son of 
 Asa, ‘that dwelt in the villages of the Netopha- 
 thites’ (1 Ch 91%), 6. One of David’s mighty men, 
 a Korahite (1 Ch 12°). 7%. One of the two door- 
 keepers for the ark (1 Ch 15%), perhaps identical 
 with (6). 8. ‘That was next to the king,’ slain in 
 the reign of Ahaz with ‘ Maaseiah the king’s son, 
 and Azrikam the ruler of the house,’ by Zichri, ‘a 
 mighty man of Ephraim’ (2 Ch 287), 
 
 H. A. REDPATH. 
 
 ELKIAH (‘EAxed). — An ancestor of Judith, 
 Jth 8}, 
 
 ELKOSHITE (wpbyn, LXX’EAxecaios).—A gentilic 
 adjective employed to describe the prophet Nahum 
 (11), implying that a place named Elkosh was his 
 birthplace. Three identifications have been pro- 
 
 osed for the latter. (1) Jerome (in his Comm.) 
 ocates Elkosh at a village in Galilee named Zicest 
 (cf. also Capernaum=o%1n} 99 (2), ‘village of 
 Nahum’). (2) Ina work ascribed to Epiphanius, 
 On the Prophets, how they died and where they 
 were buried, we are told that ‘Nahum was of 
 Elkosh, beyond Bét Gabré, of the tribe of Simeon.’ 
 This Bét Gabré is Beit Jibrin, the ancient Eleu- 
 theropolis, N.E. of Lachish. (3) Medizval tradition 
 connected Nahum with E/kush on a tributary of the 
 Tigris, 2 days’ journey N. of Mosul(Nineveh). We 
 must be content to leave the prophet’s birthplace 
 uncertain, although weighty considerations plead 
 
 * For this name see art. RAMATHAIM-zOPHIM. In 1 Oh 6%-38 
 and 33-35 Samuel is represented as a Levite, and the three names, 
 Elihu, Tohu, Zuph, appear as Eliab, Nahath, Zophai (626-28) ; 
 Eliel, Toah, Zuph (KethibA Ziph) (638-35), It is noticeable that 
 in the first of these places there is no connecting link between 
 the Elkanah mentioned and Samuel. The usual explanation 
 given of this apparent discrepancy is that the Levites in any 
 particular city were counted as part of the tribe amongst whom 
 they were dwelling ; but this doer not seem very satisfactory. 
 
698 
 
 ELLASAR 
 
 ELYMAIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 in favour of the second of the above identifica- 
 
 tions. 
 
 LitgraTuRE.—A. B. Davidson, Nahwm, Introd. § 1; Nestle, 
 Zeitsch. d. deutsch. Pal. Vereins, i. 222 ff. (transl. in PEF St 
 (1879), p. 136 ff.); G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 231 n. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ELLASAR (19>x, ’Ed\acdp, Pontus). — Arioch, 
 king of Ellasar, was one of the vassal Babylonian 
 kings who took part along with their suzerain, 
 Chedor-laomer of Elam, in his campaign against 
 Canaan (Gn 141). In the early days of Assyri- 
 ology (see F. Lenormant, La Langue primitive de 
 la Chaldée (1875), pp. 377-379) he was already 
 identified by the fos pherers of the cuneiform 
 inscriptions with Eri-Aku, king of Larsa, who 
 was called Rim-Sin (or Rim-Agu) by his Semitic 
 subjects. The identification has now been verified 
 by further discoveries, which have shown that 
 Eri-Aku was a contemporary of Kudur-Lagamar 
 (Chedor-laomer) of Elam, Tudghula or Tid‘al, and 
 Khammurabi or Ammi-rabi, whom recent research 
 has proved to be the Am-raphel of Genesis. Larsa 
 is now represented by the mounds of Senkereh, in 
 Lower Babylonia, on the east bank of the Euphrates 
 and about midway between the sites of Erech 
 (Warka) and Ur (Mukayyar). One of its early 
 names was Ararma, and it was celebrated for its 
 temple and worship of the Sun-god (see Sayce, 
 Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, pp. 166, 167). 
 The temple, called Bil-Uri ty the Semites, was of 
 very ancient date, and had been restored by Ur- 
 sau (2), B.C. 2700, by Khammurabi, by Nebuchad- 
 rezzar, and by Nabonidus, Among the ruins of 
 its library and tombs Loftus found fragments of a 
 mathematical work (Chaldea and Susiana, 7 
 255, 256). The biblical form of the name arobanty 
 represents 4 Larsa, ‘the city of Larsa’ (but see 
 Ball’s note on Gn 14! in Haupt’s O7). 
 
 LITERATURE. — Sayce, HCM 165ff.; Loftus, Chaldwa and 
 Susiana, 240 ff. ; Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? 223f. ; Tiele, 
 Gesch. i. 86; Schrader, COT on Gn 14. See also Hommel’s art. 
 BABYLONIA, p. 226 in present vol., and his Ancient Hebrew 
 Tradition, 148 t. A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 ELM.—A mistranslation of AV for terebinth 
 (Hos 43%), 
 
 ELMADAM (’Eduaddy, AV Elmodam, perh. =710bx 
 (sn 107%).—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3%), See 
 JENEALOGY. 
 
 ELNAAM (oyzx ‘God is pleasantness’).—The 
 father of two of David’s mighty men (1 Ch 11%), 
 
 ELNATHAN (jnbx ‘God has given’; ef. ym), 2 K 
 248, Jer 2672 361225, Ezr 8'6—4, The father of 
 Nehushta, the mother of Jehoiachin. 2. The son 
 of Achbor. A person of influence in Jehoiakim’s 
 court. He was the chief of those sent to Egypt to 
 fetch Uriah, who had offended Jehoiakim by his 
 prophecy, and one of those who had entreated 
 Jehoiakim not to burn the roll. It is possible that 
 (1) and (2) are the same person, but by no means 
 certain when we consider the commonness of the 
 name. 8, The name occurs no fewer than three 
 times in the list of those sent for by Ezra when he 
 encamped near Ahava in the course of his journey 
 to Jerus., twice among the chief men, and also as 
 one of the teachers. But it is extremely probable 
 that the second occurrence of the name is a corrupt 
 reading, arising out of the following name Nathan. 
 
 F. H. Woops, 
 
 ELOHIM.—See Gop. ELOHIST.—See HExa- 
 
 TEUCH. 
 
 ELOI.—See Ett. 
 ELON (ox ‘a terebinth’).—4. Of the tribe of 
 
 
 
 Zebulun, one of the minor judges (Jg 12%), Al} 
 that is told of him is smpry that he judged Israel 
 for ten years, that he died, and was buried in Elon 
 (pox) in Zebulun. The MT points idx Aijalon; 
 but the seta a yeah between name 
 of the judge and his burying-place is quite arbitrary. 
 Baer, Tlibrs Jos. et Jud. P, 98, roads x Elon, ta 
 both verses. 2. A son of Zebulun (Gn 46%, Nu 268, 
 where gentilic name Elonites occurs). 3. A Hittite, 
 the father-in-law of Esau (Gn 26*4 367). 
 G. A. CooKE. 
 
 ELON (j'>'x), Jos 19.—A town of Dan, perhaps 
 the same as Elon-beth-hanan (1 K 4°), which was 
 in Solomon’s province corresponding to the terri- 
 tory of Dan. The site of Ananiah seems too far 
 E., being in Benjamin. In some MSS Elon and 
 Beth-hanan are made distinct places, in which case 
 the latter may be Ananiah, and the former is 
 unknown unless Aijalon was the ee reading. 
 
 CONDER. 
 ELON-BETH-HANAN.—See Eton. ELOTH.— 
 See ELATH. 
 
 ELPAAL (5ybx ‘God of doing’ (?)).—The head of 
 a Benjamite family (1 Ch 81218), See GENE- 
 ALOGY. 
 
 ELPARAN (Gn 14°).—See PARAN, 
 
 ELPELET (vb=>x, AV Elpalet).—One of David’s 
 sons=ELIPHELET No. 1. 
 
 EL-SHADDAI.—See Gop. 
 
 ELTEKEH (Jos 19% apnaby, 21% wppby).—A town 
 of the territory of Dan, mentioned in connexion 
 with Ekron and Gibbethon. It is probably the 
 same as Altaku (Al-ta-ku-u), a town mentioned in 
 the Prism Inscription of Sennacherib as the scene 
 of the defeat of the Philistines and their Egyp. 
 allies by the Assyrians in the days of Hezekiah. 
 G. A. Smith (Hist. Geog. p. 236) urges that Altaku 
 (Eltekeh) cannot have been situated up the valley 
 of Aijalon, where it is marked on the PEF map, 
 for such a site is unsuitable as the papell ae 
 of the main Assyr. and Egyp. armies. The PEF 
 identification may, however, be correct, and the 
 fight may have been between detachments. Yet 
 a site near Ekron suits Sennacherib’s narrative, 
 for after taking Altaku he tells us next that he 
 took Ekron (Am-kar-ru-na). In any case it is 
 improbable that the retreat of Sennacherib was 
 the result of the encounter. W. E. BARNES. 
 
 ELTEKON (jprby), Jos 15°.—A town of Judah, 
 noticed with Maarath and Beth-anoth. It was in 
 the mountains. The site is unknown. Possibly 
 Tekoa. 
 
 ELTOLAD (1binby), Jos 15°.—A town in the ex- 
 treme S. of Judah, given to Simeon (194); probably 
 Tolad (1 Ch 4%), The site is unknown. 
 
 ELUL (iby, "EdovA, Elul, Neh 6', 1 Mac 14”),— 
 See TIME. 
 
 ELUZAI (‘nybx ‘God is my strength’).—One of 
 the mighty men who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 
 125), 
 
 ELYMAEANS.—See ELAMITES. 
 
 ELYMAIS (’EAtvuats).—This name, which repre- 
 sents the OT ELAM, was given to a district of 
 Persia, lying, according to Strabo (xvi. p. 744), 
 along the southern spurs of Mt. Zagros, S of Media 
 and N of Susiana. In 1 Mac 6}, according to he 
 ) ’ 
 
 common reading, which is adopted by 
 
re 
 
 sO 
 
 ELYMAS 
 
 EMERODS 69¢ 
 
 
 
 Elymais is named as a rich city in Persia. No 
 such city, however, is mentioned elsewhere, except 
 by Josephus (Ant. x11. ix. 1), who is simply follow- 
 ing 1 Mac. There can be no doubt, therefore, that 
 we should correct the text with A (év ’H)vyes), 
 x (éy Avyots), and most cursives, and read ‘in Ely- 
 mais in Persia there was a city’; so Fritzsche and 
 RV. In the year B.c. 164 Antiochus Epiphanes 
 made an unsuccessful attack upon the rich treas- 
 ures of a temple of Artemis in this province, but 
 the name of the place is unknown. Polybius 
 (xxxi. 11), like 1 Mac, merely speaks of the temple 
 as being in Elymais; while Persepolis, which is 
 mentioned by the later account in 2 Mac 92, was 
 not situated in this district. Comp. Rawlinson 
 (Speaker's Comment.), and Strack and Zéckler on 
 1 Mac 6}. H. A. WHITE. 
 
 ELYMAS.—See BARJEsus. 
 ELYON.—See Ex Exyon, Gop. 
 
 ELZABAD (19)5x ‘ God hath given ’).—4. A Gadite 
 chief who joined David (1 Ch 1212). 2. A Korahite 
 doorkeeper (1 Ch 267). 
 
 EMADABUN (’HyadaBotv, AV Madiabun, after 
 the Aldine text MadiaBodv), 1 Es 5°8 (°° LXX).—E., 
 of the sons of Jesus (AV ‘the sons of Madiabun’), 
 is mentioned among the Levites who super- 
 intended the restoration of the temple. There is 
 no corresponding name in the parallel Ezr 3°, and 
 it is omitted in the Vulg. : it is probably due toa 
 repetition of the name which follows, Eid:adovr. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 EMATHEIS (B ’EyaG6ls, A ’Eyadels, AV Ama- 
 theis), 1 Es 9%,.—Called ATHLAI, Ezr 10%, 
 
 EMBALMING.—See MEDICINE. 
 
 EMBROIDERY was the ornamentation of cloth, 
 usually linen, by means of variegated colour and 
 artistic design. 
 
 (1) yawn tashbéz (the verb in Pi. and Pu. occurs Ex 
 28”- ® [all], the noun nxpyn 8 times in Ex 28. 39, 
 and in Ps 451%) is used (only) of the high priest’s 
 coat (n3np). AV has ‘broidered,’ RV ‘chequer- 
 work,’ Ex 284, This was simply a surface device of 
 lustre upon one colour giving an effect of broken 
 light, like the sparkle oh iek ead ornament. Work 
 of this kind is still done by hand by the Jewish 
 women of Damascus, and by the people around 
 Iconium. The coat is cut in two kinds of material, 
 the outer one often of silk or of shining linen, the 
 inner of white or coloured cotton. Then threads 
 of cotton-twist are inserted between the two, and 
 are carefully and patiently stitched in according 
 to pattern. This has been copied in modern manu- 
 facture in such articles as the white honeycomb 
 bedcover, except that the hand-wrought article is 
 the same on both sides. This ornamental effect of 
 light upon a uniform surface seems ta be the origin 
 of damask in all its beautiful varieties. The ‘coat’ 
 of the high priest would be of this description, 
 either sewn by hand or woven in squares and 
 lines, so as to give the effect of chequer and lustre. 
 
 (2) nop rikmd@h, needle-work, broidered-work, 
 Re Dae Gs > 8+ 18618 27 7-18-34 (ef Hix) 26% 35°: 
 Ps 454). The same word is used in 1 Ch 29? of stones, 
 and in Ezk 178 of feathers. In both instances AV 
 and RV tr. ‘of divers colours.’ 075 avyp ‘ work of 
 
 the variegator’ (QPB uses this term consistently) 
 occurs 6 times in Ex, and o75 ‘ the variegator’ by 
 itself twice (cf. Ps 139 ‘poa7 ‘I was curiously 
 wrought,’ AV, RV). 
 
 (3) ayn myyp ‘work of the designer’ (of artistic 
 designs in weaving ; QPB ‘pattern weaver’), Ex 
 D6}. 31 Qgs. 15 G8 85 393-8 cf. ayn Ex 38% and (some- 
 
 what more generally) syn avn Ex 314 (‘to devise 
 designs’) 35°? 5, 2 Ch 213, cf. Ex 35% (‘designed 
 work’), 
 
 Where the process was that of needlework, the 
 cloth was stretched and held in a frame, and the 
 sewn work in coloured thread was added; or it 
 might be introduced during the weaving. 
 
 Anything in nature or art that was variegated 
 by spots, lines, squares, etc., was rikmdh, some- 
 thing embroidered. Where a principal part of the 
 charm was due to originality of decorative design, 
 or successful drawing of resemblances, the in- 
 tellectual distinction would give it the name 
 cunning-work (‘work of the designer’). 
 
 Oriental broidered cloth, whether hand-wrought 
 or woven, is usually the same on both sides. 
 In Damascus, prayer-cloths are made in stripes 
 of crimson, sky-blue, white, purple, etc., with 
 gold thread interwoven, after the manner of the 
 tabernacle fabrics. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. ii. 81; Moore on Jg 530; 
 Hartmann, Hebréerin, i. 401 ff., iii. 138 ff.; Schroeder, De vestitu 
 mulierum, 221f.; Braun, De vestitu sacerdotwm, 301 ff. ; Knob.- 
 Dillm. on Ex 261. $1 2811, M. MACKIE. 
 
 EMEK-KEZIZ (psp pry), Jos 1874, AV ‘ Valley of 
 Keziz,’ mentioned among the towns of Benjamin. 
 —A place apparently in the Jordan Valley near 
 Jericho. The site is unknown. See Dillmann, 
 ad loc. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 EMERALD.—See STONES (PRECIOUS). 
 
 EMERODS (that is, hemorrhoids).—The word 
 used in AV to denote the disease brought upon the 
 Philistines when they had captured the ark (15 5). 
 Two Heb. words are used for this disease. One of 
 these is ‘dphel (75). It is supposed to mean some- 
 thing swollen. It is the name of a portion of the 
 fortifications of Jerus. (2 Ch 27° 334, Neh 32% 27 1121), 
 The verb of the stem is used twice, in the sense of 
 being puffed up, presumptuous (Hab 2%, Nu 14%). 
 This exhausts the use of the stem, except in the six 
 places where ‘6phel, in the plural, is used for the 
 disease in question (Dt 2877, 1S 5% 9-12 645), So 
 far, the disease seems to be something tumid, a 
 swelling of some sort. 
 
 The other word, ¢éhodrém (om), is the only word 
 of its stem in the language. It is used in the six 
 places last mentioned, as the keré, or marginal 
 reading, to be substituted for ‘dphe/, and is also 
 used in 1S 6+”, Cognate words in Syr. and 
 Arab. convey the idea of breathing hard, of easing 
 the belly with violent effort, of tenesmus with flow 
 of blood. It is said that the Massoretes directed 
 this word to be substituted for the other as being 
 a less indelicate term. 
 
 As to the nature of the disease, not much can be 
 inferred from 1 S 5%, where AV tr. ‘They had 
 emerods in their secret parts,’ and RV ‘tumours 
 brake out upon them,’ for the verb there used 
 appears nowhere else. That the disease was 
 externally loathsome is evident from Dt 2877, 
 where it is classed with the boil of Egypt, the 
 scurvy and the itch. That it was terribly fatal 
 seems to be implied in 1S 5%, That it had 
 some particularly noteworthy symptom appears 
 from the fact that they made golden images of it. 
 
 The traditions handed down in Josephus, and in 
 the added specifications in the Sept. and Vulg., are 
 sufficiently specific and horrible. According to the 
 Vulg. ‘computrescebant promiuentes extales eorum.’ 
 Josephus says, ‘They died of the dysentery, 
 a sore distemper that brought death upon them 
 very suddenly; for... they brought up their 
 entrails, which were eaten through, and vomited 
 them up entirely rotted away by the disease’ (Ant. 
 VI. i. 1). Josephus is imaginative, but the evidence 
 
 
 

 
 EMIM 
 
 700 
 
 
 
 indicates some form of dysenteric or typhoid 
 disease, in which a loathsome rectal protrusion 
 was a prominent symptom. See MEDICINE. 
 LrrgraturE.—Driver and Dillm. on Dt 2827; Thenius, Well- 
 hausen, and Driver on 18 56-9 64; Hitzig, Urgesch. d. Philistder 
 1845), p. 201; Geiger, Orschrift, 408f.; Oxf. Heb. Lex. and 
 iegfried—Stade, 8.vv. W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 EMIM (o'0"x, ’Onpaelv, Oouelv; AV Emims).—The 
 name is that of a body of Rephaim or giant people, 
 living E. of the Jordan, in the S$. half of the territory 
 between Bashan and Seir (Dt 2%"). The name 
 signifies ‘formidable ones,’ and we are told that it 
 was given them by the Moabites. The Emim were 
 in this region in A braham’s time, and were attacked 
 by the four invading kings during their march 8. 
 (Gn 145), They are said to have been ‘a people 
 great and numerous, and tall as the Anakim.’ We 
 are not told what became of them, but the natural 
 suggestions of the narrative are to the effect that 
 this Moatited destroyed and superseded them. See 
 GIANT. W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 EMINENT is now only metaphorical, ‘exalted,’ 
 but in AV it is always literal: an ‘eminent place,’ 
 Ezk 16% 81-8 (33, RVm ‘a vaulted chamber,’ see 
 Davidson on Ezk 16%), 2 Es 15” (locus eminens) ; 
 ‘an high mountain and eminent,’ Ezk 17% (bn). 
 Cf. Elyot, The Governour, i. 4, ‘he made not only 
 herbes to garnisshe the erthe, but also trees of a 
 more eminent stature than herbes.’” Eminence 
 occurs in AV only in the compound ‘ pre-eminence’ 
 (Ec 3, Sir 332, 1 Mac 11”, Col 18,3 Jn °). RV 
 gives ‘eminency’ in Ezk 7" ‘neither shall there be 
 eminency among them’ (073 ar8), AV ‘ wailing for 
 them,’ so RVm), using the word in its modern 
 sense, and following the Arab. for the translation. 
 See Davidson, ad loc. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EMMANUEL.—See IMMANUEL. 
 
 EMMAUS (Exuaots),—1. Lk 24! only. This 
 place was 60 furlongs from Jerusalem. Some MSS 
 follow & in reading ‘an hundred and sixty’; but 
 this is robably a corruption, to suit the views held 
 as to the site in the 4th cent. A.D. ; for a journey 
 of 320 furlongs, or 40 miles, in one day (see 
 vv. 1. 28 29. 88), would have been improbable. In the 
 Onomasticon (s.v.) it is placed at Emmaus Nico- 
 acres "Amwds, 20 miles from Jerus., near 
 
 ijalon. Josephus, however, speaks of an Emmaus 
 60 furlongs from Jerusalem (Wars, VII. vi. 6), 
 the habitation of a colony of Titus’ soldiers. The 
 direction is unknown. The name Kulénieh or 
 ‘Colony,’ and the distance from Jerus. (which, 
 however, is not exact), have suggested the village 
 so named in the valley W. of the Holy City. In 
 the twelfth cent. Emmaus was shown at another 
 village, Kubcibeh, to the N.W., at about the re- 
 quired distance. To the 8.W. of Jerus., near the 
 main road to the plain, is a ruin called Khamasah, 
 which recalls the name of Emmaus. The distance 
 is more than 60 furlongs, but perhaps not too 
 great for a rough estimate. The site, however, 
 remains uncertain. See SW P vol. iii. sheet xvii. 
 
 2. Emmaus Nicopolis is not mentioned in OT, 
 but appears as a place of importance in the time of 
 the Maccabees. tt was in the neighbouring plain 
 that the Syrian army was defeated by Judas 
 (1 Mac 3*- 57 43-25), Emmaus was one of the towns 
 fortified by Bacchides in order to ‘vex’ Israel 
 (1 Mac 9», Jos. Ant. XIII. i. 3). 
 
 LivERATURE.—Robinson, BRP iii. 147f.; Guérin, Judée, i, 
 29f., 801f.; Reland, Pal. 427, 758; Thomson, Land and Book, 
 {. 116, 123 ff., 132, ii. 59; Schwarz, Das heil. Land, p. 98; Neu- 
 bauer, Géog. du Talmud, 101f., 152f.; Baedeker-Socin, Hdbk. 
 to Pal. 141; Sepp, Das heil. Land, i. 42; PEF St, 1876, 172, 174; 
 1879, 105; 1881, 46, 237, 274; 1882, 24, 59; 1883, 53, 55; 1884, 
 83, 189, 248; 1885, 116, 156; 1886, 17; Smith, HGHL 214; 
 Schiirer, HJP 1 i. 218, 236, ii, 231, 253, 386ff., 1. i, 1574f.; 
 
 
 
 ENAN 
 
 Conder, Tent Work in Pal. 8,140; Bible Places, 73, 103; Keim, 
 Jesus of Nazara, vi. 306; Caspari, Chronol.-Geog. Leben Jesu ; 
 Andrews, Life of our Lord, 617-619. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 EMMER (A ’Eppip, B ’Epip), 1 Es 97.—In Ez 
 10” IMMER. 
 
 EMMERUTH (A ‘'Expnpoté, B “Epunpos, AV 
 Meruth), 1 Es 5%.—A corruption of Immer in 
 Ezr 287, Probably “Exunp was first Grecized into 
 “Exypnpos, and the form in A arose from mistaking 
 ’Exuhpov for a nominative. The AV is due to the 
 Aldine text, which has vlol ék Mnpové for b. Hyp. 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 EMULATION is now used only in a good sense, 
 healthy rivalry. But about 1611 it wavered be- 
 tween that and a distinctly bad meaning, ‘am- 
 bitious strife,’ or ‘malicious envy.’ Shakespeare 
 uses it in both ways, and of the three occurrences 
 in AV, two are bad (1 Mac 8", Gal 5, both ¢#Xos) 
 and one good (Ro 11'4 ‘If by any means J ma 
 
 _provoke to e.’, ef mws mapafndow, RV ‘to jeal- 
 
 ousy’). The Douay Bible uses ‘emulation’ of 
 God, after Vulg. emulatio, in Ps 78° ‘in their 
 grauens they provoked him to emulation,’ where 
 AV has ‘jealousy’ (‘moved him to jealousy with 
 their graven images’). For the sense of ‘mali- 
 cious envy’ take the Rheims tr. of Ac 7° ‘the 
 Patriarches through emulation, sold Joseph into 
 alin Emulation and envy are distinguished 
 and discussed by Trench, NZ’ Synonyms, p. 83 ff., » 
 in his article on the Gr. words (Hos and Pévos. 
 J. HASTINGS, 
 ENABLE occurs only 1 Ti 1%, and it is used, 
 without an infinitive following, in the obsolete or 
 at least archaic sense of ‘strengthen.’ Cf. Mul- 
 caster (1581), Positions, xli. 232, ‘Exercise to en- 
 able the body’; and Melvill, Diary (Wodrow, p. 
 280), ‘ obteining of God’s mercie that night’s repose, 
 quhilk I luiked nocht for, to inable me for the 
 morne’s action.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ENAIM (oy¥), probably the same as Enam 
 (oxy) which is mentioned among the towns of 
 lowland Judah in Jos 15%. From the reference 
 to Enaim in Gn 38-2! we gather that it was the 
 name of a village on the road to Timnah; and, as 
 the incident recorded in this chapter is prefaced 
 by the mention of the sojourn of Judah with his 
 friend Hirah the Adullamite, the village possibly 
 stood on the road between Timnah and Adullam. 
 In Jos 15* Enam stands in the same group of towns 
 with Tappuah and Adullam and Azekah. 
 
 The AV in its rendering Gn 38'4 ‘in an open 
 place’ (RV ‘in the gate of Enaim’), and Gn 3871 
 ‘openly by the way side’ (RV ‘at Enaim by the 
 way side’), has followed the explanation adopted 
 by the Targums, the Pesh. Syriac, and the Latin 
 
 ulgate (in bivio itineris), on the supposition that 
 ‘enayim had its usual meaning ‘eyes,’ and was 
 not a proper name. Cf. Jerome, who, comment- 
 ing on the words ‘Et sedit ad portam Enam,’ 
 remarks ‘Sermo Hebraicus Enaim transfertur in 
 oculos. Non est igitur nomen loci; sed est 
 sensus: sedit in bivio, sive in compito, ubi dili- 
 gentius debet viator aspicere, quod iter gradiendi 
 capiat.’ The Old Latin (Lyons Pent.) and the LXX 
 (Alvdy) rightly rendered the word as a proper name. 
 The double form Enaim and Enam may be com- 
 pared with Dothain and Dothan (Gn 37” and 2 K 
 618), The meaning of the name was presumabl 
 ‘the two springs.’ Conder has identified it with 
 Kh. Wady Alin, which is close to Beth-shemesh 
 and En-gannim. H. E. RYLE. 
 
 ENAN (j»y ‘having fountains,’ or ‘eyes’ t.e. ‘keen- 
 eyed,’ Alydv).—Prince of Naphtali at the first census 
 (Nu 125 229 778. 88 1027 P), 
 
 
 
ENASIBUS 
 
 ENASIBUS (A ’Evdorfos, B -e-), 1 Es 94,—In Ezr 
 10% ELIAsHis. The form is probably due to read- 
 ing AI as N. 
 
 ENCAMPMENT BY THE SEA.—One of the 
 stations in the itinerary of the children of Israel, 
 where they encamp after leaving Elim, Nu 33” [see 
 Eni]. If the position of Elim be in the Wady 
 Ghurundel, then the camp by the sea is on the shore 
 of the Gulf of Suez, somewhere south of the point 
 where the Wady Tayibeh opens to the coast. The 
 curious return of the line of march to the seashore 
 is a phenomenon that has always arrested the 
 attention of travellers to Mt. Sinai: and if Mt. 
 Sinai be really in the so-called Sinaitic peninsula, the 
 camp can be located within a half-mile. [But it is 
 within the bounds of a reasonable probability that 
 the ‘Encampment by the Sea’ may mean the Gulf 
 of ‘Akabah, and Sinai be out of the peninsula.] St. 
 Silvia of Aquitaine [?in the year 388] returned 
 from the traditional Sinai, ae especially notices 
 the approach of the line of march to the seashore 
 (‘pervenimus ad mansionem, que erat jam super 
 mare, id est in eo loco, ubi iam de inter montes 
 exitur, et incipitur denuo totum iam iuxta mare 
 ambulari; sic tamen iuxta mare, ut subito fluctus 
 animalibus pedes cedat’). Her identification is 
 that of an accepted tradition which must be many 
 years older than herself. It is very valuable 
 evidence for a Christian tradition which is sensibly 
 constant in her time, and shows no signs of having 
 undergone any revision at the hands of ecclesiastics. 
 : J. RENDEL HARRIS. 
 
 ENCHANTMENT.—See DIVINATION. S; 
 
 END.—The uses of this word are not so often 
 obsolete as biblical, and demand attention from 
 their very familiarity. 
 
 1. The end as opposed to the beginning. To the Heb. mind, 
 especially in the later and more rigorous days of the history of 
 Israel, the most perplexing problem was the prosperity of the 
 wicked; and the conclusion which bel the most satisfying 
 shelter, was the thought of the end, Ps 8737.38 ‘Mark the 
 
 ect man, and behold the upright: for the end (RV ‘latter 
 end’) of that man is peace. But the transgressors shall be 
 destroyed together ; the end (RV ‘latter end’) of the wicked 
 shall be cut off.’ So even the author of Ps 73, who, though a 
 true worshipper, felt the perplexity so keenly that he said, 
 ‘Surely in vain have I cleansed my heart’ (v.13), found rest 
 when he went into the sanctuary of God and ‘considered their 
 latter end’ (v.17). Moreover, this is the solution of the Book 
 of Job, if (apart from the Elihu chapters) that book may be 
 accepted as a unity. It is Bildad who utters the prophecy 
 87), unconsciously as Caiaphas; but it is fulfilled to the 
 letter (4212), for the word used of Job’s ‘latter end’ is the same 
 in both places. And it is a truly religious solution, since it is 
 God that declares the end from the beginning (Is 4619), Nor 
 was it so precarious as we may suppose, for the word (‘ahdrith) 
 had a certain elasticity of meaning, and did not absolutely 
 restrict the thought to the end of this present life. Its sense 
 varied with the context, but it was capable of standing for 
 even the great Messianic future. Still, we must observe that 
 this source of encouragement, while frequent in the Apocr. 
 is 216 54, Sir 113 736 911 1127 [1622] 1812 219. 10), is scarcely found 
 NT; cf. (doubtfully) He 137 ‘considering the end of their 
 conversation ’ (riv ixBacsw r5s avarrpopis, Wyc. ‘the goynge out 
 of lyuynge’ ; but Rendall takes it in another sense, ‘ the issue, 
 gc. of the word which they had preached, presented to the 
 observer by their daily course of life’); and 2 P 220 ‘the latter 
 end is worse with them than the beginning’ (r& iczxara, RV 
 ‘the last state ). 
 
 2. The ‘end’ is used to denote the extremity. The Heb. 
 words are ‘(1) gabhlath, only Ex 2822 3915 (AV ‘at the ends,’ 
 RV ‘like cords,’ fr. (gdbhad) to twist). (2) peh, lit. ‘mouth,’ 
 2K 1021 2116, Ezr 941 ‘full from one end to another’ (AVm 
 ‘full from mouth to mouth,’ but Ryle thinks the metaphor 
 has been taken from a drinking vessel). (3) pé’dh, Ezk 4112 
 (usually ‘side,’ as RV here). (4) ré’sh, ‘head,’ 1 K 88=2 Ch 59 
 ‘the ends of the staves’ of the ark. (5) séph (a late word, 
 2Ch 2016, Ec 311 72 1213, J] 220, and in Dn). But the most 
 freq. is (6) ‘ephes, only in the phrase ’aphsé ’erez, ‘ends of 
 the earth’; which is also the tr. of (7) kanéphéth hd@’drez, lit. 
 ‘wings of the earth’ in Job 373 3813, On the last passage 
 Davidson says, ‘The figure is beautiful; the dawn as it pours 
 forth along the whole horizon, on both sides of the beholder, 
 lays hold of the borders of the earth, over which night lay like 
 a covering ; and seizing this pe pines oe its extremities it shakes 
 the wicked out of it. The wick ee from the light. The 
 dawn is not a physical phenomenon merely, it is a moral agent.’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ENDEAVOUR 701 
 
 In NT cf. Mt 2481 ‘from one end of heaven to the other’ (é#’ 
 arpa odpavar ing &xpav abrir), Ro 1018 ‘the ends of the world’ 
 (ra xipare ris cixouztvns). See EARTH, WORLD. 
 
 8. The end may also the conclusion, as Is 248 ‘the noise 
 of them that rejoice endeth’ (hddhal). The Heb. is nearly 
 always kdzdh and ita derivatives; but once we find ydzdh, ‘ta 
 go out,’ Ex 2316 ‘in the end of the year’; and twice the subst. 
 tékiphah, ‘the circuit’ (of the sun, Ps 196), used of the year, 
 Ex 3422, 20h 2423 (AVm and RVm ‘revolution’). In NT the 
 chief word is rides, but the more precise cvvriAge is found in 
 Mt (1329. 40. 49 243 2820, always followed by rod wldves, EV ‘end 
 of the world,’ RVYm ‘consummation of the age’) and in He 92 
 c. vor widver, AV ‘end of the world,’ RV ‘end of the ages,’ 
 
 Vm ‘consummation of the ages’). See EscuaToLogy; also 
 MILLENNIUM, Parousia, Wor.LD, and B. W. Bacon in Old and 
 New Test. Student, xiii. 225-233, ‘End’ in the sense of con- 
 clusion is common in Apocr., as 1 Es 917 ‘their cause... was 
 brought to an end’ (4xn isi xépas); with which cf. He 616 ‘an 
 oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife’ (xtpes tig 
 BsBaiwoi, RV ‘is final for confirmation’). ‘In the end of the 
 Sabbath’ (Mt 281) is lit. ‘late of the Sabbath’ (é)i caSBére). 
 
 4, A work may be ended, not merely because it is concluded 
 or terminated, but because it is completed or perfected. In this 
 sense ‘end’ occurs both as vb. and subst. The Heb. is mostly 
 either kdladh or tamam in some of their parts; and the meaning 
 is either completeness, as of the end of sin (Dn 9%4), or perfec- 
 tion, as of the end of God’s creative work (Gn 22), The subst. 
 kdldh is tr. ‘a full end’ in Jer 427 510.18 3011 bis 4628043, Ezk 1113, 
 and ‘an utter end’ in Nah 18.9(RV ‘a full end’). The phrase 
 ts védog carries the sense both of termination and of complete- 
 ness, 80 that in Jn 13! it is difficult to decide between ‘he loved 
 them to the end’ and ‘he loved them to the uttermost.’ In 
 1 Th 216 ‘to the uttermost’ is clear; in Lk 185 ‘ to the end’ is 
 most natural. In 1P 113 the adv. rsAs‘ws, which occurs in bibl. 
 Gr. only here, is trd in AV ‘to the end,’ in RV more probably 
 ‘perfectly.’ These meanings easily pass into that of perpetuity, 
 which is manifest in Ps 11933.112, EV ‘unto the end’ (Heb. 
 ‘ékebh); Job 3436 (adh-nezgah); Jer 35 (ldnezah); and ‘world 
 without end’ Is 4517 (3y ‘D?\y7Iy), Eph 821 (sod aldivos siv 
 aiwvow, RV ‘for ever and ever’). 
 
 Like Lat. finis (and probably owing to it), ‘end’ 
 is used in Eng. for the purpose, as in Tomson’s 
 NT (1576) Heading of Ep. to He, ‘The drift and 
 end of this Epistle is.” In AV this meaning is 
 found only in the phrase ‘to the end...” or 
 ‘to this end... ,’ and once ‘to what end’? 
 (Am 58). In old Eng. this phrase is sometimes 
 followed by the infin., as Bacon’s Hssays, p. 201, 
 ‘Some undertake Sutes .. . to the end to gratify 
 the adverse partie.’ But in AV it is followed by 
 ‘that,’ or the conj. is omitted. The constructions 
 in the orig. are: 1. jy2? ‘in order that,’ Ex 8" 
 ‘to the end thou mayest know’; Lv 17°, Dt 1736 %, 
 Ps 30%, Ezk 20% 314, Ob % 2. mary ‘for the 
 sake of’ (see Ec 3!8 87), Ec 74 ‘to the end that 
 man should find nothing after him.’ 3. rod with 
 infin., 1 Mac 13% 14%, 4, 8rws, 1 Mac 14%. 5. 
 els 75 with infin, Ac 7%, Ro 17 46 1Th 3%, 
 6. els rodro, ‘to this end,’ Jn 18°’, Ro 14°, 2Co 2°, 
 7. mpds 76, Lk 18} ‘to this end that men ought 
 always to pray’ (RV ‘to the end that’). RV 
 has shown much fondness for this phrase, intro- 
 ducing ‘to the end that’ in place of the simple 
 ‘that” of AV, for qyob in Gn 19%, Ex 333, 
 Nu 16; for els 76 with infin. (on which see Votaw, 
 The Use of the Injfin. in Bibl. Gr., 1896, p. 21) in 
 Ro 438, Eph 12, 2 Th 15 22-6 1 P 37; and for tva 
 in Eph 3”, 2 Th 34, Tit 38. RV also introduces 
 ‘to this end’ for els rodro in Mk 1°, 1 Ti 4% (AV 
 ‘therefore’), Ac 261%, 1 Jn 3° (AV ‘for this pur- 
 pose’), and Jn 187 (AV ‘for this cause’); ‘unto 
 this end’ in 1 P 4° (Gr. es rodro, AV ‘for this 
 cause’); and ‘to which end’ in 2 Th 1" (Gr. eis 
 8, AV ‘ wherefore’). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ENDAMAGE.—Ezr 4" ‘thou shalt e. the revenue 
 of the kings’ (pij0n), and 1 Es 6% ‘that stretcheth 
 out his hand to hinder or e. that house of the 
 Lord in Jerusalem’ (xaxororjjou). The word is 
 still used, but is somewhat old-fashioned. Cf. 
 Quarles, Emblems, 1. xi. 47, ‘The Devil smileth 
 that he may endamage’; and H. Vaughan, Silex, 
 i. Pref., ‘No loss is so doleful as that gain that 
 will endamage the soul.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ENDEAYOUR.—‘ Endeavour’ seems a very in: 
 

 
 ENDIRONS 
 
 ery 5 
 
 ENFLAME 
 
 
 
 adequate tr. of omrovddtw, which in 2 Ti 4° ig 
 rendered ‘do thy diligence,’ in Tit 3! ‘be diligent,’ 
 (RV ‘give diligence’), and in Gal 2” ‘was forward’ 
 
 (RV ‘was zealous’). But ‘endeavour once denoted 
 all possible tension, the highest energy that could 
 be directed to an object. With us it means the 
 last feeble hopeless attempt of a person who knows 
 that he cannot accomplish his aim, but makes a 
 conscience of going through some formalities for 
 the pea i of showing that the failure is not 
 his fault’ (Maurice, Lincoln’s Inn Ser. quoted by 
 Trench, On the AV, p. 48). One of the places 
 where in AV omovdd{w is tr. ‘endeavour’ is h 48 
 ‘endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in 
 the bond of peace,’ and in his comment on that 
 assage, Abp. Laud (Sermons, i. 155) shows the 
 orce of ‘endeavour’ in his day: ‘If you will 
 keep it you must endeavour to keep it. For it 
 is not so easy a thing to keep unity in great bodies 
 as it is thought; there goes much labour and 
 endeavour to it.’ Cf. also Act 7, Henry VII. 
 c. 22, ‘Endevoir youre self and put to your hand 
 and spare no cost.’ The subst. occurs only Ps 284 
 ‘according to the wickedness of their endeavours’ 
 (omboyp, RV ‘doings’). The vb. is found for Gr. 
 ¢nréw Ad. Est 163, Ac 16° (RV ‘seek’); for reipdfw 
 2 Mac 11; for orovddtw Eph 4° (RV ‘give dili- 
 gence’), 1 Th 27, 2P 1% (RV ‘give diligence’). 
 
 To ‘endeavour’ is ‘to do one’s devoir’ or duty: en having a 
 verbal and active force as in ‘encumber,’ ‘enforce,’ etc., it is 
 the expression in one word of Chaucer’s ‘ Doth now your devoir’ 
 (Cant. Tales, 1600). ‘Devoir’ is the Fr. form of Lat. debere, 
 to owe, and ‘en’ is the Fr. form of Lat. im. The spelling in 
 AV 1611 is always ‘endeuour’ (except 2 Th 217, by accident 
 
 ‘endeuor’). But about this time it was customary to affect |. 
 
 the Latin form, so in Pref. we find ‘that hath bene our in- 
 deauour, that our marke.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ENDIRONS.—Ezk 40°" (text ‘hooks’ [which 
 see] m. ‘or endirons, or the two hearth-stones’). 
 
 The spelling of 1611 is ‘andirons.’ The change into ‘end- 
 irons’ was first made in 1638, under the impression, nodoubt, as 
 Wright says, that being the iron standards, one at each end of 
 the fireplace, to support the log of wood that was burning, this 
 was the derivation, and should be the spelling. But this is not 
 the derivation. It cannot be traced farther back than old Fr. 
 andier and late Lat. anderia; and the form -tron is an Eng. 
 corruption as much as end-. Another false spelling is ‘hand- 
 iron,’ as Florio (1591), See. Frutes, 159, ‘Set that firebrand 
 upon the handiron.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EN-DOR (15 yy Jos 177, 1 ’y 1S 287, awa ’y Ps 
 83!°.—A town in Issachar belonging to Manasseh, 
 mentioned with Dor as one of ‘three countries’ 
 (AV; the text n5; is undoubtedly corrupt) which 
 appear to have been in the Jordan Valley (Beth- 
 shean and Ibleam), in the Esdraelon plateau (Dor 
 and En-dor), and in the low hills to the W. (Taan- 
 ach); but for ‘countries’ we may read ‘heights’ 
 (RV), as referring only to Dor, En-dor, and Taanach. 
 It was not far from Shunem and Gilboa, and 
 near the Kishon and Tabor, where Sisera is said 
 in the last passage (Ps 83!) to have perished. In 
 the fourth cent. A.D. it was known as a large 
 village 4 Roman miles south of Tabor—now the 
 hamlet Hnddr in this position, on the N. slope of 
 the conical hill of Nebi Dhahy. Possibly the site 
 of Dor should be placed near En-dor, which means 
 the ‘spring of Dor’; but it may be objected that 
 both are noticed in a single passage (cf., however, 
 Sheba and Beersheba in Jos 19?).* En-dor was one 
 of the places conquered by Tahutmes III. about 1600 
 B.c. See SWP vol. ii. sheet viii. See Dor. 
 
 LiTgratuRE.—Lagarde, Onom, 96, 121,226; Robinson, BRP iii. 
 460, 468f. ; Baedeker-Socin, Pal.2 460f.; Van de Velde, ii. 383 ; 
 
 * W. H. Bennett in Haupt’s OT remarks on Jos 1711 ‘ As the 
 Endor clause does not occur in Jg 127, and Endor is about 25 
 miles E. of Dor, the clause is probably due to accidental 
 repetition of the Dor clause.’ In Jos 192 in like manner Sheba, 
 which is wanting in 1 Ch 428 and in some Heb. MSS, may be an 
 accidental repetition of the Yaw in yaw 3K23- 
 
 Tristram, Land of Israel, 
 
 ie 127; Conder, Tent-Work in Pal 
 63; Porter, Giant Cities of Ba 
 
 shan, 247, 250. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ENDOW, ENDUE.—These words are distinct in 
 origin. Endow is fr. Lat. in-dotere (fr. dotem, a 
 dowry), through the Fr. en-dower. Its Pre 
 meaning is, therefore, to provide with a dowry. 
 Endue is fr. Lat. inducere, through the old Fr. 
 induire, and properly means ‘to lead on,’ ‘ intro- 
 duce.’ But a supposed derivation from Lat. in- 
 duere, ‘to put on (clothing),’ helped to give the 
 word its meanings of ‘clothe,’ and then ‘invest’ 
 with some quality or spiritual gift, Then this 
 was so close to the meaning of ‘endow,’ and the 
 spelling was so uncertain, that the two words were 
 often confounded. When the spelling is ‘endow’ 
 the meaning is rarely wrong; but ‘endue’ (often 
 spelt ‘indue’ from he influence of Lat. induwere) 
 took on all the meanings of both words. 
 
 In AV they occur Gn 30” ‘ God hath endued me 
 with a good dowry’ (131, RV ‘endowed’); Ex 2276 
 ‘he shall surely endow her to be his wife’ (np 
 m7a:, RV ‘pay a dowry for her’); 2Ch 2% 
 ©endued (1611 ‘indued’) with prudence... under- 
 standing’ (yi); Sir 178 ‘he endued them with 
 strength’ (évéducev); Lk 24” ‘till ye be endued 
 (1611 ‘indued’) with power from on high’ (eds 0d 
 évdtcnc0e, RV ‘be clothed’); and Ja 3% ‘endued 
 (1611 ‘indued’) with know (émorhuwv, RV 
 ‘understanding’). That the distinction between 
 the words was not always forgotten about 1611 is 
 shown by this quot. from Hieron (1616), Works, 
 ii. 37, ‘ Was it with what religion is the woman 
 endewed, or with what portion is shee endowed t’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EN-EGLAIM (o:5yry'y).—A locality on the Dead 
 Sea, mentioned along with En-gedi, Ezk 47% It 
 has not been identified, but is not improbably ‘Ain 
 Feshkah (Robinson, BRP ii. 489). Tristram (Bible 
 Places, 93) would make it ‘Ain Hajlah (Beth- 
 hoglah). In any case, it probably lay to the N. 
 towards the mouth of the Jordan. Eglaim of Is 
 15° is a different place, its initial letter bein 
 x, not y, and its situation apparently to the sout 
 of the Dead Sea (cf. Davidson on Ezk 471°). 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ENEMESSAR (’Evenecodp).—The name of a king 
 of Assyria, found in Gr. codd. of To 1?, where 
 Heb., Aram., and Lat. codd. all read Shalmaneser. 
 Shalmaneser is explained by recent Assyriologists 
 to mean ‘Salman (the god) is chief’; but, im 
 accounting for the form Enemessar, it is possible 
 that the Hebrews interpreted the name to mean 
 ‘Esar (or Assur) is peaceful’ (ef. Esarhaddon) ; 
 then the Gr. translator capriciously altered jobw 
 nox ‘ Esar is peaceful’ to 1px j3n ‘ Esar is emcee 
 toning down the final ; to 0 as in Hanamel (Jer 32") 
 for $x 37 ‘El is gracious.’ 
 
 Other explanations are: 1. That Enemessar is 
 for Senemessar (sh changed to s, and then to the 
 light breathing, as in Arkeanos for Sargon), Z 
 being dropped, and the m and m transposed (so 
 Pinches). 2. That Shalmaneser drops the 2v (which 
 was possibly mistaken for the genitive) and then 
 transposes m and n (so Rawlinson). 3. It is an 
 unrecorded private name of Sargon, for Anumasit 
 =‘the god Anu is gracious’ (so Oppert). 4. It is 
 a corruption of Sarru-kinu=Sargen reversed (so 
 Bickell). J. T. MARSHALL. 
 
 ENENEUS (’Ev4os, AV Enenius), 1 Es 5°.—One 
 of the twelve leaders of the return from Babylon 
 under Zerubbabel. The name is omitted in the 
 
 arallel list in Ezr 2, which gives only eleven 
 eaders; but answers to NAHAMANI, Neh 7’. 
 
 ENFLAME.—This is the spelling of mod. edd. of 
 AV in Is 57°, though that of 11] was ‘inflame. 
 
 ag 
 
 
 
ENGAGE 
 
 
 
 ENGRAVING 703 
 
 
 
 In is 5" 1611 had ‘enflame,’ mod. edd. ‘inflame.’ 
 The word also occurs Sir 28”, Sus’, 1 Mac 2?! 
 (1611 and mod. edd. ‘inflame’). The meaning 
 is always ‘excite,’ and the ref. is to lust in 
 Is 57°, Sus®; to wine Is 5"; to anger Sir 28"; 
 while the sense is good in 1 Mac 2% ‘ Mattathias 
 - . . was inflamed with zeal’ (éffdwoe), Wryclif 
 uses the word in Ja 3° of the tongue, ‘it is en- 
 flawmed of helle, and enflawmeth the wheel of 
 oure birthe.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ENGAGE.—Jer 307 only, ‘who is this that 
 engageth his heart to approach unto me?’ (31 
 tab-ny; Vulg. ‘applicet cor suum’). Engage is 
 used in the sense of ‘ pledge,’ though to ‘engage 
 one’s heart’ seems to be a unique expression. 
 Shaks. has ‘I do engage my life,’ and ‘I will en- 
 gage my words,’ where the meaning is nearly the 
 same. Ihe older VSS vary : Cov. ‘ what is he, that 
 sare over his herte’; Gen. ‘that directeth his 
 
 eart’; Dou. ‘that applieth his hart.’ RV tr. 
 ‘that hath had boldness to approach unto them,’ 
 with marg. ‘ Heb. hath been surety for his heart.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EN-GANNIM (0°23 ;'y).—T wo places so named are 
 noticed in the Book of Joshua, the name signify- 
 ing ‘the spring of gardens.’ 1. Jos 15%. A town 
 of Judah noticed with Zanoah and Eshtaol. It is 
 supposed by Clermont-Ganneau to be the ruin Umm 
 Jina in the valley near Zanoah—a suitable site. 
 See SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. 2. Jos 192! 219 (in 
 1 Ch 6 Anem). A town of Issachar given to the 
 Levites, now Jenin, a town on the S. border of 
 Esdraelon, with a fine spring, gardens and palms. 
 It marked the S. limit of Galilee, and appears 
 to have been always a flourishing town. The 
 ‘ garden house,’ Beth-hag-gan, in 2 K 9?" has been 
 thought to be En-gannim, but it is more probably 
 Beit Jenn E. of Tabor. See IBLEAM. See SWP 
 vol. ii. sheet viii. 
 
 LrTeRATURE.—Guérin, Samarie, 1. 327; Robinson, BRP iii. 
 116, 337; Baedeker-Socin, Pal.2 237; Van de Velde, p. 359; 
 Tristram, Land of Israel, 65, 130; Conder, Tent-Work in Pal. 
 58; Bible Places (ed. 1897), 67, 180, 265. 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 EN-GEDI (3 ;y, Arab. ‘Ain Jidi, ‘fountain of the 
 kid’), the name of a spring of warm water which 
 bursts forth from the cliffs overlooking the W. 
 shore of the Dead Sea near its centre, and 2 miles 
 S. of R&4s Mersed. The ancient name of the spot 
 was Hazazon-tamar (2 Ch 207), by which it was 
 known in the days of Abraham (Gn 14’); and it has 
 been suggested by Tristram that a group of ruins 
 below the cascade near the shore of the Dead Sea 
 may mark the site of a town through which marched 
 the Assyrian host of Chedorlaomer (Gn 14’). The 
 
 lace was included in the wide skirts of the tribe of 
 
 udah (Jos 15°), and is associated with the City 
 of Salt, which probably lay a few miles farther 
 S. on the shore of the aie near Khashm Usdum 
 the Salt-mountain). The name ‘ Wilderness of 
 n-gedi’ applies to the wild rocky district forming 
 the E. part of the Wilderness of Judah; an 
 here amongst the deep ravines, rocky gorges, and 
 the caves, which nature or art have hewn out in 
 their sides, David found a safe hiding-place from 
 the vengeance of Saul (1S 24!). At a later 
 riod it was the scene of the slaughter of the 
 ordes of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, who had 
 invaded the kingdom of Judah in the reign of 
 Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 20%). The limestone cliffs 
 of En-gedi are deeply intersected by numerous river 
 channels which descend from the table-land of 
 Judah towards the Dead Sea. At the place itself 
 two streams, the Wady Sudeir and Wady el-‘Are- 
 eh, enclose a small plateau, nearly 2000 ft. above 
 the waters and bounded by nearly vertical walls of 
 
 rock, Terraces of shingle and white calcareous 
 
 
 
 marl envelop their bases to a height of several 
 hundred feet, and mark the level at which the 
 waters of the lake formerly stood. Only a few 
 bushes of acacia, tamarisk, Solanwm, and Calotropis 
 procera (Apple of Sodom) decorate the spot where 
 palms and vines were formerly cultivated (Ca 
 14), The district is tenanted by a few Arabs of 
 the Jahalin and Rashfybeh tribes, and is the safe 
 retreat of the Jbex (‘wild goat,’ 1S 24%), the 
 coney (Hyrax syriacus), and numerous birds of prey. 
 The spot is amongst the wildest and most desolate 
 in the whole of Palestine. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Lagarde, Onom. 119, 254; Seetzen, Reisen, ii. 
 227 ff. ; Robinson, BRP ii, 439ff.; Baedeker-Socin, Pal.2 175; 
 Tristram, Land of Israel, 280{f., 296 ; Schtirer, HJ P 1. i. 160; 
 Neubauer, Géog. du Talmud, 160; G, A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 
 269 ff. ; Conder, Tent-Work in Pal. 266; Bible Places (1897), 8, 
 118; Sayce, Patriarchal Pal. 40. HULL. 
 
 ENGINE. — Besides the battering-ram, ‘forts’ 
 dayek, pri (LXX mpopaxdves, Oxf. Hed. Lex. ‘bul- 
 wark,’ ‘siege-wall’), are mentioned as used in 
 sieges in the Chaldean era (2 K 25!=Jer 524, Ezk 4? 
 17 21” 27) 268 [all]). These forts were prob. towers 
 on wheels manned with archers, and pushed for- 
 ward by degrees against the wall to be attacked 
 (cf. 1 Mac 13%"). Such a tower might be combined 
 with a battering-ram, or at least used to cover the 
 attack of the ram. See BATTERING-RAM. 
 
 In 1 Ch 26" Uzziah is said to have ‘ made in 
 Jerusalem engines invented by cunning men (lit. 
 ‘contrivances, the invention of inventive men,’ 
 avin navim> nivayn, see Oxf. Heb. Lex. 8. ji29n) to 
 be on the towers and upon the battlements, to 
 shoot arrows and great stones withal.’ These 
 ‘engines’ were probably similar to the Roman 
 catapulta and balista. 'The only other occurrence 
 of the word }i2¥n is in Ec 7% ‘God made man 
 ee but they have sought out many inven- 
 
 ions. 
 
 In Maccabeean times several different kinds of 
 engines were in use. ‘He encamped,’ writes the 
 author of 1 Mac, ‘against the sanctuary many 
 days, and set there artillery, and engines, and 
 instruments to cast fire (or ‘fiery darts’), and 
 others to cast stones, and tormenta (cxoprléia) to 
 cast darts, and slings’ (6°). W. E. BARNEs. 
 
 ENGRAFTED.—Ja 1” only, ‘the e. word.’ This 
 tr? may be traced from Tind. ‘grafted’ (which 
 would be the mod. form), through Gen. ‘ graffed,’ 
 Rhem. ‘ engraffed.’ * J. HASTINGS, 
 
 ENGRAVING.—4. nvnn Adrésheth, Ex 315 35%. *5 
 [minj in Ex 321% is prob. text. error for wip, ef. Jer 
 17). 2. mnp pitidah, Ex 2811-21-36 3914.30, Zee 39 
 (cf. 2 Ch 28 15), 1K 6%, Ps 748. 3. nybpp mikla‘ath, 
 1 K 618: 29.32 731, 4, nano méhukkeh, 1 K 6® (cf. Is 
 4916, Hzk 81° 234, Job 1377). 5. xdpayua, Ac 17”, 
 
 Of these terms, the first possibly refers to the 
 artistic skill of the worker, and the others to 
 indicate the process or result of etching, punching, 
 gouging, relief, etc. The material used was stone, 
 wood (2S 54=1Ch 14), metal (1S 13%), and 
 jewels (Ex 28"). The effect sought was either 
 that of engraving into the surface, as in the signet- 
 ring, and the jewels of the high priest’s dress, o1 
 that of relief by the removal of the surrounding 
 material, as in the cherubim carvings on the temple 
 doors. 
 
 The incisions made by the graving-tool (»77, 
 Ex 324) gradually led to ornamental inlaying in 
 
 * The Gr. ({9ures), which occurs only here in NT, gave the 
 late Lat. impotus, whence our Eng. word ‘imp.’ An ‘imp’ ia 
 orig. a graft, as Piers Plowman, v. 137— 
 
 *T was sum-tyme a frere, 
 And the Couentes [Convent’s] Gardyner, for to graffe ympes.’ 
 
 So ‘an imp of Satan’ isa graft, scion, child of the devil. 
 
 
 
 
 
704 EN-HADDAH 
 
 
 
 metal, and to mosaic of marble, ivory, and mother- 
 of-pearl in palaces (Ps 458). ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 WOOD, IVORY, AND METAL ‘ENGRAVING.’ 
 
 The final form of engraving, amounting to com- 
 plete separation, was that of the >p3 (Arab. fas!) 
 graven image (see CARVING). 
 
 LiTgratuRE.—Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 255 ff.; Wilkinson, Anc. 
 Eyup. fi. 837; Herod. vii. 69; Miiller, Hdb. d. Archiiol. der 
 
 unet, § 811. G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 EN-HADDAH (mn ;y), Jos 19%.—A city of 
 Issachar noticed with En-gannim and Remeth. It 
 is perhaps the present village Kefr Adhdn on the 
 edge of the Dothan plain, W. of En-gannim. See 
 SWP vol. ii. sheet viii. C. R. ConDER. 
 
 EN-HAKKORE (xvipn py ‘spring of the part- 
 ridge’; cf. 1S 26%, Jer 174).—'The name of a 
 fountain at Lehi (Jg 15"). The narrator (J (?)) of 
 the story characteristically connects hakkoré with 
 the word yikra (‘he called’) of v.18, and evidently 
 interprets ‘Hn-hakkoré as ‘the spring of him that 
 called.’ The whole narrative is rather obscure, and 
 the tr. in some instances doubtful, but probably 
 the story is something to the following effect. 
 After his exertions in slatiehbegne the Philistines, 
 Samson was very thirsty, and, finding no water, he 
 cried to J”, who clave the maktésh (‘mortar’ or 
 ‘hollow place’) which is in Lehi, and from a cleft 
 in one of its sides water flowed (so Moore). This 
 certainly seems eee to the interpretation re- 
 
 resented by AV, which understands the water to 
 ees sprung from a hollow place in the jaw (Zehi). 
 
 There is much difference of opinion regarding 
 the situation of ‘En-hakkoré. In Jerome’s time it 
 was shown at Eleutheropolis; Conder identifies 
 it with ‘Ayan Kara, N.W. of Zorah; Van de Velde 
 
 
 
 ENOCH 
 
 
 
 with a large spring between Tell el-Lekfyeh (4 miles 
 N. of Beersheba) and Khuweilfeh. 
 
 LiTzRaTuRE.—Oonder, J'ent-Work, i. 277, Bible Places, 
 67; Guérin, Judée, ii, 818f., 896ff.; Van de Velde, Memoir, 
 848; Moore, Judges, 846 ff.; Reuss, AT i. 158; PH F'St, 1869, 
 182. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EN-HAZOR (1x5 ]'y), ‘spring of Hazor,’ Jos 19°’. 
 —A town of Naphtali, noticed between Kedesh, 
 Edrei, and Iron. There were three Hazors in 
 Upper Galilee, and the site is uncertain ; but the 
 most probable place for En-hazor seems to be 
 Hazireh, on the W. slopes of the mountains of 
 Upper Galilee, W. of Kedesh. See SWP vol. i. 
 sheet iii. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 ENJOIN.—To enjoin is first to ‘join together’ 
 vat in-jungere), as Mt 19% ae (1380), ‘ there- 
 ore a man departe nat that thing that God en- 
 joyngde, or knytte to gidre.’ But it early came 
 to mean to ‘impose’ something on some one. 
 Generally it is a duty or penalty; but in Jot 
 865 it is used in the rare sense of commandin 
 or directing one’s way, ‘Who hath enjoyn 
 him his way?’ (779). The later and mod. sense 
 of ‘command’ is found in Est 9%, He 9” (‘ en- 
 joined unto you’; RV ‘commanded to you- 
 ward’), and Philem® ‘I might be much bold in 
 Christ to enjoin thee.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ENLARGE, ENLARGEMENT.—To ‘enlarge’ is 
 to ‘cause to be large’ that which is narrow or 
 confined. It also signifies ‘to make larger’ that 
 which may be considered large already, as Mt 
 23° ‘they make broad their phylacteries, and 
 enlarge the borders of their garments’ (ueyahvvw) , 
 but the prefix en- (= Lat. im) has pro erly a strong 
 * causative force, as in ‘enable,’ ‘entorhinal ‘enrich. 
 Hence arises the meaning of ‘set at large,’ 
 ‘liberate,’ asin Sidney, Arcadia (1622), 329, ‘Like 
 a Lionesse lately enlarged.’ Thisis undoubtedly 
 the meaning of enlargement inits only occurrence 
 Est 4" ‘ For if thou altogether holdest thy peaceat 
 this time, then shall there e. and deliverance arise 
 to the Jews from another place’ (m , AVm ‘ respira- 
 tion,’ RV ‘relief’). Cf. Act 32, Henry VIII. c. 2, § 9 
 (1540), ‘After his enlargement and commyng out 
 of prison.’ And that ‘enlarge’ is used in this 
 sense in AV is evident, as Ps 4! ‘thou hast en- 
 larged me when I was in distress’ (RV ‘hast set 
 me at large’); prob. also 2S 22°7=Ps 18% ‘thou 
 hast enlarged my steps under me.’ So when 
 applied to the heart, Ps 119* (2777), Is 60° (379), 
 2 Co 64 (rdarvvw), the sense is first of all freedom, 
 and then the joy that flows from it (cf. 2 Co 6% 
 mrarivew, and 10% peyadtvw), the oEes being ‘to be 
 straitened,’ as in La 1” (cf. Jer 4 ‘I am pained at 
 my very heart,’ lit., as RV¥m ‘the walls of my 
 heart !’), and 2 Co 6%, J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EN-MISHPAT (p5y¥p yy), “spring of judgment,’ 
 or ‘decision’ (by oracle), Gn 14.—A name for 
 Kadesh—probably Kadesh-barnea. See KADESH. 
 
 ENNATAN (Evvardy, AV Eunatan), 1 Es 8# 
 (® LXX),.—See ELNATHAN. 
 
 ENOCH (3):9).—4. The eldest son of Cain (Gn 
 417.18), His father is said to have built a city and 
 called it after his son’s name. Its identity is quite 
 uncertain (cf. Dillm. and Del. ad Joc., also Budde, 
 Urgesch. 120ff.). 2. The son of Jared, and father 
 of Methuselah, seventh in descent from Adam in 
 the line of Seth. His life is described by the 
 remarkable expression, ‘Enoch walked with 
 God’ (Gn 5%). Not less remarkable is the brief 
 account given of his death. After 365 years 
 ‘he was not, for God took him.’ This is under- 
 
 
 
ENOCH IN NT 
 
 stood by the writer to the Hebrews to mean, ‘By 
 faith Enoch was translated that he should not see 
 death ; and he was not found, because God trans- 
 lated him’ (He 115). In Jewish tradition many 
 fabulous legends gathered around Enoch. He was 
 represented as the inventor of letters, arithmetic, 
 and astronomy, and as the first author. A book 
 containing his visions and prophecies was said to 
 have been preserved by Noah in the ark, and 
 handed down through successive generations. (See 
 Ryle in Lapos. Times, iii. (1892), 355, and Early 
 arratives of Genesis, p. 90f.; and the next three 
 articles.) R. M. Boyp. 
 
 ENOCH 1n NT.—Enoch, the son of Jared (Gn 
 §16#:), is mentioned in three passages of the NT; 
 traditional exegesis has found an allusion to him 
 in a fourth. 
 
 1. In Lk 3” he has a place among the ancestors 
 of our Lord. 
 
 2. In He 115 it is said that ‘by faith Enoch was 
 translated.’ His faith is inferred (v.°) from the 
 LXX word ebdnpécryncev (Gn 5”: 4; this verb is used 
 in translating the Heb. ‘to walk with [before]’ in 
 Genesis Jl.cc. 6° 17! 24 4815, Ps 114°, Sir 4418, cf. 
 Ps 25% 3444). Nothing is added in He 11° to the 
 record of Gen. J.c. (LX-X), except the explanatory 
 phrase rod yh ldeiv Odvaror. ith this exposition 
 in the Alexandrian Epistle to the Hebrews it is 
 interesting to compare the allegorical interpreta- 
 tion of Philo de Abr. §§ 3, 4. The name ‘Evwy is 
 explained by him as meaning (ws dy °“E))qves 
 elmorev) xexapicuévos (t.e. Wn is connected with 
 j23). The perddecis is explained as mpds rd BéATtov 
 petaBorn; the otx niploxero as signifying either 
 that after repentance the old evil life is blotted 
 out as though it had never been, or that the good 
 man (6 doretos) droxwpet kal wbywow dyarg. Though 
 in the original Hebrew of Sir 441° Enoch is de- 
 scribed as ‘an example (lit. sign) of knowledge’ 
 (cf. civeow a’rod, Wis 44), yet in the Greek and 
 Old Latin (Cod. Am. ‘ut det gentibus pzniten- 
 tiam’), as in Philo, he is represented as ‘an ex- 
 ample of repentance.’ In Sir 49% (dveAjugOn dard 
 ths yas; cf. Cod. Am. in 441° ‘translatus est in 
 obec his translation is Bu preted literally. 
 
 osephus (Anz. I. iii. 4) uses an ambiguous classical 
 phrase, ‘He went unto the Deity (avexwpyoev pds 
 7d Oetov); hence neither is his death recorded.’ 
 For Jewish and Christian legends about Enoch, 
 see the references in Schiirer, HJP U1. i. 342, 
 I. iii. 70. 
 
 8. In Jude ™ the description &8depuos dd ’Addu is 
 taken from the Book of Enoch (608 93%), and a 
 passage from that book (1: *) is quoted as a warn- 
 ing actually uttered by the patriarch, dealing pro- 
 phetically (émpod. kal rovros) with the false teachers 
 of the apostolic age. The text of the passage in 
 Enoch comes to us in three forms. (a) The 
 Akhmim fragment: 87: epxerat ody rois [sic] pupidow 
 atrod kal rots aylos atrod wovjou Kplow xara TavTwr, 
 cal daodéce mwdvras rods doeBeis kal eddy. (MS 
 AévEe) macav cdpxa wept mavrwy Epywv ris doeBelas 
 atrév Gv qoéBnoav Kal oxdnpdv dv €\ddnoay bywr 
 xal rept mdvrwv dy xaredddyoav Kar’ atrov duaprwrol 
 dceBets. (b) Ad Novatianum 16 (Hartel, Cyprian, 
 ili. p. 67; Harnack, Texte u. Untersuch. xiii. 1, 
 assigns the treatise to Sixtus U1. of Rome, cf. 
 Benson, Cyprian, p. 557ff.): ‘Sicut scriptum est: 
 Ecce venit cum multis milibus nuntiorum suorum 
 facere judicium de omnibus et perdere omnes 
 impios et arguere omnem carnem de omnibus 
 factis impiorum que fecerunt impie et de omnibus 
 verbis impiis que de Deo locuti sunt peccatores.’ 
 {c) The Ethiopic version (ed. Charles, p. 59): ‘ And 
 lo! He comes with ten thousands of (His) holy 
 ones to execute judgment upon them, and He will 
 destroy the ungodly, and will convict all flesh 
 
 VOL. I.—A45 
 
 ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF 705 
 
 of all that the sinners and ungodly have wrought 
 and ungodly committed against Him.’ It is clear 
 that Jude* quotes loosely and abbreviates, but 
 it will be noticed that (1) in /dos Jude agrees with 
 Novat. Eth. against Gr.; (2) in édéyéa: he coincides 
 with Novat. alone, as possibly (for the tense of venit 
 is ambiguous) in #\@e. On the importance of the 
 citation in ad Novat. and its independence of Jude 
 (contrast Westcott, Canon, My 374), see Harnack, 
 op. cit. p. 57, and especially Zahn, Gesch. des Neut. 
 Kanons, ii. p. 797 ff. It may be added that Jude’s 
 quotation from Enoch was regarded (a) by Tertul- 
 lian, De Cult. Fem. i. 3, as upholding Enoch ; (8) by 
 some referred to by Jerome, De Vir. Iilust. 4, aa 
 condemning Jude. 
 
 4, A very common Patristic opinion, found as 
 early as Tert. De Anima, 50; Hippol. De Antichr. 43 
 (ef. Bonwetsch, Texte u. Untersuch. xvi. 2, p. 48), 
 identified ‘the two witnesses’ of Rev 11 with Enoch 
 and Elijah (see the references in cea Com- 
 tnentary, p. 651). . H. CHASE. 
 
 ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF— 
 
 I. SHorT ACCOUNT OF THE BooK.—In Gn 5 it 
 is said of Enoch that he walked with God. This 
 expression was taken in later times to mean that 
 he enjoyed superhuman privileges, by means of 
 which he received special revelations as to the 
 origin of evil, the relations of men and angels in 
 the past, their future destinies, and particularly 
 the ultimate triumph of righteousness. It was not 
 unnatural, therefore, that an apocalyptic literature 
 began to circulate under his name in the centuries 
 when such literature became current. In the Book 
 of Enoch, translated from the Ethiopic, we have 
 large fragments of such a literature proceeding from 
 a variety of Pharisaic writers in Palestine, and in 
 the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (see next art.), 
 translated from the Slavonic, we have additional ~ 
 portions of this literature. The latter book was 
 written for the most part by Hellenistic Jews in 
 
 Egypt. 
 he Ethiopic Book of Enoch was written in 
 the second and first centuries B.c. It was 
 well known to the writers of NT, and to 
 some extent influenced alike their thought and 
 diction. Thus it is quoted as a genuine work 
 of Enoch by Jude ('). Phrases, and at times 
 entire clauses, belonging to it are reproduced 
 in NT, but without acknowledgment of their 
 source. Barnabas (Zp. iv. 3, xvi. 5) quotes it as 
 Scripture. It wasmuch used by the Jewish authors 
 of the Book of the Secrets of E. and of the Book o 
 Jubilees ; in the Testaments of the XII Patriarc 
 its citations are treated as Scripture, and in the 
 later apocalypses of Baruch and 4 Ezra there are 
 many tokens of its influence. Thus during the 
 Ist cent. of the Christian era it possessed, alike 
 with Jew and Christian, the authority of a deutero- 
 canonical book. In the 2nd cent. of our era it was 
 rejected by the Jews, as were also many other 
 Jewish Messianic writings that had been tr? inte 
 Greek and well received in the Christian Church 
 But with the earlier Fathers and apologists of 
 Christianity it preserved its high position till about 
 the close of the 8rd cent. Henceforth it gradually 
 fell into discredit, and finally was banned by the 
 chief teachers of the Church. Thus the book 
 ceased to circulate in all but the Church of 
 Abyssinia, where it was rediscovered in 1773 by 
 Bruce. This traveller brought home two MSS of 
 this book, and from one of these Lawrence made 
 the first modern translation of Enoch in 1821. 
 
 II. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.—Apocalyptic scholars 
 
 * In the text of Jude there are some important varianta, the 
 chief being these : (1) in v.14 8 cur sah. arm. read ty mupsdow 
 dylen dyyiaen (ct. Novat.); (2)in v.15 ® sah. for w. cebs doeBsis 
 read waeay Yuyty. 
 
706 ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 are now practically agreed that E. was derived from 
 
 a Sem. original. The only question at issue now 
 is: Was the original in Heb. or Aramaic? Halévy, 
 in the Jowrnal Asiatique, 1867, pp. 352-395, decides 
 in favour of the former; and, so far as our present 
 materials go, this view may be regarded as valid. 
 Some Dutch and German scholars, it is true, think 
 that it is possible to prove an Aram. original b 
 means of the Aram. forms preserved in the Gize 
 Greek fragment, t.e. govca in 188, wavdoBapa in 28}, 
 and fa8dnpa in 291. The first is undoubtedly an 
 Aram. form of 3:5, and the two latter of 1275. But 
 it is over-hasty to conclude from the presence of 
 these two Aramaisms upon an Aram. original; for 
 exactly on the same grounds we should be obliged 
 to conclude to an Aram. original of Neh 24, where 
 the Aram. form Alvd is found in the LXX as a 
 transliteration of yy. In the Eth. VS also of Jos 
 56, 1 K 5*%[Eng.™], and Ezk 1" there are trans- 
 literations of Heb. words in Aram. forms. 
 
 Ill. Versions.—Greek, Latin, and Ethiopic.— 
 The Heb. original was translated into Greek, and 
 the Greek in turn into Ethiopic and Latin. Of 
 the Gr. VS chs. 6-94 84-10!4 15-16! have been pre- 
 served in the Chronography of George Syncellus 
 (c. A.D. 800); 89% in a Vatican MS published by 
 Mai in the Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, vol. ii. ; and 
 1-32 in the Gizeh MS discovered only a few years 
 ago, and published in 1892. <A critical edition of 
 this last fragment by M. Lods appeared shortly 
 afterwards, and in 1893 it was edited by the present 
 writer with an exhaustive comparison of the Eth. 
 and Gr. VSS of 1-32 as an appendix to his work 
 on Enoch. This study led to the following con- 
 clusions :—‘ The Eth. VS preserves a more ancient 
 and trustworthy form of text than the Gizeh 
 Greek MS; it has fewer additions, fewer omissions, 
 and fewer and less serious corruptions of the text’ 
 (Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 324). The other two 
 Gr. fragments will be found in the same work. 
 
 The Lat. VS is wholly lost with the exception 
 of two small fragments: of these the first is 19, 
 and is found in the pseudo-Cyprian treatise, Ad 
 Novatianum (see Zahn’s Gesch. des Neutest. 
 Kanons, ii. 797-801). The second, which embraces 
 106'-18, was found by James in an 8th cent. MS 
 in the British Museum, and published in his 
 Apocrypha Anecdota, vol. i. A critical ed. of its 
 text will be found in Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 
 372-375. To these we might also add Tertullian’s 
 De Cult. Fem. i. 2, and De Idol. iv., which may 
 point to a Latin text of 81 and 997. 
 
 The Eth. VS alone preserves the entire text, and 
 that in a most trustworthy condition. (a) The 
 Ethiopic MSS.—There are twenty or more of these 
 in the different libraries of Europe. Of these 
 about half are in the British Museum alone, which 
 ha pily also possesses the most valuable of all the 
 MSS—that designated Orient. 485 in its catalogue 
 of Eth. MSS. (6) Editions of the Eth. Text.—Only 
 two edd. have appeared—that of Lawrence in 1838 
 from one MS, and that of Dillmann in 1851 from 
 five MSS. Unhappily, these MSS were late and 
 corrupt. The present writer hopes to issue later 
 a text based on the incomparably better MSS now 
 accessible to scholars. Such a text is actually 
 presupposed in his translation and commentary of 
 1893. (c) Translations and Commentaries.—Trans- 
 lations accompanied by commentaries have been 
 edited by Lawrence (1821), Hofmann (1833-1838), 
 Dillmann (1853), Schodde (1882), and Charles (1893). 
 Of Dillmann’s and Schodde’s translations the 
 reader will find a short review in Charles (pp. 6-9). 
 (d) Critical Inquiries.—Some account of these will 
 be found in Schiirer, HJP 11. iii. 70-73, and in 
 Charles, Book of Enoch, 9-21, 309-311. 
 
 Of the many scholars who have written on this book, the works 
 ef the following deserv: special mention here :—Liicke, Hinleit. 
 
 - authors. 
 
 ind. Offend. d. Johannes?, 1852 ; Ewald, Abhandl. tiber d. athiop. 
 B. Henokh Entsteh., Sinn, und Zusammensetzung, 1855; Késtlin, 
 ‘Ueber d. Entsteh. d. B. Henoch’ (Theol. Jahrb. 1856, pp. 240- 
 279, 370-886); Hilgenfeld, Die Jiid. Apokalyptik, 1857, pp. 91- 
 184; Gebhardt, Die 70 Hirten d. B. Henach wu. ihre Deutungen 
 (Merx’ Archiv, 1872, vol. ii. Heft ii. pp. 163-246); Drummond, 
 Jewish Messiah, 1887, 17-73; Lipsius in Smith and Wace’s 
 Dict. Chr. Biogr. 1880, ii. 124-128 ; Schiirer, HJP m1. fil. 64-73 ; 
 Lawlor in Journ. of Philology, xxv. (1897) 164-225, 
 
 IV. THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THE BOOK, 
 WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND 
 Dates.—The Bk. of E. is a fragmentary survival 
 of an entire literature that once circulated under 
 his name. To this fact the plurality of books 
 assigned to E. from the first may in some degree 
 point; as, for instance, the expression ‘ books’ 
 in 104"; Test. XJI Patriarch. Jud, 18; Origen, 
 c. Celsum, v. 54, In Num. Homil. xxviii. 2, and 
 elsewhere. Of this literature five distinct frag- 
 ments have been preserved in the five books into 
 which the Bk. of E. is divided (t.e. 1-37. 37-71. 
 72-82. 83-90. 91-108). These books were origin- 
 ally separate treatises ; in later times they were 
 collected and edited, but were much mutilated in 
 the course of redaction and incorporation into a 
 single work. In addition to this E. literature, the 
 final editor of the book made use of a lost Apoca- 
 lypse, the Bk. of Noah, from which, as well as from 
 other sources, he drew 6°-8% 97 101-3-11 17-20 39} 38 
 4138 43-44, 50. 547-55? 565-575 59-60. 65-69% 71. 
 80-81. 105-107. This Bk. of Noah is mentioned 
 in the Bk. of Jubilees 10% 217°, Another large 
 ee of the Bk. of Noah is to be found in the 
 atter. 
 
 We have already remarked that in the five books into which 
 the whole work is divided we have the writings of five different 
 Before we proceed to give some of the grounds for 
 this statement, we shall give in merest outline the different 
 constituents which the chief scholars on this subject have found 
 in this work. Liicke in his Hinl. in die Offend. d. Johannes 
 regards the book as consisting of two parts. The first part 
 embraces 1-36, 72-105, written at the beg. of the Maccab. revolt, 
 or, according to his later view, in the reign of John Hyrcanus ; the 
 second consists of the Similitudes, 36-71, and was written in the 
 early days of Herod the Great. In the latter, however, there 
 are some interpolations. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.) ascribes the 
 entire work to a Christian author of the 2nd cent. In this view 
 he was followed later by Weisse and Philippi. Hofmann deserves 
 mention in this connexion on the ground of his having been the 
 first to give the correct interpretation of the seventy shepherds 
 in 89-90. Ewald (Abhandl. 1855) gives the following scheme :— 
 Bk, I. 37-71, ¢. B.o. 144; Bk. II. 1-16. 811-4 84. 91-105, c. B.o. 135 ; 
 Bk. III. 20-36. 72-90. 106-107, c. B.o. 128; 108 later. Bk. IV., 
 the Bk. of Noah, 638 81-3 97 101-3. 11. 22b 17-19, 547-552 601-10. 24. 25 
 64-6916, somewhat later than the preceding. Késtlin in his 
 essay, ‘Ueber d. Entsteh. d. B. Henoch’ (Theol. Jahrb. 1856), a 
 contribution of great worth, arrives at the following analysis :— 
 The groundwork, 1-16. 21-34. 72-105, c. B.o. 110. The Simili- 
 tudes, 37-71 and 17-19, before B.o, 64. Noachic f: ents, 547- 
 552 60. 65-6925, possibly also 20. 829-20 106-107. 108 isan Essene 
 addition. Hilgenfeld (Jtid. Apok. 1857) regards the groundwork, 
 consisting of 1-16. 20-36. 72-105, as written before B.o. 98; an 
 the remaining chapters as coming from the hand of a Christian 
 Gnostic after the time of Saturninus. We should mention also 
 the interesting studies of Tideman, TAT. 1875, pp. 261-296 ; 
 Lipsius, art. ‘Enoch’ in Smith’s Dict. Chr. Biog.; Schiirer, 
 AJP 1. iii. 54-73; Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, 1877, pp. 
 17-23; and Schodde, The Book of Enoch, 1882, As Dillmann 
 changed his mind three times, and in each instance for the 
 better, it will be enough to give his final analysis. The ground- 
 work, 1-36. 72-105, in the time of John Hyrcanus; the Simili- 
 tudes and 17-19, before B.c. 64; the Noachic fragments, 63-8 81-8 
 97 a 11 20, 391. 29 547-552 60. 65-6925 106-107. 108, from a later 
 hand. 
 
 We shall now proceed to discuss this question 
 directly, and try to carry the criticism of the book 
 one stage further towards finality. Disregarding 
 the interpolations from the Bk. of Noah alread 
 mentioned, as well as the closing chapter, we sh 
 adduce a few of the grounds on which the com- 
 positeness of the rest of the book is determined. 
 
 First of all, critics are agreed in ascribing the 
 Similitudes (37-71) to a different authorship from 
 the rest. This is done on the following grounds :— 
 (a) Certain names of God are found fone ae 
 37-71, but not elsewhere in the book. (6) The | 
 angelology differs. (c) The demonology differs. | 
 (d) The Messianic doctrine not only differs from J} 
 
ENOCH, (ETIIIOPIC) BOOK OF 
 
 ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF 707 
 
 a * 
 
 that of the rest of the book, but is unique in 
 apocalyptic literature. 
 
 As for the remaining chs. 1-36, 72-104, all critics 
 but Ewald and Lipsius have regarded them as the 
 work of one and the same author. But these 
 scholars have differed much from each other on the 
 determination of the different elements present in 
 these chapters, and have failed to gain the suffrage 
 of other scholars as to the justness of their views. 
 In one respect they are idoubbedly right. These 
 chapters are of a composite nature; the more 
 closely they are examined, the more clearly they 
 exhibit conflicting characteristics. When sub- 
 
 mitted to a searching criticism they fall naturally 
 into four distinct parts, i.e. 1-36. 72-82, 83-90, 
 91-104, differing from each other in authorship, 
 system of thought, and date. 
 
 For the grounds for these conclusions the reader must refer 
 to Oharles’ Book of Enoch, pp. 55-56, 187-189, 220-221, 260-263. 
 It will be sufficient here to give some of the reasons for differ- 
 entiating 83-90 and 91-104, as an illustration of the method 
 there pursued in the criticism of the earlier sections. (a) The 
 Messianic kingdom in 91-104 is finite in duration, whereas in 
 83-90 it is eternal. (6) In the former the Messianic judgment 
 takes place at the close of the Messianic kingdom, in the latter 
 at its Poe mning. (c) In the former there is a resurrection of 
 the righteous only, in the latter a resurrection of apostate 
 Jews also. (d) In the former the building of the temple pre- 
 cedes the final judgment, in the latter it is subsequent to the 
 final B he (e) In the former the scene of the Messianic 
 kingdom is apparently heaven, in the latter a purified earth. 
 Now, our conclusion as to the distinct authorship of these two 
 sections on the grounds just given is strikingly confirmed 
 when we observe the forcible dislocations that 91-104 have 
 undergone at the hands of the final editor in order to adapt 
 them the chapters that precede. Former critics have re- 
 marked that 93 must originally have preceded 911217, because 
 we have in 93 an account of the first seven weeks of the ten 
 into which the world’s history is divided, and in 911217 jhe 
 account of the remaining three weeks, They failed, however, 
 to observe that 921, ‘Written by Enoch the scribe, this compiete 
 doctrine of wisdom,’ etc., formed originally the real beginning of 
 this section. Next, on 92 follows 911-10 as a natural sequel, 
 where E. summons his children to receive his parting words, 
 Then comes the short Apocalypse of ten weeks, 931-10 9112-17, 
 while 9118.19 form a natural transition to 94. This section 
 underwent these derangements in the process of its incorpora- 
 tion into a larger work. 
 
 As our space does not admit dealing further with the actual 
 criticism of the book, we shall confine ourselves to the state- 
 ment of results, and to a brief sketch of the various independent 
 aa iees contained in the entire work, with their probable 
 
 8. 
 
 Part I., consisting of chs. 1-86 (for the Noachic interpolations 
 see above), was written at latest B.c. 170, and mainly from the 
 
 rophetic standpoint of such chs. as Is 65-66. This is, un- 
 
 loubtedly, the oldest part of the book, being anterior to 72-82. 
 83-90. 91-104, as it is used by the writers of these sections. 
 As 83-90 was written not later than B.c. 161, 1-36 must be some 
 years earlier; and as there is no allusion to the massacres of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, the above date (170) is the latest reason- 
 able limit for its composition. This book, 1.e. 1-36, is the oldest 
 piece of Jewish literature that teaches the general resurrection 
 of Israel, that describes Sheol according to the conception that 
 irllears in NT as opposed to that of OT, and that represents 
 
 ehenna as a final place of punishment. The problem of the 
 author is to justify the ways of God to men. The righteous 
 will not always suffer (11). Sin is the cause of this suffering, 
 and the sin of man is due, not to Adam, but to the lust of the 
 angels—the watchers (96- 8. 10 108), Hence the watchers, their 
 companions, and their children will be destroyed (10420. 12), 
 and their destruction will form the prelude to the first world- 
 judgment, of which the Deluge will form the completion (101), 
 
 ut sin still prevails after the Deluge, through the influence 
 of the evil spirits that go forth from the slaughtered children 
 of the watchers and the daughters of men (161), These act 
 with impunity till the final judgment. In the meantime, char- 
 acter finds its recompense, in some measure, immediately after 
 death ee In the last judgment the watchers, the demons, 
 and all classes of Isr., with one exception, will receive their 
 final award (19 2213), This judgment is preceded by a general 
 resur. of Israel (22). The wicked are cast into Gehenna (272), 
 the earth is cleansed from sin (1020-22), the Mess. kingdom is 
 established with Jerus. as its centre (255), and God abides with 
 men (253). The Gentiles become righteous and worship God 
 (1021), The mentoons eat of the tree of life (2546), and thereby 
 enjoy patriarchal lives (59). As to what befalls the righteous 
 ed the second death, there is no hint in this fragmentary 
 section. 
 
 Part II., consisting of 83-90, was written between B.0. 166-161 
 by a Hasid in support of the Maccab, movement, and mainly 
 from the same standpoint as Daniel. On a variety of grounds 
 we are obliged to discriminate this section from the preceding. 
 It will be enough to mention that, whereas there is a Messiah 
 in the latter, there is none in the former; in the latter the 
 
 life of the righteous is apparently unending, in the former it 
 is finite; in the latter the scene of the kingdom is the New 
 Jerus. set up by God Himself, in the former it is Jerus. and 
 the entire earth unchanged though purified. Finally, the pic- 
 ture in 83-90 is developed and spiritual, while that in 1-36 is 
 naive, primitive, and sensuous, 
 
 The date assigned above is not difficult to fix. The Hasidim, 
 symbolized by the lambs that are born to the white sheep (90°), 
 are already an organized party in the Maccab. revolt. The 
 lambs that become horned are the Maccab. family, and the 
 great horn who is still warring while the author of the section 
 1s writing, is Judas the Maccabee (909), who died B.o. 161. 
 Chs. 83-90 recount two visions, 83-84 deal with the first world- 
 judgment, 85-90 with the entire history of the world till the 
 final judgment. In the second vision the interest centres 
 mainly in the calamities that befall Isr. from the exile onwards. 
 Why has Isr. become a byword among the nations, and the 
 servant of one Gentile power after another? Is there no recom- 
 pense for the righteous nation and the righteous individual? 
 Isr. has indeed sinned, but the punishment immeasurably tran- 
 scends the guilt. But these undue severities, according to the 
 author, have not come upon Isr. from God’s hand, but from the 
 seventy shepherds into whose care God committed Isr. (895%), 
 These shepherds or angels have proved faithless to their trust, 
 but not with impunity. An account has been taken of all 
 their deeds and of all whom they have wickedly destroyed 
 (8961-64), Moreover, when the outlook is darkest, a righteous 
 league will be established in Isr. (908), and from a family be- 
 longing to it will come forth the deliverer, i.e. Judas Maccabeus 
 (909-16), Every effort of the Gentiles to destroy him will prove 
 vain, and God’s intervention personally will be the signal for 
 their destruction (9019), The wicked shepherds and fallen 
 watchers will be cast into the abyss of tire (Tartarus), and 
 the apostates into Gehenna (9020-25), Then God Himself will 
 set up the New Jerus. (9023. 29), the dispersion will be brought 
 back to Jerus., the righteous dead raised to take part in the 
 kingdom, and the surviving Gentiles will be converted and 
 serve Isr. (9030). Finally, the Messiah will appear amongst 
 them (9037), and His kingdom will endure for ever. It should 
 be observed that we have here the earliest appearance of the 
 Messiah in non-canonical literature. 
 
 Part III., consisting of 91-104, was written between B.o. 
 134-95. The clearly defined opposition between the righteous 
 and their Sadducean opponents which appears so frequently in 
 this section cannot have been earlier than the breach between 
 John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees, hence not earlier than 
 B.O. 134, and not subsequent to 8.0. 95; for it is not reasonable 
 to suppose that the savage cruelties that won for Jannzus the 
 title ‘slayer of the pious’ could have been referred to only 
 once, and that incidentally, in the general terms of 10315, On 
 the derangements which this section has sustained at the hands 
 of the final editor we have already touched above, 
 
 The internal difference that subsists between this section and 
 Part II. is very remarkable. As we pass from 83-90 to 91-104 we 
 feel we are entering into a world of new conceptions. In all 
 previous apocalyptic writings the resur. and the final judg- 
 ment have been the prelude to an everlasting Mess. kingdom, 
 and not till then, in fact, do the righteous enter on their 
 reward. But the Mess. kingdom to which this writer looks 
 forward is only of temporary duration (91115), In this kingdom 
 no place is found for a Messiah; the righteous, with God’s help, 
 vindicate their just cause and destroy their oppressors. On the 
 close of this kingdom follow the final judgment and the risen 
 spiritual life of blessedness in a new heaven (9110 923), From 
 such a view of the future it is obvious that, for the writer, the 
 centre of interest has passed from the material world to the 
 spiritual, and the Mess. kingdom is no longer the goal of the 
 hopes of the righteous. Their faith finds its satisfaction only 
 in a blessed immortality in heaven itself. The righteous, it 
 is true, who are living on the advent of the Mess. kingdom 
 will indeed be recompensed with all good things, but the de- 
 parted righteous will not rise thereto, but to the everlasting 
 spiritual life which will follow the final judgment. This blessed 
 immortality after the final judgment is an immortality of the 
 soul only (1033. 4), a view that is implied also in the later books, 
 the Ps-Sol and the Book of Jubilees. As for the wicked, they 
 shall descend into the Sheol of darkness and flame, and abide 
 there everlastingly (98%. 10 1047-8). In this section Sheol appears 
 as hell, possibly for the first time in literature (1037). 
 
 Part IV. The Similitudes, consisting of 37-70, were written 
 between 8.0. 94-79 or B.c. 70-64. With some of the character- 
 istics which distinguish these chapters from the rest of the 
 book we have already dealt above. We are here concerned 
 mainly with the determination of the date. ‘The kings and 
 the mighty,’ so often denounced in the Similitudes, are the 
 later Maccab. princes and their Sadducean supporters; for the 
 blood of the righteous was not shed, as the writer complains, 
 before B.c. 95 :—the later Maccab. princes and not the Herods; 
 for the Sadducees were not allies of the latter, and Rome was 
 not as yet known to the writer as one of the great world- 
 powers. This last fact necessitates an earlier Gave than Bo. 64, 
 when Rome interposed authoritatively in the affairs of Judwa. 
 If the reader will turn to the list of Noachic inturyolations he 
 will find that many of them are to be found in this section. 
 These have, as a rule, been drawn from an ulready existing 
 Apoc. of Noah and adapted by their editor to their adjoining 
 contexts in Enoch. This he does by borrowing characteristia 
 terms, such as ‘Lord of Spirits,’ ‘Head of Days,’ ‘Son of Man, 
 to which, either through ignorance or of set inteation, he genen 
 ally gives a new connotation. ‘ 
 
 In his attempt to solve the problem of the suffering of the 
 
 
 

 
 708 ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 ENOCH, BOOK OF SECRETS OF 
 
 
 
 righteous, this author has no interest save in the moral and 
 spiritual worlds. His view, too, is strongly apocalyptic, and 
 follows closely in the wake of Daniel. The origin of sin is 
 
 one stage farther back than in 1-36. The first authors of 
 sin were the Satans Apes The watchers fell through becoming 
 
 subject to these, and leading mankind astray (546), Though the 
 watchers were forthwith confined in a deep abyss, sin still 
 flourishes in the world, and sinners deny the name of the Lord 
 of apie (382) and of His Anointed (4810), and the kings and the 
 mighty oppress the children of God (6211). But suddenly there 
 will appear the Head of Days, and with Him the Son of Man 
 (462. 3. 4 482), to execute judgment upon all alike. And to this 
 end th:re will be a resur. of all Isr, (511 615), and all judgment 
 will be committed to the Son of Man (419, 6927), who will judge 
 all according to their deeds (411). Sin and wrong-doing will be 
 banished from the earth (492), and heaven and earth will be 
 transformed (454-5), and the righteous will have their mansions 
 therein (396 412), The Elect One will dwell amongst them (454) ; 
 they will be clad in garments of life (6215.18), and become 
 angels in heaven (514), and continue to grow in knowledge and 
 righteousness (58°), 
 
 It will be observed that the Messianic doctrine in this section 
 is unique, not only as regards the other sections of E., but also 
 in Jewish literature as a whole. The Messiah pre-exists from 
 the beginning (482); He sits on the throne of God (453 473), 
 and possesses universal dominion (628), and all judgment iscom- 
 mitted unto Him (6927), If we turn to the other sections we 
 find that in 1-36 and 91-104 there is no Messiah at all, while in 
 83-90 the Messiah is evidently human, and has no real réle to 
 play in the doctrine of the last things. 
 
 Before we pass to Part V. it will be advantageous to observe 
 that the varying relations in which the Maccabees stood to the 
 
 asid or Pharisaic party are faithfully reflected in the Books of 
 
 .» %é Parte II., III., and IV. In Part IL., t.e. 83-90, the Mac- 
 cabees are the leaders of the righteous, and their efforts form the 
 prelude to the Mess. kingdom. In Part IIL, t.e. 91-104, they 
 are no longer at the head of the Hasids, but as yet they have 
 not become their declared foes: they are the secret abettors of 
 their Sadducean oppressors. But when we come to Part IV., 
 t.¢e. the Similitudes, the Maccab. princes have ceased to disguise 
 their enmity, and now take the lead in every act of oppression 
 and murder practised on the Pharisees. 
 
 Part V. The Book of Celestial Physics consists of 72-78. 82. 
 79. Here, as in Part III., the order of the chapters has been 
 changed by the final editor ; 79, which forms the true conclusion 
 of this work, has been placed immediately after 78, and two 
 chapters, 80-81, which are quite alien in spirit and statement, 
 have been interpolated. 
 
 The chronological system of this book, which is most perplex- 
 ing, constitutes an attempt to establish an csecntinlly, Hep, 
 calendar over-against the heathen calendars in vogue around. 
 Though quite valueless in itself, it gives us some knowledge of 
 the chronological systems that were known to Pal. Jews. Thus 
 the writer is acquainted with the signs of the zodiac, the spring 
 and autumn equinoxes, the summer and winter solstices, and 
 the synodic months. He is familiar also with the Gr. eight- 
 year cycle, and the seventy-six years’ cycle of Calippus. 
 
 Part VI. The interpolations from the Book of Noah. These 
 have been enumerated above. By means of these fragments, 
 and of the large section of this lost book preserved in the Book 
 of Jubilees, and of others still surviving in later Heb. literature, 
 it would be possible to restore the Book of Noah in some of its 
 main outlines, 
 
 V. INFLUENCE ON LATER LITERATURE.—The 
 influence of E. on Jewish literature, to exclude for 
 the moment the NT, is seen in the Bk. of Jubilees 
 (written about the beginning of the Christian era), 
 the Slavonic Enoch (A.D. 1-50), the Testaments 
 of the XII Patriarchs, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 
 and 4 Ezra. It is important to observe that, in 
 the last two books just enumerated, E. is not 
 mentioned by name, although their writers laid 
 the Enochic books not infrequently under con- 
 tribution. This silence, however, was intentional. 
 E.’s acceptance among Christians as a Messianic 
 prophet was the ground of his rejection among 
 the Jews; and although, prior to A.D. 40, he was 
 the chief figure, next to Daniel, in Jewish apoca- 
 lyptic, in subsequent Jewish literature his func- 
 tions and achievements are assigned to others, 
 such as Moses, Ezra, Baruch. This opposition to 
 E. is unswervingly pursued in the Talm., and his 
 name and works are always studiously ignored 
 (see Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, pp. 21-22, 101). 
 On these facts we might found an Enochic canon. 
 No early Jewish book which extols E. could have 
 been written after A.D. 50, and the attribution of E.’s 
 words and achievements in early Jewish works to 
 some other OT hero is a sign that they were written 
 subsequent to the Pauline preaching of Christianity. 
 
 In Patristic literature Enoch is twice cited as 
 Scripture in the Ep. of Barnabas (4° 165). It is 
 
 also quoted with approval, though not always by 
 name, by Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Athenagoras, 
 Tertullian, Clement Alex., Origen, Anatolius. 
 Thenceforward it is mentioned with disapproval 
 by Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and 
 finally condemned in explicit terms in the Const. 
 Ap. vi. 16. 
 
 Far surpassing in importance the preceding was 
 its influence on NT (a) diction and (6) doctrine. 
 
 (a) We shall here draw attention only to the 
 indubitable instances. It is quoted directly in 
 Jude!4-5, Phrases, clauses, or thoughts derived 
 from it are found also in Jude‘, Rev 27 3% 4° g10 
 9! 14% 2018, Ro 8% 95, Eph 12, He 115, Ac 34, Jn 
 5777, Lik 9%5 169 2355, Mt 198 2541 2674, 
 
 (6) The doctrines in E. that had a share in 
 moulding the corresponding NT doctrines, or 
 formed a necessary link in the development of 
 doctrine from OT to NT, are those concerning the 
 Messianic kingdom and the Messiah, Sheol and 
 the Resurrection, and demonology. As we cannot 
 here enter into a discussion of these questions, we 
 shall confine our remarks to the doctrine of the 
 Messiah in Enoch. First, we should observe that 
 four titles, applied, for the first time in literature, 
 to the personal Messiah in the Similitudes, are 
 afterwards reproduced in NT. These are ‘Christ’ 
 (or ‘the Anointed One’), ‘the Righteous One,’ 
 ‘the Elect One,’ and ‘the Son of Man.’ The first 
 title, found repeatedly in earlier writings, but 
 always in reference to actual contemporary kings 
 or priests, is now for the first time (48 52+) ride 
 to the Messianic king that istocome. It is here 
 associated with supernatural attributes. In Ps- 
 Sol, written a few years later, it is applied to a 
 merely human Messiah. The second and third 
 titles, ‘the Righteous One,’ ‘the Elect One,’ which 
 are found first in E., have passed over into NT, 
 the former occurring in Ac 34 752 2214, the latter in 
 Lk 95 233, The last title, ‘the Son of Man,’ 
 appears for the first time in Jewish literature in 
 i and is historically the source of the NT desig- 
 nation. To the latter it contributes some of its 
 most characteristic contents, particularly those 
 relating to judgment and universal authority. 
 Thus statements in E. respecting the Son of Man 
 are quoted by the evangelists respecting the NT 
 Son of Man. Jn 5”% ‘He hath committed all 
 judgement unto the Son . . . because he is the Son 
 of Man,’ is a quotation from Enoch 69” ‘The sum 
 of judgment was committed unto him, the Son of 
 Man.’ It should be here observed that in E. the 
 Messiah is represented for the first time as Judge 
 of mankind. Again, Mt 19% ‘When the Son of 
 Man shall sit on the throne of his glory’ is from 
 Enoch 62? ‘ When they see the Son of Man sitting 
 on the throne of his glory.’ It is well known that 
 the use of this phrase as a Mess. title is confined in 
 NT, with two exceptions, to the Gospels, and in 
 them it is used only by our Lord in speaking of 
 Himself. Its survival, however, as a Mess. desig- 
 nation among the Jews, is attested by a passage in 
 the Talm. Jer., 
 “‘Tf a man says to thee—I am God, he lies; I am 
 the Son of Man—he will at last repent it: I 
 ascend to heaven—if he said it, he will not 
 prove it.”’ See further, ESCHAT. OF APOCR. 
 
 R. H. CHARLES. 
 
 ENOCH, BOOK OF THE SECRETS OF.—In 
 Origen’s de Princip. i. 3. 2 we find the following 
 statement in reference to the Bk. of Enoch :— 
 ‘Nam et ineo libello. . . quem Hermas conscripsit, 
 ita refertur: Primo omnium crede, quia unus est 
 Deus, qui... esse fecit omnia... sed et in Enoch 
 libro his similia describuntur.’ Now, as a matter 
 of fact, this statement cannot be justified from the 
 Ethiopic Enoch. Accordingly, till the discovery of 
 the present book it was necessary to assume either 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 Taanith ii. 1: ‘Abbahu said: 
 
 Si. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 J? oS. a ee LS ee Oe 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 ENOCH, BOOK OF SECRETS OF 
 
 that we had here a mistake of Origen, or else that 
 he had before him a portion of the Enoch literature 
 unknown to later generations. That the latter 
 assumption was the true one we are now able to 
 see ; for in the ‘The Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ 
 we have an elaborate account of the creation, 24— 
 29°, and an insistence on the unity of God, 33° 36!. 
 Further, in the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs 
 there are several direct references to the Bk. of 
 Enoch. Some of them have clearly to do with 
 the Ethiopic Enoch, but others have as clearly no 
 connexion with it. Now, the bulk of the latter 
 may be traced to the book with which we are at 
 present dealing. This book, as it has been pre- 
 served only in Slavonic, it will be convenient to 
 call ‘the Slavonic Enoch’ in contradistinction to 
 the older book, which we may fitly designate ‘ the 
 Ethiopic Enoch,’ seeing that it has come down to 
 us in its entirety only in that language. 
 
 This new fragment of the Enoch literature has 
 only recently come to light through certain MSS 
 which were found in Russia and Servia. Although 
 the very knowledge that such a book ever existed 
 was lost for probably 1200 years, it was nevertheless 
 much used both by Christian and heretic in the 
 early centuries. Thus citations appear from it, 
 though without acknowledgment, in the Book of 
 Adam and Eve, the Apocalypses of Moses and 
 Paul (A.D. 400-500), the Sibylline Oracles, the 
 Ascension of Isaiah, and the Ep. of Barnabas (A.D. 
 70-90). It is quoted by name in the apocalyptic 
 portions of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs 
 (c. A.D. 1). It was referred to by Origen, and 
 pees by Clement of Alexandria, and was used 
 
 y Irenzeus. Some phrases of NT may be derived 
 from it. 
 
 The Slavonic MSS.—There are five Slav. MSS. The first 
 (i.e. A) belongs to the 17th cent., and contains the complete 
 text. It was edited by Popov in 1880, and forms the basis of 
 the text which appears in the Morfill-Charles ed. of 1896. The 
 second MS—a 16th cent, one—was discovered by Sokolov in 
 1886. This also preserves the complete text. The remaining 
 three MSS are very incomplete. The most important of these 
 (i.e. B) is preserved in the Public Library of Belgrade. 
 
 Editions and Translations.—The present writer, learning 
 through a German review in 1892 of the existence of a Slav. VS 
 of the Ethiopic Bk. of Enoch, at once proceeded by Mr. Morfill’s 
 help to make himself acquainted with two distinct recensions 
 of this work. This speedily led to the discovery that it was not 
 a Slav. VS of the Ethiopic Enoch, but of a hitherto unknown and 
 extremely valuable pseudepigraph. By means of Mr. Morfill’s 
 tr. of the MSS A mee B and of Sokolov’s texts, an Eng. VS and 
 ed. of this book was issued in the beginning of 1896. Six 
 months later Bonwetsch’s Das Slav. Henochbuch appeared, in 
 which German tr‘. of the MSS A and B are given side by side, 
 preceded by a short introduction, founded professedly in the 
 main on Charles’ edition. This is a serviceable work. 
 
 II. LANGUAGE AND PLACE OF WRITING.—The 
 main part of this book was written at the first 
 in Greek. This is clear from such statements 
 as (1) 30 ‘And I gave him a name (i.e. Adam) 
 from the four substances: the East, the West, the 
 North, and the South.’ Adam’s name is thus 
 derived from the initial letters of the Gr. names 
 of the four quarters, ¢.e. dvarod}, Sous, dpxros, 
 pesnuBpla. This fanciful derivation was first 
 elaborated in Greek, as it is impossible in the Sem. 
 languages; but the idea that Adam was created 
 from dust belonging to the four quarters of the 
 earth is Jewish. (2) The writer follows the chron- 
 ology of the LXX. (3) In 504 he reproduces the 
 LXX text of Dt 32® against the Hebrew. (4) He 
 constantly uses Sir, which was chiefly current in 
 Egypt. But though the main part of the book 
 was written originally in Greek, certain portions of 
 it were based on Heb. originals. Such an hypo- 
 thesis is necessary to account for the quotations 
 from or references to it which appear in the 
 Testaments of the X1I Patriarchs. The fact that 
 the latter work was written in Hebrew obliges us to 
 conclude that its authors drew upon Heb. originals 
 
 
 
 
 
 ENOCH, BOOK OF SECRETS OF 709 
 
 in their references to and quotations from the 
 Slavonie Enoch. 
 
 The book was written in Egypt. This is 
 deducible from the following facts :—(1) From the 
 variety of speculations which it holds in common 
 with Philo and other Hellenistic writers: thus souls 
 were created before the foundation of the world, 
 23°; cf. Philo, de Somno, i. 22; Wis 8, Again, 
 man has seven natures, 80°; ef. Philo, de Mundi 
 Op. 40. (2) The whole Messianic teaching of OT 
 finds not a single echo in the work of this Hellenized 
 Israelite of Egypt, although he shows familiarit 
 with most of its books. (3) The Phcenixes an 
 Challkydries of ch. 12 are natural products of the 
 Egyp. imagination. (4) The syncretistic char- 
 acter of the creation narrative in 25-26 betrays 
 Egyp. elements. 
 
 Ill. RELATION TO JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN 
 LITERATURE. 
 
 Materials originally derived from this book are discoverable 
 in Cedrenus and Joel (A.D. 1050-1200), though in these authors 
 these materials are assigned to other names. Two passages of 
 the Book of Adam and Eve in 1. vi. and viii. are all but quota- 
 tions from 294-5 and 312 of our book. Again, in the Apoc. of 
 Moses (ed. Tisch, 1866), p. 19, we have a further development 
 of 1424 of our text, just as in the Apoc. of Paul, p. 64, odrés 
 tori 6 wapaderros, va... dévdpov... iv w@ iraveravEero 7d wvED LM 
 ro &yov, is a Christian adaptation of 83 ‘And in the midst cer 
 Paradise is) the tree of life...on which God rests when he 
 comes unto Paradise.’ Again, the words, p. 64, ix ris pitns adrod 
 tEnpyeto.. . bdmp, pespiCouevor sis ticcxpa cpiyuera, and p. 52, 
 ToTn Lol TET TR PES . . . PLOvTES EAI KH) eA xed EAecsoy xx} olvoy, ATE 
 verbal reproductions of 85 ‘From its root in the garden there 
 go forth four streams which pour honey and milk, oil and wine, 
 and are separated in four directions.’ The passage in the 
 anonymous De Montibus Sina et Sion, 4, is ultimately derived 
 from 8018, and Augustine’s peculiar speculation on the eighth 
 eternal day (De Civ. xxii. 80. 5) from 332, 
 
 Still earlier we find almost a verbal reproduction of 505-511 in 
 the Sibylline Oracles, ii. 75. In Ireneus, Contra Heer. v. 28. 3, 
 the Jewish speculation of 3312 is reproduced, and possibly in 
 Origen (see Lommatzsch, ed. xxi, 59). However this may be, 
 there is no doubt as to the direct reference to 24-30. 338, in the 
 De Princip. i. 3. 2, as we have already shown above. In astill 
 earlier period, A.D. 50-100, the writer of the Ascension of Isaiah 
 816 was most probably acquainted with 191, and the writer of 
 the Apoc. Bar 595-8. 10.11 with various passages of this book. 
 In the Ep. of Barnabas 155-8, and probably in 181, the thought 
 and diction are dependent on 322-33 and 3015, 
 
 In NT the similarity of matter and language is 
 sufficiently great to establish a close connexion, if 
 not a literary dependence. With Mt 5° ‘ Blessed 
 are the peacemakers,’ cf. 524 ‘Blessed is he who 
 establishes peace’; with Mt 5*- *-87 ‘Swear not at 
 all,’ etc., cf. 49! ‘I will not swear by a single oath, 
 neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other 
 creature which God made. .. . If there is no truth 
 in man, let them swear by a word, yea, yea, or 
 nay, nay.’ Again, with Mt 7* and 25* cf, 42" and 
 9!; with Jn 14? cf. 612; with Eph 4* cf. 42; with 
 Rev 9! and 10° cf. 42! and 65’. 
 
 Still earlier we find this book not only used, but quoted by 
 name in the Test. Dan. 5, where the statement, ray rnuuceuy 
 Tig wAdvns dveyvey yap iv BiGAw 'Evey vei dixaiov, or b Hexen 
 iuaiy torly 6 Yarevas, is drawn from 18% ‘These are the Grigori 
 (i.e. "Eypnyope) who with their prince Satanail rejected the 
 holy Lord.’ Finally, the references to Enoch in Test. Naph. 4 
 dviyvey iv ypegn kyla "Evdy, ors xalys xui vues amorricte bows 
 Kupiou, ropevoresvos xare reo movnplay vay, ul TohoITs Rare Teo CY 
 cvopiay Lodouav wal ewdtes tuiv Kipios wixuarwoiar.. «beg ae 
 dvarwon Kipsos ravtas bas, are an adaptation of 3418 ‘I know the 
 wickedness of men... that they will cast off my yoke... and 
 fill all the world with .. . sodomy and all other impure practices 
 ...andon this account I will bring a deluge upon the earth, and 
 I will destroy all.’ In the Test. Sim. 5, Test. Benj. 9, we find 
 additional references to this prophecy, in which Enoch foretold 
 the impure practices of men. Test. Jud. 18 may be derived 
 from the same source. 
 
 IV. DaTE AND AUTHORSHIP.—The question of 
 the date has to a large extent been determined 
 already. The portions which have a Heb. back- 
 
 round are at latest pre-Christian. This follows 
 rom the fact of their quotation in the Testaments 
 of the XII Patriarchs. Turning to the rest of the 
 book, the terminus a quo is determined by the 
 fact that it frequently uses Sir, cf. 437% 475 52# 
 612:4ete. The Ethiopic Enoch, further, is continu- 
 
 
 
710 ENOCH, BOOK OF SECRETS OF 
 
 
 
 ally presupposed in the background. Its phrase- 
 s.ogy and conceptions are reproduced, 74-5 33% 9-10 
 357 ete. At times its views are put forward in a 
 developed form, 815-6 4018 645; and occasionally 
 divergent conceptions are enunciated, 16’ 18%. 
 sieht explanations are claimed to have been 
 given by this writer which, as a matter of fact, are 
 not to be found in his writings, but in the Ethiopic 
 Enoch, see 40° 689%, It is possible that Wis was 
 also used by our author, see 654. Since, therefore, 
 Sir, Eth. Enoch, and Wis (?) were used by this 
 see his work cannot have been earlier than 
 B.C. 30. 
 
 The terminus ad quem must be set down as 
 earlier than 70 A.D. For (1) the temple is still 
 standing. (2) This book was known and used by the 
 writers of the Ep. of Barnabas and the Ascension 
 of Isaiah, and probably by some of the writers of 
 NT. We may therefore with reasonable certainty 
 assign the composition of this book in Greek to the 
 period A.D. 1-50, to an author who is thus a con- 
 temporary of Philo, and who holds many specula- 
 tions in common with him. 
 
 The author was an orthodox Hellenistic Jew 
 who lived in Egypt. He believed in the value of 
 sacrifices, 42°59! 266? (but he is careful to enforce 
 enlightened views with regard to them, 45* ¢ 614: 5), 
 in the law, 52*-%, and in a blessed immortality, 50? 
 65° 8-10, in which the righteous will wear ‘the 
 raiment of God’s glory,’ 228. In questions affect- 
 ing the origin of the earth, sin, death, he allows 
 himself the most unrestricted freedom, and borrows 
 from every quarter. Thus Platonic 30'%, Egyptian 
 
 257, and Zend 5846 elements are incorporated in’ 
 
 this system. The result is highly syncretistic. 
 
 V, ANALYsIs OF OonTENTS.—The book opens with a short 
 account of Enoch as ‘a very wise man’ whom ‘God loved and 
 received, so that he should see the heavenly abodes, the 
 kingdoms of the wise, great, and never-changing God.’ Inch. 1 
 two angels appear to E., and bid him to make ready to ascend 
 with them unto heaven. Inch. 2 E. admonishes his sons ‘ not to 
 worship vain gods; not to turn aside from God, but to walk 
 before the face of the Lord and keep his judgments,’ and directs 
 them not to seek for him till he is brought back to them. 
 Thereupon (3-6) the angels carry E. aloft through the air to the 
 first heaven, where he sees a very great sea, greater than the 
 earthly sea ; likewise the elders and the rulers of the stars, and 
 the treasuries of the snow and ice and the dread angels that 
 guard them, and the treasuries of the clouds and of the dew and 
 their guardian angels. Thence (7) he is carried to the second 
 heaven, where he sees ‘the prisoners suspended, reserved for, 
 and awaiting the eternal judgment.’ And these angels, who 
 together with their prince had rebelled against God, besought 
 E. (just as in Eth. Enoch 134) to intercede for them. And E. 
 answered, ‘Who am I, a mortal man, that I should pray for 
 angels? Who knows whither I go, or what awaits me?’ Next 
 E. is carried up to the third heaven (8), and placed ‘in the 
 midst of a garden.’ And he sees there ‘all the trees of beautiful 
 colours, and their fruits ripe and fragrant . . . and the tree of 
 life . . . on which God rests when he comes into Paradise,’ and 
 the four streams which go forth from its root, ‘pouring honey 
 and milk, oil and wine. . . . And these go down to the Paradise 
 of Eden, between corruptibility and incorruptibility. . . .’ And 
 the angels inform E. that ‘this place is prepared as an eternal 
 inheritance’ for those ‘who turn their eyes from unrighteous- 
 ness and accomplish a righteous judgment, and give bread to 
 the hungry, and clothe the naked, and raise the fallen, . . . and 
 walk without blame before the face of the Lord.’ E. is then 
 taken to the northern region of this heaven (10), and shown 
 ‘a very terrible place’ of ‘savage darkness and impenetrable 
 
 loom,’ with ‘ fire on all sides, and on all sides cold and ice.’ He 
 is then told that ‘this place is prepared as an eternal inheritance’ 
 for those ‘ who commit evil deeds on earth, sodomy, witchcraft,’ 
 - . . who oppress the poor, who are guilty of ‘stealing, lying, 
 calumnies, envy, evil thoughts, fornication, murder,’ who 
 ‘worship gods without life.’ Thence E. is conducted to the 
 fourth heaven, where he is shown the courses of the sun and 
 moon (11), and the phoenixes and the chalkadri (12), ‘with the 
 feet and tails of lions and the heads of crocodiles; their 
 appearance was of purple colour like the rainbow; their size 
 nine hundred measures. Their wings were like those of angels, 
 each with twelve, and they attend the chariot of the sun.’ And 
 the angels show him also the eastern and western gates of the 
 sun (13-16), and ‘an armed host serving the Lord with cymbals 
 and organs’ (17), In 18 E. is taken up fo the fifth heaven, where 
 he sees the watchers who had rebelled, and whose brethren 
 were already confined in torment in the second heaven. Then 
 he passes to the sixth heaven (19), where are the angels who 
 regulate all the powers of nature and the courses of the stars, 
 and write down the deeds of men. Finally, E. is raised to the 
 
 
 
 ENOCH, BOOK OF SECRETS OF 
 
 seventh heaven (20-21), where he sees God sitting on His throne, 
 and the heavenly hosts in their ten orders on the steps of the 
 throne, and the seraphim singing the trisagion. And E. (22) 
 fell down and worshipped ; and Michael, at God’s command, took 
 from him his earthly robe and anointed him with the holy oil 
 from the arbor misericordie, the olive tree that stood in the 
 garden, and clothed him with the ‘raiment of God’s 
 And thus E, became like one of the glorious ones, And E, G8), 
 under the instruction of Vretil, wrote 366 books in thirty daya 
 and thirty nights about things in heaven and earth, and about 
 the souls of men created from eternity, and their future dwelling- 
 
 laces. In 24-26 God makes known to E. how He created the 
 invisible out of the visible : how He commanded Adoil wom 
 a corruption of Uriel=light of God) and Arkhas to come fo: 
 and burst asunder, and so the light on high and the world below 
 were produced. And God divided the light and the darkness 
 (27), and made the seven heavens. And God caused the waters 
 which are under the heavgns to be gathered into one place, and 
 out of the waters He made the earth and an abyss in its midst 
 (28). Such was the work of the first day. And on the second 
 day God ‘fashioned for all the heavenly hosts a nature like that 
 of fire’ (291-3), and one of the archangels, Satanail, rebelled, and 
 God cast him down from the heights (2945), And on the third 
 day God (301. 2) caused the earth to produce trees and herbs and 
 every seed that is sown, and planted Paradise. And on the 
 fourth (303-6) God ordered great lights to be in the various circles 
 of the heavens,?.e. Kruno, Aphrodite, Ares, the Sun, Zeus, Hermes, 
 the Moon. And God appointed the sun and moon to give light to 
 the earth, and to proceed through the twelve signs of the zodiac. 
 And on the fifth (807-18) God created the fish of the sea and the fowl 
 of heaven, and everything that moveth on the earth. And on the 
 sixth He made man from seven substances, and called him Adam, 
 from the four quarters of the world, and showed to him the two 
 ways of light and darkness. And while Adam was in Paradise 
 the heavens were open so that he could see the angels in 
 heaven (31); but Satan envied him, and deceived Eve. And God 
 established the eighth day (331-2), at the beginning of which 
 time should be no more. And God announced Himself to E. as 
 ‘the eternal One, and the One not made with hands.’ ‘My wisdom 
 is my counsellor, and my word is reality.’ The corruption of the 
 earth and the Deluge are then foretold, and the preservation of 
 Noah, ch. 35. God bids E, to return to the earth for thirty days 
 and teach his sons during that time (36-38), E. admonishes 
 and instructs his sons, and tells them what he has seen, the 
 courses of the sunand moon, the seasons, the winds, the thunder 
 and lightning, Hades and hell and Paradise, and gives utterance 
 to nine beatitudes (39-42). He impresses on them the incom- 
 parable dignity of goodness—‘ none is greater than he who feara 
 God’ (43). They are not to revile the person of man, for he who 
 reviles man in reality reviles God: they are to make their 
 offerings, and yet not to value them unduly, but consider the 
 motive rather from which they spring (44-46). E. gives his 
 books to his sons (47); instructs them not to swear, neither by 
 heaven nor by earth nor by any other creature which God 
 made (49); bids them in meekness to accomplish the number 
 of their days, to refrain from avenging themselves, and to be 
 open-handed to those in need (50-51). Again he enunciates 
 seven beatitudes and their corresponding woes (52). The 
 departed saints do not intercede for the living (53). At the 
 close of the appointed time (55-59) E. again addresses his sops. 
 He announces to them his coming departure to the highest 
 heavens. He declares that no sou! shall eee till the final 
 judgment, and that the souls of beasts will then bring charges 
 against the men who ill-treated them. He gives further instruc- 
 tion as to sacrifice, and their duty to the needy, and warns 
 against unnatural sins, contempt and lying (60-63), The people 
 assemble in Achuzan to take leave of E. He addresses them 
 on various topics, and exhorts them to faithfulness. He 
 announces the great judgment, after which ‘the times shall 
 perish, and there shall be no year, nor month, nor day, and 
 there shall be no hours.’ ‘Moreover, there shall be no labour, 
 nor sickness, nor sorrow, anxiety, nor need, nor night, nor 
 darkness, but a great light.’ He is then carried off to the 
 highest heaven, And his sons thereupon build an altar in 
 Achuzan and hold high ‘estival, rejoicing and praising God 
 (64-68). 
 
 VI. Tue AvuTHOR’s VIEWS ON ANTHROPOLOGY. 
 —All the souls of men were created before the 
 foundation of the world, 23°, and also a future 
 place of abode in heaven or hell for every indi. 
 vidual soul, 49? 58° 61%. Man’s body was made 
 of seven substances, 308, and his name, as we 
 have already seen, was given to him by God from 
 the four quarters. Man was created originally 
 good ; free will was bestowed upon him, with the 
 knowledge of good and evil. He was instructed 
 in the two ways of light and darkness, and then 
 
 ermitted to mould his own destiny, 30%. But 
 1is connexion with the body biassed his preferences 
 in the direction of evil, and death ensued as the 
 wages of sin, 30!%. All men will be judged finally, 
 40-18; the righteous will escape the last judg- 
 ment, 658 667, and be gathered to eternal life; but 
 hell will be the eternal abode of the wicked, 10% ® 
 and there is no place of repentance after death, 427 
 
 
 

 
 ENOCH (CITY) 
 
 EN-ROGEL 711 
 
 
 
 VIL. VALUE OF TEE Book IN ELUCIDATING CON- 
 TEMPORARY AND SUBSEQUENT THOUGHT.—Fresh 
 evidence on the following beliefs is contributed by 
 this book. i. The millenniwn.—This Jewish con- 
 ception is first found in 322-332. From this its 
 origin is clear. The account in Gn of the first 
 week of creation came in pre-Christian times to be 
 regarded, not only as a history of the past, but as a 
 forecast of the future history of the world so created. 
 Thus, as the world was created in six days, its his- 
 tory was to last 6000; for 1000 years with God are 
 as one day (Ps 904, Jud. 4%°, 2 P 38); and as God rested 
 on the seventh day, so at the close of 6000 years 
 there should be a rest of 1000 years, t.e. the mil- 
 lennium. Thereupon followed the future world of 
 eternal bliss, designated as the eighth eternal day. 
 ii. The seven heavens.—The detailed account of 
 the seven heavens in this book has served to 
 explain difficulties in OT conceptions of the 
 heavens, and has shown beyond the reach of 
 controversy that the sevenfold division of the 
 heavens was accepted by St. Paul and the author 
 of Hebrews, and probably in Rev. From this book, 
 further, it is clear that a feature impossible in 
 modern conceptions of heaven shows itself from 
 time to time in pre-Christian and also in early 
 Christian pee eons, i.e. the belief in the presence 
 of evil, or in the possibility of its appearance in 
 the heavens. For a discussion of this question the 
 reader should consult Hapository Times (art. ‘The 
 Seven Heavens’), Nov. and Dee. 1895, and Charles, 
 The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, pp. xxx-xlvii. 
 
 R. H. CHARLES. 
 
 ENOCH (City).—See Enocu 1 (p. 704*). 
 
 ENOS (so RV in Lk 3%), the same as Ehoshk 
 (e438), the name of the son of Seth (Gn 4%}. He 
 was the father of Kenan; and the length of his 
 life is stated as 905 years (Gn 5°). It is said in 
 connexion with the mention of his birth, ‘then 
 began men to call upon the name of J”’ (4%), 
 *“Enosh’ denotes ‘man in his frailty and weak- 
 ness.’ The fact of prayer being made to J” first 
 when Enosh was born, perhaps indicates allegori- 
 cally the belief that men were then first driven by 
 sickness, and by a sense of frailty and dependence, 
 to cry for help to the invisible Creator. The LXX, 
 ch translates the second clauseof 4° ofros #Amisev 
 émixaneicOat K.T.A., associates Enosh himself with 
 this step in the spiritual life of the human race 
 (ef. parallels 4” and 108): The advance thus made 
 by the generation of Enosh the son of Seth is 
 evidently intended to stand as the counterpart to 
 the advance in another aspect of life represented 
 by Enoch—the parallel generation in the line of 
 Cain (41). It has been suggested that this men- 
 tion of Enosh and of the first recourse to prayer to 
 J” must have been derived from a source of J 
 tradition distinct from that which records the 
 sacrifices of Cain and Abel, inasmuch as sacrifice 
 would imply supplication to the Deity: 
 
 . E. RYLE. 
 
 EN-RIMMON (j= yy ‘spring of [the] pome- 
 granate’).—One of the settlements of Judahites 
 after the return from the Exile, Neh 11%, In Jos 
 15” amongst the towns assigned to Judah we find 
 ‘Ain and Rimmon,’ and in 197 (cf. 1 Ch 48) 
 amongst those assigned to Simon are ‘ Ain, Rim- 
 mon.’ In all these instances there can be little 
 doubt that we ought to read neither i=) jy nor py 
 jim, but jin py (En-rimmon). This reading is 
 accepted by Bennett and Kittel in Joshua and 
 Chronicles in Haupt’s OT. En-rimmon is probably 
 to be identified with the modern Umm-er-Rumdmin, 
 about 9 miles N. of Beersheba, 
 
 Lirsratore.—Lagarde, Onom. 120, 256; Robinson, BRP iil. 
 233 ; Van de Velde, Memoir, 844; PEF Mem. iii. 392, 398. 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 
 
 EN-ROGEL (535 py ‘ spring of the fuller’), a spring 
 in the immediate vicinity of Jerus., on the bound- 
 ary between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 15’ 181°), 
 Owing to its position close to but. yet out of view 
 of the city, Jonathan and Ahimaaz, the sons 
 cf the priests, were stationed there during the 
 rebellion of Absalom, in order that they might 
 secretly receive and carry news from Hushai in 
 Jerus, to David in his camp by the Jordan (2 8 
 17”), Ata later period of history it was the scene 
 of a great feast given by Adonijah, the eldest son 
 of David, presumably with a view to forcibly 
 seizing the crown (1 K 1°‘ by the stone of Zoheleth, 
 which is beside E.’), Jos. (Ant. vu. xiv. 4) 
 describes it as being ‘without the city, in the 
 royal gardens’; and again (Ant. Ix. x. 4) speaks 
 of a place called Eroge (clearly, as Mr. Grove has 
 pointed out, a mistake for En-rogel), at which the 
 earthquake consequent on the sacrilegious act of 
 Uzziah dislodged a portion of the eastern hill, ‘so 
 as to obstruct the roads and the royal gardens.’ 
 Modern authorities are somewhat divided as to 
 the exact site of the spring; but the bulk of the 
 evidence is certainly in favour of the identification 
 of E. with ‘the Ronntaith of the Virgin.’ This 
 spring, now called ‘Ain Umm ed-Deraj=‘the 
 spring of the steps,’ lies in the Kidron valley, 
 close to the village of Siloam, and is, in fact, the 
 source from which the Upper Pool of Siloam 
 derives its supply of water; the latter flows 
 through a rock-hewn tunnel ‘ dating from the time 
 of the Kings’ (Sir C. Wilson). The latter autho- 
 rity further considers that originally this supply of 
 water was carried as far as the Lower Pool (Birket 
 el-Hamra), and that it was stored there for irrigat- 
 ing the king’s gardens. The arguments brought 
 forward in support of this identification are, 
 briefly, as follows:—(1) The ‘Fountain of the 
 Virgin’ is the only real spring near to Jerusalem. 
 (2) Immediately Ponte it, on the farther side of 
 the valley, there is a rude flight of steps, cut out 
 of the precipitous face of the cliff, which leads to 
 the village of Siloam; this place is called at the 
 
 resent time ez-Zehwelech, and is identified by M. 
 
 lermont-Ganneau (PHF'St, 1869-70, p. 253) with 
 the stone of Zoheleth. (3) The spring must have 
 always been well known, and so would naturally 
 form a landmark on the boundary-line between 
 Judah and Benjamin. (4) In the account of St. 
 James’ martyrdom, he is said to have been cast 
 from the temple wall into the valley of Kidron, 
 and finally slain by a fuller with his stick. From 
 this it has been inferred that St. James was cast 
 down near the spot where the fullers were work- 
 ing. (5) This spring is still the great resort of the 
 women of Jerus. for washing and treading their 
 clothes. 
 
 Others, however, identify E. with Bir Eydb= 
 ‘the well of Job,’ or ‘the well of Nehemiah ’ (acc. 
 to a later tradition). Three points are urged in 
 favour of this view: (1) that in the Arab. VS of 
 Jos 157 E. is translated ohne Eyfb; (2) that in an 
 early Jewish itinerary (Uri of Biel in Hottinger’s 
 Cippi Hebraici) it is called ‘the well of Joab,’ as if 
 referring to Joab’s connexion with Adonijah; and 
 (3) that its situation agrees better with the common 
 boundary of Judah and Benjamin. But these 
 arguments are not sufficiently weighty to counter- 
 balance the following objections: (1) The Bir 
 Eyib is a well, not a spring, its waters, as a rule, 
 being 70 to 80 ft. below the level of the ground. 
 (2) Its situation does not suit the narrative of 
 28 17. Lying below the junction of the valleys 
 of Kidron and Hinnon, it is at once too far from 
 the city and from the direct road over the Mt. of 
 Olives to the Jordan; and if ez-Zehweleh is the 
 same as Zoheleth, it would also be too far from 
 this latter spot. (3) Its date is uncertain; but it 
 
 
 
712 ENROLMENT 
 
 is hardly probable that it goes back to the time of 
 Joshua. 
 
 LiTERATURB. — Besides the authorities cited above, see 
 Baedeker-Socin, Pal.2 118; Robinson, BRP i. 831f.; Williams, 
 Holy City, li. 489ff.; PHF Mem. ‘Jerusalem,’ p. 365 ff. ; 
 Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 42; W. R. Smith, RS2 172, 489; PHF'St, 
 1874, 70; 1884, 185; 1885, 20, 184, 228; 1886, 56; 1889, 45ff.; 
 1890, 125. J. F, STENNING. 
 
 ENROLMENT.—See QuIRINIUS. 
 
 ENSAMPLE.—This is the tr. in AV of ruézos, 
 1 Co 10", Ph 31’, 1 Th 1’, 2 Th 3°, 1 P58; and of 
 brddevryua, 2 P 28; while ‘example’ is the tr. of 
 tumos, 1 Co 108, 1 Ti 42; of brdderypa, Jn 13%, He 44 
 85, Ja 5; of de?yya, Jude’; of the vb. wapadery- 
 paritw (‘make a publick example’), Mt 1%; and 
 of broypaypés, 1 P 22, Both forms have the same 
 meaning, and in AV they are always synonymous 
 with ‘pattern’ or ‘model.’ Thus in He 8° b7é- 
 devyua is tr’ ‘example,’ and rvzos ‘pattern,’ after 
 Tindale’s ‘ensample’ and ‘patrone,’ though in 
 both places Wyclif has ‘saumpler,’ Gen. (1560) 
 ‘paterne,’ Rhem. ‘exampler.’ But the pattern 
 may be either for imitation or avoidance. In mod. 
 Eng. wherever ‘ ensample’ is used, it has a biblical 
 flavour, and aupeonts a good example. Hence RV 
 retains ‘ensample’ in Ph 3”, 1 Th 1’, 2 Th 39, 
 1 P 5°, but gives ‘example’ in 1 Co 104, 2 P 2°. 
 
 ‘Ensample’ seems to be an Eng. spelling. The Lat. exem- 
 plum appears in old Fr. as essample; this becomes in Eng. 
 ‘asaumple,’ of which Oaf. Eng. Dict. quotes a single instance 
 (but it may be noticed that Wyc. has the wu always, ‘en- 
 saumple’). Then paeaner es becomes ‘ensample.’ Skeat 
 quotes an old Fr. tr. of Ru 411 ‘que ele soit ensample de vertu,’ 
 evidently after Vulg. ‘ut sit exemplum virtutis’ (cf. Cov. ‘that 
 she maye be an ensample of vertue’). But Ozf. Eng. Dict. 
 rejects this French spelling, and reckons ‘ensample’ only 
 English. The earliest instance of ‘example’ that has been 
 found is dated 1447 (though there is a various reading ‘ex- 
 saumple’ in the Wyclifite version of 1382 at Jude7), while 
 ensample’ is found as early as 1250. And ‘ ensample’ is most 
 common by far till it began to be fashionable to spell Eng. 
 words after their Lat. originals. Tindale has ‘ensample’ 
 (though he spells it thrice ‘insample’) in all the passages given 
 above ; and he is followed by all the Eng. VSS till the Rhemish. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EN-SHEMESH (#py }'y), ‘sun-spring,’ Jos 157 
 1@1.—A spring E. of En-rogel, on the way to 
 Jericho. It is believed to be the spring on the 
 Jericho road, E. of Olivet, generally known as the 
 ‘apostles’ fountain’ (‘Ain Hod). See SWP vol. iii. 
 sheet xvii.; also Tristram, Land of Israel, 196 ; 
 PEFSt, 1874, 70; and Dillmann on Jos 15’. 
 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 ENSIGN.—See BANNER. 
 
 ENSUE.—Coverdale’s tr. of Ps 34!4is ‘Let him 
 seke peace and ensue it’; and this was retained in 
 the Bishops’ Bible, and is now read in the Pr. Bk. 
 But AV adopted the Douay word ‘pursue.’ In 
 1 P 34, however, which is a quot. of Ps 344, AV 
 aceees ‘ensue,’ which had come from Tindale, 
 the Rhemish having here ‘follow.’ ‘Ensue’ is 
 thus used with the unusual force of ‘strive after’ 
 or ‘pursue’ (Gr. diwtdrw), as Caxton, Cato, 2b, 
 ‘Eschewe alle vyces and ensiewe vertue.’ RV 
 
 ives ‘pursue.’ Asintrans. vb. ‘ensue’ is found in 
 
 th 95 ‘the things. . . which ensued after’ (so 
 RV; Gr. ra perére:ra). We still use the word in 
 dates, as ‘the ensuing year.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EN-TAPPUAH (n:5r7'y ‘the spring of citron or 
 
 apple’).—A place on the boundary of Manasseh 
 (Jos 177). It is mentioned between ‘ Michmethath, 
 which is before (east of) Shechem,’ and the ‘ brook 
 of Kanah.’ Michmethath is generally (but see 
 Dillm. ad loc.) identified with Mukhna, E. of Nablus, 
 and the brook Kanah is Wady Kanah. Conder’s 
 identification of En-tappuah with a spring, near 
 Ydsif, in a valley to the S. of Mukhna, which 
 
 drains into Wady Ka4nah, is accepted by most | 
 
 ENVY 
 
 authorities. The place is probably the Tappuah 
 (which see) of Jos 16° 178. C. W. WILSON. 
 
 ENTREAT.—See INTREAT. 
 
 ENVY is a feeling of uneasiness or displeasure 
 occasioned b: bahoiding the prosperity or advant- 
 ages enjoyed by others. Butler, in a note to the 
 first of his Sermons on Human Nature, indicates it 
 as the vice of that quality of soul of which Emula- 
 tion is the corresponding virtue. The latter is that 
 ‘desire and hope of equality with, or superiority 
 over, others, with whom we compare ourselves,’ 
 which not only may be free from Bny unworthy 
 feeling towards them, but is obviously the very 
 spring of human progress. The characteristic of 
 Envy, on the other hand, is ‘to desire the attain- 
 ment of this equality or superiority by the par- 
 ticular means of others being brought down to our 
 own level or below it.’ 
 
 The scriptural use of the term is quite in accord- 
 ance with this description of it, and of its relation 
 to the emotion of which it is a perversion. Of the 
 three words, one in OT and two in NT, of which 
 it appears as a translation, only one, p0dvos (with 
 its cognate verb ¢#ovéw), has uniformly the evil 
 signification. The difficult verse Ja 4° ‘Do you 
 think that the Scripture saith in vain, The spirit 
 that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy ?’ is scarcely 
 an exception. If, as seems probable, having regard 
 to the context, the rendering of the second clause 
 given in RVm is correct—‘ That spirit which he 
 made to dwell in us yearneth for us even unto 
 jealous envy ’—the phrase must be held as merely 
 illustrating the intensity of the divine affection, 
 which requires the exclusive devotion of its 
 object, by a reference to the human passion of 
 eral or envy. (See HLapos. Times, viii. [1896] 
 
 . 76 £.) 
 
 : The other two words, of which mention has been 
 made, are xi? (noun axip) in OT, and Hes (verb 
 ¢ndw)in NT ; and of each of these words both mean- 
 ings, the worthy and the unworthy, often appear. 
 sip, the original force of which is, apparently, 
 burning, glowing, naturally denotes, in the first 
 instance, intense emotion. lt is used to express 
 the indignation of Joshua (Nu 11”), the zeal of 
 Phinehas (Nu 25%’), and the jealousy of a 
 (1 K 19° 14), as well as the envy of Rachel for her 
 sister (Gn 301), of his brothrea ee Joseph (Gn 37), 
 of the people for Moses (Ps 10615), or the mutual 
 envy of Judah and Ephraim (Is 11%). In the Book 
 of Proverbs the evil sense alone appears. Con- 
 trasted with ‘a sound heart,’ which is ‘ the life of 
 the flesh,’ Envy is ‘the rottenness of the bones’ 
 (Pr 14°); it is more formidable than wrath or 
 anger, for ‘ who is able to stand before envy ?’ 
 
 The corresponding NT term is {#os, in which the 
 same variation of sense is found. In 1 Col4! (RY) 
 we read ‘ Desire earnestly spiritual gifts’; in Gal 
 418 ‘it is good to be zealously affected (RV ‘sought’) 
 always in a good thing’; and in Rev 3” the com- 
 ant ‘Be zealous’ is coupled with an admonition 
 to repent. In like manner the ‘zeal’ of Jn 2", Ro 
 102, 2 Co 74 92, Ph 3°, Col 438, the ‘fervent mind’ of 
 2 Co 7’, and the ‘jealousy’ of 2Co 11%, illustrate 
 the commendahle aspect of the emotion indicated. 
 ln lists of vices, on the other hand, such as those in 
 Ro 1%, 1 Ti6*, envy has a conspicuous place. 
 Trench, in New Testament Synonyms, points out 
 that in the list given in Mk 72): # the place of p@dvos 
 is taken by the circumlocution 6¢@adpds rovnpds, ‘an 
 evil eye’ (compare Mt 20%, also 1S 18° ‘Saul eyed 
 David’), which reminds us of the derivation of the 
 Lat. invidia, Eng. ‘envy,’ from_invideo ‘to look 
 closely at,’ so ‘to look maliciously’ 
 
 It may be noted that in the following passages, 
 Job 5?, Pr 274, Ac 79 13 175, Ro 131%, 1 Co 38, 2 Ce 
 
 
 
 ee a Se ee Le ee 2 ee ee ee ee 
 
 ee ee ee ere ree. we 
 

 
 ‘ 
 
 — +, -- 
 
 Pe ee re ee 
 
 yy ae ee 
 
 EPAENETUS 
 
 
 
 EPHESIAN 713 
 
 
 
 12, Ja 316 RV substitutes ‘jealousy,’ or its 
 cognates, for ‘ envy.’ 
 For the difference between {#dos and ¢0é4vos see 
 Trench, Synon. of NT, p. 83 ff., and art. ZEAL. 
 A. STEWART. 
 EPAENETUS (’Eralveros).—One of the Christians 
 See by St. Paul at the end of the Ep. to the 
 mans (16°). Heismentioned at the beginning of 
 the list immediately after Prisca and Aquila, is de- 
 scribed as ‘my beloved’ (rdv dyamnréy pov), and as the 
 ‘ first fruits (dapx%4) of Asia unto Christ’ (the read- 
 ing Achaia of TR is clearly wrong, being derived 
 from 1 Co 16%). The name, which is Greek, is not 
 uncommon, occurring in inscriptions both of Rome 
 and Asia. One from the former place mentions an 
 E. who was a native of Ephesus (CJL vi. 17171). 
 The mention of Prisca, Aquila, and E. forms the 
 basis of the theory that Ro 16* "6 was addressed to 
 the Church at Ephesus; but three names—two of 
 them belonging to persons originally resident at 
 Rome—out of a total of more than twenty, are not 
 sufficient evidence for it. It was natural that the 
 Christian body in the capital should consist largely 
 at first of foreigners ; and even one hundred years 
 later, in the time of Justin Martyr, out of a body 
 of seven Christians condemned to death in Rome, 
 three are foreigners (Acta Justini, § 4). 
 LiTzraTuRE.—Renan, St, Paul, p. Ixv; Lightfoot, Biblical 
 Essays, p. 801; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 421. 
 A. C. HEADLAM. 
 EPAPHRAS (’Exa¢gpdas, a shortened form of ’Eza- 
 ppbdiros; see EPAPHRODITUS) was a native of 
 olosse (6 é€ duav Col 412), and as we learn from 
 the correct reading of Col 1’ the founder of the 
 Col. Church (xaas éudOere dard ’Exadgpa, ‘even as ye 
 learned of roted where the omission of kal 
 (also) of TR makes Epaphras more than an 
 
 _ accessory teacher). It is prob. that he was also the 
 
 evangelist of the neighbouring towns of Laodicea 
 and Hierapolis (Col 41-33), He visited St. Paul 
 during his first Rom. imprisonment, bringing him 
 an encouraging report of the state of the Colossian 
 Church (Col 146), and for his zeal would seem to 
 have been condemned to share the apostle’s im- 
 prisonment (6 cuvatxuddAwrds wou Philem*), though 
 the reference may be to spiritual rather than 
 physical captivity (cf. Ro 167, Col 4°), To him 
 alone (except once Timothy, Ph 1?) does St. Paul 
 apply the designation he uses several times of 
 himself, ‘a bond-servant of Jesus Christ’ (doi)os 
 Xpicrod *Inood Col 412); while the extent of his 
 services is further proved by the description ‘a 
 faithful minister of Christ’ (micrds Sidxovos rod 
 Xpiorob, Col 17). G. MILLIGAN. 
 
 EPAPHRODITUS (’Emad¢péé:ros ‘handsome’ = 
 Lat. ‘venustus,’ a common name in the Rom. 
 period ; see, ¢.g. Tacit. Ann. xv. 55; Suet. Domit. 
 14; Jos. Life, § 76), to be distinguished from 
 paphras [which see], and known to us only from 
 one or two allusions in the Ep. to the Philippians. 
 From. these we learn that he visited St. Paul 
 during his first Roman imprisonment, bringing 
 pecuniary aid to him from the Church at oa 
 and that instead of at once returning home he 
 remained with the apostle in Rome, devoting him- 
 self to the ministry under his guidance (Ph 2%-% 
 410-18), The strain, however, was too great for 
 him. He lost his health, and ‘was sick nigh unto 
 death’; but the danger passed. ‘God had mercy 
 on him,’ says St. Paul, ‘and not on him only, but 
 on me also, that I might not have sorrow upon 
 sorrow ’ (Ph 2%). On his recovery E. was anxious 
 to return to Philippi to quiet his friends’ alarm on 
 his behalf (Ph 2); and this St. Paul approved, 
 making him at the same time the bearer of the Ep. 
 tothe Philippians. St. Paul’s sense of E.’s services 
 is marked by his description of him as ‘ my brother 
 
 ‘further, Dillmann on Gn 254). 
 
 and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier,’ the three 
 words being arranged in an ascending scale to 
 denote ‘common sympathy, common work, common 
 danger and toil and suffering’ (Lightfoot on Ph 2%). 
 
 LITERATURE.—The Comm. on Ph 225, esp. Lightfoot, p. 61 ff., 
 122; sah 60; Moule, p. 79; and Vincent, pp. xxiii, 76. 
 Also Thayer, N7 Lex. 8. ’Exagpas ; Winer, RWB, s. ‘ Epaphras’; 
 and Beet in Expositor, 3rd Ser. ix. (1889) 64-75, ‘ Epaphroditus 
 and the gift from Philippi.’ G. MILLIGAN. 
 
 EPHAH (75y).—4. A son of Midian, descended 
 from Abraham and Keturah (Gn 254=1 Ch 1°), 
 the eponymous ancestor of an Arabian tribe whose 
 identity is uncertain. This tribe appears in Is 60° 
 as engaged in the transport of gold and frank- 
 incense from Sheba. According to Frd. Delitzsch 
 (Paradies, 304), and Schrader (KAT? 146 f., 613), 
 followed by Hommel (Anc. Heb. Trad. 238 n.), 
 ‘Ephah is properly ‘Ayappa, the Khayappa Arabs 
 of the time of Tiglath-pileser m1. and Sargon (see 
 2. A concubine 
 of Caleb, 1 Ch 2%, 3, A Judahite, son of Jalidai, 
 1 Ch 2". See GENEALOGY. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 EPHAH.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 EPHAI, wy (Keré), but Ophai, ‘my (Kethibh”). 
 Sept. ’lwé, ’Q¢7, described in Jer 40 (Gr. 47)® ax 
 ‘the Netophatite,’ whose sons were amonvst the 
 ‘captains of the forces’ who joined Gedaliah at 
 Mizpah, and were murdered along with him by 
 Ishmael (Jer 41%), . A. SELBIE. 
 
 EPHER (12y ‘a [deer] calf’).—1. The name of the 
 second of the sons of Midian mentioned in Gn 253, 
 1 Ch 1%, and recorded as one of the descendants of 
 Abraham by his wife Keturah (Gn 251). For pre- 
 carious attempts to identify this Epher with 
 ‘Ofr in Arabia (Wetzstein), with Appar-u men- 
 tioned in Assurbanipal’s Inscriptions (Glaser), see 
 the references in Dillmann. 2. The name of one 
 of the sons of Ezrah, a branch of the family of 
 Judah (1Ch 4”), 3. The first of a group of five 
 heads of fathers’ houses belonging to the half tribe 
 of Manasseh, who dwelt in the land between Bashan 
 and Mt. Hermon (1 Ch 5%). H. E. Ry eg. 
 
 EPHES -DAMMIM (n.22 oy, ‘“Eqepuév, "Adec- 
 Soupelv).—The place in Judah where the Philistines 
 were encamped at the time when David slew 
 Goliath (1 S 171). The same name appears in 
 1 Ch 118 as Pas-Dammim. The form op] 05x is 
 strange and probably corrupt (see Driver, Sam. 292). 
 
 W. J. BEECHER. 
 
 EPHESIAN (’E¢écvos), an inhabitant of the city 
 of Ephesus (which see), is a term used in Ac 192% #4 
 21%. The usage of St. Luke is more correct than 
 that of Stephanus Byzant.; the latter gives "Egecevs 
 as the ethnic; but the coins and inscriptions show 
 that in the local and universal usage ‘Edéouos 
 meant an inhabitant of the city, while “Ed¢eceds - 
 denoted a member of the tribe Edece?s, the first of 
 the six tribes into which the E. population was 
 divided (the other five were called YeBacr7, Tio, 
 Kapyvain, Eidvuwo, BewBiwato, of which LeBacrn was 
 added in compliment to Augustus, the total number 
 having previously been five). The term ’Edpéo.n 
 is also applied in the Bezan and Philoxenian Syr. 
 texts of Ac 204 to Tychicus and Trophimus, where 
 the true reading is ‘ Asians’ (‘Ac.avol, men of the 
 province Asia). Trophimus was an E. (Ac 21”) ; 
 at we may fairly understand that St. Luke 
 refrained from using that term about both Tychicus 
 and Trophimus, on the ground that it was not 
 strictly applicable to the former, The reason can 
 hardly be that Tychieus belonged to some other 
 city of Asia, for the usage in this verse leads the 
 writer to state the city where each delegate waa 
 
714 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 a citizen; and we should expect that he would 
 have mentioned Tychicus by the ethnic of his 
 own city. Moreever, T'ychicus probably inhabited 
 Ephesus.* We may, then, perhaps conclude that 
 Tychicus, though a resident (éncolw), did not possess 
 the citizenship of Ephesus; and hence "E¢éouos, 
 which strictly is restricted to citizens of Ephesus, 
 could not properly be used about him. There were 
 many families of residents who, for various reasons, 
 were not enrolled in any of the tribes, and were 
 therefore not entitled to be called citizens of 
 Ephesus. The entry "Acta % “Edeoos in a late 
 Byzantine list of cities which had changed their 
 names (published by Parthey, Hieroclis Synecd. et 
 Notte, p. 316; Burckhardt, Hieroclis Synecd. p. 
 68) cannot be relied on to justify the taking of 
 ‘Aovayés in 204 as a mere synonym for 'E¢éoros: the 
 document is not earlier than the 12th cent. (cf. the 
 entries Kuidicla, Kodwvia, ete.), and affords no 
 trustworthy evidence for the usage of the time of 
 St. Luke. W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO— 
 
 i. Substance and purpose, as gathered 
 (a) From internal evidence. 
 (¥) From a comparison with Colossians. 
 ii. Authorship and Date, as gathered from 
 (a) Internal evidence, 
 (0) External tradition. 
 ili. Destination. 
 iv. Place of Composition. 
 v. Doctrinal Importance. 
 vi. Literature. 
 
 i. SUBSTANCE AND PuRPOSE.—The questions of 
 the authorship, date, and destination of this Epistle 
 have been, and are still, so much disputed that it 
 will be well to deal first with the subject-matter 
 and the purpose which reveals itself on a close 
 examination of that. The Ep. might be summed 
 up in the words of the Angelic song (Lk 2!4)— 
 
 bbEa ey ilorors Og Kai éml ys" 
 elpivn év dvOpmmoas evdoxlas. 
 
 Or, again, it might be described as an expression 
 of thanksgiving that the Lord’s prayer for His 
 Church as embodied in Jn 17 was in process of ful- 
 filment. For the writer’s tone is eucharistic and 
 his main theme is unity: he does not argue, he 
 makes dogmatic statements; he blesses God for 
 the great truths revealed in the Gospel; and calls 
 upon his readers to rise to the high Gants of their 
 calling ; and, as he does so, there emerges a picture 
 of the Church as the body predestined before the 
 ages to unite Jew and Gentile together, which 
 through ages yet to come has to exhibit before the 
 universe the fulness of the Divine life, living the 
 life of God, imitating God’s character, wearing 
 God’s panoply, fighting God’s battles, forgiving as 
 God forgives, educating as God educates; and all 
 this that it may fulfil the wider work whereby 
 Christ is to be the centre of the universe. Two 
 dangers seem to threaten it when the writer writes, 
 —the danger lest it should slip back into the lower 
 moral standard of the surrounding heathendom, 
 and the danger of a want of unity between the 
 Jewish and Gentile Christians. To meet these, the 
 writer presents the ideal of a body predestined 
 before all ages and to last to all ages, whose aim it 
 is to make men holy and without blemish, and to 
 unite all mankind in peace and love. 
 
 A fuller analysis will bear out these outlines, 
 
 1-3 DocrrinaL, 
 11.2 greeting. 
 (a) 18-14, Thanksgiving to God for the blessings given to the 
 
 whole Chr. Church. These blessings are represented as corre- 
 sponding in spiritual form to the material blessings granted to 
 
 _——— SS ee eee 
 *We regard the Bezan and Syr. reading as founded on a 
 
 good tradition (cf. 2 Ti 412; Ramsay, Church 
 
 in Rom. Emp. 
 Pare? i while B: 
 e himself, 
 
 and others consider it to originate from St. 
 
 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 the Jewish nation, especially as summed up in the year of 
 Jubilee, and they are described in what may be called a hymr 
 of three stanzas, ending with the same refrain; the three 
 stanzas expressing the work of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
 For these blessings were (1) predestined by the Father, who 
 chose us to be sons, holy and without blemish, before the 
 foundation of the world, sor the praise of the glory of His grace 
 14. 5), 
 
 : (2) (tee Sas in Christ at the right moment, conveying 
 redemption, forgiveness, knowledge of God’s universal purpose 
 for all creation, and inheritance among the saints—to the praise 
 of His glory (1611). a 
 
 (3) Sealed first to the Jews (%yés), then to the Gentiles (wad 
 tystis), by the Holy Spirit, as an earnest of the complete re- 
 demption which lies in the future—for the praise of His glory 
 
 112. 13), 
 
 : (b) fis, Thanksgiving to God for the spiritual state of the 
 readers, and a prayer to the Father of this glory that they 
 may have a yet fuller knowledge of their privileges and of the 
 power of God. r 
 
 (c) 120-222, A dogmatic statement of this power of God, which 
 has shown itself in a threefold way. 
 
 (1) As exerted upon Christ Himself, granting Him 
 
 Resurrection from death (29), 
 
 Ascension to God’s right hand (#1). 
 
 Supremacy over the whole universe and Headship 
 over the Church (22. 23), E 
 
 (2) As exerted upon individuals, whether Gentile (21-2) or 
 Jew (2), granting them a similar threefold gift, viz. Resurrec- 
 tion from spiritual death (24). 
 
 Ascension with Christ to a spiritual sphere above the 
 world (2°), : 
 
 The power to do good works and manifest God’s grace 
 through the coming ages (2610), 
 
 (3) As exerted upon the whole of Humanity. 
 
 The Gentiles who formerly were alienated from God have been 
 brought nigh by the Cross; so that both Gentile and Jew have 
 peace with God and peace with each other: they form one 
 city, one family, one temple, built on the foundation of apostles 
 and prophets, and the Gentiles are now being built into that 
 
 11-22 
 
 (d) 31-19, Personal relations between the writer and his 
 readers. 
 
 The writer, who emphasizes his authority to Labi this great 
 truth of God’s choice of a universal Church intended to bit 
 his richly-variegated wisdom to the universe (31-12), begs his 
 readers not to be faint-hearted owing to his imprisonment (318), 
 and once more prays for them to the Father, that they may 
 have spiritual strength so that Christ may dwell in them in 
 love and knowledge to understand the greatness of their 
 privileges, so that the fulness of the Divine life may be exhibited 
 through them (31419), 
 
 (e) 320.21, This section of the Ep. ends with a erry 
 emphasizing the power of God manifested in man, and the 
 eternal duty of praise to Him both in heaven and on earth. 
 
 4-6 HORTATORY. 
 
 A. An appeal to the whole Church 
 
 (1) To live a life worthy of the members of a Society whose 
 essential characteristic is unity (41-16), (This is based on 11213 
 211-22; cf, also 425-52, 
 
 An appeal for the moral qualities which preserve unity (41-8) 
 
 is followed by a fuller description of the unity, as one of both 
 form and spirit, and resting upon the unity of God (446); 
 
 and a recognition of the variety of gifts, especially the ministry, 
 given to the Church by the Risen Christ, the Lord of the whole 
 universe, in order to produce unity and spiritual perfection 
 and steadfastness in truth; so that the may ever grow 
 into closer union with its Head (47-16), 
 
 (2) To live a life different from the old evil Gentile life (417-24), 
 (This is based on 17-9 21-10, of, 53-21, 
 
 A description of the old Gentile life as one of aimlessness, 
 ignorance, impurity (417-19) is contrasted with 
 
 A description of the Christian life as implying renewal of 
 intellect, righteousness, and holiness in conformity with God’s 
 standard (420-24), 
 
 (3) To cultivate certain particular virtues and avoid particular 
 vices (425-521), The choice of these rises out of the two pre- 
 ceding paragraphs; they are either such virtues as make for 
 unity and such vices as destroy it (so mainly 425-52, cf. the 
 motives appealed to in 25. 27. 28, 29. 82), or such virtues as form the 
 antithesis to the old Gentile life, either on the side of morality 
 or of knowledge ee mainly 58-22; cf. the motives in 480 63 xaba¢ 
 xpires &ryloss, 5.6. 15.16, 18), 
 
 These virtues are—1. Truthfulness ; based upon our cloge union 
 with each other (425), 
 
 oS . right use of anger: based upon the harm which the devil 
 may do (426), M 
 
 8. Honest toil: based on the duty of helping others (427), 
 
 4, Pure conversation: based on the duty of helping those 
 Hes hear (428), and the danger of grieving the indw Spirit 
 
 4 
 
 ri Gentleness and forgiveness: based on God's forgiveness of 
 us (431-32), 
 6. Love: based on Ohrist’s love and self-sacrifice (51. 2), 
 
 7. Avoidance of all impurity and covetousness as unworthy of 
 our consecration (53), and of all foolish jesting and talk, as ex- 
 cluding from the kingdom of Christ and of (546), as sure to 
 incur God’s pray, x laa with the Christian life, 
 which is one of light (5 
 cam” use of opportunities: based upon the evil of the time 
 
 
 

 
 Pee 
 
 
 
 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 715 
 
 
 
 9, An intelligent understanding of God’s will (517). 
 10, Temperance in wine—perhaps especially at the Love-feasta 
 
 11. Fulness of spiritual joy and thankful praise of God— 
 perhaps fally at the meetings for common worship (519-21), 
 This | back through the thought of the common worship 
 of the Church to the ideal of unity and subjection, and so 
 forms a transition to 
 B. 53-69, An appeal to various classes in the Church. 
 Wives exhorted to submission to their husbands (522) 
 Because of the relation of man to woman (523), 
 And the analogy of the Church’s submission to Christ (5%). 
 Husbands exhorted to love their wives (525) 
 ayes of the analogy of Christ’s love for His Ohurch (525-27 
 
 tT 
 And the closeness of the union between man and wife (523. 2%), 
 Children exhorted to obey their parents 
 Because of the natural sense of right (61 
 And God’s commandment and promise (624). 
 Parents exhorted to train their children patiently 
 Because of the analogy of God’s training of His sons (64), 
 Slaves exhorted to loyal obedience to their masters (65-7) 
 Because of the impartiality of God’s judgment (68). 
 Masters to avoid threatening 
 Because of the thought of their own Master in heaven (69). 
 .B.—This is no accidental digression, nor is it merely an 
 attempt to lay down a new decalogue or moral code for Gentile 
 Christians jwald), which should draw them nearer to the 
 Jewish Ohristians by removing one of the great stumbling- 
 blocks (Ac 1520); but the writer takes a Christian household 
 with all its members, and treats it asa e of the Church, in 
 which the duties of subjection, love, obedience, forbearance, 
 which are needed for the unity of the Church, may be first 
 learned. Of. 624. 25-27 61.4.7. 9, 1 Ti 8%. The thought of 315 séca 
 aa is the link between the two. 
 . Addressed to the whole Church. 
 
 An exhortation to be true soldiers, to put on the full armour 
 of God, that they may realize His strength and fight His 
 battles (610.11, cf, 119 22), 
 
 Description of the seriousness of the conflict (612). 
 
 Description of the armour, as complete (13), as consisting of 
 truth and righteousness (cf. 474), of peace (cf. 215), and faith 
 (cf. 113), of God’s saving grace (cf. 113 28), of God’s word of 
 truth (cf. 421 626), of prayer and watchfulness Neate The 
 choice of the weapons is partly motived by the description of 
 J’’s armour in Isaiah (59, etc.), partly by the virtues already 
 emphasized in this Epistle, partly perhaps by the armour of 
 the soldier to whom the writer is chained (2°), 
 
 A request for their prayer for himself (619. 20), 
 
 An account of the purpose of the mission of Tychicus (621.22), 
 
 Final salutation, with prayer for peace, love, and faith, to 
 those who have love for the Lord (623.24), 
 
 The Ep. is thus marked by extraordinary unity 
 of structure and interlacing of Se rich with 
 paragraph, and the analysis shows that there is no 
 sense of controversy on the surface of it; 2" hints 
 at the controversial nicknames of the Jewish and 
 
 Gentile struggle (ol Aeydpevor dxpoBvorla vrd Tis 
 
 Aeyouérns weptroujs); 414 and perhaps 47! point to 
 the danger of false teaching, but the allusions are 
 vague, The purpose is to emphasize the moral and 
 spiritual fulness of the Christian life (cf. rAnpoty 
 and 7Ajpwya, 119 23 319 410. 18 518), and the closeness of 
 the union which binds Christians to Christ and to 
 each other: cf. é& Kuplw or év Xpiucrg (Eph 30 
 times, Col 11); évdrys (4°18 here only); adydry and 
 dyardy (19 times in Eph as compared with 16 in 
 Ro and 1 Co); elpijyn (8 times Eph, 11 Ro, in 
 no other Ep. oftener than 8); and the many 
 compounds of ctv, emphasizing the ‘with’-ness 
 of Chvitinns with Christ ovyxalfeyv (25 only), 
 oufworoey (25 and Col 21%), cuveyelpeay (2°, Col 24 
 3!); or with each other, cvyxAnpdvopuos (3°, Ro 7°), 
 oupBiBdtew (41%, Col 271), cuppuéroxos (3° 57 only), 
 cupronlrns (2% only), cuvappodoyeiv (2% 4'6 only), 
 ovvdecpuos (4°, Col 2% 314), cuvoixodouety (2” only), 
 ctcowpos (3° only). The purpose of all this, too, lies 
 beyond itself. The Church must be one, because 
 a great conflict lies before it; the spiritual forces 
 of evil are gathering, and it must be on its guard. 
 
 A comparison with Colossians will partly con- 
 firm, partly supplement this result. Whoever may 
 be the author of this Ep., it is clear that there is a 
 close relation between it and that. The salutations 
 are almost identical: the structure of the Epistles 
 is the same: the subjects are mainly the same, the 
 need of knowledge is emphasized, and the relation 
 of Christ to the universe and to the Church: the 
 same moral virtues are inculcated; the laws of 
 
 family life are laid down in each ; the same phrases 
 and words recur; they are both conveyed by 
 Tychicus (cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung? p. 291, for 
 exact details). But there are important diner aes 
 the personal element is strongly marked in Col 
 (21-4 410-17) and almost absent here ; the controversial 
 tone (Col 2**%) is dropped ; the stress there was on 
 Christ’s relation to the universe, here on His 
 relation to the Church; there Christ was spoken 
 of as the tAjpwyua of God, here the Church as the 
 mijpwya Of Christ and of God. Again, there ara 
 new points emphasized in this Ep. ; the sense of 
 the continuity of the Church throughout the ages 
 (Eph 1*14), the work of the Holy Spirit (12 times 
 in Eph, 1 in Col), the unity of the Church (2-4 
 4*%), the analogy between family life and the 
 Church (57?-6°), the simile of the Christian armour 
 (610-18), are all additions in this Ep., or at best are 
 expansions of very slight references there. 
 
 he points of similarity raed us in finding 
 below the surface allusions to the Col. controversy. 
 That arose from teaching which either grew simply 
 out of Jewish soil, or perhaps was influenced by 
 extraneous Oriental speculation (cf. Lightfoot, 
 Colossians: ‘The Colossian Heresy’; and Hort, 
 Judaistic Christianity, pp. 116-129), laying great 
 stress on a system of elaborate rules, termed a 
 philosophy, and separating God from the material 
 world by the introduction of the worship of angels. 
 In answer to this the Ep. to the Col emphasized 
 the cosmic work of Christ, and the need of a truer 
 and higher wisdom, and of faith as the means of 
 approach to God. This controversy is now in the 
 background ; but it is justifiable to fill out the 
 vague allusions in such passages as 1% 10 21 22.8 310. 
 15. 19 410. 14.21 G12, hy the more detailed parallels in 
 Col (cf. esp. Findlay in Eaxpositor’s Bible). 
 
 On the other hand, the points of dissimilarity 
 which cover the larger part of the Ep. show that 
 the stress of that controversy is absent here, ana 
 that other motives are prominent. 
 
 The purpose, then, is primarily to stir up the 
 readers to a higher activity and a closer unity b 
 reminding them of the ideal of the Church in God’s 
 eternal purposes; secondarily, to guard them 
 against false teaching that was current at the time, 
 tending to take a low view of the created world. 
 
 ii, AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.—Three possible 
 alternatives are open to us: either the author is St. 
 Paul, or some friend writing for him and with his 
 knowledge, or some later writer assuming after St. 
 Paul’s death that he is justified in writing in his 
 name. The second of these alternatives may be 
 put aside; it is only another form of the first, as 
 the Ep. would practically be St. Paul’s and have all 
 his authority. Now, as the third alternative is 
 possible, we must eliminate at first from the dis- 
 cussion all that speaks of the exact situation in 
 St. Paul’s life; for on that alternative, that will 
 be part of an imaginary situation. But, apart 
 from this, we have a few indications of date and 
 writer. 
 
 Date.—The terminus a quo is A.D. 58 or 59, the 
 earliest date at which St. Paul could be described 
 as having suffered a long imprisonment (31)? 4!) ag 
 the champion of the Gentiles, 
 
 The terminus ad quem is more doubtful. The 
 Church organization implied is very slight ; there 
 is a ministry, both of apostles and prophets for the 
 first foundation of Churches (2 35 411), and of 
 evangelists, shepherds and teachers for the building 
 up of Churches once founded (4"). There is stress 
 laid on Baptism, perhaps an allusion to the pro- 
 fession at Baptism of faith in God, the Lord, and 
 the Spirit (44° 5%), perhaps also an allusion toa 
 formula or hymn used at Baptism (5'4). There is 
 evidence of the growth of Christian hymnody (514: 
 3°), and apparently of its use in the Love-feasta 
 
716 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 (cf. 51 with 1 Co 10%. Tert. Apol. 39). But 
 this evidence is indeterminate; it might all be 
 iilustrated from 1 Co (6 1247-28 1426); while the 
 absence of mention of érloxoro, mpeoPi'repax, and 
 didcovo is against a late date. The absence of the 
 freer xaplouara of 1 Co 12 is no objection, as they 
 were esp. characteristic of the Corinthian Church, 
 and as, even there, St. Paul discouraged them in 
 zomparison with the more fixed ministry. 
 
 The controversies referred to are again undecis- 
 ive. The attempt to see allusions to a developed 
 2nd cent. Gnosticism are now abandoned, for its 
 technical words aldves, Ajpwua, yeveal are clearly 
 used here in a less technical sense ; again, possible 
 allusions to a false Docetism in 4° 5?! are too uncer- 
 tain to build upon. On the doctrinal side there is 
 nothing which may not be explained as falling 
 within the Ist century. So with the struggle of 
 
 arties within the Church. There is still a certain 
 
 riction between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, 
 
 and the danger is that the Gentiles may despise 
 the Jewish Christians; they need reminding that 
 they have been brought into a commonwealth 
 which existed before (1? 2"). Such a condition 
 would have been possible even in the 2nd cent. (ef. 
 Justin Martyr, Trypho, ch. 47); but it would also 
 have been possible at any date after St. Paul’s 
 missionary work (cf. Ro 11)%-*4), and the language 
 used seems to imply that the readers belonged to 
 the first generation of converts, who had them- 
 selves come over from paganism to Christianity 
 (18 92. 12 4°), 
 
 Again, the absence of any mention of the de- 
 struction of Jerus. possibly points to a date earlier 
 than A.D. 70, and the absence of any clear allusion 
 to any danger of persecution by the state (though 
 that may be included in the dangers against which 
 the Christian has to arm himself, 6!) is, when 
 compared with 1 P, a strong indication of a date 
 before A.D. 70 if St. Peter refers to the Neronian, 
 before A.D. 80 if to the Flavian persecution. On 
 internal grounds, therefore, A.D. 70 forms the most 
 probable limit, though a date even in the 2nd cent. 
 would be conceivable. 
 
 The use of the letter in other Christian literature 
 supports an early date. By A.D. 150 it was known 
 widely by Catholics and heretics, and treated by 
 both as Sertniee for it was included in the Lat. 
 and Syr. versions ; its destination was discussed by 
 Marcion (see below) ; it was used by the Ophites, 
 Valentinians, and Basilideans, prob. by Basilides 
 and Valentinus themselves, perhaps even com- 
 mented upon by them (Westcott, Canon, 291, 295). 
 It was included with the title ‘to the Laodiceans’ 
 in Marcion’s Canon (c. 140): a canon the existence 
 of which implies a Church Canon, to which it was 
 placed in opposition (Sanday, BL p.19). Inthe years 
 95-150 we have probable reminiscences of its lan- 
 guage in Clement, cf. xxxvi. with Eph 18, xxxviii., 
 cwfécbw odv ddov 7d cGua ev Xpior@ "Inood cal bao- 
 taccécOw Exacros T@ WAjo.oy av’rov, with 52-3, xlvi. 
 with 446, lxiv. with 14(?) ; in Ignatius, ad Ephes. i. 1 
 with Eph 1° ff. ; ix. and xv. with Eph 2” ; xii. with 
 34, IlavAou cummtorac . . . bs ev wdon émisréAn pynuo- 
 veve. UuGv, possibly a direct reference to the letter 
 (Smith, DB? p. 952n; but see Lightfoot, ad loc., and 
 Hort, Ro and Eph, p. 113); ad Polyc. v. with 5”, 
 
 In The Two Ways—the document which underlies 
 the Didaché (iv.10) and Ep, Barnabas (xix.) there 
 seems a reminiscence of Eph 6°. 
 
 In Polycarp, ad Phil. ch. i. may be compared 
 with Eph 2° 5°, and xii. with Eph 4, In Hermas, 
 cf. Mand. iii. 4 and x. 2-5 with 4", and v. and xii. 
 5 with 4%; Stmilitude ix. 13 with 445, 
 
 Moreover, in nearly all these sub-apost. writings 
 there is an advance in thought or church life. The 
 stress on episcopacy, the development of Docetism, 
 the elaboration of the metaphor of the Church asa 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 ——— 
 
 temple in the Ignatian letters; the stress on the 
 threefold ministry and the more marked use of 
 liturgical language in Clement of Rome ; above all, 
 the fuller working out into detail of the man 
 similes in this Ep. in the Shepherd of Hermas, a 
 seem to imply a later date. In this latter treatise, 
 the phrase ‘ giving place to the devil’ is elaborately 
 drawn out in Mand. v. and xii. 5. The conception 
 of the Church as existing through all ages ic 
 expanded in Vis. ii. 4; of the Church as a bride 
 without spot or wrinkle in Vis. iii. 10-13; as a 
 building in Vis. iii. 2, Sim. ix. 9; as resting upon 
 the apostles as foundation in Sim. ix. 15. In each 
 case the simile is at a later stage of development. 
 
 ‘It is all but certain on this evidence that the 
 Epistle was in existence by A.D. 95, quite certain 
 that it was in existence by about 15 years later, or 
 conceivably a little more’ (Hort, p. 118). But 
 there is possibly other evidence to be drawn from 
 NT. The points of comparison with the Synoptic 
 Gospels (e.g. Lk 21 with Eph 6%, Mk 4!" with ph 
 34, Mk 12 with Eph 2%, Mt 1618 with Eph 2” 4°), 
 or with the Acts (2 with Eph 2!8, 2 with Eph 4°, 
 10°6 with Eph 217), do not prove literary dependence 
 nor go beyond parallels found in the earlier Epistles, 
 [For details cf. Holtzmann, Kritik, pp. 248-255, but 
 his analogies are often fanciful. For possible 
 allusions to Agrapha of our Lord in 2/617 318 
 46. 27.36 cf, Resch, Agrapha, p. 109.) There are 
 striking similarities between the Ep. and the 
 Fourth Gospel; e.g. the stress on xdpus, the use of 
 mipwpa, the contrast between light and darkness, 
 the continuity of the work of the Logos, the pre- 
 destination of the disciples, the activities of the 
 Holy Spirit, the purifying power of baptism and 
 of the word. The most striking similarity in 
 thought is with Jn 17, where almost every verse 
 otiers a parallel to this Ep.; e.g. 1 the stress on 
 God’s fatherhood, 2 the power over all flesh, ® life 
 identified with knowledge, 5 the pre-existent glory 
 of Christ, ® the revelation to a few, Christ 
 glorified in His disciples, 4“ the prayer for unit 
 based on God’s unity, !2 Christ’s joy fulfilled in His 
 disciples, * the antagonism of the world, ™ the 
 protection from the evil one, ™ sanctification by 
 truth, # the unity of Christians as a means of pro- 
 moting Christ’s work, * God’s love for Christians 
 like His love for Christ, #4 God’s love for Christ 
 before the foundation of the world. So again 
 between the Ep. and the Apoc. [e.g. the city with 
 foundations, which are the twelve apostles (21"), 
 the Church as a bride (212), the prominence of. the 
 prophets (107 1118 18”)]: even more frequent are 
 the points of contact with 1 P;¢.g. 1 P 1? with Eph 
 1°14, 12 with Eph 3, 24 with Eph 2”, 218-37 with 
 Eph 5°2-6°, 31° with Eph 4°, 32 with Eph 1”. 
 
 t is doubtful whether in any case the amount 
 of similarity is sufficient to preve literary depend- 
 ence. The similarity with St. John is one mainly 
 of thought. It is possible that the language of 
 St. John was influenced by this Ep., but it is more 
 pepe that this Ep. was written by one who 
 
 ad heard of that great prayer of our Lord. Ma, 
 not St. Paul have heard it direct from St. John’s 
 lips, possibly at Jerus., when they met to discuss 
 the terms of unity between Jew and Gentile in 
 the one Church ; or possibly at Rome, if, as Renan 
 suggests, St. John Mad been there, or even was 
 there when St. Paul was writing? In the case of 
 1 Peter there is a stronger probability of literary 
 dependence ; if so, and if we assume the priority of 
 1 Peter (but see Weiss, Introd. i. p. 355), we should 
 have indication that our Ep. was in existence 
 before A.D. 70 or 80—at least it proves that the 
 tone of thought and phraseology is such as was 
 possible and natural before that date. 
 
 Author.—The author must have been a Jewish 
 Christian, proud of his Jewish privileges, steeped 
 
 
 
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 in OT symbolism (13 614-18), Further, he must 
 have been an original thinker, able to trace out 
 & philosophy of history through the ages, able to 
 move in the mystical sphere of heavenly places, 
 and yet able to pass thence into the lower region 
 of simple daily duties and of family life. Lastly, 
 he was one who cared that his writing should 
 prea under the name and with all the authority 
 of St. Paul. There is, then, a prima facie proba- 
 bility that it was St. Paul himself; and a detailed 
 examination will bear this out. 
 
 (a) The structure of the Ep. is clearly Pauline. The com- 
 mencement with words of thanksgiving (cf. Ro 18, 1 Co 14, 2 Co 
 18); the great statement of doctrine as the basis for moral 
 exhortation (cf. Ro 118-8); the moral exhortation, introduced 
 by oby cf. Ro 121, Gal 51), and passing from the general to the 
 particular (cf. Ro 12-15); the apparent digression on family 
 
 'e, which really proves to be an important illustration of the 
 pools pagect (cf. 1 Co 717-24 91-1013, Ro 9-11), all find parallels 
 
 a 
 
 (5) The main thoughts often show an advance on the earlier 
 Epp., but it is an advance on a line already marked out. Thus 
 the continuity of the Christian Church with the Jewish, as a 
 sg of God’s eternal plan (13-14), finds parallels in Ro 9-11. 1625-27, 
 
 al 41-4; the conception of Christ as the original source of 
 creation and the restorer of its unity (11), in 1 Co 86, 2 Co 
 618.19, Ro 818-23; the conception of the Church as the body of 
 Christ, which receives His life and shows it forth to the universe, 
 is an expansion of the germs in 1 Co 49 1227; the unity of the 
 Church is presupposed in the whole argument of 1 Co, where 
 St. Paul is anxious to keep the customs and doctrines of the 
 Corinthian Church in a line with those of all the Churches of 
 the Saints (1 Co 12 417 717 1116 153-11}—even the use of ixzAncia 
 for the Church universal is probable in 1 Co 12 1032(?) 1228; 
 the stress laid on the Holy Spirit as the inspirer of the Church’s 
 life is analogous to 1 Co 12; the identification of the events of 
 Christ’s death and resurrection with those of the life of each 
 Christian (21-19), to Ro 6 and 1 Co 15; the residence of sin in the 
 expt (23), and its effect on intellect as well as will, to Ro 7; 
 the universal sinfulness of Jew and Gentile alike as the. basis 
 of a universal redemption (21-4) is a summary of Ro 118-229, 
 cf. Gal 215-21; the destruction of the barrier between Jew and 
 Gentile (211-23) is St. Paul’s most favourite doctrine. 
 
 But it is urged that here the parts are changed: elsewhere 
 8t. Paul is the champion of the Gentile against Jewish narrow- 
 ness ; here he reminds Gentiles of the privileges of the Jews, 
 and appears as the champion of Jewish Christians against 
 Gentile exclusiveness. This is true, but the balance between 
 the preponderance of Jew and Gentile might differ in each 
 Church, or even at different moments in the history of one 
 Church ; and St. Paul was bent always, not on upholding one side, 
 but on securing the rights of both within the Church. Further, 
 this attitude on his part towards the Gentile Christians finds 
 an exact parallel in Ro 1117-24, Indeed the prone argument 
 for the Pauline authorship lies in the undesigned coincidences 
 between Eph and the Ep. to the Romans. Both are of the nature 
 of a general treatise; both are an attempt to show that Jew 
 and Gentile are united by the work of Christ ; both base this 
 on the sinfulness of Jew and Gentile alike ; both emphasize the 
 
 rivileges of the Jews ; both build up a new morality, centring 
 in love and made possible by the gift of the Spirit ; both hint at 
 the extension of Christ’s work beyond man to the whole 
 creation ; both emphasize the eternal plan of God, hidden for 
 ages, hinted at in prophetic writings and revealed at the due 
 moment ; both express the writer’s amazement at the depths of 
 the wisdom of God, and in each case the style rises into the 
 beauty and cadence of a poem (Ro 831-39), 
 
 There are two points indeed which present a rather striking 
 difference from the earlier Epistles. The thought of the quick 
 return of the Lord is absent, and in its stead we have a vista of 
 
 enerations yet to come, through which the Church is to glorify 
 God (321), But it is conceivable that these generations are 
 thought of by the writer as following the Lord’s return ; it is 
 conceivable, in accord with this, that the struggle which lies 
 before the Church Coe that which is to precede the coming of 
 the Lord (cf. 2 Th 28-12); and further, it is clear that St. Paul, 
 when he wrote the Ep. to the Romans, had contemplated the 
 ibility of some long period of Church history before the 
 
 rd’s coming (Ro 112). 
 
 Once more, the high conception of family life is at first sight 
 inconsistent with the preference for celibacy and discourage- 
 ment of marriage in 1 Co 7. But that was written in the 
 
 resence of a pressing necessity : even there St. Paul recognizes 
 t both the celibate and the married have a gift from God ; 
 and as time went on and the Lord did not return, it became 
 necessary to build up a true conception of marriage in the face 
 of heathen laxity. It is as likely that St. Paul should organize 
 family life as that he should organize church order, and this he 
 had done from the first. 
 
 (c) The style is again admittedly Pauline up to a point. There 
 are some twenty words peculiar to St. Paul in his earlier Epp. ; 
 others common to Eph with the Pastoral Epp. (cf. Holtzmann, 
 Kritik, p. 257); there is the love of paradoxical antithesis (cf. 
 615. 20); the play upon connate words (45-10 613.14); the same free 
 
 raphrasing of OT (4811, cf. Ro 106-8); the same unacknow- 
 
 zed adaptation of OT language (122 213-17 425. 26 52 61-4 61418, cf. 
 1 Co 310-15, 2 Co 31218). On the other hand the sentences are 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 71% 
 
 less broken, rather more elaborate and complicated by paren 
 theses ;* but this applies mainly to the earlier part of the Ep. 
 where we have great statements of doctrine rather than con 
 troversial arguments, so that it may be adequately explained 
 as due to the quieter tone in which St. Paul was writing 
 So, too, of verbal differences; there is a large number of era? 
 Atyousye (76), but not proportionately larger than in the other 
 Epp. (for details cf. Von Soden, p. 87; Holtzmann, EHinlettuny, 
 p. 289). Some of them occur in quotations; the majority of 
 them rise naturally out of the subject-matter of the Ep, ; even 
 where the application is different from that in the earlier Epp., 
 €.9.in olxovopcia, eri pwc, xegeAn, Oezéd10y, this, too, grows naturally 
 out of the change of subject ; and certainly there is no one word 
 which St. Paul could not have used. The two that have been 
 most objected to are the use of 6 3:éGorcs (427 611) and of &y10 
 &mxéorodo (3°). To the first it is objected that St. Paul elsewhere 
 uses 6 varavas Or 6 rtipalay; but St. Mt, St. Lk, St. Jn (Gosp 
 and Apoc.), the writer of 1 Ti, and St. Paul himself as reported 
 by St. Luke in the Acts (1310 2618), use both 6 3:éBores and ¢ 
 cureyes; and the stress on unity in this Ep. makes the use of 
 di&Boros, t.e. the slanderer, more appropriate than sararc:. 
 Possibly, too, the word means here ‘any human slanderer’ 
 (Zahn, Hint. 367). Again, the phrase ‘the holy apostles’ sounds 
 like the ecclesiastical formula of a later generation looking back 
 on its canonized founders; but, apart from the consideration 
 that the reading is a little doubtful (cf. Smith, DB? pp. 956 and 
 964), the context shows that &z.0 refers to special consecration 
 of the apostles and prophets as recipients of the new revelation, 
 in contrast to the sons of men (cf. Rev 2114 and Lk 179), 
 
 (d) The relation of the Ep. to that to the Col adds to the 
 complexity of the problem. The extent of this has been brought 
 out already, and the fuller details may be seen in Holtzmann, 
 Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosser-briefe, cap. ii., or in Von 
 Soden, pp. 94, 95. There is nothing exactly like the problem 
 elsewhere in NT, The nearest parallels are the relation of the 
 Synoptic Gospels to each other, or the relation of 2 Peter 
 and Jude: in those cases the similarity is due partly to the 
 use of common documents, partly to the deliberate use of the 
 earlier writer by the later. In this case a somewhat similar 
 theory has been propounded by Holtzmann ; he holds that St. 
 Paul himself wrote a short letter to the Col., that some late 
 writer elaborated this into the Ep. to the Eph, and that the 
 same writer, or another, subsequently composed our present 
 Ep. to the Col, based upon the two preceding letters. Such a 
 theory rests upon the fact that in some resemblances priority 
 seems to be on the side of Eph, in others on the side of Col; 
 but such an argument is very subjective and precarious; it has 
 not met with any acceptance, and may safely be set aside as 
 too artificial (see Smith, DB? pp. 959, 960, for a fuller examina. 
 tion of it). 
 
 The more probable theory, then, is that of simultaneous author- 
 ship by one writer; and that such a similarity is not unworthy 
 of St. Paul may be seen by comparing instances of similar 
 though less marked resemblance between Ro and Gal (ef. 
 Lightfoot, Galatians, Introd. cap. iii.), and between 1 Ti and 
 Titus. 
 
 (e) The indications of the personal character of the writer are 
 naturally few in so general an Ep. ; yet such as they are, they 
 are quite true to the character of St. Paul as revealed in the 
 earlier letters. The spirit of thankfulness bursting out into 
 doxologies (13 321), the courteous recognition of good in his con- 
 verts (115), the prayerfulness for them (116 318.14), the longing 
 for their intercession (618), the fondness for applying great 
 principles to the details of daily life (523), the sense of his own 
 personal unworthiness (a sense which has grown stronger with 
 advancing years, but yet was destined to grow stronger still, 38, 
 cf. 1 Co 159, 1 Ti 115), combined with the bold appeal to his 
 authority as based upon revelation and upon his sufferings for 
 the truth (3! 41),—all these may indeed be the accidental out- 
 come of borrowing from the early letters, but far more probably 
 are they the natural outcome of the work of the same man. 
 
 There can, then, be little doubt that the writer is 
 St. Paul. The alternative is a Jewish-Christian 
 Paulinist, steeped in St. Paul’s language, doctrine, 
 and character, composing ‘a mosaic out of the 
 material of the Pauline Epistles’ (Von Soden), 
 
 iving a slightly wider scope to his conceptions of 
 
 hrist and of the Church, emphasizing the uni- 
 versal character of the Church as a part of God’s 
 eternal purpose, ‘in the spirit of the Fourth 
 Gospel’ (Hort, p. 126). It would be a tenable 
 view that the writer was the author of the Fourth 
 Gospel, writing in the name of St. Paul. But it 
 our alternatives are limited so narrowly as this. 
 the witness of the early Church may be regarded 
 as absolutely decisive. We have seen how early 
 the evidence is of the existence of the Ep., and 
 evidence of existence is in this case evidence of 
 
 *There are scarcely any interrogatory sentences; one only 
 in Eph, as compared with 88 in Ro 1-11, and 4 in Ro 12-16. 
 (Sanday and Headlam, International Commentary on the 
 Romans, the best discussion in English of the difference of 
 style between Ro and Eph.) 
 
 
 

 
 718 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 
 
 The work is not 
 ospel or the Ep. to 
 ebrews) ; it has not merely a salutation easily 
 
 belief in the Pauline authorship. 
 anenymous (like the Fourth 
 the 
 separable from the Ep.; the claim to Pauline 
 authership is knit into the very fabric of the letter, 
 
 and some of the earliest reminiscences of its 
 language are of the parts which imply the author- 
 ship. It was, then, written by St. Paul himself. 
 
 iii. DESTINATION.—The readers to whom the 
 letter was addressed were mainly Gentiles (1% 2% 
 3! 417 58); but this does not, any more than Ro 
 11, exclude the presence of some Jewish Christians. 
 Indeed, 2 seems to require the presence of Jewish 
 Christians as forming a minority in the Church. 
 St. Paul is laying down guidance to the Gentiles 
 in their treatment of the Jewish Christians. 
 Hence some commentators have treated the Ep. 
 as a general encyclical to all Gentile converts 
 throughout the world. 
 
 But there are personal bonds between him and 
 them ; he has had recent news of their faith and 
 love (1°); they have heard of his imprisonment 
 and are sad at heart about it (3"), and are anxious 
 as to the issue of it (671); they seem acquainted 
 with Tychicus (67): **) ; and they are distinguished 
 from other Christians (15 38 6"). There is little 
 doubt, then, that the destination must be localized. 
 But in 1! the words év’E¢éow are of very doubtful 
 authority. They are absent in the first hand of 
 and B, and are marked as an interpolation in 67 ; 
 but found in all other MSS. Further, Basil (c. 
 Eunom. ii. 19) says that there was a tradition of 
 their absence, and that he found them omitted in 
 the old copies known tohim. Again, the interpre- 
 tation of trois ovo. as ‘those who have true life,’ 
 ‘those who really are,’—an interpretation which 
 siete d Hare the omission of the words,—is quoted 
 
 y Basil as a traditional interpretation, and is found 
 in Origen (Cramer, Cat. ad loc.), and is repeated 
 by Victorinus Afer, Jerome, and Hilary. Further, 
 
 ertullian, in arguing against Marcion that the 
 Ep. was addressed to the Eph., does not appeal to 
 the salutation. It is, then, a fair inference that the 
 words were absent from some copies in the 2nd 
 cent., as it is a certainty that they were absent 
 from many in the 3rd and 4th centuries. 
 
 The title mpds ’Edeolous gives us surer ground, 
 and yet not quite sure. It is universally found 
 in all MSS and versions, and all Church tradition 
 has connected the Epistle with Ephesus. But 
 Tertullian tells us that some heretics, and notably 
 Marcion (adv. Mare. v. 11 and 17, ef. Epiphanius, 
 Her, 42), had a different title ‘ad Laodicenos’ ; now 
 this may have been a mere critical conjecture b 
 Marcion, based upon the obvious likeness of this 
 Ep. with the Col, and the indication of Col 4° that 
 there was a letter written to Laodicea at this time. 
 If so, this at least implies the absence of év Edéow 
 from the copies: but it is equally probable that 
 the alternative title is a real fact, and that the Ep. 
 was originally sent to Laodicea. 
 
 Tradition, then, points to two Churches of Pro- 
 consular Asia, Ephesus and Laodicea, and internal 
 evidence is consistent with this. As long as it was 
 vegarded as addressed only to Ephesus, the lan- 
 guage of 14° 3742 and the absence of any special 
 ref. to the circumstances of a Church in which St. 
 Paul had spent three years, and on which he had 
 been on the intimate terms implied in Ac 20, was a 
 stumbling-block ; but this difficulty entirely dis- 
 appears on the theory that the letter was intended 
 for several Churches. 
 
 That Ephesus was one of these Churches is prac- 
 tically certain ; the unanimity of Church tradition 
 in its favour is conclusive itself; but besides this 
 the points of similarity with the speech to the 
 elders of Ephesus (Ac 20! ramewvoppoctvn (=4"), 20? 
 the stress on xdpis; v.72 Seoud (ef. 31), v.27 BovdAty 
 
 
 
 (cf. 12), v.?8 mepserouhoaro (cf. 114), momalvew (cf 
 mouevas 41), kAnpovoulay (cf. 134: 18)); with the Gospel 
 of St. John and esp. with the Prologue (see above), 
 with the letter of Ignatius to the Eph. (see above) ; 
 in a less marked degree with 1 Ti (e.g. 25-7 44 the 
 stress on the universality of creation and redemp- 
 tion ; 31° 57 the appeal to the angels as witnessing 
 the Christian life; 3° the treatment of the family 
 as a type of the Church),—all strongly confirm the 
 tradition. 
 
 It may be added that the mention of Tychicua 
 (cf. Ac 204, 2 Ti 41"), the ref. to the power of the 
 spirits of evil (cf Ac 20%), the stress on the unity 
 of Baptism (cf. Ac 20'*’), all fall in with the same 
 tradition, though too indeterminate in themselves 
 to prove the destination. 
 
 The address to Laodicea is borne out by Col 2! 
 413-16, which witness to St. Paul’s anxiety for 
 Laodicea at this moment, and show that he was 
 writing at the same time a general letter—not 
 necessarily addressed to Laodicea only, but one 
 which could be obtained from Laodicea (ry ék 
 Aaocd:xelas), and is quite consistent with Rev 34%, 
 where the Church at Laodicea is rebuked for luke- 
 warmmness. 
 
 Nor is there any reason why the destination 
 should be limited to these two Churches. Col 44 
 suggests that it may also have been sent to Hiera- 
 polis, while the analogy of Rev 1-3 and 1 PL 
 might lead us to infer that it was intended for all 
 the Gentile converts of Proconsular Asia (cf. Ac 
 19"), 
 
 iv. PLACE OF COMPOSITION.—St. Paul was at the 
 time a prisoner, suffering imprisonment on behalf 
 of the Gentiles (3? 4"), and an imprisonment lasting 
 long enough to have caused anxiety to his converts 
 (3'8 6”), Hence the place must be either Caesarea 
 (Ac 2477) or Rome (26. 28°). As between these 
 two places this Ep. gives no guidance, save that 
 the points of similarity with the Pastoral Epp. 
 (cf. Salmon, Jntrod. cap. xx.) indicate the later date, 
 and the tone of imperialism (see below) suits Rome 
 better. But owing to the great similarity with 
 Col we may certainly use any indications of date 
 found there; and this is linked on by the personal 
 allusions in it to the Ep. to Philemon (Gol Aoi ar 
 with Philem ”), so that indications there teo 
 may be used; again, the allusions to the im- 
 prisonment in Ph 1" make it probable that 
 that too was written at the same place. Some 
 commentators would place Ph at Cesarea, the 
 other three at Rome, but more probably all are to 
 be placed at Rome; for the phrase é& éhw rg 
 mparwply (Ph 1%), though app icable to Herod’s 
 preetorium at Czesarea (Ac 23%), is equally applic- 
 able to the pretorian soldiers or the Suprema 
 Court at Rome; the phrase ol éx ris Kaicapos 
 oixias (Ph 42) is more applicable to Rome; the 
 state of feeling between Jewish and Gentile 
 Christians as reflected in Ph 15” corresponds 
 well with that implied in the Ep. to the Romans: 
 the freedom for preaching which St. Paul enjoys, 
 and the importance which he attaches to it 
 (Ph 12, Eph 6%), are more natural at Rome: the 
 expectation of a speedy release (Philem *) points 
 the same way ; and, although Caesarea was nearer 
 for a runaway slave from Colosse, yet there were 
 more frequent opportunities of communication 
 with Rome, a greater chance of hiding, and an 
 
 easier access there toSt. Paul. Finally, the points — i; 
 of contact between all four Epp. and the Pastoral | 
 
 Epp. in phraseology, in stress on organized church 
 and family life, an 
 later date. We place, then, all four Epp. at Rome. 
 Of their relative order it is again impossible to 
 speak with certainty; but most probably (se 
 Lightfoot, Phil. ; Hort, Rom. and Eph. 
 
 but see on the other side, Ramsay, St. Paul the = } 
 
 in Christology, all favour the “a 
 
 . 1023 Be 
 
 
 

 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 
 
 718 
 
 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 
 
 Traveller, p. 357) the Ep. to the Phil. stands by 
 itself comparatively early in the Rom. imprison- 
 ment; for it offers more er of comparison in 
 phraseology and doctrinal discussion with the 
 earlier group; there is more discussion of the 
 doctrine of justification by faith, more protest 
 against the Judaizing Christians. On the other 
 hand, Eph Col Philem form a group by them- 
 selves, written comparatively late in the imprison- 
 ment—with fewer points of contact with the 
 earlier group, and with more agreement with the 
 Pastoral Epistles. They may, then, be all placed 
 about A.D. 63 at Rome. 
 
 By that time St. Paul had been in prison for 
 three or four years. That imprisonment had been 
 incurred at Jerus. just at the moment when he 
 had taken up the alms of the Gentile Churches to 
 the Churches of Juda; his anxiety about his 
 reception by the brethren there (Ro 15**) had been 
 removed ; he had been welcomed, misunderstand- 
 ings had been smoothed over, he had shown his 
 willingness to work with them (Ac 21/76), The 
 unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians was 
 assured. But an outburst of Jewish fanaticism, 
 on the false charge that he had taken a Gentile 
 Christian, an Ephesian, within the centre wall of 
 partition in the temple precincts (cf. Eph 2 7d 
 peobroxov), had led to his arrest ; he had been kept 
 two years at Caesarea, thence on his own appeal 
 had been transferred to Rome; on his way he had 
 been marvellously protected from danger of ship- 
 wreck; he had been welcomed once more by the 
 brethren at Rome on his arrival (Ac 28), and 
 since he had been in prison he had had freedom 
 to preach and wonderful success in preaching. 
 Naturally, then, one of his main thoughts was of 
 ages overruling power, which could bring good 
 out of apparent evil, and turn even imprisonment 
 into the means of furthering His work (Ph 1, 
 Eph 3"). 
 
 purehar. he was now in Rome, the great centre 
 of the empire, which he had for many years longed 
 to see. He would look, with the eyes of a pro- 
 vincial, upon the centre of the world’s administra- 
 tion ; he would see a power, small at first, confined 
 to one Italian town, growing by steady growth 
 till it launched itself forth on the whole world, 
 brought all nations under its subjection, opened 
 its franchise freely to all, and allowed them to 
 enjoy its privileges, yet still requiring its pre- 
 torian soldiers ready to defend its emperor or to 
 move out against any enemies that might attack 
 its borders; while as ultimate source of authority 
 stood the one man, the Emperor, the head, the 
 ruler, the court of appeal for the oppressed, set 
 forward more and more even as an object of 
 worship. At the same time St. Paul would hear 
 more of the teaching of Seneca and of the great 
 Stoic conception of a universal city, of which all 
 men were citizens, and in which each true citizen 
 rose above the limitations of place and of environ- 
 ment, and became independent, self - centred 
 (adrdpxns), the master and not the slave of circum- 
 stances (cf. Lightfoot, Phil., ‘St. Paul and 
 Seneca’). 
 
 Naturally, then, his thoughts would dwell upon 
 the new brotherhood of the Church, ‘the kingdom 
 of Christ and of God’ (Eph 55), ‘the citizenship in 
 the heavens’ (Ph 177 3”, TEph 2), That, too, had 
 
 wn out of a small centre, and by a longer growth, 
 ase it had begun before the foundation of the 
 world; that, too, had at the right moment 
 launched itself on the world, and all divisions of 
 race had been broken down in it ; that, too, centred 
 in its king, who had won his triumphs and given 
 
 * Von Soden, while rejecting the Pauline authorship of Eph, 
 hesitates between Rome and Asia Minor as the place of its 
 eemposition. 
 
 gifts to his foilowers (48, cf. 2 Co 24), who him- 
 self was the source of peace (Eph 24), who was the 
 head of the body; that, too, had its enemies to 
 conquer, and therefore needed its soldiers ever pre- 
 pared to fight (Eph 2? 6!°-1’) ; but its citizenship was 
 in heaven, its enemies were spiritual, the scene of 
 battle was in the heavenly places; its aim was wider, 
 for it had once more to bring to a unity (dvaxe- 
 paradoacba, ‘recapitulare,’ Iren. adv. Her. iii. 18 ; 
 ‘instaurare,’ Vulg.; ‘ad initium reciprocare, Tertul. 
 Monog. ¢. 5) the whole universe ; as it was founded 
 on all past history, so its rule was to embrace all 
 future time (Eph 3”). Dead as well as living were 
 its subjects (4° (?)). 
 
 Such thoughts might of themselves almost ac- 
 count for the genesis of this Ep.; but a new turn 
 was given to them by the arrival of Epaphras from 
 Colosse. He brought news of the development of 
 teaching there tending to degrade the dignity of 
 Christ, to substitute the worship of angels, to take 
 low views of the material world, to lay an undue 
 stress upon knowledge as the one method of access 
 to Christ. At the same time he brought news of 
 the neighbouring Churches of Proconsular Asia ; 
 their faith was sound, their love strong; but they 
 were disheartened by the apostle’s imprisonment, 
 and, as in all Churches in Gentile cities, there was 
 the danger lest the surrounding heathenism should 
 draw them back, lest ‘empty arguments’ (xévox 
 Abyor, Eph 5%) should lead them to treat immorality 
 peas and indifferently; and, as in all mixed 
 Churches of Jews and Gentiles, there was the 
 danger lest racial jealousy should destroy unity. 
 With the special danger at Colosse, St. Paul dealt 
 in the Ep. to the Col; then he turned to the wider 
 condition of the Asiatic Churches, with his thoughts 
 perhaps mainly fixed on Ephesus, his favourite 
 abode, the centre of Gentile Christendom in that 
 neighbourhood. No longer associating Timothy 
 with him (contrast Col 1}, Ph 1), but speaking 
 only in his own name, he writes what is rather an 
 encyclical treatise, a Cath. Ep., than a mere letter 
 (ef. Ro and 1 P). Dropping all tone of controversy, 
 and with only side allusions to false teaching, he 
 tries to win them to a higher standard by a picture 
 of the ideal Church which had been growing in his 
 mind. He had done something of the kind to the 
 Romans before; but that was an elaborate argu- 
 ment trying to convince them that all needed re- 
 demption, and that it had been brought to all by 
 the power of Christ. Thisisastatement that the re- 
 demption has come, and that it has come—for here he 
 is writing to Orientals—as part of a divine wisdom, 
 and leading men to a fuller knowledge (érlyvwors, 
 ef. 1 Co 1% adrois 5é rots xAnrois, "Iovdalous re kal 
 “EAAnot, Xpicrdv Ocob divayuy [the theme of Romans] 
 kal Qc00 coplay [the theme of Ephesians]). He is 
 anxious that they too (kal vuets, ‘you ip the recesses 
 of Provincial Asia as well as the brethren at, Rome,’ 
 Hort) should know what is happening in his im- 
 
 risonment, that it is bringing fresh glory to the 
 Pentile Christians (3!°); they need not be out of 
 heart, for God is watching his fortunes with that 
 same overruling power which has ordered all his- 
 iG He it was—thanks be to Him—who eter- 
 nally planned our redemption ; who chose the Jews 
 for special privileges and promises; who at the 
 right moment revealed His Son and broke down 
 the division between Jew and Gentile; who has 
 now drawn both Jew and Gentile into one body ; 
 who raised Christ and made Him Head of the 
 Church; who enabled individuals to do good 
 works; who is now building up His Church and 
 watching over His apostle. Therefore, you must 
 
 lift up your hearts and minds; you must keep the 
 unity which He has given ; you must not be drawn 
 back into the old impure aimless life ; you must 
 build up family life; and you must remember that 
 
 
 
720 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 
 
 round about you, as about the Jews of old or about 
 the Rom. Empire now, there are enemies, spiritual 
 enemies ; you must be ready both for defence and 
 for attack, for you have to fight God’s battles, and 
 to represent His cause and to illustrate His wisdom 
 in the eyes of the angels. Peace, Love, and Faith: 
 these are the graces which I ask for you. 
 
 Such was the substance of the letter: whether 
 St. Paul inserted any address must be uncertain. 
 Either he inserted ¢v ’E¢écy, but as Tychicus was 
 intended to leave it at other Churches too, other 
 names were inserted by these Churches in their 
 own copies, or more probably a blank was left from 
 the first that Tychicus might fillit up with the 
 name of each Church to which he read the letter ; 
 possibly, again, several copies may have been made 
 at Rome for the different Churches, and carried 
 by Tychicus. It is a legacy of peace left to the 
 Church by Paul the aged, ‘das Testament des 
 greisen Apostels’ (Jiilicher) ; ‘one of the divinest 
 compositions of man’ (Coleridge, Table Talk) ; von- 
 pdrow peor) 7 eriatohh UWyrGv Kal doyudrwr(S. Chrys. 
 Comm.); truth expressed ‘sub specie gratiarum 
 actionis’ (Theod. Mops. on 1%). ‘Though the 
 vehement moods of the earlier contests have sub- 
 sided, many parts of the Ep. glow with a steady 
 white heat’ (Hort, p. 153). It is a letter rising at 
 times to the level of a poem, ‘the Christian’s 68th 
 Psalm’ * (Dr. Kay) ; ‘ipso verborum tenore et quasi 
 rhythmo canticum imitatur’ (Bengel on 2!18) ; 
 ‘der ganze erste Haupttheil (1-3) hat liturg- 
 ischen Charakter und erscheint in seinen Héhe- 
 punkten wie einer jener tyvo durch welche nach 
 Col 31°, Eph 5!%, die Christen sich belehren 
 sollen’ (Von Soden). When St. Paul wrote this 
 letter, he was, as at Philippi, singing hymns in 
 prison. 
 
 v. DOCTRINAL IMPORTANCE. —The doctrines 
 implied in the whole group of the Epp. of the 
 Captivity are well analyzed, and their relation to 
 that of the previous Epp. drawn out, in B. Weiss, 
 Bibl. Theol. part iii. § iii. Those which are most 
 prominent in this particular Ep. are— 
 
 (a) The Universal Fatherhood of God (rartp ap- 
 
 lied to God eight times; in Ro only four times). 
 
 ile the unity of God’s nature is the starting- 
 point of the whole argument (4°), yet He is 
 represented as the Father of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ (15), t.e. there is within the Godhead a 
 relationship of Father and Son, there is a giving 
 forth of life and love (15 r& jyarnuévy), there is a 
 social bond, so that every community, whether of 
 angels or of men, is named after and reflects the 
 fatherhood of God (3° warpid here only in St. 
 Paul). He is in the widest and most absolute 
 sense ‘the Father’ (2!8 314 5% 6%); the Father of 
 the glory manifested in men (1!”); the Father 
 of all (4°); the Father of us Christians (1°). 
 
 (6) The Pre-existence of Christ —and this not 
 merely in relation to God, as elsewhere, but in 
 relation to man, so that before the foundation of 
 the world He contains within Himself ideal 
 Humanity (1‘), and men have only to grow up 
 into that which He already is (4! 15): and also 
 in relation to the whole universe which centred 
 originally in Him, and is re-centred in Him by the 
 Incarnation (1 dvaxedarawoacba, 212 418 dryd- 
 Aorpiwpévor). 
 
 (c) The Dignity o Human Nature, as redeemed 
 within the Church, lifted above this earthly sphere 
 \nto the heavenlies, showing forth the attributes of 
 God Himself to the world, and becoming a link for 
 the whole creation (17% 25 318-19 48 [rs tds rod Geod] 
 482 5! uipnral Tod Ocod, 64 618). 
 
 (d) The Continuity of all History in the past 
 
 * Ps 6818 is quoted in 48; there are other poms remini- 
 scences of it; eg. cf. Ps 5 with 519; 10 with 118; 17 with 223; 
 ™ nd 56 with 18; 27 and 35 with 321.22; % and 36 with 316 610, 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 — 
 
 and in the future. Each xa:pés is regarded as con- 
 tributing its quota to the whole, until the whole 
 complement of xapof shall be complete (1 ré 
 wipwua Tav Kkatpov (cf. Mk 15, Lk 2174] and 3). 
 
 (e) The Essential Unity of the Church, as based 
 upon the unity of God, as an ideal already realized, 
 yet needing to be secured (4°), and in a sense still 
 future (4"5); as practically begun by bs he (45), 
 and as secured by the gift of an organized ministry, 
 whose purpose is to fit all Christians for the work 
 of service (pds Karapricudv Tov dyluv els Epyor dia- 
 xovlas), to build up Church life until the complete 
 unity is secured (41% 18), 
 
 (f) The Insistence on Wisdom and Knowledge, 
 as an integral and necessary part of the true re- 
 ligious life. This truth, which St. Paul had first 
 proclaimed in the centre of Gr. philosophy at 
 Athens (Ac 17%, cf. Hort, Hulsean Lect. p. 62), is 
 here more explicitly laid down in an epistle to 
 Gentiles. The value of this insistence is all the 
 more striking as addressed to converts who were in- 
 clined to give an apparently undue value to know- 
 ledge. The remedy for a little knowledge is more 
 knowledge. 
 
 (9) The Consecration of Family Life. Family 
 life is regulated in Col (31841): it is dignified in 
 1 P (28-37) as a means whereby Christians ma 
 hope to attract heathens to the faith; but here it 
 is lifted to a higher level still, as a type and 
 nursery of Church life. 
 
 (h) The Picture of the Christian as a Soldier, 
 and his life as a warfare, which finds its fullest 
 expression here, has had a wonderful influence 
 both on Christian history and on Christian litera- 
 ture, enriching the latter with poems and allegories 
 such as the Psychomachia of Prudentius, and the 
 Pilgrim’s Progress and the Taking of Mansoul 
 by Bunyan, and nerving many a Christian hero 
 and martyr for his task. 
 
 vi. LiTERATURE.—If we may see a literary dependence of 1 P 
 and of the Apoc. upon our Ep., its importance must have been 
 recognized at once, and it must have been at once known in 
 Rome; the reminiscences found in the sub-apos. writers show 
 a knowledge of it at least in Asia Minor and Italy. There is 
 some evidence that it was commented upon by the Gnostics in 
 the 2nd cent. Origen wrote three books upon it, large fragments 
 of which are preserved in Cramer’s Catena, vol. vi. ; probably a 
 much larger part is embodied in Jerome’s Commentary. In 
 the next cent. Ephraem the Syrian, Victorinus the African, 
 Ambrosiaster, St. Chrysostom, and Severianus, and rather later 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Jerome, treated it in 
 their general comm. on St. Paul’s Epp. For an account of 
 these comm. see Lightfoot, Gal. (pp. 217 ff.), and Swete’s ed. of 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia (vol. i. pp. Heaxich For later comm. 
 ef. Meyer’s Comm. (Introd.), or Macpherson, pp. 96-106. 
 
 St. Chrysostom remains still the best comm, for his combina- 
 tion of exegetical, doctrinal, and spiritual power, and for 
 sympathy with the writer's mind and character. He wants 
 exact treatment of exegetical difficulties, and is at times fanci- 
 ful; but he seizes well the whole drift of a e; he never 
 avoids discussing a difficulty ; he has a firm hold on doctrine, 
 and is especially strong in the spiritual application of truth, 
 dwelling on the contrast between virtue and vice; on the 
 strength of the will, on the beauty of the Christian character 
 in contrast to the unnaturalness and impotence of sin. Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia is acute as an exegete, but has less spiritual 
 insight; e.g. he explains all the blessings spoken of in the Ep. as 
 referring to a future life. 
 
 Of mod. comm. Macpherson (Edinr. 1892) is full and useful, 
 but not very stimulating ; Ellicott, Alford, Moule (Camb. Bible), 
 Beet, are all good; Bisho Lignsoct® notes on 11-12 have 
 been published posthumously otes on the Epp. of St. Paul, 
 1895). W. Schmidt in Meyer’s Comm. on NT’, and Von Soden in 
 the Handkommentar zum NT (Freiburg, 1891), are excelent 
 in exegesis. 
 
 For the doctrinal treatment of the Ep., Dale, Lectures on 
 Eph., and Findlay in The Eapos. Bible, are econ ee 
 though both fail to rise to the writer’s conception of the Church. 
 For devotional use, Bernardine of Picquigny, in Lat. or in 
 Eng. (tr. by A. H. Pritchard, 1888), is most useful. The intro- 
 ductory questions are best dealt with by Pfleiderer, phe ee 
 ii. pp. 162-193 ; Von Soden, ubi supra; and Holtzmann, Krit 
 der Epheser- und Kolosser-briefe, Leipzig, 1882, as cee the 
 Pauline authorship: on behalf of it, by Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays ; 
 Hort, Prolegomena to the Ro. and Eph. 1895; A. Robertson in 
 Smith’s DB2; Weiss, Introd. to NT; Zahn, inh 
 
 EPHESUS ("E¢gecos) was the metropolis of ha 
 
 
 

 
 EPHESUS 
 
 
 
 Roman province of Asia (wh. see), and one of the 
 three great cities of the East Mediterranean lands 
 lone with Antioch in Syria and Alexandria in 
 gypt), a rank to which geographical and his- 
 torical causes conspired to raise it. It was 
 situated within 3 miles of the sea, on the river 
 Cayster, which was navigable as far up as the city 
 in the Rom. period. It stood at the entrance to 
 one of the four river valleys that extend upwards 
 and eastwards like long narrow clefts in the high 
 lateau forming the main mass of Asia Minor; 
 ese valleys are separated by chains of moun- 
 tains, which are really prolongations, like fingers, 
 stretching out towards the W. from the main 
 plateau. The roads connecting the western sea, 
 the Aigean, with the central and eastern lands, 
 must necessarily follow the lines of these four 
 valleys ; and near the mouth of each of them stood 
 a Gr. city, in which the importance of the valley 
 was centred. The four valleys are those of the 
 river Caicus with the city Pergamus, of the 
 Hermus with Smyrna, of the Cayster with E., and 
 of the Meander with Miletus. The four cities 
 per a prominent ae in the early history of 
 hristianity in Asia Minor. The shorter courses 
 of the Caicus and Cayster make their valleys un- 
 suited for routes of communication with she far 
 East; and natural circumstances make the road 
 that leads up from the Hermus valley to the plateau 
 too difficult. Hence the route 3 the Meander toits 
 penceion with the Lycus, and thence up the Lycus 
 Laodicea (wh. see) towards Apamea, has been 
 the great road of history, and was one of the chief 
 avenues of intercourse, of commerce, and of advanc- 
 ing civilization and thought under the Rom. Empire. 
 Now E., from the beginning, competed with Miletus 
 as the seaport towards which the trade of that great 
 road was attracted ; for, owing to the configuration 
 of the coast and of the valley, the line from the 
 Lycus down the Meander, and across the moun- 
 tains by a pass only about 600 ft. high to E., is 
 shorter by many miles than the line down the 
 Meander to Miletus. The superior energy and 
 more thoroughly Gr. character of the people of 
 Miletus, combined with their more advantageous 
 harbour, gave them the advantage in earlier times; 
 but under the later Gr. kings, and still more de- 
 cisively under the Roman rule, E. had established 
 itself in undisputed supremacy as the sea-end of the 
 — eastern highway, while the silting up of the 
 geander seems to have been permitted to interfere 
 with the excellence of the harbour of Miletus. 
 Thugs E. became the great commercial centre for 
 the whole country within, i.e. on the Roman side 
 of, Mt. Taurus, as Strabo mentions (p. 641, cf. pp. 
 640, 663). 
 
 On the great line of communication between 
 Rome and the East in general, E. was one of the 
 knots where many side roads converged to feed the 
 main route. From the N. and the S. coasting 
 ships and land roads(Ac 19120117, 1 Ti 18, 2 Ti 42) 
 brought travellers to the city on their way to 
 Rome, or carried away travellers and officials who 
 were going from Rome to other parts of the pro- 
 vince. Thus it was a regulation that the Rom. 
 governors under the empire must land at E.; and 
 the system of roads was such as to make the city 
 the most easily accessible from all quarters of Asia. 
 Hence it was naturally marked out as the centre 
 where St. Paul should station himself in order to 
 affect that great province; and from thence the 
 new religion radiated over the whole of the pro- 
 vince (Ac 19”), partly through the fact that great 
 numbers of the provincials came to E. for various 
 a Ba (e.g. to trade, to see the great Rom. 
 
 estivals and shows, to worship the great goddess, 
 
 ate.), and heard the word, and carried it back to 
 
 their homes, partly through special missions on 
 VOL. 1.—a6 
 
 EPHESUS 72 
 
 ro 
 
 which, doubtless, St. Paul’s helpers, like Timothy 
 and others, were sent by him. Corinth was the 
 next great knot on the way to Rome, and com- 
 munication between E. and Corinth must have 
 been yey frequent. The ship that conveyed St. 
 Paul to Jerus. from Corinth, doubtless a pilgrim 
 ship carrying Jews to Jerus. expressly for the 
 Passover, crossed first to E. (Ac 18"), and thence 
 coasted round Asia Minor, and crossed, doubtless 
 by the W. side of Cyprus, to the Syrian coast ,as 
 in Ac 21°), The same character, as a pilgrim ship, 
 doubtless belonged to the ship by which St. Paul 
 intended to sail from Corinth for the Passover four 
 years later (Ac 20°); on board of such a ship 
 
 ewish fanaticism would have been specially 
 strong, and the conspiracy which was dreaded by 
 St. Paul’s friends would have had every chance of 
 being successful. 
 
 After St. Paul’s work in Asia was ended, 
 Timothy seems to have been stationed in E. for a 
 time (1 Ti 15), with general authority, extendin 
 probably over the whole province, as is implie 
 throughout the first Epistle; and he was sum- 
 moned thence by St. Paul to join him in Rome 
 during his eet imprisonment (2 Ti 4°) ; and John 
 Mark must have been in Asia, perhaps in or 
 at least near E., at that time, as Timothy 
 was charged (44) to bring Mark with him to 
 Rome. <A wide acquaintance of Mark with the 
 Asian Churches is implied in Col 4%, 1 P 5; and 
 on each of the journeys between Rome and Asia 
 which are implied in these passages, he must have 
 passed through Ephesus. The rank of the Ephesian 
 Church in the province is attested further by its 
 being named first in Rev 1 2!. It became the 
 home of St. John in the latter part of the century ; 
 and a few incidents of his residence in E. are pre- 
 served by Eusebius. According to tradition, not 
 merely Timothy and John, but also the Virgin 
 Mary, were buried at Ephesus.* 
 
 The connexion of the Ephesian city harbour with 
 the sea depended on the proper maintenance of the 
 channel of the Cayster; but this was difficult, for 
 the river, which drains a valley of fertile alluvial 
 soil, carried much silt in its water, and deposited 
 this toward its mouth, as the current became weak. 
 According to Strabo (p. 641), an ill-advised engineer- 
 ing scheme under the Pergamenian king Attalus 
 Philadelphus (B.c. 159-138), when a breakwater 
 was built to narrow the entrance from the river, 
 increased the tendency to silt up the mouth of the 
 city harbour; and in A.D. 65 measures had to be 
 taken by the governor of Asia to improve the con- 
 nexion between the harbour and the sea (Tacit. 
 Ann. xvi. 23). Either then or at some other time, 
 an embankment, which can still be seen as one 
 rides down from E. to the sea (see Weber, p. 52), 
 was built along the lower course of the river, to 
 help the action of the stream in sweeping the silt 
 out towards the sea. The harbour of E. was 
 maintained, apparently, under the Rom. Empire; 
 but in later centuries the care and energy needed 
 for so great a task failed, the harbour became a 
 mere marsh, and with it E. necessarily decayed, 
 as its qualifications for being the sea-end of the great 
 highway had ceased. Even in the time of St. Paul, 
 
 * As to the supposed connexion of St. Luke with E., noancient 
 evidence for it exists (but rather only contrary evidence); in 
 Ac there is nothing to suggest personal knowledge of the city 
 on the part of the author ; and the so-called ‘ Tomb of St. Luke’ 
 is the creation of a mere error on the part of Mr. J. T. Wood, 
 who mistook a rude cross, incised in later times on the marble 
 door of an old Gr. polyandrion or family tomb, for a proof of 
 the Christian origin of the monument, imagining that the 
 figure of a bull (a Gr, ornament) which was sculptured on it was 
 the symbol of St. Luke, and completing his delusion oy the 
 false belief that the modern name Ayassaluk (on which see 
 below) was derived from “Ayios Acvzas. Yet from his idea 
 there has been developed a modern legend ; and in recent years 
 
 there has been some attempt to institute a ceremonial at 
 false ‘tomb of St. Luke.’ 
 
722 EPHESUS 
 
 it was somewhat troublesome to ascend the channel 
 to the harbour; and ships which were trading be- 
 tween the N. Aigean ports and Syria, avoided E., 
 unless the exigencies of loading or discharging 
 freight required them to enter the harbour (Ac 20"), 
 
 While the road oP the Cayster valley towards 
 the East was too difficult to be a commercial route, 
 it afforded decidedly the shorter path from E. to 
 Pisidian Antioch and the East in general; and 
  peloaret foot-passengers, to whom precipitous 
 
 escents caused no difficulty, would prefer that 
 road to the longer but more level route b 
 Apamea and Laodicea, The Cayster route leads 
 over higher ground than the other, and does not 
 descend into the low coast valley till it comes nearer 
 E.; and this also would make it preferable in 
 the summer. Hence St. Paul, journeying from 
 Pisidian Antioch to E., preferred the Cayster 
 route, and traversed the higher-lying districts (ra 
 dvwrepixa pépn, Ac 191);* and the statement of Ac 
 on this point is confirmed by Col 2}, which shows 
 that the apostle had never visited Colosse or 
 Laodicea (which were situated on the great high- 
 hed He had doubtless entered on the same path 
 in his second journey, when, after revisiting Derbe, 
 Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, he advanced into 
 Asia, but found himself ‘forbidden of the Holy 
 Ghost to preach the word in Asia’ (Ac 16), 
 
 The lower end of the Cayster valley is divided 
 from the middle valley (called the Caystrian plain) 
 by the projection of the bounding mountain 
 ranges, for Mt. Gallesus on the N. stretches down 
 towards the S., as if trying to reach across the 
 valley to Mt. Messogis (the part of which overlook- 
 ing E. was called Pactyas), and forces the Cayster 
 to wind southward, when it is coming near the sea- 
 level. Below this narrow pass, the valley opens 
 again to form a low marshy plain, raised very 
 little above the sea, from which the hills spring 
 very sharply, as Mt. Coressus, the outermost peak 
 of Pactyas, overhanging the site of E., extends in 
 a long sharp ridge westward towards the sea; and 
 the Cayster turns again sharply to the W. through 
 this 13 miles long plain to the sea. In the open 
 plain, about 5 miles from the sea, on the S. side of 
 the river, stands a little hill, close on the W., above 
 the modern railway station; this hill has always 
 been the religious centre of the valley; below 
 its S.W. slope stood the sacred precinct of the 
 Asian goddess, who was identified by the Greeks 
 with their own Artemis (see DIANA); on the hill 
 Justinian built one of his greatest ecclesiastical 
 foundations,+ the church (whose ruins, projecting 
 out of the hill, can still be traced) dedicated to St. 
 John the Evangelist (6 dy.os Geoddyos, from whom 
 the hill and the little village beside is still called 
 Ayo-solik or Ayas-salik, i.e. Ayo-tholég); and 
 between the two was built a fine mosque, former! 
 one of the most exquisite monuments of late Arab. - 
 Pers. art, now seriously dilapidated (founded prob- 
 ably by one of the Seljuk princes, who reigned 
 and coined money with Lat. inscription t at Ayo- 
 solik). Round this religious centre the earliest 
 and the latest inhabitants have congregated ; 
 whereas, in opposition to the religious foundation, 
 the Gr. colonists built the city of E., at a distance 
 of 1 to 2 miles S.-W., partly on the slope of 
 Coressus, partly on the low ground at its.foot, and 
 
 *In this sentence we speak only on the ‘South Galatian’ 
 theory (Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp. p. 93f., esp. ed. 2 or 
 later editions); those who hold the ‘North Galatian’ view may 
 omit this one sentence. 
 
 t It is briefly described by Procopius, ddijic. v. 1, as equalling 
 in size and magnificence Justinian’s great foundation in Con- 
 stantinople, the Church of the Holy Apostles. Justinian built 
 it in place of an earlier church on the same site, dedicated to St. 
 
 John. 
 t Moneta Jit in theologo. 
 among a find made in the soil, a little to the north of the 
 
 temple, by Mr. Wood. The coins had been buried about 1370. 
 
 Several of these coins were 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 partly on a low isolated hill, called Pion or Prion 
 (about 500 ft.), which rises in the plain. 
 
 The history of E. turns, to a great extent, on 
 the opposition between the Greeks, the party of 
 progress and freedom and maritime enterprise, 
 and the non-Gr. population, centred at the temple, 
 and championed by the priesthood, the party of 
 stagnation and ignorance and Asiatic submission, 
 The Lydian conquest by Croesus for a time en- 
 slaved the city to the temple; the new founda- 
 tion of E. by Lysimachus in B.C. 295 again redressed 
 the balance ;* but the proximity of the temple 
 gaveit always an immense power in the city. The 
 city owed its pre-eminence in the province in part 
 to the temple, for the temple was the greatest and 
 most influential in Asia, and the city boasted of 
 the title ‘warden of the temple of Artemis’ vewxdpos 
 Ths Apréudos, Ac 19%, lit. ‘temple-sweeper,’ in RV 
 ‘temple-keeper,’ in AV ‘worshipper.’ The title 
 ‘Temple-Warden’ is more commonly applied to 
 E., and to many other Asian cities, as warden of a 
 temple of the imperial cultus ; in the time of St. 
 Paul, E. was warden of one such temple, and later 
 she became warden of two temples, and finally 
 of three temples of the imperial religion (éts, pis, 
 vewkdpos); and when the Eph. Neocorate simply is 
 mentioned, that is the sense in which it is ordin- 
 arily to be understood.t But the ref. to the Eph. 
 Neocorate of Artemis in Ac 19° is justified by an 
 inscription of the 2nd cent., in which E. is said to 
 be ‘doubly temple-warden of the Emperors, and 
 warden of Artemis’ (dls vewxdpos roy ZeBacrwv Kar 
 vewxdpos ths ’Apréudos, Wood, Appendia Inscr. 
 vi. 6, p. 50); and coins of the 3rd cent. have the 
 legend ’Edeclwy rpis vewkdpwv Kal ris “Apréudos, ¢.€. 
 ‘tripl temple (of the emperors), and 
 (temple-warden)+ of Artemis.’ The festivals of 
 the goddess were thronged by pilgrims and de- 
 votees from the Cayster valley and from the 
 whole of Asia. The crowds which attended these 
 festivals contributed greatly to the wealth of 
 the city; many trades were mainly dependent 
 on the pilgrims, who required entertainment, food, 
 amusement, victims to sacrifice, offerings to dedi- 
 
 cate, curiosities and images for worship to carry 
 home.§ The order of events during St. Paul’s 
 long residence in E. of 2 years and 3 months 
 (Ac 19% 1, called 3 years by the apostle himself, 
 Ac 20*!, in the usual ancient style of reckoning an 
 intermediate period by the superior round number) 
 
 illustrates in a striking way the relation of the 
 priestly centre to the preaching of Christianity. 
 At first there was no opposition ; for new religions, 
 which were often brought in from the east, had 
 never been found prejudicial to the influence of 
 Artemis and her priests. Then the missionaries 
 were brought into collision with the practisers and 
 votaries of magic; E. was one of the great centres 
 of magical art, and a kind of magic formule, 
 
 * Even under the Delian confederacy it seems clear that the 
 Eph. contribution of 6 to 74 talents was paid only under 
 compulsion (Head, p. 18), and the Gr. spirit was nearly dead. 
 Lysimachus called his new city Arsinoe, after his wife, but this 
 name lasted only a few years. 
 
 + The Eph. Neocorate in the imperial cultus is first mer- © 
 
 tioned on coins of Nero; probably the ref. is to the Augusteum, 
 a temple built in the precinct of Artemis to Romeand Augustus 
 by the city E. (not by the Commune Asi, see AsiA, ASIARCH) 
 before B.c. 6 (Wood, Appendiz, i. 1); Buchner, de Neocoria, 
 p. 38, indeed considers that the reference is to a temple of 
 Claudius, which he supposes to, have been dedicated by the 
 Commune Asice, on account of aid given to the city by the 
 emperor, Malalas, p. 246, ed. Bonn; but there is no evidence 
 that such a temple ever existed. The second imperial neo- 
 corate was granted under Hadrian, and the third under Oara- 
 calla. A decree of the Senate was required to grant this dis- 
 tinction (as Asia was a senatorial province). 
 
 t The phrase rsrpéxis vewxépocs on the later coins refers to this 
 same fact. 
 
 § Artemis Ephesia was worshipped more widely by private 
 persons than any other deity known to Pausanias (iv. 31. 8; cf 
 also Xen. Anab. v. 3. 4). 
 
 
 

 
 EPHESUS 
 
 
 
 called Ephesian Letters (’E¢éow ypdéupara), became 
 famous;* the magicians were naturally soon 
 arrayed in opposition to the religion which freed 
 the human mind from such superstitions; but their 
 discomifiture (Ac 19'-!¥) would not directly and 
 immediately affect the priests and the temple. 
 As time passed and the new religion became more 
 dates it began to affect the worshippers, who 
 
 id not need so many artidles for dedication (dva- 
 Ojpara), and ceased to purchase the small repre- 
 sentations of the goddess in her shrine, which were 
 produced in vast numbers and in various materials— 
 milver, marble, and terra-cotta (see DIANA). Thus 
 several trades were seriously affected, and the 
 associated trades (rods mepl ra Towira epydras, 
 Ac 19), under the leadership of one of their 
 wealthy merchants (who dealt in silver ‘shrines,’ 
 and therefore needed more capital for his business 
 in the precious metal), Demetrius, probably master 
 of the guild for the year,t eager to defend their 
 interests, raised a demonstration against the 
 Christian preachers. It is clear that in the riot 
 the Christians ran serious risk (19*!), and that, 
 even after (and also before) the riot, the passions 
 and superstitions of the vulgar mob, having once 
 been roused against the puritanic tendencies of the 
 Christians, continued to be a serious danger to St. 
 Paul (1 Co 15%? 16°, 2 Co 15), 
 
 The early stages of the riot involve some reference to the topo- 
 , Aged of Ephesus. It is obvious that the inflammatory speech of 
 
 metrius was delivered at a meeting of the associated trades, 
 doubtless held in a building belonging to the guild (1925), The 
 text of the Bezan Codex explicitly states (what obviously must 
 have occurred) that the assembled tradesmen and craftsmen 
 then rushed out into the street (cis +6 &u¢odov), and at last con- 
 gregated in the theatre. The ruins of the theatre are on a large 
 scale; and it has been calculated that the building could hold 
 24,000 people. It was situated on the western slope of Mount 
 Pion, overlooking the city harbour (which is now a marsh), 
 
 It is an interesting and important point that the Asiarchs 
 were friendly to St. Paul, and intervened to save him from 
 adventuring himself in the crowd. They doubtless pointed out 
 to him that his presence would still further enrage the excited 
 crowd ; that if the mob once proceeded to violence, they were 
 more likely to extend their violence to his companions; and 
 that the best course therefore was for St. Paul not to show him- 
 self at the moment. The attitude of the Asiarchs may be taken 
 as a fair indication of the feeling entertained towards St. Paul 
 by the educated and influential class in the city, and also of the 
 attitude of the imperial administration, for they were officials of 
 the province, not of the city; they were part of the Rom. 
 imperial machinery. It is perhaps implied in Ac 1931 that they 
 were present as a body or council in the city: this may be 
 accounted for either by a festival which was in progress about 
 the same time, or by the natural appropriateness of a provincial 
 body or council meeting in the capital of the province. A council 
 of the Asiarchs is probably referred to in an Apamean inscription 
 
 say, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. No. 299). 
 
 In the narrative (Ac 1923-41) allusions occur to the government 
 of E., and also of the whole province of Asia. The Town-Clerk, 
 or ‘Secretary of the City’ (ypax7ebs), appears as an Official of 
 
 at authority ; the assembly of the citizens (éxzAncix) is men- 
 ioned as the highest municipal authority; and the Roman 
 courts (sonventus, ai ayopwios, 1.0. eyopel dizav) and proconsuls 
 are declared to be the final judicial authority in case of any 
 complaint against individuals. The government of the muni- 
 cipality of E., like that of the other great Asian cities, was lodged 
 in the hands of two deliberative bodies, the Senate (@ova%) and 
 the Assembly (izxAncix), and of certain boards of magistrates, 
 notubly the Strategoi (czpacnyo/). All power ultimately resided 
 in the Assembly of the citizens; and in the old free Gr. city- 
 constitution the Assembly had really held the reins of power, and 
 exercised the final control over all the other departments of the 
 
 overnment. But its meetings under the Rom. system tended 
 iS become mere formalities, at which the Bills sent to it by the 
 Senate were merely approved; for the imperial government, 
 which had abolished the powers of the popular assembly in 
 Rome, naturally discouraged popular assemblies in the cities of 
 the empire ; when St. Paul, however, was at E., the Assembly 
 was still, in name at least, the supreme and final authority in 
 the city (Ac 1939), where the last decision lay on matters that 
 dic not properly fall within the cognizance of the Rom. courts and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * Perhaps an example of these Ephesia Grammata occurs on 
 @ coin of the imperial time, as Mr. Head suggests in his Cat. 
 Brit. Mus. (Ionia), sp 70. 
 
 + At E. the guilds of the Woolworkers (Axvépio:), the Sur- 
 veyors (zpouérpas), and the Workmen before the Gate (pyéros 
 mporudiras xpos ra Toresdciys) are mentioned in inscriptions. A 
 list of trade-guilds in the Asian cities is given by Oehler in 
 Eranos Vindobonensis, p. 276f.; ct. Liebenam, Rémisches 
 Vereinswesen, p. 157. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EPHESUS 723 
 
 
 
 officers ; and it is also regularly mentioned in the preamble ta 
 decrees, along with the Senate, as giving validity and authority 
 to decrees which had been prepared by the Senate and sub- 
 mitted to it for its approval.* The Senate (@ova%) in the 
 Asian cities was transformed by gradual steps from the old Gr. 
 form of a body elected annually by the citizens, to the Rom. 
 form of a body filled up by distinguished citizens (esp. all who 
 had held any of the higher magistracies), retaining their seats 
 for life. Concurrently with this change in its constitution, it 
 encroached more and more on the powers of the Assembly. But 
 at the same time another transforming process went on simul- 
 taneously, as the Rom. imperial authority encroached on the 
 municipal privilege of self-administration; and in this trans- 
 formation the Senate was made by slow steps a mere instrument 
 of the Rom. imperial government. 
 
 The Secretary of the city (ypamuarsis ras xéAsws, called also 
 6 'Egeriny ypupemorsis, OF ypopmarsis rod dhuov) Was perhaps 
 the most influential individual in the city. Mr. Hicks well says 
 that ‘as the real vigour of the Assembly declined in the atmos- 
 phere of imperial rule, it was more and more left to the 
 Secretary to arrange the business of the Assembly. Together with 
 the Strategoi he drafted the decrees to be proposed.+ He had the 
 decrees engraved. He took charge of money left to the people 
 of Ephesus.’ Further, it is clear that he acted as a channel of 
 communication between the Rom. provincial administration and 
 the municipality (e.g. in the inscription, Hicks, p. 154) ; and thus, 
 as the Rom. central authority encroached on the municipality, 
 the Secretary became more and more important. These facts 
 explain the part played by this official in Ac 1935-41, an incident 
 which throws a clear light on this obscure subject, and is in 
 
 erfect accord with all that we learn about it from other sources. 
 
 e came forward as the agent of the municipal government, 
 and calmed the mob by a skilful speech; he spoke of the close 
 relation between the city and the temple, and the sacredness of 
 the goddess, as universally acknowledged ; he mentioned, as an 
 obvious and familiar fact, that Pau} and his associates had not 
 been guilty of acts or words disrespectful to the goddess (see 
 CHURCHES, ROBBERS OF); he pointed out that there was an 
 established method of legal procedure, whereby they should 
 seek redress for any injury of which they complained, but that 
 persistence in their riotous conduct was criminal, and likely to 
 call down severe punishment; and then he dismissed the 
 assembly, His recognition of the meeting as an ixzAycia was 
 important: he did so in order to shield it, so far as he could, 
 from Roman censure. 
 
 The Secretary advised the concourse to disperse, and wait 
 until the lawful Ecclesia (so AV, regular assembly RV) should 
 meet, and settle anything further which they wished to bring 
 before it. The old Gr. distinction between regular ordinary 
 meetings on days agreed beforehand (yopsos ixxAnoios, Hicks, 
 No. 481, 1. 340) and extraordinary meetings, specially sum- 
 moned, had been modified by the Rom. government in such a 
 way that permission of the Rom. officials was required before a 
 meeting of the Hcclesia could be legally held; and from this it 
 resulted that no extraordinary Assembly could be summoned 
 except by the Rom. officials themselves, who had the right to 
 call the people together at any time.t Hence this suddenly 
 convened meeting was not legal, and could not carry any busi- 
 ness through ; and, moreover, it might provoke inquiry from the 
 Romans (who were always jealous of the right of free meeting), 
 and even result in punishment (such as the prohibition for a time 
 of all right of holding the Ecclesia) ; for, as the Secretary pointed 
 out, the city could not justify it by pleading any cause for it. 
 
 In the city of E., then, there were three distinct 
 
 owers, which were brought into contact or conflict 
 in the Ist and 2nd cent.: the hierarchy of the 
 temple, the government of the city, and the new 
 religion preached by St. Paul. At first it is clear 
 that there was no opposition on the part of the 
 municipal government to Christianity. The Sec- 
 retary of the city speaks for the government, and 
 points out that the Christians have not been guilty 
 of disrespect in act or word towards the established 
 system, while the rioters have brought the city 
 into danger of reprimand and punishment from 
 the imperial rule. The whole tone is one of 
 superiority to, and almost of contempt for, the 
 superstitious vulgar, together with recognition 
 of the right of St. Paul to preach, so long as he 
 showed proper respect to the laws and institutions 
 of the city. A convinced Christian, who was at 
 the same time a man of affairs, could not have 
 taken a line that was better calculated to put St. 
 Paul in the right and the rioters in the wrong; 
 and we shall probably not err in believing that the 
 general tone of the educated officials and the 
 priests of high rank at this time was one of perfect 
 
 *It is best described by M. Lévy, Revue des Ftudes 
 Grecques, 1895, p. 203 ff. 
 
 + This implies that he sat on the boand of the Strategoi as an 
 assessor (or perhaps as 3, chairman). 
 t Lévy in Revue des Htudes Grecques, 1895, p 216, 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 724 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 
 
 equanimity and general philosophic interest in the 
 preaching of St. Paul, whereas the superstitious 
 and vulgar mob were strongly opposed to him. 
 This state of opinion lasted till near the end of the 
 Ist century. But the violent feelings roused during 
 the persecution of Domitian, combined with the 
 realization on the part of the officials and the 
 higher priesthood that the growing power of 
 Christianity threatened the existing order of 
 things, and would, if successful, sweep it away, 
 led to a union among all the classes which were 
 not opposed to the existing order, t.e. among all 
 who were not Christians. We may confidentl 
 assume, also, that at first Christianity spread ral 
 great rapidity and produced a neglect of the Eph. 
 ritual similar to that which Pliny describes as 
 having existed in Bithynia, until the measures 
 carried out by him in A.D. 112 caused a revival of 
 the pagan worship (Lpist. ad Trajan. 95). A 
 similar revival of paganism in E. about the same 
 riod is attested by ancient documents, as Canon 
 icks was the first to recognize clearly. <A great 
 inscription, dating A.D. 104 (Hicks, No. 481, 
 3 135), contains a series of decrees honouring C. 
 ibius Salutaris, a Rom. citizen resident in E., 
 who had presented to the goddess and the city 
 government a number of statues, images, and 
 moneys, and arranging for the acceptance and use 
 of the gifts and for the institution of a new 
 festival and procession which should unite and 
 bind more closely together the sanctuary and 
 the city of Artemis. From this time onwards 
 the city began to boast more than before of its 
 title of ‘temple-guardian of Artemis’ (vewxédpos 
 "Apréutdos); and the imperial government also 
 allied itself with the religion of Artemis, for under 
 Hadrian imperial silver coins bear the type and 
 legend of DIANA EPHESIA, showing that the 
 vindication of the goddess was accepted as a duty 
 by the emperor as Pontifex Maximus (for Rom. 
 coins could not bear the effigy and title of any 
 but a Rom. deity). This agreement of the imperial 
 overnment, the municipal authorities, the temple- 
 ierarchy, and the superstitious mob of the city, 
 lasted unbroken until Christianity triumphed. It 
 is true that the text of a decree, passed by the 
 Senate and Assembly of E. in A.D. 161, is commonly 
 quoted ‘as an involuntary confession of the decline 
 of the Artemis-worship under the growing influence 
 of the new faith,’ and as an indication that the 
 reaction visible in A.D. 104 had ceased. The text 
 (Hicks, No. 482, p. 145), according to the usually 
 accepted interpretation, states that ‘the Eph. 
 goddess, whose worship had hitherto been uni- 
 versally recognized, was now being dishonoured, 
 not only in her own city (év ry éavrijs marpld 
 ariwarac), but also among peek and barbarians.’ 
 But, as has been urged in Classical Rev. 1893, 
 E 100, it is impossible to accept the idea that a 
 ecree in honour of the goddess had such an ill- 
 omened introduction (for to ancient feeling it was 
 profane and eater and dangerous to use such 
 words) ; and probably there has been a slight error 
 of the engraver, who wrote & once instead of twice, 
 thus reversing the meaning; the true text, then, 
 states that Artemis is honoured in her own city 
 and everywhere (rarplée diariuara).* 
 The temple of Artemis at E. was one of the 
 eatest and most famous architectural works 
 nown to the ancient world. The building which 
 existed when St. Paul lived in E. was not the 
 oldest temple. An earlier temple, containing 
 columns dedicated by Croesus, king of Lydia, B.c. 
 560-539 (fragments of which are now exhibited in 
 the Brit. Mus. containing parts of the king’s 
 dedicatory inscriptions—Hicks, p. 173, No. 518), 
 
 * In his addenda, Canon Hicks also is disposed to recognize an 
 engraver’s blunder 
 
 but not cee completed until about B.c. 400, 
 was burnt to the ground in B.C. 356, on the same 
 night that Alexander the Great was born; and a 
 vast temple, measuring, according to Pliny, 425 ft. 
 by 220,* was built in its place with the help of 
 contributions from the whole of Asia (tota Asia 
 exstruente, Pliny, Nat. Hist. xvi. 40, 213; cf. 
 Hicks, p. 174)—a fact which attests the veneration 
 paid to the goddess by the whole province (Ac 197", 
 see also CIG, No. 2954, and Hicks, p. 144, No. 482, 
 on the reading of which see above). Owing to 
 the marshy soil on which it stood, it required much 
 care and contrivance to lay the foundations firmly 
 (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 95). Possibly, the impres- 
 siveness of this great temple suggested to St. Paul 
 the allegory in 1 Co 3!" (written from E.), and 
 gave point to his words addressed to the Ephesians 
 (27-22); but it is unnecessary to suppose that on 
 each occasion, when he refers to the ideas of 
 foundation or building, as in 1 Ti 3% 6", 2 Ti es 
 Ac 20°, he was thinking of this temple. The site 
 of this temple was discovered by Mr. J. T. Wood 
 in 1870, after many years’ patient and laborious 
 search; but, unfortunately, he has given no 
 sufficient indications as to what remains of the 
 building he found actually in situ, and has left 
 no plan of the site as it was when he uncovered 
 it. He merely gives his own restorations, and his 
 own theories as to what the temple must have been 
 when it was perfect; but his knowledge of Gr. 
 architecture was not so thorough as to make his 
 views trustworthy ; and it is hardly possible now 
 to acquire sufficient knowledge of the facts to form 
 a clear conception of the building. Officials called 
 vewrota: Or veorool were charged ‘to take care of 
 the fabric and repairs of the temple, and to super- 
 intend any additions such as the setting up of 
 inscriptions’ (Hicks, p. 80). 
 
 There can be no doubt that the Temple of 
 Ephesian Artemis was used as a place of deposit for 
 treasure both by the city and by private individuals 
 (as, e.g., by Xenophon, Anab. v. 3.4). This function 
 strengthened the bonds that united the city and 
 the temple. It is uncertain how the treasure 
 deposited in the temple by the city was managed, 
 but, as Canon Hicks eels (p. 82), ‘it is remarkable 
 how little is said in the Ephesian inscriptions about 
 any financial officers.’ The temple and its precinct 
 were inviolable: no arms might be borne within 
 the sacred precinct (implying that in primitive 
 times, when arms were commonly carried, the 
 goddess provided that her worship should be a 
 peaceful influence). The Rom. government, in 
 A.D. 22, recognized the right of asylum that be- 
 longed to the soil of Artemis (Tacit. Ann. iii. 63) ; 
 but the local limits of asylum varied widely at 
 different periods. 
 
 The twelve disciples of the baptism of John whom St. Paul 
 found at E. (Ac 198) had possibly been converted by Apollos 
 during his recent visit; though it is more probable that a 
 small sect of Jews had emigrated to E., as a great centre of 
 commerce and intercourse, soon after the coming of St. John. 
 St. Paul, on his first brief visit, seems to have found the Jews 
 in E. very well disposed towards the new teaching ; and, though 
 a rupture between him and them is recorded (Ac 19%), it is 
 hardly described in such terms as to suggest that it was so 
 serious as those that occurred in Corinth or Thessalonica. The 
 existence of a Jewish colony at E. in B.0. 44 is vouched for by 
 Jos. Ant, xrv. x. 12 (cf. xIv. x. 25, xvi. vi. 2 and 7), when 
 Dolabella granted them religious freedom (oep, from engage- 
 ments inconsistent with proper observance of the Sabbath) and 
 exemption from military service. When Augustus afterwards 
 confirmed the privileges of the Asian Jews, esp. guaranteeing 
 them safe-conduct for transmission of their offerings to Jerus., 
 he doubtless had E. prominent in his mind (Jos. Ant. xvi. vi. 2, 
 cf. Ac. 29 ¢9). Jewish inscriptions at Eph. are published, Hicks, 
 Nos. 676, 677. Some of these Jews appear to have made a 
 practice of exorcism and magic, Ac 191416, like Bar-jesus at 
 Paphos, Ac 136 (see Sceva). Similar practices were engaged in 
 
 by the Jewish settlers at Thyatira (wh. see). 
 
 ® According to Mr. Wood’s measurements the temple itself 
 measured 343 ft. by 164, and the stylobate or basement 418 ft 
 by 239. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 EPHESUS 
 
 
 
 
 
 When St. Paul broke with the Jews, he passed 
 forth beyond the narrower circle which had come 
 within the influence of the synagogue, and ad- 
 
 dressed the entire Eph. population. He was under- 
 stood by the Ephesians to be the teacher of a new 
 school of piloeophy 3 and, agreeably to this view, 
 he lectured daily in the school of Tyrannus (wh. see), 
 ‘ah as other philosophers gave public lectures. 
 
 the Bezan Text there is added the statement 
 that he taught from the 5th to the 10th hour. It 
 is probable that this is correct, showing that St. 
 Paul employed the hours when the building would 
 no longer be in use; for the business in the Asian 
 cities seems to have ended at the 5th hour (one 
 hour before midday).* We may, then, picture 
 Paul’s life in Eph. as spent thus: he wrought 
 ‘night and day’ with his hands, z.e. he started his 
 craft before sunrise and continued at work through 
 the earlier hours of the day (Ac 20%, 1 Co 4% + 
 1 Th 2°); then, after the ordinary day’s work was 
 finished, he began to teach publicly in this build- 
 ing, and expounded his philosophy to all comers 
 freely. These public lectures were, as we might 
 naturally expect, supplemented by teaching in 
 private houses (Ac 20”). 
 
 The name S¢. Paul’s Prison, which is applied to 
 a Gr. tower forming part of the line of fortification 
 along the ridge of Coressus, near its W. end, is 
 purely fanciful. There is no record that St. Paul 
 was imprisoned in E.; and, if he had been im- 
 
 risoned, this tower is not the kind of place where 
 
 e would have been immured. ‘Itis a two-storeyed 
 fort with eight chambers, and the upper storey is 
 reached by an external staircase’ (Wilson, Hand- 
 book, p. 99). There are some important Christian 
 remains in the city, notably the double church 
 near the gymnasium adjoining the theatre. This 
 church is older than the great Basilica of St. John 
 the Evangelist on the hill at Ayo-Solik ; and may 
 well be the very church where the Council was held 
 in A.D. 431.t On the E. side of Mount Pion, over- 
 hanging the road that leads from the temple of 
 Diana to the Magnesian Gate of the city, is a rock- 
 hewn church, close to a cave in which the ‘Seven 
 Sleepers of E.’ were, according to the legend, saved 
 from the Rom. persecution by a slumber of some 
 centuries’ duration. 
 
 The actual foundation of a Christian community 
 in E. may be ascribed to Priscilla and Aquila 
 (wh. see), whom St. Paul left there at his first 
 hurried visit (Ac 18}%), and whom he found there on 
 his return. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—The vast mass of lit. about E. is to a great 
 extent antiquated by recent works. The inscriptions, with 
 the commentaries of Boeckh and Hicks, must form the foun- 
 dation of all methodical study. On the topography, see 
 
 . Weber, Guide du Voyageur a Ephese, Smyrne, 1891 (ex- 
 Setent maps) ; also Sir O. Wilson, Handbook to Asia Minor, etc. 
 eae) 1895 ; on the antiquities, Hicks, Gr. Inscrip. of the 
 
 it. Mus. iii. p. 67 ff.; Menadier, Qua condicione Ephesit 
 ust sint ; Zimmermann, Eph. im erst. christl. Jahrh.; Lévy, in 
 Revue des Etudes Grecques, 1895, p. 203f., and subsequent artt., 
 gives a careful and admirable study of the constitution of the 
 Asian cities ; and Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ch. 
 fi., gives a brief sketch of the same subject. Guhl’s Ephesiaca 
 is not wholly antiquated, and Falkener’s EH. and the Temple 
 
 Diana contains some things to reward study. Wood’s 
 
 ies at E. is almost purely a popular book (except for the 
 appendix of inscriptions, most of which are republished by 
 icks, aig and the scientific account of his discoveries, which 
 doubtless he contemplated, was never published. The sketch of 
 the history, esp. the early history, given by E. Curtius in 
 ‘Beitrige z. Ges. u. Topog. Kleinasiens’ in Abhandl. Akad. 
 Berlin, 1872 (repub. in his Gesam. Abhandl. i, 233-265), is singu- 
 larly charming and instructive. Lightfoot’s ‘ Discoveries illus- 
 trating the Acts of the Apostles’ in Contemp. Rev. May 1878 
 (repub. as app. to his Hssays on Supernat. Rel. p. 291 ff.), is 
 useful : see Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp. pp. 112-156, and 
 
 * See illustrations collected Ezpositor, March 1892, p. 223; 
 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 271. 
 
 + This Epistle was written from Ephesus. 
 
 $ The Council was held in £. (not outside the city) iv sw 
 hyieréry inxdyeig 1H xadovsivn Mepie, as is stated in the Acta. 
 
 St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 267-282. On the coinage, see Head’s 
 excellent Hist. of the Covnage of E. (which unfortunately enda 
 with the Christian era, but may be completed from his ‘ Cata- 
 logue of the Gr. Coins in the Brit. Mus.’ Jonia, pp. 70-116. 
 On the great highway between E. and the East see GQ. Hirsch- 
 feld, ‘ Kelainai-Apameia-Kibotos,’ in Abhandl. Akad., Berlin, 
 1875; Ramsay, Hist. Geog. of As. Min. pp. 35-51. On the sup- 
 posed ‘tomb of St. Luke,’ see Weber, Rylands, and Falkener, in 
 rans. Soc. Bib, Arch. vii. 1881, and Simpson, ibid. vi. p. 323. 
 W. M. Ramsay. 
 EPHLAL (>95x).—A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 
 
 287), See GENEALOGY. 
 
 EPHOD (7i5x, 15x; érwuls Ex, Lv, but é, 
 épovd, Jg and 1S).—In treating of this term, which 
 is apparently used in different meanings, it will be 
 convenient to consider first the passages in which 
 there is least doubt about the signification of the 
 word. 
 
 1. The ‘ephod’ was a priestly garment made of 
 white linen (12), and attached to the body by a 
 girdle (739). An ephod such as this was worn by 
 Samuel as a temple-servant (15 2%), by the 85 
 priests belonging to the sanctuary at Nob, who 
 were slain by Doeg (1 8 22"*), and by David when 
 he danced before the ark (2 6’; ef. 1 Ch 1577), 
 The nature of this priestly garment is not further 
 described ; but it may be assumed to have been a 
 simpler form of the more ornate garment of the 
 same name described in P (Ex 28%: 27! 29> 392-5. 19f., 
 Ly 87) among the vestments peculiar to the High 
 Priest. This more ornate ‘ ephod’ was, in a word, 
 an ornamental kind of waistcoat. It consisted of 
 an oblong piece of richly variegated material (blue, 
 purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, interwoven 
 with gold thread, the ‘work of the designer’), 
 bound round the body under the arms, and reaching 
 down as far (apparently) as the waist. The ephod 
 was supported by two ‘shoulder-pieces,’ 7.e. two 
 flaps or straps attached to it behind, and passing 
 over the shoulders to the front, where they were 
 again fastened to the ephod : on the top of each of 
 these shoulder-pieces was an onyx-stone, engraven 
 with the names of six of the tribes of Israel. Round 
 the body, the ephod was further held in its place 
 by a band (75x77 a¥7, @.e. prob. the ‘ingenious work 
 of the ephod’*), of the same material as the ephod, 
 and woven in one piece with it, by which it was 
 ‘girt’ (Lv 87) round the waist. The ephod was 
 worn over a blue frock, woven entirely of blue, and 
 put on by being drawn over the head, something 
 in the manner of a cassock (but without arms), 
 called the ‘robe (yp) of the ephod.’ The skirt of 
 this robe was adorned with a border of pome- 
 granates in colours, with golden bells between 
 them, the sound of which was to be heard whenever 
 the High Priest was ministering in the Holy Place 
 (Ex 281-35), On the front of the ephod was fastened 
 the jewelled BREAST-PLATE, containing the pocket 
 or pouch in which were put the Urim and 
 Thummim, or sacred lots (Ex 281% 2%, Ly 8§).+ 
 
 2. There is, however, a second group of passages 
 in which ‘ephod’ has been supposed to denote, not 
 a priestly garment, but some kind of idol or image. 
 a. In Jg 8% Gideon is said to have made an 
 ‘ephod’ of the gold ringst taken from the 
 Ishmaelites and Midianites, which he ‘set’— 
 or ‘stood’ (3x, implying location somewhat more 
 definitely than oy; see Gn 30% 43%, and of the 
 
 * According to others, ‘the band of the ephod,’ 147 being 
 
 supposed to be transposed from ¥33, The verb Wn is, how- 
 ever (in connexion with dress), used only of binding on head- 
 
 ear. 
 2 + It is possible that the ephod was of Egyptian origin. At 
 least V. Ancessi (Annales de philos. chrétienne, 1872, pp. 45, 47) 
 gives illustrations from Lepsius, Denkmiéiler, iii. plates 224a, d, 
 274b (cf. 222h), of divine and royal personages having similarly 
 a richly decorated garment round the body, supported by two 
 shoulder-straps, fastened at the top by a gem, and secured round 
 the waist by a girdle. 
 + ‘It in Yai raters naturally only to the ‘gold’ of v.28; the 
 crescents, etc., of v.26» do not seem to be included. 
 
126 EPHOD 
 
 EPHOD 
 
 
 
 ark, 1 S 5%, 2S 6”7)—in Ophrah. That this was an 
 object of idolatrous worship seems plain from the 
 comment of the later historian (v.”’), who states 
 that ‘all Israel went a whoring after it,’ and that 
 ‘it became a snare to Gideon and to his house.’ The 
 amount of gold spent upon this ephod (1700 shekels 
 =about 75 lbs. troy, which would be worth now 
 some £3600) points also to something more than 
 an ornamental vestment for a priest: indeed the 
 ephod appears to be the chief object in the sanc- 
 tuary.* hb. In other passages also the ephod 
 figures as part of the regular equipment of a 
 sanctuary. In Jg 17 1814 17. 18.20, Micah provides 
 for his private shrine in Ephraim a graven and 
 molten image (pesel and massékhah),+ and an ephod 
 and teraphim ; and in Hos 3* the prophet speaks 
 of a time when Israel should be left ‘ without king 
 and prince, without sacrifice and pillar (mazzébah), 
 and without ephod and teraphim.’ The juxta- 
 position of ephod and teraphim in these passages 
 is noticeable. The latter were idols (Gn 31, 
 cf. v.*), apparently of human form (18 191-16), 
 and were used in divination (Ezk 21”! 4), Zec 10; 
 ef. Hab 21°): hence it is reasonable to conclude 
 that the ephod was in some way associated with 
 the teraphim in divination. It does not, however, 
 follow that it was any kind of image: rather, as 
 the teraphim were idols, the ephod will have been 
 something different. c. In 1S 21° [Heb.!°] the 
 sword of Goliath was preserved at Nob as a 
 trophy, wrapped in a mantle ‘behind the 
 ephod,’ which therefore would seem to have been 
 something having a fixed place by the wall, but 
 standing free from it. d. In the Books of Samuel, 
 the ephod is several times mentioned as a means of 
 ascertaining the will of J” ; the verb used in con- 
 nexion with it, when thus employed, is—not ‘put 
 on,’ but—‘ bring near’ (win 1S 1418 LXX,t 239 
 307-7): the priest (whose 
 it) is said to ‘carry’ or ‘ bear’ it (xy; 1S 2% 148-18 
 LXX,§—not ‘ wear’); and Abiathar brings it down 
 with him ‘in his hand’ to David in Keiila (1 S 238). 
 These passages seem to imply that the ‘ephod’ 
 was something moved about or carried, rather 
 than something worn as a garment. e. The 
 derivative 772s—the same word which is used in 
 connexion with the high priest’s ephod in the 
 phrase (Ex 288 395) ‘the band of its attachment ’— 
 is used actually of some part of the metal plating 
 of an idol in Is 30” ‘the silver overlaying (5) of 
 thy graven images, and the gold attachment, or 
 casing (772x), of thy molten images.’ On the 
 strength of these passages, Wellhausen (Hist. 
 130 n.), summarizing the conclusions of Vatke 
 (Bibl. Theol. 1835, pp. 267, 269), writes, ‘Outside 
 the Priestly Code, ephod is the image, ephod bad 
 the priestly garment ’—the term, when used in the 
 latter sense, being thus distinguished by the addi- 
 tion of ‘linen’ (Stade, Kautzsch, Smend, Nowack, 
 Benzinger). 
 
 The places in which ephod bad occurs are 1 § 218 2218, 2 § 614; 
 80 that, taken strictly, the passages in which ephod denotes, upon 
 this view, an image would be Jg 8. 17f., 1 S 228 143 219 236. 9 307, 
 Hos 34 (to which 1S 1418 LXX must naturally be added) ; though 
 Vatke excludes 18 148, and Smend, Kittel, and Budde (‘per- 
 haps’) exclude 1 8 228 (‘to bear the ephod before me’). It may, 
 however, be doubted whether, the connexion being so similar 
 {esp. in the Sam. passages,—though 1S 2%8 is, no doubt, later 
 
 than the rest), the term must not be understood throughout in 
 the same sense. 
 
 
 
 *It is argued (e.g. by Berth. ad loc.) that the money may 
 have been used for defraying the entire cost of establishing the 
 sanctuary; but the expression is distinctly ‘made into an 
 ephod’ ; and set (or stood) is hardly applicable to a movable 
 priestly garment. 
 
 + In reality, it may be, only a pegel: see 1830.31, and cf, 
 Moore, Judges, p. 875 f. 
 
 } ‘Bring hither the ephod. For he bare the ephod at that 
 time before Israel.’ 
 
 § Read also by Klost. in 1K 226 (‘ephod’ for PN Sark’), 
 The same verb is used in 1 § 2218 of the ‘linen’ ephod. 
 
 rivilege it is to possess’ 
 
 The explanation of the passages quoted ia 
 possible, but not certain. (1) The remedies 
 the same term should be used to denote both a 
 
 riestly vestment and an image is not insuperable. 
 
 he ‘ephod’ was essentially a casing round the © 
 body ; and hence the same word might well have 
 denoted the casing of precious metal, which (as 
 was usual in ancient images) was spread over a 
 wooden core (cf. Is 40); the derivative m5y 
 appears actually to be used in this sense in 
 Is 30% (quoted above): and a term denoting 
 pro et the decorated. casing of an image, might 
 easily have come gradually to be used for the 
 entire figure. (2) It is true, s¥3 (to carry or bear) 
 is not elsewhere used of garments, but only of 
 shields, weapons, burdens, ete. : if, however, at the 
 time to which Jg 17f. and 15 refer, the ephod worn 
 by the principal priest at a sanctuary was in an 
 sense a prototype of the later high priest’s ephod, 
 and had a pouch containing the sacred lots (cf. 
 18 14#4, esp. v.41 LXX [Urim and Thummim],— 
 rovided, at least, as seems a natural inference 
 rom what is stated on other similar occasions, and 
 from v.'® LXX 19-6, the ephod may be presumed 
 to have been used in Saul’s inquiry,—and 28°), 
 it might be fairly described as ‘ carried’ or ‘ borne,’ 
 and mentioned (in Jg 17f., Hos 3, for instance) as 
 a prominent and essential part of the priest’s dress, 
 without which the oracle could not be consulted. 
 It is, however, strange that the same term xy} 
 should be used also of the dimen ephods of the 
 
 riests at Nob.* (3) In 1S 21%, as also in 14% 8 
 
 XX, 23° 307, the term does seem to denote 
 something different from what it does in 22%; 
 in 21° the ‘ephod’ is spoken of in terms implying 
 that there was but one at a sanctuary (here Nob) ;t 
 and 14° 18 (LXX) mention one as being, apparently 
 kar’ éfoxyv, in the possession of the pe priest 
 in Israel; whereas 85 priests, belonging to the 
 same sanctuary as the one named in 21°, are said 
 in 2218 to have borne linen ephods. The single 
 ephod may, of course, have been the more elaborate 
 ephod of the high priest (though this would hardly 
 suit well in 21%); but for those who doubt whether 
 the high priest’s dress had yet acquired the ornate 
 character described in P, the way is open for the 
 inference that it was an oracular image. 
 
 On the whole, we can hardly be said to possess 
 the data for deciding this controverted question 
 with confidence. There is, however, a decided 
 probability that, at least in Jg 87, the term 
 ‘ephod’ is used of the gold casing of an oracular 
 image. And if it has this meaning (in addition to 
 that of a priestly linen waistcoat) in one passage, 
 the presumption against its having the same second 
 meaning in other passages is lessened, though, 
 naturally, it is not proved that it has it actually. 
 
 The opinion that 158 denotes a plated image is adopted by 
 Ges. (for Jg 8. 17f., Hos 3); Studer, Comm. on Jud. (for Jg 8 
 only); Stade, Gesch. 466 (for Jg 8.17, 1S 219: with regard to 
 the ‘ephod’ in which the sacred lots were kept, he merely says, 
 p. 471 bottom, that it is disputed whether it was an image, or 
 the priestly vestment); cf. (for Jg 8) Ewald, Alt.3 298n.: 
 generally for these and the other passages named (sometimes 
 with the exception of 1S 23) by Vatke, J.c. (except 1S 143), 
 Wellh. l.c.; Reuss, Gesch. d. Hetl. Schr. AT.81, §§ 102, 139; 
 
 *Smend, Nowack, and Benzinger explain the identity of 
 name by the conjecture that originally the body of the image 
 was dressed in an ‘ ephod’ of linen, which was afterwards replaced 
 by one of precious metal, while the ephod of linen became the 
 priest’s garment, and think consistently that ‘bear the linen 
 ephod’ in 18 2218 is a survival from the time in which the 
 expression was applied, as they consider it still is in 1 $143.18 
 LXX, to carrying the oracular image. LXX omits ‘linen’ in 
 
 | 1S 2218; but this does not seem to be right: as said above 
 
 (No 8), the ephod of 2218 appears (upon grounds independent of 
 the word ‘ linen’) to have denoted something different from the 
 ephod of 148.18 L.XX, 236.9 307, 
 
 + Whether this was the same ephod as that which was brought 
 afterwards from Nob by Abiathar to David (238-9 307), is uncer 
 bers - sr in 236 both MT and LXX have ‘an ephod’ (not ‘ the 
 ephod’). 
 
 
 

 
 EPHOD 
 
 EPHRAIM 724 
 
 
 
 Kuenen, Hibb. Lect. 82 (‘ probably’); Kautzsch in Herzog’s 
 PRE?, xvi. (1885), 229; Budde, Richt. u. Sam. 115f. ; Kittel, 
 Gesch, ii. 174n. ; Smend, AT’ Rel.-Gesch. 41; Nowack, Arch. ii. 
 21f.; Benzinger, Arch. 382; cf. W. R. Smith, OTJC2, 241; 
 G. A. Smith, The XII ie abe 23, 88; Dillm. AT Theol. 
 136, 153. See further Moore, Judges, 232, 879, 881, who adopts 
 the same view without hesitation for Jg 8, and seems to prefer 
 it for some of the other passages, but allows that they do not 
 ‘imperatively’ require it, and that ‘all that can with certainty 
 be gathered from them is that the ephod was a portable object 
 which was employed or manipulated by the priest in consulting 
 the oracle’ (p. 379). It has been opposed by Thenius on 18 2110; 
 Bertheau, Richter 2, 164; Nowack on Hos 34 (in his Comm. of 
 1880); Riehm, HWB, 8.v.; and especially by Konig, Haupt- 
 probleme, 59-63 (who does not, however, appear to maintain 
 more than that the view is not ‘ undoubtedly’ correct). 
 
 _ The etymology of 15x is too uncertain to throw 
 light on the meaning of the word. The Heb. verb 
 35x (Ex 295, Ly 87) seems to be a denominative. 
 Lagarde (Bildung der Nom. 178; Mittheil. iv. 17) 
 derived 75x from the root preserved in the Arab. 
 wafada, to come as an envoy (to a ruler, etc.), 
 supposing that ephod=‘ approach’ was abbreviated 
 for ‘(garment of) approach (sc. to God),’ and 
 comparing Syr. pedtha (which would be another 
 derivative of the same root), a long robe (oft. in 
 Pesh. for 75x). But, this etymology, though 
 ingenious, cannot claim to be more than a con- 
 jecture. In usage, the word was probably felt to 
 enote something closely surrounding or encasing. 
 S. R. DRIVER. 
 
 EPHOD (75x).—Father of Hanniel, Manasseh’s ' 
 
 representative for dividing the land (Nu 34% P). 
 
 EPHPHATHA.—The word spoken by our Lord 
 (acc. to St. Mark, 7%) to a deaf and dumb man 
 prgtt to Him on His return through Decapolis to 
 the Sea of Galilee. It is the Ithpeel (or Ethpa‘al) 
 imperat. of an Aram. verb meaning ‘to open’—then 
 of the prefix being assimilated to the foll.consonant ; 
 but as respects philological details the specialists 
 are not agreed (see Dalman, Gram. des jiidisch- 
 palist. Aramdisch, p. 222n.). The evangelist in- 
 terprets it in Greek iy the 2 pers. sing. 1 aor. pass. 
 impv. ‘ Be (thou) opened.’ the word was used in 
 the Western rites peda (cf. Ambr. de Myst. 3). 
 
 J. H. THAYER. 
 
 EPHRAIM (o712x).—The name of a patriarch and 
 tribe in Israel. E. was the second son of Joseph 
 and Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of 
 On, and was born in Egypt (Gn 415%), He was 
 et tere along with his elder brother Manasseh, 
 by Jacob, who thus gave his favourite son Joseph 
 two tribes among his descendants. At the cere- 
 mony of adoption (Gn 48'*-) Jacob, in spite of 
 Joseph’s resistance, reversed the order of birth, 
 gave E. the precedence over Manasseh, and prophe- 
 sied that the younger should be the greater. In 
 Jacob’s testament (Gn 49) E. and M. are included 
 under the name of Joseph, their future fortunes 
 being conjoined. The tribe of E. is said (Nu 1°) 
 to have, at the Exodus, contributed 40,500 men to 
 the army of Israel, a number reduced, presumably 
 vy war and privations, to 32,500 at the close of the 
 wanderings in the desert (Nu 26%”), The value of 
 these figures may be estimated by the fact that 
 during the same period the warriors of Manasseh 
 increased from 32,200 to 52,700 (Nu 1° 26*). 
 
 Apart from this, however, there is sufficient 
 evidence to show that, in the earliest period of Isr. 
 et in Canaan, the tribe of Joseph, or of 
 Rachel, was still undivided. It embraced not 
 only E. and M., but Benjamin; and therefore we 
 find Shimei the Benjamite regarding himself as a 
 member of the house of Joseph (2819). After 
 Benjamin constituted a separate tribe, E. and M. 
 still remained undistinguished for a considerable 
 time ; they formed together the house of Joseph in 
 the more general sense ; and thiscan alone explain 
 their union for administrative purposes under 
 Solomon (1 K 11%). To what precise period we 
 
 should assign the subdivision of Joseph it is im. 
 possible to discover. All we can say is that it 
 would naturally result from the ever-increasing 
 extent of territory occupied by the tribe, and the 
 emergence of different and conflicting interests in 
 the pepareie regions of it. 
 
 E., like the other tribes of Israel (see ALLIANCE), 
 was far from owing its territory entirely to force 
 of arms (see TRIBE). Can. elements are found in 
 its midst at a comparatively late date (Jos 16%), 
 and Jg 5'4, though very corrupt, may imply that 
 the population was composed to some extent of 
 Amalekites. The earliest settlement was in Mt. 
 Ephraim, which was densely wooded. Hence when 
 a complaint was made to Joshua that the territory 
 assigned was too small for the tribe, he advised 
 them to make clearances, and thus make good the 
 defect (Jos 17!418), From this point E. extended 
 northwards over the wooded hill-country of 
 Samaria to the borders of the plain of Jezreel. 
 The boundary between E. and Manasseh is stated 
 to have been the brook Kanah (Jos 168), but this 
 line of demarcation was not strictly observed. 
 The 8. limit was fixed at the two fortresses of 
 Upper and Nether Beth-horon, on the borders of 
 Benjamin. To the W. of these lay the territory of 
 the Can. town of Gezer, received by Solomon on his 
 marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh (1 K 915-7), 
 
 The Ephraimites were the most powerful tribe 
 in Israel, and their ambition and sense of superiority 
 are continually in evidence in the history. Their 
 later characteristics and conduct are foreshadowed 
 in the Bk. of Jg. Here we find them attacking 
 Gideon for going to war with the Midianites with- 
 out summoning them to his aid; their resentment 
 is allayed only with the greatest difficulty (Jg 818). 
 In the same way they complain against Jephthah, 
 and on this occasion they actually come to blows 
 with their kinsmen, with the most disastrous con- 
 0 cere to themselves (Jg 126). But they not 
 only aspire to leadership in war. Shiloh, the seat: 
 of the ‘house of God’ until the destruction of this 
 sanctuary by the Philistines, is within their borders. 
 Samuel still further adds ‘to the prestige of the 
 tribe from whose midst it was only natural that 
 the kingmaker should arise, thus realizing the 
 idea of monarchy in the land, if not among the 
 people, of Jerubbaal and Abimelech. After Saul’s 
 death E. set up Ishbosheth, and instigated, or at 
 least joined in, the opposition to David and the 
 tribe of Judah (2 S 2°); but after the assassination 
 of their prince they yielded to the force of circum- 
 stances, and gave in their adherence to David. 
 The traditional jealousy of Judah was not, how- 
 ever, allayed. It can hardly be doubted that this 
 had much to do with the initial success of 
 Absalom’s revolt, and it found expression after the 
 failure of the conspiracy in a formal complaint 
 (2S 19%-4), The succession of Rehoboam to the 
 throne furnished a favourable opportunity for a 
 final attempt at obtaining independence. The first 
 intimation of the meditated secession is stated to 
 have come from Shiloh, the ancient headquarters 
 of the priesthood and of the first kiugmaker. The 
 revolt was precipitated by the tyranny of Solomon 
 and Rehoboam, and was consummated under the 
 leadership of Jeroboam, who became the first ruler 
 of the N. kingdom. From that date E. and 
 Judah were irrevocably divided, and the history of 
 the former tribe is merged in that of Israel. The 
 capital, whether Shechem, Tirzah, or Samaria, 
 was always situated in E., and the name of that 
 tribe was conetanly applied, especially by the 
 prophets, to the whole kingdom. See ISRAEL. 
 
 Mount Ephraim occurs repeatedly in AV (Jos 
 1715 19° 207, Jg 2° 377 etc., 32 times in all) as tr. of 
 onex 1, which RV more correctly tr. ‘the hill 
 country of Ephraim.’ It designates the mouniain- 
 
728 EPHRAIM 
 
 ous ridge in Central Palestine, stretching N. to S. 
 from the Great Plain to tke neighbourhood of 
 Jerusalem, occupied by West Manasseh, Ephraim, 
 and Benjamin. It had fruitful land on both slopes, 
 especially the western (see Moore on Jg 3”, Dillm. 
 on Jos 161, and G. A. Smith, HGHL 325, 338). 
 
 LITERATURE.— Moore, Judges, 152, 205, 314 ff. ; Budde, Richt. 
 
 u. Sam. (passim); Kittel, Hist. of Heb. (see Index). 
 J. MILLAR. 
 
 EPHRAIM (’E¢patu).—A town not mentioned in 
 the Synoptic Gospels, nor in any other part of the 
 NT except Jn 1154, In that passage we are told 
 that, in consequence of the plots formed by the 
 rulers of the Jews after the raising of Lazarus, 
 Jesus went from the neighbourhood of Jerus. and 
 Bethany ‘into the country near to the wilderness, 
 into a city called Ephraim, and there he tarried 
 with his disciples.’ The ‘wilderness’ (4 &pnuos) 
 apparently means the grassy mountain lands near 
 Jerus. ; and Josephus (Wars, Iv. ix. 9) mentions a 
 small fort named Ephraim in the mountain district 
 north of Juda, which he couples with Bethel. In 
 2 Ch 13” we have Ephrain (jay) instead of Ephron 
 (j75y) suggested in the Keré and RVm as the cor- 
 rect name of one of the towns taken by Abijah ; 
 and in this verse we again find it coupled with 
 Bethel, if the suggestion be adopted. Lightfoot 
 remarks that, whether the Keré be the right read- 
 ing or not, it shows that such a place existed just 
 in the region where from St. John’s account we 
 should expect it to be. Robinson suggests that 
 it is the same as Ophrah mentioned in 1 § 13”, 
 and: enumerated by Joshua among the cities of 
 Benjamin (Jos 18%). He identifies it with a village 
 now called et-Taiyibeh, situated on a conspicuous 
 conical hill commanding a view over the valley of 
 the Jordan and the Dead Sea (Robinson, i. 444). 
 This site is a very probable one; it is 4 miles N.E. 
 of Bethel, with which Ephraim is coupled both in 
 2 Ch and by Josephus; and it is about 14 miles 
 from Jerusalem. 
 
 Ewald identifies it with the Ephraim in the 
 
 
 
 neighbourhood of which Absalom’s sheep farm was’ 
 
 situated (2 S 13°); but the Ephraim there referred 
 to is differently spelled, beginning with x, whereas 
 Ephraim of Benjamin begins with y. If Ewald is 
 right in accepting as genuine the words which the 
 LXX puts in the watchman’s mouth in 2 § 13%, 
 and in interpreting them as referring to Beth-horon, 
 this would in reality put a further difficulty in the 
 way of the identification which he proposes; for 
 this would indicate a site N.W. of Jerus., whereas 
 et-Taiyibeh lies N.E. of the capital, and the 
 neighbourhood of Bethel seems to show that 
 Ephraim of Benjamin must have been in the same 
 locality. Jerome describes it as being ‘In tribu 
 Juda, villa pregrandis, Ephrea nomine, contra 
 septentrionem in vicesimo ab Alia milliario.’ 
 LITERATURE.—Robinson, BRP i, 444-447 ; Guérin, Judée, iii. 
 45-51; Ewald, HJ, Eng. tr. iii. 172; Schiirer, HJP 1. i. 246; 
 
 PEF St, 1886, p. 57; Andrews, Life of Our Lord, 409-411; 
 Smith, HGHL 352; Driver, Sam. 233. J. H. KENNEDY. 
 
 EPHRAIM, FOREST OF (7x 71y:).—The scene 
 of the battle between the forces of David and the 
 followers of Absalom (2 8 18°). As ‘ the city’ (18°) 
 out of which David was to succour Joab, if needed, 
 was Mahanaim (1777), the battle must have been 
 fought on the other side of a plain from that city 
 (18%). Though the site of Mahanaim has not been 
 certainly determined, it must have been in Gilead 
 (see MAHANAIM). ‘The most probable site is Mukh- 
 nah on the eastern side of the circular plain ‘El-Bu- 
 keia.’ Instead of "E¢pdiu of LXX, Luc. has Madway 
 
 =on>. This is accepted by Klosterm., and Budde 
 (In Haupt’s O7) remarks that Mahanaim ‘ would be 
 good, but is perhaps a guess.’ ov=x is ‘ unquestion- 
 ably wrong’ and could well be dispensed with, but 
 
 
 
 EPICUREANS 
 
 can hardly have originated ‘out of nothing.’ It 
 has been suggested that the ‘ F. of E.’ got its name 
 from the battle recorded Jg 121%. It is more prob. 
 that it was from a settlement of Ephraimites on 
 the east of Jordan, an attempt to have a lot there 
 as well as Manasseh, for the Ephraimites were from 
 the first dissatisfied with their portion (Jos 17'*#*). 
 To this the obscure words of Jg 124 may refer. See 
 Smith, HGHL p. 335 n.3. A. HENDERSON. 
 
 EPHRAIM, GATE OF.—See JERUSALEM. 
 
 EPHRATHAH (any, LXX ’E¢padd, AV wrongly 
 Ephratah) in Ps 132° is prob. not an ancient name 
 of Bethlehem, but means the territory bordering on 
 Judah and Benjamin, in which lay Kiriath-jearim, 
 where the ark rested for a time, and where it is 
 represented as being ‘heard of,’ found ‘in the field 
 of Jaar.’ So Ges., Del., and see RVm. 2. A place 
 near Bethel where Rachel died and was buried, 
 Gn 35” 487 (in both of which passages ‘the same 
 is Bethlehem’ isa gloss). 3. A name of Bethlehem, 
 Ru 44, Mic 5%. 4. The wife of Caleb (1 Ch 25 44, 
 abbrev. in 1 Ch 2 to Ephrath). See CALEB. 
 
 W. T. DAVISON. 
 
 EPHRATHITE (‘n5x).—1. A native of Beth- 
 lehem (Ru 1’). 2, An Ephraimite (Jg 124,18 1} 
 [cf. Driver, ad loc., and see art, SAMUEL], 1 K 11%). 
 
 EPHRON (ji75y).—The son of Zohar the Hittite, 
 from whom Abraham purchased the field or plot of 
 ground over-against Mamre, in which was the cave 
 of Machpelah (Gn 23). The purchase is described 
 with great particularity; and the transactions 
 between Ephron and Abraham are conducted with 
 an elaborate courtesy characteristic of Oriental 
 proceedings. Ephron received 400 shekels’ weight 
 of silver (23!5): coined money apparently did not 
 exist at that time. If we compare the sale of the 
 site with other instances (Gn 33”, 1 K 16%), Ephron 
 seems to have made a good bargain. 2 
 
 The presence of Hittites in Palestine in the 
 days of Abraham is noticeable. It is possible that 
 Ephron belonged toadifferent group of Hittites from 
 those who dwelt in Asia Minor. ‘Indeed it seems 
 probable that before either Canaanites or Aram- 
 zeans appeared west of the Euphrates, the Hittites 
 had settled throughout Syria, and the Amorites in 
 Palestine... It is also not without a special 
 allusion to the distant past that the learned 
 Ezekiel (16* “) says of ancient Jerusalem, ‘‘ the 
 Amorite was thy father and thy mother a Hittite”’ 
 (McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and Monuments, vol. 
 i. p. 196). See further under HITTITES. 
 
 H. E. RYLE. 
 
 EPHRON (ji5y), Jos 15°.—A mountain district, 
 containing cities, on the border of Judah, between 
 Nephtoah and Kiriath-jearim. The ridge W. of 
 Bethlehem seems intended. 2. ('Ed¢pwv) 1 Mac 
 546-52, 2 Mac 127”, A strong fortress in the W. part 
 of Bashan between Ashteroth-karnaim and Beth- 
 shean. The site is unknown. 3. See EPHRAIM in 
 preceding col. C. R. CONDER. 
 
 EPICUREANS (’Emxovpetor).—We read in Ac 17" 
 that when St. Paul came to Athens ‘certain of the 
 Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him.’ 
 Whether he discussed their tenets with them is not 
 related, nor what they thought of his; for we need 
 not refer to the two sects the unfavourable criti- 
 cisms, that St. Paul was a babbler and a setter 
 forth of strange gods. : 
 
 Epicurus was born B.C. 342, and spent his pee 
 life in the Ionian Islands. In 307 he domicil 
 himself at Athens, and soon gathered round him 
 a group of friends and pupils who never forsook 
 him. Their meeting-place was a small garden and 
 villa which he owned in the suburbs, and which he 
 
 a, a 
 

 
 a= © 
 
 
 
 
 
 EPICUREANS 
 
 
 
 afterwards bequeathed to the sect or ‘thiasus.’ 
 He died in B.C. 270 of stone, the pain of which he 
 bore with philosophic calmness. 
 
 The moral or ethical theory of Epicurus was 
 suggested by that of his predecessor Aristippus of 
 Cyrene, who formulated the human good or end of 
 life as consisting in the pleasure of each moment. 
 E. adopted pleasure as the end; but insisted that 
 it is the pleasure of an entire life at which we must 
 aim, and taught that this can be secured, not by in- 
 dulging whims and instincts as they momentarily 
 arise in us and solicit us, but only by reconcilin 
 them into a systematic whole, in which each will 
 receive the amount of satisfaction which belongs 
 toeach. Before indulging any instinct, bodily or 
 mental, we are to consider, said Epicurus, what 
 will be the consequences to ourselves and those 
 whose happiness or pleasure is bound up with our 
 own. Thus the general upshot of his teaching is 
 not unlike that of Bishop Butler; and the charge 
 made against him by the ancient Stoics, that he 
 encouraged sloth and sensuality, was unjust. 
 Conybeare and Howson are right when they speak 
 (Life and Letters of St. Paul, ch. x.) ‘of the quiet 
 garden, where E. lived a life of philosophic con- 
 tentment, and taught his disciples that the enjoy- 
 ment of tranquil pleasure was the highest end of 
 human existence. 
 
 The Stoics also stigmatized E. as an atheist, 
 because he held that the gods live a sublime life of 
 divine calm, as far removed from the passions and 
 hatreds which make men unhappy as from the 
 turmoil of the elements. The contemporaries of 
 E., like the Greek or Italian peasantry of to-day, 
 believed that every clap of thunder, every flash of 
 lightning, every earthquake, was a direct act of a 
 god, who, except in abnormal paroxysms, never 
 acted at all. ¢ a man was blind from birth, the 
 gods were angry with him or his forefathers. If 
 there was a drought, the gods meant to signify 
 their displeasure with someone or other. The gods 
 were perpetually meddling with nature and man, 
 and oftener in a malign than in a loving manner. 
 An instinctive dislike for such peddling views of 
 Providence inclined E. to the philosophy of second- 
 ary causes, which Anaxagoras and Democritus had 
 already broached in an earlier generation ; and he 
 elaborated a philosophy of nature according to 
 which all phenomena, especially the thunder and 
 lightning, in which Zeus was popularly supposed 
 to vent his ire, were referred to the play of atoms 
 moving about in a void space. To this regular 
 action and interaction of atoms were to be ascribed 
 the stars and their movements. Here, again, Epi- 
 cureanism struck at the widespread superstition of 
 astrology, and rendered a great service to humanity. 
 For if a man’s whole life and destiny depended on 
 the position of the stars at his birth, he was not 
 free to mould his own character, but was the slave 
 of alien forces. In opposition to such a degrading 
 and paralyzing fatalism, E. taught that man has 
 a free it, and can make the best of himself. 
 
 A modern writer (Mr. Pater, in his work Marius 
 the Epicurean) has shown how naturally Epicur- 
 eanism, the most humane of ancient creeds, could 
 in the 2nd cent. pass into Christianity. And 
 indeed the two had much in common. Both were 
 opposed to the vulgar mythology of antiquity ; 
 both ascribed to the Deity a lofty immunity and 
 repose from every Jower passion and feeling; both 
 taught the doctrine of free will in opposition to 
 the astrologers; both inculcated kindness and 
 gentleness to man and beast; both frugality and 
 contentment with moderate circumstances. And 
 as Epicureanism, being the offspring of an age 
 when the intense but narrowing patriotism of the 
 ancient city-state was gone by, was capable of 
 being practised under any form of political institu- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EPISTLE 729 
 
 
 
 tions, so the moral system of Christianity was 
 formed in detachment from any specia! set of 
 institutions, and even in defiance of many which, 
 both before and since, have been held essential. 
 
 LITERATURE. — The best short account of Epicureanism 1 
 Wallace’s Hpicureantsm in ‘Chief Ancient Philosophies’(S.P.O.K.). 
 See also his article in Hncyc. Brit.9. Fora fuller treatment of the 
 subject, and for a knowledge of the Greek sources, consult Ritter 
 and Preller’s Historia Philosophie Grace, or Zeller’s Hist. of 
 Gr. aller y; also H. Usener’s Epicurea. Among older works, 
 Gassendi’s De Vita, Moribus et Doctrina Epicuri ; I'he Life of E., 
 by Diogenes Laertius ; the poem of Lucretius in Latin, or as tr. 
 by Munro. Late in the last cent. an entire library of Epicurear 
 writings was found at Herculaneum. Many of these rolls have 
 been deciphered and printed since 1793, when the task of unroll- 
 ing them was first essayed. But many of them are too much 
 charred by the hot lava which overwhelmed the city in a.p. 79 
 to be of much use. Still many writings of E. and of the leading 
 members of his school, which would have been lost except for 
 this famous cataclysm of nature, have been thus preserved 
 
 to us. F. C. CONYBEARE. 
 EPIPHANES.—See ANTIOCHUS Iv. 
 EPIPHI (Emi, 3 Mac 6°8).—See TIME. 
 
 EPISTLE.—1. In OT.—The epistle is so spontan- 
 eous a form of literature that it may be regarded as 
 one of the earlier applications of the art of writing 
 (see WRITING). Letter-writing must, however, 
 have been confined at first to the few; and official 
 rather than private correspondence would be the 
 prevailing type. In OT verbal messages alone 
 appear prior to the Kingdom in Israel, the letter of 
 David to Joab touching Uriah (2 S 11!*) being 
 the first recorded example. Here the message was 
 one which could not have been sent verbally 
 through Uriah; and a similar need for secrecy 
 explains the use of sealed letters by Jezebel in the 
 matter of Naboth (1 K 218%, cf. 2 K 10’, Jehu 
 and the sons of Ahab; also 2 Ch 21!2), The answer 
 in each case was verbal; hence we infer that 
 writing was still the rare exception even in high 
 official matters. Other reasons for resorting to 
 written messages were the desire to be emphatic 
 or peremptory, as in the cases of Benhadad’s letter 
 sent with Naaman to Jehoram of Israel (2 K 55-7), 
 and of Sennacherib’s open letter to Hezekiah (2 K 
 1914, Is 3714, 2 Ch 321”) ; or the wish to be specially 
 courteous, as with the letters and present sent by 
 Merodach-baladan on hearing of Hezekiah’s re- 
 covery from sickness (2 K 20!2=Is39!). So far letters 
 have been chiefly those of kings. Akin to these, 
 in formal or authoritative character, is the letter 
 sent by Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon (Jer 29!), 
 whichalso alludes to similar letters sent by a certain 
 Shemaiah, a false prophet, to Jerusalem in order to 
 undermine Jeremiah’s own position (vv™:*!), From 
 this it would seem fair to infer that the conditions 
 of the Captivity gave a marked stimulus to the use 
 of letters by the Hebrews as a medium for import- 
 ant messages. Certain it is that hereafter we find 
 not only more frequent reference to such corre- 
 spondence, but also a new and more precise ter- 
 minology used to express the notion ‘epistle’ as a 
 specific form of writing. Hitherto the term 
 employed, as in2S, K, (=Is), and even Jer, has 
 been quite vague and general. A letter is simply 
 ‘a, book’ (15D, fiBdAlov, BiBdos), its precise nature 
 being learnt only from the context. But hence- 
 forth there emerge, in Ch, Ezr, Neh, Est, certain 
 specialized terms, the most distinctive coming 
 from foreign tongues. Besides words for a 
 ‘writing’ (3737, 2 Ch 2" sna . . . apna, Est 318-14 
 §10-18 with nna hard by in either case; or 393», 
 2 Ch 21% =~+pagy, as in Dt 104), we find the strange 
 nux of Assyr. (égirtu, so Frd. Delitzsch) or at least 
 Pers. origin (2 Ch 308, Ezr 5°, Neh 27-9 65-17. 19, 
 Est 972, Cf. dyyapyiov, Herod. viii. 98; Xen. 
 Cyrop. viii. 6. 9), and pny3, a Pers. form [Ezr 47*-, 
 where npyan app (v.7) = wpe (vv. 3) =xpays (v.78) : 
 

 
 EPISTLE 
 
 
 
 EPISTLE 
 
 
 
 while Artaxerxes’ xpinp (rescript, v.'”) also=xyny3 
 (v.%)]. The two latter terms are regularly rendered 
 by émicrod\} in the LXX. From all this it seems 
 probable that familiarity with the royal posting 
 system of the Persians (cf. dyyapevew in Me 54) 
 helped to make the letter stand out more clearly to 
 the Jewish mind as a distinct literary type. In the 
 ost-exilic historical books the exact epistolary form 
 is often preserved, including a formal address in 
 certain cases. This is a marked feature in the 
 Bks. of Mac, belonging to the Greek period, where 
 also a closing ‘ Farewell’ occurs, sometimes with the 
 addition of the exact date (e.g. 2 Mac 1177-838 yatpew 
 - + » éppwobe or wyalvere), As yet, however, we 
 lave no models of private correspondence among 
 the Hebrews; so that here, as often, we are 
 dependent upon the light shed backwards by NT. 
 
 2. In NT.—In view of the numbers and influence 
 of the Diaspora, the collateral evidence of non-Heb. 
 analogies now becomes of moment. But the 
 letters of literary men, like Cicero or Seneca, are 
 hardly to our purpose. It is rather to the Egyp. 
 
 apyri, and to the collections of epistles mostly 
 athered upon great Greek names during the Alex- 
 andrine age, that we must look for hints of real 
 value.* The evidence has been well collected by 
 G. A. Deissmann, who, in his Bibelstudien (pp. 
 189-252), reaches the following results. A broad line 
 is to be drawn between the letter and the epistle. 
 The one is essentially a spontaneous product, 
 dominated throughout by the image of the reader, 
 his sympathies and interests, instinct also with the 
 writer’s own soul: it is virtually one half of an 
 imaginary dialogue, the suppressed responses of the 
 other party shaping the course of what is actuall 
 written: it is confidential in the sense that it is 
 meant for particular readers known to the writer. 
 The other has a general aim, addressing all and 
 sundry whom it may concer; it is like a public 
 speech, and looks towards publication. But pub- 
 lication is the very note of literature proper. 
 Hence the letter, as private, differs from the epistle 
 in being a ‘pre-literary’ type of self-expression, akin 
 to adiary. But, like a diary, if meant ultimately 
 for the public eye a letter may, in spite of its 
 original use, be in fact an epistle (e.g. certain letters 
 of Cicero, Seneca, and Pliny). The literary epistle 
 would arise from actual experience of the posthum- 
 ous value placed on a great man’s letters, and might 
 take one of two forms: (1) those written to make 
 or enhance one’s own fame ; (2) those forged under 
 some great name, either for practice, after the 
 fashion of the schools of rhetoric, or to give weight 
 to peepee of some sort. But in any case it 
 will betray care, effort after finish—in a word, art; 
 whereas the letter proper is unstudied, a thing of 
 nature. This being so, letters require an exegesis 
 all their own, one which sets their contents in vital 
 relations with author and readers. Thus only can 
 their proper sense be ascertained. 
 
 These principe have a real bearing on NT epp., 
 and must rank among the tests of authenticity. 
 But certain special features of primitive Christianity 
 modify their application ; and the universal nature 
 of the interests involved makes the line between 
 letter and epistle a fainter one, as we see by placing 
 1 Th alongside an epistle like Romans, or even the 
 encyclical Ephesians. It was, no doubt, by writing 
 letters that St. Paul came to feel an epistle a fit 
 medium of exposition. And it seems that he, 
 partly in virtue of his unique missionary labours, 
 partly as a Jew of Gr.-Rom. culture, was the creator 
 of the NT type of epistle, itself the most character- 
 istic blossom of the New Life in the souls of 
 men, the most notable differentia of NT among 
 sacred books. It is even possible that all other NT 
 
 * A certain proportion of the Alexandrine pseudo-epistles, 
 being Greco-Jewish in or'g‘n, have a special claim to attention. 
 
 
 
 Be 
 is as it may, the relevant data can best be grouped 
 as (a) pre-Pauline, (>) Pauline, (c) post- Pauline. 
 
 (a) PRE-PAULINE EPISTLES.—Letters of instruc 
 tion to the synagogal authorities even outside Pal. 
 were sent by the supreme court of the mother- 
 city as occasion arose (Ac 9? with 225, cf. 287), It 
 was, perhaps, not without some vague sense of this 
 analogy that the Jerus. community, acting through 
 the apostles and the elder brethren (Ac 15%, cf. 
 2 Mac 11+?°), addressed their Gentile brethren of the 
 province Syria- Cilicia touching terms of com- 
 munion. Common use of ‘letters of introduction’ 
 is implied in 2 Co 3! (see Ac 18’, and ef. Ro 161-3 
 as a sample), and in a slightly different sense in 
 1 Co 16%. No doubt, too, foreign synagogues were 
 wont to refer doubtful points to Jerus. and thus 
 elicit written responses, But we cannot view the 
 letter of the Cor. Church to its spiritual father or 
 apostle (1 Co 7, 4%*17 9-12) exactly in this light. 
 Rather it seems a natural result of the unique 
 relation which St. Paul’s personality, at once 
 strong and tender, caused to anew, up between him 
 and his ‘children in the gospel.’ This is the secret 
 of the Pauline letters. 
 
 (6) PAULINE EPISTLES.—There was an impera- 
 tive need for the single Apostle of the Gentiles to 
 multiply his presence, as it were. This he did in 
 
 art by trusted companions, but in part also by 
 lee Doubtless, their exact form would have been 
 other than it is had the current models been other 
 than they were.* But existing literary usages, 
 whether Jewish or Gentile, gave to them no more 
 than Rabbinism gave to his gospel—certain vehicles 
 of thought that lay readiest to use. What his 
 gospel adopted, it transfigured ; and nowhere more 
 strikingly than in the conventionalities of the 
 epistolary form. Address, salutation, final bene- 
 diction, all pulsate with life, and expand at his 
 touch into clauses charged with emotion, every 
 word of which reveals his estimate of some group 
 of souls that were ever in his heart’s prayers. One 
 may well see in 2 Th 3” (cf. 2?) tokens that 
 Thessalonica was not the first Church addressed by 
 St.Paul. Yet it is equally certain that the true cause 
 of his very first letter lay deep in the same spirit 
 as breathes in 1 Th, the essentially ‘pastoral’ 
 instinct. His letters were indeed the life-blood of a 
 noble spirit, ever ready to be poured forth to nourish 
 its spiritual offspring (1 Th 28), Of a temper too 
 ardent for the more studied forms of writing, St. 
 Paul could yet by letter, and so on the spur of occa- 
 sion, concentrate all his wealth of thought, feeling, 
 and maturing experience upon some particular re- 
 ligious situation, and sweep away the difficulty or 
 danger. Such ‘waiting upon Providence’ was the 
 attitude of the apostolic age, which took no thought 
 for a future the next event of which might be the 
 return of Jesus Messiah in heavenly power. In 
 this sense, likewise, the occasional epistle was the 
 vie form of its literature. 
 
 he Pauline letters have a style all their own— 
 though style was far from the writer’s thoughts. 
 It was indeed the man. Hence their enormous 
 value : first, as the data for his journal intime and 
 Life all in one; and next as the immovable critical 
 basis of historical Christianity. Just as certain of 
 these letters articulate a unique personality, mani- 
 fold yet mastered by one absorbing passion, so 
 surely must all theories reckon with what they 
 
 die owe their birth to St. Paul as pioneer. 
 t 
 
 * Renan, relying apparently on Talmudic and mediwval data, 
 asserts that ‘correspondence between synagogues already 
 existed in Judaism ; the envoy charged with such letters was 
 even a dignitary drawn from the synagogues,’ and he implies 
 that doubtful points of doctrine or practice were thus dis- 
 cussed (St. Paul, 228, 229 and n2), But he gives no references 
 Sanday speaks more guardedly, and indeed doubts if ‘the 
 writing of doctrinal epp. would come to the first generation of 
 Christians as a matter of course’ (Bamp. Lect. 835, 844), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 | EPISTLE 
 
 — 
 
 imply as to the origins of Christianity. The 
 reflect the mood of the time and given circle with 
 
 ect vividness of light and shade, ere it fades 
 into the neutral tints of a set narrative. No 
 criticism can ignore them. But neither can 
 Christian theology. This means that they are to 
 be read first of all as letters, and by the canons 
 which govern such areading. Until any reading 
 can be put into relation to both writer and corre- 
 spondents, so far as yet known, it cannot be held 
 real and valid. We must reach the theology, if 
 we reach it truly, through the missionary and man 
 of God. So reached, it is full of qualification, of the 
 ay that marks spirit off from letter. And, 
 most valuable of all, a feeling for the practical 
 reference of Christian truth—the ideal of ‘being,’ 
 even more than ‘knowing’ or even ‘doing’—can 
 never be lacking when these writings are read as 
 letters. To this end their very ordering contributes. 
 For the body of the contents falls into two parts. 
 The prophet—for herein lies their continuity with 
 OT (cf. Jer 29)—carries the soul, on the wings of 
 vision, to a level where the will finds its feet free to 
 run in the ways of God, and life is seen sub specie 
 eternitatis, in the light of God. But then the 
 apostle never fails to depict what this means for 
 daily life, ere he turns the eye once more to the 
 founts of inspiration with a closing Doxology or 
 Benediction. It is in such applications that the 
 actual face-to-face nature of the Pauline letter 
 allows certain self-revelations to be elicited by the 
 . virtual dialogue. Some of these are among our 
 most precious hints towards a theory of biblical 
 inspiration, which by its very recognition of human 
 limitations stands out in contrast to the pagan 
 notion of inspiration as uniform dictation through 
 a peste organ; an idea which soon tainted the 
 ecclesiastical theory from Justin onwards (see 
 Sanday, BL 350ff., cf. 31 ff., 391 ff.). 
 
 Finally, it may be noted, even as regards the 
 growth of thought marked by certain Pauline 
 epistles, that of all literary forms the letter least 
 
 rofesses to exhaust a writer's ideas—the limit 
 
 eing given rather by the reader’s conditions—or 
 commits the writer to his own past. It is, in fact, 
 the ideal form of utterance for a spirit in which 
 great germs are ever being quickened by the touch 
 of practical problems. 
 
 (c) PosT-PAULINE EPISTLES, in a broad sense 
 at least, we may style the other NT epistles (for 
 James, see Sanday, BL 344). Some of them 
 largely partake of the ‘epistle’ in contrast to 
 ‘letter.’ Deissmann, indeed, goes too far when he 
 puts at least half of them into the former class 
 in such a sense as to infer their pseudonymity (pp. 
 242 ff.). But we may group them as ‘letters’ and 
 ‘epistles’ according as they were or were not 
 meant originally for readers more or less known to 
 the writer. Here Hebrews first claims notice ; for, 
 though not actually Pauline, it was most likely 
 suggested by St. Paul’sexample, seeing that Timothy 
 is known to its author (137). Its closing greetings 
 mark it a true letter ; yet its abrupt opening makes 
 it, even more than some Pauline epistles, hover 
 between a letter and a homily. ossibly, the 
 writer does not feel his name weighty enough to 
 prefix in formal fashion (cf. Hp. Barn. 1-8). On 
 the other hand, James has a formal address, but no 
 final greetings; which marks it an oe proper, 
 meant for a class, not for given circles personally 
 known to the writer. Otherwise is it with 1 Peter 
 (1}-2 512-14), which is quite on the lines of an epistle 
 like Ro, and involves some familiarity with the 
 readers’ concrete relations. And this seems true 
 
 even of 1 Jn, devoid as it is of the usual marks; 
 for the tone of paternal affection (rexvia) seems 
 best to suit a Church or Churches that knew and 
 revered the writer—probably those addressed out 
 
 EQUAL 731 
 
 
 
 of full knowledge, though in a public or literary 
 fashion, in the Bk. of Rev (2-4). 2 Jn is surely a 
 real letter, in due form, to one such Church by the 
 same apostle, whose cryptic use of 6 mpeoBirepos 
 and éxdexrh xvpla is due to fear of a hostile State 
 (v.14), So is it with 3 Jn (v.}%), a sequel (cf. %) sent 
 to a private friend when access to this Church was 
 cut off by an ambitious official. In all of the above 
 one seems to feel personality going forth in subtle 
 ways to reach its proper audience. This is hardly 
 so with Jude, whose address is quite vague; still 
 less with 2 Peter, which as it stands seems de- 
 pendent on Jude. Nor need this surprise, when its 
 author, in implying anxious study of certain Pauline 
 epistles, can rank them as Scripture (3!5- !*), 
 
 To sum ue While we gain new insight into 
 differences of type among NT epistles by placing 
 them in line with other ancient epistles, yet on re- 
 flexion we see afresh the strange distinctiveness of 
 the former as a whole. It turns on the special 
 nature both of the originating impulse and of the 
 ties binding writer and readers in virtue of their 
 common faith. Outside Judaism, religion meant 
 neither passionate belief nor elevated conduct so 
 much as correct ritual. From this could spring no 
 literature of persuasion, least of all in epistolary 
 form. But given the new motive for the religious 
 letter, its native form could hardly stop short 
 where it began, in the splendidly personal pro- 
 phesyings and exhortations of St. Paul the inspired 
 missionary. Even in him new and more settled 
 conditions evoked a new manner ; the sermon gets 
 the upper hand, changing Christian letter into 
 Christian epistle. Of the later, or strictly pastoral] 
 type, 1 Jn seems a true sample. Placed alongside 
 1 Ph, it, or even 1 P, might appear marked off as 
 Deissmann’s ‘artistic epistle’ from his ‘ pre-literary 
 letter.’ But, with all intervening stages supplied 
 in even acknowledged Pauline letters, these cate- 
 gories cannot apply with such rigour as to be 
 synonymous with ‘ Catholic’ and ‘ Pauline’ epistles 
 respectively. Various problems remain, ¢.g. as to 
 the Pauline Pastoral Epp., whose integrity is open 
 to doubt; but flexibility and nice discrimination 
 must here be the order of the day. This is not the 
 place to see how the NT epistles became, first litera- 
 ture, and then canonical literature. But it here 
 falls to note that even the most personal Pauline 
 letters thereby became for the Church pure epistles 
 or theological pamphlets. They were, that is, read 
 for the most part i abstracto, their writer and 
 original readers—and therefore the original sense— 
 alike becoming of little or no moment. 
 
 LireraturE.—Farrar, Messages of the Books (1884), ch. vii.; 
 Sanday, BL 334 ff., 344; and esp. Proleg. zu den bibl. Briefen 
 und Episteln, in G. A. Deissmann’s Bibelstudien, 1895. 
 
 J. V. BARTLET. 
 
 EQUAL.—1. As adj. in the sense of ‘impartial,’ 
 ‘fair’ (=Lat. e@quus), Ps 17? ‘ Let thine eyes be- 
 hold the things that are equal’ (oy, either the 
 obj. of the vb. hence AV, and RV ‘ Let thine eyes 
 look upon equity ?; or, more probably, an adv. 
 [=n07¥'p2] as Del. and RVm ‘Thine eyes behold 
 with equity’). This meaning of ‘equal’ is else- 
 where in OT found only in Ezk (1875>#s. 29 dis 3317 dis. 20 
 Heb. 72%, lit. ‘is proportioned’ or ‘ adjusted’) in ref. 
 to God’s dealings. In Apocr. it is found 2 Mac 
 13% ‘sware to all equal conditions’ (ra dlkaa, RV 
 ‘to acknowledge al their rights’); and in NT, 
 Col 41 ‘ Masters, give unto your servants that which 
 is just and ane (riv lodryra, RVm ‘ SnUnuty 
 Lightft. ‘equity,’ ‘ fairness’). Tindale in Prol. to 
 Genesis, says ‘that Joseph brought the Egyptians 
 into soch subjection wold seme unto some a very 
 cruel deade, howbeit it was a very equal waye’ ; 
 and in ‘The Obedience of a Christian Man’ (Works, 
 i. 209) he says, ‘it is impossible that a man should 
 be a righteous, an egal, or an indifferent judge in 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 732 ER 
 
 
 
 his own cause—lusts and appetites so blind us.’ 
 Cf. Milton, PL x. 748— 
 ‘As my 
 
 y will 
 Concurred not to my being, it were but right 
 And equal to reduce me to my dust.’ 
 
 2. As subst. in the sense of a contemporary, one 
 of the same generation (=Lat. @qualis), Gal 14 
 ‘And profited in the Jews’ religion above man 
 my equals in mine own nation’ (cuvmAckudrns, R 
 ‘beyond many of mine own age’). In the argt. to 
 Samson Agonistes, Samson is ‘visited by certain 
 friends and equals of his tribe.’ In Ps 553, how- 
 ever, ‘equal’ is one of my own rank, as AVm 
 Heb. *>7yp wy, a man after my valuation, ¢.e. 
 esteemed as I am esteemed. So Elyot, ii. 417, ‘to 
 acquire by the executyng of iustice nat only an 
 opinion of tyrannye amonge the people, and con- 
 poruent haterede, but also malignitie amonge 
 his equalles and superiours.’ 
 
 8. As verb—(1) to ‘come up to,’ ‘match,’ Job 
 2817 9 «The gold and the crystal cannot equal it’; 
 ‘The topaz of Ethiopia shall not equal it’ (72y); 
 and (2) to ‘compare,’ La 2 ‘ What thing shall I 
 liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what 
 shall I equal to thee 2?’ (a)-mywx np). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ER (7y).—1. The eldest son of Judah by his 
 Canaanitish wife, the daughter of Shua. He was 
 married to Tamar, who was apparently also of 
 Canaanite origin. For wickedness, the nature of 
 which is not described, ‘J” slew him’ (Gn 38*7, 
 Nu 26%), 2. A son of ‘Shelah the son of Judah’ 
 {1 Ch 4%). 3, The name of ‘Er the son of Jesus’ 
 appears in the genealogy of our Lord (Lk 3%) in 
 the 7th generation before Zerubbabel, and the 15th 
 after David. H. E. Ry Le. 
 
 ERAN (ry ‘watchful’).—Grandson of Ephraim, 
 Nu 26% P. Patronymic, Eranites, id, 
 
 ERASTUS ("Epacros) occurs three times as the 
 name of a companion of St. Paul. 1. From Ac 
 19% we learn that during St. Paul’s long stay at 
 Ephesus he sent Timothy and E., two of those 
 that ministered unto him (5v0 ray diaxovotvrwy 
 air@), into Macedonia. 2. In Ro 16% E. ‘the 
 treasurer (olxovduos) of the city’ is mentioned 
 among those who send their salutations. His 
 office implies that he was a man of some consider- 
 able importance. 38. In 2 Ti 4” E. is mentioned as 
 having ‘remained in Corinth.’ 
 
 Whether these reff. apply to one, two, or three 
 persons we have no means of conjecturing. It 
 is, however, not probable that the ‘treasurer of 
 the city,’ who held an office which implied resid- 
 ence in one locality, should have been, like the 
 others, an itinerant companion of St. Paul. 
 
 A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 ERECH (39x) was called by the Babylonians and 
 einen Uruk (or Arku), whence Heb. Erech and 
 Arab. Warka. A very ancient city, thought at 
 first to be Edessa or Calirrhoé (Urfah) in the N.W. 
 of Mesopotamia. It is the second in the list of the 
 four towns of Gn 10 (Babel, Erech, Accad, and 
 Calneh), comprising Nimrod’s kingdom in the land 
 of Shinar Paget hee Erech (or Warka) lies half- 
 way between Hillah and Korna, on the left bank of 
 the Euphrates, and W. of the Nile Canal. It is 
 supposed by Fried. Delitzsch that this river must 
 have flowed nearer to the city at the time of Gil- 
 
 ames, as the legend relates that Gilgame’ and 
 
 a-banit washed their hands in the stream 
 
 after having killed, in Erech, the divine bull 
 sent out by the goddess Ishtar. Its orig. name 
 was Unu, Unug, or Unuga, translated in the 
 bilingual texts by subtu* ‘seat’ ‘dwelling.’ 
 
 *The pronunciation of the word seems, from a Greek transcrip- 
 tion, to 
 
 ve been sobthu. 
 
 ERI 
 
 
 
 It was a very important city—the capital, in 
 fact, of the mythical hero-king Gilgames. The 
 ruins found on its site show the remains of eleganu 
 buildings with fluted walls, sometimes decorated 
 with patterns formed with the circular ends of 
 various coloured cones imbedded in mortar, bricks 
 bearing archaic Accad. and Bab. inscriptions, ete. 
 Remains of canals traverse the mass of hillocks 
 (which in some parts are nearly 90 feet high) and 
 the country around the city, showing that it must 
 have been well drained in ancient times. Those 
 portions of the walls of the city which can be 
 traced seem to have been in the form of an irregu- 
 lar circle about 40 feet high, and show that its 
 average circumference was about six miles. The 
 houses of the people are supposed to have extended 
 berone the walls. 
 
 he antiquity of the city is indicated by the 
 non-Semitic (bilingual) version of the creation- 
 story, in which its foundation is attributed to the 
 god Merodach (#P 2nd ser. vi. 107-114). Another 
 and important proof of its antiquity is given in the 
 number of names it bears in the inscriptions. Be- 
 sides its original appellation of Unug, it was called 
 Illag (or Illab) ( WAI v. pl. 41. 15), Namerim 
 (ii. 50. 58; v. 41. 16), Tir-ana ‘the heavenly grove’ 
 (v. 41. 16), Ara-imina ‘the seven districts’ (26. 17), 
 Gipar-imina * ‘ the seven enclosures’ (76. 18), Ki-na- 
 ana ‘the heavenly resting-place’ (1b. 19)—oetical 
 names implying that the city and its surroundings 
 were re aie by the Babylonians as fertile and 
 beautiful in the extreme, and very different, natu- 
 rally, from the scene of desolation which now meets 
 the traveller’s eyes. The Archevites mentioned in 
 the Bk. of Ezra, 4°, were inhabitants of the Bab. 
 Arku or Erech, which was the seat of a celebrated 
 school of learned men. Strabo speaks of the 
 Orcheni (Archevites) as a sect of Chaldean astro- 
 nomers dwelling near Babylon (xxi. p. 739); 
 Ptolemy, as a people of Arabia near the Persian 
 Gulf (v. 19, § 2); and Pliny, as an agricultural 
 poowiiie who banked up the waters of the 
 uphrates and compelled them to flow into the 
 Tigris (vi. 27, s. 31). 
 
 Two deities who had temples in the city seem to 
 have been worshipped in E, namely, Ishtar and 
 Nandé. The temple dedicated to Ishtar (Venus, 
 as the evening star) was called fi-ulmas ‘the 
 house of the oracle’ ; the other, dedicated to Nan& 
 (the goddess whose image was carried off by the 
 Elamite king, Kudur-nankhundi, B.c. 2280, and 
 only restored to its place 1635 years later by 
 Assur-bani-pal, king of Assyria), was called fi-ana 
 ‘the house of heaven,’ and is now represented by 
 the Buwariyya mound. 
 
 Among the inscribed and stamped bricks found 
 in Erech are many of the time of the historical kings 
 —Dungi, Ur-Bau, Gudea, Sin-gasid, Merodach- 
 baladan I., ete. Tablets of the reigns of Nabopo- 
 lassar, Nebuchadrezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus, Darius, 
 and some of the Seleucid, have been excavated in 
 the site. In the ruins of the town and the country 
 around, a large number of glazed earthenware 
 coffins and other receptacles, used no doubt for the 
 burial of the dead, mostly of the Parthian period, 
 has been found, showing that part of the town and 
 sate oat must have been used as a necro- 
 polis. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Schrader, KAT? 94f.; Loftus, Chaldwea and 
 Susiana, 162f.; Delitzsch, Paradies, 221f.; Smith, Chaldean 
 Genesis, 194; Sayce, Hib. Lect. on Rel. of Anc. Babylonians, 
 184f., HCM 102; Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad. 122n., 129, 168, 
 177, also art. BABYLONIA, p. 224», 
 
 I. A. PINCHEs. 
 
 ERI ("y ‘watcher’).—Son of Gad, Gn 46%, 
 Nu 261%, P. Patronymic, Erites, 1. 
 
 * This apparently refers to the great tower there, in seven 
 stages, similar to the tower of Babel. It was called E-gipar 
 imina (WAT ii. 50. 20) 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 ESAIAS 
 
 
 
 ESAU 733 
 
 
 
 ESAIAS.—The familiar AV spelling of ISAIAH 
 in Apocr. and NT is retained by RV only in 
 iS . 
 
 ESAR-HADDON (j'5-1px, Zaxepdovds, "Acopddv).— 
 Esar-haddon, in Assyr. Assur-akh-iddina, ‘ Assur 
 has given abrother,’seems to have been the favourite 
 son of Sennacherib, by whom his name was changed 
 to Assur-etil-yukin-abla, ‘Assur, the hero, has 
 established the son.’ Sennacherib bequeathed to 
 him golden bracelets, necklaces, and other valu- 
 ables, 14 manehs, 24 shekels in weight, which were 
 stored up in the house of a certain Amuk, and 
 probably intended him to be his successor. In 
 B.C. 681 Esar-haddon was at the head of the Assyr. 
 army fighting against Erimenas of Ararat (Van), 
 when Sennacherib was murdered by his sons 
 Adrammelech (or rather Arad-malik) and [Nergal-] 
 sharezer (2 K 19°, Is 37%) on the 20th of Tebet 
 (December). For forty-two days the conspirators 
 held the capital, but on the 2nd of Adar (January) 
 they were compelled to fly to the Armenian king. 
 Esar-haddon met his brothers and the army of 
 Ararat near Malatiyeh on the 12th of Iyyar 
 (April); the veterans of Assyria won the battle, 
 and at the end of it saluted Bear haddon as king. 
 Eusebius quotes from Abydenus that the battle- 
 field was at ‘the city of the Byzantines,’ which 
 von Gutschmidt corrects into Bizana on the Cappa- 
 docian frontier. After the victory Esar-haddon 
 returned to Nineveh, and on the 8th of Sivan 
 (May) was crowned king. 
 
 He was an able general, and by his conciliatory 
 Pky revented such rebellions as had troubled 
 
 is father’s reign. His first care was to rebuild 
 Babylon, which Sennacherib had destroyed (in B.c. 
 A89), and to make it the second capital of his 
 empire. Manasseh of Judah became his vassal, 
 and was called upon, along with the other kings of 
 the west, including those of Cyprus, to furnish 
 timber and stone for the palace of their Assyrian 
 lord. The statement in 2 Ch 33", that he was 
 carried prisoner to Babylon after his revolt from 
 Assyria, is explained by the fact that Babylon had 
 become one of the residences of Esar-haddon. 
 
 The early part of Esar-haddon’s reign was 
 occupied in defending his kingdom against the 
 hordes of Gimirré or Kimmerians, called Gomer 
 in OT, and included by the Assyrians under the 
 general title of Manda or ‘Nomads,’ who were 
 now pouring into Western Asia. For a time the 
 issue seemed doubtful, and a hundred days of 
 humiliation and prayer to the gods were ordered 
 that the empire might be protected against the 
 Kimmerians and their allies, Kastarit of Kar- 
 kassi, Mamiti-arsu the Mede, the Minni, and the 
 Perel of Saparda (Sepharad) and Asguza (Ash- 
 
 enaz). At last Teuspa the Kimmerian was 
 overthrown in a decisive battle on the northern 
 frontier of Assyria, and driven westward into Asia 
 Minor. Thencamea is against the Medes. 
 
 In B.c. 677 Sidon revolted, but was promptly 
 eepenred and destroyed, and another city, called 
 ‘the city of Esar-haddon,’ was built in place of it, 
 and colonized with captives from Elam and Baby- 
 lonia (see Ezr 4*). The following year the king of 
 Sidon and his ally, a Cilician prince, were beheaded, 
 and their heads sent to Nineveh. In the autumn 
 Esar-haddon marched into the heart of Arabia, 
 through a waterless desert, a distance of more than 
 600 miles, and conquered the eight kings of Bazu 
 and Khazu (the Buz and Hazo of Gn 227-22), In 
 B.C. 674 he invaded Egypt, and the invasion was 
 repeated in the February of the following year. 
 
 In 672 his wife died on the 5th of Adar, and in 670 
 came the final attack on Egypt. The Egyptian 
 forces were driven before the Assyr. army (from 
 the 3rd to the 18th ot Tammuz or June) all the way 
 
 from the frontier to Memphis, being thrice defeated 
 with heavy loss; while Tirhakah, their king, was 
 wounded. On the 22nd of Tammuz, Memphis sur- 
 rendered, Tirhakah and his son fled to Fthiopia, 
 and Egypt became an Assyr. province. InB.c. 668 
 it revolted, and while on the march to punish 
 it Esar-haddon fell ill, and died on the 10th of 
 Marcheshvan (October). His empire was divided 
 between two of his sons, Samas-sum-ukin having 
 Babylonia, while the rest of the empire passed to 
 an older son, Assur-bani-pal, whose suzerain ty 
 Samas-sum-ukin was called upon to acknowledge. 
 A third son, Assur-mukin-paliya, was raised to 
 the priesthood, while a fourth became priest of 
 the moon-god at Harran. 
 
 LiteratuRE.—Records of the Past, new series, iv. ; Knudtzon, 
 Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott (1893); Meyer, Gesch. i. 
 473 ff.; Budge, History of Esarhaddon; Ragozin, Assyria, 
 331-346; Plumptre in Hapos. 2nd ser. iv. 448-461; Driver, 
 Isaiah? (‘Men of Bible’), 220; Buxton, Side-Lights, 207-213; 
 McCurdy, Hist., Proph., and the Mon. ii. 333-350. 
 
 A. H. SAYCE, 
 
 ESAU.—1. (wy), elder of Isaac’s twin sons. The 
 name (‘hairy’)* is said to have been suggested by 
 his appearance at birth (Gn 25%, J). The surname 
 Edom (‘red’), applied chiefly to his posterity, 
 commemorated, according to Gn 25% (J), the in- 
 cident there related, but referred also, possibly, 
 to his red hair. Sayce [see Epo, p. 644°] derives 
 the name from the red colour of the sandstone 
 cliffs of Idumea. The struggle between E. and 
 Jacob, prior to birth,+ foreshadowed subsequent 
 relations between the brothers as well as their 
 descendants(see EDOM), and was oracularly declared 
 to signify that ‘the elder shall serve the younger.’ 
 The premature tokens of manly strength were 
 
 remonitory of E.’s future. When he grew up, 
 
 e preferred the wilder life of the chase to the 
 quieter routine of sheep-farming at Beersheba. 
 He became a ‘man of the field,’ an expert hunter, 
 and eventually chief of a tribe occupying the hilly 
 land of Seir, whose Horite inhabitants were dis- 
 placed or subdued by E., his followers, and their 
 posterity (Gn 2577 32% 6 36, Dt 22%). 
 
 The main incidents of E.’s life are (1) Sale of 
 birthright.—Hungry, faint, and feeling as if about 
 to die, he arrives one day,t after a (presumably) 
 unsuccessful hunt, at the patriarchal camp, finds 
 his brother cooking lentils, and cries, ‘Let me 
 devour some of that same red food.’§ Jacob, 
 taking mean advantage of E.’s condition, and 
 aware probably of the oracle in his own favour, 
 demands, as price of the pottage, || a renunciation 
 of the birthright. The latter included precedence, 
 and authority after his father’s death (Gn 27”) ; per- 
 haps, also, as in later times, a double portion of 
 the patrimony (Dt 21"), and the domestic priest- 
 88 | (Nu 3). Along therewith would naturally, 
 in the case of the chosen family, be transmitted 
 the covenant blessing, which secured for its pos- 
 sessor the divine special favour, with promise of 
 Canaan for his posterity, and the honour of convey- 
 ing a blessing, through future seed, to ‘all the 
 families of the earth’ (Gn 12° 221%), In E.’s eyes 
 the temporal advantages of the birthright were 
 distant and shadowy ; to spiritual privilege he was 
 apparently insensible. ‘ What pis shall the 
 birthright do to me?’ he cries, and barters it away 
 
 *Ges., Kalisch, etc. Acc. to Pseudo-Jon.’s Targ. ‘ready 
 made,’ from Avy to make, or make ready, because E. ‘was 
 born with hair of head, beard, and teeth.’ 
 
 + Cf. the story of the twins Acrisius and Proetus, related by 
 Apollodorus, De Deor. Orig. ii. 2. 1. : 
 
 t Ps.-Jon.’s Targ. reco a tradition that it was the day of 
 Abraham’s death. 
 
 § So Ges. (by). Lit. ‘that red, red thing,’ as if he could not 
 wait to recall the proper word. 
 
 || Farinaceous food may have been a tempting luxury’ owing 
 to ‘famine in the land’ (Gn 261, assigned to the same J docw 
 ment as 2527f-), 
 
 
 
 
 
’ benediction. 
 
 ESAU 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 with a levity which even the oath exacted by Jacob 
 fails to turn into gravity. (2) #.’s marriages.— 
 One who ‘despised his birthright,’ as heir of 
 Abraham, was not likely to value highly con- 
 nexion with Abraham’s kindred. He associated 
 freely with Canaanites, who were ‘strangers from 
 the covenants of promise,’ and, at the age of 40, 
 married two Hittite wives, Judith and Basemath, 
 to the grief of his parents, who could not forget 
 Abraham’s anxiety to avoid such alliances. After- 
 wards, when Jacob had been directed by Isaac to 
 seek a wife among their kinsfolk in Paddan, E., 
 in hope of propitiating his parents, married, in the 
 lifetime of his first two wives, his cousin Mahalath, 
 daughter of Ishmael.* Of these wives five sons were 
 born (Gn 36%). (3) Loss of patriarchal blessing.— 
 When Isaac’s death apparently ey E. 
 seems to have realized the temporal profit of the 
 Not forgetting (Gn 27%), but ignor- 
 ing his bargain with Jacob, he enters readily into 
 Isaac’s plan for the bestowal of the blessing on 
 his favourite first-born. When the blessing is lost 
 through Jacob’s repulsive artifice, and E. receives 
 a lower benediction,+ indicating that he would live 
 by the spoils of war and chase (27%), he resolves to 
 slay his brother after Isaac’s death, and thus 
 regain all he has lost. (4) Reconciliation with 
 Jacob and final departure from Canaan,—During 
 Jacob’s sojourn in Paddan, E., while retaining 
 connexion with Canaan (Gn 36°), seems to have 
 become a ‘duke’ in Seir (Gn 32*).t When Jacob 
 is on his way back to the S. of Pal., E. meets him 
 with 400 men. It is not clear that his purpose 
 was hostile, as Jacob supposed: the men may 
 have been mustered for war against Horites. 
 Twenty years had intervened since J.’s departure ; 
 time is a great healer; and E.’s wrath may have 
 been mollified by success. Any remaining ani- 
 mosity was appeased by Jacob’s abundant gifts 
 (which had the aspect of tribute), and vanished at 
 the sight of the prostrate brother. ‘E. ran to meet 
 him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and 
 kissed him’ (Gn 334). They met once more, in 
 peace, at Isaac’s funeral, after which E., partly 
 ‘because their substance was too great for them 
 to dwell. together,’ severed his connexion with 
 Canaan, and made Seir his permanent abode (368). 
 
 The epithet BéBndros ‘ profane’ (He 1215), § te. 
 unconsecrated, secular (Lv 10% 1S 214, Soph. 
 Gd. Col. 10), rather than blasphemous, supplies a 
 key to E.’s character and _ history. rank and 
 manly, affectionate and impulsively generous, 
 irascible but not implacable, E. is naturally 
 lovable, and exhibits materials out of which a fine 
 character might have been developed. But he 
 discloses no spiritual aspiration or God-ward bent ; 
 no sense of unworthiness or devout surrender to 
 divine guidance, such as Jacob, amid grave faults, 
 exemplifies. This lack of consecration leaves E. 
 subject to animal appetite; leads him into 
 secularizing, if not demoralizing, alliance with 
 Canaanites; renders him careless of spiritual 
 blessing and insensible to high ideals; causes 
 his conduct to be dominated by impulse, not 
 regulated by principle; and prevents that moral 
 
 * The differences in the names and parentage of E.’s wives, as 
 oe in Gn 2634 289 and 36? are due, perhaps, not to divergent 
 raditions (for these passages are all assigned to the same 
 ‘source,’ P), but (1) to double names, (2) to errors in transcrip- 
 tion by the editor of the documents. 
 
 + The words in Gn 2739 may mean either (partitively) that E.’s 
 dwelling would be ‘ of the fatness’ or (privatively) ‘away from 
 the fatness.’ The latter suits better the character of Seir. 
 
 t Gn 36 (P) suggests, when taken by itself, that E.’s departure 
 to Seir took place only after Jacob’s return to Canaan, not before 
 it, as 323 (J) intimates ; but if we suppose that, solong as Isaac 
 lived, E., while dwelling much in Seir, retained an abode in 
 Can., the discrepancy disappears. 
 
 § If xépvos ‘fornicator’ in this verse refer to E. (which is 
 doubtful), the ref. is either to his marriages with idolatresses, or 
 to Heb, traditions 6! his gross immorality. 
 
 growth through which Jacob, originally far less 
 amiable, is transformed from a tricky ‘ supplanter 
 into Israel, a prince of God. Even H.’s naturas 
 frankness and generosity fail him, when he tries, 
 without Jacob’s knowledge, to obtain the blessing 
 virtually forfeited, and resolves to slay his brother, 
 not in the first heat of resentment, but prudently, in 
 cool blood, after Isaac’s death has removed the peril 
 of paternal curse. His later pacification—the out- 
 come, directly, of affectionate impulse—was prob- 
 ably due also to the conviction that the head of a 
 host of 400 had, after all, lost nothing through 
 being supplanted by one whom the coveted 
 blessing, after twenty years, had made only a 
 successful cattle-breeder. 
 
 Some modern critics * regard the history of E. 
 and Jacob as more or less mythical. Ewald 
 supposes the details about E. were suggested b 
 the rough nature of Idumea (vyy Seir=rough), 
 and by the later relations of Edom and Israel. 
 Kuenen lays stress on the representation of E. 
 and Jacob (with other personages in Gn) as ‘pro- 
 genitors of tribes’ —a ‘theory of the origin of 
 nations’ which ‘ the historical sense of the present 
 day rejects.’ Families, he declares, become nations, 
 not so much by multiplying as by conquest of 
 and combination with other populations. For 
 discussion of the general question, see TRIBE. As 
 regards Esau in particular, (1) the roughness of 
 Edomite territory may be need traced to 
 the disposition of a progenitor whose rough 
 strength prompted him to choose an abode suited 
 to his habits. (2) Nothing in Gn precludes the 
 supposition that the Edomites (as well as the 
 Israelites) included within their communities the 
 descendants of retainers and immigrants. (3) It 
 is difficult to believe that legends containing so 
 much that is derogatory to the venerated Jacob, 
 and favourable (comparatively) to the ancestor of 
 unfriendly Edomites, should grow up among the 
 Jews. Of the stories and features of character 
 which would naturally cluster round E.’s name in 
 Heb. circles, we have specimens in Rabbinical 
 writings which represent E. as thief, fornicator, 
 blasphemer, etc., as committing five heinous sins in 
 one day, as giving his father dog’s flesh for venison, 
 and biting Jacob after the latter’s return.t The 
 impartiality of Gn in revealing much that is 
 attractive about E. and repulsive (even to an 
 Eastern mind) about Jacob, suggests a substanti- 
 ally historical record which could hold its ground 
 in spite of its (to the Jews) unpalatable character. 
 
 LitzratuRE (in addition to works quoted above).—Kalisch, 
 Dillmann, and Delitzsch on Genesis; Yonge in Hapositor for 
 1884; Farrar in Fall of Man; Dods, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph; 
 
 Cox, Hebrew Twins ; Lightfoot, Cambridge Sermons, 3; Moinet, 
 
 Great Alternative, 119; Welldon, Fire upon Altar, 79, 92; 
 Jacobs, Studies in Bibl. Archeology, 48-63. 
 
 2. (Head), 1 Es 5%= Zina, Ezr 28, Neh 74. 
 H. Cowan. 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY (7a éoxara, the last things).— 
 Eschatology gives an account of the final condition 
 of man and the world as this is represented in 
 scripture. The idea of a final condition of man- 
 kind and the world rests on the other idea that 
 history is a moral process, with a goal towards 
 which it is moving. In scripture this moral pro- 
 cess is specifically a redemptive process, of which 
 the author and the finisher is God, He Himself being 
 the end towards which mankind is being drawn, for 
 the perfection of man lies in full fellowship with 
 God; and the perfection of man is reflected in, and 
 subserved by, anew condition of the world, which is 
 transfigured with his redemption. In this view 
 
 * Ewald, Hist. of Ier. bk. i. sec. i. O; Kuenen, Rel. of Isr. 
 ch. ii. ; more moderately, Kittel, Hist. of Hebrews, 3 tr. i. 169, 
 
 +See instances collected by Wetstein, on He 1216, and by 
 Stanley, Jewish Church, i. p. 47. 
 
 
 
ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 735 
 
 
 
 the Messianic idea and hope becomes an important 
 element in eschatology ; but in OT, at least in its 
 earlier portions, the Messianic is not yet so de- 
 veloped as to be a constant feature in the eschato- 
 logical picture, much less that which gives its 
 whole colour to the picture. The redeemer is God— 
 ‘salvation belongeth unto the Lorp’ (Ps 3); and 
 if the Messiah anywhere be redeemer or king of 
 the redeemed people, he is so in virtue of the 
 divine in him, as being in some way God in mani- 
 festation (Is 977), The nomenclature, therefore, 
 of some writers, who employ eschatological and 
 Messianic as synonymous terms, is somewhat 
 confusing ; for, though this terminology be more 
 and more justified as revelation advances, there 
 are many eschatological passages even in late 
 writings in which there is not only no mention of 
 the personal Messiah, but in which there is no 
 reason to suppose that the idea of a personal 
 Messiah lay as a presupposition in the background 
 of the author’s thought. The OT reveals its con- 
 ceptions piecemeal. Its writers are like subordin- 
 ate workmen, each absorbed in his own particular 
 task, in polishing a corner or carving a chapiter or 
 wreathing a pillar; it is only when the master- 
 builder appears, with the full idea of the house in 
 his mind, that each of the separate parts takes its 
 
 lace in the building. While, therefore, every 
 
 essianic passage is eschatological, there are 
 many eschatological passages not Messianic. 
 
 Besides exhibiting the scripture views of the 
 final condition of things, eschatology may take 
 notice of the phenomena, the physical convulsions, 
 or the national commotions amidst which the final 
 condition is ushered in; or it may go a step farther 
 back and refer to the moral forces bringing about 
 these manifestations and revealed in them. In 
 OT physical nature has no meaning of its own; it 
 is a mere medium for the transmission and mani- 
 festation of moral impulses; and the same is true 
 in a sense of human history, for, though men and 
 nations act voluntarily, ultimately all their move- 
 ments are inspired and led by God, the First and 
 the Last (Is 414 48”), The final condition of men 
 and the world is therefore regarded in OT less as 
 the perfect issue of a gradual ethical advancement 
 in the mind of men and the nations than as the 
 result of an interposition, or a chain of inter- 
 positions, on the part of God, though these inter- 
 poeene under whatever external forms they may 
 
 revealed, are of course all moral. 
 
 THE ESCHATOLOGY OF OT may be treated under 
 two heads: The eschatology of the People, and 
 the eschatology of the individual Person. As the 
 People in their final condition have necessarily 
 some relation to the nations, the eschatology of 
 the People widens out in many passages to be an 
 eschatology of mankind and the world; while, on 
 the other hand, owing to the idea prevalent in 
 OT, particularly in the rophets, that the religious 
 subject in relation with God is the People, the 
 eschatology of the individual Person in distinction 
 from the People is little developed, and some of 
 the passages that appear to relate to it are uncer- 
 tain in meaning. In other words, the eschatology 
 of the People is the doctrine of the perfection of 
 the kingdom of God upon the earth, while the 
 eschatology of the individual Person is the doctrine 
 of Immortality. 
 
 I. ESCHATOLOGY OF THE PEOPLE,—Though 
 formally the people came into existence only at 
 the Exodus, yet ideally it already existed in the 
 
 triarchal family from Abraham downwards 
 is 418), and some of the widest hopes and aspira- 
 tions cherished by the people in later times in 
 
 regard to their place in the religious history of 
 mankind are already expressed in connexion with 
 Abraham. But previous to the time when, by a 
 
 process of divine selection, the religious destinies 
 of mankind were entrusted to his family, some 
 eschatological intimations were given. It is char- 
 acteristic of all these early intimations that they 
 are general both in meaning and in regard to time. 
 The earliest of them, the promise that the seed of 
 the woman would bruise the head of the serpent 
 (Gn 3%), bears upon the family of mankind uni- 
 versally. It may not be easy to say what sense 
 our first parents or even Israelitish readers put 
 into these words. The fulness of meaning which 
 we are now able to express by them, and the indi- 
 vidual application of ‘the seed of the woman’ 
 which we can make, can hardly have been sug- 
 gested to them. But they would be assured that 
 the family of mankind would have the upper hand 
 in the struggle against the author of their calami- 
 tous transgression; and as the meaning and 
 consequences of what had befallen them became 
 clearer, so would their conception of what was 
 meant by bruising the serpent’s head, and how alone 
 that could bedone. Equally universalistic, though 
 more definite in regard to the means of its accom- 
 plishment, is the promise given to Abraham, ‘In 
 thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed’ 
 (Gn 12%). Such a promise could not soon be ful- 
 filled, and there might be room for conjecture even 
 as to the manner of fulfilment ; yet the patriarch, 
 knowing wherein his own blessedness lay, in his 
 knowledge of God and fellowship with Him, would 
 surmise that through his seed this true knowledge 
 of God would reach all peoples. The sense is 
 little altered if for ‘be blessed’ we render ‘bless 
 themselves,’ 7.¢. wish for themselves the same 
 blessings as Abraham and his seed are seen to 
 enjoy (cf. Nu 231°), Some other passages, such as 
 the Blessing of Noah (Gn 9°), are international, 
 religious prominence being given to the family of 
 Shem ; while others, such as the Blessing of Jacob 
 and Moses (Gn 49, Dt 33), are more national, having 
 respect to the place of the tribes in Canaan. The 
 phrase ‘the last days’ (o°=:7 nny) describes the 
 farthest future into which the’ eye of the seer 
 reaches, and may have different senses. In Gn 49! 
 it refers to the final disposition of the tribes in 
 Canaan (though 49!° may have a wider outlook ; 
 see PROPHECY); while in Is 2? it refers to the final 
 condition of the family of mankind, when all 
 nations shall appeal to the God of Jacob as the 
 righteous arbiter in all international causes. 
 Dt 32 ends with the hope of the victory of Israel 
 over all its enemies, and in his Last Words (2S 23) 
 David expresses the assurance that under his 
 family a kingdom of Righteousness will arise. 
 
 The Day of the Lord.—In the 8th century B.C. 
 the faith of Israel was virtually complete. Amos 
 taught that God is Righteousness ; Hosea, that He 
 is Love; Isaiah, that Heis the Lord the King, who 
 has founded His kingdom in Zion, on the throne of 
 which shall sit for ever one of the house of David, 
 the Prince of Peace, filled with the fulness of the 
 Spirit of God (Is9. 11). But besides this Messianic 
 eschatology belonging to the second period of 
 Isaiah’s career, there is another belonging to the 
 earliest period (chs. 2. 3), which he calls ‘the Day 
 of the Lord.’ The prophet does not expressly 
 combine the two, though they are probably to be 
 regarded the one as the dark side and the other as 
 the light side of the same cloud of judgment. In 
 the earlier chapters he moves more among prin- 
 ciples, moral necessities; in the second period 
 (ch. 7 ff.) the actors are already on the scene who 
 shall carry out the programme which in his first 
 days he perceived to be inevitable. The phresc 
 ‘the Day of the Lord’ is first heard in the mouths 
 of the people (Am 5'*#-), The term ‘day’ is much 
 used in Arabic of a battle day, as the day of Badr, 
 Ohod, and the like, and so in Heb. ‘the day of 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 736 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 Midian’ (Is 9%), and this may be its primary mean- 
 ing. The day of the Lord to the popular mind 
 would be the day when J” their God would 
 interpose in their behalf to deliver them. The 
 deliverance would be primarily from external 
 hostile oppression, but internal social miseries 
 might also be included. The idea and the phrase 
 may thus be el ancient, though they appear 
 first in Amos. All that the phrase connotes in the 
 mouth of the people is the sense of misery and 
 oppression, the belief that only their God can 
 deliver them, faith in His power, and a hope or 
 conviction of His approaching intervention, though 
 on what this conviction was founded does not 
 appear. But to the prophets of this age J” is 
 a pore ethical Being, the moral ruler of Israel 
 and the nations, and the sin of Israel and the 
 world demands His intervention. Hence the first 
 epee of the day of the Lord is always a day of 
 judgment. But judgment is not an end in itself ; 
 it is only in order to redemption, and behind the 
 storm of judgment there always rises clear the day 
 of salvation. The conception of the sin of the 
 world which compels the intervention of the Judge 
 differs in different prophets. In Amos it is social 
 and civil unrighteousness; in Hosea, religious un- 
 faithfulness ; in Isaiah, insensibility to the majesty 
 of the great King, who must interpose to bring the 
 sense of Himself home to men’s minds. 
 
 ‘The day of the Lord’ is an eschatological idea ; 
 the A Une cannot be rendered ‘a day of the Lord,’ 
 as if any great calamity or judgment felt to be 
 impending might be so named ; the ‘day’ is that 
 of the final and universal judgment. But, of course, 
 a prophet’s presentiment of its nearness might not 
 be realized ; the crisis which he saw impending 
 and deemed the great ‘day’ itself, or the beginning 
 of it, might pass over and the ‘day’ be deferred. 
 But this fact should not lead us to suppose that the 
 prophets call any great visitation of God by the 
 name of ‘the day of the Lord.’ Again, the term 
 ‘day,’ if it originally meant battle day, suggests 
 the presence of some foe whom God uses as His in- 
 strument of judgment. This feature, however, is 
 not always prone in descriptions of the day. 
 Sometimes the terrors of the ay of the Lord are 
 represented as due to His manifestation of Himself 
 and the convulsions of nature that accompany His 
 appearing, ‘when He arises to shake terribly the 
 earth’ (Is 219-22), But at other times, besides the 
 supernatural gloom and terrors that surround Him 
 when He appears, He is represented as using some 
 fierce, distant nation as the instrument by which 
 He executes His judgment (Is 13, Zeph). The 
 judgment of the day of the Lord is a judgment on 
 the known world, and the nation that executes the 
 judgment is some wild people emerging from the 
 dark places of the earth lying beyond the confines 
 of the known world.* Once more, when the pro- 
 phets speak of the day of the Lord they always 
 regard it as near (Is 13°, J] 15 21). The coming of 
 the ‘day’ itself was a settled belief, but of its time 
 knew no man; the presentiment of its nearness 
 was awakened in the mind of the prophet by what 
 he saw of the moral condition of mankind or of the 
 hater ioe of God in the world. Toone pre het 
 the insensibility of men to the majesty of the sed 
 the King seems so frightful that He must interpose 
 to cast down every Hoe that is high, so that He 
 alone shall be exalted in that day (Is 2. 3); to 
 another He is so visibly operating in the convulsions 
 of the nations that His full manifestation of Him- 
 self seems at hand (Is 13, Zeph) ; while to a third 
 the severe natural calamities with which He is 
 visiting His people seem the tokens and heralds of 
 His final judgment (Jl 1. 2). The prophets’ hearts 
 
 * Davidson, Nah, Hab, and Zeph in ‘Oambridge Bible,’ p. 
 118; Driver, Joel and Amos in same series, p. 185. 
 
 were filled with great religious issues, with pre- 
 sentiments of the future of the world in God’s 
 hand. These presentiments were so vivid in their 
 hearts that they were constantly looking for the 
 fulfilment of them. And thus when the currents 
 of providence, often too sluggish to their eager 
 eyes, received a sudden Buea | when great 
 events were moving and J” visibly interposing 
 in the affairs of the world, they felt that He was 
 taking to Him His great power. It was but a step 
 or two when the kingdom would be the Lord’s, 
 
 (1) In the pre-exilic oe the day of the Lord 
 is a judgment primarily on Israel (Am 3), though 
 it also embraces the nations. It is Israel’s national 
 dissolution, though the dissolution is only in order 
 to a new reconstruction. The sinners of the people 
 shall be destroyed, and a poor and humble people 
 left behind (Zeph 3%, Is 2. 3, Hos 4° 218%), (2) 
 With the Exile the judgment on Israel seemed to 
 have been fulfilled, and during the Exile and at the 
 period of the Restoration the judgment of the day 
 of the Lord is represented as falling on the heathen 
 world, and its issue is Israel’s redemption (Is 13, 
 Hag, Zec 1-8). And this feeling is often expressed 
 in passages where the day of the Lord is not 
 formally mentioned (Is 40 ff., Ps 93-99). (3) Butafter 
 the Restoration, when Israel was again a people, 
 and the old internal antagonisms and wrongs once 
 more manifested themselves, prophets have to 
 threaten it anew with the refiner’s fire of the Day 
 of the Lord (Mal 3%). Still, though in the post- 
 exilic literature the judgment is also a oe of 
 Israel itself (e.g. Ps 50), it is mainly regarded as 
 falling on the heathen world, and issues in Israel’s 
 deliverance and the restoration of the Diaspora (Dn 
 7218), This idea largely pervades the later Psalms. 
 Psalms differ from prophecy. Like the hymzus of 
 all peoples, they are not creative but representative. 
 They give back, in thanksgiving, in praise, and 
 often in prayer, the faiths and hopes already 
 contained in the mind of the community and long 
 cherished. And these hopes and faiths are in the 
 main eschatological. When the Psalms speak of 
 the judgment (15 75*- 35% ete.), and of the meek 
 inheriting the earth (37"), of the nearness of the 
 day of the wicked (3718), of seeing God’s face in 
 righteousness (17), of the upright having dominicn 
 speedily over the unrighteous (49'4), and much of 
 the same kind, they are not uttering vague hopes 
 never before expressed, but reflecting the certainties 
 of a faith as old at least as the prophets of the 8th 
 cent., the certainty of a judgment of God (Is 14 
 2. 3), and of the rise behind it of a kingdom of 
 righteousness (Is 16 97 114#-), and peace (Is 2 97 11°), 
 and everlasting joy (Is 98, Hos 2'**-), 
 
 To follow the scripture statements regarding 
 the Day of the Lord through the three periods 
 just mentioned would lead to much repetition : it 
 will be enough to state some general points con- 
 nected with the Day. The Day of the Lord 1s Hiv 
 time for manifesting Himself, for displaying His 
 character, for performing His work, His short and 
 strange work upon the earth. ‘The Lord of Hosts 
 hath a day upon every one that is proud and lofty, 
 and he shall be brought low... and the Lord 
 alone shall be exalted in that day’ (Is 2) 17), 
 
 1. As it was a day of the manifestation of J”, 
 God of Israel, in His fulness and therefore in a way 
 to realize His purposes, which with Israel and even 
 with the world were those of grace, it is funds- 
 mentally a day of joy to Israel, and even to the 
 world—‘ the Lord is Gae let the earth rejoice, 
 let the. multitude of the Isles be glad thereof. 
 Say among the nations, The Lord is ars 3 let the 
 heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad’ (Ps 96). 
 
 That J” should reign, and that He should come to 
 the earth as king, must, in spite of all the terrors 
 that might attend His coming, bring to the world 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY Tat 
 
 
 
 @ pervading gladness. For the falsehood and in- 
 ne thit had cursed the earth so long would 
 
 isappear, and the longing of men, who were ever 
 in words or sighs saying, Show us the Father, 
 would be satisfied. But it would be a day of joy 
 above all to Israel, His Bee when He should 
 aes her cause, for the day of vengeance was in His 
 
 eart and the year of His redeemed was come. 
 Naturally, an accompaniment of the manifestation 
 of J” was the disappearance of the idols—‘ On that 
 day men shall cast their idols of silver and their 
 idols of gold to the moles and to the bats’ (Is 2°), 
 But in the view of the prophets those gigantic 
 oppressions, the empires of Assyria and Babylon, 
 were but projections of their idolatry, with its 
 cruelties and licentiousness and pride. The later 
 Fropact Daniel expresses this idea in a graphic 
 
 gure when he represents the heathen monarchies 
 under the symbol of various savage beasts, while 
 the kingdom of God is represented under the image 
 of a man. 
 
 2. To those in Israel who looked for His coming, 
 apart from the natural terrors of it, it was unmixed 
 joy (Hab 3). And it would have been so to all 
 
 srael had fidelity to their God been universal. 
 But this was far from being the condition of Israel. 
 There were many who belonged to Israel only in 
 race. They were filled from the East, and sooth- 
 sayers like the Philistines. They imitated the 
 idolatries and practised the sins of the nations. 
 Hence the prophets warn the people against a 
 superficial conception of the Day of the Lord, as if 
 it would be a mere interference of J” in behalf of 
 His people as a nation, and not a revelation of His 
 righteous judgment—‘ Woe unto you that desire 
 the day of the Lord. Wherefore will ye have the 
 day of the Lord? It is darknessand not light ; as 
 if a man did flee from a lion and a bear met him’ 
 (Am 58). Hence the Day is first of all judgment, 
 and only through this salvation. Sometimes one 
 side is made prominent and sometimes another, 
 the side of judgment (as has been said) in the pre- 
 exile prophets, and the other side in prophets later 
 down (e.g. Ob '5). It is around the Day as one of 
 judgment that all the terrible pictures of gloom 
 and the dissolution of nature are gathered (Is 2. 3. 
 13. 24, Hos 108, Am 518, J] 22:3, Zeph 1). These 
 convulsions in nature which accompany the Day of 
 the Lord may not be all to be explained in the 
 same way, but the general idea seems this: the 
 universe is a human world; man is the head of 
 creation, and creation is virtually the earth; the 
 heavens are a mere appendage of the earth, sub- 
 serving the moral life of mankind—being for signs 
 and seasons, and days and years. Hence in man’s 
 judgment the world suffers dissolution, and in his 
 redemption it is renewed and transfigured. 
 
 3. As has been said, the coming of the Day was 
 an article of faith as much as our belief in the 
 Last Day, but the presentiment of its nearness was 
 awakened by what the prophet perceived around 
 him: the moral condition of the world (Is 2. 3, 
 Mic 3), God’s operations among the nations of the 
 earth (Is 13, Zeph 1), His judgments on His people 
 (Jl 1. 2), or the beginnings of their redemption 
 already experienced at the Restoration, which 
 led to the hope of His full manifestation to dwell 
 in His House when it should be prepared (Hag, 
 Zec). Naturally, abengl the Day of the Lord 
 was a crisis, and itself of brief duration, the phrase 
 ‘that day’ is often used to cover the period 
 ushered in by the sh This is the period of 
 final perfection and blessedness. It is identical 
 with what in other passages is the Messianic 
 age, and with the ideal condition following the 
 Restoration as conceived by such prophets as 
 Deutero - Isaiah ({s 60). It is a period entirely 
 homogeneous. There are no occurrences within 
 VOL. I.—a7 
 
 it. Jt has characteristics, but no internal de- 
 velopment. It is a period of light and peace 
 and the knowledge of God, which covers the 
 earth as the waters cover the sea. Subsequent 
 revelation has broken up the coming of the 
 Messiah into a coming and a coming again, and 
 history has intercalated between the two an 
 age full of developments and vast changes. But 
 the prophets embrace all in one period over which 
 there hangs a divine light. The characteristics 
 they assign to the Messianic age or the period 
 introduced by the Day of the Lord are in the 
 main those characteristics which we assign to 
 the age which the second coming shall introduce. 
 These characteristics are the issue of the first 
 coming, the natural expansion of its principles; 
 and to the prophets the ge neds and their 
 realization all seem condensed into one point. 
 
 4. The prophets are not interested in giving 
 mere predictions of external events or conditions 
 of the world, but in setting before the people 
 the moral development and issues of the kingdom 
 and just as the Day of the Lord seems to them to 
 issue out of the conditions of the world of their 
 own day, so they sometimes bring down the moral 
 issues of the kingdom upon an external condition of 
 the world such as it was in their own time. There 
 is perfect realizing of moral principles, but the 
 condition of the world in its hin donan and the 
 like remains unchanged. But ordinarily this 1s 
 not the case. 
 
 (a) A constant feature in the eschatological 
 
 icture is Israel’s restoration to its own land. 
 
 he Lord will say to the North, Give up; and to 
 the South, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, 
 and my daughters from the ends of the earth ; even 
 every one that is called by my name (Is 43%), And 
 in this land all earthly blessings attend the people 
 (Am 9-15); they attain joy and gladness, and 
 sorrow and sighing shall dca away (Is 35! 651%) 
 The people are also truly the people of God— 
 ‘Thy people shall be all righteous’ ; ‘In the Lord 
 shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall 
 lory’ (Is 45%). The people’s restoration to ever- 
 asting felicity and their righteousness are but 
 different sides of the same thing. Cast out because 
 of their sins, they are restored because of their 
 righteousness, although the righteousness be one 
 bestowed on them by God (Is 43); and their 
 restoration is the outer side of their justification, 
 the token to their own heart and to the eyes of the 
 nations that they are in truth now the people of 
 God (Is 61° 6517+), The question how in our day 
 we are to interpret such prophecies is a double 
 one. It is a question, first, of what the prophets 
 meant. And to this question there can be but one 
 answer—their meaning is the literal sense of their 
 words. They spoke of the people Israel and of the 
 land of Canaan, and predicted the restoration of 
 the people to their land, and their everlasting 
 abode there with their God in the midst of them. 
 This was their view in their day of the final con- 
 dition of the penis: Of course, to the prophets 
 the essential thing was the spiritual perfection and 
 blessedness of the people given by the presence 
 among them of their God in His fulness, but they 
 were unable to conceive this except as reflected in 
 an external condition of the people. The other 
 question is how we may expect these OT prophecies 
 to be fulfilled now that the NT dispensation is 
 come. There is no question as to the meaning of 
 the OT prophecies; the question is how far this 
 meaning is now valid. The question is not one to 
 be dogmatic on, but we should naturally say that 
 it is to be decided by the principles of the NT 
 dispensation, The only NT writer who seems 
 formally to argue the question is St. Paul (Ro 
 9-11). Now, he argues only on the srizritual side 
 

 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 738 
 
 of the Abrahamic covenant, or rather he regards 
 the covenant as an exclusively spiritual or redemp- 
 tive instrument (see art. COVENANT, last par.). 
 Those, therefore, who, in advocating the idea of 
 the Restoration of Israel to their own land, think 
 themselves entitled to reason on the material side 
 of the covenant (the promise of the land), cannot 
 lead the apostle’s authority nor his example. 
 t may be made a question, indeed, whether his 
 reasoning does not exclude theirs, for his view 
 appears to be that the covenant from the moment 
 it took effect was a purely spiritual and redemptive 
 deed. To his ind the covenant guarantees the 
 final salvation of Israel. The church of God is 
 historical and continuous. It was planted in 
 Abraham, and it is perennial. Israel was the 
 church, and continues to be; and if the Gentiles be 
 in it, they have been grafted in; and if some of the 
 natural branches be meantime broken off, God is 
 able to graft them in again; and this He will du, 
 ‘and so all Israel shall be saved.’ This is St. 
 Paul’s manner of stating the idea of Deutero-Isaiah, 
 that the true knowledge of the true God has been 
 iven once for all to Israel, and given to be the 
 eritage of mankind. If the OT prophecies are to 
 be brought into the argument, the order in which 
 they place things must be observed. That order 
 is, first, righteousness and faith, and then restora- 
 tion to Canaan. A return of Jews to Canaan 
 while still in unbelief, however interesting a thing 
 in itself, does not come into contact with OT 
 Beepheey: : 
 
 (6) Another feature in the eschatological picture 
 is the relation of the nations to Israel and their 
 God. In some prophecies, especially those that 
 are apocalyptic in their character, there is the 
 idea of a final attack on Israel by the nations, 
 and a great conflict near Jerusalem or in Canaan, 
 in which the nations are overthrown and destroyed 
 (Ezk 38. 39, Jl 3, Zec 14, Ob v.%8, Dn). But 
 usually the nations are represented as attaching 
 themselves to Israel, drawn either by the right- 
 eousness and humanity of the Messianic King (Ps 
 72), or convinced that the God of Israel is God 
 alone (Is 2)—a conviction which they receive in 
 various ways, as through J”s terrible revelation of 
 Himself (Zeph 38°, Is 66!8*-), but chiefly through 
 the teaching of Israel, the servant of the Lord, 
 who becomes the light of the nations, and the 
 porniee wait on His arm (Is 42% 496 505% 514% 60). 
 
 ut while already in the OT the Gentiles are 
 fellow-heirs of salvation with Israel, the racial 
 distinction is not obliterated. Jews and Gentiles 
 do not amalgamate into one people or church— 
 Israel ‘inherits the Gentiles’ ds 548), ‘the king- 
 dom is given to the people of the saints of the 
 Most High’ (Dn 77). The nations occupy a 
 subordinate place. There may be different shades 
 of view in different passages. Of course, when 
 the prophets wrote, Israel alone possessed the 
 knowledge of the true God, and its place was 
 that of benefactor of the nations, while theirs 
 was that of recipients of blessing from Israel. 
 Therefore the nations do homage to Israel, but 
 it is to Israel as having the only true God within 
 it — ‘they shall make supplication unto thee, 
 saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none 
 else, no God’ (Is 45'4 49, cf, 14? 60° 614). 
 
 5. From what has been said, it can be seen 
 what general conceptions the OT contributes to 
 Christian Eschatology. They are such as these: 
 (1) the manifestation or advent of God; (2) the 
 universal judgment ; (3) behind the judgment the 
 coming of the perfect kingdom of the Lord, when 
 all Israel shall be saved, and when the nations 
 shall be partakers of their salvation ; and (4) the 
 finality and eternity of this condition, that which 
 constitutes the blessedness of the saved people 
 
 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 
 
 being the Presence of God in the midst of them— 
 this last point corresponding to the Christian idea 
 of heaven. All this is said of the people as a 
 people. The people is immortal and its life 
 eternal ; and this life is conceived as lived in this 
 world, though this world transfigured -- a new 
 heavens and a new earth (Is 65!”). But are the 
 individuals of the people immortal, or is their 
 life, however prolonged and blessed, yet finally 
 closed by death? It is probable that in most 
 passages the prophets have in view the destinies 
 of the people as a unity, the ultimate fate of 
 individuals not being present to their mind. In 
 some passages, however, the destiny of the in- 
 dividual is referred to, and a progress of idea 
 may be observed, though, owing to the uncertain 
 authorship of the passages, it may be precarious to 
 infer at once that the more advanced are the 
 later. In Is 652% only a very prolonged life 
 appears promised, ‘the days of a tree,’ he that 
 dieth at a hundred years shall die a child (ef. 
 Zec 84). But in the apocalyptic passage Is 24-27 
 death is represented as abolished, ‘the Lord will 
 swallow up death for ever’ (25°); and the promise 
 extends to the nations as well as to Israel (ver.®*). 
 The conception of a resurrection first appears in 
 the prophets, who speak of a resuscitation of the 
 dead nation (Hos 6, Ezk 37). In Is 26!, however, 
 the literal resurrection of individuals is predicted. 
 This is the complement of the Restoration of the 
 living members of the people. And in Dn 12 8 
 resurrection both of the just and unjust is pro- 
 
 ‘ phesied, though it remains somewhat uncertain 
 
 whether the resurrection be universal, or be only 
 of those who, in the preceding troublous times, 
 had been specially prominent, whether on the side 
 of righteousness or of evil. 
 
 II. ESCHATOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON, 
 —One of the strangest things in OT is the little 
 place which the individual feels he has, and his 
 tendency to lose himself in larger wholes, such as 
 the tribe or the nation. When in earlier times the 
 individual approached death, he felt that he had 
 received the blessing of life from God and had 
 enjoyed it in His communion ; his sojourn with 
 God had come to an end, he was old and full of 
 days, and he acquiesced in death, however strange 
 his acquiescence may seem to us. He consoled 
 himself with the thought that he did not all die— 
 ‘The memory of the righteous is blessed’ (cf. Is 
 56*5). He lived, too, in his children and in his 
 
 eople. He saw the good of Israel; his spirit 
 ived, and the work of his hands was established. 
 The great subject was the people, the nation; 
 J” had established His covenant with the nation, 
 and the individual was blessed in the blessing and 
 fortune of the whole. And he was content to have 
 poured his little stream of life and service into the 
 tide of national life, and in some degree to have 
 swelled it. This was particularly the case, so far as 
 can be judged, in earlier times. But when the nation 
 came to an end with the Ceptivity, when national 
 life and religion no more existed, the individual 
 rose to his own proper place and rights, and felt 
 his own worth and responsibility. Though the 
 
 nation had fallen the individuals remained, and’ 
 
 J” and religion remained, though religion remained 
 only in the heart of the individual. The religious 
 unit, formerly the people, now became more and 
 more the single person, and the truths regarding 
 duty and responsibility, and the hopes of the future, 
 enunciated by the prophets in regard to the people, 
 were appropriated by the individual to himself. 
 
 In regard to the Eschatology of the individual 
 person there are two things which require to be 
 carefully distinguished. ‘There are, first, certain 
 
 ideas regarding death and the state of the dead 
 lying in the popular mind, though cherished by 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a ep ee 
 
 — 
 

 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 all classes, the righteous as well as others, alike. 
 These ideas are common to Israel with some other 
 
 Shemitic peoples. They have in themselves no 
 moral significance. But some of them, such as 
 the idea that the person, though he died, was not 
 extinguished, but still subsisted as a person, how- 
 ever shadawy the state of subsistence was; and 
 the other idea, that the dead person, though still 
 Being, was in death cut off from all fellowship 
 with the living, whether men or God,—these ideas 
 formed points to which the aspirations of the pious 
 might attach themselves, whether in the way of 
 development, as of the first idea, or protest, as 
 against the second idea. And, secondly, there are 
 the aspirations, intuitions, or inferences of the 
 pious mind itself. It is only these that can pro- 
 perly be called OT teaching. Such aspirations 
 and intuitions may be either intellectual or emo- 
 tional, that is, virtually, either ethical or religious, 
 though the basis even of the religious is ethical. 
 The fundamental idea is the moral one: God and 
 man are moral beings, their relation is moral; the 
 universe is a moral constitution, the stage where 
 God displays His righteousness, and where man 
 sees God's face in righteousness. Righteousness 
 must win, and righteousness is eternal (Is 519). 
 This is the idea that underlies the Book of Job 
 and such Psalms as 37. 49. and 73. There are 
 thus three things to look at: (1) Death and the 
 
 state of the dead ; (2) Life; and (3) the Reconcilia- 
 tion of Death and Life. 
 
 (1) By death OT means what we mean when we 
 use the word. It is the phenomenon which we 
 observe. Now, all parts of OT indicate the view 
 that at death the person is not annihilated; he 
 continues to subsist in Shedl, the place of the 
 dead, though in a shadowy and feeble form occa- 
 sioned by the withdrawal of the spirit of life. In 
 this Be acition of subsistence, which is not life but 
 death, in Shedl, the common abode of all dead 
 
 rsens, there is no distinction in destiny between 
 the righteous and the ungodly. OT does not name 
 thosein Shed] either souls or spirits, they are persons. 
 It is possible that they were conceived as retain- 
 ing a shadowy flickering outline of their former 
 personality, for in Is 14 they sit on thrones, from 
 which they rise up and speak. Subsistence in Shed] 
 is a feeble, nerveless reflection of life on earth. 
 These conceptions, as has been said, are not pro- 
 
 rly scripture teaching, only the popular notions 
 om which its teaching starts. Illustrations 
 of them are such passages as these among 
 others, Ps 6. 30, Is 14. 38, Job 3. 10. Thus, to 
 start with, OT is not materialistic, death is not the 
 extinction of the formerly living person. Neither 
 is it philosophic, regarding the body as the prison- 
 house of the soul, released from which it can spread 
 its wings and soar unfettered into regions of pure 
 and perfect life. Nor is it, to begin with at least, 
 Christian in the sense that the spirit attains to 
 perfection at death. 
 
 (2) As by death so by life OT means what we 
 mean byit. Itstarts from the idea, not of the soul, 
 but of the person. Life is what we so call when 
 we see it, the subsistence of the complete personality 
 in the unity of its parts, body and soul. 
 essential part of man’s being is the body; and life 
 is life in the body, such as it is before the analysis 
 which we call death, and corresponds therefore to 
 the Christian synthesis called the resurrection life. 
 Hence Job, when the idea of a second life first 
 dawns upon him, can conceive it only as a renewal 
 of the natural life—‘If a man die, shall he live 
 again?’ (ch. 14). But as life was due to the com- 
 munication by God of the spirit of life, and death 
 to the withdrawal of this spirit, these operations 
 came under the moral idea, and ‘life’ meant moral 
 life in the favour of God (Ezk 33)—‘in the way of 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 739 
 
 righteousness is life’; ‘righteousness delivereth 
 from death.’ OT scriptures occupy themselves 
 chiefly with the condition of man on this side of 
 death, and they teach that whatever principles 
 are involved in the relations of men to God they 
 come always to light in this life; death does not 
 change these relations; on the contrary, by its 
 ee or circumstances it reveals them (Ps 37. 
 
 ). 
 (3) Now, this conception of life naturally came 
 into collision with the fact of death. And OT 
 doctrine of immortality, when death is had in 
 view, consists of the efforts made by the faith of 
 pious men to gain for the idea of life just referred 
 to the victory over the fact of death. These 
 efforts are of two kinds: one consists of an appeal 
 against the fact of death, a demand for immortality 
 or not dying, a protest against the fellowship of 
 the living man here with God being interrupted, 
 or a lofty assurance that it cannot be interrupted. 
 It is quite possible that the examples of this may 
 have to be referred to particular circumstances, 
 when death might be actually threatening; but 
 the language used, the demand made for the con- 
 tinuance of life, the lofty assurance of faith that 
 the relation of the person to God cannot be inter- 
 rupted, rise to the expression of principles, and are 
 by no means merely the expression of an assurance 
 that God would save from death on this particular 
 occasion. This is the meaning of Ps 16, ‘I have 
 set the Lord always before me ; because he is at my 
 right hand, I shall not be moved. Thou wilt not 
 leave my soul over to Shed! ; thou wilt not let thine 
 holy one see the pit.” What the speaker is assured 
 of is deliverance from death. But his assurance 
 has an absoluteness in it. It expresses principles. 
 In his ecstasy of life in God he feels life to be 
 eternal. The tie between him and J” is indis- 
 soluble. With our more reflecting habits of 
 thought this ecstasy of faith is hard to conceive. 
 To us the fact of death is so inevitable that we 
 cannot imagine any one resisting it. We accept 
 the fact, and rest on what lies beyond. But the 
 resistance of the pious Hebrew was due just to his 
 not knowing what lay beyond, and was but a 
 mode of making a demand for that which we now 
 know to lie beyond. 
 
 The other line of thought was somewhat different ; 
 it was not so much a protest against dying, as a 
 protest that dying was not death ; it was a denial 
 that death was to the saint of God that which the 
 
 opular mind regarded it to be—a separation from 
 God and descent into Shedl. The fellowship with 
 God had in life, and which was life, would remain 
 unbroken in death. This amounted to the faith 
 that the godly soul would overleap Shed! and pass 
 to God. This ey eine to be the faith expressed in 
 Ps 49 and 73, and in a certain sense in Job 19. 
 
 Before these poetical passages, which are vbscure, 
 are briefl locked at, something must be said of 
 Sheol and the state of the dead ; though, as has 
 been said, OT statements about Shed! chiefly re- 
 flect the popular sentiments, and have little positive 
 value. It might be surmised from the stron 
 expressions used many times of death in the O 
 that in death existence absolutely came to an end. 
 Thus Ps 1464 ‘his breath goeth forth, he returneth 
 to his earth ; in that very day his thoughts perish’ ; 
 Ps 398 ‘O spare me, that I may recover strength, 
 before I go hence, and be no more.’ And perhaps 
 most strongly of all Job 147 ‘for a tree hath hope, 
 if it be cut down, it will sprout again; but man 
 lieth down, and riseth not; till the heavens be no 
 more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of 
 their sleep’ (cf. 77). But these are only the strong 
 expressions of despondency and regret over a life 
 mournfully soon ended, and that never returns to 
 be lived on this earth again. The conception of 
 

 
 740 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 Shed] is sufficient answer to the apparent doctrine 
 which they teach. The word Shedl (bixy, twice 
 written defectively, and usually fem., as nouns of 
 place mostly are), is of uncertain derivation. Its 
 root has been supposed to be a softened form of 
 another root (byw, represented by by the hollow 
 hand, Is 40%") signifying perhaps ‘to be hollow,’ in 
 which case it would have the same meaning as our 
 word ‘hell’ (Germ. Hélle); and the name ‘pit’ 
 with which it is interchanged in OT (dBvocos in 
 NT) might seem to favour this derivation. A cor- 
 responding Assyrian Swdlu (Fried. Del., Jeremias) 
 is denied by Jensen. Shed] is the opposite of the 
 upper sphere of light and life; it is ‘deep Shedl’ 
 (Ps 86 63°), the region of darkness, ‘a land of 
 darkness as darkness itself, without any order, and 
 where the light is as darkness’ (Job 10”), There 
 is no strict topography to be sought for Shedl ; it 
 is in great measure the creation of the imagination, 
 deep down under the earth or under the waters 
 (Job 26°). It is not to be identified with the grave, 
 though the grave be often regarded as the mouth 
 of it; and it is sometimes represented as a vast 
 burying-place (Is 14%, Ezk 32%). Shedl is the 
 place of departed personalities ; the generations of 
 one’s forefathers are there, and he who dies is 
 gathered unto his fathers; the tribal divisions of 
 one’s race are there, and the dead is gathered unto 
 his peoples, and if his descendants have died before 
 him, they are there and he goes down to them, 
 as Jacob to his son, and David to his child (Gn 37 
 4238, 2S 12%), . 
 (1) The state of those in Shedl.—As death con- 
 sists in the withdrawal by God of the spirit of life, 
 the source of energy and vital power, the person- 
 alities in Shed] are feeble and flaccid. They are 
 shades (0'x97 Job 26°, Is 14°). Their abode is called 
 ‘silence’ (Ps 9417); it is ‘the land of forgetfulness’ 
 (Ps 8817); ‘the living know that they must die, the 
 dead know not anything’ (Ee 95); ‘his sons come 
 to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are 
 brought low, and he perceiveth it not of them’ 
 (Job 14%). But other passages represent the 
 existence of the dead in Shed] as a dreamy re- 
 flection of life on earth, in which self-consciousness 
 and ability to recognize others still remain—‘ Art 
 thou become weak as we; art thou become like 
 unto us?’ is the language addressed by the Shades 
 to the prince of Babylon when he descends amon 
 them. (2) There is no distinction of good and evil 
 in Sheol.—All must go into Shedl, and all alike are 
 there (Job 317). Sheol itself is no place of punish- 
 ment nor of reward (Ec 9°), neither is it divided into 
 compartments having this meaning: ‘To-morrow,’ 
 said Samuel to the king whom God had rejected, 
 ‘to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me’ 
 (1 S 28). The idea of a deeper or darker Shed! in 
 any penal sense cannot be verified. ‘The farthest 
 recesses of the pit’ into which the prince of Baby- 
 lon is thrust in death forms a mere antithesis to 
 the ‘farthest recesses of the North,’ the abode of 
 the gods, where he aspired to seat himself when 
 alive (Is 141°). If the ‘prison’ referred to Is 2472 
 be Shedl, incarceration in Shedl, t.¢. death, is re- 
 garded as the penal issue of the judgment. And 
 the state of the dead being a reflection of life on 
 earth, any dishonour done to one on earth, such as 
 being deprived of sepulture, may still cleave to 
 him when he descends into the Underworld (Is 14, 
 Ezk 32). The language of Is 66% ‘their worm 
 dieth not, and their fire is not quenched,’ refers to 
 the bodies of the ungodly, which are cast out upon 
 earth, an abhorring to all flesh, and not to the 
 ungodly themselves in Shedl. (3) All connexion 
 with the world of the living is broken ee 
 dead can neither return to earth, nor does he know 
 anything of the events passing there (Job 7° 14%, 
 Ee 9°). vet with the strong belief in the existence 
 
 significance to the religious mind. 
 
 of the persons in Shedl, there was naturally a 
 opular superstition that they could be reached. 
 his belief gave rise to the necromancy practised 
 
 among the Hebrews, as among most peoples, 
 
 though it is proscribed in the law and ridiculed 
 by the prophets (Is 8%). The practice probabl 
 
 did not repose on any general idea that the d 
 
 must have a wider knowledge than the living, that 
 
 ‘there must be wisdom with great Death,’ but on 
 
 the idea that great personages continued still to be 
 
 in death that which they had been in life. This 
 appears to have been the idea of Saul in seeking 
 unto Samuel. There is no record of any one 
 answering from the dead except Samuel. The 
 question whether any connexion was thought to 
 exist between the person in Shedl and his body can 
 hardly be answered. No such connexion existed 
 as to interfere with the passage of the person into 
 Shedl, whatever befell the poe The want of 
 burial was in itself dishonouring, and the dishonour 
 continued to cleave to the person among the dead, 
 but it did not, as among some nations, prevent his 
 descent to the world of the dead. There are some 
 passages which seem to speak of a sympathetic 
 rapport still existing between the bo 4 and the 
 person in Shedl, but probably they hardly go 
 further than to suggest the idea that the Ys 
 though thrown off, was still part of the man, and 
 not mere common unrelated dust. (4) The main 
 point is that the relation between the dead person 
 and God is cut off. This is what gave death its 
 
 Fellowship 
 
 with God ceases—‘In death there is no remem- 
 
 brance of thee; in Shedl who shall give thee 
 thanks?’ ‘For Shedl cannot praise thee; they 
 that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth’ 
 
 (Is 3835). 
 
 The passages relating to the eschatology of the 
 individual person are mostly poetical, and they are 
 in some points obscure. They are such passages as 
 Ps 16. 17. 22. 37. 49. 73, an eet fragments of 
 others, and Job. Now, with regard to these pas- 
 sages several things must be said: first, they are 
 all late, later at all events than the prophetic faith 
 of the 8th cent. This faith—belief in the coming 
 manifestation of God, in the judgment, and in the 
 eternal rest of the people in God’s perfect kingdom 
 —was the faith of the writers. Again, all the 
 passages repose upon an acknowledged distinction 
 among men, the distinction of the righteous and 
 the ungodly. This distinction is visible, men are 
 differently related to God. But the problem arose 
 from the fact that men’s destinies in the world 
 were not seen to correspond to this distinction: 
 in a moral world morality was not triumphant, in 
 the government of the righteous God righteous- 
 ness was not acknowledged. No doubt, the pious 
 mind sometimes eon poe itself by a deeper analysis 
 of that wherein true prosperity or felicity lay—the 
 
 ortion falling to it, even God Himself, was a pro- 
 ounder good than all earthly possessions (Ps 17. 73). 
 Nevertheless, the problem remained and demanded 
 solution. The solution was always an eschato- 
 logical one, and was just the distinction between 
 the righteous and the ungodly truly realizin 
 itself. In other words, immortality or etern 
 life is the corollary of religion, as Christ, summing 
 up the whole OT teaching, said, God is not the 
 
 God of the dead, but of the living; it might even 
 
 be said to be the corollary of morality—if the 
 
 universe be a moral world there is everlasting life. 
 
 The general position of OT saints, with their faith 
 
 in the advent of God to judge, was very similar 
 
 to that of the early Christians, who looked for the 
 speedy coming of Christ. is coming would 
 
 Bas the world and the Chureh, but the Church 
 
 would pass living into perfect blessedness; and, of 
 
 course, individuals would share the change---‘ We 
 
 fe eS ee ie oD en a, ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Ee a ee Se LU 
 
 
 
 | 
 | 
 : 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 shall not all die, but we shall all be changed.’ 
 Now, this was very like the feeling of OT saints. 
 The individual would share the transition of the 
 community, the Day of the Lord would break, and 
 the living would enter into fulness of life without 
 tasting death. True individualism is little seen in 
 OT. It is real to this extent: the individual 
 realized keenly his own personal life, and longed 
 earnestly to share for himself in the blessings upon 
 which the community would enter when God 
 appeared to abide for ever among them. He 
 longed that he, the living man, should see with 
 his people the glory of the Lord revealed, and 
 enter with his people into life. It was, perhaps, 
 only the prospect of death, or reflection on it, that 
 rounded off individualism and revealed its energies. 
 The life of the eommunity was perennial, but with 
 death before him the individual could not share 
 this life, and he sought to forecast his own personal 
 destiny. 
 
 Thus there may be two classes of eemctek (1) 
 penaes which, though spoken perhaps by in- 
 
 ividuals, express the hope of the living people, 
 and refer to that great change which the Day of 
 the Lord shall introduce, and which the individual, 
 as part of the people, shall experience without 
 tasting death; and (2) passages where the in- 
 dividual contemplates death, but expresses the 
 assurance that he will not, like the ungodly, fall 
 into Shedl, but see life. Ps 37 belongs to the first 
 class, and pore Say 73, though the phrase ‘take 
 me’ might, as in Ps 49, refer to escaping Shedl at 
 death. Ps 49 has two peculiarities: first, its open- 
 ing verses imply that its teaching on immortality 
 is no more an aspiration, but a firm conviction ; 
 and secondly, it seems to start from the assumption 
 that death is universal. If this be the case, the 
 words, ‘God will redeem my soul from Shedl,’ 
 must refer to the Psalmist’s hope in death. This 
 interpretation may certainly be supported by 
 reference to the parable of Lazarus in Abraham’s 
 bosom, which shows that the idea of a blessedness 
 of the spirit at death had been reached before the 
 time of our Lord. It is enough here to state some 
 general principles and give a classification of pas- 
 sages; for details the commentaries must be con- 
 sulted.* The prophets and saints of the OT were 
 not speculative men. They did not reason that the 
 soul was immortal from its nature,—this was not the 
 kind of immortality in which they were interested, 
 —though, for all that appears, the idea that any 
 human person should become extinguished or be 
 annihilated never occurred to them. They did not 
 lay stress in a reflective way on man’s instinctive 
 hopes of immortality, though they may be observed 
 giving these instinctive desires expression. So far 
 as they reasoned, their assurance was based on the 
 moral idea—Righteousness is eternal. So far as 
 they experienced and felt, their assurance was 
 immediate — religion is reciprocal, the conscious- 
 ness of God is God’s giving Himself in the con- 
 sciousness. 
 
 It has always been felt strange that the Penta- 
 teuch, which gives the constitution of the people of 
 God, should be silent on death and immortality, 
 or only refer to the popular idea of Shed]. In 
 explanation it may be said that the earliest part 
 of the Pent. is anterior to the prophets of the 8th 
 cent., while the later portions are the reflection of 
 the prophetic teaching. Deut. reposes on Isaiah 
 and the prophets of the Assyrian age, and the 
 Priests’ Code on Ezekiel. The constitution which 
 they furnish for Israel is the embodiment of the 
 prophetic conceptions. But the conceptions of the 
 
 rophets are ideal, their pictures of the true 
 srael are pictures of Israel of the future, Israel of 
 
 * See particularly the Anhang to Studer’s Das Buch Hiob, 
 Bremen, 1881. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 74) 
 
 
 
 the perfect and final state; in other words, of 
 Israel in what may be called its condition of 
 immortality. The legislation seeks to impose this 
 ideal on Israel of the present. Of necessity, when 
 applied to the conditions of the actual Israel, the 
 ideal was imperfectly realized, and was anew pro- 
 jected into the future. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Von Orelli, Prophecies of the Consummation of 
 the Kingdom; Bertheau, ‘Die Altt. Weissagung von Israel’s 
 Reichsherrlichkeit in seinem Lande,’ Jahrbb. fiir Deutsche 
 Theol. vols. iv. v. The older literature on Immortality is given 
 in Boettcher, De Inferis, 1846, and particularly in W. R. Alger, 
 A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, with a Com- 
 plete Bibliography by Ezra Abbot, New York, 1871. Besides 
 the relative sections in the Bib. Theologies, useful works are: 
 Oehler, Vet. Test. Sententia de rebus post mortem futuris, 
 1846; Perowne (Bp.), Immortality (Hulsean Lecture), 1869; 
 Schultz, Voraussetzungen der Christ. Lehre v. d. Unsterblich- 
 keit, 1861 ; Stade, Die Alttest. Vorstellungen vom Zustand nach 
 dem Tode, 1868, and relative section in Hist. vol. i.; Jeremias, 
 Die Babyl.-Assyr. Vorstellungen vom Zustand nach dem Tode, 
 1887 ; Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 1892; A. B. 
 Davidson, ‘Modern Religion and OT Immortality,’ Hapositor, 
 May 1895; especially Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of 
 Immortality, 3rd ed., 1897. A. B. DAVIDSON. 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY OF THE APOCRYPHAL AND 
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.—We shall treat 
 this subject under four heads. 1. The authorities 
 for Jewish Eschatology, B.c. 200-a.D. 80. 2. Some 
 of the conceptions which gave birth to and con- 
 trolled the evolution of later Jewish Eschatology. 
 3. Its historical development. 4. Its systematic 
 exposition. 
 
 . THE AUTHORITIES. 
 2nd cent. B.c.—Sirach. 
 
 “a Ethiopie Enoch 1-36. 
 
 a5 Daniel. 
 
 a Ethiopic Enoch 83-90; 91- 
 104. 
 
 ° Tobit. 
 
 aa Sibylline Oracles — Pro- 
 
 cmium and 397-818, 
 7 Testaments of the XII 
 , Patriarchs — Apocalyptic 
 Sections. Between B.c. 
 
 140 and A.D. 30. 
 35 Judith. 
 Ist cent. B.c.—Ethiopic Enoch 37-70. 
 = 1 Maccabees. 
 Psalms of Solomon. 
 
 5 2 Maccabees. 
 Ist cent. A.D.—Book of Jubilees. 
 
 A Assumption of Moses. 
 33 Philo. 
 
 Pe Slavonic Enoch. 
 
 4 Book of Wisdom. 
 
 is 4 Maccabees. 
 
 Composite works writ- 
 
 Apocalypse of Baruch ten partly before and 
 Book of Baruch partly after A.D. 70. 
 4 Ezra Part of the Book of 
 
 Ascension of Isaiah Baruch may belong to 
 the 2nd cent. B.C. 
 
 Josephus. 
 
 The above authorities vary indefinitely in the 
 degree of light they shed on the evolution of 
 eschatological thought among the Jews. Thus 
 very little help in this direction is to be derived 
 from Sirach, the Book of Baruch, Judith, and 
 1 Maccabees. It is, in fact, to the pees 
 apocalyptic writings that we are almost entirely 
 beholden for the materials of which we are in 
 quest. These not only supply the missing links 
 which unite in orderly development the thought 
 of OT to that of NT, at also in not a few cases 
 are the only documentary authorities for views 
 and doctrines which in later times established 
 themselves securely in Christianity or Judaism. 
 
 Il. SoME OF THE CONCEPTIONS WHICH GAVE 
 BIRTH TO AND CONTROLLED THE EVOLUTION OF 
 
 
 
742 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 LATER JEWISH ESCHATOLOGY.—These concep- 
 tions were already at work in OT, but were applied 
 only sporadically, and in a partially developed 
 form. In the later period they gradually attain 
 to their full rights. 
 
 1. The enlarged conception of God as the Creator 
 and Moral Governor of all the world, and its con- 
 sequences.—When once this idea is fully compre- 
 hended, the OT conception of Sheol can no longer 
 logically exist. And yet these two conflicting 
 conceptions did exist side by side for several cen- 
 turies. So long as J” was conceived simply as the 
 tribal God of Israel, and as one among other 
 gods, whose sole concern was the moral well-bein 
 and prosperity of His people on earth, then Sheo 
 was naturally conceived as beyond the sphere of 
 His dominion, and so preserved its ancient non- 
 moral character. It is not, indeed, till almost 
 the Maccabean period that the former concep- 
 tion has transformed the latter, and the abode 
 of the shades has become a place of moral retribu- 
 tion. 
 
 Another consequence of this enlarged conception 
 of God was an enlarged conception of judgment. 
 Since God was the Creator and Ruler of all men, 
 the idea of a final and world judgment, in which 
 the destinies of all should be decided, naturally 
 arose. It must be conceded, however, that in 
 Judaism this idea was, so far as the Gentiles 
 went, always of the most one-sided and inequit- 
 able character. In their case, judgment, as a rule, 
 meant simply condemnation. At best they were 
 spared only to become subject to Israel. 
 
 2. The conception of the individual, and his grow- 
 ing claims.—The doctrine of individual retribution 
 was evolved in OT.* It is the direct antithesis of 
 the earlier view of the solidarity of the family, 
 tribe, ornation. The latter doctrine, which identi- 
 fied the responsibilities of the individual with his 
 family or nation, naturally led to strange con- 
 sequences. Ezekiel (esp. in ch. 18) was the first 
 to attack this doctrine in its entirety, and to 
 euieee it by an equally exaggerated and false 
 individualism. As the consequences of sin were 
 still confined to this life, the difficulties of this 
 conception soon came to light. According to it 
 every misfortune is a divine punishment, and 
 every pee of prosperity a special instance of 
 
 avour. The antinomies arising from such 
 a view are discussed in Job and Ecclesiastes, and 
 its untenableness demonstrated no less certainly 
 than that of the doctrine it was intended to 
 supersede. As long as the consequences of man’s 
 action were regarded as limited to this life, these 
 antinomies were incapable of solution, and God’s 
 dealings with His righteous servants incapable 
 of justification. But notwithstanding the bank- 
 ruptcy of both these theories, or rather in con- 
 sequence of it, the faith and religious thought of 
 Israel were set free to attempt a truer and pro- 
 founder solution of the problem. On the one 
 hand, the heii bos servant of J” in due time came 
 to be assured that neither here nor hereafter could 
 he be separated from the love and presence of 
 God; and that for him the ancient Sheol would 
 stretch out its arms in vain. On the other, the 
 religious thinker of Israel was equally assured 
 that since God’s righteousness did not attain to 
 its full consequences here, it must do so elsewhere ; 
 and thus the doctrine of retribution was carried 
 into the after-life, and a personal blessed existence, 
 whether of limited or endless duration, whether 
 as a member of the Messianic kingdom or a direct 
 participant in a blessed immortality, became a 
 postulate of religious thought. In due course the 
 moralization of the old conception of Sheol was 
 effected, not indeed in OT times, but in the sub- 
 
 * Cf. Gn 1823-33, Ex 3233, Nu 1622, Dt 710 2416 etc. 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 sequent centuries, as we find in Apocalyrtic 
 literature. 
 
 3. The growing transcendence of the Messianic 
 expectations.—In OT the hopes of Israel were in 
 the main confined to this world and to the well-being 
 of the nation. Thus they looked for the destruction 
 of their national foes, for the purification of their 
 people, and the establishment of an earthly king- 
 As of limited or endless duration. The scene of 
 this kingdom was to be the earth purged from all 
 violence and sin. But in the later period the 
 gulf between the present and future begins to 
 widen, and this process goes on till the last 
 resemblances vanish, and the present appears a 
 moral chaos under the rule of Satan and _ his 
 angels, and the future is conceived as an unending 
 kingdom of blessedness under the immediate sway 
 of God or the Messiah. 
 
 Ill. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF JEWISH 
 EscHATOLOGY.—(4A ) 2nd cent. B.C. 
 
 Sirach.—The eschatology of this book belongs to 
 the OT. Hades is the place of the shades and the 
 region of death (92 141% 16 2118 414 485), There is no 
 delight there (141%), no praise of God (1777-8), man 
 is plunged in an eternal sleep (46!% 221! 3017 38%). 
 Retribution does not follow a man into the after- 
 life (414), but his sins are visited through the evil 
 remembrance of his name, and in the misfortunes 
 of his children after him (1128 2374-26 40% 4158), As 
 recards the future of the nation, the writer looks 
 forward to the Messianic kingdom of which Elijah 
 
 ‘is to be the forerunner (48!), when Israel will 
 
 be delivered from evil (50: 4), the scattered tribes 
 restored (33!4, AV 36!), the heathen nations duly 
 punished (327-74, AV 35! ). He expects also the 
 eternal duration of Israel (37%), and likewise of 
 David's line (47}). 
 
 Ethiopic Enoch* 1-36.—This fragmentary writing 
 represents the earliest, and at all events the most 
 primitive, view of the ‘last things’ in the literature 
 of the 2nd cent. B.c. According to this writer, 
 retribution inevitably dogs the heels of sin. Thus 
 punishment has already befallen sinful angels and 
 men (10%! 2) in the first world-judgment (10%). 
 But the final judgment is yet tocome. Meanwhile 
 all who die enter one of the four divisions of Sheol, 
 where they have a foretaste of their ultimate bliss 
 or woe (22). In due course the final judgment 
 comes, ushered in by the resurrection of the 
 righteous and the wicked (with the exception of 
 one class of the latter, 22!?:1%), The resurrection 
 seems to be limited to Israel and its progenitors. 
 The fallen angels, demons, and men then receive 
 their final award (10! 16! 1%). The former are 
 plunged into an abyss of fire (=Tartarus, 101 4), 
 while the wicked amongst men are cast into Gehenna, 
 and their punishment isa spectacle for the righteous 
 (27-3), Then the rE Messianic kingdo. is 
 established, with Jerusalem and Palestine for its 
 centre (25°). God makes His abode with man (25%) 
 —there is no Messiah. All the Gentiles become 
 righteous and worship God (107). The righteous 
 eat of the tree of life, and enjoy patriarchal lives 
 (5° 25°) and every material blessing (57 10% 1% 11%), 
 begetting each 1000 children (10!). There is no 
 hint as to what becomes of the righteous after the 
 second death. ; 
 
 Observe that (1) justice is done to the claims of 
 the righteous nation by the establishment of an 
 eternal Messianic kingdom ; (2) and likewise to 
 those of the righteous individual by his resurrection 
 to a long life in this kingdom; also (3) that Sheol 
 has undergone transformation, and become az 
 intermediate place of moral retribution for the 
 righteous and the wicked for the first time in 
 literature ; (4) Gehenna appears as the final place 
 
 * For some treatment of the cr tical and exegetical questions 
 of this work, the readers shou \d cmsult the article on this hook. 
 
 | 
 | 
 ) 
 
 
 
ee 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 ESCH ATOLOGY 743 
 
 
 
 of punishment for apostate Jews, and Tartarus for 
 
 the fallen angels; and (5) that the final judgment 
 recedes the Messianic kingdom, and is limited to 
 srael. 
 
 Daniel.—The eschatology of this book in some 
 respects marks an advance on that of the writer 
 ie quoted. When the need of the ‘saints of the 
 
 ost High’ is greatest (7?! 12!, in the persecu- 
 tion under Antiochus), the Ancient of Days will 
 intervene, and His throne of judgment will be set 
 up (7°), and the kingdoms of the world will be 
 overthrown (71-1), and supreme and everlasting 
 dominion given to His saints (7!* 2: 27); and these 
 will ‘break in pieces and consume’ (2) all the 
 kingdoms of the world, and all ‘ peoples, nations, 
 and languages shall serve’ them (7%) ; their ‘ do- 
 minion is an everlasting dominion which shall not 
 pass away’ (74), And the righteous who ‘sleep 
 in a land of dust * shall awake,’ to share in the 
 eternal life and blessedness of this kingdom (12'-*), 
 
 Observe that (1) the Messianic kingdom—there 
 is no Messiah—is established not only through the 
 personal intervention of God, but also through the 
 active efforts of His saints. The latter feature 
 reappears frequently in the later Apocalypses as 
 the ‘ period of the sword.’ (2) The resurrecticn is 
 a resurrection of the body, and embraces all Israel. 
 (3) The scene of the kingdom is the earth ; for ‘all 
 peoples, nations, and languages’ are its subjects 
 (74). (4) The context does not decide whether the 
 risen body will possess its natural appetites, as in 
 Eth. En. 1-36, but seems to favour this idea. (5) 
 ‘ Everlasting life’ (12?, or rather ‘ zonian life * ™n 
 pbiy) may mean nothing more than a very long life, 
 asin Eth. En. 1-36. (6) Nothing is said as to the 
 future abode of the Gentiles. 
 
 Ethiopic Enoch 83-90 (B.C. 166-161).—The writer 
 of this book has advanced considerably beyond the 
 naive and sensuous views presented in Eth. En. 
 1-36. His views are more spiritual, and closely 
 allied to the Daniel Be pocaly pee, which was written 
 a few years earlier. is eschatology is developed 
 at greater length than that of Daniel. Like Daniel, 
 he regards every people under heaven as being 
 under the control of a guardian angel. But this 
 view is peculiarly applied in this author. The 
 undue severities that have befallen Israel are not 
 from God’s hand, but are the doing of the 70 shep- 
 herds (t.e. angels) into whose care God had com- 
 mitted Israel] (89°). But these angels have not 
 wronged Israel with impunity ; for judgment is at 
 hand. When their oppression is sorest, a righteous 
 league will be formed (i.e. the Hasidim, 90°), and 
 in it there will be a family from which will come 
 forth Judas the Maccabee (90%!*), who will war 
 victoriously against all the enemies of Israel. 
 While the struggle is still raging, God will appear 
 in person, and the earth will swallow the adver- 
 saries of the righteous(90!8). The wicked shepherds 
 and the fallen watchers will then be cast into an 
 abyss of fire (7.e. Tartarus, 90°”), and the apos- 
 tates into Gehenna (90). Then God Himself will 
 set up the New Jerusalem (90%: ”), and the sur- 
 viving Gentiles will be converted and serve Israel 
 (90°), and the dispersion will be brought back, and 
 the righteous Israelites will be raised to take part 
 in the kingdom (90%). When all is accomplished, 
 the Messiah will appear (90°), and all will be 
 transformed into his likeness. 
 
 Observe (1) the growing consciousness of the 
 evils and imperfections of the ebaaet world. Thus 
 even Israel for a time is ruled by wicked angels. 
 This dualism manifests itself also in the picture of 
 
 * This is the natural translation of 15y"n27X. For Sheol in 
 this sense compare Job 1716, Sheol here seems to preserve its 
 OT sense as a place of semi-conscious existence where moral 
 retribution is unknown. Only by waking from this condition 
 can man enter on the retribution that is his due. 
 
 the future kingdom. Then its centre is not the 
 earthly Jerusalein, but the New Jerusalem, brought 
 down from heaven obviously on the ground of the 
 unfitness of the former. Yet the writers of Eth. 
 Kn. 1-86 and Daniel were not conscious of this 
 unfitness. (2) As against the two preceding books, 
 Eth. En. 1-36 and Daniel, this book teaches the 
 resurrection of the righteous only. (3) We have 
 here the earliest reference to the Messiah in 
 Apocalyptic literature. But he has no real part to 
 play in the kingdom, and his introduction seems 
 ue merely to literary reminiscence. 
 
 Ethiopic Enoch 91-104 (B.c. 134-94).—As we pass 
 from the eschatological views of the three preceding 
 
 books to those of the present, we feel conscious we’ 
 
 are entering into a world of new conceptions. In 
 the former books the resurrection and the final 
 feeerent were the prelude to an everlasting 
 
 essianic kingdom, but in this these great events 
 are relegated to its close. The author acknow- 
 ledges that the wicked are seemingly sinning with 
 impunity ; but this is not so: their evil deeds are 
 recorded every day (104’), and for these they will 
 suffer endless retribution in Sheol (99!) ; and from 
 this hell of darkness and of flame, into which their 
 souls enter on death, they will never escape (98 1° 
 1047-8), In the eighth week, moreover, the Messianic 
 kingdom will be set up, and the righteous will slay 
 the wicked with the sword (91! 957 96! ete.). At 
 the close of this kingdom in the tenth week the 
 final judgment will be held, and the former heaven 
 and earth will be res and a new heaven 
 created (91146), Then the righteous dead, who 
 have hitherto been guarded by angels (1005), will 
 be raised (911° 92%), but not in the body, but as 
 spirits only (103% 4), and they shall joy as the 
 angels (1044), and become companions of the 
 heavenly hosts (104°), and shine as the stars for 
 ever (1047). 
 
 Observe that (1) the dualism we have noticed 
 above has already led to its logical results. (2) 
 Thus the Messianic kingdom is apparently for the 
 first time in literature conceived of as temporary. 
 (3)Sheol has for the first time become the equivalent 
 of hell (yet see Eth. En. 22"%). (4) The resurrection 
 is for the first time regarded as of the spirit only. 
 (5) Even the heavens need to be created anew. 
 
 Tobit.—The eschatology of this book, like that of 
 Sirach, belongs to the OT. The same view of the 
 after-life prevails (4'°). It entertains, like the OT, 
 high hopes for the nation. Thus Jerusalem and 
 the temple will be rebuilt with gold and precious 
 stones, the scattered tribes restored, and the 
 heathen, forsaking their idols, will worship the 
 God of Israel (131-18 144-6), 
 
 Sibylline Oracles, Proemium and 3%-®8,—This 
 book contains many details concerning the last 
 times ; but as it belongs to Hellenistic Jt udaism, it 
 is only of secondary interest in this study of Jewish 
 Palestinian eschatology. It contains, however, a 
 vivid account of the Messianic kingdom. Very 
 soon the people of the Mighty God will grow 
 strong (31-1), and God will send the Messiah 
 from the East, who will put an end to evil war, 
 slaying some and fulfilling the promises in behalf 
 of others, and he will be guided in all things by 
 God. And the temple will be resplendent with 
 glory, and the earth teem with fruitfulness (32-6), 
 Then the nations will muster their forces and 
 attack Palestine (3°66); but God will destroy 
 them, and their judgment will be accompanied b 
 fearful portents (37-67), But Israel will dwe 
 safely under the divine protection (37-7); and the 
 rest of the cities and the islands will be converted, 
 and unite with Israel in praising God (37-71), 
 The blessings of the Messianic age are recounted 
 3744-754; cf. also 3267-380. 619-623, And the kings of 
 the earth will be at peace with one another (375-759) 
 
 
 
744 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 And God will establish a universal kingdom over 
 all mankind, with Jerusalem as centre (3287-771), and 
 the prophets of God will lay down the sword and 
 become judges and kings of the earth (378!-78?), and 
 men will bring offerings to the temple from all 
 parts of the earth (3772-7), 
 
 Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. — Until a 
 critical edition of this composite work is published, 
 it is dangerous to quote it as an authority. While 
 it contains many sections that appear to be as 
 early as B.C. 140, the body of the work seems to 
 have been written about the beginning of the 
 Christian era. There are, moreover, numerous 
 Christian interpolations. Till a critical edition of 
 the text and contents is published, it is best not to 
 cite it as evidence on the present subject. Its 
 evidence, though valuable, is in no respect extra- 
 ordinary, or unvouched for elsewhere. 
 
 Judith.—This book is singularly barren in eschat- 
 ological thought. It speaks of the judgment of 
 the heathen (16!"), 
 
 (B) 1st cent. B.C. 
 
 Ethiopic Enoch 37-70 (B.C. 94-64).—These chap- 
 ters form the well-known ‘ Similitudes,’ the most 
 important element in the Book of Enoch. The 
 writer’s eschatological views are as follows :—In 
 the latter days sin will flourish in the world ; 
 sinners will deny the name of the Lord of Spirits 
 (38? 412) and of His Anointed (48) ; and the kings 
 and the mighty will oppress the elect of the 
 children of God (62"). But suddenly the Head of 
 Days will appear, and with Him the Son of Man 
 (462 8 4 482), to execute universal judgment. And 
 all Israel will be raised from the dead (511 615), and 
 all judgment will be committed to the Son of Man 
 (41° 69%), who will possess universal dominion (62°) 
 and sit on the throne of God (47° 515). And he will 
 judge all the angels, unfallen and fallen (61° 55‘), 
 and the righteous and the sinners amongst men 
 (62:5), and the kings and the mighty (62?! 
 631-411), And the fallen angels will be cast into a 
 fiery furnace (54°), and the kings and the mighty 
 will be tortured in Gehenna by the angels of punish- 
 ment (53°-5 541-2), and the remaining sinners and 
 godless will be driven from off the face of the 
 earth (38% 41? 45°) ; the Son of Man will slay them 
 by the word of his mouth (62?). And heaven; and 
 earth will be transformed (45* 5), and the righteous 
 will have their mansions therein (39° 412). And 
 the Elect One will dwell amongst them (45%). And 
 they will be clad in garments of life (62%: 1*), and 
 become angels in heaven (514), and grow in know- 
 ledge and righteousness (58°), . 
 
 Observe that (1) the Messianic kingdom is here 
 of everlasting duration, but its scene is no longer 
 the present earth, as in the literature of the pre- 
 ceding century, but a transformed heaven and 
 earth. Thus in the process of evolution Messianic 
 thought has become more transcendent. (2) The 
 Messiah for the first time in Jewish literature is 
 represented as a supernatural being and as the 
 Judge of men and angels. (3) The hopes of a 
 Messiah, which in the 2nd cent. B.C. were practi- 
 cally dead, have, owing partly to the circumstances 
 of the time, risen to a new and vigorous life. See 
 the review of the Pss. of Solomon, below. (4) 
 Several Messianic titles appear in this book for the 
 first time in literature: ‘ Christ’ (48! 524), ‘the 
 Righteous One’ (38? 53), ‘the Elect One’ (40° 45%: 4), 
 ‘the Son of Man’ (46? ®- 4 48? etc.). (5) All questions 
 affecting the future destinies of the Gentiles are 
 ignored, if we regard 50 as an interpolation ; but if 
 it belongs to the context, the writer teaches that 
 when the kings and the mighty and the sinners are 
 destroyed, the remaining Gentiles will be saved if 
 they repent and forsake their idols. God will 
 have mercy on them, but give them no honour or 
 
 glory. 
 
 ‘ 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 —— 
 
 1 Maccabees.—This book is entirely wanting in 
 eschatological teaching, if we except the writer’s 
 expectation of a prophet in 44 1441, 
 
 Psalms of Solomon (B.C. 70-40).—Like the Simili- 
 tudes, this book is of Pharisaic authorship. They 
 poe in common a vigorous Messianic hope, 
 
 ut on very divergent lines. In the preceding 
 
 century this hope was practically non-existent. 
 So long as Judas and Simon were chiefs cf the 
 nation, the need of a Messiah was hardly felt. 
 But in the first half of the next century it was 
 very different. Subject to ruthless oppression, the 
 righteous were in sore need of nels As their 
 princes were the leaders in this oppression, they 
 were forced to look for divine aid. Thus the 
 bold and original thinker to whom we owe the 
 Similitudes conceived the Messiah as the super- 
 natural Son of Man, who should enjoy universal 
 dominion and execute judgment on men and angels. 
 But other religious thinkers, returning afresh to the 
 study of OT, revived, as in the Psalms of Solomon, 
 the expectation of the prophetic Messiah, sprun, 
 from the house and lineage of David (17). the 
 hopes of this Messiah are confined to Pss 17. 18, and 
 in all the Pss that precede there is not even the 
 remotest hint of such hopes, it is reasonable to infer 
 a difference of authorship. There are other grounds 
 for the same inference, but we cannot deal with 
 them here. In recounting, therefore, the eschat- 
 ology of Ps.-Sol, we shall first deal with Pss 17. 18. 
 
 Pss 17, 18. The Messiah—specifically so called in 
 
 - 176 188—is to spring from the lineage of David (17”), 
 
 to be a righteous king (17), pure from sin (17). 
 He will gather the dispersed tribes together (1778 ™), 
 and purify Israel (178: °), and will suffer no Gentile 
 to sojourn amongst them (17%), nor any iniquity to 
 lodge in their midst, nor any that knoweth wicked- 
 néss (17% 85) ; and all the people will be holy (17%), 
 even sons of God (17%). But as for the ungodly 
 nations, he will destroy them with the word of his 
 mouth (177, cf. 17°), for his weapons will not be 
 carnal ; nor will he trust in horse or rider or bow, or 
 in silver or gold (17%7), but he will overthrow sinners 
 by the might of his word (171). And the remain- 
 ing Gentiles will become subject to him (17%. *) ; 
 and he will have mercy on all the nations that 
 come before him in fear (17%), and they will come 
 from the ends of the world to see his glory (17*), 
 and bring her sons as gifts to Zion (17%). nd the 
 Messiah will not faint all his days (17). 
 
 Observe that (1) the Messiah is, however highly 
 endowed, a man and nothing more. (2) It follows 
 that his kingdom can only be of temporary dura- 
 tion. (3) It falls in with both these observations, 
 that there is not a hint of the righteous rising from 
 the dead to share in it. This conclusion is con- 
 
 firmed Pyare beatitude of 175°, ‘ Blessed are they 
 
 that shall be born in those days to behold the 
 blessing of Israel which God shall bring to pass in 
 the gathering together of the tribes.’ Thus only 
 the surviving righteous share in this temporary 
 earthly kingdom. (4) The Gentiles are still merci- 
 fully dealt with. Such as have not been hostile to 
 Israel are spared and become subject. 
 
 Pss 1-16. The bulk of these Pss are silent as to 
 the future. They are all absolutely silent as to 
 the Messiah. On the other hand, they paint in 
 glowing colours the restoration of the tribes (8 
 11°), A Messianic kingdom was therefore prob- 
 ably expected—at all events a period of prosperity, 
 when God’s help is promised (7°). But beyond 
 prophesying vengeance on the hostile nations and 
 the sinners, the psalmists do not dwell on thia 
 period. The real recompense of the righteous is 
 not, in their thoughts, bound up with this earthly 
 kingdom. The righteous rise not to any kingdom 
 of temporal prosperity, but to eternal life (3! 13°), 
 they inherit life in gladness (14"), and live in the 
 
 
 
 ee ee ee eee ee ee ee 
 
 — = . oo 
 

 
 ie es i, ae” ee 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 righteousness of their God (15). There seems to 
 be no resurrection of the body. As for the wicked, 
 on the other hand, ‘their inheritance is Hades 
 (here=hell) and darkness and destruction’ (14°), 
 destruction and darkness (15"), and into their 
 heritage in Hades they enter immediately on 
 dyi (167), and their iniquities pursue them 
 thither (15"). Thus the eschatology of Pss 1-16 
 agrees in nearly every point with that of Eth. En. 
 91-104, and so calls for no further comment here. 
 
 2 Maccabees.—There is no direct reference to a 
 Messianic kingdom in this book, though it might 
 be possible to reason back to it from the expecta- 
 tion of the restoration of the tribes (2'*). There is 
 certainly no hint of a Messiah. On the other 
 hand, however, the doctrine of retribution, present 
 and future, plays a significant réle. Present re- 
 tribution follows sin alike in the case of Israel and 
 of the Gentiles, but in the case of Israel its purpose 
 is corrective, whereas in that of the Gentiles it is 
 vindictive (6%). Though God punish His people, 
 He does not withdraw His mercy from them (6!216 
 14), In order to show the certainty of retribu- 
 tion in this life, the writer rewrites history, and 
 makes individual sinners suffer the penalties which 
 he thinks, in strict justice, they ought to have 
 suffered : thus compare the final earthly destinies 
 of the heathen oppressors, Epiphanes (717 95-") and 
 Nicanor (15°); and of the Hellenizing Jews, 
 Jason (57-!) and Menelaus (13°). Even the martyrs 
 confess their sufferings to be due to sin (71% 5 %8), 
 Immediate retribution is a token of God’s goodness 
 (63). But our present concern is mainly with re- 
 tribution Reyond the grave. The righteous and 
 the wicked of Israel enter after death the inter- 
 mediate state (Hades), where they have a foretaste 
 of their final doom (6%), which takes effect after 
 the resurrection. There is to be a resurrection of 
 the righteous (7% 4. 4 23. 2%. 8), possibly even of all 
 Jews (12-44), The resurrection is to be clearly 
 that of the body (74). Apparently, it is to accom- 
 pany the final judgment. Of the heathen there 
 will be no resurrection: when they die they enter 
 at once on their eternal doom (7'4)._ There appears 
 to be no blessed future for any of the Gentiles. 
 
 (C) 1st cent. A.D. 
 
 Book of Jubilees.—Like many of the books just 
 reviewed, the Book of Jubilees makes no mention 
 of a Messianic king. It sketches, however, in 
 vigorous terms, the woes that are to be the prelude 
 of the Messianic kingdom, the attacks of the 
 heathen powers, and then the gradual introduction 
 of the kingdom effected through devotion to and 
 observance of the law. Thus the Messianic woes 
 are described in 231 1% 2 ‘Calamity follows on 
 calamity, and wound on wound, and tribulation on 
 tribulation, and evil tidings on evil tidings, and 
 illness on illness, and all evil judgments such as 
 these, one with another, illness and overthrow, 
 and snow and frost and ice, and fever, and chills, 
 and torpor, famine, and death, and sword, and 
 captivity, and all kinds of calamities and pains. 
 19. And they will strive one with another, the 
 young with the old, and the old with the young, 
 the poor with the rich, and the lowly with the 
 great, and the beggar with the prince, on account 
 of the law and the covenant; for they have for- 
 gotten His commandment, and the covenant and 
 the feasts, and the months, and the Sabbaths, and 
 the jubilees, and all judgments. 22. And a great 
 
 unishment will befall the deeds of this generation 
 
 om the Lord; and he will give them over to the 
 sword and to judgment and to captivity, and to be 
 plundered bad devoured.’ 
 
 And thereupon will ensue the invasion of Pales- 
 tine by the Gentiles (23% *4). ‘And he will wake 
 up against them the sinners of the Gentiles, who 
 will show them no mercy or grace, and who respect 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 745 
 
 
 
 the person of none, neither old nor young, nor any 
 one, for they are wicked and powerful, so that they 
 are more wicked than all the children of men, And 
 they will use violence against Israel and transyres- 
 sion against Jacob, and much blood will be shed 
 upon the earth, and there will be none to gather it 
 and none to bury. 24. In those days they will cry 
 aloud, and call and pray that they may be saved 
 from the hand of the sinful Gentiles; but none will 
 be saved,’ 
 
 Then Israel will repent (235). ‘And in those 
 days the children will hoot to study the laws, and 
 to seek the commandments, and to return to the 
 paths of righteousness’ (231% 27-8), «16, And in 
 that generation the sons will convict their fathers 
 and their elders of sin and unrighteousness, and 
 the words of their mouth and the great wickednesses 
 which they perpetrate, and concerning their forsak- 
 ing the covenant which the Lord made between 
 them and Him, that they should observe and do all 
 His commandments and His ordinances and all His 
 laws, without departing either to the right hand 
 or the left. 27. And the days of the children of men 
 will begin to grow many, and increase from gene- 
 ration to generation and day to day, till their days 
 draw near to one thousand years, and to a greater 
 number of years than (before) were their days. 28. 
 And there will be no old man norone that is not satis- 
 fied with his days, for all will be (as) children and 
 youths. 29. And all their days they will complete 
 in peace and in joy, and they will live, and there 
 will be no Satan nor any evil destroyer ; for all 
 their days will be days of blessing and healing. 
 30. And at that time the Lord will heal His ser- 
 vants, and they will rise up and see great peace 
 and drive out His adversary, and the righteous will 
 see and be thankful, and rejoice with joy for ever 
 and ever, and will see all their judgments and all 
 their curses on their enemies.’ Finally, when the 
 righteous die their spirits will enter into a blessed 
 immortality (23%1), ‘And their bones will rest in 
 the earth and their spirits will have much joy, and 
 they will know that it is the Lord who executes 
 judgments, and shows mercy to hundreds and 
 thousands of all that love Him.’ 
 
 Observe that (1) apparently there is no resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, and that the soul enters at death 
 on its final destiny. (2) Sheol has thus become 
 hell (2481), ‘For though he ascend unto heaven, 
 thence will he be brought down; and whithersoever 
 he flee on earth, thence will he be dragged forth ; 
 and though he hide himself amongst the nations, 
 even from thence will he be rooted out; and 
 though he descend into Sheol, there also shall his 
 condemnation be great, and there also he will 
 have no peace.’ 
 
 Assumption of Moses (A.D. 7-29).—This book is 
 closely allied to that of Jubilees in many respects. 
 Thus the preparation for the advent of the T'heo- 
 cratic or Messianic kingdom will be a period of 
 repentance (118). 1750 years after the death of 
 Moses, God will intervene on behalf of Israel (10%), 
 and the ten tribes will be brought back from 
 the captivity.* During this kingdom Israel will 
 destroy her natural enemies (10°), and finally be 
 exalted to heaven (10°), whence she shall see her 
 enemies in Gehenna (10°). 
 
 Observe that (1) there is no Messiah. Indeed 
 the author in 10 appears to be really inimical to 
 this expectation: ‘The eternal God alone... 
 will punish the Gentiles.’ (2) There appears to be 
 no resurrection of the body, but of the spirit only 
 after the final judgment, similarly as in Eth. En. 
 91-104, Pss of Solomon, and Jubilees. (3) 
 Gehenna, which originally was the specific place 
 of punishment for apostate Jews, has now become 
 the final abode of the wicked generally. 
 
 * See Charles’ Assumption of Moses, pp. 59, 60. 
 
746 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 Philo (B.C. 25-A.D. 50).—We shall touch only on 
 the main points of Philonic eschatology. Philo 
 looked forward to the return of the tribes from 
 captivity, to the establishment of a Messianic 
 kingdom of temporal prosperity, and even to a 
 Messiah. The loci classicti on this subject are 
 De Execrat. § 8-9, and De Pram, et Pen. § 15-20. 
 The inclusion of the Messiah and the Messianic 
 kingdom in Philo’s eschatology, though really 
 foreign to his system, is strong evidence as to the 
 
 revalence of these expectations even in Hellenistic 
 5 udaism. Apparently, he did not look forward to 
 a general and final judgment. All entered after 
 death into theif final abode. The punishment af 
 the wicked was for everlasting (De Cherub. § 1); 
 even wicked Jews were committed to Tartarus 
 (De Ezxecrat. § 6). As matter was incurably evil, 
 there could of course be no resurrection of the 
 body. Our present life in the body is death (De 
 Leg. Alleg. § 1). 
 
 Slavonic Enoch* (A.D. 1-50).—As the earth was 
 created in six days, its history, according to this 
 book, will be accomplished in 6000 years; and as 
 the six days of creation were followed by one of 
 rest, so the 6000 years of the world’s history will 
 be followed by a rest of 1000 years—the millennium 
 or Messianic kingdom. Then time will pass into 
 eternity (32?-33"). In this Messianic kingdom 
 there is no Messiah. At the close of this kingdom 
 the final judgment is held, variously called ‘the 
 day of judgment’ (39! 51°), ‘the great day of the 
 Lord’ (18°), ‘ the great judgment’ (52% 585 65° 667), 
 ‘the day of the great judgment’ (504), ‘ the eternal 
 judgment’ (71), ‘the great judgment for ever’ (604), 
 ‘the terrible judgment’ (48°), ‘the immeasurable 
 judgment’ (40"). But pes to the final judgment 
 the souls of the departed are in intermediate places. 
 Thus the rebellious angels are confined to the 
 second heaven, awaiting in torment the eternal 
 judgment (7!*). The fallen lustful angels are kept 
 in durance under the earth (187). Satan, being 
 hurled down from heaven, has the air as his habita- 
 tion (2945), There is no definite account of the 
 intermediate place for men’s souls. The writer 
 declares, however, that places have been prepares 
 for every human soul (49? 585). From the latter 
 context these appear to constitute the intermediate 
 place for human souls. In 32! Adam is sent back 
 to this receptacle of souls on his death, and is 
 transferred from it to paradise in the third heaven 
 after the great judgment (42°). Even the souls of 
 beasts are preserved till the final judgment, in 
 order to testify against the ill-usage of man (58° °), 
 On the conclusion of the final judgment the right- 
 eous enter paradise as their eternal inheritance and 
 final abode (8. 9. 423-5 613 65!°). The wicked are 
 cast into hell in the third heaven, where their 
 torment will be for everlasting (10. 40% 41? 42-2 
 615). There is apparently no resurrection of the 
 body—the righteous are clothed with the garments 
 of God’s glory (228, cf. Eth. En. 6216108). The 
 seventh heaven is the final abode of Enoch (55? 
 672), but this is an exceptional privilege. 
 
 Observe that (1) we have here the first mention 
 of the millennium. (2) There is no resurrection of 
 the body; but at the final judgment the souls of 
 the righteous, which have in the interval been in 
 the intermediate place, are now clothed with God’s 
 glory and admitted to paradise. 
 
 Book of Wisdom.—In this Alexandrian work 
 there is no Messiah, but there is an expectation of 
 the Messianic or Theocratic kingdom, where the 
 righteous will judge the nations and have dominion 
 (38), There will be no resurrection of the body ; 
 for the soul is the proper self: the body is a mere 
 burden taken up by the pre-existent soul, but in 
 
 * For further details see Morfill and Charles’ editio princeps 
 of this book ; also the art. Enocu (Bk. of Secrets of). 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 due season laid down again. Arcordingly, there 
 
 is only an immortality of the soul. The immor. 
 tality of the righteous soul and its future blessed- 
 ness are set forth in terms remarkable at once for 
 their beauty and vigour (314 4% 7-10 158), As for 
 the wicked, they will be punished with death 
 (12. 16- 24) ; they will be bereft of hope (311 18 514) ; 
 the time for repentance is past (5%); they will be 
 utterly destroyed (41%), yet not annihilated; for 
 they will be subject to pain (4); and be aware 
 of the blessedness of the righteous (5!-?). 
 
 Observe that the righteous in Israel are to judge 
 the nations. This seems to be a later development 
 of the judgment by the sword frequently mentioned 
 in previous literature (cf. Dn 24; Eth. En, 91" 
 etc.). Thus the judgment of the saints has become 
 a forensic one, as that of the Messiah (ef. 1 Co 6?). 
 
 4 Maccabees. — This book is a philosophical 
 treatise on the supremacy of the reason. The 
 writer adopts, so far as possible, the tenets of Stoi- 
 cism. He teaches the eternal existence of all souls, 
 good and bad, but no resurrection of the body: 
 the good will enjoy eternal blessedness in heaven 
 (9? 122 1317 153 175); but the wicked will be tor- 
 mented in fire for ever (9° 1015). 
 
 Apocalypse of Baruch* (A.D. 50-80).—Of this 
 composite work the six or more independent con- 
 stituents may be ranged in three classes when 
 treated from the standpoint of their eschatology. 
 Thus the Messiah Apocalypses A! A? A%, i.e. 27- 
 30! 36-40 53-74, form the first class. i. This 
 differs from the remaining part of the book in 
 being written prior to A.D. 70 and in teaching the 
 doctrine of a personal Messiah. The réle of the 
 Messiah in A! is erftirely a passive one, whereas in 
 A’ and A® he is a warrior who slays the enemies of 
 Israel with hisown hand. Inall A fies Apocalypses 
 the Messiah-Kingdom is of tempor: duration. 
 In A? ‘his principate will stand for ever until the 
 world of corruption is at an end’ (40%); in A® his 
 reign is described as ‘the consummation of that 
 which is corruptible, and the beginning of that 
 which is incorruptible’ (747). In A? and A® the 
 kingdom is inaugurated with the judgment of the 
 sword (397-40? 727-6), The Gentiles that had ruled 
 or oppressed Israel should be destroyed, but those 
 that had not done so should be spared, in order to 
 be subject to Israel (72%§), The final judgment 
 and the resurrection follow on the close of these 
 kingdoms. Of the two remaining classes, the 
 second consists of B!, and the third of B? and B*, 
 written after A.D. 70. 
 
 ii. In B}, te. 1-9! 43-447 45-46® 77-82. 84. 86-87, 
 the writer looks forward to the rebuilding of Jeru- 
 salem (6°), the restoration of the exiles (77° 787), the 
 Messianic kingdom, but no Messiah (15 466 777), 
 There is no consideration shown for the Gentiles 
 (822-7), 
 
 iii. In B’, t.e. 13-25. 307-35. 41-42. 44°15 47-52. 
 75-76. 83, the writer has relinquished all hope 
 as to the present corruptible world, and fixes his 
 regards wholly on the incorruptible world that is to 
 be. The ake will be renewed (32°), and in this 
 renewal, from being transitory and verging to its 
 close (48° 851°), it will become und ying (513) and 
 everlasting (48°) ; from being a world of corruption 
 (40% 74? 21” etc.), it will become incorruptible and 
 invisible (747518). The teaching as to the resurrec- 
 tion proceeds on parallel lines. Thus in answer to 
 the question, ‘Wilt thou perchance change these 
 things (7.e. man’s material body) which have been 
 in the world, as also the world ?’ (498), it is shown 
 in 50 that the dead will be raised with their bodies, 
 exactly in the same form in which they had been 
 committed to the earth, with a view to their re 
 cognition by those who knew them. When this 
 
 * For a fuller treatment of the questions touched upon here 
 see Charles’ Apocalypse of Baruch. 
 
 
 
ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 recognition is completed, the bodies of the right- 
 eous will be transformed, with a view to a spiritual 
 existence of unending duration and glory (51. *- 7-*) ; 
 and they will be made like unto the angels and 
 equal to the stars, and changed from beauty into 
 loveliness, and from light into the splendour of 
 glory (51°). They will surpass the angels in ex- 
 cellency (5174). BS, t.e. 85, there is the same 
 despair of a national restoration as in B?, and only 
 spiritual blessedness is looked for in the world of 
 incorruption (85* °). 
 
 Observe that (1) in B? Sheol is the intermediate 
 abode of the souls of the departed prior to the final 
 judgment (23° 4816 522, cf. 56°). This intermediate 
 place is one involving certain degrees of happiness 
 or torment. For the wicked it is an abode of 
 pain (30° 36"), but not to be compared with their 
 torments after the final judgment. As for the 
 righteous, these are preserved in certain ‘cham- 
 bers’ or ‘treasuries’ which are in Sheol (4 Ezr 4"), 
 where they enjoy rest and peace and are guarded 
 by angels (Eth. En. 100°, 4 Ezr 7%). From these 
 they issue forth at the final judgment, to receive 
 their everlasting reward (30?) (2) From the 
 account of the resurrection in 49°-51, it is clear 
 that the Pauline teaching in 1 Co 15*°-™ is in some 
 respects a developed and more spiritual expression 
 of ideas already current in Judaism. 
 
 Book of Baruch.—In this composite work there 
 is little that demands our attention. 1-3° is 
 undoubtedly derived from a Hebrew original, and 
 
 ibly part of 3°-5. It is composed of at 
 east three independent writings. As to their 
 dates, Bong satisfactory has been yet arrived at. 
 Itisnoteworthy that in 2'7 Hades still possesses its 
 OT connotation. The restoration of Jerusalem is 
 
 looked for (419-5) and the return of the exiles (45-5), 
 
 4 Ezra.—We shall adopt provisionally some of 
 the critical results attained by Kabisch on this 
 book. Of the five independent writings which 
 he discovers in it, two were written prior to 
 A.D. 70, and three ecnently- The two former 
 he designates respectively as an Ezra Apocalypse 
 and a Son-of-Man Vision. (a) The Ezra Apocalypse 
 consists of chapters 459-51% 613-25. 28 726-44 g63_912, and 
 
 is largely eschatological. The signs of the last 
 times are recounted at great length (51-12 618 91-5. §), 
 the destruction of Rome (5%), and the advent of the 
 Messiah, the Son of God (5° 7%). Certain saints 
 will accompany the Messiah (7%), and all the faith- 
 ful who have survived the troubles that preceded 
 the kingdom will rejoice together with the Messiah 
 for 400 years.* Then the Messiah and all men will 
 die (7), and in the course of seven days the world 
 will return into its primeval silence, even as in 
 seven days it was created (7%). Then the next 
 world will awake and the corruptible will perish 
 (7), and all mankind will be raised from the dead 
 (72) and appear at the last judgment (7%). Then 
 Paradise (=final abode of the righteous) and 
 Gehenna will be revealed. And the judgment will 
 last seven years (7%). 
 
 Observe that besides the general resurrection in 
 741. 8 there seems to be a preliminary resurrection 
 of some special saints to the Messianic kingdom 
 in 7*, but this is doubtful. 
 
 (6) A Son-of-Man Vision.—This writing consists 
 of chapter 13, and was probably composed before 
 A.D. 70. Many signs will precede the advent of 
 the Messiah (13%), who will appear in the clouds of 
 heaven (13° *) ; and the nations will assemble from 
 the four winds of heaven to attack him (13°: *), but 
 
 * This number has originated as follows. According to Gn 
 1513 Israel was to be oppressed 400 years in Egypt. Now in 
 Ps 90 the writer prays: ‘Make us glad according to the days 
 wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have 
 seen evil.’ From the combination of these two passages it was 
 inferred that the Messianic kingdom would last 400 years, as a 
 set-off against the period of oppression in Egypt. 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 747 
 
 the Messiah will destroy them, not with spear 
 or weapon of war (13% 78), but ‘ by the law, which is 
 like fire’ (13% 4), And he will restore the ten 
 tribes (13% 47), and preserve the residue of God’s 
 people that are in Palestine (13%). ~ 
 
 e shall now set forth the eschatological ex. 
 pectations which appear in the remaining three 
 constituents of this work, which were composed 
 between A.D. 70 and 100. (c) The Eagle Vision, 7.¢. 
 10®-12*°, Here the destruction of Rome is pre- 
 dicted, through the agency of the Messiah sprung 
 from the house of David (12%), who will judge its 
 people and destroy them (12%). He will save the 
 residue of God’s people in Palestine, and he will fill 
 them with joy to the end, even the day of judgment 
 (12%4), (d) An Ezra fragment, i.e, 141-17. 18-27. 36-47, 
 Ezra is to be translated and live with the Messiah till 
 the times are ended (14°). These times are twelve. 
 Of these, ten and a half have already elapsed (14). 
 There seems to be no Messianic kingdom. 
 
 (e) The Apocaly se of Salathiel, 7.¢, 31-31 41-51 518b_ 
 610 630-725 745_g62 915_] 057 1240-48 1428-85, ‘The world is 
 nearly at an end (44%), As it was created, so it 
 will ie judged by God alone (5° 6°). Very few 
 will be saved (747 828), Judgment and all things 
 relating to it were prepared before the creation of 
 the world and of man (7). The day of judgment 
 will arrive when the number of the righteous is 
 completed (4%); for the sins of earth will not retard 
 it (499-42), In the meantime retribution sets in 
 immediately after death (7% 75- 6. 86.9 14%), On 
 dying, the souls of the righteous will be allowed 
 seven days to see what will befall them (71-10) ; 
 they will be guarded by angels in the ‘chambers’ 
 (775: 85. 95.121), They will have the joy of rest in 
 seven ways (7%), These chambers form their 
 intermediate abode: after the final pudgment 
 glory and transfiguration await them (7% *”). But 
 the souls of the wicked will not enter into the 
 ‘chambers,’ but roam to and fro in torment in 
 seven ways (78-87%), After the final judgment 
 they will be tormented more grievously still (7%). 
 Intercession, though permissible now (71%), will 
 not be allowed on the day of judgment (71071), 
 All things will then be finally determined (743), 
 With the final judgment this world closes and the 
 next begins (74): it will be a new creation (7%). 
 With its establishment the righteous enter on their 
 final reward. They shall be bright as stars (7%) ; 
 and, beyond them (7), they shall shine as the sun 
 and be immortal (7°7). Paradise will be their final 
 abode (7). 
 
 Josephus (A.D. 37-101). — Josephus’ interpreta- 
 tion of Messianic prophecy as pointing to Ves- 
 pasian (BJ vi. v. 4) must be set down to the 
 exigencies of his position with regard to the 
 Romans. For it is clear from An¢. Iv. vi. 5 that 
 he looked forward to a Messianic era. As the 
 troubles predicted by Daniel had befallen Israel, 
 so likewise would the prosperity (Ant. X. xi. 7). 
 Apparently, he believed in an intermediate state 
 for the righteous. Thus in Ant. XVIII. i. 3 it is 
 said that ‘souls have an immortal vigour, and that 
 under the earth (i1d xOovés, ef. BJ Il. viii. 14 kad’ 
 déov) there will be rewards and punishments, 
 accordingly as they have lived virtuously or 
 viciously in this life; and the latter are to be 
 detained in an everlasting prison, but the former 
 will have power to revive and live again.’ Here 
 the wicked enter at once into everlasting punish- 
 ment. Sheol is here hell. But the righteous rise 
 from the intermediate place of happiness and enter 
 into other bodies, probably spiritual bodies (BJ I. 
 viii. 14). Such was the Pharisaic doctrine accordin 
 to Josephus. The Essenes believed that a blesse 
 immortality awaited the souls of the righteous (BJ 
 II. viii. 11), but that those of the wicked were des- 
 tined to a dark, cold region, full of undying torment, 
 
 
 
748 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 The above account of Pharisaic belief which we 
 derive from Josephus may be regarded as fairly 
 trustworthy ; but that which he gives in BJ Ill. 
 viii. 5 is misleading in a high degree. There he 
 describes the sotl as a ‘ particle of Divinity’ (cod 
 woipa) which has taken up its abode in a mortal 
 body. After death the souls of the righteous 
 ‘receive as their lot the most holy place in heaven, 
 from whence, in the revolution ae ages, they are 
 again sent into pure bodies.’ For the souls of 
 suicides the darkest place in Hades is reserved. 
 
 IV. SYSTEMATIC EXPOSITION OF JEWISH Es- 
 CHATOLOGY (B.C. 200-A.D. 100).—In the preceding 
 section we have given a survey of eschatological 
 ideas in the order of their historical attestation, 
 and consequently, in large measure, of their actual 
 evolution. By presenting the eschatological scheme 
 of each writer by itself in that section, we have 
 made it possible for the reader to see the various 
 conceptions, such as Sheol, Gehenna, Messiah, 
 Resurrection, in their actual organic relations and 
 historical environment. In this section, however, 
 we shall isolate several of these conceptions, and 
 deal briefly with the various forms they assumed 
 from B.C. 200 to A.D. 100in Jewish circles. These 
 conceptions are: the Last Woes, the Messiah, the 
 Messianic Kingdom, the Return of the Dispersion, 
 the Resurrection, Judgment, Sheol or Hades, 
 Gehenna, Paradise, Heaven. 
 
 The Last Woes.—It will be sufficient for our 
 present purpose to mention the passages where 
 these woes preluding the Messianic kingdom are 
 recounted. These are: Dn 121, Or. Sibyll. 3799-84, 
 2 Mac 52:8, Jubilees 231%: 19-22, Apoc. Bar 27. 48%!-41 
 7078, 4 Ezr 51-18 618-28 91-12 1329-81, For further in- 
 formation the reader should consult Drummond, 
 The Jewish Messiah, in loc.; Schiirer, HJP Ii. ii. 
 154-156; Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. ii. 509 sqq. 
 550 sqq. 
 
 The Messiah.—As this subject will be treated 
 under the general art. MESSIAH, we shall sketch 
 here only its leading phases. 
 
 i. The Messiah—conceived merely as a passive 
 though supreme member of the Messianic king- 
 dom. He is so represented in Eth. En. 83-90, 
 where his appearance is largely otiose, and due 
 probably to literary reminiscence. He rules over 
 a transfigured Israel, with the Heavenly Jerusalem 
 set up as the centre of his kingdom, and his reign 
 is apparently for ever. In the lst cent. of the 
 Christian era this conception reappears twice in 
 Apoc. Bar 27-20! where his rule is of temporary 
 duration, and in 4 Ezr 7% (i.e. in the Ezra Apoc. 
 See p. 747°), where he dies after a reign of 400 
 years. In the second and third cases the Messiah 
 appears after the Messianic woes and judgment; 
 in the third, simultaneously with the first resur- 
 rection. 
 
 ii. The Messiah—conceived as an active warrior, 
 who slays his enemies with his own hand. This 
 eonception is attested in the Or. Sibyll. 3952-660, 
 which belongs to the 2nd cent. B.C. ; in the Pss. of 
 Sol 177: 6, where the Messiah is to be of Davidic 
 descent—but this book belongs properly to the 
 next division; in Apoc. Bar 36-40; also in 
 another independent writing in the same book, 
 53-74 ; 4 Ezr 109-12%5, In the last the Messiah is 
 of Davidie origin. In all these books save the 
 first (?) the Messianic kingdom is of temporary 
 duration. 
 
 iii. The Messiah—conceived more loftily as one 
 who slays his enemies by the word of his mouth, 
 and rules by virtue of his justice, faith, and holi- 
 ness (cf. Ps.-Sol 1727 $1 87. 9 41), A similar concep- 
 tion is found in 4 Ezr 13. In both writings his 
 reign is probably of temporary duration. 
 
 iv. The Messiah—conceived as supernatural, as 
 eternal Ruler and Judge of mankind (Eth. En. 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 37-70). This conception of the Messiah is logie: 
 ally in some measure a development of that in the 
 third division, and yet it is chronologically ante- 
 cedent to it. Itis the most sublime conception of 
 the Messiah to be found in all Jewish literature 
 outside the Canon. For further details see above, 
 . 7449, 
 
 : The Messianic Kingdom.—Three views in the 
 main prevailed amongst the Jews as to this 
 kingdom. i. It was to be of eternal duration. 
 ii. It was to be of temporary duration. iii. There 
 was to be no Messianic kingdom. 
 
 i. The Messianic kingdom was to be of eternal 
 duration. 
 
 (a) On earth as it is (Eth. En. 1-36, Dn, Or. 
 Sibyll. 3768-783 (2), 
 
 (6) On a transformed earth and in heaven (Eth. 
 En. 37-70). As the Messianic kingdom is here 
 eternal, it is preceded in Palestinian literature by 
 the resurrection and the final judgment. 
 
 ii. The Messianic kingdom was to be of tem- 
 
 orary duration on earth (Eth. En. 91-104, Ps.- 
 Rol 17. 18, 2 Mac, Jubilees, Slav. En., Assumption 
 of Moses, Book of Wisdom, Apoc. Bar—parts A! 
 A* A’ B!,—4 Ezr—all parts but Salathiel Apoc.). 
 
 When the Messianic kingdom is of temporary 
 duration, there appears to be no transformation of 
 the earth. The resurrection and final judgment 
 take place at its close. The resurrection is all but 
 universally a resurrection of the righteous only. 
 
 _Hence in many of these books the wicked are held 
 
 to enter at once into their final abode. Thus 
 Hades in these cases becomes Hell. 
 
 iii. No Messianic kingdom expected [4 Mac (?), 
 Apoc. Bar (B?), 4 Ezr, Salathiel Apoc.]. 
 
 In these books man does not enter till after the 
 last judgment on his final award. After death he 
 Se with a foretaste of his final lot in Hades or 
 Sheol. ‘ 
 
 The Return from the Dispersion.—The promise 
 that God would turn again the captivity of Israel 
 is frequently made in the OT ; also in Sir 334 (AV 
 36"), To 13, Eth. En. 572 90%, Or. Sadyil. 
 2170-173, Bar 227-85 436.87 55-7, Ps. -Sol 11, 2 Mac 2'8, 
 Apoc. Bar 77° 787 (cf. 842-810), 4 Kzr 1312-89-47) 
 Targ. Jon. on Jer 33%, and Shemoneh Esreh : ‘ Lift 
 up a banner to gather our dispersed, and assemble 
 us from the four ends of the earth.’ Yet Rabbi 
 Akiba (Sanh. 10°), in the 2nd cent. A.D., denied 
 this return. 
 
 The Resurrection.— The resurrection is very 
 variously conceived. The earliest attested view 
 in the 2nd cent. B.C. is that of (a) the resurrection 
 of all Israel (Dn 12'%), About the same period 
 the doctrine of (0) the resurrection of the righteous 
 only is taught in Eth. En. 83-90. Towards the 
 close of the same cent another writer looks 
 forward, not to a resurrection of the body, but to 
 (c) a blessed immortality of the soul or spirit after 
 the final judgment (Eth. En. 91-104). These views 
 hold the field throughout the next century, and it 
 is not till the 1st cent. of the Christian era that 
 they are in some measure displaced by others. 
 These latter, which are developments of the former, 
 are: (d) a blessed immortality for the souls of the 
 righteous after death. This is one side of the 
 larger doctrine of an immediate and final retribu- 
 tion after death affecting only the soul or spirit; 
 (e) a general resurrection of all mankind preceding 
 the final judgment. 
 
 (a) The resurrection of all Israel [Eth. En. 1-36 
 (see 22), Dn 121-8, Eth. En. 37-70 (see 51, etc.), 
 2 Mac 77-41-14. ete, 12%, Apoc. Bar (B?) (see 24. 
 3075 50. 51)]. 
 
 In 2 Mac 12#-4 the-possibility of a moral change 
 taking place in Sheol seems to be implied. 
 
 (6) The resurrection of the righteous only [Eth 
 En. 83-90 (see 90*)]. 
 
 
 
 ee eS eee 
 
 
 
 } 
 q 
 
 ee 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 749 
 
 
 
 In this book the righteous have no concern in 
 the last judgment, and do not rise till it is over. 
 
 (c) A blessed immortality for the souls of the 
 righteous after the final facrniens [Eth. En. 91-104 
 (see 103% 4 912° 928 10424), Assumption of Moses 
 (see 10°), Slav. En. (?), Eth. En. 108 (?)]. 
 
 (d) A blessed immortality for the souls of the 
 righteous immediately after death [Jubilees (see 
 23), Philo, Book of Wisdom (see 3!-4 427-19 ete.), 
 4 Mac (see 5%” 9° 137 etc.)], Essene doctrine accord- 
 Bs Josephus, BJ Il. viii. 11. 
 
 bserve the expression in 4 Mac 13! Gavédvras 
 nmas ’ABpady cal "loadx Kal "IaxdB broddtovra (cf. 
 Lk 16”). 
 
 (e) Resurrection of all mankind [Apoc. Bar 3075 
 60-51, 4 Ezr (Ezra Apoc. See 7%? 87), Test. XII. 
 Patr., Benj. 10). 
 
 Judgment.—Judgment is variously conceived, 
 either as retribution which takes effect from day 
 to day, or at great crises in national history, or as 
 retribution which is universal and final. The last 
 may take place either at the beginning or the 
 close of the Messianic kingdom. In Apocalyptic 
 literature little attention is paid to the Rest 
 division. A most emphatic presentation of the 
 doctrine of retribution in this life pervades 2 Mac 
 and Jubilees. We shall here, however, confine our 
 attention to judgment as connected with the con- 
 summation of the world. Now, in the last times 
 there were generally two stages in this judgment. 
 The former was executed by human agents,—the 
 saints of Israel or these led by the Messiah,— 
 and may be designated as the judgment by the 
 sword, or, better, the Messianic judgment; the 
 latter was administered by God or, in one instance 
 only, by the Messiah, and constitutes in reality 
 the final judgment. 
 
 (a) The Messianic Judgment. —This judgment 
 (i.) may be realistically conceived as involving the 
 destruction of the wicked by the personal prowess 
 of the Messiah or the saints; or (ii.) it may be 
 forensically conceived: the word of the Messiah or 
 of the saints judges or destroys the wicked. The 
 latter form of judgment is obviously a develop- 
 ment of the former, but the two are not always 
 kept apart. 
 
 i. The Messianic judgment realistically con- 
 ceived : 
 
 (a) Executed by the Messiah [Ps.-Sol 17. 18 (2), 
 Apoce. Bar 39. 40. 72. 73, 4 Ezr 1289-4), 
 
 (8) Executed by the saints (Dn 2, Eth. En. 
 90” 91}? 961982, Or. Sibyl. 37, Jubilees, Assump- 
 tion of Moses 10). 
 
 li. The Messianic judgment forensically con- 
 ceived ; 
 
 (a) Executed by the Messiah (Ps.-Sol 17. 18, 
 Clyro dE bt) : 
 
 (8) Executed by the saints (Book of Wisdom 38, 
 ef. 1 Co 6? 
 
 (6) The Final Judgment.—This judgment is al- 
 ways administered BY God save in Eth. En. 37-70, 
 where it is committed to the Messiah, the Son of 
 Man. This judgment takes place either at the 
 beginning of the Messianic kingdom or, where this 
 kingdom is of temporary duration, at its close ; or, 
 where no such kingdom is expected, simply at the 
 end of this world (see section above on The Messianic 
 Kingdom, p. 748°). 
 
 As to Sheol, Gehenna, Paradise, Heaven, see the 
 separate articles. 
 
 LirzRaTuRE.—The Jewish eschatology of our period has been 
 greatly neglected in the past. This has been due partly to the 
 ignorance of Christian scholars, and partly to the deliberate 
 ignoring by Jewish scholars of the chief sources of information 
 on this subject, t.e. the Apocalyptic books. To Liicke, Hilgen- 
 feld, and Drummond belongs, in large measure, the merit of 
 emphasizing the importance of this literature. Drummond’s 
 work, The Jewish Messiah, is a splendid contribution to our 
 knowledge of Jewish thought, though much of it is no longer 
 abreast of Our knowledge of this subject. Schwally’s Das Leben 
 
 nach dem Tode is very stimulating on this period, though fre 
 ey. misleading. The reader may consult also Salmond’s 
 
 hristuan Doctrine of Immortality, and Stanton’s The Jewish 
 and the Christian Messiah, where they deal with our subject. 
 
 Abundant information, and copious, though undiscriminating, 
 references to authorities will be found in Schiirer, HJP u. i. 
 126-187. Marti also (Geschichte der Israelitischen Religion, 
 pp. 270-310) is well worth consulting. 
 
 The present writer hopes to edit, towards the close of next 
 year (1898), a critical work on Jewish Eschatology from the 
 earliest OT times down to a.p. 100. R. H. CHARLES. 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 —The eschatology of the NT attaches itself 
 in the first instance to that of the OT. The 
 Heb. Scriptures do not contain anything like a 
 definite or complete doctrine of the things of the 
 end. They are the records, however, of an im- 
 portant contribution to the faith in a future life, 
 and that contribution was an ever-enlarging one. 
 It had its reason in the two fundamental articles 
 of Israel’s faith—the doctrine of one God: a living, 
 personal, righteous, gracious God, who made Him- 
 self known to His people and entered into fellow- 
 ship with them; and the doctrine of Man as a 
 creature different in origin and in end from other 
 creatures, the bearer of God’s image, made for 
 communion with God, and for life in that com- 
 munion. These great truths, unfolding their 
 meaning more and more, and acting on the popular 
 conceptions of Death and the Hereafter which 
 Israel had in common with the Babylonians and 
 other nations, led by steps of gradual advance to a 
 clearer, more determinate, and more moral concep- 
 tion of existence beyond the grave. The experi- 
 ences and intuitions of saints, the visions and 
 forecasts and inferences of faith, seen in the 
 poetical books, combined with thoughts and words 
 of sublime suggestion occasionally found in the 
 historical books, and with the more definite teach- 
 ing of the prophets, to further this enlargement of 
 belief and the march towards a definite doctrine. 
 So the popular ideas of a dark Sheol with a chill 
 attenuated existence in its sunless deeps gave way 
 to higher views; the thought of the lot of the 
 individual disentangled itself from that of the 
 destiny of the community ; the belief in a moral 
 order with judicial awards following men into the 
 other world took ate and became increasingly 
 distinct ; and at last the faith and the teaching of 
 the OT rose to the great hope of a resurrection te 
 life. This eschatology of the OT, which grew 
 from less to more in the course of Israel’s history, 
 remained nevertheless incomplete at its highest, 
 and pointed to something beyond itself. The 
 eschatology of the NT became its heir, passing 
 beyond its limits and carrying its principles to 
 their issues. 
 
 But the eschatology of the NT attaches itself 
 also, though in another way, to the popular faith 
 of the Jews of its time, and to certain develop- 
 ments of thought and belief which had taken 
 place in the period following that which produced 
 the last of the OT books. These developments 
 were considerable. We gather what they were 
 from the literature of Judaism which has de- 
 scended to us, the Apocr. of the OT, to some 
 extent the Rabbinical books, and most particularly 
 the pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic writings. 
 This iRamtare furnishes the key to much in the 
 NT doctrine of the Last Things. It shows in what 
 way the OT faith was retained and enlarged in 
 harmony with its essential principles; in what 
 way also it was materialized and subjected to 
 changes which were not consistent with its true 
 spirit; in what directions belief became more 
 positive; and in what respects it became fanciful, 
 speculative, grotesque; how certain OT terms and 
 ideas were modified in sense and application, and 
 in what measure new terms and ideas were intro. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 750 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 duced. 
 impress of these things. It cannot be understood 
 apart from them. From much that emerged in 
 this intervening period it stands aloof. Other 
 things in this development, which were consistent 
 with the principles of the OT revelation, are 
 reflected in it, pane of the gross, exaggerated, 
 and unspiritual elements which mixed themselves 
 with them. 
 
 The eschatology of the NT is not given in 
 systematic form, neither is it expressed in the 
 precise and measured language of metaphysics or 
 theology. It appears in the shape of a number of 
 ideas which are common to the NT books, but 
 which are presented in different cre gy and con- 
 nexions by the several writers. It is given in 
 occasional form, in Christ’s words, the discourses 
 in the Bk. of Acts, the records of evangelists, the 
 Epistles of apostles, on the promptings of circum- 
 stance: which from time to time called forth 
 declarations in speech or in writing on the matters 
 of the end. It is not given in the terms of the 
 schools nor with a view to speculative interests, 
 but always for the purposes of life and practice, 
 and in the language of the people. It makes free 
 use of the figurative, parabolic, imaginative 
 phraseology in which the Hastern mind naturally 
 expresses itself. It never claims to give an ex- 
 haustive disclosure or a constructive account of the 
 Last Things. The message of the NT also being 
 distinctively a message ol! hope, the eschatology 
 is occupied mainly with the issues of the kingdom 
 of God and the destiny of the righteous. It says 
 less of the graver issues of the future of the un- 
 righteous. 
 
 The eschatology of the NT being conveyed in 
 this occasional and discontinuous form, we may 
 best understand it by following out the great 
 ideas as they appear first in one and then in 
 another of the main groups of writings. The 
 fundamental question is that of Christ's own 
 mind on the subject. It will be convenient, 
 therefore, to deal with the eschatology first as it 
 appears in Christ's own words reported in the 
 Gospels. and tien as it is found in the teaching of 
 the several divisions of the NT writings It will 
 thus be seen whether or how far the NT has a 
 consistent doctrine of the Last Things. 
 
 I. Curist’s EscuaroLoay.—There are questions 
 of criticism to which regard must be had in study- 
 ing the eschatology of the NT. In the case of our 
 Lord’s teaching there is the debated question of 
 what is primitive and what is secondary in the 
 records of His words, with the various tests pro- 
 posed for distinguishing between the one and the 
 other. It is impossible to enter at length into 
 these things here. It is enough to say that the 
 substance of Christ’s teaching will be found to be 
 the same whichever of the leading theories of the 
 construction of the Gospels is followed. Its main 
 points belong to the large stream of narrative and 
 discourse which is common to the first three 
 Gospels, and in which the most primitive tradition 
 is probably preserved. There is also the question 
 of the Platian in which the report of Christ’s 
 words given in the Fourth Gospel stands to that 
 contained in the Synoptists. Of this it must 
 suffice to say that the difference in the form is a 
 reason for taking the two accounts separately; 
 from which, however, it does not follow that there 
 is an essential difference between them. 
 
 In the Synoptic Gospels the eschatology centres 
 in the great idea of the KINGDOM OF GoD (which 
 Bee), hrist’s whole disclosure of the Future has 
 its point of issue in this doctrine of the Divine 
 kingdom and its consummation. In this His 
 
 The eschatology of the NT bears the 
 
 teaching connects itself with the large ideas of the 
 OT, carrying them further and fulfilling them. 
 
 As the OT, too, in its conceptions of the future 
 knew nothing of the philosophy of the subject and 
 furnished no SC RREGHET statement, but followed the 
 logic of experience and the heart, giving no dogma 
 of immortality, but the expression of a living 
 fellowship with God which involved the continu- 
 ance of life; so Christ’s teaching lies apart from 
 all theoretic questions, all speculative discussions, 
 all that is of curious interest, and deals with 
 practical relations and broad moral issues. It 
 offers no proof of the reality of a future existence, 
 but presupposes it, and speaks of ‘life as man’s 
 destiny. It unfolds the course of the Divine 
 kingdom which had been the object of OT faith and 
 the centre of OT hope. It presents that kingdom 
 as a thing of the actual present, brought to men 
 in and by the Teacher Himself, but also as a thing 
 of the future which looks through all historical ful- 
 filments to a completer realization,—a thing, too, 
 of gradual, unobtrusive growth, yet destined te 
 be finally established by a great conclusive event. 
 Christ’s whole teaching on the subject of the Last 
 Things, as regards the Church, the world, and the 
 individual, is connected with this lofty OT idea 
 of a new order in which God shall be confessed to 
 be Sovereign, and has regard to it in its primary 
 deliverances. 
 
 Among these deliverances a large place is given 
 to the promise of His own Return. In the OT the 
 consummation of the Divine kingdom was to be 
 brought about by a descent of God to earth, and 
 in certain prophecies it was further connected with 
 the coming of an ideal King. the agent of J in the 
 fulfilment of His purpose. So Christ counects the 
 completion of the kingdom with a decisive oceur- 
 rence, the great event of His own Parouria (Mt 
 243. 87. 39) ‘The time of this new inte: position is 
 not declared, it is not known even to the Son 
 (Mt 24% RV, Mk 13% RV). But it is to come 
 when the times are ripe for it. and there are 
 prelusive tokens of it. This event of His coming 
 is the burden of the great eschatological discourse 
 in Mt 24. 25. in which there are problems both for 
 ceviticism and for interpretation. In that discourse 
 two distinct occurrences, the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem and the end of the world, seem to be spoken 
 of as coincident and as near. ‘This is in accordance 
 with the nature of biblical prophecy as it is seen 
 in the OT, which brings together in prophetic per- 
 spective or ‘timeless sequence’ events which were 
 widely separated in actual occurrence (Is 8. 9, 
 Zeph, Ob). It does not require for its explanation 
 the affirmation of mistake on Christ’s part (Strauss, 
 Renan, Keim, Weizsiicker, 8. Davidson, ete.), the 
 supposition of misunderstanding or misreporting 
 on the part of the evangelists (Baur, Colani, De 
 Wette, Holtzmann, etc.), the limitation of the 
 whole declaration to the single catastrophe of the 
 fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish state (J. S. 
 Russell, ete.), the theory of a double coming, or 
 the hypothesis either of a Jewish (Weizsiicker) or 
 of a Jewish-Christian (Colani, Keim, Pfleiderer, 
 Wendt, Weiffenbach, Vischer, etc.) apocalypse 
 in the discourse. Nor is this form of statement 
 confined to this particular section of the Synoptic 
 Gospels. Sayings of similar import are piven else- 
 where (Mk 13%, Lk 2152, Mt 10% 167” %; ef. also 
 Mk 8% 91, Lk 978 27), In these Gospels, too, the 
 Return appears to be an objective event, the ex- 
 pression given to it being such as goes beyond any 
 figurative description simply of the final victory 
 of principles or the supersession of old forms of 
 religion. In the Fourth Gospel the case is some- 
 what different. It is the coming of the Spirit that 
 chiefly appears there, and that in such measure ag 
 to suggest to many that only a dynamical coming 
 is in view (Neander, Godet, ete.). Yet a distine- 
 tion is observed between the coming of the Spirit 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
g 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 751 
 
 
 
 and Christ’s coming, and there are passages in 
 which the idea seems to be the same as that of the 
 Synoptic records (148 21%, cf. 1 Jn 2%). The first 
 point, therefore, in Christ’s teaching on the subject 
 of the future is the announcement of the objective 
 event of His own Return. But His declarations 
 on this Parousia know nothing of the minute and 
 fantastic inventions of Jewish theology, as seen in 
 the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the 
 Sibylline Oracles, and similar products of Jewish 
 thought, with their elaborate machinery of signs 
 and portents and mystic numbers, their extrava- 
 gant chronologies, their grotesque descriptions of 
 the literal re-settlement of the Jews in their own 
 land, their many eccentricities and ineptitudes. 
 They know as little of those Chiliastic conceptions 
 of the future, those curious calculations of the 
 duration of Messiah’s kingdom, those puerile ideas 
 of the erection of a new Jerusalem on the ruins of 
 the old, which took hold of the Jewish mind before 
 Christian times, and, entering into Christian 
 thought, gave shape to the doctrine of a millennial 
 reign of Ehrist on earth which was to end in a 
 great apostasy and to herald the consummation. 
 With this doctrine of the second advent is 
 associated the doctrine of a Final Judgment. This 
 judgment is presented as the object of the coming, 
 and it occupies a place of like prominence in 
 Christ’s teaching. It is expressed in various of 
 His sayings, but at greatest length in the eschato- 
 iscual diswuree in the First Gospel. According 
 to the consentient teaching of the Synoptic 
 Gospels, it is a judgment at the end of the world, 
 a judgment of individuals (Mt 22! etc.), a judg- 
 ment of universal scope (Mt 13%6-42 47-50 1627 9581 
 etc.), and a judgment in which Christ, the Son 
 of Man, is Himself to be the Judge (Mt 25! etc.). 
 In the Fourth Gospel the judgment appears for 
 the most part under another aspect. In that 
 Gospel the emphasis is laid upon a judgment 
 which is present and subjective, fulfilling itself in 
 a probation of character and a self-verdict which 
 roceed now (3!7- 18 1247-4), But this subjective 
 judgment of the present in life and conscience is 
 not inconsistent with an objective judgment of the 
 future. And the latter is not strange to the 
 Fourth Gospel. The Johannine phrase ‘the last 
 day ’ (12%) points to it, and it is contained in such 
 words as those in 5% * (cf. 1 Jn 2% 4", in which 
 Johannine writing the judgment is connected, as 
 in the Synoptists, with Christ’s coming). The 
 doctrine of a final judgment so declared by Christ 
 stands in intimate relation to certain leading ideas 
 of the OT, completing these and giving them cer- 
 tainty. The Heb. Scriptures, penetrated through 
 and through by the idea of a Divine retribution, 
 have a large doctrine of judgment, a judg- 
 ment for Israel, more frequently a judgment 
 for the nations or a world-judgment. But for 
 the most part it is a world-judgment which has 
 its scene in this world, a triumph of the king- 
 dom of God in the form of an overthrow of its 
 living adversaries on earth. And in this J” Him- 
 self is the Judge. In certain prophecies (Is 9. 11, 
 Mic 5, Jer 23. 33. 34. 36, Ezk 34. 37, Zec 9-11) the 
 triumph of the kingdom of God is connected with 
 the advent of a great Davidic King, and Messiah 
 appears as the agent of J”. But in the OT the 
 final arbitrament of men’s lives is not committed 
 to the Messiah or the ideal King, as in Christ’s 
 teaching it is given to the Son of Man. Further, 
 while the foundations of the doctrine of a final 
 universal and individual judgment are laid in the 
 OT ideas of the righteousness of God, His cove- 
 nant relations with Israel, and His sovereignty over 
 the nations, the conception of a judgment after 
 death does not take distinct and definite form till 
 near the close of the OT. Even when the idea of 
 
 an individual judgment at the end of things 
 appears, the subjects of the judgment seem to be 
 limited to those of Israel. Christ’s doctrine has 
 also its relations to the ideas of the non-canonical 
 literature. In the representative books of Judaism 
 the doctrine of a judgment bulks largely, and is 
 taught with much novel and peculiar detail. It 
 has also different forms. In certain books (e.g. the 
 Book of Enoch 90'*-*, the Assumption of Moses 
 3. 4, etc.) the OT idea of a destruction of living 
 enemies of J”s kingdom here on earth survives. 
 In many cases, though not in all, the Messiah is 
 the agent of God in this judgment; and the judg- 
 ment is placed usually at the beginning of His 
 reign, but sometimes (where a limited duration is 
 ascribed to that reign) at its close. In other 
 books, however, and especially in the Book of 
 Enoch, this passes over into the idea of a final 
 judgment, in the forensic sense, occurring after 
 death, extending to all men and to angels as well. 
 In these books, too, God is the Judge and Messiah 
 His instrument. Only in the later section of the 
 Book of Enoch does the Messiah appear in any 
 certain and definite form as the Judge at the last 
 day. Christ’s doctrine of a universal, individual 
 judgment at the end of things, in which judgment 
 
 e Himself is Arbiter of human destinies, carried 
 the OT conception to its proper issue, while it 
 gave a new certainty, consistency, and spirituality 
 to the developed ideas which had arisen in Judaism 
 in the period following the last of the Jewish 
 prophets. 
 
 In conjunction with these doctrines of the 
 Parousia and the Judgment, the doctrine of a 
 Resurrection has an essential place in Christ’s 
 eschatological teaching. The doctrine of a resur- 
 rection from the dead is implied in the doctrine of 
 a final universal judgment at the end of things, 
 It lies also in the great principles of OT. The 
 Psalmists and the Prophets have their visions of a 
 limitation of the power of death, a destruction of 
 death, a deliverance from Sheol, a life superior to 
 death; and, in the progress of the prophetic teach- 
 ing, the faith in a resurrection of the dead rises 
 precoally into distinctness. It appears first as a 
 
 elief in the re-animation of the dead nation, and 
 at last in Isaiah (26!°) and Daniel as a belief in the 
 return of deceased individuals to life. In the final 
 utterance of OT on the subject (Dn 12%) this 
 enlargement of the idea appears to have its occasion 
 in the question regarding the fate of departed 
 members of Israel—whether there is reward for 
 the faithful among these, whether there is penalty 
 for the unfaithful. But OT does not seem to go 
 beyond the case of Israel. It tarries with the 
 announcement that Israel’s dead, true and false, 
 shall come forth from the dust of earth to receive the 
 awards of their truth or falsehood. In the period 
 between this and the Christian era the belief passed 
 through various fortunes. It did not become the 
 universal faith of the Jewish people. In some of 
 the non-canonical books the old idea of Sheol con- 
 tinues (Sir 17?7-°8 414, Bar 2!"). In some the hope 
 appears to be that of an incorporeal immortality 
 (Wis 278 31-4 418 14 158. 4 Mac 143 16! 18). But in 
 others the belief in a resurrection is seen in more 
 or less definite form (Enoch 91 923, Ps.-Sol 
 316 13° etc., most distinctly and most frequently 
 in 2 Mac, e.g. 7° 34+ %; ef. also Sibyll. Oracles 14° 
 Ord. 275° 4228. 2 “A noe. Bar 3015 50) 516, 2 Es 7%), 
 Rejected by the Sadducees, it became the belief of 
 the Pharisees and the majority of the Jewish 
 people. It had become, too, a belief in the 
 resurrection of the unjust as well as the just, 
 although in certain cases the limited belief in a 
 rising only of the righteous seems to have per- 
 sisted (Ps.-Sol 31% 14! etc.). Opinion varied te 
 some extent as to the object of the resurrection, 
 
 
 
 
 
752 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 whether it was for judgment or for participation 
 in the glories of Messiah’s kingdom, and as to its 
 time, whether it was to be immediately before 
 Messiah’s era or at its close (cf. on the one hand 
 Enoch 51, on the other Apoc. Bar and 2 Es). The 
 doctrine, then, which had its roots in the great 
 principles of the OT touching Jife, the nature of 
 man, and his relation to God; which in the OT had 
 grown gradually in magnitude and in definiteness ; 
 which also in Judaism had undergone changes in 
 art natural and consistent, in part forced and in- 
 
 armonious, forms an integral part of Christ’s 
 eschatological teaching. Itis given in discourses 
 which belong to the triple tradition in the Synop- 
 tic records (Mt 2226-8) Milk 1918-27, Lik 2077-4), Tt 
 is implied in utterances reflecting current Jewish 
 opinion (Mt 84, Lk 13%), It is presupposed 
 where it is not affirmed in terms (e.g. in Mt 24. 
 25). It is stated in its essential relations to the 
 great principles of the OT, and is relieved of the 
 extravagances, the crudities, and the literalities 
 with which it had become associated in Jewish 
 dient and Jewish popular thought. It is 
 the doctrine of a real bodily resurrection, far 
 removed from Hellenic or Essene ideas of a bare 
 immortality of soul, affirming in harmony with 
 the OT view of man’s relation to God (Mt 22°) #2, 
 Mk 1276.27, Lk 208788) a continuance of life for 
 man in his entire self. In this the Synoptic 
 records and the Fourth Gospel agree. In the 
 latter, it is true, the fact of the resurrection is 
 presented mainly in its spiritual aspects and its 
 immediate relations. Some of Christ’s largest 
 words on the subject go beyond the idea of the 
 resurrection at the last day (117%); and others, 
 if they stood alone, might perhaps be taken as 
 strong descriptions of a spiritual renovation only 
 (5%: 26), But in the Johannine record there are 
 also words too definite to admit of being limited 
 to the expression of a purely spiritual resurrection 
 (5%: 9), Christ’s doctrine, further, is the doctrine 
 of a universal resurrection. Certain passages in 
 the he Gospels (Mt 22°, Mk 137, Lk 20%. 87, 
 Mt 24°!, Lk 1414), indeed, have been supposed to 
 imply that Christ taught only a resurrection of 
 the righteous. But there are others with a 
 different implication (Mt 5° 10%). The ‘resur- 
 rection of the just’ (Lk 14) suggests its own 
 antithesis. The Fourth Gospel, too, declares a 
 ‘resurrection unto condemnation’ as well as a 
 ‘resurrection unto life,’ and in speaking of the 
 re-awakening of the dead uses terms too large for 
 the limited view. This resurrection, which extends 
 to just and unjust, is further referred to the last 
 day. In Christ’s own words there is no statement 
 of a separation of the resurrection of the unrighteous 
 from that of the righteous as if they were events 
 belonging to different times. 
 
 In contrast with the fulness and explicitness of 
 Christ’s declarations on the Parousia, the Judg- 
 ment, and the Resurrection, is the reserve of His 
 teaching on the subject of the Intermediate State. 
 This is the more remarkable in view of the position 
 given to that topic in the theology and the 
 
 opular thought as the Jews of the time. The 
 bt idea of Sheol, originally that of an under- 
 yvorld forming the final abode of men, in course 
 of time passed through changes which are indi- 
 cated to some extent in the canonical books 
 themselves, but which took larger effect at a 
 later period, and are known to us from the non- 
 canonical literature. These changes followed 
 different directions, and various ideas of Sheol 
 continued to prevail. In part the old conception 
 survived, with some modification (e.g. Sir 1778-8? 
 411-4, Bar 217, To 3% 10 137, 1 Mac 2® 14°) ; in part 
 the term came to denote a place of relative retribu- 
 tion (Wis gl-10 5l-14 613-20 174, 2 Mae 79 11. 14. 29 1243-45 
 
 etc.). Most particularly in the Apocalyptic books 
 it is found to have assumed the sense of an inter- 
 mediate state with relative rewards and penalties 
 (Enoch 10 22. 100° 1037; cf. Jubilees 5% 728 
 2271 2477. 8, 2 Ks 775-8, Apoc. Bar 523), Jewish 
 thought seems thus to have oceupied itself largely 
 with the idea of the period between death and 
 judgment, and with the conditions and the possi- 
 
 ilities of an intermediate state. Of all this there 
 is little or no recognition in Christ’s words. He 
 uses, it is true, the word Hades,-the Greek equiva- 
 lent to the Heb. Sheol, thrice. But in two of these 
 cases the application is obvore metaphorical 
 (Mt 11% 1618); and in the third (Lk 16%) the term 
 forms part of the imagery of a parable intended to 
 teach the broad moral lesson of the penalty of a 
 selfish life, the retribution that pursues 1t and 
 changes its conditions in the other world. In the 
 same parable He uses the term Abraham’s bosom 
 (Lk 16”), but in a connexion that does not suggest 
 a definite doctrinal intention. He also uses the 
 term Paradise, a term with which various and 
 uncertain ideas had been associated in Jewish 
 thought. But He uses it only once (Lk 23), and 
 in a large and general sense, as a word of hope and 
 comfort ; in which sense also He uses the word 
 sleep,—not to inculcate the doctrine of an inter- 
 mediate state as a space of unconsciousness, or as 
 a place for the detention, the recompense, or the 
 purification of souls. Some of His words appear 
 to point rather to the hope of an immediate entrance 
 of the just dead into the Father’s house and the 
 Father’s glory (Jn 14% 17%). But in general His 
 attitude to the question of the condition between 
 death and judgment is one of reserve, and His 
 words convey nothing approaching to a doctrine 
 of the intermediate state. 
 
 It is otherwise with the question of what follows 
 the resurrection and the judgment. The escha- 
 tology of NT as it is given by Christ Himself has 
 a pronounced doctrine of the Moral Issues of life. 
 It speaks largely and distinctly of final reward for 
 the good, and final penalty for the evil. These 
 are expressed by a great variety of suggestive 
 terms. The recompense of the righteous is 
 described as an inheritance, entrance into the 
 kingdom, treasure in heaven, an existence like 
 the angelic, a place prepared, the Father’s house, 
 the joy of the Lon life, eternal life, and the like; 
 and there is no intimation that the reward is 
 capable of change, that the condition is a termin- 
 ableone. The retribution of the wicked is described 
 as death, outer darkness, weeping and wailing and 
 gnashing of teeth, the undying worm, the quench- 
 less fire, exclusion from the kingdom, eternal 
 punishment, and the like. Different measures of 
 reward and of penalty are intimated, according to 
 different degrees of merit and demerit (Lk 1247-4), 
 In Christ’s own words there is no certain declara- 
 tion of the terminableness of the penalty of the 
 finally impenitent, no indication either of an 
 intermediate purgatorial process or of an ultimate 
 universal restoration. In the Synoptie Gospels, 
 and in the groundwork of their narrative, the term 
 Gehenna, Hell, is applied to the future condition 
 of the lost. (Mt, 52% 2+ 30 1028 18? 231-3, Mk 9%: 45.47, 
 Lk 125). This term, though in the later Judaism 
 it had at times the sense of an intermediate con- 
 dition, whether as a temporary Ada ts or as & 
 place of punishment, appears to have been in the 
 earlier Judaism and in our Lord’s time a term for 
 the retributive state after judgment (cf. e.g. Enoch 
 2778 9074-26 etc., which are Ape! its first occur- 
 rences in this sense; cf. also 2Es 6'-4 7%). The 
 
 uestion whether Christ teaches the permanence of 
 the penal condition resulting from the judgment 
 is variously answerel. Certain of His belt are 
 taken to point to a terminable penalty. These, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
; 
 4 
 } 
 . 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 753 
 
 
 
 however, are few in number, and appear either to 
 be irrelevant (e.g. Lk 1247-8, where ve question is, 
 not the duration of the judicial awards, but their 
 adjustment to different degrees of wrong), or to 
 ee the opposite conclusion (e.g. Mt 5% 36, Lk 
 12°°.59, where the idea seems to be that of a liability 
 that cannot be discharged, and a justice that is in- 
 exorable; Mt 12-82, Mk 3%: 29, Lk 121°, where the 
 terms appear to be exclusive terms, expressing the 
 irremediableness of the condition, the fact that there 
 can be no forgiveness at any period for the sin in 
 question). It is urged, too, but on grounds open 
 to challenge, that Ne distinctive terms ‘eternal’ 
 (alévios) and ‘punishment’ (xédaois) may have in 
 this connexion other than their usual and obvious 
 Bp tions. But, on the other hand, the finality 
 ot destiny appears to be expressed unmistakably 
 and in many different forms—in the words with 
 which at the close of the great eschatological dis- 
 course the moral issues of life are summed up 
 (Mt 25%), in such contrasts as that between the 
 eenevom prepared from the foundation of the 
 world’ and ‘the eternal fire which is prepared for 
 the devil and his angels’ (Mt 25“); in the statements 
 of the issues of God’s kingdom and of man’s life 
 
 iven in the parables (e.g. Mt 1374-®- 97-45); in the 
 
 gures of ‘the unquenchable fire’ (Mk 9%), the 
 ‘worm’ that ‘dieth not’ (Mk 9%), the salting with 
 fire (Mk 9%), and the like; in the many other terms 
 of solemn moment by which the final lot of the 
 unworthy is described—banishment from Christ (Mt 
 72-33), rejection (Mt 10°, Lk 9%), the loss of the 
 soul or the life (Mk 8*), dying in one’s sins (Jn 
 821. 24), perishing (Jn 3"*), being judged already (Jn 
 38), its being good never to have been born (Mt 2674, 
 Mk 14”), etc. These sayings are to be understood 
 in the light of the beliefs which prevailed among 
 the Jews on the nature and the duration of the 
 retribution of the wicked. These are by no means 
 easy to determine, as they varied at different 
 periods and in different schools. Yet the general 
 condition of opinion in our Lord’s time and in the 
 immediately preceding period can be stated with 
 approximate certainty. Ihe Jewish books relevant 
 to the question contain little to bear out any large 
 belief in the final restoration of all. They often 
 use terms—death, perdition, destruction, and the 
 like, which might be taken to point to annihilation 
 as the final lot of the wicked, if interpreted apart 
 from the old popular ideas of Sheol (e.g. Ps.-Sol 3% 
 9* 128 13! 1518; cf. 2 Es 78 852-6, Anoc. Bar 30). 
 But in many cases the language is definitely ex- 
 
 ressive of the finality of the retribution (2.9. Jth 
 Ter, 4Mac 9°*, Enoch 556 104-4 193-6 Q04-11 972. 8 
 etc.). The schools of Hillel and Sham mai, too, seem 
 both to have taught, though in different ways, the 
 immediate sealing of certain classes of sinners to 
 Gehenna, or their punishment there to ‘ages of 
 ages.’ It would appear, therefore, that in Christ’s 
 time, with certain variations and exceptions, the 
 belief was general in an enduring penalty in the 
 other world for the absolutely evil—unrihteous 
 Gentiles, guilty and apostate Jews. Christ’s 
 eschatology is one of grace. His doctrine is a 
 revelation of life. But it throws into strong relief 
 the responsibilities of the present existence, the 
 certainty of the retribution of sin, the possibility 
 of an eternal sin (Mk 3”) with an eternal penalty. 
 
 II. THz AposToLic EscHATOLOGY.— Under this 
 title we include the eschatological ideas and truths 
 delivered in the various groups of NT writings 
 outside the evangelical records of Christ’s own 
 words. Taking each writer separately, we have to 
 ascertain what contribution he makes to the escha- 
 tological system, in what relation it stands to 
 Christ’s doctrine, in what sense it is in harmony 
 with that, in what degree it is supplementary. 
 There are “eaters of literary criticism connected 
 
 VOL. I.— 
 
 with not a few of the writings, questions both of 
 genuineness and of sees Into these it is not 
 necessary to enter here. In increasing measure 
 these writings are being lifted above the uncertain- 
 ties of criticism. It is enough for our present 
 purpose to take them as representatives of ditlerent 
 types of NT doctrine, earlier and later. Their 
 ideas exhibit certain characteristic differences in 
 form in the different groups. They bear the 
 impress of the beliefs, opinions, and ways of 
 speech that were current among the Jews of the 
 time. They have obvious points of affinity with the 
 ideas of the OT. They stand in a special relation, 
 of dependence and agreement, to Christ’s doctrine. 
 
 The Epistle of James, a notable product of 
 
 rimitive Jewish Christianity, says comparatively 
 ittle on the things of the end. It speaks most 
 definitely of the Parousia, of that as an event nigh 
 at hand, and as having judgment associated with 
 it (5°). It speaks also of a Kingdom that is pro- 
 mised (25); of a Judge who ‘standeth at the 
 door’ (5°) ; of a judgment that will be according to 
 character and responsibility (2% 31); of recom- 
 oe for the tried and proved (1!%), and retri- 
 utions for the oppressive rich (51:7); of a penalty 
 which appears to be eternal (5). 
 
 In the Epistle of Jude Christ’s Return is the 
 great event of the future (v.™) ; the reward of the 
 good is ‘eternal life’ (v.71); the truth of the final 
 judgment (vv.7 14) is asserted; the doom of the 
 evil is described as the ‘blackness of darkness,’ a 
 doom ‘ reserved for ever’ (v.18). A peculiar feature 
 (appearing also in 2 Peter), in the eschatology of 
 this Epistle, is the place given to the judgment of 
 fallen angels—a subject on which the Jewish 
 imagination ran riot (see especially the Book of 
 Enoch 6-10. 21; cf. also Jubilees 5, .Apoc. 
 Bar 56-13), Here their doom is described, free 
 from the extravagances which meet us in the Apo- 
 calyptic books, as that of being ‘ kept in everlasting 
 bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the 
 great day’ (RV v.°). 
 
 The writings bearing Peter’s name, together 
 with the discourses ascribed to that apostle in the 
 Bk. of Acts, represent a distinct type of eschato- 
 logical teaching, as of doctrinal statement generally. 
 The Second Epistle, the genuineness of. which has 
 been so largely questioned, exhibits an affinity in 
 many things with the Epistle of Jude. It has the 
 same conception of the coming of Christ as the 
 conclusive event of the future (116 24). It speaks in 
 much the same terms of the judgment, and of the 
 doom of evil men (2)-*6%17), It designates the 
 recompense of the good as an ‘eternal kingdom’ 
 (14), as Jude designates it ‘eternal life.’ It nas 
 the same exceptional doctrine of the punishment 
 of fallen angels, applying the unusual term 
 Tartarus to the intermediate place of their deten. 
 tion, and describing them as committed to ‘ pits of 
 darkness in reserve unto judgment’ (2*). But it 
 also makes its own peculiar contribution to the 
 eschatology of the canonical writings in a remark- 
 able paragraph, the most detailed of its kind in 
 NT, on the end of the world (37). It teaches 
 that Christ’s Parousia is to bring the whole present 
 system of things to its conclusion, and the world 
 itself to its consummation. With the great event 
 of His coming the existing order shall be dissolved ; 
 the present heavens and earth are to give place to 
 ‘fresh heavens and a fresh earth’; and a recon- 
 structed world is to come forth as the abode of 
 riyhteousness and the scene of the perfected 
 kingdum of God. In this 2 P attaches itself to 
 OT conceptions of a world-conflagration (Ps 50° 97°, 
 Is 66! 164 Dn 791), and a dissolution of the 
 
 resent system, effected by fire, in connexion with 
 ving | judgment and the day of His recompense (Ps 
 102%: 27, Job 1412, [s 344 66%). 
 
754 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 First Peter, which is an epistle of hope, looks at 
 
 all things in the light of the future. It has a 
 large eschatology, the central point of which is 
 Christ’s ‘ Apocalypse,’ His revelation or appearing 
 (17 5). Its dominant notes are the ‘last time,’ the 
 ‘end of all things,’ the judgment (15 47-17), In the 
 judgment God Himself is Judge (127); Christ also 
 Pees to be J pee (45). The judgment is universal, 
 alike of quick and of dead (4°). It begins with the 
 house of God now, and it has its fate reserved for the 
 ‘ungodly and the sinner’ (4'-"8), The judgment 
 of the unrighteous is referred to only incidentally. 
 The reward of the good is declared in various terms, 
 as an ‘inheritance,’ ‘honour,’ ‘life,’ a ‘crown of 
 
 lory,’ ete. (1*7 5‘). The question of greatest 
 interest in the eschatology of this Epistle, however, 
 is its relation to the ‘larger hope.’ This turns 
 upon the interpretation given to the two famous 
 passages touching the preaching to ‘the spirits 
 in prison’ (318-2), and the preaching of the gospel 
 to ‘the dead’ (4°). In connexion with these the 
 application which Peter makes of Ps 16 in his 
 Pentecostal discourse (Ac 2") is also brought into 
 view. The terms in which Peter speaks here of 
 Christ, ‘neither was he left in Hades, nor did his 
 flesh see corruption,’ have been taken to point toa 
 visit of Christ to the under-world, and a consequent 
 activity of His grace there. It is with Christ’s 
 resurrection, however, that Peter is specially con- 
 cerned in that discourse, and the words do not go 
 beyond the broad statement that -Christ at His 
 death passed into the world of the departed like 
 other men, but passed thither only to rise again. 
 The two passages in the Epistle itself are of a 
 different nature, and rank among the chief crsces 
 interpretum in NT. The former passage has been 
 expounded in the interest of many different 
 theories—those of the liberation of saints of OT 
 times; Christ’s penal endurance of God’s wrath; 
 the purgatorial detention and purification of souls ; 
 Christ’s descent to Hades for the purpose of a 
 judicial manifestation of Himself, for a fresh pro- 
 clamation of the gospel there, for the provision 
 of a continuous ministry of grace there, for the 
 prolongation of opportunities of repentance and 
 offers of forgiveness to the departed, and the like. 
 The latter passage has also been very differently 
 interpreted. On the basis of both, the eschatology 
 of this Epistle has been understood by many to 
 favour the ‘larger hope,’ and to suggest that this 
 life is not in every case the theatre of human fates, 
 if not to teach the doctrine of the existence of a 
 ministry of grace in the world of the departed with 
 untold possibilities of after-death repentance and 
 salvation, For the details of the interpretation 
 and for its history the commentaries must be con- 
 sulted. It must be enough here to say that, while 
 the view in question has been largely adopted, 
 it has not commended itself to all scholars of 
 authority. The exegesis of these passages has 
 still many uncertainties, and waits yet for its key ; 
 while the passages themselves ataae. entirely alone 
 in NT. (See especially Giider, Die Lehre von der 
 Erscheinung Christi unter den Todten; Kénig, Die 
 Lehre von Christi Hoéllenfahrt ; Dietelmaier, His- 
 toria dogmatis de Descensu Christi ad Inferos 
 litteraria ; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis; Usteri, Hinab- 
 gefahren zur Holle ; Schweitzer, Hinabgefahren zur 
 
 élle; Spitta, Christi Predigt an die Geister; 
 Bruston, La Descente du Christ aux Enfers.) 
 The further question has been raised whether 
 Peter’s eschatology does not contain the doctrine 
 of a Universal Restoration. In his discourse to the 
 people in Solomon’s porch (Ac 31° 2!) he is reported 
 to have spoken of a restoration or restitution of all 
 things. This has been sometimes supposed to 
 intimate the final restoration of all men. But the 
 words have their key in the passage of Malachi 
 
 
 
 (45-6) to which they refer, and in Christ’s applica. 
 tion of that passage (Mt 179). So regarded, the 
 restoration of which Peter speaks becomes either 
 the moral renewal of Israel, as some explain it, or 
 the renovation of the world, as others think. It is 
 in any case a restoration, not of persons, but of 
 conditions. Peter’s eschatology, therefore, is in 
 general concord with that which has so far been 
 recognized in NT. The points in which it has 
 been supposed to be different yet remain doubtful. 
 
 The writings associated with Jon's name havea 
 distinct and peculiar character in their doctrine of 
 the end as in all things else. There is a marked 
 difference, too, between the Apocalypse and the 
 Epistles. The former is an eschatological writing, 
 followin the order of the Jewish Apocalyptic. In 
 the latter eschatological truths also appear, but in 
 a subordinate place. The Epistles of John, with 
 their ideal teaching, find the future in the present. 
 As in the version of Christ’s teaching which is 
 given in the Fourth Gospel, their great conception 
 is life, and that as opposed to death and perdition. 
 As in the one, so, too, in the other, this life is in 
 the first instance a present thing (1 Jn 5 14), 
 But it is also a thing of the future (1 Jn 2”), and 
 it is an eternal life, life after the divine order, life 
 with the ethical quality of real, perfect life. But 
 it is none the less a life that looks to a future— 
 to a manifestation yet to be made of what the 
 children of God shail be (1 Jn3*), In these Epistles 
 the eschatological relations are not lost in the 
 ideal. They speak of the ‘last hour’ (1 Jn 2%); 
 of an ‘antichrist’ that ‘cometh’ as well as of 
 antichrists that already are (1 Jn 2'*- 1% 2 48,2 Jn7); 
 of a future ‘full reward’ (2 Jn); of a vision of 
 Christ and a conformity to Him which are not of 
 the present (1Jn 37°); of a manifestation of 
 Christ yet to be made, of His expected Parousia 
 (1 Jn 2%), The use of the term Parousia, which 
 elsewhere, and especially in the Pauline writings, 
 has a very definite sense, indicates that, while to 
 John Christ’s Return was in one sense a spiritual 
 advent, a present act of grace or judgment, it was 
 in another sense an objective event of the future. 
 While in John’s writings, too, the Resurrection and 
 the Judgment are for the most part spiritual pro- 
 cesses and present conditions, they are also events 
 of the future associated, as they are elsewhere, 
 with the Parousia. That itis so with regard tothe 
 former is implied in what is said of the judgment 
 and the manifestation of the children of God. 
 That it is so with the judgment itself appears — 
 especially in 1 Jn 238 41”, 
 
 In the Apocalypse of St. John we have a large 
 and impressive eschatology, in which Christian 
 truth appears in the garb of Jewish ideas and 
 Jewish terms. This book is beyond all others the 
 book of the future. That future is near, and it is 
 filled with the figure of the returning Christ. Its 
 whole doctrine of the end has its centre in the 
 event of the Parousia, and that doctrine is con- 
 veyed in a form which bears the stamp both of 
 the visions of OT prophets (especially Ezekiel, 
 Zechariah, and Daniel) and the symbolism of the 
 Jewish Apocalyptic books. The Parousia appears 
 occasionally as a spiritual advent taking effect in 
 history (2° 3”), but usually as the objective return 
 which belongs to the end of things. It is regarded 
 as near (217 311 2912. 2) ; it is to be an event of glory, 
 and to have judgment for its object (1"). The Judge 
 is God Himself (20); but Christ also appears as 
 Judge (118618 179912), Like the non-canonical books 
 of the same class, it speaks much of the signs of 
 the end, and of the prelusive events, but avoids 
 the trivialities and the gross imaginings, the fanci- 
 ful and long-drawn-out calculations, which are 
 characteristic of the ordinary Jewish Apocalyptie 
 (e.g. Enoch 10" 9112-17 93, Assump. Moses 10”, Sibyl 
 

 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 755 
 
 
 
 Or. 4%, 2 Es 14-12 etc.). At times it seems to 
 combine different ideas which prevailed in Judaism 
 of the things of the end. In one paragraph (20!-"’), 
 of difficult interpretation, it appears to follow a 
 view of the final events eehicks differs from the 
 general doctrine of the NT, but is given in certain 
 of the Jewish books—the idea of a millennial reign 
 of Christ on earth, to be followed first by a final 
 burst of Satanic power, and then by Christ’s 
 judicial advent. e paragraph, which will not 
 t a purely figurative interpretation, represents 
 the Day of the Lord as consisting of two divisions, 
 with a double resurrection and a double judgment 
 —a first resurrection, which is only of the saints, 
 and more particularly the martyred saints, and a 
 second, which is for ‘the rest of the dead’; a first 
 judgment taking effect in the overthrow of Satan, 
 and a second, which is in forensic form, and for 
 all classes of the dead. The book is also under- 
 stood to express two views of the lot of the right- 
 eous dead: one in which they are presented as 
 having immediate entrance into heaven (13°), an- 
 other in which they are presented as in the under- 
 world, in consciousness and rest, waiting for their 
 complete reward (6°"). In the latter case, how- 
 ever, the martyrs alone are in view, and in both 
 cases the language is that of the imagination. 
 The Apocalypse, however, has a pronounced doc- 
 trine of the final awards. The reward of the 
 righteous is conveyed in a varied imagery of the 
 OT order—‘ hidden manna,’ a ‘new name,’ the 
 ‘crown of life,’ ‘right to the tree of life,’ the place 
 of a ‘pillar’ in the temple, a reign with Christ, a 
 position before the throne, entrance into the city, 
 the vision of God’s face, the heirship of all things 
 (27. 19.17 313.31 715 217 294-14)) The penalty of the 
 unrighteous is described as ‘great tribulation,’ 
 being ‘ without,’ killing with death, burning with 
 fire (27 % 188-9 2215) ; but above all by two terms, 
 ‘the second death’ (2" 20° 14 218) and ‘the lake of 
 fire’ (19% 201° 218), which are peculiar to this book 
 among the NT writings, but which occur in one 
 form or other in the Rabbinical and Apocalyptic 
 literature (e.g. Enoch 18" 217-0 90). In this 
 book they appear to denote a lasting retribution. 
 Further, the Apoc. expresses the doctrine of a 
 perfected world as well as that of a perfected 
 society. It has the vision of a new heaven and 
 a@ new earth (211-6) as well as that of a perfected 
 city of God (21!-225), 
 cf the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we have a 
 series of ideas and forms of on in general 
 affinity with the Pauline type of doctrine, and not 
 less with the older apostolic type, eschatology is 
 not the vipat subject. Even the ‘rest’ and 
 ‘the world to come’ are not presented primarily as 
 of the future. Yet the things of the end make a 
 considerable element of the thought of the Epistle. 
 The doctrines of ‘resurrection of the dead’ and 
 *eternal judgment’ are dealt with as things that 
 should be well understood (6:), The day of Christ’s 
 coming is in the writer’s eye; it is a day that 
 draws nigh, and with it the judgment is connected 
 (9% 10%. 25), In the judgment it is God Himself, 
 not the Son, that is Judge, and He is ‘Judge of 
 all’ (12% 10%-%1), The Epistle also has a definite 
 doctrine of final awards. The recompense of the 
 righteous is the ‘heaven’ into which the Fore- 
 runner and High Priest has passed, an ‘eternal 
 inheritance,’ an ‘enduring substance,’ a ‘better 
 country,’ a ‘city prepared, a ‘kingdom which can- 
 not be moved’ (44 67% 2° 915 10%. 36 1116 1925), The 
 retribution of the unrighteous is ‘judgment,’ 
 ‘ fierceness of fire,’ ‘ perdition’ (1077-9), 
 In the Pauline Epistles, together with the dis- 
 
 courses attributed to St. Paul in the Book of 
 Acts, we find a remarkable eschatology, larger, 
 more developed, and in some points, especially in 
 
 the doctrine of the resurrection, having more of 
 the aspect of reasoned statement. ven this 
 eschatology, however, is not given in anything 
 like orderly or systematic form, but incidentally as 
 occasion arose from time to time in the discharge 
 of St. Paul’s ministry. Nor is it the fundamental 
 doctrine of the Pauline writings. The questions 
 of its precise nature and measure, its consistency, 
 and its relations to what is found elsewhere in 
 Scripture, have been made dependent on questions 
 regarding the authenticity and integrity of the 
 Epistles and the growth of St. Paul’s ideas. In its 
 main elements, however, it is unaffected by these 
 questions. Its essential points would remain the 
 same had we only the four primary Epistles 
 accepted by Baur. They appear in all the four 
 distinct groups into which the Pauline writings 
 fall. They do not appear in the same propor- 
 tions and relations, or under precisely the same 
 aspects, in the several groups. But the differences 
 which have to be recognized do not amount to 
 inconsistency. They do not imply any essential 
 change of view, and do not appear to go beyond 
 what finds its explanation in differences of circum- 
 stance, occasion, and circle of readers. 
 
 As in other sections of NT, the doctrine of the 
 things of the end is closely related in the Pauline 
 writings to that of the kingdom of God, an idea 
 which recurs in all the four groups of Epistles. 
 This ‘kingdom,’ though sometimes described as a 
 present kingdom (Ro 14", cf. 1 Co 4*, Col 1%), is 
 usually a kingdom of the future, and the idea of 
 its consummation is the centre of the Pauline 
 eschatology. A foremost place is given in this 
 eschatology to the doctrine of Christ’s coming, 
 which event is described under a variety of terms 
 —His ‘day,’ His ‘ revelation,’ His ‘ Parousia,’ etc. 
 (1 Co 17-858, 1 Th 2)9 333 415 52.23 Q Th 1791-89 Ph 
 1, 1 Ti 64, 2 Ti 11741-8 Tit 2'3ete.). This Parousia 
 is regarded as an objective event. The passages 
 in which this ‘coming’ is declared are not con- 
 fined to any one section of the writings ; and when 
 compared with each other they do not suggest a 
 change in St. Paul’s mind from a less spiritual 
 idea in the earlier Epistles to a more spiritual in 
 the later. The doctrines of the Resurrection, the 
 Judgment, and the Final Awards also appear in 
 essentially the same form in the Pauline writings, 
 and in the several groups of these writings, as 
 elsewhere in the NT. The resurrection finds its 
 largest exposition in the primary Popa but it is 
 given also in others, and it is a real bodily resurrec- 
 tion, a return of the complete man to life (Ro 4", 
 84, 1Co 15, 2Co 12°44515, Ph 34-21), The judgment 
 is the judgment of God (Ro 2° 144, cf. 31), of Christ 
 (2 Co 5”, 2 Ti 4"), of God through Christ (Ro 2"); a 
 future, final judgment (Ro 25, 1 Co 3#); a righteous 
 judgment, discovering the secrets of all hearts, 
 
 iving to every man cays to his works (Ro 2°, 
 2Th 15, 2 Ti 48); a universal judgment, for both 
 quick and dead (Ac 17, cf. Ro 144, 2 Ti 4"). The 
 issues of that judgment are declared with remark- 
 able frequency and variety of statement; they are 
 described as ‘eternal’ (aidvios), which term in the 
 Pauline Epistles is essentially, and in most applica- 
 tions, one of duration (cf. e.g. Ro 16%, 2 Co 5' etc.). 
 The lot of the unrighteous has a subordinate place, 
 but is expressed as ‘wrath,’ ‘the wrath to come,’ 
 ‘death,’ ‘ punishment,’ ‘destruction,’ ‘eternal de- 
 struction from the face of the Lord’ (Ro 2°, 1 Th 
 12°, Ro 28 671, 2 Th 1°, Ph 3%). The lot of the 
 righteous is a salvation ‘with eternal glory,’ 
 a ‘prize,’ a ‘ crown,’ an ‘inheritance,’ a ‘ manifesta- 
 tion,’ a ‘reign,’ a ‘life’ with Christ, ‘eternal life,’ 
 ‘the life which is life indeed’ (Ro 27 5% 2) 68 23, 
 1 Co 975, Gal 55 68, Ph 3", Col 12 3%, 1 Ti 16 6-16, 
 2 Ti 2)-10 48, Tit 1? etc.). 
 
 The Pauline eschatology has elements which are, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 756 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 
 
 in some sense, peculiar to itself. Among these 
 are the doctrines of the Rapture of the Saints 
 (1 Th 4"”) and the Man of Sin (2? Th 2°), Of 
 these the former has a certain affinity with one of 
 the apocalyptic visions (Rev 11"-}2), as well as with 
 Christ’s word regarding the ‘gathering of the 
 elect’ (Mt 2481), and the narratives of the ascension, 
 especially those by Luke (Mk 161®, Lk 24°, Ac 1%), 
 The latter takes its form from Daniel’s predic- 
 tions (977 11%. 87 12), and is in affinity with Christ’s 
 eschatological discourse (Mt 24%), and John’s de- 
 claration on Antichrist (1 Jn 28), 
 
 There are also things in the Pauline escha- 
 tology on the interpretation and relations of which 
 opinion has been divided. It is thought by some 
 to depart from the general view of the NT, and to 
 join the Apocalypse (20!) in teaching the inter- 
 vention of a milicnnial period between two distinct 
 resurrections. But this idea, which is otherwise 
 alien to St. Paul’s writings, turns upon the particular 
 interpretation of a single passage (1 Co 15*8-*4), in 
 which the immediate question is not one of succes- 
 sion or chronological order, and in which nothing 
 is said of any other resurrection than that of those 
 who are Christ’s. The Pauline Epistles have also 
 been supposed to contain a definite doctrine of the 
 intermediate state, with activities of grace in it. 
 The doctrine of a purgatory, or some provision for 
 the purgation of souls in the other world, has been 
 ascribed to the great paragraph in 1 Co 3}, in 
 which, however, the ‘day’ in question is that of 
 the judgment, and the action referred to is that of 
 testing, not purifying. The doctrine of a middle 
 state, with a descent of Christ implying the exten- 
 sion of grace and opera es is supposed to be 
 contained, in particular, in certain passages of the 
 greater Epistles. One of these is the section in 
 Romans (10°) in which use is made of Dt 3012-4, 
 
 , But the main idea there is the accessibility of the 
 
 Divine commandment, the nearness and attaina- 
 bility of the righteousness of God, and the words 
 say nothing of a Hades-ministry of Christ, nothing 
 of the world of the dead, beyond the fact that 
 Christ entered it and was raised from it. Another 
 is the paragraph in Ephesians (47°) in which the 
 subject of gifts is dealt with, and the 68th Psalm 
 is introduced in that connexion. It speaks of a 
 descent of Christ, by which some understand the 
 descent from heaven in the incarnation, and others 
 the descent from earth to Hades. But even on 
 the latter interpretation the paragraph says no- 
 thing of any work of Christ, or any possibilities for 
 the dead in Hades. Of greater interest is the 
 question whether the Pauline eschatology contains 
 the doctrine of a wniversal restoration. The 
 answer turns mainly on certain passages of large 
 suggestion in the Epistles of the Captivity, together 
 with one or two in the earlier Epistles. The com- 
 parison between Adam and Christ in 1 Co 15” is 
 cited in this interest. The universality expressed 
 there, however, does not mean that all shall in the 
 end be made certain of blessedness. The point is 
 either, as some take it, that all who are Christ’s 
 shall be raised (the ‘all’ being limited by the 
 nature of the case); or, as others think, that, as in 
 Adam all are made subject to physical death, so in 
 Christ all shall be raised out of it. The state- 
 ment in the same chapter (1 Co 15%) on the 
 subduing of all things, and the consummation in 
 which God shall be ‘all in all,’ is also supposed 
 to pe Paul’s hope of a final restoration of all. 
 But the subjects to be subdued are not sinful men, 
 but ‘all mle and all authority and power’—all 
 powers opposed to God ; and the end expressed b 
 
 the ‘all in all’ is a condition of things in which 
 the world in all its parts will answer to God’s 
 will, or in which the will of God will be recognized 
 as the sole authority. The declaration of the uni- 
 
 ESCHATOLOGY 
 
 versal adoration that is to be paid to the exalted 
 Christ (Ph 2-1) is also cited as a distinct witness 
 to the same; in which, however, there is probably 
 nothing beyond the broad statement of a homage 
 wide as universal nature, or an acknowledgment of 
 sovereignty made by three great classes of livin 
 beings. The passages which are most definite and 
 most relevant are the one in Ephesians (1* 1°) which 
 speaks of a ‘summing up’ of all things in Christ, 
 and the one in Colossians (1°) which speaks of a 
 ‘reconciliation’ of all things. In these the terms 
 are large enough to include all created things, and 
 go beyond the case of universal man, or even the 
 whole animate creation. They are passages which 
 express the cosmic effects of Christ’s work, and 
 appear best interpreted as declarations of the 
 Divine purpose to bring back all things to their 
 pristine condition of harmony, through Christ as 
 the centre of unity and bond of reconciliation. 
 
 The Pauline eschatology has its point of cul- 
 mination in its doctrine of the resurrection. That 
 doctrine is a consistent as well as a lofty one. It 
 does not limit itself to a resurrection of the just, 
 but has its place also for that of the unjust. 
 Neither does it regard the resurrection of the just 
 and that of the unjust as two successive acts, 
 separated by a millennial period, the passage (1 Co 
 15”-*8) chiefly relied on for that being insufficient 
 to sustain it. Nor does it seem to predicate the 
 provision of an interim body, as some have ar; 
 on the basis of a single paragraph (2 Co 51), 
 for the existence between death and the resurrec- 
 tion. Nor, again, does it entangle itself with 
 curious questions regarding the how of the resurrec- 
 tion, the nature of the risen body, or the conditions 
 of the future life, but contents itself with the 
 simplest analogies drawn from nature and from 
 Christ’s own case. It consistently affirms for man 
 areal and complete continuance of being, not an 
 incorporeal immortality like that to which Greek 
 thought looked, but a bodily immortality, a per- 
 manence of life in the integrity of man’s entire 
 nature. It connects its doctrine of the resurrec- 
 tion with other cardinal Pauline doctrines—the in- 
 dwelling of the Spirit, the inward presence of 
 Christ, the mystical union. It links it further 
 with the doctrine of a renovated earth and a 
 ransomed creation (Ro 81%), 
 
 The eschatology of the NT, therefore, is in its 
 broad outlines a consistent though not a system- 
 atized doctrine. In the different sections of NT, 
 and with all differences in detail, the eschatolo; 
 turns on the great truths of the Parousia, the bodily 
 resurrection, the universal, righteous judgment, the 
 final awards of recompense and penalty. It is in 
 essential harmony with the faith and teaching of 
 the OT, and requires for its explanation no theories 
 of derivation from ethnic thought. The distinctive 
 points in the Pauline eschatology are in affinity 
 with Hebrew faith, not, as some argue (Pfleiderer, 
 etc.), with Greek thought. The same is even more 
 obviously the case with the eschatology of the NT 
 writings outside the Pauline circle. Essene or 
 Alexandrian (Philonic) ideas are not in place as 
 sources of Christ’s teaching on the things of the 
 end. Even the doctrine of the reswrrection as it 
 is_ given in the NT cannot be said to be dependent, 
 in the sense affirmed by some (L. H. Mills, ete.), 
 on the Zoroastrian theology. It is possible that 
 in some of its affirmations the NT eschatology 
 has been influenced to a certain extent in its form 
 by external modes of thought. In all that is of 
 its substance it is in relation to Hebrew faith, 
 and has its point of issue in the principles and 
 ideas of the Old Testament. 
 
 LITERATURE. —The various books on NZ Theology, the 
 
 Biblical Theology of NT, the Teaching of Ohrist and the 
 Apostles, by Baur, Neander, Reuss, Lechler, Schmid. Oosterzee, 
 

 
 ESCHEW 
 
 Meyer, Weiss, Be: , Wendt, Holtzmann, etc. ; the various 
 tises illustrative of NT Times and Jewish beliefs: Oolani, 
 Jéeus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps ; Eders- 
 heim, Jesus the Messiah ; Drummond, Jewish Messiah ; Stanton, 
 Jewish and Christian Messiah; Hilgenfeld, Jiidische Apok. ; 
 Gtrorer, Jahrhundert des Heils; Schiirer, HJP; Hausrath, 
 New Test. Times; Weber, Jiid. Theologie; Delitzsch, Biblical 
 Psychology ; 8. Davidson, Doctrine of Last Things ; Salmond, 
 Christian Doctrine of Immortality; Pusey, What is of Kaith 
 as to Everlasting Punishment ? White, Life in Christ; Petavel- 
 Olliff, Problem of Immortality; Kabisch, Eschatologie des 
 Paulus; Russell, The Parousia; Riemann, Lehre von der 
 Apocatastasis, S. D. F. SALMOND. 
 
 ESCHEW.—In the older versions ‘eschew’ is 
 common, and is used in two senses. —1l. To 
 ‘escape, as Pr 11 Wyc. ‘He that escheweth 
 snaris, schal be sikur’; cf. Knox, Hist. p. 70, 
 ‘If they will not convert themselves from their 
 wicked errour, there shall hastily come upon them 
 the wrath of God, which they shall not eschew.’ 
 Of this meaning AV has retained no example. 
 
 2. To ‘turn away from,’ as Pr 17° Wyc. ‘He 
 that eschewith to lerne, schal falle in to yuels.’ 
 Of this AV preserves three examples in OT, Job 
 ]}- 8 28, all in the phrase ‘to fear God and e. evil’ 
 (Heb. >) ; and one in NT, 1 P 34 ‘ Let him eschew 
 evil, and do good’ (Gr. éxxAlyw). Cf. Is 7!® Cov. 
 ‘But or euer that childe come to knowledge, to 
 eschue the euel and chose the good.’ RV prefers 
 ‘turn away from’ in 1 P, Amer. RV in Job also. 
 Eschew came into the Eng. lang. from the Old 
 High Ger. sciuhen (through the Fr. eschever), 
 whence came also ‘shy,’ adj. and verb. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ESDRAELON.—This is the Gr. way of writing the 
 Heb. name Jezreel—>xy777 ‘God soweth’—the royal 
 city of Ahab and J ezebel, which, standing on the 
 E. edge, gave its nameto ‘the great plain’ of central 
 Palestine. It is variously given, e.g. Jth 3° x@ 
 A ‘Esdpnrd» (B ’Eodpandwv) ; 73 A ’Eodpy\du (B x 
 "Eodpyd\dr) ; 4° B ’Ecpnd\udv, A ’Eoepnxév. The name 
 by which itis now known among the natives is 
 Merj Ibn -‘Amr ‘Meadow of the son of ‘Amr.’ 
 
 At one time the mountain range must have 
 stretched unbroken from the uplands of Samaria, 
 behind Jenin, to those of Galilee, which run N. 
 into the Lebanons. Now it is as if a gigantic 
 mass had been torn from the bosom of the range, 
 leaving the rough protuberances of Gilboa, Little 
 Hermon, and Tabor, along the edge of the Jordan 
 Valley, and thrust tiolently towards the sea, in a 
 N.W.direction. This mass forms the wooded bulk 
 of Carmel, which, rising to a height of over 1800 
 feet, terminates in a bold promontory, guarding 
 the S. end of the Bay of Acre. The undulating 
 floor of this great gap among the hills forms the 
 ‘valley’ or plain of Esdraelon. The name by 
 which it is mentioned 2 Ch 35”, Zee 12", aypa 
 ‘an opening,’ from yap ‘to split’ or ‘cleave 
 asunder,’ as distinguished from ppy ‘a depression’ 
 or ‘deepening,’ applied to its offshoot, the vale of 
 Jezreel, suits the conditions admirably. The word 
 still persists in Hl-Bekd‘, the great hollow between 
 the Lebanons; and in its dim. form, E/-Bakei‘a, a 
 village with a tract of fertile land around it, 
 enclosed by ridges, high in the mountains of 
 Naphtali. So the plain of E. is shut in by hills on 
 every side. It may be described generally as 
 triangular in form. It is bounded y irregular 
 lines, drawn from the foot of Carmel, along the N. 
 edge of the low hills which join Carmel to the 
 Samaritan mountains, to Jenin ; from Jenin to the 
 base of Mt. Tabor; and thence under the Nazareth 
 hills, back again to Carmel. The 8S. boundary is 
 
 
 
 the longest, extending some 20 miles; the other 
 two are nearly equal, being each about 15 miles 
 in length. From Jenin a little bay runs east into 
 the bosom of Gilboa, but finds no outlet. Between 
 Gilboa and Little Hermon a broad and easy 
 descent passes down as far as Beisdn, and then, 
 
 ESDRAELON 757 
 
 with a sudden leap, plunges to the level of the 
 Jordan Valley. This is properly the vale of 
 
 Jezreel. Between Little Hermon and Tabor 
 another offshoot of the plain makes its way down 
 to the Gidr, throwing off a spur to the N.E. of 
 
 Tabor. Westward the plain narrows to a gorge 
 between the lower hills of Galilee and Carmel, 
 through which the Kishon forces a passage to the 
 plain of Acre, and thence to the sea. We have 
 practically one continuous plain from the sea-shore 
 to the lip of the Jordan Valley. There is the plain 
 of Acre, running up to the gorge at the E. end of 
 Carmel ; the great central plain spreading N. and 
 8., and rolling E. to the base of Gilboa and Little 
 Hermon, the general elevation of which is about 
 200 ft. above sea-level; then the vale of Jezreel, 
 which, in the 12 miles from Zer‘in to Beisdn, sinks 
 about 600 ft., before falling steeply into the Jordan 
 Valley. 
 
 For the most part, the plain consists of deep, 
 rich, loamy soil. After the removal of the crops, 
 where it is cultivated, the autumnal suns burn the 
 surface almost to brick ; and when the rains come, 
 it sucks them in like a huge sponge. In winter it 
 becomes a nearly unbroken sheet of mud,extremely 
 dangerous to cross; disaster not seldom befallin 
 those who travel even by the most frequented an 
 thoroughly beaten tracks. Its fertility has always 
 been remarkable, ever generously rewarding the 
 toils of the husbandmen. In season you may pass 
 over many acres where the man on horseback can 
 just see over the tall stalks of grain. Where left 
 to itself, the rank luxuriance it produces is proof 
 enough of what it might do in skilful hands. Of 
 trees, in the plain there are few, but on its borders, 
 esp. at Jenin, there are clumps of olives and other 
 fruit trees, the stately palm waving high over all. 
 The low hills that run down towards Carmel from 
 the N. are thickly covered by oak trees, and are 
 known among the natives as ‘ the forest.’ 
 
 The only stream of importance in the plain is 
 the Kishon, visible, for the most part, only from 
 its own steep banks. Rising at Jenin, it pursues 
 its crooked course, justifying its name ‘ the tortu- 
 ous,’ along a deep muddy bed, gathering contribu- 
 tions from other parts of the plain, and carrying 
 all, through the gorge at Carmel, to the sea. The 
 chief fountains are at Jenin, where, creating the 
 gardens, they gave rise to the ancient name Hn- 
 Gannim ; at Jezreel, where, in close proximit , are 
 three springs, the principal being ‘Ain Jatad. just 
 under the northern cliff of Gilboa, identified with 
 the well of Harod. The stream which these three 
 supply flows eastward to Jordan. At Lejzjiin, the 
 ancient Megiddo, there are also copious springs, 
 sufficient to form considerable marshes to the N., 
 besides turning several mills, and serving largely for 
 irrigation. 
 
 The plain owed its importance chiefly to its 
 central position, and to the great highways that 
 lay athwart it. The main gateways of entrance 
 were five in number. (1) That coming down from 
 the N. between Tabor and the Nazareth hills, 
 guarded by the fortress on the mountain. (2) That 
 from the B. up the vale of Jezreel, commanded by 
 this city. (3) The approach from the S. by Jenin. 
 (4) That up Wady ‘Arah into the plain by the old 
 stronghold of Megiddo, now Lejjiin. (5) That 
 through the pass under Carmel, from the plain of 
 Acre, dominated by Harosheth—Harithiyeh—on 
 the N., and by Jokneam of Carmel on the edge of 
 the plain. By one or other of these portals the 
 merchant caravans and the armies of contending 
 
 owers had to enter, and find exit, on their passage 
 ne S., E., or W. These strongholds, together 
 with Bethshean—Beisdn, Shunem—Sélam, Nain, 
 | on the N.W. shoulder of Little Hermon, Daberath 
 —Debiriyeh, on the W. slope of Tabor, and Chesul- 
 
 
 
758 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 loth—IJksdl, under the Nazareth hills, were the 
 chief cities around the plain. At no time have 
 towns of any importance been built on the plain 
 itself. 
 
 E. formed the main part of the ‘lot’ of Issachar 
 (Jos 197-2), This tribe seems to have reverted 
 at once to the old nomadie life, ‘dwelling 
 in tents’ (Dt 3314), and the fatness of the land 
 becoming a snare to them, they were ignobly 
 content to secure its enjoyment by stooping as 
 servants ‘ under faskewore (Gn 49%). The ‘men 
 who had understanding of the times,’ of the child- 
 ren of Issachar, who came to David at Hebron 
 1 Ch 12%), were probably astrologers, and skilled 
 in the arts of divination, so popular from of old 
 among the children of the wilds. This goes to 
 show how closely the inhabitants of the plain were 
 identified with their Bedawi neighbours. In the 
 same chapter, v.”, we have an indication of the 
 character of its ancient produce. The men of 
 Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali ‘ brought bread 
 on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, 
 victual of meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of 
 raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep in 
 abundance.’ 
 
 Four battles, famous in Israel’s history, were 
 fought in this plain. On the banks of Kishon 
 Sisera was overthrown, ‘the stars in their courses’ 
 contributing to his defeat (Jg 5”). In the hollow 
 between Gilboa and Little Hermon, the swarms of 
 ‘the children of the East’ ae in the midnight 
 alarm, before Gideon and his brave 300 (Jg 7). 
 Saul and Jonathan, driven back by the victorious 
 Philistines, retired to the heights, and were slain 
 on the ‘high places’ of Gilboa (1 S 31). Josiah’s 
 disastrous mistake, in attempting to arrest the 
 pig oe of Pharaoh-necoh in the valley of 
 
 egiddo, was paid for with his life. Wounded in 
 the battle, he was carried to Jerus. dead (2 K 23%) 
 or dying (2 Ch 35-27), Imperishable memories 
 of Elijah’s encounter with the prophets of Baal 
 cling to its western border. Up from the way of 
 the Jordan came Jehu, driving furiously, to the 
 slaughter of Ahab’s house, and across the plain 
 fled Ahaziah, to perish by Megiddo. The army 
 of Holofernes spread out from the hills above 
 
 Jenin to Cyamon—Tell Kaimin (Jth 7°). During 
 the long eae of the Jewish wars, the plain often 
 resounded with the tramp of armies and the noise 
 
 of battle. In the vision of the Jewish-Christian 
 seer (Rev 161+ 1), the most fitting place whither 
 ‘the kings of the whole world shall be- gathered 
 together unto the war of the great day of God, the 
 Almighty,’ is the level reaches, so often drenched 
 in blood, which take their name from ‘the place 
 which is called in the Heb. tongue Har-Magedon.’ 
 
 Open of old to the eastern tribesmen, who kept 
 the peasants in constant fear, the Romans inaugu- 
 riled a period of security, and the peels made 
 rogress in the arts of civilization. But with the 
 all of the eastern empire, the Arab hordes rushed 
 back, and restored the ancient conditions. In 
 recent years the Turks have established more 
 effectual control over the nomads; and the peasants, 
 delivered from the rapacity of the Arabs, have 
 been handed over to the tender mercies of certain 
 Greek capitalists in Beirfit. We may doubt if 
 their burdens have thus been lightened. 
 
 LrreraTorgs.—G. A. Smith, HGHL 381-410; Baedeker, Pal.3 
 229; Furrer in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii, 302; Thomson, Land 
 and Book, ii. 179f.; Porter, Giant Cities of Bashan, 245f. ; 
 PEFSt, 1872, 180t.; 1873, 3ff., 46, 60; 1875, 40; 1879, 13; 
 Conder, Tent-Work, 58 ff. ; Moore, Judges, 197f. ; Schtirer, HJ P 
 L if. 89, W. EwIna. 
 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF.—TITLE.—The titles 
 of the books that deal with the history of Ezra are 
 confusing. In the Sept. this book is entitled 
 Esdras A, Esdras B embracing the canonical books 
 
 
 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the Vulg., however, 
 Jerome had used the words Esdras I. and 1. for the 
 canonical books ; Esdras A therefore became Esdras 
 ., Esdras Iv. being the designation of the other 
 and later apocryphal book. In the sixth article of 
 the Book of Common Prayer, and in all the early 
 Eng. Bibles, the four books are numbered as in the 
 Vulgate. The Geneva Bible (1560) was the first. to 
 adopt our present classification, which keeps the 
 Heb. names Ezra and Nehemiah for the canonieal, 
 and gives the Latin names Esdras I. and Esdras 0. 
 to the apocryphal books. 
 
 Another title, 6 lepeds, appears as the head ng of 
 Esdras A in Cod. A of the LXX, which also has 
 lepeds at the head of Esdras B; the subscriptions 
 in both books give the ordinary names, 
 
 Yet another name for our book appears in the 
 subscription to the Old Latin, ‘Explicit Esdrae 
 liber primus de templi restitutione,’ which aptly 
 describes the contents of the book. To avoid con- 
 fusion, ‘The Greek Esdras’ has been suggested as 
 a suitable title. ; 
 
 CONTENTS. — Except for one original section 
 (3!-58), the book is made up wholly from materials 
 that exist in canonical books. It is a repetition 
 of the history of the rebuilding of the temple. 
 The first chapter corresponds to the last two of 
 2 Ch, the last to a portion of Neh 8; the inter- 
 vening portion runs parallel to Ezra, and contains 
 the whole of that book, with one transposition and 
 one interpolation. 
 
 The following scheme gives the canonical paral- 
 lels, and shows the chronological confusion of the 
 book. (The verses are those of the Camb, LXX.) 
 
 Es 1=2 Oh 35. 36. Great passover of Josiah; his defeat at 
 Megiddo, and death; the succeeding Jewish reigns and the 
 Captivity briefly sketched. 
 
 Es 21-14=Ezr1. Cyrus’ proclamation. Delivery of the sacred 
 vessels to Sanabassar, and his return to Jerusalem. 
 
 Es 215-25—=Ezr 46-24, Opposition to the rebuilding of the 
 temple. Letter of Persian officials resident in Samaria to 
 Artaxerxes. The work abandoned till the reign of Darius. 
 
 Es 31-56, Original. Story of the three pages at the court of 
 Darius, who each maintain a thesis before the king. The third, 
 Zerubbabel, as a reward for his wisdom, is granted leave to lead. 
 a body of Jews to Jerusalem, Departure of the caravan under 
 Joachim, son of Zerubbabel, and others, 
 
 Es 57-45=Ezr 2, Lists of those returning with Zerubbabel. 
 
 Es 64-70—Ezr 3-45, Altar of burnt-offering set up; Feast of 
 Tabernacles celebrated ; foundation of temple laid ; offer of ‘the 
 enemies’ to co-operate rejected. The work hindered through 
 their opposition till the reign a, Darius. 
 
 Es 6. 7=Ezr 5. 6. Work resumed in second year of Darius. 
 Letter of the Persian governors to Darius, and his favourable 
 rescript. Completion of the temple. 
 
 Es 8-936= Ezr 7-10. Return under Ezra in reign of Artawerzes. 
 The abuse of mixed marriages redressed. Names of the trans- 
 
 gressors. 
 Es 937-55 = Neh 773-813, Reading of the law by Ezra. 
 The history goes directly backwards: first Arta- 
 
 xerxes (2%), then Darius (3-5°), lastly Cyrus 
 (57-”), instead of Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes. After 
 expressly stating that it was Darius who gave 
 permission to Zerubbabel to return, the writer in 
 588-79 calmly refers this return to the time of Cyrus. 
 
 The book is incomplete. It breaks off in the 
 middle of a sentence, cal émcavw)xOnoav (cf. Neh 814), 
 It probenly continued the history to the Feast of 
 Tabernacles described in Neh 8, but no further}; 
 this is suggested by Jos. Ant. XI. v. 5, who de- 
 scribes that feast, using an Esdras word éravép0wors, 
 and at this point, having hitherto followed Es as 
 his authority, passes on to the Book of Neh. The 
 Latin versions add a clause completing the broken 
 sentence of the Greek. There is no indication that 
 the book ever began at an earlier point in the 
 history than it does now. 
 
 RECEPTION AND USE OF THE BooK.—The first 
 witness to the existence of Es A is Josephus, who 
 uses it in place of the canonical book not only in 
 his description of the Return (Anf#. XI. i.—-y.), but 
 also in his account of Josiah (Ant. xX. iv. 5ff.). 
 He agrees with Es in shifting the first opposition te 
 
 
 

 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 ESDKAS, FIRST BOOK OF 753 
 
 
 
 the work, and the letter to the Persian king, from 
 its ae in the canonical Ezr, altering Artaxerxes 
 to Cambyses to correct the chronological error; he 
 introduces the story of the three pages; with Es 
 he ‘poses directly from the end of Ezr to Neh 8; 
 and he borrows a good deal of the language of our 
 book. His preference for it was probably due to 
 its more elegant Gr. style, and a desire not to omit 
 the additional matter contained in it. He occa- 
 povelly supplements his authority by information 
 derive ape ety from the Heb. Ezr; the indi- 
 eations of his knowledge of the Gr. Es B are too 
 slight to warrant the supposition that he made 
 any use of that book (but see XI. i. 3, § 15, Wuxrijpes ; 
 XI. v. 2, § 136). His narrative is worthless as 
 history, since in trying to remove the inaccuracies 
 of his original he has only introduced greater con- 
 fusion himself. 
 
 Our book is quoted fairly often by the early Christian Fathers, 
 both Gr. and Latin. Among Gr. Fathers, Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 i. 892, Potter (iyratla ZopoBuBia copia vixnoas rove dvrayaucrag, 
 x.7.4.); Origen, Hom. tz. in Josuam, § 10, Comm. in Johann. 
 vi. 1; Eusebius, Comm. in Ps. 76, § 19; Athanasius, Orat. cont. 
 Arianos, ii. 20. Tertullian, De Cor. Milit. 9, perhaps refers to 
 1 Es 52; Oyprian, Ep. 74, 9, quotes the passage, ‘ Veritas manet 
 et invalescit in sternum, et vivit et obtinet in secula seculorum’ 
 (iv. 38); and Augustine, de Civ. Det, xviii. 36, refers to the same 
 passage, suggesting that it may be prophetical of Christ, who is 
 
 e Truth. No passage has perhaps been more freq. quoted, or 
 joan haha than iv. 41, Magna est veritas et prwvalet ‘Great is 
 truth, and strong above all things’ (vrspsexis). (The patristic 
 references are collected in the Tubingen Theol. Quartalschrift, 
 1859, p. 263 may The first writer to throw discredit on the book 
 was Jerome. e refused to translate the ‘dreams’ of 8 and 4 
 Esdras. His words are (Pref.in Ezram), ‘Tertius annus est 
 quod semper scribitis atque rescribitis, ut Esdrw librum et 
 Esther vobis de Hebrwo transferam. ... Nec quenquam moveat 
 quod unus a nobis liber editus est: nec apocryphorum tertii et 
 quarti somniis delectetur ; quia et apud Hebrwos Ezra Nehemi- 
 geque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur; et qu® non 
 habentur apud illos, nec de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul 
 abjicienda,’ Consequently, the Old Latin was left untouched by 
 him, and the book is absent from the older MSS of the Vulg. 
 {e.g. Cod. Amiatinus). 
 
 It was probably owing to the influence of this 
 estimate of Jerome, that the Tridentine Fathers in 
 1546 excluded 1 Es from the Canon. 1 and 2 Es, 
 with the Prayer of Manasses, are the only books 
 admitted as apocryphal into the Romish Bibles, the 
 rest of our Apocr. being declared canonical by the 
 Council of Trent. In modern editions of the Vulg. 
 they form an Appendix, being placed after the NT, 
 with a prefatory note stating that they are placed 
 ‘hoe in loco extra scilicet seriem canonicorum 
 librorum ... ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a 
 nonnullis sanctis Patribus citantur, et in aliquibus 
 Bibliis tam manuscriptis quam impressis reperi- 
 untur.’ In the Eng. Bible our book stands first in 
 the Apocrypha. i 
 
 RELATION TO THE CANONICAL Ezra.—On this 
 question, the most interesting which arises in 
 connexion with the book, the most ppposie 
 opinions have been held. The various theories 
 resolve themselves into three. 
 
 1. It is regarded as a mere compilation from the 
 Gr. of the LXX (2 Ch and Es B).' Those books, 
 according to this theory, have been worked over 
 and modified for the sake of Greek readers, to 
 whom the Hebraic style of the LXX version 
 rendered it unintelligible. Such is the view of 
 Keil, Schiirer (in Herzog, Encycl. i. 496, ‘nach der 
 Septuaginta iibersetzung bearbeitet,’ and HJP 1. 
 iii. 177ff. Eng. tr.), and Bissell (in Lange’s OT 
 Comm.). In favour of this view it is urged (i.) that 
 our book often agrees literally with the LXX in 
 the Gr. used, even in rare and unfamiliar words ; 
 (ii.) that the LXX is often followed in its deviations 
 from the Heb. text; and (iii.) that in the case of 
 deviations from both Heb. and LXX, the readings 
 of Es A are more easily referred to the latter than 
 to the former. The best instances of (i.) are Es A 
 88 6 xoudicas ras duaprias quov=Es B 9 exovducas 
 pay Tas dvowlas, RV ‘punished us less than our 
 
 iniquities deserve’; Es A 9'=Es B 18! ¢dyere 
 Aumdopara. For (ii.) may be quoted Es A 1° xa 
 otrw 7d mowwdv=2 Ch 35" xal otrws els 7d pul, 
 against Heb. ‘and so they did with the oxen.’ 
 The two Heb. words 93 (‘oxen’) and 725 (‘morn- 
 ing’) are indistinguishable without the vowel 
 points; the agreement need not prove the use of 
 one version by the other. More striking is Es A 
 1” per’ ebwolas kal dwhveyxay, compared with 2 Ch 
 358 kal ebwHOn Kal ESpayov. This looks like a con- 
 fusion of edwdéw and evoddw; the Heb. equivalent is 
 ‘and in pans.’ But here Es renders the Hiphil 
 wy) correctly by drjveyxav, which édpayor fails to 
 do, thus showing independent knowledge of the 
 Hebrew. Compare also Es A 1™ rodeueivy atrdv 
 émexelpe, and 2 Ch 3572 dA’  wodeueiy adrdv éexpa- 
 Tawdn, with the Heb. ‘disguised himself that he 
 Sy ae fight with him.’ 
 
 comparison of the two books, however, renders 
 it impossible to maintain the view any longer, that 
 Es A is compiled solely from the Gr. of the other 
 books. There are numerous passages where Es 
 preserves the Heb. more closely than the LXX, or 
 points to a different word in the Heb. original. 
 An examination of all the passages given by Bissell 
 (p. 69) in support of the opposite opinion will show 
 that there is not one where Es does not preserve 
 some touch in the Heb. which is missed in the 
 LXX Ezr, which cannot therefore have been the 
 only authority possessed by our ‘author in those 
 parts which agree with the canonical book. It 
 still remains possible that Es A is a mere recension 
 of the canonical books by the help of the Heb. ; but 
 the Gr. of the two books is of such a different char- 
 acter as to make it improbable that this is the 
 true view of the relation between them. 
 
 2. It is regarded as a working over of an earlier 
 Gr. translation of Ch, Ezr, and Neh, but a trans- 
 lation quite distinct from the LXX. This view is 
 held by Ewald (Hist. of Isr. v. 126-128, Eng. tr.). 
 He first gives the alternative that the writer ‘ was 
 either a translator of the books of Ch, or else 
 found them already translated, and worked up the 
 tr.,’ and then decides for the latter view (p. 128 n.). 
 ‘He found the work of the chronicler tolerably 
 freely translated from the original. This tr. was 
 different from that of the LXX, and no doubt 
 much older.’ 
 
 This theory admits an independent tr. of the 
 Heb. as the basis of the book, but denies that the 
 compiler was himself the translator ; it presupposes 
 a lost Gr. version of Ch, Ezr, Neh. It gives a 
 satisfactory explanation of the coincidences in tr. 
 and deviation from the Heb. in Es A and Es B, if 
 we suppose that both are to some extent dependent. 
 on a lost Gr. original. We should then have ip 
 the two books a parallel case to the two Gr. 
 versions of Dn, the LXX mery paraphrastic, 
 Theod. fairly literal, both being dependent on as 
 earlier version (Smith, Dict. Christ. Biog. art. 
 ‘ Theodotion’). 
 
 3. It is held to be a direct and independent tr. 
 from the Heb., and from a text in some instances 
 superior to the Massoretic; Es B was entirely 
 unknown to the writer. This view is held by 
 Michaelis, Trendelenburg (in Eichhorn’s Allge- 
 meine Bibliothek der bibl. litt. 1787), Pohlmann (in 
 Tubingen Quartalschrift, 1859, p. 257), Herzfeld, 
 Fritzsche, and others. It is simpler than the last, 
 but fails to account for the coincidences in the 
 two books, The question whether (2) or (3) is the 
 true view depends also on the date which, on 
 linguistic and other grounds, we are led to assign 
 to the work. It cannot be said to have been yet 
 decided which is right, but (2) appears to satisfy 
 all the requirements of the problem, while (3) does 
 not. 
 
 The two translations are of an essentially 
 
760 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 different character. While the writer of Es B 
 shows a slavish adherence to the Hebrew, often 
 transliterating his original, and making no pre- 
 tensions to style, Es A is marked by a free style 
 of translation, an elegant and idiomatic Gr., a 
 happy rendering of Hebraisms, and an omission of 
 difficulties, which make it a far more readable 
 book than the other. It was clearly intended for 
 Gr. readers unacquainted with Hebrew. The 
 writer was a litterateur in possession of a wide 
 Gr. vocabulary. 
 
 A few instances of his manner may be given. He consistently 
 translates the phrase ‘ beyond the river’ (the Persian name for 
 Palestine, Es B wipay rod roreod) by KosAn Zupia xal Doivixn (7 
 times in Es A; only 8 times elsewhere, viz. in the Books of 
 Mac). He writes ays +6 eéoxa for Ch rosiv +6 géory. A good 
 instance of idiomatic Gr. style is 569.70 (contrast Es B 44.5). A 
 list of some words peculiar to Es A in the Gr. OT may not be 
 superfluous. dxodctias c. dat. for xaré (5 times), dvayvdorne 
 (of Ezra, 6 ispsis xual dvayvdorns sod voov=Es B ob ispsds xal 6 
 ypaumarsds, 6 times), dvangicinryres, dpystpsis (of Ezra), ifaso- 
 Puraxior, dnumymyin, iyxcoxsiv, ixmaituv, suger, traxovrres, 
 sxidbEus, ispodovaos (6 times=Es B Nabivsijz), isporrarns, ispoLcrarng 
 (6 times, Es B adovrss), xappov ‘a car,’ wepidapyia (4 times), usra- 
 yiviotipos, svonateypadin, spaypwerixos (Subst.), crxuSpaBeissv, 
 ovvizopcobes, cuvyous, dice TeAcvTay AwAtiv, YaLUITETHS, YpNLe- 
 vierypiov, Other words rarely found elsewhere than in this book 
 (which may for the most part be paralleled from Est, Dn, and 
 Mac) are—dysspodv ‘confiscate,’ &kiaue, areviluv, doyporiCey, 
 ipytiy, Evacxobsy, imarépluass, a a ‘attack,’ isictorecis (al. 
 cvrracis), sires, swodia, siouis (Es B rayte), Oupapes (Es B 
 wvAmpis), xararoxicuss, xalevicscbas, pavicung, UIiTadAcoouy Toy 
 Biov, oixovopos, ddAorx Epas, waeropopioy. 
 
 The passages which point to a more accurate rendering of the 
 Heb., or a different Heb, original from that trd- by the LXX, 
 are collected by Trendelenburg (see also Bissell, 65-69). ‘The 
 foll. instances, partly unnoticed before, may be given :— 
 
 In the account of the death of Josiah, Es A 125-27=2 Ch 3521-23, 
 Es 12 ia yap rot Evgpdrov 6 woAsuss od tes 3 Oh LXX omit; 
 Heb. ‘but against the house of my war’ (*mpq> n'g 5x). Es 
 apparently read n75 (Euphrates) for n’3. The Heb. as it stands 
 is harsh for ‘the house with which I have war’; and Es is a 
 decided improvement. 
 
 Es 1% ov spociyav pyunow ‘lepseiov xpogyrov; Ch LXX obx 
 nxovet sav Abyay Nexaw=Heb. Es perhaps read x23 for $33. 
 "Isosuiov is a later insertion; the Vulg. has ‘non attendens 
 verbum prophets.’ , 
 
 Es 127 xi xariBnoay ol &provess rods Bacitia; Oh LXX xa} 
 iréfeucay of roksras i} Bao.=Heb. Es read i7}!) ‘and they came 
 down’) for 1) ‘and they shot’). 
 
 In Es A 880 zai sr’ xirod ard ypapns avdpss imariy wsveixevra, 
 the Heb. is more closely rendered (‘and with him were reckoned 
 by genealogy of the males’) than in LXX (Es B 88) xa} sr’ abrod 
 TO TUTTE Leas x, ROI TET. 
 
 In 866 6 Mocsps/ of LXX is rightly given as Alyiweios, A writer 
 working on the LXX without the Heb. could hardly infer that 
 Mosspsi stood for 7x10 (‘the people of Mizraim’). 
 
 In 863 ippyge va iucrin xal viv ispev tebara, the last words of 
 the Heb. shops (‘and my mantle are rightly given; the LXX 
 twice misconstrues them (93-5), dippnge se incrie pov xx) 
 iwadAbieny. 
 
 In 875 xc) viv ward wécov vs Hpeiv iysvGOn EAsos rape vod xupiov, the 
 Heb. phrase yi] bYD> (‘for a little moment’) is rendered, and 
 the ive construction kept. Es B98 xa stv twisxsioaro ypiv 
 6 0sés, omits the phrase and changes the construction. 
 
 884 dvexdurlopusy wapaBives, and Es B 914 isarrpinpcepesr dierxe- 
 déeas, are independent versions of send aw (‘shall we again 
 break ?’). 
 
 890 os ae os nee) boos xidapx hooves Tod vécou Tod xvpiou, renders 
 the Heb. (‘according to the council of my Lord and of those 
 that tremble at the command of our God’) where the LXX (Es B 
 103) departs from it, as a» Bolan dvdorns xal goBipiroy airore iv 
 évrodois Jsod Nuav. 
 
 In 92 Es A points to 4 neat and certain correction of the Hebrew. 
 The LXX (108) runs, wal iwepaidy ee yaloquadxor laavev. . . 
 xd imopsiOy ixei, where the second ixopsi6 is tautological. 
 Es A has isepsidy, sis +6 racropopioy "lava . . . ma) ebrucbsic ixes. 
 The compiler clearly read oy 1b (‘and he passed the night 
 there’) for oY abn (‘and he went there’). The letters ] and 4 
 are very liable to confusion; and atascbes is the constant 
 rendering of the verb po (‘to dwell’) in the LXX, 
 
 910 roy syecrn TH owe Obras of sipnxag szonoosy is a literal 
 rendering of the Heb. bia Sip 31>') ‘and they said with a loud 
 voice’); LXX (1012) is again wrong with xa) doy Miya volvo va 
 Pijem vou ig’ yucs roinras, 
 
 These few instances out. of many show beyond a 
 doubt that the compiler, or the author of the 
 version he is using, had a knowledge of the Heb. as 
 against the other Gr. version, and that Es A is an 
 
 important authority for a critical emendation of 
 the Heb. text. 
 
 The most recent supporter of the third view, and 
 of the claims of this book to attention, is Sir H. H. 
 Howorth, in a series of six articles in the Academy 
 for 1893 on ‘The real character and the importance 
 of the first book of Esdras.’ His attempt to estab- 
 lish the historical credibility of the book and its 
 chronological accuracy, as against the canonical 
 Ezra, is beset by numerous difficulties, and cannot 
 be maintained. Thus he regards the Darius who 
 despatched Zerubbabel as Darius 1. Nothus (424), 
 who was a century later than Darius Hystaspes 
 (522), and is forced to date the return under 
 Ezra, and that under Nehemiah, more than half 
 a century later than the dates ordinarily assigned 
 to those events; he regards Sanabassar or Shesh- 
 bazzar as a distinct person from Zerubbabel; he 
 says that the misplaced section Es A 2" preserves 
 the original order of the Aramaic chronicle from 
 which it is derived; and he regards the story of 
 the three pages as ‘equally valuable and worthy of 
 credit with the rest of the book.’ It is lost labour 
 to attempt to reconcile this book with history ; 
 the compiler has put together his materials regard- 
 less of the inconsequences involved. But Sir H. 
 Howorth’s views on the relations between the two 
 Gr. books are far more deserving of notice; he has 
 here been partly anticipated by Pohlmann (op. ctt. 
 273-275). He argues that ‘Es A represents the 
 true LXX text; Es B represents another tr., which 
 in all probability was that of Theodotion’; and he 
 
 uotes the parallel of the two versions of Daniel. 
 
 he existing evidence makes it probable that this 
 view is so far correct, that Es A represents the 
 first attempt to present the story of the Return in 
 a Gr. dress, the story of the three pages being 
 perhaps added by a later compiler. Subsequently 
 a complete and a more accurate rendering of the 
 Heb. was required, und this was supplied by what 
 is now called the LXX version of oh Ezr, Neh. 
 Whether this took place so late as the time of 
 Theodotion may be questioned. 
 
 In favour of the priority of Es A, these points 
 may be noted :— 
 
 l. The Position of the Book and its earliest Title 
 in the MSS ("“Eedpas a').—'The explanation usually 
 given is that the events described in it precede in 
 part the events in the LXX Ezr. It is equally 
 
 robable tliat it was assigned the prior position 
 ecause it was the earlier of the two Gr. versions. 
 
 2. The Contents.—These point to a time when 
 Ch, Ezr, and Neh formed one continuous work, 
 and the division into sections had not yet been 
 made. Es A passes without a break from one 
 book to another, and does not contain the redupli- 
 cation whereby the last two verses of Ch are 
 repeated as the first two of Ezra. 
 
 3. The Use of Es A by Josephus.—There is no 
 certain evidence of his acquaintance with the other 
 Gr. book, or of its existence before his time. This 
 looks as if he were using the only Gr. materials 
 available to him; that is, that in the LXX as 
 known to him this part of the Bible was repre- 
 sented by Es A. 
 
 4, During the first five centuries the Christian 
 Fathers quote the book with respect as canonical. 
 It was included in Origen’s Hexapla. 
 
 5. As shown above, it has in many places pre- 
 served a better Heb. text than the L&X Ezra. 
 
 THE ORIGINAL SECTION (3!-5').—The source of 
 the story of the three pages at the court of Darius 
 is unknown. In what language it was originally 
 written is also doubtful ; but Ewald is prob. right 
 in holding that while the main body of the book is 
 a tr. from Heb., ‘on the other hand the work from 
 which he took the story about Zerubbabel was 
 originally composed in Gr.’ At any rate there are 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 no clear traces of Hebraisms (Fritzsche adduces 4° 
 Td Sikaia Toei drd rdévtwv Trav ddlkwy=jn Hawn nyY), 
 and the paronomasia dveow xal ddeow in 4% points 
 to a Gr. original. The compiler seems to have been 
 acquainted with traditions of Persian history. The 
 account of Darius and Apame the dagehear of 
 Bartacus (4, Jos. gives his name as ‘PaBefdxys, 80 
 the Latin versions Bezaces) is perhaps derived from 
 some book of Persian court stories.* The presence 
 of Zerubbabel at the court of Darius is, of course, 
 an anachronism : it was Cyrus who despatched him 
 to Jerusalem. It is noticeable that in 5°, acc. to 
 the most natural construction, it is Joachim the 
 son of Zerubbabel who spake wise words before 
 Darius. In 4 the speaker is merely called 4 
 yeayloxos (a name hardly suitable to 2), and at 
 his first introduction in 4" the third speaker is 
 identified in a parenthesis only 6 zplros . . . odds 
 éortv ZopoBaBéd, which is certainly a later addition. 
 This has led to the conjecture that Joachim was 
 the hero of the story, and that there were two ex- 
 
 editions—one in the time of Cyrus led by Zerub- 
 
 abel, one under Darius led by Joachim (Fritzsche 
 and Reuss). But no Joachim is mentioned among 
 the sons of Z. in1 Ch 3%, These inconsistencies 
 certainly show the composite nature of the book. 
 It would appear that an earlier Pers. story was 
 adopted by the Jews of Alexandria and became 
 attached to Zerubbabel; the speakers in the 
 original story were Persian courtiers (34 of cwparo- 
 gtdaxes). The second of the theses maintained by 
 the third speaker—the superiority of the truth— 
 may also be a Jewish addition to the original, 
 though the eulogy of truth would not be out of 
 place in a Persian story, since the Persians were 
 taught from boyhood ‘ to ride, to use the bow, and 
 te speak the truth’ (Hdt. i. 136). 
 
 The story is told in what perhaps was thought a more 
 lausible way in Josephus (Ant. x1, iii. 2), There Darius, unable 
 sleep, proposes a reward to that one of his three pages who 
 shall best prove his thesis : to the first he gives the thesis, that 
 * wine is the strongest’; to the second, ‘the king is the strongest’; 
 to the third, ‘whether women are the strongest or truth is 
 stronger than they’? The speeches are held on the following 
 day. In Es the king makes no promise of rewards: the three 
 pages suggest the idea to each other, and while he sleeps they 
 each write the subject which he means to maintain, and put 
 it under the king’s pillow for him to find in the morning. The 
 speeches before the Pers. monarch are not unlike the answers 
 of the 72 translators at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, as 
 described in the letter of Aristeas. The applause which 
 greets the third speech (441), and the feasting for seven days 
 with music and gladness’ (463), may be illustrated from that 
 work. But there is hardly sufficient ground for saying, with 
 Ewald, that ‘the book of Aristeas must have been already 
 known to the author.’ The story in Es is a composition of 
 Sy evga class, and probably of the same time as the Aristeas 
 etter. 
 
 It should be noted that in the third speech there 
 is an allusion to Gn 2% (Es 4” dyOpwros rdv éavrod 
 warépa évxaradelree. . . Kal mpds THy ldlay yuraixa 
 Ko\NGrat). 
 
 OBJECT OF THE Boox.—The body of the book 
 appears, as has been shown, to be the earliest 
 version of the work of the Chronicler. It was 
 written to render Gr.-speaking Jews acquainted 
 with the favour which through the Divine Provi- 
 dence was once shown to their nation by foreign 
 monarchs. The original section (3-4) is perhaps 
 the nucleus of the whole, round which the rest is 
 grouped. One object of the compiler was to give 
 currency to this story, from whatever source, 
 Persian or Jewish, he had derived it. He may 
 also have had an ulterior object in view. The 
 Eatated accounts of the munificence of Cyrus 
 and Darius lead us to suppose that he aimed at 
 
 *The name Apame is Oriental, though not found till the 
 Macedonian period. No such person occurs among the wives 
 of Darius 1. The first of the name was the wife of Seleucus 
 
 Nikator, Alexanders general, and daughter of Artabazus 
 ahaa Does this last name give the explanation of the name 
 us Of ‘PaSslaxns ? 
 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 761 
 
 securing to the Jews ‘the favour of a Ptolemaic or 
 other heathen power’ (Ewald). 
 
 TIME AND PLACE OF ComposITION.—The ex- 
 treme limits between which the book must be 
 placed are given on the one hand by the date of 
 the composition of the Heb. books of herr and Neh, 
 which is fixed as late as B.C. 300(Ryle, Cam. Bible, 
 Introd. xxvi), on the other by the date of 
 Josephus, A.D. 100. Within these rather wide 
 limits it is difficult to define the time more accur- 
 ately with any certainty. As Fritzsche remarks, 
 the writer has kept his own personality in the 
 background and nowhere left any traces of his own 
 time (Hinleitung, p. 9). Still there remain a few 
 indications to be mentioned. The similarity to 
 Aristeas, as we have seen, shows nothing more 
 than that the Zerubbabel story is of the same 
 character and probably the same time as that book 
 (circa B.C. 150). 
 
 1. But Ewald notes further (Abhand. iiber d. 
 Sibyll. Biich. p. 36) that this story was known and 
 referred to by the writer of the oldest of the 
 Sibylline books. Now, this book (iii. of the 
 Sibylline Oracles) is definitely fixed to the reign of 
 Ptolemy Philometor (B.c. 181-146). In it is an 
 allusion to Persian kings helping forward the 
 rebuilding of the temple in consequence of a 
 dream; ili. 293-4, Adros yap dadces Oeds Evvvxov d-yvor 
 Bveipov, kal Tore 5%) vads madi ooerat, ws wdpos Fv 
 ep. This, in Ewald’s opinion, is suggested by Es 
 3-4. But in Es 4“ there is no mention of a dream, 
 but only a vow, which influenced Darius. Still, 
 as the dream is not alluded to elsewhere, it is not 
 improbable that the Sibyllist had some older form 
 of this story before him, from which our Esdras 
 also borrowed. 
 
 2. The book has, further, some parallels with the 
 LXX version of Dn and Est. The opening of Es 
 3 seems to be imitated from the opening of Est 
 11; the phrases érolycev doxiy, did ris Ivdixijs uéxpe 
 Al@ortas, and ‘the hundred and seventy satrapies,’ 
 are common to both. Cf. also Es 3° oi pets 
 peyiotaves TAS Iepcldos with Est 144 LXX, Dn 6%. 
 (The Heb. of Est as also Ezr 74 name seven Persian 
 councillors. ) 
 
 The agreements. between Es and Dn LXX are 
 remarkable. Of these the most striking is a clause 
 which they have in common in the account of the 
 treasures which Nebuchadnezzar recovered from 
 Jerus. (Es 29=Dn 1? LXX, xal dwnpeloaro aira év 
 7@ cliwrly avrod). In this place, since dmrepeldecOat 
 is an Esdras word, occurring three times in this 
 connexion in Es and nowhere else in Dn, and 
 since e/dédcoy renders the Heb. of Ezr (aby ma) 
 but not of Dn (v7bx 7yix na, Theod. els rdv olkor 
 Onoavpod Geo avrod), it would seem that the obliga- 
 tion is on the side of the Dn translator. 
 
 But, in view of the other parallels between the 
 books, another explanation is more probable, that 
 the translations are the work of one and the same 
 hand, In one place the same Aramaic phrase, 
 ‘And his house shall be made a dunghill,’ is mis- 
 translated or paraphrased in the same way (Es 6%! 
 kal rad vrdpxovTa avrod elvat Baowixd, Dn 2° xa 
 dvarnhOjcera bua Ta brdpxovra els Td Baoidtxdv). It 
 may be noted that both books are written in an 
 idiomatic Gr. style foreign to most books of the 
 LXX; both are very free translations; both have 
 interpolations of a similar character (the three 
 pages in Es, the three children in Dn); the 
 original Heb. of both books has Aramaic sections 
 interspersed in it. If this theory be true, the 
 parallel between the two Gr. books of Es and the 
 two versions of Dn is very close.* 
 
 *The theory has already been suggested by Dr. Gwynn (Dict. 
 Christ. Biog., s.v. Theodotion, p. 977) ; cf, Dn 21 ixfdozes (Hs O46 
 imidézws) ; Soyuerituy (Dn 218, Es 39); Dn 81, Es 32 of xporyey- 
 pweusver (Dn 33, Hs 631 [A] only); use of gue c. inf. aua ro 
 

 
 
 
 762 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 3. Graetz (Gesch. der Juden, 1863, p. 445) ee 
 to the use of traro in 3'4, and says that the Roman 
 consulate is known to the writer. This would 
 indicate a time later than the first interference of 
 the Romans in the East, 7.e. later than B.c. 200. 
 
 4, On the other hand, the term KoA} Zupla 
 which so frequently occurs is used in the sense 
 which it bore during the Gr. period, meaning all 
 8. Syria except Pheenicia. Before the coming of 
 the Romans to Palestine (c. B.c. 63, the date of 
 Pompey’s taking of Jerus.) this name had acquired 
 a new significance, being restricted to the country 
 E. of the Jordan (G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. p. 
 538). The way in which this phrase is used 
 appears, therefore, to afford certain proof that the 
 book is at least as old as the first half of the last 
 century before the Christian era. 
 
 Whether it goes back to the 2nd cent. B.C. is 
 more uncertain. 
 
 5. That such is the case is the opinion of Herz- 
 feld (Ges. d. Volk. Isr. 1863, vol. ii. p. 73), who 
 dates it before the Maccabzean wars, on the ground 
 that after that date, when the books of Ezr and 
 Neh had become canonical (Ryle, Cam. Bible, Ezr. 
 and Neh. \xv), @ translator would not have been 
 bold enough to excerpt and rearrange materials 
 from those books. 
 
 6. This view is also supported by Lupton, who 
 has an ingenious theory as to the occasion when the 
 book was written. He regards it as edited at the 
 time (B.C. 170) when Onias, having fled from the 
 persecution in Pal. under Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 
 etitioned for leave from Ptolemy Philometor to 
 Puild a temple for the Alexandrian Jews at 
 Heliopolis on the site of a ruined Egyp. temple of 
 Bubastis. At that time ‘a work which described 
 the rebuilding of the temple, and the beneficence 
 of foreign kings to the work, and which also 
 introduced the story of Josiah, slain in an invasion 
 ‘of Syria by the Egyptians, would have a special 
 interest.’ The account of the building of the 
 Egyp. temple (8u0c0v rw év "Lepocodvpmors, purxpbrepor dé 
 kal mevxpérepor) is given in Jos. Ant. XIII. iii. 1; the 
 reader is referred to the interesting remarks of 
 Lupton (Speaker's Comm., Apoc. vol. i. 11-14). 
 This is, of course, no more than conjectural, and 
 it is unsafe to base any argument upon it; if the 
 theory about the relation to the LXX Dn be 
 correct, the date given is rather too early. The 
 limits within which the book may be placed may 
 be taken to be B.c. 170-100. Most editors, how- 
 ever, assign it to the Ist cent. B.c. (De Wette, 
 Ewald, Fritzsche). 
 
 As to the place where the compiler lived, the 
 character of the translation seems to show that it 
 was written for Alexandrian Jews rather than for 
 natives of Palestine, for whom the original Hebrew 
 of the Chronicler would suffice. One slight allusion 
 in 4*5 to ‘sailing upon the sea and upon the rivers’ 
 for the purpose of ‘robbing and stealing’ is 
 thought to point to Egypt. Certain small peculi- 
 arities of the language also indicate Alexandria 
 as the place of writing: ol gio rod Bacthéws (85) 
 takes the place of Es B ol ovuBovdnx (ol mpdra 
 ido. were the third in the scale of courtiers at the 
 Alexandrian court): in 2!8 ay ¢atynral co is inserted. 
 The phrase édy dalynru (‘if it seem good’) occurs 
 in Aristeas (in Merx’ Archiv, i. 1870, p. 19), and 
 repeatedly in Egyptian papyri. 
 
 Fritzsche, on the other hand, concludes that the 
 writer was a Palestinian from his knowledge of 
 sites in Jerusalem, referring to 5% els rd edpixwpov 
 rod mpwrov wuddvos rod mpds Ty dvato\p (=Es B els 
 "Tepoveadjy). Cf. also 9° émt 7d edpixwpov trod mpds 
 
 dxoteas (Dn 315, Eg 868); xapzée=‘to burn’ (Dn 388, Eg 452); 
 &xpuodv (Dn 411 620, Hs 153) ; pavseane (Dn 57, Es 36 only); Dn 6}, 
 Es 31; use of trorieruy (Sus 51%, Es 817). The parallels are 
 chiefly in the first six chapters of Dn. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 
 
 él eee —— 
 
 dvaronds lepod wrvAGvos (=Neh 8! els rd wAdros ra 
 Eumpoobev wUdns TOO UdaTos). 
 
 MSS AND TExT.—Es A exists in two out of 
 the three oldest MSS of the LXX, viz. Cod. 
 Vaticanus (B) and Cod. Alexandrinus (A). It is 
 not found in either of the portions of the Sinaitic 
 MS (x) discovered by Tischendorf (Cod. Friderico- 
 Augustanus and Cod. Sinaiticus Petropolitanus) ; 
 but this is perhaps due only to the fact that that — 
 MS is incomplete, and, except for some few frag- 
 ments of the Pent. and a portion of 1 Ch, contains 
 in its present form no part of the OT earlier than 
 Es B 9, after which it is fairly complete. 
 There has been a curious error in connexion with 
 the Esdras books; 13 chapters of 1 Ch having 
 been apphienty, inserted in the middle of Es 
 B. Cod. Sin.-Pet. contains one leaf with 1 Ch 
 97-11%; Cod. F.-A. has four more leaves headed 
 Es B, but in reality containing 1 Ch 1172-19”; 
 but in the fourth column of the verso of the fourth 
 leaf we suddenly pass in the middle of a line with 
 no break from Ch (kal érodéunoev atrév) to Es B 
 9° (ks 6 Os judy Kal exduvey éd’ Huds Breos). A note 
 at the bottom of that leaf in a later hand calls 
 attention to the seven superfluous leaves that are 
 ‘not of Esdras’ (rd réXos rev éxrd gi\\WY TO 
 mepiocav « ph byTwv rod €odpa). Of these seven 
 leaves we now pe five; and reckoning back 
 we find that the divergence must have beguw 
 about 1 Ch 6 (list of the sons of Aaron). This 
 error, whereby fragments of 1 Ch have been inter- 
 pee into the middle of Es B, is probably 
 
 ue to ‘a mistake in binding in the copy from 
 which the MS was transcribed’ (Westcott, Bible 
 in the Church, p. 307, Append. B) ; a less probable 
 explanation is given by Lupton (Introd. . 1). 
 The presence of the title Es B is not sufficient 
 by itself to prove, as Lupton supposes, that Ee 
 A ever stood in Cod. x; since the same MS con- 
 tains only the first and fourth books of Maccabees 
 with the headings pak. a’, paxk. 5’, and the two 
 intervening books certainly never found a place in 
 the MS. 
 
 An interesting problem is presented by the relation of the 
 texts of Codd. A and B in this book. The text of A is always the 
 smoother and more readable ; and wherever the reading of B 
 suggests a suspicion of corruption, A almost invariably gives the 
 requisite correction, Several of these corrections may be 
 attributed to an ‘ Alexandrian’ revision of the text, removing 
 grammatical solecisms and harsh phrases; such are 130 sOpjyour 
 (B ibpnvodcay), 133 dasxariornowy avrdy . . . rou uy Baoirsioy (B 
 om. rod um), 151 ra oxsin xiBwrod(B res xiBwrovs), 39 by xpivn » - » 
 Ori 6 Adyos «eirod copamrspos (B ov &v xpivn... OTs OD OA. eUTOU Fog.), 
 333 iBaswoy irapos apis roy irepor (B sl6 roy brspor), 812 dxorovbag we 
 ines tv TH vopew axon, w ixsi vopew). But in other places it is 
 hard to suppose that A does not aay i the original text. 
 Thus 122 (24) xa) iAvanoay airoy iv aiebjou (‘ they grieved him to 
 the heart,’ a pisses illustrated by Jth 1617; B xai & iatrnoan 
 autov tory), 141 Joachim at his accession }y tray dixa dxré (cf. 
 2 Ch 369, B hy ivdy dxrm), 445 soy vady ov ivemdpioay of "Tdoviccsos 
 "loudaios), 553 xara +6 xpocrayua (B xxi £6 wpcor.), 841 ix) ver 
 Ney cusvoy ores xorapdy (B Om. Ospey), 88 xal xaririrm rev 
 tpixawuros (Bxarivuvoy sou tpiy.). Fritzsche retain t | 1851, 
 § 8) remarks that B is on the whole a very pure an an 
 emended text; but it is noticeable that his subsequent 
 critical edition (Libri Apocryphi Vet. Test. 1871) in the 
 sages given above and in numerous others he adopts the reading 
 of A and abandons ‘the pure text of B.’ Still more noticeable is 
 it that the earliest author to quote Es A supports the A text 
 against the B. It is not always possible to reconstruct the text 
 which Josephus uséd owing to his habit of paraphrasing the 
 authority which lay before him ; but out of 18 passages in this 
 book where a comparison is possible, in 10 he agrees with A 
 against B, while in three only does he side with B against A 
 Jos. Ant. XI, iii. 8 rporsrate tovs "ISoupewious . . . &Geivaes TS xbues 
 (Es 450 xa} ve of Woupnnios &gimoi res xbpees, Boi XwAdaios), XI. 
 iv. 1 ro ifdéuou pemyés (Es 552 §2déu0v, B xpdireu), XI. iv. 6 xeel aipeby, 
 tv 'ExBaravos rH B&pu +H iv Mndie BiBdiov, ty @ x.T.A. 62a 
 x. wp. bv, ’ExB. ri Bapu vy iv Mudsie xdpa rouos le iv o .. 
 B sores iy @. A preserves the indefinite article; cf. Es B 6? 
 xspeAis wie; B is a corruption of the Greek of A); xi Y. 
 dyeviyxers dupa ro "lopandsrdiv Ord (Es 813 awsveyxeiy dpm rt 
 xupia Tov wd, B vw xupiw); td. xoracbycorras 3° Hro Oavere 
 nici xpnjccrixn (Es 824 xoracbicovres icv rs xe) Oavdra iév 4 
 wai Tyeopie, % xpyupinh Inula % deayoys 3 Beh dpyup. Impaler, 
 Ais undoubtedly best) ; x1. v. 2 cuvayayay eis 76 wipuy rod Kugperes 
 (did Jos. read ix} +6 Asyéusver wipay xoreuot in Es 841? A Bipas 
 roranov, B woremdy); UW. ratpovs didexx Umip xoiwis te Acod 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 : 
 ; 
 3 
 4 
 
 DRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 763 
 
 —_—_—_——_——_—_. nn __—_———————— 
 
 rernpias, xpious ivsyixevra, x.r.d. with A in Es 863 (B omits a line 
 through confusion, perhaps, of KYPIN and KPIOTS); x1. v. 8 
 diéppngs chy iebiire (Es 868 d:éppnza, Bipputx) ; xi. v. 4 lodvvov vod 
 "ExiaciBou (Eis 91 Iwaver ro 'EXieoiBov, B leva vod NaceiSov). 
 
 These instances form a strong argument for the early exist- 
 ence if not the originality of the A text, The chief passage 
 where Jos. appears to favour B is Es 653 (B xa) yadpa seis 
 LiBevioss xed Tupios sis rs rxpo-yuv ; Axéppu=‘cars’; Jos. x1 iv. 1 
 Toig +6 Wdevios 43d nad xoUgor Hy. . . xareyously), 
 
 On the MSS generally see Fritzsche, Einleitung, 
 
 8. 
 
 Of VSS, Sabatier prints two Lat. versions, one 
 of which he calls the Vulg., and a ‘versio altera’ 
 (‘ex MS Colbertino annorum circiter 800’). In 
 reality they corer to be two distinct VSS of the 
 O.L. Jerome left the O.L. untouched, and the 
 Lat. now given in the Appendix to the Vulg. is 
 not his work. A third Lat. version of Es A 3-4 
 (abbreviated) and of a few verses elsewhere in the 
 book is given in Lagarde (Septuaginta Studien, ii. 
 1892) from a MS in the cathedral of Lucea written 
 about 570. The book did not exist in the Peshitta 
 Syriac, but is found in the Syro-Hexaplar of 
 Paul of Tella (A.D. 616); the Syriac is given in 
 Walton’s Polyglot, 1657. There is a free render- 
 ing of the book in the Armenian version. 
 
 LITERATURE.—Fritzsche, HExeget. Handb. z. d. Apokr. i. 
 Geipzig, 1851), Introd. and Comm. ; Fritzsche, Libri Apocr. 
 
 et. Test. greece (Leipzig, 1871), a crit. ed. of the text ; Zéckler, 
 Die Apokryphen, 155-161 (in Strack und Zéckler’s Kgf. Komm. 
 1889) ; Schurer, HJP, Eng. tr. 1. iii, 177-181 ; Ewald, Hist. of 
 Isr., Eng. tr. v. 126-128. Special treatises on the relation 
 between Es A and Es B; Trendelenburg (in Eichhorn’s 
 Allgemeine Bibliothek der Bubl. Litt. 1. 178-232, Leipzig, 1787) ; 
 Pohlmann, ‘ Ueber das Ansehen des apokr. dritten Buchs Esras, 
 in Tiibingen Theol. Quartalschrift, 1859, 257-275). In English 
 the best edd. are Bissell (in Lange’s Comm. on OT, 1880) and 
 on in The Speaker's Comm., Apocrypha, vol. i. 1888. A 
 series of papers on ‘ The Character and Importance of 1 Esdras,’ 
 by Sir H. H. Howorth in the Academy, 1893, vol. 43 (pp. 13, 60, 
 106, 174, 826, 524). Jos. Ant. xi. 1-5 (Niese). For further 
 references see Schiirer. H. St, J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF.—TirTLzE.—The title 
 which this book bears in the English Apocrypha 
 is derived from the opening words of ch.i., ‘the 
 second book of the prophet Esdras’; but it is more 
 commonly known 3 the name which is given it 
 in most Latin MSS, ‘The fourth book of Esdras.’ 
 The variation in the titles of the books of Esdras 
 is due to two causes—(l1) The adoption of the 
 Latin name Esdras in the Vulg. for the canonical 
 Ezr and Neh; (2) the composite nature of this 
 book, the first two and the last two chapters being 
 later additions to the orig. work, and reckoned by 
 the MSS as separate books. The most frequent 
 arrangement in the MSS is 1 Es=Ezr-Neh; 2 Ks= 
 2Es1.2; 3Es=1 Es; 4 Es=2 Es 3-14; 5 Es=2 Es 
 15. 16. The central portion of the book bears 
 every number from one to four. The original 
 Greek had probably no number attached to it. 
 Two suggestions have been made for the original 
 title—(1)"Efpas 6 mpopirns, adopted by Hilgenfeld 
 in his restoration of the Greek, and based on a 
 quotation of Clem. Alex. from “Ecépas 6 mpo¢i}- 
 rns, and of Ambrose from ‘propheta Ezra’ (Jess. 
 Jud. 18). The title would then be parallel to 
 6 lepeds attached to 1 Esin Cod. A. (2) Amoxddvyes 
 ‘Ecdpa, suggested by Dr. Westcott, and found in a 
 catalogue of the 60 books, canonical and apocry- 
 phal, made in Asia (Westcott, Canon®, 559). The 
 title is far the most suitable to the contents of the 
 book, but has already become appropriated to a 
 later and inferior Greek Apocalypse published by 
 Tischendorf (Apocal. Apocryphe, 1866). 
 
 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND VERSIONS. — The 
 original language of 2 Es was undoubtedly Greek ; 
 two quotations from the Greek exist, Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. iii. 16. 100 (= 2 Es 5%), and Apost. Con- 
 stitut. viii. 7 (=2 Es 8%). Otherwise we possess 
 the book only in versions. The Latin version 
 
 abounds in Grecisms, such as the use of the com- 
 parative with the genit. (‘ horum maiora,’ ‘omnium 
 
 maior,’ etc.), the genit. abs. (10°), the prepositions 
 ad and pro with the inf. (7 13%), de and em 
 followed by the genit., the double negative (‘nihil 
 nemini,’ ‘nunquam nemo’), redundant prepositions 
 after verbs (‘timere a,’ 15°; ‘multiplicare super,’ 
 916), The theory of a Heb. original, of which the 
 Greek was a tr®, has now been given up; one 
 Hebraism, which, however, had become naturalized 
 in Greek, is of constant occurrence, namely, the 
 use of the participle with a finite tense of the same 
 verb (¢.g. excedens excessit, 4?; proficiscens pro- 
 fectus sum, 4%), 
 
 The popularity which this book has enjoyed is 
 shown by the number of versions that have been 
 made of it. For many years the text of the Latin 
 depended on a few MSS, Codex Sangermanensis 
 (S, A.D. 822), Cod. Turicensis (T, 13th cent.), Cod. 
 Dresdensis (D, 15th cent.), which presented a text 
 from which it was clear that a considerable section 
 was missing between vy. 35 and 36 of the 7th 
 chapter. ‘The other versions contained 70 addi- 
 tional verses in this place. In 1865 Prof. Gilde- 
 meister discovered that this ‘missing fragment’ 
 had once been contained in Cod. S, from which a 
 leaf had been purposely cut out in early times; 
 and drew the certain and important conclusion 
 that all MSS of 4 Es which do not contain the 
 
 assages were ultimately derived from Cod. S. 
 
 he discovery of this missing fragment was made 
 by R. L. Bensly, who in 1874 found a MS of the 
 9th cent. in the Bibliotheque Communale of Amiens 
 containing the entire Latin text; he thus had 
 the unique distinction of adding a chapter to the 
 EE for hitherto the verses in the Oriental 
 VSS had not been universally considered genuine. 
 An account of the MS and its discovery, with a full 
 commentary on the new passage, was published by 
 him in the following year (The Missing Fragment 
 of the Fourth Book of Ezra, Camb. 1875). It sub- 
 sequently appeared that he had been anticipated 
 in the discovery, for a transcript of the lost pas- 
 sage, made in 1826 from a Spanish MS, was found 
 among the papers of Prof. Palmer: this was not 
 published till 1877 (Journ. of Philology, vol. vii. 
 264). The excision of 7°! was probably made 
 for dogmatic reasons. The verses contain a de- 
 scription of the intermediate state of souls, and 
 an emphatic denial of the efficacy of intercessions 
 for the dead (v.'), a passage which called forth a 
 severe reproof from Jerome (‘Tu... pripente mihi 
 librum apocryphum, qui sub nomine Esdre a te et 
 similibus tuis legitur : ubi scriptum est, quod post 
 mortem nullus pro aliis audeat deprecari: quem 
 ego librum nunquam legi,’ Cont. Vigilant. c. 7), 
 and this estimate not improbably accounts for the 
 disappearance of the section from Cod. S. The 
 number of known MSS which give a complete text 
 of 2 Es has now been increased, through the dis- 
 coveries of M. Berger, to five. A complete text of 
 the book, based on four of these MSS and Cod. S, 
 has at length been edited from Bensly’s papers, 
 with an introd. by Dr. James (Texts and Studies, 
 iii, 2, Camb. 1895); while the missing fragment 
 has been restored to its place in the English Bible 
 in the Revision of the Apocrypha. The Latin 
 MSS fall into two groups: (1) those which pre- 
 serve a French text. S (Sangermanensis) once in 
 the Abbey of S. Germain des Prés, now in the 
 Bibl. Nat. Paris, 11504-5, Fonds Latin, dated A.D. 
 822, the oldest extant MS, and the parent of 
 numerous later MSS, and A (Ambianensis), 
 Amiens, Bibl. Comm. 10, cent. ix., containing a 
 text very similar to but independent of S, and 
 agreeing with the quotations of Gildas the Briton in 
 his Epistle (6th cent.) ; (2) a Spanish text, perhaps 
 traceable to Priscillian (Texts and Studies, xxxvi.), 
 represented by three MSS. C (Complutensis), 
 pow at Madrid, cent. ix., from which Prof. Palme: 
 
 
 

 
 764 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 copied the missing fragment in 1826. M (Mazar- 
 inzus), Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, 3, 4, cent. ix.-x., 
 discovered by M. Berger. V (Abulensis), Madrid, 
 Bibl. Nac. k. RK. 8, cent. xiii., a copy of C, dis- 
 covered by M. Berger, and a fourth, not yet fully 
 collated, but probably belonging to this group. 
 L (Legionensis), at Leon, of tle year 1162. For 
 one section of the book, the Confessio Esdree (87°-%), 
 which was often copied in .collections of Cantica, 
 an additional group of MSS exists. The two 
 
 oups differ most widely from each other in the 
 interpolated chapters (1. 2, 15. 16). An ex- 
 amination of their relative values in these chs. 
 has been made by Dr. James (7. and S. xliv.- 
 lxxviii.), from which he concludes that in 1. 2. the 
 Spanish form of text is more accurate than the 
 French, which has corrected the text to agree 
 with the canonical Scriptures, whereas in 15. 16 
 the Spanish is on the whole an emended text, and 
 in 15°-1682 A, which has the support of Gildas, is 
 to be preferred to S C M. 
 
 The other versions agree in omitting the inter- 
 polated chapters at the beg. and end (1. 2. 15. 16). 
 Of these the best is the Syriac, which exists only 
 in a celebrated MS of the Peshitta in the Ambro- 
 sian Library, Milan, B. 21 Inf. The Syriac was 
 edited by Ceriani in Monwmenta Sacra et Profana, 
 vol. v. fase. 1 (1868), and tr?into Latin in vol. i. 
 fasc. 2 of the same work (1866). There are two 
 independent Arabic versions: Ar. in an Oxford 
 MS (Bodl. 251, A.D. 1354), of which an English tr™ 
 was made by W. Whiston for his Primitive Chris- 
 tianity Reviv’d, 1711, and the Arabic text was 
 edited by Ewald in 1863 (Abhandl. der Kénigl. 
 Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. zu Gottingen); and Ar.? 
 preserved in toto in a Vatican MS Arab. 462, and 
 in part in Bodl. 260. : 
 
 The Zthiopic version was first published in 
 1820 by Dr. Richard Laurence from a Bodleian 
 MS (Ath. 7). Dillmann collected readings from 
 other MSS, which are given at the end of Ewald’s 
 ed. of the Arabic. he Syr. Ar. Eth. versions 
 were probably all made directly from the Greek ; 
 the Armenian, however, given in Zohrab’s ed. of 
 the Armenian Bible (1805, Venice) was perhaps 
 from the Syriac. A reconstruction of the Greek 
 has been made by Hilgenfeld in his Messias Jude- 
 orum. 
 
 CoNnTENTS. — The original Apocalypse (3-14) 
 consists of a series of revelations or visions given 
 to Ezra by an angel. 
 
 lst Vision, 81-59%, Ezra, in captivity at Babylon in the 
 thirtieth year after the destruction of Jerus. [the date is nearly 
 a century too early], recounts God’s favours to Isr. in their 
 earlier history, and while admitting their ‘evil heart,’ yet com- 
 plains of their subjection to Babylon, which is more wicked 
 than they (ch. 3). The angel Uriel replies that E. should not 
 enquire into things beyond his understanding. E. pleads with 
 the angel as Abraham did at Mamre (‘If I have found favour in 
 thy sight,’ 444; cf. Gn 181), and asks, further, whether the time 
 that is past exceeds the time to come; and is told that it is so. 
 The signs of the end are given, 51-13; and he is ordered to fast 
 for seven days. 
 
 2nd Vision, 521-6%, E. renews his complaints, and is told 
 why God ‘doeth not all at once’ so as to hasten the judgment ; 
 and of the degeneracy of the world, which cannot produce 
 such children as of old (542ff), The next world is to follow this 
 as closely as Jacob followed Esau from the womb (61°), More 
 i gns of the end follow, and E. is again bidden to fast for seven 
 
 ays. 
 
 3rd Vision, 685-925, E. recounts the works of creation, in- 
 cluding the creatures Behemoth and Leviathan, who were re- 
 served to be meat for the saints (649-52) [this idea is met with 
 also in Enoch 607, Apoc. Bar 294]; and asks, why, if the world 
 was made for us, we do not possess our inheritance. He is 
 told that the narrow way must be traversed before the large 
 room of the next age be attained (71-16), Then follows a picture 
 of the Messianic age, the appearance of ‘My Son’ [or ‘My Son 
 Jesus’: the name is omitted in the Oriental versions] with His 
 attendants, their reign of 400 years, succeeded by the death of 
 ‘My Son Christ’ and all living, and the return of the world for 
 seven days into ‘the old silence,’ and then the resurrection 
 (726-35), The ‘missing fragment’ describes the pit of torment 
 and the paradise of delight over-against it: ineffectual inter- 
 cession of E. for the wicked, leading him to exclaim that the 
 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 beasts are more fortunate than man: the seven ways of punish. 
 ment for the wicked, and the ‘seven orders’ of blessings for 
 the righteous: the seven dayy’ respite after death, before th 
 souls are gathered to their habitations: and the severe declara 
 tion of the inetlicacy of intercession for the departed (736-105), 
 E. says it were better if Adam had never been born (‘O tu quid 
 fecisti Adam,’ cf. Apoc. Bar 48), but acknowledges God’s mercy, 
 Ch. 8 contains the same theme, ‘Many are created, but few 
 shall be saved,’ and fresh intercession in the Confessio Esdra. 
 In answer to the question, When shall the end be? fresh signs 
 are given. 
 
 ath Vision, 928-1080. E. eats of the herbs in the field of 
 Ardat,* and sees a vision of a woman mourning for her son, 
 who died on his marriage day. The woman, he is told, is Sion 
 lamenting the fall of her city, and her thirty years’ sterility re- 
 presents the 3000 years before Solomon built the city. The 
 city in building, which appears after the woman vanishes, is the 
 heavenly Jerusalem which is to replace the earthly, __ 
 
 5th Vision, 111-1239, Of the Eagle (Rome) with 12 wings and 
 8 little wings (contrarie penne) and 3 heads, which bear rule in 
 turn, until sentence is pronounced on the eagle by a lion (the 
 Messiah), and it is burnt up. A partial interpretation is given 
 of the vision, 
 
 6th Vision, 131-58, A man (the fen arises from the sea, 
 and graves for himself a mountain (Sion): his enemies collect 
 to fight against him, and are burnt up: and he gathers to him 
 ‘a peaceable multitude,’ te. the ten lost tribes, who are to 
 return from Arzareth (?.e, ‘another land’ AYN PW ef. Dt 
 2928), 
 
 7th Vision, 141-47, E. is told he is to be taken from men; 
 and to console the people for his departure, he in forty days 
 writes ninety-four books (the twenty-four canonical books of 
 the OT that were lost, and seventy books of mysteries for the 
 wise among the people). 
 
 The interpolation at the beginning (1. 2), written 
 in an anti-Jewish spirit, contains a reproof of the 
 Isr. for their desertion of God, and threatens the 
 transference of God’s favours from them to the 
 Gentiles. The concluding chs. (15. 16) are not 
 of an apocalyptic character, but a denunciation 
 of woe on the nations of the world (Egypt, Asia, 
 Babylon) in the style of the OT prophets. Both 
 sections have numerous reminiscences of the NT 
 (e.g. 19-8=Mt 23°38. 182=Lk 11% Oe taner 
 nacula eeterna’= Lk 16°, 28=Mt77 and 25%, 238: 2— 
 Rev 7* ®, 164 =1 Co 72%), E ; 
 
 CHARACTER AND Dats. —The book is written 
 in a tone of deep despondency, and offers a marked 
 contrast in this respect to the Book of Enoch. The 
 prospect of ultimate triumph and blessedness is 
 almost lost in dismal forebodings about the im- 
 mediate future and the destiny of the world. The 
 time and place in which the scene is laid demanded 
 that this should be so; but the meaning of this 
 despairing tone is greatly enhanced if we suppose 
 that recent events are referred to, that Jerusalem 
 was in ruins at the time when it was written, and 
 that the whole work portrays the hopeless outlook 
 of the Jew after the terrible events of the year 
 A.D. 70. Hence the gloomy picture of the few that 
 shall be saved (8°), the dying of the Messiah and 
 all that draw breath (7%), the discussion of the 
 problem of the origin of evil (‘quare cor malig- 
 num,’ 4‘), the oft-repeated cry that it were better 
 not to be born, or to be without consciousness of 
 our doom like the beasts (7% 412 5%° 6°), the con- 
 solation to be found in the permanence of the law 
 (997) though the city is gone. : 
 
 The date of the book has been the subject of 
 much controversy. It is obviously not a genuine 
 work of the time of Ezra, as is shown, C.Jey by the 
 error in Ezra’s date (3') and the allusion to the 
 Book of Daniel (124+), An ultimate limit is 
 given by the quotation of Clem. Alex. from it 
 referred to above (A.D. 200). Internal notices 
 must fix it more nearly. Hilgenfeld adduces for 
 the earlier date (B.c. 30) 6° ‘ Finis huius seculi 
 Esau,’ which he thinks proves the time of writing 
 to be the reign of the Idumzan Herod. But Edom 
 is found’ in .Rabbinical literature equally as a de- 
 
 *This name (in the Arm. Ardab) is explained by Rendel 
 Harris as a corruption of (Kiriath) Arba, the old name of 
 Hebron, which is the scene of the visions of Baruch in the 
 sister Apocalypse (Rest of the Words of Baruch, 85). The oak 
 (141) is the terebinth of Mamre. Hilg. takes it to mean Arpad 
 (Apger, 2 K 1834), 
 
 
 

 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 signation of Rome; and the Herodian dynasty, if 
 that is referred to, lasted on through the first 
 century of our era. He also draws an argument 
 from the description of the twelve ages of the 
 world, of which ten and a half are past (141), 
 taken in connexion with 10 (Solomon built the 
 temple in the year of the world 3000), from which 
 he calculates about B.C. 30 as the date (Mess. Jud. 
 104); but the description of the world-ages is too 
 uncertain (the Syr. omits the verses) to base any 
 inference upon it. Another argument for the 
 early date is that a Jew, writing after the death 
 of Christ, would not have introduced a prophecy 
 of the death of the Messiah (7%) which would 
 have been employed against him by Christians. 
 No inference can be drawn from the signs of the 
 end (5'*- 6187 91) as applicable rather to the por- 
 tents that preceded the battle of Actium than to 
 those in the time of Vespasian. On the other 
 hand, the allusion to the pulling down of the walls 
 of Jerus, (11 ‘humiliasti muros eorum qui te 
 non nocuerunt’) was true of Titus, but not of the 
 are of the city by Pompey in B.c. 63. 
 ut the question of the date really depends 
 upon the interpretation given to the Eagle Vision. 
 e details given about the reign of the several 
 wings show that historic facts are here alluded 
 to ; the interpretation which follows the vision is 
 perhaps purposely obscure, and does not help 
 much as to the solution of it. The vision describes 
 the reign of 12 ‘feathered wings,’ 8 subordinate 
 wings, and 3 heads—in all, of 23 kings; the 
 attempt to take the wings in pairs, each pair re- 
 presenting a single king, their number being so 
 reduced to 10 (Volkmar), is opposed to the inter- 
 pretation given to Esdras (12 ‘regnabunt xii 
 reges, unus post unum,’ 12” ‘exsurgent octo 
 reges’). The following points are to be borne in 
 mind in the interpretation (Schiirer, HJP m1. ii. 
 100). (1) The author writes aa the reign of 
 the third head, in which the Messiah is to appear ; 
 the subsequent reign of the two last subordinate 
 wings is not history, but prophecy. (2) The second 
 wing reigns more than twice as long as any of the 
 rest (11"”). (3) Several wings do not get so far as 
 to reign, and represent pretenders only. (4) The 
 wings and heads all belong to one and the same 
 kingdom. (5) The first head dies a natural death 
 (12%) ; the second is murdered by the third, who 
 also is to die by the sword (11° 12%). Three main 
 explanations are proposed—(i.) The wings repre- 
 sent Rome under the kings and the republic, and 
 the 3 heads are Sulla, Pompey, and Cesar ; the date 
 of the work is shortly after Cesar’s death (Laur- 
 ence, Van der Vlis, Liicke). This view has no 
 probability. Early Roman history would have no 
 interest to a Jew, and there is great difficulty in 
 adapting the 8 minor wings to the period before 
 Sulla. (ii.) Hilgenfeld’s view, that the wings re- 
 present the Greek empire reckoned from Alexander, 
 either, as he first held, the line of the Ptolemies 
 (Jiid. Apokalyptik, 217ff.), or, according to his 
 later theory, that of the Seleucide (Mess. Jud. 
 liv ff.): in either case the three heads are Cesar, 
 Antony, and Octavian, and the book was written 
 directly after Antony’s death in B.c. 30, thirty 
 years after the capture of Jerus. by Pompey (cf. 
 2 Es 3! ‘in the thirtieth year’). It is true that in 
 2 Es 11" the eagle is compared to the fourth 
 beast of Daniel (77=the Greek empire); but the 
 fourth kingdom was often referred to the Romans. 
 The chief objections to this view are—(l) The 
 heads and the wings must all refer to a single 
 kingdom, not to a combination of Roman and 
 Greek rulers; (2) the rule of the second in the 
 dynasty, whether Ptolemy 1. Lagi or Seleucus I. 
 ikator, was not more than twice the length of 
 any succeeding reign ; (3) Cesar was assassinated, 
 
 
 
 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 765 
 
 
 
 and did not die in his bed, as the first head is said 
 to have done. 
 
 (iii.) It is now the generally accredited view, and 
 it has most arguments in its favour, that the book 
 should be dated in the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81- 
 96). So Gfrérer, Dillmann, Volkmar, Ewald, 
 Schtirer, and others. The eagle represents Im- 
 perial Rome, the line of the emperors beginning 
 with J. Cesar. The second wing is certainly to 
 be identified with Augustus, who, reckoning from 
 his first consulate, held rule for 56 years (B.C. 43- 
 A.D. 14), i.e. more than twice the time of any of 
 his successors. The three heads with equal pro- 
 bability are referred to the Flavian emperors: 
 Vespasian died on his bed in torment (Suet. Vesp. 
 24; 2 Hs 1276); Titus was commonly believed to 
 have been murdered by Domitian. The difficulty 
 lies in supplying the twenty rulers to precede 
 Vespasian. The following proposals are made— 
 (1) Gfrorer takes the twelve greater wings to be the 
 first nine emperors, Cesar to Vitellius, with three 
 usurpers, Vindex, Nymphidius, and Piso Licini- 
 anus: the eight lesser wings are petty kings and 
 leaders in Pal. (Herod the Great, Agrippa L., 
 Eleazar, John of Gischala, Simon Bar Giora, John 
 the Idumzan, Agrippa II., and Berenice: the last 
 two attached themselves to Rome in the war). (2) 
 Schiirer agrees as to the twelve, but regards six 
 of the lesser wings (the last two being matter of 
 prophecy) as Roman generals who laid claim to 
 the empire in the years of disorder, A.D. 68-70. 
 (3) Wieseler takes the eight subordinate wings to 
 mean the Herodian dynasty, vassals of Rome 
 (Antipater, Herod I. and his three sons, Archelaus, 
 Antipas, Philip, Agrippa I. and I!., and Berenice), 
 (4) Twvald, who is followed by Drummond (Jewish 
 Messiah, 107), takes the twelve wings to be the 
 twelve emperors up to Domitian: the eight little 
 wings are the eight emperors among these who 
 reigned less than ten years (Domitian included, 
 for whom a short reign was anticipated), and the 
 three heads are the Flavian princes, reckoned a 
 third time under a different aspect. The double 
 and triple repetition of the same names is unsatis- 
 factory ; Schiirer’s view (2) appears on the whole 
 the most free from objection. 
 
 The simpler theory, on the other hand, of 
 Gutschmid and Le Hir (Htudes Bibliques, i. 184 ff.), 
 that twenty-three actual emperors are intended, 
 the three heads being Sept. Severus, Caracalla, 
 and Geta, is shown to be wrong by the fact that 
 the book was quoted by Clem. Alex. at an earlier 
 date than these emperors, and can be maintained 
 only by supposing an interpolation, of which 
 there is no sign in the Eagle Vision. 
 
 In considering the date, reference should be 
 made to a companion volume to 2 Esdras, which 
 curiously reproduces the language and visions of 
 that book, namely, the Apocalypse of Baruch, first 
 pub. in 1866 by Ceriani from a Syr. MS at Milan 
 (Mon. sacra et prof., tom. i. fasc. ii., and tom. v. 
 fase. ii.; also in Fritzsche, Libri Apocr. V.T. 654). 
 It also is a product of the Jewish literature called 
 forth by the events of A.D. 70, but written before 
 the final destruction of Jerus. in 133, which is not 
 foreseen (Apoc. Bar 32; Jerus. is to be rebuilt, and 
 then again destroyed [A.D. 70] for a time, and then 
 rebuilt for ever). The similarities in tone and 
 language with 2 Es are so striking that Ewald as. 
 cribed it to the same author. The general beliet 
 now held is that Baruch is the later, and has used 
 Es, because, ¢.g., Bar corrects the crude notions of 
 Es about original sin (cf. Es 7"* ‘O tu quid fecisti 
 Adam? si enim tu peccasti non est factum solius 
 tuus casus sed et nostrum,’ with Bar 54, ‘ Non est 
 ergo Adam causa nisi anime sue tantum; nog 
 vero unusquisque fuit anime sus Adam’): and 
 whereas Ezra complains that Jerus. should at least 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 — ———— 
 
 766 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 
 
 have been punished by the hands of God (5), Bar 
 accordingly represents it as destroyed by four 
 angels before the entry of the Chaldean army 
 (6-8). Some of the parallels are the division of 
 each book into seven scenes, separated in most 
 cases by intervals of seven days of fasting: the 
 division of time into twelve parts (Bar 27=Es 
 144): the legend of Behemoth and Leviathan 
 (Bar 29= Es 6”): the prayer of Baruch (48, ef. the 
 Confessio Esdrz 8°): the importance of Adam’s 
 transgression, prefaced in each by ‘O quid fecisti 
 Adam?’ (Bar 48=Es 748); the vision of a cloud 
 ascending from the sea (Bar 53, ef. Es 13): the 
 permanence of the law though the teachers de- 
 part (Bar 77, cf. Es 9°’): the interest in the lost 
 tribes, to whom Baruch sends a letter of consola- 
 tion (78-86, cf. Es 13), besides frequent minute 
 resemblances of language. 
 
 The writing is a characteristically Jewish work 
 in its apocalyptic form, its knowledge of Jewish 
 traditions (Behemoth, etc.), its interest in the ten 
 tribes, and its deep concern in the fate of Jeru- 
 salem. There is no ground for supposing that the 
 author was a Jewish Christian : there is a marked 
 contrast between the Christian interpolations 
 (1-2, 15-16, and the insertion of the name Jesus in 
 7°) and the remainder of the book. The place of 
 writing is given as Rome (Ewald) or Alexandria 
 (Hilgenfeld, Ixii, and most edd.), from which the 
 added chapters certainly emanate; this would 
 account for the earliest quotation being found in 
 Clem. Alex. On the other hand, the fall of Jerus. 
 would be more impressive to a Palestinian Jew 
 than to an Alexandrian; and the geography (if 
 Ardat is rightly explained by Rendel Haris 
 points the same way. 
 
 The date of the concluding chs. (15. 16) is 
 placed about A.D. 268 by most critics. 15-1 
 refers to the troubles of Alexandria under Galli- 
 enus (260-268), when two-thirds of the population 
 were destroyed by a plague following upon a 
 famine (Eus. HZ vii. 21. 22). 158-83 refers to the 
 conquests of the Sassanid (‘Carmonii insani- 
 entes’), esp. Sapor I. (240-273), who overran Syria 
 but was repulsed by Odenathus and Zenobia 
 (‘dracones Arabum’), the founders of Palmyra; 
 they, in turn, were defeated by Aurelian. 33 
 describes the murder of Odenathus at Emesa (266) 
 by his cousin Mzonius. 34 ff. are referred to the 
 invasion of Asia Minor by Goths and Scythians 
 from the N. of the Euxine: Gallienus marched 
 against them, but was recalled by the revolt of 
 Aureolus (38 ‘ portio alia ab occidente’). 46 ‘ Asia 
 consors in specie Babylonis’ alludes to the associa- 
 tion of Odenathus in the empire, A.D. 264 (Hilgen- 
 feld, Mess. Jud. 208). 
 
 The chapters were written apparently as an 
 appendix to 3-14, and were never current in a 
 separate form. 
 
 Chs. 1. 2 are not fixed so definitely, but are 
 probably earlier than the close. They are a com- 
 pilation from various sources, and perhaps a frag- 
 ment of a larger work: they show some relation 
 to an Apocalypse of Zephaniah (T. and S. lxxix). 
 
 RECEPTION. — The early quotations from the 
 book are collected by Dr. James (7. and S. xxvii- 
 xliii). The Ep. of Barnabas 12! (drav EvNov Kup 
 xal dvaorp Kal Srav éx Evov alua ordéy) is thought to 
 refer to 2 Es 5°, and the Rest of the Words of 
 Baruch (A.D. 136), ch. 9, has similar words ; the last 
 scene of that book, where a stone takes the form 
 vf Jeremiah and speaks to the people, may be an 
 amplification of ‘lapis dabit vocem suam’ of 2 Es. 
 But the first express quotation is Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. iii. 16. 100, who regards it as the work of 
 ‘the Propet Ezra. It is made use of in an 
 Hippolytzan fragment ep) rof rayrés, and quoted 
 'n the Greek in the Apost. Constit. viii. 7. The 
 
 ESHCOL 
 
 
 
 supposed references in Tert. (de prescr. heret. 3 
 Cyprian, and Commodian (3rd cent., Carm. Apo. 
 943, on the lost tribes) are doubtful. But it is 
 uoted very frequently by Ambrose (de bono 
 ortis, 10-12, Ae elsewhere), who regards it as 
 prophetical: in his time chs. 15. 16 were alread 
 current in the Latin version, and probably attach 
 to 3-14. In Spain it was known to Priscillian and 
 Vigilantius; and in Britain to Gildas, who quotes 
 15. 16 (Bensly, 36-40). The legend of the restora- 
 tion of the Paks of Scripture (2 Es 14) is wide. 
 spread, and may be derived from tradition apart 
 from 2 Es (Iren. iii. 21. 2; Tert. de cult. fem. i 
 3; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 22. 149). Jerome is alone 
 unfavourable to it (adv. Vigilantium, 6, Pref. in 
 vers. libr. Ezre, quoted in last art.) It was 
 perhaps owing to his estimate that the book was 
 excluded from the Canon by the Council of Trent: 
 it now with 1 Es forms an appendix to the Vulg. 
 after the NT. The liturgical use of the boo 
 shows its popularity : the words of 2*-* are em- 
 ployed in the ‘ Missa pro defunctis’ of the Brevi 
 ad Usum Sarum, and the word Requiem is deriv: 
 from this passage ; and 2° 87 were formerly used 
 by the Eng. Church as an Introit for Whit 
 uesday. Otherwise no use is made of it in the 
 services of the Church. 
 
 LigraTuRE.—A full list of the wide lit. on the subject is 
 given in Schiirer, HJP u. iii. 93-114. The best critical edd. of 
 the Lat. text are in the Camb. Texts and Studies, vol. iii. 2, ed. 
 Bensly and James, 1895; and Bensly, The Missing Fragment 
 of the Fourth Book of Ezra, 1875. The versions are collected 
 in Hilgenfeld’s Messias Jud@worum (Lips. 1869). Eng. com- 
 mentaries and introductions are Lupton in the Speaker's Comm. 
 on the Apoc.; Bissell (in Lange’s O7' Comm.) ; Churton’s Uncan, 
 and Apecr. Scriptures; and Drummond’s Jewish Messiah, 
 1877. H. Sr. J. THACKERAY. 
 
 ESDRIE& (“Ecédp:s).—Mentioned only 2 Mac 1256, 
 The text is probably corrupt. AV has Gorgias, 
 and this is likely enough to be correct. 
 
 ESEK (pyy), ‘contention,’ Gn 26.—A well dug 
 by Isaac, in the region near Rehoboth and Gerar. 
 The site is unknown. 
 
 ESEREBIAS (’EcepeBlas, AV Esebrias), 1 Es 8%. 
 See SHEREBIAH. 
 
 ESHAN (ys), Jos 155°.—A town of Judah in 
 the Hebron mountains, noticed with Arab and 
 Dumah. The site is doubtful. 
 
 ESHBAAL.—See ISHBOSHETH. 
 
 ESHBAN (j27x).—An Edomite chief (Gn 36, 
 1 Ch 1“). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ESHCOL (55x). — The brother of Mamre and 
 Aner, the Amorite confederates of Abraham, who 
 assisted the patriarch in his pursuit and defeat of 
 Chedorlaomer’s forces (Gn 14%), He lived in 
 the neighbourhood of Hebron (Gn 131); and 
 possibly gave his name to the valley of Eshcol, 
 that lay a little to the N. of Hebron (Nu 13%). 
 
 It is noteworthy that Josephus, in recording the 
 event described in Gn 14“, mentions Eshcol first. 
 ‘The first of them was called Eshcol, the second 
 Enner, and the third Mambres’ (Ant. 1. x. 2). Iu 
 the Heb. of Gn 14% they are mentioned in the 
 order Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. But in the LXX 
 the order is ’Eox#, A’vdy, May8ph; and this order 
 is found also in Philo (De Migrat. Abrah. § 30, 
 i. 461). H. E. RYLgE. 
 
 ESHCOL (Si2zx), Nu 13% 4 32°, Dt 1%4.—A wady, 
 with vineyards and pomegranates, apparently near 
 Hebron. E. is usually rendered ‘ bunch of grapes.’ 
 The name has not been recovered, since the Aim 
 
 
 

 
 a 
 . 
 
 — 
 
 Gua. Sle aay ss |. ae 
 
 a Ae ee 
 
 ae eee. ae! ee oo aa 
 
 ~~ oe 
 
 ESHEK 
 
 ————= 
 
 Keshkaleh at Hebron has no connexion with the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Robinson, BRP i. 114; Tristram, Land of 
 
 Israel, 888, 393; Oonder, Tent-Work, 237; Bible Places, 89; 
 Besant, Thirty Years’ Work in the Holy Land, 70, 84. 
 C. R. CONDER. 
 ESHEK (pyy).—A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8%). 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ESHTAOL (Siwy Jos 15°? 1941, Jg 1321682 182 & 12), 
 —A town in the Shephelah, first assigned to Judah, 
 afterwards to Dan, always named with Zorah, 
 now Sura‘a, which is beside‘Ain Shems, where the 
 Wady es-Surar is joined by valleys from the N. 
 and S. and a great basin formed, fertile and well- 
 watered, just beneath the hill country of Judea. 
 Eshua‘, close to Sura‘a, represents Eshtaol. Guérin 
 says he heard in the neighbourhood that it formerly 
 was called Eshu‘al or Eshthu‘al, which, if con- 
 firmed, might be held decisive ; but the degenera- 
 tion of Eshtaol into Eshua is not impossible. 
 Between Zorah and E. was the ‘camp of Dan’; 
 and there (Jg 13%) Samson’s achievements began, 
 and there he was buried (16%). (See Smith’s Hist. 
 Geog. p. 218.) The Eshtaolites (lit. ‘ Eshtaolite’) 
 were, according to 1 Ch 2°%, descended from the 
 families of Kiriath-jearim, etc., who are there 
 described as Calebites. The narratives of Jos 
 158 and 19" suggest how mingling of the tribes 
 of Judah and of Dan might arise, perhaps lead- 
 ing to the Danite migration from Zorah and 
 Eshtaol. 
 
 Litmrature.—PEFSt, 1874, 17; Conder, Palestine, 49; 
 Smith, HGHL, 218; Guérin, Judée, ii. 12 ff.; SWP Memoirs, 
 fil. 25. A. HENDERSON. 
 
 ESHTEMOA (y'onvx), named in Jos 15” (where 
 it is called Eshtemoh, s>avx) among towns of 
 Judah. It was made afterwards a Levitical city 
 (21, 1 Ch 6°’). During David’s wanderings in 8. 
 Judah its inhabitants were on his side (1 S 30%). 
 It is said in 1 Ch 4" to have been inhabited by 
 the descendants of Ishbah; and Eshtemoa, its 
 founder, is called (41°) a Maacathite, which would 
 naturally suggest that he came from the small 
 kingdom of Maacah (wh. see). It may have been 
 here ‘the Maacathite’ among his heroes joined 
 David (2 S 234). The site was recovered by Robin- 
 son some 8 miles S. of Hebron. It is now Es- 
 Semd‘a, a considerable village (BR ii. p. 204), and 
 full of ancient remains (PEF Memoirs, iii. 403, 
 412). A. HENDERSON. 
 
 ESHTEMOH.—See EsHTEMOA. 
 
 ESHTON (hee, perhaps ‘ uxorious’).—A Judah- 
 ite (1 Ch 4-2), See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ESLI (’Eovel, perhaps=% sx ‘J” hath reserved’). 
 —An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ESPOUSAL, ESPOUSE.—To espouse (fr. Lat. 
 onsus, ptep. of spondére, to betroth, through 
 oid Fr. espouser) meant either to betroth or to 
 marry. Thus Camden, Rem. (1637) 414, ‘Two 
 Lovers who being espoused, dyed both before they 
 were married’; but Shaks. Rich. I/I. tv. v. 8— 
 ‘Withal, say, that the Queene hath heartily consented, 
 He should espouse Elizabeth her daughter.’ 
 So also ‘espousal’ is used in both senses, and 
 Murray (Oxf. Eng. Dict. s.v.) thinks marriage is 
 the primary sense. In AV ‘espouse’ occurs 2S 3% 
 ‘Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to 
 me’ (RV, ‘whom I betrothed to me,’ Heb. ° ‘nerx, 
 which always means ‘ betroth’); Mt 18, Lk 17 25, 
 all of the Virgin Mary (RV ‘betrothed’; Gr. 
 
 pynoretw, always ‘to ask or engage in marriage’) ; 
 2Co 11? ‘I have espoused you to one husband’ 
 
 
 
 ESSENES 767 
 
 
 
 (npuocdunv, lit. ‘joined you unto,’ and here the 
 ref. seems to be to marriage, not betrothal, ‘I have 
 given you in marriage,’ though the betrothal, which 
 was also carried out by the bridegroom’s friend, 
 may be meant). Espousal is found Ca 3" ‘in the 
 day of his espousals’ (injpq ova, ‘on the day of his 
 malriage,’ undoubtedly); and Jer 2? ‘the love of 
 thine espousals’ (3:94:53 naqy, as Cheyne, ‘thy 
 bridal state’). Thus it is probable that AV 
 (following older VSS.*) used these words indis- 
 criminately, or at least with a less clear distine- 
 tion than now obtains between betrothal and 
 marriage. For the solemnity of betrothal in 
 Italy (=England) in Shakespeare’s day, see 
 Twelfth Night, tv. iii. 26: it enables Olivia to 
 speak of Sebastian as ‘husband’ (v. 146). It 
 was not less solemn and binding in Israel. See 
 MARRIAGE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ESPY.—The verb to ‘espy’ occurs only six times 
 in AV, Gn 427", Jos 14’, Jer 48%, Ezk 20°, To 11, 
 1 Mac 5*, while the mod. form to ‘spy’ is found 
 eighteen times, and RV turns ‘espy’ of Jos 147 
 into ‘spy.’ The word is Erpareatly of Teutonic 
 origin (Old High Ger. spehon), though it is con- 
 nected with Lat. specere, to look, Gr. cxémrowat, and 
 entered Eng. through the Old Fr. espier. 
 
 4. The most common and the oldest meaning is 
 to imspect (secretly) a place, as Nu 21° ‘Moses 
 sent to spy out Jaazer,’ when the Heb. is 5x, 
 except Nu 13’ (1m), and the Eng. is always 
 ‘spy (Jos 147 AV ‘espy’) out,’ except Jos 2} ‘to 
 spy secretly’ (v7 o'd229, RV ‘as spies secretly’), 
 and Ezk 20° ‘a land that I had espied for them’ 
 (onb mw). Once the ref. is not to land but to 
 liberty, Gal 2* ‘false brethren . . . who came in 
 
 rivily to spy out our liberty’ (Tindale’s trn. ; 
 Wyc. ‘to aspie oure fredom,’ Gr. xaracKkorjoat). 
 2. But we also find the sense of keep watch, as 
 Jer 48! ‘QO, inhabitant of Aroer, stand by the 
 way, and espy’ (‘5s}). 3. More freq. is the idea of 
 suddenly perceiving anything, as Gn 427” ‘ And as 
 one of them opened his sack to give his ass pro- 
 vender in the inn, he espied his money >; so Ex 24, 
 2 K 9!” 1371 2336 (all mxq ‘see’). 4, Finally, simply 
 to discover or perceive, as 2 K 23% ‘All the abomina- 
 tions that were spied in the land of Judah... did 
 Josiah put away’ (7x3). Cf. Barlowe, Dialoge 
 (Lunn’s ed. p. 73), ‘Woulde God they were as 
 prest to remoue ye balk out of their owne eyes, as 
 they be prompte to aspye a lytle mote in other 
 mens,’ 
 
 The subst. is always plu. ‘spies,’ except Sir 11% 
 ‘spy.’ The Heb. is generally ovb31p (Gn 42% 2. 4 
 16. 30. 81.34, Jos 63, 1S 264, 2S 15”); also ony (Jg 1%, 
 RV ‘watchers’), onpy (Nu 21’, RV ‘ Atharim’ as 
 place-name, wh. see). The Gr. words are xardoxoros 
 (Sir 11°, 1 Mac 1278, He 11%), the usual LXX tr. of 
 méraggélim ; and éyxd@eros (Lk 20”, lit. ‘sent down 
 into,’ and so, as Plummer, ‘suborned to lie in wait.’ 
 The word is not found elsewhere in NT). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ESSENES.—In regard to the origin and nature 
 of this sect very various views have been held. It 
 is therefore best to confine oneself to stating 
 succinctly what is known about them from ancient 
 anes a A , 
 
 ur earliest witness is Philo of Alexandria, who, 
 having visited Jerusalem in his seus may have 
 come into personal contact with them. In his 
 treatise Quod Omnis Probus Liber, which is one of 
 
 * Tindale, in his tr. published in 1525-26, rendered the Gr. 
 peonorsvicions (Mt 118) by ‘maried,’ and in this he is followed by 
 Coverdale. n the ed. of 1534, however, he altered it to 
 ‘betrouthed.’ In 28 314 Cov. has ‘maried,’ and so have the 
 Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles. In the NT our translators were 
 probably influenced by the Rhemish Version, which in Mt 118 
 has ‘spoused,’ or by Udall’s tr. of Erasmus’ Paraphrase (1548) 
 which has ‘ espouse.’ 
 
 
 
 
 
768 ESSENES 
 
 ESSENES 
 
 
 
 his earlier works, written probably before A.D. 20, 
 he describes them as follows :— 
 
 They were a sect of Jews, and lived in Syria Palestine, over 
 4000 in number, and called Essai, because of their saintliness ; 
 for hosios=saintly, is the same word as Essmus. 
 
 tnerelix “They pursued pgriculiyre and other peaceful arts ; 
 | or silver, nor owned mines. No 
 
 sea, was to be found among them. Least of all were any slaves 
 found among them; for they saw in slavery a violation..of the 
 ay of nature, which made all men free brethren, one of the 
 other. 
 
 Abstract philosophy and logic they eschewed, except so far as 
 it could subserve ethical truth and practice. Natural philosophy 
 they only studied so far as it teaches that there is a God who 
 made and watches over all things. Moral philosophy or_ethic 
 was their chief preoccupation, and their conduct was regulated 
 by their national (Jewish) laws. These laws they esp. studied 
 on the seyenth day, which they held holy, leaving off all work 
 upon it and meeting in their synagogues, as these places of resort 
 were called. In them they sat down in ranks, the older ones 
 above the younger. Then one took and read the Bible, while 
 the rest listened attentively; and another, who was very 
 learned in the Bible, would expound whatever was obscure in 
 the lesson read, explaining most things in their time-honoured 
 fashion by means of symbols, They were taught piety, holiness, 
 justice, the art of regulating home and city, knowledge of 
 what is really good and bad and of what is indifferent, what 
 ends to avoid, what to pursue,—in short, love of God, of virtue, 
 and of man. 
 
 And such teaching bore fruit, Their life-long purity, their 
 avoiding of oaths or falsehood, their récdgnition of a good 
 providence alone, showed their love of God. Their love of 
 virtue revealed itself in their indifference to money, worldly 
 Rathgar and pleasure. Their love of man in their kindliness, 
 
 eir equality, their fellowship passing all words, For no one 
 had his private house, but shared his dwelling with all; and, 
 living as they did in colonies (izcous), they threw open their 
 doors to any of their sect who came their way. They had a 
 storehouse, common expenditure, common raiments, common 
 food eaten in Syssitia or common meals. This was made 
 eee by their practice of putting whatever they each earned 
 
 ay by day into a common fund, out of which also the sick 
 were supported when they could not work. The aged among 
 them were objects of reverence and honour, and treated by the 
 rest as parents by real children. 
 
 The most cruel and deceitful Risen says Philo, 
 that had been the scourge of their country, had 
 
 et been moved to admiration of their quiet but 
 invincible freedom, of their common meals, of 
 their consummate fellowship. 
 
 peers in these last words Philo refers to 
 Herod the Great, whose subsequent rise to great- 
 ness was foretold to him as a child by an E. named 
 Manemus (Menahem), and who in consequence 
 befriended and honoured the sect (Josephus, Ant. 
 XV. x. 5). 
 
 Eusebius in his Preparatio Evangelica has 
 reserved a fragment of Philo’s ‘Apology for the 
 ews,’ which repeats much of the information 
 
 given by Philo, but also supplements it. 
 
 Our lawgiver, he says, trains into fellowship and com- 
 munion thousands of his disciples, who for their saintliness 
 Gaiexes) are called Essenes. They inhabit many cities of 
 
 udwa, as well as many villages and populous tracts. Their 
 tenets are espoused by them of free choice, and not as a matter 
 of race. 
 
 There are no children or youths among them, but only full- 
 grown men, or men already in the decline of life. They have no 
 private property, but put all they have into a common fund, 
 and live as members of a thiasus or piles colony, havin: 
 common meals. They are very industrious, and work har 
 from early sunrise to sunset, as tillers of the soil, or herdsmen, 
 or bee-farmers, or as craftsmen. Whatever they so earn they 
 hand over to the elected steward (rapig yuporernbives), who at 
 once buys victuals for the common repast. 
 
 No Essene, adds Philo in this account, marries, but all 
 practise continence. For women are selfish and jealous, and 
 apt to pervert men’s characters by ceaseless chicanery and 
 wiles. While, if they have children, they are puffed up and 
 bold in speech ; driving their husbands to actions which are a 
 bar to any real fellowship with other men, 
 
 The next writer who describes the Essenes is 
 Pliny the elder (+ A.D. 79), in his Natural History, 
 bk. v. ch. 17. ‘The Hessenes,’ he says, ‘live on 
 the W. side away from the shores (of the Dead 
 Sea), out of reach of their baneful influences. A 
 solitary race, and strange above all others in the 
 entire world They live without women, renounc- 
 
 ing all sexual love. 
 among the palm-trees. 
 fellows (convenarum) is kept up and ony by day 
 renewed ; for there flock to them from afar many 
 who, wearied of battling with the rough sea of life, 
 drift into their system’ (ad mores). ‘Thus for 
 thousands of ages (strange to tell) the race is per- 
 petuated, and yet no one is born in it. So does 
 the contrition felt by others for their past life 
 enrich this set of men. Below them lay Engadi, 
 a town once second only to Jerus. in its fertility 
 and groves of palms. Now ’tis but one more 
 tomb. Next comes Masada, a fort on a rock, and 
 like the former, not far from the Dead Sea. d 
 here ends our account of Judea.’ 
 
 There are two passages in in which the 
 E. are described at length, and many minor re- 
 ferences. The following is an epitome of his infor- 
 mation :— 
 
 Josephus calls them Esseni in BJ un. viil. 2, Ant. xm. v. 9, 
 x. 6, etc., and with Philo, Ess#i in Ant. xv. x. 4. They arose 
 along with the sects of Pharisees (Ant. x. v. 9) and Saddu- 
 cees, about 8.0. 144, and formed from the first an aipsoug or sect. 
 
 About B.o. 107 (Ant. xu. xi. 2) a certain Essene, named Judas, 
 had a school, it would seem, in the temple, in which he taught 
 his companions and pupils the art of predicting events. Again, 
 about B.c. 21 we read (Ant. xv. x. 4) that Herod excused ‘them 
 along with the Pharisees from taking the oath of fidelity to 
 himself. In the Jewish war (BJ 1. xx. 4) we hear of one John 
 the Essene leading the Jewish rebels in Thamna. And at that 
 time (c. A.D. 70) there was a gate at the S.E. corner of the city of 
 David called the Gate of the E. (BJ v. iv. 2), which is proof that 
 they were then a numerous sect. 
 
 The E. were so called because of their holiness (espvérura) 
 (BJ ui. viii. 5; Ant. xvi. i. 5). They believed that God controls 
 all things, and committed all things to Him. Sometimes, how- 
 ever, Josephus says that they regarded Fate (sizepuivm) as the 
 supreme determinant of all- human affairs (so a Mussulman 
 believes in Allah and Kismet both at once) (Ant. xvull. i. 3). 
 
 There was no single city of the E., but they were sojourners 
 (uerosxovo1) in many, being in number over 4000 (Ant. xvii. i. 
 They eschewed marriage, and, adopting others’ children as th 
 own, ape them with their own tenets (BJ nu. viii. 2; Ant 
 xvi. i. 5). 
 
 There was, however, another sect con) of E., who made 
 trial of women for three years and then married them if they 
 were fruitful (BJ u. viii. os They owned no slaves (Ant. 
 xvul. i. 6), and were wholly devoted to agricultural pursuits. 
 They despised wealth and shared their possessions, so that a rich 
 man among them had no more enjoyment of his own property 
 than had a member who owned nothing (BJ 11. viii. 8 and Ant, 
 xvi. i. 5). For in entering their sect (cipecis) & Man made over 
 his property to the institution (r@ réyue:) (BU U1. viii. 3), There 
 
 was no buying and selling between members; but the elected 
 stewards administered the common fund,* impartially satisfying 
 the needs of all alike (BJ un. viii. 8). In every city a special re- 
 lieving officer (xmdszev) was appointed to take care of the gar- 
 ments and supplies of the sect and entertain its travelling 
 members, 
 
 But though so knit together among themselves the Essenes 
 succoured the deserving, and pitied all men and fed the need, 
 (BJ u. viii. 6). This was a primary duty to be fulfilled by pres 4 
 on his own responsibility, and without waiting for a hint from 
 the overseer (ériesdnras Or éxirpoxos) ; without whose authority, 
 however, they might do nothing else, nor even give to their own 
 kinsmen. 
 
 Their general mode of life (3/«:re) Jos. in one place declares 
 to be the same as that which Pythagoras instituted among the 
 Greeks ; in another place he compares them to Dacians, pre- 
 sumably because of their simple and communal mode of ane 
 (Ant. xv. x. 4, xvul. i. 5). He thus describes a day of an Essene 
 life inside his brotherhood :— 
 
 As for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary. For 
 before the sun rises they speak not a word about poe matters, 
 but address to the sun certain prayers, which they have re- 
 ceived from their forefathers, as if they supplicated it to rise 
 (BJ 11. viii. 6). After this every one of them is sent away by 
 their curators to exercise those arts wherein they are skilled, in 
 which they labour with great diligence till the fifth hour (11 
 A.M.). After this they assemble together into one place, and 
 when they have clothed themselves in white veils, they bathe 
 their bodies in cold water. And after this purification is over, 
 they meet together in an apartment of their own, into which it 
 is not permitted to any one of another persuasion to enter ; and 
 they themselves being pure enter the dining-room as if it were 
 some holy temple, and quietly sit down. Upon which the 
 baker lays them loaves in order, and the cook also brings a 
 single plate of one sort of food and sets it before every one of 
 them. But the priest says grace before meat, and it is unlawful 
 for any one to taste of the food before prayer is offered. And 
 when they have made their breakfast, he again prays over bey 2 
 And when they begin and when they end, they praise God as 
 ae EN EE RE SS SLT 
 
 They eschew money, and live 
 et the number of their 
 
 * xuporermrel of ray xavay iximernrai. 
 
 
 
ESSENES 
 
 Him that bestoweth life. After which they lay aside their white 
 ments as holy, and betake themselves to their labours again 
 1 the evening. Then they return home to supper after the 
 same manner; and if there be any strangers there, they sit 
 down with them. Nor is there everany clamour or disturbance 
 to pollute their house ; but they give every one leave to speak in 
 their turn. Which silence thus kept in their house appears to 
 outsiders like some tremendous mystery ; and the same is due 
 to their unswerving sobriety, and to this, that their food and 
 drink is measured out to satisfy them and no more. ; 
 
 Like Philo, Josephus is full of praise for their moral quai__e¢s, 
 and lauds their self-restraint in anger, their faithfulness, their 
 peace-making, their truthfulness, which made all oaths to them 
 @ mere superfluity. 
 
 The mode of joining the sect was this. The intending member 
 remained outside the order one year, following, however, the 
 same discipline, and invested with its symbols, namely a spud 
 wherewith to hide his excrement out of sight of God, the 
 girdle and white raiment. After the lapse of a year, if he had 
 given good proof of his continence, he was allowed to join more 
 closely in their way of life and partake of a purer quality of the 
 waters of purification, though not yet to live entirely with them, 
 Two years of moral probation must yet be passed before he was 
 chosen a member of their band (¢sAos). And then before he 
 touched the common food he took tremendous oaths to them : 
 first to reverence the Deity, next to observe justice towards 
 men, to hate the wicked and assist the just. To be loyal ever to 
 all men, but in especial to those in authority, because none hath 
 authority except by God’s help. He swore also, if he should 
 ever be in authority, not to abuse the same, nor outshine those 
 subject to him in his garments or in any other finery ; to love 
 truth and repel falsehood ; to keep his hands clean from theft 
 and his soul from unholy gain ; to conceal nothing from mem- 
 bers of the sect, nor reveal aught to others, even at peril of 
 his life. Moreover, he swore to communicate to none the 
 dogmas of the sect, otherwise than as he received them himself, 
 to abstain from brigandage, and to preserve with like care the 
 books of their sect and the names of the angels. 
 
 Jos. gives many indications that the E. were 
 very strict Jews (BJ I. viii. 9). They revered the 
 name of the lawgiver next after God, and punished 
 with death one that blasphemed against Moses. 
 Above all other Jews they observed the Sabbath, 
 not only not cooking on that day, and avoiding the 
 lighting of a fire, but forbearing also to move a 
 vessel, or even evacuate. In the Jewish war many 
 died under torture at the hands of the Romans rather 
 than blaspheme the lawgiver or eat unclean food. 
 Many details supplied by Josephus prove how much 
 
 importance they attached to ceremonial purity. 
 We have seen how they bathed before each meal, 
 
 and wore linen garments; linen, of course, being 
 prescribed because it was a vegetable substance, 
 and not made of dead animal refuse, as would be a 
 leathern or woollen tunic. That the waters of 
 purification in their purer quality were denied to 
 novices, proves that the water of the bath was 
 ceremonially msed, and probably exorcised. 
 By immersion in it they were themselves rendered 
 kafapol or pure before they sat down to meat, by 
 contrast with the érepddofo, or persons of any 
 other persuasion (BJ I. viii. 10). They were distin- 
 guished acc. to their purity and seniority into four 
 grades; and a senior member was polluted by the 
 very touch of a junior member, and had to wash 
 after being so touched, as if he had been qorticd by 
 Gentiles. So an Indian Brahman is polluted by 
 the touch and even sight of a low-caste native. 
 They did not anoint themselves with oil, regard- 
 ing it as a defilement; prob. because they could 
 not easily get oil prepared by members of their 
 own caste. Josephus elsewhere assures us that no 
 Jew would anoint himself except with Jewish oil. 
 The same pursuit of ceremonial purity is to be 
 noticed in regard to their meals. Their food and 
 viands were specially prepared by their priests 
 (Ant. XVIII. i. 5); Just as in a Hindoo prison the 
 cook must be a Brahman, because any lower-caste 
 man may eat what a higher-caste man has cooked, 
 but not vice versd. In each city a special officer 
 (kndenwv) was appointed to supply eorerling E. 
 with their ceremonially pure garments and food. 
 Lastly, an E. expelled for his sins by a court of 
 100 members from the brotherhood was still so 
 held by its oaths and customs that he could not 
 eat of food provided by others, and in consequence 
 VOL. I.—aAa 
 
 reverent mind. 
 
 ESSENES 769 
 
 starved to death. To the same concern for cere- 
 monial purity must prob. be ascribed their attitude 
 of reserve towards the temple sacrifices. ‘They 
 send offerings (dva0juara) to the temple and per- 
 form sacrifices with superiority of purificatory 
 rites,* which they claim to practise (Ant. XVIII. 
 i. 5). And being for this reason excluded from the 
 common court of the temple, they perform their 
 sacrifices by themselves.’ These words are ob- 
 scure, and barely reconcilable with Philo’s state- 
 ment that the E. did not sacrifice animals (Philo, 
 ii. 457=Quod om. prob. lib. § 12). The offerings 
 sent, according to Jos., need not of course have 
 been blood-offerings ; and as to the nature of the 
 sacrifices (@vclas) which they performed by them- 
 selves, t.¢. without the help of the temple priests, 
 Jos. tells us nothing; but we should certainly 
 connect it with a practice, which he elsewhere 
 attests, viz. that they elected their own priests for 
 the making of their own food and eatables. This 
 much is clear, that the ordinary lustrations of the 
 temple were not good enough for an E., and were 
 incompatible with his notions of ceremonial purity. 
 Presumably, they were excluded from the tem aa 
 court for thus flouting the usual lustrations. n- 
 able to enter it, they sent offerings, but did not 
 gothemselves. At the same time ‘ they performed 
 their sacrifices by themselves.’ There seems to be 
 some connexion between this statement and Philo’s 
 that they offered up the sacrifice of a devout and 
 hey could not possibly have 
 
 offered up animal sacrifices save in the temple and 
 in the ordinary way ; and Josephus’ own statement 
 elsewhere, that their mode of life was Pytha- 
 orean, is in favour of Philo’s declaration that they 
 did not sacrifice animals. It is natural to suppose 
 that they regarded their common meals as of the 
 nature of a sacrifice, just as Christians regard the 
 eucharistic elements. Only thus can we explain 
 the fact that they elected priests to prepare those 
 meals; for a priest implies a sacrifice to be offered. 
 
 Their abstention from marriage must also be set 
 down to their desire for a levitical purity. For 
 ace. to the Mosaic law sexual relations involved a 
 defilement of the person, and the uncleanness 
 lasted until the even (Lv 1518). 
 
 Notwithstanding their attachment to the Mosaic 
 law and striving after levitical purity, there were 
 certainly mary non-Jewish elements in their 
 religious practices~and~=beliefs.Thus they adored 
 the sun, and prayed to him to rise. In Appian 
 and Other writers we find the phrase, ‘the god 
 rose,’ or ‘the god set,’ used instead of ‘the sun 
 rose,’ or ‘the sun set’; and Philo regarded the sun 
 and stars as holy and divine natures. 
 
 The Essene beliefs about the soul and a future 
 life were also non-Jewish. They believed that 
 they received their souls back after death (BJ u. 
 viii. 11), and so very cheerfully died for the faith. 
 ‘The body is corruptible, they taught; and the 
 matter of which it is composed is not lasting. 
 But souls are immortal, and last for ever, and, pro- 
 ceeding out of the most subtle ether, are entangled 
 in bodies as in prison-cells, being drawn down by 
 some natural yearning. But when they are set 
 free from the bonds of the flesh, as being now 
 released from a long bondage, they rejoice and 
 mount upwards. And in agreement with the 
 opinions of the Greeks they declare that there lies 
 away across the ocean a habitation for the good 
 souls, in a region that is oppressed neither with 
 storms of rain or snow, nor with intense heat; a 
 region ever refreshed by the gentle breathing of a 
 breeze blowing from the ocean. But they allot to 
 bad souls a dark and/tempestuous den full of never- 
 ceasing punishments.’ 
 
 * cic Oucing Ewiredovoty Siapepétyts ayvu@y, 2S voseiCossy. 
 + 9’ abray. 
 
 
 
ESSENES 
 
 
 
 770 
 
 The Essenes had hereditary prayers to the sun, as 
 
 well as the usual Jewish sacred books; they had 
 purificatory rites of different sorts or degrees, and 
 utterances of the prophets. By diligent study of 
 these, some of them learned and professed to read 
 the future. And their predictions, says Jos., were 
 rarely belied ; indeed he gives several instances up 
 and down his history of the fulfilment of their pro- 
 phecies (BJ Il. viii. 12). They also had compositions 
 of the ancients from which they chose out what- 
 ever benefited soul and body; and they inquired 
 after such roots and peculiar stones as would 
 ward off their distempers. The regular books and 
 dogmas of the sect, as we have seen, they took 
 vath to carefully keep, as also the names of the 
 angels. These names, of course, were powerful 
 weapons against evil demons, with a belief in 
 which they must, like other Jews of the age, have 
 been imbued. The stones and roots were the 
 ordinary magic remedies against diseases. 
 
 This is the sum of what Jos. has to say about 
 the Essenes. Hippolytus in the 9th Book of his 
 Refutation of Heresies, § 18-28, substantially copies 
 out Josephus’ account in the BJ ii. ch. 8, here and 
 there adding Christian touches in a way which 
 
 roves that he was not loth to assimilate them to 
 
 hristians. Yet some of the information which 
 he adds is not of this sort, but serves to intensify 
 their Jewish complexion. Such are the statements 
 that on the Sabbath some Essenes would not so 
 much as leave their beds (§ 25) ; that some were so 
 scrupulous that they would not carry a coin, de- 
 claring it wrong to carry or look at or make an 
 image (§ 26, cf. Mt 227°); that no one of them 
 would enter a city over the gate of which stood a 
 statue (§ 26); that others of them, if they heard 
 any one talking about God and His law, would 
 waylay him when alone, and threaten to slay 
 him unless he were circumcised, and slay him actu- 
 ally if he did not submit; for which reason, says 
 Hippolytus, they got the name of Zealots and 
 Sicarii; that others would call no one Lord 
 (Képiov) but only God, submitting to torment and 
 death rather than do so. It is difficult to believe 
 that Hippolytus had no authority for these state- 
 ments; which indeed might seem to be taken 
 from Jos., since they are embedded in his long 
 citation of that author. If so, they have been 
 removed from all the MSS of Josephus. The same 
 account of Jos. was excerpted by Porphyry in the 
 8rd cent. in his book on Abstinence toe Meats, 
 and later by Eusebius in his De Prep. Evang. 
 The account given by Epiphanius of the E. is 
 late, confused, and of little value. It is clear 
 that, even if the majority of the E. were cultivators 
 and voluntarily poor, that did not prevent some of 
 their number from occupying important posts in 
 the court and camp; for we hear of one Simon * 
 the interpreter of Archelaus’ dream (Ané. XvU. 
 xiii. 3), and of John the strategus, and of Menahem 
 the friend of Herod. Nor did their gospel of 
 Bars and their prejudice against arms, as reported 
 
 y Philo, prevent them from taking part in the 
 final struggle against the Romans. Jos., more- 
 over, implies that they were constantly moving 
 about from city to city ; and we can only suppose 
 that the object of this travelling was to preach 
 their tenets and secure recruits. We should like 
 to know if the sect was not mainly recruited from 
 Greek-speaking Jews, but on this point Jos. tells 
 us nothing. In his autobiog. (Vita, 10) he implies 
 that as a youth he had tried the discipline of this 
 sect, as also of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and 
 this inner acquaintance with them entitles his 
 account to our entire credit; but just because he 
 and his countrymen knew the sect so well, he 
 omits to inform us about so essential a point as in 
 
 * Vinay dvie vives Erowios. 
 
 ih 
 a 
 
 
 
 ESSENES 
 
 
 
 what language their books were written, and what 
 tongue, whether Greek or Aramaic, they usually 
 spoke among themselves. 
 
 Some writers, impressed with the fact that Jesus 
 constantly inveighed against the Pharisees and 
 Sadducees, but never against the members of the 
 third of the three great Jewish sects, who yet 
 must have everywhere confronted Him, have in- 
 ferred that He and John the Baptist, His pre- 
 cursor, were Essenes.. The silence of the Gospels 
 about the E. is certainly remarkable; and there 
 are many striking traits in common between the 
 E. and the earliest Christians. These are the 
 following :— 
 
 1. The community of goods and voluntary.poverty. 2%. The 
 art of prophecy, In the earliest Church, as we know from Acts” 
 and from the Didaché, there was a regular order of prope 
 8. The teaching about the future life, and about a hell. ese 
 tenets, howéver, were equally found”among the Pharisees; nor 
 does Jos. support Hippolytus in the latter’s statement that the 
 Essenes believed in the resurrection of the flesh, though the 
 picture of the Islands of the Blest implies as much, and answers 
 well enough to the Refrigerium of later Christian belief. As to 
 the teaching of future punishment, we also find it in Philo. 
 4. Abstention from marriage. This was equally a counsel of 
 perfection in the early Church, but was there held to be right 
 in view of the impending second advent and end of the world 
 (1 Co 725ff.), 5. Obedience to established authorities, 6, In- 
 ternal government. ‘The officers of the E. community were vari- 
 ously termed arodixras trav xooccdwy ‘receivers of the revenue,’ 
 imipesrnroed ‘curators,’ xydeudves ‘relieving officers,’ rapeles 
 ‘stewards’ (in Enllo These officers were, like the bishops of 
 the early Church, elected by show of hands (xsiporovnféverss), 
 acc. to the testimony of both Philoand Josephus, It1s significant 
 that Hippolytus calls them outright spescrarss or presidents 
 (lib.. ix. § 25), the regular 2nd cent. equivalent of ‘bishop.’ 
 7. The common meals, with which we may compare the picture 
 of the early Church of Jerusalem given in the Acts. But whereas 
 the Essenes dined together because of their anxiety to eat no 
 food but what was ceremonially pore. the Christians were 
 chiefly actuated, it would seem, by charitable and communistic 
 reasons. Their love-feast, however, also had from an early date, 
 if not from the very first, a sacramental character and con- 
 clusion, and required, like the Essene common meal, the 
 presence of a priest both to prepare it and to give thanks before 
 and after it to God ‘the Giver of Life.’ 8. The Esse: i 
 (ispsis) were elected to preside at the common meal, and make 
 the food eaten thereat. Since the Essene common repasts had 
 plainly a sacramental character, the function of their priests, 
 as of Christian ones, was simply to prepare and preside over 
 @ sacramental meal, to which none were admit save those 
 rendered pure by previous baptism. 9, General-crganizalion. 
 («) Obedience to the Essene officers. e brethren in their 
 deportment and bodily habit were like children under the eye of 
 a schoolmaster whom they feared (BJ 11. viii. 9). (8) They were 
 all brethren, but the elder members were revered by the juniors 
 as if they were their parents. (7) The entire body or class of 
 Essenes (yéves as Jos. calls it) is a Oiacos, an alpescis, AN SpcsAos, A 
 rtéyua, The two former were generic names for any body of 
 co-religionists, and Christian congregations among the Gentiles 
 were so described. (3) The travelling precepts of the E. 
 resembled those enjoined by Jesus on the Seventy. They were 
 to take nothing at all with them, but only to go armed for fear 
 of robbers.* (s) They were to wear their cloaks and shoes right 
 out, never changing them till they were quite worn out. 
 Hippolytus paraphrases this by saying that no E. owned two 
 cloaks or two pairs of shoes (Hipp. d.c. § 20). (%) The four 
 grades of E. resembled the steps of the catechumenate, Sucb 
 a distinction, however, of grades of initiation was common to 
 most ancient mysteries, and was not special to Christianity. 
 The disciplina arcani of the E. was also reproduced in the 
 Christian Church, but equally in the pagan mysteries. 10. Like 
 the Christians, the Essenes were not content with the ordinary 
 lustrations (&yvs/a.) of Judaism, but had superior ones of 
 their own. Whereas, however, the Christian baptism was 
 conferred once and for all, the Essene baptism was daily. The 
 Essene affectation of a purity of food superior even to the 
 ordinary purity of the Jews, also recalls the eucharistic meal of 
 the Christians. From it the novice was excluded, just as was 
 the catechumen from the Eucharist. And just as the priest 
 among the E. was elected to make the food eaten in their 
 syssitia, so the priest in the Gr. Church, even to this day, him- 
 self prepares and bakes the eucharistic loaves. Jos. expressly 
 says that the Essenes elected priests. They were therefore not 
 content with the hereditary Levites of Judaism, 
 
 More analogies between the Essenes and the 
 earliest Christians could no doubt be discerned. 
 But it_is a fatal objection to any real identifica- 
 tion, that the Essenes were ultra-Jewish in the ob- 
 servance of the Sabbath, and, if we may credit 
 Hippolytus, in their insistence on the circumcision 
 of converts. The most we can say is that the 
 
 ® obdty poly SArme EmimopenCopesvos, Vide Ot Tavs Anowas EvorAos. 
 
 
 
 
 
ESSENES 
 
 Christians copied many features of their organiza- 
 tion and propagandist activity from the Essenes. 
 The relation of the different sources on which 
 our knowledge of the E. depends requires further 
 olla it has generally received. Of course 
 there have been attempts to prove the Philonean 
 sources to be not authentic, but they are based on 
 mere ignorance. There are occasional verbal re- 
 semblances* between the accounts of Philo and 
 Jos. which indicate that Jos., besides his own 
 personal experience of the sect, used either Philo 
 or else a document previously used by Philo. The 
 accounts of the two writers, however, do not 
 always agree. Thus Philo says that all the E. 
 were full-grown men, or verging on old age; but 
 Jos. avers that they recruited their sect by adopt- 
 ing other people’s children while they were still 
 supple and ere to receive their teachings (BJ 
 II. viii. 2). et in the same context Jos. speaks of 
 those who desired to become members of the sect,t 
 and also of their period of probation, in words suit- 
 able only to the view that these recruits were adult 
 men. e may perhaps infer that the sect was 
 recruited in both ways. Pliny’s statement that the 
 men from all quarters joined it when they repented 
 of their lives, and left the world, agrees well 
 enough with Philo’s statement; and, if we trans- 
 
 late penitentia_as papemeente rather than mere 
 ennui, offers a striking parallel to John the 
 
 Baptist’s preaching: Repent Sree sins and be 
 paptizad- because e kingdom of God is at hand. 
 Thereis-reason-to-suspect somé close affinity. .be- 
 tween John, who came fasting, and the E.; the 
 more s0 as John’s sphere of activity in the valley 
 of Jordan lay close to the Essene settlement on 
 the shores of the Dead Sea. 
 
 The recluse Bannus, with whom Jos. as a young 
 man spent three years as a disciple, resembled the 
 Essenes. For he lived in the desert, wore garments 
 made of the bark of trees, and lived on anything 
 he found growing about, washing himself often 
 day and night with cold water by way of purifica- 
 tion. However, Josephus’ context rather implies 
 that he was not one. An almost certain reference 
 to the E. is contained in an eloquent passage of 
 Philo’s, from the same treatise in which his longer 
 description of the sect is preserved. 
 
 Even in our own day, he writes, there are still men whose 
 
 * only guide is God ; men who live by the true reason of nature, 
 not only themselves free, but filling their neighbours with a 
 irit of freedom. They are not very numerous indeed. But 
 tis not strange. For the highest nobility is ever rare; and 
 then these men have turned aside from the vulgar herd to 
 devote themselves to a contemplation of nature’s verities. They 
 ray, if it were possible, that they may reform our fallen lives ; 
 be , if they cannot, owing to the tide of evils and wrongs which 
 up in cities, they flee away, lest they too be swept off 
 their feet by the force of its current. And we, he continues, if 
 we had a true zeal for self-improvement, would have to track 
 them to their places of retreat, and, halting as suppliants before 
 them, would beseech them to come to us and tame our life, 
 _ grown too fierce and wild ; preaching, instead of war and slavery 
 and untold ills, their gospel of peace and freedom, and all the 
 fulness of other blessings. 
 
 The Therapeute of Alexandria, of whom Philo 
 has left so striking a description in his tract De 
 Vita Contemplativa, in many ways resembled the 
 Pal. Essenes; but were, as was natural in an 
 Egyp. sect, more addicted to contemplation. Here 
 is not the place for a detailed comparison between 
 them and the E.; nor is it possible to review the 
 numerous theories which have been framed. with 
 regard to the origin of the E. It, however, deserves 
 to be remarked that acc. to the evidence of Jos. 
 
 * E.g. Ant. xvit.i.5: réde xpdocovew ardpss daip rerpaxioy idsos 
 wiv &piOudy Syres, Of. Philo, ii, 457: wAvbos twip retpamox irs, 
 It is not likely that their numbers were the same at the very 
 beg. of oureraasina.p. 70. Again Jos. writes (BJ 11. viii. 4): rois 
 isipebty Hxovery aipsriorais rave’ dvaminraros Te wap’ avrois. Of. 
 
 Philo (ii. 458): 
 
 vawisraras xu) voit ivipwlsy Adixvovjivoss tar 
 
 Hav. p 
 + vois Bi Lr Aodery why alpsosy. 
 
 ESSENES 771 
 
 they arose just at the time when the friendship 
 between Lacedeemon and Jerus. was at its highest. 
 Areus the king of Sparta had written as early as 
 B.C. 309-300 to Onias the high priest in these terms : 
 ‘It is found in writing that the Spartans and the 
 Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock 
 of Abraham’ (1 Mac 124). Andin B.c. 144 Jonathan 
 the high priest, in renewing the relations of his 
 country with Lacedzmon, reminded the Spartans 
 of this long-standing friendship based on ancient 
 kinship. Is it possible that the E. sect was partly 
 an outcome of this contact with the Peloponnese— 
 an attempt to imitate on Jewish soil, and in a re- 
 ligious and moral sense only, the Syssitia and 
 organization of the Lycurgean polity? That most 
 of the Jews mentioned in Jos. as belonging to the 
 Maccabzean period have Greek second names is 
 good evidence of the wide diffusion in Pal. at that 
 time of the Gr. language. And the very informa- 
 tion proffered by Jos., that the E. were Jews by 
 race, almost implies in its context that in language 
 they were something else. So Philo assures us 
 that the holy places in which the E. met on the 
 Sabbath were called cuvaywyal, synagogues. Un- 
 less they spoke Greek, why should this term 
 rather than the usual one cafBareiov * have been 
 employed? [Friedlander (Zur Entstehungsge- 
 schichte des Christenthums, Wien, 1894) has re- 
 marked that the very circumstance of Jos. having 
 used, if not Philo’s account, at least a Gr. descrip- 
 tion of the sect already used by Philo, is some 
 indication that they were a Gr. sect of Jews. 
 Their Pythagorean régime, their belief in the pre- 
 existence of the soul, their view of its nature and 
 incarnation, all point the same way. The state- 
 ment also of Philo, not repeated by Jos., that they 
 philosophized most things in the Bible allegoric- 
 ally or in a symbolic way with old-fashioned zeal, 
 is an almost certain proof of their Hellenism. 
 And Philo’s own allegorization of the passage 
 Dt 23 ff. is, as Friedliinder has seen (p. 118), an 
 allusion to the Essene probation and discipline 
 (Philo, Legis Adleg. i. 117). 
 
 Again, Philo, when he states that the E. were 
 taught the art of regulating home and state, and 
 a knowledge of what things are really good and 
 bad and indifferent, how to choose what is right 
 and avoid the opposite courses, seems to imply a 
 familiarity on their part with Greek, especially 
 with Stoic, moral philosophy, inconceivable among 
 Jews who spoke Aramaic only. But here we 
 must be cautious, for Philo would naturally de- 
 scribe any sect in terms of his own Gr. culture. 
 That he twice over described this Pal. sect, yet 
 apparently left unnoticed the purely Jewish 
 schools of Pal., is in any case significant, and 
 suggests that they had a Gr. culture which inter- 
 ested him, and led him to couple them, as he does, 
 with the Alexandrine Therapeutee. 
 
 Jos. equally implies that they were more or less 
 Hellenized. Would he have conspired with Philo 
 to misrepresent them? Nothing is more im- 
 probable. 
 
 The conclusion, then, is probable that they owed 
 their origin to the introduction and diffusion of 
 Greek culture in. the early part of the 2nd cent. 
 B.C. They were in some respects very strict Jews, 
 and even fanatical observers of the Mosaic Law; 
 but in others, notably in their election of their 
 own priests,t and in the thereby implied a ae 
 session of the Levite hereditary priesthood, and in 
 
 * Jos. uses caPBarsiov (Ant, xvi. vi. 2). It is found in a very 
 early Greco teu papyrus, edited by Mr. B. P. Grenfell, of 
 Oxford. 
 
 t ree yep wrsiore Bie cuuPirev &pyasorpime Gyrdos wep’ adveit 
 PidoroguTas. y “A x 
 
 t Ant. xvill. i. 5: dwodixrag vaiv xpordday ysiporovovytss . . . 
 ispsis Bi ia) woshous wirov v1 xai Bpwcror, If the Essenes dis 
 carded sacrifices, they had no need for priests of the old kind. 
 
 
 

 
 772 ESTATE 
 
 ESTHER 
 
 
 
 
 
 their repudiation of animal sacrifices, they were a 
 new departure in Judaism, and very closely akin 
 to Jesus and His disciples. 
 
 The literature relating to the Essenes is so vast 
 as to defy detailed reference. The student may 
 be advised to study for himself the very limited 
 documentary sources relating to them, and thea to 
 draw his own conclusions.“ F.C. CONYBEARK. 
 
 ESTATE.—In AV (1611 and mod. edd.) ‘ estate’ 
 occurs 19 times, ‘state’ 14 times, without differ- 
 ence of meaning; thus Col 4’ ‘All my state 
 (7a kar’ éué wdvra) shall Tychicus declare unto you,’ 
 but v8 ‘that he might know your estate’ (TR 
 Ta wept budv); and again, Ph 2"-* ‘your state’ 
 (rad wept tuadv). Cf. Melvill, Diary, 289, ‘We fand 
 him in a miserable esteat’; Calderwood, History, 
 144, ‘I, Mr. Andrew Melville... most earnestly 
 hath prayed at all times, and specially in the fore- 
 said enna for the preservation and prosperous 
 estate of his Majestie.’ The meaning is either 
 ‘condition’ as in those examples, or ‘ position’ as 
 Ps 136% ‘Who remembered us in our low estate’ 
 (sbava), Ec 28 <I am come to great estate’ (tnb27). 
 Cf. T. Elyot, The Governour (Croft’s ed. i. 26), ‘a 
 man of the base estate of the communaltie’; 
 Calderwood, History, 149, ‘They declare how some 
 of low estate, borne to no heritage... have 
 creeped in favour with the King.’ But in Dn 117 
 2. 21-88 the meaning seems to be ‘high rank,’ 
 ‘dignity,’ as 117 ‘ Out of a branch of her roots shall 
 one stand up in his estate.’ The Heb. is j2 kén, 
 which means ‘ place’ (as RV here) or ‘ office’ (as 
 RVm), and the favourite translation before AV 
 was ‘in his stead’ (Cov. Gen. Bish.); once, how- 
 ever, the word is translated ‘state’ (Pr 282, AV 
 and RV). Akin to this meaning is Mk 6” ‘ Herod 
 on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high 
 captains, and chief estates of Galilee’ (rois rpéras, 
 RV ‘the chief men’), where, however, the word is 
 used of the men to whom the dignity belongs. 
 Cf. Fuller, Ch. Hist, v. iii. 28, ‘Item, that God 
 never gave grace or knowledge of Holy Scripture 
 to any great estate or rich man.’ See also Ac 225 
 ‘The high priest doth bear me witness, and all the 
 estate of the elders,’ Gr. wav 1d mpecBurépior, lit. 
 ‘all the presbytery,’ t.e. the Sanhedrin (which see). 
 Compare Communion Office in Pr. Bk. 1549, ‘the 
 whole estate of Christ’s Church militant here in 
 earth,’ changed in 1552 into ‘state.’ In Ezk 364 
 ‘T will settle you after your old estates,’ the plu. 
 is used simply because the ref. is to more than one 
 person ; so Pref. to AV 1611, ‘support fit for their 
 estates.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ESTEEM, ESTIMATION.—‘ Esteem’ and ‘esti- 
 mate’ both come from Lat. estimare, the latter 
 directly, the former through Old Fr. estimer. 
 The meaning of estimare is to assign a value, 
 appraise, rate; and that is the meaning of ‘ esti- 
 mate’ (Heb. qn) in Ly 27'4>%, its only occur- 
 rences in EV. ‘Estimation’ occurs 20 times in the 
 same chapter ; elsewhere Lv 5: 38 68, Nu 1818, and 
 
 *Schtrer (HJP u. ii. 188 ff.) has a full record of the litera- 
 ture. The important names are Frankel, ‘Die Essiier,’ in 
 Zeitschr. fiir die religiisen Interessen des Judenthums, 1846, 
 441-461 ; and ‘ Die Essder nach thalmud. Quellen,’ in Monatschr. 
 fiir Gesch. u. Wissensch, des Judenth. 1853, 30-40, 61-73; Jost, 
 Gesch. des Judenthums wu. seiner Secten, 1857, i. 207-214; Herz- 
 feld, Gesch. des Volkes Isr. (2nd ed. 1863), ii. 368 ff., 388 ff., 509 ff. ; 
 Lightfoot in Colossians and Philemon, 82-98, 349-419; same in 
 Dissertations, 323-407 ; Lucius, Der Essenismus, 1881 ; Hilgen- 
 feld, Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums, 1884, 87-149. Schurer 
 may be supplemented by adding: Ginsburg in Smith and Wace, 
 Dict. Chr, Biog. 1880 ; Ohle, ‘ Die Essener,’ in J PTh (1888) xiv ; 
 also ‘Die Pseudophilonischen Esséer und die Therapeuten,’ in 
 Beitrdge zur Kurchengesch. 1888; Thomson, Books which 
 influenced our Lord, 1889, 75-122; Morrison, Jews wnder 
 Roman Rule, 1890, 323-347; Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, 
 1891, 418-421, 446-449 ; Cohn in JQR, 1892, 38-42; Friedlander, 
 Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Christenthwms, 1894, 98-142 ; Oony- 
 beare, Philo about the Contemplative Life, 1895, 278 ff.—Eprror. 
 
 always in the same sense as ‘estimate,’ that is, 
 valuation, price (Heb. 772y). Only once is ‘ estima. 
 tion’ faaaa in the mod. sense of ‘high value,’ 
 ‘repute,’ Wis 8" ‘For her sake I shall have 
 estimation among the multitude, and honour with 
 the elders, though I be young’ (dé&a, RV ‘ glory’). 
 
 Cranmer (Works, i. 14) says, ‘But to mine 
 estimation, as much as I could view the ground, 
 there was not slain upon both parties two thou- 
 sand men.’ This meaning of ‘estimation’ is not 
 found in AV, but it is the almost invariable sense 
 in which ‘esteem’ is used, that is, to esteem is 
 to have an opinion (good or bad), reckon, as in 
 He 10” Rhem. ‘ estemed the bloud of the testament 
 polluted,’ where AV and most VSS have ‘counted’ ; 
 and as Knox, Hist. 312, ‘he shall be esteemed and 
 holden a seditious person.’ Thus Ro 14° ‘One 
 man esteemeth one day above another: another 
 esteemeth every day alike’ (both xplve). Then 
 the kind of judgment is expressed by an adverb, 
 ‘highly,’ ‘ lightly,’ or the like. 
 
 Sometimes ‘esteem’ eet appear to be used, 
 like ‘estimation,’ in the mod. sense of ‘think highly 
 of.’ But this impression is probably due to the 
 context or the presence of some adverb. Thus 
 Wis 127 ‘that land which thou esteemest above all 
 other’ (4... Tiuwrdryn yA, RV ‘is most precious’); 
 Sir 40% ‘Gold and silver make the foot stand sure; 
 but counsel is esteemed above them both’ (evdoxt- 
 wetrat); Job 23" ‘I have esteemed the words of 
 his mouth more than my necessary food’ (‘n}Dy, 
 RV ‘I have treasured up’), 36! ‘ Will he esteem 
 thy riches?’ (q4y:7). And in particular, Is 53° ‘ He 
 was despised, and we esteemed him not,’ is 
 generally taken in the sense of ‘highly value’; 
 but the ae verb (1¥9) is very rare in that sense, 
 and is used in the next verse in its familiar sense of © 
 ‘reckon ’— we did esteem him stricken.’ Cf. Rid- 
 ley, A Brefe Declaration, 1535 (Moule’s ed. p. 101), 
 ‘eateth and drynketh his owne damnacion, by- 
 cause he estemeth not the Lordes body ; that is, 
 he reuerenceth not the Lordes bodi with the 
 honour that is due unto him,’ where the para- 
 phrase contains more than the translation. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 ESTHER (7ndx, ’EoO%p, Pers. stdra, ‘ star’), origin- 
 ally named Hadassah (7519 ‘myrtle’)._A Jewess 
 who has given her name to a book of the OT, in 
 which she holds a prominent place. Sprung from 
 a family of the tribe of Benjamin, she spent her life 
 in the Captivity in Persia, where she was brought 
 up in humble circumstances as the orphan ward of 
 her cousin Mordecai (Est 2). On the deposition 
 of the Pers. queen Vashti for refusing to come at 
 the soutien of her husband Ahasuerus (Xerzes, 
 B.C. 485-465), ‘to show the peoples and the princes 
 her beauty,’ on an occasion of high festivity at 
 the court of Susa (11°), E. was selected to fill the 
 vacant place of honour, as the fairest of many 
 heautifel maidens brought before the king (2°*-), 
 Shortly after her elevation a great disaster 
 threatened her countrymen. The ae vizier, 
 ‘Haman the Agagite,’ enraged at the refusal of 
 Mordecai to do obeisance to him, accused the whole 
 nation of the Jews to the king as a disloyal and 
 unprofitable people, and undertook to pay 10,000 
 talents of silver into the treasury as the proceeds 
 of pillaging them. An edict was thereupon issued 
 for the extermination of all Jewish families 
 throughout the empire, and for the confiscation of 
 their property, on a certain day, which Haman 
 had previously determined by lot (ch. 3). In this 
 crisis, moved by the tears of her fellow-country- 
 men, and incited by Mordecai, who urged her te 
 rise to the great OPPOr Ey set before her for the 
 deliverance of her nation, E. (after a fast of three 
 
 
 
 days on the part of the whole Jewish community) | 
 
 resolved to venture uninvited, at the risk of her 
 
 
 
 
 
ESTHER 
 
 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 773 
 
 
 
 life, into the presence of Ahasuerus, in order to 
 intercede with him for her people (ch. 4). A 
 gracious reception was accorded to her by the king, 
 who held out the golden sceptre, and agreed to 
 dine with her in her apartments on two consecutive 
 days (ch. 5). On the night preceding the second 
 banquet (at which E. intended to make known her 
 request) it per pened by a singular coincidence that 
 there was read to the king, to while away some 
 sleepless hours, a portion of the national archives, 
 which recorded a valuable service rendered by 
 Mordecai in the detection of a plot against the 
 king’s life on the part of two of his chamberlains. 
 For this service Mordecai had never been rewarded ; 
 and when Haman, elated with the high honour 
 shown him by the queen (who had invited him to 
 the banquet provided for the king), appeared at 
 the palace next morning in order to ask permission 
 to put Mordecai at once to an ignominious death, 
 he was met with the question from the royal lips, 
 ‘What shall be done unto the man whom the king 
 delighteth to honour?’ Imagining, in his over- 
 weening pride, that it must be himself that was 
 meant, he suggested a triumphal procession, in 
 which one of the chief nobles should act the part of 
 attendant. To his surprise and mortification he 
 found himself called upon to serve in a menial 
 capacity in the triumph of his Jewish adversary 
 (ch. 6). This, as his wife divined, was only the 
 ey to his downfall, which came to pass next 
 
 y at the second banquet, when the king, learn- 
 ing for the first time the nationality of the queen, 
 and the distressing position in which the edict had 
 placed her, ordered that Haman should be seized, 
 and hanged forthwith on a lofty gallows which (as 
 the king was at that moment informed by one of 
 his courtiers) had been erected by Haman for the 
 execution of Mordecai (ch. 7). The latter was at 
 the same time raised to the vacant post of honour, 
 and through his influence, and that of E., a second 
 edict was issued and circulated, granting to the 
 Jews the same powers, in the way of self-defence, 
 as had been conferred in the previous edict on their 
 enemies for the purpose of attack,—a direct re- 
 vocation of the former edict being impossible 
 according to the laws of the Medes and Persians. 
 In consequence of these proceedings a dread of 
 the Jews fell upon all peoples, many proselytes 
 being gained—convinced, apparently, by the logic 
 of events (ch. 8); and when the fatal day arrived, 
 the conflict issued in a great slaughter of their 
 enemies and a decisive victory for the Jews, who, 
 however, waived their right of plunder. To com- 
 memorate their great deliverance, the joyful Feast 
 of Purim (which see) was instituted by E. and 
 Mordecai as an annual observance for the whole 
 nation. : 
 
 How far E. is to be regarded as a historical 
 poe depends on the historicity of the 
 
 ook of Est (see below), her name not being men- 
 tioned in any other book of the OT, nor anywhere 
 else in pre-Alex. literature. The only queen of 
 Xerxes mentioned by Herodotus (vii. 61, 82, 114; 
 ix. 108-112; cf. Ctesias, 20) is Amestris, a cruel 
 and superstitious woman, whom some (Scaliger, 
 Pfeiffer, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bunsen, Shickard, 
 etc.) would identify with Esther. But Amestris 
 was a daughter of a Pers. general connected with 
 the royal dassily, and the chronology and circum- 
 stances of her reign cannot be reconciled with the 
 biblical account either of E. or of Vashti. Xerxes 
 (like his predecessors) may have had more wives 
 than one, but, aseording to Pers. custom, they 
 must have been taken from some of the great 
 
 families connected with the throne, or from some 
 other royal house; and the most tenable hypo- 
 thesis seems to be that E. (as well as Vashti) was 
 merely the chief favourite of the seraglio, gaining 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a remarkable influence over the foolish and cap 
 ricious monarch, and using that influence at a 
 critical moment for the benefit of her Jewish com- 
 patriots. While there are some things recorded of 
 E. that offend our Christian feeling,—in particulaz 
 her vindictive treatment of the bodies of Haman’s 
 sons (97), and her request for an extension of time 
 to the Jews at Susa for the slaughter of their 
 enemies (9!*),—regard must be had to the spirit of 
 the age in which she lived, and to the passions that 
 had been excited by Haman’s inhuman malignity. 
 On the other hand, her devotion to the cause of 
 her oppressed nationality (‘I will go in unto the 
 king; and if I perish, I perish’), and her dutiful 
 bearing towards her foster-father, notwithstanding 
 the sudden rise in her fortunes, explain the honour 
 in which her memory has been held by her country- 
 men. J. A. M‘CLYMONT. 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF.—I. CANONIcITY.—Est is 
 one of the latest of the Hagiographa or Kethubim, 
 the third and latest accretion of the OT Canon. It 
 may have been among ‘the other books of the 
 Fathers’ which the Gr. translator of Sir (B.c. 132) 
 mentions (in his Prologue) along with the ‘Law 
 and the Prophets’ as well known to his grand- 
 father, the author of that book (c. B.c. 180) ; but 
 this seems unlikely, in view of the fact that neither 
 Esther nor Mordecai is mentioned in the rarépwy 
 tuvos towards the close of the book. The earliest 
 undoubted reference to E. is in Jos. (c. Ap. i. 8), 
 who includes it among the 22 books long held 
 sacred (dtxalws Oeia remicrevpéva), as is evident from 
 the terminus ad quem which he assigns to the 
 history (uexpl rhs Aprazépou IepoGy Bacthéws dpyijs), 
 Artaxerxes being, in Josephus as in the Sept., 
 erroneously identified with Ahasuerus. The secular 
 and foreign character of the book * gave rise among 
 the Jews of the lst and 2nd cent. of the Christian 
 era to questionings as to its right to a place in the 
 Canon. In the Jerus. Talm. (Jfeg. 70. 4) there is a 
 statement that 85 elders, including more than 30 
 prophets, had scruples about the recognition of the 
 Feast of Purim (at which the Book of Est was 
 publicl. read) because there was no sanction for it 
 in the law of Moses; and elsewhere (Bab. Meg. 7a) 
 we find traces of various difliculties felt by Rabbis 
 as to the full inspiration of the book. It appears 
 certain, however, that it formed an integral part 
 of the Jewish Canon when the latter was virtually, 
 if not formally, closed at the Councils of Jerus. 
 and Jamnia in the Ist cent. A.D., as the same books 
 that are in our OT are implied (numerically) in 
 ch. 14 of 2 Es, which was written in end of Ist cent., 
 and are embodied in the Mishna, committed to 
 writing by R. Judah 1. about A.D. 200. Breathing 
 a spirit of intense patriotism, the book soon became 
 popular with the Jews, and its annual reading in the 
 synagogue was accompanied with lively tokens of 
 sympathy on the part of the congregation, while 
 the reader pronounced the names of Haman’s 10 sons 
 in one breath to indicate that they all expired at 
 the same moment, the names being written by the 
 scribes in large letters in 3 perpendicular lines 
 of 3, 3, 4 to siynify that the 10 men were hung on 
 3 parallel cords. Although the last of the 5 
 Megilloth or Rolls which were read at 5 different 
 feasts,t it came to be known as the. Roll (Megilah) 
 par excellence, and we may judge of the honour in 
 which it was held from a saying of Maimonides 
 (Carpzov, Jntr. xx. § 6), that in the days of the 
 Messiah the only Scriptures left would be the Law 
 and the Roll. The excessive love which the Jews 
 
 * The name of God is never mentioned in it, but the king of 
 Persia 187 times, and his kingdom 26 times; while the nearest 
 approach to any recognition of religion is to be found in the 
 fasting of 46, and possibly also in the confidence expressed in 414 
 
 + The order is different in the Eng. Bible, as also in the Seps 
 and Vulg., where Est closes the historical books. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
174 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 
 
 have ever shown for this book (of which Ewald has 
 said that in Settee to it from the other books of 
 the OT ‘we fall, as it were, from heaven to earth’) 
 illustrates their complete surrender to the spirit of 
 the age in which it was produced. It was an age that 
 had fallen out of sympathy with the teaching of the 
 prophets, and was unprepared for the spiritual 
 conception of the gospel,—when national pride and 
 a certain faith in their own fortunes as a people, 
 with a disposition to make the most of their heathen 
 masters by the use of such worldly wisdom as they 
 possessed, seem to have formed the chief char- 
 acteristics of those who still claimed to be God’s 
 people. 
 
 In the Christian Church the book has naturally 
 been less esteemed. It is one of the few books of 
 the OT that are not quoted in the NT (nor in 
 Philo). It has no place in the Canon of Melito of 
 Sardis, who had made careful inquiry among 
 the Jews of Syria regarding the books of the OT; 
 of Theodore of Mopsuestia (followed by the 
 Nestorians); of Athanasius, who put it in the 
 second rank among the dvaywwoxdpeva ; of Amphi- 
 lochius, who mentions that ‘some add the Book of 
 Esther’; of Gregory of Naz., and others. Junilius 
 in the 6th cent. mentions that there were grave 
 doubts on the subject in his day; while Luther, 
 after referring to 2 Mac, says (Tischreden), ‘I have 
 so little favour for this book and the Book of Est 
 that I wish they did not exist; they are too 
 Judaizing, and contain many heathenish impro- 
 
 rieties,” In-some of these cases, however, it may 
 
 ave been the corrupt Sept. transl. that caused 
 suspicion, while in others it is possible that Est 
 may be included under the name of Ezra or 
 some other book. Est is recognized as canonical 
 by Origen, Cyril of Jerus., Jerome (who puts it 
 last in the list), Augustine, and others. e may 
 also reckon it an indirect testimony to the authority 
 of the book in the beginning of the Christian era, 
 that, according to 2 Mac (15%), ‘ Mordecai’s day’ 
 (7uépa Mapdoxaixy), doubtless the Feast of Purim, was 
 observed in the writer’s lifetime. The fact that it 
 has a place (in an enlarged form) in the Sept., with 
 an epilogue stating that the tr. was brought (to 
 Alexandria) by one Dositheus in the 4th year of 
 Ptolemy and Cleopatra, is regarded by some as a 
 proof that the book existed in its Gr. form as early 
 as B.C. 178, in the reign of Ptolemy VI. (Philometor), 
 who was friendly to the Jews. But there were two 
 later kings of that name, and oneearlier (B.C. 204-81), 
 whose wives were called Cleopatra ; and the infer- 
 ence is doubtful, even admitting the authenticity of 
 the statement in question(Riehm, H WB; Fritzsche, 
 Handb. z. d. Apocr. i.). While the Heb. text is 
 good, there are large interpolations in the Sept., 
 of which there are two different texts, A and B, the 
 latter, according to Lagarde, Field, ete., being an 
 improved recension of the 3rd cent. These inter- 
 polations contradict the Heb. inseveral particulars, * 
 and betray their later Gr. origin by representing 
 Haman as a Macedonian who sought to transfer 
 the sovereignty from the Persians to the Mace- 
 donians (16°), and by other inconsistencies and 
 anachronisms,+ and were, no doubt, the work of 
 successive Hellenistic writers desirous to give a 
 religious character to the book,t and to supple- 
 ment other apparent defects.§ In the Vulg. these 
 additions are all put by Jerome at the end of the 
 book, beginning with a portion that takes up the 
 narrative where the Heb. ends— with notes to 
 show where the other additions occur in the Sept. 
 
 * Cf. 221 and Ad. Est 112ff., 63 and 125, 31.5 and 128, 912 and 1518, 
 
 + For example, ‘month Adar’ 1620, ‘chosen people’ 1621, 
 
 Hades’ 137, ‘I am thy brother’ 159, ‘Aman’s table,’ ‘drink- 
 offerings’ 1417, 
 t Ad. Est 109.10. 11. 12.18 1110 139-18 143-9 1528 164.16, 
 
 § For example, by giving the terms of the royal edicts, which 
 are not at all Oriental in style, 131-7 16. 
 
 In the RV Eng. Apocr. (where they are similarly 
 combined under the name of ‘The Rest of the 
 Chapters of the Bk. of Esther’) these explanations 
 are given in the margin. 
 
 Owing to the influence of the Sept. and Vulg. (in the Syr. 
 they have no place) the additions were often read in church, and 
 even regarded as canonical (in common with other Apocr. books 
 of OT), receiving the sanction of several Ch. Councils, from that 
 of Carthage in 397 to the Council of Trent in 1546. They are 
 composed of the following passages—the twofold references 
 showing where they stand in the Sept. and the Rest of Est re- 
 spectively :—{1) Mordecai’s pedigree, dream, and detection of 
 conspiracy, with his immediate reward, exciting Haman’s wrath 
 (Intr. ; 122-126), (2) Terms of the king’s writ, authorizing the 
 destruction of the Jews (after 313 131-7), (8) Prayers of Mordecai 
 and Est (after 4 ; 188-1419), (4) Fuller account of Est’s first inter- 
 cession with the king (in place of 51-2 15). (5) Terms of the 
 king’s writ, authorizing the Jews to defend themselves (after 
 813 16). (6) Mordecai’s devout interpretation of his dieam in the 
 light of events, and his permanent institution of the Feast of 
 Purim, followed by epilogue regarding the Gr. tr. (End ; 10413 
 111), In Josephus we can trace other additions to the story not 
 found in the Sept., which shows the popularity of the subject, 
 and the tendency to embroider the Heb. narrative with Alex. 
 inventions. Similar embellishments are to be found in the 
 ‘first’ and ‘second’ Chaldwan Targums or commentaries, in- 
 dependent of the Gr. additions, which only found their way into 
 the Midrashim at a much later time through the medium of the 
 writings ascribed to Josipon ben-Gorion (Zunz, Gottesdienstliche 
 Vortrdge ; Fritzsche, as above). 
 
 II. Historiciry.—On this subject the most 
 diverse opinions have been held. Many old and a 
 few modern writers * maintain the narrative to be 
 thoroughly historical. But an increasing number ¢ 
 hold it to be more or less a work of imagination ; 
 while somet regard it as a poetical invention, 
 having no appreciable basis of fact to rest on. 
 
 The following are the principal arguments for 
 the historical character of the book.—(1) The 
 narrative claims to be historical, referring more 
 than once to ‘ the chronicles’ of Persia as contain- 
 ing a record of the events in question (10? 2% 61) ; 
 and its admission to the Pal. Canon, notwithstand- 
 ing the absence of any allusion to the Holy Land 
 or to Jewish ordinances, is so far a confirmation 
 of its claim. (2) The Feast of Purim, with which 
 it was so closely connected as to be known among 
 Alex. writers as ‘the Epistle of Purim,’ and which, 
 in the time of Jos. (Ané. XI. vi. 13) was observed 
 by Jews in all parts of the world, is a standing 
 memorial of the remarkable episode in Jewish 
 history which the book records. (3) Its lifelike 
 representation of Pers. manners and customs, 
 especially in connexion with the palace at Susa 
 (bee 10, 14 2%. 21, 23 37. 12, 18 45. ll 5A 88), is borne out by 
 the results of modern travel and research (Raw- 
 linson’s Anc. Monarchies, iv. pp. 269-287 ; Morier, 
 Fergusson, Loftus, Dieulafoy), and finds support 
 in Herodotus and other ancient writers. (4) The 
 conduct of Ahasuerus is in harmony with the 
 vain, capricious, passionate character of Xerxes 
 (the identification of the two names was the first 
 result obtained from the deciphering of the cunei- 
 form inscriptions by Grotefend in 1802), as depicted 
 by heathen writers (Herod. vii. 1x.; Aisch. Pers. 
 467 tf.; Juv. x. 174-187); and this may account 
 for some things in the narrative that would other- 
 wise seem almost incredible. (5) It appears from 
 
 * Kelle, Vindiciew Est.; Hivernick, Hinleitung ; Ba n, 
 De Fide Lib, Est.; Welte, Einleitung ; Keil, Hinleitung ; Her- 
 vey, Smith’s DB; Nickes, De Est. Inb.; Cassel, Kom.; Raw- 
 linson, Speaker’s Com.; Wordsworth, Com.; J. Oppert, Annalea 
 Phil. Chrét., and Revue des Et. Ju, 1894; J. W. Haley, pee | 
 Est.; and, in the main, F, W. Schultz, Lange’s Com.; and Ore 
 PRE, art. ‘ Esther.’ 
 
 + Eichhorn, Hinleitung; De Wette, Hinleitung ; Bleek, Hin- 
 leitung; Winer, Bibl. RWB i.; Dillmann in Schenkel’s Bibeilex, 
 art. ‘Purim’; Ewald, Gesch. /sr. ; Staihelin, Hinleitung ; Ryssel- 
 Bertheau, Hxeg. Handb.; Oettli, S. and Z. Kg. Kom,; Davidson, 
 Introduction ; Hitzig, Gesch. Isr.; Herzfeld, Gesch, Isr.; Stanley, 
 Jewish Ch.; Driver, LOT 449ff.; Cheyne, Ene. Brit. art. 
 ‘Esther’; Konig, Hinleitung. 
 
 t Semler, Appar. VY; Bertholdt, Hinleitung; Kuenen, 
 Relig. Isr., and Onderz.2 i. 551 ff. (Hist. Crit. vol. i.) ; Néldeke, 
 Alttest. Lit.; Reuss, Gesch. AT’; Zonz, ZDMG, 1893; Gritz, 
 MGWJ, 1886; Bloch, ‘ Hel. Bestandth. im Bib. Schr.,’ Jud. Lit 
 BL, 1877 ; Cornill, Hinlett.; Bertholet, Die Stedurg der Ter. 
 
 
 
- of a successor to Vashti (1° 2'%), 
 
 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 ESTHER, BOOK OF 776 
 
 
 
 Herod. vii. 8 that Xerxes held a great council of 
 war in the third year of his reign before setting 
 out for Greece, and that he returned to Susa in 
 the spring of his seventh year,—which agrees with 
 the dates assigned to the great feast and the choice 
 (6) Although the 
 narrative is minute and circumstantial, containing 
 many names (of courtiers, princes, 10 sons of 
 Haman, ete., 1!°-!4 97-®) as well as other details, 
 it is remarkably free from literary and historical 
 discrepancies, such as have been detected in the 
 Apocr. books of To and Jth and Ad. Est. Ac- 
 cording to Oppert, there is not a single proper 
 name that may not be regarded as belonging to 
 the idiom of Cyrus and of Darius, and after the 
 conquests of Alexander such writing was philo- 
 logically impossible. (7) The silence of contem- 
 porary and later writings regarding the events 
 narrated in the Bk. of Est is partly due to the 
 disappearance of literature bearing on the history 
 of Persia, and partly to the interest of Herodotus 
 and Ctesias being centred in the points of contact 
 between Persia and Greece. As for the Bk. of 
 Ezra, it leaves the period from B.C. 516 to 459 
 (between chs. 6 and 7) a blank, except in 4°-°, 
 
 On the other hand, the following are the chief 
 objections that have been taken to the histor- 
 icity of the book. (1) The story bears on the 
 face of it the appearance of a historical romance, 
 a@ number of its features being in themselves ex- 
 tremely improbable, ¢.g. the six months’ feast, 
 involving such prolonged absence of the governors 
 from their duties in the provinces; the summons 
 of Vashti before the assembled peoples and princes, 
 and the subsequent decree, suggested by ‘the wise 
 men,’ that every man should bear rule in his own 
 house, which would have been the publication of 
 Ahasuerus’ folly; the long interval before the 
 choice of Vashti’s successor; the decree for the 
 wholesale massacre of the Jews (not excepting 
 those in Judea, and numbering probably two _mil- 
 lions) on account of the obstinacy of a single Jew ; 
 the publication of this decree eleven months before 
 the time for its execution; the issue of a subse- 
 
 uent decree virtually sanctioning civil war; the 
 immense slaughter of the Persians notwithstand- 
 ing their superiority in numbers, and the wonder- 
 
 preservation of Jewish lives, as well as the 
 absence of revenge on the part of the Persians; the 
 institution by Mordecai and E. of a feast that 
 would perpetuate the disgrace of the sovereign in 
 the eyes of his subjects, and embitter the relations 
 between Jew and Persian (but cf. the annual 
 commemoration of the massacre of the Magians, 
 Herod. iii. 79—with which Niebuhr was disposed to 
 connect the story). Add to this that the series of 
 coincidences and contrasts culminating in the over- 
 throw of Haman ‘the Agagite’ (1S 15—but Oppert 
 connects this name with Agaz, a tribe of Media 
 mentioned in the inscriptions of Sargon) and the 
 exaltation of Mordecai of the tribe of Benjamin, 
 is too perfect to have been drawn from real life. 
 (2) The manifest aim of the writer is to encourage 
 and glorify the Jews; and the whole narrative, 
 which is marked by exaggeration and innuendo, 
 is artfully designed to serve that purpose (215 17-22 
 32. 1B 4i4 620 Il, 13 7? 82: 15.17 gis 10). (3) The refer- 
 ences to ‘the chronicles’ may be merely a rhetori- 
 cal device in imitation of similar allusions in Neh 
 and Ezr (in this connexion it is noteworthy that 
 the terms of the royal edicts are not given); or 
 the sources referred to may be like the Bab.-Pers. 
 chronicles, from which Ctesias professes to have 
 derived information—the story being ‘an example 
 of Jewish Haggada founded upon one of those 
 semi-historical tales of which the Pers, chronicles 
 seem to have been full’ (Sayce, HCM p. 475). 
 (4) A strictly historical interpretation of the nar- 
 
 rative is beset with difficulties. Neither Vashti 
 nor Esther can be identified with Amestris, the 
 only queen (judging from Herodotus and Ctesias) 
 that Xerxes ever had. Nor is it easy to reconcile 
 Ahasuerus’ and Haman’s ignorance of Esther’s 
 nationality with the frequent presence of Mor- 
 decai (who was known to be a Jew, 34) ‘in the 
 king’s gate,’ and his constant communications with 
 Esther. Moreover, Haman’s description of the 
 Jews (3°), as ‘dispersed among the people in 
 all the provinces of thy kingdom,’ and of their 
 disobedience to ‘the king’s laws,’ is net true of 
 the Pers. period (especially so early as the reign 
 of Xerxes), and betrays a Maced.-Greek origin, as 
 does also the stress laid on financial considerations 
 (cf. 9°), and the part taken against the Jews by 
 ‘their enemies’ (95-16-22), (5) In several respects 
 the writer’s knowledge of Pers. customs is alleged 
 to be defective (Gratz in MGW, Dec. 1886), e.g. 
 the ‘127 provinces,’ cf. the ‘20 satrapies’ of Herod. 
 ili. 89; the command to ‘kneel’ (y13) before Haman, 
 an act of worship due to God only and the king, 
 while the refusal to ‘do him reverence’ by pro- 
 stration (mnnwn=zpockuveiy) betrays a Gr. spirit of 
 independence at variance with Gn 23’ 33° (ef. 
 Herod. vii. 136); the un-Oriental toleration so long 
 shown to Mordecai by the vizier; the queen’s 
 difficulty of gaining access to the royal presence ; 
 the alleged Semitic character of some of the proper 
 names, suspiciously profuse, and very few of which 
 occur elsewhere; and Mordecai’s obscurity, not- 
 withstanding his officially-recorded services to the 
 king (2%, cf. Herod. vili. 85). Even admitting 
 the general consistency of the narrative, both 
 with itself and with Pers. surroundings, this is held 
 to‘ be sufticiently accounted for by consummate 
 dramatic skill on the part of the writer, and his 
 possessing such a knowledge of Persia and its 
 ancient régime as: was attainable by a Jew who 
 had lived in that country or even in Palestine in 
 the Maced.-Gr. period. (6) The true explanation 
 of the silence of ancient Jewish writers (Ch, Ezr, 
 Neh, Sir, Dn, Philo) as well as of profane 
 writers, is held to lie in the fact that no such 
 facts as those related in the Bk. of Est ever took 
 place. (7) The Heb. of the book, which closely 
 resembles that of Ec, belongs to a much later time 
 than that of Xerxes; and the way in which the 
 writer explains Pers. customs (1*° 88) seems to 
 imply that the Pers. rule was over, while his 
 description of Ahasuerus, and of his wide domin- 
 ions, and the magnificence of his court, gives the 
 impression that he is recalling the glories of a 
 bygone age. (8) In answer to the argument from 
 the Feast of Purim, it is alleged that the story of 
 Est was engrafted on a festival already in vogue 
 among the Jews, borrowed from a Pers. or a Gr. 
 source, for the purpose of promoting its wider 
 observance or imparting to it a more national 
 character; and various attempts have been made 
 to trace it to a definite heathen source. None of 
 these attempts, however (art. PURIM), can be 
 said to be successful, and the connexion of the 
 book with such an ancient Jewish observance still 
 forms a considerable presumption in favour of its 
 being founded on facts. It may be that fresh 
 confirmation of its truth will be found in some 
 of the monumental discoveries which still await 
 the explorer, and that the ae attaching to 
 its contents will yet be removed. 
 
 III. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP.—Thedate generally 
 assigned to the book by those who maintain it to 
 be historical is somewhere in the reign of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus, the successor of Xerxes (B.C. 464-425), 
 or a little later; while most of those who regard the 
 story as more or less of a legend or romance bring 
 its composition down to the Gr. period, say in the 
 3rd cent. B.c. Hitzig traces its composition (as 
 
 
 
 
 
776 ESTHER, BOOK OF 
 
 ETHAN 
 
 
 
 well as the introduction of Purim) to the Parthian 
 ascendency after B.C. 238, and in the description 
 of the Jews in 38 he finds evidence that it was 
 written subsequently to the colonizing activity of 
 Seleucus Nikator. Others (Reuss, Gritz, Bloch, 
 ete.) give it a still later date, tracing it to the time 
 of the Maccabean revolt (B.c. 167). Bloch regards 
 it as an attempt to justify the Jewish party at 
 the Gr. court, who thought they could oe pro- 
 mote the interests of their country by conciliating 
 the heathen power; but with this it is difficult to 
 reconcile Mordecai’s attitude towards Haman, or 
 the slaughter of Pers. women and children and its 
 commemoration. Gritz assigns the book to an 
 adherent of the Maccabean party, and, with the 
 ingenuity of a special pleader, presents a great 
 array of arguments to prove that Ahasuerus re- 
 presents Antiochus (with some intentional vague- 
 ness as to the identity of Ah. himself), and that 
 the book was intended to appeal to those who, like 
 the deputies to Tyre (2 Mac 418°), were disposed 
 to resist the king’s attempt to force them into idol- 
 atry, although they had very little religion of their 
 own,—hinting at the influences which they might 
 bring to bear upon the king, and at a possible 
 turn in the wheel of fortune,—much as the Bk. of 
 Dn was meant, a year or two later, to tell upon the 
 more <evout (Hasidim), who still believed in the 
 possibility of direct divine interpositions. Kuenen 
 and Cornill find in it an echo of the same struggle 
 (cf. 3° ° and 1 Mac 1“ 3*- 8) after it was over (B.C. 
 135), when religious heroism had given place to 
 animosity and pride. Similarly, Zunz believes it to 
 have been an Eastern reflex (c. B.C. 130) of the 
 Maccabean enthusiasm, and lays stress on the 
 lateness and servility of the language, as well as 
 on the want of any recognition of the Jewish 
 tommunity as a whole, Mordecai and Esther 
 being the only Jews who are credited with an 
 influence. But the language, though late, is 
 very far from exhibiting the stage represented 
 by the Mishna;* and as regards the supposed 
 Maccabeean origin for the story, it must be 
 remembered that even under the Pers. rule 
 (Jos. c. Ap. i. 22) there had been times when the 
 Jews suffered persecution for their attachment to 
 their faith. That the book was written by a 
 Persian Jew may fairly be inferred from its tone 
 and structure, notwithstanding Gritz’ denial that 
 the use of Heb. for literary purposes was possible 
 outside of Palestine, except Herae the Bab. 
 Captivity. It is vain, however, to attempt to 
 determine the authorship more particularly. The 
 references to Mordecai’s writing in 9%-® have given 
 rise to the idea that he may have been the author; 
 but the peculiarities of the passage, both in language 
 and contents, Stamp it as an interpolation or in- 
 terpolations (vv. 2-28 29-82) , perhaps orrowed from 
 another book of Purim (v.*%). Moreover, some of 
 the allusions to Mordecai (e.g. 9°-4) preclude the idea 
 of his being the writer. 1 that can be said with 
 confidence is that it was written by a Jew con- 
 nected with Persia, and full of the nationalist 
 feeling of his time, the absence of religious phrase- 
 ology being due partly to the decline in the 
 spiritual life of the nation, occasioned by centuries 
 of exposure to heathen influences, leading to re- 
 serve in the expression of religious sentiment, 
 perly to the secular character of the Feast of 
 
 urim associated with it, which rested on no 
 divine authority, and was marked by a gay con- 
 viviality, varied with an occasional outburst of 
 passion that was not favourable to religious 
 solemnity. See further under Purim. 
 
 * At the saxe time it must be admitted that, even after the 
 Mishna style was formed, books in imitation of the classical 
 Btyle yere alpina) otherwise Ec would have to be placed long 
 after Sirach. 
 
 Onderzoek 2, 551 ff.; Zimmern in ZAW, 1891, p. 168; Lagarde, 
 Purim ; Jacob in Z.A W, 1890, p. 241 ff.; Dieulafoy in Rev. d. Et. 
 
 Tode, ¥P 42 ff.; Bertheau, Ezr. 
 2nd ed. 
 
 ESTHER (Apocryphal).—See preceding article. 
 
 ESYELUS (’Hovndos, BY? 4 ctvodos, AV Syelus) 
 1 Es 18=Jehiel.—One of the rulers of the temple 
 in Josiah’s time (2 Ch 358). 
 
 ETAM (ony, possibly ‘place of birds of prey,’ 
 from sry ‘bird of prey’).—It is uncertain whether 
 there may not have been two places so called 
 in Judah. The town Etam (1 Ch 4°) was 
 in Simeon, near Rimmon. It may be the place 
 fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11%), though there 
 noticed with Bethlehem and Tekoa. The Rock 
 Etam (Jg 15® 4) was Samson’s refuge, and had in 
 it a peculiar ‘fissure’ (7"yp) or ‘cavern’ (AV ‘top’). 
 In the Talm. an Etam near Bethlehem is noticed 
 (see Neubauer, Géog. Talm. s.v.). These may 
 represent three distinct sites. 1. Etam of 
 Simeon is very clearly the ruin ‘Aitdén near 
 Rimmon of Simeon, on the hills N.W. of Beer- 
 sheba. SWP vol. iii. sheet xxiv. 2, Etam 
 near Bethlehem is renter by the present ‘Ain 
 ‘Atdn, at the so-called Pools of Solomon (Rom. 
 reservoirs connected with Pilate’s aqueduct to 
 Jerus.), the traditional site of the ‘sealed fountain’ 
 (Ca 41"), identified by the Rabbis with Nephtoah. 
 SWP vol. iii. sheet xvii. 3. The Rock Etam is 
 an undefined site, but may have been near Samson’s 
 home at Zorah. There is a remarkable rocky hill 
 to the E., on which the village Beit “Atdb now 
 stands, under which is a curious cavern in the rock. 
 
 The change of B for M is not uncommon (ef. - 
 
 TIMNAH), and this isa ossible site for Samson’s 
 
 refuge. SW vol. iii. sheet xvii. 
 LitrraturRE.—Besides the above, see Robinson, BRP2i. 477; 
 
 Guérin, Judée, iii. 117f., 303; Baedeker-Socin, Pal.8 184f, ; 
 
 Schick, ZDPV i. 152f.; PEF St, 1875, 12; 1876, 175; 1878, 116; 
 1881, 43, 323 ; Conder, Tent-Work, i. 275 ff. ; Moore, Judges, 342 ff. 
 
 C. R. ConDER. 
 
 ETHAM (ony, LXX ’0@éy, Ex 13”; Bovddv, Nu 
 3367, The Coptic has ere@wu, Ex 13” [Wilkins], 
 and eSov#a [Wilkins], eSovéav [Sah. Ciasca]. LXX 
 and Cop. omit Etham in Nu 338).—The station at 
 which the Israelites arrived after leaving Succoth. 
 It is described (Ex 13”, Nu 33°) as being ‘on the 
 edge of the wilderness.’ This wilderness (called 
 W. of Etham, Nu 338, and W. of Shur, Ex 15”*) was 
 traversed by the Israelites after crossing the sea. 
 It must therefore be east of the Isthmus of Suez, 
 and Etham would be onits W. edge. If on leaving 
 Egypt the Israelites went along Wady Tumilat 
 [see Exopus (ROUTE OF), §i.], they would make for 
 the broad tract of dry ground to the N. of Lake 
 Timsah, and the position of Etham would be where 
 their route crossed the Egyp. frontier, t.e. in the 
 neighbourhood of the modern Ismailia. Naville 
 
 laces Etham here, but explains the word as 
 designating the land of Atuma, which is mentioned 
 in the papyrus Anastasi vi. The land of Atuma 
 there mentioned is generally supposed to be the 
 land of Edom. See PIHAHIROTH and the Litera- 
 ture under Exopus (ROUTE OF), § ii. [Brugsch’s 
 ‘Exodus and the Egyptian Monuments’ may be 
 read in English in vol. ii. of the translation (1879) 
 of his Egypt under the Pharaohs, or in New Ed, 
 (1891, in one vol.) p. 318ff.]. A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 ETHAN (jp'x).—1. ‘THE EZRAHITE’ of 1 K 4% 
 
 
 
ETHANIM 
 
 
 
 and Ps 89 (title). In the first of these passages he 
 is mentioned along with other contemporaries (?) 
 of Solomon, who were all surpassed in wisdom by 
 the Jewish monarch. In 1 Ch 2°he is said to have 
 been a Judean of the family of Zerah, which is 
 rob. another form of Ezrah (hence the patronymic 
 zrahite). Instead of ‘the Ezrahite’ it has been 
 proposed to render ‘njjx of 1 K 4°! ‘the native,’ i.e. 
 the Isrzziite, in opposition to some of the other 
 wise men named, who were foreigners (Cheyne, Job 
 and Solomon, p. 131). The ascribing of Ps 89 to 
 E. occasioned one of the curiosities of Rabbinical 
 exegesis. ‘N7]¥ was connected with n> (the east), 
 then ‘the man from the east’ of Is 41? was inter- 
 reted of Abraham, and Ethan the Ezrahite was 
 identified with the patriarch, who thus became the 
 author of the psalm (Driver, LOT p. xxxiii, n.). 
 2, An ancestor of Asaph (1 Ch 6%). In v.2 he is 
 called Joah. 3. The eponymous ancestor of a guild 
 of temple-singers (mentioned along with Heman 
 and Asaph in 1 Ch 6“ 15!”-” etc.). His genealogy 
 is traced the Chronicler back to Merari, one of 
 the sons of! Levi. He is generally identified with 
 Jeduthun. (See JEDUTHUN.) J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ETHANIM (o-ynxq, ’"A@apely B, ‘Adavelu A, Ethanim, 
 1 K 8?). See TIME. 
 
 ETHANUS, one of the ‘ swift scribes’ who wrote 
 to the dictation of Ezra (2 Es 14%). The name 
 occurs in the MSS variously as Ecanus, Echanus, 
 Elkana, etc. : 
 
 ETHBAAL (ysnx ‘with Baal,’ i.e. enjoying 
 his favour and protection ; "IeGeBdad B, "IaGdad A, 
 ‘Te98dad Luc.).—King of the Sidonians, and father 
 of Jezebel wife of Ahab king of Israel (1 K 16*4). 
 
 According to Jos., Ittobaal (’1@éBanos, El0w- 
 Banos, t.e. 2vziax ‘Baal is with him,’ a form of the 
 name peered by Thenius, Stade, ete.) was king 
 of the Tyrians and Sidonians (Ant. VIII. xiii. 1), and 
 is stated by Menander the Ephesian to have been a 
 priest of Astarte who attained to the throne by the 
 murder of the usurper Phelles (C. Ap. i. 18). This 
 identification with the Ethbaal of K is allowed by 
 moderns. The Taylor cylinder, col. ii. 48, mentions 
 a later king of Sidon of the same name; Assyr. 
 Tuba’'lu (Schrader, COT, on Gn 10"). 
 
 C. F. BURNEY. 
 
 ETHER (py), Jos 15 197.—A town of Judah 
 noticed with Libnah, apparently near the plain of 
 Philistia, given to Simeon, and near Rimmon. The 
 site is unknown. 
 
 ETHICS.—The treatment of this subject is in- 
 volved in a certain amount of difficulty, from the 
 fact that while the ethical character of the whole 
 Jewish dispensation is strongly and unmistakably 
 marked, there is no ethical system, strictly so 
 called, in the Bible at all. The ethical ideas, like 
 the metaphysical ideas, underlie the histories, the 
 prophecies, the legislation, and the writings of the 
 apostles; they are not deduced or criticised, but 
 assumed as premises. For such a purpose as 
 that of the present article they have to be ex- 
 tracted and presented systematically; and there 
 is always danger that when this is done some 
 greater precision of definition may be given to 
 the ideas than they really possessed. 
 
 There is another difficulty, even greater than 
 this, which arises from the critical discussions 
 recently raised over the authorship and date of 
 beoks. This presses more hardly on the student 
 of OT ideas than of Christianity. For even if the 
 date of individual books of the NT be uncertain, 
 the margin of uncertainty is comparatively narrow ; 
 and the period within which they all must fall 
 is, comparatively speaking, a short one. Hence 
 
 
 
 ETHICS 777 
 
 critical questions may be neglected without any 
 serious loss. But with the OT it is different, 
 We can no longer take for granted the traditional 
 order or date of the books; and, what is much 
 more serious, the period within which they must 
 all have been written is a very long one, so that 
 it would be unreasonable to expect that the ethical 
 oint of view can have suffered no serious change. 
 t is obviously impossible to discuss the various 
 critical questions by the way. We can only call 
 attention to the part they play in the whole dis- 
 cussion of our present subject, and then leave 
 them aside. The plan of the present article is, 
 then, to set forth the ethical ideas in the Bible, 
 as far as possible, without reference to the literary 
 history of the books, following such order as the 
 subject itself seems to require. 
 
 I. IN THE OT AND ApocryPHA.—The first 
 point requiring attention is one of great import- 
 ance, which will have decisive significance in 
 regard to our whole subject-matter. With the 
 partial exception (considered later) of the Sapien- 
 tial Books, the whole of the Jewish Scriptures are 
 under the sway of religion. The ruling idea of 
 life was conditioned by the eae conception 
 of God, and the peculiar relation in which the 
 Jewish people stood towards Him. Hence the 
 larger portion of the discussions with which other 
 ethical writings have made us familiar, has no 
 place whatever in Jewish literature. Greek ethi- 
 cal speculation busied itself with the questions of 
 the end of life, or the ideal order of life, or the 
 nature of virtue, or the sanction of the moral 
 law. But to the Jewish mind all these questions 
 were prejudged by the peculiarly close relation 
 of religion with life. The God they worshipped 
 was to the Jews the source and the sanction of 
 the moral law. Their moral evolution consisted 
 in their gradual discovery of the full meaning of 
 their primary ethical conviction. Their notion of 
 the content of the ethical idea varied as time 
 went on; their history is, in a sense, reflected in 
 their ethical evolution. Things which at one time 
 were thought compatible with the due worship of 
 God, cease to be thought so; but the general 
 relation in which they stand to God remains un- 
 disturbed: morality 1s, to them, the embodied 
 will of God. 
 
 It follows necessarily from this that there are, 
 roughly speaking, two, and only two, questions for 
 the Jewish moralists. (1) What conduct does God 
 command? (2) What conduct does God forbid? 
 Why He ordains or prohibits one or another line 
 of conduct does not matter to them. They are 
 concerned only with the fact. The answers to 
 these remoter questions may, to seme extent, be 
 revealed in the process of moral evolution, but 
 they are not of primary interest or importance. 
 The central question is that of the actual content 
 of the divine law. 
 
 It might seem, at first sight, as if this theory 
 of the moral law must exclude a people from 
 any marked development in ethical matters. The 
 most cursory glance, however, at the actual facts 
 would destroy this supposition. The law of God 
 is adapted to various stages in the progress of the 
 people, and enforces the morality characteristic of 
 the stage at which they are. It is obvious that 
 this must necessarily have been the case. If, as 
 the Jews believed, God Himself revealed the moral 
 law to them, it must necessarily have been in 
 terms which they could understand. It would 
 have been idle, for instance, to promulga‘e to a 
 nation, as yet only in the tribal stage of its exist- 
 ence, a law which assumed the existence of settled 
 civic ideas. Thus the conviction of the special 
 union of God with His people, and interest, in 
 their moral life, affects the character of the evolu. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 778 
 
 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 tion of ethical ideas, but does not prevent their 
 real growth. 
 
 (A) The Pentateuch and the Historical Books. 
 —The note of law is struck in the account 
 of Paradise and the Fall. In this story we have 
 all the elements of the ethical idea as it presented 
 itself to the Jews. God gave a command which 
 man disobeyed. In like manner the sin which 
 led to the Flood was disobedience or rebellion 
 against God. The law of murder, enacted after 
 the Flood has disappeared, is given as a definite 
 act of legislation on the part of God (Gn 94"). In 
 the same way the sin of Sodom is represented as 
 an outrage upon God; and the destruction of the 
 cities as the judgment of God. When we reach 
 the times of Abraham the same phenomena appear 
 in a more complex form. The intercourse between 
 God and man, of which the covenant after the 
 Flood was typical, is concentrated and intensified 
 in the relation of God with Abraham. A demand 
 is made for a more complete and detailed obedi- 
 ence; and the rite of circumcision has a special 
 significance assigned to it. The special covenant 
 is based on the readiness of Abraham to accept 
 the guidance of God; cf. Gn 171-2. ‘The Lorp 
 appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God 
 Almighty: walk before me, and be thou perfect. 
 And I will make my covenant between me and 
 thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.’ The 
 same idea of a covenant is sustained throughout 
 the whole history between Abraham and Moses; 
 the people are regarded as standing in a peculiar 
 relation to God, and bound by it to certain lines 
 of conduct. The protection and interest of God 
 in the chosen family is represented as a thing 
 which they are bound to cherish with the greatest 
 care, and it is implied throughout that the arrange- 
 ment is part of a larger scheme. The sin of Esau 
 consists in the neglect of this covenanted right of 
 access to God; and the blessing of Jacob consists 
 in his fitness to be the vehicle of the covenant- 
 relation, rather than in any commendation be- 
 stowed upon his own character. 
 
 Whatever may be the literary history of the 
 books in which this story is preserved, there is 
 no doubt that it represents the belief of the Jewish 
 people, and, that being so, it characterized their 
 ethical ideas. But it is important to notice also 
 the area of moral action covered by the commands 
 of God. We have already noticed the prohibition 
 of murder, and the condemnation of Sodom. Apart 
 from these, the morality consistent with the stage 
 of civilization so far attained is implicitly per- 
 mitted. There is no condemnation of polygamy ; 
 the fraud of Abraham upon Abimelech is not con- 
 demned, though its uselessness is displayed by the 
 action of God; and, in like manner, Jacob’s fraud 
 upon Isaac is shown to be unprofitable by the 
 fact of his exile. At the same time the witness 
 of God is sought in order to preserve the validity 
 of treaties (Gn 267"), and His worship is regarded 
 as distinct from that of many other deities. There 
 is little sign at present of any elaborate moral 
 reform depending on the covenant-relation ; and 
 the morality of the people as it is described is 
 strictly governed by principles which prevail in 
 the patriarchal stage. What is new and has the 
 germs of much of the future development in it, is 
 the intensification of the idea of the tribal God. 
 The relation asserted between God and the family 
 of Abraham is peculiarly close and far-reaching 
 in its character; and the ground is prepared for 
 the substitution of a moral for a physical or tribal 
 basis of the covenant. 
 
 The next stage in the history as it is presented 
 in the OT books is marked by the Levitical leqis- 
 lation. It is here, probably, that the difficulties 
 caused by critical discussions reach their highest 
 
 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 point. In pursuance of our plan we shall describe, 
 first, the facts of the legislation as they stand, and 
 reserve such discussion as there is space for, of 
 
 the bearing of criticism upon the matter. Under 
 the head of the Mosaic legislation we have to con- 
 sider the Decalogue, the Priestly Code, and the 
 Deuteronomic exposition of the Mosaic law. This 
 will involve a brief consideration of the meaning 
 and character of Sacrifice, and the meaning of Sin. 
 Of the Decalogue it is not necessary to say 
 much. We need only call attention to the fact 
 that it consists of two distinct parts: one con- 
 taining prohibitions concerning man’s relations to 
 God, the other dealing more directly with ordinary 
 social questions. The Decalogue throws compara- 
 tively little light on the condition of society at 
 the time of its promulgation. It deals with acts 
 forbidden before, such as murder and idolatry ; 
 but its last three sections imply the existence of 
 a settled mode of life different from that of the 
 patriarchal family. Theft, false witness, and 
 covetous desire belong to a social state in which 
 there existed within the social whole various 
 houses or families holding property. The process of 
 Evvocxeouds must have taken place; but beyond this 
 there is nothing that can be said definitely. It is, 
 however, important to notice that the command- 
 ments come with the tmprimatur of God upon 
 them, and that the covenant-relation is alluded 
 to in the prefatory verse as it stands in Ex 20?;: 
 ‘I am the LorpD thy God, which brought thee out 
 of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.’ 
 The Priestly Code consists of a number of regu- 
 lations which are largely ceremonial in character. 
 The laws of ceremonial uncleanness and other 
 kindred matters are precisely defined: the great 
 occasions of the ecclesiastical year are ordained, 
 and the ritual] due to them established. Further, 
 the various types of sacrifice are described, the 
 occasions on which they are to be performed, and 
 the method of performing them. In regard to 
 the whole of this legislation, we need only for 
 our present purpose to call attention to two points. 
 In the first place, it is important to observe that 
 the whole order is rested upon the covenant - 
 relation with God, and, more than this, that the 
 character of God is placed in definite connexion 
 with the rules laid down. The holiness of God 
 requires this elaborate ceremonial order to pre- 
 serve it from the contamination of hasty and 
 unfit intruders, and’ to retain the condition of 
 the people at a level high enough to enable them 
 to use their covenant privileges. This is proved 
 by the refrain which recurs at intervals in the 
 course of Leviticus—‘I am the LoRD’; and b 
 such marked phrases as the ether 8 ‘Ye shall 
 not profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed 
 among the children of Israel; I am the LorD 
 which hallow you, that brought you out of the 
 land of Egypt to be your God; I am the LoRD’ 
 (Ly 2252-8), But, in the second place, it is no 
 less important to notice the extraordinarily limited 
 moral range of the laws enacted. In Lv 6 there 
 is a short list of moral delinquencies which require 
 the atonement of a guilt offering. These consist 
 chiefly of broken pledge and other forms of dis- 
 honest dealing. Besides this there are sacrifices 
 ordained for sins of ignorance: ‘If any one shall 
 sin unwittingly, in any of the things which the 
 LorD hath commanded not to be done, and shall 
 do any one of them; and if the anointed priest 
 shall sin so_as to bring guilt upon the people’ 
 (Lv 4%), If we are justified in referring this 
 command to the legislation which appears in 
 Exodus, it will include a certain number of other 
 moral delinquencies. Thus, besides the Deca- 
 logue, there are regulations concerning assault 
 and murder, the proper treatment of slaves, the 
 

 
 ETHICS 
 
 ETHICS 779 
 
 a 
 
 relations of parents and children, and specially 
 concerning idol-worship and magic. Besides these 
 there are ordinances referring to lost property ; 
 the duty of actively aiding the restoration of 
 straying animals is inculcated; the poor are re- 
 membered, and severe condemnations passed upon 
 those who judge unjustly. The service for the 
 Day of Atonement is placed in close connexion 
 with the unwarranted intrusion of the sons of 
 Aaron into the presence of the Lord (Lv 16'), and 
 is ed intended to do away with ceremonial 
 breaches of the covenant - relation, though the 
 ritual would lend itself easily to a deeper mean- 
 ing. See ATONEMENT (Day OF). 
 _. the legislation in the Book of Deuteronomy, as 
 it stands at present, covers a good deal of the 
 a of the preceding books. It repeats and 
 further develops laws elsewhere laid down. There 
 is the same rigorous condemnation of idolatry, the 
 same care for justice and equality between man 
 and man, and the like. But there is a more pro- 
 nounced insistence on the moral character of God, 
 and the close relation of God to the people in view 
 of His moral character. He is represented as 
 demanding exclusive worship, but as being faithful 
 and long-suffering (Dt 7°), caring not only for the 
 eople of His choice, but also in a special degree 
 or the fatherless and stranger. The characteristic 
 feature of Dt is that which it is now the fashion 
 to call its parenetic tone; it goes so far, indeed, 
 as to find a spiritual meaning for circumcision as 
 opposed to that which is purely ceremonial. 
 oreover, the relation of the people to God is 
 presented in a more spiritual manner: the ‘ first 
 great commandment of the law,’ ‘Thou shalt love 
 the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all 
 my, soul, and with all thy mind,’ is in Dt 65,* ; 
 
 t has seemed hardly consistent with the subject 
 of the present article to go into any preciseness of 
 detail as regards the Pent. legislation. Enough, 
 however, has been said to establish the truth of 
 the position maintained at the outset, that morality 
 for the Jew meant that which God had commanded ; 
 immorality, that which God forbade. Itis obvious 
 that the Bk. of Dt takes a slightly different view 
 of moral life from that which is expounded in Ly. 
 The laws penpaige : the functions of judges 
 (1238: ), the kingly office (1744), the single central 
 shrine, and the killing of animals for food (125), 
 clearly contemplate, either in fact or in anticipa- 
 tion, the position of a settled nation. Similar 
 cases might be quoted from the earlier books. 
 But whereas in Ly the largest portion of the }wok 
 concerns the ritual order in the land of Canaan, 
 the Bk. of Dt is chiefly concerned with the 
 religious effect upon the people. 
 
 One fact, however, is noticeable about all the books alike, and 
 that is the highly archaic character of the regulations them- 
 selves. The law and the ritual of sacrifice, the importance 
 given to ceremonial pollution, the practices connected with the 
 avenger of blood, the use of the lex talionis, the levirate law of 
 marriage, the use of the ordeal, are all of them archaic in char- 
 acter, and must have survived into later Judaism out of an 
 archaic state of society. As in other cases upon which anthro- 
 pology has thrown much light, practices have survived after their 
 primary meaning has been lost. It is therefore reasonable to 
 suppose that the evolution of ethics among the Jews followed 
 something like the same course as among other progressive 
 nations. Having been first expressed in terms analogous to 
 those of early humanity all the world over, the distinctively 
 moral elements were disentangled from the mass of rudimentary 
 ideas, and took their place as the ruling principles of the 
 religious polity of Judwa. It has sometimes been maintained 
 that the elaborate ceremonial is a subsequent development to 
 the more spiritual attitude of Deuteronomy. This is surely 
 inconsistent with the teaching of anthropology. The more 
 aegis conceptions rise naturally out of the less spiritual ; 
 
 e moral truth breaks loose from the half-savage practice in 
 which it was enshrined. It is almost inconceivable that this 
 order should be reversed; and that the mind of the nation 
 should have passed from a lofty spiritual conception of life to 
 
 * The second, ‘ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, occurs 
 in Ly 1918, ~ : 
 
 one that belongs by natural association to minds largely buried 
 in matter. The characteristic note of this legislation is that 
 God takes command over life as a whole, and, while the actual 
 condition of the people is left unaltered, the way is prepared for 
 further progress: The fundamental ideas as to right and wron 
 
 and the proper means of communicating with the national Go 
 
 are left unmodified ; but practices are condemned which degrade 
 and materialize the life of the nation and its conceptions of 
 
 It has often been observed that the indications 
 of the operation of the Levitical law are rare, if 
 not altogether non-existent, in the historical books. 
 It is certainly true that the supremacy of the 
 sanctuary at Shiloh, and then later at Jerus., falls 
 considerably short of the unique sanctity ascribed 
 in the law to the central shrine of J”. Further, 
 there are no records of the celebration of the legal 
 feasts till the time of the later kings. It is plain 
 that the worship of J” had not established its hold 
 upon the common people; they are continually 
 liable to defections to the gods of neighbouring 
 races. Moreover, the unity of the people is hardly 
 attained ; there are obviously differences of opinion 
 and interest between various tribes. These facts 
 and others like them have been quoted, reasonably 
 enough, as bearing on the literary history of the 
 books of the law. They do not affect what has 
 been said above as to the archaic character of 
 many of the legal enactments. And we may say 
 even more than this. The records contained in 
 the historical books are the records of a people 
 emerging from the tribal state into that of national 
 life. The assumptions of such a state of things 
 underlie the action of Jael: they are displayed in 
 the wars of extermination which form a somewhat 
 repellent feature (to modern eyes) in the history 
 of the invasion of Canaan, and in Samuel’s de- 
 nunciation of the Amalekites; they appear in the 
 attitude of the Jews towards the gods of the 
 neighbouring tribes, still more noticeably in such a 
 story as that of the Levite and his concubine (Jg 
 19. 20), or that of Micah the Ephraimite (7b. 17. 18). 
 
 The means by which the change is effected is, 
 to a large extent, the institution of the Kingship. 
 It is this that prevents the separate action of the 
 separate tribes, and develops the idea of a justice 
 which is due to an individual, as opposed to the 
 tribal notion according to which the tribe, not the 
 individual, is the unit. At the same time it is 
 clear that J” is regarded as the protector of moral 
 rights. David, for instance, commends Abigail 
 for preserving him from the sin against the Lord 
 that reckless vengeance implies (1 § 257%), The 
 eating of blood is a sin against J” (1S 14%); there 
 is, to use a modern phrase, a taboo upon the shew- 
 bread offered to J”;+ and other cases might be 
 
 uoted showing that, though evidence is lacking 
 or a complete ecclesiastical organization. such as 
 is described in the Pent., much of tne legislation 
 embodied therein (and therefore the morality 
 implied by it) dates from a time in which these 
 social ideas prevailed. 
 
 (B) The Prophetical Literature.—We must now 
 turn to the prophets and endeavour to estimate 
 the importance of their work in the ethical develop- 
 ment of Israel. They are rightly identified with 
 the higher moral progress of the people; but it is 
 necessary in dealing with them, more even than 
 with any of the other OT authors, to remember 
 that their writings are occasional and not system- 
 atic. They deal with the condition of the people 
 as it appears to them, they comment on the vices 
 which arrest their attention, and they give special 
 weight to the effect of these lines of conduct on 
 the field of politics, 
 
 * Of. Lv 18% 201-6, Dt 1225 ete. 
 
 + It is not accurate to say, with Wellhausen (Proleg. p. 181, 
 Eng. tr.), that there is no distinction between holy and unholy in 
 the matter of the shew-bread. 
 
780 ETHICS 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 
 
 The cycle of ideas in which the prophets move 
 is much the same in outline, though of course 
 some speak more precisely and fully than others. 
 
 (a) The most conspicuous feature in their moral 
 doctrine is their sense of the union of the nation 
 with God, and the interest of God in the moral 
 development of men. Condemnations of idolatry 
 and of all forms of defection from the proper 
 allegiance to God are frequent in the prophetic 
 books. The nation is described under the figure 
 of a bride, bound by the marriage-tie to J’, and 
 continually breaking it. This appears in Is, Jer, 
 Ezk, Hos; it will not be necessary to quote 
 pee in illustration of so familiar a phrase. 
 
 he practices most frequently condemned are 
 unrighteous judgment, oppression of the poor, and 
 various forms of luxury and extravagance, especi- 
 ally drunkenness. These do not take us much 
 beyond the ideas which appear in the earliest 
 legislation. The development is to be found rather 
 in the application of the ideas which have already 
 prevailed, and in the appearance of some of the 
 
 roblems which necessarily belong to moral life. 
 
 hus the theory of evil receives some considera- 
 tion. We have seen that the ceremonial legis- 
 lation referred largely to ceremonial pollutions. 
 It may possibly have teen due to this association 
 that the presence of evil was treated as a taint 
 which affected others besides the actual sinner. 
 On the other hand, holiness or righteousness 
 was also regarded as a state which was effectual 
 as a preservation against judgment. Thus in 
 Abraham’s colloquy with God (Gn 18) the presence 
 of righteous persons is admitted as a reason for 
 suspending the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. 
 There is, of course, a real moral difficulty con- 
 tained in this doctrine. It must be remembered 
 that evil is inseparably connected by the Jews with 
 acts of rebellion, t.e. with individual self-will and 
 disobedience. If, therefore, others who have not 
 taken part in the sin are involved in its con- 
 sequences, it is obvious that a serious question 
 must be raised as to the definition of responsibility, 
 and the relation of responsibility to guilt. We 
 find in Is a sense of the polluting effect of the 
 presence of evil. Thus in the account of his call 
 to the prophetic work (6°) he says: ‘Woe is me, 
 for Iam undone; because I am a man of unclean 
 lips, and I dwell among a people of unclean lips.’ 
 Isaiah expresses the general effect of evil in the 
 people, and acknowledges its influence upon him- 
 self. It is, further, a general doctrine of the OT 
 that the guilt of sin extends to those who are con- 
 nected with the sinner, as is expressed in the 
 second commandment. These ideas give rise to 
 several lines of moral speculation. In the first 
 plare. the sense of individual responsibility is 
 ey strengthened, so that we find in Ezk a 
 
 efinite restriction or correction of the principle 
 laid down in the Decalogue. Thus (ch. 18”), ‘The 
 soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not 
 bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the 
 father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteous- 
 ness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the 
 wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.’ 
 This position is carried out on the side of virtue 
 also ; the presence even of the three men, Noah, 
 Daniel, and Job, shall not avail to suspend 
 judgment upon a sinful city (Ezk 14!?), nor shall 
 righteousness at one time prevent judgment if a 
 soul relapse into wickedness (Ezk 33!"-), Responsi- 
 bility belongs to the individual soul for actual 
 things done, and for nothing else. 
 
 On the other hand, the prevalence of evil and 
 the uncertain incidence of aftliction absolutely 
 prevent the adoption of the view that each man 
 is punished simply for his own sins. Evil enters 
 far too deeply into the constitution of things to be 
 
 Hence we find in Ie 
 and elsewhere the view expressed that God worka 
 through evil, and leads men to higher things 
 This notion is involved in the idea of visitation , 
 it gives meaning to the metaphor of the refining 
 jire; and it expresses itself in the doctrine of the 
 
 explained on these terms. 
 
 faithful remnant. These are they on whom sutier- 
 ing and trouble have done their proper work ; they 
 have learnt the lessons which God was teaching 
 them. This conception reaches a climax in Is 53. 
 The boldness in language, which is so characteristic 
 of the prophets, is nowhere more noticeable than 
 in some isolated statements to be found on the 
 subject of evil. Not content with describing the 
 probationary functions of it in the divine order, 
 both Amos and Deutero-Isaiah speak of it as the 
 direct effect of God’s action. ‘Shall evil befall a 
 city, and the Lord hath not done it?’ Am 3% ‘TI 
 form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, 
 and create evil; I am the Lord that doeth all 
 these things,’ Is 45’. These passages, in which 
 ‘evil’ has not the moral sense but =‘ calamity,’ 
 ‘misfortune,’ are not inconsistent with the con- 
 demnation of sin ascribed to God, and with His 
 character as elsewhere described. Their real aim 
 is to express in the sharpest form the absolute 
 supremacy of God over the whole course of things. 
 
 (6) A second point in regard to which the pro- 
 
 hetic attitude is fairly consistent is the contrast 
 letwoad ceremonial performance and real morality. 
 The emphasis laid by the prophets upon the moral 
 law, the growing sense of the holiness of God, the 
 comparative lack of moral reference in the cere- 
 monial legislation, are factors in this development. 
 Sacrifice in various parts of the world has tended 
 to pass from an act of communion into an act of 
 commerce. Instead of being a means of reopening 
 intercourse that had in some way become sus- 
 pended, it is a process of barter by which some- 
 thing valuable is given up or destroyed in order 
 to secure some gain. Further, the tendency to 
 polytheism—so rife in Palestine during the time 
 of the kings—rests upon an assumption that it is 
 worth while to make friends with a variety of 
 gods in hopes of benefits to be received from them. 
 This theory, as well as the other, is inconsistent 
 alike with the ceremonial law as we now read it, 
 and with the prophetic doctrine of God. In pro- 
 portion, therefore, as the sense of moral conditions 
 to communion with God prevailed over every 
 other, it became necessary to insist on the in- 
 adequacy of sacrifice in itself as a means of re- 
 ligious approach. This law is a common subject 
 of the declamation of the prophets. We find it in- 
 Is (1°17), Jer (6!% 2° ete.), Hos (24 6%), Am (ch. 6), 
 Mie (ch. 2), Zec (75), and many other places, 
 and in a most elaborate form in IL Is (58). In all 
 these, the close relation of J” to His people, their 
 sinfulness and His hatred of sin, are the basal 
 assumptions. It is the sense of the failure of 
 material means of intercourse, and the difficulty 
 of the more spiritual view of moral life, that gives 
 force to the whole doctrine of salvation. The 
 moral character of God was itself an assertion that 
 evil was not final. If the means at hand of getting 
 rid of it were inadequate, God Himself must take 
 measures to remove it. The one thing certain is 
 that it cannot remain unmodified ; the holiness of 
 God forbids this. Hence we find God continually 
 represented as longing to pardon—rising up early 
 and sending His prophets—that men may come 
 back to their allegiance, and realize the blessings 
 of the covenant-union. The two ideas are here 
 held together—the separation from God caused by 
 sin—the prospect of forgiveness from the side of 
 God. It would take us into the region of theology, 
 pure and simple, if we discussed this matver 
 further ; but it is impossible to avoid reference to 
 
 
 
a 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 
 
 
 
 it, as it is the characteristic feature of the ethics 
 of the |S are and is perhaps un inevitable 
 result of the peculiarly theological tone of the 
 ethical thought of Tel. 
 
 It has already been observed that the Oy 
 list of virtues and vices in the prophets falls 
 roughly under the same heads as those in the 
 law. They are vices or virtues connected with 
 the intercourse of man with man; in other words, 
 they are political rather than ethical, in the 
 narrower sense. They belong to the political 
 activity of the prophets, and express their influence 
 upon the ordinary life of the State. 
 
 There are, besides these, certain other conditions 
 mentioned from time to time which are more 
 purely subjective. Such is the peace which comes 
 to those who are in true union with God, which 
 the wicked can never share. But these are not 
 the most frequent types of virtue. For these and 
 such conditions we must go to the Psalms. 
 
 (C) The Psalms really require a treatise to 
 themselves to set forth their ethical contents 
 adequately. They have formed men’s devotional 
 handbook for century after century; and this, in 
 spite of the fact that they are full of national feel- 
 ing, and are unmistakably Jewish. There are 
 frequent allusions in them to the situation of the 
 Jewish people in politics or warfare; they must 
 have been written, in many cases, like the pro- 
 phecies, in close connexion with various political 
 events. Yet their significance is never exhausted. 
 They have the twofold right to perpetuity, that 
 they regard the current history in the light of the 
 permanent principles that underlie all history and 
 all life, and that they present these in the form of the 
 highest poetry. The Psalmists see in the events 
 of their own day the manifestation of the divine 
 laws, and it is often this aspect of them alone 
 which they present. Hence the task of dating the 
 Psalms is no easy one; the particular immediate 
 event is often lost in the sense of the universal 
 laws, the working of which it displays. In this 
 connexion, as before in this article, we must dis- 
 claim any intention of discussing or deciding the 
 dates of the individual psalms, and confine our- 
 selves to a general presentation of the moral indi- 
 cations in the book as a whole. 
 
 As before in Jewish writings, we have to notice 
 the decisive way in which the character of God is 
 represented as the rule for the character of man. 
 A very striking one is given to this prin- 
 ciple in Ps 187-25 (RV): ‘ With the merciful thou wilt 
 show thyself merciful; with the perfect man thou 
 wilt show thyself perfect ; with the pure thou wilt 
 
 ~ show thyself pure; and with the perverse thou 
 
 wilt show thyself froward.’ The reference of all 
 this is put beyond question by the next verse: ‘ For 
 thou wilt save the afflicted people ; but the haught, 
 eyes thou wilt bring down’ (cf. Ps 25°10 971. UY, 
 and many other passages). Here, therefore, in 
 the most decisive way, the character of God is 
 represented as the moral ideal. If we ask, further, 
 for greater detail in regard to this divine char- 
 acter, we find many points of contact with the 
 books already considered. It is a commonplace 
 throughout the Psalms that God has a fiery hatred 
 of evil. This is especially displayed in a hatred of 
 all forms of oppression. ‘For the spoiling of the 
 poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, 
 saith the LorD’ (12°). ‘Depart from evil, and do 
 ood ; seek peace, and pursue it. The eyes of the 
 ORD are toward the righteous, and his ears are 
 open unto their cry.... The righteous cried, and 
 the Lorp heard, and delivered them out of all 
 their troubles. The LorD is nigh unto them that 
 are of a broken heart, and saveth such as be of a 
 contrite spirit’ (3448), It is probably this care 
 for the poor that leads, both in the Ps and Dt, to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ETHICS 781 
 
 
 
 the condemnation of usury (Ps 155) and of un. 
 righteous judgment (Ps 82 throughout). But the 
 Psalmists take us much further than this con- 
 demnation of wickedness. God is represented as 
 a God of loving-kindness—that is, looking with 
 interest and love upon mankind. It is this char- 
 acter which, if the age may be used, accounts 
 for and is expressed in the special intimacy be- 
 tween the Lord and His people. ‘The earth is full 
 of the loving-kindness of the Lorp’ (Ps 335): 
 it is ‘in the multitude of the loving-kindness’ of 
 God that the Psalmist goes to the temple (Ps 5”) : 
 ‘He showeth loving-kindness to his anointed, to 
 David, and to his seed for evermore’ (Ps 18°). 
 The merciful nature of God shows itself in two 
 directions: in forgiveness and in judgment. The 
 two are not apparently regarded as incompatible. 
 He is full of compassion and gracious, slow to 
 anger and plenteous in mercy (Ps 1038). ‘If thou, 
 Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall 
 stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that 
 thou mayest be feared’ (Ps 130*4). At the same 
 time, upon those who work wickedness, the judg- 
 ment of God falls severely and relentlessly. ‘ Thou 
 settest them in slippery places; thou casteth them 
 down to destruction’ (Ps 7318 etc.). 
 
 The character of God as thus described forms 
 the model of the true follower of J”. His central 
 motive is that of love and adoration to God; but, 
 at the same time, he so far identifies himself with 
 the cause of God that he too burns with anger 
 against the wicked. This is partly the explana- 
 tion of the tone of unmodified hatred that 
 pervades certain psalms (esp. 69. 109). It is not 
 merely the annoyance of a person whose will is 
 crossed, and who vents himself in petulant cursing 
 of those who stand in his way. It is the wrath of 
 the person who feels that God’s cause is attacked 
 through him, and who is persecuted by the powers 
 of evil. Such a condition is no doubt a perilous 
 one; but it is important to observe that these 
 psalms by no means stand alone. The echo of 
 conflict pervades the whole book. The course of 
 this world is largely affected by the presence of 
 sin and unfaitheatiene The followers of God are 
 not by any means in the majority ; nor do they 
 always prevail against their enemies. They pass 
 through times of EpErs on, of menace, of per- 
 secution ; they are the victims of treachery in the 
 house of friends ; they see the ungodly in eget 
 prosperity, and the holy things of God defiled and 
 insulted. This condition of the world produces 
 the fury against the enemies of God, already men- 
 tioned, together with some other remarkable con- 
 ditions of mind. It is to this—the apparent 
 triumph of the enemy—that we must assign the 
 sense of being forsaken by God Himself which 
 appears in Ps 22; to this also is to be traced the 
 perplexity of mind as regards the providence of 
 God which appears in Ps 73. The moods in which 
 this problem is approached vary greatly. At times 
 it produces deep depression, almost despair; at 
 times it is treated (as in Ps 37) with calm and 
 
 uiet triumph. But it is important, for it is to 
 hs Jewish mind the fundamental problem of 
 ethics, to account for the lack of apparent balanze 
 between a man’s lot and the life he leads. The 
 idea of the probationary value of suffering appears 
 in some places; but the full discussion of the 
 problem belongs rather to the Sapiential Books 
 than to the Psalms. 
 
 It would not, however, be true to suppose that 
 all the evil in the world is due to the action of the 
 enemies of God. There are in, many places signs 
 that sinfulness is regarded as a trouble that 
 touches even the good. It erects a barrier between 
 the soul and God which sacrifices and _burnt-offer- 
 ings are powerless to break down. In one place 
 
 
 

 
 782 ETHICS 
 
 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 ee EE EE EEE Ee eee 
 
 (Ps 51°) it seems to be regarded as affecting the 
 actual birth of men. The man stands in solitary 
 responsibility before God (497514) ; and the essence 
 of sin consists in not having the heart right 
 (788). ‘Together with this sense of incapacity and 
 weakness ege be classed the yearning after God 
 which marks Ps 42, and the passionate enthusiasm 
 for the service of God which appears in Pss 119 
 and 84. 
 
 There would be no difficulty in extending largely 
 this account of the ethical features of the Psalms; 
 but the space at our disposal does not permit it. 
 We therefore can only point out here the general 
 character of the whole book. It is essentially a 
 book of reflective devotion. The whole of life is 
 viewed from the point of view of the worship of 
 and intercourse with J”. It never reaches the 
 point of ethical theory, even in regard to the 
 ethical problem noticed above. The solution, so 
 far as any is offered, is always spiritual and 
 religious, and not philosophical. 
 
 (D) The Sapiential Books.—It is in these only 
 that we find any definite ethical philosophy among 
 the Jews ; and even in these, speculation moves over 
 a restricted area. Asin other nations, speculation 
 begins in the proverbial form; the first moral 
 philosophers were men who spoke proverbs. ‘These 
 trace their intellectual lineage to the wise king 
 Solomon, who was wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, 
 and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of 
 Mahol... and who spake three thousand pro- 
 verbs (1 K 4*4-), These proverbs, if we may judge 
 from the Bk. of Pr as we have it, were of a some- 
 what utilitarian tone. They started with the 
 assumption that virtue leads to worldly success and 
 happiness; and they dwelt on this relation with 
 various degrees of insistence. They were maxims 
 of ordinary prudence, rather than speculations as 
 to ultimate moral problems, and the religious view 
 of all these questions was somewhat left on one 
 side. Moral practice is still closely allied with 
 the fear of the Lorp, but its natural outcome is 
 expected to appear in the form of worldly pros- 
 perity. Thus 3%?° ‘Honour the LORD with thy 
 substance, and with the first-fruits of all thine 
 increase: so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, 
 and thy fats shall overflow with new wine.’ The 
 reflections upon life which fill up the larger 
 portion of the book are also somewhat subdued in 
 enthusiasm, and seem to lack in some degree high 
 noral inspiration. But it must not be supposed 
 that commonplace utilitarian reflections are the 
 sum of the contents of the Sapiental Books. It is 
 to these that we must trace the development of 
 two of the most striking of all the ethical figures 
 of the OT—the Wise Man and the Fool. The wise 
 man is he whose life is orderly and well arranged 
 —the man who follows the law of the Lorp. The 
 fool is he who is self-willed and sinful, and whose 
 life therefore lacks principle, and fails to attain 
 success. A large portion of the antitheses in the 
 Bks. of Pr and Sir present the contrasted pictures 
 of these two characters, 
 relations of life; but the essence of the two char- 
 acters lies in their different relation to the law of 
 the Lorp; for the fear of the LorD is the be- 
 ginning of knowledge (Pr 1’, Sir 1”). ‘All 
 wisdom is the fear of the LORD, and in all wisdom 
 is the doing of the law’ (Sir 19”). The grossest 
 forms of transgression, as well as the less im- 
 pressive, are regarded as acts of folly (see ey. Pr 
 72-47, and comp. Pr 10%*® 139° 145° ‘ete.). 1b. 18 
 noticeable that the nature of wisdom and of folly 
 consists, not in an accurate intellectual knowledge 
 of things, but in a prudent or imprudent ordering 
 of life. The wise man shows his wisdom by his 
 
 lans, his control of 
 Paalfassertanis The 
 
 right choice, his far-seeing 
 passion, and avoidance of al 
 
 They are seen in various | 
 
 
 
 fool is he who does the exact opposite of all these 
 things. See Foon. 
 
 It is this notion of a wise ordering of practical 
 life which reappears in the far more magnificent 
 conception which we owe to these books—of the 
 wisdom of God. This is conceived partly as an 
 attribute of God, partly as a couiiaalice standing, 
 as it were, by the throne of God. According to 
 the latter view, which appears in some of the 
 finest | eogad in these books, wisdom was the 
 counsellor and helper of God in the creation of the 
 world (Pr 8, cf. Wis 10, Job 28” ete.), and has been 
 conspicuously embodied in the law (Sir 24%). 
 Wisdom is the power that guides the history of 
 man, and has watched over that of the chosen 
 people (cf. Wis 10"). Hence the previous con- 
 nexion between morality and wisdom is explained. 
 Man’s wisdom consists in following out the em 
 bodied wisdom of God in the law. 
 
 This particular character of the divine wisdom 
 brings us back to the consideration of the problems 
 which, as has been already pointed out, appear in 
 the Psalms. The problem of the true relation of 
 virtuous action or righteousness is set forth, ae 
 in a tragedy, in the Bk. of Job. The author 
 emphasizes the fact that Job was free from all 
 blame in the truest and strictest sense. He bewails 
 his misery—the cruel change of fortune which 
 comes upon him; but in it all ‘he sinned not.’ 
 He neither rejected the verdict of his conscience, 
 which acquitted him of wrong-doing, nor called in 
 question the supreme justice of God. In this he 
 proves superior to the popular opinion on such 
 matters, as it is represented in the utterances of 
 the friends. And the justification of his attitude 
 is found in the answer of J” out of the whirlwind, 
 the point of which consists in the assertion of the 
 variety and mysteriousness of the activity of God. 
 The question is not solved by any philosophical 
 formula, but is referred simply to the nature of 
 God Himself. 
 
 In the Bk. of Ee we find a much more gloomy 
 point of view. In this case the obscurity of the 
 whole matter presses very hard upon the author’s 
 mind. He is impressed with the apparent futility 
 and lack of coherence in the life of man; he can 
 see no purpose served and no object attained by 
 the pursuit of wisdom, or the indulgence of pleasure, 
 or the enjoyment of high place. Everything lies 
 under the doom of vanity; there is no profit under 
 the sun — nothing that endures, and can satisfy 
 man’s desire for the enduring. Under these 
 circumstances he approaches the form of ethical 
 thought which, in wiedeee times, is called pessimism. 
 Indeed he only falls short of it in so far as he finds 
 the good of man in the grim adherence to the com- 
 mandments of God (if Ee 11}8 be genuine). 
 
 In both these works the general view of the life 
 of man is closely akin to that which we have had 
 occasion to notice before. It is noted (Job 15) that 
 Job rose up early in the morning and offered burnt. 
 offerings according to the number of them all (t.e. 
 his family), ‘for Job said, It may be that my sons 
 have sinned, and renounced Gol in their hearts.’ 
 He deemed it necessary to provide against in- 
 advertences of this sort as regards God, and this 
 of course adds to the impression of his complete 
 virtue. In later chapters we find the usual 
 
 emphasis laid upon the protection of the poor, and 
 the wickedness of oppression (cf. ch. 24. 31% ete.), 
 upon purity (ch. 31), and justice (29%). In like 
 
 manner, oppression is one of the things which 
 attracts the attention of the preacher (Ec 41-8), as 
 well as the vanity of the efforts of the righteous, 
 when death comes and cuts short all that he is 
 planning to achieve. 
 
 We may now review briefly the drift of this v: 
 imperfect sketch of the ethical ideas of the ot 
 
 
 

 
 ETHICS 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 
 
 
 
 It seems that the central feature of OT morality is 
 that it is religious; it is grafted on to the national 
 faith and worship. But this must not be taken to 
 imply that the ceremonial order was indissolubly 
 bound up with the moral ideas; the various sacri- 
 fices, and the like, are, on the whole, held apart 
 from the definite scheme (so far as there is one 
 traceable) of virtues and vices. It would be truer 
 to say that the ceremonial order and the ethical 
 @ are two co-ordinate developments of the one 
 pike the holiness of J”. The character of 
 was the final rule of the life of man, and the 
 archaic details of sacrificial purification were filled 
 with this meaning; the great holiness of God 
 demanded cautious approach. On the other hand, 
 the general impression left upon the mind by the 
 history of the people and the reflections upon their 
 life is one of considerable simplicity. The acts 
 condemned, the ideals commended, belong to a 
 comparatively simple condition of society. Acts 
 of violence and oppression are the chief burden of 
 denunciation; the tendency is manifest to exact 
 usurious interest; and there are some few other 
 forms of sin noticed, such as drunkenness and 
 impurity. But the real depth and value of Jewish 
 moral teaching is found, not in the political or 
 social sphere, but in the religious life. It is in the 
 Psalms and in those passages of the Prophets which 
 come nearest in tone to the Psalms that we find 
 the permanent and supreme value of the Jewish 
 notion of life. Varieties of religious emotion and 
 aspiration such as we find in these forms are pos- 
 sible only to a people whose whole ethical outlook 
 is religious. 
 
 Il. In THE NT.—When we pass over into the 
 NT we come into an atmosphere which is in man 
 respects strikingly different from that of the OT. 
 In the first place, the literature covers a com- 
 paratively small area in point of time, instead of 
 containing history and tradition from a long series 
 of ages. Hence the type of life and thought, 
 though there are signs of rapid development in it, 
 is much the same throughout. urther, the 
 history in NT describes in fragmentary style a 
 single life, and the results which flowed from its 
 activity. We are not concerned with the history 
 of a people, but of a body that was included in, 
 but claimed to be wider than, the firmly estab- 
 lished Roman Empire. Our knowledge of its 
 external history is comparatively slight; the 
 emphasis falls on the development of its mind. 
 Hence, while a large portion of OT requires to be 
 explained out of the political history of the time, 
 the tone of NT is more definitely moral, and deals 
 more alee anda with the qualities and errors of 
 individual minds; it is ethical rather than political. 
 And once more, the NT stands in much closer 
 relation to our own modern experience than any- 
 thing in the OT. At the best, it is always difficult 
 to get back to the point of view from which the OT 
 writers spoke and wrote; there is much which it 
 requires careful argumentation to explain at all. 
 But with the NT this is different. In spite of the 
 obvious differences of national character, and the 
 effects of all the history that has happened since, 
 we still feel that we understand and are in sympathy 
 with the ethical attitude of those who wrote the 
 NT books. Indeed, the fact that they seem so little 
 strange is the measure of their effect. 
 
 On the other hand, there are points of very close 
 contact between the OT and the NT. We do not 
 find the same external conditions, but the moral 
 attitude is much the same. The morality of the 
 NT is essentially a religious morality ; it stands in 
 very close relation to the worship of God. That 
 which was hope or aspiration under the old covenant 
 is fulfilled in the new; the access to God, which 
 was before an object of longing, is attained through 
 
 
 
 Christ; the forgiveness, the lask of which so 
 seriously complicated the ancient religious efforts, 
 has become possible through Christ. This is, in 
 fact, the central point in the comparison of the two 
 hace the note of the old covenant is promise, 
 that of the new is fuljilment. From this most of 
 the other differences may be derived, directly or 
 indirectly. 
 
 As in connexion with the OT, so here, it will be 
 impossible to enter into the various critical questions 
 raised over the Gospels and Epistles. Taking the 
 NT as it is, we shall endeavour to indicate its bear- 
 ing on ethical questions. 
 
 (A) The Sermon on the Mount.—Different views 
 have been taken as to the actual history of this 
 sermon as it stands in the Gospels, and of its 
 meaning in relation to the purpose of Christ. All 
 are agreed that it stands to the new covenant as 
 the promulgation of the law on Sinai stood to the 
 old; it contains the law of the new kinedom. 
 From this point of view two questions arise in 
 regard to it. (1) What is its relation to the old 
 law? (2) What new features does it add of its 
 own? 
 
 (1) In the Sermon on the Mount the old law is 
 revised and fulfilled; the precepts which it con- 
 tained are interpreted, and their application 
 deepened. Our Lord definitely aflirms that He 
 has come, not to destroy (kara\dca), but to fulfil 
 (wAnp&cat). Hence He touches on a series of points 
 upon which the law had defined its position, and 
 develops them. The law of Murder includes in its 
 
 rohibition the sin of anger and the harsh un- 
 orgiving temper.* The law against Adultery in- 
 cludes lustful thoughts, and condemns them. The 
 law of Divorce and of Perjury are extended in like 
 manner. But the law of Retaliation is reversed ; 
 and the narrow command to love the neighbour is 
 extended so as to cover the enemy. In all this the 
 difference lies not so much in principle as in inter- 
 pretation. Weare still in the region of law. Com- 
 mands are addressed to the will from without, 
 which it has to obey. But the significance of the 
 law is increased tenfold by means of the application 
 of the rules. They no longer concern outward 
 conduct only ; they touch the inmost springs of con- 
 duct in the heart. In this they are akin to the 
 deeper aspirations of the Prophets and Psalmists ; 
 these too, though with less profound and unflinch- 
 ing moral insight, saw that it was in these inward 
 regions that the real issue of right and wrong was 
 to be tried. In the same way, on the positive side, 
 in the matter of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, 
 our Lord lays emphasis on the spiritual side of 
 these acts, without in any way condemning the 
 exterior and formal aspect of them. 
 
 (2) But the indications given of the character of 
 the citizens of the new kingdom contain the most 
 significant departures from ancient rule.. These 
 appear chiefly in the Beatitudes, and in other parts 
 of the NT in which the character of the new 
 kingdom is described. The nature of the descrip- 
 tion given in the Beatitudes is not, perhaps, easy 
 to bring into formal] order; but there is no question 
 as to the fundamental principles of the character 
 therein set forth. Its rules and interests are in the 
 spiritual world, and there alone. The rewards of 
 its virtues are spiritual. The pure in heart see 
 God ; those that hunger and thirst after righteous- 
 ness gain their desire ; the merciful receive mercy ; 
 the poor in spirit (or the poor, Lk 6”) are those to 
 whom the kingdom of heaven belongs ; the peace- 
 makers are called the sons of God. The meek are 
 said to inherit the earth; but this must not be 
 assumed to contradict the blessing upon those 
 whom the world persecutes. The general drift of 
 the passage is to bless those who are characterized 
 
 * Of. Philo, De Spec. Legg. Tom. ii. p. 314, ed. Mang. 
 
 
 
784 ETHICS 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 
 
 by certain nae qualities, and to leave on one 
 side their relation to the pastas standards of the 
 world. The opinion of the world is, as such, of no 
 value; all that matters is the spiritual condition 
 of the citizens of the kingdom. In like manner, 
 later on in the sermon, the motive to prayer and 
 fasting is found in the same region. The critical 
 temper is excluded from the true life (Mt 7!-5, Lk 
 67-8) ; and it is distinctly asserted that care is to 
 be exercised in the presentation of that which is 
 holy. The whole temper indicated is inward and 
 spiritual, though it is affirmed that the character 
 must be expressed in act: the tree is to be known 
 by its fruit. 
 
 (B) Similar Puneinle appear in our Lord’s Para- 
 bolic teachings. A large number of the parables 
 refer to the general characteristics of the new 
 Society, and therefore do not immediately concern 
 us.* But others deal directly with moral char- 
 acter. Thus the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant 
 deals with the law of forgiveness; that of the 
 Pharisee and the Publican condemns self-righteous- 
 ness; the Good Samaritan defines the duty of the 
 love of our neighbour; that of the Two Sons 
 distinguishes true and false obedience. Dives and 
 Lazarus illustrates the peril of the love of this 
 world. Besides these, the Prodigal Son, the 
 Unjust Judge, and the Friend at midnight 
 Moclare the relations between the true believers 
 and God. In these, and in the generality of the 
 teaching recorded in the synoptic Gospels, our 
 Lord uses a quasi-proverbial method. He does 
 not promulgate rules of conduct, but describes in 
 indirect fashion the principles upon which true 
 conduct is to be based. 
 
 (C) In the more profound teaching recorded in 
 St. John’s Gospel, we are taken still further into 
 the inner secrets of the moral life. While in the 
 Synoptists we have the life presented in the simple 
 picture of the Two Ways, St. John represents the 
 true and the false life as two opposed conditions of 
 being—Life and Judgment. This, while it con- 
 tains ultimately the same idea as the simpler lan- 
 guage in St. Matthew, lies deeper, and contains 
 assumptions which do not appear elsewhere. In 
 this type of teaching, as in the other, the essential 
 principle is that human life is truly seen only on 
 its spiritual side, and that in this view of it there 
 is a single issue offered for the determination of 
 each particular man. That course which places 
 man on the side of God is described as Life; the 
 other is in itself Judgment. Further, whereas in 
 synoptic tradition we find our Lord opening His 
 mission with the preaching of repentance, so, in 
 the first discourse recorded by St. i ohn (ch. 3), He 
 sets forth the necessity of regeneration for the 
 recognition of and entry into the new kingdom. 
 Here, again, the positions are ultimately the same, 
 but that in St. John is the deeper. The new birth 
 spoken of is essential to the repentance. Once 
 more, the need of faith, which is constantly em- 
 phasized in the synoptic Gospels, is by St. John 
 shown to involve moral issues of a serious kind. 
 It is the self-assertion, the self-seeking of the 
 Jews, that prevents their understanding the claims 
 of Christ. And, lastly, it is union with Christ, 
 and dependence upon His life, which sustains 
 those who are His representatives in the world. 
 And thus, again, a moral virtue inculcated in the 
 synoptic tradition is asserted in deeper form in St. 
 
 ohn. The love which the followers of Christ are 
 to have to one another rests upon their union with 
 Christ, the indwelling of the Spirit, and has as its 
 ideal the love of the Father and the Son. 
 
 In this Gospel there is voy direct exhorta- 
 tion, even of the proverbial kind. The most con- 
 
 * Such are: the Leaven, the Draw-net, the Hidden Treasure, 
 the Seed growing secretly, etc 
 
 spicuous Boats passage is that in which our 
 Lord (as also in the other Gospels) lays down the 
 absolute necessity of sacrifice for all (Jn 12%), 
 The discourses are concerned rather with the 
 exposition of the final conditions of moral action, 
 and in this sense they are of vital importance for 
 the Christian ethic. It should be noticed that they 
 deal with action, so it seems at first sight, very 
 simply. Truths which are complementary are 
 stated, sometimes in antithesis, sometimes with- 
 out any sign in the context of the complementary 
 truth, which may appear elsewhere also without 
 qualification. hus, in ch. 6, the mysterious 
 relations uf the work of the Father and the comin 
 of men to Christ are asserted, but not connect 
 by any theory. Or, on the other hand, the judg- 
 ment given is said to be the coming of the light 
 into the world, and the consequent action of men 
 (3!°) ; whereas in vv. ® judgment is placed in the 
 control of the Son of Man. This is largely due to 
 the elose connexion of the discourses in this Gospel 
 with the circumstances under which they were 
 delivered, and to the fact that, in life, different 
 aspects of complex unities have a tendency to 
 emerge into exclusive prominence. But the great 
 importance of all these passages for our present 
 purpose is this: they represent the Christian 
 development of the principles already asserted in 
 Judaism—the connexion of the character of God 
 with moral life, and the historic operation of God 
 in the lives of men. Where God declares Himself 
 as a merciful God—in answer to the request of 
 Moses to see Him—and declares His condemnation 
 of the guilty (Ex 34’), Christ in St. John sets out 
 the love of God as the rule of life for the Christian 
 society (Jn 177). Whereas in the OT the hand 
 of God is seen in the guidance of man throughout 
 his life and history, Christ in St. John affirms 
 definitely the entry of the Father’s will into the 
 actual life and choice of individual man. The im- 
 portance of this, in regard to life, can hardly be 
 exaggerated. It means that the apparent simplifi- 
 cation of moral ideas attained by referring all things 
 to a spiritual standard must not be regarded as 
 extinguishing all moral problems. The Gospel of 
 St. John contains no elaborate discussion of such 
 problems, such as we find in St. Paul’s Epistles; it 
 only indicates, in the direct way which lies close 
 to immediate experience, that they are present. 
 Thus we derive from the preaching of Christ, not 
 only a deeper view of pee duty, but also an 
 indication of a large field of moral thought of 
 which comparatively little had been known before. 
 (D) In turning to the Apostolic Epistles we find 
 the Church engaged in the endeavour to introduce 
 the Christian law into the world. We derive, 
 therefore, from these writings some knowledge of 
 the effect of Christianity upon the life of Greece 
 and Rome. And, further, we find in the Epistles, 
 especially in those of St. Paul, an endeavour to 
 connect the faith of the Church with its practice. 
 It will be desirable to consider these points in the 
 reverse order, as the dogmatic basis of Christian 
 ot in many cases largely determines its form. 
 n the first place, let us observe that there are, in 
 the NT writers, certain moral premises or assump- 
 tions which are inherited from the OT, and have 
 been accentuated by the teaching of Christ. The 
 end of man is union or intercourse with God, and 
 sin impedes it. 
 sin dwells in them—the wrath of God at present 
 abides upon them—they have not passed from 
 death to fife. And they have no power of their 
 own to break loose from this position; the old 
 lamentations of the Psalmist over their moral in- 
 capacity are taken up and confirmed by the 
 authority of the apostolic writers. However great 
 and sincere man’s desire may be to attain to virtue 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Men are ina oe of enmity— — 
 
 ee ss 
 
 se” 
 
 ee ee a ae 
 

 
 ETHICS 
 
 ETHICS 785 
 
 
 
 and to holiness, there isan impediment. The law 
 did little to improve the position ; it killed instead 
 of reviving ; it displayed the real nature of sin, so 
 far as man was capable of appreciating it, but 
 it gave him no power to express his knowledge in 
 his life. The sacrifices and other ceremonies, 
 which were part of the legal dispensation, could 
 never take away sin. They only symbolized a 
 purification which they could never convey. 
 
 In all this the apostolic writers are using partly 
 ideas which are inherited, partly ideas which are 
 original in them. The sense of failure and ruin 
 peat, as we have said, in the OT, but in the 
 
 pistles it is more precise in itself, and its causes 
 and range are more clearly known. The dis- 
 abilities thus described are removed by the work 
 of Christ. d it is in consequence of this that 
 the dogmatic basis of the Christian practice is so 
 firmly and carefully fixed. The views of man’s 
 condition, with which the apostles start, are such 
 that the first thing to be done in order to attain 
 morality is to remove the impediment which at 
 present bar the way. To describe the advantages 
 or the beauties of moral life—to develop a system 
 of new and attractive moral ideas, is secondary to 
 this; to have made it the first interest would have 
 been to leave mankind in the position of the law. 
 It was power they wanted, more even than know- 
 ledge. Christ in His teaching had concentrated 
 attention increasingly upon Himself; the central 
 feature of the discourses recorded by St. John had 
 been the presentation of Himself as satisfying in 
 various ways the desires and the needs of man. 
 Thus the apostles had general guidance as to the 
 way in which they were to deal with life, as well 
 as particular instructions for certain occasions. 
 Christ had not, so far as we can gather from His 
 recorded teaching, entered into any detailed and 
 precise account of the effect of His work in the 
 moral world. It is this that the apostolic writers 
 undertake. 
 
 Tn this respect it is possible to observe develop- 
 ment and the presence of individual tendencies of 
 thought. At first, the sum of their preachin 
 seems to be contained in the Wares Jesus ts Lord. 
 The resurrection, of which all are witnesses, is the 
 proof of this; and the effect is that men have 
 repentance and remission of their sins. The Holy 
 Spirit has been poured out upon them, and they 
 have thus gained various moral and spiritual 
 powers. They are not left, as before, to struggle 
 vainly ; a new spring of new life has entered into 
 the world, arising from the person of the risen and 
 ascended Lord. St. Paul develops this position 
 with t fulness in his Epistles. ‘If Christ be 
 not risen,’ he says (1 Co 151), ‘ye are yet in your 
 sins.’ d this position is elsewhere described 
 as the state ‘under law,’ the condition of inability 
 and partial knowledge which prevailed in the 
 earlier dispensation (Gal 4°*-), There is no ques- 
 tion that to St. Paul’s mind the possibility of 
 moral achievement depends absolutely on the 
 person and work of the Son of God. And we can 
 go further than this. The death of Christ, which 
 was the means of removing the barrier of separa- 
 tion between us and God, was of the nature of a 
 sacrifice—a sacrifice of propitiation (iAacrijpuor, cf. 
 Ro 3”). Thus the ancient efforts at reconciliation 
 were made effectual. In similar fashion St. John 
 represents Jesus Christ the righteous as a propitia- 
 tion (iAacués) for our sins and for the sins of the 
 whole world (1 Jn 27). The author of the Ep. to the 
 Hebrews dwells at length upon the unique import- 
 ance of the priesthood of Christ, and emphasizes the 
 effect of it upon man’s relations with God. St. 
 John, the cast of whose mind is more contempla- 
 tive than argumentative, sets forth as the essential 
 condition of real Christian life, the confession that 
 
 VOL, 1.—-50 
 
 Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (2 Jn’, ef. 1 Jn 51). 
 His characteristic interest is in the truth of the 
 incarnation considered as a fact in history; his 
 treatment of all the other points arises out of this. 
 The others, not less certain than St. John as to the 
 nature of Christ, have given more space to the 
 discussion of the redemptive acts of Christ. But, 
 in spite of differences in the nature and order of 
 the presentation, one salient fact appears on the 
 very surface of the NT, namely, that moral life 
 depends upon the acts and the nature of Christ , 
 in other words, that the true basis for morality is 
 theological. The controversy over the principles 
 of faith and works, which occupies so large a ne 
 in St. Paul, has no meaning apart from this; it 
 arises, and is of practical importance, just because 
 it atfects the relations of God and man. In like 
 manner, as has been already implied in our 
 remarks upon St. John’s Gospel, the controlling 
 will of God in history becomes an element in 
 man’s moral life; and in this connexion we have, 
 of course, the Pauline doctrine of predestination. 
 Here, again, we are dealing, not with a mere 
 philosophical speculation, but with a series of 
 facts which must be taken into consideration in 
 any valid account of actual practical life. 
 
 t would be beyond our purpose to dwell further 
 on these theological points. We have said thus 
 much about them in order to call attention to the 
 fact that the Christian ethic as it appears in the 
 NT, rests upon certain convictions as to the nature 
 and acts of Christ. The whole bearing and range 
 of morality depends upon these. 
 
 We must now return tothe other matter remain- 
 ing for discussion, viz. the attitude of the Church 
 in its endeavour to spread the Christian view of 
 life through the world, and in this connexion we 
 shall consider two points—(1) the general attitude 
 of the Church towards practical life; (2) the system 
 of virtues and vices which flowed from the use of 
 the Christian ideal. 
 
 (1) We notice, first of all, that the Church dis- 
 plays an attitude of unflinching hostility to all 
 that is characteristically worldly. The world, to 
 the eyes of St. Paul, presents a spectacle of varied 
 and widespread wickedness. The heathen have 
 lost the light that might once have belonged to 
 them, and, as they have lost the knowledge of God, 
 have fallen into idolatry, and so into gross sin. 
 They have concentrated their attention and in- 
 terests upon the material side of life, and find 
 their satisfaction in the created world (Ro 1}*-), 
 The same point appears in connexion with the 
 moral use of the term ‘the flesh.’ St. Paul does not 
 mean by this that the flesh, as such, is the seat 
 of evil; but it is the material and transient side 
 of man’s nature, which has no right to stand as 
 the object of his life. The works of the flesh 
 (Gal 5!) are all those acts and states of which the 
 real explanation lies in man’s choice of the material 
 and transient, his desire for selfish satisfaction. 
 Though there are still higher ideas and signs of 
 moral aspiration among the heathen, yet the pre- 
 dominant note of their life is degradation and 
 sensuality.* 
 
 * It is always hard to read St. Paul’s descriptions, esp. in Ro 1, 
 without wondering whether he has exaggerated, and, if so, to 
 what extent. It must, however, be remembered that we derive 
 our views of the ancient world rather from the hignest minds of 
 the particular periods we consider, than from men on ordinary 
 levels. It was these lower, more ordinary strata of society with 
 which St. Paul was chiefly acquainted. And, further, there can 
 be no question that the entry of Christianity has altered the face 
 of things in many more directions than we ordinarily think ; so 
 that, in all probability, the tone of ancient society is much 
 farther from us than we are wont to suppose. St. Paul repre- 
 sents the case of a person with sentiments very like our own 
 acting and thinking under the old conditions. And, lastly, it 
 must always be remembered that St. Paul’s method of presenting 
 
 his ideas is to insist strongly on one aspect of a matter at one 
 time, modifying it or insisting on the complementary truth ip 
 
ETHICS 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 
 
 In like manner, St. John speaks of the world as 
 lying in the evil one (keira: év 7G rovnpg, 1 Jn 51), 
 and uses the word xécuo0s somewhat in the same 
 way as St. Paul uses the word cdpé, for the material 
 creation considered, first as apart from, and then 
 as hostile to God. The word is guided by prin- 
 ciples of self-will and self-indulgence, and is doomed 
 to pass away with all the objects of its desire. As 
 Christ had anticipated persecution and hatred for 
 those who followed Him, so St. Paul and St. John 
 recognize an endless hostility between the werld 
 and those born of God—between the flesh and the 
 Spirit. There is no compromise and no cessation 
 in the strife. 
 
 Hence the first thing which strikes us in the 
 general attitude of the Church towards the world 
 is its uncompromising hostility. But in large 
 measure these phrases, the flesh and the world, 
 stand for tendencies or principles rather than for 
 individuals. These tendencies appear in indi- 
 viduals; but there is quite another aspect in 
 which the individuals arrest the attention of the 
 Church. The world from this point of view is 
 capable of being saved; and this fact determines 
 the character of the warfare. There is no limit to 
 the sacrifices which must be expected of the 
 Christian : he must, as Christ said, hate his father 
 and mother if he is worthy of his calling. But he 
 will not retire into himself, and live an isolated 
 withdrawn life in which mankind in general has 
 no part. He will live quietly in the state in which 
 his lot is cast, fulfilling ordinary duties of citizen- 
 ship (Ro 13, cf. 1 P 4%), accepting even such an 
 institution as slavery (1 Co 7!”, Philem), without 
 strife or cry. At the same time, he will not con- 
 ceal his way of life, nor evade inquiry into its 
 motive ; the power of example, the mere presence 
 of the new principles of action, will tell. The 
 world will know by this the disciples of Christ— 
 by the fact that they love one another. And the 
 love to the brethren, which is the sign that they 
 have passed from death to life (1 Jn 314), is extended 
 to the neighbour, and in this is the fulfilling of the 
 law (Ro 13”). As God loved the world, even when 
 men were in a state of rebellion against Him, so 
 those who are called by the name of Christ will 
 endeavour, so far as in them lies, to fulfil God’s 
 desire to save it. Thus the Christian’s attitude 
 towards the world is partly hostile and partly 
 friendly—hostile so far as the world tries to con- 
 vert him, but friendly in so far as he endeavours 
 to convert the world. We must now consider 
 certain special conditions of mind which, owing 
 to the peculiar views of life characteristic of the 
 Church, are now brought within the ethical sphere. 
 
 (a) We propose to consider, first, three moral 
 conditions which are sufficiently similar to admit 
 of such treatment, and which all depend upon a 
 lack of zeal or whole-heartedness. In Ja 1*8 we 
 find a severe condemnation passed upon the dtpuxos 
 or double-souled man. In ay 35-17 the severest 
 judgment of all those passed upon the Seven 
 Churches is the denunciation of the lukewarm 
 (xAcapol). And, again, in Rev 218 the first of 
 those whose portion is the second death are the 
 cowards (Seol). These three words, especially in 
 view of the context they are in, seem to convey 
 more than a reproach upon vacillation of purpose. 
 The man who is double-souled and unstable in 
 all his ways fails to obtain his prayers; his life 
 loses consistency and firmness, and becomes like 
 the sea, driven by the wind and tossed. So the 
 lukewarm is worse than the open enemy (‘I 
 would thou wert cold or hot’), and the coward 
 is coupled in his condemnation with the unfaithful 
 another context. If Ro 1 represents the darker side of his 
 
 mind, Ro 2, not to mention his practical attitude towards the 
 Gentiles, represents the aspect of the question neglected here. 
 
 as well as those who are guilty of open and obvious 
 sin. All three are cases of insincerity. They are 
 attempts to serve two masters, and they lack the 
 absolute singleness of aim which Christ demands 
 of those who follow Him. The severity of the 
 condemnation upon them is the measure of the 
 importance of the demand made upon the believer. 
 He is to live a spiritual life pure and simple, guided 
 by spiritual principles and spiritual aims; cowardice 
 or lukewarmness or double-souledness is nothing 
 less than the surrender of all this; in other words, 
 the rejection of Christ. On the positive side, we 
 have St. Paul’s exhortations to sincerity of work 
 (Col 3”), to tolerance of weaker consciences in all 
 things lawful (1 Co 888, Ro 14), and these exhorta- 
 tions are based upon the same general principle. 
 The sole concern of men is to be their relation to 
 God, and this will colour all that they do in the 
 ordinary ways of life. 
 
 Under the same condemnation will be placed 
 various sensual sins. Thus St. Paul bases his 
 exhortation to purity on the true function of the 
 body, and its capacity as a temple of the Holy 
 Ghost (1 Co 6}? etc.). Covetousness, mentioned 
 at the end of a list of sensual sins, is stigmatized 
 as idolatry (Col 3°); the love of money is said to 
 have power to pervert men from the faith, and to 
 be a root of all evil things (1 Ti 6") ; and again the 
 love of pleasure is set over-against the love of God 
 (2 Ti 3°). In all these cases the error lies in mis- 
 direction of aim, the transient is preferred to the 
 eternal. They are not merely breaches of law, or, 
 as a Greek phitean her might have said, disturb- 
 ances of the due balance of man’s nature. In the 
 light of the faith they are errors in principle, a 
 choice of the wrong thing altogether. 
 
 This singleness of aim takes shape in social life 
 in various noticeable forms. The bond which 
 
 holds the Christian society together is love—love to 
 
 God and love to the brethren. This, in itself, 
 would prevent any violence of self-assertion or 
 rivalry. But there are also positive virtues based 
 in the conception of the Christian society. One 
 of the most striking of these is humility. This 
 appears in St. Paul primarily as a social virtue. 
 It consists in voluntarily accepting a subdued 
 estimate of oneself. It is distinguished from all 
 diffidence or indisposition to accept the call of God 
 to special work by the fact that it deals fairly and 
 simply with reality. On the practical side it con- 
 sists largely in doing without hesitation or discon- 
 tent the work assigned. So St. Paul exhorts the 
 Romans (128) not to think more highly of them- 
 selves than they ought; and gives as his reason 
 their unity in the body cf Christ. Immediately 
 afterwards he exhorts them to perform faithfully 
 the function that has been allotted to them in the 
 Church. So in the Epistle to the Philippians (2° 
 the spirit of humility is opposed to the vainglorious 
 temper, and the factious ungracious service of a 
 hireling. So St. Peter finds in humility the 
 principle of church order (1 P 5°). Thus the 
 normal aspect of this virtue in the apostolic 
 writings is social ; it answers to the social reserve 
 of the Greeks—the disposition to give and take 
 without savage selfishness or personal rivalry. 
 But it differs widely from this, in that it is not 
 based upon the mere fact that all men cannot have 
 the same thing, and must give way to one another ; 
 it rests upon a positive love of men, one to another, 
 and a profound conviction of the unique value of 
 
 spiritual things. Moreover, it goes back upon the” 
 
 Se a 
 
 example and the precept of Christ Himself ;itisa | 
 
 conspicuous embodiment of His mind and temper. 
 
 In this connexion it will be well to speak of © 
 
 another virtue which holds a high place in St. 
 
 Paul’s teaching. In the list of the fruits of the | 
 Spirit (Gal 5%), the virtue which appears at the | 
 
 Pr, os 
 

 
 ETHICS 
 
 
 
 
 
 ETHICS 787 
 
 
 
 end as a kind of climax is éyxpdrewa, self-control. 
 It will not be justifiable to press too far its position 
 in this catalogue; but there can be no doubt that 
 it holds an important position in St. Paul’s mind. 
 It is one of the qualities required of the bishop 
 (Tit 1°); it is inculeated by the example of the 
 zealous athlete (1 Co 9”), and it appears in 2P 1° 
 as a stage in the progress of men in this world. 
 It is in regard to this virtue, probably, that the 
 ethical ideas of the apostolic writers differ most 
 characteristically from the views of contemporary 
 Gr. writers. The Gr. view of virtue was chiefly 
 that of a condition attained after struggle; it 
 did not contemplate the persistence of tempta- 
 tion, or of any disposition to yield on the part of 
 the virtuous man. The material side of man was 
 not, so to speak, an actual element in virtuous 
 action; it required suppression, not control: on 
 the other hand, the ristian virtue does not 
 pretend to introduce warfare or separation into 
 the organization of man. It recognizes the need 
 of self-control, but the character of the man who 
 manages his physical nature and keeps it in its 
 proper relation to his whole life is selected for 
 commendation. The éyxpdrea of St. Paul is a 
 more real thing than the cwdpoctvn of a Gr. 
 er and it is not, morally speaking, a 
 ower conception of virtuous life. 
 
 (6) We now come to consider three states or con- 
 ditions or virtues which are most of all identified 
 with the Christian point of view. These are the 
 well-known triad, Faith, Hope, and Love. They 
 are for the most part identified with St. Paul, and 
 found especially in 1 Co 13. But it is not true 
 to suppose that they are limited to that passage. 
 They occur in close connexion, both in St. Peter 
 (1). 21.22), and in the Ep. to the Hebrews (10%), 
 and in other passages of St. Paul (1 Th 178 58, 
 Col 135), Indeed their connexion is so remarkable 
 that it has been recently argued that it must have 
 been based on the teaching of Christ Himself.* 
 Without committing ourselves on this point, it is 
 at least worth noticing that the connexion is 
 frequent, and it is natural to infer that it had 
 some definitely ethical significance. The question 
 then arises, What is implied by the combination 
 of these three virtues? There is practically no 
 doubt as to the meaning of éAmls and dydrn. It is 
 true that éAvls means sometimes a particular state 
 of mind, sometimes the object on which it rests, 
 but there is no serious an biguity But with the 
 third wlors this is not the case. It is ambiguous (1) 
 because it stands both for the temper of the faith- 
 ful person and for the object of his faith; but (2) 
 more seriously, because the character of the moral 
 temper is not clear. The word means not only 
 trustfulness, but also trustworthiness. And even 
 in those passages where the context excludes the 
 passive sense, there are further differences in the 
 associations given by various writers to the words. 
 St. James (2!) seems to mean by it little more 
 than an intellectual assent to a proposition ; it is 
 a state of mind in which the devils can be said 
 to be. The word in St. Paul has a moral rather 
 than a purely intellectual meaning. It describes 
 the temper of one who, in full view of all that 
 makes the other way, trusts in the character and 
 power of God (cf. Ro 4% RV). And so St. Paul 
 speaks naturally of faith being made active by 
 love (évepyouuévy 5’ dydans, Gal 5°). It is inspired 
 by the love of the person on whom it rests, and 
 therefore does not fail. In the Ep. to the Hebrews 
 we again notice a slight variation in use. The 
 author describes faith in somewhat precise fashion 
 as ‘the substance of things hoped for, the evidence 
 
 * Resch, Agrapha, p. 181; cf. Ropes, Die Spriiche heey 24, 
 Both these works are in Harnack’s series of Teate und Unter- 
 suchungen, Bd, v. 4 and Bd. xiv. 2. 
 
 of things not seen’ (11'). By this he seems to 
 mean a certainty in the mind of the faithful person 
 that the hopes he has will be realized. The con- 
 fidence is so great that he seems almost to have 
 in his possession the things which are not yet 
 in being. Such a man, like Moses, ‘endures as 
 seeing the invisible.’ 
 
 It is somewhat difficult to describe succinctly the 
 character in which these three virtues converge. 
 It must be remembered that, for the apostles, the 
 death and resurrection of Christ were the primar 
 and salient facts with which all life had to deal. 
 Hence these determine the primary reference of 
 the faith, hope, and love of the henavee His 
 faith rests upon Christ as risen and ascended; his 
 hope is in the consummation of God’s purpose in 
 the world ; his Jove is directed to the Father who 
 guided, and the Son who effected, his redemption. 
 The whole atmosphere of the Epistles is full of 
 these facts, and all practical results which flow out 
 from the presence of these virtues are dependent 
 on the truth of these facts. Thus, because the 
 believer holds to the truth of the death and 
 resurrection of Christ, he has certainty, where 
 others doubt, in his view of the history of the 
 world and of himself. His faith is not a blind 
 acceptance of anything that happens. He knows 
 as well as any one the difficulties in life, and the 
 darkness which hangs over human things. He 
 sees things occur which he did not foresee and 
 cannot explain. But he is not in presence of a 
 mere chaos of irrational forces, with a blind belief 
 in the existence of a purpose behind them ; he has 
 a sure confidence in the death and resurrection of 
 Christ ; that is, he is able to take them as a type 
 of the action of God, and to find in them a ground 
 of anticipation for the future. Because Christ has 
 risen from the dead, instead of being of all men 
 the most miserable he is the person of all others 
 who has a sure hold upon life. See FAITH. 
 
 In like manner, the natural object of the virtue 
 of hope is the second coming of our Lord, and the 
 consummation of all things which that event will 
 bring. It is this hope that enables men to endure 
 the sorrows and pain of the world ; it is hidden in 
 some sort in the groaning and travailing of creation 
 (Ro 8!*%5). It results from the steady endurance 
 of persecution (Ro 5°), and it does not make 
 ashamed. It is not difficult to see how this con- 
 fidence in the future will affect life on its practical 
 side. It involves no unreality, and no optimistic 
 veiling of the real evil in things. With a full 
 sense of the presence of pain and other troubles in 
 the world, it looks upon the course of history with 
 certainty and fearlessness. There is no haunting 
 dread lest the world may be, after all, a chaos ot 
 irrational forces without purpose or true guidance ; 
 because the events of Christ’s life, the truth of His 
 person, and the certainty of His promises, prevent 
 all such hazy and depressing conditions of mind. 
 The virtue of hope is closely allied with the virtue 
 of faith. They both rest upon the character and 
 self-manifestation of God; they both affect life 
 by bringing within its sphere the realities of the 
 spiritual order. 
 
 And, lastly, the virtue of Jove depends upon the 
 cessation of the feeling of hostility and estrange- 
 ment which had so long been abroad in the world. 
 The efforts of God for the salvation of man, His 
 care for the souls of individual men—that is, the 
 prominent events in the incarnate life of His Son— 
 commend the love of God to us. From of old, men 
 had sought by various means for intercourse with 
 God, and yet had fallen short. The life of Christ 
 opened the way to a fuller communion than they 
 had ventured to anticipate, The law of God, seen 
 in the light of the death and regurrection of Christ, 
 could be a regular principle of action ; not imposed 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 788 ETHICS 
 
 ETHICS 
 
 
 
 arbitrarily from without, but accepted and under- 
 stood as the true form of intercourse with God in 
 life. Again, in regard to men, the old barriers 
 which separated them would tend to be broken 
 down, because all alike came under the con- 
 demnation of sin and within the range of salvation. 
 The brotherhood of men amongst themselves is 
 the expression of the knowledge of the love of 
 God towards all. To profess love to God and to 
 fail in love to man is, morally speaking, a contra- 
 diction. The one, by the logic of moral life, 
 involves the other. 
 
 We have now concluded what it seems necessary 
 to say as to the ethics of the Bible. It would be 
 possible to develop the similarities and the con- 
 trasts between the ethics of the Greeks or of 
 modern philosophy and the moral doctrines of 
 Christianity. Or we might endeavour to trace 
 the effect of the principles here indicated in the 
 history of the Christian Church. Both of these 
 topics would be necessary to a complete discussion 
 of Christian ethics. Being restricted here to the 
 ethics of the Bible, we must leave them aside as 
 irrelevant. It remains, therefore, merely to 
 emphasize the general principles which follow from 
 our consideration of the subject. It seems to 
 emerge clearly as a result of the whole, that the 
 ethics of the Bible from one end of it to the other 
 are religious. In the early days an ethical mean- 
 ing was given to religious ceremonies which dis- 
 tinguished them sharply from the generality of 
 such rites. In the hands of the prophets the 
 ethical peels of life were asserted with ex- 
 ceptional vigour and clearness ; but always, with 
 however severe a side-glance at ceremonial, as an 
 essential element in the worship of J”. In the 
 Psalmists the various shades of moral feeling are 
 described with infinite knowledge and fulness, but 
 the further reference is always to the desire for 
 intercourse with God. Even in the Sapiential 
 Books, where the tone is least lofty and spiritual, 
 the wisdom of man is found in the fear of the 
 Lord and in obedience to His law. 
 
 The change which results from Christianity 
 is partly due to the deeper insight and more 
 alluring attractiveness of the example and preach- 
 ing of Christ; but it owes more still to the vast 
 increase in knowledge of actual spiritual truth 
 which Christ brought to man, and the infinite 
 significance of the acts of Christ upon the life of 
 men. The truth is summed up, finally, in the words 
 of St. John, ‘The law was given by Moses, grace 
 and truth came by Jesus Christ’ (17°). It was not 
 merely that He charmed the world with the 
 example of a sinless Man suffering because other 
 men were sinful ; nor, again, does the effect of His 
 life rest merely upon the graciousness or the 
 austerity of His words; but it flows from the fact 
 that He brought truth as well as grace; power to 
 achieve what the world had so long failed to attain; 
 and knowledge of the spiritual order when all had 
 been guesswork and hazardous conjecture before. 
 
 Many things follow from this. The various 
 ethical doctrines which are from time to time 
 represented as the only contribution of Christianity 
 to the world’s history are really corollaries of the 
 facts upon which Christianity rests. The infinite 
 value of each human soul, with all that has come 
 of it in the changed position of individuals, pre- 
 supposes, speaking historically, the belief in the 
 scheme of salvation. The idea of universal love 
 is not the result of a change of sentiment in the 
 world, so much as the practical exposition (as we 
 have indicated above) of the true relation of God 
 toman. And, again, the principle of self-sacrifice 
 is not an arbitrary law imposed on men, challenging 
 an explanation which it never receives, but is the 
 practical expression of the law of love, together 
 
 its paramount importance of the spiritual 
 world. 
 
 We are well aware of the importance and the 
 difficulty of many of the critical questions which 
 surround the books of the Bible. In the present 
 article, as has been already observed, they have 
 been deliberately left aside. It would have been 
 impossible, in the first place, to treat them 
 adequately in passing, and inadequate discussion 
 is useless. But there is a further reason, which, 
 now that the exposition of the ethics is completed, 
 it seems well to mention again and emphasize. 
 These critical questions are not only irrelevant to 
 the present discussion, they are largely irrelevant 
 to any discussion. Speaking generally, we may 
 say that the Bible has had its effect very largel 
 as it stands. It comes before us a whole, and, 
 though criticism may display for us the process by 
 which some of the OT books have come into 
 existence, it will not seriously alter this fact. 
 And in the case of the NT the date of the for- 
 mation of the Canon and the publication of the 
 various books is now put back so far that there is 
 not room for a complicated evolution of ideas of 
 which the traces are largely lost. Those who are 
 concerned to trace the formative ideas in the Bible 
 must take it asa whole. For it is in view of the 
 unity of thought which runs through it that the 
 separate books have been gathered into one ; this 
 was the chief guiding principle in the formation of 
 the Canon. 
 
 LiTsRATURE [added by the Epitor: the more useful names are 
 in small capitals).—A. THE OLD TESTAMENT: Diuumann, 
 Ueber den Ursprung der Alttest. Religion, 1865; BAvpissin, 
 Studien zur semit. " Religion agers 1878), ii. 1-142; Bestmann, 
 Gesch. der christ. Sitte (1880), i.; Konia (Ed.), Toupee 
 der altisr. Religionsgesch. 1884; Delitzsch im PR v. 178, 
 Riehm, HWB ii, 1274; Kuenen, Religion of Israel, i. 395-397 
 (Eng. tr. 1874); Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, 1877; 
 Luthardt, Hist. of Christian Ethics (Eng. tr. 1889), 33-56: 
 Ebrard, Apologetics (Eng. tr. 1886), i. 436-288 ; Hessey, Mor 
 Dificulties in the Bible, 8 vols,1872, 1873 ; MoorKin Lux Mundil3, 
 1891, 52-55; Ladd, Doctrine of*Sacred Scripture (1883), i. 454- 
 489, 738-742 ; Robertson, Harly Religion of Israel (Baird Lecture, 
 1889), 296-325; Caillard, Progressive Revelation (1895), 20-37 ; 
 Scuvirz, O7 Theol. (Eng. tr. 1892), i. 147ff., 213ff., ti, 52 ff.; 
 Bruce, Ethics of the Old Test. 1895; Smytu, Christian Ethics 
 (1892), 88-93, 483-486 ; Stanton in Camb. Comp. (1893), 314-319 ; 
 Srrone, Christian Ethics (BL, 1895), 12-20, 35-46. 
 
 B. THE APOCRYPHA: Keerl, Apokryphen des AT, 1852, 
 Das Wort Gottes u. die Apokr. 1853, Die Apokryphenfrage, 
 1855; Luthardt, Hist. of Chr. Ethics (Eng. tr. 1889), 57-74; 
 Schiirer, HJP 11. ii. 90 ff.; MonTEFIonE, Origin and Growth of 
 Religion (Hib. Lect. 1892), 484-496. 
 
 C. THE NEW TESTAMENT AND CHRISTIANITY: 
 Bohmer, System des chr. Lebens, 1853 ; Wendt, Einleitung in die 
 Ethik, 1864; Schmid, Christ. Sittenlehre, ed. Heller, 1867; 
 Maurice, Epistles of St. John, Christian Ethics, 1867; Light- 
 foot, ‘St. Paul and Seneca,’ in Com. on Philipp. (1868), 270-333, 
 also in Dissertations, 247-322; Harless, System of Chr. Ethics 
 (Eng. tr.), 1868; Weizsicker, ‘Anfiange christlicher Sitte,’ in 
 JDTh, 1876, 1-36; THoma, Gesch, der christ. Sittenlehre in der 
 Zeit des NT, 1879; Wuttke, Handb. der chr. Sittenlehre eth 
 17-242 (Eng. tr. Christian Ethics, 1873), new ed, by Schulze 
 1895; Culmann, Chr. Ethik, 1874; Wace, Christranity and 
 Morality, 1876 ; Smith (I. G.), Characteristics of Chr. Morality 
 (BL, 1876); von Hofmann, Theologische Hthik, 1878; Lange, 
 Grund, der christ. Ethik, 1878; Martensen, Christian Ethics, 
 Eng. tr., 8 vols. 1878-1882 ; BesTMANN, Gesch. der christ. Sitte, 
 vol. i. 1880 (ii. 1885); Ernusti, Ethik des Apostels Paulus, 1880; 
 Pfleiderer, nd. der Glaubens- und Sittenlehre, 1880; Lecky, 
 Hist. of European Morals, 1882; Frank, System der christ. 
 Sittlichkeit, 1884-1887 ; Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory, 1885 ; 
 Dorner, Christ, Sittenlehre, 1885 (Eng. tr. 1887); CHURCH, 
 Discipline of the Chr. Character, 1885; Gass, Gesch. der christ. 
 Ethik, 1881-1886; Swewick, Outlines of Hist. of Hthics, 1886; 
 Ziegler, Gesch. der christ. Ethik, 1886; Westcott, Social Aspects 
 of ers 1887 ; Fliigel, Die Sittenlehre Jesu, 1888 ; Hatch, 
 
 eek Ideas and the Chr. Church (Hib. Lect. 1888), 158-170; 
 
 Matheson, Landmarks of NT Morality, 1888 ; Luthardt, Hist. 
 
 of Chr. Ethics (Eng. tr. 1889), 77-104; Stanton, Province 
 Chr. Ethics, coe Oornay, ‘Christian Ethics,’ in Lua pee 
 
 (12th ed. 1891), 340-395; Scharling, Christ. Sittenlehre, 18925 
 Bright, Morality in Doctrine, 1892; SmytH, Christian Ethics, 
 
 1892 ; Caird, Evolution of Religion (Gifford Lect. 1893), i. 389 ff., 
 ii. 92 ff., 127 ff.; Kniout, The Christian Ethic, 1893 ; DRUMMOND, 
 
 Via Veritas Vita (Hib. Lect. 1894), 209-280; Finpuay, Christian — 
 
 Doctrine and Morals (Fernley Lect.), 1894; STRONG, Christian 
 Ethics (BL, 1895), esp. 20-22, 47-73, and sects. iii. iv. 5, Harless, 
 Christ. Ethtk, 8th ed. 1895; Kipp, Morality and Religion (Kerr 
 Lect. 1895), 363-401; Kuebel, Christ. Ethik, 1896: Luthardt, 
 
 he 
 
 — 
 
 pid Ra 
 
 eee 
 

 
 
 
 ETHIOPIA 
 
 a SSSESSSSSESEeeSNeeee 
 
 Kon . der theol. Ethik, 1896; Tymms in The Ancient Faith 
 tm Mod. Light (1897), 49-58; Harris, God the Creator (1897), ii. 
 17£-192 ; Burton, ‘The Ethical Teachings of Jesus in Relation 
 to the Ethics of the Pharisees and OT,’ in Biblical World (1897), 
 x. 198-208; Bovon, Morale Chrétienne, 1897-1898. 
 
 T. B. STRONG. 
 
 ETHIOPIA (Al@orla), the name whereby the 
 LXX translators rendered the Heb. wa passim, 
 and in Ps 72° and 74" the Heb. oy. 
 
 1. DERIVATION, etc.—The word occurs in the 
 earliest Gr. literature as the name of a race to be 
 found in the extreme E. and the extreme W.; in 
 later writers* the nation is more definitely localized 
 as dwelling 8. of Egypt. The name would seem 
 to be Greek, and to signify ‘Red-faces’ (cf. the 
 similar word al@oy applied by Homer to wine), a 
 designation derived from the colour of the people, 
 just as many names given by the Gr. geographers 
 to African tribes are derived from their charac- 
 teristics, habits, or mode of life; and indeed the 
 present inhabitants of Abyssinia are said to call 
 themselves Kay (‘red’ in Amharic), as opposed 
 to the Nubians, whom they term black (tekowr in 
 Amharic, salim in Ethiopic; Lejean, Voyage en 
 Abyssinie, 1872, p. 77). s, however, the colour 
 that is Riuton with the ‘Ethiopians’ is not 
 red, but black (Juv. Sat. ii. 23), it has been sug- 
 
 ested that the Gr. name represents the Grecized 
 orm of some foreign appellation, such as Atydd, 
 plural of the Arab. ¢7b, ‘scents,’ used to designate 
 the inhabitants of the country whence the incense 
 came (Glaser, Die Abyssinier in Arabien, p. 10). 
 The word is a loan-word in the language called 
 Ethiopic, imported from the Greek, and only em- 
 ploy by the Abyssinians in Christian times to 
 
 enote themselves. In the inscription of Adulis, 
 the Abyssinian king claims to have defeated the 
 Ethiopians among other foreign races; meaning 
 by this name, according to Lejean’s suggestion, 
 the Shangallas, a tribe placed in the maps of 
 Harris aa Lefévre to the W. of the Abyssinian 
 
 rovince Shiré, between the rivers Mareb and 
 
 accaze. The name Habash, whereby the Abys- 
 sinian country and people are designated in Arabic 
 (whence the European Abyssinia), would appear to 
 represent an ancient Egyp. name for some African 
 race (Glaser, J.c., after W. Max Miller); the 
 native name is Geez. 
 
 2. GEOGRAPHY.—Although the Gr. geographers 
 after the time of the Ptolemies distinguish the 
 kingdom of Meroé from the neighbouring tribes, 
 they make the term Ethiopia include both. The 
 extent of territory covered by this name is there- 
 fore very great: to the ancients it represented all 
 the land bounded by the Upper Nile on the W., 
 and the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf on the E.; the 
 southern extremity they did not profess to be able 
 to fix. Only modern — the most modern — re- 
 searches have been able to map out accurately 
 the land known to the old geographers by vague 
 reports. 
 
 The land whence the Nile derives its waters is described by 
 Lucan as putres arene, but this description is not true of the 
 whole of Ethiopia. While the political divisions have constantly 
 been, and are still, fluctuating, the natural divisions are three. 
 The highlands of Abyssinia separate the Sudan (usually spelt 
 
 Soudan), or ‘black country,’ on the N. and W. from the Dana- 
 kil country, which lies between the Ethiopian range and the 
 
 Bea. 
 
 (a) The Soudan, having been rarely traversed by Europeans 
 before Sir Samuel Baker (Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia, 1867), 
 has, since the enterprise of Mohammed Ahmad, been frequently 
 the centre of European interest, and the campaigns that have 
 been fought there tiers led to the elucidation of its geography ; 
 and the works of Wingate (Mahdiism in the Egyptian Soudan, 
 1891), Slatin Pasha (Fire and Sword in the Soudan, 1896), and 
 others, give accurate details both of the nature of the country 
 comnged sq. miles in extent) and of the tribes that inhabit it. 
 
 uth of the thirteenth parallel of latitude is fertile country 
 
 
 
 * Still the confusion of Ethiopia with India continues long 
 into the Christian era (Letronne, Matériaux pour Vhistoire du 
 Ghristianisme, p. 82). 
 
 ETHIOPIA 789 
 
 with a six months’ rainfall; N. of it are vast steppes with 
 frequent thorns and thinly-scattered wells (Wingate, p. 8). A 
 narrow strip of rich vegetation is to be found on either side of 
 the Nile, which flows through it, making a gigantic curve be- 
 tween the third and fifth cataracts, and receiving at Al-Damer 
 (about 33° 45’ E. long., 17° 30’ N. lat.) the Atbara, laden in the 
 rainy season with the waters of Abyssinia, but in the dry season 
 a bed of white sand ; and some two degrees farther 8. splitting 
 at the modern town of Khartoum into the Blue and White Nile. 
 a er: is diversified by mountain ranges of no great 
 eight. 
 
 (6) Very different from this flat rolling plain is the Switzerland 
 of Africa, Abyssinia, a plateau with a mean elevation of 6000 ft., 
 extending from 9° to 15° 26’ N. lat., and at its greatest width 
 from 37° to 40° E. long. Never completely severed from com- 
 munication with Europe, this country was first accurately 
 described in the Historia Mthiopie of the Ethiopic scholar 
 Job Ludolf (1681), while the scientific observations and measure- 
 ments of the explorers Riippell (Reise in Abessinien, 1838), 
 Leféyre (Voyaye en Abyssinie, 1839-1843), and Ferret and 
 paumer (poniemporery with the last), have in recent times vastly 
 increased our knowledge of it, which has been supplemented 
 yet more recently by the researches of Mme d’Abbadie (@éo- 
 graphie de ’ Ethiopie, 1890) and others (e.g. Theodore Bent, 
 The Sacred City of the Ethiopians, 1893; Schoeller, Mittheilun- 
 gen uber meine Reise in der Colonia Eritrea, etc.). Separated 
 on the E. from the Red Sea by the Ethiopian range (as it was 
 first named by M. Theoph. Lefévre), bounded on the S. by the 
 rivers Hawash and Abay (afterwards the Blue Nile), on the N. by 
 the rivers Ansaba, Barka, and Gash, and on the W. by the Atbara, 
 the Abyssinian plateau inclines towards the N.W., but reaches 
 its greatest elevation in the mts. of Samen or Semyen, of which 
 the loftiest, Ras Dedjen, is 14,200 ft. high. The four rivers 
 Taccazé (the Nile of Ethiopia), Mareb, Abay, and Hawash, with 
 their numerous tributaries, divide the country into a great 
 number of natural provinces; and as these rivers flow in deep 
 ravines, intercommunication during the rainy season is fre- 
 quently suspended; while the Mareb and the Hawash lose 
 themselves in the sand after dividing into many channels, the 
 Taccazé (called during part of its course the Settite) flows into 
 the Atbara at Tomat (in the province of Katarif), while the 
 Abay (which near its rise curves through Lake Tsana, the 
 greatest of the Abyssinian lakes) later on in its course is called 
 the Blue Nile. The political and linguistic division of the 
 country into Tigre, Amhara, Shoa, and Galla districts is recent ; 
 a more natural division is that according to which the native 
 geographers divide their land into zones—the Kola or lowlands 
 (below 5500 ft.), the Woina-Deja (5500-7500 ft.), and the Deja 
 (over 7500 ft.), distinguished by their flora and fauna. (See on 
 these esp. J. Dove, Ergdnzungsheft 37 to Petermann’s Mitthet- 
 tungen ‘die Kulturzonen Nord-Abessiniens,’ and for another 
 division A. Raffray, Bulletin de la société de Géographie, 1882.) 
 
 (c) Thirdly, on the E. side of the Ethiopian range, and ex- 
 tending to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, is a vast tract 
 inhabited now by three Hamitic races called Oromo or Gallas, 
 Afar or Danakils, and Somalis, not yet thoroughly explored, 
 among the descriptions of which may be mentioned Borelli’s 
 Ethicpie Méridionale (Paris, 1890), and Paulitsche’s Ethnologte 
 Ost-Afrika’s (Wien, 1893), The geology, botany, and zoology of 
 ‘Ethiopia’ are elaborately treated in Decken’s Reisen in Ost- 
 Afrika (1879), ap. iii. 3. 
 
 3. SKETCH OF HisTory.—Portions of this vast 
 region were under some sort of government during 
 the existence of the ancient kingdom of Napata, 
 the earlier history of which has been sketched in 
 the article CusH. In the time of Ptolemy Phila- 
 delphus we find an Amonian king Ergamenes 
 reigning at Meroé (Diod. iii. 6), whose name 
 (Erkamon, ‘oath of Amon’) was found in cartouches 
 on Nubian monuments shortly after the commence- 
 ment of hieroglyphic studies (see Champollion, 
 Voyage en Nubie, 119; Rosellini, Monumenti 
 Storichi, ii. 321). To the time of the same 
 Ptolemy, Brugsch (Zschr. f. Agypt. Sprache, ete. 
 1890, p. 29) assigns the reign of a king Horsiatef 
 or Arsiotes (whose stele with a lengthy inscription 
 is reproduced by Mariette, Monuments Divers, 
 
 late 11); and two kings of the same family as 
 Hipomaneet Onchmachis and Hormachis, after the 
 death of Ptolemy Philopator seized the Thebaid, 
 where they reigned twenty years (Brugsch, J.c.; 
 Révillout, Rev. Egyptol. v. 39 ff.). As Euergetes 1. 
 is said to have sent an expedition into Lower 
 Nubia (Mon. Adul.), the two powers must have 
 been long at variance. The invaders of the The- 
 baid were ejected by Ptolemy Epiphanes—if the 
 combinations of Révillout be correet—by the aid of 
 the Blemmyans, an Ethiopian tribe, whose princes 
 henceforth become supreme at Meroé, though 
 acknowledging the suzerainty of the Egyptians 
 and their heirs the Romans, whence it comes that 
 
 
 
790 ETHIOPIA 
 
 
 
 inscriptions in honour of Tiberius and Nero have 
 been found at Dakke (the ancient Pselcis). 
 
 An attempt was made during the reign of Augustus by a 
 queen named Candace to drive the Romans out of the Thebaid, 
 resulting in the taking of Napata and Meroé by O. Petronius in 
 8,0, 24; but as peace was made with the Ethiopian queen by 
 Augustus at Samos in B.¢, 21, the defeat of the former may not 
 have been so complete as Strabo represents it (Book xvii. ; 
 Révillout, U.c.), The same queen has been identified with a xupfa 
 Bucitueox, who is mentioned in an inscription of the year B.c. 13 
 as sending an embassy into Rom. territory (Wilcken in Hermes 
 for 1893, p. 145 on C/G iii. 5080); and this name Kandake (in 
 Egyp. Knéaki-t with family name Ammn-arit; Lepsius, Denk- 
 miler, v. 47 a and 6; ap. Brugsch, Entzif. der Meroit. Denkm. 
 i; 7) is said to have been the official name of the queen of 
 
 Ethiopia (Bion of Soli, Frag. Hist. Greece, iv. 351, 5). Beyond a 
 
 solitary allusion to the queen of Meroé in Ac 827 the history of 
 this state is blank till a much later period, when the Blemmyans 
 came into collision with the Roman empire (Révillout, M/ém. 
 sur les Blemmyens in ‘Mém. prés, par divers savants a 
 lAcadémie,’ viii. 2. 871); and Pliny asserts that a tribune with 
 some pretorians sent to reconnoitre by Nero, who was con- 
 templating an Ethiopian war, reported that the regions about 
 Meroé were deserted (Nat. Hist. vi. 35). It has been con- 
 teeuree by Dillmann (‘Uber die Anfiinge des Aksumitischen 
 
 eiches’in Abhandll. der Akad. zu Berlin, 1878, p. 204) that 
 the downfall of Meroé was the result of the campaign of 
 Petronius. Though this may seem doubtful, he is probably 
 right in connecting with the fall of Meroé the rise of another 
 state in Abyssinia ; for whereas the classical geographers prior 
 to a.p. 50 (Agatharchides of Cnidus, of the 2nd cent. B.c., 
 excerpted in Photii Bibliotheca; Artemidorus of Ephesus, of 
 the 1st cent. B.c.; Diodorus Siculus, who relies in his elaborate 
 account of Ethiopia, Bk. iii. 10-87, chiefly on Agatharchides, 
 but partly on information which he had himself collected in 
 Egypt; Strabo, and Pliny) know of no other state but that of 
 Meroé, the author of the Periplus’ Maris Erythrei (of the 
 second half of the 1st cent. a.p.) knows of a metropolis of the 
 Auxomite (Avzauire:) situated at a distance of eight days from 
 Adulis, ‘whither all the ivory from beyond the Nile is brought 
 through Cyenium to Adulis’ for exportation. It was governed 
 by a king named Zoskales; and in one of the inscriptions of 
 Adul recorded by Cosmas Indicopleustes, the king, inferred 
 from the phrases he employs to have been king of Axum, a 
 worshipper of the Greek gods Ares, Zeus, and Poseidon, enumer- 
 ates conquests extending over a great portion of modern 
 Abyssinia, and into neighbouring tribes and countries, in a list 
 wherein many extant names figure for the first time. Since 
 this king claims to have been the first of his line to conquer 
 tribes which, in the time of the Perviplus, were subject to 
 Zoskales, Dillmann (J.c. 200) argues plausibly that the monu- 
 ment of Adulis is earlier than the Periplus; whence it would 
 appear that the empire of Axum came into being somewhere 
 in the middle of the 1st cent. a.D. The date cannot be much 
 earlier, since otherwise its existence could not have escaped the 
 Greeks, who had many factories on the Red Sea coast, dating 
 from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who is said to have 
 organized elephant-hunting expeditions. Although there follows 
 a gap of some centuries in the history of Axum, it is clear that 
 the great antiquity claimed for their empire by the native 
 Abyssinian chroniclers is fabulous (see Dillmann, ZDMG vii.) 
 as well as its supposed Jewish basis. Besides Meroé and Axum, 
 the classical writers know only of tribes existing in Ethiopia in 
 various stages of savagery, some of whose characteristics may 
 well be preserved in extant races, while some may be relegated 
 to the region of fable. (See further CusuH.) 
 
 4. LANGUAGE, etc. —The chief monuments of 
 Nubian monarchs are in the Egyp. character and 
 language ; although, in the opinion of experts, many 
 of them display a very imperfect acquaintance 
 with both. Ergamenes, however, in the 3rd cent. 
 B.C., after overthrowing the power of the priests 
 (it is thought), introduced the native language of 
 Nubia into the monuments, using for it modifica- 
 tions of the hieroglyphic and demotic writing, 
 in which the phonetic value of the Egyp. symbols 
 seems to have been shifted. In his Nubian 
 grammar (1880) Lepsius speaks of these inscrip- 
 tions as a still unsolved mystery ; and the import- 
 ant study of them by Brugsch (Lntziff. der Meroit. 
 Denkm., Leipzig, 1887) is not regarded as having 
 finally solved it, although the discovery by Schifer 
 (Zschr. fiir Agyptologie, 1896) of elements of modern 
 Nubian in the Nubian words recorded by classical 
 writers makes in favour of Brugsch’s system. 
 While the basis of the language is, according to 
 these authorities, to be sought, not in the Beja 
 dialect (as Lepsius had imagined), but in modern 
 Nubian, Brugsch has made it probable that the 
 pay Sa of the inscriptions was largely intermixed 
 with Egyp. words, and indeed he fancies that 
 
 
 
 ETHIOPIAN WOMAN 
 
 many such are to be detected in the existing lan- 
 guage. While the Ethiopian Pantheon was largely 
 peopled with Egyp. gods, a few native names are 
 recorded by the ancients, as may be made out 
 from the inscriptions; and likewise Ethiopian 
 civilization, though largely borrowed from Egypt, 
 retained not a few native peculiarities. 
 D. S. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 
 ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—According to Ac 8” an 
 Ethiopian eunuch, minister of Candace, queen of 
 the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, 
 shortly after the martyrdom of Stephen was met 
 by the deacon Philip when returning from 4 
 religious journey to Jerusalem, and converted to 
 Christianity. 
 article ETHIOPIA we know that Gr. literature had 
 spread to the kingdom of Meroé as early as the 
 3rd cent. B.C.: there is therefore nothing improb- 
 able in the LXX translation, which this Ethiopian 
 was found reading, having penetrated thither by 
 the same channels; but whether he also belonged 
 to the Jewish community cannot be made out with 
 certainty. While his journey to Jerusalem ‘to 
 worship’ (cf. the inscription quoted in ETHIOPIA) 
 might imply it, his apparent unfamiliarity with 
 OT (v.#) and his physical condition render it 
 improbable. The word ‘eunuch’ might indeed be 
 regarded as a mistranslation for ‘minister’ if 
 there were any likelihood that this narrative was 
 originally in Aramaic, since in some dialects of 
 that language the same word signifies both; but 
 the fact that the passage of Isaiah quoted (Is 537-8) 
 is given according to the LXX, takes away the 
 ground from any such supposition. 
 
 The notices of the Eth. kingdom for this period 
 failing us altogether, it is impossible to identify 
 this personage from external sources; but the 
 historical character of the narrative seems to be 
 acknowledged in most quarters. 
 
 ‘rom the authorities cited in the 
 
 The confession of faith put into his mouth in 
 
 v.57 AV is now universally admitted to be an early 
 interpolation. Assuming the Lucan authorship 
 of the Acts, the source of the above narrative 
 may have been personal information received from 
 Philip (cf. Ac 218). Like the baptism of Cornelius 
 by St. Peter, the case of the Ethiopian eunuch 
 marked an important stage in the question of the 
 admission of the Gentiles to the Christian Church. 
 Its bearing from this point of view will be dis- 
 cussed in art. PHILIP (the evangelist). See also 
 CORNELIUS. D. 8. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 
 ETHIOPIAN WOMAN (nw:2).—According to Nu 
 12!(JE), when the children of Israel were at Haze- 
 roth, Miriam and Aaron ‘spake against’ Moses 
 on account of his marriage with an Ethiopian 
 (RV ‘Cushite’) woman. In the sequel, however, 
 Moses’ conduct in this matter is neither impugned 
 nor defended ; for the complaint brought by Miriam 
 and Aaron turns into a claim of equal inspiration 
 with Moses (v.?)—a claim which is refuted by J” 
 in a theophany, while Miriam is punished with 
 leprosy, from which she is immediately relieved 
 through Moses’ intercession made at Aaron’s 
 request, but has nevertheless to be confined for 
 seven days (v.“), As the ‘Ethiopian woman’ is 
 mentioned nowhere else, and the death of Moses’ 
 wife Zipporah is not recorded, some of the early 
 interpreters thought the two must be identical ; 
 and this view is favoured by the Jewish expositors, 
 who assign reasons for Zipporah’s being called Eth. 
 that are either frivolous (as Rashi) or merely un- 
 critical (as Ibn Ezra) ; Rashi’s interpretation being 
 as old as Targ. Onk. On the other hand, LXX has 
 AlOiémicoa, and Jos. (Ant. 1. x. 2) makes her an 
 Eth. princess. If the woman mentioned in Nu be 
 identical with Zipporah, the word Kiishith must be 
 used in the sense of non-Israelite—a usage which 
 
 | ent aes ee 
 
 —— 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
ETHIOPIC VERSION 
 is found in late Rabbin. writings (Levy, NH WB), 
 and cannot be dissociated from the similar employ- 
 ment of Kvthi (properly Samaritan). But besides 
 the improbability of this usage being found in the 
 Bible, the text implies (though it does not expressly 
 assert) that the marriage was of recent occurrence. 
 It is therefore more likely that a black slave-girl 
 Is meant, and that the fault found by Miriam and 
 Aaron was with the indignity of such a union; and 
 this accords with the statement (v.%) that Moses 
 was the ‘meekest’ of mankind. The employment 
 of Nubians as slaves dates back to the early 
 dynasties of Egypt (cf. Brugsch, Gesch. Agyp. 
 p- 266). Although no etym. of the name Hazeroth 
 ls given in the text, this word (from the Arab. 
 hazara, ‘confine’) would seem to stand in some 
 etymological connexion with the confinement of 
 
 iriam. Perhaps it is merely accidental that the 
 word hazir in Arab. is employed in an idiom mean- 
 ing to ‘calumniate’ (Maydani, c. 3); albeit this 
 double etym. would contain implicitly a large 
 portion of the narrative. D.S. MARGOLIOUTH. 
 
 ETHIOPIC YERSION.—This subject will be 
 treated under the following heads :— 
 
 i. The Ethiopic Oanonical Books. 
 
 fi. The Manuscripts. 
 
 ili. Printed Editions. 
 
 fv. Source of the Text. 
 
 v. Oritical Value. 
 
 vi. Date. 
 
 i. Toe ETHiopic CANONICAL BooxKs.—(A) Old 
 Testament.—The Eth. OT embraces all the books 
 included in the LXX (except the Books of the Mac- 
 cabees), together with several others, such as the 
 Book of Enoch, Jubilees, 4 Ezra, Rest of the Words 
 of Baruch, ete. The Maccabees were either never 
 translated or else were early lost. Since, however, 
 the Eth. scholars found the titles of these books in 
 their Sinddés and Fetha Nagast, they proceeded to 
 supply them from their own imagination. In this 
 way these books came into circulation (Dillmann). 
 In later times, indeed, the Latin version of these 
 books was translated into Ethiopic. (See Wright, 
 Cat. Eth. MSS Brit. Mus. p. 14.) No distinction 
 whatever appears to have been made between the 
 canonical and the uncanonical books of OT. The 
 number of books in OT is set down unanimously at 
 46, but hardly two lists of these books agree. As 
 a rule, the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books 
 which appear in one list are replaced in another by 
 
 uite different works of the same class of literature. 
 (See Walton’s Polyglot i., Proleg. p. 100; Dillmann 
 in Ewald’s Jahrbucher d. bibl. Wissenschaft, v. 
 1853, pp. 144-151; Fell, Canones Apostolorum 
 Atthiopice, p. 46.) 
 
 (B) New Testament.—35 books are reckoned in 
 NT. This number is arrived at by including a 
 book of Canon Law with the usual 27 books of 
 NT. As this work, called the Sinédés, is counted 
 as 8 books, we ae et 35 in all. (See Zotenberg, 
 Cat. des MSS Ethiopiens de la Bibliotheque 
 Nationole, p. 141 ff.; Ludolf, Historia Afthiopica, 
 i. iv. 27; Vansleb, Histoire de ?Hglise d Alex- 
 andria, 239 ff.) 
 
 The Western division of the Bible into chapters 
 made its way into Abyssinia through the contact 
 in later times of the latter with Western Christen- 
 dom. The older MSS exhibit quite a different 
 division of the books. 
 
 ii. THe MSS or THE ETHIOPIC VERSION.—The 
 chief MSS of OT, the Apocrypha and Pseudepi- 
 grapha, and of NT will be found in the following 
 catalogues :—Wright, Ethiopic MSS of the Britis 
 Musewm, OT and Apocr. pp. 1-22, Ns p.. 23-29, 
 1878 ; Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS Hthiopiens de 
 ta Bibliotheque Nationale, OT and Apocr. Nos. 
 1-31, 49-51, ir Nos. 32-48; D’Abbadie, Catalogue 
 
 ETHIOPIC VERSION 791 
 
 
 
 Raisonné de MSS Ethiopiens, Paris, 1859, OT and 
 Apocr. Nos. 16, 21, 22, 30, 35, 55, 99, 105, 117, 137, 
 141, 149, 195, 197, 203, 204, 205. Some of these 
 MSS contain only single books. MSS of Enoch 
 are found in 16, 30, 99, 197; Gospels, Nos. 2, 9, 47, 
 82, 95, 112, 173; Pauline Epp. 9, 119, 164; Cath. 
 Epp., Apoc. and Acts, 9, 119, 164. Dillmann, 
 Catalogus MSS Aithiop. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, 
 1848, OT and Apocr. 1-9, NT 10-15. There are 
 small collections of MSS also in Berlin. See Dill- 
 mann, Abessinische Handschriften der Kéniglichen 
 Bibliothek zu Berlin; OT and Apocr. Nos. 1-6, of 
 the Psalms 7-19; NT 20, 21. f these, No. 1 is 
 a MS of Enoch. For the MSS in Vienna, see 
 ZDMG xvi. p. 554; in St. Petersburg, see 
 Bulletin scientifique publié par VAcadémie im- 
 périale des Sciences, ii. 302, iii. 145 ff.; in Tiibingen, 
 see ZDMG v. 164ff. There are also a few MSS in 
 Frankfort of some value, and in private libraries in 
 England.* 
 
 ili, PRINTED EDITIONS.—We shall mention only 
 afew of these. For further information the reader 
 may consult Le Long, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1878, ii. 
 140-157; Fell, Literarische Rundschau fiir das 
 Kathol. Deutschland, Feb. 1, 1896. 
 
 (A) Old Testament. — Of OT Dillmann has 
 edited vol. i. Gn—Ruth, 1853 (some of the best 
 MSS were inaccessible when this volume was 
 edited); vol. ii. Samuel and Kings, 1861-1871; 
 Joel (in Merx, Die Prophetie des Joels). The 
 Psalms were edited by Ludolf in 1701, and in the 
 various Polyglots and by the Bible Society. Bach- 
 mann published texts of Isaiah, Lamentations, and 
 Malachi. The text of the last two books neither 
 adequately nor accurately represents the best 
 Ethiopic MSS in Europe. 
 
 (B) Apoerypha.—The honour of publishing the 
 first Apocryphal texts belongs to Oxford. Thug 
 Laurence edited the Ascension of Isaiah in 1819, 
 the Apocalypse of Ezra in 1820, and the Book 
 of Enoch in 1838. These are valuable now only 
 from an historical point of view. Dillmann has 
 given us a splendid edition of the Apocryphal 
 books, Baruch, Epistola Jeremize, Tobit, Judith, 
 Ecclesiasticus, Sapientia, Esdre Apocalypsis, 
 Esdras Grecus (1894). He edited texts also of 
 Enoch (1851), Jubilees (1859), and the Ascension of 
 Isaiah (1877). In 1893 Charles published an edition 
 of Enoch, in which there is a continuous correc- 
 tion of Dillmann’s text from 10 hitherto uncollated 
 ie oe in 1894 the Ethiopic text of Jubilees from 
 4 MSS. 
 
 (C) New Testament.—The NT was first printed 
 at Rome in 1548-49 by the Abyssinian Tasf4-Sion, 
 with the omission, however, of the 13 Pauline 
 Epistles. As the translator possessed only a 
 fragmentary MS of the Acts, he supplied an Eth. 
 version of the missing chapters from the Greek 
 and Latin. This edition, which is disfigured by 
 countless errors, was reprinted in Walton’s Poly- 
 glot. Another edition, Nov. Testamentum. . 
 Aithiopice, ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem, was 
 issued by T. P. Platt for the Brit. and For. Bible 
 Society, 1826-1830. A reprint of this edition 
 appeared at Basle in 1874. These editions are of 
 no critical value. 
 
 iv. SOURCE OF THE TEXT.—(A) Old Testament.— 
 The Ethiopic or Geez version, which from the 
 earliest times was universally used in all branches 
 of the Abyssinian Church as well as amongst the 
 Jewish Falashas, was, according to some of the 
 poets of the country, derived from the Arabic, its 
 authors being variously said to be the Abba 
 Salimé (=Frumentius, the Apostle of the Abys- 
 sinians, according to Ludolf, see Zotenberg, Cat. 
 des MSS Eth. pp. 8, 4, or a later Abba Saléma, 
 
 * See also Margoliouth’s art. on the Eth. VS in Miller’s edition 
 of Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of the NT. 
 
792 ETHIOPIC VERSION 
 
 
 
 see Zotenberg, 194; Dillm. Zur Gesch. des axum. 
 Reichs, p. 20) or the holy Nine (Guidi, Le traduzioni 
 degli evangelut in arabo e in etiopico, p. 33, note). 
 But Ludolf saw reason for doubting this view later 
 (Historia ethiopica, pp. 295, 296) when he came to 
 recognize that the Ethiopic version was closely 
 dependent on the text of the LXX. Subsequent 
 investigation has tended to substantiate the later 
 view of Ludolf. Hence the view of Renaudot, that 
 the version was made from the Egyptian, must be 
 suminarily rejected; likewise the preposterous 
 theory of Lagarde, that it was Weave either from 
 the Egyp. or Arab. in the 14th cent. 
 
 It is unquestionable that our version was made 
 in the main from the Greek,—in the main, for 
 there are certain phenomena in the MSS which 
 cannot be explained from this hypothesis alone. 
 These we will touch upon presently, and in the 
 meantime give Dillmann’s account of the various 
 texts attested by the MSS. In his V.T. Zthiopici, 
 Tom. i. apparat. crit. p. 8 (1853), he draws atten- 
 tion to a large number of readings which agree 
 with the Hebrew against the LXX, and suggests 
 that these are due to the use of the Hexapla of 
 Origen. Later he revises this theory and replaces 
 it by another; thus in Herzog’s RH, 1877, 1. 205, 
 he writes that there are three distinct types of 
 text. i. The original translation more or less 
 corrupted but seldom represented in the MSS. 
 (See also Zotenberg, op. cet. 3, 5, 7, 8.) ii. A text 
 revised and completed from the Greek, and found 
 most frequently in the MSS. This is the Eth. 
 Kowy or Textus receptus. iii. A text corrected 
 from the Hebrew, younger in age. See also V.T. 
 Aithiopici, Tom. ii. Fasc. i. apparat. crit. pp. 3-6. 
 This theory has been accepted by Zotenberg, and 
 lately by Preetorius, Herzog’s R#'? iii. p. 87 ff. 
 
 It is possible, however, to interpret the evi- 
 dence Stewie Thus Dillmann may be wrong 
 (a) in his later rejection of his first theory that the 
 Hexapla of Origen was used by the Eth. trans- 
 lators, and (5) in attributing all Eth. translitera- 
 tions of Heb. words and many Eth. readings which 
 agree with the Heb. against the LXX to the work 
 of later scholars correcting from the Heb. text. 
 
 Some evidence will now be cited which points in 
 this direction. This evidence will be drawn from 
 Lamentations and Malachi. First as regards (a), 
 we find that in La 2% the Eth. dstamdslaki agrees 
 exactly with the version of Symmachus éicdcw 
 ce against the Heb,, LX X, and all other Gr. VSS. 
 Likewise in 3“ and 5 our text again agrees with 
 Symm. against the LXX, but this time it is in 
 harmony with the Hebrew. As some other diver- 
 gences from the LXX can be explained by this 
 version and that of Aquila, it seems reasonable to 
 conclude that the Hexapla was used by the Eth. 
 translators. These divergences, however, may 
 have been derived directly from the Heb. text. In 
 many passages in all the biblical books the Eth. 
 version is independent of and attests a purer form 
 of text than the LXX. Next as regards (bd), it is 
 just as likely that many of the transliterations 
 of Heb. words which are found in certain Eth. 
 MSS,* but not in the LXX, may be survivals of 
 the earliest form of the text made directly in 
 many cases from the Hebrew. If they are all to be 
 ascribed to the corrections of later scholars, how 
 are we to account for their appearance in all MSS 
 of La 3 and Job 162? What we usually find in 
 the history of a version is that the unintelligible 
 or foreign words are by degrees displaced either 
 by their antive equivalents or by emendations, or 
 
 * Such as the MS E for the books of the Kings. See Dill- 
 mann, op. ctt. ii. apparat. crit. p. 5; see also Zotenberg, Cat. 
 pp. 9, 10, 11 on Version corrigée d’apres le texte hébreu. Dorn 
 talled attention as early as 1825 to the use of the Heb. text in 
 his Introduction to Ludolf’s edition of the Psalter. 
 
 
 
 ETHIOPIC VERSION 
 
 else they are simply omitted. The theory that 
 the primitive Eth. version contained a large 
 number of words transliterated from the Heb. 
 receives some confirmation from the fact that the 
 Abyssinians first received Christianity through 
 Aramean missionaries, and that very many Aram. 
 words were actually naturalized in order to ex- 
 ress the new doctrines of the Christian faith. 
 
 he Levitical character of Ethiopie Christianity 
 points in the same direction, #.e. its acceptance of 
 the rite of circumcision, and the Levitical lawa 
 regarding the purification of women. 
 
 Until, however, we have a complete and critical 
 edition of the Eth. version, it will not be possible 
 to settle finally the above questions. Even Dill- 
 mann’s edition (vols. i. ii. v.) is inadequate for 
 this purpose, as vols. i. and ii. were completed 
 before the best MSS were accessible.* ‘ 
 
 (B) New Testament.—Zotenberg (Cat. des MSS 
 Eth. de la bibliot. Nat. pp. 24, 25, 30, 1877) showed 
 that there were two forms of text present in the 
 MSS,—the first, that which was made from the 
 Greek original ; the second, a corrected text. In 
 the same year Dillmann (Herzog’s RE i. pp. 203- 
 206) suggested that the numerous variations in the 
 more widely read books of the NT, such as the 
 Gospels, were due to the influence of the Copt. 
 and Arab. versions, That such versions were 
 known in Abyssinia he infers on the following 
 grounds: Prolegomena translated from the Arab. 
 were prefixed to the NT writings; names of NT 
 books derived from the Arab. displaced occasional] 
 in later times the native nomenclature of the N 
 books; e.g. the Acts were called Abrazis (= IIpdtes), 
 Revelation A bukalamis (’Amoxddvyis). The Arabic- 
 Copiie Sinédés became early naturalized in the 
 Eth. Church. 
 
 These hints of Dillmann’s are further developed 
 by Guidi, who pointed out that such corrections 
 are derived from an Arab. tr. circulating in Egypt 
 (Guidi, Le Traduzioni degli Evangelu im Arabo e 
 in Ethiopico, Accad. Lincei, 1888, p. 33ff.). The 
 MSS are affected in various degrees by these cor- 
 rections. In some they appear side by side with 
 the original text. 
 
 v. CRITICAL VALUE.—The Eth. version of the 
 OT is generally a very faithful and verbal tr. of 
 the Greek. tt frequently reproduces the very 
 order of the words. On the i hand, it is not 
 possible to explain many of its readings by any 
 extant Gr. text, and over-against the it 
 frequently attests a purer text. But its critical 
 value cannot be determined until the questions 
 discussed in the preceding section have been 
 treated exhaustively. 
 
 As regards the NT, this version is related to the 
 older type of text attested by the great Greek 
 Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. It has also Western 
 and Alexandrian and Syrian elements. But no 
 critical text has yet been published. 
 
 vi. DATE.—Dillmann (Herzog’s RE i. 203, 204) 
 confidently ascribes the Eth. version to the 4th 
 and 5th centuries of our era, and regards it as 
 constituting not only the oldest memorial but 
 also the foundation of Eth. literature. This con- 
 clusion he draws from the following facts: i. 
 Christianity was already firmly established in the 
 5th cent. ii. The poet and musician Jared had 
 already produced a church hymnal in the 6th 
 cent. iil. Chrysostom + (Hom. in Johan., Opera 
 
 * For many interesting details see Reckendorf, ‘ Ueber den 
 Werth der altithiopischen Pentateuch-tibersetzung fiir die 
 Reconstruction der Septuaginta,’ in ZATW (1887) pp. 61-90. 
 Among other points he controverts Cornill’s view in his Com- 
 
 mentary on Ezekiel (p. 67ff.), that the ee version is 
 derived from the Hesychian recension of the LXX. 
 
 t &AAw xe Bipos wei Alyiarios xxd "Ivdoi xai Lipoas med Aldionss 
 «0s Og Thy avTav miTeBaddvTes YAOTTAY Te wape TolTev déymarTa 
 slo Jivra, x.4.A. 
 
ee a 
 
 ——————S ee 
 
 — 
 
 called in v.27 
 
 ee ee ee 
 
 ETH-KAZIN 
 
 oe 
 
 {Montfaucon], viii. p. 10) appears to have known of 
 an Eth. version of the Bible. iv. The version is 
 made directly from the Greek. Now, it was only 
 in the first period of Eth. literature that transla- 
 tions were made from the Greek; for after the 
 appearance of the Arab. language in Egypt, Eth. 
 literature came under the sway of the Arabic. 
 
 The above views of Dillmann have recently 
 been confirmed by the peculiar title used for God 
 in Sir 318 3771, t.e. Astdr. This shows that 
 heathenism still prevailed when this book was 
 translated (Dillmann, V.T. Athiopici, Tom. v. p. 
 117). Guidi assigns the version to the end of 
 the 5th and the beginning of the 6th cent. 
 Lagarde’s view (Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe 
 
 griech. Uebersetzung des AT.s, 1882, p. 28), 
 that the version was made in the 14th cent., not 
 from a Gr. but from an Arab. or an Egyp. trans- 
 lation of the original, is wholly contradicted by 
 the evidence. We may safely assume that the 
 version was completed before the 7th cent. 
 
 R. H. CHARLES, 
 
 ETH-KAZIN (37 spy, where AV, misunderstand- 
 ing the 7 locale, writes Ittah-kazin, as in same 
 verse Gittah-hepher for Gath-hepher).—A town 
 on the E. frontier of Zebulun, whose site has not 
 been identified, Jos 19°. J. A. SELBIE. 
 
 ETHNAN (jany).—A Judahite (1 Ch 47). See 
 GENEALOGY. 
 
 ETHNARCH (é6vdpx7s).—In 2 Co 11*7 it is stated 
 that ‘in Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas 
 the king guarded the city of the Damascenes,’ the 
 word ethnarch being tr. in both AV and RV by 
 GOVERNOR. Its exact meaning seems doubtful: 
 it is used of Simon the high priest (1 Mac 14% 
 153), of Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. XIv. x. 2), and of 
 Archelaus (Ant. XVII. xi. 4; BJ. vi. 3). It was 
 also used for the governor of the Jews in Alex- 
 andria (Strabo, ap. Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2), and the 
 head of the Jewish community in Pal. in the time 
 of Origen (Origenes, Ep. ad Africanum, § 14). 
 The last two instances suggest that the normal 
 use of the word was for the ruler of a nation or 
 vos living with separate laws and customs 
 amongst those of a different race. But the sense 
 of the term seems to have widened, and it be- 
 came a little superior to that of tetrarch, but 
 inferior to that of king (Schiirer, HJP U1. ii. 244, 
 etec.). A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 ETHNI pee ancestor of Asaph (1 Ch 6, 
 eatherai). See GENEALOGY. 
 
 ETHNOLOGY.—See RACES. 
 
 EUBULUS (Edfovdos),—A leading member of 
 the Christian community at Rome, who sends 
 greeting to Timothy through St. Paul at the time 
 of the second imprisonment (2 Ti 47"). His name 
 is Greek, but nothing further is known of him. 
 
 W. Lock. 
 
 EUERGETES (Prol. to Sirach).—See BENE- 
 FACTOR. 
 
 EUMENES (Evzer%s, ‘ well-disposed ’) 11., king of 
 Pergamus, succeeded his father Attalus in B.c. 
 197. Through the friendship of Rome he secured 
 a large extension of his territories, so that his 
 kingdom became for a time one of the greatest in 
 the East. In B.c. 169 he was suspected of secret 
 correspondence with the enemies of Rome, but 
 died (probably in B.c. 159; see Clinton, F. 4. iii. 
 403, 406) before an open rupture took place. The 
 principal authorities for his life are Livy (Ann., 
 esp. bk. xxxvii. and pit. xlvi.), Polybius, and 
 Appian, with Strabo xiil. p. 264, and Justin xxxi. 
 
 EUNUCH 793 
 
 
 
 8, xxxii. 4. In 1 Mac 88 the Romans are said to 
 have taken ‘the country of India and Media and 
 Lydia’ from Antiochus the Great, and to have 
 given these dominions to E. The MSS agree in 
 this reading, which is, however, impossible, since 
 India was never under the rule of Antiochus. 
 Media, too, on account of its eastward position, is 
 not likely to have ever been ceded to E. The best 
 correction is to substitute, with Michaelis, Mysia 
 for Media, and, with Grotius, Ionia for India. In 
 agreement with this are Livy’s statements (xxxvil. 
 44) that the Roman Senate required from Antiochus 
 the cession of all Asia north of the Taurus, and of 
 these districts granted (xxxvii. 55) the part north 
 of the Mzeander to Eumenes. . Moss. 
 
 EUNICE (Evvixn, so Tisch., WH, with all the 
 uncial MSS; not Evvelkn, as TR with many cur- 
 sives).—The mother of Timothy, and probably the 
 daughter of Lois (2 Ti 15). The name is Greek, so 
 that conceivably she may have been a proselyte; 
 but this is not a necessary inference, and more 
 probably she was by birth a Jewess (‘Iovdalas, 
 Ac 16!). She was married to a Gentile husband, 
 and, probably out of deference to his prejudices, 
 her son was not circumcised; but she gave him a 
 God-fearing name (T.u0-Geos), and trained him care- 
 fully in the OT Scriptures (2 Ti 3). She was 
 probably converted to Christianity on St. Paul’s 
 first visit to Lystra, as she is described as already 
 a believer on the second visit (Ac 16!). She is not 
 mentioned afterwards, but the curious addition of 
 xnpas (Ac 161) in cursive 25, and the substitution 
 of it for "Iovdalas in Gig. fu., may embody a tra- 
 dition of her widowhood ; this would give a fresh 
 point to the injunction in 1 Ti 54. . Lock. 
 
 EUNUCH (070, orddwyv, edvodyos).—nd'7p is rendered 
 in AV eunuch, officer, chamberlain. The employ- 
 ment of eunuchs in Oriental courts was one of the 
 base accompaniments of polygamy and despotism. 
 The harems of the monarchs were committed to 
 their charge, and they frequently superintended 
 the education of young princes. Much influence 
 was thus at times acquired by them in affairs of 
 state (see Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. iv. 175). They 
 were often closely connected with the palace 
 intrigues, which played so important a part in 
 Oriental history. It seems that the Heb. word 
 was also used in a wide sense of persons not 
 emasculated, who held offices which were usually 
 entrusted to eunuchs. Such is probably its use in 
 the case of Potiphar (Gn 391; Whiston’s Jos. Ant. 
 X. x. 2n.). Where the word occurs in 1] and 2 K, 
 it is sometimes difficult to determine whether it 
 bears its proper or its derived signification. Hero- 
 dotus (viii. 105) says that ‘among the barbarians 
 eunuchs are more valued than others on account of 
 their perfect fidelity,’ and instances the case of 
 Hermotimus, who was highly esteemed by Xerxes. 
 Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5. 60 ff.), in giving the reasons 
 why Cyrus employed them, alludes to the alleged 
 fact that their having no domestic ties rendered 
 them capable of peculiar devotion to the interests 
 of their masters, and of gratitude to those who 
 conterred honour and consideration upon them. 
 They also naturally adhered to one able to protect 
 them, as they found themselves objects of contempt 
 to other men. He denies the allegation that they 
 are lacking in vigour and excellent qualities, and 
 illustrates their tendencies by the case of ‘dogs, 
 which, when castrated, cease to desert their 
 masters, but are not at all less fitted for watching 
 and the chase.’ 
 
 The Law of Dt 23! (ef. Lv 22”) attaches a religious 
 stigma to the condition. (See, for the prob. ground 
 of this, Driver on Dt 23!), The predictionin 1S 84 
 was designed to intimate the deterioration of the 
 
794 EUODIA 
 
 national life consequent upon the establishment of 
 
 the kingdom, through the adoption of unsanctioned 
 Gentile customs. Acc. to Herodotus (vi. 32), the 
 Persians made eunuchs of the goodliest of the 
 re of captured countries; but as to whether 
 aniel and his companions were thus treated by 
 the Bab. conquerors, no absolutely certain conclu- 
 sions can be reached (cf. 2 K 20! 18), Eunuchs 
 were in the courts of the Herods in our Lord’s 
 time (Jos. Ant. XV. vii. 4; XVI. viii. 1); hence 
 His allusion to them (Mt 19!) as familiar to His 
 hearers. See ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. 
 G. WALKER. 
 EUODIA, AV Euodias (Evodla, fem. form of 
 Evodtos. Both names are found in Gr. literature 
 and on the inscriptions. The Euodias of AV seems 
 to have arisen from a mistake of the translators, 
 who took EHvodlay for the accusative of the mas- 
 culine form Hvodlas, and regarded it as the name 
 of a man).—A Christian woman of Philippi, whom 
 the Apostle Paul beseeches ‘to be of the same 
 mind in the Lord’ with another Christian woman 
 named Syntyche (Ph 4*). They may have been 
 deaconesses, or women of some position in whose 
 houses the brethren were accustomed to meet. 
 The language of St. Paul suggests a religious 
 difference rather than a private quarrel (Ph 2?). 
 They may have representon\ different types of piety, 
 or may have differed on some question of Sten § life. 
 St. Paul begs a certain Syzygus, or, as some critics 
 think, an unnamed ‘true yoke-fellow,’ to hel 
 forward the work of reconciliation, being mindfu 
 of the former services of these women to the cause 
 of the gospel (Ph 4%), The theory of Baur, 
 Schwegler, and Volkmar, that Euodia and Syntyche 
 are symbolical names for Jewish and Gentile 
 Christianity, is now generally abandoned. A 
 mode of speaking so mysterious is out of harmony 
 with the general tenor of the Epistle. J. GIBB. 
 
 EUPATOR (Eirdrwp, 1 Mac 6" ete., 2 Mac 
 2% ete.), the surname of Antiochus v., son and 
 successor of Antiochus Iv. Epiphanes. See ANTI- 
 OCHUS V. 
 
 EUPHRATES (n75, Ev¢pdrys).—The Euphrates 
 was called Pura-nun, ‘the great water,’ or simply 
 Pura, ‘the water,’ in Sumerian, the pre-Semitic 
 language of Chaldza (cf. Gn 1518). From this the 
 Semitic Babylonians derived their Purat or Purattu 
 with the feminine suffix. Purat is the Heb. 
 Pérath, the Old Persian Ufraitu, where the pros- 
 thetic « was explained as the word w, ‘good,’ and 
 so gave rise to the Greek Eu-phrates. In the 
 OT it is generally known as ‘the river’ (e.g. Dt 
 11*4, Ex 23%), it being the largest and most notable 
 river of Western Asia, and accordingly in Gn 2! 
 alone of the rivers of Paradise no geographical 
 description is given of it.* In Babylonia it was also 
 called ‘the river of Sippara’ as well as the Uruttu, 
 a dialectical form of Purattu. 
 
 The Euphrates (Arab. Frat) has two sources, 
 one of which was called the Euphrates in antiquity ; 
 in Armenian, Yephrat; while the other, which rises 
 to the south-east, the modern Murdd-Su, was 
 termed the Arsanias, Arm. Aradzani, Arzania in 
 the Assyr. inscriptions. They rise in two valleys 
 of Armenia, from 6000 to 6500 feet high, the one in 
 the Anti-Taurus, the other in Mount Ararat, and 
 unite near Malatiyeh (Meliténé, Assyr. Melid) in a 
 valley about 2000 feet high, whence they flow east- 
 ward through a narrow gorge towards Syria. 
 From this point to the alluvial plain of Babylonia 
 the fall of the river is about 1000 feet in 700 miles, 
 so that it is navigable only down stream. The 
 high road from east to west passed it in OT 
 
 * Itis disputed whether Jer 13¢7 really refers to the Euphrates 
 see Ewald, ad loc.). 
 
 EURAQUILO 
 
 times at Birtu (Birejix) and Carchemish (Jerabis), 
 There was another passage at Thapsakos, the 
 Tiphsah of 1 K 4%. A little to the south of 
 Carchemish was Pethor (Assyr. Pitru), on the 
 western bank at the junction of the Euphrates with 
 the Sajur (Assyr. Sagura). Still farther south, but 
 on the eastern bank, it was joined by the Belikh 
 (Assyr. Balikh) and Khabfr (Assyr. Khabur), which 
 came from the land of Gozan (Assyr. Guzanu, 2 K 
 175). At the mouth of the Khabar was Circesium 
 (now Karkisia, Assyr. Sirki). After this the 
 Euphrates receives no more afiluents; but north- 
 ward of Sippara or Bopha it approaches the 
 Tigris very nearly, and by again widening out forms 
 the plain of Babylonia. The Euphrates and Tigris 
 now unite before falling into the sea, owing to the 
 accumulation of silt at the head of the Persian 
 Gulf, but in OT times they still entered the sea 
 by separate mouths. The water of the Euphrates 
 was dissipated over Babylonia by means of canals 
 for the purposes of irrigation, and at its mouth 
 were great salt marshes, called Marratu by the 
 Babylonians (see Jer 50”). Here lived the Kald& 
 or Chaldeans, with their capital Bit-Yakin, of 
 which Merodach-baladan was king. 
 
 LITERATURE. —Frd. Delitzsch, Paradies, 169f.; Schrader, 
 KAT 34f.; Chesney, Huphrates Haped. vol. i.; Loftus, 
 Chaldea and Susiana; Layard, Nin. and Bab. chs. xxi.-xxii. ; 
 Rawlinson, Herodotus, i. Essay ix, A. H. SAYCE. 
 
 EUPOLEMUS (EvzéXepos), the son of John, the 
 son of Accos, one of the ambassadors sent to Rome 
 by Judas Maccabeeus, after his victory over 
 MicaRoE in order to conclude an alliance between 
 the Romans and the Jews in B.c. 161 (1 Mac 8", 
 2 Mac 4", comp. Jos. Ant. x. x. 6). Eupo- 
 lemus has often been identified with the author 
 of a history of the Jews, written in Greek, which 
 is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, Clement of 
 Alexandria (Strom. i. 23), and Eusebius (Prep. 
 Ev. ix. 30-34). Since the historian Eupolemus 
 seems to have written about B.C. 157, and was 
 almost certainly a Jew, this identification may be 
 correct (comp. Schiirer, HJP 11. iii. 203 ff.). 
 
 H. A. WHITE. 
 
 EURAQUILO.—Euraquilo (e’paxtdwyv) is the read- 
 ing adopted at Ac 274 by WH and the RV, instead 
 of Euroclydon in the TR and AV, as the name 
 of the wind, which, suddenly descending from the 
 heights of Crete on St. Paul’s ship as it was sail- 
 ing closely along the shore, seized it and drove it 
 before the storm, which ended in the shipwreck 
 on Melita. St. Luke describes the wind as, in 
 character, ‘typhonic’ (RV ‘ tempestuous’), tha’ 
 is, marked by whirlwinds or ‘sudden eddying ~ 
 squalls,’ as Ramsay calls them, adding that | 
 ‘every one who has any experience of sailing on 
 lakes or bays overhung by mountains will ap- | 
 preciate the epithet ‘typhonic” which Luke uses’ | 
 (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 326), and by wer of | 
 greater exactness adds its nautical name, ‘which | 
 is called’ (6 kadodpevos). Unhappily, the state of | 
 the text leaves the precise name doubtful. A | 
 summary of the various readings will be foundin | 
 Sanday, Appendices ad NT, p. 140. The great | 
 mass of later testimony yields ‘Euroclydon’; the | 
 oldest uncials AN have evpaxvAwy, and this was 
 probably the reading of B*. To B? appear to be 
 due the superimposed Y and A which appear in 
 this MS (EYPYAKATAOQN). LB? then either turned | 
 A into A, or, if it was done by B’, patched up the | 
 letter afresh. Vercellone-Cozza in the appendix | 
 to their facsimile say ‘evpaxvAwy B}, evpuxAvdwy B*” | 
 The Vulg. Cassiod. give Huro-aquito. Apart from 
 ampler attestation, Euroclydon may claim a pre- 
 ference as the more difficult reading, by poe i 
 which we may explain the others as emendations, | 
 but hardly the converse. The word in this form” 
 
 p = : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 —= 
 

 
 EURAQUILO 
 
 OO 
 
 EVANGELIST 796 
 
 
 
 is not found anywhere else. The meaning of the 
 compound is obscure. Etymologically, it would 
 mean ‘a surge raised by Eurus,’ the E. or 8.E. 
 wind, but such a description of the effect could 
 hardly be applied to the wind itself which caused 
 it. we should take the form evpuxdvdwy (which 
 occurs in B?, one or two cursives, and a gioss of 
 the Hiym. M. s.v. rvpév, and is approved by 
 Griesb.) and derive it from evpis, ‘ broad,’ it would 
 mean ‘a wind raising a broad surge or surf’; 
 but besides its lack of attestation, it is for the 
 eae of its greater suitableness dismissed 
 by Meyer as an obvious correction ; and it would 
 yield a character more or less applicable to any 
 wind blowing strongly rather than such a note 
 (e.g. of direction) as we might expect to be the 
 basis of a distinctive nautical name. Euraquilo, 
 on the other hand, commends itself not pay by 
 its early attestation, but by its special precision, 
 as made up of Eurus the 8.E. or rather (as Smith 
 adduces strong reasons for holding) the E., and 
 Aquilo the N.E., wind, fitly expressing the direc- 
 tion E.N.E. whence this wind blew. It well accords 
 (a) with the narrative of the incidence and effects 
 of the storm, and (4) with the experience of navi- 
 gators in the Levant, quoted by Smith and others, 
 in which ‘southerly winds almost invariably shift 
 to a violent northerly wind.’ The exception taken 
 to the form as ‘inadmissible’ (Reuss and others), 
 ‘because it is composed of a Greek and a Latin 
 element,’ vanishes in presence of analogous com- 
 pounds such as Euronotus and Euroauster, and of 
 the probably mixed nationality of the sailors and 
 traders to whom such coinages were primaril 
 
 due; to say nothing of the survival, to whic 
 
 Renan calls attention, of the word Euraquilo 
 itself in the name Gregolia given to the same 
 wind by the Levantines ‘as Huripus has become 
 Egripou.’ Following strict analogy, we might 
 expect the word to be, as in the Vulg., Huroaquilo, 
 and the presence of a less regular form may have 
 led to conjectural emendation (Overbeck) ; but we 
 can hardly see how this should have deviated into 
 so enigmatic a word as Euroclydon. Meyer says, 
 ‘Far more naturally would the converse take 
 place, and the Hvpox\vdwy, not being understood, 
 would be displaced by the similar Evpaxihuy .. . 
 so that the latter form remains a product of old 
 emendatory conjecture’—a curious anticipation, 
 in this particular case, of the theory more recently 
 formulated by Burgon and Miller as to the older 
 witnesses whom they designate ‘the licentious 
 seribes of the West.’ For them (Causes of the 
 Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 461.) this 
 pesere supplies a eel confirmation of their 
 view, leading them to denounce in strong language 
 Euraquilo as ‘an imaginary name,’ ‘an impos- 
 sible Latin name,’ ‘utterly missing the point, 
 which is the violence of the wind as expressed in 
 the term Euroclydon’ (a remarkable begging of 
 the question, where the violence of the wind had 
 already been explicitly affirmed in the epithet 
 ‘typhonic’ !). hy should these early copyists be 
 thus severely blamed for suspecting some corrup- 
 tion co underlie the anomalous eee and 
 pref srring the more intelligible Euraquilo on such 
 groands of internal probability as have since com- 
 mended it to the majority of critics and com- 
 mentators? But when we consider the mass of 
 testimony on the side of Euroclydon, and the 
 difficulty of accounting for the emergence of this 
 form, if it had not been original, may we not find 
 a feasible key to the solution of the problem in 
 the view put forward by Conybeare and Howson 
 (ii. p. 402n.): ‘The addition of the words 6 
 kadovmevos seems to us to show that it was a 
 name popularly given by the sailors to the wind ; 
 and nothing is more natural than that St. Luke 
 
 should use the word which he heard the sailors 
 employ on the occasion’? 
 
 LITERATURE.—The subject is discussed in the ‘Lives of St 
 Paul’ by Conybeare and Howson, Lewin, and others; at con- 
 siderable length, but with unequal relevancy, by Falconer, 
 Diss. on St. Paul’s Voyage, 2nd ed. pp. 12-19, 24-26; most 
 fully and satisfactorily by Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck, in bis 
 ‘ Diss. on the wind Euroclydon,’ p. 119 ff., with Appendices from 
 Bentley and Granville Penn, pp. 287-292; cf. Blass, ad doc. 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON. 
 
 EUTYCHUS (Eérvyos)—When St. Paul was at 
 Troas on his final journey to Jerus., on the first day 
 of the week he and his party, with the Christians 
 of the place, assembled in an upper room to break 
 bread. As St. Paul was leaving the next morning, 
 his speech was lengthy, and a young man of the 
 name of Eutychus, who was sitting at the window 
 (éml rs Ovpléos), fell asleep (perhaps owing to the 
 heat of the many lamps that were lighted), and, 
 falling down from the third storey, was taken up 
 dead (#p0y vexpés). St. Paul went down and em- 
 braced him, and bade them not trouble them- 
 selves, as his life was yet in him. Then he went 
 upstairs, broke bread, and continued talking until 
 the morning. As they departed the young man 
 was brought to them alive ( Ac 207%), 
 
 The incident occurs in the ‘ we’ section of the Ac 
 and is clearly authentic, but two opinions are held. 
 It has been pointed out that it may be capable of a 
 perfectly natural explanation, and it is suggested 
 that it illustrates the growth of mythical stories 
 on a basis of fact, and has been introduced here as 
 a parallel incident to that related concerning Peter 
 (9%5-43), But Ramsay points out that St. Luke’s 
 language is very precise; that he does not, as in 
 14, merely state that E. was thought to be dead, 
 and that weight must be attached to his medical 
 knowledge. Even if this be (as is perhaps the 
 case) putting an unnatural strain on the words, it 
 is perfectly clear that the story was related as an 
 instance of the exhibition of power by the apostle, 
 and that the writer, who was an eye-witness, be- 
 lieved it to be such. 
 
 LiTERATuRE.—Ramsay, St. Paul the Trav. p. 290; Holtz. 
 mann, Hand-Commentar. p. 402; Zeller, Acts, ii. p. 62, Eng. tr. 
 
 A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 EVANGELIST (evayyedorjs,—‘a preacher of 
 good news,’ the substantive of evayyedfw—or evary- 
 yerlfouar, the commoner bibl. form). The verb is 
 used in bibl. Gr. occasionally in the general sense 
 of class. Gr. (1 § 31°, Lk 1°), and, when specialized, 
 stands for the work of Gospel preachers of all 
 kinds: the subst., however—which is rare, and 
 entirely sacred and eccles., occurring in bibl. Gr. 
 only in Ac 218, Eph 44, 2 Ti4°—is confined strictly 
 to the Christian good tidings, and, apparently, to 
 a particular office or function (see Hort, Ecclesia, 
 158). The clearest evidence for the distinctness 
 of office or function lies in Eph 4" ‘[Christ] 
 gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets ; 
 and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and 
 teachers.’ It is true that, in the list at 1 Co 12%, 
 evangelists are omitted (also érloxora and dlaxovor) ; 
 but there the point is, perhaps, to illustrate 
 spiritual aptitude rather than to give an exhaust- 
 ive list of eccles. offices. When a similar omission 
 occurs, Ro 12-8, St. Paul seems bent chiefly on 
 distinguishing certain charismata, being content 
 to leave the catalogue incomplete. Possibly, in 
 each case local considerations partly account for 
 the omissions. But in Eph the context suggests 
 that the writer desires to mention all the principal 
 offices, whereby Christ had provided for the 
 spiritual edification of the Church universal, and 
 evayyedtorjs appears to come third in order of 
 institution and of spiritual significance. At the 
 same time it is noticeable that we do not find the 
 word (even in places where it might ey, be 
 looked for) in any of the Pauline Epistles whose 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 EVANGELIST 
 
 
 
 796 
 
 enuineness meets with most general acceptance. 
 ubsequent reference will be made to the passage 
 in the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Ti 4°; it will be sufficient 
 here to say that the phrase &pyov rolncov edayye- 
 dorod, ‘do the work of an evangelist,’ is too 
 marked and peculiar to be satisfactorily inter- 
 
 reted as merely equivalent to ‘ preach the Gospel.’ 
 
 he third and last instance—that in Ac 21* (a 
 verse in one of the ‘ we’ passages), ‘we came unto 
 Cesarea; and entering into the house of Philip 
 the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we 
 abode arith him ’—must be compared with Ac 85®, 
 where it is said that among those who were 
 scattered from Jerus. after the martyrdom of 
 Stephen, and went hither and thither preaching 
 the word, Philip preached the Christ at Samaria, 
 without being qualified (v.\) to impart the Holy 
 Spirit; was sent by the Spirit to teach the 
 oniopiie eunuch in the desert between Jerus. 
 and Gaza; was afterwards carried off by the Spirit 
 and found at Azotus; and, finally, having evan- 
 gelized ‘all the cities’ in his route, took up his 
 abode at Cesarea. He may therefore have been 
 called evayyedioris, not because he had been defin- 
 itely set apart for the office, but because of the 
 missionary work he had done and was perhaps 
 still doing with Ceesarea as centre. He had, in 
 fact, been set apart for something else, ‘to serve 
 tables’ (Ac 616, 218), but had superadded, and 
 possibly, in the end, substituted, the work of a 
 missionary, because he was, like Stephen, ‘full of 
 the Holy Ghost’ (Ac 65), and possessed the charisma 
 for the work of preaching to those who had not 
 heard the Gospel before. 
 
 The three passages, as above discussed and illus- 
 trated, suggest the following conclusions: (1) The 
 evangelists were inferior to the apostles. They are 
 placed third in order in Eph; Philip was unable 
 to impart the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans; 
 Timothy was the assistant and delegate of St. Paul. 
 Consistent with this conclusion is the epigram of 
 Pseudo-Jerome (in Eph 4") ‘omnis apostolus evan- 
 gelista, non omnis evangelista apostolus.’ (2) They 
 were travelling missionaries, preaching the Gospel 
 to those unacquainted with it, ye sometimes with 
 a settled place of abode, as Philip at Cesarea, and 
 Timothy at Ephesus. Thus they were officers act- 
 ing for the whole Christian community, not for a 
 single church only. Their function could be 
 general, covering wide districts, or it could be, in 
 Peon es local and circumscribed. Thus Theo- 
 
 oret’s apparently contradictory statements can 
 be reconciled ; mepiidvres éxjputrov, yet uh mepiidyres 
 mavtaxod. ‘Going about they used to preach,’ yet 
 ‘not going about everywhere’ (as apostles might 
 do). (3) They were charismatically endowed. Com- 
 pare the influence of the Holy Spirit upon Philip, 
 and the xdpioyua of Timothy (1 Ti 44, 2 Til’). Yet 
 the revelations to the prophet and apostle were of 
 a higher and more striking order. The apostles 
 were fitted to be the direct authoritative repre- 
 sentatives of Christ (Mt 10%, Gal 4, 1 Co 11%); 
 the prophets, to sway the heart and conscience by 
 the demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Co 
 14**-) ; the evangelists were more ‘matter-of-fact 
 men,’ preaching the word, communicating the facts 
 of the Gospel, paving the way for the more system- 
 atic work of the pastors and teachers (see order in 
 Eph 4") who watched over and trained the 
 churches when founded (2 Ti 475). But while this 
 may suffice for a distinction in work, it must not 
 be taken as exclusive, so that apostles could not 
 be prophets, or that apostles and prophets could 
 not be evangelists, or that evangelists could not 
 be pastors or teachers, or both. In the floating 
 constitution of the half-organized early Church, 
 different kinds of work were amalgamated (as 
 must always happen) according to qualifications 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EVANGELIST 
 
 
 
 and circumstances (cf. 1 Co 1, Ac 8*, and the 
 mixed instructions to Timothy and Titus). (4) Zhey 
 were, sometimes at any rate, solemnly set apart for 
 the special function. Thus Timothy (1 Ti 4%, 
 2 Ti 1’); and probably Paul and Barnabas (Ac 13!-8) 
 were (so far as the Church was concerned) set 
 apart, in the first instance, not as apostles, but 
 as evangelists from among the ‘prophets and 
 teachers’ at Antioch. 
 
 But we are still left in much uncertainty as te 
 the exact position of the evayyedorjs, and this wn- 
 certainty is increased rather than diminished by 
 the contributions of later literature to the subject. 
 Why, for instance, is there no mention of evan- 
 gelists in the Apostolic Fathers? Because, says 
 Harnack, there was no definite primitive distinc- 
 tion between apostle and evangelist, and in the 
 Didaché the ‘apostles’ are just evangelists. But 
 why should not evangelist have survived, and 
 apostle have been reserved (as in later days) for 
 the first direct representatives of Christ? And, 
 further, when in the Didaché the ‘apostles’ are 
 forbidden to stay more than two days in the same 
 
 lace, can we regard them as parallels to Paul, or 
 
 hilip, or Timothy, especially as in a letter to the 
 last named such constant itinerancy is condemned 
 (1 Ti 5%)? Of course the strict injunction in the 
 Didaché may be due to the growing op 
 for imposing upon the hospitality of well-to-do 
 Christians, and the missionaries referred to in 
 1 Ti may have been caricatures of the evangelist 
 type; but the difference is striking. A partial 
 reply to the former question may be that the ex- 
 tension of the epoualae beyond the Twelve and 
 St. Paul (an extension obtaining apparently in the 
 apostolic age itself) soon submerged the less 
 familiar and less dignified name of evangelist. 
 This, however, scarcely accounts for the speedy 
 and growing exclusiveness of the apostolic title; 
 or for the fact that Eusebius recognizes in Pan- 
 tzenus the evangelist a type of an old order still 
 largely surviving in the days of the Alexandrian, 
 but not common in his own days (Eus. HE v. 10). 
 
 The material Eusebius affords us on this subject, 
 though to some extent unhistorical, throws back 
 light on the primitive use of the term evangelist. 
 He tells how Pantenus found that his arrival in 
 India had been anticipated by the written Gospel 
 of Matthew; he tells how Thadaesee one of the 
 Seventy, had been sent by the Apostle Thomas, 
 under divine impulse, to Edessa, as a preacher and 
 evangelist of the teaching of Christ (HE i. 13), 
 and this ‘teaching’ (also called ‘the seed of the 
 word of God’) is the story of Jesus (§ 19). We 
 may combine these hints with the fact that Euse- 
 bius (leaving the rest unmentioned) avowedly re- 
 cords ‘the names of those [post-apostolic evan- 
 gelists] only who have transmitted the apostolic 
 doctrine to us in writings still extant’; that Theo- 
 doret definitely restricted the name to this class; 
 that, finally, Cheumentas and Chrysostom confined 
 the name to the writers of the Four Gospels; and 
 that evayyedorys became (in the Apostolic Ordin- 
 ances, Harnack, Teste, ii. 5) an appellation of the 
 dvayvworns, the reader of the Gospel for the day, 
 who had also to be dinynrixbs, capable of explaining 
 it. We may further recall that Philip interpreted 
 the prophet Isaiah to the eunuch; that Apollos 
 (probably an evangelist) was mighty in the Scrip- 
 tures; that he had been taught the awe of the 
 Lord’ more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla (prob- 
 ably evangelists also, as Theophylact believes) ; 
 that Timothy the evangelist was strong in the 
 Scriptures, one of the reasons doubtless for his 
 choice; that Paul passes on to Timothy the ‘de- 
 posit’ of the Gospel he had received from Christ, 
 exhorts him to keep the original model of sound 
 words, and reminds him of the word that is trust 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EVE 
 
 
 
 EVERY 797 
 
 
 
 worthy, and of the (open) mystery of godliness 
 which is the story of Jesus (2T1 17, 1 Ti6”+14, 2 Ti 
 Que. ; cf. Tit 38, 1 Ti 315). We shall, then, favour 
 the conclusion that the NT evangelists, as such, 
 were depositaries of the facts of the Gospel as it 
 gradually crystallized; dealing with these facts 
 orally and in writing, now as missionaries, now as 
 interpreters, without the special codia of the 
 apostles, or their peculiar weight and authority ; 
 demi-apostolic men, with a charisma, but one not 
 so commanding as that of the apostle, or so strik- 
 ing as that of the prophet. In a word, they might 
 be called specially inspired teachers; the evayye- 
 Morjs being distinctively and originally a teacher 
 abroad, aggressive, awakening; the d.ddoKados a 
 teacher at home, quiet and edifying. If this was 
 the practical difference between evangelist and 
 teacher, we can better understand Eph 4" ‘some 
 (general and missionary) evangelists, and some 
 pastors and teachers’ (local officers with the double 
 capacity for moral supervision and for instruction 
 in doctrine). We can better understand 1 Co 1278, 
 where 6:dacxKddous (in the third place) would include 
 evangelists. We can better understand how, in 
 the letters to Timothy the ‘evangelist,’ so great 
 a stress is laid on teaching. Furthermore, we can 
 better understand the meaning of teacher in the 
 Didaché, when the phrase, ‘whoever cometh and 
 teacheth, you,’ is followed immediately by ‘but in 
 regard to the apostles and prophets’ (ch. 11); here 
 the teacher seems to be a wandering teacher, that 
 is, an evangelist; and the order ‘apostles and 
 prophets’ is so far against the supposition that 
 the apostles are evangelists. This contention is 
 confirmed by the order in other passages, e.g. 
 (ch. 15) ‘Bishops and deacons. . . they too render 
 you the service of prophets and teachers’ [when, 1.¢. 
 you have none such sojourning among you]; for 
 * prophets and teachers’ may ‘settle among’ them 
 (ch. 13), though apostles may not. 
 
 If this progressive convergence of evangelist and 
 teacher be a fact, it is easy to see how the title of 
 apostle became eeasingly exclusive, and how the 
 title of evangelist gradually confined itself to the 
 writers of the Four Gospels. See CHURCH, p. 433. 
 
 Lrreraturs.—Zéckler, Diakonen und Evangelisten; Réville, 
 Les origines de Vépiscopat; Sohm, Kirchenrecht ; Weizsacker, 
 Apostolic Age (Eng. tr.); Harnack, Texte ii. Lehre der Apostel ; 
 Zahn, Missionsmethoden tm Zeitalter der Apostel; Smith, DB, 
 art. ‘Evangelist.’ J. MASSIE, 
 
 EVE (7 havvah),* is the name given in J to 
 the first woman, the wife of Adam, the mother of 
 Cain, Abel, and Seth. In Gn 3” (which is some- 
 times mepered as a gloss) it is said that she was 
 so named because ‘7-55 DX apy ‘she was the mother 
 of all living,’ i.e. of course, ‘all living men.’ 70 
 is a form of the widespread Sem. root mn, on, or 
 “n, and=dife, as LXX, Oxf. Heb. Lex. ; rather than 
 living (RVm Living or Life), or Aye eine (Symm.), 
 as if a shortened Pi. ptep. W. R. Smith (Kinship 
 and Marriage in Arabia, p. 177) makes Havvah a 
 phonetic variation of hayy, and thus a personifica- 
 tion of the bond of kinship, conceived as exclusively 
 mother-kinship (hayy). Wellh. (Proleg. 308 n. Eng. 
 tr.) follows ildeke in pus penting that havvah 
 =serpent, as explained in Philo (de agric. Noe, 
 § 21) and Midrash Rabba on Gn 3, and finds here 
 a trace of the primitive belief that all earthly life 
 originated in a primeval serpent (cf. the function 
 of Tiamat in the Bab. cosmology, and Arab. 
 hayyatun, serpent). 
 
 * LXX Gn 820 Zoy, 41.25 Eve (the Ede» of v.% has no equi- 
 valent in the Heb.), so also in NT 2 Co 113, 1 Ti 218, In Gn 320 
 Aq. has Ave or Ava, and Symm. Zoaeydves. Tisch. writes Eva 
 both in OT and NT, but WH (ii. 313) point out that in the absence 
 of MS evidence as to breathings, the only safe guide is the 
 initial 7 ofthe Heb. Of. also the Vulg. Heva, both in OT and NT. 
 
 For Eve’s relation to Adam, and the account of 
 her in the narrative of the Creation * and the Fall, 
 see ADAM. Her utterance on the birth of Cain, 
 Gn 4}, is very obscure,—marnx wx np ‘I have 
 
 otten a man,’ AV ‘from the Lord,’ with Targ. 
 
 nk.; RV ‘with the help of the Lord,’ with LX, 
 6a rod Ge00; Vulg. per deum; Symm. ovv xvply. 
 Another Gr. tr. quoted in Field’s Hexapla, éxrnod- 
 Env &vOpwirov kiprov, ‘I have gotten a man, even the 
 Lord,’ has been adopted by Luther and others, and 
 understood as expressing Eve’s conviction that the 
 promised Messiah of 3% had been born. Umbreit 
 pe osed ‘I have gotten J” fora husband.’ The 
 
 is the only probable translation. The text 
 is possibly corrupt. (See CAIN). 
 
 W. H. BENNETT. 
 EVENING.—See Time. 
 
 EVENT occurs thrice in Ec (2" 9%8) as the tr, 
 of mikreh in the obsol. sense of ‘ that which befalls,’ 
 ‘fate’: as 9? ‘There is one event to the righteous 
 and to the wicked.’ Cf. Shaks. 2 Henry IV. 
 IV. ii. 88— 
 
 * Against ill chances men are ever merry, 
 But heaviness foreruns the good event.’ 
 
 Elsewhere event is found only in the sense of 
 ‘issue,’ ‘result,’ Wis 8° ‘[Wistom] foreseeth... 
 the events of seasons and times’ (éxBdoes); 2 Mac 
 9% ‘expect what shall be the event’ (7d dmoByabue- 
 vov). This, which is the common meaning of Lat. 
 eventus, is most frequent in writers of the time of 
 AV, as Shaks. 7. of Shrew, II. ii. 126— 
 
 ‘T’ll after him, and see the event of this.’ 
 
 The mod. sense of an occurrence is very rare in 
 writers of the period. Carlyle quotes Cromwell 
 (Letters, 12 Sept. 1650) ‘[We do not think] of the 
 hand of the great God in this pee and strange 
 appearance of His; but can slightly call it an 
 ‘“event.”’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EYERLASTINGNESS. — For everlasting see 
 EscHATOLOGY. ‘Everlastingness,’ once common 
 for ‘eternity,’ is now used only where its special 
 signification is emphasized, as Cheyne, Isaiah, i. 
 242, ‘ The idea of the divine everlastingness is one 
 of the primary notes of the prophecy.’ It occurs 
 only 2 Es 8” ‘O Lord, thou that dwellest in ever- 
 lastingness’ (qui inhabitas seeculum, RV ‘abidest 
 for ever,’ RV ‘inhabitest eternity’). Wye. 
 (1888) translates Is 571° ‘For the Lord high, and 
 enhaunsid, seith these things, that dwellith in 
 euerlastyngnesse.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EVERY is occasionally found in AV where mod. 
 usage demands ‘each,’ as 2S 21” ‘a man of great 
 stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on 
 every foot six toes’; 2 Es 3 ‘it came to pass in 
 every of them’ (RV omits);+ Rev 21” ‘every several 
 gate was of one pearl’ (RV ‘each one of the several 
 
 ates’). Cf. Cranmer, Works, i. 111, ‘In my right 
 Ready wise I commend me unto you, and likewise 
 
 * The line of an Assyr. Bab. magical text is often read as, 
 ‘The woman from the loins of the man they bring forth,’ 
 
 and quoted as a parallel to the formation of Eve from the ribs 
 of Adam. But when this line is correctly tr. and read in its 
 context, the parallel entirely disappears; ‘they’ are demons, 
 and the passage narrates their ubiquity and mischief; the; 
 enter houses through locked doors, like a snake or the wind, 
 and 
 
 “A woman [who is] at the loins (?) of a man they lead away. 
 
 A child [who is] at the knee of a man they draw forth. 
 
 A noble [who is] at the house of his kindred they drive 
 
 out.’ 
 
 J. D. Davis, Genesis and Sem. Trad, 49. 
 See throughout, Oaf. Heb. Lex. mn, Dillm. on Gn 320 41, 
 
 ¢ Of. T. Elyot, The Governour, ii. 4, ‘he made as wel the 
 great as the smal, and careth for euery of them equally.’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ee 
 
 798 EVI 
 
 EXACT 
 
 
 
 to everich* of you.’ Cf. also Ex 35" ‘every wise 
 hearted among you.’ 
 
 Trench (On the Auth. Ver. of NT, p. 63) points out that 
 both ‘each’ and ‘every’ take occasionally plu. concords, as 
 Ph 23 ‘Let each esteem other better than themselves’; 
 Rev 2013 ‘They were judged every man according to their 
 works.’ He adds, ‘‘‘each” and “‘ every,” though alike implying 
 many, alike resolve that many into its units, and refer to it in 
 these its constituent parts, with only the difference that ‘‘ each” 
 segregates, and ‘“‘every” aggregates, the units which comprise 
 it.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EVI (x ‘desire’ (?)).—One of the five kings of 
 Midian slain, Nu 315, Jos 13% (Hv) P. 
 
 EVIDENCE, EYIDENTLY.—Following Cover- 
 dale, AV has translated 5p, sépher (lit. ‘ book’) by 
 ‘evidence’ in Jer 3220: 11. 12. 14 ter. 16.4, The meaning 
 is ‘ title-deeds.’ Coke (1628) says, ‘ Writings under 
 seale, as Charters and Deeds, and other writings 
 without seale, as Court Rolles, Accounts, and the 
 like... are called Evidences.’ RV gives ‘deed’ 
 throughout. Cf. T. Adams, [7 Peter, p. 23 (on 1%), 
 ‘Therefore a man should be often perusing and 
 looking over his own evidence, as we review our 
 assurances of worldly possessions, that he may he 
 sure of the whole and every part of it: for it is 
 dangerous to have any flaw or defect in our con- 
 veyance of salvation.’ 
 
 ‘ Evidence’ is also the tr. of &\eyxos in its single 
 occurrence in NT, He 11! (RV ‘proving,’ RVm 
 ‘test’) ‘Now faith is the substance of things 
 hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ This 
 is the Bishops’ tr, Wyclif having ‘an argument 
 of thingis not aperynge,’ Tind. ‘a certayntie of 
 thinges which are not sene,’ Gen. ‘sheweth evi- 
 dently the things which are not sene.’ 
 
 ‘Evidently’ is the tr® of gavepis, Ac 108 ‘He 
 saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of 
 the day an angel of God coming in to him’ (RV 
 ‘openly ’); and of the prep. zpo- in mpoeypd¢dn, Gal 3} 
 ‘before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evi- 
 dently set forth crucified’ (RV ‘openly’). In 
 both places ‘evidently’ has the obsol. meaning of 
 ‘clearly,’ ‘ distinctly,’ as in Knox, His¢. 261, ‘ And 
 lest that your Honors should doubt in any of 
 these premises, we offer ourselves evidently to 
 prove, That,’ ete. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EVIL.—This word is likely to become obsolete 
 except in the theological sense of the doctrine of 
 evil (for which see SIN).t In AV it is freely used 
 as subst., adj., and adverb. 4. As subst., often in 
 immed. antithesis to ‘ good,’ as Gn 2° ‘the tree of 
 knowledge (RV ‘the knowledge’) of good and evil’ 
 (yp ai»); 2 Es 2" ‘TI have broken the evil in pieces, 
 and created the good’ (malum et ... bonum): 
 sometimes in the plu., as Pr 14% ‘The evil bow 
 before the good’ (o3'0 1395 oy inv). 2. As adj. 
 ‘evil’ is applied, not only to things, but even 
 to persons, a usage now quite obsolete ; thus Jer 
 12% ‘all mine evil neighbours.’ Cf. Knox, Hist. 
 
 * ‘Every’ is ‘ever each’; the above example shows it in 
 rocess of formation; and the two words are often practically 
 interchangeable, as Milton, Comus, 311— 
 
 ‘I know each lane and every alley green.’ 
 
 + The loss of ‘ evil’ seems to be the result of a discrimination 
 in words with cognate meaning. The AV used ‘evil,’ ‘bad,’ 
 ‘naughty,’ quite indiscriminately. Thus in Jer 242.8 ‘the other 
 basket bad very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they 
 were so bad . . . the good figs, very good; and the evil, very 
 evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil.’ This goes farther 
 in the way of variety than the earlier versions by introducing 
 “bad.’ The Heb. is the same throughout, and RV gives ‘bad’ 
 throughout, 
 
 In Mt 2141 the AV has followed the Bishops’, ‘he will miserably 
 destroy those wicked men,’ and has thus lost the force of the 
 Greek (xaxovs xaxws &wodrtoss avrove). Tindale is no better, ‘He 
 will cruellye destroye those evyll persons.’ But Wyclif, ‘He 
 schal lese (=destroy) yuel the yuele men’; Rheims, ‘The 
 naughtie men he will bring to naught’; and RV ‘He will 
 miserably destroy those miserable men,’ all give the repetition 
 its advantage. 
 
 283, ‘He had a very evil woman to his wife.” For 
 evil spirit’ (Lk 77 8?, Ac 1912: 18- 15. 16) see DEMOW. 
 In Mt 5*” 6% RV prefers ‘the evil one’ to AV ‘ tha 
 evil,’ and in 1 Jn 5° for AV ‘ wickedness’: see 
 DEMON, and consult Lightfoot, On a Fresh Re- 
 vision’, pp. 269-323; Chase, Lord’s Prayer in 
 Early Church (‘Texts and Studies,’ I. ii.), pp. 
 71-167. The ‘evil eye’ is a Heb. expression for 
 ENVy (which see). 3. As adv. chiefly in the phrase 
 ‘evil entreat’ (Ex 5”, Dt 26°, Job 24%, To 10%, 
 Sir 7° 3331, Ac 78): the other phrases are ‘ went 
 evil with’ (1 Ch 7%); ‘evil affected’ (Ad. Est 13°, 
 Ac 14*); ‘evil spoken of’ (Sir 381”, Ro 148, 1 Co 
 10%) ; ‘fare evil’ (Sir 3%), Cf. Grindal, Letter to 
 Q. Eliz. (Parker Soc. ed. p. 381) ‘ Much like to the 
 Popish Bishops in your father’s time, who would 
 have had the English translation of the Bible 
 called in, as evil translated ; and the new trans- 
 lating thereof to have been committed to them- 
 selves ; which they never intended to perform.’ 
 
 Evilfavouredness.—_See FAVOUR. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EVIL-MERODACH (3759 by) was the son and 
 successor of the great Nebuchadrezzar on the 
 throne of Babylon. According to 2 K 2577-%, he 
 
 romoted the captive king of Jerus., Jehoiachin, 
 in the 37th year of his captivity, set his throne 
 above the thrones of the kings who were with him 
 in prison, changed his prison Cae and made 
 him a guest at the royal table to the end of his 
 life. The Sept. reads Evia\papwoéx, and Berosus 
 "Aptdpapovdoxos. The cuneiform equivalent of his 
 name is Amél(Avél)-Maruduk (cf. Haupt in Zeitsch. 
 Sf. Assyr. ii. 266 and 284 f.), ‘man (servant) of Mero- 
 dach.’ According to Berosus, he administered the 
 kingdom during his two years’ reign (562-560) with 
 indiscretion and wanton unrestraint. Tiele (Bab.- 
 aay Ges. pp. 457, 464) concludes, on the basis 
 of this character of E.-M., that the benevolent act 
 towards Jehoiachin should be attributed to his 
 successor on the throne of Babylon. We possess as 
 yet none of his annals, though several contract 
 tablets date from his reign. In the year 560 his 
 brother-in-law, Neriglissar (Nergal-%ar-usur, 
 ‘Nergal preserve the king’), in a conspiracy, 
 slew him and seized the throne. 
 
 LiTERATURE.—Meyer, Gesch. d. Alterthums, vol. 1. p. 697; 
 
 Delitzsch, Heb. Lang. p. 12; Boscawen, Trans, Soc. Bib. Arch. 
 vol. vi. p. 1 ff. ; and authorities above cited. 
 
 IrA M. PRICE. 
 EVIL SPEAKING.—See SLANDER. EVIL 
 SPIRIT.—See DEMON. 
 
 EXACT.—1. The adj., only Sir 51° ‘In my doin, 
 
 I was exact’ (év roujoes pou dinkpByodunv A, but 
 has év roujoet Aywod SinkptBacdunr, ‘in the doing of | 
 hunger (?) I was exact’; Fritzsche suggests, and 
 most edd. adopt, véuov, ‘in the doing of the law’). 
 Here ‘exact’ means ‘strict,’ ‘particular,’ aa 
 Shaks. Troil. and Cres. Iv. v. 232— 
 
 ‘Now, Hector, I have fed mine eyes on thee; 
 
 I have with exact view perused thee, Hector,’ 
 
 and Herbert, The Temple: ‘ Faith,’ 1. 43— 
 
 * What though my bodie runne to dust? 
 Faith cleaves unto it, counting every grain 
 With an exact and most partic trust, 
 Reserving all for flesh again.’ 
 
 2. As verb frequently. Notice Ps 89% ‘The enemy 
 
 shall not exact upon him’ (33 xwrskd, RVm ‘do him 
 
 violence’): the mod. phrase is ‘impose exactions 
 
 upon.’ Cf. Burnet (1687), Trav. ii. 86, ‘Innkeepers | 
 
 think they have a right to exact upon Strangers.’ 
 
 In Lk 318 RV has changed ‘ Exact no more than that which ig 
 appointed you,’ into ‘Extort no more,’ etc. But ‘exact’ was 
 surely strong enough; were they permitted to extort anything? 
 
 Tind. has ‘require.’ Following the Vulg. faciatis, Wyclif has ‘i | 
 
 ‘do ye no more,’ and Rheims ‘ Doe nothing more,’ which seema 
 a natural reply to ‘What shall we do?’ But the Greek verba 
 are not the same, T/ ody womempar (TR roitjoouey) and Mydiyv, .- 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 EXCEED 
 
 EXCELLENCY 799 
 
 
 
 wpéeoiss; and rpéccsy has the sense of exacting both in class. 
 reek and in Lk 1923 (EV ‘require’). Agere is similarly used in 
 Lat., and might have been chosen by Jerome here. 
 
 Exactly is found 2 Es 16 ‘ the Lord will exactly 
 search out’ (scrutinando scrutinabit), and Sir 16” 
 ‘declare his knowledge exactly ’ (év dxpiBelg). The 
 sense is the same as ‘exact’ above, t.e. ‘precisely’; 
 ef. Shaks. Temp. I. ii. 499— 
 
 ‘But then exactly do - 
 All points of my command.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXCEED.—The transitive use is now rare and 
 almost confined to the sense of ‘ preponderate,’ as 
 Jowett, Plato?, v. 76, ‘Men always choose the life 
 which exceeds in pleasure.’ But in AV we find 
 the sense of 1g too far,’ without introducing a 
 comparison, 18 20% ‘They . .. wept one with 
 another, until David exceeded’ (37); Job 36° 
 ‘Then he showeth them their work, and their 
 transgressions that they have exceeded’ (123m, 
 RV ‘have behaved themselves proudly’); 2 Es 4% 
 ‘Do not thou hasten above the most Highest : 
 for thy haste is in vain to be above him, for thou 
 hast much exceeded’ (excessus tuus multus, RV 
 ‘for he that is above [hasteneth] on behalf of 
 many,’ reading Hacelsus autem propter muitos, 
 after Syr.): so Coverdale’s tr. of Is 31° ‘ Therfore 
 (O ye children of Israel) turne agayne, like as 
 
 e have exceaded in your goinge back’ (AV and 
 
 VV ‘have deeply revolted’), and Bacon, dd- 
 vancement of Learning, Il. ix. 3 (Selby’s ed. p. 53) 
 ‘the scruples and superstitions of diet . . . in the 
 law of Mahomet, do exceed.’ 
 
 Exceeding is rare as an adj., only eight times,* 
 while as adv. it is used 60 times at least, when 
 it always qualifies an adj. Thus Mt 8* ‘There 
 met him two possessed with devils, coming out of 
 the tombs, exceeding fierce’ (xaderol Nav; so 
 Rheims; but Tind. Cov. Cran. and Gen. 1557, 
 ‘out of measure fearce’; Gen. 1560 and Bishops’, 
 ‘very fierce’ ; Wye. ‘ ful wood’). 
 
 Two cases of ‘exceeding’ as adv, demand attention: Jon 33 
 ‘Nineveh was an exceeding great city,’ and Ac 720 ‘Moses... 
 was exceeding fair.’ The Heb. of Jon 33 is abs nbiayy, 
 lit. ‘a city great unto God,’ as RVm; and the Gr, of Ac 720 is 
 aersios TH Osa, lit. ‘fair unto God,’ as RVm again. AV and RV 
 igs in taking both passages as a form of the superlative ; and 
 this is supported by 1 Ch 1222 ‘a great host, like the host of 
 God.’ But inthe only other place where the identical expres- 
 sion occurs, Gn 109 (mm 385 sYy"1a3), AV and RV give ‘a 
 mighty hunter before the Lorp’; and it is probable that in the 
 three es the intention is to express, not merely the super- 
 lative, but the ideal of might, greatness, beauty, such as could 
 be admitted into the presence of the All-perfect. There are 
 similar expressions in the Psalter, Ps 366 AV ‘the great moun- 
 tains,’ RV as Heb. ‘the mountains of God’; 659 ‘the river of 
 God,’ AV and RV; 8019 AV ‘the goodly cedars,’ RV as Heb. 
 ‘ of God’ ; 10416 AV and RV ‘the trees of the Lorp’; but 
 Perowne patie lc.) is right in pointing out that in these 
 passages the thought is different, being that of God’s proprietor- 
 aye ey indeed the last passage indicates, ‘which he hath 
 planted.’ 
 
 Exceedingly also occurs some 50 times, being 
 the form used with verbs (except Ac 264, Gal 1%, 
 aa in which AV first of Eng. versions uses 
 
 his word). ‘More exceedingly’ is found Mk 15 
 (TR repiocorépws, edd. repicods, RV ‘exceedingly’), 
 
 * The eight occurrences of ‘exceeding’ as an adj. are 2 Mac 827 
 ‘yielding e. praise and thanks to the Lord’ (wspoodic shdoyourtes 
 wml iZoporoyoipsvas tH Kupiw, RV ‘blessing and thanking the 
 Lord exceedingly’); 155‘in e. pride and haughtiness’ (were 
 wéons crcXovslas trpavyevay, RV ‘bearing himself haughtily in all 
 vaingloriousness,’ RVm ‘carrying his neck high’); 2 Co 417 ‘a 
 far more e. and eternal weight of glory’ (xa0’ UrepBorny sis daxtp- 
 Bor%y cla viov Baxpos doéns, RV ‘more and more exceedingly an 
 eternal weight’); 9/4 ‘for the e. grace of God’ (d:% thy varepBca- 
 Revoay xen) Eph 119 ‘ the e. greatness of his power’ (1d uxsp- 
 Bardo aéysbos) ; 27 ‘the e. riches of his grace’ (rd darspBarAov 
 whovros); 1 P 418 ‘that ye may be glad also with e. joy’ (iva 
 wal... xapnrs &yaddeutvr); Jude 24 ‘with e. joy’ (iy heymwa- 
 Aséous, RV ‘ine. joy’). Thus in every instance the meaning is 
 ‘surpassingly great’; the word never has the sense of excessive 
 or immoderate, which we find, ¢.g., in Sandys, (1585) Sermons, 
 ane sae Anna so exceeding in craving children at the 
 of 
 
 
 
 Gal 1*4 (repiccorépws) ; and ‘ exceedingly the more,’ 
 2 Co 7% ‘e,. the more joyed we’ (mepocorépws 
 Hao éxdpnucv). Notice also ‘very exceedingly,’ 
 Gn 27% ‘And Isaac trembled very e.’ (pps? 727) 
 akomy md4a ay, lit., as AVm, ‘trembled with a 
 great trembling greatly’; LXX, é&éorn 6é 'Ioada 
 éxoracw peyddnv opddpa ; Geneva, ‘Then Izhak was 
 stricken with a meruelous great feare’ ; Bishops’, 
 ‘ And Isahac was greatly astonied out of measure’ ; 
 Dillmann, ‘ Da erschrak Isaak grossen Erschreckens 
 iiber die Massen’; other translations are less 
 forcible). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXCELLENCY.—The verb to ‘excel’ occurs 13 
 times in AV, translating just as many different 
 Heb. and Gr. words, but always distinctly with the 
 sense of ‘be pre-eminent over others,’ ‘ surpass.’ 
 The idea of pre-eminence is seen even in Ps 103” 
 ‘ye his apes that excel in strength,’ though the 
 
 eb. is 99 "133 gibbdré kéah, lit. ‘ heroes of strength’ ; 
 for, as Delitzsch says, it is because to the angel 
 hosts belong strength unequalled that they are 
 summoned now to praise God in company with the 
 Church on earth, whose dignity surpasses every 
 other created thing. 
 
 Pre-eminence is also the leading thought in the 
 word ‘excellency.’ 4. Sometimes the quality in 
 which the pre-eminence appears is stated ; thus 
 Gn 49% ‘the excellency of dignity, and the excel- 
 lency of power’ (17 193) nv 1D}), 7.e. says Delitzsch, 
 pee: both in respect and in power, is due to 
 
 euben above his brethren, because he is the first- 
 born ; Ezk 247 ‘I will profane my sanctuary, the 
 excellency of your strength,’ t.e. the place of pre- 
 eminent strength (Heb. oz3y jixz, RV ‘the pride 
 of your power’); 1 Co 2} ‘1... came not with 
 excellency of speech or of wisdom’ (xa0’ brepoxiy 
 Abyou 4 coplas. ‘The word tzepoxy denotes strictly 
 the act of overhanging, or the thing which over- 
 hangs; hence superiority, pre-eminence: by 
 Byzantine writers it is used in the sense “‘ your 
 Excellency ” ’—Godet); Ph 3° ‘the excellency of the 
 knowledge of Christ Jesus’ (7d brepéxov) ; 2 Co 47 
 ‘that the excellency of the power may be of God’ 
 (4 brepBor}, RV ‘ exceeding greatness,’ but ‘ superi- 
 ority,’ ‘pre-eminence,’ is always the meaning of 
 the word). 2. More often the ‘excellency’ is of 
 no special quality; but even then the Eng. word, 
 as understood in 1611, though less precise is not 
 less forcible than its Heb. or Gr. equivalents, for 
 it has always in it the sense o op peat 
 uniqueness. Cf. Pref. to AV 1611, ‘for the worth 
 and excellency thereof above the rest’; Pr. Bk. 
 1552 (Keeling, p. 382), ‘Forasmuch then as your 
 Office is of so great excellency, and of so great 
 difficulty’; Bacon, Adv. of Learn. Il. xxiii, 27 
 (Selby, p. 149), ‘Julius Cesar ... at first was an 
 orator or pleader ; but when he saw the excellency 
 of Cicero, Hortensius, Catullus, and others . 
 he... transferred his designs to a martial great- 
 ness.’ The two words chiefly translated ‘ excel- 
 leney’ in AV are: (1) }xi g@’6n (Ex 157, Job 374, of 
 J"; bs 474, Am 68 87, Nah 2?, of ‘ Jacob’; Is 60" of 
 Zion ; Ezk 24”! of the temple ; Is 13! of the Chal- 
 deans), a word which primarily means ‘exalta- 
 tion,’ hence majesty which is pre-eminent; (2) 
 msi ga’dwah (Dt 33 %, Ps 68%, all of J”), a word of 
 less honour than the preceding, being used indeed 
 most frequently of ‘ pride’ in a bad sense ; still it 
 is not inaptly translated ‘excellency’ in those 
 passages, ine reference being always to the unique 
 ‘dignity’ of J”. 
 1897, p. 238 f.). 
 
 (See also Driver, Joel and Amos, 
 
 In old writers ‘ excellence’ and ‘ excellency’ are both in use 
 without difference of meaning. Shaks. uses ‘excellence’ 19 
 times, ‘ excellency’ only thrice ; AV has ‘excellency’ 29 times, 
 ‘excellence’ not once. ‘Excellency’ has now given place ta 
 * excellence,’ and the word has greatly deteriorated : the only 
 

 
 800 EXCELLENT 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 
 
 use of ‘excellency’ is as a term of courtesy, ‘ your Excellency,’ 
 which may be applied to any petty governor ; and ‘excellence’ 
 itself has accepted the vague sense of general worth. The 
 deterioration may be partly due to the still greater loss that has 
 befallen the adj. excellent. In AV ‘excellent’ is probably 
 never used without a distinct expression of comparison, 
 ‘superior,’ ‘ pre-eminent.’ Of.T. Adams, IJ Peter (1633), p. 83, 
 ‘Jacob gave Reuben a blessing, but added, Thou shalt not be 
 excellent’; and p. 83, ‘ Cain’s outlawed stock were yet excellent 
 in worldly things.’ But comparisons are odious; Shaks. has a 
 fondness for using it ironically, and in course of time it has 
 dropped down to merely ‘ very good.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXCELLENT, or rather MOST EXCELLENT, is 
 the regular tr. in RV for the word xpdricros, used 
 as a title of respect four times, and always by St. 
 Luke (Lk 18, Ac 237 24% 26%), In AV ‘most 
 noble’ is substituted in the last two instances. 
 In three of those passages we clearly have the 
 formal address of a person of high rank ; ‘ Claudius 
 Lysias unto the most e. governor Felix’; ‘ most 
 e. Felix’; ‘But Paul saith, I am not mad, most e. 
 Festus’; in the fourth (Lk 1%) it is used in the 
 address to Theophilus, to whom St. Luke dedicated 
 both his works, and a question of some interest 
 arises as to whether we can assert from the use 
 of the term elsewhere that Theophilus must 
 have been also of high rank and position. So 
 Theophylact, Arg. in Ev. sec. Luc: ‘He writes 
 to Theophilus, a man of senatorial rank, and 
 also a magistrate (ocvykAnrixdy byTa Kal dpxovra 
 tows), for the word xpdricros was used of magis- 
 trates and governors (dpxévrwy kal tryeutvwr), as 
 also Paul says, addressing the governor Festus: 
 “‘Most e. Festus.”’ The authority of a Byzantine 
 commentator would, however, be delusive on such 
 a queen as the meaning of language changes, 
 and the question must be settled by contemporary 
 usage. 
 
 ¥ There can be no doubt that from the Ist cent. 
 onwards the word was an official title, but there is 
 no peeot that it was always so used. For instance 
 in Jos., although in Ané. XVIU. viil. 4, XX. i. 2 we 
 find the technical sense, in Anfé. IV. vi. 8 (& xpdriorou 
 veaviav) it is certainly not so used, while in the 
 dedication of the treatise against Apion to Epaph- 
 roditus, who was a freedman and procurator, the 
 variation xpdriore dvdpv seems to suggest a different 
 tone (c. Ap. i. 1; Vita, 76). Cf. 2 Mac 42, 
 
 2. On the other hand, the usage of St. Luke 
 seems more fixed. In those cases where the word 
 occurs, it is certainly used as an official address, 
 and is probably (we cannot say certainly) so used 
 in the fourth instance. In any case there is cer- 
 tainly a difference in usage between St. Luke and 
 Josephus, which makes it improbable that there 
 is in this case any literary connexion between the 
 two. 
 
 LiITERATURE.—Otto, De Epistola ad Diognetum, 1845, p. 79, 
 ed. ii. p. 51; Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, p. 53 ; Ramsay, St. 
 Paul the Trav. p. 388. A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 EXCEPT.—The verb occurs only 1 Co 157 ‘ But 
 when he saith all things are put under him, it is 
 manifest that he is excepted, which did put all 
 things under him,’ that is, an exception is made 
 in his favour, he is left out of account. This is 
 Coverdale’s tr, and illustrates the oldest meaning 
 of the verb. Cf. Shaks. Jul. Cas. U1. i. 281— 
 
 ‘ Within the bond ot marriage, tell me, Brutus, 
 Is it excepted, I should know no secrets 
 That appertain to you?’ 
 
 In their Preface the translators of AV use ‘except against’ 
 for take exception to; ‘men not to be excepted against by them 
 of Rome’; ‘none of them feare to dissent from him, nor yet to 
 except against him’; ‘Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer 
 thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a 
 new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for 
 then the imputation of Status had been true in some sort, that 
 our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, 
 with whey in stead of milke) ; but to make a good one better, or 
 out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly to 
 
 be excepted against; that hath been our indeauour, that our 
 marke.’ Of. Knox, Hist. 447, ‘the sincerer sort of the Ministrie 
 in England had not yet assaulted the jurisdiction and Church 
 gouernement (which they did not till the B hae: 1572, at which 
 time they published their first and second admonition to the 
 Parliament), but onely had excepted against superstitious 
 apparell, and some other faults in the service Booke.’ 
 
 As past ptcp. of the verb to except, we find 
 excepted, as Kingesmyll, Man’s Est. v. (1580) 21, 
 ‘They eate of the excepted tree’; and Milton, 
 PL xi. 426— 
 
 ‘Some to spring from thee, who never touch’d 
 
 Th’ excepted tree.’ 
 But more frequently except (as Tindale, Works, i. 
 213, ‘Here is no man except, but all souls must 
 obey’), and then very often following its subst., 
 as Ac 26% Cov. ‘these bondes excepte’; Bacon, 
 Adv. Learn. i. (Selby’s ed. p. 62, 1. 8), ‘the divine- 
 ness of souls except.’ When this ptep. preceded 
 its subst. it came to be regarded as a prep., though 
 it is obviously hard to say when the change took 
 place. The earliest examples in Oxf. Eng. Dict. 
 quoted as a prep. are Langland, Pers Plowman 
 (B), ix. 140, Alle shal deye... Except oneliche 
 of eche kynde a couple’; Henry, Wallace, v. 1026, 
 ‘Thai entryt in, befor thaim fand no man, Excep 
 wemen.’ ze little later began its use as a conj., 
 introducing not a subst. but a clause, and bein 
 equivalent to ‘unless.’ In AV and RV it is u 
 both as prep. and as conj., most frequently as conj. 
 Once the conj. is strengthened by ‘that,’ Mk 13 
 ‘except that the Lord had shortened those ek 
 (RV omits ‘that’). Cf. Jn 3°, Tind. ‘except that 
 a man be boren of water and of the sprete.’ 
 
 The only use of ‘except’ that is now commended is as a 
 preposition. Hodgson (Hrrors in the Use of English?, 117f.) 
 quotes two examples from good modern writers of its use as a 
 conj., but says that ‘ wnless would be generally held preferable’ ; 
 Keble, Memoir, i. 81, ‘Do not trouble yourself about writing to 
 me, except you are quite in the humour for it’; Miss Mitford, 
 Letters and Life, i. 150, ‘It has no literary pretensions, except 
 the total absence of all pretension may pass for one in these 
 days of abundant conceit.’ The Revisers have been somewhat 
 sharply taken to task for using ‘except’ as a conj. [see esp. 
 Moon, The Revisers’ English (1882), 94-97, and Heclesiastical 
 English (1886), 205-207]. In this, however, they are at one with 
 previous versions and with the history of the word. In the 
 Canonical Scriptures of AV except occurs 73 times, and 67 times 
 it is a conjunction. The Revisers have made few changes. In 
 Gn 4726 they prefer ‘only,’ and in Nu 1618 ‘but’; twice (2 8 39 
 1 Co 147) they turn ‘except’ into ‘if... not,’ twice (1 Co 146. 
 into ‘unless,’ and once (2 Co 135) into ‘unless indeed.’ It is 
 only in connexion with Jn 8% where they change ‘if... not,’ 
 and 1 Co 152 where they change ‘unless,’ into ‘ except,’ that they 
 are open to criticism ; but no doubt both came under the rule 
 of ‘uniformity in rendering.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXCHANGER.—See Money. 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION is the name applied to 
 the temporary or permanent exclusion, for errors 
 of doctrine or morals, of a member of a Church 
 from the privileges of its communion. The word 
 is not used either in AV or RV, but the practice 
 which it describes meets us in NT, both in the case 
 of the Jewish synagogue and in that of the 
 Christian Church. 
 
 The practice in the Jewish synagogue is referred 
 to in Pe 6% (Blessed are ye when men ‘shall 
 separate you from their company,’ dpoplfw), Jn 9% 
 (the case of the blind man cast out of the syna- 
 gogue, dmocuvdywyos), Jn 12" (the rulers who 
 feared to confess Christ), Jn 16? (Christ’s prophecy 
 concerning the disciples). It rests om the older 
 practice, described in Ezr 10° (the case of those Isr. 
 who at the Restoration refused to give up their 
 idolatrous wives), which in turn is a modification 
 of the still older Aérem (nm) or ‘ban,’ referred to 
 in Lv 27” and elsewhere. The word hérem 
 means literally devoted, and is used in OT in 
 the twofold sense of devoted to destruction (hence 
 accursed) and devoted to God’s service (hence con- 
 secrated). See CURSE. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 EXECUTIONER 801 
 
 
 
 The practice of excommunication as we find it 
 umong the Jews in the time of Christ is the out- 
 rowth of the Aérem in the first of these senses. 
 n the early history of Israel the punishment of 
 idolatry or other gross sins was physical death. 
 Thus we find the prophets referring to the future 
 triumph of Israel over their enemies as the whole- 
 sale devotion of them to destruction by J” (so 
 is 34-5, Mic 438, Jer 507), and Zech. looks for- 
 ward to the happy time in the future when there 
 shall be no more ‘ ban’ (14"), Temporary exclusion 
 from the services of the sanctuary meets us only, 
 in the case of ceremonial offences, as part of the 
 general requirement of the ceremonial law. At 
 the time of the Restoration we find a modification 
 of the older practice in the interest of greater 
 humanity. Those Isr. who had married foreign 
 wives, and who refused at the command of Ezra to 
 give them up, instead of being put to death had 
 their substance confiscated, and were separated 
 from the congregation of Israel (Ezr 108). In the 
 time of Christ, exclusion from the synagogue was 
 the regular punishment for serious moral and 
 religious offences, and is distinguished by the 
 Rabbis as hérem proper, the formal ‘ ban,’ which 
 could be inflicted by not fewer than ten persons, 
 and which deprived him on whom it fell of all 
 religious privileges, from the milder nidddi (173), 
 which could be inflicted by a single person, and 
 which merely cut off him who suffered it from 
 conversation and contact for a period of thirty 
 days. For a supposed third grade, the so-called 
 shammatha (xpov), there seems to be no good 
 authority. 
 
 The origin of Christian excommunication is often 
 found in Christ’s words to Peter (Mt 16%), ‘I will 
 give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; 
 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt 
 loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ (Cf. 
 Mt 188, Jn 20%.) But, whatever the particular 
 view taken of this much disputed passage, the 
 reference seems to be rather to the spiritual power 
 which the Church is to exercise through her 
 preaching and witness-bearing than to any formal 
 ecclesiastical procedure. The passage Mt 18-17 
 comes nearer to the mark, and with its threefold 
 admonition, first privately, then in the presence of 
 two or three witnesses (cf. Tit 3), and finally 
 before the Church, reminds us somewhat of the 
 graded procedure of the Jewish synagogue. Hence 
 many critics believe that it represents less a 
 direct utterance of Jesus Himself than the practice 
 in the Jewish-Christian circles for which the 
 Gospel of Matthew was written. 
 
 In the letters of St. Paul, besides general direc- 
 tions to ‘admonish the disorderly’ (1 Th 5; cf. 
 1 Ti 5”), and to hold aloof from Penthats who are 
 fornicators, or covetous, or idolaters, or revilers, or 
 drunkards, or extortioners (1 Co 5"), or who 
 refuse to obey the word of St. Paul by his letters 
 
 _ (2 Th 3"; cf. Ro 167”), we have in the Church of 
 
 Corinth at least one case, and possibly two cases, 
 of ecclesiastical discipline. The first is that of the 
 incestuous person, referred to in 1 Co 5, whom St. 
 Paul delivers unto Satan ‘for the destruction of 
 the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day 
 of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Co 5°). The reference in v.‘ 
 to the Corinthians as being gathered together, 
 shows that whatever the exact nature of the 
 
 unishment described as committing unto Satan, 
 it had ecclesiastical significance. In v.¥ the 
 Corinthians are expressly charged to put away the 
 wicked man from among themselves. If 2 Co 2%" 
 refer, as is most commonly supposed, to this same 
 matter, it would follow that the exclusion from 
 church fellowship was not permanent. ‘Sufficient 
 to such a one is this punishment, which was 
 
 VOL, I.—5I 
 
 inflicted b 
 should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest 
 any means such a one should be swallowed up by 
 
 the many; so that contrariwise re 
 Y 
 
 his vvermuch sorrow’ (vy.* 7). If, however, as 
 seems not unlikely, this passage refers to an entirely 
 distinct case from that mentioned in 1 Co, we have 
 a case of discipline administered by the Corinth- 
 ians themselves without special instigation by St. 
 Paul. Interesting and perplexing is the mention 
 of Satan in 1 Co 55 (cf. 2 Co 2" ‘that no advan- 
 tage may be gained over us by Satan’; 1 Ti 1” 
 ‘Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I delivered 
 unto Satan that they might be taught not to 
 blaspheme’). That St. Paul does not mean by the 
 expression ‘delivery unto Satan’ a final cutting off 
 from salvation, such as seems to be implied in the 
 anathema of 1 Co 1672, Gal 1° 9, Ro 9%, is clear from 
 the reference in v.° to the salvation of the spirit. 
 On the other hand, that some suffering besides 
 the formal exclusion from church fellowship is 
 intended, seems equally clear from the reference to 
 the destruction of the flesh. Hence the conjecture 
 of some physical punishment miraculously in- 
 flicted upon the offender, possibly, as in the case of 
 Ananias and Sapphira, death itself. But the matter 
 is too obscure to warrant a definite conclusion. 
 
 The Corinthian letters picture a loose organiza- 
 tion, without formal officers, in which discipline is 
 administered, now by the Corinthians, now by St. 
 Paul himself. There is no definite rule of procedure. 
 The general principle is laid down in 1 Co 5%3, 
 and special application is made acc. to the circum- 
 stances of each case. In the Pastorals we have 
 already a definite mode of procedure, with its 
 public reproof, and its accusation before witnesses 
 (1 Ti 5%). Not moral offences only, but a schis- 
 matic spirit may be the occasion for exclusion from 
 church fellowship (Tit 3! ‘A man that is hereti- 
 cal [factious] after a first and second admonition, 
 refuse.’ Cf. 1 Ti 6°, and esp. 2 Jn v.”, where 
 false doctrine is made the ground for absolute 
 breach of intercourse), That excommunication 
 might be inflicted by a faction, as well as by the 
 Church at large, is clear from the case of Diotrephes 
 (3 Jn), These later instances show that excom- 
 munication was not merely disciplinary, having as 
 its end the penitence and subsequent restoration 
 of the offender, but also protective, being designed 
 to guard the infant Church from corruption. In 
 no case, however, is it regarded as consigning the 
 person cut off to eternal punishment, as later 
 theories have sometimes held. That was the work 
 of God alone, with which man had nothing to do. 
 In general, this brief survey of the NT passages 
 shows that we have to do only with the first 
 beginnings, from which the later ecclesiastical 
 procedure, with its elaborate process, was de- 
 veloped. In this matter, as in so many others of 
 interest, the development was a gradual one, a 
 part of that slow process by which the flexibility 
 of early Christian institutions was gradually trans- 
 formed into the fixed rules of a powerful ecclesj 
 astical organization. 
 
 LiTeraTuRB.—The art. in Smith, DB®, by F. Meyrick, un- 
 changed ; and ying | PRE? ‘Bann bei den Hebriern,’ by 
 Riietschi, where the older literature is given. For the practice 
 among the Jews, see Nowack, Heb. Archdol.; and Benzinger, 
 Heb. Archdol. On the case of the Corinthian offender, cf. 
 Weiszacker, Das Apostolische Zeitalter?. A full discussion of 
 
 passages in their connexion is still a desideratum. 
 W. ADAMS BROWN. 
 
 EXECUTIONER.—Mk 6*' AV, of the officer sent 
 by Herod to behead John the Baptist, RV ‘a 
 soldier of his guard.’ The Gr. word orexovddrwp is 
 a transliteration of Lat. speculator, and the specu- 
 latores were originally scouts or spies (speculor, to 
 watch), and then the police or bodyguard of the 
 Roman emperors and military governors. (The 
 word is y discussed in Benson, Cyprian, 5065 f.) 
 

 
 802 
 
 EXERCISE 
 
 EXODUS TO CANAAN 
 
 
 
 Beheading was a Roman, not a Jewish punishment. 
 See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXERCISE.—Asa verb: 1. The primary meaning 
 is to peony oneself with, eugage in, Ps 131! 
 ‘Neither do I exercise myself in great matters’ 
 (nage), lit. ‘neither do I walk,’ as RVm) ; Sir 50% 
 ‘Blessed is he that shall be exercised in these 
 things’ (dvacrpapjcerat) ; 2 Es 15° ‘ those things in 
 which they wickedly exercised themselves’ (que 
 inique exercent, ‘which they wickedly 
 
 ractise’). Cf. Pref. to AV 1611, ‘in Latine we 
 
 aue been exercised almost from our verie cradle.’ 
 2. To put into practice, bring into use, as Knox 
 (Works, ed. Laing, iv. 135), ‘Even such, deare 
 brethren, is the blessed Evangelie of our Lord Jesus; 
 for the more that it be entreted, the more comfort- 
 able and puissant is it to such as do heare, reade, 
 or exercise the same’; or as Dunbar (Zhe Thrissill 
 and the Rois, 16) uses exerce, the obsolete form 
 of the verb, direct from exercere— 
 
 *Exerce justice with mercy and conscience.’ 
 
 So Rev 13” ‘ he exerciseth all the power of the first 
 beast’ (xoet); Jer 9% ‘I am the LorpD, which 
 exercise lovingkindness’ (nyy ‘doing’); To 129 
 ‘Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall 
 be filled with life’ (axoodyres); Ezk 22% ‘The 
 people of the land have used oppression, and 
 exercised robbery’ (513 351n); Wis 164 ‘It was 
 requisite that upon them exercising tyranny should 
 come penury’ (ékelvos rupavvotor, RV ‘in their 
 tyrannous dealing’); and the passages in the Synop- 
 tics, Mt 20%, Mk 10%, Lk 22%, where xaraxupiedw 
 (Lk xupetw) and xarefovoidg{w (Lk éfovordtw) are 
 translated in AV ‘exercise dominion’ and ‘exer- 
 cise authority’ in Mt, ‘e. lordship’ and ‘e. 
 authority’ in Mk and Lk; RV gives ‘lord it’ for 
 karax., and ‘e. authority ’ for xareé. in Mt and Mk, 
 ‘have lordship’ and ‘have authority’ in Lk. 3. 
 To practise for training or discipline, Ac 2416 ‘ And 
 herein do I exercise myself, to have always a con- 
 science void of offence toward God and toward 
 man’ (4¢x0); 1 Ti 4’ ‘exercise thyself unto godli- 
 ness’ (yuprvdtw; so He 5% 121, 2 - 214); 1 Mac 6” 
 ‘elephants exercised in battle’ (elésres aédenov, 
 RV ‘trained for war’); 2 Mac 15 ‘exercised 
 from a child in all points of virtue’ (éxpemueder- 
 nxéra). 4 All those meanings belong to the Lat. 
 exercere, and the influence of the Vulg. is con- 
 pene throughout. There are even two examples 
 of ‘exercise’ in the sense of ‘afflict,’ ‘torment,’ 
 which also belongs to exercere; Ec 18 ‘this sore 
 travail hath God given to the sons of man to be 
 exercised therewith,’ and 3 The Heb. is my, ‘to 
 be bowed down.’ Cf. Fuller, Holy Warre (ed. 
 1640, p. 155), ‘they had to do with Meladine King 
 of Egypt, who lay besides them,... exercising 
 the Christians with continual skirmishes.’ Milton 
 has the same sense in Par. Lost, ii. 89— 
 
 “Where pain of unextinguishable fire 
 Must exercise us without hope of end’; 
 and Par. Reg. i. 156— 
 
 ‘But first I mean 
 To exercise him in the wilderness.’ 
 
 As a8 subst.: 1. Wis 8 ‘in the exercise of 
 conference with her, prudence’ (é& ovyyvuvacia 
 émidlas, RV ‘ assiduous communing,’ RVm ‘ practice 
 of communion’); 1 Ti 4° ‘ bodily exercise profiteth 
 little’ (cwyarckh yuuvacta). 2. In 1 Mac 1 and 
 2 Mac 4° the complaint is made that a Greek 
 ‘ place of exercise’ had been erected in Jerusalem. 
 The Gr. is yuurdowv. See GAMES. In 2 Mac 44 
 év wanalorpg is similarly translated ‘in the place of 
 exercise,’ RV ‘in the palzstra.? See PALASTRA. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 EXILE.—See ISRAEL. 
 
 EXODUS AND JOURNEY TO CANAAN.— 
 
 i. Route of the Exodus. 
 ii, From Egypt to Sinai, 
 fii. From Sinai to Kadesh, 
 iv. From Kadesh to the Jordan, 
 
 i. ROUTE OF THE Exopus.—The question of 
 the route of the Exodus has had a good deal of 
 light thrown upon it in recent times, from the 
 standpoint both of archeology and of literature. 
 On the one hand, the work of excavation of lost 
 cities and monuments has gone far to negative 
 certain hypotheses as to the Exodus, if not to 
 render them impossible ; and, on the other hand, 
 the decipherment of inscriptions and papyri be- 
 longing to the time of the Exodus has furnished 
 us with geographical and historical annotation: of 
 the highest value. It must not be supposed that 
 the result is an unmixed confirmation of the 
 biblical account. A recently-deciphered Egyptian 
 inscription, for example, shows that the Béné- 
 Israel were already in Palestine at the time of the 
 Exodus, so that the migration must have been 
 partial and not national. But with this point we 
 are not concerned in the present article, whose 
 business is to indicate what was the route of the 
 pee on the hypothesis that it actually took 
 
 ace. 
 
 E Even though we are not yet in a position to 
 completely vindicate the historical character of 
 the Exodus, we may do much to extract a correct 
 geography from the accounts, and so to prepare 
 the way for accurate history. The researches, for 
 instance, of Naville have practically settled the 
 first stages in the line of march ; and in the same 
 way a closer knowledge of the Sinaitie penint ula 
 encourages the belief that there is more to be urged 
 in favour of the traditional Sinai than can be brought 
 forward against it. [See SrvaI.] We acquire in 
 this way what are almost fixed points in the reute, 
 without being troubled by @ priori considerations 
 as to whether the whole of the story is historical 
 or whether any of it is miraculous. Indeed this 
 last consideration might altogether be omitted ; for 
 as regards such a question as the actual passage of 
 the sea, the configuration of the land at the head 
 of the Gulf of Suez and across the Isthmus is such 
 that the shallow waters of. the sea and detuched 
 lakes furnish exactly the situation for such a 
 transit as is poetically called a passage ‘iu the 
 heart of the Red Sea.’ Moreover, the actxon of 
 wind upon shallow water has been constantly the 
 cause of phenomenal effects which are not far 
 removed from the miraculous statements in Exodus. 
 For example, the Russians in 1738 entered the 
 Crimea, which was strongly fortified against them 
 by the Turks, at the Isthmus of Perekop, by a 
 passage made for them by the wind throigh the 
 shallow waters of the Putrid Sea at the N.W. 
 corner of the Sea of Azov. And Major General 
 Tulloch has recorded an instance even more to 
 the point, when, as he himself observed, under a 
 strong east wind the waters of Lake Me.zaleh at 
 the entrance to the Suez Canal recedet for 
 distance of 7 miles (see Journal of Victoria 
 Institute, vol. xxviii. p. 267). Other inst unces of 
 the same effect, which would be counted mi ‘acudous 
 if they had been biblical, may be found in a pepe 
 by Naville (Jour. Vict. Instit. xxvi. p. 12). e 
 may therefore lay on one side any quetion of 
 direct miraculous agency: where the phenomena 
 are so nearly natural to the country, we may be 
 content to say that they are not necessarily unhis- 
 torical, and that the question of miracle is merely 
 one of interpretation. Nor need we be delayed in 
 our inquiry by considerations as to whether the 
 story has suffered from over-colouring; both the 
 numbers of the persons involved and the length of 
 their supposed stay in the desert may he deferred. 
 
VOL. I. Map 3. 
 Tt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Re SULA 
 CANAAN 
 
 ILLUSTRATING THE EXODUS 
 
 English Miles 
 1 4 
 Oo 5 Ww 20 40 60 
 
 
 
 Probable Route of the Children of Israel 
 
 
 
 
 
 Saal tophm WILDERNESS 
 
 | 
 ee ee ae 
 
 
 
 i ET yt 
 
 aioks 
 Chipineret 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Beer Diher-ret 3g 
 OF SHUR - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T.& T. Clark, Edinburgh. 
 
 
 
Obes he en ee 
 = ’ y eae 
 
 
 
 
 
i 
 
 eee. S 
 
 wi 
 
 
 
 eee I a ee ee eee a ee 
 
 EXODUS TO CANAAN 
 
 EXODUS TO CANAAN 803 
 
 
 
 if thought fit, for future examination. The account 
 is not to be judged from its weakest points. 
 
 The best way to form an idea as to what such a 
 migration would be like, is to compare it with an 
 annual phenomenon of a similar character, viz. 
 the Mecca pilgrimage from Cairo. The analog 
 is a good one, inasmuch as the account in the Bk 
 of Exodus expressly suggests that the Israelites 
 wished to go into the wilderness for the purpose of 
 a haj (the Heb. word in Exodus 10° hag is, in fact, 
 the same that is applied to the modern festival, 
 and to the route taken by the pilgrims). What 
 point was aimed at in the proposed three days’ 
 journey into the wilderness must remain uncertain ; 
 it has been suggested that it was Sarbut el- 
 
 . Khadeem, on the northern road to Mt. Sinai, 
 
 where the remains of famous Egyptian temples 
 are still to be seen. But, wherever it was, the 
 Israelites could do what the Mecca pilgrims are in 
 the habit of doing ; noris there any a priori reason 
 why we should regard the account of the migration 
 as antecedently improbable. 
 
 We may go further, and say that whatever may 
 be objected against the general facts of the Exodus, 
 the list of stations (or mansiones) in the wilder- 
 ness which is given in Nu has every appearance of 
 being part of a conventional itinerary or pilgrim 
 book, and is therefore susceptible of identification 
 and verification, altogether apart from the history 
 in which it is embedded. All that we have to do 
 with such data is to make such literary and topo- 
 graphical investigations as will determine whether 
 the routes indicated are possible, and the stages of 
 the journey feasible. 
 
 One of the first things that will strike the 
 careful reader of the account of the first stages 
 of the Exodus is that there is a certain veri- 
 
 similitude about the nomenclature. It is a 
 mixture of Egyptian and Hebrew. Pithom 
 
 and Pihahiroth are certainly Egyptian; Migdol 
 and Baal-zephon as certain Hebrew; Succoth 
 will be shown to be a mere Heb. perversion of an 
 Egyp. name; and there is even a suspicion that 
 alternative names in the two languages are found 
 in the narrative, as when the desert into which the 
 Israelites go out is called in one place the desert of 
 Etham, and in another the desert of Shur. This 
 is as it should be, if we bear in mind that we are 
 on the frontier of Egypt, that the country next 
 the frontier on both sides is in the hands of a 
 Semitic people, and that the fortifications and 
 great cities are in the care of the Egyptian Govern- 
 ment. : 
 The locality from which the Israelites emigrated 
 is defined by the two store-cities, Rameses and 
 Pithom, which they built for Pharaoh. From 
 Rameses they started, and their first encampment 
 is Succoth, which Naville has shown to be the 
 equivalent of Pithom. The identification of the 
 two cities is of the first importance. According to 
 Brugsch (L’Haxode et les monuments Hgyptiens, 
 Leipzig, 1875), we are to identify Rameses with 
 Zoan (Tanis), and to place Pithom and the district 
 of Succoth in the N.E. corner of the Delta, between 
 Tanis and Pelusium. He then ed es a surprising 
 suggestion (previously ventured by Schleiden), that 
 the Israelites passed along the shore of the Medi- 
 terranean on a neck of land between that sea and 
 the ancient Serbonian lake; that the Egyptians 
 followed them along the same course, but were 
 overtaken by a rush of water from the Mediter- 
 ranean and destroyed. On this hypothesis he 
 identifies Etham with the fortification on the 
 frontier of Egypt, Migdol with a Magdolon men- 
 tioned in the Antonine Itinerary as being 12 
 miles from Pelusium, and Baal-zephon with Mt. 
 Casius; the supposed Red Sea (yam suph) turns 
 out to be the Serbonian lake, asis suggested by 
 
 the name (yam suph=sea of weeds). Unfortu- 
 nately, this theory, which is stated with great 
 confidence and simplicity by Brugsch, appears to ha 
 almost fatally vitiated by the fact that Pithom has 
 been found somewhere else than on the Mediter- 
 ranean seaboard, where Brugsch had located it. 
 It is to Naville that we owe this important dis- 
 covery. His excavation of the mounds known as 
 Tell el-Mashkuta, in the Wady Tumilat, on the 
 line of railway from Zagazig to Suez, and in close 
 proximity to the modern Sweet-water Canal and 
 to the line of the ancient Sweet-water Canal, has 
 proved conclusively that this place is Pithom 
 [‘abode of Tum’], and that its secular name, or at 
 all events the name of the adjacent district, is 
 Thuket, which may be equated with the Heb. 
 Succoth. It is curious that the French engineers 
 had suspected this mound to be the site of Rameses, 
 and had named the adjacent railway statior 
 accordingly. It seems probable that Rameses 
 will be found in the excavation of the mound Tell 
 el-Kebir ; Tanis is clearly excluded by Naville’s 
 discoveries. We are thus led to conclude in favour 
 of an exodus along the line of the ancient canal, 
 and the fugitives following this course would soon 
 reach the frontier of Egypt and be stopped by the 
 fortifications which ran along the Isthmus from 
 north to south. This is the station Etham, which 
 appears to coincide with the Eeypian xetem or 
 fortification, and to be the same thing as is meant 
 by the Heb. shur or wall. [The only difficulty in 
 this identification lies in the fact that we should 
 have expected a stronger guttural in the beginning 
 of the Heb. word]. The route is evidently one of 
 the main roads out of Egypt ; and we may compare 
 it with a papyrus translated by Goodwin, which 
 describes the ursuit of runaway slaves who follow 
 this very road, and whose journey is described in 
 very similar terms. 
 
 Several difficulties now present themselves, One 
 of them relates to the question as to whether the 
 head of the Gulf of Suez was not at the time of the 
 Exodus much farther north than at present, and 
 whether the sea was not actually connected with 
 the Bitter Lakes. In that case the transit may 
 very well have been made at the head of the Bitter 
 Lakes. There is much to be said in favour of this 
 hypothesis. 
 
 arortaslely none of the places mentioned in 
 connexion with this part of the Exodus have been 
 identified. Pihahiroth, Migdol, and Baal-zephon 
 have all to be located. It has been suggested that 
 Baal-zephon [Typhon] is the mountain Ataka to 
 the S. of Suez, and that it is dedicated to the god 
 of the north wind because Pheenician sailors used 
 to pray for fair wind on their voyages down the 
 Red Sea. Our own impression is that the case 
 has not yet been made out for moving the head 
 of the Red Sea so far north as the Bitter Lakes, 
 and that it is more likely that the crossing took 
 place not far north of the present Suez. [Its 
 ancient Greek name Clysma appears to carry a 
 tradition of the to The test for a true 
 solution would appear to lie in a search for Baal- 
 zephon, especially by examination of Mt. Casius on 
 the shore of the Mediterranean, and of Jebel Ataka 
 at the head of the Red Sea. 
 
 ii. From Eayrt To SinAl.—After crossing the 
 frontier of Egypt the Israelites go three days in 
 the wilderness and find no water. It has been 
 suggested that they went by the Aaj route right 
 across the plateau of the Tih to Akabah, and that 
 this Akabah (or Elath, as it is called in OT) is the 
 Elim of the itinerary, where they found wells of 
 water and palm trees, and from which they pro- 
 ceeded to a Mt. Sinai in Midian. We are not 
 able to accept the theory of a Midianite Sinai. It 
 seems more probable that the route described is 
 
804 EXODUS TO CANAAN 
 
 
 
 that taken by travellers to the traditional Sinai, 
 which is the same as was taken by St. Silvia of 
 Aquitaine in the 4th century. he route goes 
 along the wilderness between the plateau of the 
 Tih and the E. shore of the Red Sea. Marah (see 
 sep. art.) is not identified with any reasonable 
 probability ; but Elim, which follows it, may very 
 well be the Wady Ghurundel, where there are 
 even at the present time wells and palms (see 
 ELM). From this point the road to Sinai bifur- 
 cates; the northern road goes by the Egyptian 
 mines and temples of Sarbut el-Khadeem, the 
 southern winds by the Wady Tayibeh until it 
 strikes the seashore: this is, then, the encampment 
 by the sea (see sep. art.) of Nu 33!; following the 
 shore, the ancient Egyptian port and road are 
 reached, and the route turns inland, passing the 
 entrance to the Wady Maghara, where are the 
 oldest Egyptian mines. This is probably the 
 station Dophkah (see sep. art.) of Numbers, 
 Dophkah being a misreading of Mafkah, the 
 Egyp. name for the blue stone which they ob- 
 tained from the mines in this region. The next 
 station, Alush, is not known; it was probably not 
 far beyond the Wady Mukattab or ‘written 
 valley’ through which the road now passes. The 
 next stage is Rephidim, which is commonly iden- 
 tified with Feiran, the oasis of the peninsula, the 
 ancient Faran and Paran, and from this point the 
 road winds through the long Wady es-Sheykh, 
 until by a long detour (or, if preferred, by a short 
 cut through a pass called Nukb el-Hawa, or ‘ Pass 
 
 of the Wind’) the plain is reached at the foot of - 
 
 Mt. Sinai, whem the Israelites are supposed to 
 have assembled for the giving of the Law. The 
 most striking identification on this route is the 
 encampment on the seashore five days after having 
 left it. But it is clear that, striking as this is, 
 the same thing is true of the route of the Mecca 
 
 ilgrims: so it can hardly be called a conclusive 
 identification. It is a very weighty consideration 
 that the name Sinai implies a place of sanctity 
 [Sin=the Babylonian moon-god] from very early 
 times; but no Babylonian signs or inscriptions 
 have been found which would settle conclusively 
 that the traditional Sinai is the same as the 
 biblical one. The route described is an ancient 
 trade route of Nabatszan traders before the 
 Christian era and in the early years of the 
 Christian era. It is not a road worked out by 
 biblical explorers, as has sometimes been sug- 
 gested. See further art. SINAI. 
 
 LITERATURE.—The student should consult, inter alia, Robin- 
 son, Biblical Researches (1841, 3rd ed. 1867); Ebers, Durch Gosen 
 zum Sinat (2nd ed. Leipzig, 1881); Lepsius, Tour from Thebes 
 to the Peninsula of Sinai in 1845 (Eng. by Cottrell, London, 
 1846); Naville, Store City of Pithom (Publications of Egypt. 
 
 ploration Fund); Brugsch, L’Exode et les Monwments 
 
 ‘gyptiens (Leipzig, 1875, Eng. tr. 1879); Gamurrini, Peregrinatio 
 Sylvice (Rome, 1887). 
 
 iii, From SINAI TO KADESH.— About this 
 portion of the route little need be said. -The 
 account in Nu 10" states that the first march 
 from Sinai was into the wilderness of Paran. 
 This is described in v.¥ as a three days’ journey ; 
 and the places mentioned as on the route are 
 Taberah (Nu 115), Kibroth-hattaavah, and Hazeroth 
 (11%: 5), whence they removed into the wilderness 
 of Paran (12°), and from this place (13%) the spies 
 were sent out. Taberah is not mentioned in the 
 itinerary of Nu 33. In Dt 1? the whole route from 
 Horeb to Kadesh-barnea is described as eleven 
 days’ journey by the way of Mt. Seir. This 
 maientes a route from Sinai by way of ‘Akabah to 
 Kadesh, and accordingly travellers have sought to 
 identify Kibroth-hattaavah and Hazeroth with 
 
 oints in the route between Sinai and ‘Akabah. 
 
 urther particulars are given in the articles on 
 those names; and for the names which follow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXODUS TO CANAAN 
 
 
 
 Hazeroth in Nu 33, see iv. and the article on 
 KADESH. 
 
 iv. From KADESH TO THE JORDAN, — Thq 
 accounts of this part of the route are found in 
 Nu 20. 21, Dt 1. 2, and in the itinerary of Nu 33. | 
 Nu 20. 21 are composite in character, as will be | 
 seen from the iollowine analysis (taken from 
 Driver’s LOT ® p. 66) :— 
 
 P 20 F | 8b-4 = s«G- 18 pt P| q 
 JE 
 
 14-21 
 
 2-29 ee 
 Q]1-8 
 
 1b 3a 5 a4 
 
 P 221 
 JE 2137-5 
 
 The first verse of Nu 20 deserves special notice. 
 Its first clause (as far as the word ‘month’) is due 
 to P. According to that authority, the spies were 
 sent out from the wilderness of Paran, and in that — 
 wilderness (Nu 14”) the children of Israel re- | 
 mained until the rebellious generation had been 
 consumed. They then moved in the first month | 
 (apparently of the fortieth year, and for the first | 
 time) into the wilderness of Zin. The next clause, | 
 ‘and the people abode in Kadesh,’ etc., is due to — 
 another source, which represents the stay in | 
 Kadesh as a prolonged one, and associates with — 
 that stay many events, but without assigning | 
 dates. ‘Iwo of these events are recorded in Nu | 
 2071: the first, the judgment passed on Moses | 
 and Aaron at Meribah (vv.2"8), presents difficulties | 
 which cannot here be fully discussed, but the | 
 following considerations make it probable that | 
 this incident occurred at an early period of the | 
 sojourn at Kadesh: (a) the account is in many | 
 points similar to that in Ex 177; (6) lack of water | 
 would have been felt soon after the arrival at | 
 Kadesh, rather than at the close of their sojourn | 
 there; and the complaint, Nu 205, seems more 
 appropriate in the mouths of those who remew- 
 bered the fleshpots of Egypt, than of those who, 
 having left Egypt in youth, had since passed forty 
 years in the desert; (c) according to Dt 1% the | 
 exclusion of Moses from the promised land was | 
 decreed about the same time as the general sentence — 
 was pronounced against the generation which | 
 came up out of Egypt. Hence two alternatives: | 
 either the account Nu 20715 which gives the reason — 
 for the exclusion must describe the same event as | 
 that referred to Dt 1*7 (.e. an event which happened — 
 soon after the return of the spies, and therefore at 
 an early period of the journeyings), or there are | 
 two varying traditions as to when and why Moses 
 was not permitted to cross the Jordan. a 
 
 The second passage (Nu 2041) records Edom’s 
 refusal to allow a passage through his territory P 
 the children of Israel, in consequence of which — 
 they journeyed ‘by the way to the Red Sea to 
 compass the land of Edom’ (Nu 214). 
 this with Dt 2!, very similar language is there 
 used to describe a compassing of Edom, which is | 
 assigned to an earlier stage of the journeyings. It | 
 is reasonable to suppose that this circuitous route | 
 was adopted because a more direct course towards | 
 the E. side of the Dead Sea was not open; Edom’s | 
 conduct, as described in Nu 20, though not re- | 
 corded in Dt, was the cause of, and therefore prior | 
 to, the compassing mentioned in Dt. Hence both | 
 the events in Nu 20?*!, though in their present | 
 connexion they appear as incidents of the fortieth | 
 year, may belong to an earlier period of the | 
 journeyings. Two distinct geographical pictures | 
 of the period are presented,—the one, that of JE, | 
 figures Kadesh as the scene of the middle portion | 
 of the journey, and is to be traced in Dt 1. 2(with | 
 which the brief summary in Jg 11'%8 should be 
 compared); the other, that of P, locates these 
 events partly in Paran and partly in Zin. The 
 combination of the two, with the introduction 
 
 1 
 
 | 
 
 Comparing | 
 

 
 
 
 EXODUS TO CANAAN 
 
 of exact dates, has produced difficulties which are 
 to be explained, not by the assumption of two 
 places bearing the name of Kadesh, nor by the 
 
 . assumption of a second visit to Kadesh (which is 
 | nowhere indicated, and seems excluded by Dt 2"), 
 
 but by the resolution of the narrative into its 
 original components. 
 
 In the list of stations (Nu 33) Kadesh does not 
 occur until v.%, where it is identified with Zin, im- 
 mediately precedes Mt. Hor, and is only eight 
 stations removed from the final settlement in the 
 
 lains of Jordan. This itinerary makes the identi- 
 cation of Zin with Kadesh, which is implied in 
 Nu 20, and refers to Kadesh for the first and onl 
 time towards the close of the journeyings. It 
 might be expected that Paran would be found in 
 an earlier part of the chapter, but it is not; the 
 stations from Egypt, as far as Hazeroth, corre- 
 spond closely with those mentioned in the narra- 
 tive portions of Ex and Nu, but after Hazeroth 
 [instead of either Paran or Kadesh] twelve stations 
 are given (Rithmah... Hashmonah, vv.!8-), the 
 names of which occur only in these verses, and no 
 event happening in connexion with these places is 
 anywhere recorded. It has been suggested that 
 Rithmah, or some other of these names, is a desig- 
 nation of Kadesh, but nothing in the nature of an 
 argument has been advanced in favour of such a 
 hypothesis. 
 he wilderness of Paran (Nu 13°) is a vague in- 
 dication of locality for the events described in 
 Nu 13. 14, and it may be that more than one of 
 these twelve stations were within that area, but 
 there is no indication that such is the case. The 
 list of Nu 33 has been incorporated with the narra- 
 tive without specifying the place where the im- 
 
 rtant events recorded in Nu 13. 14 and Dt 1 
 
 appened. In this respect the list is independent 
 of the narrative, and any attempt to establish a 
 connexion between the two must be conjectural. 
 
 The eight stations following Hashmonah (Mose- 
 roth-Mt. Hor) must next be considered. With the 
 first four may be compared the fragment of an 
 itinerary preserved in Dt 10°7. ‘They are as 
 
 follows :— 
 
 Nu 3330-83, Dt 106 7, 
 Moseroth. Beeroth Bene-jaakan. 
 Hor-bageidgad. Gudsodah, 
 
 or-haggi udgo' 
 Jotbathah. Jotbathah. 
 
 There can be little doubt that the same four 
 psaces are referred to in both passages, and it seems 
 also reasonable to suppose that the same part of 
 the journeyings is described in both. The inversion 
 of order, Moseroth preceding Bene-jaakan in the 
 one, and following in the other, may be attributed 
 to an error of transcription, or explained by sup- 
 posing that some of the wells of the Bene-jaakan 
 were visited both before and after the encamp- 
 ment at Moseroth. Moserah is noted (Dt 10) as 
 the place where Aaron died and was buried, and 
 must therefore be close to Mt. Hor, probably 
 the place of encampment at its base. Further, as 
 Abronah and Ezion-geber follow these four places 
 in Nu, and the position of Ezion-geber at the head 
 of the Gulf of “Akabah is known, it follows that 
 these stations describe the journey from Mt. Hor 
 down the Arabah to the Red Sea. Pursuing the 
 journey from this point, as described Dt 2°, the 
 children of Israel passed ‘from the way of the 
 Arabah from Elath and from Ezion-geber.’ This 
 is generally explained by supposing that they 
 pene etet the circuit of Edom by compassing it on 
 its E. side. From the S. end of the Arabah a 
 valley called Wady Ithem leads upwards in a N.E. 
 direction to the high table-land which lies to the 
 E. of Edom and Moab, across which runs the Haj 
 route from Damascus to Mecca. Along or near 
 
 EXODUS TO CANAAN 805 
 
 this route the children of Israel, after leaving the 
 Arabah by Wady Ithem, passed in a N. direction 
 until they reached Iye-abarim in the wildernesg 
 which is before Moab towards the sunrising (Nu 21), 
 the next definite geographical indication afforded 
 in the narrative. 
 
 But against accepting this view of the journey, 
 it may be argued as follows: The two stations in 
 Nu 334! which follow Ezion-geber are the wilder- 
 ness of Zin (Kadesh) and Mt. Hor. These verses 
 imply that, after reaching the Gulf of ‘Akabah, 
 instead of bearing eastward as above described the 
 children of Israel retraced their steps along the 
 Arabah to visit Mt. Hor, on the occasion of Aaron’s 
 death and burial. Moseroth is separated by six 
 stations from Mt. Hor, and, if the identity of 
 Dt 10°7 with Nu 33*-*4 be maintained, there are 
 two statements concerning the time and place of 
 Aaron’s death which cannot be reconciled. In 
 order to harmonize the accounts, many com- 
 mentators consider that the stations in Dt 10%7 
 have nothing to do with the same names in 
 Nu 33-84, but must be supplied as part of the 
 journey from Mt. Hor to Zalmonah (Nu33"). The 
 omission of these stations in Nu 33 is explained by 
 supposing that names which have been previously 
 mentioned are not repeated in this list. Besides 
 the double visit to Kadesh, two visits to Mt. Hor 
 (for Moserah or Moseroth must be considered as 
 equivalent to Mt. Hor) and two journeys down 
 the Arabah to Ezion-geber must be assumed, before 
 the narrative of Dt 2°* can be combined with 
 Nu 33 from Zalmonah onwards, as representing 
 the final departure from the Arabah on the way 
 to the E. of Moab. This reiterated duplication of 
 events, inferred from combining the accounts, but 
 nowhere indicated in the narrative, raises more 
 than a suspicion that this harmonistic interpreta- 
 tion, though possible, does not represent the actual 
 poe of the journey. The main difficulty arises 
 rom the position of Zin and Mt. Hor following 
 Ezion-geber in Nu 33%, Ewald proposes (Hist. 
 of Isr. ii. 201, Eng. tr.) to remove vv.%>-4l4 from 
 where they now stand, and insert them after Hash- 
 monah in ver.%, The order of the stations would 
 then be Hashmonah, Zin, Mt. Hor, Moseroth, 
 Bene-jaakan, Hor-haggidgad, Jotbathah, Ebronah, 
 Ezion-geber, Zalmonah, etc. The necessity for 
 assuming the unproved duplication of events is 
 removed, and the direction of the journey would 
 be as traced above. The obvious criticism of 
 Ewald’s hypothesis is, that if the arrangement he 
 proposes were the original one, it is difficult to 
 understand why a change which introduces such 
 difficulties should have been made. May a slight 
 variation of his hypothesis be suggested? The 
 verses which he would transpose differ in character 
 from the rest of the chapter; instead of giving 
 only names, they relate events and furnish details. 
 May they be regarded as a later addition? If so, 
 they may be either omitted or transferred, and 
 the same result attained. One other alternative 
 remains: the insertion of Zin and Mt. Hor after 
 Ezion-geber indicates a movement up the Arabah 
 northwards, This northern direction may have 
 been continued to the Dead Sea, where a turn 
 east wards would bring the children of Israel to the 
 E. side of Moab. The compassing of Edom would 
 then be on its W. and N. border. In favour of this 
 it may be suggested that an Israelite might 
 understand the border of Edom to mean the border 
 towards his own land. So long as the sites of 
 Zalmonah and the stations following remain un- 
 certain, this interpretation of the existing text of 
 Nu 33" cannot be rejected as impossible, though 
 it would represent a tradition different from that 
 followed in Nu 214 and (probably) Dt 2°. 
 
 The concluding section from the E. of Moab 
 
806 EXODUS 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 
 
 onwanis is comparatively free from ambiguity, 
 though definite identification of places is wanting 
 
 here as in the preceding stages. The children of 
 Israel cross the bees Zered and Arnon (Nu 21!?- 35), 
 The latter is by general consent identified with 
 the Wady Mojib, a stream which is fed by many 
 tributaries, and falls into the Dead Sea about the 
 middle of its E. side. The deep valley, about three 
 mniles broad, through which it passes, is a marked 
 feature of the district, and forms a natural bound- 
 
 ary line. It was the southern limit of the terri- 
 tory assigned to Israel on the E. of Jordan. The 
 sition of the brook Zered is uncertain. The 
 
 ady el-Ahsa, which runs into the Dead Sea at its 
 §. extremity, is too far south to be identified with 
 it, for Iye-abarim to the E. of Moab is reached 
 before crossing it (Nu 21"). The Wady Feranjy, 
 the upper portion of the stream passing by Kerak 
 and reaching the Dead Sea at the ceva 
 called El]-Lisan, or the main affluent of Wady Moji 
 (that coming from the S.E.), may with greater pro- 
 bability be considered as the ancient Zered. The 
 nomenclature of the tributaries of Wady Mojib is 
 somewhat unsettled, but Bliss, when exploring the 
 country of Moab in March 1895 (see his memoir in 
 PEFSt, 1895) took special pains to ascertain the 
 names assigned to them. e follows Tristram in 
 giving the name of Wady Saideh to the E. affluent 
 of the Wady Mojib and not to the S.E. branch, 
 which is generally so ¢alled in maps and com- 
 mentaries. The description in Buhl (Geog. d. Alten 
 Paldstina, p. 61) is again different. Until arriving 
 at the Arnon, the Israelites probably crossed the 
 upper courses of the rivers and kept away from 
 
 oab towards the E. They would thus obey the 
 injunction not to meddle with Moab, and find the 
 rivers shallower, and more easy of passage. The 
 deep and rugged sides of these streams for some 
 distance from their outlets into the Dead Sea cause 
 considerable difficulty to the modern traveller, 
 and would have been impracticable for the hosts of 
 Israel. But after crossing the Arnon it was 
 necessary to turn W. and afterwards in a N.W. 
 direction in order to reach Dibon-Gad and the 
 mountains of Abarim—the high ridge to the E. of 
 the N. extremity of the Dead Sea from which they 
 descended into the plains of Jordan, opposite 
 Jericho. The names given in Nu 21'*” are differ- 
 ent from those in the itinerary of Nu 33, but the 
 last-named place, ‘the top of Pisgah that looketh 
 toward Jeshimon’ (‘the desert’ RV), indicates a 
 spot on the Abarim range whence W. Palestine 
 and the Jordan valley were visible. The last 
 stage, Nu 22!, is given with additional detail in 
 Nu 33%- ®, 
 
 LITERATURE.—Commentaries on the Books of Nu and Dt, 
 especially those of Dillmann in the Kurzgef. Hxeg. Handb. 
 z. Alten Testament and Driver on Dt in the /nternat. Crit. 
 Comm., may be consulted for further information. Trumbull’s 
 Kadesh-Barnea discusses the whole route from Egypt to Canaan, 
 and contains a full list of ancient and modern works dealing with 
 
 the subject. See also Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, and Kohler, 
 Biblische Geschichte A.T.8. 
 
 J. RENDEL HARRIS AND A. T. CHAPMAN. 
 
 EXODUS (niny py), or simply niny ; “Efodos : see 
 HEXATEUCRH) is the 2nd Book in the Heb. Canon. 
 It is also the 2nd division of the great composite 
 work which contains in one complex whole all 
 that has been preserved ef old Heb. writings about 
 the origins of the Isr. people. So much is here 
 assumed, and, further, that it is generally possible, 
 if not to distribute the material among four dis- 
 tinct documents, at least to assign it to one or 
 other of four differing schools of writing, Jahwistic, 
 Elohistic, Deuteronomic, and Priestly (referred to 
 as J, E, D, P),* whose relative age is shown by 
 
 * Js (=J-supplements), Es etc., denote later elements, while 
 
 Pe is often used for the original groundwork of the Priestly 
 Document before enlarged by the numerous additions marked 
 
 and Jconvinces the people by signs. 
 
 the order of the names, the periods of the first two 
 overlapping. For the proof of this, and for generat 
 matters of introduction, see HEXATEUCH. 
 
 Our aim here is to exhibit the results of such an 
 analysis in detail, with a condensed account of tthe 
 chief grounds on which it rests. For information 
 about persons, places, things, events, institutions, 
 laws, the student is referred to the separate 
 articles. 
 
 The book covers the period from the death of 
 Joseph to the erection of the Tabernacle, and is 
 mainly historical, but contains important legisla- 
 tive sections. It falls readily into three parts—I. 
 Israel in Egypt; II. From Egypt to Sinai; II. At 
 Sinai. The method of treatment here adopted needs 
 little explanation. In the Summary small reference 
 letters show what documents contain the material 
 next following: the sign || preceding means that 
 the parallel is to be found in another chapter or 
 section. The numbers refer to the chapters. 
 
 Thus, by following J, E, and P through in turn, 
 the main contents of the documents can be sever- 
 ally traced, and the amount of coincidence noted. 
 
 I. ISRAEL IN EaypT: 1-13%%, 
 A. Summary. 
 
 1 JEPIncrease, and YElPoppression of Israel. 
 2 EBirth and adoption of oses ; Jhis violence, 
 flight, and /iFmarriage. 3-4 J8Theophany and 
 JEIPCommission of Mos. and Aar. JEMos. returns, 
 5 JEFree- 
 dom claimed, bondage increased. 6-77 PIWECom- 
 mission of Mos. and Aar. 78-12 Eleven J£? wonders 
 —7®8 PRod becomes serpent, magicians copy 3 
 714-25 JEPNile smitten, Pmagicians copy; 8% 
 ‘Pfrogs, Pmagicians copy; 81%! Plice, magicians 
 fail; 87-82 Jflies; 91-7 Jmurrain; 9% Pblains, 
 magicians suffer; 915-85 JEhail; 10! J4Flocusts; 
 107-29 Edarkness; Jbanishment of Moses, who 
 11 JEprophesies death of firstboin and release of 
 Isr. 12-1316 JPRules for Passover and Feast of 
 Unleay. Bread ; Jdeath of firstborn, and JEPexodus 
 of Isr.; J?law of -firstlings. 
 
 B. Analysis. 
 
 r marks editorial revision; ° shows supplements from docu- 
 ments of the same school ; ‘ editorial insertions and expansions ; 
 “harmonizing and other relatively later additions by Rie, R4, 
 and Rp; [ J enclose vv. forming a displaced passage; ... show 
 that something has dropped out; and if with [...) that the 
 material is found elsewhere ; a, b, etc., mark vv. subdivided. 
 
 
 
 6 8-12 2b vs 11-23a 
 E] ---15-20a 21t, 91-10... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Piao ye lsiae 23b-25 
 
 J 16-18 19f.” , 1-12 13-16°]2 19-20a 24-26 a[...]29-31 
 EGep-15 —..21t — M4bI7t. —-20b21-28” a7 
 
 2 Hl 
 J as 14...16-17a towmite... 
 Ejiab’24 Gr Yee 
 
 2 eee eisiesy ig 
 
 J 20-32 
 
 18 ..2la. 2. 01-4 ...B16 
 EB’) 2320” aes 
 5-7 16-19 
 
 23b 24b 25b-34 
 22-23a 24a 25a 
 
 Oe 13 
 s5ab”” 
 
 je 
 
 J 3b-11 13b 14b-15a...15ce-19 24-26 28f. 
 E]()___12-18a la bb 20-98 a7 
 P 
 
 Ps; Pb stands for the Holiness legislation of Lv 17-26 with 
 kindred passayes. R stands for one of the redactors, who (1) 
 edited J and E into a single whole JE, in this case cited as Rue; 
 or (2) combined JE with D, cited as R4; or (3) supplemented 4 
 
 Ps and combined P with JED, and so are called RP, In Exodus, — 
 ct course, D is not found, and only here an@ there traces of Ra, 
 
 
 

 
 es 
 
 L 
 , 
 ; 
 é 
 4 
 
 
 
 A ae 
 
 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 
 
 EXODUS 807 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 2la 21b-23° 24-27” 27b 29-34 37-39 
 1 SS ae ae Te 
 
 
 
 #12 
 
 Note that no passage has been analyzed unless there is 
 reasonable probability, usually indeed practical certainty, that 
 it is composite ; but obviously some of the details of divisions of 
 verses must be rather possible than always definitely probable. 
 The analysis has, however, been carried as far as possible, as 
 being more helpful thus to the student. If any one will take the 
 trouble to mark, (say) with blue, black, and red inks, the 
 analysis on a copy of the RVor the Heb. text, and to underline 
 the phrases, etc., referred to under iii. and iv., and then read 
 through all the passages assigned to each document consecu- 
 tively, he will eg the best possible notion of the reality of the 
 analysis, and the distinct character of the documents. 
 
 laced passage.—The J portions of 3 and 41-12 prob. stood 
 
 originally before 4%, Yahweh has already told Moses in Midian 
 
 og to go back to Egypt, and the theophany accordingly seems 
 belong to Goshen, or (better) to the journey thither. 
 
 
 
 C. Parallels and Contrasts. 
 
 Each set is marked with the same letter under 
 J, E, and P, respectively to facilitate comparison. 
 + after refs. means that all the instances in the 
 OT are given; * that all in the Hexateuch are 
 mentioned ; italics denote biblical quotations ; and 
 capitals are used sometimes for emphatic words. 
 
 —(a) The people live in Goshen 8” 9% Gn 45% 
 ete. (only in J); (b) a separate district, so that they 
 and their cattle could be differentiated from the 
 Egyptians 8*- % 11 822 94.6 926; only brought in gangs 
 into Egypt for forced labour 5°% ; away from the 
 Nile, so that its pollution seems to cause no incon- 
 venience 72-24; (c) so numerous as to alarm the 
 king 1°, 600,000 127 Nu 117 cf. Nu 10%; (d) 
 cattle owners Gn 46% * 473-6 having jlocks and 
 herds 10° 1252-8 34° Nu 1122 Gn 12% 13° 24% 397 
 $318 451 46%? 471 508; (e) Mos. demands 3 days’ 
 journey 3% 5° 87 cf. Gn 30° Nu 10%», Nu 33° R? +) 
 that t ey might sacrifice to Yahweh or (our) God 
 gis 5S. 8.17 98. 25, aff. | or serve Him 716 g}. 20 gl. 13 10: ete. 
 12%! (f) the wonders or plagues before Pharaoh 
 are 7, and are natural calamities, as disease of fish 
 in Nile 7'**-, when Yahweh smites the river '7!™*; 
 natural causes being sometimes specified, as the 
 wind in the case of the locusts 10% cf, 14%>; 
 Moses speaks freely on each occasion to Pharaoh, 
 and the wonders follow the mere announcement ; 
 the hail is on every herb of the field 97> cf. 9 and 
 10, and locusts eat the remaining crops and the 
 fruit ; (g) the flight is hurried, at instigation of the 
 Egypt. 12°1#- 89; (h) Moses’ father-in-law is the priest 
 of Midian 216 419 (31 18! Rie) cf. Gn 41%, unnamed 
 here (for Reuel 2" is prob. Ri‘), called Hobab Nu 
 10” Jg 4 116; and Moses has one son 2”? 4%; (i) 
 sprinkling of blood is the main thing in the Pass- 
 over, eating not mentioned 1271-3 J§; (j) the name 
 of God is Yahweh (=Jehovah), or the God of . . .3 
 (k) (1) (see below). 
 
 E—(a) The people live in the land of Egypt, with 
 no hint of separate district being assigned them ; 
 (b) rather they seem to be herded in the royal city 
 among the houses 1**- ; no immunity from plagues 
 mentioned (e.g. hail 9%") except for the darkness ; 
 ean beg of neighbours jewels, etc. 3% 117; near 
 she Nile 12 210; (c) only numerous enough to 
 annoy the king, their women needing only 2 mid- 
 wives 1!5*, requiring only 600 chariots for pursuit 
 147; (d) royal pensioners Gn 46%, never men- 
 tioned as owning cattle ; (e) Mos. demands merely 
 that Isr. be let go 3° 21 518 (51> Rie to harmonize 
 with J) 9*5 10, ulterior end being to get to Can. 
 1317-9 cf, Gn 4871, and asidentally to serve God 
 
 on this mountain, i.e. Horeb, more than 3 days’ 
 journey 3!2; (f) the wonders or plagues are 5, and 
 
 ave the miraculous element heightened, e.g. Moses 
 smites all the waters in the river, and they turn to 
 
 
 
 blood 717. *> ; Moses only once speaks to Pharaoh 
 5, and the wonders follow his mere gesture; the 
 hail is on man and beast 97224, while locusts 
 devour every herb of the land 10!» ; (g) departure 
 deliberate, the people gathering supplies before- 
 hand 11'*; time to take up Joseph’s bones 13”; 
 (h) Moses’ father-in-law is Jethro 3! 48 18, and 
 he has two sons 18%, his wife being a Cushite Nu 
 121; (j) the name of God is God (Elohim) always 
 up to 3° and often afterwards, especially in phrases, 
 e.g. mount of God 3: 4% 18° 2418*, rod of God 4” 
 17+; angel of God 14% Gn 2117 28! 311 32! cf. 
 Ex 237 32% Nu 20! ; statutes of God 18%, 
 
 P—(a) The people live in Egypt 1°; (b) not in 
 separate district, for the land was filled with them 
 17; no immunity mentioned ; (f) the direct Divine 
 agency in the wonders is emphasized; Aaron is 
 always with Moses, and speaks, etc. 7!-7 ete. (while 
 in J the insertion of Aaron 413-16 seems due to J*, 
 for where Aaron or a plur. is found, as 8° 1%. 25. % 927 
 10}, the sing. is found close by 8% 14>. 2 98% 1017. 18, 
 Moses being sole speaker 714-76 8% 91-8 101); (i) 
 in the Passover the eating is the main thing, 
 the sprinkling is not ordered to be repeated 
 121-18. 8-50; (j) the name of the Deity is always 
 God up to 67, and always Yahweh (=Jehovah) 
 afterwards. 
 
 (k) Moses’ rod is the object of Divine power in J, 
 being turned into a serpent (nahash) before the 
 people 42-4; Moses’ rod, given him by God 4” and 
 called the rod of God 4” 17°, is regularly the 
 instrument of Divine power in E 715-17. 20b 928 
 1018 1416 175%; Aaron’s rod is in P the object of 
 Divine power, being turned into a serpent (tannin) 
 before Pharaoh 7%, and also its instrument 7 
 5-16. cf. Nu 17. For describing Pharaoh’s obsti- 
 nacy, we have (1) some form of heavy in 714 815. #3 
 g?- 84 J ; (2) some form of strong 7% 9* 10-27 EK, and 
 718. 22 g19 912 P, who moulds his almost unvarying 
 phrase on 8% J, but borrows strong from E. 
 
 D, Other Clues to the Analysia, 
 
 3—That generation 16 (in P always plur.); mighty 17.9. 20b 
 Gn 2616 Nu 226 etc. ; come, or go to 110 Gn 113f.7 3816* ; falleth 
 out 110Gn 424.38 491 ; enemies (haters) 110 Gn 2469 ; taskmasters 
 111+ cf. 37 56.10.13f*; @flict 111 cf. 37 431; who made thee a 
 prince? 214 cf. Nu 1613; sought to slay 215 424 218b. cf. Gn 2720; 
 Angel of Jehovah 32 Nu 2222 etc. ct. Ex 1419 etc. E (see 
 Cj. above); cry 37-9 Gn 410; IT am come down 38 1911. 18-20 
 Gn 113.7 1821 ct. Ex 339 E, cf. Nu 1117.2 125 Es*; land 
 flowing with milk and honey 38-17 135 383 Nu 1327 148 1618f. 
 Jos 58, never in E; Jehovah the God of the Hebrews 318 
 63 716 91.18 103+; 3 signs to convince the people 41-12.30; 
 lodging 474 Gn 4227 4327 Jos 43.8"; intreat 88f. 2830 928 10I7f. 
 Gn 2521*; to-morrow, 810. 23.29 95f.18 104; such as hath not 
 been, 918.24 1014 116* cf. 106; there remained not... 827 
 1019. 26 1428 Gn 4718 Jos 817*; mixed multitude 1238 Nu 114; 
 the ee 1221-27 3425; unleavened bread and /irstlings 
 133-16, apparently quoted in 3318b-20a Js before deuteronomic ex- 
 pansion took place. 
 
 E—fear (towards God) 117.21 1821 2020 Gn 2011 2212 4218 Dt 
 2518 Jog 2414 (never in J); by the river’s brink 23 715; hand- 
 maid 25 (=bondwoman RVm 217 etc.), never in J; 219 cf. Gn 
 218; Horeb 32176 338, never inJ;... heream 1 34 Gn 221.7. 
 11, 971.18 3111 3713 462f.; herb of the land 1012.15*; the man 
 Moses 113 Nu 123; by a strong hand, of Pharaoh 614», of Edom 
 Nu 2020, ct. 319 139 Rd, and Dt, of God; one (to) another, lit. 
 a man (to) his brother 10% 1615 Gn 3719 4221.23 Nu 1414 cf. 
 Gn 2631 ct, Gn 113 Heb. J, Ex 2520 379 Lev 2514 P*, 
 
 P—See list of peculiar expressions in Driver’s Introd. Hol- 
 zinger’s Hinl. in d. Hez., or more fully still in the forthcoming 
 Oxford Analytical ed. of the Hexateuch. 
 
 Il. From Ecypt To SINAI: 13!7-18. 
 A. Summary. 
 
 1317-22 JEPchoice of route, IJguided by the 
 Pillar. 14 JE?crossing of Red Sea and fate of pur- 
 suers. 15 %8Song of Moses; JMarah, ¥(? Massah 
 = proving), and JElim. 16 =PGift of manna and 
 PiJquails, ? provision for Sabbath and memorial 
 
 ot of manna. 17 J£water given in drought, Jat 
 
 assah, Zat Meribah ; victory over Amalek. 18 
 ElJyjisit of Moses’ father-in-law, “appointment of 
 judges. 
 
 
 
808 EXODUS 
 
 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B. Analysis. 
 
 J 2if. 5-6 10a afraid 11-14 
 BY O7-19 4 Te Om 0b fJ® ee BD 
 Pp 50 i4 8 (obec 15a 
 J 19b 20b 21b 24 25b 
 EB] 4.160 of19a 20a to darkness] 250. 
 P ~"16b-18 Glac 22 28r 
 J 27> «28b 80 BI’. 1 22-25 27 
 EJ4 29 Beas Bot, 25b 26" 
 P 26-278 sea 28a 19’ 
 
 19a 16a 19b-21 
 
 J 
 216,. (ia a eee 16a 19a 16a 19b-@ 
 
 1-3 5’ 8’ 9-12 6f. ..-18f.  15b 16b 178.’ 
 
 1 a ee | 
 
 
 
 
 
 29-80” B1 82-34’ “35b 86’~- * 1a to Rephidim 
 J 7a to Massah 7c [2-4r 7 9-llr]@ 
 E |] 7btolsraet [8-16 180° 6.8 12-27} 
 : hs sib hes | Welk eT Bere ey 
 
 
 
 Displaced passages.—b is out of place here, and fits a later 
 place in the narrative, as is shown by position assigned to 
 Joshua at 837-11. ¢ is also subsequent to the legislation at Horeb, 
 rer preparatory to departure for Can., cf. 23. d perhaps led up 
 to Nu 102. 
 
 C. Parallels and Contrasts. 
 
 J—(a) Moses leads Isr. 15”, a, vast host (see I Cc), 
 but unarmed and helpless 14%-4, with the Pillar 
 of fire and cloud for guide 137 141%.2 Ny 1414; 
 (b) straight for the Red Sea, perhaps because the 
 Isthmus was fortified : Pharich pursues for reasons 
 given 145; (c) Moses uses no gesture, but brave 
 words 14% cf. 1C£; Jehovah causes the sea to go 
 back by a strong east wind ™, and then to return 
 to its wonted flow *”, and the crossing is by night 
 20b. 24. 27>, the Pillar moving to the rear and giving 
 light to Isr. 1%-%> (read, and it gave light by 
 night), while obscuring the Egyptians’ path *; 
 Jehovah fights for Isr. }4 25> ; (ay Moses and Israel 
 sing 15!; (e) Isr. tempts or proves J” 177° Nu 
 14” cf. Dt 61° 9%; (f) see under P below; (g) the 
 people prove J”, hence the name Massah or proving 
 (see 6 above), and murmur against Mos. 15% 178 
 Nu 14? cf. Nu 20°, for water 1732-7 which 
 elsewhere in J is provided by natural causes, as 
 15228. 27, 
 
 E—(a) God leads the people 13" (cf. Jos 24° E) 
 few but armed #; (b) not by the Isthmus for fear 
 of the Philistines ”, but presumably by the next 
 nearest route to Can. (cf. Ane 246, and see Ce); 
 the Egypt. pursue Isr. (Jos 245), who cry out 141% 
 (Jos 24’) ; (c) the rod (I Ck) is lifted up 141™ cf. Is 107; 
 the sea is crossed by day, for the angel of God (I Cj) 
 goes behind and interposes a barrier of darkness 
 19a. 20a (Jos 247), and then obstructs advance 2 and 
 overwhelms them (Jos 247); (d) Miriam and the 
 women sing responsively 15™¢: cf. 1 S 18%, which 
 suggests that we have here an independent account 
 not following on 151, which is thus left for J; (e) 
 God proves Isr. 15%> 164 202 Gn 22) cf. Jg 2” 
 (Budde E) Dt 8% 16 134 Jg 3:4 (?R4)*; (f) the 
 proving is by the test of their reception of each 
 day’s portion (dabar) of bread from heaven 164, the 
 thing (dabar) which Jehovah commanded being to 
 gate only for daily use every man according to 
 4s eating, 1.é. a variable amount (16 19-21) ef, Dt 
 87-16; they knew not what it was, and hence the 
 name 1 cf. Dt 816 and it lasted till they came 
 to a land inhabited *; (g) the people strive with 
 Mos. about lack of water, hence the name Meribah 
 or strife 17%-™; water comes by smiting the rock 
 with Moses’ rod * cf. 7%> and see I Ck. 
 
 P—(a) Moses and Aaron lead the whole congrega- 
 tionl16'* with a high hand 148; (b) not by Isthmus 
 because deliberately turned back 14?-4 to give occa- 
 sion for a wonder, and Pharaoh pursues because 
 hardened “817 ef. IC 1; (c) Moses’ hand was 
 stretched forth 1-22. 261 and the waters were 
 
 divided miraculously, not by a wind, for they were 
 as a wall on their right hand and on their Lye aoe 
 22, and so the catastrophe followed 2 27.24; (f) 
 the whole congregation murmurs for the fleshpots of 
 Egypt 16 (cf. Nu 114 J); manna, a miraculous 
 gift, is described +! (cf. and ct. manna, a 
 natural product, described Nu 115° J) ; the quails 
 are mentioned almost casually %, manna bein 
 
 the main point (ct. Nu 1135-18-23. 81-34 J); 9 fixe 
 
 amount of manna was to be gathered 1; manna 
 is eaten till they came unto the borders of the land 
 of Can. ®>; the two commands about Sabbath 
 observance 7% and the memorial pot of manna 
 52f. are not needed by the context of P, and may 
 have been added after the union of J E P in order 
 to supply clearer explanations of the proving of 4. 
 
 D. Other Clues, 
 
 J—Divine help by natural means 1421 1522-25 cf. I Ce; three 
 days 1522 cf. 1 a; and they came to... 1523.27 Heb. ; springs 
 oF Che) of water 1527 Gn 167ab 24 (7 times) 49382 Dt 87 8323 Nu 
 3 p*, 
 
 wife, and two sons 18, see I C h. 
 
 P—TI will get me honour 144. 17f. Lv 108; and the Egyptians 
 pursued 149. 23; 1519 Rp of, 1422f. 8a; date after ... departing 
 out of the land of Egypt 191 Nu 11 91 8338 1 K 61}. 
 
 III. At Sina: 19-40. 
 A. Summary. 
 19 JEPThe encampment at /?Sinai #the mount 
 
 /of God; %£awful sights and sounds introduce a 
 
 theophany; 20-23 God gives, i. "!?the Deca- 
 logue, ii. El¥the Book of the Covenant, iii. =!the 
 Book of Judgments; 24 Fcovenant sacrifice and 
 Jfeast before God, =?Moses ascends the mount, 
 and Fremains 40 days; 25-31 ?J” gives full direc- 
 tions for the tabernacle, its ornaments and 
 furniture, its priests, their dress and consecra- 
 tion; EFlJMoses receives the two tables; 32-34 
 Eidolatrous and Jmutinous conduct of the people ; 
 E Moses breaks the tables and destroys the golden 
 calf; Smassacre by Levites ; /fintercession of Moses ; 
 ElPusage of tent of meeting; JlEthe ten Words of 
 the Covenant Jwritten by Moses 4!#Pon two tables; 
 35-40 Perection and furnishing of the tabernacle. 
 
 B. Analysis. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 2b 
 
 R [O ese 8a to God [8b 80-6a” 6b-8ja Orla 
 Pp et 
 
 J (11b-13] 18 20-22 23’ 24 of...) 25 
 
 Pp 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 EQA2-150 1 QF 3] 9 BQr0. 
 P if 
 
 
 
 15b-18a — 18a 
 J 14... 257-29 UAE oe ++-12-28° 
 EQQ13 “16-24... 30-36 93 2" 4 6 7 
 P 15 
 
 
 
 uv 
 is) 
 & 
 
 s 
 = 
 
 
 
 This section is the most complicated and difficult 
 in the Hex. It is generally agreed that the sources 
 are much dislocated, and that the material has 
 been repeatedly revised by successive editors and 
 compilers. Most critics abandon the attempt to 
 carry through a systematic analysis or recon: 
 struction. The scheme adopted here for the JE 
 pooaene is that of Bacon, and its resort to the 
 
 ypothesis of wholesale transpositions can only be 
 
 
 

 
 EXODUS 
 
 
 
 EXODUS 809 
 
 
 
 justified by the hopelessness of less drastic methods 
 and the Sore ey harmony and order which it 
 introduces. There is, however, a growing con- 
 sensus of cyinion in favour of the main conclusions 
 on which the scheme rests. The sources are for 
 clearness given again separately, in the order con- 
 porally suggusted here. The presence of J* and 
 
 * is often felt, especially in 32-34, but cannot be 
 clearly dolicaitated. 
 
 J=192- 20-22, 24. 21b-18, 3 OA It. 9-11 341-6r, 10-284, 
 BQT-14r, 2r-29 331.3 Wy 1] 10s. Mt. 14h.) Fx 3312-28 340-9 
 
 E= 1954. 9r-1la. 14-17. 19 901-21 196-8 2412-14. 18b 321-6 3] 18b 
 3216-24, 30-34 33+ 6 ee 222-26 9310-83r (with 27 s)) 248-8 
 18!-2?r 337" and (after the E passages in Nu) 17818 
 the war with Amalek, and 21-239 the Book of 
 Judgments, whose original position is supposed 
 to be now occupied by Dt. 
 
 Pb = 9942-46r 3) i217, 
 
 Ps= 19}-28 2011 2415b-188 25-2719 281-0. 42f, 991-20. 22-37 
 31, 
 
 P2= 27%. 2841 2988-46 30-3111 3Q10b-16 3540), 
 
 Ra (or Rie) = 19%-6a. 23 202. 4b-6. 7b. 9f, 12b. 17b 9921b-22, 
 24, 25d. 81 999, 1b, 12b-18, 15d. 17. 194, 23-25a, 97. B1b-83 308. 13. 
 25b 33% 5 Z4ld. da. Tb. 10b-18, 15, 23t. 
 
 C. Parallels and Contrasts. 
 
 JS—(a) J” 191>- 18. 20ab, Mab. Wad. 24 ete. (bh) came down 
 (see I D) (c) in fire 19"8 (cf. Gn 19% Ex 3?, and the 
 pillar of. ‘Sire II Ca,c) (d) upon Mount Sinai 191». 18. 20. 
 
 "34% 4 (e) in the SIGHT of all the people, 19™», (f) the 
 PRIESTS only being bidden to sanctify themselves 19”, 
 (g) the people being kept at a distance throughout, 
 1921. 24. 12f. 942b. 348° (h) while these (so Heb.) 19%, 
 i.e. Mos. and the Lae which come near, were to 
 come up, 4 (read in 4 and the priests: but let not 
 the people cf. j) 24}, (i) at the BLAST of the RAMS- 
 HORN 19> Heb. (j) Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu with 
 70 elders accordingly are called and go up, and (k) 
 celebrate a covenant feast before the God of Isr. 
 241. %. (this incident may have been incorporated 
 by the author from another source, as it presents 
 several peculiar features) ; (1) Moses is then sum- 
 moned ALONE ¢o the top of the mount 34% (m) 
 with two tables of STONES (so Heb.) which he 
 is to hew 34>; (n) wpon the tables he is 
 to write 347 (cf. } where the change of one 
 Heb. letter turns J will into thou shalt write) 
 (0) the Ten Words of the Covenant as soon as 
 he receives them 347, (p) remaining with J” 40 
 days and 40 nights apparently for the purpose 
 of engraving them. (q) The rebellion of the 
 pechle (32%) being announced to him by J” (7%), 
 
 oses pues by intercession the repentance of 
 Jehovah (1-44), (v) and on descending quells revolt 
 by means of the sons of Levi (3275). (s) On learn- 
 ing he is to lead alone, Moses intercedes afresh, 
 and procures a theophany, a revelation of mercy, 
 and a promise of J”’s presence 33% * (Nu 11! 1th 
 which interrupt their present context, fit well 
 here, and, after the great block of P is removed, 
 are seen to lie near at hand) !2-% 345°, (t) Moses 
 HAD ALREADY made an ark of acacia wood, and puts 
 the tables in the ark (J’s account, which Nu 10% 
 and the many references to the ark in Jos prove 
 to have existed, but which is now displaced in favour 
 of P’s, is recovered from Dt 10!5), (u) but no trace 
 remains of his allusions to the tent of meeting. 
 
 E—(a) God 1938- 17, 19 901. 19, 20, 21 218 13 993. Yab. 1lin 
 LXX 28 9418 3118 (cf. D) (b) comes 19° 20” (c) in 
 a thick cloud 199: 6 2018 2) cf. 14% 33% Nu 11” 
 125 Dt 315£ (d) to the mount of God 24% (cf. 
 I C j), (e) that the people may HEAR 19°? 201-9, 
 (f) So Moses has to sanctify the PEOPLE 19" ye 
 (g) and they only stand afar off through fear 207 
 (h) after Moses has brought them all near 1917, 
 (i) when there is the VOICE of a TRUMPET going on 
 and increasing much 19}% 208, (j) (see below y, 
 1). Without any individuals drawing nearer, Go 
 
 speaks the Decalogue to the people 201, (k) (see 
 below w, y), and the covenant is assented to by the 
 people 19%>-8r cf. 2488 Dt 2718 E Jos 2416-27 1 § 
 111412°5E, (1) Moses is then summoned, and goes 
 up into the mount with Joshua his minister 241t 
 cf, 334 Nu 11”, (m) that God may give him the tables 
 of STONE which He has written, and the law and the 
 commandment that he may teach them 24!” (with 
 a slight transposition rendered necessary by an 
 alteration presumably made when the book of 
 Judgments was thrust into the centre of the Book 
 of the Covenant to make way for the Deuteronomic 
 law given in the plains of Moab). (n) On the 
 tables God has already written 24% 3118 (0) 
 apparently the Decalogue, see Dt 5%. (p) Moses 
 remains in the mount 40 days and 40 nights for the 
 purpose, it would seem, of receiving the daw and the 
 commandment, here supposed to refer to the 
 material of the Book of Judgments 21-23%. (q) 
 On descending he discovers with surprise tlie 
 idolatry of the people, (r) and breaks the tables. 
 and destroys the golden calf 321 17-9, (sg) Mose 
 then intercedes for the people, is bidden to lead 
 them himself, but has promise of God’s angel to go 
 before him: there is a marked tone of severity 
 in the words of J” 32°%, (t) That E spoke 
 of the ark here may be implied from his allusions 
 in Jos passim, (u) and that he described the making 
 of a simpler form of the tent of meeting, placed 
 without the camp, and possibly adorned by aid of 
 the abandoned ornaments, seems to follow from 
 837-4 Nu 1126 24b-90 94 Dt 31% with Ex 33% 3” 
 11% (y) J” gives the Book of the Covenant 20° 
 22%. 9310-38r ; (w) the covenant is assented to by 
 the people, see k above; (x) certain young men 
 24° cf. 32° and Joshua 334, ct. J under k, (y) 
 offer a covenant sacrifice 24° cf. 2074 32° Dt 27%. 
 
 P—(a) J” (so throughout) (b) makes His glory 
 (167-10 294 4034 Nu 141° 161-42 208 et. the less 
 local and physical use of the term 33% 2? Nu 14?! 
 J, Dt 5%*) to appear (c) like devouring FIRE (40% 
 Lv 9% 10? Nu 91% 16%). . . owt of the midst of the 
 CLOUD (16%° 2415. 16abd. 17. 18 434 85. 36. 87.38 Ty 162 Nu 
 9!57- 1] times 104 34 164") (d) wpon Mount Sinai (e) 
 in the eyes of the children of Israel 24)°>-18, (f) no 
 priests having yet been consecrated 29 Lv 8-10, 
 (g) all except Moses being kept at a distance ; (1) 
 Moses is called, and goes wp into the mount 2416180, 
 (m) that he may receive the two tables of the 
 TESTIMONY 31]}® 32154’, (n) which had, written on 
 both their sides 32°», (0) no doubt the Decalogue, 
 a brief account of the giving of which may have 
 been displaced by R? in favour of the impressive nar- 
 rative of JE, 20" being perhaps the only fragment 
 reserved. (p) Moses remains in the mount (prob. 
 or 40 days and nights) to receive the pattern of 
 the sanctuary (25-30), (s) with a promise of J” 
 to meet with the children of Israel (hence tent of 
 meeting) and to dwell among the children of Israel 
 (hence Tabernacle or Dwelling) 29%*%, (t) Moses 
 SUBSEQUENTLY ORDERS to be made an ark of 
 acacia wood, overlaid and ornamented with gold 
 2510-22 371-9, and puts the testimony into the ark 
 256 402; (u) he also prepares, erects, and furnishes 
 a gorgeous Dwelling for J”, large and costly and 
 needing a numerous body of priests and Levites 
 to attend to it (85-40). 
 
 D. Other Clues. 
 
 J—God, when stress is on His nature, deity 2411 Gn 3228 
 3310 + stiff necked 329 338-5 349, quoted Dt 96-18; consume 3210.18 
 333.5 Gn 4130 cf. Nu 1621.45 P etc. ; and I will make of thee a 
 great nation 3210 Gn 12? Nu 1412 ct. Heb. Gn 2118 463 E and 
 Gn 1720 P; face of the ground 3212 3316 Gn 26 43.14 61.7 74. 23 
 88.13 of. Nu 123 Es and Dt 615 76 142*; it repented J” 3212.14 
 Gn 66f ct. Ex,1317 Nu 2319; land fowing, etc. I D; find grace 
 (in the eyes of) 83130b. 16. 349 Gn 6%. 183. 1919. 3027. 326. 338. 10. 18 
 $411 394 4725.29 504 Nu 1111-15 325 Dt 241*; pass by (of J” 
 or His glory) 3319.22ab 346; proclaim . . . 8319 346 hw glory 
 8318. 22 cf, ri b under P; stress on mercy 3319 346% Nu 1419; 
 I make a covenant 3410. 27, 
 
810 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 £—Prove, 200, see II Ce; lord of (wife, etc.), Heb. ba'al, RV 
 married, owner, eto. 21%. 22. 48, 2b 34ab. 36 298. 1it. 14f. 2414 Gn 208 
 8719 Nu 2123 Jos 2411, in J only once, in the poem Gn 4913; 
 bondwoman 2 217. 2%. 2f. 82 (Heb. word never used by J): 
 stress on severity of God 2321 3233 Nu 2319 Jog 2419; Aaron 
 and Hur 2414 1710.12; rings (i.e. for ears) 322f Gn 354 Jg 824H. 
 Werh. E); gin 3221.80% Gn 209*; Horeb 335, seel D; pillar of 
 cloud 337-11, see Cc. 
 
 IV. THe LAws In Exopvus. 
 
 The four earliest Heb. codes occur in this section, 
 all in an expanded form. The principal additions 
 have been shown above (end of III B); they either 
 interrupt the context, or contrast with it in phrase- 
 ology or material, or seem to be quotations inserted 
 from elsewhere. Limits of space forbid any further 
 attempt to justify their excision from the orig. 
 sources. 
 
 It is now generally agreed that E contained 
 three out of the four codes. This confirms the 
 view that this document, like others, represents 
 the end of a long process, during which various 
 elements were successively assimilated. Moreover, 
 those who combined E with J (referred to as R’*), 
 who added D (R‘), who finally incorporated the 
 whole in P (R*), naturally in the case of such im- 
 
 ortant material showed at its strongest the 
 
 esire to preserve all they could. Is it unreason- 
 able to conjecture that each fresh combination re- 
 quired some dislocation of the existing material to 
 suit the new adjustment? In the text as we now 
 have it, E’s three codes form together the basis of 
 the Covenant. It has been suggested above that 
 in E, in its final form as a separate document, the 
 Decalogue was the basis of the Covenant, the Book 
 2 the Covenant led up to the Renewal of the 
 
 ovenant, while the Book of Judgments belonged 
 to Moses’ parting words in the plains of Moab. 
 If R! used J’s version of the Covenant to serve for 
 the account of the Renewal of the Cov. (341-%8), 
 and, to preserve E’s Book of the Cov., put it back 
 to form with the Decalogue the basis of the first 
 Cov. ; and if R4, inserting D in the section about 
 the plains of Moab, kept the Book of Judgments 
 by incorporating it with the Book of the Cov., then 
 the very order which we now have would have 
 been produced. That this actually took place is 
 only conjecture; but it was worth while showing 
 how the present state of the text might have 
 arisen; and this solution has at least the merit 
 that it only presupposes the action of causes which 
 have been clearly traced at work elsewhere. 
 
 The Codes compared. 
 
 J—The Ten Words of the Covenant (III C 1-p above).—(The 
 ‘ist given is only the one thought best of several possible ones. 
 Parallels in E are marked by the corresponding number. 
 Laws in 8 codes are in LARGE CAPITALS: laws given by 
 both J and E in Smauu Capirans): (1) MONOLATRY OCOM- 
 MANDED; (2) IMAGES FORBIDDEN ; (8) THE FEAST OF UN- 
 LEAVENED BREAD, (4) THE SABBATH, (5) THE FEAST OF weeks 
 Or FIRSTFRUITS, and (6) THE FEAST OF INGATHERING, COMMANDED; 
 (7) BREAD WITH SACRIFICES TO BE UNLEAVENED ; (8) THE passover 
 sacrifice TO BR ALL CONSUMED; (9) FIRSTFRUITS REQUIRED; 
 (10) SEETHING OF A KID IN ITS DAM’S MILK FORBIDDEN, 
 
 E—The Decalogue. (1) MONOLATRY COMMANDED; 
 (2) IMAGES FORBIDDEN ; false swearing forbidden ; (4) THE 
 SABBATH enjoined ; reverence to parents commanded ; murder, 
 adultery, theft, false witness, and covetousness forbidden. 
 
 E—The Book of the Covenant (III C v above). (1) MONO- 
 LATRY (?) COMMANDED ; (2) IMAGES FORBIDDEN ; altars 
 to be built as ordered, (9) FIRSTFRUITS DEMANDED ; also FIRSTLINGS 
 (cf. 131ff. J); the Sabbatical year, and (4) THE SABBATH 
 COMMANDED; also (3) THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, 
 (5) THE FEAST OF harvest or FIRSTFRUITS, and (6) THE FEAST OF 
 INGATHERING ; (7) BREAD WITH SACRIFICES TO BE LEAVENED ; 
 (8) THE fat of God's feast TO BE ALL CONSUMED: (10) SEETHING A 
 KID IN ITS DAM’8 MILK FORBIDDEN. 
 
 {It will be observed that, while the Decalogue (which see) 
 contains both religious and moral laws, the other two concern 
 only religion and the cultus, and are very closely parallel to one 
 ancther]. 
 
 E—The Book of Judgments (21-239). This code contains a 
 comprehensive series of laws, civil and criminal, all penetrated 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 
 
 perhaps originally in sets of 5 or 10, for use by judges and 
 
 trates, but display no very definite order of arrangement. 
 appeal lies before God, t.e. (presumably) at the sanctuary. cf. 
 1813-26. With this code should be carefully compared Dt 12-26, 
 which is based on it, and Ly 17-26, the Holiness Legislation, 
 which presents many parallels, 
 
 by a high ethical and religious spirit. They seem and mage 
 
 The chapters in P relating to the Tabernacle 
 (which see) remain to be considered. They are 
 not without difficulty, for a close inspection dis- 
 covers reasons for believing that they are not all 
 from the same hand. The full proof of the 
 analysis given above (end of III B) cannot be repro- 
 duced here, but the nature of the principal line of 
 argument can be seen from the accompanyin; 
 table, which gives the sections in the order 0: 
 35-40 (Heb. text)=H?, while on either side are 
 given references to 25-31 (Heb. text)=H', and 
 35-40 (Gr. text)=G. The letters indicate by their 
 alphabetical order the order of sections in the 
 text referred to; and those sections in H? which 
 are judged later than Ps are marked by an italic 
 capital. A moment’s comparison of H} and H? 
 shows large variations of order. But while the 
 changes a order in A to K and M to U can be 
 readily accounted for by the mere fact that H? 
 “oupide the fulfilment and H! the ordering, the 
 passages L, W, X, Z, A’, B’ seem so out of 
 place where they are that it is necessary to suppose 
 them to be later than the context that would 
 otherwise have contained them. The golden altar 
 of incense (W=m) is the most important case. 
 (1) It is out of its natural place in H'; (2) the 
 
 “term the altar in 27-8, and 100 times elsewhere in 
 
 Pe and (early) P*, would be ambiguous if the altar 
 were one of two, and is replaced in 38! ete. by a 
 distinctive term, the altar of burnt-offering, and so 
 constantly in the later strata of P*; (3) the incense 
 altar is not mentioned in G; (4) in Ly 10 and 
 Nu 16 we only read of censers for incense, and the 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hl The Dwelling. m@ G 
 A. 2519 | giftsasked. . .]| 20.3549 | a. 35488 
 ae workmen invited . b, 10-19 | 6, 9-19 
 io gifts presented... c. 20-29 | ¢ 20-29 
 ¢@. 311-01 | Bezalel, ete. = z d, 30-361 | d, 30-361 
 oe gifts finished . ° e. 362-7 é. 362-7 
 E. 261-14 | curtains . ° . f, 8-19 k. 371f.$ 
 F, 15-30 | boards e . ° . 20-84 |g, 3818-21f 
 QQ. 3if. veil . A . ° SbF, 1, 373f. 
 I. 36f. | screen oats i, 37% | m  5f 
 B. 2510-22 |} ark =, ies ° 371-9 Dp. 381-8§ 
 CO... 23-80:| table 2 ae 10-16 | g, 9-12} 
 D. 31.40 | candlestick 5 a 1 17-24) 7, 18-17 
 W. 301-5 | incense altar . .| m. 2-28 an 
 X, 610 | its use : . = nee nae 
 A’, 2233) anointing oil . . n, 2 | u 2e 
 BY, 3488) incense) seesaretes 0. 2b v, 5b 
 J. 271-8 brazen altar 5 6 p. 381-7 t, 22-24 
 Z. 8017-21" | laver’. 2. eens Ree Set w. 8 
 K. 279-19 | court . ; ohh ie r. 920 | n, 377-18 
 ZL. 0f. | oil for light ees! ous ae 
 see summary of gifs . 6. «21-81 4 eee 
 - 13 
 * acer priests’ dress,ephod . t. 391-7 “ Bee tg 
 O. 2813-29 | breastplate » «| wu, 89821 | g, 3615-29 
 Pp.) 30 Urim and Thummim, re nae 
 Q. 31-95 | robe. Ma eu enW eee RO ee 
 S. 89-43 | coats, ete. . . -| w. 27-29) §, 35-87 
 BR. 6-38 | plateonmitre . .| x. 930. j. 38-40 | 
 32.43 | $2. 39lff 
 oes summary . . . y- bv. 14:23 
 eee order to erect, ete. . z. 401-15 | c’, 401-137 
 cD brief execution . oil acorns, d, 14 
 oa erection of dwelling . | Db’. 17-19] e, 15-17 
 H. 2633-85 | furniture placed i c’, 20-30] 7, 18-26§ » 
 eee use of laver oi | Merl Rennes 2%. 38%} 
 a erection of uy = e, g’. 40775: 
 consecration o 
 T. 291-85 Aaron and sons \ Lv8 ad i 
 U. 36f. | do. of altar : 5 ooo ove 
 V. 96-42) daily sacrifice . 4 ooo oe 
 Y. 3011-16 | atonement money . eve ooo 
 § Part omitted. { With omissions and variations, 
 
EXODUS 
 
 altar is still the only one Nu 16", It may be 
 noted that 28 297 are late P* because Aaron’s 
 sons receive anointing, contrary to the clear 
 intention of P* in 297 ®t, and so Lv 8" etc. A 
 
 er comparison of H? with G shows a second 
 set of variations. It is held by many that the 
 facts require us to suppose that the Greek tr. of 
 35-40 was made before the Heb. text had reached 
 its present symmetrical and complete form. By 
 means of the above table the student can readily 
 test for himself the value of this suggestion. 
 
 V. CoNCLUDING SURVEY. 
 
 i. The History.—If we accept the results of this 
 article as in the main correct, we have passed far 
 beyond the boundary of a merely negative 
 criticism. It might be called destructive work to 
 show by detailed proof that we have no contem- 
 porary account of the Exodus and subsequent 
 events. But when it is shown that the present 
 narrative is made up of three, so far contrasting 
 with one another as to prove themselves much 
 later in date than the period of which they treat, 
 and the work, not merely of different individuals, 
 but of different schools of historical writing ; and 
 when the further step is taken of disentangling, 
 with infinite pains of many labourers in many 
 lands, the several threads of narrative, and re- 
 combining them in something like their original 
 connexions, the work of constructive criticism 
 must be held to have been well begun. The 
 summaries will have shown on how many im- 
 Salire points the three witnesses are at one. 
 
 or fuller particulars see Mosks, ISRAEL. 
 
 But, while it is well to remember that contrasts 
 are not always, or even usually, contradictions, it 
 would be idle to try to belittle the extent of the 
 change of view brought about. We may rather 
 think of it as the drawing back of a veil of illusion 
 which God wisely allowed to hang over the past, 
 until the growth of truer ideas about history both 
 took away the veil, and made men ready to make 
 use of the facts, whose real relations were at last 
 gor narely discovered. 
 
 If, therefore, it has to be admitted that the 
 Priestly history (P) has no independent value as a 
 witness to the Mosaic period, and that the materials 
 in E, and to a less extent in J, require careful 
 sifting before being regarded as correctly represent- 
 ing an age which to them was already a distant 
 age, we may set against that two things. First, 
 an exact view of that epoch might have dis- 
 appointed us, even as a field sown with corn has 
 little beauty till the seeds have shot up into blade 
 and stem. Secondly, we have instead three views 
 of it, so influenced by the ideas of the writers’ 
 own times and circumstances as to reveal to us 
 various stages in the after-growth, which was 
 itself entirely dependent on that germinal time. 
 On the face of it, the book tells of the Exodus of 
 Isr. from the bondage of Egypt; in the soul of it, 
 it speaks, to those who have ears to hear, of 
 successive stages in the great outgoing, at once 
 more glorious and more perilous, of the family of 
 man from the bondage or superstition, ignorance, 
 and sin. The events are not merely typical of 
 spiritual realities; but the very fact that they 
 were thus and then recorded, shows the faith of 
 the men of other days in the God whose hand they 
 loved to trace at work in the world. 
 
 ii. The Leading Ideas.—The Heb. writers are not 
 mere annalists, but interpreters of history. Hence 
 their permanent value. They may be criticised as 
 chroniclers of outward events, but they sought and 
 found God everywhere, and they abide to hand on 
 their secret. In all three documents we find the 
 same fundamental verities emphasized, which give 
 to Ex its real unity. J” is the supreme God, 
 
 81] 
 
 EXORCISM, EXORCIST 
 
 ruling in Egypt, and master over nature. He is 
 the faithful God who made His choice of the fathers 
 of the Heb. race, and will not draw back. He is 
 the God of grace, and so loves to give guidance, 
 counsel, help, food, drink, every needed supply. 
 He is the Holy One, and requires obedience to His 
 will, and takes steps to make known that will. 
 He is the Jealous God, and demands that due 
 worship shall be paid to Him, and to none else. 
 He is the Covenant God, and the two sides of the 
 Covenant are: J” Israel’s God, Israel J”’s people. 
 
 But each document has its individual standpoint, 
 even as each of the synoptic Gospels presents its 
 own picture of the life of Christ. The oldest, 
 J, perhaps coming from the priestly circle con- 
 nected with Solomon’s temple, is written from the 
 point of view of a highminded patriot, keenly 
 interested in every detail of national history, so 
 quick to see God’s hand in providence as to be able 
 to make his story religious with but little use of 
 the miraculous, alive to all the shades of character 
 in men, as well as to the richness of the Divine 
 nature, in which mercy rejoiceth against judgment, 
 valuing highly the common ordinances of religion, 
 and recognizing the great opportunities of the 
 
 riestly office. The document E, probably rathex 
 ater, and originally coming from Ephraimite 
 circles, reflects the views of the prophets. This 
 work (extending from Gn to Kings) is a series of 
 biographical studies of great prophetic heroes, 
 with Moses as the central figure. Much stress is 
 laid on morality. The people sin, and need to 
 be called to repentance. God is righteous, and 
 His requirements must not be despised. The 
 miraculous element is heightened, of course un- 
 consciously. The moral of each incident must be 
 made clear, the reality of the Divine government 
 set unmistakably forth. Sad experience of the 
 faults of the priesthood leads to the priests being 
 either passed over, or introduced for blame. 
 Worship is strictly secondary to eae 
 
 The priestly writer (P) has lost all hold upon the 
 simplicities and roughnesses of the childhood of 
 the nation. So possessed is he with reverence for 
 the religious institutions of the now ruined temple, 
 that he not only has already in the vision-chamber 
 of his imagination elaborated them to an ideal 
 perfection which they never had, but this ideal 
 picture must be, he has become persuaded, the 
 reflection of what actually existed in the primitive, 
 the perfect days. Each new improvement is un- 
 hesitatingly added with the same formula of 
 Divine inspiration, the argument being: ‘ We see 
 this to be best now, therefore it must have been 
 ordered and done then.’ Granted, then, that this 
 stately centralized worship was the Divine purpose 
 for the Second Temple, we may surely accept the 
 unhistorical form of the priestly legislation as 
 being probably the only means by which it could 
 have been successfully introduced. After all, the 
 full corn in the ear is present in the seed, if not in 
 miniature, at least in promise and potency. 
 
 The Bk. of Ex is like a grand symphony, which 
 was once thought to gine harmony without dis- 
 cord, but is now being found, in virtue of elements 
 which by themselves are sharply discordant, to 
 sound forth a yet richer harmony. 
 
 LireraTuRE.—See Hexateuch. B. W. Bacon’s The Tri 
 Tradition of the Exodus, and his arts. in the Journal of Bzbl. 
 Lit. (1890-93) have been of great service to the writer; and 
 Bruston’s essay, Les quatre sources des lois d’ Exode, is plausible 
 and suggestive. We still wait for a good Eng. com. on Exodus, 
 
 G. HARFORD-BATTERSBY. 
 
 EXORCISM, EXORCIST.—The word éfopxl{w is a 
 later form of the classical ééopxéw. The latter is 
 employed in Demosthenes in the sense of ‘ admin- 
 ister an oath to a person.’ The verb éfopxl{w is 
 used by the high priest to Jesus ‘I adjure thee by 
 
 
 
812 EXORCISM, EXORCIST 
 
 EXORCISM, EXORCIST 
 
 
 
 the living God. . .’ (Mt 26%), and corresponds to 
 the Heb. wayn. Cf. Gn 24° LXX. The subst. 
 exorcist is only once employed in the NT, viz. in 
 Ac 19%. The passage is instructive, since it shows 
 that exorcism in those days was practised as a 
 profession by strolling Jews. The method which 
 they pursued we might infer from the example of 
 Eleazar, to which Josephus specially refers in the 
 pees cited from Ant. VIII. ii. 5, in the article 
 
 EMON, p. 593°. The constant and _ essential 
 element in all these exorcisms was the power 
 wielded by the recitation of special names. In 
 the instance recorded in Ac 19 the Jewish exorcists 
 had observed the expulsions which Paul had effec- 
 tuated through the pronunciation of the name of 
 Jesus, and endeavoured, with ludicrously disastrous 
 results, to work the same cures by saying, ‘ We 
 adjure you (the evil spirit) by Jesus whom Paul 
 preacheth.’ es 
 
 An example of the ancient Babylonian incanta- 
 tions has already been aes above, p. 591.  Ilus- 
 trations of Jewish spells may be found in the 
 Talmud. (Respecting these, see Brecher, Das 
 Transcendentale, Magie u. magische Heilarten 
 tm Talmud, Vienna, 1850, PP. 195-203. ) That 
 these were ultimately derived from Babylonian 
 magic can admit of no doubt. Some Aramaic 
 inscriptions, published in the Zeitsch. fiir Assyri- 
 ologie (Dec. 1893 and April 1894) by Wohlstein, 
 contain instructive examples of these exorcising 
 formule. They are inscribed on the interior 
 surfaces of some ancient bowls that were brought 
 from Baghdad in 1886 and i 
 Museum in Berlin. The mode of expression in all 
 of them possesses broad features of resemblance, 
 but special details vary in each case. For the 
 names of the angels which are recited in each bowl 
 differ widely owing to the prevailing belief, which 
 finds expression in the Jewish Kadbala, that the 
 ruling angels are constantly changing, and those 
 must be addressed who hold the reins of power at 
 that time and place. é 
 
 The first of the series (No. 2422), from which we 
 shall quote, was evidently employed to exorcise 
 the demon of a man who was suffering from 
 leprosy. 
 
 ‘In thy name I form a heavenly cure for Achdebuj the son 
 of Achathabu of Daithos, by the compassion of Heaven. Amen, 
 Amen, Selah. Bound, bound, bound shall be all the male 
 spirits and female Astartes* evil spirits, powers of opposition 
 . . . all Satans from West and East, North and South. Bound, 
 bound shall be all evil sorcerers and all who practise violence ; 
 bound and sealed shall be all . . . and curses and conjurations, 
 Bound be the angels of wrath, the angels of the house of 
 assembly . . . the mighty princes, the hard princes, the diseases 
 without number, the sufferings, the abscess, the scab, the mange, 
 the skin-eruption, malignant discharge, suppurating wounds, the 
 spirit of the burial-place, the spirit of the dead, the spirit of 
 diseases ; bound and sealed upshall yeall be from Achdebuj, son 
 of Achathabu. Goand withdraw yourselves to the mountains and 
 the heights and the unclean cattle (Mt 882, Mk 612, Lk 832), 
 If ye come on the first of Nisan (regarded as specially favourable 
 for overcoming demons], go away from Achdebuj, son of Acha- 
 thabu, in the name of Gabriel, who is called Elpassas, and in the 
 name of Michael, who is called (Demu)thja, and in the name of 
 Elbenmez, and in the name of Elba'baz...’ [The inscription 
 concludes with the formula Amen, Amen, Selah, which occurs 
 fn other incantations, sometimes with the addition of Halle- 
 lujah). 
 
 The exorcism No. 2416, transcribed by Wohlstein, 
 is much longer, and other names of angels com- 
 pounded with the name of deity El (as Nuriel, 
 Chathicl, Sesagbiel, etc.) are quoted, with Myta- 
 
 ze MNIPII RNANO’NI 73°T 43°nD. Note that in 3'np ‘spirits’ 
 
 y 
 we have practically the same word as the Syriac Fay Aza) 
 ‘idol.’ The word xn7n0°N is the [3tardti ‘goddesses’ of the 
 Assyrian. Similarly, the Talmudic flame-demon Respa is the 
 Pheenician flame-deity Redeph or Repu (see Baethgen, Beitriige 
 tur Semit. Relig.-gesch. p. 50; Wiedemann, Relig. der alten 
 4Migypter, p. 83). Of. Beelzebub of the NT. These are in- 
 structive examples of the wholesale conversion of heathen 
 deities into demons. 
 
 laced in the Royal 
 
 tron at their head, making seven in all. The 
 formula max ws ax (from Ex 3%), Sxw and all 
 variations on the names of deity, as 7 and 17’, and 
 the Athbash equivalent yp» po, are pressed into the 
 service. 
 
 These spells are ascribed to the 7th cent. A.D., 
 
 though written in unpointed Hebrew. The char- 
 acters are of the more recent square type, and a 
 much earlier date than the above is hardly probable. 
 Why they were inscribed in bowls cannot be ex- 
 plained. The bowls were not intended to hold 
 water, otherwise the distinctness of the lettering 
 would have been obscured. 
 
 Demonology and exorcism played a conspicuous 
 fort in the literature and practice of the Christian 
 
 hurch throughout the earlier period and during 
 the Middle Ages. In the time of our Lord exorcism 
 was regarded as one of the signs of the Messiahship 
 (Mt 12°5). It was the universal belief of the early 
 church Fathers that a disciple of Jesus was able to 
 exercise power over demons by uttering His name 
 (Tertullian, Apologet. 23; Origen, cont. Cels. vii. 
 334), Naturally, bishops and other ordained 
 clergy were considered to possess this charisma. 
 But there was a special class of individuals who 
 were so endowed without any ecclesiastical confer- 
 ment (Apost. Constit. viii. 26, éEopxuarhs ob xexpo- 
 rovetra). They received formal episcopal recognition, 
 but not ordination, as exorciste per gratiam. Never- 
 theless, we also find another class who did receive 
 episcopal ordination, and were called exorciste per 
 ordinem. Inthe ceremony of baptism the catechu- 
 men of adult age was obliged solemnly and publicly 
 to renounce the devil and his works, but in the 
 case of children the assistance of the exorcist was 
 necessary. By the priest and attendant exorcist 
 the ceremony of exsugflatio and insufflatio was per- 
 formed on the child, who was regarded asa child eine 
 devil, as being subject to inherited guilt. Sacerdos 
 exsujjiat ter in faciem catechument semel dicens: 
 Exi ab eo (ea) spiritus immunde et da locum 
 spiritui sancto Paracleto. Hic in modum crucis 
 habet in faciem ipsius et dicat: Accipe spiritum 
 bonum per istam insuflationem et Det benedictionem. 
 Paz tibi. According to the practice of the Romish 
 Church at the present day, the separate existence 
 of the exorcist is not recognized, but every priest 
 on ordination, receives previous consecration to the 
 lower orders, including that of exorcist. In Can. 9 
 of the Fourth Council of Carthage we read : Exor- 
 cista quum ordinatur accipiat de manu episcopi 
 libellum in quo scripti sunt exorcismi. t the 
 present time the ordaining bishop places a missal 
 in the priest’s hands with the words: Accipe et 
 commenda memorize et habeto potestatem impo- 
 nendi manus super energumenum [i.e. évepyovpevov, 
 sc. 0rd rveupdtwv dxabaprwv).* 
 
 Among the Reformers opinion and practice were 
 divided respecting exorcism. Luther and Melanch- 
 thon favoured it, but it was decisively rejected by 
 Zwingli and Calvin (Instit. iv. c. 15. 19). For 
 further details respecting ecclesiastical practice the 
 reader is referred to the article ‘Hacrcismus’ in the 
 2nd ed. of Herzog-Plitt’s Realencyklopidie, from 
 which the facts in Christian ecclesiastical tradition 
 
 * The Ritual for exorcism may here be appended. The priest, 
 having arrayed himself in the official robes, first sprinkles the de- 
 moniac with holy water and then recites the prayer of the litany of 
 all saints, the paternoster, and Ps 53; after this the two oratioacs, 
 in which he makes the sign of the cross over the demoniac, and 
 commands the evil spirit to depart by the power of the mysteries 
 of the incarnation, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of 
 Ohrist, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and Christ’s return to judge 
 the world. After this follows the reading of Jn 1, Mk 1615-18, 
 Lk 1017-19. Then the priest lays both hands on the head of 
 the demoniac and says, Ecce crucem Domini. Fugite, te8 
 adverse: victt leo de tribu Juda. After this comes the dratio, 
 with the special formula of exorcism, Exorcizo te, immundé 
 Yael while the priest crosses the brow and breast of the 
 
 moniac three times in the name of the Trinity. If the evil 
 spirit does not then depart, the service is begun anew 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 EXPECT, EXPECTATION 
 
 EXTREME 813 
 
 
 
 have been derived. The article ‘ Kabbalah,’ in the 
 same dictionary, may also be consulted with ad- 
 
 vantage. OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. 
 
 EXPECT, EXPECTATION. — Following Lat. 
 expectare, ‘expect’ meant in older Eng. not only 
 ‘look forward to,’ but also simply ‘ wait,’ or ‘await.’ 
 Thus in Douay Bible the comment on Sir 118 is 
 ‘Expect the end of another mans speach, before 
 you begin to answer. Expect also if anie that is 
 elder, or better able wil answer first.’ Expect is 
 used in this way in Job 32‘m., 2 Mac 9”, and 
 He 10" ‘From henceforth expecting till his 
 enemies be made his footstool.’ The Gr. of last 
 
 assage is éxdéxoua, elsewhere in NT tr* ‘wait 
 or’ (Jn 5°, RV omits, Ac 17, Ja 5”), ‘ta for’ 
 (1 Co 118, RV ‘wait for’), ‘look for’ (i Co 162 
 RV ‘expect,’ He 11). Cf. Bacon, Adv. of Learn- 
 ing, i. (Selby’s ed. p. 14, 1. 35), ‘The most active or 
 busy man that hath been or can be, hath, no 
 question, many vacant times of leisure, while he 
 
 expecteth the tides and returns of business.’ 
 xpectation is used throughout in the sense of 
 looking forward to with hope. Thus even in 
 Ps 625 ‘My soul, wait * thou only upon God; for 
 my expectation is from him,’ the Heb. is tikwah 
 (pn), similarly tr? in Ps 9'° and in Pr, but most 
 often tr‘ ‘hope,’ and the meaning is ‘that which 
 I hope for, my deliverance.’ In Ro 8%, Ph 1” 
 ‘earnest expectation’ is an effort to bring out the 
 full force of the Gr. word dmoxapadoxla, which is 
 found nowhere else. It is formed from Jdoxéw 
 in the sense of ‘watch,’ xdpa, the ‘head,’ and 
 dé, ‘from,’ so that it means (Sanday-Headlam) 
 ‘awaiting with outstretched head,’ the prep. 
 denoting ‘diversion from other things and con- 
 centration on a single object.’ The Vulg. has 
 simply eapectatio, whence Rhemish ‘expectation.’ 
 Wye. has ‘abiding.’ But in Ro 8” Tind. gives 
 ‘fervent desire,’ and is generally followed (Cov. 
 ‘fervent longing’). ‘Earnest expectation’ is the 
 Bishops’ translation in both places. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXPEDIENT is never found in AV in the sense 
 of ‘expeditious,’ as so often in Shakespeare. On 
 the other hand, it never means merely ‘ convenient’ 
 (opposed to what is rigidly right), as in modern 
 English. The Greek is always ovudépet, or (2 Co 127) 
 ouppépov (=‘it is oes, as AV and RV else- 
 where tr. the word, except in Mt 18° AV ‘it were 
 better,’ and 19 AV ‘it is not good,’ RV ‘itis not 
 expedient’). So even Caiaphas (Jn 11” ‘it is 
 expedient for you that one man should die for the 
 people’) does not openly prefer, as a modern 
 politician, the convenient to the just. His words 
 are like those of Jeremiah (26'4 Cov.), ‘ Now as for 
 me: I am in your handes, do with me as ye thinke 
 expedient and good,’ though his spirit is the 
 opposite. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXPERIENCE, which is the result of ‘ experi- 
 ment,’ was sometimes used for the experiment 
 itself, as Baker, Jewell of Health, 112° ‘The 
 Aucthour ... hath both seen and done many 
 experiences worthy memorie.’ This is no doubt 
 the meaning in Gn 307, where Laban says to 
 Jacob, ‘I have learned by experience that the 
 Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.’ It is the 
 Douay translation. The Geneva has ‘ perceived,’ 
 but in marg. ‘tried by experience.’ 
 
 The Heb. (#53) means to observe omens, whence RV ‘I have 
 divined.’ It is used of Joseph’s divining by means of a cup 
 
 Gn 445.18, with notes by Del. Dillm. Wade) and elsewhere. 
 e ptcp. {s found Dt 1810 ‘a diviner,’ where see Driver’s note. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 * There is no suggested connexion between ‘wait’ and ‘ex- 
 
 Seyge as the Heb. for ‘wait’ is ‘be silent unto God,’ as 
 Vm (Oheyne, ‘be simply resigned to God’). 
 
 EXPERIMENT is narrower and more concrete 
 now than formerly. Occurring in AV in 2 Co 9¥ 
 only, ‘ Whiles by the experiment of this ministra- 
 tion they glorify God,’ its meaning is ‘test,’ 
 ‘proof,’ as Wither (1618), Motto, Nec Careo, 583— 
 
 ‘I want not much experiment to show 
 That all is good God pleaseth to bestow.’ 
 
 The Gr. is doxus (tr? ‘experience’ in Ro 54 AV, 
 but RV ‘ Paepetien *). Experiment’ is the Geneva 
 word; RV ‘seeing that through the proving of 
 you by this ministration they glorify dod,’ which 
 is a return to Wyclif, ‘bi the preuynge of this 
 mynysterie.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXPIATION.—See ATONEMENT, PROPITIATION. 
 EXPOSURE.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 EXPRESS.—Only He 1* ‘the express image of 
 his person’ (xapaxrjp, RV ‘the very image,’ RVm 
 ‘the impress’) ; and Wis 14!” ‘they... made an 
 express image of a king’ (éugar7 elxiva, RV ‘a 
 visible image’). On xapaxrijp see Westcott, tn loc. 
 The tr. of RV is after Tind.; the Geneva (‘ingraved 
 forme’) tries to bring out the sense of the Gr. 
 word, which is properly what stands engraven on 
 any object, as a seal (Davidson), and this is the 
 meaning of AV ‘express image’; cf. Shaks. 
 Hamlet, u. ii. 299, ‘What a piece of work is a 
 man!.. . in form and moving, how express and 
 admirable,” which Aldis Wright explains thus: 
 ‘Exact, fitted to its purpose, as the seal fits the 
 stamp.’ Laprimere (ptep. expressus) has the mean- 
 ing among others of ‘copy,’ ‘ pourtray,’ and from 
 this the Eng. word was used before 1611 in the 
 sense of ‘exactly pourtrayed.’ Thus Sir T. More, 
 (1513) Rich. IIT. ‘This is ye fathers own figure... 
 ye playne expresse lykenes of ye noble Duke.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXQUISITE.—From Lat. exquisitus, ptcp. of 
 exquirere, to search out, ‘exquisite’ is properly, 
 and was originally, that which is elaporatels 
 devised, ‘ingenious,’ and its application might be 
 good or bad. In the Areopagitica (Hales’ ed. p. 16) 
 Milton says Mr. Selden’s volume ‘proves... by 
 exquisite reasons and theorems almost mathe- 
 pence, demonstrative, that all opinions, yea, 
 errors, known, read, and collated, are of main 
 service and assistance toward the speedy attain- 
 ment of what is truest.’ Milton even uses the 
 word actively of persons in Comus, 359, 
 
 ‘Peace, brother, be not over-exquisite 
 To cast the fashion of uncertain evils,’ 
 as other writers had done before him. Exquisite 
 occurs Sir 18% ‘They . . . poured forthe. parables’ 
 (rapowmlas dxpiBets, RV ‘apt proverbs’), and 19% 
 ‘There is an e. subtilty, and the same is unjust’ 
 (so RV, Gr. ravoupyla dxpiB7s). J. HASTINGS, 
 
 EXTINGCT.—Extinct (Lat. extinctus, ptcp. of 
 extinguere, to extinguish) now only expresses a 
 state, ‘ active and extinct volcanoes’; ‘ the volcano 
 is extinct.’ But formerly it expressed the action 
 which produces the state, and so Job 17! ‘my 
 days are extinct’ (13413 "p:), and Is 437 ‘ they are 
 extinct, they are quenched as tow’ (12y3). Cf. 
 Shaks. Rich. IT. 1. iti, 222— 
 
 ‘My oil-dried lamp and time-bewasted light 
 Shall be extinct with age and endless night.’ 
 ‘ Extinguished’ occurs, however, in Wis 2°. 
 
 In the 16th cent. a verb ‘to extinct’ was coined, of which the 
 past ptcp. was sometimes ‘extincted’ and sometimes ‘ extinct.’ 
 It is thus uncertain whether ‘extinct’ as ptcp. belongs to 
 ‘extinguish’ or to this verb. Shaks, uses ‘extinct’ twice, 
 ‘extincted’ once (Oth. m. i. 81, ‘Give renew’d fire to our 
 extincted spirits!’), but never ‘extinguished.’ He uses the 
 verb ‘extinguish’ only once. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EXTREME is used as an adv. in Sir 42° ‘the 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 814 EYE 
 
 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 
 
 extreme aged’ (écxaréynpos). So Bacon, Essays 
 (Gold. Treas. ed. p. 156), ‘ Acting in Song, especially 
 in Dialogues, hath an extreme Good Grace’ ; and 
 p. 178, ‘all Deformed Persons are extreme bold’ ; 
 and again in Advance. of Learning, I. xxiii. 38, 
 ‘it [is] extreme hard to play an after game of 
 reputation.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EYE.—The verb occurs twice: 4. Gn 29!” ‘Leah 
 was tender eyed’ (nin. ax? ‘yy, RV ‘L.’s eyes were 
 tender’). hether ‘tender’ is appreciatory or 
 depreciatory is disputed. Modern commentators 
 usually say depreciatory, after LXX (dc@eve?s) and 
 Peshitta. But others, the tender brightness of a 
 child, after Onk. and Sa‘adya, and quoting Gn 33% 
 ‘My lord knoweth that the children are tender’ 
 (same Heb.). See Spurrell, in loc. ; also Otts, The 
 Fifth Gospel, p. 41f.; and Expos. Times, v. 97. 
 The Vulg. lippis oculis, ‘blear-eyed,’ is certainly 
 wrong. 2.18189 ‘And Saul eyed David from 
 that day and forward’ (py ‘nn, Kéré py, a denom. 
 from jv to eye). For the construction and Heb. 
 perellcle, see Driver, in Joc. The meaning is to 
 ook on with envy (cf. invidia; and see the ‘ Evil 
 Eye’ under art. ENvy, and Trench, WT Synonyms, 
 p- 106f.), but there is no other example in English 
 of the verb ‘eye’ in the sense of ‘ envy.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 EYE (ry).—The eyes of Orientals are usually 
 well formed, large, and lustrous, but deficient in 
 that play of expression which accompanies thought, 
 humour, and fancy. 
 
 As the chief of the organs of sense, the eye had 
 a leading place in the lex talionis, ‘eye for eye’ 
 (Ex 21%). To put out the eyes of an enemy or 
 prisoner was like breaking the teeth of a captured 
 wild animal, the removal of the chief power to 
 injure. It was also a great degradation (Jg 16”, 
 15 11%, 2 K 257). Among the begging classes of 
 Palestine, blindness, next to the revolting spectacle 
 of leprosy, makes the strongest claim upon the 
 charity of the benevolent. Blind men are some- 
 times known to decline the offer of the medical 
 missionary, as restored sight would mean a loss of 
 privilege (see Blindness under MEDICINE). 
 
 he fig. references to the eye are many and 
 varied. As the chief means of contact with the 
 outer world, th eye is the source of pleasurable 
 sensations and the principal avenue of tempta- 
 tion (Gn 36, Pr 27, Ezk 2471, 1 Jn 2}8). Know- 
 ledge is the opening of the eyes (Gn 3’, Ps 11918, 
 Eph 18). 
 
 The prophet was first called the ‘seer’ (7x5) 
 1S 9%, and his message a ‘vision’ (ji19) Is 1}, 
 Ezk 7* etc. In connexion with the feelings, 
 sorrow is associated with a consumed or wasted 
 eye (Ps 6’), and satisfaction in worldly prosperity 
 with an eye standing out with fatness (Ps 73’). 
 
 Tear-bottles are often found in the ancient 
 tombs, as affecting tokens of regret and grief. 
 This memorial act may be referred to in Ps 568 
 ‘Put thou oy tears into thy bottle.’ (See 
 BoTTLE.) To have the eyes delivered from tears 
 takes rank with the deliverance of the soul from 
 death and the feet from falling (Ps 1168) ; to have 
 all tears wiped from the eyes (Rev 215), is part of 
 the riches in glory. 
 
 As a judge of what is pleasant or offensive, the 
 eye indicates an intention of favour or hostitity. 
 
 hus in an Arabic salutation, in answer to the 
 opening inquiry as to health, the usual reply is, 
 ‘Well, by your looking upon me’ (favour of your 
 eye), and the conventional parry of politeness is to 
 say, ‘By God’s looking upon you.’ A similar 
 thought of the eye’s protective favour lies in the 
 words providence, episcopos, overseer. On the other 
 hand, there is the widespread and deeply-rooted 
 superstition about the power of the eyvil-eye, and 
 
 
 
 
 
 one of the chief uses of the amulet (wh. see) is te 
 obtain protection against it. 
 
 The Eyelids (o'5y5y) are mentioned as a means of 
 seduction employed by the ‘ evil woman’ (Pr 6), 
 and not infrequently appear in poetical language 
 as a synonym for, or parallel with, the eyes 
 (Job 161%, Jer 918, Ps 11* 1324, Pr 64 30%). By a 
 beautiful metaphor in Job 3° 4118 the first rays of 
 dawn are called the ‘eyelids of the morning.’ 
 
 Eye-paint (32, Arab. kuhl; cf. n> Esk 2316) 
 was a paste made of antimony Powe giving 
 a brown-black burnished stain to the ae 
 eyelashes. The practice which is de- pr 
 picted on the monuments still con- - 
 tinues in Egypt (see Lane, Mod. 
 Egypt.’ i. 45f.). The paint is kept 
 in a small horn or ornamental metal 
 vase with a thin rod for applying it. 
 It makes the eyes look Ever and 
 more lustrous (2 K 9, Jer 49°, Ezk 
 23%). One of Job’s daughters was 
 called Keren-happukh, ‘horn of eye- 
 paint’ (Job 4214), 
 
 The Eye-salve (xoAdotpioy, col- 
 lyrium) of Rev 3}8 was a preparation 
 used for healing or strengthening the eye (cf. Hor. 
 Sat. i. 5. 30; Epict. Dass. ii. 21. 20, iii. 21, 21; 
 Cels. vi. 6. 7). (See MEDICINE.) 
 
 G. M. MACKIE, 
 
 EYESERYVICE.—This is a literal tr. in Eph 6°, 
 Col 3” of the Greek éPOadpodovdAcla, and seems to 
 have been coined by Tindale, although he uses it 
 only in Col, in Eph giving ‘service in the eye sight.’ 
 The word was at once adopted into the language, 
 Crowley (1550), Last Trump, 163, having ‘Se thou 
 serue him... not wyth eye-seruice fainedly.’ The 
 AV of 1611 is, however, the first Version that has 
 eye service in Eph (it writes two separate words as 
 all the Versions do in Col), The Greek word is 
 found nowhere else : ‘ This happy expression,’ says 
 Lightfoot, ‘would seem to the apostle’s own 
 coinage.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 
 
 HORN FOR BYE- 
 PAINT. 
 
 EZBAI (‘31x). —The father of Naarai, one of 
 David’s mighty men (1 Ch 11%). The parallel 
 passage 2 § 23% reads ‘Paarai the Arbite’ (2378 
 ‘a7N7) for ‘Naarai the son of Ezbai’ (‘21x73 "y3). 
 It is impossible to decide with any confidence 
 between the rival readings. (See Kittel’s note on 
 1 Ch 11" in Haupt’s Sacred Bks. of OT). 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 _ EZBON (jasx, }iaxx).—4. Eponym of a Gadite 
 family (Gn 461°), called in Nu 26% Ozni (which 
 
 see). 2. A grandson of Benjamin (1 Ch 7’). 
 GENEALOGY. 
 EZEKIAS, —1. (A ‘Efexlas, B ‘Hfelas, AV 
 
 Ezechias) 1 Es 9!4= JAHZEIAH, Ezr 10%. 2, 
 Bienes AV Ezecias) 1 Es 9*.—Called HILKIAH, 
 eh 84, 
 
 EZEKIEL (Vulg. Ezechiel, LXX "Tefexufr, Heb. 
 xpim ‘God is strong,’ or ‘God strengthens’), 
 the son of Buzi, was one of the temple priests 
 who shared the exile of Jehoiachin in B.C. 597 
 (Ezk 1* 8, ef, 2 K 241416), His work as a prophet 
 commenced in the fifth year of his banishment (1°), 
 and extended over a period of not less than 22 
 years (592-570) ; the latest date in the book being 
 the ‘seven and twentieth year’ of his sojourn in 
 Babylonia (29!”), This part of his life was spent (so 
 far as appears) in a Jewish settlement at Tel-Abib 
 (1! 345), an unknown place near the ‘ river Chebar’ 
 (722), which was probably a canal or a tributary 
 of the Euphrates in the vicinity of Babylon,—- 
 certainly not the Haboras (737 2 K 17%) in N. 
 Mesopotamia. The life of this colony of expatri- 
 
 ated Jews is but dimly reflected in the pages of 
 
 
 
 See | 
 

 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 
 
 Ezk; the aaa is partly supplemented by the 
 29th ch. of Jer. Those Sora captive were the 
 élite of the nation ; and they seem to have lived 
 in tolerably easy circumstances, enjoying a large 
 measure of freedom and self-government, forming 
 a little world of their own, and cherishing a passion- 
 ate interest in the concerns of their native land. 
 They kept up by some means an active intercourse 
 with Jerus.; and, in spite of intense mutual 
 antipathy between them and the ruling classes at 
 home, they never ceased to regard themselves as 
 part and parcel of the Heb. nation, confidently 
 expecting that some great political upheaval would 
 peoely restore them to their old place at the head 
 of the state. This delusion was fostered by the 
 rise of prophets of the same type as Jeremiah’s 
 opponents in Jerus.,—an event which was hailed 
 with immense satisfaction, not unmixed with sur- 
 rise, by the exiled community (Jer 29). The 
 alse patriotism thus engendered threatened to 
 bring down the heavy arm of Nebuchadnezzar on 
 the captives, and Jer., though his sympathies were 
 with the patrician exiles rather than with the 
 people left in the land (Jer 24'*), endeavoured to 
 allay the dangerous political excitement which 
 blinded them to their true position. Altogether, it 
 would seem that the main currents of feeling and 
 opinion Ho Moat in Pal. were reproduced with 
 remarkable fidelity in the community where E. 
 was destined to labour. 
 
 Although little is known of E.’s previous life, it 
 cannot be doubted that he found himself from the 
 first in an uncongenial social atmosphere. In spite 
 of the statement of Jos. (Ant. X. vi. 3, mais dv), he 
 was probably no longer a young man when de- 
 ported to Babylon. The meaning of ‘the 30th 
 year’ in ch. 1 is too obscure to throw light on the 
 matter, but his familiarity with the technical 
 details of the temple and its ritual seems to show 
 that he had officiated for a considerable time in 
 the national sanctuary. The numerous points of 
 contact between him and Jer. would indicate that 
 he had come early under the influence of that 
 great prophet, and from the whole trend of his 
 thinking it seems probable that he had belonged 
 to the reforming party in the state, which sought 
 to purify the national religion in accordance with 
 the requirements of the Deuteronomic legislation. 
 That party had been powerless since the death of 
 Josiah, and it is reasonable to suppose that E.’s 
 stern and even embittered attitude towards the 
 people was in part the fruit of the years of reaction 
 and disappointment spent under the reign of 
 Jehoiakim. As we have seen, there was nothing 
 in the state of mind of his fellow-exiles to draw 
 him into sympathy with them, although he cer- 
 tainly agreed with Jer. in regarding them as 
 superior to those left behind (11'*'), Accordingly, 
 at the time of his consecration as a BES he 
 appears with his convictions matured as to the 
 
 aracter of his countrymen and the reception he 
 may expect at their hands (2. 3 pass.). They are, 
 to use one of his stereotyped phrases, a ‘rebellious 
 house,’ brazen-faced and stiff-hearted children, a 
 
 ple that refuse to hear J”, separated from Him 
 bys moral and spiritual barrier more formidable 
 than that caused by a strange language (2* 4 3°-7). 
 Although these facts are expressed in the form of 
 divine communications to the prophet, they are 
 not to be regarded as a new revelation of the dis- 
 position of his compatriots ; they are rather the 
 settled convictions of his life assuming definite 
 shape in the light of his commission to speak the 
 _ word of the Lord. They show, at all events, how 
 fully he recognized the depth of the antagonism 
 that prevailed between the prophetic conception of 
 religion and the impulses that swayed the national 
 mind both in Judea and in Babylonia. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 
 
 
 
 The actual circumstances of E.’s prophetic 
 career are greatly obscured for us by the difficulty 
 we have in separating what is real from what is 
 merely imagined, in the representation given by 
 the ok. That everything did not happen 
 literally as it is recorded, is evident enough from 
 sev ‘ral indications. The symbolic actions described 
 as performed by the prophet are in some instances 
 incapable of a literal acceptation (see, e.g. 45% 51% 
 1218 ete.); yet there is no external criterion b 
 
 which these can be distinguished from others which 
 are possible. A similar uncertainty hangs over 
 the events that are mentioned. These are never 
 introduced for their own sake, but only as the 
 setting of some idea which the writer wishes to 
 enforce, and it is frequently impossible to deter- 
 mine how far the allusions correspond with actual 
 experiences. In such incidents as the death of the 
 prophet’s wife (24'°"-) or the opening of his mouth 
 in the presence of ‘the fugitive’ (2477 33%), fact 
 and symbolism seem to be so intimately blended 
 that we cannot tell where the one ends and the 
 other begins. The book, in short, is not an auto- 
 biography, but a systematic exposition of prophetic 
 ideas, and any attempt to extract histories! 
 information from it has to be made with a certain 
 measure of caution. At the same time, it is quite 
 incredible that the whole representation should be 
 nothing but an elaborate fiction, without any basis 
 in fact. There can be no reasonable doubt that 
 E. really exercised an oral public ministry amongst 
 his fellow-captives, or that its main outlines may 
 be gathered from the thin thread of narrative that 
 runs through the book. His work was divided 
 into two sharply contrasted periods by the over- 
 throw of the J ewish state in the year 586; or, to 
 Wee: more accurately, the first period ends with 
 the commencement of the siege of Jerus. (Jan. 587, 
 cf. 241), and the second opens with the reception in 
 Babylon of the tidings of its fall (Jan. 585, ef. 3371).* 
 During the interval of two years, his public 
 activity appears to have been suspended. Through- 
 out the first period the almost exclusive theme of 
 his preaching was the approaching destruction of 
 Jerus., and the lessons of that event for the nation. 
 His reiterated predictions of that inconceivable 
 calamity made no impression on the mind of the 
 exiles, and the poe felt his energies cramped 
 and paralyzed by the stolid incredulity which his 
 message encountered. It is probable, however, 
 that from the outset his character commanded 
 respect ; we read of visits paid to him in his own 
 house by the ‘elders’ to inquire the word of the 
 Lord (8! 14! 201), and there is no reason to dismiss 
 these as dramatic inventions. Still less can we 
 doubt the Aen of his public orations ; for the 
 picture of the people beguiling the tedium of their 
 exile by listening to his fervid eloquence (33% -®2) 
 is one of the notices which convey an irresist- 
 ible impression of historical reality. In the second 
 part of his career the tension between him and his 
 hearers is greatly relaxed. The pee le were 
 crushed by the terrible disaster that af befallen 
 their nation, and the immediate effect was a 
 feeling of despair expressed in such woeful utter- 
 ances as those of 33 374. The prophet on his 
 part adopts a more conciliatory attitude towards 
 them, as he addresses himself to the task of setting 
 forth the hopes and ideals on which the formation 
 of a new Israel depended. The circle of his 
 immediate auditors was probably widened at this 
 time by the arrive} of the new bands of captives 
 from Juda, amongst whom there must have been 
 
 *The MT gives as the date ‘the 12th year’ of Jehoiachin’s 
 captivity, t.e. 584. But it is hardly credible that the trans- 
 mission of the news should have been delayed so long as 18 
 
 Syr. 
 
 months, and hence the reading ‘11th year’ found in 
 and some Heb. MSS is generally regarded as correct. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
816 EZEKIEL 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 
 
 at least a few adherents of Jer., who would natur- 
 ally rally round E. as the representative of their 
 master’s teaching. It has even been surmised 
 that it was through this channel that E. first 
 became acquainted with the writings of Jer., 
 which have left so deep a mark on his thinking. 
 This is unlikely, because it is hardly credible that 
 he should have recast the substance of his oral 
 prophecies under the literary influence of another 
 prophet ; and, moreover, he must have had abund- 
 ant opportunity of knowing Jeremiah’s teaching 
 before his own captivity. But it must be admitted 
 that with regard to all that took place after the 
 fall of the city we are left almost entirely in the 
 dark. There is but one allusion in the book to 
 the relations between the earlier exiles and the 
 later (14%); and if it is at all coloured by the 
 prophet’s actual impressions after the event, it 
 certainly does not encourage the notion that he 
 found the new-comers hopeful material to work 
 upon. It was probably not very long after the 
 commencement of the second phase of his work 
 that E. prepared the first written edition of his 
 prophecies (see below). There is an interval of 
 about 13 years (584-572) from which no prophecy is 
 dated. What his occupations were during this 
 period is of course unknown, but there are some 
 signs that chs. 1-39 had been edited practically in 
 their present form before the composition of 40-48. 
 This bast section may reveal the direction in which 
 the prophet’s thoughts had been moving in those 
 
 ears; and a still later oracle (29!"*) shows that 
 
 e did not cease to be a close observer of public 
 events. 
 
 While the character of E.’s ministry does not 
 differ essentially from that of his predecessors, it 
 presents some exceptional features of a very in- 
 structive kind. The mere fact of his being an 
 exile accounts for much that is peculiar in his 
 method of working and his conception of his office. 
 To say that he was no prophet at all, but merely a 
 pastor exercising the cure of souls amongst those 
 who came under his personal influence, is an 
 exaggeration, but it is the exaggeration of a truth. 
 His insistence on the independence of the indi- 
 vidual soul before God (18. 33!%-), and his com- 
 parison of himself to a watchman responsible for 
 each person who perishes through not being 
 Terabe of his danger (317: 331*-), suggest that the 
 care of the individual must have occupied a larger 
 place in his work than was the case with the pre- 
 exilic prophets. At a time when the unity of the 
 nation was broken up, and the new kingdom of 
 God had to be born in the hearts of those who 
 embraced the hope set before them by the prophets, 
 it was inevitable that a religious teacher should 
 devote much of his attention to the conversion 
 and spiritual direction of individuals. This, how- 
 ever, is a side of E.’s activity which does not 
 directly come to light in the book ; there are more 
 subtle indications of the effect which his position 
 as an exile had on his prophetic mission. It was 
 by no means a matter of course, according to the 
 a bas of the age, that rophecy could be trans- 
 planted to a foreign soil, and in reality it could 
 not ‘lourish there without losing some of its most 
 characteristic functions. The older prophets had 
 all more or less been religious politicians, in touch 
 with the pulsations of a vigorous popular life, and 
 bringing the word of God to bear directly on 
 those national problems which arose out of the 
 relation between J” and the community of Israel. 
 E.’s audience, on the other hand, was but a dis- 
 membered limb of the body politic ; his political 
 interests were remote and secondary, and the 
 whole cast of his thinking betrays a sense of 
 isolation from the main current of national life. 
 This appears most clearly in his habit of treating 
 
 the exiles as representatives of the larger Israel, 
 with whose destinies he never ceased to concern 
 himself, From the first he recognized that his 
 mission had a double aspect : on the one hand he 
 was sent to ‘them of the Captivity’; and on the 
 other hand he was a prophet to the whole house of 
 Israel (cf. 3% with 2° 34). Thus he had two 
 audiences, ane real and present and the other 
 ideal; and for the most part they are identified 
 to such a degree that in addressing the exiles or 
 their elders he fancies himself speaking to the 
 idealized nation, 
 scattered far and wide over the world. It is an 
 extension of the same tendenty, when he delivers 
 imaginary discourses to those left in the land, or 
 apostrophizes the mountains of Israel (6. 36), or 
 exhibits the whole religious history of the people 
 in elaborate allegories (16. 23), or even calls up from 
 the past the vanished cities of Samaria and Sodom, 
 and treats them as if they had a present existence, 
 and a real interest in the unfolding of the divine 
 purpose (164% 2357), Jt is obvious that oratory 
 of this description comes very near being inde- 
 pendent of an audience altogether; an 
 perception of this fact is perhaps revealed by the 
 too facile appreciation which it received from 
 the immediate hearers. And although E. never | 
 abandoned the practice of public speaking, it is | 
 undoubtedly the case that in his hands proph 
 
 became far more of a literary occupation than it 
 had hitherto been. A perusal of the book shows 
 that it has been carefully planned with an eye to 
 literary effect; and if the prophet had sim ly 
 worked out his conceptions in the solitude of Ved 
 chamber, the result would hardly have differed 
 much from what we actually find. More than any 
 of his predecessors he lives in a world of abstract 
 ideas, which are more vividly real to his imagina- 
 tion than the circumstances of his everyday life ; 
 though now and then an echo from the outer | 
 world breaks in to remind us that after all he was | 
 no mere recluse, but a man of large experience, — 
 keenly observant of the life of his time. Seve 
 
 things, indeed, go to show that his intellectual 
 interests reached far beyond the Jewish world in 
 which he lived. His long and accurate enumera- 
 tion of the natural and industrial products of 
 different countries (27), exhibits a knowledge of 
 contemporary commerce which is surprising in a 
 Heb. apeopbes It is probable also that he had 
 gained some new impressions from his sojourn | 
 amidst the monuments of a strange civilization — 
 in the Euphrates valley. The conception of the 
 
 cherubim in chs. 1. 10 appears to borrow some of | 
 
 its features from the composite animal figuresof | 
 Babylonian art; and in other parts of the book | 
 some striking phraseological coincidenves have 
 been thought to suggest a direct influeuce of the 
 cuneiform inscriptions (Miller, p. 56 ff.). 
 
 There is, however, another feature of E.’s work 
 which cannot be wholly explained by the novelty 
 of his position, and has sometimes been regarded 
 as the result of abnormal physical states to which 
 the prophet was subject. Amongst the most per- 
 plexing references in the book are those to a spell — 
 of ‘dumbness,’ which lay upon him from aear the — 
 commencement of his minist 
 
 akin to this is the representation of his being 
 
 bound with ropes (3%), and lying immovable for | 
 
 months together on one side or the other for a sign _ 
 to the house of Israel, although at the same time ~ 
 performing actions which formed a necessary part 
 of the sign (44%) There seems no strong reason 
 why all these descriptions should not be treated 
 
 as of a piece with the general symbolism which — 
 runs through the book. But to some recent inter- | 
 
 preters they have suggested the theory that | 
 
 
 
 whose members were then | 
 
 some | 
 
 till the announce- : | 
 ment of the fall of Jerus. (cf. 37 2477 33). Closely 
 
: 
 
 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 EZEKIEL 817 
 
 
 
 throughout the earlier part of his ministry E. 
 laboured under nervous diseases of the most dis- 
 tressing kind, and utilized his symptoms as a 
 means of impressing certain truths on the minds 
 of his fellow-exiles. This view was first ex- 
 unded, with great learning and ingenuity, by 
 ostermann, who found in E.’s condition all the 
 marks of catalepsy, hemiplegia, alalia, hallucina- 
 tion, and so forth. It is difficult to believe that 
 he has advanced the cause of sober and scientific 
 interpretation of Scripture. The truth would 
 seem to lie rather with those writers who regard 
 these representations as imaginative symbols, 
 interesting as illustrations of the prophet’s mode of 
 thought, but not answering to anything external 
 in his life. The ‘dumbness’ is but a strong figure 
 for the sense of restraint and defeat caused by the 
 incredulity of the people, lasting till the prophet’s 
 authority was established by the fulfilment of his 
 main prediction (cf. 291). So the actions of ch. 4 
 bolize partly the siege of Jerus., and partly 
 the captivity of the two branches of the house of 
 Israel ; and their meaning as signs is inconsistert 
 with the supposition that they were exhibitions of 
 a bodily malady, unless we are to assume a miracle, 
 to which the history of OT prophecy furnishes no 
 parallel. It is, of course, equally inconceivable 
 that the signs should have been enacted in panto- 
 mime, either in presence of the people or in 
 solitude ; and the same remark applies to man 
 others of the symbolic actions which are described. 
 Except in so far as the suggestions may have 
 originated in an ecstatic state of mind, they do 
 not appear to differ from the ordinary operations 
 of the fancy in bodying forth mental processes by 
 means of sensible imagery. 
 
 The Book of Ezekiel (save for a somewhat cor- 
 rupt text) exists in the form in which it left the 
 hands of its author, differing in this respect from 
 the two other great prophetical collections, which 
 took shape through the labours of successive 
 editors. Neither the unity nor the authenticity of 
 Ezekiel has been questioned by more than a very 
 small minority of scholars.* Not only does it bear 
 the stamp of a single mind in its phraseology, its 
 imagery, and its mode of thought, but it is 
 arranged on a plan so perspicuous and so compre- 
 hensive that the evidence of literary design in 
 the composition becomes altogether irresistible. 
 Critics are divided as to the best principle of 
 classification, some preferring a twofold, others a 
 threefold or even a fourfold division ; but all are 
 agreed that the work falls into certain larye 
 sections intended to represent successive phases of 
 Ezekiel’s ministry. ithin the general scheme 
 the order is on the whole chronological, although 
 it may be doubted how far the chronology is to be 
 taken literally, or how far it is meant to separate 
 different groups of oracle: 
 
 Contents.—i. The first division (chs. 1-24) embraces about 
 a half of the book, and corresponds to the first perind of E.’s 
 work, consisting almost exclusively of prophecies of jidgment, 
 such as he uttered before the destruction of Jerusalem. These 
 have no doubt been considerably altered and amplified in the 
 course of writing, and it is possible that here and thcre traces 
 of a later point of view may be apparent. Minor sections are 
 partly suggested by the dates prefixed to certain chapters (see 
 B 201) 3 other cases they can be recognized by internal 
 indications. 1. Chs. 1-8 describe the ecstatic experiences by 
 which the | gh send was prepared for his work, including, /irst, 
 an elaborate description of the divine ,hariot which occupies so 
 
 rominent a place in the book (cf. 3% 84 433), and the glory of 
 Fim who sat on it (ch. 1); second. his commission to declare 
 
 
 
 
 
 * The chief exceptions are Zunz, who first (Gottesdienstliche 
 Vortrige der Juden, 1832) assigned the book to the early Pers. 
 Pe and afterwards (ZDMG xxvii. 676 ff.) brought it down 
 the years 440-400 (the earlier view, however, is allowed to 
 stand in the posthumous ed. of the Vortrdge, 1892); Geiger 
 Urachrift, p. 23), who held a similar view ; and Seinecke (Gesch. 
 as teak i. p. 188, 1876), who placed the author as late as 
 BO 164-163. 
 VOU, 1.—§2 
 
 the word of God to Israel, his inspiration being set forth under 
 the symbol of eating the roll of a bwok (chs. 21-315); third (after 
 an interval of 7 days), a more precise definition of his office as 
 that of a watchman to warn every individual of his dange: 
 (316-21) ; lastly, a second ecstasy, in which he receives the com- 
 mand to shut himself up within his house, and to appear in 
 public only when charged with a special message to the people 
 (322-27), 1t has been supposed that th’s last passage refers to a 
 time considerably later than the inaugural vision, and marks thc 
 close of a tentative phase of the prophet’s work, in which he 
 sought to exercise the function of a public censor, until com 
 pelled to desist by the obstinate resistance of the community. 
 It is more probable, however, that the verses merely express on 
 its re ol side the same conception of his office as is given in 
 vv.16-21 ; the prophet is a watchman, because the function of a 
 ‘reprover’ is denied to him from the outset by his peculiar 
 situation. 2. In chs. 4~7 the fate of the city and nation is set 
 forth, first, dramatically in a complicated series of symbols (41- 
 54), then in three impassioned orations addressed to the city 
 (55#.), the land (6), and the people (7). In the signs of ch. 4 
 the prophet appears to represent simultaneously two facts—the 
 siege of Jerus. and the captivity of the two branches of the Heb. 
 nation. The time of Judah’s exile is fixed as 40 years,—a round 
 number for the period of Chaldean supremacy,—that of N. 
 Israel at 390 years in the MT, but 190 according to the LXX. 
 Since the destruction of Samaria preceded tkat of Jerus, 
 roughly speaking by a cent. and a half, and since both captivi- 
 ties terminate simultaneously, the latter figure must be accepted 
 as the orig. reading. 3. The next group of prophecies (chs, 8- 
 11) is an account of a vision of the destruction of Jerus., which 
 is important for the glimpses it gives into the state of things in 
 the city at that time. After reciting the abominations practised 
 in the temple (8), it describes, under symbols, the slaughter of 
 the people (9), and the burning of the city (10), and ends with 
 the departure of the Lord from the sanctuary, in token that city 
 and temple were abandoned to their fate (11). The visionary 
 form in which these truths are clothed is remarkable; the pro- 
 phet falls into a trance in presence of the elders of Judah, the 
 scenes mentioned pass before his inward eye, and he awakes 
 with a special message of consolation to the exiles, who felt 
 keenly the reproach of being cast out from J”’s heritage. 4. A 
 new section begins with ch. 12, and extends apparently to the 
 end of ch. 19. The fundamental theme is still the same, but 
 the treatment of. it is more discursive and theological. The 
 author appears to have in view various false ideals to which 
 the people clung, and which he seeks to demolish as obstacles 
 to the reception of his message. Thus in 121-2017. 19 he 
 announces the fate of the king (Zedekiah), on whom the people 
 naturally looked as the anointed of J” (cf. La 420), but 
 who, by his perfidy to the king of Babylon (17), had brought 
 ruin on himself and his kingdom. A certain sympathy with the 
 misfortunes of the royal house is manifested by the beautiful 
 dirge of ch. 19. Another section (1221-1411) deals with the 
 wrong use of prophecy, and the existence of false prophets, as 
 causes of the popular unbelief. Ch. 15 (Israel a charred and 
 worthless vine branch) strikes a blow at the false patriotism 
 which sustained the people’s pride under their accumulated 
 national calamities, and ch. 16 exhibits in an allegory the true 
 character of Jerus. as the ungrateful and unfaithful spouse of 
 J”, Ch. 18 asserts the absolute righteousness of God in His 
 dealings with individual men, and thus indirectly assails the 
 prevalent doctrine of the solidarity of the nation, which had 
 begotten a cynical temper of mind ened by the proverb: 
 ‘the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are 
 blunted’ (v.2). But it must be admitted that this group of 
 discourses hardly differs in general character from that which 
 follows. 5. The last division (chs. 20-24) contains three oracles 
 (20. 22, 23) of the nature of formal arraignments of the people 
 of Israel, in which the moral necessity of its destruction is 
 shown from its past history and its present condition. The 
 keynote of ch. 20 is found in the remarkable purpose attributed 
 to the people, that they would assimilate themselves to the 
 heathen, worshipping wood and stone (v.32). It is impossible to 
 say whether this refers to a particular current of opinion be- 
 ginning to prevail among the exiles, or whether it is an expres. 
 sion of the spirit manifested by the nation at all times of ity. 
 history. In either case the argument of the chapter is directed 
 to show that the destinies of Israel had been determined by a 
 power higher than its own natural proclivities,—namely, J”’s 
 regard for the glory of His name,—and that that power would 
 yet break the idolatrous tendencies e* the nation, and make 
 Israel to be in fact, as it was in name, the people of J”. Ch. 
 22 is an enumeration of the religious and social corruptions 
 
 revalent in Jerus., now on the eve of its destruction ; ch. 23 
 is an allegory, in the manner of ch. 16, exhibiting the immorali- 
 ties of the two prodigate sisters, Ohola (Samaria) and Oholi- 
 bah (Jerus,). The two remaining discourses were composed 
 under the immediate influence of contemporary events. Ch. 
 21 (containing the wild ‘song of the sword,’ vy.1421 [EV 9-17)}) 
 refers to the march of Nebuchadnezzar’s army against Jerus. 
 Ch. 24 records the dramatic close of the first period of E.’s 
 activity. On the very day when the Chaldzans invested Jerus. 
 he uttered a final oracle announcing its fate. The death of the 
 prophet’s wife on the evening of the same day becomes the 
 occasion of a symbol of the despair and bewilderment that will 
 seize on the exiles when they receive tidings of the fall of the 
 city. 
 
 rf The next eight chapters (25-32) consist of propberiss 
 against the foreign oations (seven in number) lying immediately 
 round the land of Canaan; viz. Ammon, Moab, Edom, and the 
 Philistines (25), Tyre (20-2819), Sidon (289-36), and Egypt (29 39° 
 
818 EZEKIEL 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 
 
 The insertion of these oracles in this place is an instance of the 
 constructive skill which planned the order of the book. They 
 fill up the interval of silence which separates the two periois 
 of E.’s public ministry; and although most of them no doubt 
 belong chronologically to the two years of retirement, there 
 are some which bear a later date (see 2917 321.17), showing that 
 the principle of arrangement is literary and not historical. The 
 section, moreover, embodies a distinct idea in the prophet’s 
 eschatological scheme. The motive of the judgments announced 
 is to prepare the way for the restoration of Israel, by removing 
 the evil influences which had sprung from the peoples contact 
 with its heathen neighbours in the _ (2824-26 2916), Historic- 
 ally, these judgments are conceived as taking place within the 
 40 years of the Chaldwan dominion (2913), and of Israel’s banish- 
 ment. In the case of Tyre and Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar is ex- 
 pressly named as the instrument of J”’s purpose ; the extinction 
 of the smaller nationalities is ascribed to other agencies, which, 
 however, are probably indirect consequences of a Bab. invasion. 
 The supplementary oracle on Tyre (2917-21) was written after the 
 13 years’ siege of that city by Nebuchadnezzar, and was evi- 
 dently intended to counteract the impression produced by the 
 non-fulfilment of the original prediction. 
 
 iii. Chs, 33-39 contain the discourses delivered in the period 
 immediately succeeding the arrival of the ‘fugitive’ with the 
 intelligence of Jerusalem’s fall, when the prophet’s mouth was 
 again opened to declare the word of J” (3321f), The collection 
 is prefaced (331-20) by a re-statement of the function of the 
 pecpbes under the figure of a watchman, asin 317ff.; then comes 
 
 jhe account of his meeting with the bearer of the evil tidings, 
 and the oracles uttered (apparently) on that occasion (3321-33), 
 These are followed by three distinct and complete pictures of 
 the redemption and restitution of Israel ; (a) the ideal monarchy 
 as contrasted with the corrupt administration of the pre-exilic 
 kings (34); (0) the land, reclaimed from the Edomites, endowed 
 with supernatural fertility, purified from its ceremonial defile- 
 ment, shall be given as an eternal possession to Israel (35f.) ; 
 (c) the people, now scattered and dead like dry bones, shall 
 arise to a new life, Ephraim and Judah being united under one 
 sceptre for ever (37). Ch. 38 f. describe the final assault on the 
 kingdem of God by the distant nations of the world under Gog 
 from the land of Magog, and their annihilation on the mountains 
 of Israel, resulting in a demonstration of the might of J” to all 
 the ends of the earth. This remarkable prophecy, representing 
 the utmosi limit of E.’s prophetic horizon, has the appearance 
 of being intended as a conclusion to the book. This fact, taken 
 in connexion with the long period of silence which follows, and 
 a certain change of view manifested in 40ff., strongly suggests 
 that the first edition of the popes really ended here, 
 the pene, section having been added afterwards as an 
 appendix. 
 ee Chs. 40-48, a vision cf the ideal theocracy, with the insti- 
 tutions by which the holiness of the redeemed people is to be 
 expressed and maintained. There is, first, a description of the 
 sanctuary where J” is to dwell in visible splendour (40-43) ; 
 then, regulations as to the ministers of the temple, the duties 
 and revenues of the priests and the ‘ prince,’ and the system of 
 ritual to be observed (44-46) ; lastly, a delimitation of the holy 
 land,—which is transformed by a miraculous river issuing from 
 the sanctuary,—and a new disposition of the tribes within it 
 Aa f.). Although these chapters may have been a later addition 
 the volume, they rest throughout on the teaching of the 
 earlier part of the book, and are the development of principles 
 there enunciated. The chief point of difference relates to the 
 position of the prince, whose office is hedged about with con- 
 stitutional safeguards and restrictions, hardly applicable to the 
 perfect Ruler spoken of in ch. 34. 
 
 LITERARY STYLE.—The style of the book ex- 
 hibits a falling off from the idiomatic purity of 
 earlier writers, like Amos or Isaiah. The influ- 
 ence of Aramaic is more perceptible than in any 
 previous prophet; the construction is loose, and, 
 as a rule, prosaic; the constant recurrence of 
 mannerisms and set pe is at times monotonous, 
 although the lack of variety is often compensated 
 by a large rhythmic movement of the thought, 
 running like a ground-swell through some of the 
 longer orations. It is, on the whole, the careful 
 and elaborate style of a literary man rather than 
 that of a public speaker in living touch with his 
 audience. With obscurity it cannot fairly be 
 charged, for the serious difficulties which the 
 book presents are mostly due to the imperfect con- 
 dition of the text. 
 
 Of the higher qualities of E.’s genius the most 
 striking is a powerful and grandiose imagination, 
 which reveals itself in a variety of directions, now 
 revelling in weird mythological conceptions (28. 
 32), and at other times clothing itself in the 
 peculiar artificial realism which has been already 
 remarked as a feature of the book. That there 
 was a vein of true poetry in his nature is proved 
 by his effective use of the £indh or dirge (especially 
 
 in the beautiful lament over the banished princes 
 of the royal house, ch. 19), as well as bess. many 
 fine images which occur throughout the book. His 
 first conceptions, indeed, are almost invariably 
 beautiful and true, although to our minds their 
 zsthetic effect is frequently lost through over- 
 elaboration. E. is perhaps not more deficient in 
 pestle power than Heb. writers generally; but in 
 
 is case the defect is more apparent from his love 
 of detail, and his anxiety to exhaust the didactic 
 significance of every conception before he can 
 persuade himself to let it go. Thus the com- 
 parison of Tyre to a stately vessel, moored by the 
 shore (27), which Isaiah might have presented in 
 a verse or two, is spread out over a long chapter 
 by the help of an inventory of the ship’s cargo, 
 which is really a valuable statistical survey of 
 Phen. imports. Again, the image of Jerus. as a 
 foundling child (16) is intrinsically as beautiful as 
 any to be found in prophecy ; but when drawn out 
 into an allegory of the whole history of the nation, 
 its unity is dissipated by the multitude of details 
 that have to be crowded into it. A similar critie- 
 ism has often been passed on his description of 
 his opening vision, as contrasted with the sixth 
 chapter of Isaiah. On the other hand, the pro- 
 phet’s talent for lucid and methodical exposition 
 appears to advantage when he comes to deal with 
 practical and technical matters, as in the descrip- 
 tion of the sanctuary (40ff.) A certain architec- 
 tonic faculty is, in trath, a marked characteristic of 
 his intellect, being visible alike in his plan of the 
 
 temple buildings, in his sketch of the theocratic — 
 
 institutions, and in the orderly arrangement and 
 division of the book. 
 
 RELIGIOUS TEACHING.—E.’s rank as a religious 
 teacher may be summed up under two general 
 aspects. In the first place, he gave definite and 
 almost dogmatic expression to the great religious 
 truths which were the presuppositions of all 
 previous prophecy, combining these into a com- 
 prehensive theory of the divine providence ; and, 
 
 in the second place, by giving a peculiar direction : 
 
 to the Messianic hope, he made it a practical ideal 
 in the life of the nation, and the starting-point of 
 a new religious development. 
 
 The first of these aspects is abundantly illus- 
 trated by the contents of chs. 1-39. While the 
 substance of these ee presents no single 
 element which may not be traced in the writings 
 of earlier prophets, there is none which does not 
 receive a more distinct intellectual expression in 
 the hands of Ezekiel. He is concerned to exhibit 
 the immanent logic of the abstract principles 
 involved in the relations between God and the 
 world ; and, as we read, the outlines of a grand 
 
 theological system are gradually disclosed to the q 
 
 mind. Only a few outstanding features of this 
 
 idea of God, which is expressed by the visions in 
 chs. 1. 8. 10. 43, has more of a transcendental 
 character than that of his predecessors. 
 divine attributes which we call metaphysical, ex- 
 pressing the relation of the Godhead to created 
 existence as a whole, are emphasized more than b 
 
 previous writers, and are those chiefly symboliz 
 
 by the heavenly chariot of the visions. 
 
 teaching. 
 
 butes of anger, jealousy, pity, etc., he is never 
 weary of insisting that the activity of the divine 
 
 being must be self-certred, the supreme motive of — 
 all His dealings with men, whether in mercy or in | 
 judgement, being the manifestation of His own 
 
 Godhead (‘ They shall know that lam J”’). It is 
 
 easy to exaggerate this doctrine in a way that 4 
 
 would misrepresent the prophet’s meaning; but 
 
 And this 
 
 view of God enters deeply into the fibre of E.’s_ | 
 While he does not lose hold of the } 
 truth that J” is a moral person having the attri- | 
 
 system can here be mentioned. 4. The prophet’s | 
 
 Those | 
 
 
 
 
 
EZEKIEL 
 
 
 
 the reiterated assertion of it shows that it is a 
 truth to which he himself attaches the utmost 
 importance. 2. Another instance of the same 
 tendency to rigorous and even extreme statement 
 of a oue principle is found in his conception 
 of Israel. In opposition to Hosea, Isaiah, and 
 Jeremiah, he denies that there was any good time 
 in the nation’s past, tracing the idolatrous pro- 
 clivities of the people back to the sojourn in the 
 wilderness and the oppression in Egypt (20% *4 23%). 
 Thus, while all the prophets teach or assume that 
 the relation between J” and Israel rests on a free 
 elective act of God, E. takes the further step of 
 assigning as the positive ground of this relation- 
 ship J’’s regard for the glory of His name in the 
 eyes of the nations (20 pass.). 3. From this 
 sition an important consequence follows. 
 ince the honour of J” is historically identified 
 with the destinies of Israel, the final disclosure of 
 His divinity can be accomplished only by the re- 
 storation of this people to its own land, under 
 conditions which reflect the holy nature of J’. 
 E. is alive to the false impression of the God of 
 Israel naturally produced on the heathen mind by 
 the great national calamity of the Exile (36%). 
 This effect must be wiped out when the lesson of 
 the history is complete (39%). The same principle 
 of the divine action which caused the temporary 
 rejection of Israel becomes the guarantee of its 
 ultimate redemption. The prophet is thus led to 
 a conception of salvation in which everything 
 depends on the sovereign irresistible grace of God, 
 which breake the stubborn heart of the people, and 
 produces in them an abiding sense of shame and 
 self-contempt, and bestows on them a new spirit, 
 causing them to walk in His statutes and keep His 
 jrdgments to do them (6° 11% 16% 204 36768. 3714 
 gt), 4. The doctrine which is usually considered 
 E.'s most distinctive contribution to theology is 
 the doctrine of the freedom and responsibility of the 
 individual soul before God. But even here he 
 builds on the foundation laid by his predecessors. 
 The Los kana of religion as personal fellowship 
 between the individual and God is implicitly 
 contained in the consciousness which all the pro- 
 phets have of their own relation to J”; and in Jer 
 the truth is enunciated that what had hitherto 
 been the possession of the prophets is the form 
 which the perfect religion must assume univers- 
 
 y. It was reserved for E., however, to formu- 
 late the principle logically, showing that neither 
 the burden of hereditary guilt nor the sins of a 
 man’s past can hinder the action of God’s forgiving 
 mercy towards the penitent sinner (18). 
 
 But the part of Ezekiel’s work that was destined 
 to have the most direct and powerful historical 
 influence was the ideal embodied in the vision of 
 chs. 40-48. The unique significance of that re- 
 markable creation lies in the fact that under the 
 form of a Messianic prophecy it presents the 
 scheme of a politico-religious constitution in which 
 the fundamental idea of holiness is applied to the 
 regulation of every part of the national life. It is 
 @ picture of the kingdom of God in its final and 
 
 rfect state as this prophet was led to conceive 
 it. The ruling conception is that of J” dwelling in 
 visible glory in His sanctuary in the midst of His 
 people, and the practical purpose of the vision is 
 to set forth the conditions on Israel’s part which 
 such a relation involves. That the institutions 
 prescribed are mainly of a priestly character is 
 partly due to the fact that E. was himself a 
 priest, deeply imbued with the traditions of his 
 ‘office ; but still more to his perception of the 
 inherent fitness of the hares idea of holiness 
 to be the formal principle of a theocratic polity 
 
 abe 
 
 expression to the essential character of 
 as the people of J”. 
 
 How fully the ideal 
 
 
 
 EZEKIEL 819 
 
 met the needs of the time is shown by its operation 
 in all the best tendencies of the Restoration period. 
 This is not the place to discuss the bearing of E.’s 
 ideal legislation on the development of the penta- 
 teuchal laws(see HEXATEUCH). ‘The view of most re- 
 cent critics is that he occupies a position intermedi- 
 ate between the Book of Deut. and the composition 
 of the so-called Priestly Code ; and it can hardly be 
 denied that the peculiar features of E.’s system are 
 more fully explained on this theory than on any 
 other (see ot the regulations as to the status of 
 the Levites, ch. 44). But, setting aside the purely 
 critical question, the fact is clear that the whole 
 movement by which the new Israel was consoli- 
 dated proceeded on the lines foreshadowed in E.’s 
 vision. His position in this respect may be com- 
 
 ared with that of Augustine in the history of the 
 
 atin Church. What the cwitas Dei was to 
 medieval Christendom, that the vision of E. was 
 to post-exilic Judaism: each furnished the ideal 
 that moulded the polity of the age that followed. 
 To what extent this section of the Book of E. was 
 oti as a legislative programme by the leaders 
 of the Return cannot be precisely devsrmined from 
 the somewhat meagre records at our disposal (see 
 Smith, OT/JC? p. 442 f.) But it is important to 
 observe that the Messianic hope as set forth by E. 
 formed one of the most powerful impulses that 
 made for the reconstruction of the Jewish state. 
 We learn from Hag and Zec that the erection 
 of the second temple was carried through under the 
 conviction that that unpretentious edifice was to 
 be the centre of a renovated world, and the ear- 
 nest of the latter-day glory just about to dawn ; 
 while the expectation that the Lord would sud- 
 denly come to His temple meets us nearly a cent. 
 later in the book of Malachi. These are conceptions 
 which it would be difficult to understand otherwise 
 than as consequences of the work of Ezekiel. 
 
 Ascompared with his master Jeremiah, or Is 40ff., 
 Ezekiel’s teaching as a whole appears lacking in 
 breadth of sympathy and evangelical freedom, and 
 to be a preparation for an age of legalism rather 
 than for the fulness of the Christian dispensation. 
 He is not quoted expressly by any NT writer, and 
 it is doubtful if he has directly influenced any 
 except the author of the Apoc., who was familiar 
 with the book and has drawn largely on its 
 imagery. But while all this is true, there are 
 many things in E. which give him a high place 
 amongst the heralds of Christ in OT. is clear 
 assertion of the vame of the individual soul and of 
 the efficacy of repentance, his profound sense of 
 sin as ingratitude, and of the need of a new heart 
 in order to fulfil the law of God, his impassioned 
 vindication of the character of God as merciful and 
 eager to forgive, are amongst the brightest gems 
 of spiritual truth to be found in the pages of 
 prophecy. 
 
 LITERARY History.—Of the literary history of 
 the book little needs to be said. It is mentioned 
 by the son of Sirach (49°) in a connexion which 
 shows that it formed part of the prophetical Canon 
 in his time (c. B.c. 200). In the order given by the 
 Talmudic treatise Baba bathra (14) it stands 
 second amongst the greater prophets, being pre- 
 ceded by Jer and followed by Isaiah. A further 
 statement in the same source that the book was 
 written (like Dn, Est, and the Twelve Prophets) by 
 ‘the men of the Great Synagogue,’ has no signi- 
 ficance, unless it be an inference from the theory 
 that no prophetic book could be written outside of 
 the Holy Land (so Rashi, quoted by Ryle, Canon 
 of OT, p. 263f.). According to Jerome (prefatio 
 ad Ezech.), certain parts of it were, on account of 
 their obscurity, forbidden to be read by any Jew 
 under the age of 30 years ; and its deviations from 
 the Mosaic Law caused doubts to be expressed as 
 
 
 
 
 
SS SS 
 Se a a 
 
 820 EZEL 
 
 
 
 ‘9 its canonical authority as late as the Ist cent. | Berenice. E. is prob. the modern tn el-Ghudyan 
 
 ..D. According to one tradition, it narrowly 
 escaped being ‘ hidden’ (¢.e. reduced to the rank of 
 an apocryphal work) for this reason, but was saved 
 from that fate by one Hananiah ben-Hezekiah, who 
 reconciled the discrepancies. Unfortunately, the 
 works of this self-sacrificing scholar have perished 
 as completely as the 300 measures of oil which he 
 is reported to have consumed in their preparation. 
 
 LITERATURE.---Ewald, Proph. d. A.B. vol. ii. (1841, 1868) ; 
 Hivernick, Comm. tiber den Pr. E, (1843) ; Hitzig, der Pr. E. 
 erklért (1847); Fairbairn, Exposition of the Book of EH. (1851); 
 Henderson, The Book of the Pr. E. transl. etc. (185d); Heng- 
 stenberg, Der Pr. H. (1867); Keil, Der Pr. E. (18638) ; Ourrey, 
 Speaker's Comm. vol. vi. (1876); Klostermann in SK (1877); 
 Smend, Der Pr. EZ. (1880); Cornill, Der Pr. EH. (1882), and Das 
 Buch des Pr. E. (1886) 5 v. Orelli, Kurzgef. Commentar (1888) ; 
 Gautier, La mission du Pr. E. (1891); Davidson, Camb. Bible 
 Jor Schools (1892); Skinner, Hapositor’s Bible (1895); Muller, 
 Ezchiel-Studien (1895); Bertholet, Der Verfassungsentwurf des 
 Hes. (1896); and Das Buch Hes. (Kurzer Handkom. 1897). See 
 also Kuenen, Onderzoek, Godsdienst van Israél, and Profeten en 
 Profetie ; Duhm, Theologie der Propheten ; Horst, Levit. 17-26 
 und Hezekiel; articles by Schrader, Diestel, and Orelli in the 
 Encyclopedias of Schenkel, Riehm, and Herzog: and by Black 
 in Eneyc. Brit.9 J. SKINNER. 
 
 EZEL (bixn [1247] ‘(stone of] departure ’).—The 
 spot where Jonathan arranged to meet David 
 before the latter’s final departure from the court of 
 Saul (1S 20”). The place is not mentioned else- 
 where, and it is now generally admitted that the 
 Heb. text of this passage is porch The true 
 reading seems to have been preserved by the LXX, 
 which renders v.¥ kal xa0joy mapa rd "Epyap 
 (A, épyov) éxeivo, and again, at v.“! end (where the 
 same place is mentioned), renders kat Aaveléd dvéorn 
 dd rod dpya8 (A, rod vrvod). The translators evi- 
 dently had the same word before them in both 
 verses, and did not understand it; they therefore 
 simply transliterated the Hebrew. If, then, we 
 restore from the LXX in v.™ (ixn) top amyq= 
 ‘yonder cairn,’ for Sixn jaxn; and in v.“! axa Syxp 
 =‘from beside the cairn,’ for 127 $sxp, the un- 
 known ‘Ezel’ of y.® disappears, and the in- 
 definite terms of v.“ are replaced by a suitable 
 reference to v.!® (so Thenius, Wellh., Driver, 
 Budde; cf. W. R. Smith, O7./JC? 80f.). 
 
 J. F. STENNING. 
 
 EZEM (oxy), 1 Ch 4%.—See Azmon. 
 
 EZER.—4. (.yx) A Horite ‘duke’ (Gn 3671, 1 Ch 
 1%), Inthe latter passage AV has Ezar. 2. (71) 
 A son of Ephraim who, acc. to 1 Ch 7”, was slain 
 by the men of Gath. 3. A Judahite (1 Ch 44). 4, 
 A Gadite chief who joined David (1 Ch 12%), 5. A 
 son of Jeshua who helped to repair the wall (Neh 
 3%). 6. A priest who officiated at the dedication 
 of the walls (Neh 12%). J. A. SELBIR. 
 
 EZION-GEBER, 733 }"sy, is mentioned amongst 
 the stations of the Israelites (Nu 33% and Dt 
 28). In the latter passage and elsewhere in the 
 OT it is coupled with Elath in such a way as to 
 imply that the one was in the immediate neighbour- 
 hood of the other. This circumstance enables us 
 to fix the situation of Ezion-geber with tolerable 
 confidence. It lay in the extreme south of the 
 territory of Edom, at the head of the Alanitis 
 Sinus or Gulf of Akabah. Edom having been sub- 
 jugated by David (2S 8), Solomon naturally 
 utilized E. for ship-building purposes, and made it 
 the port for his navy, which was engaged in the gold 
 trade with Ophir (1 K 9%), His success encouraged 
 Jehoshaphat to undertake a similar enterprise, but 
 with disastrous results. ‘Jehoshaphat made ships 
 of Tarshish to go-to Ophir for gold ; but they went 
 not, for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber’ 
 (1 K 22 and 2 Ch 20% 87), Ezion-geber is men- 
 tioned also by Josephus (Ané. VIII. vi. 4), who tells 
 us that it was afterwards known by the name of 
 
 “conspicuous except in the apocr. literature.t 
 
 EZRA 
 
 (Robinson, i. 169f.). See further, Driver on Dt 28 
 
 J. A. SELBIE. 
 EZNITE.—See ADINO. 
 
 EZORA (‘Efwpd, AV Ozora).—The sons of Ezora, 
 in 1 Es 9*, take the place of the strange name 
 Machnadebai (or Mabnadebai, AVm) in Ezr 10®, | 
 where there is no indication of a fresh family. 
 The first part of the phrase in Es (é« rév vidy), 
 representing an original »32D, seems to show that | 
 the name in the canonical book is due to the 
 running together of two or more words; it is,in | 
 any case, a proof that 1 Es is independent of the | 
 Greek Ezra, which has MayadvaBov. , 
 
 H. St. J. THACKERAY. — {| 
 
 EZRA (xvy).—1. The famous leader connected | 
 with Israel’s Return. Our sources of information — 
 concerning him are Ezr 7-10, Neh 8-10, and the 
 apocryphal books.* Some writers have preferred 
 the apocr. 1 Esdras to the canonical Ezra, but on 
 quite insufficient grounds.t The apocr. books are 
 useful in showing the views held about Ezra at a 
 later time, but we must in the main rely upon the 
 canonical books. 
 
 E. is called the priest, the Sheil 3: and in | 
 2Es the prophet. He was of a priestly family, | 
 but, as his work was chiefly that of the scribe, that — 
 designation eee! supersedes the others. E. 
 represents in a way the transition from the prophet 
 to the scribe, but his prophetic functions are not 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The Exile had been a period of considerable 
 literary activity. One of the greatest prophets 
 heralded the deliverance of Cyrus (Deutero-Isaiah) ; 
 Ezekiel had produced his book in Babylonia, draw- — 
 ing up an elaborate scheme for the new state, 
 which he declared would arise upon the ruins of 
 the old; and many noble psalms come from this 
 time. But the period was characterized not so 
 much by the creation of a new literature as by the 
 study of what already existed. EE. the ‘ready 
 scribe in the law of Moses’ was not a mere copyist, 
 nor the author of the law, but a diligent student 
 of the law. 
 
 E. longed to go to Jerus. and put the law into 
 effect there, to establish a real hagiocracy, ‘the 
 law’ being the supreme authority in civil and 
 religious affairs alike. Artaxerxes was not so 
 tolerant of foreign religions as Cyrus had been, 
 nevertheless E. won his goodwill, and secured a 
 royal edict, clothing him with ample authority to 
 carry out his purpose. This edict has been pre- 
 served in Aramaic (Ezr 72-5); and while many 
 regard this as a Jewish version, it is in the main 
 trustworthy.§ All Jews who felt so inclined were 
 free to depart from Babylon; E. was authorized to — 
 carry the offerings for the temple made by the king 
 and by the Jews; to purchase saoridelet | animals, 
 and to use the rest of the money as he and his 
 brethren saw fit; to draw upon the royal treasury 
 in the province of Syria for further necessary 
 supplies ; toexempt the temple officers and servants 
 from the Persian tax ; to appoint officers toexecute — 
 the law of God, teaching such as were unacquainted | 
 with it ; and to enforce the law of God and of the | 
 Persian king by penalty even to fines, imprison- | 
 ment, banishment, or death. oS 
 
 In the year B.c. 458 E. gathered a caravan of | 
 some 1800 males, including 38 Levites who had | 
 been persuaded to join the company. E. had said — 
 so much to the king about God’s ample protection 
 to His servants that he was ashamed to ask for the | 
 
 * On the Apocr. see Bensly, Fourth Book of Ezra, p. 86. 
 + Kuenen, Relig. of Israel, ii.; see discussion in A 
 1895-96. 
 t On Ezra the scribe see OT JC2 p. 42f.; PREViv 885, 
 § See under art. EzRA-NEHEMIAH, Books OF. - 
 
EZRA 
 
 usual escort. After fasting and praying for a safe 
 journey, the company set out, and in four months 
 reached the holy city. 
 
 E. did not find a community ready and eager for 
 the new government which he was authorized to 
 establish. Many of the people were prosperous 
 (Hag 14), but there was not that spirit of simple 
 devotion to the God of Israel which the zealous E. 
 regarded as essential. E. was informed that many 
 Jews, including even priests and princes, had taken 
 foreign wives. He knew the story of Solomon’s 
 decline (1 K 11); he perceived the danger now of a 
 relapse into idolatry ; above all, he feared the con- 
 sequences of further disobedience of the law of 
 God (Dt 7%). Shecaniah, as the representative of 
 the people who had been much moved by the 
 prayer which E. poured forth in their presence 
 (9%"), proposed that the people should put away the 
 foreign wives and their children. E. Eocépted. the 
 Se and exacted an oath on the spot that 
 
 he offenders would comply with this agreement. 
 
 A decree was issued by the princes and elders that 
 all the people should assemble at Jerus. within three 
 days, under penalty of confiscation of goods and 
 excommunication. But the assembly found the 
 task too great to be accomplished in an open-air 
 meeting during a severe winter storm, and the 
 matter was referred to a divorce court, with E. at 
 its head.* After three months’ labour, and not 
 without opposition apparently (Ezr 10% RY),+ the 
 work of the court was finished, and many innocent 
 women and children were cast out, as Hagar and 
 Ishmael had been. 
 
 The account of E.’s formal institution of the 
 law is found in Neh 8-10. Neh. had come to Jerus. 
 
 | sin B.c. 444, His first work was the rebuilding of 
 
 the walls. According to the compiler of Ezr-Neh 
 
 (see further on the BoOKs OF EZR AND NEB), it was 
 
 after this event that E. read the law to the people 
 assembled at Jerus., and obtained their pledge to 
 observe it. It is singular that E., who had brought 
 the law to Jerus. for the purpose of making it the 
 code of the community, should not have pro- 
 mulgated it sooner. It may be that Stade is right 
 in supposing that E. had aroused the hostility of 
 the people by the compulsory divorce, and that the 
 times were not ripe before (Gesch. ii. 173 f.); or it 
 may be that the chronology is not exact, as the 
 compilation was made long after the events de- 
 scribed, and the description of the reading of the law 
 interrupts Nehemiah’s narrative (cf. 74°, 11)-*).t 
 On the second day’s reading the people heard 
 the directions for observing the feast of booths. 
 Steps were taken at once to celebrate this feast, 
 and the reading of the law was continued on each 
 day of its observance. Two sys later a great 
 fast was held, the people separating themselves 
 from strangers, and confessing their sin. E. gave 
 utterance to a remarkable prayer,§ praising God for 
 His great goodness to Israel, deploring the apostasy 
 and disobedience ef the people, and tracing the 
 past misfortunes of the nation, as well as their 
 present condition of vassalage, to their great sins.|| 
 The relation of E. and Neh. is one of the perplex- 
 ing problems of this period. Neh. in his memoirs 
 mentions E. but once (12%). In the E. portions 
 of Neh, Nehemiah is mentioned but once (8°).** 
 
 * Reading, after Ewald (Hist. v. 142n. 4), 15 $725, Ezr 1016, 
 
 + See Bertheau-Kyssel, Ezr., Neh., Hst., in ‘ Kurzg. Ex. Hand- 
 buch,’ in loc. 
 
 ¢ On this reading of the law see Trumbull’s Yale Lectures on 
 the Sunday School, 1888, p. 7. 
 
 § Following LXX, which prefixes the words ‘and Ezra said’ 
 to 98. On this passage see EzRa-NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF. 
 
 | E. established the canonicity of the Pent. by those readings ; 
 see OT JC? p, 171. 
 
 4] The Ezra of Neh 12}. 18. 83 js another person. 
 
 ** The best Gr. versions lack the title Tirshatha (89); 1 Es has 
 the title, but lacks the name (949); Lagarde’s ed. agrees with 
 Heb. The Neh. of 10 is the same as that of Ezr 22. 
 
 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 821 
 
 There is scant justification for Ewald’s statement 
 that ‘the chronicler unites these two men very 
 wore in his representations (Hist. v. 161). E. 
 and Nehemiah were granted high authority in the 
 Judean colony, and that in the same sphere. Yet 
 Nehemiah entirely ignores E.* Their purposes were 
 different, it is true, one desiring to promote especi- 
 ally the religious welfare of the colony, the other 
 the political; but among the Jews these spheres 
 overlapped or rather interlaced at all points. It is 
 probable that E.’s chief work in Jerus. was accom- 
 plished before Nehemiah’s arrival.+ 
 
 E. made a lasting impression upon the Jewish 
 people. The development of the later Jewish life 
 followed the lines laid down by him. This is due, 
 not so much to his keen foresight in forecasting the 
 future, as to the fact that his influence shaped 
 Jewish life and thought in a way from which it 
 never wholly departed. He gave the law an 
 authority which it had never had before in Jewish 
 history. This zeal was contagious, and accounts 
 for that enthusiasm for the letter of the law which 
 characterizes later ages. 
 
 LitERATURE.—Besides works referred to above, see PREH% 
 art. ‘Esra und Nehemia’; O7JC2 p. 168; Wellhausen, Hist. 
 of Isr. and Jud. 130 ff. ; see also literature at end of foll. art. 
 
 2. The eponym of a priestly fami ly which re- 
 turned with Zerubbabel, Neh 12}: 12-%— AZARIAH 
 of Neh 102, L. W. BATTEN. 
 
 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, THE BOOKS OF.— 
 There is much gain in treating these two books to- 
 gether. They present similar problems; they 
 deal with the same period; they were originally 
 one in the Jewish canon; and they were put into 
 their present form by the same hand. 
 
 That Ezr-Neh constituted but one book in the early Jewish 
 canon is indisputable. The Massoretes have appended notes to 
 the end of each book of OT, stating the number of verses, etc. 
 There are no such notes at the end of Ezr, but those at the end 
 of Neh include both books: ‘the book of Ezr contains 685 verses, 
 and the middle verse is a35 mSy ya)’ (Neh 382), The Masso- 
 retic sections show that our two books were regarded as one, 
 one section being Ezr 895-Neh 21.{ The twenty-two sacred 
 books do not allow Neh to be reckoned as a separate book. The 
 Talm., in giving the origin of the various books, says that ‘ Ezra 
 wrote his book,’ and does not mention Neh, manifestly includ- 
 ing it with Ezr. In LXX the two are included under Esdras B 
 in Swete’s ed. ; under Esdras A in the ed. of Lagarde.§ 
 
 Ezr-Neh precedes Ch in the Heb. Bible, but follows it in 
 the LXX. The illogical order of the Heb. has been attributed to 
 the earlier acceptance of Ezr-Neh into the canon. It is by no 
 means certain that the present Heb. order is original. The OT 
 was divided into three portions. At the end of each portion the 
 Massoretes placed notes similar to those found after the separate 
 books. The notes on the Kethubim or Hagiographa are found 
 at the end of Ezr-Neh, not at the end of Ch. Moreover, as 
 Ezr-Neh is a continuation of Ch, and in its present form hag 
 come from the same hand, it is altogether unlikely that the 
 original arrangement was so unmindful of chron. order. 
 
 A. CONTENTS.—A review of the following out- 
 line reveals the striking fact that Ezr-Neh is far 
 from a complete history of the restoration. We 
 find rather a short sketch of a few important 
 events in that history. There are long periods,— 
 one of more than a half-century (515 to 458),— 
 about which our book is absolutely silent. The 
 whole time covered by this book, from the return 
 of the first exiles in 537 to the second visit of Neh. 
 in 432 is more than a cent., but as a matter of fact 
 the actual time covered by the narrative is scarcely 
 more than one-tenth of this time. 
 
 *See Wellhausen, Isr. wu. Jtid. Gesch. p. 168n.; Kuenen, 
 Critique de L’ Ancien Test. p. 510. 
 
 + There is an article in 7‘SBA ii. pt. 1, in which the writer 
 argues from the chronology that E. and Neh. came to Jerus. to- 
 gether. The argument is more ingenious than convincing. 
 
 t See Baer, Libri Danielis Ezre et Neh, pp. 180, 133; Jos, 
 c. Ap. i. 8. 
 
 § Ba further Oettli, ‘Die Gesch. Hagiogr. und d. Buch 
 Daniel,’ 1889, in Strack and Zéckler’s Kurzgef. Kom. ; Oornill, 
 Einleit? 45; PRE? iv, 332 ff.; Ryle, Canon of O7, 134f. 
 
 
 
822 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 
 
 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 
 
 
 
 I.—Q1) Ezr 1-46.—The return of the first company of exiles; 
 the register of the heads of houses; the setting up of the altar; 
 the establishment of the sacrifices; the efforts to rebuild the 
 temple, and the opposition of the Samaritans, B.c. 537. (2) Ezr 
 5, 6.—Stimulated by the po Hag. and Zec., the people 
 pega the rebuilding of the temple under the lead of Zerub- 
 babel and Joshua; their enemies try to stop the Jews, but 
 Darius respects the decree of Oyrus, and the temple is com- 
 pee in his sixth year, B.o. 515. (3) Ezr 7-10.—The return of 
 
 zra and his company with a firman from Artaxerxes; the 
 divorcing of the foreign wives, B.o. 458. (4) 46-23.—Successful 
 efforts of the enemies of Judah to prevent the rebuilding of the 
 city ears, mainly in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, B.0. 
 465-425, 
 
 Il.—{1) Neh 1-778,—Neh., learning of the bad condition of 
 affairs in Jerus., obtains permission from Artaxerxes to go to 
 Judah as its governor, and to rebuild its walls. He reaches 
 Jerus., inspects the walls by night, organizes the people for the 
 work, and, in spite of the vigorous opposition of the enemies of 
 Judah, succe in fortifying the city by the complete recon- 
 struction of its walls, B.o. 444. (2) 778b-10.—Ezra promul- 
 gates the law, and the people ‘seal unto it,’ B.o. 444. (3) 111- 
 1226,—Lists of those who dwelt in Jerus., and of the Levites who 
 had come to Jerus. with Zerubbabel. (4) 1227-133.—The dedi- 
 cation of the walls; regulation of the temple services, B.o. 443. 
 (5) 18481, Nehemiah’s second visit to Jerus., and the reforms 
 accomplished at that time, B.0, 432. 
 
 B. SourcEs.—Modern criticism has shown that 
 Heb. literature, like other Sem. literature,* is 
 near the result of compilation. No trained 
 critical eye is required to see that the book under 
 discussion has reached its present form by compila- 
 tion from several different sources, and it is not 
 difficult to analyze the book into its constituent 
 elements, though it is not always possible to trace 
 these elements back to their origin. In some cases 
 we must be content with probabilities, and in 
 others must confess ignorance. In the analysis of 
 the book the results will be clearer if we follow an 
 order which disregards the present arrangement of 
 chapters. 
 
 The casual reader will not fail to notice that 
 considerable portions, especially of Neh, are 
 written in the first person. The ‘I’ refers to Ezra 
 everywhere in Ezr, and to Nehemiah everywhere 
 in Neh. The first person is used in Ezr 727-915, 
 Neh 1!-7%a 12-4 13481, These are portions of 
 memoirs written by Ezra and Neh. respectively. 
 They are for the most part preserved in their 
 original form. It is evident that considerable parts 
 of the memoirs have been lost. Ezra’s narrative 
 has no proper beginning; he came to Jerus. to 
 establish the law, but his own narrative tells us 
 nothing about the.accomplishment of this design. 
 Neh.’s narrative breaks off abruptly ; the sequel to 
 7° is not found in his account; 134 begins in medias 
 res; 13° must originally have had another con- 
 nexion. But, imperfect as they are, these personal 
 records of the two great leaders in the restoration 
 of the Jewish state are of the greatest value. For 
 convenience these memoirs will hereafter be de- 
 signated by the symbols E and N respectively.+ 
 
 The other portions dealing with the work of 
 Ezra and Neh. are not original parts of their 
 memoirs, though in part based on them. Ezr 7!" 
 is an introduction to the story of Ezra written by 
 the compiler. For Ezra is spoken‘of in the third 
 person: the genealogy of Ezra omits his immediate 
 ancestors, Seraiah, who is named as his father, 
 having been put to death by Nebuchadnezzar in 
 586 ; Ezra would hardly have spoken of himself as 
 ‘an expert scribe’; this introduction anticipates 
 matter found in E. (See further in Driver, LO7® 
 p. 549). 
 
 Ezr 7-5 is the firman which Artaxerxes gave 
 Ezra as his authority for governing the Jewish 
 colony. V." is an introduction due to the com- 
 piler. The letter itself is in Aramaic, and held by 
 many to be in its original form. Such a document 
 would naturally be written in Aram., and the 
 Jewish colouring, which is so apparent in the edict 
 of Cyrus (Ezr 175), is not conspicuous in this 
 
 *Bayce, HCM c. 2. 
 t So Kautzsch, Die Heilige Schrift des AT. 
 
 passage. Cornill’s statement that ‘in details it is 
 of such specific Jewish colouring that it at least 
 must have been strongly retouched,”* is not justified 
 by facts; and Driver’s, that ‘it may have been 
 cast into its present form by one familiar with th¢ 
 terminology of the Jewish sacred books,’ + is quite 
 consistent with the view that we have the orig. 
 edict signed by the king, in the preparation of 
 which it is not inconceivable that Ezra himself may 
 have had a hand. At all events, its preservation 
 was probably due to its incorporation by Ezra in 
 his memoirs, for the thanksgiving with which E. 
 begins is naturally connected with the royal edict. 
 
 Ezr 10 is the pre continuation of the pre- 
 ceding section of E, but Ezra is spoken of in the 
 third person. All efforts to explain this change of 
 
 erson as due to Ezra have been hopeless failures. 
 The force of the fact lies in the change taking 
 place right in the middle of the narrative without 
 any explicable cause. Moreover, we find one 
 conspicuous anachronism; a room in the temple is 
 called after Jehohanan, the son of Eliashib (10) ; 
 but Eliashib was a prominent priest in 432 (Neh 
 122 134), and a room could not have been called 
 his son’s in 458.§ Yet there are points of resem- 
 blance with E. The passage is probably a revision 
 and abbreviation of i the work of the compiler. 
 
 Neh 77-10. Of this portion 9%-10” is regarded 
 by Stade || as an original Feelin of E. The prayer 
 9°-%8 is suited to Ezra, and the words prefixed in the 
 LXX ‘and Ezra said’ may be an original note of 
 the compiler’s to explain his extract from E. The 
 remainder of the section, 77>-95, is usually ac- 
 counted for in the same way as Ezr 10, to which 
 it bears striking resemblance. There is room for 
 grave doubt about the chronology. There is 
 practically no guide except the position of the 
 passage. A comparison of 7” an f 
 that the compiler has made a false connexion of 
 this passage with N, and he does not appear to 
 have been an expert in chronology. The section 
 took its present form long after the events de- 
 scribed, so that confusion of order was easily 
 
 ossible. Sayce has pointed out that the names in 
 
 eh 10 are for the most part found also in Ezr 2.** 
 He regards this section as the work of ‘a layman,’ 
 and not a priest like Ezra, since he classes himself 
 with ‘ the people’ (193% 3% 88), 4+ 
 
 Neh 11'-12* is made up of lists extracted from 
 the temple registers, with explanatory notes 
 the compiler. Ch. 11 is closely connected with 7°, 
 and may be based on N. Kénig says that ch. 11 
 ‘might indeed have been incorporated by Neh. 
 into his writings,’ but that 121“ ‘on account of 
 Jaddua, (12°) falls into the time of Alexander the 
 Great.’ tt 
 
 Neh 12“-13 cannot be from N, for it uses the 
 expression ‘in the days of Neh.’ (12%), as of a time 
 long past. Kénig admits that 124-47 comes from a 
 later hand, but holds that N begins with 13! 
 instead of 134, as most critics maintain. W. R. 
 Smith, OTJC? p. 427n., suggests that 13"? origin- 
 ally stood between Ezr 10% 1°. 
 
 here remains for consideration Ezr 1-6. Ch. 1 
 
 is very likely due to the compiler, though he en 
 have used written sources. . . Vv.!*8 are foun 
 also in 2 Ch 36% 
 
 * Einl. p. 264. See also Kuenen, Critique de L'A. T. p. 507, 
 for details of the alleged colouring. 
 
 t LOTS p. 550. 
 
 t See, e.g., Keil, Ezra, Neh., Esth. 1873, p. 12% 
 
 § See Cornill, Hint. p. 266. : 
 
 W Gesch. d. V. Isr, ii. 153 ff. 
 
 J See art. Ezra. 
 
 ** Introd. to Ezra, Neh., and Est. 1885, p. 69. 
 
 tt 1b. p. 80. : 
 
 tt Hint. in das AT, 1893, p. 278. On the relation of Neh 1] ta 
 1 Ch 93-22, see Sayce, Introd. p. 82; Oettli, op. cit. R; 
 Bertheau-Ryssel, ‘Kgf. Exeg. Handb. z. AT,’ 1887, Ezr., Neh., u 
 Est. p. 12. 
 
 The ditferences are very slight, 
 
 Ezr 3! shows 7 
 
 
 
ee ee a a es ee ee ee ee ee 
 
 
 
 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 
 
 
 
 and are due to accident in copying, Vv.**con- 
 tain the edict of Cyrus. From a comparison with 
 the inscriptions of Cyrus,* it appears to be strongly 
 coloured Jewish ideas. yrus attributes his 
 success to Merodach, not to J”. 
 
 2-3" is found also in Neh 7%", In the latter 
 place it ie appended to Nehemiah’s memoirs with 
 this preface: ‘ And I found the book of the genea- 
 logy of those who first came up: and I found 
 written init’ (7°). There are more than a hundred 
 variations in the two versions. The numbers esp. 
 differ oftener than they agree.t Such variation is 
 always found in duplicates. Cf. Pss 14 and 53, Ps 
 18 and 2S 22. This does not destroy identity of 
 origin. It appears from the large number of such 
 lists that the Jews were in the habit of keeping 
 registers of important names. From such a regis- 
 ter the Chronicler has incorporated the list into 
 its present place. These lists have been but poorly 
 preserved in the transmission of the original docu- 
 ments, as we find many errors wherever we have 
 data to test them. This list was already a part 
 of a narrative when copied by Neh., since both 
 versions end with narrative. This ending in Ezr 
 introduces the assembling at Jerus. for the setting 
 up of the altar, in Neh the assembling for the 
 promulgation of the law. 
 
 3-45 is very generally assigned to the Chronicler 
 (so Cornill, Schrader, Ryssel, Driver, ete. For 
 the rounds of this see LOT® 547 f.). 
 
 4% These are two fragments from unknown 
 sources. They cannot be from the Chronicler, for 
 they are out of joint with the context. V.° con- 
 tains a statement about an accusation made against 
 the Jews in the beg. of the reign of Xerxes. There 
 iz no hint of this elsewhere. 47 may have been 
 Eee here on the supposition that it was intro- 
 
 uctory to the passage following, but we shall see 
 that this is not so. There is no reason, however, 
 to doubt the genuineness or authenticity of these 
 verses. 
 
 4°68. This passage is written in the Aram. 
 language, and is a portion of a more or less com- 
 plete history of these times written originally in 
 Aramaic.¢ The compiler, finding his best sources 
 for this period in Aramaic, incorporated consider- 
 able portions without translation. In its present 
 arrangement, however, the course of the history is 
 very much obscured, as will be more fully pointed 
 out below. The section falls into two parts, both 
 of which present critical problems of considerable 
 intricacy. For convenience these problems will 
 be discussed in this connexion. 
 
 48-24, According to the present arrangement of our book, this 
 
 rt describes the securing of a decree from Artaxerxes to stop 
 
 he rebuilding of the temple. But, as a matter of fact, the 
 passage has nothing to do with the temple, and is evidently 
 misplaced. According to 47 Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, 
 and the rest of his companions ‘wrote a letter to king Arta- 
 xerxes in Aramaic.’ This letter is not the one found in the 
 verses following, for that was written by Rehum the chancellor 
 and Shimshai the scribe; moreover, the letter which begins 
 with y.1 is overloaded with introductions in the Aram. passage 
 vv.810, Since Artaxerxes reigned from 465 to 425, this passage 
 can have nothing to do with the times of Zerubbabel. The 
 correction of Xerxes v.6 to Cambyses (reigning 529-522), and 
 Artaxerxes to Gomates (pseudo-Smerdis),§ is out of the ques- 
 tion, since the contents agree with the date assigned in the 
 text. The letter says that the Jews are rebuilding the re- 
 bellious and bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired 
 the foundations. It further declares that if this city is rebuilt 
 and the walls finished, the Jews will rebel and refuse to pay 
 tribute, ‘and in the end it will endamage the king.’ The build- 
 ing of the temple cannot be the point of attack, for that would 
 not signify rebellion. If the temple were the matter at issue, 
 
 the Jews would have appealed to the decree of Cyrus as they 
 did later. The king’s answer agrees with this view. He orders 
 
 * Bee RP, new ser. v. 144 ff. 
 
 + The sum-total in each case is the same, but varies by 12,000 
 from the sum of the d2tailed numbers. (See further Kuenen, 
 Rel. Isr. ii. 178). 
 
 t On Renan’s view that the Aram. section is from the Targums, 
 see Lxpos. Times, iv. 546. 
 
 § Ewald advocated this position, Hist., Eng. tr. iv. 106. 
 
 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 823 
 
 Ce I 
 
 that this city be not built, until a decree shall be made by him, 
 but makes no allusion to the temple. If a royal decree had 
 been issued forbidding the rebuilding of the temple, the people 
 would have had ample excuse for their neglect when Haggai 
 reproaches them so sharply. . . Zerubbabel and Joshua would 
 scarcely have ventured to renew the work on the temple with 
 such a decree in force. Finally, Tattenai would not have failed 
 to make use of such a good weapon if it had been at hand. 
 
 The passage refers to an attempt to rebuild the walls of the 
 city, which must have occurred in the first part of the reign 
 of Artaxerxes before the coming of Nehemiah. ‘The Jews which 
 have come up from thee’ (22) refers either to Ezra and his com- 
 pany, or to some other band concerning which the history is 
 silent. V.%4 does refer to the building of the temple, and 
 is the effort of the compiler to harmonize the passage with the 
 history with which he has erroneously connected it.* 
 
 6, 6. This section Ys a consistent account of the rebuildin; 
 of the temple, but difficulties arise in its relation to ch. 3, an 
 to Hag and Zec, In 81-7 we are told that Joshua and Zerub. 
 set up the altar soon after the arrival of the first pilgrims. The 
 required sacrifices were at once started. Then the actual work 
 of rebuilding the temple was begun (348ff.), The text is some- 
 what confused, but it is clear that the writer says that the 
 foundations of the temple were laid at this time; see esp. v10 
 ‘and the builders laid the foundation of the temple of J”.’ The 
 work thus begun was stopped by the adversaries, who ‘ weak- 
 ened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in 
 building, and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their 
 purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the 
 reign of Darius king of Persia’ (44-5). 
 
 Hag. and Zech., contemporary prophets under whose inspira- 
 tion the work of rebuilding was taken up and carried to com- 
 pletion, give no hint anywhere that the temple building was 
 but the resumption of a task already begun and laid aside with 
 good reason. Hag. speaks of ‘the house that lieth waste’ (14. 9) ; 
 he attributes the unprosperous condition to the neglect of the 
 temple ; he denies the validity of the excuse that the time was 
 not suitable. The unsuitableness of the time pleaded by the 
 people does not refer to the hostility of their neighbours, but to 
 their poverty. But some of this prophet’s utterances go 
 further. He says: ‘ Lay to heart from this day back to the time 
 before one laid stone upon a stone in the temple of J”’ (215)—a 
 time evidently within his recent experience. He gives the 
 date upon which the foundation was laid in a prophecy de- 
 livered that very day; ‘from this day forward, from the 
 twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day that the 
 foundation of J'’s temple is laid’ (218), 
 
 Zech. says: ‘ The hands of Zerub. have laid the foundation of 
 this house: his hands shall also finish it’ (49), referring to the 
 laying of the foundation just accomplished. Two years later he 
 said: ‘Let your hands be strong, ye that hear in these days 
 these words from the mouths of the prophets, which were in 
 the day that the foundation of the temple of J” of hosts was 
 laid’ (89). The prophets must have been Hag. and himself. 
 
 A large part of the letter sent to Darius is taken up with the 
 defence of the Jews. They urge that they were only seg 
 what Cyrus had authorized. Sheshbazzar had been appointe 
 governor, and he came to Jerus., ‘and laid the foundations of 
 the house of God which is in Jerus.; and since that time even 
 until now hath it been in building, and yet it is not com- 
 pleted’ (Ezr 516), Hag 23 shows the contempt for the new 
 temple felt by those old men, who still remembered the glory 
 of the temple of Solomon. We find the same feelings expressed 
 in Ezr 312.13, It seems impossible that these two passages do 
 not refer to the same event. 
 
 In Ezr 5! we read that ‘ Zerub. and Josh. stood up and began 
 to build the house of God.’ Nothing is said about completing a 
 work begun before; the inference is plainly that a new task 
 was taken up. The question of Tattenai in v.3, ‘Who gave you 
 a decree to build this house?’ + and his subsequent action ae ah 
 not a resumption of a work which had been forcibly stopped, 
 but the coming up of a new issue. The passage in 516 already 
 quoted, which may appear to harmonize with the resumption 
 theory, does not do so, for it proves too much; its statement 
 that the temple had been in process of building ever since the 
 decree of Cyrus ‘had been issued, is contrary to all that we 
 know from other sources. It may be a sufficient explanation of 
 this inaccuracy to note that it is contained in the letter, and 
 Tattenai may have misunderstood the Jews, who might have 
 said that from the time of Cyrus they had purposed to build the 
 temple, but had not been able todoso. Ké6nig holds that Ezr 
 31-45 contains fragments which, by tradition, have been re- 
 ceived into the original picture of the temple-building story. 
 It is quite possible that we have here, in fact, poorly preserved 
 fragments of an orig. Heb. account of the rebuilding of the 
 temple. The passage would then be parallel with the Aram. 
 section cc. 5, 6; and in that case the troublesome e 4623 
 would not be seriously out of place ; that is, it originally would 
 
 
 
 * Sayce’s view that v.24 properly follows v.5, ‘ as indicated by 
 the grammatical construction of the original Chaldee,’ and that 
 the whole passage is introduced here episodically, is quite un- 
 tenable. See his Introd. Pp. 22. 
 
 + The words following ‘and to finish this wall’ do not sup- 
 port the view of an earlier work on the temple. s31wa rendered 
 ‘wall’ is a word of doubtful meaning. Kautzsch, Gram. des 
 Bib. Ar. § 62, suggests the emendation X’ww ‘foundations’ as 
 yl6, Bleek held that the word refers to the walls of the city, 
 Einl.5 p. 207. Bertheau-Ryssel interprets after LXX the wondep 
 framework for the building. 
 
824 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 
 
 pee 
 
 have stocd just before the beginning of the history of Ezra, Its 
 present position would simply be further evidence of the limited 
 critical insight of the compiler. For further discussion of this 
 question, see Kénig, Hinl. p. 281 ff.; Driver, LO7® p. 647 (where 
 other references will be found); Benzinger, Heb. Archdol. p. 
 400. 
 
 To this Aramaic portion a fragment is added in 
 Hebrew, 6-2. It is peculiar in that it applies the 
 term ‘king of Assyria’ to Darius. It may be due 
 to the Chronicler, who felt the importance of the 
 celebration of the Passover festival after the 
 dedication of the new temple. 
 
 We have seen above that the books under con- 
 sideration were originally one in the Jewish canon. 
 The editor who put the material into its present 
 shape tindoubted! left the book as a unit. This 
 editor, however, found the process of compilation 
 already begun. He did not find all the various 
 sources scattered and independent, but they were 
 already gathered in two main documents, the 
 material having clustered about the stories of the 
 two chief figures in the community. The last 
 editor may have rearranged his sources acc. to his 
 own ideas; he probably made additions from other 
 sources, and we fear omitted portions which we 
 should a preciate more than he did ; certainly, he 
 made additions from his own pen. The convincing 
 evidence of the existence of two separate books 
 before the last revision, is found in the presence 
 of the duplicate lists Ezr 2 and Neh7. The lists 
 were already a fixed part of the narrative in which 
 they are imbedded, so that the Chronicler could 
 not omit either one without disjointing his narra- 
 tive. The list may have been attached to N by 
 Neh. himself, though it is more likely that a later 
 hand, who felt the propriety of the connexion, is 
 responsible for the addition. When the material 
 was collected for the life of Ezra and the time 
 preceding, the list was naturally placed where it 
 Sie belongs. 
 
 The first part of these books was undoubtedly 
 the genuine memoirs Eand N. To these, other 
 material was added from time to time, to complete 
 as far as possible the history of the restoration. It 
 is highly probable that Neh 8-10, which we have 
 seen reason to believe a revised edition of portions 
 of E, was originally a part of the Bk. of Ezra, 
 and was later transferred from chron. considera- 
 tions. In the apocr. Esdras, which is preferred by 
 
 some writers to the canonical Ezr,* a brief account: 
 
 of the promulgation of the law follows immediately 
 the story of the great divorce (see 1 Es 9°”). 
 
 There can be little doubt that the final editor of 
 Ezr-Neh was the author of the Bk. of Chronicles.+ 
 He gathered material, and prepared a history, 
 written acc. to his own point of view from Adam to 
 Nehemiah. His work was one long piece, Ezr-Neh 
 being a part of Chronicles. But the latter had a 
 considerable struggle to get into the canon. The 
 Chronicler’s novel treatment of the history, already 
 covered by other books, did not win favour at 
 once. But Ezr-Neh was the only source of 
 information for the important period of the re- 
 storation. Moreover, the Chronicler’s peculiar 
 methods were not conspicuous in the later history. 
 In fact, his Bk. of Chronicles is an attempt to read 
 the conditions of the later times into the earlier. 
 The later portion was therefore separated from 
 the earlier, and found its place in the canon. In 
 the ay ere a few verses were retained in each 
 part (Ezr 11-8, 2 Ch 364), 
 
 The hist. value of these books is very great; for 
 they stand alone for an important epoch, and the 
 contain documents of great importance. But all 
 parts are not equally reliable. The Chronicler was 
 not a discriminating critic. He uses his sources 
 
 * See Sayce, HCM p. 537. 
 t See the able discussion by Reuss, Das Alte Test. p. 8 ff. 
 
 
 
 EZRIL 
 
 as if all were alike trustworthy. Naturally, E and 
 N are the most reliable, The personal narrative 
 of eye-witnesses and principal participants is of 
 the highest value. ext in importance as hist, 
 sources are the memoirs which have been worked 
 over by the compiler, designated by Kautzsch e 
 and n: e Ezr 10, Neh 8-10; m Neh 113-® (ace. to 
 Kautzsch). Of great value also are the Aram, 
 documents in Ezr 48-618 72-3, The other sources 
 are too far corrupted from their original form to 
 be of primary value. 
 
 Notwithstanding the inferior trustworthinese 
 of some portions, and the incompleteness of the 
 whole, it is possible with the aid of the prophetic 
 and poetic literature of the period to form a toler- 
 ably clear and connected idea of the times.* If 
 much is lacking which we should like to know, 
 that is but common to all periods of history, and 
 there is compensation in the preservation of precious 
 original documents. The case would be different if 
 the Chronicler had worked over the whole of E and 
 N, so that we could only infer their existence, and 
 if he had translated and revised the Aram. docu- 
 ments. 
 
 [Since the above was in type, the question of the 
 credence due to the Chronicler’s narrative and of 
 the historicity of the Jews’ Return under Me: 
 
 vi, 
 
 
 
 has been discussed afresh by Kosters in the 
 (1897), 518 ff. See also the Hapos. Times, viii. 
 (1897), 71, 200, 268, 320, 351 (the last by Van 
 Hoonacker), ix. 66.—EDITOR.] 
 
 LITERATURE.—(A) INTRODUCTION.—Driver, LOT 640 ff.; Sayoe, 
 Introd, to Ezr. Neh, and Est.; Kuenen, Hist.-Krit. Hinleit. 
 §§ 29, 33-35; Cornill, Hinleit.2 262ff.; Wildeboer, Alttest. 
 Intteratur, 404 ff.; Konig, Hinleit.; Wellhausen-Bleek, Hinieit.4; 
 Ewald, Hist. i. (B) History.—Stade, Ges. d.° Volk. Ter. ii. 
 Renan, Hist. of People of Israel, Bk. vii.; Wellhausen, Isr. 
 u. Jiid. Ges.; Ewald, Hist. v.; Meyer, Ges. d. Alterth. i. (C) 
 OCoMMENTARIES.—Ryle, ‘ Ezr. and Neh.,’ in Camb. Bible ; Rawlin- 
 son, in Pulpit Com., Speaker's Com., and in Ezra and Nehemiah 
 (Men of the Bible series); Keil, Hzr. Neh. and Eat.; F. W. 
 Schultz in Lange’s Commentary; Bertheau-Ryssel in Kgf. 
 exeg. Hdbch.; Oettli in Strack and Zéckler’s Kygf. Kom.; Kam 
 hausen, Hagiog. d. Alt. Bund. (D) MisceLLanzous.— Smen 
 List. d, BB. Ezr. u. Neh.; Hunter, Aster the Emile; Schrader, 
 COT2; Sayce, HCM5; Baer, Dan. Ezr. et Neh. (valuable for~ 
 the text and Aram. paradigms ; cf. Marti, Gramm. Preface, and 
 Kautzsch, p. 54n.); Kosters, Het Werstel v. Isr.; Van Hoonacker, 
 Nouv. Etud. 8. l. Restaur. Juive (mainly a reply to Kosters); 
 Meyer, Entstehung des Jiudenthums; cf. Wellhausen’s review 
 of this book in GGA (1897), ii. 89ff., and the reply of Meyer, — 
 Julius Wellhausen uu meine Schrift, etc. For the Aramaic 
 language see Granimars of Winer (1882), Kautzsch (1884), Strack 
 (1895), and Marti (1896). For critical translations see Scriptures 
 Heb. and Christian, by J. P. Peters; Kautzsch, Heil. Schr. 
 d, AT (in which the sources are indicated by letters in the 
 margin) ; Reuss, At. Test. iv. L. . BATTEN, 
 
 EZRAH (my, AV Ezra).—A Judahite (1 Ch 4”), 
 See GENEALOGY. 
 
 EZRAHITE (‘nyy, LXX "Iopandelrys).—A name 
 given to Heman in the title of Ps 88, and to Ethan 
 in Ps 89. It is used also of Ethan in 1 K 4%, 
 where LXX (B) reads Zapeirns. It is best under- 
 stood as=Zerachite, cf. 1 Ch 2°, in which Ethan 
 and Heman are termed sons of Zerah. A double 
 tradition concerning Ps 88 appears to be embodied ~ 
 in the title; it is called a ‘Psalm-song of the 
 Korahites,’ and ‘a meditation by Heman the 
 Ezrahite.’ There were also a Heman and an 
 Ethan, Merarites, of the tribe of Levi, according 
 to 1 Ch 15"”; the Ezrahites belonged to the tribe 
 of Judah. W. T. DAVISON. 
 
 EZRI (‘1y).—David’s superintendent of agri- 
 culture (1 Ch 27%), < 
 
 EZRIL (B ’EgpelA, A -l-, AV Esril), 1 Es 9%; 
 AZAREL in Ezr 10“. 
 
 *On the value of these books, see Ryle, Kzra and Neh. 
 Introd. § 11. 
 
 
 

 
 ee ee a ee ee Pe eee ee ee 
 
 
 
 FABLE 
 
 FACT 825 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 FABLE is usually defined (with Dr. Johnson in 
 his life of Gay) to be ‘a narrative in which beings, 
 iirational and sometimes inanimate, are, for the 
 purposes of moral instruction, feigned to act and 
 speak with human interests and passions’; and 
 hence, as such beings do not present analogies to 
 man in the spiritual region, it differs from other 
 tropes (see ALLEGORY) in that its lessons are con- 
 fined to the sphere of practical worldly prudence. 
 Accepting this prevailing usage, we find (and the 
 rarity is not surprising) but two instances of fable 
 in sacred literature: (1) Jotham’s fable of the 
 trees choosing their king (Jg 9-5); and (2) the 
 fable of the thistle and the cedar of Lebanon, in 
 the answer of Jehoash to Amaziah (2 K 14°). In 
 neither of these cases, however, is the story de- 
 scribed by any appellation. Indeed the word 
 fable does not occur in the canonical OT, nor is 
 p0Gos (its Apocr. and NT equivalent) certainly 
 found in the LXX, except in Sir 20" (‘a man 
 without grace is as a fale out of season’), where in 
 the next verse rapafodx appears as the parallel, ‘a 
 wise saw.’ The compound pv0ddcyos, author y 
 fables, is used in Bar 3%; and here the parallel, 
 searcher out of understanding, suggests a similar 
 interpretation. Accordingly, we may conclude 
 that the nearest approach in the OT to the idea of 
 4000s is found in mashdl, the dark saying, parable, 
 proverb, adage, in which Orientals clothed their 
 deeper thoughts (Ps 494 78?, Ezk 172), and which 
 sometimes appears to stand for a warning example 
 (Jer 24° [Judah] ‘a reproach and a proverb’ rapa- 
 Bor}, LXX). This does not differ materially from 
 the Homeric and almost purely poetical use of 
 #000s,—found once or twice also in Plato,—from 
 which the connotation of truth had not yet been 
 entirely banished. 
 
 But in Greek prose, as a rule, and even occa- 
 sionally in poetry as early as that of Pindar 
 (0. 1. 47, NV. 7. 34), ud00s was the Latin fabula, con- 
 noting fiction, sometimes (in opposition to mAdcpa) 
 spontaneously growing, as, in religious tradition, 
 thie myth of god or hero (Plato, Legg. 9. 865 D) ; 
 sometimes deliberately composed, like sop’s 
 Fables (Plato, Phed. 60 C), and then opposed to 
 Aébyos, the historic story, or to dA7jGea, actual fact 
 (Plato, Phed. 61 B; Aristot. Hist. An. 9.12). It 
 is to this usage that the NT 00s allies itself 
 (1 Ti 14 47, 2 Ti 44, Tit 14, 2 P 17°). 
 
 In 2 P 1° the word apparently bears the general 
 sense of fiction, ‘what we tell you as to the power 
 and coming of the Lord is not cunningly devised 
 fiction, but sober truth.’ But the fables referred 
 to in the Pastoral Epp. as already endangering 
 the soundness of the faith and the health of the 
 churches in Ephesus and Crete, are of a special 
 kind. They are ‘Jewish’ (Tit 1"); they are ‘ pro- 
 fane and anile’ 1 Ti 47 (cf. Plat. Rep. 1. 350); 
 they are connected with genealogies, 1 Ti 14 (cf. 
 Plato, Tim. 22 A, as to the offspring of Deucalion 
 and Pyrrha), with fightings about the law (Tit 3°) 
 and with commandments of men (Tit 1). The 
 two last expressions and the epithet Jewish find 
 some explanation in the rigid asceticism of 
 abstaining from meats and forbidding to marry 
 1 Ti 4°), which was doubtless founded upon Jewish 
 aw, and was a characteristic of that side of 
 Gnosticism which was afraid of matter, even as 
 licence (Tit 15 1°) was the characteristic of that 
 other side which affected to despise its power; the 
 ‘genealogies’ remind us of the worship of angels 
 
 at Colossz (Col 2'8), and the Gnosticism which 
 bridged the gulf between God and the world by 
 means of angelic intermediaries generated from 
 the pleroma and from one another ; and when wa 
 read also elsewhere in these epistles of the ‘ gnosis 
 falsely so-called’ (1 Ti 6”), of the ‘resurrection past 
 already’ (2 Ti 28), of the ‘enchanters’ (2 Ti3"4), and 
 of the ‘doctrines of demons’ (1 Ti 41), we are 
 irresistibly drawn towards the belief that the 
 fables of these epistles are closely akin to the 
 teachings of Ophite Gnosticism—that earliest 
 Gnosticism of Asia Minor, which was a strikingly 
 similar mixture of Jewish and heathen speculation, 
 ritual, and practice. See GNOSTICISM. 
 
 LiterATURE.—Oremer, Btb.-Theol. Les. 8. 2000s and ysvearoyla 5 
 Trench, Parables, p. 2; Goebel, Parables of Jesus, 6 ff.; Moore, 
 Judges, 244 ff.; Hneyc. Brit.9 and Smith, DB? 8.v.; and see 
 ALLEGORY ; On the ‘fables’ of Past. Epp. see Lightfoot, Biblical 
 Hissays, p. 411 ff. ; (on the other side—that the heresy is simply 
 Judaistic—Hort, Judaistie Christianity, Lect. 7). 
 
 J. MASSIE. 
 
 FACE is AV tr. of 4. 4x, for which RV in several 
 instances substitutes more exact renderings, such 
 as ‘nose’ (Gn 2447), ‘nostrils’ (Ezk 38%). 2. py, 
 lit. ‘eye’ (e.g. Ex 10° 1, Nu 225 ‘the face of the 
 earth’). RV rightly gives ‘eyes’ instead of ‘ face’ 
 in 1 K 20% 4, 2K 9%, Jer 4° 3. o19 very fre- 
 quent both in a lit. and a metaphorical sense (e.g. 
 "39 by ‘upon the face of’). The shewbread (see 
 BREAD, p. 318") was called op 09), lit. ‘bread of 
 the face, i.e. presence’ (see next paragraph). 
 With a personal pronoun ‘my (thy, his, ete.) face’ 
 may be aby a circumlocution for ‘me (thee, 
 him,’ etc.). ence the substitution by RV of 
 ‘them’ for ‘their face’ in Ex 14), and of ‘thee’ 
 for ‘ thy face’ in Gn 30%, Dt 9°28’. Conversely, in 
 Jer 17? AV has ‘thee’ and RV ‘thy face.’ 
 
 The face or countenance as the noblest part of 
 the person was used to mean presence, and is often 
 so translated. From the implied invitation or per- 
 mission to approach (Est 41°), it came to mean 
 favour, acceptance. On the other hand, the with- 
 held or averted face was equivalent to disapproval 
 or rejection (Ps 13 279 88 1437 ete.). Such favour 
 was called the light of the countenance, giving life 
 and refreshment like that of the sun (Ps 89" ete.). 
 Among the Arabs, a fit of anger or the sudden 
 effect of hearing bad news is called the darkening 
 of the sky on the face. To ‘respect persons’ is 
 generally 0°39 xy}, but in Dt 27 161, Pr 247 2871 it is 
 035 137, lit. to recognize the presence of one (sc. 
 unjustly). 
 
 o spit in the face was the strongest possible 
 expression of scorn and aversion (Nu 1214, Dt 25°, 
 Job 30, Is 508, Mt 26 279, Mk 10* 14, 1519, 
 Lk 18). In heated altercation, an Oriental often 
 uses an ejaculation which means ‘I spit in your 
 face,’ at the same time spitting on the ground at 
 the feet of the person he is quarrelling with. 
 Modesty, humility, worship, self-abasement, are 
 expressed by the veils of women (Gn 24%), the 
 reverential shrouding of the face with the mantle 
 (1 K 19"), the wings with which the seraphim 
 covered the face (Is 67), and the face bowed to the 
 ground (Gn 42° ete.). To have the face covered by 
 another, as in the case of Haman (Est 7°), was a 
 sign of doom ; the napkin drawn over the face and 
 wound round the head was part of the covering of 
 the dead (Jn 11“ 207). G. M. MACKIE. 
 
 FACT.—A ‘fact’ (Lat. factuwm) is any act or 
 deed, good or bad; and this was the commonest 
 
826 FAIN 
 
 FAIRS 
 
 
 
 meaning of the word till about the beginning of 
 the present century. Thus Spenser, FQ I. iv. 34— 
 * But, when the furious fit was overpast, 
 His cruel facts he often would repent.’ 
 Similarly Bunyan, PP (Clar. Pr. ed. p. 42), ‘ fallin 
 down upon his knees, he [Christian] asked Go 
 forgiveness for that his foolish fact.? So T. 
 Adams, II Peter (Pur. Divines), p. 3, ‘ Theodosius 
 excused a foul fact, because David had done the 
 like,’ This is the meaning in 2 K 10 (heading) 
 ‘Jehu by his letters causeth seventy of Ahab’s 
 children to be beheaded ; he exeuseth the fact by 
 the gel eet of Elijah’; and 2 Mac 4° ‘ Certain 
 of the Greeks that abhorred the fact also’ (Gr. 
 cTuppucoTorvnpotyTwy Kal Tov ‘EXAjvev, RV ‘the Greeks 
 also joining with them in hatred of the wicked- 
 ness.’ This is the only example of cvyy., though 
 pucorovnpéw is found 2 Mac 4 [A -edw] 84). The 
 present use of ‘fact’ for something that has 
 actually occurred, an undeniable truth, though 
 quite classical for factwm, and belonging to all the 
 Romanic equivalents (Fr. fait, It. fatto, Sp. hecho), 
 is not found in English before 1632. 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAIN is properly ‘glad,’ as Dyke, Worthy 
 Commun. 56, ‘Then full faine wilt thou be to 
 have Christ Jesus receive thy soule’; or ‘ gladly,’ 
 as Jn 127 Tind. ‘Syr, we wolde fayne se Jesus.’ 
 But the commonest meaning has always been 
 ‘glad under the circumstances,’ and that is its 
 meaning in AV: Job 27” ‘he would fain flee out 
 of his hand’ (nq2: an2, AVm ‘in fleeing he would 
 flee’): 1 Mac 6‘ they were fain to disperse them- 
 selves’ (€oxopric@ycav, RV ‘they were scattered ’) ; 
 Lk 15° ‘he would fain have filled his belly with 
 the husks that the swine did eat’ (ére@iue). Cf. 
 Shaks. Lear, Iv. vii. 38— 
 
 ‘and wast thou fain, poor father, 
 
 To hovel thee with swine, and rogues forlorn, 
 
 In short and musty straw?’ 
 From this the word easily slipped into the sense of 
 ‘obliged,’ ‘compelled,’ as in Pref. to AV ‘he was 
 fain to make this answer, I cannot [read the book] 
 for it is sealed’; Is 17 Cov. ‘ Youre londe lieth 
 waist ... aud ye must be fayne to stonde and 
 loke upon it’; and Defoe, Crusoe : ‘When the tide 
 was out, I got most of the pieces of cable ashore, 
 and some of the iron, though with infinite labour ; 
 for I was fain to go for it into the water, a work 
 which fatigued me very much.’ 
 
 To the three examples in AV, RV adds two: 
 Lk 13% ‘Herod would fain kill thee’ (@é\e ce 
 amoxreivac; AV ‘will kill thee,’ the tr of all 
 previous Eng. VSS [Wye. ‘will slay thee’]); and 
 Ac 26% ‘With but little persuasion thou wouldest 
 fain make me a Christian’ (’Ev 6Niyw me melOes 
 Xpicriavdv werfoar; AV ‘Almost thou persuadest 
 me to be a Christian,’ following TR yevéoOar for 
 mwoujoat). 
 
 The reading, soimjows or ywiobos, is discussed in WH ‘Select 
 Readings,’ loc. The best argument for rovjeo. is its diffi- 
 culty : to simplify the construction, ysvéclas may have been 
 taken in from the next verse. 
 
 The translation is, on either reading, nearly impossible. 
 The AV is a combination of the Geneva NT (1557), ‘ Almost thou 
 persuadest me to become a Christian,’ and the Bishops’, ‘Som- 
 what thou perswadest me to be a Christian.’ But it gives an 
 unknown sense to iy éA/y@, besides following the less probable 
 ysvictes. The RV is new, and is got (1) by mentally supply ig 
 movw (?) ‘labour’ after ty cAtyw; (2) by translating rete; 
 ‘wouldest fain,’ so as to bring out the sense, which it certainly 
 has, of ‘attempt to persuade’; and (3) by supplying ders before 
 omens. Itis adversely criticised by Field, Otiwm Norv, iii. ad 
 foc. But Rendall, Acts of Apos. in Greek and English (1897), 
 accepts it, rendering, ‘ At little cost thou wouldest fain persuade 
 
 me to make me a Christian!’ (The exclamation mark is 
 intended to suggest the irony in Agrippa’s voice). 
 
 J. HASTINGS. * 
 FAINT.—From feint the ptep. of Old Fr. feindre 
 to feign, faint signified first ‘ feigned,’ ‘ pretended,’ 
 as Earl Rivers, Dictes, 144, ‘He that loueth the 
 
 with feynt loue.’ But it passed early into the 
 sense of weak: whether (1) as a purely physical 
 state, as Gn 2579 ‘Esau came from the field, and 
 he was faint’ (jy, so 255°, Dt 25, Jg 8#5, 
 Is 298; my 1S 148, 28 21; wp 1S 30a; 
 ny: 2S 16%, Is 40°; exAvouce 1 Mac 31”); or (2) as 
 chiefly moral, almost =‘ cowardly,’.* which occurs 
 only in the phrase faint-hearted, Dt 208 (137 7, 
 lit. ‘ soft-hearted ’) ; Is 74 (au-5x azz’, RV ‘neither 
 let thine heart be faint’), Jer 49% (s15:, RV ‘they 
 are melted away’), Sir 4° (uh ddAvyopuxjoys, so 7) 5 
 or (3) as spiritual, through sorrow, Jer 8, La 1” 
 (both +33) 18 5!7 (both 3), or calamity, Is 15 (*3). 
 The verb is derived from the adj. It is used in 
 the foregoing senses, and also in the modern 
 physical sense of ‘swoon’ (Dn 8”, Ad. Est 15’). 
 Faintness is used physically in Ad. Est 15% and 
 spiritually in Ly 26°, J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAIR. —1. Beautiful, as Sus v.2 ‘a very fair 
 woman’ (xad7 ofddpa) ; Sir 2443 ‘T am the mother 
 of fair love’ (ris dyamicews rHs xadfs). So fre- 
 quently in OT; but in NT only Ac 7” [Moses] 
 ‘was exceeding fair’ (doreios 7G Oe@, lit. ‘fair to 
 God,’ see under EXCEEDING. The adj. occurs also 
 He 11% and again of Moses; AV ‘proper’; RV 
 ‘goodly,’ the word in Ex 2? where the Heb. is ai 
 
 ‘good’). 2. Unspotted, Zec 3°°s ‘a fair mitre’ 
 (inv). Cf. Pr. Bk. (1552) ‘a fayre white lynnen 
 
 clothe’; Ezk 17 Cov. ‘fayre scoured metall’; 
 Wesley (1737), Works, i. 46, ‘a paper book ; all the 
 leaves thereof were fair, except one.’ Wyclif’s tr. 
 of Zec 3° is (1382) ‘acleene cappe’ (1888, ‘a cleene 
 mytre’); Douay, ‘a cleane mitre.’ Coverdale 
 gives ‘ fair,’ and the other VSS follow him. Amer, 
 RV restores ‘clean.’ 3. Plausible, Gal 6% ‘to 
 make a fair show’ (evrpoowmfoat) ; elsewhere only 
 of speech. In Sir 65 ‘fair speaking’ is used in @ 
 good sense, ‘a fair-speaking tongue will increase 
 kind greetings’ (eU\ados). The modern form ‘ fair- 
 spoken’ had also a god meaning once, as Capgrave 
 (1460), Chron. 81, ‘He was . . . fayre-spokyn, but 
 he spak but seldam.’ 
 
 In Ezk 2712-14. 16. 19. 22-27 ¢ foing,” 4.¢, markets, is 
 used in AV (after Wye. in v.7 and Geneva through- 
 out) as tr. of Heb. oy27y, which is evidently 
 ‘wares’ as AV has it in v.%, the only other 
 occurrence of the word. RV gives ‘wares’ (wh. 
 see) throughout. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAIR HAVENS (KaAol Améves), one of the places | 
 mentioned in connexion with St. Paul’s voyage to 
 Rome (Ac 278-2), is a small bay, two leagues E. of 
 Cape Matala, on the 8. coast of Crete. There does 
 not seem to have been a town at the place, but 
 there was one near it, called Lasea. Neither Fair 
 Havens nor Lasea is mentioned in classical writings, 
 but the former name survives in the modern Gr. 
 dialect as Ajwedvas Kadovs, and archeological re- 
 search has confirmed the identity of both places. 
 It has been suggested that the name is euphemistie, 
 and the fact that an attempt was made to reach 
 Phenix, the modern Lutro, a considerable dis- 
 tance W. along the coast, in the circumstances 
 mentioned in Ac, adds emphasis to the statement 
 that the haven was not commodious to winter in. 
 On the other hand, it proved a welcome shelter to 
 
 St. Paul and those who were with him, for a con- — | 
 siderable time, at a most critical part of their } 
 The difference between Fair Havens and {| 
 
 voyage. 
 Phenix was, that while the former was sheltered 
 only from the N. and N.W. winds, the latter was 
 
 ‘the only secure harbour in all winds on the S. — H 
 
 coast of Crete.’ 
 
 FAIRS.—See Farr, WARES. 
 
 * Of. H. Smith, Works, ii. 219, ‘ The faint spies that went te 
 the land of Canaan.’ 
 
 Mork. 
 
 
 
FAITH 827 
 
 
 
 FAITH.—I. THE PHILOLOGICAL EXPRESSION OF 
 Fairu. — The verb ‘to believe’ in AV of OT 
 uniformly represents the Heb. ; x7, Hiph. of 
 }2s, except, of course, in Dn 6% where it repre- 
 
 sents the corresponding Aramaic form. ‘The root, 
 which is widely spread among the Semitic tongues, 
 and which in the word ‘ Amen’ has been adopted 
 into every language spoken by Christian, Jew, or 
 Mohammedan, seems everywhere to convey the 
 fundamental ideas of ‘fixedness, stability, stead- 
 fastness, reliability.’ What the ultimate conception 
 is which underlies these ideas remains somewhat 
 doubtful, but it would appear to be rather that 
 of ‘holding’ than that of ‘supporting’ (although 
 this last is the sense adopted in Oxf. H =f Lex.). In 
 the simple species the verb receives both transitive 
 and intransitive vocalization. With intransitive 
 vocalization it means ‘to be firm,’ ‘to be secure,’ 
 ‘to be faithful,’ and occurs in biblical Hebrew only 
 in the ae participle, designating those who are 
 ‘faithful’ (2S 20%, Ps 12! 31%), ith transitive 
 vocalization it occurs in biblical Hebrew only ina 
 very specialized hon, conveying the idea, 
 whether as participle or verbal noun, of ‘caretak- 
 Ing’ or ‘ nursing’ (2 K 10!-5, Est 27, Ru 436, 2S 44, 
 Nu 11%, Is 49”, La 45; cf. 2 K 18 ‘pillars’ and 
 [the Niphal] Is 604), the implication in which seems 
 to be that of ‘holding,’ ‘ bearing,’ ‘carrying.’ The 
 Niph. occurs once as the passive of transitive Qal 
 (Is 60*) : elsewhere it is formed from intransitive Qal, 
 and is used very much in the same sense. What- 
 ever holds, is steady, or can be depended upon, 
 whether a wall which securely holds a nail (Is 
 22°3. 25), or a brook which does not fail (Jer 1518), or 
 a kingdom which is firmly established (2 S 71%), or 
 an assertion which has been verified (Gn 42”), or a 
 covenant which endures for ever (Ps 89%), or a 
 heart found faithful (Neh 98), or a man who can be 
 trusted (Neh 135), or God Himself who keeps 
 covenant (Dt 7°), is }o33. The Hiphil occurs in one 
 ge in the primary physical sense of the root 
 (Job 39%), Elsewhere it bears constantly the sense 
 of ‘to trust,’ weakening down to the simple ‘ to 
 believe’ (Ex 4%, Ps 116”, Is 79 2816, Hab 15). Obvi- 
 ously it is a subjective causative, and expresses the 
 acquisition or exhibition of the firmness, security, 
 reliability, faithfulness which lies in the root- 
 meaning of the verb, in or with respect to its object. 
 The 7x2 is therefore one whose state of mind is 
 free from faintheartedness (Is 7°) and anxious haste 
 (Is 2816), and who stays himself upon the object of 
 his contemplation with confidence and trust. The 
 implication seems to be, not so much that of a 
 passive dependence as of a vigorous active commit- 
 ment. He who, in the Hebrew sense, exercises 
 faith, is secure, assured, confident (Dt 28%, Job 24”, 
 Ps 2738), and lays hold of the object of his confi- 
 dence with firm trust. 
 The most common construction of ;ox7 is with 
 the preposition 2, and in this construction its 
 damental meaning seems to be most fully ex- 
 pressed. It is probably never safe to represent 
 this phrase by the simple ‘believe’; the preposition 
 rather introduces the person or thing in which one 
 believes, or on which one believingly rests as on 
 firm ground. This is true even when the object of 
 the affection is a thing, whether divine words, 
 commandments, or works (Ps 106" 119% 78%), or 
 some earthly force or good (Job 39% 15% 24”, Dt 
 28%), It is no less true when the object is a person, 
 human (1 S 27!2, Pr 26%, Jer 12°, Mic 75) or super- 
 human (Job 418 15"), or the representative of God, 
 in whom therefore men should place their confidence 
 (Ex 19°, 2 Ch 20”). It is above all true, however, 
 when the object of the affection is God Himself, 
 and that indifferently whether or not the special 
 exercise of faith adverted to is rooted in a specific 
 occasion (Gn 15°, Ex 14%, Nu 14" 202, Dt 12, 2 K 
 
 
 
 174, 2 Ch 20, Ps 78%, Jon 35). The weaker con. 
 ception of ‘ believing’ seems, on the other hand, ta 
 lie in the construction with the preposition 4 
 which appears to introduce the person or thing, not 
 on which one confidingly rests, but to the testimony 
 of which one assentingly turns. Tkis credence 
 may be given by the simple to every untested word 
 (Pr 14%); it may be withheld until seeing takes 
 the place of believing (1 K 10’, 2 Ch 9°); it is due 
 to words of the Lord and of His messengers, as 
 well as to the signs wrought by them (Ps 106%, Is 
 531, Ex 4% %), It may also be withheld from an 
 human speaker (Gn 45%5, Ex 41-8, Jer 40!4, 2C 
 324), but is the right of God when He bears witness 
 to His majesty or makes promises to His people 
 (Is 43%, Dt 9%). In this weakened sense of the 
 word the proposition believed is sometimes at- 
 tached to it by the conjunction ‘3 (Ex 45, Job 98, 
 La 4). In its construction with the infinitive, 
 however, its deeper meaning comes out more 
 strongly (Jg 11”, Job 15”, Ps 27}5), and the same 
 is true when the verb is used absolutely (Ex 4°}, Is 
 79 2816, Ps 116, Job 29%, Hab 15). In these con- 
 structions faith is evidently the assurance of things 
 hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 
 
 o hiphilate noun from this root occurs in OT. 
 This circumstance need not in itself possess signi- 
 
 ‘ficance ; the notions of ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness’ 
 
 lie close to one another, and are not uncommonly 
 expressed by a single term (so iors, fides, faith). 
 As a matter of fact, however, ‘faith,’ in its active 
 sense, can barely be accounted an OT term. It 
 occurs in AV of OT only twice: Dt 32 where it 
 represents the Heb. pox, and Hab 24 where it stands 
 for the Heb. nxox; and it would seem to be really 
 demanded in no passage but Hab 24. The very 
 point of this passage, however, is the sharp con- 
 trast which is drawn between arrogant self-suffi- 
 ciency and faithful dependence on God. The 
 purpose of the verse is to give a reply to the 
 prophet’s inquiry as to God’s righteous dealings 
 with the Chaldeans. Since it is by faith that the 
 righteous man lives, the arrogant Chaldean, 
 whose soul is puffed up and not straight within 
 him, cannot but be destined to destruction. The 
 whole drift of the broader context bears out this 
 meaning; for throughout this prophecy the Chal- 
 dzean is ever exhibited as the type of insolent self- 
 assertion (17-1-16)| in contrast with which the 
 righteous appear, certainly not as men of in- 
 tegrity and steadfast faithfulness, but as men who 
 look in faith to God and trustingly depend upon 
 His arm. The obvious reminiscence of Gn 15® 
 throws its weight into the same scale, to which 
 may be added the consent of the Jewish expositors 
 of the passage. Here we have, therefore, thrown 
 into a clear light the contrasting characteristics of 
 the wicked, typified by the Chaldzan, and of the 
 righteous: of the one the fundamental trait is 
 Ble gabiclancy: of the other, faith. This faith, 
 which forms the distinctive feature of the righteous 
 man, and by which he obtains life, is obviously no 
 mere assent. It is a profound and abiding disposi- 
 tion, an ingrained attitude of mind and heart 
 towards God which affects and gives character to all 
 the activities. Here only the term occurs in OT; 
 but on this its sole occurrence it rises to the full 
 height of its most pregnant meaning. 
 
 The extreme rarity of the noun ‘faith’ in OT 
 may prepare us to note that even the verb ‘to 
 believe’ is far from common init. In a religious 
 
 application it occurs in only some thirteen OT 
 books, and less than a score and a half times. The 
 thing believed is sometimes a specific word or 
 work of God (La 42, Hab 15), the fact of a divine 
 revelation (Ex 4°, Job 91°), or the words or com- 
 mandments of God in general (with 2 Ps 106" 
 In Ex 19° and 2 Ch 20” God’s prophets 
 
 119%). 
 

 
 828 
 
 FAITH 
 
 
 
 are the object of His peony confidence. God 
 Himself is the object to which they believingly 
 turn, or on whom they rest in assured trust, in 
 some eleven cases. In two of these it is to Him 
 as a faithful witness that faith believingly turns 
 (Dt 9%, Is 43). In the remainder of them it 
 is upon His very person that faith rests in 
 assured confidence (Gn 15%, Ex 14%, Nu 141 2022, 
 Dt 153, 2K 1714, 2Ch 20”, Ps 7872, Jon 35). It isin 
 these instances, in which the construction is with 
 3, together with those in which the word is used 
 absolutely (Ex 4°, Is 7° 2818, Ps 116"), to which 
 may be added Ps 27!% where it is construed with 
 the infinitive, that the conception of religious be- 
 lieving comes toits rights. The typical instance is, 
 of course, the great word of Gn 15°, ‘And Abram 
 believed in the LorD, and he counted it to him for 
 righteousness’; in which all subsequent believers, 
 Jewish and Christian alike, have found the primary 
 example of faith. The object of Abram’s faith, as 
 here set forth, was not the promise which appears 
 as the occasion of its exercise ; what it rested on 
 was God Himself, and that not merely as the giver 
 of the promise here recorded, but as His servant’s 
 shield and exceeding great reward (161). It is 
 therefore not the assensive but the fiducial element 
 of faith which is here emphasized ; in a word, the 
 faith which Abram gave J” when he ‘ put his trust 
 in God’ (érlorevoev 7G Oe, LXX), was the same 
 faith which later He sought in vain at the hands 
 of His people (Nu 14”, ef. Dt 1%, 2K 1714), and the 
 notion of which the Psalmist explains in the 
 parallel, ‘They believed not in God, and trusted 
 not in his salvation’ (Ps 78”). To believe in God, 
 in the OT sense, is thus not merely to assent to 
 His word, but with firm and unwavering confidence 
 to rest in security and trustfulness upon Him. 
 
 In the Greek of the LX X morevew takes its place 
 as the regular rendering of }px7, and is very rarely 
 * set aside in favour of another word expressing trust 
 (Pr 26% welOecOa). In a few cases, however, it is 
 strengthened by composition with a preposition 
 (Dt 1°, Jg 11%, 2Ch 20”, ef. Sir 155 2 etc., 1 Mac 
 1% 716 ete., éumirretew ; Mic 7°, xaramiorevew) ; and 
 in a few others it is construed with prepositions 
 (@v run, Jer 128, Ps 782, Dn 6%, 1S 2712, 2 Ch 20, 
 Mic 75, Sir 357; ért ria, Is 2878 (2), 3 Mac 27; esl 
 tut, Wis 127; ets riva, Sir 38°; xard ria, Job 418 
 1515 2422), 
 
 It was by being thus made the vehicle for ex- 
 pressing the high religious faith of OT that the 
 word was prepared for its NT use. For it had the 
 slightest possible connexion with religious faith in 
 classical speech. Resting ultimately on a root 
 with the fundamental sense of ‘binding,’ and 
 standing in classical Greek as the common term 
 for ‘ trusting,’ ‘putting faith in,’ ‘relying upon,’ 
 shading down into ‘believing,’ it was rather too 
 strong a term for ordinary use of that ungenial rela- 
 tion to the gods which was characteristic of Greek 
 thought, and which was substantively expressed 
 by wlorts—the proper acknowledgment in thought 
 and act of their existence and rights. For this 
 voultey was the usual term, and the relative 
 strength of the two terms may be observed in 
 their use in the opening sections of Xenophon’s 
 Memorabilia (1.i. 1 and 5), where Socrates is charged 
 with not believing in the gods whom the city 
 owned (voulfe rods Geovs), but is affirmed to have 
 stood in a much more intimate relation to them, 
 to have trusted in them (micrevev rots Oeois). Some- 
 thing of the same depth of meaning may lurk in 
 the exhortation of the Epinomis (980 C), IMrevcas 
 tots Oeois etxov. But ordinarily morevew rots Oeois 
 appears as the synonym of voulfew rods Peovs, and 
 imports merely the denial of atheism (Plut. de 
 Superst. ii.; Arist. Rhet. ii. 17). It was only by 
 
 its adoption by the writers of the LXX to express 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 the faith of OT that it was fitted to take its placa 
 in NT as the standing designation of the attitude 
 of the man of faith towards God. 
 
 This service the LXX could not perform for lori 
 also, owing to the almost complete absence of the 
 noun ‘faith’ in the active sense from OT; but it was 
 due to a Hellenistic development on the basis of OT 
 religion, and certainly not without influence from 
 Gn 15° and Hab 2‘ that this term, too, was prepared 
 for NT use. In classical Greek wio7is is applied to 
 belief in the gods chiefly as implying that such 
 belief rests rather on trust than on sight (Plut. 
 Mor. 756 B). Though there is no suggestion in 
 this of weakness of conviction (for tlaT1s expresses 
 a strong conviction, and is therefore used in con- 
 trast with ‘impressions’), yet the word, when 
 referring to the gods, very rarely rises above 
 intellectual conviction into its naturally more con- 
 genial region of moral trust (Soph. Oed. Rem, 146, 
 147). That this, its fuller and more characteristic 
 meaning, should come to its rights in the religious 
 sphere, it was necessary that it should be trans- 
 ferred into a new religious atmosphere. The 
 usage of Philo bears witness that it thus came to 
 its rights on the lips of the Greek-speaking Jews. 
 It is going too far, to be sure, to say that Philo’s 
 usage of ‘faith’ is scarcely distinguishable from 
 that of NT writers. The gulf that separates the 
 two is very wide, and has not been inaptly described 
 by saying that with Philo, faith, as the queen of 
 the virtues, is the righteousness of the righteous 
 man, while with St. Paul, as the abnegation of 
 all claim to virtue, it is the righteousness of the un- 
 righteous. Butit is of the utmost significance that, 
 in the pages of Philo, the conception is filled with 
 a content which far transcends any usage ot the 
 word in heathen Greek, and which is a refraction 
 of the religious conceptions of OT. Fundamental 
 to his idea of it as the crowning virtue of the godly 
 man, to be attained only with the supremest 
 difficulty, especially by creatures akin to mortal 
 things, is his conception of it as essentially a 
 changeless, unwavering ‘standing by God’ (Dt 5*) 
 —hbinding us to God, to the exclusion of eve 
 other object of desire, and making us one wit 
 Him. It has lost that soteriological content which 
 is the very heart of faith in OT ; though there does 
 not absolutely fail an occasional reference to God 
 as Saviour, it is, with Philo, rather the Divinity, rd 
 év, upon which faith rests, than the God of grace 
 and salvation; and it therefore stands with him, 
 not at the beginning but at the end of the 
 religious life. But we can perceive in the usage 
 of Philo a development on Jewish ground of a use 
 of the word lcris to describe that complete detach- 
 ment from earthly things, and that firm convic- 
 tion of the reality and supreme significance of the 
 things not seen, which underlies its whole NT use. 
 
 The disparity in the use of the terms ‘faith’ 
 and ‘ believe’ in the two Testaments is certainly in 
 a formal aspect very great. In contrast with their 
 extreme rarity in OT, they are both, though some- 
 what unevenly distributed and varying in relative 
 frequency, distinctly characteristic of the whole 
 NT language, and oddly enough occur about 
 equally often (about 240 times each). The verb is 
 lacking only in Col, Philem, 2 P, 2and 3 Jn, and 
 the Apocalypse; the noun onlyin the Gospel of John 
 and 2 and 3 Jn: both fail only in 2 and 3 Jn. 
 The noun predominates not only in the epistles of 
 St. Paul, where the proportion is about three to 
 one, and in St. James (about five to one), but 
 very markedly in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 (about sixteen to one). In St. John, on the other 
 hand, the verb is very frequent, while the noun 
 oceurs only once in 1 Jn and four times in the 
 Apocalypse. In the other books the proportion 
 between the two is less noteworthy, and may 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 FAITH 
 
 
 
 
 
 FAITH 829 
 
 
 
 fairly be accounted accidental. In OT, again, 
 ‘faith’ occurs in the active sense in but a single 
 passage; in NT it is the passive sense which is 
 rare. In OT in only about half the instances of 
 its occurrence is the verb ‘to believe’ used in a 
 religious sense; in NT it has become so clearly 
 a technical religious term, that it occurs very 
 rarely in any other sense. The transitive usage, in 
 which it expresses entrusting something to someone, 
 occurs a few times both in the active (Lk 16", Jn 2%) 
 and the rag (Rev 37, 1 Co 92”, Gal 2’, 1 Th 24, 
 1 Ti 1”, Tit 1°); but besides this special case there 
 are very few instances in which the word does not 
 express religious believing, possibly only the fol- 
 lowing : Jn 98, Ac 97, 1 Co 1138, Mt 24%: 2%) Mk 132, 
 2 Th 24, cf. Ac 13% 154, Jn 47, 1 Jn 4. The 
 classical construction with the simple dative which 
 prevails in the LXX retires in NT in favour of 
 constructions with prepositions and the absolute 
 use of the verb; the construction with the dative 
 occurs about forty-five times, while that with 
 Epo uons occurs some sixty-three times, and the 
 verb is used absolutely some ninety-three times. 
 When construed with the dative, morevew in NT 
 prevailingly expresses believing assent, though 
 ordinarily in a somewhat pregnant sense. When 
 its object is a thing, it is usually the spoken 
 (Lk 1”, Jn 4° 547 12%, Ro 10%, cf. 2 Th 2") or 
 written (Jn 2 547, Ac 24! 267”) word of God; 
 once it is divine works which should convince the 
 onlooker of the divine mission of the worker 
 (Jn 10%). When its object is a person it is rarely 
 another than God or Jesus (Mt 21% *, Mk 11%, 
 Lk 20°, Jn 5“, Ac 8, 1 Jn 4), and more rarely 
 God (Jn 5%, Ac 16% 27%, Ro 4707, Gal 3°, Tit 3°, 
 Ja 23, 1 Jn 5) than Jesus (Jn 47) 5%: 46 630 931. 45. 46 
 107-83 141, Ac 178, 2 Ti 12). Among these pas- 
 sages there are not lacking some, both when the 
 object is a person and when it is a thing, in which 
 the higher sense of devoted, believing trust is con- 
 veyed. In 1 Jn 3%, for example, we are obviously 
 to translate, not ‘believe the name,’ but ‘believe 
 in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ,’ for in this 
 is summed up the whole Godward side of Christian 
 duty. So there is no reason to question that the 
 words of Gn 15° are adduced in Ro 4?, Gal 3°, 
 Ja 2 in the deep sense which they bear in OT 
 text ; and this deeper religious faith can scarcely be 
 excluded from the belief in God adverted to in 
 Ac 16%, Tit 38 (cf. Jn 5%), or from the belief in 
 Jesus adverted to in 2 Ti 1)? (cf. Jn 5® 6), and is 
 obviously the prominent conception in the faith of 
 Crispus declared in Ac 18°. The passive form of 
 this construction occurs only twice—once of believ- 
 ing assent (2 Th 1”), and once with the highest 
 implications of confiding trust (1 Ti 3%). The few 
 passages in which the construction is with the 
 accusative (Jn 11%, Ac 131, 1 Co 1118 13’, 1 Jn 4) 
 take their natural place along with the commoner 
 usage with the dative, and need not express more 
 than crediting, although over one or two of them 
 there floats a shadow of a deeper implication. 
 The same may be said of the cases of attraction 
 in Ro 4” and 104%. And with these weaker 
 constructions must be pAneed also the passages, 
 twenty in all (fourteen of which occur in the 
 writings of St. John), in which what is believed is 
 joined to the verb by the conjunction én. In a 
 couple of these the matter believed scarcely rises 
 into the religious sphere (Jn 918, Ac 9%); in a 
 couple more there is specific reference to prayer 
 (Mk 11%-%); in yet a couple more it is general 
 faith in God which is in mind (He 11°, Ja 2"). 
 In the rest, what is believed is of immediately 
 soteriological import—now the possession by Jesus 
 of a special power (Mt 978), now the central fact of 
 His saving work (Ro 10°, 1 Th 4"4), now the ve 
 hinge of the Christian hope (Ro 6%), but prevail- 
 
 
 
 ingly the divine mission and personality of Jesus 
 Himself (SmiG’84eU 1214) 1310 51410) 1 62% 90) 178. at OO aL 
 1 Jn 5!-5). By their side we may recall also the 
 rare construction with the infinitive (Ac 15", 
 Ro 14?), 
 
 When we advance to the constructions with 
 prepositions, we enter a region in which the deeper 
 sense of the word—that of firm, trustful reliance 
 —comes to its full rights. The construction with 
 év, which is the most frequent of the constructions 
 with prepositions in the LXX, retires almost cut 
 of use in NT; it occurs with certainty only in 
 Mk 1%, where the object of faith is ‘the gospel,’ 
 though Jn 3, Eph 1° may also be instances of it, 
 where the object would be Christ. The implica- 
 tion of this construction would seem to be firm 
 fixedness of confidence in its object. Scarcely 
 more common is the parallel construction of él 
 with the dative, expressive of steady, resting 
 repose, reliance upon the object. Besides the 
 
 uotation from Is 28%, which appears alike in 
 
 o 9 104, 1 P 2%, this construction occurs only 
 twice: Lk 24%, where Jesus rebukes His followers 
 for not ‘ believing on,’ relying implicitly upon, all 
 that the prophets have spoken ; and 1 Ti 1°, where 
 we are declared to ‘ believe on’ Jesus Christ unto 
 salvation, i.e. to obtain salvation by relying upon 
 Him for it. The constructions with prepositions 
 governing the accusative, which invulve an impli- 
 cation of ‘moral motion, mental direction towards,’ 
 are more frequently used. That with éri, indeed, 
 occurs only seven times (four of which are in 
 Ac). In two instances in Ro 4, where the reminis- 
 cence of the faith of Abraham gives colour to the 
 language, the ePicet on which faith is thus said 
 relyingly to lay hold is God, described, however, 
 as savingly working through Christ—as He that 
 justifies the ungodly, He that raised Jesus our 
 
 ord from the dead. Elsewhere its object is Christ . 
 Himself. In Mt 27 the Jewish leaders declare 
 the terms on which they will become ‘believers 
 on’ Jesus; in Ac 16*! this is the form that is given 
 to the proclamation of salvation by faith in Christ 
 —‘turn with confident trust to Jesus Christ’; 
 and appropriately, therefore, it is in this form of 
 expression that those are designated who have 
 savingly believed on Christ (Ac 9” 1177 22), The 
 special Mr construction, however, is that with eds, 
 which occurs some forty-nine times, about four- 
 fifths of which are Johannine and the remainder 
 more or less Pauline. The object towards which 
 faith is thus said to be rohantty directed is in one 
 unique instance ‘the witness which God hath 
 witnessed concerning his Son’ (1 Jn 5"), where 
 we may well believe that ‘belief in the truth of 
 the witness is carried on to personal belief in the 
 object of the witness, that is, the Incarnate Son 
 Himself.’ Elsewhere the object believed on, in 
 this construction, is always a person, and that 
 very rarely God (Jn 14}, ef. 1 Jn 5, and also 
 1 P 121, where, however, the true reading is prob- 
 ably morovs els Oedv), and most commonly Christ 
 (ME 188, Jn QM 3l6- 18.96 439 G29. 9. 40 75. 31. 38, 39. 48 g3v 
 935. 86 10% 1]*- 25. 45. 48 121. B7. 42. 44, 44. 46 14)- 12 16° 17”, 
 AC 10571447104 Ss Roose Gall 252 Phy 1 eee 
 1 Jn 5", cf. Jn 12% 112 27318, 1 Jn 5%). A glance 
 over these. passages will bring clearly out the 
 pregnancy of the meaning conveyed. tt may be 
 more of a question wherein the pregnancy resides. 
 It is probably sufficient to find it in the sense 
 conveyed by the verb itself, while the preposition 
 adjoins only the person towards whom the strong 
 feeling expressed by the verb is directed. In any 
 
 event, what these passages express is ‘an absolute 
 transference of trust from ourselves to another,’ 
 a complete self-surrender to Christ. 
 
 Some confirmation of this explanation of the 
 strong meaning of the phrase miorevew els may ba 
 
 
 
— 
 
 
 
 
 
 830 FAITH 
 
 
 
 derived from the very rich use of the verb abso- 
 lutely, in a sense in no way inferior. Its absolute 
 use 1s pretty evenly distributed through the NT, 
 occurring 29 times in John, 23 times in Paul, 22 
 times in Acts, 15 times in the Synoptics, and once 
 each in Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and Jude; it is 
 placed on the lips of Jesus some 18 times. In 
 surprisingly few of these instances is it used of a 
 non-religious act of crediting,—apparently only in 
 our Lord’s warning to His followers not to believe 
 when men say ‘‘‘Lo, here is the Christ,” or 
 “here”? (Mt 24% 6, Mk 1371). In equally surpris- 
 ingly few instances is it used of specific acts of 
 faith in the religious sphere. Once it is used of 
 assent given to a specific doctrine—that of the 
 unity of God (Ja 2°). Once it is used of believing 
 prayer (Mt 21%). Four times in a single chapter 
 of John it is used of belief in a specific fact—the 
 great fact central to Christianity of the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ (Jn 208 5-29.29), Jt is used occasion- 
 ally of belief in God’s announced word (Lk 1“, Ac 
 26°’), and occasionally also of the credit given to 
 specific testimonies of Jesus, whether with refer- 
 ence to earthly or heavenly things (Jn 31}? 1°, 
 Lk 22%), passing thence to general faith in the 
 word of salvation (Lk 8! 12), Twice it is used of 
 general soteriological faith in God (Jude5, Ro 48), 
 and a few times, with the same pregnancy of im- 
 lication, where the reference, whether to God or 
 ‘hrist, is more or less uncertain (Jn 17, Ro 4", 2 Co 
 418.18), Ordinarily, however, it expresses soterio- 
 logical faith directed to the person of Christ. “In 
 a few instances, to be sure, the immediate trust 
 expressed is in the extraordinary power of Jesus 
 for the performance of earthly effects (the so-called 
 ‘miracle faith’), as in Mt 88, Mk 5%6 978-4, Tk 850, 
 Jn 4811; but the essential relation in which this 
 faith stands to ‘saving faith’ is clearly exhibited 
 in Jn 4® compared with v.® and 9%, and Jn 11” 
 compared with v.% and 12%; and, in any case, 
 these passages are insignificant in number when 
 compared with the great array in which the refer- 
 ence is distinctly to saving faith in Christ (Mk 9% 
 15% [Jn 315], In Bis 441. 42.63 544 G36. 47. 64. 64 Q38 1()25. 26 
 1]55 1289 1479 161 195 203, Ae 944 44. 82 54 gis 1121 
 1312. 89, 48 141 155+ 7 1712: 34 188 27 19? 18 9) 20. =. Ro 116 322 
 10* 2 131 153; 1 Co 17 35 144 15= 4S Gal 322) Eph 
 oS Re OTM BUS Sete LP | Y 
 survey of these passages will show very clearly that 
 in the NT ‘to believe’ is a technical term to ex- 
 press reliance on Christ for salvation. In a number 
 of them, to be sure, the object of the believing 
 spoken of is sufficiently defined by the context, 
 but, without contextual indication of the object, 
 enough remain to bear out this suggestion. 
 Accordingly, a tendency is betrayed to use the 
 ae participle very much as a verbal noun, 
 with the meaning of ‘ Christian’: in Mk 9%, Ac 112, 
 1Co 17, Eph 1%, 1 Th 1” 2-38 the participial 
 construction is evident; it may be apace’ how- 
 ever, whether of mrevcavres is not used as a noun 
 in such passages as Ac 24 4%, 2 Th 1, He 4°; and 
 in Ac 5 micrevovres is perhaps generally recognized 
 as used substantively. Before the disciples were 
 called ‘Christians’ (Ac 11°, cf. 2678, 1 P 416) it 
 would seem, then, that they were called ‘be- 
 lievers, —those who had turned to Christ in trust- 
 ing reliance (ol micrevcayres), or those who were 
 resting on Christ in trusting reliance (ol movev- 
 ovres); and that the undefined ‘to believe’ had 
 come to mean to become or to be a Christian, that 
 is, to turn to or rest on Christ in reliant trust. 
 The occasional use of of miorof in an equivalent 
 sense (Ac 10%, Eph 1, 1 Ti 4% ?, 1 P 12 Rev 17%), 
 for which the way was prepared by the compara- 
 tively frequent use of this adjective in the classic- 
 ally rare active sense (Jn 12”, Ac 161, 1 Co 744, 2 Co 
 6, Gal 3°, 1 Ti 4" 5% 6, Tit 15), adds weight to 
 
 FAITH 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 this conclusion ; as do also the use of &moro of ‘ un- 
 believers,’ whether in the simple (1 Co 6° 732-15 10” 
 1423-24, 1 Ti 58) or deepened sense (2 Co 44 6, Tit 
 15, cf. Jn 2077, Mt 17!7, Mk 9}%, Lk 9%), and the 
 related usage of the words dmugrla (Mk 9% (164), Mt 
 13°58, Mk 6%, Ro 47° 11% 23, 1 Ti 133, He 34), dmioréw 
 (Mk 16405, Lk 241-4, Ac 99%, 1 P97), and éyb- 
 mioros (Mt 6% 876 143! 168, Lk 12%), éd\vyororla 
 (Mt 17”). 
 
 The impression which is thus derived from the 
 usage of morevew is only deepened by attending 
 to that of lor. As already intithated, wlons | 
 occurs in NT very rarely in its passive sense of | 
 ‘faithfulness,’ ‘integrity ’ (Ro 3 of God; Mt 23%, 
 Gal 5”, Tit 2, of men; cf. 1 Ti 5% ‘a pledge’; 
 Ac 173! ‘assurance’; others add 1 Ti 6", 2 Ti 2" 
 3, Philem5). And nowhere in the multitude of 
 its occurrences in its active sense is it applied to 
 man’s faith in man, but always to the religious 
 trust that reposes on God, or Christ, or divine 
 things. The specific object on which the trust 
 rests is but Sole explicitly expressed. In some — 
 six of these instances it is a thing, but always 
 something of the fullest soteriological signifi- 
 cance—the gospel of Christ (Ph 1%), the saving 
 truth of God (2 Th 2”), the working of God who 
 raised Jesus from the dead (Col 2}, ef. Ac 14° 318), 
 
 the name of Jesus (Ac 318), the blood of Jesus i 
 
 (Ro 3%), the righteousness of Jesus (2 P 17). Inas 
 many more the object is God, and the conception 
 is prevailingly that of general trust in God (Mk 11%, 
 Ro 14%, 1 Th 18, He 6}, 1 P 17), cf. Col 27). In most 
 instances, however, the object is specified as Christ, | 
 and the faith is very pointe y soteriological | 
 (Ac 202! 2424 2618, Gal 216-16 20) Ro 322-26, Gal 32% 26) | 
 
 Eph 115 312 418 Ph 3°, Col 14 2°, 1 Ti 14 3%, 2 Ti 
 
 3, Philem5, Ja 21, Rev 2 1412). Its object is most 
 frequently joined to lors as an objective genitive, 
 a construction occurring some seventeen times, 
 twelve of which fall in the writings of Paul. In 
 four of them the genitive is that of the thing, viz, | 
 in Ph 1” the gospel, in 2 Th 2 the saving truth, in | 
 
 Col 2” the almighty working of God, and in Ac 3 | 
 
 the name of Jesus. In one of them it is God (Mk 
 11%), The certainty that the genitive is that of © 
 object in these cases is decisive with reference to its — 
 nature in the remaining cases, in which Jesus Christ | 
 is set forth as the object on which faith rests (Ro 
 322-26, Ga] 216-16. 20 322 Eph 319 418, Ph 3°, Ja 2), Rev 
 
 21314"). Next most frequently its object is joined 
 to faith by means of the preposition é» (9 times), — 
 by which it is set forth as the basis on which 
 faith rests, or the sphere of its operation. In two | 
 of these instances the object is a thing—the blood ~ 
 or righteousness of Jesus (Ro 3%, 2 P11); in the | 
 rest it is Christ Himself who is presented as the | 
 ground of faith (Gal 36, Eph 115, Col 14,1 Ti 143%, — 
 2 Ti 13 3%). Somewhat less frequently (5 times) — 
 its object is joined to wloris by means of the pre- | 
 position els, designating, apparently, merely the 
 object with reference to which fait 
 (cf. especially Ac 207); the object thus specified — 
 for faith is in one instance God (1 P 1”), and in | 
 the others Christ (Ac 207! 2474 268, Col 25). By the | 
 side of this construction should doubtless be placed 
 the two instaaces in which the preposition mpés is 
 used, by which faith is said to look and adhere to 
 God (1 Th 1*) or to Christ (Philem °). 
 practically in the same sense that in a single in- 
 stance God is joined to rla7s by means of the pre- — 
 position ér{ as the object to which it restingly 
 
 turns. It would seem that the pregnant sense of — 
 miorts as self-abandoning trust was so fixed in 
 
 Christian speech that little was left to be expressed | 
 
 by the mode of its adjunction to its object. Rn 
 Accordingly, the use of the word without speci- | 
 fied object is vastly preponderant. 
 
 is exercised | 
 
 And it is | 
 
 In a few | 
 of such instances we may see a specific reference | 
 
 
 
=~ 
 
 pe 
 
 =e 1" 
 
 oe es  ——. Se © 
 
 eee ee ee ee eee eee ee 
 
 FAITH 
 
 
 
 to the general confidence which informs believing 
 prayer (Lk 188, Ja 1°5!5), In a somewhat greater 
 number there is special reference to faith in Jesus 
 as a worker of wonders—the so-called ‘miracle 
 faith’ (Mt 8! 9% 22-29 158 [172] [2122], Mk 2 4% 584 
 10°, Lk 5” 79 8% 4 1719 18! Ac 316 149)although 
 how little this faith can be regarded as non-soterio- 
 logical the language of Mt 92, Mk 25, Lk 5” shows, 
 as well as the parallelism between Lk 7” (cf. 8% 
 17") and Mt 9%, Mk 5%, The immense mass of 
 the passages in which the undefined zicris occurs, 
 however, are distinctly soteriological, and that in- 
 differently whether its implied object be God or 
 Christ. Its implied reference is indeed often ex- 
 tremely difficult to fix; though the passages in 
 which it may, with some confidence, be referred 
 to Christ are in number about double those in 
 which it may, with like confidence, be referred to 
 God. The degree of clearness with which an im- 
 plied object is pointed to in the context varies, 
 naturally, very greatly ; but in a number of cases 
 there is no direct hint of object in the context, but 
 this is left to be supplied by the general knowledge 
 of the reader. And this is as much as to say that 
 wioris is so used as to imply that it had already 
 become a Christian technical term, which needed no 
 further definition that it might convey its full sense 
 of saving faith in Jesus Christ to the mind of every 
 reader. This tendency to use it as practically a 
 synonym for ‘Christianity’ comes out sharply in 
 such a pies as ol éx micrews (Gal 37-), which is 
 obviously a paraphrase for ‘believers.’ A transi- 
 tional form of the phrase meets us in Ro 3%, ray éx 
 alorews 'Inood; that the Ijcod could fall away and 
 leave the simple of é« mlcrews standing for the 
 whole idea, is full of implications as to the sense 
 which the simple undefined wicrs had acquired in 
 the circles which looked to Jesus for salvation. 
 The same implications underlie the so-called objec- 
 tive use of ric7is in the NT. That in such pas- 
 rages as Ac 67, Gal 1% 3% 6, Ph 1%, Jude ™ it 
 conveys the idea of ‘ the Christian religion’ appears 
 plain on the face of the passages; and by their 
 side can be placed such others as the following, 
 which seem transitional to them, viz. : Ac 16°, 1 Co 
 163, Col 13, 1 Ti 19 4-6 58% Tit D3, and, at a 
 slightly further remove, such others as Ac 13°, Ro 
 Pe Gee Hl eli 316.922, 2:71 3° 47, Tit 14 3%, 
 1P5*. It is not necessary to suppose that rlor:s is 
 used in any of these passages as doctrina fidei ; it 
 seems possible to carry through them all the con- 
 ception of ‘subjective taith conceived of objectively 
 as a power,’—even through those in Jude and 
 1 Timothy, which are more commonly than any 
 others aa bala as meaning doctrina fidei. But 
 this generally admitted objectivizing of subjective 
 faith makes riors, as truly asif it were understood as 
 doctrina fidei, on the verge of which it in any case 
 trembles, a synonym for ‘the Christian religion.’ 
 It is only a question whether ‘the Christian re- 
 ligion’ is designated in it from the side of doctrine 
 or life ; though it be from the point of view of life, 
 still ‘the faith’ has become a synonym for ‘ Christi- 
 anity,’ ‘ believers’ for ‘ Christians,’ ‘ to believe’ for 
 ‘to Desome a Christian,’ and we may trace a de- 
 velopment by means of which zicrs has come to 
 mean the religion which is marked by and consists 
 easentially in ‘believing.’ That this development 
 so rapidly took place is significant of much, and 
 supplies a ready explanation of such passages as 
 Gal 32-25, in which the phrases ‘before the faith 
 
 came’ and ‘now that faith is come’ probably mean 
 little more than before and after the advent of 
 ‘Christianity’ into the world. On the ground of 
 such a usage, we may at least re-aflirm with in- 
 creased confidence that the idea of ‘faith’ is con- 
 ceived of in the NT as the characteristic idea of 
 Christianity, and that it does not import mere 
 
 
 
 
 
 FAITH 83] 
 
 
 
 ‘belief’ in an intellectual sense, but all «hat enters 
 into an entire self-commitment of the soul tc 
 Jesus as the Son of God, the Saviour of the 
 world, 
 
 II. THE HISTORICAL PRESENTATION OF FAITH. 
 —It lies on the very surface of the NT that its 
 writers were not conscious of a chasm between the 
 fundamental principle of the religious life of the 
 saints of the old covenant and the faith by which 
 they themselves lived. To them, too, Abraham is 
 the typical example of a true believer (Ro 4, Gal 3, 
 He 11, Ja2); a) in their apprehension ‘ those who 
 are of faith,’ that is, ‘Christians,’ are by that very 
 fact constituted Abraham’s sons (Gal 37, Ro 438), 
 and receive their blessing only along with that 
 ‘believer’ (Gal 3°) in the steps of whose faith it 
 is that they are walking (Ro 4'*) when they believe 
 on Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead 
 (Ro 4%). And not only Abraham, but the whole 
 series of OT heroes are conceived by them to be 
 examples of the same faith which was required of 
 them ‘unto the gaining of the soul’ (He 11). 
 Wrought in them by the same Spirit (2 Co 4"), 
 it produced in them the same fruits, and consti- 
 tuted them a ‘cloud of witnesses’ by whose 
 testimony we should be stimulated to run our own 
 race with like patience in dependence on Jesus, 
 ‘the author and finisher of our faith’ (He 12’). 
 Nowhere is the demand of faith treated as a 
 novelty of the new covenant, or is there a distine- 
 tion drawn between the faith of the two covenants ; 
 everywhere the sense of continuity is prominent 
 (Jn 54 46 1298. 99. 44, ] P 28), and the ‘proclamation 
 of faith’ (Gal 37-5, Ro 10'*) is conceived as essen- 
 tially one in both dispensations, under both ot 
 which the law reigns that ‘the just shall live by 
 his faith’ (Hab 24, Ro 127, Gal 3", He 10%). Nor 
 do we need to penetrate beneath the surface of 
 the OT to perceive the justice of this NT view. 
 Despite the infrequency of the occurrence on its 
 pages of the terms ‘ faith,’ ‘ to believe,’ the religion 
 of the OT is obviously as fundamentally a religion 
 of faith as is that of the NT. There is a sense, to 
 be sure, in which all religion presupposes faith 
 (He 11°), and in this broad sense the religion of 
 Israel, too, necessarily rested on faith. But the 
 religion of Israel was a religion of faith in a far 
 more specific sense than this ; and that not merely 
 because faith was more consciously its foundation, 
 but because its very essence consisted in faith, and 
 this faith was the same radical self-commitment to 
 God, not merely as the highest good of the holy 
 soul, but as the gracious Saviour of the sinner, 
 which meets us as the characteristic feature of 
 the religion of the NT. Between the faith of 
 the two Testaments there exists, indeed, no fur- 
 ther difference than that which the progress of 
 the historical working out of redemption brought 
 with it. 
 
 The hinge of OT religion from the very beginning 
 turns on the facts of man’s sin (Gn 3) and conse- 
 quent unworthiness (Gn 37°), and of God’s grace 
 (Gn 315) and consequent saving activity (Gn 34 45 
 68-3), This saving activity presents itself from 
 the very beginning also under the form of promise 
 or covenant, the radical idea of which is naturall 
 faithfulness on the part of the promising God seri 
 the answering attitude of faith on the part of 
 the receptive people. Face to tace with a holy 
 God, the sinner has no hope except in the free 
 mercy of God, and can be authorized to trust in 
 that mercy only by express assurance. Accord- 
 ingly, the only cause of salvation is from the first 
 the pitying love of God (Gn 3% 871), which freely 
 grants benefits to man ; while on man’s part there 
 is never question of merit or of a strength by which 
 he may prevail (1 S 2°), but rather a constant sense 
 of unworthiness (Gn 32"), by virtue of which 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 832 FAITH 
 
 
 
 humility appears from the first as the keynote of 
 OT piety. In the earlier portions of the OT, to be 
 sure, there is little abstract statement of the ideas 
 which ruled the hearts and lives of the servants of 
 God. The essence of patriarchal religion is rather 
 exhibited to us in action. But from the very 
 beginning the distinctive feature of the life of the 
 pious is that it is a life of faith, that its regulative 
 principle is drawn, not from the earth but from 
 above. Thus the first recorded human acts after 
 the Fall—the naming of Eve, and the birth and 
 naming of Cain—are expressive of trust in God’s 
 promise that, though men should die for their sins, 
 yet man should not perish from the earth, but 
 should triumph over the tempter; in a word, in 
 the great promise of the Seed (Gn 3%). Simi- 
 larly, the whole story of the Flood is so ordered as 
 to throw into relief, on the one hand, the free 
 grace of God in His dealings with Noah (Gn 6* #8 
 81: 21 98), and, on the other, the determination of 
 Noah’s whole life by trust in God and His 
 promises (Gn 6” 75 9), The open declaration 
 of the faith-principle of Abraham’s life (Gn 15°) 
 only puts into words, in the case of him who 
 stands at the root of Israel’s whole national 
 and religious existence, what not only might 
 also be said of all the patriarchs, but what 
 actually is most distinctly said both of Abraham 
 and of them through the medium of their recorded 
 history. The entire patriarchal narrative is set 
 forth with the design and effect of exhibiting the 
 life of the servants of God as a life of faith, and it 
 is just by the fact of their implicit self-commit- 
 ment to God that throughout the narrative the 
 servants of God are differentiated from others. 
 This does not mean, of course, that with them 
 faith took the place of obedience: an entire self- 
 commitment to God which did not show itself 
 in obedience to Him would be self-contradictory, 
 and the testing of faith by obedience is therefore a 
 marked feature of the patriarchal narra’ive. But 
 it does mean that faith was with them the pre- 
 condition of all obedience. The patriarchal re- 
 ligion is essentially a religion, not of law but of 
 
 romise, and therefore not primarily of obedience 
 
 ut of trust; the holy ae is characteristic of 
 God’s servants (Gn 5”. 4 6° 17! 24 48"), but it is 
 characteristically described as a walk ‘with God’ ; 
 its peculiarity consisted precisely in the ordering 
 of life by entire trust in God, and it expressed 
 itself in conduct growing out of this trust (Gn 3” 
 4) 622 75 818 124 178 2112.16 99), The righteousness 
 of the patriarchal age was thus but the manifesta- 
 tion in life of an entire self-commitment to God, in 
 unwavering trust in His promises. 
 
 The piety of the OT thus began with faith. And 
 though, when the stage of the law was reached, 
 the emphasis might seem to be thrown rather on 
 the obedience of faith, what has been called ‘ faith 
 in action,’ yet the giving of the law does not mark 
 a fundamental change in the religion of Israel, but 
 only a new stage in its orderly development. The 
 law-giving was not a setting aside of the religion 
 of promise, but an incident in its history; and 
 the law given was not a code of jurisprudence for 
 the world’s government, but a body of household 
 ordinances for the regulation of God’s family. It 
 is therefore itself grounded upon the promise, and 
 it grounds the whole religious life of Israel in the 
 grace of the covenant God (Ex 207), It is only 
 because Israel are the children of God, and God has 
 sanctified them unto Himself and chosen them to 
 be a peculiar people unto Him (Dt 14), that He 
 proceeds to frame them by His law for His 
 especial treasure (Ex 19°; cf. Tit 2"). Faith, 
 therefore, does not appear as one of the precepts 
 of the law, nor as a virtue superior to its precepts, 
 nor yet as a substitute for keeping them ; it vailen 
 
 FAITH 
 
 lies behind the law as its presupposition. Accord- 
 ingly, in the history of the giving of the law, faith 
 is expressly emphasized as the preeuppe a of 
 the whole relation existing between Israel and 
 J”. The signs by which Moses was accredited, 
 and all J”s deeds of power, had as their design 
 (Ex 3! 41. 5. 8 9 194. 9) and their effect (Ex 4%! 1278. # 
 14%! 248-7, Ps 106!) the working of faith in the 
 people; and their subsequent unbelief is treated 
 as the deepest crime they could commit (Nu 14, 
 Dt 1 9%, Ps 78% * 106%), as is even momentary 
 failure of faith on the part of their leaders (Nu 20”). 
 It is only as a consequent of the relation of the 
 
 eople to Him, instituted by grace on His part and 
 f faith on theirs, that J’ prone to carry out 
 
 is gracious purposes for t 
 from bondage, giving them a law for the regulation 
 of their lives, and framing them in the promised 
 land into a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. 
 In other words, it is a precondition of the law that 
 Israel’s life is not of the earth, but is hid with 
 God, and is therefore to be ordered by His precepts. 
 Its design was, therefore, not to provide a means 
 by which man might come into relation with J’, 
 but to publish the mode of life incumbent on those 
 who stand in the relation of children to J”; and it 
 is therefore that the book of the law was com- 
 manded to be put by the side of the ark of the 
 covenant of the LorD, that it might be a witness 
 against the transgressions of Israel (Dt 31°), 
 
 The effect of the law was consonant with its | 
 
 design. Many, no doubt, looked upon it in a 
 urely legalistic spirit, and sought, by scrupulous 
 ulfilment of it as a body of external precepts, to 
 
 lay the feundation of a claim on God in be of 
 
 the nation or the individual, or to realize through 
 it, as a present possession, that salvation which 
 was ever represented as something future. But, 
 just in proportion as its spirituality and inward- 
 ness were felt, it operated to deepen in Israel the 
 sense of shortcoming and sin, and to sharpen the 
 conviction that from the grace of God alone could 
 salvation be expected. This humble frame 
 
 conscious dependence on God was met by a two- 
 fold proclamation. On the one hand, the eyes of 
 
 God’s people were directed more longingly towards 
 
 the future, and, in contrast with the present failure 
 
 of Israel to realize the ordinances of life which had 
 been given it, a new a een. of grace was 
 promised in which the law of God’s kingdom 
 should be written upon the heart, and should 
 become therefore the instinctive law of life of 
 
 His people (Jer 247 313+, Ezk 36% ; ef. Ezk 16%, 
 
 J13, Hos 2%). It lay in the very nature of the 
 
 OT dispensation, in which the revelation of God 
 
 was always incomplete, the still unsolved enigmas | 
 
 of life numerous, the work of redemption unfinished, — 
 and the consummation of the kingdom ever yet to 
 come, that the eyes of the saints should be set 
 upon the future; and these deficiencies were felt 
 very early. But it also lay, in the nature of the 
 case, that the sense of them should increase as 
 time passed and the perfecting of Israel was 
 delayed, and especially as the whole national and 
 religious existence of Israel was more and more 
 put in jeopardy by assaults from without and 
 corruption from within. The essence of piety 
 came thus to be ever more plainly proclaimed as 
 consisting in such a confident trust in the God of 
 salvation as could not be confounded either by the 
 unrighteousness which reigned in Israel or by 
 J’’s judgments on Israel’s sins,—such a confidence 
 as, even in the face of the destruction of the theo- 
 cracy itself, could preserve, in enduring hope, the | 
 assurance of the ultimate realization of @od’s pur- 
 poses of good to Israel and the establishment of the 
 everlasting kingdom. Thus hopeful waiting upon 
 J” became more and more the centre of Israelitish 
 
 
 
 em, delivering them — 
 
eS See 
 
 Ee Ee ee ee 
 
 i 4 ee 
 
 os?! ee lS le 
 
 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee aS ee 
 
 FAITH 
 
 
 
 piety, and J” became before all ‘ the Hope of Israel’ 
 (Jer 148 1718 50’, ef. Ps 715). On the other hand, 
 while thus waiting for the salvation of Israel, the 
 saint must needs stay himself on God (Is 26? 50"), 
 fixing his heart on J” as the Rock of the heart 
 (Ps 7375), His people’s strength (Ps 46!) and trust 
 (Ps 40‘ 65° 715, Jer 177). Freed from all illusion of 
 earthly help, and most of all from all self-confi- 
 dence, he is meanwhile to live by faith (Hab 2%). 
 Thus, along with an ever more richly expressed 
 corporate hope, there is found also an ever more 
 richly expressed individual trust, which finds 
 natural utterance through an ample body of 
 synonyms bringing out severally the various sides 
 of that perfect commitment to God that consti- 
 tutes the essence of faith. Thus we read much of 
 trusting in, on, to God, or in His word, His 
 name, His mercy, His salvation (ma), of seeking 
 and finding refuge in God or in the shadow of His 
 wings (793), of committing ourselves to God (553), 
 setting confidence (73) in Him, looking to Him 
 (e327), relying upon Him (jyy3), staying upon Him 
 (303), setting or fixing the heart upon Him (34 p20), 
 binding our love on Him (p%n), cleaving to Him 
 (p33). So, on the hopeful side of faith, we read 
 much of hoping in God (mp), waiting on God 
 (5m), of longing for Him (3n), patiently waiting 
 for Him ($2i797), and the like. 
 
 By the aid of such expressions, it becomes 
 possible to form a somewhat clear notion of the 
 attitude towards Him which was required by J” of 
 His believing people, and which is summed up in 
 the term faith. It is a reverential (Ex 14%, Nu 
 14" 20!) and loving faith, which rests on the 
 strong basis of firm and unshaken conviction of 
 the might and grace of the covenant God and of 
 the trustworthiness of all His words, and exhibits 
 itself in confident trust in J” and unwavering 
 expectation of the fulfilment of, no doubt, all His 
 promises, but more especially of His promise of 
 salvation, and in consequent faithful and exclusive 
 adherence to Him. In one word, it consists in an 
 utter commitment of oneself to J”, with confident 
 trust in Him as guide and saviour, and assured 
 expectation of His promised salvation. It there- 
 fore stands in contrast, on the one hand, with 
 trust in self or other human help, and on the other 
 with doubt and unbelief, despondency and un- 
 faithfulness. From J” alone is salvation to be 
 looked for, and it comes from His free grace 
 alone (Dt 77 88 9°, Am 32, Hos 13°, Ezk 208, Jer 3938, 
 Mal 1°), and to those only who look solely to Him 
 for it (Is 312 57% 2816 30%, Jer 175 39!8, Ps 1188 146% 
 207,18 17%, Ps 28% 11%, Job 22%-% 31%, Ps 52°). 
 The reference of faith is accordingly in the OT 
 always distinctly soteriological; its end the 
 Messianic salvation ; and its essence a trusting, or 
 rather an entrusting of oneself to the God of salva- 
 tion, with full assurance of the fulfilment of His 
 
 acious purposes and the ultimate realization of 
 lis romise of salvation for the people and the 
 individual. Such an attitude towards the God of 
 salvation is identical with the faith of the NT, and 
 is not essentially charged by the fuller revelation 
 of God the Redeemer in the person of the pro- 
 mised Messiah. That it is comparatively seldom 
 resignated in the OT by the names of ‘faith,’ 
 ‘believing,’ seems to be due, as has been often 
 inted out, to the special place of the OT in the 
 tory of revelation, and the adaptation of its 
 whole contents and language to the particular 
 task in the establishment of the kingdom of God 
 which fell to its writers. This task turned on the 
 special temptations and difficulties of the OT stage 
 ce development, and required emphasis to be laid 
 on the majesty and jealousy of J” and on the 
 duties of reverence, sincerity, and patience. 
 Meanwhile, the faith in Him which underlies these 
 
 VOL, 1.—53 
 
 FAITH 833 
 
 
 
 duties is continually implied in their enforcement, 
 and comes to open expression in frequent paraphrase 
 and synonym, and as often in its own proper tarms 
 as is natural in the circumstances. Hepecially in 
 the great crises of the history of redemption (Gn 
 15, Ex 4° 19°, Is 7) is the fundamental requirement 
 of faith rendered ate and prominent. 
 
 On the coming of God to His people iu the per- 
 son of His Son, the promised Messianic King 
 bringing the salvation, the hope of which had for 
 s0 many ages been their support and stay, it 
 naturally became the primary task of the vehicles 
 of revelation to attract and attach God’s people to 
 the person of their Redeemer. And this task was 
 the more pressing in proportion as the form of 
 the fulfilment did not obviously correspond with 
 the promise, and especially with the expectations 
 which had grown up on the faith of the promise. 
 This fundamental function dominates the whole 
 NT, and accounts at once for the great prominence 
 in its pages of the demand for faith, by which a 
 gulf seems to be opened between it ind the OT. 
 The demand for faith in Jesus as the Redeemer so 
 long hoped for, did indeed create so wide a cloft in 
 the consciousness of the times that the term faith 
 came rapidly to be appropriated to Christianity 
 and ‘to believe’ to mean to become a Christian ; 
 so that the old covenant and the new were dis- 
 criminated from each other as the ages before and 
 after the ‘coming of faith’ (Gal 3%-*). But all this 
 does not imply that faith now for the first time 
 became the foundation of the religion of J”, but 
 only suggests how fully, in the new circumstances 
 induced by the coming of the promised Redeemer, 
 the demand for faith absorbed the whole procla- 
 mation of the gospel. In this primary concern for 
 faith the NT books all necessarily share ; but, for 
 the rest, they differ among themselves in the pro- 
 minence given to it and in the aspects in which it 
 is presented, in accordance with the place of each 
 in the historical development of the new life; and 
 that is as much as to say in accordance with the 
 historical occasion out of which each arose and the 
 special object to subserve which each was written. 
 
 Indeed, the word ‘to believe’ first appears on 
 the pages of the NT in quite OT conditions. We 
 are conscious of no distinction even in atmosphere 
 between the commendation of faith and rebuke of 
 unbelief in Exodus or the Psalms and the same 
 commendation and rebuke in the days just before 
 the ‘coming of faith’ (Lk 1-*); these are but 
 specific applications of the thesis of prophetism, 
 expressed positively in 2 Ch 20” and negatively in 
 Is 7%. Already, however, the dawn of the new day 
 has coloured the proclamation of the Baptist, the 
 essence of which Paul sums up for us as a demand 
 for faith in the Coming One (Ac 194), and which 
 John reports to us (Jn 3%). In the synoptic report 
 of the teaching of Jesus, the same purpose is the 
 dominant note. All that Jesus did and taught 
 was directed to drawing faith to Himself. Up to 
 the end, indeed, He repelled the unbelieving 
 demand that He should ‘declare plainly’ the 
 authority by which He acted and who He reall 
 was (Mt 21%, Lk 22°); but this was only that ae 
 might, in His own way, the more decidedly con- 
 found unbelief and assert His divine majesty. 
 Even when He spoke of general faith in God 
 (Mk 11”), and that confident trust which becomes 
 men approaching the Almighty in prayer (Mt 21*7|| 
 Mk 9%, Lk 18°), He did it in a way which inevit- 
 ably directed attention to His own person as the 
 representative of God onearth. And this accounts 
 for the prevalence, in the synoptic report of His 
 allusions to faith, of a reference to that exercise 
 of faith which has sometimes been somewhat 
 sharply divided from saving faith under the name 
 of ‘miracle faith’ (Mt 8% Lk 7®; Mt ®; Mt 
 

 
 834 
 
 FAITH 
 
 FAITH 
 
 
 
 97 || Mk 5%, Lk 8%; Mt 97-29; Mt 1522; Mt 17” || 
 Mk 9”; Mt 217, cf. Lk 17°; Mk 4%; Mk 5% | 
 Lk 8%; Mk 10° || Lk 18; Lk 7%). That in these 
 instances we have not a generically distinct order 
 of faith, directed to its own peculiar end, but 
 only a specific movement of that entire trust in 
 Himself which Jesus would arouse in all, seems 
 clear from the manner in which He dealt with it,— 
 now ee its exercise as a specially great ex- 
 hibition of faith quite generally spoken of (Lk 79), 
 now pointing to it as a manifestation of that 
 believing to which ‘all things are possible’ (Mk 9”), 
 now connecting with it not merely the healing of 
 the body but the forgiveness of sins (Mt 92), and 
 everywhere using it as a means of attaching the 
 confidence of men to His person as the source of 
 all good. Having come to His own, in other words, 
 Jesus took men upon the plane on which He found 
 them, and sought to lead them through the needs 
 which they felt, and the relief of which they sought 
 in Him, up to a recognition of their greater needs 
 and of His ability to give relief to them also. 
 That word of power, ‘Thy faith hath saved thee,’ 
 spoken indifferently of bodily wants and of the 
 
 eeper needs of the soul (Lk 7°), not only resulted, 
 but was intended to result, in focusing all eyes on 
 Himself as the one physician of both body and 
 soul (Mt 8”). _ Explicit references to these higher 
 results of faith are, to be sure, not very frequent 
 in the synoptic discourses, but there are quite 
 enough of them to exhibit Jesus’ specific claim to 
 be the proper object of faith for these effects also 
 (Lk 812-18 2292, Mt 18% || Mk 94, Lk 7), and to 
 prepare the way for His rebuke, after His resurrec- 
 tion, of the lagging minds of His followers, that 
 they did not understand all these things (Lk 24”- 
 “), and for His great commission to Paul to go and 
 open men’s eyes that they might receive ‘remis- 
 sion of sins and an inheritance among the sanctified 
 by faith in Him’ (Ac 2618), 
 
 It is very natural that a much fuller account of 
 Jesus’ teaching as to faith should be given in 
 the more intimate discourses which are preserved 
 by John. But in these discourses, too, His primary 
 task is to bind men to Him by faith. The chief 
 difference is that here, consonantly with the nature 
 of the discourses recorded, much more prevailing 
 stress is laid upon the higher aspects of faith, and 
 we see Jesus striving specially to attract to Him- 
 self a faith consciously set upon eternal good. Ina 
 number of instances we find ourselves in much the 
 same atmosphere as in the Synoptics (47! #4- 4854. 9%) ; 
 and the method of Jesus is the same throughout. 
 Everywhere He offers Himself as the object of faith, 
 and claims faith in Himself for the highest concerns 
 ofthesoul. But everywhere He begins at the level at 
 which He finds His hearers, and leads them upward 
 to these higher things. It is so that He deals with 
 Nathanael (1) and Nicodemus (3!2); and it is so 
 that He deals constantly with the Jews, every- 
 where requiring faith in Himself for eternal life 
 (5% 25. 88 G35. 40. 47 738 924 1(25. 86 1944. 45)" declaring 
 that faith in Him is the certain outcome of faith 
 in their own Scriptures (5** 47), is demanded by the 
 witness borne Him by God in His mighty works 
 (10*- 86-87), is involved in and is indeed identical with 
 faith in God (5% 38 64. ® 847 1944), and is the one 
 thing which God requires of them (6%), and the 
 failure of which will bring them eternal ruin (38 
 5% 6% 8%), When dealing with His followers, His 
 pone y care was to build up their faith in Him. 
 
 itness especially His solicitude for their faith in 
 the last hours of His intercourse with them. For 
 the faith they had reposed in Him He returns 
 thanks to God (17), but He is still nursing their 
 faith (16%), preparing for its increase through the 
 events to come (13' 16”), and with alm ost passion- 
 ate vagerness claiming it at their hands (141 10 1. 12), 
 
 Even after His resurrection we find Him restorin 
 the faith of the waverer (20) with words whic 
 ronounce a special blessing on those who should 
 pereatier believe on less compelling evidence— 
 words whose point is not fully caught until we 
 realize that they contain an intimation of the work 
 of the apostles as, like His own, summed up in 
 bringing men to faith in Him (17*: #). 
 
 The record in Ac of the apostolic proclamation 
 testifies to the faithfulness with which this office 
 was prosecuted by Jesus’ delegates (Ac 3 4), The 
 task undertaken by them was, by persuading men 
 (Ac 174 28%), to bring them unto obedience to the 
 faith that is in Jesus (Ac 6’, Ro 15 167°, cf. 2 Th 18, 
 2 Co 10°). And by such ‘testifying faith towards 
 cur Lord Jesus Christ’ (Ac 207, cf. 10%) there 
 was quickly gathered together a community of 
 ‘believers’ (Ac 2“ 44-52), that is, of believers in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ (Ac 5% 9% 1117 14%), and 
 that not only in Jerus. but beyond (8! 9% 10% 1174 
 13% 143), ret not only of Jews (10* 15! 21°) but of 
 Gentiles (117! 13% 14! 157 1712-84 1827 1918 9125), 
 The enucleation of this community of believers 
 brought to the apostolic teachers the new task of 
 preserving the idea of faith, which was the forma- 
 tive principle of the new community, and to propa- 
 gate which in the world, pure and living and sound, 
 wasits chief office. It was inevitable that those who 
 were called into the faith of Christ should bring 
 into the infant Church with them many old ten- 
 dencies of thinking, and that within the new 
 community the fermentation of ideas should be 
 very great. The task of instructing and dis- 
 ciplining the new community soon became un- 
 avoidably one of the heaviest of apostolic duties ; 
 and its progress is naturally reflected in their 
 letters. Thus certain d%ferences in their modes 
 of dealing with faith emerge among NT writers, 
 according as one lays stress on the deadness 
 and profitlessness of a faith which produces no 
 fruit in the life, and another on the valueless- 
 ness of a faith which does not emancipate from 
 the bondage of the law; or as one lays stress on 
 the perfection of the object of faith and the 
 necessity of keeping the heart set upon it, and 
 another on the necessity of preserving in its 
 purity that subjective attitude towards the unseen 
 and future which constitutes the very essence of 
 faith ; or as one lays stress on the reaching out of 
 faith to the future in confident hope, and another 
 on the present enjoyment by faith of all the bless- 
 ings of salvation. 
 
 It was to James that it fell to rebuke the 
 Jewish tendency to conceive of the faith which 
 was pleasing to J” as a mere intellectual acquies- 
 cence in His being and claims, when imported 
 into the Church and made to do duty as ‘the 
 faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory’ (21). 
 He has sometimes been misread as if he were 
 depreciating faith, or at least the place of faiti. 
 in salvation. But it is perfectly clear that with 
 James, as truly as with any other NT writer, a 
 sound faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the mani- 
 fested God (2!) lies at the very basis of the 
 Christian life (13), and is the condition of all 
 acceptable approach to God (1° 5%). It is not 
 faith as he conceives it- which he depreciates, 
 but that professed faith (Aéyy, 2'4) which cannot be 
 shown to be real by appropriate works (2%), and 
 so differs by a whole diameter alike from the 
 faith of Abraham that was reckoned unto him 
 for righteousness (2%), and from the faith of Chris- 
 tians as James understood it (2) 15, ef. 122). Tha 
 impression which is easily taken from the last 
 half of the second chapter of James, that his teach- 
 ing and that of Paul stand in some polemic 
 relation, is nevertheless a delusion, and arises 
 from an insufficient realization of the place oo- 
 

 
 FAITH 
 
 FAITH 836 
 
 
 
 cupied by faith in the discussions of the Jewish 
 schools, reflections of which have naturally found 
 their way into the language of both Paul and 
 James. And so far are we from needing to sup- 
 pose some reference, direct or indirect, to Pauline 
 teaching to account for James’ entrance upon the 
 question which he discusses, that this was a 
 matter upon which an earnest teacher could not 
 fail to touch in the presence of a tendency common 
 among the Jews at the advent of Christianity 
 (cf. Mt 3° 77! 238, Ro 217), and certain to pass over 
 into Jewish-Christian circles: and James’ treat- 
 ment of it finds, indeed, its entire presupposition 
 in the state of things underlying the exhortation 
 of 1% When read from his own historical stand- 
 point, James’ teachings are free from any dis- 
 accord with those of Paul, who as strongly as 
 James denies all value to a faith which does not 
 work by love (Gal 5°, 1 Co 137, 1 Th 1%). In short, 
 James is not depreciating faith: with him, too, it 
 is faith that is reckoned unto righteousness (273), 
 though only such a faith as shows itself in works 
 can be so reckoned, because a faith which does 
 not come to fruitage in works is dead, non-exist- 
 ent. He is rather deepening the idea of faith, 
 and insisting that it includes in its very concep- 
 tion something more than an otiose intellectual 
 assent. 
 
 It was a far more serious task which was laid 
 upon Paul. As apostle to the Gentiles he was 
 called upon to make good in all its depth of 
 meaning the fundamental principle of the religion 
 of grace, that the righteous shall live by faith, as 
 over-against what had come to be the ingrained 
 legalism of Jewish thought now intruded into the 
 Christian Church. It was not, indeed, doubted that 
 faith was requisite for obtaining salvation. But 
 he that had been born a Jew and was conscious 
 of the privileges of the children of the promise, 
 found it hard to think that faith was all that was 
 requisite. What, then, was the advantage of the 
 Jew? In defence of the rights of the Gentiles, 
 Paul was forced in the most uncompromising way 
 to validate the great proposition that, in the 
 matter of salvation, there is no distinction between 
 Jew and Gentile,—that the Jew has no other 
 righteousness than that which comes through 
 faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2%*%), and that the 
 Gentile fully possesses this righteousness from 
 faith alone (Gal 37*4-); in a word, that the one 
 God, who is God of the Gentiles also, ‘ shall justify 
 the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision 
 through faith’ (Ro 3°). Thus was it made clear 
 not only that ‘no man is justified by the law’ 
 (Gal 2'6 34, Ro 3”), but also that a man is justified 
 by faith apart from law-works (Ro 3%). The 
 splendid vigour and thoroughness of Paul’s dialec- 
 tic development of the absolute contrast between 
 the ideas of faith and works, by virtue of which 
 one peremptorily excludes the other, left no hiding- 
 
 lace for a work-righteousness of any kind or 
 Negros: but cast all men solely upon the righteous- 
 ness of God, which is apart from the law and 
 comes through faith uato all that believe (Ro 
 371-22), Thus, in vindicating the place of faith as 
 the only instrument of salvation, Paul necessarily 
 dwelt much upon the object of faith, not as if he 
 were formally teaching what the object is on 
 which faith savingly lays hold, but as a natural 
 sesnlt of his effort to show from its object the 
 all-sufficiency of faith. It is because faith lays 
 hold of Jesus Christ, who was delivered up for our 
 trespasses and was raised for our justification 
 (Ro 4”), and makes us possessors of the righteous- 
 ness provided by God through Him, that there is 
 no room for any righteousness of our own in the 
 ground of our salvation (Ro 10°, Eph 28), This is 
 the reason of that full development of the object 
 
 of faith in Panl’s writings, and especially of the 
 specific connexion between faith and the right- 
 eousness of God proclaimed in Christ, by which 
 the doctrine of Paul is sometimes said to be 
 distinguished from the more general conception of 
 faith which is characteristic of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. This more general conception of faith 
 is not, however, the peculiar property of that 
 epistle, but is the fundamental conception of the 
 whiole body of biblical writers in OT and in NT 
 (cf. Mt 6% 16%, Jn 20%-%!, 1 P 18), including Paul 
 himself (2 Co 418 57, Ro 415-22 924); while, on the 
 other hand, the Epistle to the Hebrews, no less 
 than Paul, teaches that there is no righteousness 
 except through faith (10® 117, ef. 114). 
 
 That in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is the 
 general idea of faith, or, to be more exact, the 
 subjective nature of faith, that is dwelt upon, 
 rather than its specific object, is not due to a 
 peculiar conception of what faith lays hold 
 upon, but to the particular task which fell to its 
 writer in the work of planting Christianity in 
 the world. With him, too, the person and work of 
 Christ are the specific object of faith (137-834 10”). 
 But the danger against which, in the providence 
 of God, he was called upon to guard the infant 
 flock, was not that it should fall away from faith 
 to works, but that it should fall away from faith 
 into despair. His readers were threatened not 
 with legalism but with ‘shrinking back’ (10%), 
 and he needed, therefore, to emphasize not so 
 much the object of faith as the duty of faith. 
 Accordingly, it is not so much on the righteous- 
 ness of faith as on its perfecting that he insists ; 
 it is not so much its contrast with works as its 
 contrast with impatience that he impresses on his 
 readers’ consciences ; it is not so much to faith 
 specifically in Christ and in Him alone that he 
 exhorts them as to an attitude of faith—an 
 attitude which could rise above the seen to the 
 unseen, the present to the future, the temporal to 
 the eternal, and which in the midst of sufferings 
 could retain patience, in the midst of disappoint- 
 ments could preserve hope. ‘This is the key to the 
 whole treatment of faith in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews—its definition as the assurance of things 
 hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (11) ; 
 its illustration and enforcement by the example of 
 the heroes of faith in the past, a list chosen and 
 treated with the utmost skill for the end in view 
 (11); its constant attachment to the promises 
 (42-2 612 1096 88 119 13%); its connexion with the 
 faithfulness (1111, ef. 10”), almightiness (11), and 
 the rewards of God (11% °%); and its association 
 with such virtues as boldness (3° 416 1019: 5), con- 
 fidence (34 111), patience (10% 12!), hope (3° 611.18 
 10°). 
 
 With much that is similar to the situation 
 implied in Hebrews, that which underlies the 
 Epistles of Peter differs from it in the essential 
 particular that their prevailingly Gentile readers 
 were not in imminent danger of falling back into 
 Judaism. There is, accordingly, much in the 
 aspect in which faith is presented in these epistles 
 which reminds us of what we find in Hebrews, as, 
 for example, the close connexion into which it is 
 brought with obedience (1 P 1*: ” 27 3! 417), its pre- 
 vailing reference to what is unseen and future (1 P 
 15. 7-10. 21), and its consequent demand for steadfast- 
 ness (5°, ef. 17), and especially for hope (1%, ef. 
 15. 13 35-15), Yet there is a noteworthy difference 
 in the whole tone of the commendation of faith, 
 which was rooted, no doubt, in the character of 
 Peter, as the tone of his speeches recorded in Acts 
 shows, but which also grew out of the nature of 
 the task set before him in these letters. There is no 
 hint of despair lying in the near background, but 
 the buoyancy of assured hope rings throughout 
 
these epistles. Having hearkened to the prophet 
 like unto Moses (Dt 18":19, Ac 37-33), Christians 
 are the children of obedience (1 P 1*4), and through 
 their precious faith (1 P 1’, 2 P 1) possessors of 
 the preciousness of the promises (1 P 2”). As they 
 have obeyed the voice of God and kept His coven- 
 ant, they have become His peculiar treasure, a 
 kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex 195, 
 1P 2). Naturally, the duty rests upon them of 
 living, while here below, in accordance with their 
 high hopes (1 P 14,2 P 15). But in any event they 
 are but sojourners and pilgrims here (1 P 2" 12-1”), 
 and have a sure inheritance reserved for them in 
 heaven (1), unto which they are guarded through 
 faith by the power of God (1°), The reference 
 of faith in Peter is therefore characteristically 
 to the completion rather than to the inception 
 of salvation (15% 2%, cf. Ac 15"). Of course this 
 does not imply that he does not share the 
 common biblical conception of faith: he is con- 
 scious of no difference of view from that of OT 
 (1 P 2%); and, no less than with James, with 
 him faith is the fountain of all good works 
 (1 P 17-2 59, 2 P15); and, no less than with Paul, 
 with him faith lays hold of the righteousness of 
 Christ (2 P #). It only means that in the cir- 
 cumstances of his writing he is led to lay special 
 emphasis on the reference of faith to the consum- 
 mated salvation, in order to quicken in his readers 
 that hope which would sustain them in their 
 persecutions, and to keep their eyes set, not on 
 their present trials, but, in accordance with faith’s 
 very nature, on the unseen and eternal glory. 
 
 In the entirely different circumstances in which 
 he wrote, John wished to lay stress on the very 
 opposite aspect of faith. For what is characteristic 
 of John’s treatment of faith is insistence not so 
 much on the certainty and glory of the future in- 
 heritance which it secures, as on the fulness of the 
 
 resent enjoyment of salvation which it brings. 
 There was pressing into the Church a false emphasis 
 on knowledge, which affected to despisesimple faith. 
 This John met, on the one hand, by deepening the 
 idea of knowledge to the knowledge of experience, 
 and, on the other, by insisting upon the immediate 
 
 entrance of every believer into the possession of 
 salvation. It is not to be supposed, of course, that 
 he was ready to neglect or deny that out-reaching 
 of faith to the future on which Peter lays such 
 stress; he is zealous that Christians shall know 
 that they are children of God from the moment of 
 believing, and from that instant possessors of the 
 new life of the Spirit; but he does not forget the 
 greater glory of the future, and he knows how to 
 use this Christian hope also as an incitement to 
 holy living (1 Jn 3°). Nor are we to suppose 
 that, in his anti-Gnostic insistence on the element 
 of conviction in faith, he would lose sight of that 
 central element of surrendering trust which is the 
 heart of faith in other portions of the Scriptures: 
 he would indeed have believers know what the 
 
 believe, and who He is in whom they put their 
 trust, and what He has done for them, and is 
 doing, and will do, in and through them; but 
 this is not that they may know these things 
 simply as intellectual propositions, but that they 
 mmay rest on them in faith and know them in 
 personal experience. Least of all the NT writers 
 could John confine faith to a merely intellectual 
 act: his whole doctrine of faith is rather a 
 protest against the intellectualism of Gnos- 
 ticism. is fundamental conception of faith 
 differs in nothing from that of the other NT 
 writers ; with him, too, it is a trustful appropria- 
 tion of Christ and surrender of self to His salva- 
 tion. Eternal life has been manifested by Christ 
 (Jn 14, 1 Jn 1+? 54), and he, and he only, who has 
 the Son has the life (1 Jn 52). But in the conflict 
 
 FAITH 
 
 in which he was engaged he required to throw the — 
 
 strongest emphasis possible upon the immediate 
 entrance of believers into this hfe. This insistence 
 had manifold applications to the circumstances of 
 his readers, fe had, for oe a negative 
 application to the antinomian tendency of Gnostic 
 teaching, which John does not fail to press (1 Jn 
 
 15 24 15 35); ‘whosoever believeth that Jesus is | 
 
 gave the victory over the world; and John boldly } 
 challenges experience to point to any who have | 
 overcome the world but he that believes that J on 5S | 
 i | 
 
 is the Son of God (1 Jn 5*5). Actording, 
 characteristic of John to announce that ‘he that 
 believeth hath eternal life’ (Jn 3% 5% 647-4, 1 Jn 
 314. 15 511.12. 18), He even declares the purpose of 
 
 his writing to be, in the Gospel, that his readers | 
 ‘may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of | 
 
 they that believe in the name of the 
 
 ‘may know that they Aave eternal life’ (1 Jn 5%), 
 III. THE BiBLicAL CONCEPTION OF FAITH.— 
 
 By means of the providentially mediated diversi 
 
 ry) 
 
 aspects of faith, the outlines of the biblical con- 
 ception of faith are thrown into very high relief. 
 
 Of its subjective nature we have what is almost 
 a formal definition in the description of it as an — 
 ‘assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of — 
 things not seen’ (He 11’). It obviously contains 
 
 in it, therefore, an element of knowledge (He 11"), i 
 
 and it as obviously issues in conduct (He 11 
 cf. 5%, 1 P 1”). 
 
 on of God 
 
 emphasis of the NT writers on the several | 
 
 But it consists neither in assent | 
 nor in obedience, but in a reliant trust in the { 
 invisible Author of all good (He 11”), in which the | 
 
 mind is set upon the things that are above and | 
 
 not on the things that are upon the earth (Col 3%, 
 cf. 2 Co 415-18, Mt 6% 163), The examples cited in 
 He 11 are themselves enough to show that the 
 faith there commended is not a mere belief 
 
 God’s existence and justice and goodness, or credit- 
 ing of His word and 
 counting of Him faith 
 
 pledge (11"”). 
 
 romises, but a practical | 
 
 (114), with a trust so | 
 profound that no trial can shake it (11°), and so | 
 absolute that it survives the loss of even its own |{ 
 So little is faith in its biblical con- | 
 
 ception merely a conviction of the understand- — 
 ing, that, when that is called faith, the true idea | 
 of faith needs to be built up above this word | 
 
 (Ja 2"), It is a movement of the whole inner — 
 
 man (Ro 10%), and is set in contrast with an | 
 -unbelief that is akin, not to ignorance but to q 
 
 disobedience (He 318% Jn 3%, Ro 11%. 8 1581, 
 
 > 3 
 1 Th 18, He 4% 2, 1 P 17-8 31-9 418 Ac 1421 199), 
 and that grows out of, not lack of information, | 
 but that aversion of the heart from God (He 3%) | 
 which takes pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Th 2%), | 
 
 and is so unsparingly exposed by our Lord (Jn 3¥ 
 54 847 105), tS the breadth of its idea, it is thus 
 the going out of the heart from itself and i 
 
 resting on God in confident trust for all good. 
 But the scriptural revelation has to do with, and 
 is directed to the needs of, not man in the 
 abstract, but sinful man; and for sinful man this 
 
 hearty reliance on God necessarily becomes humble | 
 trust in Him for the fundamental need of the | 
 sinner—forgiveness of sins and reception inte | 
 In response to the revelations of His | 
 
 favour. y 4 
 grace and the provisions of His mercy, it commits 
 
 itself without reserve and with abnegation of all | 
 self-dependence, to Him as its sole and sufficient | 
 
 Saviour, and thus, in one act, empties itself of al) 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 
 

 
 FAITH 
 
 FAITH 837 
 
 
 
 elaim on God and casts itself upon His grace alone 
 for salvation. 
 
 It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith 
 derives its value. This object is uniformly the God 
 of grace, whether conceived of broadly as the source 
 of all life, light, and blessing, on whom man in 
 his creaturely weakness is entirely dependent, or, 
 whenever sin and the eternal welfare of the soul 
 are in view, as the Author of salvation in whom 
 alone the hope of unworthy man can be placed. 
 This one object of saving faith never varies from 
 the beginning to the end of the scriptural revela- 
 tion; though, naturally, there is an immense 
 difference between its earlier and later stages in 
 fulness of knowledge as to the nature of the 
 redemptive work by which the salvation intrusted 
 to God shall be accomplished ; and as naturally 
 there occurs a very great variety of forms of state- 
 ment in which trust in the God of salvation re- 
 ceives expression. Already, however, at the gate 
 of Eden, the God in whom the trust of our first 
 parents is reposed is the God of the gracious 
 promise of the retrieval of the injury inflicted by 
 the serpent; and from that beginning of know- 
 ledge the progress is steady, until, what is implied 
 in the primal promise having become express in 
 the accomplished work of redemption, the trust of 
 sinners is explicitly placed in the God who was in 
 Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Co 
 51°). Such a faith, again, could not fail to em- 
 brace with humble confidence all the gracious 
 
 romises of the God of salvation, from -which 
 indeed it draws its life and strength ; nor could it 
 fail to lay hold with strong conviction on all those 
 revealed truths concerning Him which constitute, 
 indeed, in the varied circumstances in which it 
 has been called upon to persist throughout the 
 ages, the very grounds in view of which it has 
 been able to rest upon Him with steadfast trust. 
 These truths, in which the ‘ Gospel’ or glad-tidings 
 to God’s people has been from time to time 
 embodied, run all the way from such simple facts 
 as that it was the very God of their fathers that 
 had appeared unto Moses for their deliverance 
 (Ex 45), to such stupendous facts, lying at the root 
 of the very work of salvation itself, as that Jesus is 
 the Christ, the Son of God sent of God to save the 
 world (Jn 6 8% 112). 42 1319 1627. 9 178 21 2091, 1 Jn 
 5)5), that God has raised Him from the dead (Ro 
 10°, 1 Th 4"4), and that as His children we shall live 
 with Him (Ro 6’). But in believing this variously 
 presented Gospel, faith has ever terminated with 
 trustful reliance, not on the promise but on the 
 Promiser,—not on the propositions which declare 
 God’s grace and willingness to save, or Christ’s 
 divine nature and power, or the reality and perfec- 
 tion of His saving work, but on the Saviour upon 
 whom, because of these great facts, it could securely 
 rest as on One able to save to the uttermost. Jesus 
 Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one 
 object of saving faith, presented to its embrace 
 at first implicitly and in promise, and ever more 
 and more openly until at last it is entirely explicit 
 and we read that ‘a man is not justified save 
 through faith in Jesus Christ’ (Gal 2"). If, with 
 even greater explicitness still, faith is sometimes 
 said to rest upon some element in the saving work of 
 Christ, as, for example, upon His blood or His right- 
 eousness (Ro 375, 2 p 11), obviously such a singling 
 outof thevery thing in His workon which faith takes 
 hold, in no way derogates from its repose upon Him, 
 and Him only, as the sole and sufficient Saviour. 
 
 The saving power of faith resides thus not in 
 itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it 
 rests. It is never on account of its formal nature 
 as a psychic act that faith is conceived in Scripture 
 to be saving,—as if this frame of mind or attitude 
 of heart were itself a virtue with claims on God 
 
 for reward, or at least especially pleasing to Him 
 (either in its nature or as an act of obedience) and 
 thus predisposing Him to favour, or as if it brought 
 the soul into an attitude of receptivity or of sym- 
 pathy with God, or opened a channel of communi- 
 cation from Him. It is not faith that saves, but 
 faith in Jesus Christ: faith in any other saviour, or 
 in this or that philosophy or human conceit (Col 
 216. 18 ] Ti 4), or in any other gospel than that 
 of Jesus Christ and Him as crucified (Gal 1® }, 
 brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly 
 speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but 
 Christ that saves through faith. The saving 
 power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith 
 or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, 
 but in the object of faith; and in this the whole 
 biblical representation centres, so that we could 
 not more radically misconceive it than by trans- 
 ferring to faith even the smallest fraction of that 
 saving energy which is attributed in the Scrip- 
 tures solely to Christ Himself. This caver 
 mediatory function of faith is very clearly indi- 
 cated in the regimens in which it stands, which 
 ordinarily express simple instrumentality. It is 
 most frequently joined to its verb as the dative of 
 means or instrument (Ac 15° 2618, Ro 378 42 52 1120, 
 2Co 1%, He 11% 45.7. 8. 9 11. 17. 20. 21, 28. 24 1) 27, 28. 29. 30. 
 31); and the relationship intended is further ex- 
 plained by the use to express it of the repositions 
 éx (Ro yp. 7 326. 30 416. 16 5} g30. 32 108 14%. 2 f Gal 916 
 37-8 9%. 11. 12, 27. 98 58, 1 TY 18, He 10%, Ja 2%) and oa 
 (with the genitive, never with the accusative, Ro 37+ 
 25. 8, 29Co 57, Gal 216 312: 6 37, 2 Ti 3, He 612 112 39, 
 1P 15),—the fundamental idea of the former con- 
 struction being that of source or origin, and of the 
 latter that of mediation or instrumentality, though 
 they are used together in the same context, pppar- 
 ently with no distinction of meaning (Ro 3%- %. %, 
 Gal 21%), It is not necessary to discover an essen- 
 tially different implication in the exceptional usage 
 of the prepositions érl (Ac 31, Ph 3°) and card (He 
 117-18, cf. Mt 9%) in this connexion: ért is appar- 
 ently to be taken in a quasi-temporal sense, ‘on 
 faith,’ giving the occasion of the divine act, and 
 kard very similarly in the sense of conformability, 
 ‘in conformity with faith.’ Not infrequently we 
 meet also with a construction with the preposition 
 év which properly designates the sphere, but which 
 in passages like Gal 2”°, Col 2’, 2 Th 2% appears to 
 pass over into the conception of instrumentality. 
 So little indeed is faith conceived as containing 
 in itself the energy or ground of salvation, that it 
 is consistently represented as, in its origin, itself 
 a gratuity from God in the prosecution of His 
 saving work. It comes, not of one’s own strength 
 or virtue, but only to those who are chosen of God 
 for its reception (2 Th 2%), and hence is His gift 
 (Eph 67, cf. 28% Ph 1”), through Christ (Ac 37%, 
 Ph 1, 1P 17), ef. He 127), by the Spirit (2Co 43, 
 Gal 5°), by means of the preached word (Ro 10”, 
 Gal 32:5); and as it is thus obtained from God 
 (2P 11, Jude %, 1 P 17), thanks are to be returned 
 to God for it (Col 14, 2 Th 15). Thus, even here all 
 boasting is excluded, and salvation is conceived in 
 all its elements as the pure product of unalloyed 
 grace, issuing not from, but in, good works (Eph 
 98-12), The place of faith in the process of salva- 
 tion, as biblically conceived, could scarcely, there- 
 fore, be better described than by the use of the 
 scholastic term ‘instrumental cause.’ Not in one 
 portion of the Scriptures alone, but throughout 
 their whole extent, it is conceived a3 a boon from 
 above which comes to men, no doubt through the 
 channels of their own activities, but not as if it 
 were an effect of their energies, but rather, as it 
 has been finely phrased, as a gift which God lays 
 in the lap of the soul. ‘With the heart,’ indeed, 
 ‘man belisveth unto righteousness’; but this be. 
 
838 FAITH 
 
 lieving does not arise of itself out of any heart 
 indifferently (Mt 13"), nor is it grounded in the 
 heart’s own potencies; it is grounded rather in the 
 freely-giving goodness of God, and comes to man 
 as a benefaction out of heaven. 
 
 The effects of faith, not being the immediate pro- 
 duct of faith itself but of that energy of God 
 which was exhibited in raising Jesus from the 
 dead and on which dependence is now placed for 
 raising us with Him into newness of life (Col 
 212), would seem to depend directly only on the 
 fact of faith, leaving questions of its strength, 
 quality, and the like more or less to one side. 
 We find a proportion, indeed, suggested between 
 faith and its effects (Mt 9” 833, cf. 81 1528 17, 
 Lk 7° 178). Certainly there is a fatal doubt, 
 which vitiates with its double-mindedness every 
 approach to God (Ja 168, cf. 48, Mt 217, Mk 11%, 
 Ro 4” 14%, Jude”). But Jesus deals with notable 
 tenderness with those of ‘little faith,’ and His 
 apostles imitated Him in this (Mt 6° 20 1431 168 
 17”, Lk 1278, Mk 94, Lk 175, ef. Ro 1412, 1Co 87, 
 and see DousT). The effects of faith may possibly 
 vary also with the end for which the trust is exer- 
 cised (cf. Mk 10™ tva dvaBréyw with Gal 21° émoret- 
 capev va dtxatw0duev). But he who humbly but 
 confidently casts himself on the God of salvation 
 has the assurance that he shall not be put to 
 shame (Ro 11" 9%), but shall receive the end of 
 his faith, even the salvation of his soul (1 P 1%). 
 This salvation is no doubt, in its idea, received all 
 at once (Jn 3%, 1 Jn 5%); but it is in its very 
 nature a process, and its stages come, each in its 
 order. First of all, the believer, renouncing by 
 the very act of faith his own righteousness which 
 is out of the law, receives that ‘righteousness 
 which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness 
 which is from God on faith’ (Ph 39, cf. Ro 32 44 
 9” 10810, 2 Co 5%, Gal 55, He 117,2P 11). On the 
 ground of this righteousness, which in its origin is 
 the ‘righteous act’ of Christ, constituted by His 
 ‘ obedience’ (Ro 518 19), and comes to the believer as 
 a ‘gift’ (Ro 5!”), being reckoned to him apart from 
 works (Ro 4°), he that believes in Christ is justified 
 in God’s sight, received into His favour, and made 
 the recipient of the Holy Spirit (Jn 7%, cf. Ac 5%), 
 by whose indwelling men are constituted the sons 
 of God (Ro 8}5). And if children, then are they heirs 
 (Ro 8"), assured of an incorruptible, undefiled, 
 and unfading inheritance, reserved in heaven for 
 them; and meanwhile they are guarded by the 
 power of God through faith unto this gloriously 
 complete salvation (1 P 15). Thus, though the 
 immediate effect of faith is only to make the 
 believer possessor before the judgment-seat of God 
 of the alien righteousness wrought out by Christ, 
 through this one effect it draws in its train the whole 
 series of saving acts of God, and of saving effects 
 on the soul. Being justified by faith, the enmity 
 which has existed between the sinner and God has 
 been abolished, and he has been introduced into 
 the very family of God, and made sharer in all the 
 blessings of His house (Eph 2"), Being justified 
 by faith, he has peace with God, and rejoices in 
 the hope of the glory of God, and is enabled to 
 meet the trials of life, not merely with patience 
 but with joy (Ro 5%), Being justified by faith, he 
 has already working within him the life which the 
 Son has brought into the world, and by which, 
 through the operations of the Spirit which those 
 who believe in Him receive (Jn 7”), he is enabled 
 to overcome the world lying in the evil one, and, 
 kept by God from the evil one, to sin not (1 Jn 5"), 
 In a word, because we are justified by faith, we 
 are, through faith, endowed with all the privileges 
 and supplied with all the graces of the children of 
 God. (See further the articles on che several stages 
 vf the saving process.) 
 
 FALL “4 
 
 $A 
 
 LirrraTuRE.—Schlatter, Der Glaube im NT (includes a section 
 on ‘ Der Glaube vor Jesus’) is the most comprehensive work on 
 the biblical idea of faith, The general subject is also treated by 
 Lutz, Biblische Dogmatik, 312; H. Schultz, ‘Gerechtigkeit aus 
 dem Glanben im A. u. NT’ (in JDTh, 1862, p. 510); Hofmann, 
 Schriftbeweis, i. 381; Riehm, Lehrbr. d. Hebriierbr. 700; 
 Cremer, Bib. Theol. Lex. 8. xirrss, sicrtiw ; Hatch, Hssays in 
 Biblical Greek, 83. For OT, cf. the relevant sections in the 
 treatises on OT' Theology, especially those of Oehler, II. Schulta, 
 Riehm, Dillmann; and the commentaries on the passag 
 especially Delitzsch on Genesis and Habakkuk. For NT, ef. 
 Huther, ‘%@4 und sersiuy im NT” (in JBDTh, 1872, p. 
 and the relevant sections in the general treatises on NW’ 
 phrase bd especially those of Neander (Pflanzung, ete.), 
 Schmid, Reuss, Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, aan in the 
 treatises on the theology of the several NT writers, such as 
 Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus; Usteri, Paulinischer Lehrbegr.; 
 Pfleiderer, Paulinism ; Stevens, The Pauline Theology ; Lipsi 
 Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre; Schnedermann, De 
 
 ratione ethica Paulina ; Hausleiter, ‘Was versteht Paulusunter | 
 
 christlichem Glauben ?’ (in Greifswalder Studien, p. 159); Riel | 
 Lehrbegr. d. Hebrderbr. > Reuss, ‘Die Johan. Theologie’ (in Bi in 
 trige zur d. Theol. Wissenschaft, i. 56); Késtlin, L ee 
 Johann.; Weiss, Der Johann. Lehrbegr.; Stevens, The 
 Johannine Theology ; Weiss, Der Petrin. 
 commentaries as Rickert on Romans; Sanday - Headlam on 
 
 Romans; Lightfoot on Galatians; Haupt on 1 John; Mayor aN 
 The whole body of doctrinal | 
 
 on James; Spitta on James. 
 discussion may be reviewed in De Moor, Commentarius in J. 
 Marckii Compendium, iv. 287 f.; cf. also John Ball, A Treatise 
 of Faith (8rd ed. London, 1637), Julius Késtlin, Der Glaube 
 sein Wesen, Grund und Gegenstand (1889), and Der Glaube und 
 
 seine Bedeutung fiir Erkentniss, Leben und Kirche (1891). For | 
 
 some interesting historical notes, see Harnack, ‘Die Lehre von 
 der Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten Kirche’ (in 
 Zeitschrift. f. Theol. uw. Kirche, 1895, p. 88); E. Konig, Der | 
 Glaubensact des Christen (1891); and for a general survey, 
 
 Cunningham, Historical Theology, ii? pp. 56 ff. 
 
 B. B. WARFIELD. 
 
 FAITHLESS occurs only Mt 1717, Mk 9”, Lk 947, — 
 Jn 20°’, and always in the sense of ‘unbelieving’ | 
 (dmicros). So Shaks. describes Shylock (Mer. of | 
 Ven. WU. iv. 37) as ‘a faithless Jew,’ t.e. not © 
 ‘untrustworthy,’ but ‘infidel,’ an unbeliever in 
 Christianity. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FALCON.—RY tr. of mx ’ayydah, Lv 114, Dt 148% | 
 (AV ‘kite’), Job 287 (AV ‘vulture’). See GLED3, 
 HAWKE, KITE, VULTURE. G. E. Post. ] 
 
 FALL.—In the sense of happen, ‘fall’ is botha — 
 Heb. and an Eng. idiom. | 
 still, my danghter, until thou know how the — 
 matter will fall’; and 2 Es 13° ‘such things as | 
 fall in their seasons.’ Cf. Mt 188, Wye. ‘if it fall — 
 that he find it,’ and Shaks. Jul. Ces. 11. i1.248— = | 
 
 ‘I know not what may fall ; I like it not.’ 
 
 Fall away is used in two senses. 14. To lose aon 
 position of goodness or of grace. 
 either dplorqm, Sir 167 ‘the old giants who fell 
 
 away in the strength of their foolishness’ (RV 
 
 ‘revolted’), Lk 8" ‘in time of temptation fall | 
 away’; or waparlarw which occurs in the LXX of — 
 
 Est 6, Wis 6° 122, Ezk 14% 15° 18% 2077 224, and 9} 
 2 Mac 104 [A], and once in NT, He 6° ‘it is im- | 
 
 ossible for those who were once enlightened... | 
 
 if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto 
 repentance,’ where the meaning is more than is 
 
 found in the LXX, not merely falling into grievous | 
 
 sin, but renouncing the faith of Christ wholly (see 
 Davidson, in loc.) ‘A falling away’ (RV ‘the 
 falling away’) is the Eng. tz. of 7 drocracla, 2 Th 2°, 
 on which see MAN OF SIN. 
 to,’ varied with ‘fall to,’ or ‘fall unto’ (2K 7# — 
 ‘let us fall unto the host of the Syrians’), is to 
 desert to an enemy. It is again both a Heb. and 
 an Eng. idiom. See 2K 25"=Jer 52%, 1 Ch 129%, | 
 Jer 219 371% 14 38!" 399, as well as 1 S 293, where the — 
 
 Heb. (if »& or *by is added after LXX mpos pe) ig 
 
 the same, always some part of 55: to fall. For | 
 
 the Eng. ef. Shaks. Henry VIII, i. i. 129— 
 
 ‘Where you are liberal of your loves and counsels, 
 Be sure you. be not loose ; for those you make friends, 
 And give your hearts to, when they once perceive 
 The least rub in your fortunes, fall away 
 Like water from ye.’ 
 
 rbegr.: also such | 
 
 It occurs Ru 38 ‘Sit | 
 
 The Greek is | 
 
 2. To ‘fall away , 
 
 
 
FALL 
 
 FALL 839 
 
 
 
 Again, Henry VIII. ut. iii. 209— 
 ‘ And as for Clarence, as my letters tell me, 
 He’s very likely now to fall from him.’ 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FALL (xapdérrwya, a word used of Adam’s trans- 
 gression in Wis 10', though not restricted to this 
 anywhere in OT or NT).—Few chapters of the 
 Bible have affected religious speculation more 
 continuously and more deeply than the chapter 
 which records the temptation and the weakness 
 of primeval man. It would be out of place here 
 to discuss all the topics which arise out of Gn 3, as 
 to do so would be to write a treatise on Christian 
 Theology. We can only consider—(i.) the character 
 of the record, and its relation to other accounts of 
 man’s primitive state, which have come down to 
 us from early times ; (ii.) the influence of the story 
 of Paradise and the Fall upon Hebrew belief as to 
 man’s destiny and his condition in the sight of 
 God ; (iii.) the inferences drawn by the NT writers, 
 and notably by St. Paul, from the story of Adam’s 
 sin, read in the light of Christ’s redemption. It 
 will be impossible to give more than the briefest 
 summary (iv.) of the interpretations of St Paul’s 
 doctrine of the Fall which have most widely 
 affected Christian thought ; but something must 
 be said, in conclusion, (v.) of the bearing of modern 
 theories of the origin and development of man 
 upon the general doctrine of the Fall explained 
 in Scripture and received by the Church. 
 
 ie We briefly recapitulate the leading points of 
 the narrative in Gn 24-3, which forms the first 
 section in Gn incorporated from the source de- 
 scribed by critics as the Prophetical Code (J). 
 Adam and Eve, the parents of the human family, 
 are represented as living in innocence and peace in 
 a fair garden where sin had not entered, and where 
 death had no power, for in its midst stood the Tree 
 of Life, of which they were permitted freely to 
 eat. The fruit of one tree alone, the Tree of the 
 knowledge of good and evil, was forbidden to 
 them ; and death was declared to be the penalty 
 of disobedience. But their happy condition of 
 purity and of fellowship with God did not remain 
 undisturbed. The serpent seduced the woman 
 to disobey the divine command; she, in turn, 
 tempted her husband to his fall. And then 
 came upon the guilty pair the consciousness of 
 sin and the fear of the divine wrath, which they 
 vainly tried to evade by excuses for their fault. 
 The voice of God is heard, pronouncing a curse 
 upon the serpent, and declaring a perpetual strife 
 between it and mankind; the man and the woman, 
 for their sin, are for ever subjected to pain in the 
 fulfilment of their destiny, the woman in her 
 childbearing, the man in his daily labour for daily 
 bread. They are both expelled from Eden, and 
 the Cherubim guard its gates against them, lest, 
 eating of the tree of life, they should live for ever. 
 The picture, however, is lightened by one ray of 
 hope ; for the seed of the serpent shall not finall 
 
 revail over the seed of the woman. ‘It shall 
 
 ruise thy head,’ though ‘thou shalt bruise his 
 heel.’ 
 
 Traditions of a state of primeval innocence, of 
 man’s fall from his pristine purity, and of the 
 consequent entrance of death into the world, have, 
 it is said, been gathered by travellers from races 
 far removed from Hebrew literature or its sources.* 
 Striking parallels to Gn 3 are to be found in the 
 Zoroastrian legends as to the beginning of man’s 
 career. Yima, the first man, is said to have passed 
 his days in a primeval paradise. But after a time 
 he Seroitied sin, was cast out of Paradise, and 
 delivered up to the serpent (identified with an evil 
 apirit), who finally brought about his death. A 
 
 * See Baring Gould’s Legends of OT Characters, i. 26-39, and 
 the refere ces there given. 
 
 Jater version of the story is told in connexion 
 with the first pair Masha and Mashyana. The 
 lying spirit grew bold, and, presenting himself a 
 second time, brought them fruits, which they ate. 
 As a punishment, of the hundred privileges they 
 formerly enjoyed only one was left to them.* 
 Few of the parallel stories that are adduced are, 
 however, so exactly recorded as these; and we are 
 inclined to believe that the similarities to the 
 Bible narrative are often overstated. The fact 
 that many people in many lands have sought to 
 explain the existing disorders in the world as the 
 consequence of man’s lapse from a higher condition 
 is deeply significant, and we shall return to it 
 again. But the details of the legends in which 
 such belief is embodied are not, as a rule, interest- 
 ing save to the curious student of folk-lore, and 
 they throw little light upon Scripture. It is to 
 Assyria and the East that we naturally look for 
 illumination. And it has been pointed out that 
 the mythology of Babylonia and Assyria presents 
 some curious parallels to the story of the serpent 
 in the garden of which we read in Gn 3. On 
 Assyrian inscriptions are found the names Diglat = 
 Hiddekel, and Bura= Euphrates, in connexion with 
 the word Idinu or ‘field,’ which is identified with 
 Eden. Coniferous sacred trees appear frequently 
 on Assyr. bas-reliefs and Bab. representations of 
 a mythological character. On a Bab. stone cylin- 
 der, now in the British Museum, two human figures 
 are depicted with a serpent behind them, having 
 their hands stretched out towards the fruit that 
 hangs from a neighbouring tree.t And the serpent 
 figure is conspicuous in the legend of the Chaldean 
 tablets in which the evil serpent, Tiamat, is over- 
 thrown by Merodach. (See Cosmocony, p. 505.) 
 If the third Creation Tablet were not so ex- 
 tremely difficult to decipher as it is reported 
 to be (partly in seule pees of its fragmentary 
 condition), it is probable that we should be able 
 to trace in the story which it zeeords even more 
 striking similarities to the Scripture narrative. 
 But Oriental scholars are not as yet entirely in 
 agreement as to the translation of some of the 
 more interesting portions of it; and the inferences 
 that may be derived from the passage now to be 
 cited must therefore be regarded as somewhat 
 uncertain. The following is the rendering of 
 Boscawen tf :— 
 
 ‘In sin one with the other in compact joins, 
 
 The command was established in the garden of the God, 
 The Asnan (fruit) they ate, they broke in two; 
 
 Its stalk they destroyed ; 
 
 The sweet juice which injures the body. 
 
 Great is their sin. Themselves they exalted ; 
 
 To Merodach their Redeemer he appointed their fate.’ 
 
 If this translation be trustworthy, we have 
 here something very like the biblical story of the 
 forbidden fruit; but the rendering iven b 
 Pinches differs in some significant particulars. We 
 recall, for our warning, that an inscription inter- 
 preted by Geo. Smith as a Bab. version of the 
 story of the Fall turned out, when closely examined 
 b pert, to be a hymn to the Creator. Making 
 all dee allowances, however, for uncertainty of 
 translation, it seems probable, when we bear in 
 mind the affinity of the earlier Creation Tablets to 
 Gn 1, as well as the other points of contact with 
 
 * Compare Lenormant, Histoire Ancienne de Y Orient, i. 30 ff. 
 
 + There is a photograph of this in Boscawen’s Bible and the 
 Monuments, p. 8% It is to be borne in mind that there is 
 nothing to ae bie that the figures are not both males. And, 
 as Schrader (KAT? p. 37) points out, a specific feature of the 
 Bible narrative, viz. that the woman gave the fruit to the man, 
 is not indicated. 
 
 t Babylonian and Oriental Record, iv. 251. Another trans- 
 lation by Pinches is given at p. 82. See also Sayce, Ancient 
 Monwments, 65, 104; and Davis, Genesis and Semitic Tradition, 
 p. 65, who questions the accuracy of Boscawen's rendering, and 
 urges that we have here no true parallel to the Genesis narrative 
 
 § See, for original, Delitzsch, Assyrische Lesesticke?, p. 01. 
 
840 FALL 
 
 the story of Eden to which we have adverted, 
 that a legend of the fall of man, resembling in 
 external features the account of Gn 3, was widely 
 spread in Mesopotamia. Indeed, in another pas- 
 sage cited by Boscawen we are inevitably reminded 
 of the victory over the serpent of Gn 3%— 
 
 ‘Tiamat, whom he had bound, then turned backward : 
 
 So Bel trampled on the belly of Tiamat ; 
 
 With his club unslung he smote her brain, 
 
 He broke it, and caused her blood to flow ; 
 The north wind bore it away to secret places,’ * 
 
 There is nothing to surprise reason or to embarrass 
 faith in the fact—if it be a fact—that traditional 
 beliefs about the origins of human history should 
 have been utilized in a purified form by the com- 
 
 iler of the Pent. or taken up into the Prophetical 
 
 ode. It must be remembered that the period 
 with which we are dealing is strictly prehistoric, 
 and also that legendary history is not necessarily 
 false or misleading. The truly remarkable cir- 
 cumstance is, that the early narratives in Gn are 
 free from the extravagant and grotesque mytho- 
 logical accretions which penietally ather round 
 ancient beliefs among primitive peoples; and that 
 every touch in these narratives as we have them 
 conveys a deep religious truth. The ‘inspiration 
 of selection’ is a phenomenon which every candid 
 student of Scripture must recognize ; and nowhere 
 is its presence more instructive than in the first 
 pages of OT, which present the early history of 
 man in a form that can be understood by the 
 simplest, and yet may be studied with spiritual 
 benefit by the wisest of mankind. 
 
 We believe, then, that we have in the biblical 
 record of the Fall a purified form of legendary 
 narrative concerning man’s early history which had 
 wide currency among Semitic peoples. In an un- 
 critical age it was interpreted literally, and it has 
 been counted historical for many generations by 
 the majority of those, whether Jews or Christians, 
 who accept the authority of the OT. But another 
 method of interpretation, viz. the allegorical, has 
 had many adherents. Thus, of the account of the 
 Fall, Philo asserts : gore 6¢ rafra ob mXdopara wiOwr, 
 ols TO mounTiKov Kal coguoriKdy xalper yévos, dNAG Jelypata 
 romwy én addyyoplay mapaxadovyTw Kara Tas Ov’ Urovody 
 dmodécas (De mundi opificio, § 56), i.e. ‘ These things 
 are not mere fabulous myths, but rather types 
 shadowing forth some allegorical truth.’ And, 
 accordingly, he explains that Adam represents the 
 rational and Eve the sensuous part of man, the 
 serpent being the symbol of pleasure: The Chris- 
 tian teachers of Alexandria, Clement and Origen, 
 favoured this allegorical mode of interpretation ; 
 but Tertullian and Irenzus defended the literal 
 truth of the narrative, as also did Augustine, who 
 did not, however, reject the typical significance 
 of OT history ; and through the scholastic philo- 
 sophy it passed into the dogmatic theology of the 
 Reformation. But the opinion that, however the 
 story was intended to be taken by the compiler 
 of the Bk. of Genesis, it might be interpreted as 
 a parable of spiritual truth, has been defended by 
 great names in every age of the Churck.t 
 
 There are, then, these several methods of inter- 
 ene that the narrative of the Fall is 
 iteral. history ; (2) that it is a legend, which con- 
 
 veys truth under mythological disguise; (3) that 
 it is, and was only intended to be, an allegory. 
 The first and third can hardly be adopted in the 
 present condition of exegesis, and it is probable 
 that the second view of the narrative is that which 
 
 is now most generally accepted by those who have 
 
 studied the subject. That the biblical form of the 
 
 legend should represent the facts as they actually 
 * Bible and the Monuments, p. 90. 
 
 t See an interest'ng note in Coleridge's Aids to Reflection, p. 
 71 ed. Bohn). peat 
 
 FALL 
 
 took place more closely than the parallel stories 
 
 which have been collected from the literature of 
 
 the ancient world, is not surprising to any believer 
 
 in the unique character of Scripture ; but it is not 
 
 to be forgotten that it is the great religious truths 
 
 which underlie the narrative that are of real im- 
 ortance, and these are brought out in the Bk. of 
 enesis in a quite unique fashion. 
 
 ii. The allusions in OT to the story of Gn 3 are 
 few and uncertain. If the rendering of the RV 
 may be pressed, there are indeed two undoubted 
 references to the Fall, viz., ‘If like Adam I covered 
 my transgressions’ (Job 31%), and, ‘But they like 
 Adam have transgressed the covenant’ (Hos 67), 
 But it seems that, at least in the former passage, 
 D1x> should be rendered ‘after the manner of men,’ 
 and this rendering would also be admissible in Hos 
 67; so that we have to look elsewhere for allusions 
 to the Paradise narrative on which stress may be 
 laid. The ‘garden of Eden’ is mentioned several 
 times by the prophets of the Captivity (Ezk 28% 
 31°, Is 518, cf. J] 25); and the Bk. of Proverbs 
 occasionally mentions a ‘tree of life’ (see esp. 
 Pr 318 11%). Ps 903 and Ec 12’ have been supposed 
 to take up the language of Gn 3. It is possible 
 also that we have a reminiscence of the curse upon 
 the serpent (Gn 34) in Mic 7!7 ‘They shall lick the 
 dust like a serpent,’ and in Is 65% ‘ Dust shall be 
 
 the serpent’s meat,’ though the latter passage may yt 
 
 be derived from Micah. The conception of a 
 personal tempter of mankind appears in the sto! 
 of Job and also in 1 Ch 21! (see also Zec 3) ; but it 
 is not until a later period that we come upon any 
 explicit identification of ‘Satan’ or the ‘Adversary’ 
 with the ‘serpent,’ the first trace of such being 
 Wis 2%. Cf. also Rev 129 and Ro 16” ‘The God of 
 peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,’ 
 which manifestly has reference to Gn 3%.* 
 
 So far, then, as the language of OT is con- 
 cerned, we have not convincing evidence that the 
 story of the Fall as given in Gn 3 was much in the 
 thoughts of the sacred writers. But were we to 
 conclude, therefore, that the doctrine of a Fall 
 formed no part of their religious beliefs, we should 
 be seriously mistaken. If there is one idea which is 
 throughout conspicuous in OT, it is the idea of sin. 
 No other nation of antiquity was possessed with so 
 intense a consciousness of the wickedness of man- 
 kind, and of the sin of man as an offence against 
 God. ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; and in sin 
 did my mother conceive me’ (Ps 51°). ‘There is 
 none that doeth good, no, not one’ (Ps 14°), These 
 and many similar passages express the abiding 
 sense of the Hebrew race, that man, as he is, is not 
 in the condition which his Creator purposed for 
 him. The contrast between such a conception of 
 man and that, e.g., present to the mind of a Greek, 
 who viewed man as in his normal, healthy state, is 
 only to be accounted for by a belief such as that 
 which is presupposed and taught in the story of 
 the Fall. 
 
 That this belief was, as a matter of fact, defi- 
 nitely, if not consistently, connected with the 
 
 Paradise narrative in the later ages of Hebrew a 
 
 national life, is proved by the testimony of the 
 books called Apocrypha and the literature of the 
 Roman period. This testimony is so important 
 that it will be well to present it in some detail. 
 
 (a) It is unnecessary to multiply passages which 
 speak of the depravity of human nature; but 
 2Es 44 ‘How can he that is already worn out 
 with the corrupted world understand incorruption?’ 
 is significant. Cf. also 2 Es 7%. 
 
 (6) This depravity was traced to Adam’s fall. 
 The classical passage is 2 Es 37-2, The seer hag 
 
 * It may be observed that the temptation of the Second Adam 
 
 by the devil (Mt 4, Lk 4) exv’ains beyond doubt who was u ider 
 stood by the serpent which tempted the first Adam. 
 
 Ny 
 
 
 
5: 
 
 FALL 
 
 FALL 84) 
 
 
 
 been speaking of the creation of Adam, his dwell- 
 ing in Paradise, the one commandment which he 
 transgressed, and the consequent entrance of 
 
 death into the world. He goes on: ‘For the 
 first Adam, bearing a wicked heart, transgressed, 
 and was overcome; and not he only, but all they 
 also that are born of him. Thus disease was made 
 permanent; and the law was in the heart of the 
 people along with the wickedness of the root; so 
 the good departed away, and that which was 
 wicked abode still.’ Again: grain of evil 
 seed was sown in the heart of Adam from the 
 beginning, and how mueh wickedness hath it 
 brought forth unto this time!’ (2 Es 4%), And 
 once more; ‘O thou Adam, what hast thou done? 
 for though it was thou that sinned, the evil is not 
 fallen on thee alone, but upon all of us that come 
 of thee’ (2 Es 7"), In this late book are recog- 
 nized the moral consequences of Adam’s sin; in 
 the much earlier work of Ben-Sira there is an 
 allusion to the curse of Gn 3! ‘Great travail is 
 created for every man, and a heavy yoke is upon 
 the sons of Adam’ (Sir 40'). 
 
 (c) That sin came through the woman is ex- 
 plicitly stated in Sir 25% ‘From a woman was 
 ape beeinning of sin, and because of her we all 
 
 e 
 
 (da) That man’s seduction was due to the serpent, 
 now for the first time in Jewish literature identi- 
 fied with Satan, is alluded to in Wis 2% ‘ By the 
 envy of the devil death entered into the world.’ 
 
 (e) The connexion between death and sinis not 
 so clearly conceived, and there was, apparently, 
 no consistent doctrine on the subject;* but the 
 generally prevailing view seems to have been that 
 of 2 Es 3’ ‘Unto him thou gavest thy one com- 
 mandment: which he transgressed, and imme- 
 diately thou appointedst death for him and in 
 his generations.’ Cf. also Wis 2%, Sir 25%. The 
 same view is found in the Apocalypse of Baruch 
 (xvii. 3, xxiii. 4) and in the ook of Enoch 
 (xeviii. 4). 
 
 (f) Side by side with passages such as these we 
 have others not less significant, which assert the 
 personal responsibility of the sinner. £.g. ‘They 
 that inhabited the city did evil, in all things doing 
 as Adam and all his generations had done: for 
 they also bare a wicked heart’ (2 Es 3%). Cf. also 
 2Es 8% and 9", and, above all, Apoc. Baruch 
 liv. 19: ‘Non est ergo Adam causa, nisi anime 
 suze tantum; nos uero unusquisque fuit anime 
 suze Adam.’ 
 
 It might be urged that 2 Es is a very late book, 
 perhaps belonging to Christian times; but, at all 
 events, that the author of the chapters from which 
 our quotations are drawn was a non-Christian Jew 
 is blathly certain. And thus we may use the 
 book in support of our conclusion that the Jews, 
 at least from the Captivity onward, conceived of 
 the sin of Adam as having left a permanent trace 
 from the effects of which all mankind were suffer- 
 ing and to suffer. 
 
 lii. When we come to the NT, and especially to 
 the Pauline Epistles, we find that this doctrine of 
 the effects of Aaa fall receives at once explana- 
 sion and relief in the facts of the Incarnation and 
 the Atonement. If we take the points in the 
 
 _ order followed in the last section, we see (a) that 
 
 the universal depravity of mankind is everywhere 
 resupposed, and is the basis of the argument of the 
 p. to the Romans. To (d) we shall return again, 
 and only cite here 1 Co 15% ‘As in Adam all 
 die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’ 
 (c) finds illustration in two passages: ‘the serpent 
 beguiled Eve in his craftiness’ (2Co 11%), and 
 ‘Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam 
 
 Re a Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 
 
 was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled 
 hath fallen into transgression’ (1 Ti 2"). (d) St. 
 Paul refers to the ‘ bruising of Satan’ in Ro 16”; 
 and the devil is spoken of as ‘a murderer from 
 the beginning’ in Jn 8“. Cf. alsol Jn 3°)". We 
 then come to (e), as to which the classical passage 
 in NT is Ro 54-2, A commentary on these diffi- 
 cult verses cannot be written here; but certain 
 broad principles laid down by St. Paul, who is 
 undoubtedly following and interpreting the narra- 
 tive in Gn 3, can hardly be mistaken.* That 
 through one man sin entered into the world is 
 his starting-point. Death came through sin (ef. 
 Ro 6% and Ja 125); and hence death is the common 
 lot of man, first, because of his own personal sin ; 
 and, secondly, because it is part of the inheritance 
 which Adam has transmitted to his descendants. 
 At the same time, St. Paul is careful to insist 
 (f) that man’s personal responsibility for his own 
 acts, and for his own acts alone, remains unim- 
 paired. He does not supply any theory by which 
 the two complementary truths of man’s inherited 
 tendency to evil and man’s free will may be recon- 
 ciled ; but he leaves them side by side as equally 
 parts of the doctrine which it has been given him 
 to teach. And he goes on to show that the dis- 
 tinctive feature of the gospel is that ‘if by the 
 trespass of the one the many died, much more 
 did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of 
 the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.’ 
 Thus the theology of St. Paul is inextricably 
 bound up with the doctrine of the Fall. The 
 whole point of the comparison and contrast of 
 the first and second Adam is lost, if the destinies 
 of the human race were not deeply affected by 
 a backward step at the beginnings of human 
 history, if it be not true that man’s growth in 
 holiness may be described as a recovery effected 
 through grace. 
 
 iv. The interpretations of St. Paul’s language 
 which have from time to time been accepted by 
 Christians are various; and they depend in part 
 on the view that is taken-as to the state of un- 
 fallen man, and the divine intention for him. It 
 would be agreed by most theologians that, to use 
 the language of the Church, the ‘original right- 
 eousness’ of which Adam was deprived, was, al- 
 though in part natural, yet in part supernatural. 
 That is to say, he is represented as divinely en- 
 dowed with a virtuous character, without any 
 such bias towards evil as we experience in our- 
 selves. This is what constituted the unique per- 
 versity and heinousness of the first sin, and it 
 is because of this that his sin is counted a ‘ fall’ 
 from a higher spiritual condition. His sin had a 
 disturbing influence on the whole future develop- 
 ment of the race, but the character of the dis- 
 turbance has been differently estimated in different 
 schools of thought. Speaking broadly, the Greek 
 view was simply that the ‘original righteousness’ 
 of the race was lost ; the effect of Adam’s sin was 
 a privatio, an impoverishment of human nature 
 which yet left the power of the will unimpaired. 
 But the Latin writers who followed Augustine 
 took a darker view of the consequences of the 
 Fall. It is, for them, a depravatio nature; the 
 human will is disabled; there is left a bias to- 
 wards evil which can be conquered only by grace. 
 And this is, undoubtedly, nearer to the language 
 of Scripture than the former mode of representing 
 the facts; but it was not always remembered, 
 e contra, in Augustinian theology that the ‘image 
 of God’ remained in man even after the Fall 
 (Gn 98). It is therefore contrary to Scripture to 
 represent man as wholly corrupt. And a deep 
 
 * For St. Paul’s argument, as also for the witness of the 
 
 Apocrypha to the doctrine of man’s corruption, see Sandsy 
 Headlam, Romans (ch. v.). 
 
 Ne 
 
 
 
342 FALL 
 
 FALL 
 
 and gerious question arises here as to the relation | tion, which goes perilously near to depriving the 
 
 between the Fall and the Incarnation. It may 
 well be, as the Scotists taught, that it is unjustifi- 
 able to represent the high destiny which man may 
 find in Christ as an after-thought in the divine 
 counsels. The Incarnation may have been, for 
 anything we can tell, the predestined climax of 
 humanity, independently of human sin. Bearing 
 these considerations in mind we return to Ro 5}?-*}, 
 and the various theories which have been proposed 
 in explanation. They may be classified thus—* 
 
 (a) It is urged that St. Paul’s language requires 
 us to conceive of the human race as in Adam 
 potentially, in the same sense as the oak is in 
 the acorn. Hence, for what he did, we may be 
 counted responsible. The race, not the individual, 
 is the true unit; it is with this unit that God 
 deals. Thus, e.g., David sinned in numbering 
 Israel, but his people were the sufferers from the 
 divine punishment. The words of our Lord in 
 Lk 137* suggest to us that there is such a thing 
 as national responsibility, apart from the guilt 
 of individuals. Most apposite of all, Levi is said 
 to have paid tithes ‘through Abraham’ (He 7* 1°). 
 And in this conception of the solidarity of mankind 
 there is, beyond question, a profound truth which 
 is becoming more intelligently and sincerely ac- 
 cepted as the social teaching of the Incarnation 
 is being opened out. ‘As in Adam all die, so 
 also in Christ shall all be made alive’ (1 Co 15”), 
 are words which point to the unity of the human 
 race as the root of the aniversiliiy both of sin 
 and of redemption. But we must be careful not 
 to state this so as to do violence to our God-given 
 sense of justice. This is the fault, ¢.g., of teaching 
 like that of Jonathan Edwards, who spoke of a 
 psychological no less than a physical unity be- 
 tween Adam and his posterity. Ultimately based, 
 as in Augustine, on a mistranslation of Ro 5! (in 
 
 uo as the rendering of ¢¢’ 6) and on the adoption 
 
 in the Vulg. of the word imputare, familiar from 
 its use in the courts of Roman law, this teaching 
 may readily become either ultra-mystical or ultra- 
 rationalistic. It becomes ultra-mystical, if the 
 unity of the human race be so spoken of as to 
 conceal the all-important fact that it is only for 
 a person that morality has any intelligible mean- 
 ing. It becomes ultra-rationalistic, when the 
 phrases ‘imputation of sin’ and the correlative 
 ‘imputation of righteousness’ are used as if sin 
 and righteousness were transferable from one per- 
 son to another. Sin is predicable only of a person, 
 not of human nature ; and the warning of Ezekiel, 
 ‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die,’ needs to be 
 ever kept in view. St. Paul does not teach that 
 we are accomplices in Adam’s sin or partakers 
 of his guilt without a co-operation of our own 
 will, although it be at the same time awfully 
 true that we inherit from him a degraded nature. 
 The abiding truth in the interpretation given by 
 Augustine of St. Paul’s teaching as to the Fall, 
 is the truth of the unity of mankind. In this 
 Adam is rUmos rod pé\dovTos. 
 
 (6) Again, the effect of Adam’s fall upon his 
 posterity has been explained by speaking of Adam 
 as representative of the race. ‘The covenant was 
 male with Adam as a public person, not with 
 himself only, but for his posterity.’ But the ques- 
 tion arises, How could Adam, in justice, bind his 
 posterity to a covenant of which they were not 
 cognizant? A federal compact of this sort could 
 only bind us, if we had empowered Adam to act 
 on our. behalf. And if it be urged that in Adam’s 
 case we should have done the same as he, and 
 therefore may justly be punished for what he did, 
 it may be replied that this is a gratuitous assump- 
 
 *See for a fuller classification, Schaff in Lange’s Romans 
 (Eng. tr. p. 191). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 original transgression of moral blame by repre- | 
 senting it as inevitable. Here is an important 
 consideration which must not be overlooked. All 
 profitable speculation on the subject of the Fall © 
 must recognize frankly its voluntary character. | 
 Adam was not necessitated to act as he did; | 
 otherwise his action would not involve moral 
 responsibility. 
 (c) We come, then, to the view which is at | 
 once most widely accepted and most consonant | 
 to all the facts. It is, substantially, the view | 
 expounded by John of Damascus. We inherit — 
 from our first parents a degraded nature, so de- © 
 graded that it 1s for us much harder to overcome | 
 sin than it was for Adam. For this inherited © 
 depravity of nature we are not responsible; we | 
 have inherited it in spite of ourselves. Hence 
 the world is in a ‘state of ruin,’ and can be reme- | 
 died only through grace. But we are not, there- | 
 fore, guilty; guilt is incurred only when the evil 
 is voluntarily embraced, when we take up Adam’s 
 sin by repeating it, as it were, in our own persons. — 
 The rule of Augustine, Peccatum pena peccati, 
 continually receives verification. Bolerida e has 
 pressed this view somewhat further. ‘It belongs, 
 he says, ‘ to the very essence of the doctrine that | 
 in respect of original sin every man is the adequate | 
 representative of ad’ men’ (Aids to Reflection, p. | 
 194). And he holds that Adam/’s fall is a typical } 
 experience repeated afresh in every son of Adam. — 
 Mututo nomine, de te fabula narratur. The cor- | 
 ruption, he urges, ‘must be self-originated.’ There | 
 is an important sense in which this is true; but 
 it is not the whole truth. It is deficient in recog- 
 nition of the far-reaching character of the first | 
 sin. We are not at all in the same spiritual | 
 condition as that of the first man; we do not | 
 enter on the conflict with evil on the same terms. | 
 Our whole attitude to God is different from that — 
 of Adam, although we be still ‘sons of God.’ As | 
 the schoolmen put it, in the case of Adam the | 
 person corrupted the nature; with us it is the | 
 nature which corrupts the person. Man is still | 
 free, but man is oe with a sickness which is dis- 
 pleasing to the All-pure; and for healin 
 
 of this 
 
 sickness only a supernatural remedy will suffice. 
 As our Lord taught in the Sermon on the Mount |} 
 (cf. also Mt 15!%), the real seat of sin is within, | 
 the heart is the seat of the moral life (cf. Ps 78°’, | 
 Pr 4%), although the translation of thought into | 
 act involves a fresh and distinct step in responsi- | 
 
 bility.* The advocates of the more rigorous | 
 Augustinian doctrine have been accustomed to } 
 designate this view as semi-Pelagianism; but it | 
 is free from the essential fault of the teaching 
 of Pelagius, on which we say a final word. a | 
 
 (d) Pelagius is represented as having held that | 
 the infant enters on life crippled in no appreciable | 
 degree by any inherited infirmity or waywardness | 
 of the will. He begins the world with powers | 
 sufficient to cope with the machinations of the 
 evil one. And thus, in so far as he does wrong, | 
 it is his own fault; in so far as he does right, he | 
 is deserving of approbation. It would seem that 
 Pelagius and his disciples seriously underestimated 
 the influence of Adam’s fall on human nature at 
 large. That this nature as corrupt and the seat 
 of sin must be of itself and when unregenerate | 
 displeasing to the All-holy, they did not perceive 
 with clearness. And though men, bene do not 
 always push their opinions to their logical con- 
 clusions, the result of such teaching as this would 
 be the denial of any need of grace or of redemp- 
 tion. +t : 
 
 v. We pass on to the question, How far is the — 
 
 * See Hort’s Life and Letters, ii. 330f.; see alsoi. 78 
 + See Neander’s Church Histcey, iv. 331 ff. 
 
 
 
FALL 
 
 doctrine of the Fall affected by modern theories 
 as to the evolution of the human species from 
 lower and less developed types? It has been too 
 often hastily assumed that the belief in the con- 
 tinuity of animal forms is inconsistent with belief 
 in any special prerogative of man, and is still more 
 incompatible with a doctrine which represents his 
 history as having been retrogressive at one point. 
 But neither of these positions can be established. 
 
 The doctrine of the evolution of species is not 
 yet to be counted as more than an extremely 
 probable hypothesis, by which the phenomena 
 of life and growth become intelligible. Many 
 details are, as yet, very obscure, and the laws of 
 inheritance have not by any means been clearly 
 and fully expounded. See HEREDITY. And the 
 application of this doctrine to the descent of man 
 is beset with peculiar difficulties, which cannot 
 be said, as yet, to have been solved. But we are, 
 nevertheless, content in this article to treat of 
 the subject of man’s early history in the light of 
 this wonderful law. Evolution may not be the 
 final word of science as to the laws of growth; 
 but it expresses well the results to which investi- 
 gation has so far attained. We conceive, then, of 
 primeval man as a creature descended from brute 
 ancestors, some of whom he closely resembled in 
 instinct and habit as well as in structure. But 
 there was one marked difference. In him there 
 was present the faculty of self-consciousness ; he 
 was conscious of a reason which can make pro- 
 vision for a foreseen future, and of a will which 
 is not necessarily determined by the strongest 
 physical desire. Man is made wn the image of 
 God, although his bodily lineage be that of the 
 ape-like creatures whom he sees round him. If 
 we may illustrate the facts of his growth by a 
 mathematical illustration, we shall say that the 
 curve of his progress is a continuous curve, upon 
 which he has come to a critical point. At this 
 critical point the curvature seems to change its 
 character; in other words, the man finds himself 
 possessed of faculties which are not, so far as he 
 can judge, the direct product of his former history. 
 They are, to use at once the simplest and the 
 truest words, the gift of God. There may be, 
 pethaps, absolute and visible continuity between 
 the bodily form of the man and of the higher apes; 
 but continuity cannot be so exactly traced in his 
 mental development. There has been a perdBacrs 
 els G\Xo yévos, however it has come about. Hence- 
 forth he is not only an animal, but a man. If it 
 be said that it is not scientific to postulate a 
 saltus of this kind, it may be asked, Why not? 
 The law of continuity is not a fetish before which 
 we are called to prostrate ourselves; it is nothing 
 more than a convenient working hypothesis, which 
 we find it necessary to desert in this instance, as 
 in others where it will not serve our purpose. 
 And, indeed, it is by no means certain that to 
 the Supreme Mind there is here apparent any 
 breach of continuity whatever. The law may be 
 ee ag in fact, though the sequence may not be 
 within our observation. 
 
 A creature thus emerging from a lower animal 
 condition, even though endowed with the divine 
 gifts of self-conscious reason and free will, would 
 
 not, indeed, be perfect. He would be, at the 
 earliest stage of a new period of growth, already 
 raised above the ape, but still far removed from 
 the civilized European of modern life. But then 
 we remark that the narrative of Genesis nowhere 
 describes the first man as perfect. When South 
 said that ‘Aristotle was but the rubbish of an 
 Adam, and Athens but the rudiments of Para- 
 dise,’ * he was not drawing his picture from Scrip- 
 ture. Neither OT nor NT speak of Adam as 
 * Sermon on Gn 127. 
 
 FALL 843 
 
 perfect, though they speak of him as innocent and 
 pure (cf. Ee 7”). And this was perceived by early 
 Christian commentators, Theophilus Jf Antioch 
 says that God placed Adam in Paradise d:dods ara 
 apopuiny mpoxorijs Srws av&dvwr Kal rédevos yevouevos, 
 k.7T.X. (Ad Autol. ii. 24); and Clement of Alex- 
 andria states (Strom. vi. 12. 96) that Adam ‘ was 
 not made perfect in respect of his constitution, 
 but in a fit condition to receive virtue.’* This 
 relation to God has been well described as not 
 a state of perfection or a mere disposition, but 
 ‘a living commencement which contained within 
 itself the possibility of a progressive development 
 and a fulfilment of the vocation of man.’ t 
 
 Such a state of things is so far removed froin 
 anything of which we have experience that we 
 find ourselves continually at fault in the effort 
 to imagine or to describe it. But we must, at 
 least, suppose it to have been a condition in which 
 man obeyed freely the law of that nature to which 
 he had attained; the ideas ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ 
 hardly presented themselves to his mind with full 
 meaning, for ‘the knowledge of good and evil’ 
 was not yet his. It may well have been that the 
 image of God was a gift only germinally bestowed 
 and gradually realized. Man did not come all at 
 once into his splendid inheritance. In the Para- 
 dise narrative he is depicted as still at an early 
 stage in his history. He is represented as liviag 
 a life of communion with Cat conscious, as it 
 would seem, that he ‘ought’ to obey the laws of 
 God, which, as yet, were presented in the simplest 
 and most elementary form; but the consciousness 
 of moral obligation could only be half realized 
 where the knowledge of evil was not present. So 
 far there is nothing in the story which woul: 
 conflict with the teaching of science, whether 
 physical or mental. In his primitive condition 
 man would have been able to recognize only the 
 simplest moral commands. He was forbidden to 
 taste of the fruit of ‘the tree of the knowledge 
 of good and evil’: for so perilous an experience he 
 was not prepared. And, in the absence of tempta- 
 tion from without, it was perhaps possible that 
 this state of purity should have continued. The 
 man’s nature, though not developed to perfection, 
 though not strong with the discipline which time 
 and experience bring, was perfectly balanced ; and 
 in obeying its dictates he would obey the dictates 
 of his Creator. 
 
 How into such a world could evil enter? That 
 is the question which has vexed philosophy from 
 generation to generation. It is a question to 
 which no final or complete answer has been given. 
 But the record of revelation at least puts the 
 ditticulty one step further back; it points to the 
 region where the solution is to be sought. In the 
 Bible the fall of the angels precedes the fall uf 
 man (Jude*), Temptation came into human life 
 through the machination of a spirit of evil distinct 
 from man. The invitation to sin came from the 
 serpent in the garden, and it took the form of a 
 suggested violation of the command known to be 
 divine. Sin is not an indigenous product, but is 
 brought in ab extra, somewhat as it has been 
 suggested that life was first brought to the earth 
 in a meteoric stone. According to the Bible, the 
 origin of evil is to be sought outside human 
 nature, 
 
 We are not now in a region where science has 
 anything to tell vs. We have only the brief 
 phrases of Scripture as our guide. And it will be 
 observed that we cannot say positively that the 
 temptation would not have been self-suggested, as 
 the man grew in faculty and in strength, had 
 there been no malign influence external to himself. 
 
 * See Gibson, Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 366. 
 + Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, § 78. 
 
 
 
344 FALL 
 
 
 
 We do not know, and cannot know. What is 
 told is this. The man was in a state of innocence 
 and purity, and the suggestion to sin came, as a 
 matter of fact, in the first instance from a personal 
 agency of evil outside the domain of his own will. 
 
 Here, then, is ignorance of evil dispelled, which- 
 ever course the man adopted. For the conscious 
 refusal of evil, no less than its acceptance, would 
 in a measure involve a knowledge of evil. An 
 apostolic writer speaks of the réAewos, or perfect 
 man, as one ‘who by reason of use has his 
 senses exercised to discern good and evil’ (He 5"). 
 True, there would be no personal realization of 
 evil were it not consciously embraced. But its 
 existence must henceforward be definitely con- 
 ceived. And we may notice that whether man 
 yielded to the temptation or overcame it, in any 
 case he would have advanced a step in knowledge. 
 To yield was a spiritual fall; to resist would have 
 been a spiritual rise. But in any case the new 
 experience would be an intellectual rise. This is 
 a principle which has formed the starting-point of 
 some remarkable speculations as to the Fall both 
 in medieval and modern times. The philosopher 
 Erigena seems to have had a confused perception of 
 this truth when he taught that sin was relatively 
 necessary for the development of human nature. 
 Schiller, again, interpreted the Fall as the necessary 
 transition of reason from the state of nature to 
 that of culture. The necessity of evil is a pro- 
 minent feature in the Hegelian philosophy, accord- 
 ing to which the life of the world is conceived as 
 inevitably developing itself through antagonism 
 and conflict. This is the Divina Commedia of 
 human history, the perpetual tragedy of life. 
 And theologians have pointed out that in Scrip- 
 ture itself the origin of the arts of civilization and 
 of peace is traced to fallen and not to unfallen 
 man. Tubal-cain, ‘the forger of every cutting in- 
 strument in brass and iron,’ and Jubal the father 
 of musicians, are the descendants of Cain (Gn 4?! 2), 
 The truth which seems to underlie speculations 
 such as these is that man would not begin to 
 progress rapidly, in an intellectual point of view, 
 until he became conscious of the resistance to his 
 energies which evil presents. But this conscious- 
 ness would not have been less intense had he over- 
 come the temptation which assailed him instead 
 of yielding to it. It is only the man who has 
 successfully battled with evil that is conscious of 
 its full strength, for pees him alone has it spent 
 all its powers. And thus to assert that sim was 
 relatively necessary for the development of human 
 nature, is to confuse the yielding to temptation 
 with the experience of it. Had primeval man 
 been strong when evil presented itself, we know 
 not to what heights of intellectual, as of spiritual 
 excellence, the race might not have now attained. 
 In this view only is it true that the first tempta- 
 tion marks the ‘beginning and the foundation of 
 the development of mind, the birth of man’s 
 intellectual nature.’ * 
 
 We find, then, that the doctrine of the Fall, 
 when subjected to examination, is in no way 
 inconsistent with the theory of the evolution of 
 man from lower types, and his growth ‘from 
 strength to strength’ as the centuries have gone 
 by. There has been a continuous intellectual 
 development. When the pre-Adamite ancestor of 
 the human family was fitted to receive the divine 
 
 ift of reason, it was granted tohim. Like Christ, 
 
 dam came in the fulness of time, when all things 
 were ready. Up to this point the evolution had 
 been unconscious ; henceforward it was to be con- 
 scious, and partly assisted by voluntary effort. 
 
 *See Matheson, Can the Old Faith live with the New, p 
 219 ff., where the argument of this paragraph is developed at 
 ength, 
 
 
 
 FALL 
 
 
 
 And the first experience of evil, explicitly re 
 cognized as evil, would afford a fresh starting. 
 point for his growth. For such experience of evil, 
 as has been said, would in any event—whether it 
 was comanoree or the conqueror—involve a rise in 
 the intellectual scale. Had it been overcome, ag 
 it might have been overcome (for the act of Adam 
 is represented as one of free choice), there would 
 have been a rise in the spiritual scale as well. 
 But in the event there was intellectual growth, 
 accompanied by a descent to a lower spiritual 
 level, from which it would be impossible for man 
 to rise without the aid of divine grace. And so 
 the Incarnation and the Atonement mark in the 
 history of mankind a crisis as real, and introduce 
 a force as potent, as when God created man tn His 
 own image. — 
 
 Such a view of man’s progress is in the strictest 
 harmony alike with the Bible and with the teach- 
 ing of modern science. For it is to be remembered 
 that what science teaches us is that the history of 
 man has been a history of development, but it does 
 not and could not teach that this development has 
 proceeded along the best conceivable lines.* It is 
 no postulate of modern philosophy that this is the 
 best of all possible worlds. And the Christian 
 doctrine, that man as he presents himself to us in 
 history and in life, though his education through 
 the centuries has been divinely ordered, is not in 
 the condition which was the divine intention for 
 him, is a doctrine which receives verification from 
 daily observation. The divine will has been 
 thwarted, so to speak, by the perversity of the 
 human will. And this has been recognized as the 
 key to the problem of evil by men of all races and 
 creeds, For what is the spectacle which the world 
 of men presents? Newman has described it well 
 in a splendid passage of his Apologia (ch. v.): ‘Te 
 consider the world in its length and its breadth, 
 its various history, the many races of man, their 
 starts, their fortunes, their mutual alienation, 
 their conflicts; and then their ways, habits, 
 governments, forms of worship; their enterprises, 
 their aimless courses, their random achievements 
 and acquirements, the impotent conclusion of long- 
 standing facts, the tokens so faint and broken of 
 a superintending design, the blind evolution of 
 what turn out to be great powers or truths, the 
 progress of things, as if from unreasoning elements, 
 not towards final causes, the greatness and little- 
 ness of man, his far-reaching aims, his short dura- 
 tion, the curtain hung over his futurity, the 
 disappointments of life, the defeat of good, the 
 success of evil, physical pain, mental anguish, 
 the prevalence and intensity of sin, the pervading 
 idolatries, the corruptions, the dreary, hopeless 
 irreligion, that condition of the whole race, so 
 fearfully yet exactly described in the apostle’s 
 words, “having no hore and without God in the 
 world,”—all this is a vision to dizzy and appal ; 
 and inflicts upon the mind the sense of a profound 
 Heer GE is absolutely beyond human solu- 
 tion. hat shall be said to this heart-piercing, 
 reason-bewildering fact? I can only answer, that 
 either there is no Creator, or this living society of 
 men is in a true sense discarded from His presence.’ 
 The ‘outcast man’ is, in short, the Great Excep- 
 tion. While every other living thing is striving 
 for its good, man alone is found choosing what 
 he knows to be for his hurt. And so to the 
 
 believer in God his own experience confirms the | 
 
 eternal truth of the doctrine of the Fall. As 
 
 Pascal says, ‘ De sorte que ’homme est plus incon- | 
 
 * See Gore, Luz Mundil0, pp. 635, 536, and the passage there 
 cited from Aubrey Moore’s Hvolution and Christianity: ‘the 
 change which took place at the Fall was a change in the moral 
 region ; but it could not be without its effect elsewhere. Even 
 the knowledge of nature becomes confused witheut the govern- 
 ing truth of the relation of man to God.’ 
 
 
 
FALL 
 
 cevable sans ce mystére, ane ce mystére n’est 
 inconcevable & ’homme.’ at doctrine is indeed 
 a datum of revelation ; but it harmonizes well with 
 what we know of ourselves and of others. There 
 has been somewhere a backward step in the history 
 of man, who was at the first created ‘very good.’ 
 And the teaching of St. Paul about sin, stated in 
 terms of the story of Gn 3, but based on the broad 
 ground of observation and experience, gives, as we 
 have seen, the rationale of this fact, and brings 
 it into line with the revelation of the gospel. 
 There are two points on which it is necessary to 
 add a few concluding remarks. 
 
 (1) St. Paul, following Gn 2" and 3%, states 
 that death came through sin (Ro 5). It is 
 tolerably plain that by ‘death’ he means physical 
 death, ihoueh it has been interpreted of the death 
 of the soul (see Sanday, in Joc.). And he here seems 
 to come into collision with natural science, which 
 teaches that death must have been known upon 
 the earth long before the human species appeared. 
 For ages before the creation or evolution of man, 
 death in the case of the lower animals must have 
 been a necessary concomitant and condition of life. 
 It is not apparent, however, that this touches St. 
 Paul’s argument; for he is speaking of the death 
 of man. And in the case of man it may well be 
 that had he remained faithful to the law of his 
 being, as communicated to him by his Creator, 
 death would have had no dominion over him. As 
 has been said already, of the condition of primeval 
 man we have little information ; it was so utterly 
 unlike anything of which we have experience that 
 confident statements would be out of place. But, 
 at all events, the death of a being made in the 
 tmage of God is a phenomenon of an order entirely 
 different from the death of a beast. Death is the 
 
 rtion of the latter; it is part of the divine 
 intention for him. Not so, for man. For him 
 there is a further destiny in store. And his sin, 
 as it involves alienation from God, involves the 
 withdrawal of that higher life which has been the 
 assurance of immortality. We do not assert of 
 Adam the non posse mori, but the posse non mori, 
 as long as his fellowship with God, the source of 
 life, was unbroken. But sin reduced him to the 
 state of a lower animal, and thus man became the 
 prey of death. It may well be that, as has been 
 surmised by many of the profoundest of Christian 
 philosophers, there is some intimate connexion be- 
 tween moral evil and physical decay for a composite 
 being such as Scripture represents man to be. 
 And in the Fall of Adam his whole race were thus 
 involved ; death passed upon them, not indeed as 
 a punishment for something which a remote an- 
 cestor had done, but as the inevitable consequence 
 of the sin of the head of the race. They inherit a 
 degraded nature, which is subject to the laws of 
 
 hysical dissolution as is the nature of a beast. 
 Bat ‘man’s;normal condition, according to the OT, 
 
 is not mortality, with the possibility of attaining 
 immortality by a later gift ; but life in God’s fellow- 
 
 ship, with the possibility of losing it and falling 
 into a condition of an existence which is not life.’ * 
 It is not by any means clear that it is within the 
 power of natural science to negative this view. 
 
 (2) What may prove a more serious difficulty 
 arises in connexion with the origin of the human 
 race from a single pair, which seems to be presup- 
 
 osed in St. Paul’s exposition of the parallelism 
 baleen Adam and Christ. True, the unity of the 
 race is not disproved by science ; and it is believed 
 by many on purely scientific grounds to be more 
 robable than the hypothesis that mankind are 
 pended from several pairs. But if the latter 
 doctrine should command at any time the assent 
 of the scientific world, it would be necessary to 
 * Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, p. 220. 
 
 FAME 
 
 modify in some degree what has been said. This 
 article has been written on the assumption that 
 there is nothing contradictory to science in the 
 doctrine of the unity of the human race as 
 descended from common parents. This is cer- 
 tainly the doctrine expounded by St. Paul. But 
 it is a matter which comes within the province of 
 science; and should it ever be disproved, it would 
 be necessary to admit that the apostle was using 
 an illustration not scientifically apt in all respects. 
 It must be observed, however, that in essentials 
 nothing would have to be changed. The great 
 truths, that sin began with the beginning of our 
 race, that its baneful influence has been trans- 
 mitted from generation to generation, that it is as 
 widespread as mankind itself, that it cannot be 
 eradicated without a gift of grace, are unaffected 
 whether ‘ Adam’ be taken as the name of a single 
 individual, or as a term descriptive of the fore- 
 fathers of the human species. The universality of 
 sin is a sufficient indication that human nature 
 has been Saja bom at its base, whether by the 
 fall of one or of several ; and it would still remain 
 true that ‘as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall 
 all be made alive.’ So much it has been deemed 
 necessary to say, although at present the balance 
 ef evidence seems distinctly to favour the doctrine 
 that mankind are descended from one common 
 stock, and so to confirm the analogy drawn out by 
 St. Paul. See also ADAM, ATONEMENT, JUSTIFI- 
 CATION, HEREDITY, PARADISE, SACRIFICE, SIN. 
 LITERATURB.—In addition to the books already mentioned, 
 the following may be consulted with profit: Ryle, Harly 
 Narratives of Genesis; Orr, Christian View of God and the 
 World 5 Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man; Miiller, Christian 
 Doctrine of Sin. The subject is discussed in all treatises on 
 Systematic Theology. J. H. BERNARD. 
 
 FALLOW-DEER.—This word occurs in the AV 
 among the clean animals (Dt 145), and in the 
 list of game furnished for Solomon’s daily table 
 (1 K 4%). In each list ’ayydl, zébi, and yahmdr 
 occur in the same order. The first is correctly 
 translated, both in AV and RV, hart (see HART). 
 The second is incorrectly tr. in AV roebuck, and 
 correctly in RV gazelle (see GAZELLE). The third 
 is incorrectly tr. in AV fallow-deer, and, we think, 
 correctly in RV roebuck (see ROEBUCK). 
 
 G. E. Post. 
 
 FALSE WITNESS.—See LyIna, OATH. 
 
 FAME.—The Gr. word ¢ijun (from ¢yul, to de- 
 clare, say) was used for a divine voice, oracle, and 
 then for a report or common saying. The Lat. 
 word fama, beginning, where ¢7jun left off, with 
 rumour or report, added to that the meaning of 
 reputation or renown. The Eng. word ‘fame,’ 
 though it once had all the meaning of Lat. fama, 
 now retains only the sense of renown or celebrity. 
 Thus in modern Eng. ‘fame’ is never a fair equi- 
 valent for dhyun. 
 
 That in 1611 ‘fame’ had the meaning (1) of 
 report, and (2) also of renown, is certain. Thus: 
 (1) Sir T. Elyot, The Governowr, 1531 (Croft’s ed. 
 ii. 291), says, ‘all Greece was in great fear for the 
 fame that was sprad of the commynge of the 
 Persians with an infinite armye.’ So Tindale’s tr. 
 of Mt 24° (ed. of 1534) is, ‘ Ye shall heare of warres, 
 and of the fame of warres’ (Gr. dxods; Wye. 
 ‘openyouns’; Tind. 1526 ‘noyse’; Cran. ‘tidinges’ ; 
 Rhem. ‘ bruites’; Gen., Bish., AV, RV ‘ rumours’). 
 And Bacon (Adv. of Learning, Ul. xxiii. 19) says, 
 ‘General fame is light, and the opinions conceived 
 by superiors or equals are deceitful; for to such 
 men are more masked; verior fama e domesticis 
 emanat.’ Again (2) in Shaks. (Troilus and Cres- 
 sida, Il. iii. 228), Achilles says— 
 
 ‘I see my reputation is at stake ; 
 My fame is shrewdly gored’ ; 
 
 
 

 
 846 FAMILIAR 
 
 
 
 and in Henry V. ul. ii. 13, Pistol sings, ‘And sword 
 and shield, In bloody field, Doth win immortal 
 fame’; to which the Boy replies, ‘ Would I were in 
 an ale-house in London! 1 would give all my fame 
 for a pot of ale and safety.’ 
 
 In AV both meanings appear, but the former 
 most frequently. The only manifest examples of 
 the meaning ‘renown’ are 1 K 4%!, 1 Ch 147 225, 
 Zeph 3”, where the Heb. is shém ‘a name.’ When 
 the Heb. is shéma‘ (Nu 14, 1 K 101, 2 Ch 91, Job 
 282, Is 669), shéma‘ (Jos 67799, Est 94, Jer 6%), or 
 shémi'ah (1 K 10’, 2 Ch 9), the meaning is not very 
 distinctly marked, but the Heb. words are properly 
 report, tidings (lit. ‘hearing’); and in Nab Dore 
 (RV ‘rumour’) as well as in Jer 6* that is mani- 
 festly the sense. It is evident also that in the 
 only remaining OT passage, Gn 45!° (where the 
 Heb. is £él, lit. ‘ voice’), the sense is report. In 
 NT that sense is probably the only one that 
 occurs. The Gr. words are (1) djun, Mt 975, Lk 4%, 
 the only examples of the word, which is nearly as 
 rare in LXX (Pr 16? [for shémii'‘ah], 2 Mac 4%, 
 3 Mac 3?, 4 Mac 4”), with the verb diagnulgw, Mt 9 
 (Stepjuicavy airdv, ‘they ... spread abroad his 
 fame’; Wyc. 1380 ‘thei. . . defameden hym,’ 1388 
 ‘thei... diffameden hym,’ from Vulg. diffama- 
 verunt eum). (2) dxoy, lit. ‘hearing,’ Mt 44 14}, 
 Mk 1% (RV always ‘report’). (3) jxos, ‘echo,’ 
 Lk 4 the only occurrence of this meaning (RV 
 ‘rumour’). (4) Adyos, ‘ word,’ Lk 5 (RV ‘report’), 
 which has this meaning also in Mt 284, Jn 21% 
 (EV ‘saying’). In Apocr., on the other hand, we 
 find only 1 Mac 37-41, both with the mod. sense 
 of renown (Gr. dvoua, ‘name’). 
 
 RV adds Jer 50% (Heb. shéma') for AV ‘report.’ 
 ‘Fame’ is the Wyclifite tr® of 1388 here, ‘report’ 
 having come from the Geneva Bible of 1560. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAMILIAR.—‘ Familiar spirit’ is the tr. in EV of 
 Heb. ’66h wherever it occurs (except Job 32! where 
 in plu. it means ‘skin-bottles,’ EV ‘bottles,’ RVm 
 ‘wine skins’), on which see Driver on Dt 18" and 
 art. DEMON; also Van Hoonacker, ‘ Divination by 
 0b,’ in Expos. Times, Jan. 1898. ‘ Familiar’ has in 
 this phrase the sense of the Lat. familiaris, belong- 
 ing to one’s family, and so to oneself, ready to serve 
 one as a famulus or servant. The oldest example 
 in Oxf. Eng. Dict. is Stow, Chron. (1565) 107, ‘A 
 familiar spirit which hee had. . . in likenesse of a 
 Catte.’ But it is found in Geneva Bible of 1560, 
 15 287 %s- 8 etc., whence it passed into AV. Similar 
 phrases seem to be older, as Prose Legends in 
 rye et viii. 146 (14—), ‘Hir famylier aungel thet 
 hadde hir in kepynge’; and Capgrave, Chron. 25 
 (1460), ‘That same familiar dove 
 
 In Jer 20 we find the subst. ‘familiars’ (Lat. 
 
 amiliares), ‘All my familiars watched for my halt- 
 ing,’ for which RV gives ‘familiar friends’ as the 
 same Heb. is tr. in Ps 419 AV and RY. 
 
 The Heb. is lit. ‘man (or men) of my peace.’ It occurs also 
 Jer 3822, Ob7. The most instructive occurrence is no doubt Ps 
 419, and the meaning is there at least not simply ‘ acquaintances, 
 those to whom I should give the ordinary salutation, Peace be 
 with you’ (Streane); but rather, as Cheyne, those who are 
 specially attached to me by a covenant. 
 
 Tilustrations of the subst. ‘familiars’ are Knox, 
 Hist. 38, ‘they would chop their familiars on the 
 cheeke with it [the New Testament]’; and Hos 
 10% Cov. ‘All thy stronge cities shalbe layed 
 waist, euen as Salmana was destroyed with his 
 familiers.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAMILY.—i. Scopz, TERMS, AND DATA.—The 
 term family is used in many different senses: 
 (a) For larger or smaller groups of persons con- 
 nected by blood or marriage, from the family in 
 the narrowest sense—a man with his wives and 
 children, and sometimes his mother—to the widest 
 
 FAMILY 
 
 
 
 aggregate of kinsfolk between whcm relationship 
 is traced—the clan, tribe, nation, or even the 
 human race. (5) In a looser sense for communities 
 living in close and permanent intercourse, from the 
 household—including dependants as well as kins- 
 folk—to the clan, etc., including persons not of the 
 main stock. (c) In various fig. senses with which 
 we are not concerned here. OT recognizes and 
 connects the groups denoted by family in (a) and 
 (4), but has no single term for them; still less has 
 it any term corresponding to the Eng. family. 
 nz house, approaches most closely to the range of 
 meaning of family in (a) and (6); in Gn 7! Noak 
 with his wife sts sons and daughters-in-law are 
 called his house; we have also the house of David 
 258 3}, of Levi (z.e. tribe) Nu 178, of Israel (7.e. the 
 nation) Ex 16%. In P and Ch 3x m3, RV fathers 
 house, is a technical term for a subdivision of a 
 tribe. The origin of these terms in the concrete 
 dwelling connects them with (6), cf. similar use 
 of Sax ¢ent, in Ps 78% 83% So also ansyn, EV 
 Samily, is explained (Ges., Fuerst) as etymologic- 
 ally a union, obsolete / nav to join, ae Buhl 
 connects with Arab. sapaha, to pour out, and with 
 anav. ‘bis strictly a clan, and is used in P and late 
 writings (Nu 2, etc.) for the largest division of a 
 
 tribe; but its meanings also range from the clan — 
 
 to the tribe (Jg 13°) and the nation (Jer 33%), 
 Other terms are derived from the physical tie 
 between kinsfolk, and connect with (a), y1 seed 
 (Gn 127), oyy bone (Gn 29"4), aya flesh (Gn 2914), 
 ayy flesh (Lv 18%), with its derivative aqyv (Ly 
 187), in the sense of blood-relation; the com- 
 ounds of 7° bear, beget, nibd offspring (Gn 48°), 
 cinsfolk (Gn 31%), niin clans (Nu 1”), Also, 
 
 young children collectively are 4p, »/ |v take quick | 
 
 short steps. a>xi (Ezk 1115) is a misreading 
 (Cornill, ete. ¢./.). 
 
 This brief statement as to terms shows how the | 
 
 \ 
 
 family was bound up with all the social and political — 
 
 arrangements of Israel. Hence it is difficult to 
 draw any natural line of division between the family 
 
 and other social and political groups, whose insti- — 
 
 tutions are expressed in terms of the family, and 
 
 derived in fact or theory from it. Moreover, it is 
 often maintained that the idea of the family 
 
 originated in a social group larger than and | 
 
 different from that consisting of a single man with 
 his dependent women and children. If this is in 
 any measure true, the relations between the family 
 
 (in the narrower modern sense) and the larger social | 
 
 vroups will be still more complicated. This article 
 
 will be confined, as far as possible, to the — oa 
 t *. 
 
 proper, and the larger social groups will be d 
 
 with in the art. TRIBE; but it will be necessary to eae 
 make some allusion to the relations of the family | 
 
 to the clan, ete. 
 
 The data for our subject are the narratives of — 
 woe: of Ruth, of 
 aws dealing with the — 
 family ; and the various allusions to the subject. | 
 OT narratives are, of course, valid authorities for | 
 the manners of the times in which they originated, | 
 
 the family life, esp. of the 
 David, and of Tobit; the 
 
 whatever view may be held as to their historicity. 
 
 Unfortunately, however, both narratives and—in — 
 a less degree—laws mostly treat of royal, noble, — 
 or wealthy families and their slaves, and we have — 
 little direct information as to the poorer free 
 ees principles | 
 
 classes, and the | 
 
 Israelites. Doubtless, the same 
 governed family life amongst al 
 wealthy families and their dependants constituted 
 
 a large proportion of the population; but we have | 
 always to bear in mind that the familiar OT — 
 
 pictures are concerned chiefly with certain classes, 
 
 and that for other cases we must allow for the — ‘ 
 
 effect of inferior rank and smaller means. 
 
 ii, MEMLERS.—The members of a Heb. family or z 
 household included some or all of the following: _ 
 
 
 
 ta 
 
 garth 
 
 
 

 
 FAMILY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 the man, as supreme head of the household ; his 
 mother, if residing with him after the death of his 
 father; his wives; his concubines; the wives’ 
 children; the concubines’ children; children of 
 other women, ¢.g. Jephthah (Jg 11"); daughters- 
 in-law; sons-in-law, for example, Jacob with 
 Laban; other free Isr. relatives, friends, or 
 no pag oocalem gertm or resident foreigners, EV 
 ‘the stranger that is within thy gates’ (see GER) ; 
 male and female slaves, Isr. and foreign, home- 
 born and purchased. Thus the ancient Heb. was 
 larger than the modern family; polygamy in- 
 creased the number of women and children de- 
 endent on a single man; married sons and their 
 amilies often remained in their father’s household ; 
 the insecurity of primitive life led individual resid- 
 ent aliens, etc., to attach themselves to households. 
 
 (a) Husband's Mother.—nion haméth, AV and RV 
 mother-in-law. In Mic 7° (quoted Mt 10®, Lk 12°) 
 the hdméth is perhaps the wife of the living head 
 of the household ; in Ru, Naomi, herself a widow, 
 is the haméth of widows. But the haméth attained 
 special importance and dignity when, after the 
 
 eath of her husband, her son became the head 
 of the family. She was then the most import- 
 ant and influential woman in the household; a 
 man had many wives, only one mother; he had 
 been trained in deference and obedience to his 
 mother ; his wives were his property, and absolutely 
 subject to his authority. ey had often been 
 selected by his mother, e.g. Ishmael’s wife by 
 Hagar (Gn 217), cf. 2 Es 9%). In the history of the 
 families best known to us—the royal houses of Isr. 
 and Judah—there are numerous indications of the 
 exalted position of the mother of the reigning 
 king. She bears the title ay 23 mistress. Her 
 name is regularly given in the paragraph describ- 
 ing an accession, while nothing is said about the 
 wives. Maacah, Jezebel, Athaliah, and Nehushta 
 (2 K 248 12.14, cf, Jer 226) appear as exercising great 
 influence in the reigns of their sons. The analogy 
 of modern Eastern life fully warrants us in taking 
 the position of the queen-mother as representing 
 that of the mother of the head of any ordinary 
 family. Sometimes a widow herself appears as 
 head of a household, e.g. Micah’s mother (Jg 171"), 
 Naomi in Ru, the Shunammite (2 K 81-6), Tobit’s 
 grandmother (To 1°); cf. also the position of the 
 mother of our Lord during His ministry. 
 
 (6) Husband, Wives and Concubines. — The 
 generic terms &x, Wiix nan, YX Woman, are com- 
 monly used for husband and wife, as in most 
 languages. This usage recognizes the funda- 
 mental nature of sexual characteristics. In spite 
 of the similarity of the two words, Oxf. Heb. Lex. 
 speaks of ‘the impossibility of deriving wy and 
 agx from the same root’; consequently, all deduc- 
 tions based on the reference of the two words to 
 the same root are without any true foundation. 
 The husband is by; master, as supreme over his 
 wives, who are slaves acquired by capture in war 
 (Dt 21°14), or by purchase (Gn 341°, Ex 2218, Dt 
 22%, Ru 4). It would be misleading to apply 
 the term ‘freewoman’ to any Israelitess, except 
 perhaps to a widow. Even in the Mishna, 
 ‘women, slaves, and children’ are constantly 
 grouped together, e.g. Berachoth, iii. 3, and ‘a 
 woman is always under the authority of her father 
 until she is placed under the authority of her 
 husband,’ Ketuboth, iv. 3. The wife as in subjec- 
 tion to the ba‘al is be'déilah (Is 541). The rights of 
 a husband over his wives were limited by affection 
 and custom, by the terms of the marriage cove; 
 nant or contract (Gn 31% ©, To 714), by the influ- 
 ence of the wife’s family, also by certain specific 
 laws. The marital supremacy involved the right 
 of divorce at the husband’s discretion. This is 
 laid down in Dt 24!, which, however, imposes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FAMILY 847 
 
 certain vague and obscure conditions, prsbably 
 intended to discourage capricious divorce (Ben- 
 zinger, Heb. Arch. 346). Is 50!, Jer 38 show that 
 it was usual to give the divorced woman 159 
 mn ‘a bill of divorce,’ doubtless that she might 
 be able to resist any attempt on his part to reclaim 
 his rights over her, a divorced woman being in a 
 sense an emancipated slave. Dt forbids a man to 
 divorce his wife, if he has falsely charged her 
 with unchastity before marriage (22!* 1%), or if he 
 himself seduced her and had been compelled to 
 marry her in consequence (22%:%), These enact- 
 ments and the protest in Mal 2'° point to a fre- 
 quency of divorce. A wife could not divorce her 
 husband (Benzinger, 341). Other limitations of 
 the husband’s rights were that he might not marry 
 a sister of one of his living wives (Lv 18'*); if a 
 man hears his wife make a vow and does not 
 disallow it at once, he may not do so afterwards 
 (Nu 30"). Even if a woman has been purchased 
 from her parents as a concubine (apy) and he does 
 not wish to retain her, he may not sell her to 
 strangers; he must either let her kinsfolk buy her 
 back, or betroth her to one of his sons. If he takes 
 another wife or concubine, he must either main- 
 tain the first in her full rights, or let her go free 
 without payment (Ex 217-1), Even a captive who 
 has been taken to wife may not be sold as a slave, 
 but if sent away must be dismissed free of pay- 
 ment (Dt 211°), Similarly, in modern Arabia it 
 is held disgraceful to sell a concubine. The rights 
 of a wife would necessarily include those of a 
 concubine. 
 
 No very clear information is given as to the rela- 
 tive status of wives and concubines. 7x woman, 
 is sometimes used as a general term for a wife or 
 concubine (Gn 30*); sometimes for wife as distin- 
 guished from concubine (1 K 11’). The words 7x 
 (in Hex., chiefly ED), az2v¥ (in Hex., chiefly JP), 
 and wis, seem to be practically synonymous when 
 used of concubines. In households where the 
 person of every female slave was—witl. few ex- 
 ceptions—at the disposal of the master (Benzinger, 
 162), and where the relative status of the women 
 depended chiefly on his favour, definite and nicely 
 graduated distinctions were impossible. Amongst 
 modern Mohammedans, a man may cohabit with 
 any of his female slaves who is a Mohammedan, 
 a Christian, or a Jewess; and, conversely, he 
 cannot have as a slave a woman whom he acknow- 
 ledges to be within the prohibited degrees of 
 marriage (Lane, Arabian Nights, i. 55, 56). The 
 only definite advantage claimed by wives over 
 concubines is that their children should inherit a 
 larger share, or even the whole, of their father’s 
 
 roperty, ¢.g. Sarah’s claim for Isaac (Gn 21). 
 
 evertheless the wife, because her position was 
 the result of her husband’s favour, and was often. 
 guaranteed by powerful relatives, would often 
 sues superior consideration, and exercise a greater 
 influence. Sarah, Rachel, and Leah had slave- 
 girls, ninay (shéphahdth), who were their own pro- 
 perty; and when these became concubines, they 
 were still under the authority of their mistresses, 
 Polygamy is both recognized by the law and de- 
 scribed in the history; nearly all the kings and 
 judges of whom we have particulars have a large 
 harem. Acc. to Justin (7rypho, 134), even in his 
 time Jewish teachers permitted each man to have 
 four or five wives (cf. Jos. Ant. XVII. 1. 2; Mishna, 
 Kedushin, ii. 7, ete.). But considerations of ex- 
 pense and the approximately equal numbers of 
 the two sexes place narrow limits on polygamy. 
 Nowack (Heb. Arch. i. 159) points out that Ab- 
 raham and Elkanah have two wives, that 7y 
 ‘adversary’ is a technical term for one of twe 
 wives, and that Dt 21 speaks of two wives, one 
 beloved, the other hated. He thinks that such 
 
 
 
848 FAMILY 
 
 bigamy would be very common. In the nature of 
 the case, a large proportion of the population must 
 have been monogamous; cf. the cases cf Adam (Gn 
 92-34), Noah and his sons (6!8 7}% 88), Lot (191), 
 Isaac, and Joseph. Probably, the monogamy of 
 these patriarchs is narrated as an example. The 
 family quarrels arising out of polygamy are suffi- 
 ciently illustrated from the familiar examples of 
 Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah, Hannah and 
 Peninnah, and the family history of David (cf. Sir 
 3741 267 where dvritjAov =). n the other hand, 
 Heb. family life must be judged from the point of 
 view of the ancient East, and not from that of the 
 modern West. From the former, there was nothin 
 
 immoral in polygamy, and the status of wives an 
 
 concubines was neither regarded by others nor felt 
 by themselves to be pees The acrostic 
 on the Capable Woman, ésheth hayil (Pr 31°), 
 testifies to the honourable position of the faithful 
 
 e. 
 
 We have little information as to the marriages 
 of slaves; apparently, the tie between them was 
 not very binding. A couple who had come into a 
 master’s possession as a married couple were to be 
 released together at the end of six years; but if, 
 after a man became a slave, his master married 
 Lim to another slave, and children were born, the 
 man either went away alone, or remained a 
 slave for the sake of his family (cf. MARRIAGE, 
 WoMAN). 
 
 (c) Parents and Children.—The etymologies of 
 ax father, ox mother, are hat uncertain; they 
 are common to most Sem. languages, are appar- 
 ently connected with the terms for father and 
 mother in the Aryan and other families of lan- 
 guages, and are probably older than the triliteral 
 roots. 2 son aud its fem. nz have been somewhat 
 improbably connected with 733 to build; they too, 
 also, are probably older than the triliteral roots. 
 The father was supreme over the children; he 
 could dispose of the daughter in marriage (Gn 29), 
 [but (Lv 19”) he might not make her a prostitute], 
 and arrange his son’s marriage (Gn 24), or sell 
 his children as slaves (Ex 21’7)—where, however, 
 the father is forbidden to sell his daughter to a 
 stranger (Neh 5°). The power of dife and death 
 is attested by the proposed sacrifice of Isaac, the 
 case of Jephthah’s daughter, and the practice 
 of sacrificing children to Molech (Lv 187 207°, 
 2 K 23”, Jer 32%). The utmost respect and obedi- 
 ence to both father and mother are insisted on in 
 Ex 20, Ly 19%, Dt 56, Pr 18 6” 19% 20%) 23% 2874 
 80" 17, ef, Ezk 227, Mic 7*. Similarly, Ex 21% 17, 
 Lv 20° direct that any one smiting or cursing father 
 or mother shall be put to death; Dt 271° invokes a 
 curse upon any one who is disrespectful to father 
 or mother. Pr 13% ete. insist on the duty of 
 strict domestic discipline, though doubtless the 
 ‘rod’ may be understood as including other chas- 
 tisement besides corporal punishment (cf. Pr 17?°). 
 Dt 218! directs that a stubborn and rebellious 
 son, a glutton and a drunkard, is to be stoned to 
 death by his fellow-citizens, on the testimony of 
 his father and mother given before the elders.. 
 Such laws really imposed limits on the authority 
 of the father ; he must not himself put his son to 
 death, but must procure his punishment by a 
 public legal process. The constant co-ordination 
 of father and mother in such passages practically 
 places the mother on the same level with the father 
 with regard to the children. Indeed, polygamy 
 makes each mother much more important to her 
 - own children than their father is. In a polygam- 
 ous family, each mother and her children form a 
 sub - family,—Jacob’s wives and concubines have 
 separate tents (Gn 31°),—the management of 
 which is in the hands of the mother. Hence the 
 early education and training of children was 
 
 
 
 FAMILY 
 
 mostly given by the mother. Children were named 
 by the mother, e.g. Jacob’s sons (Gn 29, 30); 
 sometimes also by 
 
 the father, e.g. Ishmael (Gn 
 161°), Isaac (Gn 21°). The long period of por 
 —infants were not weaned till the second or thi 
 year—must have constituted an added bond be- 
 tween mother and children. The religious instruc- 
 tion appointed in Ex 127-27 13°59, Dt 4° 67. 20-25 118 
 would probably be given by the mother. The 
 sayings of king Lemuel (Pr 311°) were taught him 
 by his mother. On the other hand, Pr constantly 
 refers to the miésdr (RV ‘ instruction’) of the 
 father, as well as to the ¢érdh (RVm ‘ teaching’) 
 of the mother (18). Acc. to the rank and wealth 
 of the family, the care of the children would devolve 
 in whole or in part on female slaves. Rebekah (Gn 
 245°) and Joash ben-Ahaziah (2 K 112) had each a 
 foster- mother méneketh (RV ‘nurse’), though 
 Rebekah, at any rate, had a mother living. 
 Mephibosheth ben-Jonathan had an *6meneth (R 
 ‘nurse,’ 2 § 4‘), The grandmother, on either 
 side, would, by all analogy, have much to say 
 about the training of the children; Naomi became 
 the ’émeneth of Ruth’s baby (Ru 4!*), We also 
 have the masculine ’6mén cRV ‘nursing father, 
 Nu 1122, Is 49). From the analogy of the guard- 
 ians of the sons of Ahab (2 K 10!-5), and of Nathan 
 (2S 12%), this would appear to have been a kind 
 of tutor or maidaywyss. Schools for children are 
 first mentioned in Josephus (Ant, xv. x. 5) and 
 Mishna (Shad. i. 3). Ace. to Talm. Jerus. (Kethub. 
 viii. 11) the first school for children was established 
 by Simeon ben-Shetach, a century before Christ 
 (Stapfer, 141); acc. to Talm. Bab. Baba Bathra 
 (Nowack, i. 172), a system of schools in every 
 town was established by Jesus ben-Gamla, who 
 became high priest in A.D. 64. In such schools 
 reading and writing would be taught; any other 
 instruction would mainly consist of committing 
 Scripture, etc., to memory, by repeating passages 
 after the teacher. 
 
 (d) Brothers and Sisters.—The circumstances of 
 Israelite life—the need of labour to till the soil, and 
 of warriors to defend the homestead from the raids 
 of neighbouring tribes, rendered a large family a 
 great blessing (Ps 1274-5). The natural checks— 
 war, famine, and pestilence—prevented all danger 
 of over-population. The labour of girls in the house- 
 hold, the price that might be obtained for them as 
 wives or concubines, and the alliances with power- 
 ful neighbours that might result from their mar- 
 riages, gave a certain value to daughters; but the 
 Isr. father’s chief desire was for sons; it was the 
 first-born sons who were sacred to J” (Ex 22”), The 
 physical token — circumcision —of the national 
 covenant with J” is such as can be borne only by 
 males; a mother is unclean for 14 days after 
 bearing a daughter, but only for 7 after the birth 
 of ason. Daughters are very rarely mentioned by 
 name. 
 
 Each sub-family of full brothers and sisters, the 
 children of one mother, had interests of its own, 
 which clashed with those of the other sub-families. 
 Domestic friction was specially strong in the 
 numerous smaller households where there were 
 two wives, 6.9. Hannah and Peninnah [ef. the term 
 my (Dt 215-1”), and for two wives in a large house- 
 hold, Sarah and Hagar]. The relative status of 
 the sub-families depended on the family relation- 
 ships of the mother, the favour shown her by her 
 husband, and in some measure on her being wife {| 
 or concubine. We have already seen that claims — 
 
 were sometimes made that the children of a wife | 
 
 should oust those of a concubine from all or ke 
 of their share of the family inheritance. But these 
 
 claims are not sustained by any legal ordinance or | 
 
 he sons of Jacob’s — 
 
 even by any general custom. 
 Itis true 
 
 concubines rank as ancestors of tribes. 
 
 
 
. 
 
 FAMILY 
 
 FAMILY 849 
 
 
 
 that they are reckoned in a sense as children of 
 their mothers’ mistresses, but the same was true of 
 l, who was excluded from the seed of the 
 promise. There was no difference of legitimacy in 
 our sense between the sons of wives and concubines; 
 even Jephthah, the son of a zéndh or prostitute, is 
 brought up in his father’s house, and his expulsion 
 is evidently regarded as an act of unjust violence 
 (Jg 11-7) (Benzinger, 148, 135). Apparently, all 
 @ man’s acknowledged children were legitimate, 
 without regard to the status of theirmother. The 
 d, mamzér (Dt 23° [EV *], Zec 9%), is generally 
 regarded as the offspring of incest or adultery 
 (Dum. and Driver on Dt 237). Possibly, however, 
 mamzer may include children of prostitutes, whose 
 fathers were unknown or did not acknowledge 
 em. 
 
 In earlier times polygamous sub-families were 
 so distinct that brothers married half-sisters, e.g. 
 Abraham and Sarah (Gn 20"). In2S 13% Tamar 
 thinks that David would certainly sanction her 
 marriage with her half-brother. Such unions are, 
 hewever, forbidden by Lv 18°. 
 
 he same causes which rendered the mother 
 more important to her children than the father, 
 often rendered the brothers the special guardians 
 of their full sisters, e.g. Laban of Rebekah, Simeon 
 and Levi of Dinah (Gn 34), Absalom of Tamar. 
 So, children often maintained a close connexion 
 with their mother’s family, Jacob (Gn 27**), Abime- 
 lech ben-Gideon (J g 91), Absalom (2 S 33, 13%7), 
 
 The sons were the heirs, but in the absence of 
 sons the daughters might inherit, and after the 
 daughters other male relatives in order of kinship 
 (Nu 27:1), A special birthright and a larger share 
 of the inheritance were given to the first-born, both 
 in the history (Gn 49°) and the law (Ex 22”); but the 
 békhérah, or right of the first-born, was not purely a 
 matter of priority of birth, it might be sold, e.g. by 
 Esau to Jacob, or bestowed on a younger son by a 
 
 artial father, Dt 21°7—which forbids such a prac- 
 
 ice. Side by side, however, with the first-born, 
 the youngest son constantly appears as the object 
 of special favour, both from God and his parents, 
 e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Bethuel, Jacob, Joseph, 
 
 phraim, Moses, David, Solomon (cf. HEIR). 
 
 (e) Married Children, Daughters-in-law, Sons-in- 
 law.—A married son would remain part of the 
 father’s family, though not necessarily of his house- 
 hold, while the father lived. He would still be 
 in some measure subject to his authority. The 
 
 triarchs were married men with families when 
 
 . went down into Egypt, but Jacob was still the 
 head of the family (cf. Job 1). Sothe daughter- 
 in-law joined her husband’s family and came under 
 the authority of her father-in-law (To |0'2), to whom 
 she was subject even after her husband’s death, 
 é.g. Judah and Tamar (Gn 38). If her father-in- 
 law was dead, she belonged to her brother-in-law 
 or husband’s next-of-kin (Dt 255, Ru 3), or might 
 remain with her mother-in-law (Ru 1°). Some- 
 times, however, a man joined his wife’s family, at 
 any rate for a time, and fell under the authority 
 of his father-in-law, e.g. Jacob (Gn 29-31), Moses 
 (Ex 2-22 438, of. Gn 245; see § v.). 
 ) Other free Dependants. — Doubtless, more 
 distant relatives, cousins, etc., friends and free 
 servants, would sometimes form part of the family 
 in the narrower sense; but we have hardly any 
 information on the subject. Little is said as to hired 
 servants; probably they were hired only for short 
 eriods, and did not form part of the employer's 
 amily. Micah’s Levite, indeed, was hired to be 
 @ priest permanently at a regular stipend, ‘and 
 the young man was unto him as one of his sons’ (Jg 
 17"). The resident alien, gér (RV ‘stranger’), 
 téshabh (RV ‘stranger’ or ‘sojourner’), is con- 
 stantly referred to, and is commended to the good 
 VOL, I,—SA 
 
 offices of the Israelites. The géris mentioned in 
 close connexion with the other dependent members 
 of the household (Ex 20, Lv 25°). He seems to 
 have placed himself under the protection of the 
 family rather than the clan; he probably rendered 
 some services in return for protection and susten- 
 ance, and may often have been a hired servant; he 
 was evidently a familiar figure in Isr. society. The 
 he was united to his hosts by close ties. His 
 egal status and personal safety depended upon 
 their protection, and they were bound by the 
 sacred obligations of Eastern hospitality to care 
 for him as for one of their own kin. He was 
 entitled to the Sabbath rest (Ex 20"), and to eat the 
 assover if he became circumcised (Ex 1248). See 
 
 ER, STRANGER. 
 
 (g) Slaves.—The slave was substantially one u 
 the family. The master’s authority over him did 
 not differ essentially from that over wives and 
 children, and the wife was purchased like the slave. 
 Conversely, a female slave might become a con- 
 cubine, and a male might ma his master’s 
 daughter (1 Ch 2*-*), or become his heir (Gn 15°). 
 Slaves were circumcised and ate the passover. The 
 yélidh bayith, or home-born slave, would have the 
 closest, and the purchased Isr. slave, who had to 
 be released at the end of six years, the loosest ties 
 to his master’s family. We gather, however, from 
 Jer 34" that the custom of releasing Isr. slaves was 
 not strictly observed. See SLAVE. 
 
 iii, MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY. —In primitive 
 times the family, in a narrower or wider sense, 
 was the efficient social organization; and such 
 functions of modern government as were discharged 
 at all were represented by the mutual claims and 
 duties of installs Many laws and customs of Isr. 
 are a legacy from this primitive system. In 
 ancient times the only protection for life or pro- 
 perty lay in men’s willingness to defend and 
 avenge their kinsmen. This right and duty is 
 still recognized in OT ; the next-of-kin, gé’é/, must 
 
 unish his kinsman’s murderer, marry his widow 
 if the deceased was childless, and may inherit his 
 property See GOEL, and section on Levirate 
 alriage under MARRIAGE. One would suppose 
 that this strong sense of family duty would have 
 led kinsfolk to provide for destitute relatives. But 
 men were often obliged to sell themselves or 
 their children for slaves, and widows and orphans 
 are constant] ee of as poor, helpless, and 
 oppressed. oubtless, the ordinary calamities 
 rought, dearth, famine, pestilence, invasion— 
 would often ruin whole clans at the same time ; 
 but it is also clear that family feeling was ne 
 adequate substitute for legal provision for the 
 oor, 
 : iv. FAMILY RELIGION —As the nation had its 
 religious symbol of circumcision, its sanctuaries, 
 sacrifices, priests, and festivals, so the family had 
 its special sacra. According to Benzinger, 137, and 
 Nowack, 154, following Stade, etc., the Israelite 
 family was essentially a society bound together by 
 comion religious observances, Culigenossenschaft. 
 Thus, in the patriarchal narratives, the-patriarchs, 
 as head of the family, erect altars and offer sacri- 
 fices; similarly, the passover was a family rite, 
 observed in the home, often, of course, temporary. 
 In 1S 20” we read of clan-sacrifice, zebah mish- 
 
 pahah, at Bethlehem. The family burying-place 
 
 is sacred (Gn 23). Benzinger and Nowack see in 
 the cutting off of the hair and the self-mutila- - 
 tion forbidden in Dt 141, Ly 1977-28, remains of 
 ancient ancestor worship; ef. the practice of 
 necromancy (18 28). Teraphim are usually under- 
 stood to have been images or symbols of ances- 
 tors. In later times the instruction directed to 
 be given in Dt 6 would be matter for the family ; 
 and the regulations as to ceremonial cleanness 
 
850 FAMILY 
 
 tended te make the whole personal and family life 
 a continuous series of religious observances. The 
 later system, however, differed from the former 
 in that in primitive times each family had rites 
 peculiar to itself, in later times all families 
 practised the same rites. 
 
 v. EARLY HIsTORY OF THE FAMILY.-—Under 
 the monarchy, the family was constituted under the 
 headship of the father, who was supreme over 
 wives and children, and primogeniture was recog- 
 nized in the transmission of authority (royal, 
 priestly, etc.) and property. The Hex. traces 
 these institutions back to the origin of the human 
 race in Adam and Eve; at the same time it pre- 
 serves many incidents which have been held to 
 point to an altogether different state of affairs in 
 early times. It is maintained by W. R. Smith 
 and others that the head of the family was origin- 
 ally the mother (mothier-right, matriarchate), and 
 that descent was traced only through the mother. 
 Marriage was then polyandrous (of which the 
 levirate marriage is supposed to be a relic), and 
 be’ena marriage, in which the man becomes one 
 of the wife’s family, and goes into her tent (cf. 
 § 7 and Gn 2%), as opposed to ba‘al marriage, 
 where the wife enters her husband’s family. This 
 view is based partly on parallels amongst other 
 primitive peoples, and esp. amongst the Arabs; 
 and partly on various traces in OT, some of 
 which have been already mentioned. In con- 
 nexion with this theory, it has also been main- 
 tained that exogamous totem -clans existed in 
 ancient Israel. Such clans are united by the use 
 of a common badge, connected with some animal 
 or plant after which the clan was named ; inter- 
 marriage between members of the clan is regarded 
 as incest, and the totem may not be eaten. One 
 example cited is the clan Caleb (dog), the dog 
 being unclean (Dt 1445), and its flesh forbidden 
 food. Even if it should ultimately be proved that 
 such theories are partly true, it is clear that deena 
 Inarriages and totemism were obsolete and for- 
 gotten in historic Israel, and that they can be 
 traced only in customs whose original significance 
 was no longer understood. 
 
 vi. THE FAMILY IN APocrR. AND NT. — 
 Throughout the Bible, but esp. in the later books of 
 
 T, in Apocr., and in NT, the sacred history refers 
 incidentally to the family institutions of numerous 
 Gentile nations; but any general treatment of 
 these would be beyond the scope of biblical archee- 
 ology. Various subjects raise special questions of 
 this nature, and these are dealt with in the 
 articles on those subjects. 
 
 Our data do not point to any regular develop- 
 ment in the later history of the Jewish family. 
 Its character and principles were as permanent as 
 social institutions mostly are in the East. Features 
 of OT family life reappear in Apocr., NT, and 
 Talm., and still persist amongst modern Arabs 
 and Syrians. The family history of the Herods is 
 er similar to that of David. 
 
 he Pent.—some of whose laws embody the 
 most primitive customs of Israel—remained to the 
 last the authoritative codeof Judaism. Probably, 
 however, much of the Pent. legislation was always 
 a mere counsel of perfection, and other portions 
 were obsolete in nt times. Often discussions in 
 the Talm. are purely academic arguments on 
 regulations which had no bearing on actual life. 
 But if there was no continuous development of 
 Jewish life, it would still vary with varying 
 sireumstances. For instance, under a strong, well- 
 organized government, like that of some of the 
 Jewish kings, of the Herods and the Romans, the 
 jurisdiction of the head of the family and private 
 lood-revenge would be controlled and limited. The 
 settlement of a large Gentile population in Pal., 
 
 
 
 FAMINE 
 
 and the dispersion of the Jews throughout the 
 ancient world, would sometimes modify, sometimeg - 
 also accentuate, the observance of Jewish customs, 
 Probably, Western influences reinforced the tend- 
 ency to monogamy, which we have already noticed 
 in OT. It is doubtful whether 1 Ti 34%, Tit 1¢ 
 inculcate monogamy, cf. 1 Ti 5% Our Lord’s 
 limitation of divorce (Mt 55! ®) followed the teach- 
 ing of Shammai. 
 
 LiTrRATURE.—For the early history of the family, W. R. Smith, 
 Kinship and Marriage in ‘Rive Arabia, and ‘ Animal Worship 
 and Animal Tribes among the Arabs and in OT’ in Journ. of 
 Philology, vol. ix.; J. F. M‘Lennan, Primitive Marriage, and 
 the essay on ‘Totem-Clans in OT’ in Joseph Jacobs’ St 
 tn Bibl. Archeology ; Bertholet, Die Stellwng d. Isr. u. Jud. 2. 
 d, Fremden, esp. pp. 1-80. For the Bible history, the sections 
 on the Family, and the laws of Marriage, Divorce, Parents and 
 Children, etc., in Ewald, Alterthtimer Spey saa The Ant. 
 Isr, from 1st ed. 1844); Keil, Handb. der Bibl. Arch.2 1876; 
 Bensinget Heb. Arch. 1894; Nowack, Lehrb. der Heb. Arch, 
 1894; J. F. McCurdy, Hist. Proph. and the Monuments, ii. 
 
 36-77 ; Dillmann and Driver on the passages from Pent., for OT; 
 
 Schiirer, HJ P, for NT; also art. in Herzog’s RE; Schenkel’s 
 
 Bivellex, ; Riehm’s HWB. 
 ' 
 
 W. H. BENNETT. 
 
 FAMINE (23, \uu6s) in Syria and Egypt in past 
 times may be attributed to four causes— 
 
 i. Wanc of water, t.e. rainfall or inundations, in due season. 
 
 ii. Destruction of corn and fruit by hail and rain out of season. 
 
 iii. > of all growing crops by locusts and caterpillars, 
 iv. ne of food supplies by the hand of man. 
 
 i. Owing to the want of water in due season 
 the famine might be widespread in extent, but in 
 other cases it would be only partial and local. In 
 the train of famine always comes sickness, which 
 develops into pestilence and other scourges accord- 
 ing to the intensity of the want and privation to 
 which the people and flocks and herds are sub- 
 jected. In prehistoric times famines may have 
 
 een due to a failure of rain at any time of the | 
 
 year, as the people were dependent upon the spon- 
 taneous vegetation for the sustenance of them- 
 selves, their herds, and their flocks; but, after 
 agriculture was introduced, the severity of famines 
 could be much mitigated by storing up reserves of 
 corn, thus enabling the bulk of the people to live 
 independently of their herds and flocks ; and famines 
 would result more from the failure of rain in due 
 season, that is to say, at the time when it was re- 
 quired for the early growth of the corn. For the 
 plenteous years cf. Lv 26% ‘Then I will give your 
 rains in their season, and the land shall yield her 
 increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their | 
 fruit. And your threshing shall reach unto the — 
 vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the 
 sowing time; and ye shall eat your bread to the 
 full, and dwell in your land safely.” The opposite 
 condition of things is described in Lv 26%" *And _ 
 I will make your heaven as iron and your earth as — 
 brass ; and your strength shall be spent in vain: — 
 for your land shall not yield her increase, neither | 
 shalt the trees of the land yield their fruit.’ In 
 countries which depend upon the natural rainfall 
 for the growth of cereals, and not upon irrigation — 
 
 and inundations, recurrence of rain in due season | 
 
 is a matter of the utmost importance ; and scarcity — 
 of wheat and barley may be due, not to any want of — 
 rain, but to its fall at a wrong season—for example, — 
 in summer time, instead of during the winter and 
 spring. 
 
 The Wilderness of the Wanderings or Desert of Arabia Petrwa, — 
 in common with those east of Pai., differs greatly from Syria — 
 and Egypt in its food supplies ; but it is only in comparison with — 
 the extraordinary fertility of Syria and Egypt that it can becon- — 
 sidered as a desert. It has, from the earliest time, consisted - 
 of arid tablelands, mountainous districts, and sandy dunes, 
 intersected by fertile valleys and plains and cultivable table- 
 lands, and its present parched and barren condition is due in a 
 great measure to the action of the Turkish Government in 
 drawing a revenue from the destruction of trees. There are in 
 all directions ruins of vineyards and terraces on tha slopes of — 
 hills, indicating former cultivation; and there are yet table — 
 lands where corn is cultivated, and plains where there are 
 thousands of date trees. The nomadic tribes do not exist — 
 
 
 
FAMINE 
 
 
 
 solely on the produce of their herds and flocks, but from the 
 earliest historic times have used corn for food, and have 
 cultivated corn for themselves, either in conjunction with 
 neighbouring villages or by means of slave labour. There isa 
 scanty Berbege at all times over a great portion of this wilder- 
 ness, and in January and February water and grasses are found 
 everywhere, and the flocks can roam about at will. During 
 November, December, and March there are dense mists and 
 fogs and heavy dews, which saturate the shrubs and even deposit 
 moisture on the rocks, so that flocks do not require to go to 
 water. These mists depend upon the direction of the wind, and 
 alternate with intense droughts. As the summer advances the 
 pasture is confined principally to the broad water-courses, which 
 
 ive good herbage for many weeks: as the drought increases 
 
 he inhabitants are reduced to great straits, having to live with 
 their flocks on pastures many miles (sometimes twenty miles) 
 from water. The flocks are driven over to the water once or twice 
 & week, and a small quantity is brought back for the use of the 
 encampment. These nomads and their flocks are of the most 
 hardy nature, and can go without water for many hours or even 
 for days ; but they live for a portion of each year on the border- 
 land of famine, and a very little extra scarcity brings on such 
 want and privations that they, with their flocks, either move 
 on to more favoured localities or die. 
 
 Egypt has always been remarkable for its ex- 
 treme eG and is well watered everywhere 
 {Gn 13), is not directly dependent on 
 rainfall, the annual flooding of the river Nile 
 inundating nearly the whole land and making the 
 cultivation of the soil, as a general rule, a yearl 
 certainty : a land where ‘thou sowedst thy seed, 
 and wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of 
 herbs’ (Dt 11”). These inundations are caused 
 by the rainfall over the districts where the Nile 
 rises, and they fail at rare intervals. This exposes 
 the land to drought, and famine ensues from want 
 : aru: and in a minor degree the pasturage also 
 
 ails. 
 
 The extraordinary fertility of the Promised Land 
 is constantly alluded to in the Bible: ‘a land of 
 hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain 
 of heaven’ (Dt 11"), ‘I will give the rain of your 
 land in its season, the former rain, and the latter 
 rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and 
 thy wine, and thine oil’ (v."), Its soil is of a very 
 rich description, and formerly clothed the hillsides 
 in terraces, though now, for the most part, it lies 
 at the bottom of the valleys. Although Pal. has 
 been dependent mainly on its rainfall, its streams 
 have been utilized largely for irrigation purposes 
 in the plains and in the Jordan Valley, and on the 
 banks of the Jordan itself the rich soil is subject 
 to inundations in the spring (Jos 3"). 
 
 The first famines mentioned in the Bible are 
 those which occurred in the times of Abraham 
 and Isaac (Gn 12” 261). In the first case, Abra- 
 ham went down into Egypt to sojourn there; in 
 the second case, Isaac was about to do the same, 
 but, being warned by God, went to Gerar to reside 
 with Abimelech, king of the Philistines. It may 
 be assumed that these famines were only partial in 
 their extent. 
 
 The famine which took place in the time of 
 Jacob was one of great extent, as it included 
 Syria, Egypt, and the sources of the Nile, and was 
 one of great severity and long duration; it is 
 recorded that ‘there was famine in all lands’ 
 (Gn 414). It lasted seven years, and was remark- 
 able as having been preceded by seven years of 
 
 lenty, which hetag foretold by Joseph, the Egyp. 
 
 overnment was enabled to gather up sufficient 
 corn, not only to buy up all the lands and cattle of 
 the Egyptians and to supply the people, but also 
 to sell corn to foreigners. ‘ And all countries came 
 into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because the 
 famine was sore in all the earth’ (Gn 41%”). It 
 is to be noted, however, that this is a famine 
 restricted to want of corn, and that there is no 
 indication that there was great want of pasturage. 
 The sons of Jacob were able to take their asses 
 to and from Egypt without difficulty. Waggons 
 were sent to bring up Jacob and his households, 
 * And their father Israel said unto them, If it be so 
 
 FAMINE 85] 
 
 
 
 now, do this; take of the choice fruits of the land 
 in fee vessels, and carry down the man a present, 
 a little balm, and a little honey, spicery, anid 
 myrrh, nuts and almonds’ (Gn 43"). ‘And they 
 took their cattle, and their goods, which they had 
 gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into 
 Egypt’ (Gn 465). 
 
 Famines are mentioned in the time of the judges 
 (Ru 1), and in the time of king David (28 212), but 
 it is not until the time of Elijah that any account 
 is given of the failure of the pasturage and 
 
 springs. ‘There shall not be dew nor rain these 
 years, but according to my word’ (1 K 17). 
 
 ‘And Ahab said unto Obadiah, Go through the 
 land, unto all the fountains of water, and unto all 
 the brooks: peradventure we may find grass and 
 save the horses and mules alive, that we lose not 
 all the beasts’ (185). Amongst the signs of the end 
 in Jesus’ eschatological discourse are ‘famines in 
 divers places’ (Mt 247, Mk 138, Lk21"), For the 
 famine referred to in Ac 11%, see CLAUDIUS. 
 
 ii. A graphic description of destruction of crops 
 by hail is given Ex 9”: 31-82. «The LorD sent 
 thunder and hail, and fire ran down unto the 
 earth; and the LorD rained hail upon the land 
 of Egypt.’ ‘ And the flax and the barley were 
 smitten, for the barley was in the ear, and the 
 flax was bolled. But the wheat and the spelt were 
 not smitten; for they were not grown up.’ The 
 unusual occurrence of thunder and rain in the time 
 of wheat harvest is accentuated in 1S 1218, 
 
 iii. The effect of the destruction of crops by 
 plagues of locusts is depicted Ex 10% ‘For they 
 covered the face of the whole earth, so that the 
 land was darkened; and they did eat every herb 
 of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the 
 hail had left; and there remained not any green 
 thing, either tree or herb of the field, through all 
 the land of Egypt.’ Again, Jl 14 ‘That which 
 the palmer-worm hath left hath the locust eaten ; 
 and that which the locust hath left hath the 
 canker-worm eaten; and that which the canker- 
 worm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten.’ (See 
 Driver, ad loc.) 
 
 iv. The most terrible results of famine related 
 in the Bible are due to the hand of man; and this 
 was well recognized by king David. ‘And David 
 said unto Gad, I am in a great strait; let us fall 
 now into the hand of the LorD; for his mercies 
 are great: and let me not fall into the hand of 
 man’ (2 8 244), ‘And he shall eat the fruit of 
 thy cattle, and the fruit of thy ground, until 
 thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave 
 thee corn, wine, or oil, the increase of thy kine, or 
 the young of thy flock, until he have caused thee to 
 perish’ (Dt 28°). ‘And thou shalt eat the fruit of 
 thine own body, the flesh of thy sons, and of thy 
 daughters, which the LorD thy God hath given 
 thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith 
 thine enemies shall straiten thee’ (v.%). ‘And 
 there was a great famine in Samaria: and, be- 
 hold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold 
 for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part 
 of a cab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver’ 
 (2 K 6%). ‘And sue answered, This woman said 
 unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him 
 to-day, and we will eat my son to-morrow’ (y.*). 
 
 Josephus, in his Antiquities and Wars of the 
 Jews, gives several accounts of the horrible atroc- 
 ities which took place during the famines in 
 besieged cities, but in no account does he give 
 such distressing details as in the ara of the last 
 siege of Jerus. by Titus, in which he sums u 
 that ‘neither did any other city ever suffer such 
 miseries’ (Wars, v. x. 5). This account of Jose- 
 phus is considered to be a description of the ful- 
 filment of the prophecy by our Lord (Mt 24”), 
 ‘For then shall be great tribulation, such as hatk 
 
852 FAMISH 
 
 
 
 not been since the OR of the world until | 
 now, no, nor ever shall be,’ and is the history of 
 the last famine connected with the Bible. 
 
 In the Bible there is no allusion to horrors 
 and privations due to famine such as occur oe 
 cally in the world at the present time in the over- 
 crowded portions of China and India. 
 
 C. WARREN. 
 
 FAMISH. — Occurring but four times in all, 
 ‘famish’ is thrice used transitively. Zeph 2" ‘he 
 will famish all the gods of the earth’ (ap, lit. as 
 AVm ‘will make lean’); Gn 415 ‘And when all 
 the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried 
 to Pharaoh for bread’ (1:97); Is 5" ‘ theie honour- 
 able men are famished’ (ayq ‘pn ‘133, lit., as AVm 
 and RVm, ‘their glory are men of famine,’ but the 
 reading is doubtful, see esp. Driver on Dt 32%). 
 This transitive use of ‘famish’ may be illustrated 
 by Coverdale’s tr. of J1 1” ‘the shepe are fameszshed 
 awaye,’ and Shaks. Tam. of Shrew, Iv. iii. 3— 
 
 “What, did he marry me to famish me?’ 
 Tit. Andron. VY. iii. 179— 
 ‘Set him breast-deep in earth, and famish him’; 
 and Milton, PL xii. 783— 
 
 ‘Thin air 
 Above the clouds will pine his entrails gross, 
 And famish him of breath, if not of bread.’ 
 
 The intrans. occurrence is Pr 103 ‘The Lord will not suffer 
 the soul of the righteous to famish.’ The Heb., translated 
 ‘suffer to famish,’ is the same (though in Hiphil) as in Gn 4155, 
 and scarcely means more than ‘ cause to hunger’; so that the 
 statement loses some of its comfort under the Eng. translation, 
 if it does not even lose all its point. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAN, FANNER.—Fan is used both as verb and 
 as substantive. 41. As verb (Heb. n7 in Qal) Is 41% 
 ‘Thou shalt fan them [the mountains and hills], 
 and the wind shall carry them away’; Jer 4" for 
 purifying 5 15’ for chastisement ; and (same Heb. 
 in Piel) Jer 517. Amer. RV has ‘winnow’ 
 
 throcghout. 2. As subst. ‘a winnowing-machine,’ 
 
 Is 30%, Jer 157 (myo); Mt 3%, Lk 317 (ardor). 
 
 Fanner occurs only in Jer 51? ‘I will send unto 
 
 Babylon fanners, that shall fan her, and shall 
 
 empty her land.’ The Heb. of the Massoretic 
 
 pointing (o}) means ‘strangers,’ and so RV after 
 
 Ewald and others. But the VSS (LXX. Pesh. 
 ’ Targ. Vulg.) point the Heb. differently (oi), and 
 
 gain the word-play. Cheyne thinks the prophet 
 
 possibly intended to suggest both meanings. The 
 ng. tr. may be traced from the Vulg. ventilatores, 
 through Coy. ‘fanners,’ whom Geneva, Bishops’, 
 
 Douay, and AV all follow. So also Luther 
 
 (Worjler), and Rothstein in Kautzsch; and the 
 
 French translators Ostervald and Segond (van- 
 
 neurs). See AGRICULTURE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FANCY is used as a verb absolutely in Sir 34° 
 And the heart fancieth, as a woman’s heart in 
 travail’ (gavrdtera: ; a verb which occurs elsewhere 
 in LXX only Wis 6", ‘ showeth herself,’ and in NT 
 only He 12% rd garratiuevoy, AV ‘the sight,’ RV 
 ‘the appearance’). The previous Eng. Versions 
 from Wye. have ‘fantasie’ as a subst. (Douay 
 ‘phantasie’), AV is the first to use the verb, and 
 to spell ‘fancy.’* The Oaf. Eng. Dict. gives only 
 one example of ‘fancy’ used Absolatal » Locke 
 (1698) ‘ we rather fancie than know.’ 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAR.—41. ‘Far’ is often used in AV as an adj. 
 qualifying ‘country,’ as Is 8° ‘all ye of far 
 countries’ (pyx"pN7 9); Zee 10° ‘they shall re- 
 member me in far countries’ (o7~7723). Twice it 
 
 *On the spelling Trench (Study of Words, 301) may be 
 quoted : ‘When “fancy” was spelt “‘ phant’sy,” as by Sylvester, 
 in his translation of Du Bartas, and other scholarly writers 
 
 of the 17th cent., no one could doubt of ita identity with 
 
 phantasy,” as no Greek scholar could miss its relation with 
 
 Parragia.’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FARE, FAREWELL 
 
 qualifies other substantives, Dt 29% ‘a far land’ 
 (aRim yy); Mk 13“ ‘a man taking a far journey’ 
 (4v@pwaros dmédnuos, RV ‘sojourning in another 
 country’). Modern usage would probably require 
 ‘distant,’ as Aldis Wright suggests. Certainly as 
 an adj. ‘far’ was once used more freely than it is 
 now: thus, EE. Barlowe, Dialoge (1531), ed. of 
 1897, p. 35, ‘Now to compare these fruites unto 
 the actes of these Lutheran factyons, ye shall 
 fynde a farre difference.’ In Mt 21 254, Mk 12}, 
 Lk 20°, where the Greek is drodyuéw and AV has 
 ‘go into a far Essai: RV more accurately trans- 
 lates ‘go into another country.’ But the same 
 Greek is rendered by AV ‘took his journey’ in 
 Mt 25%, by RV ‘went on his journey’; and in 
 Lk 15", where the Greek is more fully dredjunoer 
 els xwpav waxpdv, AV renders ‘took his journey unto 
 a far country,’ and RV retains. 
 
 2. Notice the phrases: (a) thus far, Jer 48% | 
 ‘Thus far is the judgment of Moab,’ 51% ‘Thus | — 
 far are the words of Jeremiah’ (both 7}77y), and | — 
 Lk 225! ‘Suffer ye thus far’ (ws rovrov). (6) Sofar | 
 Sorth=‘ to such an extent,’ 1 Es 159 (f€ws 05). (c) Be — 
 it far from or far be it from. This phrase, which — 
 comes from Wyclif (esp. ed. 1388) after Vulg. absit | 
 hoc, occurs eight times in AV of OT as the | 
 translation of Adlildh, a substantive formed from | 
 halal, to profane, with locative suffix, therefore | 
 lit. ad profanwm! to the unholy! The passa BI 
 are Gn_ 18% ts, 1 § 25 209 2215, 2S 20% dt 2317, Job | 
 341°, [Elsewhere the same Heb. expression occurs — 
 Gn 447-17, Jos 22% 2416 1 § 123 14% 20?, Job 275, | 
 where it is tr. ‘God forbid’ (AV and RV); also — 
 (combined with mm) 1 § 24° 26", 1 K 21° ‘the LoRD — 
 forbid’; and (combined with ovy>x) 1 Ch 11*My | 
 God forbid.’] In Apocr. the same Eng. phrase ig — 
 found, 1 Mac 135 ‘be it far from me’ (uf pos 
 yévoiro) ; and in NT Mt 16% ‘Be it far from thee, — 
 Lord’ (“Idews co, where Oeds -yévorro is understood, | 
 as RVm ‘God have mercy on thee’). 4 
 
 The Lord is ‘far from the wicked’ (Pr 15*), but — 
 
 23 fs 
 we are encouraged and enabled to ‘draw near a 
 with a true heart in fulness of faith’ (He 10”). “i 
 J. HASTINGS. | 
 FARE, FAREWELL.—To ‘fare,’ from Anglo- | 
 Saxon faran (Ger. fahren, Gr. mop-evouat), is to | 
 ‘travel,’ to ‘go,’ as Spenser, FQ I. x. 63— ; es 
 ‘But let me here for aye in peace remaine, . 
 Or streight way on that last long voyage fare.’ 
 Then comes the meaning ‘get on’ well or ill, as | 
 1S 178 ‘look how thy brethren fare’ (o\y> spar, | 
 lit. ‘visit thy brethren [and inquire] as to their — 
 wellbeing’ [cf. Gn 374, 2S 117]; Cov. ‘loke how 
 thy brethren do,’ Wye. ‘thi britheren thou shal 
 visite, if thei right doon’); Sir 3% ‘A stubborn 
 heart shall fare evil at the last’ (xaxwOjcerar, RV 
 ‘fare ill’); 3274 ‘he that trusteth in him shall far 
 never the worse’ (ov« édarrwbjoerat, RV ‘shall | 
 suffer no loss’) ; 2 Mac 9” ‘If ye and your children 
 fare well’; 11% ‘If ye fare well’ (both éppwode). | 
 The perf. pass. of the Greek verb found in the two 
 last-quoted passages (jdvyymu) was used in the im- | 
 erative sing. (Eppwoo) or plu. (€ppwode) as a formula | 
 or closing a letter, lit. ‘be mae prosper.’ This — 
 formula is accordingly expressed y the word fare- | 
 well in English. ve Ac 15”, where the verb is } 
 plu., the older form is retained in AV and RV | 
 ‘fare ye well’ ; but in 23°, where the verb is sing., | 
 AV has ‘Farewell’ (RV with most edd. omits). j 
 Once ‘farewell’ is the tr. of xalpev, 2Co 134 | 
 ‘Finally, brethren, farewell’ (RVm ‘rejoice’ or ‘be | 
 
FARTHING 
 
 
 
 
 
 perfected’). ‘Fare ye well’ is the tr. of most 
 previous VSS from Tind., but Wye. ‘ioie ye,’ Cov. 
 ‘reioyse,’ Rheims ‘reioyce’ (after Vulg. gaudete), 
 and it is probable that the Gr. yalpew is in- 
 adequately represented by the Eng. ‘farewell,’ 
 since it never lost the sense of ‘ rejoice,’ by slipping 
 into a mere formality of speech, as the Eng. word 
 has done. See Lightfoot on Ph 4‘. 
 
 In Lk 1619 (‘fared sumptuously every day’) the Eng. word 
 ‘fared’ is probably to be taken in a sense that is still common, 
 ‘feed,’ ‘be entertained with food.’ Wyclif’s tr. is ‘eete euery 
 dai schynyngli’ petar Vulg. epulabatur quotidie splendide), 
 Coverdale’s ‘ fi deliciously euery daye.’ Cov. was repeated 
 by Cranmer and the Geneva of 1557; but the Gen. of 1560 gives 
 ‘fared wel and delicately,’ the Bishops’ ‘fared very delitiously,’ 
 the Rhemish ‘fared magnifically.’ Now it is true that neither 
 ‘fared’ nor ‘sumptuously’ is restricted to taking food. In 
 More’s Utopia (ii. 8, Lupton’s ed. p. 264) we read, ‘ Thither they 
 sende furth some of their citezeins as Lieuetenauntes, to lyue 
 theire sumptuously lyke men of honoure and renowne’; and 
 Sir T. Elyot (The Governour, 1531, ii. 192, Croft’s ed.) says, 
 ‘Many mo princes and noble men of the Romanes. .. made 
 solempne and sumptuouse playesin honour of their goddes.’ 
 But it is possible that it was a passage in the last-named work 
 that suggested the tr. of AV, and in that passage the sense of 
 feed or feast is unmistakable: (ii. 336) ‘The noble emperour 
 Augustus ... fared sumptuously and delicately, the citie of 
 Rome at that tyme beinge vexed with skarcitie of grayne.’ If 
 that is the meaning of AV, it is inadequate to express the 
 original (si¢paivopesvos x00" mpei pay ro, pit), where the verb means 
 to ‘make merry’ (Lk 1219 1523. 24. 29.32 and elsewhere), and the 
 adverb (of which this is the only occurrence in biblical Greek) 
 means ‘ brilliantly’ (the adj. is often applied to dress, Lk 2311, 
 Ac 1080, Ja 22 8, Rey 1918), so that the tr. is literally ‘making 
 merry every day brilliantly.’ Luther’s tr. is lebte alle Tage 
 herrlich und in Freuden; Weizsicker, genoss sein Leben alle 
 Tage im Glanze ; Ostervald, se traitoit bien et magnifiquement ; 
 Oltramare, faisait brillante chére; Segond, menait joyeuse et 
 
 ui e vie; RVm ‘living in mirth and splendour every day.’ 
 RV has given ‘sumptuous fare’ for AV ‘ delicate fare’ in Sir 2922 
 (Gr. idicuare Napape). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FARTHING.—See Money. 
 
 FASHION (facére, to make, faction-em, a mak- 
 ing, It. fazione, Old Fr. facgon, Old Eng. faciown). 
 There are some old uses in AV, and they are all 
 retained in RV. 
 
 1. The make or shape of a thing: Ex 26” ‘thou 
 shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the 
 fashion thereof which was showed thee in the 
 mount.’ The Heb. (pve mishpdt) is the ordinary 
 word for the decision of a judge, hence due or right 
 measure, even in cases not decided by judging, right 
 ‘proportion (1 K 4% [Heb. 5°] ‘charge’; Jer 30! of a 
 city, ‘manner,’ rather weak; Is 40'4, in creation— 
 BS Carry part its due place and function). In 
 
 x it seems to be used as synonymous with 
 n’338 (from 733 to build, so ‘ building,’ ‘make’), which 
 is employed in the parallel passages Ex 25° *°, and 
 is there tr’‘ pattern.’ This Heb. word mishpdt de- 
 veloped much as the Eng. word ‘fashion’ hasdone. 
 In Gn 40" and elsewhere it signifies manner or cus- 
 tom, and in 2 K 17 outward appearance. It is tr@ 
 ‘fashion’ also in 1 K 6%, Ezk 42" (in both of parts of 
 a building). Wyclif’s word in Ex 26” is ‘saumpler.’ 
 
 In 2 K 16” « fing Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest 
 the fashion of the altar,’ the Heb. is nny démiith 
 (from #53 to be like), a common word in Ezk for 
 the external appearance. Here it is probably a 
 drawing or anodal Cf. 2 Ch 4° ‘the similitude (7.e. 
 aii of oxen.’ 
 
 The remaining Heb. word is. ny27 tékhindh (from 
 p2, 32 to set up), Ezk 434 ‘show them the form 
 of the house and the fashion thereof.’ The Heb. 
 is probably here the arrangement or fittings. 
 Wyclif has ‘the figure of the hous, and makyng 
 (1388 ‘bildyng’) thereof.’ ‘Forme and fashion’ 
 come from Coverdale. 
 
 In Wis 16% ‘even then was it altered into all 
 fashions,’ the meaning seems to be (as Deane), 
 that the manna changed its taste according to the 
 palate of the eater, and fire modified its nature 
 according to its Maker’s will (Gr. eis mdvra, RV 
 ‘into all forms’). 
 
 
 
 
 
 FASHION 853 
 
 
 
 
 In NT we find ‘fashion’ with this meaning only 
 Ac 7# ‘Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness 
 in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking 
 unto Moses, that he should make it according to 
 the fashion that he had seen’ (réaos, as LXX in 
 Ex 25°, RV ‘figure ’).* 
 
 2. The appearance of a thing, as Ja 1™ Tind. 
 ‘For assone as he hath loked on him silfe, he 
 goeth his waye, and forgetteth immediatlie what 
 his fassion was.’ So in AV, Lk 9” ‘as he prayed, 
 the fashion of his countenance was altered’ (Gr. 
 7d eldos Tob mpocwrov atrod). Especially outward 
 visible appearance in contrast with inner reality, 
 as Shaks. Merch. of Venice, Iv. i. 18— 
 
 ‘Shylock, the world thinks, and I think so too, 
 
 That thou but leadst this fashion of thy malice 
 
 To the last hour of act; and then 'tis thought 
 
 Thou’lt show thy mercy and remorse more strange 
 
 Than is thy strange apparent cruelty.’ 
 1 Co 7% ‘the fashion of this world passeth away, 
 and Ph 2° ‘being found in fashion as a man, he 
 humbled himself.’ The Gr. is cxyjua, whose meaning 
 is fully discussed in the Commentaries. See also 
 Trench, NT Syn. pp. 252-258 ; Gifford, Incarna- 
 tion, p. 22 ff. ; Hxpos. Times, viii. 391f. The Eng- 
 lish is perhaps more emphatic (in expressing mere 
 outward appearance) than the Greek. In 1 Co 7# 
 Wye. and ike Rhemish have ‘figure’ after Vulg. 
 
 jigura; Tind. introduced ‘fashion’ (‘fassion’), and 
 
 the other VSS followed him. In Ph 28 ‘fashion’ 
 is not found before AV. Wye. translates Vulg. 
 (habitus) literally, ‘habyt’ (1386 ‘abite’); Tind. . 
 Cov. and Cran. give ‘apparel’; Gen. 1557 ‘ appear- 
 ance,’ 1560 ‘shape,’ as Tomson and Rhem. NT; 
 Bish. ‘ figure.’ 
 
 3. In Ja 1” AV has retained from Tind. ‘the 
 flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion 
 of it perisheth,’ where the Gr. is rpécwmor, ‘ face.’ 
 So in Old Eng. ‘fashion’ was used literally for the 
 face, as Pilgr. Lyf Manhode (1430), I. xxxviii. 
 155, ‘She shadwde hire visage and hire facioun 
 vnder hire hood.’ Cf. Lk 12° Tind. ‘Ypocrites ye 
 can skyll of the fassion of the erth, and of theskye’ 
 (rpbcarov ; Wyc., Rhem., AV, RV, ‘ face’). 
 
 4, Manner: 2 Es 4° ‘How long shall I hope on 
 this fashion?’ (sic, RV after the Syriac, ‘ How long 
 are we here?’); 5° ‘They that be born in the 
 strength of youth are of one fashion’ (ali sunt); 
 Wis 2 ‘his ways are of another fashion’ (é&\\ay- 
 pévat, RV ‘of strange fashion’); 14 ‘he... forced 
 all his skill to make the resemblance of the best 
 fashion’ (éml 7d xdéd\vov, RV ‘toward a greater 
 beauty’); Mk 2% ‘We never saw it on this 
 fashion’ (otrws), Soin Pref. to AV ‘they did not 
 cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such 
 comely fashion, as had been most sightly and con- 
 venient’; and Shaks. Hamlet, I. iii. 111— 
 
 ‘My lord, he hath importuned me with love, 
 In honourable fashion. 
 Ay, fashion you may call it; go to, go to.’ 
 
 5. Manners and customs: 2 Mac 4° ‘a place for 
 exercise, and for the training up of youth in the 
 fashions of the heathen’ (the Gr. is simply é¢nflay, 
 i.e. youth, hence RV ‘and form a body of youths 
 to be trained therein’); 4 ‘the height of Greek 
 fashions’ (dx rod ‘E\Anvicnod, RV ‘an extreme of 
 Greek fashions’); 6° ‘that they should observe the 
 same fashions’ (dywyjv, RV ‘ conduct’). 
 
 The verb to fashion is of frequent occurrence, 
 In OT and Apocr. it has always the sense of give 
 shape to, form. But the word was formerly used 
 in the sense of ‘ transform,’ t.e. change the form or 
 fashion into something else. Thus Tindale, Obedt- 
 ence of a Christian Man, 976, ‘When a man fealeth 
 ... him selfe... altered and fascioned lyke vnte 
 
 * In He 85 the same quotation is made, and adheres stil more 
 closely to the LXX of Ex 2540, but the Eng. (AV and RV) ia 
 ‘pattern,’ as it has been since Tindale. 
 
FAST 
 
 Christe’; H. Smith, Sermons (1592), ‘Fashion thy- 
 self to Paul.’ In NT there are two examples of 
 this meaning : Ph 32‘ Who shall change our vile 
 body, that it may be fashioned like unto his 
 glorious body’ (ctvupoppos; RV ‘that it may be 
 conforined to the body of his glory’); 1 P 14 ‘not 
 fashioning yourselves according to the former 
 lasts’ (svoxnwarefopuevor). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAST.—1. Fast is frequently used in AV both 
 as adj. and adv. in the sense of firm, secure, as Ps 
 38? ‘thine arrows stick fast in me’; Ps 65° ‘ Which 
 by his strength setteth fast the mountains’; Pr 
 43 ‘Take fast hold of instruction’; 2 Es 2% 
 ‘Mother, embrace thy children, and bring them up 
 with gladness, make their feet as fast asa pillar’ 
 (confirma pedes eorum, RV ‘stablish their feet’) ; 
 Ac 16% Who ... thrust them down into the 
 inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks’ 
 (jcgaNloaro). Cf. Chaucer, Anelida and Arcite 
 (Skeat’s Student’s ed. p. 117)— 
 
 ‘ Almighty God, of trouthe sovereyn, 
 Wher is the trouthe of man? who hath hit sleyn? 
 Who that hem loveth shal hem fynde as fast 
 As in a tempest is a roten mast.’ ° 
 
 2. In reference to sleep, sownd, as Jg 47) ‘he was 
 fast asleep and weary’ (RV ‘in a deep sleep’; see 
 RVm me Moore, in loc.). 8. Close, near, only Ru 
 28. 21. 23, as 2° ‘abide here fast by my maidens.’ Cf. 
 Milton, PL ii. 725— 
 
 ‘the snaky sorceress that sat 
 Fast by Hell-gate, and kept the fatal key.’ 
 
 In every case ‘ fast’ is used to bring out the force of 
 the verb or adj. used in the original ; there isnevera 
 separate word for it in the Hebrew or the Greek. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FASTING.—Often described in OT (esp. in P, 
 where it is practically a technical term) by phrase 
 ‘to afflict the soul,’ waz my (Lv 16% 81 2327-32, Ny 
 297 30%, Ps 351%, Is 58% 5-19), tr. by LXX in the 
 erate in Nu by kaxodv riv wuxiv, in the others 
 
 y Tarevoiy' rh» Wuxyv, for which see also Jth 4°, 
 and which may be assumed to have this precise 
 reference, and not a more general one at Sir 2!7 71”, 
 The dye does not denote primarily spiritual 
 humiliation, even as the proper accompaniment of 
 fasting. It has a physical meaning. This will 
 be perceived if the material sense in which ‘soul’ 
 was in early times used be remembered (cf. for 
 a similar expression Ps 69"), The more literal 
 terms ow ‘to fast,’ ox ‘fasting,’ are also common 
 in OT. In NT the words are vyorevew and vyorela. 
 
 (A) In THE OT.—4. The practice of fasting (a) in 
 the times before the Captivity.—The one regular 
 fast, the institution of which is ascribed to this 
 period, is that of the Day of Atonement (Ly 16” 3! 
 2377-83, Nu 297, Jer 365).* But there are many 
 examples of fasts on special occasions, dictated by 
 the sense of having transgressed, or of calamity, 
 eee or impending. Such a fast is inspired by 
 
 amuel (1 § 7%); enjoined by Jehoiakim and the 
 princes (Jer 36°); hypocritically by Jezebel (1 K 
 21% 12), In like manner individuals are moved to 
 fast—David when his child is smitten with sickness 
 (2S 1236 21-28), Ahab on hearing his doom (1 K 2127). 
 
 The abstinence from food or drink for forty 
 days by Moses on the Mount (Ex 34%), and by 
 Elijah (1 K 198), seem to be recorded rather as 
 extraordinary or miraculous occurrences than as 
 fasts purposely undertaken. 
 
 (6) After the Captivity. — Additional regular 
 fasts now appear, the memorials of the times of 
 bitter shame and calamity through which the 
 nation had passed. Four are enumerated in Zee 
 8, cf. 735. (a) ‘The fast of the fourth month’ 
 (Tammuz). On the 9th of this month, the Chal- 
 
 854 
 
 
 
 * For the question whether the observance of the Day of Atone- 
 ment was known in pre-exilic times, see p. 199 of this vol. 
 
 FASTING 
 
 deans broke into the city (Jer 39% and 52%7), 
 According, however, to Talm. tradition the fast in 
 this month was observed on the 17th, on which 
 day the breaking of the tables of the law by 
 Moses is said to have occurred, and also the 
 cessation of the daily offering in consequence of 
 the famine during the siege by the Chaldeans, 
 It was held also that later the day was further 
 desecrated through the burning of the law by 
 Antiochus Epiphanes (in Talm. called Apostemus), 
 and his introduction of an idol into the Holy 
 Place. (8) ‘The fast of the fifth month’ (Ab). 
 The destruction of the temple took place accord- 
 ing to 2 K 258 on the 7th, according to Jer 52” on 
 the 10th of this month. The 9th was, however, 
 the day which was observed, at all events accord- 
 ing to the Talmud. The destruction of the second 
 temple is said to have taken place on the same 
 day ; and the announcement was believed to have 
 been made on this day also to the generation 
 of Isr. who came out of Egypt that they should 
 not enter Canaan. (vy) ‘The fast of the seventh 
 month’ (Tisri), possibly held in commemoration of 
 Atonement; the extinction of the government 
 left in Jerusalem under Gedaliah took place in 
 this month through his assassination (2 
 This, acc. to tradition, happened on the 3rd of Tisri. 
 (5) ‘The fast of the tenth month’ (Tebet). On 
 the 10th of this month the siege by Nebuch. began 
 (2 K 251, Jer 524). The reference in Ezk 241: 2 shows 
 how the habit of marking it by a fast might arise. 
 
 From the Talm. we learn that, in the times for which it can 
 
 be taken as evidence of the practice to which the prophet 
 refers, the 9th of Ab was regarded as by far the most im- 
 
 portant, and that its observance was then universally beg ae 
 
 We should infer from Zec 7 and 8 that it always held this p 
 tion of pre-eminence. The people ask only (8) whether they 
 need continue to observe this fast. In the answer of God 
 through the prophet, first one other fast is coupled with it (75), 
 then all four of the fasts that had been instituted in conse 
 quence of their calamities are mentioned (819). It is probable 
 that the three not referred to in the people’s question were 
 not regarded as of such strict obligation, and therefore not felt 
 to be onerous. 
 all, because the principles on which he insisted applied to all 
 
 equally. According to the Talmud those three were, after they 4 f 
 had ceased to be kept, reintroduced subsequently to the de- 
 
 struction of the second temple; and it was taught that they 
 need be observed only at times when the Jews were oppressed 
 
 or were suffering calamities (cf. Briick, Pharistische Volkssitten — | 
 
 und Ritualien, p. 46 ff.). 
 understood Zec.’s words (819) as giving a dispensation from the 
 
 observance of the fasts in the interval between the restoration i > 
 
 and the destruction of the second temple (Briick, 7.), 
 
 We may perhaps find a trace of the institution — , 
 of one other regular fast in OT—in the Bk. of | 
 That book explains the origin of the — 
 
 Esther. ; 
 Feast of Purim, and in Rabbinic times the celebra- | 
 tion of that feast was accompanied by a fast in 
 commemoration of the fasting of Esther, Mordecai, — 
 and the people (4!-%15-17), There may be an | 
 
 allusion to this part of the commemoration in | 
 
 9! end. 
 
 Naturally, there is no lack in the period from | ‘ 
 
 the Captivity onwards of instances of fasts on 
 special occasions. Of such as the whole 
 joined in we have, in addition to the one in Est 
 just referred to, Ezr 87-3, Neh 9; ; 
 examples of fasts by individuals, Neh 14, Dn 9%. 
 
 The references to fasting in the Apocr. are not so | 
 
 numerous as might have been expected, and do 
 not throw much additional light upon the history 
 of the practice (To 128, 1 Mac 3%, 2 Mac 13”). ee. 
 2. The manner of observing fasts.—There can be 
 little doubt that, in accordance with usual Oriental 
 practice, fasting involved complete abstinence from — 
 food. The period for the Day of Atonement was — 
 ‘from even till even’ (Lv 232). No work was to be © 
 done (Lv 16”: §! 2332, Nu 297). There are allusions — 
 also to the use of sackcloth and ashes (Dn 9%, — 
 Jon 3° ete.). Abstinence of another kind was © 
 also required, referred to in 1 Co 75 (TR): various 
 
 
 
 25%), | 
 
 The prophet, on the other hand, names them 4 ¥ 
 
 Jewish interpreters seem to have. 
 
 eople | 
 
 and as | 
 
FASTING 
 
 FAT 855 
 
 a 
 
 passages of OT might be quoted in confirmation, 
 though none very distinctly connected with fasts. 
 It is spoken of plainly in the Talmud, 
 
 3. The purpose of fasting.—W. R. Smith observes 
 (ZS?, p. 434), ‘The usage of religious fasting is 
 commonly taken as a sign of sorrow, the worship- 
 pers being so distressed at the alienation of their 
 god that they cannot eat; but there are very 
 strong reasons for believing that in the strict 
 Oriental form, in which total abstinence from 
 meat and drink is prescribed, fasting is primarily 
 nothing more than a preparation for the sacra- 
 mental eating of holy flesh.’ It is difficult, 
 however, to discover traces of this view in OT. 
 There we find fasting employed simply as a sign 
 of mourning (1S 317%), or with the pride object of 
 deprecating divine wrath, or winning divine com- 
 
 assion. Its suitability cannot well be explained 
 in either of these connexions, except on the 
 ground that it is often a natural effect of grief, 
 and may therefore be purposely employed as a 
 sign of it. Inits religious use such a mute expres- 
 sion of sorrow would be an act of contrition for sin, 
 or appeal for heavenly aid in distress. A super- 
 stitious idea of its efficacy was, no doubt, often 
 entertained; but the particular form of error 
 which the prophets found it necessary to condemn 
 was the Be iar one of the formalist, who fails to 
 perceive that his external observances can have no 
 value when dissevered from purity and. righteous- 
 ness of life (Is 58%’, Jer 14-14, Zec 7, 8). 
 
 (B) In THE NT.—1. The Jewish practice.—There 
 is an allusion in Ac 27° to ‘the Fast,’ which was 
 80 par excellence, t.e. the Day of Atonement. 
 But the chief point which we learn from NT is 
 that by this time frequent additional fasts had 
 become customary with those in Judaism who 
 desired to lead a specially religious life, e.g. Anna 
 (Lk 2%). Again, the Pharisee in the parable says, 
 ‘I fast twice in the week’ (Lk 18?2). The allusion 
 is to the two weekly fast-days, Thursday and Mon- 
 Ate on the former of which days Moses was said 
 to have gone up ito the Mount, and on the latter 
 to have come down from it. Mention is made of 
 them frequently in the Talmud. There is also an 
 interesting reference to them in the Didache 8}, 
 where Christians are bidden not to fast with the 
 hypocrites on the second and fifth days of the 
 week, but on the fourth and on Friday. Further, 
 the question asked of Jesus by the disciples of 
 John and of the Pharisees (Mt 9!4, Mk 238, Lk 5%), 
 reveals the interesting fact that teachers who had 
 gathered about them bands of scholars, used to 
 give to their disciples special rules on the subject. 
 
 2. The teaching of Jesus.—There are two pas- 
 sages only, but those significant ones. (a) That in 
 the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6!%-18), Our Lord’s 
 whole aim here appears to be to secure perfect 
 
 urity and simplicity of intention, a ‘fasting unto 
 Bod? (ef. Zec 75) in the fullest and deepest sense. 
 This would be the most effectual cure for every 
 error, practical or even intellectual (comp. His 
 teaching on almsgiving and prayer, Mt 6'-, and 
 see art. on former). 
 
 (6) His answer to the question of the disciples 
 of John and of the Pharisees (Mt 9’, Mk 
 gis-22, Lk 5%), This answer throws light on 
 His whole method and aim. To understand it we 
 must bear in mind the question which called it 
 forth. There is no reason to believe that either 
 our Lord or His disciples failed to keep any day of 
 fasting which was generally observed by religious 
 members of the class of artisans and small trades- 
 men in Galilee, such as the Day of Atonement. 
 But He had imposed upon them no frequent 
 additional fasts. He defends them from the 
 stricture passed on them, and in so doing replies 
 to the criticism of His own teaching, which was 
 
 implied, by setting forth the principles on which 
 He acted. He refrained from prescribing forms, 
 not that He condemned them as mischievous or 
 useless, but because it would have been the wrong 
 end at which to begin. The course which He 
 adopted was alone fitting, in view of the far-reach- 
 ing change of character and thought which He 
 designed to effect. 
 
 The precise force of the distinction which Jesus drew between 
 the days while the bridegroom was present and those when he 
 should be removed, deserves to be marked. The time of Hia 
 presence on earth was a Messianic time, a foretaste of the restitu- 
 tion of all things. The thought that fasting would be dis- 
 continued in Messiah’s days was already familiar to the Jewish 
 mind. The language of Zec suggested it (819), and thus, as it 
 is interesting to note, Jesus added emphasis to the claim to be 
 the Messiah, which He virtually made in referring to Himseli as 
 the bridegroom, by what He said as to the unsuitability of 
 requiring fasts from His disciples then. We may believe also 
 that He wished them afterwards to look back to the time that 
 they companied with Him as one of joy. But His clear pre- 
 vision that the perfect fulfilment of the promise was not yet at 
 hand, and that a period of sadness and trial would intervene 
 before it, is not less remarkable, and His words unquestionably 
 imply that there would be a place for fasting in the coming 
 dispensation. Further, the inference which has frequently 
 been drawn from them by Protestant commentators, that in the 
 Christian Church fasting was to be practised only when dictated 
 by special feelings of sorrow, and hence that it was to be a 
 matter of individual choice, confined to occasions of wide- 
 spread and exceptional calamity, hardly seems to be justified ; 
 for rey characterizes broadly the difference between two whole 
 periods. 
 
 On the other hand, in the parables which follow, and in His 
 line of conduct, to which attention had been directed, He 
 plainly shows that He intended questions of outward observance 
 to be judged with reference to new principles which he incul- 
 cated, and that He left them to be decided by His Church 
 under the guidance of the Spirit Who should come in His 
 name (but see Hort, Jud. Chr. p. 24). 
 
 This intention was shown alike by what He did and did not 
 conform to in the religious usages around Him. We have 
 noticed that the keeping of the law of Moses was not in ques- 
 tion on the occasion under consideration. But in point of fact 
 His attitude to that law, the respect for it which He en- 
 couraged by word and example, His silence as to its approach- 
 ing abrogation, were bused on the same principle as the non 
 imposition of new forms. He intended the rites of the Mosaic 
 law to be set aside or changed only as the result of a new 
 spiritual growth. 
 
 3. The practice of the early Church.—The chief 
 instances are before solemn appointments (Ac 
 137% 14%). St Paul alludes to his fasts (2 Co 
 6° 11%). It is somewhat difficult, however, to 
 decide whether he is speaking of voluntary or 
 involuntary ones. Perhaps both are included. 
 The connexion of words seems rather to suggest 
 voluntary fasts in the former passage, and involun- 
 tary ones in the latter. In places TR has an 
 allusion to fasting where it is wanting according 
 to the best evidence (Mt 172, Mk 9%, Ac 10%, 
 1 Co 7°). This corruption of the text may have 
 been due to the increasing value which was set 
 on fasting in the Christian Church with the lapse 
 of time. See further, FEASTS AND FASTs. 
 
 In the Oxyrhynchus fragment discovered by Urenfell and 
 Hunt, the 2nd Logion contains the words é&y py vnorebonre tov 
 xa jLov, ob joi, eOpyre THv Bacircinv rov Oéod. The construction and 
 the meaning of the saying are both difficult: Harnack (Die 
 jiingst entdeckten Spriiche Jesu, 8 ff.) contends for a meta- 
 phorical sense of the word ‘fast.’ Amongst other discussions 
 of the sense of this Logion we may refer to Grenfell and Hunt’s 
 editio princeps of the AOTIA IHZOY (10 ff.), Redpath (Hapositor, 
 Sept. 1897, p. 225), Heinrici in TAL (21st Aug. 1897), Swete 
 
 (Eapos. Times, Sept. 1897, p. 546 f.). 
 V. H. STANTON. 
 FAT.—See Foop and SACRIFICE. 
 
 FAT.—As a verb ‘fat’ is now nearly displaced 
 by ‘fatten.’ It occurs in Sir 26% ‘The grace of a 
 wife delighteth her husband, and her discretion 
 will fat his bones’ (miave?, RV ‘fatten’); and the 
 ptep. ‘fatted’ in 1 K 4% (‘fatted fowl,’ Heb. o 273, 
 see FowLs), Jer 462 (‘fatted bullocks,’ RV ‘calves 
 of the stall’), Lk 15%-27-%; to which RV adds 
 1S 28 ‘a fatted calf’ (AV ‘a fat calf’). 
 
 J. HASTIN&S. 
 
 FAT.—Fat, meaning a aye vessel for holding 
 liquids, has been displaced by ‘vat’ in literary 
 

 
 856 FATE 
 
 FAVOUR 
 
 
 
 English. The difference between the spellings, 
 says Skeat (Htymol. Dict. s.v.) is one of dialect 
 only, ‘fat’ being northern and ‘vat’ southern. 
 Fat occurs in AV, Jl 2% ‘the fats shall overflow 
 with wine and oil,’ and 3 (both 2):); in the com- 
 pound ‘ winefat’ in Is 63? (n1), Mk 12! (dodjnor, 
 AV 1611 ‘ wine fat’ as two words) ; and ‘ pressfat’ 
 (1611 ‘presse-fat’) Hag 2}6 (29), 
 
 RY gives ‘vats’ in Jl (see Driver’s note, ad Joc.), 
 though in Pr 3 it changes ‘presses’ of AV into 
 ‘fats’ (ap:). ‘Winefat’ of Mk 12) is made ‘ wine- 
 press,’ and ‘pressfat’ of Hag 2" ‘ winefat’ (not 
 by Amer. RV). Amer. IV prefers ‘winevat’ to 
 winefat in Is 633. See WINE. J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FATE —See WILL. 
 FATHER.—See FAMILY and Gop. 
 FATHOM.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 FATLING.—A fatling is an animal, especially a 
 young animal, fattened for slaughter. It is the 
 tr® of three Heb. and one Greek word. (1) Méri’, 
 plu. méri’im, 28 6%, Is 11°, Ezk 39!8: which is 
 elsewhere tr? ‘fat cattle’ (RV ‘fatlings’), 1 K 
 1% 19.25; ‘fed beasts’ (so RV), Is1"; ‘fat beasts’ 
 (so RV), Am 5%, (2) Méhim, Ps 66%: which else- 
 where occurs only Is 5” tr? ‘fat ones,’ AV and 
 RV. (3) Mishnim, 18 15°, which means ‘ seconds,’ 
 of a second, inferior sort (as AVm). But that 
 is plainly not the meaning here. Hence the text 
 is generally amended into mashmannim (03D), 
 which is found in Neh 8", and means ‘ fat things,’ 
 ‘delicacies’ (EV ‘the fat’). This is the read- 
 ing followed by EV, and it has the support of 
 Targ. Syr. and Arab. VSS. But Driver (Notes 
 on Sam. p. 94) prefers to read hasshéménim, which 
 occurs (in the sing.) in Ezk 34!* (and elsewhere), 
 and is tr¢ ‘the fat.” He then renders ‘the best of 
 the flocks and the herds, even the fat ones and the 
 lambs’ (O20) ony). (4) ovrcord (lit. ‘fed with 
 
 rain’), Mt 224*‘my oxen and my fatlings are 
 
 Killed? (Tindale’s tr2; Wye. ‘my bolis [bulls] and 
 my volatilis [fowls],’ alter Vulg. tauri mew et 
 altilia). To those RV adds (5) bér’ah, Ezk 348 
 ‘the fatlings’ for AV ‘them that are fed’: the 
 word is an adj., and is tr? ‘fat’ in v.” (‘fat cattle’ 
 AV and RY), it is the ‘fat’ kine of Pharaoh’s 
 dream (Gn 41). J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAUCHION.—Jth 13° ‘she . . . took down his 
 fauchion from thence,’ and 16° ‘the fauchion 
 passed through his neck’ (AV 1611 ‘fauchin,’ RV 
 ‘scimitar’). The Greek is dxuwdxns (in 16° A has 
 axwd«s, to which Hatch and Redpath give a sep. 
 entry in their Concord to the Sept., but with a 
 query), found only here. The d«., a word of Persian 
 origin, is often used in Herodotus to describe a 
 short sword. See Sworp. The Eng. word was 
 originally the name of ‘a broad sword more or 
 less curved on the convex side’; but in later use 
 and in poetry signified a sword of any kind. 
 
 J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAULT.—A fault is properly a defect or short- 
 coming (fallitus, late Lat. ptep. of fallére, to fail, 
 come short, Old Fr. faute*) either of material 
 things, as Ld. Berners, Froissart, 1, clix. 193, 
 ‘ They had gret faut in their hoost of vitayle’; or 
 from a recognized standard of physical beauty, 
 workmanship, or moral rectitude. The defect 
 expressed by ‘fault’ is in AV almost always moral, 
 but the larger meaning, shortcoming in any sense, is 
 
 * Faute is the more accurate spelling, the 7 being inserted 
 from the influence of It. falta and Lat. fallere, although the wu 
 stands, of course, forthe 7. In the Psalter of 1639 the spelling is 
 always fawte, though modern editions of the Pr. Bk. spell fault. 
 In AV of 1611 it is fault always. 
 
 seen in Rev 14° ‘they are without fault before the 
 throne of God’ (duwpo, RV ‘ without blemish’); cf. 
 Jude ‘faultless’ (4udpouvs, RV ‘without blemish’), 
 In 1 Co 6’ the least degree of moral blame is ex- 
 pressed (Gr. #rrnya, RV ‘defect,’ RVm ‘ loss’). 
 
 Oraik (Eng. of Shaka. p. 124) says, ‘The word fault formerly 
 though often signifying no more than it now does, carried 
 sometimes a much greater weight of meaning than we pow 
 attach to it.’ And he gives as an example Jul. Cees, 1. fil. 5— 
 
 ‘Who ever knew the heavens menace so? 
 Those that have known the earth so full of faults,’ 
 To which may be added Tit. Andron. v. ii. 173— 
 
 ‘You killed her husband, and for that vile fault 
 Two of her brothers were condemned to death.’ 
 
 See also Rom. and Jul. mi. ili. 25— 
 *O deadly sin! O rude unthankfulness | 
 Thy fault our law calls death.’ 
 And Milton, PZ xii. 337— 
 © Whose foul idolatries, and other faults 
 
 Heapt to the popular sum, will so incense 
 , 88 to leave them.’ 
 
 This greater freedom in the use of ‘fault’ enabled AV to 
 retain Coverdale’s trn of Gn 419 ‘ This daye do I remembre my 
 fawte,’ though Wyc. had ‘I knowleche my synne,’ and the Heb. 
 (XO) is some thirty times translated ‘sin.’ Other words 
 
 usually tra ‘sin’ are occasionally rendered fault,’ as ARXpy 
 
 (vb.) Ex 516;* yiy 28 38, Ps 594. Again, in Dt 252 nyw4, which 
 is everywhere else trd ‘ wickedness,’ is trd ‘ fault,’ although all 
 
 previous VSS had either ‘sin’ (Wyc. Douay) or ‘trespass’ | 
 
 (Cov. Gen. Bish.): RV gives ‘wickedness.’ And srapérrap 
 trad ‘trespass’ Mt 614.15, Mk 1125.26, 2 Co 519, Eph 21, Col 218; 
 ‘offence’ Ro 425 515. 16. 17. 18. 20; ¢ fall’ Ro 1111.12; and ‘sin’ Eph 
 
 17 25, Col 213, is trd ‘fault’ 2 Co 519, Ja 518: RV gives ‘trespass’ 
 
 always, except Ro 1111 ‘ fall,’ marg. ‘ trespass.’ 
 ‘Make no fault,’ a very rare expression, is 
 
 found Sir 93 (4% wAnumedjoys, RV ‘commit no a 
 
 fault’). 
 
 In the trial before Pilate, St. John thrice uses alrla 
 (1838 194), and St. Luke thrice atztoy (234 14 22), 
 Except in Lk 23” (‘cause’) AV renders in each 
 case by ‘fault’; but the meaning of both words is 
 ‘ground for committal,’ ‘legal cause for 
 tion.’ RV gives ‘crime’ in Jn, leaving L 
 AY. 
 
 Faulty is now nearly confined to the expression — 
 In 25 14! (ov adj.), Hos 10? | 
 
 of physical defects. 
 (avy vb. = be held guilty) it is used as the expression 
 of moral wrong, RV ‘ guilty.’ 
 
 FAYOUR.— Favour is of frequent occurrence in | 
 Shakespeare and elsewhere in the sense of personal | 
 appearance, and then as simply meaning the face | 
 rey Thus Spenser, | 
 
 . COUNTENANCE and CHEER). 
 £Q V. vii. 39— 
 ‘She knew not his favour’s likelynesse, 
 
 For many scarres and many hoary heares, 
 But stood long staring on him mongst uncertain fears.’ 
 
 More, Utopia (Robinson’s tr*, Lumby’s ed. p. 19), 
 
 ‘whom by his favoure and apparell furthwith I 
 judged to be @ mariner.’ 
 IV. iii. 87— 
 ‘The boy is fair, 
 Of female favour.’ 
 
 Bacon, Essays, ‘Of Beauty’ (Gold. Treas. ed. p. 
 176, 1. 17), ‘In Beauty, that of Favour, is more 
 
 then that of Colour.’ 
 
 It is sometimes said that Ps 45%? 119°8, Pr 19° 29% 
 are examples of this meaning. But, though the 
 
 Heb. (0°35) there tr ‘favour’ is literally ‘ face,’ 
 favour or goodwill is clearly the meaning. In the 
 adjectives ‘ well-favoured ’ and ‘ill-favoured,’ how — 
 ever, we find this meaning, as Gn 29" ‘ Rachel was 
 
 * The correct tr. of 75! nxon isdoubtful. If the vb. be taken ut 
 as 3rd sing. fem. (Oa. Heb. Lez.) the meaning will be ‘thy ; 
 
 people is at fault’ (but DY is nowhere else fem., not even in 
 Jg 187, see Moore, ad loc.); if as 2nd sing. masc., * thou wilt 
 wrong thy people’ (so Pesh. LXX, ad:ahous rév Awdv ov). This 
 is accepted by Siegfried-Stade, who punctuate nxpp. Socin 
 (in Kautzsch’s 47) pronounces the MT unintelligible. 
 
 rosecu- | 
 as in 
 
 Shaks. As You Like It, — 
 
 uy 
 
 Bhs 
 
 J. Hastives, = | 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 ;: 
 
FAVOUR 
 
 FEAR 85} 
 
 
 
 beautiful and well favoured’ (*x7> np:, lit. ‘ fair to 
 be seen.’ So evilfayouredness, Dt 17? (3) 793, lit. 
 ‘evil thing’). 
 
 In Jos 11% favour means scarcely more than mercy, ‘for it 
 was of the Lorp to harden their hearts, that they should come 
 against Israel in battle, and that he might destroy them 
 utterly, and they might have no favour’ (fAj7A : in Ezr 98 the 
 meaning is the same, but EV give ‘grace’; everywhere else the 
 Heb. word means ‘intreaty’ Of. Elyot, The Governour, ii. 
 298, ‘And they, which by that lawe were condemned, were 
 put to dethe without any fauour.’ J. HASTINGS. 
 
 FAYOUR.—The interest of the biblical use of 
 this word resides chiefly in its relation to the 
 term | Adee It has not, like that term, obtained 
 any doctrinal significance. While xdps in the 
 Lx (Vulg. gratia) is its aepiling equivalent, it 
 is used only six times in NT to tr. that word (see 
 also Lk 1% xexaprwytyyn, ‘highly favoured’; marg. 
 ‘graciously accepted’ or ‘much graced’). Grace, 
 in fact, while including favour, implies much 
 more. And it comes as a free gift (‘ Gratia, nisi 
 gratis sit, non est gratia’), while favour may be 
 won or deserved. To obtain favour is to please, to 
 show favour is to be pleased. 
 
 In OT the distinction is, however, hardly per- 
 ceptible. The instinct of the translators led them, 
 it is true, to avoid the adjective ‘favourable’ as a 
 rendering of pn (‘ gracious’) used only.of God (with 
 the one possible exception of Ps 1124. See Cheyne, 
 The Book of Psalms, in loc.), but the verb j37 and 
 its other derivatives are often represented by 
 ‘favour.’ Thus jp, 38 times rendered ‘grace,’ is 26 
 times tr¢ ‘favour.’ Nor is the sense of strengthen- 
 ing help, so prominent in the former word, alto- 
 gether absent from the latter. (See Ps 5 ‘with 
 favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield.’) 
 
 Eight other Heb. roots, implying kindness, good- 
 will, pity, are represented in the AV by ‘ favour.’ 
 The most frequent of these is }is7=acceptance, 
 rendered 15 times ‘favour.’ For 199 loving-kind- 
 ness, ‘favour’ is employed only 3 times. 
 
 The LXX vary much more than the Eng. tr., 
 the idea of pity pronouncing itself in &\eos, while 
 that of goodwill comes out in evdoxla, 0éAnua, mpd- 
 
 owrroy (0°39). 
 
 So in the Vulg. we find misericordia, 
 voluntas, vultus. 
 
 A. S. AGLEN. 
 
 FEAR.—For the theology of Fear see next article. 
 Some obsolete or archaic uses deserve notice. 
 
 4. Following the Heb. idiom, ‘my fear,’ ‘thy fear,’ 
 etc., stands for the ‘ fear of me,’ ‘of thee,’ etc.: Ex 
 2377 <7 will send my fear before thee’ (‘n>'x, RV 
 ‘my terror’); Job ‘let not his fear terrify me’ 
 (inpx, RV ‘his terror’); Jer 2)° ‘my fear is not in 
 thee’ (n7n3). Similarly Ps 90" ‘even according to 
 thy fear, so is thy wrath’ (any77, RV ‘according 
 to the fear that is due unto thee,’ so Perowne ; 
 Del.* Cheyne, ‘the fear of thee,’ with the same 
 meaning ; De Witt, ‘But who has yet learned the 
 
 wer of Thine anger, And Thy wrath as measured 
 ‘by the reverence due Thee?’); Is 63” ‘O LorD, 
 why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and 
 hardened our heart from thy fear?’ (anx77, so RV ; 
 Del. ‘so that we fear thee not,’ evidently the geni- 
 tive of the object; Orelli, ‘that it fears not thee’) ; 
 M:]1 1° ‘if I bea master, where is my fear ?’ (*x}d). 
 Earlier VSS contained this idiom yet oftener, as 
 Gn 9? Wyc. (1382) ‘ youre feer and gone tremblyng 
 be upon alle the beestis of erthe’ (1388 ‘youre 
 drede and tremblyng,’ AV ‘the fear of you and 
 the dread of you’). 2. After another Heb. idiom 
 
 * The suffix, says Delitzsch, is either the genitive of the sub- 
 ject, i.e. according to Thy fearfulness (77), as in Ezk 118); or 
 of the obiect, ‘acc. to the fear that is due unto thee.’ The 
 latter way of taking it is more natural in itself (cf. v.8, Ex 2020, 
 Dt 225), and here characterizes the knowledge that is so rarely 
 found as a knowledge that is determined by the fear of God and 
 truly religious. 
 
 ‘fear’ is used for the object of fear, that which 
 is feared: Gn 31% ‘the God of Abraham, and the 
 fear of Isaac’ (742, RV ‘Fear,’ as a proper name: 
 but to personify is to miss the idiom, of which 
 Spurrell (Notes on the Text of Gen.) gives examples 
 from Pesh. Targ. etc.), so v.™, Ps 31" ‘I was a 
 reproach among all mine enemies, but especially 
 among my neighbours, and a fear to mine acquaint- 
 ance’ (195); Is 2418 ‘he who fleeth from the noise 
 of the fear shall fall into the pit’ (195); Ps 535 ‘There 
 were they in great fear, where no fear* was’ (o¥ 
 ano med anp-ns) ; Pr 1% ‘1 will mock when your 
 fear cometh’ (02773) ; Is 8? ™ ‘neither fear ye their 
 fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of Hosts 
 himself ; and de¢ him be your fear, and Jet him be 
 our dread’ (n2NtiD.. . . wd); Ps 344 ‘I sought the 
 rd, and he heard me, and delivered me from all 
 my fears’ (*7\32) ; Pr 10% ‘The fear of the wicked, 
 it shall come upon him’ (yyq nt39); Is 664 ‘IT also 
 will choose their delusions, and bring their fears 
 upon them’ (opp). Cf. Pr 10” Cov. ‘The waye 
 of the LoRDE geueth a corage vnto ye godly, but it 
 is a feare for wicked doers’; Herbert, The Temple, 
 120, 1, 29— 
 
 ‘Call in thy death’s-head there, tie up thy fears.’ 
 
 8. There are two kinds of fear, a ‘slavish feare, 
 and a sonlike feare’ (Hieron, Works, i. 1380). The 
 latter is now used only of our relation to God. 
 But it was formerly applied to the reverence due to 
 any superior, as Ro 13’ ‘ Render to all their dues : 
 tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom 
 custom ; fear to whom fear.’ Cf. Knox, Hist. 194, 
 ‘we deny neither Toll, Tribute, nor fear, to her 
 [the Queen Regent] nor her officers.” Aschain 
 (Toxophilus, B. fol. 35, ed. 1545) says that a priest 
 should have ‘a bodye ful of manlye authoritie to 
 fear ill men.’ 4. The article being formerly used 
 freely with abstract nouns, we find ‘a fear,’ Ezk 
 30% ‘I will put a fear in the land of Egypt’ (Ax, 
 RV retains); Ad. Est 15° ‘in a fear’ (dywndoas, 
 RV ‘in an agony ’). 
 
 In the quotation from Ascham above, the verb 
 to fear is used in the active sense of put fear into, 
 terrify. ‘This meaning, though it occurs but once 
 in AV, is common in the earlier VSS and in Eng. 
 writers of the time. 
 
 Thus Lv 2686 Wyc. ‘ the sown of a fleynge leef shal fere hem’; 
 Dn 411 Cov. ‘O Balthasar, let nether the dreame ner the inter- 
 pretacion thereoff feare the’; 2Co 10° Gen. 1560, ‘ This I say 
 that I may not seme as it were to feare you with letters’ (so 
 Wyc.). Cf. Elyot, The Governour, i. 247, ‘the good husbande, 
 whan he hath sowen his grounde, settethe up cloughtes or 
 thredes, which some call shailes, some blenchars, or other like 
 showes, to feare away birdes, which he foreseeth redy to de- 
 uoure and hurte his corne.’ So Foxe, Actes and Mon. i. 436 (ed. 
 1583), ‘A wonderfull and terrible earthquake fell through out al 
 England: wherupon diuers of the suffraganes being feared by 
 the strange and wonderfull demonstration, doubting what it 
 should meane, thought it good to leaue of from their determin- 
 ate purpose’; Spenser, FQ u. xii. 25— 
 
 ‘For all that here on earth we dreadfull hold, 
 Be but as bugs to fearen babes withall, 
 Compared to the creatures in the seas enthrall.’ 
 
 More, Utopia (Rob, tre, Lumby’s ed. p. 145, 1. 25), expresses hia 
 ideal of toleration in the words, ‘They also which do not agree 
 to Christes religion, feare no man from it, nor speake against 
 any man that hath received it.’ Tindale, Works, i. 7, says 
 Scripture is ‘a comfort in adversity that we despair not, and 
 feareth us in prosperity, that we sin not’; and Hzpositions, 
 148, ‘fearing you with the bug of excommunication.’ From 
 Shaks. take Yam. of Shrew, t. ii. 205— 
 
 ‘Have I not in a pitched battle heard 
 Loud ’larums, neighing steeds, and trumpet’s chang ? 
 And do you tell me of a woman’s tongue, 
 That gives not half so great a blow to hear 
 As will a chestnut in a farmer's fire? 
 Tush ! tush! fear boys with bugs.’ 
 
 *Earle (Psalter of 1539, p. 291) says that in this example 
 ‘fear’ is used in the ancient sense of F_47R, sudden alarm, 
 shock of danger. But that sense seems to have been dropped 
 very early, long before the days of Coverdale, who first usea 
 ‘fear’ here (Wyclif as usual having ‘dread’), and the Heb. is 
 the same as in the other passages quoted above. 
 
658 FEAR 
 
 Davies quotes from Bp. Andrewes (v. 8), ‘Knowing that we fear 
 honour and power, though it last but for a small time, He feareth 
 us with One whose honour and power lasteth for ever,’ where the 
 neuter and active senses of the word are found together. 
 
 The example in AV is Wis 17® ‘For though no 
 terrible thing did fear them ; yet being scared with 
 beasts that passed by, and hissing of serpents, they 
 died for fear’ (ép48e, RV ‘affrighted’). eb. 
 idiom is expressed in the phrase ‘fear before,’ 
 which occurs 1 Ch 16%, Ps 96°, Ee 8!2 3, Hag 11. 
 Thus Ps 96° ‘O worship the Lord in the beauty 
 of holiness: fear before him, all the earth’ (35n 
 y35p, RV ‘tremble before him’). The verb is used 
 in a grammatical misconstruction in Is 574 ‘ And 
 of whom hast thou been afraid or feared,’ which 
 is rectified in RV ‘And of whom hast thou been 
 afraid and in fear?’ 
 
 Fearful in older Eng. meant ‘greatly fearing’ 
 as well as ‘greatly to be feared.’ Both senses are 
 used in AV and retained in RV. 1. Dt 208 ‘ What 
 man ts there that is fearful and fainthearted?’ 
 (xva); Jg 7% ‘fearful and afraid’ (x7); Is 354 
 ‘Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be 
 strong, fear not’ (2d~rnn2), lit. ‘hasty of heart,’ 
 as RVm); Mt 8% ‘Why are ye fearful, O ye of 
 little faith ?’ (Serbs ; 80 Mk 4%, Rev 218 [all]); 
 Sir 2!2 2218 1] Mac 35, 2 Mac 8%, Cf. Adams, 
 IT Peter, 55, ‘If thou lovest God, thou wilt be 
 fearful to offend him, careful to please him’; 
 and Chapman, Homer’s Iliads, xxiii. 740— 
 
 ‘On the shore, far-off, he caus’d to raise 
 A ship-mast ; to whose top they tied a fearful dove by th’ foot, 
 At which all shot.’ 
 2. Ex 15" ‘Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, 
 fearful in praises, doing wonders?’ (n>7A_ xy, 
 lit. ‘feared [in] praises’; usually understood ‘to 
 be feared even when praised’; Kalisch, ‘awful in 
 praises,—the qualities which are mentioned in 
 praising Him fill the mind with awe and rever- 
 
 ence’; in Kautzsch, Du furchtbarer in Ruhmes- 
 thaten, ‘fearful in deeds of praise’; the last, or 
 Oxf. Heb. Lex. ‘terrible in attributes that call for 
 raise, being best); Dt 28° ‘that thou mayest 
 ear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD 
 THY GOD’ (x3); Lk 21" ‘fearful sights’ (TR 
 
 pbBnrpa, edd. $68n0pa, RV ‘ terrors’); He 1077 
 ‘a certain fearful looking for of judgment’ 
 (poBepds ; so v.*1, but in 127 ‘terrible,’ RV ‘fear- 
 ful’: ¢. is always used of that which inspires 
 fear); 2 Es 8% 128 15%, 2 Mac 1%. Cf. Melvill, 
 Diary (Wod. p. 271), ‘The ministerie of Mr. 
 Robert Bruce was verie steadable and mightie 
 that yeir, and divers yeirs following, maist com- 
 fortable to the guid and godly, and maist feirfull 
 to the enemies.’ ‘Awful’ and ‘dreadful’ have 
 both meanings also. 
 
 Fearfully is found only in Ps 1394 ‘I am fear- 
 fully and wonderfully made’ (m5) nixq,* Del. 
 ‘**7 am wonderfully come into being under fearful 
 circumstances,” %.¢. circumstances that excite a 
 shudder, sc. of astonishment’; Cheyne, ‘ graced 
 so fearfully and gloriously ’).t+ 
 
 Fearfulness has in the earlier VSS both the 
 meanings of fearful, as Ezk 30% Cov. ‘a fearful- 
 ness will I sende into the Egipcians londe’; 2 Mac 
 155 Cov. ‘ sende now also thy good angell before us 
 (o LORDE of heavens) in the fearfulnesse and drede 
 of thy mightie arme.’ But in AV ‘ fearfulness’ 
 means always the feeling of fear, apprehension, 
 timidity: Ps 555, Is 33 214, 2 Es 5 11 15%, 
 
 * See Davidson, Syntaz, § 71, Rem. 2. 
 
 t See Cheyne’s whole note (Book of Psalms, p. 352); it is par- 
 ticularly good. He says, ‘Hitzig considers such a burst of 
 admiration inappropriate to the case of human birth. But 
 why? Take the production of a human hand. Why should 
 
 aot a sensitive poet thrill, like Browning’s heroine (James Lee’s 
 Wve, viii.), at— 
 
 “‘The beauty in this—how free, how fine 
 To fear almost” ?’ 
 
 FEAR 
 
 RV adds Wis 178 ‘ These were themselves sick with 
 a ludicrous fearfulness’ (karayé\acrov edd Bear, 
 AV ‘fear worthy to be laughed at’). 
 
 J. HASTINGS, 
 
 FEAR.—As in Eng., so in Heb. and in Gr, the 
 same words are used to express emotions of fear 
 which differ widely in their ethical character. At 
 one end of the scale we have the fear of the Lorp 
 which is the beginning of wisdom (Ps 11)) and 
 the whole duty of man (Ec 12"); at the other end 
 that fear of pain, shame, or death, which is craven, 
 servile, and selfish, and which is often rebuked in 
 Scripture. But it is impossible to draw any sharp 
 line between the two kinds of fear, for in the im- 
 perfection of human character one motive shades 
 off into another. Once even, by a bold anthropo- 
 morphism, God Himself is said to fear in the lower 
 sense of the word (Dt 32”, see Driver’s note). 
 
 The fear which is merely self-regarding ought 
 not to exist in a rational being who knows that 
 God is his Father and understands enough to trust 
 Him. Perfect love casteth out fear (1 Jn 4). 
 But man, as he is, fears the forces of nature, 
 which he does not understand or cannot control, 
 because he does not trust God’s providence. And 
 he fears his fellow-man, because he is aware that 
 brotherly instincts have grown weak with the 
 sense of the loss of God’s Fatherhood. ‘Thus 
 conscience doth make cowards of us When 
 Adam fell, he was afraid because he was naked 
 (Gn 3”), and he felt he could no longer face God : 
 thus fear of God took its rise in the violation of 
 peaceful fellowship with Him. Similarly, Cain 
 violates human fellowship, and fears man because 
 he is an outlaw and God’s curse is upon him 
 (Gn 47-4), Fear is thus the natural consequence 
 of misdoing (Pr 28!), and, accordingly, is some- 
 times expressly said to be inflicted as a punish- 
 ment (Lv 26!7, Dt 287-68), The effect of selfish 
 fear is to unman the coward, he loses spirit (Jos 
 2; for the same phrase used in a higher sense, 
 see 1 K 105): such men are to be rejected from 
 active service in the army, lest the infection of 
 their timidity spread (Dt 208, Jg 7°). Courage is 
 especially needed in a prophet (Jer 18, Ezk 3%). | 
 Fear is to be overcome by faith in God (Ps 1127-8), | 
 In Rev 218 the fearful are numbered with the | 
 unbelieving among the most grievous sinners. i 
 
 The nobler fear hae no thought of danger to — 
 self, so that the fear of God is the very opposite | 
 to the fear of man (Is 8! 83, Mt 10%); butit arises | 
 from the sense of the nearness of some higher and 
 holier being. Thus the beasts fear man (Gn 9%), 
 and man fears angels and spirits, and, above all, — 
 God. To fear the LorD (the phrase occurs far | 
 more often with J” than with Elohim) means 
 rather to feel awe of what He is, than fear of 
 what He might do. It is fear of a Person (J”is | 
 God’s personal name), of His character, dignity, — 
 and holiness, rather than of His power or works. | 
 The fear of the LorD is to hate evil (Pr 8"). Fear 
 in the better sense of the word is the mainspring — 
 of religion, and ‘to fear’ is constantly used as 
 signifying ‘to worship,’ whether the object be — 
 the true God or the gods of the heathen (eg. | 
 2 K 17%: %), Thus, too, Jacob, when dealing with | 
 Laban, calls J” the Fear of his father Isaac (Gn | 
 31-53), that is, the object of his worship and religi- | 
 ous awe. This kind of fear is so far removed } 
 from the lower sort, that it is one of the dis. | 
 tinguishing qualities given by God’s Spirit tothe | 
 Messianic King (Is 11*3, the spirit of the fear of | 
 the Lorp), re the prayers of the Incarnate Son }{ 
 were heard because o Hs godly fear (He 57). 
 
 But men are only gradually trained to the level | 
 of this holy and distaterested fear. They often © 
 have to be taught to fear God at all, eveninthe | 
 lower sense; and this lesson is enforced by divine | 
 
 
 
 al 
 
a 
 
 FEASTS AND FASTS 
 
 FEASTS AND FASTS 85$ 
 
 
 
 unishments (1 S 12), just as civil punishments 
 ch men the authority of the law through fear 
 
 (Dt 13"). It is possible to trace progress in the 
 conception of fear taught in the Bible. Thus at 
 Sinai the people fear the fire (Ex 201°); but at 
 Horeb the prophet is taught to look for God in the 
 still small voice rather than in the fire and tempest 
 (1 K 197); and Ezekiel is told not to crouch before 
 God, but to stand upon his feet when God speaks 
 to him (Ezk 2). So in the NT boldness towards 
 God is inculcated as much as fear, Christ having 
 opened up the way of access for all who are united 
 to Him: see Eph3”, He 41°10”, 1 Jn 278 321 417 (cf. 
 Ro 8" contrast bet. spirit of bondage and of adop- 
 tion). But Christ does not encourage the idea that 
 it is as yet possible to supersede the motive even of 
 selfish fear; He gives grave warnings of the con- 
 sequences that will follow sin hereafter, and, while 
 He tells His ‘friends’ not to fear men, He bids 
 them emphatically to fear Him who hath power 
 to cast into hell (Lk 12* 5), 
 
 In Ac ‘one that feareth God’ is often used 
 technically to mean a proselyte, even though un- 
 circumcised (Ac 10’), This is also the meaning of 
 the word ceBdpevos, one that worshippeth God, also 
 translated ‘devout.’ See COURAGE, REVERENCE. 
 
 W. O. Burrows. 
 FEASTS AND FASTS.—It will be convenient to 
 divide this article * into four parts— 
 I. Feasts connected with the institution of the Sabbath. 
 II. The great Historical Festivals, Passover, Pentecost, and 
 Tabernacles. 
 
 III. The Minor Festivals. 
 IV. The Fast of the Day of Atonement and the Minor Fasts. 
 
 I. FEASTS CONNECTED WITH THE INSTITUTION 
 OF THE SABBATH. 
 
 (1) The Sabbath. (2) The New Moon. (3) The 
 Feast of Trumpets on the lst day of the Sab- 
 batical month. (4) The Sabbatical year. (5) The 
 Jubilee year. 
 
 The sacred number 7 dominates the cycle of 
 religious observances. Every 7th day was a 
 Sabbath. Every 7th month was a sacred month. 
 Every 7th year was a Sabbatical year. After 
 
 times 7 was the year of Jubilee. The Feast 
 of the Passover, with the Feast of Unleavened 
 Bread, began 14 days (2x7) after the beginning 
 of the month, and lasted 7 days. The Feast of 
 Pentecost was 7 times 7 days after the Feast of 
 the Passover. The Feast of Tabernacles began 14 
 days (2x7) after the beginning of the month and 
 lasted 7 days. The 7th month was marked by 
 (1) Feast of Trumpets on the Ist day. (2) Fast of 
 Atonement on the 10th day. (3) Feast of Taber- 
 nacles from the 15th day to the 21st. The days of 
 ‘Holy Convocation’ were 7 in number—2 at the 
 Passover, 1 at Pentecost, 1 at the Feast of 
 Trumpets, 1 at the Day of Atonement, 1 at the 
 Feast of Tabernacles, and 1 on the day following, 
 the 8th day. (Willis, Worship of the Old Covenant, 
 pp. 190, 191). 
 
 (1) The Sabbath, nzv, jinav, c¢4B8Barov.—In Am 8°, 
 2K 42-3 Js 18 Hos 2" it is connected with the 
 New moon. Probably, the Sabbath was originally 
 regulated by the phases of the moon, and thus 
 occurred on the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days of 
 the month, the new moon being reckoned as the 
 first Sabbath. ‘Among the Assyrians the first 
 twenty-eight days of every month were divided 
 into four weeks of seven days each, the seventh, 
 fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days 
 respectively being Sabbaths, and there was a 
 
 general prohibition of work on these days’ 
 (George Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, 19f., 
 quoted by Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 112, and 
 
 Fuller details will be found under 
 See also the 
 
 * The article is general. 
 the articles on the separate Feasts and Fasts. 
 article Fasting. 
 
 Schultz, OT Theol. i. 204, who also mentions the 
 primitive Delphic custom of giving oracles on the 
 7th day as the day dedicated to Apollo). Schultz 
 also points out that it is a mistake to derive the 
 name Sabbath from the planet Saturn, which the 
 Rabbis call ‘Shabbti,’ and thus to bring the 
 Sabbath holiday into connexion with the Chaldee 
 worship of the planets. ‘The naming of the days 
 after certain planet-gods can hardly be so old as 
 the Sabbath holiday.’ 
 
 For the Sabbath law see Ex 163-8 (P and J), 
 208 (E), 23!2 (J), 3138 (P), 3421 (JE), 35? (P), Lv 
 198 (H), 23% (P), 26? (H), Nu 15%2-8 (P), 289-10 (Py, 
 Dt 515, In Ex 20° (E) it is to commemorate 
 God’s seventh day of rest at the creation. In Dt 
 57-10 it commemorates the redemption of Israel 
 from Egypt. On the Sabbath the daily morning 
 and evening sacrifice—the ‘continual sacrifice’— 
 of a lamb as a burnt-offering was doubled. There 
 is no evidence of Sabbath observance in the days 
 of the Patriarchs. There is little evidence of 
 Sabbath observance before the time of the Exile 
 (Jer 177-27, Ezk 2012: 38-16. 20, Ts 567-6 5818), (Greater 
 strictness marks the post-exilic period (Neh 8°12 
 10%! 13-22), For the 39 kinds of work prohibited 
 by the Rabbis on the Sabbath, and for many other 
 actions and employments which cannot be summed 
 up under any of them which were also forbidden, 
 see Schiirer, HJP U1. ii. 96-105, cf. 1 Mac 2%4-8- 
 99-42, 2Mac 5% 826-28 1288 15%, Mt 12°18, Mk 3l-5, 
 Lk 610 1310-17 141-6, Jn 51-18 914-18, Sabbath-breakin 
 was punishable with death (Nu 15% (P), Ex 3114 
 (J)), ef. Ex 16° (J), where the Manna ceases on the 
 Sabbath, and Ex 35° (P), where no fire is to be 
 lighted. According to the testimony of Josephus, 
 the high priest, although legally bound to officiate 
 only on the Day of Atonement, yet actually offici- 
 ated, as a rule, every Sabbath day, and on the 
 oceasion of the New Moons or other festivals in 
 the course of the year (Jos. BJ Vv. v. 7), 
 
 (2) The New Moon (1) 7h, (2) wihd apy, (3) ex 
 07h, (4) own NI, vouunvla, veounvia.—Closely asso- 
 ciated with the Sabbath (see above). ‘ When under 
 the influence of the Chaldee method of dividing 
 time, the course of the moon with its four phases 
 was adopted as the unit of time measurement, the 
 new moon and the 7th day were naturally regarded 
 as the chief divisions of time, and therefore as holy 
 days’ (Schultz, OT Theol. i. 204). From 2K 4 it 
 would appear that the prophets were in the habit 
 of gathering the people around them, and perhaps 
 of granting inquirers and suppliants an audience 
 at new moons and on Sabbaths. At every new 
 moon the number of burnt-offerings was largely 
 increased ; and in addition a kid of the goats was 
 to be offered for a sin-offering (Ex 40,” (P), Nu 
 10% (P) 284-15 (P) 298 (P), 18 20% 62, 1 Ch 2381, 
 2Ch 24, 2Ch 2917, Ps 814, Is 133-14, Hos 24, 1 Es 
 582. 88. 67. g6 gI6. 17.87 1 Mac 10%, Col 23), 
 
 (3) The Feast of Trumpets on the Ist day of the 
 Sabbatical month, nya 2, pu nuoovvoy cadrmlyywr. 
 —The 7th month—Tisri—was the sacred month. 
 On the new moon of the 7th month—the Feast of 
 Trumpets—additional burnt-offerings were sac- 
 rificed (Nu 291-6 (P), Lv 23%4- 25 (P)). 
 
 ' (4) The Sabbatical Year, yr? ae nav, od Bara 
 dvdmavots TH yH (Ex 23 4 (J), Ly 251-7. 20. 22 (Hf), 
 Lv 268-8 (H), Dt 15!!! 31°13).—The Sabbatical 
 year represented a still further consecration of 
 time to God. The land was to keep a Sabbath. 
 The fields were neither to be tilled nor reaped. 
 ‘Nature is to be set free, as it were, from the service 
 which mankind exacts from her, and to be left 
 entirely to herself. Only what she voluntaril 
 
 offers is to be taken, and that not for any selfis 
 
 purpose’ (Schultz, OT Theol. i. 363). Hebrew 
 
 slaves were to be set free unless they wished tc 
 remain in service (Ex 217-6 (J)), 
 
 A harvest was te 
 
 
 
860 FEASTS AND FASTS 
 
 be given grafts to the poor of the people (Ex 231-4 
 (J)). Release from debt is prescribed (Dt 15*-). 
 In Ex 23 (J) the arrangement is made for man ; it 
 is a limitation for the common good of private 
 rights of property in land,—in fact, for the benefit 
 of the landless, whoin the 7th year are to have the 
 usufruct of the soil; in Lv 25 (H) the arrangement 
 is for the sake of the land,—that it may rest, if 
 not on the 7th day, at least on the 7th year; and 
 for the sake of the Sabbath,—that it may extend 
 its supremacy over nature also (Wellhausen, 
 Prolegomena, 118). At the F. of Tabernacles 
 at the commencement of the Sabbatical year, the 
 whole law was read in the hearing of the people 
 (Neh 818), The 70 years’ captivity and the 
 land’s desolation were regarded as making up for 
 the unobserved Sabbaths of the land (Camb. Comp. 
 to the Bible, p. 412) (2 Ch 3671, Jer 3414-2). After the 
 return from exile Nehemiah bound the Jews by a 
 covenant to keep them (Neh 10*). 
 
 (5) The Year of Jubilee * x73, Adeats, 31, évavrods 
 ddécews onuacta (Lv 258-5 2717-24) _Peculiar to P. 
 As the Sabbatical year corresponded with the 7th 
 day, so the year of Jubilee corresponded with 
 the 50th, t.e. Pentecost. ‘As the fiftieth day 
 after the seven Sabbath days is celebrated as a 
 closing festival of the forty-nine days’ period, 
 so is the fiftieth year after the seven Sabbatic 
 years, as rounding off the larger interval; the 
 seven Sabbaths falling on harvest time, which 
 are usually reckoned specially (Lk 61), have, in 
 the circumstance of their interrupting harvest 
 work, a particular resemblance to the Sabbatic 
 eae which interrupt agriculture altogether. 
 
 ubilee is thus an artificial institution super- 
 imposed upon the years of fallow, regarded as har- 
 vest Sabbaths after the analogy of Pentecost’ (Well- 
 hausen, Prolegomena, 119). here were two main 
 elements in the Jubilee—the emancipation of the 
 
 Hebrew slave, and the return of mortgaged pro- 
 
 perty to its hereditary owner. Cf. 2Ch 36”, Jer 
 348 14.15.17, Rizk 4617, Is 611-2 634, Lk 418-21, But in 
 Jer the term 17] used in Lv 25” is applied only to 
 the 7th year. The year of Jubilee was proclaimed 
 by the sound of a trumpet on the Day of Atone- 
 ment (Ly 25%). 
 
 II. THE GREAT HISTORICAL FESTIVALS.t—As 
 the new moon and the Sabbath were lunar feasts, 
 the Passover (with the Feast of Unleavened 
 Bread), Pentecost, and Tabernacles were solar 
 festivals, #.e. festivals which followed the seasons 
 of the year. ‘Three times in the year shalt 
 thou hold pilgrimage unto me, three times 
 in the ae shall all thy men appear before 
 J”, the God of Israel’ (Ex 231417 i 348 (JE), 
 Dt 1674), 
 
 (1) The Passover nos, rdoxa. The Feast of Un- 
 leavened Bread nixon in, éoprh tov dtvpywv.—The 
 Passover, though followed by the Feast of Un- 
 leavened Bread (Mazzéth), was distinct from it both 
 in its origin and in its observance. In Ex 12 and 
 13 two narratives are combined. Ex 12) (P) 
 refer to the Passover, 12'*-2° (P) refer to the seven 
 days’ F. of Mazzéth, 127-® (JE) refer to the Pass- 
 over, 12-5 (P) refer to the Passover, 13° (JE) 
 refer to Mazzéth (Driver, LOT, 25). Josephus 
 distinguishes the Passover from the F. of Mazzéth 
 (Ané. 1. x. 5), ‘The F. of Unleavened Bread 
 succeeds that of the Passover, and falls on the 
 fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven 
 days’ (cf. Lv 23° 6 (P), Nu 281617 (P)). But in 
 
 MA Rh] in Lv 2510 refers to the ‘liberty’ of Sabbatical year, in 
 Jer 348.15.17 to the liberty of slaves in 7th year of service, in 
 Ezk 4617 prob. to Jubilee. In Is 6111 its use is figurative. 
 
 t The distinctive feature of these 0°35 is that they are not 
 merely religious festivals like those of the ‘sacred seasons’ 
 "1" '5), but imply, like the Arab. haj(same word), a pilgrimage 
 & @ sanctuary (see Driver, Deut. 188 ff.). 
 
 FEASTS AND FASTS 
 
 Mk 141-13, Lk 22! they are practically identified. 
 ‘The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread 
 form a double festival, just as the Day of Atonemen* 
 and the Feast of Tabernaclesdo. It is undoubtedly 
 as a direct preparation for the F. of Unleavened 
 Bread that the Passover is celebrated on the 
 evening before the latter feast begins’ (Schultz, 
 OT Theol. vol. i. p. 364) [Ly 2358 (P) 1-146 (Hf), 
 Nu 97-14 (P) 2816-25 (P) 33° (P), Dt 16%% 1°] The 
 parallelism between the feast of the first month 
 and the feast of the seventh month should be 
 noticed. The tenth day of the first month, for 
 choosing the Lamb, is parallel to the tenth day of 
 the seventh month, the Day of Atonement. The 
 Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month 
 and the seven days’ F. of Mazzéth are parallel to 
 the eight days of the F. of Tabernacles. The 
 Passover, which was a sacrificial feast (Ex 12”), 
 was observed on the fourteenth day of the first 
 month, Abib (the month of ears, because in it the 
 ears of wheat first appear), later Nisan (Est 37, 
 Neh 2!), The Feast of Unleavened Bread was the 
 opening as Pentecost was the closing festivity of 
 the seven weeks’ ri of harvest’ (Dt 16°, Lv 23! 
 (H)). Passover an Mazzoth must be distinguished. 
 Wellhausen (Prolegomena, 87 ff.) has shown how 
 the Passover nop points back to the sacrifice of the 
 Jirstlings (Ex 34:8". (JE) 13% (JE), Dt 159% 161), 
 It is because J” smote the firstborn of Egypt and 
 spared those of Israel that the latter thenceforward 
 are held sacred to Him. Because Pharaoh refuses 
 to allow the Hebrews to offer to their God the 
 firstlings of cattle that are His due, J” seizes from 
 him the firstborn of men. On the origin of the 
 Paschal ritual and its connexion with Arabian and 
 other customs, see W. R. Smith, RS, 227, 280, 344, 
 345, 406, 431, 464, 465 ; Schultz, O7 Theol. i. p. 364 ; 
 Cobb, Origines Judaice, 138. ‘In the three great 
 festivals we can plainly discern relics of the cus- 
 toms which preceded their legal institution. In 
 the first (the Passover) we can distinguish the | 
 earlier belief, out of which the offering of the | 
 firstlings of the flock sprang, from the enactments — 
 which are proper to the institution of the Pass- — 
 over.’ Cf. also for the feasts generally W. R. | 
 Smith, The Prophets of Israel, new ed. pp. 56, 384 ff., 
 where he clearly, after Wellhausen,* proves that 
 the chief occasions of worship in Israel (Mazzéth, 
 Pentecost, and Tabernacles) were the agricultural 
 
 feasts, just as among the Canaanites and other ie 
 
 ancient nations. The real starting-point for a 
 
 study of Jewish sacred feasts is Gn 4% (J), ‘Abel | e 
 
 was a shepherd, and Cain was a husbandman. 
 And in process of time it came to pass that Cain — 
 brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto | 
 the LorD; and Abel also brought an offering of © 
 the jirstlings of his sheep.’ ‘It is,’ says Wellhausen 
 (Proleg. p. 89), ‘out of the simplest, most natural, 
 and most widespread offerings, those of the first- 
 fruits of the flock, herd, and field, the occasions 
 for which recur regularly with the seasons of the 
 ear, that the annual 
 he Passover corresponds with the firstlings of | 
 Abel the shepherd, the other three (Mazzéth, | 
 Pentecost, ae Tabernacles) with the fruits pre- 
 
 sented by Cain the husbandman ; apart from this | 
 
 difference, in essence and foundation they are all - 
 precisely alike.’ 
 must be distinguished from the three agricultural 
 feasts. 
 
 ‘sacrifice ’ (n3}) is distinctly applied to it (Ex 12” | 
 (JE) 34% (JE), cf. 1 Co 5’), In Nu 974 (P) it is a 
 
 korban or offering (7372). Like the peace-offerings, 
 
 the chief part of it was eaten by the worshippers; — 
 **Not only in the Jahwistic but also in the Deuteronomia i 
 
 legislation the festivals rest upon agriculture, the basis at oncd : 
 
 of life and of religion’ (Proleg. p. 91). 
 
 
 
 estivals took their rise. | 
 
 Thus the Passover in its origin | 
 
 It was a sacrificial feast, and had nothing — ; 
 to do with agriculture or harvest. The name — 
 
FEASTS AND FASTS 
 
 like the sin-offerings, there was an element of 
 atonement in it (2 Ch 30!* 35" refer to the sprink- 
 ling of the blood of the Passover); like the burnt- 
 offerings, it was whole—no bone of it was broken ; 
 it was roast with fire—anything left was burnt 
 with fire. In the two accounts of the Passover in 
 Ex 12, several points of importance are omitted in 
 the first, e.g. the character of the lamb, and the 
 manner in which it was to be eaten; fresh points 
 are added in the second, e.g. the hyssop, the basin, 
 and that none were to leave their houses till the 
 morning. 
 
 On each of the seven days of the F. of Mazzéth, 
 which followed the Passover, 2 young tullocks 
 and 1 ram and 7 lambs of the first year were 
 offered as burnt-offerings, witu their meal and 
 drink-offerings, together with a goat for a sin- 
 offering and the continual, i.e. daily burnt-offering 
 (Nu 28-25 (P)). On the second day of Mazzéth— 
 Abib (Nisan) 16th—a sheaf of the new corn was 
 offered as a wave-offering, together with a lamb of 
 the first year for a burnt-oflering (Lv 23!-™4 (H)). 
 The first and last days of the ieast—the 15th and 
 2ist days of the month—were days of ‘holy con- 
 vocation,’ in which no servile work might be done 
 (Ly 237 (P)). 
 
 There are few references to the Passover in OT 
 (Nu 9 (P), Jos 5!°!? (P), 2Ch 30. 35, Ezr 6”, 
 1 Es 12: 6-8-9. 12. 17. 19, 90, 21. 22 710.12) Ty NT see Mt 
 | Mk 141121416 Pk 941 991. 7.8.11. 18. 15 
 Jn 218-3 G4 1155 121 131 18% 9 1944, Ac 124, 1 Co 57, 
 He 11%. Later Jewish ordinances distinguish 
 between the so-called ‘ Egyptian Passover,’ that is, 
 as it was enjoined for the first night of its celebra- 
 tion, and the ‘permanent Passover,’ as it was to 
 be observed by Israel after their possession of the 
 land of Se (Edersheim, Bible History, vol. ii.). 
 On the later additions to the Paschal ceremonial, 
 
 262 17. 18. 19 
 
 e.g. the recitation of the history of redemption, the 
 
 four cups, the Hallel (Ps 113-118), the Chagigdh, 
 etc., see Edersheim, The Temple: its Ministry and 
 Services at the Time of Jesus Christ, chs. xi. xii. ; 
 and for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, see ch. 
 xiii. of the same. 
 
 (2) The Feast of Pentecost.—(i.) niyray an, éoprh 
 éBdouddwv, the Feast of Weeks (Ex 34” (JE), Dt 
 16°) ; (ii.) ¥75 3n, Eoprh Bepicuod, the Feast of Har- 
 vest (Ex 2316 (J)) ; (ili.) o-naaz oY, % qudépa Toy véwr, 
 the Day of Firstfruits (Nu 28% (P); cf. Ex 22” (J) 
 23) (J) 34°°(JE)}. Fifty days after the offering of 
 the Paschal wave-sheaf, the Feast of Pentecost, or 
 Weeks, or Harvest, was kept on or about the 8th 
 of Sivan, the third month. It lasted a single day 
 (Dt 162). The day was a day of ‘holy convoca- 
 - tion’ (Lv 237! (P)). The feast marked the com- 
 
 letion of the corn harvest, and according to the 
 ater Jews it commemorated the giving of the law 
 (Edersheim, The Temple, etc., ch. xiii. p. 225). It 
 closed the New Year holiday season. The sacri- 
 fices were similar to those offered on the seven days 
 of the F. of Mazzéth (Nu 287-3 (P)). The char- 
 acteristic ritual of this feast was the offering and 
 Waving of two leavened loaves of wheaten flour, 
 tugether with a sin-offering, burnt-offerings, and 
 peace-offerings (Ly 235-0 (H)). Asa wave-sheaf was 
 offered at Mazzéth, which marked the commence- 
 ment of harvest, as the consecration of the first- 
 fruits, so two wave-loaves were offered at Pentecost, 
 which marked the completion of the corn harvest. 
 The feast is not referred to in OT, but see 2 Mac 
 1232, Ac2120!6, 1 Co 168 (cf. Edersheim, The Temple, 
 pp. 225-231). 
 
 (3) The Feast of Tabernacles.—man7 34, éoprh 
 oxnvav, F. of Tabernacles or Booths (Lv 23%, Dt 
 16"); ‘px 30, éopT) ouvredelas (Ex 231%), éoprh 
 owaywyjs (Ex 34”), the F. of Ingathering. This 
 feast was observed from the 15th to the 22nd of 
 Tisri (the seventh month), following closely upon 
 
 FEASTS AND FASTS 861 
 
 the Fast on the 10th day of the month—the Day of 
 Atonement. It marked the completion of the 
 harvest of fruit, oil, and wine, and historically it 
 commemorated the wanderings in the wilderness. 
 It was the harvest-home at the close of the year, 
 when people came ‘from the villages and towns to 
 the fruit gardens to live in booths, and enjoy a 
 happy autumn holiday’ (Ex 23% (J) 34° (JE), 
 Ly 23%-86. 39-44 (PH), Nu 2912-4 (P), Dt 1613-18 3110-13), 
 The sacrifices at this feast were far more numerous 
 than at any other. On each of the seven days 
 1 kid of the goats was offered as a sin-offering, 
 and 2 rams and 14 lambs as a_burnt-offering. 
 Also 70 bullocks were offered on the seven days, 
 beginning with 13 on the first day and diminishing 
 by one each day until on the 7th day 7 were 
 offered (Nu 29-4), After the seven days a solemn 
 day of ‘holy convocation’ was observed (‘the last 
 day, that great day of the feast,’ Jn 7%’), which 
 marked the conclusion, not only of the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, but of the whole cycle of the festal 
 year. On this day 1 bullock, 1 ram, and 7 lambs 
 were offered as a burnt-offering, and 1 goat 
 for a sin-offering (Nu 29-88), The feast is alluded 
 to in 1 K 8? 122, 2Ch 5° 78, Ezr 34, Neh g!+-18, 
 Zec 1418-19, Jn 7'-107, On the later ceremonies 
 connected with the feast, e.g. the procession to 
 Siloam to fetch water and its solemn libation at 
 the altar (Jn 7°"), the singing of the Hallel (Pss 
 113-118), the daily processions round the altar, 
 and the sevenfold repetition on the seventh day 
 (Ps 118%), the lighting of the four great golden 
 candelabra in the court of the women (Jn 812), the 
 singing of Pss 105. 29. 50. 94. 81. 82, and the 
 public reading of the law on the first day of the 
 week in the Sabbatical year, see Edersheim, The 
 Temple, ete., ch. xiv. PP. 232-249 ; Westcott on Sé. 
 John, notes on ch. 7%’ 8". [On the daily service, 
 which formed the substratum of the entire worship 
 of the Temple, the morning and evening sacrifices 
 which were offered on every Sabbath and every 
 festival day, see Schiirer, HJ P ii. 273-299. ] 
 
 Ill. THE Minor FESTIVALS. —(1) The Feast 
 of Purim (o's, ppovpal).—In 2Mac 15* it is 
 called 4 Mapdoxatxy huépa, ‘Mordecai’s Day.’ It 
 is said to have been instituted by Mordecai 
 to commemorate the overthrow of Haman and 
 the failure of his plots against the Jews (Est 37 
 g15-82), Tt was held on the 14th and 15th of 
 the month Adar (the twelfth month). The 13th 
 of Adar—‘the day of Nicanor’—originally a 
 feast to commemorate his death (1 Mac 7*, 2 Mac 
 15**), at a later time became a fast—‘the Fast of 
 Estler’—in preparation for the Feast of Purim, 
 which was of a very joyous character. De Lagarde 
 (followed by Schultz, OT Theol. p. 431, and Encyl. 
 Brit. 9th ed. vol. xx. p. 115) thinks that the feast 
 which dates from the Persian period is itself of 
 Persian origin, Purim being derived from the 
 Persian Variigat (Pordigan, Pardiyan) the govpyata 
 and goupdla of one of tlhe Greek recensions of Esther 
 pointing to a form ¢ovpdala instead of Purim. 
 
 Edersheim identifies the F. of Purim with the 
 unnamed feast in Jn 5!', ‘for no other feast could 
 have intervened between December (Jn 4%) and 
 the Passover (Jn 6'), except that of the ‘‘ Dedica- 
 tion of the Temple,” and that is specially desig: 
 nated as such (Jn 10”) and not simply as a Feast 
 of the Jews’ (The Temple, ete., p. 291). On the 
 evening of the 13th of Adar the whole Book 
 (Megillah or Roll) of Esther was read at the syna- 
 gogue service, to keep the memory of the great 
 deliverance by Esther alive, ‘the children raising 
 their loudest and angriest eries at every mention 
 of the name of Haman, the congregation stampin 
 on the floor, with Eastern demonstrativeness, an 
 imprecating from every voice the curse, ‘‘ Let his 
 name be blotted out, the name of the wicked shall 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
862 FEASTS AND FASTS 
 
 FEASTS AND FASTS 
 
 
 
 rot.” Year by year in the Nazareth synagogue 
 Jesus must have seen and heard all this, and how 
 the reader tried to read in one breath the verses in 
 which Haman and his sons are jointly mentioned, 
 to show that they were hanged together’ (Geikie, 
 The ie and Words of Christ, i. 226). Edersheim 
 (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 
 229) speaks of the ‘good cheer and boisterous 
 enjoyments’ of the Feast of Purim, some of its 
 customs ‘almost reminding us of our fifth of 
 November.’ 
 
 : (2) The Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (7230, 
 mao nig, éyxalwa, 1 Mac 4°%5, 2 Mac 10%; dara, 
 Jos. Ant. XII. vii. 7).—It was instituted by Judas 
 Maccabzeus in B.C. 164, when the temple which 
 had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes 
 was once more purified and re-dedicated to 
 the service of J”. It commenced on the 25th 
 of Chislev (the ninth month), and lasted for 
 eight days. ‘All through the land the people 
 assembled in their synagogues, carrying branches 
 of palm and other trees in their hands, and 
 held jubilant services. No fast or mourning 
 could commence during the feast, and a blaze of 
 lamps, lanterns, and torches illuminated every 
 house, within and without, each evening. In 
 Jerusalem the temple itself was thus lighted up. 
 The young of-every household heard the stirring 
 deeds of the Maccabees, to rouse them to noble 
 emulation, and with these were linked the story 
 of the heroic Judith and the Assyrian Holofernes’ 
 (Geikie, The ave and Words 0° UChrist, vol. i. 
 p. 225). It will be noticed that in four particulars 
 the Feast of the Dedication resembled the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, (1) in its duration of eight days; (2) 
 in the chanting of the Hallel (Pss 113-118) ; (3) in 
 the practice of carrying palm branches; (4) in the 
 illumination of the temple. Edersheim, in The 
 Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. 227f., 
 thinks that the first three particulars were derived 
 from the Feast of the Tabernacles, and that the 
 last (the temple illumination) passed from the 
 Feast of the Dedication into the observances of the 
 Feast of Tabernacles. The date of the Feast of 
 the Dedication, the 25th of Chislev, some hold to 
 have been adopted by the ancient Church as that 
 of the birth of our blessed Lord—Christmas—the 
 dedication of the true temple, which was the body 
 of Jesus (Jn 2!°) (Edersheim, The Temple, etc., 
 . 298, and ‘Christmas a Festival of Jewish 
 Origin’ in The Leiswre Hour for Dec. 1873). The 
 F. of the Dedication is mentioned in Jn 10”. 
 
 (3) The Feast of Wood Offering or of the Wood- 
 carriers, Evdogoplwy (Jos. B/, I. xvii. 6), on the 15th 
 of Abib—being the last of the nine occasions on 
 which offerings of wood were brought for tlie use 
 of the temple (cf. Neh 10 13*), 
 
 The Feast of the Reading of the Law (1 Es 9*, 
 Neh 8°); The Feast of Nicanor on the 13th of Adar 
 (1 Mac 7%); The Feast of the Captured Fortress on 
 the 23rd of Lyyar (the second month) (1 Mac 13°°-®) ; 
 and The Feast of Baskets, evidently ‘ never attained 
 to any real religious significance’ (see Schultz, 
 OT Theol. i. 431, and Edersheim, The Temple, ete., 
 295 f., on the Feast of Wood Offering). 
 
 IV. Fasts.—(1) The Day of Atonement. —no\ 
 ppDn, juépa éE:\acuod, lit. Day of the Coverings or 
 Atonements (Ly 16 (P) and 2377-82 (H), Ex 30! (P), 
 Nu 2974 (P)). It was the only fast day prescribed 
 by the law (Ly 237” (H)). In the Talmud it is 
 called ‘The Day’ (x>\’); in the NT it is called ‘the 
 fast,’ 4 vnorela (Ac 27°). The sacrifices were three- 
 fold: (1) the ordinary daily sacrifices; (2) the 
 special expiatory sacrifices of the day; (3) the 
 festive sacrifices (Nu 297-11), The characteristic 
 feature of the day was the offering of the sin-offer- 
 ing of atonement by the high priest alone (Lv 16%) 
 —not in his gorgeous official dress, but in the 
 
 simple white linen robes of purity and consecration 
 (Lv 164 2-81 2327. 32, Nu 297), 
 
 The order of proceedings is given in Lv 16. In 
 vv.*10 we have the general outline, in vv." the 
 details, which were as follows: (1) The killing of 
 the bullock by the high priest as a sin-offering for 
 himself and his house; (2) the burning of incense 
 in the Holy of Holies by the high priest; (3) the 
 sprinkling of the mercy-seat (tAacrijprov érlOeua) with 
 the blood of the priest’s sin-offering ; (4) the casting 
 lots upon the goats of the people’s sin-offering, one 
 goat for J”, one for Azazel (21x, Philo, ‘The one 
 goat is given to “‘ the fugitive creature,” and the lot 
 which it received is named in the prophecy ‘sent 
 away ” [referring to dromoumatov by which the LKX 
 tr. $3 xiv], because it is persecuted, expelled,and driven 
 far away by wisdom.’ Wiilis,‘ Azazel, the name of 
 a personal being, in opposition to J’, the personal 
 name of God.’ Schultz, ‘Some powerful being to 
 whom the animal is assigned, and to whom it is 
 sent with the now forgiven guilt of the reconciled 
 people. ... This being must be conceived of as 
 strange and unholy. ... An Aramaic name for 
 an unclean and ungodlike power, which has its 
 abode in the wilderness, in the accursed land out- 
 side the sacred bounds of the camp.’ 
 Camb. Comp. to the Bible, ‘ Azazel, the completely 
 separate one, the evil spirit regarded as dwellin; 
 in the desert’). See AZAZEL. 
 the goat of the people’s sin-offering by the high 
 priest ; (6) the sprinkling of the mercy-seat with 
 the blood of the people’s sin-offering; (7) the 
 sprinkling of the blood of each sin-offering on the 
 golden altar of incense and before it seven times; 
 
 (8) atonement for the court and altar of burnt- — b. 
 offering ; (9) confession of sin over the live goat, | 
 
 and his dismissal into the wilderness to Azazel ; 
 (10) resumption by the high priest of the gorgeous 
 robes. of his office; (11) the offering of burnt- 
 offerings and burning the fat of the sin-offerings ; 
 (12) the burning of the sin-offerings without the 
 camp (He 131%), The chief purpose of the Day of 
 Atonement was to preserve the holiness of the 
 sanctuary as a fit place of meeting between God 
 and man. There were five subjects of atonement: 
 (1) The Holy Sanctuary (i.e. the Holy of Holies); 
 (2) the Tent of Meeting (7.¢. the Holy Pidcel 3 (3) the 
 altar (i.e. of burnt-offering) ; (4) the priest ; (5) all 
 the congregation. 
 
 It is significant that there is no mention of the 
 Day of Atonement until Sir 50°*. Zec 3° is doubt- 
 ful. In Neh 8 it might have been expected. Neh 
 778>_938 records (1) the observance of the Feast of | 
 Trumpets on the first day of the seventh month of 
 the year B.C. 444; (2) the celebration of the Feast 
 of Tabernacles, including the reading of the books 
 of the law day by day, from the 15th to the 22nd 
 of the same month ; (3) the observance of a day of 
 general fasting and prayer on the 24th day of the 
 same month. Either the 24th day was observed in 
 place of the Day of Atonement on the 10th day, or 
 the latter had not yet been appointed. It is 
 difficult to avoid the latter alternative. ‘This 
 testimonium e silentio is enough; down to that 
 date (B.C. 444) the great day of the Priestly code 
 (now introduced for the first time) had not existed’ 
 (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p.111). For the refer- 
 ences in the NT see Ro 8” (iNacripiov, n753), He 218 
 414-16 51-10 619. 20 1722-28 81-6 gll-15 WS vts lJn ga 410 
 (tAacuds) (Willis, Worship of the Old Covenant, pp. 
 201-214; Edersheim, The Temple, etc., ch. xvi. 
 pp. 263-288). See further, ATONEMENT (DAY OF). 
 
 (2) Other Fasts.—The Day of Atonement was the 
 only fast day prescribed by the law. But we read 
 of individual and national fasts in Jg 2076, 18 7! 
 3133, 2S 1216, 1 K 219 12-27, Jon 3)-7-8, Jer 141% 36% 9% 
 La 210, J] 114 212-15, Ts 588-7, Neh 91%, Est 476 Dn 10% 
 1 Mac 347, Two passages in Zec cal] for comment, 
 
 Watson in | 
 
 (5) The killing of 
 
 
 
FEASTS AND FASTS 
 
 
 
 FEASTS AND FASTS 863 
 
 
 
 SYNOPSIS OF FEASTS AND FASTS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1, Sabbath. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 93123113-16 
 8421 352 
 
 ~ 
 
 2374. 25 
 
 
 
 8. Sabbatical Month, 
 Feast of Trumpets 
 
 
 
 251-7. 20-22 
 2632-35 
 
 4. Sabbatical Year . 
 
 
 
 
 
 6. Jubilee Year. 268-55 2717-24 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 73-5 and 8%, In 7*5 Zechariah, in answer to an in- 
 quiry put to him by the men of Bethel about fast- 
 ing, declares that J” demands no fasts, but only 
 
 observance of His moral commands. Two fasts 
 had been in observance in the 5th and 7th months 
 for seventy years,—the fast of the 5th month 
 (9th Abib), in memory of the destruction of the 
 city and temple by fire (2 K 25%); and the fast 
 of the 7th month (2nd Tisri), in memory of the 
 murder of Gedaliah and the annihilation of all that 
 remained of the Jewish state (Jer 41). Inch. 8 he 
 pictures the Messianic future, when the fast days 
 will become seasons of gladness and cheerful feasts. 
 He adds to 73-5 two other fasts: the fast of the 4th 
 month (17th Tammuz), in memory of the capture 
 of Jerusalem (Jer 39°), and the fast of the 10th 
 month (10th Tebeth), in memory of the com- 
 mencement of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchad- 
 rezzar (2K 251). Zechariah knows nothing of 
 ‘the Fast’—the Day of Atonement. Later fasts 
 ‘came into a position co-ordinate with the feasts, 
 and became a stated and very important element 
 of the ordinary worship’ (Wellhausen, Prolego- 
 
 THE END 
 
 Numbers, 
 
 1623-80 208] 193 238 262 | 1532-36299. 10] 512.15 
 
 1010 9811-14. 
 81 296 
 
 16, 2327-32 | 297-11 
 
 | aire pAb ike Gite hte Ao Baye Pyro) (ey 
 
 
 
 References in 
 New Test. 
 
 Deutero-| References outside 
 nomy, Pentateuch. 
 
 158 205.6, 2 K 423 115-7, 
 Neh 89-13 1031 1315-22, 
 Is 5626 5812, Jer 
 1720-27, Ezk 2012-16, 
 Hos 218, Am 85 
 
 Mt 129-13, Mk 31-5, Lk 
 66-10 1310-17, Jn 61-16, 
 91416, 
 
 18 205, Ps 813-4, Is| Col 216, 
 113.14, Am 85, 1 Mac 
 1034 
 
 291-6 
 
 
 
 Neh 89. 6 
 
 151-1 
 319-13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2Ch 3621, Neh 1031, 
 Jer 3414, 1 Mac 653 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Is 611-2 634, Jer 348. 
 
 Lk 418-21, Rey 211-5, 
 14. 15.17 (2), Ezk 4617 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Passover and 12. 131-10 235-14 9214 2816-25 | 161.816 | Jos 59.10, 2 K 2321.23, | Mt 261-2, Mk 141.12 
 Mazz6th 231417 838 2 Ch 30. 35, Ezr 619, 14.16, Lk 241 221. 7. 8. 
 3418. 26 Ezk 4521 11.1815, Jn 213 64 
 q 1155 121 131 19828. 39 
 s 1914, Acts 124, 1Co 
 568, 
 e ee ————— 
 2. Pentecost ee, | eeee aoe 19 | 2310-21 2826-81 169-12 2 Mac 1282 Ac 21 2016, 1 Co 168, 
 iy or 
 s 8. Tabernacles . . | 2316 3422 2384-86. 39-44 | 2912-40 1613-15 1K 82 1282, 2 Ch 58.78, | Jn 71-1021, 
 8110-18 Ezr 34 81417, Zec 
 
 1416-19 
 
 
 
 
 
 Est 915-82, 1 Mac 749, | Jn 51(2). 
 2 Mac 1536 
 
 1 Mac 45259, 2 Mac | Jn 1023, 
 106. 7 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 Zec 39 (?), Sir 505«. Ac 279, He 218 41416 
 51-10 G19. 20 722-28 gl-b 
 
 911-15, 
 
 mena, 112). Fasting degenerated into formalism 
 and self-righteousness. In the NT cf. Mt 616% 914, 
 ee 
 After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the 
 system of fasts received such an impulse that it 
 was necessary to draw up a list of the days on 
 which fasting was forbidden. The present Jewish 
 calendar contains twenty-two fast-days, besides the 
 Day of Atonement, the Fast of Esther, and the 
 four fasts of Zec 8!® (Edersheim, The Temple, etc., 
 pp. 297-301). 
 
 LireRATURE. —Edersheim, The Temple: its Ministry and 
 Services, 144-300, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah ; 
 Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ ; Wellhausen, Prolego- 
 mena, 83-120; Schultz, OT Theology, i. 189, 196, 202, 359-369 
 372, 402. On p. 359 will be found an exhaustive list of German 
 literature on the ‘Sacred Seasons.’ Vol. ii. 87-100 ; Willis, The 
 Worship of the Old Covenant, 190-214; W. R. Smith, The 
 Prophets of Israel, new ed. with introd. and notes by Prof. 
 Cheyne, 38, 56, 3884, OT'JC2, 240, 269, RS, 221, 227, 245, 280, 
 344f., 396, 403f., 416, 434, 452, 464; Cobb, Origines Judaice, 
 137-139 ; Robertson, Harly Religion of Israel, 363, 3872, 378, 385, 
 397, 401, criticism of Wellhausen; Schiirer, HJP (passim); 
 Watson, Cambridge Companion to the Bible, 411-417; Driver, 
 Deuteronomy (passim), Joel and Amos, 16, 43f., 55; Trumbull, 
 Threshold Covenant, 209 f., 266. KE, ELMER HARDING. 
 
 OF VOL L 
 
FIRST-FRUITS 
 FLOOD . 
 Foop . 
 Foot . 
 FOREIGNER . 
 FORGIVENESS 
 FRINGES 
 GABBATHA 
 GAD ees 
 GADARA 
 GALATIA. . 
 
 GALATIANS (EP.) : 
 
 GALILEE . . 
 GAMESii, che 
 GATE arrears 
 GENEALOGY . 
 
 GENESIS . .. 
 GEOLOGY . 
 
 GETHSEMANE . 
 GIANTS cur ceca 
 GILEAD ... 
 
 GILGAL ... 
 GLORY Gee 
 
 GOD site nies elas 
 
 GOLGOTHA . 
 GOSPELS! 72 gece 
 GRACE. 
 HABAKKUE , 
 HADES. .. 
 Haca@al .. . 
 HAMATH. . 
 HEBREWS (EP.) . 
 HEROD. 
 HEXATEUCH . 
 HINNOM . 
 HITTITES , 
 
 HOLWESS. . . 
 
 
 
 The following important articles, among others, may be expected in the 
 
 Second Volume :— 
 
 Professor A. 8. Peake. 
 
 Mr. F. H. Woods. 
 
 Professor A. Macalister. 
 
 Professor Geerhardus Vos. 
 
 Mr. John A. Selbie. 
 
 Mr. J. F. Bethune-Baker. 
 
 Professor A. R. S. Kennedy. 
 
 Professor Eb. Nestle. 
 
 Professor W. H. Bennett. 
 
 Sir Charles Warren. 
 
 Professor W. M. Ramsay. 
 
 Professor Marcus Deds. 
 
 Dr. Selah Merrill. 
 
 Dr. Thomas Nicol. 
 
 Sir Charles Warren. 
 
 Professor Ed. L. Curtis and 
 Professor B. W. Bacon. 
 
 Professor H. E. Ryle. 
 
 Professor Kdward Hull. 
 
 Lieut.-Col. Conder. 
 
 Professor Willis J. Beecher. 
 
 Professor Driver, Dr. Merrill, 
 and Professor Bennett. 
 
 Dr. F. J. Bliss. 
 
 Mr. G. Buchanan Gray and 
 Professor Massie. 
 
 Professor A. B. Davidson and 
 Professor W. Sanday. 
 
 Sir Charles Warren. 
 
 Professor V. H. Stanton. 
 
 Principal A. Stewart. 
 
 Professor 8. R. Driver. 
 
 Professor 8. D. F. Salmond. 
 
 Mr. G. A. Cooke. 
 
 Psofessor W. Max Miiller. 
 
 Professor A. B. Bruce. 
 
 Mr. A. C. Headlam. 
 
 Mr. F. H. Woods. 
 
 Sir Charles Warren 
 
 Professor A. H. Saye. 
 
 Professor John Skinner and 
 
 Professor G. . Stevens. 
 
 HOuy SPIRIT 
 HOSEA . 
 HOousE . 
 
 Hymn . 
 IDOLATRY. 
 INCARNATION 
 ISAIAH . 
 ISRAEL. 
 ITUREA 
 
 JACOB , 
 
 JAMES . 
 
 JEHU 
 JEREMIAH 
 JERICHO 
 JERUSALEM . 
 JESUS CHRIST 
 JEW 
 
 JOBi Se. stents 
 JOEL : 
 JOHN (BAPTIST) 
 
 JOHN: 0 ie. 
 JOHN (EPP.) . 
 JONAH. 
 JORDAN) Teel -s 
 
 JOSHUAS; eecnas 
 JUBILEE 
 JUBILEES (BK.) . 
 JUDEA. 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT 
 JUDGES 
 JUSTIFICATION . 
 KINGDOM OF GOD 
 KINGS . 6 
 LAMENTATIONS. 
 LANGUAGE OF 
 THE OLD TEST. 
 LANGUAGE OF 
 
 THE NEW TEST. 
 
 LATIN VERSIONS 
 LAw 
 
 LEPROSY 
 
 
 
 Professor H. B. Swete. 
 Professor A. B. Davidson. 
 Sir Charles Warren. 
 Professor Walter Lock. 
 Professor W. P. Paterson. 
 Principal R. L. Ottley. 
 Professor G. A. Smith. 
 Professor H. E. Ryle. 
 Professor G. A. Smith. 
 Professor H. E. Ryle. 
 Professor J. B. Mayor. 
 Principal Owen C. Whitehouse 
 Professor A. B. Davidson. 
 Dr. F. J. Bliss. 
 Lieut.-Col. Conder. 
 Professor W. Sanday. 
 
 Mr. A. Lukyn Williams. 
 Professor W. T. Davison. 
 Professor G. G. Cameron. 
 Mr. Bebb. 
 
 The late Principal Reynolds. 
 Professor Salmond. 
 Professor Ed. Kénig. 
 
 Sir Charles Warren. 
 Professor G. A. Smith. 
 Mr G. Harford-Battersby. 
 Mr. A. C. Headlam. 
 
 Sir Charles Wilson. 
 
 Dr. A. Plummer. 
 
 Mr. G. A. Cooke. 
 Principal D. W. Simon 
 Professor J. Orr. 
 
 Mx. C. F. Burney. 
 
 Mr. J. A. Selbie. 
 
 Professor D. S. Margoliouth. 
 
 Professor J. H. Thayer. 
 
 Dr. H. A. A. Kennedy. 
 
 Professor Driver and Professos 
 Denney. 
 
 Professor Macalister. 
 
 
 

 

 
 ; 
 > 
 
 i! 
 J 
 aa 
 i 
 
 wt wis 
 

 

 
ee 
 
 mn TT tree were mn 
 
 SSE: 
 
 ie goer a he 
 
 - at 
 92 ah a hncelage PT